Runequest classic or Runequest roleplaying in glorantha

[The Dave]

Hey guys,

Since there are real knowledgeable folks on this site, I was wondering if it was better to start with Runequest 2/classic hardcover or with the latest version Runequest roleplaying in Glorantha. thanks again. you guys give great advice for new players. 

[Psullie]

Personally I find the new edition has far more to offer. It has added Passions and Rune Augments which are a great addition. It has also made Rune Magic more assessable which truly brings Cults to the fore as a game mechanic - why don't you grab the free QuickStart and have some fun: https://www.chaosium.com/runequest-quickstart-1/

 

[Hteph]

I would go for the RQG as it has some improvements over RQ2 (there still are warts, but fewer) and all the old material is compatible (the conversions needed are so small I don’t think they matter in actual play) sometimes it needs additions of the new stuff around Runes and Passions, but only for VIP NPC.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

I am less sure that RQG is an unqualified improvement over RQ2.  However, it is, IMO, better, certainly not worse, one can use it (with mods) with old material, and there is a lot of new material for RQG.

New players should start with RQG.  No reason for them to start with "classic". 

 

[DreadDomain]

On 12/16/2020 at 2:38 AM, The Dave said:

Hey guys,

Since there are real knowledgeable folks on this site, I was wondering if it was better to start with Runequest 2/classic hardcover or with the latest version Runequest roleplaying in Glorantha. thanks again. you guys give great advice for new players. 

Unless you have a profound love for RQ2 and/or have internalised it, I see no reason for new players to use Classic over RQG. Mind you, I am certainly not saying Classic is bad, it is the reimpression of one of the most influencial RPG of the 70's and 80's, but it was written decades ago and it shows in its (lack of?) organisation. Classic will also give you character that are way less capable than RQG. Glorantha, while implied in Classic, is also not really integrated into the rules, which may be a bug or a feature for you.

RQG is built on the classic chassis of RQ2/RQ3 with notable additions from Pendragon. Runes are now much more integrated into the mechanics, magic and settings. Character creation is streamlined and easier and calibrated to give you quite capable characters from the start (but with a lot of room to grow). The sense of belonging to a community is enhanced and the background story gives you a character that feels more fleshed out straight out the gate. Also, the book(s) looks way, way, way better. The art is stunning and coherent. It breathes Glorantha.

Edited December 19, 2020 by DreadDomain

[Stephen L]

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

I am less sure that RQG is an unqualified improvement over RQ2

Nope, RQG is *everything* I want in a roleplaying system.  I *loved* RQ classic when it came out (RQii), but RQG is incomparably better.  It's ironed out the stuff that didn't work, and sprinkled everything through with the Glorathan magic dust, so it oozes Glorantha with every dice roll. 

3 hours ago, The Dave said:

if it was better to start with Runequest 2/classic

The advantage of starting with RQG is that a lot of thought has gone into how to introduce you to the system and the world, Glorantha, both in the core rules and the adventure supplements.  

The free (for PDF) quickstart, the broken tower is an excellent introduction. 

https://www.chaosium.com/runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-quickstart/

Then, the Game master screen pack has an excellent setting for a starting campaign and adventures that flow naturally on from the quickstart (or a good starting in it's own right).  (and you get it with the RuneQuest - Roleplaying in Glorantha - Slipcase Set, which you would be mad not to get).

https://www.chaosium.com/runequest-gamemaster-screen-pack/

Then, either of the adventure books:

https://www.chaosium.com/the-smoking-ruin-other-stories-hardcover/

https://www.chaosium.com/the-pegasus-plateau-other-stories-hardcover/

But by then, you'll be well established and the (Gloranthan) world is your oyster.

Though I'm an old hand, my players aren't.  And that's the path I've taken, and they're loving it.  And the youngest is 7.  No wait, it was his birthday Sunday, he's 8.  So trust me its a good way to start.

But there are plenty good places to start from RQ classic - savages in Balazar (Griffin Mountain) would be my choice.  But veteran D&D players might like the Pavis settings, or just emerse yourself in troll culture with trollpack would all be good (if very different) starting points.  But more work.

[Dr. Devici]

I picked up RuneQuest ~6 months back and opted to play RQG after reading through both it and classic. They read similar, but RQG is better formatted and presented, and gives you more information regarding the setting of Glorantha (assuming you're interested in running it).

RQG also has rules for making PCs established members of cults/communities designed to give the PCs actual jobs and lives beyond adventuring, which has been a nice change of pace from the usual "wandering heroes" approach I see in fantasy tabletop.

[Ian Absentia]

6 hours ago, Psullie said:

[RQG] has added Passions and Rune Augments which are a great addition. It has also made Rune Magic more assessable...

@Psullie gets it in One-Two-Three!  Prettier art, too.

!i!

Edited December 15, 2020 by Ian Absentia

[Bill the barbarian]

6 hours ago, Hteph said:

I would go for the RQG as it has some improvements over RQ2 (there still are warts, but fewer) and all the old material is compatible (the conversions needed are so small I don’t think they matter in actual play) sometimes it needs additions of the new stuff around Runes and Passions, but only for VIP NPC.

They don’t.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

1 hour ago, Bill the barbarian said:

They don’t.

Why do you say this?

Most GMs are pretty liberal in RQG about PCs using augments and inspirations, so the PCs are typically 20% better than "listed" in a couple of important skills.  The GM should strongly consider letting the important NPCs use augments, or, (simpler) just boost up their important skills by 10-30% depending how challenging you want the encounter.

[Bill the barbarian]

 

8 hours ago, Hteph said:

<snip> all the old material is compatible (the conversions needed are so small I don’t think they matter in actual play) <snip>

I say "they don’t"

45 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Why do you say this?

 

GMs often do not slavishly follow the modules and even if they do, they will change it a little pre-game to suit their table rather than kill all with a poorly thought out set of stat blocks. So I aver that they do not need a lot of modding in actual play, the conversions are insignificant. no more than should always be done to be sure the challenge is a good one. As Hteph says. and I paraphrase... sprinkle with appropriate runes add whatever percentage your table needs for a challenge and voila. 

45 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Most GMs are pretty liberal in RQG about PCs using augments and inspirations, so the PCs are typically 20% better than "listed" in a couple of important skills.  The GM should strongly consider letting the important NPCs use augments, or, (simpler) just boost up their important skills by 10-30% depending how challenging you want the encounter.

So, how does this differ from Htrph’s original comment to which I agreed?

Cheers

Edited December 16, 2020 by Bill the barbarian

[Nick Brooke]

3 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

I say "they don’t"

So, how does this differ from Htrph’s original comment to which I agreed?

You were saying the conversions don’t matter in play. But Morgan thought you were saying NPC VIPs don’t need Runes and Passions, because of where you cut the text you quoted.

You’re both right. There’s no need to spend time converting NPC stats from RQ Classic to RQG, if you’re competent to GM RuneQuest you can run a new game right out of the old books; and while there’s no need to predefine NPC VIPs’ or mooks’ Runes and Passions, you can certainly use them as justification for a +20% skill boost if you think NPCs as published are underpowered compared to your players’ characters and will be too much of a pushover. 

But don’t paint yourself into a corner by saying “there’s a 60% chance I’ll adjust this NPC’s stats to make my game better and a 40% chance I won’t,” and writing that down before play starts, and rolling dice during the game to determine whether or not you make a tweak that you think will help. Just fiddle the goddamn numbers!

Edited December 16, 2020 by Nick Brooke
curse you, Autocorrect!

[Jeff]

4 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

You were saying the conversions don’t matter in play. But Morgan thought you were saying NPC VIPs don’t need Runes and Passions, because of where you cut the text you quoted.

You’re both right. There’s no need to spend time converting NPC stats from RQ Classic to RQG, if you’re competent to GM RuneQuest you can run a new game right out of the old books; and while there’s no need to predefine NPC VIPs’ or mooks’ Runes and Passions, you can certainly use them as justification for a +20% skill boost if you think NPCs as published are underpowered compared to your players’ characters and will be too much of a pushover. 

But don’t paint yourself into a corner by saying “there’s a 60% chance I’ll adjust this NPC’s stats to make my game better and a 40% chance I won’t,” and writing that down before play starts, and rolling dice during the game to determine whether or not you make a tweak that you think will help. Just fiddle the goddamn numbers!

Testify Brother Brooke!

[Bill the barbarian]

5 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

You were saying the conversions don’t matter in play. But Morgan thought you were saying NPC VIPs don’t need Runes and Passions, because of where you cut the text you quoted.

 

yeah, had to be a misunderstanding. All I was doing was agreeing with a previous post. A reasonable one at that.

 

6 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

curse you, Autocorrect!

It aint an auto correct...  It's is a Spell Chk Daimon... an obscure denizen of one of the more horrifyingly bureaucratic hells. 

 

9 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

But don’t paint yourself into a corner by saying “there’s a 60% chance I’ll adjust this NPC’s stats to make my game better and a 40% chance I won’t,” and writing that down before play starts, and rolling dice during the game to determine whether or not you make a tweak that you think will help. Just fiddle the goddamn numbers!

Handwavium for all!

[Ian Absentia]

23 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

yeah, had to be a misunderstanding. All I was doing was agreeing with a previous post. A reasonable one at that.

Small consolation, but I understood you.  RQ2 adventures are virtually compatible with RQG.  You'd almost think it was intended by design.

!i!

[Bill the barbarian]

27 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Small consolation, but I understood you.  RQ2 adventures are virtually compatible with RQG.  You'd almost think it was intended by design.

 

Now I had not considered that possibility, good sir. I will now go and contemplate....

all teasing folk, do not take me too seriously here. 

ETA

The only thing to take seriously is that due to great design decisions you get a lot more than RQ G and JC games to play with!

Edited December 16, 2020 by Bill the barbarian

[icebrand]

Hi there, im a Classic GM (been gming since 1997). I could tell you why classic is the best and why *all day*...

It's a beautiful game really, but just buy RQG + Bestiary (bestiary is kind of a must buy to play).

[ffilz]

I'm sure I'll disappoint someone with my recommendation, but as a die hard RuneQuest 1st edition fan, I say go with RQG, and that's without even seeing the game... Sure, there's a lot I don't like in it, but I didn't like the changes RQ2 brought. But all the stuff mentioned above? That's good reason for new folks to play the new game.

Now if you're actually interested in playing games from the 70s and 80s, get Classic, heck, even get RQ1 (you can even get it POD for a quite reasonable price) and get some of those other classic supplements.

I might some day get RQG, and who knows, maybe lightning will strike twice and I'll change my mind about it. But that's me. I'm that weird guy who still does RQ1.

And once you start in with RQG, sure, pick up some of the classic supplements, but also look at the new stuff, especially that cool Johnstown Compendium fan stuff, everything I read about it sounds like there's some really good material, some of it from folks who have been playing as long as me, or at least close to it, maybe even a bit longer (especially if you consider White Bear & Red Moon board gaming), I'm not sure when the various big names got started...

Frank

[Rodney Dangerduck]

16 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

yeah, had to be a misunderstanding

I'm shocked, shocked to find that there are misunderstandings on the internet! 

No harm, no foul, we were actually in violent agreement.  🙂

[pachristian]

Runequest Classic and Runequest Glorantha use the same core mechanics. I recommend that you base the difference on your players.

The key difference is that Runequest Classic was done with the philosophy of "sit down, roll up a character, play". Character background, relations, and complications are kept to a minimum. The whole rulebook is only 120 pages. RQ Classic is showcased by the Pavis campaigns: You have a giant dungeon (called the Big Rubble), and a city outside it. Adventurers go from the city into the rubble as their day job, looking to loot ancient treasures from the monster-infested ruin. This is normal gaming from the 1970's. By itself, Runequest Classic will not get you into Glorantha. For that, you need, at least, Cults of Prax (Chaosium, 1978). This was the book that introduced most of us to the wonders of Glorantha. You see, while Runequest gave a hint of how to bring magic into play, Cults of Prax gave you something you could actually use in play. 

Runequest Glorantha is another kettle of fish. Depending on your point of view, it either "engages you deeply in the mythical world of Glorantha", or "crams Glorantha down your throat until you choke". Characters start by generating their homeland and ancestry, and build their character in relation to their background, passions, astrology (runes), and you create the whole complex edifice of your character's social role. The rules are not much more complex than in RQ Classic, and they offer more variety in play. But they are served atop a very thick slice of Glorantha, with a side order of "this is how you are meant to play your character". 

If your players are the kind of players who just want to hit monsters, take their treasure, and brag about how awesome they are, then RQ Glorantha is probably not going to appeal to them. Now, despite this, I recommend RQ Glorantha, with two caveats: (1) If you are an experienced GM, and know how to edit material so your players are not overwhelmed, then RQ Glorantha will give you a better game: It's easier to sideline rules until you need them than to add to the rules. (2) If your players are the kind of gamers who are willing to put a little extra effort in to get a more rounded storytelling experience. 

[Godlearner]

As a new player, go with RQG. It is the system that you will find most support for and all the new material is publish with it in mind. 

[soltakss]

On 12/15/2020 at 4:38 PM, The Dave said:

I was wondering if it was better to start with Runequest 2/classic hardcover or with the latest version Runequest roleplaying in Glorantha.

In my opinion, get the new version of RuneQuest (RQG).

RQ2 (RQ Classic) and RQ3 were great games, but RQG is better, in my opinion.

Sure, there are issues with some areas of the rules, but it is a better-rounded game than RQ2 or RQ3 ever were and has more Gloranthan atmosphere than RQ2, which is sayig something.

You can use the RQ Classic and RQ3 Scenarios with RQG with a bit of squinting and handwaving, normally done on the fly, although some GMs prefer to really convert NPCs (Seems a waste of valuable GM time to me).

 

[Akhôrahil]

The new game has better rules concepts, but has some really unclear and contradictory rules writing in it. I’d say get RQG, but be prepared to spend a lot of time looking up errata, clarifications, and Q&As.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[DreadDomain]

On 12/16/2020 at 9:04 AM, Dr. Device said:

I picked up RuneQuest ~6 months back and opted to play RQG after reading through both it and classic. They read similar, but RQG is better formatted and presented, and gives you more information regarding the setting of Glorantha (assuming you're interested in running it).

I suspected RQG would be easier to absorb by newcomers. Good to see your experience supports my suspicion.

On 12/16/2020 at 5:03 PM, Nick Brooke said:

You’re both right. There’s no need to spend time converting NPC stats from RQ Classic to RQG,

You can run a new game right out of the old books

You can certainly use them as justification for a +20% skill boost if you think NPCs as published are underpowered compared to your players’ characters and will be too much of a pushover. 

Just fiddle the goddamn numbers!

All agreed, supplements from RQ2/3/G are all usable without needing to pre-convert numbers. Heck, I fiddle the numbers for RQG too as required.

On 12/17/2020 at 8:22 AM, ffilz said:

I'm sure I'll disappoint someone with my recommendation, but as a die hard RuneQuest 1st edition fan

This is a side question, perhaps for another thread but I am curious to know (I don't want to debate your opinion, I just want to hear/read it) what changes were made in RQ2 that turn you off. I find it fascinating that someone stayed with RQ1

On 12/17/2020 at 2:53 PM, pachristian said:

Runequest Classic and Runequest Glorantha use the same core mechanics. I recommend that you base the difference on your players.

The key difference is that Runequest Classic was done with the philosophy of "sit down, roll up a character, play". Character background, relations, and complications are kept to a minimum. The whole rulebook is only 120 pages. RQ Classic is showcased by the Pavis campaigns: You have a giant dungeon (called the Big Rubble), and a city outside it. Adventurers go from the city into the rubble as their day job, looking to loot ancient treasures from the monster-infested ruin. This is normal gaming from the 1970's. 

You can do the same in RQG.

On 12/17/2020 at 2:53 PM, pachristian said:

Runequest Glorantha is another kettle of fish. Depending on your point of view, it either "engages you deeply in the mythical world of Glorantha", or "crams Glorantha down your throat until you choke". Characters start by generating their homeland and ancestry, and build their character in relation to their background, passions, astrology (runes), and you create the whole complex edifice of your character's social role. The rules are not much more complex than in RQ Classic, and they offer more variety in play. But they are served atop a very thick slice of Glorantha, with a side order of "this is how you are meant to play your character". 

The amount of Glorantha you want to eat is entirely up to the GM and players. Some of us want to read the Guide of Glorantha and the Sourcebook back to front before we jump in but we do not have to. The core book gives enough information for a newcomer to use only its content and build on it without adding any more layers of sugar (YGWV). The family background part of character creation is entirely bypassable.

7 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

The new game has better rules concepts, but has some really unclear and contradictory rules writing in it. I’d say get RQG, but be prepared to spend a lot of time looking up errata, clarifications, and Q&As.

Or don't spend a minute on them and make your own ruling/clarification/handwave. Your game will be as good or better.

[ffilz]

6 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

This is a side question, perhaps for another thread but I am curious to know (I don't want to debate your opinion, I just want to hear/read it) what changes were made in RQ2 that turn you off. I find it fascinating that someone stayed with RQ1

Here is a thread I started back in July to answer this question: