Quote from: Claudius;468668Yes, 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.

Yes, the irony of all this is that Design Mechanism's competing against something it created.

However...

MRQII really got rushed through. We had to trim page count when we'd been given a brief to produce something larger and more complete. Playtesting got cut short. As a result, although MRQII is a good game, its not the great game we knew it could be.

I know that MRQII/Legend has developed a loyal following, and that's gratifying, but, to Pete and I, we created RuneQuest. We want to continue that work and make it what we originally intended it to be, with the bells and whistles it was meant to have. Mongoose's retooling of MRQII into Legend wouldn't provide that opportunity and the digest-sized format wouldn't support it either. If we want to do what we originally set out to do, then acquiring the RQ license is the only way to do that.

RQ6 will be different to Legend. Sure, there'll be a high degree of compatibility and similarities, but they will be different games, graphically, mechanically (to some extent) and certainly philosophically - and it may be this last '-ally' that's a crucial factor in sales, loyalty and support.

We shall see.

So, what did you have to leave out from MRQII? It seems pretty complete, apart from the small bestiary and underdone Spirit Magic rules.

I am playing Runequest (some Mongoose version I think) once every week or two at the moment, for short (2.5-hour) sessions.

This particular group's main staples have been WHFRP 2e, D&D 3rd edition / 3.5 and Pathfinder. What two of them particularly like about Runequest and WHFRP 2e is that they are basically simple and quick-to-play systems in play, compared to D&D 3e and its offshoots. The 3rd guy is basically a big D&D 3e fanatic, but also enjoys RQ. Then there's me, and I'm completely different.

These guys (apart from me) are in their 40s and grew up on AD&D and suchlike (probably including old editions of RQ and WHFRP).

Speaking for myself, there is one thing which bugs me about RQ. The only way to get good at something is to really specialise in it, and you end up being vastly less good at similar things which are only very slightly different. For instance, the guy who loves D&D he's playing a girl with a two-handed sword who has like 95% to hit with the two-handed sword, but no particular skill at all with an axe or a mace (50%?). We're playing that you can put all your improvement rolls into the one skill if you like, but even if you couldn't, you would still end up with it being efficient to put your improvement rolls into, say, dodge, one melee weapon and then magic or a ranged weapon or some non-combat thing, so you would still end up being Mr. Fantastic with your chosen weapon but screw-all use with the others. It somewhat penalises people who want to fight with, say, a weapon and shield combination.

I'm not saying there's an easy fix to this problem. For starters I think the skill list is rather too long and ought to be cut down, but that's IMHO, YMMV. But I wonder would it be worth having a rule which says "if your skill X is naff, but you have a similar skill with a much higher %, you can just use that much better skill with say minus 20%". For instance, if you have 95% in sword, you have at least 75% in hand axe, at least 75% in shield, etc. This obviously creates issues of its own. What is a "similar skill" for starters? Also it would mean you could be putting lots of improvement rolls into a naff stat, and seeing no return at all from doing that. It would be tempting to say "you can use a % which is the average between your % in the actual skill and your % in your better but similar skill", but that gets fiddly and people would be wanting to do it all the time so it would slow the game down. For instance if I have long sword 40% and great sword 44% I would want to be having a 42% to hit chance with the long sword, which quickly gets naff.

If you cut the skill list down too much - for instance made all melee weapon skills the same - you would end up with a very different game, perhaps more to my tastes but not the same product.

So, I don't know the answer. But if you can address it while keeping the original flavour and simplicity of play of the game, that would be great.

My group in particular may be very happy to lap up new pre-written adventures as the guy who GMs RQ NEVER makes his own adventures up. It's always pre-written stuff. When we run out of pre-written RQ adventures to play (which may be some time, as I think he has them all, from previous editions as well), we will simply stop playing RQ until we get some more. I don't know how representative that is of your demographic of course. The guy who loves D&D 3e makes all his own adventures up. I don't know if the two games attract gamers with different mentalities along those lines, some liking simplicity and therefore also pre-written adventures, some liking more complex offerings and therefore also liking to make their own adventures up entirely.

BTW the opposed roll mechanic is really clever as it stands.

DISCLAIMER:- I don't really know the rules to RQ, I only know what I've picked up through play over the last few months. (I have the rules to the Basic Roleplaying system somewhere at home and read an intro pamphlet about a guy with a spear killing a bear, years ago, but I'd never played RQ until recently, and only one game of actual CoC.)

