> (b) Of course I can ignore it, but if the players are the sort who read
> the background and argue with you when you do something that contradicts
> whats in the book, you have problems. Not that my current players (bless
> their little cotton socks) are like that at all, but I have seen it done.
> Making to many definate statements of the "it must happen this way" kind
> encourages such behaviour.
Gaming in Glorantha is indeed affected by a bane twin sister of "rule-lawyering", which I call "myth-lawyering" because more often than not players are eager to show their deep knowledge (if not understanding) of the background by quoting from official books (the least evil) to personal webpages of which you the GM have never heard.
> Basically, I would like to see rigidly defined areas of doubt and
> uncertainty surrounding all the non-day to day stuff in Glorantha. Use of
> the words "normally", "probably" and "it is believed" is all I ask for.
And I second this. I think that in a campaign the players' viewpoint is as important as the GM's, and that there should be enough room between official information to let it grow according to everyone's tastes and opinions. After all this is the point of the shared creation which should be one aim of roleplaying.
I am happy to let a player of mine interpret things in his own way, and I may even upgrade his interpretation to norm status (which is necessarily defined by the GM as he plays the rest of the world - almost an unanimity) but I can't stand a player who says to me "this is wrong because the rulebook says otherwise." I also can't stand it because just as he wants me to follow canon, so he refuses himself the freedom to adapt things to his own liking.
And yes, I am talking from previous experiences... ;-/
Previously yours, Alex. ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail