Quote from: Elliot Wilen;468434Nice to see this represented as "6e".

I got MRQII more for the character generation system than anything else, since it seemed to offer an elaboration/cleanup of the AH RQIII system. Further development would be nice, but I can't see 6e becoming my preferred BRP-derivative unless it offers streamlined options à la Elric!/SB5e/Chaosium BRP.

There will be further chargen development. I was working on some of it this week...

We also hope that the way we develop RQ will show the system's flexibility and elegance in a similar way to Elric!/SB5 (and I love the elegance of Elric!), so you never know!

Quote from: Loz;468422Ah, so, RoleMasterQuest...

No, the core mechanics will be staying as they always have been. The system you suggest above was actually tried as part of the original MRQ playtest, back in 2005, and although it works, it introduces all kinds of complications for other elements that lack the overall elegance of the D100 mechanic.

It's still a d100 system. And there are no additional complications for any elements. Every single thing is exactly the same or slightly easier. Literally. Every single thing uses the same number or fewer math operations or reporting steps. It is 100% the same except in the places outlined where it is slightly to significantly superior.

Your protestations are sounding suspiciously like the people who defended THAC0 a decade and more ago. There is literally nothing you can do with roll under that you can't do with roll over. The math works out exactly the same. You save time on the reporting end and have more freedom with GM adjudicated modifiers because the target number and the roll are collapsed into a single number for purposes of telling the other players how you did. And that's it.

You don't even have to change the character sheet, since a 37% skill still has a 37% chance of success.

But sure. It's your game. If you want it to be basically the same as the box set from when "Bush" referred to his dad, that's OK. I just happen to already have one of those. We've had advances in RPG math, and it would be a shame for you to let an opportunity go to waste.

-Frank

Quote from: Loz;468412Its with great pleasure and excitement that I'm able to announce that The Design Mechanism, the new company formed by myself and Pete Nash, has successfully reached an agreement with Issaries Inc to become the new licensee for RuneQuest. The full Press Release can be found on the RuneQuest page at //www.thedesignmechanism.com along with a detailed Q&A sheet for those who want to know more about what we have in store for RQ.

Smashing news! Congratulations to Loz and Pete, and good luck to the two of you; you've raised the bar with MRQII, so you'll need it!

Looking forward to RQ6.

Quote from: Loz;468422Ah, so, RoleMasterQuest...

No, the core mechanics will be staying as they always have been.

Also great news!

Quote from: Akrasia;468416Now that MRQII is out-of-print, I'm delighted that a version of RQ will be in-print and supported by the same people who made MRQII such an excellent game!

You do realize Mongoose is keeping the rules in print, don't you? Oh wait, you just want the name.

QuoteYour protestations are sounding suspiciously like the people who defended THAC0 a decade and more ago. There is literally nothing you can do with roll under that you can't do with roll over. The math works out exactly the same. You save time on the reporting end and have more freedom with GM adjudicated modifiers because the target number and the roll are collapsed into a single number for purposes of telling the other players how you did. And that's it.

Mmm, I wasn't protesting. I was disagreeing with your POV. Believe me, I've nothing against a d100 roll-over based mechanic; it works fine in Rolemaster and certainly has its merits. And sure the math in RPGs has moved on - lots of different resolution mechanics, some more elegant and unified than others, some I don't care for.

The point is, RQ was the first system that used roll-under % as its core. Its fundamental to the brand and changing it to d100 roll-over changes what makes RQ RQ. The mechanic isn't broken, and whilst you might prefer a roll-over system, the arguments for it simply aren't compelling enough to warrant such a fundamental change.

Quote from: Loz;468435There will be further chargen development. I was working on some of it this week...

I guess you can't say anything yet, but I'd like to hear what new ideas you have for chargen.

By the way, I like a lot that you are going to call it 6th edition. It really is the 6th editon of RuneQuest.

Quote from: danbuter;468447You do realize Mongoose is keeping the rules in print, don't you?

Um, yes.

However, I want the version of the rules that Loz and Pete wanted to publish -- you know, the two guys who actually designed the Mongoose version, right? -- along with the fixes and updates that subsequently have occurred to them (and other players of MRQII).  

I know that I'll prefer RQ6 to the 'word-search-and-replace' half-hearted 'Legend' effort that we'll be getting from Mongoose.

(And I will confess readily that my antipathy towards Mongoose's shoddy editing and production standards feeds into this sentiment.)  

Quote from: danbuter;468447Oh wait, you just want the name.

Your gratuitous snark is very much appreciated!

Quote from: FrankTrollman;468436Your protestations are sounding suspiciously like the people who defended THAC0 a decade and more ago.

More amusing are the hardcore individuals who argue that the 1E AD&D PHB/DMG/MM1 books are "holy writ". :banghead:

Even more hilarious are the extremely hardcore individuals who argue that the original OD&D three books from the white box, are "scripture" brought to earth by the prophet Gygax.  :rolleyes: :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:

Good luck Mr. Whittaker & Mr. Nash.

If I still give a damn by early 2012, the few things which could still keep my interest, would be whatever stuff that Matt Sprange originally vetoed and removed from the MRQII core book(s).

Though at this point, I don't know if I would still care anymore by early 2012.


EDIT:  This is mostly to satisfy my own morbid curiosity of "what could have been".  :rolleyes:

Sounds pretty cool! count me in as one of the extremely interested, especially since it will use a similar system to the one ive been reading recently.

I'm sort of chirping in from the sidelines here (even if I had any version of RQ in print copy, it would be a pain finding players for it around here), but here's a thought:


Think of people who are already in the RPG world but are not established RQ fans. Explain to them - and explain to them well - how RQ is different from what they already know (chances are that means D&D). Case in point, when I acquired some pdf copies of RQ 2nd ed. materials (not Mongoose, original), they were a very interesting reading, but didn't really tell me, an experienced D&D player and DM, how the game is supposed to be different from D&D. If I'm a DM putting together an adventure from scratch, how should it be different; what should it be like to really feel RQ? Similarly, as a player, how should I adjust my approach to and expectations from the game? Or as a Glorantha-specific example, Heroquesting. An intriguing concept I've first actually met in the King of Dragon Pass computer game, but I've no f*cking idea how to actually do one around the gaming table and make it not suck, and I'd love it if someone could explain in less then 600 pages. Things like that.

Just my 2 cents.

d100 roll over is a horrible system! You're replacing a simple comparison with 3 digit addition -- acceptible with a d20 perhaps, but not d100. By the way no, I don't like THAC0.

For roll-over vs. roll-under, see here.

Quote from: Akrasia;468474Um, yes.

However, I want the version of the rules that Loz and Pete wanted to publish -- you know, the two guys who actually designed the Mongoose version, right? -- along with the fixes and updates that subsequently have occurred to them (and other players of MRQII).  

I know that I'll prefer RQ6 to the 'word-search-and-replace' half-hearted 'Legend' effort that we'll be getting from Mongoose.

(And I will confess readily that my antipathy towards Mongoose's shoddy editing and production standards feeds into this sentiment.)  

Your gratuitous snark is very much appreciated!

Yes, danbuter's post was full of snark, but he raised two very good points.

First, the competence. Their main competitors are going to be MRQ2, which was released not so long ago ("I already have MRQ2 and it's very good, no need to upgrade"), and Legend ("Look, that Legend game is really cheap, that RQ6 is almost the same and it's more expensive"). Ironically, Pete and Lawrence were the ones who created the game that is more likely to damage sales of RQ6, they did a too good job with MRQ2 (and I'm very thankful for that . That said, if Legend doesn't sell as well as Mongoose expects, I'm sure they'll nuke it from orbit.

I bet they're aware of this, and have discussed it with each other, so they must have a lot of confidence in their product. I hope so.

The second point, the name. The RuneQuest trademark stills commands a lot of respect among gamers, so "just wanting the name" is not as frivolous as it may seem.