New RuneQuest is Named: "RUNEQUEST: ROLEPLAYING IN GLORANTHA"

Chaosium has just announced the name of the upcoming edition of RuneQuest, due for a Christmas 2017 release. This edition will not be called RuneQuest 4, or RuneQuest 7 (depending how you choose to count them), but will be called "RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha" (or RQG). This edition is descended from the 2nd Edition ruleset, and is compatible with the RuneQuest Classic reprints which Chaosium recently Kickstarted.

Not only that, Chaosium confirms that RQG will not appear on Kickstarter. Rick Meints of Chaosium says "If we Kickstarted the new RQ, the campaign wouldn't be able to be launched until September at the earliest, and if there had been stretch goals the first books would probably not be out until the middle of 2018. In our new timeline we'll have three RQG titles out by the end of the year, followed by additional items every month or two after that."

So what's the product schedule looking like? The core rules come out this year, as does the Gloranthan Bestiary, and a book of adventures. These will be followed by 6 products per year. Meints says "We are building up a RQ product pipeline that will release 6 products per year, at a pace of a book every other month on average. Big gaps between new product coming out sap the momentum".

You can also expect to see the RuneQuest Quickstart in June for Free RPG Day and in July for feree on Chaosium's website.

SaveSave​

 

[TrippyHippy]

For the record, I like Barbarian Ducks.

 

[rmeints]

RQG is all about new material

So looking forward to this. Been a Gloranthaphile since the eighties, although I'm still puzzled over what the Lizard thing the woman is fighting on the cover of the rulebook is. Very happy indeed with the release schedule, but I do hope it's just not reprints of older stuff updated. (I've got most of that in one form or another). Still it's not a proper edition of RQ unless there's at least 3 versions of the Cult of Kygor Litor printed throughout all the suppliments.

Interesting that it's not a Kickstarter - seems almost unheard of for a small publisher nowadays.

Don't expect "reprints" of older stuff for RQG, that's what the RuneQuest Classic line took care of.

 

[ScaleyBob]

Don't expect "reprints" of older stuff for RQG, that's what the RuneQuest Classic line took care of.

WOO HOO!

That's absolutely great news! It's going to be the RQ Renaissance all over again. Except, a lot more product, and a better release schedule.

 

[werecorpse]

So looking forward to this. Been a Gloranthaphile since the eighties, although I'm still puzzled over what the Lizard thing the woman is fighting on the cover of the rulebook is...

Seriously? It's a Rock Lizard.

It's just an reimagined version of the same picture that was on the front of the RQ2 rule book.

Edit: I'm cool with Glorantha Ducks now, but when we first heard of them they seemed silly so we kept away from the game for a few years....our loss. Of course that was until about the mid 80's so I've been a convert for a while.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I'm interested in what people think about this design philosophy

http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2017/04/how-not-to-design-rpg.html

I agree with Mr Conley on this, looking at the character sheet for inspiration rather than using 'the fiction' (to use a Dungeon World term) seems the wrong way to go about it. After the grindy combat, the way players just did what was on their sheet was my biggest beef with DnD 4.

If you don't want to read the blog post, this is the key bit I am not keen on:

RPG Design Rule a: "If it's not in the rules, it's not in the gameplay." [ie, player knows it's not an important thing to think about]

RPG Design Rule b: "If, in a scenario crisis, a player can't find problem-solving tools on their character sheet, they won't look elsewhere for them." [ie, When players are flummoxed, they look to their character sheets for inspiration. And they won't be inspired to use any tool they don't find there.]

Edit: the above is from here http://www.chaosium.com/blog/designing-the-new-runequest-part-2

 

[mach1.9pants]

Doesn't mean I'm not getting the game tho, I just have more reservations than before!

 

[werecorpse]

I think the intent of that part of rule design philosophy are:
with respect to a) the rules will try & cover all the elements of gameplay; &
With respect to b) the character sheet should contain the info/tools for all those rules
(Ie the rules should be simple enough that you don't have to go back to the book all the time)
not that if its not in the rules you can't do iit.

iirc the previous RQ rules (version 6?) were licenced to be designed by a group called Design Mechanism. The licence was taken back from them by Chaosium who now run the RQ show again. So Design Mechanism were left a bit high & dry with the rule set they designed. They changed its name from Runequest to Mythrus. I think this blogger is pro the Design Mechanism designers.

I haven't got deeply into RQ rules since version 5 so missed this clash and prefer to think of the two stated rule design statements as aspirational rather than restrictive.

 

[ScaleyBob]

Seriously? It's a Rock Lizard.

It's just an reimagined version of the same picture that was on the front of the RQ2 rule book.

Edit: I'm cool with Glorantha Ducks now, but when we first heard of them they seemed silly so we kept away from the game for a few years....our loss. Of course that was until about the mid 80's so I've been a convert for a while.

I always thought the lizard thing on the RQ2 cover looked a bit too large, and a bit too humanoid to be a Rock Lizard. Of course after rooting around in my Runequest box and reading their stats, I see they've got 4d6 for size. Mystery solved! Cheers!

I don't think I ever used Rock Lizards in any of my RQ games. Always used Cliff Toads instead. They could tongue people and swallow them. Great times. I suspect that's where I got my love of using giant frogs or toads or newts in any RPG from. (In my current D&D game, the players are off to a swamp. Time for Giant Frogs. )

I always liked Ducks. There was something both wondrously silly and horribly tragic about them, especially after all the background was released on them. Other games had Halflings, RQ had Ducks. I also really liked Baboons. They were one of the most fun races to play or GM in game.

 

[Jeff Richard]

I'm interested in what people think about this design philosophy

http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2017/04/how-not-to-design-rpg.html

I agree with Mr Conley on this, looking at the character sheet for inspiration rather than using 'the fiction' (to use a Dungeon World term) seems the wrong way to go about it. After the grindy combat, the way players just did what was on their sheet was my biggest beef with DnD 4.

If you don't want to read the blog post, this is the key bit I am not keen on:

RPG Design Rule a: "If it's not in the rules, it's not in the gameplay." [ie, player knows it's not an important thing to think about]

RPG Design Rule b: "If, in a scenario crisis, a player can't find problem-solving tools on their character sheet, they won't look elsewhere for them." [ie, When players are flummoxed, they look to their character sheets for inspiration. And they won't be inspired to use any tool they don't find there.]

Edit: the above is from here http://www.chaosium.com/blog/designing-the-new-runequest-part-2

Hi!

These two design principles come from Ken Rolston, who has been heavily involved in developing the new edition. These principles were present in all of the classic Chaosium games (RQ, CoC, KAP, whatever) - as a player you run into a problem or an opportunity, and you look at your character sheet to come up with an idea as to how your character can interact with whatever it is. I can hit it with a stick, block it with a shield, search carefully, give a rousing speech, consult the lore I know, to try find something about it in a library, try to be inspired by my love for the lady, or whatever. All of that is shown on the character sheet, usually expressed as a percentage of likelihood. As a practical matter, this is what plenty of players do (which is why Ken emphasized it so strongly) - I know I get lost playing some games because I *can't* do that easily.

Additionally, in RuneQuest, everyone has magic. You want plenty of space on the character sheet to remind folk that they have spells that they can cast on themselves or on someone else. Maybe you are the sort of player who knows all of Orlanth's rune spells by heart, but most people aren't.


The flipside to this is that if something is not given some ink in the rules, plenty of players (and gamemasters) conclude that its not an important thing to think about in gameplay. You can say that mentality is wrong, misguided, or whatever - but for plenty of players it is true. So if there is something you want to encourage players to make significant in their gameplay, give it a rules context.


As an aside, a good percentage of rules in any Chaosium game are more of what you might call "guidelines" than actual rules.

 

[CapnZapp]

I agree with Mr Conley on this, looking at the character sheet for inspiration rather than using 'the fiction' (to use a Dungeon World term) seems the wrong way to go about it. After the grindy combat, the way players just did what was on their sheet was my biggest beef with DnD 4.

If you don't want to read the blog post, this is the key bit I am not keen on:

RPG Design Rule a: "If it's not in the rules, it's not in the gameplay." [ie, player knows it's not an important thing to think about]

RPG Design Rule b: "If, in a scenario crisis, a player can't find problem-solving tools on their character sheet, they won't look elsewhere for them." [ie, When players are flummoxed, they look to their character sheets for inspiration. And they won't be inspired to use any tool they don't find there.]

I think the intent of that part of rule design philosophy are:
with respect to a) the rules will try & cover all the elements of gameplay; &
With respect to b) the character sheet should contain the info/tools for all those rules
(Ie the rules should be simple enough that you don't have to go back to the book all the time)
not that if its not in the rules you can't do iit.

Hi!

These two design principles come from Ken Rolston, who has been heavily involved in developing the new edition. These principles were present in all of the classic Chaosium games (RQ, CoC, KAP, whatever) - as a player you run into a problem or an opportunity, and you look at your character sheet to come up with an idea as to how your character can interact with whatever it is. I can hit it with a stick, block it with a shield, search carefully, give a rousing speech, consult the lore I know, to try find something about it in a library, try to be inspired by my love for the lady, or whatever. All of that is shown on the character sheet, usually expressed as a percentage of likelihood. As a practical matter, this is what plenty of players do (which is why Ken emphasized it so strongly) - I know I get lost playing some games because I *can't* do that easily.

Hmm. I haven't read the blogs, just this thread, but there's something backwards about this exchange.

Normally when somebody is arguing "If it's not in the rules, it's not in the gameplay" that is intended as criticism, with the reasoning that games that try too hard to regulate everything only end up passivizing the players so they cease to come up with ideas of their own, only "pushing buttons" that appear in front of them.

I haven't heard about the opposite like ever, since it was a long time go the first structured (read simulationist) games left the free form era. So anytime a player feels lost, there are always all these very detailed games to play instead of whatever too-free too-form game he or she is apparently playing right now.

D&D 5th edition is so successful in no small part because they have stepped back from the "regulate everything" approach, instead encouraging players to use skills in open-ended ways.

(And yes, I know D&D is certainly not a poster-buy of freeformity and that many of its players would never allow "freeform" actions like swashbuckling, acrobatics and spur-of-the-moment unique actions)

Suddenly coming up with the idea games need to stay away from non-regulated actions, and/or games need to mechanically cover every concievable action possible, seems incredibly outdated and busting-open-doors like...?