> Have you noticed that we basically share the same definition of this magic ?
>
> (nomenclature notwithstanding)
Yes, I think we agree on _this_ magic, but not on the other; this is the one that (it seems to me) is described by HQ, and by Greg, here, as being 'talents'; therefore the terminology is not without significance.
> > 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.
Rokari peasants (say) are described as having access to CM in the form of spells, among others. That's not just some small specialist minority either, it seems fairly clear. If you're saying they IYG have no CM at all, then fine, that's an actual restriction. What you seemed to me to be saying, however, is that such people would still have CM, and indeed for all practical purposes the same CM, but in the form of 'learned talents'. Is that correct? If so, then I entirely stand by the above characterisation, and indeed don't see how you can object to it.
> 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_.
<whatever> would indeed be "non-existent", yes. I thought I was fairly explicit about that. That may not be a problem for you, but it seems a fairly basic difference in our positions, and worth making clear (if this is worth posting on at all).
> 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.
A world (in this case) isn't identical with (obviously!), but does entirely contain a character; a character and a player aren't the same thing at all, and the latter is neither here nor there for this discussion.
> > 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 ?
Yes, it is, but it's completely different _from the distinction you made that I was commenting on_.
> (or otherwise I should have flunked my linguistics module, I guess... )
I'd best not be drawn on that one, esp. given threads In Another Place.
> > > 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 ...
I don't feel I'm being 'aggressive', but I'd like to get some clarity on issues that that are raised by what you've posted, but that you seem less than happy about discussing the details of. Unless innate magic is PC-only in your game, I don't see how this is sustainable; and I don't see how the point even _arises_, in the issue of its place in Glorantha-as-a-world. It seems unlikely to me that you're unaware of this distinction (between world, and narrative), so I can't help but be deeply unimpressed by your apparent willingness to elide it to make a snappy comeback.
> Look, I'm just telling you how things are IMG. If you don't like MG,
> well that simply just isn't my problem ...
If you're proposing your model as some sort of more general solution to the issue raises, then criticisms of it are entirely valid. If you're not, well, enjoy, YGHV, more power to you.
> > The point is the _game world_ source of the magic,
> The player is part of the game, and therefore part of the game world.
Not in the normal sense of "game world" he isn't; not at all. We can say he can _affect_ it, sure, and indeed vice versa, but that's nothing a little Cartesian Dualism won't solve.
> > 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>.
No, HQ isn't by any means a pure narrativist game, and seems to have liberated itself from the notion that it ever was, somewhat more explicitly than its predecessor. So I can't accept "it's all narrative, anyway" type assertions, even were they pertinent to the topic at hand.
Puma People exist in Glorantha (independently of game-play theme); Puma People are able to (in at least some senses of the word) magically transform themselves into pumas (ditto); Puma People (I think we even agree) do this via innate magic, that is to say, magic arising from the nature of their own being (and ditto again).
Seems to be to be sustainable entirely from an 'S' viewpoint. Does it serve a N-ist _purpose_? I certainly think so; indeed, I think it's a shame HQ wasn't stronger/more explicit on this. (Viz. the earlier discussion on flying Orlanthi, etc.)
> 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 [...]
Yes; but how? By what method? By what processes? With what 'look and feel'? If you're not willing or able to answer such basic points, how is this supposed to be useful for or credible to anyone else? e.g. to be self-centred about it, say me. With specific reference to it being distinct in such respects from any of: feats, charms, or spells (or of course, innate magic).
Now, to be fair(ish), this is a question I want to ask also of the author(s) of, say, the Heortling common magic writeup, since it raises at least the spectre of the same issue. I don't want to say so any more strongly than that, though, since it's (just about) conceivable that Flesh Man magic is indeed innate, and is something one is born with, or manifests spontaneously at puberty, or whatever. I suspect that's not the intent though, and it really is meant as 'learned talents', much as I might wish otherwise. (Personally, when it arises in play, I currently plan to say "feel free to treat them as feats, charms, or innate magic, as best suits", though I'm not completely happy about that, either.)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail