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