nuYGMV

[David Scott]

6 hours ago, creativehum said:

Why do you suggest ignoring the clan generation? 

Not (currentlyj RQG compatible and it overlaps with family history. If your group is from all over Dragon Pass, it’s not relevant for everyone (in my game of 6 players, 2 are Sartarites). 

[David Scott]

1 hour ago, JonL said:

There are some gems in the earlier material worth mining for ideas,

HQ1 has 4 good scenarios; High Pressure front, Chasing Kites (a favourite of mine), Fish Rain, and Heavy Earth. I’ve run them all as part of the same campaign. 

[Tindalos]

High Pressure Front has always seemed to me like a perfect introduction to the Orlanthi sense of law and justice.

Raids, cattle, ransom, and bandits. 

[Julian Lord]

16 hours ago, JonL said:

It's called 'Runequest,' so runes should be treasures that you can go on quests to find, right?

Have you ever read the rules for RuneQuest : Slayers ? 🥀

[JonL]

1 hour ago, Julian Lord said:

Have you ever read the rules for RuneQuest : Slayers ? 🥀

That's the one that most significantly used this rune, yeah?

[JonL]

6 hours ago, 7Tigers said:

Anyway, given how cheap is HQ1 material, and volume of information / inspiration in it, I fail to see how can it be a waste of time & money to get them...

Anaxial's Roster is a great creature reference, even if you ignore every single stat block.

[creativehum]

7 hours ago, David Scott said:

Not (currentlyj RQG compatible and it overlaps with family history. If your group is from all over Dragon Pass, it’s not relevant for everyone (in my game of 6 players, 2 are Sartarites). 

Hi David, 

Thanks for the answer. If you don't mind, I'm still digging in on this.

I understand that if all the PCs are not from the same clan it isn't relevant. (For the record, I'm planning on starting a game with everyone in the same clan.)

I also understand that a small portion of the Clan Generator might overlap with the RQG Character History section, but that is an easy enough matter to deal with. (In fact, I'm probably setting the start of my campaign in 1580. I'm really interested in the question, "Do you get involved in the troubles of the world if they are still far away?" So I'll be rebuilding the Character History section anyway.)

So, when you say the Clan Generator (and I'm assuming we're talking about the clan generator found in Sartar: Kingdom of Heroes as well, yes?) is not compatible with RQG do mean on a mechanical level? Or that the historical elements are off?

The value for the Clan generator were two-fold for me:

It brought the mythical, strange history of Glorantha right to the players in a direct manner, allowing them to interact with it through the choices and questions rather than me simply narrating a bunch of information at them. It also gave me clues about the kinds of things they, as Players, might be interested in -- which gods, which enemies, and so on. By listening to their answers, I can find enemies, goals, and conflicts to place before them that they've told me will hook them.

So, as a tool for play I see the value. But I'm curious if there's anything in the historical record of the questionnaire that will bump against more recent material.

Thanks again for your response.

Edited August 10, 2018 by creativehum

[David Scott]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Hi David, 

Thanks for the answer. If you don't mind, I'm still digging in on this.

I understand that if all the PCs are not from the same clan it isn't relevant. (For the record, I'm planning on starting a game with everyone in the same clan.)

I also understand that a small portion of the Clan Generator might overlap with the RQG Character History section, but that is an easy enough matter to deal with. (In fact, I'm probably setting the start of my campaign in 1580. I'm really interested in the question, "Do you get involved in the troubles of the world if they are still far away?" So I'll be rebuilding the Character History section anyway.)

So, when you say the Clan Generator (and I'm assuming we're talking about the clan generator found in Sartar: Kingdom of Heroes as well, yes?) is not compatible with RQG do mean on a mechanical level? Or that the historical elements are off?

The value for the Clan generator were two-fold for me:

It brought the mythical, strange history of Glorantha right to the players in a direct manner, allowing them to interact with it through the choices and questions rather than me simply narrating a bunch of information at them. It also gave me clues about the kinds of things they, as Players, might be interested in -- which gods, which enemies, and so on. By listening to their answers, I can find enemies, goals, and conflicts to place before them that they've told me will hook them.

So, as a tool for play I see the value. But I'm curious if there's anything in the historical record of the questionnaire that will bump against more recent material.

Thanks again for your response.

 

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Is not compatible with RQG do mean on a mechanical level? Or that the historical elements are off?

It’s purely mechanical. Personally I’d not want to invest the time in fiddling with it, however if you’ve the time go for it. 

[Martin]

8 hours ago, David Scott said:

HQ1 has 4 good scenarios; High Pressure front, Chasing Kites (a favourite of mine), Fish Rain, and Heavy Earth. I’ve run them all as part of the same campaign. 

I agree,  i ran Chasing Kites over 200 times for groups of  high school kids (ages 12-17)

[soltakss]

On 8/7/2018 at 11:57 PM, g33k said:

It seems that "canon" has become so vast (both broad and deep), and so oft-revised (via Greg or Guide or whatever) that our hoary old acronym needs a new meaning ...

Your Glorantha Must Vary

My Glorantha has always varied, ever since I ran my first scenario.

Between the previously-canonical stuff you don't want to change, Chaosium's new canon you don't know of, your group's Glorantha-in-play creating at-the-table-canon... variance (from published canon) seems virtually certain!

Back In The Day, playing RQ2+CoP, a "canonical" game was easy and almost insvitable:. Canon was a few big elements, which everyone knew and played.  People's table-canon didn't so much depart from canon as extend it to new places (indeed, authors' House Games became canon, fans became authors with House Games (that became canon) &c...).

We changed some of the canon almost immediately, as it didn't work for us.

Even in RQ2 there was a lot of extra canon that some people did not accept. In our RQ2 gaming group, we had some people who only had RQ2/Cults of Prax/Cults of Terror and accepted other stuff grudgingly, people who had all the RQ2 stuff plus JG/DW/WF and odds and ends and I knew of people who said "If it isn't in the RQ2 rulebook, I am not interested".

But these days?

There is.  SO.  MUCH.  CANON.

Honestly, that's a.GOOD thing!  Who wishes for no Guide?  No new edition?  Etc...

There is a lot of stuff for Glorantha, but npwhere near as much stuff as for Earth, for example. I can go onto Wikipedia for many settings and build up thousands of pages of information very quickly. Nobody questions that as canon and nobody minds that it is there.

 

But canon-worries online... Not so much, no.

I learned to stop worrying about canon years ago. If something new comes out, I either incorporate it into my Glorantha or ignore it.

One problem that sometimes happens is where canon is driven by game mechanics, which is something that I detest. So, if the game mechanics change then canon has to change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jongjom]

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

There is a lot of stuff for Glorantha, but npwhere near as much stuff as for Earth, for example. I can go onto Wikipedia for many settings and build up thousands of pages of information very quickly. Nobody questions that as canon and nobody minds that it is there.

That's always been the thing that has confused me: how people are comfortable (if not want) to do their own Alternative Earth, but not Alternative Glorantha.

Thinking about it in another way, even if you're trying to do a Real Earth campaign you're not going to worry about all the endless detail (history, geography, physics etc.), and will probably accept the inevitable deviation from reality when the story dictates (and no-one can be arsed to look up the 'facts'). 

[simonh]

Personally I have always picked and chosen which bits I used from established material and which I overwrite for my own purposes. My Karse is distinctly different from the way it’s been described, because the way I wanted it suited the needs of the game I wanted to run better.

Likewise with Sartar Kingdom of Heroes. I’m considering running a Colymar or Lismelder game. The HQG Sartar books are invaluable resources for that, along with some issues of Tales, but if I do run it the details of some of the clans will likely vary distinctly to suit the inter clan dynamics I want to have in my game.

If you consciously decide that you are going to knowingly change certain things, it’s enormously liberating.

If you’re reading just to absorb canon I can see the concern for sure. However by avoiding these books you’re also going to miss out on a huge amount of info that will never be contradicted and may never see print again. Also the PDFs happen to be really good value.

Edited August 11, 2018 by simonh

[creativehum]

The way I look at Glorantha's setting material is like myth: 

The tales of any mythology draw from similar inspiration and contradict each other all the time.

Each group of players sitting around a table is simply a bunch of storytellers gathered around to use the stuff available to them to make a story that matters to them. There's no wrong or right to it. What matters is that they're getting something out of it, saying something about the world and life that matters to them.

Now, I do think there is sometimes the fear of writing something on line and people showing up and saying, "That's wrong! That's not how Glorantha works! You're getting Glorantha all wrong."

I have no fear of that. But I can see how it makes some people tense. It is something that happens with deeply beloved RPG settings. But I do wish people would be more curious about what someone is doing with his or her Glorantha rather than first taking the stance that here is an opportunity to correct something. 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

But I do wish people would be more curious about what someone is doing with his or her Glorantha rather than first taking the stance that here is an opportunity to correct something. 

I think that stems from the fact that sometimes the GM is simply unaware of something and the variation isn't so much a creative choice but simple ignorance. In my early days of running RQ I did a lot of things that were not "right" for Glorthana due to unfamiliarity and lack of resources.  None of my players were curious about what I was doing, including the ones who were more knowledgeable of Glorantha, probably because I wasn't doing much that was creative or novel, just falling back on generic FRPG or historical "defaults". What criticism I did receive was given in a gentle manner more or less as a suggestion or explanation on things that I hadn't been aware of. 

I think the fear that GMs have today is two fold. First there is a fear missing out on the richness of the setting, and basically cheating themselves and their players of a better gaming experience. Heroes who are members of their community, engaging in cattle raids and clan feuds are more interesting that generic wandering adventurers doing a series of similarly generic dungeon crawls. Now both of those types of games are legitimate RQ, and that shows just how much RPGs and RQ in particular has evolved. The second fear is more personal and is fear of embarrassment. No GM wants to make some horrendous mistake that really makes them look incompetent and unbelievably ignorant and is so bad that they cannot easily fix it. This a is a fear that I think all GMS have to some extent, because we've all messed up somewhere along the line and been razzed by our players, and we can just imagine how bad it might be if we were to make such a colossal blunder. Despite the fact that something that a error of that magnitude is unlikely, to do out of ignorance, it could happen.  So most GMs tend to be a bit more conservative with an established setting. GMs who deliberately change things, and are up front about it have a easier time selling changes to their players, but even then there can be backlash if the changes are so radical or contrary to the setting as to ruin the players suspension of disbelief, and thus their enjoyment of the game.  

 

The richer the setting, the more information there is on a setting the greater the chance of a GM making such a error, and so the more intimidating the setting becomes, unfortunately. The same holds true for game systems too. I know a lot of D&D DMS who don't run anything else in part because they are intimidated to learn a new game system, often because they expect other game systems to have the same level of complexity and special case rules that D&D has.

 

It is a lot easier to stick with what you know or to add smaller more manageable chucks to what you know than to jump into the deep in the of the pool and try to tread water.