Argrath vs Arthur

From: Al Harrison <aharriso_at_coe.neu.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 09:24:27 -0400 (EDT)


>
> Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 11:06:48 +0100
> From: "Nick Brooke" <Nick_Brooke_at_csi.com>
> Subject: Re: Pendragonish Prognostications
>
> bjm10_at_cornell.edu anonymously writes:
>
> > [Nobody normal has heard of Argrath] ... This is why Pendragon is a
> > poor model whereby to prognisticate about Glorantha-based games.
>
> Any such "prognostication" I have seen hinges around campaign styles (e.g.
> following a timeline, having historically-significant adventures, important
> starting characters, family/clan/social focus, ) or rules similarity (e.g.
> d20-based BRP-like system), not presumed appeal to the general market. I
> think your example misses the point.
>
> Regards, Nick

I believe the enigmatic bjm's point was made in reference to the starting level of player characters.

I agree with his original implication that, while high-level PCs are acceptable starters for a commonly-understood setting such as Arthurian legend, similarly powerful PCs in a setting _not_ inculcated in the player's experience from birth would tend to be played less in keeping with the setting.

Al Harrison
geocities.com/Paris/Tower/9143
harrisona_at_asme.org


Powered by hypermail