Jump to content
g33k

RQG "1st printing" PDF?

Recommended Posts

Initial round of Tribal Edits have closed, so Chaosium can finalize the draft and order the 1st printing of the book.

When will the public PDF be updated to reflect the edits?

@Jason Durall is the guy for this, I guess ...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a newer version of the PDF on Chaosium.com than the one I got for my initial purchase: it's 90.6 MB in size, where my original PDF is 74.4 MB, and I can see some corrections made to the Attack & Parry Results table on p. 199.

Unfortunately, there's also a new error: on p. 5, in the What Is RuneQuest? section, the second sentence of the first paragraph is boldfaced for no reason that I can see. Time for a second tribal-edit thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, trystero said:

There's a newer version of the PDF on Chaosium.com than the one I got for my initial purchase: it's 90.6 MB in size, where my original PDF is 74.4 MB, and I can see some corrections made to the Attack & Parry Results table on p. 199.

Unfortunately, there's also a new error: on p. 5, in the What Is RuneQuest? section, the second sentence of the first paragraph is boldfaced for no reason that I can see. Time for a second tribal-edit thread?

I see that as well - maybe it would be helpful to put a version number on the pdf, or better still, just a 'date updated' near the link?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's an ongoing thing. Some changes have been made, but others not. An example of an unambiguous correction not done is Page 434 which still says that the "New Skill" for Climbing is Climbing (it's Climb), yet other corrections have been taken up.

The maps still have errors for example Page 134 map still have Stinking Woods instead of Stinking Forest (yet map on Page 127 has it correct), and lacks the Building Wall yet this appears on the map on Page 111. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, jongjom said:

The maps still have errors for example Page 134 map [...] lacks the Building Wall yet this appears on the map on Page 111. 

Not necessarily an error. It is common practice in cartography to use a greater degree of generalization (leaving out details, or simplifying them) for map areas outside of the core theme (or thematic layer) of the map, even if the maps have the same scale. p.111 deals with Esrolia, the other maps don't or at least don't focus on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Not necessarily an error. It is common practice in cartography to use a greater degree of generalization (leaving out details, or simplifying them) for map areas outside of the core theme (or thematic layer) of the map, even if the maps have the same scale. p.111 deals with Esrolia, the other maps don't or at least don't focus on it.

Map on Page 134 is the overview of the whole region. Naming errors and the absence of a very significant place (Building Wall) detracts from it doing what it should do: being the overview. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for what Joerg said.
I highly doubt maps will be changed anyway.
By the way, a look at file properties under Acrobat Reader indicates file time stamp is 2018/06/28 22:28pm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consistent naming implies that there is an official cadaster of Glorantha (or just Dragon Pass), which there isn't. Stinking Forest, Stinking Woods, Stinkwoods are all valid translations of the Gloranthan languages into English or one another.

Having Apple Lane even on some continental scale maps is something of a running gag in Gloranthan cartography.

 

If you are a stickler for consistency, you should complain about Knights' Fort, both for the term knight and for the positioning of the apostrophe. Since neither Malkioni nor Heortlanders have knights any more, that name is a relic. The Guide avoided this issue through generalization or by placing a label on the political map of Heortland.

Fortress of the Men of All doesn't quite sound right, even less so since the Esvulari (unlike the God Forgot Brithini) don't have a soldier or knight caste.

For some generalization reason, the label for Horngate has disappeared on the overview map, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Joerg said:

If you are a stickler for consistency, you should complain about Knights' Fort, both for the term knight and for the positioning of the apostrophe.

Knights Fort no longer exists.   It does not appear on the maps of Prax in Pavis: Gateway to Adventure (and is separate from the olde Marcher Barony which is now the Marcher County as per the Guide).  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, trystero said:

Unfortunately, there's also a new error: on p. 5, in the What Is RuneQuest? section, the second sentence of the first paragraph is boldfaced for no reason that I can see. Time for a second tribal-edit thread? 

Strange: no bold on my PC with Acrobat Reader.

Most of indicated typo have been fixed.

Minor typo still present:

Quote

Page 434 The Old Skill was Climbing, the new skill should be Climb

 

 

Share this post


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

Knights Fort no longer exists.   It does not appear on the maps of Prax in Pavis: Gateway to Adventure (and is separate from the olde Marcher Barony which is now the Marcher County as per the Guide).  

In which case the map entry might indicate a network of marcher fortifications rather than a single site.

A map of Prax detailing the environs of Pavis doesn't have to be accurate in Heortland-occupied territory, so unlike Christian's Bay I won't discard the notion of one larger, better fortified place between the distributed lesser forts.

After all, the map in RQG clearly shows Knight's Fort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, Joerg said:

A map of Prax detailing the environs of Pavis doesn't have to be accurate in Heortland-occupied territory, so unlike Christian's Bay I won't discard the notion of one larger, better fortified place between the distributed lesser forts.

After all, the map in RQG clearly shows Knight's Fort.

You should learn to give page numbers and base your citations on that rather than make special pleadings.  The fort on p105 does not depict Heortland-occupied territory but at the southern borders of the Exiles according to the Guide map p246.  Ergo it is unlikely to be a Holy Country Fort and the possibility of it being constructed after 1621 cannot be ruled out.  The Sartar Companion map on p78 frustratingly cuts short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff said:

Knight Fort (a sloppy translation of what is probably is just Horseman's Fort) is in the Marcher County. It is an old fort, built (or even rebuilt) during the 1300s to stop Praxian raids into God Forgot and Heortland. In its heyday, it may have mustered as many as 200 armored horse (recruited primarily from Heortland), and had a garrison of as many as 1000 archers and spear - more than enough to stop all but the most determined Praxian invasions.Since 1616, Knight Fort has had little outside support and its garrison has trickled down to a few score mercenaries, who rule over the surrounding farmers (who are mostly Barntar farmers). Its ruler is a petty Bandori strongman, allied with the city of Refuge. The Fortress Lord (or whatever he calls himself) likely acknowledged Lunar overlordship from 1620 to 1622, and conveniently ignored that after 1623 or so. Not sure anyone actually noticed on way or another.

in

 

Share this post


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

Strange: no bold on my PC with Acrobat Reader.

…and it's gone now when I open the new PDF on my laptop PC. I'll re-check from my desktop (whence I wrote my previous post) when I get home. Weird, but I'd be glad to be wrong on this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, metcalph said:

 

You should learn to give page numbers and base your citations on that rather than make special pleadings. 

Says the person who just gives the title of the book on the Wikia. I had been  referencing the terrain maps of the various homelands as having less generalization before,.

 

17 hours ago, metcalph said:

The fort on p105 does not depict Heortland-occupied territory but at the southern borders of the Exiles according to the Guide map p246. 

This means that for some reason the location of the place has shifted upriver.

Knight Fort made its first appearance on the gameboard of Les Dieux Nomads, and was associated with a counter of heavy cavalry ranked among the Independents (much like the SUn Domers)  that wasn't anythng like the Pol Joni (who appear in the Barbarian Hord of Le Guerre des Heroes,/Dragon Pass but don't get representation in that boardgame). The intent behind this was a representation of western-style horsemen shielding the Holy Country (source: personal communications with Stephen Martin, discussing ideas for playing the "mundane" game of hex map and stacks for the Holy Country).

The holy places and ruins of Prax are designed to lie upon straight lines across hex borders, aka Ronance's trails, so a position on the intersection of the line going through Stormwalk and Monkey Ruins and a north-south line through Tada's Tumulus would have made sense, too. The map as published in Dieux Nomads had a few mistakes in that regard (in addition to a hex pattern that didn't quite match up with the geography), but the hex map on etyries.com corrected those mistakes.

Checking the position of the fort on the hex map, it lies soutwest rather than northwest on the hex map, but on the same river/serpent running down from the Storm Mountains. That position would have placed it squarely on the edge of the Marcher Baron territory where it belongs.

So yes, Knight Fort has been moved in this map (p.111), bears an outdated name, and makes a lot less sense. Good catch wrt the repositioning.

17 hours ago, metcalph said:

Ergo it is unlikely to be a Holy Country Fort and the possibility of it being constructed after 1621 cannot be ruled out.  The Sartar Companion map on p78 frustratingly cuts short.

My suspicion is that we see a mapping error here. I don't know whether the place is on the transparent layers of maps that covers all of Genertela all the way from westernmost Seshnela to Vulture Country (and possibly a bit beyond). I know that the maps for the Guide were created from those layers, leaving out a great deal of detail in and around Dragon Pass.

Jeff's 2015 text clearly marks it as part of the Marcher Barons fortifications, too, which is consistent with what has been written about the place since Dieux Nomades came out.

 

No need to pour it out with the Hendreiki knights' bathwater. Nowadays those heavy horsemen are likely to be warlike Esvulari talar caste folk in service to marcher barons.

 

Share this post


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

Says the person who just gives the title of the book on the Wikia. I had been  referencing the terrain maps of the various homelands as having less generalization before,.

There are no requirements on the Glorantha Wikia for page numbers, it just asks for sources. While page numbers would be helpful, it would just end up looking like the index to the Guide. See https://glorantha.wikia.com/index.php?title=References_and_Conflicting_Sources written by Terra Incognita in 2011. As it is a public wiki you are welcome to join and change its direction.

Page references are very handy here for others to follow the conversation and look at the actual information. More so when discussing potentially  conflicting information.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the context, you might have seen that I threw this out in exasperation:

9 hours ago, Joerg said:
On 7/2/2018 at 1:39 PM, metcalph said:

You should learn to give page numbers and base your citations on that rather than make special pleadings. 

Says the person who just gives the title of the book on the Wikia.

I do use the wikia, try to improve it in small ways when entries are particularly unsatisfying or frustrating, suggest changes where my ideas of improvement might conflict with Peter's ideas about the course of the Wikia, and most of all I try hard to avoid edit wars.

What I really want is an information system which makes use of all available publications, ideally able to open a pdf at exactly the places quoted from the memory device of the user (so that all you need to search a document is to tell the system where to find the searchable pdf in order to call up the source quotation), and able to provide a map with thematic layers pertinent to the request (something a GIS could provide). That way everybody could search their own library of Glorantha documents for quotations, or have to make do with Glorantha Wikia style one line "explanations" unless some editor wrote up a nice essay on the search term without violating any copyright.

 

6 hours ago, David Scott said:

There are no requirements on the Glorantha Wikia for page numbers, it just asks for sources.

Just naming a non-searchable source like the Middle Sea Empire pdf isn't worth much, and referencing a 300+ pages book that you don't have a searchable pdf of is similarly frustrating. The Wikia also notoriously deleted references to published documents which Peter thinks are "post-canonical", obscuring a lot of potentially useful research links.

 

The presentation and data structure of the wikia has been shaped by Peter, and it serves his preferences. It remains somewhat useful, but some functionalities like blind redirects to a page rather than having a list of terms which re-direct to an entry is far from helpful if your research lands you on the same page over and over again.

.Try finding out in which region of Glorantha the last Jrusteli king of Melib left the Red Sword from the wikia.

I don't know the conventions for creating a disambiguation page, and having no means to see which pages link to a given page is a serious flaw in the service provided by wikia. The lack of synonyms listed on a page is a serious flaw, and Peter's naming conventions and adjective formation are quite different from what I expect.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Just naming a non-searchable source like the Middle Sea Empire pdf isn't worth much

A reminder of my last year post:

Quote

For info, if you own a Adobe pdf creation module (from a commercial Adobe product) installed as a printer, there is a work around for the not searchable The Middle Sea Empire version: just open it and print it as a Adobe pdf.
=> Text is now searchable in created pdf.
Note: the non searchable The Middle Sea Empire version I used was the one bought on Glorantha.com

Note: it may also work with 3rd parties pdf printer drivers...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joerg feels free to throw out snarky comments in a fit of pique and then "explain" himself with a self-serving criticism of the wikia.

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

I do use the wikia, try to improve it in small ways when entries are particularly unsatisfying or frustrating, suggest changes where my ideas of improvement might conflict with Peter's ideas about the course of the Wikia, and most of all I try hard to avoid edit wars.

Umm, you hardly have suggested any changes at all.  Whenever the topic of the wikia comes up, you invariably bring up your own experience with the bygone index and... that's about it.  If you stop treating requests for information as shots in a duel of wits (the informatopn about Knights Fort is in a non-indexed legend in a map!) and resist the temptation to proclaim on tangential matters, others wouldn't have so much of a hard time with you.

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

What I really want is an information system which makes use of all available publications, ideally able to open a pdf at exactly the places quoted from the memory device of the user

What I really want is a page on the God Learners secret in plain english.  But I can't have everything I want.  What I do have to cope with is to work with the tools that I have, not compose juvenile wish-lists. 

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

Just naming a non-searchable source like the Middle Sea Empire pdf isn't worth much, and referencing a 300+ pages book that you don't have a searchable pdf of is similarly frustrating. The Wikia also notoriously deleted references to published documents which Peter thinks are "post-canonical", obscuring a lot of potentially useful research links.

Post-canonical was a far description of the works in question.  I did try and refer to every official work ever printed including the unlamented Champions of the Reaching Moon.  That policy ended up with a particular Far Point tribe having four different names.  So I went with the current policy which has the virtue of being articulated by Jeff, and not something dreamed up by me. 

And as for relaxing any limit on the current canon, forget it.  I have better things to do than to waste time with some-one who thinks that citations from ILH-1 should have the same authority (or even overrule) King of Sartar and other works just to buttress some convoluted theory or another.

If you have a better suggestion, I'm all ears, but petulant whining for what might have been isn't the way to go.

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

The presentation and data structure of the wikia has been shaped by Peter, and it serves his preferences. It remains somewhat useful, but some functionalities like blind redirects to a page rather than having a list of terms which re-direct to an entry is far from helpful if your research lands you on the same page over and over again.

Except that the function of the wikia is to explain what the names are and in what sources they can be found.  Not to support whatever unspecified research, you hint at but never explain.  Unless it be the discussion of the age of some obscure prince from the House of Sartar he left on a talk page.

 

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

.Try finding out in which region of Glorantha the last Jrusteli king of Melib left the Red Sword from the wikia.

Which is a result of the page being incomplete in its information rather than anything you list.

 

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

I don't know the conventions for creating a disambiguation page, and having no means to see which pages link to a given page is a serious flaw in the service provided by wikia.

If you have an account, you can click my tools at the bottom to pull up a menu and then see what links here.  Simple really.

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

The lack of synonyms listed on a page is a serious flaw,

I list multiple synonyms where I can.  Same problem as incomplete pages.

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

and Peter's naming conventions and adjective formation are quite different from what I expect.

Because I created the wikia not to please you but to p[ease other people.  And it's going to be like that, until you have a major attitude change here and elsewhere.

Share this post


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

What I really want is an information system which makes use of all available publications,

The 5e wiki is amazingly complete.  We just played 5e last weekend and only the DM had their books with them; the rest of us just pulled everything up on the wiki on our phones/tablets.  Hell, it was probably easier finding some of the more obscure rules that way than paging through the books.

The Guide was close; quite a bit of CnP from other publications, leavened with lots of new material.  The pdf of the guide is handy, to a point, because it's searchable.

17 minutes ago, metcalph said:

What I really want is a page on the God Learners secret in plain english. 

A thousand times this.  I get that YGMV, but ultimately it's handy if at least the registration marks are all in the same place.  The Guide was close.

 

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

×