Visual style?

[Archer]

How has the visual style of creatures etc. changed from previous editions (assuming they have)?
Many creatures etc. looked like something that had escaped from a very bad movie out of the 50's or 60's, has there been some changes to make them more contemporary in their looks?

In my personal experience, I had problems with using many creatures because the players (with several groups) just had a laughing fit whenever they got to know how creatures looked.

 

[Etepete]

I'm a bit concerned about what I'm seeing so far. Not because of the Broo and the ducks and the way the different rather freakish denizens of Glorantha are portrayed, but because the Rulebook rather looks like a cheap ripp off of D&D 3.5 (And to be rather more blunt than honest: it aint pretty, neither of them are). Is that the final cover?

I'm sorry if I'm whining, I'm really looking forward to this game.

 

[Archer]

I'm a bit concerned about what I'm seeing so far. Not because of the Broo and the ducks and the way the different rather freakish denizens of Glorantha are portrayed, but because the Rulebook rather looks like a cheap ripp off of D&D 3.5 (And to be rather more blunt than honest: it aint pretty, neither of them are). Is that the final cover?

I'm sorry if I'm whining, I'm really looking forward to this game.

No, it is a mockup. An image to use until they get the real image.

 

[toothill man]

conan rarley has the correct cover till it is published so will wait till the product is out the gm screen looks more like the sort of art I would look for but could be way off beam 8)

 

[Etepete]

I'm a bit concerned about what I'm seeing so far. Not because of the Broo and the ducks and the way the different rather freakish denizens of Glorantha are portrayed, but because the Rulebook rather looks like a cheap ripp off of D&D 3.5 (And to be rather more blunt than honest: it aint pretty, neither of them are). Is that the final cover?

I'm sorry if I'm whining, I'm really looking forward to this game.

No, it is a mockup. An image to use until they get the real image.

I'm very happy to see you write that! I'm sure mongoose will do an excellent job with cover, layout and artwork. They usually do.

 

[Archer]

I'm a bit concerned about what I'm seeing so far. Not because of the Broo and the ducks and the way the different rather freakish denizens of Glorantha are portrayed, but because the Rulebook rather looks like a cheap ripp off of D&D 3.5 (And to be rather more blunt than honest: it aint pretty, neither of them are). Is that the final cover?

I'm sorry if I'm whining, I'm really looking forward to this game.

No, it is a mockup. An image to use until they get the real image.

I'm very happy to see you write that! I'm sure mongoose will do an excellent job with cover, layout and artwork. They usually do.

The big question for me is if the will create a new visual style for glorantha, or if they will go on using the same design to creatures etc. as was used in RQ3. Most of the creatures in the Gloranthan Bestiary looked plain ridicolous, like something that had escpaed from a bad horror or scifi movie from the 50's and 60's.

 

[Etepete]

The big question for me is if the will create a new visual style for glorantha, or if they will go on using the same design to creatures etc. as was used in RQ3. Most of the creatures in the Gloranthan Bestiary looked plain ridicolous, like something that had escpaed from a bad horror or scifi movie from the 50's and 60's.

Yes, I realize I was rather OT, sry. It's an interesting question. My main game at the moment is a swedish classic reborn called Mutant. Partly as a legacy from RQ (and partly TMNT i suppose) it features intelligent, humanoid mutant animals, and some players definitely has a problem with this. But the company has a distinct visual style, in layout, graphics and even descriptions which makes them blend in nicely, even makes them a necessary part of the mood and feel of the game.

Pictures are important, but really writing them into the game and treating them as real parts of the world also makes a hell of a difference. I'm confindent it can be done, but it requires some thought and effort.

 

[Archer]

The big question for me is if the will create a new visual style for glorantha, or if they will go on using the same design to creatures etc. as was used in RQ3. Most of the creatures in the Gloranthan Bestiary looked plain ridicolous, like something that had escpaed from a bad horror or scifi movie from the 50's and 60's.

Yes, I realize I was rather OT, sry. It's an interesting question. My main game at the moment is a swedish classic reborn called Mutant. Partly as a legacy from RQ (and partly TMNT i suppose) it features intelligent, humanoid mutant animals, and some players definitely has a problem with this. But the company has a distinct visual style, in layout, graphics and even descriptions which makes them blend in nicely, even makes them a necessary part of the mood and feel of the game.

Pictures are important, but really writing them into the game and treating them as real parts of the world also makes a hell of a difference. I'm confindent it can be done, but it requires some thought and effort.

Hehe, I know Mutant very well. Mutant Undergångens Arvtagare, as well as the earlier version. However, I like the very first version of mutant more than I like M:UA.
It has inherited much from Gamma World, and an old game called Complex Alpha. Only the mechanics have any heritage from RQ, as DoD1/2 used the same mechanics, and Mutant 1 used the same mechanics as DoD.
M:UA has more similarities with the rules from Stormbringer 4th/5th edition than it has similiarities with RQ.

Yes, description is also equally important. But it matters very little when you are going to show a picture of the creature their characters are facing. I have played RQ with several groups, during many sessions that has ended up in a luaghing fit due to the really bad pictures in the Gloranthan Bestiary (Avalon Hill).

 

[Etepete]

True, but if the pics are bad, you could just describe the creature... It's an RPG after all: you're supposed to use your imagination.

Well, I think there's a bit of RQ in Mutant after all. I don't think Target Games would have gone for the whole talking animals thing if they hadn't got hooked on the ducks that DoD inherited from RQ. Rulewise, you're obviously 100% correct.

This place is crawling with Swedes, isn't it. Hej på dig

 

[Archer]

True, but if the pics are bad, you could just describe the creature... It's an RPG after all: you're supposed to use your imagination.

Well, I think there's a bit of RQ in Mutant after all. I don't think Target Games would have gone for the whole talking animals thing if they hadn't got hooked on the ducks that DoD inherited from RQ. Rulewise, you're obviously 100% correct.

This place is crawling with Swedes, isn't it. Hej på dig

Well, Gamma World has all the Mutant animals of the Original Mutant, as did Complex Alpha. So I guess that is where they got them from, especially the scottish badgers.

Yes, a lot of swedes here.

 

[Etepete]

Well, Gamma World has all the Mutant animals of the Original Mutant, as did Complex Alpha. So I guess that is where they got them from, especially the scottish badgers.

Is that so? Well, I stand corrected. That's very interesting. Maybe time to get me hands on an old copy of Gamma World.

 

[Archer]

Well, Gamma World has all the Mutant animals of the Original Mutant, as did Complex Alpha. So I guess that is where they got them from, especially the scottish badgers.

Is that so? Well, I stand corrected. That's very interesting. Maybe time to get me hands on an old copy of Gamma World.

Complex Alpha is the original, it took place on a vast spaceship traveling through space, and you required keycards to get from one place to another. This survived into Gamma World (and eventually Mutant). I do not know what rule-system Complex Alpha used, but the first Gamma World used a modified version of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Much later on, in it's fifth incarnation, it used the Alternity system (the system I prefer when it comes to Gamma World), and in it's latest d20 incarnation there is not much left of the old Gamma World, except the name. Everything is changed.

But now, this thread is way off topic.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

It would be nice to see something akin to the 'natural' (Unnatural?) history Guidebooks they did for Call of Cthulhu a number of years back, if you know what I mean. I can't remember the name, and mine are upstairs atm Lol.

With a really well painted picture of each beast, where you would find it, eating habits, hunting habits, and so forth.

 

[Archer]

It would be nice to see something akin to the 'natural' (Unnatural?) history Guidebooks they did for Call of Cthulhu a number of years back, if you know what I mean. I can't remember the name, and mine are upstairs atm Lol.

With a really well painted picture of each beast, where you would find it, eating habits, hunting habits, and so forth.

Not familiar with that.
But what I meant was also something more basic, what basic visual style are they going to use for the design of the creatures?
The very 60's of the original RQ, a more modern fantasy style like LoTR or the gothic / asian mixture of D&D?

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Ahh, got you. The ones I was referring to were the "Field Guides" there were two, one for "Cthulhu Monsters" http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/petersonsmonsters.jpg and another for "Creatures of the Dreamlands" http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/petesguide.jpg

I would prefer (within the Rulebooks) BW line drawings (somewhat better than those in the RQ3 Books) myself.

 

[Archer]

Ahh, got you. The ones I was referring to were the "Field Guides" there were two, one for "Cthulhu Monsters" http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/petersonsmonsters.jpg and another for "Creatures of the Dreamlands" http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/petesguide.jpg

I would prefer (within the Rulebooks) BW line drawings (somewhat better than those in the RQ3 Books) myself.

It all depends on what you want to portray with the visuals.
If you are doing a grim'n gritty setting, or a dark fantasy setting, black and white/greyscale drawings can portray the gloom and doom much better than four color printings.
However, if you are not going after dark or grim'n gritty, then four color printings is good, as it gives you more information than any text could. Exactly _how_ yellow are the snake etc.

 

[t-tauri]

The art in the Gloranthan bestiary plus the art from things like trollpak is ideal. Does Mongoose have any rights to the old artworks and supplements?

 

[Archer]

The art in the Gloranthan bestiary plus the art from things like trollpak is ideal. Does Mongoose have any rights to the old artworks and supplements?

ROTFL, I think we have just found our first troll. (no offense meant, it is just fun to get some arguments going).
Troll-o-meter; 10/10.

Each to its own tastes...

Personally, my tastes in art, has evolved with the years. I am now a lot more demanding than I was 20 years ago.

Even a backwards strifing game like D&D had to update its visual style for the third edition, in order to attract new customers.

 

[t-tauri]

ROTFL, I think we have just found our first troll. (no offense meant, it is just fun to get some arguments going).
Troll-o-meter; 10/10.

Please, in Glorantha we are the Uz.

I think Mongoose need the old customers first.

 

[Archer]

ROTFL, I think we have just found our first troll. (no offense meant, it is just fun to get some arguments going).
Troll-o-meter; 10/10.

Please, in Glorantha we are the Uz.

I think Mongoose need the old customers first.

Ok, me bad. The Uz

Sorry for the long post...

Yes, they need the old customers first. They need to establish a strong foundation, before they can expand the product line with more settings. That is why they release Glorantha first, because it is the setting that is associated with the word "RuneQuest".
However, to make the game last, they also need to publish more settings, to attract other group of players, as well as other setting designers, who might want to take advantage of an RQ OGL insted of what WoTC has to offer (I personally find working with d20 be a tiresome thing).

So I do not argue with you there. But consider that there is nothing that prevents them from putting a general fantasy setting (it does not even need a name, it only needs rules and creature statistics, and a very short description) in the books that mainly contains rules-mechanics (I do not foresee books heavy on rules on the horizon, but I do foresee non-Glorantha specific books).

It would be awesome to have a rule-set that is very much a evolution of the basic role-play system, but with an OGL to allow setting and game designers to use these rules, like WoTC did with d20. The d20-wave is dying off, loosing its momentum, and players are looking for new games, for new systems. But not all are ready to learn too many systems, and quite a few setting designers are not too keen on developing their own rule-system to go with their setting.

Our hobby is not a large one, and only very large companies can survive, as the battle for the consumers money and time is fierce. As happened with the d20/OGC license, the RQ OGL can give small companies a break, the chance to produce their settings, their games, without having to spend a lot of money or time developing a rules-set and try to market it, they can use RQ and provide the players with something that is not d20 at the same time.

The future of our hobby lies with small companies, often only a one-man, part time, publisher. And OGLs are the perfect way to build a brand and give these small publishers something to work with. If you do not believe me about small publishers being the future, take a look on how much the independent scene of RPGs have evolved over the last years (home-brew rpgs that gets published on the net).