Peter Larsen :
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Todd Gardiner <todd.gardiner_at_...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > What is missing are not rules for being a mystic in a mechanical sense, but
> > the structure around the concept that allows players and GMs to agree on
> > the plausibility of actions that are used in the game.
> >
> OK, here are my thoughts (pretty much distilled from recent posts):
>
> There are 3 ways we could take the the idea of a mystic character.
>
> 1) A character raised in a culture that gives mysticism an important or
> primary spot. Everyone gives at least lip service to the idea of approaching
> the Ultimate, etc, although many people assume that they will do this in a
> later life. A character like this would have something of a general mystic
> understanding, would talk using mystic figures of speech, but mechanically,
> would act just like a sorceror or animist or theist, which, in fact, s/he
> would be. A lot of "wandering monks" or "kung fu soldiers" or "sinister
> eunuchs" could be modeled this way.
>
> 2) A character who belongs to a practice that assumes at some point s/he
> will transition to full-time mystic practice. Again, mechanically, they act
> just like sorcerors, animists, and theists, but with a greater investment in
> mystic practice -- they should (in my opinion) develop abilities that are
> probably not too much use in their regular life -- maybe "Endure Ascetic
> Training" (assuming your tradition swings that way) could be used in some
> kind of endurance contest but others would be used rarely, if at all in play
> -- they are intended to prepare the character for a retirement to focus on
> mystic practices.
>
> 3) A practicing mystic. I have my doubts whether these characters are
> playable at all. If they were (in a one-off game or something), the
> character would probably rely mostly on skills gained during their "previous
> career." Mystic powers seem to be either passive or disastrously single use.
> Since mystics are focused on their mystic practice, an "adventuring mystic"
> is probably a contradiction in terms. Alternatively, they might be as fun to
> play as a magician in Chivalry and Sorcery.....
>
> There is two places where some rules might be useful:
>
> 4) A failed mystic. Someone who had practiced, but abandoned that practice.
> They might have a "philosophical ability" that could be used in many
> situations (I imagine a magnetic personality like Rasputin would be a
> possibility) although this ability would be difficult, if not impossible to
> increase without the character repudiating the error (which takes us back to
> #3, the mystic character who is no fun to play).
>
> 5) A character with some mystic understanding, possibly divorced from actual
> mystic practice. The rules in the Imperial Lunar Handbook 2 seem to model
> this -- the Empire is still very much experimenting with what mysticism
> means, and there are a lot of groups who are fumbling towards the All with
> greater and lesser success (and greater and lesser damage). This is probably
> where most of the work needs to be done.
>
> Well, in section 5 and maybe section 2, characters who are part of a 2-World
> paradigm who expect to graduate to mysticism. Presumably, they prepare for
> this their whole lives -- which might fit your student/adept/master model,
> although it's not exactly the same thing. Yelmalians still have
> lay/initiate/devotee progressions, with priests and so on, but they also
> have an extra step, people who move beyond that progression. It's just not
> that much fun to play a blind guy in a tower,in my opinion, so that's mostly
> color rather than rules.
I definitely think that this is the right sort of approach, and I think that a portrayal of mysticism versus non-mysticism where you have some unplayable ascetics/hermits/NPCS at one extreme and ordinary folks at the other extreme and nothing whatsoever of note in-between is just unbelievable.
We should be *focusing* on ordinary semi-mysticism as likely the most common type of "mysticism" that characters are likely to encounter and interact with in an imperfect world, instead of just dismissing it out of hand as not-really-mysticism-at-all.
Oriental narratives that attempt to include similar themes are quite happy to make easy and very simple distinctions between the wise men up in their mountain grottos and all of those in the ordinary word that seek to somehow emulate their wisdom.
>From a HeroQuest point of view, it is hardly impossible to come up with storytelling rules that could successfully mirror these narrative themes.
Julian Lord