Grievous

Hmm, I think dual wielding is something that games consistently get a bit wonky and I'm saying that as someone who is pretty confidently trained (and teaching) in sword and sword and dagger fighting. The best way to think about it is to see single sword as a skill in itself, and sword and dagger as a skill in itself (also, similarly sword and shield should be a skill unto its own). The idea that without any significant specific training in dual wielding, you'd get half the skill of the main weapon isn't really bad at all - whether half is exactly the right amount is a question, but really gets into the weeds/minutia and raises questions about simulating actual fighting via dice rolling in general. Another really curious thing to note is that dual wielding isn't really something that lowers your effectiveness overall - quite the contrary. If you give me a sword and dagger, and I'll face an opponent with a single sword*, I will be able to beat fighters of much greater skill due to this disparity in weapon sets and I don't need much training in sword and dagger to accomplish this advantage. This is a bit difficult to explain very illustratively in words, but I could demonstrate the principle of the thing very easily in real life. The crux of it is, when I parry with the dagger, there is nothing left for you to parry my sword with (and because I just parried your attack, you are almost by definition in measure/range, which means my attack will likely also land). * if the opponent has a two-handed sword, the situation is different: the mechanics of using a two-handed sword and it's probable greater reach give it a fairly clear advantage against a single, shorter sword. In this case, I'd say the addition of a dagger for the 1h sword fighter helps with bridging the gap, but I would still want to be the 2h sword wielder in this instance in pretty much 100% of the cases. A shield, on the other hand, would change things. Also, I've spoken mostly about sword and dagger here because of my experience with it, but all this is equally relevant to dual wielding in general. Two equal length swords are a little more difficult to use together than a sword and dagger (you could argue for a larger negative modifier to untrained use), but the principle of a "case of swords" as a style in itself remains.

All this talk of Argrarths makes me wonder about that and Greg's ideas concerning the topic. As I understood, an Argrathsaga was in the cards at some point and it seemed more explicit at that stage that there may indeed be more Argraths than just the one. However, it seems there has been some backpedaling concerning that and certainly an Argrathsaga per se hasn't been talked about for a good long time. I wonder about what was Greg's thinking about this, and how it has changed over time and where are we now.

This discussion really highlights what I feel is a key developmental area for RQG, at least for it be excellent for producing the styles of campaigns I run and play in. The need for meta-level systems that run communities (such as clans and cults) is there (granted RQG already has some framework for this), and the kind of high level mechanics for wyters that we see discussed in this thread. I understand that for many GMs these are things that are ruled by GM fiat and/or hand-waved, but for me they are key draws. My initial thoughts regarding this have been to use HQ mechanics to run the meta-level, but that is definitely a patchwork. The GM's book really feels like a place for mechanics of this sort, but as far as we know they aren't really in the cards. It'll be interesting to see whether this is a direction the game will take in the future.

Yeah, well, ugh, I guess I'll take a stab at this. Basically I agree with most of the people here, that this shouldn't be a concern in our role-playing games. That is even if I definitely do agree that there are significant real world differences between the sexes (though I don't actually agree with the actual differences proposed by the OP). Even if games try to be simulations, we have to ask "simulations of what?" Do they model cinematic actions, myths, what-not - for each the criterion of successful simulation is certainly different. But yeah, I guess RQ tries to be quite gritty realistic, so a case can be made... That said, are men stronger than women in Glorantha? One would maybe expect that, but then again one would expect the world to be a sphere and all kinds of other things that are actually not true in Glorantha. Sure, I would tend to say "yeah, maybe they are", but I guess it bears raising the question. In that case, and taking gritty realism as our cue, if we use the die rolls to model random distributions of attributes, you could go with something like this. Personally, I probably wouldn't impose this on anyone wanting to play a female character (then again I wouldn't impose random characteristic generation on anyone either). If somebody wants to play a female character who is is the statistical mean of being weaker than their male counterparts, then they can choose to do that, but if they wanna play a strong bad ass Vingan they can do that too.

Hmm, I had thought Humakti would in fact be infertile, at least in most cases.

Hmm interesting post and the first paragraph is a trippy concept or way of looking at things that I very much like. For the second quoted paragraph, I'd really like to hear some more examples concerning what you mean, because I don't quite grasp what would be things Gloranthans would do to prevent stepping into otherworldly territory (I'm probably overthinking this though).

Yeah, that works. I'd appreciate rules that convey the flavor of Glorantha, though.

Ok, but give me the rules for breaking crucial geases or similar rather extracurricular abilities. They don't have to look similar to the rules for other stuff, but they definitely could exist. Otherwise essentially GM fiat will create the rules for you, which will basically just keep the players and player characters in an inferior position (as the only approach is to "play the GM", which is adversarial and dysfunctional). A very old school approach to gaming, which in my view has been superseded by more modern approaches to game design.

Yeah, indeed. That is a good point. However, I would definitely disagree with illumination being described as cognitive dissonance: in my view it's more the exact opposite (and the normal state of being is cognitively dissonant the from source).

Much like a bloodline, the splinter group is likely to take their name from their leader or other notable figure. The new wyter, when acquired/found, might also point to a new name. How far they would have to go is so much based on the exact context - like much of the other issues here really. If they leave in good circumstances and there is farm land available, they could just go over the river/across the hills/etc. If no land is available, they'll have to go as far as they need to secure a future. Bad circumstances and relations to their neighbors could force them much further afield as well, or direct them in a specific direction towards any remaining allies. Omens and things like that will likely have an impact, too. Consider an example from the Cinsina/Red Cow. Before assuming leadership of the tribe, Ivartha was planning to create a new clan in the disputed/unsettled/Telmori-plagued lands not that far away.

Except where it isn't, as my example of Blackmoor's lineage. But that is relatively minor and indeed, I do agree with your overall sentiment. All in all, I would love to see an updated Sartar book, with appproriate art and the canon smoothed out (maybe some changes to nomenclature relating to the Orlanthi would also be incorporated). I know it kinda feels like treading water, but I do think that it would ultimately serve the current and esp. next generation of Glorantha's explorers very well.

I don't know if this has changed from the initial pdf release of the GM Pack, but there's also other substantive changes: the lineage of the Colymar kings in the Pack was substantially different from the one implied in S:KoH. So yeah, while those books don't seem to be crazily out of alignment with canon, there are some cracks in there.

I understood the new printing might have brighter colors (?).

Hmm, can anyone show me a comparison of the old printing vs new printing cover?

I think the aesthetic may have moved on from that now, but back in the day the Grazers sure looked very Amerindian.

I'm kinda on the fence about buying the second printing as a physical book myself, so this is a question that also popped into my mind.

I really hope some of those more ill-defined books are from a more Lunar perspective...

Well, then my question re: Red Cow's architecture might as well go for Dangerford - I wonder what that'd look like with "modern" Glorantha lenses. I hadn't really thought much about the settlements here with the idea that they were indeed re-settled ruins. Interestingly, IIRC (as I don't have my books here), Dangerford was first settled by the Red Cow clan after the settlement, which only lost it when the Dolutha came south over the river. That's a pretty significant loss to their holdings. I'd love some more pictures about the various settlements around Sartar in the new art style. Once you pop, you can't stop!

One thing I've been wondering is how would Red Cow Fort from Coming Storm look like if it was written up a few years later. Should it be more along Clearwine's aesthetic direction? I'm not sure if it had any relevance during the EWF, or was it's time of relevance only during the old Vingkotling times, so not sure how to think about the ruins/walls/etc there.

I guess kind of, but I don't see it really in the order or way you present it above. Once you have a plow team and the necessary skills, you can ask for land to work on. In a case where all land was redistributed, it would simply be distributed to the people who have plow teams/skills and the rest would simply realize that they'd have to rent land from one of those guys to get by (or find another profession) - and I guess the freemen won't really mind having some extra folks on their lands either, so it's not really a bad thing, it's just how it is. I do personally like the term half-free here, but I guess it is a bit odd/rough for Orlanthi, hmm.

Okay, this isn't an astronauts vs. cavemen thread as you may have hoped, but one about definitions. I've been struggling to make sense of what we should be calling the elite warriors of the Orlanthi clans - and what to make of them when they are called this or that. So, we have the term weaponthanes, which is basically a warrior-leader supported by the clan (or tribe, as it may be). However, sometimes (as in the Coming Storm) we see housecarls used instead. Is the intention here that there is a distinction between these two terms, or are they intended to be largely interchangeable? In looking for a distinction, perhaps you can have weaponthanes who do not live with the chief/king, instead occupying some other strategic piece of territory (which certainly makes sense), who would be differentiated from housecarls, who are specifically the weaponthanes who guard the chief/king. Also, a weaponthane has his Four Storms, but they are really not considered to be thanes themselves (I assume). However, I would also assume that they are likely to be supported by the largesse of the weaponthane in question (so, in that sense, their difference to thanes is actually somewhat minor, making them more like "minor thanes"). If we go by the distinction I outline above (ie. housecarls being the weaponthanes of the chief's bodyguard), are their Storms considered to be housecarls as well - if not, what exactly are they then? One might contemplate a situation where the housecarls wouldn't even have Storms at all, as one might not want to incentivize bodyguards to develop followings of their own, but not sure about that. Another way to think about housecarls is to, well, look at the words. It says they are "carls", so one might consider these to be warrior retainers not benefitting from a thane's rank... which is an entirely different line of thinking all together. Looking for a simple set of answers here, guys. 😅

So yeah, PLENTY of adventures for the chiefs/kings to do, if you tailor them for the responsibilities of the position.

If Yelm is a construct of the Bright Empire, then presumably Yelm wouldn't exist before the Bright Empire.

Regarding the premise of this thread, I guess Six Ages lore is pretty much at odds with it. Of course, we're not at Time yet there (and thus we could be in a re-jiggered Godtime), but I don't think there's not going to be a Yelm by the Dawn rolls around. I guess we could still be surprised, though.

Even the Orlanthi have thralls, so yeah, we don't need to look beyond our backyard to find it.