Anti-glorantha rant to moongose.

[PhilHibbs]

I think certain D&D features, like ilithids are trademarks of Wizards, and are copyrighted.

I don't agree with the point he was making, but, I'm fairly certain he was not saying that MRQ should have Illithids. He was making a comparison, albeit one that I don't really understand.

 

[Dan True]

I think certain D&D features, like ilithids are trademarks of Wizards, and are copyrighted.

I don't agree with the point he was making, but, I'm fairly certain he was not saying that MRQ should have Illithids. He was making a comparison, albeit one that I don't really understand.

Yep, I have no interest in seeing stats for an RQ Illithid. As my games are often not very combat oriented I don't crave that much monsters anyway, but some mosnters (or a guide to creating monsters) would definately be good for a DM Handbook.

What I am saying is that getting some resources to help make adventures for RQ2 when one is used to d&d would be book I would definitely buy. Things like traps, magic items, ideas for encounters (encounter tactics or "using CM to the fullest when you're a goblin" for example) and so on. Stuff from people that are experienced with RQ2 and can share their resources. Some way to get a "challenge rating" would also be nice.
Although I would like to stress the point that it should not just be a "DM's Guide"-copy. It should stick to the RQ2 themes, like that way NPCs are treated as living beings and not as blocks of hp/xp... it should be a book to help us who is making the transition d&d -> RQ2, making our adventures use the full potential of RQ2 and no just be d&d-themed play, while still giving us rules to easily build a dungeon if that is what our players want.

- Dan

 

[daxos232]

The message that I thought was inteded was that the glorantha monster were considered lame and that attempts should be made to make ones just like, or similar to, the ones in D&D.

However with Dan True's latest post I can see that it was a misinterpretation.

I agree with your idea about the book and that it should still retain the MRQ2 style, and not simply copy directly from D&D.

Also that video you linked for Dragon Age 2 was awesome. I'd like to see if the game can actually have gameplay that good. MRQ2 definitely can do it in tabletop form.

 

[Jujitsudave]

I can see the poster's point but I'm not quite as hostile toward Glorantha. I simply have no interest in the setting but that goes for most fantasy settings. I'd like to know what sets it apart from every other setting out there. At least it doesn't totally rip off Tolkein like so many others do. I would actually play it if someone is running a game, but as of right now I'm running my own setting and don't have the time.

Fortunately there are alternatives. Mongoose has recently put out the Vikings book which helps one run a game in that type of Dark/Age to Early Medieval setting that only RQ can support properly. I'm particularly interested in Deus Vult as well, but I'll get into that someday.

An awsome trailer for Dragon Age 2. If only Mongoose was supporting the tabletop version instead of Green Ronin who, in my opinion, is wasting their opportunity to capitalize on it with a gross lack of materials.

 

[Vile]

I'm okay with Glorantha but I'm sure for every person who can get into it there are ten who will put it down at first glance. If your first introduction to the game was the RQ3 version of Apple Lane, for example, what would you have thought? That it's some kind of Disney (tm) game? I wouldn't say that Mongoose ought to abandon Glorantha in favour of a vanilla fantasy setting, but it should certainly explore more mainstream fantasy setting ideas from a marketing viewpoint. Just like the Traveller thread, people are advocating that you should use other setting books if you don't like Glorantha, but that makes no sense from a commercial viewpoint.

Of course, only Mongoose knows what sells best for them. They just need to have some comparable data in order to make the decision as to which choice of setting is best for them. Perhaps the point is moot because the rights to the RuneQuest brand come with Glorantha attached (I don't know)?

 

[AKAmra]

I don't care how much Mongoose supports Glorantha, I agree with the OP's dislike for Glorantha but understand the ties to the RQ system. I've tried reading some other sources to drum-up some love, I could swear I even read a novel or e-novel at some point, but it's a no-go.

Mongoose RQ seems to be branching out into other settings at a decent pace. The historical supplements are nice and I like the Deus Vult setting. I'm still hoping for a RQ Conan.

Given the overall excellent reviews that RQII is getting as a system, maybe a popular setting is the missing piece to the puzzle to boost RQII's sales. I don't think anyone would try to argue that Glorantha is that setting.

I just think it would be a shame for RQII to disappear or be considered a failure due to lack of sales.

 

[Mikko Leho]

All monsters from Glorantha that are in the monster coliseum have that corny feeling Chonchon, Fachan,Grotaron,Ducks

Chonchon is a Chilean mythic creature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chonchon

Fachan is a Scottish mythic creature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fachen

Ducks are homage to Carl Barks and Walt Disney.

 

[Vile]

I have to admit that, back in the 80s, I tippexed out every instance of "duck" in my RQ3 books and overwrote them with "goblin" instead. I felt much better afterwards.

But that doesn't address why nobody ever complains about jack o'bears. I men, bears with a pumpkin for a head ... :?:

 

[Mikko Leho]

Ducks are big here in Finland, you cannot go to a grocery store or a super market without seeing racks full of Donald Duck comic books and the weekly Donald Duck magazine is the most popular publication in the country. If one could someday publish another Finnish edition of RQ, it should have a duck on the cover.

 

[andyl]

All monsters from Glorantha that are in the monster coliseum have that corny feeling Chonchon, Fachan,Grotaron,Ducks
[/q]

As someone has said a couple of those are from real mythology.

Also D&D has its share of lame monsters. Maybe worse than anything that RQ has.

Your issue seems to be that Mongoose doesn't have the particular setting you want to play in. Not just type of setting - I believe that most types of fantasy setting are covered. Historical, low, high, eclectic, post-medieval.

 

[Dan True]

Also D&D has its share of lame monsters. Maybe worse than anything that RQ has.

Oh yes... I still have nightmares featuring endless columns of oozes and constructs from monster manual 3.

 

[PhilHibbs]

The message that I thought was inteded was that the glorantha monster were considered lame and that attempts should be made to make ones just like, or similar to, the ones in D&D.

I interpreted it as a call for more interesting monsters, as in "D&D monsters are more interesting than RQ, eg Illithid vs Walktapus", although it seems a very arbitrary pair to compare, just because they have tentacles. I would counter that with "orcs vs tusk riders" and declare a victory for RQ, but again that's an arbitrary strawman.

 

[Nez]

How anyone can describe Glorantha as corny is beyond me. It's dark and malevolent as hell itself. I think the problem sometimes arises from its impenetrability. It takes a bit of brain power to get into and grasp fully but for me, this is its appeal. It speaks to anyone who has an interest in myth or the esoteric and tends not to appeal to those who like things straight forward. It's completely wrong to make a judgement on it without reading a thing though. I can only congratulate mongoose on what they've done with it. Ive been playing in Glorantha for more than 20 years and returned to MRQII after a hefty break from gaming in general. Glorantha is better than ever. Runequest 2 rocks. If you havnt got the brain cells to invest in Glorantha, and it is a serious intellectual investment, there's always the other settings. Long live the Second Age and may Malkion bless mongoose.

 

[Jujitsudave]

Just because someone is not interested in Glorantha, does not make them stupid. Pretentiousness does not help your cause.
Like one poster had mentioned, Glorantha seems like "The Old Boy's Club". Speaking as someone new to it all, I feel the same way. Glorantha is simply not a setting that i'm all that interested in and I don't want to invest in it, but the MRQ2 ruleset is second to none.
I'd be happy if Glorantha is one of many campaign options that is rightly well supported, but not a flagship for MRQ2 nor is it the face for MRQ rules. I can't critisize Mongoose for it though. They have been making other options. Vikings is very interesting and Deus Vult is also my cup of tea moreso than Glorantha. For now though, I will continue to run my own setting.
From a sales viewpoint, MRQ would best be served as being marketed as a set of rules that is a powerful alternative to D&D's aging and unrealistic d20 system and atrocious 4e. If new players like myself immediately see MRQ2 as an extension of Glorantha, it is off-putting.

 

[soltakss]

We need a proper fantasy setting. I have not played glorantha. But everything I see from it,does not help. Ducks? really?. Dragon friends? thats a cult?.

There isn't much point getting into a "Glorantha is Rubbish" vs "Glorantha is Great" debate here as nobody will win. Personally, I think that Glorantha is a good setting and have played in it for nearly 30 years. However, I also think that a lot of Glorantha has been neutered and gets lost in purist arguments - I play Glorantha for what it is, a detailed, rich, varied and novel setting not as some idealised purist mythological setting.

If you have never read anything Gloranthan and have not played in Glorantha then you probably won't ever get it.

I have always felt that glorantha and myths is what holds back Runequest. A great system I'm in love with. If you want to get new players they need to build a bridge from D&D they can cross. You do that by putting good things in the other side of that bridge.Cool things.Thats what Paizo did. Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlACgYHtWCI

This is how I see fights in Runequest. Characters that can cast magic and fight. Rich combat detailed.

Good video. That is exactly how I play RQ. It's a Broo Hero fighting a Warrior-Mage. It even has hit locations, so it is proper RQ.

I don't see your point. If that's how I've always played RQ (and that is how I've played RQ in Glorantha) then how does the video support an argument against Glorantha?

