creation; scenarios

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Colin Watson (watson@computing-science.aberdeen.ac.uk)
Date: Tue 09 Nov 1993 - 17:55:06 EET


Joerg Baumgartner wrote:
[re new sorcery spells; esp Creation type spells]

>Any magical creation can be of temporal nature only.

A reasonable premise. Is there a Good Reason for this?

>Light and darkness
>are easy, because they disappear when the source is switched off. How
>about the other substances, especially those which can be consumed?
>Will the substance consumed disappear? Tricky with water in the desert
>or air in a grotto bubble. Will the character which has drunk
>temporally created water become dried out after the duration expired?

Well, remember a month or so ago, towards the end of the spirit plane discussion Paul Reilly posted an excellent theory about the topology of Glorantha:

"I do tend to think that a fibre bundle is a fairly good model for the  Gloranthan universe. The geometry of the bundle is complicated, but one  slice through it is the mundane plane. Now find every fire on the mundane  plane and mark the fibres at those points. Follow those fibres up to the  'God Plane' and you will find that they all run into Aether, the Source of  Fire."

I like this idea a lot. I think creation-type spells would work by splitting a new strand off from an existing cosmic-fibre. Where this new strand passes through the material plane a new source of Fire (or whatever) forms. The substance created would not be totally new, it would simply come from an existing source (which might be some distance away) where the bulk of the fibre is.
When the spell ended, the strand would tend to snap back into its original place unless some force held it back, so the creation would "vanish".

In the case of water which was "created": if it was left as a puddle or stored in a bottle I think it would vanish when the spell ended. However, once the water is drunk it begins to interact with the creature who drinks it; its fibres become intertwined with fibres of other substances which effectively lock it in place; ie the strand is split and twisted into a myriad of lesser strands which do not snap back into the original fibre when the spell ends, so the water does not vanish.

>Else we already have the Phantom (...) spells which create temporal
>reality.

Yeah, but Phantom (sense) is an active spell for creating complex things. I was thinking more of creating simple substances (elements) which did not require active concentration to maintain.

[re scenarios]
>Well, since the pool of possible authors of a scenario and the
>readership of this list do overlap considerably, how would you design
>such a scenario that is more than just visiting the next door dungeon?

Look at successful game systems...
For investigative scenarios look at CoC: The setting can be fairly generic  eg. in a city, in a Big Old House, on a ship etc.  Ok, we need to know the country; sometimes it specifies a particular city (but  not always); sometimes a particular date is given (again, not always); apart  from that, the background given is minimal except where it directly affects  the plot. Once the GM has a firm idea of where the action is going to take  place he can consult source material for the time/place *if* he feels extra  detail is necessary (which I usually don't).  The important things which are needed in an investigative scenario: NPCs  (names, descriptions, motivations), plot, clues (maybe in handout format),  location details (building floorplans etc), EOSM (optional). For combat scenarios look at AD&D: Background detail is often very localised  so that a whole module can be transplanted into any campaign. Look at  scenarios in "Dungeon" magazine; they are seldom fixed to a specific campaign  world. A "Book of Lairs" for RQ would go down a treat IMHO. The nearest RQ  equivalent I can think of is "Troll Realms" and even that is a bit specific.  Combat scenarios need: various lead-in options, plot, encounters (NPC stats),  location details, EOSM, reward (optional).

(BTW: EOSM="End Of Scenario Monster")

The important thing IMO is that the scenario should be a discrete unit: it should not rely on background knowledge; it should include enough background to run the game (and no more). Above all, a scenario is not a good place to introduce major new fragments of Gloranthan Lore and should not be used as an excuse for such (all very much My Humble Opinion). I judge scenarios by the plot and not by the background (the two *are* separable: consider "Seven Samurai" and "The Magnificent Seven"; same plot, different background). Maybe I'm asking for the impossible...?

Gloranthan Lore sourcebooks would allow GMs to flesh-out scenario detail if they wanted. Sourcebooks could contain sample stats for local militias, encounters etc. which could be slotted into the scenario. Similarly, sample floorplans of buildings from different cultures could be included. Using this info, scenarios could be modified if required and tailored to the GMs own campaign ideas.

I realise that RQ doesn't quite have the megabucks of T$R corp behind it, so my ideas are probably wishful thinking. But you did ask.

[Why are combined scenario/sourcebooks the current vogue?]
>The reason is simple: Scenarios that dont have a certain informative
>value for Glorantha lovers might not be bought by them. On the other
>hand pure sourcebooks won't sell to non-Glorantha RuneQuesters.

Cynical but, I suspect, largely correct.

>CW>All we can do is voice our opinions ...
>Wrong. All we can do is write a bunch of scenarios etc. that fit the
>bill, and submit them, or make up our own publishing line, such as John
>Castellucci has with his RuneQuest-Adventures.

Time is a factor... (ie. I wish I had more, to write a perfect RQ scenario :-)

Will AH take notice of material sent to them "on spec"? If so, I'll have to try to convince my GM to type up some stuff - all he does all day is write RQ stuff (and very good it is, too).

___
CW.
(Message inbox:74)
Return-Path: somewhere!appel@erzo.berkeley.edu Delivery-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 00:49:37 -0800 Received: by soda.berkeley.edu (5.65/KAOS-1)

        id AA02803; Wed, 10 Nov 93 00:49:34 -0800 Received: by erzo.berkeley.edu (5.67/LUCK-AND-DEATH-1.1)

        id AA07312; Wed, 10 Nov 93 01:24:41 -0800 Resent-Message-Id: <9311100924.AA07312@erzo.berkeley.edu> Received: by erzo.berkeley.edu (5.67/LUCK-AND-DEATH-1.1)

        id AA07236; Wed, 10 Nov 93 01:12:53 -0800 Received: from Sun.COM by soda.berkeley.edu (5.65/KAOS-1)

        id AA00616; Wed, 10 Nov 93 00:24:38 -0800 Received: from snail.Sun.COM (snail.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)

        id AA22410; Wed, 10 Nov 93 00:21:42 PST Received: from Holland.Sun.COM (isunnl) by snail.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)

        id AA24609; Wed, 10 Nov 93 00:21:22 PST Received: from glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM by Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1e)

        id AA28610; Wed, 10 Nov 93 09:21:09 +0100 Received: by glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)

        id AA23651; Wed, 10 Nov 93 09:16:24 +0100 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 09:16:24 +0100
Message-Id: <9311100816.AA23651@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM> From: RuneQuest-Request@glorantha.holland.sun.com (RQ Digest Maintainer) To: RuneQuest@glorantha.holland.sun.com (Daily automated RQ-Digest) Reply-To: RuneQuest@glorantha.holland.sun.com (RuneQuest Daily) Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Wed, 10 Nov 1993, part 2 Precedence: junk 

Resent-To: appel@soda.berkeley.edu
Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 93 01:24:40 -0800
Resent-From: Shannon Appel <appel@erzo.berkeley.edu>
Status: O
Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:32:11 EEST