Playtesting?

Urox

Mongoose
Since a MQ author got all bent out of shape about my post, I will rephrase it more to his liking (directly tied to the topic of playting).

After seeing the snippets have have been coming through, I am really wondering how much MQ has been playtested (i.e. played a reasonable amount prior to release) by any old school RQ players, and how they feel about the changes -- since I haven't read the full rules (let alone played) there might be some really good improvements in these changes that aren't initially appearant.

There are a couple of changes that I really question, such as the change from skill-use experience checks to awarded checks. (Maybe done to avoid a lawsuit for beeing too derivative of BRP?)

One of the great legendary RQ documents is Jeff Okomoto's RQ3 log which details a year-long playtest of the RQ3 rules (as well as a lot of the details on Pamaltela). It's a pretty long read, but very interesting.

Did MQ have an equivalent house campaign to flesh out the rules and Second Age? And if so, did anyone do a write-up?

One of the things that I wonder about is how the line is broken up -- were the parts playtested together (i.e. a playtest compaign set in the Second Age using all the rules, including the companion, magic and cults books) or were the books unit tested in a more isolated environment?
 
I mulled long and hard about posting this. I dislike the idea of doing so because I'm never one for knee-jerk defence. I mean, hell, I've got criticisms of the new RQ as well, even if I love the system overall. But nothing is perfect.

The thing is, declarative statements like these:

Urox said:
There are a couple of things that should have never gone through, such as the change from skill-use experience checks to awarded checks.

...are simply your opinion. Now, while some folks might think it's a good opinion, some won't, and the majority simply won't be affected by this change in any appreciable way at all. New players, likely to make up a sizeable chunk of the readership, won't even know there was a change, or care overmuch if they do. In short, something to you that "should never have gone through" will be little or nothing of an issue to most people. You speak with a gravity the situation doesn't merit.

The game was redesigned by people with their own opinions; clearly ones that in some areas don't align with yours. Or mine, in some areas. Here's the problem with declarative statements like the one you made. The people who did the redesign will be instantly less keen to debate the whys and the wherefores if they see statements from people who seem to suggest that they know how things should be better than the designers do. It smells like immediate and unwavering conviction that will never be altered. People are reluctant to respond to that.

Opinions are one thing, but out and out saying things "should never have gone through" just gets people's backs up. Not because people are oversensitive or reluctant to deal with criticism. Criticism can be valuable as all hell. But the rigid nature of your statement insinuates errors were made, or incompetence, rather than a design decision that you, as a random gamer on the internet, don't much like. I, as another random gamer, do like most of the changes.

There was extensive playtesting. That's common knowledge, and many of the playtesters have ventured their opinions on the process on various internet sites. Many of these were RQ vets and long-time fans. Many were completely new to the game.

Ultimately, the changes made were based on design decisions and the feedback of the many playtesters. I get that you're critical, but you seem to think your doubts reveal a wider strain of laxity behind the creation process. Mightn't it be a case of the designers choosing to change things, along with player feedback, rather than simply:

Urox said:
...wondering if MQ has been playtested by old school RQ players.

Doesn't it seem likely that a lot of RuneQuest fans would've wanted to be part of the MRQ redesign playtest? If you were being paid to redesign the game, wouldn't you have read as much of the source material of previous editions as possible? Aren't the changes being intentional a more likely scenario than the picture of ignorant game design you paint purely because you don't like a few of the changes you've seen?
 

Itto

Mongoose
Urox said:
After seeing all of the snippets have have been coming through, I am really wondering if MQ has been playtested by old school RQ players.

Snippets 'aint the game. It sounds like some folks are making decisions and forming opinions based on hear say and fragments of rules. Wait until you get the game, read the rules and give it a play. Some things are different, but when you get a crit with a great axe you know you are going to roll left leg :? Just like the old days! Stuff works well but it is different, which is good, I have RQ2, RQ3 a couple of versions of Cthulhu and Stormbringer I know my book cases are happier knowing they have a new set of rules :)

I just can't wait to get hold of the companion and see the rest of the magic and I'm not trying to think of the Gloranthan books, I think that I'll just pop. I picked up The Middle Sea Empire, Gregs unfinished work on the Godlearners at Continuum, which he put togther for the Mongoose chaps to help them write the Second Age stuff, lots of cool stuff. And the stuff that Dead Blue Clown has posted... just great ...
 

Urox

Mongoose
Dead Blue Clown said:
If you were being paid to redesign the game, wouldn't you have read as much of the source material of previous editions as possible?
I think you missed my point. Reading old material is not the same as having played with it extensively. And yes, I am very aware that the opposite is just as true.

I was just asking if anyone with vintage RQ experience had opinions on the changes from their experience playing MQ.
 
Urox said:
I was just asking if anyone with vintage RQ experience had opinions on the changes from their experience playing MQ.

Well, no, you weren't asking that. That's obvious to anyone reading this, trust me. You asked these questions and made these suppositions:

Urox said:
After seeing all of the snippets have have been coming through, I am really wondering if MQ has been playtested by old school RQ players.

Emphasis mine. Playtesting and playing aren't the same thing. One is part of the offical design process, the other is just using the game. Now, your retraction makes me think you're trying to state that you meant "playing" but since it's followed by rules complaints and further 'playtesting' doubts, it pretty much looks like you did mean "playtesting" as you typed it, and are gunning for a quick retraction.

In regards to the research into previous editions, you said:

Urox said:
Did MQ have an equivalent house campaign to flesh out the Second Age book? And if so, did anyone do a write-up?

That's also not "just asking what RQ vets think of the changes." It's either honest curiosity about the design process, or subtly casting aspersions on how you think the design process went and whether they did as much research you think they should've done.

I All User Posts searched your handle a few minutes ago. I think the latter is more likely given the overwhelming negativity in most of your posts. Saying something sucks is our internet-given right. But don't try for retractions when someone has valid answers to the criticisms - that way lies credibility loss.

Urox said:
There are a couple of things that should have never gone through, such as the change from skill-use experience checks to awarded checks. Hrm... were they forced to change some of the perfectly good mechanics in MQ to avoid a lawsuit?

And that was your next question. This also bears no relation to just asking the opinions of other RQ players.

Urox said:
One of the things that concerns me is how the product is broken up -- will be we seeing a well-playtested homogenous system and world, or a bunch of heterogenus parts cobbled together?

And that's the last one. Again, questioning the playtesting process and the release schedule, not asking individual players for their opinions.

You confuse me, man. Just say you think the system sucks and list your opinions. Why all the snide condescension?

I wash my hands of this. I've read your posts. I doubt there's much we have to say to each other and neither will make headway in convincing the other. Criticism, discussion on what should be different? I'm down with that. I've got my own complaints. But over 100 posts of constant criticism, complaints, passive-aggressive insults and casting aspersions on the design process purely because the rules aren't the way you'd have done them? It looks like you've got a serious grudge coming on.

Nah. Too busy for this. Enjoy venting spleen.
 

andakitty

Mongoose
I just want to make one additional point here. That is that as much as I love most of the BRP variants and as much as I have used them (I am definitely 'vintage', having started with RQ in 1979) I have not seen one version yet that I have been 100% happy with. MRQ is no different (it is not a BRP variant but is similar enoughto be a relative), but that doesn't mean it's not going to be as much fun as any of the stuff that Chaosium has done. I think that, considering the way the changes have been made, they do indeed indicate RQ/SB/CoC veterans. Why? Because I am and many of the changes I see are changes I have made in my own BRP homebrews. It takes one to know one, and although I could be wrong I really don't think I am. I see influences from other sources too, like WFRP and D20. That is not necessarily a bad thing, IMO. Why not concentrate on the good parts here and give the game an even break?
 

Urox

Mongoose
Dead Blue Clown said:
It's either honest curiosity about the design process, or subtly casting aspersions on how you think the design process went and whether they did as much research you think they should've done.
Or a combination of all of the above along with other factors as well. I will edit my original post to be more concise and to appear less snide.

I am sorry that you take questions and critisms of the game and design so personally, and I am also sorry that you feel the need to attack me personally, but as you implied, that is the nature of the internet.
 

andakitty

Mongoose
He doesn't and he didn't. But he seems to be able to defend himself. So, enjoy venting spleen, I guess. I for one will not be responding any more.
 

Urox

Mongoose
andakitty said:
I think that, considering the way the changes have been made, they do indeed indicate RQ/SB/CoC veterans. Why? Because I am and many of the changes I see are changes I have made in my own BRP homebrews.
You have a good point here. I recognize some of the changes from various house rules I've played and read over the years (RQ used to be popular at game conventions out my way). A good example is the +1% on a skill if you blow your roll -- a player-friendly change that I don't think has many (if any) downsides.
 

jadrax

Mongoose
Urox said:
There are a couple of changes that I really question, such as the change from skill-use experience checks to awarded checks. (Maybe done to avoid a lawsuit for beeing too derivative of BRP?)

Skill-use eqpreience checks have always been the number one complaint I have encounted when talking about Runequest, (and its sub-systems.)

I'm not surprised they changed it at all.
 
jadrax said:
Urox said:
There are a couple of changes that I really question, such as the change from skill-use experience checks to awarded checks. (Maybe done to avoid a lawsuit for beeing too derivative of BRP?)

Skill-use eqpreience checks have always been the number one complaint I have encounted when talking about Runequest, (and its sub-systems.)

I'm not surprised they changed it at all.


Skill use experience checks have been the number one praise I have encountered when talking about Runequest, (and its progeny).

I am surprised they changed it at all.
 

Mikko Leho

Mongoose
homerjsinnott said:
Skill use experience checks have been the number one praise I have encountered when talking about Runequest, (and its progeny).

It is much liked but it is also flawed. For instance Greg Stafford himself has stated that he doesn't like how the original RQ doesn't allow learning from your mistakes but only from your success.
 

kustenjaeger

Mongoose
Greetings

There seem to be two completely opposite views here.

homerjsinnott said:
Skill use experience checks have been the number one praise I have encountered when talking about Runequest, (and its progeny).

I am surprised they changed it at all.

The experience thread earlier covered the two opposing positions. It is certainly true that RQ garneered praise for no experience points and no levels - I'm not sure this necessarily extended to the skill check mechanic.

I can see why some people are concerned about the move away but it's absence won't 'break' the game. If one is moving the focus of the game i(it has I believe been suggested it is movinf to feel more cinematic?) then I can see why the mechanic would at least have been reviewed.

Regards
 

Archer

Mongoose
This should be one of the easiest things to house rule back into the game. In fact so easy that I wonder why Mongoose did not write it into the book as an optional rule? but then, optional rules perhaps will be in the Companion, not the Core rules.
 

atgxtg

Mongoose
Folks, I think that there are a few points about MRQ that sort of spell everything out.


1) MRQ, isn't designed for RQ players, but for new players. DBC has metniuoned that in several posts.

2) MRQ was written by people who appear to have no experience in writing RQ/BRP products, but with extensive experience writing d20 products.

3) What RQers like and what d20 fans like are not necessarily the same things, and at times, can be opposites.
 

mthomason

Mongoose
The other thing is as it's OGL anyone who wants to propose house rules and post them online is actually welcomed in doing so and given a degree of legality (granted that's never stopped gamers before OGL came along but it's nice to know you've got permission to do what you were going to do anyway ;) )
 

Rurik

Mongoose
atgxtg said:
Folks, I think that there are a few points about MRQ that sort of spell everything out.


1) MRQ, isn't designed for RQ players, but for new players. DBC has metniuoned that in several posts.

2) MRQ was written by people who appear to have no experience in writing RQ/BRP products, but with extensive experience writing d20 products.

3) What RQers like and what d20 fans like are not necessarily the same things, and at times, can be opposites.

Careful, you are mighty close to bringing down the wrath of DBC on you. I know he said he wasn't attacking Urox, but I'm pretty sure he had charged up all his POW crystals and had his Protection and Bladesharp cast before going after him.

I can't really agree with all your points. I am a RQ player and really only have problems with a couple of things, namely the halving rule, weakened crits, and to a lesser extent the (apparently last minute) removal of reach from Strike Ranks.

Also, they could not use BRP verbatim. Chaosium owns the system. Mongoose just owns the RQ name and rights to Glorantha.

Maybe after playing for a while in the end I will decide that at least we have a bunch of new second age stuff to use with the old RQ rules. But I think the new rules will be a world better than D20, just as RQ1 was a world better than D&D. It is after all, a level less percentile skill based rule system where armour blocks damage.

And it is a different rule system. RQ1 had its holes as well. I suspect some day we may look back at the old MRQ1 and say "remember that stupid halving rule?"

I wholeheartedly support point 3, if not even feeling it might be a bit understated.
 

Archer

Mongoose
atgxtg said:
Folks, I think that there are a few points about MRQ that sort of spell everything out.


1) MRQ, isn't designed for RQ players, but for new players. DBC has metniuoned that in several posts.

Well, obviosly every version of a game are. But exclusively focusing on new players are going to alienate a section of your potential customers. Which is bad for business.

atgxtg said:
2) MRQ was written by people who appear to have no experience in writing RQ/BRP products, but with extensive experience writing d20 products.

That much is beginning to become painfully obvious.
 

HyrumOWC

Mongoose
atgxtg said:
2) MRQ was written by people who appear to have no experience in writing RQ/BRP products, but with extensive experience writing d20 products.

The problem with #2 is that there are very few people around who have professionally written RQ2/3 material and who don't work for/are friends with, Chaosium.

Hyrum.
 
Top