Shiningbrow

Your first big question is really important - prior exposure to RQ. Diehard RQ fans probably hate MRQ (any version!). Those who have never heard of it will have different issues, but are unlikely to hate... Sort of like movie series, especially adapted from books or comics. Some people hated Jackson's LotR - mostly the book fans. (I'm not suggesting Mongoose was right to do as they did. Just pointing out that it really only affects the fans, not the potentially new generation... As much as I'm a fan of Glorantha and it's history, I am amused by the "Your Glorantha May Vary - Unless It's By Mongoose").

I said in that other thread, I'n not a fan of Hero Points.

The Heroic Abilities - sure, as discussed elsewhere, some make for good rewards for Heroquests (some people should take note!)

Enhanced weapons - I like, and I think is actually important. Some I felt a little cheesy (such as the top tiers).

Furs to.leather... Not sure why, but I'm sure some out there need it!

Enchanted weapons are a must have - although I don't recall much ATM.

I'm currently on a bus, so obviously don't have my books in front of me. But HQ rules are in the Cults book (Gods of Glorantha??), with HQ hacking rules/spells by God Learners in another book.

3 hours ago, Joerg said:

Rules which (as written) are bound to break up your party into people who made it across and people who must remain behind. Talk about splitting the party, hard.

Yep! And that's actually been a part of Heroquesting! Gaming-wise it can suck (without a handwave). Lore-wise it's fine.

Any thoughts on Integrated Runes having an in-game effect? E.g., +10%'to skills, etc?  I thought that it was a concept that was sorely lacking previously. (Having to integrate Runes that were just hanging around waiting for you to pick up was stupid though... But, again, I'm coming from an RQ2/3 background)

28 minutes ago, g33k said:

I will disagree with this... rather strongly, actually!

It enshrines crap as "canon."

It precludes (or vastly delays) anything quality on the topic.

It sours existing fans.

It discourages new players from picking up the game. 

It undersells/underperforms, hurting the publisher's bottom line & the profitability of the game-line.

It damages the reputation of the author(s).

 

And that's just off the top of my head.  I bet I could come up with more; I bet authors, publishers, line-developers, could each contribute to the list.

 

There's a new-ish saying, "no gaming is better than bad gaming" -- better not to game at all, than to not-have-fun with your gaming.  I think that it extends nicely to the notion that not having a supplement you want is better than having a bad supplement instead of one you like.
 

You're automatically presuming that rushed always equals bad. And as I've said regarding the art in MRQ above, "not always good" is not the same as "bad".

Again, my point is and was on this topic - I find it odd that except for a few individuals, MRQ is ignored as the terrible black sheep in the family that everyone wants to ignore, pretend doesn't exist, and basically hates. .. In it's absolute entirety. @Jeff has a distinct problem acknowledging even one single positive point. 

3 hours ago, Joerg said:

Don't confuse authors' deadlines with the time it takes to put out a finished product.

Imagine you have four weeks to complete a 60 pages roleplaying supplement, from the first time you hear about the project to delivering your finished text. And then the artist has had at best eight weeks for the first assignments (two weeks into the product you should have given the artist(s) all the art direction for your major illustrations) and four weeks or less for filler art to make the layout more pleasant.

A serious process of editing should include at least one back and forth of the edited text to the author(s) and back to the editor, then to proof-readers (ideally doubling as fact-checkers), before even being submitted to layout. And the text going from the author to the editor had better been proof-read and ideally fact checked before going to the editor. The author can submit art direction, or, if sufficiently talented, even prototype art to go with the text. All of that is time consuming. For an example of how much effort goes into such a project to approach a minimum amount of flaws, look up Martin Helsdon's Glorantha military thread here.

I have produced a few scenarios on demand, usually with a good idea what I wanted to write about and the structure of the scenario already in my mind, then taking pains to lay off the railroading. I've been on the editor's (and even lay-outer's, 1990ies hobby standards only) side of the equation for a few scenarios, too (tossed in without prior experience). There is a huge difference between creating a great scenario or even campaign arc for your own perusal, and doing so for someone who doesn't have all that background you bring into this project and who needs to be fed with the necessary information in a way that remains fun and readable.

 

Chaosium's early "coming products" often were the consequence of Greg Stafford being a visionary game developer who shared his visions with his friends and supporters. Unfortunately, the difference between a vision and a finished product is a lot of effort by a team of people against a great number of obstacles thrown into the way. We are better off for Greg taking that visionary approach as it provided us with that crazy complex setting that is Glorantha, but from a publisher's perspective in an era of direct feedback easily causing a huge stink or shitstorm giving ETA projections that can't be met for whichever reason is problematic.

