[Tori Bergquist]

Originally Posted by smascrns

Well, a lot of people that loved RQ2 considered that RQ3 lacked as well in this regard, if not in terms of content at least in terms of tone. The problem is that the more specific a game is about this kind of stuff the harder it is to use it for a different setting. Personaly I prefer a fantasy game that is more generic and adaptable than one that is too tied for a particular setting, even if that setting is delivered with great anthropological and mythic depth. I prefer to see this depth in setting books, not in the core rules book. In other words, this is a field where I think MRQ compares well with its predecessors. As you say, "MRQ being more open to multiple settings remains a good thing.

When I reviewed MRQ it seemed to me that it could work in play, and your experience shows it does. I still think that Mongoose didn't play the idea as well or as deeply as they could.

I think part of the problem here really simply lies within the proficiency and focus of the author(s). I also like a generic, flexible fantasy system, but I think it's possible to achieve that and still have fluid, engaging and inspired text. Off hand, though MRQ reads quite well. But you definitely pinned down what made RQ2 special; I still have a copy of it somewhere, along with my original black-box Traveller and 1st edition Gamma World as games I just like to reminisce about....
You're also right, RQ3 was a more technical game, in presentation; in retrospect though it kept a pretty sophisticated feel for the time in which it was published; back in the late eighties I recall that most RPGs were either easy to read and pretty straight-forward, or felt like some sort of dissertation in progress, laden with incomprehensible rules. RQ3 sort of walked the line, remaining accessible yet thick.

Once more, why doing this? Why didn't Mongoose focus on one of the two and drop the other? Until now your experience has been with playing the pre-LA level, I hope you and your players move to the LA level and see how it plays.

I'm definitely eager to start a game at the legendary level. I think Mongoose did okay the way they have presented it so far; having a Legendary sourcebook helps focus that play style in one area, but the core book has enough to make a player aware it exists. Still, most of the supplementary material doesn't offer much support for Legendary games; I'd also be interested in seeing Mongoose publish a book designed to be specifically played at the Legendary level.

On a side note, I do recall that for the most part, characters who achieved excessively high scores in the old RQ days usually went off to retirement in my games; it was an interesting "mental shift" for me to contemplate a RQ-based game in which guys with triple digit skill levels were normal, but I like that (it seems, so far) Mongoose pulled it off. If I do an LA game soon I'll offer up some play results.

It seems that Mongoose intended to have a less lethal game all along, what with Hero Points and similar devices.

I think you're right. I'm not sure I like it, personally; the one other verteran RQer in the group seemed to adjust, but loves telling other players in the group about how they'd be dead if we were playing an older edition ...

This is something I didn't get. Why keep HP-location instead of general HPs? It requires a lot more book-keeping.

I wanted to retcon a core HP mechanic in to the system but on putting it to a vote I was soundly shouted down; the players wanted to keep the system as-is, so I grudgingly went ahead and put up with it.

CA are a poorly done pain-in-the-ass by just reading the book, but it's nice to see that game play confirms it.

CAs look pathetic when compared to the simple elegance of the move-standard-minor system of D&D 4th edition. Given a choice, I'd just derive the basic combat system from BRP and weld it on to MRQ for future games. The guys with the CA 4 characters might complain, but the guys with the CA 2s would be delighted....

A question: Did you use in your game any of the supplements that Mongoose (and other people) are publishing for MRQ? If yes, which and how did they help?

Yes, I have all of the RQ supplements released to date, but the ones I actually used a lot in play were the Arms & Equipment guide, which became a pretty regular resource, and the Spell Book, from which a number of interesting spells were derived and used, although I ended up vetoing several others that looked (and I am sure they weren't) unplaytested. I also found the Game Master's Guide to be extremely useful, and had some rules for things like summoning, additional combat rules, skill criticals and fumbles and so forth that were all adapted in to play. It also contained additional rules on rune stones that you might want to check out, adding a great deal of flavor and variety to them; we adopted all fo the rune stone rules in that book, as well. As a side note, my GM's Guide fell apart too, but I have since received the free replacement with the much sturdier soft cover bind.

The two most recent supplements (Land of the Samurai and Monsters 2) will be used when we resume the RQ game shortly down the road. The LotS book is a marked improvement, I feel over the RQ3 version of such, and in fact a better role playing book for the setting than GURPS Japan, I feel. The Monsters 2 book has lots of useful content, although I suspect Glorantha fans will get the most use out of it.

Now, a suggestion: Your post looks right like a small review of MRQ. Why don't you expand it into a full fledged actual play review? Please do so, I would love to read it.

I may not be a fan of MRQ and I may think that previous editions are better but I also hope that Mongoose comes out with a second edition of their game, one that corrects the things that need to be corrected and where they decide what game they want: One without LA or one that focus on LA.

PS Do you recall our interaction at the time of my review of MRQ? Then we touched on rules legacies and the case of D&D rolled attributes was mentioned. I stated, "I would not be surprised if a future generation of D&D drops the rolled attributes, though". It seems I was not far off from what came to be, if I can rely on reviews of DD4 (my copy is on the mail right now).

Yes I do recall...now that you mention it! Not only were you pretty spot on, I feel (after all, the Con Score is the only attribute in 4E that has any application at all; the rest are just there for flavor now, it seems, and to pace the Modifier numbers a bit, since the Mods are the only important element after HPs are settled at 1st level now.)

I suppose you are right; I guess I'll consider doing a review here, soon....thanks for the suggestion!

Take care! Keep up the great reviews, Lev....controversial or not, I think you provide a lot of keen insight on these games.