Okay, I finally got around to reading my copy of HeroQuest, and the most confusing thing for me was magic, particularly in chargen.

In particular, I'm talking about list-based chargen.

Let me see if I understand this:

You can either take Common Magic as your magic keyword or a more specialized magic keyword.

If you choose the Common Magic keyword, you get five free "tricks" of Common Magic, used mostly as augments. Regardless, you are still a communal worshipper/spiritist/lay member of your Homeland's religion, depending if your homeland's religion is theist, aniministic, or wizardly, respectively.

If you take a specialized magic keyword that's a "common religion", it's more or less like the above -- you're just wrapping a particular set of beliefs around your Common Magic keyword. (Side question: Would this replace your homeland's Religion keyword, or just add to it?)

If you take a specialized magic keyword instead of Common Magic and it's not a "common religion", this makes you an initiate/practitioner/liturgist (for theist, animistic, and wizardly religions, respectively), giving you certain benefits, as outlined in the individual magic chapters. However, this means that you do NOT get the five "tricks" mentioned above. (Aside: For wizardly magic, specialization could make you an "adept" or an "orderly" instead of a liturgist, depending on what you pick.)

However, the GM can allow you to have both a specialized magic keyword AND the Common Magic keyword, in which case you get the benefits of the specialized magic keyword AND the five "tricks". The example given for list-based chargen works this way.

The GM can also allow you to have a "higher" level of devotion to a specialized magic keyword, such as being a Devotee instead of an Initiate, but that's strictly optional.

Regardless, if you only choose ONE magic keyword, you can Concentrate for free. Concentration is different than specialization -- it just makes it cheaper to buy powers in the area you're Concentrated in (either theist magic, animistic magic, or wizardly magic... or even common magic).

Is the above correct? If not, please cite pages and/or rules to indicate why I'm wrong. This isn't because I won't believe you, but because I'm trying to understand the rules as written, rather than the way individual people do it...

Also, feel free to whack me with a FAQ or a previous thread. My intent here is to learn and understand.

Hi,

This is a great post. You may also want to check out the sample heroes at www.glorantha.com/support for comparison.

You can either take Common Magic as your magic keyword or a more specialized magic keyword.
(snip)
However, the GM can allow you to have both a specialized magic keyword AND the Common Magic keyword, in which case you get the benefits of the specialized magic keyword AND the five "tricks". The example given for list-based chargen works this way.

If you choose the Common Magic keyword, you get five free "tricks" of Common Magic, used mostly as augments. Regardless, you are still a communal worshipper/spiritist/lay member of your Homeland's religion, depending if your homeland's religion is theist, aniministic, or wizardly, respectively.

If you take a specialized magic keyword that's a "common religion", it's more or less like the above -- you're just wrapping a particular set of beliefs around your Common Magic keyword. (Side question: Would this replace your homeland's Religion keyword, or just add to it?)

If you take a specialized magic keyword instead of Common Magic and it's not a "common religion", this makes you an initiate/practitioner/liturgist (for theist, animistic, and wizardly religions, respectively), giving you certain benefits, as outlined in the individual magic chapters. However, this means that you do NOT get the five "tricks" mentioned above. (Aside: For wizardly magic, specialization could make you an "adept" or an "orderly" instead of a liturgist, depending on what you pick.)

The GM can also allow you to have a "higher" level of devotion to a specialized magic keyword, such as being a Devotee instead of an Initiate, but that's strictly optional.

Regardless, if you only choose ONE magic keyword, you can Concentrate for free. Concentration is different than specialization -- it just makes it cheaper to buy powers in the area you're Concentrated in (either theist magic, animistic magic, or wizardly magic... or even common magic).

Wow, I guess I was less confused that I thought I was. Thank you.

Oh, as a quick aside: http://www.rpgnews.com/heroquest.php

Actually, every hero gets five Common Magic picks unless he or she has concentrated his or her specialized magic. Initiates, practitioners, liturgists and orderlies are not required to concentrate their magic, and therefor may continue to use Common Magic. Refer to the Membership section (p. 106) of the Specialized Religions chapter.

RaconteurX wrote: Actually, every hero gets five Common Magic picks unless he or she has concentrated his or her specialized magic. Initiates, practitioners, liturgists and orderlies are not required to concentrate their magic, and therefor may continue to use Common Magic. Refer to the Membership section (p. 106) of the Specialized Religions chapter.

xiombarg wrote: What makes you think you ALWAYS get your Common Magic, even if you don't take a Common Magic keyword?

Ah. We are in agreement, but think of it differently. I agree that the Narrator is heavily encouraged by the examples and the Magical Abilities section and the to allow PCs to have both Common Magic and a specialized magic keyword, but by the very bit you cite on p. 18, it's obvious the Narrator is not required to do so. This was one of the sources of my confusion, in that the examples seem to engage in a practice not actually required by the rules.

My question was about the absolute minimum required by the rules, not what is heavily encouraged. This is why I asked what is actually in the rules and not what people actually do in practice. Obviously, the rules encourage a more generous practice, but that's not the same thing as requiring it. Notice how all the references you cite say "usually" and "most", not "always". I'm asking about "always".

As far as I can tell, the rules, as written, give you your five "common magic" tricks nearly all the time, but not always, and that it depends on whether you're allowed to take two magic keywords, not on Concentration, per se. The reason the Concentrated heros have no Common Magic is the reason I already mentioned: That you can only Concentrate for free if you take a single magic keyword, so such heros don't take Common Magic as well since that would be expensive.

In fact, I assumed having both Common Magic & Specialized Magic would be the exception, not the rule. Of the three PCs in my game, two of them didn't start specialized & had the 5 Common Magic picks. The third began as a practitioner & started with no Common Magic. (And now one of the characters is working on focusing his magic...in Common Magic.)

Of course, the player-characters are exceptions (i.e., exceptional)... this is a large part of why they merit both Common Magic and Specialized Magic unless they choose to concentrate.

OK, I wrote this huge rant on the subject (twice now actually), but just erased it. It all comes down to this. The text is a tad ambiguous on this at some points. But Michael's interperetation seems to be the correct one to me (and most other players as I read them) for a few reasons. What is clear is that it says that all characters get 5 common magic abilities. And whence the rating for these if not from the common magic keyword rated at 17? The more you read, the more it seems clear to me that this is the intention, just not well enumerated.

That doesn't mean that it's impossible for an NPC or even a PC not to have a common magic keyword. But the chargen methods aren't meant to enable creation of every character possible in Glorantha - just a certain set of playable ones. Further, if you read the Advanced Development rules you'll see how "soft" the whole chargen is. Note how in my Shadow World game, I just had you guys wing all the occupations and homeland stuff that I didn't have? None of that, IMO, violates any of the chargen rules as written. It's all suggestions, really, none of it meant in any way to be definitive of all characters, much less of some sort of internal magical physics.

If all the examples have the common magic keyword at 17, and other magic jeyowrds at 17, are they all supposed to be exceptions to some rule that you normally get one or the other, or isn't it more likely that the text just does a bad job of getting across that all characters should have both?

Mike

Mike,

I don't know what you are trying to say. The rules are very clear regarding magic keywords:

A hero can have the common magic keyword or a specialized magic keyword (both if the narrator allows). If your hero has only one magic keyword, he may concentrate his magic at no additional cost.

Actually, every hero gets five Common Magic picks unless he or she has concentrated his or her specialized magic.

Look at the sample characters, both in the book and on the Issaries website. All those without concentrated magic have both Common Magic and a Specialized Magic keyword, save for Galan the Bison Rider, who has only Common Magic by player choice. In the Keywords section (p. 18) of the Heroes chapter, it states that allowing a hero to have both keywords is up to the narrator. However, in the Magical Abilities section (p. 29) of the Abilities chapter, it states that heroes are exceptional and likely have a great deal of magic. It also states that most people have a Common Magic keyword, which the Common Magic section (p. 104) of the Basic Magic chapter reinforces.

Side question that I might have missed the answer to: Do you have to write "commen magic" or something like in your narrative or list to get commen magic? Or do all characters have access to any five comman magic abilities, no matter what?

--Victor

TheLHF wrote: Do you have to write "commen magic" or something like in your narrative or list to get commen magic?

Peter Nordstrand wrote: Common magic must be included in the narrative. When using the list method, it should be included with the other keywords, but not as part of the 10 other abilities.

Hi Michael,

I hope I didn't come off as too grumpy earlier.

RaconteurX wrote: Peter is incorrect, sadly. Common Magic does not need to be included in the hero's narrative, unless the player wishes to have additional abilities above and beyond the five granted by default or the narrator forbids the hero from having more than one magic keyword unless he pays part of his or her 100 words.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Mike Holmes wrote: 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).

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

Mike Holmes wrote: 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).

xiombarg wrote: 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.

(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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Calithena wrote: 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.