>Has anyone yet had a look at the product:
>
>'ARIA, Cantical of the monomyth (TM)'
Actually, this might be more appropriate for the rules list, but since you asked this on the Daily I can't be sure you're subscribed to it.
I've taken a brief look through it. Brevity was necessary, as the book is hundreds and hundreds of pages long, and I have no intention of buying the thing until I can find a second-hand copy.
My first impression was mixed, mostly negative. ARIA bills itself as what I call a 'micro-macro system', i.e. one that can deal with both microcosmic (player characters) and macrocosmic (the world, the universe, you name it) things. What surprised and disappointed me was how much space and rules they devote to the micro end of the scale: character generation seems more complex than most other games, there are many more stats and numbers to keep track of, the combat section contains a lot of detail etc. I sincerely hope the other half of the book is better - at least it didn't contain as many charts and tables. But the sample world provided just seems like the usual bland quasi-medieval fare.
If someone else has taken a closer look at it, I too would be interested in hearing about it.
Sandy thinks my name is Joerg:
>?? Joerg: what does Uroxe mean? Does it mean Aurochs? Or summat else?
Just to be sure, I checked my dictionary, and according to it Uroxe means Auroch. Auroch, on the other hand, has two possible translations back into Swedish: one is Uroxe, the other a species of european bison of which I've forgotten the name... Anyway, I remember that it begins with a "V", because when I looked up what the English name for _that_ animal, it was the exact same word except for beginning with a "W" - no mention of "aurochs" at all. I hope this clears things up? :-)
Alex:
>> In any case, Orlanthi in the East Wilds stick with bloodline exogamity
>> (it's our campaign, we can do what we like).
>
>I'd tend to think these Old Timers would tend to have smallish clans,
>and no bloodline distinction, myself.
Hmm, a point there. In fact the clans _are_ smaller than in Sartar, but there's still room for a few bloodlines (especially with David's definition of bloodline). Your separation of sex/co-habitation from formal marriage seems useful, and I agree (with you and other anthropological comments on the list) that there are excellent reasons for seeking a marriage outside the clan - I just don't believe that everyone in every clan manages to find an economically and politically advantageous spouse.
Thanks for proving (on the scuba-diving sun issue) that there's no serious problem with my eyes, BTW. :-)
Oh, and here's another comment from Alex (I'm catching up on a whole weekend of digests...):
>Each (DP-style) bloodline has a Founder; that isn't necessarily one of
>the founders of the clan, or even a contemporary of the Clan Founder.
Um, yeah. I think I agree, so what's your beef? :-)
Nick Eden:
>Since the RQ Daily has become the Glorantha Daily, with the RQ4 mailing
>list for discussion of rules, where should discussion of Gloranthan games
>not being run using RuneQuest take place.
Good question. I posted some of my own pendragonesque rules to the rq-rules list and got _one_ reply (from David Dunham, naturally). Of course, it could be that people are witholding comments until they've done some playtesting, but I doubt it. So you might be right: this list could well be better for it. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
( Jonas Schiott ) ( Institutionen for Ide- och lardomshistoria ) ( Goteborgs Universitet ) ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail