Yeah, my point in that set value was in wondering whether or not it set a sort of standard for the level of power in a heroquest. Which is to say that it seems unlikely that they'd send people over, if the people doing the sending were more powerful themselves. Hard to explain, but doesn't the "door" represent a sort of base level of resistance that sorta describes what's on the other side? I mean, the door should hardly be the biggest obstacle. Hmmm.
>BUT, I don't see any rule that says that there cannot be a "weak"
>quest. Not that there may not be some reasonable challenges along
>the way, and the risk of surprises, but the end challenge is against
>someone fairly weak, as these things go. Something/one in the heroes
>range, just.
See, I don't think that the contest is going to be something that would best be described as weak. Not that we have it figured out yet, but Josh is talking in terms of us doing greatly mythic things.
>So I think the answer is that if you are willing to tailor the myth
>(and the opposition in it) to the heroes, there is no reason that
>heroes of any level can't do hero quests, provided you can also work
>around the barrier issue.
I think we could do that. I'm just not sure that's what we're shooting for.
>From another perspective, do people agree with me that "starting characters"
are inexperienced? I mean, sure they're heroic due to play setup and HP etc.
They just strike me as more heroic like hobbits, and less like Aragorn.
Which is a fine place to start; it just says to me that things like hugely
important heroquests are a ways off.
To say otherwise, to me, means altering the scale of the ability levels wholesale. Which also works - I'd just like to know that we're doing that if that's what we're doing. I've become (possibly unfortunately) invested in the idea that one mastery is Journeyman level, two is true mastery, etc, etc. As such, my character has only one ability barely at Journeyman level of ability (protocol 1W).
Mike
Powered by hypermail