Platinum Best-Seller: A Rough Guide to Glamour

[Nick Brooke]

That "baggage" is often useful. It inspires, it provokes, it suggests.

[Sir_Godspeed]

8 hours ago, Nick Brooke said:

That "baggage" is often useful. It inspires, it provokes, it suggests.

If you engage with it in an active, knowledgeable manner, yes, otherwise it's probably just as common to reproduce tired old stereotypes.

[soltakss]

Nothing wrong with tired old stereotypes, they've been going for years.

[g33k]

4 hours ago, soltakss said:

Nothing wrong with tired old stereotypes, they've been going for years.

Some of them are well worth their while, time-tested & solid.

Some of them need to be quietly buried in unmarked graves, and their records expunged.

Some of them need to be dragged through the streets and publicly humiliated, then strung up as object lessons.

See?  I'm being "meta:"  all those are themselves, tired old stereotypes!  (or am I being recursive?  sometimes I forget.)

[Shiningbrow]

If you want to have lands and cultures *based on* but different to earth stuff, why not have titles etc based on, but different to?

[Nick Brooke]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

If you want to have lands and cultures *based on* but different to earth stuff, why not have titles etc based on, but different to?

OK, I’ll bite. Could you give me examples from your own Gloranthan games? What titles would you use, or prefer us to use, for eg: the Red Emperor, the King of Dragon Pass, the Queen of the Colymar Tribe, the Chieftain of the Greydog Clan, the Bull Khan you meet at the Block, the General commanding the Lunar Army and the Captain of the local garrison?

[Ian Absentia]

Empire of the Petal Throne leaps immediately to mind.  Arguably "done right," and exquisitely impenetrable to most gamers.  Even moreso than Glorantha.  But even EotPT leans into contemporary equivalency for shorthand.

!i!

[soltakss]

On 3/21/2020 at 2:18 AM, Shiningbrow said:

If you want to have lands and cultures *based on* but different to earth stuff, why not have titles etc based on, but different to?

Because that way lies madness.

Seriously, words have meanings and if you mess with the meanings it confuses people.

So, an Emperor leads an Empire and an Emperor normally outranks a King. Sure, you could use Emperor for a poxy little area and have a Kingdom that is much bigger and more powerful, but those are rare.

What you don't want to do is to use Emperor for a minor chieftain or use Thane for the leader of an empire.

It is better to use as many real-life titles as possible, as we have an idea of what they mean.

So, Emperor/Empress, King/Queen and Sultan/Sultana, sure, everyone knows them. Khan/Thane/Carl are sort-of OK, as people are sometimes aware of them. Satrap is OK if you know about the Persian Empire. Would I use Despot/Tyrant/Kaisar/Tsar,  and so on? Probably not.

Edited March 22, 2020 by soltakss

[Akhôrahil]

5 hours ago, soltakss said:

 

What you don;t want to do is to use Emperor for a minor chieftain or use Thane for the leader of an empire.

This, by the way, is why I don’t like ”sultan”. A sultan isn’t a local governor, which makes the title misleading in the Gloranthan context.

[Lordabdul]

On 3/19/2020 at 2:25 PM, Sir_Godspeed said:

my comment was directed at loardabdul's points above. Turning the Lunar Empire into a Caliphate, especially one ruled by obese, corrupt Sultans with opulent courts and harems, that cavort with demons.. well, it's tapping into some long-standing negative stereotypes of real life Arabs that litter European and Western literature and cinema. 

And that's fair -- I was actually thinking about it as I was writing my post. Although in my Glorantha, the Orlanthi range from olive to dark-ish skin, and are a blend of Viking/Celt cultural dynamics and north-Indian landscapes/nature and ancient daily life. Plus some random stuff I make up that I have no idea where it comes from (I'm not cultured enough to have a broad panel of historical influences so it's probably simply coming from my mix of westerner and african upbringing). So it's probably OK. Maybe. Especially if it's not even clear in my games who are the "good" guys anyway!

I think where I'm coming from is that I don't know how players would react if I had NPCs tell them, say, that they've been captured and will "brought to the Sultan", and they have one picture in mind, but here comes a white guy in a toga called Sultan Remilius, surrounded by centurion-looking guards. It's... needlessly confusing. To make the confusion "useful", it feels like the Lunars would need more "Sultanish" things than just the one title. It doesn't have to completely overtake their depiction, though... when I was listing those few elements that came to mind, I should have said it was a "buffet" to pick from, not meant to all be applied. I think for my own tastes the "Sultan-ish things" would need to at least take, say, %20 of the general "Lunar picture". I'm not sure what it would be, or even what to think about all this yet (for me it might be easier to call them Satraps or Governors or whatever, and get done with it)... so apologizes if I'm thinking out in writing here.

Edited March 21, 2020 by lordabdul

[Nick Brooke]

2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

 I think for my own tastes the "Sultan-ish things" would need to at least take, say, %20 of the general "Lunar picture". I'm not sure what it would be, or even what to think about all this yet (for me it might be easier to call them Satraps or Governors or whatever, and get done with it)... so apologizes if I'm thinking out in writing here.

We seem to be on much the same wavelength, here. The thing to remember is that the Lunar Empire is a complex, multi-ethnic unifying state. A hegemonic overculture, comprised of people from anywhere and everywhere who have philosophically adopted the Lunar Way, currently lords it over the Pelorian bowl and parts beyond. Greg Stafford used to compare it to the Hellenistic period, when places as far-flung and diverse as Greece and Egypt, Phoenicia and Persia, Macedonia and Bactria were (at least notionally) part of a single cultural oikumene, one that didn't eradicate the differences between its component peoples but rather celebrated them.

And from the Hellenistic period we have images of Macedonian Generals and their descendants dressed as Egyptian Pharaohs, Greek Gods, Persian Shahs... so at the level of rulers and their courts, it's surely meant to be a heady and confusing mix. Creators of Glorantha have always revelled in the cultural mashups that occur when peoples and ideas encounter each other, clashing to set sparks flying or else fusing into strange new forms. In terms of imagery, it might help to think of yourself as the costume designer for a sword-and-sandal epic, not an historically accurate documentary. You'll probably have more fun that way, too.

[Shiningbrow]

13 hours ago, soltakss said:

Because that way lies madness.

Seriously, words have meanings and if you mess with the meanings it confuses people.

So, an Emperor leads an Empire and an Emperor normally outranks a King. Sure, you could use Emperor for a poxy little area and have a Kingdom that is much bigger and more powerful, but those are rare.

What you don;t want to do is to use Emperor for a minor chieftain or use Thane for the leader of an empire.

It is better to use as many real-life titles as possible, as we have an idea of what they mean.

So, Emperor/Empress, King/Queen and Sultan/Sultana, sure, everyone knows them. Khan/Thane/Carl are sort-of OK, as people are sometimes aware of them. Satrap is OK if you know about the Persian Empire. Would I use Despot/Tyrant/Kaisar/Tsar,  and so on? Probably not.

Because... Emperor/Empress and king/Queen are "English" words (obviously, not diving into etymology here, just modern usage).

The others are not (typically seen as, although actually may be!)

To say "Sultan" is to evoke imagery... Mostly for the sake of convenience. And that's probably going to create confusion (as per @lordabdul's post - Sultan Remilius). Despot and tyrant aren't quite in the same category as Tsar and Kaiser. (although, that does beg the question - why not use those latter two? Or others like it from around the world if it's not supposed to be truly representative???)

One of those words which does that for me is "hoplite". Looks Greek. Called Greek. Not Greek.... 

I think it's pretty disingenuous to say "oh, but they're not X (earth culture)", while still using the same images (especially names). Wasn't there a *huge* debate about Orlanthi not being Viking?

We have all these wonderful new terms like Orlanthi, Esrolian, Praxian, Pavisite, Lunar Tarsh, Fronelan, Ralios  etc etc etc (which probably don't conjure any images, except to the experienced Glorantha-file). So why not take it that one tiny step further???

[Lordabdul]

6 hours ago, Nick Brooke said:

We seem to be on much the same wavelength, here. [...] part of a single cultural oikumene, one that didn't eradicate the differences between its component peoples but rather celebrated them. [...] we have images of Macedonian Generals and their descendants dressed as Egyptian Pharaohs, Greek Gods, Persian Shahs... [...]

Nice, interesting. Well, either way, I look forward to the release of your book!

[Nick Brooke]

9 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

This, by the way, is why I don’t like ”sultan”. A sultan isn’t a local governor, which makes the title misleading in the Gloranthan context.

Wikipedia, “Sultan,” first paragraph: “a powerful governor of a province within the caliphate.”

I am not making this up. I don’t care what you learned from Sinbad movies. Read more history books.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Nick Brooke

[Nick Brooke]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

We have all these wonderful new terms like Orlanthi, Esrolian, Praxian, Pavisite, Lunar Tarsh, Fronelan, Ralios  etc etc etc (which probably don't conjure any images, except to the experienced Glorantha-file). So why not take it that one tiny step further???

I refer the hon. poster to my earlier reply. Show me some examples of titles you’d prefer, made-up “wonderful new terms” you’ve used in your own games and writings, and then let’s talk. Until then, I’ll keep using English, like Greg did.

[Shiningbrow]

1 hour ago, Nick Brooke said:

I refer the hon. poster to my earlier reply. Show me some examples of titles you’d prefer, made-up “wonderful new terms” you’ve used in your own games and writings, and then let’s talk. Until then, I’ll keep using English, like Greg did.

I find this totally confusing and baffling!!! 

I've never seen "Orlanthi" in any English dictionary. Nor any of the other words I've cited.

Then you say "Keep using English, like Greg did", probably in reference to non-English names (e.g., Sultan, Khan).

On 3/21/2020 at 12:06 PM, Nick Brooke said:

OK, I’ll bite. Could you give me examples from your own Gloranthan games? What titles would you use, or prefer us to use, for eg: the Red Emperor, the King of Dragon Pass, the Queen of the Colymar Tribe, the Chieftain of the Greydog Clan, the Bull Khan you meet at the Block, the General commanding the Lunar Army and the Captain of the local garrison?

I'm not saying "don't use English terms in the English books".

I'm saying, "don't use non-English words to invoke a particular imagery - and especially then don't say - "oh, but they're not *really* like that!".

Otherwise, you may as well just say "Dara Happa is actually Persia".

Then, looking at the castes of the Malkioni, we have Talars, Zzaburi, Horali, and Dronars - none of which have English cognates (nor am I easily finding anything from other languages). Noble = Talar. Simple! (Sure, dronar does look like 'drone'). So, obviously it's something that's already been done in RQ, and I'm not actually suggesting anything outlandish.

We had this basic discussion on Kralorela.

So, as I said - I'm confused and perplexed by this need to use the names that have been... 

[Minlister]

@Nick Brooke

Quote

OK, I’ll bite. Could you give me examples from your own Gloranthan games? 

Well, actually, that is what I did, but since I play in Sartar and not inside the empire the workload was not too heavy. For a campaign inside the empire, I could not do it, I think. 

For example, I use hekatontarch for Pelorian army offices and Hepturion for platoon leaders of the Moon Runners, a regiment organized in 7-men units; for a Carmanian leader I used the Sassanian title hazamard and aspet for his men (arguably it is persarmenian, but still the same civilization); when I don't find what I need I completely invent the title from the linguistic roots of the language I choose for each people, for instance for Tarshite officers of the Provincial army, I use "llawbrenin", which means "hand of the king", not historical at all, just Google translate from Welch and a bit of tweeking.

I confess I also changed along the same lines all Sartar toponyms for Welsh-based ones. And even if we play in French, all NPC have English kenning-like nicknames, because it allows to stick to the kind of poetry used in the HotHP and BoHM. As you can see, the logic would be to have Welsh-based kennings, but here it is more important for the players to understand the nicknames immediately.

I confess that as far as I am concern, I don't like "sultan" because it is specifically post-antique and it gives me the same feeling as hoplites in plate armour. I am a Medievalist so  the discrepancy strikes me just too hard, like playing in contemporary France and having the NPC being called, John, Peter and Francis instead of Jean, Pierre and François. So I went with satrap, keepin suffère (engl. shophet) for Esrolia  which I envision more along the lines of Phenician cities (so semitic roots when inventing names). 

But I say that just to explain my choices. My imagination is mainly fueled by names so onomastics, titles, toponymy is all important for me. A favor for vice.

 

[g33k]

I have this scene envisioned for a RPG.

Pretty railroad-y, to make it work.

Historical (-ish... alt-history would work) Dark Ages.  Players are doing <something, not sure, doesn't matter> on the fringes of a war zone.  They're outside their home territory; language skills are ... adequate, but barely.

They're captured by one side (q.v. "railroad") the soldiers suspect them of being agents for the other side (they aren't).  There's some debate about killing them out of hand, but finallly they decide the PC's should be taken to "Big Chuck," who seems to be their go-to guy for taking the blame if big decisions go wrong.

 

He's Charlemagne.

 

(my point is - how the GM (or the setting) describes things the characters see/experience -- the language, the referents -- can intrinsically change how the players see the events and the setting)

Edited March 22, 2020 by g33k
thinko

[Minlister]

Honestly I will be happy to eat my hat if a Frankish warrior ever referred to Charlemagne as "Big Chuck" or anything similar.

[Akhôrahil]

4 hours ago, Nick Brooke said:

Wikipedia, “Sultan,” first paragraph: “a powerful governor of a province within the caliphate.”

I am not making this up. I don’t care what you learned from Sinbad movies. Read more history books.

It’s still the less common meaning - the usual one is, as Wikpedia also notes, a sovereign ruler.

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Minlister said:

Honestly I will be happy to eat my hat if a Frankish warrior ever referred to Charlemagne as "Big Chuck" or anything similar.

That's a pretty safe offer, given the antiquity & the reverence that followed him.  

But part of the notion is the characters' limited familiarity with the language:  "Big Chuck" means "Charlemagne" ...  very roughly translated.    😇

[Minlister]

Fair enough! I did not know Chuck was a hypochoristic for Charles! Good point!

[Bill the barbarian]

On 3/17/2020 at 5:44 AM, Nick Brooke said:

The header font I'm using is Ignacious -- you can find free versions online, make sure the one you install allows you to embed it in PDFs (some versions don't).

The body text font is Minion Pro, which comes with InDesign -- if you're working in Word, I'd use something like Georgia instead.

 

Interesting point, but how can you tell? Short of downloading it, using it and  creating a doc and turning it into a PDF and then trying to embed it, that is. Thanks in advance.

[Bill the barbarian]

On 3/21/2020 at 12:09 AM, Ian Absentia said:

Empire of the Petal Throne leaps immediately to mind.  Arguably "done right," and exquisitely impenetrable to most gamers.  Even moreso than Glorantha.  But even EotPT leans into contemporary equivalency for shorthand.

 

If you  had not come up with that i was going to toss it into the ring. Now the problem with coming up with something great, unique and original. No one will buy it For evidence, how many of you old grognards own EotPT? By contrast how many admire it?

 

On 3/21/2020 at 7:42 AM, soltakss said:

Because that way lies madness.

 

.

Edited March 23, 2020 by Bill the barbarian

[Sir_Godspeed]

1 hour ago, Bill the barbarian said:

If you  had not come up with that i was going to toss it into the ring. Now the problem with coming up with something great, unique and original. No one will buy it For evidence, how many of you old grognards own EotPT? By contrast how many admire it?

 

I'd love to learn more about Tekumel, and I've dipped my feet in it, but there are parts of it that I find eminently less desireable than many other universe (eg. no stars in the night sky, no mounts, evidently little to nothing social mobility, static empires, etc.). According to a podcast I heard about the ruleset, it's also somewhat bizarre in some aspects (as in some specializations appear to be almost completely useless deliberately, although I can't attest to that personally). Still, the aesthetics of the setting intrigue me - the mix of Mezo-American and Indian moreso than the ancient tech, admittedly.

Anyway, this is a bit besides the thread topic.