Atelerix
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 558
- Reaction score
- 1,493
My sense of RQ is a little different, although it's a bit later. I started playing in the mid 80s with RQ3 (my first D&D session was 1983). We did the adventuring and exploring, but also the "meeting other cultures" stuff because it was there in the material. Sure you could kick ass in the Grog Shoppe, Crabtown or the Grubfarm, but the alternatives to fighting were presented (and often more survivable). Same with Cults of Prax and Pavis. Gods of Glorantha (1985) had the "What my father told me" playsheets for different cultures.
We also did the "different religious philosophies" stuff, in the way that only stoned students gaming at 3am can...
By 1995 RQ was moving away from me with its depth and detail. Diamond Dwarfs and Ralzakark belonged to a different game than Runequest, and it's probably no coincidence that Hero Wars was what came out next.
At this point, I'm certainly not going to be bound by what the setting did or was in the first 10% of a lifespan that has included multiple rulesets and setting revisions. Is Star Trek defined only by ToS season 1, or the last season of Discovery? No to both, and with such a huge amount of material the only thing that matters is your headcanon - what interests you and how you want to game that. It shouldn't be a pre-game exam you have to pass before they sell you the book, and I feel RQ:G can feel a little overwhelming - and restrictive - in that regard.
As for the "cultural clothing" thing - I see it as a a bunch of assumptions and cues wrapped up in a shorthand visual description. A Viking warrior, an Orc mercenary and an Aquilonian nobleman are going to interact with you in VERY different ways, even if their stats and equipment are identical. How they enact justice, welcome strangers, call for backup, react to other cultures will lead to radically different adventures - I agree with zanshin there too, it's an in-game tool.
Of course the GM is then free to mess with those assumptions. Maybe "civilised" noble infighting is dirtier than barbarian cultures with strong rules of hospitality, maybe Praxian nomads are more accepting of people who are "out-laws" from their own cultures but prepared to learn the rules of the desert. Maybe the brutal monsters with tusks who come in the darkness are staunch allies against chaos, and the city nobles and priests are dangerously naive dabblers in cosmic horror.
Another strike against RQ:G is that the new visual cues mean less than previous ones. Celts vs Romans describes a world, a setting and a campaign in a sentence, in a way that, say, "blue Mycenaeans vs moon-worshipping Assyrians" doesn't.
We also did the "different religious philosophies" stuff, in the way that only stoned students gaming at 3am can...
By 1995 RQ was moving away from me with its depth and detail. Diamond Dwarfs and Ralzakark belonged to a different game than Runequest, and it's probably no coincidence that Hero Wars was what came out next.
At this point, I'm certainly not going to be bound by what the setting did or was in the first 10% of a lifespan that has included multiple rulesets and setting revisions. Is Star Trek defined only by ToS season 1, or the last season of Discovery? No to both, and with such a huge amount of material the only thing that matters is your headcanon - what interests you and how you want to game that. It shouldn't be a pre-game exam you have to pass before they sell you the book, and I feel RQ:G can feel a little overwhelming - and restrictive - in that regard.
As for the "cultural clothing" thing - I see it as a a bunch of assumptions and cues wrapped up in a shorthand visual description. A Viking warrior, an Orc mercenary and an Aquilonian nobleman are going to interact with you in VERY different ways, even if their stats and equipment are identical. How they enact justice, welcome strangers, call for backup, react to other cultures will lead to radically different adventures - I agree with zanshin there too, it's an in-game tool.
Of course the GM is then free to mess with those assumptions. Maybe "civilised" noble infighting is dirtier than barbarian cultures with strong rules of hospitality, maybe Praxian nomads are more accepting of people who are "out-laws" from their own cultures but prepared to learn the rules of the desert. Maybe the brutal monsters with tusks who come in the darkness are staunch allies against chaos, and the city nobles and priests are dangerously naive dabblers in cosmic horror.
Another strike against RQ:G is that the new visual cues mean less than previous ones. Celts vs Romans describes a world, a setting and a campaign in a sentence, in a way that, say, "blue Mycenaeans vs moon-worshipping Assyrians" doesn't.
Last edited: