Its a genre thing - you pick the genre of your session or campaign - be it slapstick broobash, pratchetish comedy, epic drama, mythic heroquest, rambo-ish rant or Sophoclean tragedy (which may also be a broobash) - and deemphasise or ignore what's not appropriate in the sources. That's why Glorantha is a myth rather than a collection of facts to be picked over - its a place to build with your players.
Trotsky puts it better than I could:
> Yup. A good thing too; that sort of humour has always been an
integral
> part of Glorantha's appeal, IMO (and you can easily ignore it if it isn't
an
> integral part of yours). This is something that hasn't so much had the
chance
> to come out in HW publications so far...
My few deliberate attempts at humour in TR - a paranoia rant about not trusting fourways/other tribes/other clans/dodgy folk in your own bloodline - and a couple of stray laws about ducks in pot, denying Uroxi beer and going berserk at the hearth - were all cut from the final, and I support the editors completely in this. But we do certainly do need humour and balance. And underneath the puns, silly names, outlandish NCs, trollkin and stoopid broo there's always the serious, tragic, dramatic core of ducks and baboons. Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness.
John
nysalor_at_... John Hughes
Natural selection saw to it that professional heroes who at a crucial moment tended to ask themselves questions like "What is my purpose in life?" very quickly lacked both. -Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times.
Powered by hypermail