[RPG]: RuneQuest (3rd Edition), reviewed by Lev Lafayette (4/5)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12797.phtml

Lev Lafayette's Summary:

Compared to its contemporaries, RuneQuest was miles ahead. In current standards, it's a bit creaky these days but still a very workable product. The game system receives an overall distinction and is backed with excellent scope and depth of information for play. The language, production, layout and art are of acceptable quality, but also lending to evocative, mythic and heroic play. Even after twenty-seven years, RQ3 still makes a fair pitch to the title of \"best RPG of all time\".

Go to the full review for more information.

[Sedenya]

Thanks for the thoroughful review of one of my favorite rpgs of all time!
One minor nitpick, though:

RuneQuest isn't on the market since "27 years", but either 23 years in the reviewed Avalon Hill 3rd edition incarnation, or 29 years [i.e. the Chaosium 1st edition from 1978].

Other than that I totally agree - RQ rocks!

[Andrew Montgomery]

Great review.

This is largely the point I was getting at in my own review of the RQ IV core books, which essentially split Deluxe RQ III into 3+ books while simultaneously watering down the material. And, as you said, the writing in RQ III was far superior.

While I have enjoyed the new Glorantha books by Mongoose, I still can't recommend RQ IV over III.

Maybe so long as we continue to be vocal in our opinions, someone will get the message. Well, one can dream.

Drew

[smascrns]

Originally Posted by Andrew Montgomery

Great review.

This is largely the point I was getting at in my own review of the RQ IV core books, which essentially split Deluxe RQ III into 3+ books while simultaneously watering down the material. And, as you said, the writing in RQ III was far superior.

While I have enjoyed the new Glorantha books by Mongoose, I still can't recommend RQ IV over III.

Maybe so long as we continue to be vocal in our opinions, someone will get the message. Well, one can dream.

Just wait for my review of Mongoose RQ that will be coming within some weeks...

[Strange Visitor]

Originally Posted by Andrew Montgomery

Great review.

This is largely the point I was getting at in my own review of the RQ IV core books, which essentially split Deluxe RQ III into 3+ books while simultaneously watering down the material. And, as you said, the writing in RQ III was far superior.

While I have enjoyed the new Glorantha books by Mongoose, I still can't recommend RQ IV over III.

Maybe so long as we continue to be vocal in our opinions, someone will get the message. Well, one can dream.

Drew

Is that the term Mongoose officially uses for their game? I've been seeing it as RQM, which I think is clearer given there's quite a few people in the RQ community which saw the RQ4/RQ:AIG MS (which, while it was too crunchy for some people's taste was quite a bit superior to what Mongoose ended up with IMO).

[andreww]

I am having difficulty relating the description within your review and the criticisms you make of RQ to a 4/5 rating or an assertion that it qualifies as possibly the best RPG of all time.

If this had been handed in by one of my students it would have lots of questions about where the critical analysis supporting the conclusions is.

And I am a huge fan, both of RQ and Glorantha.

The review doesnt do RQ justice on several levels. It doesnt really address the inconsistencies or game play difficulties RQ suffered from in any real depth and hasnt really explored those areas that RQ did excel in.

[Lev Lafayette]

Originally Posted by jensun

I am having difficulty relating the description within your review and the criticisms you make of RQ to a 4/5 rating or an assertion that it qualifies as possibly the best RPG of all time.

If this had been handed in by one of my students it would have lots of questions about where the critical analysis supporting the conclusions is.

And I am a huge fan, both of RQ and Glorantha.

The review doesnt do RQ justice on several levels. It doesnt really address the inconsistencies or game play difficulties RQ suffered from in any real depth and hasnt really explored those areas that RQ did excel in.

Yeah, sorry for only spending almost 2000 words on the review ;-).

Heck, if there's more that can be added (and yes there is) please feel free to follow up with a part II.

[andreww]

Originally Posted by Lev Lafayette

Yeah, sorry for only spending almost 2000 words on the review ;-).

Quantity does not equate to quality.

My issue isnt with the length of your review or even your explanation of the mechanics of 3rd ed which is quite good. I do think you have seriously skimped on the magic system, particularly with how horribly broken sorcery could get. Your treatment of Divine Magioc is also pretty cursory.

My main issue is that much of your review is simply a statement of your opinion without giving much in the way of reasons why you have given it the rating you have.

I dont necessarily disagree with your rating (although my eyebrows raised at a number of comments) but I struggle to understand your reasons for giving them.

[Lev Lafayette]

Originally Posted by jensun

Quantity does not equate to quality.

No, but in the opinion of many others who have contacted me this is a thorough review.

I do think you have seriously skimped on the magic system, particularly with how horribly broken sorcery could get. Your treatment of Divine Magioc is also pretty cursory.

A paragraph on the style and feel of RQ magic and a summary on the mechanics I think is adequate. I know a lot of people don't like how sorcery plays, but I've never had a problem with it in my years and years of playing. Sandy Petersen's popular <a href="http://hjem.get2net.dk/royalpanto/sorcery.html">alternate rules</a> are, with the exception of being heavily Gloranthan-based and dropping the Free-INT requirements, are fundamentally similar.

My main issue is that much of your review is simply a statement of your opinion without giving much in the way of reasons why you have given it the rating you have.

Oh well, I'll take the opportunity now.

- The POW characteristic. Yes, that's so cool it gets a mention of its own.
- Excellent cultures and professions; flexible skill acquisition.
- Consistent percentile mechanics with good differentiation between characteristic and skill tests.
- Gritty combat, even if I'm not overly fond of the crunch.
- Highly evocative magic system that creates a "sense of wonder"
- "Creature" equality with some descriptive depth.
- Excellent gamemaster information, especially the "literary model".
- Fantasy Earth and especially Glorantha are both very good settings.

[Strange Visitor]

Originally Posted by Lev Lafayette

A paragraph on the style and feel of RQ magic and a summary on the mechanics I think is adequate. I know a lot of people don't like how sorcery plays, but I've never had a problem with it in my years and years of playing. Sandy Petersen's

To be honest, that tells me one of two things:

1. Your definition of "problem" is very narrow or you're very tolerant of some balance abuses, or:

2. _No one_ ever tried to use Duration thoroughly. You don't even have to play the game to see the problem with it once you understand how it works.