"Sufficient" detail

From: Thomas Bagwell <tnbagwell_at_...>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:02:42 -0500


> > Actually, I never had a problem bringing the Kulthean deities to "gameable
> > detail". Certainly it didn't require an enormous workload. In any case,
you
> > don't have to develop the Gloranthan deities and cults...that's already done
in
> > exhaustive detail. You just have to describe a few feats or allow your
players
> > to do so. That's much easier.
>
> So you vere quite happy with the Role Monster "Generic priestly
> spells" list, and hardly any references to the dieties other than Klysus
> and Eissa? Brrr...
> Parhaps we are used to quite different levels of detail in games then.

No, actually. It took me all of about 5-10 minutes to put together a customized set of spell lists. As to details on the deities and their religions, all that was important was that I and the player running the priest knew about them. We worked together to form a religion we were both interested in. It just took a couple of casual conversations over pizza and beer. Whenever more detail was needed, it was easy enough to supply it as needed. Did I plan out every detail of every religion in advance? No...of course not. It would have added nothing.

> > I don't see that describing feats will take much Gloranthan research at all.
> > Certainly, you can if you want to. I'm sure I won't.
>
> So what makes it Glorantha then? Glorantha has unique flavor, and much
> loving detail crafted into Her, I feel we are losing a part of that
> detail.

The overall background, history and mythology make it Glorantha...not the specifics of a few feats, which is all that I've intended to address here.

> > > They will detail the feats in the sense that they will have characters
> > > doing things with the feats, and these things may well differ
> > > compleately from the explanations and definitions a given GM has chosen.
> >
> > But those are just examples. If you want to worry about keeping your
campaign
> > in line with examples, then I guess you can change your feat descriptions as
you
> > come across the examples. I don't see it as a big deal. If they differ,
and I
> > like their interpretation better, then I might discuss it with the player.
If I
> > like my existing definition better, then I won't. It's especially easy if
it
> > involves a feat that hasn't come up yet...of course, I'll still decide if I
like
> > their 'example' or if I think I can do better.
> >
> > In running a Hero Wars campaign, I would expect such things to be a very
minor
> > detail.
> >
>
> Detail make the world Tom. At least they do for me, and I don't like
> having to make it all up myself.

It depends on what details you consider necessary. I prefer to concentrate on details I know will come up in play. A friend of mine runs very interesting campaigns, but it took him about five years to get his world to the point where he was ready to run it, because he nailed down every last detail of the religions, histories, economics, major families, guilds, etc., etc., etc. When he finally ran it was in a constant state of frustration as we had long lectures on things we didn't need to know, made by a GM who had prepared it all and was determined not to waste a bit of it. He was continually frustrated when we missed "neat stuff", and finally stopped running because we didn't go to the neat places he wanted us to go to...because he never gave us a sufficient reason to go there. We had another GM who improvised almost everything and he actually managed to convey more of the feel of his world to us than the other GM.

Detail can make the world, but it doesn't mean it will make it interesting or enjoyable. That's entirely up to the GM.

Detail to the level of nailing down every feat description is unnecessary if the player and GM can easily come up with ones that give them more enjoyment and a more intuitive feel for the feats and setting.

To cap this off, all I can say is that different people prefer different levels of detail, and I think that's the ultimate issue this topic boils down to. It is an unarguable position based on personal preference. Those who want all the detail already laid out and set in stone...be it for consistency or peace of mind, and those he just need what they feel is sufficient detail and who prefer to fill some of it in themselves...either to enhance their feel for the setting, or because they feel extraneous detail is constricting.

Tom B.

Powered by hypermail