>I do, there's been a huge proliferation in how many different kinds
>of everything there is. It's as though for every game world concept
>there have to be three or four different incompatible versions of it.
I agree. Exactly what's the benefit of this? All it does is add complexity to an already complex world. I can see the point of having special creatures, etc. for the three worlds but three different elementals?
>These are the two most egregious, to me.
>
>Common Magic : Why differentiate between Common Magic Talents,
>Spells, Charms and Feats? What damage would be done by having one
>form of Common Magic? (Plus perhaps Innate Magic for things like Puma
>People shapechanging and maybe Troll magical digestion.)
Agreed, an extra level of unnecessary compelxity. I think heroes would be
more interesting if they had magical abilties innate to them that they
couldn't just give up but IF their religion demanded that they shun all
non-cult religion they would have to stop using without losing the ability.
That's more interesting than just crossing it off their character sheets.
>
>I appreciate the three (or is it still four?) worlds model, it makes
>sense and has some interesting and fun implications. That doesn't
>mean I want three or four versions of pretty much everything.
I'm not such a big fan of the model. It seems like a recent add-on to
something that worked fine in the past. It's a change but is it an
improvement? Like Glorantha isn't complicated enough.
>
>I like the extra detail in the major magic systems in general though,
>they add game world flavour and plenty of options for character
>advancement.
Agreed.
Oliver
Powered by hypermail