Changes. New things. Revisions. Reimaginings.

[Dead Blue Clown]

Are any of these things allowed?

Now, I don't have a lot of time to go into this. I'm massively busy this week, but I wanted to post this as fast as possible anyway. It was either this or answer a dozen PMs, so I hope I chose wisely, if perhaps impolitely, in doing this.

What if a writer or an artist working on Glorantha has an idea for something that either contradicts, alters or adds to a previous edition? Now, yes, there will always be people that reject it out of hand, and trust me, those are the people I've been warned about. But at what point does "make good changes" become "make very, very few changes" before becoming "change nothing" or "just reprint the old stuff"?

Because that's not going to happen. It can't, and it shouldn't. Everything changes with each edition, it's the nature of RPGs and a bunch of other jazz to boot.

For example, early RQ2 trolls were not the trolls of RQ3, yet the trolls of MRQ are attacked because their noses look different. They've gone from spindly, ragged human-looking guys, to the commonly-accepted format, to the common format with beards and stupid hair...but despite all these changes, some of which are clearly huge, the fact that this new edition changes their noses has a few people up in arms.

This is not a thread to discuss that. This is a thread to discuss what, if anything, you as a fan are willing to see change. Because the resistance to this is something I've seen in no other RPG line, and despite the fact I was warned about it by a certain someone - a certain someone who avoids online Glorantha talk pretty much entirely because of certain fans - I wasn't ready for it to this degree.

Now, I have no problem with MRQ criticisms, constructive or not. Hell, I have my own; probably more than you because I'm closer to the source material. I work with it every day, and you know how familiarity makes every tiny flaw stand out in something. You should see the notes in the margins of my oldest White Wolf books. The scrawls there could be a rulebook of their very own.

But some of the criticism I've seen is here...frankly, it's just petty. Not all, not most, but defintely some.

But, see, here's the deal. I think I've got some neat ideas for stuff in Glorantha. I worked hard, lucked out and studied up to get in a position where I can now make them happen, and I intend to do just that - which is what every previous Gloranthan writer before me has thought. I want to retell the old stuff that I love, and add more to it, reimagining little things along the way.

I'm not talking about sweeping changes across the board, I'm talking about new customs or rituals or traditions that Gloranthan races practice that have never been seen in print before, or minor physical traits that make a race cooler/scarier/more interesting/more fun/more mythical/more fantastical/more whatever.

To use the troll example again, and while I prefer the RQ3/Trollpak muzzle-snouts, the fact of the matter is that RQ2 trolls looked immensely different to RQ3 ones, and even in RQ3 they looked different in some books where the art was bad. So why were all of these changes allowed, yet the newest one is not? [THIS IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION TO MAKE A POINT - PLEASE DON'T ANSWER IT OR TURN THE THREAD INTO A DISCUSSION OF IT.]

I want my vision to fall in with the established mythos. I've been careful to speak with Greg Stafford about that several times. I'm not in this to go against the grain, I'm in it to add my ideas, do some new stuff, maybe rework some older stuff that I think never worked, and become part of the Gloranthan gestalt as it stands today and in the future.

So I ask you this:

At what point are the writers and artists behind this actually allowed to use their own creativity, and at what point does it rub you, personally, the wrong way?

 

[Rurik]

I vote for snout over pig face.

 

[Rurik]

Now for a serious post.

The answer will be different for each Glorantha fan. Some Change is OK, Greg does it all the time. Some of his changes have been met with a lot of fan Hostility (Elmal for instance).

At the same time the world will stagnate if writers are afraid to create anything new. There is so much material on Glorantha that has been written yet so much of the world still remains undetailed - there is still a lot of room for good new material that does not step on existing canon.

I for one DON'T want just a reprinting of old materials. So much of the early AH stuff was just a rehash of RQ2 stuff. I was very excited when I found out about the Second Age age setting for this reason. I think new customs and whatnot can be cool, and there is always the "it's the second age - myths and history change over time" explanation (unfortunately overused IMHO).

One of the big problems with the accessibility of the world is the past contradictions. As a setting it intimidates some players or potential GM's - they are afraid of players pulling up some old piece of lore that contradicts their information or setting. So it is important to try to stick with canon whenever possible.

All of this brings me to my point:

Changes to existing Glorantha should be made with a purpose. They should be made out of a love for the world and a desire to improve it. I think most people can live with that.

Changes out of sloppiness or material that contradicts existing lore without adding to the world should never happen. Changing a timeline because you didn't do any research is bad. Not just because it is sloppy but it adds to and reinforces that negative association Glorantha has of being inconsistent.

Take the Balazar example in the Glorantha Second Age book. It is mentioned before Balazar ever existed. No biggy - a mistake - but it should be corrected in errata. It would be one thing if he was rewriting the history of the region and Balazar and adding to the world (though I hope some explanation for the discrepancy would be provided), but that is not the case here.

I think any change that makes the world seem more like a mainstream generic fantasy setting will be met with much flaming.

And don't mess with noses, people hate that.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

I feel for you.

You're doing your best to give what you genuinely feel is good stuff to the fans, and running a big risk of getting hauled over burning coals for it.

Anyway, as an old school Glorantha-person, I have personally got no issue with any changes. Discussion of why some people might hate changes removed.

Greg himself has used his own artistic license in the past. Changes are a matter of personal taste, and we're not talking about defiling the Sistine Chapel here. It's the Second Age for crying out loud, and it's only natural to expect that some things will be different. Previous RQs focussed on a very small piece of the world, and all of Glorantha can't be like Prax. Even regional variations between species are part of the Real World, so why can't Glorantha be the same? Why can't the Trolls of Guhan be different to the Trolls of Dagori Inkarth? If the worst comes to the worst, a change can always be explained away as God Learner meddling, with the natural order reasserting itself afterwards.

So... BRING IT ON!

 

[B_Steele]

Aaron, I applaud your bravery in opening this thread.

That being said, I personally feel writing for an established canon is alot like making dinner for a team of chefs. They will always know the old recipes and have their own takes on it, and no matter how good it tastes...it is unlikely to be exactly right.

Having worked for Babylon 5 and Conan before getting professionally into Glorantha, it has always been this way. You get to add your personal love and interests into the game, making your own dent in the genre, and sit back and hope that the other fans --fans just like you are-- like what you have done enough to use it, quote it, make it part of their next argument against this or that in their local game store.

Basically, I do what I can to avoid glaring changes just to be different (which I felt that a lot of 3rd Ed Vampire did Aaron, you White Wolf master you!!!), but enjoy adding a fresh coat of paint wherever possible.

You will never make everyone happy, just as we are forever going to be making mistakes in someone's (often our own in hindsight) eyes, but all we can do is hope to do our best and put as much heart into our work as we had when we first cracked open the genre to begin with.

It is a labour of love, but it all makes it worthwhile when you hear someone raving about your work when they don't know who you are at a game store, or when an old ironclad fan says something as nice as 'I really liked your take on X.'

I'm rambling...aren't I?

Back to the question. Change is good so long as it is not violent and arbitrary, especially if it might need to be re-explained away later just to fit existing story (HAN SHOT FIRST DAMMIT!). Luckily with Glorantha, we do have the space between the Ages and the God Learners mucking about to help us mould things...but I agree, that can only go so far too.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled posters...

Bry

 

[Newtus]

I take the view that Glorantha 2nd Age is Mongooses' intepretation of Glorantha - COMPLETLY. If I don't like something I'll ignore it or vote with my feet.

While I've done the former with a couple of things I've found not to my taste, I'm still here on the later point

As long as the 'essense' of Glorantha is maintained, such as its a world of magic not technology shaped by its myths and everything has its unique twist on standard fantasy troupes I couldn't give a rats ass what you do with the holy cow that is 'cannon'

If you look carefully enough the whole published cannon is pretty broad in its strokes anyway.

