From: David Cake (davidc@cs.uwa.oz.au)
Date: Tue 01 Mar 1994 - 07:10:45 EET
>
> Guy Robinson here.
>
Dave Cake here.
> This a work intended to help with GM Section as I attempt to discuss
> how to restore RQ to a state where RQ:AiG players and GMs can
> envisage the campaign possibly progressing to the HeroQuest level.
>
I completely fail to see the connection. I am sorry Guy, but if HeroQuest is
just about accumulating Runic connections, the concept does not appeal. If
HeroQuest is about interacting with the magical realm through your cultures
mythology, I fail to see why the runes are of any real importantance
whatsoever.
Think of the Runes as being a metaphor for what is really going on -
and like any metaphor, sticking to it too strongly stresses it until the flaws
become obvious. the Runes are a metaphor that worked for RQ2, but neat
God-Learner classifications do not fit the real world of Glorntha so neatly that
they should become part of the rules.
> With RQ:AiG Spirits, Spirit Magic and Divine Magic are now classified
> by Runes. If we are moving back to this state them the relationships
> of people with these Runic archetypes should be explored, taking into
> account the broader culture of Glorantha.
>
Having still not read RQ:AiG, I can not really comment. But I would prefer for
most spirits a more down to earth classification scheme, like simply
classifying them by origin.
Spirit Magic and Divine Magic can be classified by Runes if you really
care to make the attempt, but I see little reason for such a fruitless exercise.
> I felt that RQ3 was essentially a hatchet job on the Gloranthan/Runic
> background and that Glorantha will not be complete unless the issues
> of Runic mastery are worked through. With RQ:AiG being an attempt
> to write something closer in sprit to RQ2 the legacy of RQ3 has
> caused some problems, although it undeniable improved some areas.
>
For a start Guy, aren't you the person that has admitted to having read almost
no RQ supplements, either RQ2 or RQ3? Methinks that your very limited exposure
has caused you to elevate a couple of remarks in RQ2 to the status of
pure gospel. Personally, with the neat system of ascribing runes to the status
of Rune Lord and Rune Priest also came the RQ2 syndrome of cookie-cutter cults,
where every cult had a Rune Lord and Rune Priest no matter how inappropriate,
which only began to break down with Cults of Terror. When RQ3 killed this
idea (that cults had Rune Lords and Rune Priests and that was the end of the
story) I thought that it was great. Would you favour a return to this?
Afterall, it all follows quite logically - if Storm Kahns are associated
with Mastery, then they are not associated with the Magic Rune, so we better
start taking magic away from them, and bring back Priests of Storm Bull, who
encourage them, but don't lead the charge. Lhankor Mhy needs completely useless
Rune Lords that gain no abilities whatsoever, and we better ease up the
restrictions for priest or they will be too similar to Rune Lords, and to
closely assocaited with Mastery. etc. etc.
I know that this is not what you are advocating, but to me the killing
of the Runic Mastery dogma was part and parcel of making cults interesting and
individual, which I thought was one of the good changes made by RQ3.
One mans hatchet job is another mans cutting away dead wood.
> One of my players during a play test remarked that Rune Lords seems
> simply a less powerfull form of Priest. This guy is brutally
> objective and I tend to concurr with him. Not everything has been
> reintegrated yet from the RQ3 cultural massacre.
>
Well, they vary greatly from being almost identical to RQ2 Rune Lords to
completely replacing priests and being far more powerful. You do really need
a proper cults reference to make this obvious. Generalising about the Rune
Lord status is pretty silly.
And cultural massacre is pretty strong and silly words. The RQ3
changes to the cult system where actually largely spurred by the desire to put
a bit of cultural relativism and genuine variation into RQ cults. You may see
the entire world no longer working the same way as you are used to cultural
massacre - but I see forcing the entire world to work your way as cultural
crime just as much or more.
> This discussion is about ways perform this rebuilding.
>
or slavish return to every minor detail of RQ2, depending on viewpoint.
Joergs very sensible example deleted. BTW I think you missed the point- it
Joergs point was not that you needed to talk about how sorcery worked as well,
it was that the status within a cult was no longer a neat cut and dried thing,
different cults have a bewildering number of different positions and
different requirments - and you proposal seems to neatly classifying them
all into equivalents. Should a Rokari Noble be considered equivalent to
Hrestoli noble, who are pretty equivalent in cult status, but one worked to
attain the equivalent of Rune Lord Priest status (weapon master and sorcerous
adept) while the other was just born rich.
> I hopes this asnwers your question about the rites of passage issue.
>
> I'm not suggesting that all rites of passage are equal but that the
> major rites from each the three magical approaches should grant Rune
> affinity.
>
Guy, I don't think that you have got the point yet. The three magical approaches
is basically a rules thing. Any description of major rites in the a given
magical approach for attainment of high status is certain to be a hopeless
generalisation. The Mastery/Magic thing works for RQ2 cults, and works for
many cults that have both Rune Lords and Rune Priests. But that is definately
a minority! Many have only priests, a large number more have some completely
different system. What is the criterion for deciding who is what? Does
everybody get the magic rune is they get reusable divine magic, including such
worldly rune lords as Wind Lords? Does everybody get the Mastery Rune if they
have to master skills in order to attain their status, including Issaries
merchants and Lhankor Mhy scholars? What about people that mix two of the
magical approaches shamelessly - like the majority of shamans.
The neat system of Runic assignment really needs neat RQ2 cults to
make it work in any sensible or coherent fashion - and virtually wants them
back when we can have the much more organic and culturally realistic patchwork
that we have now.
And please, Guy, read what you criticise. RQ3 was not all bad, in fact
parts of it were very good. RQ3 is in many ways a better game than RQ2 (but it
certainly has much stronger competition and worse support). What was wrong
with RQ3 was not its failure to slavishly follow the concepts of RQ2, it was
some bad rules and bad support (at least for the first few years). We are
fixing the first, and AH and Chaosium (and some of us) are fixing the second.
Sticking our heads in the sand and saying 'RQ2 right, RQ3 wrong' is not
going to help anybody, especially from a a position of relative ignorance.
Cheers
Dave
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:37:20 EEST