One such bunch of problems which just managed to overcome most of the obstacles is Sandy Petersen's Gods War boardgame. Admittedly a project with a crazy scope and execution, but after Cthulhu Wars and the first test runs of Gods War, something within expectation of the backers.

Sandy and his folk coined the term "China ready" for such kickstarter projects, and their experience in fulfilling the Gods War kickstarter has made them re-define that criterion twice. Some of the commentary of impatient backers was ... typical for internet phenomena, to say it politely.

Dealing with such issues can distract from productive work. Avoiding ETAs, and instead admitting to process stage statements, is a wise policy of NuChaosium, as far as I am concerned.

I was a (poor) kid back in those days, and living down under also meant delays in shipping anyway.

My reference to the extended time of decades was actually from a post on here about HQ coming "next year" for (apparently) 20 years. ("Apparently"... I don't know. HQ wasn't/isn't my thing.

Re: timing. What you wrote I understand and agree with! I was trying to point out a rushed finished product (for whatever reasons - not defending them) is better than no product at all. As I mentioned, MRQ gave the first HQ rules in the 30+ years of Runequest's existence. And still. For those who want to do HQs now, the options are house rules, or a fleshed out MRQ. I'd probably take the MRQ (it's not bad!) When chaosium has theirs in print later this year (or next year... Or whenever), I may change my mind... 

I mostly think there's a middle ground... Current ETAs with regular updates of what's happening. 

2 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

RQ2 p.64 in reference to a priest joining a second cult. But it's not elaborated in the same manner as what became the Acolyte in RQ3.

Quite a few of my players ended with characters who were acolytes of their temples - it was a useful level.

Ah! Found it. Yeah, tiny paragraph. 

The elaboration was what I was referring to (which has already been shown in RQ3 GoG).

Thx for the quick response.

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

There's a big difference between products being delayed and products being rushed. The current Chaosium policy is largely because they want to avoid rushing out poorly edited products, so rather than being ironic, one is directly because of and learning from the other.

I agree! Rushing isn't good... I also think holding off indefinitely without an ETA also isn't good. Nor is being well past an ETA. 

Question though - is a rushed product better than one you don't have? (I'm in this situation ATM from a kickstarter... I'm willing to wait a little longer, but with no ETAs, the idea of now and not perfect is much better than sometime later maybe...)

3 hours ago, metcalph said:

Acolytes as a name appeared in Gods of Glorantha.  In RQ2, they were known as associate priests.

 

I've just checked my 1980 print of RQ2 - again -, and a 1979 Cults of Practice, and I'm still not seeing any reference to an Associate Priest. 

It's not entirely relevant or important, but care to point me to a page number?

3 hours ago, jajagappa said:

Acolytes are RQ3, mid 80s.  See Cults Book from Gods of Glorantha set.

Thank you - I stand corrected! 

46 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Let's be perfectly frank here. The Mongoose material was plagued with low quality production, bad art,  rushed writing (Mongoose's deadlines were absurd), and poor editing - and the collapse of their sales after the first book says a lot about how they handled the line. Greg and I stopped reading the books as in with few exceptions we were not even given the time to review them (despite any terms to the contrary). There are plenty of other publishers out there that have done more interesting and successful things with product lines to learn from. 

 

Yes, let's be perfectly frank (although, TBH, this isn't really the thread for it...).

I fully understand that Mongoose stuffed up, and there were a lot of unhappy people regarding the materials they published. That's not even remotely in question. I'm not intending to defend the publishing, management and logistics of Mongoose. I'm referring purely to some of the ideas for Runequest (as in, game rules).

It seems to me that this is being ignored purely out of emotion - and from a business perspective, making business decisions based on emotion (especially that of hurt pride or anger, which is what I'm getting from your responses) is always unwise. Business decisions need good clear thinking, weighing pros and cons with a rational, steady head.

Some of the writers at Mongoose on the MRQ project came up with some good ideas for the game, as @soltakss and I have indicated above (and, I believe, have been discussed elsewhere). I'm trying to look through my RQ collection now to see when the (officially published) idea of Acolytes (now, God Talkers) started, but I'm fairly sure it was MRQ (feel free to correct me, but I don't see them in RQ 1, 2 or 3). If the ideas we mentioned in the previous few threads are completely crap, please enlighten us as to why, and why Chaosium would never consider using them... (rather than merely, "not a bad idea, but doesn't suit our vision of Glorantha" - I don't think Hero Points work, although the Heroic Abilities do).

