New RQ - Designer Notes Part Three

[Atgxtg]

 

14 hours ago, Mankcam said:

A I like Pendragon passions, although I'm unsure that they may be too limiting nowadays, and perhaps there is another way of putting an emphasis on personality traits.

 

 

7 hours ago, nDervish said:

I like them too, but going heavily into that (or, really, any) sort of personality mechanic is a risky move, considering how many people look at it and reflexively object that "I should control my character's actions, not the dice!"

They could adapt the method Greg used for Prince Valiant. In that RPG characters could take traits. If they role played their traits they got extra glory points. Someone could make a trait and obsession (I think that was the term used, but it might have been passion) in which case they got double the glory award but HAD to play out the trait. 

 

Since RQ2 doesn't have Glory, per say, the award could be something else (a skill check, magic point, or some sort of cult based effect). For instance a Humakit who plays it honorably could get a bump up on his bladesharp spell. Or maybe rle-playing the trait could bypass the normal casting roll?

Edited February 14, 2016 by Atgxtg

[Warthur]

6 hours ago, jux said:

It can be debated how much of a success D&D5 really is, but how they did the development really shows how they did it right. No rush, open discussion with fanbase, free testing releases. I have assumption the 5e is very solid release and fans of the game are generally happy with it. I think Chaosium could learn from them. Also, as the devs are not working together, but are separated and meet only online, is something I am doubtful.

Wizards of the Coast are in a very unique position and I think it would be a mistake for a smaller company to try and emulate the D&D5 design process, which was as only broad, open, and long as it was because Wizards could afford to do it that way. A very few other companies can do it. FFG can on the back of their boardgame profits. Mongoose tried it with their new version of Traveller, but I think Mongoose are in the unhappy position where they have contracted a lot since their D20 glut peak but haven't really come to terms with it yet and like to think that they can pull off the sort of project which really you need to be a larger company with more full-time employees to pull off. (Their constant release schedule woes being a case in point on this.)

I am confident in Moon Design's business model and working practices; it worked fine for their own stuff, and they've been successful enough to buy into the new Chaosium, take on an awful lot of debt, and keep the lights on and get the outstanding Kickstarter commitments the old regime had left hanging moving again.

[jux]

Yeah, managing the "feedback" stuff is already a work of it's own. For dnd it may have pissed more people off rather than give certain value, but polls surely showed something that the crowd wanted. Sure it will be a bigger effort, but I think succeeding with this product is Essential for the future of Chaosium. I really like these "designer notes" blog posts. I would like to see teasers and polls for certain things as well (character generation ... cough cough).

[Mankcam]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

They could adapt the method Greg used for Prince Valiant. In that RPG characters could take traits. If they role played their traits they got extra glory points. Someone could make a trait and obsession (I think that was the term used, but it might have been passion) in which case they got double the glory award but HAD to play out the trait. Since RQ2 doesn't have Glory, per say, the award could be something else (a skill check, magic point, or some sort of cult based effect). For instance a Humakti who plays it honorably could get a bump up on his Bladesharp spell. Or maybe role-playing the trait could bypass the normal casting roll?

Yes, this is more along the lines of what I would prefer for personality traits rather than Pendragon passions. I actually use a version of this in my home brew games and it works quite well.

[pachristian]

With all these notes, let's never forget an important point:

 

"Never hesitate to add simplicity." - and I forgot who provided that quote.

 

While a game system can be too simple, it is much easier to make it too complex.

 

So my thoughts:

1) I want to be able to create a character in 1/2 hour.

2) I want to be able to explain character creation to a new player verbally, without having to ask him to read pages of resources. 

3) When I run for people at a gaming convention, I don't want to need more than 1/2 hour to explain the game system and world to my players before we start playing. Nothing scares off potential new players to a system then having to put in a lot of work before the fun begins.

4) I don't want to have to explain Gloranthan mythology beyond "You'll want to pick a cult after you've played a few sessions. You cult will give you access to magic and some skills. It's also a way for your character to advance socially. You'll get the idea as we play."

 

It's not that I don't want the depth available; it's just that starting a game should be fun; not a painful experience of needing to absorb a ton of material before the GM says "Okay, let's get started..."

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Mankcam said:

Yes, this is more along the lines of what I would prefer for personality traits rather than Pendragon passions. I actually use a version of this in my home brew games and it works quite well.

Maybe we should design an RPG together. We seem to be covering a lot of common ground this weekend!

[skoll]

Thank you for the explanation Jeff/MOB. While I would have preferred to have RQ6 as the base, I can understand the reasons behind your decision to go with RQ2. I just hoped this explanation would have been released right when you announced the change of direction. A lot of gnashing of teeth would have been avoided.

[Mankcam]

15 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Maybe we should design an RPG together. We seem to be covering a lot of common ground this weekend!

yeah it's seems we're pretty like-minded with BRP at present heh heh

[Harshax]

I see myself purchasing the rules for the sake of supporting Glorantha, but I'm definitely among the group of people who thought RQ6 was the better evolution of the rules to date. I still have my tattered yellowed copy of RQ2 and a mint RQ3 on my shelf, but no amount of nostalgia is going to make me crack those open at my table.

I hope the devs will post more critical material about design decisions soon, such as whether RQ2 and 40 years of unreleased notes means we're going back to a POW economy and the Resistance Table. Strike Ranks weren't a deal breaker for me, but I don't like them. The return to RQ2/3 combat is unfortunate.

Special Effects provide a much more satisfying and faceted outcome to combat resolution. RQ2/3 rules for Bypassing armor, impales and severing limbs is certainly less cinematic to RQ6 because they end up being so predictable that no one would boast about a movie where every combat sequence in the film ends with a severed limb.

It sounds like they intend to borrow some rules for replenishing Divine Magic from recent editions. That's certainly a positive change.

I want the very best for RuneQuest, but it looks like I'll be supporting rules that are matched more closely to TDM's edition.

[jbbourgoin]

Yes, but everybody don't want necessarily to see movie when playing rpg. I like RQ6 but I prefer a simple game. RQ6 exist already and nobody prevents to use it with Glorantha. A modernized version of RQ2 doesn't exist yet, is this so bad that someone want to make this game ? Are you obliged to play with the next iteration of RuneQuest ?

RQ6 exist, RQ2.5 is at work, OpenQuest is freely available, there is choice and that's cool, no ?

[Harshax]

57 minutes ago, jbbourgoin said:

Yes, but everybody don't want necessarily to see movie when playing rpg. I like RQ6 but I prefer a simple game. RQ6 exist already and nobody prevents to use it with Glorantha. A modernized version of RQ2 doesn't exist yet, is this so bad that someone want to make this game ? Are you obliged to play with the next iteration of RuneQuest ?

RQ6 exist, RQ2.5 is at work, OpenQuest is freely available, there is choice and that's cool, no ?

My point was that removing Special Effects in favor of the original and standardized results of "ignore armor, impale, sever limb" is working at cross purposes to the goal of streamlining the game. Dispensing with Special Effects is not trimming fat at all ... because there is no unnecessary components to Special Effects in the first place. It's a solid modern subsystem that gives players a certain amount of narrative control. Whether this narrative control is ultimately cinematic or literary is ultimately your decision to make.

The whole reason RQ6 is 456 pages is because its a generic RPG that has a very non-conversational style of writing. I believe the rules could be condensed considerably by focusing on the parts specific to Glorantha and adopting a less padantic writing style ... although to be fair, I loathe to criticize the writing style or describe it as pedantic. I am simply at a loss as to how to describe a style that conveys rules in more curt manner without losing clarity.

As for having RQ 2.5 and a new TDM version of what in production - Choice is great, but I don't see choice doing either product lines any favors. Having backward compatibility to a game that has been out of print for almost three decades versus updating a setting to a game system in modern circulation with active support for non-Gloranthan settings such as Monster Island, Mythic Britain, and Korantia would have been the smarter play in my completely uneducated opinion.

The potential cross-pollination between product lines would have been immensely valuable. People are quick to point out that the gears between iterations of RQ and BRP are the same, but every time you tweak an edition, add rules, or publish multiple conflicting stats for the same creature, you add a certain level of uncertainty and conversion work for the ref. So, no. I don't think it's that cool to have two or three sorta similar game systems claiming compatibility.  

They could have just taken RQ6, completely dropped the magic chapter in favor of Rune-Specific Gloranthan variant and expanded on Passions. Then the most effort would have been spent polishing the most specific Gloranthan bits, instead of going back to retooling a ruleset that has since seen four revisions by three different companies.

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by Harshax

[jbbourgoin]

Ok, i understand better what you mean. But, for me, MRQI ( and II and RQ6 ) are not revisions of RQ2/3, they are a "new" family derived from RQ2. Chaosium make RQ2 games, Design Mechanism MRQ games. Both companies still exist and make their version of RuneQuest. Those who love RQ2 follow Chaosium, and those who love RQ6 follow Design Mechanism. For me it's not a problem, but maybe am I too simplistic, or naïve, or whatever, I don't know ... But your arguments are very interesting and coherent, thank you  

[Pentallion]

My group put a lot of time into RQ 6, but in the end, we went back to RQ 3 for the very reasons Jeff gives for why they chose to: pace of combat.  RQ 6 combat just took too long.

[SDLeary]

3 hours ago, Harshax said:

My point was that removing Special Effects in favor of the original and standardized results of "ignore armor, impale, sever limb" is working at cross purposes to the goal of streamlining the game. Dispensing with Special Effects is not trimming fat at all ... because there is no unnecessary components to Special Effects in the first place. It's a solid modern subsystem that gives players a certain amount of narrative control. Whether this narrative control is ultimately cinematic or literary is ultimately your decision to make.

This depends upon your definition of streamlining. Fewer options at core often means less pause to consider, and faster play as a result. This is streamlining in many peoples definition.

Personally, I like the concept of Special Effects, but it does cause delay unless you have a tight knit group that knows the rules inside and out. I would prefer a mechanism where characters learn certain special effects, perhaps incorporating one into a Weapon Style; the ability to ad others later thru training. 

3 hours ago, Harshax said:

The whole reason RQ6 is 456 pages is because its a generic RPG that has a very non-conversational style of writing. I believe the rules could be condensed considerably by focusing on the parts specific to Glorantha and adopting a less padantic writing style ... although to be fair, I loathe to criticize the writing style or describe it as pedantic. I am simply at a loss as to how to describe a style that conveys rules in more curt manner without losing clarity.

If you write in a conversational style, I've found that it almost always causes more trouble than it solves. Can it be more condensed? Probably. Can it be condensed enough that you could then add back in enough Glorantha information without it becoming a 600 page ballistic plate? Probably not. At least not without sacrificing much of what makes RQ6 such a well written game.

3 hours ago, Harshax said:

As for having RQ 2.5 and a new TDM version of what in production - Choice is great, but I don't see choice doing either product lines any favors. Having backward compatibility to a game that has been out of print for almost three decades versus updating a setting to a game system in modern circulation with active support for non-Gloranthan settings such as Monster Island, Mythic Britain, and Korantia would have been the smarter play in my completely uneducated opinion.

As has been mentioned before, backward compatibility is a matter of perception. I don't really see how the TDM version is out of sync with any past RQ product. I don't see how you can't use RQ2 with Mythic Britain. Does it take a bit more elbow grease than simply pulling a book off the shelf? Yes, but much less than the old days where we had NO setting for DnD, and were rolling our own.

Will this put some people off? Yes, but probably no more than going in the other direction would have. Remember all those people that said they would be sticking with RQ2/3? Personally, I think they should have stuck with Magic World as the core, and built from there, and called that RuneQuest X. They would probably be much further along in the process if they had. Hell, I might still go that way, pulling out the Gloranthan magic systems and bolting them on. Or use Pendragon as the core, should work as many ideas seem to be coming from that direction. 

3 hours ago, Harshax said:

The potential cross-pollination between product lines would have been immensely valuable. People are quick to point out that the gears between iterations of RQ and BRP are the same, but every time you tweak an edition, add rules, or publish multiple conflicting stats for the same creature, you add a certain level of uncertainty and conversion work for the ref. So, no. I don't think it's that cool to have two or three sorta similar game systems claiming compatibility.  

Hell, there are more than three. Remember Renaissance? OpenQuest? Legend? As for creatures, the stat block is generally just for a bog standard version of that creature. They are generally close enough that you can simply take the stat block of the other game and say that its a weaker or stronger specimen of the species. (Wolves and Horses come to mind here)

3 hours ago, Harshax said:

They could have just taken RQ6, completely dropped the magic chapter in favor of Rune-Specific Gloranthan variant and expanded on Passions. Then the most effort would have been spent polishing the most specific Gloranthan bits, instead of going back to retooling a ruleset that has since seen four revisions by three different companies.

Well, yes. I still think it would have ended up as a 600 page ballistic plate if they had gone that route. It sounds like they have a roughly 200 page goal in mind, probably with an eye to keeping production costs and issues down. Chaosium is not "recovered" in any sense of the word yet, though it is now conscious.

SDLeary

[Harshax]

I'm not here to tell everyone they're crazy and wrong for liking where RQ is going or to convince you that I know better. With the return of all the great designers to the table, I'm sure this edition will be a great version of RuneQuest. I'm just a little more than sad that what I'm reading so far in the dev notes about backward compatibility and the need to get rid of this or that in the last official RuneQuest is so reminiscent of the fan service Wizards gave ye olde guarde of D&D. Fifth edition promised a return to the game the way it was meant to be played and what they delivered was snake oil.

Will Wheaton's video series on his campaign, Titan's Grave, utilizing Fantasy Age and played by professional actors seemed to have no problems navigating combat whilst using a similar mechanic to Special Effects. I think the key to success there was organisation, props for reference and the players agreeing on common results when too much time was spent deliberating over every possible result.

I admittedly only recognize three official licencors of the game RuneQuest, since it passed from Chaosium: Avalon Hill, Mongoose via two iterations, and The Design Mechanism. GDW might be considered a fourth, but they essentially distributed AH's version if I understand it correctly. If the examples you give are actual licencors of RuneQuest, then I apologize for not recognizing them for being anything more than a riff on the OGL created by Mongoose.

The gold standard for conversational tone for the purpose of explaining rules is Savage Worlds. They do a remarkable job of explaining everything you need to know, but certainly at the expense of being completely tone deaf and devoid of setting. Their generic multi-genre explorer's edition clocks in at 160 pages and that's in a digest sized form factor.

How much Glorantha needs to be squeezed into the introductory rule book? Pavis & Big Rubble? Dragon Pass? However much that is, shouldn't the rules have all the necessary character, equipment and magic choices to support exactly that much Glorantha? Furthermore, does the bestiary need much more than common flora and fauna to the region presented and chaos monstrosities?

Also, don't diminish the frustration of dealing with monster templates. The Griffin from RQ2, RQ6 and Magic World all play very differently if you use the Resistance Table or WillPower as a Skill. These changes detract from the cohesiveness that is supposed to be a d100 system. What's the appeal of purchasing an introductory game system that is supposed to be compatible with similar version of the d100 mechanic when you need a passing familiarity with those other systems or worse, needing to buy a core book for a game you're not even playing, just to understand whether the stat blocks in the module you're reading are bog-standard or paragon examples of a creature type?

