Re: RQlite - NOT!

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Colin Watson (watson@computing-science.aberdeen.ac.uk)
Date: Thu 09 Sep 1993 - 16:36:34 EEST


Well, as I should have expected, I got a mixed (and generally negative) response to this one...
(I guess you really can't please all of the people all of the time:)

BTW I should start by explaining that I was pursuing the alternate-marketing- strategy-to-attract-newbies-to-RQ idea. My idea was to strip a lot of the Gloranthan background out of scenarios and put it in a separate source-book. This seems abhorrent to some RQ players.

To reiterate:
>CW>In my experience it is not the "complex" rules that put newbies off RQ -
>CW>it's
>CW>the fact that many scenarios include oblique references to people, places &
>CW>events which have little or no bearing on the plot.
>
--Steve Barnes responded--

SB>It's these details that are the reason I buy RQ products. If I SB>were running RQ, I could come up with my own plots.

But you're not a newbie RQ player. I say newbies need plots to get them playing.

>CW>Why not separate the background from the plot?:
>CW>Produce comprehensive tomes of Gloranthan lore for campaign background;
>CW>and generic scenarios that are not set in specific locales.
>
SB>Because then AH loses their core Glorantha audience that keeps SB>RQ viable... (IMHO)

Maybe not. I see it working like this:
  Non-RQ-playing Gloranthaphiles would buy the Gloranthan sourcebook(s) only.   Gloranthan-RQ players would buy sourcebooks+scenarios.   Newbies would buy scenarios (...get hooked, and buy the sourcebook later).   Non-GL RQ players would buy scenarios and convert them to their own campaign 

      (...or maybe they see the light and end up buying the Gloranthan 
       sourcebook too:).

---Nick Brooke responded--- 

NB>Hate the idea, Colin.
NB>
NB>Your call for interesting but generic but non-generic NPCs tied my brain 
NB>into a knot. If people don't understand Storm Bulls (the reason for 
NB>non-specific generic scenarios), why will they like atypical, zany Storm 
NB>Bulls any better? (cf. my Equal Opportunity whinge a few days ago).

My point about NPCs is that many people seem blinkered to the following view:  Interesting NPC == NPC with lots of quirky *cult-based* traits and motivations 

                    (and nothing else)

IMO NPCs should also have *human(/troll/dwarf etc)-traits* as well as religious(spiritual)-traits. I mean motivations like politics, love, family vendettas etc. Not necessarily based on cult-ties at all (and possibly in conflict with their religion). Such mundane motivations are easier for newbies to relate to and don't require in-depth knowledge of cult lore.

scenario #1: (human-motivation)
GM (to newbie): You don't like him 'cos his father killed your brother.

scenario #2: (spiritual motivation)
GM (to newbie): You don't like him 'cos his god is associated with a god who 

                stole something from your god before the beginning of Time...

See the point?
Newbies can run their characters (PC & NPC) based on human motivations to start with - everyone understands these motivations. Once they become familiar with the way cults work they can concentrate on spiritual motivations more.

--Mystic Musk Ox responded--

>CW>Why not separate the background from the plot?:

MMO>Excellent idea.

Thanks. Glad someone agrees. 

MMO>Although I like Glorantha and it cultures, background etc,
MMO>I invariably get pissed off with the obscure never-explained references,
MMO>and facts that are needed to run it.
[...]
MMO>Perhaps I'm missing something here?

Nope, you hit the nail on the head.

---G. Fried responded--- 

GF>I agree with you criteria for readily playable scenarios, but I think that
GF>instead of placing them in generic towns, etc, they could be given a definite
GF>(pr semi-definite) location in GLorantha, but with specific recommendation on
GF>how the location could be tranlated elsewhere.

Ok, Greg, fair point. But I still think that some scenarios are more specific about setting than they have to be.

---Rob Mace responded--
>CW> Why not separate the background from the plot?:
>CW> Does this seem sensible to people?
>
RM>Not to me. To me this sounds like you would end up with flavorless RM>scenarios.

So the scenarios are vanilla. So? The GM adds his own flavouring. As much or as little as he and his players like. That's what the saucebooks are for :-) 

RM>I'm sure there are some types of scenarios that would
RM>work fine done this way, but other types depend too much on background
RM>to be left with any flavor.  Other types like the Cradle scenario
RM>from Pavis could not be done with out the heavy background.

Aside:
I didn't really like the Cradle scenario (from the Pavis pack). It's too linear. A sequence of (gross) set encounters with little plot. And the ending goes way over the top. Wyvern-riding priests; I ask you! This kind of thing gives Glorantha a bad name. (IMHO)

Anyway, if a Gloranthan Sourcebook gave a few things like: a map of the river; a deckplan of a sample cradle; sample troops from various areas; details of cults & factions in various areas - then GM could re-create the Cradle "scenario" himself with very little imagination. And with a little more imagination he could use the same background info to come up with a much more interesting scenario;->

I'll stop ranting now.

CW.

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:31:34 EEST