g33k

Howsabout they just pull a Microsoft, skip forward, and go for "RQX"? Then they can get all coy about whether they meant "ten" or "eXtended edition" or ...?

To be clear: the Kickstarter'ed product, "RQ Classic" *IS* RQ2, plus a small amount of supplementary material. It is already printed, and only waiting for the kickstarter'ed shipments to go out, before the "preorder" (non-KS orders, placed with Backerkit after the KS closed) themselves ship. Then there is "RQ Next" -- no official name announced, that I know of, but called variously "RQ:Glorantha" and "RQ4" on these boards, that I have noticed -- which will be based on an evolution of the "RQ2/RQClassic" ruleset, but with extra Gloranthan & Runic goodness baked-in. I believe the intent is that the re-release of the KS'ed stretch-goal supplements be 90%-or-more compatible with this "next" product. As for CoPrax & CoTerror -- you might want to just get the "Cult Compendium" product, available now, which includes both of those & a bit more besides... ... my 2 bolg's worth...

I think you may have something there, soltakss...

"Esrolian Woman"? Especially if an artist could get a nice "gloranthafi-cation" of the DaVinci piece... homage to both.

<heh> In the context of art/illustration, "map" would seem to be the wrong word. However RPG-usage of "map" has borrowed all sorts of interesting new meanings from psych, lit, etc... frankly, "a highly detailed, full colour map of a Gloranthan -- female or not" in these broader senses might be rather interesting & worthwhile!

I rather liked that chainmail-clad knight/steed combo styopa posted back on 4 April, and it prompted me to look up the artist "Bob Giadrosich" -- I quite like his other, more-fantasy stuff, too, and would love to see almost anything from him, on any subject comissioned, in any RQ/Glorantha book!

If I run for kids, their characters are fully-plot-armored; same for newbie players (first few sessions), or anyone else who seems like they're still "finding their way into" the fun. Experienced players usually get mild-to-moderate plot-armor, either with the last [body level|few hitpoints|etc] being very-difficult-to-lose, or having the PC's conveniently-close to uber-healing (e.g. Frodo getting Morgul-blade'd near Rivendell). I run "absentee player" characters as heavily-plot-armored but passive and less-effectual NPC's -- unless the player STRONGLY wants "my PC isn't there unless *I* am there" (which I have met once or twice), which I accept. So, they can't die (except on TPK when a lone survivor would make no sense (this has never come up)) BUT: They do nothing pro-active They take no "leading" or "solo" or any other "spotlight" roles / actions They always go last in combat This generally results in fewer experience-checks and other in-character rewards, but I don't have to come up with "convenient excuses" which I sometimes find impossible to construct within an acceptable level of suspension-of-disbelief.

OK, necro'ing my own question, with my own answer... http://www.glorantha.com/some-teases-on-the-glorantha-source-book/ Lots of good detail there... and (from the byline date) was out for over a year before I last asked. Dunno why my prior Google-fu failed so utterly, but found it so trivially easily this time, but there ya go!

Done.

Yeah, I had strongly suspected that I was being trolled; I'll not only cop to "histrionic" I'll allow that it was more than a little bit intentional on my part: while there is an implied criticism (that "histrionic" is a "bad thing"), the literal meaning is simply that it's extra-dramatic and attention-grabbing; and I *meant* it to be that way (so it'd be kinda hypocritical to deny it, hmm?) . So, yeah: "histrionic." Oooooh, ya got me! I just deny that there's always a problem with "histrionic," and in this case I have no problem with it at all. Here's the thing, styopa: while you may feel it's "spearfishing" to "bait" an "SJW" ... that don't matter. WHY you said it doesn't really matter, in the end. Because you said it right here (not so much "BRP Central," as in the middle of any geeky-gaming venue & particularly a RQ one). Where some nascent neogamer with an unfortunate background can wander by, browsing, and decide that this site is (or isn't) for them; this game; this hobby. THAT is why I had to speak up against "active" cheesecake being superior to the static art showing culture; and why I had to get all "histrionic" when that was dismissed so casually: I honestly couldn't give a flying !&^@% what some net.stranger in the mood to be a PITA thinks of me or my opinions; but I don't want someone else to decide that this site, or the BRP game, or the hobby overall, is one that's hostile to them. They should know that even if there are jerks spewing sexism, there are ALSO people calling them out for doing it. And here's my pro tip for you: for the real victims (subject to panic-attacks, flashback, triggers, etc), the damage from initial trollbait may not actually be un-done or un-doable by later claims of "just trolling."

Yeah, I realize I have come across a bit strong. Sorry if you're offended by the tone... Or maybe I should suggest you have "delicate sensibilities?" The image where the 4 "characters and costumes don't look very interesting" was correctly called-out by the OP for the (from the RPG-perspective) lack of action/interest (despite all the cultural detail). But the risque pic was frankly egregious in the level of risque; and the costume was praised (because of superior "drawing style" (I presume what's meant there is the active pose, & facial expression)). There was much more of the "let's flash some skin" vibe than there was of the "let's capture some cultural flavor" vibe. My original response -- that the risque one was "actively offensive" -- was NOT "histrionic," but a brief comment. NB: that remark generated a similarly-brief "prefer the 2nd" reply, and I took that to mean it was "the style they preferred." Apologies to Goldenwheeldancer if I misinterpreted you! But, styopa: YOUR reply, a dismissal of my brief remark (that my opinion constituted "delicate sensibilities," and need not be "catered to") is EXACTLY what I won't put up with: that someone who objects to that kind of sexism deserves no credence. That a casually-dismissive tone (suggesting that none of us need to worry about it) is the right response. It is exactly this patronizing, wink-wink nudge-nudge attitude that perpetuates the problems I am objecting to. Someone suggested my response might be a "witch hunt" -- and I answered that (strongly) too. And now I'm "nigh-histrionic" for it. I repeat: HELL NO. That original pic was sexist tripe; OFFENSIVE sexist tripe. And I called it out as such... but I didn't rant about it. Then you called out the objection as unreasonable. HELL NO. And yeah, when I replied it was a bit of a rant. No apologies for that content. Because one sexist pic, then everyone moves on? Well, fine. Shit happens, we can all deal. But defending it? Trying to cast the objection as unreasonable? HELL NO. Let me repeat my own personal experience: a muggle parent who wouldn't let their kids play, because of illustrations like that; multiple women who left gaming-groups, walked out of game-stores, because of attitudes like this; a survivor of molestation who was triggered by art like this. This is what I've seen, myself. But apparently, you find my "sensibilites too delicate" to bother "catering" to. I trust you won't be surprised by my response... HELL NO. And no apologies for that.

ISTR the Celtic queen Boudica (Boadicea, etc -- spelling varies) was said to go into battle topless, at times. And the beauteous wife of one of the Irish heroes, as her husband was duelling a fearsome foe, stood and disrobed to distract said foe, who stood dumbfounded for the moment the hero needed to rally and strike the death-blow.

It's also worth noting the ambiguity of the term "armor" -- sometimes, it really is *JUST* a costume (eek, do I sound hypocritical now???). By that I mean: made & worn to impress, and never intended (by maker or wearer) to perform the physically-protective function of armor. And of course "primitive" (the gods will protect me) cultures will sometimes forgo armor, or wear "armor" that's more about showing <religious / tribal / etc> <affiliation / superiority / potency / etc> (in short, a "costume") . However "status" and "intimidation" can be very different things... if you are a "high status" target, you may be who everyone is after; but if you "intimidate" your foes (into uncertainty, or even fleeing outright), that may well provide as much or more protection / survival as metal armor between your body and their weapons (obviously, status and intimidation can sometimes overlap!) But NONE of these considerations include the wearing of non-protective "armor" that shows NO personal power or status (rather the opposite), but instead displays being a decorative sex-object. I am unaware of any cultures were eros was a relevant battlefield power to flaunt (though several mention its use as a distraction... and few if any would deny that it has been used in espionage, political dealings, and other "battlefield-relevant" arenas! ) .

+1 Iskallor, "i sleep easily knowing that the Chaosium crew will have it sorted" I just wanted to emphasize that, while this is the "New RQ Art Direction" thread, my (sometimes vehement) remarks are about "the industry at large," not about anything RQ or Chaosium; apologies to Jeff, Rick, MOB, and all the rest over there, Errr... "over theres"? How DOES one speak to the virtual/distributed "place" that is Chaosium these days??? (aside from speaking to them with "Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Fthagn! Ph'nglui mglw'nfah Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!" of course...)

On the one hand, there is just the one single picture under discussion. It's hardly worth going nuclear about it! On the other hand, people have spoken up about it as a style they prefer, and want to see; THAT needs addressing. Were I to see this one pic in a RPG book, I'd most-likely have an "omg what were they thinking!?" reaction, and I'd move on; I wouldn't "rail against it." A book where the art was overwhelmingly in that 1st-pic "bland" style? I'd think the art-director / editor were steeped in academia, and probably not the best choice to produce an RPG book. But if the content impressed, I'd buy it (including a piece or two of cheesecake). If that general SORT of pic (the "cool" example), were common within the book, I wouldn't wonder "what were they thinking:" I'd presume they were showing EXACTLY what they were thinking... and I'd speak out against it. I'd do more than "make jokes" about it. I'd think they were severely sexist and a problem in the industry, and I wouldn't give them a single dime, no matter the content. Unless, of course, the entire product were intentionally/overtly about titillation (as a few are), rather than overtly about heroic RP'ing in a largely non-genderbiased way (and slipping problem tropes in covertly... as the hobby (unconsciously, I think) used to do A LOT, and alas still does enough (even intentionally, q.v. GamerGate) that it merits being wary, and speaking up). And I would be HIGHLY dubious about where people were drawing their own personal "witch hunt" lines: it's a facile way to try to excuse the inexcusable, as well as being a legitimate way to rein in the overly-critical. RE "impracticality" -- most of what passes for "religious garb" and associated regalia is "impractical" from an explorer/adventurer POV Usually not titillating (carefully does not notice Uleria-priestess regalia), but lots of spare straps and trim to catch on the underbrush, spare folds of fabric foes can grab/bind the wearer, etc. OTOH, it's VERY practical from the standpoint of polished marble floors, visiting dignitaries to impress, etc! RE appearing attractive/fashionable/powerful, and how Gloranthan warriors would approach the matter -- generally, I expect, by gilt and paint and other shallow decor atop FULLY FUNCTIONAL ARMOR (unless their culture forgoes armor, of course!), just as has always been done by warriors 'round the world, throughout history. First, take care of the basics of survival/function/etc; THEN, worry about how it looks. "Does this armor make my butt look too big" is *NEVER* a consideration.

Well... sort of. I mean, a "Gelatinous Cube" is really just an overgrown amoeba; conceptually, it's not any sort of "stretch" (please ignore the small inverse-cube law behind the curtain). The "Rust Monster" evokes that whole transform-with-a-touch "King Midas" vibe, crossed with the insta-decay schtick (such as when a life-like undead gets killed (again/for good) and turns into ashes-and-dust). The heavy lifting has been done... they're solidly in line with geeky/fantasy tropes & memes. So too are anthropomorphic animals a "standard" geeky/fantasy trope. It's just... well, YOU know. They're ducks. DUCKS. As an animal, they are just kind of... absurd. As an animal to anthropomorphize, to role-play in the heroic vein? Entirely (not just "kind of") absurd... particularly when lined up beside minotaurs and foxwomen and the "expected" furry-adventurer tropes. Yes, my Glorantha DOES have ducks (despite what I wrote above). But there's more than a little bit of "wtf" around them; the heavy lifting really sits with each GM, if the group isn't already familiar with the world of Glorantha... But of course the defining D&D "+5 Monster of Absurdity" has to be the Flumph !

Also, it's worth remembering that BRP is a generic enough system to have MANY different magic systems, not just one... so a book with "all spells" would also need "all magic systems." A decidedly non-trivial undertaking!

Absolutely, Jeff -- you won't see my remarks above over at the "Prince of Sartar Webcomic" -- not even when they featured the fully-topless characters.

No. More than that, HELL NO. I stand by what I said; "delicate sensibilities" be damned. The chick in pic #2 is wearing f*@%ing *LINGERIE* and she is supposed to be a exploration-ready & combat-ready "adventurer". There is a time and a place for chicks in lingerie (hey, I'm a hetero guy... I *loves* me some chicks in lingerie!), but this is *NOT* it. One illo? I can probably pass it. But I specifically called out a book where the style was "typical," and I will go to the mat on that being "actively offensive," Gaming, as an industry and as a hobby has already had FAR to many problems along these lines... I won't participate. I won't stand silent when I see it, or hear it. I used to put up with it... but not any more. I will readily admit: one could come up with a scenario (such as "captured and all gear taken... has just escaped") where this actually fits... but unless such a premise is ALREADY established (and if so, I may need to see comparably-underequipped male escapees, or I'll still be dubious)... UNLESS it's established, I say: I'll take my "delicate sensibilities" -- and several gaming groups where I am the GM and/or a player with veto power -- and we will NONE OF US put ANY money into that kind of product; possibly extending to all products from that company. It IS that important. I have seen women driven away from gaming-groups (and in at least one case, away from the entire hobby) by books heavy to pics like the one cited... *AND* by excuses like the one above (that such "delicate sensibilities" don't need to be "catered to"). Women in my gaming-circles have spoken up against games featuring images like that; in one case, a non-gaming mother wanted me to teach RPG's to her daughter with another game than the "default" game at the time... because of pix like that. I once saw a rape-survivor (with messed-up sexuality) flipping through a mainstream RPG book (D&D 3.0 PHB), and the pictures she lingered over... well, it was more than a little bit creepy, and gave me a new perspective on the "art style" within my favorite hobby. I'll put it succinctly: sometimes, it's more than a little bit rapey. It's not so much *MY* delicate sensibilities. It's that too many gamers are too used to *IN*delicate -- and frankly offensively unequal -- treatments such as are illustrated above. Okay... I guess I've made my position clear, hm?

I get an error, "This video has been removed by the user." ??? Are they editing/improving it (per the criticisms here)? Or...? Maybe Rick knows if the topic will be returning?

I agree that the first picture is a bit "bland," but the 2nd is actively offensive (to my judgement)... I'd be willing to buy a book in which the "Comparison" piece was typical of the art. I would NOT be willing to buy a book where the "cool" piece was typical. Mileages will, of course, vary.

Design Mechanism also has a freebie on firearms for their "RQ6" (now "Mythras," for licensing reasons...) line; it includes black powder explicitly, but everything else, too...

ummm... when is Apple going to issue iRQ, then?

I had always presumed that, after the Curse & later after Cragspider's work, the new Trollish varieties appeared in the very next generation... I'm looking forward to the KS'ed "Trollpack" so I can look at the chart mentioned above! Presuming my "spring full-grown the following generation" idea is wrong, then, I STILL probably would argue against the Trolls' example of "evolution". It might be better to consider it as a (magically-directed & magically-accelerated) form of "controlled breeding." Consider how a dog-breeder (for example) can create a new "breed" of dog in just a few generations. If there were a God-driven curse on the pushing end of that, it could surely happen even faster...

I would have to presume that wildfire is also a Thing in any area with lots of dried grass... Did ol' Oakfed ever have a daughter, Grassfed (no jokes about stoner chicks, please!)