[RQ-Rules] Any news of Mongoose RQ?

[Dana Myers]

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" <steve at perrinworlds.com>
>Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." <rq-rules at crashbox.com>
>To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." <rq-rules at crashbox.com>
>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" <magicfirewheel at yahoo.com.au>
>To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." <rq-rules at crashbox.com>
>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