Well, this is exciting.

I liked runequest primarily as a system as I could never get my head around Glorantha as a GM. Still the strong link between runes and character abilities is pretty cool, under a good glroanthaphile GM this could be pretty sweet.

I wasn't really expecting to like the direction of this version and it appears that I was right. I used to play in Glorantha all the time but 1980s Glorantha was nothing like the bloated game-world that it has become today.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;877712I wasn't really expecting to like the direction of this version and it appears that I was right. I used to play in Glorantha all the time but 1980s Glorantha was nothing like the bloated game-world that it has become today.

That's why I stick with last century's Glorantha. And it's still Yelmalio. Damn Elmal wankers.

Putting the runes more into play does sound good and setting up a Pendragon traits style duality for the power runes might be interesting.

Sounds like a great game for Gloranthaphiles.

Me, I like Glorantha well enough, but I prefer Runequest as a more open-ended game engine for gritty, brutal fantasy.

They totally lost me ast point 1.

Quote from: AikiGhost;877710I liked runequest primarily as a system as I could never get my head around Glorantha as a GM.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I have every reason to think that Chaosium will make a decent version of RuneQuest. However, I have no interest in Glorantha, and this RQ7 (I refuse to call it RQ4) has to be really good for me to prefer it over MRQ2/RQ6.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;877712I wasn't really expecting to like the direction of this version and it appears that I was right. I used to play in Glorantha all the time but 1980s Glorantha was nothing like the bloated game-world that it has become today.

I've always ran the Glorantha of 1st/2nd edition with what I like from the AH 3rd edition (a fair amount) and a few things I like from all the later stuff (not all that much). And after a campaign starts, I don't care about official canon -- what happens in the campaign is the official canon as far as my campaign is concerned. This annoys the official Glorantha canon-worshippers. Of course, they would not touch a campaign I was running so their opinions aren't of much concern to me.

They certainly seem to have gone all-in on the Glorantha angle... which pretty much shuts out my interest.
I'll wait to see what, if any, non-Glorantha materials follow.

Point 1 and 3 lost me.  Oh well.

Wow. Not much Glorantha love around here.

The best part about Glorantha from the 80s was that it consisted of parts that were easily ignored (various monsters or the fact that bronze was god bone) and the religious cults. These cults were presented in a modular fashion. Each cult had two or three pages that contained all the information you needed. They didn't have big lists of gods nor did they, as D&D did, divide the spells up among the gods. Instead it was very easy to add or remove the various gods from your campaign as you saw fit. Even the list of runes was presented in a way that made it seem like those listed were just the common ones and that there could be strange or rare ones that the GM could invent as needed.

So even though the world was very detailed, it was done so in a way that made it easy for the GM to adjust for a home campaign. Once you start to codify the various gods and runes, you lose that flexibility in exchange for a tiny bit of extra flavor. Not, IMO, a trade worth making. [If I want to use Pendragon's Passions, I'd use them. I don't need a "Gloranthafied" version.]

Yes, I was never much of a Glorantha fan, other than a mild interest in the Broo as a player race. The manner in which it was marketed when it was first released put me off from buying the game, even though we were experimenting with games other than Dungeons and Dragons at the time.

I bought a copy from Avalon Hill, the 2nd edition Deluxe Runequest, and it included a map of Europe, so I gave that a spin, and our group also liked this for awhile. I really liked it as well! It was a fresh take on historical based fantasy roleplaying. I never heard of Pendragon until after 2000, so Runequest was our go-to quick play alternative to the rules and math heavy Chivalry & Sorcery, which put some players off for historical fantasy games. The players would play Runequest if we would run Runequest Europe high fantasy games, but not C&S.

I'm with the others who stated they got lost on 1 and 3. It's too Gloranthafied for me. At least this saved me from ordering a copy of the game from the kickstarter page.

Quote from: GameDaddy;877784I bought a copy from Avalon Hill, the 2nd edition Deluxe Runequest, and it included a map of Europe...

It's a minor point, but the Avalon Hill edition with the map of Europe was Runequest 3rd edition not second edition. Second edition was the soft bound book with the color cover.

Having never played Pendragon I'm not clear on what Personal Traits and Passions are. From a quick google search they strike me as being constraints on how I can play my PC... kind of artificial and annoying like 'alignment'. Am I missing something?
It sounds like more stuff I don't want rules for...