Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. It does, but it also seems to derive from the Yuthuppan mythos rather than a universal. We've got the general prefix "Yu-". We've got Yuthuppa, the Ship of God. We've got Yuthubars, the City of God (or p.12, the City of Spirit). Note as well on the map of the 10 cities on p.12, that Yuthubars appears, but not Yuthuppa (whereas both Raibanth and Alkoth exist). The only other Yu- reference is on p.40 in one of Plentonius' personal notes about a war with Naveria, "My grandfather marched with Captain Vertus of Nattaus, following the banner of the Prince of Yunirtos. The emperor came from the north" There is an embedded reference in p.9: Voshgatyuth. Literally “House of Dead Gods.” (Lodril's palace ostensibly) One might argue that on p.21 the Yarm tree is derived from Yu-arm and means a "divine tree" The early presence/reference in GRoY to the Copper Tablets and the 10 planets, also strongly suggests the influence of Yuthuppa upon the naming of Yelm. Yu is also not the only word for god or divinity. E.g. Ezelveztay. Vulgarly, “the One,” or Literally “divinity-One-to be-entity.” And GRoY p.6 points to Yelm meaning: Literally “Shining Overhead,” - now here one part is "Shining" (aka Sun), and the other is "Overhead", which ties in well with Yuthuppa/Yuthubars (e.g. overhead ship, overhead city). So, I think there's plenty of room for debate (the Plentonius debates???) about the derivation of Yelm and where the pieces of the name came from and whether they are not in effect two words meaning the same concept that came from two languages.
  3. Dear Deathstrok9, I do not claim that you stole my idea, I am happy that it was used by you, and more people can learn from it. I just like when the sources are provided (especially when I am the source 😄). Either solution (reference in the description/ pinned comment) works, I do not have any preference. I would argue on that, I think the resemblance is still striking. If you took a poem and added your commentary after each line, because "it seemed vague" it would still require a citation. But I do not want to make more fuss about that than required, so let me stop here. I hope your channel will grow. Thank you for understanding, and have a good day.
  4. 10baseT

    Shields

    This has been a great discussion to read and i've learned a lot and have some thinking to do on some house rules. I think a couple of you can write a Jonstown Compedium on some optional rules that go into shields, weapons, melee combat in general. The way GURPS will put out a small PDF on say ancient sword combat or close quarter battle or why a mace/maul has 2 points of armor penetration... It gives more insight and options and some explanation for those that wish to go a little deeper. From what i've read, you have it... and i'd buy it
  5. There was an interesting thread on this topic about a year ago. Impressive starting shot if nothing else, I say.
  6. 10baseT

    Shields

    I think many may have this problem and it's not really acted upon but i think it can be with minimal fuss. I experience 2 typical load outs 1) on patrol (the intent to engage) and 2) travel, getting from point A to B. On patrol, you are expecting combat (going to ambush, engage in contact, etc) and do not have all the food, rope, supplies, etc. So you're carrying a combat load. Your supplies are left in a designated stating area and you patrol out from there. I think most PCs assume they operate here and that may not always be the case. Travelling, you are geared up and definitely encumbered. If you do not have a mule for example, you are carrying all your food, water, mess kits, sleeping kit, torches, etc... (expected resupply can lessen food/water weight). If you engage with this load out, you should be penalized. On the small man patrols i've been on when carrying 65+ pounds of gear, the only thing you can do is put one foot in front of the other. If expecting combat, you store your gear and move to the patrol posture i mentioned above. It is very unbalancing to fight with a bayonet when you're geared up, you can't dodge really. So, in general, i would expect PCs on foot to be overencumbered (where a smart foe will know it's a good time to ambush.... and will ambush when the PCs are going up an incline or negotiation some sort of obstacle... that's because their eyes will be on the ground.)
  7. But yeah, you correctly identified the shields have a central rib with a boss, like Celtic ones.
  8. @Tranquillitas Ordinis I will link your post in the video, would you rather it in the description or a pinned comment? I will mention that while you wrote the original bulletin point post, it was extremely vague to me. Your post inspired me to greatly elaborate on what you wrote, as well as add my own comments and steps. If you did not notice, I removed or condensed many of your steps and added my own. I do not believe I stole your idea or passed it off as my own. But I agree a link to the forum post is appropriate, and as soon as you let me know what form you would like it to take place, I will add it. I did use the link when I made this reddit post actually:
  9. Wow! Thanks! It takes some adjustment as both a player and a GM. One thing that I did to ease myself and my players into it was using group simple contests for most combats. That seems counter-intuitive, but bear with me. After running several combats, I got players used to giving me more descriptive descriptions of what they were attempting and the specific prize they were after. They also started setting each other up for success, i.e., player A's prize would give player B an advantage. Then I'd narrate the outcome and let the players interrupt if they wanted to say what they thought "really happened." If what they said worked for me and the other players seemed okay with it, I'd weave it into the narration of the outcome. Once I had them used to that approach, I introduced them to extended contests. These are a little trickier. You (and your players) have to think on your feet. I think of each exchange as a typical RPG "combat turn." I describe the situation and everyone reveals their bids. I ask the players what prize they're shooting for and how they intend to achieve it. If their description doesn't line up with their bid, we fix that. Those prizes are how you get to the statuses you're looking for (me, too). Prizes like, "I use a spell to slow him," are perfectly legit. Narrate the outcome based on how many points the player bid and how well they succeeded. Then you can either use "benefits and consequences of victory or failure" to reflect how much the slow spell is impacting the bad guy, or just use your GM's discretion (that's what I do - I hate tables). The prize stated in an extended combat shouldn't normally be "I push him over the cliff." They should be stepping stones that build up to shoving him over the cliff when the contest is won. Hopefully the above makes sense and helps. My main advice is make the game your own. Run it the way that works best for you and your players. You paid for it, do what you want with it! BTW, you can find the QuestWorlds SRD free online. It has includes the current version of Extended Contests (with bidding) and Consequences/Benefits. Thanks again for your kind words about Valley of Plenty!
  10. If I remember correctly, these were somewhat inspired by Chinese and Central Asian stuff, though made to look less Chinese so as not to be mistaken for Kralorelans. For the shields:
  11. Dear Dethstrok9, I really like your video, but I think it would be appropriate to give there a reference to my first post in this forum, where I have written all these ideas. I do not claim they are original, but I see you just repeat my points as yours, and add some comments based on the "Color out of space". In the video, you just say "someone" wrote a post on a forum, that "inspired" you. Maybe I am oversensitive, but working in the Natural Sciences field, I pay a big attention to the matter of authorship and intellectual property. The post I am referring to is in this thread: Where I have written:
  12. Today
  13. Kloster

    Shields

    Agreed on this.
  14. Akhôrahil

    Shields

    Yes, I meant iron historically, but it's also hardly a secret that Gloranthan bronze can frequently behave suspiciously much like iron... Still, I would stay with either just the buckle, or a small all-metal shield.
  15. Kloster

    Shields

    Historically not. The only case I know of wood+bronze (non small size) shield are the greek hoplite shield, which can only be considered as the first composite armor of history, being composed of layers of wood, bronze and leather. Iron is another story, being used mostly for rims or center protection, like on the roman scutum.
  16. It's not clear that above-standard Ancestors can be incarnated. Lots and lots of Heortlings have Vingkot and/or Heort among their ancestors, but I would strongly doubt that they're available for incarnation.
  17. 37 pages... Did we get: Roll Hero Ancestor as a boon. Choose Daka Fal assistant Shaman. Cast Incarnate Ancestor. Repeat until fumble? GM may reasonably insist you are dead. But that's just spoil sport.
  18. Or Kargzant means sun, so Kargzant is sun and Yu-Kargzant is Sun God?
  19. Yeah that's one thing I didn't mention but I couldn't see much info about where the clan was located geographically... mmh, it's an interesting thought that, instead of heroquesting for a spirit or a gift or an artifact or whatever, the founders of the Glimmerstone clan might have heroquest for a place. Like, maybe they go back to the God Time to "discover" a spot that was spared when the Spike exploded or something... maybe the heroquest actually involves deflecting Spike debris or something, and actually making that place be spared... and because this place wasn't originally supposed to survive all the way through Time, it can't totally exist in Time because there's not enough place for it there, and that's how you get this "Tardis effect". It might even be an ongoing thing, because that kind of heroquest would require a lot of magical and mythical prowess, so they might start with a small valley somewhere at the edge of Beast Valley or whatever, and over the span of a few years, their repeated heroquesting "saves" more and more of the place, so as the clan grows, the "extra dimensional" part of the tula also grows. It's super dangerous because failing the yearly heroquest might "snap the place back", effectively destroying a whole chunk of the tula, snapping it out of existence. It might also, over time, attract some undesirable spirit and divine attention, because that's somewhat Compromise-breaking. That would be devastating for the clan. So that's a dangerous gamble, but maybe worth it because the rest of the year most people can't find your tula unless they follow the correct path ("turn left after the big rock, go under the tree arch, close your eyes, say the prayer, walk backwards, turn, open your eyes, boom, you're there", or some other such fae-like shenanigan). ...unless they go outside of the "Tardis lands" (back to the "real world") and do their magic there. Affecting 1 hectare of land "outside", at specific "land nodes", might affect 5 hectares "inside". That would also apply to other land or area based magic, like blessing crops. It might be too over-powered, but it's possibly balanced by the harsh difficulty of maintaining this extra-dimensional land. But yes, all your points on this topic are good. When the Earthshakers do the first field of the year, I wonder what kind of attention they attract? Depending on where the clan is, they could attract dinosaurs, so there might be a Sea Season festival featuring those big cuddly guys (riding games? slides for the kids?). Now that I think of it, could the clan's weaponthanes include a dinosaur cavalry?
  20. I agree, and I think our perspectives are closer than you think. In the time I've spent thinking about this, it appears as if there is some degree of semantic differences that fuels the difference in perspective. Earlier in the thread Ian Absentia commented that this debate has never been resolved. Yet, we keep flogging the dead horse. Why? I think it is for two reasons. First, we all want everyone at the table to have fun. And there certainly are differences of opinion of what makes something fun. And while fun may seem like something locked to the one experiencing it, in a collaborative game it is not. One person's fun can be another person's dissatisfaction. Second, and related to the first, is the impression I get that some people believe that their fun at the expense of others is perfectly reasonable. This is where the table contract comes in. Any Keeper running a table needs to communicate with their players. And really probe what people find fun and what they don't. Communication is difficult. Questions I am very curious about: To what extent is there a division in the hobby? Tables that define "fun" by a particular creed and tables that define drastically different rules for said fun? How many are mixed and what challenges present themselves under those circumstances? Failure is indeed interesting. But something being interesting and something being satisfying do not always coincide. That is what I was getting at with those examples. Failure in any of those situations would certainly be interesting. But it doesn't satisfy. And I think that might be getting to the crux in differences in preference for story-telling. I personally do not believe that it is easy to craft both interesting and satisfying under random conditions. The dice don't know what satisfies people. People do. And whether one fudges dice or fudges description, the end result is some fudging is needed somewhere if we intend to produce satisfying. And before people jump on me, I never said that satisfying means "players always win." I've never said that. I've given my prime example of dissatisfying earlier in the thread: Random flukes that produce inane, satisfaction-killing, absurd outcomes. We're using them to inject an element of chance. Not complete and total governance by chance. And that is the key to what I oppose. I know role-players that wholeheartedly believe that a story in game should be determined entirely by chance, and if everyone leaves the table having seen nothing fun, interesting, or satisfying happening, then oh well. We were at the "mercy" of the dice all along. I guess the dice didn't allow an interesting story. Can you imagine a novelist rolling dice in writing a story or character? It would be a disaster. And yet, you get role-players treating the dice as if they are the sacred arbiter of story-telling. It is bizarre, and in my opinion is a liability in the hobby. I think it is important to note that positive things can be different and interesting as well. I can't tell you the number of times that my players completely upended my plans and then succeeded. And I had a blast seeing them succeed. Part of me also thinks that there is this delight in seeing people fail. Why can't there be delight and interest in seeing them succeed? But this seems to be the argument of many. If they don't see threat, they can't imagine failure, and if they can't imagine failure, then the endeavor isn't worth doing. It's almost as if the journey is irrelevant to them? The legacy of Gygax is that he has engendered what I consider to be only one perspective as to what can be satisfying in the hobby. I believe his players knew what they signed up for and it isn't my job to tell them how to have fun. But I also think the consequence of Gygax' success is that he created a generation of role-players that equated brutal unyielding chance with fun. I happen to not equate those two things. And I also believe it to be a tactical wargamer's perspective not a story-telling perspective. When someone tells me that I'm cheating by fudging, what I really hear people saying is I define what is fun and what you define as fun doesn't matter. And I basically refuse to accept that. Yeah, I don't disagree. We're closer than you might think. I think the key difference is that I view the satisfying outcome possibilities as being just as interesting under circumstances of "unexpected success" as "unexpected failure." And while don't begrudge anyone their preference of "unexpected failure is more satisfying," I also find it a cynical way to game. To each their own. But gaming is for everyone. Not just the cynical. I think it is important that we discuss these things. If we want better tables, we have to understand each other better. The exact wrong thing to do would be to not talk about perspectives on fudging.
  21. Mmm... right now I am hit by a cognitive dissonance.... On one hand, when you play MoO, you send your scout ship all around, you want to find and colonise planets. When I listen to Isaac Arthur, I want to build space habitats! But, on the other hand, when I reflect on the real world, no government is paying for Mars colonisation, too expansive, no return on investment. And also almost want to go. Fair enough, why would you goon this god forsaken planet month away from anything, with nothing friendly to life?! 😮 Why does it hit me? I try to summarily describe various planet biome and reason for colonisation.... I can imagine asteroid belt being interesting.. more than that... why colonise a planet hostile to life in the vague hope of eventual return on investment in.. 1000 years?! 😮 And who would volunteer anyway?! 😮 🥴
  22. Seems to me, your Lunar founder is your unifying principle that allows you to balance the disparate elements of your clan. If that tradition continues to exist, Moon could replace Barntar in re-unifying Air and Earth. Should we conflate Sedeyna with the horrors of the Red Empire? When the White Moon comes, there will be peace. Perhaps more than we can bear...
  23. But we're also told that Kargzant is Lightfore, while Yu-Kargzant is Yelm/The Sun Disk, so I always assume the "Yu" had a slightly more exclusive meaning than just "god." Maybe "Lord" or "Great" or some intensifier.
  24. Actually She is a White Lioness ( so she may have eyes of Glimmerstone, or her tail tip, eyes and claws are made of the lumouns stone). So much better, hmm the Lunar Priestess (of the white moon? Not the red moon, that threatens all with consumption and obliteration). I can see Lunar and Earth Priestess working on concernt with Air and Fire Priests work to turn the earth and make the sun beat down upon it where Heler's waters feed it.
  25. I did agree.... If not explicitly enough, let me do it here!.. Doing my tech and equipment summary list now.. might post for review this weekend (still missing drugs and explosives) While it's a matter of taste there a few things that should be obvious no-no or yes-yes.... The one thing quite debatable on my list so far is that I gave each item a tech level (from 3 to 21,or perhaps should I say 12 to 21, since 9 represent nowadays) and me think... does it really matter? I am planning on some mini rule though, to use various tech level as inspiration for trade between planet though...
  26. Reminds me of a story a Skanthi once told me: I once see a Blini-man with oxen and plough: -- What you doing? I asks. -- Ploughing the land, says he. -- And just what would you go ploughing the land for? I asks. -- Grow some oats, he tells me. -- Our Lady's Afterbirth! Why would you go specially growing oats? -- Gotta feed the oxen something. -- Feeding Oxen!! What in Ernalda's Garden would you be feeding oxen for? And the Bilini-man, he looks me right in the eye, all superior like he never did wear no white shirt, and he says: "Well I'm not going to pull the plough me-self, am I?!" Ain't no compr'ending a Bilini-man. (Apparently it's funny if you're Skanthi) (Apparently Skanthi are Cornish too)
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...