Cementing Items O' Power

From: Michael Schwartz <mschwartz_at_...>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:56:46 -0400

I am a firm believer in permitting heros to cement items, even those of immense power, for a mere 1 HP; however, any major item in Glorantha is apt to have a history and unfortunate plot complications. Stormbringer brings with it the horrid prospect of the hero losing loved ones to its unholy thirst; Excalibur (providing you go with the "Excalibur-as-Sword-in-the-Stone" variant of the legend) brings the heavy task of kingship, for which the hero may not be even the slightest bit prepared (Patrons like Merlin come in handy in such situations).

This gives the heroes plenty of incentive to hand such powerful items off to their community leaders. The community retains the item and may even allow the hero to use it in the future, on occasion. The community leaders might dodge the bullet themselves, and assign the hero to be the bearer of an item. More likely the item's past and magic are painstakingly researched and studied by the community loremaster before a decision is made. In other words, Narrators can introduce an item for future use by the heroes, a la Chekov's gun.

For those of you unfamiliar with dramatic theory, and narrative theory in general, "Chekov's gun" refers to Anton Chekov's rule (which I paraphrase here) that, if you introduce a gun in the first act of your play, one of the characters had damn well better use it by act three or four. In roleplaying terms, if you introduce an item of power it had *better* have a specific future role in your campaign. I feel that an item's TN reflects the hero's ability to invoke said item's powers, not the item's actual power, just like a Follower's TN reflects when said Follower is available to assist the hero.

--
Michael Richard Schwartz | Language is my playground,
mschwartz_at_... | and words, its slides and
Ann Arbor, Michigan  USA | swingsets. -- yours truly