TheRPGSite

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 (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

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MRsMSvabhVI/TIZ-C_nXuNI/AAAAAAAAAG4/ha4sf7ywGIo/s1600/lolwut.bmp)

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 (http://catalog.chaosium.com/product_info.php?cPath=37&products_id=5042)
Possibly this too: In search of the Trollslayer (http://catalog.chaosium.com/product_info.php?cPath=37&products_id=3753)

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

Thanks for the input guys.

it's a good, honest question.

I run 2 rulests, oth homebrews, but one is a skill-based d100 system, and the other a class-based d20 system.

I have both because they are good at different things.
I went to the d100 for a grittier system, more mortal, so that bartenders could have level 4 basic social and that a duke could have 12000 exp in social skills.  I also wanted a system where characters only got better at the skills they used, and where combat and exploration were just part of the game you did to allow you to get things to use in the social realm, the real part of the game.
Been working on that system and setting for 27+ years now,

Years later, however, I find sometimes I have other needs.  A game with archetypes, based on exploration and problem solving.  A game with heroes and heroic archetypes.
and yes, an easier game where characters can be thrown together in 15 minutes instead of losing a game session to character creation.  

So they serve different needs.

D&D BECMI was the first RPG I ever played, but RuneQuest was the first RPG I bought, and the first one I truly loved. For me it's RuneQuest all the way.

On the other hand, I'm not you. You should run the game you feel most comfortable with.

The main problem I've found with converting DnD to RQ is the lack of "enemy races." Yes, RQ has Broo, but that's about it. One of the central ideas of RQ is that monsters are people too, not mooks.

Openquest does indeed have goblins and the like, but I've never found an acceptable (to me) way to translate a gang of orcs from DnD to something in RQ. I'm sure it can be done, but it doesn't feel right to me.

Quote from: ptingler;460421Is 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?

I wouldn't recommend trying to literally "convert" according to any particular formula. How I would go about it is decide beforehand about what difficulty level you want the opposition to be - you don't really need to go by the suggested D&D level and it might frankly be counterproductive to do so. Then given the power range you're looking at, pick the closest comparable existing Runequest monster for that power level and adjust it until you think you have the flavor for the original. Eliot's point is also a good one that similar monster names can be false friends between D&D and RQ.

Runequest's power curve is much flatter than D&D's, and being outnumbered even by inferior opponents is more dangerous. Between these two factors many level 1-3 D&D modules may end up being more dangerous than higher level ones, depending on the number and arrangement of the enemy. I like RQ a lot but guessing the relative power of PCs vs. monsters can be complicated in it. You may want to look at existing RQ adventures to get some models for the number and strength of monsters in your adaptations of D&D adventures. And I think if you err on the side of "weaker monsters" the players won't resent you for it.

Quote from: ptingler;460421Is 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?

I wouldn't recommend trying to literally "convert" according to any particular formula. How I would go about it is decide beforehand about what difficulty level you want the opposition to be - you don't really need to go by the suggested D&D level and it might frankly be counterproductive to do so. Then given the power range you're looking at, pick the closest comparable existing Runequest monster for that power level and adjust it until you think you have the flavor for the original. Eliot's point is also a good one that similar monster names can be false friends between D&D and RQ.

Runequest's power curve is much flatter than D&D's, and being outnumbered even by inferior opponents is more dangerous. Between these two factors many level 1-3 D&D modules may end up being more dangerous than higher level ones, depending on the number and arrangement of the enemy. I like RQ a lot but guessing the relative power of PCs vs. monsters can be complicated in it. You may want to look at existing RQ adventures to get some models for the number and strength of monsters in your adaptations of D&D adventures. And I think if you err on the side of "weaker monsters" the players won't resent you for it.

This said, if you want to try using RQ for some of the D&D classics, go for it. It will make for a somewhat different experience, but that doesn't mean it won't  be fun,

Quote from: Ultor;460536The main problem I've found with converting DnD to RQ is the lack of "enemy races." Yes, RQ has Broo, but that's about it. One of the central ideas of RQ is that monsters are people too, not mooks.

Openquest does indeed have goblins and the like, but I've never found an acceptable (to me) way to translate a gang of orcs from DnD to something in RQ. I'm sure it can be done, but it doesn't feel right to me.

You are conflating "fluff" and "crunch", and specifically Gloranthan fluff with RuneQuest the rules set.

Don't translate a gang of orcs to something else in RQ. Keep it a gang of orcs, but resolve the situations it gets into using the RQ rules.

Cole's advice is sound. The best way to use a D&D module with RuneQuest is to not convert at all. It is to read the module and try to grasp its inner logic, how challenges and threats are designed, how challenging and threatening they ought to be for the advised party level, and then try to recreate this intensity of threat/challenge for the RQ party.

Careful though, because the resource management doesn't work the same way. An 8th level party in D&D has a wealth of HPs to go through before things become really problematic for them, for instance, whereas a single fight may be deadly, even with mooks, in a RQ game. So it's all about trying to understand the environment depicted in the module and try to recreate it using RQ to create an environment that is enjoyable on its own merits, rather than trying to recreate the D&D game play with RQ rules. This could mean eliminating a whole lot of the little skirmishes of a D&D module in a dungeon, say, to replace them with atmospheric elements and keep the big, important fights that ought to threaten the adventurers life, depending on the type of feel you want, for instance.

I think that both OD&D and RQ are good game systems, but they have a very different feel to them. The problem, as I see it, is that as you add "realism" you tend to make a game more rules-heavy.

I think that OD&D's class system makes neat, tidy templates that are easy to worth with. OD&D's combat system is simple but abstract. OD&D has that "right" feel to me but, as others have suggested, it is probably because I've grown up with it.

RQ (and other BRP variants) adds in layers of complexity with hit location, skills, and so on. This can be good (depth of character) or bad (more to keep track of) depending upon one's style of play.

Bottom line -- they're both great rules systems. I prefer OD&D but I've got some friends who are RQ though-and-through. You can't really go wrong with either.

Quote from: Ultor;460536The main problem I've found with converting DnD to RQ is the lack of "enemy races." Yes, RQ has Broo, but that's about it. One of the central ideas of RQ is that monsters are people too, not mooks.

I've never much liked the idea of 'enemy races'... yeah, those Orcs over there are people too... but... these over here are BAD orcs... they just set fire to that old lady and ate her daughter... so go get them.

Besides reducing numbers, one thing I'm trying in our Hommlet/TOEE games with BRP is to have non-combat solutions to a lot of things... like, most of the bandits in the Moathouse are willing to talk... take bribes... there's already some of that set up in the original (Gnolls who can be bought off)... also having the majority of the monsters be unwilling to fight to the death... running away at the first solid wound. The bandits are mostly cowards who won't risk getting hurt unless they've got a sizable advantage somehow.

I'm still working on the TOEE itself... making it creepy/dangerous but not impossible.

Quote from: Phillip;460652You are conflating "fluff" and "crunch", and specifically Gloranthan fluff with RuneQuest the rules set.

Don't translate a gang of orcs to something else in RQ. Keep it a gang of orcs, but resolve the situations it gets into using the RQ rules.

I've been playing RQ for a loooong time now, and I don't view the rules as purely a set of crunch mechanics. There's a philosophy behind them, in my opinion, and one of those is that there is no such thing as "Orcs" or any other usually evil race that the PCs attack on sight. That's what made the Orcs of Griffin Island so jarring for many RQ players.

Now a good GM can apply that philosophy to any rules set, and many do, but to me it is inherent in the RQ rules.

That's why I have found it very difficult to convert D&Dish modules to RQ. Most of them are written with a philosophy I find alien to RQ.

Another example would be that treasure is culturally important - so lists of generic magic items and so on are right out, and the average orc hoard can't simply be converted either.

If you do view the rules as merely a set of mechanics, then go ahead. No skin off my nose. I'm just trying to say why I find the job difficult.

If this is just confusing "fluff" and "crunch," then I'm guilty of being confused. But I don't think so.

Quote from: Ultor;460855I've been playing RQ for a loooong time now, and I don't view the rules as purely a set of crunch mechanics. There's a philosophy behind them, in my opinion, and one of those is that there is no such thing as "Orcs" or any other usually evil race that the PCs attack on sight. That's what made the Orcs of Griffin Island so jarring for many RQ players.

Now a good GM can apply that philosophy to any rules set, and many do, but to me it is inherent in the RQ rules.

That's why I have found it very difficult to convert D&Dish modules to RQ. Most of them are written with a philosophy I find alien to RQ.

Another example would be that treasure is culturally important - so lists of generic magic items and so on are right out, and the average orc hoard can't simply be converted either.

If you do view the rules as merely a set of mechanics, then go ahead. No skin off my nose. I'm just trying to say why I find the job difficult.

If this is just confusing "fluff" and "crunch," then I'm guilty of being confused. But I don't think so.

I think I understand you correctly, and if I do, what you're saying is that RQ doesn't have alignments... in other words, absolute good or evil, where we can always say, "those guys are evil, kill them with fire!" kinda stuff. I agree with ya, but I'd say for converting modules from D&D to RQ, I'd go ahead and say, "Those guys are evil, kill them with fire!". If I'm trying to recreate a more D&D feel with RQ, I'd just let it go at that. If I were trying to use a D&D scenario, but give it a more RQ feel along with the details, I'd perhaps give some PC-accessible backstory to the orcs or other baddies to communicate to the PCs that those are bad people who need to be killed with fire.

I'm fine with killing monsters as monsters. I can get enough philosophy and ethical dilemmas from real life that I don't need it in my games of killing and taking their loot. :)

I think the main place where RQ mechanics push you more toward treating monsters as people is that fighting is a lot more dangerous in RQ than it is in D&D. It also has a more finely-grained set of results--you can disable someone, or be disabled, without a kill.

The effect can be as subtle as encouraging more creative ways of dealing with threats, to making both sides more willing to back off or run away, to actually encouraging negotiation.

That said, when I ran this (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=11362) using Basic D&D, I treated the goblins more as "nasty and lawless" than as "evil".

Quote from: ptingler;460881I'm fine with killing monsters as monsters. I can get enough philosophy and ethical dilemmas from real life that I don't need it in my games of killing and taking their loot. :)

:D:D:D

Hey, I just saw a bestiary for Basic Roleplaying that has a lot of generic monsters, including some that are also in D&D.

Available from http://basicroleplaying.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=398 (but you might need to register with the board to download)

A preview is available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/20443029/BaSIC-Bestiary

With a little tinkering you should be able to use the entries with MRQ.

Ultor, your slams against D&D miss because you are talking not about the game but about certain players of your acquaintance. Then you turn around and equate your own personal short-sidedness with an incapability in the RQ game.

Neither side of your argument is accurate. It also misses a whole lot of common sense.

My D&D character may hate Orcs, and my RQ character may hate not only Chaos things but also Lunars, but (like most adventurers who survive a while) they tend not to be either fanatical or suicidal.

I don't know what D&D scenarios you have in mind as depending on some "enemy race" rule. The Giants modules are set up partly as a deadly mission of retribution, but the acts for which they are retribution are the warrant.

The players have both the "carrot" of keeping any plunder and the "stick" of the headsman's ax for failure to teach the enemy enough of a lesson.

I don't even need to go back to ancient times or the Old World for historical examples of punitive expeditions, having plenty right here in America as recently as the 19th century.

Of course the giants are people. People kill other people, or otherwise become more convenient dead, with some frequency. Many a disease has killed more people than any army, but try to rouse the public to war against illness and see how much harder it is.

Orcs in D&D were originally either Chaotic or Neutral (both alignments being possible). Adding Lawful Orcs would go against the source material, but it would not radically change the game. Humans are of all alignments!

Quote from: UltorAnother example would be that treasure is culturally important - so lists of generic magic items and so on are right out, and the average orc hoard can't simply be converted either.

Yeah, after all, what Gloranthan RQ adventurer would want 1000 Lunars to pay for training, or a potion or spell matrix, or a spirit trapping or power storing crystal, or an iron weapon or piece of armor?

All that must be "right out" -- except for all us adventurers who have not been turning up our noses at it for the past 30+ years!

It's great if you won't settle for anything less than a scroll of literature or art or something. That makes the division of loot so much simpler! If you can fight even plain old humans when they are out to take our stuff with no qualms about killing us if need be, then you are welcome to come along into the Rubble.

Some Generally Unwelcome Gloranthan Critters:
Basilisks
Broos
Chonchons
Cockatrices
Disease Spirits
Dragon Snails
Dragonewts *
Ducks *
Ghouls
Giants (the few ancients such as Gonn Orta being exceptional)
Gobblers
Gorps
Headhangers
Huan To
Hydra
Jack O'bears
Krarshtkids
Minotaurs (except among fellow beast-men and some elves)
Morokanth *
Ogres
Passion Ghosts
Rubble Runners
Scorpion Men
Skeletons
Snakes (Chaos types)
Snatching Demons
Stoorworms
Trollkin *
Trolls **
Tusk Riders
Vampires
Walktapi
Were-creatures *
Zombies

* distrusted or despised more than feared or hated, but YMMV

** Trolls are at perpetual war with Dwarves and Elves, and the latter two are racial enemies to each other as well.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;461070Hey, I just saw a bestiary for Basic Roleplaying that has a lot of generic monsters, including some that are also in D&D.

Available from http://basicroleplaying.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=398 (but you might need to register with the board to download)

A preview is available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/20443029/BaSIC-Bestiary

With a little tinkering you should be able to use the entries with MRQ.

Oh wow, that's really, really good for a free download, and yeah, it's easy to convert. Thanks mate!

Quote from: Phillip;461095Ultor, your slams against D&D miss because you are talking not about the game but about certain players of your acquaintance. Then you turn around and equate your own personal short-sidedness with an incapability in the RQ game.

Two points:

1. I'm not slamming anything - that is wholly of your own imagination. I still treasure my LBBs and play the original game occasionally.

2. You haven't the *faintest* idea about my gaming experience or the people I play with. *You* are simply making things up, and this is the second time you have done it.

I see no point in discussing this further with someone who argues like this.

For the record, I stand by the points I made.

Quote from: UltorYou haven't the *faintest* idea about my gaming experience or the people I play with.

What I have is a pretty firm grasp of the actual games in question. Either you're getting your notions from people with whom you play, or you're just pulling them out of your ass. I chose the seemingly more likely and more charitable assumption.

You offer no evidence whatsoever for your claim of the necessity of "enemy races". Never mind that the RuneQuest rulesbook itself directly contradicts your claim of absence -- the significance in the first place has not been established!

Nothing in the representations of Arneson and Gygax and their friends has ever suggested to me such a necessity. The structure of the game as designed simply does not entail it. At hypothetical worst, hundreds of thousands of us were simply playing the game "wrong".

That appears to me most unlikely on the weight of evidence.

On the other hand, there is ample evidence of how not just some players but Wizards of the Coast have changed the presentation of the game. I still do not see the dependence you claim, but at least the games published by WotC have structures closer to what I can infer of the kind of thing that you imagine D&D to be.

Put most simply, "players attack on sight" is a recipe for quickly dead PCs in the D&D with which I am acquainted. It is the same if there are no Scorpion Men or Ogres, no Ghouls or Giants or Tusk Riders, but only Saxons vs. Britons or Lunars vs. Bison and Impala tribes.

Your notion is so far from being "necessary" to the game as to be a positive hindrance to sound strategy.

"Monsters are people too" in D&D! If you refuse to play them properly, then you have only yourself to blame for your poor DMing. Your willful departure from the standards of the game does not make them nonexistent!

Personally, I prefer RuneQuest, mainly because I've been playing it for a long, long time.

However, I played D&D (back when it was called AD&D) in a couple of campaigns which I enjoyed.

D&D is, in some ways, an easier game to play because things tend to be Black and White. Alignments mean you play what you are and you are what you play. You have an immediate set of possible friends and a set of enemies. Many NPC races are generally going to be hostile. Also, advancement is generally by killing things and gaining treasure, both of which are fairly easy. The D&D that I played (Second Edition AD&D) had a limited character progression which, again, is fairly easy, all you had to worry about was which spells or weapons to take and how much advancing to the next level cost. However, it is restrictive in many ways. If you belong to one character class you cannot do certain things. If you belong to an alignment you cannot behave in certain ways. Combat is very stylised and non-combat tasks are downgraded to the point where they often become meaningless.

RuneQuest is more complicated. The combat system means that you have to think about what you are doing as making a wrong decision can easily be fatal. There are a lot more options in character generation regarding which race to use, which profession and which cult to worship. Once you start playing, the options are much more open, you can start off as a warrior and end up being a healer, for example. Character advancement is grainer, with decisions on which skills to try to increase and which new spells to buy. Almost everyone can use magic of some kind, which affects the game a lot. There are moral choices that can be made in RQ which simply would not work in D&D, in my opinion. The basic rules set for RQ is easier to use, in my opinion, than D&D, there are fewer tables to look up, and combat is more intuitive.

So, if you want a very open but possibly more difficult game, then I'd go for RQ. If you want a game that is easier to play but is possibly more closed then I'd go for D&D.

Having said that, the group that I played RQ with for years had an earlier freeform D&D campaign in which they bent and twisted it to doing pretty much everything they wanted, so I can see how D&D can work well in a campaign.