PDA

View Full Version : RuneQuest 6



daddystabz
August 7th, 2012, 03:00
Is anyone working on a ruleset for this awesome game? I have the BRP set already...what would it take to use it to run RuneQuest 6?

kairos
August 7th, 2012, 04:18
Is anyone working on a ruleset for this awesome game? I have the BRP set already...what would it take to use it to run RuneQuest 6?

I think they're sufficiently different to make a new RQ6 ruleset necessary.

daddystabz
August 7th, 2012, 04:41
Anyone want to take up the challenge? :D

kairos
August 7th, 2012, 04:49
Anyone want to take up the challenge? :D

I'm tempted. Might be possible to get approval, too, from Moon Design.

daddystabz
August 7th, 2012, 05:03
PLEASE....someone.

phantomwhale
August 8th, 2012, 01:01
I contacted Moon Design about taking it on a few months ago. At that point, they said they were not interested until they had an actual product on the table.

It's certainly something I'd be interested in doing - my original foray in FG progamming was in fact for Runequest - it's just SWEX that sidelined me for a long while :)

My conclusion for the limited work I did (for MRQ/MRQII) was that BRP ruleset had some good similarities, but it would be a much easier task to implement it as a totally new ruleset. I can only imagine this analysis would hold for RQ6 (I've not read through my PDF copy fully yet, but it seems pretty similar to MRQII).

Happy for someone else to take it on - I might not be able to get started for 1-2 months anyway. But also would be keen to see it built as I've got a large RQ campaign brewing that I want to get up playing with ASAP !

daddystabz
August 8th, 2012, 02:03
I want to do some RQ 6 over FG soon as well. Would you be willing to ask the designers if they are cool with doing this now?

phantomwhale
August 8th, 2012, 02:11
Given that all ruleset devleopment is done via Smiteworks (we just work as third-party developers for Smiteworks) it might be best for Doug to open the lines of enquiry ( [email protected] ) with them.

I'm certainly interested to take on the role, but as I mentioned above, would certainly step aside if someone else is more keen (as I do have SWEX / DLR maintenance to get on with in the short term). In any case, there should be SOME development resource if Moon Designs are interested.

ddavison
August 8th, 2012, 04:58
Hello daddystabz, have you started any proof of concepts you could share yet? I find that the "sale" so to speak goes much easier with something already in hand or nearly there. Doing a ruleset is a big undertaking and we've unfortunately gotten licenses for things in the past and failed to deliver a finished ruleset.

phantomwhale
August 8th, 2012, 05:02
Doug - I don't think daddystabz was looking to develop the ruleset, he was more asking if someone else was going to !

Must admit, I'd be loathe to undertake the RQ6 ruleset without some initial indication that they would be happy to grant a license - it might end up being a lot of work for nothing ! That said, if (and it IS an if) I do ever cobble something together for gaming with my group, I can toss it over and see if it's something they would be happy to accept going to market in a more polished state.

Perhaps others considering this effort might be interested in doing the same ?

wbcreighton
August 8th, 2012, 09:27
What about the possibility of starting with a Legend ruleset. It is OGL and it is OGC. Runequest 6 is a revised version of Legend ( or MRQ2). They've sold lots of copies of Legend on Drivethrurpg.com it is has been in the top 10 sellers since its release.

phantomwhale
August 8th, 2012, 10:37
I'm not too up on the licensing details - would that mean a Legend ruleset has the potential to be a "free release" with all the Legend rules and book content ?

That would certainly offer an excellent platform to build a commercial RQ6 ruleset from, as well as providing the 80% complete artefact to show Moon Designs.

If I've got the wrong end of the OGL / OGC stick, then maybe someone can enlighten me what we could / couldn't do in a free ruleset ?

Valarian
August 8th, 2012, 12:50
If there is a SRD document, then that could probably be put in a library module. The person constructing the module would have to be careful not to include any closed content. The full OGL text would have to be included, including all the acknowledgements and copyrights.

Usually, the OGL content only includes the stat blocks and the tables. I don't know what Mongoose have included as open content in the Legend OGL, but they usually have a license guide avaialble - at least they did for d20 and Traveller products.

kairos
August 8th, 2012, 14:12
Doug - I don't think daddystabz was looking to develop the ruleset, he was more asking if someone else was going to !

Must admit, I'd be loathe to undertake the RQ6 ruleset without some initial indication that they would be happy to grant a license - it might end up being a lot of work for nothing ! That said, if (and it IS an if) I do ever cobble something together for gaming with my group, I can toss it over and see if it's something they would be happy to accept going to market in a more polished state.

Perhaps others considering this effort might be interested in doing the same ?

