I agree. There are some lines of consistent vision that are helpful, and useful.
>
> <Warning: Pompus exposition ahead>
>
*dons pomposity helmet* <--- this looks awesome, by the way. Very majestic.
> You are right here, for the most part. I am not saying that published
> sources - or fan publications - be ignored. I am recommending that
> they be taken for what they are - contributions by creative people to
> a collective body of work. Sometimes these creations conflict with
> what came before or are superseded by later publications. That's just
> the nature of the beast.
>
Indeed. Absolutely. Look, there have been numerous "reboots" of
Glorantha already. I have no problem with that.
But MRQ and Issaries have the weight of publishing to act as weights
that people can center around for the reasons given above.
That's cool. The question is how that happens.
>
>
> What I want to avoid are compulsive attempts to define what Glorantha
> *is* as if it were something objectively real that we are attempting
> to discover. It is an issue for me because I think on some level that
> is exactly what I was trying to do for a long while.
>
<snips some stuff about hampering creativity I agree with>
I like the "rotating around the invisible weight" idea, I think it's true. I'm more than happy to vary my glorantha when I play - some due to different interpretations of the world (I'm distinctly pro-lunar, for example.) and others due to the rules. I do think that a given reboot of the world should try to be fairly consistent, though.
LC
Powered by hypermail