The Next Glorantha Game

From: Chris Bell (remster@ns1.interport.net)
Date: Tue 14 Oct 1997 - 06:42:14 EEST


Well, everyone seems to be chiming in with this one, so I'll add my views.

In general, I agree that the new Glorantha system needs to be minimalist,
elegant, and culture/role play oriented. It also has to be acessible, and
whatever Gloranthan cultures are portrayed should be accesible to the
fantasy gaming audience at large, with heroic and adventurous themes
paramount. The classic Pavis setting should be resurrected, and extended
campaign packs detailing the goings in in Pavis, Prax, Esrolia/The Holy
Country and Dorastor should be the games initial 'core' offerings. I
would also love to see areas detailed that were only hinted at, yet were
only detailed in fanzines like TALES, such as Fonrit, the West, and
Pamaltela.

In regards to magic and how the game will play, we may see some tension
between the writings of Greg Stafford (KoS, GRoY, Entekosiad, etc.) and
what will appear in the actual game. I haven't read these works, so this
is a question that I pose to the Digest - how gameable are the settings?

I'd assume in some ways richly so, but I'm hoping any discrepancies can be
ironed out. Hell, they were able to adapt the Moorcock novels after 3 or
4 tries, so they should have no trouble with a game world they invented.

This brings me to another point. Glorantha is a gaming world, and has
it's roots in gaming. All of the fine cultural details of Glorantha may
be fine to study, and it may be a fine fictional setting in it's own
right, but in order to successfully game Glorantha, some times the
narrative may need to be sacrificed to a slight degree... For example, the
"Universality" of the Battle/Spirit Magic lists. Back in the 80's when I
played RQ heavily, PC's and NPC's never reffered to "Bladesharp 6" in
character. Rather, those spells were referred to with names like
"Orlanth's spell for the cutting wind" or "Humakt's cut", "Flame of Yelm's
Spear" (for Fireblade), and whatnot. Referring to spells by their game
names was considered very 'game-speaky' by my group. A compromise to the
generic magic question is simply to refer to generic spells with
local/cultic names.

My final point - I hope that Chaosium gets cracking. I'm not sure of
their monetary situation, or whatever the situation may be with Avalon
Hill, but I want to see a new Glorantha game, and soon! Glorantha is a
powerful, compelling game world, and White Wolf's work (as much as I may
have problems with some of their work, or some of their fans... I've
played HUGE amounts of White Wolf! Go, Mage!) in regards to encouraging
Mythic Storytelling is a direct outgrowth of the groundwork that was laid
by Chaosium and their products. The time is right, Chaosium, take that
money you're earning from MYTHOS, and bring back Glorantha!

I assume that despite their richly deserved success with the Mythos CCG,
the reason why their proposing the ISSARIES INC. venture is because they
don't have adequate capital to successfully produce and sell a new
Glorantha game. Does anyone have any info on this? As to the rules, does
anyone have any idea what the original agreement back in the 80's was
between AH and Chaosium? It burns me up that those *&^%@ actually have
the rights to a game I love! I keep telling myself that Glorantha is still
in the hands of Chaosium, but I have many good memories of RQ2. I really
hope to see a new Glorantha game in the next two years. If Chaosium tries
to market a new Glorantha game with BRP mechanics, will AH sue? Chaosium
already has two BRP-based games out on the market, NEPHILIM and ELRIC.

Thanks for listening,

Chris Bell
remster@interport.net

------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:28:52 EEST