Jump to content

Let's make sure BRP is a welcoming place for everyone.


Recommended Posts

On 5/8/2019 at 5:47 AM, Shiningbrow said:

How about the term 'official'?  Less connotations when something is "not official", because it directly refers to the source (printed materials from IP owning publishers).

Also, don't forget what a good word "apocryphal" is for some non-canonical stuff. It may not actually be canon, but it's widely accepted and considered quite useful.

Edited by Akhôrahil
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hey all, it's Ellie, your friendly neighborhood Chaosium convention coordinator. At conventions a lot of my job is talking to new people about Glorantha and introducing them into the world. Helping ne

Thanks Ellie! People please, a lot of new members have been coming to BRP recently. Let's be welcoming, and avoid coming across like scholastic pendants arguing about how many angels can dance on the

Probably a third comes from sources, a third is misremembered stuff and a third is made up stuff. The problem is when people claim their made up stuff is actual stuff, or when two people are doing the

Posted Images

On 7/9/2019 at 1:36 PM, klecser said:

I was trying to be helpful here. And people are essentially indicating that I've committed some sort of Board faux pas simply by asking a designer for insight? It makes me feel like attempts to help aren't welcome. It makes me feel like I'm not part of the "Club." I'm here on loan as a newbie or something, but I'll never really get my "cred" until I'm here for X years. 10 years? 15 years? Until I'm angry about a new ruleset?

I wouldn't read too much into that.

I have found your posts to be insightful and interesting. It is good to hear from new players, to get their thoughts and insights about the game. There are things that old players just ignore, handwave or change and we are so used to doing it that we forget that new players might struggle with some of the rules that we ignore.

So, please carry on posting and ignore the likes/sad faces and so on.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 2:36 PM, klecser said:

This is pretty much where I am right now. I discovered Runequest back in April and I'm pretty psyched about it. This Board has been overwhelmingly helpful in addressing my concerns.  But then things like this happen:

I was trying to be helpful here. And people are essentially indicating that I've committed some sort of Board faux pas simply by asking a designer for insight? It makes me feel like attempts to help aren't welcome. It makes me feel like I'm not part of the "Club."

Now, I may have misread the situation. That is the point. As a new player, I don't understand what those reacts mean. No one has ever reacted "Sad" to an attempt to help before. I'm an experienced gamer and I've always believed that it is incumbent on experienced players to work extra hard to welcome new players.

I'm not a newbie to Glorantha having started playing RQ in the early 80s, but I most definitely am a noob on these boards, and I'm still grappling with half-remembered rules from RQ2 and how they interact with RQG, so everything here is of intense interest to me.

From my perspective, I've found your input to always be most helpful, and I would echo others in saying don't let a couple of emojis put you off.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 7/16/2019 at 1:46 PM, Szwagier said:

From my perspective, I've found your input to always be most helpful, and I would echo others in saying don't let a couple of emojis put you off.

 

I agree, and welcome to BRP Central. Sounds like you might be giving input and being most helpful yourself soon seeing as you have the experience.

Cheers

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

True.... I actually wondered about his avatar for a certain time, until I eventually got the book (was it Storm Tribe or something?) where it comes from and I was like "oh ok, so yeah, that was definitely what I thought it was then". :D 

I honestly thought it was a sock puppet for years until I took a good look at it

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody have a link to Simon Bray's story of how the scanned image of the Eurmal portrait sent to Issaries Inc. appeared to have genitals because of a hair having fallen unto the drawing?

Edited by Joerg
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 10:27 PM, Akhôrahil said:

PhilHibbs really does moon you every time, though.

Another one of Simon Bray's excellent woodcuts seems to be Minlister sitting on the toilet. I'll let someone else post the image, though.

Fortunately, as one of the RuneQuest Simons, I sometimes get people emailing me and complimenting me on my great artwork, even though I can't draw a straight line with a ruler. I am always gracious and tell them they must have the wrong Simon, but secretly I know they don't.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • 4 months later...
On 5/7/2019 at 4:22 PM, g33k said:

Hey Jeff, and I guess @Trifletraxor ...  What about marking-up the list of publications here:

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/2274-glorantha-publications/

with maybe something like:

(A) Solid Canon

(B) Largely Canonical, may be non-canonical in specific minor ways

(C) Has some specific Canon contents, but is overall less-canonical 

I was thinking that -- if Jeff keeps repeating this list to us screaming fans (and to a presumably-increasing list of authors, especially if the RQ-repository goes up on DTRPG) -- it might be worthwhile to sticky it atop the forum;  and lo! here is a ready-made list, already stickied!

(D) Canon Cult?

I'll get me coat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 12:34 AM, Ellie said:

What helps new people?

Keep it RQG focused. Ask yourself if a new player actually needs to know this to play before hitting post. If it’s not in the main RQG book the answer is almost always no. (Or HeroQuest book given the circumstances.) The old stuff might have been great, but new players don’t have it, so it’s not helpful to tell them about it.

I have a little quibble with this... I was strongly suggested I really should be here not other places for discussion of ANY edition of Rune Quest. I actually use RQ1 as my primary rules source (with many bits taken from RQ2 and some from RQ3) and use most exclusively the RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3 setting material.

I really wish there was a separate "official" forum for RQ1/2/3. I peek in at things here and ignore most of it as not relevant to my gaming. But this seems to be the place to be to be sure of finding out about things like the recent release of Wyrms Footnotes (though that WAS well advertised other places).

One Facebook I have had to fend off folks who keep pushing RQG is better than anything before. For me it isn't.

Right now I'm actually in the midst of comparing RQ1 and RQ2 in detail and I'm finding other changes I don't like beyond the big changes I've long known about with weapons and armor changes (though my reason for sticking with RQ1 in 1980 was purely price...).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry @ffilz, you're amongst friends here. :) I'm using RQG but starting in 1615 so I can run all my old RQ2/3 material (we're about to wrap up River of Cradles tonight I think, moving on to either Apple Lane or Borderlands next). Indeed I would say that the idea that a majority of posters playing RQ at the moment are using exclusively RQG material would be a fairly surprising one to me. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point of this "Keep it RQG Focused" guideline isn't to say we can only ever talk about RQG. I think the point is to only talk about RQG (it's the "default" version now) unless the OP specifies some other version(s). In that case, if the OP specifies they're looking for info about RQ3, or MRQII, or a combination of versions, or whatever, then keep it focused to whatever that is.... The root problem is that too many times someone asks question about an RQG rule, and the first 10 replies have (1) a mention of how that rule used to be worded differently in RQ2, (2) how that rule was "better" in RQ3, (3) how someone has a house-rule for that, (4) how Mythras actually has this house rule but with more options. It not super useful nor welcoming to new players.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if it's clear that a thread is about an edition other than RQG, in a non-confrontational way, then no-one is going to object. That suggestion is just to keep things clear for newcomers who aren't aware of older editions.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 9:14 AM, Akhôrahil said:

Also, don't forget what a good word "apocryphal" is for some non-canonical stuff. It may not actually be canon, but it's widely accepted and considered quite useful.

I really like this take. I hate talking about Canon because it feels like I'm setting out to piss someone off. Normally Jane. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thaz said:

I really like this take. I hate talking about Canon because it feels like I'm setting out to piss someone off. Normally Jane. 

.... ?!

so... Jane is the person you normally set out to piss off???

 

uhhhh ...  May I humbly suggest you look for a different strategy?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

"Keep deep lore out of newbie threads. If you can’t say it in one paragraph it’s not appropriate for a new user post. Deep lore threads are awesome places to learn, but only when you are ready for them. Help new members by linking to existing deep lore posts with “Here is some more information if you are interested.” Have more in depth info to add? Make a new thread and link to it. Remind your fellow experienced members to continue the conversation there."

I don't believe we should talk down to people or restrict them from "adult conversations".  Deep lore conversations can be very tantalizing to newbies, so I propose that we instead try to encourage them but make them inclusive and educational.  Then again I am drunk on free sake atm, so what do I know?

Edited by Darius West
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darius West said:

I don't believe we should talk down to people or restrict them from "adult conversations".  Deep lore conversations can be very tantalizing to newbies, so I propose that we instead try to encourage them but make them inclusive and educational.  Then again I am drunk on free sake atm, so what do I know?

"Newbies" are not excluded from diving into deep lore threads. Not even if they are drunk, in fact that's the best way to do it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
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...