Roleplaying is always too, about **escapism** as well as catharsis and creativity. There are times when I will introduce dark themes to a campaign: atrocities and stead burnings and ducks unplucked, but I always do it carefully and with a close eye to players' reactions. I'm not writing a history: I'm telling part of a story, and the needs of both are very, very different.
For me, roleplay design is always about questions, not answers. Answers come from the players.
The rewards of Glorantha are many: a very rich background, an energetic community, and a systematic (if somewhat overstretched and oversimplified) approach to myth and religion. Its weaknesses all seem to flow from a propensity to interpret things too narrowly. Its fantasy conventions are a little dated: even more reason to think new thoughts and broaden our interpretations.
The beauty and enduring usefulness of King of Sartar lies in its very vagueness and contradiction: you can march a whole legion of berserker duck hueymakts through its unanswered questions. This very vagueness has fueled some wonderful discussion and campaigning. I hope the forthcoming Argrath campaign will pay heed to this: that KOs's weaknesses are its greatest strength. Is Argrath a kind of Arthur reborn or is he Pol Pol: Year Zero all the way to Glamour? The answer of course, is that he/they can be both. I expect that published materials will concentrate on the positives: we want our roleplaying to be the liberation of Europe, not the inept madness of Iraq. But we have to accept that there must be room for interpretation: for Kallyr, for the Argraths, for the Lunars. They are glorious, they are human. They seek to embody the eternal, and they pay the price for that.
Along the way, I hope we can dust off the Gloranthan (and our) concept of what a hero is, examine it, pull it to pieces, and rebuild something wonderful.
Here endeth the lesson. :)
Cheers
John
Powered by hypermail