g33k

It's my understanding that RQ sorcerors have always been a bit about, "yeah, if you have time to cast your spells beforehand..." Otherwise, cast as fast as possible and hope your other party-members can screen/protect you. I haven't played with any Sorcerors in previous editions, so I may be mistaken. I understand adventuring Sorcerors often pre-cast long-duration buff spells, so when combat began they had their initial casting done... a week ahead of time. But I'm... kind of OK with this limitation. They have the potential to go REALLY powerful, but without any of the characteristic Gloranthan cult-and-culture expectations to limit them. And honestly, I don't want to see that. The God Learners lost. The Goddess Switch failed, demonstrating a fundamental flaw in their understanding. So a wizardy-guy (or -gal) whose abstruse, theoretical, "foundation-of-the-universe" style of magic leaves them extra-vulnerable to the practical "bladesharp-6" soldier with a gladius? Well... in a word: yes.

I have used other magic rules of his, in other games. I bought that book specifically to get his take on the topic for BRP...would not have bought it from any other author (well... OK, would also have bought Greg Stafford's take on the topic). I have a really profound respect for Mr. Snead's magic-rules for RPGs, in case that isn't clear! That said... I haven't had a game that implemented them, so I do not actually know how they play at the table.

The issue comes up when the topic revolves around "is HPL racist / sexist / etc-ist, and how much (or at all) that belongs at the gaming table (or in discussion on a forum)." Every table will play how they want to. I don't expect that any of this chatter here will affect anybody's play there. But when somebody raises the topic on the forum... If someone says "don't discuss the topic of how HPL's writings (or Chaosium's RPG) has (or promotes in play) sexism/racism/etc; that topic is verboten!" or makes claims that "nuChaosium products are too inclusive, and I don't want to see that stuff..." That IS sexism/racism/whatever-ism. *** PLEASE NOTE THIS IS NOT SAYING THAT THE PEOPLE WRITING THOSE POSTS ARE SEXIST/RACIST/WHATEVER-IST. *** I have absolutely ZERO belief that the OP @seneschal is racist or whatever-ist. See instead the discussion above on "Privilege," where someone who doesn't notice an issue -- because they are privileged not to have been facing it in their daily life -- denies that the problem exists, or says that it isn't a big enough problem to matter, or that those other people shouldn't talk about this problem that exists... The people writing those posts have demonstrated that they are privileged; no more, no less. They have NOT demonstrated that they, personally, subscribe to the belief; but that they don't see it when it's there. But the posts themselves, because they are blind to the issue that other people see, and deny that people should talk about a problem they see... The posts look racist/sexist/whatever-ist. And... what, Trif? If we see this, the folks who say, "shut up with your woke-ness, there is no issue here" get to say that? And the default BRPC stance is "nothing to see here (except complicit, "there is no issue" silence) move along"?

I /think/ that you are mistaken in reading any "threat" here...? Nobody on any side (that I have seen) has suggested any sort of boycott, of organizing a letter-writing campaign, of summoning a Troll Army or enacting DoS attack etc etc etc. Some people have expressed the belief that Chaosium / CoC is acting in ways (and producing content) that won't sell because the market won't like it. Those arguments have always seemed to me to be honest and straightforward statements, if sometimes misguided or mistaken in judging the market. You may have seen something I haven't, either because yours is a more nuanced reading than mine, or because someone thought better of an AngryRant and edited out the most inflammatory bits before those electrons ever reached me ... Also -- welcome to the Great Land of Posting! 😎 Hope you continue! 😁

I am entirely willing to believe you: that the uses of "Privilege" that you see and hear have at least some "insult" as used, and often are heavily insulting. It's worth noting that a given partisan community -- liberal or conservative -- isn't likely to carry everything from the "other side:" they will, in general, only do a "share" of the most objectionable bits (I observe this as "human" behavior, and neither liberal nor conservative); so you may not be seeing a "representative sample." I will at least suggest -- without real data, only the hope that I'm correct -- that you're seeing a biased subset of the usage of "Privilege" and not a normalized usage. But I am frankly bothered that you equate MSNBC with CNN; they really aren't very comparable. MSNBC is much more partisan (to the Left), CNN is much closer to center (though still noticeably Left). You can probably tell I'm something of a "leftie" myself, but personally... I can barely tolerate MSNBC coverage. I can get op-ed commentary & partisan crap easily; I want my news shows to be news, dammit! If you watch MSNBC much, you must have a stronger stomach than I do. My mom loves them, and I have to tolerate them a bit; usually, I will find lots of "chores to do" in another room. CNN... sure, take 'em with a grain of salt, but also notice whether you're looking at their "commentary" segments or their "news" segments -- the news is (usually) closer to center, and more fact-based, with less editorial-opinion / pseudo-fact sneaking in. But yes, they have leaned over leftward from their original mission. They are chasing ratings, and telling their core audience the things they want to hear; and probably, to be honest, being pushed leftward by, e.g. Trump constantly harping on "fake news" (the people there are only human, too; and will react to the constant vitriol). So it bothers me that you should equate them, when I see such a clear difference. Also please note -- if you're watching Fox and considering it a "reasonable" news source: it isn't. It is (at least) as bad in its right-leaning errors as MSNBC is in left-lean; they have never been anything other than feeding their core audience what they want to hear. Here is my question to you, based on what you said (and maybe we are drawing the analogy too far, and it falls apart?): would you decide on your preferred diagnosis or treatment recommendation (or decide you just DIDN'T want the one you got, and ANY other would do), and then shop around until you got a doctor to support that? Because I guarantee you'll find an incompetent or unethical quack who will take your money and say whatever you want said. And honestly: no, they don't necessarily get listened to. Not every voice is worth listening to. How to decide??? As a non-expert, faced by two conflicting experts, I would probably go looking for a large pool of experts (not gonna look it up, but I bet there's specialty endocrinology associations with "best-practices" recommendations; most medical specialties have them, and update them regularly) to see if there's consensus, and go with THAT. If there IS no real consensus... then sure: two doctors disagree, let's sit down and figure out how to proceed. But is there good reason to doubt "your" 2nd-opinion doctor? Ethics reviews, medical-board reviews, etc (or even just your endocrinologist's view being sharply at odds with the vast majority of other endocrinologists)? Then I would be very unhappy giving them equal credence... because that's giving the one voice (in this case, the voice paid to agree with you) equal standing with an entire profession of healers... Frankly, if I do get that large pool of experts with a consensus, I'm likely going to follow their advice... even if I don't like it. I mean: if 100 pilots tell me a plane is unsafe to fly, I'm not taking my family on board... even though we really wanted that trip to Hawaii... even though the airline found a pilot who says its safe. 100 pilots with no motivation except their own professional integrity, vs. the company selling me something, and their paid mouthpiece? Yeah, this is where things get sticky. Getting socio-political data -- solid, unimpeachable data -- is often tougher than getting medical data. I am big into making policy based on facts/data, instead of ideology and preconceptions. Sometimes it's not clear from the available facts what policy should be set; but even with facts available showing a clear direction... policy all too often is more ideological than factual. Cognitive and implicit biases (and ideology) lead to some very dubious decisions. So again, my question: how do I convince you? (or you convince me)? I mean... this stuff is hard. Endocrinology is complex and difficult! Should your one endocrinologist, paid to have an opinion, should be given equal weight with the entire profession and multiple, repeating scientific studies? Even if you find an unpaid / pro-bono expert (presumed better because money's influence can corrupt), should one person be given equal voice with 10, or 100? Even if he's maybe just a whackadoodle with a pet theory and a love of the spotlight? Should 100 random folk's opinions be given equal credence as 100 experts with evidence? Etc...

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you'll post sometimes anyhow... but I entirely understand your sentiment. Thank you for posting this much, in any case! I hope it's equally clear that there are other "someones" here who will speak up in support of you! Finally, I've bolded something that looks awfully significant, but I've left it in the whole post for context: I won't speak for @Cultist of Sooty as to WHY they feel this way; what have they read, and from who, etc. And that they "feel this way" doesn't mean that it's true -- that admin's here would side with sexists & racists. But I note that for every person speaking up, there's usually a bunch who don't (and upthread, I see there are private communications voicing the same sentiment). So the impression is not unique to one person. I hope this is something -- that multiple fans "feel like" (rightly or wrongly) the Mod's here will side with racists and sexists, rather than siding with people they slight -- that gets @Trifletraxor and @Jeff and @Ellie and a HUGE bunch of @Others @Chaosium (and yes, I know Triff isn't Chaosium) start talking about WTF is going on, and why fans feel this way.

Did y'all see this piece? https://www.archaeology.org/issues/352-1909/features/7900-greece-pylos-mycenaean-warrior-grave

So you're saying he killed 3 guys and wrote the ms. in the blood of his slain enemies?

Luke used a rock to drop the gate onto the Rancor. Lithic Weapon! Just... relocate that scene into Balazar. Done. See? On topic!

OK. Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.

Huh. You've claimed to have some sort of "mental diagnosis," so I really cannot tell if you actually believe you've made an analogous point, and are unable to grasp how irrelevant it is? Or if you're just tossing out a garden-variety bit of "hah, gotcha!" rhetoric, and haven't spotted (or hope nobody else spots) the fallacy? Or if you're actually arguing in bad faith? Or something else entirely? Like... I honestly cannot tell. Not claiming ANY of those to be true, not accusing you of any of those. But I am absolutely denying any validity to that analogy! === Let's break it down... Cars, as mechanisms, are largely blind to issues of race, religion, etc. Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Pastafarian; asian, caucasion, hispanic; whatever... the car doesn't care, doesn't drive any differently. And therefore, mostly, the customer doesn't care. But when playing CoC... there is no car, no machine. It's all people at the table, playing roles. And people (are supposed to) care about one another. Are they playing out century-old racism & sexism & similar bigotry... accurately reflecting those biases? Accurately being bigots? Even if it makes the game non-fun or less-fun for others at the table? (n.b. "But that's what my character would do!" is infamous now, if used as an excuse to ruin other players' fun). The game plays differently at the table. The car (as a customer experience) is in no way analogous to the game (as a customer experience).

Sounds like "privilege" and "inclusion" have become polarized code-words, used on both sides mostly as bludgeons...? "Privilege" isn't necessarily a criticism. One generally cannot help being in a position of privilege, it doesn't make you wrong or bad, etc. That said, many terms can be used in an insulting way, and this is certainly one of them! The biggest problem with "privilege" is when you cannot look at it, or admit it... when "I don't have this problem" makes you presume "this problem does not exist" or claim that "he/she/they/whoever does not have this problem." Closely related (and frequent fallback from the prior steps) is "this problem MAY exist, but you're blowing it out of proportion / it isn't a significant problem / it doesn't matter." Most especially pernicious is when the idea creeps in that it's somehow the "fault" of the un-privileged, that there is something wrong with them... that they deserve it. That they don't deserve to complain, or seek to make it better. FWIW, note how easily "it doesn't matter" oozes over to the often-implicit, often-unstated "... because you don't deserve better." And to the degree that some folks use "privilege" to encompass all those problematic points of view, and use the one word to accuse a person of holding them... yeah, then it can become an insult. Also, a separate but related issue: most of us in the USA like to presume a certain degree of "fairness," that things aren't stacked against any American; especially, we don't like to admit that WE have the advantage: it feels like being accused, like someone is saying that WE are actively, intentionally being unfair. To the degree that you understand "privilege" to mean, "things are unfair, in your favor" you can feel criticised/insulted, even if no insult was intended. To the degree that anyone DOES feel that their privilege DOES make them better... I think the criticism -- and even the insult -- is deserved. For the record: I don't really see that anyone in this thread -- even the ones I am arguing with and criticizing -- is holding to those most-problematic sorts of "privileged" point of view. Unregarded / unacknowledged privilege ... Sure, absolutely. Some pretty severe instances of it, too. But... ya can't admit what ya can't admit to, y'know? It's part of the human condition. All of us have blind spots we cannot see; all of us have flaws we cannot admit to (and in case anyone reading this thinks, "no, not me!" well... there ya go, that's another one 😏 ). Some of our flaws & blind spots, when we finally come to grips with them... they can be kind of a moral gut-punch, hmm? I know I've taken a few. I can't speak to the context and the usage you have observed in your area. I will make (some possibly-erroneous) assumptions, and comment on that basis... If I'm mistaken here (you know your region) please feel free to correct me! It may INDEED mean that person's voice is less important at the moment... because by definition (not seeing/admitting a genuine problem) they are speaking from ignorance. Seriously: I know virtually nothing about, say... endocrinology. Nobody should pay attention to me if I voice an opinion on the topic. Why should someone who grew up white think they understand what it's like to be black? Why should someone who grew up wealthy think they understand poverty? Very specifically: why should we pay attention to them when they make this claim? And yes, the reverse cases are also true, but that's VERY much not to the point... unless you're claiming that -- for example -- the downtrodden wealthy 1% need the sympathies and attention (and effort to remedy their afflicted situation) from the 15% or so of Americans (including 1 out of every 5 children in the USA) living in poverty. If someone is speaking from a privileged position -- without realizing it -- about the experience of someone who does NOT have that privilege... yeah, I'm OK with the response to that being "you should sit down now and listen, because you don't know what you're talking about." Sometimes, that is shortened to "privilege." And yeah, being called out in this way can be F'ing discomforting. You can feel VERY insulted. I'm... kind of stuck, here. I'm not sure I've got any better response than "suck it up, Buttercup." Or -- like, my posts here -- trying to explain, unpack, etc.

Do you just not get it? Racist and sexist politics have been shoved into role-playing for DECADES. Yes, it does spoil the fun. The fact that you don't even notice it... can't even see it when it's pointed out to you...? You were asking up-thread how anyone dare level a charge of "privilege" at you. Well, you just wrapped yourself in the Privilege Flag, soaked yourself in Privilege Juice, and promenaded down Privilege Street. Nobody did it but you. But "inclusivity" isn't politics. It's just human decency.

Again with the dismissive language... because? As I stated: it was "thought up" by the folks themselves who experience it on a daily basis (no think-tank involved). It means exactly what it sounds like -- a non-typical range or diversity in neurology. As widely noted, autism is a "spectrum" with very diverse effects&symptoms. It's... actually a very elegant phrasing; information-dense, descriptive, lots of utility.

Terms like "neuroatypical" / "neurodivergent" / "neurodiverse" / "non-neurotypical" were AFAIK coined by the aspergergers/autism community as a self-descriptors ("normies" obviously become "neurotypical" in this parlance; "normie" being the semi-insulting dismissive term used for many years in deliberate, defensive fashion as they felt insulted and dismissed my most terms commonly used toward them). You may be correct that the usage originated in the USA; I find it in use more than a decade ago, with origination credited to the ANI (Autism Network International) community. Note it's the term chosen by the people themselves, not a "woke" label invented for the feels and to be kinder & gentler. One can also see "NT" for neurotypical and "ND" for neurodiverse/neurodivergent. A moment with Google and I get over 1.6 million hits so... not terribly rare or unusual . There's a film from a few years back (2013) titled "Neurotypical" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1760416/ . Dunno why you're... angry and dismissive about this language?

I know y'all don't love to ETA a project very far out, so I'm not really expecting an answer when I scream "When is soon, dammit, Janet?!??" But p'raps you'd be willing to tell us which product(s) the particular Jonstown fans might await with particular... antici- ... ... pation... ? (don't make me go to the vault for this one!)

Sounds like the "skill tree" idea implemented in Ringworld... I think? I've never been lucky enough to own or play that one. I like the concept -- rather a lot, actually! -- but understand folks found it a bit clunky at the table.

Hello to the newcomers to the site, and welcome!

Thank you! I hadn't seen this name for the "staff sling" before. I also discover "cheiromangana" and "hand trebuchet" 😁 Apparently this item is known from greco-roman times through early gunpowder, but mostly is only rarely mentioned, so we have a limited grasp of historical prevalence & usage. My preliminary Googl'ing doesn't find it in most neolithic & mesolithic contexts. Maybe I just have weak Google-fu...

