Interesting topic! I see things in a similar light to Ray, but I don't
really view the "problems" he cites as truly problems - they are closer
to consequences of how we create, explore, and RP in Glorantha. These
aren't really something that can be "fixed" to any great degree.
A Myth might be consistent with most, maybe all, of the others in the
tribe...but with all the neighboring tribes? The whole world? Consistent
forever with every telling? Heh, like we're consistent in this world
100%? ;) I sometimes chuckle when I see how much our historians revise
their opinions of historical figures dead but a few hundred years. Myths
are there to tie everything together for a people, and we've got that
for dozens? of races and a hundred plus societies? Whatever the numbers
are, they're big. That's what makes Glorantha unique - not just another
fantasy atlas. Myths are not made to tie together into a world history
and encyclopedia - no matter how much the God-Learners might wish.
"Theoretical" Glorantha is more than just Myth - it's a world-wide
repository of more than 30 years of stuff - and it isn't all cohesive.
Fine! There's still more stuff than any regular person can digest in
half a year, and the Lhankhor Mhy types can amuse themselves by ironing
out the wrinkles. Keeps them out of my hair. The more that gets added to
the Glorantha Vault, the better for all of us, right? No one likes
everything on the menu. We need as much cohesive, high-quality material
there as possible, but it isn't going to be perfect, and that's that.
I'm with Ray. Make it good enough - really good - and use it. Don't try
to reassemble the Spike. Last I saw, Greg was waaay to tall to be
Mostali.
Now, when we move from the Glorantha Vault to our own campaigns, that's
the biggest break - and the smallest problem, as I see it. The instant a
campaign starts, that's like opening up a whole new pocket universe
running in parallel with all the other Glorantha's out there. Time runs
at a different pace - the protagonists are different - even the gods
themselves act a little differently in this new pocket Glorantha (thanks
to the foibles of each different narrator). So, what's wrong with this
picture? IMHO, nothing! We're roleplaying, right? Each character, each
narrator, is taking on roles (with only as much knowledge of Glorantha
as each has *at that moment*) and carrying them forward. Often over a
span of years. Usually while tons of new "cohesive" info is published.
OK, I don't think we're going to maintain real good consistency with the
Vault...let alone all the other pocket Glorantha's.
But should that be anywhere on the goals list of an RP campaign? I'd
think RP, social interaction, character development, things like that
are probably more the order of the day for most groups. I really agree
with David that the campaign should not be bent out of shape to conform
with "Offica-Glorantha".
Ray has an interesting comment there about difficulty blending published
myth with the more specific, event-based needs of individual adventures.
That's an interesting thought I'll be keeping in mind as I start to play
HQ. I've got 25+ years of RP experience, however I'm new to HQ, so that
does look like it could be a stumbling block. "Adventure-Myth".
Hmmmm.....
Well, off to dig some more.
Dennis
- In HeroQuest-RPG_at_yahoogroups.com, Raymond Turney
<raymond_turney_at_...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 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:-)
> David
>
> David Scott. Mac & PC Computer Support.
> 30 Alfred Road, Acton, W3 6LH.
> 020-8150-9716 / 07956-589433