MRQ and Minis

[Urox]

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)

Oooh, you don't want to be going down trivia lane with me! You only need Knowledge Glorantha: 33% to know that it's the EWF Banner.

I called it a wyvern because somewhere in the back of my brain, I recall that it was supposed to represent the EWF Wyvern Rider legion, although I very well could be wrong (or Greg could have changed his mind in the last 20 years).

I did a little surfing, and found a little more info on editions:

The first edition of Runequest was a 120-page saddle-stiched book with a two-color (black and red) cover. There was Gloranthan background implicit in Runequest from this first edition, though it wasn't really expanded upon until some of the second edition supplements.

[Second Edition RuneQuest is a] 120-page rulebook that largely served to polish the original ruleset of RQ. This was generally a well-loved and well-respected edition of RuneQuest. As recently as 2006, expansions were still being published for it, long after the end of official support for both the RQ2 and RQ3 lines.

Chaosium published numerous small variants of [second] edition. Most reproduce the Luise Perrin artwork from the original edition in a new, fully colored form. However there was at least one printing which reproduced it entirely in red and another which reproduced it entirely in green. The oldest printings show the old "The Chaosium" logo, while more recent ones show "Chaosium Inc.".

 

[Adept]

I called it a wyvern because somewhere in the back of my brain, I recall that it was supposed to represent the EWF Wyvern Rider legion, although I very well could be wrong (or Greg could have changed his mind in the last 20 years).

The Warbanner of the EWF is from Greg's book "King of Sartar". As far as I know that's what the chaosium symbol is supposed bo represent.

 

[Urox]

The Warbanner of the EWF is from Greg's book "King of Sartar". As far as I know that's what the chaosium symbol is supposed bo represent.

I just took a quick look, and the earliest version I could find of the EWF Banner image was on Wyrm's Footnotes #1. In this version, it has neither arms or legs.

It gains arms and legs later.

I will attempt to channel Greg and interpret the various incarnations of the Logo to symbolize the EWF's progress in the art/science of manufacturing dragons -- from Wyrm to Wyvern to Dragon.

 

[homerjsinnott]

The Warbanner of the EWF is from Greg's book "King of Sartar". As far as I know that's what the chaosium symbol is supposed bo represent.

I just took a quick look, and the earliest version I could find of the EWF Banner image was on Wyrm's Footnotes #1. In this version, it has neither arms or legs.

It gains arms and legs later.

I will attempt to channel Greg and interpret the various incarnations of the Logo to symbolize the EWF's progress in the art/science of manufacturing dragons -- from Wyrm to Wyvern to Dragon.

I would have thought that it would go wyvern, wyrm, dragon.
As wyrms are loose INT rather than fixed

But I suppose they could have gone through a warlike stage :shock:

 

[Adept]

I would have thought that it would go wyvern, wyrm, dragon.
As wyrms are loose INT rather than fixed

But I suppose they could have gone through a warlike stage :shock:

A wyvern has variable int (is intelligent) as well, it just tends to be a bit dim (2d6 int).

In a Shadow World game my character got the chanse to fulfil his long term project and raise and train wyverns as mounts for his family (this tooks decades, it's a true high-fantasy game with large scope). The big things are so cute. Sort of like a cross between a family member, a large pet and a mount.

Much nicer than a winged horse, by the way. Wyverns are _tough_!

Oh, and I meant that the current chaosium logo (and the one the King of Sartar cover) is the one that is on the Battle Banner. I don't know the meaning / story of the original armless logo.

 

[homerjsinnott]

I would have thought that it would go wyvern, wyrm, dragon.
As wyrms are loose INT rather than fixed

But I suppose they could have gone through a warlike stage :shock:

A wyvern has variable int (is intelligent) as well, it just tends to be a bit dim (2d6 int).

In a Shadow World game my character got the chanse to fulfil his long term project and raise and train wyverns as mounts for his family (this tooks decades, it's a true high-fantasy game with large scope). The big things are so cute. Sort of like a cross between a family member, a large pet and a mount.

Much nicer than a winged horse, by the way. Wyverns are _tough_!

Oh, and I meant that the current chaosium logo (and the one the King of Sartar cover) is the one that is on the Battle Banner. I don't know the meaning / story of the original armless logo.

Ooops! yeh you're right, do they become dimmer because the empire becomes more warlike do you think?

It was the Empire of the Wyrms Friends hence being feetless.


What's Shadow World? ICE?

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

The Warbanner of the EWF is from Greg's book "King of Sartar". As far as I know that's what the chaosium symbol is supposed bo represent.

I just took a quick look, and the earliest version I could find of the EWF Banner image was on Wyrm's Footnotes #1. In this version, it has neither arms or legs.

It gains arms and legs later.

I will attempt to channel Greg and interpret the various incarnations of the Logo to symbolize the EWF's progress in the art/science of manufacturing dragons -- from Wyrm to Wyvern to Dragon.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It'll probably end up as a mountain range in Ormsgone vale.

 

[kpmcdona]

Its usually exuberance and enthusiasm to do well that gets in the way of common sense and good book-keeping.

Ah, this is practically an axiom in my game group! Particularly if you insert "should" before "get in the way".

The use of maps and minis depends largely on what you are trying to achieve in your game. Sometimes I like playing with minis, but those "simulationist" campagins are few and far between these days. When we want minis we play a minis game like Necromunda, War Hammer, etc. Most of our RPG play is more free-wheeling. D&D sometimes makes and appearance with or without minis, being a hybrid.

Most of our games, though, shoot for a cinematic (in the drama sense, not neccessarily hyper-action) feel where minis are definately a drag. A recent example of the problem with minis in a cinematic game occured in a Feng Shui campaign that a friend of mine ran. He insisted on using maps and minis dispite the rule book devoting a small chapter to the "maps are not your friend" principle. What happened was that scenes that should have been dramatic bogged down and became dull because nobody could actually *do* anything dramatic when they needed to - they were too far away, or some other tactical problem. Realistic? Yep. Dramatic? Not so much.

Elsewhere in this thread someone posted an example of a GM and player arguing over the relative location of the characters in a game. This was inteneded, I think, to show how using minis solves that sort of problem. And it does. It just isn't the ONLY way to solve the problem. In cinematic games it is resolved by the GM saying "Yes" to things that make dramatic sense. You can't do that with minis on the table precicely because everyone knows exactly where everyone is at all times. To ensure that the most dramatic options are always available you need to keep the exact location of things vague. Note that "dramatic" doesn't always mean "successful".

Anyway, I think the old RuneQuest versions were flexible enough to go either way. (I don't yet know about MRQ). This is a good thing because it lets each group decide for each game how they want a particular campaign to go. Of course this sentiment drifts dangerously close to starting the old "generic versus custom" game design debate. Let's not go there!

~Kevin

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Feng Shui is one of the newer breed, I forgot about the Cinematic approach and you are quite right that Minis and Map do NOT go well with that.

 

[Melkor]

My gaming group and I have been playing rpgs since around 1986 (same core three members with additions and subtractions) over the decades. We definitely fall in the 'prefer if minis are not a necessity' crowd.

The only game we have actively used miniatures for has been D&D 3.5, and even then, for smaller battles, the miniatures didn't come out.

We found minis to both interrupt the dynamic flow of the story, and 'get in the way' of our collective imaginations. To us, the setup required for... say...a dungeon, where part of the dungeon layout was hidden from view, (but other parts were visible to the players) led to the necessity of pausing the game to uncover areas (or 'assemble' hidden areas) and set up the scene for combat - interrupting play, and slowing down the game.

Eventually, I went to drawing a grid map behind the DM screen (and generally ahead of time) to keep accurate positions, but describing the action in a completely narrative style. For whatever reason, this worked out well for both myself, and my players because they said it helped them 'imagine the scene' better than if they were staring at map tiles and miniatures - yet we were able to retain precise positioning .

When we aren't playing D&D, a rough sketch on whatever scratch paper is available serves to set the scene, then it is only referred back to if positioning becomes a point of contention.

All of that said, I don't begrudge anyone for their desire to use miniatures, and I can definitely see the appeal. It really comes down to personal preference, and some people see it as a benefit, others a distraction.

In the end, I will probably still be buying the Mongoose RQ minis just because they look cool.

 

[Urox]

Feng Shui is one of the newer breed, I forgot about the Cinematic approach and you are quite right that Minis and Map do NOT go well with that.

You can strike a closer blow by pointing out that Hero Wars/Hero Quest are also not miniature games.

Feng Shui is another Rob Laws design, and while it looks good on paper, it fails in extended use (it's more of a novelty game).

That said, it does give a couple of examples where the system is really wedded to the world -- especially the combat rules, of which it has two sets. The first is for mowing down 'unnamed characters' where you roll dice to see how many cannon fodder you take down per action. The second combat system is for named characters, where you spend forever rolling dice with very little outcome from each roll (mimicing an extended fight between two masters in a kung fu movie).

Another wedded mechanism is the Combat Stunt. This is a pure storytelling aspect of the combat mechanic.

Player 1: I punch the bad guy.
GM: Ok, make a punch roll

Player 2: I loudly crack my knuckles, followed by cracking my neck. I put up my hand like this to get the bad guys attention, then I use my left hand to point up at the ceiling, and when he turns his head, I let him have it with my right fist, which I've tensed into a tight ball.
GM: Ok, make a punch roll with a +2 Stunt bonus.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Mongoose ARE producing RQ minis, I like using minis - I'm happy.

They work for me and my group.

DUCKS, DUCKS, DUCKS Galore!

 

[Adept]

What's Shadow World? ICE?

A brilliant High-fantasy (and Sci-Fi-fantasy) setting by one Terry K. Amthor.
The only problem with Shadow World is that it's written for Rolemaster (stats also for Hero system). My GM runs it with Hârnmaster, and it's the best combination ever.

http://hometown.aol.com/terbob/Sworld.html