I can't keep from help flogging the dead horse...
Peter Metcalfe:
>This premise is perfectly fine by me. But the God Learners had something
>else which wasn't objective history and they called it the monomyth.
However, the GL monomyth is the _closest thing_ to an "objective history/mythology" that we do have. The GLs were destroyed partly because they were too close to the "truth".
Armour appearance:
Simon Phipp (I think):
> It is irrelevant to me what kind of armour they wear - does it matter from a
> gaming point of view what armour looks like? If I was wearing bronze plate
James Frusetta:
>Yah, I agree with you it doesn't usually make much of a dif, but
>differentiating this kind of stuff can be fun.
I'd say it matters a lot to me. I'm a visually oriented person. I like to know exactly what people in my game world look like. I know my own characters' looks down to their scars and dressing habits. So in every game I'm in I always bug everybody else for long-winded descriptions of their characters and the NPCs :-)
Philosophy:
Martin Crim:
>What I'd like to dispense with is Occam's Razor
...
>Like all axioms, Ocam's Razor is non-disprovable, but
>it'd be fun to imagine a world in which the great minds never had such a
>small notion, and instead had axioms like one of the following:
<snip>
Cool thought, but Occam's razor also has the advantage
(in my mind, I'm no lunar illuminate) of helping you
preserve some sanity in the face of multiplicity. I'd guess people
would think along the same lines in Glorantha. That is in practice.
What they say in theory is quite
different of course.
__________________________________________________________ Nils Weinander | Everything is dust in the wind Home: nilsw_at_ibm.net |
Powered by hypermail