Date: Sun 19 May 1996 - 16:36:16 EEST

G'day all,


Steve Lieb asks:

>What are the macro-Gloranthan decisions people have made? I mean, you can't
>even lurk here for long without forming opinions on the major thematic
>issues of Glorantha, imo.

>Frex: Lunar Empire - good or bad?
Is the United States of America, another self-righteous superpower,
good or bad? Like the good old USA, the Lunar Empire's starry-eyed idealism
is sometimes not matched by those in power, and is sometimes shamelessly
exploited by them. But, both are one of the better places one could live
on the planet/lozenge.

>Arkat - immortal saviour, opportunistic evil sadist, or something
Chairman Mao/Fidel Castro/Colonel Qaddifi - immortal saviour, opportunistic
evil sadist, or something in-between? Depends who you talk to. I found
the Arkat story as presented in the original Cults of Terror a great yarn.
It was written the (no longer in fashion) 'outside-Glorantha' style,
which still gives it a compelling, authoritative feel. I'm sure there
are places on the lozenge where this is absolute canon, and other places
where it is monstrous lies. The truth, yes, lies somewhere in-between.

>Nysalor - Gbaji - which was it, really?
Again, like Arkat above, depends who you talk to. History is written
by the victors [and the losers - in victory, revenge; in defeat, malice]

>"Western" religion vs more mainstream Deistic practices?
Neither are patently false because, in Glorantha; we know this because both
*work* in a palpable sense. Now that we have got past the sorcery rules
as presented in RQ3 and given the system a societal context, the West
has become one of my favourite places.

Hosed by a Trollkin

Steve Barnes on Lewis's BODGERS:

>If I am interpreting things correctly, in your system, there is a minute
>chance that a high-level character will get hosed by a trollkin
>open-ending a couple times. In my opinion, this type of varience
>does not really help role-playing. It results in characters dying
>during trivial battles, rather than during the climactic battle you
>have spent weeks building up to.

Aw shit, as I said a few weeks ago...
>One of things that attracted me to RQ in the first place, way back then,
>was that even a very powerful character could be slain by that lucky
>arrow, that lucky sword stroke. It heightens the risk, the danger, the
>excitement in any combat, in a way That Other Game(tm) that everyone was
>playing at the time couldn't, and still can't...[references to "velvet-caped
>tossers deleted]
...however, as this provoked a veritable *onslaught* of vitriolic responses
I'll leave off right here.

Steve B:
>Agreed that long combats tend to get boring though. I am toying with
>using an improvised system myself. But given that the people I play
>with have rules-fetishes, I will probably be making secret dice rolls
>(and ignoring the results) to keep them fooled.

Okay, well you've just answered yourself on how you can stop that
gormless trollkin offing your beefy PCs...



P.S. What does "gormless" actually mean [other than 'without gorm']?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:31:33 EEST