Re: Mystics in HW2

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 15:45:40 +0100 (BST)

Greg Stafford:
> Maybe. Here is the real reason: the entire HW book is to describe "How
> the Game World Works." Then we present 1 out of 4 magic systems that
> basically says, "We don't obey the rules." I find that to be too
> incongruous to be comfortable. So I have decided that we will present the
> rules without a mystical system. The rule book ought to indicate the
> mainstream, core rules upon which Gloranthan reality exists.

This seems to me to be only prudent. It seems less than coincidental that the "most working" of the four systems in HW1 is theism, which just happens to be the one that's most liberally fleshed out with real, live, examples. By contrast the other systems are much more lightly treated, mysticism especially, which ended up being presented almost completely decontextualised.

> Of course. This definition has stuck in my craw like a bone ever since it
> was published. A good set of rules should not use one system to describe
> another, and of course the proper definition will replace this even if
> mystics did appear.

Doubly unfortunate that this conflation was compounded in one of the Orlanthi books (sorry, I forget which, but I suspect Thunder Rebels), then, under the guise of explaining it.

> It is really a finished book this time, not a deadline version published
> "as is" in order to meet obligations, as the first edition was.

This is most gratifying to hear.

---