Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: kyle kohler <kkohler@**.UCR.EDU>
Subject: PSI: Hacking
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 00:50:44 -0700
Okay, following my own advice, I am reposting my ideas with my
reasons and examples.
Rob proposed his idea for hacking skills. Here's mine. If a
Psionic wants to use a ability that he does not have, he uses his rating
in the discipline divided by two (rounded down, of course). Alternately,
he can use it at a lower rating if he wishes. He can use any ability
under his discipline and may use Psi Pool. The limitation is that he must
resist drain as if he had used the power at the discipline's rating.
Here's an example. Joe D. Psionic has a Telepathy Discipline with
a rating of 6. He has the ability of Mind Talk. He is about to get his
head blown off by Bob the Bad Guy. Desperate, Joe decides to try and turn
Bob's brain into Grape Jello (ooooh, my favorite!). He does not have the
Telepathic Ability of Turn Brain to Grape Jello, so he is going to have to
hack it. He decides that he's going to need all the force he can get, so
he is using his full rating for the hack. Thus, he temporarily has the
Turn Brain to Grape Jello ability at a Force of 3. He uses the power
(allocating 3 dice from his Psi-Pool) and ends up succeeding (way to go
Joe!). Now comes the bad part. Drain. Since Joe used the ability at a 3
Force, he must now resist the Drain as if he used it at a Force of 6 (not
looking good, Joe). He rolls his Willpower to resist drain (once again
using Psi-Pool) and barely stays conscious.
The reasoning: Gaining the Discipline gives the Psi an overall
understanding of said Discipline. The abilities he chooses are the one he
chose to focus on for whatever reason. In times of need, the Psi will
need to use one of the abilties that he did not focus on. Because he has
the discipline, he has a basic understanding of the power. This is
represented by being allowed to use the power at 1/2 the Discipline
rating. The drain is reasoned as follows. Even if he can somehow hack
the power, he has little idea of how much it is going to take out of him.
The power also stretches his mind in ways he is not used to (because he
did noon the effect it Psi's raw ability/power. This is not going to
change if he is using a power he is familiar with, or one he is trying for
the hell of it. It is therefore used as normal, allowing more Powerful
Psis (those with higher Psi Pools) to be able to hack powers a little
easier (still limited by the amount of dice rolled). This makes sense
because a Psi with a higher Psi Pool will most likely have had it boosted
through Karma and therefore be more experienced. Most likely, this
experience will have included hacking powers before.
Make sense?

Kyle Kohler
kkohler@*****.ucr.edu

Keeper of the Psi Recap (version 2.0 coming soon!)
Message no. 2
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@****.CAIS.COM>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 04:04:38 -0400
[kyle kohler's description deleted]

Except for the name (Hacking makes me think of Cyberpsionics), I
think we're all on pretty much the same wavelength on this one.
Let us insert it into the appropriate orifice -- whoops, I mean,
the appropriate portion of the Psionics document (I need to get some
sleep, can you tell?)
This is looking like it really should be a seperate net.book;
howzabout we follow and idea I'm blatantly stealing from Bryan Prince and
call it 'NERPS: Shadows of the Mind'? Once Psionics is finished, we'll
probably be too drained for NERPS: Shadowlore II...
Message no. 3
From: Darth Vader <j07c@***.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 18:36:38 +0100
> Okay, following my own advice, I am reposting my ideas with my
> reasons and examples.
[MUNCH] [COOL IDEAS] [MUNCH]
> Make sense?

Lotsa, I like it a lot better than Robs, cause it gives much more
flexibility to psis and actually makes 'hacked' skills strong enough to be
usefull.

--
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. 4
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 12:54:12 +0100
Kyle, I have to disagree with your appraoch, mostly because it makes
hacking too easy. Hacking an ability shoudl be something that is done
rarely and with major penalties.

By requiring that 2X Pool dice be allocated for a power, and then
limiting that power to no greater than 1/2 the Dicipline rating, we've in
turn decreased the available dice to resist drain (and thus built in a
natural balance). Plus the additional balance of being unable to augment
a hacked power with more pool dice.

You concept of simply doubling the drain seems largely artificial and
unrealistic. The PSI is not handling any more power and thus cannot be
assumed to have been encountering any additional drain. Hacking is the
ability to use the power you already have and your skill to do something
you aren't necessarily trained in. ie, I spend pool dice (skill) to do
somethign I don't know how to do.

____ 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: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 12:56:08 +0100
On Sun, 24 Jul 1994, J.D. Falk wrote:

> Except for the name (Hacking makes me think of Cyberpsionics), I
> think we're all on pretty much the same wavelength on this one.

Not really, I disagree with Kyle's hacking approach due to the
artificiality of much of it.

> This is looking like it really should be a seperate net.book;
> howzabout we follow and idea I'm blatantly stealing from Bryan Prince and
> call it 'NERPS: Shadows of the Mind'? Once Psionics is finished, we'll
> probably be too drained for NERPS: Shadowlore II...

I agree that a seperate publication would be better. Name is irrelevant
right now.

____ 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. 6
From: "S. Keith Graham" <vapspcx@***.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 08:10:30 -0400
>Kyle, I have to disagree with your appraoch, mostly because it makes
>hacking too easy. Hacking an ability shoudl be something that is done
>rarely and with major penalties.

>By requiring that 2X Pool dice be allocated for a power, and then
>limiting that power to no greater than 1/2 the Dicipline rating, we've in
>turn decreased the available dice to resist drain (and thus built in a
>natural balance). Plus the additional balance of being unable to augment
>a hacked power with more pool dice.

Here's where we need some idea of how easy "hacking" is... i.e. a concept
of what our PSIs look like, before we implement them.

Personally, I think hacking should be fairly simple for a PSI, at
some fraction of his power. You may not be really good at golf if
you've only swung a club once or twice, but you can get it down the
fairway, especially if you're a good athelete to being with (Athletics 5).

And a PSI has 3 sets of dice to roll here.

One is "Power" based, one is "skill (pool)" based, and one is
"Willpower"
(drain resistance) based. If we say that you have no skill, and only half
your power, then odds are, you won't be throwing around but 3 or 4 dice
(at the most).. Not a serious threat, but enough to make life interesting.

(This also assumes that "subconcious powers", like the Phys-adept powers
are "bought" with power points, rather than being
"skills/spells/etc.")

Keith
Message no. 7
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 10:41:49 +0100
On Mon, 25 Jul 1994, S. Keith Graham wrote:

> Here's where we need some idea of how easy "hacking" is... i.e. a concept
> of what our PSIs look like, before we implement them.

IMHO, it should be possible, but not at all easy. To hack something, it
takes every single ouch of skill that you have. You are doing a power
that you don't know how to do, using as a basis powers that you do know
that are very likely only remotely similiar.

It should simply not be easy to do.

____ 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. 8
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 00:45:55 -0500
> IMHO, it should be possible, but not at all easy. To hack
> something, it

But here's where we can make up for something.

You were the one complaining that Psis were getting weakness after
weakness piled on them...

This is where I think they should be able to make it up.

They can use other powers with relatively minor penalties.

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 9
From: Darth Vader <j07c@***.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 10:50:58 +0100
> Kyle, I have to disagree with your appraoch, mostly because it makes
> hacking too easy. Hacking an ability shoudl be something that is done
> rarely and with major penalties.

On the contrary, hacking a power should come naturally to psis, after
all they use their powers intuitively and are not based on dry formulas.

> You concept of simply doubling the drain seems largely artificial and
> unrealistic. The PSI is not handling any more power and thus cannot be
> assumed to have been encountering any additional drain. Hacking is the
> ability to use the power you already have and your skill to do something
> you aren't necessarily trained in. ie, I spend pool dice (skill) to do
> somethign I don't know how to do.

Training only makes things easier for the psi, it should'nt be
something the psi cant live without.

--
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. 10
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 17:39:04 +0100
On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Tim Skirvin wrote:

> But here's where we can make up for something.
>
> You were the one complaining that Psis were getting weakness after
> weakness piled on them...

Yes, I was complaing, but giving the PSI the ability to use and very
little penalty any power is just plain munchkinous. Balance shoudl not
be devoid of realism if at all possible.

____ 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: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 17:40:06 +0100
On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Darth Vader wrote:

> > Kyle, I have to disagree with your appraoch, mostly because it makes
> > hacking too easy. Hacking an ability shoudl be something that is done
> > rarely and with major penalties.
>
> On the contrary, hacking a power should come naturally to psis, after
> all they use their powers intuitively and are not based on dry formulas.

That's a change. two weeks ago, PSI was determined by seasoned dicipline
and training, and wasn't just a "I think I'll do whatever I want today".

____ 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. 12
From: "S. Keith Graham" <vapspcx@***.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 20:26:01 -0400
>> But here's where we can make up for something.
>>
>> You were the one complaining that Psis were getting weakness after
>> weakness piled on them...

>Yes, I was complaing, but giving the PSI the ability to use and very
>little penalty any power is just plain munchkinous. Balance shoudl not
>be devoid of realism if at all possible.

Well, my original suggestion for (full) PSIs was to give them their 6 (maybe
more) magic points to spend in the 6 categories, this forming their
"initial power rating", generating some maximum based on that, and
then letting them buy one skill for each category.

Note that all PSI powers are available in an area, but that ratings will
be *LOW*.

No tech points. (Because as it stands, PSIs have no skills to
purchase inside their area, all if it is "tech points". Which
is unbalanced compared to the 3 or 4 skills that a full mage would
need to buy at decent scores.) PSIs *can* specialize, giving
them extra dice with a given power, but loosing dice in other
areas. And then, instead of hacking, we have "pushing", which
really hurts, to gain extra power.

Personally, if we're going to slavishly copy the magic system,
then I don't see why we just don't create a new type of mage.

"Psionic. Just like a Sorcery Adept, except spells don't traverse
Astral Space. PSI Adepts only get one area of magic. Phys
adepts can't get anything Astral related. GM may veto any spell
as 'inappropriate' for a Psionic."

PSIs should be fairly different, or else I don't see much point
in designing them. (Which is why I suggested alternate cost of
'ware, a radically different system for advancement/construction,
avoiding the astral like the plague, etc.)

