>Jeff said: "What is certainly true is that the RQ2/3 system does not
>approximate Glorantha particularly well."
>
>Ah, right, I knew there was something wrong with the game I've been
>playing for the last 19 years of my life? How could the public have
been
>so stupid?
I think RQ2/3 approximated bumming around northern Dragon Pass and Prax having adventures very, very well. If you want to run a campaign significantly different from that then the RQ3 supplements such as the Genertela pack helped a lot.
The main probelm was one of scalability to higher power levels, but I've been using a more scaleable version of the Basic Roleplaying rules quite happily for the last 4 years.
Each 'wave' of official Gloranthan publications have made Glorantha a better and easier place to game in. The process has been painfull for some people at times, but I believe that's only because they view their campaingn's Glorantha and the 'Official Gloranhta' as being indivisible.
I simply can't understand this. I've played and run real-world games, and games set in other fictional worlds. I never worried too much about being exactly and indivisibly bound to the sources in those games - I quite happily run a variant Star Trek game for example. So why not do the same with Glorantha?
My Glorantha is my own business. It's how I imagine Glorantha to be - not Greg Stafford and not anyone else. It's my campaign. Some of my Gloranthan campaigns work differently, and wouldn't cross over very well, because I'm exploring different themes and ideas.
>Forever a Lemming following what's left of RQ players over the cliff of
>Glorantha...
On the Digest I subscribe to Generaly Accepted Glorantha. The fact that different people have different perceptions of it and use different terminology to express that, and the fact that they care about it, IMHO is about as healthy a sign of Glorantha's vitality at the moment as you can get.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail