Wow! There is lots here that other more cogent writers will expound, but I will pre-empt...
> I d already decided that it was best to start with both new
> characters and a new locale, i.e. we'd move from Pavis (that we
all
> know well) to Dragon Pass (where none of us has played before).
Good idea. And there is lots of excellent published material. If your lacking any supplements, list them and you may get some help or advice where you can pick stuff up.
> I think that there are basically two levels of change required.
Yes, I think you are right here. You can have great fun playing HQ as a more traditional fantasy rpg, but HQ mechanics can ask telling questions about players and characters by quantifying relationships - you know family v cult, clan v tribe, brother v sidekick - that sort of thing.
> Generally this will have less emphasise on immediate goals and
> gratification, and more on the longer-term objectives of the
group,
> stead, clan etc. Needing a little more Hero and little less
> Adventurer;
I think your right, others may disagree. You should be clear about this to the players. Do they want a change in the type of game you play? Maybe they like their RQ and the crunchy rules and tables.
> little more Story Co-writer and a little less Story
> Victim (no I'm not really that mean a GM perhaps `Story Passenger'
> would be better).
I would say that the players createthe story (although you may underwrite this with plot).
> I hope to coerce their thinking along these lines. I've always
tried
> to complicate (they might say screw up) their plans with
> local `politics' and the broader impact of their actions.
The relationship should not be adversarial - otherwise they will feel picked on. Conflict is good and gives opportunity to roleplay and for them to drive the story. Try and get them to buy into this ahead of the campaign.
more later.
Regards
Rob
Powered by hypermail