Vedr. [Rq-rules] Signs & Portents

[Peter Maranci]

"The same system using different words", Steve. My understanding is that
NONE of the profits from Mongoose RQ are going to the people who actually
created the RuneQuest system. Steve Perrin, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe that Mongoose RQ is the first system claiming to actually be
related to RQ 1, 2, and 3 in which none of the profits have gone to the
original system creators. RuneQuest: Slayers never pretended to be actually
related to the RuneQuest system. Neither did Issaries Heroquest (as opposed
to the never-published HeroQuest of RQ2/3 days).

It may be legal under the current twisted copyright/trademark laws of the
US, but I don't consider it ethical. Mongoose RQ represents a break in the
provenance of the RuneQuest system.

->Peter

On 7/30/07, Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/26/07, Peter Maranci <pmaranci at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. It would be a pity if a whole new generation of roleplayers got the
> > idea that all  RuneQuest sucks just because Mongoose is ruining it and
> > producing bad supplements! That would be pretty unfair, considering the
> > dubious provenance of Mongoose RQ.
> >
> > ->Peter
>
>
> Maybe it's just me, but "ruining" is a bit strong of a word; perhaps you
> want to rein back the  Mongoose-hatred-bias leaking in there?
>
> Runequest has been a wonderful game system for a long time, but let's be
> honest: "Runequest" and "moribund" have been synonymous since the early
> 90's.
>
> Certainly one could be one of the orthodox (if not downright Talmudic)
> Runequestophiles who believe anything tainting the Sacred Word shall be
> apostasy (would that be the Sacred Word 2nd Ed. or 3rd?).  For my money,
> it's a worthwhile exercise to have SOMETHING even marginally Runequesty to
> be out on the gameshelves again, if only for people to see that there is
> SOMETHING other then d20.
>
> Even if I agreed with you that Mongoose was putting out particularly
> crappy product (you've apparently forgotten Daughters of Darkness?
> Elderad?  Dobyski art? the previous RQ legacy was hardly untainted...) the
> idea that people might be just thinking about Runequest again is, IMO, a
> good thing.
>
> And please, "dubious provenance"? - you've got to be kidding.  Compared to
> what?  HQ?  RQ:Slayers?  They both have presumably better "claims" to the
> mantle of 'current successor to RQ' than Mongoose's, neh?
>
> -Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> RQ-Rules mailing list
> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules
>
>


-- 
Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com
Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm
The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070730/20e05d1f/attachment.html