From: Bryan J. Maloney (jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu)
Date: Mon 21 Feb 1994 - 22:15:19 EET
Sacred Cow Barbecue: My impressions of RQ:AiG thus far.
So, what does a nerd do when he's laid up with food poisoning from
In the Beginning, the Introduction sent me straight to nappy-land. Zing
drinking too-green homebrew stout? He reads the RQ:AiG manuscript he got
through the mail. The following is a lengthy set of specific comments and
general impressions derived from that manuscript.
that sucker up and SHORTEN it. It's too darn long and it all of what you
present about Gloranthan mythology should go into the Glorantha chapter
several hundred pages later. Make it a short, punchy intro that summarizes
the world of Glorantha as it IS not as it WAS. Your covers have the job of
grabbing attention, but the intro has the job of sucking the reader in. As
it is, it kind of whimpered at me and was more work to wade through than I
would, as a first-time reader, want. When I buy a new game, I don't want to
be dicked around. All this stuff is interesting and necessary, but not so
much at the very beginning. Furthermore, you put the wrong stuff at the
very beginning. This is scholarly, not active, exciting stuff. Keep (a re-
written) "The Lands of Genertela" in the front, this lets folks get their
bearing. Also have a little recent history, but a CNN-type approach--just
mention the juicy bits.
Runes: PLEASE point out that these are the Dragon Pass Runes and that the
Play Aids needs some work. The FIRST thing you need to do is point out
set may differ to greater or lesser extents elsewhere in the world.
that these supplements are for the THIRD edition of RQ and some adaptation
may be necessary. Second, and extremely important, you MUST emphasize that
these supplements may contradict each other and that these contradictions
and inconsistencies are NOT accidents. If you do not emphasize the grand
diversity of the Gloranthan experience, it will haunt you. People who are
not intimately familiar with the Gloranthan IDIC principle will badmouth RQ
and claim that the line suffers from "incompetent editing" and "bad
continuity".
I know that this will happen, because I had some players make this very
complaint back in Indiana when confronted with the fact that the Orlanth
cults differed so much between GoG and RoC. I calmly explained why this was
actually the case, and they immediately saw this complexity and diversity as
positive things--enhanced the realism of human societies for them. BUT,
without this explanation of WHY the variation, they automatically considered
it to be a flaw. We must take great pains to point out how important
variance is to the complex tapestry of Glorantha and that the world is NOT
meant to be homogeneous.
Character Generation: There is an obvious error on page 18: You state
that the "Random method" is Nd6+1 drop the lowest, but this is actually the
SECOND method you present. Both this AND the previous method are random.
They should BOTH be included as "random method". I would strongly urge that
your writing favor the first method (3d6 for all but INT and SIZ, 2d6+6 for
those). Why? RQ is not D&D, there is no need for munchkin stat inflation
(unless you've got a munchkin GM, of course).
I like the single-number DB, by the way. So did my players (except for
the RQ grognard, but he was in a decided minority).
Selecting Magic: You need to make it more explicit that the "level" of
Renown: Well, I'm a LITTLE less hostile to it than before, now that I've
magic chosen is for the purposes of CHARACTER GENERATION ONLY and that it
has NO further effect upon the amounts of magic to be learned by a
character. It sounds ridiculous, but I know people who would be severely
confused if this were not explained. (And no snobbery from the peanut
gallery--there is never any excuse for unclear writing.)
read its explanation, but I still think it's a bad idea, especially since
the implementation is pretty much crap. The greatest weakness: It is not
possible to gain or lose Renown during play. Guess what folks, the
notoriety of a person CAN CHANGE OVER TIME!!!!!! Did that ever occur to
you? If you're going to have a damned number, have rules for ALL aspects of
that number. If you're going to cop out and say to "wing it" when dealing
with Renown, get rid of the damned number. If you won't write complete
rules, don't give us crappy, half-assed rules.
Professions, particularly businesses: Uh, am I being an idiot to point
out that if I own a business in Carmania and I'm running around in Nochet it
is HIGHLY unlikely for any profits from that business to reach me on a
regular basis???? You might want to think about dealing with that little
detail.
Mechanics, specifically Skill vs. Skill: I throw in my vote for the "Best
Success Wins" camp. That is, if we both simple succeed, but I make my
simple success by 20 and you make yours by 15, I win. It's really not that
hard, is it? Yes, I know that it will "favor" characters with higher
skills, but isn't that the WHOLE POINT of higher skills? As for low skill
characters "not having a chance" vs. high skill characters--SO FRIGGIN'
WHAT? I get my ass STOMPED utterly when playing chess with a Grand master
(I speak from experience), no chances, no survivors. However, most Grand
masters will then turn around and give me a few pointers afterwards, so it's
a trade. (No, I don't play them in tournaments--my rating is so low that a
Grand master would lose points by playing me in tournament, anyway.)
Composite Skills (Specifically Sword-dancing): "We represent the Lollipop
Specific Skills, especially "Lore" vs. "Craft". Okay, I'll have to side
Experience. I must state that EVERY method given for handing out
POW gain rolls: I don't think there's any way to do this so that all will
Guild, the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild. And we who are in the
Lollipop Guild, would like to welcome you to Munchkinland." Sorry, but this
particular selection really stinks big-time. I much prefer the shipbuilding
example given in the list.
against the list on this one. It is VERY possible for a good farmer to have
a high "Farming Craft" and a low "Plant Lore". Have any of you on the list
actually ever farmed??? I've done some farm work, and I'd have to say that
the general knowledge of plants required of farmers is actually not too
high. They need to know some basic knowledge regarding when to sow, how
wide to sow, when to weed, when to fertilize, what constitutes a weed, etc.
The majority of this knowledge is more in the nature of a "craft" than a
"lore". Now, a really great farmer would know both the craft and the lore.
The lore would include actual details of plant life-cycles, the soil
chemistry known to the culture, etc. In other words, the craft is the "how"
of the act and the lore is the "why". For a normal year, the demand of lore
is pretty low. It is when things go wrong that lore becomes valuable, and
you go and ask the old farmer down the road who's seen everything what is
going on.
experience stinketh most mightily unto heaven and maketh a noisome odor
offensive to all Man. One of the great benefits of RQ was that experience
did NOT use the video-game approach. By this, I mean that a character could
learn skills more by virtue of its actions than by virtue of who sucked up
to the GM more. Also, both of the methods given put too darn much work on
the GM. Return to the practice of skill checks being automatically awarded
on successful use. Then, the GM can tell players how many rolls to make.
NOW, what to do with these rolls to simulate the difficulty of skills can
take one of two routes:
I prefer the 1d3/1d6/2d4 differentiation. I challenge ANYONE to prove to
me that it is somehow inferior for this progression not to be "exactly" 2:1.
Anyway, 1d3 to 1d6 is NOT 2:1, is it, and that seemed to be okay with the
authors. I just want to see some PROOF that 2:1 is the perfect way to go,
and I'll shut up. Is it too much to ask for some proof, just a little
evidence?
The other way, requiring two checks plus successful skill gain rolls for
hard skills and allowing two gain rolls per check for easy skills doesn't
quite taste as good.
What is the basis for the 2:1 religion?
be pleased.
Combat:
I propose the following alteration to the sequence:
Declaration--characters declare in ASCENDING order of INT both their
planned movement and other actions. Why? This permits quick-witted
characters to actually be able to use their quick wits in combat.
Move--Done in order of MV, ties broken by DEX. Why? Just because I can
figure out what you're going to do doesn't mean that I'll be able to fast
enough to get into or out of your way.
Melee--Done in order of SR, ties broken by DEX. Why? See Move.
Post Melee Move--as in the rules.
This re-arrangement strikes me as far more intuitively correct and
Special hits: I like the optional effects and think they should be made
reflective of the complete scope of combat. Let me tell you, fighting in
melee is a LOT more than just bashing away at somebody, and the winners are
often those who have THINKERS on their side as well as sluggers.
the standard effects. One change, though, the optional impale effect should
take place if EITHER the victim or attacker successfully expend MV. After
all, it hurts to get a spear yanked out regardless of whether I or my
opponent is doing the yanking, no?
Spirit combat: WHY does someone engaging more than one spirit
Fatigue: Put me down in the minority. I like the fatigue rules and find
automatically defend at 0 MP. Please justify this rule. Why can someone
defend against TWO attackers in mundane combat but only one in spirit
combat. I would suggest that a character be allowed to mount a normal
defense vs. two spirit attackers if that character takes all-out defense.
This makes a good deal more intuitive sense if spirit combat is to be
considered a part of the entire gamut of combat.
them a damned sight better than what has gone before. I also like the
straight skill penalty. Why? It seems to reflect the effects I've noticed
on myself of fatigue. I am MUCH more likely to do a stupid thing when I'm
tired than when I'm alert. This applies to mental as well as physical
skills. As for master fighters supposedly not having this effect--the 10th
Dan teachers I've had don't believe that at all. They all taught to "fight
smarter, not harder". In fact, it is a sign of great skill to derive
greater and greater effects from less and less exertion. Sparring matches
I've seen between Dan-level students have been usually a good deal of
watching, one offensive move, and one or the other student goes flying. (I
have studied Aikijutsu and Kempojutsu--non-sport forms.)
Also, wearing a hard helm has a great deal to do with fatigue. I can
vouch for this from experience.
Economics: I don't care about the chapter title, myself. If you are
going to go to barter, you must, in my god-like, infallible opinion, have at
least four different prices for every object. They should be "Sartar",
"Lunar", "Pavis", and "Prax". That way a poor GM will have a great deal of
help in introducing geographic variance into his economies. (It will also
be a selling point for the "authentic-feel" mavins, let me tell you.)
The World of Magic: Change the chapter name, PLEASE. I suggest "Magic".
