Here's a post I made on the World of Glorantha list about Western heroquesting, responding to the statement that it's rather "abstract":
>
> The Monotheist experience seems a bit more abstract.
It can be, yes, but it doesn't have to be. Remember, the majority of monotheists aren't wizards (that is, they use wizardry magic, but they aren't pointy-hat wearing professionals). When you attend a monotheist religious service, you experience the Otherworld, and you re-enact the myths of Malkion, the saints, and whoever else it may be. Sure, to an outsider, it may appear that the vicar takes the holy book out of the Arcarium and reads a lesson from it, but if you're in that congregation, the "lesson" becomes real for you; it's a myth that you're interacting with.
Take the New Year's Day ceremony, since that's pretty much universal (albeit not your regular weekly service). You're standing there in the Church, and then the walls and ceiling begin to fade. Now you're in the middle of the countryside, and the sky is gray, like early twilight... but you know it's been like that for all of your life. The landscape around you is gloomy, starved of light. You feel the crushing monotony of the world, of your life in this semi-darkness, holding onto the hope that, one day, God will make it better. You begin to pray, feeling a presence that God is with you, and that soon, very soon, your wait will be over (because you feel you've been waiting all your life for this, and so have your ancestors, for generations back). God will deliver you, because you have been faithful, and Malkion's sacrifice made it so.
And then the sun rises.
And so you continue through the story of the first day, and the first night, and the service ends with the second dawn. Now, here you're experiencing how your ancestors *felt*, but the point is that it's not purely abstract. Another example might be on the High Holy Day of Saint Josselyne, where his adepts will find themselves in the garrison defending his castle against the final onslaught of the Brithini. And, of course, you can heroquest by repeating the saint's actions to gain some benefit - the key point usually being to emulate his virtues.
Sure, if you're a wizard of, say, the Iron Blood School, your heroquests may well be a good deal more abstract, trying to forge link between nodes on the Essence Planes, or building the runes into a new pattern, or something. But even then, you may be interacting with physical (if fairly impersonal) entities that have obvious meanings to anyone - the Sea, for instance, if you're a Debaldan.
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Monday, 8 June 2009
Three True Way-ism
There is a term sometimes encountered when discussing roleplaying, of “One True Wayism” – or some variation on that theme. It refers to players or GMs with a very specific idea of how an RPG should work, and an insistence that this is the only right way of doing things. Often, the very idea that someone might prefer a different style is considered “Hurting Wrong Fun”, and any attempt at gaming in such a style must be quashed lest it infect others with its perversity. Few, if any, people identify themselves as One True Wayists, but the concept is often encountered under some guise or another.
Unsurprisingly, few people who really think about the theory behind gaming espouse such a narrow-minded view. But it seems to me that a rather more insidious version of the same sort of general idea has become quite popular. I refer to this as “Three True Wayism”. It arises from the theoretical discussions on The Forge website (now, I gather, somewhat curtailed) that classified RPGs into one of three categories: narrativism, simulationism, and gamism. The first focuses primarily on the needs of the story, the second on the demands of verisimilitude, and the third on the establishment of fair game mechanics and reward mechanisms (or such is my understanding). The argument seems to be that all of these three approaches to RPing are equally valid, and if you happen to prefer a different category than I do, then so be it (they prefer to use the word “agenda”, but then much of their terminology is somewhat opaque).
Which sounds fair enough, so far as it goes. The problem is, it seems to me, that it acknowledges only these three approaches, and, more to the point, claims that they are mutually exclusive. The theory says that a rule set can only effectively support one approach of the three, and it even seems that they have pretty narrow definitions of what those approaches are. Hence, “Three True Wayism” – the contention that there are only three possible ways to enjoy a roleplaying game, and if your approach isn’t one of them, you’re doing it wrong. It’s insidious, because the people who adhere to this attitude (and, believe me, I’ve met some) believe they are being open-minded and fair, and accepting of all other approaches, even if they differ from their own. But – unless you accept their thesis that there are only three possible, and mutually exclusive, “agendas” – I don’t think this is the case at all.
This seems to manifest in two different ways, either or both of which can be problematic to those who do not fit into their neat little pigeon-holes. The first is an overly narrow definition of what the three agendas mean. Simulationism, for instance, is supposed to be about verisimilitude, and the obvious conclusion therefore seems to be that any system that supports it must be detailed and relatively rules-heavy, to reflect the various different aspects of reality (or, at least, a particular genre's version thereof). One thinks of systems like GURPS and Hero in this category, and a great many others that were popular in the 1980s.
This attitude seems to have stifled the development of rules-lite “simulationist” systems, which, to my mind, is very much to be regretted. Three True Wayists, when pressed, may not deny that a rule-lite simulationist system is possible, but they certainly don’t seem to spend any effort in encouraging the creation of such a thing. And that, I suspect, is because it lies outside the comfort zone of their theory. I dare say there are other examples of this narrow thinking stifling creativity, but the absence of much in the way of rules-lite simulationist systems, from where I’m standing, seems a particularly striking example.
The second problem is arguably worse, because it's more explicit. And that’s the contention that there are three, and only three, mutually exclusive approaches. Assuming that one defines the three approaches broadly enough, the first half of that statement – that there’s no fourth agenda – might well be true. (One could, of course, argue that rules-lite simulationism is, itself, distinct from, say, the GURPS approach, but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we accept that it isn’t). The problem comes from the ‘mutually exclusive’ part.
It seems to me self-evident that a system can provide a good mix of at least two, and possibly all three, approaches at the same time. A narrativist game does not have to be ‘narrative above all else’, for instance; it could allow a proportion of some other “agenda” in. Realistically, any game has to strike a balance between the three approaches – a narrative won’t work if it’s completely implausible, a simulation won’t work as an RPG if it never has any dramatic challenges, and so on. Surely it’s obvious that that balance does not have to be strongly weighted in one particular direction for a rules system to work?
Yet, while the Three True Wayists do have a term for a system that tries to balance two (or more) agendas, that term is, so I’m told, “incoherent”. Now, you can’t convince me that that was intended to be a value-neutral term to refer to a gaming style just as valid as the three they espouse. It’s pretty much explicitly saying that this style of play is inferior and somehow wrong – really no different to the attitude of the One True Wayists. Was this term deliberately coined so that anyone trying to say “I prefer incoherent games” would sound like a loony, Orwellian Newspeak style, or did it generally not occur to them that anyone would prefer it? I don’t know, although I rather suspect the latter.
But, when you poke beneath the bonnet, it’s ridiculous to assert that an “incoherent” game can’t be just as good and valid and worthwhile as one that follows a single "agenda" more or less exclusively. And, even if it weren’t, it would hardly be accepting of alternative styles of play to deride it. The Three True Wayists are here, it seems to me, falling into the very trap that their theory seeks to avoid.
Obviously, such a system could be done well, or done badly – that’s true of anything. But surely it’s possible to strike a balance? How could it not be, if you really look at things with an un-blinkered attitude? And this, of course, gets me to the point: I believe that 1st edition HeroQuest was such a system. It’s not that it didn’t have faults – it had a number – but the balance between narrativism and simulationism was done superbly and, so far as I know, has never been bettered. Yet that, it seems, had to be sacrificed on the altar of orthodoxy, because surely nobody could really like a game that worked that way? After all, no matter how much common sense said it worked, the theory said it couldn’t, and that was surely that?
But, to quote Robin Laws – who, despite having written the new 2nd edition of HeroQuest, seems to be no friend of Three True Wayism – there are more than three types of art, so why can’t there be more than three types of RPG? In fact, isn’t that just obvious?
The sad thing is, not so much that this happened – games change editions and approaches all the time – but that there doesn’t seem to be anything else available today to fill that niche. Because gaming theory says that that the “incoherent” approach must automatically be a failure that nobody could really, deep down, actually prefer to the alternatives.
Because Three True Wayism says that I don’t exist…
Unsurprisingly, few people who really think about the theory behind gaming espouse such a narrow-minded view. But it seems to me that a rather more insidious version of the same sort of general idea has become quite popular. I refer to this as “Three True Wayism”. It arises from the theoretical discussions on The Forge website (now, I gather, somewhat curtailed) that classified RPGs into one of three categories: narrativism, simulationism, and gamism. The first focuses primarily on the needs of the story, the second on the demands of verisimilitude, and the third on the establishment of fair game mechanics and reward mechanisms (or such is my understanding). The argument seems to be that all of these three approaches to RPing are equally valid, and if you happen to prefer a different category than I do, then so be it (they prefer to use the word “agenda”, but then much of their terminology is somewhat opaque).
Which sounds fair enough, so far as it goes. The problem is, it seems to me, that it acknowledges only these three approaches, and, more to the point, claims that they are mutually exclusive. The theory says that a rule set can only effectively support one approach of the three, and it even seems that they have pretty narrow definitions of what those approaches are. Hence, “Three True Wayism” – the contention that there are only three possible ways to enjoy a roleplaying game, and if your approach isn’t one of them, you’re doing it wrong. It’s insidious, because the people who adhere to this attitude (and, believe me, I’ve met some) believe they are being open-minded and fair, and accepting of all other approaches, even if they differ from their own. But – unless you accept their thesis that there are only three possible, and mutually exclusive, “agendas” – I don’t think this is the case at all.
This seems to manifest in two different ways, either or both of which can be problematic to those who do not fit into their neat little pigeon-holes. The first is an overly narrow definition of what the three agendas mean. Simulationism, for instance, is supposed to be about verisimilitude, and the obvious conclusion therefore seems to be that any system that supports it must be detailed and relatively rules-heavy, to reflect the various different aspects of reality (or, at least, a particular genre's version thereof). One thinks of systems like GURPS and Hero in this category, and a great many others that were popular in the 1980s.
This attitude seems to have stifled the development of rules-lite “simulationist” systems, which, to my mind, is very much to be regretted. Three True Wayists, when pressed, may not deny that a rule-lite simulationist system is possible, but they certainly don’t seem to spend any effort in encouraging the creation of such a thing. And that, I suspect, is because it lies outside the comfort zone of their theory. I dare say there are other examples of this narrow thinking stifling creativity, but the absence of much in the way of rules-lite simulationist systems, from where I’m standing, seems a particularly striking example.
The second problem is arguably worse, because it's more explicit. And that’s the contention that there are three, and only three, mutually exclusive approaches. Assuming that one defines the three approaches broadly enough, the first half of that statement – that there’s no fourth agenda – might well be true. (One could, of course, argue that rules-lite simulationism is, itself, distinct from, say, the GURPS approach, but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we accept that it isn’t). The problem comes from the ‘mutually exclusive’ part.
It seems to me self-evident that a system can provide a good mix of at least two, and possibly all three, approaches at the same time. A narrativist game does not have to be ‘narrative above all else’, for instance; it could allow a proportion of some other “agenda” in. Realistically, any game has to strike a balance between the three approaches – a narrative won’t work if it’s completely implausible, a simulation won’t work as an RPG if it never has any dramatic challenges, and so on. Surely it’s obvious that that balance does not have to be strongly weighted in one particular direction for a rules system to work?
Yet, while the Three True Wayists do have a term for a system that tries to balance two (or more) agendas, that term is, so I’m told, “incoherent”. Now, you can’t convince me that that was intended to be a value-neutral term to refer to a gaming style just as valid as the three they espouse. It’s pretty much explicitly saying that this style of play is inferior and somehow wrong – really no different to the attitude of the One True Wayists. Was this term deliberately coined so that anyone trying to say “I prefer incoherent games” would sound like a loony, Orwellian Newspeak style, or did it generally not occur to them that anyone would prefer it? I don’t know, although I rather suspect the latter.
But, when you poke beneath the bonnet, it’s ridiculous to assert that an “incoherent” game can’t be just as good and valid and worthwhile as one that follows a single "agenda" more or less exclusively. And, even if it weren’t, it would hardly be accepting of alternative styles of play to deride it. The Three True Wayists are here, it seems to me, falling into the very trap that their theory seeks to avoid.
Obviously, such a system could be done well, or done badly – that’s true of anything. But surely it’s possible to strike a balance? How could it not be, if you really look at things with an un-blinkered attitude? And this, of course, gets me to the point: I believe that 1st edition HeroQuest was such a system. It’s not that it didn’t have faults – it had a number – but the balance between narrativism and simulationism was done superbly and, so far as I know, has never been bettered. Yet that, it seems, had to be sacrificed on the altar of orthodoxy, because surely nobody could really like a game that worked that way? After all, no matter how much common sense said it worked, the theory said it couldn’t, and that was surely that?
But, to quote Robin Laws – who, despite having written the new 2nd edition of HeroQuest, seems to be no friend of Three True Wayism – there are more than three types of art, so why can’t there be more than three types of RPG? In fact, isn’t that just obvious?
The sad thing is, not so much that this happened – games change editions and approaches all the time – but that there doesn’t seem to be anything else available today to fill that niche. Because gaming theory says that that the “incoherent” approach must automatically be a failure that nobody could really, deep down, actually prefer to the alternatives.
Because Three True Wayism says that I don’t exist…
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Keep Libel Laws Out of Science
I am, perhaps unusually, going to talk about something that I believe is actually important.
Everyone in your genuine, serious-type, science blogs has been on about the BCA v Singh libel case for quite some time. In fact, I've been following the case since even before the judge made the ruling that really kicked up such a stink. At issue here, it seems to me, is whether scientists should be able to raise questions and engage in open debate without fear of being sued, and whether the libel laws in our country are, in fact, a pile of poo. I'm not enough of an expert to add anything that hasn't been said a hundred times before on the blogosphere, so I'll just direct anyone interested to the excellent Jack of Kent, who also has links to many other sites covering aspects of the story. Certainly, I didn't know our libel laws were quite such a mess before this (though I knew they were fairly bad), and one does hope that something might actually be done about them.
And if, having read all the background, you agree with me, please sign the petition of support:
Everyone in your genuine, serious-type, science blogs has been on about the BCA v Singh libel case for quite some time. In fact, I've been following the case since even before the judge made the ruling that really kicked up such a stink. At issue here, it seems to me, is whether scientists should be able to raise questions and engage in open debate without fear of being sued, and whether the libel laws in our country are, in fact, a pile of poo. I'm not enough of an expert to add anything that hasn't been said a hundred times before on the blogosphere, so I'll just direct anyone interested to the excellent Jack of Kent, who also has links to many other sites covering aspects of the story. Certainly, I didn't know our libel laws were quite such a mess before this (though I knew they were fairly bad), and one does hope that something might actually be done about them.
And if, having read all the background, you agree with me, please sign the petition of support:
Saturday, 11 April 2009
Ramalia
Just a note to say that Tradetalk magazine #10, including a lengthy article on the were-boars of Ramalia that I wrote back in 2002, has now been re-released in PDF format for the trifling price of $4. And, of course, its not just me, because every other issue of Tradetalk from #5 onwards has been re-released, too - so check them out, there's some really good Gloranthan material in there.
On a related note, there may be some good news about Heroes of Malkion on the horizon. With the emphasis on the "may" and the "horizon", of course, but at least there's something to hope for. And, no, I don't have any more information than that I can give out at the present time... just keep an eye out!
On a related note, there may be some good news about Heroes of Malkion on the horizon. With the emphasis on the "may" and the "horizon", of course, but at least there's something to hope for. And, no, I don't have any more information than that I can give out at the present time... just keep an eye out!
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Runes in the West
I've mentioned the way that Malkioni interact with runes from a rules perspective in an earlier post. To illustrate further, here is the list of cults from Heroes of Malkion, with their runes. Note that some of these cults may have been moved to later books during the editing process, or had other minor changes - this is just the latest information I have. Furthermore, I won't be describing the cults themselves here; you'll have to buy the book if you want that! Instead, it just shows the range of cults in the book, and perhaps illustrates a little bit of how runes work for Malkioni.
Saints
Wizardry Schools
Some additional things you might notice from this list:
Saints
| Althens | Artifice |
| Anazieta | Harmony |
| Burning Arrow | Death |
| Drezedan | Death |
| Elleish | Man |
| Falerine | Fertility |
| Gerlant | Fire |
| Hasterax | Death |
| Iames | Harmony OR Light |
| Josselyne | Strength |
| Mistandar | Trade |
| Ongaring | Motion |
| Padelnik | Strength |
| Palenna | Fertility |
| Rendoir | Hunting |
| Xemela | Harmony |
| Zemuron | Law |
| Zmes | Artifice |
Wizardry Schools
| Areeshka | Luck, Fate |
| Avlor | Man, Victory, Stasis |
| Conwy | Trade, Truth |
| Defences of God | Law, Defence, Force |
| Hecretes | Illusion, Magic |
| Herigian | Law, Truth, Mastery |
| Inner Temple | Literacy, Light, Truth |
| Iron Blood | Law, Death, Harmony |
| Jenerin | Law, Trade |
| Kipperly | Harmony, Illusion |
| Kyria | Harmony, Motion, Protection |
| Lenderyn | Motion, Death, Magic |
| Nerivon | Motion, Destruction |
| Octahedral | Earth, Mineral |
| Ouxey | Perception, Stasis |
| Pure Waves | Water |
| Querto | Law, Motion, Mineral |
| Raceen | Law, Artifice |
| Rose Nuns | Law, Harmony |
| Siglat | Harmony, Perception, Mastery |
| Talara Ignia | Fire, Essence |
| Ulfrathgar | Chaos, Undeath |
| Urestes | Truth, Matter |
| Vonerin | Death, Spirit |
| Yarilia | Storm, Protection, Cold |
Some additional things you might notice from this list:
- Not all wizardry schools necessarily have three runes; it depends on the range and scope of their magic.
- Saints grimoires, in particular, may focus on particular aspects of their rune; for example, Althens' Artifice rune/grimoire does not include metalwork, because he's a shipwright.
- Some grimoires, again especially amongst saints, mediate the power of their main rune through another rune; for example the Order of the Burning Arrow's rune is Death, but it's largely (though not entirely) through the medium of fire.
- Iames has two different runes, just to be awkward - but individual members only ever have access to one.
- Pastors of the main Malkioni prophets, such as Rokar and Hrestol, use the Law rune in almost all cases, and are therefore too repetitive to list here. Their grimoire is usually The Abiding Book, or some variant thereof.
- Talor simply used his own rune, in the last version I saw.
- There are additional cults, such as the Order of Shining Steel, in LotW2 and LotW3!
Thursday, 8 January 2009
HarnMaster Barbarians
One of my earlier books (on which I worked with a number of other writers), HarnMaster Barbarians, has recently been released as a PDF on DriveThruRPG. The original was a loose-leaf product, not a bound book, so, with some decent quality paper, the PDF really isn't that different from the original hardcopy - and it's cheaper, too.
I have updated the Writing Credits page of my website with the direct link to the purchase site, and with similar details for any other books I've contributed to that remain available.
I have updated the Writing Credits page of my website with the direct link to the purchase site, and with similar details for any other books I've contributed to that remain available.
Sunday, 7 December 2008
The End of Tentacles
I did say that when the official announcement about Tentacles came through, I'd post about that. So here we are.
Tentacles was a great gaming convention held in scenic Schloss Stahleck overlooking the Rhine in Germany. From my perspective, it was particularly significant as a convention specifically dedicated to Glorantha, Call of Cthulhu, and other related games. The location simply can't be beaten, to be able to game in such a beautiful place must have been the highlight of the year for many attendees. But the 2009 gathering will be the last.
I can understand their reasoning; it has become increasingly difficult in recent years to get sufficient Guests of Honour from America to attend (this was particularly noticeable last year, and reading between the lines, they anticipate similar problems in 2009). Of course, we can all have good fun without the Guests, but it's going to be increasingly difficult to keep the convention at a sufficient stature to fulfil the organiser's legal contract with the owners of the castle. As they've said on the website, they don't want this to turn into a Bachelor Beer and Karaoke Quest, and I can see how that might be the fate if they drag it on too long.
All good things must come to an end, and Tentacles will most certainly be missed by the Gloranthan community (and Cthulhu fans, etc., for that matter) . I only managed to attend twice myself, with the difficulties of getting to Germany, but I do hope to attend their one last hurrah. I wish I had been able to go more often, because the experience is truly wonderful, but such is life.
But Glorantha is bigger than this. We're not a dying community - yet.
(And, yeah, as I predicted, that 'by the end of 2008' schedule for publication of Heroes of Malkion is looking pretty shaky, isn't it?)
Tentacles was a great gaming convention held in scenic Schloss Stahleck overlooking the Rhine in Germany. From my perspective, it was particularly significant as a convention specifically dedicated to Glorantha, Call of Cthulhu, and other related games. The location simply can't be beaten, to be able to game in such a beautiful place must have been the highlight of the year for many attendees. But the 2009 gathering will be the last.
I can understand their reasoning; it has become increasingly difficult in recent years to get sufficient Guests of Honour from America to attend (this was particularly noticeable last year, and reading between the lines, they anticipate similar problems in 2009). Of course, we can all have good fun without the Guests, but it's going to be increasingly difficult to keep the convention at a sufficient stature to fulfil the organiser's legal contract with the owners of the castle. As they've said on the website, they don't want this to turn into a Bachelor Beer and Karaoke Quest, and I can see how that might be the fate if they drag it on too long.
All good things must come to an end, and Tentacles will most certainly be missed by the Gloranthan community (and Cthulhu fans, etc., for that matter) . I only managed to attend twice myself, with the difficulties of getting to Germany, but I do hope to attend their one last hurrah. I wish I had been able to go more often, because the experience is truly wonderful, but such is life.
But Glorantha is bigger than this. We're not a dying community - yet.
(And, yeah, as I predicted, that 'by the end of 2008' schedule for publication of Heroes of Malkion is looking pretty shaky, isn't it?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)