"Let's talk a little bit about Your Glorantha Will Vary (YGWV)" by Ian Cooper

[Christoph Kohring]

A short time ago on Facebook @Ian Cooper wrote something that might be worth preserving & commenting here as well (also for those who are not on FB):

Quote

Let's talk a little bit about Your Glorantha Will Vary (YGWV).

It is important to note that is not YGMV, or MAY vary, but WILL. Greg regularly signed off with this on mailing lists such as World of Glorantha in the noughties because Glorantha was a medium for telling stories. Time and again Greg advised people to put their stories first, Gloranthan canon second. Glorantha is a tool for you to use to make great stories, not a canon to be slavishly adhered to.

Glorantha should exist in games and stories.

As I get older, and perhaps wiser, I would be happy to see Glorantha supplements that ignore each other, if they need to. I understand that for some here, that is anathema.

But our greatest mythologies, including the modern ones like superheroes have often been re-told with tweaks and variations that are important to that story.

 

Imagine a world where GMs and writers asked first: what cool stories can I tell here, and only second: what does canon say, and do I need to ignore it for MY story.

 

Glorantha already has KoDP and Six Age, HQG and 13th Age as well as RQG. None of them exactly reflect Greg's stories. None is 'more true' than the other, just more recent. Canon has already become meaningless. Consistency is only important to a line.

 

If we can make a great story by making adjustments to what is known, then why not? No one's campaign is actually broken.

When we ague about things that have changed, such as, Elmal vs. Yelmalio we are not talking about what Greg cared about 'stories': we should ask first what stories do we want to tell about the Orlanthi sun?

 

Do we want to tell stories of downtrodden sun worshipers uplifted by the Sun Dome? Do we want to tell stories about steadfast Elmali refusing the temptation of Nysalor and rejecting Yelmalio? Do we want to tell stories where Tarkalor saved the Emali of the clans by diverting the Yelmalians to lands liberated from the Kitori, or do we want tell stories where Tarkalor oversaw the conversion of the Elmali to Yelmalio.

 

All these stories are possible? Why limit ourselves to one.

 

And I would offer that notions of 'one true Glorantha' put people off. Because we make them feel small if the get it 'wrong.' Is it wrong if they make great art, but somehow break a part of canon? If we just treated everything published, by anyone, as a source of inspiration to fold into YOUR Glorantha, we could put canon behind us.

 

Let's talk about stories. Not canon. And let's ask questions within the context of stories, because outside that, how can we judge the choices. Want to understand Gloranthan slavery: what story do you want to tell about slavery?

 

As the poet said:

 

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

I don't know how & when YGMV came up, but I always detested it. I don't remember it coming from Greg himself, by the way. For me, it was always WILL & not MAY... as in Your Glorantha Will Inevitably Vary & Cannot Do Otherwise (YGWIVACDO)! Anyway, Ian really nails it & says it very, very, very nicely.
 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Christoph Kohring

[Bill the barbarian]

3 hours ago, Christoph Kohring said:

I don't know how & when YGMV came up, but I always detested it. I don't remember it coming from Greg himself, by the way. For me, it was always WILL & not MAY... as in Your Glorantha Will Inevitably Vary & Cannot Do Otherwise (YGWIVACDO)! Anyway, Ian really nails it & says it very, very, very nicely.

 

3 hours ago, Christoph Kohring said:

If we can make a great story by making adjustments to what is known, then why not? No one's campaign is actually broken.

When we ague about things that have changed, such as, Elmal vs. Yelmalio we are not talking about what Greg cared about 'stories': we should ask first what stories do we want to tell about the Orlanthi sun?

 

 

3 hours ago, Christoph Kohring said:

All these stories are possible? Why limit ourselves to one.

 

Thank you. and nicely said. Since I started posting a couple of years back I have argued for story first and foremost (Oddly I came to RPGs from the simulation fold of our hobby; war gaming, and RQ appealed strongly to the simulationist in me when I started playing).

Mind you , my other great love was reading and reading Good Story in particular. Include the fact that MGF has always fought at my table with my personal desire for great story telling, whilst those wily murder hobos and munchkins seated in front of me all but ignored my clear desires in their clamour for more fun, cheetos, jolt and skittles (a total exaggeration*,  as MGF and story have always co-existed at my tables).

So, MOB and Greg as the two guides into the lands beyond the maps. 

