RuneQuest Monsters II

[Cut]

I am a little sadend to have seen in the RQ Monsters II preview that the book is going to be b/w. Monsters One being my favorite book of the series (and one of my fav monster manuals by far) I had very high expectations towards that title.

Are there any more colour releases done by the Mongoose anyway after the printer change?

 

[master of reality]

What! Monsters II is not color? I don't expect everything that Mongoose publishes to be in color, but a book describing creatures should be. Monsters I is a beautiful color book. I know it's more expensive to use color, but some books are worth it, at least for me. I can only assume that projected sales of the Monsters II book did not appear strong enough to justify the extra expense. Would charging a higher price to cover the extra cost really impact quantity sold that much? Is there really that big of a difference between the number of people willing to pay $20 to $25 for a B&W Monsters book versus the number of people willing to pay $30 to $35 for a color Monsters book? It seems to me that most people who want to buy a Monsters II book would be willing to pay an extra $5 or $10 to get a high quality color book, but I guess Mongoose market research shows otherwise.

 

[Mage]

I'd rather have monster manuals in colour.

 

[Osentalka]

I am perfectly happy with Monsters II and III in black an white.

90% of the book is text and stats. They are black and white anyway.
And Mongoose illustrations are not soooo good that i need them in colour.

 

[soltakss]

Colour is over-rated.

I like to see some maps in colour and perhaps colour covers, but apart from that I generally prefer black and white. Pen and Ink-style drawings are my favourite and they are best in black and white.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Put me down for "colour is overrated" too.

A "Monster Manual" needs illustrations. It really needs every creature to be illustrated, because a picture is worth a thousand words, but very few, if any of the pictures "need" to be in colour...

What's more, I'm not even convinced we need 3 "Monster manuals" - I'd much rather have fewer creatures covered in greater depth rather than pages and pages of what amounts to similar stats re-arranged in different combinations.

 

[B_Steele]

What's more, I'm not even convinced we need 3 "Monster manuals" - I'd much rather have fewer creatures covered in greater depth rather than pages and pages of what amounts to similar stats re-arranged in different combinations.

Well, originally it was only going to be two...but I drew up WAY too many critters for just one book, so now we have RQ:Monsters III on the way.

As for not needing multiple monster manuals, our view (and the popular gaming industry view, as shown by the kazillion Monster Manuals out there) is that it is better to have those additional books of creatures out there for the gamers who do want them and let those who do not want them choose not to buy them.

But, having looked through the pre-edit stuff, I am very happy with about 85% of the B&W art, only mostly happy with about 10%, and disappointed by maybe 5% of the pictures that I have seen.

Can't wait to hear what you all have to say!

-Bry

 

[Cut]

I'm looking forward to the book, Bry, no question

I had just hoped that vol II would get the same treatment as vol I. I'm completely on board with b/w rule books. That's quite alright. But Critters as you put it, bring colour to the world that we play in. So make them memorable and interesting. in short: Apply colour. I have written some RuneQuest reviews for a german webpage when MRQ came first out and I stated exactly that: Rulebooks in B/W with proper illustrations and good paper are just fine. And I then celebrated the move of you guys, when you decided to print the first full colour MRQ book: RQ Monsters. I do own (I seem to be a usual gamer...) quite a number of those MM type books for different systems and I always liked MRQ best. So I had very high hopes for the next installments of the series and never considered that they could become tomes in b/w. Don't you guys read my praiseful (albeit german) reviews of your stuff?

 

[The Greek]

Monsters 2 had all its art ordered before the switch, so was always going to be black & white. Monsters 3? Well, that remains to be seen.

 

[Cut]

Monsters 3? Well, that remains to be seen.

Well, I remain sceptical: If Monsters Vol II sells well, you guys will say, that the costumers loved the b/w artwork. And continue down that road.

If Monsters Vol II fails big time, you say, that the risk in putting out yet another Monster book is too great, especially if you make it as a more expensive colourbook. It's a no win scenario, really... :roll:

What scenario would lead to a book three being full colour yet again?

Am I seeing things too black and white here?

I'll of course give Monsters II a fair chance and a thorough eye in my FLGS once and when it arrives on their shelves.

 

[soltakss]

Well, I remain sceptical: If Monsters Vol II sells well, you guys will say, that the costumers loved the b/w artwork. And continue down that road.

If Monsters Vol II fails big time, you say, that the risk in putting out yet another Monster book is too great, especially if you make it as a more expensive colourbook.

Ooh, excellent arguments - I like them!

It's a no win scenario, really... :roll:

What scenario would lead to a book three being full colour yet again?

Am I seeing things too black and white here?

I'll of course give Monsters II a fair chance and a thorough eye in my FLGS once and when it arrives on their shelves.

Oh, you were arguing against black and white, weren't you?

Pretty good arguments against colour, though.

 

[gran_orco]

Now, It doesn't matter if it is in colour or b/w. I only want to have the book!!! The delay of this book and land of the samurai is frustrating

 

[The King]

Anyway, Monsters II is for Glorantha and monsters III for non Glorantha RQ. May be it's a good division thus.

 

[Cut]

Anyway, Monsters II is for Glorantha and monsters III for non Glorantha RQ. May be it's a good division thus.

Realy? Didn't know that. You couldn't see it from the Coverartwork...

 

[The King]

Anyway, Monsters II is for Glorantha and monsters III for non Glorantha RQ. May be it's a good division thus.

Realy? Didn't know that. You couldn't see it from the Coverartwork...

Exact, the cover doesn't say much but it was explained in a post by someone from the Mongoose team (Bry I think).
In fact I would have appreciated some title like Monsters of Glorantha (though this is really minor).

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Exact, the cover doesn't say much but it was explained in a post by someone from the Mongoose team (Bry I think).
In fact I would have appreciated some title like Monsters of Glorantha (though this is really minor).

The theory probably goes that putting "Monsters of Glorantha" would put off potential purchasers who are not interested in Glorantha - although they will be quite happy with a "generic" book that happens to be full of Gloranthan monsters.

It falls down by not considering those of us* who would probably buy a "Monsters of Glorantha" book, but aren't interested in a "generic" monster book that happens to be full of Gloranthan monsters


*or maybe it's just "those of me"

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Oh, you were arguing against black and white, weren't you?

Pretty good arguments against colour, though.

Maybe they could sell them with a free packet of felt-tip pens and peopel could colour their own if they felt the need?

 

[GianniVacca]

It falls down by not considering those of us* who would probably buy a "Monsters of Glorantha" book, but aren't interested in a "generic" monster book that happens to be full of Gloranthan monsters


*or maybe it's just "those of me"

Count me in

 

[The King]

The theory probably goes that putting "Monsters of Glorantha" would put off potential purchasers who are not interested in Glorantha - although they will be quite happy with a "generic" book that happens to be full of Gloranthan monsters.

It falls down by not considering those of us* who would probably buy a "Monsters of Glorantha" book, but aren't interested in a "generic" monster book that happens to be full of Gloranthan monsters


*or maybe it's just "those of me"

I don't know. Mongoose did release a Magic of Glorantha (even if all 3 books coud have been published as one book).
I just think they wanted to do a generic monster books with Gloranthan monsters, but as Bry wrote, there were too many for a book, hence the division in 2 books.

But it would have been smart to adapt the title because we would then have had a cover by Tony Parker. Not that I dislike the rune cover but I think Monsters of Glorantha with a great cover is a lot better than a rune cover with the title "Runequest Monsters II".

 

[zozotroll]

The rune covers have been a big non-attension getter. Not a great way to spread the game.

As far as the number of monster books go, there is no such thing as to many. You never know when a non standard monster with a different name is just the thing for one game.