>
>
> What is missing are not rules for being a mystic in a mechanical sense, but
> the structure around the concept that allows players and GMs to agree on
> the plausibility of actions that are used in the game.
>
OK, here are my thoughts (pretty much distilled from recent posts):
There are 3 ways we could take the the idea of a mystic character.
There is two places where some rules might be useful:
4) A failed mystic. Someone who had practiced, but abandoned that practice. They might have a "philosophical ability" that could be used in many situations (I imagine a magnetic personality like Rasputin would be a possibility) although this ability would be difficult, if not impossible to increase without the character repudiating the error (which takes us back to #3, the mystic character who is no fun to play).
5) A character with some mystic understanding, possibly divorced from actual mystic practice. The rules in the Imperial Lunar Handbook 2 seem to model this -- the Empire is still very much experimenting with what mysticism means, and there are a lot of groups who are fumbling towards the All with greater and lesser success (and greater and lesser damage). This is probably where most of the work needs to be done.
Well, in section 5 and maybe section 2, characters who are part of a 2-World paradigm who expect to graduate to mysticism. Presumably, they prepare for this their whole lives -- which might fit your student/adept/master model, although it's not exactly the same thing. Yelmalians still have lay/initiate/devotee progressions, with priests and so on, but they also have an extra step, people who move beyond that progression. It's just not that much fun to play a blind guy in a tower,in my opinion, so that's mostly color rather than rules.
Peter Larsen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail