Jump to content

languages in Glorantha


Manu

Recommended Posts

On 4/27/2020 at 10:29 AM, lordabdul said:

And maybe also some opportunities for hilarious misunderstandings, like what happens with a couple dozen words between Parisian French and Quebecois French!

Aussies always wear thongs on the beach.... 😆

I'm curious about this "magical and easy to learn" Tradetalk... Did I miss something in the book that explains the mechanics for being easier to learn???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Aussies always wear thongs on the beach.... 😆

I'm curious about this "magical and easy to learn" Tradetalk... Did I miss something in the book that explains the mechanics for being easier to learn???

RQ3 River of Cradles campaign setting had the mechanics for it being easier to learn and not being able to express more abstract concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Brootse said:

RQ3 River of Cradles campaign setting had the mechanics for it being easier to learn and not being able to express more abstract concepts.

But are there any RQG mechanics?

Frankly, supplements for RQ2 are (courtesy of the RQClassic KS) possibly relevant (but still only marginally so) to RQG, but everything RQ3 is essentially unavailable... and hence irrelevant.

Is this "Magical" and "easy to learn" notion even attested in the RQG core book???

I mean... sure... in MY Glorantha, this is so.  Maybe in YOUR Glorantha.

But if it's not in a RQG book, then it's not (currently) part of "canonical" Glorantha ...  Which sometimes kinda sucks, but it is what it is.

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, g33k said:

But are there any RQG mechanics?

Frankly, supplements for RQ2 are (courtesy of the RQClassic KS) possibly relevant (but still only marginally so) to RQG, but everything RQ3 is essentially unavailable... and hence irrelevant.

Is this "Magical" and "easy to learn" notion even attested in the RQG core book???

I mean... sure... in MY Glorantha, this is so.  Maybe in YOUR Glorantha.

But if it's not in a RQG book, then it's not (currently) part of "canonical" Glorantha ...  Which sometimes kinda sucks, but it is what it is.

Ah, true. Currently, that theory isn't supported in the RQG. It's merely another human language spread by the Issaries cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Ah, true. Currently, that theory isn't supported in the RQG. It's merely another human language spread by the Issaries cult.

This is where "YGWV" gets soooo useful!

😁

  • Like 1

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

True, but I wonder if that will get corrected in the future... GaGoG???

<dons curly red wig>

"Tomorrow, tomorrow, there's always

Tomorrow,

It's only a day a-way!"

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, g33k said:

But are there any RQG mechanics?

Frankly, supplements for RQ2 are (courtesy of the RQClassic KS) possibly relevant (but still only marginally so) to RQG, but everything RQ3 is essentially unavailable... and hence irrelevant.

RQG is incomplete.

We can either wait for future supplements that contains various rules or use rules from previous editions, where applicable.

Sometimes, an older rule sheds light on a confused or unclear rules in RQG and it is good to use as examples of how the rule worked well in the past.

In the main part, RQG Rules work better than those in previous editions, although that is a qualitative statement, so I only use older rules when there is no equivalent rule in RQG and am happy to do so.

However, I am aware that not everyone has access to the RQ3/RQ3 versions of the rules, so I tend to quote them so people know what they say.

  • Like 1

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, soltakss said:

RQG is incomplete.

We can either wait for future supplements that contains various rules or use rules from previous editions, where applicable.

Sometimes, an older rule sheds light on a confused or unclear rules in RQG and it is good to use as examples of how the rule worked well in the past.

In the main part, RQG Rules work better than those in previous editions, although that is a qualitative statement, so I only use older rules when there is no equivalent rule in RQG and am happy to do so.

However, I am aware that not everyone has access to the RQ3/RQ3 versions of the rules, so I tend to quote them so people know what they say.

Here's the RQ3 rules for Tradetalk:

River of Cradles, p. 164:

Quote

 

Tradetalk (Communication skill 00%)

This is the Issaries cult language. It has spread all over the world and is now popular even among people who do not worship Issaries at all. It is of divine origin, and quite easy to learn; when learning Tradetalk the student gains 1d6 — 1 percentiles per increase rather than 1d6 — 2 (as for other languages). However, because this language is quite simple, it cannot express more abstract concepts, and cannot be used past an effective level of 50%. However, it can still be of benefit to know the language above 50%. In distant lands Tradetalk may vary, penalizing a foreign speaker of Tradetalk up to 50%. A Master Of Tradetalk at 100% skill would always use the skill at least at 50%, no matter where he travelled.

 

 

Edited by Brootse
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Brootse said:

I'm not sure how much stuff we can post from older supplements

This guy pretty much covers it: https://stevelaube.com/how-much-can-i-quote-from-another-source-without-permission/. fewer than 300 words is considered fair use, but read what the article says (not what I write). Make sure you credit where it's from. You used 132 words, so likely fine.

