Is the game or the name problematic?

I for one am here because of the name. Had they called it SwordQuest I never would have even given it any consideration.

To someone who has never played "classic" RuneQuest, or for whom BRP has been THE staple RPG system for up to 30 years, the system will seem very good. If someone has some experience with RQ it but doesn't know the mechanics inside out it will even seem very similar. And I think this game will be more accessible to the D20 crowd than earlier versions.

I never understood the complaint that RQ2/3 was too complex, too me it was simple and elegant and modeled world interactions realistically, probably more than any other system in its heyday that didn't require a calculator to play.

I have not already declared MRQ a waste of shelf space, I plan to try it as is (probably briefly), and then mod it, and try it some more. There are some things I like, and in the end I will see if my house rules are more MRQ with a few older BRP bits grafted in, or more older RQ with a couple of MRQ things ruled in, and that will determine what I use as a base system.

But I think by naming the game RuneQuest, they invited all the old timers (and took some of their money as well). Every person who has staked 10, or 15, or 20, or 28(!) years of their life gaming with RQ, BRP, or Glorantha has every right to be critical. RQ was a part of my life long before my kids, before I'd met my wife, hell even before I'd been laid. Though I don't have the time for it I once had, I want it to be treated right.
 
atgxtg said:
haargald 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?

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.

Thanks for the rational response, I was a little leary making that post, not wanting to start a flamewar, but as I said in the post, I had to ask. I have a followup question for you and anyone else: What do you think of the quality of the product Mongoose is selling? I'm coming from a chaosium and games workshop background and for me Mongoose is somewhere in the middle. I love Chaosium games, but they tend to be lacking in editing and organization. I also love some Games Workshop stuff and their production values are very high, but so are their prices :x

P.S. I'm not referring to the quality of the system, more production value, presentation, that sort of thing.
 
haargald said:
Thanks for the rational response, I was a little leary making that post, not wanting to start a flamewar, but as I said in the post, I had to ask. I have a followup question for you and anyone else: What do you think of the quality of the product Mongoose is selling? I'm coming from a chaosium and games workshop background and for me Mongoose is somewhere in the middle. I love Chaosium games, but they tend to be lacking in editing and organization. I also love some Games Workshop stuff and their production values are very high, but so are their prices :x

P.S. I'm not referring to the quality of the system, more production value, presentation, that sort of thing.

Those sort of questions don't bother me. I'm think that if I am willing to ask the tough questions of other, the least I can do is answer them. If people like or agree that answer or not is another thing.

IMO the older Chaosium stuff has somewhat better organization and editiong that the more recent stuff. Overall I give MRQ around a C for production values. The pages are nothing to rave about, but they are clear and legible. It's function and a GM or player shoudln't have difficulty reading the text. I'd prefer the text tobe a bit denser, narrow margins, and all so more could be squeezed in, but that isn't a complaint as much as wishthing thinking. Heck, I'd like to take out half the artwork in most RPGs and replace it with more stats, gear,etc. So I'll stick with middle of the road "C".

Now if the sneak peaks of the Glorantha book are any indication, it is going to be gorgeous.
 
Rurik said:
I for one am here because of the name. Had they called it SwordQuest I never would have even given it any consideration.

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?

Because of other interpretations of some of the BRP mechanisms? Pendragon is counted as BRP and it does not even use d100.
 
Although I have yet to receive my copy (It arrives Tuesday), I have had a chance to read through the main rulebook. It has fixed alot of what I thought was wrong with RQ3. I never got ahold of RQ1 or RQ2. However what everyone should consider, including those who wrote the wackopedia is that the Runequest system, at the time it came out was 30 years ahead of its time. Look how long it took AD&D and D&D to add skills in a way that was not a clunky add on. Also look how long it took to do away with the stupid level limitations for non-humans. I mean come on, elves are going to live for centuries and they max out at level 10 for wizards and fighters, come on. As for Runequest being a strictly Glorantha system, come on. I never used the rules and resources for Glorantha, I came up with my own world. That is like saying AD&D is a rules system only for Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms. I may have used it for Greyhawk, but I also went on to create my own world.
Remember, you can please some of the people some of the time but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.
 
Enpeze said:
Rurik said:
I for one am here because of the name. Had they called it SwordQuest I never would have even given it any consideration.

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?

Because of other interpretations of some of the BRP mechanisms? Pendragon is counted as BRP and it does not even use d100.

I know the thread had wandered, but I was directly addressing the Topic of this thread, where the iamtim was wondering if some of the grognardy criticisms would never have been made if the name were not Runequest.

Pendragon is not a BRP. You are the first person I know who has ever claimed it was.
 
Enpeze said:
Rurik said:
I for one am here because of the name. Had they called it SwordQuest I never would have even given it any consideration.

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?

Because of other interpretations of some of the BRP mechanisms? Pendragon is counted as BRP and it does not even use d100.

Pendragon is NOT counted as being RuneQuest. Nor it is even BRP. A BRP Derivative certainly, but it isn't RQ. A game isn't RQ just becuase it is derived from BRP. Pendragon, Strombringer, Call of Cthulhu and NEphilim are all BRP based, but they are not RuneQuest.

If you look at RQ and at MRQ, there is very little that is the same with both systems. Skill resolution is differenrt, combat is diffient, hit pointsare handeled sdifferently, Strike Ranks have been replaced with an initiative system, mutiple actions based upon DEX, the spells have be rewritten.

Quite frankly there is very little in common between RQ and MRQ. The stats have the same names, skills are rated on an open D100 scale, characters have hit points in each location, and the name on the cover.

I can as much in common between RQ an HARN or FASA Trek than with MRQ. THose games are not RQ either.

I wish at least one of the people who keep claiming that MRQ is RQ would tell me why the think that is the case.
 
towerwarlock said:
Although I have yet to receive my copy (It arrives Tuesday), I have had a chance to read through the main rulebook. It has fixed alot of what I thought was wrong with RQ3.

Don't take this a an hostile post. I am just curious. What are the things that you though were wrong with RuneQuest thst MRQ fixes? I'm just trying to see the opposing point of view on this.

Thanks.
 
First off I do not know that any of the problems or changes are going to guarantee the success or failure of MRQ financially or artisticly. Indeed it could be a huge financial success and be a miserable artistic failure, or vice versa.

To answer the above question though, I think the short and long answer is: the game.

Short answer: Folks do have preconceived notions of what RQ was but would easily accept changes that were made in the spirit of the original game. I am not sure that any of the changes made, A) make improvements on the previous system or B) were something a reasonable person could not have come up with on their own IF the changes were necessary to improve the game.

Long answer: It is a bit more complex of an issue IMO. First, I do not think MRQ improves the original RQ editions in any way. However, making "improvements" would have been very difficult to do not because RQ was perfect (it wasn't) but because it was and is emminently playable and most folks who are previous players I think wanted small changes, not sweeping ones. MRQ would have been besty served by divorcing itself almost entirely from the old system and HeroQuest's system and just gone in a new direction, trying to keep the spirit of the game.
Either way some previous players are still going to complain. Well there are plenty of folks who do not even acknowledge D&D3.X and thats their right. Game still sells pretty well.

Second, the editing is attrocious. I expect better and frankly some of the organizations I am a part of and volunteer my time for expect better. I could never put out a module with that kind of poor editing and expect to hear good things about my work. Again though, this is not an atypical buggaboo and Mongoose is not the only company big or small who falls victim to it.

Ultimately, for me its a failure of sophistication. RPGs have been around for over three decades now. The hobby is a mix of new and old gamers, wargamers, and card players. The audience is fairly sophisticated in some ways, not so in others. With the influence of the Indie RPG movement, the Scandanavian rpg movement (does it have a name? I dunno but I know its there), the influence of the sort of grungy pacific coast game companies, etc etc... I do not think it is unreasonable to expect a slick and sophisticated game from a company that obviously has some talent and imagination.

For me, RQ was always the Mac to D&D's Windows. Both are good, but D&D had a more mass market appeal and RQ seemed, not saying it was but it seemed, to have a more old world, sophisticated feel to it. So in comes Mongoose, a prolific D20 publisher. Instead of branching out, trying a new path, they have put RQ on the RPG assembly line. No longer is it hand made, but now its die cast and the parts are pre-assembled. In effect your RQMac can now run D&DWindows. I do not think that RQ ever had or ever will have the mass market appeal of a D&D and I do not think that is a bad thing. To attempt to do so is I think doomed to critical and financial failure. The attempt so far has produced, IMO from what I have seen, a confused and unsatisfactory system.

If Mongoose can make a go of this product line, enough that it continues then more power too them. I for one am looking forward to the setting material for Glorantha. The game system though does not seem at all new to me and ultimately thats what matters. The system is just not good, not compared to RQ but to any RPG and thus it does not matter what its called, it would still sit on a shelf if I were to come across it. Slapping the RQ tag on it though just seems to make that failure more spectacular.

Sean
 
I agree with the newbie. I wanted/expected a "tweaked" RQ system, not something as radically differenrt as MRQ. Tweak the db to something like the one in SPQR, toss in the SPQR skill categories, tweak the sorcery and perhaps the fatigue rules. Toss in a 1/2 or less skill result category. Put in maneuvering. That's what I was looking towards.
 
Rurik said:
Pendragon is not a BRP. You are the first person I know who has ever claimed it was.

If you read my post you will realize that I didnt say its BRP. I said its a valid variant of BRP and this is for sure for me. If you dont think this because of some reason its ok for me because you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.
 
Enpeze said:
Rurik said:
Pendragon is not a BRP. You are the first person I know who has ever claimed it was.

If you read my post you will realize that I didnt say its BRP. I said its a valid variant of BRP and this is for sure for me. If you dont think this because of some reason its ok for me because you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

Sorry, but no. You claimed that MRQ was a valid variant of BRP, and that Pendragon is counted as BRP.


If you meant that Pendragon is a valid variant of BRP, I don't think either Rurik or myself would disagree with you.

Personally, I might accept MRQ as a variant of BRP, but not as RQ.


I guess that the name is certainly problematic, since a good pencetage of the posters consider that the big issue. I was expecting an Aston MArtin, and got a Ford Escort. THe escort may sell better, and they both have engines and wheels, but they don't ride the same way.
 
haargald said:
I have a followup question for you and anyone else: What do you think of the quality of the product Mongoose is selling?
I haven't received my mail order of the Core rules, but I did finally see them in my FLGS, and I will comment that page margins were surprisingly large -- it reminded me of my school days and stretching a paper for length by increasing the margins. I also saw the GameMasters screen, which is hard to describe, but I think the best word is *chunky*.

Enpeze said:
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?
I think a few of your assumptions are still not accepted by the RQ community.

I am not sure this really is a variant of BRP. Instead of adding rules like previous BRP derivatives, it more messes with the core rules. And, if you ask Mongoose's lawyers, I doubt that they would say MQ is a direct BRP derivative.

There have been several different types of games set in Glorantha, most notably Hero Wars and later HeroQuest, which were both RPGs not named RuneQuest.

Why name it RuneQuest? To drive additional sales. I suspect I may not have been the only person to pre-order that game based on the name alone. If it had been named SwordQuest, I may have held off purchasing the Core Rules until I had picked up the the Glorantha books (especially after having visited this forum).

I was expecting something along the lines of the scale of differences between RQ2-RQ3. Again, my copy hasn't arrived, but people are reporting that while MQ has similarities on the surface, it's a signifcantly changed game, and it may not be easiliy compatable with previous Chaosion and AH products.
 
Urox said:
I think a few of your assumptions are still not accepted by the RQ community ... I am not sure this really is a variant of BRP.

I would warn you against blanket statements of that nature. I consider myself part of the the "RQ community", as does the other GM in my group (he more so than I; I joined the "RQ community" with RQ3 and was never really a Gloranthaphile while he's been doing RQ since RQ1, and knows Glorantha inside and out), and we both consider MRQ to be a variant of BRP.

I realize that's subjective, though, and I'm not posting to debate whether or not MRQ is a BRP derivative. I'm just saying that you shouldn't assume the entire "RQ community" agrees with your premise, that's all.
 
iamtim said:
I'm just saying that you shouldn't assume the entire "RQ community" agrees with your premise, that's all.
Wow... that's some unusual logic. But, you may be correct, the RQ Community may not agree that they may not agree with you...

That reminds of me the argument:

There is no truth. Wait, but if that's true, then it can't be true... *head expodes*
 
Urox said:
Wow... that's some unusual logic.

Heh, all right, all right. I wasn't fully awake when I wrote that. What I should have said was, "you shouldn't assume that the entire RQ community agrees that MRQ is not a variant of BRP."
 
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?
 
iamtim said:
I would warn you against blanket statements of that nature.

That would be fine if it worked for both sides.

The pro camp have made blanket statments about MRQ "obviously" being RQ despite that fact that some members of the RQ community disagree.

If Urox can't speak for the entire RQ community, netiher can you guys.
 
Back
Top