Is RuneQuest too dependent on social organizations?

[pachristian]

So here's a question for you Conan, and Fafhrd and the Mouser fans:

Is RQ (in all of its incarnations) too dependent on characters being members of cults or social organizations? Your character is dependent on his cult for much of his training, and magic, and social position and expectations. But the classic fantasy heroes cited above were not cult members; they were rogues and outlaws.

So if I want to play a character who is not part of a cult, am I character-improvement screwed? 

The D20 system, by contrast, gives a character little or no reason to join an organization: Advancement is completely independent of any guild or cult affiliation - even for clerics!

How do all of you handle this issue? Or is it an issue in your games?

[RosenMcStern]

It is a feature, not a bug. Integration in the cult structure is what characterises your RQ character, historically, and makes the game unique. It is also the important feature that taught so many players that integration with the game world is important, and makes your campaign better, and your exploration of the world more thorough. Before RQ, these elements of RP were absent. After RQ, you know that your game is better when they are present.

That said, the rules do allow characters who are not members of a cult to improve. They just have to pay for training, and their choice of magic is limited to either petty magic or unaligned sorcery. You can still kick serious ass with either of these two choices: Conan needed no magic to become king, and no cult taught Dilvish how to control the demonic mount he found in Hell.

[M Helsdon]

47 minutes ago, pachristian said:

So here's a question for you Conan, and Fafhrd and the Mouser fans:

Conan had support during his career from a number of religious groups (especially Mitra) and Fafhrd became an acolyte of Issek the Jug (and both he and the Mouser enjoyed the patronage of certain magicians...)  so none of them were totally cut off from cults and other groups. If you chose to be independent then you aren't going to be penalized other than by lacking the benefits (and responsibilities) a cult provides.

[soltakss]

1 hour ago, pachristian said:

Is RQ (in all of its incarnations) too dependent on characters being members of cults or social organizations? Your character is dependent on his cult for much of his training, and magic, and social position and expectations. But the classic fantasy heroes cited above were not cult members; they were rogues and outlaws.

So if I want to play a character who is not part of a cult, am I character-improvement screwed? 

The D20 system, by contrast, gives a character little or no reason to join an organization: Advancement is completely independent of any guild or cult affiliation - even for clerics!

How do all of you handle this issue? Or is it an issue in your games?

 

Generally, PCs who belong to cults get access to extra support, magic and skills. PCs who don't belong to these organisations don't get access to these benefits. So, it can be an advantage to belong to a cult.

However, it is not compulsory and character advancement does not depend on belonging to a cult. You can increase skills, gain Heroic Abilities and so on without belonging to a cult. 

Not belonging to a cult actually has some benefits. You don't have any tithes to pay, needn't follow cult restrictions, don't have any cult enemies or cult obligations and NPCs don't react to you in a certain way because of your cult.

If you are happy to not get cult special magic and don't want the structure of a cult then not belonging to one is fine.

 

[threedeesix]

I have been running various versions of RQ for decades now. I pretty much ignored all forms of cults and organizations in every instance. They just weren't needed for the types of games I ran. But that being said, I also never ran games where everyone could cast spells and use magic either, which is pretty common in earlier RQ. I reserved it for those with spell casting professions only.

[Baron]

My RQ2 book doesn't have its example character Rurik join a cult until after years of game play. It also makes a strong presentation for guilds as teaching sources. We never go overboard on cults. They have a place, but it's not necessary.

[Joerg]

@threedeesix: RuneQuest has a few spell-casting professions. Like Fighter, Thief, or Priest. RQ2 doesn't have the wizard, though, instead there is a shaman.

@pachristian: Fafhrd is an exile from his clan, and the Mouser is an exiled member of the Guild. They have powerful patrons belonging to a secret organisation of magicians in Ningauble and Sheelba, and manage to maintain some independence from the organized groups inside the city. If you play with an ordinary party size as self-willed reluctant minions of these sorcerers, you create something like a cultural group among them - not much different from the mercenaries at Raus Fort in Borderlands.

You can run a Sartarite or Praxian games based on the exile concept (in fact a lot of the stuff in Pavis and Big Rubble work well with characters exiled from their birth communities).

The cults as presented in RuneQuest 2 are quite cosmopolitan, whereas most worship in the current vision of Glorantha are clan based. In case of speciality deities, worshipers from neighboring clans are very welcome, but in case of Orlanth and Ernalda (or among Praxians, Waha and Eiritha) participants from outside the clan are rare. At the great temples, the clan background of a worshipper doesn't matter much even for these primary deities, though.

[Sean_RDP]

5 hours ago, pachristian said:

The D20 system, by contrast, gives a character little or no reason to join an organization: Advancement is completely independent of any guild or cult affiliation - even for clerics!

I also do not think this is an entirely fair analogy either. In many d20 games (though of course not all) Prestige classes exist that require the character to travel a certain developmental path to join and narrow the character's path as he or she advances in the class. In 1st ed AD&D, several classes (Monk and Druid) had guidelines regarding advancement within their class. Basic D&D limited advance for demi-humans. These are not exact analogies either, but there is a history of attempts to marry advancement to culture or profession.

And RQ cults are heavily integrated into the societies that the characters exist within. It makes sense within the context of the game and the world and as others have pointed out, there is no one right way to play RQ, just like there is no one way to play (A)D&D in any incarnation. 

[dragonewt]

Who and what you relate to and join with in RQ is the "Rune Questing". What matters is how the character relates to the world and its essence. Not some abstract point collection or stat number. What the character has done and who they relate/align with is what defines them. Their history and actions (although this can be recorded with a relationship stat, that loses the depth, detail and cultured feel). This ties in with the approach and importance of hero questing.

Edited February 28, 2016 by dragonewt

[Jeff]

Social organizations, particularly cults, are hard-wired into RQ2 and RQ3. An adventurer without a cult (defining that broadly to include spirit cults and sorcerers) will always be a grave disadvantage against someone who does belong to a cult. When even a broo or a dark troll has a cult that can teach it magic, be a source of rune magic, and give it allies, a player character would be well-advised to do the same! 

[Joerg]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

Social organizations, particularly cults, are hard-wired into RQ2 and RQ3. An adventurer without a cult (defining that broadly to include spirit cults and sorcerers) will always be a grave disadvantage against someone who does belong to a cult. When even a broo or a dark troll has a cult that can teach it magic, be a source of rune magic, and give it allies, a player character would be well-advised to do the same! 

Gloranthan magic always stressed the notion of cults as the source of magic, although the RQ2 rules offered an alternative source of magic in the guilds (that were never specified, but mentioned whenever things like poison or potions were mentioned), and in the shamans who catered battle magic to people without asking about cult allegiances (explicitely in RQ3, but nobody protested against that when RQ3 was released as successor for RQ2 - most complaints were directed against sorcery or against changing the convenient common rune magics).

There was no thieves' guild in RQ, though. Sensibly not, since Leiber's genius idea to make crime so organized that it supported a guild structure was a hyperbole swallowed hook, line, sinker and even fishing pole by the authors of the Thief class for D&D, taking all the hyberbole and satire out of it. It took patient groundwork of Terry Pratchett to straighten this out in the common perception of the fantasy audience, but I guess for 50% or more of all roleplayers organized guilds still are regarded as the natural habitat of thieves. No, RQ offered the (extremely minor) cult of Lanbril instead. A cult so minor that it would cater to non-cultists friendly enough to the gang. (Yes, acting like a "guild" where RQ2 alchemy was concerned, if you look at Snakefang in the Pavis book.)

Funnily enough, the Thieves Guilds and Assassins Guilds in D&D are good equivalents to social organisations as presented in RuneQuest.

14 hours ago, pachristian said:

So here's a question for you Conan, and Fafhrd and the Mouser fans:

Is RQ (in all of its incarnations) too dependent on characters being members of cults or social organizations? Your character is dependent on his cult for much of his training, and magic, and social position and expectations. But the classic fantasy heroes cited above were not cult members; they were rogues and outlaws.

So if I want to play a character who is not part of a cult, am I character-improvement screwed? 

The D20 system, by contrast, gives a character little or no reason to join an organization: Advancement is completely independent of any guild or cult affiliation - even for clerics!

How do all of you handle this issue? Or is it an issue in your games?

Advancement in RQ is completely independent of any guild, cult, or trainers if you are content to rise just through skill check increases. For uncheckable skills, you need to find a trainer/teacher, which requires some form of social interaction (if only a bribe to get the attention of said teacher).

If you are a member of any kind of organisation, that initial bribe stuff can be skipped if the organisation has the resources.

The D&Dism of playing a cleric without any attachment to the deity or its organisation isn't a model to be proud of. You can play hobo murderers in RQ. They play better if they are hobo murderers with a past in some kind of organisation. And if you look closely, that's what Fafhrd and the Mouser are.

Conan has his bleeding hearts backstory of enslavement as a kid, years on the treadmill, broke his chains and lives for revenge, slowly discovering that life can offer pleasures, and can I have all of them pretty please or I kill you? He still swears (or rather blasphemes) by Crom, more so than your average D&D cleric who theoretically receives his magic from that entity.

But then, D20 has mandatory organisations too - classes and alignment. Your characters cannot escape either. These are heavy shackles on your character development.

Conan, Fafhrd and the Mouser can escape these restrictions, and do all the time in their adventures. Conan can climb, swim, ... the Mouser can even use magic in a limited way.

RQ/BRP liberates you from the shackles of alignment and class. It offers membership in the cults or other organisations like newer dialects of D20 offer prestige classes. You can elect not to take these prestige classes in RQ. I guess you could in D20, too - and you can complain about not getting the benefits when all the other characters who chose the prestige classes get theirs.

 

Whenever I started a fantasy campaign, I started with the characters belonging to a common "organisation" - if only coming from the same city and having the same pub as their regular hangout. Each character always had his own organisation or contacts in the setting, and a set of memorable NPC allies integrated into the party of regular pub hangers helped root them in the setting, and providing adventure hooks when there were no player-chosen quests (facing unfortunate twists by my GMing). If a party suffered losses along the way far away from home, replacement characters would have to integrate themselves into this heroband, recruited from locals or other travelers encountered on the way. None of my player groups ever gave up on their roots. These roots gave them identity, motivation, and benefits. Benefits they missed sorely when traveling far from their roots.

All of this applies to Fafhrd and the Mouser. Even Conan yearns back to his dim childhood memories of the idyllic life of Cimmerian barbarian warrior farmers. They feel the lack of this, even when hanging out in other peoples' harems, or with their favorite females in states of advanced undress lollygagging in their laps while sipping ale from huge tankards.

I have to mention that my fantasy games usually play in single race (i.e. human) settings, with the occasional semi-human attached. Compare this to Mouser, his depilated female other, Fafhrd and his transparent humanoid lover, sitting in a tavern in an entirely human metropolis except for a fraction of a percentil exotics like Fafhrd's lover. Compare this to Conan, whose interactions with non-humans (like e.g. snake folk) are across a blade wielded in anger, never as companions.

The mixed race party put together by a meddling wizard was pioneered by Tolkien, using impending fate as a strong motivator, and then copycatted by Terry Brooks in Shannara and other authors before the publication of D&D. D&D jumped onto that trope and tossed into the same mixer that had Conan and Fafhrd/Mouser stirred in, and the (unusual in fantasy literature up to that time) magic system of spells that get forgotten by Jack Vance. In less than three years from the publication of D&D, this became the default definition of fantasy, spawning settings that dealt with this approaching a consistent logic like Abrams' and Feist's Midkemia, or those applying gamist logic like Greyhawk. That despite other offerings, like e.g. Tekumel. And then RQ with its Gloranthan setting.

The D&D approach of tossing together these unrelated literary precursors and stirring them into a standard without internal consistency then dominated fantasy writings. You had to have elves and dwarves as viewpoint characters in your stories, not always naming them such, if you wrote mainstream fantasy. TSR recognized the strength of consistent settings already with their second rpg (Empire of the Petal Throne, using Tekumel), and developed more consistent D&D settings dominated by the gamist restrictions (as alignment or class), like Ravenloft or Dragonlance. Or the Forgotten Realms, parts of which have as much backstory as well-written novels, and which have a minimum credibility for interaction between regions with different cultures despite being a huge patchwork setting. Fantasy settings like Willow or Tad Williams' Memory and Thorn used the same group dynamic tropes, naming their dwarf/halfling/elf equivalents differently but following the generic mixed stewpot approach of D&D and other rpgs. Adding their unique twists and a towering backstory worthy to become heroic against, unlike most PC parties' campaign logs that read more like the business report of an incasso agency.

 

Struggling to avoid the label "generic", sometimes the cultural bonding gets more emphasis in the rules for player characters than for the sample characters in the rule books. Even in Glorantha:

Especially when Hero Wars was published, there was the notion that all personal magic of the characters was received through the clan wyter. If you were cut of from the wyter, your magic suffered. Flickered out when the exile slacked off in his duties to his clan. There was a weak alternative in Hero Wars (and HQ1): the heroband. Of which a permanent outlaw gang was an example, and Thunder Rebels gave a magical outlaw band among the Orlanthi sample characters (none of whom was specifically tied to a clan...)

Looking back to RQ2 days: Among the Orlanthi (where initiation into a cult is the norm) there has always been the way of the outlaws who somehow keep having their magic despite officially being denied to participate in their clans' rites, or failure to provide their own regular worship among their numbers. Mercenary bands seem to manage, too, even with widely different personal cult magic.

It may be said that outlaws or homeless (like mercenaries) rely on the Orlanthi cities and their temples (or major temples with all but independence from the adjacent clans, like Entarios' Greenwing earth temple in Malani lands) for their access to cult magic. Coming as anonymous travellers or pilgrims they create a temporary relation to the temple, enough to receive or renew their magic when they participate in some of the holidays, welcome extra heads to increase the magic available to that temple.

 

In official RQ, initiates only get one-use rune magic. There appear to have been campaigns where the players regularly raised their POW so that spending permanent POW on rune magic wasn't a big deal. I haven't ever played in such games, though, nor did my GMing RuneQuest or playing other BRP games (Elric/Stormbringer/Cthulhu) ever see any significant use of that. In 10 years of active RQ GMing I saw maybe half a dozen successful POW gain rolls. (Given that this included one-shots on conventions where the tick checks weren't my business, there might have been more.) RQ3 de Luxe had the cult write-up of Ernalda with its acolyte status, and that acolyte status was what people who wanted to play users of rune magic in my games aimed for. Preferably during character generation.

When reusable rune magic for initiates was discussed in the mailing lists of the nineties, I was all for it. Tying it to the active participation in holy days was the rules mechanic to enforce and reward role-appropriate behavior of cult members. Carrot and stick in one.

 

[Guest Vile Traveller]

45 minutes ago, Joerg said:

There was no thieves' guild in RQ, though.

[...]

Advancement in RQ is completely independent of any guild, cult, or trainers if you are content to rise just through skill check increases. For uncheckable skills, you need to find a trainer/teacher, which requires some form of social interaction (if only a bribe to get the attention of said teacher).

There may not have been guilds per se, but RQ2 did have the "Thieves' Associations" which did much the same thing, and were a popular spending opportunity for adventurers.

Ironically, although RQ2 is often seen as the edition which has Glorantha (and hence cults) most tightly woven in, if you played it for years without Cults of Prax (as we did), cults never seemed that important. In fact, the amount of loot one had to fork over as a rune level was such a disincentive to joining a cult that I had great trouble even getting my players to contemplate it. Guilds were often as attractive as, or more so than, cults. Mix this with a diet of Griselda stories courtesy of White Dwarf, and you get a game of RuneQuest that does have social organisations built in, but not to the extent that player characters are forced to become part of them, or even disadvantaged if they do not. Social connections come with responsibilities as well as benefits.

[Pentallion]

7 hours ago, Joerg said:

Conan has his bleeding hearts backstory of enslavement as a kid, years on the treadmill, broke his chains and lives for revenge, slowly discovering that life can offer pleasures, and can I have all of them pretty please or I kill you? He still swears (or rather blasphemes) by Crom, more so than your average D&D cleric who theoretically receives his magic from that entity.

 

Actually, that's the movie adaptation.  That's not Robert E Howard's Conan.

[Joerg]

19 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

Actually, that's the movie adaptation.  That's not Robert E Howard's Conan.

I never got my eyes on a complete set of the novels, and all I read started in medias res with a fully grown and mightily angry barbarian. To be honest, Conan isn't my favorite R.E.Howard preincarnation, ranking rather low alongside Kull. I found Bran Mak Morn a little more to my taste, and I absolutely liked Cormac MacArt and his anachronisms (they did publish a complete series of that in German, which may have helped).

So, what is the Conan canon for his youth? How does it color his motivations?

I won't retract his blaspheming by Crom. If not in Howard stories, then maybe in onces written by Sprague de Camp, Jordan, Anderson, Wagner... I lost count how many authors sat down to add stories to the Conan saga.

[threedeesix]

12 hours ago, Jeff said:

Social organizations, particularly cults, are hard-wired into RQ2 and RQ3. An adventurer without a cult (defining that broadly to include spirit cults and sorcerers) will always be a grave disadvantage against someone who does belong to a cult. When even a broo or a dark troll has a cult that can teach it magic, be a source of rune magic, and give it allies, a player character would be well-advised to do the same! 

Referring to the case of not having my players belong to a cult, it was balanced with not having ANYONE belong to a cult. I never ran games in Glorantha, so it wasn't an issue. I'll admit that in my youth, having come from AD&D, I just couldn't wrap my head around bronze age role playing. It was just easier for me to continue running my old games with the much better RuneQuest 2 and 3 systems. I guess that would be the actual origin of my Classic Fantasy game. Now with all of that said, today I would much more likely embrace an unmodified cult-heavy RuneQuest campaign, if I wasn't so damn busy with other things.

Rod

Edited February 28, 2016 by threedeesix

[Baulderstone]

8 hours ago, Joerg said:

The mixed race party put together by a meddling wizard was pioneered by Tolkien, using impending fate as a strong motivator, and then copycatted by Terry Brooks in Shannara and other authors before the publication of D&D. 

Minor nitpick: The Sword of Shannara came out after D&D. 

[Baron]

Shannara = 1977.

D&D = 1974.

[Joerg]

Ok. At least the author claims that he started thinking of writing a Tolkien pastiche already during his study years (before 1966), according to Wikipedia.

I am not criticizing fantasy settings which have humans, elves and dwarves in them - real world myths had those, too, and Tolkien got his concept from blending norse myth with catholic ideas about angels. I was going on about mixed species parties as a standard trope.

[Charles VA]

2 hours ago, Baron said:

Shannara = 1977.

D&D = 1974.

The original white box was 1974. Basically chainmail with smaller, one man, units. What was to become D&D/AD&D came out 1977. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons

[threedeesix]

27 minutes ago, charlesvajr said:

The original white box was 1974. Basically chainmail with smaller, one man, units. What was to become D&D/AD&D came out 1977. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons

Not really.

It was called Dungeons and Dragons even in 1974. They had character classes, level based advancement, standard races, adventures, etc. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons just expanded on it. 1977 essentially saw the next edition of D&D, but make no mistake, it was still D&D before that.

Rod

Edited February 28, 2016 by threedeesix

[Charles VA]

Just now, threedeesix said:

Not really.

It was called Dungeons and Dragons even in 1974. They had character classes, level based advancement, standard races, adventures, etc. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons just expanded on it. 1977 essentially saw the next edition of D&D.

Rod

Yes, but the idea was in discussion over social constructs. The original didn't have as much development in that area. I don't remember if there was any mention of a "guild" structure or not but the original three books did not have the same emphasis outside of combat/looting.

[threedeesix]

3 minutes ago, charlesvajr said:

Yes, but the idea was in discussion over social constructs. The original didn't have as much development in that area. I don't remember if there was any mention of a "guild" structure or not but the original three books did not have the same emphasis outside of combat/looting.

Got ya. Lost track of the conversation.

[Charles VA]

1 minute ago, threedeesix said:

Got ya. Lost track of the conversation.

We need more like this. These are the things that made RQ and Glorantha so distinctive and enduring.

[trystero]

On 2/28/2016 at 0:44 PM, Joerg said:

I never got my eyes on a complete set of the [Conan] novels, and all I read started in medias res with a fully grown and mightily angry barbarian. To be honest, Conan isn't my favorite R.E.Howard preincarnation...

Joerg, if you're interested in the original unadulterated Robert E. Howard stories, the best source is Del Rey's three-volume set: The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian, The Bloody Crown of Conan, and The Conquering Sword of Conan. No pastiche elements, no "posthumous collaborations", just Howard's stories and fragments.

You may still prefer other Howard characters, but it may at least be worth your while to read Conan as his creator intended, rather than the mix of original and imitation material that was all that was easily available for many years.

And I don't think of Howard's Conan as particularly angry except when in battle; he's mostly bursting with confidence. He acknowledges his own culture's traditions in many stories, but he's not especially angstful or fixated on past wrongs like the movie versions are.

[TRose]

23 hours ago, charlesvajr said:

Yes, but the idea was in discussion over social constructs. The original didn't have as much development in that area. I don't remember if there was any mention of a "guild" structure or not but the original three books did not have the same emphasis outside of combat/looting.

 Idea of  Guild was in Greyhawk and Blackmoor  and then expanded in the Judges Guild stuff. Dang Now you making me feel old.

  I remember getting my copy of Greyhawk and thinking it was the greatest thing ever.