|
Post by ffilz on Jul 30, 2010 10:59:04 GMT -6
Hmm, a Jack o'Bear seems easy enough to describe. "This creature resembles a bear with a jack o'lantern for a head". Waltapus is "A human with an octopuslike head."
Another area that could cause some issues is the spells, though the spells in the rule book are pretty generic. Some might have to be named differently.
A big question is what is the purpose of the clone also?
If it's a way to get the rules into the hands of your players, missing monster descriptions isn't too bad, and you could always mark up their printouts with correct spell names or something.
If it's a way to allow people to run the adventures from the re-prints, it needs enough description to work, however, names can be changed if needed, and then a third party not involved in the publication can always post a "conversion sheet".
If the desire is just to get the RQ2 rules out where new players can appreciate them, then, either it's not a big issue (just release it without any "missing" Glorantha material), or a show stopper (since the Gloranthan material can't be included).
For me, what I would want is a clone that is as close to RQ2 as possible that I can edit. If it has notations about the differences between RQ1 and RQ2, so much the better. I'll deal with any missing bits either by editing them in for the copies I personally hand out, or just noting to my players the missing bits. But then I have RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by uncruliar on Jul 30, 2010 11:02:41 GMT -6
That's a good point. We could use them and people who already know the game would know what they are. But as the target audience obviously wouldn't know a broo from a boot the lack of description could be a big problem.
Thinking aloud here though - the concept of a broo is covered by the OGL and there is only one thing that a is a broo, so if I write my own description of a broo, not using the original text, would that be okay under the OGL
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jul 30, 2010 11:42:27 GMT -6
Not exactly about the clone project, but did some of you saw the french version of RQ, with french illustrators original works - some nice one. A few pics could be found there, as well some interesting links abot RQ : reves.ezael.net/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=399.
|
|
|
Post by greyharp on Jul 30, 2010 15:03:51 GMT -6
Hmm, a Jack o'Bear seems easy enough to describe. "This creature resembles a bear with a jack o'lantern for a head". Waltapus is "A human with an octopuslike head." Exactly, it's fairly easy to make a few minor changes or simply rename the creature. The Mongoose SRD is based on WotC's OGL, so you might find stuff you can use in the D&D SRD that can be converted. That SRD was missing several monsters, much to fan's disappointment, but over time people have managed to recreate most of those monsters while abiding by the licence. For me, what I would want is a clone that is as close to RQ2 as possible that I can edit...I'll deal with any missing bits either by editing them in for the copies I personally hand out, or just noting to my players the missing bits. A couple of the D&D clones have released Word docs which are fantastic, as they allow people to do just that - edit in their own house rules, or even change it back to the original for their own personal use. ...the target audience obviously wouldn't know a broo from a boot the lack of description could be a big problem. With your forum you would have no problems dealing with such issues. Communities tend to congregate around clones and the forums that promote them. Any newbies attracted to this project would wash up on you shore where you can happily indoctrinate them and open their eyes. Thinking aloud here though - the concept of a broo is covered by the OGL and there is only one thing that a is a broo, so if I write my own description of a broo, not using the original text, would that be okay under the OGL I would be very surprised if someone, somewhere hasn't already produced an OGC chaos warrior or beastman of some description, but failing that it shouldn't be too hard to produce a new name and reworded description. It has certainly been done with the Balrog in many games.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 15, 2010 3:37:03 GMT -6
I suspect Chaosium could very easily produce a RQ2 clone if they wanted to. Either they don't want to, or it hasn't occurred to them. They still have the rights to the de-Gloranthafied RQ3 rules in the form of their own "RQ3 retro-clone" BRP Monographs, specifically Basic Creatures, Basic Gamesmaster and Basic Magic. Combined with the Mongoose SRD, it would be simplicity itself to put out an RQ2 retro-clone. But for them, it would be counter-productive because they want to focus on BRP and CoC. I fully support an effort to produce a legal RQ2 clone. It's an excellent way of getting more people into the game. The way I play RQ2/3 is house-ruled to hell, but there is a simplicity to RQ2 which RQ3 lost and which might draw more players in. That does not fragment the fan base, it expands it. One point - the Mongoose RuneQuest logo licence is no longer available, so you could not actually call this clone "RuneQuest". But that doesn't seem to have been an issue for the D&D retro-clones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2011 14:32:55 GMT -6
This morning I stumbled across this: sites.google.com/site/rqadventures/It's a retro-clone of RuneQuest 1st/2nd edition, posted as HTML. I was doing a search for old fanzines and this popped up ( RQ Adventures was the name of a 1990s RQ fanzine).
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jul 4, 2011 8:20:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Dec 23, 2015 19:23:14 GMT -6
There is, however, a RETROQUEST II™ in production ... with the re-issue of RQ2 it will probably simply be more generic than the original rather than a full-on clone. I'm still basing it on the D100II SRD, though, as I can't be bothered re-writing everything from scratch. Anyway, this is on the shelf until I finish BLUEHOLME™ Compleat!
|
|