Re: retiring rune levels

From: Robert McArthur <mcarthur_at_fit.qut.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 18:57:37 +1000 (EST)

> >What, retire a character just because they are RL? Boring. Perhaps it is
> >Gloranthanally correct but, WTH. Besides, I'd love to see my Storm Bull
...
> >(Sure, there are definitely temple duties for RL of SB: eg. train initiates,
> >politics, drinking, thumping, ummm.... drinking, thumping...)
>
> Yup, most of your temple duties include teaching spells to whiny Storm Bull
> wannabe intiates, and checking out every scared farmer's assertion that
> there's a chaotic ivy somewhere in the woods. You only have 10% of time to
> allocate as you want.

You God Learner you! Seriously, I think that any blanket statement that tries to meld every cult to a particular format is doomed to failure - including the roles of acolyte, RP, RL et al. 10% of time - nice idea but why apply it across the board? Sure, the GL may have found 3 cults who approximate 10% (read RQ2/3 authors in the interest of saying *something* about a topic - duties of a priest or lord - on which almost nothing it written), but this does not mean that we should assume everything is like that. We may as well all be Humakti ;-)

> I think Greg once wrote something on the order of, "Tell the player they've
> won, and can try again with a new character."

Fine for Greg. Do we want RQ to keep growing? Is he the "dude" who was/is/ will be working on Heroquest? There's a huge gap between a starting RP/RL and a full blown hero! Do we want more players playing _Rune_quest? If so, I believe we don't have a grand ending which says "you've won - start again". By the way, once the character has died I'm quite happy with reincarnation as a trollkin :-)

Sorry, David, if this seem too veherement (sp?)... Robert McArthur

---