This is turning into a Digest thread. So here it is !!
(sorry for the partial repetition)
> (Innate magic)
>
> > Have you noticed that we basically share the same definition of this magic ?
>
> Yes, I think we agree on _this_ magic, but not on the other;
Right, well that's half of the problems dealt with.
The other half, involving not MG but how things might work in everyone's Glorantha, is a thornier issue, best dealt with on the GD IMO.
> > When I suggest that "Hedge Wizards" use "Wizardry", and that their
> > "spells" are (implicitly) NOT CM "talents", I am "restricting" CM to
> > "talents" alone.
>
> Rokari peasants (say) are described as having access to CM in the form
> of spells, among others.
IMG Rokari peasants (say) having access to CM would use 'talents'.
I think, here, the distinguishing factor IMG is that if a Rokari peasant learned a spell from a Hedge Wizard, it wouldn't belong to the CM keyword (if he had one).
> That's not just some small specialist minority
> either, it seems fairly clear. If you're saying they IYG have no CM at
> all, then fine, that's an actual restriction. What you seemed to me to
> be saying, however, is that such people would still have CM, and indeed
> for all practical purposes the same CM, but in the form of 'learned
> talents'. Is that correct? If so, then I entirely stand by the above
> characterisation, and indeed don't see how you can object to it.
Because anything in the HQ book listed under CM as anything other than 'talents' is no longer (theoretically at least ; in an actual game I might be a lot less rigorous) IMG part of the CM keyword : in some cases this may mean that the Homeland CM keyword will be ignored entirely.
Soooo, I guess I mostly agree with your position here as well, to wit "IMG they have no CM at all is mostly accurate, although most probably not in all particulars.
> > IMG : Common magic is from the Inner World.
> > Innate Magic is from the character and/or the player.
> >
> > A World and a character are not the same thing.
>
> A world (in this case) isn't identical with (obviously!), but does
> entirely contain a character; a character and a player aren't the same
> thing at all, and the latter is neither here nor there for this
> discussion.
A character is created as an interaction between the background info, written by Greg and Friends, the player, and the scenario & Narrator.
The player empowers the character, and thus gives him the most potent of all available magics. Players who give their characters innate magical powers are directly imbuing their Heroes with that magic.
The true source of all Innate Magic, including any magic given to the Puma People race, or any other background feature, is the poetry of real people in the RW. Note that actual game definitions and characterisations will limit that poetry to the final details that have been nailed down in the game, tending to create an individual magic system _inside_ the Narrator's version of Glorantha.
> > > the point is that your terminology and
> > > distinctions are not supportable. Innate magic is from the inner world;
> > > 'learned talents' (if have 'em we must) are from the inner world;
> > > there's no distinction in that sense, contra your earlier implication.
> >
> > Well, there is a distinction IMG, however you might feel about it.
> >
> > Innate magic is from inside, Common magic is from outside.
> >
> > Surely that's a reasonably clear distinction, isn't it ?
>
> Yes, it is, but it's completely different _from the distinction you made
> that I was commenting on_.
My lit-crit informed opinion is that the Hero and Player are themselves a perfectly valid source of magic.
Also particular Species, Places, Items combined with the Will of the Game Designer.
Both of these combinations can provide actual Gloranthan magic outside the normal rules. This is a bog-standard procedure of all 'special' items, magic, whatever in all RPGs. I realise this explanation will make you hit the roof : if you want further discussion, well, this is the GD.
> I'd like to get some clarity on
> issues that that are raised by what you've posted, but that you seem
> less than happy about discussing the details of.
I'm doing nothing but, notwithstanding your unwillingness to accept the details provided.
> Unless innate magic is
> PC-only in your game,
That's the _basic_ idea, yes ! Except that I accept Greg's and others' inherent right to give Innate Magic to certain particular species or individuals described in the literature. Even to members of vast numbers of Martial Arts dojos, if they like !
> I don't
> see how the point even _arises_, in the issue of its place in
> Glorantha-as-a-world.
All I can say is, YGWV. YG will, particularly, be governed by your own opinions of what is basically acceptable and what isn't.
> It seems unlikely to me that you're unaware of
> this distinction (between world, and narrative),
Erm, Alex : I'm a French Lit post-graduate degree holder, so I think that I am, to the contrary, _accutely_ aware of the distinction, and also how each interacts with the other and with the player and the writers.
> so I can't help but be
> deeply unimpressed by your apparent willingness to elide it to make a
> snappy comeback.
Because it was Digest Fodder.
> > > The point is the _game world_ source of the magic,
>
> > The player is part of the game, and therefore part of the game world.
>
> Not in the normal sense of "game world" he isn't; not at all.
See above. And below.
> We can
> say he can _affect_ it, sure, and indeed vice versa, but that's nothing
> a little Cartesian Dualism won't solve.
Magic is an inherent violation of Cartesian dualism !
Gloranthan magic anyway : Magic is inherently transcendental, so that A is no longer inherently different to B. The magician causes a magical unity of A and B, for as long as the magic exists in the world.
> > > It's fairly clear that NPC Puma People (trolls, women, etc) exist,
> > > so rationalising 'innate magic' as a narrativist conceit is simply a
> > > non-flyer.
>
> > Pure nonsense, sorry. This is a narrativist game, if you insist on
> > the GNS model <shudder>.
>
> No, HQ isn't by any means a pure narrativist game,
I never said it was ...
> So I can't accept "it's all narrative,
> anyway" type assertions, even were they pertinent to the topic at hand.
Well, what's the point explaining my position, then, given that you'll never accept it ?
> Puma People exist in Glorantha (independently of game-play theme);
This is a vast oversimplification. NOTHING in Glorantha can exist in a game independently of game-play : in fact, Glorantha is _created_ by the game-play. At _this_ level of Glorantha, anyway.
If you wish to discuss "what Glorantha's really like (tm)", well g ahead !
> > I have decided IMG that there is a distinction between absolutely
> > personal magic and shared Common Magic. Common Magic IMG comes from
> > the Inner World [...]
>
> Yes; but how? By what method? By what processes? With what 'look and
> feel'? If you're not willing or able to answer such basic points,
I have already answered some of these, elsewhere.
> how
> is this supposed to be useful for or credible to anyone else? e.g. to
> be self-centred about it, say me. With specific reference to it being
> distinct in such respects from any of: feats, charms, or spells (or of
> course, innate magic).
CM provides 'talents'. Where it comes from, and how it is to be characterised are obviously more complex issues : ...
> Antonio :
>
> > I think the traditional methods (sacrifice, ecstatic worship,
> > veneration) are used to CONTACT THE OTHERWORLD. So, what is/are the
> > method/s of Common Magic?
>
> I'd say there are two aspects; contact the otherworld, as you say, but
> also, correctly 'address' the type of entity encountered.
Yeah, that's the crux of it.
The n Worlds (as usual <g>).
Apart from the theoretical stuff up there, which might not be your cup of tea, Common magic can come from at least four fairly clear types of sources :
As for other characterizations, well until and unless CM is more detailed in the literature, that's one for the Narrators and YGWV ...
... oh, and let's not forget them : the _players_ ... ;-)
Julian Lord
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail