>possible, grant me license to exaggerate by way of illustration.
There=12s
>no doubt that I could work around them in some sensible manner, however
>GM-friendly campaign modules try not to trip me up this way.
If your campaign is already established, then the only way for a publisher to guarantee not contradicting what's already happened in your campaign is simply not to publish anything. So what is your point?
In parts of your post you complain that the scenario contains descriptions of events and locations. Then you say you want more detail.
I'll agree with your general case that River of Cradles is not a particularly well designed pack. The info it does give is great, but it doesn't form a coherent whole. So why not simply review RoC? I'm afraid your argument is lost in a sea of easily refutable examples.
The main problem RoC suffers from is that the company publishing it (AH) had little communication with the people who realy know about Glorantha (Chaosium). It was an appaling situation, which issaries Inc should be able to avoid. If you look at some of Chaosium's own published campaign packs - Griffin Mountain, the orriginal Trollpack, Pavis and Big Rubble, these were groundbreaking products in terms of design and usability in their day. If Greg Stafford and the Chaosium tem had produced RoC in-house, I think you could have expected a much more ballanced product.
Look at their Pendragon products for examples.
Simon
Powered by hypermail