>> YGWV, of course, so you can make it for an individual (as has been
>> mentioned). But this rather defies the the idea of a Keyword as being
>> a definition of a group.
>
> Well, as I've said, I draw the line at the point where it is simply a
> description of the individual's experience, and require it to be the
> description of some group, even if tiny or theoretical.
As well you may! IThe key is YGWV, of courfse, I am just trying to contriburte something of the designer's intentions on this.
> Because if you do
> allow it to be the individual's experience, then pretty much have to allow
> everything in the world into the keyword.
But the Keyword isn't about the "individual's experience." It is about the cultural, religious or professional norm.
> "Oh, I'm a Diplomat, but was
> taught fencing so I could deal with the Ramestian court, so that goes in my
> keyword." To allow fencing in, the player in my game would at least have to
> argue that this was standard training for all such diplomats.
I agree 100%. Just because a player wants something isn't a reason to alter the nature of the world.
>> > ...would it make sense to have the same
>> > survival skills for a Heortling from Boldhome as it would for a
>> Heortling
>> > who lives out in the hinterlands?
>>
>> One could, but you'd have to decide if there is a significent
>> difference would be that between between an urban and a wilderness
>> dweller. But is dwelling place the key to be used in a keyword? I'd
>> suggest not. The profession would, however. I'd suggest that a Keyword
>> of Potter, for instance, implies the urban nature of the job.
>
> Well, the Heortling keyword has the ability "Farmer" in it. This may or may
> not be something that Boldhomers know, I can't say.
The Boldhome residents who are Farmers certainlyu would have this. It's a profession keyword. But the potters wouldn't have this.
> Maybe this is a bad
> example. But I can certainly imagine a culture which is largely agrarian,
> where Farmer might be suitable for 99% of the people in the culture.
Sartar culture would qualify for this, though probably not 99%. More like 90 or 95%.
> But
> where there is a city where people live all their lives
Yes, sure. Many parts of the Dara Happans, for instance. I know that many people in the large cities barely leave their neighborhood, never mind going far away. They would never have Farmer as a keyword.
> and know nothing of
> farming, despite thinking of themselves as part of the culture in question.
That is why there is an occupational keyword, and a cultural keyword.
> In that case, does it make sense to make it a new cultural keyword?
Not to me. It seems ther eis a ocnfusion here between occupation and culure.
> Put another way, it seems to be certain to be true - if it's not the same
> culture, even if the name is the same, it should get a different keyword,
> right? And cultures can theoretically be very small.
YGWV, but as I aid, the point of keywords is to define what people share in a culture.
NOTE that it also depends ont he game. If I am going to run a game set entirely in Yuthuppa, then I can make the Cultures to define the neighborhoods. But if there is going to be a variety of peoples, they would need to be larger.
> I'm not saying one should subdivide cultures where there are similarities.
> I'm saying that where there are differences, you have new cultures, right?
Not offhand, I would say.
Subculture? Yea. But we'd have to know the point of having the divisions.
Again, Keywords about about similarities, not differences.
>> I'd say that you are wasting the potential of a Keyword this way.
>> It is dwelling on the diferences rather than on the similarities, and
>> Keywords are essentially designed to mark the similarities.
>
> Sure, and that's why these keywords are so sparse on abilities, I think.
? Keywords include hundreds of Abilities, but they ae shared. Abilities are to list specialties and difference of individuals within a culture.
> One
> shouldn't be taking very specific cultural keywords in order to get the
> specific abilities of that narrower group. But instead taking them if the
> abilities of that specific group are different from the original group. If
> they X-lings don't farm, then they shouldn't have farmer in their keyword,
But they wouldn't. That's a occupation, not a culture. I wouldn't allow the ocupation of Farmer to them. But Farmer isn't part of their culural keyword.
> no? If a particular village doesn't know how to assess social status, but
> instead are communitarian or something, unlike the rest of their culture,
> then their keyword should reflect that, no?
This, social strucure, is certainly part of a cultural keyword. But if all of Dara Happa is hierarchal in social organization, and there's a group that is communitarian, then it is probalby not Dara Happan, but X-ite. So yes, the keyword ought to reflect that.
> And should they have diplomats (or Village Speakers or whatever), these
> should have keywords specific to that small culture...even if there's only
> one diplomat currently employed in that culture. No?
No. Diplomat is a occupation, not part of the cultural keyword.
>> > Kolating from the Lismelder Village of Spearstand?
>>
>> Kolating: a religious Keyword, and significantly different from other
>> religions.
>
> Well, I don't want to get into how that's a modular part of the homeland
> keyword as presented. So let's just drop that clause for argument's sake.
I'll just say: religion and occupation are not part of the culural keyword.
>> As for "Lismelder Village of Spearstand," to me this implies that
>> there is a skill set that is different from a Colymar village from
>> anywhere. But there isn't., at a Keyword level.
>
> I should stay away from Glorantha examples. But let's say we made up
> Spearstand - I made up the name. Are we not allowed
You are allowed to do anythign you want. YGWV. As I said, I am only sharing my pespecive as a designer of the system.
> to say that it might
> have differences because there's a keyword that already covers it? From
> another perspective, can't we say that they're not Heortling, but just
> something similar to Heortlings? If our Glorantha should vary so?
You need to determine how diffeent or similiar, depending on the circumstances and needs of play.
>> Differences would be fond at specialty words within the keyword set.
>> IF THEY EVEN NEEDED TO BE DEFINED.
>>
>> If someone said to me, "Hey, I'm from the Lismelder and we know a lot
>> about undead. Can I used my Keyword skill to determine what kind of
>> undead these are?" I'd say "Yes."
>
> Sure, but if it were the case that Boldhomers couldn't farm, and a character
> tried to use his Farming ability from his keyword? Then what?
Again, Farming is an occupaton, not a cultural trait.
>> > Then, if so, can the occupations be taken specifically down to that
>> level,
>> > too? Diplomat Kolating from the Lismelder Village of Spearstand?
>>
>> No such thing. Not among Heortlings.
>
> Can I take the Diplomat Old City Cult from the Green Lake Colony, then?
Cults are of course, religious keywords, not cultural.
> Given that this does, in fact, exist in my game? And is distinct from the
> similar, and related, but substantively different Rhiani culture? To use
> something I can speak authoritatively about since it was created in my game.
YGWV, you can do anything you want in your game. I'm entirely unfamiliar with your game, and can't realy speak to that.
At some point similiar culures can be perceived as being diferent. Esrolian and Heortling and Haraldings and Tarshites all have a lot in common, but are different.
But the differences between Lismelder and Colymar are not culturally significent. At least not in the scale of the Sartar relbellion story.
>> > It's pretty simple to just limit to something like a "national" level
>> for
>> > culture. And that works fine. But I like to allow a bit more
>> flexibility.
>>
>> I'd say that this is not being flexible, but rather narrowing the
>> definitions.
>
> But, if and where it's actually being flexible and not narrowing larger,
> still appropriate keywords? Is that OK?
Yea, as you wish. YGWV.
>> > And so that's why I've gotten to the criteria that I currently use.
>> Which is
>> > that the character's keywords simply have to be indicative of some type,
>> > even if imaginary. Just so long as the abilities involved can't be said
>> to
>> > be just things that the character picked up despite the keyword.
>> >
>> > That's pretty broad. But I'm testing it in use, and, for the very little
>> > that I've used it, so far, so good.
>>
>> YGWV
>
> No, my HQWV. This is about the rules in use, not about what cultures they're
> specific to. This applies to Glorantha as well, because not all cultures are
> fully enumerated.
Fine by me. Please replace every usage of YGWV in my post with YHQWV.
> Or are they? Have all the keywords that should exist for cultures (even
> one's attempted) been created?
No, of course not.
> That is, are there no Heortlings, or
> near-Heortlings if you want to be technical, that are exceptions to the
> Heortling keyword?
I can't think of any.
> Or any of the other cultures in the book? What about the
> Pol Joni? Or do they use the Praxian keyword?
No, not by a long shot. They would hav ea PolJoni cultural keyword.
> Or do they deserve their own
> keyword? If the answer is that they don't, are there no cultures that do?
The question is too broad or me to wrap my head around. Are the AldaChur Sartarites culturally different enough to have their own keyword? No, not to me. They are Heortlings. The Volsaxi? To me, they are still Heortlings.
> Yes, in play when I use these ideas, and given that I allow players to
> pretty much define their cultures themselves, this does end up with cultures
> being created that are specific to the player's need for that culture, often
> creating exceptions to rules. But I have no problem with that - in fact this
> creativity actually makes the game world grow and become much richer by
> finding those exceptions. This is how things like Kolatings and Pol-Joni
> show up in my games.
I have no problem with any of that.
> We don't really disagree here then, do we?
Only if you are including occupations and religions within a culture.
But overall, there is no disageement.
YHQWV.
Issaries, Inc.
c/o Greg Stafford
1942 Channing Ave, #204
Berkeley, CA 94704 USA
Powered by hypermail