Jump to content

Quackatoa

Members
  • Content Count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Quackatoa last won the day on May 5

Quackatoa had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

266 Excellent

1 Follower

About Quackatoa

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lancashire

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Stew Stansfield, duck-fondler
  • Current games
    Glorantha
  • Location
    Lancashire
  • Blurb
    'owdo!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you, Aonstream, that's very kind! I'm currently working on a fan-created project that is less a traditional 'ducks book' (i.e. it won't function like a typical splatbook with culturally inflected character options and background and the like) than an adventure pack set in Duck Point. I'm writing and illustrating everything myself, so I'm afraid it's a terribly slow process! So, nothing immediately on the radar, but will hopefully have something ready next year.
  2. This is a wonderful idea and RuneQuest should bend like space-time around it to make it happen! No, I don't think you're reading the rules as written incorrectly at all. Illusion spell costs can be quite high. I've noticed this a bit (particularly when I was trying to convert one of Charlie's old duck PCs, who had the Image Creation spell from Ray's Three Feathered Rivals cult, to RQG). I'm not as clued-up on RQ as others, so they can advise better – but I'd happily allow the Ultimate Power of Shaggy as, say, a 3-point Rune spell that summons 2D6 non-material sheep that bleat and move... albeit perhaps not where the caster wants them to. For that you need an illusory sheep dog...
  3. The ducks of Dragon Pass are generally accounted as one of the tribes of Sartar, with a single tribe. That tribe has a king c. 1613 (unnamed; Wyrms Footprints, p. 103) and later a queen, Skalfara Wild-Wheat, c. 1620 or so (Barbarian Adventures, p. 6.), much like the neighbouring Orlanthi human tribes. They have clans likewise. There's little detail of the clans, but the most detailed fan works (myself included) have used the names from King of Dragon Pass - e.g. Marsh Ducks (who are basically described in Tales of the Reaching Moon 19), Rune Ducks, Thunder Ducks, etc. Pre-Duck Hunts the tribe numbered of the order of 10,000 ducks. I've tended to assume ten clans or so, for ease (and seem to recall others doing likewise). I can't really speak for the Kethaelan ducks, sadly. There's no much info on them (and those who've attempted to find some in the past are deeply embarrassed by their investigations...). @jajagappa might be able to help more with a view to the duck community of Nochet.
  4. Kindling! Together with the elf arm (which should hopefully be clearer once coloured...). (I rolled an awakened animal familiar on the heirloom table, and, after looking in the Bestiary for potential stats thought, "Why not?" Amusingly, he has less POW (6) than an average feral rubble runner. Useless little get.)
  5. Last week I had an urge to create a duck Oakfed cultist as my next RQG character. Currently half-way through drawing him...
  6. I occasionally miss the days of HQ1's Three Worlds model, simply because of the weird amusement factor it brought. Like how The Stream was an essence, so that meant some ducks had become... wizards? (And how Joseph Greenface, as a shaman who was 'Priest of the River God', was an animist who led theistic worship of an essence.)
  7. Tales of the Reaching Moon 7, which had Chuck's revised RQ3 write-up, appeared in 1992, so would potentially have been available by then. But looking at Harald's uploads, the godquests implied (Asrelia, Dayzatar, Mostal, etc.) are all covered—if sparsely—in the older Different Worlds write-up. Apart from the God Learner plot twist and a couple of expansions, the Tales write-up didn't really change a huge amount of the background. Though the way in which some of quests are framed in Charles' game, leaving out a couple of the elaborations from Tales (such as around Flamal), makes me suspect it was informed by DW.
  8. Ha! Years ago, I did indeed look at ducks and giant beavers in a manner that is embarrassing to recall and I try to pretend never happened. (Honestly, I despise half the stuff I've pratted about with over the years.) I'll plead the Fifth! (It did lead to whippet- and beaver-broo hybrids in a campaign, though. Which was quite funny.)
  9. Riverine durulz settlements like Duck Point and Quackford will have quite a few subterranean passages (think Borderlands) of varying levels of secrecy and accessibility, exiting into local watercourses. These will be quite uncomfortable for those not duck-sized and will frequently be flooded, notably at their egress into The Stream or C-SR. Other wettish settlements with duck populations may also have their own scarcer and more rudimentary tunnels, of a similar character. Ducks are not great engineers, though—and too selfish to spend coin on Stability magic—so these can be rather dangerous affairs. Some of these may be secret smuggling tunnels and bandit lairs, in which case I suspect you'll see a few suspicious looking ducks waddling slowly along the streets, whistling as they desposit mud from their trousers, Great Escape-style...
  10. It's Indrodar's Necklace. (Check p. 55.) Edit: I assume Phil might know where that is, but in case it's not on any map to hand: check Phil Anderson's map in Tales of the Reaching Moon 19 (pp. 34-35) and Wyrms Footnotes 15 (pp. 16-17). It's on the eastern edge of the Marsh, between Marshedge and Swordvale.
  11. I'm currently writing an adventure that involves breaking Pinfeather out of the Duck Point city gaol. I've always imagined that duck gaols look like the one Flash is thrown into in Flash Gordon (1980): just a cage in the Marsh. Or local pond. With lots of quicksand nearby. (Quicksand's nowhere near as prominent a thing in life as I thought it'd be as a kid...)
  12. We've already got this solved conclusively, Ian!
  13. In my Glorantha? I honestly don't focus much on this stuff. I'll tell you why. This will largely amount to a drive-by shooting on much of Glorantha and its fans. But hey, the thread's got previous. (Now it's my turn to start a fight. 😃) I'm a military historian by background and training. M.A. and Ph.D. in military history, written a book, got a medal, the full monty. Hardly anyone focuses on this stuff at academic level. You sure as hell won't get funding for it. Why? A few reasons. But the determinism—particularly technological determinism—you see in popular military history (I like to call it mankind's—and it's most definitely *man*kind's—earliest form of geek culture) doesn't get as much play. Military history can be a bizarre mix of the reductive and the fetishistic; a cross between Top Trumps and Hermann Goering guest-editing Marie Claire. I mean, if you look at two armies who are about to inflict untold murder, mutilation and misery on each other, and then force their will on a defenceless populace, and your first instinct is to pedantically look at, say, what type of shield they've got... well, it's a bit weird, isn't it? War is presented in the abstract; the pristine ideal, with little thought for the consequences. Look at all those Osprey illustrations — the soldiers look like their mum's taken a picture of them before their first day at school. You just know they have their name sewn in the label of their armour. You never really see Osprey Veterans Administration Hospitals 1964–1975, do you? And war is a mess. It's nowhere near as coherent as people like to pretend. Honestly, it's more like Animal from the Muppets playing the drums. One of the first things I always did at a new archive was look at the courts-martial records; as to what happened when it all went completely and utterly wrong. The funny thing is that, though the original post wound us all up, it is actually right. Certain aspects are privileged in physical violence and confrontation. One thing any military historian will tell you is that war is not fair. Violence has its own perverse internal calculus; it doesn't care for social justice or equality, or how noble your cause is. Or women. Unsurprisingly, the urge of humanity to solve its problems by lining up in a field and physically kicking the crap out of each other hasn't helped women much. The degree to which women can reciprocate with any degree of proportionality when men escalate or threaten to escalate any conflict to the level of physical violence is a principal pillar of patriarchy. Escalation dominance. The only acceptable answer to this, of course, is the radical feminist answer to entirely disestablish the system of violence and ridicule its use at every opportunity (especially in geek culture, which is appalling for the witless way it infantilises, valorises and fetishises violence, not that we care). I'm being entirely serious when I write this. If you've not turned into a radical feminist after studying military history, you've either not been paying attention or... well. Anyone here have the courage to argue for the introduction of sex-based characteristic modifiers in RuneQuest? Thought not. It much easier to ignore it and pretend that we can make violence equal, rather than demolishing the system itself and completely changing the nature of how we find and promote efficacy and catharsis in kicking the shit out of each other. But if we're normalising men and women in the practice of violence, why not anything else? Why not pygmies or ostriches? Typical white middle-class feminism that, ignoring ostriches! I realise I'm in a distinct minority. Loads of people—blokes, for the most part—love this stuff. I get it, and I'll shut up from now on. I just see all these posts—here or on the Facebook page—and I feel the need to make the counterpoint. There is always another way. Anyway. That's it from me. I'm not even that drunk as I type this. Just don't worry about it too much. That's all I'd advise. You're not doing as much a disservice to history as you might think. Do what's fun. Glorantha is about myth – which is just a posh way of saying stories and the power they have over us. Don't forget myth. And by that I don't just mean magic characterised as a logically coherent system adapted to a real-world framework ("Magic as artillery!"), but story power; its resonance in our minds and at our tables. It's a game where we pretend to be duck wizards, after all. 😃
  14. Aye, military ranks had distinctly functional linguistic origins, representing a variety of very particular roles, which we sadly lose a bit of sense of as time progresses and we tend to fall into the 'same thing, albeit with more men' mindset. It's always been one of my criticisms of popular military history – how it tends to treat command as a structure, rather than as a process. I always like approaches that reflect why and how people did what they did, or try and build up from first principles. Which is why I'll never give up my Lunar 'legates'.
  15. I've veered off responding, because I didn't want to spend Christmas getting into a fight. But the above paragraphs (among other things) seem to be written in the hope of provoking one. I'm a bit puzzled this has started up on Christmas Day instead of getting pissed and falling asleep. Glorantha in game form has always been a relationship between mythos (the idea) and logos (our inherited framing mechanism). Sometimes this is an uneasy and fractious conflict; sometimes an inspiring and creative one. Recognise that tension, sure; but if we're to try and resolve that down into logos alone, then I guess I'm out.
×
×
  • Create New...