Jump to content
g33k

RQ Classic ---> RQ4

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Al. said:

'RuneQuest' as a name is just a better name than RuneQuest<Letter><Number>

With the exception of MRQII, this has been the case of every RuneQuest, no?

But everyone loves RQ2, RQ6 is the one currently in-print, and everyone is up in arms over RQ47. I don't think this discussion is about what's going to be printed in big letters on the cover, it is about making the game accessible for people who don't have an MD in wonky RPG-history. Starting to mess around with the fairly standarized way numbers work is not the best way to increase accessabilty and interest.

Edited by Baragei

Share this post


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

With the exception of MRQII, this has been the case of every RuneQuest, no?

But everyone loves RQ2, RQ6 is the one currently in-print, and everyone is up in arms over RQ47. I don't think this discussion is about what's going to be printed in big letters on the cover, it is about making the game accessible for people who don't have an MD in wonky RPG-history. Starting to mess around with the fairly standarized way numbers work is not the best way to increase accessabilty and interest.

 

I am not sure if there was ever a general expectation to have anything other than "RuneQuest" on the cover, regarding versions. Possibly only a consideration to emphasise Glorantha.

The question revolves around how the community at large will reference and distinguish it from all other versions.

Additionally, some people like to read up on something before they purchase it. For example, reviews, of which many exist for many different versions. How will an interested party know which one is the correct one? How will they know which is the latest or relevant one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRQ4 is a reasonable name if anyone knows the history, but RQ7 would be more logical for most of the public. I would be happy to go with either.

RQ4 just won't be used in general referencing, for all the reasons everyone is saying. I don't think we will see it referenced all that much in these forums, let alone larger forums like RPGnet 

Lets just see what it becomes known as once the dust settles I reckon

Edited by Mankcam
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot of banter going on here, clearly the RQ (number) thing is not terribly popular. So I suggest calling it BRP:RQ Glorantha 47, or BRPRQG47 is a nice acronym that slips across the keyboard. That should annoy just about everybody :)

So long as it says 'RuneQuest', has a woman fighting a lizard thing on the cover and extols the virtues of intelligent ducks within its pages... I'll be happy...

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

So long as it says 'RuneQuest', has a woman fighting a lizard thing on the cover and extols the virtues of intelligent ducks within its pages... I'll be happy...

You said it. This is the purest essence of runequestitude.

:D

P.S.

RQ6 was quite strong on the woman-fighting-lizard front, and Grecian armor for that matter, but it was severely short on ducks.

P.P.S.

And add (not too) intelligent baboons, please. ... and a Kyger Litor cult, to get the ball rolling.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You said it. This is the purest essence of runequestitude.

:D

P.S.

RQ6 was quite strong on the woman-fighting-lizard front, and Grecian armor for that matter, but it was severely short on ducks.

P.P.S.

And add (not too) intelligent baboons, please. ... and a Kyger Litor cult, to get the trollkin ball rolling.

 

 

Here, I corrected it for you.

 

And you might want to be on guard since you mentioned the words "short" and "ducks" in one sentence.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have already suggested, I'm pretty sure that anyone wanting a totally unambigious quick reference name for the new RuneQuest will call it RQ2016.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always interesting but everyone forgets the RuneQuest  Slayers attempted restart by Avalon Hill. That would push things up to RQ 8. I'm going for RuneQuest, or RQ4, as its the next direct Chaosium release of the system after RQ 3. 

Edited by Sayerson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sayerson said:

Always interesting but everyone forgets the RuneQuest  Slayers attempted restart by Avalon Hill. That would push things up to RQ 8. I'm going for RuneQuest, or RQ4, as its the next direct Chaosium release of the system after RQ 3. 

I don't forget about RuneQuest Slayers.  As we've said many times, internally we just track the Chaosium editions - 1, 2, 3, and now 4.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My group refers to it as RQ7 simply because it's the 7th in line, there's no other reason. Now we know it's not official, but that's okay... when anyone says RQ7, we know what rule set is being referenced and it's how we differentiate. (Seems the community informally has been gravitating to this reference, it's where we picked it up... so by default, we use RQ7 now)

Edited by 10baseT

Share this post


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

Always interesting but everyone forgets the RuneQuest  Slayers attempted restart by Avalon Hill. 

I think it's best for all concerned if everyone keeps forgetting RQ Slayers, heh heh

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its clear that what Chaosium refers to their project internally probably won't be what we refer to it, and that is unlikely to change. I'll go with CRQ4 or RQ7, whichever is more prevalent among fans so we know what we are referencing.

However if I'm discussing anything directly with Chaosium staff I'll probably just refer to it as 'the current edition of RQ' or something like that. That way there's no confusion as to what edition I'm talking about,

As long as it says 'RuneQuest' on the cover then it's all good I reckon :) 

 

Edited by Mankcam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sayerson said:

Always interesting but everyone forgets the RuneQuest  Slayers attempted restart by Avalon Hill. That would push things up to RQ 8. I'm going for RuneQuest, or RQ4, as its the next direct Chaosium release of the system after RQ 3. 

Except that RQ3 was *also* an AH product, yet is termed RQ3 and is being considered canonically in the line of succession that devolves to RQ4.

 

7 hours ago, Mankcam said:

I think it's best for all concerned if everyone keeps forgetting RQ Slayers, heh heh

I don't know about Slayers, but I've read the RQ:AiG (what was going to be RQ4) playtest rules, and there were some really good ideas in there.

Share this post


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

Except that RQ3 was *also* an AH product, yet is termed RQ3 and is being considered canonically in the line of succession that devolves to RQ4.

 

I don't know about Slayers, but I've read the RQ:AiG (what was going to be RQ4) playtest rules, and there were some really good ideas in there.

RQ3 was copyright of Chaosium, Inc and was labeled as "A Chaosium Game". It was published by Avalon Hill through a license. 

Slayers, Mongoose RQ, and The Design Mechanism versions of the game are the copyright of AH, Mongoose, and TDM respectively. 

Share this post


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

I don't know about Slayers, but I've read the RQ:AiG (what was going to be RQ4) playtest rules, and there were some really good ideas in there.

RQ : Slayers had no real connexions with any other RuneQuest game. It had 2 different mechanisms for combat and non-combat situations : in combat, you rolled d6s and counted 6s, and outside you rolled 2d10 under an attribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a pdf copy of RQ Slayers many years after the fact. It was in no way anything to do with RQ except in name. As Mugen says, there were no D100% mechanics, no Glorantha setting, it was an entirely different game which just used the RQ brand name. Might as well reference D&D or FATE if it is included heh heh

Share this post


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

I saw a pdf copy of RQ Slayers many years after the fact. It was in no way anything to do with RQ except in name. As Mugen says, there were no D100% mechanics, no Glorantha setting, it was an entirely different game which just used the RQ brand name. Might as well reference D&D or FATE if it is included heh heh

 If we include efforts that never received a commercial release (both curiously enough called “Adventures in Glorantha") and Slayer (which had the brand name but different rules), then we’re actually up to RuneQuest 10 with this new edition... another reason to stop counting

Edited by MOB
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mankcam said:

I saw a pdf copy of RQ Slayers many years after the fact. It was in no way anything to do with RQ except in name. As Mugen says, there were no D100% mechanics, no Glorantha setting, it was an entirely different game which just used the RQ brand name. Might as well reference D&D or FATE if it is included heh heh

Oh dear that's horrible.

Glad I saved myself the pain.  I think I was still recouperating from Eldarad or Daughters of Darkness around then anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MOB said:

 If we include efforts that never received a commercial release (both curiously enough called “Adventures in Glorantha") and Slayer (which had the brand name but different rules), then we’re actually up to RuneQuest 10 with this new edition... another reason to stop counting

Please MOB, get with the times. That would be referred to as RQ X! :D

SDLeary

  • Like 2

Share this post


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.

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...