> However, "therefore cannot be subjected to a credibility test" is clearly
To me the "augment only" label is a handy tool for setting the expectations of me playing a character or narrating. It saves me the balls ache of trying to work out whether a use of an ability is really extraordinary and avoiding disappointing my players too much.
> Just sticking to Glorantha, even when there is direct magic use, there
> are credibility tests: can I use the Fire rune to burn the house down?
> (Yes) Can I use the Darkness rune to burn the house down? (No.)
> Credibility test, right there. "Cannot be used to create extraordinary
> effects" - That's information to help you make a credibility test.
But the credibility test isn't just "can I use a fire rune to burn the house down?" It's usually more specific than that, it's more along the lines of:
Even with the rule "cannot be used to create extraordinary effects" I'd have said something called "fire affinity" would have been pretty good at burning combustible things - like the thatch on houses. After all burning isn't that extraordinary. Maintaining a ball of fire without an obvious means of combustion is extraordinary to me, burning a house with a thatched roof isn't, sometimes they just go up on their own. Had the rules just said "you can't do anything extraordinary or overtly magical with an affinity as a lay member" and left it at that I might have been posting to the list wondering what the hell it meant and presenting oodles of corner cases where it wasn't clear cut.
Anyway, thanks for bringing this up, it's made me think of whether perhaps lay members could use their affinities as active abilities provided nothing that couldn't be explained with a mundane "real world" physics explanation occurs. I'm going to have to think a bit more about this!
One last quick point:
Powered by hypermail