RQG: how much RQ3 still in it?

[g33k]

51 minutes ago, Joerg said:

No, more like Stewart Stanfield's "Let me tell you about my Character":

I note the CoC "Miskatonic Repository" and that Chaosium says, depending on how that one works out, they'd consider a Gloranthan program somewhat alike.  I suspect that would be where they'd encourage fan content to go...

 

[Joerg]

2 minutes ago, g33k said:

I note the CoC "Miskatonic Repository" and that Chaosium says, depending on how that one works out, they'd consider a Gloranthan program somewhat alike.  I suspect that would be where they'd encourage fan content to go...

That material isn't open to the public except through exposure at conventions. Smaller vignettes - not necessarily as nicely presented as Stu's - should be made available for the public, as encouragement for GMs to run games and for potential buyers to see where this game will lead.

[MOB]

50 minutes ago, Joerg said:

That material isn't open to the public except through exposure at conventions. Smaller vignettes - not necessarily as nicely presented as Stu's - should be made available for the public, as encouragement for GMs to run games and for potential buyers to see where this game will lead.

The material in the Miskatonic Repository is available right here, open and available to anyone. The MR is for Call of Cthulhu; we may set up a similar community content resource for RuneQuest in due course, if we gauge there is sufficient interest (and DTRPG is amenable).

 

[g33k]

3 hours ago, Joerg said:

That material isn't open to the public except through exposure at conventions. Smaller vignettes - not necessarily as nicely presented as Stu's - should be made available for the public, as encouragement for GMs to run games and for potential buyers to see where this game will lead.

It's the "Cult of Chaos" (Organized Play program) which has the Cultist-only convention-centric content.

The "Repository" is hosted on DTRPG and is an open market that allows fans to produce & sell their own content; it follows the WotC "Dungeon Masters Guild" format, more or less.

Edited June 12, 2018 by g33k
typo

[PhilHibbs]

6 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I'm curious why the didn't shift the db formula a couple of points when they upped the average SIZ to 13 in RQ3. I'm not losing any sleep over it, but wonder why.

Simplicity. No pressing need to change it. It is an asymmetry in the game mechanics, but my OCD is not triggered by it.

[soltakss]

On 6/12/2018 at 5:47 AM, MOB said:

The material in the Miskatonic Repository is available right here, open and available to anyone. The MR is for Call of Cthulhu; we may set up a similar community content resource for RuneQuest in due course, if we gauge there is sufficient interest (and DTRPG is amenable).

 

There will be sufficient interest.

[Madrona]

On 6/10/2018 at 3:36 PM, simonh said:

If you’re going to put ‘disarm’ on its own row, we should probably put disengagement, knockback,  every runic ability, each cult write up, every career, each homeland, every skill, rune spell, spirit spell, sorcery spell, shamanic power and goodness knows what else that’s in RQG and not in RQ2 on its own row as well.

Yeah but there was a lot of barking and hissing about disarm. Almost everything vaguely related to 'theme' or 'magic' is crazy expansive in RQG. Heck, I think this is the first edition of RuneQuest to have runes be a front and center thing and a seriously important mechanic. As for knockback and disengagement, most people were comparing it unfavorably to RQ3, which had those mechanics. (Knockback maybe, I think a lot of people like the large creatures doing knockback on hit from RQ3 but I heard little barking about it and honestly forgot about it)

Also TBH I really don't know RQ2 too well, I don't own a hard copy and my limited reading was like reading a AD&D core rulebook. Very, very aged, regressive and mechanically less interesting than RQ3, which I had read extensively. For the most part, reading RQ2 and telling me its better is like someone handing me a AD&D 2e book and saying, "thAC0 is logical and sensible and not even slightly confusing! 3rd edition initiative is so much more confusing than AD&D initiative! Psionics in 3rd edition is less functional! Nonhumans need level caps!"

So TBH I had to do digging to find out if some of these things were even in/weren't in RQ2, mostly based on people's incessant bickering across the internet since Usenet about which system is better.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Madrona
some stuff that was bad

[Mugen]

3 hours ago, Madrona said:

Heck, I think this is the first edition of RuneQuest to have runes be a front and center thing and a seriously important mechanic.

Well, runes and runic skills were central to the mechanic of MRQ1 most common type of magic.

And even if the rule (and the game as a whole) is hated, the idea was from a draft from Steve Perrin.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Mugen

[styopa]

Honestly, while RQG is a direct descendant of RQ2, the *joy* of the system is that any of these rules that people are complaining about (disarm, knockback, disengage, whatever) are incredibly simply to port in from previous versions.  If you want a more substantive disarm rule, you have at least 4 versions you can bolt on or houserule your own.

I don't know anyone personally who has ever run a lasting campaign without houserules of some sort.  To carp about RQG missing this or that is sort of beside the point.

[Atgxtg]

42 minutes ago, styopa said:

Honestly, while RQG is a direct descendant of RQ2, the *joy* of the system is that any of these rules that people are complaining about (disarm, knockback, disengage, whatever) are incredibly simply to port in from previous versions.  If you want a more substantive disarm rule, you have at least 4 versions you can bolt on or houserule your own.

First off that only holds true for people who already own a previous version to port from. Same with NPC and monster stats. But that doesn't help anyone new to the system, and it's also an incentive for people who do own those older products not to buy them once again. Other RPG companies don't expect players to go digging up previous editions. 

42 minutes ago, styopa said:

I don't know anyone personally who has ever run a lasting campaign without houserules of some sort. 

Sure, we're RQ fans, we've been playing an RPG that had virtually no support for decades. We're used to doing it on our own, and don't need support from an RPG to keep going. That's why the BGB workded for us-it's a kit for customizing you own version of D100. 

42 minutes ago, styopa said:

To carp about RQG missing this or that is sort of beside the point.

Depends on what the point is. My point is that in a 400+ page rulebook that costs over $50 hardcopy, I'd rather have some of the stuff that people are complaining about  (self included) than some of the stuff that's actually in the book. And as for new players, how many are going to want to invest over $150 to get the 3 books that they are going to need? Now sure, you can say, "You don't need a bestiary." But, then why should the spend the money to buy one later on? $150 is a lot to spend just to try out a new RPG, especially if you're a younger gamer just starting out. I don't believe that the D&D approach of PHB, GMG, MM is going to be successful for RQG. 

 

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Other RPG companies don't expect players to go digging up previous editions. 

Neither do Chaosium, Styopa is not a Chaosium spokesman. Also, other companies don't produce perfect games that never need a house rule either. Players have always sought other sources of information, in my day it was RuneRites and the letters pages in White Dwarf and fanzines, nowadays it's Internet forums where people share their concerns and fixes.

Sure, when I was 12 I believed that the rules had to be followed to the letter and that anything else was cheating. That didn't last long.

[Madrona]

5 hours ago, Mugen said:

Well, runes and runic skills were central to the mechanic of MRQ1 most common type of magic.

And even if the rule (and the game as a whole) is hated, the idea was from a draft from Steve Perrin.

TBH I forgot about MRQ. Which is pretty derpy cos its right next to me.

[PhilHibbs]

6 hours ago, Mugen said:

And even if the rule (and the game as a whole) is hated, the idea was from a draft from Steve Perrin.

I never owned MRQ1, so I don't know what the mechanics were. I think it was about finding and "integrating" runes, you had to kill an enemy that had a rune and you could take it from them. Seemed pretty contrived to me as a concept. I'd be interested to know how much of it was directly derived from Steve's idea. And anyone can have a bad idea that doesn't work (*cough* action-point transfers), the trick is to spot it before you get too far down the road.

[Mugen]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

I never owned MRQ1, so I don't know what the mechanics were. I think it was about finding and "integrating" runes, you had to kill an enemy that had a rune and you could take it from them. Seemed pretty contrived to me as a concept. I'd be interested to know how much of it was directly derived from Steve's idea. And anyone can have a bad idea that doesn't work (*cough* action-point transfers), the trick is to spot it before you get too far down the road.

In MRQ1, runes are physical objects which you can pick over a dead enemy's body, but other means exist to find runes, thanksfully. After you integrate a rune, you can cast spells associated with it and gain a small power. It's not very different in concept from crystals, actually.

As I said, it was a draft, and an idea to be discussed and refined, something that didn't really happen. As far as I remember, the only change to the draft was that some spells were created for runes that didn't have any. In the end, the plant and heat runes only had one spell, whereas the metal rune had a dozen (Bladesharp, Bludgeon and Dullblade, among others...).

Edited June 14, 2018 by Mugen

[PhilHibbs]

5 minutes ago, Mugen said:

In MRQ1, runes are physical objects which you can pick over a dead enemy's body, but other means exist to find runes, thanksfully. After you integrate a rune, you can cast spells associated with it and gain a small power. It's not very different in concept from crystals, actually.

As I said, it was a draft, and an idea to be discussed and refined, something that didn't really happen. As far as I remember, the only change to the draft was that some spells were created for runes that didn't have any. In the end, the plant and heat runes only had one spell, whereas the metal rune had a dozen (Bladesharp, Bludgeon and Dullblade, among others...).

I'm sure the same will happen with RQG, there will be runes that have loads of spells and runes that have few. There are no sorcery spells that use the Separate technique, to stretch the definition of "rune" a little for example, and lots that use the Water rune. I might put together a spell/rune matrix to see which are the munchkin runes to go for!

[RosenMcStern]

6 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I might put together a spell/rune matrix to see which are the munchkin runes to go for!

Be warned: if you open a blog with the subject "How to be a munchkin in RuneQuest" or "PowerPlaying in Greg Stafford's world of Glorantha", I will NOT suggest others to read it

[Mugen]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

I'm sure the same will happen with RQG, there will be runes that have loads of spells and runes that have few. There are no sorcery spells that use the Separate technique, to stretch the definition of "rune" a little for example, and lots that use the Water rune. I might put together a spell/rune matrix to see which are the munchkin runes to go for!

Isn't Fire a must, with Enhance INT ?

[metcalph]

31 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Isn't Fire a must, with Enhance INT ?

Enhance INT can also be cast by Sorcerors with a knowledge of Earth or Water at double cost (minor runes p382).

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

Isn't Fire a must, with Enhance INT ?

Enhance INT is not really that great. 10 MP (minimum, could be 18 or 34) for +3 INT? 18 MP (or 34, or 66)for +5 ? I can think of better ways to spend them. If you've got tons of MP reserve, then it can be useful to cast some slightly bigger spells, maybe to get something useful up for long duration, but I think in most cases MP reserves are going to be the limiting factor on sorcerers ahead of free INT.

And on the subject of "which Rune gets the most spells", I suspect the "winners" are going to be Earth, Air, and Fertility, with the losers being Water, Fire, Moon, and Stasis. Hm, that's a thought, I don't think there are any stasis spells. Poor old Lhankor Mhy, has a rune with no spells.

The Earth and Air dominance is reasonable given the Dragon Pass focus of the core rules.

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Now sure, you can say, "You don't need a bestiary." But, then why should the spend the money to buy one later on?

You don't need a bestiary to try the system out. You probably would find it useful if you decide you want to run it in the long term. Or if you're going to be running pre-written matieral, either new RQG or reprinted / eBay / downloaded RQ2 content, you probably don't need it, that's a fair point, so $150 is on the high side.

Edited June 14, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[MOB]

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

$150 is a lot to spend just to try out a new RPG, especially if you're a younger gamer just starting out. 

Fortunately you can try out RQG for precisely $0: RuneQuest Quickstart.

[creativehum]

1 hour ago, MOB said:

Fortunately you can try out RQG for precisely $0: RuneQuest Quickstart.

I don't suppose anyone who has gone through the RQG book carefully has made up a list of any differences in the rules presented in the Quickstart and those found in RQG? (From what I've read so far on forums it seems as if there are some changes... but I haven't done my deep dive into either yet.)

[PhilHibbs]

9 minutes ago, creativehum said:

I don't suppose anyone who has gone through the RQG book carefully has made up a list of any differences in the rules presented in the Quickstart and those found in RQG? (From what I've read so far on forums it seems as if there are some changes... but I haven't done my deep dive into either yet.)

The only one that was mentioned on the big corrections thread was that the Quickstart had spirit magic duration as 5 mins, whereas RQG has it as 2 mins. There was some clarification raised over skills with a base chance of zero and skills with a modified chance of zero, maybe there was some difference in the way that was worded.

[simonh]

Some of the differences between the QS and RQG seem to be things like missing options and missing limits such as how often you can do augments. I think that sort of thing is to be expected though and shouldn’t be thought of as a contradiction or actual difference, as it is a subset of the system. I’d really only be interested in any statements that actually contradicted each other.

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, MOB said:

Fortunately you can try out RQG for precisely $0: RuneQuest Quickstart.

For what it is worth, in many gaming groups the players just buy the player focused stuff. The GM buys the Bestiary, the GM book, and the scenarios. In some particularly well-thought-out groups, it is not unknown for everyone to pony in something for the GM. 5 plays end up pitching in $20 each to the GM - meaning the players are out 0, $20, $50 or however much they can afford.

Given that a computer game costs $50+, often without really knowing how it plays, I wouldn't worry too much. 

[Atgxtg]

33 minutes ago, Jeff said:

For what it is worth, in many gaming groups the players just buy the player focused stuff. The GM buys the Bestiary, the GM book, and the scenarios. In some particularly well-thought-out groups, it is not unknown for everyone to pony in something for the GM. 5 plays end up pitching in $20 each to the GM - meaning the players are out 0, $20, $50 or however much they can afford.

Yes, in many groups, especially in games like D&D and WotD that happens. But that is a different climate than what RQ has.

33 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Given that a computer game costs $50+, often without really knowing how it plays, I wouldn't worry too much. 

Well, I think you should worry. I suspect that Most of those $50+ computer games fizzle out. And for every $50+ game out there, there are at least two games in the $20 or even $10 range. And the computer game market and it's variations (consoles) is doing much better than the pencil and paper RPG market. How many pencil and paper RPGs do do you see at Best Buy and Walmart? 

 

I think if you want this game to sell to anyone other than die hard fans who have already decided to buy it, then you need a low price lite version of the game. And no, I don't think the quickstart fills than function. It's basically a adventures with enough rules included to make it playable. I think what is needed is a pared down version of RQ2, scaled down in focus to a small area, with a couple of adventures and some suggestions for further ones. Something that a D&D could pick up and talk his group into playing for a bit (more than just one session or adventure). 

Now, it's only my opinion and I could most certainly be mistaken, but I think that the direction taken isn't going to even do as well as the BGB did.