Regardless of how much work you think needs to go into using MW supplements with RQ6 or OpenQuest, the fact is RQ6 ... the current in print edition of RuneQuest has actual players who may or may not know about Glorantha. These players might have come to the game through Mythic Britain, two different Korantia Books, a meaty generic quest book the excellent Luther Arkwright adaption or a very well received unofficial adoption of a very popular Space Opera setting from popular film.  RQ6 has excellent cross compatibility with other genres. RQ-New promises to enjoy no such thing.

I just don't understand how any of what's been written should justify gutting the combat system for standardized results. Is it because we are going to be treated to more exhaustive cult write-ups for all the Lightbringers, the Orlanthi and their enemies? While I'm glad more effort is being put forth to integrate Runes into every aspect of the character, a lot of what's been written sounds a tad less like sound game design and more about fan-service and writing a new runequest heartbreaker.

yrqwv (your runequest will vary)

I've had my say on the subject and I appreciate all of you allowing me this indulgence. I won't stir the pot further. Like I said, I'm sure it will be a great new version of the game. I just hope the new edition does more than simply appeal to my loyalty for the brand and the setting.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Harshax

[skoll]

11 hours ago, Harshax said:

I hope the devs will post more critical material about design decisions soon, such as whether RQ2 and 40 years of unreleased notes means we're going back to a POW economy and the Resistance Table.

Combat rules (like adding Special Effects, even if they aren't in the RAW) and many other rules are relatively easy to mix and match. Based on what we know so far, our group will probably tune combat in some way.

The main thing I'm expecting from the new edition, is runes and Glorantha-specific magic rules. One pretty fundamental thing, that I really, really they hope they won't go back to, is the POW economy.

[Jeff]

9 hours ago, Harshax said:

My point was that removing Special Effects in favor of the original and standardized results of "ignore armor, impale, sever limb" is working at cross purposes to the goal of streamlining the game. Dispensing with Special Effects is not trimming fat at all ... because there is no unnecessary components to Special Effects in the first place. It's a solid modern subsystem that gives players a certain amount of narrative control. Whether this narrative control is ultimately cinematic or literary is ultimately your decision to make.

I know that Special Effects has its fans. But we made the decision to drop them after careful deliberation. They may "streamline combat results" but they don't streamline the game (which is not the same thing). This is part of the controversy of RQ6. For some people, rules like Special Effects speed up combat results and gives them fun and cinematic combats. For others, the same rules are overly complex, counter intuitive, and the very act of narrative control with regards to combat results runs counter to the nature of RuneQuest. Different strokes for different folks. We chose to not use them because we don't think they don't fit well with what we are putting together. 

[SDLeary]

4 hours ago, Harshax said:

I'm not here to tell everyone they're crazy and wrong for liking where RQ is going or to convince you that I know better. With the return of all the great designers to the table, I'm sure this edition will be a great version of RuneQuest. I'm just a little more than sad that what I'm reading so far in the dev notes about backward compatibility and the need to get rid of this or that in the last official RuneQuest is so reminiscent of the fan service Wizards gave ye olde guarde of D&D. Fifth edition promised a return to the game the way it was meant to be played and what they delivered was snake oil.

I don't think your trying to tell everyone that they are crazy. And I can understand being sad as well; as stated I was hoping that they would use MW as the baseline after the work that had gone into that project. I'm just not sure, based on what they have stated so far, that its quite as bad as you think it is. They switched the baseline, and when they did so they stated (admittedly in various forums) that they were going to pick up ideas from here and there, including Pendragon, RQ6, and other iterations of Chaosium and presumably non-Chaosium games.

4 hours ago, Harshax said:

Will Wheaton's video series on his campaign, Titan's Grave, utilizing Fantasy Age and played by professional actors seemed to have no problems navigating combat whilst using a similar mechanic to Special Effects. I think the key to success there was organisation, props for reference and the players agreeing on common results when too much time was spent deliberating over every possible result.

Is Will's video series live action, or does he edit? I can't imagine that someone unfamiliar with a system would not have problems negotiating it, at least thru the first session or two, Special Effects or no. I could be wrong though.

4 hours ago, Harshax said:

I admittedly only recognize three official licencors of the game RuneQuest, since it passed from Chaosium: Avalon Hill, Mongoose via two iterations, and The Design Mechanism. GDW might be considered a fourth, but they essentially distributed AH's version if I understand it correctly. If the examples you give are actual licencors of RuneQuest, then I apologize for not recognizing them for being anything more than a riff on the OGL created by Mongoose.

GW (GDW was Traveller). Yes, they were basically the licensee in the UK (and Europe?) for RQs 2 and 3. And the examples I gave were for d100 games that while not licensees of RQ, are either direct descendants of games that were (mRQ1 -> mRQ2 -> Legend), or those that are in some way based upon the mRQ SRD that is available in the downloads section.

4 hours ago, Harshax said:

The gold standard for conversational tone for the purpose of explaining rules is Savage Worlds. They do a remarkable job of explaining everything you need to know, but certainly at the expense of being completely tone deaf and devoid of setting. Their generic multi-genre explorer's edition clocks in at 160 pages and that's in a digest sized form factor.

I will have to take your word on this as I am unfamiliar with Savage Worlds, though I did see a ton of stuff on the shelf at my FLGS a couple of years ago. Sounds like the edition you are referring to is similar in form to FATE Core.

4 hours ago, Harshax said:

How much Glorantha needs to be squeezed into the introductory rule book? Pavis & Big Rubble? Dragon Pass? However much that is, shouldn't the rules have all the necessary character, equipment and magic choices to support exactly that much Glorantha? Furthermore, does the bestiary need much more than common flora and fauna to the region presented and chaos monstrosities?

Honestly, I'm not sure. As they have stated that they are going to essentially weave it into the rules so that the game reflects the world; or at least thats how I have interpreted what they have said. More than what was in RQ2, probably about the amount thats in the HQ:G rules.

Bestiary size of course would depend on introductory scope: Sartar; Pavis; Something Else? If its Something Else, then more would probably be needed as not much would be out there. 

I would be more worried about having to strip so much out of RQ6 and then add the changes to customize it for Glorantha, that it fundamentally ceases to be RQ6. Much of what makes RQ6 great is the effort that Pete and Loz put into it to make it a complete setting free game.

4 hours ago, Harshax said:

Also, don't diminish the frustration of dealing with monster templates. The Griffin from RQ2, RQ6 and Magic World all play very differently if you use the Resistance Table or WillPower as a Skill. These changes detract from the cohesiveness that is supposed to be a d100 system. What's the appeal of purchasing an introductory game system that is supposed to be compatible with similar version of the d100 mechanic when you need a passing familiarity with those other systems or worse, needing to buy a core book for a game you're not even playing, just to understand whether the stat blocks in the module you're reading are bog-standard or paragon examples of a creature type?

Im not trying to diminish it, I've just never really experienced it to the degree you seem to be implying. I have often used Malleus Monstrorum to pull out baddies at a moments notice and not really run into issues. Most of my games though do equate to Street Level, so mayhem and injury was expected.

4 hours ago, Harshax said:

Regardless of how much work you think needs to go into using MW supplements with RQ6 or OpenQuest, the fact is RQ6 ... the current in print edition of RuneQuest has actual players who may or may not know about Glorantha. These players might have come to the game through Mythic Britain, two different Korantia Books, a meaty generic quest book the excellent Luther Arkwright adaption or a very well received unofficial adoption of a very popular Space Opera setting from popular film.  RQ6 has excellent cross compatibility with other genres. RQ-New promises to enjoy no such thing.

And TDM's RQ6 will remain, albeit under a new name.

4 hours ago, Harshax said:

I just don't understand how any of what's been written should justify gutting the combat system for standardized results. Is it because we are going to be treated to more exhaustive cult write-ups for all the Lightbringers, the Orlanthi and their enemies? While I'm glad more effort is being put forth to integrate Runes into every aspect of the character, a lot of what's been written sounds a tad less like sound game design and more about fan-service and writing a new runequest heartbreaker.

They aren't gutting the combat system. They are starting with a different baseline and modifying it from there.

4 hours ago, Harshax said:

yrqwv (your runequest will vary)

I've had my say on the subject and I appreciate all of you allowing me this indulgence. I won't stir the pot further. Like I said, I'm sure it will be a great new version of the game. I just hope the new edition does more than simply appeal to my loyalty for the brand and the setting.

I don't think your stirring the pot, I'm just not seeing the level of gloom that you appear to be. I did at the beginning of all of this, but Chaosium has done a somewhat decent job so far of mitigating my fears. Do I think that this is the ideal solution? No, but its better than the way it appeared this last summer.

SDLeary

[Baulderstone]

1 hour ago, skoll said:

Combat rules (like adding Special Effects, even if they aren't in the RAW) and many other rules are relatively easy to mix and match. Based on what we know so far, our group will probably tune combat in some way.

Yes, Special Effects seem easy to add in. 

1 hour ago, skoll said:

The main thing I'm expecting from the new edition, is runes and Glorantha-specific magic rules. One pretty fundamental thing, that I really, really they hope they won't go back to, is the POW economy.

This my hope as well. The POW economy will be even more a hassle with skill with a basis in characteristics. All the skills on your sheet that are partially based on POW will fluctuate along with a POW. However, they may be stuck with it. They have promised backwards compatibility with RQ2. Too many RQ2 supplements have the POW economy built in.

[Mugen]

On 14/2/2016 at 0:48 PM, jux said:

It can be debated how much of a success D&D5 really is, but how they did the development really shows how they did it right. No rush, open discussion with fanbase, free testing releases. I have assumption the 5e is very solid release and fans of the game are generally happy with it. I think Chaosium could learn from them. Also, as the devs are not working together, but are separated and meet only online, is something I am doubtful.

Except D&D5 "playtest" was more like a long survey to get a game that "feels like D&D" than a playtest to get "the best rules".
Really, if the reason why Chaosium based their decision is the success of the RQ2 classic kickstarter, it's not very different than the logic behind D&D5 development.

[Mugen]

3 hours ago, Baulderstone said:

Yes, Special Effects seem easy to add in. 

This my hope as well. The POW economy will be even more a hassle with skill with a basis in characteristics. All the skills on your sheet that are partially based on POW will fluctuate along with a POW. However, they may be stuck with it. They have promised backwards compatibility with RQ2. Too many RQ2 supplements have the POW economy built in.

POW economy is the only thing I miss from RQ3.
But I would not include POW in skill base values if POW is meant to change often...

[nDervish]

5 hours ago, skoll said:

One pretty fundamental thing, that I really, really they hope they won't go back to, is the POW economy.

A sentiment which seems to be shared by at least a few others here...  Why is that?  I've only played franken-RQ6, so I haven't seen POW economy in practice, but it's something that looks good to me in theory, so I've been considering feeding it to my monster.  What drawbacks have I (potentially) missed?

(Skill fluctuations arising from RQ6's stat+stat baselines aren't a concern for me.  I use software to track my game's characters and it takes care of that automatically.  And I assume that wouldn't have been a factor in RQ2/3 anyhow.)

[jux]

My problem with Special Effects is that they are not special. They are very  common - I mean they happen often. They mostly always happen when you hit. And this bogs it down, at least with beginners. You open up the special effect sheets (if you have printed them out, otherwise you start flipping the book) and then comes the agony of choice. You have to mix and match some 3-4 applicable moves and choose which you prefer the most. To me this is a bit too much. (I still like RQ6 and pay it with certain gourp)
    
At the same time I would prefer some more flavor in combat than just scoring hits and damage. For example rolling hit location is already a great fun. I would not mind if there are some flavor charts where you can roll - critical success and fumble tables for example. Minor wound tables, etc. Some combat options, like which location to hit, grapple, full attack, full defense, etc.

Note I have not played RQ2/3. My RQ is v6 and OQ.

Edited February 17, 2016 by jux

[K Peterson]

4 hours ago, jux said:

You open up the special effect sheets (if you have printed them out, otherwise you start flipping the book) and then comes the agony of choice. You have to mix and match some 3-4 applicable moves and choose which you prefer the most. To me this is a bit too much.

When I ran MRQ2 a few years back (mixing in rules from an early version of RQ6), there seemed to be little agony of choice taking place. Players would use the same, favorite Special Effects over and over again, because they found them the most effective - damn cinematic variety. It was always a mix of Choose Location (head), Bypass Armour, and Maximize Damage. It became rather tiresome, but it was always an effective strategy that lead to their success in many combats.

You might blame unimaginative players, who didn't leverage the cinematic creativity and choices that Special Effect offers. But I guess they had the creativity to find the most effective tactical strategy open to them. Choice was focused, and it lead to rather boring and redundant combat, and soured me on Special Effects.

Quote

At the same time I would prefer some more flavor in combat than just scoring hits and damage. For example rolling hit location is already a great fun. I would not mind if there are some flavor charts where you can roll - critical success and fumble tables for example. Minor wound tables, etc. 

Sounds a bit like Elric!/Stormbringer major wound and fumble tables, minus a hit locations table. More abstract and less complex, but they add some 'flavor' into combat beyond hits and damage. They're my preferred approach these days.

[Harshax]

It's been a long time since I've had to explain the POW economy but for those unfamiliar with this RQ2/3 phenomena:

POW was mystic currency that was spent permanently for a variety of reasons:

• Establish your cult status as an initiate
• Buy Divine Magic
• Bind Spirits and Elementals
• Enchant items

You earned POW by defeating an entity in POW vs. POW tests. Such as casting a spell on someone. You only earned a chance to improve POW if your opponent had a chance to resist your spell. This lead to a bunch of gamist activities from the players:

• Don't let your POW Score get to the point where you couldn't acquire POW improvement checks
  • This stalled your progress toward acquiring enough Rune Magic to qualify for Rune Lord or Rune Priest status.
• Spend it often, but don't spend so much at one time that you become easily susceptible to enemy attacks
• Do non-optimal actions in combat to earn the chance to improve POW, like successfully cast Disruption against your enemy, before trying to defeat them.

These were the most obvious offenses of the POW economy. It helped explain why the world was flush with petty magical trinkets, but didn't explain why the world would eventually have guarded landfills full of useless level I spirit magic matrixes or why people bothered to worship divine beings constrained by Time.

All in all, the rules worked counter to the idea that POW was a measurement of a character's connection to the universe, his religious beliefs, and exposure to the deeper mysteries of hero questing. It debased the core concept behind measuring POW and rule-as-written allowed someone to acquire Rune Priest hoards of divine magic via trivial activities.

More advanced abuses involved forming your own cult and initiating all your party members so each of you had your own holy day. You would then engage in ritualistic combat, which gave you an opportunity to earn 1d3-1 POW. You would sacrifice POW to each other on a regular basis and then use the accumulated POW to make epic artifacts that rivaled Stormbringer and then go have a picnic in Dorastor.

... and that's not even scratching the surface of some of the abuses dreamt up on the old Gloranthan listserv.

EDIT - If instead of POW there was a similar mystical currency called Hero Points or some such, which was awarded by the Referee after appropriate adventures and hero quests or other milestones, I would be less adverse to seeing rules for investing these points in Divine Magic, Bindings, Enchantments, or Heroic Improvements to a character's base Attributes. I would expect such rules for creating these items to also carry with it the dangers of leaving them lying around because of magical sympathy or connection between the character and the item he created.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Harshax