RuneQuest 2 reprint

[Missiletoebass]

Surprised that nobody has posted this yet.

 

https://plus.google.com/106190330912720100528/posts/Rko8yFqyWBw

[Sean_RDP]

So it is going to be an exact reprint of the original? At least that what it seems like. 

[Rick Meints]

It is not an exact reprint of RQ2. If we did that it would not have the errata incorporated into the text, nor would we have corrected some typos. :-)
and there wouldn't be a barcode on the back cover. ;-)

The layout has been updated a bit, and we have added additional items into the appendices, plus some Q&A from Steve Perrin's "Rambling Runequestions". We also updated the Orlanth and Kyger Litor Cults so they are the Cults of Prax versions as opposed to the abbreviated versions the rulebook used. As a result, the book is now 144 pages instead of the original 120. The GM Handouts in the middle of the book will now be separately available. Of course the PDF of the book is bookmarked well. 

Edited November 12, 2015 by Rick Meints

[K Peterson]

Looks very promising. I read on another forum a comment about a leatherette, gold-foil edition. If that's actually planned, it could be quite tempting.

(I'm a bit of a greedy bastard and own 2 copies of the Reston Pub. version of RQ2. So I don't really need a deluxe/classic/premium edition. But, greed being what it is I'll still be tempted to get this new version).

[Sean_RDP]

This sounds very good. There is a whole generation of pnp gamers who are "Runequest, what?" and it is nice that they will get a chance to be introduced to some classic gaming. 

[TrippyHippy]

Well, it's the edition that everybody loves and talks about so it's always going to be worth a look in. First time experience for me. Hopefully, I can pick it up along with the new Pete Nash penned edition (alongside my Guide to Glorantha set).

 

[Simlasa]

My original copy is still in pretty good shape but I'd jump at the chance to get a new one in hardback with corrections and such. A PDF will also be quite useful.

[Baulderstone]

I finally get my hands on a copy of a Reston Publishing hardback with the dustcover this year and feel like I have the best possible version of RQ 2. Then you guys go and do this just to mock me. 

As an aside, where can I find a copy of the errata? 

[Newt]

I'm in the same boat Baulderstone....but I'll be getting the reprint as a copy that I will let other people touch :)

[Noita]

Both my kids will be receiving a copy.

[Eddy]

This is good news, it seems Chaosium is heading in the right direction. There's money to be made in them old rulebooks and supplements. As much as I like the Gloranthan Classics I'd love to see them reprinted using the old layout, fonts and using the original artwork including the old awesome covers. I can;t say I was impressed with the "new" artwork in the  Gloranthan Classics...sorry Rick, but that's just me. Even if they're all print on demand, its good news. I'm sure I'll pick this book up anyway.

[Baulderstone]

8 hours ago, Newt said:

I'm in the same boat Baulderstone....but I'll be getting the reprint as a copy that I will let other people touch :)

Oh, I never said I wasn't getting it.

[g33k]

Someone, over the years, managed to make off with my copy.

This is *SO* gonna be mine.

 

[Mankcam]

I personally feel that RQ6 eclipses RQ2 in most aspects of game mechanics, as it should do, considering the time between the publications.

However there is something to be said seeing the old RQ2 cover again that my limbic system will somehow drive me to consider purchasing this reprint. Nostalgia is a great thing  

Edited November 14, 2015 by Mankcam

[TrippyHippy]

One of the main selling points for me, along with my purchase of the Classic Traveller earlier this year, is just how concisely written everything is. It's a stark reminder that you actually don't need a massive page count to make a good game. I love my RQ6, soon to be Chaosium RuneQuest, but Classic RuneQuest will certainly be a treasure too.

[bturner]

RQ6 is a cleaner game than the original, considering only mundane issues of rules design, physical layout, and the like. Where it cannot stand against RQ2 (at least for an aging grognard like me) is the sheer sense of wonder and discovery. Sure, I may be trying to recapture lost youth, but there are worse motivations. :-)

[Baulderstone]

It's difficult to compare RQ 2 and RQ 6 as they had different design intentions. RQ 2 is "Glorantha:the RPG" while RQ 6 is a fantasy RPG toolkit. Of course, now we have an implementation of RQ 6 that is "Glorantha: the RPG" on the way, so that will be an interesting comparison point. 

[trystero]

6 hours ago, bturner said:

RQ6 is a cleaner game than the original, considering only mundane issues of rules design, physical layout, and the like. Where it cannot stand against RQ2 (at least for an aging grognard like me) is the sheer sense of wonder and discovery. Sure, I may be trying to recapture lost youth, but there are worse motivations. :-)

I agree on rules design, though I think RQ6 lacks a little of the clean, systemic design that I associate with RQ3; there are more tables and fewer computations in the newer version.

However, while I like RQ6's layout, I do wish it used a slightly sturdier typeface; I'd honestly rather have RQ2's plain look or RQ3's layout than the small, thin Warnock Pro type used in RQ6. I find the PDF nearly impossible to read without doing a lot of zooming, and even the printed book is a bit more strain on my old eyes than I like.

(Some of Moon Design's books have similar issues for me; the spidery Adobe Garamond type in HeroQuest Glorantha, for instance, makes that book harder to read than I think it needs to be. Perhaps it's just me.)

[SDLeary]

7 hours ago, trystero said:

However, while I like RQ6's layout, I do wish it used a slightly sturdier typeface; I'd honestly rather have RQ2's plain look or RQ3's layout than the small, thin Warnock Pro type used in RQ6. I find the PDF nearly impossible to read without doing a lot of zooming, and even the printed book is a bit more strain on my old eyes than I like.

Huh. Different strokes. I had no trouble with it on a 10" iPad 3. Both column legible, though small, no zooming.

SDLeary

[Mankcam]

Works fine on my iPad Mini tablet. Due to the size I have to zoom up the paragraphs, but its pretty clear when I do so.

But I digress, getting back to the topic at hand, I would probably not have much practical use for RQ2, but the prospect of having a nice reprinted volume of it still seems somehow appealing to me, even if it's just for my own guilty pleasure. Nostalgia is a strange phenomena at times 

Edited November 15, 2015 by Mankcam

[hkokko]

RQ2 is to me nostalgia from the days of long gone. Have the red hardback and the softcover as well. Will probably buy this edition as well but just for the collection. 

"I agree on rules design, though I think RQ6 lacks a little of the clean, systemic design that I associate with RQ3; there are more tables and fewer computations in the newer version."

I really prefer the current rules of RQ6. They are also very readable to me both on iPad, Mac screen or paper - no trouble with the font. To me RQ3 main failure was the sorcery and the combat at high levels, for RQ2 the combat at high levels - both turned to endless slugfests with Divine Intervention providing endless longevity to Rune Levels. I think these parts are significantly better in RQ6. I am not sure what is referred to by clean systemic design in the above quote... I prefer to have the rules in one book instead of separated to multiple ones. Having said all that - it was RQ rules then and enjoyed playing them (except for the slugfest part), I just enjoy RQ6 much more.

 

[Zit]

On 14.11.2015, 16:08:45, bturner said:

RQ6 is a cleaner game than the original, considering only mundane issues of rules design, physical layout, and the like. Where it cannot stand against RQ2 (at least for an aging grognard like me) is the sheer sense of wonder and discovery. Sure, I may be trying to recapture lost youth, but there are worse motivations. :-)

Indeed. RQ2 was my very first RPG, and is still today one of the best ones

Who said I may have a subjective judgement ?

[RosenMcStern]

15 hours ago, hkokko said:

To me RQ3 main failure was the sorcery and the combat at high levels, for RQ2 the combat at high levels - both turned to endless slugfests with Divine Intervention providing endless longevity to Rune Levels. I think these parts are significantly better in RQ6.

This does not correspond to my actual gaming experience. I have always had a lot of fun playing RQ3 sorcerers, even without the various amendments and variants that came out in the years. The big problem - which MRQ and RQ6 fixed - was the extreme dependence on magic point sources due to the necessity of casting 20+ spells to be effective. But this is a problem of a requirement being "out-of-context" (having many magic items vs. being very skilled) rather than the rules being ineffective or broken. The point is that the learning curve for sorcery was very steep and discouraged people from actually trying to play a sorcerer, which led to unsubstantiated statements of the system being "broken".

As for slugfests, it only occurred to me once in 12+ years of play that two high-level combatants entered an endless cycle of attack/parry/attack/parry. In all other occasions fights between rune levels were everything but boring.

RQ6 definitely has simple solutions for both these perceived (and I stress "perceived" here) problems, which encourages people to try the game and have fun. However, it _does_ have plenty of tables to reference during play, while RQ3 had basically no table that could not be reconstructed matematically with a simple computation. Depending on how much maths scare you, you might find one version more elegant than the other, or vice versa.

[bturner]

On 11/14/2015, 3:38:04, trystero said:

I agree on rules design, though I think RQ6 lacks a little of the clean, systemic design that I associate with RQ3; there are more tables and fewer computations in the newer version.

However, while I like RQ6's layout, I do wish it used a slightly sturdier typeface; I'd honestly rather have RQ2's plain look or RQ3's layout than the small, thin Warnock Pro type used in RQ6. I find the PDF nearly impossible to read without doing a lot of zooming, and even the printed book is a bit more strain on my old eyes than I like.

(Some of Moon Design's books have similar issues for me; the spidery Adobe Garamond type in HeroQuest Glorantha, for instance, makes that book harder to read than I think it needs to be. Perhaps it's just me.)

I can completely sympathize - reading the electronic editions on an older Kindle Fire also requires a lot of zooming. This is an issue that has come about relatively recently (<5 years), hopefully the folks doing layout for Moon Design and Design Mechanism will recognize and adapt, as none of us are getting any younger. :-)

[trystero]

5 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

RQ6...._does_ have plenty of tables to reference during play, while RQ3 had basically no table that could not be reconstructed mat[h]ematically with a simple computation. Depending on how much maths scare you, you might find one version more elegant than the other, or vice versa.

This is what I meant by "systemic design" above. I could keep almost all the information I needed for RQ3 in my head, or find it on a character sheet or in the 8-page Game Aids booklet, which made the game play very quickly and smoothly. The equivalent of that booklet for RQ6 is the "Charts and Sheets" section of the Games Master's Pack, which (even omitting tables used only during character creation) takes up about 30 pages.

A specific example: hit points per body location in RQ3 are computed from formulae, with the results summarized in a table, while in RQ6 they're given in a table, from which you can derive the formulae with some effort. Having the formulae made it much faster for me to write up (or improv) stats for enemies.

Again, I like a lot of the RQ6 changes; I just miss the clean simplicity of the RQ3 rules.

And we should probably spin off a new thread for this, rather than continue to derail discussion of the eagerly-awaited RQ2 reprint.