Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

123 Excellent

About tedopon

  • Rank
    Mongrel World
  • Birthday 07/01/1976


  • RPG Biography
  • Current games
    Mutant Crawl Classics, 13th Age Glorantha, My Little Pony
  • Location
  • Blurb

Recent Profile Visitors

965 profile views
  1. It's a different thing for everyone. I love fairy tales and mythology and dreams and sharing laughs. My games reflect that. Others who are diehard fans skew more toward a rational humanist approach where they deconstruct the more mundane concrete elements of the cultural interplay within the setting. Neither approach is "correct" because it's a subjective thing. The way my mind and games work means I would absolutely love books coming out the woodwork that were contradictory and filled with dream logic. I don't care about what kind of food Heortlings eat in the dark months...the players will fill that blank in themselves 99% of the time anyway. I also could not care less if the descriptions of Khorst over two books describe something radically different...it's not like at the game table you are describing only the things you have read in the books and are rigidly sticking to those descriptions. One of the ways I come up with Glorantha fun is by flipping to a random section of one of the reference books and zeroing in on something I like. I don't care who/what/when/where/why/how it comes from in the established lore, it will fit nicely right where the characters find themselves currently. Or I do this with a fairy tale I am reading, or something I saw outside of work yesterday or something a friend told me about a movie they saw as a kid. The books are written for the rationalists, and there is no getting around that. The neat thing about this hobby is you can choose to read a book and apply its knowledge in a rational manner and you are doing it right. You can also just randomly pick and choose whatever the hell you want and do as thou wilt. That's the correct approach as well. I would love to be proven wrong, but I don't see any dream logic random contradictory scattershot publications coming down the pipeline any time soon. It's easier to dismantle and rearrange to taste a logical book that's part of a logical line of publications than apply order to a giant mess of thought diarrhea. It's also way easier to sell the books that are linear, and that's the bottom line.
  2. I have a Monkey (Baboon...my players wanted them to be Snow Monkeys like you see in the hot springs in Japan but still basically be Glorantha Baboons) write up and some Lunar stuff that is still being worked on. Also did some Troll and Duck variants, and adapted the Occultist to be a God Learner type role (I realize a lot of people probably vomited in their mouths after reading that, but we DGAF about canon). Our game died a few months back and the goal is to start back up by October. I don't have any of it in digital form but will try in the next few weeks to upload some stuff here. Haven't felt much pull to share seeing how 13A and especially 13G seem uberniche (Simon's _adapting 13G to RQ_ thread here is one of the only recent ones that got any traction). Those look good, I'll try and convince them to think about going in that direction seeing how we spent the last run with mostly trolls and Lunars.
  3. Yeah we're on the same page...and honestly "vampire" probably wasn't the best example to use, I was just pulling a name out of a hat.
  4. Yeah the Q Workshop dice look pretty but I only use a couple of them because they're really difficult to read.
  5. I agree with your post. However, a thing I learned a long time ago was that when I am GM, if I mostly stick to the method of "showing, not telling," everyone is more engaged at the table. Obviously, you're going to say "there are a bunch of orcs sitting around a campfire telling dirty jokes" in most cases, not some pretentious crap like "a foul smelling lot of pig faced brutes awash in the smoke and soft glow of a fire built with damp wood stuff meat in their snouts as their grunts and chuckles rend the silence of the dewy clearing." But, especially in something like D&D (which is a loaded for bear trope wagon that even casual people understand from other sources), it's easier to hook players by witholding some information. The Monster Manual scholar is a good example to illustrate my point. If you say "it's a vampire, roll initiative" the guy/gal(s) at every table who knows all the mechanical underpinnings of the system will immediately shout to the table about holy water, garlic, stakes, daylight, running water, holy symbols, level drain/enervation etc. If you say "a wisp of smoke rolls under the doorway and a woman emerges from the smoke, and in an instant moves so quickly it's almost a blur then Sir Johnson crumples to the floor in a shower of blood, roll initiative" they have no clear idea what the hell they are up against but are terrified.
  6. I would guess I have run around 150 CoC sessions over the years. At no point ever did I name a monster or spell or alien device what it says in the book. Describe it based on their exposure to whatever it is, and let them imagine whatever the hell they want. Even in something as cut and dry as a generic D&D session, I am only saying something like "gremlin" if they've seen a "gremlin" and heard someone call the thing "gremlin."
  7. The mummy has taken a dirt nap for ages. The vampire has an active lifestyle. No telling how many times s/he has shimmied into a crawlspace after a night painting the town red, had people shoot, stab, bite, punch and grab at him/her, ran full clip through a blackberry thicket to get away from a group of angry dogs, jumped headfirst into a bin of drying garlic after a late night meetup with the farmer's daughter, been showered with a font of holy water, etc. The vampire in Stoker and many things that come after it I interpret as having some sort of mojo that tricks people into seeing a young, virile maneater. It's all carny tricks.
  8. Why would a vampire still have hair? Not that I think you need to apply naturalism to a monster, but I've always thought that the hairless vampire makes more sense. If for no other reason than "it's nasty." Even really old humans who just have the gift/curse of living way longer than most of us lose a great deal of hair. You'd assume that a creature/diseased person/spirit inhabiting a human host/etc that lived a really long time would have lost the ability to grow hair either because the body prioritizes warmth at zero or the body is just so damned old that all the hair follicles stopped working.
  9. I think the problem here is manifold. Pop culture is saturated with HPL & Friends TM imagery. It is beyond mainstream. There is a children's animated film about a kid HPL and it has monsters in it. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. The garden variety fan of something like this has seen, read, imagined or experienced everything "scary" and has become jaded to the point that everything seems (and frankly, is) cliche. The garden variety fan also points to those things they recognize as cliche and draws a line (or several) in the sand that assigns value judgement which is purely subjective. A majority of the material written for any version of the game defaults back to the assumptions in the original source writings of HPL. If we are being honest, most of HPL's best "horror" stuff is really just his own fears given some metaphorical steroids. The rest is pastiche of something that even by his time a hundred years ago, was cliche. With all this in mind, it makes sense that the art direction and design focus of the game would aim mostly for nostalgia and exaggerated fun. This in no way has a measurable effect on the content of a game at home. The art in a book does not shape the way a session at the table pans out in 99.99999999999999999999999999999 examples.
  10. Those print shop versions are not a money sink for the company, and are inconsequential time sink.
  11. What's the expectation on publishing date for the Gods books? A year from now?
  12. tedopon

    RQ vs D&D

    As far as D&D goes, the lion's share of referencing back to the rules that happens on a regular basis in any game I've ever played (no matter the version) has been regarding spells...which is coincidentally the same as my experience with Runequest. Also, Runequest is more complicated mechanically than D&D...I don't know how anyone who has played (any version of) both could say differently and keep a straight face. However, they're so different in their focus on achieving the "default assumptions" of what it means to play them that it's an Apples and Oranges situation, and not really constructive to discuss. Not to mention that people get their panties in a bunch and shout down one another's points when discussions like this occur. Regarding leveling up in D&D...it's very quick for 9/10 players. Each level is an incremental build on what you were already doing. I run D&D for kids at the library and even the ones who aren't well versed in rpgs can do it in less than ten minutes. The players who take longer are the ones who are trying to think a few advancements down the line (which is a feature/bug of most versions of Warhammer & 40K as well). How is this thread still active (as I prepare to hit Submit Reply)? EDIT: I would agree with the assertion that AD&D was the most complicated version of D&D. It and the OD&D it came from were just a series of systems that had nothing to do with one another bolted on when the need arose. I still think that even 80s Runequest is more complex even though it had the benefit of more conscious design decisions.
  13. They got back in touch with me this morning. I guess I just needed to generate some quantum attractor energy on this forum to get them to respond via email.
  14. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to characterize them negatively in any way, just was asking if others had gotten replacements. I love the rune dice and hit location die. Having dice that are so unique but still readable/usable is extremely rare. ...and I checked but the last response I got from them was in August.
  15. No, I've used the form on their site each time that I have contacted them. I will get hold of Rick in a few days if they don't respond back to my most recent attempt. It's not a huge deal, but they did tell me they would replace them last August.
  • Create New...