I think we realize. In fact, I think this has a fairly high marginal propensity for some of the headaches (for those that suffer them) to be made worse. Due to for example, every attempt to address people's perceived issues with rules on same turning into a more-loyal-than-thou protestation-fest about the lack of any possible problem there. Which is perfectly fair enough of course, more power to 'em, but it's not what you'd call an actual *help* to t'other lot of us.
> OK, HQ should have made a stronger distinction between Inner Magic
> (hint : NOT rigid) and Common Magic
Hint: there's no such thing in HQ as Inner Magic. When it was suggested recently, Greg was heard (well, seen) to groan loudly at the mere mention of such a term, as being 'mysticism' by other means. (Are you using Inner synonymously with _Innate_ magic, though?)
> I think that basically the new model is far, far better than the bad
> old mucho rigid HW one (many headaches retreating, kimosabe).
It's much better presented; it's rather 'kindler and gentler' in tone; but how is it actually any less rigid in actual mechanics? In HQ you get the fast-track to paying double HP cost with yet more alacrity and frequency than in HW; in some cases, you go from 'difficult' in HW to 'impossible' in HQ.
> PS OK the 'talents' word has been misused. ie used to
> mean two fairly different things, causing confusion and
> commentary. Can't we just say that one variety is called a 'talent'
> and the other variety a 'gift' or something, say Common magic
> provides talents but Inner magic provides gifts ?
This would be oddly contradictory of what HQ says about talents, what that nice Mr. Stafford just said about talents, and would leave the concept of "Common magic talents" a lot like a solution looking for a problem. I mean, what *are* they, if they're not what HQ (etc) describes them to be, but are some undescribed thing you can learn, from some undescribed source, via some undescribed process?
Can't we just say that 'talents' are what they've been consistently portrayed as being (...ish), but aren't lost when performing an Otherworld Concentration?
This is retreading familiar ground, I realize; if this continues to be a dialogue of the deaf, I shall endeavour to give it up as a lost cause and shut (TF) up.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail