Re: mundane vs. magical resistance

From: bethexton_at_...
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:12:52 -0000

• In HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com, "Mike Holmes" <homeydont_at_h...> wrote:
  >
  What really
  > gets my goat is the "narrow constructionists" who think that this
  solves the
  > problem by limiting the uses of magic. It really doesn't, it just
  makes
  > magic less creative, stilted and odd. ..... Now with the split
  people are getting all confused about
  > how it "makes sense". Well, it doesn't and I don't think you can
  make it
  > make in-game sense. So please don't try. Either accept it as a
  genre effect,
  > or change it in one of the two simple ways that make it less
  confusing
  > again.
  >
  Yes.....but!

At least for me, the process of trying to find an 'in game' sense for it tends to shake out all sorts of interesting things. Narrative options, thoughts on playing, thoughts on Gloranthan reality, variations in how to interpret magic. Sure it can get tedious if you go around and around about it for too long. But approaching the issue and giving it a good shaking from time to time is good mental exercise and frequently interesting.

Sure, you don't need all of that in the game, as you said the rules make good dramatic sense as they are. But for looking at away from the gaming table, I don't think discussion of ways to paper over it are harmful. And of course, those who aren't interested in it can stop cliking on the thread, and as we all get bored of it the thread will die out, until it rises again from a different POV again.

Just my take on it.

--Bryan