> I don't know how to say this nicely, but the YGMVs don't help at all.
That was pretty nice.
> I'm
> aware of the principle. I should, perhaps be more specific, and ask if what
> I'm doing is how you'd run your game. Because that's primarily what I'm
> looking for. "Do whatever you want" is something I intend to do anyhow. I'd
> like to know if others think it's a good idea first.
Asking me concrete questions is always helpful to get a concrete answer.
>> > 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.
>
> This is, in fact, the point I was ineloquently trying to make, and giving
> another reason why it's problematic to do it this way.
So we agree on that?
>> > "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.
>
> Uh, actually, this is where I disagree. I quite often make whole moons
> disappear from canon, if, in fact, a player needs it to have his character
> look cool in a scene, for instance. Canon means very little to me.
And that's why YGWV is the rule.
For me, I'd make it an individual thing that defines the culture. That
is the point of being an individual. The Keywords are guidelines to
show how "everyone" is.
> if you allow a player to make such arguments, there is no creative limit
> whatsoever in the keyword, and it has no meaning or use in play.
I agree with that.
>> > 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 certainly would have this.
>> It's a profession keyword. But the potters wouldn't have this.
>
> See, apparently you have a different opinion of how the keywords work. That
> is, the Heortling keyword presented in the book says that Heortlings have
> farming.
I hadn't looked at the Keywords before making my statements. If I had I'd've said that "Farmer" ought to be "Rural" or something.
> But, apparently your view is that the abilities listed under keywords are
> optional? Or simply informative?
No, not at all.
The inclusion of "Farmer" in the Heortling keyword is an anomaly, a
glitch in fact. It should not be under the Cultural Keyword because it
is also the precise word used for an Occupation Keyword.
I actually think that the Keywords should be mandatory, including
(most of) the Personality Traits. I was shocked to learn that there
are a lot of player characters who do not Fear Dragons, for instance.
> Mechanically they're important, because
> (unless I'm playing incorrectly, and that's possible), you can't augment
> with an ability that's not written on the character sheet, but can with one
> that is.
I believe that is correct.
On this subject, though--I think it is wrong to just list things that
are at the same level as the Keyword. I've seen some characters that
have listed a host of descriptors under the Keyword that are all the
same, and the same as the Keyword. To me this is minimaxing and not in
the spirit of the game. The individual abilities are intended to be
unique things that the character does above and beyond the norm.
> What I'm getting down to here is what abilities am I allowed to write down
> on the character sheet along with a keyword?
Anythign you want, if you can jusify it to me as a GM. But in general, things that the character excels at, or that are different from the norm.
> I know a group that plays that keywords are simply broad abilities, and that
> you can only augment once with a keyword...is that the intent?
Yes.
> The
> "abilities" in the keyword only there to give an idea of the breadth of
> these broad abilities?
Yes.
>> NOTE that it also depends on the 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.
>
> So keywords should be defined at the level at which character
> differentiation is likely to matter? Is that the principle involved?
That's a fair definition. Read the rules on Page 17: "If your character has the Keyword, he has all the abilities detailed in it." I think that's pretty clear.
If I'm playing a game where cultural conflict between a Texan, a Californian and a Rhode Islander are significent it doesn't make any sense to just have American as the cultural Keyword. But if the game is about the differences between being American, Chinese and Swahili, then the differentiation between parts of the US are insignificent by comparison--they are local color for the players.
>> > 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.
>
> Well, presumably in the case in question
At this point I'm not even sure what the case in quesion is.
> it's that the people playing the
> game are concerned with the division. They see some difference, and want to
> highlight it. That's not enough?
You said you are asking me how I would play my game. I would play it by talkign to the player and finding out what he wants, and then working out the grounds in which that would manifest in the keywords.
>> ? Keywords include hundreds of Abilities, but they are shared.
>> Abilities are to list specialties and difference of individuals within
>> a culture.
>
> That seems to indicate that my suspicion above is correct, that keywords are
> simply broad abilties.
That is what the book says.
>> > 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.
>
> What I'm saying is that, in defining the Diplomat keyword, would you not
> make it appropriate to this smaller culture? That seems to follow from what
> you are saying.
You ask how I would do it in my game.
Diplomat is an occupation. I can imagine that there might be a family
whose ancestral occupation is to be diplomats, just as others might be
soldiers or gong farmers. But unless I was playign something really
close and tight, I'd not make it part of a cultural keyword.
Look at Medieval French culture: it includes nobles, clergy, serfs and
a few merchants. Theya re all still French culture.
>> I'll just say: religion and occupation are not part of the culural keyword.
>
> I didn't think that occupation was. But to clarify something that I've
> wondered about for a while, the religions, though the keywords for them are
> listed on the homeland page, are not part of the homelands. Instead perhaps
> listed there as keyword options available to the people of the homeland in
> question?
The religions are the religion sof those people. They are diferent became some cultures might have different religions. Alternately, different cultures may have the same religion.
>> > 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.
>
> So you'd advocate having no hard and fast rule, but to make these judgments
> differently in ever case? I'm fond of rules, you know...
You'll have to decide, then, whether your Glorantha varies or not. What I've done in HQ is set down a general set of rules for things, like the keywords. You can choose to use those rules or not. YGWV.
>> > 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 have a PolJoni cultural keyword.
>
> This is what I've been on about. See, the descriptions of the PolJoni that
> I've seen come down to "Heortling tribe transplanted into Prax." Now I'm
> sure I could do some research and find out how much of a simplification this
> is, I'm sure. But my point is that, in fact, this is the example I'm looking
> for. These are "Heortlings" who are different enough to merit their own
> keyword.
I wouldn;t consider the PolJoni to be Heortlings. They have too many Praxians and Grazelanders in their origin to be Heortlings.
> If you're saying that a Homeland keyword only applies to people of that
> culture, that's a tautology.
Although some might say it is the definition.
> The question becomes how different a culture
> has to be before you'd give them their own keyword? It seems that, at once,
> your answer is that you'd always give them their own keyword in that you'd
> say that some Heortlings can farm, and others not, from their cultural
> keyword. But then also that this is not about giving them their own keyword.
>
> I'm not following.
I am having trouble following your arguments as well.
>> > 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, but do they get a +2 for a Farming ability when they're fighting inside
> a barn? Another bad example.
Very bad example. Why would that even apply? That is a nonsensical question to me.
Use concrete examples and I can answer concretely.
Issaries, Inc.
c/o Greg Stafford
1942 Channing Ave, #204
Berkeley, CA 94704 USA
Powered by hypermail