Re: Ho Much Rule fiddling Is Tolerable?

From: L.Castellucci <lightcastle_at_hYqIhr2qPbyb-ohXbYVM6ChDn6f6Q-mzT-Go__lDEtWBGeGmwwUvMiTDMvP78PhU>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:52:17 -0400

 Interesting examples. I am not so certain you can lend charms, though. Didn't we go through this earlier on one of the lists? I can't remember how it played out.

On July 19, 2007 06:33 pm, Chris Lemens wrote:
> I have little clue about sorcery, so I've steered clear of making
> comparisons for that system, but I think there are comparable differences.
>  Sorcery seems to be something of a system that requires a broad social
> support structure to funnel power up the chain of command.  That's a
> totally different beastie than either of the personal relationships that
> animism and theism require.

I don't think that's quite right. Mind you, Wizardry seems to have two modes. One that resembles this a bit, and one that is more mages in their books. But I would say it is more a question of very narrow spells with narrow effects. However, you are less limited in terms of taboos and such. At least, that's adepts. The orderlies seem almost like they would be better as theists, emulating the saints, but the system doesn't work that way.

LC