The RQ Late Show

From: L.CLAYTON_at_elsevier.co.uk
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 15:46:58 +0100


(Actually From: Paul Honigmann, Oxford, UK)

Subjects: Sanity, Chaos Lore, Spleen Venting, Red Army

  Hi y'all,

           I'm one of those "Lurkers" who gets the Digest second-hand, and doesn't contribute often. But I saw a couple of subjects crop up recently which I'd like to comment on.

  SANITY:


  Mike Cule asked if we need a Sanity stat for RQ and if anyone had any proposals.
  As it happens, I've tried introducing Sanity into RQ and my advice is DON'T. Here are some of the problems of CoC-style SAN rules in a campaign setting:
  1. It wrecks the game flow. When you have PC's incapacitated for several months (examples: 2 months afraid of verbal communication, unable to interact with other people; catatonic for months; permanent phobias of something common) they can't join in the experiences of the other PC's. Remember that in CoC, your characters are _meant_ to die, so players aren't so upset when things go Horribly Wrong; but in most RPG's, you try to develop a single PC very intensely.
  2. I gave everyone a starting SAN of POWx5. Unlike low POW and other stats, those starting with low SAN never managed to work it up to a point where it wasn't a handicap. So by rolling a low POW, say 6, you know your PC has an arbitrary handicap which is going to screw up your gaming _repeatedly_.
  3. Low SAN (<40) makes you more vulnerable to SAN loss; it is extrememly difficult to claw your way back up.
  4. It created a lot of book-keeping and dice rolling which got in the way, like Fatigue.
  5. It isn't believable in a Gloranthan setting. The reason you lose SAN in CoC is that something happens which jolts your comfy view of the world (with Man at the top of creation). But in Glorantha, every peasant _knows_ that there are real trolls, giants, ghosts, evil gods, chaotic cultists who sacrifice virgins. So meeting a broo for the first time is a shock, but by no means a mind-shattering experience, or at any rate no more so than any experience where someone's trying to kill you. Also, I think Gloranthans are much closer to the grim raw side of nature than modern man - blood sacrifices, Lunar arenas, cock-fighting etc. As for spells, everyone has seen spells at work; I suspect that anything a Gloranthan didn't understand would be ascribed to Magick or Chaos and thus, fatlistically accepted as Just One of Those Things. And finally, they are under no illusions about Man being the pinnacle of creation. Races come, races go, even Gods die.

   That's the down side. However, when I started a new campaign, I was surprised to find the players were about 3-1 in favour of keeping SAN. So, I toned it down so that they only went bonkers for a few minutes at a time, thus keeping the fun & flavour of madness (oops, sorry Inquisitor Ontor, I know that's not Politically Correct - er, Deeper World View?) but keeping it playable for a campaign where characters are meant to last years.

   If you must use SAN, may I suggest:

   CHAOS LORE


   It is my firm opinion that Lores should never have been introduced. If a PC has never heard of X in the game, he's never heard of it. If there's a chance he's heard of Malkonwal / broo fertility ceremonies / inner secrets of obscure cults then fine, the referee should decide on the chance (often I just decree "None, there's _No Way_ your 16 year old peasant could know that Krarshtkids are vulnerable to poison gas combined with Skin o'Life"). Hiding behind Lore Rolls is poor role-playing and if referees allow them, they may as well just hand over the enemys' stats and a plot summary to the players. To summarise:

   ROLE-PLAYING = GOOD
   DICE ROLLING = BAD    AND ANOTHER THING!!!


   Something else that really makes me MAD:    What's with all this netiquette crap, anyway?    Half the fun of the Digest is watching Alex and Nick having a Flame War. They do it with such erudition and finesse. Let's have a bit less of this dry, "actually I think CA's may not be Veggies in the strictest sense of the word" and have a bit more raw vitriol!

   RED ARMY


   Someone asked why the Red Army is considered hard. There have been various opinions aired but I think there are quite a lot of reasons why it has taken over Central Genertela:
  1. It is DISCIPLINED. Storm cultists may be brave, but that's not enough. No- -one's ever claimed the Roman soldiers / Macedonian phalanxites were brilliant warriors, but if their line didn't break, their opponents were at severe disadvantages. And soldiers who don't argue with their sergeants win wars.
  2. It has a greater variety of magic. Apart from sorcery / rune / battle magic - and incidentally I figure the Red Army uses its sorcerers to continually Boost soldiers' stats, put on 'everlasting' defensive spells etc, so when war breaks out they've got a huge edge - there's chaotic stuff too.
  3. A civilised society is richer, ie produces more food / goods per capita, than barbarians. So the soldiers are better equipped (at Imperial expense); the Empire can afford to maintain more permanent soldiers, and more temporary ones during emergencies; and the Army supports permanent warrior-priests.
  4. A permanent, professional army whose business is War is much more efficient than a quickly assembled barbarian army. It will have a coherent strategy; it has experience at not just fighting, but maintaining supply routes, holding territory, mapping, healing etc.

   For the record, I usually figure a Lunar soldier on an open battlefield is worth about 2 barbarians, but conversely, if he's caught alone in a forest he's probably not a match for one Orlanthi barbarian.

   Keep Heroquesting, 

                     Paul Honigmann.From: Paul Honigmann, Oxford, UK

------------------------------

End of Glorantha Digest V1 #188

Powered by hypermail