> and I'm not either. Most people only have one task they want to accomplish.
That's not the same thing at all, though. Harmast and Arkat were both textbook monomaniacs, and each performed _several_ serious, extrapolative HQs to accomplish it. I'd agree that having done so, they might as well retire to the farm/big fluffy cloud, it's the nature of the means I wished to take issue with.
To clarify, what I think is that even if one has only one objective, then a very common pattern is to perform a number of "enabling" quests, themselves of an extrapolative nature, specifically in order to be better able to complete the one leading to the Big Prize. These might just be exercises in power-grabbing, but also they may well be quests that you intend to "prove" are related, by using them (or elements of them) in the ultimate Quest. Harmast's dekalogue (nimbly supplied, Nick) may well be such a case.
> > At the climax, you're "supposed" to haggle with the Sun about how to
> > Resurrect him. Insofar as it differs from this, it becomes extrapolative.
> > "Yes, Arkat, well, he's _kinda_ like the sun, because, errrrr..."
> Since Harmast's Saga is incomplete, as is Arkat's, I'm not sure what
> happened at this pivotal moment.
> But I don't think Harmast went after the sun.
I'm not for a moment suggesting he did. My point is that prior to that point, there had been one (1) Lightbringer's Quest, and it _had_ brought back the sun. So to the extent that Harmast's LBQ was a re-enactment, Arkat was placed in the "Sun's role". To the extent that he wasn't, the Quest is Extrapolative.
I suspect this is indeed something Greg will hum and haw about somewhat. Does anyone remember the Bad Old Days when the LBQ was to be performed "to resurrect someone linked to the Fire Rune from Hell"? (tee-hee)
> Also, remember that Arkat was a pretty powerful heroquester. Who's to say
> that Harmast had any choice here?
You mean, Arkat forced [the] Orlanth[i] to come to him, like, well, lessee, Yelm did? ;-)
Nick Brooke makes with the Latin Monograms (OK, Digram.):
> NB: my main problem with the idea that "real" heroes do dummy-run after
> dummy-run of their intended HQ paths (whether as temple 'dry-runs' or as
> low-intensity practices) before going for the Big One for real is that it
> doesn't make for very interesting heroes, or very interesting play value.
I dunno about "run after run", and I don't recall anyone suggesting oodles of rote learning in a Woodheadesque way. It seems pretty clear to me that _some_ sort of preparatory quest will almost always have taken place, though, if only that you enacted that same myth while being initiated, or getting that nifty Shield VII.
My feeling is that the "model" Hero would do a "run" at each "depth", to the extent that these different depths are distinguishable, which is Only Somewhat. I think this can be handled in play both Interestingly, and in way which is dramatically successful. After all, by your own argument, they should _not_ "play" in the same way, and the constast ought to be Instructive to all.
> The difference between the rehearsal and the real thing is like the
> difference between playing Poker with friends betting paper money, as
> against playing with enemies betting your fingers, limbs and lives
And this is an argument that you'd _want_ to do the second, without having had experience of the first? Having enough practice to know the rules of the game would be nice, at least...
Cautiously,
Alex.
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #38
Powered by hypermail