From: Alex Ferguson (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Thu 12 May 1994 - 19:34:18 EEST
John "Lithium" Hughes raves:
> Some serious issues again this week - Levels of Gloranthan 'Reality',
> Godlearners, Tricksters and polygamous marriage. Please excuse my
> subtext of slightly manic 'humour'. After all, I've just attempted to
> read and make sense of a full week's download of the initiation
> debate all at once!
Crash team! Resuss! Defib! Clear! <Zzzzzzzzzzap!!!!!!!!!>
Better now? ;-)
> Now perhaps I'm a cynic and of little faith, but I like to draw
> distinctions as to what 'level' I'm discussing. I see at least four
> fairly distinct and (IMHO) ultimately unreconcilable levels of
> Gloranthan 'reality'. If each is a 'map', let me list them in terms of
> smaller and smaller 'scales'.
I don't see why they are, in principle, irreconcilable, though I'm sure one could haul out examples of inconsistencies both between and within a "level" all day. I'm not sure a really see any particular progression in "scale", either: and isn't the fourth level the territory, not a map?
> GLORANTHA AS COMBAT-SIMULATION (COMBAT REALITY)
> GLORANTHA AS DERIVED FROM RQ RULES (RQ-DERIVED REALITY)
These two sound like much the same thing to me: not that all RQ is combat,
but that the only purpose of the distinction seems, to me, to be to
distingush between "good" RQ-as-simulation (touchy-feely scenarios), and
"bad" RQ-as-simulation (wicked hack-n-slash).
> GLORANTHA AS A LITERARY CREATION (LITERARY REALITY)
> KOS is the best example of this level.
A very vague category, and one which doesn't really even "catch" all of KoS, to my mind. I'm not quite sure if it's meant to cover all "storytelling" exercises, or if one gains entry to its hallowed halls by some crypto-value-judgemental step.
> GLORANTHA AS A CLOSED, FULLY-FUNCTIONING WORLD
> (GLORANTHAN REALITY)
The trouble with this level is that it isn't a means of description, as
such. While we may wish to aim at this, since we can't book a day return
there we have to grope our way towards it, by whatever means available,
be it game rules, fiction, myth-making, or the Daily-patented free-form
stream-of-consciousness ramblings we wallow in even as I (somewhat
painfully) type. A postmodernist delight, really.
"Hence the pantheon initiation rules are seen to desconstruct themselves."
> (Of course, cult writeups are GodLearner documents, and so should
> be treated with a healthy contempt).
Yeah. Which is why they tend to be so accurate. Certainly, you learn more about the Carmanian cult of Humakt from the Humakt writeup than you would by asking the worthies in an Esrolian Humakt temple. As an added bonus, it's also printable.
Of course, what should be realised is what they _don't_ tell you.
> I especially think it is
> unprofitable to vacillate in discussion between different levels.
Oh? I'm not clear what your objection is here. If you mean in "for public consumption" texts, such as published scenarios, fiction, etc, then I take your point: sequeing from (allegedly) high fantasy source material to a lot of stats or chatty-asides-to-the-reader, and things like that can be most annoying. But I see no harm in carrying out "parallel" discussions of rules, literature and whatever else here, if it's all to the same purpose.
> And make clear in your posts which level you are operating on.
If it isn't _a priori_ clear, is it a meaningful distinction in the first place? I think this is only worth belabouring if there would otherwise be a serious danger of confusion between conflicting expectations or understandings.
"Do keets talk like Donald, Daffy, or the mallard down the local pond? Only (RQ rules derived|Greg Approved|Literarily consistent|One True Glorantha) answers need apply."
> The cult and magic rules are especially fragile.
Joerg intervenes:
> This is "hinting" at Alex' and my discussion on initiation, isn't it?
It was? <doubletakes rubberneckedly>
Well, if a simulation fails to describe the details, in thermodynamics I have learned to apply modifications to the original function/rule to bend it to apply. The RQ rules are a fair basic tool for Gloranthan experiences, but as soon as you want to leave the immanent abstraction of the rules (e.g. for combat, but also for magic) you conflict with reality and playability.
> > Don't worry or complain if it breaks down at other levels, and
> > DON"T TRY TO CONSTRUCT ELABORATE RECONCILIATIONS.
Well, I don't think Glorantha needs to be "reconciled" to RQ, but I
see no problem with the converse.
> Here we disagree. I want to reduce the difference between the realities
> you postulate as far as possible. The simulation mechanics must not
> hamper the simulation, so they need fine tuning.
This is a fair attitude. On the other hand, despite my half-hearted "defence" of RQ3 in re initiation, and my use of RQ jargon in discussing it, I'm much more concerned with what the "Gloranthan truth" of the matter is, and not particularly with "fixing" the rules (or saving them from being fixed).
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:17 EEST