> > > > I should have said that only _specialised_ magic users can use magic
> > > > directly, ie devotees (who must have concentrated their magic) can,
> > > > but initiates can't.
>
> > I would have thought it obvious that the intent of the phrase involved
> > opposition of initiates and devotees.
>
> I think in a discussion that's supposedly trying to remove rules
> ambiguity and clarify fuzzy terminology, adding some more of each hardly
> helps. (Especially if you're trying to construct a broader version of
> this distinction that applies to other systems too -- I think that's
> more cross-talk than I personally need in this context.)
I'm not constructing anything at all, I was trying to understand what the actual distinctions are.Or rather, *should be*.
> > But I guess that this cuts no ice with your Argumentative 15W3 ... ;-)
>
> Oh, please, give it a rest.
Why don't you, then ?
> I feel compelled ... to pedant to death.
You said it, not me. ;-)
> > The point _isn't_ whether or not the magic can be used directly, it's
> > whether or not initiates use Feats or Affinities.
>
> No Julian, the former is entirely the point, your subsequent digression
> notwithstanding:
No Alex, the confusion (which is _the actual point_) stems from two contradictory rules in the HQ book, one of which states that initiates can actively use feats whilst the other says they cannot.
Clarifying _this point_ in the FAQ would clarify the confusion.
> | To: HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com
> | From: Julian Lord <jlord_at_...>
> | Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:24:40 +0100
> | Subject: Re: Help with Feats please
>
> | David :
>
> | > I think the terminology "improvise feats" used on p.118 is a little
> | > confusing -- it might have been clearer had it been "initiates can
> | > use any named feat in the affinity as an active ability with a -10
> | > improvisational modifier (-5 if he has concentrated his magic use),
> | > but he cannot learn these feats as abilities unless he becomes a
> | > devotee."
>
> | But that isn't true. HQ makes it pretty clear that only concetrated
> | magic users can use magic directly (magic items excepted).
>
> Since clarified to mean "devotees",
Clarified in an earlier post by me to be more than partially based on a misapprehension by me, but ...
> but not actually accepted to be
> incorrect,
Yep, depends which page of HQ you're on, doesn't it ... :-(
> though I'd think you're at least no longer arguing for
> "pretty clear".
The opposite.
> > Answer : Affinities. Because the Feats aren't on the character
> > sheet, the player will not be able to use them, but will instead
> > say "I use my Wind Affinity to carry my shout across the valley."
> > et cetera ...
>
> But this is arguing from what the rules _ought_ to say
Indeedy.
> (and I posted
> to that effect myself some time ago), rather than what they _do_ say
> (multitudinously or otherwise). And in any case, if we suppose that the
> rule were 'improvise any feat you like', rather than those listed, you
> could still have the same terminological issue.
Yep.
What's attempted in HQ appears to be that affinity use should be restricted to a standard set of magical abilities known as feats, unless the player proposes some sort of magic that the narrator agrees to be appropriate to the god's magic and/or mythology.
> > Obviously, this piece of copy missed a few rounds of re-reading.
> > Blatant giveaway, it says that an affinity is a "broad ... ability",
> > although broad abilities are no longer part of the game.
>
> That may or may not be the case; there are remaining references to
> 'broadly defined abilities', and indeed the sentence makes perfect sense
> in the context of the normal, non-game-mechanical reading of the word.
> Even if this is indeed a relic from drafts of ye olde floated idea of
> 3HP-a-pop 'broads', that this invalidates the other paragraph of that
> section is rather guilt by association.
Direct evidence of an editorial slip-up IMO.
> > Er, Alex, sorry, but you've completely misinterpreted my objection here :
> > the text is as clear as mud because it contradicts itself, and also involves
> > over-use of certain words thereby creating an aura of confusion around
> > the concepts involved.
>
> Well, the _quoted_ text does not in fact contradict _itself_, so say
> rather that you've mis-stated your objection (about twice, in fact), if
> this is what you were originally getting at (or wasn't, but you'd rather
> now that it had been).
It's NOT what I was originally getting at, but it's still the source of our confusion, because the p. 120 rule that initiates can't use feats stuck in my mind instead of the p. 118 text contradicting it. "clear as mud" was a susequent objection, not my original mis/apprehension of the rules.
What I was originally getting at was wrong, anyway.
> Is it badly phrased? I think so, in particular
> as regards 'improvisation' -- but, this is where we came in.
Well, hey !
So I *am* being to the point then ?
> > > It may not be how you'd
> > > have chosen to put it (nor me -- nor I think, even what I'd have chosen
> > > to put...), but its intended practical effect seems pretty easy to
> > > discern.
> >
> > If that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>
> That's something of a 'if I can pry it loose, it wasn't nailed down'
> objection, especially since the discussion didn't even start with you
> taking this position (at least in any ways that seems determinable, even
> in hindsight).
It started with me taking a variant position to yours because it wasn't nailed down. I have changed my position because the discussion led to a greater understanding of why and how, exactly, it wasn't nailed down.
The purpose of any argumentative discussion is to change at least one of the participant's minds, so the fact that I've partly changed mine shouldn't come as a surprise.
> > Given that p. 118 and p. 120 contradict each other, and that one of the two
> > basic statements is true and the other isn't, one has to do some work to
> > understand which !
>
> It was "as clear as mud" that p120 was the source you were basing your
> comments on
I realise that, and apologise for it ; as I said earlier, my understanding of the affinities rules was based on p. 120, which led to a basic confusion, misunderstanding, and communication problems.
> (never mind that you were being specifically asked). I
> think the earlier discussion on the first phrase, to the effect of "for
> the sake of sanity, read that as 'learn' feats" would pretty much have
> covered that. And I don't see how the 'not distinct abilities' implies
> anything pertinent at all. 'Distinct', surely, as "from each other"
> (and/or from the affinity).
Because in p. 120 rules speak, it implies that feats can *never* be used directly, because they're not abilities, which gets us back to where I started from ; a position that p. 118 contradicts.
> > Balderdash.
>
> Gee thanks, you've really cleared that up in my mind.
Your kind suggestions that I would shore up my arguments by reference to old men in Ancient Greece was simply that.
> Is (at least) one of p118 and p120 FAQ fodder? Certainly. Which?
Both IMO
> Beats me; certainly p120 looks the more off-hand and minimal reference
> to me, so it'd be my candidate,
I still find that the p. 118 text is very unclear and confusing.
Initiates can't use affinities actively, but they can improvise feats actively, even though the feats that can be improvised are not written on their character sheets.
It's even unclear from an armchair sight view, but there's _no way_ I'd want to bring this issue up in a game !
Julian Lord
-- __________________________________ "Hmmm, I've heard of other powers. Can you tell me about ... ... Real Life ?"
Powered by hypermail