From: David Cake (davidc@cs.uwa.oz.au)
Date: Sat 08 Jan 1994 - 04:05:14 EET
>
> I have not read Gods of Glorantha nor the boxed Glorantha overview. I suspect
> that you are refering to material associated with RQ3 which would naturally
> promote the inclusion of RQ3 style Sorcery into Glorantha.
>
No wonder you are so down on RQ3 if you haven't got the Genertela boxed set,
this is a supplement you should buy even if you love RQ2 and hate RQ3. It is
only very marginally associated with RQ3 (12 pages of stuff that mentions the
rules in an entire boxed set).
I also think that you are mistaken in the assertion that the Sorcery
in the RQ3 stuff has only been placed in Glorantha because the rules exist.
GO back and look at Cults of Terror, for example, where it mentions that the
cultures of the West use a 'humanistic' rather than 'theistic' magic system,
which sounds a lot like the basic philosophy of sorcery. Just because the RQ2
sorcery rules never made it beyond the playtest stage (there is an old article
from Son of Sartar that someone posted about RQ2 sorcery ideas, written by
Greg), doesn't mean that it wasn't something that Greg thought should
eventually be covered by the game. As people have pointed out before, much
of Gregs early writings in Glorantha is set in these cultures and mentions
'Wizards' rather than 'Priests'.
Also, I just don't think that Greg works by extrapolating the world
from the rules, very much the opposite.
> BTW if the Spellteaching rune spell still exists then this is something
> I throughly approve of.
>
Well, it does exist, but it works kind of differently, and it is no longer the
only way to learn spells.
But the fact that you didn't know it still exists certainly shows that
you are criticising RQ3 with a great deal of ignorance about it.
Which, while it means that your (Guy's) criticisms of the game may not
be appropriate in some cases, does mean that you make a good case study of
one of the big problems with RQ3 - the RQ2 fan that doesn't like RQ3, that was
repelled by the new version early on in the peace, and never picked up some
of the good new supplements (like Genertela). The question is why. Is it just
conservatism? From some of Guys comments, and the comments of other people I
know who have never got around to making the switch to RQ3, that is an element.
People remember the actual RQ2 rules as being better than they were, and pick
up on small changes and criticise them very strongly. The sections of the rules
of RQ3 that are genuinely not very well done do not attract that much
criticism from the RQ2 die hards (except sorcery, which they almost always
loathe). I think that this effect is a consequence of the high regard in which
people held RQ2, and we should tackle this problem by making the 4th edition
carry on the strong points of RQ2, we should see it as a challenge to
overcome. But it would be a disservice to Guy and other people who feel like
him to characterise their feelings as simple conservatism. I think that they
feel that RQ3 has failed them. We need to identify why they feel like this, and
what we can do about it. Personally, I feel that what we was needed was
good quality support material coming out straight after the game, that
customers could buy straight away rather than have to wait a few years like we
had to wait for Genertela.
I really get the feeling that a book full of good quality long cult
writeups, with a decent selection of world information, is a resource that is
very sadly missing. Chaosium can not really claim to not have the resources
to do this, because they already have - but they produced the marginally
useful Troll Gods instead (a great supplement if you have many Uz PCs). There
are probably enough long form cult writeups around (in places like TOTRM,
Heroes, and the 6 at the back of River of Cradles), that 80% of such a
supplement could be put together by cut and pasting. From TOTRM I have the
long versions of Humakt, Maran Gor, Dormal, Magasta, The Hungry Ghosts,
Gagarth, and the Crimson Bat. I speak here only of official Greg and Sandy
copyright Chaosium cult writeups, excluding some other gems like Caladra and
Aurelion. That is 7 writeups that as far as I know are available only in
TOTRM, which is an amateur (but excellent) publication produced outside Chaosium
and Avalon Hill. I think that there are at least 3 or 4 that are available
only in old issues of Heroes or White Wolf. Reprint the ones from River of
Cradles and you have a suplement of about 16 cult writeups, already written.
Why haven't they? TOTRM is great, but it shouldn't be the only source of
information as basic as the long write up of Humakt, that sort of info should
be published by AH and promoted as a major suplement.
I would really like to see the RQ4 rules be immediately followed
by 'Cults of Maniria' or whatever. Hell, I would write it if I could.
I'll get of my soap box now.
>
> The proof of RQIV magic "pudding" will be in the eating.
>
Well, yeah. But the rules are only a small part of the real RQ magic system.
We need background material.
> Unfortunately the only reference I can give to Rune Lords and Priest
> mastering certain Runes is the RQ2 rulebook itself. I'll attempt to
> find the quote.
>
Yes, I know that it is there, but just bear in mind that Greg is not likely to
stand by everything he said then in quite the wy you may interpret it. And
the 'mastery' of runes was never something that really had a game effect.
As I recall Rune Lords where said to be associated with the Mastery
Rune, and Rune Priests with the Magic Rune. Of course, now that RQ3 has
pretty much broken down the Lord/Priest dichotomy for most minor and many
major cults, to be replaced with a zoo of Lords with Rune Magic, Shamans with
priestly magic, warrior acolytes, old style Lords, Lords without DI, sorcerers,
priests with sorcerous magic, Red goddes initiates, etc. the straight forward
Mastery/Magic runic associations don't really make that much sense except for
the few cults that are still as in RQ2 (ermm.. 7 Mothers, Yelmalio).
>
> Regards
>
> -- Guy Robinson --
>
Cheers
Dave Cake
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:31:05 EEST