Okay, guys....my question is about Runequest. I'd like to learn more about it. I hear it uses Chaosium's BRP system, with rules much like Call of Cthulhu. I have CoC 5th or 6th Edition (probably 6th). :raise:

Anyway, how many editions of Runequest were there? I hear people really liked 2nd or 3rd Edition, but don't know why. What were the rules for the various editions like? Which was better? Yeah, I know "better" is subjective.

I hear Mongoose published a version. Can anyone tell me about that?

Questions, questions, and more questions...

Runequest has had four editions, the last being Mongoose. The first and second, by Chaosium, were almost indentical, with only minor tweaks. This was the first source of Chaosium's house system, now called BRP. IMHO, these were the best versions. It was one of the first games to give bonuses and penalties for high and low stats, it dealt away with character classes and levels, being strictly skill based. The rules were simple, clear, concise. The best feature was "Rurik's Saga", examples of play following a single character. They told you, roll by roll, how to play the game.

The third, by Avalon Hill, had many differences. The rules were more detailed, magic was expanded, but the same basic skeleton remained.

Mongoose is attempting, I think, to strike a middle ground. I have this edition, I've read it a few times, but it just doesn't reach me like the Chaosium editions did.

1st ed. was 120 pages. 2nd was about twice that, don't have it handy. 3rd is back down to about 120 pages, but seems to miss something. But that's just me.

Check out this link:

http://http://www.maranci.net/rqpast.htm

It gives the best history of Runequest I know.

Quote from: Leo KnightCheck out this link:

http://http://www.maranci.net/rqpast.htm

It gives the best history of Runequest I know.

"Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage".

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb"Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage".

Huh. Poop. This time for sure. Nothin' up my sleve... presto:

http://www.maranci.net/rqpast.htm

While I'm at it, here's a link to the RQ rules archive. It's an e-mail list for RQ fans. Lots of discussion of differences between the rules:

http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/

Hope it helps! If the link fails again, do a Google for "Pete's Runequest". That'll take you to his homepage, with linky goodness to all thing Runequest.

edit: It lives!

I'm starting an open RQ campain at the flgs 3/31. I'll try to remember to post a real play thread.

We played a lot of RQ in high school (82 or so). It was the only game girls would play. I have no idea why that was, but through college, up until Vampire came out, a disproportionate number of women gamers noted the same thing. RQ is a great game, but there's nothing in it really all that different from other fantasy games. Certainly nothing I can see that would indicate any kind of gender differential.

OK, so you've got the core system with knowledge of BRP. That helps a lot.

Some very *other* cool things in RuneQuest which I think makes it a very popular game.

a) Glorantha and Runes. A truly mythic and epic world that is not boring, generic fantasy where magic is embodied in symbolic power and cultural conflict is important and interesting.

b) Magic system. Everyone has a couple of spells at least. Three magic systems reflecting metaphysical perspectives.

c) Sociologically accurate societal types and professions. "No really, your parents were barbarian farmers, you have good skill levels in Animal Lore, Plant Lore and you're pretty decent with a spear."

Personally, I think third edition was the best. Followed by the unpublished RQ: Adventures in Glorantha.

Quote from: Leo Knight1st ed. was 120 pages. 2nd was about twice that, don't have it handy. 3rd is back down to about 120 pages, but seems to miss something. But that's just me.

RQ1 and 2 were 120pp, RQ3 was 280pp, MRQ is 128pp

To be honest, I think judging the size of MRQ is difficult because the core rulebook contains so much less than previous versions of the game did. Really, if you are comparing MRQ with previous editions you should include the monster book and the Companion, both of which contain material which were in the main rulebook for previous editions of RQ - moreover, the material in them is important enough that Mongoose felt obliged to put out SRDs for them, which I would argue allows them to qualify as being part of the MRQ "core".

When you total them up, the MRQ "core" books come to 384 pages.

Quote from: stu2000We played a lot of RQ in high school (82 or so). It was the only game girls would play. I have no idea why that was, but through college, up until Vampire came out, a disproportionate number of women gamers noted the same thing. RQ is a great game, but there's nothing in it really all that different from other fantasy games. Certainly nothing I can see that would indicate any kind of gender differential.

My partner won't play D&D because, as she says, "It's just about killing things". Now one may exclaim "that's up to the DM" but y'know, system is important. (A)D&D modules are very heavily biased towards killing things. The amount of game statistics spent on "killing things" in D&D is quite disproportionate. The reward system is based around "killing things".

RuneQuest did have a pretty crunchy combat system, but it was also deadly. Combats were to be avoided. There was more of a skill system and there was more cultural and social integration, let alone the runic metaphysical debates.

For the record, she does play RuneQuest, HeroQuest, Dogs in the Vineyard, Call of Cthulhu, Nephilim, Best Friends, In Nomine, Everway and runs Little Fears.

I've been running the Mongoose Runequest for a couple of months now. On the face of it I've learned the following things:

the books are laid out like Ass. You are constantly checking another book for stuff that should be in the main book.

the system is flexible and simple enough to forgive that. Most things are 'roll X'.

The Combat system, when read closely and followed is... quirky. Enough so that I keep planning to check my 3rd edition book for head checks sake.

Spells: While there are some thirty runes in the game, it seems half of them have no spells assosiated with them. In other words, there is plenty of magic to go around, but you might wind up making shit up to get any real depth to the 'spell list'.  Not sure how that's going to play, but for the Sorcerer in our party we've had a hard time finding a proper 'offensive' spell for him to cast that actually, you know... did something.  I exaggerate, but we wound up with two nearly identical spells between our two 'spell casters'... one of whom is also the party tank. They both 'buff weapon damage', one via rune magic, one by sorcery.

Quote from: SpikeSpells: While there are some thirty runes in the game, it seems half of them have no spells assosiated with them. In other words, there is plenty of magic to go around, but you might wind up making shit up to get any real depth to the 'spell list'.

Gotta agree with this. The idea to tie basic magic in with runes was flawed at best...you can see why Sprange took it on board (it evidently makes sense of the game's name [although its clear in the earliest editions that the 'questing for runes' bit was about becoming Rune Lords or Priests) but it doesn't work. It's one of more than a few examples of a concept that was fixed when it wasn't broken.

There's been a lot of talk on the Mongoose RQ board about it. Perhaps the easiest thing to do is ignore the 'runes' bit altogether...or, if you must insist on using them, make rune affinity work the other way round - learning a spell helps you understand the associated rune (and its powers). There may even be room for a more advanced rune-based approach to magic...but for now, personally, I'd recommend just leaving the runes out of battle/combat magic altogether.

- Q

Quote from: Leo KnightHuh. Poop. This time for sure. Nothin' up my sleve... presto:

http://www.maranci.net/rqpast.htm

While I'm at it, here's a link to the RQ rules archive. It's an e-mail list for RQ fans. Lots of discussion of differences between the rules:

http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/

Hope it helps! If the link fails again, do a Google for "Pete's Runequest". That'll take you to his homepage, with linky goodness to all thing Runequest.

edit: It lives!

Thank you, Leo.    There's alotta info there. It may take time for me to digest that material, as family issues are taking first priority, but I'll look it over.

Incidentally, can anyone tell what attributes the various versions of Runequest use? Does it have a sanity mechanic like Call of Cthulhu? :confused:

Also, do these various editions of Runequest have comprehensive indexes? What's the layout like? Is it intuitive? I'm guessing all these editions use percentile rolls for skills.

I can't speak to Mongoose's but regarding earlier versions...

No sanity mechanic. Attributes (at least up to 3e) are STR INT DEX CON SIZ POW APP. Skill use is standard BRP, but I gather that combat is more involved than CoC (which I don't actually know very well).

Overall the game is quite intuitive and flexible; if you want to, you can leave out some of the complications like strike ranks and go with a simpler initiative system, without really doing enormous harm. About the only thing that really strikes me as complicated in the rules as written is the Sorcery system introduced in 3e. A number of people proposed various fixes to it, but leaving it out is probably just as good, depending on the type of campaign. RQ II did just fine with just spirit & rune magic, due to the nature of the setting.

Quote from: SpikeSpells: While there are some thirty runes in the game, it seems half of them have no spells assosiated with them.

*facepalm* I tried to tell them, really I did....