Jump to content
MOB

RQG - Where we are. And the new cover.

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, jongjom said:

However, I think that the scenarios that follow will set the tone of the game, after all that's what really made RQ2 great. Let us all pray for no cattle raiding ones. 

Dunno 'bout you, but I'll be praying for a wide range of scenarios... INCLUDING raids on herds (including Prax).

But frankly, the QS "cattle-raid" ... WASN'T.  The cows were pretty-much ancillary to the beginning of a murder-fueled blood-feud, and

...the (re?)discovery of a forgotten(?) Earth-and-Death Goddess

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2018 at 9:49 AM, Gene M. said:

There's been some criticism on Twitter over the woman on the left. I don't really see her as being all that sexualized, honestly.

Precious snowflakes can suck it.  They'll always find something to be offended about.  The dude above/right is wearing FAR less, and hell most of the background men we're practically getting upskirt sausage shots.  (shrug)  It's a good cover.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, styopa said:

Precious snowflakes can suck it.  They'll always find something to be offended about.  The dude above/right is wearing FAR less, and hell most of the background men we're practically getting upskirt sausage shots.  (shrug)  It's a good cover.

It *IS* a good cover, and those criticisms are AFAIK mostly ignorant (though I am not clear that her top (which looks damn contemporary to my eye) is represented in either historical images or prior canon ... Or am I wrong?   Might actually-topless be more accurate?  On the Gripping Hand, "topless" would obviously be even-more-provocative for those who don;t understand the setting ... )      :wacko:

But I;d rather educate them, than tell them to suck it!  There is enough in gaming that IS actually hostile-to-women that "having a concern" on the topic is actually legitimate.  It doesn't take being a "precious snowflake" to worry that  this is Yet Another Cheap Titillation.     :angry:   It just takes not knowing the setting, or the real-world inspirations/antecedents.

Don't YOU be even more of a precious snowflake, @styopa, by claiming that anything-Glorantha is automatically beyond criticism or gets a free pass, just Because Glorantha!  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, g33k said:

to worry that  this is Yet Another Cheap Titillation.   

There is nothing wrong with cheap titillation - if it is the intended effect. Showing typically attractive forms, of any gender, should not be a problem. Where there IS such a problem it will go hand in hand with an oppressive opinion. That said, I don't think that this brilliant picture is controversial in any way at all! (Other than encouraging young people to get involved with a storm cult, of course).

Edited by goldenwheeldancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goldenwheeldancer said:

... I don't think that this brilliant picture is controversial in any way at all ...

Hrm.  I agree that -- in an ideal world -- it shouldn't be controversial.  But folks have reported that it is.  :(

I'm just saying:  rather than simply go on offense -- "this isn't objectification, the critics are wrongbad" --- we (as fans) are better-off educating the critics.

"The Earth-Mother priestesses sometimes channel the divine-feminine in a sexy way, or a badass way, or both; but this is derived from heavily Cretan/Minoan bases (with bits from elsewhere), and  the matriarchal religion was that way 4000 years ago.  These are POWERFUL women, not eyecandy."

YGMV

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, goldenwheeldancer said:

There is nothing wrong with cheap titillation - if it is the intended effect...

But cheap titillation is NOT (afaik!) the intended effect,.

And if some of the (buying, commenting) public takes it AS cheap titillation, it's worth a bit of effort IMHO to correct that idea.

I would, frankly, rather have ignorant and opinionated people dismissing Glorantha as "that one with the Ducks" than have ignorant and opinionated people dismissing Glorantha as "that one with the tits" ... but better still have them less-ignorant, and say "that one that doesn't cater to trivializing and objectifying the women, even if they look sexy."

 

Edited by g33k
rather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I normally don't post comments but I do check in everyday and enjoy reading every ones opinions, which I feel are insightful and considered. I do agree with most of the criticisms about the logo (especially the E's) and it does sort of remind me of ElfQuest, that said, seeing it in the full layout my concerns are abated. Good work. Now to the real reason I've been compelled to post. I'm not on twitter myself but really? Titillation? If you're offended by a woman showing a little midriff on the cover of a make believe game in a make believe world? Maybe this hobby isn't for you. Does make me laugh though, pointed out the fact that it's wrong to objectify womanhood but nay a word said about Orlanth being half naked. Double standards or what?

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has kinda got bizarre

Not sure how there is anything controversial in this cover.art,.

