Re: So now that you have your copies of Sartar

From: L C <lightcastle_at_1XlBG5j-yC7pi3z3nXQgEkMjzWAraCXhmpZqNPqv3LGwMocQpdDDurccT0CTqrUH>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:03:36 -0500

Well, depending on your game system, you can do this. I mean, in HQ2, all that matters is credibility testing. You can make all Magic "MAGIC" and then argue with your GM what it means and if any given effect is credible.
To some degree, that's what I want, with decent explanations of what is credible in different pantheons.

Alexander Entelechy wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Interesting, this is the opposite of the direction I’d like
> to see. I’d like one clear and simple rule set for all magic.
>
> As a rule: If I can play a character like Arkat or The Red
> Goddess then the magic system is doing its job.
>
> --- On Sat, 12/12/09, L C <lightcastle_at_ZCALJc7UOPrhCgmE9TeI54SPDRZ05ey-fPoPIA_hZkbn76As0r8T2mon3CyGxJkaZZubEwx5lJoEy_c.yahoo.invalid
> <mailto:lightcastle%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Exactly. If, indeed, things are moving in a "This is our people/lands'
>
> magic" mode, rather than overarching rules for "theist/wizardry/ animism"
>
> that trump local distinctions, I'll be very happy. I've always thought
>
> (and retooled some of HQ1 when I played in Glorantha) that things should
>
> be done at a pantheon-based/ culture-based level, rather than cult and
>
> otherworld-source level.
>
> LC
>