TrippyHippy

This is an excellent move on Chaosium's part, and for Nocturnal's part the new developer, David Larkins, has some really exciting plans for the line including spin-off games (Paladin, Mymidon, Samurai) and Book of Magic (for Magician characters 'done right' in the Pendragon world). I already have King Arthur Pendragon 5.2 edition, as a kickstarter backer on several of Stewart Wieck's campaigns, and it is, hand's down, my favourite fantasy rpg of all.

To be sure, most of my arguments here are directed at Jeff and MOB for their remarks. If this the first time you have heard the descriptor of 5E being 4E done right, you can at least say you heard it directly from someone with genuine first hand experience of both.

A 65% increase is a huge difference, and fails to take into account all the other aspects of a character (spells, bonus Class abilities, feats, magic items) that are accumulated. If one of your abilities garners the effect of an Advantage on a roll (ie roll twice and take the best one), you'd increase your chances accordingly.

But, by extension, you are criticising what you don't know. And actually, people who have played both 4E and 5E will actually note that most of the stuff in 4E was actually carried over into 5E, but where certain terms and jargon were filtered out, where a massive playtesting had players actually voice their concerns about the direction of the game - and the game as a whole was redesigned accordingly. That is why I say 5E was 4E done right. And to just emphasise the current popularity of D&D since 5E came out: https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/03/14/dungeons-and-dragons-2017-sales/ https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/dungeons-dragons-biggest-sales-year-2017 D&D is more popular than it has ever been before. Indeed, the fact that the market leader is actually expanding it's market is what is ultimately giving the hobby - as a whole - the player-base numbers, some of them who never played any RPG before now. It is this factor that make it possible for alternative games like RuneQuest to expand too. Making disparaging comments that fly in face of real gaming experience is not going to sell your game to them.

And yet, if you play Adventures in Middle Earth for 5E (which I have been doing so for the last year), there are no spell-casting characters and to say that "20th Level Characters are barely more competant than 1st Level ones" simply underlines to me, again that you are another person that hasn't played it.

No. The main thrust of 5E was to make a version of the game that was a step away from the very criticism that Jeff above is making - "a hybrid between a board game and what they understand as a RPG" - which is the primary reason cited why people actually stopped buying 4E (which practically required minatures to play, designated character 'roles' in combat and emphasised set piece combat above all else in the game). To wit, they designed a 5E game where characters were designed with Backgrounds and generated personality traits, where miniatures and tiles were firmly push aside in favour of 'Theatre of the Mind' gameplay, and where the main supplements produced were Campaign (story) based. I've played both editions, and older editions of D&D since the 1980s, by the way. Jeff's comments above, and to a degree your own, are badly out of touch with the main fanbase of the roleplaying hobby today. Frankly, I'm not sure either of you have played a game of 5E.

Thing is, lots of gamers think 5E is 4E "done right". All this boils down to, really, is the sage advice that if you can only sell a game by disparaging others, then it just calls into question the self confidence of the people making the disparagement. RuneQuest: Glorantha, and 13A:G ought to be good enough to stand up on their own merits.

Will the physical design be up to Chaosium's (now) usual standards?

13G may be more interesting…to you….but it won't sell as much as a 5th edition setting sourcebook. Heck, even Sandy Peterson realises that:

I think some people possibly need to be mindful of living in glass houses here. If you start flinging mud, don't be surprised if fans of the game you are disparaging start flinging mud back. D&D5 is the market leader, has a huge fanbase, and has been a critical success since it's release. It's a simple, generic fantasy game with certain characteristic tropes and systems (Class & Level). RuneQuest is a more complex, specific settting fantasy game with it's own characteristic tropes (Skills and Cult membership). RuneQuest may rock your boat, but I'd bet that a 'Glorantha for D&D5E' game would sell more. Just sayin'….

I did see this title and put it on my 'wish list' (I've got a few things on that!), but I'll probably hold back now till the 2nd edition, knowing Chaosium's high production standards, these days. If anybody wishes to tell me why this product is fantastic - and thus serve to sell me it - then please, be my guest!

I don't "win" anything for pointing out you are incorrect. The rest of your post is merely an expression of frustration and an inabilty to except that fact in good grace.

Yes and no. It's a different company, but they've co-ordinated the release to coincide with the new edition of Masks of Nyalathotep. They are also producing an radio-theatre audio adaptation of the Masks script as well.

From what I could see, the conversation had stopped before your intervention. While I can appreciate the attempt to diplomatically moderate, the point is that "generic" does not have a nebulous meaning, it has a clearly defined one. To say Dune is generic science fiction is simply incorrect, disparagingly so.

Can't wait for mine, along with the books too!

You said: You also said: All of which are entirely contentious, and make incorrect uses of the word 'generic'. Just because a generic game like D&D references Tolkien does not make the original source generic in a reciprocal fashion. And no, if you were playing D&D, the tropes are different to that of Middle Earth - in terms of magic use, for example. You can use a generic system to run anything you like - agreed! - but that was not the point you were saying. Indeed, you continue to confuse an authors' set of influences when writing an original work as meaning same thing as 'generic'. It doesn't. George RR Martin's Game of Thrones series draws inspiration and influence from Tolkien's work, but neither of them are 'generic'. Moreover, you are using the term in a somewhat derogatory fashion without giving credit due to original qualities of these works. Indeed, your interpretation of Dune seems very broad stroke too - generic science fiction does not consider the effects of spice, or the Bene Gesserat, or the Mentat, or the specific applications of technology, or the ecological themes, or the worms, and so on. Dune remains a pretty unique experience in science fiction literature, which is not going to be authentically captured in a roleplaying game environment without significant research and careful consideration. You may not like licensed settings, and prefer to do things yourself, but the very point of this thread is that other people actually like straight adaptations for non-generic settings they like - in this case, Dune.

Your being pretty clear about not understanding what 'generic' means. Moreover, if you attempted to run either Tolkien's or Herbert's settings as generic fantasy or generic science fiction, respectively, then you would categorically be doing it wrong. If Cubicle 7 released a generic fantasy book with the moniker 'Adventures in Middle Earth' they would possibly face a trade desciption act. Middle Earth is not a generic setting. Both Tolkien and Herbert had their influences, although you are downplaying the very significant creative work they did, but their creations are singular and unique. They are not open ended for adaptation or mix and matching from other sources, in the same way D&D or the like is.

I think that is a fantastic misinterpretation of the very point being made. By the very definition of the word 'generic', neither Tolkien's work or Herbert's work are generic. D&D has referenced elements of Tolkien, along with elements from dozens of other writers and is open to develop in any way a gaming group sees fit. Both Lord of the Rings and Dune, however, are based on one canonical source. They are not generic, from any sense of the word and no, Tolkien was not writing a mere 'copy' of the Oddysey. This entire argument from you is so off base, it beggars belief quite frankly.

If you want to pick up pirate copies, there is a lot you can pick up on the net.

I'd start a series of titles based on specific regional eras and call each of them "Mythic.....oh, wait...

The trouble with 'Fantasy Earth' is that it's generic to the point that it could be any era or place on Earth (almost to the point you may as well call it Basic Role Playing......). Is it a series of games from different eras and places, eg Mythic Iceland, with a shared brand?

They only produced three thousand copies, before it was pulled as a limited release. They sold out in minutes, from memory. I recall buying my own copy, and the seller (at gencon) actually tried to put up the price when selling it, on the grounds that he knew it would be worth a load as a collectors piece when he sold it. If you buy it from eBay now, it costs.....oh.....let's see: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Dune-Chronicles-of-the-Imperium-Core-Game-Limited-Edition-NEW/253715007118?hash=item3b1297c68e:g:6HUAAOSw-3FZAtAD

Dune isn't a generic space opera. It's a classic space opera that has been imitated and referenced a lot. It's like claiming Tolkien just wrote generic fantasy.

OK, weird one this - but why the latin names in the bestiary. Is Latin used in Glorantha?

While I raised the issue of the difficulties of maintaining a licence for a large IP myself, it should be remembered that companies do get these things done (both Star Wars and Star Trek, for example) and can make successful lines out of them. The question is really whether the company wants to take the risk, I guess, but the point is it is not an impossibility.