> It does the same thing that it does to support the idea that homelands all
> include a language. No, there's no hard mechanic that says you have to have
> a language for a homeland, but by example, it shows you this. The game has
> examples of common magic abilities not only in the various CM religions and
> such, but also in the section on common magic itself. Basically the book
> tells us by example, what makes sense for common magic, just as it shows us
> by example, for instance, what the appropriate breadth of an ability is.
OK. One: You are arguing that narrator interpretation of the world and the social contract of expectations among players is paramount.
No argument from me on that.
But just to play Devil's Advocate a bit. let's look at what the game shows us about common magic.
In the intro on p29 it says it is basic magic that many people know. On page 104 it discusses it being a mix of the other types. Nowhere does it say anything about it being less powerful. In fact, on p.105, in the specialized religions, it says, "All Otherworlds have an ideal type of worship which, if used exclusively, allows a magician easier access to its magic."
Nothing about power. (There is a comparison of the power levels of the 3 otherworlds, but no comparison to common magic.)
In context, what do we know about common magic? Well, it ranges from "Witty Repartee" to things like "Combat Attack" and "Destroy Chaos" and "Banish Ghost".
What do we know about otherworld magic? We see things like "Convince Buyer", "Defend Filing System", right there with "Flickering Blade", "Magic Spear", and "Burn Away Pagan Magic".
So, in context, the two don't look very different to a reader, IMHO.
> And there is a rule. Just like the breadth rule indicates that if an ability
> is too broad that the narrator can call it a keyword or somesuch, the
> narrator is free to say that any ability that the player selects is just not
> suitable. That includes things like taking CM abilities that are out of
> range.
Again, narrator fiat and social contract. Which I'm fine with.
> Well, sounds like a good religion to be in, then, if you want healing. That
> is, just because most common magic seems not to allow healing at full scale,
> doesn't mean that all common magic does not.
Actually, if we are assuming the HQ rule book as our base, then under Major Magical Healing: "Major magical healing is rare and special. It is available only to worshippers of powerful Otherworld entities..."
That's the actual prohibition against using common magic for major magical healing. If you can argue your common magic comes from a powerful Otherworld Entity, no reason to not allow it.
> >And if that wasn't enough, they also have access to... "Big Healing".
>
> Which, if you wanted to, you could rule as saying that "healing" was only
> for minor things. You can't simply ignore all context with abilities and go
> by the wording alone.
Of course. It's the pompous magic rule. But if the idea is for common magic to be thought of as humble (rather than "accessible to everyone") then writing common magic in a way that allows it to be interpreted as powerful doesn't help the narrator who is trying to decide how powerful common magic is supposed to be.
> >Then there's "Destroy Chaos" and "Destroy Godling".
>
> Again, remember that most of these abilities are being thought of as
> something that will augment normally.
Unless you concentrate. Concentration being presented as an option for players, and while there is a social comment about "why most people don't", the implication even in that paragraph is that many heroes (PCs) will.
> Meaning that interpreting the "active"
> version of these as big flashes of light that vaporize your opponent is just
> wrong.
Prove it. Really. Why can't they be immensely powerful when active and weaker when augmenting? And while you are at it, please explain to me the difference in Gloranthan terms. In a simple contest which subsumes a whole event, who is to say my use wasn't "active"?
This isn't meant as an attack on you, Mike. This is something I've not been able to figure out. What is the difference in Gloranthan terms between active and augment-only use of a magic ability?
> You still do what you'd manually do to destroy the godling or chaos
> or whatever, it just becomes the augmentor in this case. But I wouldn't
> allow it to be used at range, for instance.
But that's just a choice again. Nothing in the rules saying that one way or another. Magic has range modifiers, of course, but they don't seem to apply by source of magic.
> But you can't argue that it's more powerful to be a Concentrated CM user vs
> the power of unleashing fetishes. Really, all in all, the HQ system is
> pretty well balanced in terms of power.
I certainly agree. But people were saying that Common Magic is all things like "plant crop", "fix dinner", and other small helping things. It's not. The examples in the book clearly show Common Magic to have the same range as the Otherworld magics (outside of secrets) that are named abilities.
So I can completely understand (Yikes, I can't remember who started this conversation!)'s thought that a concentrated common magic person is the best bet "power wise". (Now, as you and I both agree, HQ does a wonderful job of making that a non-question, since you can always initiate contests in other ways.)
My point is that there is nothing in the rules other than implication by way of the nature of Glorantha that says that a common magic spell "Resist Seduction" is more or less powerful than an Otherworld Feat/Charm/Spell called "Resist Seduction".
Add in that Common Magic religion in the case of Teshnos is a weird mix written that way because there are no workable mysticism rules and the "obvious" nature of common magic being weaker is harder to justify.
Again, I am 100% behind your solution of "Interpret what you think Common Magic should mean in Glorantha" and then apply it, but I can understand someone not finding it obvious that common magic is weaker.
LC
Powered by hypermail