Quote

 because Chaosium might want to make money from reprints, but eh, here it goes:

It's more about IP. So I would suggest the following.

  • less than 300 words
  • Use the quote marks in the tool bar so everyone knows it's a quote.
  • say where it's from

This also helps when people are talking about stuff, always say what exactly it is and where it's from, stops misunderstandings.

Where is this from for example? Book, page?

Quote

Tradetalk (Communication skill 00%)

This is the Issaries cult language. It has spread all

 

Edited by David Scott
  • Like 1

-----

Search the Glorantha Resource Site: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com. Search the Glorantha mailing list archives: https://glorantha.steff.in/digests/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, David Scott said:

This guy pretty much covers it: https://stevelaube.com/how-much-can-i-quote-from-another-source-without-permission/. fewer than 300 words is considered fair use, but read what the article says (not what I write). Make sure you credit where it's from. You used 132 words, so likely fine.

It's more about IP. So I would suggest the following.

  • less than 300 words
  • Use the quote marks in the tool bar so everyone knows it's a quote.
  • say where it's from

This also helps when people are talking about stuff, always say what exactly it is and where it's from, stops misunderstandings.

Where is this from for example? Book, page?

 

Check.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW:  for skill-gain, I am considering a HR of basing everything on d4's, with a default of 2d4%.  This averages 5%, on a bell (about 85% of rolls will be in the 3%-7% range).

I can easily do stuff like deciding some skills are harder to learn (1d4, or even 1d4-1) or easier (3d4, or 1d4+4, or 2d4 refilling all 1's, or etc etc etc), give similar special bennie's for checks driven by Crits, or "half-check" 1d4% on a Fumble, etc.

Kinda OT for the thread, I guess... but at least semi-relevant, since (1d6-2)% vs (1d6-1)% had come up...

Also, crossing from another thread, it lets me easily add a "teaching" skill:  when the Student checks skill-gain they get +1% / +1d4-1% / +1d4-reroll-on-1's% for a Teach roll that Succeeded / Specialed / Criticaled (or roll 2d4-1d4 -- yes, including negative% skill-LOSS) if the teacher Fumbled.

Edited by g33k

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, g33k said:

But are there any RQG mechanics?

Not so grand enough to be treated as a rule mechanic, more an interpretation of the current RQG rules but...

If a case can be made for it (for example, a player with a weapon in a category wanting to “research” another weapon skill in that category), I would allow a character to “self” train, so they go up quicker, without finding/paying for a trainer.

Would I apply it to improving tradetalk?  Not sure… Maybe I’d like the character to be inspired by an Issaries rune or passion.

I don't like the idea of a trainer having skill.  Unless there is a moment of drama, when a GM roll is adding to the suspense, my players are bored if I reach for the dice, so I try to keep GM rolls to an absolute minimum.  Also there are 5 of them and 1 of me, so it would be a bottleneck it the between adventures bit if I had to roll for a trainer.  My lot want to get through the between stuff as quickly as they can so they can get to the next fun adventure bit...

Stephen.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

...If a case can be made for it (for example, a player with a weapon in a category wanting to “research” another weapon skill in that category), I would allow a character to “self” train, so they go up quicker, without finding/paying for a trainer...

This seems like a good HR, to me.

Might be "too fiddly" to be enshrined in the RQG core rulebook, but it seems sensible that someone skilled in one particular can figure out a lot of the specific differences when they practice with a different-but-related particular.

 

26 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

... I don't like the idea of a trainer having skill.  Unless there is a moment of drama, when a GM roll is adding to the suspense, my players are bored if I reach for the dice, so I try to keep GM rolls to an absolute minimum.  Also there are 5 of them and 1 of me, so it would be a bottleneck it the between adventures bit if I had to roll for a trainer.  My lot want to get through the between stuff as quickly as they can so they can get to the next fun adventure bit ...

We get into a whole plethora of other issues here.

Player-facing rolls, etc...

There's "making downtime into a minigame" -- Stead-management, socializing, diplomacy (below the complexity of "a diplomacy-centered adventure"), routine blessings and tithes and payments and etc.  Like Sid Meier's Civ-series games.

Training can be part of that -- finding a trainer, hiring one (hiring one away from a rival stead!  Or they hired-away YOUR trainer, while you were off adventuring!)

Etc.

I'm a big advocate of the idea that "downtime" can be more than just "bookkeeping" (I agree that getting through the bookkeeping ASAP to get on with the fun stuff is a good idea!) .   This is actually where most of your Adventurers' lives happen!  This is where the Clan Chief comes and thanks them for their service, or calls them to the Clan Center to throw a feast in their honor; they're loaned a prize bull to breed on their cows for a season; etc etc etc.

Edited by g33k
  • Like 2

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...