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, 16 Jul 1994, part 3 Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM Content-Return: Prohibited Precedence: junk --------------------- From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson) Subject: Gender roles and WILL. Message-ID: <9407152122.AA15645@hawaii.dcs.gla.ac.uk> Date: 15 Jul 94 21:22:09 GMT X-RQ-ID: 5176 Barron Chugg: > There seems to be a difference of perspective here that I'd like to > comment on. I can certainly postulate a culture where men's and women's > roles are seperate, but equal (note: charged language). I can even retool > Western society to make men and women equal in "power" (not easy, but > doable). But this is quite evidently not the case for the Gloranthan West, where the question isn't whether the genders are equal, but how unequal, and how separate they are. > [...] So Sandy (and I) want women to have a wider choice of > roles so that female characters can run in any game I choose to GM (without > having everyone of them be some weird outcast). Reasonable culturally? > Maybe not, but it plays better, and that is my bottom line. I don't think Gameability should be the a priori overriding consideration in deciding questions of background. I'd rather decide on what a particular region "should" be like on the grounds internal and inspirational evidence, and look for the "natural" sources of, and hooks for, adventuring afterwards, or at least not at an "early" stage of development. Advocates of the "sauce", as opposed to the "gravy" school of world design may disagree at their leisure. This doesn't preclude the taking of certain liberties with a region for the sake of The Game, on either an Official or an ad hoc basis, though. 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 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. I'm just pointing out that Sandy is on the one hand advocating that Loskalmi women be admitted in the "male" castes, and hence do "male" things in society, telling us this follows from Loskalm's egalitarianism; while on the other, telling us that the sharp gender distinctions of G:G don't contradict the Greggly maxim that women have "important" roles in all Gloranthan societies. Elias: > > I find it especially hard to believe that a living hero > >is going to meekly turn into an abstract construct of rituals as > >the price of apotheosis. > I guess this is the main place where the question of whether the god is a > free entity comes up. I tend to believe that as the hero becomes more and > more powerful and well known they tend to fall into more and more of a > role. Absolutely. See the "WILL" business in the old HQ quasi-rules. As you become a more and more important hero, your free will is progessively eroded, your actions curtailed. Eventually your "apotheosis" comes about whether you intend it or not: you simply get "stuck" on the her/godplane, whether you want it or not. > I'd think of the MM as the zeroth order approximation to the mythology of > Glorantha. To inject a note of domain-theoretical nerdishness (or is that geekery? I'm never quite sure), I'd say a 1st approx., the 0th one being a blank sheet of paper. But it's not as if it's a very good one, and certainly not a "safe" one, in any obvious sense. > The error is not so much in using the framework as confusing it with > absolute truth. I use physics all the time that is at best a weak > approximation to what is really happening. But at least in such cases, the physics would at least be correct (one hopes) for an "idealised" situation. For the Monomyth, it's not clear that the "ideal" it describes is anything other than a cobbled-together ad hockery. Alex. --------------------- From: ddunham@radiomail.net (David Dunham) Subject: PenDragon Pass <> HQ Message-ID: <199407152154.AA01873@radiomail.net> Date: 15 Jul 94 21:54:24 GMT X-RQ-ID: 5177 Joerg said >The Pendragon Pass trait system apparently is something of a >playtest for the "next year edition" of Heroquest, so personality >traits and emotions seem to be the essential copmonents in worship, not >intellectual considerations. PenDragon Pass is something I threw together because I wanted to run a game of the colonization of Dragon Pass. (I'm currently using it in my Ralios campaign because it's a simpler and faster way to run Glorantha.) I've sent the rules to Greg, and he's said he found it amusing, but that doesn't mean there's any relationship to HeroQuest. If anyone wants a copy of the PenDragon Pass rules, e-mail me with your postal address. (No Mark I haven't forgotten you.) Or refer to Tales of the Reaching Moon #6 for an earlier version. In brief, it's RQ magic added to Pendragon, with religious virtues used to determine advancement in the cults. --------------------- From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson) Subject: Priests' POW Level Message-ID: <9407152133.AA15665@hawaii.dcs.gla.ac.uk> Date: 15 Jul 94 21:33:39 GMT X-RQ-ID: 5178 Chris Johnson: > An Idea! If we use a function of the Priest's POW as a modifier to their > Cermony skill, we can *encurage* the Priest to keep a higher POW. A simpler solution would be just to make the chance of a successful Worship equal to POWx5%, or Ceremony, whichever is the lower. Mind you, these rules are a bit too crude, all round; they should ideally take account of the roles of all the participants, or at least the "major" ones, not just the officiating priest; and have more success levels than just Hunky Dorey and Total Flub. Alex. --------------------- From: bchugg@leland.stanford.edu (Barron Chugg) Subject: Question for Sandy on Sorcery Message-ID: <199407160444.VAA10666@leland.Stanford.EDU> Date: 15 Jul 94 13:03:26 GMT X-RQ-ID: 5179 Sandy, I have a little question that has been bothering me for a while, perhaps you can help me out. Ever since I first read the RQ3 sorcery rules they have seemed, well, random. The choices of spells fit no genre I am aware of and all in all it seemed centerless. So, what I am asking is: what is the underlying theory of RQ3 sorcery? That is to say, what did you guys want it to look like when you wrote it? Is sorcery trully random, or is there an unifying idea that I am missing? Help! Barron PS: Anyone else can pitch in too... --------------------- From: bchugg@leland.stanford.edu (Barron Chugg) Subject: Religion and Hearts and Elite Flying Broos! Message-ID: <199407160444.VAA10676@leland.Stanford.EDU> Date: 15 Jul 94 13:03:30 GMT X-RQ-ID: 5180 Hello All. Still catching up. Or, if the Daily prints this first, starting to catch up. 13 July 94 Joerg: >brings the topic to a critical point of Gloranthan roleplaying: what >happens in worship ceremonies? How must we picture them? How does a GM >describe to his players what happens? > ..... >Time to expand these, isn't it? Absolutely time to expand'em. Seems pretty silly for a game with as much religion and roleplaying not to cover the religious rituals that PCs will attend many times a year. I'd go as far as to suggest that each full cult write up contain a very short note on each holy day ceremony (e.g. Orlanth, Sacred Time ceremony: Ritualized reenactment of the LBQ with many plays and stories recounting the trials of the LBs). I'd love to do it, but my sense of religious practice is mediocre at best. BTW, RQA 3 has some notes on Uroxi holy day activities. Well worth a look! >The officiating priest might experience something like this, or the chosen >impersonification of the Avatar (I still think that this is what Rune lords >do; priests handle the magical energy flow from the worshippers to the >deity, rather than impersonate it except in blessings. If an avatar or >a piece of one is embodied in an individual, this will perform the tasks >demanding active participation of the deity. 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. > >Life force is never pure when generated, personality always rubs off >with the MP. As long as the personality attached to the life force isn't >tainted, the life force remains acceptable. >(Thanks, Paul, for this concept.) > >Illuminates might be able to produce untainted life force. Opinions? > That is a pretty warped idea. I like it. We already know that MPs have some flavor (if one person fills a power storing crystal, someone else cannot drain it), so this is not such a big leap. I assume that by "tainted" you mean that the person is not inimical to the deity? So if they are in the proper frame of mind (i.e. devotion) then the MPs "taste" right (or, to get even more technical, they are in phase with the Goddess). Ogres and Illuminates (and people good at self-disciplne/deception) should be able to produce MPs in phase with any god. Hey, if you want ot go further, maybe spirits of reprisal can "sniff out" bad MPs and punish the slacker. ---------------- Peter Michaels: I like your write up on the Sacred Hearts a great deal. It gives a fine (and workable) frame work for thinking about Humakti in various areas (jeez, the Old Carmanians were twisted puppies). One idea that came to me reading it: Are Humakti that sacrifice the Heart of Life (i.e. all of them) stil fertile? One so tied to Death might have real problems producing life. Think about it, won't you? As for other names, how about Souls (hence the term, Soulless Humakti) or Sources? I think Heart is actually a great term. I seem to recall a story where Humakt has his heart removed, so it makes a good HQ kind of thing for a worshipper to do. -------------- Sandy and Alex on artillery magic: There definatly should be some "real" large scale magic in Glorantha. In fact, there is some already demonstrated (in the Cradle scenerio). Perhaps it takes several magic users working in tandem to create (one discorporate to target it and six back at his body channelling power). KoS hints that new magic is available to people working in groups ("(Argrath) taught them how to make a new kind of military unit, which was something like a clan and something like a ritual. ...in this way, (they could) do what the great lunar magical schools achieved when they devastated a whole fyrd with their power." KoS p155). I doubt any GM would want to produce specific rules for this, but it could be used now and again (like HQing) for dramatic effect. Wasn't there an article in an old WF about how to get magical unit like effects from groups of mages? I seem to recall discorporation, mind link and multispells. --------------- Alex (to Sandy): >>Just as well, really. Who wants mosquito-broos? >> Presumably, not even the broos. > >Malia, one would think. Yes, yes, yes!! This is a neat idea. How about this as a complication, misquito-broos are too big to fly. So they just find the nearest chaotic (or amoral) sorcerer and have him Tap them down to size 2 or 3. Imagine the horror on the PCs faces when they are confronted with a swarm of mirco-broos!!! I'd throw in a broo priest of Gorakiki-Misquito (with a Transform Body he could be the one who starts the broo-insect breeding!). This really makes me paranoid about going into chaotic swamps! Whew, almost done! Barron "Prayer must never be answered: if it is, it ceases to be prayer and becomes correspondence." Oscar Wilde ---------------------