Re: Unidentified subject!

Subject: Re: Unidentified subject!
From: Tommi Leino (
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... ;) 


> >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...


> >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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 00:03:14 EET