 

[Deleriad]

The Greeks have a word for it.
YGWV.

Every fan will have something that rubs them up the wrong way and there's nothing more sensitive than a fan of a property that is suddenly back into publication. For example: Dr. Who. I love the new series to bits. It's everything I loved in the old show times ten. Yet there are a minority of Dr. Who fans who hate it. hate it with a passion. The new show is dumbed down, not sci-fi, pandering to the masses, too contemporary and so on.

Now, the second age setting is a great idea. It gives massive room for creativity because at the end of the second age, the world is reset - again. It means that you can take risks and explore ideas because if you don't, what's the point of doing it? Every writer worth their salt has to have a creative vision (or be a hack) and has to follow that creative vision. Every word you write will upset someone, the tone you choose will upset another and so it will go. If, though, you have talent, an obvious love for the setting, and the skin of a rhino then most of those who don't like your personal vision will accept it for what it is and get on with working on their personal vision and you will get more praise than petulance. Of course the praise will most be quietly given while the petulant ones will kevitch loudy and unceasingly until they make themselves sick.

Of course if you don't have a vision beyond dashing out maximum wordage in minimum time that would be disappointing. And, quite frankly, if I were writing extensive Gloranthan material for MRQ I would not read these boards. I would ask someone to summarise for me occasionally.

 

[iamtim]

I also applaud you for bringing this up, if only because I've wanted to but have lacked the testicular fortitude to do so.

I say go forth and make your changes. I've never been a Gloranthaphile but I know that Glorantha has proven itself over time to be a mutable entity. To quibble over troll snouts or duck feathers seems... trivial and inane.

I'd much rather have new or different stuff coming out of Mongoose. If I want to play RQ2/3 with RQ2/3's Glorantha, I can do that just fine with my old RQ3 boxed sets, thankyouverymuch.

I mean, my god, it's a troll's snout! It's not the end of the world!

 

[smiorgan]

First, I want to voice my support for the two Mongoose writers that participate in these forum.

They're clearly doing their best with a lot of passion, love and respect for RQ and Glorantha and being here they end up taking a lot of undeserved flak by association even if most of us do realize that they are not responsible of the publication schedule, page count of books, editing, playtesting, art, ...etc

For one, I don't like the Lankhmar cover: DBC you suck as a writer! :lol:

Second, DBC made a point about the different appearance of Trolls in (early) RQ2 and RQ3. There are a lot of similar things: RQ2 Dwarves and Dragonewts using spirit magic and divine magic instead of sorcery and dragon magic is one. That said I like the snout better

I look forward to see new quality stuff. Minor contradictions, additions, changes in perspective are not a problem. If you change the Balazar timeline in order to create a cool Second Age Griffin Mountain adventure that's cool. A random change in date could be a very minor annoyance.

What I would find depressing is the watering down of stuff that was cool and detailed and the addition of random generic fantasy tropes. If trolls become simply brutes and acquire regeneration and take double damage from fire... that would annoy me.

 

[Kagan Altar]

But, see, here's the deal. I think I've got some neat ideas for stuff in Glorantha. I worked hard, lucked out and studied up to get in a position where I can now make them happen, and I intend to do just that - which is what every previous Gloranthan writer before me has thought. I want to retell the old stuff that I love, and add more to it, reimagining little things along the way.

I'm not talking about sweeping changes across the board, I'm talking about new customs or rituals or traditions that Gloranthan races practice that have never been seen in print before, or minor physical traits that make a race cooler/scarier/more interesting/more fun/more mythical/more fantastical/more whatever.

By all means do, Aaron! I too would like to be able to contribute to the fantastic Gloranthan world at some point. The sooner the better. And I think that we all ought to think about Glorantha as a living, breathing world with traditions and cultures that change and evolved with time. So retroactively, in the Second Age, some things will obviously be different.

The modifications I've seen in GSA are great so far. They make me feel that the world is truly breathing, and not some kind of snapshot canon put in stasis. That's what makes me love the book so far, because I love to read through it with my old Gloranthan materials and see the believable contradictions, changes in focus.

The key to design such elements I think is to think backwards, to look at Glorantha at the time of the Hero Wars and wonder how the events of the Second Age shaped this world. Then, try to culturally substract or alter what would have been added or altered over the centuries that separate the Two Empires from the Lunar Conquest.

That's really exciting intellectually speaking. To me at least!

I'm eager to see what you come up with. Please persevere. Here's one fan who appreciates the creativity and effort put by designers into their project. If you love the stuff you do, it'll show in the finished product. No question about it!

I want my vision to fall in with the established mythos. I've been careful to speak with Greg Stafford about that several times. I'm not in this to go against the grain, I'm in it to add my ideas, do some new stuff, maybe rework some older stuff that I think never worked, and become part of the Gloranthan gestalt as it stands today and in the future.

So I ask you this:

At what point are the writers and artists behind this actually allowed to use their own creativity, and at what point does it rub you, personally, the wrong way?

Again, I think one of the main things about Glorantha is that it brings together two very different sides of the spectrum in terms of fantasy and wonderfully blends them together: on one hand, you have this high magic feel in which everyone uses it, it permeates reality at every turn and defines it in more than many significant, meaningful ways, and on the other hand, you can relate to the Gloranthan people on a very human, primal level that makes you feel believable fictional experiences, hopes, passions, pains, and all the mythology that comes from this experience of life.

That's the key to me.

When you get that as a designer and author, you can take the Gloranthan material and extrapolate from it, deducting for instance what the people and places would have been in the Second Age, and what type of people would have existed then that would not exist later in the Hero Wars.

 

[WildHealer]

Excellent question, DBC - thanks for asking it.

I think the answer is a no-brainer. Imagine, for a moment, that instead of Glorantha you're writing for an RPG set in Tolkien's Middle Earth. That should clarify things in your head. Now, if you start saying that Orcs have wings, or that Galadriel is a bloke, or that Sauron's this really cool magical billy-goat with blue skin, you're going to be told by LOTS of Tolkien fans (nay, scholars ) that you're just plain wrong. It's nothing personal; the world of Middle Earth has existed before you started writing about it, and you have to accept certain universally accepted "truths" about the literary creation.

Now, if you, say, decide you want to write in the Second Age of Middle-Earth, you have quite a lot of leeway. Orcs will still not have wings - in general - but you may have a strange mutant clan of orcs in the mountains somewhere which do. Galadriel will still not be a bloke - best leave that one. As for Sauron - well, JRRT himself wrote quite a bit about Sauron in the Second Age and didn't mention the goat-thing or the blue skin, so you should probably steer clear on that front too.

You get the point - there are boundaries. You can create AROUND already established "facts", but you can't just change them willy-nilly. You can create new stuff - but you should be careful to preserve the overall flavour and internal consistency of the world (no hobbit spaceships...).

I'll stop there. Glorantha is the same - it's a literary creation which you can't do what you like with. If you do, it'll just get relegated to the "cranky" pile of fan-writings by those who love the world Stafford (and LOTS of other people) has created. If you jump into the spirit of things, you'll be warmly welcomed by the legions of other Gloranthaphiles who are even now actively writing new Gloranthan stuff.

Have you hung around the Gloranthan forums? If not, introduce yourself, get chatting. Before you know it you'll have more proofreaders, fact-checkers, consistency-gurus, etc, than you can shake a stick at.

Good luck - new Glorantha stuff is an EXCELLENT prospect!

 

[mthomason]

Once upon a time, there was a TV show. A show I watched religiously. A show I loved.

A science fiction show about the survivors of twelve human colonies, searching for Earth.

About three years ago, I heard this nasty rumour that someone was daring to screw with it, and to produce a "re-imagining". Things were going to be changed, damn they were even giving Dirk Benedict's role to a girl...

About two and a half years ago, Sky TV got the rights to air the Battlestar Galactica miniseries first. They made the most of these rights, and reran it about three or four times within a month of the first airing. I caught what was probably the last rerun, as I knew I'd kick myself if I didn't watch it at least once. I approached it with the idea of laughing at the mess they made, so I wouldn't get too offended at how they had mutilated it.

I'd recorded it, and probably watched that recording maybe six times over the next week. I was absolutely amazed at what they had done with the original idea, turning it into an amazing piece of television that had absolutely blown me away.

I spent the next couple of weeks reading bad reviews from people who had ended up feeling the way I had assumed I was going to feel. I felt kinda disgusted at some of the things people were saying, and went as far as writing to EJO, as I felt someone ought to show some support for the great work he and everyone else had done on the new show. I was lucky enough to receive a reply, thanking me and mentioning the fact that there was an entire new series planned based off the miniseries (something I hadn't realised at the time).

The new version of Battlestar Galactica is now at the absolute top of my "must watch" list. They screwed with something I loved. They ended up improving it.

Now, I never played the original RuneQuest, so I'm in the position of being able to evaluate this one for what it is, rather than what it isn't.

What it is, for me, is a open system very close to a certain other system I'm familiar with, close enough that I can now write for something other than d20 without having to get permission from anyone. It's a system that looks like there's going to be tons of ongoing support so I'm not going to be left with a single-volume RPG that glosses over a setting and leaves me to fill in 99% of the information myself. It's a system that, when I'm wearing one of my other hats, is selling rather well. It's a system that I like because I'm happy with it from all three of my viewpoints - as a writer, a gamer, and a retailer.

And to answer the original question - I couldn't care less what you mess with in the Glorantha setting

 

[burdock]

Hi there Aaron

here are my favourite lines by my favourite poet:

"We tire of the flame of the meteor, before it can fade and flee;
And the flame of the blue star of twilight, hung low on the rim of the
sky,
Has awaked in our hearts, my beloved, a sadness that may not die."

I love these words so much that I would never dream of changing any of them. There is nothing to stop me, however, from writing more poetry of a similair ilk.

I imagine it is a similair situation with you and Glorantha. With all the Gloranthan work you are doing I imagine that you have generated a love for all the beautiful stories. So I doubt whether you would dream of actually changing anything much. I imagine that most of your creativity has concentrated on additions to the literature. So I wouldn't worry.

 

[Durand Durand]

This is a thread to discuss what, if anything, you as a fan are willing to see change. Because the resistance to this is something I've seen in no other RPG line, and despite the fact I was warned about it by a certain someone - a certain someone who avoids online Glorantha talk pretty much entirely because of certain fans - I wasn't ready for it to this degree.

I work in a FLGS, you should have heard some of the Dragonlance "purists" whinge about the latest editions when they came out.

As you say, RPG worlds are dynamic and living entities. If things didn't change between editions, why would I buy them? Glorantha has changed since RQ's early days, evolving with each incarnation. The KL & Orlanth cults have been expanded, certain histories changed when the historians changed [as they do in RW], details were added or subtracted [Balazar], unexplored regions, gods and ideas were explored. All your are doing with your edition is presenting a new take on history, exploring new areas, swapping a few gods [are is a precedents], and filling in a few gaps.

From what I've been looking at, a lot of forum whinging is about rules content, or rather, waiting to get a clear picture of a whole system comming out spread over several books. I understand there would be a variety of reasons to do this, but it is the one thing my group and others seem to be gripeing about.

As for art Nazi's, your artists should be free to try to conjure their own images of Gloranthan beasties, we all have our pet likes and dislikes within the 'canon' of extant art, and perhaps your people can cover some of the thing's I didn't like, or provide a new perspective on an old favourite.

At what point are the writers and artists behind this actually allowed to use their own creativity, and at what point does it rub you, personally, the wrong way?

I think your writers should be constantly being creative. Glorantha is a world with lots of detail, but limited to certain areas. There are snippets of story leads, half-told tales and legends, glaring inconsistencies and mummery that lie within the structures of already published materials that leave huge swathes of room to be creative in. Back when I was a student and could happily read tonnes of material every day I breathed in volumes of the Digest materials. Ideas were beaten and hammered into shape, esoteric theories discussed, occasional flame wars [oft involving Fire Gods], and lots of passion.

