Starting Legend Without RuneQuest

[Prime_Evil]

I agree 100% with Soltakss' words of wisdom....

Now that Legend and RQ 6 are both out there "in the wild" it is natural for fans to compare and contrast them. However, speaking personally, I don't think that I'll ever use either of them in their entirety - I approach both games as toolkits that I can use to run exactly the kind of campaign that I want. I *love* the way that RQ 6 handles mysticism and would definitely allow it in a Legend game. However, I also like Hero Points for cinematic campaigns and would consider introducing them into RQ 6 under certain circumstances.

These games are not complicated - the core system is simpler than D&D or Pathfinder or Rolemaster or Warhammer. There are fewer "special exceptions" and obscure rules to trip newcomers up. And the various subsystems tend to be very modular, making it easy to mix-and-match the bits that you like from different D100 games.

IMHO, the big thing that Legend brings to the party is the OGL. Now we have a fork of the system that is both elegant (unlike MRQ I) and truly open source. Although I love the "closed source" stuff being produced right now by Design Mechanism and Chaosium, the thought of building a community around an open version of the system is very attractive to me.

 

[warlock1971]

Heroquest has got to be one of the most portable game mechanics out there!! Robin Laws adapted his mechanics to fit Glorantha in the guise of Hero Wars, the Heroquest 1, but HQ2 is utterly the most cross genre game I have every played.

Robin Laws is one of the greatest designers in our industry. I've never had much luck getting groups to try HeroQuest, but it's not from lack of trying - the system is very elegant.

Legend is a great system, so was RQ, I love OpenQuest and I adore Heroquest. RQ and HQ are both linked to Glorantha if you like it or not, its where these games were born. I have heard some pretty harsh statements about the games from 'folk that dont like Glorantha' or refer to Runequest as 'That silly game with ducks, where you can get your legs cut off and still keep fighting!' Its all horses for courses.

The hate that some folks have for Ducks always seems a bit over-the-top to me, but there's not much that can be done about it at this point. Ducks aren't even a major part of Glorantha, but they have come to personify the setting in the minds of some folks!

I would love to see legend produce some modern day, sci fi etc supplements, D101 have done it with OQ, in the form of The Company and the forth coming River of Heaven. The D100 mechanic is sound. Ironically I find BRP too much, I get lost in all the bolt ons and forget which mechanics I am using and then spend too long hunting for them in the books.

Super Genius Games did produce a version of Strike Force 7 for MRQ I that includes some rules for modern gaming. All of the relevant rules are Open Game Content, so there should be no problem updating them to Legend....

Personally, I don't find BRP too fiddly - it's far less complicated than other universal systems such as GURPS or the Hero system. Ironically, there was a thread over at the Steve Jackson Games forum a while back where people were commenting that BRP was too rules-light for their tastes!

I don't think you have to deny the games heritage, nor do you have to force it. If folks have bought legend, but never heard of Runequest or Glorantha, then that is cool and fine. I would be surprised if there are many such people, I actually wonder if the biggest pull has not been the product, but the fact that you can get it and a load of cool supplements for $1 each :-D

I agree with most of this statement, but I get the feeling that there are quite a few people encountering the D100 system for the first time with Legend. I think that some folks who are looking for a viable alternative to D&D / Pathfinder picked up the game in PDF because it was dirt cheap and like what they see....

I just saw this post from March this year, Prime Evil certainly has the rights of it as far as I am concerned. Almost no previous exposure to the D100 system and desperate for a viable alternative to D20/Pathfinder ...

 

[arthurfallz]

Now that Legend and RQ 6 are both out there "in the wild" it is natural for fans to compare and contrast them. However, speaking personally, I don't think that I'll ever use either of them in their entirety - I approach both games as toolkits that I can use to run exactly the kind of campaign that I want. I *love* the way that RQ 6 handles mysticism and would definitely allow it in a Legend game. However, I also like Hero Points for cinematic campaigns and would consider introducing them into RQ 6 under certain circumstances.

These games are not complicated - the core system is simpler than D&D or Pathfinder or Rolemaster or Warhammer. There are fewer "special exceptions" and obscure rules to trip newcomers up. And the various subsystems tend to be very modular, making it easy to mix-and-match the bits that you like from different D100 games.

IMHO, the big thing that Legend brings to the party is the OGL. Now we have a fork of the system that is both elegant (unlike MRQ I) and truly open source. Although I love the "closed source" stuff being produced right now by Design Mechanism and Chaosium, the thought of building a community around an open version of the system is very attractive to me.

This reflects my feelings on the subject. Legend will be a damned useful toolkit for RQ Purists, and for those looking to use this "arm" of the D100 system without RuneQuest's baggage, it's a well made, inexpensive game from a major publisher.

But in the end, how a person gets into a game depends a lot on what they grab off the shelf / from the net. I'm not typical in that I buy a lot of systems to research which one works for my game. Most gamers will buy a system that they've heard of or played, or what's new and/or available to them. So the best way to promote a system you enjoy is to teach it, spread it, and produce material for it. Want people to play Legend and make it an entity in it's own right? Make settings, creatures, cults, spells and lots of other toolkit material for it. For free. Put it up on the net. Hand it out at the end of sessions at a con. Make a gaming blog.

RuneQuest has an... odd... reputation. But I think the D100 system is the best fantasy system around, and personally I don't care for how RQ-specific most editions of RQ end up being. To make Legend stand out on it's own, the name being associated with quality and quantity of material is what's going to make the difference. And assuming an adversarial relationship with RuneQuest over it isn't going to help matters. It's a strength of the game, as surrounding posts have said, that D100 GMs can pick and choose bits of systems from various editions.

 

[Loz]

RuneQuest has an... odd... reputation.

Really? Would you perhaps expand on what you mean here. From where I stand certainly, RQ has a very good and respected reputation.

I don't care for how RQ-specific most editions of RQ end up being.

And I'd be grateful if you could explain what you mean here, too. Because if RQ wasn't specifically, um, RQ, then it wouldn't be RQ. Which would defeat the object.

And assuming an adversarial relationship with RuneQuest over it isn't going to help matters. It's a strength of the game, as surrounding posts have said, that D100 GMs can pick and choose bits of systems from various editions.

I completely agree. The OP advocated disassociation of Legend from RQ, which is disingenuous, denial-ist, and divisive. No one stands to gain from such a stand. The heritage is rich and common; it should be recognised and referenced, not swept into the attic like some embarrassing relative that sits and drools at the dinner table. Legend wouldn't exist without RuneQuest. To take any other posture is, frankly, insulting to all those who've worked diligently on the system over many, many years, and enjoyed playing and running it.

 

[arthurfallz]

Really? Would you perhaps expand on what you mean here. From where I stand certainly, RQ has a very good and respected reputation.

Odd doesn't mean bad. It is percieved (in my experience) as a niche game with a stupid campaign setting. Which is a shame, because it's not a niche game, and the campaign setting isn't actually hardwired in the book (or, for that matter, really featured or explained). Or necessarily stupid, though it's not to my tastes.

And I'd be grateful if you could explain what you mean here, too. Because if RQ wasn't specifically, um, RQ, then it wouldn't be RQ. Which would defeat the object..

No, the object is to have a playable game. If I find rules I like, I will kick every piece out of the rules that doesn't fit with what I want to do with them. Do I want to run Tolkien? I can do it in RQ/Legend. Do I want to run a Skyrim-inspired game? My own pet world? I can do it all. Runes, Rune Cults and everything "Runequesty" (which are very specific features of the Glorantha world) do not have to be included in my versions of the game. But having them there doesn't hurt my game either. When I first started reading through RQIII, I saw a few things I hadn't considered that I could incorporate into my setting simply because the rules were thought out (I liked the idea of some experiental soul-marks, which Runes really mirrored well).

This would explain why I'm playing Legend, and not running out to grab RQ6. Now, it is important to me that I can use the game without the RuneQuesty bits. Does that help explain my viewpoint?

You could also suggest going out and grabbing BRP, but I don't feel like repurchasing the entire system when I own several editions already, and from what I understand BRP is a lot more generic than Legend/RQ.

 

[DamonJynx]

You could also suggest going out and grabbing BRP, but I don't feel like repurchasing the entire system when I own several editions already, and from what I understand BRP is a lot more generic than Legend/RQ.

I choose to use MRQIILegend/RQ6 (dead-tree version arrived yesterday and I am a happy little camper let me tell you, great job Loz & Co) over BRP for a couple of reasons;

• 1. To run the types of games I like (Swords & Sorcery more so than high fantasy) requires the use of too many optional rules in BRP, whilst the RQ family is pretty much good to go without much modification.
  2. Combat in the RQ family suits mine and my players style more so than BRP. Which, and mind you I've never played, seems a bit 'clunky'.
  3. The EC license (or Elric -whatever) was a huge selling point and the MRQII version of Elric is by far my all-time favourite setting and one in which I hope to have many years of fun gaming. The Rune magic in that setting, once removed, is perfect for Conan, Lankhmar and similar style S&S games.

I'm very happy to mix & match Legend/RQ6 to take advantage of the best of both systems.

Also, the fact that the ...of Legend support titles are also OGC is a boon and I think we can expect to see more 3PP producing material in the near future. This can only be a good thing.

 

[Loz]

Does that help explain my viewpoint?

Its does - thank you! You had me quite puzzled, but that makes sense.

 

[Prime_Evil]

RuneQuest has an... odd... reputation.

Really? Would you perhaps expand on what you mean here. From where I stand certainly, RQ has a very good and respected reputation.

It's funny...I find that I periodically encounter two major negative stereotypes about RQ out there amongst the gamers that I talk to. One of them is from folks who played the game back in the 1980s have fond memories of it, but tend to dismiss RQ as a "dead" system (ignoring the fact that a version of RQ has enjoyed active support from either Mongoose or Design Mechanism for most of the past decade!). The other is the viewpoint of those who haven't played the game but have heard strange things about Glorantha and find it hard to distinguish between the system and that specific campaign setting. This one is tougher because these folks often have a strong aversion to the game on principle based upon hearsay and rumour - their reasoning seems to be I won't try it because I might not like it because it is "is all about sentient ducks and other dumb stuff" (I've actually had somebody say this to me!).

The first point is more interesting. I think that there are a lot of old-timers out there who will return to the system if it gets the good support over the next year or so. I think that Legend caught their attention in a way that MRQII never did and then the RQ 6 rulebook has really made them sit up and take notice. But a lot is going to depend on the level (and quality!) of the support that the two systems get over the next twelve months.

As an aside, I find it interesting that I'm also encountering younger gamers who are dissatisfied with D&D / Pathfinder and looking for a decent "alternative" fantasy system. The D100 games often blow them away because they offer a strong simulationist experience without baroque mechanical complexity.

And assuming an adversarial relationship with RuneQuest over it isn't going to help matters. It's a strength of the game, as surrounding posts have said, that D100 GMs can pick and choose bits of systems from various editions.

I completely agree. The OP advocated disassociation of Legend from RQ, which is disingenuous, denial-ist, and divisive. No one stands to gain from such a stand. The heritage is rich and common; it should be recognised and referenced, not swept into the attic like some embarrassing relative that sits and drools at the dinner table. Legend wouldn't exist without RuneQuest. To take any other posture is, frankly, insulting to all those who've worked diligently on the system over many, many years, and enjoyed playing and running it.

I think that we should actively celebrate the history of the game, but also recognize that RQ 6 and Legend will gradually drift in slightly different directions due to differing design philosophies and editorial decisions. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, because it potentially offers us the best of both worlds. These are not complex games and a very high level of mechanical compatibility will remain. I believe that these differences can enrich both games rather than impoverishing them.

 

[DamonJynx]

stuff...

+1