Re: 4 Worlds headaches

From: Julian Lord <jlord_at_...>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:42:44 +0200


Alex

> > I'm NOT switching around _per se_ what a talent is : I'm splitting it
> > into two distinct entities : the gift, and the talent.
>
> You're switching it around in the sense that what you're labelling as a
> 'gift' is exactly what _I_ think a talent is,

Frankly, that's your problem, not mine.

Have you noticed that we basically share the same definition of this magic ?

(nomenclature notwithstanding)

> 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).

Well I'm sorry, but I completely fail to see why this "is" essentially nonsensical (you, yourself appear to have zero problems understanding the idea) nor unfortunate (obviously, I can only speak for myself here, but my own game is enhanced by it. YGWV).

> > > 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;

One word : "no".

> 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'".

Erm, are we on the same page here ? (doubtful)

When I suggest that "Hedge Wizards" use "Wizardry", and that their "spells" are (implicitly) NOT CM "talents", I am "restricting" CM to "talents" alone. That you would prefer "Innate talents" to be called "talents" and CM "talents" to be <whatever>**, where I distinguish IMG between "gifts" and "talents" is quite frankly a _non-problem_.

> > > 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.

<sigh>

IMG : Common magic is from the Inner World. Innate Magic is from the character and/or the player.

A World and a character are not the same thing.

> 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.

Well, there is a distinction IMG, however you might feel about it.

Innate magic is from inside, Common magic is from outside.

Surely that's a reasonably clear distinction, isn't it ? (or otherwise I should have flunked my linguistics module, I guess... )

> > > > 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.

Why the hell do you insist on being so aggressive ? It doesn't exactly help, you know ...

Look, I'm just telling you how things are IMG. If you don't like MG, well that simply just isn't my problem ...

> The point is the _game
> world_ source of the magic,

The player is part of the game, and therefore part of the game world.

> 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.

Pure nonsense, sorry.
This is a narrativist game, if you insist on the GNS model <shudder>.

> I want innate magic (aka talents) to be innate magic; I want 'learned
> talents' to go away and stop bothering me;

Well, we're obviously not playing in the same Glorantha then ...

<shrug>

YGWV
> 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.

YGWV
> Does that seem reasonable? Or failing which, clear in its
> unreasonableness? ;-)

YGWV
> > > > 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.

I have decided IMG that there is a distinction between absolutely personal magic and shared Common Magic. Common Magic IMG comes from the Inner World, Innate Magic comes from the character, whether as personal magic, or species magic, or whatever. From my POV the distinctions are amazingly clear. If you disagree with them, well : no skin off my nose ! YGWV !!!

> > As for process and methodology, well, YGWV, as always.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not going to buy that at all.

HQ p. 8 : YGWV

I imagine that you already own it ... ;-)

> 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.

Sure, but for RPG purposes, I know what my Glorantha is like.

Take it to the Digest if you like, and I'll provide a different POV ... ?

Julian

Powered by hypermail