Jeff Richard:
>>> Yes - that's why it's [the Cradle Scenario] such hassle to run
>> unless you have those
>>
>>> imagination-free players we mentioned.
>>
>>
>
>Now that's just silly.
>
Woah there, Jeff! Not everybody has the same GMing style that you do, or
the same taste in scenarios, and I'm sure you'll agree on reflection
that that's perfectly fine.
>I love the Cradle Scenario - I don't need to
>have an answer to my players questions, I just want them to ask
>questions and come up with their own theories. Even if they are
>wrong. Some times especially if they are wrong
>
Oh, nobody's disputing that it can be good to keep the players in the
dark. But, in some gaming styles, keeping the GM in the dark is a wholly
different - and highly undesirable - state of affairs. Certainly, that's
the way I GM; if I specifically state a particular thing is true in my
Glorantha, I'd like to have some idea whether or not it contradicts
canon. The limitations of page count mean that that isn't always
possible, but for me, it's certainly desirable. You don't GM like that,
and find strength from vagueness, which is fine, but I'd suggest that
it's useful to understand that some people may want very different
things from Gloranthan publications than you do. Whether it's always
possible to provide those things is a different question, but to suggest
that people are wrong to want them, just because you don't want them
yourself, does not seem a good approach, IMO. Although I'm sure it's
probably a trap I've fallen into myself from time to time!
-
Trotsky
Gamer and Skeptic
Powered by hypermail