Hi Mark
I think you are right to an extent. However Greg invited us to
discuss this matter on this forum as this is the sort of thing he is
considering for inclusion in GAC. But lets not argue.
Not withstanding the issue seems to boil down to play style; folks
campaigns skewing ability levels out of sync with the published HQ
rules (which may or may not lack internal consistency in terms of
ratings anyway, but thats a whole other thread).
But agreed, the above is a divide thats not worth persuing any
further. Lets all agree to disagree on this emotive subject.
But what would be useful further debate would be how to present major
GAC NPC's.
- I think we can agree on that we all want more background on the
major NPC's than was given in OiD for example.
- More detail about their followers who may provide an access to non
combat interaction with the major NPC, and hints of how they may be
used.
- A critical path of the Hero Wars for each NPC, which the GM can
use as a springboard for his own game. Like in Pendragon - Arthur is
born, Arthur pulls sword from stone, Arthur shags his sister
unknowingly, Marries Gwen, yadda yadda yadda until he gets carted off
to Avalon in a boat, all with dates.
- A list of abilities, with numbers that inform us within the scales
as set out in HQ that inform us of the NPC priorities in a way that a
narrative can't. In Pendragon we know that Lancelot is Chaste, but
his love for Guenevere is greater. Otherwise what can we say about
the morals of a guy who cuckolds his best mater and king? Pendragon
stats are great in this respect. This facility exists in the HQ
system, and was most useful for me when using the characters from OiD.
- So, Harrek - 2/2.5 pages, with half a page for a character diagram
as is used in publication so far. Maybe a page, page and a half for
each Argrath.
So, to move things on, lets agree that some will think 4 is of little
value, others of great value.
What could improve the above, and what other ideas for presenting
these characters are there? Oh, and excuse my keep referring to
Pendragon - but the GPC is without doubt a triumph of genre setting
campaign books. If the GAC is half as good it will be stupendous! :^)
Regards
Rob
- In WorldofGlorantha_at_yahoogroups.com, "Mark Galeotti"
<markgaleotti_at_...> wrote:
>
> Tell me, has anyone been convinced to change their position in this
> debate yet?
>
> A purely personal comment, but I confess I do despair about some of
> these seemingly interminable exchanges of views on this and similar
> Glorantha/HQ lists. I think the respective points of view have been
> pretty well rehearsed. FWIW, I'm with Jeff in that setting down
stats
> and the like can and does cause problems for _writers_ further down
the
> line, and I have no problem with just making up an ability and
number
> on the fly. Conversely, I can understand where Rob, Mikko, et al
are
> coming from. But there seems to be little meeting of minds, here.
>
> I appreciate that some people relish the back-and-forth. Maybe it's
> just Friday morning world-weariness, but this kind of thing turns
me
> off and tarnishes the experience of engaging with Glorantha as a
whole.
> But, to use Jeff K's frequent closer, maybe that's just me...
>
> Mark
>