Robin asks the most interesting design question in a long time:
> why aren't HQ games about the sorts of characters
> who appear as protagonists in Greg's fiction?
I think there are many reasons for this. Here are the ones that come to mind, with examples from Sandy's long-running campaign (based in ye olde RQ, which I'd say most people agree is inferior to HQ in representing high level characters):
- People are more attached to characters that have developed over a long period of time. They put more effort into the characters they love. (We had literally went to hell to bring back NPC's that would have been "henchmen" in D&D.)
- Characters take time to develop the relationships needed to succeed, especially at the heroic level. Sure, you could just give them the relationships, but this game is about the story. (We needed the Key to the Gates of the Dawn and the help of the Sea Horse King to win the one of the heroquests.)
- The longer you play, the more the characters' millieu comes into focus. ("Aha, the duke sure is like the eeeevil sorcerer that nuked the island. Are they aligned?")
- The longer you play the more cool stuff you have seen. The more pieces flying around, the more unique things you can piece together. ("Skele-bees" -- a truly inspired weapon of mass distraction that our King of the Undead and his Queen of Bees came up with.)
- Closely related to both the above, the relationships help define what the characters would want. (The whole end of the campaign was about restoring Trond for the ancestors who inhabited it -- in the forms of zombies, ghosts, ghouls, skeletons, etc. We could have just made that a character goal, but it evolved naturally.)
So, in short, the "organic" creation of these things is more interesting and powerful than just writing them down as an ability or relationship or whatever. Sure, you can do it the other way, but you're so much less bought into it then.
IMO.
Chris