[RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ?

[David]

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