On Apr 8, 2004, at 5:22 PM, Andrew Solovay wrote:
> Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...> wrote:
> >
> > And presumably the root reason they're so categorised is
> > because in SimGlorantha terms, they're allegedly "clean
> > different things", even if they happen to be meexed up in a
> > beeg common magic bucket with a double 'elping of pate'.
>
> There are *some* practical differences. Like, for example: As I
> understand
> it, a charm works just by being worn, unlike a feat or spell, which
> has to
> be used (and a talent could go either way). So... if I were a
> fisherman, I'd
> probably prefer to give my kids a "don't drown" charm to wear, rather
> than
> teaching them a spell which they might not be able to use after they
> suck in
> a lungful of water.
>
> And there may be cultural issues, too. e.g. the Heortlings have a
> taboo
> against teaching magic to kids. This ban would certainly cover
> teaching kids
> a common-magic feat or spell, but it might not cover giving a kid a
> charm to
> wear, or even training him to use an innate talent. (You aren't
> teaching the
> kid magic in that case, you're just bringing out the magic he already
> has--and *everyone* has magic, whether they know it or not.)
There are also availability issues. The source of the CM determines the type. From a game world point of view, it doesn't matter if someone wants the CM to be spell, charm, feat, or talent; if the "don't drown" magic comes from spirit shells, they're charms even if the person prefers a feat.
Sure, a mini-maxing player can just state that all of their CM are whatever type of magic they want to concentrate but that's not how it really is in Glorantha.
Camo
Powered by hypermail