[Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest

[Simon Phipp]

  I'll be getting my copy of Mongoose RQ tomorrow at Continuum, with any luck, so will have the weekend to digest and discuss. Comments are sure to follow.
   
  It is always difficult when discussing or commenting on new versions of rules etc. People have their own agendas, so this always colours the arguments. So, someone who liked RQ2 and hated RQ3 will say that it's not like RQ2. Someone with a bee in their bonnet about D20 in general will feel that Mongoose are not doing RQ justice. Dinosaurs like me will say it isn't as good as it was in my day.
   
  Don't forget that some of the early RQ2 offerings were absolutely rubbish as source material (Trolls and Trollkin, Fangs, Militia and whathisface, something and scorpionmen, although I know that people found them useful as pregenerated NPCs) but then they brought out the RQ2 gems. Initially, RQ3 was poor, although the rulebook was good, (Monster Coliseum, all the RQ2 reprints) but then they brought out some good stuff. Even Hero Wars had abysmal rulebooks but then brought some interesting things out eventually.
   
  I would expect that the first few things to come out Mongoose would be pretty poor, but as they get the feel of RQ they'll bring out better stuff.
   
  Thomas Zunder:
  > It's so difficult.
> On a public level it's great they're publishing RQ again.
> On a private level it's not quite the game I'd have liked.
   
  It never is, though. We took several years of distrust to move to RQ3 and we still use some RQ2 rules and other house rules.

  Still, something is much better than nothing.
   
  These days, I like supplements for the background and scenario ideas rather than the rules themselves, so I'm not that bothered if the rules stink to high heaven, as long as they generate more information.
   
  See Ya
   
  Simon
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060727/6a173a64/attachment.html