>> 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.
>
> Yes, so you keep reiterating. The question isn't whether that's the case,
> but how large (or small) "everyone" is as a group.
And I hope my answer to that is clear by now: it depends.
It depends on the nature of the game, the scale and obejectives, the
PC and NPC range to be found.
In HeroQuest, the cultures that are presented are what I consider to
be the proper scale for the heroic Sartar Rebellion.
>> > 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.
>
> Fine. But that's avoiding the point. As Andy says, then shouldn't the
> "Rural" be replaced by "Urban" for those from Boldhome? Or do the Boldhomers
> get out enough that they really aren't all that rural?
I wouldn't really classify the urban dwellers of Boldhome as Urban. Not when compared with real urban cultures like Dara Happa. So, as a broad spectrum, I'd give all the Heortlings Rural.
>> > But, apparently your view is that the abilities listed under keywords
>> are
>> > optional? Or simply informative?
>
> ...
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by mandatory here. That a Heortling have a
> Heortling homeland keyword? Or that it not be altered from the version
> written in the book?
I have no desire to force a perspecive on either my players, or on all
the other people who play the game.
I have always had wierdo characters who don't quite fit the norm of
the culture. But I also insist that the players understand that their
characters are wierd, and that everyone else in their society thinks so.
>> > 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.
>
> OK, but that's not the subject at hand. Are you saying that no new abilities
> should ever be introduced under keywords?
No. I don't think I've said that. As I did say, the Keywords have hundreds of things that could be listed under them, or even isolated as specialties of the individuals. I'm not even sure what a "new ability" would be under a cultural Keyword. If you mean ones that aren't in the list, then of course there are new ones.
Furthermore, a lot of abilities can be introduced and used that are NOT uynder the Keywords. Want Tightrope Walking? Hardly a normal Heortling ability under the cultural occuptaion, and most Occupations. You want it in my game? No problem. Knige throwing? Sure. Expert and Languages, Sense Ambush, etc--no hay problema.
> If new abilities are allowed,
> what's the criteria?
Logic and story.
Your Heortling wants Make Cement as a part of his Hunter profession?
Nonsense. He wants it as a special ability, and can tell me how he got
that knowledge, fine.
>> > 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 wasn't being clear again. Instead of "along with the keyword" I should
> have written, "As part of the keyword." That is, I take Heortling... what do
> I get for abilities along with that keyword.
Hundreds of abilities. Too many to list. You get everythign that all
Heortlings know.
What do they know? Read Thunder Rebels, Storm Tribe, Barbgharian
Adentures, etc etc.
> If the criteria you cite is "anything you want, if you can justify it to me"
> my next question will be, what criteria do you, Greg, use to decide if
> something comes from a keyword.
I'm not even sure what the point is of deciding whether or not
something is under a keyword.
In a game when someone says to me, "Do I know something that I can use
here, in this situation?" the answer is usually pretty apparent. If I
don't know, we might have a quick discussion among the
players--"What's everyone think about the Heortlings knowing how to
[make rope, skin a porcupine, analyze whether a new fruit is
poisonous, etc.]
>> > 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.
>
> Not sure if I'm being clear here. If I have three abilities listed under the
> keyword, and they are all appropriate augments to a contest, can I augment
> with them all? Or only once (making keywords somewhat like affinities in
> this regard)?
In my game? Once.
Most of the time.
>> > The
>> > "abilities" in the keyword only there to give an idea of the breadth of
>> > these broad abilities?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> So I can't augment with them more than once? As Jane says, that would make
> the abilities listed under the keyword far less important. I'd just stop
> worrying about this altogether if I played that way.
GOOD START!! Congratulations!!
> But I wouldn't play that way, because I'd miss the way I currently play
> where the abilities from keywords are just abilities. Which is what the
> rules seem to say.
THEN DON'T WORRY ABOUT WHAT I THINK. YGWV, YHQWV, The point is to HAVE FUN.
>> > 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.
>
> Clear, certainly, but useless, since it doesn't define what a keyword is.
> Rather it doesn't tell us how to judge what belongs in a keyword other than
> a general sense from the examples. The problem is that extrapolating from
> the examples, you run into the problems that I'm trying to elucidate here.
Then be sure to read all of ST, TR, BA and every other thing I've ever written on the Sartarites. Also, read every book you can find on the cultures of the Celts and Germans, plus on the religious systems of Pagans, shamanic cultures and don't forget to include the entire body of Hindu polytheism to get an idea of how broad this stuff really is.
Or wing it, and enjoy yourself.
>> 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.
>
> OK, so for the book standard level, you have "Heortling" as the appropriate
> level. But understanding that there are differences between a Heortling from
> Boldhome and a Lismelder. And we don't have to worry about it much, beacuse
> I can only augment with the abilities that I get from the keyword once?
You only have to worry about what's important in your game. And if you want to augment with every possible ability, do it.
> Do I have it now?
You tell me.
>> > 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.
>
> Not trying to be a pest, but could you give an example? This seems very
> vague to me. "Just do it."
Be concrete, and I'll give it a try.
>> >> ? 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.
>
> No, it says that broad abilities can be made into keywords.
I can't find that quote. What page is it on?
> Implying that
> some are not. Further, it seems to me to say that keywords involve getting
> abilities, which implies that one can augment with them (might even be
> explicit about this).
Keywords encompass abilities.
"You're out in the woods, and you see these strange tracks. You're a
Hunter. Make a roll on your Hunting."
"I'm a warrior. What can I roll?'
"Hmm, nothign comes to mind. Anyone got an idea? You have Tracking?
Sorry, you are clueless here."
"You're in a fight, roll your Warrior Keyword." "But I also have the ability of Dodge. Can I augment with that?" "OK. You got combat magic to help too?">> Look at Medieval French culture: it includes nobles, clergy, serfs and
>> 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.
You will note that there are very few small cultures in my lists. If they are small, say the Deri of Prax, then they don't have specialties anyway.
> then the occupations can be defined in pretty local terms, as well.
> Not individual to the hero in question, but with perhaps an arbitrarily
> small group. So long as it is still a group of some sort.
>
> There are several assumptions in there of which we are now trying to discern
> the veracity.
This is going in circles. Tell you what, give me a list of T/F questions and I'll tell you if they'e true in my game or not.
>> > 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.
>
> But this rule is not clear yet. I can't choose to use it or ignore it until
> I understand it first.
It appears to me that you are trying to make a hard and fast rule where there is not one.
>> Use concrete examples and I can answer concretely.
>
> If I have a warrior from Boldhome who is trying to find water in a forest,
> does he get the Heortling "Rural" ability to use, or not?
Just use the Keyword.
If he has a specialized ability that is greater than the Keyword, and
is appropriate, use that instead.
> Here's the thing. If you're saying that there are differences between
> Lismelders and Colymar that can affect outcomes mechanically, but that you
> should still use the same Heortling keyword to represent them both... that
> seems like you're making a somewhat pointless distinction.
I'm not making any distinction between them. If they have distinctive diferences that apply, then they'll be apparant.
"Hey Greg, I still have some of my hundred words left to use. Can I get the Identify Animal Tracks as part of my Dara Happan Keyword?" "No. Take it as a special ability."
Issaries, Inc.
c/o Greg Stafford
1942 Channing Ave, #204
Berkeley, CA 94704 USA
Powered by hypermail