Hi L C,
>I'm mostly in complete agreement, so this reply seems almost not
>worthwhile.
Bah, I find being told I am not speaking nonsense *immensely* worthwhile. It's so rare these days. :)
>I know and have dealt with these problems, but think that the scale
>exists despite of them.
Well, yes and no. I do think the scale exists, but I don't think the scale really exists cross-game. Any system with the kind of flexibility of HQ isn't going to stay to a fixed scale very well without a focused effort to make the scale important and fixed. Just my opinion, but I've seen it in too many games. And once you fix a scale, it tends to become less flexible, I think.
>http://www.temppeli.org/rpg/process_model/KP2005-article/Process_Model_of_Roleplaying/node12.html
<http://www.temppeli.org/rpg/process_model/KP2005-article/Process_Model_of_Roleplaying/node12.html>
>has links to most of them, as well as my analysis of them. The Big
>Model has developed further since then, so for that there are newer
>sources too distributed across the
>net. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Model#References
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Model#References> has the
>most important and concise ones.
Yeah, I figured I could look it up. It was late, though. (I'll avoid turning this into a theory discussion.)
>Indeed, now I realize I was reacting to a side issue. The reason I
>originally tackled adventure baselines was to try to tease out an
>acknowledgement that scale still exists and matters. As long as we're
>on the same page about that I certainly agree that an adventure text
>itself will let a GM judge its applicability. A mastery range given at
>the start would merely give the GM a hint about suitability before
>delving in.
Except that I don't think there's a fixed mastery range that tracks to something like "levels" in DnD. I may be wrong, but HQ2, from what I've learned, may well have people with god-fighting powers at the same numbers that another GM would run a "getting the cows in" game.
>As for Jeff's info about the Sartar book, it seems that what I've been
>discussing here doesn't affect that so much. A self-contained epic arc
>needs only be consistent with itself in scale and progression.
Agreed. That also strikes me as easier to do in HQ2 than HQ1.
>I've
>been focusing on how easy it is to glue together adventures of your
>own from more general background books and stuff taken out of context
>from scenario books - how easy it is to adapt material into new
>consistent wholes, in other words.
*nod*
I see where you are coming from. I don't think it is a huge problem,
though, since if you are stitching together, doing it without having to
translate numbers strikes me as easier, not harder.
As far as self-contained adventures you plug in - the old idea of the
"module" from the glorious past - I don't think those exist in
Glorantha (or at least, in HQ Glorantha).
I've never seen one even proposed for the world.
LC
Powered by hypermail