On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 10:26 AM, drpachyderm wrote:
>
> > I apologize if I've come across as anything other than someone who is
> > trying to help get across an understanding of how the rules are
> > *intended* to work. While I've always liked the idea of common magic,
> > it has gone through many variations and has constantly been a point
> of
> > contention.
>
> I think it would have been very helpful if you had given a source the
> first time you replied. Like the quote from Stephen Martin at Issaries
> or even telling us how you know the intentions of the authors. Are you
> a playtester? Did you help write it? Are you good friends with someone
> who's in the know?
I was a playtester, rules consultant, and provided content review. But that doesn't mean I know everything. I would have sent the S.M. quote right at the beginning if I had it but I didn't. This book has been in the works for over 2 years and the book that was printed looks very different from the very first draft copy I ever reviewed. In fact, that first copy didn't have common magic in it at all.
And do I really need to be "in the know"? Among other things, I was applying what I thought was a little bit of common sense to the rules. It just didn't make sense to me for the Puma's shapechange ability to be common magic and for it to be lost if the character concentrated his magic. For a game that's supposed to be so open-ended, it didn't make sense for a character to not be able to be born with the ability to fly and it not be "natural", if the player wanted it. Yes, there are many references pointed out that said innate magic=talent=common magic. Regardless of the accuracy of these references, there are others that supersede them. Yes, I should have brought them up in the beginning but I would have to have thought of it at that time :-)
p. 10: "The First Rule: Play the Story, Not the Rules." The first paragraph following that header alone should be enough for a player to justify being able to do anything that doesn't directly interfere with the fun of all. Yes, it's talking about not being a rules lawyer but it's also referring to not letting the rules stand in the way of fun.
p. 19: Under 'Abilities and Ratings' - You decide what abilities your hero has: an ability name can be anything you want, subject only to narrator approval.
p. 177: The First Rule - Your Glorantha Will Vary. Even if the official ruling came down that the Puma shapechange ability *is* common magic, so what? If you don't like it, ignore it.
p. 190: The Final Rule: Maximum Game Fun. 'nuff said.
Lastly, posters often don't give "references" but still post as if what they're stating is documented fact. That's how much of Glorantha came to be, really. Regardless of wether or not my messages are "official", they will always still be how I see things.
> Please don't assume that everyone here knows. I didn't know whether to
> take what you were saying as "how the rules are intended to work" or
> "how Camo thinks they work."
Well, it started out as "how the rules are intended to work" but slowly drifted to "how Camo thinks they work" as doubt crept into my mind :-)
I knew that at least at one point, the rules worked the way I was saying but I was starting to think that maybe I was thinking of an old rule. That's when I shot the e-mail off to Stephen to make sure. So, I couldn't send that quote at the beginning since I didn't have it yet.
Camo
Powered by hypermail