Re: Blank Balastor etc

From: Loren Miller <loren_at_wharton.upenn.edu>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 00:03:45 +0000


richard <richard.develyn_at_nwpeople.com> sez:
> I am reaching the conclusion that I cannot play in THE Glorantha - and
> I'm a bit disappointed about that.

Here's the problem. Gloranthan information covers a span of years. If your campaign has any powerful characters they are sure to change something about the way Glorantha works in those years. There's no way around it. And in all the other Glorantha campaigns things will change differently. There is no possible way that your campaign and everybody else's campaign can mesh perfectly with each other OR the "official" glorantha that comes out of Greg's neuroses, obsessions, and whims. It just cannot happen. And the reason why is that there is already "official" information about the future timeline. The only setting I've seen that was immune to this was Harn, and the only reason was that all background development was set in time. It all was set at a certain date. So once you started your Harn campaign you had to generate everything that would happen in all the lands from that point on. Scenarios set far away from where your campaign started would not exist any more when your characters got to them. That's how Harn made sure that everyone could play in the official Harn, by only allowing it at one instant in the campaign, which would forever afterward diverge from official Harn in which time never changes.

You know what? I'd rather have the problem that I need to change one or two local event lines than develop all of them at once.

As for Argrath, there is a common theory that Argrath was a composite figure made up of several heroes who fought against the Lunars. One hid in the rubble during the cradle incident. Another fought the lunars on board the cradle. There were plenty more of them, and doesn't it seem peculiar that the same Argrath who was in his prime in 1618 should still be in his prime 52 years later in 1670 when he starts off on his heroquest to retrieve Harmast? Isn't it more likely that there was someone else who *called himself* Argrath?

> However, if this Head was either returned or destroyed there
> would be tremendous repercussions in the world, and it's unlikely I
> would be able to use the existing Hero Wars stuff without a lot of
> rework on my part.

Untrue. It happens, but why are the people talking about Argrath destroying the Devil's Head? Your player characters did it, but everybody thinks that Argrath was responsible. They ask the PCs what Argrath was like in person. They take to calling the PCs Argrath, and the Lunars take an interest too. Know what? Maybe some of your PCs were the ones who did the deeds that the histories state so smugly were Argrath's doing? Don't you know that history is written by the victor, and generally by an employee of the victor with the most money and power?

> Now as soon as my new campaign reaches that stage I'm going to start
> having to re-write more and more of the published stuff - especially
> anything that looks forward from my campaign date.

The only way to avoid it is to stop developing Glorantha at a point in time, and then there's NO hero wars information for you.

Someone on this digest has run a campaign in which the PCs killed the real Ralzakark (thereby denying Oddi the pleasure) and were capable of defeating the Kingdom of War or destroying the Castle of Lead. That's not the kind of action that the official hero wars alot to unknown actors. But you know what? I think that if your PCs are capable of making changes that major you should feel honored by the players' skill and interest.

Sure, the history of the hero wars will change, but Greg tells us in his most recent documents that only 80% or 85% of them should be taken as truth. The rest is likely to be pure BS. The key is that YOU get to decide what is true and what is BS in your own official version of Glorantha.

> Unfortunately if you want to provide a campaign which includes a
> developing saga, i.e. you're not just giving a setting, you're giving a
> *future*, especially where that future is a culmination of events which
> have made the setting (and, dont get me wrong, I think you're providing
> a very beautiful thing in doing this), then I as recipient of that
> campaign accept that I will have to have some straight-jacketting. If I
> disagree with that then I can have the "setting" but not the "future".
> However, my complaint is still that the straight-jacketting is too much,
> and I seem to be being told that either I accept it as it is or I
> discard the "future".

You made the same point I did above.

Let me get this straight. You are willing to accept some restriction of action in order to be freed from the odious task of making up the hero wars yourself. Plus, you are not willing to accept some restriction of your actions. Plus, the hero wars aren't written up enough to give you enough to work with, so you don't get out of the odious tasks in any case. Is that a fair representation of your position?

Because if it is, then it's a tough position. It's not easy to have your cake and eat it too.

Back to the point I was making, which is this. The names of heroes are sometimes more famous than their faces. Who is to know whether it was the "real" Argrath who rescued Sheng Seleris or someone else who later got tagged with Argrath's name? Same with Balastor, Jaldon Toothmaker, Jar-Eel, Hon-Eel, the Red Emperor, Arkat, Harmast, Harrek, Minaryth the Purple, Kallyr Starbrow, Ironhoof, and so on. Maybe your PCs did EVERYTHING that was attributed to these people? Why not? Can you say for sure that they didn't?

Powered by hypermail