Serious question about design decision

[klecser]

Everyone on this forum knows Runequest better than I do. I am new to the game and its history.

I was reading through the PDF, and (still) eagerly anticipating my slipcase when I was surprised to see game mechanic prices for slaves. I understand that this is a Bronze Age mythic game and slavery features heavily in early human history and mythic stories.

At the same time, I'm like: Why? Why do we need game-stated prices for slaves? Even if they are part of the setting? It seems to cross a line to me. It implies that player characters are going to have characters that purchase slaves as a "regular" part of the setting.

I'm not trolling and I'm not looking to start a fight or anything. It just crosses a line for me as to what we should be doing in role-playing games. I'm wondering if people with more experience in the game have some sort of justification for it, because I don't see it. Your rebuttal may be that role-players don't think twice about rampant murder that exists within gaming, and that is true. I know I have the power to draw an iron curtain. It just doesn't sit well with me that a player would purchase slaves, even if part of a story. The same reason why it doesn't sit well with me to have players whose characters rape or abuse, even if part of a fictional story.

Edited April 6, 2019 by klecser
additional examples

[OxygenO2]

Remember YGMV, just because it's in the rule book does not mean you need to use it. Your characters tribe might be strongly against slavery, hell, why not make a senario out of freeing slaves from a "less civilized" tribe. But as you say, slaves in one form or another has existed for most of human history and and ignoring that completely in the rules would, at least to me, be dishonest to the setting.  In my game, slaves exist but are never in the forefront, and if a player or NPC is captured and the tribe fails to provide a ransom that character might very well end up in slavery.

[klecser]

Thanks for the serious reply.

As I thought about it more I realized that having "prices" allows a framework for players to seek non-violent solutions for rescuing slaves.

I also appreciate the other examples you gave. I'm certainly not for "sanitizing" historical realities. I just always want everything to be handled with discretion. This is why I asked experienced GMs! Thanks.

[Prinz Slasar]

Prices for slaves are given in a bunch of RPGs. RQG ist no exception.

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, klecser said:

It just doesn't sit well with me that a player would purchase slaves, even if part of a story. The same reason why it doesn't sit well with me to have players whose characters rape or abuse, even if part of a fictional story.

It can be difficult to put one's self in the place of a character in an ancient culture. Whilst I would never contemplate playing out a rape in game, I do see slavery as different. Is it racism that drives your concern? There's a strong correlation in our modern minds between slavery and racism, given recent history, but it has not always been so. Whilst I personally find slavery to be abhorrent, I don't mind it being in a roleplaying game.

Another answer to "Why is it a thing in RuneQuest", it's because it's a thing in Glorantha. I know that just solves one problem by creating another, but there you go.

Edited April 6, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, klecser said:

I'm not trolling and I'm not looking to start a fight or anything. It just crosses a line for me as to what we should be doing in role-playing games. I'm wondering if people with more experience in the game have some sort of justification for it, because I don't see it. Your rebuttal may be that role-players don't think twice about rampant murder that exists within gaming, and that is true. I know I have the power to draw an iron curtain. It just doesn't sit well with me that a player would purchase slaves, even if part of a story. The same reason why it doesn't sit well with me to have players whose characters rape or abuse, even if part of a fictional story.

The fact that this does not sit well with you  speaks highly of you. I do not condone violence at a personal or state level but that is me (damn canadians!) and really neither here nor there and I do not want flames. I am just saying. 

The point is we are not playing in such a setting without slavery or violence (state or otherwise). You can justifiably ask if you should play the game at all. I have. Disturbing questions, and ones that a gamer might face in life as well as within a game are great. They lead to a potential for personal growth as one wrestles with such difficult thoughts and works though the crises these can cause. I like to think that a mature and responsible RPG should have a chance of asking such questions but that is not intrinsic to its value, which is entertainment.

I was going to say "But really this is not the forum for such metaphysical calisthenics". but maybe BRP central is mature enough to handle this kind of thing.

We'll see.

Cheers

[g33k]

One of the substantive sub-elements of the setting is surrendering to be ransomed, instead of fighting to the death.

One of the aspects / alternatives of that is slave-taking and selling; it is noted particularly at Pimper's Block as a place where captured folk are "repatriated," but the context is as likely to be buying a slave as paying a ransom.

One element of having prices for slaves ...  PCs may be the ones being priced.

All of that said... It's definitely an area to tread with care, and a know-your-players issue.

Glorantha actually has a lot of those; such as the more-savage takes on Babeester Gor, pretty much everything-Broo, and the harmonize-you-into-their-maw Jack'o'Bear.  And don't even get me started on the "accommodations" the Lunars make to "tame" Chaos!

[Sumath]

I've always felt that one of the worst fates in RuneQuest is being turned into a herd-man by Morokanth - this is much worse than slavery as you even lose your sentience, so no prospect of future liberation either.

[klecser]

I just want to say again that I appreciate the reasoned takes and explanations that people are giving. My goal here was to have a better understanding as a novice GM/player to this game. You all have not disappointed me. Thank you for taking my question/concern seriously and giving me some specific examples of how this particular mechanic fits into the setting!

[Bill the barbarian]

reasoned takes my hairy barbarian butt, just old!

:)

[gochie]

Runequest is made for adults, with adult themes. It also tries to be realistic (with lots of magic slapped on top). 

We play that broos rape everything that walks, including our characters. Almost every trolkin in the game is a slave. Morocanth herd humans (if you want to argue that these humans are animals, look at their divine spells and tell me they don't lobotomize and use some perfectly normal humans). Torture is very real and common in both Glorantha and the real World (hell, even our present-day 1st world countries). Ogres are basically cannibals. Orcs sacrifice humans and other sentient creatures to their god... Etc. Etc. Etc. 

Basically, there are many bronze-age cultures in the game, and much like in real life, horrible things are quite prominent - slavery included. I would even go as far as saying it's not nearly the worst thing in this game universe. If you want a realistic game, you include realistic features, and unfortunately, these horrible things are very real. 

Edited April 6, 2019 by gochie

[Psullie]

Our concept of personal autonomy is a relatively modern invention. Part of playing in Glorantha is exploring not just an alien landscape but alien cultures. For many Gloranthans the individual and and the tribe are synonymous, you are 'owned' by your tribe and have distinct responsibilities base on your caste or birth. There are many ways in which a person is beholden to their liege. Feudal serfs for example were effectively 'slaves' in that they could not own property or leave their immediate area. 

Slaves of the ancient world were often very valuable and the great care was given in their health and well-being. They could earn their rights, but the security and protection offered by an 'owner' would often outweigh the responsibility of having to fend for yourself. 

As was said above, it is your choice to use Glorantha as a storytelling medium however you see fit. Presenting alternate views to illustrate as theme is the hallmark of classic Sci-Fi and fantasy. So why not write a scenario for your players that explores the varied, and often overlooked, ways that people can find themselves indentured into service. 

[Rick Meints]

2 hours ago, Sumath said:

I've always felt that one of the worst fates in RuneQuest is being turned into a herd-man by Morokanth - this is much worse than slavery as you even lose your sentience, so no prospect of future liberation either.

Being turned into a beast would be a nasty fate for any sentient creature that is a part of the Survival Covenant of Waha. It only affects Praxians, not outsiders or foreigners after all. It can be reversed with the proper magic, so there always is a chance for future liberation. It is still an awful fate, even if temporary.

[Rick Meints]

4 hours ago, klecser said:

...Why do we need game-stated prices for slaves? Even if they are part of the setting? It seems to cross a line to me. It implies that player characters are going to have characters that purchase slaves as a "regular" part of the setting.

I'm not trolling and I'm not looking to start a fight or anything. It just crosses a line for me as to what we should be doing in role-playing games. I'm wondering if people with more experience in the game have some sort of justification for it, because I don't see it. Your rebuttal may be that role-players don't think twice about rampant murder that exists within gaming, and that is true. I know I have the power to draw an iron curtain. It just doesn't sit well with me that a player would purchase slaves, even if part of a story. The same reason why it doesn't sit well with me to have players whose characters rape or abuse, even if part of a fictional story.

I tend to play games that allow me to play a character that is different from who I am in real life, and also to experience things I probably will not experience in real life either. That said, I don't tend to get into playing games that are focused on rape, torture, genocide, or other very vile acts. I don't mind what the world is like, or if it has numerous evil beings in it, but my gaming groups have just not really brought those things into our sessions. I've played in some games over the years where people have wanted to "roleplay" a variety of behaviors I don't want to participate in, and those players don't tend to get invited back if they insist on making those actions a regular part of their gameplay (or I'll move on if I am the dissenting opinion in that group). I have no interest in policing anyone else's gaming groups or limiting what they can roleplay. If your group loves X or Y in your games, and the whole group is into it, go for it.  If your group is against having X or Y in your games, don't have it.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Rick Meints

[Sumath]

4 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

It can be reversed with the proper magic, so there always is a chance for future liberation. It is still an awful fate, even if temporary.

Ah, that's right, Alter Creature can reverse the process as well. Even so, you'd have to have some dedicated friends/clan to come rescue you from that fate and restore you to sentience.

The insidious part of it is that Morokanth always looked relatively harmless to me too...

[Rick Meints]

It's also worth noting that ALL of the Praxian tribes have access to the Alter Creature magic, and they all use it too. ALL the Praxian tribes have herd men in their herds, although far less than the beasts of their own herd, or the captured beasts of other tribes. I know it's not how we in the real world tend to look at it, but Praxians see a herd man as just another animal. 

[Sumath]

The idea of herd-men gives me the creeps, but that's what I like about it too. It's the right kind of weird.

[M Helsdon]

5 hours ago, klecser said:

At the same time, I'm like: Why? Why do we need game-stated prices for slaves? Even if they are part of the setting? It seems to cross a line to me. It implies that player characters are going to have characters that purchase slaves as a "regular" part of the setting.

As others have noted, slavery was one of the many unpleasant aspects of Bronze (and Iron) Age cultures, and it's a fact that taking and selling slaves is part of life (and in places like Slavewall, part of the livelihood) in many cultures. In virtually the center of the RQG map there's also Pimper's Block where Praxians and Orlanthi have traditionally bought and sold slaves, and the Lunars took over and expanded the trade. Praxians also have slaves (either captured in raids from other tribes, or specialists purchased who have skills the tribes lack, such as smithing); many Sartarite clans have slaves, though they are usually called serfs.

Rather than slave owning being a "regular" thing for PCs, they may become involved by the need to buy back a relative captured and sold into slavery. Ransoming prisoners is a regular thing (and something that might happen to the PCs if they have to surrender to a foe) but if a ransom isn't paid, then they might well be sold, and then require rescue etc. I can imagine scenarios where the PCs have to trace and rescue a fellow clan, tribe or cult member, either by buying them out of slavery or seizing them back. Similarly, if PCs take prisoners they can't ransom, what are they going to do with them? Maybe their cult includes human sacrifice... Such collisions between modern and ancient mindsets are part of roleplaying... but they require care.

Sometimes scenarios come from unlikely sources. For instance The Searchers (1956) could be an outline, with the Texans turned into Sartarites, and the Comanche into Praxians or Grazers...

Edited April 6, 2019 by M Helsdon

[goldenwheeldancer]

I could imagine playing a Tony Soprano type character who travels from oasis to oasis, dealing in slaves while trying to live a normal life with his family. The mental stresses resulting from repressing feelings of guilt and remorse, while trying to present a positive role-model to his children, could lead to some interesting situations. There could also be a redemption arc. The internal struggles could prove too much and he might one day smash off the chains and set all his "products" free. This act financially ruins him and he spends the rest of his life as a beggar on the streets of Pavis. 

We don't have to enjoy slavery (or other nasty things) to include it as part of an interesting story.

[tedopon]

I've played in a few campaigns where slavery was a major aspect of the culture(s) in the game. 

It is far more satisfying to combat and possibly defeat an infrastructure that deprives individuals of freedom than to kill bad guys because they're bad guys.

Slavery is on the short list of the worst things people can do to one another, and it's not a subject you can touch with every group...but I know from personal experience it feels pretty damn good to burn it to the ground in a thought experiment.

If you or anyone in your group don't want to go there, don't go there. The whole point of this hobby is for everyone to enjoy themselves. 

[soltakss]

17 hours ago, klecser said:

At the same time, I'm like: Why? Why do we need game-stated prices for slaves? Even if they are part of the setting? It seems to cross a line to me. It implies that player characters are going to have characters that purchase slaves as a "regular" part of the setting.

Slavery can be difficult, especially when it touches on people's family or cultural experience.

Other people have given very reasoned answers, but my view follows.

In Glorantha, as in many Real World World historical settings, slavery is a thing.

In many cases, slavery is an alternative to death. If I capture prisoners in a war, what do I do with them? Kill/Maim them, ransom them, set them free or enslave them? If I set them free, they can fight me again. If I ransom them and the ransom is not paid, then what do I do? If I blind them or cut off their hands so they cannot fight, that is very cruel and bad for them. If I kill them, it solves my problem but is cruel and could cause resentment. If I sell them into slavery, I gain money and they remain alive. 

There are many routes into slavery. Prisoners of war can be sold as slaves. Poor families can sell themselves, or family members, into slavery. People can be born as slaves to slaves. Criminals can be sold into slavery as a punishment. Whether these are good reasons or bad reasons is up to Games Masters and Players.

Slaves are treated very differently, depending on the culture. Pentians routinely geld their male slaves. Praxians don't keep slaves, as it is too hard to keep them, instead they sell them to slavers. Morocanth can turn some slaves into Herd Men. Sartarites have Thralls who work the fields. Grazelanders have vendref who farm for them.

Part of playing a RPG is suspending your own moral views and playing the part of a character with a different set of morals. Slavery can be part of this. However, simply not owning slaves, or freeing slaves whenever you can, is a perfectly valid choice.

 

[klecser]

I'm glad I posted this because I think it's revealing a couple of things and I want you all to know that I don't take them for granted:

1) This is a giving board. That is not lost on me. I've been on the internet since the early 90s and I've seen some awful, awful, awful stuff, as I'm sure many of you have. It's always refreshing to find a discussion space where people are willing to take tough questions seriously.

2) Part of the reason why I decided to invest in Runequest is that I had a gut instinct that Runequest stories were very rich stories, and I think this thread illustrates it. This is advanced story-telling, and I understand what you all are saying. That's why I asked. Remember that my fantasy role-playing experience is DND and I'm learning right now to code switch between the two. I'm not trying to imply that DND can't have rich stories. At the same time, we all know that certain games attract certain styles of role-playing. I'm liking the style here.

[soltakss]

It really depends on individual GMs, but RuneQuest (and HeroQuest) have the feel of "Yes you can do that", whereas for me, D&D has a feel of "No, you can't do that".

What I mean by that is "I want to play an evil elf who isn't a drow", RQ "Sure, you can do that", D&D "No, elves are good and drow are evil, you have to be a drow". "I want to play a wizard who uses a sword, RQ "Yes, OK", D&D "No, Magic users can't use swords".

RuneQuest seems more open to that kind of thing to me.

I remember seeing an episode of Tucker's Luck, way back in the 80s, where they were playing D&D and he said "OK, my fighter is going to nut him", pointing at an NPC, to be told by a horrified DM "You can't do that", as I was playing RQ at the time, I thought "You can do that in RQ" and that thought has stuck with me ever since.

[klecser]

"Yes", Yes, but..." and "Yes, and..." are the sentence starters of all successful GMs. You bring up a really good point (and here I am hijacking my original thread LOL). Is the feel that something has endemic to the game, it's system, or the GM? Let's think of the original designers. My impression is that Greg Stafford had a great attitude when he made his game. I look at this game with fresh eyes and I see someone for which role-playing and story-telling mattered. DND started as a Chainmail ruleset. I'm of the opinion that DND's culture continues to be haunted by Gary Gygax. Gygax was a "no" GM who seemed to revel in player failure. And to be fair to him it seemed as if his play groups liked to be challenged that way. He was not a model for aspiring Gamemasters, in my opinion, because very few role-players prefer that style, in my experience.

I'm not meaning for this to turn into a DND bashing thread. If I were to phrase it positively, it is that Yes-focused immersive storytelling is what has drawn me to Runequest.

Edited April 7, 2019 by klecser

[Bill the barbarian]

2 hours ago, klecser said:

1) This is a giving board. That is not lost on me. I've been on the internet since the early 90s and I've seen some awful, awful, awful stuff, as I'm sure many of you have. It's always refreshing to find a discussion space where people are willing to take tough questions seriously.

 

I was hoping when I gave you my answer way back when, that my faith in the maturity of both the games we play here and thus the  forums and their denizens centred around those games was founded in reality and thankfully it was. I am very aware of what you are saying. Having trod boards, BBSs, forums and 'nets since the 80s I have seen my fair share of flames and most have started on topics a lot less incendiary then this one. The worst I have seen here is nothing compared to elsewhere. Great game company, great fans and a great refuge from the ickiness of the web.

Cheers