Jump to content
MOB

Rq Design Notes - Part #9

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, styopa said:

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.

I also don't think it is what is at stake and this is not the subject of my post neither.

This is just a small part of my post explaining how I came to associate RuneQuest with Glorantha and Chaosium... and why the decision about the name of the future edition suits me well.

Nothing else.   ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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

Sure, but people casually looking are usually looking for the latest, current edition, not looking for the last edition they have heard of minus one. That's a fairly contrived issue. 

26 minutes ago, styopa said:

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.

 

This is the best stated form of the issue so far. We live in an age where games live and die based on Internet fan support. Looking up that support on the Internet requires clear tagging and clear search terms. 

Currently, we have a situation where the book itself will simply say "Runequest", which will be the obvious term you use to search for resources. On the other hand, we already have a character sheet in the resource section here for "RQ4". What newcomer is going to connect that character sheet to the book they just bought? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Stormwalker said:

I think it's obvious that the terms "RQ4" and "Adventures in Glorantha" are cursed, and should never be mentioned again, lest we attract the attention of the Gift-Carriers :)

You just mentioned them both in the same sentence! You've doomed us all!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Some people say it should be RQ2.5 because it's mainly (90%) RQ2.

I propose a simple and easy to remember name for the future edition :

RuneQuest 0.9+0.1

In my opinion, It is a lot simpler than "RuneQuest [(0.9 x old Content) + (0.1 x new content)]".

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, goldenwheeldancer said:

Edit

Oh! I just read Corvantirs slightly similar post!

I have a lot of them:

RuneQuest [(2 - 0,1) + 0,1]

May be should I start a poll...   :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

RuneQuest Pi

For release on the 14th of March!  The REAL geeks will insist on a receipt with the timestamp 1:59:26

:-P

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Jeff insists for a plethora of reasons it's RQ4.

That's the main issue. I have a strong suspicion that if Chaosium kept refering to it as RQ next, new RQ, Chaosium's RQ or RQ Glorantha, a number of acronyms might have seen the light of day but RQ7 would be prevalent and no one would have spontaneously thought as RQ4 as a logical moniker. But Jeff wants it called RQ4. He is the designer of the game so more power to him.

The problem is he seems to insist. He explained a few times why it should be RQ4 and he even wrote a designer's note on it. The fact that he needs to explain against a strong logical alternative should be a strong clue that all of this is very unnecessary.

BRP is already fragmented between many different options. One of these option, RQ, is fragmented by people wanting RQ and Glorantha joined at the hip, those who are against it, those who will prefer Mythras. Do we then really want to create 2 camps for the new RQ, those who believe RQ4 is a dumb/confusing/illogical acronym and those who don't care?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Chaosium" has 8 letters, "Runequest" has 9 letters and "Glorantha" has 9 letters, which would make it the mysterious "Project 899". I wonder what the Kabbalah would make of this, at least it is not the traditional number of the beast, although I suspect it could be the number of the duck ... :huh:

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Jeff wants it called RQ4

...

The problem is he seems to insist. He explained a few times why it should be RQ4 and he even wrote a designer's note on it.

I'm pretty sure that Jeff hasn't said anywhere that the gaming community *should* call it RQ4. He's merely said how they're referring to the game internally within Chaosium, and explained the reasons for that.

I agree that an unambiguous name is required for forum discussions etc, to avoid confusion, but I don't think we need Chaosium to define this for us.

I'm pretty sure we'll all end up callimg it RQ2016 (or just RQ16?), because it's clear and everything else suggested so far has been argued over . But maybe it'll be something else that hasn't been suggested yet. It doesn't really matter. Time will tell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like just CRQ for Chaosium RuneQuest. Simple and to the point. The numbering is already messed up without Chaosium assigning a number. RQ RQ2 RQ3 RQ RQ2 RQ6 - no matter if they follow with RQ4 or RQ7 it is a mess.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rurik said:

I like just CRQ for Chaosium RuneQuest. Simple and to the point. The numbering is already messed up without Chaosium assigning a number. RQ RQ2 RQ3 RQ RQ2 RQ6 - no matter if they follow with RQ4 or RQ7 it is a mess.

 

 

 

 

As stated, we're not assigning a number. We're just specifically not referring to the new edition as RQ7.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a fascinating interview with gaming industry veteran Greg Costikyan. Because we're currently bringing RuneQuest back to its original mythic setting Glorantha, we like what he says about rules design: "I was totally uninterested in creating a 'generic' system. Generic systems lead to generic games."

(Costikyan also reveals that Dave Arneson legally retains all rights to D&D "beyond the orbit of the moon", and recounts an amusing anecdote about Greg Stafford, illicit substances, and a goat...the interview is well worth reading for that alone)

https://juegosydados.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/interview-with-greg-costikyan

Edited by MOB
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That same interviewer also talked to some other guy: https://juegosydados.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/interview-with-greg-stafford/

chaosium-card.jpg?w=400&h=255

greg1.jpg?w=400&h=347

And even some other guy: https://juegosydados.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/interview-with-sandy-petersen/

 

 

He does pretty decent interviews, although Costikyan I wish he'd touched on his wargames a little more, Star Wars a little less.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Generic systems lead to generic games"

Interesting interview, but I'm not sure I agree with that statement, assuming that the term "generic game" here means one that is somehow less than a game based on a custom set of rules? I've played some great games based on generic rulesets, including many many hours spent in Glorantha using the generic versions of RQ, and I didn't find them any less enjoyable for it.  I'm sure many of the folks who used the BRP rules and it's relatives over the years may argue otherwise too, and I'm certain GURPS would have been out of print many years ago if the gaming experience it produced was poor? 

Share this post


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

This is a fascinating interview with gaming industry veteran Greg Costikyan. Because we're currently bringing RuneQuest back to its original mythic setting Glorantha, we like what he says about rules design: "I was totally uninterested in creating a 'generic' system. Generic systems lead to generic games."

I agree with Stormwalker here. Which means that I disagree with Costikyan. All great generic systems are derived from a specific game which has its roots deep in a genre or setting (yes, even GURPS: it comes from The Fantasy Trip...), but this does not prevent the "extraction" of a core set that can be adapted to different genres.

Apart from the aforementione GURPS, we could name FATE, Savage Worlds, Apocalypse World, and soon the Cypher system. Of these game systems, only Apocalypse World does not have a "generic" corebook. And the games derived from them (SotC, Dresden Files, Spelljammer, Sagas of the Icelanders, The Night Witches... the list is endless) are far from "generic" even if they come from a process of "genericisation" of a core developed for a very different setting. Both Fate Core and Savage Worlds are big names at the moment, and we have yet to see how big Cypher can become. Costikyan's statement reflects his personal tastes much more than it represents the reality of the gaming scene.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Stormwalker said:

I'm not sure I agree with that statement

I've played quite a few generic games that were awful. They can be characterised by badly thought out backgrounds bolted onto generic systems. Those systems were Runequest RQ3, HeroQuest 2, GURPs, and another one with loads of table. They were flavourless and were as much a criticism of the GM as the system. Home-brewed backgrounds with little thought to the overall flavour of the setting, they never returned to our group. The only generic game I loved was called Generic Vikings (RQ3). When you died you just changed your name to a new one chosen from the IKEA catalogue, but it played to the generic warrior idea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that sense I'd call D&D a "generic" game too, as really in no place is it particularly tied to a single setting either.  Heaven forbid Chaosium see comparable economic success?

I know, I know, it's not all about filthy lucre....but it would be nice to see one of these periodic waves of RQphilia actually result in a stable, financially-healthy company from which we could expect a sustained string of books, settings, supplements, and adventures for years and years.

Look, I've criticized RQ6 a fair amount - mainly for being too generic.  However, I have to admit: had RQ6 launched with their rulebook AND *immediately* a companion book that was the "Glorantha Companion" setting - ie 'here's how fast you get magic points' and 'for culture X, here are the available combat styles' and 'here's the pantheon of divinities with their cults, spells, etc all laid out' most of my criticisms wouldn't have existed.

Between generic and setting focused, well...it's not my company, and it's easy to quarterback from the sidelines.  But it seems that if you're already serving a niche of the gaming public (and as much as I've loved RQ for 35 years, it's a niche game), it seems odd that one would design a "new version" so tightly tied to a single setting (no matter how great that setting is) that it is more or less unplayable for any other purpose, thus subdividing the numbers again?  And then to exclusively select a specific locale of THAT setting, further atomising the list of potential customers?

It seems to me a better use of resources to build a COMPREHENSIVE "modern updated RQ2" (note, as Jeff mentioned in the other thread, the new RQ will have runes, rune points, passions, revised spirit combat, revised shamanism, new spirit rules, economics, far more social activity, etc - ALL of which could be absolutely universal in application) that has the neutrality of RQ3, and then (maybe even in the same package to start?) include the "Dragon Pass Campaign Book" which could then be laser-focused on the rich setting of the region.

Again, it's easy to quarterback from the sidelines.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

...  it seems odd that one would design a "new version" so tightly tied to a single setting (no matter how great that setting is) that it is more or less unplayable for any other purpose ... 

In my view this is the main problem with all "non-generic" games: Their designers either have the extreme luck or skill to create one of the rather few truly fashionable settings beloved by thousands of players, or the game becomes an epic fail, a heartbreaker that is forgotten almost immediately after it was published. With a good set of generic core rules and a number of different setting supplements the chance to survive on the market seems better than with the "hit perhaps, miss probably" approach of a game tied completely to a specific new setting. However, this may not be true in the case of Runequest and Glorantha, because Glorantha is already a well established (niche) setting with a comparatively large community of fans.

  • Like 1

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...