Is the game or the name problematic?

[atgxtg]

Regarding whether Mongoose made their system close enough to previous RQ systems and also whether or not it should be considered a BRP variant: It is my understanding that Chaosium plans to roll out new BRP fantasy material in the near future, if Mongoose didn't change things up enough, wouldn't they be at risk of legal action?

No, becuase, and this has been pointed out to the RQ fans on the site by Mongooeses, a company doesn't actually own an RPG system. THey can own the name, creatres, setiing, and certain game reslted terms but not the game.

Technically, you could take a copy of ANY rpg and as long as you changed the name and didn't include any of the speciific stuff mentioned abouve, use it nearly word for word as a game.

From a legal standpoint, Mongoose could have slapped the RQ moniker on the AD&D rules and be within the law. It would probably tick off the majority of RQ fans, lead to hate mail, death threats and whatnot, but it would be within the law.

 

[iamtim]

That would be fine if it worked for both sides.

Dude, come on.

Saying "As far as I can see this game IS a valid variant of BRP" (which was the gem that sparked this leg of the debate) is *not* a blanket statement. The poster specifically referenced only himself.

Saying "I think a few of your assumptions are still not accepted by the RQ community" (which is the gem I took exception to, and that my post directly referenced) *is* a blanket statement because the poster references an entire community of people -- at least two of whom do not fall in line with what the poster attributes to the community.

 

[atgxtg]

That would be fine if it worked for both sides.

Dude, come on.

First off I am reffering to yourstatement about MRQ Obviously being RQ.

THe word obvious implies that you were speaking in such a blanket manner. That several people with a good deal of familiarity and experience with the system don't agree with that hasn't deterred you.

While on the other hand Urox did't state that "the entire RQ community" disputed Empeze's statements, just that "a few of his [Empeze's] assumptions are still not accepted by the RQ community".

With the ways things are going on the board, that would be self evident. If the RQ community did accept the assumptions there would not be any debate. That is just logic.

Secondly, the things that sparked off the cotroversy wan't the "MRQ is a valid BRP variant" but:

1) Why should they name it SwordQuest if it is RuneQuest?

A blanket assumption that MRQ is RQ-the central contested point about MRQ.

2) That Pendragon is counted as BRP.

Another blanket statment. Maybe Empeze counts Pendragon as BRP, but he is the first I've seen to do it.

 

[Urox]

Saying "As far as I can see this game IS a valid variant of BRP" (which was the gem that sparked this leg of the debate) is *not* a blanket statement. The poster specifically referenced only himself.

Saying "I think a few of your assumptions are still not accepted by the RQ community" (which is the gem I took exception to, and that my post directly referenced) *is* a blanket statement because the poster is referring to an entire community of people -- at least two of whom do not fall in line with what the poster attributes to the community.

Again, you seem to be not thinking through the logic of the arguments.

The post in question was:

Why should they name it "SwordQuest" if it is Runequest? As far as I can see this game IS a valid variant of BRP. And its first setting is even Glorantha. So why should it not called RQ?

The can be broken down logically to:
This game should be name RuneQuest because:
1. The poster thinks it's a valid variant of BRP
2. The first setting is Glorantha

This is rebutted with:
1. The RQ community may not agree that MQ is BRP
2. Other RPGs have been set in Glorantha

If I understand your logic, you seem to be transforming the below the statements:
a. The RQ community may not agree that MQ is BRP
to
b. The RQ comminity agrees that MQ is not BRP

That is a logic error.

If anything, I will go out on a limb and speak for the RQ community in that there is no consensus yet to whether MQ qualifies as BRP (and there never may be).

 

[atgxtg]

Wow Urox, is "old guard" RQers really do think alike! Two simultaneous posts that are very similar.

 

[iamtim]

First off I am reffering to yourstatement about MRQ Obviously being RQ.

Show me where I said, "It's obvious to the entire RQ community that MRQ is RQ." Or, "It's obvious to everyone that MRQ is RQ." Or any other statement where I specifically stated that a group of people should feel or react a certain way about MRQ. I posted once on RPGnet recently stating that "Quite a few of them [the "old guard"] are very unhappy with the changes Mongoose made in MRQ." -- but even that is not a blanket statement as I'm not blanketing the entire group with one attribute. "Many" does not mean "all", and "many" leaves room for dissenters or people with alternate viewpoints. Had Urox simply said, "I think a few of your assumptions are still not accepted by most people in the RQ community" he'd have been accurate and this wouldn't have even been posted about.

