Luck, combat, high fantasy

From: Nikolas.Lloyd <Nikolas.Lloyd_at_newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:44:50 GMT0BST


What use is the luck rune in Glorantha/RQ? Do people in Glorantha believe in luck? We often say that some tribe somewhere wears a certain talisman "for luck" but in Glorantha, I imagine that a man does not rub his rabbit's foot (or whatever) for "luck" but instead to contact/pray to/ placate a particular god or spirit, or to incant a spell, which will perhaps help him. If I want to build a boat, I don't ask a friend to help me "for luck", I ask him in the hope that he might say "yes" and actually help me. His helping me isn't a manifestation of "luck". Similarly, a spell or a spirit's good will are not "luck", but simply themselves.

I once wrote up a cult which worshipped the primary god of Luck. In my definition of "Lay members" I had most people in Glorantha, who might do very minor things, for a bit of luck, on top of whatever other spiritual aid they had. Now I think that this is not a Gloranthan way to view luck.  On Earth I might not walk under a ladder, or drop a coin in a well "for luck", but in Glorantha, I would say, people might do similar things to avoid enacting the walking-under-the-ladder ritual (an evil thing), or to sacrifice to the well spirit, and would not regard any results of these acts as "luck" but simply the straightforward consequences of rituals and sacrifices.

The rune lords of my cult were very charismatic types, with a devil-may-care attitude to life, and these were often popular, as people thought that their luck might rub off on those around them. They were designed to be interesting PCs to play. The luck only actually helped the rune lord himself, but often what was good for him was good for the party, and there was nothing to stop him sharing the profits of a fortuitous windfall.

If luck is the opposite of fate, and there is no luck in Glorantha as we know it, what is fate? If fate is unalterable destiny, then what is a heroquest?

I always liked the RQ combat system. I shan't go into the hundreds of reasons why, but I thought that it was spot-on for the sort of game I wanted. I made lots of tweaks, but the core system was RQ. The only problem was that when lots of fighters were involved, combats got very slow, so as a GM I got into the habit of just deciding what happened elsewhere, and only made the PCs roll. I have my own skirmish and battle systems for mass play. I would recommend Irregular 6mm figures for mass battles. They are cheap, have a large range including lots of fantasy figures, and don't take anything like as long to paint. For skirmishes I use Wargames Foundry 25mm, which are VERY expensive, but very good.

I see combat as essential to a good RPG. The skill is in not using rules just because they are there. If I want to do a risky thing as a PC, then it is best that neither I nor the referee knows what the outcome will be. This is essential for suspense. If I attack another PC, there must be a system to determine the outcome which the ref cannot influence very much, to avoid unfairness.

True, much of role-playing has far too much emphasis on combat. Good scenarios have situations which have a potential to become violent, but should not just be a string of fights. I hated the scenario in Tales called "Hut of Darkness" as it was just a string of unavoidable and very deadly combats.

Nice to see a few scenarios posted, by the way.

In action films, the two main types of action are fights and chases. Chases are often long and complicated. I find it odd that no rules system I have ever seen deals with chases. In RQ the faster runner always wins, and that's all there is to it.

As for the high vs. low fantasy issue, the way I see it is this: in low fantasy it drizzles, people worry about what the neighbours think, and try to get better food. The world of low fantasy is detailed, gritty, and not terribly escapist in that people have to worry about the practicalities of things and the consequences of their actions. The power of one human to influence the world is limited. In high fantasy, using my definition, one human can be immensely powerful, and playing that character is an escape from life's little niggling details. A hero might ride a dragon and fire-ball a city, then might delve in to the impossibly vast Chasms of Quarg and slay vast hoards of opponents who have no viable food supply, live in 30'x30' rooms with no heating or furniture, and who have no relatives who thirst for revenge after these acts. Success is rewarded in gold, and all women encountered are young and beautiful.

One of the things which attracted me to RQ is that somehow it managed to give me BOTH high and low fantasy. In Glorantha, some people really are very powerful in a way which is impossible on Earth, and so there was some escapism there, but the complexities of religions, spirits, societies, geography and the rest made it possible to get deep into role playing, and made characters worry about what their relatives might think of their actions. In my Glorantha, it rains, and insects bite, and the occasional miracle happens. Suits me down to the ground.

I also liked the bronze age technology base, which seems to be ignored by most RQ players. My Gloranthans wield carps-tongue blades, side-mounted halberds, palstaves and the like, not the usual D&D quasi-medieval rubbish.

I've often noticed how most people, when creating a character, write out their parents. PCs are often wandering in search of their parents, orphaned by raiders, from a far off country, or some other thing which makes sure that mum isn't going to turn up and say "You're never going out looking like that. What would people think?" A common ploy of mine would be to have someone's parents turn up (if they had not specified an absence of parents, then they would still assume this - I think it is part of the escapism for them), and then I would watch the PCs squirm!

Bit of a ramble. Sorry about that.

Lloyd
Dept. Psychology
Newcastle University
Nikolas.Lloyd_at_NCL.AC.UK


Powered by hypermail