Jon Hunter

I think to see Pavis as a direct analogy of deadwood is misreading Jeffs intent, hes stated it as an influence, i'm sure there will be many others. Actually he has said numerous times he doesn't want Glorantha top be seen as a pastiche or any one civilisation, or situation.

Anyway for RQ I like to mix max parts & mod so i've convinced myself plastics the way to go except for female figures and non humans.

The minis are new. haven't collected or painted in a long time

but derailing is so much fun...

This may help http://www.backtobalazar.com/gloranthan-miniatures/

Where are you based ? if its the UK id purchase by the sprue from here https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Plastic-Ancients-28mm-Sprues-WGF-WLG-Victrix-etc-multi-listing/382543447619?hash=item59115dc643:m:mHZI8t_I9xI3N1kSFT1c83w

D&D isn't more complex than RQ , they are both complex in different ways, RQ in some of mechanic, D&D in the numbers of options and rules. I infinitely prefer RQ because of the sense of world, culture, the flexibility of the characters and the heightened sense of realism in combat. However as AD&D is more an abstraction i feel a lot more works been in done in balancing the gaming experience, in terms of players choice and consequences. Were the RQ/Glorantha community are much more likely to throw a sense of game balance withint the rules under the bus to preserve a greater sense of internal consistency within the world.

I don't think the reason for that would be complexity, I think its because D&D is much more of an abstraction and reading your posts you tend to prefer a simulation system. I wouldn't touch D&D with a barge pole for the similar reasons , but it doesn't mean we cant steal a trick or two off them?

OK depends what look at fell you want to go with, and what you want to spend. I went with vitrix plastic carthaginians and got 14 peltasts, 21 Hoplites and 21 medium armoured infantry in the roman mould, and a nice mix of bits which i use for conversions. However in hindsight i find the hoplites uninspiring figures due to poses and repitition. But not bad for the £25;00 I spent https://www.victrixlimited.com/collections/cartheginians/products/warriors-of-carthage-1?variant=5188226121760 Now id buy 28mm plastics by the sprue of ebay using these guys for peltasts due to there moon shields; https://www.victrixlimited.com/collections/greek-ancients/products/greek-peltasts-javelin-men-and-slingers and choosing other plastic sprues to suits your feel for the Lunars, lots of good plastic hoplites out there you can use for heavy infantry.

Good game design should be making that job easier for a GM. I'm not after a perfect solution, ( because then you end playing an abstraction which isn't something RQG aims for. ) just something within the ballpark of reasonable

I'm not sure I said i was anti deadwood.....

I would argue a system which isn't balanced for gameplay, places an awful lots of pressure on a GM to counter balance the weaknesses in a unbalanced system. You just said the GM has to and described a number of things that require significant time for and there currently aren't published rules to do. Is RQG a mass market RPG or is it designed solely for a fan base that has steeped itself in 30 years of law ? I get the points of other advancement options, and difference between minor and major Gods. However I do worry about playability when foundchild cultists have a sum total of 3 specialist runespells available to them and Orlanthi have over 30 ( many much more powerful), it may work as a world build mechanism, but watch how many of your players will now choose cults like foundchild, odalya and the like? I'd like all of cults that get right ups to be vaguely the same ball park in term's of power, progression and effectiveness, without i think we have a believable world, but a flawed game.

Game balance and internal consistency ( or verisimilitude if you prefer ) are neither alien to each other, opposed or highly compatible. They are two differing factors that should be held in balance in world and game design. You are right that it seems that internal world dynamics have must greater weight than Player Character in the design of RQG. I would prefer the weighting to be a little different and to my mind more balanced. Your attitude of build the world and be unconcerned with players enjoyment,engagement and fulfilment seems to be incorrect to me. Oh course we want the best world building we can have but to have a system that is built to aid all players feeling equally involved, important and engaged with the game is also highly desirable. So a system which doesn't balance players choices, or at least look to keep the imbalances to a playable minimum to my mind becomes highly flawed. I'd like to avoid a scenario where a new player would choose a cult like Odalya which seems cool, but then after 3 months of the campaign a player feels left out or sidelined in a game, because he is finding his rune magic and progression options are much more limited than other players. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with RGQ, but in think there is an imbalance with this in the RQ/Glorantha community, where some voices would be very happy to sacrifice player enjoyment on the altar of personal world-building.

I completely get the old west vibe, but I think law vs lawlessness is a very string OW theme, and the lunars always provided a strong law theme in that paradigm I think you do a little dis-service to alternative views are inspired by Braveheart, pop culture references that inspire aspects of my use of the empire especially in Pavis. The Empire on Tatooine "Those are not the wind voices you are looking for...." the crass, overpowering, distant and slightly disinterested oppressor/force of law. The Romans from the Life of Brian "What have the Lunars ever done for us......" the actually benevolent, condescending and slightly bemused voice of reason. and a little more seriously the British Empire.. "Bloody Natives...." young entitled fools, out of their depth, not understanding the situation and making bloody stupid and inhumane decisions because they are under resourced and feel the need to 'project power'. Those are a little more varied and interesting than just 'the kill the Lunars theme' suggest by the Braveheart reference. Now those themes don't need the Lunars, and actually need not be repeated if replaced by other themes. I suppose at the heart of my concerns is that a 'benevolent authority' working with the players is not as interesting and complex as a "antagonistic authority" which the players are avoiding, negotiating with, trying to circumvent and undermine. or put another way a 1943 french resistance campaign to me holds more appeal than a June 1944 D-day campaign. I think you have both given yourself opportunities and set yourself significant challenges with the changes, the bar of the old setting is high and is much loved by many. I wish you all the best and look forward to seeing the outcome.

I think as well as 'stuff thats cool', also its game balance. The current system seems to massively favour the Major Gods, which is internally consistent with Glorantha, but does create some game balance issues amongst a playing group. For me its a game world and I would always sacrifice realism( its a magical world ffs!!) upon the altar of maximum game fun.

I'm interested to see how the same tension can be found in Pavis without the Lunars in play in the same way. I think to keep Pavis as interesting as it was is going to a massive challenge for Robin. In fact its probably one of the main reasons for me not liking the new time setting, So I think Chasoium has set Robin a challenge here. I will very interested to watch, and delighted if robin can prove me wrong and to be a grumpy old man.

I can see what Jeff is getting at, but my first reaction is that it seems a little arbitrary, high and not suited to all cults. Now the counter arguments are that Runelords aren't suited to all cults, and that with significantly higher starting skills, something extra was needed to generate a more steady progression towards Runelord status. However I feel I may house rule it down to 15, as 18 seems really high.

More http://www.backtobalazar.com/mundane-background-spirit-magic-runequest/

Maybe while some clearer sign posting would help. I would suggest that Aldryami are tied to the man tune more than the beast rune. Actually man and plant being the two runes that together define elves best.

I don't think dwarves do from my reading cast replaces both cultural and profession skills where most elder races still have both, however this is a large assumption from me and just clearer sign posting would help. As regards runes trolls are forced to take darkness as there highest rune, do they a get +10% bonus on it like a human would as a cultural bonus? Elves get the plant rune do they get all of the runes humans get or does, plant replace beast for elves (the way i would do it ), just a little more clarity.

OK with PC's for different races it is unclear what to do about passions and runes, I can put something together based off the rules but i'm guessing and it seems inconsistent. Clearer consistent direction would be helpful. The cultural and professional skills seems better, except for the dwarves where I assume they are combined for each caste, however this is an assumption and clearer signposting would help.

Maybe intentional but an apparent contradiction here

i think some capitlaisation issues on page 68 "as their Right Legitimate prey. "

Runes for non human characters are unclear, ie do trolls get the +10% on darksense, does the elven plant run replace something is it additional to the human runes? are the two ambiguities i've spotted.

Jeff, I never expected you to agree with me on this, your very invested in the change to 1625. I can also see the validity in many of arguments, and i was one of the gamers in late 80's going well happens in the hero wars? and wanting more information and a road map. This eventually came through King of Satar and later Heroquest publications, as this road map has become more solidified in canon it has to a certain extent tied the history of the campaign going forward from 1621. Thus I can see the need to want to open things up. Your view on this will be altered by a few things; 1) The power level of your campaign, if you are playing characters that will affect regional geo politics and myth, a clean slate becomes more important. 2) How many times you have played through 1619 to 1625 already, if many times you want something new. 3) How many times have laboriously discussed and debated this stuff in forums and as part of the hobby, thus these events could now seem old hat. 4) How important the 'overthrow the Lunars' concept was to your games, I cant imagine playing a GM/Pavis game without Lunar oppressors. My experiences mean that i'm still in the mindset that likes 1621 and wants to play and complete the story which has been told. The riches of that period is terms of background material creativity and intensity isn't something I would want to retire out of playing experience just yet, and is a high bar if RQG supplements are going match it. For me the guide being in 1621 and RQG being in 1625 is a minor annoyance with two glorious products, but not one that I think needs to much time spent over as whats done is done and lets make the best of it.