As long as you put passion into your work, I'm happy to see things done differently. As I mentioned above, your writers are the story tellers, the Historians of Glorantha, I don't mind a bit of bias in my history books, I should be able to discern that when it happens. Any changes should be 'mostly' culturally, intelectually, ideologically OR magically understandable and, most importantly, broaden the scope for 'richness' of play within the world.

I think I'm rambling a bit, so I'll end this by saying GSA is a damned fine book.

Oh, and BSG rules. This one is for you, Matt
http://www.projectkooky.com/dylan/art/illo/content/html/battlestar.html

DD

 

[homerjsinnott]

Personally it's change for the sake of change that I dislike, the pig snouts, why? If there was a rational explanation, then cool! And I can see why people dislike it cause it seems a bit generic and that I don't want.
There is a huge amount of the Big G that is unwritten, do you really need to make changes to the existing stuff? If you do, fine. But it must be very good, cause that is what we/I, have come to expect. I love contradictions in The Big G, as long as they are well thought out, written, and inplimented. And, and a great way of doing this is make it someones opinion, view point, myth or mind set, I understand this won't alwas be possible, it is something to bare in mind.
For me one of the things that set The Big G apart from the rest was that it was more adult (and I don't mean sex and drugs and toad in the hole kinda adult) and this for me is a major worry in some of the changes, if you can keep that then all will be well.

I hope I have not been too negative in my post, that was not my intention, I do want this this to work.

Ade.

P.S I'm a bit worried about your comment about being warned off, not the warning off bit, but the who it was bit, I'm not sure that it was very helpful, but I understand the concerns.

 

[RMS]

I agree with most of the comments above. Glorantha is well developed, on the one hand, and yet there's very little detail about the 2nd Age. I think going with the 2nd Age is a wonderful idea, as there's very little developed for it. (Plus, I like the idea of developing something new, whether a different age or simply a different part of Glorantha. I've played in Sartar/Prax/Griffin Mountain for a couple of decades now.)

My biggest issues are to stick to the timeline, unless there's a good reason to change something. Everything else is pretty much up in the air. Like others have said, my biggest concerns are to have explanations for why something may be different than before, rather than it being different just to be different or different because someone didn't bother to do some basic research and/or editing.

If the cults are tweaked different because the 3rd Age ones we know and love are God Learner constructs, fine. If magic is less common amongst everyone in the two big empires (like 3rd Age non-theistic cultures) then fine again. Just make sure that there's a reason for it and that it makes sense in the setting. If magic works differently now and most of it is small enough to accept as "differences in the versions of the rules", that's fine too. If it's a bigger difference (in feel, especially) than that, then a good reason that's logical within the laws of Glorantha needs to be there.

None of this means I need to like all the changes. I just want to see that they were arrived at as something different than change for changes sake, change to make it a more generic fantasy world*, or especially changes because basic research wasn't bothered with.

* Self defeating anyway IMO. A whole bunch of the appeal of Glorantha is that it's deep and different from anything else out there. Keep it unique. That'll do more for it and MRQ in the long run than making things generic or "updating" things just to feel like it's more modern.

One suggestion I have that might be helpful here is to run the idea past some oldtimers first and collect some input. There's always things you might miss or might get some interesting insites. That doesn't mean that you need to use every suggestion or can possibly make everyone happy, but it does increase your odds of making lots of people more content.

I'll end with another plea for campaign packs. Right now, everything for Glorantha appears to be big/overview. IMO, what originally sold the world were the campaign packs that dug into a locale with some depth and gave some quality Gloranthan adventures to start off with. Give us something to do with our God Learners or EWF characters!

 

[soltakss]

Regarding artwork, I don't care how things look, whether trolls are RQ2-style, RQ3-style or whatever. If you gave trolls pointy ears, mde them slender and small and gave them bows then I might start complaining. Pictures just aren't important to me.

Maps are, though, so if we had maps I would be happy. Maps that tidy up other maps are fine. Maps that show new areas are fine. Maps that show more of old areas are fine. Maps that blatantly contradict other maps are not. If you moved Jrustela to the Eastern oceans, for instance, or missed off a whole area, that would not be good.

Generally, everything, including maps, but also histories, cults, mythologies etc should fit into the existing Gloranthan Framework, otherwise it isn't Gloranthan:
1. Adding new things is good
2. Expanding things previously covered is good, as long as it doesn't contradict major parts of established lore
3. Changing established events is not very good, so saying that the Pharoah appears and kills the Only Old One in 930, say, would not be good as this is an established event that happens later on.
4. Changing well-established cultures is not good, so saying that Dara Happans worship darkness deities is not good. Saying that Dara Happans worship draconic deities is probably OK, though, because of the EWF influence.
5. Reinterpreting monsters/species might be OK, if none of the original flavour is lost. So, not giving Minotaurs Battle Rage would be bad, for instance, as would removing Wind Children's wings. Giving Trolls a see-in-the-dark ability but no echo-location ability is debatable, it doesn't tie in with older versions but has a logic. Making elves (or elfs) more planty is probably fine, although not my personal cup of tea.

So, by all means be creative, make up new stuff but please don't blatantly contradict loads of established history. I don't much care about a lot of the detail of Second Age History, whether exact dates are adhered to and so on, but I do care that the general trends should be followed.

But, I know that some people hate being constrained by a Timeline and that you might want to change the EWF's fate or the Jrusteli's Downfall for dramatic purposes. Would I agree? It depends on how it was done, whether it worked and how interesting/enjoyable it was.

 

[simonh]

Firstly, Trolls didn;'t change much between RQ2 and RQ3. Trollpak was orriginaly an RQ2 product, after all. I' just checked some of the ilustrations from that era, and IMHO they're basicaly consistent with the versions in the RQ3 publications. Sure they're variation in artistic interpretation, but the basic morphic features are the same. They certainly all agree on the snout. Gloranthan trolls have always had snouts, right from the word go. IMHO pig faces are a travesty.

There are manlike creatures in Glorantha with pig snouts, and theyr'e the Tusk Riders. They have pig snouts for very good reasons. Potentialy there's also the Mralotti pig people, I don't think I've ever seen pictures of them.

Ina wider sense I'm no enemy of artistic license, but if a fact is well established in Gloranthan canon, what are the real reasons for changing it? Is changing troll appearance in this way better in some way? What exactly is the artistic agenda that it serves?

These are reasonable questions to ask. If it's just an art direction screwup, well fine. I can live with that. The same goes for references to Balazar in the 2nd age. It's not as if previous RQ products haven't had errata, many of the best RQ2 and 3 products had pages of the stuff. That's no big deal, but if you do deliberately choose to go in a different direction on something for artistic reasons, you will be called on it to justify it on artistic grounds, and your audience will make a judgement.

Mongoose bought RuneQuest, and the rights to publish Gloranthan material because it has a passionate audience. That's agreat commercial opportunity, sure, but it also carries a responsibility to that audience too.

 

[MongooseMatt]

The Greeks have a word for it.
YGWV.

Your Goat Will Vary?

 

[Eisho]

Nothing I've come across so far rubs me the wrong way. The designers, writers and artists should be free to be creative.

In a world as large as Glorantha the notions that, for example, all trolls have uniform features, that every culture shares the same calendar or that every culture has the same interpretation of 'history' is absurd. Whether or not it should be noted that, for example, an 'alternative' breed of troll is being presented, is another question. In the case of trolls, personally I don't think so. For alternative timelines etc., I think it should be noted.

There is tremendous scope to be creative with Glorantha. Just a single event can be interpreted from a variety of cultural viewpoints. Whether this kind of material would be successful from a business point of view though is highly debatable.

Cheers,

Eisho