Re: The Fall of Whitewall

From: Michael Hitchens <michaelh_at_svB1P9b4sKz2XwfiLAEZjMaupsqFt-SC_SmMJ4i0wojEhC4juYr-SBa49f9pICHdtde>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:43:32 +1100 (EST)


On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Jane Williams wrote:

>>> And I still maintain that it is unreasonable to
>> claim that because
>>> something isn't in KoS it can't be important
>
>> Well, I haven't actually made such a claim.
>
> And nor has anyone that I know of.
>
> But I still think it is reasonable to claim that if an
> event is not only "important", but overwhelmingly
> obvious to a large area, then for a supposed history
> of that area to miss it out is extremely odd. Would a
> modern history of New Orleans that made no mention of
> flooding strike you as reasonable? No, if something
> that BIG gets missed out, it's a deliberate omission,
> and there is probably a story behind why. And that
> story may, just may, allow us to explain why our PCs
> in 1621 failed to notice that their magic hadn't been
> working for the last season, and that despite the
> trouble they'd had with the hot summer, it was
> actually still winter.

Hmmm

Much toing and froing. The problem is the old thorny one of later publications gazumping earlier ones. Compounded if your campaign has moved past the point of gazumping. Either you

  1. ignore the latter info
  2. retrospectively alter history in your Glorantha
  3. try to make the latter info fit with the former.

Now obviously c) is generally preferable. We might have a situation here though where it just won't bend enough. To *me*, but probably not to others, the contortions you have to go through to make KoS and OiD fit together nicely while keeping KoS authorative probably require too much change in emphasis (or whatever) to OiD. I like the FW being big and important. If that means something's wrong with KoS, then oh well. But that's just my choice, others will vary. Personally I never regarded KoS, important as it is, as writing everything in stone (again, just my approach).

It probably is a matter of approach - which is regarded as more authorative - the earlier or latter publication? Needs of a campaign aside, I prefer to take the latter, but that's just me.

In an ideal world maybe we need a 2nd edition KoS, including a little note from the Gloranthan edition that says "includes portions accidentally left out of 1st edition in a printing error".

Hmmm - KoS is a copy of a copy of a ....... Who says that version didn't introduce (more) errors? Like "heat" instead of "cold" and dropping the FW sections? It can happen - our stupid publications section once switched "maximum" for "minimum" in a whole set of degree requirements in our handbook.

Certainly for those with running campaigns fun can be had getting OiD to fit with KoS, but for ones started post OiD it may well be simpler to get KoS to fit with OiD. Doesn't stop anyone trying tho.

Michael



Dr. Michael Hitchens
Senior Lecturer, Department of Computing Macquarie University
michaelh_at_PxobBFrNV-u45Wo3mrrVelH9jGWCGZtifqMqRZMoUpv62gDlJ03Et74DVPZfONiyEYLXMR3byrW_VrgL.yahoo.invalid            

Powered by hypermail