Here is a list of ideas:

- Art is the key to getting players in the mood. You already got the system, now get some decent art,for classes. There are many super talented amateur artist out there who would make the art free if you publish them. Do a internet contest,you have nothing to loose.

Personally. and I know that a lot of people disagree with me, I can take or leave art in an RPG supplement. However, if that's what attracts people to games/supplements then, fair enough, get good artists on board. Merrie England had excellent artwork but was still a niche product.

-Get rid of the corny stuff!. Be cool!.

What's corny? A barbarian warrior wandering into a town and slaughtering everyone, a half-elven thief or a wizard who can't use a sword or wear armour? That's corny to me.

Glorantha has dragon-riding warriors, dragons that can destroy a country (not a building or a city but an entire country), herd of centaurs running majestically across the plains and much, much more. Want Amazons? Barbarians? Kill-crazy nutters? Wizards in plate armour? Thieves who can slip through cracks in a wall? 150m tall giants? Glorantha has all those and more.

But, that isn't really the point. If you want a setting then you can take stuff from other settings and use them.

-We have a loyal very creative fanbase,lets use them. What they need if a official format for adventure making, encounters and things like that.Why?. Adventures are the key to getting new people to GM and introduce their game group to Runequest. But not many people will try to make an adventure of a game they don't know. Lets make the transition easy.

MRQI has an SRD that can still be used. OK, so we can't call the products RuneQuest using that SRD, but we can make supplements that can be used with RQ (or BRP or OpenQuest) with very little effort.

Is that what you are looking for?

That's the kind of thing I'd like to see. Simple scenarios, little towns and cities. Towers full of Undead. Things that could be used in multiple settings.

However, I very much doubt if that's what Mongoose are after in their catalogue.

There have been discussions here and over at BRP Central, about the SRD and OGL and whether it is a good thing. Many people on the forums think that having to much stuff published will weaken the game and dilute it in some way. I don't agree. I think that having many generic scenarios or NPCs or whatever is a very good idea and I would like RQ to be available again via the OGL. It probably won't happen, but that doesn't really matter.

any way, lets make this mother... main stream!

That's easier said than done.

If you have many generic supplements produced by third parties then people might buy those to use in their own settings. But what good would that do?

Companies like Mongoose of Chaosium know that settings are good for business. People find a setting they like and buy more stuff for it. Those repeat sales are good for the company.

Buying licences for settings is expensive, unfortunately. Mongoose had Slaine, Lhankmar, Glorantha and the Eternal Champion. It has produced Deus Vult, Land of Samura, Vikings and Pirates as Real World settings. What should it do? Buy more licences and hope that people buy RQ supplements?

In any case, which licences would they buy? I think that Mongoose needs a Sci Fi setting for RQ, but that won't happen while they have the Traveller Licence. Could they afford to buy licences for the computer game settings? Probably not and even if they could they would probably not be able to cover the cost in sales. So, that means they would be looking at niche licences that are fairly cheap and would probably only attract those fans of that setting who are RPGers.

What is the answer? I don't know. I am not in the RPG-Publishing business, I write software for a living.

Over the years, I've tried to support RQ and Glorantha in whatever ways that I can. I have a website that has a fair amount of fairly generic stuff as well as Glorantha-specific material. I have written material for HeroQuest (Mythic Russia) and for RQ/BRP (Merrie England). What else can I do?

Back to you ...

 

[languagegeek]

How anyone can describe Glorantha as corny is beyond me. It's dark and malevolent as hell itself.

OK, but at first glance it came off as corny to me. As I mentioned elsewhere, I've had the MRQII corebook from its inception, and it has become the focus for all my fantasy gaming since - I do think it's that good, and I would suspect no one here would argue with me about this.

Point: I want more people to buy MRQII.

* For reasons I mentioned in my ramble in the other thread, Glorantha is unapproachable for many new players IMO.

* If the new players have the patience and perseverance, they will likely find lots from Cults of Glorantha that they can swipe and put into their own world. But to have Glorantha front and centre seems to be a turn-off for some.

* If you don't like Glorantha, I'd still suggest Cults of Glorantha is worth considering if cults are going to play an important rôle in your campaign, at least as a PDF; I'm almost shocked about how good it is. At first I thought, can't I have a cults book that isn't Glorantha? Now I'm thinking, the hero's journey is universal, the collective unconsciousness produces the same stories whether it's in fantasy Glorantha or real life.

* Maybe "read it and you'll like it, trust me" isn't a good sales tactic. How can you make me want to buy setting materials as an impulse buy right off the shelf. What's *awesome* about Glorantha. Play that up, it's the mythology that convinced me to give it 2nd and 3rd looks.

*Get Vikings, it rocks and is useful beyond a Vikings campaign (Get BRP Rome, get the Greece setting when it comes out too.) I've got no Vikings or Ducks in my world, but both books have proven invaluable. MRQII is wonderful because it is modular, it's *so* easy to take something here, something there, ignore this, ignore that, and the game doesn't break. I'm using Viking's Seidr magin in my neolithic setting, who knew? Maybe this should be stressed over and over again, that MRQII was designed to be modified and customized; it's not that the writers are being lazy and asking you to do all the work. The detail the writers have included is deep and extensive. In comparison, take clerics out of D&D and the whole game becomes unplayable.

* Instead of a Monster Coliseum pt 2 or something, I'd rather have a complete guide on how to convert monsters (not from any specific system) or make my own. Traps, diseases, curses, spirits, etc. could all use some fleshing out. I don't think a big list is as useful as the tools to make my own. Teaching me how to fish and all that.

* As for challenge ratings, I'm not so sure these worked that well in D&D anyway. Typically, I'll start off with whatever monster or NPC I want to use for plot/cultural reasons. Then, as battle commences, I can either modify the monster on the fly if it's too easy or hard, or the party can flee, be defeated, or win easily. I think retreating and defeats are great plot devices.

* Lots of gamers are geography buffs. Quality maps are great ways to help people judge books by their covers.

How come I can't write any short posts. I'll try better next time.

 

[cerebro]

Good video. That is exactly how I play RQ. It's a Broo Hero fighting a Warrior-Mage. It even has hit locations, so it is proper RQ.

I don't see your point. If that's how I've always played RQ (and that is how I've played RQ in Glorantha) then how does the video support an argument against Glorantha?

Thats a RQ2 fight,in any world. Not Glorantha.

Its matters little if the lame monsters is so real it has social security number, legend o tradition behind it. It is still lame. And D&D having lame monster doesn't mean glorantha is cool. Is not D&D Vs Glorantha.

Is about using this great system for something better. I want people to understand that "but you can takes this setting and play in it." Is not an answer. I know that. Also, theres nothing in Glorantha that I think is too complex. Is a game from the 70's. Where fantasy was not as develop as it is today visually. Is like comparing Old Traveller aliens Vs Startrek aliens visually.

 

[Deleriad]

I think the underlying issue here is that as I understand it the most common way of playing rpgs is in homebrew worlds that borrow bits and pieces from all over the place. Sometimes they're hugely complicated other times they're just a backdrop for adventuring.

The problem with Glorantha and, to an extent Eternal Champion, is that they're very idiosyncratic, very detailed and very internally coherent. That makes it quite hard to extract bits for other worlds or simply to use as a backdrop because the background gets pushed so strongly to the foreground.

One of the many good things about Pavis Rises is that it is full of scenarios that can be adapted to other worlds yet Pavis itself is a distinctly unusual place that is very hard to set in another world.

What RQII lacks is an accessible, simple setting from which it is easy to grab stuff. The historicals such as Vikings work like that a bit but so far the most accessible setting I've seen is Clockwork & Chivalry which can be raided for good ideas and comes with an ongoing campaign. Now I don't know how well C&C is selling but it is presumably doing well enough for them and I do reckon if there was a C&C style product for Glorantha or even "Generic Fantasy World"(TM) that it could sell like hot cakes. Living Glorantha could have done that but it is has languished quite badly so far.

 

[Nez]

Just because someone is not interested in Glorantha, does not make them stupid.

Thats not what I was trying to say. Youve read me wrong Dave. For that I sincerely apologise. I believe RPGs never appeal to stupid people. My point, albeit put across with the clarity and subtlety of a T Rex is that I think Glorantha takes more investment than most settings to get the best out of and as I stated for that reason can seem impenetrable to the uninitiated; it took me years to get my head round and understand but I believe its well worth the effort. It is however, awesome that everyone agrees that MRQ2 is one hell of a system and its always good to see a new generation of players and GMs enjoying something that I've loved passionately for a long time. Again, no offence intended.

 

[cerebro]

Just because someone is not interested in Glorantha, does not make them stupid.

Thats not what I was trying to say. Youve read me wrong Dave. For that I sincerely apologise. I believe RPGs never appeal to stupid people. My point, albeit put across with the clarity and subtlety of a T Rex is that I think Glorantha takes more investment than most settings to get the best out of and as I stated for that reason can seem impenetrable to the uninitiated; it took me years to get my head round and understand but I believe its well worth the effort. It is however, awesome that everyone agrees that MRQ2 is one hell of a system and its always good to see a new generation of players and GMs enjoying something that I've loved passionately for a long time. Again, no offence intended.

I do love RQ2,a lot. I have been playing a homebrew version for more than 10 years.