From: David Cake (davidc@cs.uwa.oz.au)
Date: Thu 13 Jan 1994 - 06:54:24 EET
>
>
> Dave Cake raises three issues in response to my comments:
>
> Concerning RQ3 as a publication:
> >
> >Well, I didn't mind the blandness - because I used RQ3 as RULES. Sorry to
> >shout, but I read them, thought about which rules I liked, decided most where
> >OK, some overdue, and some ill-considered. I already had some great RQ2
> >supplements - I still had Glorantha, I didn't need to buy it again.
>
> I assessed RQ3 as RULES and found it lacking. Thinking about the rules
> that I like I rejected the publication. My perspective was that I had a good
> enough rule system in RQ2 and RQ3 did not add anything worth while. However
> I did decide that the Magic Book was worth picking up and subsequently bought
> a second hand copy.
>
Well, The only real big change in the main rules book was the new character
creation system which has good points and bad points when compared with RQ2,
but I can well understand not likeing it. I think many people end up using
a fair few house rules with both RQ2 and RQ3 (I remember a certain argument
about parrying rules in RQ2 that ended up with the game stopping for hours
while people used large sticks and kitchen knives to assess the parrying
abilities of daggers and hafted weapons!). Certainly RQ3 has many flaws -
and we all agree or we wouldn't be interested in RQ4 in the first place. And
the price was extreme.
Actually, I would have thought that most of the changes that really
divide opinions where in the Magic Book, that is certainly my experience.
> Concerning RQ2 as a publication:
>
> >For me, RQ2 without the cults books was an exercise
> >in frustration - a nice rules system fairly closely tied to a world you
> >knew too little about.
>
> My Glorantha was in the RQ2 book. The UK gaming oral tradition was strong
> enough for people to relate details of the background. Take Stormbull for
> example. I have never read a direct write-up of this cult but I feel that
> I have enough details to use it in a game. Part of this was due to the
> gaming community's enthusiasm for this product.
>
Ah... the oral tradition in Perth (often claimed to be the most isolated
city in the world) is not as strong. For example, no one in Perth that is
still involved in the gaming community appears to own any Wyrms Footnotes
before Number 9. No one. That information is not known to anybody at all.
The gaming community in Perth were certainly enthusiastic about RQ2,
but still they owned very little of the published stuff. Stuff that is only
passed on orally is not very reliable.
And bear in mind that a major goal of RQ4 is to attract new players,
and that was presumably a major goal of RQ3 as well - at which it failed.
I think that part of the reason was that gaps in the available information
were not apparent to Chaosium or much of the old RQ2 community, who already
had a mass of Glorantha information, and could easily extrapolate RQ3 stats
from RQ2 ones etc. However, I think that the gamers cut off from that source
of RQ2 information - like those new players not part of a gaming community
full of RQ2 players - had a frustrating lack of information.
> The rest I could make up myself, with a little imagination.
>
And quite a bit of time. And you would end up with something rather
different to someone elses version of Glorantha. But my point is that the
rules are not the biggest issue - games with very bad rules can succeed with
a flood of good quality support material. The converse is not true - look at
games with nice rules but little support - like Bushido for example, or
DragonQuest (good for the time) - they wither and die.
RQ nearly did this to itself by not having enough support material.
> The "contemplate and feel" of RQ3 and RQ4:
>
[runic ramblings deleted]
>
> I have already stated that some of the RQ3 shamantic rules are acceptable
> and no doubt the RQIV shamantic material contains usefull concepts as
> well. Do not misinterpret me, I am not a "Rune" fan but an admirer of
> the "RuneQuest" background. I assert that RQ3 was more Basic Roleplaying
> than RuneQuest.
>
The Rune comment was more in response to comments by others about Runes as a
unifying concept for the magic system. The RQ3 shamanism was just an
illustration of the many ways in which RQ3 improved the system - even though
other parts where not improvements in retrospect.
As to the "feel" of RQ2 and RQ3 - as I said, for me RQ2 was not a
truly great game until Cults of Prax and Terror. Until then it ranked
as a decent set of rules with an interesting but incomplete world. I played it,
but I did not hold it in especially high regard. It was CoP and CoT that made
it a great game. Of course, that all human characters where in Orlanth or
Black Fang (I barely new the names of any others) was a bit of a disadvantage.
My biggest gripe with RQ3 was that the great cults supplements failed to
materialise.
> Given that I judged RQ3 to be a mistake I believe that the magic system
> should be encouraged to develop in a manner that is consistent with
> the task of promoting that unique Gloranthan style of society. By the
> term Gloranthan I mean mainly the area and culture described in the
> RQ2 rule book, my core, published reference.
>
The RQ2 rules book is certainly no longer my core puclished reference. That
honour would go to Genertela or King of Sartar, both of which I read for
pleasure quite a bit. For RQ2 it would be Cults of Terror introduction, and
Cults of Prax.
I'm am sorry for some of the comments I have made which I now
understand to be misplaced, but I am frankly amazed that you seem to be such
a RQ2 fan, and yet you do not appear to have read these (or not all of them
at any rate, from the Storm Bull reference above). I can only assume that
you have never GMed a game, and have had some very good experiences as a player
.
> Note that I have refered to my judgement of RQ3 in the past tense.
>
> I liked the "contemplate and feel" of the RQ society as largely
> suggested by rules and background within the RQ2 book. If the writers
> of RQIV can come with something as satisfying then I believe it will
> be successfull. I, and no doubt a large number of other role
> players, will ultimately judge it against RQ2.
>
Actually, there where parts of the RQ2 society that I am glad where changed
by RQ3, such as the enormous amnounts of cash that seemed to move about, and
the rather mercantile capitalist impression that parts of the rules book gave,
even though made more religious by later supplements.
> I would love to assess RQIV and but I believe that it is unethical for
> me to pull the RQIV 2nd draft by ftp and read it without permission of
> the company involved. I have applied to playtest the latest release.
>
I am in agreement with you generally, though I have not heard actual much
word from Oliver or Carl on how they feel about ftp availability (which was
not how I received my copy).
I will be interested to hear your comments on the next release. I think
that it is different to both RQ2 and RQ3, largely in that while predominatly
a set of rules rather than source like RQ3, much more care has been taken with
the rules, and more attention has been paid to day to day activities and to
non-combat activities than either.
> Regards
>
> -- Guy Robinson --
>
Regards,
Dave Cake
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:31:14 EEST