"Better" or "worse" is really only definable in terms of meeting certain desired goals.

RuneQuest may have been better at meeting your desired goals, but that doesn't mean that other people share those goals.

Quote from: elfandghost;680961I ask because if you read through, early critiques of the game and current threads, here, the multi-class one here and hit-points one here you would think that RuneQuest/BRP solves all the problems! Yet despite doing well early on (as affirmed by Greg Stafford) RuneQuest isn't holding a GenCon and never had an 80s cartoon etc. So I ask why not?

For me I can think that the D&D settings such as Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft may have been bigger pulls than the perhaps niche Glorantha, but that doesn't explain all.

Because the combination of mechanics and the implied setting of classic D&D is more than good enough. Combined with first mover advantage allowed classic D&D to dominate.

Due to missteps by TSR D&D could have been overtaken by the late 90s but the 3.X edition effectively addressed the issues of customization and tactical detail for D&D fans. This combined with the network effect ensured D&D's dominance to the present.

In short if you wanted to teach somebody how to referee and play a tabletop roleplaying game classic D&D resides in the ideal spot.

Doesn't mean Classic D&D is perfect or better alternatives can't be created but Classic D&D is more than good enough. 3.X D&D/Pathfinder likewise is more than good enough.

Quote from: JeremyR;680994For one, Runequest is not very good. Overrated piece of crap. Like an artsy version of Arduin, only minus the charm.

The only issue of classic Runequest is the fact it was the house rules for Glorantha. By time it was made into a general RPG it had a lot of competition for second place.

Quote from: Benoist;680966Because all these so-called "problems" are not as much of an issue as some would like to believe,

And they were addressed by 3.X anyway cementing D&D's dominance to the present.

Quote from: elfandghost;680961Yet despite doing well early on (as affirmed by Greg Stafford) RuneQuest isn't holding a GenCon and never had an 80s cartoon etc. So I ask why not?

Avalon Hill mismanaged the property.

The decision to emphasize Glorantha was also, IMO, a mistake. Both Traveller and RuneQuest took nosedives in popularity shortly after they shifted to a default setting. That might be coincidental, but I don't think it is: At a time when D&D was offering multiple official settings and was still primarily focused on supporting homebrews, RuneQuest became the Glorantha Game.

Quite a few of RuneQuest's features also made it less accessible for new players: It was never going to overtake D&D because it relied heavily on D&D to be the gateway game that people would pass through to come to RuneQuest.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;681015Avalon Hill mismanaged the property.

Well, the secret is out.  Everyone has heard of Runequest by now.  But D&D/Pathfinder is way more popular.  Kind of like Michael Jackson.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;681015Avalon Hill mismanaged the property.

The decision to emphasize Glorantha was also, IMO, a mistake. Both Traveller and RuneQuest took nosedives in popularity shortly after they shifted to a default setting. That might be coincidental, but I don't think it is: At a time when D&D was offering multiple official settings and was still primarily focused on supporting homebrews, RuneQuest became the Glorantha Game.

Quite a few of RuneQuest's features also made it less accessible for new players: It was never going to overtake D&D because it relied heavily on D&D to be the gateway game that people would pass through to come to RuneQuest.

Good answer! I don't care for Glorantha myself, yet I still think RuneQuest needs its own kitchen-sink fantasy world but one that is more like Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk etc. Even if they are liked by everyone; they are obviously liked! I wonder what would have happened if Warhammer had been released for RuneQuest 3 rather than GW inventing its own ruleset.

I'm sure distribution/shelf space helped D&D a lot.

The only place where I ever saw anything RuneQuest was in Dragon Magazine, the occasional ad. It simply wasn't on the shelf where I lived.

D&D was first.

The number of people for whom D&D was subjectively right was more than the number of people for whom Runequest was subjectively right. You are asking from a subjective standpoint as if it were objective.

-clash

There are a lot of things that D&D got very, very right that helped spark RPGs as an ongoing hobby. Those things are levels, hit points, and classes.

Until the d20 license came out, RPG publishers spent 26 years trying to prove that levels, hit points, and classes were bad. They appealed to hard core gamers, but that's about it.

I think if you played D&D and didn't like those things, you were much more likely to make your own game. Hence all these games that try to do away with them.

Ducks?

Actually for me the random experience and the magic system.  I like some of the fundamentals of RQ magic but the actual spirit / divine split and utterly broken sorcery really bug me.

I do love the magic system from Worlds of Wonder.  One of the very best ever.

Quote from: David Johansen;681076I like some of the fundamentals of RQ magic but the actual spirit / divine split and utterly broken sorcery really bug me.

The reason for that is antropological (ike most things in RQ, really). Spirit magic reflects animist societies religious beliefs, while divine reflects theist ones, and sorcery reflects.. well, sorcery shouldnt exist in the first place.

I think it's a combination of several reasons cited thus far.

1) Glorantha as the "default": Glorantha is a heavily detailed world; while I like that, it isn't everyone's cup of tea. Also, it's more swords and sorcery (IMO), whereas D&D was influenced by Tolkien (despite EGG's constant denials). That in and of itself makes it more of a niche product. Second edition and the d20 boom expanded D&D's horizons with the likes of Dark Sun, Masque of the Red Death, Ravenloft, Scarred Lands, Eberron, and the Conan license.

2) Avalon Hill: Yeah, they really dropped the ball. RQIII has some problems with the mechanics, but shoehorning "Mythic Europe" into the mix took it from bad to worse. Of course, the post-AH mess wasn't any better...

3) Ducks: Yeah, they're the red-headed stepchildren of FRP races. I have my own love/hate relationship with them. I like them because they stand out from the standard gnome/elf/half-elf/half-orc/dwarf mix of non-human races. At the same time I hate them because whenever someone mentions them the answer comes back "WTF?!"... I still remember doing a double-take when I read through Ian Livingstone's "Dicing With Dragons" and came across the reference to ducks in RQ.

Now that RQ is no longer joined to Glorantha's hip and the system has had a good overhaul, it will be interesting to see if it can gain more traction rather than staying in the shadows.

Later...

Harl

Why did RQ not overtake DND?

I would assume mainly because dnd got there first.

Both games have appeal to me, but the one you play first has an 'edge'