>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.)
Here's my take, developed while reading this discussion. It sort of introduces a new category, but no new terminology, and it seems to fit with at least the implied setup of things in the HQ book as well as with the clarifications provided in this discussion.
The problem seems to be that innate magic/talents are only described as being part of common magic, and thus are constrained to follow the rules for losing the "wrong" kind of common magic when concentrating in an Otherworld magic system. However, we see that common magic deals with four types of abilities (talents, feats, charms, and spells), and that three of these can also be acquired from sources outside the common magic keyword (namely, their respective Otherworlds, through specialized religions).
So why not say the same for innate magic? Thus, just as there are common magic feats and full-up theistic Otherworld feats, so we can easily postulate that there are naturally-occurring talents (inborn or acquired as a result of unusual experiences) as well as the "learned" talents of the common magic keyword. (This probably works out the same as the gift/talent distinction that Julian Lord was making, but instead of introducing new terminology it just makes explicit a parallel between innate magic and the other forms of common magic).
Innate magic is described as coming from literally within individuals as well as from the generalized magical life force of the "mixed" world. I would locate the distinction between natural talents and common-magic talents in that dual origin. Natural talents come from you, and are not lost no matter what specialized magic you later pursue (though specific religions may discourage their use). Common magic talents, which seem to be learnable, would be manipulations of that "mixed" magical force, and I would liken them to chi/ki manipulation in real world beliefs, or to skill with "the Force" for a more fantastic fictional example. (I would thus class dedicated martial artists as concentrated talent users, though that conflicts with the Kralori homeland writeup recently published in Pyramid. That's secondary to my main proposal, though.)
This idea is not explicit in HQ, certainly, but it doesn't seem to be disallowed by anything there, and it answers the question of why common magic seems to have one unique form found only there (talents) plus lesser forms of the three Otherworld magics. If we assume that talents also come in two varieties, we clear up the confusing overlap between common and innate magic, and allow for both the learnable talents in the game and the permanent natural talents that seem desirable.
Stacy Forsythe
deadstop_at_...
Powered by hypermail