TrippyHippy

Well, we'll see how it comes out - and note that regardless of any criticism I make, I am still an interested potential customer - but I still think that all editions ought to be at least looked at with an unprejudiced eye. Overall vision may differ, but individual ideas may still have worth.

That may be the case, but when you are designing a new edition I don't think it wise to cut yourself off from any inspiration. I do get that RQ2 is the main source, which having got the book I can see why and support. However, game design developments did not stop in the mid 1980s. For a comparison, I thought that the 4th Edition of D&D was awful, and it was a commercial and critical disaster for many. However, even when the creators of D&D 5th went out of their way to try to take the game back to earlier editions, they still managed to glean a lot of ideas from 4th edition and bring them in. I'm not saying you shouldn't prioritise your decisions, but the more books you research - even bad books - the more ideas you can potentially bring in. It's why debating about previous editions misses the point for me - they all have something to offer.

You are physically ill when you try to read a book?! Now that really is a shame!

Which is a shame, as you'd probably have a fuller appreciation of the developmental work that went into RQ6 for starters.

I came to both editions late, having really only played Stormbringer in my early gaming experiences. I have read both now, however, after picking up the Classic RuneQuest book for the Kickstarter game. RQ2 is not as well organised, but it's a more engaging read than RQ3 and less complex to run. That's all I have to say on the matter, honestly.

I'm not sure that people can't just mix and match with supplements from the two lines as the rules are mostly the same. However, the big difference, currently, is that Mythras is a line that is going places, whereas Legend is really not these days.

As someone who has been critical of changes in 7E (and still am), I can assure you that the creators or anyone else for that matter have never attempted to shut down criticism on this site or anywhere else. The new edition itself is not a massive departure anyway, and so there is only so far that criticisms can really go anyway. If you are a new player, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the new edition. If you are a more established player, it'd be the sort of thing you'd possibly debate over a friendly beer. The main things that I'm critical of are more the bits and pieces that were chopped out (like the Call of Cthulhu short story), and it's why I hold on to my old editions. Most of the rule issues can be picked or not as each group wants. The new Pulp Cthulhu, if you are into action/adventure style play, is unquestionably well delivered and fun. If you are looking for something more sombre, then currently the Cubicle 7 stuff is probably the best there is.

Personally, I don't think there needs to be another BRP corerule book. Here's why: 1) Chaosium seem to have other priorities - that make more money. The afore-mentioned Call of Cthulhu and RuneQuest, of course, but probably things like board games, card games and fiction will also make more money. 2) There is too much competition for a commercial niche to be successful. As I said, Mythras has stolen a march, and beyond that there is still Legend, OpenQuest, Renaissance, etc. There are plenty of accessible core rules out there already, and third party publishers are more than likely to choose another line over BRP. 3) BRP already exists. It was published less than a decade ago, so is it necessary to make a new game if there is the suggestion that the old game was redundant? Individual books, like Mythic Iceland for example, are supposedly now going to be released as standalone books with the core system included. If you have a plan to make a Generic Universal game, then it needs a load of supplements to make it worthwhile. If you don't need the core rules to play most Chaosium games, why go through the difficult development process of designing a new edition? 4) BRP was never really a fully integrated gaming system, in the same sense that GURPS is. It's actually a grouping of ideas from games than have a shared system genealogy. Why not put the efforts into reinvigorating specific old gamelines, like Superworld for example, instead? Indeed, if they jumpstarted Magic World, you are two/thirds of the way to bringing back the original Worlds Of Wonder game. In itself, this would effectively replace the need for 'core rules'.

Thing is, I'm not sure how long before Chaosium will get round to revamping the BRP book and when it does i'm not sure what it will be used for. The main focus currently is on RuneQuest, and Glorantha based games, along with Call of Cthulhu. There is also an issue that both of these games have gone their own way a little in terms of developing their systems, so there isn't really a set common ground for the BRP book to operate in, while other game systems like Mythras will have stolen a big march on it as a generic, universal system by the time it comes round.

Having M-Space alongside Classic Fantasy gives Mythras a lot of credibility as a generic system. They possibly need to add supers and westerns to the stable in time. Maybe others.

I don't think the FFG version, written for WFRP 3E is an exact adaptation of the original Enemy Within Campaign, unfortunately.

To my mind, it's a way of getting into the setting because of the visual impact of the miniatures, and in some ways it'll be a direction of the gameworld development that had the pathway broken in by the success of Warhammer. Warhammer is too expensive for my wants these days, but a skirmish game based on RuneQuest ideas (especially chaos) could be something I could definitely get into. I like the bronze age themes too.

Ah, now this is something I can get enthusiastic about!

I received no notice, but arrived today regardless.

The Design Mechanism's Mythras isn't RuneQuest, though. Mongoose RuneQuest I and II, and The Design Mechanism's RuneQuest 6 were all officially licensed editions of the game, and in fact, none of them were rdirectly related in terms of a design thread to RuneQuest 3.

Would there be a way of having a Gloranthan system of measurement to downplay any metric vs imperial discussion.? Measurements, like currency, can be completely abstract anyway. With regards to having skill categories vs Char+Char, I can see the argument. For one it would be quicker to calculate the five or six scores rather than a list of about 20 or so skills. The big thing that needs to change, however, is making the Characteristic scores actually influencing the skills through the modifiers a bit more. I've rolled up Classic RuneQuest characters where they hardly influence them at all.

Personally, I find the bonus/penalty die and opposed rules from CoC7E to be incredibly clunky by modern standards.

Point of note, but in RQ2 there isn't a general Resistance table - it only applies to POW vs POW for magical confrontation.

Is this actually the Part #9 Designer Notes? I'd prefer to call it Part #4 as it follows the design thread better.

I'm sorry, Jeff, but the very evidence of this comment itself just shows how confusing your new moniker is. You say yourself that the 'design thread' of the new game is based on RQ2.....so where does that leave RQ3? RQ3 was sold to Avalon Hill and removed the direct link to Glorantha in the game to make a more generic game, so was that really AHRQ1? Should you really be calling it RQ2.5 (via a time paradox) rather than RQ4? What is the point of trying to airbrush the game's history anyway? Why don't you just call it RuneQuest, and let fans call it what they will. If that is RQ7, which is a respectful title and makes a lot more sense to me, then sobeit. EDIT: I do note that Rick has answered much of this above, after reading it.

I agree with much of that, although my main problem with points allocation (which I tend to prefer these days) is that 75 points is a bit low. That's less than the average dice rolls (not forgetting that INT and SIZ are both based on 2D6+6).

I'm not sure that RQ, when it first came out, set out to be a 'gritty' system particularly. It was simply an alternative to D&D - which was riddled with inconsistencies, arbitrary and illogical rulings in it's first incarnation. The RQ rules were just a set of common sense rules, that then largely became celebrated as the best set of '1st wave' rpg rules in the years that followed on. There was always a debate happening about 'realism' in game rules - which eventually morphed into 'simulationism' as a concept - but there wasn't any great tribalism or nuance in terms of game styles as such until much later. With regards to where we are at now,I think that the prevalent feature of modern systems is to create more heroic or 'cinematic' experiences - look at FATE or Savage Worlds - and this possibly follows on to the HeroQuest system too. However, one of the things that intrigues me about having a Glorantha experience is that it's made to feel pseudo-historical, rather than superpowered. I'm not sure whether it's set to be a design feature of the new RuneQuest or not, but it's going to be something that will help my decision making process as to whether to buy into it or not.

Yes, although unlike the new RuneQuest, these 5 elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water, and Moon) acted as an overlay for the characteristics rather than additional traits. The new RuneQuest ones have something in common with Pendragon personality traits. I have no problem with RuneQuest being a setting specific game. Indeed, it makes more sense in some ways. However, there is a bit of a bad taste in how it came about, with RQ6 being left on the wayside, and I'm still sitting on the fence as to whether it's for me or not. I do have Guide to Glorantha, and want a RQ companion rpg to go with that - but maybe Classic RuneQuest (if it ever arrives!) will be good enough for that? Maybe I should stick with HeroQuest? Curiously, Glorantha is still a new thing for me as I've never played or ran a campaign there. When I bought into RuneQuest, with Mongoose, the appeal was for a generic fantasy system. Mythras now fulfills that slot for me. Glorantha is not forgotten though - I just need to be sold on the idea a bit. .

The problem with 'modern' books is twofold: firstly, they get dated pretty quickly and secondly, they'll have to compete against other games like Delta Green and The Laundry. Personally, I think modern Cthulhu is well covered - although having some more scenarios or campaigns written in the modern day - like Unseen Masters would be welcome.

Masks was described as the second best selling Chaosium book for Call of Cthulhu, by the previous management. I wouldn't be surprised to see it being updated sometime - maybe full colour with some elaborate handouts - although I suspect a second edition of Beyond The Mountains of Madness is possibly ahead of it in development. With regards to other supplements, I hope they look at developing new stuff as a priority. I'd like to see some futuristic settings - like Alien/Aliens in space, plus a post apocalyptic setting. And, beyond that, lots of new adventures and scenarios.