Jump to content

What is the status of RQ6 Glorantha?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ridiculous decision making. If you want to expand the fans and users of the RQ system you make a generic set of base rules - a non-specific set based on the superior RQ6 chassis, and then release

Yes, Design Mechanism has had a much faster release rate than we have ever seen from Moon Design. Caliburn is also wrong in suggesting that TDM is purely a two man operation. The two Thennla books are

Hey all - just a few quick comments before I head to the airport to head home: We are big believers in starting from first principles whenever we do a book, and in the case of RuneQuest, RQ2 is t

So the short story is that Chaosium have decided to release a RQ7 instead of trying to do the admittedly tricky job of rewriting RQ6 from a generic system into a setting specific one, in no more than 350 pages (from an original 450pages + AiG).

Well, for me a few questions then:

1) Will the work done by Loz and Pete on Mythic historical settings be broadly compatible with RQ7? Not in the nitty-gritty detail, but more in the notion that the stats will be similar enough to see how cross compatibility could happen? Or will it be it's own beast?

2) Will the system be organic enough to work without table referencing? Will the game be simple to run, by modern standards?

3) When will we get some real, nerve settling detail about this game? I know it's still a work in progress and you want to control information releases but what are the design goals? Will it be directly supportive of GtG (in terms of physical design and encyclopaedic referencing)? What sort of supplemental and alternative mediums of game (eg miniatures) will support it? What is the direction of this game?

My intention is to continue with TDM releases as they stand, because I know where they are heading. I'm not clear where Chaosium are heading as it stands.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Jeff said:

I have to say, a lot of the "news" regarding what I said in my presentation was a surprise to me! 

Throw away lines in convention seminars lead to wild speculation and rumours: how unexpected...

seriously? You drop fractions of information in limited circumstances, DONT follow up with a definitive "official" announcement / press release, and are then surprised that the rumour mill runs rampant?

Cheers,

Nick

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeff said:

Many interesting things...

....

Here's my first reaction

> We are big believers in starting from first principles whenever we do a book, -> So, can we call it RQ7 now?

>  RuneQuest, RQ2 is that foundational document. -> That's surprising but not bad at all.

> RQ3, RQ6, Pendragon Pass, Call of Cthulhu, Ringworld, the Epic System, and the RQ Dragon Pass campaign -> Fascinating. I'd say that the Basic Roleplaying BGB already contains a distillation of some of the above sources, plus interesting Stormbringer bits.

> Sandy Petersen and Ken Rolston -> like it. Argument from authority works.

>  RuneQuest incorporates many elements of RQ6, combined Attack & Parry skills: like it, it was in BGB as well.

> opposed rolls -> like it and totally necessary these days, this also was already in BGB

> combat styles -> like it

> hit locations instead of general hit points -> kind of indifferent to that, I could do with locations + general hp just fine

> 100%+ scalability -> like it, but worked just fine in Elric! and BGB (at least for me)

> adding two characteristics to determine the starting values of skills -> like it a lot. Of course it was already in Mongoose RQ1

> while keeping the rhythm of RQ2 combat. -> I like it quite a bit. I'm sure, however, this is going to be the main bone of contention with true RQ6 fans. By the way, the BGB combat, in its strike ranks version, is already a kind of modernization of RQ3 combat.

> RuneQuest is NOT generic -> That's a clear vision. And it's good to know what you want to do. So, I like it.

> should reinforce and reward the player's interaction with the setting -> I'd call this the Pendragonization of RQ. I'm in.

It's clearly one vision of RQ. I hope you create a fun game.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NickMiddleton said:

Throw away lines in convention seminars lead to wild speculation and rumours: how unexpected...

seriously? You drop fractions of information in limited circumstances, DONT follow up with a definitive "official" announcement / press release, and are then surprised that the rumour mill runs rampant?

Cheers,

Nick

LOL indeed!  As someone working in a Communication faculty, I have to agree with Nick. That's Communication 101.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, smiorgan said:

> We are big believers in starting from first principles whenever we do a book, -> So, can we call it RQ7 now?

FWIW, we call it internally RQ4, as it is the 4th version of RQ that will carry the Chaosium logo. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jeff said:

RQ2 is that foundational document. We are then building up from RQ2, incorporating concepts learned from RQ3, RQ6, Pendragon Pass, Call of Cthulhu, Ringworld, the Epic System, and the RQ Dragon Pass campaign (what? haven't heard of the last two? That's because they were never published!). 

That's an interesting mix of additions. To pick out one in particular: I'm curious what aspect of Ringworld's system is being brought to the party. The Mass characteristic? Research rules? Is there anything else it brought to BRP that's noteworthy?

Quote

RuneQuest incorporates many elements of RQ6 ...[snip]... while keeping the rhythm of RQ2 combat.

Smells like traditional Strike Ranks. That's a nice smell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeff said:
2 hours ago, smiorgan said:

> We are big believers in starting from first principles whenever we do a book, -> So, can we call it RQ7 now?

FWIW, we call it internally RQ4, as it is the 4th version of RQ that will carry the Chaosium logo. 

I say that with all respect: RQ4 is a terrible name. It creates a ridiculous mess with numbers and it conveys a terrible, divisive message: MRQ1, MRQ2 and RQ6 never existed. Which is kinda sad because these were official versions licensed by Greg Stafford.

I can understand why you call it RQ4 internally. But it's a terrible name.

Smiorgan

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, smiorgan said:

I say that with all respect: RQ4 is a terrible name. It creates a ridiculous mess with numbers and it conveys a terrible, divisive message: MRQ1, MRQ2 and RQ6 never existed. Which is kinda sad because these were official versions licensed by Greg Stafford.

I can understand why you call it RQ4 internally. But it's a terrible name.

Smiorgan

 

 

RQ4 as the internal name makes perfect sense. The published book being just "Chaosium's RuneQuest" is fine. But in general usage, people simply will call it RQ7, because that's what it is. *shrug*

cheers,

Nick

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Baulderstone said:

It feels like Moon Design quickly pulled back the Runequest name from the successful TDM line without really even having a plan together yet. Runequest has been building a lot of momentum under TDM. They put out three great books in the last year, and it would have been four if MD hadn't killed AiG. That kind of momentum is important to a game line...

Chaosium abruptly changed directions concerning RQ. So they may have a 'plan' now, but it's a different 'plan' than the one they had only a couple of months ago. 

And the new plan:

a. Introduces a fourth version of RQ in less than a decade (and so squanders any 'momentum' that the game and brand might have acquired under the DM).

b. Throws fans of RQ who are not fans of Glorantha under the bus (because Moon Design apparently cannot comprehend the possibility that there may be fans of the system but not the setting).

I had high hopes for the 'new' Chaosium a couple of months ago. But now I have no interest in their future RQ products.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Akrasia said:

Chaosium abruptly changed directions concerning RQ. So they may have a 'plan' now, but it's a different 'plan' than the one they had only a couple of months ago. 

And the new plan:

a. Introduces a fourth version of RQ in less than a decade (and so squanders any 'momentum' that the game and brand might have acquired under the DM).

b. Throws fans of RQ who are not fans of Glorantha under the bus (because Moon Design apparently cannot comprehend the possibility that there may be fans of the system but not the setting).

I had high hopes for the 'new' Chaosium a couple of months ago. But now I have no interest in their future RQ products.  

Or ...

c. Fans of RQ and Glorantha who have been patiently awaiting AiG (RQ6 Glorantha supplement) and then RQG to now find out the system itself is changing. We deeply wanted our current system to simply be mated with Glorantha in an official format. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NickMiddleton said:

RQ4 as the internal name makes perfect sense. The published book being just "Chaosium's RuneQuest" is fine. But in general usage, people simply will call it RQ7, because that's what it is. *shrug*

cheers,

Nick

Considering that their latest statement makes it clear that they are using some elements of RQ 6, it seems very wrong to call it RQ4. That would imply they wanted to pretend RQ6 never happened. 

I found this part of the statement odd:

Quote

What about RQ6?

As announced at Gen Con 2015, the Design Mechanism license concludes in July 2016. That edition of the game is available until then.

Seems a bit off to not mention that they are continuing support of the system and its settings under a new name. My takeaway from this statement would be that the line is dead. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Akrasia said:

Chaosium abruptly changed directions concerning RQ. So they may have a 'plan' now, but it's a different 'plan' than the one they had only a couple of months ago. 

And the new plan:

a. Introduces a fourth version of RQ in less than a decade (and so squanders any 'momentum' that the game and brand might have acquired under the DM).

b. Throws fans of RQ who are not fans of Glorantha under the bus (because Moon Design apparently cannot comprehend the possibility that there may be fans of the system but not the setting).

I had high hopes for the 'new' Chaosium a couple of months ago. But now I have no interest in their future RQ products.  

Or

b). Realise that RQ6 and Glorantha RQ will not work. So instead TDM are free to publish RQ6 rules (with a name change) and continue to publish their awesome supplements. Chaosium are free to have an updated RQ that works for Glorantha.

Pulling the game in different directions probably would not of made everyone happy.

Edited by jongjom
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

1) Will the work done by Loz and Pete on Mythic historical settings be broadly compatible with RQ7? Not in the nitty-gritty detail, but more in the notion that the stats will be similar enough to see how cross compatibility could happen? Or will it be it's own beast?

 

It actually sounds like compatibility won't be a huge issue. Here are the things we know that it is taking from RQ6: combined Attack and Parry skills, opposed rolls, combat styles, hit locations instead of general hit points, 100%+ scalability,  actions, adding two characteristics to get skills.

That's pretty much all the core mechanics of the system. I'm guessing that Special Effects will be missing, but they aren't something that appears on character sheets anyway. I get impression that stat blocks from this system will carry over quite easily to whatever RQ6 is going to be called.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jongjom said:

Or

b). Realise that RQ6 and Glorantha RQ will not work. So instead TDM are free to publish RQ6 rules (with a name change) and continue to publish their awesome supplements. Chaosium are free to have an updated RQ that works for Glorantha.

Pulling the game in different directions probably would not of made everyone happy.

Well AiG was written for RQ6.  Do we have any reason to think that AiG "didn't work"?  I don't follow Glorantha myself, but my impression (from others) is quite the opposite. (I know that Loz ran a RQ6 campaign set in Glorantha. My understanding is that that campaign 'worked' just fine.)

Moreover, there is a 'setting-free' version of HeroQuest and a 'Glorantha-ized' version of HQ.  I'm baffled why the same could not have been done for RQ.  

I own RQ2 (it's still in pretty good condition and sitting on my shelf).  It was easy to use the system in settings other than Glorantha, and the rules would've been quite easy to reproduce sans Glorantha.  In fact that happened.  Hence BRP...

So I'm sceptical of the notion that a new version of RQ (a fourth version in less than 10 years), a version with some kind of Glorantha special sauce, is absolutely essential.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Baulderstone said:

I get impression that stat blocks from this system will carry over quite easily to whatever RQ6 is going to be called.

Oh! That would be quite funny! 

If I were Chaosium I would rather not do that. I'd either stick to RQ6 as is or if I really have to do a new version  I'll do something whose stat-block maps pefectly onto RQ2 and RQ3.

Why? Because the hugely successful RQ2 Kickstarter will create a metric ton of in-print RQ2 material. A new version that maps onto RQ2 and RQ3 will be immediately super well supported by the RQ2 reprints and by future RQ3 reprints.

But, I'm not Chaosium and this is baseless speculation.

 

 

Edited by smiorgan
Link to post
Share on other sites

AiG works just fine... Just fine - using it in my own campaign and works really well... Unfortunately it is missing several pieces which you have to do yourself (most notably cults, mystics and elder races) which were supposed to be developed by next summer. That is now not going to happen. 

You can look things from multiple points of view. So we have now more choices than ever for running Glorantha campaign. Running it with RQ6 - very doable, AiG (which is really RQ6. those few of us who have it), RQ2, RQ3, Legend, Mongoose RQII, HQ - I hear some are doing it with Fate - in future also with Runequest Glorantha, 13th Age. There are hard core defenders for all of these. I bet there will be many of us who will continue to run it with their favourite choice of a version or then intermingling from some or many of these. I am RQ player so I have grown used to house ruling and combining stuff..

Would have preferred my favourite style of RQ (RQ6) to be the default - could have brought some unity.  Now it is going to be different - let's see how this evolves.YGWV. 

I am very much more concerned about completely NEW supplements for RQ in Glorantha - I find this nostalgic drift to scenarios from decades ago be detrimental to the growth of the tribe and Gloranthan RQ as a game. The scenarios were good (then) but we must be able to create SUPERIOR scenario books and campaigns for late 2010's not 1980's or early 1990's. We have incredibly rich background world but where are the scenarios... The scenarios are the ones that can draw new people in and give us grognards new things to think about. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hkokko said:

The scenarios were good (then) but we must be able to create SUPERIOR scenario books and campaigns for late 2010's not 1980's or early 1990's. We have incredibly rich background world but where are the scenarios... The scenarios are the ones that can draw new people in and give us grognards new things to think about. 

 

I agree and that is part of what we have been working on is making sure that the new scenario books not only let us explore Glorantha using the new rules, but also serve the pedagogical purpose of understanding the rules and introducing Gloranthan themes. What we consider a touchstone is Pendragon's "Grey Knight" - which fully immerses the players and GM in both the setting and the rules possibilities.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm good with all this, except I find it a bit raw referring to the next RQ as RQ4. RQ4 was MRQ, and MRQ2 was RQ5. Design Mechanism did the respectful thing of calling their independent edition RQ6. They even paid homage to RQ2 with a re-envisioning of the cover art, which was an excellent move. I think keeping that iconic artwork in some form will be good for the new game that DM put out, to help with product recognition, even if its a back cover or internal title page.

So Chaosium should go with RQ7 or RQG (RuneQuest Glorantha), as its the logical and right thing to do by everyone involved in all subsequent editions, regardless of publication company.

I'm good with the outline of the next RQ edition, as long as it remains reasonably compatible with RQ6 then I can play both interchangeably.  The design aspects indicated are pretty much the things I like about RQ6, although I doubt we'll see combat effects and manuvers porting over, but I suspected that these would be streamlined  for RQG even if DM had been involved. I can always use RQ6 as RAW with Glorantha in any case. 

I'm also happy that DM are freed up to pursue their other projects, and I'll support both systems if it sounds as good as it does in Jeff's press release.

I guess in regards to Chaosium the weird thing now is CoC 7E is still the odd one out. I would have thought if such an overhaul in game mechanics were happening then there would be a move to make the RQ and CoC lines more similar in some respects, but I'm still reasonably  happy things are turning out as they are.

 

 

Edited by Mankcam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...