Jump to content
Tupper

History 1621-1625

Recommended Posts

I read through Runequest Glorantha, and while I found it very cool, there were a lot of comments that left me fairly confused.  What was a God Learner?  Who (or what) was Belintar?  To rectify my confusion, I bought the Guide to Glorantha, and have been reading through it from start to finish. Things are starting to come into focus, but I often find myself searching through the pdf to figure where places are who people are who are referred to earlier in the book before they're "defined" later.  It's been a very fun read ... up until yesterday.

Yesterday, I hit the Dragon Pass section, and read that Dragon Pass was governed by Fazzur Wideread.  "That doesn't sound right", says I, and looked in RQG.  Then I realised that RQG is set in 1625, whereas the Guide to Glorantha is based on a present date of 1621.

This seems a bit of a snafu, since it would be pretty natural for someone to want to use Guide to Glorantha as a reference for a campaign using RQG.  My question then is: what happened between 1621 and 1625? 

Where would one find this information?  I see two potential sources: the Glorantha Sourcebook or The King of Sartar. Which one am I supposed to read to understand what's happened "post Guide"?  Or do neither of these help with this campaign date mismatch?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you already have access to it, I'd start with Appendix J: The Hero Wars in the Guide to Glorantha.

Both the Sourcebook and King of Sartar add some information, though I haven't done a close reading on what each of them add to what's in that appendix. King of Sartar provides multiple mutually contradictory in-world histories and commentaries, pointing out some areas where the Guide version just gives one version (the Guide generally uses the version that's most positive towards Argrath, and without some of the material that supports the "multiple Argraths" analysis). It also gives documents describing events past 1625.

The Glorantha Sourcebook has a history of Dragon Pass that goes up to 1625, but it's not as detailed as King of Sartar. There's other good material in the Guide, but if you're just looking for Dragon Pass material King of Sartar is probably a better source. But be prepared for unreliable narrators!

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

My question then is: what happened between 1621 and 1625? 

The main events are described in RQG in the Background section for character generation.

1621-2: The Great Winter, concluding with the Battle of Auroch Hills and Samastina's coup in Nochet.

1623: Siege of Nochet

1624: The Boat Planet rises; siege of Nochet ends when Argrath, Harrek and the Wolf Pirates arrive leading up to the Battle of Pennel.

1625: Pavis Liberated; the Dragonrise destroys most of the Lunar forces and the New Lunar Temple in Sartar; Kallyr declares herself Prince of Sartar.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments.  Looks like Appendix J could be the business.  I definitely noted the events in the character generation timeline, and trying to understand what they all meant was part of my motivation in reading the Guide to Glorantha.  I'm guessing the other region (besides Dragon Pass) where things could get a bit funky is Fronela, where the Syndic's Ban is slowly lifting (and more could have lifted by 1625).  I figure I'll cross that bridge when I get to that chapter of the Guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tupper said:

Syndic's Ban is slowly lifting (and more could have lifted by 1625)

Most of the Syndic's Ban ends in 1624, I believe, with the rise of the Boat Planet, and it is completely lifted by 1628.

Per GtG p.228: "The Syndic’s Ban continues to lift from the remaining lands subject to it. In 1624, the lands west of Samita Lake are freed, revealing several Orlanthi tribes. In 1625, Xemstown is lifted from the Ban, revealing powerful troll gangs, including the Night Guard and the Shadows of Death. In 1628, Charg is lifted from the Ban, revealing tribes of storm worshipers who worship war gods, such as Storm Bull, Humakt, and Orlanth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome.  Thanks for that!  I'm working through Fronela now, and the bit that has me worried is the Kingdom of War.  It seems to be pretty active, and could have expanded since 1621.  Does anyone know where I'd read about what happened there?

Edited by Tupper
Correct typo.

Share this post


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

I'm working through Fronela now, and the bit that has me worried is the Kingdom of War.  It seems to be pretty active, and could have expanded since 1621.  Does anyone know where I'd read about what happened there?

GtG p.202 is pretty much it:  "The Kingdom of War rages onward, destroying and pillaging to collect the world’s largest treasure hoard. Mercenaries, heavy cavalry from Jonatela, and warriors from Tastolar and Rathorela volunteer to aid the Kingdom of War. Hordes of broos and other krjalki also erupt from evil places like Dilis to assist the Warlords.  The Kingdom of Jonatela is the third major power in Fronela, and its king may hold the key to successful conquest. Will they help or hinder the Kingdom of War?"

On the copy of the Hero Wars map I got from Greg years ago for the period 1621-1630, there's a circle marking the Kingdom of War and an arrow advancing towards Loskalm.  Pretty much the whole area of Junora, Akem, Pomons, and Jorri are labelled as "The War against War."

On the plus side, if you're running a campaign there, you can pretty much choose how you want things to unfold in this period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tupper said:

Awesome.  Thanks for that!  I'm working through Fronela now, and the bit that has me worried is the Kingdom of War.  It seems to be pretty active, and could have expanded since 1621.  Does anyone know where I'd read about what happened there?

The Kingdom of War is not mentioned in either the TakenEgi Stelae or the Black Dragon Mountain Pictographs.  This suggests the Kingdom of War is defeated by 1640.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree it is a snafu though, it puts most of the already published material in the past and creates a £120.00 guide product which is now inaccurate for the main game it was designed to play with. 

I think it makes perfect sense and a lot of upsides for those people playing in the chaosium house campaign who may have played through the events of 1621 - 1625 at least once already, but from other perspectives it may be a more hit and miss decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jon Hunter said:

I'd agree it is a snafu though, it puts most of the already published material in the past and creates a £120.00 guide product which is now inaccurate for the main game it was designed to play with. 

The Guide is not inaccurate and was not designed to be played with RuneQuest.  The date of the setting of RuneQuest: Glorantha was set some years after the Guide was published.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Guide is not inaccurate and was not designed to be played with RuneQuest. 

It is now inaccurate or at least very badly formatted ( look up the land and then look up the hero wars chapter to see whats changed ) if you wish to use it to support your playing of Runequest.

One would hope that the Guide to Glorantha would be compatible with main game played in Glorantha.

Dating RQG in 1625 when the guide is set in 1621 makes  the guide significantly less useful, only a couple of years after it was published.

For the world defining £120.00 supplement you would not expect its publishing company to start the process of making in obsolete within a couple of years, by changing the year of the setting into the future. It is mitigated by the hero wars section and fact its only 4 years, but its still a pretty bizarre thing to do.

Quote

The date of the setting of RuneQuest: Glorantha was set some years after the Guide was published.


I'm not criticising the guide, i'm criticising the decision to set RQG in 1625.

Much was made about waning to use RQ2 rules a base for RQG so it was more compatible with the RQ2 reprints just done, but no thought was put into how the dating at 1625 affects the viability and compatibility of the guide and those same supplements recently released by Chaosium. 

For someone not steeped in Glornatha lore and able to sift between the two different settings its, bloody confusing and none nonsensical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Jon Hunter said:

I'd agree it is a snafu though, it puts most of the already published material in the past and creates a £120.00 guide product which is now inaccurate for the main game it was designed to play with. 

Why? The Guide is one snapshot in time, and offers a history up to that time, with more recent (Third Age) history better documented and earlier history left patchy and incomplete.

If it was designed for a game to play with, that was HeroQuest Glorantha at the time it was produced and published. RuneQuest was licensed to The Design Mechanism at the time, and neither the RQ2 reprint nor the RQG project were more than ideas at the time. The next game developed for the setting was 13G, and the decision to make the leap to the start of the boardgame White Bear and Red Moon/Dragon Pass was made by the design team of 13G and the owners of Glorantha at that time.

Without the smashing success of the RQ2 kickstarter, the development of RQG might have taken a different approach, possibly remaining with TDM.

The Glorantha Sourcebook had already been finished by then. The Sourcebook is system-less, but more of a game aid than the Guide.

What would your reaction have been if you had acquired the Sourcebook and found out that all of its content refers to a future your game hasn't even begun to approach?

 

Share this post


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

Why? The Guide is one snapshot in time, and offers a history up to that time, with more recent (Third Age) history better documented and earlier history left patchy and incomplete.

If it was designed for a game to play with, that was HeroQuest Glorantha at the time it was produced and published. RuneQuest was licensed to The Design Mechanism at the time, and neither the RQ2 reprint nor the RQG project were more than ideas at the time. The next game developed for the setting was 13G, and the decision to make the leap to the start of the boardgame White Bear and Red Moon/Dragon Pass was made by the design team of 13G and the owners of Glorantha at that time.

Without the smashing success of the RQ2 kickstarter, the development of RQG might have taken a different approach, possibly remaining with TDM.

The Glorantha Sourcebook had already been finished by then. The Sourcebook is system-less, but more of a game aid than the Guide.

What would your reaction have been if you had acquired the Sourcebook and found out that all of its content refers to a future your game hasn't even begun to approach?

 

My issues isn't with the guide being set in 1621, its with RQG being set in 1625.

If you have just produced the definitive guide to glorantha and charge 120 quid for it, republished significant RQ2 campaign materials which you have charged for all set in 1621.

Is it a good decision to look after you customers to then release the next product set in 1625 which then starts to significantly limits the usefulness of those products?

Its not the end of the world and I definitely don't think there was anything more to it than people getting excited about a new idea and taking things through to the next level but i think in hindsight it creates confusion.

Having the same company producing different systems, in the same setting with histories that differ by 4 years but do transpire to provide significantly different game worlds is odd, confusing and it will make Glorantha more fulfilling for us enthusiasts, but more complex and impenetrable for New players.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jon Hunter said:

My issues isn't with the guide being set in 1621, its with RQG being set in 1625.

Why weren't you upset with 13G making that decision, and the Glorantha Sourcebook supporting it?

RGQ makes that (much more affordable) book usable for its official timeline.

Just now, Jon Hunter said:

If you have just produced the definitive guide to glorantha and charge 120 quid for it, republished significant RQ2 campaign materials which you have charged for all set in 1621.

The Guide was produced in 2014 or so. In the meantime, we got two books detailing Sartar in the time from 1618 to 1625 for HeroQuest.

The RQ2 campaign materials have you set up for 1613 to 1619 or so, with the Cradle of early 1621 the final point in the chronology.

RQ3 Renaissance material placed you in 1621, or slightly later if you played the Riskland Campaign.

13G starts in 1625 or so.

Just now, Jon Hunter said:

Is it a good decision to look after you customers to then release the next product set in 1625 which then starts to significantly limits the usefulness of those products?

The Guide to Glorantha is anything but an introductory book to the world. It is a book that summed up all the knowledge on the world available at that time, minus a few details from "Orlanth is Dead" and "Gathering Thunder".

We don't know yet when material for the other regions of Glorantha will be set, and how much the scenarios in the GM pack and in the planned scenario book for the Dragon Pass region will push the timeline forward.

Just now, Jon Hunter said:

Its not the end of the world and I definitely don't think there was anything more to it than people getting excited about a new idea and taking things through to the next level but i think in hindsight it creates confusion.

Having the same company producing different systems, in the same setting with histories that differ by 4 years but do transpire to provide significantly different game worlds is odd, confusing and it will make Glorantha more fulfilling for us enthusiasts, but more complex and impenetrable for New players.

It is nice if new players come to a point of fascination with the world that they will shell out 50$ for the Guide pdfs, or 120$ for the print edition, but they are likely to look for less expansive and less expensive items first.

If you play in any region of Glorantha, 80% of the Guide will be rather irrelevant to your game. Are your Sartarite rebels likely to explore Slon or the Nargan Desert, or to venture to Vormain? How much of Fronela will they see?

The Guide is a tool for people who want to build their own campaign setting, and people who do that will be free to choose any date for their campaign. If you play in Teshnos, the dates and deeds of your parents' and grandparents' actions will need to be defined by you when creating detail for that campaign. You could very well start with the first arrival of the Holy Country fleet in 1587, and/or Harstar's rebellion. You could set up a game in Pent and the Lunar Empire after Argrath returns from his Lightbringer's Quest with Sheng Seleris. Neither will be directly supported by the Guide, and yet the Guide is the source for all of the background info you have on that.

 

New players are encouraged to enter the Hero Wars in Dragon Pass. Finally.

We haven't heard much about the makeover of the Dragon Pass boardgame as a less obsessive, non-hex movement game lately, but the battles of that boardgame are the subject of that campaign, and there is supposed to be some synergy effect.

There should come a campaign following the steps of Harrek, and there should come one following the steps of Jar-eel.

Stuff for the Holy Country is in the works, system yet unknown, although quite a bit has been tested using HQ.

I have no idea which time frame will be used for the Praxian campaign. It might cover some of the intermediate years and follow the path of Jaldon. We don't even have rumors about what might happen after that.

Every other corner of Glorantha has remained the province of personal campaigns. Some of those may have bled back into the canon, like Sandy's Pamaltela campaign, others may be turned into canonical campaigns.

 

If we are lucky, there will be collaborative efforts to flesh out a setting around some events again, carried by fans, and possibly influencing future publications. I'd love to see some of that spirit of happy exploration and subcreation once more.

The Guide offers a couple of huge arcs based on some of the named heroes. I'd love to see the story of Gebel the Teshnan quester for the Red Sword as a campaign. I'd love to see the Harreksaga as a campaign. Saird might get new attention with the Six Ages computer game and the future direction of the Hero Wars.

All of that will make use of the Guide, but will at the same time require lots of creative writing or even more creative on the spot inventiveness. And I hope that much of that will be shared, creating a useful body of fan-produced material of similar quality as the past experience did, even if not that much of that eventually became canonized. The gaming and the world building still was fun.

 

For a gaming reference, I find the Guide as printed pretty unusable. I'd prefer an electronic resource which could re-thread all that info and that could be expanded by additional material.

The gazetteer problem with "until four years ago, Fazzur Wideread used to be the Governor-General of Sartar, Prax and Heortland, but then..." is something hard to overcome, but a re-threaded combination of gazetteer info from various sources with time stamps could produce material you could use for games set in the future of the Guide's 1621. Re-writing the data for a campaign dealing e.g. with the journeys of the Opening would be a lot more work, with quite different descriptions. Yet other periods would require a rewrite of at least 70% of the information.

I would love to tackle such a project, though I know that even if I could do a full-time job on that, progress and production rate would be too slow to cover all of the world. I like the challenge of producing an infrastructure for such a project and a few campaign background lines with just scenario hooks or maybe cameos provided, but that will take a year or two of intense work, or longer when distracted by other stuff.

The Guide as published is far from being the final word that can be said on the setting. It is a good starting point to engineer data for other times, or for campaign lines with more detailed gazetteers, NPC data etc.

Creating an engine that offers a how-to for a traveling campaign would be nice. Too many ideas, too little time and programming experience to do it...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

but no thought was put into how the dating at 1625 affects the viability and compatibility of the guide and those same supplements recently released by Chaosium.

That is simply incorrect.  After 30+ years there was a strong desire by the designers to get players/characters into the Hero Wars.

There is nothing in the Guide that is negated by this.  It gives you a worldwide view as of 1621.  There are several sources (including the Guide) which give you guidance to 1625 and help you understand the current state in core homelands as of that date.  It allows you some flexibility as a GM to shape what happens in your campaign between 1621-5.  And there's nothing that keeps you from running your RQG game in 1621 (or any date earlier or in-between).

6 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

republished significant RQ2 campaign materials which you have charged for all set in 1621

Most of those are not set in 1621.  Most fall in the period 1615-1620.  The Cradle is the only noted 1621 scenario.

5 hours ago, Joerg said:

New players are encouraged to enter the Hero Wars in Dragon Pass. Finally.

And I think that is the right decision, and allows a lot more than just the classic Evil Empire vs. Rebellion theme.

Share this post


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

My issues isn't with the guide being set in 1621, its with RQG being set in 1625.

If you have just produced the definitive guide to glorantha and charge 120 quid for it, republished significant RQ2 campaign materials which you have charged for all set in 1621.

Is it a good decision to look after you customers to then release the next product set in 1625 which then starts to significantly limits the usefulness of those products?

Its not the end of the world and I definitely don't think there was anything more to it than people getting excited about a new idea and taking things through to the next level but i think in hindsight it creates confusion.

Having the same company producing different systems, in the same setting with histories that differ by 4 years but do transpire to provide significantly different game worlds is odd, confusing and it will make Glorantha more fulfilling for us enthusiasts, but more complex and impenetrable for New players.

This could not be more incorrect.

Jeff

Share this post


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

This could not be more incorrect.

Jeff

No offense, but could you explain why more? Not saying you're wrong, just thinking such a response without more evidence could incite more backlash.

Share this post


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

This could not be more incorrect.

Jeff

You could be more erudite and informative on this Jeff! I agree with this in principle [edit, to clarify: I agree with Jeff that this is incorrect], but some detail would help keep others onboard. 

Edited by jongjom
Clarify

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been working on moving the setting forward past the Dragonkill for the better part of six years or more. Since before I started putting together the Guide, frankly. Publishing the Guide COMPELLED moving the start date forward to after the Guide, assuming people want new material, more control over the setting, etc. The Guide is an Encyclopaedia describing the setting shortly before the default RQG campaign, far enough ago that specific details can be changed,  recent enough that it describes the setting as characters *know* it.

Honestly, to say that this was just some flight of enthusiastic fancy is insulting.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

Is it a good decision to look after you customers to then release the next product set in 1625 which then starts to significantly limits the usefulness of those products?
 

Just keep your games (whatever the system - RQG, RQ2, 13G, HQG) in 1621 if that bothers you then. Problem solved.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Just keep your games (whatever the system - RQG, RQ2, 13G, HQG) in 1621 if that bothers you then. Problem solved.

I do, my games vary a lot from Jeffs vision in numerous little ways, and i'm fine with that. YGMV is a glorious concept and one I fully uphold.

It come more problematic when i do bits of fan publishing, and i'm researching and i have to look at multiple books and documents to make sure I haven't veered too far from canon.

But I still do thinks having products with 1621 dates and 1625 at the same time ads to richness and complexity of Glorantha. (i'm now happy to run and write stuff from 1616 to 1625), but its creates a need for a level of knowledge needed which goes significantly beyond the beginning player. 

Edited by Jon Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Honestly, to say that this was just some flight of enthusiastic fancy is insulting.

First if I caused offence, I'm sorry I do sometime use hyperbole in my arguments and I may have been guilty of that in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jon Hunter said:

I do, my games vary a lot from Jeffs vision in numerous little ways, and i'm fine with that. YGMV is a glorious concept and one I fully uphold.

It come more problematic when i do bits of fan publishing, and i'm researching and i have to look at multiple books and documents to make sure I haven't veered too far from canon.

But I still do thinks having products with 1621 dates and 1625 at the same time ads to richness and complexity of Glorantha. (i'm now happy to run and write stuff from 1616 to 1625), but its creates a level of knowledge needed which goes significantly beyond the beginning player. 

I disagree. My experience is that actually the sheer volume of 1621 material tied many players and gamemasters in knots. Move it forward a few years, and it is much easier for both to breath easily. The setting can change, gamemasters don't have to worry so much about "getting it right", etc. And frankly you don't need much more than is in the core RQ books to run campaigns in Dragon Pass. If you want, you get get the GSB and the Guide and expand your horizons, but it is not necessary.

Jeff

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff,

I never expected you to agree with me on this, your very invested in the change to 1625. 

I can also see the validity in many of arguments, and i was one of the gamers in late 80's going well happens in the hero wars? and wanting more information and a road map.

This eventually came through King of Satar and later Heroquest publications, as this road map has become more solidified in canon it has to a  certain extent tied the history of the campaign going forward from 1621. Thus I can see the need to want to open things up.

Your view on this will be altered by a few things;

1) The power level of your campaign, if you are playing characters that will affect regional  geo politics and myth, a clean slate becomes more important.

2) How many times you have played through 1619 to 1625 already, if many times you want something new.

3) How many times have laboriously discussed and debated this stuff in forums and as part of the hobby, thus these events could now seem old hat.

4) How important the 'overthrow the Lunars' concept was to your games, I cant imagine playing a GM/Pavis game without Lunar oppressors. 

My experiences mean that i'm still in the mindset that likes 1621 and wants to play and complete the story which has been told. The riches of that period is terms of background material creativity and intensity isn't something I would want to retire out of playing experience just yet, and is a high bar if RQG supplements are going match it.

For me the guide being in 1621 and RQG being in 1625 is a minor annoyance with two glorious products, but not one that I think needs to much time spent over as whats done is done and lets make the best of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 11:34 PM, metcalph said:

The Kingdom of War is not mentioned in either the TakenEgi Stelae or the Black Dragon Mountain Pictographs.  This suggests the Kingdom of War is defeated by 1640.  

However, the Takenegi Stele does mention the King of the West who has suppressed the Arrolian Properties and is defeated by the Red Emperor in ~1641.  That the King of the West had "rebelled against the gods" can be taken in varied ways, but could represent the King of Loskalm adopting the ways and practices of the Kingdom of War.

  • Like 1

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

×