>I'd quibble with calling that a quibble; more like 180 degrees opposite
>of what Graham was saying, as best as I could judge...
I might be tempted to quibble with Julian, if I had a clue what he was talking about...
>I think I have to disagree with you both; it's _possible_ to have,
>essentially by fiat, an outside PoV in the sense Graham seems to mean,
>and in some sense useful -- perhaps for the purposes of my game, I
>want to predetermine that yes, Orlanth really _is_ the King of the Middle
>Air (or contrariwise, that the Red Goddess is).
That's a decision you can make, but one that is singularly lacking in the published sources. My point is that anyone seeking official (for some sense of official) statements of this kind is going to be disappointed. Normally, Glorantha has only ever been described on the level of "this lot *believe* that Orlanth is the King of the Middle Air".
>A further question is: are such 'facts' about the world, which by
>assumption are unverifiable within it, a "good" thing to have?
I am extremely doubtful that there is much "good" about having such facts kicking around. On the level of the individual campaign, it might be worth while having an idea like "the red moon will probably fall" because that's something you and your players would enjoy bringing about. Greg's comments on the battle of iceland seem to fall into this category - stuff that will work out this way, because it makes a good story. Even then, I'd keep it all very vague, and subject to player fiat to change.
Beyond that, I can't see any benefit at all. Given the fluid nature of truth within Glorantha, and the prime example of the other approach (the various game worlds for Another Game System (TM), I say kick the outside point of view with its pretentions to objectivity into touch right now.
Which, on re-reading Alex's post, means, I think, that we're largely in agreement.
Cheers,
Graham
-- Graham Robinson graham_at_albionsoft.com Albion Software Engineering Ltd. --__--__--
Powered by hypermail