RE: Re: Whether to have metaplot or not (was Guide to Glorantha)

From: chris jensen romer <chrisjensenromer_at_...>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:13:19 +0000

Hye I'm very happy with the Guide as it is. :) And yes adventures are a better place to do this - I'm really looking forward to Harreksaga, but sounds like lots more coming first. Given I like running games in Peloria plenty in the Guide for me already :)

And yes I fully appreciate the desire not to advance with a metaplot. I write for another game system where we have been in the year 1220 AD for well over a decade :D cj x

From: cainesinmyhead_at_...
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:09:41 -0700
Subject: Re: Whether to have metaplot or not (was Guide to Glorantha)          

      Sorry Chris, I just don't know what Jeff might have said about it. I have

said my peace on the matter on this list. I have no wish to further provoke

or argue. :)

That is, I would like events beyond 1621 explored through adventures and

source material (in a format similar to Sartar: KoH and Pavis), BUT I can

see the wisdom in not doing it in the Guide.

But I appreciate your perspective.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:13 PM, chris jensen romer <

chrisjensenromer_at_...> wrote:

> I thought I recalled Jeff saying it would cover event up to 1640: I could

> well be very wrong. The guide deals with 1621 as far as I know.

> Unfortunately that was really what I wanted the guide for: moving the

> setting on, as we have only really advanced a few years since I first

> played Runequest in the early 80's. I think real time is passing faster

> than the Hero Wars, but I could well be mistaken again :)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]                                                                       

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]            

Powered by hypermail