More Blanks (and even point by point, I'm afraid...)

From: Joerg Baumgartner (joe@toppoint.de)
Date: Fri 30 Jan 1998 - 23:32:00 EET


>Cohesion

>There's lots of ways around
>this, and the number which have been suggested to me give the impression
>that Glorantha has lost some of its Cohesion. Examples were:

>Using a time or place where main events do not take place.

That's essentially the idea of Blank Lands. I didn't like it, even though
I demand space for breathing in the campaign. I want NPCs I can refer to,
and be able to make them arch-enemies or best friends of my own NPCs. Let
alone PCs. I don't want "no info" on certain clans, I want a choice of
clans to elaborate in my campaign. I want campaign outlines like in RQ
Vikings with lots of space to build in own ideas or published stuff
situated nearby.

>Treating campaign material as "questionable" (multiple Argraths, etc).

There is no campaign material on any Argrath which is questionable. No
Argrath except Garrath Sharpsword has become prominent yet; Argrath of
Pavis aka Enostar Bad Dream (a different person, if you ask people who
did lots of work on this - like myself...) is obscure until the Lunar
administration in Pavis is done over, and the nomads approach the city.
His small gang of discontents is as obscure as any other band of
discontents in the Real City in the Rubble.

>Choosing between contradicting events myself, filling in the gaps where
>necessary.

Actually, what you ask for almost sounds like a choice of possible
alternatives all leading to the same junction again, with no great impact
which way was chosen, but an essential need that one of the ways was
chosen. You can do this in a solo adventure or computer game (Wing
Commander IV, frex.) where you have a very limited set of choices but
hardly in a much more flexible roleplaying campaign.

>This sort of thing makes me feel that nobody really knows what's going
>on here, and its all a bit of a free for all.

There are a lot of people who _feel_ that they have grasped the way
things _develop_, and who contribute to this. I'd hate to lose this
spirit of development...

>I always thought Glorantha was cohesive. It's only been brought into
>question by my asking about sufficiency and flexibility. I feel I've
>been told time and again: "it's no good trying to sort this out 'cos
>it's all a mess anyway" (a product of GS's neuroses, obsessions and
>whims).

I can only refer you to Clay Luther's "Everything Greg Says is Wrong" on
one of the earliest RQ-Dailies, dealing with the impact KoS had on his
campaign. That article has formed the online-community of Glorantha fans
a lot...

I'll put it up on my webpage for easy reference, check

http://www.toppoint.de/~joe/recent-changes.html

on Sunday.

>Conclusion

>I am not a GM who shirks his responsibilities in terms of working with
>scenarios and campaign modules in order to provide for his players a
>rich believable world full of exciting adventuring opportunities.

Huh? I am a GM who is reluctant to use any scenario or campaign module as
written because of my responsibility for the player's suspense. I adapt
scenarios, be they my own or bought ones, as the game develops. If some

freak player decision ruins the scenario as written, then either I send
the surviving PCs home in defeat (maybe to try it again) or lead them
into a dramatically different situation.

>In order to help me achieve this I buy ready-written material for
>campaign worlds, e.g. Glorantha. The best campaign modules are ones
>which, among other things, are the most GM-friendly.

IMO the best modules are those which are inspiring the GM to perform the
NPCs and their actions as if they were player characters. And this
inspiration varies from GM to GM, and with game style...

>When I work with a GM-friendly module I am secure in the knowledge that
>I have details of a section of the world which fits into a cohesive
>believable and interesting BIG PICTURE (even though I may know little of
>what happens outside my section).

Please give me (in private mail) examples where you found this. I am
extremely interested to learn about the published scenario setting where
there is a big picture without major, up to blatant, inconsistencies...

To me, a GM-friendly scenario gives me the tools to adapt the scenario to
my game, not the other way around.

And no, Eldarad did not qualify in this regard....

>The whole Multiple Argrath issue raises more questions than it answers.
>Someone has to know what is going on, surely!

All of it is going on. Somewhere, in some scale. If you want to discuss
the Argrath issue, I invite you to do so with me - in private. As I know
from previous discussions, the bandwidth would earn me banishment from
this forum... ;-) (Hi, Steve, Jane....)

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

End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #380
***********************************

To unsubscribe from the Glorantha Digest, send an "unsubscribe"
command to glorantha-digest-request@chaosium.com. 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.

WWW at http://rider.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:05:42 EEST