styopa

In that sense I'd call D&D a "generic" game too, as really in no place is it particularly tied to a single setting either.  Heaven forbid Chaosium see comparable economic success?

I know, I know, it's not all about filthy lucre....but it would be nice to see one of these periodic waves of RQphilia actually result in a stable, financially-healthy company from which we could expect a sustained string of books, settings, supplements, and adventures for years and years.

Look, I've criticized RQ6 a fair amount - mainly for being too generic.  However, I have to admit: had RQ6 launched with their rulebook AND *immediately* a companion book that was the "Glorantha Companion" setting - ie 'here's how fast you get magic points' and 'for culture X, here are the available combat styles' and 'here's the pantheon of divinities with their cults, spells, etc all laid out' most of my criticisms wouldn't have existed.

Between generic and setting focused, well...it's not my company, and it's easy to quarterback from the sidelines.  But it seems that if you're already serving a niche of the gaming public (and as much as I've loved RQ for 35 years, it's a niche game), it seems odd that one would design a "new version" so tightly tied to a single setting (no matter how great that setting is) that it is more or less unplayable for any other purpose, thus subdividing the numbers again?  And then to exclusively select a specific locale of THAT setting, further atomising the list of potential customers?

It seems to me a better use of resources to build a COMPREHENSIVE "modern updated RQ2" (note, as Jeff mentioned in the other thread, the new RQ will have runes, rune points, passions, revised spirit combat, revised shamanism, new spirit rules, economics, far more social activity, etc - ALL of which could be absolutely universal in application) that has the neutrality of RQ3, and then (maybe even in the same package to start?) include the "Dragon Pass Campaign Book" which could then be laser-focused on the rich setting of the region.

Again, it's easy to quarterback from the sidelines.  

On 6/18/2016 at 5:57 PM, CruelDespot said:

Will the new Runequest have rules for resolving events at the community level (tribe, city, etc?) 

I'm a fan of Pendragon. Since Pendragon is influencing the new rules (passions, family history), I am hoping that Pendragon's manor rules might get mixed with King of Dragon Pass to yield some awesome rules for community-level drama and conflict. Mass combat! Intrigue over succession! Deciding wither to recruit more warriors, buy more cows, or build another shrine! 

 So in fact you simply want "Pendragon Glorantha"?

That same interviewer also talked to some other guy: https://juegosydados.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/interview-with-greg-stafford/

And even some other guy: https://juegosydados.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/interview-with-sandy-petersen/

He does pretty decent interviews, although Costikyan I wish he'd touched on his wargames a little more, Star Wars a little less.

20 hours ago, rsanford said:

Thanks for all the aswers guys. I thought hit locations were in lieu of general hit points but now know better.  I have the RQ6 book, I just need to read it.

Let's not forget that locational hit points (IMO) were originally driven by their LACK in D&D.  It's one of the first things new players kind of go "huh" about in that system, that the armor systems (we're talking AD&D here) were so non-granular.  You were either wearing chainmail or you weren't - and your AC didn't change if the hood was off, or you'd lost a sleeve, or whatever.  It's just so bloody illogical.  And don't even get me STARTED about 'vorpal' swords in a game with ostensibly no hit locations.

RQ addressed this in the most logical way possible - instead of rationalizing a single "hit" roll to be "the attacker managed to hit AND CAUSE DAMAGE" per D&D, RQ deconstructed it to say 

"did you hit or not?"

"if you hit, where did you hit?"

"how much damage did you do?"

"in that location, how good is the armor, and how much damage got through?"

The only place in my view where RQ didn't really carry this through to a logical conclusion would have been penalties for injury - ie an arm with 33% of hp gone should be less functional and useful than a fully healthy arm.  Sure, RQ *does* have a couple tiers of failure - your arm's functionally useless, or it's off - but nothing up to that point.

Such detail would almost certainly be considered FAR too simulationist for most people and thus unFun.  (I'd disagree, suggesting damage debuffs mean once you're injured, you get less effective becomes a downward efficacy spiral.  Realistically, then, combatants would be motivated to be the one that does that 'first blood' damage just like real life, and thus a bias toward selection of longer and longer weapons and missiles.  Again, like IRL.  YGMV)

5 hours ago, Mankcam said:

I saw a pdf copy of RQ Slayers many years after the fact. It was in no way anything to do with RQ except in name. As Mugen says, there were no D100% mechanics, no Glorantha setting, it was an entirely different game which just used the RQ brand name. Might as well reference D&D or FATE if it is included heh heh

Oh dear that's horrible.

Glad I saved myself the pain.  I think I was still recouperating from Eldarad or Daughters of Darkness around then anyway.

10 hours ago, Sayerson said:

Always interesting but everyone forgets the RuneQuest  Slayers attempted restart by Avalon Hill. That would push things up to RQ 8. I'm going for RuneQuest, or RQ4, as its the next direct Chaosium release of the system after RQ 3. 

Except that RQ3 was *also* an AH product, yet is termed RQ3 and is being considered canonically in the line of succession that devolves to RQ4.

7 hours ago, Mankcam said:

I think it's best for all concerned if everyone keeps forgetting RQ Slayers, heh heh

I don't know about Slayers, but I've read the RQ:AiG (what was going to be RQ4) playtest rules, and there were some really good ideas in there.

1 hour ago, Corvantir said:

If my memory is good neither the front and back covers of the RQ2 boxset nor the front and back covers of the inside book bear the number 2 or a reference to a second edition. 

[snip]

So it makes a lot of sense to me when the current designers say that the future edition will simply be called RuneQuest.

I don't think anyone's debating that at all.  I *believe* that pretty much everyone agrees that the new books will (& should) simply say RuneQuest.

The debate is really only about idiom, and what it's going to be 'referred to' in discussions.  For example, as you yourself mentioned, you call it RQ2 even though there was no "2" anywhere in the actual name.  Why?  Because it matters to people to be clear about what they're discussing, even informally.

With the plethora of material spanning 35+ years of gaming out there, I'd say it's absolutely imperative to make it as clear and simple for new players what is new material consistent with the new rules, and what will take some massaging to make work.  Those of us that have played forever can do it almost effortlessly, so I think it's easy for us to trivialize it, but for a new DM having just bought the new RQ rules, he or she stumbles on a website and sees "ah, look character sheets for "Runequest"!  Sweet, I'll download these...wait, wtf is this?  Where do the rune values go?  Why are there attack AND parry skills for each weapon?  Bleargh..."  Confusion is the BANE of the new player experience.

MOB feels it's going to be what it's going to be.  Jeff insists for a plethora of reasons it's RQ4.   Some people say it should be RQ2.5 because it's mainly (90%) RQ2.  Some people say RQ7 because it's the 7th iteration of the rules overall.

I'd say that Chaosium would be well-served to set the tone of the discussion to 'guide' general usage ahead of release, but there seems to be resistance (or skepticism) over calling it 4.

So I think we're as clear as we're going to get.  Book = Runequest.  What it's going to be referred to?  Nysalor only knows.

4's been answered either here in chat or in the designer notes, the resistance table is going to be in.

I'm not sure about 5; I know Jeff said it's going to be simplified (there won't be separate attack and parry skills, it'll just be a single skill) but I don't think they're using combat styles in the sense that RQ6 did either.  In RQ6 you had a "Town Guardsman" combat style that then collectively included certain weapons, maybe a shield, etc, I believe the new RQ will still be weapon-based.

LOL.  It's nice to see Jeff bringing subjects of discussion that seem to be of broad concern out from the message boards (which are likely perused by only a fraction of the public) to his design notes which I expect are much more widely circulated.  Thanks Jeff!

BTW I absolutely love the map of Dragon Pass/Prax.  It really hearkens to the old RQ2 back-of-the-book map, but gives it a fresh approach.

Re the specificity of rules to setting, I'm meh: sure (changing the setting to a Byzantine Europe one) the divine magic would need reworking in application but not mechanics, while Spirit Magic and Sorcery wouldn't need changing at all (unless they're getting a radical rewrite in the new RQ rules from RQ3).  The passions/runes thing may/may not fit in a magical Europe campaign, depending on how it's conceptualized.  I'm not sure how it would necessitate a change to combat at all, frankly?

I *like* RQs grittiness, which means I like the mechanics, and would seek to use them in WHATEVER setting I want to play in.  Glorantha I can take or leave.  

1 hour ago, Rick Meints said:

Tell your friends about it. Get them paying games with it. 

There's a Freudian slip, Rick.

Hell, I could pretty easily see an online DB of events, where X event took place in year Y, and is relevant to characters in zones A, B, C, D, and E.

Run the 'family background' engine, pick your homeland, and it could then pull up a generated immediate family background (and tally of summarized passions, etc) relevant to your starting zone.  You could even say "mom was a lunar, dad was from prax" if you wanted that much player control on the process.

Aside from filling the database with events, and thinking up a robust set of variables that could be used to filter (ie 'for THIS event players of THAT species/gender will have specific result Z') it's not even logically very complex.

10 minutes ago, David Scott said:

I'm not sure of how many RQ 6th editions are out there in the shops, but it can't be many, they'll soon be gone. Shiny Mythras will take it's place, and a new a shiny Chaosium RuneQuest will be prominent on the shelves. I can't see this ever being a real problem. If they do accidentally buy an old RQ 6th edition, I'm sure they'd like it and could then go and buy the new Chaosium edition as well.

If I were to start RP gaming discovering I'd just dropped $62 on the "wrong rule version" because in Glorantha 4 comes after 6, I'm not sure my first reaction would be "well, hell, let me spend some more $ buying the right version!"

With:

Runequest 2 (which, let's be honest, is pretty much the first actual edition; RQ1 being about as relevant in application as say the old original D&D little brown books are)

Runequest 3

RQ: AiG (aka RQ 4, never actually released, and about as relevant to real gameplay as RQ1)

Mongoose Runequest (aka MRQ)

Mongoose RQ 2 (aka MRQ2)

TDM Runequest (aka RQ6)

...all being 'out in the wild' and there being a NECESSITY in normal conversation between people to be clear about what the hell system someone's commenting on, there's GOING to be a nomenclature generally agreed-upon.  As much as Chaosium may insist "it's just called RuneQuest", in reality that simply means they defer to the community to let THEM decide what to call the game in vulgar parlance.  

It may be titled "RuneQuest" like all of its prececessors.  That doesn't mean that's what people are going to call it.  In fact, I pretty much guarantee people won't call it that.

I think people are getting too worked up over something that's ultimately optional.

I too find it straitjacketing people into Dragon Pass, but I've been farting around that place for 30 years, I'm bored of it.  BUT I'M NOT A NEW PLAYER.  I already have "character concepts" and lore-history all ready-at-hand for myself and my players.

I think this is:

1) a great, optional tool for new DM's and players to engage with (far more interesting than simply reading) the last 100+ years of recent history in the region while making characters, as well as giving new players some sort of rudder for how their character acts to prevent the 'paralyzed by too many options' thing that sometimes hits new players, AND

2) a template for the always-contributory RQ/Glorantha community to generate comparable tables for other places (not to say Chaosium couldn't put out more regional sourcebooks as well).  

Personally, I'd still possibly use it for new players to the game.  

As long as the quick-gen system allows comparable bonuses/deficits to be gained and quick-gen toons aren't somehow penalized, then I'm all for more textured detail like this.

It's almost like the Traveller character generation system, without the chance of dying.

14 hours ago, aknaton said:

I agree with this. For me it was the logic and consistency of the system that drew me to it. And Trollkins.

For me, a realistic system means easier immersion, because players are thinking more about real-life expectations of their choices, not the rules-system-mechanics results of their choices.  Pretty much any story can be delivered in any rules schema, that's just a matter of DM creativity and skill.  But let's face it, most of us are here because - even as a mighty-thewed hero - getting hit by a sword should be dangerous and something you'd like to avoid.  If your players, even for a moment, doubt the inherent risk of combat, then it's not really combat, is it?  And deep-down, they won't treat it as such.

In D&D, if that guy came out of the shadows with a knife, honestly, most multilevel fighters could pretty much just STAND THERE, finish their beer and let them have 5-6 whacks unopposed before they bother to care.  They certainly wouldn't feel threatened.

8 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

If someone had not noticed, I have opened a split of this thread in the generic forum.

 

On the other hand, it is worth nothing that RQ itself was supposed to provide a different experience than it actually does. It was meant as a "heroic" game portraying characters like those found in the Dragon Pass boardgame, but it turned out to be a perfect "gritty" game instead.

Hell, it was RUNEquest, and had no Runes.  I WANT MY MONEY BACK!

Seriously, though, the heroic thing is far better portrayed with Heroquest's more-evocative systems anyway, imo.  

To try to steer RQ after nearly FORTY YEARS as an identified RPG system brand (with a certain recognized approach to gameplay) into a different course would be catastrophically foolish.  Like trying to sell Green Giant Sugary Snax or Ben&Jerry's Filet Mignon.  I'm not sure it's resulted in anything but disappointment for any firm that's tried it.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't try to offer some ability to game that way for those that want it, but it cannot compromise the core elements that the RQ brand is supposed to have in its toolbox.

5 hours ago, davecake said:

FWIW, I like a few narrative elements in my RQ, having lost the enthusiasm for 100% simulationist stuff long ago, but I appreciate the simulationist roots of RQ, and I'd really quite appreciate an optional rule or two rather than the game taking a very solid stance one way or the other. 

Pretty much the ethos behind BRP, no?  Fundamental rules framework, upon which is hung the different mechanics appropriate to whatever setting is being run.

(Note, this is slightly different than what GURPs tries to be: a rules set that encompasses everything possible.)

3 hours ago, Etepete said:

Yes - that's it! In aristotelean cosmology I believe the lunar sphere is the tresshold between the four elements and the quintessence/aether of the celestial realm - so I suppose you could argue it's all one

Except in Glorantha, the (red) moon plays a very specific cosmological role.  I'm not sure that translates?

4 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

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. .  

Ages ago I ran a campaign based on 1090 AD medieval Europe, where a great magical cataclysm had rifted mundane earth together with a magical dimension about 100 years before - long enough for the immediate-disaster thing to have settled out, but not enough time for social systems etc to have significantly changed.  People were basically still 'figuring it all out' (ie I could use medieval art, architecture, and mostly history without having to make too many wholesale changes to accommodate magic, etc.).

I'd always planned in that campaign that if anyone had tried to dimension-travel or investigate the 'magical dimension' that was the other side of the impact, it would have been Glorantha.  Didn't last long enough, though.

17 hours ago, Zit said:

BTW, I hope the new rules kept the Metric measures which everybody understands in the World, in contrary to the local Imperial (don't ask me what is an acre). Or at least both. Long life to the Lunar Key Mile !

Then you'd really hate my campaign.  Since metric/decimal systems are so completely anachronistic for a quasi-medieval setting, I never use them ever. I'd far rather tell someone "that town is 6 leagues away" than tell them it's 30km.

Besides, if we're primarily concerned about making sure everyone can understand, when are all you guys all getting rid of your silly local languages and just standardizing to English?  

12 hours ago, g33k said:

I've never before seen anything like objective, reliable numbers on multiple RPG"s across an extended timeframe...

If you dig into that source page, further down someone actually posts FATEs numbers, to some degree putting $ behind the ordinal positions.  

And, as Jeff commented, it should be kept in mind that this is a VERY particular slice of an economy that's less and less driven by retail sales.  (Although I'd point out that if anything, that probably depresses Pathfinder's share as much as anyone, I understand they're largely direct-sales themselves?)

That's why I originally started my comment using Reddit's numbers.  Objectively, a game could sell 1000 copies (either direct or via retail) but if nobody's talking about it, that's probably a better indication of where it is in the constellation of the RPG universe.  (Pathfinder is nearly 28,000 btw; egad.  I don't know if those numbers do or don't include all subreddits, either.)

While part of me would love to see that vibrant an RQ community, I don't really want RQ to be so vanillified that everyone plays it.  I'm displaying my 49-yr-old bias here, but some of the RPG world has gone the same direction MMOs have trended: no risk, no actual danger, no effort required.  I don't want RQ to be that.  I play it because I *like* my games a little harder, a little more (ok a lot more) dangerous.  By that measure I think if RQ stays true to itself we simply will never be as attractively easy as D&D, bluntly speaking.  And that's perfectly fine.

It would be nice to see a few thousand regular RQ redditors, if only because there'd be a comfortable churn of new ideas, adventures, etc.  It'd be nice to have "new RQ stuff" to read every day.  But hell, if you just excised the "Look I drew my character" posts from Reddit, D&D's would drop to about half anyway....

If you're interested, there already are some good videos up from GenCons previous:

Long but worth watching!

Oh, and maybe of passing interest in this discussion as well: sales ranking of RPG systems based on retail reporting since Q32004.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=69358&d=1437395191&stc=1

2 hours ago, rust said:

Comparing D&D and RQ is a bit like comparing the Princedom of Liechtenstein and the People's Republic of China. Instead of looking at D&D and for ways to bring RQ to a similar status by winning over players of other games to RQ we should probably concentrate on the expectations and wishes of the current RQ community.In the end we are the ones who have to like the game enough to support it, and if we are very lucky our enthusiasm will lure some other players into our community.

You probably meant to reverse those comparisons, respectively?  

I'd completely agree.  I'm not saying "make RQ like D&D" - that would be silly (and pointless).  *IMO* people come to RQ for essentially two reasons (AFAIK almost nobody starts playing RPGs in Runequest, which itself is a damned shame, but very much due to your China vs Liechtenstein effect...):

1) mechanical: people sick of the rationalizations in D&D look for a 'tighter' system with more realistic combat, results, hit locations, more danger; or

2) setting: some people are enchanted with Glorantha and as RQ is sort of the 'go-to' rule set for Glorantha, end up here.

Number two is of course, no longer really completely true: Heroquest is specifically Gloranthan, and one could say that it's supported by everything from 13th Age, FATE, GURPS, even probably a d20 variant or three (one could even now sort of say Mythras supports Glorantha, oddly).  But Glorantha = RQ and RQ = Glorantha to most people still.

I'm very much a #1 guy, admittedly.  I probably am far more interested in simulationism than 99% of the gaming public (hell, I'm probably one of the dozen people that actually played Phoenix Command and LIKED its gun-combat system).  So on that front, I know I'm not the target audience.  I can get over that, certainly.

My point is that I believe RQ can be brought into the 21st century and appeal to modern-day new gamers (and their expectations) and still remain essentially RQ.   For example, the opposed die-roll mechanic is a clever, quick (modern) resolution system.  I believe Jeff said it's being used to some degree in the new RQ which I think is terrific.