In all honesty, if it’s offensive then political correctness has gotten so far up where the sun don’t shine that nothing really matters anymore. Drop the Bomb and be done with it.

I’ll just have to go lock away my Frazetta and Vallejo artbooks now before I offend further heh heh

Edited by Mankcam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with both your last posts g33k :)

Let's get back to all the excitement!

The main thing, of course, being the "really really exciting news that we should be announcing soon2" that no one has mentioned yet and no one has tried guessing about! Any guesses? The ghost of Gary Gygax has converted to Runequest and is writing an adventure? The Design Mechanism are going to publish RQG adventures?

 

Edited by goldenwheeldancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for mentioning it. I didn't mean to stir up anything by reporting the reactions of just a few people. For the record I do not find the art objectionable, and I am someone (like g33k) sympathetic to the issue. One of the things I like about Glorantha is the bronze age subversion of modern expectations, albeit in a fictional world. 

I don't see anything wrong with Frazetta, though. It's clear he just loved bodies, male, female, or Martian. My ref screen is adorned with Frazettas to no objection from the players. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's worth knowing that some people are reacting this way, are calling it a problem; because how can we correct that impression if we don't know it's out there?  So personally, I'm glad for the report.

Forewarned is forearmed, and getting blindsided by "yeah, that's sexist crap" can easily get a bad reaction, and slide toward being part of the problem...

That said... yeah, I guess we're forewarned?  So (as per @goldenwheeldancer) let's get back to the excitement !!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goldenwheeldancer said:

The Design Mechanism are going to publish RQG adventures?

Chaosium & TDM co-publish a free PDF / $9.99 Lulu doc to freely interconvert  Mythras <--> RQG

Pretty please?   :-)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goldenwheeldancer said:

The main thing, of course, being the "really really exciting news that we should be announcing soon2" that no one has mentioned yet and no one has tried guessing about! 

Todd Gardiner at Chaosium wrote of the QS:  "I am excited that RuneQuest has been added to our ongoing organized play network".  The blog-post referenced in @MOB's OP confirms that a 2nd QS is in the pipeline.

I know there have been speculations that Chaosium might launch an OrganzedPlay program for RQ complete with a "Cult of Chaos" campaign akin to CoC7's "A Time to Harvest" .    I had thought I had seen someone at Chaosium previously confirm those speculations; but I can't find it now via Google...  :-P    Still:  if I had to guess that'd be my guess; and I'd surely be excited by it !

:D

 

Share this post


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

Let's get back to all the excitement!

The main thing, of course, being the "really really exciting news that we should be announcing soon2" that no one has mentioned yet and no one has tried guessing about! Any guesses? The ghost of Gary Gygax has converted to Runequest and is writing an adventure? The Design Mechanism are going to publish RQG adventures?

The "really really exciting news that we should be announcing soon" was the odd bit in the blog. How do they expect to top was has just been announced? Must be one hell of a franchise in the pipeline?

Edited by jongjom
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopes the really, really exciting news is a Gloranthan TV series put out by one of the streaming giants, with a ridiculous budget and full creative control kept by Chaosium.

A man can dream.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s some really important changes for me in the new cover over the version in 13th age Glorantha. These changes make it worthy of the cover picture IMO.

The decision to remove most of the trousers and give a greater mythic Bronze Age sword and sandle vibe is much more identifiable for me as the successor to the popular RQ I grew up with. Shield details, sandles, armour, clothes, more personality in the faces  - Identifying with Vasna etc. We have a group with individuals which draw the viewer in. Characterisation is much stronger in the new image. 

The gender balance is great, and new characters that have been included make the image much more dynamic. I’m not seeing passive disimpowerd women, or overly sexualised - If anything the men are more sexualised. On balance I think both genders are treated equally ( well perhaps except for the blue dude who has the focal point in the picture). Hats off to Chaosium for making the new example character in RQG a female. 

Credit to the skill of the artist. This is a picture that keeps the viewer engaged. The changes have been crucial in that respect. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

well perhaps except for the blue dude who has the focal point in the picture

"Orlanth has been the poster-child for Glorantha in every edition of the rules.  It's the bad-boys they always bloody swoon over.

-Yelm"

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, goldenwheeldancer said:

Let's get back to all the excitement!

The main thing, of course, being the "really really exciting news that we should be announcing soon2" that no one has mentioned yet and no one has tried guessing about! Any guesses? The ghost of Gary Gygax has converted to Runequest and is writing an adventure? The Design Mechanism are going to publish RQG adventures?

