A
Archer
Guest
mthomason said:
So, how long since Mr Lovecraft went to the great beyond?
(I guess you see where I am going with this)
Playtesting?
- Thread starter Urox
- Start date
So, how long since Mr Lovecraft went to the great beyond?
(I guess you see where I am going with this)
Dead Blue Clown
Mongoose
Rurik said:
Well, I do deserve the chance to refute point #1.
atgxtg said:
Several posts? Not that I recall, anyway. And if I have said it, I'd like to take it back, because it was absolute nonsense. Either way, a quick quote will set matters right.
The only think approaching what you said was when you said you were not keen on the new rules, you preferred the old rules, and you did not like the new settings. That is why I said "Well, then you're not part of the target demographic." Principally because of the last point in bold.
And that's true - people who don't like the game, prefer the old edition and dislike the settings are, indeed, not the type of people RuneQuest is going to appeal to. That's hardly saying the game is for new players and not for vets. It's saying the game is for people who like the rules and the settings.
Here's the only things I've written I can imagine even remotely fitting that niche:
Me said:
Me said:
Me said:
Dead Blue Clown
Mongoose
atgxtg said:
Actually, if that's what you've been expecting, I can see why your spider senses are tingling. It might be worth emailing one of the office guys and asking how long they've been playing RQ2/3, to see if that would alleviate your worries. For all I know, it could be 20 years or 20 minutes, so it might just freak you out more, but it's a lot clearer to me why you're worried after reading that paragraph.
atgxtg said:
The new system certainly looks more BRP than d20. To have simply reprinted the RQ2/3 rules without making any changes would be very unlike Mongoose - they obviously want to make this version "theirs". I really don't see too much of a problem here - RQ vets have their original rulebooks and lots of new material, and the newbies aren't going to realise that certain rules used to be different. Some people will prefer the changes in the rules, others will not. It doesn't look to me to be a "d20fied RQ" if thats what you're worried about. I'm used to CoC so I'm getting thrown with a few bits and pieces that Mongoose have tweaked in their edtion of RQ, but it still essentially feels like the system I'm used to.
To back up DBC on this - I've noticed that the Mongoose guys tend to go for things they themselves have a past interest in. I would not be surprised if Matthew himself (as the lead writer on the new RQ rulebook) is a veteran player of the original.
mthomason said:
Most (if not all) of Lovecraft's work is in the public domain. The problem is that while Chaosium bills CoC as "Lovecraftian", it draws most of its inspiration from August Derleth's work, and his stuff is all under copyright and unusable. Now, Derleth worked with HPL, and basically picked up the torch when HPL died, so there's a lot of symmetry there.
And yes, I've given it a lot of thought.
Hyrum.
A
Archer
Guest
HyrumOWC said:mthomason said:
Most (if not all) of Lovecraft's work is in the public domain. The problem is that while Chaosium bills CoC as "Lovecraftian", it draws most of its inspiration from August Derleth's work, and his stuff is all under copyright and unusable. Now, Derleth worked with HPL, and basically picked up the torch when HPL died, so there's a lot of symmetry there.
And yes, I've given it a lot of thought.
Hyrum.
LOL, just one year to go then (that should not be taken as a intent or promise by either myself or Hyrum, for anyone reading this thread).
That said, there are a lot of things I like in Lovecrafts books, but not CoC.
Dead Blue Clown
Mongoose
mthomason said:
Some people in various net comunities are already saying it's nothing like RuneQuest. Others are saying not enough has been changed.
As complaints go, it's par for the course. Debates like these are why a lot of RPG freelancers actively and vehemently avoid reading forums. No matter what you say, you end up alienating someone, being misquoted by another, giving the wrong impression through your own writing to another, and generally coming off badly at times. And at the end of the day, the comments always conflict so much it's hard to get an idea of what the tiny percentage of online gamers really think.
Given the nature of Mythos novels to tend towads inventing a totally new horror each time, one would imagine that using only verified PD sources and avoiding anything still under copyright would leave you with a workable system.
If nothing else it's now possible to create scenarios that can be run in CoC by sticking only to those creatures specifically created by HPL along with those of your own invention.
If nothing else it's now possible to create scenarios that can be run in CoC by sticking only to those creatures specifically created by HPL along with those of your own invention.
A
Archer
Guest
Dead Blue Clown said:
Well, you and others on the Mongoose payroll have our thanks for doing so. It goes a long way in my book.
Well, at Continuum last week both Charlie Krank (Chaosium MD), M. Sprange (Mongoose MD) and Greg Stafford (Issaries MDish) sat together at opening ceremonies, on panels and didnt glare/throw fists/play rock-paper-scissors at one another, so there is some form on neutrality, and hell, Chaosium must know that BRP (I suspect dont want!! more importantly) that Glorantha isnt something they can work with again they can hardly feel totally anti.
When asked (2 out of the 3 listed in previous paragraph - no specific names mentioned) how it was like Company A gets on/relates/communicates with Comapny B they all said "Ok" and implied no problems - i.e. thats goto be good! ANd as we're on a Mongoose forum that means they're getting over Gregging 8) I hear thats a thing of the past anyhow!
Ravage said:
I don't think that that means much. I mean, it was a group of RPG designerss at Continuium, not the Jerry Srpinger show. TOss in the fact the Charlie and Greg are up there in years, and I doubt it could have gotten very hostile.
I doubt there is much animostiy there anyway, since the reasons for the Chaosium split into three sperate companies were so that differenrt peole could pursue the product lines that they were interested in. I think that if Chaosium had wanted to work with GLorantha, Greg probably wouldn't have left to form Issaries.
Dead Blue Clown said:
Certainly. You desereve the chance to refute anything. That's only fair. BTW, even if I wind up not liking MRQ, I can't complain about the way you, Matthrew or the other mongooses have been about discussing things. I for one do not feel muzzled or am afraid of drawing anyone wrath.
Some people (heck probably most of the people here) might disagree with some of the things I've posted, but I don't have any anomistiy towards (or feel like I am getting any from) anybody. It's all diffferences over the direction of the game.
atgxtg said:
Dead Blue Clown said:
There was a post on the same thread as the one where you got the quotes, if I can find it, where I believe you did mention looking forward to working with the new players. I might have taken that somewhat out of context, as I can't find the message. I'd look for it, but if you are refuting my first point, then fait accompli, it's refuted. I may have misunderstood or misinterpreted something. Sorry.
Dead Blue Clown said:
Yeah, it's tingling like crazy. To be honest I started kicking myself for preordering it, and have a sinking feeling that I'll be selling my copy on eBay next week. You see the ads I saw for MRQ, inclduing the ones up online at places like Amazon, and in Industy trade mags and catalogs state:
One of the greatest roleplaying games of all time comes back in a new edition designed for the 21st Century! Building on the previous editions of the game, the all new RuneQuest system has been developed under the watchful eyes of Messrs Stafford and Perrin
Then on the Mongoose websight I saw:
The classic roleplaying game is back - in a new, streamlined, 21st Century edition!
With rules and supplements written by top-flight RPG designers such as Kenneth Hite and Robin Laws
At this point, as I RQ devotee, I went down to my local gaming shop and pre-order/prepaid for the game (back when it was $20, I gave the oner another $5 when I noticed the price going up) and latter the companion.
Since then I have discovered that:
Greg might be writing some Glorantha stuff, but he doesn't seem to be watching the develop,ment of the game.
I don't know if Steve Perrin has even been made aware of the existence of MRQ, let alone watching over the desgin process. Based upon my familiarity with his other RPGs, inclduing the direction he went in with SPQR, I don't think he had a hand in MRQ. I don't think he would have let the "halving rule" get by.
Robib Laws is writing Glorantha stuff. Okay with me, I wasn't fond of his RPGs anyway.
Ken Hite is listed but not in a big way. I like what I've seen of Ken work, and consider the TOS version of Last Unicorn's ICON StarTrek system to be the best laid out, organized and consitent book put out by LUG. A book that I believe Ken was in charge of.
The new RuneQuest is written not by any of the above, by by Matthrew Sprang. Since I am not a big d20 fan, the name didn't ring any bells with me. I did some web searching and discovered that Mr. Sprange is a very prolific writer, but everything I saw was for d20.
THe snippits and other information about MRQ have almost universally struck me as things that have not improved anything.Now, others might think otherwise, but many of the changes stike me as arbiratry, counterintutive, more complicated, and in the wrong direction. Most of the changes cause other prblems that were things that the orginal designers were concered with.
Your comment about my not being in the target demogrphic was startling. I had expected that a new RuneQuest game would be targeted at RuneQuest players.
Now it looks to me statements such as "the classic roleplaying game is back", "One of the greatest roleplaying games of all time comes back", and "building on the previous editions of the game" were just advertsing hype.
I jus wish that the ads had been more clear that MRQ is a new game, and that Stafford and especially Perrin were not invloved with the design of the new game system. I'd have approached MRQ differently. I'd have looked at it as a new RPG system, rather than the evolution/replacement of one of my favorite RPG systems.
Now I sort of feel like someone made an effort dropping names in order to con the old RQers into buying MRQ.
I think that is why we are starting to see a "schim" over MRQ and a lot of RQ vets. It's not that we are unhappy becuase we didn't see what we what we expected to see. It is a question of not seeeing what were were led to expect to see. I don't blame the designers, but I do think that I was the exact target demographic for the person at Mongooses Marketing department who wrote those name dropping ads. The ad that up at Amazon.com is aimed at RQ veterans, pure and simple. They are the only ones who would reconginze Steve Perrin's name. Heck, if they had dropped Ray Turney's name too, I'd have made it to the open house.
In my case, the ads got me to spend $50 on MRQ and the MRQ Companion, sight unseen, but I suspect they will be the last Mongoose products that I buy "blind".
Dead Blue Clown
Mongoose
atgxtg said:
It's probably 50/50. I'm hardly clear when I post some of the time. It sucks and I hate the bad habit forming, but I do most of my posting in the early hours of the morning or in 10-minute breaks between writing. So I'm either tired or my brain is miles elsewhere.
And incidentally, you're welcome to some grievance against me because I've been a plum more than once so far on here. But I'm working on getting that under control.
Dead Blue Clown
Mongoose
atgxtg said:
Cut for space purposes.
I'd always thought you had some legitimate issues anyway, but reading that makes everything click perfectly and I see exactly where you're coming from.
I'm a lowly enough cog in the machine that I don't know large chunks about the meat of the matter, to the point where I could confirm or disconfirm your worries. I think Steve Perrin was involved at the beginning, but I may be hallucinating. Greg Stafford, as you know, reads whatever gets done and is always open for writer calls/emails. Robin Laws wrote Glorantha: the Second Age. Kenneth Hite is listed in the development credits for both RQ and the Companion. I know you don't get in there without a lot of work.
I also know previous RQ experience was considered vital for freelance work / full-time writing (and I know the guys are playing it like crazy at the office). Still, you're after solid worry-reducing facts and all I have are snippets and guesses, no more valid than any other speculation.
Dead Blue Clown said:
Don't worry about it. At least not as far as I'm concered. I learned a long time ago that internet communication is as much mis-communication. THat's why I don't get involved with a lot of the "he's being snarky" or "condesending" comments. Frankly, it is difficult to put tone and infelction down. Most internet attitude is usally due to differences in vocabulary.
THat is actually one of the reasons why I love to discuss thingfs with the game designers, as if I can get a better understanding of the ideas behind a rule I have a better idea of how to deal with the rule. I've had the experience in the past of debating a point with the designer where we both meant the same thing, but came at it from different perspectives and used different terms.
One thing that is difficult about all this, is that gamming is a hobby, and a passion. Both for the devoted players and the writers. It sort of has to be, no one does this to get rich! One drawback to that is that people tend to take things personally. Sort of like what happens if you were to say, "Well, Leonardo, I saw your work, but I think Micaelangelo painting is better."
For instance, I for one hate the "skill having rule" for vales over 100%. I can do the "three stage" math and don't like the results. IF I post that, I know that someone actually came up with the rule, and probably will be a little hurt seeing a dozen people post that "it sucks." It is hard for anyone not to take such criticism over a labor of love personally.
THe revewrse holds too. If someone opens thier mouth and criticises something, that makes them fair game for rebuttal. It is (or should be) a too way street.
I don't have nay grievenaces with you. I may pr may not like MRQ (time will tell), but I have not grieveances wih you, or Matthew Sprang.
Dead Blue Clown said:
"ditto".
Thanks. I was so much griping as trying to explain my point of view. I find that understanding where the other person is coming from does wonders in helping one to "interpret" the meaing behind thier statements.
The first few weeks here were invalauble in getting a "read" on people so I can understand some people better now and have a better clue about things.
For instance, I tend to come on very hard and fast about game mechanics, and this can be intepreted as anger, rudeness, or hostility towards someone. Often when that was not my intention.
But, I'm a hard read.
Similar threads
