From magicfirewheel at yahoo.com.au Sun Sep 4 20:32:41 2005 From: magicfirewheel at yahoo.com.au (David) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:32:41 +1000 (EST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Thoughts, and are there any online games around? Message-ID: <20050904103241.64403.qmail@web60418.mail.yahoo.com> Hello all. Some random thoughts from someone who has just got back into RQ after a short (!) ten-year hiatus, and then a request. I was only a casual player back in the day, and it has been fascinating catching up with the history of the game. And a little sobering, I must admit. You know, back in the 80's as a teenager, I vaguely thought that games designers drove around in sports cars and that Chaosium was some massive corporate machine. And now it seems that the great game of Runequest is kept alive only by a small number of devotees. And that group is fragmented into a number of tribes. Although I was enthusiastic at first when I heard about the Mongoose and DBRP projects, now I'm not so sure. We are already divided into Gloranthans/non-Gloranthans/HeroQuesters/RQII'ers and III'ers...it seems inevitable that some will go over to the two new games and that some (many?) will not. For mine, I'm fairly committed to RQIII in my own campaign world which I am currently working on. But finding players is difficult, and when the new games come out it will be much easier to convince players, especially younger ones, to join in a game that is currently supported. Anyway, I am not sure if this is the place to ask, but can anyone point me in the direction of an online game/PBEM? I haven't been able to find any so far. cheers David Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sun Sep 4 23:25:51 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 06:25:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Thoughts, and are there any online games around? In-Reply-To: <20050904103241.64403.qmail@web60418.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050904132552.93975.qmail@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Trying to stay vaguely on topic, I run a very heavily RQ-inspired pbem based on 16th century Malay archipelago. The game has been running for some several months now and is quite stable, but more players is good. Are you interested? Kind regards, Lev --- David wrote: > Hello all. Some random thoughts from someone who has > just got back into RQ after a short (!) ten-year > hiatus, and then a request. > > I was only a casual player back in the day, and it > has been fascinating catching up with the history of > the game. And a little sobering, I must admit. You > know, back in the 80's as a teenager, I vaguely > thought that games designers drove around in sports > cars and that Chaosium was some massive corporate > machine. And now it seems that the great game of > Runequest is kept alive only by a small number of > devotees. And that group is fragmented into a number > of tribes. Although I was enthusiastic at first when > I > heard about the Mongoose and DBRP projects, now I'm > not so sure. We are already divided into > Gloranthans/non-Gloranthans/HeroQuesters/RQII'ers > and > III'ers...it seems inevitable that some will go over > to the two new games and that some (many?) will not. > For mine, I'm fairly committed to RQIII in my own > campaign world which I am currently working on. But > finding players is difficult, and when the new games > come out it will be much easier to convince players, > especially younger ones, to join in a game that is > currently supported. > > Anyway, I am not sure if this is the place to ask, > but > can anyone point me in the direction of an online > game/PBEM? I haven't been able to find any so far. > > cheers > David > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 00:11:29 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 07:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Thoughts, and are there any online games around? In-Reply-To: <20050904132552.93975.qmail@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050904141129.25102.qmail@web34311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> There is also one at: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/godlearner_group/ The game is partially Gloranthan and requires participation (no lurkers). Leon --- Lev Lafayette wrote: > > Trying to stay vaguely on topic, I run a very > heavily > RQ-inspired pbem based on 16th century Malay > archipelago. > > The game has been running for some several months > now > and is quite stable, but more players is good. Are > you > interested? > > Kind regards, > > > Lev ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 5 10:23:50 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 17:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Thoughts, and are there any online games around? In-Reply-To: <20050904141129.25102.qmail@web34311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050905002351.73502.qmail@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Heck, I think I may join in that one myself! Kind regards, Lev --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > There is also one at: > > http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/godlearner_group/ > > The game is partially Gloranthan and requires > participation (no lurkers). > > Leon > > --- Lev Lafayette > wrote: > > > > > Trying to stay vaguely on topic, I run a very > > heavily > > RQ-inspired pbem based on 16th century Malay > > archipelago. > > > > The game has been running for some several months > > now > > and is quite stable, but more players is good. Are > > you > > interested? > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Lev > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > ______________________________________________________ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From Rjmeints at aol.com Mon Sep 5 11:04:02 2005 From: Rjmeints at aol.com (Rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:04:02 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Borderlands & Beyond (B&B) reprint and pre-orders Message-ID: <102.689ba463.304cf382@aol.com> Hello all, At long last I am proud to announce that Gloranthan Classics, Volume IV: Borderlands & Beyond is almost ready to go to the printers. This 300+ page book is much like the three previous volumes in quality, look and feel, format, etc. This volume contains ALL of the material from the Borderlands boxed set, Plunder, and Runemasters. They all use the Runequest 2 rules. I have also included additional Plunder items, expanded Runemasters character histories, and loads of background info from Nomad Gods and Wyrms Footnotes magazine. As usual, the book has a full colour cover, courtesy of Dario Corallo. The interior is lavishly illustrated with dozens of new pictures from Simon Bray, Dario Corallo, plus loads of oldies but goodies from Lisa Free, Luise Perrinne, Gene Day and Rick Becker. I have a large printers bill looming shortly. Thus, I am now ready and able to take advanced orders on the book. To help entice all of you to place an advance order, and also to reward the loyal fan base, I am offering the following deals for a limited time: Softcover B&B ($40 cover price): Preorder for $30. Hardcover B&B ($60 cover price): Preorder for $45. Overseas (non-US) customers. I can ship these books airmail for an extra $10 for softcover or $20 for hardcover. Also, to help clear some stock, get a Cult Compendium or the Griffin Mountain softcover for just another $25 each. Thus, get the three softcovers (B&B, CC, and GM) for just $80. Airmail is $10 a book on the softcovers. I'll run this deal for the month of September, or the first 300 orders, whichever milestone I get to first. My paypal email is _rjmeints at aol.com_ (mailto:rjmeints at aol.com) and I'll have my website updated soon with all this info as well. Thanks, Rick Meints Moon Design Publications _www.glorantha.info_ (http://www.glorantha.info) From wbcreighton at yahoo.ca Mon Sep 5 15:27:21 2005 From: wbcreighton at yahoo.ca (Warren Creighton) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 01:27:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Online runequest Message-ID: <20050905052721.78080.qmail@web30214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Try joining this group: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/GloranthaInternetGaming/ and put out a request for a game with openings. It is more than just Glorantha and more than just Runequest. Warren __________________________________________________________ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Sep 5 18:30:37 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:30:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Thoughts, and are there any online games around? In-Reply-To: <20050905002426.3CA862226CC@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050905083037.41949.qmail@web51002.mail.yahoo.com> David: > I was only a casual player back in the day, and it > has been fascinating catching up with the history of > the game. And a little sobering, I must admit. You > know, back in the 80's as a teenager, I vaguely > thought that games designers drove around in sports > cars and that Chaosium was some massive corporate > machine. Didn't we all? It was a shock to find out that Chaosium and Issaries were virtually one-man-and-his-shed operations. > And now it seems that the great game of > Runequest is kept alive only by a small number of > devotees. And that group is fragmented into a number > of tribes. Although I was enthusiastic at first when I > heard about the Mongoose and DBRP projects, now I'm > not so sure. We are already divided into > Gloranthans/non-Gloranthans/HeroQuesters/RQII'ers and > III'ers...it seems inevitable that some will go over > to the two new games and that some (many?) will not. And they will argue about which is best. I, for one, will continue to use the best of all of them and have a more generic version of RQ when, and if, I play. > For mine, I'm fairly committed to RQIII in my own > campaign world which I am currently working on. But > finding players is difficult, and when the new games > come out it will be much easier to convince players, > especially younger ones, to join in a game that is > currently supported. Well, you should be able to use old scenarios with any new version of the game and vice versa. It might take a bit of work tweaking the stats, but the same happened with RQ2/RQ3. > Anyway, I am not sure if this is the place to ask, but > can anyone point me in the direction of an online > game/PBEM? I haven't been able to find any so far. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/RQ_Rome was looking for new players at one stage, but it looks a bit quiet, so it may have died. There was a Japanese one by the same GM, but that might have died as well. If you try searching Yahoo Groups you will find loads of PBeM games for RQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=runequest Simon From glorantha at hemulen.demon.co.uk Tue Sep 6 02:53:40 2005 From: glorantha at hemulen.demon.co.uk (Glorantha) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:53:40 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 21, Issue 1 In-Reply-To: <20050905002426.9A8702226CE@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050905002426.9A8702226CE@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: Phil Hibbs wote: > Maintaining a spell just happens. A sorcerer can maintain a number of > points of spell up to his current Presence rating. So if I have a Presence of 20, > I can have Damage Boosting 10 and Damage Resistance 10 up and running. If > I want to have Spirit Resistance, I have to drop one of the existing spells, I > might consider re-casting them at 7, 7 and 6. This is in contrast to RQ3, > where the number of spells is not limited, but you have to put points into > Duration. Interestingly enough, all versions of Sandy's sorcery rules that I've seen say: "If a sorcerer has more total levels in effect that his Presence, he cannot cast any spells, until enough of his spells have been dropped to reduce the total levels below his Presence." Strictly speaking, this reads that you can cast a spell of any size and maintain it, as long as you have at least 1 spare Presence, since it's only when your Presence is overextended that you are prevented from casting any more. I've never been sure if this was intended or a typo. cheers, Mark -- Mark Buckley Always start what you finish From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Sep 6 10:55:03 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 19:55:03 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Borderlands & Beyond (B&B) reprint and pre-orders Message-ID: <11428058.1125968103042.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Awesome! What does shipping run for inside the U.S. (as in Dallas, TX)? David Smart From anthony.emmel at gmail.com Wed Sep 7 03:40:03 2005 From: anthony.emmel at gmail.com (Anthony Emmel) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:40:03 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Borderlands & Beyond (B&B) reprint and pre-orders In-Reply-To: <11428058.1125968103042.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <11428058.1125968103042.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Chello! On 9/5/05, David Smart wrote: Awesome! What does shipping run for inside the U.S. (as in Dallas, TX)? Well, that depends...if you can fit it inside a priority envelope, $3.85...in a flat-rate priorirty box, $7.70. Anthony N. Emmel Scholar & Catholic Gentleman 6? The high praises of God shall be in their mouth: and two-edged swords in their hands: 7 To execute vengeance upon the nations, chastisements among the people: 8 To bind their kings with fetters, and their nobles with manacles of iron. 9 To execute upon them the judgment that is written: this glory is to all his saints. Alleluia. Psalm 149, DRV From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Sep 19 20:24:00 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:24:00 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Leons website down ? Message-ID: <000801c5bd04$407e6030$17628456@sickboy> I keep getting a message saying his website is offline, anyone else getting this ? From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 20:45:54 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:45:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Website Changes In-Reply-To: <20050905002426.3CA862226CC@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050919104554.96158.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> Hiya All My Gloranthan/RuneQuest/HeroQuest website has moved so links to individual pages no longer work, thanks to those nice and extremely competent people at Yahoo! (You have a nice free website for 8 years that works a treat with next to no problems, then you upgrade to the pay version and everything goes wrong :-(( ). If you have any web pages that pointed to my old sites at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/1481 or www.geocities.com/soltakss then please change the links to point to www.soltakss.com. For instance, linking to my index page would be www.soltakss.com/index.html not www.geocities.com/soltakss/index.html or http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/1481/index.html. Many Thanks Simon From rjmeints at aol.com Mon Sep 19 23:27:40 2005 From: rjmeints at aol.com (rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:27:40 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Borderlands & Beyond reprint Message-ID: <8C78B350B4046E3-1638-78BA@MBLK-M07.sysops.aol.com> Hello all, A couple of people have asked questions about ordering the book. It includes everything from Borderlands, Plunder, and Runemasters. It is 304 pages and is available in hardcover or softcover. The pre-order prices are $30 for the softcover and $45 for the hardcover. Postage in the US is included, for everywhere else it's an extra $10 for airmail. You can preorder until the end of September. the book will be back from the printers in early October. Then the prices go back up to cover price. The book is too big for the excellently priced priority mail ebvelope, so I can't use that to ship. It fits in a priority mail box of course, but I use a padded/bubble envelope for shipments. Also, this book, like all the others in the series, uses the RQ2 rules, since that was what they were written to support. Between the 4 books in the series you have over 1200 pages of RQ2 in print. I can accept payments in check, money order or paypal. More info is on my website. Thanks, Rick www.glorantha.info From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Sep 19 23:51:35 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:51:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Leons website down ? Message-ID: <20050919135136.5961.qmail@web35615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have been having ISP issues. It should be back up sometime later today. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > I keep getting a message saying his website is offline, anyone else > getting this ? > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From magicfirewheel at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 27 10:47:00 2005 From: magicfirewheel at yahoo.com.au (David) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:47:00 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? Message-ID: <43389684.4090902@yahoo.com.au> Is anyone able to divulge any specifics about the new rules currently in playtest? I'm very curious and finding it difficult to wait another year or so for the game to come out...but there seems to be little info available at the Mongoose forums. Glad it's coming out though...I am currently preparing my first RQ game in 10 years and in persuading the players to give it a go (a mix of D&D and Rolemaster players) it was helpful to be able to assure them that it is not just a defunct artifact of the 1980s :-) cheers David G. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Sep 28 01:03:36 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:03:36 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? Message-ID: >Is anyone able to divulge any specifics about the new rules currently in >playtest? I'm very curious and finding it difficult to wait another year >or so for the game to come out...but there seems to be little info >available at the Mongoose forums. No one in the "open playtest" group has actually signed a formal NDA as far as I am aware, but we were told that if any of the playtest files became public, that group would be shut down. So I'll not be quoting specifics, and the playtest is not yet finished - Greg Lynch (the writer assigned to the project) has said he expects to put at least one more iteration out to the playtest group and the group consensus would seem to be that there is a lot still to be done... But assuming Mongooses typical production cycle, there isn't much time. >Glad it's coming out though...I am currently preparing my first RQ game >in 10 years and in persuading the players to give it a go (a mix of D&D >and Rolemaster players) it was helpful to be able to assure them that it >is not just a defunct artifact of the 1980s :-) I hate to say this David, but leaving aside Chaosium's BRP monographs, the game you and I (and everyone on this list) know as "RuneQuest" _is_ "a defunct artifact of the 1980s" because whatever else Mongoose's new games is, it is NOT a new version of the old RuneQuest by an commonsense definition of "new version". The current game (playtest draft 1.4) is NOT a RQI - RQII step change, it's not even an RQII - RQIII. It's closest analogy is the difference between Classic (Little Black Book) Traveller and Marc Miller's Traveller (T4): a lot of similar concepts, same sort of dice, some shared terms. But _not_ the same game. Whether it is a good game is harder to answer - it's not finished yet for one, and various members of the playtest group (myself included) are still unhappy about a lot of details. On the other hand, there are some nice large scale touches which have generally been well received (including several significant contributions from Mr S Perrin...) and the groups views against some earlier ideas (in drafts 1.1 and 1.2 for example) have been taken on board : and I at least am under no illusions that the entire playtest group will be completely happy with the final version. But we are, in general, happier with 1.4 than 1.3, and with 1.3 over 1.2, so it's been moving in the right direction. So we shall have to see where it goes. Cheers, Nick Middleton From vikingjarl at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 01:26:46 2005 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:26:46 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've got to agree with Nick's assessment. I've been fortunate enough to once again be in Mr. Perrin's play-test group. Much of the input to Mongoose is not included in Mr Lynch's versions, but I still hold out hope. A lot of good ideas have been tossed around & input added. I think it will be a good game, not really RQ viscerally, and I will probably end up finding myself playing an earlier version of the rules at home. I guess I'm too much of an RQ Grognard. I will say it will be worth buying & using over all though. Please don't reject it since it's not the '80s version. Sven -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 8:04 AM To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? >Is anyone able to divulge any specifics about the new rules currently in >playtest? I'm very curious and finding it difficult to wait another year >or so for the game to come out...but there seems to be little info >available at the Mongoose forums. No one in the "open playtest" group has actually signed a formal NDA as far as I am aware, but we were told that if any of the playtest files became public, that group would be shut down. So I'll not be quoting specifics, and the playtest is not yet finished - Greg Lynch (the writer assigned to the project) has said he expects to put at least one more iteration out to the playtest group and the group consensus would seem to be that there is a lot still to be done... But assuming Mongooses typical production cycle, there isn't much time. >Glad it's coming out though...I am currently preparing my first RQ game >in 10 years and in persuading the players to give it a go (a mix of D&D >and Rolemaster players) it was helpful to be able to assure them that it >is not just a defunct artifact of the 1980s :-) I hate to say this David, but leaving aside Chaosium's BRP monographs, the game you and I (and everyone on this list) know as "RuneQuest" _is_ "a defunct artifact of the 1980s" because whatever else Mongoose's new games is, it is NOT a new version of the old RuneQuest by an commonsense definition of "new version". The current game (playtest draft 1.4) is NOT a RQI - RQII step change, it's not even an RQII - RQIII. It's closest analogy is the difference between Classic (Little Black Book) Traveller and Marc Miller's Traveller (T4): a lot of similar concepts, same sort of dice, some shared terms. But _not_ the same game. Whether it is a good game is harder to answer - it's not finished yet for one, and various members of the playtest group (myself included) are still unhappy about a lot of details. On the other hand, there are some nice large scale touches which have generally been well received (including several significant contributions from Mr S Perrin...) and the groups views against some earlier ideas (in drafts 1.1 and 1.2 for example) have been taken on board : and I at least am under no illusions that the entire playtest group will be completely happy with the final version. But we are, in general, happier with 1.4 than 1.3, and with 1.3 over 1.2, so it's been moving in the right direction. So we shall have to see where it goes. Cheers, Nick Middleton _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From Tony.Williamson at aucklandcity.govt.nz Wed Sep 28 05:17:57 2005 From: Tony.Williamson at aucklandcity.govt.nz (Williamson, Tony) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:17:57 +1200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? Message-ID: <05Sep28.072127nzst.336074@inetgate.akcity.govt.nz> Very disappointing to hear it's not the RQII version with add-ons. It seems so strange that RQII was such a successful game that these rues haven't been taken up again. Our game group and I were so excited to hear that the game was basically going to be RQII again, but I guess this is not going to be the case. Cheers, Tony Williamson (New Zealand) -----Original Message----- From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com [mailto:Nick.Middleton at invensys.com] Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2005 3:04 a.m. To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? >Is anyone able to divulge any specifics about the new rules currently in >playtest? I'm very curious and finding it difficult to wait another year >or so for the game to come out...but there seems to be little info >available at the Mongoose forums. No one in the "open playtest" group has actually signed a formal NDA as far as I am aware, but we were told that if any of the playtest files became public, that group would be shut down. So I'll not be quoting specifics, and the playtest is not yet finished - Greg Lynch (the writer assigned to the project) has said he expects to put at least one more iteration out to the playtest group and the group consensus would seem to be that there is a lot still to be done... But assuming Mongooses typical production cycle, there isn't much time. >Glad it's coming out though...I am currently preparing my first RQ game >in 10 years and in persuading the players to give it a go (a mix of D&D >and Rolemaster players) it was helpful to be able to assure them that it >is not just a defunct artifact of the 1980s :-) I hate to say this David, but leaving aside Chaosium's BRP monographs, the game you and I (and everyone on this list) know as "RuneQuest" _is_ "a defunct artifact of the 1980s" because whatever else Mongoose's new games is, it is NOT a new version of the old RuneQuest by an commonsense definition of "new version". The current game (playtest draft 1.4) is NOT a RQI - RQII step change, it's not even an RQII - RQIII. It's closest analogy is the difference between Classic (Little Black Book) Traveller and Marc Miller's Traveller (T4): a lot of similar concepts, same sort of dice, some shared terms. But _not_ the same game. Whether it is a good game is harder to answer - it's not finished yet for one, and various members of the playtest group (myself included) are still unhappy about a lot of details. On the other hand, there are some nice large scale touches which have generally been well received (including several significant contributions from Mr S Perrin...) and the groups views against some earlier ideas (in drafts 1.1 and 1.2 for example) have been taken on board : and I at least am under no illusions that the entire playtest group will be completely happy with the final version. But we are, in general, happier with 1.4 than 1.3, and with 1.3 over 1.2, so it's been moving in the right direction. So we shall have to see where it goes. Cheers, Nick Middleton _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules This email is confidential. If it is not intended for you please do not read, distribute or copy it or any attachments. Please notify the sender by return email and delete the original message and any attachments. Any views expressed in this email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Auckland City Council. From magicfirewheel at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 28 10:48:11 2005 From: magicfirewheel at yahoo.com.au (David) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:48:11 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4339E84B.3090201@yahoo.com.au> Must be a bit frustrating to be a playtester who primarily would like to see an updated RQII or a tweaked RQIII. I wonder why Mongoose chose to take this approach? If the game is not really an update of RQII/III but something new, it is just another generic fantasy game. To me the game needs to have a high level of compatibility with old RQ material at the least. And surely the old BRP rules were sufficiently well designed that with some tweaking, newer players would not really feel them to be dated. No need for a ground-up redesign. It seems that either a) the game designer wanted to write his own kewl game, RQ heritage be damned, or b) copyright issues made the redesign necessary. While the copyright was always going to be an issue, I was still hoping that the core rules could be kept. I'll give the new game a fair hearing, but now pretty much expect to keep playing RQIII. Or maybe Deluxe BRP when it comes out. David G. Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > >No one in the "open playtest" group has actually signed a formal NDA as far >as I am aware, but we were told that if any of the playtest files became >public, that group would be shut down. So I'll not be quoting specifics, >and the playtest is not yet finished - Greg Lynch (the writer assigned to >the project) has said he expects to put at least one more iteration out to >the playtest group and the group consensus would seem to be that there is a >lot still to be done... But assuming Mongooses typical production cycle, >there isn't much time. > > > >I hate to say this David, but leaving aside Chaosium's BRP monographs, the >game you and I (and everyone on this list) know as "RuneQuest" _is_ "a >defunct artifact of the 1980s" because whatever else Mongoose's new games >is, it is NOT a new version of the old RuneQuest by an commonsense >definition of "new version". > >The current game (playtest draft 1.4) is NOT a RQI - RQII step change, it's >not even an RQII - RQIII. It's closest analogy is the difference between >Classic (Little Black Book) Traveller and Marc Miller's Traveller (T4): a >lot of similar concepts, same sort of dice, some shared terms. But _not_ >the same game. > >Whether it is a good game is harder to answer - it's not finished yet for >one, and various members of the playtest group (myself included) are still >unhappy about a lot of details. On the other hand, there are some nice >large scale touches which have generally been well received (including >several significant contributions from Mr S Perrin...) and the groups views >against some earlier ideas (in drafts 1.1 and 1.2 for example) have been >taken on board : and I at least am under no illusions that the entire >playtest group will be completely happy with the final version. But we are, >in general, happier with 1.4 than 1.3, and with 1.3 over 1.2, so it's been >moving in the right direction. > >So we shall have to see where it goes. > >Cheers, > >Nick Middleton > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Sep 28 12:13:10 2005 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:13:10 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? References: <4339E84B.3090201@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: <004a01c5c3d2$3c7b7700$68417442@wizard> I'm still seeing a lot of similarity, and I am involved, after all. The BRP issue is a big one, however. If Chaosium wasn't doing DRP, it would probably not be an issue. I am rather anxiously awaiting Greg Lynch's iteration of the rules and meanwhile working on the magic, which seems to have met with his approval and has a lot in common with the old rules, while being entirely different and actually giving some meaning to Rune Quest. :) Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "David" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? > Must be a bit frustrating to be a playtester who primarily would like to > see an updated RQII or a tweaked RQIII. I wonder why Mongoose chose to > take this approach? If the game is not really an update of RQII/III but > something new, it is just another generic fantasy game. To me the game > needs to have a high level of compatibility with old RQ material at the > least. > And surely the old BRP rules were sufficiently well designed that with > some tweaking, newer players would not really feel them to be dated. No > need for a ground-up redesign. It seems that either a) the game designer > wanted to write his own kewl game, RQ heritage be damned, or b) copyright > issues made the redesign necessary. While the copyright was always going > to be an issue, I was still hoping that the core rules could be kept. > > I'll give the new game a fair hearing, but now pretty much expect to keep > playing RQIII. Or maybe Deluxe BRP when it comes out. > > David G. > > > > > > Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > >> >>No one in the "open playtest" group has actually signed a formal NDA as >>far >>as I am aware, but we were told that if any of the playtest files became >>public, that group would be shut down. So I'll not be quoting specifics, >>and the playtest is not yet finished - Greg Lynch (the writer assigned to >>the project) has said he expects to put at least one more iteration out to >>the playtest group and the group consensus would seem to be that there is >>a >>lot still to be done... But assuming Mongooses typical production cycle, >>there isn't much time. >> >> >>I hate to say this David, but leaving aside Chaosium's BRP monographs, the >>game you and I (and everyone on this list) know as "RuneQuest" _is_ "a >>defunct artifact of the 1980s" because whatever else Mongoose's new games >>is, it is NOT a new version of the old RuneQuest by an commonsense >>definition of "new version". >> >>The current game (playtest draft 1.4) is NOT a RQI - RQII step change, >>it's >>not even an RQII - RQIII. It's closest analogy is the difference between >>Classic (Little Black Book) Traveller and Marc Miller's Traveller (T4): a >>lot of similar concepts, same sort of dice, some shared terms. But _not_ >>the same game. >> >>Whether it is a good game is harder to answer - it's not finished yet for >>one, and various members of the playtest group (myself included) are still >>unhappy about a lot of details. On the other hand, there are some nice >>large scale touches which have generally been well received (including >>several significant contributions from Mr S Perrin...) and the groups >>views >>against some earlier ideas (in drafts 1.1 and 1.2 for example) have been >>taken on board : and I at least am under no illusions that the entire >>playtest group will be completely happy with the final version. But we >>are, >>in general, happier with 1.4 than 1.3, and with 1.3 over 1.2, so it's been >>moving in the right direction. >> >>So we shall have to see where it goes. >> >>Cheers, >> >>Nick Middleton >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>RQ-Rules mailing list >>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >>http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules >> >> > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From magicfirewheel at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 28 13:39:31 2005 From: magicfirewheel at yahoo.com.au (David) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:39:31 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? In-Reply-To: <004a01c5c3d2$3c7b7700$68417442@wizard> References: <4339E84B.3090201@yahoo.com.au> <004a01c5c3d2$3c7b7700$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <433A1073.3040005@yahoo.com.au> I am thankful that you are so involved with the game Steve. That certainly lends it more credibility. Couple more questions, for those in the know: a) What are Greg Lynch's prior game design credits? b) What is Mongoose's primary intention for the game? To revive an old school classic for the fans, or create a new generic fantasy vehicle? Seems like they are not overly concerned about the former, and I am not sure there is a great need in the marketplace for the latter, but who knows... Someone blogged that the very revival of RQ heralded a shift away from the d20 monolith in terms of marketing strategy for mid-tier gaming houses like Mongoose. Of course, they may not have a strategy at all, apart from leveraging the RQ name to sell a couple thousand books :-\ David G. Stephen Perrin wrote: > I'm still seeing a lot of similarity, and I am involved, after all. > > The BRP issue is a big one, however. If Chaosium wasn't doing DRP, it > would probably not be an issue. > > I am rather anxiously awaiting Greg Lynch's iteration of the rules and > meanwhile working on the magic, which seems to have met with his > approval and has a lot in common with the old rules, while being > entirely different and actually giving some meaning to Rune Quest. :) > > Steve > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 28 13:54:29 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? In-Reply-To: <433A1073.3040005@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: <20050928035429.80175.qmail@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- David wrote: > I am thankful that you are so involved with the game > Steve. That > certainly lends it more credibility. > > Couple more questions, for those in the know: > > a) What are Greg Lynch's prior game design credits? A couple of modules and sourcebooks (Conan RPG, Tome of Drow Lore) and the Wars system, afiak. > b) What is Mongoose's primary intention for the > game? To revive an old > school classic for the fans, or create a new generic > fantasy vehicle? A cynical person may suggest that they've got a trademark and they're going to use it. But they *are* a business. Of course that said if they write a *very* good new game they'll sell more than a couple of thousand... My feelings on RQM are pretty neutral. It's going to be initially released as a fairly short book; more about RQII length, or at least that was the plan. As such an idea much of the detail (such as character backgrouns in RQ III) is lost, which is a shame imo, but there are limits of course. The new proposed spell system is quite adaptable and it really is about questing for runes, which is a lot of fun. Glorantha has a fairly prominent place in the system. Not as strong as RQ II, not as weak as RQ III. All the best, Lev Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ From gloomshark at hotmail.com Fri Sep 30 05:12:17 2005 From: gloomshark at hotmail.com (Dana Myers) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:12:17 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? In-Reply-To: <004a01c5c3d2$3c7b7700$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: I've got to agree. Maybe its just starting from Rq and going to playtest versions 1.1 to 1.4, but you can still see where RQ is in the rules, and even if the rest of the game ends up falling down, I would get it for Mr. Perrins magic rules alone. >From: "Stephen Perrin" >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? >Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:13:10 -0700 > >I'm still seeing a lot of similarity, and I am involved, after all. > >The BRP issue is a big one, however. If Chaosium wasn't doing DRP, it >would probably not be an issue. > >I am rather anxiously awaiting Greg Lynch's iteration of the rules and >meanwhile working on the magic, which seems to have met with his approval >and has a lot in common with the old rules, while being entirely different >and actually giving some meaning to Rune Quest. :) > >Steve > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "David" >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:48 PM >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ? > > >>Must be a bit frustrating to be a playtester who primarily would like to >>see an updated RQII or a tweaked RQIII. I wonder why Mongoose chose to >>take this approach? If the game is not really an update of RQII/III but >>something new, it is just another generic fantasy game. To me the game >>needs to have a high level of compatibility with old RQ material at the >>least. >>And surely the old BRP rules were sufficiently well designed that with >>some tweaking, newer players would not really feel them to be dated. No >>need for a ground-up redesign. It seems that either a) the game designer >>wanted to write his own kewl game, RQ heritage be damned, or b) copyright >>issues made the redesign necessary. While the copyright was always going >>to be an issue, I was still hoping that the core rules could be kept. >> >>I'll give the new game a fair hearing, but now pretty much expect to keep >>playing RQIII. Or maybe Deluxe BRP when it comes out. >> >>David G. >> >> >> >> >> >>Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >> >>> >>>No one in the "open playtest" group has actually signed a formal NDA as >>>far >>>as I am aware, but we were told that if any of the playtest files became >>>public, that group would be shut down. So I'll not be quoting specifics, >>>and the playtest is not yet finished - Greg Lynch (the writer assigned to >>>the project) has said he expects to put at least one more iteration out >>>to >>>the playtest group and the group consensus would seem to be that there is >>>a >>>lot still to be done... But assuming Mongooses typical production cycle, >>>there isn't much time. >>> >>> >>>I hate to say this David, but leaving aside Chaosium's BRP monographs, >>>the >>>game you and I (and everyone on this list) know as "RuneQuest" _is_ "a >>>defunct artifact of the 1980s" because whatever else Mongoose's new games >>>is, it is NOT a new version of the old RuneQuest by an commonsense >>>definition of "new version". >>> >>>The current game (playtest draft 1.4) is NOT a RQI - RQII step change, >>>it's >>>not even an RQII - RQIII. It's closest analogy is the difference between >>>Classic (Little Black Book) Traveller and Marc Miller's Traveller (T4): a >>>lot of similar concepts, same sort of dice, some shared terms. But _not_ >>>the same game. >>> >>>Whether it is a good game is harder to answer - it's not finished yet for >>>one, and various members of the playtest group (myself included) are >>>still >>>unhappy about a lot of details. On the other hand, there are some nice >>>large scale touches which have generally been well received (including >>>several significant contributions from Mr S Perrin...) and the groups >>>views >>>against some earlier ideas (in drafts 1.1 and 1.2 for example) have been >>>taken on board : and I at least am under no illusions that the entire >>>playtest group will be completely happy with the final version. But we >>>are, >>>in general, happier with 1.4 than 1.3, and with 1.3 over 1.2, so it's >>>been >>>moving in the right direction. >>> >>>So we shall have to see where it goes. >>> >>>Cheers, >>> >>>Nick Middleton >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>RQ-Rules mailing list >>>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>>http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >>>http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules >>> >>> >> >>Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com >>_______________________________________________ >>RQ-Rules mailing list >>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >>http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules >> > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules