From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #244 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Monday, 5 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 244 TABLE OF CONTENTS John R. Snead RQ 4 Bruce Lionel Mason RQ Rules Digest: V1 #236 Loren Miller owner-rq-rules@hops.wharton. [none] owner-rq-rules@hops.wharton. [none] owner-rq-rules@hops.wharton. [none] ANDOVER@delphi.com Blank messages 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: "John R. Snead" Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 01:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: RQ 4 So, does anyone know any tentative release dates for RQ 4? Is this project actually going to happen, have contracts been signed? - -John jsnead@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Bruce Lionel Mason Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 12:15:39 -0230 Subject: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #236 On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, mr happy (aka Andrew Behan) wrote: Various comments about a post of mine. His basic premise is that the relationship between magic and culture (or socio-economic development if you like) is by no means a simple one. I agree totally, however the nature of any roleplaying game is, perforce, that of a simplistic ontology that maintains a premise of modeling a world. > I think that early modern England counts as a civilized culture for RQ > purposes. Contemporary Medicine and Alchemy were both skilled activities > and arguably fall within what RQ calls sorcery. However that did n't mean > that the magic of the peasantry was a skilled activity. On the contrary > everybody used charms. Yes and no. As a scholar in folk belief studies and assistant archivist at the MUN Folklore and Language Archive I can draw on some of my knowledge of the holdings in this field. Newfoundland is often touted as being a last surviving example of a pre-modern Western society. Take folk medicine for example. There are said to be people with particular powers, typically the seventh son (of the seventh son) can cure warts, sometimes stop bleeding (this is more prevalent in Francophone communities though), cure stys. Most cures that can be done by anyone seem to fall into two categories: charms and actions. Charms are things like wedding rings which can often perform minor cures. Actions are things like rubbing a wart with potato skin and then burying the skin in the ground. As the potato decays so does the wart. (This has recently been on the X-Files...). There are also a whole series of preventive actions, such as putting a piece of bread in a child's pocket to keep the fairies away, reading omens (crossed knives on a dinner table means that a fight will occur), and knowing taboos (if when setting out on a journey someone asks you your destination turn back or else). So how do we do all this in RQ and do we even want to? I would say this level of detail is for individuals not a rule book. RQ represents knowledges and the ability to perform actions through the %ile system. In addition, magic requires the expenditure of MPs or previous sacrifice of POW. The game as written needs to deal with the most common things that happen to PCs so it needs to deal with how to heal the gaping hole that a spear's just left in your gut. It very rarely needs to worry about how to remove that annoying wart from your little finger. So, to answer your point at last, yes folk magic as represented in the "real" world is not a skilled activity anymore than is climbing a tree or swimming. However in RQ the only way to represent these activities is through the %ile system. The %ile represents both your knowledge of the task and your ability to perform it under stress. So someone with a high percentage in folk magic might know that if the potato skin doesn't remove the wart then maybe tying a knot around it and then baking the knot in the oven might do the trick. Someone with a low folk magic skill might be stumped once the potato skin fails. > Which sounds to me mighty like what witches were described as doing at > their trials. They had guardian spirits (familiars) who did things (such > as killing their neighbours) for them. Cunning men and Wise Women, the > people from whom country folk got their magical aid were often helped by > "the fairies" (or should that be fetches). You're probably fusing several different traditions here. I tend to agree that the best way to represent the evil fantasy witch is through RQ style shamanism. On the other hand the Wiccan tradition is best seen as gossip worship. In folklore the stigma of being a witch or a sorceror was usually gained as the result being outside of the normal culture. For example solitary bachelors/spinsters were often bogey figures. I have never come across non-literary data about people who were aided by fairies, fairy phenomena seems too random. (Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it). Pacts with the devil are more common. In RQ terms I would tend to think of witches and other anomalous figures as using high magic, one reason why they are so feared. Mr Happy then says: "Don't draw hard and fast rules about the prevalence (or not) of different types of magic in different cultures. People still use ouija boards today for example." Good advice. Read the Roper report for a fascinating insight into extant belief traditions and see just how prevalent so-called "superstitions" really are and how thoroughly integrated they are into modern life. Finally Mr Happy suggests that we replace RQ ritual skills with "cultuarally appropriate ones [sic] such as (off the top of my head) Orlanthi Sartar: Ceremony=Dance, Summon=Poetry (praising the spirit), Enchant= Craft Silver. or something similar...." That's a good point. However, given that such skills are culturally determined there needs to be a basic structure given that is culturally independent. Then GMs can play with each culture as they see fit. Most GMs will focus their attentions on other aspects of the culture so this should not be a mandatory part of the cultural description. Perhaps if you use a system of complimentary skills then in your example above dance could be complimentary to Ceremony in Orlanthi societies. (For the record I use a rule that each full 50% in a complimentary skill gives a +10% bonus to the main skill. You could alternatively state that ceremony skill can not exceed dance skill or some such. Analogous to the various communication skills and language rulings we currently have.) Thanks for the comments, ---Bruce ------------------------------ From: loren@hops.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 11:49:02 -0400 Subject: Re: Kent writes: >Perhaps someone can answer a question for me. I do not mind Glorantha being >kept out of the new rules. But, hopefully this means *all* references to *any* >gaming environments (yes, including any "creatures" section) will be left out >as well. I would really hate to see references to Hobbits, Orcs, or Fantasy >Earth in the new edition. Two points. 1. A rulesbook without a creatures section would not be a complete game. It would be worthless in and of itself. It would be disastrous for AH to release a game without any creatures in it, and IMO would sound the final death-knell for RQ as a commercially viable system. 2. In most fantasy fiction, no matter how weird the weird things are, the assumption that readers can make is that "if it isn't mentioned, then it works just like it works on earth or in earthly myth and legend." Even if you don't like "fantasy earth" it is useful to describe it as a baseline for the world you do use. Summing up, even if you don't use fantasy earth as the setting of your game most of the information in it will be directly useful in the setting you do use. >P.S. Will the rules incorporate Runes. If not, then mabye we should stop >pretending and call it something else. This was the topic of a flame war that raged here a few months ago. Eventually it boiled down to two opposed factions that didn't seem likely to budge. (1) Runes aren't universal building blocks, so dump 'em. (2) Runes are a rather convenient shorthand for "magically powerful numinous symbols" and since any version of RQ will include exploration of myth and legend and social reality in its rules or context it is very useful to have some concept like Runes. So keep 'em. - -- whoah! +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller ------------------------------ From: owner-rq-rules@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 19:47:22 -0400 Subject: [none] ------------------------------ From: owner-rq-rules@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 22:50:16 -0400 Subject: [none] ------------------------------ From: owner-rq-rules@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 00:04:15 -0400 Subject: [none] ------------------------------ From: ANDOVER@delphi.com Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 00:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Blank messages Folks: I have received no less than 3 blank and untitled messages from you guys today. Jim Chapin ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #244 ******************************* 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