From: Joerg Baumgartner (rq4@sartar.toppoint.de)
Date: Fri 18 Feb 1994 - 13:44:08 EET
Joerg replying to Devin Cutler, who brings convincing arguments for
binders:
> My main problem with the way RQ3 and the Renaissance products have been
> formatted is that one ends up having to look through many different sources
> to find what one wa
> nts. Now, currently, with the lack of supplements and materials, that's not
> yet a big problem, but if (and I hope it is so) RQAiG is supported as
> promised, then the dispersal of information is going to be a problem.
> Examples?
> Creature stats are, even now, scattered amongst:
[...]
A modular creatures companion would be a good idea.
> Cults threaten to do the same. Already a person considering joining a new
> cult as a new character must look through GoG, RoC, and Sun County. The flip
> side is that we also end up with duplication of material, such as the now
> infamous proliferation of Kyger Litor writeups (each one slightly different
> from the other, I might add).
Kyger Litor is a (the) negative example for multiple releases of mostly
identical stuff. In other cases I disagree (see below).
> How many separate books am I going to have to bring with me to a session
> simply because the material I need (or might need on the spur of the moment)
> is scattered amongst a horde of supplements?
I don't see this as a serious problem. Once I'm in a campaign, I tend
to use stuff I have prepared or ready. I mean, you don't need Rascullu
in Prax, and a Thanatari is a major opponent one ought to prepare in
advance, I don't need him on the lam.
Material I found highly useful are the Vikings and Snake Pipe Hollow
digests, but the GM ought to have a _self-made_ binder of prepared NPCs
and standard monsters.
> It would seem to me that the only way to congeal information into single
> sources, while still retaining the flexibility to add new info (like new
> cults or new monsters) is to modularize it. The best way to modularize is via
> binders.
I may be a freak, but I prefer electronical format. One reason why I
work on a full text version of an index to Glorantha.
> I would frankly like to see a rules binder, a creatures binder, and a cults
> binder. The cults binder could be organized into pantheons, such that gods
> with different aspects worshipped by different pantheons could be properly
> categorized. Creatures could be organized by type (i.e. Chaos creatures,
> darkness creatures, etc.). In this way, new creatures could be added, one per
> page.
I don't need a rules binder. Rules I'm going to use in a game I must
have memorized. Spot rules ought to come on a reference sheet, one of
the best and most used parts of the RQ3 DeLuxe Box. This _has_ to be
included again!
> Binders would also allow revisions and rules changes to be implemented
> painlessly. by simply producing and selling a package of new pages replacing
> old rules, etc.
Won't work, unless you multiply page number by 1.5 for blank spaces on
the pages.
> Also, since it seems to be the philosophy of the RQ Renaissance people to
> have each product be self-contained and ready to play (e.g. the Sun County
> has the Yelmalio cult in it so that people can play without reference to
> GoG), this material could be included as a separate binder page sold with the
> supplement, so that when people have purchased the cults binder or whatever,
> the page can then be added to the binder.
> Without this type of modularity, it in fact becomes impossible to continue
> with the philosophy of trying to have each supplement self-contained, unless
> this means that a cult writeup is going to be represented in every supplement
> in which the cult is prominent (i.e. are we going to see another writeup of
> Yelmalio in t
> he Lunar Pack, another in Elf pack, another in Sartar Pack [but that would be
> Elmal, wouldn't it?]). Such repitition is to be avoided.
I for one think that Yelmalio Cult Write-ups ought to differ for
Sartar, Sun County and the Lunar Provinces. Regional differences,
different local heroes (Kuschile is ancestor for three Colymar clans.
Do you think he will be known in Dorastor, Ralios or Fronela?).
So: I'd appreciate a modular system. Binders surely are one way to go.
BUT: To conquer a market, binders cannot be put in the first line of
fire.
And I'd prefer an electronical database. That might even convince me to
leave Atari ST as my primary system...
> 2) If Europe uses a two hole standard and US 3 holes, then simply produce the
> pages with five holes! Not very difficult to do. Sell different binders for
> US and European markets (it's not that hard to find a supplier in each region).
I prefer the four-hole European standard. The left side would have to
be a cheese-like piece of plastic...
> For instance, Sun County and River of Cradles could have been combined sans
> scenarios into a single comprehensive guide of the Zola Fel area. The
> scenarios could have then been presented separately, as a Zola Fel scenario
> pack. At the very least, perhaps, scenarios could be detachable or wrapped
> together but in different booklets.
This I'll second. It makes life easier if a pack contains three
different booklets, like RQ2 Pavis or RQ3 Vikings. You can just hand
out the Common Knowledge to the players. Griffin Island did this
admirably well, although on the whole I prefer Griffin Mountain.
-- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de 0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:35:34 EEST