Anti-glorantha rant to moongose.

[Mixster]

AKAmra wrote:

I tried to give the MRQ Glorantha a quick read, The opening was something about Glorantha is an island floating in a river or some-such. No, I want a spherical world orbiting a sun.

So I supposed historical settings aren't going to fit, as the Earth has only been accepted as not being flat within relatively resent time frame.
No flat discs supported by a small pack of pachyderm...
Flat lozenges surrounded by an egg shapped heaven...
Or flat world carved from the corpse of an elder giant or draconic entity.

The world may be round by modern perspectives, but its more fun to role-play from the perspective of the cultural of your character.

Tell a pack of Dark Age vikings the world is a ball of mud spinning around the sun, they'd think you're the local village idiot

Now to be fair, the world was proven as being round in ancient greece, or at least, it was proved to curve with the same degree of a sphere multiple times.

First there is the eclipse, the only geometrical shape that will always project a circle is a sphere, or a half-sphere. And the Greek observed the shadow cast by the moon during an eclipse to be spherical.

Second is the poles in the ground, if you place two high poles at different latitudes. You can observe the shadow of one of them as being longer than the shadow of the other pole at the same time of day. The ancient greek did this by having someone have identical poles in Alexandria and Athens, and then noting the different in length, switching it up, waiting a year, and doing it again.

Third there is the proof of Horizon, the Iron age Vikings knew this, since there are historical recollection of how to sail by knowing the lay of the land, describing how different heights make you see different things (when you see the Falklands from the look-out in the mast, turn directly between your heading and the north, would be a course for Greenland for example).
The idea is simple, if you are 10 meters above ground you will see farther than if you are 1 or 2 meters above ground. Now there didn't just appear more water from you climbing 10 meters up did there? Logically everyone will get this proof.

The third proof is also why proofable flat worlds doesn't work. Because if the world really is flat, then you would be able to see indefinately, except if there was something blocking your sight, that is not the crust of the earth.
Which is why I completely understand the sentiment to not be playing a flat world.

 

[jarulf]

(when you see the Falklands from the look-out in the mast, turn directly between your heading and the north, would be a course for Greenland for example).

Personally, I'd stop at the Faero Islands instead, and head North West from there.

 

[master of reality]

Now to be fair, the world was proven as being round in ancient greece, or at least, it was proved to curve with the same degree of a sphere multiple times.

First there is the eclipse, the only geometrical shape that will always project a circle is a sphere, or a half-sphere. And the Greek observed the shadow cast by the moon during an eclipse to be spherical.

The Ancient Greeks not only believed that the Earth was a sphere, but around 240 BC, a Greek mathematician named Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's circumference to within 1% of today's accepted value using nothing more than two well placed sticks driven into the ground and geometry.
Nonetheless, many people continued to believe that the Earth was flat until news that ships had successfully circumnavigated the globe became wide spread knowledge.

 

[Exubae]

Yep, 240 BC sounds about right for the Greeks, Aristotle and Pliny the Elder also added their tuppence over the years, but that is only one or two cultures.
It flip-flopped between sphere and flat earth theories 300BC to 1500AD, until all the little problems were resolved, i.e how water stayed on the underside of a sphere etc.

 

[Ultor]

The Romans called the world "orbis terrarum" - the sphere of the lands. FWIW.

On the lack of a horizon in Glorantha, of course you can see until a mountain blocks your way. If you went up somewhere really high, say on Gonn Orta's shoulders, you could see the whole world. Which presumably is why Gonn Orta sits up there.

And sailors, well, how else could the Middle Sea Empire expand so quickly?

 

[Exubae]

On the lack of a horizon in Glorantha, of course you can see until a mountain blocks your way.

I'm not sure were this came (Probably Men of the Sea) from but apparently there is a hazing effect in Glorantha which does reduce visibility to a degree.

 

[hanszurcher]

Now to be fair, the world was proven as being round in ancient greece, or at least, it was proved to curve with the same degree of a sphere multiple times. ...

I think the good folks at the Flat Earth Society might dispute that assumption.

-Hans

 

[Mixster]

Now to be fair, the world was proven as being round in ancient greece, or at least, it was proved to curve with the same degree of a sphere multiple times. ...

I think the good folks at the Flat Earth Society might dispute that assumption.

-Hans

Yeah and the Cult of Cthulhu doesn't believe in the existence of mankind: http://www.cultofcthulhu.net/
But that doesn't make it so.

 

[cthulhudarren]

Now to be fair, the world was proven as being round in ancient greece, or at least, it was proved to curve with the same degree of a sphere multiple times. ...

I think the good folks at the Flat Earth Society might dispute that assumption.

-Hans

Yeah and the Cult of Cthulhu doesn't believe in the existence of mankind: http://www.cultofcthulhu.net/
But that doesn't make it so.

Do they myths and heroquests? I want to incorporate the Cthulhu mythos into my game.

 

[hanszurcher]

... I want to incorporate the Cthulhu mythos into my game.

Me too! Which is why Mongoose needs to consider a RQ setting for Clark Ashton Smith's fantasy worlds (Zothique!). Smith is the most neglected member of the Lovecraft Circle, time to give him some love.

-Hans

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I'm sorry this is slightly off topic but I have to reply to this!

The Mongol stirrup was the single-most important technological advance in world history up to that point. If you doubt this then try thrusting a sharp stick from the back of a horse without stirrups. The Mongols were successful because they were people in possession of the most advanced piece of technological hardware in existence not because they got lucky and everyone else had an off-day.

Firstly: No it wasn't the most important technological advance in world history. I think Fire has that covered, with Irrigation pushing hard for second place. It wasn't even the most important in warfare: it is definitively less important than the domestication of the horse, for example!

Second: Thrusting a sharp stick from the back of a horse without stirrups worked fine. The Persians did it in both their Achaemenid and Sassanian incarnations, the Parthians did it, the Chinese did it, and of course Alexander the Great did it. Saddle design is much more important for heavy cavalry than stirrups.

Thirdly: Stirrups are very useful for endurance and combat, though not as useful in the second as often maintained, but I am not aware that the Mongol stirrup was any better than anybody else's stirrup. The stirrup was invented somewhere on the Eurasian Steppe sometime in the early centuries AD, but by the 9th century it had spread to all major horse using cultures, and the Mongol's adversaries, in Europe and elsewhere, had all been using it for 500 years or so.

Perhaps I may venture some further clarification. It seems necessary given your reply, (and the fact that Mr kintire likes to offer pedantic counter-arguments!). I'll try to make this a brief divergence from the thread.

Firstly: It's odd that you should mention fire because the stirrup is often mentioned as being almost as revolutionary as, say, the wheel, and all those other fundamentals. Putting irrigation above the invention of the wheel is radical, I'll give you that. Now, I did say that it was the most important technical advance up to that point. Which of course should indicate to the reader that I am aware of fire, irrigation, the wheel, iron and all those other goodies.

Funny how someone also said that I was mistaken in using the word 'advanced' to describe the stirrup. I do not subscribe to this way of thinking. A pilum, for instance, is just a counter-balanced bit of wood and metal yet it is in every way, 'advanced' design. You have to look at the effects rather than the raw materials. Often the most simple solution is also the most elegant design.

Secondly: You are entirely wrong, here, I'm afraid. Those ancients used their spears in an overhead thrusting motion. It is only when the stirrup is used can you couch your spear underarm making it a much more effective shock weapon. The design of the saddle helps keep the rider on the horse but does not add much to the shock impact. To diminish the importance of the stirrup is fundamentally incorrect and fairly alarming.

Thirdly: I did not say that the Mongols used the stirrup exclusively. Warfare as any decent historian will know is a combination of weaponry and tactics and the Mongols certainly had both. It was a hugely effective combined arms methodology.

 

[kintire]

Perhaps I may venture some further clarification. It seems necessary given your reply, (and the fact that Mr kintire likes to offer pedantic counter-arguments!).

How exactly is my reponse to you any more pedantic that yours to Rosen? other than that mine is actually accurate of course!

Firstly: It's odd that you should mention fire because the stirrup is often mentioned as being almost as revolutionary as, say, the wheel, and all those other fundamentals.

By who? Its nowhere even close.

Now, I did say that it was the most important technical advance up to that point. Which of course should indicate to the reader that I am aware of fire, irrigation, the wheel, iron and all those other goodies.

And that you think they are less important than the stirrup... which is rubbish.

You are entirely wrong, here, I'm afraid. Those ancients used their spears in an overhead thrusting motion. It is only when the stirrup is used can you couch your spear underarm making it a much more effective shock weapon. The design of the saddle helps keep the rider on the horse but does not add much to the shock impact. To diminish the importance of the stirrup is fundamentally incorrect and fairly alarming.

nope. The saddle, correctly designed, can absorb a lance chrage. its lateral motions it has trouble with, and you can cope even with those.

Thirdly: I did not say that the Mongols used the stirrup exclusively

No one said you did. You did say they invented it, and that this technology was more advanced than the Knightly stirrup. Both false.

Anyone who is interested in the facts of all this can check here:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/sloan.html

We now return you to your previously scheduled thread.

 

[Loz]

STOP!

Please... Stop.

17 pages is enough.

Start another flat earth / stirrup / flat stirrup thread, by all means...

But I think this one's run its course.

 

[Stormwalker]

+1

What Loz sez - please take it to a new thread so I can avoid it

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Yup. I recognise an exercise in futility when I see it.

 

[Faelan Niall]

Yup. I recognise an exercise in futility when I see it.

What? Like your quest for the Ruby Throne. :lol:

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Yup. I recognise an exercise in futility when I see it.

What? Like your quest for the Ruby Throne. :lol:

Mock me not, cousin. I have bound entities from other planes that can consume your mind. Or, at least I did in earlier editions.

 

[Nickbergquist]

Actually pretty much disagree with most of what you said - the setting and its non-D & D quirks (not to mention long history) is a big part of the pull of Runequest 2. the reason i love RQ2 is that it is NOT D & D

Do agree around adventures though, can never have too many of these.

You can play the rules in any setting yuo want already, what does a generic setting add....

I agree that they HAD to make Glorantha. Even if they knew it would not sell,to satisfy the purist. How many companies need to bankrupt to keep this guys happy?. I don't know .

Any way. With this system, me as a Champions and many Rpg systems player where you have to make your own pc, can see endless characters concepts. But a D&D player will not. Not at first glance, which is what you will get.One try. Then they will marked it as either too complicated or lame.

Can I make my own world?. Sure,but isn't that the publishers job?. People don't want to make new worlds. And those who do, you guys, won't change game systems. This guys here are not your target. You already have them. For many years they have known the system is great. Now let help the others see that too.

In others Rpgs you can fill a specific role,from a typical fantasy party. Rogue, fighter,wizard,etc. The beauty of runequest is you can make better characters. Character that can do anything. I find this great. Here you can play,right of the bat, a armor wearing,spell throwing, sneaky ,sword wielding character.

What is good for us veterans,is terrible for first timers. More if they come from better systems in that regard. Theres a reason why D&D is the leader. Is easy to start. When you get a fighter, you start as a very basic character. You get more skills and choices as you get more "exp". The monsters you fight are also more basic. So you have time to learn the game.

In runequest I will have you choosing from 15 combat moves the first time you hit a character. And as much as I love that...you see my point right?.

Your OP was something I more or less agree with, albeit for different reasons. I don't like Glorantha as a GM, but Mongoose has done a good job of keeping it Out of the Core, so to speak. They have/are offering a lot of alternative settings like Elric, Hawkmoon, Deus Vult and Vikings to showcase Runequest's strength. They probably could use a more standardized fantasy setting (I seem to recall that there was at least one sourcebook box set for the original RQ2 that did the same...I remember running one that either wasn't Glorantha or was so removed from it that it seemed generic), if only for people who want something like that. Who knows, maybe Wraith Recon will fit the bill.

As for ducks and other oddities, I like that stuff in RQII and only the absence of a proper gnome (as opposed to an elemental with that name) bugs me. However, I agree with you on this point that some people do get turned off by the duck (and maybe other elements) as it has happened to me personally; I have at least two local gamers who won't touch RQII with a ten foot pole no matter how much I sell it simply because it's got ducks.

That said, getting rid of ducks would be stupid...they are something unique to RQ, and honestly, I see it as a litmus test for gamers: if you can't get over the fact that the game lets you play an anthropomorphic aquatic avian (if the GM allows it) then, well, maybe my games aren't right for you, anyway!

But anyway, if you think RQII is blisteringly hard, I think you might be missing the point of playing a game like this anyway. I have found that the entry-point for new RQers with RQII is pretty close to the same level of skill and understanding that it is for D&D 4E, and much easier to absorb than D&D 3.5 or other current fantasy systems like Legends of Anglerre. You could dumb down RQ but that would be a bad solution. Maybe what you're suggesting is a sort of simpler "introductory book" like Mongoose did for Traveller? That wouldn't be a bad idea.

EDIT: Aaaaaannd then I noticed this post was up to 17 pages so I guess my commentary is a bit tardy!

 

[Psuedosirus]

Nonetheless, many people continued to believe that the Earth was flat until news that ships had successfully circumnavigated the globe became wide spread knowledge.

My understanding is that is a myth. It is simple enough to walk until a landmark disappears over the horizon. The visible objects in the sky are round. Ancient people did not think the world was flat.

Back on point, ducks are a monster/race like any other and can be used or discarded as the GM wishes. I'll reiterate the need for a RQ world-building booklet with a sample fantasy (but still ancient-flavored) setting. I've heard too many times "If RQ is so great, how come I've never heard of it?" (groan)

 

[Gevrin]

Can I make my own world?. Sure,but isn't that the publishers job?. People don't want to make new worlds.

I see that people may not want to make their own worlds but "the publisher's job"? That's similar to the situation with music these days - most people have become consumers of other people's music encouraged by businesses keen to sell us product. Gone are most of the pianos or fiddles in the front room. C'mon people, make your own music - and your own fantastic worlds!

As for ducks and other oddities, I like that stuff in RQII and only the absence of a proper gnome (as opposed to an elemental with that name) bugs me. However, I agree with you on this point that some people do get turned off by the duck (and maybe other elements) as it has happened to me personally; I have at least two local gamers who won't touch RQII with a ten foot pole no matter how much I sell it simply because it's got ducks.

I've been running RQ since @1980 and my players have never met a duck. Not 'cos I don't like them, I've always like the zany Californianisms of RQ. They've just never entered the stories. And the effect on my Glorantha - none at all. As ever YGMV but people not trying Glorantha solely because of Ducks is simply narrow-minded. Still it's their game (or not as the case may be!)

All IMHO of course (I must be in an evangelical frame of mind today :wink: )

Cheers

Dave