But using the Greg version of Illusion, that is exactly what happens (afaics). "Greg Illusion" is not a sense-changing overlay on reality, it is a change *of* reality. It's Change and Creation (and unCreation) all rolled up into one.
As I noted below, I think the main problem comes from the terminology, and the definitions implicit from other games that don't hold true for Glorantha. A Gloranthan Illusion can't be disbelieved, is apparant to *all* senses, etc. Change the name from "Illusion" to something else and a lot of the problem would (I think) go away. Also, under greg's definiton, the "Truth-Illusion" Rune pair fails, since there isn't an unTruth implicit in instant creation (that I can see).
It's like people who call themselves "Satanists" or "Witches" who don't like to be told that they are damned by the Christian church...
> > (I'm not a fan of the "Cosmic Clock" theory that an illusion's
> > 'lifespan' can be measured)
>
> I can see no grand cosmological reason why this ought to be _impossible_
> (especially if one is of the "Yes, but" school of thought); its difficulty
> is certainly a matter of taste/conjecture/opinion.
"Not a fan" doesn't mean "can't use it when it suits my purpose" :-)
> That would be even more confusing, since for example in A Certain Other
> Stafford Role Playing Game, the term "Glamour" is similarly used for
> "temporary magical creations".
How about "Seeming" magic then? I don't care what the actual name is (well, okay, I might care if you came up with a *really dumb* name), but a less-loaded word would do wonders.
RR
Powered by hypermail