Re: Gloranthan Illusions

From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:45:41 -0000

A matter of semantics, my definition agrees with yours. The act of realisation that what is perceived was created by illusion magic will have no effect on IT, but might affect the decisions of the perceiver (like dispelling it).

> There is a problem in the RQ3 sorcery rules, though. Phantom Touch
should
> logically create the sensation of a solid object, but it is also
used to
> allow illusions to do damage. There ought to be a separate
'Substance'
> effect, while Phantom Touch could be used for effects like making a
target
> feel that there are insects crawling on his skin.

I can see the reasoning for this, but I'd say it was a matter of, to use a RQ3 term, intensity. If he had elephants crawling on his skin, they'd cause damage.

> In My Glorantha, an illusion (however produced) that can damage an
opponent
> by hitting it is also subject to suffering physical damage.

But evidenced how? Would an illusary tiger display wounds and bleed, or simply be shredded and break up like a bad TV image? A good illusionist would have it display wounds simply to maintain the illusion of life, but would it do so without the illusionist's command?

Wulf

Powered by hypermail