From: Joerg Baumgartner (joe@sartar.toppoint.de)
Date: Thu 11 Nov 1993 - 00:25:33 EET
Colin Watson in X-RQ-ID: 2250
>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?
Aside: The Draconic myth of the dismemberment of the Primal Dragon and the concept of a loving and caring creator who invested a great part of his soul (strange concept for deities, but how else to call it? Essence? Power?) seem to go hand in hand.
[Question about disappearing substance]
>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".
I see a considerable difference between merely transferring substance by magical means and actually creating it out of energy. E = m c^2, anybody, as the great Zistori sage Albertus Monolithus postulated: E is the essence used, m is the magical mass of the substance, and c^2 is the yet to be determined maximum magical flow, or current.
>>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.
Hmm. If I had a matrix with a trigger condition, who would have to concentrate to keep up the phantom?
>[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).
Then what keeps you from changing the unimportant things in a scenario, and enjoy the original setting as a piece of Gloranthan literature?
Combat scenarios: Aren't these out of vogue? To be able to sell them, the companies imprint heavy cultural background. Why should the situation for RQ be different?
>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...?
How would you run this plot in Prax? In Arolanit?
But you picked one of the few plots very adaptable to most fantasy settings. One might add in a Robin Hood theme, a crusade, a whodunnit, and the classical dungeon, other handy plots no campaign should go without. But as soon as I leave these plots, even when just changing little irritating bits, I need to specify the background.
But then I have little problems to adapt plots I like to my setting. A little distortion of the setting as well as of the campaign occurs, agreed, but that's the fact for any gaming activity.
And if the background info is essential, it can be delivered with the scenario. If I want info about the Apple Lane area, the scenario is the first place I look for it. Ok, so I have to buy it. AH has to sell to pay contributors, so it works out. This is an expensive pasttime :-(
Major background info may be included in scenarios, if essential for them, as long as it is included in an encyclopaedic publication which follows. As long as the same text isn't reprinted three times (aka Kyger Litor syndrom), I can live with that.
>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'd love to see those. But again: if we want to see them, we've gotta write them.
--
-- Joerg Baumgartner joe@sartar.toppoint.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:32:13 EEST