|
Post by Finarvyn on May 17, 2010 11:47:50 GMT -6
I'm not sure that this is a RQ-specific issue, but RQ is the game that made me think about this so I guess I'll stick it with a RQ tag. On this thread on the TrollBridge it was asked why there are no Runequest boards out there. My first thought was “yeah, that’s strange” but after some reflection I think I have a different take on it. D&D is somewhat unique, I believe, in that there are so many players who never move on even as the game changes. That’s the basic premise behind this board in the first place, that OD&D is popular enough by itself to sustain some measure of discussion. Similar statements can be made for AD&D, 2E, 3E/3.5, and now 4E. Players of these editions gravitate to the version that they like the best and tend to stay there. And they create boards that allow them to discuss their edition; boards like this one and Dragonsfoot and “Knights & Knaves”, among others. Do other gamers do this? I asked my teenage son if he ever got the urge to play Warhammer Fantasy 3E and he laughed at me, saying something to the effect of “no, those rules are obsolete.” I know that Traveller fans are pretty hung up on edition, from the “Black Book” Traveller folks through “Classic” Traveler to various successive incarnations including T20 and Mongoose Traveller and some other versions in between which I’ve forgotten at the moment. Tunnels & Trolls has multiple editions, but 1-5 are pretty much interchangeable and the current rift between 1-5 and v7 is a relatively new phenomenon. Call of Cthulhu has at least 6 editions, but no one seems to be scrounging on e-bay for a classic 2E CoC because the game is pretty much the same and newer editions are more clean-up than re-write. They do that with OD&D all the time because fundamentally the rules have changed, but they don’t do that with many other games out there. So what about Runequest? I confess that I haven’t seen all of the editions out there, but I have a copy of 1E from 1978, used to own Avalon Hill’s 3E boxed set from the 1980’s, and have some of the core rulebooks from Mongoose’s RQI. I also have Elric, Hawkmoon, CoC, and Pendragon, all based on the general RQ rules set. I don’t play any of them a lot, but they all seem pretty similar to me. If I own an older edition it’s more from familiarity rather than trying to collect a certain edition, and I can’t imagine spending a lot of money trying to go find a pre-typo-corrected edition just because it’s old and musty. I know that I’ve heard pro-3E and con-3E arguments on occasion, since Avalon Hill revised things when they got ahold of the game and I guess some loved the changes while others disliked them (and I don’t really know what was changed anyway). Other a few discussions about Mongoose creating RQI and RQII with too few years in between, there really doesn’t seem to be much RQ chatter on any of the boards I frequent. And, maybe since Mongoose has a board with a lot of Runequest content and chatter (and a system with active support and new products coming out at regular intervals) that maybe most of the RQ players just hang out there instead of looking for RQ on other boards. Anyone have thoughts on this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2010 11:52:38 GMT -6
I like RQ and I don't really like the Mongoose version very much. (Too much change too fast.)
I'd be happy with some sort of pre-AH (i.e. Chaosium RQ only) board or sub-board here.
|
|
|
Post by uncruliar on May 17, 2010 14:14:55 GMT -6
I haven't checked the link but I imagine that the thread in question is one that I started. It didn't occur to me to even look here for RQ content, maybe because I haven't spent so much time on this board. Anyway as there is a bit of RQ talk going on I thought I would mention that I have set up a board at gringlespawnshop.proboards.com/ if anyone isinterested please check it out. It's early days yet but I'm hoping that there is enough interest to maintain an RQ specific board. My main interest is Gloranthan RQ2 but I'm not averse to other forms too.
|
|
|
Post by piper on May 17, 2010 14:43:54 GMT -6
ARRRRRRRGH! (runs away screaming)
|
|
|
Post by redpriest on May 17, 2010 19:25:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 18, 2010 9:00:20 GMT -6
I think there are a few reasons we don't see much RQ discussion activity.
One is that the number of people playing RQ is probably actually pretty small. I suspect it's smaller than Traveller.
Also, there are places for discussion to happen, just not so much as forums.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by uncruliar on May 19, 2010 3:35:27 GMT -6
Some interesting points above, and on a similar thread at the Trollbridge - hope I don't get too confused about what was said where. I suspect ffilz is right and that there aren't so many people playing RQ - certainly not older editions. On the Mongoose board I asked the question whether anybody was playing or had played other versions of RQ. The answer was pretty unanimously no, just a few people mentioned Mongoose's RQ1. In answer to redpriest's question I am specifically interested in Chaosium RQ2 set in Glorantha. Thanks for the links I will check them out. Over at the Trollbridge there seem to be a few people who played RQ2 but didn't like the later versions, which makes me wonder whether there would be enough interest to justify a board solely for Chaosium RQ2. At the moment gringlespawnshop.proboards.com/ has just 8 members but it's early days yet. Finn / Vin has set up a sub-board for RQ at the Trollbridge. At the moment I am still trying to make a go of my own board but if there isn't enough interest maybe a sub-board at the Trollbridge, or here, is the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 19, 2010 7:36:33 GMT -6
Over at the Trollbridge there seem to be a few people who played RQ2 but didn't like the later versions, which makes me wonder whether there would be enough interest to justify a board solely for Chaosium RQ2. Or, if they are out there we just haven't found them yet. I don't know many folks who play older RQ anymore, but maybe they just need to be enlightened....
|
|
|
Post by greentongue on May 22, 2010 11:33:12 GMT -6
I like the original RuneQuest II and Glorantha. Problem is that the level of detail needed for NPCs is rather high (to me). Because of this, I have always had difficulty finding time to prep for games. This has just gotten worse as I have gotten older. Now I haven't played in years. I suspect this is not uncommon. =
|
|
|
Post by uncruliar on May 22, 2010 12:41:34 GMT -6
I suppose that's a fair comment to a certain extent. It certainly does take more prep than deciding a MR in T&T. I don't have enough D&D experience to comment on creating NPCs for D&D. However for most NPCs all you really need is combat percentages and a couple of spells, assuming the PCs are expected/intended to fight them. A spreadsheet could quickly work out location hit points.
I did more playing than refereeing myself back in the day. Most of our adventuring was also based on the published supplements which cut down on prep. I did do quite a bit of work with a friend on developing Bagnot along similar lines to the published Pavis supplement but we didn't get it game ready. I think I might still have what we did do though - wonder where it is.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 24, 2010 11:43:46 GMT -6
While stating up RQ NPCs is more work than D&D, I don't think it has to be too bad. The rules provide the stats for "average" examples of every race. You can easily use these, and just add a few notes on skills that are above the average (for tougher encounters). You can even tweak attributes a bit, don't worry about all the details. Want a higher dexterity? Just take a quick look at how it improves the strike rank, and then bump any dex skills 5% (or more if you are also making the dude more skilled).
Use the full rules only for important NPCs. You can probably avoid it for any NPC other than one that is a recurring NPC in combat situations (which is pretty much going to be limited to an NPC who is basically a member of the adventuring party, whether as patron, retainer, a GMPC, or just a dude to round out the group).
Even though RQ character/monster writeups can be comparable to D&D 3.x, there is no need to go to that extreme detail. The game system doesn't have anything like challenge rating and XP value that is so directly dependent on the exact stats of the encounter (though there is the danger rating that is used for treasure - but only if you care to, and it's not that complex a forumula).
Sure, sometimes you will accidentally create an opponent that is stronger than intended. The PCs have access to divine intervention (and one place I consider still being open to fudging is to minimize the effect if I got too carried away with an opponent).
I have actually prepped up quick NPCs by deciding their hit points, their combat skills, strike ranks, and a couple other things. They may not be totally "accurate" but who cares, most often they will shortly be dead!
For a non-combat encounter, all you need is to improvise skills as needed. If you are preparing such an NPC ahead of time, just note down the skills and attributes that you expect to be relevant, and then wing it from there.
Another source for quick stats - the various modules and things like FOES. Don't worry about their accuracy. When I last ran Apple Lane, the extent that I modified the stats was primarily in hit points (since I use a system that gives a bit more hit points than standard RQ). I also added a dodge skill (in my head mostly) for some opponents since that's another area I have a change from RQ's defense rating.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jun 6, 2010 18:56:19 GMT -6
The three Chaosium-designed editions seem to me about like the several TSR editions of D&D.
I think most people quickly picked up (Chaosium's) RQ II because the book was easier on the eyes, especially the tables (and the marvelous maps by William Church). There were a lot of little changes to the rules, but I personally never encountered anyone who stuck to the old ones.
Probably the biggest change was in cults and magic: In the first edition, Rune spells were the sole province of Priests.
The third edition marked a major overhaul. Some things came in from others of Chaosium's games. The new ranges for INT and SIZ, for instance, had (IIRC) been introduced in Call of Cthulhu. Sorcery was a much more complicated version of the system from Magic World. Aging came from King Arthur Pendragon.
How many strike ranks in a round? What's the range of movement factors? How many points of protection or ENC for this armor? How does weapon breakage work? How much increase for an experience check? How do costs for equipment, spells and training compare? What is the list of standard skills? What's the rule for how this or that works? What's the description for Cult X, in terms of spells, skills, hierarchy, and so on?
This time, there were more and bigger changes, and in ways that were more obviously incompatible with old data. There was also added complexity (such as Fatigue). There were things that might theoretically be neater but were presented in ways that turned off some people (such as Skill Bonuses and Previous Experience).
I prefer the older rules on the whole, but greater familiarity is doubtless part of that. The third edition covers more, and often offers more detail on the same subjects as well. The full ("Deluxe") version is a fine resource to have on hand for BRP games in general, although the new super-ultra-deluxe BRP compendium is no doubt even better.
The quality of the Avalon Hill publication was disappointing, though. At the time, I had a beautiful hardbound RQ II main book in addition to a "perfect bound" one. Even the saddle-stapled Cults books were on sturdy paper with covers of proper cover stock. The AH books were just plainly flimsy, and the covers even lacked the color of the Chaosium products. The interior art was uninspiring, perhaps partly because it lacked the distinctive flavor that was also not much apparent in the "generic" text.
At the very least, the books could have looked like issues of The General. Instead, it was almost as if the game had been given to Judges Guild.
It was not just Glorantha that seemed to have been removed, but the "personality" of the little company in California. That might even be an improvement in some eyes, and it certainly could not have mattered to people who never "knew The Chaosium back when".
However, folks who did remember good old RuneQuest days came to find more and more reasons to rue the new order. There was too little good, too little new, and far too little too late of good, new Gloranthan material. There was too much in too many ways shabby.
Are sorcery and shamans "broken" in RQ3? Maybe, but my interest in playing it faded along with the interest of others. Whatever the merits of particular rules, the AH product line seemed mainly to be associated with the commercial death of RQ (and, for a while, of Glorantha).
The first Mongoose game caught my eye, and I was especially intrigued by the Second Age setting. I thought that character generation looked pretty decent, if different. Combat looked wonky, especially the new "strike ranks" (nothing much like the old system). Magic struck me as "different for the sake of difference"-- certainly confusing, but not clearly an improvement. Experience and training seemed perhaps to miss "the point" of the old RQ system, and a lot of things put me more in mind of WotC-D&D. There was just something "off" about the flavor.
Prices and production did not help the appeal. In the end, there was not even a sense that it would be easier to find players for the new game.
I am not even so much acquainted with the newer Mongoose game. I would be delighted to give it a go as a player, but I don't see myself investing in books to GM it any time soon.
From what I have seen of the first MRQ, it should not be terribly hard to adapt material to the older editions or vice-versa. It's probably about like Mongoose Traveller, relative to Mega and Classic, in that way. Familiarity with both editions is likely to be a big help, but not absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jun 6, 2010 19:01:01 GMT -6
Oh, yeah: Pete's Roleplaying and RuneQuest has a lot of nifty stuff, although it has not been updated since January 2009. www.maranci.net/rq.htm
|
|
Baron
Level 4 Theurgist
Invincible Overlord
Posts: 115
|
Post by Baron on Jun 10, 2010 0:11:10 GMT -6
Just to drop my preferences into the mix, I'm a fan of Chaosium's RQ2 myself, in Prax, 3rd Age. Disliked AH's version, and have no use for Mongoose.
|
|
|
Post by danbuter on Jun 30, 2010 22:08:43 GMT -6
There's a very active Glorantha yahoo messages group, which also covers RQ.
I personally really, really like the new RQII from Mongoose, so I discuss it at their site.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 26, 2010 9:07:07 GMT -6
Just to drop my preferences into the mix, I'm a fan of Chaosium's RQ2 myself, in Prax, 3rd Age. I think, for gamers of a certain vintage, Third Age Prax is RQ. I know that's technically not true, even in the historical sense, as Chaosium produced material set in other places -- even other worlds -- for RQ2, but, for a lot of us, " RuneQuest" means RQ2, which also means Glorantha, which also means Prax. That likely explains why I find Mongoose's recent version of the game so unsatisfactory, despite its being pretty well done overall.
|
|
|
Post by uncruliar on Jul 26, 2010 12:04:55 GMT -6
Just to drop my preferences into the mix, I'm a fan of Chaosium's RQ2 myself, in Prax, 3rd Age. I think, for gamers of a certain vintage, Third Age Prax is RQ. Assuming that you are counting yourself as a gamer of a certain vintage you might be interested in Gringles Pawnshop where we are attempting to do for RQ what Fin has achieved here for OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 26, 2010 20:56:58 GMT -6
Assuming that you are counting yourself as a gamer of a certain vintage you might be interested in Gringles Pawnshop where we are attempting to do for RQ what Fin has achieved here for OD&D. Sounds awesome. I shall head over to have a peak and will promote it through my blog. Goodness knows old school RQ could use more love!
|
|
|
Post by kelvingreen on Oct 17, 2010 16:10:00 GMT -6
The quality of the Avalon Hill publication was disappointing, though. At the time, I had a beautiful hardbound RQ II main book in addition to a "perfect bound" one. Even the saddle-stapled Cults books were on sturdy paper with covers of proper cover stock. The AH books were just plainly flimsy, and the covers even lacked the color of the Chaosium products. The interior art was uninspiring, perhaps partly because it lacked the distinctive flavor that was also not much apparent in the "generic" text. The Games Workshop editions had better production values. The art was better, and both the basic and advanced books were hardback.
|
|