 

A gloranthan boardgame or even line at FFG?

Edited by 7Tigers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find all the fuss about the "breastplate" and the provocatively dressed Ernaldan priestess vaguely amusing, seeing as how nobody seems to give a damn that one of the male characters is literally wearing nothing but a loincloth...

Nobody cares about that, I guess. There's equality for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, kaydet said:

I find all the fuss about the "breastplate" and the provocatively dressed Ernaldan priestess vaguely amusing, seeing as how nobody seems to give a damn that one of the male characters is literally wearing nothing but a loincloth...

Nobody cares about that, I guess. There's equality for you. 

I welcome you to present actual, historical, nonceremonial combat armor that's built like that.

As for the 'equality' thing, I'm sure you know as well as I do that being topless is somewhat, uh, different when it comes to comparing the sexes, especially where the bible thumpers are concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Yelm's Light said:

I welcome you to present actual, historical, nonceremonial combat armor that's built like that.

As for the 'equality' thing, I'm sure you know as well as I do that being topless is somewhat, uh, different when it comes to comparing the sexes, especially where the bible thumpers are concerned.

In Glorantha, ceremonial armor is likely BETTER than purely practical armor, for as well all know the golden-armor of the Light Sons is better than than the bronze armor of ordinary Templars. And who can forget the enchanted Lead armor of the Death Lords!

In our own past, male cuirasses were known to be worn to display the unprotected male genitals in battle (there was a neat presentation on that at the Altes Museum some years back), and armor recreationists have observed that the muscles (and often prominent nipples) in a muscle cuirass weaken the armor compared to a simple plain cuirass. But in Glorantha, that most certainly is not true!

Of the few cuirasses in our past known to be worn in battle by a woman war leader, here's the panoply attributed to the Rani of Jhansi. A bit late (19th century) but truly fantastic. 
d109a197e8e96a9fa706df5a2310c4f9.jpg

Less impressive, is this late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age cuirass from Central Europe.

f25fe5fa124ac38f6f07a8510452b04b.jpg

Typically said to be ceremonial, but the female archaeologist in our gaming group says that all identifiably female armor gets described as "ceremonial" by (largely male) archaeologists, and is pretty dubious that there was much a distinction between ceremonial and use.

Both of those pieces were references for Andrey.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TYVM Jeff!

I'm surprised at the degree of "faux nude" sculpted into the Rani's armor... and a bit gobsmacked at having those "handles" atop each shoulder -- typically, I'd have thought, someone (who expects to be in melee) will NOT want to be easily-grabbed.  OTOH, given the British rifles maybe she felt melee was not the major risk (& a bold presence was more of a battlefield asset)... ?

I doubt we'll ever really know what considerations & priorities went into these pieces.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, g33k said:

I doubt we'll ever really know what considerations & priorities went into these pieces.

Probably something along the lines of: "hey, I'm a big badass warrior with the wealth to prove it, and I want to look impressive so that my enemies know who they're messing with."

People make these things way too complicated. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, g33k said:

TYVM Jeff!

I'm surprised at the degree of "faux nude" sculpted into the Rani's armor... and a bit gobsmacked at having those "handles" atop each shoulder -- typically, I'd have thought, someone (who expects to be in melee) will NOT want to be easily-grabbed.  OTOH, given the British rifles maybe she felt melee was not the major risk (& a bold presence was more of a battlefield asset)... ?

I doubt we'll ever really know what considerations & priorities went into these pieces.

 

The ‘handles’ are reminiscent of neck guard pieces you see on some plate armour, see below, although I’m sure like the similar hooded cobra piece on one of the helmets they’re mainly decorative.

That doesn’t mean the armour wasn’t functional though, it just depends what the function was intended to be. I doubt she was intending to get into hand to hand combat, but could have wanted protection from arrows, grape shot, stray bullets at extreme range or even assassination attempts. The Rani however was an active military commander and died in battle. She plays a major role in one of the Flashman novels, which is where I came across her first.

in any case, even if that armour as purely decorative, it shows that displaying anatomical femininity in armour was unquestionably a thing. Since we also know men wore decoratively sexualised armour functionally in battle too, it seems an unremarkable suggestion that women warriors might do the same.

Simon Hibbs

6383ECE3-AA99-4491-B94E-BAD12B451E6C.jpeg

Edited by simonh
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×