Hi

Mike wrote:
I have the same objections that your friend has. I don't play in Glorantha, because I don't want to learn it, and have to abide by it's canon.

Mike

Mike wrote:
As for B, the problem is the same as with any world that has lots of canon. Which is what's true, and what's not? I'd rather not have to have the "worry" of wondering what I'm messing up. I'd actually rather know that the information that I was making up didn't contradict something else. Less is more here. Hence why I'm using Shadow World. It's lack of addressing these cultural issues in such detail is precisely it's strength for this purpose.

Mike

Mike wrote:
Hope that I'm shedding some light, and not projecting too much.

Mike

Wow, this thread is a blast from the past! In retrospect we spent a lot of time talking past each other, and I'm sure I could articulate my possition more clearly these days. However to try to do so would be a bit lame, IMHO.

It's not usualy considered a good idea to open up such an old thread as though it had been started yesterday. Perhaps you can start a new thread on this issue starting with a fresh statement of your point of view, referencing this one for historical context?

Simon Hibbs

Simon is correct, the policy here is to not resurect old threads, Rob. What often happens in these cases is that the moderator, Ron in this case, will split the thread off into a new one. That said, I also agree with Simon that there might be very little left to discuss on this one.

BTW, are you Rob from over at the rules list?

In any case, if you read through the thread, Rob, you'll see that the same rebuttals that you've brought up here have been leveled by other folks (I think Simon even brought some of them up himself). So you might be able to glean some insights on my responses from the thread.

Very simply, I'd rather be making my own stuff up than playing in somebody else's world. Yes, if I used YGWV, it would soon turn into my world. But then what's the use of using Glorantha to start? Why use the heavy world? If you're not playing in Glorantha to use the lots of information that it presents, what makes Glorantha better than any other setting to play in? I feel that if you're playing a Heortling according to the main book, what makes play good is not the brief description of Heortlings, but the system. IOW, the setting doesn't much matter. It's what the players put into the setting via play that matters.

In fact, what I've started doing lately is playing what I call OtherWorld, where I don't start with a setting at all. I get the players together, and then narrate, "Three [or however many] figures come over the horizon." And then the players start making their characters "As You Go." This includes inventing their homelands, of course, which defines the setting. This has worked astonishingly well - which should be unsurprising since it's merely Ron Edward's idea from Sorcerer & Sword. You use the dramatic convention of inventing the world as you need it, just like authors (including Greg Stafford) do it for their worlds.

Now, I still like Shadow World play, too. But that's because we're still making most of it up, since there's so little detail there. That's key. The information not being there, it forces you to ignore that urge to look something up, and instead forces you to be creative and to come up with the information you need instead, in response to the story. I don't even want to be tempted to take the easy way out and look the information up.

Because I do get tempted. I still have that sim side that wants the world to be "concrete." This is a problem, however, as the idea of a concrete setting supports the sim mode of play. I find that when there are conflicts in play mode in my game that it's largely because I'm transmitting with the canon that this is the mode to play. And this gets transmitted as long as there is something that could be considered concrete. Whether or not I actively use it or not. That is, as soon as you, say, correct a player once with the canon, they are informed that there probably is canon for similar things, and not to make similar level of things up. This even happens in Shadow World where I was hoping that the "skeletal" nature of the setting material would clearly show where the players could take off from.

What I've found is that the only really consistent way to avoid these problems is to simply have no setting whatsoever to start. Then the players can't be under the impression that there are times when they can't be creative in defining the world as it affects their character. There's no blurry line between when they can create and when they can't.

Mike

You know, I've been coming to much the same conclusion as Mike regarding settings. It is better to allow the players to make up things on the fly, in many cases. I don't agree that it is the best method, however.

I recall a conversation wherein one objection to such a method as Mike proposes was that the players wanted to feel as though there were other things out there for them to discover in the world, things they had no hand in creating, things they could use as springboards for ideas, that they could tie their characters and backgrounds to, and have revelations about, etc. So they weren't the sole creators all the time.

After thinking about it, the method I have found I prefer now is to detail a complete world, but at the same time leave it undetailed until those details are mentioned in game. That is, the world exists as a concrete entity before and during play, but it is at the same time ever-changing.

Groups utilize the same base from campaign to campaign, but each campaign reveals the world differently. For example, in one campaign the Dun hills and the Vale might be east of the great capital city, and in another, they might be south, and across the sacred river. In one campaign, the Western city of Almsra might be a bustling port full of drow, dwarves, and humans. In another, it might be a sinking swamp city peopled by spiders and dark elves.

Basically, there is a skeleton to the world, yet it doesn't exist until it is actually mentioned in play, and then only those details mentioned are considered to exist. More than this, the players are free to redescribe things that have not yet been concretized to suit the campaign, but there is also a base to fall back on in case they don't want to do the work or they really like the existing concept.

You also are not forced into a specific concept on the skeleton, either. If someone comes up with an alternate for another game that is really just that much more cool than whatever the current placeholder is, the group is completely free to change the base so that the new idea becomes part of the existing skeleton from there on out.

This satisfies two urges at once: the urge to create and not let existing structure interfere, and the urge to know the wider details of the world. And yet since since the former takes precedence over the latter until the current game details it for certain, there are very few conflicts between these two states.

Well, this is about what I use with Shadow World. There's just so little a skeleton that the problem doesn't occur. What's the problem?

Player A wants to get something into play. But it conflicts with large chunks of the unentered "canon." So there's this temptation to say, "Hmm, how about we do it this way instead." Because otherwise you can quickly run out of viable canon, and be back to not using any, anyhow. Or have to modify everything to get it in. Which is more work than simply making stuff up.

In any case, I find that the "discovery" thing (and this is what some people are calling sim these days), can be provided for by the introductions by the other participants. One thing that's ignored here is that the GM still puts in his own additions using this method. In fact, doing it in PBEM where it may look as though I'm copying from a text, it sometimes appears to players that I'm relaying canon from an extant set when I'm not (which has lead to sim play on occasion).

So I don't find this to be all that neccessary. In fact I think we're talking about El Dorado now, with the problems that this implies.

Mike

Mike wrote: Player A wants to get something into play. But it conflicts with large chunks of the unentered "canon." So there's this temptation to say, "Hmm, how about we do it this way instead."

greyorm wrote:
No, there isn't that temptation, because everything not concretely stated does not exist yet. That stuff is in the realm of possibility, and that's it. Any changes Player A makes to unconcretized "canon" are changes that have to be dealt with; obviously those parts of the skeletal structure have been replaced for the game. That's really all there is to it.

I'm not interested in talking hypotheticals, though -- the "But if you do THAT, this and this and this COULD happen! Horrors! Unworkable! It's El Dorado! The Beast!" -- My only response to such is, "Give me concrete examples, not hypotheticals, where it did and does occur often enough to be a valid problem."

Not to mention, the proposed method has absolutely nothing to do with El Dorado -- it isn't Narrativist or Simulationist specific. It's on the Technique level of the model, and therefore divorced from pairings with GN or S, and could easily serve any of those Agendas.

Hello,

All of the above were split from Hesitance toward Glorantha as a setting.

DO NOT post to older threads. I'm very unhappy with all of you more experienced posters who compounded a newcomer's understandable confusion about that.

Fuckin' wasting my time, is what it is.

Best,
Ron

Mike wrote: I'm not talking hypotheticals, I'm talking my own games. I'm saying that, while it's my intention to play the way that you say, I find myself tempted (so don't tell me that I don't) to adhere to as yet unconcretized setting material that's available.

Could, perhaps, but what I'm saying is that the impetus to do so is, I think, most often an El Dorado one. It is for me (you may remember that I was one of the first on the hunt for El Dorado when Paul coined the term).

Greg recently said something interresting that has to do with the issues raised here. He was asked about the recluctance of playing in Glorantha, because it is so huge and detailed. His response was something like tha you could say that about almost every fantasy world. Do you need to know who was the fifth king of Gondor if you want to play in Middle-Earth? I sure hope not.

He also ran a scenario for me and some of my friends. I was playing a Dara Happan servant to a nobleman. Greg asked me what I worship. I started thinking along the lines, that there propably weren't a lot of servign deities and that most Dara Happans wouldn't propably be initiated - following a local common religion instead. I said that maybe there isn't a suitable god for me. Greg said, sure there is. After a while I had invented the Most-able Servant god who was the Holder of the Sandals of Protection with his own affinity, feats and all.

The only true way to explore Glorantha is to play it and start inventing once you encounted something that you don't know. For example, in my heortling game, I have this player who is repeatedly amazed when I invent new myths, rituals, customs and stuff like that, when I seem to need them. She keeps asking if I read the stuff from somewhere.

Here's an apposite "Glorantha Digest" mailing list post from Michael O'Brien, written 7.5 years ago and just as true today: Wellsprings of Inspiration. I may add it to the Lokarnos index later on today...

Cheers, Nick

Nick wrote:
Here's an apposite "Glorantha Digest" mailing list post from Michael O'Brien, written 7.5 years ago and just as true today: Wellsprings of Inspiration. I may add it to the Lokarnos index later on today...

Cheers, Nick

I think this thread has a bit of an identity crisis. Gloranthophiles (including me way back when) are interpreting it as a specific attack on Glorantha, when realy I don't think it is.

It seems to me there are perfectly good reasons for wanting to create your own game world, whether that is with or without the active collaboration of your players. I've done it myself before, and I'm sure I'll do it again. I don't think there is realy anything the Gloranthan community, or copyright owner can ever do to change that and I don't think it's a problem.

In the specific case of playing a Dragonewt the orriginal thread covered all the avilable options, from reding up on Dragon pass Dragonewts, to playing a heretical/mutated/foreign dragonewt and thus avoiding canon completely. However just because there are usable workarounds for avoiding canon conflicts, that doesn't mean all possible fantasy/HeroQuest campaigns can or should be played in Glorantha.

Simon