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, Wed, 20 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: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake)
Subject: Western again
Message-ID: <199407190949.RAA14910@wambenger.cs.uwa.oz.au>
Date: 19 Jul 94 09:50:36 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5221
> From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
> Subject: Western runes.
> X-RQ-ID: 5210
>
>
> Nick:
> > > > [...] a Death Rune (in Brithini terms, an unclean & contaminating item)
>
> Me:
> > > In Brithini terms, a meaningless pagan icon, shurely.
>
> David Cake:
> > I tend towards the idea that the Runes actual shapes are descended from
> > Western, which is probably an ideographic writing form like Kanji (several
> > different spoken languages share one written form, the only earth equivalent
> > as far as I know being Kanji).
>
> I'm not sure if you refer to the different dialects of Chinese, or to Chinese
> and Japanese using the same characters. Note that the Japanese don't use
I was referring to the different dialects of Chinese (though a
siutation analogous to Japanese Kanji is certainly not impossible, I just
can't think of any Gloranthan analogues).
>
> > In this case the Runes would be well known to Brithini, though they
> > would certainly consider Theyalan use of them rather odd ('Now let me get
> > this straight, you worship the letters D and F and want to destroy all those
> > who worship the letter U?').
>
> Or crucifying them on a giant letter H, indeed. Are you suggesting that
> the Western "ideographs" have a quite different meaning in the West as in
> Theyalan country, the same basic meaning, though different "significance",
> or that it's actually just an alphabet or syllabary for the Westerners?
>
Well, I think that the Western ideographs have similar meanings to the
equivalent Theyalan runes, but to the Westerners they are just words (Ok, I
over stated my analogy. So sue me :-)). My feeling is that the Westerners
might think that the Theyalans who consider the Runes to be fundamental
truths of the Universe themsleves (I am tempted to make some sort of Guy
Robinson joke here but I wisely restrain myself :-)) to be making a
fundamental 'map is not the territory ' mistake.
Of course, I am quite willing to change my mind if there is some
reason to - then I could see the Western use of the Runes in magic as being
like a sort of Gloranthan Kabbala, or Enochian magic, which would be rather
nifty as well. Whatever is the flavoursome.
Cheers
Dave
> Alex.
>
---------------------
From: 100270.337@compuserve.com (Nick Brooke)
Subject: Learning to Read
Message-ID: <940719104344_100270.337_BHL45-1@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 19 Jul 94 10:43:45 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5222
_____
Devin
This is getting boring. You're trying to distort Greg's words to have them
say whatever you want them to. I doubt anyone is convinced. That Yelmic
example plainly means that the god Yelm does not know the *motivation* of a
Priest of Yelm who is acting on his behalf. Any other interpretation is
pure sophistry. If the Divine Thought Police work for your campaign, well
and good. But could you please take them away, and keep them there...
_________
Jon Green
> I *love* the idea of _malicious_ mass worship of an enemy God by
> antagonistic and powerful forces seeking to poison or subvert the God!
Is there some difference between this and hostile HeroQuesting?
_________
Dave Cake
> The difference is that someone who learns to read Loskalmi, can also read
> (say) Jonatelan. In mediaeval times it was not the case that learning to
> read French allowed you to read Italian (though it probably helped due to
> language similarity), because if you wanted to read you probably first
> learned Latin.
EXACTLY! Latin existed before either French or Italian, and Latin script
remained in widespread (all but universal) use even when the populace were
speaking Romance languages. What I'm suggesting is that the Gloranthan
Western *written* language is still at this early stage of development:
there is (as yet) no such thing as "written Seshnelan" or "written
Safelstran", as the literate classes in those lands still read and write
books in the ancient Brithini language. You could try writing down what the
common people are saying, but it would look hideously ungrammatical and
just plain WRONG to anyone able to read it. Before mass literacy, the fact
that the written form of the language isn't the same as what people are
saying should come as no surprise at all.
I should qualify what I'm saying slightly, given that IMHO there is more
local variation between Western written languages and scripts than is
described in the Glorantha Book -- e.g. the Jonatelans may have an alphabet
which relates to standard Western as Cyrillic does to Greek; the Carmanians
certainly have several "new" letters adopted from Pelorian alphabets; etc.
But if the Language of Learning in the West is the ancient Brithini written
script, you get exactly the result described in "Glorantha" -- literate men
from Loskalm to Seshnela to Malkonwal can write to one another in the
universal language of Western Learning. (And they could probably speak it,
too, though to a limited extent).
I'm not flaming Kanji (whatever turns you on, frankly) -- I'm just pointing
out that the situation prevailing in the West has a simpler explanation,
one more familiar to the mediaeval setting of the West. Gloranthan Wizards,
like mediaeval clerics, doctors and scientists, write and lecture in the
ancient language of True Learning. "Sorcery" is studied in Brithini. (This
would also follow Martin Crim's Islamic parallel, of course, if we assume
Western to be the language of the Book).
====
Nick
====
---------------------
From: JARDINE@RMCS.CRANFIELD.AC.UK
Subject: CONVULSION & DISEASES
Message-ID: <9407191456.AA19455@Sun.COM>
Date: 19 Jul 94 14:50:00 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5223
Hi Everyone
Not long to go before I see a fair number of you at Convulsion.
I'll be running the meet the digest seminar where I can put some
faces to all these names I keep seeing on my screen.
Diseases:
I have never have any problem with the RQ disease rules.
But after reading the comments posted here I discover that I have been doing
it wrong all these years. I play that the character rolls to find out the
initial severity of the disease, each failed CON roll until he succedes
increases the severity by one level. The diseases take longer to act (1 week,
day, hour or minute) and every time the character fails a subsequent CON roll
they lose a point of Stat. However, I play that when the character makes a
CON roll the severity of the disease is reduced by one (fumbles increase it
and specials and criticals reduce it by 2 or 3 levels). This makes ALL diseaseslast for at least a week (no instant recoveries). Obviously the character can
carry on as if nothing had happened but the receive harder rolls (I often make
them add 10 or 20 to the dice roll if they exert themselves making a relapse
fairly likely).
I know this has a lot in common with someone elses system, so is it
great minds think alike, convergent evolution, or a relic of RQ2?
SEE YOU SOON
Lewis
PS. Remember to bring your towel and soap.
---------------------
From: Michelle_Ringo@ed.gov (Michelle Ringo)
Subject: Disease, Angels on Heads of Pins, and Yelorna
Message-ID: <9406197746.AA774641390@ed.gov>
Date: 19 Jul 94 16:09:50 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5225
KIM HARRIS - DISEASE CONCEPT
I liked this approach and I agree that if the diseased are active
during their period of recovery, beyond lying in a travois, bed or
wagon, a relapse or sinking to a new (worse) level of illness should
be at risk.
JOERG/DEVIN's DISCUSSION
I think that the two of you are arguing about something that can
never be resolved between you. The argument is similar to one
between an agnostic/atheist and a Catholic/Fundamentalist. There is
too much that cannot be resolved through rational/logical discussion
in an absolute way. For example:
Agnostic: So, what you are saying is that your God is
omniscient and omnipotent. In addition, you are saying that
your God is merciful. And your basing this on the fact that
he let his son be crucified.
Catholic: Yes, basically.
Agnostic: Well, if this God was so omniscient and
omnipotent why didn't he intervene and save his son. Why
did his son have to die so that other humans would be saved?
Catholic (hotly replies): INSERT APPROPRIATE RELIGIOUS
DOGMA HERE.
And the discussion continues until blood is shed or the two
are separated by others.
YELORNA
I am running a Yelornan based on the one and only RQ2 write up that
I have found. I am trying to give this character a personal stamp
that differentiates from my previous characters (a Chalana Arroy and
a Storm Bull). Any thoughts?
---------------------
From: DGREENIN@BCSC02.GOV.BC.CA (Doug Greening)
Subject: unsubscribe
Message-ID: <9407191550.AA01112@Sun.COM>
Date: 19 Jul 94 15:51:20 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5226
To: RUNEQU1 --INTERNET RuneQuest@Gloranth
unsubscribe dgreenin@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
Doug Greening, DBA DB2
Claims, MOH, 952-2399 InterNet: DGREENIN@BCSC02.GOV.BC.CA
1520 Blanshard 3-1 Fax 952-3225
---------------------
From: vladt@interaccess.com (Kevin Rose)
Subject: RQ sales
Message-ID:
Date: 19 Jul 94 10:57:37 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5227
Just a word of warning:
A friend of mine who works at one of the top distributors mentioned that
they are reaching the point where they will not order new RQ releases, as
the sales for new release is down to only 24. Not boxes, but 24 units.
As an average FASA release is 800 units, and an average small historical
board game is 60 or so, this is really bad.
The situation is approaching the point where they can not sell the
minimum order in one year. Once that happens, they will drop the line
competely.
I don't have any great suggestions as to how to fix this, but maybe
someone does. If they do, they should get them to AH, as AH is getting
very close to nailing the coffin shut.
Kevin Rose
---------------------
From: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu (Loren J. Miller)
Subject: RLs and Priests
Message-ID: <01HEWBLI0KDU9BVKM6@wharton.upenn.edu>
Date: 19 Jul 94 11:55:30 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5228
Barron replies to Joerg:
> This is an interesting seperation, and I'd go for it whole hog if all
> cults still had RLs. For the cults that do this is a great image. The RL
> is required to follow the active/physical path of the Goddess while the
> priest follows the mystical/spiritual one. So the RLs become the arms of
> the church and the priests are its head/heart. Cool.
In fact, there is no reason this couldn't be true for religions that
lack either RuneLords or Priests. Greg has said in public that
religions that have both Lords and Priests are the combination of two
previously existing religions, one with Lords and the other with
Priests. There's no reason why some religions wouldn't believe that
their leaders should be physical manifestations of deity (humakt,
eurmal, lhankor mhy) while other religions believe that their leaders
should be theoreticians and magic workers (red goddess, chalana
arroy). Both beliefs have been prevalent enough in our own history,
and nothing in the Glorantha stories we have prevents it from being
true in Glorantha.
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
"Enough sound bites. Let's get to work." -- Ross Perot sound bite
---------------------
From: bchugg@leland.stanford.edu (Barron Chugg)
Subject: A polite request and comments.
Message-ID: <199407192112.OAA05326@popserver.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 19 Jul 94 06:14:34 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5229
Hello All.
I'll have to chime in with Martin, Rob, Brent, and whoever else...
Devin, Bryan and Joerg: Could you guys stop with the looooong
point by point comments/flames on each other? Please?
I think that some (if not all) of what you guys are discussing is
interesting, but it is rapidly getting lost in the noise (and that's a
shame). Heck, it was this whole "what are gods" line that started me
posting on the daily in the first place.
So, lets see where we stand...Devin says gods are active and conscious.
Several people disagree vehemently. I guess, to me, how someone choses to
run their game is not a big deal. Although I may disagree with Devin's
view of things, I think that as long as his game runs well, then it's fine
by me. The only real problem is going to come when people start discussing
theoretical questions about gods and religion. Then each person will have
to compensate for the biases of the other, but that's all. For example, my
other post today is a discussion with Alex that comes down to the fact that
he and I place different weights on different things (in painfully simple
langauge, I'm Pro-Game and he's Pro-World). When I respond to him I just
keep that in mind and try not let my baises run too free.
One really disturbed thought. How the GM looks at the world is not
necessarily true. All that matters is how the world interacts with the
PCs.
------------------
Another thought, do people think that the Glorantha of today is a lower
magic world than it was in the RQ2 era? You know, back when gods were real
gods and magic was real magic. Now everything is so well defined it is
becoming almost mundane or pedestrian. I think this is a shame. For me
the Argrath Saga in KoS is as much a record of fact as an excercise in
florid language. What drew me to Glorantha in the first place was the
wonder of the place. The image on the cover of RQ Companion for example.
What do other people think, are we moving in the direction of mundanity?
-------------------
Barron
---------------------
From: bchugg@leland.stanford.edu (Barron Chugg)
Subject: Yet another thing named after me...
Message-ID: <199407192112.OAA05317@popserver.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 19 Jul 94 06:14:24 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 5230
Hello All (Well, mostly Alex).
Despite my best efforts more and more things seem to be taking on my
name. I thought I made myself quite clear: New elements and Elementary
particles are OK, everything else is suspect (although a mountain would be
cool, or maybe a baseball team...) :-).
Anyway, Alex writes:
>Subject: Chuggian approximations.
My copyright lawyers will be in touch :-).
>> Alex (quoting me):
Actually, to avoid confusion, this is you first, then me, then you again.
>> >As an encouraging model, look at Pendragon; it's explicitly sexist, in
>> >both game mechanics and background, more out of regard for "literary"
>> >realism than the historical sort. But if anything, it's (relatively)
>> >oversubscribed with female players, according to anecdotal evidence.
>
>> I think that Pendragon is appealing (to both sexes) because it has a
>> strong literary basis and is focused on roleplaying and character
>> interaction. In my experience, female players, in particular, are more
>> interested in character interaction than in mechanics and combat.
>
>Yes, I agree. (I wasn't suggesting they played _because_ of the sexist
>background, for heaven's sakes! ;-) "Oooh, oppress me again, Mr. Evil
>Chauvanist Pig GM, sir." ;-) ;-)
You mean my "RQ:AiG" (that's Runequest: Adventures in Gor) campaign is
not Ok? Drat! :-)
> But I do think this is enhanced by
>respecting the sources, and not just munging it wholesale for the sake
>of player-friendliness.)
Definately enhanced by the sources (and, maybe, by Greg's interests in
pagan mythology. I've only browsed the game, so I can't say for certain.).
But then, there is not so much a need for "munging" (sounds painful) since
the sources are more balanced.
> While Glorantha hardly has quite the same
>"strong literary basis", it comes from that "tradition", as it were, and
>wasn't created as a Gaming Vehicle, but as a consistent(ish) world in its
>own right, where things are more usually decided on by literary or internal
>criteria than on those of shoft-term gamely convenience.
There are two thoughts in this snippet that I should like to address.
The first is that Glorantha is not a "Gaming Vehicle". You're right, it is
not. But, removed from the game context I think there would be an order of
magnitude less interest in it. So, for many (Ok, almost all) people,
Glorantha was first encountered in the game, and is thus linked to it.
This gives us a _great_ window on the world, though. Very few people can
explore literary constructs in the first person (as PCs), so I think to
seperate the world from the game would be a great loss. Not that you are
suggesting that the two be severed. What I am trying to point out is that
gamability should be considered in discussing this.
Anyway, the second thought is, that this is added as a "gaming
convenience". I think that there is some evidence that the sexes are meant
to be "more equal" in Glorantha than in historical Earth (see below). The
fact that this fits with the way I want it to be is purely coincidence :-).
Hold on a sec. I think we are falling into a
trap here (at least I am). This is getting abstracted too much into theory
and is losing sight of the original point. I think (correct me if I err)
point was that I thought there should be some "adventure-worthy" roles for
women in the West. I still think this. I also think that much of the
simplicity and, IMHO, negative aspects of the West are a product of
Greggian Bias (ha, let's name something after someone else for a change!).
If we filter that out (see Nick's arguments on Loskalm in G:CotHW) we may
have a more equal (less simplistic) culture. So I'm just helping Greg out,
right? :-)
>> >> I have seen (well, read descriptions of) games where all the characters
>> >> must be male (regardless of the gender of the player). This might work in
>> >> a _very_ limited arena, but I don't think it is a good policy at all. I'm
>> >> not flaming you, just pointing out a difference in perspective.
>
>> >Please note that I'm not, as you seem to have inferred, trying to denigrate
>> >"traditional" female roles.
>
>> Huh? This came outta left field at me (insert appropriate cricket idiom
>> here at your liesure :-)).
>
>Err, perhaps "throw from long leg"?
Sounds as painful as "munging". :-)
>> I am not accusing you of denigrating
>> traditional female roles, either explicitly or implicitly.
>
>Well, good, though I'm then somewhat mystified as to what "difference in
>perspective" you were pointing out, assuming I was the person you weren't
>flaming. (Eh?)
Alright, I managed to find the original message that you were responding
to here (I have got to keep better notes!). The "difference in
perspective" I was referring was simply that I thought it was better for a
game to have women allowed a greater choice of roles and you thought we
were stretching the bounds of established Gloranthan reality too far. My
comments on "games where all the characters must be male" were meant to
point out that a campaign without adventuresome roles for women is too
limiting for my tastes. Hope this clears up any confusion (and soothes any
ill will).
>> I'll go even further here :
>> I think that the idea "that women have "important" roles in all
>> Gloranthan societies" has never really been realized.
>
>Never been ever attempted to be realised, as far as I can see. But
>should it? Is this (alleged) goal beneficial to anyone's gaming
>interests?
My answer is a solid "yep". Unless I misread you badly, your's is "not
clearly enough to warrant the retooling". You and I are just putting
different weights on different things.
> Would this make the various cultures which currently Offend
>against it more interesting, either as PCs or as background colour?
I don't think that the suggestion is to totally smear out the roles of
men and women, just that there should be more opportunity than there was on
Earth. I'm not lobbying to have women Yelm priests, that culture is
demonstrably sexist (we have their legends to prove it (GRoY)). I'm hoping
that in the areas still under developement that the idea about important
roles for women be more stressed. So, since the West is terribly under
developed, it seems as good a place to start as any.
>Would Trowjang, Esrolia, or Troll society be "improved" by allowing
>_males_ (more) important roles?
Isn't this sort of off topic? Trowjang is a parallel to Amazon myth of
Earth lore, and is a pretty miserable place for men (or, probably, any
non-amazon). Esrolia, I'll admit, I have little to no knowledge of, but I
have always thought of it as pretty pastoral. In troll society there is no
limitation on males or females going off to adventure. Remember, I really
could care less who is on the throne, if both sexes can adventure (my game
bias). Although, who is in earthly power is often related to who is out
having fun.
>And of course, it still begs the question, "What do you mean by "important"?
Ask Chaosium on that point. I was calling them to task for not
fulfilling their "promise". All I want is to be able to allow my players
to run either gender wherever I GM (without stretching things too much).
In the West I'd like to see a more interesting culture than warmed-over
judeo-christian-islamic Earth culture.
>A constant with respect to? Not the culture or region, since it has
>different "clauses" for the (major) pantheons. To make a meta-nerdish
>observation, though, we're using different "`technical'" definitions of
>"zero-order", so your kilometerage may vary...
I guess our definitions are different. The 0th order is the simplest
approximation possible. Can we come up with a simpler version of
Gloranthan mythology than the MM? I can't. In fact, you can see how this
simple approximate breaks down when the East and South are added in. With
respect to Genertelan myth (sans East), the MM does a reasonable job, but
it is way too simplistic to base a campaign on (or, at least, I wouldn't do
it). Anyway, can we agree that the MM is useful in a broad, but painfully
shallow way, and that to get anything done for real requires much more
information (e.g. cult write ups and KoS)?
Barron