The way I see things going then is that each player will have a
number of
characters all in the clan and they'll pick which to play in order to
answer
some particular clan crisis.
One thing I would imagine would cause problems for a clan would be the extended absence of a number of key clan members, esp if in ring, so I suppose it will be quite exceptional to have a travelling band of adventurers disappearing for a year to travel Glorantha.>
This is good for roleplaying a clan or family group and bringing real relationships into a game.
OTOH I run and play games with a group of crusties who, while still struggling to maintain a stead in the Risklands, also still enjoy playing a group of itinerant adventurers with all the problems that brings. My new HW campaign involves a group of various Lunars on the edge of the Empire, other campaigns still going include itinerants in and around Pavis (made for them), Orlanthi in Balazar and a hodgepodge in Sun County.
It seems to me that a great deal of emphasis is being placed on playing a character who is part of Gloranthan society but the literature and mythology that brought me into RPGs in the first place frequently tell of the outcasts and people on the fringes of society, often driven out by the very people they will end up saving. This isn't a hang-up from D&D but a section of every human society throughout history. Classical greek history is full of outcasts from (select from: Athens, Thebes, Sparta...) who achieve fame fighting for (select from: Athens, Thebes, Sparta...).
HW needs to be accessible to different styles of role-playing, after all, not all of us are eager to use the new handy-dandy AP system to determine whether the barley survives the spring frost.
Dave
Powered by hypermail