Jump to content

Concerns about the new RQ edition


Recommended Posts

Last comment here before I start a new thread on the general forum. I have an observation about what Vile posted.

2 hours ago, Vile said:

I've found that it's tricky to write the general base framework without looking at some specialised systems first.

Here I can easily follow your reasoning.

Quote

Hopefully after RQ7 and Mythic Iceland the Chaosium will have a good enough idea to be able to put together a useful BRP Essentials.

So, let us see what you are stating here. Chaosium will now publish two new games. The first one will be 90% identical to 36-year old first incarnation of the system (so sayeth the Creative Director). The second one is also a new edition of an existing game. Both are fantasy with magic available to everyone (IIRC Mythic Iceland is magic heavy) and focus on the character's relationship with society within his or her clan.

Only after the completion of these two, somehow similar, games will Chaosium be able to extrapolate a working set of thirty-two pages of generic elements, including sci-fi, modern, steampunk etc. etc., about their system that has been around for thirty-eight years.

Something is not "clicking" for me in your reasoning, Vile. Just a little something :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 winnin

How many shelves of D&D modules you can fill compared to how many shelves of RQ modules you can fill is directly proportional to how many people play D&D to how many play RQ.  And it's not bec

What I expect is a good set of rules and other handles for a simulation of the background of a character and their environment, in the good tradition e.g. of RQ3 Gamemasters Book(let). Rules for off-s

5 hours ago, Vile said:

Hopefully after RQ7 and Mythic Iceland the Chaosium will have a good enough idea to be able to put together a useful BRP Essentials.

The new Mythic Iceland is based on BRP Essentials, not the other way round.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2016 at 5:47 AM, jux said:

To me "narrative rules" are not story-controlling meta rules, but rules that provide more flavor.

The "story-controlling meta rules" are the sort I specifically don't care for... at least not in games that I desire to be 'simulationist' like RQ/BRP/Magic World. Suggestions that Players describe the actions of NPCs or environments, have points to spend to alter NPC actions or find equipment the GM did not explicitly place.

Rules about sanity/morale/fatigue/reputation don't fall under that heading, IMO, and I'm fine with them. They represent something actually going on with the character (though abstracted somewhat), not a meta-level resource I'm manipulating to steer the tale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2016 at 6:01 AM, aknaton said:

I'm curious to know if people in this forum consider 13th Age too narrative (and lacking in mechanics)? 

It's 'too narrative' (meta) for me when I want to be playing something 'less narrative' (less meta).

I know it's a fashionable/popular system, if someone likes that system then that's the system they should play... rather than suggesting BRP/RQ needs to adopt it's mechanisms.

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

It's 'too narrative' (meta) for me when I want to be playing something 'less narrative' (less meta).

I know it's a fashionable/popular system, if someone likes that system then that's the system they should play... rather than suggesting BRP/RQ needs to adopt it's mechanisms.

My ideal version of BRP would have a minimal set of core rules, but a range of optional components that could be bolted on to facilitate different styles of play. If you want a narrative-heavy game, there should be components that support that style of play. However, if you want a more simulationist approach, there should be options supporting that instead. My suggestion is that the core rules should focus on simulating realistic outcomes, and the options should be based upon how much you want your game to diverge from reality. If you want a grim-and-gritty simulationist game, the core rules should do the job out of the box. But if you want a more cinematic or mythic tone, with a narrativist rather than simulationist focus the tools necessary to facilitate this should be available. Such a set of rules would be difficult to write - it would require a clear vision and strong organisational skills. The Big Gold Book comes close in some respects, but misses the mark in others. In a perfect world, the upcoming BRP Essentials would form the foundation for a relaunch of the BRP product line along these principles - I suspect that Chaosium don't want a massive rulebook as the core of the system as it will alienate many newcomers at the time when they are trying to rebuild the community. But perhaps we'll see extensions of the system down the track...

(Although I'm still waiting for a PDF version of After the Vampire Wars so I can carry it around on my tablet, dammit....)

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Prime Evil said:

My ideal version of BRP would have a minimal set of core rules, but a range of optional components that could be bolted on to facilitate different styles of play. If you want a narrative-heavy game, there should be components that support that style of play. However, if you want a more simulationist approach, there should be options supporting that instead.

That all sounds good to me... no system can be best at everything (though some will insist one system or another is). It seems like good systems are built with a certain game experience in mind... much as original RQ was... vs. keep tacking on subsystems to steer them at wholly different sets of goal posts. Like, I see people try to push D&D towards 'grim & gritty'... and it can do that to a point... but if that's what I want I'd rather just play RQ.

Edited by Simlasa
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

11 hours ago, Simlasa said:

That all sounds good to me... no system can be best at everything (though some will insist one system or another is). It seems like good systems are built with a certain game experience in mind... much as original RQ was... vs. keep tacking on subsystems to steer them at wholly different sets of goal posts.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 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.

This was a happy coincidence, but it is very important to the unique feel of RQ - the juxtaposition of fairly mundane realism and heroic elements with a mythic resonance has been a feature of the game from the very beginning. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10 June 2016 at 3:41 PM, styopa said:

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.

Totally agree. Especially, since the RQ development team abandoned RQ6 in favour of something more nostalgic as a result of the success of the RQ2 Kickstarter. And it's not like there won't be a BRP variant, Revolution D100, that doesn't meet the OP's requirements.

Edited by yojimbo
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2016 at 10:33 PM, 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.

"Instead" is incorrect word usage in this case.  BECAUSE is the correct word here.  Because it's so gritty, it allows for truly heroic gaming.  I once, using only common divine spells found in RQ3, figured out how to actually bring down the Crimson Bat as it is detailed in all its horror in Elder Secrets.  So easy, even a Balazaring could do it.  When you're that squishy and you do something that epic, you've transcended the grittiness into the truly heroic.

RQ has always been able to do that.  That's what makes it so special.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that RQ, when it first came out, set out to be a 'gritty' system particularly. It was simply an alternative to D&D - which was riddled with inconsistencies, arbitrary and illogical rulings in it's first incarnation. The RQ rules were just a set of common sense rules, that then largely became celebrated as the best set of '1st wave' rpg rules in the years that followed on. There was always a debate happening about 'realism' in game rules - which eventually morphed into 'simulationism' as a concept - but there wasn't any great tribalism or nuance in terms of game styles as such until much later. 

With regards to where we are at now,I think that the prevalent feature of modern systems is to create more heroic or 'cinematic' experiences - look at FATE or Savage Worlds - and this possibly follows on to the HeroQuest system too. However, one of the things that intrigues me about having a Glorantha experience is that it's made to feel pseudo-historical, rather than superpowered. I'm not sure whether it's set to be a design feature of the new RuneQuest or not, but it's going to be something that will help my decision making process as to whether to buy into it or not. 

 

Edited by TrippyHippy
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

However, one of the things that intrigues me about having a Glorantha experience is that it's made to feel pseudo-historical, rather than superpowered. I'm not sure whether it's set to be a design feature of the new RuneQuest or not, but it's going to be something that will help my decision making process as to whether to buy into it or not. 

 

And that is my main concern about the new edition. Everything that I  have seen or read so far implies the old combat experience  (attack, parry, attack, parry, attacy, parry, crit, dead) will be retained but will be enhanced and made interesting at higher levels by having opponents thunderbolt and sever spirit one another. While I have no issue with these new possibilities (this is Glorantha after all), I'd like the game to provide for non-magical tactical combat maneuvers that other games provide (Mythras, GURPS, etc) to scratch the pseudo-historical hitch as well. There are reasons why I haven't played RQ2/3 in the last 20 years and while I generally like what I read about the new edition, the combat experience that it will provide makes me very nervous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remain convinced that perhaps CRQ4 should takes some cues from CoC7E combat.  Many of RQ6 style combat options can be covered by choosing to use the Maneuver option. I would really like to see this replicated, as it is a simple catch-all mechanic that allows for a wide range of options in combat, and encourages creative gameplay. 

Edited by Mankcam
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

I'm not sure that RQ, when it first came out, set out to be a 'gritty' system particularly. It was simply an alternative to D&D - which was riddled with inconsistencies, arbitrary and illogical rulings in it's first incarnation. The RQ rules were just a set of common sense rules ...

As I understand it, the guys working on the combat engine (which of course is the core engine for everything, with combat being just an instance of that) worked it out in consultation with (or were themselves?) a bunch of SCA fighters...  The "gritty" just followed naturally from what happens if the weapons are edged metal instead of safety weapons... ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

I'm not sure that RQ, when it first came out, set out to be a 'gritty' system particularly. It was simply an alternative to D&D - which was riddled with inconsistencies, arbitrary and illogical rulings in it's first incarnation. The RQ rules were just a set of common sense rules, that then largely became celebrated as the best set of '1st wave' rpg rules in the years that followed on. There was always a debate happening about 'realism' in game rules - which eventually morphed into 'simulationism' as a concept - but there wasn't any great tribalism or nuance in terms of game styles as such until much later. 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
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...