Re: Re: Do the rules determine the nature of Glorantha?

From: Andrew Dawson <asmpd_at_...>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:37:05 -0500

While I agree that there is no need to pin down all details of the one true Glorantha, I am approaching HQ at cons as a missionary. I would like to communicate the rules, including the intended/unintended repercussions, in a consistent manner so as to attract new gamers to Glorantha. Other fantasy games are the competition, so I would prefer to push the interesting setting (especially the real pervasiveness of magic) and the interesting game system. I will avoid the wishy-washy YGVW explanation; that's for after the introduction.

For my own games, the details of how Glorantha should work are interesting, but not necessary. For example, unless I see a convincing, reasoned argument for the bait-and-switch approach of enticing heroes to start with common magic, spend resources on it, and then drop it to pursue the really interesting magic, I'm not going to have this IMG. (While not a problem for the inhabitants of Glorantha, this is going to irritate a certain portion of players.) However, I find it relevant whether big established churches are more effective than small new churches in the West, so I'm waiting on more information. IMO, the difference in effectiveness of large and small congregations has a huge impact on how to portray Western society.

Regardless of these issues, I'll be running HQ games at conventions the next two weekends.

Thanks,
Andy

At 05:26 PM 9/24/2003 +0000, Gerald Bosch wrote:
>The problem, of course, is that this might limit the appeal of HQ if a
>person sits in on a game at a con and they don't like the approach of
>that narrator, or they might be confused by sitting in on more than
>one game. The trade-off is a real diversity that allows for a million
>different Gloranthas.