I don't see where that gets us; the 'when worlds collide' plotline seems to me to not in any way require anything very much at all about how these worlds are _currently_ arranged, so much as that arrangement changes dramatically and perhaps eventually collapses entirely (Greater Darkness revisited, as it were). Frankly it'd be disturbing enough to have this happen in regard to the distinctions in any *given* otherworld, to say nothing of between the most-othersidely-different 'places' -- the magnitude of which AFAIK *no one is even disputing*.
And what it has to do with the rules for common magic, I'll never know (I fairly confidently predict). And the real oddity here is that in defence of said rules, you're proposing to change 'em considerably more than I am in (moderate) complaint about them.
> AFAIK this is just some RQ-type paraphernalia that should have been
> smashed to smithereens with a big stick.
Funny how something quite specific to HQ is "RQ-type" in its badness, this being of course the Ultimate Insult (and nothing much to do with the content or merits of said game...).
> Yes, I meant "Innate Magic", but honestly I can't find it in myself [etc]
Yeah, but I find it good to be clear whether you're introducing brand new terminology, or entirely redefining existing HQ same...
> Erm, obviously because you can mix magics, contrariwise to HW.
But the only sanction HW has in practice is the dread misapplication penalties. In HQ, you get the equivalent of those (and interest) just for turning up, and having any sort of 'unconcentrated' magic. Where's the Grand Liberalisation in any practical terms?
> ONE word is contradictory of what HQ says, and that is the word
> 'gift'. The purpose of that word is to propose a semantic opposition
> between the two varieties of "talent" definitions that you complained
> about.
No, that word is 'talent', which is pretty well-defined in HQ, and which you're proposing to entirely change the meaning of. (At the least, by making it impossible to use unqualified by splitting it up into two entirely different categories.) And the alarming thing is, you're evidently not the only one...
> Innate magic IMG provides Gifts. YGWV. Sheesh !!!!
In HQ, innate magic provides talents. My Glorantha Won't be Varying. *mutters about pesky armchair HQ defenders-come-critics*
> > 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?
> We can say so, and indeed IMG Common Magic talents won't be entirely
> lost because of concentration, but the problem if you recall wasn't
> so much the talents as Puma Person shapechanging and why it doesn't go
> away ; answer IMG, it's a Gift, not a Talent.
Yes, the the problems were (at least at first wink) the same, due to the phrasing of the PP writeup. Clearly this can be 'fixed' in a number of ways; broadly speaking we have two sorts, ones that introduce essentially redudant categories of magic (or of "no, it's not magic at all, honest") in order to explain this away (about three different species of this now, adding yours in now), and the one suggested above. (Though obviously, caveat my characterisation of yours, since it seems to have distinctly emergent properties.)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail