Glorantha

[simonh]

Let me put it another way... if I didn't mention "Slayers" nor "Buffyverse", one would be unlikely to realize that it WAS the Buffyverse....

Then it isn't the Buffyverse. Whatever.

The question is, if you'd never seen an episode of Buffy, would this game be fun?

The answer may well be no, and if that's the case then perhaps there's no room for negotiation between you, but you can't force someone to run a game they don't want to run, or a way they don't want to run it any more than he can force you to play in it.

Look, if the game sucks as a game then I think that's a legitimate criticism. However the ability to put a personal stamp on a setting to create a game the way you want to is exactly what attracts me to roleplaying.

Simon Hibbs

 

[mthomason]

GMs treading into licenced IPs is always rocky ground.

The first thing they need to do is explain to the players whether they're looking at running the game as close as possible to canon, as a "spinoff", or making major changes. If anyone objects, give up there and then.

I would never get a group together and say "we're playing Star Trek next week", get them to the table to play, and then proceed to tell them the Federation just failed, the Prime Directive has been recinded, and the campaign will be based around their pirate activities raiding civilian shipping and murdering countless innocents.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't run the game at all, it means I would ensure the players were comfortable with the idea before I did it.

When running with someone elses I.P., often it is best to start out as close to canon as possible, and ease in the changes slowly - that way you can gauge when you've "gone too far" and steer things in another direction before you risk alienating your gaming group.

Yes, you have to be able to put your own stamp on your game world, but not in a way that turns your players off wanting to play in it.

You don't have to tread so carefully that you're afraid to change a single detail for fear of someone not liking it - there's going to be some decisions that the players don't like somewhere, unless you're playing with half a dozen clones of yourself. Some things you can say "well tough, thats just how it is", but when you take the entire game world permanently outside of how a player envisions the world they turned up to play in, you've got to be prepared to make adjustments.

If you're intending to throw established canon completely out of the window, it's only fair to warn the group before you start. I usually prepare a "deviations from canon" booklet for players when I do this, so they can read about it before starting - first off, it's only fair they get to see they're not playing in the "real" version of that universe, and secondly it's stuff their characters should know anyway. I wouldn't want to play a B5 game, have a player announce they're heading to Centauri Prime, and *then* tell them that in this game that planet was destroyed ten years ago. If I told them before the game started and they were happy with the idea, then there shouldn't be any repercussions. Obviously I don't list the deviations from canon that their characters would not be aware of - you have to save *some* surprises

 

[Adept]

Do you really think people live their lives like that? Do you think real people just accumulate skill year after year, becoming infinitely better? People accumulate enough skill for their job and interests, and that's it.

I've been thinking on this one, as well as the problems associated with a "100 cap".

One solution that I feel works well is to only allow improvement rolls to take skills to 100. Beyond that, you have to spend "downtime" on practicing or research to get those ever-more-difficult extra points. If you really want a skill of 120, thats twenty ever-growing-longer training sessions and not simply improvement rolls while adventuring.

Not bad at all. I quite like it.

 

[AKAramis]

Let me put it another way... if I didn't mention "Slayers" nor "Buffyverse", one would be unlikely to realize that it WAS the Buffyverse....

Then it isn't the Buffyverse. Whatever.

The question is, if you'd never seen an episode of Buffy, would this game be fun?

Maybe. But it was SUPPOSED to be the buffyverse. And part of the fun of well known settings is that they give you a firm handle with which to grasp the universe.

The answer may well be no, and if that's the case then perhaps there's no room for negotiation between you, but you can't force someone to run a game they don't want to run, or a way they don't want to run it any more than he can force you to play in it.

Look, if the game sucks as a game then I think that's a legitimate criticism. However the ability to put a personal stamp on a setting to create a game the way you want to is exactly what attracts me to roleplaying.

Simon Hibbs

It sucks because it is not what was claimed it would be. It was supposed to be the Buffyverse, and the only real connection is the Watchers and Slayers (and dozens of them, at that!).

To borrow the Trek Example... I warn people that I DO NOT RUN "Star Trek"... even though those are Federation ships, uniforms, and personnel. I run the "Star Fleet Universe." Sure, I might be using LUGTrek, but there are Kzinti and ISC... and Federation Marines... and that does turn off many players... because it also means the Federation Star Fleet really is a military setting.

Speaking of which, if you want a Trek-ish setting for MRQ, the Prime Directive setting is a decent one... and Steve Cole is willing to entertain well done manuscripts for any system with sufficient demand.

When you use a well known setting, and then do it poorly (Either rules-wise or setting-wise), or worse intentionally change it drastically without warning the players, you take away the very thing that makes playing in a well known setting a good thing: the base of knowledge that lets the players react in a manner more consistent with the way natives of the setting would.

Which is another reason I don't run Glorantha: My players don't want to have to study for the game!

I could, I think, talk them into LOTR if I were so motivated... But I don't want to run in Middle Earth's 3rd age nor 4th. Third's TOO detailed, and 4th not enough.

We're just finishing a nearly year-long Arrowflight campaign in My game (I'm GM=My Game)... An excellent setting and ruleset... and with just enough historical basis to be "easily introduced" to players. Just different enough to be playable. (We have, however, discovered the big weakness... at 9 months of weekly sessions, characters hit levels of experience that break the rule-system's reliability, using only the guidelines in the rule book...)

A fresh take on Glorantha may just rejuvenate the fan-base.... and definitely will create a different set of views on Gloratha itself. I'm likely to buy the Glorantha PDF.

 

[soltakss]

Which is another reason I don't run Glorantha: My players don't want to have to study for the game!

We have four people in my curent game, the GM (me) knows a lot about Classic Glorantha, one of the other players knows as much, another knows nearly as much and the fourth knows very little, although he has played RQ for years. When we play, the player who knows little of the history, mythology and so on has just as much enjoyment as the rest. He knows what broos do, that scorpionmen are chaotic, that Orlanth is The Boss and a few other things picked up from gameplay, and that is all he needs.

So, the idea that people have to study to play Glorantha is so not true.

A fresh take on Glorantha may just rejuvenate the fan-base.... and definitely will create a different set of views on Gloratha itself. I'm likely to buy the Glorantha PDF.

Let's hope it does. We all need new ideas and fresh blood.