> Benedict asks:
> >Perhaps Martin could clarify. Will SGU describe the Lunar Empire, its
> >cults and the Red Emperor as they REALLY ARE, or will it be in the
> >form of descriptions or beliefs held by Gloranthans themselves?
>
> The style of the book is player centered. The cults are written in
> relatively short form but give enough info to make them playable,
> the tone is
> more objective because we don't have the space to give a more subjective
> slant, which tends to take up more words than a simple explanation of the
> gods myths, their affinities and their place in the Empire.
IMO this is a pity! What I liked best of Glorantha were the subjective descriptions, because they gave an in-character POV. And after all when a GM describes the world that surrounds the characters he has to do it from their POV, not the player's.
My first, and if only out of fondness my still most loved game supplement, Dorastor, struck me precisely because it came with a lot of subjective documents which made the world feel real and its inhabitants too. You don't need to be obscure, or verbose, but IMO an attribution to some Gloranthan character and/or book of lore would suffice to put the game artifact (say, a cult write-up) into a more Gloranthan context.
> The sections on Govt, military, economy etc will also be more
> objective than
> subjective. ie they will be direct truth rather than smoke
> screening. These
> sections are very small, a couple of thousand words at most, so we try to
> impart as many facts about the Empire as possible.
But since most GMs will take them as subjective, either because they are already playing in the empire and won't retcon their own work, or because their little devious GM mind - exposed for the first time to the wonder and complexity of Glorantha - will begin to spin in every possible direction, extrapolating and interpolating your too few words, bound to be not enough, wouldn't it be better to aid their ask in providing the right perspective to published material? i.e., that it is wrong unless proven true in play? At least this is the attitude toward game supplements which previous Glorantha publications taught me, and my games haven't suffered for it, on the contrary!
> >My understanding was that Glorantha has moved from the first mode to
> >the second mode.
>
> Not really. Gregs volumes did, but as MOB pointed out, they are largely
> unplayable because they are Gloranthan documents, not game suppliments.
> We're doing a suppliment.
Give me King of Sartar over Shadows on the Borderlands every day! ;)
> >However, if SGU is in the first mode, we seem to be regressing to RQ2
> >God Learner stuff. Strange.
>
> Monomyth you mean? I think published sources should attempt to
> steer a path
> between the two.
IMO they should lean toward the second. This has been IMO the strength of Glorantha in the past (or at least in the mid period - I wasn't there at the beginning).
> if
> you consider Greg the source of canon, then it will be his only until you
> open the book and change bits you don't like. Then it becomes yours once
> more.
One of course could consider MOB canon, or you, or whoever happens to write the coolest thing. In many ways Tales and Enclosure were not inferior to AH's supplements (euphemism).
Anyway I think you are to admire because you were willing to discuss your ideas with others, but OTOH I also think that when the book comes out we will all be happier for it, so if these discussions have as a result an indefinite delay in the publication date, am I'm not sure they are really worthwhile.
At least this is my very humble opinion, which I hope did not offend anyone. If it did, please accept in advance her apologies and forgive her. :)
Forgivably yours, Alex. ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail