From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer)
To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Reply-To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RuneQuest Daily)
Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Sat, 02 Jul 1994, part 1
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk
X-RQ-ID: Intro
This is the RuneQuest Daily Bulletin, a mailing list on
the subjects of Avalon Hill's RPG and Greg Stafford's
world of Glorantha. It is sent out once per day in digest
format.
More details on the RuneQuest Daily and Digest can be found
after the last message in this digest.
---------------------
From: DevinC@aol.com
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 30 Jun 1994, part 4
Message-ID: <9407011012.tn250650@aol.com>
Date: 1 Jul 94 14:12:08 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4965
Devin Cutler here:
David Dunham writes:
"Not very, and they don't.
On the other hand, their cult does provide them with more than it appears.
As I play it, you can learn spirit magic from any associated cult. This
still leaves spells you can't learn. Frex, Orlanth worshippers can't learn
Multimissile. (Kind of a shame, them having slings and all.)"
If I were high priest of a cult, I'd certainly have my priests concentrate on
summoning spell spirits (not via Spellteaching..but via the normal way) and
combatting them to learn non-cult and non-associated spirit magic. This woudl
not only increase the power of my cult and, more importantly, my initiates,
but it would raise revenue by encouraging pilgrimages.
In my campaign, temples do this, and they keep the True Names of their
defeated Spell Spirits secret, even from other temples in the cult. It is
matter of prestige for the Yelmalio Shrine outside of Greydog that they know
a Spell Spirit that can teach Bladesharp 6.
Why wouldn't temples collect Spell Spirits of non-cult spells so that they
get access to those other neat spells?
Gary James writes:
"I have never the liked the idea of priests and priestesses spending x
days in the temple to regain their rune magic. "
In River of Cradles in the Troubled Waters scenario, it seems that the PCs
get Rune Magic back simply by worshipping at a holy ceremony. IMO, this is a
better way for priests to regain Rune Magic. I.e., they merely worship at a
weekly ceremony (prehaps with a Ceremony roll).
Alex writes:
"> "Probably partially true, but in many cases the Spirit of Reprisal will be
> summonned/invoked by a high priest, rather than dreaming it up all by
itself,
> or doing so under direct orders from God HQ."
> I could actually see it happening both ways.
I could have sworn I just said that."
I know. I was agreeing with you in my own demented way ;-)
"This doesn't preclude _not_ being devout, then, and still performing them
correctly. Please check the direction of that implication arrow carefully."
OK, take two. "Only if I am devout can I perform the rituals correctly."
"CA is still
their only source of reusable resurrection, though."
In CoP, Deezola had reusable Resurrection, When was THIS changed?
"Why would we assume this, if one follows the RQ2 pattern of priests having
~18m POW? This would mean less than one POW per year. At this rate of
sacrifice, you'll be lucky to _be_ a High Healer at 30."
There is no reason under RQ3 for a Priest to keep his POW at 18. Better spent
on Divine Magic AND better kept at around 13 so that POW gain rolls occur
about 60% of the time.
"
"Only" half of her POW? What about all the other "easy magical healing"
she's supposed to be doing?"
A CA needs less of the other healing magics. Why? They are not time critical
in general. In any case, Sandy's (and Jeorg's) argument that CA don't have
time to gain back too many Resurrection spells at one time puts it to paid
anyways.
"At 1/2 of her spells, and 1 POW per year, 5 uses at age 60."
One POW per year is way too low. Priests get a Seasonal Ceremony skill to
gain a POW gain roll.
"Even though it was all caused by Eurmal?"
Well, even Eurmal likes his jokes to be original I would imagine.
Resurrection over and over again is commonplace, lacks panache, as is boring.
"I agree. The 3% is conspicuously high."
We don't agree (surprise, surprise), in presented material, the 3% rate is
way too low.
"I don't think Gloranthan disease is exactly
"easily" healable: note that characteristic loss to disease (or otherwise)
can obly be healed with one-use rune magic. And death by characteristic
loss is not reversable."
As the disease rules now stand, it is almost impossible to die or even lose
much in the way of stats from disease. We probably both agree (what?) that
disease in RQ3 is horribly broken.
"Except that when we get a nice, _juicy_ source of tension like the Elmal/
Yelmalio schism, certain parties Whine Incessantly about it. (No names,
no pack drill. (What does that _mean_, anyway?))"
In what way does the Yelmalio./Elmal schism deal with devoutness? It deals
with incessant world tinkering.
"Other than as a POW-fuelled knee-jerk, to use your own (faulty) model?"
In what way have I claimed that DI SHOULD BE a POW-fuelled knee-jerk. I have
been writing about DI complaining that the rules make it far too common
(i.e. knee-jerk) and IMO, RQ2 and RQ3 DI makes it far too uninteresting. I
much prefer the sound of RQAiG DI, wherein the beneficiary gets Divine Magic
from hsi god/goddess.
In any case, I find it interesting that you are assuming I am for knee-jerk
DI when I am against it. Please give me a quote wherein I have advocated this
approach.
"To the point where we should have One True Cults (or at any rate, only
Devin-Approved Variations, a distinction I'm somewhat hazy on), robotically
devoted worshippers, and Thought Police deities, seemingly."
My, we ARE getting nasty aren't we? I should be getting used to the friendly
repartee on this net by now!
Excuse me for putting forth my point that I see a different Glorantha than
you. I know this makes me scum...but I will try to live on with myself.
Obviously, I am not calling for "Devin-approved version" although certainly I
would favour any approach that more closely followed my vision of Glorantha
(who wouldn't want things to work out their way?).
Fine, you see Robotic Devoted worshippers and Thought Police Gods.
I see Devoted worshippers who are willing to live, fight, and die for their
gods, who provide the essence of their existence in a magically rich
environment. I see Gods who are conscious entities, rather than the figments
of their worshippers' imaginations, and who take an active role in those who
serve them and in the world and universe in which they exist.
I could rephrase your quote as:
"To the point where we should have No True Cults (or at any rate, no
established Truths unless they are Alex approved, a distinction I'm somewhat
hazy on), completely cynical and undevoted worshippers, and imaginary,
knee-jerk deities, seemingly."
"I'm arguing that since most historic earth cultures _believed_ they had
"actual gods and actual magic", your differences seem to be predicated on
your conviction that ancient earth was remarkably like the present day, only
with less well developed NNTP facilities. Not the kind of place where
hardened pragmatist nations of warriors would wait a couple of weeks for the
correct phase of the moon before marching to the aid of their allies at
a crucial moment of a war, or spend thousands of man-years of effort on
raising mausolea to the dead, or conducting human sacrifice, or going to
war about which holy book to use, or anything so senselessly devout as
that. How the hell much more devoted do you _want_?"
Not comparing ancient man to modern man. You haven't been paying attention
Alex. Am saying that Gloranthans have cause to be MORE devoted than the
admittedly devoted ancient Terrans.
"I wonder why about half of Gloranthan history doesn't give Devin hives:
fancy all those Devout worshippers wanting to do such Naughty Things, and
fancy their gods _letting_ them."
To what "Naughty Things" do you refer?
"Are you listening, at all? Didn't I just say "in playing their characters
_accurately_"? _Obviously_ the Orlanthi believe in their magic; this isn't
contingent on it being any "truer" than any historical earthly belief."
Trying to listen. Don't get the distinction, Try again.
"We're talking about the reality of magic in general, aren't we? Does the
description seem much different from the description of magic in "historical"
myths?"
KoS is not the end all and be all of Glorantha, and I will not restrict my
view of Glorantha and Gloranthan society to one book. Gloranthan magical
reality involves the casting of spells as a widespread, universal, common
everyday occurance. This does not occur in ancient earth. I don't give a hoot
if KoS doesn't illustrate or involve these personal magics. KoS is telling
its story on a such a grand scale that such things have been ignored. That
does not mean they do not exist or occur in Glorantha.
"I was trying to wean you away from the attitude of "Magic Works, Look, the
Rules Say So. Let's Reverse Engineer A Suitable Culture." Hopeless task,
evidently. Does the culture described in KoS sound like one which is only
consistent with mechanistic magic, and divine edict at every turn?"
Believe it or not, we get a lot of our Gloranthan info from the rules. The
rules tell me that everyone in Sartar knows Spirit Magic and casts these
regularly, without too much effort. KoS doesn't contradict this, it merely
ignored it due to scale.
Once again, if you are complaining in my view of magic as following the RQ
rules, then what do you propose in its place? The rules indicate that
Sartarites all know Spirit Magic, it is cheap to obtain, commonplace, easy to
cast, has very tangible effects, etc. Which of these characteristics, as
presented in the rules, do you think is wrong for Glorantha?
"What about the Eternal Battle?"
It involves a proveable manifestation of the Stormbull afterlife. Does it
prove for certain that the sould of Uroxi are contained within? Probably not,
but it sure as hell is much more proof than Norse legends of Valhalla. How
many Norsemen actually saw a Valkyrie?
And before I get once again the line that the Eternal Battle is just a big
dust devil explainable by natural phenomenon (not from you, from someone
else), dust devils don't throw out skeletons, ghosts, and avatars of Chaos.
"To wit, a big hole in the ground which had, to that point, had two dead
people in it. This, according your previous reasoning, is not a Hard Fact,
but an Easily Discountable Myth, in any case. Your point?"
Gosh, ask an ancient Terran if HE ever met someone who came from Hell. Ask
him to point to Hell. Ask him to go over to a big hole in the ground as say,
Hell is down there. It is not an EASILY discountable myth. It is in fact
discountable, but much less so than Terran conceptions of Hell.
"To wit, spirit-plane manifestations of dead folks. From the point of view
of _theists_, this is somewhere between cold comfort, and a Dire Warning."
Fine, Dire Warnings do well to promote devoutness.
"Guess someone was Slacking when Faltikus was appointed, non?"
Guess illuminates are different, non?
Crhis Cooke writes:
"If there is any interest, I can post the background and history of the 7
core
PC's along with a campaign update."
I personally am always interested in reading other cmapaign writeups.
Sandy writes:
"Note that CA initiates
probably get killed more often than other peaceful cults -- not as
often as Storm Bull or Humakt, but certainly more commonly than
Mastakos, Ernalda, or Lhankor Mhy, since they are on frequent call to
accompany warriors into battle. Of course, the initiates probably get
first call on Resurrections, but still ..."
But since few enemies would knowingly harm a CA healer, you would think that
the injury/death rate would be lower for CA, except when fighting Chaos.
Regards,
Devin Cutler
devinc@aol.com
Regards,
Devin Cutler
devinc@aol.com
---------------------
From: clay@monsta.metronet.com (Clay Luther)
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Fri, 01 Jul 1994, part 3
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Jun 94 21:43:02 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4953
RQ Digest Maintainer wrote:
> From: button@illuminati.io.com (Captain Button)
>
> Clay Luther Boaringly relates:
>
> > Urox, weaponless, leaps on the Boar's back and grabs it by the horns.
>
> Uh, boars don't _have_ horns. Did they in Godtime? Did Urox steal
> them here, and that's why _he_ has horns now?
Oh, I am constantly amazed at how little imagination some people have
have. First, I'm told WASPS can't produce honey, now BOARS can't have horns.
Well, FYI, the great horned boar has roamed Dragon Pass for time immemorial.
They are extremely rare indeed, since it is a curious mutation which produces
them. The boar's tusks simply do not grow right, but instead grow back along
the jaw, through the jowls, and eventually bursting through the skin just below
the ears. They continue to grow this way all the boar's life. As the tusk-
horns get longer (specimens with horns up to four feet long have been
captured) they curve under-and-over the ears to face again forward.
Obviously, this growth is extremely painful and irritating to the boar, which
does nothing to improve its already foul disposition.
For further information about the great horned boar, I refer you to Heles
Three-Speak, Irrippi Ontor Temple, Alone. He has made it his life study to
capture as many of these elusive beasts (ALIVE!) as he can for the Emporer's
Zoo in Glamour.
As far as how Urox gained his horns, these he made from bones of every god he
has killed, according to Washazi Crowfeather of the Blue-Square Impalas.
--
Clay Luther clay@monsta.metronet.com
Systems Administrator clay@gojira.monsta.com
Monsta, Inc. (214) 407-0029
---------------------
From: HVH@LETT.KUN.NL
Subject: GoLEM temporarily disbanded
Message-ID:
Date: 1 Jul 94 11:39:00 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4954
Salutations, brave volunteers!
I am glad you have reacted in such overwhelming numbers to our call for help.
I regret to have to tell you that our experiment is postponed for an
indefinite time. Apart from your positive reactions there has also been a
threat by a known member of an alien invasion, whose other main project has
been the indoctrination of our young by letting them indulge in gratuitous
violence (i.e. DOOM!). Shortly after this threat a fire mysteriously broke
out in our building. I advise all of you to ask your system support to
re-layout your local network in the form of a pentacle of protection. I
myself am relocating to a secret safehouse. I will be in touch when all is
safe again.
Good luck to you all,
Hasueros the Disappeared
---------------------
From: lindsell@rschp1.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell)
Subject: A short description of Paul Reily's Vessel sorcery system
Message-ID: <9407010841.AA12958@Sun.COM>
Date: 1 Jul 94 23:39:24 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4955
Sandy Petersen replies to Bernard Langham on Paul Reilly and
Mike Halliday's Presence system, so Graeme Lindsell decides
to answer:
> Yet, alas, without giving us rules specifications. Bernard,
>you've raved about the problems it solved, but you didn't tell us HOW
>they were solved!
This is a message I posted to the RQ4 list (when I was still on
it) about the Presence system. Paul responded that he thought it was
a decent summary, so I thought I'd repeat it here:
[Aside to Sandy: your cult description of Dayzatar was chock full of
CONTROL-M's, which removed a lot of it when I tried to view it]
I'll give a short description of what I know of Paul's system here.
