DrGoth

Would Tarshite Orlanthi be more likely to ride horses and less likely to ride bison/sable? And might that then also be true of the Far Place Orlanthi compared to the rest of Sartar?

Just goes to show - crying "once more unto the breach" doesn't work too well when it's dragons making the breach

I tend to rant more than evangelise

Or send a gremlin

In other words, don't take KoDP too literally.

There's also https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/403537/MOTM-Volume-2-Omnibus--2021-BUNDLE

Umm, the link just took me back to this topic I found https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/346240/MOTM-Volume-1-Omnibus--2020-BUNDLE

Fair points. I would go with the "generally". There may well be exceptions, but on the whole I think it would be very hard to manage. Except for the non-illuminated.

In order starry Yes (we are all us. Including you. Get used to it.) because they do not realise that ducks are a noble and tragic race

Plunder is really old, don't expect it to make as much sense as you'd like.

Not a dumb theory, but something I wanted to share. Many years ago, I played the Cradle. One player insisted on playing a mistress race troll. He whined and pleaded until the GM said yes. Said player than proceeded to roll nothing higher than 3 on his characteristic dice (yes, all of them) and not many 3's either. We called the character the mistress race trollkin.

Be careful comparing initiate numbers to population numbers. AFAIK, the former ignores children but the latter includes them.

I would tend to agree. I have trouble seeing anyone ( or at least, anyone who is not illuminated) being able to handle the two different mindsets. Shamans (to me at least) need to be able to relate to the spirits as beings of innate worth. Sorcery requires a much more "treat them as objects" view. Hard to hold to both.

I'd say that's a possible qualification, but not the only possiblity.

I now have mental images of dwarves in dark alleys looking to trade for the latest in human lingerie.... You are cruel, cruel people.

I wondered why there were so few of those on JC

I've thought about this from time to time (no pun intended) and can only come up with a few answers. The first is you do what Soltakss and others have said I believe that is the official approach, as judged by my memory (grin) and the background tables in RQG. Or you do some arithmetic. 294 days is very close to 80% of 365 days. You can throw it in a calculator or a spreadsheet for a precise number, but .8 or 1.25 (365/294) is close enough. Then you can either say "I'm quoting all ages in earth years and if you actually want the Glorantha years, multiply that number by 1.25. So a 16 year old in earth terms is 20 years old in Gloranthan years." or "I am quoting everything in Gloranthan years, but you need to multiply by 0.8 to get earth years. So when I say someone is 20, that's actually 16 in earth years." The first choice (go with the official approach) is obviously the easiest mechanically, but it may not sit well with some people, as we've seen in this thread. If you don't like that, I'd suggest quoting everything in earth years and multiplying by 1.25 if you really want to find out how long ago they were born. But really, it's up to you. YGWV. Of course, you could say Gloranthan days are 1.25 times the length of earth days, but that probably belongs in the "your dumbest theory" thread.

Yes, hence my hesitation. But if we limits to the "big name" demigods, then I'm a little more confident.

Which given how big and wonderful Glorantha is, is a bit of a shame.

Add Cragspider to that list. GtG vol 1 p170 "Cragspider the Firewitch: This demigoddess is the best known and perhaps most powerful of all trolls. My best guess (and it's only a guess) is the power range. Superhgoes are more powerful than heroes. Think about these questions: "is there any superhero that isn't a demigod?" and "is there any demigod that isn't at least a hero?" I think the answer to the second is 'no". At least I'm pretty sure it is. Same for the first one, but not as definite.

No offense to Jeff, but I don't think the problem is the mythology. He knows. Greg knew it. The problem (as far as I can work out) is turning mythology into something playable - that is, a set of rules. It's getting something as meaningful as mythology is/can be into a mechanical set of rules. I seem to remember reading somewhere that one of the problem the God Learners had is that they weren't respectful of what they were meddling with. In a game ,as soon as you write a set of rules, you (at least potentiallY0 mechanise it and leave it open to rules-lawyering. I've sometimes wondered if a set of rules for heroquesting is possible. I think it may be more profitable for guidelines for how to run and play them.

If you take Greg's view from the mid-90's (at least as I understand what it was) there is no canon for what happens. Just a vast range of possibilities.

I think it's pretty clear that you don't have to go through superhero to get from hero to god. There's too many examples of hero->god. Not that any body seems to be saying the opposite. What's more interesting is what that says about the ways in which you become a god. For a start, you don't need to get to the ultimate levels of (uper_herodom to attain divinity. It also says something about the power levels of those rated in the category superhero

My Glorantha varies - I'm not interested in one where random Joe Pigsticker can take out a super hero. I'm going to borrow from Nick Brooke (possibly more than he'd like - sorry Nick): "My approach to running RQ now is to treat the rules as binding on the players – they explain how they think the world works. My job as their GM is to move them into a wider, more interesting world: RQG gives them a toolkit to understand and interact with it, but the stuff I’m building and throwing at them doesn’t have to be built from the ground up using those tools." Nick Brooke's Gloranthan Manifesto, p.20 Under which approach it *can* (to my way of reading it) mean that you don't have to apply RQ combat to heroes and superheroes, at least, no more than you want to. Now obviously that's not "by the book" and depends on you adopting that approach - which many won't want to. But again I defer to Nick's view on when to apply the rules and when not to (and how to apply them). But I certainly don't see the MGF in "Who needs Harrek? Orlanthi numpty #347 just rolled a 01. Bye, bye Jar-Eel" As to "how that was supposed to be fun". My interpretation (but it's only mine and I didn't write that stuff) was that it was possible. If you did the preparation. if you got the support. If there were enough of you. It makes my fingers ache, because I loathe D&D, but enough 8s will take out a 20 - with planning and preparation, not a lucky die roll. So with deliberation and planning you can do it - not by getting lucky with the dice. Or by adventuring to get to the equivalent level. While the list Jeff gave elsewhere is the canonical set of superheroes, who says your players can't get that far?

Serious question - when will the prosopaedia be available for purchase online?