Re: Theoretical vs Roleplay Glorantha

From: John Hughes <john.hughes_at_...>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:52:42 +1100


Like Donald, I do not draw a distinction between 'theoretical' and 'roleplay' Glorantha.

If I do sense a divide, it is between 'roleplay' and 'encyclopedist' Glorantha, especially those forms of encyclopedism expressed in their more literal and fundamentalist forms, those divorced from the active creative impulse of GMs and players ('encyclopedantry?').

For me, Glorantha has always been a roleplaying place, a making place, a set of genres and mythologics and locales that form a background to group creativity. In my earliest campaigns, Starbrow was a duck, humakti were samurai in greek leather miniskirts, there were no such things as surface Mostali and the Lunar Army was about 30% women. These days I know better, but that in no way detracts from the authenticity and sheer 'Gloranthaness' of those early campaigns. (If I was being bloody-minded, even today I might argue that Starbrow has the breath of a duck, that Humakti in Pavis still dress in greek mini skirts, there *should* be no such thing as surface Mostali and that the Lunar Army has a 'don't ask, don't tell' approach to gender.)

Glorantha is an ideal, not a place. There is no 'one true Glorantha'. There is no god's eye view of history, reality or mythic events. There is always room for alternatives and creativity.

YGWV. YGMV. The best Gloranthan documents and histories are like myths: they define and delineate certain things, and with equal power they stop you looking at others. They are 'good to think', and they also distract you away from what is 'bad' to be thunk. They have ambiguities and biases and uncertainties and plain old lies that you can march a battalion of female duck Lunar hueymakts in leather armour through. They invite you to co-create, not look up an obscure out-of-print publication or a database.

Glorantha has certainly grown in both scope and complexity over the years, and heavens, I've done my share of adding to the complexity. Like any sprawling, multi-part creation, some parts work better than others. Parts are being tinkered with, expanded and discarded. In this sense also, Glorantha is a cultural artefact, reflecting changing cultural notions of heroism, masculinity, femininity, entertainment, roleplaying engagement and ideology. These are secondary, but there is one impulse that is absolutely crucial to Glorantha being what it is: the mythic impulse. Glorantha is about myth: a myth about myth. And the power of myth is seldom if ever literal.

I love Glorantha with a passion, but must admit to being personally pretty indifferent to the expanding catalogue of places and powers. As a place in itself, I see Glorantha as a fairly conservative fantasy setting. But in terms of the mythic impulse, Glorantha is an instrument of great insight and power and pleasure.

Of course we need background: roleplayers love detail. But if every creative act is accompanied by a furtive look over one's shoulder, if you can't plan a session without worrying about what paragraph 7 of 'Dumps From Darkness' (1987, 200 copies printed) says about the warrior duck miniskirt humakti of Pavis, then something is going very wrong.

Fundamentalist encyclopedantry misunderstands the mythic nature of Glorantha as a background to our games. It is also unable to deal with the subtleties of genre: exaggeration, distortion, humour and mimesis that form such a large part of roleplaying's attractiveness.

But I've rabbitted on about this before. There are a few rants on Questlines,

Do Ducks Have Teeth? On Exploring Glorantha - Some Tools for the Fantasy Ethnographer and Adventurer: http://mythologic.info/questlines/ducksteeth.html

Campaign Myth-Management: http://mythologic.info/questlines/mythmanage.html

and

What the Arkati Trickster Shaman Taught Me: http://mythologic.info/questlines/trickster.html

Read carefully. You be tested for correctness and retention of true facts. :)

  1. Relativism is an Absolute: there can be no certainties. There are at least four and a half correct explanations for anything. Everything you believe is only a prelude to initiation into gnosis. Arkat made but half the journey. Only baboons know the truth, and only Lunars are aware of this. Godlearner documents are memic land mines. Epistemology and ontology consciously arise only when cultures clash (and twice on Godsdays). Choose your errors consciously and wisely. Mythos is logos. Praxis before doxis.
  2. Cultivate Wonder: Mystery is a value in itself. Not knowing is a path to liberation. Enjoy the magical, the mythical, the mystical. Surprise yourself at least once per session.
  3. Your created world is itself a myth; fluid, open to many interpretations, semiotically charged and awash with possibility. Get in there and start hacking your own memes. Never be afraid to kiss the trickster.

Heavens, a Sunday rant. And its only Friday. :)

Cheers

John


John Hughes
Publications Editor
Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research College of Arts and Social Sciences
Hanna Neumann Building #21
The Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200 Australia

T: +61 2 6125 0649
F: +61 2 6125 9730
W: www.anu.edu.au/caepr

CRICOS Provider #00120C



The CAEPR website has a large and growing electronic library of publications available
for free download, including Discussion Papers, Working Papers, Monographs and Topical Issues.

Powered by hypermail