Should I try Runequest 2 edition?

[Mugen]

5 hours ago, Joerg said:

Not quite correct. Dividing RQG skills by 5 produces a much lower power level in Questworlds as skills above one mastery aren't that rare, and required to have a somewhat similar success rate with opposed rolls.

Yes. The default starting chance is HW is 6, and people with 1 Mastery are not close to being Rune Level.

I see HW as a natural evolution of Pendragon, but an evolution that consider 20 is a good professionnal level, and not 10 or 15.

[Bahntah]

18 hours ago, muminalver said:

Thank you all for your input and advice,  I will probably pick up a pod of the rules and some of the supplements (prax and cults of terror) from Chaosium.

I will try to run it with a mixed bag of players (both young and old) running a fun runequest/glorantha experience,  not to serious.. filled of joy and wonder..

And thanks for the links it was really helpful for deciding what to do..

 

 

Do share how it goes with the new players! I really wanted to try RQ2 but I was afraid that it'd be less accessible than the more verbose RQG.

[TrippyHippy]

If you are somebody that feels that Runequest: Glorantha possibly rushed in a few too many bells and whistles in the rules and setting detail, too early, then Classic Runequest certainly feels simpler by comparison. 

The main issue to overcome with Runequest 2 are the character generation rules which kinda leave you hanging in terms of giving early background experience. The skill levels are very low and, while there is an appendix to provide some loose rules eventually, the implication is that you either take out a Traveller-esque mortgage to get some type of training from a Guild or Cult, or you simply start as a callow and mostly ineffective 16-year old.

I’ve ended up trying to make a hybrid of RQ:G and RQ Classic to play.

 

 

 

 

[Mark Mohrfield]

On 2/22/2024 at 4:19 PM, muminalver said:

Thank you all for your input and advice,  I will probably pick up a pod of the rules and some of the supplements (prax and cults of terror) from Chaosium.

Note that the hardcover of RQ2 is actually cheaper than the softcover, due to it being in stock rather than pod.

[ffilz]

My preference is RQ1, but RQ2 is a solid game and totally playable. And it has a nice set of adventures.

[Karlak One-eye]

On 2/21/2024 at 9:48 PM, Zit said:

I played RQ2 for decades. A great game, with the right level of complexity (to my taste of course). I started role playing with it, and never had any diificulty to understand the rules which I never found not well organized. I changed only for RQ:G (and Heroquest:G which is a different approach).

There was an undescriptible feeling in this game, a way to subtly stand back and not forget that it is just for fun. I never need for RQ3, although I bought it.

And I love the Defense %.

Big agree on the defence mechanism. I much prefer it to the dodge process. 

[Godlearner]

4 hours ago, Karlak One-eye said:

Big agree on the defence mechanism. I much prefer it to the dodge process.

Although I prefer Dodge over Defense, I do agree that Dodge has significant issues, especially in RQ3. Overall in my opinion warriors Dodge, soldiers use Defense..

[Mark Mohrfield]

On 2/23/2024 at 2:07 PM, TrippyHippy said:

The main issue to overcome with Runequest 2 are the character generation rules which kinda leave you hanging in terms of giving early background experience. The skill levels are very low and, while there is an appendix to provide some loose rules eventually, the implication is that you either take out a Traveller-esque mortgage to get some type of training from a Guild or Cult, or you simply start as a callow and mostly ineffective 16-year old.

The previous experience rules for barbarians and mercenaries were simpler and didn’t involve going into debt, which makes me wonder why the rules for apprentices were so different.