The return of the Subjective vs. Objective debate from Meints, Richard (R.J.) on 2001-05-03 (HeroQuest RPG)

From: Meints, Richard (R.J.) <"Meints,>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 05:38:21 -0400

Ah, yet again one of my all time favorite debates has emerged from its lair.

Do we want our Gloranthan information presented to us as FACTS (Objective) or OPINIONS (Subjective)?

GA Martin he say:

"I don't mind the game world having multiple and
contradictory information, but it annoys me when a bunch of contradictory stories become your ONLY information."

Graham Robinson he say:

"By having no one great truth, you are free to create
your own world and engage your own imagination. Embrace the vagueness!"

To me, that's like saying I couldn't be very free to write an alternate history to WW2 because I know the truth of the outcome.

What I say:

This debate will never be fully won by either side. Personally I prefer having a lot of objective information available somewhere, but not in every book. I'd be very happy with a 64 page book entitled "The real history of Glorantha". It would not be a translation of a gloranthan scholar's work done by Greg, but an actual history done in the same vein as an encyclopedia. Many people would absolutely recoil in disgust or terror at the idea, because they love not having "the truth" to contend with and love the ambiguity of it all, but I wouldn't be one of them.

The chances of Greg writing the book are about 0.00% I would imagine.

To me, Roleplaying is about having your PC do things that you don't do in your real life. People in our world can't physically leap over mountains, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying it when my character does. It's pretty safe to say that Elvis is dead, but I enjoy the speculation that he may not be. Knowing that there really is no Invisible God would not stop me from running a campaign in the West. Knowing that the Pharoah is actually John Carter, warlord of Mars wouldn't ruin the Pharaoh for me, nor make me abandon the Holy Country as a viable campaign region, just because the origins of the pharoah aren't vague any more.

One good thing about subjective Glorantha is that, since nothing is written is stone, it's easy to revise history as we continue to "discover" glorantha. It also makes it a pain as we keep throwing out "old opinions" we thought were "facts" for "new opinions" that many people assume are "facts", or at least wish they were.

That's my 22 cents.

Rick Meints