Oliver
>I have to agree with Jeff. Clear rules and scenario packs where you
>can drop characters in and play right away without having to have a
>degree in Glorantha OR necessarily wanting to play InitiationQuest-
>fun for some, too much for others, are a must.
Well the rules will be easier and clearer with the HQ release, there is no doubt of that, as for scenarios, that can be a trickier proposition. If an initiation quest is beyond the MTV generations ability to concentrate for a game, then we are indeed in trouble from word go, as any scenario we write will have to be a grog level dungeon bash. I do not believe this is this case and I feel we should resist the urge to consider our audience stupid or lacking in the ability to deal with complexity. Besides, having seen recent product like much GURPS Transhuman Space material, Traveller d20 and others, it is clear that other games are targeting players who can read 200+ page rulebooks with copious amounts of background and complexity so what are they trying to do?
>You don't want to scare off newbies or repel dull old
>simulationalists like me with too much detail.
I was a newbie to Glorantha when I was 13 years old. The first time I read Cults of Prax to pick out my character I was stunned at its depth as opposed to my previous times playing a cleric in D&D with no clue as to who my god was or what they did. It left me looking for more and this was not uncommon a feeling among my gaming group of early teenagers. So given that sample, which newbies are we scaring away? Those that can't make the leap to the CoP level of detail will never, ever be able to play in Glorantha at any level other than a superficial one. Can we afford to waste time and resources writing for those people?
As for the simulationist, they _crave_ detail, that is their whole reason for gaming so if you remove detail from the game then it will not fulfill their needs. I'm a simulationist and relish any cultural, relgious, economic, military detail as it simulates a real society in game. My Glorantha has to make consistent sense.
>At least have a simple, basic level for the world where you can stop and
play if
>you're not interested in totally immersing yourself in a world. Give
>me a superficial description over an in depth one any day. It's a better
start.
I have to disagree here. Firstly, GMs and players take what they need or want. So though the detail is there, they don't always use it but if they need it, its better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I've used TR and ST mostly for the cults, the page on clouds I did not read. However, some people will and its richer for being there than not.
Secondly, given the huge amount of Glorantha that we have yet to cover or make gameable, every book that is produced is a precious commodity. Every page is vital in the ongoing war to bring Glorantha to life and to detail it. To waste those precious pages on simplistic adventures that any beginner narrator can slap together in their sleep is to me wasting our opportunities. Better scenario writing will show how the world works, how to play epic games, how to build a campaign and how to introduce the players to increasing levels of gaming. We have to bring players and narrators in and help them to game in Glorantha, not cut down Glorantha so that we get more players but loose the very nature of the game world that makes it so unique. I do not believe that more players and Glorantha complexity are incompatible goals. We can have a win/win situation if the writing is good enough.
>Something else to avoid if possible scenario books where they suggest
>you use such and such a thing from such and such a book you don't
>own. That is so annoying. As is "Just use the Tarshite warrior from
>Barbarian Adventures." Grrr.
True, but its better than reprinting it and loosing the space for _new_ material. Remember Kyger Litor in RQ? How could we forget...we saw it often enough.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail