> wrote:
>
> > The assumption has been to use analogues, not always with success
> > (especially the Egyptian motif of the Holy Country)
>
> It's understandable how this got started, of course, when the ruler of the
> united Holy Country was called the Pharoah (sic).
>
Yes, another developmental artifact. I was searching for a single word for the god king, and chose a confusing term.
>
> The use of analogues as starting points for visualization is completely
> defensible, I think; it's easier to find reference books, historiucal
> miniatures, and other roleplaying aids that portray real world cultures and
> customs than it is finding accurate representations of third-age
> Gloranthans. Even now, such representations are scarce as cockatrice teeth,
> though Jeff promises untold wealth in the future.
>
I will go Jeff one better and announce that I have signed a contract with Armorcast to take over the old L&L line, and to add to it too.
> I encourage new explorations of Glorantha, as an ideal. I'm happy to see
> that Greg's vision of Glorantha is coming closer and closer to reality.
> Practically, however, if I'd spent years amassing miniatures, from the King
> of Sartar himself on down to the lowliest stickpicker, from the highest
> Satrap to the lowliest Pelandan peasant, I'd probably use those rather than
> rush out and spend thousands of dollars acquiring proper Gloranthan minis,
> and countless hours painting easch fold of clothing and each tiny runic
> embroidery. That's just my opinion; I wouldn't be offended if others chose
> to do so. My point is that if people feel that the analogues serve them
> well enough, they shouldn't be discouraged from doing so. For years, the
> analogues were all we had. Our Gloranthas, after all, do vary.
>
Yes.
--
Greg Stafford
Game Designer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail