Re: Re: When is a Hero ready (was: mechanics of myth)?

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 00:20:29 +0000

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 04:30:02PM -0600, Mike Holmes wrote:
> 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.

Very good questions. Very simulationist thinking, but very good nonetheless. ;-) The printed sample resistances do somewhat imply that everyone you'll meet on the HP is at least a 10W3 (in something, not in everything!), but I've heard Greg say they have 'ordinary' denizens too, so I dunno. Maybe you're just unlikely to be opposed by the 'ordinary' types on any likely quest...

What's functionally the same question came up recently on -RPG. In summary, my suggestion was that 'small' quests can be seen as those where "practice quests" and "'real' quests" are blurred together (accidentally or deliberately).

As to why a community's most powerful individuals aren't always the ones to 'do' a HQ:- There's mythic identification -- a person's chosen magical role may make them especially well-suited (or conversely, extremely _badly_ suited) for a particular quest. There's expendability. There's willingness: the questers may have identified a issue the community as a whole isn't _really_ concerned about, but they're willing to offer some assistance. (I assume that if the community contributes only to the 'barrier crossing', but not to the substance of the quest, they're risking very little on the outcome, as opposed to one where there's a quest bonus as such being gained.)`  

> 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.

Surely 'mythic' isn't just a generic intensifier; it means conformant with myth, as much as -- or better, moreso -- than it means 'big numbers'.  

> 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.

I think the resistances support this. You can start off as a weaponthane, which'd make you one of the best warriors in your clan (top 2% roughly?), but not _the_ best warrior in your clan.  

> To say otherwise, to me, means altering the scale of the ability levels
> wholesale.

It's been done once, it can be done again... ;-)

Cheers,
Alex.