Re: Generally Accepted Glorantha (GAG) , Core Glorantha

From: Chris Lemens <chrislemens_at_v9W-o02oXvgV12h5WpnixZ0qJdsgCLoldyDHUgoBjfQ8uBXOeZjeUAXIPNdTzFDQ>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:01:17 -0700 (PDT)

I find the entire idea of "Core Glorantha" to be less than worthwhile. I see no purpose that it serves. Theoretically, one could construct some sort of heirarchy of sources such that something said in a higher-listed source beats something in a lower-listed source. But why bother? To me, the list would always change depending on the context. For example, the best source on some Praxian entities is _still_ Nomad Gods.

At one point, Jane (I think) said she wants to define what we are varying from. There's enough variation within the vast canon of Gloranthan materials that I think this is pointless. The whole idea of YGWV is that it is impossible not to vary, even if you try to be 100% compatible with published Glorantha. So privileging a set of texts as "Core Glorantha" seems pointless to me. (I accept her broader point about keeping Glorantha accessible to customers, but I don't think a definition of Core Glorantha is needed to do that.)

A slightly better concept is GaG. I think it is better only because it is used without precision -- to mean something like "If you dropped a knowledgable player into this campaign in GaG, would they feel at home?" Or, alternatively, "Would most of the Glorantha players I know agree that X is a true-ish statement about Glorantha?" Or any number of other alternative formulations, where the precise formulation does not matter because it is not about precision. That's good enough for me because it means that we can usefully talk, agree, and disagree about Glorantha. The finer distinctions necessary to define Core Glorantha just feel like that old Solar rectification crusade where they defined Yelm by what he isn't -- and ended up with an narrow-minded bore.

Can we please drive a stake in this debate? I can feel it draining my POW as I read.

Inflammatorily yours,
Chris