Rq Design Notes - Part #9

[MOB]

In which Jeff explains why the new edition is simply going to be called "RuneQuest": 

http://www.chaosium.com/blog/designing-the-new-runequest-part-9

[David Scott]

Because all the others were (except Mongoose's second edition, which was called RuneQuest lI) ?

[styopa]

LOL.  It's nice to see Jeff bringing subjects of discussion that seem to be of broad concern out from the message boards (which are likely perused by only a fraction of the public) to his design notes which I expect are much more widely circulated.  Thanks Jeff!

BTW I absolutely love the map of Dragon Pass/Prax.  It really hearkens to the old RQ2 back-of-the-book map, but gives it a fresh approach.

Re the specificity of rules to setting, I'm meh: sure (changing the setting to a Byzantine Europe one) the divine magic would need reworking in application but not mechanics, while Spirit Magic and Sorcery wouldn't need changing at all (unless they're getting a radical rewrite in the new RQ rules from RQ3).  The passions/runes thing may/may not fit in a magical Europe campaign, depending on how it's conceptualized.  I'm not sure how it would necessitate a change to combat at all, frankly?

I *like* RQs grittiness, which means I like the mechanics, and would seek to use them in WHATEVER setting I want to play in.  Glorantha I can take or leave.  

Edited June 17, 2016 by styopa

[Numtini]

This is starting to get funny, to be honest. Both the stubbornness and the feeling it's something that has to be addressed.

The reality is that we're really talking about the internal/insider shorthand, not what goes on the cover. RQ4 is clearly a hill that Chaosium has decided to die on, so that's that. But I suspect it will always be conveyed to newcomers asking about RQ with an asterisk explaining that RQ4 is the one that comes after RQ6 because reasons.

[Stormwalker]

Just go to RuneQuest 10, because then you can call it RuneQuest X, and, as we all know, words that end in "X" are cooler than other words .... and then you could use a TLA like "RQX" which is even cooler right?

Sorry.... I'll get me coat ...

[jux]

Great post. Really liked the RQ=Glorantha explanation, which was something I did not assume at first. RQ=generic fantasy is the mindset I had so far. I quite like when setting is binded with system and am looking forward to other BRP-based games in future.

About naming. RQ6 to me was already ridiculous. I had to read somewhere, what this "6" meant. 7 would be ever more consuming, so good choice here too.

I am starting to get excited about this Glorantha thing now ... sigh ...

 

Off topic, but my mind started wondering when speaking of other BRP-based products like Mythinc Iceland, Stormbringer, etc. I think Chaosium should get themselves a new kickass license to attract new crowd over. At the time Elric may have been cool, it is classic today, but not a hit anymore. I wonder what could be today's Elric to make a full game product-line out of. Witcher would be my first choice, but there already is TRPG in the making for that. There surely are other bookseries with the "modern" take of fantasy (like GRRM). Abercrombie's First Law series, Hobb's Farseer, Ericson's  The Malazan Book of the Fallen, Le Guin's Earthsea, Brett's Demon series? Yeah, don't reply to this

Edited June 17, 2016 by jux

[dragonewt]

1 hour ago, Stormwalker said:

Just go to RuneQuest 10, because then you can call it RuneQuest X, and, as we all know, words that end in "X" are cooler than other words .... and then you could use a TLA like "RQX" which is even cooler right?

Users of RQ7 and RQ8 will at some stage see an option to upgrade to RQX (via a pop-up message in in the PDF). Users who are happy (or required) to stay with RQ7 and 8 will continue to be nagged by additional pop-ups on a daily basis.

There will be no "opt-out" option. The upgrade will be touted as being "free", even though it requires an existing paid copy and removes some features from the rules, while adding "telemetry", tracking, advertising and will constantly recommend that the user uses its Suggested Rules Options even though the user has already chosen their own preferred set of Options and House Rules. Changing the RQ10 rules to suit a user's preferences will require checking and changing a multitude of options spread over 20 different tables that seem to be hidden across several different (often unrelated) chapters - without a meaningful index.

Even if a user did not agree or commit to proceed with the upgrade, the PDF will automatically download the new PDF "just in case", while consuming costly download quota, for the user's "Improved User Experience" (naturally). Some users might find they were tricked into upgrading. Most users found they had to use the "RQX Control Panel" Third Party House Rules in order to completely "opt-out" of the upgrade.

Note: Version RQ9 was skipped, because of referencing conflicts with the earlier RQ9x (95/98). Play-test "discussions" regarding version 9 almost resulted in the crashing of the BRP Central and RPG.net forums.

 

PS: This a dig at Microsoft's current activities around GWX; not at Chaosium (where I can see both sides).

[Numtini]

On the Runequest = Glorantha, I couldn't agree more. There was a thread on reddit with someone considering RQ as a system and they expressed that they felt like it was missing something to make it all make sense and pretty much everything they mentioned makes perfect sense once you add the Glorantha in. It's not ancient Rome or Greece, it's Glorantha and it just makes sense.

[Stormwalker]

Bless these rules, O GM, that with them though mayst smite thine players to tiny bits, in thy mercy.

And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and cliff-toads and morokanth and walktapi and baboons and Pelorian breakfast cereals ...

Now did the GM say, "First thou playest RQ2. Then thou must count to four. Four shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be four. One shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count three, excepting that thou then proceedeth to four. Six is right out. Once the number four, being the number of the counting, be reached, then playest thou the Holy Rulez in the direction of thine players, who, rolling fumbles in my sight, shall snuff it."

Ok - this time I'm really getting my coat ...

[Numtini]

Lol

[Mankcam]

I like the idea that RQ = Glorantha, as my introduction to RQ was RQ2 and Glorantha.

Of course I love other fantasy settings that use the BRP core rules, although it never felt right to me using the name  'RuneQuest' for a generic fantasy tool kit.

Th core skeleton of BRP can be used wherever so I also like the idea of a generic rule set like a trimmed down BGB, without rules for Magic etc which could be pluggef into settings (with additional settinh specific rules). Just call it something other than RQ.

I know it's late in the game, but calling the core rules something else besides BRP would be good. The name Basic Roleplaying seems wrong to me - the rules are not basic by today's standards, and the name itself sounds as flavoursome as an Accounting textbook.

I would have much rather Chaosium had went with Worlds of Wonder as a name for their house system - who cares if it gets shortened to WoW, just like World of Warcraft?

I do welcome that RuneQuest is set firmly in Glorantha, as that's how I've always seen it. 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2016 by Mankcam

[MOB]

9 hours ago, Numtini said:

This is starting to get funny, to be honest. Both the stubbornness and the feeling it's something that has to be addressed.

The reality is that we're really talking about the internal/insider shorthand, not what goes on the cover. RQ4 is clearly a hill that Chaosium has decided to die on, so that's that. But I suspect it will always be conveyed to newcomers asking about RQ with an asterisk explaining that RQ4 is the one that comes after RQ6 because reasons.

As we've said elsewhere, what it becomes called in the popular imagination is what it will become.

[lawrence.whitaker]

Quote

RQ6 to me was already ridiculous.

I can't think why; it was/is the sixth published edition of the game. The waters became muddied around the time that Avalon Hill let RQ lapse into turpitude, and then Mongoose's resurrection of the brand when the trademark became available once more, and was secured by Issaries. We felt it was important to show and acknowledge the game's history, given that the Mongoose releases had been just plain 'RuneQuest' and then 'RuneQuest II'. RQ6, although it's ISBN listing is actually just 'RuneQuest', was a very truthful statement and acknowledgment at a time when the brand needed to be given some guidance given its recent upheaval. I'd hesitate before classifying that as ridiculous.

[TrippyHippy]

Is this actually the Part #9 Designer Notes? I'd prefer to call it Part #4 as it follows the design thread better. 

[Noita]

What makes me warm and fuzzy is that we will be having the same conversation when the next edition comes out.

My piggy bank is full and waiting to be hit with a hammer. 

[MOB]

2 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Is this actually the Part #9 Designer Notes? I'd prefer to call it Part #4 as it follows the design thread better. 

Nice one, Trippy!

[jux]

5 hours ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

I can't think why; it was/is the sixth published edition of the game. The waters became muddied around the time that Avalon Hill let RQ lapse into turpitude, and then Mongoose's resurrection of the brand when the trademark became available once more, and was secured by Issaries. We felt it was important to show and acknowledge the game's history, given that the Mongoose releases had been just plain 'RuneQuest' and then 'RuneQuest II'. RQ6, although it's ISBN listing is actually just 'RuneQuest', was a very truthful statement and acknowledgment at a time when the brand needed to be given some guidance given its recent upheaval. I'd hesitate before classifying that as ridiculous.

Where was RQ5? You cannot find it if you are new to the game.

[Claudius]

Here it is, the 5th published edition of RuneQuest:

[jongjom]

22 minutes ago, jux said:

Where was RQ5? You cannot find it if you are new to the game.

RQ5 was after RQ4. Mind you not RQ4 the first attempt, which was cancelled by Greg Stafford. RQ4 ended up being the RQ by Mongoose Publishing, followed by Mongoose's RQII...now that was RQ5. However the RQ[4] and RQII/[5] by Mongoose isn't consider RQ by some. Yet RQ4 / Mongoose RQ & RQ5 / Mongoose RQII did have Glorantha as one its settings, but that was Second Age Glorantha, albeit ultimately non-canonical Glorantha despite Greg Stafford's name on many a supplement. Afterwards was RQ6 (not published by Mongoose) but that didn't have any Gloranthan background (apart from some stuff that didn't make it into general circulation).

What could be more straight forward?

[jongjom]

It makes sense to call the new version RuneQuest. RuneQuest has been pruned back to the original version and fully integrated into Glorantha to be the most Rune Quest of the lot.

[David Scott]

15 hours ago, jux said:

About naming. RQ6 to me was already ridiculous. I had to read somewhere, what this "6" meant. 7 would be ever more consuming, so good choice here too.

Just so you're not caught unaware, there's another Chaosium product that far exceeded the 6th edition and ridiculously went to 7th.

[Corvantir]

As far as I am concerned I met Glorantha with RuneQuest's Games Workshop boxset and disliked Avalon Hill's edition, so I have never considered RuneQuest as a generic game. I have never given a try to MRQ or RQ6, so for me RuneQuest is Glorantha and... Chaosium.

If my memory is good neither the front and back covers of the RQ2 boxset nor the front and back covers of the inside book bear the number 2 or a reference to a second edition. I have given a cursory look at the RQ2 Introduction and have not seen any reference to a first or second edition of RuneQuest. So it seems to me that the authors are just speaking about RuneQuest, and not about a first or second edition.

The front cover of the Avalon Hill edition of RuneQuest does not hold a number 3 or third edition label. One has to read the text of the back cover to find a reference to a third edition written in bold but never in a title. The side box of the back cover states things like "what is RuneQuest ?" and not "What is RuneQuest 3 or III".

My guess is that it has never been the intent of the original designers to name their game RuneQuest 2 or even RuneQuest 3 but that these abreviations appeared with the need to quickly distinguish the two editions one from each other when discussing about... RuneQuest. As far as I am concerned I always say RuneQuest and eventually point towards RuneQuest 2 or RuneQuest 3 when comes the need to distinguish one from the other.

So it makes a lot of sense to me when the current designers say that the future edition will simply be called RuneQuest.

Is this the best marketing decision ? Honestly, I don't care.

Of course, your Glorant... eh, Your Opinion May Vary.

 

Edited June 18, 2016 by Corvantir

[Mugen]

As for myself, I encountered RQ through its first french edition, which was based on RQ3 but with no mention of fantasy Europe, and a full line of Gloranthan supplements.

Problem is that Dragon Pass-based material was lacking, and it was very difficult to play in Glorantha with what was available (that is, Avalon Hill's Gods of Glorantha, Elder Secrets and the boxed set centered on Genertela).

But I liked the rules so much I created a world to play with those. So, for me RQ is a generic fantasy game.

[jux]

3 hours ago, Claudius said:

Here it is, the 5th published edition of RuneQuest:

Exectly. 2+2=5

[styopa]

1 hour ago, Corvantir said:

If my memory is good neither the front and back covers of the RQ2 boxset nor the front and back covers of the inside book bear the number 2 or a reference to a second edition. 

[snip]

So it makes a lot of sense to me when the current designers say that the future edition will simply be called RuneQuest.

I don't think anyone's debating that at all.  I *believe* that pretty much everyone agrees that the new books will (& should) simply say RuneQuest.

The debate is really only about idiom, and what it's going to be 'referred to' in discussions.  For example, as you yourself mentioned, you call it RQ2 even though there was no "2" anywhere in the actual name.  Why?  Because it matters to people to be clear about what they're discussing, even informally.

With the plethora of material spanning 35+ years of gaming out there, I'd say it's absolutely imperative to make it as clear and simple for new players what is new material consistent with the new rules, and what will take some massaging to make work.  Those of us that have played forever can do it almost effortlessly, so I think it's easy for us to trivialize it, but for a new DM having just bought the new RQ rules, he or she stumbles on a website and sees "ah, look character sheets for "Runequest"!  Sweet, I'll download these...wait, wtf is this?  Where do the rune values go?  Why are there attack AND parry skills for each weapon?  Bleargh..."  Confusion is the BANE of the new player experience.

MOB feels it's going to be what it's going to be.  Jeff insists for a plethora of reasons it's RQ4.   Some people say it should be RQ2.5 because it's mainly (90%) RQ2.  Some people say RQ7 because it's the 7th iteration of the rules overall.

I'd say that Chaosium would be well-served to set the tone of the discussion to 'guide' general usage ahead of release, but there seems to be resistance (or skepticism) over calling it 4.

So I think we're as clear as we're going to get.  Book = Runequest.  What it's going to be referred to?  Nysalor only knows.