RQII or RQ3? I see you have the RQIII stuff, but is that the collectible bit? I still prefer RQII, although I know that 3 has its fans.
@AspiringLuddite I’ve not really looked, but the big RQ2 reprint volumes from Moon Design also seem to go for a premium?
As for RQII vs RQ3, I find the systems close enough not to have a strong opinion either way. Systems are the most important part of a game for me, except to the extent they underpin the worldbuilding
IIRC-RQ3 went to improvement by d6 increments rather than 5%,and changed the character generation mechanism-neither of which I liked.It did some cool stuff with shamanism,though.
As for systems being important-I'm all about systems and mechanics. I almost never use commercial settings or adventures-although there are some exceptions where the setting is deeply tied to the system. (eg Warhammer).
It's probably why I've never been a big fan of 'tie-in' games like Star Wars, etc.
@AspiringLuddite Oh, yes the shamanism stuff is noticeably better. As for approaches, it sounds like I’m pretty much the opposite? Very story-centric, system agnostic, lean heavily on published material because otherwise adhd leaves me paralysed with indecision
I find that some systems lend themselves to certain kinds of stories/adventures,and matching systems to play style is key to my enjoyment.I like systems where there is something to do in the 'down-time'-Ars Magica is a prime example,but also Pendragon,Golden Heroes,and others.Systems which encourage having a character not essentially defined by combat effectiveness (looking at you, D&D;-)
The systems I go back to are the ones that make it easy to tell the stories I want to tell.
@AspiringLuddite Trail of Cthulhu/Gumshoe is his, I think. Rune, the Dying Earth RPG, and the first iteration of the Hero Quest/Hero Wars system for Glorantha, too
@AspiringLuddite Dying Earth is actually okay, I think, though the humour is inevitably less dry and ironic than actual Jack Vance
Medievalists and Medieval-adjacent. Sort-of.