Is the game or the name problematic?
- Thread starter iamtim
- Start date
What I have started to notice this week now that people have gotten their hands on the Core Rules is that a few of the stalwart supporters (andakitty stands out here) have expressed some serious concerns about MQ.atgxtg said:
There are still plenty of supporters, but one thing to take with a grain of salt is that a few of them (HyrumOWC and Iamtim IIRC) have a financial interest as publishers of independent MQ OGL product.
iamtim said:
These was an old thread where several of us posted what defined RQ for us. My own list was:
Of those definers, MRQ seems to have items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
MRQ does not have item 3, except in name only.
Items 4 and 10 I have yet to evaluate. Although I don't have anything against rune magic per se, I'm not convinced that it's a good replacement for spirit magic as something that can bring magic to the masses. And the treatment of Gods is something best left for the settings books.
So, given at least 7 (maybe 9) out of 10, I'm willing to say that MRQ does deserve to be called RQ.
However, there are a lot of significant other issues with the game (many nicely summarized by SarahNewton - thank you) that turn me off. Whats more, I'm not happy with the rulebook split and I've been completely unmoved by the graphic design of the covers of the books. None of these would be deal breakers in and of themselves, but all together they are quite something. They don't make the game 'not rq', but they might make the game 'not fun' or 'not exciting', and that's not what I was looking for in a new game, whether it's called RQ or not.
The thing for most dissenters here, I think, is that we all so much wanted RQ to be re-released for such a long time and we are underwhelmed and unexcited by the new product. I think this has prompted some knee-jerk reactions, and perhaps saying "this isn't RQ at all" is one of those.
I think that if MRQ wasn't RQ at all but some other BRP game the problems people have with the mechanics, the cost, the splitting of books the combat confusion, and the typos, etc. would all still be there. But the level of excitement in the posts, the mudslinging, and froth on the inside of your computer sceen would not be as high.
MHO, anyway.
Cobra
Yeah, but many other RPGs have the things in the "ten List", but are not RQ becuase they handle those ten thingsa differently. Usagi Yojimbo, for example has everything except 1, 3 & 10. It does have rules for size and reach through so it might get half credit for 3, and it is based in fedual Japan, the "alnd of seven million kami" so it might get half for 10 too. It also, isn't RuneQuest.
Most RPGs out there today other than D&D probalby can rate a 5 on the chart.
In fact, MRQ doesn't qualify as a 7 out of ten, consider:
Point #3 : Strike Ranks in MRQ, are SR in name only. It is far closer to D&D's initiative system. SIZ and reach play no part in it.
It might fail point #4, since magic, at least what is prevented in the core book is neither spirit magic nor avaialbe to all.
Point #6 is also in contention, as it is far less likey that you can defend youself from an attack, but that you can reduce it's effectiveness by stopping some of the damage.
Point #7, Ciritical & Fumbles-they exist, but the implmentation is now entirely subjective. The GM picks something good or bad to happen.
#8, Skills don't advance through usage but by assignment improvemnt rolls.
#9, No XP. Since the Legendary Abilities in the game are not learned, but picked up by spending Hero Points, then in away Hero Points are a form of XP.
Most RPGs out there today other than D&D probalby can rate a 5 on the chart.
In fact, MRQ doesn't qualify as a 7 out of ten, consider:
Point #3 : Strike Ranks in MRQ, are SR in name only. It is far closer to D&D's initiative system. SIZ and reach play no part in it.
It might fail point #4, since magic, at least what is prevented in the core book is neither spirit magic nor avaialbe to all.
Point #6 is also in contention, as it is far less likey that you can defend youself from an attack, but that you can reduce it's effectiveness by stopping some of the damage.
Point #7, Ciritical & Fumbles-they exist, but the implmentation is now entirely subjective. The GM picks something good or bad to happen.
#8, Skills don't advance through usage but by assignment improvemnt rolls.
#9, No XP. Since the Legendary Abilities in the game are not learned, but picked up by spending Hero Points, then in away Hero Points are a form of XP.
atgxtg said:
Well, alright. The list is entirely subjective and not exaustive (looking on it now, I might also add 11. Ancient Feel, for eg.) Do your own list of what made RQ for you and see how it compares.
I did factor those as fails in the 7 rating for the reasons you state. Further, the new SRs are not based on factors of time, but instead are based on order of play.
I still count this as in. The fact is you can actively defend. Whether the mechanic is as good or not is another issue.
Again, at least it is there. I probably prefer the RQ3 way myself, too, but I still say this counts for it being MRQ.
Ok, good points.
But would you be more inclined to play it if it had been called Mongoose Mayhem instead of RQ? Is it its distance from other RQs the main reason you don't like it, or would not not like it regardless?
C.
Cobra said:
I don't like the mechanics, so I don't believe I would have played it regardless of what they called it.
Calling it RQ did get me to but two books for it though, and led me to expect things that are not in the game. That made it more personal. I'm not a Twilight:200 fan, so if someone were to rewrite that, I wouldn't take much of an interest, but I'm sure it would be of interest to the Twilight 2K fans.
While I don't think I have 300 rpgs, I've got a lot, maybe 100, and would rather play something that I like than something that I don't like. IMO the new MRQ just doesn't have anything that grabs me and makes me want to play it instead of another RPG. All the games that I play, I do so becuase there is something about the game that no other game does quite the same way, and I like it. The games I like, I keep coming back to.
Exactly how I feel right now. What I am wondering is how easy it will be to use the very nice looking setting books coming out with some form of BRP for the rules. In other words, how much of the Glorantha books will be rules related. And will the magic, in particular, be usable with say SB5 rules. Just speculations. Now I will go back to my BRP Tekumel project.
Urox said:
Right now my financial interest is limited to the cost of the rulebook and the GMs screen. My responses so far have been from a purely personal standpoint. *I* like MRQ. I like the fact that it has a classic RuneQuest "core", but a new "outer shell" (just descriptive terms not to be taken literally.) *I* am going to convert my fantasy world and play MRQ, because I like it.
If MRQ has even a modicum of success then I'll happily use the RQ Trademark License and happily slap the RQ logo on my products. If MRQ tanks, well, then, I'm not stupid. I'll use another system or tweak the RQ SRD and publish it as a stand-alone game.
But please, don't misinterpret my comments here as coming from anything other than a personal standpoint.
atgxtg said:
So I have to ask: Why are you so active on this part of the Mongoose forum? Yes I know it is a free world, and I'm really not trying to pick a fight with you, but you have said numerous times you don't like the system and seem to regret purchasing it, so why are you here? I am interested in those posts that would suggest alternative rules or modifications to the rules, that makes sense to see here, but to just come and say that is wrong, that is lame, what Mongoose did there was stupid, and this game is poor... what is the point?
iamtim said:
I firmly believe Mongoose should have gone all the way and put out a book that combined the core book, the companion, and the Glorantha book. They should have put a section in that book for using the rules in other settings. Having said that, once I have the companion and the Glorantha book I will be satisfied. The system is not perfect, but it is still fun and playable, and as a GM that is what matters too me.
haargald said:
Good Question. I don't consider that picking a fight. Orginally I came here to find out about what was happening with RQ. Then I started to discuss the various thing that we saw in the Previews. Intiattly I was inclined to give the benefit of tthe dobut, but that changed as more info came out. A few weeks back, I had given up on the game and was leaving the boards when it was revealed that the thing that really started people off against the new system (the two attack roll mechanic) was an error. So I stuck around, not wanting to condem the game on a rule that didn't exist.
Now I am here mostly out of curirosity as to hw others are reacting to MRQ., and just who lieks it and who doesn't. One interesting thing to me is that most of the MRQ supporters seem to be people who have started posting in the last week, wheras the detractor are those who came here months ago curois about the new RQ.
There is also the fact (previously raised by a Mongooose employee) that all feeback, even negative feedback serves a purpose. If there was no negative feeback it would most likely create a false impression of the sitatuion. Sort of the "yes-man" syndrome.If everyone here just kept praising MOngoose for everything they did, there would be no point in a forum at all. In the weeks and moths to come, the real future of the game is going to be decided in the sales figures. If the game sells like hotcakes, then it's not going to make a bit of difference what the detractors think. On the other hand, if the game doesn't sell, then the first thing Mongoose will want to do is to find out what people didn't like about the game.
Now as for suggesting rule alterations and modifications, I have done a little of this, but the problem is there is only so far I can go with that without it turninginto an ad for RQ2 or RQ3. Practically everything that people has mentioned having problmes with in MRQ can be fixed by patching in something from an earlier edition. But, in my mind, why not just use the whole RQ3 book instead? So I don't go there that much.
I also stay around to defend my postion, and sometimes that of others too. THere have been times where som people have made posts with claims. I am big on seeing them back it up. ASome of the "pro" crowd have made claims that rather than support, they dropped when such claims were not instantly accepted as gospel.
I also have been keeping my feelings about the game out of threads where it doesn't seem to belong. Like if someone wants to run a 3rd age Glornathan campaing, or Star Wars game, I am not going to go and tell them not to do it. If someone likes this game, good for them.
I have also stuck around becuase there are some threads, such as this one, where I think my opinion is not only valid, but practically solicited. THe "is the name a problem" tpoic seems right down the alley of all the old RQ crowd who have expressed disappointment over MRQ.
THen there is the fact that the Comapnion has't come out yet, and I can always be optiomistic that somethings, say a mount's damage bounus adding to charge attacks, might be considered "extra" material.
Plus there is the point that the game did just come out this week, so it's not like I've hung around here for a long time saying "it sucks" in every thread.
As to why I am active in this forum compared to others, that's easy. I don't like d20 and don't play it. Since most of what Mongoose writes has been d20 related, there isn't muchreason for me to go there.
But, maybe it is time to move on.
atgxtg said:
Thanks for the offer, but I have the book -- I was waiting for my LGS to open the first morning they had it in stock, doing that "OPENOPENOPEN" thing (from the Mervyn's TV commercials) on the window.
That's what I meant by my financial interest being the book and the screen; that's what I've bought so far. I haven't put anything else into the system other than my time to read the book -- I haven't started actively developing or converting anything to MRQ yet.
Similar threads
- Sticky
