Some critical words about the companion preview
- Thread starter Enpeze
- Start date
SteveMND said:
Only a few products from that era are unavailable - the rules book. the scenarios (Apple Lane, Snake Pipe Hollow), the RQ2 version of Trollpak, and RuneQuest (2) Companion. The rest has been re-published by Moon Design. Apart from the rules book and the companion, the material was re-published for RQ3 and may be available at better prices than the RQ2 originals.
andakitty said:Hey, Enpeze.
First of all, WHY are you wasting breath at the Conan forum? They just get more hostile and fearful. I don't think they have anything to worry about because I'm sure Mongoose knows not to mess a good deal up. They seem like fair minded guys to me (the Mongoose guys, anyway).
As for expectations of MRQ, haven't you looked at the previews? I think there is a lot we can say we know from them and hints dropped over the last few months. Such as
You can choose PC background,
There is a simple task system,
Mongoose went for a minimalist approach,
We have attack/parry/dodge as options,
We have the same stats,
No resistance tables (it looks like skills as saves..Resilience, Persistence),
No stat x type rolls (not sure about this, but they are going for as little math as possible, so...),
Maybe exp. , definitely Hero Pts., though how extensive they are used is a good question,
Probably a lot more, I am responding to your list here.
As for magic, I think I can parlay the Rune magic into a full magic system without much trouble. And I think it would fit Lankhmar pretty well.
Heh, you'll have to excuse me. I'm really looking forward to this.
Hi,
regarding you question about the thing I am "wasting" time in the conan forum. Simply its not time wasting for me. I like to discuss. Some in this forum are hostile thats correct, but its not that problem for me, because there are also some interesting opinions. I found several well mannered and informative posts which make up the more rude ones. And finally I hope that conan (REH is one of my favorite writers) will be a MRQ setting next year, so its my "spritual preparation" for this remarkable event.
Regarding the expectations I have from MRQ, I wrote the list from a former POV, before I was able to see the previews. It was to show atgxtg what I would have seen as an ideal version of MRQ. I know that not everything on my list will be true but I hope at least something.
Runemagic as Lankhmar magic? Maybe yes but you have to cancel the whole rune stuff and take the just the raw game mechanic. You know a spell costs MP etc. I would rather like an approach CoC made. (with other spells of course)
Dead Blue Clown
Mongoose
atgxtg said:Me too. THat is part of my point of view here , too-even to the taste in movies.THere are a lot of RPGs that I don't buy because I don't like them, or even dislike them. One reason why I got interested in this game is becuase I do like RuneQuest. I like most of the variations and deratives of RuneQuest (the exceptions are Nephilim, Call of Cthulhu and Ringworld). I just wondering if I am going to like this one. It hasn't impressed me yet.
I have only seen a few pages of the new game though, that's why I was asking about the new game. [/i]
I getcha. I think you're arguing smart and you've got valid points, well backed-up by your views and criticisms. Some I don't agree with, some I'm confident the book (and a good game of RQ) would change, some I think you'll stick with for good.
I'm always pretty pressed for time on the forum (that's quite the understatement...) but I wanted to take a moment to reply a little. I understand your crits, for sure. And for the record, I don't envisage rabid hordes falling in love with the new game, but I do think it'll carve a decent niche as all editions of RQ have in the past. I definitely think it's similar enough to previous editions that it deserves to bear the name.
Also, for the record, I bought D&D sight unseen because I thought it was going to be set in the Forgotten Realms. I was pretty angry when I discovered it wasn't, but at that point I was still blowing my student loan on cheap lager throughout my first year at uni, so my rage didn't last very long in the storm of 'night-out' perspective.
kustenjaeger
Mongoose
Greetings
Just a word to say I've been impressed by the tolerant nature of this debate, encapsulated by DBC's latest comment.
Regards
Just a word to say I've been impressed by the tolerant nature of this debate, encapsulated by DBC's latest comment.
Dead Blue Clown said:
Regards
atgxtg said:
With respect, that is because you have not actually played it yet. . .
atgxtg said:
Well, first off, the D20 OGL licence does not cost us any money, so that is not the reason for RQ.
As for any similarities between RQ and D&D. At a very fundamental level, RQ (any version) and D&D 3e are incredibly similar - to the extent that we began to wonder whether the designers of 3e had used RQ as a baseline. It is very possible that we went through a lot of the same design processes, a possibility that was hammered home for us when we tried, just for an instant, to make percentiles a lot easier by dividing everything by 5 and using a D20. . .
atgxtg said:
You remember when Chamberlain came back from Germany waving a piece of paper? That was the last time someone was as wrong
First, the OGL licence (and the RQ licence, for that matter) is free. No money changes hands.
Second, in theory, text can be copyrighted, but systems and mechanics (as they relate to games) cannot (though they can , in theory, be patented).
Put another way. . .
I could take the D&D rules, change all the text (including making defined terms like Strength, called something else like Might), still have the same core rules, effectively, and market it as a new game. In fact, in the very early days of RPGs, this is exactly what happened.
Why not do it today? Well, people do, actually, on a smaller scale - it is quite easy to find a mechnic in one game that is identical to one in a game published earlier. So why not convert an entire game like that?
Because it would be a pain in the backside, and people are after the background (which is protected) as much as the rules. . .
Hope that clears things up!
atgxtg said:
I don't know anything about the new BRP. However, in comparison to the previous editions of RQ, I can say this.
By standing on the shoulders of those giants, we have been able to create a better game. It flows better, is easier to comprehend, is quicker in play - and still 'feels' like the older editions.
What is not to like?
kustenjaeger
Mongoose
Greetings
I look forward to putting it to the test
Regards
I look forward to putting it to the test
msprange said:
Regards
Curious then... what is the difference with "OGL Ancients" as opposed to any of the other d20 supplements you make? OGL Ancients clearly is D&D-ish-based (if the sample character sheet is to be believed), but it doesn't have the d20 logo on the cover, and it appears to be a standalone...?
In a nutshell, we give up the option of using the D20 logo (as opposed to the D20 rules, which are Open Content - anyone can use them), in order to have a complete game, in cluding character generation - which you cannot have under the D20 logo.
It is just one of those things
Either way, however, no money changes hands for either licence.
SteveMND said:Curious then... what is the difference with "OGL Ancients" as opposed to any of the other d20 supplements you make? OGL Ancients clearly is D&D-ish-based (if the sample character sheet is to be believed), but it doesn't have the d20 logo on the cover, and it appears to be a standalone...?
In a nutshell, we give up the option of using the D20 logo (as opposed to the D20 rules, which are Open Content - anyone can use them), in order to have a complete game, in cluding character generation - which you cannot have under the D20 logo.
It is just one of those things
Either way, however, no money changes hands for either licence.
The reason is that when you use the d20 logo you have to abide by the d20 logo license, which prohibits things like explaining character creation and how to spend experience.
This makes it so that if you want to use the 3E rules, but are changing how you make characters, then you can't use the d20 logo, but can still use the rules.
(Hope that makes sense. I got home late from Comic-Con last night and I'm heading out there again right now.)
Hyrum.
Weird! It looks like someone's response actually got melded with my previous question post. Odd. :shock: lol, or Matthew hit 'edit' instead of 'quote' by accident. ;D
Hmm, okay, but... then why use the d20 as opposed to the OGL? If there is no difference in the cost (free), etc., why on earth would someone use the d20 license when making their game as opposed to the fully-featured OGL licencse? It's like being able to use 90% of the rules or 100% of them at the same cost...?
Sorry if I'm wandering well of topic, but I've gotten all curious now...
Hmm, okay, but... then why use the d20 as opposed to the OGL? If there is no difference in the cost (free), etc., why on earth would someone use the d20 license when making their game as opposed to the fully-featured OGL licencse? It's like being able to use 90% of the rules or 100% of them at the same cost...?
Sorry if I'm wandering well of topic, but I've gotten all curious now...
kustenjaeger said:
Being the one primary on the "anti-" side of this debate, I gotta agree with this post.
While I have convcerns about MRQ, I do have to agree that DBC has been tolerant and understanding in this debate, and I bear him no no illwill, but in fact am I pleased that he has taken the time to try and address my concerns.
Thanks.
PS> Oh, and I'd like to extend that thaks to msprange, too. While if I like MRQ or not is yet to be known, I do appraciate it when the game designer stops by and puts in a word or two.
It's very nice of you folks to do that.
msprange said:
Yeah, they did. Jon Tweet is a big RQ fan, and the D20 skill system and DC system are really just revamps of the RQ skill and Resistance Chart, converted from d100/roll low to d20/roll high.
What I am more worried about is adopting apects of D&D like its economic system-the one where a suit of plate costs something like 12 pounds worth of gold. Nor do I want to see groups buying magic items with sums of money greater than to total wealth of histoical countries.
SteveMND said:
I am curious too! I mean, for years I thought that I couldn't use or relase the stuff that I had written for RPGs that have faded into the past. Now it seems that I could have, as long as I changed the name and a few terms. I wonder where the lines are draw.
Someone I suspect I couldn't get away with GlyphSearch. Then again, with an OGL, I guess I don't have to even bother.
I always thought that there was some sort of liscencing fee for printing OGL/d20 and asuch stuff. So, WotC (and now Mongoooose) doesn't make any money from the sales of third party products.
THat sort of explains why 3E+ has so many rules expansions.
msprange said:
Well, Chaosium has taken RQ3, and essentially renamed Deluxe Basic ROle Playing. It has been available as a monograph for the last few years-primialry as support for all those Moon Design fans who have been buying up the RQ reprint stuff.
THe info that I've read is that Chaosium is planning to revamp/reprint the RQ3/BRP rules with minor changes (removal of RQ name and anything else they can't use due to trademarks) and release it as a baseline fantasty RPG.
This could lead to two companies ensentially selling the same rules system. Or at least fairly similar rules.
msprange said:
I hope so. As you metntioned previously, I have not played the new game yet, so I can't resond to claims of it being better, easier to comprehend, quicker to play, or that it "feels" like the older editions. I won't know that until August 7th (more likely the 9th, since I think that is when my local gaming store gets thier games).
The reasons why I got concerned about MRQ was that, based upon what I've seen in the previews, it doesn't have the RQ "feel" to it. At least, it doesn't to me. Hopefully, that is is the 112 something pages that I haven't seen.
Thanks.
Mark Mohrfield
Mongoose
Dead Blue Clown said:
Well, there was that wizard at the beginning of Swords of Lankhmar who cast what was described as "bolt of bluish fire" at the Mouser, who diverted it with what seemed to be a lightning rod.
Well, no licensing fee for publishing d20 stuff, because you are not allowed to include character creation and advancement as part of what you publish -- that means to use the d20 book you publish, potential customers will still have to buy the D&D Core book(s) it's built upon in order to know how to create and advance your characters. That, and brand name, is where WotC comes out ahead here.
But I do have to say that the idea of being able to essentially use ALL of the D&D 3.x rules if you want in your book -- including the character creation and advancement section -- without having to do or pay anything more than with the "typical" d20 logo-related stuff... well, that's rather surprising, to say the least.
SteveMND said:
Yeah, but it has a serious drawback. Eventually, most of the gamers will have copies to the core books, and sales will drop off. With a minor fee, a company could sit back and make profits off of the sucess of 3rd party products. Now, we could actually have a situation where the company producing the RPG might end up making less money that the 3rd party companies-especially if they can print rules and make thier products stand alone rpgs (like OGL Ancients). In theory, WotC could go bankrupt while D&D could be outselling everything else.
It cetainly explains all the rules additions, class books, 3.5 edtions and such.
Only, I hope we don't see the same things with MRQ. I don't want to see a series of profession books, revised rules, "complete" books, "slayers" guide and all that.
BTW, I can only imagine what might happen if Chaosium started producing MRQ books. A MRQ Young Kingdom's book or MRQ CoC could let them tap into this new MRQ market, and the folks over a Chasoium probably know the general system as well as anyone.
