julianlord wrote:
>
>
> L C :
>
> > OK, so that answers one of the questions I was holding off of.
> >
> > The decision has been made that each World of magic will have its own
> > rules and the world trumps cultural differences.
>
> I think you are seeking to reconcile two different approaches
> (game/world) and several different points of view.
>
Possibly. I'm open to many interpretations.
>
> As far as HeroQuest is concerned, I'm sure the decision has been made
> to produce a playable and easy-to-understand set of rules for the
> game. These will mirror and illustrate the world from a gaming point
> of view, but the world will be defined by them only as from within
> that point of view.
>
That could be. As I've said, I'd love for the people actually making
these decisions to say what the thought process behind the decisions
are. This is a fine assumption, but everything else said here has also
been an assumption. Until someone says something, we have assumptions.
>
> As far as Glorantha is concerned, I don't think there's too much of a
> meaningful distinction between how magic is done from a cultural point
> of view and from a N Worlds point of view -- the methods, focus, and
> effects of magic will be divergent in exactly the same way whether
> they are ultimately cultural differences or ultimately World of origin
> differences. One of the clearest points of Mysticism is that all of
> these cultural/World differences can be seen as irrelevant from the
> mystic's point of view.
>
And that's a thought to. And game decisions could be done based on that.
Or not. We don't know, do we?
>
> The game/world design provides a ternary essence/spirit/god structure
> for several reasons on several levels, some of which gaming some of
> which literary some of which philosophical some of which rhetorical,
> but we have examples of magic not fitting into that structure (dragon
> magic), or belonging to all structures simultaneously for whichever
> reason (Urox/Storm Bull), or not belonging to it at all (Mysticism).
>
Really? That would be nice to know. What are these levels? Will someone
choose to explain them? That would be nice.
>
> The game provides a simple means of approaching this structure in a
> basically non-problematic manner, so that playing the game is
> supported more than the philosophical/ontological discussions.
>
That seems a reasonable way to approach it. It would make sense as a
possibility, maybe we will know for sure one day.
>
>
> The literary/philosophical/ontological methods of trying to understand
> what makes Glorantha tick are not really limited nor defined by nor
> restricted to these gaming purposes ; and I think that some of the
> confusion in this thread is that some suggestions are trying to
> conflate world discussion and game discussion. But if you like, the
> game rules could be seen as a kind of 4th World approach to Glorantha,
> having its own limitations and restrictions, just as the 3 Worlds do,
> and metaphorically functioning in a similar manner to the magic
> systems do from each specific point of view.
>
You're right. We are trying to figure out what decisions were made for
game reasons, which reflect Glorantha, where they intersect, and why
specific game decisions were made in light of these things. It's
actually a trivial question to answer for the people on the inside.
LC