When I post, unless I specifically reference a group of people, I'm posting about MY feelings, or MY thoughts, or what I see -- I don't have the right or the knowledge to post about what ANYONE else feels, thinks, or sees unless I have been specifically given the right to post in such a way (like how I reference my buddy as an RQ "old guard" and a Gloranthaphile). To assume anything else is your issue, as you are doing the assuming.

With the ways things are going on the board, that would be self evident. If the RQ community did accept the assumptions there would not be any debate. That is just logic.

That's some faulty logic there. I *am* part of the RQ community, and I agree with Empeze's statements. That completely invalidates ANY statement about the "RQ community" not accepting Empeze's statements. Period. The end. Done. Thank you for calling. *dial tone*

Secondly, the things that sparked off the cotroversy wan't the "MRQ is a valid BRP variant"

Are you reading the same forums I am? Did you not see where one poster stated "As far as I can see MRQ is a valid variant of BRP"? Did you not read where another poster responded to THAT STATEMENT with "I think a few of your assumptions are still not accepted by the RQ community"? Did you finally miss that I was responding to that blanket statement and that statement alone?

Regardless of what the THREAD is about, that's all this part of the conversation was referring to. If you're reading more into it, again, that's your deal.

 

[iamtim]

If I understand your logic, you seem to be transforming the below the statements:

You don't understand my logic. My only logic in this leg of the conversation -- and it's not really logic -- is that you made a statement about the RQ community that you did not have the right or knowledge to make.

That's it.

Period.

The end.

I wasn't saying anything about your position on the debate, or Empeze's. I wasn't saying if either of you was right, or wrong. Remember, *I* started this thread, and I started it to see everyone's opinion on whether the name of the game, or the rules of the game was causing all the issues. Not to debate the issue. I was simply saying that you said something you shouldn't have that was FACTUALLY incorrect.

How hard would it have been to say, "Ok, *MOST* of the RQ community might not follow Empeze's assumptions?"

 

[atgxtg]

First off I am reffering to yourstatement about MRQ Obviously being RQ.

Show me where I said, "It's obvious to the entire RQ community that MRQ is RQ." Or, "It's obvious to everyone that MRQ is RQ."

I apoligize. I actually gave you the credit for being the autor of a message posted by someone else that you replied to. I am sorry that I blamed you for something that you didn't post. That is entirely my error.

With the ways things are going on the board, that would be self evident. If the RQ community did accept the assumptions there would not be any debate. That is just logic.

That's some faulty logic there. I *am* part of the RQ community, and I agree with Empeze's statements. That completely invalidates ANY statement about the "RQ community" not accepting Empeze's statements. Period. The end. Done. Thank you for calling. *dial tone*

Yes, faulty logic on your part. If Uroz can't speak with the authiruty of the RQ Community, why can you? You agree with Enpeze's statement and Urox doesn't. THat doesn't make a point accepted by the community, but shows that it is in dispute.

Secondly, the things that sparked off the cotroversy wan't the "MRQ is a valid BRP variant"

Are you reading the same forums I am? Did you not see where one poster stated "As far as I can see MRQ is a valid variant of BRP"? Did you not read where another poster responded to THAT STATEMENT with "I think a few of your assumptions are still not accepted by the RQ community"? Did you finally miss that I was responding to that blanket statement and that statement alone?

Yes, I am reading the same forums. I am even reading the entire post. Enpeze made several assumptions in his statment, including the one that MRQ is RuneQuest and that Pendragon is considered BRP, and that as MRQ is a valid variant of BRP why shoudln't it be called RuneQuest.

THe only one that Urox mentioned specifically was the Pendragon/BRP compasion. You are the one who is selectiong the MRQ as a valid variant of BRP as an argument.

I amswered why it shoudln't be called RuneQuest. Because it isn't. Lots of games are RuneQuest variants, inclduing BRP, and I can't see something as be an invalid BRP variant. Strombringer, Call of Cthulhu. Nephilim, Privateers & Gentelmen, Midnight at the Well of Souls, Superworld, Ringworld-, Magic World, Future World-all related game systems, but not RuneQuest. No one of those games is considered RuneQuest, and some are quite close.

MRQ is really a different game under an old name. If the pro camp wants to prove otherwise, then prove it.

 

[iamtim]

If Uroz can't speak with the authiruty of the RQ Community, why can you?

I'm not speaking with the authority of the RQ Community. I never said I speak with the authority of the RQ Community. I know my views are in the minority. The times I've mentioned the RQ Community I use qualifiers like "most of" or "some of" or "a lot of".

Uroz can not speak with the authority of the RQ Community either because I, as a member of that community, do not agree with what he attributed to the community. Therefore, what he attributed to the community is factually incorrect. I can very easily find others in the same community that do not agree with what he attributed to the community.

Saying that he can't speak with the authority of the community does not by default mean that I can, nor does it mean I'm attempting to do so.

 

[RMS]

MRQ is really a different game under an old name. If the pro camp wants to prove otherwise, then prove it.

It'd be pretty damn hard to "prove" an opinion wouldn't it? That's all it is. The only facts in the matter are that MRQ is neither RQ1/2 nor RQ3 and yet is a similar game with a clear lineal descent from those games. The rest is just a statement of opinion of whether it's close enough or not to "legitimately" use the name Runequest. In it's favor, it appears to be much closer mechanically to RQ1/2/3 than D&D 3.0 & 3.5 are to AD&D and especially to OD&D, and yet I've never seen anyone argue that it doesn't deserve the name D&D. That's the most interesting part of this thread to me. I suppose it shouldn't surprise me since I know plenty of people who still believe that RQ3 shouldn't be called Runequest either and that RQ1/2 is the "one true way". Runequest apparently brings out this kind of thing...

For the record, I'm indifferent to the name. Anything tied to Glorantha or any fantasy RPG tied to BRP catches my interest and I'll look at. Then I decide whether to purchase or not.

 

[Decurio]

MRQ is really a different game under an old name. If the pro camp wants to prove otherwise, then prove it.

It'd be pretty damn hard to "prove" an opinion wouldn't it? That's all it is. The only facts in the matter are that MRQ is neither RQ1/2 nor RQ3 and yet is a similar game with a clear lineal descent from those games. The rest is just a statement of opinion of whether it's close enough or not to "legitimately" use the name Runequest. In it's favor, it appears to be much closer mechanically to RQ1/2/3 than D&D 3.0 & 3.5 are to AD&D and especially to OD&D, and yet I've never seen anyone argue that it doesn't deserve the name D&D. That's the most interesting part of this thread to me. I suppose it shouldn't surprise me since I know plenty of people who still believe that RQ3 shouldn't be called Runequest either and that RQ1/2 is the "one true way". Runequest apparently brings out this kind of thing....

I'm glad I'm not the only one having these thoughts...

 

[SteveMND]

than D&D 3.0 & 3.5 are to AD&D and especially to OD&D, and yet I've never seen anyone argue that it doesn't deserve the name D&D

Oh, trust me, there were plenty of people that didn't like the changes made when D&D 3.0 came out, and felt that it was no longer the game they grew up with, just the same as we've seen with some folks here.

Of course, six years after the fact, a lot of them are no longer as vocal, and have quietly migrated over to AD&D-specific forums and such, but you can still find them here and there. They loved and cherished their Thac0s and lamented it's loss, just as we loved and cherished our Resistance Table and lament it's loss.

Runequest apparently brings out this kind of thing...

It's not limited to RuneQuest, or even RPGs. You'll find that sort of attitude on practically every hobby discussed on the internet, if you look close enough...

 

[iamtim]

They loved and cherished their Thac0s and lamented it's loss

Interestingly enough, I was happy to get rid of THAC0.

 

[SteveMND]

Oh lordy, same here. One of the improvements thaty made with D&D 3.0 was that they streamlined the way different acrive rolls worked, so higher was always better, for example, as opposed to wanting to roll low for some stuff or roll high for others. RQ was similar, in that all pretty much all rolls, the lower you rolled, the better. Not sure if that's been retained in MRQ to the same degree, though...

 

[iamtim]

Oh lordy, same here. One of the improvements thaty made with D&D 3.0 was that they streamlined the way different acrive rolls worked, so higher was always better, for example, as opposed to wanting to roll low for some stuff or roll high for others.

*nodnodnod*

Removing racial class/level limits was good, too, (I always wanted to play a Dwarven Magic-User because the rules said I couldn't, heh) but then they went and added feats and prestige classes and all that other stuff.

I think Castles and Crusades has become a better D&D 3.0 than D&D 3.0.

 

[Urox]

Uroz can not speak with the authority of the RQ Community either because I, as a member of that community, do not agree with what he attributed to the community. Therefore, what he attributed to the community is factually incorrect.

I hate to stoop you your level, but wow dude, take a chill pill.

We are trying to discuss an issue, not personally discredit each other.

And again, you are making logic errors.

I made a "blanket statement" that the originals poster's opinion (RQ is BRB) is "still not accepted by the RQ community."

If you apply your logic above, my statement is factually incorrect. Do this through your logic, you are saying that MQ = BRP is the the accepted view of the RQ community (it's not not accepted). But then you can not speak with the authority of the RQ Community either because I, as a member of that community, do not agree with what you attributed to the community. Therefore, what you implied about the community is factually incorrect, and the communitiy has not not not accepted MQ = BRP. *head explodes*

Back to the MQ vs. BRP -- I've been thinking about this some, and have a couple of questions.

How essential to BRP are:
1. Fixed Stat Saving throws -- like DEX x3 to avoid stepping on a snake as you exit the plane.

2. The Resistance Table. This is how items in the world interact.

I those boil down to how important to BRP is having these fixed stat as part of the resolution system. My understanding is, that for the most part, stats are only used during character creation in MQ, and once you've figure your base chance for skills, then you could pratically erase them from your sheet (okay, an over-exaggeration, but it's to make a point).

 

[Enpeze]

Saying "As far as I can see this game IS a valid variant of BRP" (which was the gem that sparked this leg of the debate) is *not* a blanket statement. The poster specifically referenced only himself.

Saying "I think a few of your assumptions are still not accepted by the RQ community" (which is the gem I took exception to, and that my post directly referenced) *is* a blanket statement because the poster is referring to an entire community of people -- at least two of whom do not fall in line with what the poster attributes to the community.

Again, you seem to be not thinking through the logic of the arguments.

The post in question was:

Why should they name it "SwordQuest" if it is Runequest? As far as I can see this game IS a valid variant of BRP. And its first setting is even Glorantha. So why should it not called RQ?

The can be broken down logically to:
This game should be name RuneQuest because:
1. The poster thinks it's a valid variant of BRP
2. The first setting is Glorantha

This is rebutted with:
1. The RQ community may not agree that MQ is BRP
2. Other RPGs have been set in Glorantha

If I understand your logic, you seem to be transforming the below the statements:
a. The RQ community may not agree that MQ is BRP
to
b. The RQ comminity agrees that MQ is not BRP

That is a logic error.

If anything, I will go out on a limb and speak for the RQ community in that there is no consensus yet to whether MQ qualifies as BRP (and there never may be).

Blabla, logic error. Whatever. Ok Urox, connoisseur of the RQ-community, let me just say this:
If you or atgxtg dont know anybody who thinks that pendragon isnt BRP so what? Now, you know one. And this guy knows other RQ/BRP fans who think the same.

MRQ is coming from RQ and is a modern incarnation of it. If you personally like the game or not is for noone important except for yourself. As have been stated on this board there are old guard guys which dont even like RQ3. There will always be some out there which dont see the potential of new things and stick with the old.

 

[atgxtg]

MRQ is really a different game under an old name. If the pro camp wants to prove otherwise, then prove it.

It'd be pretty damn hard to "prove" an opinion wouldn't it? That's all it is.

Exactly. If people say that in thier opinion it is the same, that's one thing. I'm seeing a lot of opnion be presented as fact.


BTW, Nice to see you are still around. HAven't seen you here for a couple of weeks.

 

[iamtim]

not personally discredit each other ... And again, you are making logic errors.

I'm not discrediting you and there's no logic here to err upon. Neither you, nor I, have any right to make any statement on behalf of the RQ community. Yet you stated that the RQ community did not agree with a certain point or group of points. That is, in fact, making a statement on behalf of the RQ community.

I stated that you shouldn't make statements of that nature, because not everyone in the RQ community agrees with the statement you made on behalf of the community. I, for one, am a member of that community and I have an opposing view -- note I'm not talking for the community here, I'm talking only for myself as a member of that community.

It has NOTHING to do with any other part of this thread. It only has to do with you setting yourself up as the de facto voice of the RQ community by making a statement on behalf of the community.

Had you said that most of the RQ community does not agree with the point, or some of the RQ community does not agree with the point, or a lot of the RQ community does not agree with the point, we wouldn't be discussing this.

If you can't see that, and you want to keep trying to mire me down in the logic of the discussion surrounding your errant statement, I have nothing more to say to you with regards to this issue.

 

[Alloppo]

I consider myself a RQ fan. I have continuosly (apart from work etc!) played RQ for about 25 years. The new game is different but seems fun. If it was RQ3 or RQ2 tweaked then what is the point buying it? Its similar enough for me to start planning a campaign and know I'll enjoy it. For those who haven't bought it yet, borrow a copy before you listen to too many negatives in the forum.