> 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?').
Mmmm... my own divide is between *my* Glorantha(s) and GaG. If what I'm creating is for limited use: me, my players, my GM, then I'm happy to vary, invent, experiment, and so on. If what I'm creating is intended for more general use, then it needs to *be* of use, and it can't be of use if it clashes with what people are likely to already be using, or to close doors on things they might want to do.
But, but....
> 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.
Only because the look is furtive. So I want to know about the Humakti ducks of Pavis. (I did, a while back). I go and look up all the sources I can find. If there's an obscure footnote at the bottom of Howard the Pickled Onion, fine. (Before you go and look it up - there isn't). All is grist to the mill. And for the purposes of my own game, I'll try to stick to the main themes I find, but otherwise I'll pick and choose, grab the concepts that make me go "wow!" or "oh, so that's why...". So far I haven't needed to know what they're wearing, but if you tell me it's leather mini-skirts, I don't have a problem with that.
But if I'm creating something for more general use, whether that's a factual writeup or a story that I just *know* some people are going to use as if it were definitive, I'll try to make sure I don't contradict *anything*. Now, this is where life gets to be FUN. Because you're not arguing over which source is more reliable. You're accepting ALL of them, no matter how contradictory, and coming up with explanations. OK, so I don't always get a complete success, but the extra stories you can find along the way are well worth it. I'm still waiting to find out what lies behind the business of Kallyr being a duck, but I'm sure it's going to be interesting. And, somehow, I do need to include it.
But in *my* Gloranthas - well, someone (Rob?) once asked if it was possible that Kallyr, Minaryth, and co are actually Lunar double agents. The various lists agreed that this was silly and impossible. I took it as a dare. And no, I am not AFAIK contradicting any sources (yet). In one of my Gloranthas, there's probably a new river running through Caravan Alley (we haven't been to look yet). MGDV. GaG is another matter.
Powered by hypermail