On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 06:15:46PM +0100, Jane Williams wrote:
> Alex:
> > Indeed we might, but isn't that getting into the area of
> > 'write a myth to suit', rather than 'use existing myth with
> > some game-mechanic'?
> >
> > Not that I'd assert it's exactly a clear dividing line (much
> > less a Bad Thing).
>
> Well, yes, but since almost all Gloranthan myths have yet to be written
> (in the RW), I really don't see the difference. "Your PC remembers the
> myth he's know all his life which says that..." "your PC is told the
> myth by the priest, who says that..." "your PC after years of research
> discovers that..." either way, someone's got to write them!
Sure, just observing it's different from "what game mechanic do we use
to utilize this '[x] uses feat' type of myths, to a HQ for 'devotee of
[x] learns feat'.
I suspect that insofar as there are Gloranthan myths explicitly about
such things, the 'internal realization' might also be externalised in
some way. That is, some figure in the myths tells you that you ought to
be able to do such-and-such (again, sounds very Relationship-rollish),
and/or events in the narrative have such a realization as their
resolution. (Say, the Sage in the Woods tells you it, after many a long
trial to find him.)