>IMO, there are several ways around this for the narrator that feels
>constrained by previous decisions.
First off, I don't see consistency as a constraint - I see it as a basis for a good campaign.
>1 - this clan champion is not typical.
A valid option that no one is denying makes for interesting stories. Shouldn't be a necessary one though.
>2 - the last time you met that clan champion, he was 10W2.
I would very rarely have characters other than heroes improving within a campaign. The occasional nemesis or ally (Kallyr, JarEel, etc.) but not someone as minor as a clan champion. Most characters are there to be obstacles to overcome (possibly to lose to first) and then move on. Someone who was a threat at 10W2 should rarely be a threat at 10W4.
So again, a useful trick, but not IMO a good basis for running all games.
>3 - Why be bound by campaign consistency at the micro-level of
>ability ratings? What, in Glorantha, is an ability rating?
>Gloranthans might know that "Fred can usually kick Joe's ass"
>and "Hey, remember that Joe beat Bill and Bill beat Fred". So choose
>whatever rating that makes a good story and still maintains story
>consistency rather than game mechanics consistency.
Or, put another way, why bother with a game system at all? If I don't use the numbers to keep consistency, what are they there for?
Cheers,
Graham
-- Graham Robinson graham_at_... Albion Software Engineering Ltd.
Powered by hypermail