Subject: Re: Unidentified subject!
From: Tommi Leino (namhas@majik.netti.fi)
Date: Wed Aug 18 1999 - 17:11:27 EEST
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Juha Jantunen wrote: > Fundamentally different? Yet all based on the same thing? I wouldn't > consider that fundamentally different... ;) Agreed. > >The magical subsystems have limitations concerning what > >symbols are available. For example, elementalists might > >not have \"plantkind\", \"flesh\" and \"nature\" symbols. > > ...but since one can learn any system one wants (?), is there much point > in doing this? Could simply be that magicians in a given region are only > using certain symbols for reasons other than "universal law"... Tradition, > rules of society, the prefenreces of their god(s), or something... Better. > >Also, the reason we have classes is that not all symbol > >types are available for all classes. Like divine magic > > Ach... too much playing MUME again with its classless system. So Majik > WILL have character classes...? mmmm.... bad for the roleplaying > element... very artifical IMO... (if you meant something else, please, > explain it to poor stupid me... -_-') Whaaat! Majik has never had (not counting Majik 2 and 1) character classes and will not. -- Tommi Leino / Majik 3D project namhas@majik.netti.fi http://majik.netti.fi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 00:03:14 EET