I too find it hard to see the use of a rigidly-defined "Core Glorantha", I'm far happy with it varying as mush as it possibly can. (Yes, including even from one official source to another!) And I would add another vote for this "debate" to calm down and move on.
As far as needing to define what Your Glorantha is "varying from", I can't help but be reminded of Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land". After the protagonist (Michael?) makes something dispappear into thin air he is asked where he sent it,
"Sideways."
"Sideways to what?"
"Oh, everything..."
xxx
>From: Chris Lemens <chrislemens_at_spWEzVtpFj6icgU6T4levYe0fuug_zaGxC318e5LDGYR0TX84ylBnxKuHhBRk8TqkysA0YYXCp0dmeZlFg.yahoo.invalid>
>Reply-To: WorldofGlorantha_at_yahoogroups.com
>To: WorldofGlorantha_at_yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: Generally Accepted Glorantha (GAG) , Core
>Glorantha
>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
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Powered by hypermail