Just to let you know, a preview of Ducks can now be found on our web site, on the RuneQuest and Ducks pages.
Ducks Preview
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
Deleriad
Mongoose
The preview implies that the full book is something of a curate's egg...
I dislike the cultural backgrounds on a general level in that I think the author is trying to hard to do everything in threes and multiples of threes. A "prankster" really isn't a cultural background. I would personally prefer either really broad simple backgrounds, as per RQ core, or homeland backgrounds in order to ground the characters in a particular place in Glorantha. This is just an ongoing issue I have with the Glorantha sourcebooks to date.
The running text is better than I expected; the excerpt captures the casual oddness of Glorantha without going for laughs or getting all angsty about death-worshipping doom ducks.
The Gloranthan Samurai duck picture amuses me. I'm sure, of course, that that's not really some sort of moon behind it. Possibly a large lantern or something equally round that happens to hang moon-like behind the duck. Admittedly it would be a very small moon seeing as it appears to be between the duck and some leaves. I really hope it's not orange.
The flavour text boxes are rather cringe-inducing.
I'm intrigued by this new basic skill "sardonic manipulation."
I wish that the RQ core rules were together enough so that various skills from the GM's Handbook and so on were referenced in character generation.
I dislike the cultural backgrounds on a general level in that I think the author is trying to hard to do everything in threes and multiples of threes. A "prankster" really isn't a cultural background. I would personally prefer either really broad simple backgrounds, as per RQ core, or homeland backgrounds in order to ground the characters in a particular place in Glorantha. This is just an ongoing issue I have with the Glorantha sourcebooks to date.
The running text is better than I expected; the excerpt captures the casual oddness of Glorantha without going for laughs or getting all angsty about death-worshipping doom ducks.
The Gloranthan Samurai duck picture amuses me. I'm sure, of course, that that's not really some sort of moon behind it. Possibly a large lantern or something equally round that happens to hang moon-like behind the duck. Admittedly it would be a very small moon seeing as it appears to be between the duck and some leaves. I really hope it's not orange.
The flavour text boxes are rather cringe-inducing.
I'm intrigued by this new basic skill "sardonic manipulation."
I wish that the RQ core rules were together enough so that various skills from the GM's Handbook and so on were referenced in character generation.
Deleriad
Mongoose
Mongoose Steele said:
Hmmm criticising writing style, especially directly to the author in a public forum is rarely a good idea. At best the topic slowly sinks to the bottom of the page. More normally it generates heat and some bad blood. With that in mind...
There is a tradition in RQ publications, carried on in MRQ, to use "voices" in order to give an insight into the attitudes and prejudices that may be found. It's difficult to pull off because it tends to generate rather purple prose. The author of Trolls and Magic of Glorantha was the worst offender in this regard. The problem is magnified when any sort of philosopher's voice is rendered in some sort of Monty Pythonesque version of intellectual-speak. It also gets old as a technique very quickly because every single one tends to be exactly the same. If I ruled the world I would ban them. They're extremely hard to write well but really easy to write badly.
"Ah, the supposedly mythical Mongoose author. My enquiries among the Hsunchen have revealed that these strange beacons of literacy among the callow beastmen inhabit the deepest holes in the wastes where they pass their unique knot-writing from author to author. Their most complex ropes tell of a terrible Matt-beast that devours any such Mongoose whose knots are the wrong size. Pity them and their terrifying lives, my friend."
Grevious The Prognosticator - knowledgequestor and bar-room boor.
Deleriad said:
I rather like that
B_Steele
Mongoose
Beware! You have awoken the Matt-beast!!!
Seriously, I thought your reply was fine by me. It was a personal reaction and not a setting or grammatical one. In this biz, I'm totally cool with someone saying they don't like what I've done...I only get miffed when people rake me over the coals for it.
Your reply was fine, Deleriad. I personally disagree about flavour quotes in general, but that is simply my opinion.
Anyway, thanks for the prompt reply!
*ducks the gaze of the lurking Matt-beast*
Ack! Gotta go! Knots to tie and such!
-Bry
Seriously, I thought your reply was fine by me. It was a personal reaction and not a setting or grammatical one. In this biz, I'm totally cool with someone saying they don't like what I've done...I only get miffed when people rake me over the coals for it.
Your reply was fine, Deleriad. I personally disagree about flavour quotes in general, but that is simply my opinion.
Anyway, thanks for the prompt reply!
*ducks the gaze of the lurking Matt-beast*
Ack! Gotta go! Knots to tie and such!
-Bry
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Mongoose Steele said:Beware! You have awoken the Matt-beast!!!
Sounds like something from the old show Knightmare! :lol:
LBH
It looks OK to me.
The pictures are clearly of ducks, not of people with duck heads, they are not chewing on cigars, which is a huge plus point, and they are serious in nature, another plus point.
The text looks reasonable, standard background fare. Once again it takes ducks seriously and doesn't demean them with Hueymakt, Quackodemon and the like.
The text boxes are, unfortunately, here to stay as they have been in most of the Mongoose books. I don't like the style as I prefer comments to be impartial rather than from the viewpoint of someone in the setting, but horses for courses and other people seem to like them.
Having a Prankster as a profession is fine - after all, ducks wouldn't have proper tricksters so a prankster will do just as well.
So, all in all, pretty good.
The pictures are clearly of ducks, not of people with duck heads, they are not chewing on cigars, which is a huge plus point, and they are serious in nature, another plus point.
The text looks reasonable, standard background fare. Once again it takes ducks seriously and doesn't demean them with Hueymakt, Quackodemon and the like.
The text boxes are, unfortunately, here to stay as they have been in most of the Mongoose books. I don't like the style as I prefer comments to be impartial rather than from the viewpoint of someone in the setting, but horses for courses and other people seem to like them.
Having a Prankster as a profession is fine - after all, ducks wouldn't have proper tricksters so a prankster will do just as well.
So, all in all, pretty good.
B_Steele
Mongoose
Sadly, there is a mix of both throughout the book. I would have liked Renne to do all of the art if I had my druthers (I LOVE his samurai duck and the Platys later in the book), but every piece of art is inspired by something in the text...which pleases me.
I really did alot of homework for this book, as NO ONE has done anything this extensive on Durulz has happened yet...and I really hope that you folks dig it as much as I do.
I can't wait for people to start talking about it.
-Bry
I'm one of those people who like the text flavour of the text boxes. I agree that it is hard to do well and easy to do badly, but I even like badly done text - as long as it does not imply something that I do not want in my Glorantha. Some of the best Glorantha comes from this sort of in-world text, such as the handouts for Dorastor, a lot of Trollpak and, arguably, the whole of King of Sartar.
I once considered trying to compile a list of the scholars and quoted sources from all of the Glorantha sources - but found it was a rather large job, especially when I tried to work out what was actually going on when and where they wrote it.
Keith
I once considered trying to compile a list of the scholars and quoted sources from all of the Glorantha sources - but found it was a rather large job, especially when I tried to work out what was actually going on when and where they wrote it.
Keith
Deleriad
Mongoose
nellist said:
Those are examples of it done well. In particular they are examples of miscellany and ephemera and Greg Stafford is particularly good at such things. RQ2 was also notable for their uses of diaries in supplements, particularly Biturian Varosh's travels. On the whole the text boxes in MRQ Glorantha products are all the same type and genre. Robin Laws started the trend in Glorantha Second Age. Sometimes those boxes work, sometimes not. I would be perfectly happy to have more miscellany in the Glorantha line.
As an example of good and bad uses of text books, I'll point to the opening pages of Dragonewts. Bad text box on p2 which reads, essentially, "we don't understand Dragonewts." Sort of a "well duh" text box. Good text book on p6 which works as an example to explain "Right Action" through a very evocative story.
What I mean by the text boxes all being the same. They follow the same narrative structure. 2-3 sentences followed by a denouement as either a single sentence or in the name/designation of the speaker. For example, on p22 of Dragonewts, the denouement is a punchline: "Almakoth Armless."
Basically, I would like to see the authors move away from text/denouement and, if they continue using the text boxes for flavour, find other forms.
Loz
Mongoose
There's that old writers' adage of 'Show, don't tell.' Its a good adage. It makes you write in an active voice rather than a passive one - and that, in itself, is not easy to do.
The text boxes allow the writer to show something (an attitude, a fragment of a myth, a nugget of truth, a lie) without having to tell it in the main narrative - which, often, has to be written in a specific point or way. Sure, they are difficult to write well, and not for once do I think we always get it spot on, but they do provide a purpose , just as illustrations do. They break up the main narrative, illustrate a particular point, and, perhaps more importantly, give you the chance to see it in a particular context or from a POV.
Whether you like them or not is down to personal taste. Personally, I do. I can get an extremely good idea of how something needs to be portrayed in a game from a text box. I like writing them as well; but there's never an excuse for purple prose and the text should convey something pertinent to the rules rather than simply being a random quote lobbed-in because, well, its expected.
In that first dragonewt example, I think you're taking it out of context a little. To you, its a 'duh' moment, but what if you've never had exposure to dragonewts before? What if you're a Glorantha newbie? The risk is that they come across as lizardmen, and they're more complex than that. The God Learner example is there to introduce the fact that this is a complex, contradictory race that even the mighty, all-knowing God Learners have pretty much given up trying to fathom. It also introduces a couple of other things that might spark some inspiration in a GM: what is a Revealer study group? Are dragonewts really proto-dragons or is it all baloney? Why are their myths impenetrable? Its sets up, in an active voice, all sorts of questions that GMs can use as part of their armoury for crafting scenarios involving dragonewts.
I suppose I'm being defensive because its my text, but really I'm actually trying to defend the practice. Sorry if it irritates you, but I think its a valuable tool for us writers. Its rare in a gaming work that you get to include dialogue, internal thoughts or overt characterisation. The approach we've taken with the text boxes in the Glorantha line allows us to do that.
So I'll be continuing with the practice - but I will give some thought to the structure and format because I think what you say is quite right. Variety and relevance is good, and painful prose definitely to be avoided.
The text boxes allow the writer to show something (an attitude, a fragment of a myth, a nugget of truth, a lie) without having to tell it in the main narrative - which, often, has to be written in a specific point or way. Sure, they are difficult to write well, and not for once do I think we always get it spot on, but they do provide a purpose , just as illustrations do. They break up the main narrative, illustrate a particular point, and, perhaps more importantly, give you the chance to see it in a particular context or from a POV.
Whether you like them or not is down to personal taste. Personally, I do. I can get an extremely good idea of how something needs to be portrayed in a game from a text box. I like writing them as well; but there's never an excuse for purple prose and the text should convey something pertinent to the rules rather than simply being a random quote lobbed-in because, well, its expected.
In that first dragonewt example, I think you're taking it out of context a little. To you, its a 'duh' moment, but what if you've never had exposure to dragonewts before? What if you're a Glorantha newbie? The risk is that they come across as lizardmen, and they're more complex than that. The God Learner example is there to introduce the fact that this is a complex, contradictory race that even the mighty, all-knowing God Learners have pretty much given up trying to fathom. It also introduces a couple of other things that might spark some inspiration in a GM: what is a Revealer study group? Are dragonewts really proto-dragons or is it all baloney? Why are their myths impenetrable? Its sets up, in an active voice, all sorts of questions that GMs can use as part of their armoury for crafting scenarios involving dragonewts.
I suppose I'm being defensive because its my text, but really I'm actually trying to defend the practice. Sorry if it irritates you, but I think its a valuable tool for us writers. Its rare in a gaming work that you get to include dialogue, internal thoughts or overt characterisation. The approach we've taken with the text boxes in the Glorantha line allows us to do that.
So I'll be continuing with the practice - but I will give some thought to the structure and format because I think what you say is quite right. Variety and relevance is good, and painful prose definitely to be avoided.
Its true, the ducks on page 61 doesnt look "Gloranthian". They look like a cross between 17 th century and sherlock holmes (the duck to the right). I agree with the discussion about artists spending more time with the "Gloranthian" theme.
About textboxes, I think they are excellent, they divide the different text´s in both logical and physical entities at the same time. Thats good for understanding the text faster.
/Calle
About textboxes, I think they are excellent, they divide the different text´s in both logical and physical entities at the same time. Thats good for understanding the text faster.
/Calle
duncan_disorderly
Mongoose
I like the text-boxes (although I'd agree that some are better than others), and I particularly like them being "in character" points of view. After all if Our Gloranthas May Vary then it's up to us to decide if any particular PoV is "correct" or not.
Deleriad
Mongoose
soltakss said:
Well Prankster in the book is a cultural background, not a profession. On one level it's a nit-picking point because deciding what should be a cultural background as opposed to a profession is veering into debates around how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. On the other hand it does have an effect. Are there lost colonies of cigar-chewing duck pranksters out there? If your dad is a prankster are you born a prankster?
The text simply says that the prankster background is for poor families in a ducktown in which case perhaps I have trouble wondering what the difference is between the commoner family and the poor commoner family?
On the deeper issue, I think what is happening is that the skill package for backgrounds is bigger and, therefore, more influential than that for professions. Factoring out the skills that everyone gets, a starting character gets 90% of their skills from their background and 50% from their profession. The temptation is, then, to create additional backgrounds in order to give a wider variety of character types to pick from.
As I say, this particular instance is relatively trivial and I should say that what I have seen of the book has impressed me more than I expected.
Daithi O'an tSionnaigh
Mongoose
Ducks, Ducks and more Ducks! OMG I cannot wait to get my hands on this book! I personally like the look of the book from what I have seen in the preview and am very exciting to get some more meat and taters info to bring the Ducks another dimension to them and their history.
