> Ahoy-hoy all,
>
> On 04/02/2008, Lev Lafayette
> <lev_lafayette_at_...> wrote:
> > --- David Cake <dave_at_...> wrote:
> > > At 7:27 PM +1100 30/1/08, John Hughes wrote:
> > > > Glorantha has much more of a narrativist
> flavour,
> > > > though campaigns can
> > > > take on a variety of different hues.
> > >
> > > Glorantha really is traditionally simulationist.
> >
> > Hear! Hear! Indeed mythic simulationist. One can
> > certainly engage in narrativist play in Glorantha,
> but
> > it will (almost) inevitably constrained by the
> > pre-existing simulationist background, setting and
> > history. (Unless one takes a YGWV to such an
> extreme
> > that it is barely recognised as Glorantha).
>
> This is a pretty mystifying statement to me.
> Am I to take it that if I dislike the POW mechanic
> and stop using it
> my games I am attacking the very substance of
> Glorantha?
No, you misunderstand me. Simulationism does not just refer to game mechanics, although that is how much of it is expressed. It can also refer a great deal to the setting. For example, it is normal fantasy simulation not to have electro-laser rifles commonly available. Glorantha does have some strong setting simulation elements, such as the widespread belief in the flat world, cycles of myth and time, even the runes themselves as symbols with manifest effects.
In a strongly narrativist game, these elements are largely missing. Whether or not a particular story element, plot device or setting feature is absent or present is more a case of what the players decide.
HTH, Lev
Powered by hypermail