On 04/02/2008, Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette_at_...> wrote:
> --- David Cake <dave_at_...> wrote:
> > At 7:27 PM +1100 30/1/08, John Hughes wrote:
> > > Glorantha has much more of a narrativist flavour,
> > > though campaigns can
> > > take on a variety of different hues.
> >
> > Glorantha really is traditionally simulationist.
>
> Hear! Hear! Indeed mythic simulationist. One can
> certainly engage in narrativist play in Glorantha, but
> it will (almost) inevitably constrained by the
> pre-existing simulationist background, setting and
> history. (Unless one takes a YGWV to such an extreme
> that it is barely recognised as Glorantha).
This is a pretty mystifying statement to me. Am I to take it that if I dislike the POW mechanic and stop using it my games I am attacking the very substance of Glorantha?
Glorantha appeals to me because of it's *lack* of constraint - or am I fundamentally misinterpreting "Y(our) G(lorantha) M(ay) V(ary)"?
Regards,
-- John Machin "Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All." - Athanasius Kircher, 'The Great Art of Knowledge'.
Powered by hypermail