That sounds about right. The 'conflict' part is relatively easy, and dictated in part by the set-up of the campaign. For example, in my current face-to-face game, conflicts will be things like:
With different groups having different views on these sorts of questions. My non-Gloranthan online game has similar conflicts at the core of most of its large-scale stories, with smaller scale conflicts being, for instance:
OK, so the last one is more of a personal question than a conflict, but it *does* seem a very popular one :)
Turning this into a crisis (with the exception of that last one, which rather creates its own crises) is the hard part for me. Or at least, turning it into crises that I can use. That's why I tend to take pre-written scenarios, which come with crises already included. One of the first things to do is almost always how to adapt the crisis in the published scenario to the conflicts of my campaign.
In many published non-Gloranthan scenarios, the conflict is often someone else's: 'Patron X has hired us to deal with Conflict A on his behalf, which will pit us against Opponent Y'. That doesn't work so well for Glorantha or HeroQuest, IMO, even if Conflict A makes sense within the Glorantha in the first place. So a key element of adapting the scenario is to fit the crisis presented into a conflict that fits the campaign themes and makes sense for the PCs. More often than not, that seems to work pretty well.
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail