Welcome
Welcome to designmechanism

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

AiG progress and Gloranthan Sorcery

Re: AiG progress and Gloranthan Sorcery

Postby loz » Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:41 am

Not sure who pissed in your Cheerios today. Is it not going to be the 7th rules set for RQ? At least in the same context as if you're counting MRQ and MRQ2 as "different"?


Well, since the GenCon announcement, I've actually lost count of the number of people who've pissed in my Cheerios. And in my Cornflakes. As to RQ's nomenclature, no it isn't RQ7. Is Chaosium's 'Cthulhu Dark Ages' 'Cthulhu 8'? If we'd made 'Classic Fantasy' a standalone game, would that be 'RQ X?'. How about RuneQuest Essentials? The answer is no. The same game engine that drives the generic rules will drive the Chaosium edition next year. In response to what to call it, I said Chaosium RuneQuest is just fine. I keep trying to politely reinforce this point, but people seem to willingly ignore it, twist it, leap to unfounded conclusions and assumptions (a bit like your 'and-likely-will-have-errata-and-substantial-clarifications-from-the-6.0-version' assumption) and yes, it pisses me (and others) off. I'm limited in what I can say, how I say it and where I say it. What I can do is make plain what the position is, and ask for some understanding and a little temperance on my own forums (and I did so several times in response to Vile's posts).

Vent over. And I do like the Dude (or Duderino) references.
User avatar
loz
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:16 pm

Re: AiG progress and Gloranthan Sorcery

Postby nclarke » Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:42 am

Way To Go Steve! It takes real chutzpah to try and **** off the owner of the forum and the author of the ruleset in one post. You're lucky that Loz is a nice guy. Some places you'd be banned so fast your account would be locked before you even checked to see if your message had posted.
nclarke
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:42 pm

Re: AiG progress and Gloranthan Sorcery

Postby FANGtheDELECTABLE » Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:52 am

nclarke wrote:Way To Go Steve! ...............


My sentiments exactly. Users can add Steve to their "Foe" list in User Control panel to avoid any more assaults.

Fang
I remember when the internet was full of scientists. Interaction was akin to verbal communication. If you were not personally acquainted or formally introduced, then you were even more polite. Not less.
FANGtheDELECTABLE
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:32 am

Re: AiG progress and Gloranthan Sorcery

Postby loz » Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:55 am

My sentiments exactly. Users can add Steve to their "Foe" list in User Control panel to avoid any more assaults.


Sigh.

Steve's vented. I've vented. Nothing more to see. I've no intention of banning Steve, and I don't consider his post anywhere near offensive enough to warrant a ban consideration. This isn't The Big Purple.

Either this thread gets onto something productive or I'll close it, and I don't want to have to go to all that effort.
User avatar
loz
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:16 pm

Re: AiG progress and Gloranthan Sorcery

Postby Pentallion » Mon Aug 17, 2015 12:48 pm

Everybody needs to vent. It's a complement to Loz and Pete really. We were all so excited that AiG was about to come out.

I'm so disappointed I STILL want to vent. Ah well.
User avatar
Pentallion
 
Posts: 387
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: AiG progress and Gloranthan Sorcery

Postby TheHistorian » Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:00 pm

loz wrote:I'm limited in what I can say, how I say it and where I say it.


I think this is the crux of all the problems.

If you (or anyone) could/would say, "These are exactly the books that will be published, this is how the Glorantha content will work in, and how the whole damn thing will play out," then there would be clarity. The lack of exactness leads to speculation and confusion, and thus the RQ7 nomenclature comes up.

You may not know, or may know but may not be contractually allowed to say. If you want to stomp on using that abbreviation here, that's fine, but the only thing that will stop it on other forums is someone being able to state with authority what we'll see. Sooner would seem to be better, in order to ruin fewer bowls of Cheerios.
TheHistorian
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 10:00 pm

Previous

Return to Glorantha

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred