Chaosium's Runequest 2 Vs Runequest 3 (Avalon Hill)

[Yelm's Light]

Old time RQ2 gamer here.  The only reason I have RQ3 is because I found a scenario pack bundle cheap on Ebay and it was included.  To say I was underwhelmed by RQ3 would be the understatement of the century.  It seemed that everything I liked so much about RQ2 was eliminated.  The cover art grabbed me first...What's this?  And then Rurik started reeling me in.  Loved the art, the maps, the organization, the simplicity, and the completely different tack from D&D.  I still have my old (waaay old) RQ2 softbound and the red leatherbound version.

As for rules, I've been a DM/GM since the late '70's.  I haven't played tabletop in a couple of decades, but I'm well used to improvising a rule or three when running games.  If I run into a play issue, I solve it, usually to both my and my players' satisfaction.  About the only issue with play balance (or play, for that matter) that I ever really had was the aforementioned one with fights between high-levels.

And you can keep yer Europe...it's Glorantha all the way for me.  So, I guess that's a longwinded way to say, RQ2.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Yelm's Light

[g33k]

On 7/21/2016 at 6:56 AM, styopa said:

RQ2 doesn't appear to limit actions in a round OTHER THAN that constrained by the total number of SR it would take. So if your attack SR is 7, you'll never attack twice because your 2nd attack would always be at an SR greater than the 12sr limit per round (even if you're using 2 weapons).  Note also that in RQ2, you could split your attack if you had 50% or above but this second attack could never be used against the same target.  Also, remember there was no actual 'dodge' in RQ2.

Hmmm.  There is a problem here:  "SR" seems to conflate  weapon-speed  with  weapon reach ...  e.g.:

a longspear has long reach, and thus attacks early (low SR) but it's actually a fairly slow weapon from the POV of making multiple attacks (unless wielded in a more staff-like manner?)

I need to go back and consult the RQ2 combat rules -- I'm away from home -- but the rule my 1st RQ gm applied was that if you were facing a weapon that was notably longer than your own reach (e.g. spear vs. shortsword), you needed a successful attack-roll just to close to your own combat range (but then the person with the long weapon in turn needed a successful roll just to regain the range).  We thought it worked well.  Was that just the house-rule of that GM...?

[Guest Vile Traveller]

14 hours ago, g33k said:

Was that just the house-rule of that GM...?

If it was, it was certainly a house rule we used, and many groups of my acquaintance came to the same point independently.

[styopa]

I was never really happy with any initiative system I ever found.  The RQ one is simply upside down in the first place leading to all sorts of broken math, and every other one I either stumbled across or tried to craft either 1) encouraged sequential-movement silliness where whoever acted could rules-lawyer their way into performing actions that made no actual sense while everyone else was "frozen" awaiting their turn ("I run around behind him and stab him in the back!"), or 2) was ridiculously overcomplicated in the instance (combat) that should be really quick.

I was so desperate, I admit, I've occasionally considered hauling out the impulse-move-chart from Starfleet Battles on occasion but even I could see when my desire for verisimilitude had gone too far.  Never went so far as to actually try to implement it, I'd expect my players would lynch me.

[GamingGlen]

18 hours ago, styopa said:

I was so desperate, I admit, I've occasionally considered hauling out the impulse-move-chart from Starfleet Battles on occasion but even I could see when my desire for verisimilitude had gone too far.  Never went so far as to actually try to implement it, I'd expect my players would lynch me.

And rightly they should if you had.  

[MOB]

On 8/13/2016 at 11:13 AM, Yelm's Light said:

Old time RQ2 gamer here.  The only reason I have RQ3 is because I found a scenario pack bundle cheap on Ebay and it was included.  To say I was underwhelmed by RQ3 would be the understatement of the century.  It seemed that everything I liked so much about RQ2 was eliminated.  The cover art grabbed me first...What's this?  And then Rurik started reeling me in.  Loved the art, the maps, the organization, the simplicity, and the completely different tack from D&D.  I still have my old (waaay old) RQ2 softbound and the red leatherbound version.

It remains an impressive feat what RQ2 managed to rather elegantly present in just 120 odd pages...

[Noita]

5 hours ago, MOB said:

It remains an impressive feat what RQ2 managed to rather elegantly present in just 120 odd pages...

Shame ots going to take 3 books for the new rq to do the same.

[Jeff]

The core book of the new RuneQuest covers pretty much everything that was in RQ2 - we removed the bestiary into a different book because I wanted to include more information about monsters, make more monsters truly playable, and illustrate it. The third book contains stuff that was pretty much not in the RQ2 rules at all - rules on heroquesting, battles, becoming a hero, Dragon Pass encounters (with actual statted information), and scenarios.

So I don't think of that as a fair comparison in the slightest.

[jongjom]

54 minutes ago, Jeff said:

The core book of the new RuneQuest covers pretty much everything that was in RQ2 - we removed the bestiary into a different book because I wanted to include more information about monsters, make more monsters truly playable, and illustrate it. The third book contains stuff that was pretty much not in the RQ2 rules at all - rules on heroquesting, battles, becoming a hero, Dragon Pass encounters (with actual statted information), and scenarios.

So I don't think of that as a fair comparison in the slightest.

How many pages will the core book have?

Good to have more pages of great stuff, but conversely less pages because not everyone has the time and inclination. And less pages because I want the author(s) to exercise the art of conveying more with less words.

Edited August 23, 2016 by jongjom

[g33k]

8 hours ago, jongjom said:

How many pages will the core book have?

Good to have more pages of great stuff, but conversely less pages because not everyone has the time and inclination. And less pages because I want the author(s) to exercise the art of conveying more with less words.

But there does come a point of not just "diminishing returns," but actually going the wrong direction... having gotten both "correct" and "concise," have the authors retained enough "clarity," and above all an "evocative" presentation?  Glorantha, after all, is one of the most richly-mythological worlds in gaming, and I'd be OK with a marginally-less-Strunk&White'd presentation in favor of a richly-evocative one!  (YGWV)

 

[Zit]

16 hours ago, MOB said:

It remains an impressive feat what RQ2 managed to rather elegantly present in just 120 odd pages...

"Elegance" was the word chosen by an old early 80's French fanzine to define Runequest ("RuneQuest : l'élégance faite jeu" - Elegance made as game). I totally agree.

[styopa]

IMO "Evocative" is always in tension with "useful".  Fluff can also get in the way, and did, in RQ2.

Maybe it's the fact that I came up through wargaming, but I want a rulebook to be a reference work FIRST of all.  After all, most of the time you pick it up you're not doing so as an entertaining work of literature, you're picking it up to look up a rule, or table, or value.  You want to find it and get back to the game as fast as possible.

RQ2 was a very evocative rule book, no question.  Far moreso than the more sterile, generic RQ3.  But if you really look at the RQ2 rules as a text, they're HORRIBLY organized.  Things are hard to find, it's simply not that USEFUL of a reference work (well, until you know it by heart; then again, at that level of familiarity the D&D DMG is also useful and it is horribly organized as well).  I'm glad they're going with 3 books for RQ4, if only to put the rules in one, the setting in another, and the creatures (because they take a lot of space) in a third.  That makes a lot more sense in terms of utility.  

[trystero]

I always found the RQ3 books to be models of clear presentation and useful organisation, myself; that game is my gold standard.

[MOB]

2 hours ago, trystero said:

I always found the RQ3 books to be models of clear presentation and useful organisation, myself; that game is my gold standard.

I agree they were very clearly presented, but to me the RQ3 rules lacked the enticing charm and mystique of RQ2.

[trystero]

14 minutes ago, MOB said:

I agree they were very clearly presented, but to me the RQ3 rules lacked the enticing charm and mystique of RQ2.

I assume you read RQ2 first? I read RQ3 first, and found RQ2 hard going as a result, despite enjoying its more heavily-Gloranthan flavour.

[MOB]

2 hours ago, trystero said:

I assume you read RQ2 first? I read RQ3 first, and found RQ2 hard going as a result, despite enjoying its more heavily-Gloranthan flavour.

Yes, I started with RQ2 (started trying to play RuneQuest just with Apple Lane actually...)

[Pentallion]

Yeah, I started with RQ3 and loved  the easy to read rules.  now that I have the RQ2 rules, not liking how it's hard to find what you're looking for.  Nostalgic charm is not a substitute for well organized, easy to find rules.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Pentallion

[Mankcam]

RQ3 was certainly organised much better than RQ2. RQ2 is really hodge-podgy at times compared to later editions of rpgs.

 

 

Edited August 24, 2016 by Mankcam

[styopa]

4 hours ago, Mankcam said:

RQ3 was certainly organised much better than RQ2. RQ2 is really hodge-podgy at times compared to later editions of rpgs.

 

RQ2 was a creature of its time.  Most other rulesets of the era was any better (and a lot were a lot worse).  IIRC C&S was probably the best-organized, but still not great.

 

[Mankcam]

Yeah rpgs were barely a cottage industry back then, so RQ2 holds up well compared to many contemporaries.

[g33k]

On 8/23/2016 at 7:55 AM, styopa said:

IMO "Evocative" is always in tension with "useful".  Fluff can also get in the way, and did, in RQ2.

