[Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 51, Issue 2
bgecko at bigpond.com
Tue Dec 4 12:06:34 EST 2012
I still occasionally play RQ2, just to remind of those halcyon days of RPG's
and my youth.
----- Original Message -----
From: <runequest-request at rpgreview.net>
To: <runequest at rpgreview.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:00 AM
Subject: Runequest Digest, Vol 51, Issue 2
> Send Runequest mailing list submissions to
> runequest at rpgreview.net
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> runequest-request at rpgreview.net
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> runequest-owner at rpgreview.net
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Runequest digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Re: RQ6 (Ravi Desai)
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:57:19 -0500
> From: Ravi Desai <rdesai at chartermi.net>
> To: RuneQuest Rules <runequest at rpgreview.net>
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] RQ6
> Message-ID: <5D9521E2-F021-4C45-998D-49545C32C22F at chartermi.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> That's funny, I've hard the same experience with the red hardcover RQ2.
> Virtually indestructible! You must be really nice to your rules books, my
> RQ3 is nearly disintegrated now.
> That said, I like what they've done in RQ6, but find that I still inject
> some of my own rules, and I still more or less avoid sorcery, which just
> doesn't quite work for me. I play tested a bit recently, and the group
> had a lot of fun with some of the new concepts.
> The new rules set got me noodling over what actually got me started into
> Runequest in the first place. I still really like RQ2 in some ways, so
> over this holiday, I'm going to start up a retro campaign using RQ2 basic
> rules, broken swords and all, just to see when I'm done, what I would
> change about it, if it were up to me; which, of course, it isn't. :-)
> Sent from my iPad
> On Dec 3, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Peter Maranci <pmaranci at gmail.com> wrote:
>> "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
>> On Dec 3, 2012 5:57 PM, "Lawrence Whitaker" <lawrence.whitaker at gmail.com>
>>> I'm biased, but you might like to take a look at the latest review on
>>> RPGnet. It may help you decide.
>>> On 3 December 2012 17:51, Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So...Runequest 6?
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> Will there be time enough and World for me to sing that song?
>>> Runequest mailing list
>>> Runequest at rpgreview.net
>> Runequest mailing list
>> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> End of Runequest Digest, Vol 51, Issue 2
More information about the Runequest