dead hand of the past

From: Kmnellist_at_aol.com
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 15:52:42 EST


Alex Ferguson:-
<< This always seemed counterintuitive to me; "historical" games, in  whatever setting or genre, have always been subject to the complaint  that they're too much subject to the "dead hand of the past" >>

I do agree with this point but I'm one of those people who view all of Glorantha as being set "in the past". This prejudice comes from the intro to the rules of Dragon Pass where it basically said "no one knows whatreally did happen in the War of Heroes, play this game to find out." King of Sartar has timelines to 2200. RQ2 had a timeline up to 1613, which I originally thought to be "now". My problem with the "official" "now" date is that if your campaign zips through several years and there isn't a Sartar Rebelion etc you quickly lose touch with big events, either letting your puny PCs wander around with no big politics (because they're not involved), or having them as the new Argrath or the new Lunar General and being involved. There are so many bits of Glorantha where there are unknown kingdoms, Kings, even Emporers, where the Players can get involved, the GM knows the general timeline (eg. in 5 years time Godlearner freebooters will defeat the Dragon Emporer, Yanoor) but since nothing else is really known about the details of the defeat or much else during that time anything can happen.

Keith Nellist


Powered by hypermail