>An interesting point though, is whether he was, in all instances, right
>to be quite so concerned. A repeated "discovery" made by later HQers
>is that parts of the ritual _can_ be changed, to equal or possibly
>greater effect. Part of the art of extrapolative questing is clearly
>to decide what's a Mythicly Vital part of the original quest, and
>what just happened to be that day's Wandering Monster (to exaggerate
>the distinction wildly).
David Dunham and I had a very similar discussion recently. His point, if I recollect, is that it is entirely possible that much of what we read in various Heroquests happen to be that day's Wandering Monster. I agreed, but also thought that how the intrepid hero interpreted that day's Wandering Monster was Mythically Vital.
Extrapolative questing is an example of why I think HQ mechanics are futile - it is a voyage of literary revelation, not of firm scientific discovery. Furthermore, it is something that must be between the players and the GM - how they interpret and understand the myths, and how they link them together.
>You do indeed keep insisting, and the point you keep glossing over is
>the difference between a Hero Quest, and a mundane adventure which just
>"happens" to have the same "plot". A heroquest differs from the above
>in the effects it has on the quester, and on the invisble world. To
>wit, personal transformation and myth-making.
I guess my argument is that there is less of a difference between a HeroQuest and a "mundane adventure" than many think. Remember, to Gloranthans (like most pre-moderns) there is little distinction between the sacred and the mundane. Or more precisely, to Gloranthans life follows sacred patterns. Encounters with the random monster should be interpreted accordingly. When the Varmandi carls had a broo problem, they sought a mythic explanation and a mythic solution. We seem to be getting into heroquesting here.
>Of course, we don't necessarily _need_ rules for these, we could just wing
it. >We could also just wing magic, personality traits, combat,
character
>generation... Which may also be in some circumstances better for some,
>but others would be put off by being told "Here's a free-format
>description of the world, go play in it. Rules are for wimps." And as
>below, so above.
My point is that there is less difference between HeroQuesting and "mundane adventuring" than people think. A game mechanic that can be used for regular Gloranthan life with little difficulty, should function for HeroQuesting. Now, I don't think we have such a game mechanicism yet (althoug Pendragon Pass comes close) - for instance all magic systems currently in use are hopeless screwed up.
>> I'd rather see the effort that is going into create a Generic Heroquesting
>> mechanic into writing rituals and myths of the various cultures that could
>> be the basis of heroquests.
>I'd rather see the money put into the Common Agricultural Policy put
>into my Swiss Bank Account, but it ain't gonna happen. The two sorts of
>endeavour are sufficiently distinct that I don't think one exists by
>virtue of Tapping the other. It'd be about as accurate to criticise
>playing Trollball or posting about the length of issues of the digest
>on those grounds, I think.
You might be right. I was simply venting and won't tell y'all to stop discussing HQ mechanics, even if I think it misses more fundamental problems in game mechanics.
>> Of course, that might require reading books
>> like KoS, the Fortunate Succession, GRoY, or even the Entekosiad. :)
>Read 'em in microscopic detail (which isn't to say I remember them that
>way), why do you ask? _Especially_ the Entekosiad! I haven't noticed
>any of the Attic Absentionists in the HQ rules discussion, or if they're
>in there, they're keeping quiet about it.
Again, I was simply venting frustration with that previous digest tangent. Oh well.
Yours truly,
Jeff
Powered by hypermail