- In ImmoderateGloranthaQuest_at_yahoogroups.com, Michael Hitchens
<michaelh_at_...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi
>
> Being someone who, by nature can not resist putting their opinion
in (just
> ask John if you don't belive me by now) I have to jump into the
debate.
>
> Couldn't be bothered quoting anyone else - this is my rant.
>
> Or maybe not a rant. See, I can see both (all?) sides of this.
>
> Jane wants a world that is mroe or less consistent. She has good
reasons
> for doing so. Her own sanity as GM for a start. It makes no GM's
life
> easy if a new supplement comes out and invalidates huge swathes of
what
> has passed in the campaign. YGWV you say. Well, what if I don't
want it
> to vary? What if I just want ot pick up the latest supplement and
have it
> slot easily into my campaign? And don't say "you must be
creative". It's
> YGMV (MAY) not YGWV (WILL). There is a basic commercial
imperative here.
> Why the hell should people keep buying the supplements if they are
more
> work to make usable then the buyer wants to put in?
>
> Now, of course, there's a hidden variable in the last sentence.
How much
> work is more work? No two roleplaying campaigns in the same world
are
> ever totally compatible. I remember some idiot in my university
> roleplaying club days wanting to make all the club's D+D campaigns
> compatible - he was howled down (Of course, those of us who were
> Runequest/Dragonquest players just laughed anyway, but that's
another
> story). But within the published material there should be enough
> (whatever that means) consistency to enable GMs to use the
material and
> encourage them to buy it in the first place. It's called editorial
> responsibility, both to yourself and to your customers. Glorantha
may be
> flat, but money makes it go round too.
>
> But more buts. Managing a roleplaying world is a lot harder than
> managing a fantasy trilogy. More data, more time, more authors.
In
> something as sprawling as Glorantha you are never going to get it
100%
> compatible. We know that. I accept that, and I think a lot of
others do
> too.
>
> And I actually think Issaries has done a pretty good job so far.
If you
> look where most of the arguments occur it's over Issaries vs old
stuff or
> Mainstream vs the unfinished works or Issaries vs fan stuff. If
you look
> at the "finished" Issaries works so far, it's actually about as
consistent
> as you could expect. It's not easy to maintain. Yes the HQ/HW
would is
> different in many ways to that of RQ2/3, but at least the
individual games
> and their supplements display some internal consistency, even if
they
> contradict each other. We know about the problems vis KoS and
OiD, but
> new material will always present a problem. It's not like a
fantasy
> trilogy. The places not visited in the first book, but detailed
in the
> second, may not be what the readers expect, but they haven't gone
and
> invented it for themselves in the meantime, which is what you
often do in
> a roleplaying game. I could get into narrative theory here, but
won't.
> Even in good old commercial D+D you could want use a town that
isn't well
> deatiled. You do all the work detailing, then the next supplement
covers
> that town in all its glory and it's completely differnt to your
version.
> What do you do? Junk your version or ignore the supplement (which
> probably at least has a better quality map)? No right answer.
Most of my
> RQ days were spent in Prax - we didn't dare go to Sartar, because
we kept
> hoping the details wold come out and we didn't want what we'd done
> invalidated. Where we right? Wrong? I don't think there is a
right or
> wrong in that. Yer pays yer money and yers takes yer chance.
>
> Changes will happen - roleplaying worlds evolve much more than
most
> literary worlds do (although some of those do too - look at the
changes in
> middle eath documented in the Hostory of Middle Earth series).
But that's
> no excuse for arbitrary changes. So far Iassaries has done a good
job,
> but I worry about some of the latest hints and attitudes to
previously
> published material. At the very least, if changes are made,
please
> include some instructions to GMs about how to reconcile the
> incompatibilities. Of course, this doesn't apply to fan published
stuff,
> and even the Ormalthingsaga comes under that heading. GMs use
such
> material at their peril. But for most of the GMs of this world -
who
> don't read these lists - a sensible publisher doesn't make their
lives
> harder than they have to be. Such people aren't as wedded to
Glorantha as
> we are, and if it gets too hard for them they will drop it.
There's more
> of them then of us, and so it's their money that keeps this
going. I
> repeat, I think Issaries has done well so far. Yes, HQ Glorantha
is
> different to RQ Glorantha. But I think HQ Glorantha is pretty
consistent.
> You could even make a textual argument that KoS is RQ not HQ and
needs an
> updated version, but that's another argument.
>
> Glorantha is different. It's built on a study of mythology,
something
> ignored by most fantasy RPGs (rather stupidly if you think about
it, but
> their loss). It's also, really, owned by one person - Greg. Like
it or
> not. If you buy Glorantha you get Greg thrown in for free (even
if you'd
> rather a set of steak knives, tough). And however much he may
upset us at
> times, we wouldn't have Glorantha without him. At all - period.
>
> Does that mean he can do what he likes? Yes, and no. No law in
the
> universe stops him writing what he wants - and then publishing it
if the
> funds are available. But no law in the universe makes us like it
or buy
> it. There is a creative tension here that most RPGs lack. Almost
all
> (to my knowledge) RPGs come from some initial creative source (of
greater
> or lesser quality). But almost all fall into two categories.
One,
> typified by D+D and World of Darkness are lost by their initial
creator
> and end up being run by people who value the sales over the
story. They
> don't like admiting it, but it's true. Most of the rest are
obscure
> little things which are essentially one man shows, and so keep
their
> consitency, but very few care.
>
> Glorantha is almost (possibly is) unique. It's been succesful
enough to
> last 30 years in publication, but still has its creator involved.
Plus
> said creator has at least as much focus on the story and myth as
the
> playing. These are pluses and minuses. The tension between the
myth and
> the roleplay exists. It's unavoidable. As is the separation. I
know
> people who love Glorantha that think the Entekosiad is laughable.
Ther
> loss I think, but I wonder who is in the majority? I think Greg
and
> Issaries have shown sense in publishing those things in a
different line.
>
> The myth is the foundations of Gloranth, but a lot of Glorantha
*players*
> aren't interested in that foundation ("Humakt did what? Oh,
right. Err,
> how many pluses do I get for that and can I still dress in black?
I can?
> Cool"). How much do you know about the foundations of your
house? And
> how much do you care, as long as the house stays up on them?
>
> Greg's (and others) explorations of the myths will continue - we
can't,
> and I don't want, to stop them. But (and there's always a but) the
> translation of that myth into roleplaying materials has to be done
in a
> way that won't alienate the silent majority of Gloranthan
consumers (and I
> choose that word with care) *IF* the money is still to come in.
The desire
> to explore is constrained by the needs of playability, which is
both
> stretched and maintained by the need to explore.
>
> I think the blance has been maintained pretty well in the past
(not
> perfectly, but nothing's perfect). I just hope that continues
into the
> future.
MOOBIES!
Powered by hypermail