Character Sheet Is Up!!!

[atgxtg]

yea I'll use yours malakor. thanks. Though I think the updated mongoose one is ok...simple and neat......I don't bother with character pictures. I prefer to create a written description and hold the image in my imagination. (for similair reasons I dont bother with miniatures).

Do you only play solo? A character picture helps the other players (and GM) immensely in visualizing your character. A picture says more than a thousand words, remember.

Gotta agree with this statement. I discovered in the past that pictures of NPCs do a lot to help get the NPC across.

I once used a really shifting looking picutre of a guy for the PCs "shady contact". It got the message across that he wasn't wuite trustworthy better than the warning the got in thier birefing.

In my lst Star Trek campaign, one of the NPCs was supposed to be a major babe an possible focal point of a romatic triangle between two of the characters. I noticed the players got a lot more interested in pursing her when I put Hedi Klum into a starfleet unform.

 

[Archer]

Ugh, I still remember the "group of helpful dark elves" picture. *shudder*

Eh? there are / were dark elves in Glorantha?

 

[Gaheir]

I believe tied to the darkness/plant runes. Related to mushrooms and such dark "plants".

 

[Archer]

I believe tied to the darkness/plant runes. Related to mushrooms and such dark "plants".

Ah, ok.
Feels like a bit of a stretch though (in my opinion). Inclusion of dark elves just for the sake of it.

I remember a "Black Elf" from the RQ3 Gloranthan Bestiary, whose head looked like a light-bulb *LOL*.

 

[SteveMND]

Eh? there are / were dark elves in Glorantha?

Sorry, black elves, not dark elves.

I remember a "Black Elf" from the RQ3 Gloranthan Bestiary, whose head looked like a light-bulb *LOL*.

Yes, that's them. And trust me, that picture was a thousand times better than the one I'm thinking of, in which the three elves pictured literally looked like rejects from some Saturday morning cartoon on Nick, Jr. or something.

 

[burdock]

adept wrote
A picture says more than a thousand words, remember.

I always had a very clear picture of Aragorn in my head before I ever saw a visual representation of him. I also have incredibly clear ideas of characters in games where no pictures have been provided. In an RPG the story happens in the imagination. I like to try and keep all elements of the story in that mysterious place where several imaginations meet. For me it is easier to feel the characters souls that way.

 

[burdock]

though I know some people love expressing themselves visually....and thats cool.

 

[Lord Twig]

After thinking about the new character sheet for a while I have to say that my hope for the MRQ game has risen considerably. I like the integration of Runes a whole lot. I think that spells will still by fairly common and that it will be useful to cast a couple if you can manage it before the combat starts.

I am still dying to find out how skill advancement will be handled. I liked the skill checks of the past and hope that it will be something similar. But if not I will judge the new method on it's own merits.

Low starting skills reminds me of the first times I played RQII. I remember my 16-year-old Humakti Lay Member having a 15% chance to hit with his sword. It took a while to hit, but then the enemies missed a lot as well and you were pretty much guaranteed to go up in that skill when you rolled for it. I remember him going up fairly quickly until he hit about the 75% range.

 

[Lord Twig]

No one in my group could draw a decent picture to save their lives. We have to rely on verbal descriptions.

 

[Malakor]

Gotta agree with this statement. I discovered in the past that pictures of NPCs do a lot to help get the NPC across.

I once used a really shifting looking picutre of a guy for the PCs "shady contact". It got the message across that he wasn't wuite trustworthy better than the warning the got in thier birefing.

In my lst Star Trek campaign, one of the NPCs was supposed to be a major babe an possible focal point of a romatic triangle between two of the characters. I noticed the players got a lot more interested in pursing her when I put Hedi Klum into a starfleet unform.

Quite often I will tailor an npc (skills and background even) to a particular picture that I find to use.

 

[Adept]

Unless the character portrait is done by a 'professional' artist, I've yet to see one that didn't hinder the descriptions of a character. Few people involved in RPGs can draw a tolerable picture of a character; almost everyone involved in RPGs can give at least a good, solid description of a character (if not the most poetic).

I quess I'm lucky then. In my gaming circles (of around a dozen people) There is one excellent artist, at least two quite good ones and two more who definitely draw well enough for the pictures to be helpful.

Personally I suck at it, but we live in the age of the Web people. If one can't find an artist, one can usually find a close match off the web.

 

[Adept]

Ugh, I still remember the "group of helpful dark elves" picture. *shudder*

Eh? there are / were dark elves in Glorantha?

Yeah

They are very groovy indeed. Sort of like the classic "gray" type aliens. They are related to fungi in the same way that elves are related to trees. They usually get along with Trolls (ok, they co-exist. They are very, very strange mentally. The trolls propably think of them as a natural resource rather than allies*)

*The trolls don't eat them (usually), but he dark elves make mushrooms and fungi grow well.

 

[Jaldon Goldentooth]

IIRC, Black Elves are described as either "not true elves" or "not related to elves"

 

[Archer]

IIRC, Black Elves are described as either "not true elves" or "not related to elves"

Why then call them elves?
In my opinion Glorantha seems to use the world elf too much, for beings that clearly are not elves, that do not look like elves. Drop the elf name, and give them their own names instead of implying that they are elves.

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

 

[Jaldon Goldentooth]

Why then call them elves?

This is just the name foolish humans use. Aldryami is the correct term.

In my opinion Glorantha seems to use the world elf too much, for beings that clearly are not elves, that do not look like elves.

This sort of thing happens all the time in the real world. Slow worms are not worms but snakes, the red panda is only distantly related to the giant panda. For me this just adds colour and realism to Glorantha.

 

[SteveMND]

In my opinion Glorantha seems to use the world elf too much, for beings that clearly are not elves, that do not look like elves. Drop the elf name, and give them their own names instead of implying that they are elves.

lol In my opinion, you're far too hung up over the word 'elf.'

Besides, what's an 'elf?' it's a word used to describe something that doesn't exist in the real world, so you're going to find varying definitions.

To me, an 'elf' -- as used in fantasy literature these days -- is a humanoid, corporeal creature spiritually aligned in some fashion to nature. I think that fits the RuneQuest 'elf' just fine.

Besides, RQ has always been pretty clear that 'elf' is the common human term, and the name they use for themselves is Aldryami.

RQ trolls are not like the classical, folklore or D&D trolls either. Are you similarly upset over that term (which RQ also is pretty clear on that that also is just the common human term, and their own name is Uz)?

I mean, it's not like they speak English over on Genertela anyway.

Presumably the english term 'elf' is a decently-accurate analogue used by Stafford -- just like he uses the terms 'bronze,' 'iron,' copper,' etc. to refer to the analogue of our earthly metals in Glorantha -- and maybe the real word for 'elf' in Tradetongue is pronounced "squaont," and means "pointy-eared little tree bastard" or something.

 

[Archer]

In my opinion Glorantha seems to use the world elf too much, for beings that clearly are not elves, that do not look like elves. Drop the elf name, and give them their own names instead of implying that they are elves.

lol In my opinion, you're far too hung up over the word 'elf.'

Yep, I hang them in their pointy little ears. :wink:

Besides, what's an 'elf?' it's a word used to describe something that doesn't exist in the real world, so you're going to find varying definitions.

I think that the wikipedia link I posted was pretty clear, except on those occassions where the Elf overlaps in the Eddan with Dwarves.
Following any of those folklore descriptions would be fine, that is an elf.
Humanoid being of great beauty and fair hair (nordic mythology).

To me, an 'elf' -- as used in fantasy literature these days -- is a humanoid, corporeal creature spiritually aligned in some fashion to nature. I think that fits the RuneQuest 'elf' just fine.

In that sense, yes. :|

Besides, RQ has always been pretty clear that 'elf' is the common human term, and the name they use for themselves is Aldryami.

Why would humans use the term elf when there is no equivalent of what the word means in Glorantha. It is far more likely that they would use some other word, more along the line with Aldryami, if not exactly that word.

RQ trolls are not like the classical, folklore or D&D trolls either. Are you similarly upset over that term (which RQ also is pretty clear on that that also is just the common human term, and their own name is Uz)?

Actually, yes. But only because D&D is not really folk lore trolls either. So they should have called them something else. :roll:

I mean, it's not like they speak English over on Genertela anyway.

Not likely, no. :wink:

Presumably the english term 'elf' is a decently-accurate analogue used by Stafford -- just like he uses the terms 'bronze,' 'iron,' copper,' etc. to refer to the analogue of our earthly metals in Glorantha -- and maybe the real word for 'elf' in Tradetongue is pronounced "squaont," and means "pointy-eared little tree bastard" or something.

Squaont would have been perfectly fine, especially if it meant "pointy-eared little tree bastards" :lol:

I will try to not comment on this subject more in the future, it is not likely you (or anyone else) will change my point of view, or me changing yours.
But to me, this sticks out as a sore thumb.
Why do fantasy settings always have to have elves btw?
One of the most refreshing things I found with Talislanta was the fact that there were no elves, not even any equivalent of them either (A.F.A.I.R.).

 

[SteveMND]

"I will try to not comment on this subject more in the future, it is not likely you (or anyone else) will change my point of view, or me changing yours.

Probably correct. However, given his appreciation of anthroplogy, etc., I wouldn't have been surprised if Stafford had gone about the name this way:

"Hmm, these plant-rune creatures call themselves Aldryami, however, in their arrogance, most humans wouldn't call them by their actual name, since few cultures bother to do that. Instead, they'd call them something that is vaguely reminiscent of their nature, but given their laziness, humans wouldn't really care if the term wasn't entirely accurate, as long as it was simple and easy for them to use. Hmm. In english, the fantasy term 'elf' fits that bill nicely."

Why do fantasy settings always have to have elves btw? "

Probably the same reason most also have dwarves, men in armor, swords and magic. They are all aspects of 'fantasy' worlds and history that we tend to be familiar with. The prospective player can relate to those terms and ideas without too many headaches.

If a game was based around sentient five-armed slugs who fought wars using a four-foot length of flexible pipe topped with a hook-shaped chunk of lavastone and communicated by the use of pheremones and musical notes, it might be interesting, but there'd be little a player could connect to there.

Talislantia was great and horrible in that regard, and it's radical departure from what we are familiar with was both it's greatest strength and its worst weakness. A lot of potential customers were turned off by the sheer 'difference' of it, and didn't want to spend weeks or months becoming familiar with such an alien outlook and design.

For the experienced gamer, that might be well worth it, but for your average gamer, it's a bit heavy.

I mean, even most experienced gamers I've met have a hard time properly RPing the opposite sex, and that's (in theory) at least the same species, much less trying to adequately roleplay a completely alien creature...

 

[Adept]

IIRC, Black Elves are described as either "not true elves" or "not related to elves"

Why then call them elves?
In my opinion Glorantha seems to use the world elf too much, for beings that clearly are not elves, that do not look like elves. Drop the elf name, and give them their own names instead of implying that they are elves.

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

Bah. A name is a name. For a Glorantha gamer an elf is mannish looking creature related to trees. "Black elf" is quite logical from that point of view for a creature that is similarily semi-manlike, and related to the "plants" that live in darkness... that is, mushrooms.

 

[Adept]

I mean, even most experienced gamers I've met have a hard time properly RPing the opposite sex, and that's (in theory) at least the same species, much less trying to adequately roleplay a completely alien creature...

It seems to be a major difficulty only to people who think men and women are somehow fundamentally different, and that the opposite gender (to themselves) is totally alien in outlook.

Guess why the character of Ripley in Alien (the original movie) is one of the most believable female characters in the movies of the time? It's because Ripley was originally written as a man, and the only editing done to the script was to change all references from he to she.