> I was expecting a little less reactionary posting and a little more
actual
> discussion of the *hypothetical* questions I posted.
So this man who still plays RQ2 (wondering why nothing's coming out for
that
game), and apparently *HATES* RQ3, thinks *we're* the reactionaries... :-=
)
Y'know, Brian, the mechanics are the *last* things I pay attention to whe=
n
I'm reading anything written for Glorantha. This gives me a few hiccups
when
something like Robert's broo (gross stats, not much plot) gets posted her=
e,
but I'd be *delighted* to turn a blind eye to any stats and read the
doubtless
insightful, moving and enjoyable RQ adventures, campaign notes, settings,=
NPC
descriptions, etc. that you've been entertaining your gaming group with f=
or
all these years. The roolz don't matter: your ideas are all that matter!
> By the way, could I repeat a request that may not have gotten through. =
In
> KoS Greg talks (in the bit on What Happens When You Die) about a
'HeroQuest
> Initiation'. Any one got any ideas about what it is he thinks he means?=
I'm not a HQing guru or anything, and my "King of Sartar" now appears to
have
gone walkies (or been eaten by Calvin), but I have listened to Greg going=
on.
And one of the inconsistencies that still mars his approach to HeroQuests=
is
that he's taking pains to keep a foot in two opposing camps.
One is the "Super RuneQuest" camp: that HeroQuests are something only a
very
few powerful people participate in; that most Gloranthans steer well clea=
r
of;
that after your first HeroQuest you have "opened a third eye" (or some
such)
and can never return to seeing the world in the same mundane way again;
that
all heroquesters are at risk of being involuntarily dragged back into
someone
else's heroquest, to play the part of the opposition; etc. Now, I *believ=
e*
the reference to "HeroQuest Initiation" is something to do with this.
The other is the "Everybody HeroQuests" camp: that all Gloranthan worship=
is
(to some extent) a HeroQuest; that every initiate has therefore
heroquested;
that the difference in perception of the mundane world is that of the
'four-
ways' (lay members) missing out something that all initiates can perceive=
;
that therefore "heroquesters" aren't exposed to any risk that the vast bu=
lk
of
the Gloranthan populace (or theistic Gloranthan populace, at least!) don'=
t
undergo to some extent. All initiations are temple rituals, thus
heroquests;
this is so fundamental to this view that "heroquesting initiation" would =
be
an
oxymoron (NB: this is *not* a description of an Uroxi, though it could be=
).
Obviously a reconciliation between the two positions is possible (and,
indeed,
desirable); matrixing out the different levels of involvement/participati=
on
against the different types of heroquest ("safe" temple-ritual reenactmen=
t;
"dangerous" hero-plane ritual; "experimental" trail-blazing, Arkati-style=
) =
would IMHO be a worthwhile endeavour.
But part of the problem (as usual) is that all Gloranthans experience som=
e
degree of divine/otherworldly contact which we (for the most part) do not=
,
and that this is something glossed over in our rules and world descriptio=
ns
(e.g: Cults of Prax description of Sacred Time, posted here earlier; vagu=
e
descriptions of initiation rites; almost total lack of ritual
descriptions),
perhaps because of the weirdness or unfamiliarity of the said experiences=
=2E
I'd *love* to see more things like the "Shorter Lightbringers' Pilgrimage=
"
(Greg Stafford, KoS) or "River Ritual of the Sun Folk" (Stephen Martin, S=
C)
showing us how the (mundane) ritual and the (mythic) reenactment co-exist=
=2E
I'm trying to write up a week of Lunar ceremonies for a developing projec=
t,
and this is the area where I'm having the most [fun|problems] working out=
what goes on.
::::
Nick
::::
Powered by hypermail