I remember when Marlow and another friend collaborated on a blog called "Role versus Player", where
Role is personified as someone who cares about the plot and character development than anything else, and opposing
Player, who is trying to win the game because that's what he thinks the goal is, and prioritizes the skill progression of the character above all else. It's too bad I lost the link to that blog, but I loved it as it made a clear distinction between those players. Both personas wrote well-reasoned arguments.
It's clear that said writer is a
Player. If he's afraid to see his character screwed up because of Overgiving, then he should have paid heed to "Do's and Don'ts of roleplaying magic in Mizahar":
Don't take magic unless you are prepared to see your PC changed, messed up, maimed or killed by it. Magic is terribly serious in Mizahar - it's great as long as it works, then it gets horrible.While
Player might see Overgiving as a limitation, a
Role sees it as a character development tool. What happens when the character loses all his magic? What will be left of him? How would he react when he starts growing another limb made entirely of ice? Or if his body starts getting covered by granite plates?
Metagaming - now that's the word I've been looking for! Despite having an impressive knowledge of game mechanics, would anyone want their character to appear this way?