I say that as much as in an attempt at self-restraint, and/or apology to gentle readers with too much "deja vu"... It was weeks rather than days ago, IIRC.
> 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.
You're switching it around in the sense that what you're labelling as a 'gift' is exactly what _I_ think a talent is, and talent is being relegated to what IMO is an essentially nonsensical non-category of magic, that isn't described in HQ (though is, unfortunately, somewhat hinted at by, as you say, the treatment of Heortling CM, for one).
> > 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.
In a word, yes; you're doing exactly what I described you as doing. You're equating all of CM with the category of "learned CM talents", to which I have the same objection as I did to DC's mooting of it, except in your model it's a much larger class of magic. Seems pretty clear to me. This is in no sense a 'restriction' if it simply amounts to "read all CM feats (etc) as being 'learned talents'".
> > 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.
That's exactly the opposite of your _own_ previous characterisation. It seems clear to _me_ it's from the inner world, but you said just the reverse.
> (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).
Of course it's not impossible; the point is that your terminology and distinctions are not supportable. Innate magic is from the inner world; 'learned talents' (if have 'em we must) are from the inner world; there's no distinction in that sense, contra your earlier implication.
> > > 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.
That really is neither here nor there, and if it isn't deliberate obscurantism, will do until same comes along. The point is the _game world_ source of the magic, which is as I say, part of the mundane world, to wit the being itself using the magic. It's fairly clear that NPC Puma People (trolls, women, etc) exist, so rationalising 'innate magic' as a narrativist conceit is simply a non-flyer.
> > 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 ?
No.
> I'm confused ...
I want innate magic (aka talents) to be innate magic; I want 'learned talents' to go away and stop bothering me; I want talents (in the first sense) not to be affected by concentration in O/W magic; I'm happy enough to have distinctions in the types of magic that are covered by Common Magic (feats, etc), though I think some of the exemplars in the HQ homelands look a bit odd in terms of which they decide to interpret as which.
Does that seem reasonable? Or failing which, clear in its unreasonableness? ;-)
> > > 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.
But _not_ talents as you've described them, talents in the HQ sense of "innate magic" (one at least assumes). Or at least without a clear distinction of one vs. the other.
> > 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.
>
> :-)
My bad, silly old mere dictionary definitions rendered redundant by HQ...
> They are 'beings', having mixed nature, and living in the Inner World.
>
> As for process and methodology, well, YGWV, as always.
Sorry, but I'm not going to buy that at all. We have reasonably well-defined means of interacting with the different sorts of otherworld entities, characterisations of the behaviour of the magic they grant, etc. I'd want at least as much for 'learned talents', esp. given my inclination to doubt their existence.
> But frankly, the whole point of this CM variant is _precisely_
> to avoid the aforementioned 3W Headaches, NOT exacerbate them !
Sure. They're now not "3 world headaches", but...
Cheers,
A.
Powered by hypermail