Sounds good to me, I would have no problem, or need for that matter of articulating the MOB angle, he was very vocal back in the day ‘bout MGF. I don’t recall GS being as forthright as MOB on the story angle, but everything he did and said and wrote seemed to push that agenda quietly but ever forward. It always seemed from afar that he was the story telling shaman of the crew of the good ship Chaosium. Listening for the words not the winds that blew the ship to its destinations.

Aye lads and ladies, arrgh,  now yer done it! Yer sailin’ in uncharted waters, Here be fun and tales, stories just wantin' to be writ!. 

YGWV!

* Fabrication is what my gamers would say, but what would they know?

Edited September 11, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Qizilbashwoman]

The Five Principles of Gaming from HeroQuest Glorantha always underlined the YGWV for me. I've limited it to the principle and removed much text for fair use. Emphasis mine.

Quote

The Stafford Principle: As a Game Master, it is important to maintain a sense of wonder in the world.

The Petersen Principle: As a Game Master, you should do things that make the campaign fun. [...] If the new explanations are more fun and overall consistent with your Glorantha, go with them!

The Richard Principle: As a Game Master, always be prepared to wing it and make stuff up. If it is Maximum Game Fun for everyone playing and creates a good story, then sometimes a dragon can be defeated with a talking flower or a player can try to “spontaneously resurrect” by wandering the Path of the Dead and seeking the way out of the Underworld.

The Robinson Principle: As a player, be willing to Embrace Failure. Sometimes your hero will fail, and that is what makes the game more interesting. This is not a computer game or miniatures skirmish where you need to succeed each time to continue the story. Sometimes failing is the story.

The Meints Principle: As a player, be mindful that there are others, including the GM, trying to enjoy the game as much as you are.

YGWV comes spontaneously from the inventions of wonder, fun, invention, failure and kindness just as Illumination inspired the first heroquesters to boldly make changes during a heroquest.

[Lordabdul]

Within your own Glorantha (i.e. inside a given campaign at your table) do you strive to keep it all consistent, or do you also make it vary in itself?

For instance, it's one thing to have someone's Glorantha where a given big rock is the finger of the fallen Ugelbalg The Giant (made up name, don't look it up), and someone else's Glorantha where that same big rock is the tooth of a Great Dragon that went flying off when he fought some Chaos creature or whatever. But would you actually make those 2 myths co-exist in the same Glorantha? Like, the PCs' tribe knows it as the finger, but the GM later finds some cool scenario where it's a dragon tooth and there's a whole thing with Dragonewts doing rituals around it and so she just rules that both stories are true and starts this new adventure around it?  Or a similar situation with some Vingkotling king being, say, both imprisoned in some old magic cairn and also dead in the Underworld?

Edited September 11, 2019 by lordabdul

[Qizilbashwoman]

11 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

Within your own Glorantha (i.e. inside a given campaign at your table) do you strive to keep it all consistent, or do you also make it vary in itself?

For instance, it's one thing to have someone's Glorantha where a given big rock is the finger of the fallen Ugelbalg The Giant (made up name, don't look it up), and someone else's Glorantha where that same big rock is the tooth of a Great Dragon that went flying off when he fought some Chaos creature or whatever. But would you actually make those 2 myths co-exist in the same Glorantha? Like, the PCs' tribe knows it as the finger, but the GM later finds some cool scenario where it's a dragon tooth and there's a whole thing with Dragonewts doing rituals around it and so she just rules that both stories are true and starts this new adventure around it?  Or a similar situation with some Vingkotling king being, say, both imprisoned in some old magic cairn and also dead in the Underworld?

HA!

Good question.

Well... YGWV.

I'd say the trapped king would be a Problem. He can't be in two places at once, he's a person even if he's dead. Maybe he's supposed to be in the Underworld, but what you saw in a heroquest - presumably you saw them there and not like while actually dead - was what the myth says. Now it's time to free the cairn-bound soul. Or vice-versa: he helped you escape when you crawled through the hells and out of a cave in Prax, and upon reuniting with your friends you realised the cairn-bound story was just a myth. Do you change it?

The Big Rock is not so much a big problem. Myths are myths. You could clarify the truth by heroquesting to find it if it was a concern. In the end, maybe you learn one was true or maybe you learn both are: the giant was corrupted by Chaos and the the tooth came out with his finger during a fight, leading to some confusion. Or maybe both are wrong.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Qizilbashwoman

[Bill the barbarian]

13 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

Within your own Glorantha (i.e. inside a given campaign at your table) do you strive to keep it all consistent, or do you also make it vary in itself?

 

Were I playing a Dr. Who RPG or Dream Lands (CoC) or an RPG based on Jerry Cornelius or the Lord of Light by Zelazny or The Road Runner ™ for instance, I might play a bit fast and furious with reality. Possibly even HeroQuest, but RQ no. Not without reason to do so. But just my humble opinion, doncha know.

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Lordabdul]

Sounds good. My point being that this whole "YGWV" sounds like a given, really. I mean, what happens at the table happens at the table. Players will change (or at least nudge) history, they will fuck things up by breaking Leika's Black Spear or something, the GM will make shit up on the spot which will then inevitably snowball into a Big Thing, etc. So yeah, YGWV. If making it "official" helps deal with GMs/players who want to treat Glorantha as a unique shiny precious toy that should be kept in shrink wrap, or with GMs/players who are afraid of "getting it wrong" then that's all fine.

While I agree with the OP 99%, I just disagree with that bit : "I would be happy to see Glorantha supplements that ignore each other, if they need to". For the Jonstown Compendium? Sure, go crazy. For Chaosium supplements? Nah. This is not because of some desire to adhere to a "canon" or whatever -- it's really just practicality. If Chaosium was to release Big Campaign Book A and Big Campaign Book B, I'd like to know that they are decently compatible. I don't want to have to check that book A has the Vingkotling king imprisoned in the cairn in scenario 3 page 238 as an NPC you can get clues from, but dead in the Underworld in book B on page 132 as someone who might show up in a heroquest or something... because then I need to change one, or somehow address it if I run both campaigns. Sure, it's not impossible... and book B could actually offer a boxed text "If you ran book A..." with some possible explanations (after all, stuff might have happened between the 2 campaigns), but even having this boxed text actually does make it happen in the same Glorantha anyway.

I think Ian's diatribe really comes from his place as a writer -- and any GM who writes their own stories should feel free to do whatever they want indeed. For GMs who don't write their own stories, it would be a lot more practical and welcoming to know that they can grab any Chaosium product and run with it with minimum checking/editing. Grabbing other people's stories from their blog or from the Jonstown Compendium, would understandably involve more work as you need to check for any changes to keep your Glorantha more or less consistent.

Edited September 11, 2019 by lordabdul

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

Players will change (or at least nudge) history, they will fuck things up by breaking Leika's Black Spear or something,

The moment you said that, I pictured Jar Jar Binks bounding up saying,

"Meesa thinks theesa belongs to yousah"... with the Black Spear laying across his outstretched arms... long ears flapping everywhere until...

Edited September 11, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Joerg]

1 hour ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

I'd say the trapped king would be a Problem. He can't be in two places at once, he's a person even if he's dead.

I disagree. Pluripresence is an explicit feature of deities and (capital-H at least) heroes in Glorantha. Given that the Orlanthi, Dara Happans and Lunars believe in a multipartite soul (and little available information on other cultures on this topic), there is even less of a problem there.

Something like the hunt for the seven horcruxes of Voldemort might be necessary to release the trapped king.

 

[Qizilbashwoman]

1 minute ago, Joerg said:

Something like the hunt for the seven horcruxes of Voldemort might be necessary to release the trapped king.

not to be that person but read another book

 

 

 

 

/s obviously

is good idea! better than mine!

Edited September 11, 2019 by Qizilbashwoman

[Lordabdul]

4 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Pluripresence is an explicit feature of deities and (capital-H at least) heroes in Glorantha.

I guess I should have picked "Heortling king" instead of "Vingkotling king", or something else that happened during Time. Or maybe something much simpler, like Gringle's Pawnshop or Apple Lane, where Book A features the destruction of Apple Lane and the Death Of Gringle, while Book B, set in a later year, features both alive and well. I can deal with it (I'm not a totally lazy GM) but I would be annoyed if Chaosium did that.

[Bill the barbarian]

44 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

I think Ian's diatribe really comes from his place as a writer -- and any GM who writes their own stories should feel free to do whatever they want indeed. For GMs who don't write their own stories, it would be a lot more practical and welcoming to know that they can grab any Chaosium product and run with it with minimum checking/editing. Grabbing other people's stories from their blog or from the Jonstown Compendium, would understandably involve more work as you need to check for any changes to keep your Glorantha more or less consistent.

It would have to wouldn’t it. His work is that of a great writer... Now do keep in mind my good lordabdul that should one know the rules... GS or Ian come to mind, then breaking them are just tools of the trade, ask Shakespeare. Familiar is good, but without a jolt or surprise the tension suffers. These tools are not for the weak because as you say they should be handled with care or break what is existing.  But if there is enough ambiguity in canon there lies the tale. I think OP Christophe has a good and just opinion that story is more important than rules, but your plea for boundaries also makes perfect sense as well. Everything required for that well crafted pop song (not the shit one tunes out.. think the best, Bing, Lennon/McCartney, Ellie and Louis or what floats your boat). Enough familiarity combined with the right surprises (and threats of surprise) to create dynamic tension. BOOM! 

 

[Joerg]

6 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

I guess I should have picked "Heortling king" instead of "Vingkotling king", or something else that happened during Time. Or maybe something much simpler, like Gringle's Pawnshop or Apple Lane, where Book A features the destruction of Apple Lane and the Death Of Gringle, while Book B, set in a later year, features both alive and well. I can deal with it (I'm not a totally lazy GM) but I would be annoyed if Chaosium did that.

You mean like the Moirades quandary, with CHDP Tarsh (and the Guide) having his demise in 1610 and the sparkling new "lost Fazzur bit" in the hardcover edition of King of Sartar having him alive and well in or after 1625 (as do plenty other mentions in KoS)?

Gringle is an experienced heroquester, surely he knows the backdoor back from Hell? And a shop can be rebuilt. Getting another Quackjohn might be trickier, but some summoning and binding (and possibly stitching) might do the fowl job.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Joerg

[Bill the barbarian]

1 minute ago, Joerg said:

You mean like the Moirades quandary, with CHDP Tarsh (and the Guide) having his demise in 1610 and the sparkling new "lost Fazzur bit" in the hardcover edition having him alive and well in or after 1625?

Gringle is an experienced heroquester, surely he knows the backdoor back from Hell? And a shop can be rebuilt. Getting another Quackjohn might be trickier, but some summoning and binding (and possibly stitching) might do the fowl job.

Speaking of great tools, multiple truths are a great and powerful hammer for a liar storyteller*...  Myself, in my rogues galley and gazetteer I try to keep multiple, divers and even disparate takes and tales about peoples,  places and things. Then you have canon, it’s written down, just,  you get to choose which canon you use to blow away the players.

Cheers

* Just ask the Donald...

[Lordabdul]

11 minutes ago, Joerg said:

You mean like the Moirades quandary

I guess? Which book has him alive in 1625? (couldn't find it myself)

Interestingly enough, I think the world of Delta Green accomplishes a lot of what Ian/the OP is talking about. There's a baseline about the various conspiracies, factions, and personalities, but then everybody does it differently. If you look into it there's also a second layer of "possibly canon operations" that did one thing or another that affects the world, including the death of NPCs like Agent Adam or Alphonse, but I've seen several campaigns and they all had different storylines, effectively. Of course, it's a lot easier to make your DG "vary" since the whole premise of that world is disinformation and lies, and even when you say "Adam is dead", it's really just a codename and there can be a new Adam the next day and you wouldn't know the difference unless you met the guy in person previously...

But I think beyond all that, there's also the fact that, overall, and due to its nature, the DG universe is presented as "bits and pieces", and not as a consistent whole. As a result, you do have to assemble it yourself and that means it won't be assembled the same as the next group. I wasn't there in there early years of Classic RuneQuest, but, reading old books, I get the feeling that it was also presented like that back then: bits and pieces on cultures and gods and myths, and you were building your own Glorantha out of it, with only really the Dragon Pass map as a common base. These days, however, Glorantha is presented more as a consistent whole and that means people have to say it's OK to break it a apart a bit and swap pieces.

[Joerg]

23 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

Which book has him alive in 1625? (couldn't find it myself)

 

King of Sartar (hardcover edition)

p.20 (Argrath Saga): conquest of Furthest (c.1630)

Quote

 It was divided by civil war as [the evil] King Moirades strove to oppress the people who wanted to cast out the [evil] Lunar religion. The Tarshites were led by Onjur the Poet {Fazzurson, of a family of famous traitors} at that time.

p.120 (CHDP Sartar section) 1613:

Quote

The new commander was Fazzur Wideread. He was a Tarshite, of the Orindori Clan, which had close connections to the king. Although consistently successful as a military commander, intrigue had gotten him removed from his previous post. When King Moirades asked him to come out of retirement to handle the crisis, he agreed.

p.125 (CHDP Sartar section) 1624 or early 1625:

Quote

The Grazeland Horse Folk also revolted and sent the Lunar tribute‑gatherers home with only dirt. Tatius ignored this, and King Moirades sent his own general to quell the subsequent raids. They never saw the Feathered Horse Queen in these battles.

p.127 (CHDP Sartar section)

Quote

All of Sartar was thrown into disorder. The first person to react was King Moirades of Tarsh, who sent his army to seize control of Alda‑Chur. Sympathizers threw open the gates, and many joined his army. After some quick alliance‑making, the army moved towards Boldhome.

p.128 (CHDP Sartar section)

Quote

King Moirades’ generals, called the Phargentites, received command of  the remaining imperial  troops  in  the  provinces,  and  led  them  with  the  Tarsh  army  to  conquer  the disheartened Sartarites. They met where the Creek meets the Upland Marsh, at the Battle of  the Queens.

p.135 (Fazzur papers) describing the 1613 opening moves of the Starbrow rebellion:

Quote

The  army  marched,  some  10,000  strong.  Euglyptus  rode  upon  a  luxury  wagon,  in  the baggage train.

[...]
When word of the disaster reached wise King Moirades he acted quickly to rescue the imperial cause. He sent word to his best commander, Fazzur Orindori, and implored him to come out of retirement to handle the crisis. Fazzur, who always placed the interests of his king first, agreed.

p.139 (Fazzur papers)

Quote

Fazzur received reinforcements from King Moirades and the Red Emperor sent more regular imperial troops to his command, as well as a large contingent of the Imperial College. In the spring of 1619 Fazzur led the army southward.

p.140 (Fazzur papers)

Quote

Even when King Moirades asked Fazzur to once against lead Tarsh troops to rescue imperial cause, he refused. “I did that once,” said Fazzur, “and only a fool puts his hand into the same mouth twice.” He left the task to the faction called the Phargentites, who were in favor of more imperial influence in Tarsh. They were happy to see Fazzur fall from the favor of Moirades, and forwarded their own clans in the king’s favor.

This obviously is after the betrayal of 1625 (when he abandoned the troops at Dangerfort upon learning about the assassination of his leading followers).

p.154

Quote

Kallyr Starbrow, daughter of Loricon, son of Rastoron, son of Jarolar the Prince.
Queen of the Sartari. Crowned in 1625, killed in 1626 by King Moirades.

 

Only the Tarshite section of CHDP gives the 1610 date that is confirmed in the Guide and in the story about the birth of Phargentes II (son of Moirades and Jar-eel) in the Sourcebook.

The common work-around is that Moirades ascended to the Red Moon as consequene of this union, and descended again some time later, meddling in the affairs of Tarsh.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Joerg

[Akhôrahil]

Just to be contrary, here are two thoughts on my part:

1) While it's inevitable that your setting will vary, the "YGMV" response can be seriously annoying at times. One of the reasons I GM in an established world, is so that I don't have to make everything up on my own. If someone asks a question about something in Glorantha on the forum or in social media, replying "Oh, just make something up, YGMV!" is eminently unhelpful and derailing. I know I can do that - the fact that I asked means that I'm interested in the "actual" answer. 

2) Having the canonical details down can be of value in your game. Just as every historic fiction contains things that didn't happen (that's why it's called "fiction") but can still be more or less historically accurate, so can a Glorantha game be more or less in adherence with the official world descriptions. You get different stories depending on how many liberties you take, and there's something to be said about a meticulously researched story as opposed to a wild one that eagerly sacrifices such precision on the altar of enabling to story to the maximum amount. We raise eyebrows when the details go against our established understanding of the setting, even when we agree that the writer/GM is free to set up the story any way he or she feels like.    

Edited September 12, 2019 by Akhôrahil

[JonL]

I'm a big fan of everyone making a setting what they need or want it to be for their own enjoyment. 

I get frustrated when official works are contradictory, because they become less inter-operable, and thus less useful/valuable then they would be as part of  consistent whole.  When I came into all this, this excellent article at glorantha.com was very useful to me in getting a handle on the baseline from which one's Glorantha will vary . For all that it deliberately included ambiguities,  contradictions, and insoluble mysteries, there was a common point of reference from which variation could be recognized, appreciated, and understood.

Maybe it's just an accident of the timing of my arrival that it even seemed like such a thing existed, but I nonetheless feel its loss. I used to be unbothered by future HQ releases being recast as (more profitable) RQ titles, thinking the setting information would still cleanly fit with what I already have. As the worlds they describe increasingly diverge in more ways than just the time-period though, this becomes less true.

As  the posture for published  works moves away from a common Glorantha  among many games to  each game  line having its own branch of the tree, I hope that means we can see more diverse concepts get attention and support. Let's see some more of the cartoony Glorantha from Khan of Khans. Let's get notes on how to integrate ideas from Six Ages into your tabletop games. If the Guide is no longer etched in stone, let's see about a less stereotype-laden East. While I miss the knowability of what seemed to be a stable corpus, embracing  variability also  brings opportunity.

Edited September 12, 2019 by JonL

[Shawn Carpenter]

1 hour ago, JonL said:

While I miss the knowability of what seemed to be a stable corpus, embracing  variability also  brings opportunity.

Agreed.

If a setting becomes laden with too much canon, it ceases to be a jumping board for story-telling and becomes quicksand instead. Great stories are left untold while their tellers dig through layers of documentation to ensure that orthodoxy is maintained. At that point, the only safe course lies in stories provided by the priesthood. If those aren't provided in rapid succession, the laity quickly becomes restless.

[Lordabdul]

2 hours ago, JonL said:

I used to be unbothered by future HQ releases being recast as (more profitable) RQ titles, thinking the setting information would still cleanly fit with what I already have. As the worlds they describe increasingly diverge in more ways than just the time-period though, this becomes less true.

Do you have more details on this? As far as I know there are only minor details that have been changed, like the Law rune or the whole Elmal stuff in the upcoming Cults of Glorantha (yes, I'm rating the Elmal stuff as "minor" because frankly I don't see what the big deal is, but then again I'm new to this).

That document from the old Glorantha website that you linked to was, I believed, reposted and updated on these forums a few years ago and, AFAIK, is still valid -- Jeff mentioned no too long ago that this was what he considered "canon" for the purposes of writers contributing to official Chaosium material (although of course, he added, gamers don't need to adhere to this "canon"). So right now, again, apart from minor details and mechanics-driven things, I expect HQ and RQG books to be interchangeable.

[JonL]

54 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

Do you have more details on this? As far as I know there are only minor details that have been changed, like the Law rune or the whole Elmal stuff in the upcoming Cults of Glorantha (yes, I'm rating the Elmal stuff as "minor" because frankly I don't see what the big deal is, but then again I'm new to this).

How big a deal the Elmal thing is depends largely on how much use you've been getting out of Elmal as presented in  Sartar - Kingdom of Heroes and the Runegate chapter in Sartar Companion. ( From the SKoH , "What Sartarites think" on Sun Domers: "The Sun Domers are a strange cult who betrayed Elmal for the Cold Sun..." is very different from what we're getting now, as is the 1k Elmali & 3K Yelmalions in Sartar figure from SKoH - especially when you  figure that most of those Yelmalons are in Vantar.)

While no spirits of retribution are going to come and steal those books away, future releases conflicting with what you're currently using makes both new and old less useful.This is doubly frustrating if you like to keep your Glorantha varying to local/personal or otherwise self-contained matters and otherwise rely on the published works for the bigger picture. Suddenly, your game is now out of step with what's coming out when you intended the exact opposite. 

Further, what are Yelm's runes? Or Storm Bull's, Issaries's or Waha's? Guide and HQ books say one thing, RQG says another (though letting Orlanth keep Mastery, but not Waha or Yelm, interestingly.) Sure, one can work out mappings and such, but it's another instance of something you thought you knew and could trust suddenly not being the case.  Things once considered reliable, suddenly are not. 

I'm not trying to edition-war here, but I do feel there is a difference between taking creative license in one's own games, fan works, or even officially blessed deliberate alt-takes (presented as such) vs outright contradictions to established reference works.

[Lordabdul]

1 hour ago, JonL said:

How big a deal the Elmal thing is depends largely on how much use you've been getting out of Elmal as presented in  Sartar - Kingdom of Heroes and the Runegate chapter in Sartar Companion.

Thanks, I'll check that out.

[EricW]

The moon is magic, and not entirely part of the normal world.  Its light shines where it needs to. I think you tie yourself into knots trying to apply the physics of our world to Glorantha.

[Sir_Godspeed]

5 minutes ago, EricW said:

The moon is magic, and not entirely part of the normal world.  Its light shines where it needs to. I think you tie yourself into knots trying to apply the physics of our world to Glorantha.

Wrong thread, I think?

[EricW]

2 hours ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

Wrong thread, I think?

Yep sorry, slip of the iPhone... 🙂