Runequest What were you thinking

[atgxtg]

Good I'm glad you feel badly, you come over as a pompous prig who thinks he knows better than everybody else.

The guy is full of it, and some of you stupidly got sucked in.

No wonder you don't like the new RuneQuest, you aren't smart enough to appreciate it.

Right. So what do you come over as then?

Wow! And I though the linux post was going to be the high point of the week!

 

[Rurik]

Wow! And I though the linux post was going to be the high point of the week!

You really need to get out more I think. :wink:

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Wow! And I though the linux post was going to be the high point of the week!

HUH!

 

[atgxtg]

Well, let me restate my view on MRQ. I believe that the game was adventised as one thing, using the RQ name, along with those of Stafford & Perrin to lure in the old RQ fans into buying a game which isn't RQ.

I feel like I was cheated.

Good I'm glad you feel badly, you come over as a pompous prig who thinks he knows better than everybody else.

Nice to know I'm making someone happy. My DVD player is dying too, try not to get too excited about it.

As for the guy who started this thread (Grilnog) has anyone noticed his lack of responses.

Yeah, maybe he has a life.

I would imagine either he is from a small games company (who maybe failed to get the RQ license) - or maybe another member who lacks to courage to post under his normal name.

Anything you'd like to confess?

Yea maybe Razak was rude, but he was offended by the utter arrogance of the wally who started the thread. Most 7 year olds THESE days can't read to a standard where they could read an RPG fully enough to understand it to play it - year 2 reading levels are books like "Adventures Of Taxi Dog" and "A Chair for My Mother" not a set of Dungeons and Dragons rules.

Maybe most 7 year olds these days can't read. But back in the 70s, I know I could read at seven. I even remember the name of the first book that I read.

The guy is full of it, and some of you stupidly got sucked in.

No wonder you don't like the new RuneQuest, you aren't smart enough to appreciate it.

Why that you for pointing out just how stupid I am. Being stupid I never would have noticed it you hadn't taken the time to point that out.

While you are at it, whould you like to take a crack at fixing the opposed resolution system for us? Someone as bright as you should be able to find a solution in no time.

 

[atgxtg]

Wow! And I though the linux post was going to be the high point of the week!

HUH!

Look at this thread: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20283

Read the 4th post down. THe one by mthomason.


That was what I was referring too.

 

[Mac V]

Bye! Could you please lead a few others to the door on the way out? Thanks! Now, let's all talk about something a little less boring.

 

[Rurik]

Bye! Could you please lead a few others to the door on the way out? Thanks! Now, let's all talk about something a little less boring.

Very well then, back to the math behind opposed rolls and halving....

 

[Mac V]

You're no good Rurik! :lol: Man, I'm wasted on this stuff. I think I'm going to go find the international law that mandates that ALL RQ from hear forth by played with the Mongoose rules, especially the halving rule :roll: .

 

[Rurik]

You're no good Rurik! :lol: Man, I'm wasted on this stuff. I think I'm going to go find the international law that mandates that ALL RQ from hear forth by played with the Mongoose rules, especially the halving rule :roll: .

I actually fully embrace the opposed halfling rule as brought up in one of the Middle Earth threads.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Wow! And I though the linux post was going to be the high point of the week!

HUH!

Look at this thread: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20283

Read the 4th post down. THe one by mthomason.


That was what I was referring too.

Ah, Gotcha.

 

[andakitty]

Actually at the age of seven I had been reading for three years. My dad got me started with Robin Hood. Which explains a lot. :wink:

 

[Don Allen]

Grilnog, I'm still waiting to bid on that RQ book on ebay (when are you putting it up for sale?). I would love a second copy. Sorry to hear that you disliked the game worse than any game ever. I think the game is great.

 

[jadrax]

I much prefer systems split into several books, my group references quite a bit in game and theres nothing worse than there being a queue to read to the one book as everything is contained within it.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Another couple of considerations as to the division of the book(s)

1) It is potentially easier to sell many cheaper books rather than one expensive book, even if the overall cost end up being higher (this is, after all, how HP and Credit agreements work). If you have $25 a month to spend on games then you can by MRQ this month and the companion next, rather than saving up the (say) $40 for the combined book - especially if the $25 is burning a hole in your pocket and you blow it all on some other game each month...

2) Imagine how ripped off those people who hate MRQ would feel if they had had to pay twice the price to find that out would be. At least this way they can just not buy the companion

 

[Vadrus]

Another couple of considerations as to the division of the book(s)

1) It is potentially easier to sell many cheaper books rather than one expensive book, even if the overall cost end up being higher (this is, after all, how HP and Credit agreements work). If you have $25 a month to spend on games then you can by MRQ this month and the companion next, rather than saving up the (say) $40 for the combined book - especially if the $25 is burning a hole in your pocket and you blow it all on some other game each month...

2) Imagine how ripped off those people who hate MRQ would feel if they had had to pay twice the price to find that out would be. At least this way they can just not buy the companion

Unfortunately it can also have another effect as I found when I showed it to my games group last night. The first comment was "Slim ain't it", followed by "Where's the rest of it?" then a barrage of why is it in such large print, why does it have such large gaps amongst the paragraphs, why does it have such large borders, etc, etc.

I was quite amazed tbh, I wasn't expecting such a harsh reaction from them as they don't read these forums and I'd not discussed any of these threads with them.

Within a few mins they'd found many typos and poor wording, and after one player studied it a bit during the rest of the evening he mentioned that the maths seemed a bit iffy.

Comments we're made about the visual layout after a quick scan through about it being the bastard child of RQ3 and D&D3.5.

They basically dismissed it within a few minutes and said I'd been ripped off when I pointed out how cheap the core book was.

Overall it didn't make a very good first impression.


Vadrus

 

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

Unfortunately it can also have another effect as I found when I showed it to my games group last night. The first comment was "Slim ain't it", followed by "Where's the rest of it?" then a barrage of why is it in such large print, why does it have such large gaps amongst the paragraphs, why does it have such large borders, etc, etc.

I was quite amazed tbh, I wasn't expecting such a harsh reaction from them as they don't read these forums and I'd not discussed any of these threads with them.

Within a few mins they'd found many typos and poor wording, and after one player studied it a bit during the rest of the evening he mentioned that the maths seemed a bit iffy.

Comments we're made about the visual layout after a quick scan through about it being the bastard child of RQ3 and D&D3.5.

They basically dismissed it within a few minutes and said I'd been ripped off when I pointed out how cheap the core book was.

Overall it didn't make a very good first impression.


Vadrus

Certainly interesting. It may depend on what sort of look and feel of games they are used to playing?

My (long delayed) copy is apparently on its way (my wife and son are picking it up from the FLGS as we speak) so I'll see what my first reaction is later on

More seriously there is an issue if the initial reaction is like this because even if the underlying components are good (and that's extensively discussed elsewhere) a perception can significantly impact the sales of a title.

Regards

 

[SmegmaLord]

I hate to be prophetic, but I have stated this before that the quick glance buyer will dismiss this book for prettier alternatives and the gaps, art (and character sheet), borders and slimness are frankly unforgivable.

A graphic artist firend looking at the books last night stated that the binding (in the UK) is called 'perfect bind' where you just glue the pages into the spine.

If you get books any bigger the pages start to fall out after a while. I'm going on what he said on faith but I think Mongoose have created 'issues' in how the book is going to be perceived.

The general synopsis of people I showed it to is Slim, Cheap looking, Rushed and 'padded'!

No one had even read the rules, which in retrospect will need a couple of house modifications to please the fan-base.

This is a problem of perception and sadly has nothing to do with what Mongoose have done in terms of the actual quality of the game.

CHRIS

 

[Vadrus]

Greetings

Certainly interesting. It may depend on what sort of look and feel of games they are used to playing?

My (long delayed) copy is apparently on its way (my wife and son are picking it up from the FLGS as we speak) so I'll see what my first reaction is later on

More seriously there is an issue if the initial reaction is like this because even if the underlying components are good (and that's extensively discussed elsewhere) a perception can significantly impact the sales of a title.

Regards

They have played a great variety of games of all genre's including RQ3, Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, Star Wars, D&D, Traveller, Deadlands, etc, etc.

I have never seen them so dismissive of a 'major' system before and it mostly seemed to stem from their first impression on the lack of weight of the book. Shallow I know, but many commented on it's lack of substance just on picking it up before even opening it.

Btw the group had 7 players last night and all seemed underwhelmed by their first view of the book.

One, who works at Waterstones, seemed doubtful that such a slim volume would be well received and commented that if Mongoose really were out to produce a cheap starter volume, why did they waste money on a hardcover rather than release a softback edition where the lack of pages would psychologialy seem less important. Seems when people buy a hardback they tend to be looking for something impressive in his experience whereas softback books are received much less critically.

I know 7 people isn't exactly a huge sampling, but they all came without prior knowledge about the new game and judged it on how they saw it.

For reference I usually turn up with a new rpg or two every fortnight so they are used to seeing and judging new games on a fairly regular basis. Last night they also got their first views of 'Vanishing Point' (a small press game, but still hardbound with a much higher page and content count than MRQ) and the 'Cadwallon' RPG's. They found both of them much more visually impressive and appealing, though Cadwallons more wargame style movement and combat was not received very well as they prefer a much more flowing and freestyle system.

Just my observations.


Vadrus

 

[SmegmaLord]

One guy in my group asked why should we play MRQ rather than RQ2/3?

I found it hard to asnwer him and be convincing.

Anyone got a point of view?

Also as the guy who started this thread has skuppered off to climes anew, he must be praised for the many comments the rest of us have added to the conversation.

What starts in darkness ends in light! :-( (Did I really write that)

CHRIS

 

[MongooseMatt]

One, who works at Waterstones, seemed doubtful that such a slim volume would be well received and commented that if Mongoose really were out to produce a cheap starter volume, why did they waste money on a hardcover rather than release a softback edition where the lack of pages would psychologialy seem less important.

If he works at Waterstones, he should know the answer to that. . .