(just quickly -

58 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Mongoose's deadlines were absurd

is slightly ironic, given that Chaosium has had products "coming" for decades, and now doesn't even give ETAs... This isn't just my complaint, but one I've seen specifically mentioned by other lovers of the game on this very forum).

(Your definition for "bad art" is obviously different to mine. Sure, it could be much better, and there are a few not good pics, but on the whole, I don't consider it "bad"... just "not great",  with some exceptions)

Are you actually after the modules to run?

Or merely to get ideas on what sort of magic items to place in your own scenarios?

50 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Off the top of my head (Shiningbrow has other things in mind, I am sure):

• Hero Points
• Legendary Abilities
• Using Crafting to enhance weapons in a controlled and useful way
• Rules on turning animal pelts into leather armour
• Weapon enchantments

 

TBH, I'm not sure about Hero Points... 

However, there were real, useable mechanics for Heroquesting and the possible spells used within them (granted, attributed to God Learners), which was something sorely missing from official RQ products (including right up until this day, I might add!)

(ETA: although I really disliked tangible Runes, and especially the requirement to have them for spellcasting, I *did* like that having a connection to those Runes had an in-game effect. And then, Mastery of the Rune and even stronger effect)

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

Given that we have Mongoose's RQ sales figures (as part of the royalty statements), I think it can be safe to say the most important lesson is Don't Do What Mongoose Did.

I see...so, baby ... bathwater ... bye bye.

There's absolutely nothing they did well (and different), huh? Sad. 

So, no Magic book. No specific races books. No pretty soft-cover books... 

I've loved Runequest, and especially Glorantha, since the mid-80s. As have many others here. I still have time for some of what they did (even if they did ignore the lore... ). 

10 hours ago, Jeff said:

There are many additional reasons why MRQ is ignored on this forum, especially by anyone associated with Chaosium. The polite way to put it is that Mongoose was not one of our better licensees. 

I am aware. 

I'm also aware that Mongoose published a lot. And developed some aspects of RQ that 40 years otherwise had never been handled (well .. Or at all). Obviously, some things were stuffed up (badly), but there are lessons Chaosium should learn from.

Babies and bathwater... 

18 hours ago, g33k said:

But

...

But DAMMITALL ...

. . .

No, Bill.  This time you've gone too far!

 

 

 

 

No Ulerian shaman!

😉

Need rules for those other... "passions".

And their spirits.

5 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

Delicti isn't a vampire, nor is he an homage to count Duckula. Delecti is a necromancer. While his first appearance in a published product is WB&RM in 1975, Greg actually started writing about him years earlier.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that he is a vampire... Hmmmm.

Re: timing. Ok. 

10 hours ago, Tywyll said:

You can't divorce ducks from Daffy and Howard

Yeah, I can. Easily. And so too do many people who play the game. 

And so too have the developers, and the storylines involving Ducks have zero hint of Daffy, Howard, etc (except one reference to Hueymakti). Decades ago, Ducks became a respectable, playable race that's not there for comic relief. 

If you see Ducks as "silly cartoon characters", that's purely 100% your vision that's not allowing them to be anything else (e.g., a 'real' person, like any other race on Glorantha).

However, one obvious counter to "I can't see farmers throwing lightning around" is that the Lunars have been battling to take over their lands for ages. Those Lunars, and all the aforementioned enemies, would make a requirement for having powerful magic in that type of world... 

You will be required to defend your stead! You are expected to be competent! Violence is always an option 

13 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

and OOTS covered it brilliantly.

I was going to link that!!!! 😛

Along with what G33K said above, but...

It's not the GM's game. It's everybody at the table's game. And so changes to rulesets really does need to be agreed upon.

When going from one edition to another, it really does need to be unanimous, or you'll end up with resentment, and then hostility, and a bad game. 

Especially, the.GM really needs to sit down and talk about everything with each player. 

Playing by a particular rule set (including house rules) is an *agreement* between all players, and thus shouldn't be taken lightly. 

(Been there, done that... Left games)

32 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

Ducks can die in a fire. I have zero interest in Daffy the Duck or Howard the Duck in my rpg. It was a ridiculous idea in the 70's hyuck hyuck phase of rpgs, and is ridiculous now (ymmv and all that).

There is "YGMV" and all that, but I find that rather racist (in the literal sense, ducks being a very distinct race).

I say this because - anthropomorphic bulls (minotaurs) ok. Anthropomorphic goats, antelopes, etc (broos) ok. Anthropomorphic horses (centaur) ok. Even an Anthropomorphic octopus (walktapi) or pumpkin (Jack-o-bear) is ok.

But for some reason, an anthropomorphic bird (specifically a duck, although mythologically on earth there have been herons, cranes, owls, vultures, etc) is bad... I do not get that.

Perhaps ironically, this attitude is exactly the mentality many native Gloranthans have about the Duck race... 

(And, this should probably be in a different thread).  

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

and OOTS covered it brilliantly.

I was going to link that!!!! 😛

35 minutes ago, BlindPumpkin said:

That's mainly what's been bothering me about this. At first I figured that the changes in this edition meant only that PCs were more capable at divine magic right out of the gate, to give runes and cults a bigger focus, but if that retroactively affects the rest of the setting, and means that every adult has a couple rune points laying around and acess to all common rune spells, then I'd say that's a pretty significant shift in tone to the game for me.

FWIW, I always thought many of the basic NPCs did have a few points of Rune magic on them... But very specifically related to their occupation.

31 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

RQ2-Glorantha, RQ3-Glorantha, HeroQuest-Glorantha, RQG-Glorantha, 13th-Age-Glorantha, these are all the same game world. It doesn't change depending on what game system you are using. We had this discussion in my old RQ3 group when we started playtesting the Jovanovic RQ4 rules, "If he can't cast all his spells with a duration of 6 weeks any more, my character would notice the change!", which I reject entirely.

Yeah...  I know it's the same world - in general. But in specific, that doesn't mean various changes haven't been enacted. Sorcerers now need to sacrifice a point of POW to contact a Rune, and have a number of techniques to learn, and don't have multispell, duration, intensity skills... 

If those rules can change, so too the Rune spells available.

The only logical counter-argument I can see is if some serious heroquesting has happened to (fairly fundamentally) change the nature of the magical world (and like in 1984, everyone just goes with it like that's the way it's always been).

21 hours ago, Tywyll said:

That doesn't stop it from being appropriation. Intention doesn't absolve action

I'm curious as to who's culture(s) you think are being appropriated, such that you feel differently towards medieval European... 

Animism and "shamanism" (generic word, (which was appropriated, I agree) in which people contacted the spirits of the world and went on spirit journeys) was practiced around the planet for tens of thousands of years... Including by your ancestors in Europe. "Your" people were practicing a form of animism in Europe until quite recently (even after medieval times), and some still do. (Fact: in 2004, the corpse of Peter Toma, was dug up from a grave in Romania and dealt with as a vampire... Ripped out the heart and burnt it. Apparently, not an unusual thing for that part of the world. Beliefs can stay with us for a very long time, and remain in "our" culture).

I do, fully, understand that you choose not to play in Glorantha (but missing out on the fantasy element of ducks, broos. Dragons, etc is sad - but your choice), but wonder why you're playing Runequest and not BRP, Mythras, etc instead???

59 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Gloranthan reality didn't change when Jeff woke up one morning and decided "screw it, lets just give them all the common spells, that's so much easier and it encourages people to find uses for the more obscure spells".

No, I figured they thought that the rules were too restrictive to players (especially the one-use rule), and decided to change it (just as there's been a significant, and game-world changing, alteration to sorcery).

Sure, there could be a significant difference between PCs and NPCs... But a PC is really just a slightly more experienced person than most villager NPCs (especially when looking at farmers, herders, fishers, occupations). So, having that huge change of ruleset seems strange to me. 

Given the options of 1) slip (or simplification) of some NPC stat blocks; or 2) complete change of rules on Rune Points and spell access for NPCs, I'd presume #1. (Occham's Razor and all)

2 hours ago, BlindPumpkin said:

Thanks for all the replies. I guess it is true that the region has a much higher rate of initiates, especially after recent events, I just wasn't expecting every adult in a village to be one. One other thing that got me scratching my head was the fact that some NPC stat blocks listed "rune spells" while others "special rune spells". Is this just an overlooked lack of consistency, or does that mean that the NPCs with "special spells" get all the common rune spells of their cult, while the other NPCs have acess only to the ones listed under their "rune spells" entry?

When you sacrifice POW for Rune Points, you get accepted to *all* common Rune spells (that your cult has access to), and for each point you can also choose to have available 1 special Rune Spell that your cult (or associated cult) has. Those that are missing special Rune spells may be the error.

On your other topic, when the Romans invaded Britain, they got a huge shock when confronted not only by mala adult villagers attacking, but also female... And, often naked! The Romans took quite a while to overcome them...

Hi ppls in the know.

I'm doing a talk for an English Corner on Monday about Vampires, and I'm obviously thinking about the various ones in our culture & media.

And, I had a sudden thought - is Delecti the Vampire necromancer in Upland Marsh, just a hop, skip and jump away from Duck Point, supposed to be an homage to Count Duckula? 

Anyone know? Or is it merely coincidence?