Re: Cradles; Sergio on Elder Races (yawn)

From: Sergio Mascarenhas (sermasalmeida@mail.telepac.pt)
Date: Wed 21 Jan 1998 - 16:35:42 EET


Nick Brooke:
>> The problem is that the way Gloranthan elder races are described
>> these days, makes them unsuited to be acceptable 'player-character
>> species'. So you get in the same situation prevalent in '*other*
>> FRP games on the market' where most of the non-human races are
>> simply NPC cannon-foder for PCs.
>
>You'd rather have them be PCs, with human motivations, biology, etc.?

No I'd rather have non-human races *PCs* with non-human motivations,
non-human biology, etc., but which don't include necessarily a complete
unability to live along with humans. Unless it has some cultural and

logical explanation. I fully accept that it his very difficult for a troll
to go by with an elf or dwarf (and vice-versa). There are very strong
historical and cultural reasons for it.

>Once again, Sergio, you really can't have your cake and eat it. Either
>ask for "more human-like" Elder Races, or else complain that they are
>"too human-like", but don't do both at once. It looks peculiar.

I'm not asking for "more human-like" Elder Races, I'm asking for "less
Alien(the movie)-like" Elder Races.

> Trolls are *ideal* player characters, and I know I'm not the only
> person here to have run a Troll game with great enjoyment all round.
> Rootless elves likewise, and the hilarity value of a "broken" dwarf
> is easy to see: look at the "Elder Secrets" dwarf scenario-sequence.

The way you expose your argument is very interesting: You can play
(unqualified) troll PCs in an all-troll setting; you can play *Rootless*
elves (can I conclude that non-ruthless elves are unsuited for PCs?); and

you seem to think that dwarfs - if "broken" - can be played in a mixed
party provided you integrate them in the party because of their *hilarity
value*. Do I spot here a value scale?

Anyway, you think trolls and elves (and sometimes dwarfs) can be played by
themselves, just like humans. If they can be playded by themselves, they
certainly can be played together without maquing them clones of each-other.

> The great thing about the Gloranthan Elder Races is their uniqueness:
> they can fit into the world *because* they're a part of it [skip]. I
would
> rather have Glorantha with all its originality -- even the f***ing Ducks
- --
> than fall back on stock High Fantasy cliches [skip].

We mostly agree on this. Mostly:
- - I love Dragonewts and, yes, I think they are unsuited for PCs and that
it's better to keep them that way.
- - I love trolls and IMG trolls are not the mindless brutes they apear to be
at a first glance.
- - On elves, I din't settle my mind yet. But I don't buy most of what has
been written about them.
- - The World Machine Dwarfs, IMO, are not silly: they are completely silly.
Sorry, I just hate the whole concept.
- - Ducks... You already know what I think about ducks.
- - On the rest, there are things I live, things I don't, and things I don't
care about.
(Notice that the phantom of *High Fantasy cliches* is yours: I never played
ADD or Tolkien-based games.)

>> Making elder races behave in silly ways (and IMO this is what most
>> recent materials about dwarfs, trolls and elves achieve)...
>
> Oooooohhhh! Gosh, there's a fearless and outspoken chap.

Maybe I'm a troll after all...

> Let's all listen to his account of things: it'll be *so* much better than
> this silly little game we've all been playing for far too long... :-)

No comments.

>> Different species can live side by side very well if they can
>> build a viable common ecosystem....
>
> Such as? Well, luckily, Sergio has some examples for us:

[skip the demonstration that my examples could perfectly be applied in
Glorantha]

I'm well aware that there places in Glorantha where humans and non-humans
co-exist. The question is not where, is how. Do they always war each other,
or is there place for cooperation and pacific interaction? You're right,
there are places in Glorantha where both things happen (even if the former
is dominant and the latter is marginal). But you miss your point here: I
was reacting to messages to GD that supported the first option. My point is
that it is more interesting to support the second possibility. Of course,
things can change and be different at different times and in different
places.

> If you don't have any recent RQ supplements [skip] it looks foolish
> to denounce all their contents as "silly".

a) I do have most of the AH published supplements.
b) I didn't denounce *all* their contents as "silly", only some. There are
plenty of things I use and are very good.

After all, Nick, it wasn't me that wrote:
- - That trolls are like head-bangers (remenber the discussion about troll
music?)

- - About the *hilarity value of a "broken" dwarf*
- - About the *the f***ing Ducks*
- - About heavily RW-human-based sexuality for trolls
- - About trolls eating what-ever-you-like *'a l'orange*

and other very, very human inspired cliches... :-)

Sergio

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

End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #346
***********************************

To unsubscribe from the Glorantha Digest, send an "unsubscribe"
command to glorantha-digest-request@chaosium.com. Glorantha is a
Trademark of Issaries Inc. With the exception of previously
copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this
digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to
copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to
archive unchanged for electronic retrieval.

WWW at http://rider.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 22:55:51 EEST