As I mentioned in another thread, I recently bought Advanced RuneQuest (3rd edition, Games Workshop, 1987). I'm wondering which setting to use for it.

My recent significant campaigns were both set in the world of Tiwesdæg (tee-waz-dag, or Tuesday), this being a sort of low fantasy Saxon England. I ran the first campaign using GURPS, and it was quite adventurous, with sorcerors and dragons slain, dwarves visited and learned from, and a civil war begun. The second campaign used Fate, and was more intrigue-based in events. In both cases, I think the kind of players we had determined the style more than the rules systems. Nonetheless, they had a different feel. The fact that GURPS has 200+ skills meant that if the character didn't have the exact right skill, they'd often just say, "oh well, fuck it, let's fight." Whereas the Fate as I ran it, with 30-odd skills and freeform Aspects (Advantages, Disadvantages and Attributes in one), allowed more options.

As a player, I enjoy game worlds where fighting is not inevitable, but can be chosen, and has brutal results. I like magic to be magical, and monsters, monstrous - that is, rare and impressive. I enjoy GMing those worlds, too. I'm thinking that RuneQuest might be good for this.

I've a game circle of perhaps 20 players, but if I run RuneQuest, it's likely I'll get at least one, and possibly three, players from previous Tiwesdæg campaigns. So I'm wondering what setting to use. In the campaigns so far, the PCs have mostly stayed in the province of Tiwesdæg itself (sort of what York is to England). They could go further, or I could try an entirely new campaign setting.

I'm not keen on Glorantha itself. There's simply too much stuff to remember, and the Lunars and ducks and so on just annoy me. I thoght what might be interesting is a more magical Europe about the year 800 CE (map). In this time, there's the newly-established kingdom of Charlemagne in France and northern Italy, there's a somewhat battered Romania (Byzantium), Bulgarian barbarians to the north of it, a Jewish khanate in the Caucasus, the Abbasid moslem empire centered at Baghdad, built on the ruins of Persia and Roman Egypt. Another caliphate is found in southern Spain. Britain and Ireland are broken into many kingdoms, and the Danes are active in their raiding, some of them setting up small kingdoms. South of moslem Egypt there is the kingdom of Axum, in some decline.

That seems to me a time of conflict and chaos, when any one of the kingdoms could hold over all; a time of adventure. I thought that perhaps the PCs could begin as Legion's Eyes, a band of scout mercenaries for a Byzantine legion. Of course, I'm also fond of the idea of them beginning as gladiators, as in the examples in the game book... but that'd require an earlier time in Roman history, or some history-bending. And then of course they could always be ambassadors, or guards to ambassadors, perhaps those proposing marriage between Charlemagne of the Franks and Irene of the East.

I'm wondering what the presence of magic, even magic as weak as that in RuneQuest, might do to... well, monotheism. Surely it'd weaken it somewhat? If the people when abandoning the old gods are giving up something tangible, as well as something divine...? Or perhaps it'd be better to choose an earlier period, say the year 500 CE, since speculating too far ahead leads to strange results.

Tiwesdæg worked well because it was familiar enough for players to get into it without much introduction, but different enough to interest them. I'd like something similar. So for example ancient China is too different, while Lord of the Rings is too familiar.

I'd like a setting which can have adventure, but few dungeon crawls (the occasional tomb-robbery is fine, I just wouldn't do it every session). I wouldn't want the opportunity for too much intrigue, it gave me a bit of a headache last time, I kept muttering to myself, "damn players, just cut off his head!"

Thoughts?

It sounds like you want to do the 9th-century one, so you should probably go for it. I think anywhere from c.500 to 1000 AD is a great period for all sorts of games.

You might consider doing it without PC magic at all – that's how we did RQ Vikings and Japan. You'll find RQ plenty gritty if you go that way. Me, I wouldn't use the full magic system in a historical game.

If you're not sure what to do with the game (place etc), maybe you could do a group brainstorm where everybody gets the setting and characters worked out. You can toss in all your ideas and see which ones float.

In the past I've done group brainstorms and they work very well. But at the moment I don't have a set group. The "game circle" idea has worked well, so that I've got about 20 people I could game with. So I have to pitch out ideas and see who bites, rather than have a group, and brainstorm ideas.

I guess I could just pick and choose from among the players, but I'm not sure how successful that'd be, since their first question would be, "but what are we playing? Tell me first..."

It's not that I'm super-keen on the year 800 one, it's just that I spent ten minutes thinking about it. Whatever I choose I'll probably get into, I usually do! The problem is picking one in the first place.

So I'm very much open to suggestions.

Some of the coolest characters throughout that whole period are the Vikings. They can raid, trade, explore, settle and have feuds and lawsuits, and it's all historical. They can be found in the Varangian Guard at Byzantium and settling in Newfoundland. A campaign where they're all crew or part-owners on a ship is good fun (and allows plenty of replacement PCs).

Does the GW version of the game not include a "Fantasy Europe" setting book?

Not that it's all that useful, I'm just curious because it sounds from the above that it doesn't.

Anyway, I agree that the period is a great choice. Personally I'd pick the 600's because they were the most chaotic (e.g., Byzantium was at one of its low points) and very poorly documented, minimizing any constraint on you.

Hi Kyle!

The Byzantine campaign sounds cool, but what's wrong with Tiwesdæg? Just looking for a change of pace?

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenPersonally I'd pick the 600's because they were the most chaotic (e.g., Byzantium was at one of its low points) and very poorly documented, minimizing any constraint on you.

Lots of early Christian dogma/apocrypha was still being debated at the time, too (see The Third Council of Constantinople).  A pretty wild and wooly time for the Church.

Speaking of Jewish khanates (see Kyle's comments above), has anyone here read Dictionary of the Khazars?  I've been hankering to use that as inspirational material for a campaign for some time.  A campaign like this could be a good opportunity.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaLots of early Christian dogma/apocrypha was still being debated at the time, too (see The Third Council of Constantinople).  A pretty wild and wooly time for the Church.

Speaking of Jewish khanates (see Kyle's comments above), has anyone here read Dictionary of the Khazars?  I've been hankering to use that as inspirational material for a campaign for some time.  A campaign like this could be a good opportunity.

!i!

The Khazars rocked! If the Jews made more converts, it would be a more interesting world.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThe Khazars rocked! If the Jews made more converts, it would be a more interesting world.

Do you mean the Khazars historically, or the books itself?  I'd venture to say that they both rocked.  Dictionary of the Khazars concerns itself (though in very circuitous fashion) with the Khazar Polemic, where representatives of the Islamic, Jewish, and Christian faiths argued their cases before the Khazar khan who declared that he would convert to the most compelling.  Interestingly, the book is told from each of the three different perspectives, each claiming to have succeeded.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaDo you mean the Khazars historically, or the books itself?  I'd venture to say that they both rocked.  Dictionary of the Khazars concerns itself (though in very circuitous fashion) with the Khazar Polemic, where representatives of the Islamic, Jewish, and Christian faiths argued their cases before the Khazar khan who declared that he would convert to the most compelling.  Interestingly, the book is told from each of the three different perspectives, each claiming to have succeeded.

!i!

I was talking about the Khazars themselves, but the book sounds great too.

-clash

Quote from: droogSome of the coolest characters throughout that whole period are the Vikings. They can raid, trade, explore, settle and have feuds and lawsuits, and it's all historical. They can be found in the Varangian Guard at Byzantium and settling in Newfoundland.

That's very true, and an excellent idea.

Quote from: Elliot WilenDoes the GW version of the game not include a "Fantasy Europe" setting book?

Not within the book, no; perhaps there were sourcebooks made, but I haven't got them. This one has the "ancient map of the Western world," and also one of the East, as seen from the West; nothing in the text relates to the maps. It also has the adventure with the silver apple tree and Yozzarian the Duck Bandit, which probably confused anyone who'd not seen RQ/Glorantha before. "A duck? What?" There's nothing else setting-specific in it, so far as I can see.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnyway, I agree that the period is a great choice. Personally I'd pick the 600's because they were the most chaotic (e.g., Byzantium was at one of its low points) and very poorly documented, minimizing any constraint on you.

That's true. The constraints would only be self-imposed, though. All the players I know who are keen to play in a group with me either don't know about or don't care about the historical details. If I chose the 600s, I'd have to pull the Khazars back two hundred years!

Quote from: flyingmiceThe Byzantine campaign sounds cool, but what's wrong with Tiwesdæg? Just looking for a change of pace?

Partly, yes. As I said, my group will likely have people from previous campaigns. I'm keen to set a tone of "high adventure!" (imagine that in the voice of Mako from the beginning of Conan) It's easier to do that if the players have no preconceptions. Still, that could be done with Tiwesdæg, if they went away from the island to explore. It's actually already been established that there is a great empire on the mainland, and they share a monotheistic faith (which the Brondings of Tiwesdæg thought was crazy). Their merchants enjoy wearing silk, have black hair, olive skin, fine jewellry, and oiled hair and beards - or at least one of them did, anyway.

Well, as someone who played in both Tiwesdaeg campaigns, i wouldn't mind continuing the game, but trying a new system.  Learning both a new system and a new setting can be a bit painful.  I promise we'll smack more baddies this time around, rather than talk to them

Having said that, Vikings would also be good.  Very good.

I wouldn't mind a city-based game too.

Well, that's how I'd want it if I were a player. I can't speak for anyone else

Quote from: JimBobOz:emot-rock:  

You think you're sooo cool, don't you JimBob....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzNot within the book, no; perhaps there were sourcebooks made, but I haven't got them. This one has the "ancient map of the Western world," and also one of the East, as seen from the West; nothing in the text relates to the maps.

Ah, I was misremembering. There's no "Fantasy Europe" book in the American RQ3 box, but the examples and such, as well as some maps (including a large foldout map) are from that setting. Essentially instead of Rurik in RQ2, you've got the Pict Cormac in RQ3, and I remember an example where there's a reference to a villain named Clovis (unclear if he's supposed to be the Clovis).