From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk
Date: Wed 25 May 1994 - 01:26:36 EEST
> Devin Cutler here again:
> "and not necessarily the players, either. Should the GMly
> public be given a nice, simple, set-in-concrete wind-up Glorantha, with
> no need, or scope, for significant creative or editorly input? Many GMs
> would, and indeed already have, complained about this."
> Why do I need to be creative about the rules? Why do I need to be creative
> about cults even? I prefer to concentrate my creativity on scenarios and the
> role-playing session.
The trouble with a One True Glorantha is that many people may not like it. If there is inconsistency, it may annoy some people, but if Glorantha was a rigid orthodoxy, then anyone who happened to dislike it would be considerably more disadvantaged. You may not like the Elmal/Yelmalio schism, but at least the currently espoused attitude makes it relatively painless to ignore.
> "How many
> people who write, or post, about Glorantha aren't also players (or refs)
> of the game?"
> I wonder that myself sometimes, given the level of unconsideration to gaming
> issues on this Daily. Perhaps an informal poll is in order?
I think most of what goes on here has gaming implications, though not, perhaps, direct gaming application. As a "hardware zine", the Daily leaves much to be desired, I suppose. (I'm a player, and more recently ref., though currently inactive, if the poll starts here.)
> > The gamers tend to focus on the game mechanics.
> > [...] We simply put entertainment value first and foremost.
> "Games mechanics as entertainment? Whatever turns you on, I suppose. The
> whole "entertainment" line of thought seems to be very much a matter of
> personal taste."
> Are you a journalism major? You have misquoted me.
Indeed I have not. Perhaps you wish to claim that I have quoted you without due context, but the above two, complete sentences were quoted intact, and I'd be rather offended if it were seriously suggested that I'd done otherwise.
> In my quote above, I never
> directly equated game mechanics with entertainment.
Did I say you did? I simply quoted two things which you stated as being true of Gamers, and inferred that you were suggesting them to be corrolated in some unspecified way.
> That ellipse you inserted
> represents words separating the two concepts, which are in completely
> different sentences.
The ellipses represent two sentences, which separated the two concepts merely textually. I don't see what your objection is, unless you think I should quote you only by the whole paragraph, or if you perhaps require a less subtle convention than bracketed ellipses to indicate deletions.
For the record, the vital two sentences are:
> They enjoy Glorantha for the
> most part, but only as a vehicle in which to enjoy role playing games. Not
> all gamers (I include myself here) are hack and slashers.
i.e., seemingly miscellenous assertions about Gamers, which don't appear to me to qualify either of the two originally quoted sentences in any way which would seriously misrepresent their meaning when quoted thusly.
> "Leaving aside whether this is yet Holy Writ, how exactly would this fact
> involve itself in the scenario, and how would the players ever discover
> that said fact was false? "
> If I can figure out a way to explain the particular scenario (it was a
> practice run heroquest) without divulging info to my players, I will do so if
> interest is there. Suffice to say that certain parts of the scenario woud be
> implausible were Kolat to be a godlearner construct.
Heroquest does not unnecessarily distinguish between GL constructs and other entities, and I can't in fact think of any way it would, unless the HQer had other information which would indicate this. This goes double for a practice HQ, where interaction with the Godplane is limited.
> I can give another example, however. What if I had set up an ancient ruined
> temple to Kolat that was supposedly sacked in the First Age (before the God
> Learners). Voila! Despite any rationalizations that it only matters what PC's
> believe, etc, my scenario is screwed.
Given that Kolat appears to be worshipped shamanically, not theistically, that'd be an unlikely occurrence. And if such did exist, determining which Age it was built in would require rather a lot of archeological expertise on the part of the characters, I think.
> No amount of Heroquesting is going to retroactively
> create a First Age Temple for a god created in a later age.
Au contraire.
> "I'm not wild about comparisons which stress the alleged differences in the
> nature of religion and deity between Glorantha and Earth. Particularly the
> ones on the lines of "Earthly religions are mere ad hoc superstition,
> Gloranthan ones are based on Obvious True Facts." "
> Does this mean you see no difference between real life religions and
> Gloranthan religions!?
I'm suggesting the difference is commonly exaggerated.
> Also, I was careful not to state that Earthly religions are superstitions or
> untrue. Again, you are assuming an intent that I never made.
You're asserting an assumption I didn't indulge in.
> What's wrong with making something up from scratch?
Because it's impossible, for one thing. And if you tried, it'd look correspondingly artificial.
> Do you really mean to say
> that anything that is not originated from a Terran analogue is unworthy for
> inclusion?
No. That's why I didn't.
> Um...if Glorantha is not a vehicle to play RQ in, then what exactly is it?
> Maybe this is what our difference boils down to.
At the very least, somewhere to play Pendragon Pass, Glorantha: the Game, the 3 (well, two and a bit) boardgames, and yes, somewhere to read, and write, and argue about.
> "Why, if we "dry scholars" are so irrelevant to good gaming, not just
> ignore these Dangerous Revisions, and play in _your_ (RuneQuest-friendly)
> Glorantha?"
> Because I would like to see my RQ-friendly Glorantha grow and thrive along
> with the RQ game. Unfortunately for the Scholars, this requires new blood.
> New people who are not going to be completely put off and intimidated by the
> game and its practitioners.
I think what we have is a squabble among the cogniscenti, which is not even going to be particularly _visible_ to newcomers, much less a deterent to taking up the game. Given the stagnation of the player base, the last thing we need is to have one particular view imposed on it, which would do far more to alienate those existing players whose existing diversity is thereby hosed.
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:34 EEST