Danny Bourne:
>Just who says so? If X, or indeed myself, wants the 3rd age to end with an
>overarching empire (and let's face it, all people on the side of good and
>right want the Lunars to stuff up the Orlanthi good and proper), then why
>not let your PCs be the ones to do it. How? Spend lots of game years &
>eventually kill Harrek.
Well if you want to, go for it, I just don't see how this could be a challenge or done correctly. For the players to defeat Harrek, Harrek and all the other heroes have to be defined by a system that also defines the players whether that be RQ or not. The problem is that there is no such system, nothing has been done yet which truly shows the multi-faceted existance of a Gloranthan hero. Even Harrek is not just a guy with a big sword, there's a lot more too him than that and other heroes are even more complexly bound into the mythic structure.
As there is no system for simulating this then there can be no _correctly_ run and played campaign in such a setting because it will be unrealistc for the setting it is in. Hence pointless.
>all I'm trying to say is that its no longer Glorantha you're playing.
>I refer you to Greg's notes in the back of the Genertela book. Yes it IS
>Glorantha he's playing, it's HIS Glorantha. And you should be able to
>accept that his alternate vision is just as valid as yours and that it's
>not the type of campaign that you would want to play in. I wouldn't want to
>play in a campaign which is totally to do with mythic resonance, had no
>rules and meant that I never got to do any hack and slay. (Not that I'm
>implying that your campaigns are like that, it's just an example).
Well my campaigns are renowned for their peacfulness and general niceness in all regards, with no death, killing and certainly no brutality. That aside, sure its his Glorantha but its not a one which can be seen by the majority of GMs who run Glorantha and certainly not by a majority of Gloranthaphiles (whatever or whoever they are) as being an accepted part of the mythic debate which is really what the whole point of a Glorantha digest is - talking about a Glorantha that we can largely all agree with, with quibbles of course. Theres nothing wrong with tweaking but if you took the Mona Lisa and painted it completely red and urinated on it as an expression of your artistic soul - would it still be the Mona Lisa? I think not and thats the problem here.
>> Glorantha the pleasure of which comes from exploring
>>the _mythic_ and social implications of actions.
>For you it does, perhaps not for the players in his campaign.
Sure but I was objecting initially to the "100 points of Slash - two tablespoons of teleport and we'll have a nicely filleted Harrek inside of ten minutes - here's one I prepared earlier" argument. I said it couldn't work or Harrek would be long dead already. If it doesn't work for realisms sake then it shouldn't be presented as a viable argument in debate.
>>At that scale, the cause and effect knock-ons become overwhelming. Changing
>>a clans politics has much less impact except within the local area. It might
>>change history a little but it won't unravel the whole mythic and historical
>>weave that makes Glorantha so damn interesting.
>Nor will it in this case, because the events will only happen in his
>campaign, not everyone else's.
Okay but whats the point of talking about it on the digest? If its no longer a Glorantha that everyone could recognise then it doesn't belong on the digest. By all means come up with new details and works, thats great but make it something we can all use or some of us anyway rather than a GM saying "see what I did to Glorantha! My players love killing heroes!" It smacks of "Deities & Demigods" to me from the dark days of the other game (tm) and that is too horrible to think about.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail