g33k

p. 132 2nd column "Skills" "Initiates are taught for free... Sense Chaos..." (along with other Skills). But in the boxed text immediately below, "Sense Chaos (Magic, Base 00%)" says it "... can only be increased by experience -- not by training or research." These appear to contradict one another, as "taught" (in the 1st instance) seems to be used synonymously with "train" (in the 2nd instance). There is a similar issue in RQG corebook, but the language isn't quite so acutely contradictory. Suggest either: omitting Sense Chaos from the list of Skills that are "taught" adding to the boxed text something along the lines of "skills of starting characters are presumed to be gained via experience, rather than teaching." Or anything else, really, that resolves the discrepancy.

And -- it being 6 months further on, and noting Chaosium's self-declared "production&layout logjam" of the Cults books having been broken -- I reiterate my last post in thread, summarized as: PING @Jason D -- any ETA or further word?

I find the D&D/Pathfinder "anything goes" pastiche suits such concepts better than Glorantha (which is its own flavor of weird) does. Worth noting, here: when Greg Stafford was asked (at a convention) what the 4th Age of Glorantha would be like, he waved outside, saying "like that."

Honest to god, sometimes it *IS* just a need to vent. I have seen the "write a letter" (you don't even have to send it) strategy praised. Some people vent into a journal. In any case -- or rather, in this specific case -- I'm glad "we" could "help" you!

I presume this is "noon"? 12pm usually is, but some treat it as midnight. I don't think there's any universally-accepted "correct" disambiguation. Also -- a bit more about these games' logistics would be welcome... Is the Discord play Text-chat / Voice-chat? Are you using other e-resources? Shared GoogleDocs? VTT like Roll20, Foundry, etc? If synchronous "play sessions" how long does each usually last? If async, what's the usual frequency of post & wordcount per "move" & etc ?

Yes, but they show you EVERY aura. If you're still Corporate (in your own body) can you decide the aura of someone right in front of you isn't an aura you "want to target" ... then can you just "see right through" that aura, unimpeded? I'm inclined to rule that an aura is "translucent" -- it doesn't FULLY block the view beyond it, but it substantially impairs it. I'd still rule that spellcasters have a couple of serious advantage over missileers in crowds: the casters have a 0% chance to hit an unintended target, even a narrow view of the intended target suffices to target POWvPOW Whereas I'd rule that firing any physical missile into a tight crowd: any miss (not just a fumble) has a chance to hit an unintended target narrow views in moving crowds usually vanish too quickly for aim/release & flight-time Note however that if you can get an elevated position, it's likely to give you an ideal casting platform, as you're looking down into the crowd, and can pick out most any particular aura within the crowd; it's still a risky bow/etc shot, but pretty reliable for spellcasting. Also note that it's pretty obvious to most seasoned warriors why you've taken the elevated position: specifically so you can target spells on individuals in the crowd... and not only casters but physical missileers are free to target you in turn! Expect a non-trivial degree of counterfire...

Do these spells help to pick an individual out of a jumbled crowd, even without line of sight? If there are 8 different people partially or wholly blocking your LOS to the target, don't their aura's obscure your target's aura, even as their bodies obscure the target's body?

I would look at the "ORC AxE" at Paizo. Or buy some lawyer-time, if that's not clear enough.

Are you basing this upon comments from Chaosium, or more upon the lack of comments...? Even if the ms. isn't delayed, it's really clear that it's way down the publishing queue.

No; an oversight continued from the old book to the new book. I would use 8d10 for damage, given the related weapons on the same table.

Start with the "space elevator" concept. Add substantive intermediate steps along the way, every 5 miles or so; suspension-bridge tech means these can each be several miles wide (the added weight means you need to add more counterweights up above geosync; that's OK, make the "counterweights" structure not ballast: more room for more adventure)... These steps are called "rungs" up the "ladder." Rungworld! (serial numbers filed off) Now fill the equator with Ladders -- literally, the entire surface is one contiguous ladder-base. Add interlinking superstructures, so you can lateral from a rung on this ladder to a rung on either adjacent ladder. Aaaall the way up. As seen from outer space, above the poles -- it looks like the world is girdled with a gigantic spiderweb. Alt-name: "Webworld" Fill in the web with solid structure, so it becomes a disc Discworld (just to f--k with the fandom's).

No... not just "no" but hell no ! As you point out, the GS/Guide/Mythology (to which add the Prosopaedia!) all cover their respective bits MUCH better (for an RPG table's use) than KOS does (as you wrote "My GM's GWV" I answered from the player-POV). Some GM's might find the alternate POV's and presentations to be interesting, or inspirational, so I cannot give quite so emphatic a "no" from the GM's perspective, though I'd still not (ever) consider it to be anything close to "required reading." Now, KOS still has lots of value ... to the lorehounds, the deep divers, and those seeking very-unpinned butterflies in Greg Stafford's own words! So far as I know, it's a unique item in all of RPG'dom... but none of this wanders anywhere close to "required reading" territory; most particularly not for players in the world.

Even in the USA, man... you expressing your gratitude in Waco, TX; or in San Francisco, CA ???

I would ask first about the metagaming / MGF side of things, I think: Do you (as GM) actually have a "problem" with this? Does it break your understanding of the world in un-fun ways? Does it (in any way) make things un-fun for the other players at the table? Once the downsides/consequences (huge time & money obligations; possible conflicting demands; etc) are made clear to the Y'alio/LM player, is this choice going to seem un-fun to them, in play? If it's not going to add un-fun, then look to see if it's actually going to increase the MGF at the table... divided loyalties (between two temples) in one PC is often a good source of dramatic tension!

Hey @Saki ... did we help, here? Has your query been fully resolved? Or do you still have questions?

Welcome!

Nothing in particular. I've had a pulpy-science-fantasy BRP idea kicking 'round the back of my mind for... oh, a decade or more. Chaosium releasing the ORC-licensed BRP has actually kicked that idea out of the BACK of my mind. Now I'm looking round to find grist for my mill. I've got "Worlds Beyond" that I can stripmine at need. I've got the fannish "Waning Stars" that is I think a retroclone of "Fading Suns," and the fannish/OGL'ed "RQ-SciFi" SRD, very Traveller-esque. I've got several commercially-published iterations of BRP (notably missing both Ringworld RPG and Future*Space). None of them are quite exactly right for what i want. I've got 2-3 non-BRP games that are a closer fit to the "vibe" I'm after, that I can use for that sort of inspiration. I've begun writing; but the writing is slowing down, and I still want more resources, so instead I'm advancing on this front (for now).

I gotta say, though: given the art you guys are bringing in, the slipcase format looks like an amazing opportunity to step it up a notch... or nine notches. There's obviously other considerations, obviously! But man.... just think about the possibilities! 😁

While I (personally) agree with you, generally... many people love the "hexcrawl" format, where both GM and players are surprised by the contents of each hex. Their fun isn't wrongbad fun, or worse in any way than our fun. It's just different. Unlike those perverts who actually like the taste of rutabaga, now that's some wrongbad!

Have you heard of "hex flowers"? https://goblinshenchman.wordpress.com/hex-power-flower/

If you want potatoes in your Glorantha, it's easy enough to write-in some minor myths. They aren't a major part of Glorantha, so they won't have major myths associated, nor major deities. Take a look at the Cults books coming out: new Gloranthan mythology is being created even in 2023. So feel free to YGWV however you want to! If you don't want them (or simply do not much care, one way or another) then don't bother.

Huh. Given that potatoes -- in the New World -- did not spread and "ruin" (render productive) the harsher environs, the way you feared they would in "areas like northern Fronela or the uplands of Ralios," I remain a bit mystified. 🫤 That they had the capacity to become a staple poorbread for Lunar proselytizing only seems to add to their Gloranthan lore-value. 🤔 <baffled shrug> But as I requested, you gave us the expanded explanation! So -- TYVM, this sort of feedback & insight very much is appreciated! 🤗

TYVM for your reviews, gentlemen! It lets me know that I have no need to buy the game (I had already found the link) -- I don't doubt I could run a better BRP-sci-fi out of my own head, no rulebook needed.

Agreed. This is, I think, largely for good reason -- human authors writing for a human audience, who need human motivations to empathize with. It's a hell of a lot harder to create something really alien, and then write it... and if you're a professional author, you want the public to like it, read it... above all, buy it. So the risk/reward of "genuinely alien" looks like a high barrier. It does depend, to an extent. But most aliens -- even rubber-forehead ones -- get at least a nod or two towards "alien motivations." Players could lean-in on those, and deprecate most "typically human" behaviors; but IME few do so (Wookies, fwiw, seem entirely non-alien to me (intentionally so, as noted above)). Insofar as we have no experience with aliens, you're 100% correct. "Genuinely alien" is a genuinely-meaningless (no real-world referents) phrase. Nevertheless, I think it's at least theoretically meaningful, and a worthwhile goal within sci-fi ... and for sci-fi RPGs, too. If we want playable alien species, we likely need to either allow some human motivations (sufficient to adventure together) or else "alien motivations" that allow for "cooperation on adventures." Sci-fi does have some interesting & much-less-human aliens, IMO, with decent portrayals of being unable to communicate and/or incredibly-alien characteristics. A few examples... Rocheworld (by Forward) postulated a semiliquid "Flouwen" species whose math was based entirely on a somatic geometrical sense, with nothing numeric/algebraic/calculated at all. A Fire Upon the Deep (by Vinge) had "Tines" who were ultrasonic-linked group-minds whose minds/personalities would alter as the individuals entered/departed range of the sonic connection. Singularity Sky (by Stross) portrayed an entire multispecies/multisentient ecosystem that existed to promote infotech/communications, migrating between starsystems in nano hibernation and "blossoming" in the presence of low-tech (in "need" of the comm's (because setting up comms is the need of the ecosystem)) + resources (to build their ecosystem). The Chanur novels (by Cherryh) had several species of "methane breathers" who were frightening to the oxy-breathing species (most of whom were pretty much "rubber-forehead" aliens) because their tech was sooo good but it was so hard to communicate with them -- methane-breather races were mostly just portrayed as enigmas, unpredictable forces of nature, occasionally as semi-oracles insofar as one could sometimes kinda-sorta glean something from some of their communications. So... it's do-able; at least in a novelistic context. Not sure about the PC'ability of Flouwen, Tines, or Chanur-style "Methane Breathers" however!

As the OP of this thread, I hearby declare this issue NOT to be a derailment... and I have made it so. (mwaaaa-ha-ha-ha! Fear my retconning powerz! ) To me, the basic concept of a "furry" is that of an anthropomorphized animal. It's just faster to type "furry" than... that other thing. But yeah, we've been deeply enculturated -- since Aesop -- that these are just people; stupid ones, clever ones, cruel ones, kind ones. But people like ourselves, and those we know. It's our go-to vision, and has been individually since we were learning to read, and collectively for 2500 years or more. And when Niven declares his "Kzin" aren't really anthro-tigers... frankly, he becomes a head/ass ouroboros, because he writes them entirely as anthro-tigers. OTOH, I think he put some real effort in with the Puppeteers (and later, partnered with Pournelle, did an OK job with the Moties & the Fithp too). Marc Miller filed off the serial-numbers (oh wait, no he didn't; he just buffed lightly and said he did) with Traveller's Aslan(Kzin) and the K'kree(Puppeteers) and basically inherited the virtues & flaws of each. FWIW, Runequest actually offers us a good model to consider: Take their "Elves" -- these are literally sentinet motile plants. They think like plants. "Infanticide? meh, the forest needed more mulch this year. Besides, the dryad said we'd be having 3 mast-years in a single decade, some time in the next 30-40 years." I'm not sure they're great exemplars for a non-human PC'able species, but hell yeah they're alien. Dwarfs? Scarcely a shred of independent thought, whose only "drive" is to repair the world-machine. Food isn't hungered-for, nutrients are a mandated part of maintenance. Love / romance / sex? Nope / nope / only as assigned & giving no pleasure. Etc etc etc... Literally zero human motivations. Trolls, now... "dark men." Actually the most "human-like" of the lot... and they are insatiably-hungry darkness-demons from the Underworld! Ehhhrm...??!? ( And sci-fi thinks they do "aliens" ... <heh> )