Re: Re: Questions about Lunar concentration

From: Mike Holmes <homeydont_at_...>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 11:51:14 -0500


I'm just trying to point out where I think the confusion comes from - or at least what confused me - with regards to Common Magic.

>From: "Roderick and Ellen Robertson" <rjremr_at_...>

> > Instead the book says:
> >
> > "Selfrock teaching is a widespread way..."
> >
> > See how that reads ambiguously? The section is either giving an example
>of
> > "a" way to concentrate common magic, or it's enumerating the only
>exception
> > to the normal rules that allow this special sort of concentration.
>
>As Peter said, the indefinite article "a" in "a widespread way" does not
>eliminate the possibility of other ways (or even other widespread ways).
>Even if we'd written "*the* widespread way" that doesn't eliminate to
>possibility of other, more local, ways. Only if we'd written "the
>absolutely
>*only* way" would we have eliminated any other ways (and the hero wars are
>all about rules being broken, so we *still* could put another way to
>concentrate common magic in a book and get away with it).

I'll answer you because you were more polite than Peter.

Ambiguous means that it has two potential meanings. Hence why they call it an "indefinite" article. Because it's not definite whether or not that which is being refered to is the only one, or one of many. Yes, I get that "a" means there could be more. If it didn't mean that, I wouldn't have the problem. If it had said, "The" then I would have known that it was the only one. If it had said, "one common way", then no problem. But as it's written, it's indefinite. It might be the only way, and it might not be. Given that Selfrock is an exception to other general rules, it's not all that odd to think that it *might* be the only way to do what's described.

Try to see it from my POV for just a moment. If I said to you, "Roderick, there is a way that you can get me to give you a million dollars, and it's to kill yourself," what would be the first question out of your mouth? How about, "Is that the only way?" Do you assume that there must be more than one way, just because I didn't use "the"?

>Okay, in this case (and Donander) you problably should list more than just
>"Common Magic". It depends on what you (as a player and/or narrator) need
>to
>know. mentioning that you belong to Lanbril is a good idea for a player,
>because thenyou can tell the narrator that you're taking the abilities
>listed under it.
>
>If you are *just* taking 5 common magic abilities, then it *probably*
>doesn't matter. If you want to be precisde, list where you got them from.
>If
>you don't, don't.

Are these keywords "advanceable"? That is, if the GM tells me that using the Saga System that I can raise one keyword by one point, can I raise these keywords? If so, then I think it's rather important to put them on the sheet. I mean, if not then why put the homeland on the sheet? Or any other keyword? Importance? Defaulting?

>There is no limit. You can have as many doifferent specialized magic
>keywords as time & resource constraints (and the narrator) will let you.
>You
>can have several Occupation keywords. You might even conceivably have
>multiple homeland keywords, if you can justify them (we disciourage this
>sort of thing, but we can't *stop* you...

The chargen might not be a "limit" but I believe that it even uses the term. Sorry if I was unclear about that, but the limits I'm talking about are the chargen limits. Wherin it says that you get only one Specialized Magic Keyword.

> > I have seen characters with Lanbril or Donandar, I think. And there's
>the
> > character on P25 HQ. Again, does any of this count against any limits?
>
>Nope, 'cause there's no limits.

The character on P25 is an example of chargen. Again, I supposed that he was subject to the limits set on page 18.

> > So, it it's not enumerated, there's no keyword to be had there? Only the
> > ones listed in the book have keywords associated?
>
>At least until we get around to deciding that a specific one needs a
>keyword, but we probably won't.

That's honest if uncomfortably ambiguous. Basically some of them might be deserving of keywords, but we have to decide for ourselves without input, or wait and see if it ever happens.

> > Really? So the lack of mention of common magic for most characters was
>an
> > intentional omission?
>
>More like we just didn't think it was important. When a character can be
>described with a single keyword ("There are 5 'Warrior 17' guards"),
>there's
>not a lot of incentive for us to add more than is necessary. Every writer
>for Issaries puvblications has their own style. There's not a guideline
>saying "don't list common magic".

OK, but then can you see how that might make the examples confusing? That is, I could never have determined the things that you're saying here from the material in the book.

Again, all I'm pointing out is where I think some clarity would help. That is, the book being inalterable at this point, I think that maybe a FAQ entry is in order. OTOH, maybe it's just me and how I read the text that's the problem. Up to you whether or not you think it needs any clarification.

Mike



FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

Powered by hypermail