Second RuneQuest Companion Preview

[MongooseMatt]

As the release date for the all new RuneQuest roleplaying game thunders ever closer, we have another preview of the RuneQuest Companion to show you;

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=39

 

[SteveMND]

My, it's such a roller-coaster with these previews. One preview has something I absolutely hate, the next has something I absolutely love.

And I absolutely love what little they show of the MRQ form of "spirit combat" in the spirit world. It's combat... between spirits. We'll have to see how it handles corporeal spirit-vs-incorporeal spirit, though, but still, potentially quite interesting.

 

[Samvail1]

Again, why is the header font wrong? Surely that's not the finished styling as it's got to have defaulted .... hasn't it?


Get it sorted, Mongoose. It's these initial impressions your trying so hard to grab people with, and not the taint of sloppy production from previous years.

Sam

 

[SteveMND]

Again, why is the header font wrong? Surely that's not the finished styling as it's got to have defaulted .... hasn't it?

Not a total tech-head on PDFs, but it looks to me like the source documents have the proper fonts and such, they just aren't being displayed properly here. Presumably it's this way because they didn't want to have to embed the entire font (and increase a four-page document size for the sake of eight or nine letters) in these preview PDFs.

 

[Samvail1]

Again, why is the header font wrong? Surely that's not the finished styling as it's got to have defaulted .... hasn't it?

Not a total tech-head on PDFs, but it looks to me like the source documents have the proper fonts and such, they just aren't being displayed properly here. Presumably it's this way because they didn't want to have to embed the entire font (and increase a four-page document size for the sake of eight or nine letters) in these preview PDFs.

Yeah, probably. Still, it's initial impressions which count. And this initial impression is somewhat lacking.

Sam

 

[Enpeze]

I just read the second preview:

some thoughts

-Enchantments: sounds fine. well written and clear rules
-spirit combat: while I liked spirit combat in original RQ with the resistance table very much, I will give the new system a try. Lets guess. are magic points the "hitpoints" of spirit combat?

-the chapter "between adventures": why describing a "hamlet"? Are you serious? Everybody knows what a hamlet or a small town is. The same is for building structures. If player like to buy houses or a castle, just add these items to the general price lists. Sorry but the 2 "between adventures" pages are useless and a totally waste of space IMO.

-on page 3 there are listed some weapon qualities which remind me to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2

 

[salazar]

I just read the second preview:


-the chapter "between adventures": why describing a "hamlet"? Are you serious? Everybody knows what a hamlet or a small town is. The same is for building structures. If player like to buy houses or a castle, just add these items to the general price lists. Sorry but the 2 "between adventures" pages are useless and a totally waste of space IMO.

Agreed, and an example of why this game needs serious editing. The paragraph "What makes a city?" is totally redundant waffle. A header such as "Settlement Types" would have been sufficient.

Why should we wade through this guff when space is at a premium?

Still, it's not as bad as the new Tekumel game, which devotes an entire page to a description of the common house-cat. :lol:

Salazar

 

[SteveMND]

the chapter "between adventures": why describing a "hamlet"? Are you serious? Everybody knows what a hamlet or a small town is. The same is for building structures. If player like to buy houses or a castle, just add these items to the general price lists. Sorry but the 2 "between adventures" pages are useless and a totally waste of space IMO

I disagree completely. Sure, for those of us that have been RPing for decades, or even just years, sure, it's largely redundant. But for new gamers, and those new to running a campaign and especially those new to designing their own campaign worlds (which the Companion seems more attuned to), the basics like that are important.

People have to remember, MRQ is not just for the established players, but also for the neophyte ones. Us long-time RQers are not the only target audience they're shooting for.

 

[andakitty]

Enpeze, those weapon quality rules, the ones like WFRP 2, do you have experience running them? How do you use them in play without slowing things down? They look clumsy to me. So, do you let the player with the weapon take it into account, just make a note, or what? Any advice here would be appreciated...

 

[Enpeze]

Enpeze, those weapon quality rules, the ones like WFRP 2, do you have experience running them? How do you use them in play without slowing things down? They look clumsy to me. So, do you let the player with the weapon take it into account, just make a note, or what? Any advice here would be appreciated...

Hi,
yes I play with them since several months. I have to memorize them during stress situation like combat which is problematic. Sometimes I do and sometimes I dont. But before I let them slow down combat, I ignore them completely, no question.

On the character sheet, the players are making a note for their weapon quality as reminder. If I forget to use them, they sometimes remember me to count them in, but not always.

Some qualtities like impact (roll 2 damage dice and take the higher) are quite interesting und give a nice picture, others like armor piercing (armor absorbs -1) are not worth the space in the rulebook. (the effect is not portraying the reality, better would have been: armor halved)

So personally I would be perfectly able to play without weapon qualities, but it seems that modern games today require such things.

 

[andakitty]

So they do.

Oh, well. At least they aren't tied to the combat and necessary to make it work. I think.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Enpeze]

the chapter "between adventures": why describing a "hamlet"? Are you serious? Everybody knows what a hamlet or a small town is. The same is for building structures. If player like to buy houses or a castle, just add these items to the general price lists. Sorry but the 2 "between adventures" pages are useless and a totally waste of space IMO

I disagree completely. Sure, for those of us that have been RPing for decades, or even just years, sure, it's largely redundant. But for new gamers, and those new to running a campaign and especially those new to designing their own campaign worlds (which the Companion seems more attuned to), the basics like that are important.

People have to remember, MRQ is not just for the established players, but also for the neophyte ones. Us long-time RQers are not the only target audience they're shooting for.

Ah for new gamers? And you think that new gamers dont know what a hamlet or a small town is? Maybe the companion should explain other words to them too? Like what is an apple and how can I use it for my adventurers? Or what is a backpack? Or boots? Or what is a house cat and can I have one as pet?

Ok seriously. I see the explanation of settlement types like small town not as a basic, because the character and size of a settlement depends totally on the cultural setting.

 

[Enpeze]

So they do.

Oh, well. At least they aren't tied to the combat and necessary to make it work. I think.

Thanks for the response.

Well they are not really necessary. They alter the combat system just in a small way if used, (except the impact quality) but at the expense of many more rules to remember during combat. On the other hand the combat system in WFRP2 is not that exciting (especially if you are used to play BRP) so it doesnt matter.

 

[atgxtg]

Ah for new gamers? And you think that new gamers dont know what a hamlet or a small town is? Maybe the companion should explain other words to them too? Like what is an apple? Or what is a backpack? Or boots? Or what is a house cat? I see the explanation of settlement types like small town not as a basic, because the character and size of a settlement depends totally on the setting. So if you explain settlement types to players, please do this in a cultural source book.[/quote]

Well, if it makes a difference, in the US, when peole hear the world "Hamlet" they think of a play, not a small village. So the term is probably useful for cultural reference. Putting the size/number of inhabitents for a certain size setting has some merit too. Most of the gamer's I've met, have a poor grasp on some of the difficulties in providing food and living space for large groups of people. About 85% of the GM's I've talked too have st up cities that would starve in under a month. Info on the some basic ancient and medieval living condtions is definately needed.

 

[SteveMND]

Ah for new gamers? And you think that new gamers dont know what a hamlet or a small town is?

When the game is referring to stuff like "X is available in a small town but not in a hamlet," then yes, I think it's very handy to have definitions of that sort of stuff.

And yes, when trying to create their first new campaign world for game, I doubt seriously that many of them will have any idea as to how big population centers are in medeival periods, etc. Perhaps over in Europe, with 1500 years or so of such history, it may be more apparent what constitutes a 'hamlet,' but here in the states you hardly ever see that term used outside of... well, outside of gaming and history buffs, really.

 

[Mac V]

I didn't see anything excessive with the travel stuff. Plus, since the rules are "set" in RQ, it puts everyone on the same page. I was kind of bummed with the idea "Companion" book, but it's looking kind of cool. I do hope they stay away from the D&D habit of putting small amounts of stuff in lots of books. I hate the D20 format of 40% source material, 10% spells, 10% feats, 10% magic items, 10% prestige classes, etc. It just leads to an unusable mess. Better to have one big book of spells, feats, whatever.

 

[andakitty]

That's amusing. Here in the States I guess the word 'crossroads' would conjure up an image of a hamlet. So games need lists of synonyms for these things, too.

Just kidding.

 

[atgxtg]

That's amusing. Here in the States I guess the word 'crossroads' would conjure up an image of a hamlet. So games need lists of synonyms for these things, too.

Just kidding.

Don't laugh, I have a friend who I need to "translate" the the new Doctor Who epsidoes from "English" to "American English". Between the accents and differenet idioms he gets lost. A typical viewing session:


"What's a roundabout?"

"A rotary."

"Why don't they just call it a rotary, then?"

"Because it's thier language."

"Ok, so why are they so keen on making rugs?"

"Huh?"

"All this talk about shagging"

"NO! That's something else...."

 

[Lord Twig]

Well I like what I have seen of Enchanting so far, but that is probably because it is almost identical to RQIII.

Quote from MRQ:C

An enchantment is a permanent magical effect. As a permanent effect, it cannot be easily dispelled, dismissed or neutralised(sic).

Quote from RQIII Magic Book

Through Enchantment, a permanent change in the environment is magically caused.... As a permanent change in the world, an Enchantment cannot be Dispelled, Dismissed, or Neutralized, though the runes of the Enchantment can be broken and the effect of the ritual thus cancelled.

As I said, I really liked RQIII Enchanting, so this is a good thing. Plus I am sure that there will be other changes once we get into the meat of the rules.

I also spotted some obvious errors that will need to be fixed before it is published if Mongoose wants to avoid the stigma of being a company that publishes material full of errors.

The first of course is that they spelled "neutralized" wrong. (Unless it is a UK English spelling?)

In the Spirit Combat area, the bullet point, "Spirits attack, parry, dodge and basically fight just like their corporeal counterparts, though many of their Attributes and skills are determined differently." Is the first bullet point and is repeated on the fifth bullet point.

Also there is a typo in the forth bullet point near the end where they printed "fro" instead of "for"

As for the font. I have heard this complaint a few times. For the record, I have absolutely no problem with the current fonts. It will affect my game and enjoyment of the book in absolutely no way. Now if they had some silly super-stylized font that I could barely read, that would bother me. I like that they made things very readable.

 

[andakitty]

atg, that made me laugh out loud. :lol: