>It seems like a lot of the scenario material, however, depends upon it a
>lot, and that if you ignore it, you miss a great deal about what the
>scenario's about. I find myself wondering why I buy them if there's not
>a lot of material I can use. (Or not a lot I can enjoy reading; I'm a
>player in Glorantha, mostly.) Now there are some really fine exceptions;
>I thought that "Barbarian Adventures" pretty much captured some of that
>spirit. I liked the epic scope of "Orlanth is Dead", and for some reason
>I liked most of "Skullpoint" when a lot of people here seem not to.
Well that's two out of three scenario books that you like. I'll agree there's a lot of background in them and it's difficult to use them if you ignore the background. But that's one of the big differences between RQ and HQ. HQ is a game about people functioning in a society whereas RQ is about a party of adventurers fighting the baddies. Although even there the question of who is the baddie was always a lot more open than most games.
>I was initially attracted to Glorantha because it was such a
>unique world; however, I feel now that it's TOO unique, and
>overwhelming in its uniqueness.
It's overwhelming because the internet has given us access to the thoughts of at least 20 or 30 people who've spent quite a bit of time in the last 30 years exploring their interests in Glorantha. You just have to be selective and it would probably be a good thing if I was more selective than I am.
>Here comes my grognard whine now. One of the differences with the
>old RQ material and the new HQ material is that I was always able
>to pick it up and read it and know exactly what I could do with it
>(back in the days when I was running a campaign). I see all the
>debates about interpretation of minutiae and whether the ancestors
>of a group of people I barely remember anything about embraced the
>Orlanthi religion reluctantly or not back when they didn't even
>know how to use tools, and it makes me wonder why I still like
>Glorantha any more. I haven't given up on it, but I hardly pick up
>any of the HQ books to read anymore.
I don't see the connection between the arguments about obscure details and the HQ publications. Most of the details argued over are unlikely to see print even in an unfinished work and if they do it'll be the conclusions rather than the discussion. To an extent you're seeing part of the creative process on these mailing lists and it's messy and confusing.
>Glorantha has always been a world that appeals to a more highly
>educated crowd than many other game worlds that I have read about,
>and it should always be so. I still think very fondly of it. But
>I feel that a lot of what appealed to me many years ago has been
>retired. I don't know whether it's outgrown me or whether I've
>outgrown it. But I'm glad I'm playing in a campaign now that is
>fun and evocative of the days I used to wait with baited breath
>for the next RuneQuest sourcebook to come out, even if it's not
>much like the Glorantha being published today.
This is why there's a market for a new version of RQ, I'll agree HQ is different and some people prefer the old style. It took me a while to get used to the HQ but now I prefer it.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail