RE: Expectations and what is there

From: Donald R. Oddy <donald_at_grove.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:30:02 GMT


In message <20050630065334.JPKP11226.aamta11-winn.ispmail.ntl.com_at_homemaster> "Jane Williams" writes:

>> Greg is, I think, responding in this quote to a question that
>> boils down to 'what if we're playing Lunars in the Sartar Rising
>> arc?' Well, the answer is 'you're not going to get specifically
>> supported', and that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
>
>And to me. That would be just too far.

And wasn't what I intended to suggest. All I was asking was for was to look at alternative ways of using the books and make sure there aren't any big roadblocks to those alternative uses.

>> You have to make some assumptions when writing a scenario, or
>> you'd never get anywhere. And, in Sartar Rising, the default
>> assumption is that you're Heortling clansfolk with a desire
>> to rebel against the Empire. If you wish to do something else
>> with it, you'll have to adapt it.
>
>Almost anything that makes you actively pro-Rebellion would do, I
>would hope. But being on the "wrong" side is much, much, harder.

So no pro-Lunar PCs although they would have exactly the same background, or even pro-Rebellion PCs in a pro-Lunar clan. That's before you get fun ideas like pro-Rebellion PCs from a Lunar background. Maybe I've been infected by too many modern RPG ideas from the Forge but this narrow sort of scenario seems rather dated.

>Yes, exactly. If Issaries simply don't know yet, for instance, the
>date and place where Kallyr and Danar met, then they can't tell you:
>and if you decide to play through that, you'll have to make the
>decision yourself and take the risk. But if they do know, and it will
>come out eventually - why risk wrecking people's fun?

I don't think where two NPCs met is necessarily important, what's important here is their relationship. I'd say if you introduce a NPC who's important enough to be named then significant relationships to other NPCs should be described at that time. I'm really struggling with the idea that a relationship should only be revealed to the narrator when one of the NPCs is dead. Makes me wonder if the relationship should be permanently left open.

>> Greg's answer to *that*, I believe was that, without gradual
>> revelations of this kind, the Narrator will not be entertained,
>> and will be less likely to buy the next scenario in the series.
>
>A concept that completely baffles me. And you, and LC, from the sound
>of it - you both expressed it far better than I have in the past. But
>I can still augment :)

Me too. In fact it makes me inclined to put the whole lot on one side until I've got the whole story. It makes sense for a series of novels or TV programmes but novels have a far bigger chunk of story in each and TV programmes appear on a regular and frequent basis.

-- 
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/


------------------------------

Powered by hypermail