> > I don't want a list of gods I'll never use.
>
> I do. Who knows, maybe one of my players will surprise me with
> his cool Durev the Householder character concept.
>
> One of the most interesting characters in my old RQ campaign
> was a fisherman.
The quite enjoyable four hour game run by Greg at the con (that I played in) seemed to be improvised and all the conflict came from the actions of Scott Schneider in pursuance of his worsip of his God. The Gods that played the most central role in the adventure were Minlister and Scott's God, whose name I now seem to have forgotten (Hermast? Helmast? Something-ast?) Not exactly figures central to the Orlanthi pantheon...
I think Julian makes a good point.
However, the unspoken ground between the two camps is this: in order for a player to make "cool Durev the householder character concept", the player has to *know* about Durev from somewhere in the first place.
That means, either the Narrator has to introduce Durev in such a way that the player says "Cool! I want to make a Durev initiate character!", or the player has to read some book (/Storm Tribe/?) that makes describes Durev in a compelling fashion...
> If I had a large group of committed, regular players, I think
> I'd definitely encourage them to use exactly those gods that
> you would never use, and I am *very* happy that Steve and
> others prevailed, so that they weren't excised from the book.
True enough, Julian. I believe the phrase "If I had a large group of committed, regular players" speaks volumes though. I don't presume to speak for Greg, but from people's comments here (Mark, primarily) it seems that Issaries' number one goal is attempting to meet the premise implied by that sentence in the first place. I.e. "how do we ensure that there are a bunch of large groups of committed, regular [Gloranthan] players"...
-- Viktor
Powered by hypermail