Re: The Glorantha Digest V6 #45

From: Arf <A.R.Wilson_at_herts.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:39:39 +0100


Keith Nellist:

> I've tried Praxians('a bit like cowboys and indians'), and Carmanians
[snip]
> This was great for letting politics and stuff work without worrying that it
> was getting too "unofficial". I sometimes think Dragon Pass and Pavis can be a
> bit suffocating because there is so much information about it.

I agree with the comment about DP, but IMO Pavis is (arguably) the most versatile (published) setting in Glorantha. There is such a vast wealth of cultural diversity and influences that you can have N/PCs from practically any major culture in Glorantha, and the background material is such that you can play from the level of "snivelling muck-rakers" who don't know where the next meal is coming from (as described in the excellent stories by Oliver Dickinson) right up to inter-temple or Lunar politics (Marrying RG to Pavis) and Heroes (Cradle Scenario). If you feel stifled by details, change them. "There are no ducks IMG!"

> Of these two the Praxian one was OK to start with but felt a but limiting as
> it continued. There seemed to be less options for the characters to develop
> into . " hey I want to be Khan", " hey so do I" etc.

Hmm...perhaps the characters need more work on their personal goals pregame?

Steve Rennell and Philip Hibs  

> > >One of the things that I always loved about RQ2 was how
> > >"low-fantasy" Pavis was, somewhat similar to Fafhrd & The
> > >Gray Mouser or the Thieve's World series.
>
> > Don't you mean "high-fantasy"? Wizards and heroes are "low-fantasy",
> > complex cultures and little peoples' individual lives are "high-fantasy".
> > The terms are defined by literary critics, so they picked the
> > complimentary-sounding term for the high-brow stuff.
>
> Woah. that's almost exactly the opposite of how it's used around
> here. As far as Roleplaying games go the terms are used (around
> here anyway) somewhat like the following.

Where's "here?" - I mean is it a social or regional distinction? I've found misunderstandings like these can arise between individual gaming groups and can easily lead to unnecessary disagreement.

> High fantasy is powerful knights and wizards who make decisions
> that affect large chunks of land. [snip]
> Low fantasy is where people worry about scraping enough dosh
> together to pay for dinner, [snip]

IMO, both of your descriptions sound like High Fantasy to me, it's just the power levels that are different.  

> Either high or low can have complex cultures, to me it's mostly a
> matter of scale. Little peoples lives however are probably a good
> indication of low fantasy to me. (especially if it's the characters).

I think I agree with Philip. Low fantasy to me is "pulp" fantasy eg "Conan" Stephen Donaldson's "Mordant", where the prejudice is towards the amount of gore and heroics by one or two main characters involved, and minimal effort is spent on storyline. High fantasy would be something along the lines of Raymond E. Feist's "Magician" series, with multiple main characters more action in the plot than a single leading character's sword hand. The definition for me is in the level of complication rather than the level of power.

Arf

     Computer Technician / PIP       Baggage Master / Webmaster
     Natural Sciences                Valentine Pyne's Company
     Hertfordshire University        Prince Rupert's Blew Regiment of Foote
     01707 (28)5052                  01442 398131 
     http://www.geocities.com/~pavis/homepage.html

------------------------------

Powered by hypermail