Keith Graham
vapspcx@***.gatech.edu
Message no. 13
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 19:57:19 +0100
On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, S. Keith Graham wrote:

> Well, my original suggestion for (full) PSIs was to give them their 6 (maybe
> more) magic points to spend in the 6 categories, this forming their
> "initial power rating", generating some maximum based on that, and
> then letting them buy one skill for each category.

Huh? Where did THIS come from? I don't remember seeing this anywhere..

> No tech points. (Because as it stands, PSIs have no skills to
> purchase inside their area, all if it is "tech points". Which
> is unbalanced compared to the 3 or 4 skills that a full mage would
> need to buy at decent scores.)

The tech-points represent the powers that a PSI has received training in
prior to creation, just as it does for a mage.

> PSIs *can* specialize, giving
> them extra dice with a given power, but loosing dice in other
> areas. And then, instead of hacking, we have "pushing", which
> really hurts, to gain extra power.

Purchasing diciplines with tech points already solves this problem
without any addition rules or confusions.

> Personally, if we're going to slavishly copy the magic system,
> then I don't see why we just don't create a new type of mage.

Oh come on. What we are doing, for both simplicity of rule and for easy
integration into the SR storyline, is to base much of the internal
mechanics on the already-worked-out magic system. It is already
balanced, it has insternally consistent rules, and is easily adaptable.
If we start blindly making up new rules, they will not be balanced, they
will turn GMs away because they don't have time to learn unbalanced
vcaguely integrated rules, and we will basically quntuple the about of
time it will take to write these rules in committee (this is what sunk
Kage-Car).

> PSIs should be fairly different, or else I don't see much point
> in designing them. (Which is why I suggested alternate cost of
> 'ware, a radically different system for advancement/construction,
> avoiding the astral like the plague, etc.)

The purpose for designing them is and has always been to come up with a
fresh role-playing perspective. To make rules jsut to be different is
pointless and turns an enjoyable concept into a fruitless exercise in
roll-playing.

____ 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. 14
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 20:33:35 -0500
> Yes, I was complaing, but giving the PSI the ability to use and
> very little penalty any power is just plain munchkinous. Balance
> shoudl not

That's why it's not going to be VERY little penalty...just relatively
minor.

They should use it as second nature, but it also should be very
easy for 'em.

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 15
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 20:35:10 -0500
> That's a change. two weeks ago, PSI was determined by seasoned
> dicipline
> and training, and wasn't just a "I think I'll do whatever I want
> today".

Here's an idea...

Why not have hacking have a LOT to do with the "Psionic Design"
skill (or whatever we're calling it)? If they make a successful test, they
can get a one-time use power of force equal to half the successes, with some
increased drain?

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 16
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 20:55:58 +0100
On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Tim Skirvin wrote:

> Why not have hacking have a LOT to do with the "Psionic Design"
> skill (or whatever we're calling it)? If they make a successful test, they
> can get a one-time use power of force equal to half the successes, with some
> increased drain?

That might work, let me run some tests here and do a writeup...

____ 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: Darth Vader <j07c@***.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 11:27:26 +0100
> On the contrary, hacking a power should come naturally to psis, after
> all they use their powers intuitively and are not based on dry formulas.
>
> That's a change. two weeks ago, PSI was determined by seasoned dicipline
> and training, and wasn't just a "I think I'll do whatever I want today".

This discipline stuff is crap, did the litle girl in Firestarter
have 'seasoned dicipline and training' when she kicked their collective
butts to hell and back ?

--
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. 18
From: "S. Keith Graham" <vapspcx@***.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 13:22:43 -0400
Robert A. Hayden writes:

>On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, S. Keith Graham wrote:

>> Well, my original suggestion for (full) PSIs was to give them their 6 (maybe
>> more) magic points to spend in the 6 categories, this forming their
>> "initial power rating", generating some maximum based on that, and
>> then letting them buy one skill for each category.

>Huh? Where did THIS come from? I don't remember seeing this anywhere..

My inital proposals said "buy powers with points", and your response
said "yeah, tech points". (Even though I thought I made it clear
that it was a different number, specific to PSI creation.)

If PSIs have about 12 points to split at the beginning, then they will
have 2 powers at 6, 6 at 2, or 3 or 4 at somewhere in the middle.

Require 1 skill per area, and they get all "spells" in that area. An Adept
might get 6 points, a Wild 3.

You roll "power + (some) skill based" for attack, and "(rest of skill) +
will" for drain.

Each power has a list of "common uses" along with drain codes.

>> No tech points. (Because as it stands, PSIs have no skills to
>> purchase inside their area, all if it is "tech points". Which
>> is unbalanced compared to the 3 or 4 skills that a full mage would
>> need to buy at decent scores.)

>The tech-points represent the powers that a PSI has received training in
>prior to creation, just as it does for a mage.

No, training is skills. Tech points are some bizarre thing the creators
cooked up to encourage mages to take tech as a high priority.

A mage still has to buy Sorcery, Theory, Conjuring, and possibly Enchanting
to be reasonable. A PSI has to buy... No skills (except maybe theory.)

Also, if we stick to "one area" for PSI adepts, then a PSI adept with pick A
of Tech will have a 6 in that area, and probably maxed (or nearly so)
"spells" in that area. He'll be *much* more powerful than a full PSI,
even if the full PSI specializes in the same area.

Also, if "spells" are specialized skills (i.e. * 1 karma of new rating), then
the 15 points of "spells" represents (say) 3 skills at 5, or 45 karma.
This is an order of magnitude greater than for mages, and I think
causes some really strange effects on inital character balance.
(Whereas a mage with 15 points less of tech, just has to get 15
karma and a spell formula or two to catch up.)

I see some real problems with using Tech Points, and I don't particuliarly
like the concept of "spells"; PSIs just DO things.

I'd much prefer see PSIs be much lower power, but high flexiblility.
(i.e. small pools, small powers, but able to do lots of things with them.)

>> PSIs *can* specialize, giving
>> them extra dice with a given power, but loosing dice in other
>> areas. And then, instead of hacking, we have "pushing", which
>> really hurts, to gain extra power.

>Purchasing diciplines with tech points already solves this problem
>without any addition rules or confusions.

No, it doesn't, because it doesn't give them ability to generalize.
You can't spend 12 tech points and get "All TK powers at 6".

And "pushing" an existing rating 3 power, with a skill of 2 is
probably more in character in my opinion, than restricting
power when hacking, giving them a special dice pool to hack with
(which will potentially be the most important dice pool in a
PSIs arsonal) and then willpower to resist drain.

As a PSI under your system, I'd consider spending 35 tech points to
get 6 powers at a 6, and then just hack with 3 dice, plus a 7 hacking
pool, plus a 6 willpower. (And you get to add in PSI pool dice??)

PSI pools under my system are based on a skill, just like Magic Pool/
Sorcery. And you can use a power without a skill (firestarter) but
you only have "power" dice to attack with, and "willpower" to resist.

>> Personally, if we're going to slavishly copy the magic system,
>> then I don't see why we just don't create a new type of mage.

>Oh come on. What we are doing, for both simplicity of rule and for easy
>integration into the SR storyline, is to base much of the internal
>mechanics on the already-worked-out magic system. It is already
>balanced, it has insternally consistent rules, and is easily adaptable.
>If we start blindly making up new rules, they will not be balanced, they
>will turn GMs away because they don't have time to learn unbalanced
>vcaguely integrated rules, and we will basically quntuple the about of
>time it will take to write these rules in committee (this is what sunk
>Kage-Car).

Oh come on, we're making aircraft look like cars with wings.

Sure, its balanced, and maybe even playable, but it doesn't let PSIs
toss around lots of different TK powers, which several of us think
is in character.

>> PSIs should be fairly different, or else I don't see much point
>> in designing them. (Which is why I suggested alternate cost of
>> 'ware, a radically different system for advancement/construction,
>> avoiding the astral like the plague, etc.)

>The purpose for designing them is and has always been to come up with a
>fresh role-playing perspective. To make rules jsut to be different is
>pointless and turns an enjoyable concept into a fruitless exercise in
>roll-playing.

If your rules produce the same "end game world effect" as my suggestions,
then I'd agree with you.

But from what I've seen, your rules produce something that is very like
a mage, while what I've suggested produces someone that is much more
flexible within their area, but less flexible outside of it.

Not saying that you way doesn't match your conception of a PSI, but
your way doesn't match mine.

>From: Darth Vader <j07c@***.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
>Subject: PROPOSAL V2.0 (Still trying to regroup)

>II) The Categories(Disciplines): The system should include about 6
> Psionic categories(disciplines) that should be bought at char gen with
> Force Points. Categories that are not bought are considered latent.

I think you should have to pay for a latent power. (And I think
tech points buying powers is the wrong move, for reasons listed
above.) If you don't buy it as latent, you can't ever get it.

> Each psi should designate his Primary, Secondary and Third(?)
> categories. {...} This would force psis to specialise and give them the
> chance to have all disciplines.

Again, if ratings are fairly low (due to not using tech points to
buy initial ratings) then I don't think there'll be a problem with
people spreading out too much. If they do, they won't be very powerful.

>III) The Powers: Each category will have powers. Powers are special
> skills a psi develops with the use of his talents(categories-disciplines).

We still don't have a "skill" involved with PSI activity. I think the
correct and logical breakdown is "power" (TK), and "skill" (PSI/TK
pool, and/or "Bullet Barrier skill"). I don't think we need 4 sets
of dice (spell, power, pool, drain resistance).

(My suggestion is "power" (per category), akin to spell force,
"skill",
(per category) which provides PSI pool _per category_, and "will",
which resists drain.)

>IV) The advancement: Primary disciplines should be cheapest
> (maybe 1.5x rating), secondary (2xrating?) and third (3xrating?). This would
> force psis to specialise and they would still have the chance to have all
> categories. Powers should be vought and advanced like spells.

Spells can't be advanced, no? And new powers cost 6 karma to develop at
maximum (inital) force?? I thought we had decided that they were
more like "skills" than "spells"?

>VII) Sustained Powers: Sustained Powers could either be treated as sustained
> Spells(+2 to all Target Numbers) or they could simply deduct 2 dice from the
> Psis Pool.

How about, adding, all sustained powers "consume" "power" dice,
used for the duration, plus 2 additional dice (from an appropriate
skill based pool) to cancel the sustain penalty.

Power is effectively reduced in that area for the duration.

Ollie the Ork decides to run a Personal Mask mental illusion. He
has an illusion/telepathy/? of 6, a relevant skill/pool of 6, and a
willpower of 5. He puts 4 dice of his power into the PM, plus rolls
4 skill. He's now only got 2 power in Illusion, but he's planning
on using TK and .357. :-) He also looses 2 dice from his (illusion
pool or PSI pool, whichever we decide to use) to sustain with no
penalty. He'll get 8 dice at force 4 of Personal Mask to use on the
guards.

Keith Graham
vapspcx@***.gatech.edu
Message no. 19
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 17:36:46 +0100
On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, S. Keith Graham wrote:

> My inital proposals said "buy powers with points", and your response
> said "yeah, tech points". (Even though I thought I made it clear
> that it was a different number, specific to PSI creation.)

Obviously you didn't.

> If PSIs have about 12 points to split at the beginning, then they will
> have 2 powers at 6, 6 at 2, or 3 or 4 at somewhere in the middle.

Where did these 12 points come from? What is wrong with using the tech
points?

> Require 1 skill per area, and they get all "spells" in that area. An Adept
> might get 6 points, a Wild 3.

It doesn't make sense. Prior to this, an adept and a wild had been
represented as a PSI that was unable to access all areas but one. Not >1
at low ability, but like an Adept in the Grimthingy, access one area at
great ability.

> No, training is skills. Tech points are some bizarre thing the creators
> cooked up to encourage mages to take tech as a high priority.

Bullshit. Tech points are and have always represented the spells that
a mage has learned prior to creation. That is why if you take a high
tech, you get lots, if you take a low tech, you get a few.

> A mage still has to buy Sorcery, Theory, Conjuring, and possibly Enchanting
> to be reasonable. A PSI has to buy... No skills (except maybe theory.)

A psi must buy Psionic Manipulation, just like Sorcery, in order to get
any kind of a pool. You much buy theory (where a mage doesn't HAVE to)
in order to hack any thing.

> Also, if we stick to "one area" for PSI adepts, then a PSI adept with pick
A
> of Tech will have a 6 in that area, and probably maxed (or nearly so)
> "spells" in that area. He'll be *much* more powerful than a full PSI,
> even if the full PSI specializes in the same area.

Read the quote on page 18 of the Grimey. That's what an adept is
SUPPOSED to be.

> Also, if "spells" are specialized skills (i.e. * 1 karma of new rating),
then
> the 15 points of "spells" represents (say) 3 skills at 5, or 45 karma.
> This is an order of magnitude greater than for mages, and I think
> causes some really strange effects on inital character balance.
> (Whereas a mage with 15 points less of tech, just has to get 15
> karma and a spell formula or two to catch up.)

There is no significant difference between the methods and costs of a
mages spells or a PSIs abilities.

> I see some real problems with using Tech Points, and I don't particuliarly
> like the concept of "spells"; PSIs just DO things.

They can hack. They MSUT be a way to quantify these abilities, or the
game would be diceless. It's not.

> I'd much prefer see PSIs be much lower power, but high flexiblility.
> (i.e. small pools, small powers, but able to do lots of things with them.)

Then make your character that way. Shadowrun has the benefit of people
being able to make the character any way they want.

> No, it doesn't, because it doesn't give them ability to generalize.
> You can't spend 12 tech points and get "All TK powers at 6".

If you have X point, you can spread them out. That is generalizing. You
cannot take max abilities in all things, your you would be playing
MunchkinRun.

> As a PSI under your system, I'd consider spending 35 tech points to
> get 6 powers at a 6, and then just hack with 3 dice, plus a 7 hacking
> pool, plus a 6 willpower. (And you get to add in PSI pool dice??)

PSI pool dice only effect actual abilities and drain. Your hacking dice
are all you can use for hacking.

> PSI pools under my system are based on a skill, just like Magic Pool/
> Sorcery. And you can use a power without a skill (firestarter) but
> you only have "power" dice to attack with, and "willpower" to
resist.

If you read for comprehension, you will see that the PSI pools are based
almost entirely on skills. There is an addition willpower factor in the
general psi pool to represent your willpower being able to put extra umph
into a power.

> Oh come on, we're making aircraft look like cars with wings.

If the rules for cars work, there is no need to make up new rules.

> Sure, its balanced, and maybe even playable, but it doesn't let PSIs
> toss around lots of different TK powers, which several of us think
> is in character.

Munchie munchie munchie.
There have to be restrictions in the game. no one character can do
everything (at least not without a lot of karma spent). You want the
cahracters to be God from the git-go, and homey don't play that way.

> Not saying that you way doesn't match your conception of a PSI, but
> your way doesn't match mine.

Then don't use it, but don't call it shadowrun either. because what you
have is a character that is incompatible with Shadowrun, and totally
unbalance. It becomes realistically unplayable because you require GMs
to learn unrelated rules which in turn will lead to unacceptability.
This is supposed to be an exercise in role-playing, not in rule-playing.

____ 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. 20
From: "S. Keith Graham" <vapspcx@***.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 23:12:32 -0400
>Munchie munchie munchie.
>There have to be restrictions in the game. no one character can do
>everything (at least not without a lot of karma spent). You want the
>cahracters to be God from the git-go, and homey don't play that way.

I want a starting full PSI, having burned an A pick to take 12 points
of power (maybe 9, 6?), divide it among (to specialize) 2 areas, getting
2 6's in power (and maybe not ever being able to take other areas, as
you didn't pay any points to be "latent".) Burn 2 skills at 6,
plus a PSI theory, and take a willpower of 6, and be able to
"Do things with TK" with about 6 or 8 dice, that equate to about
8 or so spells, and "Do thinks with Telepathy" for another 8
or so spells. Note that there'll probably be a lot of overlap, so
I don't think it'll be that gross. If it turns out 12 points is
too many, then we can make it 9, or maybe even 6. Then, with 2 areas,
you've got 6 dice in 16 force 3 abilities. (or 48 "force points" of
spells) However, you can't buy any new abilities, without initiating
a new area and pushing skill in that new area, which is mucho
karma compared to buying a couple of force 4 spells. (Initiation,
at 8 karma from power 3 to power 4, buys you 8 force points increase
in power. Wow. :-)

If you want to raise your TK skill, you have to raise a 6 skill.
If you want to raise your 6 TK power, you have to initiate. If
you want to spend 6 karma and pick up "Health spell for $100",
you're SOL. (While a mage just goes and burns 6 karma and
is suddenly a top notch healer. Or else has 4 TK spells, 4 TP spells,
and 2 health spells from the get-go, at reasonable forces.)

This is not munchkin if you trim back the power level. REALLY.
The idea isn't to be able to do everything at a very high level
of power, but to have a couple of dice at lots of things, or
else specialize (much like a mage taking 8 combat spells) and
be able to toss around 8 or 9 dice (counting pools) in the
areas of the specialization.

>> Not saying that you way doesn't match your conception of a PSI, but
>> your way doesn't match mine.

>Then don't use it, but don't call it shadowrun either. because what you
>have is a character that is incompatible with Shadowrun, and totally
>unbalance. It becomes realistically unplayable because you require GMs
>to learn unrelated rules which in turn will lead to unacceptability.
>This is supposed to be an exercise in role-playing, not in rule-playing.

And Riggers have unrelated rules. Deckers have unrelated rules.
Mages have unrelated rules. Real world Chars has a different set of
rules. Phys Adepts have unrelated rules. (At least compared
to have a normal character gets things done.) Difference does
not, at least in SR to date, make a rule set invalid. More work
on the designers part, perhaps, but not invalid.

We still call it Shadowrun, even though its got 5 sets of
bizarre and unrelated rules (except for dice conventions
and terminology) and it is apparently acceptable.

If we're making an 80 page expansion that we might even
submit to FASA to publish, or will be of that grade, then I
don't see the problem with providing rules to allow people
a mechanic that allows for different role playing. The rules
in **&* allowed someone to jump from orbit and not die in the fall.
Therefore, people tried stunts like that. If your rules dicatate
that people can buy new "spells" for the PSIs for cheap, then
they will. In my conception, PSIs can't do that. They have
a set of powers, and it slowly grows, in predictable directions.
(i.e. add a dice of skill here, add a level of power there,
being a new area of power, at a very very low level.)

Several of us have said that we would prefer a system that allows
adepts to either specialize (put all 6 power points in one area)
or generalize (3 * 2, or 2 * 3). I think that your system breaks
if you allow that to happen. Several of us want hacking to be
something done casually, and regularly. (I will go so far as to
say its done most of the time.) Perhaps that means that the basis
for your system is flawed (i.e. doesn't match our "reality" or
"conception") rather than we're wrong in wanting PSIs to behave
in a certain way. (Which is why I was asking "how do PSIs
behave", because I didn't think they behaved the way your
suggested rules implied that they did, and I wanted some feedback
from other people. If you create rules, then "conception",
you end up with "orbit jumpers" (or other characters/conceptions/actions
designed around/by the rules, rather than conceptions implemented
by a set of rules.)) Its like sitting down and writing a program,
and then figuring out what it does when you're finished.

Personally, I think being able to crank out whole new spells
at force 6 for 6 karma is "munchie, munchie, munchie", and creates
characters that are "good at very very many things and tromp all over
other character's scticks" for way too little karma. (And this is
true of the magic system as well as your proposed PSI system.)

If there is some fatal flaw in allowing a PSI full access to
all powers in a list at some (low) power level, then please
point it out. But resorting to name calling and abuse because
I don't think the system proposed matches some fraction of the
list's conception of PSIs is not productive. (Alternately, define
your conception of PSIs well enough and convincingly enough that
we buy that proposed and future rule sets match up with the agreed
proposed conception.)

Keith Graham
vapspcx@***.gatech.edu
Message no. 21
From: "S. Keith Graham" <vapspcx@***.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 23:48:20 -0400
(And to comment about the actual game mechanic questions)

>From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>

>On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, S. Keith Graham wrote:

>> If PSIs have about 12 points to split at the beginning, then they will
>> have 2 powers at 6, 6 at 2, or 3 or 4 at somewhere in the middle.

>Where did these 12 points come from? What is wrong with using the tech
>points?

12 points is a number based on game balance. 35 points is too large
of a number for what I've got in mind. Phys Adepts don't use tech
points to buy powers, why should PSIs? (You could have scaled up
Phys Adept powers by a factor of 4 or 6, and let them purchase them
with Tech points. But for whatever (Game Balance?) reasons, they
choose a different system.)

>> Require 1 skill per area, and they get all "spells" in that area. An
Adept
>> might get 6 points, a Wild 3.

>It doesn't make sense. Prior to this, an adept and a wild had been
>represented as a PSI that was unable to access all areas but one. Not >1
>at low ability, but like an Adept in the Grimthingy, access one area at
>great ability.

No, in your proposal, that was the suggestion. Someone also pointed out that
an Elemental Adept is just "so-so" at many things.

And a Sorcery adept is very, very good at his area, but a Full mage
can beat him at a "magical dual", by using Astral Space and Elementals.

I'm not sure that a Full PSI with 25 tech points can touch an Adept
with 50 in your proposal. Especially if they are both "TK Specialists".

>> No, training is skills. Tech points are some bizarre thing the creators
>> cooked up to encourage mages to take tech as a high priority.

>Bullshit. Tech points are and have always represented the spells that
>a mage has learned prior to creation. That is why if you take a high
>tech, you get lots, if you take a low tech, you get a few.

I didn't say that. I said "Training is skills". Which is completely true.

6 points worth of skill is also 42 karma. A pick of "A" skills with
6 6 point skills represents 252 karma, vs. 50 karma for an "A" pick in
tech. "Skills" represent "experience" in the character.

And I repeat, "Tech Points are something the creators cooked up
to encourage mages to take tech as a high priority". Its true.
Most phys-adepts don't take tech as a high priority. Why? Because
they get their abilities other ways, and most of what you can buy
with money (cyberware) isn't of much use to them.

And normal characters don't get that 50 points to spend as karma
(representing their previous training.) Why? Because its a hack
for magic using characters (that does help play balance.) Its not
a bad thing, but it *is* a hack, IMNSHO.

>There is no significant difference between the methods and costs of a
>mages spells or a PSIs abilities.

Then this doesn't really match what several people have proposed
about making all PSI abilites "skills", possibly specialized. I
think this needs discussion. (i.e. costs 6 karma to raise a
"PSI spell" from 5 to 6)

>> I see some real problems with using Tech Points, and I don't particuliarly
>> like the concept of "spells"; PSIs just DO things.

>They can hack. They MSUT be a way to quantify these abilities, or the
>game would be diceless. It's not.

A list of 8 or 10 "spell like abilities" that are purchased much
like an Adepts abilities, with drain codes (like some Adept abilities),
and powers based on (etc)... Each area (TK) etc. is purchased, and gives
you those 8 abilities at whatever level you have purchased.

>> I'd much prefer see PSIs be much lower power, but high flexiblility.
>> (i.e. small pools, small powers, but able to do lots of things with them.)

>Then make your character that way. Shadowrun has the benefit of people
>being able to make the character any way they want.

PSIs, compared to mages, in general, in my humble opinion, should be
lower in raw power, but have more flexibility. Within PSIs, there will
be some with more raw power than others, and some more flexible than
others. Because of their innate flexibility, in my mind, they
will be forced to have lower power (in general) or else be game
unbalancing.

>> As a PSI under your system, I'd consider spending 35 tech points to
>> get 6 powers at a 6, and then just hack with 3 dice, plus a 7 hacking
>> pool, plus a 6 willpower. (And you get to add in PSI pool dice??)

>PSI pool dice only effect actual abilities and drain. Your hacking dice
>are all you can use for hacking.

Actually, I'd use hacking dice for resisting drain too. Keeps down
the abuse factor. (Otherwise, you burn all your hacking dice on
offense, and all your pool dice on resisting drain.)

>> PSI pools under my system are based on a skill, just like Magic Pool/
>> Sorcery. And you can use a power without a skill (firestarter) but
>> you only have "power" dice to attack with, and "willpower" to
resist.

>If you read for comprehension, you will see that the PSI pools are based
>almost entirely on skills. There is an addition willpower factor in the
>general psi pool to represent your willpower being able to put extra umph
>into a power.

Apologies, I hadn't seen a reference to "Psionic Manipulation" in
quite some time. I thought it had gotten pitched in favor of
"power + spell" vs "spell + skill". (And I think some people
may still be thinking that.)

Keith Graham
vapspcx@***.gatech.edu
Message no. 22
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 18:29:52 +0100
On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, S. Keith Graham wrote:

> And Riggers have unrelated rules. Deckers have unrelated rules.
> Mages have unrelated rules. Real world Chars has a different set of
> rules. Phys Adepts have unrelated rules. (At least compared
> to have a normal character gets things done.) Difference does
> not, at least in SR to date, make a rule set invalid. More work
> on the designers part, perhaps, but not invalid.

The thing is that rigger rules are similiar to other rules. Decker rules
are similiar to others, both for creation and for playing. All of the
types of things you can be in shadowrun are interrelated and similiar in
approach and creation.

> Several of us have said that we would prefer a system that allows
> adepts to either specialize (put all 6 power points in one area)
> or generalize (3 * 2, or 2 * 3).

The point is, you CAN specialize without forcing other people to your
concepts. The initial proposals, that you have no passed judgement
against, allow you to specialize OR generalize, depending on the
character CONCEPT you wanted to play. In SR, you are supposed to be any
cahracter concept you want, from the kick-ass sammie, to the low-life
squatter, and you are still a viable character. If you want to
specialize in all of your abilities, then do it, the current proposals
allow it easily, but don't hamper other people because it isn't hte type
of character you would play.

> Personally, I think being able to crank out whole new spells
> at force 6 for 6 karma is "munchie, munchie, munchie", and creates
> characters that are "good at very very many things and tromp all over
> other character's scticks" for way too little karma. (And this is
> true of the magic system as well as your proposed PSI system.)

A) That's no different than mages
B) That's not true

> If there is some fatal flaw in allowing a PSI full access to
> all powers in a list at some (low) power level, then please
> point it out.

There isn't. Waht you do it you spread your tech points around and
create the character just how you want 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. 23
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 18:43:57 +0100
On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, S. Keith Graham wrote:

> I'm not sure that a Full PSI with 25 tech points can touch an Adept
> with 50 in your proposal. Especially if they are both "TK Specialists".

From the git-go, there is no way a Full PSI with 25 points could even
touch a 50 point adept, but it is LATER, as the character expands, that
the difference come into play. The full psi can take Telepathy and
Metabolics, while the adept must pump more and mroe and more karma to get
that 1 dice increase.

> PSIs, compared to mages, in general, in my humble opinion, should be
> lower in raw power, but have more flexibility. Within PSIs, there will
> be some with more raw power than others, and some more flexible than
> others. Because of their innate flexibility, in my mind, they
> will be forced to have lower power (in general) or else be game
> unbalancing.

We have established that a PSI with the same creation letters as a mage
is going to be less powered. A Mage would get 35 tech points to spend
all on spells (plus astral and spirits), where a PSI would get no astral,
no spirits, and would also have to spend probably around 1/3 of his tech
on diciplines, leaving the rest for abilities. This in turn naturally
leads to a character that has less raw power (but the flexibility of
hacking).

> Actually, I'd use hacking dice for resisting drain too. Keeps down
> the abuse factor. (Otherwise, you burn all your hacking dice on
> offense, and all your pool dice on resisting drain.)

Yes, you are right. In running the number during lunch I discovered this
as well.

____ 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: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@****.CAIS.COM>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 01:39:11 -0400
On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Tim Skirvin wrote:

> Why not have hacking have a LOT to do with the "Psionic Design"
> skill (or whatever we're calling it)? If they make a successful test, they
> can get a one-time use power of force equal to half the successes, with some
> increased drain?

Great idea in theory, though I'm not sure about your mechanics.
Perhaps make it even simpler than that -- if your Psionic Manipulation
skill check succeeds, the effect happens at full force and double drain.
If you fail, nothing happens and you _still_ take twice the drain.
For role-playing purposes, any character who uses this option
extremely often with one power would later use Karma to buy that one
power; of course, this is _only_ role-playing, not a rule.

/-----------------\
| J.D. Falk | "We're not mental or anything, so
| jdfalk@****.com | don't be afraid."
\-----------------/ -Mike Meyers as Wayne Campbell

(Geek Code 2.1) GO/T/AT$ -d+(-) H++ s+:+ !g p1>+ au>++ a20 w@ v++(-)
C++(+++) UB(++)>++++ P+ L 3 E---- N++ K(++) W M@ V--
-po+(--) Y+ t+(++) 5- j>x R+(+++) G++(') $tv+ b+>++
D(-) B- e+ u*+(-) h!(*) f+ r(++)>++ n-(----) y+
Message no. 25
From: "S. Keith Graham" <vapspcx@***.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: PSI: Hacking
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 08:21:49 -0400
>On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, S. Keith Graham wrote:

>> I'm not sure that a Full PSI with 25 tech points can touch an Adept
>> with 50 in your proposal. Especially if they are both "TK
Specialists".

>>From the git-go, there is no way a Full PSI with 25 points could even
>touch a 50 point adept, but it is LATER, as the character expands, that
>the difference come into play. The full psi can take Telepathy and
>Metabolics, while the adept must pump more and mroe and more karma to get
>that 1 dice increase.

However, I think in a "Magical Dual" situation, a Full Mage with
a C Tech pick can at least hold his own with a Sorcery Adept with
an A tech pick. Depending on the exact circumstances, the Adept
might win, but in general, I think its about even.

He can go Astral and intercept spells. He can summon something to
help him out. (At least a watcher.) He can have something on the Astral
Intercepting Spells, while his opponent has to burn dice resisting.
He can have an elemental sustain a useful spell, or else have
a spirit harrass his opponent in the real world.

I think a Full PSI should be at least comparable to an Adept from
the start. (Of course, he won't be as good at TK or whatever, but
he should have something that makes up for it.)

Keith Graham
vapspcx@***.gatech.edu

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about PSI: Hacking, 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.