Re: **SPAM?** **SPAM?** Re: Animists and common magic

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 02:06:22 +0000

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:35:41AM -0000, flynnkd2 wrote:
> I wasnt referring to the mechanical system we use to resolve
> actions, I was referring to the events symbolised by those actions
> and the story telling behind them.

Me too!  

> eg An archer fires an arrow and fails, the arrow missed. But later
> on something strange happens and you might say narratively... 'that
> stray arrow you fired has finally returned to earth and hit the
> eyeball of some key monster...' It isnt easy to work with but by
> saying that it liberalises my thinking of how HQ works. (and I am
> less elitist!!)

That still seems essentially linear to me. After all, you're not going back in time and changing what was previously established to happen to the arrow, you're just adding to it.

Perhaps I'm being unduly pedantic (a first!), but I think it's to be noted that it is indeed at a fairly basic level linear, given how strange things would be if it were not...

C,
A.