Elves and Dwarves?

[Urox]

You could deal with the "everyone knows magic" element in somewhat different terms: such as a warrior type who prays to his god, or dangles charms from his weapon, before entering combat. Something like: "oh great lord of war, grant me courage and a true blade to smite this foe".

Well, you pretty much just described Common Magic in RQ. Magic permeates Glorantha, and one soldier's Bladesharp is the same as another farmer's Ploughsharp when you get down to the POW mechanic.

Someone already mentioned how integral cults are to RQ -- they supplant the function of a class system for characters. While any setting might have a 10th level Assassin, on RuneQuest has a Thanatari Headhunter Rune Priests!

IMO, RQ is the adaption of Basic Role Playing for Glorantha, just as Call of Cthulhu is the adaption of BRB for Lovecraft. Common Magic and Divine Intervention make sense for one, and Sanity for the other.

If you make the system too generic, you wind up with the hodgepodge Hero System, which is mostely unsatisfying except for Superheroes (tm).

And to get back on topic, yes Virginia, Elves are plants =)

 

[homerjsinnott]

Ah nostalgia! tell me, what was it like in the good old days?

Well, for one thing, RuneQuest was popular back then. Then they started changing how things looked and acted...

Wulf

LOL, like a spear in the gut....
*Wulf rolls 01, an Impale!*

[Sigh], if he had rolled an 01, it would have been a critical*, even at that skill level for humour/ witty replies.

Please, at least get the basics right.

*Which to be technically correct would also be a impale, but firstly it would be a critical.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I do not dispute that they are plants. What I dispute that they look like a miniature ent. I do not find it original, or even amusing, if you take an ent (which is a humanoid tree) and shrink it, and then label it an "elf".
If they looked like an elf, they would be an elf. That is my point.

As it is now, all I can see is that they are trying to make then "cooler" just so that Glorantha should be different and "original".

Exactly. Change just for the sake of change. Glorantha, in it's latest reincarnation, is being over-intellectuallised; everything has to be different and original just to prove it's somehow deeper and more meaningful than a mere game.

Wulf

 

[SteveMND]

Exactly. Change just for the sake of change. Glorantha, in it's latest reincarnation, is being over-intellectuallised; everything has to be different and original just to prove it's somehow deeper and more meaningful than a mere game.

Well, with regards to the elves... perhaps it's just that the special effects technology finally caught up with Stafford's vision of how he really wanted to present Glorantha: A New Hope all those thirty-odd years ago?

Seriously, though, is wanting your idea to be different all that bad? Although I always took "Gloranthan elves are plants" at face value back when I first played RQ and didn't hard-wire them based on a visual representation, is changing how something is so that it isn't seen as a clone of something out there all that bad?

I mean, all this talk has shown that clearly, some people feel that any "traditional" fantasy elf is going to be seen as a Tolkein rip-off in some fashion, so why not make them different? Gloranthan elves always were plants, always were alien to humankind, and so maybe it's just now that they are being fleshed-out (so to speak) a little more so to differnetiate them from every other "Tolkein elf" clone out there. I don't see that as a bad thing, especially since we can take and leave what we want anyway.

When I first started my own home campaign, there were a LOT of things I had lifted from other sources, Glorantha included. But over time, I realized that that's exactly what they were -- lifted, and unoriginal. They weren't mine, they were Stafford's, or Tolkein's, or some other author's -- merely shoehorned into my own campaign.

So as time went on, I refined my game world so that it had more of me and my ideas in it rather than other people and their ideas. Mind you, there are still numerous similarities -- it's hard not to in a fantasy campaign -- but I don't see Stafford's process in refining how he sees Glorantha is any different than how I reworked my campaign world (or how most of us here probably reworked theirs over time).

After all, Glorantha isn't our campaign world, it's Stafford's. He's just letting us play in it.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Well, with regards to the elves... perhaps it's just that the special effects technology finally caught up with Stafford's vision of how he really wanted to present Glorantha: A New Hope all those thirty-odd years ago?

Good Star Wars metaphor. The originals were good, watchable and... original. The newer versions are shite. Very good metaphor.

After all, Glorantha isn't our campaign world, it's Stafford's. He's just letting us play in it.

No, he isn't letting us play. He is CHARGING US MONEY to play in it. He is selling it to us.

Wulf

 

[homerjsinnott]

I agree with what you have said Steve, even in his earliest writing in Wryms Footnotes (which must be 20? years old) his vision for elves was very far from pointy eared men with a superiority complex or green faced Melnibonéans. Perrin's work (much as I like it) was wrong then and is wrong now.

But I don't care if people want to eat vanilla all day and every day, as long as they don't try to make me eat it all the time as well.

 

[homerjsinnott]

Well, with regards to the elves... perhaps it's just that the special effects technology finally caught up with Stafford's vision of how he really wanted to present Glorantha: A New Hope all those thirty-odd years ago?

Good Star Wars metaphor. The originals were good, watchable and... original. The newer versions are shite. Very good metaphor.

After all, Glorantha isn't our campaign world, it's Stafford's. He's just letting us play in it.

No, he isn't letting us play. He is CHARGING US MONEY to play in it. He is selling it to us.

Wulf

You don't have to buy it, play another system/in another world if you dislike it that much. It is your choice

 

[SteveMND]

Good Star Wars metaphor. The originals were good, watchable and... original. The newer versions are shite. Very good metaphor.

More accurate than you might think. Like it or not, Star Wars is Lucas' baby -- not ours. And while you may not like what he did (I don't either), that's his call to make, not ours. Similarly, Glorantha is Stafford's baby. If he wants to make elves into little pink midgets with green hair and four arms, he can do that. Mind you, I really don't think that would go over well with the fans, but...

No, he isn't letting us play. He is CHARGING US MONEY to play in it. He is selling it to us.

And? Any business transaction requires two people.

 

[andakitty]

I know this is going to sound like heresy to some, but I have got to say it. I never was that impressed with Glorantha, I fell in love with the system. Come to think of it, I have never been happy with any of the BRP settings. Which is why I am so happy about this new Runequest. It might well be the first time I have had the experience of a system I like with a setting I like (Lankhmar) by the same publisher. Mongoose published my very favorite setting, Hyborea, but it was D20, which I loath. So what kind of elves are included in the new Glorantha doesn't really matter to me. At all. That said, if they were to publish RQ Conan, Mongoose would have a fan and customer for life...but really, guys, you are all problably just as imaginative as Greg Stafford so just do your elves your way and don't sweat it, eh? It's Stafford who should be worried about what WE are doing to HIS baby, after all. :twisted:

 

[Archer]

Being different just for the sake of being different is very sad and unoriginal in my point of view. And it is sad that Glorantha which in it's third edition was possible to use as a general setting, with a uniqueness non-the-less, (it even had halflings in the Gloranthan Bestiary) shall go down this path.

It seems nowdays that every fantasy setting made must have a very bizarre or strange twist in most aspects. Sometimes this is done tastefully by slightly altering what has been established as the archetype of a race or a setting, and sometimes it has to be extreme.

It has also been my observation that the more unusual settings that venture to far from the fantasy archetype, tend to be small games, with a hardcore fan group, that do not sell in large quantities. The settings that are more in line with the established fantasy archetypes seem to sell more and have a greater group of fans.

Perhaps it is this that can explain why D&D (which most here seem to loath) has become so successful (it is without a doubt the largest and most selling RPG). It is generic fantasy, with several fantasy settings that in themselves are rather generic, with only slight changes to some fantasy archetypes.
Because I do not think we can attribute the success of recent D&D to the d20 system and it's OGL. The only thing the OGL made possible, was to allow the small publishers to publish their material, without having to develop their own system.

I can only hope that the RQ system will have at least partially such a success when it comes to attracting setting designers, and that it will end up with many settings to choose from.

 

[homerjsinnott]

I know this is going to sound like heresy to some, but I have got to say it. I never was that impressed with Glorantha, I fell in love with the system. Come to think of it, I have never been happy with any of the BRP settings. Which is why I am so happy about this new Runequest.

That's cool, but I am sad you don't like the best roleplaying setting that has been produced IMHumbleO.

It might well be the first time I have had the experience of a system I like with a setting I like (Lankhmar) by the same publisher. Mongoose published my very favorite setting, Hyborea, but it was D20, which I loath.

I would have thought that D&D and Conan would have gone well together, they both seem to value the same things, also, the barbarian, thief and magic user seem made for Conan.

So what kind of elves are included in the new Glorantha doesn't really matter to me. At all. That said, if they were to publish RQ Conan, Mongoose would have a fan and customer for life...but really, guys, you are all problably just as imaginative as Greg Stafford so just do your elves your way and don't sweat it, eh? It's Stafford who should be worried about what WE are doing to HIS baby, after all. :twisted:

I very much doubt that that all the readers or even the majority are as inventive and imaginative as Greg Stafford, but I'm sure he takes the same view as a novelist, that people are going to see things in his creation in a different way.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Good Star Wars metaphor. The originals were good, watchable and... original. The newer versions are shite. Very good metaphor.

More accurate than you might think. Like it or not, Star Wars is Lucas' baby -- not ours. And while you may not like what he did (I don't either), that's his call to make, not ours. Similarly, Glorantha is Stafford's baby.

No, there is a fundamental difference there. A movie is a passive experience, you pay your money, and you watch someone else's ideas take shape. A RPG is an active participation. If Greg expects to make money out of Glorantha (and by licensing it out to two seperate companies, evidently he does), he should have the sense to realise he must allow it to be compromised and modified to suit the customers, or else they simply will not use the material.

No, he isn't letting us play. He is CHARGING US MONEY to play in it. He is selling it to us.

And? Any business transaction requires two people.

Exactly. And if the setting doesn't adapt to suit the audience, it'll lose it. And like it or lump it, the audience, and the sales figures, were massively higher for the old vision of RuneQuest. That is where the popular imagery and writing was. People just haven't bought into the new Glorantha.

Wulf

 

[SteveMND]

(it even had halflings in the Gloranthan Bestiary) shall go down this path.

Hmm? Where on earth was this? If you're talking about the Creatures Book (book 4), that was the 'generic' bestiary, not the Cloranthan bestiary. In the Glorantha Book, Book 5, it even specified on the last page that halflings (among others) were not native to Glorantha, but of course as a GM you might make an exception if you wish.

he should have the sense to realise he must allow it to be compromised and modified to suit the customers, or else they simply will not use the material.

By it's very nature, any setting is going to be modified to suit the customers by the customers. It's not a question of him "allowing" it; there's no way he can prevent it. However, my point is that he is in no way beholden to that customer base to make those modifications for them.

In Third Edition and, it appears, in MGPRQ, the game mechanics are distinct from the setting. Which is good, IMHO. That means people that like the game mechanics can use them as they wish, and find a setting that has those 'generic' elvs and such if that's what they are looking for. OGL means there will be ample opportunities for that. And if people want to use the game mechanics with Glorantha, that option will be there as well.

People just haven't bought into the new Glorantha.

If you're referring to the "4th edition" Hero Wars Glorantha, I strongly suspect that edition's apparent lackluster performance was due to the game mechanics attached to that edition, as opposed to anything else.

 

[DreadDomain]

Exactly. And if the setting doesn't adapt to suit the audience, it'll lose it. And like it or lump it, the audience, and the sales figures, were massively higher for the old vision of RuneQuest. That is where the popular imagery and writing was.

But first you are comparing two games/setting in two very different times market wise and on so many levels. Second, do you have actual figures or are you just making assumption out of thin air to suit your opinion?

People just haven't bought into the new Glorantha.
Wulf

I don't think "people" gave you any mandate to represent them. Some people? Sure. Many People? Possible.

In any case, IF "people" just haven't bought into the new Glorantha, is it because they don't like the look of the Aldryami or because of something else entirely? Like the over intellectualization of the setting? Or the change of scope of the game? Or even the system itself?

I am sure that like me, you don't know what "people think". You only know your own opinion and the expressed opinion of some other people. It doesn't make your opinion any less valid but it doesn't mean that "people" didn't buy the new Glorantha and that if they did, it doesn't mean it was for the same reasons you did.

 

[Archer]

Steve: Hmm, Yes, the Creatures book. My misstake on which book it was. As I understood it (at that time), the Gloranthan Bestiary were just an account of the more unusual of the creatures, while the creature book represented the majority of creatures in RQ/Glorantha.

But that does not matter much now., RQ3 is long dead. What matters is if Mongoose is going for a similar approach. A book with generic fantasy creatures, and one with glorantha specific creatures.
The "RuneQuest Monsters" book sounds like it could be rather generic, but that is an assumption on my part.

"Trolls & Trollkin" will most likely be Glorantha specific though.

I wonder how we will know which part of the published material will be covered by the OGL and what will not, especially with such things as Monster and Creature books.

DreadDomain: Please keep the discussion civil and calm. Sales-figures are generally not available, and as such we can only make assumptions based on the discussion with other people. We do not know why and if HeroQuest/Wars has sold less or more than RQ.

However, if we look at what people play at conventions, we can begin to form a conclusion based on what is popular there. Games that tend to be unpopular amongst the large segment of role-players, tend not be represented much on conventions.
Games that are very popular on the other hand, usually make it much more readily into conventions, since they are more likely to draw in players and earn the people who arrange the convention a profit (or at least not have a total loss).
So we can assume that someone who regularly attends conventions, would have an at least partially correct viewpoint of how well a game has done in the past.

Beyond that, there is very little we can gain access to, in determining how well a game does, or have done in the past. Unless the company behind the game goes public with their sales figures, and that has to my knowledge, not happened.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Speaking of Gloranthan cultures, was there ever anything published even remotely close to the depth of Trollpak for the elves or dwarves?

There was Elder Secrets, which wasn't quite on the same scale but definitely gave a very high level of detail - certainly far higher than any other system at the time.

I always got the feeling that these weren't meant to be a PC race (unless you were running an Elves only campaign) as ultimately each race (but Dwarfs in particular moreso than Elves) ended up as different from humans as a cat would be.

I remember a dwarf character in a campaign I ran back then going around declaring that he was a functional part of the world machine, throwing dead companions into a ditch to rot (much the same as you'd discard damaged equipment), and generally ending up being totally impossible for anybody to adventure with!!!

 

[DreadDomain]

DreadDomain: Please keep the discussion civil and calm.

My post must look much more agressive than intended. Believe me, I am very, very calm about this.

As for civil, I read my post again and I sure don't see any insult into it, directed at Wulf or anybody else for that matter. Please do not put evil intentions behind my words. I know written communication is tricky but no harm was meant.

Sales-figures are generally not available, and as such we can only make assumptions based on the discussion with other people. We do not know why and if HeroQuest/Wars has sold less or more than RQ.

My point exactly.

However, if we look at what people play at conventions, we can begin to form a conclusion based on what is popular there. Games that tend to be unpopular amongst the large segment of role-players, tend not be represented much on conventions.
Games that are very popular on the other hand, usually make it much more readily into conventions, since they are more likely to draw in players and earn the people who arrange the convention a profit (or at least not have a total loss).
So we can assume that someone who regularly attends conventions, would have an at least partially correct viewpoint of how well a game has done in the past.

I agree it could be an indication but hardly a reason to conclude that people just haven't bought into the new Glorantha. Like you do say yourself, it is an assumption and from there, it is quite easy (and human) to draw incorrect conclusions. It is even more true regarding why "people" didn't. Both Wulf and I may not have liked the new Glorantha but I suspect it is not entirely for the same reasons. As a matter of fact, I am not even sure that what I consider the "new Glorantha" is the same as what you or anyone else do.

Beyond that, there is very little we can gain access to, in determining how well a game does, or have done in the past. Unless the company behind the game goes public with their sales figures, and that has to my knowledge, not happened.

Again, I agree.

 

[SteveMND]

But that does not matter much now., RQ3 is long dead.

I wouldn't be quite so adamant on that... I know several folks -- myself included -- who feel that RQ3, as the last real incarnation of the BRP system, is still the best game mechanic for RP games out there even after all these years. We'll have to see how MGPRQ does in trying to supplant that with their new version.

I wonder how we will know which part of the published material will be covered by the OGL and what will not, especially with such things as Monster and Creature books.

Well, again, we'll have to see how MG does their OGL, but seeing as they've published quite a lot under the d20 OGL, I suspect it will be similar. There will be a page at the beginning (or end, whatever) of the book that provides the legal disclaimer needed by the OGL license, plus a list of what in the book is OGL and what in the book is not OGL. In short, what was typically "open" (you could use it in other publications and commercial venues) was all the rule-based materials -- stats, figures, game mechanics, etc. -- and what was "closed" (you could not reprint or use in a non-personal venue) was everything related to a particular setting or campaign -- history, flavor text, names, descriptions, etc. Essentially crunchy bits versus flavor bits.

There was Elder Secrets, which wasn't quite on the same scale but definitely gave a very high level of detail - certainly far higher than any other system at the time.

Yep, I have that one myself. While certainly more involved than a quick one-paragraph write-up in a bestiary, it still came up far short compared to the depth of Trollpak. Ah well.

I always got the feeling that these weren't meant to be a PC race.

Same here. I also got the impression that -- like most of the other creatures listed in the various books -- sure, they could be played as PCs if you have the right sort of gaming group and the right sort of campaign, but that was never their primary intent.

 

[Archer]

DreadDomain: Sorry, I read too much into your words. As you say, written communication can sometimes come across in a spirit in which it was not was intended.

My words were expressed only out of fear that this so far, civil and calm, discussion dealing with Dwarves and Elves would not be reduced to the "sandbox" level.

I have so far learned a lot of what might be and not be with MRQs elves and dwarves. And in the end, it is something we will have to wait for the release to get set in stone.

SteveMND: I did not intend that meaning with my words. I meant "dead" as in is no longer published. I realize that there are players still playing RQ3, just as there are those playing many older editions of other RPGs. This however is not a fact that means that it is alive in the sense I am using the word, beyond the publications of a hardcore group of fans.

I myself began with a Basic Role-playing game much like RQ2, and Basic Role-playing has been one of my two absolute favorite systems since that time (the other being WFRP).

It is this passion for systems like Basic Role-playing (in all it's modified forms) that made me make a mental back-flip of joy when I got the word about a new RQ, and that the system would be OGL.
I immediately began envisioning as a large game with a multitude of settings to choose from. That might be unrealistic, but I hope that it is not, and that the new RQ will succeed in meeting my rather high expectations.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

I always got the feeling that these weren't meant to be a PC race.

Same here. I also got the impression that -- like most of the other creatures listed in the various books -- sure, they could be played as PCs if you have the right sort of gaming group and the right sort of campaign, but that was never their primary intent.

We could put that one down to another case of "Gloranthan weirdness": Humans and Trolls as the primary PC races!!! D & D fans run in terror!!!