Right now I play in two regularly scheduled games.

Game 1

Original D&D rules (three brown books only, no supplements) played in a campaign world of the DM who started playing in the 70's with the original rules. A few of us players have experience with rpgs, but many of the players have never played an rpg before. We have age ranges from 10 year old boys to married men playing with their kids in the group. As far as I know, the DM and I are the only ones in the group that have read and know the rules of OD&D. I've played and GM'd lots of D&D (all versions except 4E).

Game 2

Mongoose Runequest II rules played in the 2nd Age of Glorantha as the setting. I think we are all in our 30s-40s and have played a lot of games. I think everyone in the group except for the GM's wife has at least partially read the rules. First time playing Runequest in any form, but I've played and run Call of Cthulhu here and there over the years.

To me, although I'm having fun in the D&D campaign, I think the Runequest rules are a better simulation of how a fantasy world might work. D&D's adherence to classes and levels always bugged me from a simulation stand point. I understand them from a game standpoint, but they don't make much sense when it comes to modeling a world that has high verisimilitude to me.

I've ran a few games for my son (e.g. OD&D, Prince Valiant) and I'm debating on running a campaign of some old adventures (U1 Saltmarsh, L1 Bonehill, N1 Reptile God, etc.) for him, my wife, and anyone else that wants to play. I'm wondering if I should just run them using Runequest.

Do you have a preference for one over the other? Am I going to miss something by never running D&D again and switching to only running Runequest? Will my son get something more out of playing the adventures in one system over the other?

I grew up playing RQ so naturally to me it feels 'right' but I doubt there's an objectively better system. RQ is more detailed in combat (by several magnitudes) and on the whole is more demanding of players than OD&D. Personally I would treat them on a horses for a course basis.

That said, if things about classes and levels bug you then run what you enjoy. There's a lot of fun to be had running old modules in different systems and thinking through the implications. Suddenly you start getting kobolds who know befuddle and heal 2 and you can no longer guess the likely threat that a member of a given species represents.

I wouldn't worry about it being too difficult. When I first started playing my youngest sister was 11 and took a full role in defending Gringle's Pawnshop. About the only thing to do is to break the players in gently and limit the combat manouvres to pre-chosen ones.

I like 'em both, and think they have different feel and suit different approaches.  My advice would be to run the classic D&D adventures using D&D.  But I think you should run some Runequest adventures, too.  

I left D&D for Runequest long long ago... never looked back. The levels and classes thing always bugged me too.
Not that D&D doesn't have it's own flavorful spin on things.

Lately I've been using BRP rules to run some young kids through old D&D scenarios... with alterations.
Currently they're kicking around the Moathouse outside of the Village of Hommlet... soon to be on their way to the Temple of Elemental Evil (tweaked for BRP usage).
The rules have been very easy for them to pick up... I started them out just telling them what to do and kind of taught them the rules incrementally. I only gave them their character sheets last game because I didn't want them to focus on the numbers too much at first.
It's been a LOT of fun so far.

There's a monograph for BRP called Classic Fantasy that is all about doing D&D style adventures with BRP... various ideas/options. That might come in handy if you take that blended angle.

No hate for D&D, but go with Runequest.

Go with MRQII.  :cool:

Do you have a preference for one over the other?

Not really, no. They are both great, great games. If I *have* to choose, I'll pick D&D, but I'd rather not have to, because they're really both up there in my list of best RPGs ever.

Am I going to miss something by never running D&D again and switching to only running Runequest?

I think you would, yes. I really like both games for very different reasons. One is a class/archetype based game with a very precise focus on exploration and facing challenges while doing so, while the other is a more general skill based system with an emphasis on the human individual part of his world and community that becomes a hero of myth and legend in a world full of different gods, magic and culture.

To me, saying you'd go with only one is like saying that, between chocolate and vanilla, you'd eat vanilla all the time instead because chocolate is kind of redundant. I'm like "What?" It doesn't compute with me. These are two very different games, and playing one and the other is actually source of renewed interest and pleasure with RPGs.

Will my son get something more out of playing the adventures in one system over the other?

"More," not necessarily. Your way of running the game will matter more than whether you use this or that game, I think. But can they provide different experiences in play the other doesn't quite replicate to the same degree? For sure.

Yeah, much as I prefer BRP/Runequest... and never thought about running D&D once I found it... I wouldn't say, "No!" to playing in a D&D game again... I don't want to play 4E (tried it, didn't care for it)... but Basic or AD&D... or a retro-clone... certainly aren't off the menu of what I'd happily indulge in.
There is a different feel to the kinds of games they provide... a matter of taste, not quality.

I'll choose chocolate ice cream over vanilla every time though...

They are geared to different things.

Quote from: RuneQuest, 1978The title of the game, RUNEQUEST, describes its goal.... Acquiring a Rune by joining such a cult is the goal of the game, for only in gathering a Rune may a character take the next step, up into the ranks of Hero, and perhaps Superhero.

The ranks of Hero and Superhero are included in the scope of D&D, which reaches potentially even into the realms of myth that Greg Stafford proposed to explore in his original pitch of RuneQuest's successor HeroQuest (as found in the back of 2nd ed. RQ and Cults of Prax).

D&D has epic sweep in space, time, tempo and power. It glosses over details in which RQ wallows, to emphasize the fantastic and "get on with the adventure".

If ever I really want to role-play the mighty figures of White Bear and Red Moon, I will reach not for RQ but for D&D.

RQ is geared more to the merely human, to a more intimate and "realistic" scenario, coming from an attitude that

Quote from: RuneQuest, 1978A role-playing game is a game of character development, simulating the process of personal development commonly called "life".

"Simulating the process" is RQ in a nutshell. Chaosium's was to me the first "game system" really worthy of being called systematic. I think the "What's in this Box" sheet from the 2nd edition set referred to the rules as "the world machine" -- an apt term, to my mind.

Others have come along, notably Champions and GURPS, but I keep returning to "Basic Role Playing" because it has to my mind an uncluttered elegance.

Quote from: ptingler;460282I've ran a few games for my son (e.g. OD&D, Prince Valiant) and I'm debating on running a campaign of some old adventures (U1 Saltmarsh, L1 Bonehill, N1 Reptile God, etc.) for him, my wife, and anyone else that wants to play. I'm wondering if I should just run them using Runequest.

This probably isn't helping but someone converted a number of early adventures including Saltmarsh to Fantasy HERO here:
http://www.kestrelarts.com/gamedls.html

ADND/DND vs RQ 2nd edition was a choice I made back when I was 14.
 
I choose RQ (GW Boxed Set 2nd edition) because I wanted a more realistic game that was supported in lower volumes, over a more abstract game that was heavily supported. That to me was more important, and oddly still is today.
 
Did I miss out on a ton of games and stuff? Maybe, but I did pick up a lof of DND etc material afterwards.

Mongoose Runequest II is done in it's current state (I think it was announced yesterday or day before). Mongoose have given up - or lost - the Glorantha license and the writers (Whitaker and Nash?) have moved elsewhere. As far as I know it's all amicable, but my hope is to see the RQII rules set with its own fantasy setting - more D&D esque - as I always considered Glorantha to be a bit odd with talking ducks and stuff. It never caught on with my players back in the day and I was too lazy to convert reams of monsters from D&D to the game.

According to Matt Sprange there's another 6 months and they are done with RQII, but there'll be a generic fantasy game with setting books using the same system. Whether that comes off or not remains to be seen, but I have faith in Mongoose, and they usually tell it as it is (aside from the odd cryptic 'we have something great lined up!' which doesn't materialise. I think all companies are guilty of that though.)

Edit: scooped - didn't see the 'End of Mongoose RQ' a few posts down

Quote from: APN;460396but I have faith in Mongoose

Is there a way to judge Runequest power level in comparison to D&D power level? For example, since most of the D&D adventures say for levels 2-4 or 5-7 or whatever, is there a way to judge when a Runequest group should do those adventures? Do you convert monsters from D&D to Runequest stats or do you just say okay the text has 2 D&D trolls, I'll just use 2 Runequest trolls regardless of differences between the games?

Well, I certainly wouldn't use RQ trolls for D&D trolls. The only similarity is the name.

You might find this useful: Classic Fantasy for BRP
Possibly this too: In search of the Trollslayer

But I'm not sure if either has stats for D&D-type monsters.