Runequest What were you thinking

[Enpeze]

I'm sure there are those who will be glad to see me go, too.

Oh no. You are a factotum here.

 

[mthomason]

I love the game. It is great. Here is proof why

- Simpler mechanics than d20.
- Less rules to get in the way of playing the game.
- I am a CoC player.
- It has got a relatively small, simple core book without forcing any extraneous setting information on me.
- It has got the OGL attached, and therefore opens the system up for use by a swathe of licenced and unlicenced settings. Next time I pick up a licenced setting I like it will not almost automatically follow that it has been d20ed.
- It looks like there's going to be *masses* of support for it, by both the publisher and third parties.
- It is written by a company I'm familiar with, and who interact with their customers on the internet (and IRL) rather than lock themselves away up in their offices away from their audience.

I'm seeing two types of negative posts on here.

1) the people who have issues with some parts of the game, and are discussing ways to fix them.

2) the people who are bitching and whining like a bunch of spoiled children who just got told they can only have nine christmas presents this year instead of ten, and have absolutely no interest in even trying to make the game work.

Group 1, welcome

Group 2, I would probably be banned from these boards if I told you what I thought of you. I don't even know why you're here, on a board for players to talk to other players about the game they have an interest in.

 

[atgxtg]

Because there are plenty of D&D games out there. THere are not that many RQ games out there. By catering to the D&D fans, it can be looked at as selling out the RQ fans.

Hmm.

Well, keep in mind that I am an RQ fan. Also keep in mind that I mean no offense with this next statement. But that sounds like sour grapes, something of a "I'm gonna take my ball and go home!" thing to me. It's a very "us or them" mentality.

I could see your point if they added classes or levels or alignments or bloating hit points or fire-and-forget magic or any of the other common trappings of D&D. What they added that's D&D-like is only D&D-like if you yank the subsystems out and examine them as stand-alone entities: Legendary Abilities *are* like Feats, and Strike Rank *is* like Initiative, but MRQ is *not* a D&D-like system.

I just gotta disagree with you, my man. If the addition of those two subsystems make the transition from D&D to RQ easier for D&D players, I'm all for it. D&D *is* the most popular system out there, which makes it the most fertile ground from which to harvest RQ players.

THere are more than just two changes between RQ ansd MRQ though. The whole, improvement point thing is much more of an XP mold then the old RQ experience check mold. The entire improvemnt system is now slaved to an "award for playing" kind of game rather than a leading by doing/trying studing.

No offense intended, but alot of the streamlining that everyone raves about just strike me a "dumbing down" the game for people who can't divide by 5 in thier head.

May of the changes have me wondering just how well the new wrtiers understood RQ. A lot of the "revised" spells don't make much sense-like Firblade and Speedart. The whole reason why Speedart had a 3 to 1 benefit before was than the bonus applied to one attack, whereas multimissle and bladesharp worked for several attacks. Disrupt has been "disrupted" in effectiveness without total HP. Now it is only useful when someone is low in a location and you get very lucky. Before, mass disrupt was a valid group tactic. Ten disrupts when from bearing a near death senstence to a minor annoyance.

 

[mthomason]

I'm seeing two types of negative posts on here.

1) the people who have issues with some parts of the game, and are discussing ways to fix them.

2) the people who are bitching and whining like a bunch of spoiled children who just got told they can only have nine christmas presents this year instead of ten, and have absolutely no interest in even trying to make the game work.

Group 1, welcome

Group 2, I would probably be banned from these boards if I told you what I thought of you. I don't even know why you're here, on a board for players to talk to other players about the game they have an interest in.

By the way, atgxtg, welcome

 

[atgxtg]

I love the game. It is great. Here is proof why

- Simpler mechanics than d20.
- Less rules to get in the way of playing the game.
- I am a CoC player.
- It has got a relatively small, simple core book without forcing any extraneous setting information on me.
- It has got the OGL attached, and therefore opens the system up for use by a swathe of licenced and unlicenced settings. Next time I pick up a licenced setting I like it will not almost automatically follow that it has been d20ed.
- It looks like there's going to be *masses* of support for it, by both the publisher and third parties.
- It is written by a company I'm familiar with, and who interact with their customers on the internet (and IRL) rather than lock themselves away up in their offices away from their audience.

I'm seeing two types of negative posts on here.

1) the people who have issues with some parts of the game, and are discussing ways to fix them.

2) the people who are bitching and whining like a bunch of spoiled children who just got told they can only have nine christmas presents this year instead of ten, and have absolutely no interest in even trying to make the game work.

Group 1, welcome

Group 2, I would probably be banned from these boards if I told you what I thought of you. I don't even know why you're here, on a board for players to talk to other players about the game they have an interest in.

I would like to think there is some overlap. I know I can be considered as doing a bit of both.

For what it's worth-"becuase we were told/sold a bill of goods that wasn't true."

 

[mthomason]

I would like to think there is some overlap. I know I can be considered as doing a bit of both.

For what it's worth-"becuase we were told/sold a bill of goods that wasn't true."

Yeah, but you're being *constructive* about it by saying what isn't working for you and why I'm afraid, like it or not, you're actually showing an interest (intentionally or otherwise) in making things work.

And you have no idea how much that helps those of us who are trying to make addon/alternative rules

 

[atgxtg]

I'm sure there are those who will be glad to see me go, too.

Oh no. You are a factotum here.

I had to look that up! It sounded like a dirty word, too. :shock:

Hmm, after reading the definition General savant might be more accurate.

 

[Rurik]

2) the people who are bitching and whining like a bunch of spoiled children who just got told they can only have nine christmas presents this year instead of ten, and have absolutely no interest in even trying to make the game work.

Just to balance things it sometimes feels like constructive criticism can lead to an attack by pro Mongoose fanboys that blindly attack any suggestion that some of the changes made by Mongoose may have issues. They are as bad as your group 2.

But such is the nature of internet forums.

 

[SmegmaLord]

Open minded forums....really.

The only way some people would have an open mind is if I were to 'help' with a very sharp axe!

CHRIS

 

[atgxtg]

I would like to think there is some overlap. I know I can be considered as doing a bit of both.

For what it's worth-"becuase we were told/sold a bill of goods that wasn't true."

Yeah, but you're being *constructive* about it by saying what isn't working for you and why I'm afraid, like it or not, you're actually showing an interest (intentionally or otherwise) in making things work.

Trained reflexive response. I'm a troubleshoot & repair tenchincian, as well as being an experience GM. My intital response with practically anything is to spot what doesn't work and try to fix it. I can't even go into work to say hi without at least one person asking me to fix something.

I'm also a big RQ fan, so I'd rather try to fix something that I like rather than bury it.

Plus, I've seen a few other RPGs where I hated the "basic" rules, but that I liked the "advanced" rules.


And you have no idea how much that helps those of us who are trying to make addon/alternative rules [/quote]

"I have no idea about anything I do-I'm a general savant!"

I just used to doing a lot of brainstoming, tweaking of RPGs. I did it back during my days at school. Heck I even did back during my days at school. I even managed to pass a test or two, unintentionally, because I was doing something for a game.

 

[mthomason]

Just to balance things it sometimes feels like constructive criticism can lead to an attack by pro Mongoose fanboys that blindly attack any suggestion that some of the changes made by Mongoose may have issues. They are as bad as your group 2.

True, their comments are just as bad.

On the other hand, unlike group 2, they belong here (but really ought to keep themselves under control)

This forum is for the game. Anyone who is interested in playing this game belongs here. If someone has decided already they have no interest in it and just want to tell Mongoose why, this is not the best place to do it. They can email their concerns to Mongoose rather than disrupting a forum that is here for player to player communication.

If people are after a change, this is the place to get it done.

If they're after making their voice heard and getting a giggle out of watching others join in their little attempt at rabblerousing, then that's pretty much asking for Mongoose to "do a GW" on us and start putting some fairly restrictive rules on conversations. When people do that, we all lose.

I wouldn't dream of going onto a forum for a game I disliked enough not to buy it to post why, and to infer people shouldn't buy that game. I don't hate any company enough to do that to them on their own boards.

On the other hand, fanboys are an expected part of any community. That said, I agree there's no place for blindly waving another's criticisms away as invalid.

So lets add group 3, the Mongoose Fanboys.

Group 1, you're welcome here.
Group 2, please go away.
Group 3, remember not everyone feels the same way about you, no rulebook is 100% perfect - whatever you may think. Please tolerate those that are trying to be constructive with new rules, and who knows - you may even like them. And just to be fair with the way I've spoken to group 2 - if you don't like someone's idea for a change in the rules, explain why, or keep the **** off their thread as it'll be useful to others who have a problem with that thing as well

(BTW, Just for the record, I personally have rejected all checks being made against skills and the improvement roll system, and have found the input from group 1 most welcome )

 

[mthomason]

I'd rather try to fix something that I like rather than bury it.

Thats just it Anyone who does *not* think like that simply does not belong in any player community.

 

[Rurik]

Well they guy who started this thread got some pretty good conversations going...

 

[mthomason]

Heh, yup

I like to think of this post as one of those "you need to get shot in the ass once in order to learn how to avoid it next time around" things for the player community...

 

[atgxtg]

I'd rather try to fix something that I like rather than bury it.

Thats just it Anyone who does *not* think like that simply does not belong in any player community.

I think that might be why I sort of fit into multiple categories.

I bought MRQ not becuase of Mongoose, or because the game was new, streamlined, or on the shelves. I bought it because I am a RuneQuest fan, and I saw ads that catered to RQ fans. If I Had a better idea of what MRQ was like, I'd have stayed clear of it. Now I sorta got my hopes on the Companion and the rules "modularity" concept.

It funny that many of the central concepts about MRQ are things that I don't agree with. For instance I think OGL has hurt d20 and gaming in general more than it helped. It killed a lot of good systems when the companies dropped thier own games for a free OGL licience (to tap the D&D ,arket), and it ruined any sort of concept of quality. Now there is a lot of horrid d20 stuff out there, as anyone can write something up.

I dread what some of the OGL RQ stuff might be like. Especially as people unfamilar withthe game will probavbly judge RQ (and I mean all of RQ too) by whatever supplements they see.

If realmedia starts wrting RQ stuff, I'm gonna burn my book.

 

[mthomason]

Now I sorta got my hopes on the Companion and the rules "modularity" concept.

I actually find that strange, I had you figured more for someone who would have their hopes on the Glorantha material

Or do you just have so much of it already you don't need any more?

 

[mthomason]

I dread what some of the OGL RQ stuff might be like. Especially as people unfamilar withthe game will probavbly judge RQ (and I mean all of RQ too) by whatever supplements they see.

Hmm. I dunno, I'd like to credit most gamers with not judging D&D by the quality of d20 supplements.

I tend to look at the publisher name first nowadays. I just assumed most others did as well.

 

[iamtim]

I dread what some of the OGL RQ stuff might be like.

There will be stuff that sucks, and stuff that does not.

I hope my stuff falls in the latter category.

 

[mthomason]

It funny that many of the central concepts about MRQ are things that I don't agree with. For instance I think OGL has hurt d20 and gaming in general more than it helped.
It killed a lot of good systems when the companies dropped thier own games for a free OGL licience (to tap the D&D ,arket), and it ruined any sort of concept of quality. Now there is a lot of horrid d20 stuff out there, as anyone can write something up.

See, this is another thing that sometimes I feel makes me I'm oblivious to some of hte problems everyone else can see. I buy most RPG books as sourcebooks, and don't pay too much attention to the rules inside - I find I'll often ignore the rules anyway and just graft the setting into a system I want to use them with.

So to me, the "d20 boom" was a wonderful thing, as I got a ton of sourcebooks for Judge Dredd, B5 and Stargate SG-1. I felt it had a knock-on effect with Eden's Buffy RPG even though it wasn't d20. I got the piles of reference books I love to have, and they also had some game systems attached in there that I might want to look at some time

I went from a time I had to hunt around the shelves for something to buy, to a time where I had too much to choose from and had to pick the best.

I guess my tendency to go for licenced settings is another factor here - "just anyone" can't afford the licence so that adds a small amount of quality control on it's own (obviously they can still do a sucky job, but at least you know it's an established publisher who can afford the initial investment)

I don't like "closed" RPG systems, because there's only so much material you can get from the publisher. I love CoC, and always will, but Chaosium just can't churn out the material fast enough for my liking. If the OGL here means people can produce material that works with CoC, I'm all for it - I'm quite happy to sift through and pick out the best ones.

Still, the more I read other peoples points of view, the more I understand their concerns. Thats another reason I wish more people would speak up and explain the "why" behind their comments

 

[HyrumOWC]

It funny that many of the central concepts about MRQ are things that I don't agree with. For instance I think OGL has hurt d20 and gaming in general more than it helped. It killed a lot of good systems when the companies dropped thier own games for a free OGL licience (to tap the D&D ,arket), and it ruined any sort of concept of quality. Now there is a lot of horrid d20 stuff out there, as anyone can write something up.

I won't deny that there's a lot of crap out there with the d20 logo on it, but most of the physically published stuff being produced now is good.

However, d20 (and the OGL) has been a HUGE boon for the industry. More people are playing D&D now than in the history of gaming, which means that there's a very large pool of potential customers to draw from.

Hyrum.