[RQ-Rules] Re: Non-Gloranthan Bestiaries

[Simon Phipp]

Gianni:

> I was wondering... Apparently a lot of you guys on the list play RQ in
> Non-Gloranthan settings. The problem is -- What kind of creatures do you
> use?

It would depend on the setting, wouldn't it. If I set my game in Arthurian
Britain after the Romans left then I would use real world creatures such as
wolves, bears, boars and dogs, otherworld creatures from the Celtic and Saxon
stories and perhaps a few exotics from far away. If I set things in Southern
Africa then I would use a different set of creatures entirely. If you want
different humanoid creatures then it would depend on the game setting. A
Middle-Earthy setting of Orcs, Goblins, Trolls, Elves and Dwarves would be
different to a Discworld setting, for instance.

> I feel the creatures in RQII and most of the creatures in RQIII are
> intrinsically linked to Glorantha and don't make much of a sense used
> outside of that peculiar context. And rightly so, since I believe creatures
> must be closely linked to a given setting's atmosphere, unless you favour a
> D&Dish approach to role playing. So what kind of creatures do you use? Do
> you have to write up your own?

RQ3 had a number of real world creatures, as did RQ2, so you'd be fine with
wolves, bears, lions, tigers, elephants, bisons, rhinos and so on. It's also
good for some mythological creatures such as dragons, griffins, hippogriffs,
centaurs, minotaurs, satyrs, fauns or pegasi. None of these are particularly
Gloranthan as they are based on real world mythological creatures.

Where you would struggle is with the exotics, such as broos, scorpionmen or
wind children which are definitely Gloranthan in nature and wouldn't fit into
many settings. You would also struggle with creatures particular to the game
setting, these would have to be written up for that game setting.

> I was disappointed by Land of Ninja, for instance, in which most of the
> creatures descriptions simply state 'this is the Nihonese version of the
> creature...'

I don't know a lot about Japanese creatures, but I would guess that a lot of
them are similar to creatures that are written up. A dog is a dog is a dog.

> Also the Gateway Bestiary isn't particularly useful since most of the
> creatures in it are quite eccentric.

But there are a lot of real world creatures or creatures from real world
mythologies. It all depends what you actually want. Where are you planning to
set your campaign? What is the setting and background? What kind of creatures
are you planning to have there? If you are planning to just drop in all kinds
of creatures, isn't that "a D&Dish approach to role playing" in itself?

See Ya

Simon (Phipp, not Hibbs, Philips, Pipp or anything else)


__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer