The difference between the US and UK version of RQ3.

[jackleg2010]

I originally owned the RQ 3 box set back in the day. I recently saw the UK version in book form for sale online.

Does anyone know how the content differs between them?

[Joerg]

Between the two hardcover rulle books and the Bestiary, the GW version has the same text as books 1 to 4 of the AH DeLuxe box, as far as I remember from my attempts to translate the material back in the late eighties. The sequence of the texts was different.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

The U.K. version was split into 3 hardback books - RuneQuest, Advanced RuneQuest, and RuneQuest Monsters. Art work is different. Games Workshop used a lot of stock colour art pieces. 
 

Writing is the same but the split between basic and advanced books made it a little more difficult to follow some concepts. 
 

A softback version of the Basic Runequest rules was also released. 

The later Avalon hill rerelease of their boxed set in a single softback book in the early 90’s included an errata in the back.

[NickMiddleton]

I have a vague recollection that the GW RQ Monsters folded some typical stats (from the AH Monster Coliseum?) in with the stuff from the AH “Creatures Book” - but that might be a fabrication of my faulty memory?

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

One other thing. The Glorantha book from the Avalon hill set was not included in the U.K. Games Workshop edition. 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

3 hours ago, NickMiddleton said:

I have a vague recollection that the GW RQ Monsters folded some typical stats (from the AH Monster Coliseum?) in with the stuff from the AH “Creatures Book” - but that might be a fabrication of my faulty memory?

Just had a look at the GW monster book. It has few typical encounters added from monster coliseum, but not the gladiatorial stuff:

Heres a quick summary of the encounters added:

• a primitive hunting band
• Honest John’s Caravan 
• civilised Levy
• Earth Goddess temple residents 
• zangrif Bei, sorcerer 
• the hill hermit (prophet and priest of the invisible God)
• local Nobel and entourage 
• human adventurers 
• nomad raiders

Think the rest is the same as the Avalon hill edition. There is a smallish sample of monsters in the first GW basic RuneQuest book, some, i think all, repeated in the Monster book.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[PhilHibbs]

How does the UK Basic RuneQuest book compare to the Avalon Hill Standard Edition box?

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Good question. Never had that so can’t answer. Only ever had the later combined softback version of AH’s RuneQuest 3, and before that the U.K. GW edition. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can chip in? 

[PhilHibbs]

I have one in really nice condition. Unfortunately I can't find my copy of the GW book! I have FOUR copies of Advanced RuneQuest but can't find a basic!

[Rick Meints]

If you buy the MiG3 (out soon) all this info will be at your fingertips.

[Rick Meints]

Here's the descriptive text for one of the GW books:

4667 – Monsters, 112 pages, Perrin, GS, Willis, Petersen, James, Henderson, 1987.

This “Monster Manual” for RQ3 continues to be a popular reference book for those lucky enough to have a copy. It goes beyond what is found in the Deluxe set by throwing in all the monsters from Monster Coliseum as well. Many of the major monsters also have a fully detailed background containing everything needed for play. The Human section of the book is vastly expanded to include all manner of NPC’s, especially the ones from Monster Coliseum, but it doesn’t end there. There is also an interesting group of human NPC’s that can be thrown in as interesting encounters, including a trade caravan and Earth temple residents. All of the Gloranthan monsters are here in full detail too, including all of the dragonewt background information found in the Glorantha book. Broos, centaurs, ducks, dwarves, elves, halflings (not a good idea), ogres, orcs, and trolls all have information on how to create an adventurer out of someone from that race. Overall the book has a D&D feel which is unmistakable and a little regrettable, but forgivable.

[jackleg2010]

Here is what I remembered what it looked like advertised in the magazine White Dwarf. The issue also had this cover. There was also an adventure included in the issue. The only thing I remember about the adventure was the human female shaman with the broo was red headed and sterile. I also remember, maybe incorrectly, one UK version had artwork on the cover from Robert Adams' Horseclan' series, of the character Bili the Axe.

[JRE]

I have that issue, and really loved Jon Quaife's "A Tale to Tell", starring Muriah of Borderlands fame, the barren red headed shaman you mention. I was a bit upset when it was reissued in "Shadows on the Borderland", even with the great quality of that supplement, because I really liked the WD artwork and details.

As for the rules, I only have the GW rulebooks, most US supplements but no rules, and French editions of the US RQ3 I missed (Genertela and Land of Ninja), so the GW disorder is second nature to me. My GW hardcovers have held much better than the AH boxes and softcovers, mainly because they are held with books rather than the squashed piles of wargame boxes, and for the 20 year old me, the full color and nice illustrations, even if most came straight from White Dwarf were a big plus. 

[jackleg2010]

I wonder does anyone still use RQ3 rules for games now?

Edited February 24, 2022 by jackleg2010

[PhilHibbs]

3 hours ago, jackleg2010 said:

I wonder does anyone still use RQ3 rules for games now?

Oh yes definitely. Any ongoing campaign that has any significant use of sorcery is going to stick with RQ3 sorcery, for example. The new rules simply can't be dropped in. And some people don't like the 5% category modifier tables. I have seen people say that they are still using RQ3 wholesale. Some people are still running RQ2, and I think there's that one guy that still loves RQ1. Never underestimate the truculence of gamers! 😆

Edited February 24, 2022 by PhilHibbs

[Kloster]

4 hours ago, jackleg2010 said:

I wonder does anyone still use RQ3 rules for games now?

Yes. When I play RQG, my GM mostly play RAW, but when I GM, I completely replace RQG combat by RQ3 combat rules. I also (Thanks PhilHibbs for the reminder) try to have a working to replace the RQG modifiers tables by RQ3 formulas (every point counts, avoiding the steps caused by the tables and avoiding the problem of huge strength causing enormous combat modifiers: with RQG RAW, a character/creature with over 30 STR is very difficult to hit and has a very high attack bonus). In addition, our 15 years old RQ3 campaign is still in progress (albeit once or twice per year now, due to geographical and families considerations).

[JRE]

The only other RQ game I am aware of in town is pure RQ3 (in a mythic Britannia, as a spin off from a Vikings campaign). I am updating my MRQ game, but I am sorely tempted to just adapt RQ3. We used traits, as shown in John T. Sapienza's Expanded RQ3 character sheet from Heroes, so adding Passions, etc. is not a significant change. 

[Westnovote]

I don't miss the RQ3 fatigue bookkeeping, but I do miss fatigue as a concept from combat.  I like the way this is done in Mythras.

[Shiningbrow]

On 2/17/2022 at 3:09 AM, Rick Meints said:

If you buy the MiG3 (out soon) all this info will be at your fingertips.

I thought the Mig 3 stopped production in 1941.....

 

"4667 – Monsters, 112 pages, Perrin, GS, Willis, Petersen, James, Henderson, 1987. "

I created an Orc character from that book... also, I let him die because it wasn't Glorantha enough 😛

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Shiningbrow

[Godlearner]

On 2/24/2022 at 1:12 AM, jackleg2010 said:

I wonder does anyone still use RQ3 rules for games now?

Yes. Dropped Fatigue and changed Sorcery, added specials form RQ2.

I am considering adding some RQG by adding Runes and Passions but would need to change campaigns to do that. Tried Rune Pools, but find it too powerful, Will not use it without significant restructuring and restrictions.