Is the game or the name problematic?

[iamtim]

There seems to be a lot of unhappiness with MRQ on this board; a lot of people saying how it failed, and how it's wrong, how they really wanted to like it, and so on, and so forth.

My question is this: how much of it is because MRQ is different from past versions of RQ but uses the "RuneQuest" name? Aside of the halving mechanic, how many of you that don't like MRQ would have liked it as a game with a different name? One that wasn't tied in to the RuneQuest legacy?

I'm just wondering if there wouldn't be a, "hey, this is a cool, BRP-like game with some interesting d20-influenced bits," vibe going on if it weren't named "RuneQuest."

 

[Urox]

My question is this: how much of it is because [MQ] is different from past versions of RQ but uses the "RuneQuest" name?

I suspect the licensing of RuneQuest and Glorantha is a marketing decision, based on the bottom line. The profits from those licenses will probably fund the expansion of MQ into other (hopefully) profitable settings, with the ultimate goal of market penetration of MQ as an alternate to other RPG systems.

When it comes to potential purchases of MQ, I think there are probably 3 camps:

1. People who want a Glorantha-specific game system, with all the custom rules needed.

2. People who want a generic system as a viable alternate to d20.

3. People who don't care.

Mongoose Matt has implied that creating a game to satisfy points 1 and 2 may not be possible given our current gaming technology level, but may be possible on the future.

If this is the premise, is MQ may be suffering in that it is a jack-of-all-trades, and a master of none. By trying to accomplish two diverse goals, it may have fallen short on both of them.

In any case, most people in all the above categories want a complete, well designed, well written and well edited game system. Some people who have read the Core Rules have the opinion that MQ may fall short on one ore more of those criteria.

 

[iamtim]

Some people who have read the Core Rules have the opinion that MQ may fall short on one ore more of those criteria.

But that doesn't really answer my question, does it? I mean, we have accepted in our hobby -- whether it's right or wrong -- that first printings of any game are problematic. Look how popular C&C is; there was vitriol tossed about over that game's first printing of the PHB. Same with Conan, and many others. So some of the editing problems could be forgiven as "first printing blues", but I don't see that happening here.

There's so much, "RQ did it this way, MRQ does not," going around, especially on these boards. Lots of people are dismissing the game for the loss of attributeX5 rolls, or the resistance table, or overall HP, or any number of changes. Or their dismissing it because it falls short in their expectations of what the next RuneQuest should look and play like.

So I'm truly interested in how the game would have been received if it was called, I dunno, "SwordQuest: A generic RPG for Glorantha, Lankhmar, and other worlds." Something other than "RuneQuest".

 

[andakitty]

Not at all. I am not going to use it because I think the changes don't make any improvements in game play for me over what I am already running. For me it's simply a case of already having systems I would rather run. And yes I am making the judgement wihtout having actually played it, but I trust my own judgement about these things; what will work for me in a game and what will not. I will continue to support the line. I have no wish to run the game down, and wish Mongoose all success with it, including rejuvenating BRP style RPGs in general. I am glad that it is for some what I was hoping for, a playable in print game right off the shelf with the promise of lots of future support. Enjoy it.

 

[Dr. Halflight]

There seems to be a lot of unhappiness with MRQ on this board; a lot of people saying how it failed, and how it's wrong, how they really wanted to like it, and so on, and so forth.

My question is this: how much of it is because MRQ is different from past versions of RQ but uses the "RuneQuest" name? Aside of the halving mechanic, how many of you that don't like MRQ would have liked it as a game with a different name? One that wasn't tied in to the RuneQuest legacy?

I own RQ3 & HeroQuest. I've never played in Glorantha, and so far don't really see what is so cool about the setting (but I will pick up the Glorantha book). RQ3 was incredibly ahead of its time in terms of what was being done rules wise. However, except for the Combat Confusion, I LOVE MRQ. I honestly think the name is the problem.

Doc

 

[Melkor]

I think Runequest kept the 'Spirit' of the previous game, but a lot of people would beg to differ. However, that being my opinion, I personally don't think the 'name', and the baggage that come with that name, are the major issue people are having right now.

I think unclear rules, the omission of other rules, and statements by Mongoose staff that contradict the rulebook are MRQs biggest problem at this point.

 

[SteveMND]

In another post I commented on much the same thing. By using the name "RuneQuest," Mongoose was connecting themselves to a pre-established consumer base, and one that goes back some 30 years. A savvy marketing move, but could they pul it off?

Now, being such an established fan base, you largely had two groups.

The first were those who appreciated the RQ game largely for the BRP-esque rules and game mechanics. Unfortunately, many of those people feel that the game mechanics in MRQ are too far removed from earlier versions of RQ to really get behind it.

The second group were those that associated RQ with the world of Glorantha. By dissasociating the game mechanics from Glorantha and making it a more 'generic' system, Mongoose may have alienated many of those players.

I would have been far, far less disappointed with the material I've seen if it had been introduced as an OGL 3rd party system that wasn't named RuneQuest. I would be, "Hey, neat. Glorantha 2nd Age stuff being done for this new game system." I would have looked at the game system offered, and would not have been coming in with preconceived notions of what the game was supposed to be. I probably would have responded to it better (barring the production quality issues, of course).

By using an established name, you set up expectations -- valid or not -- in your potential customers, and if you don't deliver on those expectations, your product suffers.

 

[Halfbat]

There seems to be a lot of unhappiness with MRQ on this board; a lot of people saying how it failed, and how it's wrong, how they really wanted to like it, and so on, and so forth.

I think this is overstating the case quite a lot. There has a been a lot of discussion of how people would say they would improve it, often to put back in complication for twists they prefer. And early on there was a lot of complaint, understandably, about the badly written combat rules which MS tidied up. And, yes, there are a few typos, but not many.

The only thing which seems really problematic are the mathematical loopholes in the halving mechanic, which MP have to fix, but I know in my campaigns this will only affect players after a great deal of play.

My question is this: how much of it is because MRQ is different from past versions of RQ but uses the "RuneQuest" name?[...]

I do like RQ, from 1st Ed, and I like MRQ so I can't answer your other questions. I have played and ran games in 1st, 2nd, 2.5 and 3rd as well as other BRP (Ringworld, CoC, home-brew historical) and, imho, MRQ is very much RuneQuest, evolved perhaps and better than RQ3, but still RuneQuest with the Glorantha focus taken out (which isn't a problem for me, but then RQ3 tried to disentangle itself from Glorantha, too).

Maybe the question should be: "How much has separating Runequest from Glorantha upset RQ old-school stalwarts?"

 

[Greg Smith]

When talking to Matthew Sprange at the latest Open Day, he mentioned that the Runequest playtesters were split into 4 camps:

those who wanted a new game
those who liked 1st edition RQ and wanted the game to be like that
those who liked 2nd edition RQ and ditto
those who liked 3rd edition RQ and ditto

So I guess the game will disappoint 3/4 of existing fans.

 

[SteveMND]

I mean, we have accepted in our hobby -- whether it's right or wrong -- that first printings of any game are problematic.

Do we really? I mean, I don't.

I suppose it depends on the company. For a small, 'mom-and-pop' kind of gaming business, I'm far more lenient when it comes to typos and that sort of stuff. But when a company gets to a certain size and level of professionalism, the bar is raised.

If this were Mongoose's second or third product, or they had been around for only a year, sure, I'd be a bit more forgiving.

 

[Urox]

I mean, we have accepted in our hobby -- whether it's right or wrong -- that first printings of any game are problematic.

Do we really? I mean, I don't.

I suppose it depends on the company. For a small, 'mom-and-pop' kind of gaming business, I'm far more lenient when it comes to typos and that sort of stuff. But when a company gets to a certain size and level of professionalism, the bar is raised.

If this were Mongoose's second or third product, or they had been around for only a year, sure, I'd be a bit more forgiving.

I think the original poster may have missed the below (search for Conan and author msprange to find it):

I play the Conan game, bought the first edition, and then the Atlantean after due to the craptastic editing. My question to Mongoose is, did you proof and edit this book or are we going to have a repeat performance? Just want to know if I should buy the book when it comes out or wait for the fixed edition.

That is a little unfair - a lot of people lost their jobs over what happened with Conan, and it is something we have never repeated.

My copy of the core rules hasn't arrived yet, so I can't report directly on the quality of the writing and editing, but at least some people aren't happy.

So, the question is, will heads be rolling at Mongoose again?

 

[iamtim]

Do we really? I mean, I don't.

Generally speaking, I think we do. We as RPG hobbyists, I mean. We almost expect an errata sheet to come with every game we buy. We say things like, "sure, there's a few typos, but what game doesn't have them?"

I mean... lookit how long we've (people in general, not just RPG hobbyists) let Microsoft rule the desktop market with operating systems that just... have to be restarted from time to time? Or crash without warning? And we just... keep using it.

We're a forgiving lot, us humans.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Both RQ2 and RQ3 came with pretty decently sized errata lists and some clunky mechanics, so I don't really see how those 2 could be viable complaints, if we're using comparison as a yardstick.

I think any problem is coming from overly high expectations more than anything else.

 

[Urox]

Both RQ2 and RQ3 came with pretty decently sized errata lists and some clunky mechanics, so I don't really see how those 2 could be viable complaints, if we're using comparison as a yardstick.

I think any problem is coming from overly high expectations more than anything else.

I have at least one copy of RQ2 with the errata printed inside the cover! (which was an ingenious way of making corrects without having to re-typset the rules back when it was a major chore).

I still think the bar was set by AD&D -- while it wasn't truely a first generation game, the PHB, MM and DMG were benchmarks.

My impression of Mongoose is that are a big professional game design house, not a mom-and-pop. In fact, the owner of my FLGS described them as wanting to be the next Games Workshop...

 

[Enpeze]

Do we really? I mean, I don't.

Generally speaking, I think we do. We as RPG hobbyists, I mean. We almost expect an errata sheet to come with every game we buy. We say things like, "sure, there's a few typos, but what game doesn't have them?"

I mean... lookit how long we've (people in general, not just RPG hobbyists) let Microsoft rule the desktop market with operating systems that just... have to be restarted from time to time? Or crash without warning? And we just... keep using it.

We're a forgiving lot, us humans.

I am not forgiving Microsoft. I switched this year to Apple.

 

[Urox]

As this issue mulls around in my head (and after having read sarahnewhons conversion problems post), the possibility occured that the marketing may have driven the descision to make MQ *purposely* different from RQ as create enough compatability issues as to drive sales of the new rulebooks.

 

[atgxtg]

There seems to be a lot of unhappiness with MRQ on this board; a lot of people saying how it failed, and how it's wrong, how they really wanted to like it, and so on, and so forth.

My question is this: how much of it is because MRQ is different from past versions of RQ but uses the "RuneQuest" name? Aside of the halving mechanic, how many of you that don't like MRQ would have liked it as a game with a different name? One that wasn't tied in to the RuneQuest legacy?

I'm just wondering if there wouldn't be a, "hey, this is a cool, BRP-like game with some interesting d20-influenced bits," vibe going on if it weren't named "RuneQuest."

In my case almost all of it. If it were called something else, I'd judge as something else. There are a lot of RPGs out there that are not RQ. For example, the last game I picked up before MRQ was the new Usagi Yojumbo RPG. It is very differenrt from RQ, shares a couple of concepts with MRQ (opposed rolls, defender retreating options), and I love it.

When then made the decision of calling the new game RuneQuest, it then has the burden of being judged as RuneQuest. IMO it doesn't live up to it's heritage. Everything that MRQ does, I think RQ1,2 and 3 all did better. IMO Basic Role Playing (orginal) plus Magic World, plus Strombringer 2 character generation, and major wounds does a better job of achieving most of MRQ goals.


I bought the game becuase of the name, and the name dropping (Stafford and Perrin and even Ken Hite). I didn't know anything about Mongoose (probably a good thing for them cosider what people have told me about them after I preordered my book), although I did like the one d20 product of thier that I had bought in the past. I knew nothing of Matthrew Sprange, or any of the other Mongoose Staff, with the exception of Ken Hite (loved his work at LUG). So when I get a "RuneQuest" where the designers have taken out ing out lots of the RQ standfrds and replaced them with D&D analogues I was not happy.

If I had seen the game on the shelf under another name, I'd have flipped through it, probably commented on it to any firends present (nothing complementary) and moved on to something else. Calling the game RuneQuest got me to buy two books, but also turned me from being indifferent about a new RPG to being hostile to it. If I had see

If there is a lot of unhappiness on the boards, go see what the reaction is amonger RQ players without the mitigating influence of Mongosse fans. No one person had anything good to say about either MOnggose or MRQ at the gaming store yesterday, and that is from the owner on down.

BTW) On a related note, as Issaries owns the RQ name, what is the offical name of the MOngoose Mechanics listed in the SRD? D&D uses the d20 system, what system does MRQ use?

 

[atgxtg]

Some people who have read the Core Rules have the opinion that MQ may fall short on one ore more of those criteria.

But that doesn't really answer my question, does it? I mean, we have accepted in our hobby -- whether it's right or wrong -- that first printings of any game are problematic. Look how popular C&C is; there was vitriol tossed about over that game's first printing of the PHB. Same with Conan, and many others. So some of the editing problems could be forgiven as "first printing blues", but I don't see that happening here.

For the same reason why Elric! wasn't looked on as anew RPG, but as anew edition of Sotrmbreinger. By using the RQ title, it turned the game from "Mongoose's RPG 1st edtion" to "RuneQuest 4th edition" (or 5th, 6th or 7th depending on how you look at games like RQ Slayers, the RQ4 notes and all that)

There's so much, "RQ did it this way, MRQ does not," going around, especially on these boards. Lots of people are dismissing the game for the loss of attributeX5 rolls, or the resistance table, or overall HP, or any number of changes. Or their dismissing it because it falls short in their expectations of what the next RuneQuest should look and play like.

So I'm truly interested in how the game would have been received if it was called, I dunno, "SwordQuest: A generic RPG for Glorantha, Lankhmar, and other worlds." Something other than "RuneQuest".

Becuas

Yes, exaclty. If is was a differnert game, then there would be fewer compariosn to the previous game. Same holds true with movies. It's what killed the America Godzilla movie (as a stand alone movie is was so-so; as a Gojira movie it is sacriligeous).

If I were to look at the game on it's own merits, as oppsed to those of the game that is blazoned on the cover, well, I wouldn't have found much to like, but I qwouldn't have cared. I'd just have tossed it aside as another poor RPG.

Now, bnot only do I have to put up with the D&D players who claim that D&D is a better game than RQ, but I an forced to agree with them. That hurt.

 

[atgxtg]

THe strange thing is, this has all happened before. A good many RQ players don't like Hero Wars/HeroQuest in large part due to the fact that for decades HerQuest was supposed to be an RQ supplment for "high level" characters.

After waiting 15+ years, said fans were a bit missed when Hero Wars turned out to be unrelated to RQ in any way. Then once Greg started to rewrite the history and Mythos of GLorantha ("Whare have all the Light Sons gone?", "Who the $*#@ is Vinga?", "Since when did Humakti act like Clint Eastwood and dress like Johnny Cash?").

Instead of tapping into a preexisting fanbase, Mongoose has torn at an open wound.

 

[Vadrus]

I don't think taking the name is a problem, my issue is with Mongoose trying to stick as closely as possible to the previous rules systems.

I would have prefered a new and exciting set of rules rather ones than generally feel 'been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, etc'.

After all we know the world was vastly different during the 2nd age of Glorantha and magic and logic common in the 3rd age could have been completely different.

RQ3 was a God learner construct from the end of the 2nd age not the world as they lived in it !!


Vadrus