Hendrik

Can't even explain what a revelation RQ was to me coming from AD&D as a ten year old in 1983. I was a tag along with my brother at a wargame (ww2, napoleonics etc) convention and some guys were kind enough to let me sit in on a 'new' game called Runequest. (It took a while for this stuff to get out back in the day and this is in New Zealand.) We played Apple Lane. All I remember is trying to demorilise a baboon and shooting an arrow at it, and that this was the best game ever. A year later I got it the rules as a present and never looked back. This thread seems to focus on the skills based aspect, which is fair enough, but it was WAY more than that. I won't even go there with the nonsensical saving throw system, a mage unable to pick up a sword to defend themselves, thief skills that are made obsolete by magic before you get them to a useful level, arbitrary lines between good and evil, monsters with(out) motives, xp for gold, magic that eclipses all else at 'high level'....oops, I'm going there! More importantly Glorantha represented a real break from the Tolkienesque tropes and opened up a compelling world integrated by its magic system, giving it an internal logic and reason to exist. It really felt like the world shaped the rules, rather than the other way around. That is the thing that makes RQ what it is, IMO.

I was just wondering how much overlap there is in these two publications. If I buy the guide, is there any point also getting the source book as well or am I better to get other supplements? Also, anyone know if White Bull is coming back to you tube? I miss that badly.