> In fact, could it be better to have a slightly more playful or
> experimental attitude towards Gloranthan history in general?
Hear, hear! Enough people enjoyed playing our big Gloranthan freeforms (Home of the Bold, How the West was One, Life of Moonson) in the nineties to convince me there's an audience for this. (Not to mention the little ones with big events - Tarsh War, Hunt for Red Storm Season, Revolt in the Redlands). Just 'cos armies are on the move, capitals are being sacked, corrupt religions are being exposed, the world is being changed, doesn't mean you can't have good Gloranthan fun directing and experiencing these events!
I'm also worried about the degree of railroading (a la "Cradle" scenario) that would be necessary to present "authentic" events of the Hero Wars, if the outcome must be fixed ab initio. (That said, I'm sure Issaries are putting a lot of work into avoiding this undesirable outcome).
To me, a scenario where a player fuckup could directly result in the return of Great Cthulhu, or the nuking of Fort Knox, or the victory of the Evil Empire, has more rewarding tension than one where the players are sidelined and watch the inevitable defeat of the Cthulhu Cult, Auric Goldfinger or Darth Vader at the hands of NPC Heroes or ineluctable events. (Anyone for "Cradles"?).
Now, perhaps my approach is more suited to standalone high-powered scenarios or episodes rather than ongoing campaign play -- that said, wouldn't it be *fun* to play a Mission Impossible style Coder mission to thwart Sartarite terrorists and *prevent* the Dragonrise, and have some chance of success? ("Stuff the Hero Wars, this is my *game* we're talking about!")
Just my $0.02. (And I think this thread probably now belongs on HeroWars rather than hw-rules, where it arose, which is why I moved it).
Cheers, Nick
Powered by hypermail