Runequest What were you thinking

[atgxtg]

However, after checking out what similarly-sized hardbacks published by Mongoose have cost, the combined book would have probably been only about $34.95. So, it was either about 34.95 for a single combined decent-sized sourcebook, or 50 bucks for two seperate books, each of which is on the slim size?

I know what you mean. OGL Ancients went for $40, is twice the size, and printed in color on glossy paper. I am wondering just how much it is costing Mongoose to use the RQ name.

Why play MRQ rather than RQ2/3? Because it is available.

Just because something is "available" doesn't make it a better product, and just because something has a reconizable name also doesn't make it a better product. Clearly other people have different opinions, but I consider neither of those to be factors that even remotely override the quality of a product when determining what to spend my money on.

aI with you here. THe only people I know who looked at MRQ because of the RQ name were RQ2/3 fans. No one of them has been favorable impressed. I believe I am the only one who bought a copy of the book, with the others sitting on the shelves of the local gaming shops.

In the end, it isn't the nice cover or goregeous art that gets me to play a game, it is the rules and setting. If I like what I read, I'll want to play it. If I don't like what I read, I wont want to play it. Copies of RQ3 are not that tought to get on the internet-so any GM who want's to can did up a half dozen rule sets for his players to buy. SO it all really boild down to if people prefer MRQ to RQ2/3 or vice versa.

 

[atgxtg]

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah . . . . .

Typical American, brandishing a weapon bigger than his privates and a gob bigger than his brain.

Oh cool, the comic relief has arrived.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah . . . . .

Typical American, brandishing a weapon bigger than his privates and a gob bigger than his brain.

Mmm, yes, yes, I see. Yes, you've given me quite a lot to think about, Dr. Warlock. Your rebuttals to my arguments are exquisite, and your grasp of debate and exposulation are stunning. I look forward to your next post with unadulterated glee.

Just Blank him Buddy, there are a couple on here that deserve to be ignored.

 

[Vadrus]

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah . . . . .

Typical American, brandishing a weapon bigger than his privates and a gob bigger than his brain.

Mmm, yes, yes, I see. Yes, you've given me quite a lot to think about, Dr. Warlock. Your rebuttals to my arguments are exquisite, and your grasp of debate and exposulation are stunning. I look forward to your next post with unadulterated glee.

Just Blank him Buddy, there are a couple on here that deserve to be ignored.

Unintended Irony?


Vadrus the doesn't know when to shut up it seems

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Mmm, yes, yes, I see. Yes, you've given me quite a lot to think about, Dr. Warlock. Your rebuttals to my arguments are exquisite, and your grasp of debate and exposulation are stunning. I look forward to your next post with unadulterated glee.

Just Blank him Buddy, there are a couple on here that deserve to be ignored.

Unintended Irony?


Vadrus the doesn't know when to shut up it seems

And people had issue with me being unpleasant . . . .

 

[Greg Smith]

[

Why play MRQ rather than RQ2/3? Because it is available.

Just because something is "available" doesn't make it a better product,

I never said it was but when something has been out of print for nearly 20 years, the one in print is the one to go for if you have a yearing to recreate the RQ games that you played years ago and sadly sold all your books when you cleared out your basement/got married/moved house.

Also I have seen many threads on many discussion boards claiming a game is 'dead' when the publisher ceases to support it by bringing out new books. It is not a view I hold, but the return of RQ to print means that many gamers will no longer consider it to be deceased.

 

[Vadrus]

Just Blank him Buddy, there are a couple on here that deserve to be ignored.

Unintended Irony?


Vadrus the doesn't know when to shut up it seems

And people had issue with me being unpleasant . . . .

Actually I preferred to think of it as a witty comeback...


Vadrus

 

[SteveMND]

I never said it was but when something has been out of print for nearly 20 years, the one in print is the one to go for if you have a yearing to recreate the RQ games that you played years ago

I understand, but as I read it, you still seem to be implying that the quality of the product doesn't really enter into the equation, and rather the overriding factor is merely that it is in print.

Now, some people really do like the new version, and for those people, yes, there is little reason NOT to go with MRQ. But for many of us who are not impressed with the new game, the mere fact that it is currently in print does little to sway the vote.

Maybe I'm too idealistic in this regard, but if a game is ressurected and either does nothing to improve on the name, or -- heaven forbid -- actually makes the name look worse in my eyes, I would have preferred that the game not be brought back in the first place.

(And for those who are new and understandably haven't read the fifteen gazillion other messages on this board, let me clarify an issue -- while I have been unimpressed with the previews and some of the design suggestions, I am still waiting for the SRD so I can get my hands on the actual rules before making a final judgment, so I'm talking about games in theory moreso than talking specifically about MRQ here.)

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

I never said it was but when something has been out of print for nearly 20 years, the one in print is the one to go for if you have a yearing to recreate the RQ games that you played years ago

I understand, but as I read it, you still seem to be implying that the quality of the product doesn't really enter into the equation, and rather the overriding factor is merely that it is in print.

Now, some people really do like the new version, and for those people, yes, there is little reason NOT to go with MRQ. But for many of us who are not impressed with the new game, the mere fact that it is currently in print does little to sway the vote.

Maybe I'm too idealistic in this regard, but if a game is ressurected and either does nothing to improve on the name, or -- heaven forbid -- actually makes the name look worse in my eyes, I would have preferred that the game not be brought back in the first place.

(And for those who are new and understandably haven't read the fifteen gazillion other messages on this board, let me clarify an issue -- while I have been unimpressed with the previews and some of the design suggestions, I am still waiting for the SRD so I can get my hands on the actual rules before making a final judgment, so I'm talking about games in theory moreso than talking specifically about MRQ here.)

Perhaps we should start a Poll, who prefers which edition.

 

[atgxtg]

.

Maybe I'm too idealistic in this regard, but if a game is ressurected and either does nothing to improve on the name, or -- heaven forbid -- actually makes the name look worse in my eyes, I would have preferred that the game not be brought back in the first place.

I can foresee converstations where when someone sayas that they like/play RuneQuest, they will have to clairify it. It is sort of like what happened when Ford turned the Thunderbird into a luxury sedan when it had been a sportscar. It had the same name, but it was a differernt car.

 

[atgxtg]

Perhaps we should start a Poll, who prefers which edition.

Insteresting thought, but probably meaningless. MOst of the people who visit a MRQ forum are MRQ fans. It would be like asking people what political party they belong to at a national convention.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Perhaps we should start a Poll, who prefers which edition.

Insteresting thought, but probably meaningless. MOst of the people who visit a MRQ forum are MRQ fans. It would be like asking people what political party they belong to at a national convention.

Not really, as the majority of people posting on this particular thread aren't.

 

[Urox]

....for those who dont the answer is.......?

People like hardbacks, whatever the format. . .

The real answer is that people don't like flimsy paper covers ala AH RQ3.

 

[Billy Bunter]

RQ3 was nasty.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

RQ3 was nasty.

I wouldn't say "nasty" just economically produced.

 

[Enpeze]

Perhaps we should start a Poll, who prefers which edition.

Insteresting thought, but probably meaningless. MOst of the people who visit a MRQ forum are MRQ fans. It would be like asking people what political party they belong to at a national convention.

I think its interesting. It would show what the majority on this board (and this board IS by far the most active RQ board on the net at the moment) prefers.

 

[andakitty]

Probably be RQ2.

 

[simonh]

RQ3 was nasty.

The orriginal boxed sets yes, but when AH finaly brought it all out in one seft-bound book during the 'RQ Renaisance' period in the early 90s it was fantastic.


Simon Hibbs

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

RQ3 was nasty.

The orriginal boxed sets yes, but when AH finaly brought it all out in one seft-bound book during the 'RQ Renaisance' period in the early 90s it was fantastic.


Simon Hibbs

I got that one too, a much better product.

 

[Don Allen]

So it seems like the people who remember the old versions of the game dislike the new one because they are comparing it to the content the other editions contained.

I would rather have one page of concise, non wordy, rules on how to make an attack in combat then 10 pages of wordy crunchy rules that you have to spend 10 minutes flipping through during play to find a specific rule (but that is just a personal opinion, some like their peanut butter crunchy )

I see the new Rune Quest as a GREAT alternative to d20 which I hate. It fixes everything I hate about d20 including...classes, levels, challenge ratings, that blasted d20 (percentiles rock!), spell slots, and a myriad of other annoying things. I see RQ as a d20 fix and that is very good imo. The d20 players guide did not come with a setting either. d20 looks good because of the amount of money Wizards of the Coast had to invest in it but it still is a poor game (again imo).

Thank you Mongoose for a game I will be using in place of d20 that is fun, quick, and plays smooth.