RQ Version #

[SDLeary]

7 hours ago, Mankcam said:

I also seem to recall monographs which covered alot of the same material (and text) as the RQ3 GM Book and the RQ3 Magic Book

And for some time there was a third "monograph" that was essentially the Players Book. This went away when Jason's project on the BGB was revealed. 

SDLeary

[NickMiddleton]

9 hours ago, Mankcam said:

Chaosium pretty much released a lot of the RQ3 core books content again as several BRP monographs, although I think some of it had been tweaked to work more with the BGB. 

The BRP monographs (tape bound versions and the later perfect bound ones) were simply the text of the equivalent RQ 3 booklets from the Avalon Hill Deluxe boxed set with the word "RuneQuest" and "Glorantha" removed, and "Basic Role Playing" replacing "RuneQuest".

There was also a BRP branded "Magic Book"  as a full release which was a revision of the RQIII Magic Book to bring it into line with the BRP BGB.

Magic World was mostly derived from Elric! and its supplements but the creatures chapter was adapted from the RQIII Creatures booklet.

Nick

[soltakss]

16 hours ago, tedopon said:

Is it coming out in 2017, though?

Everything I've been reading seems to suggest 2018...but I'm not an employee or playtester.

I'd prefer 2018, as there is something comforting about a Chaosium product coming out Next Year ...

[styopa]

23 hours ago, g33k said:

Chaosium is -- as they are entitled to be -- the arbiter of the "official" name.  As Roko Joko says, they have said it will be "Runequest."

Oh I don't disagree with you.  I don't believe however that any company or individual has the power to conclusively determine what - colloquially - something will be called eventually by the community.

They can insist all they like, and the less rational/useful their insistence is, the more likely the vernacular will make its own ruling. (shrug).

Personally, as I mentioned, I believe this will be "Runequest" as long as its current.  If, in some distant future there's another version that comes out after this reinvigorates the market, spawns a record number of supplements, and eventually is adapted into the first truly VR-based gaming world, this rule set will almost certainly retroactively be called RQ7.

12 hours ago, g33k said:

I very  *S*T*R*O*N*G*L*Y*  suspect that this timeframe won't be as soon as Chaosium would LIKE it to be, and I'm dead-certain it won't be as soon as the FANS would like it to be (since it's already 30-ish years overdue, by that measure... ;-)

Sadly, I have higher confidence in your prediction than Chaosium's.   No plan survives contact with publishing.

[Yelm's Light]

17 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

On another related side note, I do feel that RuneQuest was clearly a heavy influence on GWs Warhammer rpgs - both settings and system - including the much later 40KRP titles. 

 

Oddly enough, one of my few surviving old books is the original WRPG hardback.  It captured the medieval flavor perfectly, and had a further-developed background system.  Unfortunately, though I loved the game, nobody else I knew here in the States had much interest in playing it; RQ2 still ruled the roost.

As for the best-laid plans of mice and men when it comes to printers, there is one way: own them yourself.  But that's a step beyond.

[g33k]

25 minutes ago, Yelm's Light said:

As for the best-laid plans of mice and men when it comes to printers, there is one way: own them yourself.  But that's a step beyond.

More than.

The financial sink and time/expertise investments make this a losing proposition for most publishers.

Hypothetically, I might wonder about some sort of multi-partner "joint venture" where 5-10 smaller RPG publishers co-own a small-press outfit, occasionally taking on bits of extra work to supplement things when their own projects don't need printing... but even that'd probably be too small for real economies-of-scale to make viable.

[Al.]

Reading this thread made me realise that internally I just think of the new version as 'RuneQuest' without any edition or numbers attached, Maybe that' simply because everything from Chaosium has called it that and they've worn me down without me noticing?! 

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Al. said:

Reading this thread made me realise that internally I just think of the new version as 'RuneQuest' without any edition or numbers attached, Maybe that' simply because everything from Chaosium has called it that and they've worn me down without me noticing?! 

It's the relief.

It has just been SO DAMNED LONG since there was a Chaosium version of RQ available to buy...  OF COURSE it's just Runequest, what ELSE would it be??!?  

(n.b. the DesignMechanism version is itself a fine game, and an eminently-worthy bearer of the name; no intent to denigrate intended!  I actually plan to own and use both Chaosium's new RQ, and DM's Mythras (though it may be a while before I replace my existing RQ6 rulesbook (however, DF & M-Space both sing their siren song...  and I hearken to them, yes I do! ) But in my grognardian heart, "RQ" belongs at "Chaosium." ) .

Edited January 18, 2017 by g33k
Mythras

[Mankcam]

Yeah the RQ QuickStart release is planned to be ready by GenCon 2017, that was in a recent announcement.

The full release ETA has not been indicated. One would hope it is about 12months behind the QuickStart release, but these schedules rarely seem to go to plan. 

Personally I'm happy to wait until they are satisfied with the end result. If it's anything like the recent publications then it's going to be really good.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Mankcam

[styopa]

5 hours ago, g33k said:

Hypothetically, I might wonder about some sort of multi-partner "joint venture" where 5-10 smaller RPG publishers co-own a small-press outfit, occasionally taking on bits of extra work to supplement things when their own projects don't need printing... but even that'd probably be too small for real economies-of-scale to make viable.

FWIW, the publishing market is undergoing an absolute sea-change right now.  Economies of scale are almost going the way of the dodo.

The power and capabilities of high speed inkjet printers are really shattering market standards; every year, they're not just incrementally but substantially more capable than the previous year. 

There is so much growth, the companies involved simply cannot keep up with it, and I've seen some astonishing behavior between ostensible direct-competitors "I simply can't cover this job, I'm going to tell this customer to call you"...

Moreover, the big publishers, with massive capital investment are way behind the curve when it comes to adopting and implementing these things.  Small, local printshops that used to be sort of bottom feeders for b&w print jobs too small or inconsistent for the big guys to chase are - for what they paid for a B&W printer 5 years ago - able to buy into color technology and compete pricewise with firms 10x their size.

I think what we're going to see for the RPG market like this is that the sorts of quality books that formerly used to come only from the largest publishers with deep pockets, will now be MUCH more doable by even smaller firms.  For those of us who want a dead-tree version of the rules (pdfs are super useful for searching for something, but not so much for browsing or just reading for pleasure), this is pure good news.

Edited January 19, 2017 by styopa

[g33k]

3 hours ago, styopa said:

FWIW, the publishing market is undergoing an absolute sea-change right now.  Economies of scale are almost going the way of the dodo.

The power and capabilities of high speed inkjet printers are really shattering market standards; every year, they're not just incrementally but substantially more capable than the previous year. 

There is so much growth, the companies involved simply cannot keep up with it, and I've seen some astonishing behavior between ostensible direct-competitors "I simply can't cover this job, I'm going to tell this customer to call you"...

Moreover, the big publishers, with massive capital investment are way behind the curve when it comes to adopting and implementing these things.  Small, local printshops that used to be sort of bottom feeders for b&w print jobs too small or inconsistent for the big guys to chase are - for what they paid for a B&W printer 5 years ago - able to buy into color technology and compete pricewise with firms 10x their size.

Covers (particularly hardcovers) and bindings (particularly the high-quality bindings) remain an issue.

[styopa]

10 hours ago, g33k said:

Covers (particularly hardcovers) and bindings (particularly the high-quality bindings) remain an issue.

Absolutely yes; what I'm talking about are the perfect bound softcovers, ala RQ6 (or RQ2, if you prefer that comparison).

Hardcovers remain a different market.  

However, I'd point out that I believe (?) D&D5 was hardcover but was also perfect-bound (ie glued-in pages) and had product-quality issues because of it.  

Despite public perception, hardcovers don't ipso facto mean quality books.  For perfect-bound, it's all about the glue quality and assembly quality, both of which are being ever-more standardized into the all-book printing units to a pretty high default standard.

I'd rather have a durable, well-bound perfect-bound book than a pretty hardcover with the pages falling out.  IMO softcovers are generally easier to use for gaming, but probably are not as durable as a good hardcover.

[Yelm's Light]

5 hours ago, styopa said:

Despite public perception, hardcovers don't ipso facto mean quality books.  For perfect-bound, it's all about the glue quality and assembly quality, both of which are being ever-more standardized into the all-book printing units to a pretty high default standard.

Seems to be a code that major publishers have cracked.  I have hundreds of hardcovers, from f/sf books I really liked to classics, histories, textbooks, and biographies, many of them 30-50 years old, and I can think of perhaps two of them that have had physical issues with age.  Granted, they don't get used nearly as much as a rulebook generally would, but I go through occasional bouts of rereading favorites and haven't run into any trouble.  (The older paperbacks, on the other hand, vary more, especially things like my old Analog and IASFM collections.)

Yeah, I know, I'm digressing again...

[g33k]

7 hours ago, styopa said:

Absolutely yes; what I'm talking about are the perfect bound softcovers, ala RQ6 (or RQ2, if you prefer that comparison).

Hardcovers remain a different market.  

However, I'd point out that I believe (?) D&D5 was hardcover but was also perfect-bound (ie glued-in pages) and had product-quality issues because of it.  

Despite public perception, hardcovers don't ipso facto mean quality books.  For perfect-bound, it's all about the glue quality and assembly quality, both of which are being ever-more standardized into the all-book printing units to a pretty high default standard.

I'd rather have a durable, well-bound perfect-bound book than a pretty hardcover with the pages falling out.  IMO softcovers are generally easier to use for gaming, but probably are not as durable as a good hardcover.

I had read at least one post claiming that the worst of the D&D5E problems came from online-bought books.  Maybe the "buy cheap online" people who aren't supporting their FLGS are just more-vocal in complaining (or the FLGS service is just "sure, grab another from the shelves and we'll return this one!" leaving less to complain about); or maybe the supply streams really were different ...?

It almost sounded like the issues about some expensive textbooks & high-volume tech books coming unlicensed/unauthorized from 2ndary markets, with shoddy manufacturing; I've no idea if the first rush of 5Enthusiasm was enough to elicit that kind of illicit forgery... of course, that online report I cited was from J.Random.User from teh interwebz, so take that into account too! 

You are quite correct that "hardback" is separate from "quality," of course... although IME they "tend" to go together:  buyers who want one usually want both, because they want durability.  I know that's my primary reason for wanting hardcover!  Assuming it's durable, and does a reasonable approximation of lay-flat (that's where I find that (even well-made) perfect-bound softcovers fall short), I'm happy.

[Roko Joko]

I'm just waiting for them to revise it again, so they can call it... RuneQuest 2.  Cyclical time.

[soltakss]

5 hours ago, Roko Joko said:

I'm just waiting for them to revise it again, so they can call it... RuneQuest 2.  Cyclical time.

Since this is the RQ written by Chaosium after being taken over by "others", I wonder how long it is before we get a new revised edition.

[Mankcam]

yikes! :-0 

[dragonewt]

On 19/02/2017 at 0:08 AM, soltakss said:

Since this is the RQ written by Chaosium after being taken over by "others", I wonder how long it is before we get a new revised edition.

Every 27 years?

[MOB]

On 1/19/2017 at 9:17 AM, Mankcam said:

Yeah the RQ QuickStart release is planned to be ready by GenCon 2017, that was in a recent announcement.

It will be available at Gen Con, but we're releasing the RQ Quickstart on Free RPG Day, which is June 17th.

It will then be available directly from Chaosium.com from July 1st.