>Is there such a thing as a reverse heroquest? I.e. the worse you seem
>to do on the actual heroquest the better the final result.
Well, to complete the Lightbringers' Quest you have to die and go to Hell, where you are tortured and forced to humiliate yourself in front of your enemies... you wouldn't get very far if you succeeded in "not dying" at the first challenge!
There are also quests like Yelmalio's Hill of Gold where failure is the whole point.
>As soon as I saw it I thought 'hero quest' but am having a few
>problems with some of the details. Presumably the quester
>misunderstands the nature of the station which actually determines the
>magnitude of the benefit sought. But is it 'okay' to have such flawed
>hero quests where either the stations are misunderstood or the result
>/could/ be significantly better than the one the initial quester
>achieved if only it occured to subsequent questers tried?
That seems to me like the whole idea behind experimental heroquesting. "For generations we have believed that you must fight the Dark Woman at this station. But what if, instead, I tried to seduce her?" "What if, instead of giving the Mystic Maguffin to the old man in return for safe passage, I persuade him to let me keep it until I acquire the Theurgist Thingamibob as well, and then join the two artefacts together?"
Stephen
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail