[Glorantha] A scenario is not a story

[Tim Ellis]

Rob Davis argues
>I disagree.  I think scenario's are best when they are stories.  

I'd say that a good scenario becomes a story when it is run.  There
should be room for the PC's to act and (appear to) influence events, and
the trick to writing a good scenario is to provide plenty of "hooks" for
PC's to latch on to.  Lord of The Rings is a good story, but unless you
remove the fellowship, there is little scope for treating it as a
scenario

Jane says, as a scenario writer
> you can predict a few general options, and give ideas on what 
> will happen as a result, but you can't possibly lay down 
> everything. Nor should you be able to - it wouldn't be
> much fun to play if you did.

I think the problem for the putative GM is to identify what is important
about any particular incedent.  If the scenario writer says "At point T
NPC A will be killed by Opponent X" then what parts can the GM allow to
change without causing themselves problems later.  Is it Important that
NPC A dies, or merely that they are unavailable in the next scene? Is it
important that it happens at point T (so does NPC A have to be preserved
to this point if they are in danger earlier, or can their death occur
anywhere).  Is it the fact that Opponent X is involved or can they be
swapped for an alternative.  Or is the incident merely to emphasise the
danger of the scenario by culling an NPC who has no further part to play
in the scripted scenario.  

Where a scenario is a "one off" the answers  to these questions are
either self-evident or irrelevant*.  (It is obviously important that
Gringle is not at his pawnshop tonight, and that the artefacts he has
recently acquired are of baboon origin.  It is irrelevant whether he is
a werewolf or not) 

*Irrelevant in that whatever you choose to be the "right" answer in your
Glorantha is not likely to be contradicted any time soon by anything
official, especially by the next part of the Scenario arc you have
chosen to follow...

Trotsky adds
>As a player it's not a problem, because, from a player's perspective,
>surprising revelations are cool and entertaining. It keeps things 
>interesting. Not knowing things up-front is (IMO) definitely a good 
>thing, if you're a player.

I think there are very few people who'd argue with that. Even if you are
playing inside a "known" story it makes for a more interesting game if
there are still surprises.  But then players shouldn't be reading the
scenario anyway, so keeping secrets in scenarios on the grounds that
players shouldn't know them is bolting the stable door after the horse
has bolted.

Finally back to Jane...
> But if you feel differently, there's a lot more stories out 
> there than there are scenarios! Go for it - I'll be fascinated 
> to hear how you manage to play them.


Which would make a great intro to a thread about Heroquesting...

  

-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Ellis           EMail tim at timellis.demon.co.uk                      |
| What is the use of a book without pictures or conversations?            |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+