Just gonna point you (and @seneschal who makes a similar claim) to Harlem Unbound. I think there's more than just a "market" for such content. I think there's a HUGE market for it. Triple-gold at the ENnies (and don't forget that's fan-voted, so customers not industry pundits). Not sure if there has ever been any supplement that was as on-the-nose for LGBTQI+ issues as Harlem Unbound is for African-Americans...? Berlin Wicked City plus some trappings from Cabaret (the musical) would seem fertile, here (I don't have the book, so maybe those trappings are already rolled-in?). At the same time, non-cisgender folk have ALWAYS been part of the human experience, and in my experience slightly over-represented in RPG'dom, so there's certainly room for more of that! I'm... unclear why just including them is a problem for you? Is it just that they are offensive? Honestly -- as a cisgender guy -- I prefer to have the inclusion, than to not have it. So far as I can see, I'm not threatened by non-binary genderfolk. Personally... I'm willing to leave behind the kind of person who finds such inclusivity to be a bad thing. History is cluttered with the detritus of slave-owning Americans, of Americans who thought women didn't deserve the right to vote, etc. Cis-centric sentiment is the same kind of sentiment, and is heading the same generally-detritus-y direction. OTOH... Got nothing but agreement with you, on this point. I think a deep dive into the travails of Doughboys-come-home would be very fertile CoC ground. There was also a big Polio spike in the USA in 1916, that could lead to characters with handicaps. The disease certainly would have sparked some horror in Mr. Lovecraft's psyche! I'm not sure a "handicap-centered" supplement would work, however: I think the majority of players want fully-able PC's. But I'd love to see much more pre-gen PC's and key NPC good-guy types with various disabilities. These could just be included as normal parts of whatever product(s) Chaosium is already producing. A chapter or appendix on war-wounds and war-traumas in a "Doughboys" book (and impacts on their lives at home) would seem like an easy include (if there were such a book). And also: Yeah, I can get behind this, too! I've been occasionally advocating for years now that people should just rip UA's "Madness Meter" and use it to replace CoC's insanity rules. Better still, of course, would be to find some gamers who ALSO have professional psych degrees, and some more with personal experience of non-neurotypical states, and do a redesign of these mechanics from scratch. And despite agreeing with those points, I'm gonna call you on a pretty clear case of "whataboutism" -- the fact that Chaosium hasn't done everything for every marginalized group takes nothing away from the fact that they now ARE doing some good things for some of those groups. "But whatabout this other deserving group?" is a silly rhetorical maneuver that screams "I have no real facts or logic, but the truthiness of my position is clear!" The only downside I can see is the angst of a some special snowflakes who hate to see their fallacious & outdated POVs debunked.

Gotcha, thanks! Was noting what seemed to be lots of RQG-specific content, not much ST:G, and wondered if your campaign had shifted.

Still loving your stuff, even if I don't follow obsessively. 🙂 One quick query: are you still running your "ST:G" homebrew, or have you adopted RQG? Or is the answer less clear than that?

Here's a wild thought, just pulled it randomly out of my... um... my hat, yeah, that's totally where I got the idea. Man Rune = Spirit Rune, depending on whether you're This-World'ing or Otherworld'ing. Haven't playtested it, haven't even thought about it much, just tossing it out there like a monkey throwing... Uh, his hat. Yeah. Hat monkey, that's me. Make of the idea what you will.

Dunno. I don't use either FG or R20, I just recall seeing them discussed.

I think 13G did a fine job of implementing "D&D" (class/level system, d20-centric mechanics) for Glorantha; given the folk who produced it, I never had any real doubt. So from that perspective there is no real need for such a product: it already exists! But D&D5e is kind of a monster game these days... there are so MANY CriticalRole/StrangerThings players coming in, and legitimacy in publications like Forbes, of all places. I can see some credibility to the notion that a D&D5e rendition of Glorantha might generate further fans! If even 1% of the CR viewership bought a RQG core book, it would be a huge jump in sales for Chaosium. If 1/10 of 1% of the ST viewership did so, Chaosium would have to scramble for new printings due to overwhelming demand. Chaosium shows every evidence of having the business sensibilities to see these as "the good sort of 'problem' to have." More personally... I use D&D as bait. Virtually everyone who games knows it. My current group was founded on a premise of "Who wants to play D&D and similar RPGs?" where I ran a 3-session D&D-arc, at the end of which I announced "Next game -- unless someone else runs a game first -- will be Ars Magica" (n.b. this was during the MRQ era, which I never bought/played). We have since run a dozen or so short campaign-arcs, and a score or so of one-shots, in wide variety of systems... only one arc of which was any flavor of D&D/d20. This being the case... I can see a very good use for a D&D5e Glorantha, even if it's just a quickstart-ish product using Glorantha as a gateway drug, ushering folks over to the BRP side of things. 😎