Quote from: Arminius;879264\`
At this point it sounds like, regardless of the rules base it's being written from, RQ7 will be very much like RQ6 except:

• The magic will only have whatever's needed for Glorantha
• Combat special effects are gone
• RQ2-style impale/crit are back
• Strike ranks may be back instead of the RQ6 "actions"
• They've got the new rune-passion thingy from Pendragon

(A lot of this is cribbed from Baulderstone's posts over there, except he wrote from perspective of what's being added to RQ2.)


One might also speculate that skill improvement rolls will also go back to the "checkbox" approach but I'd say that's a 50/50 chance.


Also they might make an effort to reduce the word count especially in the rules section.

Sounds good.

Quote from: Bren;879387Sounds good.

Sounds good to me as well, except for the part about tables:).

What I am hoping, however, is that either RQ7 or The Game That Was Rune Quest 6 would take another note from Pendragon, and base damage mostly on your Damage Bonus.
For that matter, I'm hoping they don't forget to include Power in the calculation;).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;879282That's incorrect.  He states that HE BELIEVES that it's moving forward.  That is not a definite motion in any direction.  It is in a 'holding pattern' until they get confirmation that the talks are going forward, meaning that any work on the product is NOT moving.

Until they know FOR SURE that the talks are going forward, he is giving false hope.  He shouldn't open his mouth on the likely very off chance that his belief is incorrect.

and you shouldn't open your mouth when you go off your meds.  If this is some kind of clever plan you have for whatever the hell you think it is you're doing, you want to skip to the point where you make it?  If not and you've had a minor stroke or are roleplaying someone from Bizarro world...

A RQ6 version was planned, that obviously isn't going to occur.  But both sides are in talks to proceed with the new version.

Has the deal been inked yet, no?  
Did Loz say the deal was inked yet, no?
Did he say they were in talks? Yes.

Is the game still just sitting in Limbo due to RQ6 been flushed? No.  
Talks have re-opened with the new system in mind.
Is this what Loz said? Yes.

You can't accuse someone of giving false hope and declaring a contract signed when he literally did not say a contract was signed, but did say, talks have reopened and are ongoing concerning the new system.  In other words, for the neuron-challenged...
It's not dead yet, we're working on it, Stay Tuned.

Jesus Wept.

Quote from: Simlasa;879343Just to be clear... Mindjammer isn't the game they're discussing, Mindjammer Press is the writer's, Sarah Newton, company.
Chronicles of Future Earth is a 'Dying Earth' type setting. A bit like Tekumel, Penumbra, Viriconium, etc.

Wow, really digging that cover artwork.

Okay, so now here is something to worry about:

http://basicroleplaying.org/topic/4338-new-rq-designer-notes-part-two/

I saw the bit about "everything you can do is on your sheet" in the blog and just winced slightly, decided Jeff isn't au courant with the raging RPG theory debates of the day. But in the thread he doubles down on the modern design dogma. I'm still hoping he doesn't really understand the full implications and the actual game will be--at least--malleable.

nDervish put it very well:

QuoteThat is exactly what I dislike about the Design Rules from the post.  I don't want my players to look at their character sheet and say, "Hmm...  Which of these buttons can I press now?"  I want them to look inside and say, "Hmm...  If I were my character in this situation, what would I do?"  It looks to me like what you (and the post) are describing is what The Cool Kids are calling "mechanics-first" gaming these days, while I favor what they call "fiction-first".  "Find a mechanic to use, then describe an action to rationalize it" vs. "describe what you want to do, then figure out what (if any) mechanic applies".

Quote from: Arminius;879458Okay, so now here is something to worry about:

http://basicroleplaying.org/topic/4338-new-rq-designer-notes-part-two/

I saw the bit about "everything you can do is on your sheet" in the blog and just winced slightly, decided Jeff isn't au courant with the raging RPG theory debates of the day. But in the thread he doubles down on the modern design dogma. I'm still hoping he doesn't really understand the full implications and the actual game will be--at least--malleable.

nDervish put it very well:

Yeah, they're showing themselves to be very much influenced by the New School/Narrative/Cult of the Designer camps, which have a great track record of failing hard with long-established traditional systems and IPs.  The damage to CoC7 was minimal though, so I'm hoping more of a "speaking the babble without knowing how idiotically the meaning behind those terms is usually applied".

Any d100 system has always had a "use some kind of stat derivative for the general stuff not covered" option, so unless they completely get rid of stats, even if they go Full.Retard. it's easy to ignore.

Plus, they got Steve Perrin, so I think they'll be ok, no matter what the new guys think.

Even using stats isn't really an answer. It's still "which button do I press" with a bigger button.

I would say--there's no sign of specifically narrative new school in evidence though I wouldn't rule it out. We're more in a sort of Gaming Den phobia of Magical Tea Party.

However, it probably sounds worse than it is likely to be. In fact there are some areas where I'd welcome a little extra mechanical touch such as in areas of reputation and social standing.

Quote from: Arminius;879478Even using stats isn't really an answer. It's still "which button do I press" with a bigger button.

I would say--there's no sign of specifically narrative new school in evidence though I wouldn't rule it out. We're more in a sort of Gaming Den phobia of Magical Tea Party.

However, it probably sounds worse than it is likely to be. In fact there are some areas where I'd welcome a little extra mechanical touch such as in areas of reputation and social standing.

I meant the company in general, with Chaosium changes to CoC7, the primary system of Moon Design being Heroquest, etc.

This new way of looking at Runes can have incredible potential if they extend it beyond just a way of making Pendragon Virtues work.  Reputation, Social Standing, Cult and Cultural rankings, all could potentially be affected by a good Rune system that really makes the Runes as building blocks of Myth and Reality more than just backstory, but actually interwoven mechanically.

The big challenge there would be to integrate them organically without taking the easy way out of just making a complex OOC metagame layer.

Quote from: Arminius;879458Okay, so now here is something to worry about:

http://basicroleplaying.org/topic/4338-new-rq-designer-notes-part-two/

I saw the bit about "everything you can do is on your sheet" in the blog and just winced slightly, decided Jeff isn't au courant with the raging RPG theory debates of the day. But in the thread he doubles down on the modern design dogma. I'm still hoping he doesn't really understand the full implications and the actual game will be--at least--malleable.

nDervish put it very well:

Quote from: CRKrueger;879465Yeah, they're showing themselves to be very much influenced by the New School/Narrative/Cult of the Designer camps, which have a great track record of failing hard with long-established traditional systems and IPs.  The damage to CoC7 was minimal though, so I'm hoping more of a "speaking the babble without knowing how idiotically the meaning behind those terms is usually applied".

Any d100 system has always had a "use some kind of stat derivative for the general stuff not covered" option, so unless they completely get rid of stats, even if they go Full.Retard. it's easy to ignore.

Plus, they got Steve Perrin, so I think they'll be ok, no matter what the new guys think.

Ahem, "press those buttons" is quite explicitly not what you do in narrative games (and is what bothered me about at least two editions of D&D). Just wanted to clear the confusion:).

Cue "Apocalypse World" for a game that tells you outright not to think of Moves, but of what your character would do, and describing that;).

Quote from: AsenRG;879519Ahem, "press those buttons" is quite explicitly not what you do in narrative games (and is what bothered me about at least two editions of D&D).

I agree.

I think it was a D&D Next designer's blog that discussed the problem that "You can't push the invisible buttons", which is where inspecting your character sheet for options gets you. So  - that was WoTC, and a few years ago...

Quote from: AsenRG;879519Ahem, "press those buttons" is quite explicitly not what you do in narrative games (and is what bothered me about at least two editions of D&D). Just wanted to clear the confusion:).

Cue "Apocalypse World" for a game that tells you outright not to think of Moves, but of what your character would do, and describing that;).

There's no confusion, I used the word "camps", plural.  There's more than one influence there. Drop-down menus or push buttons are more Cult of the Designer influences.  If they don't make the mechanic, you can't do it.  As was said, WotC was really the epitome of that in 3.5 and 4, although they dialed it back with 5e.

Quote from: CRKrueger;879530There's no confusion, I used the word "camps", plural.  There's more than one influence there. Drop-down menus or push buttons are more Cult of the Designer influences.  If they don't make the mechanic, you can't do it.  As was said, WotC was really the epitome of that in 3.5 and 4, although they dialed it back with 5e.

I misread you, then. I read it as you claiming the "camps" you mention are synonymous:).

Objection retracted, and I really hope no edition of RQ would ever adopt the philosophy that you can only do what your character sheet allows, instead of the other way around;).

I think AW is an exception here and can hardly be taken as characteristic of "narrative" games. It arose out of Vincent Baker having a "come down from the mountaintop" moment where he started preaching "fiction first" in conscious contrast to prevailing storygame culture & design. (That's all aside from whether in this respect AW still has one foot in the SG camp or if it's fully traditional.)

Quote from: Arminius;879553I think AW is an exception here and can hardly be taken as characteristic of "narrative" games. It arose out of Vincent Baker having a "come down from the mountaintop" moment where he started preaching "fiction first" in conscious contrast to prevailing storygame culture & design. (That's all aside from whether in this respect AW still has one foot in the SG camp or if it's fully traditional.)

Frigging Sorcerer advises the GM to "just play the NPCs". I don't know where, exactly, you're drawing the line, given that it's the granddaddy of all narrative games:).
The narrative part in all of them is just an attempt to set up a situation that has narrative potential when you add PCs to the mix, IME;).
Which just might be why AW and some of its descendents, coupled with Sorcerer, are my favourites of all the so-called "narrative" games. I prefer to call them "hand-holding" games, lately, because they do that for the Referee:p.

Admittedly, I've missed lots of games between those two, so some of them might have disproven the point, but it's just the nature of the beast called "RPGs" that some people are always doing it wrong:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;879519Ahem, "press those buttons" is quite explicitly not what you do in narrative games (and is what bothered me about at least two editions of D&D). Just wanted to clear the confusion:).

Cue "Apocalypse World" for a game that tells you outright not to think of Moves, but of what your character would do, and describing that;).

What's with that big list of Moves on character sheets then. If he doesn't want players thinking of Moves, it seems he is using the "Don't think o a purple cow" method.