From: Barron Chugg (bchugg@leland.stanford.edu)
Date: Tue 19 Jul 1994 - 09:14:24 EEST
Hello All (Well, mostly Alex).
Anyway, Alex writes:
>Subject: Chuggian approximations.
My copyright lawyers will be in touch :-).
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.)
> 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. <shakes head vigorously> 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 <dons asbestos suit>:
>> 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?
> 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
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 2
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:36:03 EEST