Jump to content
jongjom

Tribal Source Editing: The Eleven Lights

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, kaydet said:

@simonh et al, re: "The Year Discussion"

It just makes more sense to me that way. 2006 + six years equals 2012, not 2011. I'd note also that The Coming Storm lists the campaign length of 1618 to 1625 as being seven years long.

So if the campaign ran from Sea Season 1 1618 to the end of the second week of Sacred Time 1618 it ran how long? (1618-1618)

It ran one year.

So if it ran till the second week of Sacred Time 1619 (1618-1619) it ran how long?

Please don't say one year as surely now you see that makes no sense.

Edited by Pentallion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

yes, you have, every single time someone lists the years, they were inclusive.  You just didn't realize it till now. If the Red Queen's reign was from 1487 to 1495 she ruled for 9 years.  She ruled in 1487, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95.  Count em, 9.  If you try to say she only ruled 8 of those years she'll have to cut your head off.

 

15 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

So if the campaign ran from Sea Season 1 1618 to the end of the second week of Sacred Time 1618 it ran how long? (1618-1618)

It ran one year.

So if it ran till the second week of Sacred Time 1619 (1618-1619) it ran how long?

Please don't say one year as surely now you see that makes no sense.

It all depends on the real dates:

If the reign of the Red Queen started at Freezeday, Disorder Week, Sea Season 1487 and ended at Godsday, second week Sacred Time, 1495, then you're right: reign of 9 years.

But if her reign started at Clayday, Fertility Week, Earth Season, 1487 and ended at Waterday, Fertility Week, Earth Season 1495, then you have only 8 years.

Conclusion: Year ranges without given exact dates are always fuzzy.

Edited by Oracle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a real hot button topic! I don't cede the argument, but, since it seems rather unproductive for a thread about errata and editing, I will quit the floor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pentallion said:

yes, you have, every single time someone lists the years, they were inclusive.  You just didn't realize it till now. If the Red Queen's reign was from 1487 to 1495 she ruled for 9 years.  She ruled in 1487, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95.  Count em, 9.  If you try to say she only ruled 8 of those years she'll have to cut your head off.

That's not a great example because temporary her reign could have been for significantly less than 96 months. But still all 9 of those calendar years were years of her reign.

But I think if something says it covers or details the years from X to Y that's unambiguous that X and Y are both included. A book with chapters on the events of each year of the Great War would have chapters on both 1914 and 1918, in the same way that a book with chapters on the years of the monarchs reign would be assumed to be inclusive all else being equal.

Simon Hibbs

Edited by simonh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p.26-27

Would it be an acceptable but sneaky way to offer a band of wanna-be raiders the hospitality of the clan? They would be oath-breakers if they carried through the raid after accepting the hospitality.

(There is of course no compulsion on the invaders to accept the hospitality...)

p.33

Mountain Giants (See p.XX)

fix up page reference. A full text search didn’t yield any plausible result in 11 lights, though. The Coming Storm p.46 has the box on them.

(Isn’t the term “Hecolanti” rather than “Hecalonti”?)

p.42:

The labels for side view and top view of the interior are swapped. No idea whether that can be fixed easily.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 169

Connected Episodes: The Storm Breaks!, The Battle of Dangerford

This page is about episode The Battle of Dangerford. Probably should be something else (The Liberation of Jonstown maybe?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 57, 

"In 1363, Cinsin the Wolfskinner gathered survivors into Red Cow Fort."

Pretty sure that should read 1463, especially since on the next page, the start of his reign is listed as 1463.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok this is not a question about the errata, but it does pertain to The Eleven Lights.

I'm just a little confused regarding the art direction for the Orlanthi.

In the first volume, The Coming Storm, the Sartarites look very Mycenaean Age influenced. Lots of nods towards Thracian, Achaean, and Minoan cultures, with some Dacian influence here and there; I suspect Thracians were probably the closest analogy. This feels consistent with the G2G, HQG, and the Prince of Sartar comic, as well as my early RQ2 impressions of the Sartarites (which also influenced my interpretation of Theyalans when reading KoS).

Yet in this second volume they appear much more Saxon influenced, similar to depictions of Orlanthi that were common in the late RQ3 era products up until the G2G was published within recent years. A significant amount of colour artwork in this book reminds me of the artwork from the KoDP computer game (it could even be artwork from that game).

Some B&W artwork that appears later in the book does look more consistent with The Coming Storm depictions, but most of the colour artwork does go against this to some extent.

Just wondering why the change in direction again? 

Either works for me; the Anglo-Saxon flavour obviously has had a big impact on designing Orlanthi (for example, just look at the social class titles of Cottar, Carl, Thane, etc, as well as the Fyrd and Wyter). However many of the visual portrayals in this second volume feel somewhat inconsistent with all the discussions regarding Theyalans that we had after the release of the G2G, indicating that Mycenaean cultures were a closer analogy.

Just wondering what happened?

Edited by Mankcam
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mankcam said:

Just wondering why the change in direction again? 

Lack of money?!? Lack of time (CoC7 QS, RQII, RQVII, etc... )?!? Lack of interest (in HQ... cos' RQVII, D&D:G [aka 13thAiG], CoC, KoK, etc... )?!?

The recycled artwork from Moon Design/ HeroQuest publications is indeed disappointing, but the life of a Glorantha fan has been filled with so many disappointments already that who really cares, right?!! ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it would be the only thing that could explain it, as the art direction has purposely steered away from this flavour in recent years. It's a shame that its getting a bit jumbled again with this publication. I don't mind either interpretation, as long as its consistent. However I'm still leaning a bit more towards the Mycenanan Age analogies rather than Anglo-Saxon ones.

Edited by Mankcam
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mankcam said:

Well it would be the only thing that could explain it, as the art direction has purposely steered away from this flavour in recent years. It's a shame that its getting a bit jumbled again with this publication. I don't mind either interpretation, as long as its consistent. However I'm still leaning a bit more towards the Mycenanan Age analogies rather than Anglo-Saxon ones.

Art is expensive, and across the two volumes, we decided to focus on the NPCs in The Coming Storm, even if that meant re-using art in The Eleven Lights.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I love the NPC artwork in both books, its just a shame that the portrayal of the culture is visually inconsistent. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 52, "After the PCs, Darna and Salissa, but perhaps surprisingly to the PCs, Farandar and Kullina speak up in their favor. "

This is confusingly worded. I had to read it several times to make sense of it. I think the idea is that after the PCs, Darna, and Salissa talk, Farandar and Kullina speak up in their favor, perhaps surprisingly. Or does it mean that after the PCs speak up, Darna, Salissa, Farandar and Kullina speak up in that order (meaning that the narrator has to invent speeches for each of them)?

Also, on the same page, Salissa says “Would that I were a younger woman, I would take Vinga’s vows, dye my hair red, and kill this man myself, for it appears that we have no men left in our clan?” That's a statement, not a question, so the question mark needs to be either a period or an exclamation point. 

Edited by Bohemond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Ian already mentioned - art is expensive (Just as an exercise - go and count how many illustrations Rachel Khan has in the first book. That's a big workload for a single artist). Full color illustrations, even when not a full page plate, are even more expensive. So while having to re-use art is always a bit regrettable and in this case - causing visual confusion, the other option is to simply just not have any art around for most of the book. While that might seem like a more reasonable solution, I can guarantee you it will also make the book look slightly dull. So choices and compromises have to be made, always, when dealing with stuff like this.

As for the previous question brought up about having a more detailed explanation on the iconography of Minaryth's belts...trust me, you don't want it. I had to make those things, so I more or less needed to learn what every little thing on there means, and it just resulted in a headache. No need to subject your players to that! :)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2017 at 10:13 AM, Bohemond said:

Page 52, "After the PCs, Darna and Salissa, but perhaps surprisingly to the PCs, Farandar and Kullina speak up in their favor. "

This is confusingly worded. I had to read it several times to make sense of it. I think the idea is that after the PCs, Darna, and Salissa talk, Farandar and Kullina speak up in their favor, perhaps surprisingly. Or does it mean that after the PCs speak up, Darna, Salissa, Farandar and Kullina speak up in that order (meaning that the narrator has to invent speeches for each of them)?

Also, on the same page, Salissa says “Would that I were a younger woman, I would take Vinga’s vows, dye my hair red, and kill this man myself, for it appears that we have no men left in our clan?” That's a statement, not a question, so the question mark needs to be either a period or an exclamation point. 

Substitute 'and' for 'but' (and possibly shoehorn 'speak' after the first occurrence of 'PCs') and I think that's the sense they were going for.

Edited by Yelm's Light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Battle of Dangerford episode, p.168, right column, bottom:

Quote

SITUATION
A Tarshite army of five thousand men, commanded by Fazzur Wideread, begins marching on Godsday (Full Half Moon) of Harmony Week of Fire Season from Alda-Chur, reaching Herongreen Fort on Waterday (Dying Moon) of Death Week. ...

But the sidebar at p.169 says:

Quote

FAZZUR IN WINTER
This episode takes place in Dark Season. ...

And on p.162, right column, second last paragraph:

Quote

DARK SEASON

...

Kallyr Starbrow petitions the tribes to provide troops for the fight. She is only moderately successful, and an outnumbered, ragtag army marches to meet the Tarshites. They clash at Dangerford, and the rebels take the day through sheer inspiration.

So it seems the usage of Fire Season on p.168 is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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...