As I mentioned in my recent post about issue #17 of White Dwarf, the issue contains a fascinating interview with Greg Stafford, creator of the fantasy setting of Glorantha and a founder of Chaosium. The interview was apparently conducted at GenCon XII (1979) by Ian Livingstone and covers a wide range of topics, with special attention paid to Stafford's thoughts about Glorantha, RuneQuest, and roleplaying in general. From the vantage point of 2021, I find the interview remarkable, not just for the topics it covers but for the answers Stafford gives, some of which are truly unique.
Livingstone begins by asking about the origins of Glorantha – or "the world of Dragon Pass," as he calls it throughout the interview – and Stafford replies at length:
There's a lot to unpack here, starting with the fact that Glorantha begin, much like M.A.R. Barker's Tékumel, as something Stafford created "for [his] own entertainment." More interesting is his partial agreement with the rude editor who claimed that "All S&S is the same hackwork." I hear variations of this claim a lot, particularly from those who dislike this blog's focus on the pulp fantasy antecedents of D&D and other early RPGs. Consequently, I was initially taken aback by Stafford's seeming acceptance of it, if only partially. However, as he seems to suggest in the second paragraph of his response, he recognizes the value of "standard S&S types."
Stafford explains a bit about his own literary education, including the authors and stories that most influenced him.
None of what he says here surprises me, though why he singles out
Vathek for opprobrium I can't be sure. More notable, I think, is that Stafford elevates Joseph Campbell, Mircea Eliade, Sir James Frazer, and Bob Dylan(!) to the same level as Tolkien and Homer in terms of influence upon him. That says a great deal about what Stafford hoped to achieve through the development of Glorantha. It also explains why I was frequently told, in my early days, that
RuneQuest was
"a hippy game" to be avoided by good East Coast boys like myself.
Interesting though all this is, the real meat of the interview comes when Livingstone asks Stafford about his thoughts on the popularity of RPGs. Stafford replies that he believes this popularity rests on four elements: "1. Communication with others; 2. Participation in a shared fantasy; 3. Exploration of our minds; 4. Exploration of the psyche." He expands upon each of these shortly thereafter:
A whole series of posts could no doubt be written teasing out the implications of everything Stafford says here. Perhaps one day I'll do just that. For the moment, though, I think it suffices to say that Stafford definitely has some genuine insight here into the appeal of roleplaying games. In particular, I think his comments about "shared fantasy" are spot on, at least as far as my own feelings are concerned.
Later, Stafford returns to some of these same topics, when he offers his opinions on the future of the RPG hobby and what purposes roleplaying games might serve in the future.
I remember the late 1970s quite well; there was definitely a pessimism about the future in the air, much as there is in many quarters nowadays. That Stafford saw RPGs as a lifeline in difficult times is worth bearing in mind, regardless of whether one shares his gloominess. I can certainly say that I greatly value the games I play each week with my friends across the globe. The connection they provided during the last couple of years has been vital and I doubt I am alone in feeling that.
Thank you for reprinting this, I lost my copy years ago. Good to see his voice again. Wish you were still with us, Greg.
ReplyDeleteGreat interview!!! Yeah, I wonder why he hated Vathek. I have to admit my own college-age self was kind of underwhelmed with it, going in expecting Monster Manual and Hellraiser style demons and getting a IIRC fairly lightly described Arabian Nights pastiche, but who knows what I’d think of it if I reread it today. The guy who wrote it is certainly fascinating enough to be a RPG character.
ReplyDeleteSimilar experience and bafflement. I re-read it about ten years back and found it much as I recalled from my first pass in 1985. It's not great but certainly not "drek" particularly considering its age. Perhaps it suffered for Stafford because he was apparently coming to it from a long series of much more contemporary (and arguably more talented) authors. Dunsany, Moorcock, Lovecraft and (I assume Clark Ashton) Smith are tough acts to follow, especially for someone writing a century or more before them.
Delete<>
ReplyDeleteWell, the editor might have been referring to the S&S submissions they were receiving in the 1970s.
Howard, Smith, Lieber, Moorcock and others were innovators that blazed a trail. Then, as often happens, upon that trail walked many lesser writers creating what could politely be called pastiche.
... and many talented writers that have added new ideas to the genre as well.
DeleteYour blog primarily focuses on the innovators, not the hacks.
What jumps out at me is the inclusion of Mircea Eliade, a seminal scholar of religious studies. As an erstwhile religious studies major (boy does that seem like a long time ago), this was a connection I had never made. But to (way, way) oversimplify one of Eliade's theses, religion is that which separates and identifies the sacred from the profane; in a fantasy context, that does seem pretty apropos. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteIt is remarkable how Greg Stafford was already Greg Stafford in 1979 and how consistent his vision has been through the years. At the time RQ was in its infancy, Pendragon yet to come, Hero Wars/ Hero Quest undreamed of, and the homecoming of RQ unimaginable. Yet, the basic vision about epic literature and play, about the mythic archetypes and "adventure dreamland" was there.
ReplyDeleteI love the mention of Frazer. My copy of the (abridged) Golden Bough is often found sitting atop my RQ box set.
ReplyDelete