RQ Classic ---> RQ4

[g33k]

I believe the upcoming RQ (for which we are getting "Designer Notes" every so often) has been "officially" stated as being named "RQ4."  Apologies if I'm mistaken!  But I'll use the moniker here because I need SOME label, and that's my understanding...  If your understanding differs -- or you'd just prefer a different name -- please substitute "RQ Next" or "RQ:Glorantha" or "B/X D&D" or whatever nomenclature matches YOUR understanding!

I plan to launch a RQClassic campaign pretty soon -- a month or two.  I've got my original softcover rulebook (but it's kinda tattered), and the new PDF -- and I hope to have the RQClassic hardcopy before then -- but it's time to set a date for our first session, and go for it!  I'll start by moving "Apple Lane" to "Date Palm Way" (with a few other changes), and maybe an adventure of my own design. As the heroes are resting & recovering from the events at Gringles &c, they get offered another job... thus do we segue into the "Borderlands & Beyond" book (again, I'll likely intersperse some of my own content (in particular, I'll likely be sending them out of the Zola Fel valley (into Prax proper) more than the book does)).

But ... RQ4 is coming.

And it looks good.  REALLY good.

And we'll still, I expect, be mid-Borderlands when RQ4 lands.

SO, I am considering the likelihood of converting the "Borderlands" campaign mid-run, over to RQ4.  My understanding is that converting is expected to be pretty easy -- RQClassic is the core from which RQ4 is building.  But it is the bulk of a campaign -- well over 100 page of published content -- that I'll have to convert, so it won't be a trivial undertaking!  As I consider the "conversion notes" I've previously seen in new versions of RPG's, I find that I am mostly unimpressed.  It's often little more than a hand-wave in the direction indicated and a "won't be hard!" exhortation.

So, yeah:  this is, in part, a plea for the designers to make it more than a "check box" line item -- "got that one!" -- but to give "Conversion" the same attention and consideration that the core rules get.

But I had another idea, too:  once the RQ4 rules are close enough to Final Draft that "how to convert" becomes a viable chapter/appendix... why not release it as a standalone?  Get it into folks hands as part of the promotion/teaser process?  Inspire some of us grognards to dig out favorite old characters to run through the conversion...  Give folks (like me) who are planning to convert "live" campaigns (and running PC's) a leg up on being ready for the new edition... Etc.

Thanks for considering my notion!  And of course -- as this is on forum, instead of e-mail'ed -- I invite all commentary, critique, advice, declarations of blood-feud or lifelong fealty, etc...

 

[Mugen]

They may have changed their mind recently, but in the first posts on the subject I read at rpg.net, Chaosium people stated that their new game's name was to be RuneQuest. Not RuneQuest 7, RuneQuest 4, RuneQuest Next or RuneQuest Glorantha, just RuneQuest.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Mugen

[AJ The Ronin]

That's my understanding. 

RuneQuest Classic -> RuneQuest 2

RuneQuest -> RuneQuest 7/4/Glorantha 

 

BTW I thought that one of the design goals was for RuneQuest Classic material to be backward compatible with RuneQuest without much fuss. 

I got that wrong?

[Jeff]

It is very compatible with RQ2. For playtesting, I've just been using RQ Classics material. There's some conversion material you need to do with Rune Magic (you add up the spell points of all the spells to determine the Rune Points of the NPC), and you should probably add a few passions to key NPCs, but that is all very easy. It is actually far easy to use the RQ2 material with the new rules than it was converting the old RQ2 material to RQ3.

[Mankcam]

The idea that the stat blocks are pretty similar is very appealing so we can run earlier resources with the new rules. This has always been a great feature with CoC, so it makes sense for RQ to do this as well. 

BTW I suspect although the game will be called RuneQuest, these forums will eventually settle on a shorthand moniker just like the other editions. To me , if we don't call it RQ7, then I'll concede with CRQ4. We used the company title with Mongoose ( MRQ, MRQ2), so I think 'CRQ4' sounds logical for the new Chaosium edition

Edited June 13, 2016 by Mankcam

[Baragei]

I have always referred to this project as RQ7. If they insist, I'll give and start referring to it as RQ47.

[styopa]

With:

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

Runequest 3

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

Mongoose Runequest (aka MRQ)

Mongoose RQ 2 (aka MRQ2)

TDM Runequest (aka RQ6)

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

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

[Jeff]

We don't call this RQ7 because we find that very misleading. MRQ1, MRQ2, and DM's RQ6 share a common design thread from MRQ1, and going on to MRQ2 and DM's RQ7. The new RQ is simply not from that line of development. It stems from RQ2 (with elements of RQ3) and then moves on, but does not build off the MRQ line. Calling it RQ4 (or RQ2.5) makes that point. Calling ti RQ7 is, in our opinion, more confusing.

[Pentallion]

I defer to Jeff, RQ4 it is.  But personally, I like RQG Runequest Glorantha.  Because the two finally coming back together again makes me happy

[Baulderstone]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

We don't call this RQ7 because we find that very misleading. MRQ1, MRQ2, and DM's RQ6 share a common design thread from MRQ1, and going on to MRQ2 and DM's RQ7. The new RQ is simply not from that line of development. It stems from RQ2 (with elements of RQ3) and then moves on, but does not build off the MRQ line. Calling it RQ4 (or RQ2.5) makes that point. Calling ti RQ7 is, in our opinion, more confusing.

If you have to understand the history of a product line to understand why a name isn't confusing, then it's too confusing. 

[Pentallion]

34 minutes ago, Baulderstone said:

If you have to understand the history of a product line to understand why a name isn't confusing, then it's too confusing. 

Actually, Baulderstone is right Jeff.  You literally CAN'T call it RQ 4.  New player comes in, what ya playin?  RQ4.  If the newbie has ever heard of RQ 6 he's immediately going to think we're playing an older version.  In fact, he might even go try to find the newest version if he finds he likes the game.  By the time he figures out this IS the newest version he's like wtf?  Now if all this is attempted to be explained to him up front, he's going away with the impression this game is stupid.  RQ4 AFTER RQ6 came out?  That's stupid. 

Sorry, but that bull don't fly.

 

Heaven forbid that while that great first impression is being made, someone should bring up ducks.

[NickMiddleton]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

We don't call this RQ7 because we find that very misleading. MRQ1, MRQ2, and DM's RQ6 share a common design thread from MRQ1, and going on to MRQ2 and DM's RQ7. The new RQ is simply not from that line of development. It stems from RQ2 (with elements of RQ3) and then moves on, but does not build off the MRQ line. Calling it RQ4 (or RQ2.5) makes that point. Calling ti RQ7 is, in our opinion, more confusing.

Really? Referring to the "6+1" (or "8-1" if you prefer) published distinct edition of a game to use that brand name as the seventh edition is confusing?

*shrug* referring to it internally as RQ4 (the fourth purely Chaosium edition of RQ) made a sort of sense I suppose, but is only relevant to Chaosium staff, realistically; from a corporate perspective simply referring to it as "RuneQuest" is a sensible brand strategy. And since the trademark owner (Moon Design) now owns the publisher (Chaosium), its entirely up to you what you call it.

But trying to "disappear" editions the current owners seemingly want to pretend aren't part of the brands history just looks a bit naff, to be blunt.

Edited June 13, 2016 by NickMiddleton

[dragonewt]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

We don't call this RQ7 because we find that very misleading. MRQ1, MRQ2, and DM's RQ6 share a common design thread from MRQ1, and going on to MRQ2 and DM's RQ7. The new RQ is simply not from that line of development. It stems from RQ2 (with elements of RQ3) and then moves on, but does not build off the MRQ line. Calling it RQ4 (or RQ2.5) makes that point. Calling ti RQ7 is, in our opinion, more confusing.

Does the new buyer care? They just want to know which one is the latest one to get. 6 comes after 4, so it must be the latest. I generalise regarding levels of perception, however, let's consider the common ground.

Imagine the circumstances when a player joins a group playing, as indicated by the GM, "the latest version of RQ", and buys RQ 6, because it has a higher number than 4.

[David Scott]

On 12 June 2016 at 8:58 PM, ajtheronin said:

BTW I thought that one of the design goals was for RuneQuest Classic material to be backward compatible with RuneQuest without much fuss.

I ran our Snakepipe Hollow playtest with the RQ3 version with no conversion problems. I didn't realise that @Jeff meant I should use the RQ2 version!

On 12 June 2016 at 9:13 PM, Jeff said:

There's some conversion material you need to do with Rune Magic (you add up the spell points of all the spells to determine the Rune Points of the NPC), and you should probably add a few passions to key NPCs, but that is all very easy.

That was actually all I did Rune points and a passion for some npcs is all I did. Most Chaos creatures had Hate Outsiders :-)

 

[David Scott]

30 minutes ago, dragonewt said:

Imagine the circumstances when a player joins a group playing, as indicated by the GM, "the latest version of RQ", and buys RQ 6, because it has a higher number than 4.

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

[styopa]

10 minutes ago, David Scott said:

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

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

[David Scott]

Just now, styopa said:

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

I only buy PDFs, hence my shortsighted outlook.

[jongjom]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

We don't call this RQ7 because we find that very misleading. MRQ1, MRQ2, and DM's RQ6 share a common design thread from MRQ1, and going on to MRQ2 and DM's RQ7. The new RQ is simply not from that line of development. It stems from RQ2 (with elements of RQ3) and then moves on, but does not build off the MRQ line. Calling it RQ4 (or RQ2.5) makes that point. Calling ti RQ7 is, in our opinion, more confusing.

I had to agree with your logic. But without you (or anyone else) there to explain it every time someone new picks up the book or discusses it, I doubt RQ4 will fly. Unfortunately RQ2.5 looks the most accurate!

RQ2G: RQ2 Glorantha ... ?

[dragonewt]

4 minutes ago, David Scott said:

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

Unless you can convince the "Internet" of the "right to be forgotten" for RQ6, it will live on in forum archives, reviews, fan pages; and show up in searches for "RuneQuest".

People only have so much to spend, which is something not to be taken for granted. There would be no better way to potentially jade the perception of a friend who trusted a recommendation to try something other that Pathfinder or "D&D".

[g33k]

45 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

Actually, Baulderstone is right Jeff.  You literally CAN'T call it RQ 4.  New player comes in, what ya playin?  RQ4.  If the newbie has ever heard of RQ 6 he's immediately going to think we're playing an older version.  In fact, he might even go try to find the newest version if he finds he likes the game.  By the time he figures out this IS the newest version he's like wtf?  Now if all this is attempted to be explained to him up front, he's going away with the impression this game is stupid.  RQ4 AFTER RQ6 came out?  That's stupid. 

Sorry, but that bull don't fly.

Heaven forbid that while that great first impression is being made, someone should bring up ducks.

+1 (mostly).

I mean, they literally CAN call it "RQ 4" if they want.  They own it.  They can call it "Dungeons & Ducks" (has damn fine alliteration, that... rolls niftily off the tongue!) if they want.

But I think it's just "Runequest," per Jeff.

Personally, I think that too is an error (too ambiguous), but it's one they are (a) entitled to make if they want, & (b) probably more-qualified in marketing gaming materials than I am.

But, speaking as a fan of RQ and of Glorantha (and of other multiply-versioned games) I find there to be FAR TOO MUCH "Runequest" out there!  As a bare-naked moniker, it doesn't actually tell me WHICH game I'm going to play!  Rather like "Dungeons & Dragons" from B/X through the original "Advanced," & onward to 2e/3e/4e/5e.  If I am joining a game of "D&D" I want to know which version, because frankly there are some of those versions that aren't worth my time, and others that I quite enjoy.

Given the existing title "Heroquest:Glorantha" I find "RQ:G" (indicating "RQ" more-tightly-tied to "Glorantha" than any prior version, and named in parallel to the other notable game also tightly-tied to Glorantha (and carefully averting my gaze from the title "13th Age in Glorantha," which looks likely to come to market sooner)) to be the most-apt of all titles I have seen or considered.

But <carefully examining my resume> I find that I do not seem to EVER have successfully marketed a RPG.  Upon examining the combined credentials of the Chaosium / MoonDesign staff, I am chagrined to discover myself rhetorically paraplegic:  without a leg to stand on, if debating this topic with them.

[g33k]

3 minutes ago, styopa said:

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

+1

In fact, I have a hell of a lot of things to spend my money on, and $50 (and up!) for a core rulebook is actually enough of a barrier that I think twice (or thrice, or more) before buying.   If I had bought 6th (or "Mythras" because it's "the new RQ 6" according to the guy in the store (and you DAMN well better believe THAT will happen!)) ... well, I'd be feeling pretty PO'ed, and strongly disinclined to drop any more $$$ on anything else bearing any form of RQ branding.

But I think it's planned to be just "Runequest."

And while I disagree with that choice, too... as noted above, I simply don't have any marketing credibility in the face of the accumulated backgrounds of C/MD.

[Joerg]

Just RuneQuest on the cover is fine with me.

I am a strong advocate for RuneQuest Glorantha when attempting to discern it from other versions to avoid both irritation about the numbering and the relation to RQ6/Mythras. It is after all more strongly tied to the game world than RQ2 or the Mongoose versions (if you look at the basic rules system). The numbering could be reset as RQG1 and increasing.
The term RQ4 has a bad history, as has the subtitle Adventures in Glorantha. I would suggest to avoid it. Chaosium's RQ4 is misleading to most people even though Chaosium did the writing for Avalon Hill, because everybody associates RQ3 (and everything that went wrong with it) with AH. RQ 2.5 is better, but as misleading. Maybe the Microsoft option "RQ 2016" is clearer?

 

[Baulderstone]

50 minutes ago, g33k said:

But <carefully examining my resume> I find that I do not seem to EVER have successfully marketed a RPG.  Upon examining the combined credentials of the Chaosium / MoonDesign staff, I am chagrined to discover myself rhetorically paraplegic:  without a leg to stand on, if debating this topic with them.

Then again, Chaosium and Runequest aren't brands with the most spotless business history. Just sayin'.

[AJ The Ronin]

Personally Runequest 2.5 should be fine if it's as close to 2 as intended. 

Runequest: Glorantha is also a good name IMO and like someone mentioned above would fit with Heroquest: Glorantha. 

I'm sure it will be called RuneQuest 7 or CRQ by the masses. 

[g33k]

2 hours ago, Baulderstone said:

Then again, Chaosium and Runequest aren't brands with the most spotless business history. Just sayin'.

So true!

But... RIck Meints & the MD crew...  Add the Great Old Ones' return, to a Chaosium slimmed-down enough to j-u-s-t keep continuity....   Not a combo that I want to bet against; ymmv, as may your Glorantha, of course.