Re: 'High Level' starts

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_yeats.ucc.ie>
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 01:24:42 +0100 (BST)


Dom Twist sez:
> Before I get another tirade launched against me

I'm sorry Dom, I have to stop you right there, and begin my tirade immediately. It's no fun unless one gets to be entirely unreasonable about it, I find. (Maybe some people have their tired/being jumped on thresholds set a little low, on the other hand...)

> I disagree. A unfledged youth DOESNT understand his culture all that well.
> Indeed s/he is shielded from a lot of it untill they become a adult through
> ritual, told the adult secrets etc etc etc.

Firstly, you're assuming that the 'low levels' characters are non-adults, which has _never_ been the 'default' in RQ, so upbraiding HW, in comparison, for not doing this seems a tad unfair. Secondly, I think your implication is basically false -- 15 year old Orlanthi non-adults know A Lot about their society, and a reasonable bit about Glorantha at large, in the sorts of terms that would pop up most often in play. And a huge amount, compared to 'my friend just bought the book, let's give this game a whirl' type individuals in the RW. I don't think the relatively esoteric information such a character really _doesn't_ have (initiatory secrets of clan and cult, muck knowledge of things outside his or her tula, etc) make them significantly easier to play, compared to the large body of knowledge the character _does_ have, that the player doesn't, and the lack of an Archetype to model appropriate play of the character on, which is much more appropriate to hang on a more experienced characters than a non-initiate or a recent initiate.

You say nothing to counter my points about the playability of 'high level' characters for newcomers, which is where this discussion started, so perhaps we're near either agreement, or armed truce. That playing 'low level' characters can be rewarding, instructive, fun, in-genre, etc, I have never argued against (and indeed have agreed with an average of once per post in this thread).

> By playing through the Trials of
> Adulthood in traditional gloranthan/rq style

By this tradition, I take it you mean the micro-Scenario in Apple Lane, RQ3 edition, which IIRC is the only Official source on playing non-adults in publish material to date? If this is the bar HW has to clear in supporting play of 'low-level' characters, I personally will be very disappointed if HW doesn't clear it by a distance. As you imply ypurself, it's pretty much enough for one brief 'flashback' style adventure, in a game that otherwise assumes the RQ 'default' character starts. (Allegedly average 21 year tolds.) BTW, this is exactly how I started off running my last game of RQ, in case you still think I'm decrying the approach.

> If HW has a 'Long' Pendragon feel to it [...]

I gather, by-the-by, that this won't be the case. (Though then again, how hard could it be to adapt it to same?)

bjm10_at_cornell.edu, replying to me:
> > To reiterate the basic point: in some ways it's easier to play an
> > archetypal instance of [arbitrarily chosen Keyword] than to play
> > some unfledged youth, whom to play effectively one needs to understand
> > his society in a much more rounded fashion.

> Is there no middle ground?

Like, giving the option for both, and anything in between? (Rhetorical question.)

Cheers,
Alex.


Powered by hypermail