Forum Replies Created
August 26, 2015 at 5:56 am #17131August 26, 2015 at 12:11 am #17127
Is your name not “Blue Fox”, then?
No, it’s “Vailor”.
That’s going to cause a little confusion.
Mind if we call you “Blue Fox” to keep it clear?
The German model seems to be based on there being 8 clans, but I can only find mention of seven names in total: the five above, plus the Arsgol and the Pant. Hauberk Jon is said in HoW to have been a chief of the Arsgol. Of course, if one wishes to reconcile these, perhaps one or two additional clans were lost between 1613 and ’21. (To lose two clans might be regarded as a misfortune; to lose four looks like carelessness.)
The question of the status of “new” clans is an interesting one. Notionally, tribal rings are voluntary, and based on equality between the participants. In practice… politics happens. The “improvement” here may be over the alternative of “or else you’ll have the Provincial Army to deal with”. And likewise, a certain amount of triumphalism from the gainers and resentment from the transferred may obtain, especially in the short term. That might continue for a while if there’s a stable, quasi-dynastic arrangement amongst the older clans (or perhaps not so quasi, depending on what their kingship rite is). Or if there’s general prejudice against the newcomers, that persists over time. But in the long run, it’s not an efficient way to “suppress” them. If you want to really shaft your neighbours, you’d much rather be unfounding/breaking up/destroying them (chose most apt term according to desired level of violence or euphemism). Not by giving them a say in your tribe’s government — even one you might be able to temporarily negate by a powerful king, a bit of block voting, or such means.July 31, 2015 at 3:17 am #16810
“how do you translate “landmark” to a position in the sky?”
> The Buseri would use their frame and coordinates, and then translate that into something for the masses.
I think Joerg was referring to the metaphor-clunking aspect of a *land*mark being in the *sky*.
I’m not sure using frame “sectors” is a good fit. It’s pretty dry, even by Dara Happan standards. It’s not consistent with the “constellation” basis. It’s (even!) less clear what celestial phenomenon it would be measuring.
The constellation idea is suggestive of tracking the position of some other celestial body against the Sky Dome, presumably at some specified time of day. (Sunset, end of twilight, midnight, etc. Not sure off the top of my head which combination fits the bill.) There are no real “zodiac objects” in Glorantha, because the Sunpath and the celestial (or stellar, at least) equator are almost perpendicular, so nothing moves on an annual basis, without also moving a large amount through the night. Where there’s no handy constellation, some purely conventional name might be used, but even the Desert likely has a few faint stars, and hence obscure asterisms. For comparison there’s about 5000 stars notionally visible on Earth, which is considerably more than we have charted for Glorantha.
The idea of a ten-day week, in a world that has a year that’s suspiciously neatly factorisable by 2, 3, and 7 (twice!) is of course completely bonkers. And very, very solar. I love it. A “sensible” version would obviously just have 28 normal weeks and a 14-day Sacred Time type interlude. But “sensible” seems the antithesis to what’s called for here. The four odd days might be considered extra-weekly. Or else it might use “leap weeks”.
I think there’s much mythic grist to the mill in the calendar being such an awkward fit to the year. From a Solar POV, it’s obviously the year’s fault. Give us back our missing six (or 106, or however many) days!August 20, 2014 at 3:42 am #10501
Very much agree with boz about the “M’s”. Earlyish in my second long-running HQ game, I finally snapped, and called the first two “narrow” and “solid”, making the abbreviations all unique, and taking care of the “minor just don’t satisfy” issue, which had also niggled at me.
Later, I proudly reported this to Robin, while in Tentacles’ bar, and he said “… why the goodness gracious didn’t you tell us this during playtesting?” Without using the words “goodness” or “gracious”. Alas, my tweaking was much slower-burning: playtesting was right back the start of the first such HQ game. Then again, YG(M/W)V might hold true for G=gamesystem, too.
I do like Phil’s way of glossing the results, though. Very “spirit of improv”! And I think exactly in line with how I tried to interpret them.July 11, 2014 at 11:58 pm #9803
If you’re aiming for the generic small swarmy enemies of “old” D&D, the above suggestions all seem excellent. If you require the revisionist, reptilian/draconic take of “new” D&D more specifically, some sort of deviant dragonewt would be an option. (Or perhaps a type of Lesser Slarge, though they’re much more glorographically limited.)