Is the game or the name problematic?

[Urox]

Blabla, logic error. Whatever.

Clearly this is proof that the halving rule is indeed flawed!

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.

Or there are those of us who like to understand things, and do so by asking questions.

Let's try to keep this somewhat on subject. Or at least, that's what those of us lacking the potential to see new things would like.

 

[atgxtg]

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.

Nope, Urox wrote " I think a few of your assumptions are still not accepted by the RQ community."

That is not making any claim. THat is stating what he thingks (opinion).

I think you took that the wrong way.

 

[atgxtg]

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. [/qoute]

The point was that you did say that your believe it was BRP related, you stated that Pendrgaon was consider BRP as if it was widely acknoeldge to be the case. You can't port creatures stats over from Pendragon to the RQ games they way you can from Strombringer, Coc, or even (dare I say it) MRQ.

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.

How does MRQ come from RQ? Mongoose bought the name. THe rules are different. Very different. If I like the game or not is probalbby about as important as if you like the game or not.

Neither of which is the point. You keep saying "It's RQ" we keep saying "it isn't RQ". I'd let it drop if you would.

The topic of this thread was if the use of the RQ name problematic for MRQ. The answer is yes. How problematic is yet to be known.

As for seeing the potential of MRQ, there are several other threads where people are discussing aspects of MRQ, why are you bring that up here?

My question to you is:

What does MRQ do better than RQ?

 

[Urox]

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.

Nope, Urox wrote " I think a few of your assumptions are still not accepted by the RQ community."
That is not making any claim. THat is stating what he thingks (opinion).

I think you took that the wrong way.

Well, my intention was to convey that there is no consensus. It was really unlear to me from his arguments if was proposing there is one, or was just interpreting my arguments in an unintended manner.

What does MRQ do better than RQ?

That's a tough one, and gets very subjective. It's kind of like the question of which is more fun?

I don't think I have a full enough understanding of the extended use of mechanics to really even come up with an opinion of which is better. In another thread, I postulated that the awarded xp may be closer to a class based system than previous editions of RQ. Maybe a semi class-type system does work "better" than free-form unlimited skill improvement.

 

[haargald]

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.

Curious, where does the line get drawn legally? Why does d20 have a licensing policy if anybody could just use the sytem. (Not that I am advocating anyone actually using D20 :wink: ) Wizards and Hasbro are very litigious, I would think that if you used their system for a different world without jumping through their licensing hoops they would drop a stack of cease and desist orders on you faster than you could say Eberron.
I am not a game publisher though, so maybe you guys could enlighten me.

 

[iamtim]

Why does d20 have a licensing policy if anybody could just use the sytem.

Because while anyone can use the system, especially with it released under the OGL, no one can use the trademarks "d20 System" and the d20 System Logo without explicit permission from WotC.

Thus, anyone can create d20 compatible works one of three ways: 1) by using the open content and the d20 trademark license, 2) by using the open content and re-creating closed content bits (i.e. character creation and advancement) with different words*, or 3) by completely re-wording the system and releasing it as something completely different.

Note that in options 2 or 3, one cannot express compatibility with the "d20 System" or use the d20 System Logo withough all sorts of legal problems.

~~~~~

* ALL the content that makes up the D20 system, be it open or closed, is copyrighted by WotC. So while you can reword the concept, you can't use the same wording as WotC uses for a concept unless it's in the SRD. Since character creation and advancement isn't in the SRD and is copyrighted by WotC you'd have to re-word the underlying concept to avoid infringement (i.e. "roll four six-sided dice and ignore the lowest rolled value" instead of "roll 4d6 and take away the lowest".)

 

[atgxtg]

Curious, where does the line get drawn legally? Why does d20 have a licensing policy if anybody could just use the sytem. (Not that I am advocating anyone actually using D20 :wink: ) Wizards and Hasbro are very litigious, I would think that if you used their system for a different world without jumping through their licensing hoops they would drop a stack of cease and desist orders on you faster than you could say Eberron.
I am not a game publisher though, so maybe you guys could enlighten me.

Tim pretty much covered most of it. Generally if is isn't something that can be considered an orignal creation, like a setting, brand name, logo or creature, it's fair game.

HEre is another big surprise-companies do not pay a fee to print an OGL product! So if a company wants to product an OGL supplment for d20, RQ, or EABA (why not all three!) they don't have to pay a dime to WotC, Mongoose, or BTRC.

The big legal trick is that to be able to use the "d20", "D&D", "RQ" or "EABA" logos on your product, you have to conform to certain rules. THis means that you could write up an RQ supplment that:

1) Is covered under the OGL and can use the RQ logo.

2) Isn't covered under the OGL and can't use the RQ logo, but could still be printed as long as it does not refer to RQ. (Hard to do, but Itechnically I think it is possible somehow).

3) Refers to something in in a non-open sourecebook (for example taking Broo from the rulebook) rather than an open source. This is a violation and can be pursued. Just how bad they go after depends in part on who who tick off and just what kind of violation you make. I suspect that name dropping the word Bross in a combat example will probably be treated less harshly that say writing up a Broo Sourcebook.

Keep in mind that not everything in a closed source is necessarily closed. Only those things protected as intellectual property. For instance, no one can "own" the idea of a bear. It is a real animal that has existed for far longerthan any RPG. So if your supplment had bear stats in it and they were rather similar to the ones in the core book you would probasbly be okay, since you could defend the idea pretty easily:

"What gave you the idea of a Bear?"
"I went to the zoo"
"Why does you Bear have stats so similar to the ones in the book?"
"Because the one at the zoo had four limbs, fur, teeth & claws, just like the one in the rule book. What did you want me to do? give it 8 arms, acid breath and wings? It's a bear."

 

[Urox]

Tim pretty much covered most of it. Generally if is isn't something that can be considered an orignal creation, like a setting, brand name, logo or creature, it's fair game.

I always wondered how this differred from patents and such. The example I would contrast is the patent on "internet site where people auction new, used and collectable materials" -- from my meager understanding of legal matters, I beleive there is such a patent and eBay lost a case revolving around it and had to pay royalties.

So, wouldn't it be possible to patent such ideas as "Resistance Table for resovling Character Statistics conflicts in Role-Playing Games" or "Method for Defining Characters in Role Playing Games using STR/DEX/CON/POW/etc" ?

 

[RMS]

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.

I'm sure you're correct. As soon as I wrote that I thought about editing, but didn't. If nothing else, I got a little side discussion out of it. I probably shouldn't use D&D as an example for anything. I've never read or played 3.0 or 3.5, and only played a couple of 1-offs of 2nd edition, so my D&D time is very limited since about 1984.

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.

I do have serious reservations about the removal of the Resistance Table. It's such a simple, elegant way of handling things. The real irony is that it is the d20 mechanic...just inverted so that low is good rather than high.

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...

I know that, but it does seem worse for RQ than most other RPGs I've seen. Maybe I pay more attention here, but I don't really think that's it. OTOH, none of the RPG groups get nearly as rabid about things as the guitar groups I visit. You should see the all out flamewars on solid state vs. tube amps or boutique vs. off-the-shelf guitars!

 

[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.

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.

Thanks. I'm impressed you noticed! I actually was out of town for the last two weeks: took the family on a massive 5500 mile vacation driving through scenic Canada and the US! I read some of the discussion but didn't participate since my computer time was limited.

 

[atgxtg]

I know that, but it does seem worse for RQ than most other RPGs I've seen. Maybe I pay more attention here, but I don't really think that's it. OTOH, none of the RPG groups get nearly as rabid about things as the guitar groups I visit. You should see the all out flamewars on solid state vs. tube amps or boutique vs. off-the-shelf guitars!

That probably has a lot to do with the game's history and the type of people who play it. Back when I got started, you were plactically considered some sort of deviant if you playeed RuneQuest as oppsed to D&D. THis was in a hooby that was genrally considered a bucn of demented devil worshippers who would crawl into sewers and attack people (There was one case of a D&D player, who had a history of mental illness, doing this and the entire hobby got branded). THis sort of made RQers outcasts in a outcast community. We all sort of learned to defend the game out of habit. So your typical RQ player from the "old days" has probably been defending the game for two decades. It's as much a reflex action as breathing.

THe other thing to cosnider is that, unlike many other hobbies, a new edition typically kills off the old one. You can still find a telecaster somewhere, but you can't go into your local shop and find Cults of Prax, let alone a new RQ1,2, or 3 adventure.

One reason why you see such a difference in attitudes between the older players and the younger ones is that the younger ones grew up in a differenrt gaming environment. Also, many of the younger players don't have the experience or the same dedication to the old game. THe market is different, the enviornment is different, and the gamers are different. NOT counting MRQ, I've seen several "game systems" that have been relased over the past few years that have been heralded for their simplicity that a decade or so ago would have been torn apart as incomplete and inadequate. THe whole "we expect an errta sheet" is quite different from the surprise we felt years ago when we found some new sheets in the back of a book.

The sad thing about is all is that RQ really was a great game, especially in comparison to it's competion. These days, it doesn't stand out so much (that's not a MRQ dig, just that so many other RPGs have caught up over the years). At one time is was the #2 RPG and seemed poised to make the move for the lead spot. If Avalon Hill had done a few things differently, who knows-the game might never have faded away.

In my eyes, MRQ is going to be the final nail in the coffin for RuneQuest. Ohm, it might be propular and go on, but the bulk of the system that I liked and wanted to play got cut. Not only do I like HeroQuest better than MRQ (and you ought to get that), I prefer D&D 3.5 to MRQ.


But, since according to the poll, I am outnumbered about 12 to 1 (with a few people still undecided), I'm the only who who feels this way.

 

[andakitty]

Ouch. I'd say there is nothing left to discuss, then.

 

[soltakss]

Rather than continuing the "he said, you said, I said, he said" threads, here are my views on this, for what they are worth ...

People have been complaining about RQ for well over 20 years.

I still know people who will only play "Pure" RQ2, others who converted wholesale to RQ3, others who don't play in Glorantha, others who only play in Glorantha, others who use their own vastly different Glorantha and others who use various house rules and rules variants so that the game they are playing is only RQ becuase of percentiles and some of the magic.

Everyone plays RQ differently and expects different things of RQ.

For a long time, RQ has been kept alive by its various players and enthusiasts and they have their own ideas of how things should be. You only have to look at other forums, such as the RQ Rules Digest, to see how long term players have vastly different interpretations of old versions of RQ. This is a fact of life and will not change.

Everyone knows that they could have written a better version of RQ - myself included. However, each version of RQ would be panned by other people as being different to their versions of RQ.

Now, as to Mongoose's RQ, or RQM as opposed to RQ2 or RQ3. This seems to be a reasonable product, it looks nice and reads very well. The rules are still recognisably RQ, even though they have done things that I personally don't necessarily agree with. They have a direction, several campaign worlds and an impressive publishing schedule.

They are supporting Glorantha, albeit Second Age Glorantha, which should please those os us who lile the Gloranthan setting.

They are supporting other worlds as well as generic settings which should please those Glorantha haters.

They are going to publish a lot of supplements, which is good.

Now, some people are going to say, or have already said, that Mongoose should have included things such as the RQ Companion in the original Rulebook. Well, that's as maybe. A Rulebook can only be a certain size and filling it with extra rules does not always work. Look at RQ3 and the Ship Rules, they were very nice but should they have been in the Rulebook? So, we have to fork out more money to buy more rules. Well, that has always happened with RQ - each of the major supplements has contained more rules, more cults, more backgrounds.

I, for one, would rather see more supplements being produced so that I can pick and choose which ones I am going to use and which ones I am going to ignore.

As far as I am concerned, the only major problem I have with RQM is the Magic System, which I see as being flawed on several levels. But, we are probably going to see other magic systems being published, so we might be able to ignore the generic one.

As for those who say that RQM is not BRP, well they are right. RQ2 wasn't BRP and neither was RQ3. BRP was a simplified version of RQ2 that was included in the RQ2 rulebook (I think) and was always inferior to RQ. Other game systems are based on the BRP model and they have their faults and don't flow as easily as RQ. I am glad that RQM is not BRP, but it is clearly in the BRP family, no matter what people say.

So, let's wait for the supplements and see if they are any good. A Rulebook is only good for so much. RQ2 was made special because of supplements such as Pavis, Big Rubble, Borderlands, Griffin Mountain, Trollpack, Cults of Prax/Terror and the sublime RQ Companion. RQ3 had Gods of Glorantha, Sun County and Shadows on the Borderlands. RQM will hopefully have an equal number of impressive supplements that will make it a classic game in its own right.

 

[King Amenjar]

In my eyes, MRQ is going to be the final nail in the coffin for RuneQuest. Ohm, it might be propular and go on, but the bulk of the system that I liked and wanted to play got cut. Not only do I like HeroQuest better than MRQ (and you ought to get that), I prefer D&D 3.5 to MRQ.

Heroquest was an innovative system, but the presentation was rather dismal and it was all a bit, well, airy fairy and flower power. Where RQ2 had felt like a grim and gritty struggle in a hard, primitive world where people got eaten by Morokanth and sold into slavery, HQ felt like Yellow Submarine at times.
As for liking D&D better... when I hear this being said it just makes me want to throw myself off a cliff
... and then mark off the HPs, get up again and walk away.

 

[atgxtg]

SOrry about the last post. I started off trying to explain to RMS how RQ can bring out the "rabid" fighting, and it ended up being far more introspective that I Had intended. Guess I shouldn't answer questions like that at 3AM while authroing and test burning DVDs.

On the plus side my 1954 Casino Royale VHS made a nice DVD. And Conquest is almost finished. 8)

 

[RMS]

That probably has a lot to do with the game's history and the type of people who play it. Back when I got started, you were plactically considered some sort of deviant if you playeed RuneQuest as oppsed to D&D. THis was in a hooby that was genrally considered a bucn of demented devil worshippers who would crawl into sewers and attack people (There was one case of a D&D player, who had a history of mental illness, doing this and the entire hobby got branded). THis sort of made RQers outcasts in a outcast community. We all sort of learned to defend the game out of habit. So your typical RQ player from the "old days" has probably been defending the game for two decades. It's as much a reflex action as breathing.

I understand all of this. I'm probably close to your age, and come from a pretty conservative (extended) family that had issues with me playing D&D. Ironically, they only heard bad about D&D, so didn't think twice when I and my friends were sitting around playing Stormbringer demon summoning sorcerors...because it wasn't D&D!

I never felt the need to defend the game. I didn't get RQ until just after RQ3 had come out, though I went back and picked up a lot of RQ2 material. I had more luck getting people to play other BRP variants (and GURPS) in the 80s and didn't start heavy into RQ playing until the 90s though.

THe other thing to cosnider is that, unlike many other hobbies, a new edition typically kills off the old one. You can still find a telecaster somewhere, but you can't go into your local shop and find Cults of Prax, let alone a new RQ1,2, or 3 adventure.

Be careful! Them there is fightin' words! Seriously, in the guitar world (especially the vintage guys and collectors) there's huge arguements over whether a new Telecaster has anything other than shape in common with a classic Telecaster, especially if you figure in Mexican and Japanese made ones. It really is much more intense than anything I see in RPGs. Things that get you weeks of suspension on rpg.net are a part of common dialogue. I think some of it is the amount of money in it, to be honest. A new USA Tele is a $1000+ investment, and a pre-CBS (50s or early 60s) is $7500 in beat-to-hell condition and will easily exceed the price of a new car in good condition. In contrast, we're aruging over whether $120 for a set of books coming out over several months is too much. I suspect everyone on here earns more than that in the time they've spent on this board! Sorry about the tangent...

One reason why you see such a difference in attitudes between the older players and the younger ones is that the younger ones grew up in a differenrt gaming environment. Also, many of the younger players don't have the experience or the same dedication to the old game. THe market is different, the enviornment is different, and the gamers are different. NOT counting MRQ, I've seen several "game systems" that have been relased over the past few years that have been heralded for their simplicity that a decade or so ago would have been torn apart as incomplete and inadequate. THe whole "we expect an errta sheet" is quite different from the surprise we felt years ago when we found some new sheets in the back of a book.

I think many of the changes are an attempt to address what Mongoose believes modern gamers want. I agree with that. I'm not sure people are any more loyal in one period than another. I suspect it's more a case of a lot of us being old dogs not interested in new tricks. In my case, part of it for me is that I simply have been around long enough to know exactly what I want and to be very comfortable with what I already have. RQ2/3 weren't perfect. I've houseruled a lot of parts of them. The strength to them IMO was that they handled that well and needed less of it than most games, not that they were perfect out of the box. All of that said, I still bought the rules and will be willing to play them...they may just migrate back to my RQ2.5 as houserules over time, is all! Like everyone here, I'm sure that the perfect MRQ would have been RQ2/3 with my personal houserules released. Anything else is definitely a lesser version of the game!

The sad thing about is all is that RQ really was a great game, especially in comparison to it's competion. These days, it doesn't stand out so much (that's not a MRQ dig, just that so many other RPGs have caught up over the years). At one time is was the #2 RPG and seemed poised to make the move for the lead spot. If Avalon Hill had done a few things differently, who knows-the game might never have faded away.

Agree 100%. However, I'm pretty sure that Stafford and Chaosium deserve more of the blame than we generally give them. I've seen him quoted before as saying that Avalon Hill put out everything Gloranthan that was given to them. In any event, I agree that if there had been better support that the game would have fared much better. Also, you're correct that a lot of games have caught up with RQ. Some of those games are also very good and I'd be more than happy to play, so I'm not nearly as tied into RQ/BRP as I once was.

In my eyes, MRQ is going to be the final nail in the coffin for RuneQuest. Ohm, it might be propular and go on, but the bulk of the system that I liked and wanted to play got cut. Not only do I like HeroQuest better than MRQ (and you ought to get that), I prefer D&D 3.5 to MRQ.

You keep saying how much you dislike what MRQ is, but I really don't see how it's that much different. It is different and they did take out things that I liked about RQ, but the general feel and workings of the game appear to be very similar, if not identical, to older versions of RQ. Stat blocks look like they'll translate pretty seemlessly, so all of the material will probably be useable in any case.

But, since according to the poll, I am outnumbered about 12 to 1 (with a few people still undecided), I'm the only who who feels this way.

You're definitely on the extreme from my POV. I suspect you and I agree on a lot of things that were good about old RQ and wonder about why they're no longer there. I just have a more positive outlook on it. It might just be the difference in our situations. I don't have a RQ group and have had no luck getting anyone in this area to try it, because "it's old an out of date". With a new version on the shelf I have chance of getting a group together, and may even introduce them to old school RQ via the new version, or not if I'm happy enough with how the new version works in play.

It's all pretty academic for me though. I do have a current gaming group and probably lack time for another. The current group wants me to run Glorantha for them, but they prefer HQ, so I'll end up running that anyway. I actually like RQ a bit better, but I like HQ fine too.

 

[RMS]

Heroquest was an innovative system, but the presentation was rather dismal and it was all a bit, well, airy fairy and flower power. Where RQ2 had felt like a grim and gritty struggle in a hard, primitive world where people got eaten by Morokanth and sold into slavery, HQ felt like Yellow Submarine at times.

The thing about HQ is that it can be run that way and it can also be run every bit as grim and gritty as RQ. There's a lot of GM/player contract issues that need to be addressed as to how HQ will actually be run, but it can actually do either. RQ does it by default with more system detail.

Has anyone else noted the irony of 2nd Age Gloranthan world and myth shapers coming out with RQ, while 3rd Age Glorantha has gone even more gritty day-to-day struggle with HQ. I like HQ, but have been completely puzzled by why the default in it is so low level.

 

[atgxtg]

Heroquest was an innovative system, but the presentation was rather dismal and it was all a bit, well, airy fairy and flower power. Where RQ2 had felt like a grim and gritty struggle in a hard, primitive world where people got eaten by Morokanth and sold into slavery, HQ felt like Yellow Submarine at times.

The thing about HQ is that it can be run that way and it can also be run every bit as grim and gritty as RQ. There's a lot of GM/player contract issues that need to be addressed as to how HQ will actually be run, but it can actually do either. RQ does it by default with more system detail.

Has anyone else noted the irony of 2nd Age Gloranthan world and myth shapers coming out with RQ, while 3rd Age Glorantha has gone even more gritty day-to-day struggle with HQ. I like HQ, but have been completely puzzled by why the default in it is so low level.

Hah. I mentioned HQ as a note to you that if I prefered HQ to MRQ I gave you an insight into my point of view. Didn't mean to touch off the legendary HQ/RQ debate.

In regard to point #1, I think the level of abstration used in HQ tests is so great that it takes the feel of what your are doing out of the contest. THat is sort of a danger for a univeral resolution system. In HQ, where on nbot I was in a combat conteats against a troll or a drinking contest, it felt the same.


As far as to the low start in HQ. I think that has to do with the nature of epic heroes. Part of the hero mmonomyth is their stating from humble begining and journeying to greatness. It's all that early humdfrum stuff that gives the character depth and personality. By the time they get to hero status they have enough of a backdstory to be fully realized.

 

[atgxtg]

I understand all of this. I'm probably close to your age, and come from a pretty conservative (extended) family that had issues with me playing D&D. Ironically, they only heard bad about D&D, so didn't think twice when I and my friends were sitting around playing Stormbringer demon summoning sorcerors...because it wasn't D&D! [/qoute]

I had the same thing happen. D&D scared everybody. I could play Strombringer or Rq and none even batted an eye. At least usually. Once we had a very conservative Holy Roller type around who thought all RPGs were tools of the devil and that they encourage people to learn the dark arts, etc. At the time I was running Bond and Pendragon, so it got sort of funny when he came on all fire & brimstone and discovered he was arguring against the PCs saving the world from terrorists, and King Arthur's Christian knnights defending themselves from Saxon (and Pagan) Invaders. It made my "He doesn't know what he is taking about" argument stick.

I never felt the need to defend the game. I didn't get RQ until just after RQ3 had come out, though I went back and picked up a lot of RQ2 material. I had more luck getting people to play other BRP variants (and GURPS) in the 80s and didn't start heavy into RQ playing until the 90s though. [/qoute]

In my neck of the woods, getting RQ players was tough. Still is. MOst people don't game. THose that do play D&D. I've found it difficult to get D&D players to play RQ. In part becuase they don't like finding out that all thier "brilliant" D&D tactics don't work anymore. D&D players are also used to have a big safety net thanks to Hit Points and encounters heavily slanted in thier favor, and they don't like the idea that a raw beginning has a slight clhance of running thier powerful characters through with one hit. In Gneral it wasn't like D&D they would redicule it.

Be careful! Them there is fightin' words! Seriously, in the guitar world (especially the vintage guys and collectors) there's huge arguements over whether a new Telecaster has anything other than shape in common with a classic Telecaster, especially if you figure in Mexican and Japanese made ones. It really is much more intense than anything I see in RPGs. Things that get you weeks of suspension on rpg.net are a part of common dialogue. I think some of it is the amount of money in it, to be honest. A new USA Tele is a $1000+ investment, and a pre-CBS (50s or early 60s) is $7500 in beat-to-hell condition and will easily exceed the price of a new car in good condition. In contrast, we're aruging over whether $120 for a set of books coming out over several months is too much. I suspect everyone on here earns more than that in the time they've spent on this board! Sorry about the tangent...

I think the big difference is that if you like a guitar, no matter what style/model, and can get your hands on one, you can use it to play virtually any guitar part-inclduing riffs from new songs. You can even play in a style of your choosing.

With an old RPG you can't do that. You can't just pick up the latest RPG supplemnt and use it directly with any game system the same way you can buy new tabs or sheet music.

One reason why you see such a difference in attitudes between the older players and the younger ones is that the younger ones grew up in a differenrt gaming environment. Also, many of the younger players don't have the experience or the same dedication to the old game. THe market is different, the enviornment is different, and the gamers are different. NOT counting MRQ, I've seen several "game systems" that have been relased over the past few years that have been heralded for their simplicity that a decade or so ago would have been torn apart as incomplete and inadequate. THe whole "we expect an errta sheet" is quite different from the surprise we felt years ago when we found some new sheets in the back of a book.

I think many of the changes are an attempt to address what Mongoose believes modern gamers want. I agree with that. I'm not sure people are any more loyal in one period than another. I suspect it's more a case of a lot of us being old dogs not interested in new tricks. In my case, part of it for me is that I simply have been around long enough to know exactly what I want and to be very comfortable with what I already have. RQ2/3 weren't perfect. I've houseruled a lot of parts of them. The strength to them IMO was that they handled that well and needed less of it than most games, not that they were perfect out of the box. All of that said, I still bought the rules and will be willing to play them...they may just migrate back to my RQ2.5 as houserules over time, is all! Like everyone here, I'm sure that the perfect MRQ would have been RQ2/3 with my personal houserules released. Anything else is definitely a lesser version of the game!

I didn't mean more loyal, just that expectations are differenrt. FOr example, now that we have the internet, it's seems prefectly acceptable to many people that every RPG has bugs and errata. Way back wen, there was no way tobe sure that the players would even know of the errata, so what was printed in the book is what you got. I blame that one on the computer game industry. THe tactic of using the consumers as a free group of debuggers.

Agree 100%. However, I'm pretty sure that Stafford and Chaosium deserve more of the blame than we generally give them. I've seen him quoted before as saying that Avalon Hill put out everything Gloranthan that was given to them. In any event, I agree that if there had been better support that the game would have fared much better. Also, you're correct that a lot of games have caught up with RQ. Some of those games are also very good and I'd be more than happy to play, so I'm not nearly as tied into RQ/BRP as I once was.

Oh yeah. Without a doubt. I suspect that there was a lot of friction at Chaosium-especially with Greg. Glorantha caused a lot of problems since theyre was really only one person who could write it (Greg). This made Greg the fontain/bottleneck of the entire GLorantha line.

Chasoium also failed to support Strombirnger and thier other games much when RQ was going under.

I think the fact the complany eventaully split into three companies and that Steve Perrin hasn't been involved with RQ since writing the RQ3 book all points to internal friction. I'm sure there is a reason why Mongoose is releasing a new RQ game rather than Chaosium.

You keep saying how much you dislike what MRQ is, but I really don't see how it's that much different. It is different and they did take out things that I liked about RQ, but the general feel and workings of the game appear to be very similar, if not identical, to older versions of RQ. Stat blocks look like they'll translate pretty seemlessly, so all of the material will probably be useable in any case.

THe game doesn't feel at alllike RQ to me. Perhaps beause whenI read through the rules pretty much everything that I liked about RQ is gone. The things that I used touse as examples of what you can do with RQ don't apply anymore. Plus, I don't think the game has succeded in whatit set out to do as far a streamlineing goes.

In RQ we had one die mechanic (the D100) with critical/speical and normal success. Now we have one menthod for combat, another for non-combat, a special rule for skills over 100%, and three different "offical" instrcution on how the game works. We are all waiting for a PDF to sort of what is probalby the signle most vital rule in the game (you can't play it without knowing how the % rolls work). It is the one rule would should have been presently corectly in the game as it is vitial an I cannot see how it could be missed. It should have showed up ten minutes in any playing session. How do we make a roll?

I can't see how anyone say, "Wow that is so much easier and better than RQ" when they don't even know what the system is yet.

You're definitely on the extreme from my POV. I suspect you and I agree on a lot of things that were good about old RQ and wonder about why they're no longer there. I just have a more positive outlook on it. It might just be the difference in our situations. I don't have a RQ group and have had no luck getting anyone in this area to try it, because "it's old an out of date". With a new version on the shelf I have chance of getting a group together, and may even introduce them to old school RQ via the new version, or not if I'm happy enough with how the new version works in play.

It's all pretty academic for me though. I do have a current gaming group and probably lack time for another. The current group wants me to run Glorantha for them, but they prefer HQ, so I'll end up running that anyway. I actually like RQ a bit better, but I like HQ fine too.

Possibly a difference is situations. As I have posted before, it is very D&D dominated in my area. SO if I can get poeple to play something other thn D&D at all, it wis going to be something that I like. On of the ironies of my life is that while I buy and run all these great RPGs, I don't get a chance to play anything other than D&D.

 

[SteveMND]

Once we had a very conservative Holy Roller type around who thought all RPGs were tools of the devil and that they encourage people to learn the dark arts, etc.

Heh. One of the most enjoyable D&D campaigns I ever played in back in college was run by a Baptist minister.