I'm seeing two mutually contradictory propositions getting violent agreement in the forums:
and
2. "HQ models Glorantha better than RQ".
Pick one.
If the rules of any system model Glorantha to any extent, then rules matter. If #2 is a reasonable proposition, then rules are a legitimate source of information about the lozenge, no different than any other public source.
If, in contrast, the rules don't tell us anything about Glorantha, then one set of rules is as good as another at modeling the world. The only reason to prefer one or another is the style of gameplay it affords.
I have some sympathy with proposition #2 because I think fantasy nonfiction, like regular nonfiction, can benefit from regular doses of expert input and logical analysis, and rulebooks tend to get more of that--like the gallows, they can wonderfully concentrate the mind. The HQ rulebook in particular seems to have been gone over not just by Greg, but by a bunch of helpers, some seemingly Glorantha experts, and others readers for clarity, consistency, and completeness.
On the other hand, I think folks in my game group (especially the narrators) lean toward proposition #1, so in practice that's what I follow. It helps that my narrators have plenty of access to obscure publications and plenty of patience spelunking around in them, so they don't have to rely on the rules as much as I do when narrating.
Powered by hypermail