I will do the same. Incidentally, for official rulesets, what's the preferred core/foundation to begin with? I used Foundation Core for the Marvel Heroic RP ruleset extension I just did recently, but I got the impression this wasn't an official ruleset (although quite awesome to work with).

wbcreighton
August 8th, 2012, 19:50
I'm not too up on the licensing details - would that mean a Legend ruleset has the potential to be a "free release" with all the Legend rules and book content ?

That would certainly offer an excellent platform to build a commercial RQ6 ruleset from, as well as providing the 80% complete artefact to show Moon Designs.

If I've got the wrong end of the OGL / OGC stick, then maybe someone can enlighten me what we could / couldn't do in a free ruleset ?

This is the text from the Legend Core Rulebook:

Legend & Open Content
Here at Mongoose Publishing, we want what we truly believe to be one of the best fantasy RPGs on the market to be easy to use and modify. We have therefore made this rulebook Open Content, in conjunction with the Open Game Licence.

All the text of this book is designated as Open Content – this means you are free to use the Open Game Licence (overleaf ) to reproduce this text and build upon it with your own scenarios and mechanics. You can even print and sell such work, if that is your desire (and we would wish you the very best of luck if you choose to do this!).
By using the Open Content of this book, you also have permission to download the Legend Compatible logo from our web site (on the Legend product pages), and use that on any Legend work you publish, to demonstrate your material is part of the wider Legend family.

Please note that the artwork in this book is not Open Content.

All books in the core Legend range (those whose titles have the word ‘Legend’ in them)
will also be designated as Open Content, allowing you to expand your own games in many different directions, while maintaining a solid root that everyone will be familiar with.

For example, you might be using Legend to produce your own gaming world. If you wanted to add some high seas action, you can simply and quickly bring over the Open Content rules we produce in, say, Pirates of Legend, knowing that everyone who plays Legend will at least be familiar with those rules.

It is one of the most clear statements of intent I have seen regarding the OGL. ( similar to Openquest )

There will be a wealth of OGC to support this ruleset. There is already, Pirates of Legend, Vikings of Legend, Monsters of Legend, Spirits, Arms of Legend, Arcania of Legend: Blood Magic.

It would be great to see a solid OGL d100 ruleset that could be modified to handle: Openquest, Gore, d100 (RQ2), Runequest 6, Renaissance, etc

phantomwhale
August 8th, 2012, 23:22
Foundation core is a good base to start from - it's essentially the 4E ruleset from FG 2.8 with all the DnD stuff stripped out.

That said, the 4E ruleset from FG 2.9 has some good code tidyups and extra features (scrollbars), so that might be another starting point. (otherwise you might find yourself adding these things at the end)

Finally the BRP ruleset is based around the d100 system, so will have a number of d100 specific controls built into it. It is further behind on "core features" though.

Ideally, pick the best parts of all three then build your ruleset :)

RosenMcStern
August 14th, 2012, 14:43
Moon Design has nothing to do (officially) with RuneQuest 6. The licensor for RuneQuest is The Design Mechanism.

I discussed this subject with The Design Mechanism one year ago, an Lawrence Whitaker questioned Doug about the subject shortly thereafter. You should probably be able to find Lawrence's decisions about Fantasy Grounds support somewhere in the Design Mechanism forums. However, they never ruled out a Fantasy Grounds supplement altogether. So a little bit of lobbying could do wonders - just tell them you want to play their game on FG: they will be pleased.

That said, making a ruleset for RuneQuest would be both a worthy addition and a challenge. Taking away some of the maths adn bookkeeping nuisances of the system (fractional modifiers, action point tracking, subtracting skill in excess of 100% from opposed rolls) would speed up play. But you can recover very few elements from Foen's original work on BRP - particularly because that is a licensed product done for another company.

If the thing does not start until 2013, and assuming my first ruleset has been released and tested on the field by that time, I might be interested in being part of the project - but unfortunately not for free. A kickstarter might be useful for funding such an operation.

wbcreighton
August 14th, 2012, 18:02
Not knowing exactly what is in the license agreement, Moon Design might have some say in the use of the trademark in a software product, but the Design Mechanism would be the place to start regarding RQ6. Legend rules are OGC so that would be a good place to start. The modifications that RQ6 makes to MRQ2 ( or Legend ) could be handled with extensions, I'm guessing.

As far as the BRP ruleset is concerned: doesn't Smiteworks own copyright on the actual ruleset ? Still it seems that a new ruleset from the ground up, would be the way to go.

A Kickstarter looks like a plan. Hasn't been done for a FG ruleset before has it ? Of course I'm not sure that there are enough FG BRP users to pull it off. We would need to do plenty of recruiting. Tabletop forge did well but that is for a generic VTT platform.


assuming my first ruleset has been released and tested on the field by that time
and what ruleset might that be might I ask ? :)

wbcreighton
August 14th, 2012, 18:08
Just a question about the RQ6 rules. The Legend rules are OGC. The RQ6 rules are an improved version of the Legend rules. So does that mean that portions of RQ6 are actually OGC even though they don't include an OGL.

Not a big concern to me, but if you build upon an OGC game but don't acknowledge the OGC content are you open to potential disputes in the future ? :confused:

daddystabz
August 15th, 2012, 01:02
I'd be willing to pay for this ruleset or fund a kickstarter and I bet I have friends I game with who would as well!

RosenMcStern
August 21st, 2012, 14:04
Not knowing exactly what is in the license agreement, Moon Design might have some say in the use of the trademark in a software product

Issaries Inc. is the owner of the RuneQuest trademark, not Moon Design. Moon Design is a licensee, like The Design Mechanism. Even if Moon Design will probably be involved in any decision process, your official partners for this subject are Issaries and TDM.

And a side note - just a piece of advice: for anything regarding intellectual property owned by Issaries Inc., you need to ask for permission. Always. Even for non-profit projects. They will answer, do not worry. But they expect that their stuff be used with their permission.


and what ruleset might that be might I ask ? :)

Aegis. It's a stand-alone game now being released by Chronicle City.


Just a question about the RQ6 rules. The Legend rules are OGC. The RQ6 rules are an improved version of the Legend rules. So does that mean that portions of RQ6 are actually OGC even though they don't include an OGL.

Not a big concern to me, but if you build upon an OGC game but don't acknowledge the OGC content are you open to potential disputes in the future ? :confused:

The RQ6 rules were rewritten from scratch. There is no link between Legend and RQ6. RQ6 is not OGL - you cannot use its rules in your own game. TDM gives you permission to make supplements for it for free, but it is clearly stated that this is not done under the OGL.

wbcreighton
August 22nd, 2012, 08:01
The RQ6 rules were rewritten from scratch. There is no link between Legend and RQ6. RQ6 is not OGL - you cannot use its rules in your own game. TDM gives you permission to make supplements for it for free, but it is clearly stated that this is not done under the OGL.

I think that to say there is no link between Legend and RQ6 is not quite
true. Legend was built on the MRQ2 foundation. Read what one of the authors says about RQ6.

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=51758


MRQII/Legend had an enforced page count and development time that meant a lot of what Pete and I wanted to include just wouldn't fit, or couldn't be thoroughly developed. So, what RQ6 offers, over and above Legend, are numerous refinements, explanations, examples, intricacies and details that build on the basic game.

I can use the rules in my own private game, but I can't distribute them.

I haven't compared my RQ6 pdf with my Legend pdf. If there is the same rule in both, I can use it under the terms of the OGL. I'm sure that RQ6 was written "from scratch" but the concepts and ideas are not all original.


Moon Design has nothing to do (officially) with RuneQuest 6. The licensor for RuneQuest is The Design Mechanism.

Ok you confused me on this one. I think you meant licensee. Issaries as you mentioned owns the RQ TM.


And a side note - just a piece of advice: for anything regarding intellectual property owned by Issaries Inc., you need to ask for permission. Always. Even for non-profit projects. They will answer, do not worry. But they expect that their stuff be used with their permission.

I don't think anyone is suggesting not asking for permission. I assume you are referencing Glorantha.

RosenMcStern
August 22nd, 2012, 14:22
Argh. Things are getting messy. And I made a typo.


I haven't compared my RQ6 pdf with my Legend pdf. If there is the same rule in both, I can use it under the terms of the OGL. I'm sure that RQ6 was written "from scratch" but the concepts and ideas are not all original.

Rulesets cannot be copyrighted. This means that under the legal POV Legend and RQ6 are totally different products.

Of course, you can make an OGL product based on Legend that "mimicks" RuneQuest 6. I doubt anyone would complain.


Ok you confused me on this one. I think you meant licensee.

Yeah. I mistyped.


I don't think anyone is suggesting not asking for permission. I assume you are referencing Glorantha.

Not only. Greg is rather strict about his intellectual property. All of it, not only Glorantha. And he has good reasons for this.

phantomwhale
August 27th, 2012, 06:58
Thanks for the input guys - RQ IP has always struck me as a little thorny, and although a long time player, my knowledge of who owns what is quite, quite flaky.

I see that the Design Mechanism are still working out an OGL-like (but NOT OGL) way of licensing the game for add-on products and modules. That's cool - but equal spells out the need to engage with them (and probably others through them) before making a commercial bid for an RQ6 ruleset.

That said, I suspect it will be a bit chicken and egg, in that they'd probably be much more interested if something tangible was already half-made towards this, rather than some guy with an aquatic-ethereal themed handle making programming promises with no professional presence or existing work to back it up.

I've just started digesting the new RQ rules (got the paper copy this week - woohoo) and loving it. Can see the benefit of an FGII ruleset straight away - action points, multiplier-based penalties and lots of effects to track. Will certainly be keeping my ear out for any efforts around this, and potentially throwing my hat in the ring later on (perhaps once TDM have a more solid idea around licensing) if real life allows.

paracharlie
March 21st, 2013, 10:01
I thought RQ6 was based off of Chaosiums RQ2nded. Which would make it different from legend mrq2. I have those books and I was looking at RQ6 supplement and it is indeed different. RQ2 had defense subtracted from your chance to hit.

paracharlie
March 21st, 2013, 14:39
I was all wrong actually. It is like Legend, but that is ok because they are all good game systems in my opinion.

S Ferguson
March 23rd, 2013, 21:35
I thought RQ6 was based off of Chaosiums RQ2nded. Which would make it different from legend mrq2. I have those books and I was looking at RQ6 supplement and it is indeed different. RQ2 had defense subtracted from your chance to hit.

Legend and RQ 2e were, essentially, the same system. Legend put out after RQ2e. Chaosium no longer holds the license, but uses the BRP which is a mish-mash of the different rules systems dating back to the early eighties. Man that makes me feel old.
RQ6 though is a solid product through and through. A big improvement over Legend.

Blackfoot
March 27th, 2013, 18:21
Umm.. Legend is not same as the Chaosium 2nd Edition game... it is similar to MRQ2 (the MONGOOSE version).
MRQII and actual Chaosium RuneQuest II are very different games.
BRP was based off of RQ2 way back when so they are very similar. RQ1, RQ2, and even RQ3 are very similar... as is BRP.
MRQ, MRQ2, Legend, HeroQuest, and RQ6 are completely different animals.

S Ferguson
March 27th, 2013, 18:53
Umm.. Legend is not same as the Chaosium 2nd Edition game... it is similar to MRQ2.
MRQII and actual Chaosium RuneQuest II are very different games.
BRP was based off of RQ2 way back when so they are very similar. RQ1, RQ2, and even RQ3 are very similar... as is BRP.
MRQ, MRQ2, Legend, HeroQuest, and RQ6 are completely different animals.

Dreadfully sorry for the oversight. I was referring to MRQII or Glorantha 2e. BRP was based off a game *line* which borrowed heavily from Chaosium's original Runequest, but also Superworld, Ringworld, Stormbringer, COC, etc.

I really didn't play Chaosium's incantation of RQ II, so I can't comment about that one, but assume it followed the game line format of BRP. But yes the two incarnations of Runequest II would be mutually exclusive games.

RQ6, however, being an old Chaosium staple, with little difficulty fits back in the mold it was originally cast from. The Mongoose system isn't *that* hard to transplant into BRP and BRP can handle pretty much anything you can throw at it. It hasn't failed me yet.

Now Runequest Slayers is another beast entirely (and by far my personal favorite).

Blackfoot
March 27th, 2013, 18:58
IMO BRP needs a pretty serious overhaul to bring it up to speed with the other rulesets and to make all it's existing pieces work properly.
So expanding on it is a tricky business as you need to fix the basics before you move on to the new tweaks.
Linking the skills to stats and weapons to skills would be a good start.

S Ferguson
March 27th, 2013, 19:09
Tell me about it. I've been developing a few extensions, and the code (which I believe was based off Start Woodard's Base Set) and it's infuriating sometimes. But I'm moving it, slowly, into a more modern format, At least now I have all the folders and files in "proper" directory format (i.e. 4e standard). It's just annoying finding the little things that aren't present and adding them in. Still it's much more robust than say CoC, which I really think should be an extension of BRP anyway. It's not like they don't advertise the fact in a huge icon on the back of the book!

Blackfoot
March 27th, 2013, 19:17
I did quite a bit of work on an RQ2 extension for BRP (that's the ACTUAL RQ2 from Chaosium.. the 'real' RuneQuest) but dropped the project after all the changes in 2.8 came out. It was just too much to fix at that point.

S Ferguson
March 27th, 2013, 19:29
Still have those files kicking around? Wouldn't mind checking them out. Personally, my favorite was the original RQ 2e. Had everything in it including the first "fumble" tables, and "critical hits" (albeit not as detailed as Rolemaster later made them). Yep that system still is the cat's meow for me.

Blackfoot
March 27th, 2013, 19:32
I think you might be crossing wires on rulesets again... didn't you say earlier that you'd never played the original Chaosium version from the late 1970s/early 1980s?
You have me confused. :)

S Ferguson
March 27th, 2013, 19:55
No I never played Chaosium's Runequest II, (I assumed from your posts they tried a second incarnation of the game side-by-side with Mongoose - although in retrospect the licensing would be a mess, oops:o ) You might be confusing the way I refer to editions such that 2e is 2nd edition Runequest, where RQII refers to Runquest II. RQII 2e would be the equivalent of the second edition of Runequest II, It just keeps editions short and easy to type (and they're handy in the case of RQ).

But yes I've played Chaosium's entire line (well, except for SuperWorld) at one point or another. Still have the Hardcover of Runequest 2e in a hermetically sealed baggy to keep it from yellowing even further as a matter of fact. I've even got the Avalon Hill Boxed set with the Vikings supplement. The rest are miscellaneous PDFs. Sorry for the confusion.:)

Trenloe
March 27th, 2013, 20:31
Now I'm confused too! ;)

S Ferguson
March 27th, 2013, 20:36
Hey. I try my best.:D

Blackfoot
March 27th, 2013, 21:18
Chaosium RQ2 or RuneQuest 2nd Edition is the one that was first published back in the late 1970s... it had a few modifications from the 1st edition of the game (a few changes to armor and and a couple of other things) but it was basically THE version of RuneQuest during its boom period of the early 1980s. When all the great modules and expansions were written and it was vying with D&D as one of the premier game systems. It has never since seen that much recognition... largely due to all the changes in the company, personnel, and confusion over where the system wanted to go. It went to Avalon Hill for an upgrade to RQ3 (runequest 3rd edition) which lost it a number of die hard fans as the system took on some serious balance issues and cumbersome overhead. After Avalon Hill folded it was locked down under the fist of Hasbro for a long time but since then there have been several reincarnations including the Mongoose versions. A LOT of confusion arises from the Mongoose book that was published as "RuneQuest II" (even though it was really like RuneQuest V or VI or something...) I think the 'new' RuneQuest is calling itself RQ6 because the 4th edition never actually hit print... I believe.. if I'm doing my math right.

Meanwhile BRP has remained a Chaosium product, continuing on with the basic structure of RQ2 in a multigenre environment. It seems like it's biggest WIN was attaching Call of Cthulu to it, which drew in a mass of Lovecraft fans.

So much for my history lesson for today.

S Ferguson
March 27th, 2013, 21:37
Avalon Hill actually meant to publish Runequest Slayers, as a follow-up to, I'd guess what you'd call, the 3e. This was the fourth version that didn't see publication, though it is available online, with full artwork, but a massive divergence from what Runequest players would even recognised as Runequest. The entire Mongoose line was what would be known as the 5e and that brings us to 6e. <<phew>> glad we got that settled.

Yes the 2e rules are by far the best and with Stafford's Glorantha setting set down in White Bear, Red Moon, and put into Cults of Prax, it's the seminal version for me. It tugged with Traveller at the time for my roleplaying attention in the early '80's. It actually yanked me away from D&D and Traveller for a while.

Blackfoot
March 27th, 2013, 21:50
I think they are ignoring the 'Slayers' version in their count since it was unpublished cuz otherwise it'd be RQ7...
Why couldn't they have just left well enough alone. Unfortunately, Stafford was the driving force behind Glorantha and not so much with the actual game system... so the impression I get is that he has no real love for it since it was never really his baby... which is how this all came to pass in the end. I may be way off base.. but this is the impression I've gotten from what I've read about all the events related to the many versions of this game system.

S Ferguson
March 27th, 2013, 22:09
Originally Stafford was too involved with designing games to get too attached to any particular system. He was heavy into putting out supplements and other games (Pendragon comes to mind) that he never really gave it much consideration at the time. At least, that's what I got from "Letters from Gigi." and the original system! And your evaluation of Mongoose's Version is pretty much accurate from what I've read. I think he's just happy getting royalties now.

Trenloe
March 28th, 2013, 00:12
And if you love Glorantha, keep an eye out for when this comes out in general release: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/224590870/the-guide-to-glorantha

There's a Gregg Stafford interview on main page too... :)

S Ferguson
March 28th, 2013, 00:17
There is also Pendragon 5.1 and Entourage available in PDF totally redesigned by Mr. Stafford himself, taking a Welch look at the Arthurian Mythos.