the MRQ thread got me wondering.  the majority of opinions i've seen so far rate 2nd & 3rd editions above the current one.  i don't hear any "they got this right in the first edition" statements, tho.  

so, those here who are familiar with the earlier editions of runequest:

which editions excelled at what things?  best magic rules?  combat?  creatures?

OK, my perspective:

1st edition and 2nd edition are very similar: the 2nd edition merely incorporated some errata and rules tweaks. The 3rd edition is greatly expanded and incorporates a whole extra magic system, and somewhat more complex combat and fatigue rules.

The big difference is that the 2nd edition had the Glorantha setting hardwired into it, while the 3rd edition was somewhat more generic fantasy. For my money, I prefer the 2nd edition: I think RQ loses a lot of its distinctive identity when you divorce it from the Glorantha setting, and the default magic systems (especially spirit magic and divine magic) are particularly evocative of that setting anyway. 2nd edition is also more concise and streamlined than 3rd, and is more enjoyable to read; it's very much the edition which "made" RQ, IMHO.

So: 2nd edition is best if you are particularly keen on the Glorantha setting, or want reasonably uncluttered and well-presented rules. 3rd edition is better if you don't care for Glorantha, or prefer having a lot of rules available to you.

RQ2 was perhaps the best iteration of the bunch.  The rules clarified and refined matters from the 1st edition, without the fiddliness and crunch-creep that was seen in RQ3.  Now, that said, RQ3 was still a fine game, and it was a clear heir to the previous editions, but there was a seeming drive to make it more of a RPG by beefing up the rules.  In RQ2, combat was stright-forward and magic was simple.  In RQ3, not so much.

RQ2 really shined most in its supplements, which were groundbreaking for the time, and are probably still head and shoulders above most similar products today.  The boxed adventures that painted broad vistas against which to adventure, without strictly scripted scenarios.

!i!

2nd Edition RQ is my favourite, as the other posters have said it's much less fiddley and much more playable. I want Glorantha in my Runequest every time.

And for a slightly dissenting opinion...

The cleanness of RQ2 is indisputable. You can see that it'll work very well as a game where "the rules of the game are the physics of the gameworld", even if there are elements which might map a little weirdly to a naturalistic sense of the world. (Does that makes sense?)

If you don't want to adventure in Glorantha, though, RQ2 is going to give you trouble. RQ3 has a much wider feel, generic Iron Age adventure with just a bit of wonkiness. E.g. while Sorcery is kind of strange, the breakdown of magic between spirit, divine, and sorcery makes sense, each being tied to a particular cultural outlook. Whereas in RQ2, you basically started with spirit magic no matter who you were, then you advanced to become a Rune Lord or Rune Priest.

RQ3 just has more rough edges and places where it seems the rules could be crocked. In my opinion, though, if you want non-Gloranthan fantasy it's probably a better baseline, perhaps combined with elements of Stormbringer/Elric. This is why the upcoming Chaosium BRP if handled properly could be a real treat.

Just to stir the pot: would RuneSlayer (originally titled RuneQuest: Slayers) count as a sequel or not? I don't actually know the original RQ games, but AFAIK it has completely different mechanics, might or might not take place in the same world (no idea), and yet it WAS originally planned to be published as a sequel.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn my opinion, though, if you want non-Gloranthan fantasy [RQ3 is] probably a better baseline, perhaps combined with elements of Stormbringer/Elric. This is why the upcoming Chaosium BRP if handled properly could be a real treat.

For what it's worth, I've always favored the CoC rules for generic fantasy adventure over any RQ implementation of BRP (with liberal borrowing from other BRP games, of course).

!i!

the main think i'm looking for is a good magic system.  the whole "rune" thing, at least as portrayed in MRQ, doesn't do it for me.  i just got their version of slaine but haven't had the chance to go over it.

I don't know CoC at all, but I've read that it strips away quite a bit. Frankly I don't even remember all varieties of BRP well enough to say which has what detail, but I'd say some crucial bits on the path from "really basic BRP" to "full crunch BRP" are:

Starting skill % influenced by characteristics.
Skill improvement influenced by characteristics. (Actually may not appear in BRP, but it's in Harnmaster which is very closely related.)
Hit Locations
Armor by Hit Location
Strike Ranks

Beeber, I'm curious about the various takes on magic from MRQ, too. I had a brief peep into the Lankhmar book and I liked what I saw.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI don't know CoC at all, but I've read that it strips away quite a bit.

BRP via CoC is pretty much the lowest common denominator, which is probably why I found it to be the best foundation from which to build an adventure.

As far as the most complex version of BRP, you can take your pick.  RQ3 was the most complex fantasy application in terms of physical simulation and magical systems, while Ringworld was a notably crunchy sci-fi app, and Super World was a very complex point-build system.

!i!

See, out of my list, I'd want no. 1 for sure, no. 2 would also be very nice (among other things it gives a sense of aptitude which should encourage some specialization). I used to think 3 & 4 were essential until I saw Elric!. Strike Ranks I'm not sure about. When I played RQ we were using an elaborate variation where the SRs sort of wrapped around continuously instead of "resetting" at the end of each round. It was manageable due to the GM's dedication (he'd written a program to keep track of who could act when) but I wouldn't want to impose it on players myself. The RaW might be less fiddly but I couldn't say from actual play.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe boxed adventures that painted broad vistas against which to adventure, without strictly scripted scenarios.

Except for 'Temple at Feroda', right? Or 'The Cradle'. Or 'To Giantland!'. If I thought about it harder, I'm sure I could remember several more. Chaosium might even have been a bit of a pioneer in scripted adventures.



Anyway, to answer the original question, RQ2 is probably your best bet for a self-contained, playable game (though you'll probably also want Cults of Prax, at least). If you want to use the system more broadly or for a longer period, I'd go RQ3.

I think one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that RQ2 did percentiles, but in 5% steps at all times (base skills, bonuses etc). RQ3 went with a true percentile system, in which characters advance more slowly and randomly. To give you an idea of how this can work out in the long term: after about ten or twelve years of play one guy's chr was over 300% in his main weapon, while another was a bit over 100%. It's not a good game for preserving balance between chrs, though that was quite acceptable to our group.

Is RQ2 available on pdf these days?

Quote from: Sean2nd Edition RQ is my favourite, as the other posters have said it's much less fiddley and much more playable. I want Glorantha in my Runequest every time.

Throwing my hat in this ring.
=

Quote from: PremierJust to stir the pot: would RuneSlayer (originally titled RuneQuest: Slayers) count as a sequel or not? I don't actually know the original RQ games, but AFAIK it has completely different mechanics, might or might not take place in the same world (no idea), and yet it WAS originally planned to be published as a sequel.

RQ Slayers was IMO a sequel in name only.  It had nothing to do with Glorantha or any other previously published RQ material and didn't even use the same game mechanics.  Last I checked the rules were posted out on the web somewhere if you want to check them out.

I like RQ II as well but I played in Glorantha so long that I got tired of it and switched to RQ III.  The biggest changes I remember between the two were that RQ III wasn't tied to Glorantha (although quite a bit of Glorantha material was published by AH), RQ III added Sorcerors and Shamans, and a dodge skill as an opposed roll was added in place of RQII's defense skill which was just subtracted from the attacker's hit percentage.

I used to run an RQIII campaign that would use material from other Chaosium games like CoC and Stormbringer.  The core mechanics of BRP are very easy to adapt to RQ IMO.

I agree with all the previous statements regarding RQII's completness and playability but one factor in favor of RQIII is that it is probably easier to find copies.