Re: Re: Affinity and Mythology (was A thought on limiting improvisation)

From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:13:15 +0100


On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:24:39 -0000, "giangero" <giangero_at_...> wrote:

>> But I do agree with the idea in as much ascar without a heck of a
>knowledge in mechanics or car market laws. Although I admit that if
>you want to be a F1 pilot (or a devotee/disciple) it is better for
>you to know a bit of car mechanics. The fact you know how to use a
>couple of feats doesn't make you a mythology loremaster (even if it
>helps).

But is that a fair analogy? F1 drivers have huge companies/teams to do everything EXCEPT driving for them. Maybe rally drivers would be better, there are a lot of improvising mechanics there (even if it's the "how many bent bits can we rip off and still keep moving?" variety). They were even improvising new routes in Kenya (won by a Scot, naturally :-).

The question is, just what, and how much, connection is there between Mythology and Affinities/Feats? To my mind, a feat IS a myth, or at least a re-enactment of one. To use yet another analogy, no matter how good a singer you are, you have to know a song to sing it. How can you perform a feat without knowing the myth? PLAYERS improvise feats, CHARACTERS are re-enacting deeds performed by their deity in myths they have seen, heard or even performed. They must know the myth underlying the feat.

Wulf

Powered by hypermail