Omnifray,

The "fix" to your combat issue is combat styles which MRQII uses. In the book it wasn't completely clear, but there was an article in Signs and Portents #77 that made it explicit that combat styles can be as broadly interpreted as the DM/players want. So you might have something like Carolingian Knight and that style would include all the weapons that a soldier of that period would have trained in. You could even go really broad and have Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons if you want and it would fit right in with the system without having to change anything else.

Quote from: The_Shadow;468677So, what did you have to leave out from MRQII? It seems pretty complete, apart from the small bestiary and underdone Spirit Magic rules.

That's a tribute to how well Loz managed to trim down our page count. In the end were required to reduce the content by well over 20%, which was a tad frustrating as you can imagine. Hopefully you'll understand if I'd rather not go into detail over exactly what we shed.

Quote from: Claudius;468668I 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.

Let us just say that Loz and I have considerable hands-on experience of the Mongoose editing and publishing method...

grats on your new project!  glad i didn't pick up any of the cheap MRQII stuff recently--now i can wait for your 6e stuff to come out

My main concern is that I hope all the left-out material isn't more rules. Runequest is already rules-medium. Adding more rules just makes it too complicated to use at the table, especially when other similar alternatives exist (I actually think OpenQuest is the best iteration of the rules right now).

I hope this new edition has a much better visual presentation - this includes art and layout - than MRQII.

Quote from: ptingler;468687In the book it wasn't completely clear, but there was an article in Signs and Portents #77 that made it explicit that combat styles can be as broadly interpreted as the DM/players want.

Hopefully the new edition also clarifies which attributes form the basic skill percentage for styles which mixed melee and ranged weaponry. I for one hope they use STR+DEX for all combat styles.

I was very surprised and pleased by MRQII; I didn't really expect to like it, and I was blown away, even if there were a few holes or warts.  I'm very pleased to hear about RQ6.  I don't feel like I *need* another set of RQ rules, but knowing who is behind it, I'm betting that it will be a superior set of rules.  I'll be checking it out, no question.

Quote from: Loz;468676Yes, the irony of all this is that Design Mechanism's competing against something it created.

However...

MRQII really got rushed through. We had to trim page count when we'd been given a brief to produce something larger and more complete. Playtesting got cut short. As a result, although MRQII is a good game, its not the great game we knew it could be.

.

Quote from: silva;468702I hope this new edition has a much better visual presentation - this includes art and layout - than MRQII.

Agreed! I love the rules but MRQII looks rushed, the artwork and presentation are poor. Beyond the main MRQII rule book this is especially so! I also don't like the 'leather' bound books and would much prefer some decent artwork on them!

In all though this sounds great news - put me down for a copy. I don't like the rules being so tied to Glorantha in the main rulebook - so it is good to hear that this won't be so. I also hope that Necromantic Magic will be in the main book and that the bestiary section will include many more obvious fantasy creatures!

I can only think that this spells the end of Mongoose Legend though! Perhaps not a bad thing..?

Quote from: Claudius;468424FUCK. THAT.

My sentiments exactly!
Is 'Trollman' his real name or just a description?

I'm happy to hear about this development... I won't buy from Mongoose for any reason... so to have RQ in new/capable hands is great news.

Quote from: Loz;468676Yes, the irony of all this is that Design Mechanism's competing against something it created.

However...

MRQII really got rushed through. We had to trim page count when we'd been given a brief to produce something larger and more complete. Playtesting got cut short. As a result, although MRQII is a good game, its not the great game we knew it could be.

I know that MRQII/Legend has developed a loyal following, and that's gratifying, but, to Pete and I, we created RuneQuest. We want to continue that work and make it what we originally intended it to be, with the bells and whistles it was meant to have. Mongoose's retooling of MRQII into Legend wouldn't provide that opportunity and the digest-sized format wouldn't support it either. If we want to do what we originally set out to do, then acquiring the RQ license is the only way to do that.

RQ6 will be different to Legend. Sure, there'll be a high degree of compatibility and similarities, but they will be different games, graphically, mechanically (to some extent) and certainly philosophically - and it may be this last '-ally' that's a crucial factor in sales, loyalty and support.

We shall see.

Thank you for the explanation.

Frankly, your names on RQ6 is a big selling point for me. I'm convinced RQ6 will be as good or even better than MRQ2, and sooner or later I'll get a copy.

Quote from: Mikko Leho;468704Hopefully the new edition also clarifies which attributes form the basic skill percentage for styles which mixed melee and ranged weaponry. I for one hope they use STR+DEX for all combat styles.

From the S&P article:

QuoteTo keep the bookkeeping easier, the base Characteristics of a condensed Combat Style involving both melee and missile weapons remains as STR+DEX.