In a message dated 1/19/04 9:00:31 AM Mountain Standard Time, andrewdj54701@yahoo.com writes: >--- RulingNations@aol.com wrote: > >>I assume Prevalence isn't just those individuals who actively practice >>magic? It also includes people who study it without practicing it? In >>the case of Exquaestio this would also include those who can support >>espiri without being able to focus the magic themselves? At Terrible >>(-3), between 2% and 6% of can actively work or support magic? > >My understanding has been that Prevalence wasn't a measure of how many >talented individuals there are in a society, or at least, it's not a >direct measure. I've always understood Prevalence to be a measure of >how ubiquitous Magic is in a society: low Prevalence means that magic >is a rare thing, performed only occasionally or in private, while a >high Prevalence of magic in a society means that the use of magic is >constant, public, and completely integrated into everyday life. So prevalence is a combination of integration, display, and access? What is the balance? Say, between private use (everyone has enchanted lights and magical firestarters) and public display (magics at the harbor mouth keep hostile vessels from entering)? If magic is, in theory, available to everyone, but only the upper classes can, in actuality, afford it, how does that affect the rating? What about societies where magic is expected, but only on special occasions, like births, deaths, and the like? >>Now what does Diversity mean? At Poor (-2) does this mean that >>Exquaestio's magic covers between 7% and 19% of the potential range? >>Now, 24 "terms" cover the whole potential of espiri magic, so at Poor >>they should have access to 1 to 5 "terms?" (Oops, I wanted them to >>have access to 6.) Rohain, on the other hand, have only 10 "terms" and >>so should use only 1 to 2 of them? How does the range of ability >>within each "term" work out? > >Diversity refers to how many different approaches to the use of magic >your society allows/teaches/tolerates. In relation to what? Mirrish hostility to Onagir shamanism doesn't seem to reduce their magical diversity (Superb). They seem to restrict necromancy and diabolism as well, and I imagine there are religious practices they don't approve of either. How can this lead to Superb Diversity? >To use Exquaestio as an example, Poor Diversity probably means that >*only* the espiri and rohain styles of magic are taught/tolerated. High >Diversity in magic means that a great range of approaches to magic use >are common in the society. So diversity doesn't apply within a magical style, only between magical styles? Why is this different from the other determinants? How many new magical styles would have to appear to decrease everyone's Diversity in the game? Could it be simply a single style with enormous potential? >>The big problem is Sophistication. What can be accomplished with a >>Fair (0)? What sort of Guidelines are there? If an espiri can gather >>100 people and move 7.3 metric tons at 1.0 kilometers per hour for an >>entire work shift is this Fair Sophistication? What about moving 3.6 >>metric tons at 10 kilometers per hour for one minute? How does the >>limited number of people who can actually do this (as opposed to >>something else) fit in? > >Sophistication determines the depth to which your society has explored >the magical techniques available to them under their Diversity >determinant. Again, using Exquaestio as an example, a Fair >Sophistication would probably mean that, in the fields of espiri- and >rohain-style magic use, your society has a moderately advanced >understanding of the techniques and principles involved, and your >magic-users are capable of producing moderately complex effects. For >comparison, if the Sophistication of magic is, say, Poor, the magic >users in that society may only be capable of producing very crude or >very broad effects, and they don't really have much understanding of >*why* their spells work, just that they do. On the other hand, in a >society where the Sophistication of magic is Superb, only a few secrets >of their schools of magic remain undiscovered by the society's mages, >and they are capable of producing very, very complex and subtle >effects. This doesn't make sense at all. First this says that Sophistication is relative to the magical styles in use. This would means that sophistication means different things in different cultures. A culture with a Miserable Sophistication might be able to do more than a culture with a Legendary sophistication! Also, Mirrish sophistication is Legendary. Does this mean that there's nothing of magic left for them to discover? Yet are balanced in power with cultures of less magic. Jefferson (Exquaestio) http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
