MRQ review in Roolipelaaja (Roleplayer) magazine, Finland

[Adept]

The latest issue of Roolipelaaja was delivered today, and has a two page review of the new RuneQuest. The review isn't all that positive, I have to say.

For score MRQ get's 4/5 stars for production values, 2,5/5 stars for content and 3/5 stars overall.

The reviewer says he has a lot of fond memories about Rune Quest and Call of Cthulhu, but is not impressed with this new release.

The major complaints:

- The book reads like there had been no developments in roleplaying games since 1978. The basic mechanisms haven't really changed, and most of the work has been put into the combat engine, that is very complex. The game doesn't give any mechanics or help into defining the characters personality or history. This makes character creation feeling very mechanical and impersonal.

- He talks about a half-assed attempt at making RQ a generic system, instead of focusing on Glorantha. Much of the material isn't useful for generic fantasy, and has a Gloratha'n feel (prices on slaves, rune magic...) and without the companion volume the game is really limited. There are no rules for anything else than human characters. The claim that this book gives everything needed for running a RQ game seems bitterly ironic to the reviewer.

- The reviewer isn't very understanding for the obsession about starting from the bottom, with characters that are leaving their home village for the first time (I must say I'm with him there. Blech!). He also comments that the very deadly combat engine makes it extremely unlikely that anybody would actually make it from a beginning character to a rune lord, especially with all his/her limbs.

- The reviewer likes the rune magic, but thinks the magic system seems only half developed. For some runes there is only one magic spell given.

***

Overall the book, according to the reviewer, leaves one feeling that it's only half a book, and that the companion will propably be an absolutely essential part. He is also rather hopeful about the upcoming Glorantha 2nd Age book, and thinks that all three books together could actually make a pretty good package.

The reviewer feels somewhat cheated and underwhelmed by the basic book, and thinks Mongoose should have focused on Glorantha (and a properly self-contained core book), since the prospects of challenging D&D with this book are not good.

 

[SteveMND]

The reviewer feels somewhat cheated and underwhelmed by the basic book, and thinks Mongoose should have focused on Glorantha (and a properly self-contained core book), since the prospects of challenging D&D with this book are not good.

You know, especially in looking over the last few day's worth of posts, I'm starting to wonder if Mongoose using the name 'RuneQuest' was really a beneficial thing for them.

I'm sure they were quite pleased to get rights to the name, but with that name came 30-odd years of history and expectations from people.

I wonder if some of the negative response would have been the same if they had instead, say, came out with a new OGL game system called "Age of Bronze" or whatever, and then developed Glorantha Second Age material for that? Heck, they could have then called their new setting material "RuneQuest: The Second Age."

It appears that clearly, many people still associate the name 'RuneQuest' with 'Glorantha' more so than the mechanics of the system, and so when something called 'RuneQuest' comes out and does not focus on Gloarantha, they feel slighted.

On the other hand, many of us that associate the name with the mechanics find that the system now graced with the name of RuneQuest is wildly different from the previous incarnations of the name, and so we feel slighted also.

Not good for Mongoose, methinks.

 

[iamtim]

In an RPGnet thread, Matt stated that they knew they were going to have problems with what they called the "Old Guard"; long-time fans of Glorantha and the three original RQ releases. He said this release wasn't really "for" them, but to capture new RQ fans and expose new people to RQ and Glorantha.

And if you think back, lots of the "Old Guard" didn't like RQ3 for very similar reasons. But I came on board with RQ3 and never associated it as closely with Glorantha as the "Older Guard" did.

So I dunno. I think it's good. I think it's great, actually, and I think as the game gets more and more out there, you'll see more and more people playing it and liking it. But now, most of the people who are interested in it are "Old Guard" or people who knew about RQ from back in the day. I doubt very many d20 fanboys were aching to get into the playtest, sucking up each bit of pre-release RQ info, or waiting outside their LGS on Tuesday to buy a copy.

Give it time.

 

[Urox]

In an RPGnet thread, Matt stated that they knew they were going to have problems with what they called the "Old Guard"; long-time fans of Glorantha and the three original RQ releases. He said this release wasn't really "for" them, but to capture new RQ fans and expose new people to RQ and Glorantha.

What I fail to understand is why a good design can't accomplish both...

 

[iamtim]

What I fail to understand is why a good design can't accomplish both...

Oh, come on.

I think RQ3 was one of the best designed systems ever. I loved RQ3. But so many of the "Old Guard" hated RQ3 because it divorced itself from Glorantha. Or because skill increases were different. Or because Sorcery was added and Spirit Magic was changed.

How many of the AD&D "Old Guard" *hated* 3.0/3.5?

Whenever you make changes to something that a certain group of people hold dear, you are NEVER going to make everyone happy. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Adept]

I forgot something.

The writer of the review felt that the "epic abilities" felt like they had been glued on, and wondered how well this RQ was going to deal with the more epic aspects of Glorantha. The contrast with characters made with the MRP core-book and the hints at powerful magicians and heroquesters (for Glorantha) seemed pretty much at odds.

I don't know the reviewer personally, but he wasn't supposed to write from the perspective of a RQ-2 enthusiast, and I don't think he was one. Rather he seemed like a person that thinks RPG's have evolved a lot since 1978, and wasn't seeing much evidence of that in the book. That sounds like the problem (for him) isn't one of "old guard stick-in-the-mud", but rather that the system is just a re-hash of old RQ instead of something properly updated for the modern era.

 

[Enpeze]

In an RPGnet thread, Matt stated that they knew they were going to have problems with what they called the "Old Guard"; long-time fans of Glorantha and the three original RQ releases. He said this release wasn't really "for" them, but to capture new RQ fans and expose new people to RQ and Glorantha.

What I fail to understand is why a good design can't accomplish both...

Its contradictionary to please both. New players have other ideas (sometimes very innovative) than old ones. The so called "old guard" likes their play and thats it. They dont like to play other things and will always criticise an effort to change and rejuvenate something.

Eg.: The credo of many of them is "RQ is for Glorantha". But they forget that the system is powerful enough to be the perfect game engine for every other realistic roleplaying setting out there. (like horror, modern and SF)

Younger players do also like "their" game and avoid to play other systems (like the d20 crowd out there) but this is, because they are not experienced enough to have a valid choice. With MRQ which is made by their trusted d20 company Mongoose, many of them will try this game and will "convert" to RQ. Which leads to the infusion of fresh blood in our small and crusty RQ/BRP universe.

Personally I am glad that Mongoose is not aiming for the "old guard" (by avoiding innovation) just to please some very vocal elements of them.

 

[SteveMND]

He said this release wasn't really "for" them, but to capture new RQ fans and expose new people to RQ and Glorantha.

I can appreciate the fact that they wanted to create a new game, and that's fine. But you can't tag an established name onto something with 30+ year's worth of "old guard" fans and then not expect them to judge it by that name's predecessors.

They dont like to play other things and will always criticise an effort to change and rejuvenate something.

I think that's a bit disingenuous. I'd prefer to say, "If something ain't broke, don't fix it."

In another thread, somebody effectively waved his hands at the potential problems we have in MRQ, saying that the important thing was that RQ was back in print and supported again.

While that's surely nice, I always felt the important thing was that the game was good not that it was on shelves. You can have a thousand books on the shelf, but if none of them are worth buying, what point is it?

 

[iamtim]

In another thread, somebody effectively waved his hands at the potential problems we have in MRQ, saying that the important thing was that RQ was back in print and supported again.

That was me (well, at least one of the people was me, I've seen that sentiment echoed elsewhere across the board) and I said it because I think MRQ is a good product and the "problems" people have with it are completely overhyped and sometimes mis-founded.

But that's just my POV, and I'm not looking to start another debate. People are going to get out of MRQ what they put into it. If you think it's a bad product, it's going to be a bad product no matter what people tell you. If you think it's a good product, the reverse will be true.

*shrug*

 

[andakitty]

I think this reviewer hit the nail on the head with several points.

Some of us wanted a simple, playable game without Glorantha, though. An alternative to D20, hopefully. So in spirit, the game was right on. In implementation it lost its way, somewhat.

I am increasingly reminded of the old Indian fable about the elephant and seven blind men. Everyone was projecting their own vision on what this game was going to be, and it seems to be what no one was hoping for. But almost for many.

 

[iamtim]

it seems to be what no one was hoping for

Speak fer yerself there, kittykat.

It's exactly what I was lookin' fer. I think it's great. And it's open, so I can do whatever I want to do with it.

The only problem I have with it is it didn't get here sooner.

 

[Rurik]

it seems to be what no one was hoping for

Speak fer yerself there, kittykat.

It's exactly what I was lookin' fer. I think it's great. And it's open, so I can do whatever I want to do with it.

The only problem I have with it is it didn't get here sooner.

Kitty's spot on the volleyball team has been taken by tim.

 

[andakitty]

I am glad that is so, iamtim.

Rurik, you do know what you can do with your 'spot on the volleyball team'? :wink:

 

[Rurik]

I am glad that is so, iamtim.

Rurik, you do know what you can do with your 'spot on the volleyball team'? :wink:

I am going to start charting goodkitty/badkitty days on a calender and see if I can learn something :wink:

 

[Melkor]

After having finished reading the MRQ rulebook last night, I didn't get the feeling that the book seemed like it was written as if there had not been any advancements made in game design between 1978 and 2006....far from it.

I never actually played RQ2, but was introduced to Glorantha through RQ3 and a gamemaster who knew the setting like he actually lived there.

I have always liked BRP, but had some issues with the system. MRQ actually fixed every single issue I had noted down about BRP & RQ3 that I didn't like, so while the flavor may have changed (not being a huge Gloranthaphile, I can't speak much to that), I do think that some of the changes made to the system were a DIRECT result of some of the innovations in game design that have cropped up since the early days of RQ and Runequest.

I also think that MRQ did a great job of keeping some of the conventions that make Runequest old school, while integrating that innovation.

Just my two cents - I may not have the knowledge of RQ and Glorantha that some of you do, but I do have 20+ years of roleplaying under my belt, and have also read the MRQ book cover-to-cover....the actual play will come as soon as my groups GM get's a campaign put together.

 

[Enpeze]

He said this release wasn't really "for" them, but to capture new RQ fans and expose new people to RQ and Glorantha.

I can appreciate the fact that they wanted to create a new game, and that's fine. But you can't tag an established name onto something with 30+ year's worth of "old guard" fans and then not expect them to judge it by that name's predecessors.

Of course you can. It is done every day by many companies in our economy. Its called marketing.


It has the potential to be very successful and this means that a lot of material is coming out. Which means that we have much more choice which setting we want to play in the future.

Of course for all these "old guarders" which like only to play their Glorantha setting and nothing more, this is not that important. But they are like Matt said "not the target audience" which is a good thing.

In another thread, somebody effectively waved his hands at the potential problems we have in MRQ, saying that the important thing was that RQ was back in print and supported again.

Yes, I absolutely agree with this guy.

While that's surely nice, I always felt the important thing was that the game was good not that it was on shelves.

MRQ will not be that bad, because its parent is RQ and BRP. Maybe Mongoose has a different (and more modern) vision for some things than the original but this makes the game not "bad".

You can have a thousand books on the shelf, but if none of them are worth buying, what point is it?

What I have seen from the preview the source material seems to be quite good. And this is more than I can say from some older RQ material. Additionally Mongoose has made an excellent line of books with Conan and B5. So it seems that they have talented writers.

 

[Urox]

I have always liked BRP, but had some issues with the system. MRQ actually fixed every single issue I had noted down about BRP & RQ3 that I didn't like

Could you elaborate more? What changes from BRP have been improved for you?

 

[Mikko Leho]

After having finished reading the MRQ rulebook last night, I didn't get the feeling that the book seemed like it was written as if there had not been any advancements made in game design between 1978 and 2006....far from it.

Maybe I can clarify: the review noted that there are no mechanics for character personality or creative storytelling. The reviewer also states that he doesn't consider writing character's personality traits to the back of character sheet very modern. Apparently character creation is very fluid process but there is very little creativity needed.

 

[Rurik]

After having finished reading the MRQ rulebook last night, I didn't get the feeling that the book seemed like it was written as if there had not been any advancements made in game design between 1978 and 2006....far from it.

Maybe I can clarify: the review noted that there are no mechanics for character personality or creative storytelling. The reviewer also states that he doesn't consider writing character's personality traits to the back of character sheet very modern. Apparently character creation is very fluid process but there is very little creativity needed.

Good. This is RuneQuest, that is HeroQuest. Some of us want the rule system to dictate how game world interactions are resolved and leave the role playing up to the players and story telling to the GM.

Some games write rules to "make" people role play - and for some play groups that is good. Runequest has always been about gritty, visceral, combat and straight forward mechanics. There is a perfectly good game in the "Narrative" style set in Glorantha still available.

 

[SteveMND]

Of course you can. It is done every day by many companies in our economy. Its called marketing.

Well, I didn't want to come right out and say that, as I have been trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. If you name something RQ and then say that you weren't trying to aim the product at those people that have been associating with that name for the last 30 years, that's pretty disingenuous.

Maybe Mongoose has a different (and more modern) vision for some things than the original but this makes the game not "bad".

I've seen a lot of references to 'modernizing' RQ and such, but honestly, just because something is 'modern,' does not necessarily make it better.

I didn't get the feeling that the book seemed like it was written as if there had not been any advancements made in game design between 1978 and 2006....far from it.

Seriously, what sort of 'advancements' have been made over the last 30 years? What are these new, revolutionary 'modern' innovations that are so much better?

(Sheesh, now I feel like I need to have a sit-down on the porch and shake my cane at passerbys...)

Seriously, most of the stuff I've seen done in games over the last five years or so to make them more 'modern' has essentially just been new ways of dumbing down the game. I think at this rate, in another 5 years, the New Amalgamated Universal Game System that dominates the market will consist solely of a d6 and a card that reads "Roll 1d6. A score of 1-3 means you lose. A roll of 4-6 means you win. Your GM may apply a +/-2 modifier to the roll depending on the situation."