Me>> . . . Indian Cooking (sans
>>the chili peppers of the Fire Elves) will be found in Fonrit.
>Why Fonrit, which is a North Africa analogue, instead of Teshnos, an
>India analogue?
D'oh! [smacks forehead]
Teshnos, being the land of fire, would have the chilis and curries (as opposed to the weaker spices of Fonrit).
Generally I can't find much about the cultures of the Barbary Coast and Timbuctu for the North African parallel to be informative about Fonrit. I have far better luck in using cultures like the Ottomans and the Mughals in describing Fonrit and the latter culture is what lead me to assume _some_ Indian elements in Fonrit.
Martin Dick:
>I am well aware that having an objective framework to
>handle mythic conflicts is a different question to whether
>myths have an objective base.
There must be manifest confusion indeed for I was responding the person who wrote:
::My reading of the objectivist camp and i could be wrong, is that in ::campaigns where there is a clash of cultures you really need some ::way of determining the results (and possibly even the victor) of ::that clash.
Which implies that the 'subjectivists' have been arguing that roolz should under no circumstances whatsoever be used for resolving mythic conflicts. Which must come as a complete suprise to many. Now I don't know about you, but I tend to get quite tired when in an increasingly long and tedious debate, someone lackadaisically implies that I believe in something that is Manifest Shite.
>I was replying to the Original
>Martin's rant and rave about how anyone could possibly want
>to have objective myths in their game when his view of how
>myth in Glorantha worked was so much better.
I fail to see how you can find a relation between Martin L's argument and the issue of needing rules for resolving mythic conflicts. Surely in the world of objective myth, the very existance of the myth nullifies any need for roolz? (he says using the Martin Dick style of argumentation).
>To my mind, the latter scenario where we have Lunars Hqing
>to control Oakfed as the rebellious/lost son of Lodril and
>praxian Shaman's desperately trying to help Oakfed from
>being corrupted by the dark powers of Wakboth and trying to
>use the Waha myth to turn him back while the rest of the battle
>is raging would lead to a far more interesting game than just
>Lunar General roll your chance and Praxian leader (a strange
>concept in itself :-)) make a resistance roll. Now that is of
>course a simplification of what they said, but seems to be the
>essence of the mechanics they are suggesting.
To my mind, the scenario where we have a Lunar peltast reciting Yanafal Tarnils' Ode to the Crescent Moon as he awaits the assault of a score of crazed howling nomads against his legion to be far more interesting then just Lunar Peltast casts bladesharp 3, Storm Bull initiates cast fanaticism. Perhaps you missed the bit where I pointed out that this was an objective description and one not viewed by the Lunars or the Praxians in the battle. Or perhaps you are incapable to telling the difference between the world and the roolz description and that Lunar Peltasts in your game really do say 'I cast bladesharp 3!'? (of course the highly inflammatory strawman in the last sentence is only a simplification of what you have said, but seems to be the essense of what you suggest).
>Peter put forward that the myths are just paths on the Heroplane,
>but does the fact that one of these paths is the equivalent of a
>8 lane freeway and the other a yak track through the Himalayas make
>a difference?
Have I said otherwise?
Powered by hypermail