Depends how it's done, to be honest. If it's just in Unfinished Works, or doesn't even get that far then, yes, it's pretty easy to ignore. (And mostly, to be fair, it so far has been, so that's not so bad). If core published works keep mucking about with names though, it gets confusing fast, and gives the impression of everything being a lot more difficult to understand than it actually need be. Not that I'm saying core published works *will* do this, mind, as I have no idea. I'm just saying that I hope they don't. YGWV.
> E.G. "This crawling on your belly to enter the holy precinct is cool -
> but who the hell is Enbaklava? I'll keep calling him Humakt thanks
> very much!"
The problem comes when you can't remember who N. Balaclava is at all. "Is that Humakt? Chalana Arroy? Eurmal? Oh, sod it..." It's pretty easy to remember that 'Orlanatus', say, is another name for Orlanth. Similarly Hum'Akt, among others. 'N. Balaclava' is a bit trickier.
> I don't think this is a really serious problem to be honest,
Depending on how and where it's done, it may not be. Unless you want to use something you can't understand as background for something you want to get published, I suppose. But in your own game, no, not so much.
> nor is it
> an impediment to being creative (I find it an incentive personally,
> E.G. "Well the printed stuff is trash, what am I going to use now?").
One would hope that the printed material would be inspiring, rather than 'trash', personally. (Although note it wasn't that me that said 'trash' - I just said I found certain styles 'alienating'). But, yes, of course, everyone's free to make up stuff for their own campaign.
> This sort of 'problem' with 'canon' seems to be doing the rounds on
> other lists I am on (the Berklist for Ars Magica) and I am more than a
> bit fed up with grognards having a sook because their pet theories
> have not been grandfathered into the current version. In Glorantha
> these complaints seem even more ridiculous.
To which pet Gloranthan theories do you refer? I don't think I mentioned any...
>
> By all means ignore the explosion of 'ancient names' if you don't like
> them!
If it's done badly (and I'm not saying it will be) then it can get to the point where it's quite difficult to ignore. Well, you could, at an extreme, just ignore everything that's published from point X onwards, but if you're trying to inspire people to engage with the new publications, that's not a good way to start.
Powered by hypermail