> Fantasy novels based on RPG worlds have the most structured magic
>systems, but they > are rarely particularly good as stories.
They may be structured, but it's a rare RPG magic system which is logically consistent or connected to anything outside itself. D&D and its attendant novels, which are certainly the most prolific, are excellent examples (or were, since things may have changed since I last looked at AD&D). Priests in AD&D had sort of vague healing magic, regardless of the god they worshiped. Translate Glorantha to AD&D and priests of Humakt and Pamalt have exactly the same powers. This is structured but not particularly logical or consistent with game reality.
The problem with game novels is they tend to be written by game writers, not novel writers. While Warhammer RPG is at least as silly and rigid as AD&D, Kim Newman is a pretty decent writer, and "Drachenfels" is pretty good as a fantasy novel (mostly because it ignores the structure of the game it's based on and relies on the fantasy tropes which inform the game).
Graham Robinson says a few things:
> Having said that, I think part of the problem is how people view divination.
> I personally really hate the model where the god appears, or whispers in
> your ears or whatever. I'm much happier with the model where you split the
> oxen's belly open, and the high priest pulls out the spleen and says
> "Nice and fat. Yep, Elmal's the Sun alright."
This has its attractions, but the way Divination has been traditionally presented is more like a slightly murky phone call. The gods speak in parables, riddles, dreams, etc., but they do speak directly to the diviner. It kind of smashes heresy because you can always ask, and one assumes that the god is going to care enough to give a fairly direct answer to "Is Anaximader the Stygian really following the true path of Yelm with his "Yelm is the Husband of Kygor Litor sermons?"
> But they don't have to be the logical rules of OUR world. Some sort of
>consistency is >necessary, re-writing known facts is a pain - I don't
>think anyone's arguing with that. >However, in Glorantha you can't perform
>experiments to determine who the Sun god is, >which clan worships him the
>right way, etc. The very presence of so much magic >precludes that sort of
>analysis.
Actually, you can perform these experiments; it's called Godlearnerism, and it is a Very Bad Thing if not taken as directed (which the Godlearners failed to do, so what chance do you have?) I agree that Gloranthan logic shouldn't rely on RW root assumptions, but the logical process is the same.
Gary R Switzer asks:
> There is no one true way to cook quail, why does there have to be One
>True Way to view > the Gods and the forces they represent?
Well, we have to agree on what a quail is before we can discuss how to cook it. If I think a quail is a turkey, the recipe I give you will not work the way you think.
Powered by hypermail