If I've made any glaring errors, or spoken for him where I shouldn't,
I'm sure he'll correct me. :-)
Paul's Vessel system: the adept sorcerer, instead of creating a
familiar, creates a Vessel instead. The Vessel is similar to a fetch:
it just has POW, and the sorcerer can increase the Vessel's POW after
creation. I'm unsure how Paul's sorcerers create the Vessel: there
is a trial, but I don't think it's as risky as creating a fetch. Paul
has said that apprentice sorcerers sometimes botch their attempt and
create a fetch (sorcerers pity shamans and think them mad).
The primary game function of a Vessel is that the sorcerer can mainatin
a number of spells of total intensity equal to the POW of the Vessel.
That is, if your sorcerer has a vessel with POW 14, you can have a total
of 14 Intensity of spells maintained without having to concentrate.
In Paul's system (and my Pendragon sorcery system, which has borrowed heavily
from his ideas) a apprentice sorcerer - one without a Vessel - has to
concentrate to maintain a sorcery spell. All sorcery spells are instant or
active, and the manipulation limit a spell s/he can cast is equal to POW,
as well as any other limitations due to skills.
Basically, the vessel concept throws out Duration and replaces it with
maintainance of spells.
Unlike a fetch, the Vessel can (and often is) placed into a physical
object. If the object is a living animal, then it's similar to a familiar.
According to Paul, the Rokari tend to put their Vessels into staffs,
and the militaristic Hrestoli put theirs into swords. I think that they'd
tend to put them into their altars instead, making their church more
important to their abilities.
The Vessel has two advantages over the current systems IMO: it ends
the need to remember how long the spells will last, and it puts
sorcerers into the same POW economy as Shamans and Priests. Shamans
get their POW and expand their fetch, gaining fixed but constant abilities
from it. Priests get POW and give it to their god, with the most limitations
but the least trouble, and get the most powerful spells. Sorcerers bind
their POW into their Vessel and must also learn skills to be able to
manipulate it, but have the most control over it once they have those
skills.
Vessel (of Power) was the term Paul chose after a number of attempts,
including Twin, Presence, Shadow, Genius etc. I'm not entirely happy with
the term, and I think Paul isn't either.
The main problem for the vessel system IMO is that it makes sorcery even
less compatible with RQ3. I don't see this as a problem, as RQ3 sorcery
could be ditched as far as I'm concerned, but others do.
- End of my short description.
Kevin Rose replies to Bernard:
>Anyway, the point of the sorcery system was to have a more or less
>"normal" sort of magician for the west. I don't think the system, as
>poorly conveyed via the assorted arguments, does define a magicial system
>that feels right to me.
My problem is that neither the RQ3 system nor the RQ4 draft 2.0 system
(I haven't seen the AiG system, but have read descriptions) produce a magical
system that seems right for the West either. If the idea of a Western Wizard
having a Vessel seems strange, the idea of a magus of the Invisible God
relying on his magic-spirit-bound-into-a-statue-familiar as an essential
part of his magical power seems truly bizarre to me. It gets even worse
when I think of a Westerner with an animal familiar. The way RQ sorcery
has a skill for each spell doesn't help either: it gives no impression
that sorcery is a body of knowledge that sorcerers understand, rather
presenting them as technicians who know a couple of rote methods.
>But these sorts of arguments are exactly why there is a seperate list for
>them.
Care to point this list out for me? There is the rq4 playtest list which
is an occasional forum for rules disscusion, but the RQ Daily was created
explicitly for the RuneQuest system as well as for Glorantha, and so rules
discussion (including alternative rules systems IMO, and discussions of how
well the system fits Glorantha) are a legitimate part of it. (If Henk, who
set up and owns this list, objects to something I'm sure he'll tell us).
--
Graeme Lindsell a.k.a lindsell@rschp1.anu.edu.au
Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University, Canberra.
"I was 17 miles from Greybridge before I was caught by the school leopard"
Ripping Yarns - Tomkinson's Schooldays.
---------------------
From: JARDINE@RMCS.CRANFIELD.AC.UK
Subject: Allosaurus Broo
Message-ID: <9407010855.AA13830@Sun.COM>
Date: 1 Jul 94 08:57:00 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 4956
Sorry Guy
I recently mentioned the rumoured allosaurus broo here when
discussing whether broo impregnate or parasitize their hosts.
Sandy managed to avoid being caught by the argument, but he
appears to have been hooked by the allosaurus broo...
Convulsion '94
Let me clarify THERE ARE NO PLACES LEFT IN THE FREE FORM GAME!
Despite what some have read into my recent posting.
Personally I think that this was the result of a lot of wishful thinking
Lewis