Jump to content
Marty Jopson

Help me sell RQG to my players

Recommended Posts

On 5/19/2019 at 8:32 PM, lordabdul said:

I'm confused by the fact that looking at illustrations for HQ books is ok, but learning about the designer notes that were given to artists to come up with said illustrations is not.

But thanks for the links :)

I know that @Jeff published some of these in the past, over at Glorantha.com. Such as: https://www.glorantha.com/docs/pelorian-art-direction/ https://www.glorantha.com/docs/look-gloranthan-cultures-part-3/ and https://www.glorantha.com/sketch-of-three-nobles/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I know that @Jeff published some of these in the past, over at Glorantha.com.

Thanks! But yes, I had seen those before, and that's why I was curious about getting some similar notes for the RQG books... although those old notes are very detailed, so I would even be happy with just a couple or handful of lines.

Share this post


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

Thanks! But yes, I had seen those before, and that's why I was curious about getting some similar notes for the RQG books... although those old notes are very detailed, so I would even be happy with just a couple or handful of lines.

Yes, Glorantha.com was/is a charm. And the tbs stuff as you say, incredible! I can't recall the gatekeeper (admin) over there but combined with the wayback machine... wow. That gentleperson is wonderful!

Share this post


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

Rather than waste people's time trying to change their minds or falsely claiming specific ideas  as being brilliant concepts invented by MRQ, just accept that the majority of people don't like it and move on.

I'd say opposed rolls is a pretty good mechanic, and insofar as the RQ lineage is concerned, I'm pretty sure MRQ introduced it.  To say nothing of some clever ideas in RQ6 as well, which is functionally MRQ3.

I like a lot of the MRQ source stuff as interesting (particularly considering they filled vast spans that 'today's official sources' haven't covered) and I personally don't give the faintest hoot whether it's canonical or not.  If I find material interesting and engaging, I might use it.  Why care particularly about the source?  The idea that there's even a canon to be violated - and the tone by which apostates are admonished - approaches the worst of the Glorantha Digest days.

I REALLY don't see value in Bowdlerizing RQs publishing history. 

But then, I come from the ancient era where campaigns were expected to be wildly different from each other, there were far fewer resources,  and thus may be slightly more inoculated against one-true-worldisms. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

The idea that there's even a canon to be violated - and the tone by which apostates are admonished - approaches the worst of the Glorantha Digest days.

I prefer Glorantha over Gloranthish every day. I've had my own wild deviations, which, while interesting to pursue at the time, in the end were based on misleads rather than leads.

 

Quote

I REALLY don't see value in Bowdlerizing RQs publishing history. 

But then, I come from the ancient era where campaigns were expected to be wildly different from each other, there were far fewer resources,  and thus may be slightly more inoculated against one-true-worldisms. 

I really don't see value in taking a rich, interrelated setting, then sever all these interlinks for the ease of telling a story that doesn't quite fit the setting. Why start with the real setting in the first place, and not use some pastiche that has all the elements but none of the depth?
Some settings have premises that contradict their promise to me. The Second Age book was one such setting. If I want some unrelated setting using Gloranthan names, I can watch Star Trek.

To be fair, the book was written true to the sum of published Glorantha knowledge from about 17 years prior to its publication date, sprinkled with a selection of names dropped from a fact sheet given to the publishers. Now I happen to enjoy a lot of the stuff that had been developed in the intervening 17 years, and I don't want to miss that. The EWF is a phenomenon that got my curiosity since I first saw its mention in Dragon Pass. Seeing its treatment built on misleading details that weren't that well formulated all that time ago is fairly damaging to suspension of disbelief, and thereby enjoyment. To say it with Gary Oldman's character in the Fifth Element, I was disappointed. Still am.

So: I really don't see value in bowdlerizing Glorantha's publishing history. Different focus, different values.

Edited by Joerg
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I like a lot of the MRQ source stuff as interesting (particularly considering they filled vast spans that 'today's official sources' haven't covered) and I personally don't give the faintest hoot whether it's canonical or not.  \

I actually looked at the same material and found most of it quite poor.  Not because of its canonity or lack thereof but mostly that it was just names thrown pollock-like upon a blank space.  It ranked up there with a lot of the HW/HQ1.0 stuff, which unlike MRQ's stuff did claim to be canon at one point.

7 hours ago, styopa said:

 The idea that there's even a canon to be violated - and the tone by which apostates are admonished - approaches the worst of the Glorantha Digest days.

I REALLY don't see value in Bowdlerizing RQs publishing history. 

 

Get over yourself.  I was not censoring anything nor treating anyone as an apostate.  I was merely pointing out that complaining about people not liking MRQ's material is unlikely to change anything.  Merely accept that your own taste is different and move on.  If you think that is bowdlerization, then I suggest that you consult a dictionary.before making a further nusiance of yourself.

 

 

Share this post


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

...before making a further nusiance of yourself.

Seriously?

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Merely accept that your own taste is different and move on.

Well that's rather ironic. I really dislike MRQ, but I agree with everything styopa said: a lot of you are blinded by personal truisms. There's no objectivity to any of this, if someone likes the parts of the mongoose material then that's their thing, and they should be able to voice their wishes for further expansion of those themes without hearing a "Begone, heathen!" .

I completely agree that ignoring everything about MRQ is the definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I can't even remember anything I particularly liked about it. It just kills the potential for engaging discussions when people get immediately defensive about it.

Also, a bit off topic, but that post was horribly rude; let's try to keep civil when discussing an imaginary world we use to play pretend with dice.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never played MRQ1, but once I knew Loz was involved, I tried MRQ2 and we had a blast. It was over the top, but great fun.

Was it Glorantha? Some of it was, some wasn't. The Clanking City was totally not Glorantha but we went with it anyway.

Some have accused @Jeff of rejecting all of MRQ out of hand, I think that's a little unfair. When a publisher has a track record of poor products, is it really worth sifting through it all looking for diamonds in the rough? As he specifically said, his time was merely more well spent looking elsewhere, and that's fair enough to me. Also it can be hard to get that bad taste out of your mouth once your opinion of a publisher has been spoiled for legitimate reasons.

Edited by PhilHibbs
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Well that's rather ironic. I really dislike MRQ, but I agree with everything styopa said: a lot of you are blinded by personal truisms. There's no objectivity to any of this,

True. Quite a few of us who are complaining about how Mongoose presented the world they had licensed like to think of ourselves not just as fans of Greg Stafford but as friends of Greg, and that makes the disregard displayed in the production something personal. The Glorantha Tribe is a network of people who have met on many an occasion, often in Leicester or at Castle Stahleck on the Rhine, at Chateau de Buoux and in recent years also at Schloss Neuhausen, and at the game fairs/general conventions like Gencon or Essen Spiel. And numerous other places which I haven't had the chance to visit.

 

2 minutes ago, BlindPumpkin said:

if someone likes the parts of the mongoose material then that's their thing, and they should be able to voice their wishes for further expansion of those themes without hearing a "Begone, heathen!" .

Sure. But you don't start preaching in Latin in a Southern Baptist church, do you? We have a forum for the Mongoose incarnations of RQ, and apparently that's the place to discuss the merits of that system even when comparing it to RQG, or discussing Glorantha in that context.

 

2 minutes ago, BlindPumpkin said:

I completely agree that ignoring everything about MRQ is the definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I can't even remember anything I particularly liked about it. It just kills the potential for engaging discussions when people get immediately defensive about it.

If some people prefer not to step into such discussions, fine. "I've seen this in MRQ products, and I think it might work in RQG" is actually a good way of probing the waters. Jeff seems to prefer this forum to deal with the current editions of RQ (G and classic), so I guess we can use the Legend forum (which doesn't see that much activity) to discuss such things, and everybody will be happy. If you think a rule or method would work with RQG there is no problem presenting this as house rule presentation or as a home-made cult adaptation for RQG.

 

2 minutes ago, BlindPumpkin said:

let's try to keep civil when discussing an imaginary world we use to play pretend with dice.

People are trying...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Some have accused @Jeff of rejecting all of MRQ out of hand, I think that's a little unfair. When a publisher has a track record of poor products, is it really worth sifting through it all looking for diamonds in the rough? As he specifically said, his time was merely more well spent looking elsewhere, and that's fair enough to me. Also it can be hard to get that bad taste out of your mouth once your opinion of a publisher has been spoiled for legitimate reasons.

This isn't really the right thread for this discussion, but it hasn't been for a while.

MRQI was OGL, RQG isn't, so there is a problem with incorporating MRQI mechanics into RQG.

MRQII wasn't OGL, but Jeff doesn't think the way it is going suits Glorantha particularly well, so it's unlikely that its mechanics will appear.

That's fine by me, as I can use bits from here, there and everywhere to make a better RQ for my games.

Share this post


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

If some people prefer not to step into such discussions, fine. "I've seen this in MRQ products, and I think it might work in RQG" is actually a good way of probing the waters. Jeff seems to prefer this forum to deal with the current editions of RQ (G and classic), so I guess we can use the Legend forum (which doesn't see that much activity) to discuss such things, and everybody will be happy. If you think a rule or method would work with RQG there is no problem presenting this as house rule presentation or as a home-made cult adaptation for RQG.

Logically, wouldn't this be more appropriate in this forum? I mean, any other discussion of an idea, houserule, etc for RQG would be fine over here... it's merely the "OMG, that's a Mongoose thing" that's stopping it from being in this thread (which is the whole point we've been saying recently). If I said "Hey, there's this great idea in White Wolf that RQG players should really look at", I wouldn't expect a whole new forum to be opened up.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2019 at 9:32 PM, lordabdul said:

I'm confused by the fact that looking at illustrations for HQ books is ok, but learning about the designer notes that were given to artists to come up with said illustrations is not.

But thanks for the links :)

Here is another one with designer notes: how the Guide to Glorantha Ralios illustration was realized, by Jan Pospíšil
https://janpospisil.blogspot.com/2012/12/painting-plate.html

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2019 at 11:33 AM, Marty Jopson said:

We may have drifted a little off topic...

😉

I’m new to RuneQuest and RQG is my entry point. I haven’t really played RPGs since in the mid 90’s. I talked my friends into playing by highlighting a few different things and considering the length of the topic my two cents may not be that helpful. 

I recommended they play King of Dragon Pass. That is what got me interested in RuneQuest and Glorantha. I think the video game does a great job of easing new players into the world and giving everyone a shared mono context of what game world we will be playing in. A couple of my other friends play RPGs and have played a lot of D&D. I sold them with the game by talking about the stuff I didn’t really ever understand about AD&D back in the day and D&D today. So for them I talked about the skill system and combat systems. 

You mentioned one of your friends is a storyteller. I think talking about the passion system, homeland, family history, and the Cults woulda get here interested. If you are looking for recommended reading, I think the setting material in the book and the Rune Cults chapter do a very good job of giving information about the world. I wish they had some novels or something to read but I think D&D is the only game with those things.

My group played through the RuneQuest starter adventure ‘The Broken Tower’ and we only used the QuickStart rules because I’m still very new at this and that made it simpler for everybody.  I’d recommend the GM pack because that had a lot of great content that you can use right away. The maps and the calendars are all very cool. If you have players interested in that sort of things I think you’ll find value just in those few things. We have played through ‘Defending Apple Lane’ and ‘Cattle Raid’ and we are currently playing through ‘The Dragon of Thunder Hills’ and I think all three adventures we have played and the fourth we are playing have given us a little bit more each time we play on the world. 

