French RPGs as an example against HW?

From: Xavier SPINAT <galelis_at_wanadoo.fr>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:57:42 +0200


>Right now, I fear that someone who only heard of glorantha and wants to give
>it a try will be put off because: the game is definitevely not intuitive
>(even if it is good), the layout is poor (let's not be offensive here, but I
>really hate it...), and the world is complex (it can be a good point but
>doesn't make things easy for the beginner). We already had this case for
>some french games, a good success at first because of the expectations of
>customers and then a failure for all following supplements because of the
>poor quality of the initial game.

Any names in mind?
I don't know what french games you're refering to. All I can say is that complexity of the world is not a real problem I think, except for the "fans" who can see it as an issue (afraid that people may not play in the "right" Glorantha?).

As often, people will come to Glorantha "step by step", making mistakes first and then learning more and more about the "official version" of the world. I think the basic pictures and archetypes are quite easy to grasp... The mysticism of the East, the monotheism of the West, the heortling/lunar opposition,... If you go in the details, you can get to levels of very high complexity.
But that's not what you start with (some do still play in Glorantha with a very "AD&D" approach, from what I know).

Since french examples seem to be the rule, I'll talk about Agone : this new RPG (from Multisim) is really selling very well and is certainly the best success in french RPG lately. It is inspired from novels by Mathieu Gaborit and its setting called "the crepuscular kingdoms" (or the "Harmonde") is quite rich and complex.
But many people like it a lot because there is so much to discover in it. Complexity is IMO not a big issue. You could as well say that what makes the interest of the game is what will make it fail. Most people like complexity, because that's what makes the interest last more than one game session.

But for the "intuitivity" and the "layout" problems, well... I guess I have to agree.
But I would phrase the "intuitivity" matter differently. HW rules are pretty much intuitive, somehow... they're just really different from the "classical" RPG rules. They need some real cooperation between players and the Narrator, and also some "drama"-sense. Well, those rules ARE exactly intuitive : they are to be used as you feel them, and not mechanically. That's IMO what makes them so hard to grasp at first : they don't bother with giving you to much details. They put you in charge of many things instead of settling all details (I can already imagine the questions and remarks : what's the modifier if I use a feat blindfolded and under water? what's this truesword stroke used for, exactly : more damage, bonus to hit, a weapon that shines in the dark,...? my character has an ability named "omnipotent" with rating 15, what does that mean? why do we do an ability test, I wanted an extended contest to take advantage of my edges!!!?)
I guess the problem is not intuitivity, it is rather about responsability. HW rules say to the Narrator and the players "you're in charge... trust your intuition". Many people are somehow not used to that (well, I'm among them... takes time to get to illumination)

of course I don't claim that Glorantha is easy to get for beginners and that HW rules are the most intuitive ever. I just mean that I don't feel in a position to judge whether the complexity of Glorantha or the originality of the rules will lower HW chances of success.
It's so very difficult for us to imagine what "non-biased" people will think of HW.

XS aka unofficial "coming soon to Bacharach" french representative


Powered by hypermail