Me [paraphrased]:
>>Not so.
Aden
>>>Most Northern European militia were armed with crossbow in the
>>>'high' middle ages. One was capable of standing off charging
>>>Lithuanian cavalry.
Me
Yes, of course. My cavil was that crossbows weren't invented as an answer to _horse archery_. They were invented as a powerful and accurate missile weapon which could pierce armor better than any normal bow.
Aden
>The Mongols would normally avoid melee lance to lance against
>European knights unless the knights were broken up as at Leignitz or
>ambushed.
This is true as far as it goes, but I think you miss the point. If we look at Mongol battles before they fought the Europeans, it's clear that they didn't even charge lance-to-lance against _light_ cavalry until the defenders were broken up or otherwise discommoded (taken in the side or rear, etc.). The Mongol reluctance to charge the flower of European chivalry, which the Europeans assumed to be cowardice, was instead a standard Mongol tactic, used vs. Tartars, Uzbeks, Chinese, even Japanese (in the first abortive invasion). I don't think the Mongols were afraid of the armored knights. I think they just wanted every advantage they could get in combat.
>Even the later (and more heavily armoured) Timurids were none to
>keen to fight knights head on, as the Serbian nobles proved at the
>battle of Ankara.
Said courageous Serbians weren't wearing plate, but "only" chain armor. Still heavier than Timur's men, of course. Note also that Timur _won_ this battle (better known as the battle of Angora). Later on, Timur beat the Knights Hospitallers, who wore heavier armor yet (and probably had some excellent plate).
Sandy
>The Kingdom of Ignorance is still steeped in weirdness, but this is
>not only tolerated, but the Exarch of this territory is _himself_
>stark raving mad, and is not replaced! This would not happen among
>the Lunars.
Peter M.
>You forget Pars Ilsigi, Mad Governer of Twice Blessed.
You're right, I did. But at least Pars Ilsigi is still loyal to the Emperor, whereas Chan Shu or whatever his name is is actually planning to subvert the Sun God himself.
Ian Katts disagrees with my theory about lunar massed magicians.
>Whilst massed magicians would be useful, they are not the primary
>reason for Lunar military superiority. The reasons can be summed up
>as the professionalism of the Lunar military and the existance
>of a formal career structure for Lunar heroes.
[long-winded description of the fact that the Lunars have a professional army deleted.]
Ian, the fact that the Lunars have a professional army does not explain their military superiority. It would explain their superiority over the _Sartarites_, but they have also had to fight and beat a whole lot of highly professional armies trained and equipped in their own style. They had to beat forces as diverse as Jannisor, Dara Happa, Carmania, Pent and Prax nomads, the Holy Country, etc. etc. It's interesting that the nomads gave the Lunars the most trouble, though, because nomads historically have given civilized professional militaries the most trouble.
The Lunar method of training heroes may or may not be as you say, but it does not seem to be what happens in practice. Check out the entirety of Lunar Herodom as displayed in Dragon Pass. We have:
The Red Emperor, Jar-Eel, The Crimson Bat, Beat-Pot. And that's all. The only one of these four who can even remotely be explained as a result of your complex hero-raising is Jar-Eel. Of course, it's worth the entire social subsystem even if all you get is one hero (or superhero) a generation, but they certainly don't seem to produce heroes "regularly" nor " in quantity", as you seem to believe.
Kralorela/Lunar Magic Ecologies
Ian:
>I think you are missing the point somewhat with the Sun cultures.
:) Well, actually, Ian, I'm egotistical enough to think that I'm _not_ missing the point on these, seeing as I wrote up part of their descriptions and spent years discussing them with Greg. Of course, I'm often off-base on some point or another, and the trivia freaks like Joerg and Nick (and I use the term "freaks" quite lovingly) can often -Greg or -Sandy me at that time.
>For [sun cultures], worship is a social duty, not a means of
>individual enhancement.
Yes I know Ian. I was putting forth the contention that the direction in which worship runs -- the manner in which the benefits are attained, is completely opposite in the Lunar and Kralori empires. Just because they're both vaguely Solar in origin (in both cases, with a heavy dose of Something Else layered through whatever Sun culture existed once) doesn't mean they're identical in the way they think about the world.
Given that they both see worship as a duty, I yet hold to my belief that A) the Lunars believe that the Gods Bless the People. The worshipers attend church because that way they can ensure constant recipience of the Goddess's blessings.
B) The Kralori believe that the People Uphold the Gods. The worshipers attend church because that way they can ensure constant _maintenance_ of the Goddess's blessings.
The end result looks quite similar to a crass materialistic barbarian -- lots of people worship together to get a powerful magic result, but the way in which the people _think_ about their gods is vastly dissimilar.
Ken9Jack(who?)
>I would think the idea of massed shamans would be tough in more ways
>than one.
Yes, but if Argrath can do it, why not the Lunars?
I am currently watching with keen interest the debate on who invented mass-magician fighting. Harald, Peter, Graeme, Ian, Nils, and the rest, I thank you muchly for what you've done to now and I look forward to the rest (if there is some).
John Hughes has a long defense of systemless gaming, in which I get to become the straw doll, thus turning my own technique against me in an effective, heroquesty sort of way.
I have nothing against systemless gaming. I wish to remark directly upon only a few of his statements.
>The fact that systemless gaming is considered new or revolutionary
>or even dangerous is a sad comment on the commercial interests that
>shape our hobby. ...[They seek] to channel our imagination along
>very narrow (and commercially lucrative) paths.
For many years I have not received a significant amount of money from any paper-gaming company. I have no "commercial interests" anymore in the hobby. Especially do I have no desire to help maintain the clowns who have mismanaged the paper game industry into the tiny backwater it is today.
In the late 70s, a typical wargame sold around 60,000 copies. Today, it's considered a success if it sells 10,000. Roleplaying game sales, in general, are even smaller. The biggest megahit around, the Vampire game by White Wolf, has sold around 100,000 copies, according to someone who knows, and who I have no reason to disbelieve. 100,000 is actually pretty pathetic, compared to what the mega-hits of the 1970s were like. Star Frontiers, considered a real loser, shipped 40,000 units and (I think) ended up selling over 100,000. Champions, Traveller, D&D, AD&D, and OD&D all sold more. What happened? I'm sure that computer games and VCRs took their toll, but I don't think they're the total story.
"Commercial interests"? Yeah, there's some of that desire to make money, but none of the paper game companies would still be around if making money was their sole reason to exist. I would not term paper gaming as "commercially lucrative" in any sense of the word. Even computer roleplaying games and computer wargames are a small, and ever-shrinking part of the computer marketplace.
I'm not dumb enough to think that these trends are inevitable and irreversible, but I'm also not dumb enough to think that roleplaying will survive, no matter what.
>Normally I'd ignore such straw-dolly chopping, but in this instance
>I just can't let Sandy's challenge go by.
Despite John's evident feeling that I don't really know what systemless gaming is all about, and a statement by him that what I saw could never _really_ take place in a systemless game, it did. Perhaps that has to do with an immature gamemaster, or any number of other reasons.
And I know quite well exactly what systemless gaming is all about. In its essence, it is a variation on live action roleplaying, which I have gamemastered, authored, and played in for the last six years. Three Gloranthan LARPs have been done so far, with varying degrees of success, and I regard LARPs as the most important new game style to appear in the last twenty years. There is _no_ other game experience (and I've experienced them all) which is as intense. Not live roleplaying (like NERO or IFGS), not tabletop roleplaying, not VR immersion. And not the systemless games I've played in. After a moment of thought, I realized that I've played in dozens of systemless games -- a large minority of Cthulhu games I've run and played in didn't _ever_ use any of the rules, and in the majority of said games, the players were very intent on roleplaying, not "winning". This did not just happen in Cthulhu games, of course, but it happened more often there than in other (more combat-oriented) games I've done.
John waxes almost tearful as he describes the "very powerful experience" of the last systemless module he ran. I'm pleased for him. I must admit I've never felt so strongly emotional about any of my board wargames, but both systemed and systemless RPGs have done it. But not 100% of the time.
LARPs leave me drained every time. Even the worst LARP I ever played in (NOT, by the way, the Osentalka game) got me involved emotionally. The bitterness I feel over that game is probably partly due to the way I was pulled into it, then cast out almost randomly. (I was killed, and the GMs didn't provide any replacement character for me. I was mildly disgruntled. Then one of the _other_ players, a friend of the GMs, was killed, and he _got_ a replacement character. Then I was hugely disgruntled.)
>systemless modules work best when they emphasise characterisation -
>motivation, inner growth and catharsis
I don't see why John seems to think this can't be done in a rules-heavy system. Whenever catharsis, seduction, or similar events come up in my own campaigns, I don't do them by strike rank. I play them out, without bringing any rules into play, since not needed. If something happens that would benefit from a rule, I can bring one in. But I don't have to. At a guess, I would say that 80% of the events taking place in my RuneQuest game don't require the activation of a single rule. In Call of Cthulhu, it's more like 99%, and I frequently have a whole session go by without rolling dice. Even combat in CoC is frequently dice-free, since the monsters' attacks are best described verbally, and the PCs are generally not taking normal dice-using combat actions, but are instead trying to topple the cement mixer, run through the hedges, jump behind the dumpster, etc.
I guess I just don't see what the big deal is.
One more LARP plug: in the "big" LARPs that I normally run and play in, character growth and change is an inherent part. In the shorter half-day sessions that the various RQCons have necessitated, there is less of this, though the games can still be good. Generally by the end of a 48 hour session of LARPing (the norm), the players no longer adhere to a single one of the goals so carefully crafted for them at the start of the game. They're still following goals, you understand, it's just that they seek different goals, new self-originated goals.
There has been some discussion of the Pearl Throne. For what it's worth, the Permian/Triassic was the "Age of Oysters". At this time, shellfish grew larger than they were ever known to do again, and thrived in a manner that was soon to cease. Sadly, the shellfish of the time were engaged in an arms race with shellfish-eaters, and while the shellfish could not keep indefinitely growing heavier and heavier shells, the shellfish-eaters _could_ keep indefinitely growing more and more effective techniques to bust on through. Inevitably the shellfish lost, and now, while still common, they tend to adopt habitats where the predators can't get to them (clams burrow, oysters and mussels live in the intertidal zone). Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. (Note to mollusc-fiends and paleontologists: yes, I know I've oversimplified here.)
Two thoughts:
Peter
>this sort of thinking will lead you in to believing that the
>Industrial Revolution was brought about by an Invasion of Railway
>Barons and Dark Satanic Mill Owners.
Which is perfectly true, in its way.
End of Glorantha Digest V1 #254
WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html
Powered by hypermail