From: David Cake (davidc@cs.uwa.oz.au)
Date: Sat 08 Jan 1994 - 05:12:54 EET
>
>
> Dave,
>
> Rest assured that I read the entirity of your mail note and I found it
> constructive and interesting.
Thanks, I hope that you manage to develop a reasonably thick skin
as I am not always as diplomatic as I might be.
Thank you for reminding me of the hero
> quest concept and providing me with an excellent argument for the
> extreme rarity, or prehaps absence, of sorcerers in Glorantha.
>
I do not think that there is a good argument against Gloranthan sorcery. THer
is certainly a lot of room for change in the specifics of sorcery, but I think
that it is very definately the case that in glorantha there is a magic system
based on individual abilities rather than divine power, a human centered system
that does not of necessity posit any particular moral or religious system.
Probably the single most important religious grouping of Glornatha, the
Malkionists variants, is predomintly based around use of such a magic, and
their society would be very different if it their magic did not have at least
some aspects of sorcery (that are not shared by divine or spirit magic).
But if you are not familiar with the Genertela boxed set, you are
probably not so familar with this religion and the lands dominated by it.
However, when it comes to the Dragon Pass / Sartar region, yes, sorcery
is very rare.
> I must conceeed that RQ3 brought some usefull concepts with it.
>
I think that RQ3 was 3 steps forward, 2 steps back. The biggest problem was
being very slow to get up to speed as regards supplements (and this was the
fault of both Chaosium and Avalon Hill), and badly playtested rules for some
very important things - like sorcery.
> In RQ2 shaman dealt with the otherwise largely disinterested spirits
> that populated the spirit plane. They were underused and there were
> obvious parts missing like disease spirits, for example.
>
Yes, I like RQ3 shamans a whole lot more, especially the way (not mentioned in
the magic book) shamans can contact minor spirits and form very small cults,
and that some cults have shamans rather than priests (like Ancestor Worship),
making the Spirit/ Divine magic a very blurry boundary, unlike the sharp
distinction it was in the magic book. There are certainly some Divine cults
that think shamans are dangerous loons who should be suppressed, but there
are other cults that depend on them.
I think that this is the 'magical ecology' concept that you were
aiming for - and I think that when you brought up the point it was not really
clear to us that you had not read Gods of Glorantha.
> Spirits appeared else where in the rules and in Golranthan society and
> they were described in a rather haphazard manner.
>
> In RQ3 they fleshed out the spirits, made Battle Magic the domain of
> Shamans but in doing so Battle Magic was shifted from it's role as
> the low magic of a fantasy society.
>
Well, in my campaigns most characters learn most of their Battle Magic (I do
prefer the name Spirit Magic, BTW, because I like to emphasise the non-martial
uses of it) from divine cults - but yes, in the RQ3 magic book, too much
emphasis was placed on Shamans - and not enough on casual users of spirit magic.
> To restore this I would recommend that both Priests and Shamans
> should be able to teach Battle Magic and that further more the
> similarities in their social and magicial roles, to cults and
> tribes respectively, should be explained.
>
Well, again, read GoG. What you say is very much the case.
> Your views about Runes are noted. In my reading of RQ2, given
> my preliction for bleak backgrounds, the Runes appeared to be
> more prominent that the Gods themselves who largely seemed
> bound to conform to them and be described by them.
>
I think that part of the change in emphasis comes from Greg, but I was
never that big on Runes as all-important.a
> In RuneQuest 2 the Priest can scarifice for Rune Magic because he
> has mastered the Spirit Rune and has been accepted by his cult
> and diety as a Priest. The Rune Lord has also mastered a certain
> Rune when he becomes a Rune Lord (I've forgotten which).
>
Actually, I think Priests master the Magic Rune, Shamans the Spirit Rune ?,
and Rune Lords Mastery.
> I admit that codifying exactly what occurs after death might be
> distastfull and inappropriate for a number of reasons. However
> just as the death of a character's physicial body is dealt with
> so should the short term fate of the character's spirit.
>
It is inappropriate in that you don't want game rules that contradict the
source material - when the Sword says you have gone to Humakts Halls to fight
in the Eternal Battle (or whatever) you should have no reason to doubt him.
> This could allow spell that only work on the freshly dead, when
> the spirit has yet become too dissassociated with it's body, to
> be defined.
>
Much better, especially as this meshes well with the current defintion of
Resurrection (after 7 days, your spirit goes to its fate (whatever that is) and
is unresurrectable). It makes sense that in that 7 day interval, it is possible
to do other things to that spirit - bind as a ghost, enslave it, whatever.
However, once the spirit has gone, you shouldn't able to do anything - except
maybe heroquest to the otherworld (but don't try this at home).
> RQ3 was a turkey. It was the first role playing game to hit the
> UK at the kind of "premium" price it was sold at. Subsequently
> all I possess of it is a second hand copy of the Magic Book.
>
Yes - its price, and low quality components, has not helped sales any.
Personally, I want big books, with lasting bindings. This probably shifts the
price up to the same level as Vampire, Shadowrun, Pendragon or Call of Cthulhu,
none of which are cheap - though we don't need the fancy colour internal art
of Shadowrun, etc. But I think people are willing to pay more money for
solid lasting books. Here in Australia, it probably helps us pay less import
duty (can make it a book rather than a game), so the price differential is not
that bad either.
> What I am trying to do is build a general consensus and discusion
> about RQ magic. This has so far proved usefull for me and I hope
> it aids RQIV to save from the fate of RQ's last release.
>
So are we all. I think that by and large most of us are fairly happy with what
we have seen of the RQ4 combat and skills and character creation rules (not
always completely thrilled, but certainly no major complaints). However the
magic system, and the packaging and marketing of the background necesary to
make it work, remains the major source of concern with the RQ4 project.
> -- Guy Robinson --
>
Cheers
Dave Cake
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:31:08 EEST