MRQ review in Roolipelaaja (Roleplayer) magazine, Finland

[iamtim]

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."

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAH!

I totally agree.

Very funny.

 

[Mac V]

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.

TOO TRUE!!! I was reading an OLD Dragon mag the other night. The article was talking about why they were producing a new box set (the red one, I think) to make it easier to learn. The article went on to explain that up to that point you needed someone to teach you how to play D&D. I remember racking my brain in grade school trying to figure it out. What a change!

 

[iamtim]

The article went on to explain that up to that point you needed someone to teach you how to play D&D. I remember racking my brain in grade school trying to figure it out. What a change!

When I first learned D&D (via the Erol Otus decorated D&D Basic Set), I didn't realize the difference between Hit POINTS and Hit DICE. My buddy cleared out the "killer dungeon" I had created in about an hour because the monster descriptions said things like, "HD: 1"; everytime he'd hit a monster, it'd die!

I remember wondering why they'd put, "HD: 1+1" instead of just "HD: 2". Heh.

 

[atgxtg]

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.

If the "old guard" were not the "target audience" then why did all of Mongooses ad's target them? I wrote several pists in a nother thread about how all the ad's drop names like Greg Stafford and Steve Perrin and a return on the "classic" game system.

THe only people theymarketing did target were the old guard. I think MRQ is going to have problems finding thier market by adverstising to the old gauard. If they want to attract new RQ fans, they needed to target them with thier ads.

Instead they target the people whp would automatically pre-order and buy a RQ product becuase we saw Steve Perrin's name attached to it. I feel like I was scammed. I was promoised a new edtion of RQ designed "under the watchful eyes" of Steve Perrin, and I got something else.

If the ads had been more honest about the game development, and that MRQ was believe devopled by a new group of people, I wouldn't have preordered it. I think a lot of people who preordered it feel the same way.

I believe the quick sales of the core book to the old guard is not going to be worth the animosity that will be generated. I think the marketing stragety is going to result in a backlash.

 

[Urox]

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.

Probably the best way to describe Mongoose's is 'opportunisic' (which has both good and bad connotations).

They saw an established product line (Glorantha) that had gone into lapse, and picked it up. Along with this there was the serendipity of the RQ trademark being available, so they grabbed them up to create a new product line.

And, instead of just making a Glorantha-specific rpg, they decided to make an open system and leverage it for other settings as well.

Finally, they have made the choice to break the rules across several books, which has the effect of creating lower individual price-points, but a higher total cost.

I think it's pretty evident that the majority of Mongoose's RuneQuest decisions have been made with the bottom line a priority. Again, this is not a problem in itself, but can be a problem if the product suffers from decisions made this way.

I think there are some legitimate gripes about the way Mongoose has handled RuneQuest, especially given the marketing (RQ is back!) compared with various statements from Mongoose staffers saying they were aware that the "old guard" may be unhappy.

To this end, people are reporting what appears to be an okay game, but with an weird vibe -- I expect this is a combination of new players not understanding the weird Gloranthan mechanics that are there, as well as veteran RQers not quite understanding the changes and omissions. And the poor editing doesn't help)

I guess time will tell if MQ is Chocolate + Peanut Butter, or Chocolate + Ketchup...

 

[Rurik]

I wrote several pists in a nother thread

Are those the the posts you piss an moan in?

 

[iamtim]

If the "old guard" were not the "target audience" then why did all of Mongooses ad's target them?

Oh, come on. They didn't specifically target anyone with their ads, they just used creative marketing.

I love the Ford Mustang. I currently have a '96, and before that I had an '81. I never had a "classic" Mustang. Yet their new Mustangs are marketed as having that "classic" feel with "classic" lines. Was Ford trying to target people who owned pre-'79 Mustangs? I doubt it. Don't you think that if they had one of the designers of pre-'79 'Stangs on board for this car they'd have advertised that? 'Course they would. Would that all of a sudden change their advertising target to pre-'79 'Stang owners? Nope.

Classic is "in'. Look at the classic games that have be re-worked in the last few years. Warhammer Fantasy Role Play. Castles & Crusades. RuneQuest. They're all trying to capture new gamers with that "classic" feel.

 

[Urox]

I love the Ford Mustang. I currently have a '96, and before that I had an '81. I never had a "classic" Mustang. Yet their new Mustangs are marketed as having that "classic" feel with "classic" lines. Was Ford trying to target people who owned pre-'79 Mustangs? I doubt it. Don't you think that if they had one of the designers of pre-'79 'Stangs on board for this car they'd have advertised that? 'Course they would. Would that all of a sudden change their advertising target to pre-'79 'Stang owners?

Weirdness. The other day, when my wife asked me what was up with RuneQuest and why some people were concerned, I gave her the analogy of the classic Mustang vs. ones that were introduced in the mid-70s. She, not knowing much about cars, responded with "like New Coke vs Coke Classic?"

 

[iamtim]

"like New Coke vs Coke Classic?"

Heh.

Yeah, it's the same. But different.

 

[Rurik]

"like New Coke vs Coke Classic?"

Heh.

Yeah, it's the same. But different.

That anaolgy does not bode well for MRQ.

 

[andakitty]

No, indeed it does not.

iamtim, I started playing rpgs in college, and have to admit we couldn't figure out the D&D rules. We wound up replacing the combat and magic rules with Microgames Melee and Wizard. We picked up the concept quickly but had a hell of a time understanding the then specifics of D&D.

 

[Melkor]

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?

This is all personal opinion.

A couple off the top of my head (I made a list the last time I played RQ3, but don't have it with me):

No 'random element' involved with determining Initiative Order. I really liked that MRQ added a random roll to Strike Ranks.

Arbitrary starting skills that had nothing to do (in most cases) with a character's attributes...This one bugged me quite a bit, so I was really glad to see attributes become a staple of your character's base skills in MRQ.

 

[Melkor]

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.

That makes sense.

In playing Riddle of Steel with social mechanics, and reading through games like Burning Wheel and Exalted 2E, I'm still undecided on whether I actually like 'social interaction' mechanics or game rules for 'creative storytelling'.

In my opinion, I don't think social mechanics are necessarily an 'improvement' or an 'innovation' in modern game design....and I find there inclusion in recent games something I haven't quite subscribed to yet.

I also think that the notion that these elements are now required for a game to be considered 'complete' or 'modern' is kind of crappy. Just because a game doesn't contain those elements, it doesn't mean that it hasn't taken into account some of the innovation in game design over the last twenty years.

Some of us (raises hand) still like our games without that kind of stuff. I have no problem coming up with a character concept, background, relationships, and lifepath without needing to do so....and I've been doing it since the days of AD&D....However, I do understand that some people like having mechanics to help them with that kind of stuff.

That said, this post isn't directed at you...I'm speaking to that 'school of thought' based on what you mentioned of the review.

Cheers.

 

[Urox]

No 'random element' involved with determining Initiative Order. I really liked that MRQ added a random roll to Strike Ranks.

This is a great example of where the MQ rules could be much better.

I much prefer fixed SRs -- it's makes those spear-wielding trollkin feared.

But, given good modern design principles, why not created a fixed SR system, and then have a sidebox with an optional rule that allows a dice-roll to modify SR?

 

[Melkor]

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...)

SteveMND -

I think you are misunderstanding what I am getting at, and you and I are on actually on the same page. I'm not saying that a lot of what has happened in the last decade in game design is 'revolutionary' or 'better'. In fact, I like my games as close to how I played them 20+ years ago as I can get them.

My opinion is that a lot of people feel that unless an RPG has certain 'new' and 'shiny' game concepts that have become 'golden darlings' in certain gaming circles (like social interaction mechanics and spiritual attributes which can be 'tapped' through roleplay and turned into mechanical bonuses), then the game is outdated, or has been 'left behind'.

I don't agree with that at all....and I like my games where a lot of the roleplaying is left off of the character sheet.

When I say:

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 meant that there are some things I think MRQ has taken and improved....namely, a couple of things that bothered me about BRQ that I mentioned in a previous post:

• Adding a random element to initiative determination with the die roll + Strike Rank.

• Having a character's attributes determine his basic starting skills instead of an arbitrary base number.

I hope that clarifies what I was trying to get at with my other post.

 

[Rurik]

No 'random element' involved with determining Initiative Order. I really liked that MRQ added a random roll to Strike Ranks.

This is a great example of where the MQ rules could be much better.

I much prefer fixed SRs -- it's makes those spear-wielding trollkin feared.

But, given good modern design principles, why not created a fixed SR system, and then have a sidebox with an optional rule that allows a dice-roll to modify SR?

I don't mind adding randomness to strike rank (though it increases book keeping), but I do not like the (apparent last minute) complete removal from reach as a consideration.

 

[Harshax]

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.

I'm very surprised that MRQ get's that high of a value for production. I don't care for the large margins, grey borders, and pencil drawings. I would have prefered less images of pen & ink quality, no borders, smaller margins, and slightly denser text. Granted my criticism bleeds into content, so your mileage may vary.

That said, what I think I've been given, is a lite rulebook that attempts to mimic the production style of larger, glossier, rule volumes.

For a "core rulebook", I think MRQ fails. It isn't nearly the type of volume that one would use as a primary reference, which to me, epitomizes the term "core rulebook."

Some of the new mechanics are ok, but my reaction is not positive. I really don't think I'll invest in any other MRQ material. If after the rush of small volume publishing is over, Mongoose decides to produce a larger compilation, I may reconsider.

 

[MongooseMatt]

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

Quite simply because to accomplish this, we would have to tailor rules for every gamer out there. Everyone has their own opinions on how a game should be, and opinions are even more entrenched with RuneQuest, for obvious reasons.

There will come a day when this is possible - we haven't reached it yet.

 

[andakitty]

That's OK. You might have noticed most of us are fully capable of tailoring rules...in fact that's most of what some of us do.

 

[Adept]

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...)

*smile* good point about the cane there.

But seriously? There are nice mechanics for defining a character beyond skills, and there's no reason why those shouldn't work for RQ. What they are called depends on the system. Advantages / Disadvantages (and Quirks) in GURPS, Qualities and Drawbacks for Unisystem, and so on.

A character could have things like.

Brave +2 Recurring nightmares
Good memory Sense of Duty: protect the children

Or something like that. Things that help define the character beyond stats and skills with easy-to-use mechanics.

That is something that has appeared in the last thirty years, and one I wouldn't like to do without.