> > > If you want to mini-max, then yes, all those Common Magic abilities
> > > should be specified as whatever translates to your magic system.
> >
> > I don't know what mini-max means, but it sounds like "getting the
most
> > out of the character" to me. No, that's not my intention.
>
> Mini-maxing is a form or powergaming. Getting the most for the least,
> regardless of what strangeness it does to the character.
Alright. I do want characters that are to some degree optimized, i.e. have quite few "how cool is that?!" abilities. However, all these have to fit and feel right for the char. That's why I like the narrative method. Yes, I know you can warp that one badly for powergaming but then I know my players won't. So maybe I have a bit of a min-maxing attitude, but I don't see a problem with that as long as it's not the main object and disregards the story.
> > But I had the situation where a player said "I want to start at the
> > lowest possible level, but my aim is to become a shaman. I'd also like
> > to discover concentration in-game." [...]
> > The question really is "Is it common
> > practice to select the 'right' type of common magic abilities during
> > character generation or is that considered powergaming?"
>
> It's powergaming. The player has a pre-concieved idea of where he wants
> the character to go. In Glorantha, a child would have been taught
> whatever the family/clan/whatever knows, which is much more likely
to be
> a mix of different styles in the common magic.
> Flesh Man is different in that he only teaches Talents. Most other
> Common Magic is a mixture of styles.
I think now that it's not necessarily powergaming. It depends on the details of the player's concept of the character. If the character's goal has long since been that of becoming a shaman, and she even shows certain signs that she's "destined" to become one, it is totally reasonable that her common magic would stem from the spirit world as well. Maybe not exclusively, but I wouldn't consider it powergaming if most of her Common Magic abilities were charms under this aspect.
However, it's also possible that the character herself is to be still. In that case, even though the _player_ knows she will become a shaman later, the character has had to arrive at that decision (gather knowledge about shamans, notice that might be within her reach, whatever). In that case, the common magic should be the usual hodgepodge of abilities.
Does this make more sense than before?
> > Where DO I put such abilities? [...] It seems difficult for me
> > to decide whether something is common magic, belongs to a specialized
> > magic keyword (at least if it's not very similar to another
ability in
> > that kw), or is a natural magic ability, which seem the most powerful
> > and thus possibly unbalancing.
>
> Most things should either be put in common magic or the Magical
keyword.
> While Glorantha is a strange and magical place, [...] natural magic is
> meant to be very uncommon, not for everyday.
But then, PCs are just that. Uncommon and not everyday. Right? I imagine you'd have to step in if a player tries to equip a char with all sorts of superpowers, but as long as it's few reasonable ones...? Might be a bit too influenced by Mike now, who seems to propose that Natural Magic is free-for-all and take as much as you like. Mike, if that's reading your intentions wrongly, please tell me so.
> > Also not answered is the question whether putting such an ability
> > under common magic means the player now has 6 CM abilities to start
> > with, or 5 and that narrated ability is one of the 5.
> 5 CM abilities is only a guideline. If the player wants to "spend"
words
> or list slots on additional abilities, let them.
Okay, more generally said: Wherever you put an ability, it doesn't
count towards the free abilities the player gets in that category. Or
you use a seemingly common house rule if the new ability overlaps with
an existing one the player might get from somewhere else and apply a
bonus. But that's a different story.
Thorsten
Powered by hypermail