But I think selling the game on the fact that players are adventuring for something and somebody. The players are not just there to kill monsters, to get more powerful so they can have better loot, so they can kill bigger and badder monsters so they can get more powerful, etc. Just by having the community be apart of character creation gives the players a stronger sense of community and that helped me, as a new player, get everyone in the “headspace” of the game...if you get me. 

I didn’t bring up the Bronze Age aspect because I’m a stupid accountant and I don’t really know what that means. I love the old movies like Clash of the Titans and Jason and the Argonauts but I didn’t study the classics in school or read about Bronze Age culture, or if I did, I don’t remember. So if anybody has suggestions on some good books to read up to learn more about Bronze Age cultures, I’d love the suggestions. 

Hopefully my post is helpful. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I’m new to RuneQuest and RQG is my entry point . . . 

Hopefully my post is helpful. 

Incredibly so, I think.

You're giving the feedback that the "grognards" cannot give -- that of being entirely new to RQ.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gannd said:

I’m new to RuneQuest and RQG is my entry point. I haven’t really played RPGs since in the mid 90’s. I talked my friends into playing by highlighting a few different things and considering the length of the topic my two cents may not be that helpful. 

I recommended they play King of Dragon Pass. That is what got me interested in RuneQuest and Glorantha. I think the video game does a great job of easing new players into the world and giving everyone a shared mono context of what game world we will be playing in. A couple of my other friends play RPGs and have played a lot of D&D. I sold them with the game by talking about the stuff I didn’t really ever understand about AD&D back in the day and D&D today. So for them I talked about the skill system and combat systems. 

You mentioned one of your friends is a storyteller. I think talking about the passion system, homeland, family history, and the Cults woulda get here interested. If you are looking for recommended reading, I think the setting material in the book and the Rune Cults chapter do a very good job of giving information about the world. I wish they had some novels or something to read but I think D&D is the only game with those things.

My group played through the RuneQuest starter adventure ‘The Broken Tower’ and we only used the QuickStart rules because I’m still very new at this and that made it simpler for everybody.  I’d recommend the GM pack because that had a lot of great content that you can use right away. The maps and the calendars are all very cool. If you have players interested in that sort of things I think you’ll find value just in those few things. We have played through ‘Defending Apple Lane’ and ‘Cattle Raid’ and we are currently playing through ‘The Dragon of Thunder Hills’ and I think all three adventures we have played and the fourth we are playing have given us a little bit more each time we play on the world. 

But I think selling the game on the fact that players are adventuring for something and somebody. The players are not just there to kill monsters, to get more powerful so they can have better loot, so they can kill bigger and badder monsters so they can get more powerful, etc. Just by having the community be apart of character creation gives the players a stronger sense of community and that helped me, as a new player, get everyone in the “headspace” of the game...if you get me. 

I didn’t bring up the Bronze Age aspect because I’m a stupid accountant and I don’t really know what that means. I love the old movies like Clash of the Titans and Jason and the Argonauts but I didn’t study the classics in school or read about Bronze Age culture, or if I did, I don’t remember. So if anybody has suggestions on some good books to read up to learn more about Bronze Age cultures, I’d love the suggestions. 

Hopefully my post is helpful. 

I'd suggest reading a nice version of the Iliad or the Odyssey or Gilgamesh to get the Bronze Age vibe. There's Eric Shanower's Age of Bronze, Rosemary Sutcliff's Black Ships Before Troy (with art by Alan Lee), or David Boyle and Viv Croot's Troy. Or Ludmila Zeman's Gilgamesh Trilogy. Or get Mary Renault's classics like the King Must Die. Think ancient world, when gods interacted with mortals.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2019 at 10:27 PM, styopa said:

I'd say opposed rolls is a pretty good mechanic, and insofar as the RQ lineage is concerned, I'm pretty sure MRQ introduced it.  To say nothing of some clever ideas in RQ6 as well, which is functionally MRQ3.

I like a lot of the MRQ source stuff as interesting (particularly considering they filled vast spans that 'today's official sources' haven't covered) and I personally don't give the faintest hoot whether it's canonical or not.  If I find material interesting and engaging, I might use it.  Why care particularly about the source?  The idea that there's even a canon to be violated - and the tone by which apostates are admonished - approaches the worst of the Glorantha Digest days.

I REALLY don't see value in Bowdlerizing RQs publishing history. 

But then, I come from the ancient era where campaigns were expected to be wildly different from each other, there were far fewer resources,  and thus may be slightly more inoculated against one-true-worldisms. 

Opposed rolls come from Pendragon, not MRQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gannd said:

But I think selling the game on the fact that players are adventuring for something and somebody. The players are not just there to kill monsters, to get more powerful so they can have better loot, so they can kill bigger and badder monsters so they can get more powerful, etc. Just by having the community be apart of character creation gives the players a stronger sense of community and that helped me, as a new player, get everyone in the “headspace” of the game...if you get me. 

This is to me the essence of the game and is the reason for the Family Background part of character generation. It is a playable crash course into the setting, your community,  your foes, and your allies. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'd suggest reading a nice version of the Iliad or the Odyssey or Gilgamesh to get the Bronze Age vibe. There's Eric Shanower's Age of Bronze, Rosemary Sutcliff's Black Ships Before Troy (with art by Alan Lee), or David Boyle and Viv Croot's Troy. Or Ludmila Zeman's Gilgamesh Trilogy. Or get Mary Renault's classics like the King Must Die. Think ancient world, when gods interacted with mortals.

If you can deal with the blandness of the writing, Herodotus and Thucydides as well... (The Persian Wars, and History of the Peleponnesian* Wars... although, off the top of my head, I forget who wrote what. The Peleponnesus* penninsula is Athens, Sparta and a few other city-states. Lots of seasonal raiding (hmmm rings a bell somewhere!)).

I consider Gilgamesh almost a waste of time... it's far too fragmentary... and incredibly repetitive in its poetics.

 

(* - pls forgive spelling :p)

Edited by Shiningbrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gannd said:

Hopefully my post is helpful. 

Yes - now we are back on topic! That is very useful to hear. We shall see how things go in a few weeks time when I have a chance to pitch a few different games at them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the whole "bronze age" tag is a bit misleading. For starters the "bronze" metal isn't really bronze, its something similar but not the same. They could just have easily called it iron and called the stuff the Mostali dig up adamantium and it wouldn't have changed a thing - except they couldn't hang the "bronze age" tag on the game.

To me it's all about it being set in an age of mythology, not about the level of technology. I'm not a historian - I've read the illiad and watched a bunch of movies about ancient Greek hero's, and none of it feels quite right for Glorantha. In the stories (and movies) the mythic elements all surround the hero of the story, and advance the plot, but in Glorantha the mythic elements are going on everywhere and often have nothing to do with the hero's. Its about density. I imagine all of the Greek myths happening simultaneously, plus a whole lot more.

The bronze age setting is a bigger problem for me. The game background actually has some elements from the stone age (nomad tribes of hunter gatherers with no crafting technology at all) and some from the iron age (crossbows etc). Add in the factor that everyone has ready access to magic, which has got to cause a massive divergence, and I think it can't really be equated to any era in our history.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Personally I think the whole "bronze age" tag is a bit misleading.

Inasfar as material Greek Bronze Age culture is concerned, yes, and for the same reason the Vikings' Age is inappropriate - no ships. Removing the sea from the events makes all Greek parallels pretty worthless, and that goes for the stories around the Iliad, too. (The Iliad itself alternates between the battlefield and the camps, and doesn't mention the ships much)

 

1 hour ago, Imryn said:

For starters the "bronze" metal isn't really bronze, its something similar but not the same.

Metal availability actually surpasses most of earth's historical ages. Yes, some Gloranthan bronze smithed from gods bones has superior abilities, but cast Gloranthan "brass" (the copper-tin-alloy) should have pretty much the same properties as terrestrial bronze.

 

1 hour ago, Imryn said:

They could just have easily called it iron and called the stuff the Mostali dig up adamantium and it wouldn't have changed a thing - except they couldn't hang the "bronze age" tag on the game.

Not quite. Bronze is not magnetic, for starters. It probably doesn't spark as much as iron does with flint, which would make pyrite crystals the replacement in "flint and steel" igniters.

 

1 hour ago, Imryn said:

To me it's all about it being set in an age of mythology, not about the level of technology.

And that is what Jeff is trying to say when he invokes Bronze Age. What he really means is stories and heroic interactions like told for 1200 BC give or take 2000 years. Note: not necessarily told in 1200 BC, like the Aeneid, Dido in Carthage, or the Iliad were re-told by much later authors, or like the Mabinogion was told at Welsh courts (possibly including the court of Artorius of Britain as in the lovely little in-setting anthology "The High Kings" by Joy Chant).

 

1 hour ago, Imryn said:

I'm not a historian - I've read the illiad and watched a bunch of movies about ancient Greek hero's, and none of it feels quite right for Glorantha. In the stories (and movies) the mythic elements all surround the hero of the story, and advance the plot, but in Glorantha the mythic elements are going on everywhere and often have nothing to do with the hero's. Its about density. I imagine all of the Greek myths happening simultaneously, plus a whole lot more.

All of the Greek heroic age as summed up by Homer and his epigones happens in at most four generations, with a few local outliers (like that snake-limbed king of Athens). All of that stuff is going on pretty much at the same time, one hero's mythic interactions are the backdrop for another's, and the heroes crossing paths only at a limited number of cross-overs. For all its cheesecake anachronisms and blatant mistakes and mis-interpretations, the Hercules TV series featuring Kevin Sorbo (and Xena) aren't the worst pop culture phenomena that transport a bit of the Gloranthan Bronze Age vibe.

Glorantha is a world of demigods, superheroes, but also mortal heroes almost on par with these, and plenty less sinificant actors as normal people. You don't go directly against the gods of the enemy (unless you move into the hero plane), but you go against their temporary avatars when those cults send their rune levels against you. Or you compete with other worshipers of your own deity for the favor of that deity (a situation pretty similar to that of the Iliad).

 

1 hour ago, Imryn said:

The bronze age setting is a bigger problem for me. The game background actually has some elements from the stone age (nomad tribes of hunter gatherers with no crafting technology at all) and some from the iron age (crossbows etc).

This actually is a pretty good summary for the Nordic Bronze Age following the Bronze Age collapse in the Mediterranean and further south and east. Although I take exception at "no crafting technoloy at all", as even our paleolithic ancestors were highly proficient flint knappers and woodworkers, bone and ivory carvers, and even sophisticated alchemists who would produce a birch pitch which was the universal glue of its age and could still be a iable product nowadays.

 

1 hour ago, Imryn said:

Add in the factor that everyone has ready access to magic, which has got to cause a massive divergence, and I think it can't really be equated to any era in our history.

There's also the post-apocalyptic aspect that is missing from most of our history. The Bronze Age collapse was pretty bad, but only on par with the Closing, and no comparison to the Gods War. Late Vingkotling Age survival myths are in the range of the apocalypse or Ragnarök. In part, the magic wielded by the Gloranthans of the Hero Wars are the result of those myths, and the rest is of earlier ones. The Toba catastrophe is too far back in our pre-history to have affected our stories this way, and the other major volcanic incidents or the meteor strike at the end of the Weichselian Glaciation that brought back rather extreme conditions after the ice had been on the retreat for a millennium or two are much weaker than the Greater Darkness. There are the Flood Myths connected to the end of the Ice Age, but again these compare rather to the sinkings of Jrustela, Seshnela, Maniria and Kralorela at the end of the God Learner period, or the greater floods of the Gods War. (The upcoming Great Flood could be another such event.)

There is many an Atlantis in Glorantha. The Brithini pre-history has it. Ernaldela has it. The implosion of the Spike is one. And Nochet is about to become one, I suppose.

Share this post


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...