>However, I would like to ask this: If I chose to write a scenario based
>on a "Blank Land", would it be publishable? I have been under the
>impression that the 'Blank Lands' would be left 'blank' so that
>indivudual GM's could develop them for their own campaigns _without_
>published scenarios contradicting them?
It depends. I've remarked before that Balazar is apparently no longer blank. It was declared blank due to timeline difficulties (which in light of the subsequent dearth of gloranthan products was the wrong decision IMO) and even Jarst seems to have some information written about it. But I think for more traditional blank lands such as Zon Am, Retrint or Lalia, it won't be publishable commercially but OTOH there's nothing to stop it appearing in fanzine material.
But then setting campaigns in blank lands seems to reduce one to Samuel Beckettesque characters in 'Waiting for Greg'. Rather than waiting for greg-approved in-depth material in the land you're interested in, I would suggest you bite the bullet and start developing the material yourself. Most of what I know about Ralios and the West comes from Fan sources rather than anything authoritative.
Peter Maranci:
>Subject: Bishop Berkeley
Oh Christ, not again. [Starts stoning his toes St-Jerome-style...]
> Since we don't have the advantage of actually being able to *see*
>Glorantha (except possibly for Greg, I suppose), a general guide to the
>world of Glorantha is a good idea. Is, for example, the sky blue? I
>realize that the sky might be different colors when viewed from different
>sections of the lozenge, or at different times; perhaps even different
>races would observe different colors in the same sector of sky.
[Remembers the wonderful sunset last night where the sky was all rosy red. Wonders how somebody colourblind in red would view it.] If you are going to declaim on objectivity then you would be well advised to stay clear of the perception of color. For starters, color has no physical reality but exists within our brains.
> This is an excellent example of the difference between the
>scholarly and roleplaying approaches. The scholar views the idea of an
>authoratative compendium of Gloranthan lore with contempt, knowing that a
>world which is physically as or more complex than the real one can never
>be accurately represented; no historian can can view social interactions
>free of the inherent bias of his or her own culture. There is no
>"objective viewpoint".
Who is this scholar you refer to above? I'm afraid I don't recognize him or her. One can say objective facts about glorantha quite easily. The Dara Happans worship the Sun, the Orlanthi worship the Storm. What I object to is the attempt by some people to make local truths into universal truths. For instance, the Red Moon is undoubtedly bad in the traditional Orlanthi PoV but that doesn't mean we have to make the Lunar Empire completely and utterly evil.
> BUT -- in a roleplaying context, there *is* an objective
>viewpoint: the gamemaster. When I'm running a game I need to be able to
>decide what the truth is for my own game. NPCs can be presented with
>differing viewpoints, but when it matters, the GM decides what is real and
>what is bias.
I'm getting quite confused. On one hand, you want an objective reality for glorantha for everyone and on the other hand you seem to want more freedom for the gamemaster. Surely a contradiction, no?
Powered by hypermail