I don't think it's exactly infringing your authorial perogatives to discuss how your portrayal of part of Glorantha, the HW rules, and HeroDom all match up, surely? If I'm disputing that Onslaught as he's portrayed is an authentic part of the Gloranthan mythic landscape as _I_ perceive it (and the numbers discussed imply a pretty significant bit of such landscape), then conceding the contrary case before it's been made would seem tactically unastute, to say the least.
> Hmm, we have a scale in the rules that is quite definite in most areas. I
> don't see any harm in quantifying. Whats the point of having a scalable
> system if you can't actually say - this is how tough a hero is. By defining
> it, we can play it. RQ had us all stumbling around in the dark. Now we KNOW
> that a god is 8w on average and a hero is 4w.
Because to focus on that aspect (and answering a point about myth with an answer with W's in it implies such a focus) tells us no more than all those 'super-RQ' systems that many of us have spent so long in mocking.
Ob-pedantry: don't write 4w when you mean <something>W4, else Roderick will smack your wrist. (And then I'll tell him I-told-you- so about a confusing notation, but that's another tale...)
> Methinks though that your point was more to do with - how does one get to
> those stats mythically? Or did I miss?
More or less, though I was observing that the whole 'stats' characterisation was essentially a digression (and simularly system, etc, so several such points snipped, if I might crave your indulgence).
> > (And on a scale which itself is another Digest free-fire zone, to boot.)
>
> Hmm, how so? Do you object to the scale or the fact that there is one? Or
> something else?
If you missed those particular exchanges of fire, then consider yourself Blessed... (Thrice- at the least, in fact.) If you want to know more I'll summarise in email, or better yet, over that pint you're doubtless going to be offering to buy me in July, now that you're confirmed in Convulsion... (I have the Scotsman's Wallet heroquest to enact here, and intend to do so with all my might...)
> >> Heroic abilities are simply abilities beyond the norm, they are still
> >> scalable IMO.
>
> >Perhaps this is why we're talking past each other here. If we're going
> >to make argumenta ad greg, he's stated the contrary loudly and often
> >in recent years. Yes, HW game mechanics represent them all in
> >this manner, but I don't think anyone would claim that's strong
> >evidence of anything.
>
> Then what is the point of building a scalable game at all if we don't use
> it?!? Baffled.
You're saying that because the game system is scaleable, this is a priori true in the _world_? I think this isn't something either the author of the world, or of the game system, would seriously suggest. The system is scalable so it doesn't break, that's the point. In what way am I implying we should 'use' it? _How_ you use it is another matter entirely, though as I understand the whole design philosophy of the game, it's mechanical backbone is to support Narrative considerations, not to 'model' the world. (Though I've argued myself this is not really a distinction of kind.)
> >If you practice blowing long enough and hard enough, do you become Orlanth,
>
> Possibly. Lokamayadon came pretty damn close.
Definitely not, as I understand it. L. seems to be a perfect exemplar of the 'Ah, if you want to be becoming a hero (or a god, even), I wouldn't be starting from here' school of development.
> >I think in order to become a strong-sense-Hero, you have
> >to first of all re-make yourself in the image of the Other Side,
> >and if you want to go all the way in the Hero Biz, you have to then
> >re-make the Other Side to incorporate yourself, into it.
> Yes and no, from what I've read of the rules. I think you have to make
> yourself DIFFERENT from your god and THEN tear a hole in the God plane on a
> god quest that takes you through death and into godhood.
Well, becoming a _god_ is somewhat of another matter, though in one sense is 'more of the same'.
To become a Hero, you have to 'do' something different from your god, yes (or 'rediscover' some such act -- polite term for same thing, effectively), but the devotional-theistic process is fundamentally about identification and emulation, first and foremost. An Orlanthi HeroQuestor isn't likely to be going around, wondering how he can be sure and keep his Brand Identity different from his God's: rather, the difference that will eventuallly form the basis of his hero cult (assuming one comes to be) is implicit in the situation he finds himself in: what _would_ Orlanth have done, had he been in this particular spot, as it were. You won't get very far (with this method) if you flaunt the emulational model at every turn: Orlanth would have left the checkered battle to go play footsie with Ernalda, but _I'm_ going to grind out a painfully long Karpovian mate in 56. Much more characteristic is to discovered a _different_ 'checkered battle', and apply the 'same' solution. (I apologise for the mildly peacenik example: repeat as necessary with Humakt the Champion, the Sword Story, the Lead Cross, etc.)
Note that I do stress, by that particular HQ method, I wouldn't want to imply that that's the _only_ means of interacting with the Other Side. It's certainly the characteristic Orlanthi method, though, and meandering on to others would be Beyond the Scope of The Present Article -- and would risk me talking (more) uninformed nonsense, I fear.
Of course, one way to be sneaky about it, and still 'work' with the above scheme is not to be identifying with the entity everyone _thought_ you were, all along. "Hey, Humakt the Champion wouldn't do a thing like that!" "True, but then I'm Eurmal the Murderer" *splat* Or more subtle such wrinkles. (Hey, they don't call 'em cult _secrets_ for nothing...)
Cheers,
Alex.
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #421
Powered by hypermail