I tend to think of the problem as tripolar. We have Greg's storytelling Glorantha, where each story has a point in itself, but the stories are not necessarily well integrated into a larger whole; we have our own storytelling Glorantha's, each separate which have to compatible with whatever rules set we prefer and often focus on things Greg might not be interested; and we have "ideal" or "true" Glorantha in which we attempt to reconcile the various stories floating around into a novel like structure that hangs together well enough to make it possible for us to suspend disbelief long enough to play the game.
There are two separate problems here. The first is that Greg is primarily interested in mythology and shamanism, not history or computer science. So he sometimes tries to present an integrated world of Glorantha, but often when telling a new story does not make sure it integrates well with the old. He defends this with the argument that to some extent Glorantha is a myth, and myths are not tightly integrated. In mythology, you do not a single ideal of the "truth" which you try to attain, but a variety of different truths intended to help people make sense of part of their world. This theoretical argument has some merit, but most of us are accustomed to more tightly integrated stories and interpretations, so his attitude often makes it hard for us to suspend our disbelief.
As if this were not enough, there is the problem that when we roleplay we have different backgrounds, and often, probably objectives, from Greg's. In particular we {or at least I}, tend to emphasize violence and melodrama. After all, I'm not constructing myths intended to help me understand either this world or Glorantha, I'm trying to put together an interesting five hour game or fifteen session campaign. This conflict of objectives, plus the fact that I have a very different background and interest from Greg's, means that the stories I use in my games are unlikely to integrate well with Greg's. Even if I thought that Greg's version of Glorantha was tightly integrated, the combination of Greg's world and my scenarios wouldn't be. Add in the fact that I sometimes adopt things from third parties, and it is reasonable to assume that cohesion will go straight to hell.
Theoretical Glorantha arises from the desire to patch these holes well enough to make it possible to suspend disbelief in the games. So it is important , and not opposed to roleplay. But it is also a losing battle, in the sense that I do not expect to ever create an integrated world, like the worlds in fantasy series, from the Gloranthan material. The objectives of theoretical Glorantha should probably be limited to making the world coherent enough to support the games. Trying to go further will result in a collapse of the theoretical Glorantha enterprise caused by both the contradictions in Greg's presentation of Glorantha and the contradictions between Glorantha as presented in my games and Glorantha as Greg presents it. Also, the games need to help the theoretical enterprise out by moving quickly. If the players are sitting around wondering about what exactly the ideals of Orlanth {or the Red Goddess} are, not only will the theory probably fall apart but the game is in serious trouble. Remember, in Raiders of the Lost Ark Steven Spielberg keeps the movie moving fast enough to prevent his audience from wondering why the Germans have built a submarine pen in the 1930's {they were first built in France, as a response to the threat of British and American bombers}; or why the Brits don't just tell the Egyptian government to throw the Nazis out of Egypt. As GM's, we need to do something similar.
Ray,
David Scott <sciencefish_at_...> wrote: Hi,
I see here on the list two things going on:
The "theoretical" history of Glorantha with background books that has to fit together and
A roleplaying Glorantha that can really take any shape you want it
to. You can alter what ever you like to suit the needs of your
players (and yourself).
As it says in one of the books one of the players might even become
Argrath her/himself.
I try to get the maximum fun out of a game for me and my players, so I ignore or use what ever works in my background. If it changes the outcome of a published scenario/ book then that's fine. I can't think of everything so the scenario books are great in providing a framework on which you can build your own game.
In many cases I feel the divide between theoretical & Roleplay Glorantha is getting greater as the years go on. Newcomers to the game have got to be shown that it's the game that's important not the background in every detail. Some of the best scenarios I've run recently were in the HQ book we even had the fish rain in the Lismelder lands. I'm not sure that fits in with the "real" background, but it was fun.
(Discuss:-)
On 13 Mar 2007, at 15:54, donald_at_... wrote:
> In message <149D175F-A92A-43DF-872D-F28F07D39F58_at_...> David
> Scott writes:
>>
>> On 12 Mar 2007, at 21:19, donald_at_... wrote:
>>
>>> So that's the bigger meaning of that scenario. Is it mentioned in
>>> Gathering Thunder when the food is being retrieved?.....No!
>>
>> It may not have been the bigger meaning, I just thought it was a cool
>> way to expand the scenario with some long term NPCs. I'm sure there
>> are other possible outcomes that don't involve starvation.
>
> Re-reading the bit in BA, I'm sure it was intended at the time.
> Whether that was forgotten by the time GT was being written or
> edited out for space reasons I've no idea.
David Scott. Mac & PC Computer Support.
30 Alfred Road, Acton, W3 6LH.
020-8150-9716 / 07956-589433
---------------------------------
Powered by hypermail