> What I am basically asking for is ownership of those mysteries,
> just as I am effectively given ownership of the Blank Lands.
OK, they're yours. Run along now...
> I am beggining to reach the conclusion that Glorantha is a very
> un-PC-centric campaign. Maybe I'm wrong, but most of the published
> scenarios I've read don't have the PCs doing anything at all sig-
> nificant in the world.
You mean like committing genocide and killing gods, the way those classic GDQ modules end up? Sorry, Glorantha's not written to be that kind of world.
Now, if you get yourself a copy of "Tarsh War", you'll see a ruleslight scenario where the PCs lead an army of 3,000-plus soldiers into battle against fanatical opponents in Dragon Pass. If you play one of the big RQ-Con freeform games, you could get to decide on peace or war, heresy or orthodoxy, destroy cities and overthrow enemy kingdoms (and/or find True Love). The freeforms are a genre where it's easier to allow "gross" actions -- and one where the likes of Jar-Eel, Garundyer, Moonson, etc. become reasonable player characters. You might like to try one some day -- or get ahold of one of the post-Con Compendia (which include in-character writeups from the freeform games) to see how these things work out on a larger scale -- and, of course, to see how their authors juggle with *big* Gloranthan themes, secrets, conspiracies, etc. in the name of Maximum Game Fun. Could be catching.
> Glorantha isn't my world and I don't want it to be.
G'wan, be a devil! Seize a corner of it for your own, and do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
> I want my PCs to be part of THE Glorantha. Furthermore I want them
> to be able to play a significant part in THE Glorantha.
But, of course, they'll have to play an UN-recognised part in EVERYBODY ELSE'S Glorantha. There's no easy way of getting around that: your suggestion (for nameless heroes achieving defined Great Deeds at fixed points on a solidly-outlined future timeline) doesn't seem to offer significantly more than we have at present. After all, let's just take your Balastor write-up through the mincing machine:
> "Aided by adventure(s) unknown, Balastor's Axe returns to Pavis
> in the year 1618. Balastor then takes over the body of the local
> Pavis priest and begins the process of ... whatever. Finally,
> Balastor is once more slain during the Giant's Cradle scenario..."
OK, then: why are we "unknown"? Must this happen in 1618? Do we have to write the high priest of Pavis out of our campaign in that year? What if we happen not to be in Pavis that year, or start our campaign in 1620 -- does someone else "unknown" complete the scenario then, before we even get started? Won't defining Balastor's return and objectives take some of the mystery and fun out of the game? And, above all, what do you achieve by defining the date of his death?
You see: you can start with the best will in the world, but you're still better off leaving well enough alone. The scenario posits a finding of Balastor's Axe, makes it clear that this would be a *big* political/mythical event, then leaves it up to the GM what happens next. If the whole future history of our scenarios has to be defined (in order to make them into "Blank Events"), then we're far more limited in our gaming than at present. As it stands, a PC has a very good chance of becoming the first Rune Lord of the Pavis Cult since 1240 or so... but to make this a formal "Blank Event" we'd have to state that he/she was "unknown", did it in a certain year, went on to achieve certain other deeds, and -- apparently -- perished at a certain future date and place. Not what I'd call ideal.
After all: when was the Wind Sword found, and who by, and what did they use it for? Who last mapped the Puzzle Canal, and what came of it? What lies within the inner sanctum of Machine Ruins, or at the heart of the Kingdom of War. Which Ralzakark is Ralzakark, and why? Who was the bridegroom at the Wedding at Cana? And so on.
Questions like these neatly bridge the "Blank" Heroes, Events and Mysteries you want defined. The Hero of the Wind Sword is *surely* one of your PCs (who'd let that paunchy bastard Torath Manover get away with it, eh?). The year of its recovery is the year your PCs get to the top of Griffin Mountain; the consequences are what your campaign sees in subsequent play (more fun than "and the unknown hero returned to Sartar to fight in the rebellion", or "and led a successful uprising against Elkoi" -- now twist your game to fit). And the solution to the Mystery is what you allow your PCs to find in your own campaign -- which has the particular virtue of leaving Mysteries insoluble from any other direction.
Who does the Kingdom of War work for? I dunno. But I can guess... and your guess, in your game, is worth far more than anyone else's.
Pickling this freedom would truly change Glorantha into a straitjacketed world, where every event has to be achieved to deadline, with predetermined future consequences.
You want to stay aligned with "mainstream" Glorantha? One way would be to post campaign events, decisions, questions etc. here for our interest and feedback. "My PCs found Balastor's Axe, and the spirit possessed the High Priest of Pavis. What do you suppose Balastor will want to do next?" Odds are, you'll get a few good suggestions, and be able to pick and choose which parts of them you actually use in your game. Be Orlanthi: "Nobody can make you do anything!"
But if the questions veer off in weird directions -- "My PCs found the evil demon goddess Lolth and killed her: what happens to all the Spider magics of her Drow dark-elf followers?" is unlikely to feature in many people's Gloranthan worldview... :-(
> Role playing campaigns, particularly (I think) commercial role
> playing campaigns, need to have PC actions embedded centrally
> within them.
Absolutely! In published Gloranthan scenarios you can recover the Axe of Balastor and the Wind Sword of Griffin Mountain, sail down the River of Cradles with the Giant's Cradle or up it from Corflu as the Chosen Ones of Zola Fel, take on the Gulper Eel, the Coders, the Spider Queen of the Rubble Uz, trek the length and breadth of the Pamaltelan veldt, march legions through the Bush Range, and so forth. And in Convention freeforms you can do even more -- build a God, unite a Religion, lead a Rebellion or struggle with Arkat(s). These are *BIG* activities -- which, by their nature, should be possibilites and *NOT* requirements for other Gloranthan campaigns.
We throw ideas out into the world; other people can pick and choose from the ones they want to use. If, instead, we documented the only permissable outcome to every scenario and future-historical event, then we'd be confining the world to a limiting straitjacket. Given Richard ???'s apparent desire to graft D&D species, scenarios and god-killing adventures onto Glorantha, I truly doubt that compatibility with "Glorantha as She is Spoke" is his primary gaming goal.
::::
Nick
::::
Powered by hypermail