Re: Re: Three Worlds headaches

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:19:46 +0100


On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:11:29AM +0200, Julian Lord wrote:
> Now, I have decided IMG that Common Magic is actually a coherent
> fourth magic type, with rules of its own (they're pretty simple : it
> provides talents).

I have essentially the same objection to your 'fix' that I did to Dave C's, so I'll try not to be too redundant in my comments. Potted summary: you're introducing a fresh category of magic that's poorly conceptually distinguished (at best) from the existing ones, and totally switching around the meaning of the word 'talent'. Fresh hells would be that you additionally want to _enlarge_ this category, by lumping all CM into it, and the problematic character of a type of magic being 'outside' the N worlds model, given the efforts HQ makes (rightly or wrongly) to put us in it.

> Innate magic : comes from the player character.

The character surely being an exemplar of something in the mundane world, and a 'mixed entity', surely.

> I'd frown on any player with an Innate Magic -using PC who wanted to
> later on join a Specialized Religion whilst retaining full use of his
> kewl Innate Magic stuff

Well, if a given _religion_ wants to frown on it, they're after all quite entitled. The more problematic question if whether we want to make an issue out of _concentration_, as a mechanic.

> And yes, I definitely see Eastern Martial Artists using
> Innate Magic as a focus for their skills.

Works for me (though I don't need or want the innate magic/talents distinction implied).  

> Common Magic : comes from the inherent magic of the Inner World.
> Provides talents.

This is the category I find tremendously vague and unsatisfactory. Is this how Heortling common magic is conceptualised by people? If so, what are we to understand the process and methodology by which people interact with the 'entities' from which one 'learns' this magic to be?

> And to be fair, I think that this is pretty close to Issaries'
> actual idea. The problem IMO is more one of presentation
> than intent.

If that's true, they seem to have 'mis-wrote' rather a lot of the HQ rules for CM: to wit, most of them. I'd be much happier with a less revisionist reconciliation, myself.  

> IMO it would have been preferable to present the li'l magicians inside
> the magic-system-related chapters, to imply that in lands where people
> use sorcery there are hedge wizards [...]

Which is to say that much, if not most, of what's presented as common magic isn't, in your opinion? i.e. hedge wizardary is actually functionally the same as wizardry qua wizardry, but in a different context, and there are no 'inner world' sources of spells at all?

Cheers,
A.

Powered by hypermail