Yelm's Light

Eh nevermind...on further study of that chart, none of his descendants lists a wife either. So I suppose it's possible but unlikely.

Seeing someone use a weapon and knowing how to use it effectively are two completely different things. A flail is a perfect example, actually, being that it has a moving part/parts. The mode of attack is about as unlike that with a sword as possible. If you've seen it used, you might get that you would tend to swing it in an arc away from the body, but would you know when and how to flick your wrist for maximum effect? Where specifically the best places to attack would be, and how to swing it so that you could hit them? The sword would be used in a straight line (if stabbing) or a different type of arc (if chopping). I would think a mace would be more easily adapted to, as using it would be very similar to hitting with the flat of a sword's blade. Using your rationale, there might as well be just one general attack skill.

Bear in mind also that Varstapoor and Vestenbora are the original Earthshaker Twins.

I have a tangential question that I came across in going back over KoS (pp.118-119). It concerns the second ruler of the Twins Dynasty of Tarsh, Ovartien Twinson. The title could be construed to imply that he was the son of both Twins, Varstapoor and Vestenbora, and the genealogic chart doesn't help much there. There is no indication of Vartapoor having a wife, nor is he named as one of the Kings of Dragon Pass (who would by definition be married to a Feathered Horse Queen). Would his wife just be considered too insignificant to be included in the chart, or could Ovartien be the product of incest? (Also, would that be considered taboo among the Grazers, and possibly something that would be covered up?)

The thing is, driving a car (even a manual shifter) is much different from driving an 18-wheeler, which is much different from riding a motorcycle. Even among similar weapons, balance, timing, and usage may differ depending on design. A weapon without a crossbar will tend to be used differently than one without, for instance; the wielder could get his fingers removed using a particular weapon the wrong way. Stabbing with a dagger is different from using a shortsword similarly; you can do a lot more mobility-wise with a dagger, but you can do more initial damage with a shortsword. Daggers are better at extremely close/grappling range combat because it doesn't take as much room to get in an effective stab. I'm pretty sure RQ2 had the same rule, where different weapons under the same category could be used at half the skill of the preferred weapon. As a matter of fact, consulting my happy red leatherish-bound rules copy, it does (p. 26, "Effects of Training With Similar Weapons").

Interesting stuff...I particularly liked the fantasy multiweapon (quarterstaff/staff-sling/dagger/spear).

I tend to see GM'ing as both; the neutral arbiter of the ways of the world, and a 'hand of fate' who can guide the players only when necessary, and subtly. I will generally have a story line, but I'm also able to improvise a new scenario if the characters get off-script or have a local NPC whisper in a PC's ear that it really might be a better idea to do thus-and-so instead. And I'm a firm believer that stupidity does and should kill. Players who continue in that vein over an extended number of plays don't tend to last too long. It's all about a balanced approach, keeping in mind the ultimate goal of enjoying the experience. I don't find much enjoyment in things being too easy for players, nor do I think it's a great deal of fun to beat your head against walls for little reward. As far as skill checks are concerned, I find them a lot more logical than the "I killed x monsters, therefore some or all of my abilities and attributes improved and/or I gained new ones" rationale. The GM is the one who assigns the checks in the first place. If you let your players abuse it, as GM you have only yourself to blame. Power gamer types don't make it very far in my campaigns either, because I don't let them get away with minmaxing in place of roleplaying. When I GM I collect RP'ers; birds of a feather and all that.

Aside from the elegance and logic of the original system, I always go back to Rurik. The rulebook presented a step-by-step description of character creation and interaction that really got you into the flavor of the world and game system. I'd played D&D for several years before I discovered RQ2, so I was already savvy enough to 'get it' otherwise, but for a new player that would be an invaluable tool. (It also helped that by the time I got into it there were a number of supplements and scenario packs for additional background, but I didn't even start looking for those until after I'd been playing the game for several months.)

No, really, I don't see. I was speaking for myself and no one else, nor was I trying to evangelize, and I don't see anyone else getting up in arms about it. You seem to take it as some kind of insult. If someone wants to ban me for speaking my mind, so be it. But I'm not going to kid-glove everything.

I'm not sure that's accurate. It was a widespread belief among Platonists and neoplatonists that the central truths were on the level of mysteries because it took a prescribed progression of learning to be able to understand them, which were generally only provided by schools like the Academy; hence the aversion to documenting them. Most of the Socratic dialogues involve his followers and friends, and usually aren't even held in public places. (Yes, there were philosophers who would have discussions in the agora, but they tended more to be Sophists, who Socrates and the Platonists detested as moneygrubbing mountebanks, and other rhetoricians.) The general run of students were well-to-do citizens or their children. So perhaps their point of view is more along these lines.

Sorry if you don't like my opinion, supported by reasons for said opinion. I had neither use for RQIII nor motivation to switch to it, from a materials-quality or a support standpoint. I am an unashamed Gloranthaphile, and RQIII didn't offer that until I'd almost completely stopped gaming. Not exactly sure how giving feedback on products isn't in the 'tradition' of the boards, especially considering that I'm part of the target audience. So you enjoyed RQIII. Good for you. I found it severely lacking in what I wanted. If you want to call that starting an edition war, so be it. (I consider it unlikely anyway, given that those who prefer RQIII appear to be a pretty small minority.) In a thread labeled Chaosium's Runequest 2 Vs Runequest 3 (Avalon Hill)! Forgive me, but spare me.

Old time RQ2 gamer here. The only reason I have RQ3 is because I found a scenario pack bundle cheap on Ebay and it was included. To say I was underwhelmed by RQ3 would be the understatement of the century. It seemed that everything I liked so much about RQ2 was eliminated. The cover art grabbed me first...What's this? And then Rurik started reeling me in. Loved the art, the maps, the organization, the simplicity, and the completely different tack from D&D. I still have my old (waaay old) RQ2 softbound and the red leatherbound version. As for rules, I've been a DM/GM since the late '70's. I haven't played tabletop in a couple of decades, but I'm well used to improvising a rule or three when running games. If I run into a play issue, I solve it, usually to both my and my players' satisfaction. About the only issue with play balance (or play, for that matter) that I ever really had was the aforementioned one with fights between high-levels. And you can keep yer Europe...it's Glorantha all the way for me. So, I guess that's a longwinded way to say, RQ2.