[Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Signs & Portents

[Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com]

>> 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.
>No it doesn't. Trademarks come and go, they can be bought and sold
>or can lapse and be obtained by someone else. If you let a Trademark
>lapse then it's your own stupid fault. Mongoose RQ is licenced from
>Issarie, which is owned by Greg Stafford who first brought out RQ.
>Where's the break in provenance there? Greg Stafford brought out RQ
>and Greg Stafford is licencing RQ. Sure, he set up Chaosium to make
>games and they owned RQ for a while, but relationships are made and
>break up. That's life again.

Chaosium still "own" the game RuneQuest though - the copyright of the text
of RQI, II & III resides with Chaosium (and they have RQIII in print as the
BRP monographs), and whilst the law in both the US and EU indulges in weird
hair-splitting about it, from a common sense practical point of view, RQ
the game is the description of how one plays the game communicated by that
text...

Added to which, Stafford spent much of the last decade (and I believe
Issaries web sites still does) claiming "RuneQuest" is fundamentally the
wrong system to describe and game in his precious Glorantha, yet when this
deal with Mongoose was announced was quick to indicate that the intention
was "the same system but not the same copyright words." The word
"hypocrite" sprang to mind and has stuck as far as I'm concerned...

>Personally, I have no problems with the so-called provenance of RQM.
>I wish the quality was better and that they had more scenario packs
>and better maps and their rules hung together properly, but any RQ
>is better than no RQ.

For a variety of reasons, not all related to the MRQ playest, I don't buy
Mongoose books, nor Issaries Inc books anymore. And since I was still
playing Runequest when there was no version in print, and introducing new
players to the game, I'm afraid I can't agree that "any RQ is better than
no RQ." Not to mention the fact that RQIII was back in print as the BRP
monographs for two years before MRQ saw print, and is STILL in print in
that form.

But, per my previous post, for good or ill this list, informally at least,
has always been about rule systems clearly derived from the original
RuneQuest by Steve Perrin & Co. So if I can ignore the Glorantha specific
conversations (which don't interest me as it's not a setting I've used
directly for decades), I can equally ignore the MRQ specific stuff (which I
personally find distasteful and mechanically uninteresting as most of the
features where MRQ differs from RQIII I think are flaws).

Albeit if this list (as was speculated about some little while ago) begins
to receive direct support from either Issaries or Mongoose (hosted on their
servers, or direct financial support) I'll be unsubscribing.

>I know you're going to say "Wait until DBRP comes out", but I can't
>see DBRP getting the kind of support or publishing the number of
>supplements that RQM has. So, DBRP might be a good system, if a bit
>bloated, but it won't be as strong as RQM.

*shrug* judging by the last playtest draft I saw as a rule system it's
already stronger (more internally consistent and flexible) than the MRQ SRD
and whilst it has a lot of optional rules they don't seem to clutter the
system too badly (albeit the final test will be how well structured the
published book is). But I agree it's unlikely to have the volume of
supplements that Mongoose churn out for MRQ - but then, I don't subscribe
to the "any RQ is better than no RQ" school of thought and will take
quality over quantity any day.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton



Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus detection software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability for any damage or loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended for the confidential use by the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other person without written consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify us immediately at the following address:  Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd (WRSL), PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - Tel 01249 441441 
Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd  is a subsidiary of  Invensys Plc.  Registered office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. 
Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421.