From: Alex Ferguson (abf@interzone.ucc.ie)
Date: Tue 01 Jul 1997 - 22:55:38 EEST
Richard Melvin admits he's "wrong", but:
> my version is mythically correct
That was the "We Hate Darjiin Usurpers" mob's excuse, too. ;-)
[Shield in Sandals of Darkness quest]
> Yes, everyone in his temple has that spell (and probably others, from
> other people) cast on them when they reenact that myth[1].
> [1] Probably during the 'Arming of Orlanth' bit.
That was the the Appropriate Myth that sprung to my mind too, though
it's probably getting into the situation I talked about elsewhere,
"grafting" parts of one myth (and hence Quest) onto another. So I'd say
what happens is that you're effectively creating/helping cause/agititating
for (depending on scale of quest) a variation on the usual myth, which
you're making (at least somewhat) easier for the next person to do, if
they're so minded, though not causing that effect automagically.
One way of handling this would be to say that the existance of this
preparatory ritual gives a mythic "excuse" for your priest (or
whomever), acting in the role of your Heler companion, to cast Shield
(say) on you.
> This may be why it's common to so many different myths
The Beatific Greg had a more prosaic explanation... There's really only
one way to put on a set of armour.
> spells cast here may take effect on all myths that start in this way.
That's an interesting point, and I suspect I agree. Though I'd
recast it in terms such as "widening the common path", rather than
making this an automatic (or freebie) effect.
I like the idea of HP RM spells being effectively one-use, though
o the Rune Priest path, which concentrates on becoming
o the Rune Lord path (cum proto-Hero), which emphasises
I still think the question of _what_ RM can be cast on the HP is open,
not to say vague. (Not to say how best to represent their long-term
effects.) Perhaps the typical Rune Spell Quest has (among others)
two variations:
a Channel for that magic, and which lets you use it reusably,
guide others to obtaining the same spell, etc. This route
(in itself, at least) doesn't allow you to manifest the
Power on the HeroPlane.
Embodying the magic, in ways which affect the quester
himself, and enables the use of that power on the HP.
Not included: willy-nilly use of reusable RM in the
Inner World.
This goes back to the personal/social thing again, sort of. Making
sense to anyone? I'm trying, really, to steer a middle way between
saying "no RM on HP" (old Chaosium rules), and not distinguishing
between HP and mundane world in this respect at all.
Ob. Mythic content: I suspect that the (usual) "correct" version of
PlimsolQuest is one involving Orlanth in stealth-mode, and _not_
getting spotted (and by immediate implication, clobbered), by Her
Kygership. Shield XXXX is always a handy precaution if you: a) are
from New South Wales; b) fumble your Sneak roll; c) have a local myth
variant foregoing the subtle approach. Some version of the Erotocomatose
Lucidity XVII sort might be favoured by the Kitori, according to some
interpretations of them. (Though I think more people favoured having
KL married to Argan Argar...)
[sacked POW effecting traits]
> Just POW sacking for rune spells - I'm assuming that POW sacked in this
> way is not lost, but simply goes towards making up the rune-magic
> equvalent of a shaman's fetch or sorceror's vessel (or whtever it's
> called nowadays).
I see what you mean, yes. I'd agree with numerous Previous Callers,
then, that would tend to (further) "pull" you towards the traits
associated with the god, or with the particular magic, rather than
anchoring you to your previous self.
[Harrek's free will suvberted by his Hate (Everything) Passion]
> I'm not sure about this - I thought Harrek was a misspelling of Conan,
> and surely Conan is the definitive adolescent free-will power fantasy,
> doing exactly what _he_ wants to do, with no responsibilities and no
> parents^h^h^h gods to tell him what to do?
Ah, but in terms of that analogy, his _hormones_ dictate what he
must do.
[regaining free will in a Battle with Oneself]
> Cheesy comic books (e.g. Superman IV).
Oh no! I can see it now, Evil Twin episodes of Star Trek!
Jeff Richard:
> Second, although I think the rules discussion about heroquesting has some
> point, it misses the main point - HEROQUESTING IS ABOUT MYTH.
I don't think we're missing this point: I thought by saying it six or
so times in one post, I'd be safe for a few more... However, just as
the fact that COMBAT IS ABOUT VIOLENCE is no reason to drop the dice
and punch the GM in the throat(*), entering the realm of myth isn't
necessarily something which can't benefit from _some_ level of game-
mechanical support.
Having said that, I do fully expect that discussions of this sort will
throw up concepts which I think are True, but not worth implementing
as game mechanics; game mechanics that seem reasonable approximations
of reality, but which aren't really suitable to include in a suitably
modest-sized set of rules; and if it ever comes to that, settle on
HeroQuest rules that I will proceed to in whole or in part ignore in
yer actual play-type-thing. Exactly like any other area of the rules,
in other words. (Or is that just me?)
> Further, heroquesting is not an exercise in power-gaming. It is not the
> "next level" of power - my carls, godi and thanes are inveterate
> "heroquesters". [...]
This is specifically why some of us are suggesting mechanics which get
away from the idea of Finite Types of HeroQuest. I want a set of
rules that can be as readily applied to the range of things Jeff mentions
as to Harrek abseiling into Glamour.
Not everyone is going to be happy with a No System System; because
of the undoubted truth that no system can do Everything, it'd be
wrong to conclude that the system ought to do Nothing (or its next-door
neighbour).
In Myth and Mechanics,
Alex.
- --
(*) Well, only on occassion is it _sufficient_ reason, in any case.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 17:48:24 EEST