Nick suggests that heroquesting should be fully integrated in the game system - I most definately agree.
I think what we really need is not a 'heroquest system', special rules for performing heroquests, but a magic system that scales up to include heroquest powers, demi-gods, and big ritual magics. Add that, and a good description of what 'the Otherworld' is like, and you have most of the rules you need for heroquests and such (traits or another mechanism for quantifying the personality is the main other missing piece). It doesn't mean you know how to run good heroquests, but I don't think thats a rules problem.
>(all this faffing around preventing it turning into SuperRuneQuest would be
>irrelevant, if we recognised that all RQ characters are potential HQers,
>that powerful HQers are powerful RQers, etc. The single rule-set can say
>that Magic, Traits, Skills etc. "work differently" in heroquest situations
>than in more mundane ones; but like David I would prefer a single common
>set of mechanics to be used by the same character in all circumstances.
Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with heroquests being SuperRuneQuest, if SuperRuneQuest existed and worked. I'm less than convinced that things need to work dramatically different while heroquesting - I know Chaosium have at times thought so, but at times they've thought differently too.
Oh, and a caveat to Jeff Richards caveat - I think powerful HQers are in general powerful RQers for some completely arbitrary definition of 'powerful'. Some may be powerful in terms of their willpower for self-denial or other strange things.
Alex questioning me
>> I'm currently inclined to believe that contrary to almost everyone
>> elses theories, a well trodden heropath (Hill of Gold, say) is
>> intrinsically absolutely no easier (or at least, not much).
>
>Well, the obvious question is, compared to what?
Compared to the heropath if its done only occasionally in desperation, say. I'm not implying that heropaths are independent of mythic truth or whatever. I'm just saying a little known, obscure little travelled heropath is not instrinsically tougher than a very well known one, though it might be more dangerous (because the chances that something you didn't predict happens are high, and surprises are generally Bad Things when heroquesting).
>It's hard to say, but I feel
>that "ease", and come to that having any possibility of the desired
>outcome in the first place has something fundamentally to do with its
>mythic significance.
I agree - I just don't think 'mythic significance' is directly correlated to how often the quest is performed, or even how successfully. if you are the first Zorak Zorani or the 100th to attempt to beat up Yelmalio, he is just as tough. The difference is that if 100 other guys have done it before you, and you know about their experiences, you probably have a fair idea of what opposition you will encounter when, so you are less likely to do something dumb (like use all your best magic beating up Yelmalio, and not have any left for the chaos monsters). Of course, it also helps that the Yelmalions know they are supposed to lose (because all the guys that beat ZZ and carried on ended up getting eaten by chaos bugs and never came back), but thats a special case - and its not something we need special mechanics for, its just something we know about the world (and we can have the Yelmalion act accordingly - but he might be an Antirian, who will attempt to win, so its not intrinsic to the hero path but a social effect).
Cheers
David
Powered by hypermail