GAG is tiranny

From: Gianfranco Geroldi <giangero_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:02:33 -0800 (PST)

Ian cooper:
> Howver tangentally I wanted to comment on this
>
> >GAG has the advantage of utility for other
> >campaigns.
>
> The real problem with GAG for me is one of how
> unfriendly it is to new recruits to Glorantha. While
> probing the newbies attitudes to Glorantha on
> rpg.net
> one strong response I encountered was that they were
> put-off the setting by the number and availability
> of
> unofficial sources that seemed to comprise 'GAG'.
> Many
> felt frustrated that their Gloranthan play was
> looked
> down on because they did not have access to those
> sources. For 'outsiders' GAG is something of a
> tyranny.
> So I am more in favour of YGMV and leaving II to
> canonize versions it likes in its supplements or by
> licencing.

Let me just add (?) this one:
I feel tyrannized by GAG and always felt so (ever since I read KOS first time, back in 1992). I like "YGMV" but I'd go first to
MGHV, to "my glorantha has varied" too.

It is important, IMO, that people abuse at least a bit of glorantha if they really want to play there.

Not just that they _plan_ to abuse it as YGMV suggests, but that they change a little in it asap.

Everytime I read something related to a glorantha description, I feel a bad voice in my head saying: how can you fit this good idea in your campaign? The only way, usually, is by distorting it, a little or a lot.

I don't play plain. It's boring.
Play chess if you like plain games :)

Ciao,
Gian

---

--__--__--