Have any of you played "old school" Runequest lately? (I am talking about RQ from the 70s. I have never actually tried anything before RQ3.) Are the RQ2 characters generally very weak at the start? Any specific good things about old Runequest, or do you prefer newer editions?

I haven't run any RQ since 2010 or so. The last extensive campaign I had was in the 90s. My preference is RQ 1/2, though I took some stuff from RQ 3. Of later editions, I have perused the MRQ1 books in the store.

I am actually trying to recruit players on Roll20 for RQ 1/2.

I have played pretty much all versions of RQ prior to the new 'RQ6', with many years of campaigns using RQII and RQIII. I went back to playing straight RQII (plus or minus a couple of trivial house rules) a few years ago, and I don't have any intention of going back to more recent editions (including III, which I played a lot). I think there are at least five advantages to playing the original (late 70's and early 80's) materials:
1) The writing and presentation are just better; sharply written, concise, often funny, great artwork and layout, and that 'vibe' you only find in original versions of creative games.
2) The game itself is at least as good to play as any subsequent edition I've experienced.
3) The best setting materials (the boxed sets: Pavis, Big Rubble, Borderlands and Trollpack) were written for this edition, and present the reader with almost 100 % gamable material. Later editions dilute that down with blathering setting descriptions, etc.
4) No Sorcery, which was badly bungled in RQ III
5) The power level starts low and stays low relatively long, keeping characters in the power range where the game works well. Once everyone is a Runelord-Priest wtih 4 points of Shield, iron armor and double iron bastard swords (the design every character seems to gravitate to), the whole thing gets kind of boring. But you can play for years at a power level where everything is quite exciting and all the various kinds of foes present interesting opposition.

I like how the cults work in RQ 1/2 compared to RQ3. I like the varying benefits for being a lay member or initiate. I'm curious how cults are implemented in later editions, but you're going to be prying Cults of Prax out of my cold dead hands...

It would be interesting to see a different take on sorcery from RQ 3, but the game also works just fine without it. While I saw an early draft of sorcery rules in Greg Stafford's zine in The Wild Hunt, it never grabbed me.

Didn't RQ 3 also mess up shamans? Now that is something I would like to see better RQ 2 compatible rules for since they ARE part of the RQ 1/2 setting.

Frank

I feel like shamans were actually better developed in RQ3. They provide a separate path, different from formal cult status, but in keeping with the setting and magic system, and in RQ3 potentially as interesting and powerful as a Rune-level character. In RQ2, they feel more constrained, like a second-banana sort of option.

I prefer RQ pre III, mostly because the Glorantha setting material is much lighter and more open to GM's interpretation.

But if I run BRP fantasy in the future, I highly suspect it would be Stormbringer or perhaps original Magic World if I wanted to BRP homebrew. I can't deal with canon junkies and while I love lots of the ideas in Glorantha, I'm not hot with much of the canon.

As for myself, I never understood why RQ3 was often criticized so heavily (albeit not by everyone). It is a great game, and actually still ahead of its time. See for instance the tips to the GM, where they talk about one-on-one games etc.

Still, I would definitely like to try RQ2 one day.

Quote from: Trond;1040261Have any of you played "old school" Runequest lately? (I am talking about RQ from the 70s. I have never actually tried anything before RQ3.) Are the RQ2 characters generally very weak at the start? Any specific good things about old Runequest, or do you prefer newer editions?

Characters lose limbs ... a lot.

Roleplaying is rewarded through the cult mechanic but...

the referee needs to stay on top of the money as training can be bought and can be a significant part of the character advancement.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1040308I prefer RQ pre III, mostly because the Glorantha setting material is much lighter and more open to GM's interpretation.

But if I run BRP fantasy in the future, I highly suspect it would be Stormbringer or perhaps original Magic World if I wanted to BRP homebrew. I can't deal with canon junkies and while I love lots of the ideas in Glorantha, I'm not hot with much of the canon.

I gamed with a couple canon junkies... It actually wasn't too bad...

But the next RQ/Glorantha campaign I run, to hell with canon. I will run MY Glorantha. If you want to play using the RQ 1/2 rules, and what I've taken of the setting from the RQ 1/2 era materials (plus maybe bits and pieces from later material) cool. If I decide to throw in something "non-Gloranthan", hey, it's MY campaign. Not Greg Stafford's.

Based on that, given the fun I've had in the past running RQ/Glorantha that way, I expect that with players who buy into that, we will have fun.

Frank

Quote from: Trond;1040314As for myself, I never understood why RQ3 was often criticized so heavily (albeit not by everyone). It is a great game, and actually still ahead of its time. See for instance the tips to the GM, where they talk about one-on-one games etc.

Still, I would definitely like to try RQ2 one day.

I don't think RQ 3 is a bad system. I choose RQ 1/2 because RQ 3 changed some of the quirky things I actually liked. Actually, I even stick with some of the RQ 1 quirks...

I own all of the Avalon Hill RQ 3 material except for Land of Ninja (well, I don't own ALL the versions of the rules, but I have the deluxe box so I have all the rules).

Quote from: estar;1040318Characters lose limbs ... a lot.

Roleplaying is rewarded through the cult mechanic but...

the referee needs to stay on top of the money as training can be bought and can be a significant part of the character advancement.

The training details are one of the quirks of RQ 2 that I prefer over RQ 3. And yea, characters lose a lot of limbs... There are ways to start off with a PC with Healing 6... (and I may be a bit more lenient with Healing vs. Xenohealing so an Aldryami PC is the best way to start with Healing 6 since I don't think Chalana Arroy is a very good PC cult...)

Frank

RQ3 is a good system. I played it for years and don't regret it. Gods of Glorantha in particular remains a favorite supplement. And Dorastor is cool. It just isn't substantially better than RQ2, and the core RQ2 setting material feels fresher, more focused on material you really use at the table (as opposed to endless frustrated-author essays) and easier to approach as you see fit. I agree that there is almost no snob snobbier than a Glorantha snob. The mega fan nerds of Gloranthan canon are just insufferable.

The last time I managed to get a game of RQ going, RQ II was the current edition.  That was with a borrowed set of the rules.  I do have RQ III, and MRQ II (before it became Legends or Mythras, however much that changed things).  I'd be moderately ok running any of them, if they made the priority cut, and think their similarities are more telling than their differences.  All of them have little things that annoy me, which I would need to house rule.  So it is just a matter of which one is the easiest to manage.  I'd probably gravitate towards MRQ II because I think the magic in it has less problems.  Either way, I'm not running in Glorantha, as I'd never assemble of group of players that would enjoy it.

I will say that starting a group of in RQ II with Apple Lane, for some reason I never can quite pin down, is one of the best ways to teach a group of players the rules and feel of a new game.  It's the best I've ever seen, and I say only one of the best because there's a lot of games out there I haven't experienced.  Whether that is something about RQ II or Apple Lane or both, I don't know.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1040274I have played pretty much all versions of RQ prior to the new 'RQ6', with many years of campaigns using RQII and RQIII. I went back to playing straight RQII (plus or minus a couple of trivial house rules) a few years ago, and I don't have any intention of going back to more recent editions (including III, which I played a lot). I think there are at least five advantages to playing the original (late 70's and early 80's) materials:
1) The writing and presentation are just better; sharply written, concise, often funny, great artwork and layout, and that 'vibe' you only find in original versions of creative games.
2) The game itself is at least as good to play as any subsequent edition I've experienced.
3) The best setting materials (the boxed sets: Pavis, Big Rubble, Borderlands and Trollpack) were written for this edition, and present the reader with almost 100 % gamable material. Later editions dilute that down with blathering setting descriptions, etc.
4) No Sorcery, which was badly bungled in RQ III
5) The power level starts low and stays low relatively long, keeping characters in the power range where the game works well. Once everyone is a Runelord-Priest wtih 4 points of Shield, iron armor and double iron bastard swords (the design every character seems to gravitate to), the whole thing gets kind of boring. But you can play for years at a power level where everything is quite exciting and all the various kinds of foes present interesting opposition.

I have played RQ since first edition and I prefer the way  RQ 3  treated  cults as part of a culture, as opposed to 1/2 where they were basically character classes.

Quote from: waltshumate;1040360I have played RQ since first edition and I prefer the way  RQ 3  treated  cults as part of a culture, as opposed to 1/2 where they were basically character classes.

Did you have Cults of Prax, Cults of Chaos and Trollpack? Those 2E books pretty much created the idea of merging magic, religion and culture in a game world.

Quote from: waltshumate;1040360I have played RQ since first edition and I prefer the way  RQ 3  treated  cults as part of a culture, as opposed to 1/2 where they were basically character classes.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1040362Did you have Cults of Prax, Cults of Chaos and Trollpack? Those 2E books pretty much created the idea of merging magic, religion and culture in a game world.

Yea, so what makes you feel like RQ 3 made the cults more part of culture that Cults of Prax?

Frank