Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: WYTIWYG [was Re: Essence]
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:32:01 -0400
> > The thing I remember clearest about the definition is that I didn't like
> > it at all... I mean, what's wrong with the "aura integrity" theory?
Jeez,
> > next you know, we'll be back at the WYTIWYG-theory that seems to have
> > vanished from the list together with Jani :)
>
> The WYTIWYG theory, which is my invention btw, was intended only to
> explain the different magical disciplines and the vastly superior
abilities
> of the immortal elves. Cyber is a pretty clear-cut affair, not enough
> body left; you die.
>
If what you're talking about is the What You Think Is What You Get theory,
not only is it a good justification for differing magical disciplines, it
is, IMO, the semi-canon reasoning behind it. Tom Dowd [god rest his soul,
sorta] seemed to be a big proponent of this. [Seemed to be, hell; he WAS.]
It's something I've talked about before a little, on list. It seems I'm not
the only one who's read Feist, or rather that Feist and Dowd seemed to be
thinking the same thing at somewhat the same time.

And I like it, much like all the Dowd stuff. <cry> God, I miss him. </cry>

But, no, it shouldn't be a reasoning behind essence. I liked the
Aura-integrity theory. I don't see any reason to change it.
Message no. 2
From: Tony Rabiola argent1@****.com
Subject: WYTIWYG [was Re: Essence]
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:15:37 -0500
> And I like it, much like all the Dowd stuff. <cry> God, I miss him.
</cry>
>

I agree with you. Tom did have a great love for the game, and it showed
with his enthusiam.

> But, no, it shouldn't be a reasoning behind essence. I liked the
> Aura-integrity theory. I don't see any reason to change it.
>

I'm going to continue using it as well...and soon we can muddy the waters
further with new body index rules...::grin::

Argent
Message no. 3
From: Martin Steffens (Berlitz) v-marts@*********.com
Subject: WYTIWYG [was Re: Essence]
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:17:48 -0700
From: abortion_engine [mailto:abortion_engine@*******.com]

> If what you're talking about is the What You Think Is What You Get theory,
> not only is it a good justification for differing magical disciplines, it
> is, IMO, the semi-canon reasoning behind it.

Ack, I meant to say that I came up with the term, not the principle. Bad
editing contributed to the confusion. Apologies.

Shall go now.

BTW: Dowd was very good *snif*

Martin Steffens
e-mail: v-marts@*********.com
phone: 70 666 44
Message no. 4
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: WYTIWYG [was Re: Essence]
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:22:54 -0400
> > If what you're talking about is the What You Think Is What You Get
theory,
> > not only is it a good justification for differing magical disciplines,
it
> > is, IMO, the semi-canon reasoning behind it.
>
> Ack, I meant to say that I came up with the term, not the principle. Bad
> editing contributed to the confusion. Apologies.
>

I assumed that's what you meant. Don't worry. We don't think you're a
helpless egomaniac. :)

> BTW: Dowd was very good *snif*
>

I'm glad someone else thinks so. My group was tired of feeling like the only
one. :)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about WYTIWYG [was Re: Essence], you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!