Ivan Gatt, on HeroQuesting:
> So, if I am getting this right, it is not the fact that someone changes
> mythology that makes him a God-Learner, but the purpose behind it. It does
> not matter if the end result is the same, but it matters the reason behind
> it. Well, I tend not to agree with this. IMHO, the result on the nature
> and mythology of Glorantha are the same, whatever the reason behind it.
> Granted, it could be, like in most cases, for the good of everyone, but then
> again, it depends on perspectives. (Argrath quested for the return of Sheng
> Seleris -KoS, pages 32-33, and it was 'good' for the Orlanthi and their
> supporters, but 'bad' for the Lunar Empire).
>
My personal opinion is that there's more to what the God Learners bad than
this.Generally, the entire centuries-long God Learner empire and movement basically
were the equivalent of decades-long industrial and environmental policy was
like in Soviet Russia - a total, senseless disregard for the environment,
and a lack of concern for the consequences of disruption of the environment.
Essentially, the God Learners looked upon the Deist pantheons, gods,
and mythologies as sources of power to be mined, and disregarded the fact that
the gods were also manifestations of the basic building blocks of the world. The
'backlash' of the world against the God Learners reminds me of the health effects
on a populace after a local environment has been strip-mined...increased
infant mortality, cancer, birth defects, disrupted weather patterns and river
flooding
due to large sections of forest clear-cutted, and so on. One can argue whether or
not
the godly forces that the GL's tampered with were indeed sentient, one can't argue
with
the fact that later hero-questers never attempted to disrupt or manipulate the
patterns
of the world in the same way that the God Learners did. The Seven Mothers did not
create a new goddess... they put back together an old one, if we indeed accept the
fact
that Rufelza actually existed in the GodTime. Even if Rufelza was simply a girl
born
in Torang, the Seven Mothers saw to it that the new goddess integrated herself into
the
cycles of the Cosmos along previously established mythic lines, and worked her way
harmoniously into the pre-existing Pelorian mythologies, as opposed to the rather
crass God Learner manipulations, which changed the whole identities of gods and
pantheons full cloth.
> Further Michael Cule wrote:
>
> << Secondly, the G-Ls had a secret (now *really*, *really*, *really*
> lost-honest!)
> and a technique (the RuneQuest Sight) arising from that secret which is now lost
> too. This made the spectacular changes they made in the God Plane much easier.
> No-one now knows why or how. >>
>
> Thinking of this, an improbable and perhaps scandalous taught comes to my
> mind. What if the Gods are just God-Learner constructs, being the technique
> you are referring to? The God Learners needed something to help them channel
> this 'power' so they created the Gods as we came to know them. Correct me
> if I am wrong, but I think somewhere I read that the gods have been
> structured by the God Learners (or at least their mythology timeline), and I
> think I also read that the God-Learners had access directly to the Runes
> (which I assume are a kind of concentration of power). As for the gods
> 'existing' before the God-Learners, we know that creating gods (and
> mythology dating back before dawn, and therefore before them) can be done,
> and in a way is proved (Yelmalio cult might be an example). I know it is a
> far fetched idea, but....
>
> Regards,
>
> Ivan
>
>
Hm. This is subjectivism, taken to an insane extreme (just as insane as saying
thatonly one culture's mythology is totally true and correct. Yes, I'm a hellish
fence
sitter!) I definitely suspect that the Yelmalio/Elmal thing may be the result of
God Learner tampering (and indecisiveness on GS' part :) ), but the romantic
in me likes to think that even if Gloranthan gods have no existence outside of their
cultures, at least those cultures were responsible for creating them.
>
>
> Now, here's my follow-up question: are the gods *bound* by the Great
> Compromise, or do they choose to limit themselves according to its
> stipulations? If the latter case is correct, then it seems to me the
> gods really *must* have free will after all...
>
> doug
>
> - --------------douglas bailey (trystero_at_ne.mediaone.net)--------------
> don't you let my letter get you down...
> --david bowie
>
Doug,To ponder this question will lead to madness, death, insanity, Illumination, and much good-natured flaming on the Digest. :) This is a question that us armchair Gloranthan scholars have wrestled with for years. At least to my knowledge, the Digest seems to be of a largely pro-Kallyr, pro-Rufelza, pro-subjectivist slant (the gods aren't real, they're merely cultural personifications of magical energy that humans anthropomorphise in order to understand and use), but I could be wrong and can't claim to speak for the Digest as a whole. Generally, I feel this way about the issue -
While the *faces* of the gods are influenced by culture and myth can change in some details over time, and by HeroQuest acts the face of the god and the aspects of his or her powers available to worshippers can be changed, the gods themselves are conscious beings who do have independent thought and action. While having consciousness and the ability to make decisions, they *effectively* have no free will because if a deity violates the intent of the Great Compromise (or cultural equivalent - I'm sure that in Glorantha, each land and culture has some myth explaining why the gods live on The Other Side, and don't regularly interfere with the affairs of men), then the system of cosmic checks and balances woven by Arachne Solara in Hell will unravel and come apart, allowing the re-entry of Chaos into the world and thus destroying it. The only way the gods can influence events within time is through their worshippers - humans beings who *do* have free will. Gods can also interact with humans according to the terms laid out by the Compromise - worship, providing of magic during life, guardianship of the soul after death, and so on.
Which is right? Are the gods real, or not? It doesn't matter. I use to be a
strident
Objectivist (The Gods are real and the published myths are literal truth) until some
folks here on the Digest showed me some really good reasons for their views. Now,
I'm smack dab in the middle, as neither proposition can work. The Storm God must
have slain the Sun during godtime in order for at least part of the myth cycles to
work,
as so much of Glorantha's geogrpaphy and history is tied to myth. However...the
names
of the two gods involved, the reason for the fight, the effects mythologically of
the combat?
These are human and cultural concerns, and have a direct impact on the consciousness
of the Gods. Regardless, what's important is that during games, the PC's *feel* and
*know* that their gods are real and their myths are true... That's Glorantha's real
magic.
As GM, it's up to you.
Richard writes about conceptual filters and richness of roleplay, basically telling us that the old conventions of FRPG were good because ease of roleplay made for richer PC interaction
*Excellent article snipped*
> The fact that two humans, a troll, a duck and a dwarf could wander round
> the countryside killing baddies and collecting treasure, with little
> care about delicate issues such as ecology, economics or society, is
> often cited as a weakness. I believe it is a strength.
>
> The issue hinges on whether you believe that human beings like you and I
> really can fully role play exotic creatures in an exotic world. I don't
> believe you can, which is why I think it's important to have a number of
> "filters" to take away world detail, until what's left is something you
> can role play within.
>
*titanic example snipped*
> would grind to a halt. Accepting the limitation of our imperfect
> imaginations is the first, and probably most fundamental, "detail" that
> we filter out. It allows role playing to be playable.
I disagree with these points on a number of levels. At least for me,worlds that lack detail and under-developed cultures aren't bonuses. I prefer a world that has as much of that detail and internally consistent logic as possible, because richness of world detail *adds* room to RP in, it doesn't take 'room away'. Players who are bothered by excessive detail in RPG setttings should go, and IMO, play a CCG or something. RPG's only give out as much as players put in, and a dull, boring, trite world setting (Like Dragonlance or EarthDawn, two worlds which I'm less than impressed with) leads to flat and uninspired RP. Roleplay is inspired by character motivations, which is generated by PC personalities. PC personalities are created, in part, by world background and cultural setting, which is directly created by level and complexity of world detail. Filters destroy RP! A heated political discussion between a Sartarite Thane and loyal Lunar Carmanina Vizier will be a hell of a lot more lively and fun than between two identical D&D fighters who walk, talk and act like they come from some town in Illinois, USA.
> As the characters that we play, and the situations and worlds that they
> find themselves in, become further removed from our own, we need to put
> more and more filters in place. Eventually we are ignoring a sufficient
> amount of the "true" nature of the world around us to allow us to play
> within it without needing an extra brain.
>
Again, non-sequitur. As we RP, and our PC's (and NPC's, if we GM)become richer and fuller and take on a life of their own due to more and more detail, we don't need to 'think' about how the character we play will act or behave in a given situation - we *know.* We already have the 'extra brain' - the independent personality of the character. What my first RQ character, Jandar Roscannon of the Pol Joni, would do or not do in a given situation I know flat down, because I've played him long enough, and know his Pol Joni tribal background and Praxian environs and Orlanthi religion good enough, as well as the details of his personal life, as well as the personal experiences of having *been* him, if only briefly, in RP, to know *exactly* how he would react if, say, if he were on the Cradle (which he was) or if confronted by the Crimson Bat (which he wasn't, thank the gods) or if Brigga Sizzortongue wanted to have him as a 'guest' overnight in her New Pavic villa (no chance in all of Subere's hell - He's a smelly Pol-Joni shaman!) or if he was carted off in chains and a slave collar to the city of Glamour. When you play and fall in love with a favorite character long enough, it comes naturally, with no need for extra nueral hardware.
> The traditional slice'n'dice RPG approach had a great many filters
> present. So many, in fact, that it could never be thought of as much
> more than a game. Still there was enough left unfiltered for role
> playing to take place, since it is never possible to filter out
> "people", i.e.other PCs. Interaction with the world might have been
> pretty lame, but interaction between PCs was extremely rich. Perhaps it
> was unrealistically rich because so much world detail had been filtered
> out. You certainly found out who your friends were when you went hacking
> down some dungeon together, and you found out a lot about yourself too -
> e.g. how you deal with other (awkward) people in stressful situations.
>
> Taking away some of these filters in order to add an extra dimension to
> our game is a good idea - for people who are ready for it. However it's
> also important to understand why they were there in the first place and
> what their benefits are. There's also no point getting too snobby about
> this. We remove some of our filters because we want to experience
> different things about our game. We can't go the 'whole hog'. This isn't
> an argument between realism and gaming - it's all a game. We each of us
> choose what bits we want to experience and what we want filtered out. I
> personally feel that the richest interactions we have are with other
> players, and the super-filtered world systems of early gaming suited
> this extermely well. We probably only need to start removing filters
> when we start getting bored of each other - but I guess it's a matter of
> taste.
Well, let me share this with you, Vegas - by removing the filters and going whole hog,you'll see sides of your fellow gamers that will make the role play all the more richer and far better than what would be available in some boring, generic fantasy gaming setting. The interaction between players depends heavily on the motivations the PC's have, and motivations are derived largely from the place that the PC's have in the game world. What you argue for is essentially an Easy Way Out - how to have fun, yet not be bothered with the tedious weirdness of some settings. In a way, this has been the crux of the success of White Wolf Game Studio's line of dark fantasy games...Your characters are strange creatures who
haunt the night, yet TV is still TV, and a 7-11 is still a 7-11. While I've gamed
loads of
WOD (a subject for another list), I prefer Glorantha, as it's a wonderful world full
of
richness, wonder, and myth (Con Button - "I'd rather be gaming in Glorantha")
Take my word for it, Vegas, if you're at the gaming table just to hang with the
homies,
then CCG's may be the thing for you. However, if you want rich character interaction
and drama, try Glorantha, with it's Ducks and Dragonewts and Beast Riders and
Faceless Statues and weird myth cycles and Red Moon and Casino Town and
a dungeon-filled city, smack dab in the middle of the desert, and far too many other
cool
things to mention. The more world detail, the richer you're PC, and NPC
interaction.
This I know from experience, please, give it a try.
> We may have called it rolling to hit a monster, or to cast a spell, or
> to get DI, or to see what wandering monster turned up, it was still
> basically gambling. Indeed there were times when we gambled our lives on
> the roll of a dice.
>
*snip*
> My motto would be: "Let the dice add the spice. Weave your stories
> around the outcome."
Dice in RPG's are problematic. Essentially, player free will in anygiven story is essentially illusion. However, in order to tell a good story, the GM must stridently maintain the *Illusion* of player free The replacement for randomization in any RPG is the imagination and action-taking of the Player involed. The weird things that players dream up are more than a substitute for dice-rolling. See Eric Wujick's excellent Amber Diceless RPG for what I mean.
> People often criticise the achievement value of successfully rolling
> dice, but this is a double edged sword. Any achievement in RPGs is
> suspect - try explaining your latest conquest to someone not into
> fantasy gaming and you'll know what I mean. RPGs aren't real life. If
> your character has achieved something in the game without rolling dice
> then you, as a player, have succeded in bringing to a satisfactory
> conclusion a conversation with your fellow man. This is fine stuff, but
> rather more modest than the achievement of your character, who may, say,
> have wooed a beautiful Lunar princess. If you succeeded as a result of
> rolling dice, *after* you had a long conversation with your fellow man,
> then you additionally coped with the uncertainty of the situation and
> the prospect of failure. Argueably you achived more, and because the
> situation was uncertain you might have felt something close to the
> real-life thrill of waiting to hear whether "she would say yes".
>
But, again, this is non-sequitur. Ultimately, the GM decides, based on yourRP, whether or not the Lunar Princess is wooed. Most GM's I know make their decisions based on two prominent factors...the needs of the story, the personality and prior history of the Princess, and the history of the interaction between the Princess and the (presumably male, but who knows? This *is* a Lunar Princess!) PC. The uncertainty factor comes the personality of the PC, not how good your Fast Talk/Orate is or whatever, and your own RP skills and ability to make *your* character come to life.
> The Gambling buzz is just the uncertainty buzz after all, and for some
> reason, when there is real doubt of outcome, the rewards seem so much
> sweeter. And RPGs are not the only place where people extrapolate great
> achievements from a few lucky breaks.
Again, this is where detail comes in, as well as trust. All players must trust their GM's to allow them to be proper participants in the story, as accorded to their role, and the detail level of the world background and the Players and GM's attention to the detail will create enough permutations where the outcome is *never* certain, much like our real world. And, dice aren't used to determine the outcome of real world events, except in gambling casinos.
>
>
> Accepting that gambling is part of your game carries considerable
> implications for the GM - and I think this has been greatly responsible
> for my disputes on subjects like THE Glorantha, Blank Balastor, Complete
> Campaigns, and so on. If you are bookie, as well as story teller, then
> you need to make sure you're giving the right odds, dishing out the
> right rewards, giving the right challenges. Your needs from published
> materials change.
>
When I run, I'm not a bookie, I'm a storyteller/movie director/maestro.I refuse to entrust my joint creation (with the players) to be dictated by the toss of dice...I allow it to follow it's own appropriate logic, as dictated by motivations of the PC's and the mythic stories that lie within THEM (both the player and his PC.)
> Talking about gambling and bookies and odds might seem strange in the
> context of RPGs, and the system does break down when you feel that
> basically this is all you're doing. It is the successfull combination of
> story telling and gambling which I think holds the key to a good RPG
> experience.
>
> I don't think we should kick out the gambling side of our RPGs, or the
> detail filtering. I think it's great to examine and change their
> influence on what we do, but we should always remember their benefits as
> well as their restrictions.
>
Gambling of any kind I feel is a poor substitute for well detailed settings thatgenerate their own uncertainty. People are random enough, both in the imaginary world setting as well as in real life that dice are most of the time unnecessary. Away with the filters, let the details be your dice!
> Richard
> - --
Chris Bell
remster_at_interport.net
sartar18_at_hotmail.com
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #554
Powered by hypermail