Jon Hunter

Quote

Honestly, to say that this was just some flight of enthusiastic fancy is insulting.

First if I caused offence, I'm sorry I do sometime use hyperbole in my arguments and I may have been guilty of that in this instance.

2 hours ago, Steve said:

Just keep your games (whatever the system - RQG, RQ2, 13G, HQG) in 1621 if that bothers you then. Problem solved.

I do, my games vary a lot from Jeffs vision in numerous little ways, and i'm fine with that. YGMV is a glorious concept and one I fully uphold.

It come more problematic when i do bits of fan publishing, and i'm researching and i have to look at multiple books and documents to make sure I haven't veered too far from canon.

But I still do thinks having products with 1621 dates and 1625 at the same time ads to richness and complexity of Glorantha. (i'm now happy to run and write stuff from 1616 to 1625), but its creates a need for a level of knowledge needed which goes significantly beyond the beginning player. 

8 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Why? The Guide is one snapshot in time, and offers a history up to that time, with more recent (Third Age) history better documented and earlier history left patchy and incomplete.

If it was designed for a game to play with, that was HeroQuest Glorantha at the time it was produced and published. RuneQuest was licensed to The Design Mechanism at the time, and neither the RQ2 reprint nor the RQG project were more than ideas at the time. The next game developed for the setting was 13G, and the decision to make the leap to the start of the boardgame White Bear and Red Moon/Dragon Pass was made by the design team of 13G and the owners of Glorantha at that time.

Without the smashing success of the RQ2 kickstarter, the development of RQG might have taken a different approach, possibly remaining with TDM.

The Glorantha Sourcebook had already been finished by then. The Sourcebook is system-less, but more of a game aid than the Guide.

What would your reaction have been if you had acquired the Sourcebook and found out that all of its content refers to a future your game hasn't even begun to approach?

 

My issues isn't with the guide being set in 1621, its with RQG being set in 1625.

If you have just produced the definitive guide to glorantha and charge 120 quid for it, republished significant RQ2 campaign materials which you have charged for all set in 1621.

Is it a good decision to look after you customers to then release the next product set in 1625 which then starts to significantly limits the usefulness of those products?

Its not the end of the world and I definitely don't think there was anything more to it than people getting excited about a new idea and taking things through to the next level but i think in hindsight it creates confusion.

Having the same company producing different systems, in the same setting with histories that differ by 4 years but do transpire to provide significantly different game worlds is odd, confusing and it will make Glorantha more fulfilling for us enthusiasts, but more complex and impenetrable for New players.

Latest post RQG 

http://www.backtobalazar.com/balazaring-character-creation-runequest-glorantha/

Quote

The Guide is not inaccurate and was not designed to be played with RuneQuest. 

It is now inaccurate or at least very badly formatted ( look up the land and then look up the hero wars chapter to see whats changed ) if you wish to use it to support your playing of Runequest.

One would hope that the Guide to Glorantha would be compatible with main game played in Glorantha.

Dating RQG in 1625 when the guide is set in 1621 makes  the guide significantly less useful, only a couple of years after it was published.

For the world defining £120.00 supplement you would not expect its publishing company to start the process of making in obsolete within a couple of years, by changing the year of the setting into the future. It is mitigated by the hero wars section and fact its only 4 years, but its still a pretty bizarre thing to do.

Quote

The date of the setting of RuneQuest: Glorantha was set some years after the Guide was published.

I'm not criticising the guide, i'm criticising the decision to set RQG in 1625.

Much was made about waning to use RQ2 rules a base for RQG so it was more compatible with the RQ2 reprints just done, but no thought was put into how the dating at 1625 affects the viability and compatibility of the guide and those same supplements recently released by Chaosium. 

For someone not steeped in Glornatha lore and able to sift between the two different settings its, bloody confusing and none nonsensical.

I'd agree it is a snafu though, it puts most of the already published material in the past and creates a £120.00 guide product which is now inaccurate for the main game it was designed to play with. 

I think it makes perfect sense and a lot of upsides for those people playing in the chaosium house campaign who may have played through the events of 1621 - 1625 at least once already, but from other perspectives it may be a more hit and miss decision.

26 minutes ago, M Helsdon said:

I'm guessing that MOB gave a very specific outline to the artist.

You mean he didn't say "draw some Greeks and slap some runes on them" ?

OK the primary weapons of the Sundome are the Pike/Sarissa and shields large/medium (dependent on your preference on continuity/historical accuracy ).

But what is the backup or holdout weapon for up close and dirty work?  I've always assumed shortsword, but in the current setting would be Kopis be better suited?

I would be interested in other peoples opinions.

The options I have are;

1) Always Kopis

2) Always Shortsword

3) Depends on the location of the temple, Kopis within the Empire, Shortsword within Orlanthi lands, but dependent upon unit choice.

4) Soldiers individual preference

 I like option 3, other peoples opinions?

On 5/29/2018 at 12:07 PM, Tigerwomble said:

So, can a darker Glorantha be presented without harming the essential character of the game?

Yes I play Glorantha by WOD rules, and bring personal horror themes into the game.

However its an aspect or take on Glorantha and playing that way you will get a subset of the whole gloranatha feel.

Page 410 - layout and indentation just doesn't seem to work on product lists, is consistent but doesn't seem appropriate to information being shown. 

Spotting dodgy/illegal trade goods coming to market from Lunars, Sun Dome Worshippers or unscrupulous locals.

Does she bring it to light, blackmail, or watch and investigate?

You want something big enough to  be of interest but not to distract from the main story.

If you want something bigger it could be lead into the story/scenario after this one. 

Which could be disease tainted produce, pushed by some valley based Malia priestess trying to disrupt or taint the rituals. 

On 4/20/2018 at 8:16 AM, Jason Durall said:

The Glorantha Bestiary is heavily illustrated by (IIRC) a single artist, and all unique RQ species and most fantasy creatures have 1 or more illustrations, and many picture more than one member of the species... either a male and female, or multiples where there's a lot of diversity. There are also many, many spot images throughout featuring elements of anatomy, culture, artifacts, expressions, etc.

Hope this helps answer your question.

something tells me folks were hoping for a sneak peak

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

Sure, but you didn't have a China, an India and an entire Steppes empire in the same space as well.

Going by this map again, Kralorela is about California's size?

By ancient and European standard california is big, many empires neither covered the same area of would have had the population of California.

All that throws you is that Kralorea and Teshnos are nowhere near as large as there closest real world analogies, if that space was comprised of unique or civlization analogous with the egyptians or summarians you wouldn't bat an eyelid.

There is no reason for kralorea to be as large as china , or Teshnos as large as indian, for them to make sense in Glorantha.

13 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Look if you want stirrups in your Glorantha, it is no water off my back. If you don't want stirrups, that's fine too. Personally, I believe the primary importance of the stirrup is actually it allows the rider to mount taller beasts and gives more flexibility to the right and left. So it is entirely possible that the high llamas and bisons have stirrups, but many horse riders (and sables, and impalas), do not.

You may not believe it i'm not really arsed about stirrups either. I care little for barrels either

I am bothered about the balance between game play and compliance with earths bronze age in defining glorantha , not with yourself but in some of the debates on here. 

The one that got my goat was that skirmish level units were unheard of in the bronze age so shouldn't appear in Glorantha.

That one actually affects game play as skirmish level groups ( 6 -8 man ) are very good for a roleplay sessions, so need to exist really. I don't care what the romans/greeks/persians/hittites or anyone else did, or what archaeologists say. Game play needs them so they should be part of canon. 

The insights martin gives are well informed, fascinating and i learn alot in the discussions, but to my mind they should flavour and inform what glorantha is not define it.

17 minutes ago, M Helsdon said:

That's an issue for you and your players. Technological constraints are one thing that defines a setting, if you ignore them, then you are losing some of the richness of it, a trend which ends in plastic fake medieval game settings. YGMV.

I'd agree with the general point and direction of the arguement, but there are levels of relevance and sensible places to limit the compliance to history.

When you argue that praxians and pentains have stirrups and no else do. You are creating very odd and inconsistent argument to make Glorantha comply with earth bronze age technology, rather than saying if that is the case Glorantha differs from earth.

 I think internal consistency matters a lot more than  compliance to earth. If two relatively primitive cultures have stirrups, it makes little sense that other don't. You can create a conservative Glorantha argument to support the position, but your only doing that to make Glorantha complaint with you well informed understanding of the bronze age, not the benefit of the world.

54 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Looking at central European Bronze Age, at least the differences in material culture weren't that great. The Unetice culture which produced the Nebra Disk spread over an area from central Germany into the Ukraine. Hallstatt culture and its successor La Tene covered the entire region around the Alps and then some, and Urnfield before sat somewhat further to the east but with a similarly large area.

Those small scale differences between rivaling cities is found mainly in Greece and in Mesopotamia. Anatolia had fairly large units, with the Hittites taking the biggest chunks, but Lydia and Phrygia similar unison as far as material culture went.

But then we have a hard time discerning the different rider tribes that entered ancient Persia or the Danubian plains from their material cultures. We know about there being different ones from cuneiform and later Greek texts. There are no such textual references for central Europe, and so we don't have the slightest idea who could have gathered warriors from the Rhineland to Moravia (from memory, details may vary) for the battle at the Tollense crossing. (We do know that those folk came from there, using isotope analysis of their teeth.) Peloria with its mainly Dara Happan ordered, Pelandan (re-) built cities among a huge variety of rural folk pursuing quite different forms of agriculture or horticulture. Between Glorious ReAscent and the Perfect Sky several varieties of "rice" and food grasses are mentioned, and likewise e.g. the grass seed tribute upgraded to barley by that offensive Kitori tax collector that resulted in Double Tribute.

 

 

All this hodgepodge is the result of various migrations, especially up and down the Danube. WIthout different tribal kingdoms by Germanic tribes adopting the Latin culture and those infamous Frankish inheritance splits, the previous Roman culture would have assured a fairly continuous culture. Those tribes that lost their autonomy to any incarnation of Imperial Rome - like the Vandals after conquest by Belisar - were undistingishable from their Roman neighbors.

The small states of the Holy Roman Empire did not provide separate cultures, only separate dynasties.

In the Dara Happan river valley you have weeders (a culture with a material culture similar to the Basra reed swamp Arabs, or considerably less), rice farmers, upland dry farmers (still dependent on irrigation, though), Manimati swamp and hill dwellers with probably their own traditions of agriculture, Naverians, Jernotians, Spolites, Oronin/Poralistor folk, Sweet Sea Harangvats, and all manner of remnants of Orlanthi-like pastoral groups theyalanized in the Dawn Age. The Lodril/Turos worshippers have some things in common, but are divided by many other details to which they cling with tribal pride.

Pelandan city states come across as a fairly homogeneous culture but divided by favourite deities, then overlaid with Dara Happan and later Carmanian overseers. The rivers used to have their own populations, too.

It might be the fact that we have stories, local names and local myths, but the diversity in central Genertela beats everything I have seen in the Old World Bronze Age. Not to mention Elder Races...

Gloranthan diversity is a good thing, but I don't see it as a Bronze Age feature, more as a consequence of the living myths just on the Other Side, with meaningful interaction by the various populations.

 

I don't know if your agreeing or disagreeing with me?

5 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

Your argument is based on misconceptions regarding the effect of stirrups on mounted warfare, dating back to the 19th century.

There was shock cavalry long before the introduction of stirrups and the addition of a 'mounts damage modifiers' does not require them. Instead, the seat of the rider is what is important.

For warfare, stirrups only contribute the following:

* An aid in mounting and dismounting (whilst Glorantha has many tall riding animals, most breeds of horses are unlikely to be large; most cavalry horses in the ancient world were 'large ponies' by modern standards).

* Helpful in riding long distances (but the design of the saddle can mitigate this).

* The only area where stirrups provide a major benefit is in archery, where a skilled mounted archer can 'stand' in the stirrups, divorcing themselves from the motion of their mount by flexing their knees. However, in RQ terms this level of skill is probably in the high 80%s for riding and archery.

So if your players are fixating on the presence or absence of stirrups then they are concentrating on something that isn't important.

In fact, stirrups can be lethal in close-order combat, as an unhorsed rider can become tangled in their stirrups, and be dragged/trampled, with no chance to avoid blows or continue to fight, which ancient unhorsed cavalry certainly did.

Numerous Roman cavalry reenactors ride without stirrups. In the last year there was a program on television in the UK of a gathering of twenty or so. Already familiar with Arrian's Ars Tactica, they already knew the display drill performed by Roman cavalry in the 2nd century AD. What they lacked was training in throwing javelins from horseback. Divided into two competing teams, after a few days of training, they successfully performed a display, most registering hits on the target. One of their trainers was from the Royal Armouries, and interspersed between scenes of the troopers being taught, he demonstrated his ability to throw a javelin from horseback; the force of his hits was measured, and the momentum of the horse contributed significantly to the penetrating power of the javelin. This is why mounted javelin throwers were a major force in combat for many centuries.

Whilst few reenactors have attempted to wield a kontos lance in combat, tests have shown that again, the hit is subject to the mount's 'damage modifier'. And cataphracts, heavily armed and armored, were highly effective long before the stirrup arrived.

It's down to the shape of the saddle, giving a firm and secure seat to the rider.

So to prevent your 45 minute debate, just note that damage bonuses apply. If your players can cope with playing in a world where the Earth is flat, and there are sheer mountains that are miles high, and a moon suspended up in the air, then they should be able to withstand the shock of a lack of stirrups. It should make little to no difference to play.

My issue isn't that I disagree with you, I don't feel well informed enough to do so. You obviously know your stuff martin. 

But the fact its a tedious argument i don't want at a gaming table.

If stirrups offend you massively don't have them in your Glorantha, if like most gamers its not a significant issue do whatever makes the game run smoothly.

In trying to define what i'm reacting to, its a larger point. 

I'd like Glorantha flavoured by and informed by quality information about the ancient world. but i don't want Glorantha defined and constrained by it.

The bronze age monicer that Glorantha has is very loose and there a large numbers of things from out world that would that would never fit into the bronze age description;

For examples dinosaurs, cannon cults, Guilds, Pole Axes, Simildons, Balazaring Hunter Gatherers, need i go on?

Flavour and information is one thing. Trying to retrofit canon onto every archaeological find, piece of research or new theory about the bronze age to my mind  starts to loose sight of what Glorantha is and whats its here for. 

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

I've always thought it seriously weird how small Genertela is. It feels as though it should be the size of the Eurasian land mass, supporting large swathes of different lands, room for a semi-Mongol steppes empire, an ersatz-China, and so on, while in fact it's only about the size of the continental U.S.

Well Continental USA isn't small, and historically Europe had significant cultural diversity at many points in history.

Look at the 9th century AD you have Byzantines, holy roman empire, the moors in Spain, Anglo Saxon cultures, some remnant celtic cultures,viking culture, the slavic peoples and whatever the steps culture to the east was at that point.

Also looking at the early roman period around the Mediterranean you had

Rome, Carthage and the Greek states. The successor kingdoms  of Egypt , and the Secluids. Numerous Celtic Variants eg the iberians, thracians, dacians, Gauls and Britons. large amounts of variation in societies a continent the size of Glorantha isn't odd.

2 hours ago, Psullie said:

The RQ layout thread, which went off on a tangent, got me thinking about saddles and stirrups. The font of all modern knowledge, Wikipedia, tells me that saddles c. 700 BC (okay for Glorantha) but stirrups (c. 200BC) would be questionable, it also says that stirrups do help the rider utilise the mounts speed and mass but their absence does not preclude lances. I'm not a rider so thought I'd put it to the community. I'm thinking Pentan nomads would have the toe stirrups (for their archery etc) but what about Praxian or other cavalry?

 

There has been a bit on this, the conclusions i heard were, this pentians have them,  praxians are only allowed one for mounting , no one else is allowed any.   

I may be being a little factitious....  but at my table they exists and are used because its easier and the game wont break down into a 45 minute debate on whether lances should pass mounts damage modifiers through  if the riders not using stirrups. 

1 hour ago, Jenx said:

Oh I don't think my stuff is anywhere near display quality. To be honest I am not particularly aiming at something with these, I started painting miniatures for fun, and have almost no interest in becoming some amazing miniatures painter. As long as I can get something to look in such a way that I'm happy with it, I figure I've done a good job with it. (Also, I do like playing as well, so if they look decent on the tabletop, that's about as much as I can ask for)

As for having a good eye - I think my eyes still hurt from painting this guy.

I've only been painting again for about 6 weeks, but my stuff doesn't compare, much more for the gaming table.

However i've been having fun.

You have a very good eye sir,  I cant even see that level of detail on my model let alone paint it.

Would you consider yourself painting to gaming table or display standard ?

15 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

In Glorantha: a hoplite shield from one of the Stonewall Regiments; a phalangite shield from one of the Sun Dome temples; 

I never realised there was such a notable size difference between the hoplite and phalangite shields, is this consistent are these just to examples?

I just think zz's would like to animate any create associated with the life rune as it enjoys the wrongnness of it.

I also found a 'woody' zombie did freak my players out, as it was just another zombie ....

Ok whats peoples thought on would a Zorak Zoran, create zombie spell work on the corpse of an elf?

An what would it create and would it have any special properties.

My view is yes it would work, but im not sure what type of zombie id get. 

Some frighteningly sensible posts recently.

I think Ian's posts above gets to the point.  Its about feel and its about create a vibe in your game that is something different from generic fantasy.

But what that different thing is will change from group to group. 

What may get the goat of some is that those with a particular skilled or informed views on archaeology and history wish define Glorantha by what offends them, where for most gamers most of the time it doesn't matter, or may even make the game a little less playable.

Or we turn away from very useful well documented sources that could enrich the game world because they do not fit the defined period, for example I spent a lot of time working on nick names for the Orlanthi recently, i used the Coming Storm as a reference point I also looked through lists of viking nicknames. the correlation was remarkable.

We would probably reject viking sources as being 'too dark age', but seeing as it is a real example, ads flavor, is three dimension and we don't have the same level  of documentation for the early northern European communities. The viking records are a great source, and creates the inspiration for a believable pattern, and in my opinion the game world is richer for using it as a source.

I'm all for a rich, three dimensional, believable setting routed in antiquity, but i struggle with players and enthusiasts being told no barrels, stirrups, skirmish size units, only a 30 inch blade not a 36 inch blade, etc, etc.

Let players and gm's define antiquity in manner that works for their gaming table.