From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #241 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Thursday, 1 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 241 TABLE OF CONTENTS Alex Ferguson New Shaman Rule Ideas Bryan Maloney New Shaman Rule Ideas Gregory C. Walsh more shamanism David Dunham shamans John R. Snead Re shamanic powers David Cake Re shamanic powers David Cake Fatigue David Cake A suggestion for shamanistic rules RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated. If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show" please do. But don't include the whole message you praise. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. 3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a point-by-point basis. When paraphrasing you demonstrate exactly how well you understand the point someone was trying to make. 4. There is no number 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alex Ferguson Date: Thu, 1 Jun 95 18:31:18 BST Subject: RE: New Shaman Rule Ideas John R. Snead wonders: > If we are to > assume both types of shamanism are present in Glorantha where are they to > be found? Three major groups practise shamanism on Glorantha: humans, > Elves, and Trolls. Dingleberry Pop weights in with, for the umpteenth time: > If you're worried about Glorantha, take it to the Glorantha digest. > RuneQuest is no longer synonymous with Glorantha. If you want to keep saying this, Dingle, take it to (ideally entirely) private mail. Talking about the rule ramifications of shamanism in Glorantha here is no more inappropriate than is banging on about the (Fantasy or otherwise) Earth variety, and probably a good deal more useful for most people. To answer the substantiative point, there's plenty of Official evidence that both humans and trolls practice some form of "possessive" shamanism. Which makes it all the more odd that some persons are determined to prove that Chaosium are "ignorant" about all such. I wouldn't, however, claim that existing rules for this sort of thing, like Incarnate Ancestor, are exactly the Gorakiki-Bee's Knees, so flame-free discussion of the subject would be potentially very useful. Alex. ------------------------------ From: bjm10@cornell.edu (Bryan Maloney) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 14:10:44 -0400 Subject: RE: New Shaman Rule Ideas >> If you're worried about Glorantha, take it to the Glorantha digest. >> RuneQuest is no longer synonymous with Glorantha. > >If you want to keep saying this, Dingle, take it to (ideally entirely) >private mail. Talking about the rule ramifications of shamanism in >Glorantha here is no more inappropriate than is banging on about the >(Fantasy or otherwise) Earth variety, and probably a good deal more >useful for most people. What I object to is people claiming that since it's the way things work in Glorantha, it's the way that ALL RuneQuest has to work. The approach too often seems to be "in Glorantha, there is X, so RuneQuest MUST be Y", not "in Glorantha, there is X, so RuneQuest must include Y among its options." A great deal of difference. There are many acts of virtue, but three are the greatest: To engender love where there is hate. To bring understanding where there is ignorance. To really slam some clueless git in grand style. ------------------------------ From: "Gregory C. Walsh" Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 15:23:27 -0400 Subject: more shamanism This discussion reminds me of how I ran PC as shaman (kind of) years ago with RQ 2 rules. So I let one of the PC's find a magic item which allowed him to discorporate and travel like a shaman as described recently on the list. There weren't any shamans, of course, but there was this discorporate spell. So locally, he could move like a ghost as has been suggested. The fetch/magic item spirit would occupy his body so it wouldn't die while he went away. A body without a spirit took like, umm, 1 hp or so of poison style damage per hour without. No healing. For the spirit to occupy the body it had to expend a certain amount of POW (which is like MP these days) per hour. If it went to 0, the spirit would be stunned and pop back to the circlet. The PC's body would start to die. Basically the PC became the best scout ever for the party. He could attack people and possess them for short periods of time, and in general sneak around. However, it was really really risky too, because he could be caught (in Pow Crystals and the like) if he wasn't careful. And then the party would have to rescue him in a certain amount of time or Todd would be rolling up a new Character. And since he wasn't super well trained, and at first not very careful, well, he would sometimes cross Wardings, and trip spells, and in general get in trouble. You see, he could see the spirit world and all but still had to cast spells to notice magic things. And so on. He wasn't nearly as tough as you might imagine. WHen I shifted to RQ3, I decided to run shamans more or less this way, since it worked well, but no one in the last 6 years or so has gone that route. I don't know why. I guess sorcery was too interesting and pulled in al the magic user style players. The way I run it now it that shamans know secret paths. Secret paths allow him/her to travel into the spirit world, essentially. Otherwise you are stuck in the mundane world as a ghost. While locally the real and spirit world coincide, I have that there are routes and short cuts that you can take. So a big trade item is the spirit sticks and other maps, notes, of shamans and past shamans which say were things are located in the spirit world. I worked pretty well for me. Of course, I had to be careful not to let the other players get bored while the Shaman type fellow scouted ahead. Take it easy, Greg ------------------------------ From: dunham@hamachi.pensee.com (David Dunham) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 14:13:35 -0700 Subject: Re: shamans David Cake replied to my additional shamanic powers >>Healing by removing stones from the sick person's body > > Interesting idea - begs the question of how do the disease causing >stones get in there in the first place. By this I do not mean skepticism, I >mean how do these 'stones' relate to RQ disease spirits. Through sleight of hand, of course :-) Sometimes it's chicken innards. Maybe RQ disease spirits aren't the right answer? Maybe disease spirits have a manifestation on the mundane plane, and it's the stone. Curtis Shenton added >This raises an interesting point. Is this a special power of a shaman, >or just a special effect of the spell? In one tribe the local healing >spells draws forth bad rocks, in another you blow smoke to drive injury >away, in another you do something else. Given that it's a ritual, and that it heals diseases (something no spirit magic spell does), I'd say it's not just a special effect of a Heal spell. Let me rephrase the power: Shamans can cure disease. Back to David: >>Fire resistance > > A nifty heroquest type power. Perhaps a power given by appropriate >covert possession? According to one book I read, this was a pretty universal thing among shamans. And I read a novel where it was also true. Hey, I realize this is not definitive research (I can't remember the name of the book, I don't think that one was Eliade). >>Divination (possibly this is simply talking to spirits) >> > Of the shaman owns Divination (the divine spell). We do not need to >produce duplicate mechanics for things that are already there. Shamans typically don't get divine magic. (Some RQ4 drafts have a spirit magic Divination spell.) Also, shamanic divination _might_ be different since unlike priestly divination, shamans might not have to consult with someone bound by the Compromise. (Yeah, Bryan, this is Gloranthan. pbbbbbt! It's just an example.) David Dunham Pensee Corporation dunham@nw.pensee.com Voice/Fax 206 783 7404 http://www.pensee.com/dunham/ "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams ------------------------------ From: "John R. Snead" Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 15:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re shamanic powers Of the suggestions so far there are two I especially like: 1) David Cake's idea about inner regions of the spirit world where all shrines or temple's to single deity connect (presumably in the realm where the deity actually dwells) has lots of fun role-playing possibilities 2) Curtis Shenton's idea about shaman's being able to take other's along on their journeys is essential if you want to run spirit-world adventures and avoid severe net-runner syndrome. If you take the spirit world to also be the land of dreams, then when the party is asleep the shaman can go and find everyone's spirit and take them along. In this type of adventure it would be essential to make sure that the shaman had significant abilities the others did not, since the shaman is a conscious dweller in this realm. In adventures like this which I've been in shamans has the ability to travel and communicate in ways the other character's don't. Such adventures offer a great change of pace, and let everyone have a good time in the spirit world. I also agree that spells like Gift POW are basically cop-outs. Bargains with spirits are best role-played out. There are an innumerable variety of goods and services spirits can wish from mortals. The bargaining for and supplying of these makes for great stories (OK, we defeated the attacking fleet with the help of the storm spirit, now we have to pay the storm spirit. Anyone know where are we going to get the skins of 12 pure white mountain goats...) Great discussion - -John jsnead@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 10:37:41 +0800 Subject: Re: Re shamanic powers >I also agree that spells like Gift POW are basically cop-outs. Bargains >with spirits are best role-played out. No, spells like Gift POW give you a starting point for the roleplaying. I don't think that POW should be tradable like currency without a spell, after all this is your life force here, you shouldn't be able to just pull a bit of it off and hand it over. And being able to cast Gift POW doesn't mean that all spirits will be happy with a point of POW, it doesn't mean that they all want a point of POW, it doesn't mean that a shaman will want to give it in return for most services. It does provide you with a relatively simple means of handling bargains when you don't feel like roleplaying out the whole thing, though. > There are an innumerable variety >of goods and services spirits can wish from mortals. The bargaining for >and supplying of these makes for great stories (OK, we defeated the >attacking fleet with the help of the storm spirit, now we have to pay the >storm spirit. Anyone know where are we going to get the skins of 12 pure >white mountain goats...) > Yeah, sure. I have lots of great ideas along these lines, as I am sure many of us do. But having Gift POW doesn't mean you can't have plot significant spirits demand very different bargains, any more than everybody you meet in the mundane world has to be payed in silver. Roleplaying should be encouraged. Not mandated. Encouraged. Cheers Dave >Great discussion > Yeah, I'm enjoying it. >-John jsnead@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 11:24:20 +0800 Subject: Fatigue Sorry to keep reopening old discussions, but has anyone got anything to say about fatigue? My players commented that we really should have fatigue rules (the ones who use light armour particularly), and I realised that one reason we don't is that I don't actually have any I like. Did anyone playtest the RQ4/RQAIG ones (where the penalties add to your roll rather than subtract from skill)? Did anyone like them? We all disliked the idea so much we just ended up not using them (perhaps remiss in our playtester duty, but then again disliking them enough to not even want to try them is a playtest of sorts). Has anyone got suggestions for adapting them to remove the offending mechanic? Cheers David PS I hope this discussion doesn't take off like shamanism did, its a much less interesting topic. ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 11:02:20 +0800 Subject: Re: A suggestion for shamanistic rules > >Hack! Hack! Cough ! I'm ahhh, not to fond of those two spells. And >they are hardly a model I'd want to base shamanism around. I want >shamans who can go to the spirit plane during the worst winter the tribe >has ever known and make treaty with the wolf spirits so they will not >attack the tribe, even if it means agreeing to never hurt a wolf and to >always offer a wolf aid and healing. I want shamans who agree never to >bathe and to make sure at least one person a year dies by burning >because of the shaman in return for being immune to fire. These colorful >bargains are what I'm interested in, not the mechanical, boring Gift >Power and Gift Spell. > One more time - the existence of these spells does not preclude the existence of other spirit bargains. Indeed all significant roleplaying should put some thought into what is appropriate (and are the wolf spirits going to be satisfied with a puny point or two of POW anyway). But if you want a mechanism to keep dead Great Grandpa Ed happy and the GM isn't happy with you just putting flowers on the grave, then they work fine. They add to your options not subtract. Actually, I think Gift Spell particularly has some interesting roleplaying possibilities, particularly if you have some reason to be a bit wary about giving that particular spirit that spell. So that Trickster spirit suddenly wants ignite, just when the dwarves are in town to prepare the fireworks for the kings coronation....... >> >> >Ability to control spirits. >> >> Control spells. Admittedly the spirit magic control spells suck >> quite a bit... they just don't really work. But I see no reason why they >> can't be rewritten. > >I'd like to see them removed, I think sorcerors have magic spells to >control spirits. But some shamans should be able to control spirits just >with a contest of POW vs POW, IMHO. Maybe. But they need some practical limit. The whole area is a bit schizophrenic. Also, I want a method whereby people who can't discorporate can command spirits occasionally, too. >> >> >Ability to incarnate spirits. >> >> In some senses anybody can do this. For some other spirits, perhaps >> it is an ability of the spirit? >> But for another example - look at Incarnate Ancestor, and Spirit >> Guardian, from Ancestor Worship. > >I'd like rules for a more benign possession. Not too many spirits do >anything usefull for the host. Surely this is a problem with the list of spirits we have on offer, rather than the rules for possession per se. I.E. I don't want special rules for other types of possession, I want a whole set of spirits that do good things if they possess you. I still think Incarnate Ancestor and Spirit Guardian are good examples, though. >Some shamans should be able to take people with them. Definately. Not routinely though (i.e. perhaps they do need the magic weed or whatever, if the GM wants to restrict it) and the folks who suddenly end up in the spirit world had better keep a close eye on the shaman, because with no spirit travel skill they can get really lost. Some shamans probably train their apprentices by taking them into the spirit plane with them. >> Having a fetch should not be synonymous with being a shaman? >> >Now here I'm on hazy territory. But not all shamans I've read about seem >to have fetches. Anyone want to correct me? > All have spirits that help them, but a loa (for example) is not at all the same as a fetch. Certainly people seem to believe that not everyone has a fetch as described in RQ3, and some of the other suggestions made by people I still feel are better covered by allied spirits or simply companion spirits. > >IThe thing I worry about is that all the rules for Shamans wouldn't be >in the rules but would end up getting printed with the shamanistic >traditions that use them. Which doesn't help the GM who wants to create >their own traditions. The 'took kit' needs to be together in one place, >in the main rules. Like it is for divine magic? :-) We need enough in the rules for GMs to create a few classic shamans - - ancestor worshippers, a classic Hsucnchen, some sort of highly possessive tradition. But most of the interesting Gloranthan or Earth traditions will be covered in appropriate supplements, same as they are for divine magic. In fact, an Adventures in Glorantha or whatever should include some suggestions on adapting the GoG traditions to the new rules (whatever they are). >> Cheers >> David >> >-- >Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet >"Remember the story of Burt and the Piano" -Stan Ridgway ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #241 ******************************* This is the bottom of the RuneQuest Rules Digest. RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark of Chaosium. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval. Send electronic mail to Majordomo@hops.wharton.upenn.edu with "help" in the body of the message for subscription information on this and other mailing lists. WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html