> Of course you move between levels. Level 3 is the goal, however; doesn't
> mean you can't hit 1 and 2 also.
After thinking it over, I think the flaw in your argument is equating the levels of Gloranthan "reality" with levels of gamer sophistication. For gamers, these aren't "levels" so much as styles of play. Your analogy of the beer expert is weak, because these "levels" of play are more like different beverages altogether. One doesn't compare beer to wine (apples to oranges?).
My players and I have been in this hobby for twenty plus years. We have played virtually every game published at every "level" of realism. Although there is a wide range of taste among us, the majority don't go in for nit-picky realism. This doesn't make them bad players, or even unsophisticated ones. They just know what they like - playing out an amusing story. The background doesn't exist for its own sake, it exists to make the story more interesting. For us, Glorantha strikes a nice balance between hard realism (Harn) and silliness (AD&D).
As for George's statement, "I don't think it's unreasonable to try to make Glorantha as accessible to and enjoyable by as many types of role-players as is feasible"... I agree to a point. I want as many people playing in Glorantha as possible, so that Issaries can afford to publish more quality material - not to mention the community! On the other hand I don't want to see an effort to make Glorantha all things to all people that essentially removes its soul in the name of market share.
But then again, I am obviously sentimental and nostalgic... :)
Powered by hypermail