Description of Glorantha

From: Julian Lord <julian.lord_at_...>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:29:43 +0200

Let's aim for a solution, or this thread will keep on coming back :

I think that we, as a group, are confusing things in a very silly and destructive way : that is, we're confusing the HW rules with Glorantha.

>From the rules POV it is, IMO, vitally important that every player have his
freedom to interpret Feats etc *however* he likes.

For the definition of Glorantha, though, there must be some consistency. (But consistency is not, AFAICS, a rules issue.)

These two approaches have been smashing into each other for several weeks now. But is this necessary ?

Yes, the background information should be useful, and therefore sensible and, we hope, will describe Glorantha as clearly as possible.

But YGMV, and the rules are set up to encourage this.

Rules issues and background issues should stay firmly where they belong : rules here (which means that the YGMV principle should be dominant, because this is the spirit of the rules), and background issues on the GD or on the HeroWars list ; the former for the fun and games that we're all used to, and the latter for (strangely enough) using the HW rules in Gloranthan gaming. It is on the HeroWars list, IMO, that the Sunset Leap, Lightning Sword, consistency, Urox/Storm Bull, (etc..) threads rightly belong.

Of course, there is a borderland between background and rules ; for instance, the Mysticism thread, while engaging in fairly deep Gloranthan reflection, does IMO belong here, because the point of the thread is to come up with some rules. Not so, AFAICS, with the Sunset Leap thread. We *know* what the rules for it are ; despite the mystery of what the Feat actually *does*, in Glorantha.

This is, ultimately, an issue of poetics. HW provides the grammar for superior Gloranthan gaming ; the verb system, and the 'little words'. Interpretation of Gloranthan vocabulary, ie Feat names, contents of keywords, etc.. is an obviously more complex issue, AKA Gloranthan Lore.

On the one hand, people demand (and will *always* obtain) the right to interpret or re-interpret vocabulary according to their own knowledge and aesthetics : YGMV. On the other, once a word of vocabulary exists, it is stable, and needs to be generally accepted as meaning 'xyz' in day-to-day use : this is vocabulary as used to define Greg's and our GA Glorantha(s).

Or : imagination and knowledge.

This basic dichotomy of human thought is not going to disappear any day soon.

And we have been foolish enough to set our imaginations against our knowledge.

This is why the thread's been *so* destructive & unpleasant ... ... and why, ultimately, no-one is really to blame.

Humanum est.

I'll shut up now


Julian Lord

Powered by hypermail