>From: "John Galloway" <yuskim1_at_...>
>
>...It
>also can act as a conduit of magical energy when one of the spells
>connected to the Founders Node is accessed THROUGH the Founders Node.
>This activity uses the appropriate Use Grimoire skill.
That's an elegant and fascinating description of the process. Do you have a reference for this, or is it just by logical conclusion that you come up with it?
>If I understand your question correctly what you're asking is...
>
>A) Can a talisman-like item be connected to the Founders Node and
>thence on to one (and only one, presumably) of the associated Spell
>Nodes?
>
>B) If so, would casting the spell with this item use the caster's
>Use Grimoire skill rating (instead of using their rating in the skill
>for that particular spell, if they have one)?
I wasn't thinking of it in those terms, but, yes, these are the question if your model is correct.
>Surely the answers to these questions come down to the specifics of
>how magic works behind the scenes. So, unless the way magic works in
>your game world is indistinguishable (down to this level of detail)
>from the Gloranthan model, does it particularly matter what the
>'official' answer is?
Well, it should probably be unsurprising that the game world in question hasn't answered these questions in this level of detail. When converting game worlds, I usually find that the world in question has a poor description of magic that needs a lot of help to be really fun. Most times converting the metaphysics to be like Gloranthan metaphysics does wonders. In fact, I'm of the opinion that what are supposedly Gloranthan metaphysics seem to fit wonderfully well into any world.
YMMV. The point being that I always consider using the Gloranthan metaphysics for these other worlds. But to do so in an informed fashion, I have to sometimes get clarity on just precisely what the Gloranthan metaphysics are. For instance, though I use the Theist model entirely unchanged, I do modify the Concentration rules to better fit things as I'd like to see them. But I only modified them after making sure that I had a good grasp of what they were about.
Basically I don't want to reject something until I thouroughly understand it. Also, there's another advantage to adopting the rules as written, instead of modifying them, which is that I don't have to enumerate the modification. To the extent that I don't have to modify the rules, so much the better.
>Still, its a fascinating question and I'll be interested to see what
>other (especially Roderick etc.) think.
Seems that the rules are pretty much precisely what I thougt they were. And, FWIW, I will be using them in the world that I use. The rationale for why the rules work they way they do is slighly less convoluted for the world in question, but the model supported by the rules works fine.
Mike
Powered by hypermail