From: Colin Watson (watson@computing-science.aberdeen.ac.uk)
Date: Thu 11 Nov 1993 - 19:51:37 EET
>I dare say you know we aren't going to agree.
I had an inkling of suspicion that this might be the case. :-)
>If all scenarios are generic, there's no easy
>way to break into the complex Gloranthan background.
Ok, but I think one or two context-free scenarios would be nice amongst the heavy Gloranthan stuff. These scenarios could still have a Gloranthan flavour, cults etc. just with fewer constraints of setting and (player) characters. Smaller, self-contained stories which would fit in a variety of locales.
>A scenario written to fit a specific part of the world is at least going to
>be instantly usable in that location.
Agreed, but how specific do you really have to be? Gaumata's Vision has a wonderful idea for a plot but it also has pages of introduction used to shoe-horn the scenario into a few square kilometers on the map. Granted, you can ignore this and run it anywhere, but one feels obliged to make use of all the info provided (having paid for it). Given the choice between 3 padded scenarios and half a dozen lean, stripped-down scenarios I would rather fork out my cash for the latter. I have my own ideas about my campaign which can be used to flesh them out myself.
>"Seven Samurai," after all, came out
>in a non-generic form, and was subsequently pillaged/emulated by others. I
>would not like to see a write-up of the plot of "Seven Samurai" in terms of
>Fighters, People, etc. All the variations on that theme have local colour
>splashing out all over.
Local colour yes, specific details no.
Consider "The Magnificent Seven". We can infer that it's set in northern Mexico
or thereabouts. It doesn't say exactly where; nor when; nor who the bandits
really are; nor where the gunmen really came from. Because it *doesn't matter*.
There are no external influences. The scope of the plot is extremely localised.
The story is made by characters, age-old motivations & action. It is not
bogged down in historical & cultural pedantry.
Likewise, in a Gloranthan version we don't need to be given the details
of where & when & why. We just need to know that it's a village somewhere
in or near Prax (or wherever); the farmers are persecuted by bad-guys; the
PCs sort it out.
>Gloranthan lore belongs in Gloranthan games. You can't really divorce the
>two, and it would be a terrible shame if you tried: a sterile thing to do.
I can and I do. It can be very creative. But it's also very time consuming. :-(
>I'm not sure how you distinguish a "major" fragment from any interesting
>mention or use of stuff: to make such a value judgement, you have to read
>the source first! And new Gloranthan material can and should be presented
>*anywhere* -- even on this Daily.
You give Glorantha greater priority than RQ. I respect that viewpoint but disagree with it. Too much lore can obscure the story IMHO. Conversely, I also find that Lore presented in a scenario can be obscured also. This is why I'd prefer to separate the two.
>At the end of the day: who else publishes Gloranthan stuff we can use?
Who publishes non-Gloranthan stuff for RQ these days?
>I am dead set against the de-Gloranthification of RuneQuest materials:
>there are any number of non-Gloranthan games, books, movies, etc. out there,
>if that's what you want to play or convert. But leave the real thing alone!
Ah well, I think we'll just have to agree to differ on this one... :-)
>Combat scenarios: Aren't these out of vogue?
Maybe on Planet Reebok, but not where I come from. :) I'd say 50% of the gaming sessions I play involve combat of some sort (regardless of the game system. The only exception is CoC, where the combat ratio is probably 25%). Conflict is at the heart of any good story. In RPGs the most obvious form of conflict is physical combat.
[...]
>This is an expensive pasttime :-(
Indeed it is.
___
CW.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:32:15 EEST