On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 02:22:48PM -0700, 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
Yes, valid points. 'Sim' on both the personal as well as the grand
cosmological level, I should have been clearer in saying. The rules
could actually have stood to emphasise this more, and steered rather
wider of the "... and it's all interchangeable, really" line, which as
David points out, is in danger of making the distinction look a little
pointless. (Or an elementary exercise in min-maxing.)
> 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.)
... or whatever the heck Talents are supposed to actually be/how they
work, this weather. :/
Cheers,
Alex.