Religions, Cults, etc. You are still making the same silly mistake made
It's short, accurate, and far less pompous. Don't like the term "Battle
Magic"--but I'm not an RQII Grognard, am I? (Gee, one might guess that the
VAST MAJORITY of potential RQ:AiG players/customers aren't, either.) I'd
prefer it be called "common magic", "folk magic", etc. After all, if an
alternate name for "bladesharp" actually IS "plowsharp" (and it is), how
"battle" is "battle magic". I would prefer "common magic" with the note
that mercenaries, adventurers, and other criminal-types like to use the term
"battle magic" (much like gang-bangers have their own criminal jargon).
in the first three editions of RQ. You are forgetting to EXPLICITLY state
that the "Cults" of individual deities are PARTS of a RELIGION, and it is
the RELIGION that provides the underlying definition of things NOT the
damned cults! You need to completely re-write the too-short paragraph on
"Religions" to reflect this. Talk to Loren Miller if you need specific
advice. He's far more eloquent than I in dealing with parallel monotheism
masking as polytheism. A Cult is NOT a religion but is a sub-sect of that
religion. For example, the Cult of the Virgin in Roman Catholicism is NOT
NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a religion, nor is
the cult of ANY saint within Roman Catholicism. Particular saints may be
prayed to and favored, and they may grant gifts, but the RELIGION is Roman
Catholicism. The over-arching religion INCLUDES the cults WITHIN it. Read
a little comparative theology, please. This nonsense of independent "cults"
all floating around in theological vacuums has always been one of RQ's
weakest points. It is a D&Dism that should be corrected.
As for individual cults--what is given is inadequate. At least one or two
cults should have a complete write-up. I favor the Seven Mothers AND the
Orlanth OF DRAGON PASS. Why do I make this emphasis for Orlanth? Because
the "Orlanth" given in River of Cradles is the Orlanth of Pavis, NOT the
Orlanth cult of Dragon Pass. The two should probably have some differences.
First, Orlanth Lightbringer and Orlanth Rex would have more emphasis in
Dragon Pass than in Pavis. I see the Orlanth of Pavis to be more of what
happens when Orlanth Adventurous takes over the other aspects. Dragon Pass,
given its great mythic value and the fact that the great Orlanthi kingships
are near there, would favor Orlanth Lightbringer (a cult I would very much
like to see) and Orlanth Rex. Make Glorantha a COMPLETE world, not just a
bunch of numbers and half-thought-out concepts.
There is a weakness in the Pavis array, by the way: What sorcerous
traditions to Flintnailers adhere to? Where is Mostali sorcery, even a
Flintnailer version? We need this school of sorcery, since Flintnail's cult
has origins different from the Arkati, the other Malkioni, the Carmanians,
or the Brithini-based atheists.
The write-up of Berserk needs to include notes that the spell is quite
different for Humakti--it is of permanent duration and the caster may only
cast it upon himself. However, the caster will not attack those who appear
to be friends or innocents. The Humakti has become a pure killing machine,
the embodiment of the honorable death. If he survives the fight, he will
point himself to his enemy's capitol and keep going. He will either die or
become a Hero.
Shamanic traditions: Aren't there any shamans in the Lunar religion who
AREN'T chaos morons? Also, Are the Daka Fal also to be found among the
ancestor cult of the Dara Happans?
The abilities and levels don't grate me at all. I actually like them.
This is very unlike D&D, folks. I like the idea of weird shamanic powers
being tied to the POW of a fetch.
Sorcery: Okay, I vote with the others to change the name to "Wizardry"
Also, whoever told you that "civilized" cultures have more leisure was
I'm on the fence regarding duration and range. I would like to see the
Schools of Sorcery: I would like to see a general Mostali school among
and reserve "Sorcery" to mean "any bad magic" or "any foreign magic". In
fact, this is a great deal more accurate to the term as traditionally used.
As for reserving "adept" for higher station of practice--there are arguments
on both sides. I've seen some traditions where an "adept" was more like a
"black belt" and came in several grades. It is, however, generally true
that the term "Magus" is reserved for masters (and "You must call me Magus"
is a quote heard from assholes).
pissing down his own leg. This is exactly OPPOSITE the truth. Civilized
cultures may have a leisure CLASS, but leisure time in general is more
available in "primitive" hunter-gatherers than among settled peoples. Take
a first-year anthropology course or get hold of a good text-book.
expenditure of 1 POW actually count for something. I do agree that the
impromptu expenditure of 1POW should count for LESS than the results of a
proper enchantment, however. Why? Well, enchantment is a great, careful
process, burning POW is much less precise. Also, I consider Zzabur's
Closing to have been an Enchantment, even if it is called a "spell".
Maintain might need some work--of course, an Adept with a lot of Maintained
spells probably has a lot of other sources to draw on for MP--or he should,
shouldn't he?
the atheists. What do the Flintnailers use? They certainly aren't
Carmanians, Lunars, Malkioni, or Arkati. If you're going to list the cult,
then supply an appropriate school of sorcery.
Creatures: I hope that Trollpak will be updated (again). It's tough not
having rules for Argan Argars (with the Hai-wai-an flower-ty shirts and
all).
Don't forget ducks.
PS: The plural of "shaman" is "shamans" (sorry, but it was SOOOO grating to
see it over and over and over and over).
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:35:43 EEST