Specialization, bad wording of the magic rules...

From: Joerg Baumgartner <joe_at_g8mr5SPtj_kuWhy30myge8H7MMwQGQMUyOaluJPqyz11iti7C6BQuQ__O0YO9ueHdrMJrxSG>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:19:07 +0200 (CEST)


Jeff Kyer
>>>From the introduction to Blood over Gold:

<Snip>

Well said.

Donald Oddy

>> I have difficulty with the idea that a pre-industrial society
>> should have anything like 10% of the adult population being
>> specialists.

Let me answer to that that neolithic and bronze age miners, expert craftspeople, god/spirit talkers, stargazers and traders were at least part-time specialists (which can be said about devotees, too).

Andrew Dawson
> Even in a magical world? This seems, IMO, to be implying that magic is
> a replacement for technology, and that otherwise Glorantha should be
> based on Earth's history. I like the economic analysis (at least
> that's what I think is the basis of such statements), but I think
> there should be an allowance for the fantastic.

It doesn't take a magical world, or even a "high culture" to get specialists.

European Bronze Age saw the majority of the population as farmers who rarely left their fields (as long as they were worth working on, otherwise new fields would be sought). This still included local craftspeople who not only made utility wares (pottery and stone is best preserved in archaeological finds, but we know that bone, ivory, wood, leather and textiles were worked too), but also took considerate extra effort to make them ornamental. That requires specialized skill.

Special resources - copper, tin, amber, flintstone, soapstone, ivory, salt - were retrieved, prepared and traded by specialists, up to the point where entire communities did not have subsistence as farmers.

We don't know if these people had master plowmen, weavers, cobblers, or dedicated warriors. We know that they had local smiths for maintenance of metal objects, and that there were some craftspeople whose extraordinary products were traded over several hundred miles.

> I can also see a reason for non-production specialists, like warriors,
> being encouraged to be specialists even if they don't want to be. If
> you have a non-producer hanging around, you may as well have him be
> the best he can be (acknowledging that there is a school of thought
> that warriors who concentrate on mundane skills are better warriors -
> not IMG).

A warrior is anything but a non-producer. A warrior produces booty or tribute. He also lends a hand at the great communal efforts, as do nobles, priests etc.

It is the warriors who control trade, and make sure that traders and other travelers don't bypass the settlement. This makes them as important a factor in trading as the traders themselves.

Full time specialists will still share a lot of communal efforts, while relying on some support from their own community, or from communities with whom they trade.

Roderick Robertson
> No-one is saying that player heroes should only have Common
> magic/Community level magic. What they are saying is that the
> Rules give the impression that most people in Glorantha have
> active magic - which is wrong most people have
> augment-only magic. Those with Active magic are rare, unusual, and
> strange.

I disagree, strongly.

The rules say that Common Magic users and lay members have augmenting magic only. Everybody with a stronger magical time slot can use magic actively (as can concentrated Common Magic users). Active magic is harder than augmenting magic, although super-high magical augments should be indistinguishable from magical abilities. (IMO.)

I think Roderick should rewrite/rephrase his table about theist magic and concentration.

Anyone practicing theist magic can use their affinities or standalone feats at -10 vs their use as augment. That's not an exception, it is the "This World Modifyer".

(I wonder why Common Magic feats are an exception, but there might be a reason for that. Anyone?)

If someone concentrates on a theist (well, is it deity, cult, or simply magic?) way of doing magic, they gain the advantage of better attunement (to their god, or the magical way of their deity), and can do active magic at -5. The person is less of This World.

Someone who devotes to the deity can use theist magic equally well whether as active or augmenting ability. He is well into the Other World that shapes the magic.

I dislike the term "improvising a feat" - IMO that's what happens if any theist does something which would fit into the affinity but has no previous mythical identification. This should give penalties to any theist magician, up to two masteries for "mere unconcentrated initiates".

One could still go to the Other Side and "prove" that there is a mythical identification. I.e. found a hero cult (whether for oneself or one of the less known heroes or subcult entitities). After that, the improvised feat becomes one of the known feats in the affinity list.

John Machin replies to Roderick's statement above:

> These rare, unusual, and strange folk are also among the most
> interesting and (dare I say) exciting to play for (dare I say) most
> people.

IMG there are whole Heortling subcultures that differ from the majority of what I tend to call "rural Heortlings". Beginning with clans where practitioners of animism are as common as users of affinities, and ending with Heortlings living in a mixed culture situation, also known as the paradoxical "urban Heortlings.

> There are assumptions that are made on the part of the user
> when they read the title of the game I think.

Who says that heroes are hyper-specialized combat or magic engines? As far as I am concerned, those specialists are excellent followers for the heroes who face things that are outside of the normal frame of their lives.

Harmast wanted to be a farmer, but found out that both his magical calling and destiny had other plans for him. He still remained a rural oaf for much of his career - something which his female conquests appreciated. Maybe he was used to be in the center of magical rituals, but that doesn't prepare anyone to walk the way of the gods unlike anyone before them.

>> I'm playing a character now who's an initiate, and never plan to move
>> him over to Devotee - there is far much more that can be done when you
>> don't have restrictions on you... And yes, description is the main part
>> of the game - the numbers are after the fact.

Unless the character concept says "devotee" (or "disciple"), I think that that grade of limitations undoes a character concept. Heroes deal with situations that require new solutions. Specialists deal with situations requiring specialized solutions. I need a specialist as heroquester if I want an Aroka Quest to banish drought, but I need a hero if that quest should deal with a problem that, while related, adds a twist to the traditional outcome. Preferably one with abilities that aren't restricted to the usual spectrum.

> That's neat, and I can see the appeal in some situations - but I have
> players of initiates in my games that bemoan their lack of nifty magic
> compared to players of devotees.

The nifty magic is there, it is only harder to use and improve. If you insist on doing the specialized stuff yourself.

Just like James Bond pulls out a special gadget for certain situations, Argrath pulls out (and likely uses up) a specialist follower for certain problems. It is putting ideas to work rather than rolling the dice that makes solving problems a challenge.

> I also wince a little at the statement "description is the main part
> of the game, the numbers are after the fact" - that is certainly true,
> but its not exactly inspiring me to invest in rules to play Gloranthan
> stories with. I find it a lot easier to play stories that AREN'T
> Gloranthan (using "concentration" rules much like those mentioned by
> some recently) with the HQ ruleset. This seems pretty weird to me.

> Good description can beat wonky rules, but the fact is that from
> reading the central book its not obvious (to me) what "good
> description" of Glorantha is.

A "good plan" with just-about competent performers will overcome the more powerful villain. That's one of the narrative imperatives of heroic role-playing. Find the dragon's weakness, find the back entrance to the stronghold, trick the villain's followers. A man fighting a dragon is a losing proposition. A man fighting a dragon using a sword of certain dragonslaying is a lame, mechanical situation. A good gaming approach is somewhere in between those two extremes, and a good narrative should be there, too. What is the fun in overcoming the Wizard of Oz with superior magic?

Jeff Kyer:

> I have seen a few characters who remain initiates - but its due to
> their insistence on worshipping several gods.

If that is essential to the character concept, there's nothing wrong with it. My characters don't have to be the best at what they are doing. They ought to have a chance to cope with a situation semi-competently and hopefully so successfully that new situations come up.

LC:
> So why is it only the Theists don't have active magic at the 30% level?
> (Well, they do, but have to improvise for it?) It just seems weird to me.

They are the only ones who can improvise the way their magic will go. A spirit can only do as its nature dictates, and a spell is very specific in its target etc. conditions.

IMO the "reduced penalty" is considered to be a pay-off for the loss of flexibility that goes along with it. The closer the use of the feat or improvised feat is to "this is what god X does", the lower will be the resistance, too, regardless of the amount of specialisation of the user.

Jeff Kyer:

> You concentrate your magical nature (as well as abilty). That
> involves purification. You cast out all the 'wrong' things in your
> soul/essence/spirit, leaving you with only a spirit, a soul, or an
> essence. The impure is pared away and only the pure remains.

That's one way of viewing it. Another way is to say "you remove yourself somewhat from the World of Life", the mundane world where magic (and the old chestnut "free will") is generated.            

Powered by hypermail