[Runequest] Latest on RQ rights

Sven Lugar vikingjarl at gmail.com
Sat Jun 11 16:39:13 EST 2011


I'm am glad to be of help. I have a great deal of respect for both Greg 
& Steve and count them as friends and am proud they hold me as a friend. 
I'm more than glad to shed light on the early development days of RQ. I 
was glad to be a part of the process & have a minor contribution to it. 
I will always treasure those days.

I believe that Greg has the rights because of a standard "Reversion" 
Clause in the original rights. Greg wrote the original board games, 
White Bear, Red Moon - & - Nomad Gods, back in the 60's. It was shortly 
there after that I contacted him & became friends with him because of 
those games. Thus because of the Gloranthan materials & because he had 
contracted out (first to some-one else & then to Steve) the writing of 
the Runequest rules, he owned all the original materials including the 
RPG & source/background material. He still does; for example I had to 
contract out with him to use Gloranthan examples for the Tabletop 
miniatures game (Polemos Mythic Armies) I'm writing for Baccus 6mm 
because it uses Gloranthan examples & I've designed several Gloranthan 
Armies for the game. Greg is a generous Soul and a good friend & was 
glad to help me out. So I believe the rights reverted to him unless he 
legally abdicates them, as opposed to merely assigning use of them. It 
may make things confusing, but it doesn't mean Greg or anyone has done 
anything wrong or shady. Greg put a lot of time & effort & his Heart & 
Soul into Glorantha & justifiably wants to preserve it.

Heroquest has its own history based on where the intentions for Heroes 
arising out of Runequest. It wasn't the way I would have chosen perhaps 
it was another person's vision. As to Mongoose policy decisions, I'll 
not go there, because those who need to know, already know how I feel 
about a certain person and the reasons why. Though I will say this MRQ2 
is a return to good system & a good envisioning of the system in my 
opinion. I also like BRP for obvious reasons.

Sköl,
Sven

On 6/10/2011 6:41 PM, Vile wrote:
> Thanks for that fascinating anecdote, Sven! I and most of my 
> contemporaries had always assumed that the limited appearance of Runes 
> in the game was all there was to it - the "Rune-Quest" being nothing 
> more than the striving to attain Rune Lord or Rune Priest status. Of 
> course, looking back on it now with the benefit of your back story and 
> a more realistic knowledge of the technical writing process, it makes 
> perfect sense that the Runes as published were only a vestigial 
> remnant of the original manuscript.
>
> I believe the reason Greg has the rights to the name rather than 
> Chaosium is because he was quicker on the draw when it became 
> available again - if I remember correctly, it was sitting idle for a 
> little while and anyone could have picked up the TM. I wonder why Greg 
> doesn't use the name for HeroQuest? I suppose it wouldn't add much 
> value, while leasing out the TM could bring in a bit of cash for no 
> real effort. I think it was a mistake for Mongoose RuneQuest to be 
> tied to Glorantha, especially 2nd Age Glorantha, though. I just don't 
> think it (or, more importantly, the public perception of "it") stands 
> up that well as a modern game setting.
>
> --
> Vile
>
> On 11 June 2011 00:03, <runequest-request at rpgreview.net 
> <mailto:runequest-request at rpgreview.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     Message: 5
>     Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:03:52 -0700
>     From: Sven Lugar <vikingjarl at gmail.com <mailto:vikingjarl at gmail.com>>
>     To: RuneQuest Rules <runequest at rpgreview.net
>     <mailto:runequest at rpgreview.net>>
>     Subject: Re: [Runequest] Latest on RQ rights
>     Message-ID: <4DF24068.20208 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:4DF24068.20208 at gmail.com>>
>     Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>     I believe Greg came up with the title Runequest during the days before
>     the game development was turned over to Steve Perrin. I suspect the
>     choice of Runequest over other names in part had to do with the then
>     current popularity of Runes as a method of divination & thus had
>     market
>     appeal. During play-test there was some joking regarding names such as
>     "Cleaverquest" & "Golfbag Quest" (the former was due to limbs
>     constantly
>     being lopped off & the latter due to weapons frequently breaking).
>      But
>     despite the lack in the published version in the first playtests we
>     quested for Runes or Rune-charged objects quite a bit. Thus
>     "Rockquest"
>     was a name I coined for a while during the playtest. There was lots of
>     quests to find chips of God/Rune rock & the like. My copy of the
>     original playtest over stuffs a 2 inch brown binder. Needless to say
>     that was way to large to print for a reasonable cost so things were
>     stream-lined. Among the things lost were the copious references to
>     Runes
>     & Rune touched objects. As other people started adding to the
>     Gloranthan
>     Canon the Runes never got added back in. During the original
>     write-up of
>     Magic for the MRQ version, Steve attempted to add back in some of the
>     original ideas that were very Rune oriented but Mongoose chose to
>     reject
>     that approach. So I beg to differ - Questing for Runes was once a
>     primary focus of the system though admittedly it was prior to
>     publication or for those who were involved with the original
>     playtest. I
>     am still using it as a plot line in my current campaigns.
>     Sk?l,
>     Sven Lugar
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20110610/10ab2bef/attachment.html>


More information about the Runequest mailing list