Eetu wrote: "maybe well get more supplements this way. I guess we won't really find out until we see enough texts in the HQ2 vein."
In my own posts I was very careful to not call anything simulationist or narrativist but try to explain the terms I used. That's because I'm actually quite intimitely familiar with roleplaying theory, having written and published one in which I also analyzed the variety of different meanings these terms have. I concluded that to actually have an intelligent discussion about them you had to be very very stringent in defining and agreeing upon which terminology you were using (GNS defines them differently from the Big Model, and even the different expositions of the Big Model have slightly but functionally importantly different definitions).
Now, you are (at least currently) using Ron's definitions. I was basing my usage of the terms mostly on GDS, which talks of completely different matters and did define simulationism as simulation and dramatism as story concerns. That's because from what I'd read about HQ2 thus far I wasn't really convinced it targeted Story Now (Ron's narrativism) over the Right to Dream (Ron's simulationism), but was reasonably convinced it valued GDS dramatism over GDS simulationism. Your latest reply certainly argues from a pure Story Now perspective though, so now I'm willing to also take that to be the focus.
Yet if we do take Ron's definitions for discussing this particular point, I still don't agree, as I don't see verisimilitude as being tied to any particular agenda. Definitely verisimilitude is important in the Right to Dream. And yes, it is not intrisicately involved in Story Now. Yet, I think one of the reasons to play narrativistically in Glorantha does come from the world and its verisimilitude. One can derive powerful meaning from addressing premise in Glorantha /because/ the world is so believable, alive and complete. And this completeness necessitates depth and scale. I speak from first hand experience of this, and also think I have a good base to speak from, having also tightly followed the indie game movement with weekly play and analysis of over 20 forgean games. </aside>
"Whew that was too long. To conclude, you haven't dissuaded me from wanting verisimilitude in my Gloranthan narrativism, "
and I'm sure you now know that I would never approve of doing so. (btw - not as long as mine! :P)
"but I'm willing to believe I'll get enough of that from pure text. "
I really hope it is able to help you at least as much as the numbers did.
"I still think numbers are generally better at conveying this, particularly for people new to Glorantha (I do know HQ1 numbers, not the text, gave me something new even after reading all of pre-HQ Gloranthan material). Yet, only texts published using the new paradigm will truly tell."
I think that publishing numbers actually would encourage a player to move away from the narrative way of HQ2 and towards more traditional methods of seeing roleplaying. If everything is based on narratives then we are encouraged to follow the meme and reproduce it to describe our characters' roles in story.
Did you ever read what I posted about the virtues of using passages of text instead of more traditional methods of writing up NPCs, places, entities, scenarios?
"> Eetu wrote: But, these relative resistances really can't exist in thin
> There must still be some at least assumed baseline range for the adventure
> or it doesn't make sense. A player hero that could beat armies or seduce
> woman alive certainly isn't going to have a 'very hard' resistance swaying
> moot. That adventure just isn't for that hero.
> Actually, the adventure *is* just for those heroes. Played by the same
> players and different heroes it's a different adventure. Or at least I'd
> hope so! The baseline for the adventure is: it's about the heroes. There's
> your baseline.
"Here I was talking of published adventures. Do they not need a baseline that tells what kind of heroes the adventure can be easily applied to?"
I think that a suitability statement in a published scenario is a good idea. I do think that this would be better done in words. Very roughly: I think the power of words over numbers is like the power of faith over science. We are looking to tell a story; lets use the building blocks from which stories are made.
Powered by hypermail