Actually, in the heroquest that I wrote up (based on the brief myth that Mike came up with & the other players OK'd), the crossing is just about the biggest obstacle. As I see it, the crossing over can very definitely be the biggest obstacle. Not every heroquest is a superpowered one. But getting into the Hero Plane is difficult. So...crossing over, difficult. The actual heroquest (without giving too much away) was written to be doable by beginning HQ heroes (who had solid backing from at least one community).
>
> >BUT, I don't see any rule that says that there cannot be a "weak"
> >quest. Not that there may not be some reasonable challenges along
> >the way, and the risk of surprises, but the end challenge is against
> >someone fairly weak, as these things go. Something/one in the heroes
> >range, just.
>
> See, I don't think that the contest is going to be something that
would best
> be described as weak. Not that we have it figured out yet, but Josh is
> talking in terms of us doing greatly mythic things.
Well, when I posted that here, I didn't necessarily mean "This is what I want the PCs to be doing next session." It's just the kind of thing I'd like to see in any Glorantha game (whether I'm the narrator or playing a hero). And as pointed out, that kind of stuff is as much color as it is mechanics. So I don't see the "mythic" stuff as being inherently high-rating as much as "adding cool, mythic color to what we're doing." I'm actually pretty confident that the heroquest I wrote is...for lack of a better term, low-powered mythic.
>
> >So I think the answer is that if you are willing to tailor the myth
> >(and the opposition in it) to the heroes, there is no reason that
> >heroes of any level can't do hero quests, provided you can also work
> >around the barrier issue.
>
> I think we could do that. I'm just not sure that's what we're
shooting for.
>
> From another perspective, do people agree with me that "starting
characters"
> are inexperienced? I mean, sure they're heroic due to play setup and
HP etc.
> They just strike me as more heroic like hobbits, and less like Aragorn.
> Which is a fine place to start; it just says to me that things like
hugely
> important heroquests are a ways off.
I'd agree with that. And I think that was definitely a part of my rationale for not having the heroes start with advanced experience--I like the hobbits getting into big adventures. Of course, the "ways off" is a distance measured in part by how many hero points are given out & in part by players saying, "Damn, I want my hero to dive into the weird, mythic stuff" & charging full-steam into it. You know me well enough, Mike, to know that while I may not pull punches, I will never kill off a character for diving into adventure that is over his or her head. I love that kind of recklessness & daring.
Powered by hypermail