The book says many things (was Narrative Abilities are crap?)

From: bankuei <Bankuei_at_...>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:12:24 -0000

Hi Jane,

> Unlike the sample PCs in the rule-book, then? Who have left their
own
> disparate communities, make no attempt to join another one, and are
busy
> exploring their own identities? What do we remember about any of
them?
> There's the little one with the deer who does origami magic (no idea
> what her keywords were), the one who dresses fancy, has a weird
> non-human follower, and wants to learn to surf (ditto), the puma
person
> who wants to be human (know his homeland, no idea of occupation or
> magic), and of course Mr "so what does sociopathic mean, then?" I
> remember his occupation and magical keywords (the second bought in
> play), but no idea about homeland.

I have to agree with the idea that the examples presented in the book are poor examples
for capturing HQ play. At best- they portray HQ as a quirky D&D, and skip over a lot of
the potential for serious themes.

On one hand, you have solid rules for dealing with the issues in Glorantha- personality
abilities, relationships, community relationships, ways of rating people's beliefs,
prejudices, and personalities, and putting them into conflicts with each other- on a
mechanical level and also including the support of community, culture, and traditions.

Then, you have examples of a group playing the shiftless "party of adventurers", tied to no
culture, place or people, gathered together... um, because that's what adventurers do!
They learn new magic because it sounds neat, not because it has anything to do with their
characters. They also form a random heroband with a strange quirky guardian to match
their heros They also appear to wander the land aimlessly.

But, there's also in BIG PRINT, scattered throughout the book itself, all the important stuff
about thematic content- "Hero Wars is X, What will you do?" daring the players to come up
with their own unique answers and themes.

And finally, at the end of the book, you have a scenario section that slams the door on
those questions by encouring groups to return to classic railroading for the solution of
how to play.

If it were not for my reading of Ron Edwards' example of play, I would have totally passed
this game up. I would have simply written it off as "Quirky D&D" and left it alone. Reading
his examples of "what play was about", I read the book and realized that actually capturing
the Gloranthan feel of play requires selective reading of the book. And its rather sad,
because the core mechanics, without the hedging and the humming of the examples and
scenario advice are perfect to producing it.

If I want to run a game about the conflict between Lunars, the White Moon Cults, and a
group of Dara Happans who want to re-establish the primacy of the solar pantheon- all
within one city- I can do it with these rules. I can play out the various factions competing,
allying and vying for power, the attempts to win over the average citizens' support, that
eventually culminates in the groups cross-heroquesting and trying to rewrite their own
mythologies to their benefit, being opposed by each other and even traditionalists with in
their own religions.

All of this deep, political, emotional, and mythological stuff is easily done with this
powerful engine. But the owner's manual tells me never to get out of 2nd gear. Don't use
reverse either.

Sigh.

Chris

Powered by hypermail