Paid a bod yn dwp

Thanks all Its very helpful to think of RQ3 as more additive with regards to rules. Fatigue and sorcery were things I never came to terms with in RQ3. I've heard it said that the way sorcery was edited for the Games worship edition, made it even more confusing. In my opinion magic (sorcery) should be fun and simple to use in game, but with potential for fumbles and crits affects. For myself it did seem that RQ3 was becoming needlessly complicated in these areas. But there were also a few areas of RQ3 that seemed to make a bit more sense like the already mentioned double damage needed to maim or sever a limb. One other point that has been mentioned by many is the critical vs impaling damage of RQ2. Where critical is the hardest result to achieve of the 2 so should presumably have a greater affect, with RQ2 this is not necessarily the balance. RQ2 - Critical roll does normal damage but ignores armour. Impale does normal rolled damage + total possible damage RQ3 Crit does full possible damage plus Damage modifier and ignores armour. Impale does twice normal rolled damage + normal damage modifier, however if impale is a critical as well it does the twice the maximum rolled damage + damage modifier. If I were to pick and mix from the two Runequest versions, I would go with RQ 3 for the following: Critical & impale rules Change to hit points & dismembering ( sounds brutal!) Dodge over defence I think Im more inclined to go with RQ2 Knockback for the reason that with RQ3, although it makes sense, knockback is constantly a calculation in combat adding to the time it takes to run any combat. With RQ2 having it as a specific attack means that it only needs to be calculated on rare occasions so becomes less complicated in the long run. Regarding strike rank I'm not sure I like either systems either. Rolling a dice and adding a modifier is perhaps more fun? like others here though I'm looking forward to the new Runequest based off of RQ2. Streamlined and fun is good, as long as its colourful and inspiring with fumbles and crits I'll be happy.

I've had to dig out RQ3! Knockback Knock back in combat is quite different in both editions. 2nd edition has it as a specific declared attack, pitting Strength + Size vs Size & Dex of the opponent on the resistance table. Where as RQ3 has it as the by-product of any attack, calculated as damage that exceeds the size of the opponent by at least 5 points (size ignored on Special/crit). In my mind that makes for a lot more calculation in combat in RQ3, although the increased knockback chance with a special/ crit is quite realistic, but as mentioned doesn't scale well with creatures of vastly differing sizes, like in the the hobbit vs the Giant example previously mentioned. I wonder how knockback will be treated in the new Runequest edition?

I liked the previous experience occupations in 3rd, but looking at it now it seems a bit too generic and dry. Occupations / previous experience are a really good opportunity to help develop the actual character. Warhammer fantasy role-play in contrast to RQ3 provided colourful background occupations to the player characters through the previous experience system. The strength of Runequest with Glorantha (and the cults), is a much more colourful character background, then the generic starting points of RQ3. I'm sure that will be built on in the new edition.

Some great points there, thanks Styopa. I played both editions originally but it's been a long time since I contemplated the rules, and my memory is a bit hazy, but the points you've raised do ring a bell. Although i started on 2nd edition ( with older sibling) which got me hooked, i really took ownership of 3rd edition, buying the gamesworkshop reprints. With 3rd edition we never used fatigue. I also never really got my head around the sorcery rules of 3rd edition and gave up on trying. I preferred Dodge to defence as iy removed an extra calculation in attack. A bit more streamlined. It seems there were scaling problems with both editions. You mentioned the 6 pt damage needed to to sever a limb in RQ2, which RQ 3 corrected ( i think) through exceeding by same or more hit points in that location. RQ3 also had some minor scaling issues with knock back not taking account of a characters size. So a small character like a hobbit could potentially knock back a giant on a special/crit. I've also seen the point raised that RQ2 had 12 strike ranks, while RQ3 had 10. Not too sure whether there is much difference in practice, though it makes sense having 12 strike ranks to12 seconds of the melee round.

I've been enjoying flicking through my Runequest 2 classic reprint, and it got me thinking what were the significant differences between RQ 2 & 3? It seems that with a new addition of Runequest by Chaosium soon to be released (based off of RQ2, a bit of 3, and lots of other new good stuff), that a revisit to the two older versions is appropriate. Keeping a focus on Runequest 2 and 3 ,most people seem to agree that RQ2 was full of flavour, and perhaps RQ 3 was a bit dry in presentation. However what aspects of the 2 rule sets do people prefer & why? Also, what if any are the considered flaws of both rule sets?

Whats the chances of chaosium getting a license to adapt warhammer FRP to a BRP version? Enemy Within campaign conversion would be great. Although having said that, the current GW setting has changed dramatically and detrimentally (as far as i can tell), and lost a lot of its potential for the & story line & subtleties found in the Enemy within campaign. It could only work thematically if they kept to WFRP 1ed background.

Nicely summed up. For the me the steady change of the Orlanthi from classical inspired RQ2 to Viking/Celt/Saxon felt wrong, and made the setting confusing to get to grips with. It eventually turned into something I wasn't really interested in. Having an inspiring ancient near eastern feel to Pavis, suddenly juxtaposed against neighbouring Viking/Saxon/ Celtic dragon pass just felt very wrong in tone/ flavour and put me off the setting. The "medieval" west was the final nail in the coffin. Im very pleased to see Glorantha returning again to RQ2 ancient feel with mention of Mycenae and such. The things that put me off Glorantha after RQ2 seem to be being corrected. The tone is retunring to the that more ancient classical feel that inspired so much and helped make rq2 so popular.

All these comments show how important it is to get the tone of art right. The scantily clad bikini girl is one cheesey example. Another generic troupe is depicting monsters and hereos as if they all work out in the gym on steroids. Totally loosing all character. From what Jeff is saying I don't think we need to worry about these generic cheesey depictions.

I think Jan's drawings do a good job of really getting to the nitty gritty of the clothes and details people of Glorantha wear. And in a sense Glorantha really needs this sort of detail worked out. I think there is also a danger that if that type of schematic illustration was over used, it would become too dry and boring. As mentioned there really needs to be some excitement, a little sword and sorcery, an element of the cinematic. With Glorantha there are plenty of subjects to inspire, from the more mundane but fascinating, to mythical and magical on a breath taking scale. For me the second drawing doesn't succeed on any level, it's not something I can relate to. But I can see why it was juxtaposed with the more schematic drawing. Glorantha really needs artists that can capture the depth of glorantha whilst at the same time keeping it exciting.

Lots to like here. The shop front, and small apartments make sense. high up small windows and roof terrace are characterful pavic/sartarite details. Have to say Glorantha is really coming alive for me again, after a long hiatus. These discussions, details, combined with the Sartar webcomic are really establishing the ancient mythical Glorantha again in my mind. Very cool thanks.

I do like the goblin inventions in the film "Labyrinth" as insipiration for the fantasy and inventiveness of the mostali. The cleaning wheel was a great idea, and a great sequence in the film. also the armoured goblin Gatling gun in the film was excentric and fun. I could see that working for these mostali. The giant robot guardian of the city was also inspired.I think those ideas start to build up mostali into a real curiosity with lots of flavour

And I suppose that these Golden mostali dwarfs that interact with humans are the ones most likely to be distracted by the contact with the outside world, and in rare cases swayed away form their Mostali beliefs to become mortal. Either that or a dwarf who can't except the discipline of mostal belief.

So the dwarfs that trade and deal with humans on a daily basis ( openhandism) like those in Pavis or dragon pass, what type would be chosen for that job? Gold mostal? Or combination of types? I guess whoever it is needs to have a different set of skills to communicate effectively with humans. Some form of understanding of human nature and etiquette? A diplomat

I've not read Griffin mountain. Is there a lot of material on dwarfs in there?

1970's trade unionists - That's a great roleplay idea for dwarfs. It's really interesting seeing all these ideas.

Pretty grotesque the face of hoggle from labyrinth fits the bill for a Gloranthan dwarf

Yes that Brian Froud sense of goblinoid, and slightly grotesque is a good way to go for these dwarfs. I managed to dig out my old copy of elder secrets, and it's almost word for word in the GTG. Interestingly there is a section on developing player characters, where they mention pretty much what has been expressed here. That being Apostate (broken), or from the openhandism/ individualist sects, and they suggest the one in dragon pass. Reading elder secrets and the guide, it's apparent that there is a little bit of wiggle room to develop the idea a mostali away from their designated work. There is mention of them having a room next to their workshop where they are able to indulge in a hobby in their down time.

Have the mostali dwarfs been further developed in GtG since elder secrets?

Thanks for this. I had forgotten a lot of that. Which are the known mostali heretic sects? Are the pavic dwarfs heretics?

Little copper man

Ha ha great eccentric flavour. I like it. From these posts it's apparent there's a lot of possibilities for injecting eccentric fun into the game with the mostali and their inventions. Which wasn't the impression I had after reading RQ3 elder secrets way back when. They seemed like anything but fun after reading that, however that could also have been a failing of my imagination back then.

I quite like the idea of the dwarf as an eccentric inventor. Tinkering with unusual technology. A clockwork watch that measures time itself. A companion like the clockwork owl in clash of the Titans, that needs a bit of maintenance every now and then. Perhaps an expert on lenses, useful for powerful telescopes, and fixing bad eye sight?

Great, I like these ideas. Colourful, that's starting to bring them to life as a possible player character, and still retaining the orthodox mostali idea. So if we're talking motivation for an adventuring dwarf, that's a good place to start.

This discussion wouldn't be complete without including some art from the new Runequest. I like the sketch/working drawing feel of this piece. There are some really nice qualities to the drawing, which remains open, not too tight , expressive, yet detailed, and it shows that the artist has a really good understanding of tone. I like the warm mottled water colour paper background. It gives a lovely unifying feel to the studies and a nice mid tone to play off. The style of drawing doesn't take it self too seriously, in that it has a feel of a accomplished graphic novel artist, which reminds us that this is a game. A good balance for the new RQ I think. I also like that it feels like it could be an artists concept design for a character in a film. Which seems like a really good approach to illustrating a fantasy roleplay game, particularly a world as rich as Glorantha, where the details can be really fleshed out. In a sense we're all film directors in an RPG game, this illustration is giving us the tools to help bring the world to life. I'm glad we're not looking at dry static drawings/renderings, but one with a bit of movement and expression. It's great that it's retained a sense of a working drawing, rather then a finished off piece. I'm not sure who the artist is, but I think if this is the tone and standard for future RQ art direction then we could be in for a treat.

Agreed - they do seem like an intriguing idea for Npc's.