>Hmmm... I think this really depends on how detailed your session notes are.
I found that for publishing a scenario I had to take inta account possibilities I could ignore for my party (e.g. magics which might make an otherwise difficult task a joke).
But then my session notes usually consist of data on places - few: "There is a cave system" usually describes a dungeon, "inhabited by n trolls" details a couple of rooms (mushroom garden, grub farm, a few clan hearths) - recent important events, and most importantly the motivations and short characterisations of the opponents, possibly including a hint about their favoured skills. I'd rather write up a description of an NPC's clothing than his game data...
Campaing scenarios usually are suited for publication if they can be un-tailored - i.e. you need to provide a reason for the reader's PCs to participate, you have a hard time replacing old favourite villains with generic ones, etc.
>Of course, this doesn't mean that I feel my scenarios are strong enough to
>stand up on their own. I would certainly publish stuff if I felt more
>confident about it, or thought it would be treated as reasonable material
>rather than just being trashed by those whose Glorantha Lore is greater
than >mine.
In that case, write up a scenario and check it with a few Glorantha afficionados before publishing it, or else run it at a convention. I usually found the Glorantha content of scenarios being the least problem in writing up a scenario. Most live with one or two basic assumptions of Glorantha content, and a few more assumptions about the general cultures involved.
>> The regular gaming group I have isn't quite prepared for myth-rich gaming,
>> so my refereeing Glorantha is more sporadic than it could be too.
>The campaign I've been recently playing seems to have got itself into
>"myth-rich" areas - something I wasn't prepared for. But I suddenly found
>refereeing much more enjoyable because I was being challenged as well as the
>players. Maybe you just need to take that first step ;-)
Well, I did. I.e. I tried to prepare them for background with depth, and found them to prefer the level of background which provides just enough consistency but can remain shallow as long as the action is right. Tough luck, I guess...
>> When I started participating on this list's predecessor, I had more opinion
>> than knowledge, too. It is fairly easy to get a well-founded opinion on a
>> special part of Glorantha knowledge if you specialize. There are lots of
>> topics left to explore, really.
>Yes, but if you're a newcomer, it's a hell of a lot easier to rely on
>published material and others' more "experienced" knowledge than start writing
>material that you cannot later integrate with the published stuff because of
>basic flaws in what you first wrote.
Heck, I started with Heortland from an angle I fought against recently when Peter took my old positions...
As for basic flaws, try and find someone you suppose knows about enough facts and test your ideas in private before facing the broad public.
>I chose Pavis as my campaign base
>because the amount of stuff I need to remember to run Pavis politics is
>nothing compared to the amount of "when which clan did what to whom in what
>year" that gets bandied about for DP Orlanthis.
As I play it, the "when" is extremely irrelevant. Grievances may well predate the Dragonkill and be remembered... Basically most neighbours are difficult, but a few may be currently favoured.
Powered by hypermail