RuneQuest 6

[danskmacabre]

But isn't there BRP as well, which is an iteration of RQ?

 

[Stainless]

For grognards I think this is a problem, but for new comers I don't see much of an issue. You want to do some roleplaying and heard of this 'new' system called RQ6. Hey, it's the 6th edition so it must be the latest and shiniest so of course that's what you'll buy.

If anything, I suspect this will be a big blow to Legend because if you do a little scratching of the surface, people will soon realise that Legend and RQ6 are essentially the same system (clearly stated in the RQ6 FAQ). However, where Legend has explicitly stated it will not revise any of the MRQII rules, RQ6 is overtly a revision (all be it, a slight one). Never the less, customers will see that it's revised and so naturally think it's better.

Will Legend's support (Age of Treason, etc.) be enough to keep it afloat? Time will tell. However, for those who prognosticated that Mongoose would soon can Legend, I think your argument just got stronger. I hope not since I'm intrigued by Age of Treason and so would like to see it flourish. But this is a niche market that is over supplied with systems. Thus, two parallel systems is just asking for trouble.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

So Runequest 6, is this replacing BRP or is is Runequest 5 some other iteration of RQ?

It's all so very confusing, so many different version of Runequest out there.
Open quest
MRQ2/Legend (MRQ1 a few years before that)
BRP, it looks like this is it's own version of Runequest.
So Runequest 5, now to soon become Runequest 6.

Probably other versions out there I'd imagine.

There are 5 officially published versions of RQ, plus one never offically released and one released only as a web version.

RQ1 - Chaosium
RQ2 - Chaosium (UK printing by Games Workshop)
RQ3 - Avalon Hill (UK printing by Games Workshop)
[RQ4:Adventures in Glorantha - written for AH but never released. Playtest copies were (unofficially) available on the internet]
[RQ:Slayers - Written for AH, but never released due to them going bust. Released on the Internet by its authors.]
MRQ - Mongoose Runequest
MRQ2 - Mongoose Runequest 2.

Of these RQ2 was basically RQ1 with the errata included, ad RQ:Slayers had little if anything in common with the rest of the line beyond the name.

The boxed set of RQ2 included a slim booklet called "Basic Roleplaying" - the equivalent to the "quickstart rules" you might see at "Free RPG Day" - these "core rules" were used for all of Chaosiums RPG's (except Prince Valient and Pendragon, both of which came later) - including Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer.

There was a a time when there was just Runequest and sure it came out with new versions every now and then, but still one supported set of rules.

I think the whole Runequest thing is very confusing and I quite like the RQ system in general.
It must be very difficult for new people to the system to figure out what to get and what suits them.
And frustrating with new versions of various iterations coming out, changing names.
I'd imagine this must be scaring people off.

Every Chaosium game was a stand-alone game. You did not need the RQ rules to play Ringworld, or Elfquest, or Stormbringer (and vice-versa)

Chaosium's decison to release the Deluxe Basic Roleplaying book, as a compilation of the rules from all their games (most of which are now Out of Print and Out of Licence), and Mongoose's decison to publish a new version of RQ seemed to come at about the same time (I don't recall exactly, and either or both may have been planned for some time before any announcements were made).

I suspect that people who are currently using MRQ2 and it's licensed settings (Deus Vult, Clockwork & Chivalry, Elric etc) , and who have seen that the system is being rebranded as "Legend" will stick with Legend.

I suspect people who's main interest in RQ was as a ruleset for Glorantha will migrate to RQ6.

People who were put off RQ because of it's perceived ties to Glorantha may be persuaded to try Legend

People who were put of RQ because of Mongoose may be persuaded to try RQ6

People who don't follow Industry news may be confused...

People who are currently using MRQ2 for both Glorantha and another supported setting will be most affected....

Personally, I'd sooner see RQ with Pete & Loz and not Mongoose than RQ with Mongoose but not Pete & Loz. I expect that Mongoose will release more books in a given period than Moon Design/The Design Mechanism, and that the price of an individual book from Mongoose will be cheaper, but I can live with that...

 

[duncan_disorderly]

For grognards I think this is a problem,

Grognards will continue to use the mixture of RQ2 and RQ3 that they always did before Mongoose were even a glint in Matt's eye...

 

[andyl]

But isn't there BRP as well, which is an iteration of RQ?

Simple answer. No.

Long answer. Not really.

Longer answer.

BRP was first published in 1980 as a very cut down version of RQ for general roleplaying.

Since then it has had a lot added into it to help support stuff not catered for by RQ rulesets. You can consider it the same system (d100), but not the same game.

 

[danskmacabre]

Thanks for taking the time to explain .

So in that little chart showing the versions, where does BRP fit in.
It was explained that BRP is a sort of compilation of all versions of RQ, but is it outside that version chart?
[edit] NM, andyl answered this question.
I'd say people will find all this confusing what with BRP, Runequest 6 and Mongooses offerings..


How different from MRQ2 is RQ6 anyway?
Does it use the MRQ2 CMs, Combat maneuvers and all that?

 

[soltakss]

For grognards I think this is a problem,

Grognards will continue to use the mixture of RQ2 and RQ3 that they always did before Mongoose were even a glint in Matt's eye...

Indeed we will ...

 

[PhilHibbs]

But isn't there BRP as well, which is an iteration of RQ?

If you count that then you should count Fantasy World, Call of Cthulhu, SPQR, Drakar och Demoner etc. - sure, the published BRP Big Gold Book is the closest to Avalon Hill 3rd Edition RuneQuest. But it isn't RuneQuest because it doesn't say RuneQuest on the tin. As far as Greg is concerned - and he's the one who owns the IP - there have been five published editions of RuneQuest, looky-likeys don't count.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Newt has already answered in full, but I will stress it once more.

What opportunities as a publisher and fan am I missing because I have to use the HQ Gateway license instead of an OGL?

The ability to present alternative rules (for e.g. removing hit locations and using general hit points) would be prohibited by the Gateway license,

While Newt has a book in the making that provides alternate rules for HeroQuest through the Gateway license, I have a published one that does so. You _can_ put alternate rules in, if you want. You do not even need approval for this.

the ability to rework the game into something new (e.g. OpenQuest)

If what you want to do is to make something completely original, you can do this by using the MRQ1 OGL, or the OpenQuest OGL. Youn do not need Yet Another SRD to create original content and claim it comes from "the RQ SRD". Just stay clear of the Gloranthan content that was inadvertently put into the SRD.

and possibly the ability to combine OGL material from other game systems into the setting/adventure/game that you're publishing.

Which is indeed possible. Once you can provide alternate rules, why not take it from an OGL?

It doesn't seem like using the Gateway license provides much aside from the use of the logo that couldn't be done with fair use and nominal use under copyright and trademark law.

Which is EXACTLY what a good publisher needs. If I want to make my own D100, I can do it (Steve Perrin sells his own ruleset without any permission from Chaosium or Issaries). If Issaries, Moon Design and The Design Mechanism graciously permit me to use what requires their permission , and is really valuable marketing-wise, i.e. the notoriety of their brand, without paying royalties, then this is exactly what I need.

 

[PhilHibbs]

The ability to present alternative rules (for e.g. removing hit locations and using general hit points) would be prohibited by the Gateway license,

While Newt has a book in the making that provides alternate rules for HeroQuest through the Gateway license, I have a published one that does so. You _can_ put alternate rules in, if you want. You do not even need approval for this.

So, what clause in the Gateway Licence is giving medievaladventures the impression that this is not allowed?

 

[danskmacabre]

Speaking from the POV of someone more coming from playing the RQ via Stormbringer/Elric over the years rather than specifically RQ/Glorantha, it looks quite confusing.

I first started playing RPGs with 1st ed Stormbringer many years ago but migrated to Rolemaster over time.
Once ICE started coming out with various rewrites of the rules, RM2, RMSS, FRP and so on, I and my RM friends just got hacked off with the whole thing and we all went to Pathfinder.
This different versions of RQ to me feels like the same.

TBH, I'm not a HUGE fan of Pathfinder (which is just DnD 3.5 cleaned up), but it works and most people like it if not love it and the SRD makes it really nice to work with.


I'm not going to drop MRQ2 (that I have invested a fair amount of money in). Since I have all the rules I need to happily run Elric (my primary reason for getting MRQ2 anyway) I should be ok.
But then if Mongoose get cold feet because of RQ6 and drop Legend, then the Elric RPG will have no support again, which would be a shame.
Still there's lots of old edition stuff out there and fan made stuff for Elric/Stormbringer anyway and maybe I should just get used to working with that.
I really like the MRQ2 iteration on RQ as well, primarily for Hit locations, CMs etc.. I really wouldn't want to play a version of RQ without it.

 

[Vagni]

...you lot done it again? :roll:

I have a nice weekend away and now its RQ6? :lol:

Weeeeellllllll.... as I have formed a habit of buying anything with RuneQuest on it for the past 25 years or so I guess I'll be buying both systems and supporting both companies.

I have a lot of respect for both Mongoose and Pete & Loz, so I will give both systems a go.

Knowing me, I'll end up playing 'Vagni's RQ6.1' anyway :lol:

 

[DamonJynx]

Speaking from the POV of someone more coming from playing the RQ via Stormbringer/Elric over the years rather than specifically RQ/Glorantha, it looks quite confusing.

Yeah it can be. BRP is just the collated rules from the games published by Chaosium that were originally based on and include their original version of Runequest. Not having previous versions, other than the Mongoose ones, MRQII (RQ5) is definitely better than MRQ1 (RQ4). I expect (hope) that Legend will embrace and clarify some of the issues raised on this forum, notably movement and some others, which will probably do me.

I don't particularly feel the need, as much as I respect and admire Pete and Loz's work, to lash out yet more cash when it is not necessary. RPG's to me are a little like computers in the sense that if I'm happy with my OS and software why should I upgrade continually, particularly when I'm not a "power" user? I will only upgrade my current system when forced to do so because it no longer does what I want it too. At the moment and for the foreseeable future it suits my needs which I don't anticipate changing. MRQII does the same thing for me in RPG format.

 

[medievaladventures]

So, what clause in the Gateway Licence is giving medievaladventures the impression that this is not allowed?

This:

Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter HeroQuest rules in a Licensed Product.

 

[Vile]

If what you want to do is to make something completely original, you can do this by using the MRQ1 OGL, or the OpenQuest OGL.

Or, if you want to make something completely original without referring to the "RQ SRD", you don't even need the OGL. The OGL places restrictions on the user in return for concessions in the use of certain terms or bits of text. Its usefulness is directly related to how much of that text is included in the SRD. The MRQ1 SRD is not that useful in that regard, compared to the D&D 3.5 SRD for example.

Still there's lots of old edition stuff out there and fan made stuff for Elric/Stormbringer anyway and maybe I should just get used to working with that.

That's the spirit, you young whippersnapper! Why, I was running and playing RQ2 with only the rulebook for years before I even saw a copy of Cults of Prax. Oh, how the internet spoils us.

 

[danskmacabre]

Cool thanx for the update (regarding RQ versions), I think I get it now...

MRQ1 was the version I really WANTED to like, I could see it's potential, but the rules were such a mess/disorganised it was unuseable.
I was kind of miffed when MRQ2 came out, but took the plunge and liked what I saw.
Then the change to Wayfarer>Legend, which infuriated me until I saw that it was the same game rebadged.

I'm very curious to see if RQ6 is just a rebadged MRQ2 with tweaks and Glorantha put back in. Especiallyif it keeps to the CAs, CMs, hit locations and the rules cleaned up a bit.
If it is, I don't see how Legend and RQ6 can co-exist and both be commercially viable, especially as Glorantha doesn't seem that popular (but then I know very little about Gloranta and have little interest in it either).
In this scenario I think Mongoose will drop Legend completely and stick with their other RPGs and games.
That'll leave Elric hanging tho, but maybe one day someone else will pick up the license, assuming Mongoose drop that too.

 

[Vile]

I'm very curious to see if RQ6 is just a rebadged MRQ2 with tweaks and Glorantha put back in. Especiallyif it keeps to the CAs, CMs, hit locations and the rules cleaned up a bit.

The RQ6 core rulebook will specifically not have Glorantha in it, so that people with no interest in Glorantha don't have to buy pages they don't want (my favourite bit of the announcement). It will still have CMs and hit locations, but sounds like it will also have more new stuff as well as fixing errata.

 

[danskmacabre]

The RQ6 core rulebook will specifically not have Glorantha in it, so that people with no interest in Glorantha don't have to buy pages they don't want (my favourite bit of the announcement). It will still have CMs and hit locations, but sounds like it will also have more new stuff as well as fixing errata.

Wow, so how is it going to be different than MRQ2/Legend then?
Surely both companies can see it would be stupid to have 2 virtually identical systems marketing against each other?

 

[Newtus]

So, what clause in the Gateway Licence is giving medievaladventures the impression that this is not allowed?

This:

Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter HeroQuest rules in a Licensed Product.

Ok what that line means, and I did check with Jeff Richard who wrote the HQ Gateway license myself before publishing Ye Little Book of HeroQuest Dungeoneering, is that say I create a new version of the core mechanic that uses D6 dicepools instead of the current D20 one, I can not say that it is a replacement version. I have to present it as an alternative version. Its a very subtle difference, thats there to prevents people from producing standalone games.

 

[PhilHibbs]

So, what clause in the Gateway Licence is giving medievaladventures the impression that this is not allowed?

Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter HeroQuest rules in a Licensed Product.

It looks like you're correct in saying "it is forbidden", and what others should have said is "But Moon Design are quite happy for some publishers to ignore that clause". I've seen this with other licences, they forbid large swathes of reasonable activity and then don't enforce them, keeping it in their back pocket for if they do decide they need a nuclear option. Very annoying if you're doing a risk-assessment. Maybe I'm interpreting it out of context though.

However, I can see how that clause has two potential interpretations.

1. Thou shalt use the HeroQuest rules exactly as written, thou shalt not republish those rules as thy customers must buy HeroQuest in order to use your product

2. Thou shalt not re-publish the HeroQuest rules as they are, nor present slight variations as though they were the HeroQuest rules. Your own rules are not HeroQuest rules, though, so you can include them.

I entirely understand how you came away with the first interpretation, the second is a bit of a stretch.

*Edit* the next sentence is:

Without limiting the foregoing, Licensee may create original material that adds to the applicability of the HeroQuest rules, so long as this original material complies with the preceding sentence.

So there's a clue that you can present your own rules amendments, but it's still pretty thin, and could be interpreted as being limited to explaining how a particular HeroQuest rule could be applied.