> I am reminded of the Star Wars MMORPG, where instead of getting to
> play characters like Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, you got to be a
> cantina musician or pod car repairman. A few people dug that. Most
> played long enough to realize that the game felt nothing like Star
> Wars, and moved on.
I'd agree with this as a principle, and have experienced myself, albeit in different (and, indeed, opposite) contexts. But I think the difference is that whereas most people interested in a Star Wars MMORPG are likely to do so because they like the Star Wars movies, and want to emulate them, most people coming to Glorantha are not doing do because of Greg's fiction. Maybe one day that will happen, but I can't imagine there's many people on this list of whom it's true. And that puts us in a different situation.
> The idea that you have to start out weak and only after many years
> become a character worthy of being considered a protagonist is
> outmoded.
As the only possible path, sure. I'm not so sure that the idea in general is 'outmoded'. At least, I certainly *hope* it isn't.
> Why not just start out as powerful characters with simple
> abilities, instead of comparatively weak ones subject to all of these
> complicated limitations?
It depends how weak is 'weak' of course; I do like characters to be fairly competent, and I think there's a case to be made that HQ has overdone this (which is why many find the stats in Anaxial's Roster underpowered; they were written on the basis that PCs were pretty competent and moderately powerful, and so 1W is quite a bit - this is no longer so much the case in HQ). But start off as powerful as the protagonists in Greg's fiction? I'd vote against *that* being the default assumption. Novels are one thing, RPGs quite another.
> I recognize that some people want to play limited characters. I'd
> argue that this should be an advanced option, not the default.
I'd argue they should both be provided for. I guess its a matter of how much the 'advanced' option is being downplayed, though.
> Start
> out with the simplest possible rules, allowing the most generally
> exciting characters
I guess this is my problem. To me these characters are not at all exciting; quite the reverse. I know you're *not* saying 'let's take the exciting stuff, throw it out, and put in something dull and boring instead'... but it's difficult for me not to hear it as such.
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail