MRQ and Minis

[Wulf Corbett]

But then the GM could answer with "what chandelier" Lol!

Yes, he can, both is he wants to be restrictive and play God in his own creation, and if he simply doesn't want a chandelier there. But at least if the player has to think up there own map, they are actually THINKING, not just working out modifiers, distances and AoO.

Wulf

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

But then the GM could answer with "what chandelier" Lol!

Yes, he can, both is he wants to be restrictive and play God in his own creation, and if he simply doesn't want a chandelier there. But at least if the player has to think up there own map, they are actually THINKING, not just working out modifiers, distances and AoO.

ulf

I (personally) don't think thats fair on my Players, they need to know all the perameters (just like in real life) to make educated and realistic decisions.

 

[Lord Twig]

I am of the pro-miniature sort. I like to have a structured combat where everything is relative and everyone is on the same page. Without miniatures there are always arguments on where things are, who is where and who can get to what.

Just finished off your opponent and want to help your friend? With a map you know exactly how far you need to go and everyone else sees exactly the same thing. Without it, it is completely subjective.

Player: "I rush to my friend’s aid!"

GM: "He is to far away to reach him this round."

Player: "What do you mean? I was standing right next to him!"

GM: "No you weren't. The dragon breathed fire and you didn't take any damage because you were too far away."

Player: "No, I didn't take damage because the cone wasn't aimed to hit me."

GM: "Yeah, because you were to far away!"

Bottom line. I hope there are enough rules to play with miniatures, but I hope that the rules aren't so dependant on them that they are required. Some times you just want to rush the gate guards and dispatch them before moving on to the real adventure.

RQIII definitely had rules that worked with miniatures. Everything was measured.

Oh, and I hope they use hexes instead of squares.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I (personally) don't think thats fair on my Players, they need to know all the perameters (just like in real life) to make educated and realistic decisions.

Let them free from the shackles of your imposed "realism"! let their minds lose, and allow their imagination to rouse itself from hibernatin! Let a little Spring light enter this darkened hall of rigid "facts"!

Players who can't populate their own battlefields with terrain, obstacles, objects and trivia just aren't even trying.

Wulf

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

I am of the pro-miniature sort. I like to have a structured combat where everything is relative and everyone is on the same page. Without miniatures there are always arguments on where things are, who is where and who can get to what.

Just finished off your opponent and want to help your friend? With a map you know exactly how far you need to go and everyone else sees exactly the same thing. Without it, it is completely subjective.

Player: "I rush to my friend’s aid!"

GM: "He is to far away to reach him this round."

Player: "What do you mean? I was standing right next to him!"

GM: "No you weren't. The dragon breathed fire and you didn't take any damage because you were too far away."

Player: "No, I didn't take damage because the cone wasn't aimed to hit me."

GM: "Yeah, because you were to far away!"

Bottom line. I hope there are enough rules to play with miniatures, but I hope that the rules aren't so dependant on them that they are required. Some times you just want to rush the gate guards and dispatch them before moving on to the real adventure.

RQIII definitely had rules that worked with miniatures. Everything was measured.

Oh, and I hope they use hexes instead of squares.

I've ACTUALLY ran a game with a similar situation like that in it. I was on holiday in Portmerion (Wales) when someone suggested we play RQ.

I only had my Rulebooks (in the boot of my Car) with me at the time, so we couldn't use miniatures.

We ended up wasting an hour debating things.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

I (personally) don't think thats fair on my Players, they need to know all the perameters (just like in real life) to make educated and realistic decisions.

Let them free from the shackles of your imposed "realism"! let their minds lose, and allow their imagination to rouse itself from hibernatin! Let a little Spring light enter this darkened hall of rigid "facts"!

Players who can't populate their own battlefields with terrain, obstacles, objects and trivia just aren't even trying.

Wulf

Like I said "Agree to disagree", your perspective is different to mine as mine is to yours.

 

[Urox]

Was it this one, if it was indeed the Second Print Run.

Im pretty sure the 1st Imprinting of the 1st Edition book had a B&W Cover.

I don't have the edition above. I have a RQ2 that looks close to it -- is has the modern wyvern logo (not the Wm Church one) and a perfect binding. I also have a two-tone RQ2 that came in the box set that is identical to my color cover RQ2.

Mine looks pretty much (well, exaclty) like:

The cover isn't black and white, but is two-tone with a brown on pink (or close to that, I'm partially colorblind).

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Does that say 1st printing inside?

Mine actually has a photocopied cover, as the original 'vaporized' from use!

 

[Urox]

Does that say 1st printing inside?

It has no edition information on the inside. It does have the infamous *Glorontha* typo on the back cover.

MiG2 meantions that there are at least 6 covers for RQ 1-2.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Does that say 1st printing inside?

It has no edition information on the inside. It does have the infamous *Glorontha* typo on the back cover.

MiG2 meantions that there are at least 6 covers for RQ 1-2.

Hmmmmmmmm, I'll have to look into that (not the Typo Lol).

 

[Adept]

[
I don't have the edition above. I have a RQ2 that looks close to it -- is has the modern wyvern logo (not the Wm Church one) and a perfect binding.

The logo is actually a dragon (check it out, it does have front limbs if you look closely), and it is the design of the Battle Banner of the EWF. Just about the most powerful magical artefact in the history of Glorantha.
(uh, check out the geek with the trivia)

As for the subject, I'm firmly in the camp favouring miniatures. For my Super Hero game (in the setting of Nephilim) I've bought and modified heroclix miniatures, and for my dark fantasy game I specifically stated I wanted character's for whom we can manage to find and paint good miniatures.

I've been using a huge laminated hexchart as a table cloth, and drawing on it with a set of colour markers (non permanent). I've also made a point of having miniatures for everything encountered in the game, as well as some nice trees and other props.

It has worked brilliantly. The response and enthusiasm of the players has been very rewarding to see. When one can flesh out the scenes nicely, no time is wasted on argument, and it's easy to visualize oneself in the situation.

I don't use minis obsessively, but in any fight or similar scene where they will help I'm glad I have the option.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

[
I don't have the edition above. I have a RQ2 that looks close to it -- is has the modern wyvern logo (not the Wm Church one) and a perfect binding.

The logo is actually a dragon (check it out, it does have front limbs if you look closely), and it is the design of the Battle Banner of the EWF. Just about the most powerful magical artefact in the history of Glorantha.
(uh, check out the geek with the trivia)

As for the subject, I'm firmly in the camp favouring miniatures. For my Super Hero game (in the setting of Nephilim) I've bought and modified heroclix miniatures, and for my dark fantasy game I specifically stated I wanted character's for whom we can manage to find and paint good miniatures.

I've been using a huge laminated hexchart as a table cloth, and drawing on it with a set of colour markers (non permanent). I've also made a point of having miniatures for everything encountered in the game, as well as some nice trees and other props.

It has worked brilliantly. The response and enthusiasm of the players has been very rewarding to see. When one can flesh out the scenes nicely, no time is wasted on argument, and it's easy to visualize oneself in the situation.

I don't use minis obsessively, but in any fight or similar scene where they will help I'm glad I have the option.

That sounds like the games we play!

Superb, I love it when your players 'enthuse'!

 

[Gaheir]

I join the pro-mini's group. It clears confusion and adds to the enjoyment of the game for myself and most of those I've played with through the years. Miniatures and scenery add to the bringing to life of the fantasy. Your character is placed, in a concrete way, in a situation that you can now picture more clearly. Without their use, description and intent is very subjective. Who was where on the path when the trollkin released a rockslide? Yes, a march order, written down, might give the same information. But, which one is more appealing? To me, I'll take mini's anytime.
But, rules do not have to be rigid to use them. Their use should be to enhance the fantasy, to make it more believable, not to abolish it in realism. Would I have to have mapped a chandalier in a tavern for it to be there? No. If it is reasonable and a player suggests such a useful thing I will generally accept the possibility, and perhaps require a luck roll (pow x 5) for such a common thing to be there.

 

[Cobra]

I (personally) don't think thats fair on my Players, they need to know all the perameters (just like in real life) to make educated and realistic decisions.

Let them free from the shackles of your imposed "realism"! let their minds lose, and allow their imagination to rouse itself from hibernatin! Let a little Spring light enter this darkened hall of rigid "facts"!

Players who can't populate their own battlefields with terrain, obstacles, objects and trivia just aren't even trying.

Wulf

If you two ever play a game together, I might suggest you use plasticene figures shaped like Gumby, or mabe bits of chewed gum - that way you can see what's going on, but still mould yourself and the world around you on a whim. The best of both worlds, no?

Personally, I like the use of miniatures. I was introduced to them through runequest, a system that I found them eminently suited for. We also used battlemats (square and hex) for ease, rather than a tape measure or scale, and they were fine.

Wulf, while I respect your likes and dislikes, I think that the freeform roleplaying you describe is not to most people's taste.

I also don't think that it requires any less thinking to play within the defined world of a gamemaster. It might require a little less imagination, but probably a little more logic to battle the constraints. Did you never (as a kid) build something out of LEGO, then take it into another room and dismantle it, then try to build something completely different using all the same pieces, no more or less? Now that requires creative thinking within a rigid environment.

Cobra

 

[homerjsinnott]

I am of the pro-miniature sort. I like to have a structured combat where everything is relative and everyone is on the same page. Without miniatures there are always arguments on where things are, who is where and who can get to what.

Just finished off your opponent and want to help your friend? With a map you know exactly how far you need to go and everyone else sees exactly the same thing. Without it, it is completely subjective.

Player: "I rush to my friend’s aid!"

GM: "He is to far away to reach him this round."

Player: "What do you mean? I was standing right next to him!"

GM: "No you weren't. The dragon breathed fire and you didn't take any damage because you were too far away."

Player: "No, I didn't take damage because the cone wasn't aimed to hit me."

GM: "Yeah, because you were to far away!"

Bottom line. I hope there are enough rules to play with miniatures, but I hope that the rules aren't so dependant on them that they are required. Some times you just want to rush the gate guards and dispatch them before moving on to the real adventure.

RQIII definitely had rules that worked with miniatures. Everything was measured.

Oh, and I hope they use hexes instead of squares.

The example you give, I hope it isn't a real one? Sad reff that. I must agree with Wulf here to a greater extent, I much prefer to Reff and Play without figures, they slow the game down and take a lot from the creativity of the game.
However If I am being lazy as a reff or just want to know party order, we get out the figures/dice, usually dice. But fairly soon after the combat the figures/dice are forgotten.
I admit that a well painted firgure is nice to look at, but more often than not they aren't well or even painted.

Roleplaying Did owe a lot to Wargaming, but now it doesn't, thank Yamsur.

 

[Lord Twig]

No, but I have definitely had arguments like that. Players will image things just fine, but it always seems to be in their favor. While the characters should definitely have the chance to be heroic, part of an exciting story is when they fail. They strive desperately to reach their friend, but are just seconds too late! Just because it would be heroic to reach his friend in time doesn't mean he should.

 

[estarriol]

I admit, I like the group in miniatures, shows how they are moving and who is where, but thats about it, I don't wargame RQ (I could if the rules for a skirmish wargame were around) I use it as shorthand for who is where and doing what.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Miniatures rule!

They add not subtract, it baffles me that people call using miniatures 'limiting' especially when they use Rules to facilitate game play - when rules themselves impose limitations!

You might as well purely 'free form' your games, and have done with it!

 

[Wulf Corbett]

You might as well purely 'free form' your games, and have done with it!

And usually do...

Wulf

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

You might as well purely 'free form' your games, and have done with it!

And usually do...

Wulf

Aaaah, that explains so very much . . . . . . .

:lol: :shock: :roll: