Neat.
> Who says that heroes are hyper-specialized combat or magic engines?
A lot of the time, I do?
A lot of heroes WILL be these things because combat is a common form of conflict. Some heroes will instead be focused on different forms of conflict.
To my understanding, in Glorantha heroes acquire magical prowess regardless of their sphere (peacemakers get magic to help them peacemake, revolutionaries get magic to help them revolt, and hyper-specialized combat engines get magic to help them in combat). It's been suggested that this may be wrong in Greg's Glorantha, but even if that is the case I am inclined to keep it for mine. MGMV.
> As far as I am concerned, those specialists are excellent followers for the
> heroes who face things that are outside of the normal frame of their
> lives.
There are magical specialists who are not heroes in my Glorantha. I don't have statistics for it (and I find these percentages absolutely useless personally - I'd rather know how many per tula, clan, tribe, etc) but I would consider these specialists to fairly common (most people know a few in their community). The more committed specialists tend to take on heroic characteristics - such as their capacity to do impressive things, their difference from the common member of their community, and their relative scarcity (e.g. the chieftain has a wise lawspeaker, but the tribal king has a thunderous fellow who has been on a pilgrimmage to the sacred mountains to receive his lawstaff and who blasted the champion of Shepelkirt with his wisdom and his winds...).
> Unless the character concept says "devotee" (or "disciple"), I think that
> that grade of limitations undoes a character concept. Heroes deal with
> situations that require new solutions. Specialists deal with situations
> requiring specialized solutions. I need a specialist as heroquester if I
> want an Aroka Quest to banish drought, but I need a hero if that quest
> should deal with a problem that, while related, adds a twist to the
> traditional outcome. Preferably one with abilities that aren't restricted
> to the usual spectrum.
I am sensing a terminological crisis here.
> A "good plan" with just-about competent performers will overcome the more
> powerful villain. That's one of the narrative imperatives of heroic
> role-playing. Find the dragon's weakness, find the back entrance to the
> stronghold, trick the villain's followers. A man fighting a dragon is a
> losing proposition. A man fighting a dragon using a sword of certain
> dragonslaying is a lame, mechanical situation. A good gaming approach is
> somewhere in between those two extremes, and a good narrative should be
> there, too. What is the fun in overcoming the Wizard of Oz with superior
> magic?
I'm not prepared to make statements like "given solution is lame"; lots of people enjoy those solutions (although I don't especially), and its pretty harsh to assume that getting a man the right sword at the right time doesn't involve some interesting plans and narration.
I also think that it could be rather fun obliterating the Wizard of Oz with superior magic if getting said magic made for a great story. The idea that craftiness naturally lends itself to a superior story to tell is pretty weird to me.
All this aside though: what of it? My central issue here is that I feel that the written materials have lead to a certain interpretation of Gloranthan affairs that has been deemed to be wrong. I want to know why they are wrong, and I want to know how - using the rules that we have - they can be right. YGMV but I'd like to at least know what it is varying from. A critical analysis of play-styles doesn't really need to come into it, in my opinion.
And *that* being said: a lot of interesting points and thoughts though.
--
John Machin
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, 'The Great Art of Knowledge'.
Powered by hypermail