What's the big deal about Glorantha?

RMS said:
The irony about me "defending" ducks above is that I actually have written them out of Glorantha most of the time I've run it.

That'show it normally happens. The people who bang on about ducks all the time are usually first-time players, for whom ducks are a novelty, GMs for first time players, who want to show off how wierd and funky Glorantha is, or people who don't normally play in Glorantha, who try to show how rubbish Glorantha is.

Ducks are just another species, no sillier than Boggles, say, no funnier than baboons and no less fitting than Maidstone Archers.
 
What's not to love?

ah-beast.jpg
 
with Tim obsessing worryingly over ducks and gbaji-the-deceiver over morokanth......well I have been thinking there is room for all sorts in this world.....we could create a new thread for the beast lovers of this forum....a bestiality thread? what do you reckon? :shock:
 
iamtim said:
That said, part of the reason I never got in to Glorantha is because in all my readings (I have RQ3 Deluxe, Genertela: Crucible of the Hero Wars (or whatever that boxed set is called), Gods of Glorantha, and Troll Gods) Glorantha looked just like another fantasy world only more complex and with Talislanta-style "we're different from generic fantasy" tropes tossed in.

I think we've hit upon your problem right there. Your introduction to Glorantha was at the worst time. The Glorantha Book in the Deluxe set is pretty useless. A nice overview of if you are are already familiar with the material, but way to broad to be of any use for running a game. Genertela and Gods are excellent overviews of the whole world and many cults but also too broad to capture the spirit of Glorantha.

Now if your introduction to Glorantha had been Griffin Mountain, Pavis/Big Rubble, Trollpak, Cults of Prax and Cults of Terror you would have had a very different view of the world. Those contained very detailed settings with long cult writeups and a TON of flavor. I think most Gloranthaphiles learned to love the world because of the aforementioned supplements.

Now the world needed overview sourcebooks like Gods of Glorantha and Genertela to fill in all the blanks left by the earlier specific supplements. But it's reputation and faollowing are built on the detailed supplements of the Chaosium days and the AH RQ-Renaissance (Sun County, River of Cradles, etc) - none of which you have mentioned as having owned or read.

Maybe there is a lession in here that any current potential publisher of Gloranthan material should note. :wink:

iamtim said:
So educate me.

I think you are to far gone for mere education. A complete re-programming has been secheduled.

EDIT: Added examples titles of RQ Renaissance and fixed some parenthesis.
 
vini_lessa said:
What's the big deal about Glorantha?
Myth is real.

Every now and then someone used to turn up on the Glorantha Digest and ask what the real truth of the religions was, because many of the myths contradicted each other and there were several creation myths, so which of the myths were right and which ones were wrong.

What I like about Glorantha is that those people could never get what they wanted, not (I hope) because I'm some kind of elitist prig but because I was sick and tired of shallow fantasy worlds with morally un-challenging conflicts that gave nice easy answers to the Big Questions of the background. I like Glorantha because it's mythology is every bit as complex and sophisticated as real-world mythologies. It's inhabitants, even the unrepentant worst of it's life-hating chaos worshipers have completely understandable reasons for being the way they are.

On Glorantha consciously trying to be different from 'standard fantasy', you need to bear in mind that back when Greg started writing about Glorantha in 1966 'standard fantasy' as such didn't exist. Lord of the Rings had been published, but it was just one of many very different fantasy settings. Glorantha has Elves, Dwarves and Trolls not because they were takes from LoTR, but because Greg drew on some of the same mythic sources directly that Tolkien did, but took them in radically different directions to Tolkien.

In fact I understand that Greg had then and still now has very little time for Tolkien's Catholic Christianised reconstruction of North European myth in a monotheistic mould. Believe me, any similarities are thoroughly superficial.

Simon Hibbs
 
iamtim said:
Durand Durand said:
On comparing Ducks and Hobbits and Kender.
All I was saying about ducks in Glorantha is that they fill the same niche as hobbits in Middle Earth or kender on Krynn.
That's all.

ie something to be killed on sight preferably slowly and extremely painfully. Personally I remove all traces of any "cute" race from all games I run and have to have a very good reason not to do the above to any of these disgusting creatures when I meet them in other games.........

The only thing better than a dead (Duck/Gnome/Haffling/Kender) is a dying (insert name) who tells you where his mates are

Oh and I also hate the stupid gnomes in Dragonlance and the Ewoks and Jar jar Binks...........

ahhhh thats better - please continue with your reasoned discussion........ :wink:
 
On ducks, IIRC they originated because Greg let everyone in his old campaigns make something up gor Glorantha and one of them was apparently a Donald Duck fan. I may b e wrong, but weren't actualy added by Greg at all.

Anyway it's a moot point. Every living species in Glorantha has sentient members, it's part of the metaphysics of the place. I think it's the way the Gloranthan cosmos percieves and comprehends itself. So there would be sentient ducks somewhere anyway.

Simon Hibbs
 
The Problem With The Ducks is not their existence per se. As Rurik said up thread (just before the necromancy that is making Delecti green with envy) most people get there tone of gloranthe from the scenarios they play not from the grand background. And in too many scenarios about the tim I signed up, Ducks were portrayed as Donald Duck style comic relief.
 
I like Glorantha, (and have since the 70's, so there's my credentials), and I certainly wouldn't call it a 'generic' fantasy world.

However... :lol:

...when a bunch of obssessive middle-age guys sit around arguing about the Feathered Horse Queen, or 'myth as reality', (many of whom obviously not being familiar with the origins of 'Gloranthan' concepts in Hero With a Thousand Faces), you can count me out.

If you think a fantasy world, which includes american football played by trolls, exploding beast men and place names ripped from Dr. Seuss books, is a serious candidate for academic study, you're really badly mistaken. And anyone who is equipped with even rudimentary knowledge of ancient warfare knows that Gloranthan essays on the subject of the Sartarite/Lunar battles are laughable. That Gloranthan Newsletter thing was a hoot.

Still, it's a good rpg setting.

I like Tekumel too, but it also has it's absurdities. Monsters that look like dungeon ceilings, for instance.

I'm wearing ceramic armour at the mo, btw, and have my earplugs in. :)
 
PrinceYyrkoon said:
Still, it's a good rpg setting.

And that's what really matters.

For me, it's the combination of Trollball mayhem and Dr Seus jokes on the one hand and far out metaphysics at the other that keeps me entertained and interested.

I'll go further and say what makes it so 'real', in the sense that it encompasses so much of what makes life so diverse and so much fun. There's something in Glorantha for everyone from good old fashioned hack-n-slash cave bashing to playing emissaries to the World Council of Friends in a freeform. But equally everyone is likely to find aspects of it that drive them nuts, be it arguing about obscure details of heroquesting theory, or the existence of Grotarons or ducks.

Simon Hibbs
 
PrinceYyrkoon said:
If you think a fantasy world, which includes american football played by trolls, exploding beast men and place names ripped from Dr. Seuss books, is a serious candidate for academic study, you're really badly mistaken. :)

These two things are not necessarily incompatible.

And anyone who is equipped with even rudimentary knowledge of ancient warfare knows that Gloranthan essays on the subject of the Sartarite/Lunar battles are laughable.

Which essays? I mean, I'm certain that someone, somewhere, has written something laughable about Gloranthan warfare, but, for example, Sandy Petersen's comments on the subject seem realistic enough.
 
Well for my tuppence-worth... I think its highly commendable that Mongoose has ventured into the world of Glorantha - and for me I'd have thought it a majorly brave and foolhardy venture...

I've no idea where they got the idea from to pick the second age, but from what I've read they've done a really good job. Perhaps people could be mistaken that Mongoose were making prequels (thats twice Jar Jar features in this whole thread!) but I think they've done a commendable job and indeed, as a 3rd age Gloranthaphile they at least have opened my eyes to the 2nd age and a new aspect to Greg's vision - I'm obviously illuminated :)

I think we should all congratulate them that they have expanded the Gloranthaverse and indeed hell - produced bucketloads of material compared to the 3rd age lot! Regardless on your stance of what Glorantha means to you, me, to everyone or no-one, at least they have stamped thier identity as part of the big G. mythology :)

And before I finish, I also want to commend Lawrence for his work with Mongoose and the 2nd age - I'm totally sure we're all going to miss his works - Darra Happa and Pavis Rises are akin to the 3rd age Pavis and cradle materal at an epic level - and that, methinks, is what makes Gloranthaphiles tick!

</soapbox>
 
Ravage said:
I've no idea where they got the idea from to pick the second age,</soapbox>

I believe that it was mentioned that Greg Stafford suggested it as a way of keeping RuneQuest and HeroQuest from overlapping the same material.
 
Back
Top