#37: Crisis of Faith Resolved: From Gleemax to RuneQuest

[RPGnet Columns]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave37.phtml

Summary:

Death by Gleemax.

Go to the column (http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave37.phtml) for more information.

[Old Geezer]

YOU're not in Wizards' demographic any more?

Amigo, as a 52 year old, one of Gary Gygax' original group, and somebody who still plays brown-box OD&D, I'm so far from their demographic that the light from their demographic won't reach me for ten thousand years.

I took one look at the Gleemax site and fled in terror.

[Kravell]

YOU're not in Wizards' demographic any more?

Amigo, as a 52 year old, one of Gary Gygax' original group, and somebody who still plays brown-box OD&D, I'm so far from their demographic that the light from their demographic won't reach me for ten thousand years.

I took one look at the Gleemax site and fled in terror.

I was wondering what you might be thinking about the current goings on at Wizards. I realize that D&D 3.0 might not have been your cup of tea (or potion of healing) but at least it was written in a way that still honored the original game (in my opinion).

The current direction, though, just doesn't make any sense to me. Gleemax is just the biggest (and snot-greenest) example of a new game that is leaving behind fantasy novels and replacing them with, well, snot-green Gleemax.

But it must appeal to someone and I honestly hope those someones enjoy their games. It just isn't for me.

Ironically, now that I'm a RuneQuest Mongoose player I'm alienating and irritating grognards for whom RQII or RQIII is the best and greatest system ever. Which is great for them, but a handful of them want me to admit the same and play that version as well.

So even as I leave D&D behind for the greener pastures of RuneQuest I myself am becoming the Gleemax of RuneQuest for the grognards there. Sorry, RQ grognards.

But I'm having fun and that's what matters. And no one else has to switch to RuneQuest just because I like it. Honest, I won't try to convert anyone!

[Strange Visitor]

As a comment to the columnist, I'd be ready for a pretty extreme change in style; even the Mongoose version of RQ (which I'm not a big fan of) is quite different in how things are going to play out, mortality and power level than almost any version of D&D.

[Kravell]

As a comment to the columnist, I'd be ready for a pretty extreme change in style; even the Mongoose version of RQ (which I'm not a big fan of) is quite different in how things are going to play out, mortality and power level than almost any version of D&D.

Strange Visitor, you're exactly right. The biggest change (in my opinion) is from leveling and going up in huge leaps of power in D&D to advances with small skill increases and little or no hit point changes in MRQ.

I actually want to get away from power leaping for a while and do something different. So RuneQuest is perfect. I've played through one PBP quest so far and it's going great.

Also, I've played several other games besides D&D (Alternity, Twilight 2000, Torg, Talislanta, Star Wars d6, WFRP 1.0 etc.) so I've seen a range of styles.

[Tim Gray]

On a quick look at the Gleemax thing, it does come across a bit like "Wizards discovers the 21st century". "Wow, hey guys, do you know that people can use this internet thing to *talk to each other*?"

Even so, I'm afraid your latest column reads more like a forum rant to me. Even counting the intimate revelations about your, ah, personal gaming equipment.

Still, if you've found a path that will result in more happy gaming more power to you.

[Kravell]

On a quick look at the Gleemax thing, it does come across a bit like "Wizards discovers the 21st century". "Wow, hey guys, do you know that people can use this internet thing to *talk to each other*?"

Even so, I'm afraid your latest column reads more like a forum rant to me. Even counting the intimate revelations about your, ah, personal gaming equipment.

Still, if you've found a path that will result in more happy gaming more power to you.

Tim, I do rant in this month's current column. I can honestly say it is the strongest rant I've done in the last thirty plus columns.

However, my rant is not intended to push anyone away from D&D like a forum rant might. Instead, it is included to explain my change from D&D to another system.

While such an explantion is not strictly necessary, I have been covering D&D in this column for around three years and I've been a big fan of the system. In my last three crisis of faith columns I noted my struggle with D&D. This latest version is the capstone, the resolution of that crisis.

A rant without substance can be immature and useless. I felt that this rant was germane to the topic at hand (namely my crisis of faith) and so included it.

And if I managed to convey my point well enough so that you could tell that I'm happy again in gaming then I did get my point across.

And I'll try to refrain from referencing my dice bag again. Ahem.

[ShannonA]

Ironically, now that I'm a RuneQuest Mongoose player I'm alienating and irritating grognards for whom RQII or RQIII is the best and greatest system ever. Which is great for them, but a handful of them want me to admit the same and play that version as well.


I've got 5 or 6 years of RQ3 play under my belt, but I'll absolutely play RQ4/MRQ for my next campaign (which will be when I return to the Young Kingdoms, perhaps next year).

[Kravell]

I've got 5 or 6 years of RQ3 play under my belt, but I'll absolutely play RQ4/MRQ for my next campaign (which will be when I return to the Young Kingdoms, perhaps next year).

If you have a moment, Shannon, I'd be interested to hear why you'll choose RQ4 next. I'm curious what someone with years of RQ3 as well as design experience has to say to recommend RQ4. Not that I'm against RQ4, I think it's great, it's just that many of the posts by RQ3 grognards responding to my RQ4 posts don't rate RQ4 as highly as RQ3.

Thanks.

[Strange Visitor]

Strange Visitor, you're exactly right. The biggest change (in my opinion) is from leveling and going up in huge leaps of power in D&D to advances with small skill increases and little or no hit point changes in MRQ.

I actually want to get away from power leaping for a while and do something different. So RuneQuest is perfect. I've played through one PBP quest so far and it's going great.

Also, I've played several other games besides D&D (Alternity, Twilight 2000, Torg, Talislanta, Star Wars d6, WFRP 1.0 etc.) so I've seen a range of styles.

Just wanted to make sure, as the transition there could be--abrupt. When we switched from OD&D to RQ1 almost three decades ago now, we _wanted_ that kind of change, but to people not expecting it, it could be very jarring and upsetting.

[Strange Visitor]

If you have a moment, Shannon, I'd be interested to hear why you'll choose RQ4 next. I'm curious what someone with years of RQ3 as well as design experience has to say to recommend RQ4. Not that I'm against RQ4, I think it's great, it's just that many of the posts by RQ3 grognards responding to my RQ4 posts don't rate RQ4 as highly as RQ3.

Thanks.

I'm not particularly thrilled with what I've seen of RQM (I tend to think of RQ4 as RQ:AIG, which I know is silly for a game that never saw publication, but there it is) in part because of my experience during the playtest, and in part because I thought it simplified areas that didn't need simplification, and often in bad ways. But if it works for other people, excelsior to them.

[Doctor Jest]

I've found myself in a similar position to the post's author recently. And I must say the new Runequest game should fit the bill nicely. If you're a fan of Michael Moorcock's writings, the new Hawkmoon book is great and I suspect the Elric of Melnibone will be even better.

As far as this whole Gleemax thing goes...I'm all for using technology to enhance gameplay but I believe to truly appreciate a RPG you must actually have social contact with others across a cluttered game table. If you're not doing that you may as well be playing video games.

[smascrns]

If you have a moment, Shannon, I'd be interested to hear why you'll choose RQ4 next. I'm curious what someone with years of RQ3 as well as design experience has to say to recommend RQ4. Not that I'm against RQ4, I think it's great, it's just that many of the posts by RQ3 grognards responding to my RQ4 posts don't rate RQ4 as highly as RQ3.
I've been writing an endless review of MRQ in comparision to the previous editions of the game. In it I'll share that I don't like MRQ but not because I'm a RQ2/3 grognard: My dislike is based on what I consider to be deep flaws in the new version.

Anyway and more to the point, in my review I start by calling the Mongoose's game RQ4 and finish by calling it MRQ. Why? Mongoose's game is not a new edition of the old Chaosium game with improvements, thus it is not a forth edition of a previous game. Mongoose's RQ moves in very different directions and into new terrain. It drops core features of RQ2/3 and introduces things that are germaine to the older game. These differences are based on design ideas and purposes alien and independent on the basis of RQ2/3. In my view Mongoose RQ is not a development of previous RQ games, it's a separate thing. So, I think it is better to identify it as MRQ instead of RQ4.

When I finish and post the review you will be able to understand why I don't rate MRQ as highly as RQ2/3, both in terms of presentation and in terms of content.

[smascrns]

Strange Visitor, you're exactly right. The biggest change (in my opinion) is from leveling and going up in huge leaps of power in D&D to advances with small skill increases and little or no hit point changes in MRQ.

I actually want to get away from power leaping for a while and do something different. So RuneQuest is perfect. I've played through one PBP quest so far and it's going great.
Did you read Jonathan Tweet's article where he explains why he moved from an apreciation of RQ into an apreciation of some D&D features, specially on what concerns hit points? It's a thoughtful article and I guess this is the right moment for you to consider it (you can find it somewhere at www.jonathantweet.com). I'm not convinced by his analysis but still, it deserves consideration.

[Kravell]

Just wanted to make sure, as the transition there could be--abrupt. When we switched from OD&D to RQ1 almost three decades ago now, we _wanted_ that kind of change, but to people not expecting it, it could be very jarring and upsetting.

Thanks for the heads up. Good advice for anyone looking to switch from D&D to RQ.

[Kravell]

I've found myself in a similar position to the post's author recently. And I must say the new Runequest game should fit the bill nicely. If you're a fan of Michael Moorcock's writings, the new Hawkmoon book is great and I suspect the Elric of Melnibone will be even better.

As far as this whole Gleemax thing goes...I'm all for using technology to enhance gameplay but I believe to truly appreciate a RPG you must actually have social contact with others across a cluttered game table. If you're not doing that you may as well be playing video games.

I think you make two points nicely that I agree with. One, Mongoose is developing RuneQuest in the direction of novels, a concept which I like. Two, Gleemax cannot artificially create online what true social contact creates around a game table. Wizards, through Gleemax, to my mind, is trying too hard to be the guy everyone likes and wants to hang out with.

[Kravell]

I've been writing an endless review of MRQ in comparision to the previous editions of the game. In it I'll share that I don't like MRQ but not because I'm a RQ2/3 grognard: My dislike is based on what I consider to be deep flaws in the new version.

Anyway and more to the point, in my review I start by calling the Mongoose's game RQ4 and finish by calling it MRQ. Why? Mongoose's game is not a new edition of the old Chaosium game with improvements, thus it is not a forth edition of a previous game. Mongoose's RQ moves in very different directions and into new terrain. It drops core features of RQ2/3 and introduces things that are germaine to the older game. These differences are based on design ideas and purposes alien and independent on the basis of RQ2/3. In my view Mongoose RQ is not a development of previous RQ games, it's a separate thing. So, I think it is better to identify it as MRQ instead of RQ4.

When I finish and post the review you will be able to understand why I don't rate MRQ as highly as RQ2/3, both in terms of presentation and in terms of content.

I understand where you are coming from, as many fans of previous versions of RuneQuest feel the same way (and I've been blasted in my review of Mongoose RuneQuest for rating it too high one's opinion!).

While I appreciate work done for the comparision to previous editions and the love all of you have for RQ2 and RQ3 I just wish there was some way I could share how MRQ looks to me. The freedom it provides, the fun adventures that spring to mind, heck even the Second Age of Glorantha that it opens up.

I've read RQ3. It never convinced me to switch from AD&D back in the day. MRQ has gotten me to switch from D&D 3.5. To me, that means the system works. It draws in new players (my five players and me) and it runs well.

But hey, I'm not against anyone running RQ2 or RQ3. I just wish more of us RuneQuesters liked the same game so we could recruit more players and grow the fanbase of RuneQuest.

[Kravell]

Did you read Jonathan Tweet's article where he explains why he moved from an apreciation of RQ into an apreciation of some D&D features, specially on what concerns hit points? It's a thoughtful article and I guess this is the right moment for you to consider it (you can find it somewhere at www.jonathantweet.com). I'm not convinced by his analysis but still, it deserves consideration.

He's written several articles on RuneQuest and I've read them over. Good site to check out, thanks for the link.

Ironically, many of the problems he had with RQ3 are better now in MRQ. Combat is less lethal, so his dislike of low hit points is not fixed but it is less of a problem.

However, I do agree with him that armor that absorbs damage would work better has a rolled amount and not a fixed amount. Even MRQ doesn't do that (too much extra rolling I guess).

[smascrns]

While I appreciate work done for the comparision to previous editions and the love all of you have for RQ2 and RQ3 I just wish there was some way I could share how MRQ looks to me. The freedom it provides, the fun adventures that spring to mind, heck even the Second Age of Glorantha that it opens up.
I fully understand that someone that has not a past with RQ, got to it through MRQ and loved the game may be a little pissed off by the grognards that keep telling how previous editions were so much better. On the other hand, an old fan of RQ has an hard time trying to look at MRQ as an independent product. Yet my problems with the game have less to do with the way it compares to previous editions than to poor design decisions linked to the innovations introduced in MRQ.

Let me give you an example: MRQ centers its mechanics on the d100 and its percentile range; and next puts all the interesting gaming (Heroes with Legendary Abilities) above that range! This just does not make sense. To use a metaphor, it's like if someone was planning a Formule 1 race; and got volkswagens to run it. Of course, they can't deliver, so the car designer needs to start introducing changes and more changes to the cars to give them more punch. Even then, they don't deliver. It's the same with MRQ. If the characters are to have stats that are above the randomizer range, there's something very wrong with the game design.
True, this was already there in RQ2 and RQ3 - more so in RQ2 were Rune Lords and Rune Priests had to have five skills above 90% than in RQ3 where the skills had to be above 75%. But MRQ increased the problem instead of solving it.

[Fifth Element]

This column reads like an ENWorld post in the style that was so popular a couple of months ago "I'm done with D&D..." It's been done to death.

Moving on to the facts, my understanding is that Dragon and Dungeon content will be moved online, and not at Gleemax. Gleemax is apparently not the DI. Don't conflate the two. Gleemax comes from Magic, not D&D, so it would be a strange decision to use it for D&D.

I don't think anyone ever needs a "reason" to try a new system. It's quite possible you're fatigued of D&D3.5, and are ready for a change. So many people portray this sort of feeling as a kind of "realization" about how bad D&D is, and feel the need to spell out the reasons. But in the end, it's always just a matter of taste and perspective.

Who knows. Maybe this time next year you'll be dying for a game of D&D.

[Andrew Montgomery]

If you have a moment, Shannon, I'd be interested to hear why you'll choose RQ4 next. I'm curious what someone with years of RQ3 as well as design experience has to say to recommend RQ4. Not that I'm against RQ4, I think it's great, it's just that many of the posts by RQ3 grognards responding to my RQ4 posts don't rate RQ4 as highly as RQ3.

Thanks.

I am NOT Shannon, but I am a 25-year RQII and RQIII veteran and I am happy to play RQIV now. Let me give you my two cents.

When I bought the new RQIV Core Rulebook I was APALLED. They had, in my estimation, taken the RQIII Deluxe rulebook, watered down the writing, and divided the material into three hardcover books WITHOUT adding any real content. On top of that, many of the rules were a mess--parrying and dodging, for example--which was puzzling because it was the fourth edition of one of the most critically acclaimed systems ever published. I felt exactly the way you feel about Gleemax, and if you read my review you'll see what I mean.

BUT, I starting to think about "grognards," and I remembered something. I was 13 when RQIII came out, and I can vividly remember all my older friends--diehard RQII fans--hating the game, hating it the way I hated RQIV. And yet, I enjoyed RQIII as much as--if not more than--RQII and played it for years. so, I decided to stick with Mongoose and keep watching the line as it developed. The Glorantha books turned out to be superb, and I enjoyed Lhankmar as well. The writing in subsequent titles greatly improved. Then, Mongoose released a slick, free PDF updating the "broken" rules. When I played the revised rules, the game had what I have always loved about RQ, but it was faster and more cinematic.

I am not sure what Shannon's answer will be (by the way, "Shannon A" from Berekley...gotta be Shannon Appel, right?), but mine is this: I get a real feeling from Mongoose that the people writing RQIV have a genuine love for the game, that they listen to their players, and that whatever else old-timers like me might feel about RQII or III, RQIV is still a fine system and far better than a lot of others out there. Look, we can keep playing RQIII if we want, but for new players like yourself, RQIV is one of the finest games you can lay your hands on.

I guess was a rant too. :-)

[Kravell]

This column reads like an ENWorld post in the style that was so popular a couple of months ago "I'm done with D&D..." It's been done to death.

Moving on to the facts, my understanding is that Dragon and Dungeon content will be moved online, and not at Gleemax. Gleemax is apparently not the DI. Don't conflate the two. Gleemax comes from Magic, not D&D, so it would be a strange decision to use it for D&D.

I don't think anyone ever needs a "reason" to try a new system. It's quite possible you're fatigued of D&D3.5, and are ready for a change. So many people portray this sort of feeling as a kind of "realization" about how bad D&D is, and feel the need to spell out the reasons. But in the end, it's always just a matter of taste and perspective.

Who knows. Maybe this time next year you'll be dying for a game of D&D.

Well, okay, way to start a critique. While you can compare this column to a random post the two are not same. This column is actually about me running a game and building worlds. I am not randomly throwing comments out online I’m continuing a theme I have been exploring for while now.

Yes, I allowed myself to get a bit rantish this time around. Gaming is what I really enjoy and occasionally I feel strongly about the campaign I am running. This column reflects some of the emotion that has been going on in my worldbuilding recently.

As to Gleemax, if you read my column you'll see that I note the fact that D&D will have its own online presence. Here's the quote: 'Of course, Wizards says that D&D will have its own web site that ties in to Gleemax but seeing how the green abomination is plastered all over their web site I don’t see much difference.'

I did not confuse the two. Go to Wizards and open the D&D link. Then come back and tell me who is at the top of the site when you open it. Here is the link

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome

As to D&D, I don't think D&D is bad. In fact, I've spent several years talking about how I like D&D.

The column explains that I don't like the direction Wizards is moving the game. And that I want to try something new.

D&D is a good game. I spelled out the reasons for changing to RuneQuest because my column has been about D&D for three years and I wanted to explain why I’m changing.

Of course its a matter of taste and perspective. But seeing how this column is about a game I’m running it would make sense for me to explain my tastes and perspectives.

You may be right about me going back to D&D. And I’ll be talking about it right here if I decide to change. Feel free to post and say I told you so if it happens.:)

[Kravell]

I am NOT Shannon, but I am a 25-year RQII and RQIII veteran and I am happy to play RQIV now. Let me give you my two cents.

When I bought the new RQIV Core Rulebook I was APALLED. They had, in my estimation, taken the RQIII Deluxe rulebook, watered down the writing, and divided the material into three hardcover books WITHOUT adding any real content. On top of that, many of the rules were a mess--parrying and dodging, for example--which was puzzling because it was the fourth edition of one of the most critically acclaimed systems ever published. I felt exactly the way you feel about Gleemax, and if you read my review you'll see what I mean.

