g33k

I'm always willing to vary my Glorantha, and let others vary theirs. 😁 I do prefer to know when I am "varying my Glorantha," though; and I'd rather not vary it from sheer ignorance... at least, no more than necessary (i.e. not interrupting a game to do a deep dive into the Guide, cross-referencing the Sourcebook and the Well of Dalliath, and a site-search of BRPC, plus Google /r/glorantha, and visiting 3 FB groups (awakening my players after I'm done)).

actually, not. "Mousse" is a soft moist dish, like a fluffy pudding. Divinity is a bit more cookie/candy like; it has a delicate crust, and leans toward the meringue-cookie style (also a bit fudge-y).

In contrast, I feel the Stunt/Feat type mechanisms are interesting... They allow for results outside the linear better <---> worse "pure skill"progression. They allow for "signature moves," subtle tricks, unusual training, secrets passed down master-to-disciple, etc. In very direct disagreement with your tastes: they give different characters different "flavors" and unique abilities, preventing a same-y "all 115% swordsmen are essentially alike." How about the idea that anyone CAN try a "Stunt," but lean on the Called Shot rules, and/or the Special/Critical rules: if you haven't had the training, it's a longshot... but possible. If you HAVE had the training, it can be done (relatively) reliably.

😲 Just hoping folks aren't getting personally upset over jokes & word-geekery...

YGMV. 😁 Polearm keeps EVERYONE else out of range, not just dagger-guy (everyone except another polearm user...). Realistically, the guy with a 20" shortsword cannot attack the guy with the 55" greatsword, unless shortsword can slip "inside" the guard of greatsword (and then greatsword can't be used at the 20" range). I see changing distance, controlling the range of engagement, as fundamentally a combat skill... An attack or a parry (or a Dodge, combat's red-headed stepchild), in RQ terms. Someone trying to use no more than "I'm quick" to slip past the guard of a skilled fighter -- make a DEX-based roll instead of a combat roll -- is just asking to take a hit. I'd give them DEX*2, likely. No more than DEX*3 at VERY best. Maybe Dodge, but likely at a penalty: (a) the skill normally assumes you'll make whatever's the best-possible Dodge, not a specific charge-into-the-enemy Dodge (in this regard, it's a bit like a "called-shot" Dodge, wanting a specific advantage); and (b) Longer-weapon lass has equally sized up the situation, and is EXPECTING you to close-range, and is planning various ways to introduce you to the business end of her weapon as you come in. Hmmm... Another notion: roll both a Parry AND a Dodge to close range. "Parry" to engage the weapon & keep it from harming you, & "Dodge" to actually get past, get inside the range. I kind of like that, actually! I'll have to ponder it... I'm not sure whether I want to change my corresponding "increase range" rules in a comparable way, or not...

No... the RQG passage (as cited by @metcalph) places 2nd Moonbroth in 1625: it's the write-up in the Homelands section (on p.125), and it explicitly places the date. Always possible that date is a typo, of course (Only Human, etc; the kind of thing likely to slip by in proofreading)... or even a "thinko" by @Jeff. But until/unless errata'ed, or explicitly contradicted by later publications and/or by someone who'd know @Chaosium, I am inclined to believe this date. As he says, RQG is pretty darned "canonical!" Unless you're alleging your "2nd Moonbroth in 1624" timeline (above) has been explicitly stated/confirmed by Jeff...? THAT SAID... 2nd Moonbroth doesn't get a satisfying treatment in the RQG corebook. I'd expect it to be a Big Thing for Praxians (and some Lunars). Pages 43/44/45 should have the battle (if not 1625, then clearly 1624) for characters to have participated in! That it's missing suggests to me that the timing HASN'T actually been carefully considered.

N.B. -- Vance's Lyonesse is coming to d100. TDM has licensed it from the Vance estate.

This thread places Moonbroth II in 1624 (it's pretty detailed): https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/11209-pre-dragonrise-timeline-of-sartar-and-prax/ @Bran the Brainless (the author) may have sourced no-longer-canonical resources, or made a best-guess timing that turns out to be erroneous; but the specific source of this element isn't given. Well of Dalliath's timeline has 1st Moonbroth, but not 2nd: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/gloranthan-documents/timeline-dragonpass/ I suppose it may even be a matter on which Canon is not yet (clearly) established ... ?

I'm pretty sure Argrath had a prior failed attempt on Sartar, that was unrelated to either the Dragonrise or Moonbroth. Then 2nd Moonbroth. Then Dragonrise. Hrm... Is there a nice tight timeline of the middle 1620s somewhere? Besides @Jeff's brain, I mean? (the Thanatari solution seems... excessive... just to answer the one question)

I'm still on the fence about RAW... I expect to change weapon-size based SR's as follows: On the 1st-round, 2+ points of weapon-size SR's prevent the shorter-weapon user from attacking at all; they have to (1) parry the longer-weapon-user's attack; & (2) roll a successful, un-parried "attack" -- which is ONLY vs. the long weapon, not the wielder -- to close range. If they succeed in "closing range," the long-weapon-user can only parry or try for STR+DEX-vs-STR+DEX knockback, cannot attack w/ their long weapon against the foe who has gotten "inside" their reach. Round-on-round, only the character who "has range" can attack their foe; the other must parry/dodge, and must make an attack-roll just to change the range. === Still looking at the very-high-skill rules. Not sure I like some implications; not sure I see better rules, either. All that I've seen propose make as many problems as they solve, IIRC.

I thought "Second Moonbroth" happened before the Dragonrise...? So the fateful Sable decision happened without knowing of this event.

I see Tt as something that Issaries "gives away" -- normally Issaries would "frown upon" a giveaway, but it's actually making a bargain: they are "paid" for Tt with better markets, more customers, etc. An intangible traded for an intangible, social-thing traded for social-thing. Much like an Issaries merchant might "give" a minor treat or toy to a child (a social thing) knowing it will dispose the parent toward a more-friendly bargaining position (social thing). Argan Argar is enough like Issaries to find Tt similarly useful; I presume it's almost as common in AA's cult as it is in Issaries' (the RQG corebook cult write-up explicitly lists "languages" as one of the AA core functions... but does not call out Tt (it is not an AA cult skill, the way it is for Issaries); so maybe this is just my own headcanon?) . The question becomes (if you find my interpretation reasonable or persuasive) -- will Kitori-in-general find enough use for Tt that it becomes unusually-common among them? I will assert yes, because the entire Kitori schtick is the human/troll interface, that is also the AA core cult function. It will simply becomes a cultural staple, like blue jeans (well, OK... maybe not that ubiquitous).

MW seems an apt simile, yes. I could wish for Chaosium to just strip MW down to a text-only doc, and OGL that. I bet it'd help them move the last copies out of their warehouses. But I looked at @Lloyd Dupont's DOCX (linked above). He's doing a couple of other things there... He's incorporating many of the latest-generation BRP-variant bits&bobs into his rules; it's very much NOT aimed at a "lowest common denominator" simple rule-set He's hybridizing in some d20'isms, particularly of the Feat/Stunt variety I think a lot of his stuff is more what I'd want to see in a "Companion" or "Extended" or "advanced" ruleset, not the core. Sometimes -- maybe even most of the time -- there's parts I'd like to include. But I really think the lean & minimal core is a superior approach. That said, I see no problem that "core/basic" and "companion/advanced" rules cannot be simultaneously co-developed. Indeed, I think that's a better way to do it. I know RL's "CF Companion" book was eagerly -- often impatiently -- anticipated for years before it came out...

I would presume a LOT of Tradetalk, too! They naturally cross that human/troll boundary, run heavy to AA worship...

While I am 100% in agreement with @Raleel @rsanford @AndreJarosch (if you want "D&D" but with BRP-driven mechanics, you want RL's "Classic Fantasy" line!) ... ... I think you guys are off-point. I think the thrust of @Crel's remarks (and effort) is NOT to capture the "D&D Vibe" (particularly class/level) but to produce a simple but robust (rather than minimalist, as per the original BRP-OGL from Chaosium) fantasy rendition of BRP, that can serve (at least the fantasy segment of) BRP'dom the way the WotC OGLs serve the d20 crowd. Dunno, maybe I have missed the point. Maybe they really are trying to reinvent @threedeesix's wheel...? In which case... give it up now, boys! That stuff is SO good, and it's SO deep, that any new efforts at this point will look a lot like someone announcing that they've found a way to harness refined petroleum to move a carriage with no horse! 😁

That was specific to the Windstop, though; which I do NOT count as normative!

I've got the Guide, I just haven't read the whole thing; in particular, I obviously need to read / re-read all of the material on Prax & the Wastelands. (and then, as noted in my Q's to David about the apparent 50:1 Wastes:Prax population ratio, decide if I need to YGWV the hell out of this)

Is it the case that -- for all "Praxian" Nomad Tribes, whatever Beast they herd -- the majority of the Tribe-members (and Herds) spend most of their time outside of Prax, in the "Wastes" to the east of the Zola Fel valley? Vulture Country & beyond... Hmmm. I see those "What my Father Told Me" quotes. Hmmm. === Is this NEW canon??? Elsethread, @David Scott said (a couple of years ago): (https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/7595-pavis-county-prax-and-the-zola-fel-1622-1627/?do=findComment&comment=106133) === I had always envisioned that region -- the Wastelands beyond Vulture Country -- as where outlaws and exiles were forced... and of course the losers of particularly-sharp conflicts. Maybe even a whole Tribe, if they badly lost to a rival Tribe! I had pictured most of the Sables coming to Prax after Moonbroth I, joining in on the whole "victorious swagger-around, lording it over all the other Tribes" vibe... likely exiling their particular rivals&foes (individuals, clans, even an entire Tribe or two!) to the Wastes, yes. === I'm not sure I believe in a vision of the ultra-hostile Wastelands supporting the majority of the Tribes, full-time. Those two WmFTM quotes, above, suggest (on average, & presuming most tribes are similar to Bison&Sable in this) a visit one year out of 50ish (ten hands, +/-1) -- and don't suggest a full year of residence, but a short visit... a season or two? -- but let's take 1 in 50. That's 2% Praxian, 98% Wastelands. REALLY? I mean, I know the Wastes are "bigger" than Prax. But not fifty-fold bigger! And certainly, they don't support comparable numbers of foraging Beasts! === @David Scott -- I know you've got some solid work in on the Tribes' size & composition. Are your numbers for the Praxian elements specifically? Are there fifty-fold more Nomads off in the Wastes? Or are your numbers for the entirety of the Tribes, and only 1/50th of the numbers you cite will be visiting Prax at any given time? Or...? TYVM! (edit: I just spotted an "A is to B as..." simile, and developed a vile and unworthy suspicion about one or more of the authors, my fellow-fans... I think one of the early Voices writers suffered a brainfart, and conflated Wastes:Prax with Prax:Paps. It is the Paps that is the Holy Place, only rarely visited. There's a similar "an order of magnitude better" -- the Wastes are deadly, Prax is hard, the Paps are easy. I think someone writing the Voices pieces just ooops'ed on this, maybe propagating the error downstream (or just copypasta) thereafter.)

But it's a rather primitive POV. "I know what I've seen; I trust information that comes from those I trust." Praxians really don't grasp the scope and the depth of the Lunar Empire, the resources that could march into Prax -=IF=- the Emperor deemed Moonbroth a critical issue. That stuff will be no part of their calculus of pragmatic side-switching. The issue I was pointing to was the Praxian Sables looking at the Lunars, and looking at Argrath (who was already gathering some Sables to his White Bull Society), and figuring out where their own advantage lay. I was responding to the suggestion that Argrath would have looked like a bad bet. They could SEE Argrath. They could SEE the alliances of the White Bull Society. Could they consider the broad sweep of Sedenya's "if we defeat her on the Wane, she'll just be back (even stronger) on the Wax" cyclic habits&history? Could they look at the vast might of the Imperial Legions, the incredible potency of the Crater Makers, the dire threat of the Bat, etc etc etc? I think -- from the Praxian POV -- Argrath is a reasonable bet. Clearly a large portion (40%) of the Sables thought so, too! An equally large portion thought the Lunars were a better bet. And a smaller portion said "looks like a coin-toss, and the winners kill the losers; I don't want to bet my life on a 50/50 toss," and cleared out.

Yes. Or rather, "yes, but..." I tend to see that as mostly changing interpretations, and mostly specific-to-the-heroquestors, specific-to-a-clan, specific-to-a-cult, etc. Occasionally coming back with specific rewards (expected or otherwise). But sweeping historical changes? But changes that alter widely-known reality? Exceedingly rare. When a ZZ runelord goes back to the Hill of Gold, and has an abject failure, it doesn't strip fire-powers away from Zorak Zoran himself; it doesn't even strip fire magic away from other ZZ cultists! The specific runelord may have problems, may need to further quest or atone, etc; but that's about it. Not even if the High Priest of all Zorak Zorani fails -- on the ZZ High Holy Day! -- does it impact the fire-powers of ZZ himself! There's a little bit of weaponized HQ'ing -- all the way back to the Troll Raid on the Earth Ceremony in Travels of Biturian Varosh -- but I think mostly they follow that pattern: short term (a season, a year) blessings & advantages gained or lost; curses inflicted or averted.

I like the specificity here, @soltakss! If I may be so bold, however... this might be better placed in the more-official Q&A thread. This thread is a lot more "discussion-y" and we all feel free to chime in with various opinions & such. I just wrote such a discussion-y opinion-piece ... and then didn't post it, as I realized I was in Chaosium's Q&A thread!

The barbarian is feeding you the Official Line there, @Dethstrok9, retail distribution, everything on the up&up. Don't worry, man, I can hook ya up with a freebie! Mind, you'll owe me a favor...

Hmmm. OK, tyvm! I am kind of liking the Lunar version, frankly... as you say, "the Lunars understood what they were doing." But it's the kind of fine detail I like -- as a gamer, as a lover of Prax -- to help differentiate them from being a same-y "just another Beast Rider" Tribe.

I'd tend to see those more as schisms of the 7 core phratries. There's this myth/history division in the Real World that's MUCH less clear in Glorantha. Heroquesting and God-Time quests let our PCs visit & even JOIN those foundational "myths" -- their historicity verified, something essentially unavailable in the RW. So when I look at the Lunar Sables, and see 7 Daughters with mythic linkage to the 7 moon-phases, I "YEP!" that, lean in hard, and don't see the point of wanting/having other coequal (foundational) Phratries ... But schisms? Maybe led by the grand-daughters of the Sable Protectress, great grand-daughters, sisters-in-law, cousins, other lineages (without clear descent from the Protectress) risen to prominence, etc? Oh yeah. Bring it on, ALL of it! Rivalries, betrayals, competing claims to be "the one true Waxing Moon Phratry" ... all that good stuff!

Moon Rune didn't begin with Sedenya. Moonbroth was a lunar site long before the Empire visited. You appear to be giving the average Praxian a players-eye view of entire sourcebooks. Praxians just don't have that perspective (except for Argrath himself). I think the White Bull looks pretty telling, to many Praxians!