Mongoose's Runequest, Anyone have it?

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I had pretty much the same reaction at GenCon, Plane Sailing. It was high on my list to check out, and it left me kinda 'meh'. It was also short and kinda plain, or at least seemed that way, although watching people walking around with Ptolus made most things pale in comparison.

 

[Dragonbait]

I had pretty much the same reaction at GenCon, Plane Sailing. It was high on my list to check out, and it left me kinda 'meh'. It was also short and kinda plain, or at least seemed that way, although watching people walking around with Ptolus made most things pale in comparison.

I didn't go to GenCon, but I had a similar reaction. I got the book (it was cheap for a rulebook) but I'll have to wait for the Companion before I make a final decision.

 

[Turjan]

I'm really interested in how different from or similar to the BRP (Basic Role Playing) system this new edition of RQ is - I imagine it can't be too similar, since Chaosium is still using the BRP system.

Well, I heard it's very similar to BRP. As it's not called BRP, rules cannot be copyrighted, and Runequest came first, it should not be a legal problem.

I'm wondering how close the systems are in practice, since the previews of the Mongoose versions don't credit Mr. Perrin with the system. Either the systems are very different, or else Mongoose is not giving credit where it is due.

There were a few posts on rpg.net claiming the latter. I'll have to wait till I get it in order to make up my mind.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Somewhere I'd got the idea that the new version was going to be d20. But from your description it sounds similar to the old rules.

That's another thing I miss about RQ - being able to use all my polyhedral dice.

I've had it for a few days now. It's quite a bit like the old game, though I don't have my old RQ stuff handy, and it was Avalon Hill's 3rd edition anyway, so I can't say for sure how similar it is to the old game.

As with most game systems, when you look at the bare bones, it's not very inspiring. But it looks to be a good RPG, a worthy return of a classic game. I was happy to see Runes take a prominent position in the game, as do cults. I don't remember either being all that prominent in 3rd edition RQ.

The book itself is quite slender. The cover has a nice, if kinda uninspiring, runic design to it. The artwork is OK, but nowhere near the league of stuff from WotC or, say, Green Ronin, and seems a bit amteurish in spots.

Overall, this is a nice intro to the game, but I'm not sure if it's pretty enough to attract the interest of someone shopping for a game. I do look forward to seeing the Glorantha book, which, hopefully, will help recreate/update classic RQ in its entirety.

 

[Dr Simon]

I looked through some of the preview material and it looks similar but different. Percentage/skill based but a bit more robust-looking than the old 3rd Ed. (with basic and advanced skills to allow customisation). I like that they've finally made 'gaining a Rune' have a recognisable, integral game effect, and I also like the Feat-like modifications of Rune Magic.

I'm interested to see how they handle opposed checks, since, for me, that was one of the failings of BRP compared to d20.

The fundamental difference between BRP and d20 is that in BRP, your skill is the number you need to roll under to succeed. In d20, skill+random roll needs to beat a DC. The latter actually gives a smoother power curve in opposed checks whereas the former ends up giving you odd skewing and doesn't allow for circumstantial effects as easily (well, to be honest I tended to use increments of +/-5% to the skill, so it can be done quite easily after all!)

 

[Kanegrundar]

I picked up my copy Monday. I've read through it already (it's a pretty short read for a core rulebook) and while the system is sound, I'm not inspired to run anything with it. I guess it'll either go back to the store for core credit or go up for sale. Although I'll likely hold onto it at least until the Glorantha book comes out.

 

[DragonLancer]

I took a look at the new RQ when it came into my FLGS last week and I was a little dissapointed. Compared to prior editions, this one was missing a hell of a lot. It looks like a condensed version of the game, which I found somewhat dissapointing. I'd have prefered to have had it like the old GW editions where it was 3 books - Players, GM's and Monsters.

 

[librarius_arcana]

I'm currently running a RQ2 campaign and my players are up in arms over the fact that I've refused to allow them to play Ducks!!!

I'd like to hear what the new RQ is like... I've never liked RQ3.

Same here, RQ3 was like the anti RQ2, :\

 

[Treebore]

I read through it. The d20 language being so prevelant, and the fact that so much is percentile based, would allow for a relatively easy conversion to 3E or C&C useage. In fact I am thinking of using its skill rules instead of 3E for my C&C game.

 

[catsclaw227]

I took a look at the new RQ when it came into my FLGS last week and I was a little dissapointed. Compared to prior editions, this one was missing a hell of a lot. It looks like a condensed version of the game, which I found somewhat dissapointing. I'd have prefered to have had it like the old GW editions where it was 3 books - Players, GM's and Monsters.

I think the RQ Companion Mongoose is putting out next week is supposed to take care of this, though I'm not sure.