>To me, and my players, Glorantha used to be a fun, mythical fantasy world.
>It's become something else. It's focused far too much on cultural issues.
>"Apple Lane" can't exist because the society Greg has changed Sartar towards
>in interest of "accuracy" doesn't have room for that sort of place. It
>seems you need a degree in Historical and Cultural studies in order to enjoy
>Glorantha now.
Well in the early 80s we had one suppliment that dealt with Sartar - Apple Lane, for many of us Sartar was a collection of Greek City states. I mean, all we had was a map of the place and a bunch of 'hot chicks' on the cover in skimpy gear and Greek armour. I for one am glad that the 'accuracy' has improved a tad...
>While it's possible to play in Glorantha without that, you might as well
>ignore the current supplements.
Good lord NO! The current stuff allows you to play that kind of game AND add cultural depth when you _need_ it AND play other kinds of game, politics, war, mythic etc whereas when I tried to play even the edge of that kind of campaign back when I was a teen using RQ, we had to make it all up because there was sod all there to use. Now you have it both ways.
>I need something that is less "culturally accurate" (whether it's a
fictional or real-life >culture we are talking about) and more "fun." I find
the "fun" is missing from current >Hero Wars products.
All but one of my players are uninterested in cultural accuracy but they still have fun because you don't have to focus on that at all. The problem seems to be that because Glorantha has become more detailed, it has been fleshed out in a way that you did not imagine it going based on your play in the 80s and as a result you are bitter about it and refuse to see any good possiblities in the new material, even though they were there. Believe me, I went through the same feelings and can empathise.
>Whenever I discuss running a Gloranthan campaign, the players aren't
>interested. They find Glorantha to be a place that's far too elitist. It
>seems to be only concerned with hard-core fans & not at all interested in
>putting out products for the casual gamer.
There may be some truth to that, but you sound like and experienced narrator who can certainly pick and choose how you wish to present the world to the players.
>I've even tried getting players who used to love Runequest in the 80s. They
>don't recognize Glorantha. For example, the following is the sort of
>converstation I've had.
>"I want to play Yelmalio."
>"Sorry, he doesn't exist."
>"What happened to him? Was he killed?"
>"No, Greg just decided that he never really existed. It's really quite
>confusing exactly where he is now."
Huh? Yelmalio exists in all his glory. He exists in Prax, Sartar, Tarsh and in many temples within the Empire. Even cooler, there are schisms in the Yelmalion faith due that can create some wonderful plot devices for an entire Yelmalion party if you want to run one. What on earth have you been reading (or NOT reading) to come up with such an off truth view?
>"OK, I want to play a Humakti. I like the idea of an honorable warrior who
>realizes he will die and looks forward to the reward he will have when he
>does."
>"That's fine. Just realize that all Humakti are now mentally disturbed.
>Why else would they worship Death. That's what it's been determined that
>Humakti are."
Remind me never, ever to hire you as a salesman. This is also a jaundiced view of Humakti. Humakti are not "just" honourable warriors, they are killers, paladins, nutcases, stalwart servants of kings etc. I guess what Greg was trying to get at is that Death worship is NOT normal and if you find that odd, I'd be surprised. They should be played as not beign normal but how that manifests in character is up to the player.
>"Yuck. I don't want to play that. I'll just play an Orlanthi. Maybe I can
>meet Argrath and help him against the Lunar Empire."
Humakti are Orlanthi.
>"Well, Argrath might not really exist. He might be several people. It
>might turn out to be you."
And this is a turn off for the players why? They get to possibly play a GOD? This is one of the best things about Glorantha, you can play at the hugely amazing mythic level and it WORKS, unlike D&D, unlike most other game worlds. To me this is a huge player turn on. If someone had told me that I could be Argrath back in the 80s I would have droooled all over them.
The usual reason why people dislike this possibility is because they are uncomfortable with big scale campaigns and like to play farmers or somewhat ordinary folk. If you want fun games, this doesn't sound like you.
>"Ummm...you know, I think I'm too busy to play in this. Talk to you later."
It seems to me that you don't want to play in Glorantha yourself if you are placing so many barriers in the way of play, esp as you seem to have a view of Glorantha that is frozen in time to when you probably first played and really enjoyed it. This is not an uncommon theme. I know of one excellent narrator who hates the new Lunar stuff because he played Pavis when he was a teen and saw a picture of what a Lunar looked like - a Roman Centurion - and he cannot countenance the idea that that might not have been accurate or indeed much sense. As a result he refuses to look at any new material. Why? Simple. Nostalgia. Glorantha has a place in his heart that is not open to change or evolution. He will run Pavis games for the rest of his gaming life simply because that is what he considers "Fun" and Gloranthan and now nothing else fits. But when he was gaming in the 80s there WAS nothing else. See the problem?
Please do not end up like this. He _is_ and you would be a loss to the Gloranthan community.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail