To expand: by expounding that you do not run your games as shared (or otherwise) hallucinations, in the context of this discussion, you imply that someone else, perhaps among your "opponents", does. I dispute that, from my personal practice, and all I've read from others who seem to broadly agree. Please either flame specific culprits more selectively and specifically, or don't impute such suggestions to "the opposition" at all.
A more appropriate word than literature is narrative, I think. Your game _is_ narrative, it's simply a matter of how more or less self-conscious it is about its own narrative nature. I want my game world to feel real too, so I don't feel the sting of your proposition of predetermination of the totality of Gloranthan nature is, therefore, the way to go as a criticism of _my_ approach. For me, approximation is necessary and inevitable: you simply won't be able to describe All of Glorantha, in a complete and rigorous way. Thus you can either attempt a description that's deliberately and acknowledgedly (to oneself, at least) partial in both senses of the word, deciding how things work for an Orlanthi, Heortling, Sartarite, Culbrea, Elkenval, Inarsson (etc, etc, or whatever else) perspective, and become "more true" by particularisation of that approximation. Or you can limit yourself before you start, decide for once and for always what the beginning and end of Gloranthan reality is, independent of religion, culture, etc, and never have to worry either about ever finding oneself in a contradictory position, and equally, never in the slightest danger of getting near Glorantha as it was conceived, either.
Give me a problematic game world over a shallow one, any day of the week.
Goodnight,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail