Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2010 15:52:29 GMT -6
I cross-posted this on the T&T page but thought that it actually might fit here better. Apologies if it's the wrong place.
I've been doing some web brousing for Runequest and found some pages that discuss the history of the game. I thought I'd post some highlights.
Edition History Chaosium: RuneQuest 1 (1978) Chaosium: RuneQuest 2 (1981) Avalon Hill: RuneQuest 3 (1984) Mongoose Publishing: RuneQuest (Actually RQ4; 2006) Mongoose Publishing: RuneQuest II (Actually RQ5; 2009)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2010 15:52:58 GMT -6
Chaosium Runequest coversThe first printing (1978) was black & white (actually, black and red ink) on a tan cover. The picture below is actually B&W, and doesn't look quite like the actual cover. The second printing (1979) was the same basic image, only in color. The second printing (1979) was later changed to have the more familiar Chaosium logo. This was also issued as part of a boxed set. I'm thinking that "second printing" seems to be code for "second edition", although it sounds like both 1E and 2E were nearly the same. Eventually, Avalon Hill made a boxed set which was RQ3 and had a totally different cover:
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 17, 2010 8:38:22 GMT -6
2nd printing is indeed 2nd edition, and it does have some significant changes, though not enough to convince me to pay $12 for a new edition so soon after I purchased the 1st edition.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 17, 2010 11:23:09 GMT -6
Hmmm. For some reason I thought I have a copy of 2E, but mine is red/black on the cover and dated 1978. It doesn have the old logo, however, instead of the more modern Chaosium one. Guess I have 1E. I'd be interested in knowing what was changed and how important those changes are....
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 18, 2010 6:53:07 GMT -6
Is your Section X labeled "Referee's Notes" or "Appendices"? The latter is 2nd edition. The biggest differences between the two editions are":
2nd has all the races and monsters together in alphabetical order, 1st has them grouped by types.
2nd has a large set of appendices
2nd has some of the spells redone
Those are the differences I can think of off the top of my head.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 18, 2010 6:54:24 GMT -6
Oh, and 2nd ed is 1979, with a 2nd printing 1980 (those are the copyrights in my 2nd ed. rule book which was packaged in a boxed set).
Frank
|
|
|
Post by coffee on May 19, 2010 17:07:08 GMT -6
Was the first edition a stand alone book or was it part of a boxed set?
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 19, 2010 18:07:05 GMT -6
First edition was stand alone. Second edition was first released as stand alone, but later a boxed set came out. Third edition was boxed set only.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 19, 2010 20:01:26 GMT -6
Is your Section X labeled "Referee's Notes" or "Appendices"? The latter is 2nd edition. "Referee's Notes" In the case of RQ, I'm not sure if it's "better" to have an earlier or later edition. Earlier is more "old school" (I guess) but later would fix typos. OS isn't a big deal if the system is essentially unchanged....
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 19, 2010 21:32:17 GMT -6
While I stuck with 1st edition forever, I think 2nd edition would be the ideal edition.
But that's because I like the way 2nd edition/Cults of Prax handles cults. I did not like how RQ3 handled cults (and I'm not sure I like sorcery - though I actually have a Greg Stafford Wild Hunt submission that has a prototype of the sorcery rules). I haven't had a close enough look at Mongoose RQ (1 or 2) to get an idea if I like how they handle cults.
I am glad I still have 1st edition though, because one bit from 2nd edition I'm not sure I like is how they changed armor. Just about everything else from 2nd edition is fine (there might be one or two spells that were dropped that I would still use).
Oh, and if your Section X is "Referee's Notes" you definitely have a 1st edition. They must have had a 2nd printing with the new logo.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by coffee on May 27, 2010 9:23:34 GMT -6
The one I just got is second edition, then, but that's okay by me.
One more quick question: How many pages are in the book?
My last page is 120 (Section XI, Indexes), but it's not completely attached, and it makes me wonder if there are any more that might be missing.
|
|
|
Post by uncruliar on May 27, 2010 10:08:22 GMT -6
I am glad I still have 1st edition though, because one bit from 2nd edition I'm not sure I like is how they changed armor. Just about everything else from 2nd edition is fine (there might be one or two spells that were dropped that I would still use). I've only got RQ2, did play RQ3 a bit but didn't like it. So my question is - How did they change armour? Or to put it another way, how did armour work in RQ1?
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 27, 2010 12:43:05 GMT -6
My copy of RQ2 has 120 pages, with the last page being the index.
In RQ1, armor was purchased per hit location (except chest and abdomen were always combined). In RQ2, armor is purchased in "more realistic" pieces: greaves (legs), pants/trews (legs and abdoment), skirts (abdomen), hauberk (chest and abdomen), byrnie or cuirass (chest), sleeves/vambraces (arms), and helmets. In RQ1, the only overlap of armor that was allowed was padding could be worn under any other armor. In RQ2, pants/trews (which cover legs and abdomen) and hauberk (which covers chest and abdomen) can both be worn, and the armor stacks in the abdomen. Also, not all armor is available in every location. Plate for example is not available for the abdomen.
So, overall, it works the same, just some details that I prefer how they are handled in RQ1.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by coffee on May 27, 2010 13:08:58 GMT -6
My copy of RQ2 has 120 pages, with the last page being the index. Frank Thanks, Frank. Hey, have an exalt for all your help!
|
|
|
Post by uncruliar on May 27, 2010 15:04:19 GMT -6
Thanks for the exposition on armour in RQ1.
I have to say my first response is "What's not to prefer in the RQ2 approach!" Which just goes to show how different people look at things in different ways.
To go into more detail though the RQ2 approach seems more 'realistic'. I don't immediately see what benefir in the RQ1 approach outweighs the realism of the RQ2 approach. However I haven't played RQ1 so I would be interested to hear why you prefer armour in RQ1.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 27, 2010 15:18:56 GMT -6
Partly I prefer the RQ1 way because I chose not to purchase RQ2 when it came out.
But I find the stacking armor and the lack of plate for abdomen a bit clunky.
Without overlapping (other than padding), The heaviest armor is:
Legs: plate greaves + leather (AP 7) abdomen: chain skirt + leather (AP 7) chest: plate cuirass + leather (AP 8) arms: plate vambraces + leather (AP 7) head: full helm + hood (AP 7)
This is 1 less AP for the abdomen than in RQ 1
Depending on how one interprets the stacking rules, the maximum armor is:
Legs: plate greaves + chain pants + leather (AP 12) abdomen: chain hauberk + chain pants + leather (AP 12) chest: chain hauberk + plate cuirass + leather (AP 13) arms: plate vambraces + leather (AP 7) head: full helm + cap (AP 7)
I just didn't like that. Of course there is a huge encumbrance penalty for all that armor, but still...
So I stick with RQ 1 armor...
Oh, and for not so rich starting characters, there aren't consistent cheap armors across the body, cuirboilli isn't available for the abdomen, ring and scale are only available for the chest and abdomen, though I guess with linnen hauberk, you can get uniform AP 3 (plus leather for 1 or 2 more).
I guess I just don't like the complexity, and I really don't like the stacking.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by uncruliar on May 27, 2010 15:22:12 GMT -6
Fair points which I think deserve more reflection than I can give them right now.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 27, 2010 17:51:16 GMT -6
Some differences in Battle Magic:
RQ1 has Padding and Protection as two separate spells (pow 2, prot 2 for padding, pow 4, prot 4 for protection). RQ2 has Protection as a variable spell. This is a change I do play with. It's good.
RQ1 has Shimmer as a fixed spell, RQ2 has it as variable (I still use the fixed spell).
RQ1 has Speedart as a variable spell, RQ2 has it as a fixed spell. I still use the variable spell.
Not sure why I didn't pick up the Shimmer change, probably I only picked up the Protection change because it was simple to remember.
There may be other differences in the spell descriptions, this set of differences is just from the list of spells.
Frank
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2011 3:40:06 GMT -6
Third edition was boxed set only. Avalon Hill did publish a softcover compilation of Deluxe RQ3 in 1993.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Mar 15, 2011 1:35:12 GMT -6
A funny thing about RQ II was that you couldn't get the cuirass the lady on the cover was wearing.
Some other changes:
Glorontha -> Glorantha
Background Chart changed regarding poor and rich nobles' incomes (the latter halved), and very rich nobles added
Thieves Guild: Ambush and Sense Ambush skills dropped (rolled into Hide in Cover and Spot Hidden Item)
In RQ I, there are no Initiates, just Lords and Priests, and Rune Magic is a Priestly monopoly. Reusable Rune spells take a week per spell to regain.
Costs to learn variable spells are lower in 2nd; Protection went from 4 pts. to variable; Padding removed; Spirit Shield added.
Previous experience has been revised, especially for Nobles and Apprentices.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 27, 2020 21:01:39 GMT -6
I finally got around to finishing the RQ1 vs RQ2 comparison that I conceived of years ago, and before I even started it, ended up doing the concept for the 4 versions of Classic Traveller. So here, I present my paragraph by paragraph comparison of RQ1 and RQ2. There are actually more differences than I realized, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised: docs.google.com/document/d/1Pi8aJ_LNuXXl9b-OrwrtTi4BpGSexKxxIguJqThnW1U/edit?usp=sharingAs I went through the comparison, I noted a bunch of things I'd actually prefer the RQ2 rules for, so I suppose I really will end up with RQ1.5... Another big item of note is that the RQ2 Shaman is much more playable than the RQ1 Shaman. I also found a few more spell differences than noted above (including Rune Spell differences).
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on May 28, 2020 19:54:11 GMT -6
I finally got around to finishing the RQ1 vs RQ2 comparison that I conceived of years ago, Nice, though it will take me a while to go through it, I'm already spotting things in the RQ2 rules I don't remember even from the days when I wrote my RetroQuest II SRD. I noted a bunch of things I'd actually prefer the RQ2 rules for, so I suppose I really will end up with RQ1.5... Do you think you'll ever incorporate any RQ3? I mostly played RQ2.5, I think.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 28, 2020 20:16:23 GMT -6
I finally got around to finishing the RQ1 vs RQ2 comparison that I conceived of years ago, Nice, though it will take me a while to go through it, I'm already spotting things in the RQ2 rules I don't remember even from the days when I wrote my RetroQuest II SRD. I noted a bunch of things I'd actually prefer the RQ2 rules for, so I suppose I really will end up with RQ1.5... Do you think you'll ever incorporate any RQ3? I mostly played RQ2.5, I think. I have used RQ3 inspired previous experience. I doubt there is that much else I would take. I'm not a fan of sorcery which is the one thing that is truly missing from RQ1/2 (though I do have an early draft of RQ sorcery from one of Greg Stafford's zines in The Wild Hunt). I have noted a few creatures to take from RQ3, and if desperate, I would take cult descriptions. Oh, and I'm not against using the RQ3 adventures that were not rehashes of RQ1/2 adventures. If I was super motivated, I would add RQ3 and RQG to the differences, but I suspect there would be way too many differences to make it a sensible comparison.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 29, 2020 16:03:43 GMT -6
I finally got around to finishing the RQ1 vs RQ2 comparison that I conceived of years ago, Nice, though it will take me a while to go through it, I'm already spotting things in the RQ2 rules I don't remember even from the days when I wrote my RetroQuest II SRD. I noted a bunch of things I'd actually prefer the RQ2 rules for, so I suppose I really will end up with RQ1.5... Do you think you'll ever incorporate any RQ3? I mostly played RQ2.5, I think. I thought I'd also ask what things you think would be worth taking from RQ3?
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on May 29, 2020 22:16:57 GMT -6
Well, let me see. Flicking through the GW hardbacks, the bits we adapted from RQ3 were ... - Weapon breakage
- HP-per-location calculation
- Skill training and research
- Characteristic increase
- Fixed INT for animals
- Heal instead of Healing/Xenohealing (we house-ruled this before RQ3 was published, so AH ripped us off!)
- Ships & sailing
I liked the Game Mastering advice, and the information in the Scenario Aids chapter was very useful for adventure writing. Looking back on it now, I think those two chapters are one of the best referee help sections out of any games I have. We did use the Sorcery rules. They may have been a bit wonky they worked out okay in our games, where balance was not a thing yet (pre-internet!). Most sorcerers were NPCs, and the only player who developed one was really into her character and not a min/maxer at all. I've never done a comparison like this before, obviously most of the above crept in slowly over the years - e.g. the sorcery only made it into my last few campaigns in the early 90s. Now that I see it altogether, overall it was clearly more a case of replacing bits of RQ2 with specific RQ3 rules while still going by RQ2 for most things.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on May 30, 2020 21:40:21 GMT -6
Well, let me see. Flicking through the GW hardbacks, the bits we adapted from RQ3 were ... Hmm, actually from this list I have used or might be using a bunch: Ok, here is one that I used as inspiration for a house rule. My house rule is attack damage > weapon HP, weapon shatters and absorbs that much of the damage, the rest goes to the arm parrying. Damage >= 1/2 HP reduces HP by 1. I have used this, but don't currently use it. It does lead to more HP for some locations and less for others, since RQ1's formula was effectively: Most hit locations: HP >= 18: FLOOR(HP/3)+1 HP <18: MAX(2,CEIL(HP/3)) Compared to CEIL(HP * 0.33) (worse 1-3 and at multiples of 3 from 18 on up, otherwise equal) Arms: the above - 1 Compared to CEIL(HP * 0.25) (worse at 16 and from 18 HP on up, better for 5, 6, 9) Chest: the above + 1 Compared to CEIL(HP * 0.40) (worse 1-5, 7, and 10, better at 23, 26, 28, 29, and 31 on up, otherwise equal) Any location that gets a .16 multiplier is going to be pretty much worse. Not sure what changes here, I did run with the improve by 1d6, though maybe it was 1d6+1, I don't recall. Otherwise I used RQ1 training and improvement. I stuck with RQ1 for this. That is an interesting idea worthy of backport, especially since RQ1 warhorses get 2d3 INT and when you combine with most intelligent creatures getting 2d6+6 or better INT that was introduced in Trollpak, fixed INT from 1-6 works nicely. A few low INT creatures might need to be modified to minimum of 7 if 7+ is considered sentience. I don't mind the difference so much here, and with RQ1 it's clear all the creatures listed in the first section (including elves) using Healing, it just means PCs do need another spell to heal their mounts and familiars. Something to look at, though since I play the early Glorantha, there isn't much seaborne sailing... I'll have to look those over, one thing I am curious now is how much the advice has changed from 70s and early 80s old school to late 80s and 90s "new" school. I might have a look at them if I really needed a sorcerer, but I've gotten along just fine without for 42 years... There definitely can be value of taking in things from newer rules sets, but I've started to consider taking a much more careful angle on that than I have in the past. I think there is real value to the original editions of games, and at least playing them as much as possible by RAW before sucking in stuff from later editions is definitely worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by ravenheart87 on Jun 8, 2020 4:09:44 GMT -6
The two things I would import from RQ3e into RQ2e are the professions and the skill list. Core RQ2e is especially light on knowledge and communication skills, while those the supplements introduce are all over the place - eg. the various identify skills are very narrowly focused, while general lore is all-encompassing and ridiculously expensive. Another source worth stealing from is Stormbringer.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jun 8, 2020 8:36:49 GMT -6
The two things I would import from RQ3e into RQ2e are the professions and the skill list. Core RQ2e is especially light on knowledge and communication skills, while those the supplements introduce are all over the place - eg. the various identify skills are very narrowly focused, while general lore is all-encompassing and ridiculously expensive. Another source worth stealing from is Stormbringer. I have added some Communication skills, I'm not sure if directly from RQ3 but at least inspired by it. I'm hesitant to add too many skills for various reasons, and I no longer like most knowledge skills, not the Knowledge skill category, but the sort of "area knowledge" type skills later games added. Most of the time they don't run well in play. General Knowledge as part of the Lhankor My skill set isn't something I'm going to fiddle with though. I haven't cataloged all the other Knowledge skills that have been added (it really would be interesting to catalog all the additional skills, note also that sometimes creature stat blocks in adventures introduce new skills).
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jun 16, 2020 10:48:07 GMT -6
Chaosium has expressed displeasure with my comparison document. At the moment it's still public, but if I don't resolve something with them, I will have to take it private. If you are interested in the document, please go to the document and request comment access and I will add you and then you will continue to be able to see it even if I have to take it private. Unfortunately it's impossible to do such a comparison document and follow their guidelines, so maybe they will find a way for it to still be available, but I'm guessing not...
Frank
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 16, 2020 15:53:47 GMT -6
Chaosium has expressed displeasure with my comparison document. At the moment it's still public, but if I don't resolve something with them, I will have to take it private. If you are interested in the document, please go to the document and request comment access and I will add you and then you will continue to be able to see it even if I have to take it private. Unfortunately it's impossible to do such a comparison document and follow their guidelines, so maybe they will find a way for it to still be available, but I'm guessing not... Frank Unbelievable. a Change document is a problem?? While I am glad that the RQ KS happened (despite it being FUBAR), I have been sorely disappointed with the way they have handled things since the buyout (and I used to blindly defend them, in those early days).
|
|