From: Alex Ferguson (abf@interzone.ucc.ie)
Date: Sun 29 Jun 1997 - 02:34:31 EEST
Mike Cule says the quaint ol' DP Superhero/Infinity rune equation:
> [...] is needed to account for certain phenomena.
Only under certain other assumptions, such as the infamous Will one;
> >But I think that some of the things Will is used for, are such that
> The HeroPlane, in fact the entire cosmos, is embodied Will. While what
I'm not suggesting it _should_ though; I'm saying this is a flaw, or
[Experimentally dodging Orlanth on the HoG]
Which is why I think "type I" and "type II" aren't the "correct"
> But when you return and pass through to the Mundane Plane, that is the
I'm not sure I see the significance of this requirement Why isn't
And the same applies to a small-beer HQer, as much as a Real Hero(TM).
I think Harrek _ought_ to be accountable for by HQ mechanics, without
an entirely shamless Superhero Ex Machina. Just don't press me for
the details, quite yet...
> >they _ought_ to be "improvable" by HQ.
> you do on the Hero Plane may give you +100 skill in Rafia Weaving, that
> isn't going to increase your Will by an iota.
at least, a serious limitation, in the whole "Will" concept.
Gloranthans _do_, at least according to Greg anecdote, HQ to make it
easier (or possible) to accomplish other HQs. The numeric Will
idea tends to make each successive HQ _harder_, at least in many
respects.
> The trick isn't avoiding Orlanth (though that should be reasonably
> difficult). The trick is, when you return to the Mundane Plane, making
> that change real for the rest of Glorantha.
distinctions to make. You seem to be, broadly speaking, saying
that the important, distinct sorts are (what I'd call) "shallow,
re-enactment" HQs, and on the other hand, "deep, extrapolative"
(or Experimental, if you prefer). Firstly, I'm saying that there
are two, somewhat orthogonal, notions going on here; and secondly,
that neither is in principle so different from the other as to
require an entirely different explanation, or "mechanism".
> point at which you must give up part of your Free Will (whether we
> express it as a numeric characteristic or effects on Traits) to make it
> real and part of the Web of Arachne Solara.
the "will" expended in _doing_ the things? I don't immediately see
why the quester ought to have the option of abandonning an "unsaved
position", without paying the "cost" of his actions.
The difference is just the the first makes a small change, in this
case too small to make a dent in the "received mythology" of anyone
much, except possibly himself and some cronies. And it makes it
only marginally easier for someone to follow him. The real difficulty,
though, is that if a sub-Hero tried to do this, he might be able to
avoid Orlanth, but doing so would almost certainly make it impossible
to complete the quest in a satisfactory way.
> And what is worse, if you don't reaffirm the reality, normally by
> founding a cult that will re-enact the new myth every Sacred Time, then
> it will start to fade.
This may be true, it's hard to generalise about, though. I'll note,
though, that this is exactly what most religions (certainly the
Orlanthi) believe about the _old_ myths.
> A Type I is being maintained by someone other than the Quester.
> A Type II is (will be) maintained by the Quester and his supporters.
This is just a difference in _viewpoint_, though. A known,
pre-existing quest (say, the LBQ) is being "maintained" by the original
Quester (Orlanth and/or Harmast), and his "supporters" (otherwise
known as worshippers).
> The difference is one of kind.
I know it is in your system; I just don't see that it is one in
Glorantha. And it largely ignores other possible distinctions
(such as "deep, re-enactment", and "shallow, extrapolative", among
others suggested elsepost).
It's not so much that I think the WILL approach is necessarily Wrong: I
think that it could be made to work, and I think several people have
reported successful runs of HQs using such a mechanism. But my current
thinking is that: a) Chaosium won't be using it; b) it has limitations
in what it can describe; and c) anything that can be described by WILL
can be descibed by the other mechanisms that have been batted around
(POW+geases+traits+... etc); and d) these alternative approaches may be
more "accurate", or at least more evocative.
This is, as Mike says, becoming a bit point-for-point, but I think
we're not at the Circular and Pointless stage yet, so I hope you'll
bear with us (or "Next" without too much resentment).
Slainte,
Alex.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 17:02:09 EEST