From: Colin Watson (watson@computing-science.aberdeen.ac.uk)
Date: Fri 15 Oct 1993 - 14:01:09 EET
I rashly said:
[Colin picks up his shovel and prepares to dig a big hole for himself...]
"IMHO RQ GMs are *meant* to be God Learners. It seems reasonable to me
for GMs to seek a coherent theory to rationalise the nature of magic etc in
their campaigns. It really helps to have a framework to base ideas on, and
I think that the rules should provide one. Obviously the characters shouldn't> know how the framework operates (or even that it exists) but I think the GM
is entitled to know."
Clay Luther replied:
>Well, I have to disagree, rather strongly even. As a Glorantha GM, I make every
>attempt to NOT think like a God Learner, or to notify myself in strong terms
>when I do (or need to). I practice a sort of self-induced confusion (perhaps
>GMing Trance) before entering a Glorantha game specifically so that my
>scientific/God Learner instincts are submerged beneath my Myth Bearer
>personality.
>GMs are not God Learners.
>Munchkins, Anal Retentives, and Power Gamers are God Learners.
Ouch.
Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have used such an emotive term as "God Learner".
After all, it is a game concept and can only really be applied to characters,
not players (or do you think that this distinction does not apply?).
My point is just this: a GM has to cover many viewpoints about the way
that the world works. The three main explanations are personified by
Shamans, Priests & Sorcerers but it's likely that there are many points in
between and on either side of these main views. If you strictly categorise
magic into these three types then, fine. But if you want to have some idea
of what other "in-between" branches of magic might be like you have to have
an insight into how the whole business meshes together IMHO. If a *character*
grasped the concept of this global view, and exploited it, then I guess he
would be a God Learner. It's possible that some NPCs might be like this. But
even if there are *no* God Learning characters as such, I think the GM still
needs the global view in order to smoothly explain the nuances between
different viewpoints.
As a crude example, I'll create some "in-between" views (apologies for the
unimaginitive naming conventions) like so:
Divine Magic <-> Divine-Sorcery <-> Sorcerous-Divinity <-> Sorcery
Now, it's fair enough to say that pure Divine Magicians (Priests) and pure Sorcerers don't need to understand how each others' magic works, therefore we don't have to rationalise them for the PCs. But I think that Priests could relate to Divine-Sorcery (eg Lunar "sorcerers"?), and that pure Sorcerers would have an understanding of Sorcerous-Divinity (eg Arkat worship?). Similarly I think the difference between Divine-Sorcery & Sorcerous-Divinity would be comprehensible to respective parties. So, although the GM doesn't have to rationalise Divine Magic & Sorcery directly, he *does* have to be able to explain the nuances of the "in-between" magics from a character's point of view. Therefore he needs to have a global view which (maybe) no individual character would have.
This is a rather simplistic example I've presented. I imagine that there are magics beyond sorcery (tending toward heretical technology) and also beyond Spirit Magic (heading who knows where? One-ness beyond Glorantha perhaps?) and also in many other different directions (Dragon Magic, Jelmre Magic etc.). Obviously Spirit Cults lie somewhere between pure Shamanism and Divine Magic.
Hopefully you see why I think its helpful for the GM to have an overall view of how Magic/Spirits/Gods work. Even if it's just to answer basic questions like "What's the difference between a Big Spirit and a God".
NB. What I do NOT want to encourage are shaman/priest/sorcerer triple-combo characters or other silliness (which would be utterly, utterly gross).
[Colin sets down his shovel, wipes his brow, and prays to Glorantha that he has succesfully dug himself out of this damned hole...:-)]
___
CW.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:31:55 EEST