Chargen and Magic

[RaconteurX]

Apologies, Peter. You are correct. The vast majority of people I know do not require that the basic keywords be written in the narrative, only those things in which the hero differs from his or her norm. But then, I tend to play campaigns oriented around a single homeland, so everyone begins with many basic keywords in common and the narrative is what sets each hero apart from his or her fellows.

[Mike Holmes]

Peter, I agree with you and Kirt that the system gives a minimum of one. But like Kirt said, this is a technical minimum, and not the usual thing at all. That is, the way I see it, it's one of many viable choices for a starting character. Reading the text this way, however may give people the idea that it's sensible to restrict players to only one, and to not employ the option to allow more. The problem is that nowhere else is this supported.

The above is yet another case where the examples are confusing. In the narrative example, Galen is given the common magic keyword, because he has written that he knows the magic from surrounding peoples (or somesuch). Apparently, because that's not specific to some religion, the narrator in this case decides that it must refer to common magic. The player does say that they want a spirit friend or something, but somehow he doesn't become a practitioner or anything. OK, if the player is fine with that, fine; we wouldn't force a specialized keyword on him (though it's interesting how later he decides he wants more magic).

I agree that concentration has no direct effect on this issue in terms of requiring things to be one way or another. Indeed, it seems that one can concentrate and keep their common magic abilities as long as they're derived from the appropriate otherworld beings living in the mortal world (though there's a lot of debate on how, exactly, this works). On the other hand, it seems that the paragraph in which the "or both if the GM allows" quote comes from is saying that it's just easier to do one keyword if the player is going to concentrate. And indeed it is, because if he does take the common magic keyword in addition, things are complicated by the cost being listed in the magic section, and the fact that the player has to drop offending common magic stuff. Further the character is given an incentive to do so by making it free to concentrate if they only have the one keyword. Why put that part in if the usual mode is to only have one? Why not say instead that it costs extra to concentrate if you have more than one keyword? Because it's the exception, not the standard.

Hazeel, in his example, is given the common magic keyword despite not listing wanting it. In fact, the narrator tells him that he has it, and the requisite five abilities, and badgers him into trying to come up with some abilities (this is what confused Kirt originally). And despite the fact that he's an initiate. So, the player has chosen a magic keyword, shown less than no interest in a common magic keyword, and has been given one anyhow.

Jane is worse. The player doesn't even know how to play, and despite the fact that she can only say that she wants an origami magic keyword, and is given said origami magic keyword, on her character sheet one of the only things written besides that is that she has the common magic keyword at 17. As though listing this is perfunctory.

Of the sample characters on the site, more than half of them have both keywords - pretty standard. There are one or two characters who don't have a specialized magic keyword, but I think it's safe to assume this is because they didn't want one. That is, I'm fairly sure they didn't throw over a specialized magic keyword just so that they could have the common magic one. Especially when the GM in question seems to be allowing both for the most part. The two that don't have the common magic keywords, are concentrated, in fact. The practitioner in question has a spirit ally, which he can only have if he's concentrated (and we all agree that the healer is concentrated having feats). We can't tell if they threw over a common magic keyword to do so, not having their HP totals on the sheet, but given that it's tactically unsound to do so (waste of a point) and not retain any cpmmon magic abilites, we can assume that they decided to only have one so that they could concentrate for free.

So, out of thirteen character examples, not one of them is set up in a way that's inconsistent with the idea that the common magic keyword is given as a default.

I think that the player should just be able to start with whatever combination of common magic and specilized keywords they like. The disadvantages are built in, so why should I interfere with the player's decision; why would I not "allow" this, per the statement in the section? Seems like limiting player creativity for no apparent reason (yeah it's a tad more complicated, but big deal).


Getting back to Kirt's first post, there are a couple of other issues. Can you really take a common magic reigion as a specialized keyword as Kirt suggests? What does that do, if you do? Can you then use the Abilities as full abilities and not just augments? Are the people who do this actually Initiates or devotees, or the like? They presumably have access to all the abilites, so what's the point? Why, if one did this, wouldn't they have to have that as their religion keyword? I mean, if you do any other specialized magic than that normally associated with your homeland, you normally would take that religion keyword, too, no? For example, if I were a Sartarite Heortling who had learned the Esrolian Earth Pantheon, and had become an initiate of Babeester Gor, wouldn't that mean that I'd have the Earth Pantheon Keyword instead of the Storm Pantheon?

Where are the rules for all of this? The only thing that I can find is under common magic, where it says that the only way to specialize in common magic is to take Selfrock teaching.

Mike

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi Mike,

I realize now that you aren't really debating the questions raised by Kirt, but a number of related issues. This is fine by me, I just didn't get it. Sorry for being so slow.

Lets start with the most important points. Please correct me if I am missing something. I will discuss your post in some detail at a later time. Forgive me for taking this one step at a time.

1) We both seem to agree that (almost) all of the statements in Kirt's first post are correct. You do raise a couple of relevant issues, however, mostly regarding common religions. I will address these later.

2) Let's just agree that the rulesbook is not always as clear as it should have been. The examples are particularly confusing. In a few instances (like Galan's character creation) the examples even contradict the rules, which is damned stupid if you ask me.

3) I agree that not one of the 13 sample characters on the site is inconsistent with the idea that the common magic keyword is given as a default. I agree with Michael that most gloranthans have access to common magic. Therefore, in my opinion, the common magic keyword should be given as a default. Ultimately, however, according to the rules, this is up to the narrator to decide.

In short, we agree about all the important points. In my next post, I will do some nitpicking and (hopefully) some clarifications.

All the best,

/Peter N

[xiombarg]

In short, we agree about all the important points. In my next post, I will do some nitpicking and (hopefully) some clarifications.

Amen to this. I just got back from vacation, and I'd like to say that I think Peter, myself, Michael and Mike are actually in agreement, we just have different ideas about whether something that is encouraged, but not required, by the rules is the "default" assumption or not, and whether the examples or the rules text weigh more. In the end, it's not a big deal -- if I were GMing, I would generally allow people to take both Common Magic and a specialized keyword. (I also agree with Peter that Concentration, as Michael talks about it, is a red herring.)

I am interested in the side issues, however. For example, when I talked about Concentrating on Common Magic, I was, indeed, talking about the Selfrock thing.

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi again,

This time I will be focusing on some arbitrarily chosen little details of Mike's post. It is not necessarily important or even fair. I mean no offense, however, so please bear with me.

Galan

The player does say that they want a spirit friend or something, but somehow he doesn't become a practitioner or anything.

Well, the book has clearly messed up completely when it comes to Galan's bison sidekick. Here's the best solution, in my opinion:

Bison Brain is

not a Spirit Ally, but a bison sidekick possessed by an intelligent spirit.[/list:u]
The reason is simple: The example contradicts the rules. When this happens, we should stick to the rules. There is a lot more to say about this, but that will have to wait. It is possibly the subject of a "Peter's HeroQuest Rant" though.

Indeed, it seems that one can concentrate and keep their common magic abilities as long as they're derived from the appropriate otherworld beings living in the mortal world (though there's a lot of debate on how, exactly, this works).

I have no idea what "derived from the appropriate otherworld beings living in the mortal world" means. When you concentrate, you use magic from only one magic system. That's it basically. Don't confuse things by bringing in otherworld beings living in the mortal world. Concentrate on theism and you may learn feats and affinities from your specialized religion, as well as common magic feats. I'm sure that you are aware that this is described in detail on page 108, as well as in the various magic chapters (pages115, 133, and 156 respectively). Please clarify, if you wish.

Hazeel

Hazeel, in his example, is given the common magic keyword despite not listing wanting it. In fact, the narrator tells him that he has it, and the requisite five abilities, and badgers him into trying to come up with some abilities (this is what confused Kirt originally). And despite the fact that he's an initiate. So, the player has chosen a magic keyword, shown less than no interest in a common magic keyword, and has been given one anyhow.

Well, actually he does mention wanting common magic; it is correctly listed as a keyword, not as one of the ten abilities (page 24, "Steve Creates His Hero" paragraph 7). Also, he is not an initiate: see Teshnos Pantheon text on page 56.

The sample heroes on the website

The two that don't have the common magic keywords, are concentrated, in fact. The practitioner in question has a spirit ally, which he can only have if he's concentrated (and we all agree that the healer is concentrated having feats).

The practitioner (the cavalry soldier) does not have a spirit ally. Read more about Goldeneye horses on page 47. If I played this character, I would concentrate his magic, as would most players, I imagine.

More tomorrow.

Respectfully,

/Peter N

[Mike Holmes]

Amen to this. I just got back from vacation, and I'd like to say that I think Peter, myself, Michael and Mike are actually in agreement, we just have different ideas about whether something that is encouraged, but not required, by the rules is the "default" assumption or not, and whether the examples or the rules text weigh more.

Oh, no, no, no, don't get me wrong. The rule text is king. The problem is that damn "if the GM allows". There's nothing there that indicates what the consideration is. So, absent of that, you have to look elsewhere for guidance. Is it a good idea to allow it, or not? The problem is that the text makes that seem like a special case by putting it in parentheses and making it an option of sorts. So it seems like you aren't supposed to allow it unless something special is true. But then it goes on to show a majority of examples in which it's allowed. To greater or lesser degree depending on your interpretation of the example. What is clear, however, is that at least one of the three chargen samples allow it in the book for sure, and more than half of them on the site.

So what does that say about when you should "allow" it? This is the ambiguousness to which I refer. Not much, and what's there is contradictory.

(I also agree with Peter that Concentration, as Michael talks about it, is a red herring.)

Not entirely. What we're looking for is a contrapositive example. See, if you can find an example of a character who isn't concentrated in his specialized magic, and yet doesn't have a common magic keyword, well, then you have the example of the character where the GM has restricted the player from having both. There are other possibilites; mostly they'd be rare, and mostly support the idea that the GM was allowing for two abilites - so we're being generous in allowing that this is a true counter-example.

The problem is that, without seeing the accounting of HP in the examples, you can't really tell if an initiate has concentrated. So, the cavalryman is ambiguous (given Peter's correction about the horse not being an ally). He could be concentrated...We'll give it the benefit of the doubt, however. That's still only one out of 13 where the GM didn't "allow" the exception in this case.

I am interested in the side issues, however. For example, when I talked about Concentrating on Common Magic, I was, indeed, talking about the Selfrock thing.

So you weren't implying that one could specialize in common magic religions? Or were you saying that a player can just say that he's an adherrent of a common magic religion with no particular in-game effects (other than the player might limit himself voluntarily to those Abilities or something)?

Mike

[xiombarg]

As far as the "if GM allows", as I said before, I wasn't terribly interested in when the GM is supposed to allow. I agree it's somewhat ambiguous, but that really wasn't part of my original question -- I was concerned about the bare outline of the actual rules.

As for Common Religions, if I read p. 104-105 correctly -- most notably, the fact that Common Religions are mentioned under Common Magic and not under Specialized Religions, not to mention the way the example Common Religions are explained -- I believe that a Common Religion is just a sort of colorful way of "tinting" a Common Magic keyword in a certain way, that they're more or less the same in terms of getting five "tricks", though having a Common Religion does give you access to some Virtues. I was wrong in my initial post to refer to them as "specialized" -- it seems they're kinda halfway between an actual specialized religion and the Common Magic keyword. Any disagreement there?

As I understand it, often Common Religion involves Misapplied Worship, though for the purposes of the PC this is meaningless. (I have to admit I'm not sure what the point of Misapplied Worship is from a PC perspective. I understand what it means for the entity being worshipped, but...)

Now, as I understand it, you can Concentrate in Innate Magic, which means you can only take Talents, which all Common Magic abilities are assumed to be unless you specify otherwise. The main advantage of this is it makes Talents cheap, like most forms of Concentration. Generally, Concentrating in something else, like Theism or Animism or Wizardry is more useful, as one can "advance" along those paths. This "hole" relating to Innate Magic screams "supplement" to me, but I digress.

That said, you can also Concentrate in Common Magic itself, not just Talents, through Selfrock Teaching. This lets you use Common Magic abilities as active abilities, and not just Talents -- but it pays for this flexibility by forcing you to keep a rock with you. It also makes Common Magic cheap, kinda like a normal Concentration.

That is, at least, my understanding of the more subtle aspects of those rules, as set forth in the main rulebook.

[Ian Cooper]

Hi all,

This is my understanding of what was intended, partially from discussions during playtesting. Refer particularly to p.18.

There are 4 magic types: Common Magic and three Specialized magic types (Theism, Animism, and Wizadry). Common magic is so called because it includes magic from any otherworld source or the material world. Specialized magic refers to the fact that the magic includes powers from only one otherworld.

A character's magical abilites come from two sources. The main one is their religion keyword. This applies to common and specialized religions. They make available a set of abilities. p.18 indicates the number of abilities from a keyword a character gains by 'listing' the keyword. Common magic also has some ubiquitous abilities on p.29 in addition to those listed for common religions.

A character can 'list' magical abilities for his character i.e. gained outside a keyword. These are considered to be common magic in origin. You get to choose whether they have a material world or otherworld type. If you plan to concentrate it makes sense to pick the same magic type.

A beginning character can have either, none, or both of a specialized and/or common magic keyword.

Why would you not take both? Reasons include but are not limited too: character conception; a desire to later take a magic keyword from outside your homeland; knowing early on that you intend to concentrate; unfamiliarity with the campaign and a desire to defer the decision to later etc. It is obviously more cost effective to take it in char gen - but that is not everyone's motivating factor.

Why would a character take none? Very unlikey in Glorantha where nearly all interaction with the Otherworlds is mediated by religion. It would suggest someone who was outside all society. Even 'athiests' have a 'religion' in Glorantha. Very few people are this outside society, they are likely to be considered mad by others.

As for Galan's Bison Brain - it is a sidekick and 'acts like a regular spirit ally'. So it technically is not a spirit ally but narrator fiat, and that, I guess, is how it escapes concentration. But it is confusing. A lot of effort was put by a host of playtesters and readers to try and make HQ clear. Looks like this one was overlooked as misleading. Peter, it may be worth mentioning this to Roderick Robinson who is compiling an FAQ.

However, though it may be confusing so early on, I believe that the character generation rules are trying to demonstrate the 'yes, but...' rule. In character generation the idea is to give the playes the hero they want as much as possible, balanced by the other players and the narrator's desires for his game. As such the process of char gen is shown as a dialogue in which the rules are a guideline with which the narrator works with to achieve what the player wants and not a straightjacket that prevents that.

[Ian Cooper]

By the way, the Hero's Book has some useful advice to players: most people have common magic, some have specialized, smpler for beginning players characters to be initiates rather than devotees (Hero's Book only covers theism).

Also the example character list 'Treebreaking Secrets' as an ability. The narrator and player use this as his common magic keyword and create 5 abilities for it.

The latter is a good example of something HeroQuest tries to emphasize: players are co-creators and can work with narrators to outline new common religions, cults, or orders. There are several other examples of this in HQ itself. Of course some folks will find such player input scary...

[Calithena]

To amplify Ian's point about "yes, but", I believe that all three of the sample characters violate some rule or guideline - there are some funny things about Hazeel's skills too IIRC, and the whole thing with Origami Magic suggests the principle "Imagination First, Rules Second". I think that this is a Good Thing about Heroquest, but unfortunately the extra structure in the magic rules cuts against it, and is going to force a lot more people into the kind of discussion that's going on on this thread. Which is unfortunate, in my book, not because this is a bad discussion of the issue at hand, but because it is the kind of discussion I would want to play a game like Heroquest principally to avoid.

[Nick Brooke]

I think that this is a Good Thing about Heroquest, but unfortunately the extra structure in the magic rules cuts against it, and is going to force a lot more people into the kind of discussion that's going on on this thread. Which is unfortunate, in my book, not because this is a bad discussion of the issue at hand, but because it is the kind of discussion I would want to play a game like Heroquest principally to avoid.

Couldn't agree more. I find the (IMO needless) complexity of almost everything to do with Common Magic to be the most heartbreaking aspect of HeroQuest, much like Misapplied Worship in the original Hero Wars. It should be so simple, and yet...

Cheers, Nick