Maybe it's the fact that I came up through wargaming, but I want a rulebook to be a reference work FIRST of all.  After all, most of the time you pick it up you're not doing so as an entertaining work of literature, you're picking it up to look up a rule, or table, or value.  You want to find it and get back to the game as fast as possible.

RQ2 was a very evocative rule book, no question.  Far moreso than the more sterile, generic RQ3.  But if you really look at the RQ2 rules as a text, they're HORRIBLY organized.  Things are hard to find, it's simply not that USEFUL of a reference work (well, until you know it by heart; then again, at that level of familiarity the D&D DMG is also useful and it is horribly organized as well).  I'm glad they're going with 3 books for RQ4, if only to put the rules in one, the setting in another, and the creatures (because they take a lot of space) in a third.  That makes a lot more sense in terms of utility.  

Very true!  And there's the rub... if it's "not evocative enough," it doesn't entice the new players; if it's "too evocative" (in the way of efficient rules-reference) it alienates the gamer who wants that actual "useful" book!

If I understand correctly, the next edition isn't exactly doing a rules/setting/beastiary -- they are going closer to a D&D organization as of 3.x & 5 (I never even opened the covers of 4.0, so I can't comment to it):  First, a "Core" book with character-creation and a pretty-substantive piece of the setting -- enough that richly-Gloranthan PC's flow naturally from the rules, but ALSO enough rules to run the game, including what a GM needs; then a "GM" book with adventures/campaigns, heroquesting rules, additional setting-content, etc.  And, yeah, a Monster Manual.  Erm, Beastiary.  I expect to get the slipcase set, and the group as a whole to also have 2-3 additional Core books.

Edited August 25, 2016 by g33k
added a key bit of Core-book

[Yelm's Light]

On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 3:01 PM, MOB said:

It remains an impressive feat what RQ2 managed to rather elegantly present in just 120 odd pages...

Aside from the elegance and logic of the original system, I always go back to Rurik.  The rulebook presented a step-by-step description of character creation and interaction that really got you into the flavor of the world and game system.  I'd played D&D for several years before I discovered RQ2, so I was already savvy enough to 'get it' otherwise, but for a new player that would be an invaluable tool.  (It also helped that by the time I got into it there were a number of supplements and scenario packs for additional background, but I didn't even start looking for those until after I'd been playing the game for several months.)

Edited September 14, 2016 by Yelm's Light

[styopa]

On 9/14/2016 at 1:33 PM, Yelm's Light said:

Aside from the elegance and logic of the original system, I always go back to Rurik.  

Necro thread resurrection because I've been thinking a lot about this.

The RQ2 rules originally grabbed me because they were charming.  Rurik especially...the evocative way the game was presented, and then really (what should be recognized even today) as groundbreaking presentations in Cults of Prax and Cults of Terror have stuck with me as masterpieces nearly 40 years later.

RQ3 (for me; ygmv) fixed a number of mechanical issues with RQ 2 and made it into a truly solid portable game system (my first big campaign wasn't Gloranthan, so that might be part of it).

What I struggle with (maybe I'm not alone) is that I have to set aside these subjectivities and hitch my dedication and creativity to RQG.  I have to keep telling myself to give it a fair, objective read and not constantly compare it with mechanics and rules that (let's face it) might still be pretty good but are 35+ years old.  There are a lot of great ideas in RPGs that have happened since those early days; I'm optimistic in hoping that Jeff, Jason, and the crew can replace the bathwater, keep the baby, and make everyone at least 80% happy with the result.  (We're a picky bunch, I doubt anything over 85% is even possible....)

[seneschal]

So, is organization still an issue with the cleaned up, errata-added reprint of RQ2?

[Mikus]

7 hours ago, styopa said:

 I have to keep telling myself to give it a fair, objective read and not constantly compare it with mechanics and rules that (let's face it) might still be pretty good but are 35+ years old. 

This is what happens to us old people. We like what we like and get set in our ways.   But really, RQ3 is one sweet set of rules.  Other than a few oddities I think it is one of the best rules sets ever.  It sets a very high bar.   Comparing something new to something that has been working great forever is perfectly logical. RQ2 was great as a whole concept but I thought a 5% system using a d100 was a bit odd. A d20 would have been more elegant.  RQ3 made a d100 functional. And for myself separating Glorantha made it more viable for people who did not want to play in Glorantha.  One of the failings of EPT was the setting either grabs you or it does not.  If it did not, the systems invented for it were just two hard to filter out the Tekumel.   I have to believe that RQG is going to find a hard core group of Glorantha fans but most fans of d100 games will use another system.  Just a hunch.

 

BTW - I hope I am wrong and that Chaosium hits it out of the park.  I have been a big fan since Strombringer 1st ed. and my shelf has about 4' worth of BRP stuff.  I'll buy it and I hope I will like it enough to play it.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Mikus