It has occurred to me that we have NO named cast cards like Dyson, or Heliot, or Mother White currently in the 2.0 GM cards. Now, this is not a promise that we are working on such things, as there are other cards that are more desperately wanted/ needed for 2.0. This is more of a general inquiry of whether such cards are desired, needed, etc.
I believe that as long as the supply of decks and boosters of 1.0 exists, we will survive but when those run out, for new GM?
Thoughts?
Ann, I know that when I was GMing constantly, there were very few named characters that I used. If I did use them, then I would use them only for the stats rather than for the specific person.
ReplyDeleteSo, then, is there a need for some characters that are just there to provide continuity from campaign to campaign to convention games? If we speak of Mother White or Vladus as high ranking Valarians, generally every one at the table except for new players knows who we are talking about at least in generalities. Is this not necessary?
ReplyDeleteI'm am of a mind that named characters are really only important within the context of a larger campaign. I'd actually like to see us come together to create an all-encompassing campaign that would be played out at conventions, giving incentive for more people to sign up and attend. It would take an enormous coordination effort, but I believe it would be worth it, provided the incentives match the commitment.
ReplyDeleteI feel the named cards only serve to inspire roleplay and lore, and are not critical for the gameplay. Icing on the cake.
ReplyDelete