Stacy Forsythe wrote:
>> I don't think the idea is to have *no* rules for magic. Rather,
the question is whether magic might profitably be folded more into
the general rules for using any ability, rather than set apart with
several distinct systems as it is now. <<
I agree with Stacy's intepretation of the question.
David Dunham
>>I think it's to some degree a matter of taste whether you think
that the specifics of magic use is unimportant in a narrative game
(the important thing being whether or
not your use of magic advances your goals), or want to emphasize how
Gloranthan magic is different from other fictional magic by lavishing
them with rules detail.<<
Indeed; there lies the rub.
Greg
>>To me the differences in magic are important. It is a narrative
game, yes, but a significant part of the narrative it is about magic.
The different types of magic. It would be boring and useless to have
the magics all work the same way.<<
And that is I think the trade-off. Magic is important to Glorantha, so there is a risk that simplicity costs us the distinctiveness of different types.
A further question might be, are the differences in rules that we have reflective of the Gloranthan differences between magic types.
As examples, but not necessarily suggestions animist magic involves relationships with spirits. A game could make more of that, spirits could demand certain behaviours in return for their magic, they might get huffy if neglected etc. Conversly theist magic seems to be learnt on heroquests so you might restrict players to learning new feats only on holy days, and only if their relationship with the priest is good etc. Those might be more imporant ways to distinguish the magic types.
But there is a danger in change for changes sake, unless we are getting something which enhances play.
Powered by hypermail