BUT, I starting to think about "grognards," and I remembered something. I was 13 when RQIII came out, and I can vividly remember all my older friends--diehard RQII fans--hating the game, hating it the way I hated RQIV. And yet, I enjoyed RQIII as much as--if not more than--RQII and played it for years. so, I decided to stick with Mongoose and keep watching the line as it developed. The Glorantha books turned out to be superb, and I enjoyed Lhankmar as well. The writing in subsequent titles greatly improved. Then, Mongoose released a slick, free PDF updating the "broken" rules. When I played the revised rules, the game had what I have always loved about RQ, but it was faster and more cinematic.

I am not sure what Shannon's answer will be (by the way, "Shannon A" from Berekley...gotta be Shannon Appel, right?), but mine is this: I get a real feeling from Mongoose that the people writing RQIV have a genuine love for the game, that they listen to their players, and that whatever else old-timers like me might feel about RQII or III, RQIV is still a fine system and far better than a lot of others out there. Look, we can keep playing RQIII if we want, but for new players like yourself, RQIV is one of the finest games you can lay your hands on.

I guess was a rant too. :-)

Well, your rant sums up the way I feel exactly so rant on. A little emotion now and then should not be a bad thing! I just want to play RQIV and not get my chops busted quite so much about it. I am not saying everyone has to play it (but it would be nice to have more players out there).

I also feel Mongoose loves RQ and Glorantha. The stuff coming out for the game is awesome. It has some hiccups and Mongoose is trying to fix problems as they come up. I do not see what else could be asked of a game company unless they just rereleased RQIII which I do not believe they could do.

Shannon Appelcline used to go by Shannon Appel I believe, at least as I understand it. He is an administrator here at rpg.net, greenlights my column, and writes lots of stuff (HeroQuest and RQ elf books are up next I believe).

[Fifth Element]

As to Gleemax, if you read my column you'll see that I note the fact that D&D will have its own online presence. Here's the quote: 'Of course, Wizards says that D&D will have its own web site that ties in to Gleemax but seeing how the green abomination is plastered all over their web site I don’t see much difference.'

Yes, I did read that. The way I interpreted it ("Wizards says...") implied that Wizards was saying this, but you doubted it. I suppose that's also a holdover from the ENWorld threads about Gleemax. I apologize if that's not what you intended.

[Kravell]

Yes, I did read that. The way I interpreted it ("Wizards says...") implied that Wizards was saying this, but you doubted it. I suppose that's also a holdover from the ENWorld threads about Gleemax. I apologize if that's not what you intended.

No hard feelings. That sentence isn't crystal clear now that I re-read it. To clarify, I know D&D has its own site and I've read the new guidelines for Dragon and Dungeon online. But Gleemax is a big presence on the D&D site as well and I don't like Gleemax at all.

This month's column is a bit of a rant so I could easily have come off as holding a grudge against D&D. I still like the game and will doubtless play it again in some form.

[Strange Visitor]

However, I do agree with him that armor that absorbs damage would work better has a rolled amount and not a fixed amount. Even MRQ doesn't do that (too much extra rolling I guess).


That was a model that at least one version of the Elric game used, as did Alternity. I think it worked well enough in both of those, but in part that was because it was also abstracting hit location in that roll to some degree. I don't think its as good an idea with hit locations.

[Strange Visitor]

BUT, I starting to think about "grognards," and I remembered something. I was 13 when RQIII came out, and I can vividly remember all my older friends--diehard RQII fans--hating the game, hating it the way I hated RQIV. And yet, I enjoyed

I suspect if you go back and think, however, you'll likely find that they hated it on one of two grounds:
1. Physical durability/cost--the RQ3 books were separate flimsy books in a box, as compared to the fairly solid single book RQ1 and 2 had, and the game was pretty pricey for the time (in part because of that box);
2. Deemphasis of Glorantha: Its been a sad (to me) truth that RQ has been tied up with Glorantha in many fans minds from its inception, and while I by no means hate Glorantha, I don't think that's been to its benefit; Glorantha got in the way of people who liked the system but not the setting in many cases, and at the other end was not satisfactory to many Glorantha fans who thought the gritty style it produced was actually contrary to the feel of the setting (which is why Hero Wars exists). RQ3 emphasized Mythic Earth more, and to many Glorantha fans, that made it anathema.

There were other reasons not to like RQ3 (many people had problems with fatigue and/or at least parts of the sorcery systems) but back in the day most of the objections had less to do with changes in system than in presentation.

[Kravell]

I suspect if you go back and think, however, you'll likely find that they hated it on one of two grounds:
1. Physical durability/cost--the RQ3 books were separate flimsy books in a box, as compared to the fairly solid single book RQ1 and 2 had, and the game was pretty pricey for the time (in part because of that box);
2. Deemphasis of Glorantha: Its been a sad (to me) truth that RQ has been tied up with Glorantha in many fans minds from its inception, and while I by no means hate Glorantha, I don't think that's been to its benefit; Glorantha got in the way of people who liked the system but not the setting in many cases, and at the other end was not satisfactory to many Glorantha fans who thought the gritty style it produced was actually contrary to the feel of the setting (which is why Hero Wars exists). RQ3 emphasized Mythic Earth more, and to many Glorantha fans, that made it anathema.

There were other reasons not to like RQ3 (many people had problems with fatigue and/or at least parts of the sorcery systems) but back in the day most of the objections had less to do with changes in system than in presentation.

I do find it ironic than that many fans like RQIII better than RQIV. Mongoose has hardcover books and RuneQuest uses Glorantha like a sample world (some monsters are specific to that world etc) without going overboard. So the Mongoose version fixes some of the complaints about RQIII that RQII players had.

Interesting.

Also, you certainly don't need Gloranatha to play RuneQuest IV as Elric, Hawkmoon, and Lahnkmar (and I assume Pirates) show. In fact, I think of RQ IV being more a system for adapting story telling worlds (like Gloranatha and the Eternal Champion) than just a vehicle for Glorantha.

[Strange Visitor]

I do find it ironic than that many fans like RQIII better than RQIV. Mongoose has hardcover books and RuneQuest uses Glorantha like a sample world (some monsters are specific to that world etc) without going overboard. So the Mongoose version fixes some of the complaints about RQIII that RQII players had.

Interesting.



Well, do note that a lot of Glorantha-centric old RQ players have moved on by now, either completely to other things, or to Hero Wars. The latter group isn't going to like RQM any better because they really didn't like RQ that much in the first place; it was just a vehicle to play in Glorantha. And they've got one they consider better for that purpose.

So you've got the diehard non-Gloranthan RQ fans, who may or may not like RQM, but are just as likely to not, and the people who prefer Glorantha in RQ, who don't necessarily see RQM as improving on what they've got. Its not really suprising that, over and above my personal view on the merits of RQM as a system, that its not particularly likely that the grognard group is going to find RQM particularly attractive. There's no particular reason they should.

[Kravell]

Well, do note that a lot of Glorantha-centric old RQ players have moved on by now, either completely to other things, or to Hero Wars. The latter group isn't going to like RQM any better because they really didn't like RQ that much in the first place; it was just a vehicle to play in Glorantha. And they've got one they consider better for that purpose.

So you've got the diehard non-Gloranthan RQ fans, who may or may not like RQM, but are just as likely to not, and the people who prefer Glorantha in RQ, who don't necessarily see RQM as improving on what they've got. Its not really suprising that, over and above my personal view on the merits of RQM as a system, that its not particularly likely that the grognard group is going to find RQM particularly attractive. There's no particular reason they should.

I guess I think they would like it because it is print. It is drawing in new players. It has new support. It has an active fanbase and a company supported website. Errata comes out frequently, campaigns as discussed, heck even play by posts can be supported online.

That's what I can't get about the grognards. You're getting all these potential new GMs and players, new books, customer support, and a new lease on a favorite game.

What isn't to like? I honestly just don't get why trying to turn me away from enjoying MRQ would help a RQII or RQIII player.

[Strange Visitor]

I guess I think they would like it because it is print. It is drawing in new players. It has new support. It has an active fanbase and a company supported website. Errata comes out frequently, campaigns as discussed, heck even play by posts can be supported online.



Hate to tell you, but to the true grognard, most of that's irrelevant except for new material. Often they've got long term stable game groups, or recruit them into a game by themselves, and are used to making do when it comes to physical game availability. They've probably long since houseruled most things that concern them. So basically, most of what you mention is too little an advantage to counterweight things they may not like.



That's what I can't get about the grognards. You're getting all these potential new GMs and players, new books, customer support, and a new lease on a favorite game.



But that's it; you're not. You're getting a game that kind of, sort of, looks like your favorite game. But in many cases, not enough to make you want to change. To me, for example, RQM went in a lot of wrong directions, and the few things I thought it fixed didn't counterweight that.



What isn't to like? I honestly just don't get why trying to turn me away from enjoying MRQ would help a RQII or RQIII player.

I don't think its so much "trying to turn you away" as just expressing their personal dissatisfaction in a, shall we say, overly energetic way.

[Tori Bergquist]

I understand where you are coming from, as many fans of previous versions of RuneQuest feel the same way (and I've been blasted in my review of Mongoose RuneQuest for rating it too high one's opinion!).

While I appreciate work done for the comparision to previous editions and the love all of you have for RQ2 and RQ3 I just wish there was some way I could share how MRQ looks to me. The freedom it provides, the fun adventures that spring to mind, heck even the Second Age of Glorantha that it opens up.

I've read RQ3. It never convinced me to switch from AD&D back in the day. MRQ has gotten me to switch from D&D 3.5. To me, that means the system works. It draws in new players (my five players and me) and it runs well.

But hey, I'm not against anyone running RQ2 or RQ3. I just wish more of us RuneQuesters liked the same game so we could recruit more players and grow the fanbase of RuneQuest.

I feel very much the same way. Inded, as I often emphasize, I was a RQ2 GM in 1984, and I ran RQ3 circa 1990-1993. But MRQ is the edition fo Runequest that speaks to me. It's open in design, moreso even than RQ3 which still held close ties to Glorantha, and it's progressive, integrating a new and different approach to gaming that does not rely on leveling and classes, something I am very weary of. MRQ also adds some much-needed simplification to the RQ system, something which was a major hindrance in my efforts to sell people on older editions of the game. Many fans of RQ loved the complexity and minutiae it allowed for....but I was always a bigger fan of the elegance the Basic Role Playing system demonstrated through Stormbringer and Call of Cthulhu; MRQ manages to have a level of simplicity in execution, ala CoC, while offering up a wide range of options and choices....more so than the previous editions.

But I've figured out that there is no common ground between fans of the new and fans of the old....we all have to agree to disagree, because the very elements I like most about MRQ (and disliked about RQ3) are elements which the other side loathes and loves repsectively.

But anyway, I'm with you, and I swore never to run D&D 3.5 again, and I've held up on that promise to myself so far.

QUICK EDIT: When I say MRQ is progressive, I don't mean to suggest it's innovative....just that among in-print and avaiale games on today's market, if you want an open ended non-level/class based advancement system, among the big titles MRQ and GURPS Fantasy are the only real alternatives to D20 imo.

[Tori Bergquist]

Hate to tell you, but to the true grognard, most of that's irrelevant except for new material. Often they've got long term stable game groups, or recruit them into a game by themselves, and are used to making do when it comes to physical game availability. They've probably long since houseruled most things that concern them. So basically, most of what you mention is too little an advantage to counterweight things they may not like.



But that's it; you're not. You're getting a game that kind of, sort of, looks like your favorite game. But in many cases, not enough to make you want to change. To me, for example, RQM went in a lot of wrong directions, and the few things I thought it fixed didn't counterweight that.



I don't think its so much "trying to turn you away" as just expressing their personal dissatisfaction in a, shall we say, overly energetic way.


I think the gorgnard love for older RQ editions would best be suited by referring them to Heroquest or Ebay for old and out of print material. I agree that perhaps it is time the old guard started thinking of MRQ as a different game and left it at that, so that the fans of this new and derivative system can get on with enjoying it while the grumpy old gamer guys stew about the heyday of Runequest 2.

There is one thing that should be appreciated by those grognards who want new material for RQ2, btw: The current MRQ is in an SRD, which can be used to derive products (see GORE! for an example) which draw new rule iterations on the game. Just like the OSRIC project, I can not imagine why someone couldn't use the MRQ SRD to generate an old-school retrofitted edition of RQ2 that can then be used as the springboard for new material....although ironically, I think that the love for that system ties deeply in to the Glorantha setting, and that, of course, would require licensing....plus, frankly, it seems like the only people who'd be keen on such a project already have their RQ2 books handy, and if they spend a bit of work on it, I am sure they can convert all this MRQ Glorantha 2nd age and Heroquest stuff over to the older ruleset with a minimum of fuss and a lot of love.

So I guess, in the end, I really don't understand the point that grognard naysayers of the new system are making, other than that we are just seeing a variation on the generation gap that has hit the D&D side of the hobby, but now affecting Runequest, too. Ah, well......back to preppng for my new Mongoose Hawkmoon campaign.....and Pirates Campaign, and Lankhmar game.... :D

[Strange Visitor]

But I've figured out that there is no common ground between fans of the new and fans of the old....we all have to agree to disagree, because the very elements I like most about MRQ (and disliked about RQ3) are elements which the other side loathes and loves repsectively.



I think you're quite correct there, speaking from personal preference. I never found the more complex elements of RQ much of an impediment, so that's not much of a virtue to me with MRQ.



QUICK EDIT: When I say MRQ is progressive, I don't mean to suggest it's innovative....just that among in-print and avaiale games on today's market, if you want an open ended non-level/class based advancement system, among the big titles MRQ and GURPS Fantasy are the only real alternatives to D20 imo.

Well, if D100 (or whatever they actually end up calling it) ever gets out, it might be a competitor, but that remains to be seen. I gather you're excluding Fantasy Hero for some reason?

[Strange Visitor]

I think the gorgnard love for older RQ editions would best be suited by referring them to Heroquest or Ebay for old and out of print material. I agree that perhaps it is time the old guard started thinking of MRQ as a different game and left it at that, so that the fans of this new and derivative system can get on with enjoying it while the grumpy old gamer guys stew about the heyday of Runequest 2.



Well, a couple things cut in here:

1. If MRQ wasn't called RuneQuest, I don't think it'd get some of the hate. The fact that RQ was essentially a dead game for a decade meant that they'd largely given up being anything but a fossil hobby component, when the news about a new RQ comes along. So some of them got their hopes up, only to have them, effectively dashed.
2. A fair number of grognards were on the early RQM playtest group, and the fact there's a sense that their input was completely ignored doesn't help the attitudes. I probably have a bit of that myself, but its hard to tell given its tied up in what I view were the wrong decisions in that design so I can't extricate them.



There is one thing that should be appreciated by those grognards who want new material for RQ2, btw: The current MRQ is in an SRD, which can be used to derive products (see GORE! for an example) which draw new rule iterations on the game. Just like the OSRIC project, I can not imagine why someone couldn't use the MRQ SRD to generate an old-school retrofitted edition of RQ2 that can then be used as the springboard for new material....although ironically, I think that the love for that system ties deeply in to the Glorantha setting, and that, of course, would require licensing....plus, frankly, it seems like the only people who'd be keen on such a project already have their RQ2 books handy, and if they spend a bit of work on it, I am sure they can convert all this MRQ Glorantha 2nd age and Heroquest stuff over to the older ruleset with a minimum of fuss and a lot of love.



Hard for me to say since I'm a non-Gloranthan RQ fan.



So I guess, in the end, I really don't understand the point that grognard naysayers of the new system are making, other than that we are just seeing a variation on the generation gap that has hit the D&D side of the hobby, but now affecting Runequest, too. Ah, well......back to preppng for my new Mongoose Hawkmoon campaign.....and Pirates Campaign, and Lankhmar game.... :D

You're not really _getting_ a point from most of them; you're getting a reaction, and in some cases, a critique. I don't think most of them expect any real result from their posting.

[Tori Bergquist]

I think you're quite correct there, speaking from personal preference. I never found the more complex elements of RQ much of an impediment, so that's not much of a virtue to me with MRQ.



Well, if D100 (or whatever they actually end up calling it) ever gets out, it might be a competitor, but that remains to be seen. I gather you're excluding Fantasy Hero for some reason?

Omission....I forget that Fantasy Hero is alive and well; and actually quite good, I think, too!

I do hope BRP deluxe will see the light of day someday.....it might well be the big kahuna for BRP fans when and if it shows up.

[Tori Bergquist]

Well, a couple things cut in here:

1. If MRQ wasn't called RuneQuest, I don't think it'd get some of the hate. The fact that RQ was essentially a dead game for a decade meant that they'd largely given up being anything but a fossil hobby component, when the news about a new RQ comes along. So some of them got their hopes up, only to have them, effectively dashed.
2. A fair number of grognards were on the early RQM playtest group, and the fact there's a sense that their input was completely ignored doesn't help the attitudes. I probably have a bit of that myself, but its hard to tell given its tied up in what I view were the wrong decisions in that design so I can't extricate them.




Hard for me to say since I'm a non-Gloranthan RQ fan.



You're not really _getting_ a point from most of them; you're getting a reaction, and in some cases, a critique. I don't think most of them expect any real result from their posting.

I think you make some excellent points. There's a lot of personal sense of ownership from people on Runequest, and it's hard to bear seeing it change when you are so accustomed to a different view and take on it. My contention is that if the new RQ were to emulate the old models, it would fail once again to become popular beyond the existing fan base, and the new MRQ is geared towards acquiring new players more than retaining the old.....so yeah, I can see how they are put out about it.

As for the critiques.....I think it gets hard with RQ, because the fan base from the old days is exceedingly vocal about the game online, and people who invest too much in the opinions of posters can feel put off by the game, which really doesn't deserve the slander....as stated, if it wasn't called Runequest it would probably be considered a fun and worthy system for people to try that just happened to bear a resemblance to a certain BRP based system we all know, but such is not the case. So, for people who love the system, it become frustrating, because I think there is a fear that it will be harder to actually sell the system on its actual merits when you are fighting asmall but vocal wave of protest that decries the game on the very same grounds for which you are trying to sell it. Now for me, it's not so big a deal, as no one I've played it with has ever experienced Runequest before, and the one old grognard Runequester I have in my group has found the changes interesing but in no way offensive....he's just happy to be playing. So from that perspective, it's a remarkable success for me locally, as we are all having a good time with it and not worrying about all the online nonsense and naysaying going on. But I do hope that the game proves successful, as I would very much prefer to see a charming (if, according to some, flawed) rendition of Runequest that succeeds and helps establish a new rpg niche in today's gaming community, than to watch it die once again, sending my books off to the same bin in my closet where RQ 2 and 3 reside.

[smascrns]

What isn't to like? I honestly just don't get why trying to turn me away from enjoying MRQ would help a RQII or RQIII player.
But you are missing the point, no one is trying to turn you away from enjoying MRQ. People that prefer RQ3 are as free to state their preferences as you are to express yours. They feel let down because MRQ is not RQ4 - as they had the right to expect. After all, if Mongoose wanted to come with a system that is not an evolution of RQ3, why going after the RQ label? Why start the design like if it was going an evolution of RQ3? The truth is that Mongoose promised RQ4 and somewhere down the line came out with something that is not RQ4. The RQ3 players that wanted to see their game back in print felt deceived and they have a point.

Of course, they can wait for the new BRP game from Chaosium where they are supposed to get what they want.

[Kravell]

But you are missing the point, no one is trying to turn you away from enjoying MRQ. People that prefer RQ3 are as free to state their preferences as you are to express yours. They feel let down because MRQ is not RQ4 - as they had the right to expect. After all, if Mongoose wanted to come with a system that is not an evolution of RQ3, why going after the RQ label? Why start the design like if it was going an evolution of RQ3? The truth is that Mongoose promised RQ4 and somewhere down the line came out with something that is not RQ4. The RQ3 players that wanted to see their game back in print felt deceived and they have a point.

Of course, they can wait for the new BRP game from Chaosium where they are supposed to get what they want.

Of course people have the right to prefer RQ3 and state their preference. But they don't need to blast my enjoyment of RQ4 in order to do it in my opinion.

I have never said, "Hey I play RQ4. It is ever so much better than RQ3!"

Conversely, a few posters who love RQ3 have argued with me and told me I was wrong to rate RQ4 highly and that RQ3 is better.

After a while, it gets annoying. Because I'm not trying to tell them that RQ4 is better than RQ3 but some posters feel compelled to tell me I'm wrong to rate RQ4 highly and that it is inferior to RQ3.

When it isn't. It's just a different game. And that's my sticking point. Stating that RQ3 is better than RQ4 is an opinion while some posters try to make it out as a fact. And while they are trying to state that opinion as fact they are trying to make me look stupid, inept, or foolish.

While I expect some abuse when posting online (it is easier for a person to be rude to me when they can hide behind a computer somewhere) I'm just getting tired of it. I didn't decide to like RQ4 to pick a fight. I didn't try to start a flamewar. And I never bashed RQ2 or RQ3. I just wish the minority of grognards who want to bust my chops would just chill out a little.:)

Maybe if they are going to Gen Con we could go to the Ram together and have a beer. They can tell me about Prax and the spell resistance table and I'll talk about Ralios and the change to opposed rolls for resisting magic.

Can't we all just get along?

[smascrns]

Was that in your review? I suppose so. If people get into that kind of argument, just ignore them. Interestingly enough, the grognard (I don't like this expression since it is demeaning of the person to which it is applied, by the way) may be very right in considering the older game to be better - after all he knows both of them, does he not? He cannot be just dismissed as a person that is stuck in the past.

Yet, let's get back to something more useful: You decided on MRQ, and that's what we are going to get with your column. I look forward to see what you are going to make with it. I hope that even if you moved away from D&D you will include some notes on how you consider that opting for MRQ has been good/bad. For instance, which game facilitates creating characters that correspond better to your concept? Which game has mechanics that produce results closer to what you have in mind? Things like this.

[Kravell]

Was that in your review? I suppose so. If people get into that kind of argument, just ignore them. Interestingly enough, the grognard (I don't like this expression since it is demeaning of the person to which it is applied, by the way) may be very right in considering the older game to be better - after all he knows both of them, does he not? He cannot be just dismissed as a person that is stuck in the past.

Yes, some rude comments were directed at my style of reviewing rather than sticking to facts. Not a lot, but they were aggressive.

I usually choose to respond rather than ignore because I believe in what I write. I respect others opinions but only if they will show respect toward my opinions.

I didn't pick the term grognard, the posters who I've responded to did. So I guess they are demeaning themselves?:)

As to your second question just because a person knows two systems that does not make his opinion right. First, an opinion can't be right because it is an opinion. Solid facts can back up an opinion but usually facts won't get in the way of another person thinking whatever they choose to think!:)

For example, I know D&D 3.5 very well and am learning MRQ. Can I say D&D 3.5 is better (or the reverse) because I know both systems? Yes. Can I give facts to support my claim? Yes. Does that make me right? No, it will just be my opinion. I can show how D&D (or RQ4) does this or that better and that it work better for me. But still, opinion.

Also. please don't get the impression that I'm dismissing any RQ2 or RQ3 player. I was serious about getting together with other RuneQuesters whatever system they like.

I would just prefer they not be rude to me!:)

[Kravell]

Yet, let's get back to something more useful: You decided on MRQ, and that's what we are going to get with your column. I look forward to see what you are going to make with it. I hope that even if you moved away from D&D you will include some notes on how you consider that opting for MRQ has been good/bad. For instance, which game facilitates creating characters that correspond better to your concept? Which game has mechanics that produce results closer to what you have in mind? Things like this.

Yes, sounds like a great idea!

I am very glad you are interested in the column. Your many responses are appreciated!

I have a double feature this month, so another column for July (ironically falling on Aug 2 due to the week structure) will cover many of the questions you raised.

It covers character creation and how it worked for my players and me. I also talk about quest creation which is, in my opinion:), ever so much easier in RQ than D&D 3.5 due to the reduced amount of math and the lack of Excel spreadsheets.

Not kidding about using those Excel spreadsheets in D&D!

[weasel fierce]

Im looking forward to seeing what happens.

As far as the inevitable RQ3vsMRQ debate, I like both games.

Point for point I think MRQ has better character creation, better magic, and some of the Gloranthan supplements have been very good, and made it very easy to get a grip on the setting.
RQ3 has slightly better combat, though strike ranks always seem to trip people up, and better experience/training rules

MRQ benefits of course from being in print, free SRD's, and hardcover books, whereas RQ3 means ebaying for the shitty AH paper booklets, or very elusive GW hardcovers

Its kinda pricey but the entry is low (first hit always is :) ) and you dont need all those books to play.


I like MRQ and I intend to use it as my main game going forward, just as I have RQ3 previously.

[Spinachcat]

Let me get this straight:: In Crisis of Faith #34 (May 07), it's "D&D roxxors, haters suxxors!" Now (July 07), you visit a badly designed website and suddenly it's "D&D suxxors, MRQ roxxors!"

Sounds like Gamer ADD.

Mongoose's BRP ripoff is easier for people to buy than RQ II or III, but doesn't represent any massive innovation over the old system. There would be little issue for fans of either version to sit down at a game together.

Good luck to your players. RQ is not D&D and there's a real mental shift needed in how the game plays. I love both games, but they play very differently.

[ShannonA]

If you have a moment, Shannon, I'd be interested to hear why you'll choose RQ4 next. I'm curious what someone with years of RQ3 as well as design experience has to say to recommend RQ4. Not that I'm against RQ4, I think it's great, it's just that many of the posts by RQ3 grognards responding to my RQ4 posts don't rate RQ4 as highly as RQ3.


Well, I'm generally a fan of supported and modern RPGs over unsupported and older RPGs. And, I think the support for MRQ thus far has been great. The Arms & Equipment guide alone is something that I'd like to have in every RPG I ever play.

If I was going to play in Glorantha, I might be more tempted to go with RQ3, because I like the third age and I feel like the second age has been insufficiently detailed to date to really run campaigns there. Not that you couldn't use either rule system for either age.

However, since I'm instead considering moving a BRP-based Elric! game over, there's just no question. Elric! has never been a game that's been that true to the setting, and so I was already considering going over to MRQ before they put out Elric specific books. However the biggest problem I've had in Elric, and it's been a real issue, is that fights with high-skilled characters go on forever. MRQ is working toward fixing that specific problem.

[Kravell]

Let me get this straight:: In Crisis of Faith #34 (May 07), it's "D&D roxxors, haters suxxors!" Now (July 07), you visit a badly designed website and suddenly it's "D&D suxxors, MRQ roxxors!"

Sounds like Gamer ADD.

Mongoose's BRP ripoff is easier for people to buy than RQ II or III, but doesn't represent any massive innovation over the old system. There would be little issue for fans of either version to sit down at a game together.

Good luck to your players. RQ is not D&D and there's a real mental shift needed in how the game plays. I love both games, but they play very differently.

Man I am so sick of people with attitude problems. You didn't even read any of the previous posts where I explained that I still like D&D. Hell, it sounds like you didn't even read the column.

And three insults in one post? One toward Mongoose's website, one toward me and one toward MRQ? And with no facts to back them up? Wow, you are impressive insulting me while hiding behind your computer.

Bring some facts or get out of my face.

[Kravell]

Well, I'm generally a fan of supported and modern RPGs over unsupported and older RPGs. And, I think the support for MRQ thus far has been great. The Arms & Equipment guide alone is something that I'd like to have in every RPG I ever play.

If I was going to play in Glorantha, I might be more tempted to go with RQ3, because I like the third age and I feel like the second age has been insufficiently detailed to date to really run campaigns there. Not that you couldn't use either rule system for either age.

However, since I'm instead considering moving a BRP-based Elric! game over, there's just no question. Elric! has never been a game that's been that true to the setting, and so I was already considering going over to MRQ before they put out Elric specific books. However the biggest problem I've had in Elric, and it's been a real issue, is that fights with high-skilled characters go on forever. MRQ is working toward fixing that specific problem.

Thanks. Your points make sense to me. I like modern and supported RPGs as well which is one reason I like MRQ.

[ShannonA]

Shannon Appelcline used to go by Shannon Appel I believe, at least as I understand it. He is an administrator here at rpg.net, greenlights my column, and writes lots of stuff (HeroQuest and RQ elf books are up next I believe).

The RQ4 elf book is the first one to actually make it on a schedule. I think Mongoose has it listed for October.

[ShannonA]

That was a model that at least one version of the Elric game used, as did Alternity. I think it worked well enough in both of those, but in part that was because it was also abstracting hit location in that roll to some degree. I don't think its as good an idea with hit locations.

I've run the Stormbringer and Hawkmoon games that used the variable armor points, and I found they cranked mortality very high.

[Primordial Zero]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave37.phtml

Summary:

Death by Gleemax.

Go to the column (http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave37.phtml) for more information.
I found it enheartening to read that I am not alone in my disdain for the loss of Dragon magazine and for its replacement by one more ephemeral, soulless website.

The decision of the Wizards of the Coast reminded me of the urban dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gleemax) definition of gleemax: "a.The one with higher authority a. I am the Gleemax OBEY AT ONCE!"

I don't feel like obeying at once, Wizards of the Coast.

Like our brave columnist, I like books with words. Books and magazines will last for centuries if taken care of; they become something I can pass down to my children and grandchildren or donate to a local library or museum. Internet sites are ephemeral and evaporative. All a person need do is note how many URLs lie dead out there, or how seldom a modern system can read a program that is only ten years old, to realize just how ephemeral the internet can be!

I still have my entire collection of Dragon magazines. It's not complete, but I managed to locate some of the earliest issues in a garage sale, so I have a number of double digit and even a few single digit issues. I take care of them, and I will be able to pass them on. If one issue is damaged, the other issues are still fine. On the other hand, I have a friend who owns one of those CDs filled with various Dragon issues - perhaps the whole set. His CD had a small hiccough from simple use. Now he can access none of his issues.

I am not afraid of the internet and computers. I use email, I post to online fora, and I know several programming languages. I know enough about the internet and computers, however, to recognize the foolishness in what Wizards of the Coast has done. The fact I have access to internet doesn't mean I want all libraries to close down. The fact I have email doesn't mean I never send a letter by post. And the fact I have access to online gaming aids doesn't mean I haven't loved owning and re-reading over the decades my Dragon magazine issues.

I am glad to read I am not the only one disturbed by the Gleemax move - and by the lack of organized outcry against it.

[Strange Visitor]

Omission....I forget that Fantasy Hero is alive and well; and actually quite good, I think, too!

I do hope BRP deluxe will see the light of day someday.....it might well be the big kahuna for BRP fans when and if it shows up.


It certainly seems to be worth a look; I'll probably wait for a review or two, but I expect it'll get my money just to have it as a reference.

[Strange Visitor]

I think you make some excellent points. There's a lot of personal sense of ownership from people on Runequest, and it's hard to bear seeing it change when you are so accustomed to a different view and take on it. My contention is that if the new RQ were to emulate the old models, it would fail once again to become popular beyond the existing fan base, and the new MRQ is geared towards acquiring new players more than retaining the old.....so yeah, I can see how they are put out about it.



The problem is its hard to say what caused the failure of RQ; Avalon Hill must have thought it was a potential winner when it bought and ordered the new edition, but AH's handling of _all_ their RPG products was strange, and its to be noted they're _all_ gone. Was that because of mechanics? In the case of Powers and Perils and Lords of Creation, I'd think it was a contributing factor; in the case of RQ3 and the Bond game, I'm far less convinced. But the truth is, we don't know; they did plenty of other things to help bring the product down, including physical production quality and a price point that the market pretty much wasn't up to at the time. So a lot of RQ fans aren't convinced the game really needed a radical reworking; just enough to buff some edges and make it again accessible.



As for the critiques.....I think it gets hard with RQ, because the fan base from the old days is exceedingly vocal about the game online, and people who invest too much in the opinions of posters can feel put off by the game, which really doesn't deserve the slander....as stated, if it wasn't called Runequest it would probably be considered a fun and worthy system for people to try that just happened to bear a resemblance to a certain BRP based system we all know, but such is not the case.



Well, yes and no. There are legitimate complaints about aspects of RQM, and I'd have some of those whatever it was called (note I also have complaints about RQ3, and got into a quite extended argument on here not long ago with people about one of them in fact). So some critiques would be pretty loud _if the person knew about them_ even if it was called "Fantasy Legends". Its just that being named RQ, there's a certain set of people who are quite _aware_ of those issues who otherwise likely wouldn't be.




So, for people who love the system, it become frustrating, because I think there is a fear that it will be harder to actually sell the system on its actual merits when you are fighting asmall but vocal wave of protest that decries the game on the very same grounds for which you are trying to sell it. Now for me, it's not so big a



Not to put to fine a point on it, but don't they have the same right to criticize it as you have to praise it?



deal, as no one I've played it with has ever experienced Runequest before, and the one old grognard Runequester I have in my group has found the changes interesing but in no way offensive....he's just happy to be playing. So from that perspective, it's a remarkable success for me locally, as we are all having a good time with it and not worrying about all the online nonsense and naysaying going on. But I do hope that the game proves successful, as I would very much prefer to see a charming (if, according to some, flawed) rendition of Runequest that succeeds and helps establish a new rpg niche in today's gaming community, than to watch it die once again, sending my books off to the same bin in my closet where RQ 2 and 3 reside.

Well, truth to tell, it doesn't matter to me one way or another; its not enough what I want out of that sort of game to do me any good, but neither does it offend me by its existance, so...

[Strange Visitor]

Of course people have the right to prefer RQ3 and state their preference. But they don't need to blast my enjoyment of RQ4 in order to do it in my opinion.

I have never said, "Hey I play RQ4. It is ever so much better than RQ3!"

Conversely, a few posters who love RQ3 have argued with me and told me I was wrong to rate RQ4 highly and that RQ3 is better.



Well, the problem is that some people consider the proper response to a stated opinion, especially in a review, is to respond with a counter opinion, and when necessary, critique the review. While its hard to argue that taste isn't subjective, if a review is going to be useful, it has to be grounded in at least some attempt to show relationship between opinion and the features that prompt it, and when that doesn't seem to be the case some people consider it quite legitimate to consider the review essentially either a puff piece or badly supported. Or put another way, I suspect you have different standards of expectations than they do in what a review is supposed to do.

Of course some of them are also being blindered dicks. But its usually more useful to look at the people who aren't trying to be dicks first. :)



After a while, it gets annoying. Because I'm not trying to tell them that RQ4 is better than RQ3 but some posters feel compelled to tell me I'm wrong to rate RQ4 highly and that it is inferior to RQ3.



Ah, but remember, you _are_, in effect, telling other people that RQ4 is a good thing, and since they don't think it is, they feel a need to challenge that. Keep in mind that in some people's preconscious, they're likely having a conversation with a new player that goes something like this:

New Player: "Why are we playing these old rules rather than the new RQ?"
Grognard: "Because the new RQ sucks."
New Player: "But Kravell said..."
Grognard: "&$#%^!"

So their response to you is in part a response to that internal dialog, and in part a preemptive shot in it.



When it isn't. It's just a different game. And that's my sticking point. Stating that RQ3 is better than RQ4 is an opinion while some posters try to make it out as a fact. And while they are trying to state that opinion as fact they are trying to make me look stupid, inept, or foolish.



But again, not everyone views this sort of thing as entirely subjective. You're welcome to not agree with that (I'm in an in-between spot on it myself) but they do.



While I expect some abuse when posting online (it is easier for a person to be rude to me when they can hide behind a computer somewhere) I'm just getting tired of it. I didn't decide to like RQ4 to pick a fight. I didn't try to start a flamewar. And I never bashed RQ2 or RQ3. I just wish the minority of grognards who want to bust my chops would just chill out a little.:)


Can't we all just get along?

When discussing games preference? How long have you _been_ on the Internet? :)

[Strange Visitor]

Yes, sounds like a great idea!

I am very glad you are interested in the column. Your many responses are appreciated!

I have a double feature this month, so another column for July (ironically falling on Aug 2 due to the week structure) will cover many of the questions you raised.

It covers character creation and how it worked for my players and me. I also talk about quest creation which is, in my opinion:), ever so much easier in RQ than D&D 3.5 due to the reduced amount of math and the lack of Excel spreadsheets.



I'll be particularly interested to see if any dissonance comes up when switching from a D&D high-heroic model to the relatively gritty model even RQ4 promotes.

[Strange Visitor]

Im looking forward to seeing what happens.

As far as the inevitable RQ3vsMRQ debate, I like both games.

Point for point I think MRQ has better character creation, better magic, and some of the Gloranthan supplements have been very good, and made it very easy to get a grip on the setting.



I won't comment about the magic, but I honestly didn't find the RQM character creation a net improvement (and you may recall from another thread I have some big issues with RQ3 character creation.

[Strange Visitor]

I've run the Stormbringer and Hawkmoon games that used the variable armor points, and I found they cranked mortality very high.

It didn't seem that way in the brief one I was involved in, but even if true that's probably an issue of how large the variance was; as I recall, one of the better armors in Stormbringer had 1d8+2 as the range. A range of 3-10 points might well be a bit much, but I doubt it'd be as problematic to have, say, 1D4+4.

I'm a little surprised it could crank it up worse than light-to-moderate armored RQ could, though, given how nasty impales could be.

[ShannonA]

The problem is its hard to say what caused the failure of RQ; Avalon Hill must have thought it was a potential winner when it bought and ordered the new edition

I have some conclusions that I'm pretty confident in based on the histories I'm writing.

Factor #1: price.

To quote my (unpublished) history: "Avalon Hill published the new game in one of their big boxes, and this resulted in the first of RQ3’s problems. It retailed for $38 (which would be about $75 today), an astronomical amount for a roleplaying game. The problem was even worse in Britain where a licensed version of RuneQuest had been previously published by Games Workshop. Avalon Hill revoked Games Workshop’s license—though it would be restored in late 1986—which resulted in a UK price jump from £8 to £40 (or about $150 today)."

They multiplied the price between 2x and 5x right out the door, depending on where you lived. That was an absolute recipe for disaster.

Factor #2: Chaosium.

Chaosium had false expectations on the income they'd bring in from the agreement. Instead their income from RuneQuest dropped dramatically as they were now getting a royalty rather than all the profits, yet they were still doing all the design, development, and layout work. This almost drove them out of business and then caused them to cut off AH in 1989. If you compare RQ before and after, it was a strong line from 1984-1989, then when Chaosium bowed out the product went to hell for years, which pretty much sealed the fate of the line.

Was that because of mechanics? In the case of Powers and Perils and Lords of Creation, I'd think it was a contributing factor; in the case of RQ3 and the Bond game

Powers & Perils had no redeeming features. It was a fantasy heartbreaker before the term existed.

Lords of Creation was a multigenre game 5 years before the genre caught on. I'm surprised it didn't do anything.

James Bond 007 had a great game system and did great for many years, but ultimately died out because it could no longer pay out its licensing fees. This is a pretty common fate for licensed games because they have a much higher break-even point due to the licensing fees, which can be quite high for a major property.

[ShannonA]

It didn't seem that way in the brief one I was involved in, but even if true that's probably an issue of how large the variance was; as I recall, one of the better armors in Stormbringer had 1d8+2 as the range. A range of 3-10 points might well be a bit much, but I doubt it'd be as problematic to have, say, 1D4+4.

True.

I'm a little surprised it could crank it up worse than light-to-moderate armored RQ could, though, given how nasty impales could be.

I've played RuneQuest a lot more recently than I've played early edition Stormbringer. They both have some mortality. My memory is that Stormbringer was more so, though that was also multiplied by the possibility of demon weapons and other such powermongering.

I had my only TPK ever in Hawkmoon though that was as much due to player stupidity as the system.

[Strange Visitor]

I have some conclusions that I'm pretty confident in based on the histories I'm writing.



Given the research and feedback I've seen you do on these, I'm all ears.



Factor #1: price.

To quote my (unpublished) history: "Avalon Hill published the new game in one of their big boxes, and this resulted in the first of RQ3’s problems. It retailed for $38 (which would be about $75 today), an astronomical amount for a roleplaying game. The problem was even worse in Britain where a licensed version of RuneQuest had been previously published by Games Workshop. Avalon Hill revoked Games Workshop’s license—though it would be restored in late 1986—which resulted in a UK price jump from £8 to £40 (or about $150 today)."

They multiplied the price between 2x and 5x right out the door, depending on where you lived. That was an absolute recipe for disaster.



This was one of the things I suspected. I remember I was just boggled at the price at the time.



Factor #2: Chaosium.

Chaosium had false expectations on the income they'd bring in from the agreement. Instead their income from RuneQuest dropped dramatically as they were now getting a royalty rather than all the profits, yet they were still doing all the design, development, and layout work. This almost drove them out of business and then caused them to cut off AH in 1989. If you compare RQ before and after, it was a strong line from 1984-1989, then when Chaosium bowed out the product went to hell for years, which pretty much sealed the fate of the line.



Ah. Interesting though.



Powers & Perils had no redeeming features. It was a fantasy heartbreaker before the term existed.



I can't quite agree; some elements of the combat and magic systems were interesting and seemed workable. But my gods, the endless special casing and the incredible swings in character power because of the random character generation.



Lords of Creation was a multigenre game 5 years before the genre caught on. I'm surprised it didn't do anything.



I think it was overly schematic and simple-minded for the job it was trying to do.



James Bond 007 had a great game system and did great for many years, but ultimately died out because it could no longer pay out its licensing fees. This is a pretty common fate for licensed games because they have a much higher break-even point due to the licensing fees, which can be quite high for a major property.

A good point.

[Strange Visitor]

I've played RuneQuest a lot more recently than I've played early edition Stormbringer. They both have some mortality. My memory is that Stormbringer was more so, though that was also multiplied by the possibility of demon weapons and other such powermongering.



Ah. Once you brought demon weapons into it one side, and didn't have demon armor on the other, I can see how that'd get really ugly really fast (and I seem to recall the demon armor wasn't as good at what it did as the demon weapons were at what they did.



I had my only TPK ever in Hawkmoon though that was as much due to player stupidity as the system.

I don't think I ever saw one in RQ, but I saw some that got pretty close.

[ShannonA]

I don't think I ever saw one in RQ, but I saw some that got pretty close.

Yep, me too.

[Jamie Herbert]

Wow,never have I been filled with ambivilance, first off let me say this is not me RQ bashing, I loved RQ back in the day when all of the gamers in my area were fighting over what profficencies their Fighter rogue needed to have by 4th level to get some arcane kit, I was roleplaying with RQ3building interesting characters and playing in a game that was both realistically leathal and far more flexible the AD&D of the day.

That being said I bought RQM, and again I am not anti- Mongoose publishing or what they have done to RQ. If I hated Mongoose I would not have about $300 wrapped up in SST, or more than that wrapped up in A call to arms. and despite my frustration for thier decision to cancel air support for the MI I am still looking at SST Evolved and Battlefield evolved. BUt I bought teh handbokk, read it, it sat on my shelf and was sold about 6 months later. why? because it feels a bit "me too" for me. the necessity to have the phb, companionand monster book, (yeah I'm one of those who owns the RQ book, so itwas all in one and about $30, when AD&D was aproximately $25 a book. The core book was a bit sparse and without spending the kind of cash i put into d20, for less payoff at this point in my life seems a bit too much. I loved RQ and maybe someday I'll get more into the new one until then I stil have RQ3, and plenty of my supplements.

As for Gleemax, I could not agree more heartily WOTC/Hasbro has always proved that this is a bottom line buisiness not a fan filled hobby. from diluting great games like SAGA and Alternity (canning them for being not as successful as D&D) to silly things like adding a windows only character creator because "our resarch states gamers don't use mac or Linux formats." Personally I think Piazo would do well to produce a general gaming magazine, screw Dragon, and Wotc, and produce an RPG mag that is beholden to no one as opposed to a $5 monthly advert anyway. I liked dragon but it used to have more than if you play d20/TSR games, you might get some use out of this. This is the same reason I don't buy the rifter, white dwarf, or signs and Portents (though the last one is at least now free on line!) but Gleemax is more of the everyone will like it because it'scheap, and we'll make it the only option, that made me let my dragon subscription lapse oh so long ago.

[Kravell]

Well, the problem is that some people consider the proper response to a stated opinion, especially in a review, is to respond with a counter opinion, and when necessary, critique the review. While its hard to argue that taste isn't subjective, if a review is going to be useful, it has to be grounded in at least some attempt to show relationship between opinion and the features that prompt it, and when that doesn't seem to be the case some people consider it quite legitimate to consider the review essentially either a puff piece or badly supported. Or put another way, I suspect you have different standards of expectations than they do in what a review is supposed to do.

Of course some of them are also being blindered dicks. But its usually more useful to look at the people who aren't trying to be dicks first. :)



Ah, but remember, you _are_, in effect, telling other people that RQ4 is a good thing, and since they don't think it is, they feel a need to challenge that. Keep in mind that in some people's preconscious, they're likely having a conversation with a new player that goes something like this:

New Player: "Why are we playing these old rules rather than the new RQ?"
Grognard: "Because the new RQ sucks."
New Player: "But Kravell said..."
Grognard: "&$#%^!"

So their response to you is in part a response to that internal dialog, and in part a preemptive shot in it.



But again, not everyone views this sort of thing as entirely subjective. You're welcome to not agree with that (I'm in an in-between spot on it myself) but they do.



When discussing games preference? How long have you _been_ on the Internet? :)

You make solid points. I certainly expect disagreements with my preferences. As long as the poster doesn't resort to personal attacks then I say critique away.

And if a player somewhere actually argues for RQ4 because of me? Well, that would be really cool. They can also jump into my PBP if their GM tosses them out!:)

[Strange Visitor]

You make solid points. I certainly expect disagreements with my preferences. As long as the poster doesn't resort to personal attacks then I say critique away.



And that really is the issue; its just sometimes a bit borderline what translates into a personal attack. But that's a problem with all communication, especially on the Net.

[Xelee]

Kravell, I would be cautious about MRQ. I have been folowing the SRD for some time, following the forums and I attempted to run a campaign, it's still not a fully functioning rules system. Given the level of houseruling I had to employ to make it function, I would rate it as less functional than RQ III was. Even though I would really love to have a nice new set of RPG books to run a consistent game from, I had to wonder why I would buy a fairly large set of books to run an unfinished system.

Now, it was not just me, my players also had a few issues with the underlying mechanics. Part of it was their counterintuitiveness, part of it was unclear wording, part of it was that certain mechanics just did not work in a satifying manner. With reference to the mongoose forum, I think it' s quite telling about the degree of major houseruling, revisions by mongoose of key mechanics and debate over core mechanics that goes on. I always feel like I am taking part in a beta-test when I read there.

Given time I think MRQ could well be a workable system. Obviously tastes differ and you may prefer different systems to me. My concern is that unless you really like to grapple with the complexities of a rule system and assess the houserules on their merits, you are going to keep hitting snags when you run games and your players are going to get annoyed at oddities.

I do actually quite like some of the way MRQ is done, I like it better with certain houserules. I definitely think it looks better than drafts I have seen of RQ IV and stuff that was in the mailing list. For all that, I personally would rather write a system from scratch than try and untangle MRQ at this stage.

I do have an alternative suggestion, Earthdawn is very close (after all it was designed that way) in feel to D&D while enjoying a much more integrated magic system and very easy to GM mechanics. It's what I am running now and while I really want a RQ style system, I am enjoying a system where players get to be heroes, encounters can become deadly in an instant and the core mechanics are both crystal clear and quick to use (once you know what the talents and spells do anyway).

Still I look foward to seeing how you find MRQ. I will be following your column and given the speed backburner projects get done, MRQ may well be a workable system before a finish typing up it's alternative.

[Kravell]

Kravell, I would be cautious about MRQ. I have been folowing the SRD for some time, following the forums and I attempted to run a campaign, it's still not a fully functioning rules system. Given the level of houseruling I had to employ to make it function, I would rate it as less functional than RQ III was. Even though I would really love to have a nice new set of RPG books to run a consistent game from, I had to wonder why I would buy a fairly large set of books to run an unfinished system.

Now, it was not just me, my players also had a few issues with the underlying mechanics. Part of it was their counterintuitiveness, part of it was unclear wording, part of it was that certain mechanics just did not work in a satifying manner. With reference to the mongoose forum, I think it' s quite telling about the degree of major houseruling, revisions by mongoose of key mechanics and debate over core mechanics that goes on. I always feel like I am taking part in a beta-test when I read there.

Given time I think MRQ could well be a workable system. Obviously tastes differ and you may prefer different systems to me. My concern is that unless you really like to grapple with the complexities of a rule system and assess the houserules on their merits, you are going to keep hitting snags when you run games and your players are going to get annoyed at oddities.

I do actually quite like some of the way MRQ is done, I like it better with certain houserules. I definitely think it looks better than drafts I have seen of RQ IV and stuff that was in the mailing list. For all that, I personally would rather write a system from scratch than try and untangle MRQ at this stage.

I do have an alternative suggestion, Earthdawn is very close (after all it was designed that way) in feel to D&D while enjoying a much more integrated magic system and very easy to GM mechanics. It's what I am running now and while I really want a RQ style system, I am enjoying a system where players get to be heroes, encounters can become deadly in an instant and the core mechanics are both crystal clear and quick to use (once you know what the talents and spells do anyway).

Still I look foward to seeing how you find MRQ. I will be following your column and given the speed backburner projects get done, MRQ may well be a workable system before a finish typing up it's alternative.

You make several good points. I have found that the SRD is not usable as written as it doesn't match my hardcover rules. Many of the rule issues discussed stem from using the SRD while better written rules in my hardcover already incorporate many suggested changes.

I think the SRD should be revised immediately to match the newest ruleset. I don't think Mongoose will do this because they don't really make money on the SRD. I think they'll spend more time writing new books.

I've had critics of my review of RuneQuest quote rules from the SRD to refute some of my statements only to learn that the written rules don't match the SRD. I think the SRD actually hurts the reputation of RuneQuest more than it helps.

As to Earthdawn, I ran a 1st Edition Earthdawn game and liked it a lot. However, I think my players would want to toss me out as GM if I switched campaigns on them yet again!

Also, I was playing D&D 3.5 before RuneQuest. 960 pages of core rules, several sheets of errata, changes to core rules becoming official rules (polymorph and wildshape being the two biggest so far), and a mix-mash of 3.0 and 3.5 rules. Also, the SRD doesn't include the latest rule changes (like wildshape for instance). To play D&D you either gloss over rule subsets that hurt your head (polymorph, wildshape, AoO, and grapples to name a few) or you just bar them from your game.

I can survive RuneQuest if I survived D&D and D&D is one of the bestselling RPGs around. No system is close to perfect. What surprises me is how hard RuneQuest gets bashed when D&D has many of the same problems.

[Xelee]

Yes, I have heard the books are better written than the SRD. It's not really the SRD that was the key problem for us (it's a document and I just edited it based on forum suggestions etc) but things like the opposed roll mechanics, parry table (close to getting fixed now), the breakpoints in the number of actions, the way divine magic worked, armour deductions on skills (houseruled right out).... These problems still seem to be exercising the imagination of some very experienced and dedicated MRQ fans if the forums are anything to go by.

Things seem to be getting better as time goes on and the base system looks to have potential but I stand by my "beta test" comment. If their deluxe version and Game-masters guide resolve these issues a little better, I will revise my opinion.

I'm not suprised you don't want to switch horse's midstream again (I know the feeling having to smooth over my regular rotations between D&D, Earthdawn and RQ/MRQ), just keep it in mind if you ever pine for the good old days of D&D and want to take advantage of some quite good (especially for the GM!) mechanics.

I do wish you luck and I do sincerely want MRQ to be workable at some stage.

[Kravell]

Yes, I have heard the books are better written than the SRD. It's not really the SRD that was the key problem for us (it's a document and I just edited it based on forum suggestions etc) but things like the opposed roll mechanics, parry table (close to getting fixed now), the breakpoints in the number of actions, the way divine magic worked, armour deductions on skills (houseruled right out).... These problems still seem to be exercising the imagination of some very experienced and dedicated MRQ fans if the forums are anything to go by.

Things seem to be getting better as time goes on and the base system looks to have potential but I stand by my "beta test" comment. If their deluxe version and Game-masters guide resolve these issues a little better, I will revise my opinion.

I'm not suprised you don't want to switch horse's midstream again (I know the feeling having to smooth over my regular rotations between D&D, Earthdawn and RQ/MRQ), just keep it in mind if you ever pine for the good old days of D&D and want to take advantage of some quite good (especially for the GM!) mechanics.

I do wish you luck and I do sincerely want MRQ to be workable at some stage.

I will keep in mind. I liked first edition Earthdawn and the new edition looks even better.

[Strange Visitor]

mechanics, parry table (close to getting fixed now), the breakpoints in the number of actions, the way divine magic worked, armour

I have to admit the number of actions thing was a sore point with us during playtest, and it doesn't seem to have been fixed; the amount of difference in effectiveness that can occur because of one more point in Dexterity seemed excessive.

[rstites]

I have to admit the number of actions thing was a sore point with us during playtest, and it doesn't seem to have been fixed; the amount of difference in effectiveness that can occur because of one more point in Dexterity seemed excessive.

I've proposed making the number of actions a Legendary Ability that has a prerequisite of a 13 DEX. That way an experienced character with sufficient natural ability can get an extra action, but it takes experience to take advantage of it. I might even require the character to have a single combat skill at 80% or 90% to represent general combat experience.

In general the bonuses to initiative, available weapons, and higher starting skills already favor a higher DEX plenty for my taste.

[Tim Ellis]

I do find it ironic than that many fans like RQIII better than RQIV.
Mongoose has hardcover books

As I said elsewhere, RQ3 and MRQ are both too expensive for what they are (RQ3 because it was flimsy books in an expensive box, and MRQ because it is too-slim volumes in unnessecary hardbacks). But at least with MRQ you are being ripped off for durable books!

MRQ would have received less criticism* if rather than 3 <100 page hardbacks it had been a single comprehensive volume - which the new "Deluxe" RQ will be.



and RuneQuest uses Glorantha like a sample world (some monsters are specific to that world etc) without going overboard. So the Mongoose version fixes some of the complaints about RQIII that RQII players had.


Well, it says it does, but then contains lots of things that don't seem to work or fit in to Glorantha, and when questioned the answer is that the core rulebook is generic - so it looks like we get the worst of both worlds :(

*MRQ would also have received less criticism if it had been properly playtested and editied before it was published, rather than including rules, tables and examples that didn't agree with each other...

[Tim Ellis]

, if it wasn't called Runequest it would probably be considered a fun and worthy system for people to try that just happened to bear a resemblance to a certain BRP based system we all know,

I think if it were not called Runequest it would not have received half the attention that it has, and suspect the (generally high quality) Gloranthan supplements have helped protect the line in the face of the poor quality of the actual rules.

Without the RQ name, I think it would have been considered a sub-par attempt to derive a new ogl game. Hopefully with the many of the poor design and editing problems now resolved, the system can get some of the attention it deserves rather than the criticisms that (in it;s original MRQ incarnation) it also deserved.

[Strange Visitor]

I've proposed making the number of actions a Legendary Ability that has a prerequisite of a 13 DEX. That way an experienced character with sufficient natural ability can get an extra action, but it takes experience to take advantage of it. I might even require the character to have a single combat skill at 80% or 90% to represent general combat experience.



Even then I suspect you'd probably find the opportunity benefit made it almost overwhelmingly attractive (as its been in any game I've ever seen that provided a useful extra action purchase options) but it might not be quite as overwhelming as it is at lower levels.



In general the bonuses to initiative, available weapons, and higher starting skills already favor a higher DEX plenty for my taste.

It was really quite striking in the playtest; the closest thing prior editions had to it was the missile fire benefit high strike rank gave, and that was already overly attractive. In the playtest, the one guy with three actions had such a visible advantage over everyone else we felt almost like idiots (and the one guy with the single action _did_ feel like an idiot).

[rstites]

Even then I suspect you'd probably find the opportunity benefit made it almost overwhelmingly attractive (as its been in any game I've ever seen that provided a useful extra action purchase options) but it might not be quite as overwhelming as it is at lower levels.

My thoughts with adding the minimum skill level was then it really accomplishes the same thing as allowing character with 100%+ to split their skill and attack twice in a round in RQ2/3. (I know it's still a little different, but it's at least closer.)

[Strange Visitor]

My thoughts with adding the minimum skill level was then it really accomplishes the same thing as allowing character with 100%+ to split their skill and attack twice in a round in RQ2/3. (I know it's still a little different, but it's at least closer.)

I see you're point, but the difference is that they'll be more like a nearly 200% character was in combat, and the few times I saw that, those were pretty awful too.