[Glorantha] A scenario is not a story

Rob Davis argues
>I disagree. I think scenario's are best when they are stories.

I'd say that a good scenario becomes a story when it is run. There should be room for the PC's to act and (appear to) influence events, and the trick to writing a good scenario is to provide plenty of "hooks" for PC's to latch on to. Lord of The Rings is a good story, but unless you remove the fellowship, there is little scope for treating it as a scenario

Jane says, as a scenario writer
> you can predict a few general options, and give ideas on what
> will happen as a result, but you can't possibly lay down
> everything. Nor should you be able to - it wouldn't be
> much fun to play if you did.

I think the problem for the putative GM is to identify what is important about any particular incedent. If the scenario writer says "At point T NPC A will be killed by Opponent X" then what parts can the GM allow to change without causing themselves problems later. Is it Important that NPC A dies, or merely that they are unavailable in the next scene? Is it important that it happens at point T (so does NPC A have to be preserved to this point if they are in danger earlier, or can their death occur anywhere). Is it the fact that Opponent X is involved or can they be swapped for an alternative. Or is the incident merely to emphasise the danger of the scenario by culling an NPC who has no further part to play in the scripted scenario.

Where a scenario is a "one off" the answers to these questions are either self-evident or irrelevant*. (It is obviously important that Gringle is not at his pawnshop tonight, and that the artefacts he has recently acquired are of baboon origin. It is irrelevant whether he is a werewolf or not)

*Irrelevant in that whatever you choose to be the "right" answer in your Glorantha is not likely to be contradicted any time soon by anything official, especially by the next part of the Scenario arc you have chosen to follow...

Trotsky adds
>As a player it's not a problem, because, from a player's perspective,
>surprising revelations are cool and entertaining. It keeps things
>interesting. Not knowing things up-front is (IMO) definitely a good
>thing, if you're a player.

I think there are very few people who'd argue with that. Even if you are playing inside a "known" story it makes for a more interesting game if there are still surprises. But then players shouldn't be reading the scenario anyway, so keeping secrets in scenarios on the grounds that players shouldn't know them is bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Finally back to Jane...
> But if you feel differently, there's a lot more stories out
> there than there are scenarios! Go for it - I'll be fascinated
> to hear how you manage to play them.

Which would make a great intro to a thread about Heroquesting...   

-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Ellis           EMail tim_at_timellis.demon.co.uk                      |
| What is the use of a book without pictures or conversations?            |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+



------------------------------

To unsubscribe from the Glorantha Digest, send an "unsubscribe"
command to glorantha-request_at_rpglist.org, or visit 
http://www.rpglist.org/mailman/listinfo/glorantha. Glorantha is a
Trademark of Issaries Inc. With the exception of previously
copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this
digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to
copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to
archive unchanged for electronic retrieval.
-
Official WWW at http://www.glorantha.com
Archives at http://www.kondalski.org/brian/Glorantha

End of Glorantha Digest, Vol 11, Issue 228
******************************************