[Runequest] RQ6

Peter Maranci pmaranci at gmail.com
Tue Dec 4 10:10:07 EST 2012


"RQ3.Mine" describes my feelings perfectly. The classic RQ3 system (with a
few customizations) slips onto my mind like a comfortable old leather
glove; it does whatever I want it to, effortlessly.

My players are almost all relatively new to RQ, but they're all quite
impressed with it. Some of them want to use it for their own campaigns. But
I honestly don't know what to tell them to buy.

All I know is that since I don't need scenarios or reference material (I
prefer to create my own), I have no reason to buy ANY new version! Although
I'd definitely pay for a searchable PDF and hardcover copy of the complete
RQ3 rules; my perfect bound Avalon Hill copy has finally started dropping
pages. :-(

Funny, the red hardcover RQ2 book has outlived it, even though it's MUCH
older.
On Dec 3, 2012 5:57 PM, "Lawrence Whitaker" <lawrence.whitaker at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm biased, but you might like to take a look at the latest review<http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15749.phtml>on RPGnet. It may help you decide.
>
> On 3 December 2012 17:51, Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So...Runequest 6?
>> Opinions?
>> I haven't got it yet (expect it for Xmas) but so far what I've seen is
>> quite positive.
>>
>> Here's my motivation - I've loved RQ3 for a long time.  Possibly some of
>> the best times of my life have been late evenings DM'ing RQ with my sons
>> and their friends.
>>
>> Yet now post high school they're moving on, and both they (at their
>> various colleges) and their friends (at their new lives) are wanting to
>> spread RQ to benighted gaming groups whose breadth of experience has been
>> D&D 4.0, or (at best) Pathfinder D&D.
>>
>> The problem is that my RQ3 isn't just 3.1 or 3.2, it's really more like
>> "RQ3-point-Mine".  I have so many house rules and kludges that have become
>> standardized in my game that I'm more and more convinced that it's simply
>> not exportable, and particularly not for younger gamers without an
>> experienced hand's studied 'casualness' to published rules.  (I started
>> gaming clearly in another era...)
>>
>> So what I'm thinking is that their lives (and their evangelism of the Joy
>> of Simulationist gaming) would be much easier if we made a wholesale switch
>> to a more 'current' version - something that other players could
>> conceivably buy, something they can get today, something whose support
>> materials are available to everyone and not with the bulk of the rules
>> buried in my laptop or stacks of legal pads.
>>
>> I skipped over RQ4 & RQ5 (MRQs), I had no need of a new system plus some
>> of the considered reviews left me feeling underwhelmed at the re-writes.
>>
>> So now I'm looking at RQ6.  From the limited bit I've seen/heard, I LIKE
>> some of the choices from the cover art homage to RQ2, to the addition of
>> alternate magic systems to better address what ended up kludgy in RQ3.
>>
>> I desperately hope that we can - with a minimum of pain - update to
>> something more currently/commercially available.  It seems like RQ6 has
>> perhaps taken RQ3 and truly updated it with some gaming systems/concepts
>> from the last decade or two that have really solved some issues.
>>
>> I need a new system.  Is RQ6 going to serve?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Runequest mailing list
>> Runequest at rpgreview.net
>> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Will there be time enough and World for me to sing that song?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20121203/88f49038/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Runequest mailing list