> Let me clarify: the way I see "scenarios" as being
> used is that you have an existing campaign with
> existing, fully-fleshed PCs, then a new scenario is
> published, and you think "that looks like fun, let's
> use it."
So, you know the background of every single NPC in your game or associated with your character - in advance? Now who's being absurd?
Relationships just aren't like that out in the Real World (tm) - at least in my experience. And certainly shouldn't be like that in a game. Do you know all the friends and relations and interactions of those near and dear to you? I sure as heck don't! And I certainly wouldn't expect it in an RPG.
I thought this was supposed to be fun, not some sort of script-bible based straightjacket (having written background material for a very detailed TV show at one point, I can tell you that is no fun at all). Again, if all the NPCs and characters in a throughly detailed campaign are completely sketched out with no room for change - that doesn't sound like fun to me.
But that's _okay_.
Please, let _us_ have our wrongbadfun with relationips and bringing new things into games because we think it would be an enjoyable thing or even good drama... or unexpected character development. Who knows? That Unexpected Aunt* may turn out to be a pivotal character
> I have no problems with adapting it to make it
> fit(often to the point that it's barely recognisable),
> nor with putting in what has always seemed to me like
> "enough" links. But it seemed to me that Ian was
> suggesting something else, something considerably
> more, as an improvement on this "norm".
Really? It looked more like Ian was suggesting something along the lines of "flavour to suit" any PC should be allowed to get themselves an in if they so desire. Other people may may not see relationships the same way you do, I suspect. Sorry to differ.
Jeff
Powered by hypermail