Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: kyle kohler <kkohler@**.UCR.EDU>
Subject: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 21:41:50 -0700
Okay, as an alternative (as suggested by Rob) here it goes:

Tech Points Cost for a Psionic Category: Level+1
Thus to get TK at 1, it costs 2 points, at level 2 it
costs 3, etc. It might be better to just keep it a the level, but who knows?

Note: You cannot have a power at a force higher than your rating
in the category the power is under.

Karma Cost for a Completely New Category (level 1): 5 points

Karm Cost for raising a category by one: New Level x 2

How's that? This now makes my example character even weaker as
he would have had to spend 6 points for TK and Telepathy, and 4 for
Psychometabolics, plus 4 more for Divination (Danger Sense power).

Trust me, Psionics won't be all powerful. They have the
potential to be, but hell, so do mages. And the mage will probably reach
the higher power levels first.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% % % %
% Kyle Kohler % Love your enemies, % This space %
% % % %
% kkohler@**.ucr.edu % It'll confuse the % Unintentionally %
% % % %
% C.S. Major % hell out of them % left blank %
% % % %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Message no. 2
From: Darth Vader <j07c@***.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 14:42:55 +0100
> Okay, as an alternative (as suggested by Rob) here it goes:
>
> Tech Points Cost for a Psionic Category: Level+1
> Thus to get TK at 1, it costs 2 points, at level 2 it
> costs 3, etc. It might be better to just keep it a the level, but who knows?
>
> Note: You cannot have a power at a force higher than your rating
> in the category the power is under.
> Karma Cost for a Completely New Category (level 1): 5 points

Sorry but what does (level 1): 5 points mean ? levelx5 points ?

> Karm Cost for raising a category by one: New Level x 2

Sounds good to me. I have only one thig to add/ask what will be the
psi pool based on? I am more for a category based thing.

--
Strong am I with the Force... but not that strong!
Twilight is upon me and soon night must fall.
That is the way of things ... the way of the Force.

GCS d>d- h s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UAVSL++>UAVSL+++ p--(aren't we all?)
L+>L+++ 3 N++ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ !5 !j- r+++(--) !G
v(++) b+++ D++ b- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 3
From: kyle kohler <kkohler@**.UCR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 04:59:42 -0700
On Wed, 20 Jul 1994, Darth Vader wrote:

> > Okay, as an alternative (as suggested by Rob) here it goes:
> >
> > Tech Points Cost for a Psionic Category: Level+1
> > Thus to get TK at 1, it costs 2 points, at level 2 it
> > costs 3, etc. It might be better to just keep it a the level, but who knows?
> >
> > Note: You cannot have a power at a force higher than your rating
> > in the category the power is under.
> > Karma Cost for a Completely New Category (level 1): 5 points
>
> Sorry but what does (level 1): 5 points mean ? levelx5 points ?


Each category has a rating. No power in that category can exceed
the rating of the category. When you learn a new category, it costs a
straight 5 Karma to get that Category at level one. Clearer?

>
> > Karm Cost for raising a category by one: New Level x 2
>
> Sounds good to me. I have only one thig to add/ask what will be the
> psi pool based on? I am more for a category based thing.
>

My personal opinion is to base it on the Psionic Projection
skill, like the Magic Pool is based on Sorcery.


Kyle Kohler

For the love of God, let me sleep!
Message no. 4
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 13:05:04 +0100
On Tue, 19 Jul 1994, kyle kohler wrote:

> Tech Points Cost for a Psionic Category: Level+1
> Thus to get TK at 1, it costs 2 points, at level 2 it
> costs 3, etc. It might be better to just keep it a the level, but who knows?

Keep it at level.

> Karma Cost for a Completely New Category (level 1): 5 points

Uh, I'd do it at 1 for 1st, 2 for second, 3 for third, etc. PLUS study
time and lots of =Y=.

> Karm Cost for raising a category by one: New Level x 2

A bit excessive, don;'t you think?

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or anyone else, dammit
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GJ/CM d- H-- s-:++>s-:+ g+ p? au+ a- w++ v* C++(++++) UL++++$
P+>++ L++$ 3- E---- N+++ K+++ W M+ V-- -po+(---)>$ Y++ t+ 5+++
j R+++$ G- tv+ b+ D+ B--- e+>++(*) u** h* f r-->+++ !n y++**
Message no. 5
From: kyle kohler <kkohler@**.UCR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 15:42:55 -0700
On Wed, 20 Jul 1994, Robert A. Hayden wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jul 1994, kyle kohler wrote:
>
> > Tech Points Cost for a Psionic Category: Level+1
> > Thus to get TK at 1, it costs 2 points, at level 2 it
> > costs 3, etc. It might be better to just keep it a the level, but
who knows? >
> Keep it at level.
>

Yeah, that would be better, otherwise, a Psi is only going to
have a few powers at the start (like three or four).

> > Karma Cost for a Completely New Category (level 1): 5 points
>
> Uh, I'd do it at 1 for 1st, 2 for second, 3 for third, etc. PLUS study
> time and lots of =Y=.
>

My reasoning behind the straight 5 for a new category is that it
represents the Psi expanding his awareness of himself (not an easy thing
to do) and thus would represent a lot of advancement and development of
the character (i.e. Karma). And I don't think in the game, that you
should be able to buy a new category at anything higher than one (i.e.
skipping the cost of level one). If you have the Karma, you could buy it
at two, but still pay the cost for level one. And why would it cost a
lot of =Y=? It all takes place in the mind. Time would definitely be a
factor, but I don't think it would cost that much, really.

> > Karm Cost for raising a category by one: New Level x 2
>
> A bit excessive, don;'t you think?
>

Probably, I was looking at the advancement of skills chart at the
time. It would probably be better if it was current level x 2 or
something like that.


Kyle Kohler

Who personally helped put the 50+ messages on NERPS last night!
Message no. 6
From: Darth Vader <j07c@***.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 12:16:50 +0100
> > > Tech Points Cost for a Psionic Category: Level+1
> > > Thus to get TK at 1, it costs 2 points, at level 2 it
> > > costs 3, etc. It might be better to just keep it a the level, but
> who knows? >
> > Keep it at level.
> Yeah, that would be better, otherwise, a Psi is only going to
> have a few powers at the start (like three or four).

Thats not bad at all, if he gets the chance to use his disciplines
(categories) to duplicate powers that he doesnt have. Flexibility costs man.
On the other hand, a psi that want to specialize himself (get lotsa powers)
can buy only one or two discipliones and invest lotsa points in powers,
that would make him e.g. a very effective healer, or a cool PK dude.
PK is Phychokinesis :)

> My reasoning behind the straight 5 for a new category is that it
> represents the Psi expanding his awareness of himself (not an easy thing
> to do) and thus would represent a lot of advancement and development of
> the character (i.e. Karma). And I don't think in the game, that you
> should be able to buy a new category at anything higher than one (i.e.
> skipping the cost of level one). If you have the Karma, you could buy it
> at two, but still pay the cost for level one. And why would it cost a
> lot of =Y=? It all takes place in the mind. Time would definitely be a
> factor, but I don't think it would cost that much, really.
>
> > > Karm Cost for raising a category by one: New Level x 2
> > A bit excessive, don;'t you think?

Do you want all psis to have access to all categories?
Cause if you allow them to buy them with karma after character generation,
thats whats going to happen. I have told this more than once, psis are
not mages - they should not have access to all the psis disciplines-powers
and even if they do it should cost them dearly.

> Kyle Kohler
>
> Who personally helped put the 50+ messages on NERPS last night!

Darth Vader

Who was there to keep him going :)

--
Strong am I with the Force... but not that strong!
Twilight is upon me and soon night must fall.
That is the way of things ... the way of the Force.

GCS d>d- h s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UAVSL++>UAVSL+++ p--(aren't we all?)
L+>L+++ 3 N++ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ !5 !j- r+++(--) !G
v(++) b+++ D++ b- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 7
From: kyle kohler <kkohler@**.UCR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 03:27:54 -0700
On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Darth Vader wrote:

>
> Do you want all psis to have access to all categories?
> Cause if you allow them to buy them with karma after character generation,
> thats whats going to happen. I have told this more than once, psis are
> not mages - they should not have access to all the psis disciplines-powers
> and even if they do it should cost them dearly.
>

I think it would be plausible to think that there would be those
with sufficient Psionic Power to have all the categories. It'll cost
them gobs of Karma to do it though. Most Psi's will be Barghest Bait
long before they have a chance to get all the categories and a good
collection of powers in those categories. I figure, only a handful of
Psis are even going to be initiates, let alone have all the categories
and most of the powers. I don't want to limit them though. I want to be
able to play a character with infinite potential. Limiting the number of
categories will prevent that.


> > Kyle Kohler
> >
> > Who personally helped put the 50+ messages on NERPS last night!
>
> Darth Vader
>
> Who was there to keep him going :)
>

Kyle Kohler

Amen Brother!
Message no. 8
From: Darth Vader <j07c@***.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 13:30:27 +0100
> I think it would be plausible to think that there would be those
> with sufficient Psionic Power to have all the categories. It'll cost
> them gobs of Karma to do it though. Most Psi's will be Barghest Bait
> long before they have a chance to get all the categories and a good
> collection of powers in those categories. I figure, only a handful of
> Psis are even going to be initiates, let alone have all the categories
> and most of the powers. I don't want to limit them though. I want to be
> able to play a character with infinite potential. Limiting the number of
> categories will prevent that.

Ok I'll stop bitching around and agree with you. However I feel that
if full psis have the power to access all categories, then adepts should have
access to about 3 and wild psis could get only one.

> > > Kyle Kohler
> > > Who personally helped put the 50+ messages on NERPS last night!
> > Darth Vader
> > Who was there to keep him going :)
> Kyle Kohler
> Amen Brother!
What happened to those wimps you wanted to call ?
I mean Solo and that hippie Chewbacka :)

--
Strong am I with the Force... but not that strong!
Twilight is upon me and soon night must fall.
That is the way of things ... the way of the Force.

GCS d>d- h s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UAVSL++>UAVSL+++ p--(aren't we all?)
L+>L+++ 3 N++ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ !5 !j- r+++(--) !G
v(++) b+++ D++ b- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 9
From: kyle kohler <kkohler@**.UCR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 03:47:33 -0700
On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Darth Vader wrote:

[ my oh so well written arguements deleted =) ]

> Ok I'll stop bitching around and agree with you. However I feel that
> if full psis have the power to access all categories, then adepts should have
> access to about 3 and wild psis could get only one.
>

Although we haven't really talked about what exactly will be the
rules for Adepts and Wild Psis, that sounds like a good idea. Maybe I'll
write a little something up on Adepts and Wild Psis tomorrow.

Kyle Kohler

Who though no one read his ever-changing .sig
Message no. 10
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 13:31:21 +0100
On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Darth Vader wrote:

> Do you want all psis to have access to all categories?

If a psi can do it, yes.

> Cause if you allow them to buy them with karma after character generation,
> thats whats going to happen. I have told this more than once, psis are
> not mages - they should not have access to all the psis disciplines-powers
> and even if they do it should cost them dearly.

Essentially, SR allows a mage to take all powers. It takes time, but you
can do it. A PSI should have the same ability. The question is how long
that takes and how much work/karma goes into it.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or anyone else, dammit
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GJ/CM d- H-- s-:++>s-:+ g+ p? au+ a- w++ v* C++(++++) UL++++$
P+>++ L++$ 3- E---- N+++ K+++ W M+ V-- -po+(---)>$ Y++ t+ 5+++
j R+++$ G- tv+ b+ D+ B--- e+>++(*) u** h* f r-->+++ !n y++**
Message no. 11
From: "S. Keith Graham" <vapspcx@***.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 11:04:24 -0400
>> Do you want all psis to have access to all categories?

>If a psi can do it, yes.

Question 1: Which priority PSI? All PSIs can eventually have access
to all powers? Even a Wild PSI or an Adept? I think that's VERY
inappropriate, at least for the last two.

>Essentially, SR allows a mage to take all powers. It takes time, but you
>can do it. A PSI should have the same ability. The question is how long
>that takes and how much work/karma goes into it.

A mage can essentially *start* the game with 13 different spells spread
out throughout all 5 categories, and have a pretty wide range of the
available options. And they can spend a mere 100 karma, and get 20
more spells at force 5. (Shaman's actually might effectively not be
able to use certain spells, which makes for a neat role-play opportunity.
Shamanic and Elemental adepts certainly can't use all spell areas.)

In the fiction, in universes where PSI is well understood, its
common for someone to be a "TK 10, Healing 0, Telepathy 1, Clairvoyance 4".
(In terms that they use to measure power.) And that is an innate,
limit of their body/mind. (B5's TK's for example.)

Personally, I'd like to have them restricted on Power (but not finesse)
at character creation, but not reach that power limit until later. (And
if someone wants to spread their total power over all PSI areas, then they
can be lower powered at lots of things, and push finesse. But they may
well get overpowered by an Adept or a Wild in the Adept's chosen area.)

Keith Graham
vapspcx@***.gatech.edu
Message no. 12
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 11:44:52 +0100
On Sat, 23 Jul 1994, S. Keith Graham wrote:

> >> Do you want all psis to have access to all categories?
>
> >If a psi can do it, yes.
>
> Question 1: Which priority PSI? All PSIs can eventually have access
> to all powers? Even a Wild PSI or an Adept? I think that's VERY
> inappropriate, at least for the last two.

I meant Full PSIs. Wilds and Adepts are limited.

> In the fiction, in universes where PSI is well understood, its
> common for someone to be a "TK 10, Healing 0, Telepathy 1, Clairvoyance 4".
> (In terms that they use to measure power.) And that is an innate,
> limit of their body/mind. (B5's TK's for example.)

Yes, but even a B5 P10, for example, can continue training to learn how to
use their powers more efficiently. So while there is a theoretical upper
limit, training is really the ability to use the power BETTER. Look at
it this way, a Wild PSI is maybe a P3, an Adept a P5, and a Full P8 to P12.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or anyone else, dammit
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GJ/CM d- H-- s-:++>s-:+ g+ p? au+ a- w++ v* C++(++++) UL++++$
P+>++ L++$ 3- E---- N+++ K+++ W M+ V-- -po+(---)>$ Y++ t+ 5+++
j R+++$ G- tv+ b+ D+ B--- e+>++(*) u** h* f r-->+++ !n y++**
Message no. 13
From: "S. Keith Graham" <vapspcx@***.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 15:53:24 -0400
>> In the fiction, in universes where PSI is well understood, its
>> common for someone to be a "TK 10, Healing 0, Telepathy 1, Clairvoyance
4".
>> (In terms that they use to measure power.) And that is an innate,
>> limit of their body/mind. (B5's TK's for example.)

>Yes, but even a B5 P10, for example, can continue training to learn how to
>use their powers more efficiently. So while there is a theoretical upper
>limit, training is really the ability to use the power BETTER. Look at
>it this way, a Wild PSI is maybe a P3, an Adept a P5, and a Full P8 to P12.

However, there are two related factors here:

#1: Not all humans in B5 have access to the same powers. (TK, for example,
is the oft' missing one). And a Wild PSI (Firestarter being the classic)
may have a huge amount of raw power in one special area. So a single
P rating is probably not appropriate (or is used in the series to
only refer to Telepathy.) Also, its probably appropriate for a P12
to not have access (*period*) to some powers, if we use a similiar model.

#2: You make a distinction between natural power, and training. The question
is, can the natural power ever be exceeded (safely)? (i.e. physical
track drain.) (Given it may also take a while to get up to the maxiumum
power, as characters may well start with "latent" powers.)

#3: Given that we have P ratings in 6 different areas, should we allow
Medium powered PSIs to actually have very low "maxiumum natural powers"
in two or even three areas? (rather than perhaps very much power in
one area.) This is the same kind of thing as a Shamanic Adept.

I think we should have seperate ratings, and at character creation,
for whatever reason, there should be some characters that don't
(and can't ever) take certain powers. (Even full PSIs.)

Characters should start at below thier maximum ratings in most cases,
and work towards them as the game progresses, but they will hit them
in a medium-long game, if they push a non-major area. (i.e. I am
a TK specialist, with a very powerful native TK, but only so-so
Telepathic power. Due to circumstances, I push Telepathy very hard over
the campaign. Eventually, I will hit my maximum native power, which
means I can only push my finesse and skill to increase my Telepathy
ability, but natural power can't ever increase further.)

Keith Graham
vapspcx@***.gatech.edu
Message no. 14
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 15:24:10 +0100
On Sat, 23 Jul 1994, S. Keith Graham wrote:

> #1: Not all humans in B5 have access to the same powers. (TK, for example,
> is the oft' missing one). And a Wild PSI (Firestarter being the classic)
> may have a huge amount of raw power in one special area. So a single
> P rating is probably not appropriate (or is used in the series to
> only refer to Telepathy.) Also, its probably appropriate for a P12
> to not have access (*period*) to some powers, if we use a similiar model.

Well, a P# rating doesn't really work for the RN system because there is
no real numerical measurement of total power. I did it not to propose
it, but because I was trying to address the point of comparison with B5.

Essentially, it boils down to this.
There are many people that have one ability and that can get very
good at it.
There are fewer people that can get >1 similiar ability.
There are very few people that can learn anything psionic.

> #2: You make a distinction between natural power, and training. The question
> is, can the natural power ever be exceeded (safely)? (i.e. physical
> track drain.) (Given it may also take a while to get up to the maxiumum
> power, as characters may well start with "latent" powers.)

Training (self dicipline or structured training) is the only way to get
better. You can pump more power into an ability than you are trained for
by allocating Pool dice to it at the time of use. If the drain to too
high, you will hurt yourself.

> #3: Given that we have P ratings in 6 different areas, should we allow
> Medium powered PSIs to actually have very low "maxiumum natural powers"
> in two or even three areas? (rather than perhaps very much power in
> one area.) This is the same kind of thing as a Shamanic Adept.

P ratings are bogus and should be ignored for the purposes of the RN
discussion. As for the other question, I do not know.

> I think we should have seperate ratings, and at character creation,
> for whatever reason, there should be some characters that don't
> (and can't ever) take certain powers. (Even full PSIs.)

Seems silly and artifical.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or anyone else, dammit
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GJ/CM d- H-- s-:++>s-:+ g+ p? au+ a- w++ v* C++(++++) UL++++$
P+>++ L++$ 3- E---- N+++ K+++ W M+ V-- -po+(---)>$ Y++ t+ 5+++
j R+++$ G- tv+ b+ D+ B--- e+>++(*) u** h* f r-->+++ !n y++**
Message no. 15
From: "S. Keith Graham" <vapspcx@***.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 16:44:40 -0400
>> I think we should have seperate ratings, and at character creation,
>> for whatever reason, there should be some characters that don't
>> (and can't ever) take certain powers. (Even full PSIs.)

>Seems silly and artifical.

Owl Shaman: +2 to all magical target numbers during the Day,
+2 to all target numbers in direct sunlight.

Snake Shaman: -1 die modifier to any spell cast during combat.

Very artificial.

As to silly:

There are characters that, no matter what, just can't ever seem
to get TK down. Period.

In most RPGs, if you design a character that can't do something
you get a little more power someplace else. In this context,
I'd suggest a bunch of "natural maximums", and for a full PSI,
they can only total up to a certain number. So if you leave
one at 0 (or -1, or -2, or whatever the base number), then
you get 1 (or 2 or 3) higher maxima on other areas. (Using -2
as a starting number, you have to spend at least 3 points to
have a "Power Rating", to encourage people to specialize.
Assuming specialist PSIs are what we have in mind.)

Keith Graham
vapspcx@***.gatech.edu
Message no. 16
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 16:06:22 +0100
On Sat, 23 Jul 1994, S. Keith Graham wrote:

> Owl Shaman: +2 to all magical target numbers during the Day,
> +2 to all target numbers in direct sunlight.
>
> Snake Shaman: -1 die modifier to any spell cast during combat.
>
> Very artificial.

You'll note though that the shame can still cast those other spells, just
at internal ROLE-PLAYING penalties.

> As to silly:
>
> There are characters that, no matter what, just can't ever seem
> to get TK down. Period.

Yes, they are called Adepts. They have a different dicipline.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or anyone else, dammit
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GJ/CM d- H-- s-:++>s-:+ g+ p? au+ a- w++ v* C++(++++) UL++++$
P+>++ L++$ 3- E---- N+++ K+++ W M+ V-- -po+(---)>$ Y++ t+ 5+++
j R+++$ G- tv+ b+ D+ B--- e+>++(*) u** h* f r-->+++ !n y++**
Message no. 17
From: "S. Keith Graham" <vapspcx@***.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 22:33:11 -0400
>From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>

>> As to silly:
>>
>> There are characters that, no matter what, just can't ever seem
>> to get TK down. Period.

>Yes, they are called Adepts. They have a different dicipline.

Last shot at this:

Adepts can't have 2 (or 4) disciplines at really good numbers, and be
"head blind" in the rest.

I think having potential gaps in a Full Psi's arsonal (which can
be role-played around in other ways... You may not need TK if you
have sufficient mental illusion) would make for a more interesting
character.. And lead to less clone characters later down the line...

If all Full PSIs have the exact same potentials, then some variety is
lost.

This isn't to say that a Full PSI (at creation) couldn't have access
to all areas, but if he did, he'd necessarily (for game balance) be
weaker than someone who did go "blind" in spots.

Keith
Message no. 18
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 12:41:41 +0100
On Sat, 23 Jul 1994, S. Keith Graham wrote:

> Last shot at this:
>
> Adepts can't have 2 (or 4) disciplines at really good numbers, and be
> "head blind" in the rest.

Huh?

> I think having potential gaps in a Full Psi's arsonal (which can
> be role-played around in other ways... You may not need TK if you
> have sufficient mental illusion) would make for a more interesting
> character.. And lead to less clone characters later down the line...

A full psi has the most choice and the largest chance for variations with
other full psis.

> If all Full PSIs have the exact same potentials, then some variety is
> lost.

No it's not. 99.99% of PSIs aren't going to be able to even START to
take all of the abilities. There is more variety here and a larger
chance for some great role=playing.

> This isn't to say that a Full PSI (at creation) couldn't have access
> to all areas, but if he did, he'd necessarily (for game balance) be
> weaker than someone who did go "blind" in spots.

Right, by having to spend tech in more diciplines, will initially make
him weaker than a person that dumped everything into one.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or anyone else, dammit
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GJ/CM d- H-- s-:++>s-:+ g+ p? au+ a- w++ v* C++(++++) UL++++$
P+>++ L++$ 3- E---- N+++ K+++ W M+ V-- -po+(---)>$ Y++ t+ 5+++
j R+++$ G- tv+ b+ D+ B--- e+>++(*) u** h* f r-->+++ !n y++**
Message no. 19
From: Sean Holland <sholland@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 11:26:35 -0700
> Do you want all psis to have access to all categories?
Perhap they should choose 3 that the psi would pay base cost for
(with maybe 1 specialty with a small price break), 2 others at say 1.5
cost and a final category at 2 or 3 times cost? Forcing some
specialization (but not totally limiting the Psi).
Thoughts?
Message no. 20
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 17:31:11 +0100
On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Sean Holland wrote:

> > Do you want all psis to have access to all categories?
> Perhap they should choose 3 that the psi would pay base cost for
> (with maybe 1 specialty with a small price break), 2 others at say 1.5
> cost and a final category at 2 or 3 times cost? Forcing some
> specialization (but not totally limiting the Psi).
> Thoughts?

Seems pointlessly artifical. Just do the same thing as mages.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or anyone else, dammit
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GJ/CM d- H-- s-:++>s-:+ g+ p? au+ a- w++ v* C++(++++) UL++++$
P+>++ L++$ 3- E---- N+++ K+++ W M+ V-- -po+(---)>$ Y++ t+ 5+++
j R+++$ G- tv+ b+ D+ B--- e+>++(*) u** h* f r-->+++ !n y++**
Message no. 21
From: Darth Vader <j07c@***.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 11:24:58 +0100
> > > Do you want all psis to have access to all categories?
> > Perhap they should choose 3 that the psi would pay base cost for
> > (with maybe 1 specialty with a small price break), 2 others at say 1.5
> > cost and a final category at 2 or 3 times cost? Forcing some
> > specialization (but not totally limiting the Psi).
> > Thoughts?
> Seems pointlessly artifical. Just do the same thing as mages.

Ok Rob sez, do the same as mages. Lets see A full mage has 5
spell categories, astral projection, astral percieving, conjuring of 4
(or more) types and ritual sorcery at his disposal. That makes a total of
minimum 12 Abilities, adepts get either 5 spell categories and ritual magic
(sorcerer), one category, projection and percieving, and one sort of
conjuring (elem/sham). Need I go on, or did this make things clear for you
Rob???? magical adepts get more that one magical ability.

And please, I dont want to flame or get flamed, I just want to
help write a cool Psi system. So PLEASE be a litle more constructive with
your critisism. Just shooting other peaples ideas down, without even
trying to understand what they are trying to say doesnt help much.

--
Strong am I with the Force... but not that strong!
Twilight is upon me and soon night must fall.
That is the way of things ... the way of the Force.

GCS d>d- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UAVSL++>UAVSL+++ P--(aren't we all?)
L+>L+++ 3 E--- N++ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ !5 !j- R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b+++ D++ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 22
From: Darth Vader <j07c@***.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 11:37:36 +0100
> > Do you want all psis to have access to all categories?
> Perhap they should choose 3 that the psi would pay base cost for
> (with maybe 1 specialty with a small price break), 2 others at say 1.5
> cost and a final category at 2 or 3 times cost? Forcing some
> specialization (but not totally limiting the Psi).
> Thoughts?

This sounds reasonable, I think I'll adopt it :)

--
Strong am I with the Force... but not that strong!
Twilight is upon me and soon night must fall.
That is the way of things ... the way of the Force.

GCS d>d- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UAVSL++>UAVSL+++ P--(aren't we all?)
L+>L+++ 3 E--- N++ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ !5 !j- R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b+++ D++ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?
Message no. 23
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 11:41:22 +0100
On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, Darth Vader wrote:

> Ok Rob sez, do the same as mages. Lets see A full mage has 5
> spell categories, astral projection, astral percieving, conjuring of 4
> (or more) types and ritual sorcery at his disposal. That makes a total of
> minimum 12 Abilities, adepts get either 5 spell categories and ritual magic
> (sorcerer), one category, projection and percieving, and one sort of
> conjuring (elem/sham). Need I go on, or did this make things clear for you
> Rob???? magical adepts get more that one magical ability.

Alright, let's just dump adepts. We've establish no significant
difference between adepts. Sure they are limited to only three
categories according to your proposal, but hey, most full PSIs won't take
much more than that anyways.

The purpose of the Adept PSI was not to make them equal in numerical
power with magical adepts. The purpose was to design a type of PSI that,
like magical adepts, was unable to learn or perform other things. We did
this by limiting them to one dicipline (plus hacking). In turn, they
have the ability to become really good at that one ability (just like a
shamanic or socery adept). To say "pick any three categorie" doe not
limit their power, because common practice among full adepts will be to
try to min-max and limit the total number of diciplines.

> And please, I dont want to flame or get flamed, I just want to
> help write a cool Psi system. So PLEASE be a litle more constructive with
> your critisism. Just shooting other peaples ideas down, without even
> trying to understand what they are trying to say doesnt help much.

The problem is that people are just proposing ideas to come up with
different rules, violating the first and primary rule of game design,
Keep is Simple; Keep it Consistent.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or anyone else, dammit
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GJ/CM d- H-- s-:++>s-:+ g+ p? au+ a- w++ v* C++(++++) UL++++$
P+>++ L++$ 3- E---- N+++ K+++ W M+ V-- -po+(---)>$ Y++ t+ 5+++
j R+++$ G- tv+ b+ D+ B--- e+>++(*) u** h* f r-->+++ !n y++**
Message no. 24
From: Loki <jek5313@*******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 21:20:29 -0500
Hayden (DT):
--> The problem is that people are just proposing ideas to come up with
--> different rules, violating the first and primary rule of game design,
--> Keep is Simple; Keep it Consistent.

You forgot the most important of them all: Make it an extension of the
existing rules. Point-by-point critique to follow. . .




--

Dark Thought Publications & Doom Technologies, Inc.
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Psi: Cost of Powers/Categories 2.0, 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.