> > 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,
Erm, I've been mucho swamped these last few days, so didn't follow that one, sorry.
However ...
> 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'.
Well, thank you ! <g>
What I am doing IMG actually works.
This is in a Heortling concept, and involves variations of Flesh Man, it's fun, it's easy, it works, produces fun, playable characters, and I like it that way. So what's wrong with it ?!
YGWobviouslyV
I'm NOT switching around _per se_ what a talent is : I'm splitting it into two distinct entities : the gift, and the talent. May I point out that no-one IMG so far has a Gift ? Gifts will have to come out of a left-of-field character concept, or left-of-field Homeland (Puma persons and et cetera), and none sofar have emerged.
> Fresh hells would be
> that you additionally want to _enlarge_ this category, by lumping all CM
> into it,
Erm, in a word, no. If I'm redefining anything, it's CM itself, and the relationship between CM and the spells, feats, and charms that have been lumped into CM.
ie, there is no such relationship, except in the thematic sense.
I'm _restricting_ CM to providing _talents_ IMG. And I'm specifically excluding such things as puma person shapechanging powers, innate magical abilities, and other exceptions of similar ilk from being categorised as 'talents', by calling them 'gifts' instead.
> 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.
The magic _isn't_ outside the N worlds model, given that it is derived from the Inner World. (Or rather from the Transcendental Plane _via_ the Inner, Mixed World, given that you are a fellow High Philosophy of Glorantha seminar attendee ; and don't tell me that's impossible given the presentation of the Worlds model, nothing is impossible from the transcendental POV).
> > Innate magic : comes from the player character.
>
> The character surely being an exemplar of something in the mundane
> world, and a 'mixed entity', surely.
No : he is "individually guided by a higher power: you, the player". HQ 11
Innate magic, IMG, is a character concept. The _player_, not the rules, is the source of Innate Magic IMG. Or rather, rules for the Innate Magic will be developed during character creation and actual play.
> I don't need or want the innate magic/talents
> distinction implied
er, weren't you the first to have loudly complained about the lack of such ?
I'm confused ...
> > 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?
Flesh Man ; HQ 48 ; provides talents.
There are some logical limits to this : playing it this way, the FM worshipper will start out being about as powerful as an animist, but with more versatility.
However, Common Magic almost ** by definition provides no Secrets, and you'll see that the Common Religions in HQ fail to do so ; and generally speaking such higher powers as the HeroQuest rituals will often be unavailable. Common Magic is a trade-off between versatility and power IMG.
> 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?
They're not 'entities' because by definition an 'entity' is an otherworld denizen.
:-)
They are 'beings', having mixed nature, and living in the Inner World.
As for process and methodology, well, YGWV, as always.
The only example I have so far, is that the CM Hero goes to visit an evil poison garden inhabited by a strange kind of serial killer fantasy being, who whispers dire secrets into the Hero's ear, and fills the plants with venom, poetry, and magic.
But frankly, the whole point of this CM variant is _precisely_ to avoid the aforementioned 3W Headaches, NOT exacerbate them !
> > 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.
YGWV
> > 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?
How did you guess ?
cheers,
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail