Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: James Dening jdening@****.co.uk
Subject: FW: FYI
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:14:04 +0100
F**K!!!! Sorry, all - trying to send this to a different address.

Mea Culpa. Believe it or not, my work occasionally gets in the way
of my *real* job of list D.E.

Now...
FWKWarningNode* nextNode=nodePtr->nextNode;
if (nodePtr->type==warningType)
{
if (lastNode)
lastNode->nextNode=nodePtr->nextNode;

Hmmmm.... Bugger.

-----Original Message-----
From: shadowtk-admin@*********.com [mailto:shadowtk-admin@*********.com]
On Behalf Of James Dening
Sent: 07 June 2000 16:02
To: 'shadowtk@*********.com'
Subject: FYI



***** help
Help for ShadowTk mailing list:

This is email command help for version 1.1 of the "Mailman" list
manager. The following describes commands you can send to get
information about and control your subscription to Mailman lists at
this site. A command can be in the subject line or in the body of the
message.
<snip>
Message no. 2
From: "Mark A. Imbriaco" <mark.imbriaco@*****.COM>
Subject: FYI ..
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:31:21 -0400
Just an FYI, to give everyone a warm fuzzy:

CASELESS@*******.COM has been permanently served out. Access can be
restored only by privileged users.
Message no. 3
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:07:51 -0400
At 04:31 PM 9/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Just an FYI, to give everyone a warm fuzzy:
>
>CASELESS@*******.COM has been permanently served out. Access can be
>restored only by privileged users.

You are just such a sweet guy...makes be get all teary-eyed...oh wait,
that's because I'm feeling ill...

BTW, I've been very busy and I have dropped the ball on Blood in the
Boardroom. I haven't even been able to look at it for weeks. This
weekend, however, in response to my body finally collapsing under me from
pushing it too hard for about two months straight (and especially over
Labor Day weekend), I'll be able to get back on track with it. To my
recollection, I've not missed anything momentous in the last few weeks; I
think the formation of Novatech is the biggest thing and that's due next
month.

In addition, have people begun to pick up SR3 and had a chance to read
through it yet? I think Mark said that he wanted to convert TK to SR3 by
the end of the month or something. I know in my case I did some fairly
serious juggling and rearrangment of my main PC, the Dark Stranger.

Anyway...

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 4
From: Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 15:19:05 -0700
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Erik Jameson wrote:

> At 04:31 PM 9/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >Just an FYI, to give everyone a warm fuzzy:
> >
> >CASELESS@*******.COM has been permanently served out. Access can be
> >restored only by privileged users.

That is a minor relief. (Pst. Bridget, next time use the "Include Message
in Reply> NO" feature to save mailers and mailees a bit of headache.) The
stupid thing just goes to show, the louder people tell you "this is not a
scam" the more likely it is.

> In addition, have people begun to pick up SR3 and had a chance to read
> through it yet? I think Mark said that he wanted to convert TK to SR3 by
> the end of the month or something. I know in my case I did some fairly
> serious juggling and rearrangment of my main PC, the Dark Stranger.

I've been overly busy myself, and have only really begun to thumb through
the SR3 myself. I've been mostly conscerned with the revisions in the
Magic system and how they will effect my two spellslingers. Okay, so you
don't have spell locks, but you do have sustaining foci. Not too big of a
difference. I am currently more interested in what seems to be lacking in
the spell department, and what that implies about the magic system:

1) No Mana barrier.

Only an "Astral" barrier is listed that will protect you from things
coming at you from astral space. I assume that includes combat spells,
but what about Elemental manipulations? NB: No more blocking people with
a Mana Barrier, although I assume the Astral Barrier works on Dual beings
like spirits.

2) No Elemental Effect Combat spells.

I.e. Fireball is now a Manipulation. Hellblast would probably also be
reclassified. I assume the "Slay" spells are still Combat spells since
they used no Elemental Effect. Now the $5,000 question, will an
Astral Barrier block an Elemental Effect, since they are supposed to be
made of the "real" material? On one hand they still have the proviso that
body armor is effective against Elemental Attacks, but it seems to
seriously limit Combat Spell Chuckers, and make Manipulation Spells that
much more powerful. I.e. why would you want to be a Shaman that gets
bonuses to Combat Spells, when Manipulations are _soooo_ much more useful.

Okay, Skills work a little differently, but they are still the same skills
more or less. Matrix and Rigging stuff seem to only be a bit clarified,
but nothing fundamental has changed in a way that would effect the list.
But they seem to be tweeking the way Magic is supposed to work. This may
be for better or worse, but they don't really explain themselves as to
what the changes are and why they made them. Anyone know if a Grimoire 3
is due out any time soon?

--My two yen

Jeff
Message no. 5
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 18:46:29 -0400
At 03:19 PM 9/10/98 -0700, you wrote:

>1) No Mana barrier.
>
>Only an "Astral" barrier is listed that will protect you from things
>coming at you from astral space. I assume that includes combat spells,
>but what about Elemental manipulations? NB: No more blocking people with
>a Mana Barrier, although I assume the Astral Barrier works on Dual beings
>like spirits.

Urk, I even playtested the silly thing and I can't recall too many
specifics...plus *lots* changed from playtest to final version...but no, an
elemental manipulation would create "real" fire or lightning or whatever,
so a pure mana barrier type thing would not block it. The plain old
average Barrier spell, which is the catch-all/block-all spell should still
stop them. I would anticipate that the more specialized barriers would
make a return with the upcoming magic book...

>2) No Elemental Effect Combat spells.

True. In retrospect, it didn't really make much sense. More logical and
cleaner now. I mean, why would Fireball be a Combat spell, but
Flamethrower was a Damaging Manipulation? No real logic to that.

>I.e. Fireball is now a Manipulation. Hellblast would probably also be
>reclassified. I assume the "Slay" spells are still Combat spells since
>they used no Elemental Effect. Now the $5,000 question, will an

Yes. Hellblast is essentially gone, as there's no need for it. Fireball
does it all. Slay spells would still be Combat spells.

>seriously limit Combat Spell Chuckers, and make Manipulation Spells that
>much more powerful. I.e. why would you want to be a Shaman that gets
>bonuses to Combat Spells, when Manipulations are _soooo_ much more useful.

Why? I've never really like Damaging Manipulations myself because the
drain for those spells is usually wicked, much worse than a plain and dirty
Manabolt or Powerbolt. I'd say they are both still very effective; Combat
spells are a bit less usefull but tend to have better drain and Damaging
Manipulations can have usefull secondary effects but have nastier drain. I
find it's really a matter of personal taste in many ways.

>Anyone know if a Grimoire 3
>is due out any time soon?

As a matter of fact, yes. "Magic in the Shadows" is currently due out in
February. Their web site says November or December or something, but
current word from Mike M. is that it is due in February. It will in many
ways be a compilation and an update of both the Grimoire and Awakenings,
plus have new goodies in it. I, for one, am really looking forward to it.
Expect lots of new toys for both GMs and players...Steve Kenson has told me
a piece choice tidbits and it looks promising.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 6
From: Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 17:45:18 -0700
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Erik Jameson wrote:

> The plain old
> average Barrier spell, which is the catch-all/block-all spell should still
> stop them. I would anticipate that the more specialized barriers would
> make a return with the upcoming magic book...

Effectively, their Barrier spell is the old Physical Barrier by a
simplified name. I don't recall, but I seem to remember that the "two
successes can stage up the barrier rating" was new as well. Now you
withhold dice to shrink and expand the barrier.

> >2) No Elemental Effect Combat spells.
>
> True. In retrospect, it didn't really make much sense. More logical and
> cleaner now. I mean, why would Fireball be a Combat spell, but
> Flamethrower was a Damaging Manipulation? No real logic to that.

The bonus was that the Combat Fireball neglected Armor, basically setting
the _people_ on fire rather than throwing fire at people and hoping they
will burn, Flamethrower emitted a continuous streem of fire, and IIRC
could be sustained.

I am not sure I agree with the logic that all elemental attacks be made
manipulations but I say more on that later.

> Yes. Hellblast is essentially gone, as there's no need for it. Fireball
> does it all. Slay spells would still be Combat spells.

Effectively you could cast a Deadly level Fireball, but it wouldn't also
have Elemental Blast (air) effect. It seems they collected a bunch of
spells into classes, due to similar effect, so I suppose you could make up
another spell class, the FireBlast series, which has two elemental
effects, or maybe an entire collection:

Fireblast (air/fire)
Magma (fire/earth) (kinda like shooting napalm)
Mud (earth/water) (stun of course, and libel to muck up delicate things)
Steam (fire/water) (no, not tequila)
etc.

> >seriously limit Combat Spell Chuckers, and make Manipulation Spells that
> >much more powerful. I.e. why would you want to be a Shaman that gets
> >bonuses to Combat Spells, when Manipulations are _soooo_ much more useful.
>
> Why? I've never really like Damaging Manipulations myself because the
> drain for those spells is usually wicked, much worse than a plain and dirty
> Manabolt or Powerbolt. I'd say they are both still very effective; Combat
> spells are a bit less usefull but tend to have better drain and Damaging
> Manipulations can have usefull secondary effects but have nastier drain. I
> find it's really a matter of personal taste in many ways.

You are forgetting two major points: 1) as of SRII, many "Damaging
Manipulations" could be _sustained_ (i.e. Fire Aura, Flamethrower, Zap
[sp? the lightning one so you could reenact the Emperor vs. Luke
Skywalker scene]. 2) manipulations are not only for combat, so you also
have the barriers, the transformation manipulations, the mental
manipulations, and the telekinetic manipulations. That is what I meant by
"more useful." For a more concrete example: an "Aspected magician"
limited to Combat spells is _much_ more limited than one limited to
Manipulations in terms of what they can do. It is only a gripe about the
system, but a significant one.

Personally, (as a house rule) I would be willing to allow "Elementalists"
to use spells from their benefitted class _AND_ only elemental
manipulation attacks associated with their element. That way a Fire
Elementalist can toss fireballs as well as mana-bolts (otherwise, where's
the fun in that? And remember originally they were limited to Combat
spells associated with fire.), Water and Air Elementalists can protect
themselves (but typically with non-leathal spells), but you won't have an
Earth Elementalist tossing any Damaging manipulation they can get their
paws on since they are stuck with Earth Elemental attack spells.

If we are getting picky here, I would carve up some of the Manipulations
and give them to other spell domains. For one, mental manipulations
should go, since other than a "lobotomize" spell you aren't actually
manipulating brain matter. Put them under health if beneficial, detection
if probing, or illusion otherwise. I mean only someone wanting a real
challenge would want an Aspected Magician restricted to Detection Spells,
because by nature the character is a bit of a wuss. Give them the ability
to Mind Probe (you are attempting to detect what is inside someone's mind,
after all) and maybe people would give them a bit more respect. I
considered giving the Telekinetics to Combat, but it would violate the
spirit of the division to have sustainable spells or ones that could be
used for non-combat purposes. Perhaps it would be best just to give the
Elemental Attacks (with the Instantanous restriction) to combat, since
technically it is a conjuration rather than a manipulation of matter.
(i.e, Hydro-jet produces a stream of water from nowhere to bowl over your
opponent seems more combat oriented, while something like a Quicksand
spell that liquifies the ground your enemy is standing on would actually
be manipulation of the material at hand.) It would require a distinction
between "Astral" attack and "Elemental" attack combat spells, such
that
the Elemental attacks clearly don't have the ability to ignore armor, but
aren't stopped by astral barriers either, and it would also open up the
way to the inanimate object damagins spells like Ram, or Wrecker, that, as
written seem impossible.

> >Anyone know if a Grimoire 3 is due out any time soon?
>
> As a matter of fact, yes. "Magic in the Shadows" is currently due out in
> February. Their web site says November or December or something, but
> current word from Mike M. is that it is due in February. It will in many
> ways be a compilation and an update of both the Grimoire and Awakenings,
> plus have new goodies in it. I, for one, am really looking forward to it.
> Expect lots of new toys for both GMs and players...Steve Kenson has told me
> a piece choice tidbits and it looks promising.

Sorry Eric, but when I hear "lots of new toys" I get this deep feeling of
dread in the pit of my stomach. It is always an iffy proposition when
someone comes up with "goodies" as to whether they will be a) useful, b)
fluff, c) damaging to the game. I would look forward to a section at the
begining or end clarifying their "new view" on magic.


--My two yen

Jeff


P.S. If they want a toy that I'd appreciate, I wouldn't mind a section on
Asiatic Hermeticism. I.e. a new "flavor" of hermetics that use the five
oriental elements. Finally it would allow an Elementalist that could use
Health spells, namely:

Element-Spell Division

Earth - Detection
Fire - Combat
Water - Illusion
Metal - Manipulation
Wood - Health

I never quite understood associating Air with Illusion and Water with
Detection, since when we talk of deception, analogies are more often made
to fluidity, as in something being Mercurial. Meanwhile answers and names
being "in the wind," and air's ability to get into anywhere makes me think
more of Detection. With the five oriental elements, divisions are all
pretty straightforward: Fire burns, Metal is forged, Wood comes from
life. My thoughts on Water were already addressed. If anything, one can
talk of the "wisdom of the Earth" if one wanted to explain it taking up
the role of Detection, but it is the weakest association of the bunch.
Message no. 7
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:35:18 -0400
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Mach wrote:

->I've been overly busy myself, and have only really begun to thumb through
->the SR3 myself. I've been mostly conscerned with the revisions in the
->Magic system and how they will effect my two spellslingers. Okay, so you
->don't have spell locks, but you do have sustaining foci. Not too big of a
->difference. I am currently more interested in what seems to be lacking in
->the spell department, and what that implies about the magic system:
->
->1) No Mana barrier.

I hadn't noticed but my bikers will like this.

->Only an "Astral" barrier is listed that will protect you from things
->coming at you from astral space. I assume that includes combat spells,
->but what about Elemental manipulations?
<snip rest>

Elemental manipulations create physical effects so I'd say they
would not be affected by an astral barrier, as their astral signature
would not be enough to stop.

->2) No Elemental Effect Combat spells.
->
->I.e. Fireball is now a Manipulation. Hellblast would probably also be
->reclassified. I assume the "Slay" spells are still Combat spells since
->they used no Elemental Effect. Now the $5,000 question, will an
->Astral Barrier block an Elemental Effect, since they are supposed to be
->made of the "real" material? On one hand they still have the proviso that
->body armor is effective against Elemental Attacks, but it seems to
->seriously limit Combat Spell Chuckers, and make Manipulation Spells that
->much more powerful. I.e. why would you want to be a Shaman that gets
->bonuses to Combat Spells, when Manipulations are _soooo_ much more useful.

Because the drain is so much easier? Why bother with a fireball
which can destroy what equipment you're trying to catch when a manaball
will kill the guards just as easily, leave all their equipment intact,
and won't melt your brain as easily? A Force 5(M) Manaball vs. a
Force5(M) Fireball: 2S Drain vs. 3D Drain.... I'll take the 2S drain for
a 1000 Nuyen. ]:-) A manaball is also far less likely to set off the
fire extinguishers...

->Okay, Skills work a little differently, but they are still the same skills
->more or less. Matrix and Rigging stuff seem to only be a bit clarified,
->but nothing fundamental has changed in a way that would effect the list.
->But they seem to be tweeking the way Magic is supposed to work. This may
->be for better or worse, but they don't really explain themselves as to
->what the changes are and why they made them. Anyone know if a Grimoire 3
->is due out any time soon?

Magic in the Shadows will be the magical supplement and, last I
heard, it was originally due late this year but has been pushed to Feb
1999. Expect it in June 1999, if you're a cynic like myself. ]:-)
What happened is partially explained on pg. 161 on the piece about
"Theories on the Nature of Magic".

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 8
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:58:02 -0400
At 05:45 PM 9/10/98 -0700, you wrote:

>> True. In retrospect, it didn't really make much sense. More logical and
>> cleaner now. I mean, why would Fireball be a Combat spell, but
>> Flamethrower was a Damaging Manipulation? No real logic to that.
>
>The bonus was that the Combat Fireball neglected Armor, basically setting
>the _people_ on fire rather than throwing fire at people and hoping they
>will burn, Flamethrower emitted a continuous streem of fire, and IIRC
>could be sustained.

True. That was a bonus. But it didn't strike me, Steve Kenson or Mike
Mulvihill as very logical.

>Effectively you could cast a Deadly level Fireball, but it wouldn't also
>have Elemental Blast (air) effect. It seems they collected a bunch of
>spells into classes, due to similar effect, so I suppose you could make up
>another spell class, the FireBlast series, which has two elemental
>effects, or maybe an entire collection:
>
>Fireblast (air/fire)
>Magma (fire/earth) (kinda like shooting napalm)
>Mud (earth/water) (stun of course, and libel to muck up delicate things)
>Steam (fire/water) (no, not tequila)

No, because all of those spells would be bringing magma or steam or
whatever into being, which is what a Manipulation class spell does. Which
is why Fireball was moved. It creates fire, which strictly speaking, means
that it belongs in the class of spells that do that sort of thing. And
Combat wasn't one of them.

>You are forgetting two major points: 1) as of SRII, many "Damaging

That's SR2. In a discussion of SR3, not to be rude, but that's not highly
relevant.

>Skywalker scene]. 2) manipulations are not only for combat, so you also
>have the barriers, the transformation manipulations, the mental
>manipulations, and the telekinetic manipulations. That is what I meant by
>"more useful."

Okay, I see there. Yes, the Manipulation class has the greatest variety of
spells. But a quick and dirty Combat Sorcerer can be very nasty and a Bear
Shaman Healer can be extremely helpful also.

>For a more concrete example: an "Aspected magician"
>limited to Combat spells is _much_ more limited than one limited to
>Manipulations in terms of what they can do. It is only a gripe about the
>system, but a significant one.

Well, an aspected magician limited to only Health spells or Detection
spells is going to be very limited to. Any aspected magician, regardless
of what class of spells they have access to, is going to be limited. Not
being able to conjure is a limitation. Not being able heal people is a
limitation.

>Sorry Erik, but when I hear "lots of new toys" I get this deep feeling of
>dread in the pit of my stomach. It is always an iffy proposition when
>someone comes up with "goodies" as to whether they will be a) useful, b)
>fluff, c) damaging to the game. I would look forward to a section at the
>begining or end clarifying their "new view" on magic.

That's why there are playtesters, to see if the new toys are useful, if
they work and how they affect the game. By all accounts, those folks that
are fans of magic will be very pleased with MitS. I know someone over on
RN that is a playtester and he is very pleased. Now if I could just get
him to spill the beans on MitS, I'd be happy...

But I'm not sure they will really "clarify" the new take on magic; I really
think, from comments made while playtesting SR3, that Mike M. really simply
wanted to start almost afresh, anew. We had to pressure him pretty hard to
make sure SR2 to SR3 translation notes were included.

SR3 is not so much of a new and updated version of Shadowrun as it is an
attempt at a new fresh start at the game, an attempt at correcting what
Mike M. and many others thought were some inherent errors dating back to
SR1. So Steve Kenson has said that you can come up with whatever reasons
fit your campaign as to what's up with the magic changes; he tossed off
something about levels of mana, but each GM is free to justify any changes
as they see fit.

>P.S. If they want a toy that I'd appreciate, I wouldn't mind a section on
>Asiatic Hermeticism. I.e. a new "flavor" of hermetics that use the five
>oriental elements. Finally it would allow an Elementalist that could use
>Health spells, namely:

According to Steve, he will at least be trying (space considerations may
conflict) to include some Asian magic stuff. I don't know that it'll be a
sort of elementalist approach, they will have to stay within the same
framework as the other magicians (probably a "full" version and aspected
ones). But I would anticipate having *something* about this in MitS.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 9
From: Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:56:23 -0700
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, Erik Jameson wrote:

> >The bonus was that the Combat Fireball neglected Armor, basically setting
> >the _people_ on fire rather than throwing fire at people and hoping they
> >will burn, Flamethrower emitted a continuous streem of fire, and IIRC
> >could be sustained.

> True. That was a bonus. But it didn't strike me, Steve Kenson or Mike
> Mulvihill as very logical.

Unfortunately, the GrimoireII was inconsistant: one page claimed Damaging
Manipulations could not be sustained, then they said that if you added +1
Drain +1 Power you could sustain a Damaging Manipulation and put them in
the back.

> >Effectively you could cast a Deadly level Fireball, but it wouldn't also
> >have Elemental Blast (air) effect. It seems they collected a bunch of
> >spells into classes, due to similar effect, so I suppose you could make up
> >another spell class, the FireBlast series, which has two elemental
> >effects, or maybe an entire collection:
> >
> >Fireblast (air/fire)
> >Magma (fire/earth) (kinda like shooting napalm)
> >Mud (earth/water) (stun of course, and libel to muck up delicate things)
> >Steam (fire/water) (no, not tequila)
>
> No, because all of those spells would be bringing magma or steam or
> whatever into being, which is what a Manipulation class spell does.

Your jumping on my back a little early. When I said "Fireball" I meant
"SR3 Manipulation Fireball." I never claimed that these spells would be
anything else but Manipulations (as per SR3). In fact, I was trying to
point out how someone might redo Hellblast as a manipulation for SR3 in
the new FireBlast class of dual-element elemental Manipulations.

> Which
> is why Fireball was moved. It creates fire, which strictly speaking, means
> that it belongs in the class of spells that do that sort of thing. And
> Combat wasn't one of them.

That was my initial question, and it seems to have bee answered by you
unofficially: Elemental Effects are now completely disassociated from
Combat Spells.

> >You are forgetting two major points: 1) as of SRII, many "Damaging
> >Manipulations" could be _sustained_

> That's SR2. In a discussion of SR3, not to be rude, but that's not highly
> relevant.

Given the paltry number of spells in the SR3 spell list and the nebulous
suggestion in the conversion materials that some spells may have changed,
it is _highly_ relevant, not to be rude, mind you. There is nothing in
the SR3 that I have seen so far to say that "No combat spells may use an
Elemental Effect" nor that "No Manipulation spell attacks can be
sustained." Therefore I think it is perfectly worth while for us to ponder
if they are going to allow Manipulations to retain this advantage while
restricting Combat spells in the way that they are. As is, one of my
character's signature spells is a variant of StunBlast, so I have to
figure out how I am going to ret-con him to be in line with SR3.

> Okay, I see there. Yes, the Manipulation class has the greatest variety of
> spells. But a quick and dirty Combat Sorcerer can be very nasty and a Bear
> Shaman Healer can be extremely helpful also.

That's all well and good, but I am thinking from the player perspective.
Given their versatility, the advantages of having bonuses to or
restrictions to only Manipulation spells seem to make them quite lopsided
relative to the other spell classes. If one pushed the rules hard enough,
most spell effects in other spell classes can be done by way of a
manipulation, albeit with more difficulty. Not that it may necessarily
effect STk, but I was wishing that they would have addressed this
imbalance in SR3 as long as they were playing around with the system.

> >For a more concrete example: an "Aspected magician"
> >limited to Combat spells is _much_ more limited than one limited to
> >Manipulations in terms of what they can do. It is only a gripe about the
> >system, but a significant one.
>
> Well, an aspected magician limited to only Health spells or Detection
> spells is going to be very limited to. Any aspected magician, regardless
> of what class of spells they have access to, is going to be limited. Not
> being able to conjure is a limitation. Not being able heal people is a
> limitation.

Yes but, to put this in more concrete terms: Say I am going to race you
100 yards. I have to have my hand tied behind my back, which adversely
effects my ballance. You however have to have both legs in full splints.
We are both "limited" so it is fair, right?

Being limited to Manipulations is not as limiting as being limited to say,
health, or detection spells.

> >Sorry Erik, but when I hear "lots of new toys" I get this deep feeling
of
> >dread in the pit of my stomach. It is always an iffy proposition when
> >someone comes up with "goodies" as to whether they will be a) useful,
b)
> >fluff, c) damaging to the game. I would look forward to a section at the
> >begining or end clarifying their "new view" on magic.
>
> That's why there are playtesters, to see if the new toys are useful, if
> they work and how they affect the game. By all accounts, those folks that
> are fans of magic will be very pleased with MitS. I know someone over on
> RN that is a playtester and he is very pleased. Now if I could just get
> him to spill the beans on MitS, I'd be happy...

Given the discontent that was voiced by an increasingly vocal group that
is worried about magic taking over, rather than being just another
integral part of Shadowrun, I must take your comment that "those folks
that are _fans of magic_ will be very pleased with MitS" (my emphasis)
with some trepidation. Mind you, most if not all RPG's are playtested,
and with mixed results. I enjoyed Rifts for a time before the
power-escalation became ridiculous, and I have no doubt that it was
playtested all the way. I have a good deal of respect for SR as a
well-thought-out RPG, and with any overhaul, I hope it will be for the
better but have seen what can happen.

> SR3 is not so much of a new and updated version of Shadowrun as it is an
> attempt at a new fresh start at the game, an attempt at correcting what
> Mike M. and many others thought were some inherent errors dating back to
> SR1. So Steve Kenson has said that you can come up with whatever reasons
> fit your campaign as to what's up with the magic changes; he tossed off
> something about levels of mana, but each GM is free to justify any changes
> as they see fit.

I don't think it is as much a job of me-as-GM convincing my players to
switch to the new changes, but FASA-as-publishers to try to convince me
that the changes that they made are worth my trouble to buy the new books
rather than keep using my old ones.

> >P.S. If they want a toy that I'd appreciate, I wouldn't mind a section on
> >Asiatic Hermeticism. I.e. a new "flavor" of hermetics that use the
five
> >oriental elements. Finally it would allow an Elementalist that could use
> >Health spells, namely:
>
> According to Steve, he will at least be trying (space considerations may
> conflict) to include some Asian magic stuff. I don't know that it'll be a
> sort of elementalist approach, they will have to stay within the same
> framework as the other magicians (probably a "full" version and aspected
> ones). But I would anticipate having *something* about this in MitS.

Heh...pass my idea along. If they like it and put it in, I'll just ask
for a little of the Gross on the book (j/k).

--My two yen

Jeff
Message no. 10
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 17:08:08 -0400
At 12:56 PM 9/11/98 -0700, Mach wrote:
Um, at the risk of being seen as a jerk or a spoil-sport, I'm gonna have to
say that this conversation, as it currently stands, belongs more on RN than
on Plot-D. As it is, Jeff and I have taken much of it private.

Hope this doesn't bother too many people.

Unless someone has a specific question about their characters?

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 11
From: Brion David Wauters <bdw8@****.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:22:06 -0700
Actually, can anybody tell me FASA's web address? I've got a few
pertinent (to me, anyway) questions for them, and trying to find them
through search engines has been nigh impossible. Thanks.

Brion
Message no. 12
From: Jhary-a-Conel <Jhary-a-Conel@***.NET>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:31:36 +0200
On 15 Sep 98, at 11:22, Brion David Wauters wrote:

> Actually, can anybody tell me FASA's web address? I've got a few
> pertinent (to me, anyway) questions for them, and trying to find them
> through search engines has been nigh impossible. Thanks.
What about www.fasa.com ? *grin*




Jhary
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | JaC / SP |"Things that try to look|
| / /_/ ____/ | Jhary-a-Conel@***.net | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | ICQ#: 7 517 216 | look more like things |
|==== \_/ ======|*Wearing hats is just a way of life*| than things. Well known|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | fact." - E.Weatherwax |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary ---(T.Pratchett)-+
Message no. 13
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:34:13 -0400
At 11:22 AM 9/15/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Actually, can anybody tell me FASA's web address? I've got a few
>pertinent (to me, anyway) questions for them, and trying to find them
>through search engines has been nigh impossible. Thanks.

URL is www.fasa.com, but to e-mail questions, direct those to Randall at
FASAInfo@***.com.

What do you need to know? I *might* be able to answer or make an educated
guess; I pay attention to various SR forums and have the ear of a few at
FASA, so there is a chance that I might be able to help. If not, and it
deals with what might happen in future SR books (cyberware or gun question,
for example), perhaps the list can come up with an answer for you for the
purposes of TK.

Give it a shot!

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 14
From: "Paul J. Adam" <plotd@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 22:10:41 +0100
Erik Jameson wantonly wasted bandwidth to say,

"Damn Paul, you last updated the FAQ a decade ago? And here I thought
*I* had been around for a long time...

Heh...proof I actually read (or at least skimmed) the entire FAQ!"



For the sin of posting this to ShadowTK instead of Plot-D, I administer
a stinging THWAP!!!!

And for the greater sin of gloating pedantry, I deliver an even more
painful THWAP!!!!!!

For this shall incur two thwappings, and the number of the THWAPs shall
be two.

"Ouch!" Erik shall say. "That really hurt!"


And so it shall be, on the list as in the real world, forever and amen.
Message no. 15
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:17:09 -0400
At 10:10 PM 9/15/98 +0100, you wrote:

>For the sin of posting this to ShadowTK instead of Plot-D, I administer
>a stinging THWAP!!!!

Ouch. I just hit reply...no excuse, no excuse, I know.

>And for the greater sin of gloating pedantry, I deliver an even more
>painful THWAP!!!!!!

Hey, I was being silly...no gloating pedantry from me, no sir.

>For this shall incur two thwappings, and the number of the THWAPs shall
>be two.
>
>"Ouch!" Erik shall say. "That really hurt!"

Ouch. That really hurt.

Erik J.
Message no. 16
From: Brion David Wauters <bdw8@****.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:07:49 -0700
On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Jhary-a-Conel wrote:

> What about www.fasa.com ? *grin*
>
>
>
>
> Jhary

Well, I feel real stupid now;(

Brion
Message no. 17
From: Brion David Wauters <bdw8@****.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:13:25 -0700
On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Erik Jameson wrote:

> What do you need to know? I *might* be able to answer or make an educated
SNIP

Okay, here's my question: according to the conversion rules in the back
of SR3, a pre-existing character gets his Int. x5 in skill points, then
pays for his skills as per the new rules. I've seen a number of long-term
characters who had an Int. of 3 and 30 or more skill levels. This means
that someone trying to convert such a long-term character is screwed, even
before taking into account the fact that Firearms et al are now mutipule
skills. Any ideas?

Brion
Message no. 18
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:05:10 -0400
At 01:13 PM 9/16/98 -0700, you wrote:

>> What do you need to know? I *might* be able to answer or make an educated
>SNIP
>
>Okay, here's my question: according to the conversion rules in the back
>of SR3, a pre-existing character gets his Int. x5 in skill points, then

No, not in Skill Points. Re-read that section again; that's *Knowledge
Skill* points. You know, those odd ball skills like "Seattle Dive Bars: 4"
or "Pre-Awakening American Cartoons: 12" or whatever. Very different from
Active Skills, which would include Unarmed Combat, Pistol and Stealth.

Those points are subtracted from by those existing/converted skills that
would fall under the aegis of Knowledge Skills. Magical Theory, for
example, would be a Knowledge skill; if you had it at 5, you'd subtract 5
points from the total amount of points you are allocated for Knowledge Skills.

>pays for his skills as per the new rules. I've seen a number of long-term
>characters who had an Int. of 3 and 30 or more skill levels. This means
>that someone trying to convert such a long-term character is screwed, even
>before taking into account the fact that Firearms et al are now mutipule
>skills. Any ideas?

Yup. See above for the answer.

Most Active Skills can be translated right over, though the break-up of
Firearms and Armed Combat do present some problems. In that case, it's
generally just best to wing it; IMHO, if Irish (for example) never actually
used an SMG, well, no need to give him the SMG skill, just give him some
level of skill in the weapons he *has* used. Vary the levels based on how
often he used those weapons types. The Dark Stranger, for example, had
Firearms:5, Pistol:7. So in conversion I gave him Pistol:6 and SMG:4 and
Assault Rifles:2 I think. Perhaps not a direct conversion, Karma point per
Karma point, but to me, it makes sense.

But what should happen for most "muscle" type PCs is that they should
actually gain skills in conversion. How many street sams in previous
editions had many skill points devoted to anything other than combat and
related skills? Not too many. They will now have points to devote to pure
Knowledge Skills, which is a chance to round out the PC and make it more
interesting.

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 19
From: Brion David Wauters <bdw8@****.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:37:54 -0700
Interesting. I'll have to borrow Nightfoxes copy of SR3 again and see if
I can tweak some of my old characters. Thanks for the info, Erik.

Brion
Message no. 20
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:15:21 -0400
At 11:37 AM 9/17/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Interesting. I'll have to borrow Nightfoxes copy of SR3 again and see if
>I can tweak some of my old characters. Thanks for the info, Erik.

Not a problem. It was actually an easy question for me to answer, since I
recently converted tDS over myself.

Nightfox? I was wondering what he was up to. How come he's not still
around TK?

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 21
From: Brion David Wauters <bdw8@****.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:24:09 -0700
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Erik Jameson wrote:

> Nightfox? I was wondering what he was up to. How come he's not still
> around TK?

Between work, school and a girlfriend/fiance he claims not to have the
time. But with Dr. Doom coming back, & you and Brian around, I might be
able to convince him to return.

Brion
Message no. 22
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:20:41 -0400
At 01:24 PM 9/17/98 -0700, you wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Erik Jameson wrote:
>
>> Nightfox? I was wondering what he was up to. How come he's not still
>> around TK?
>
>Between work, school and a girlfriend/fiance he claims not to have the
>time. But with Dr. Doom coming back, & you and Brian around, I might be
>able to convince him to return.

Do it. Doesn't have to be a major contributor, and it's not like TK and
Plot-D are massive volume lists...be good to see some of his people again...

Of course, with his return we might also have the return of...dare I say
his name? Talky!!!

That would be too cool...

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 23
From: Michael Broadwater <neon@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:56:20 -0500
At 05:20 PM 9/17/98 -0400, Erik Jameson wrote:
>Of course, with his return we might also have the return of...dare I say
>his name? Talky!!!
>
>That would be too cool...
>
>Erik J.

That would be too weird.


Mike Broadwater
Member of the Blackhand, White Wolf's Official Demo Team
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon/
Message no. 24
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:34:43 -0400
At 04:56 PM 9/17/98 -0500, you wrote:

>>Of course, with his return we might also have the return of...dare I say
>>his name? Talky!!!
>>
>>That would be too cool...
>>
>>Erik J.
>
>That would be too weird.

You say that as if it's a bad thing...
;-)

Bring back Talky!!

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 25
From: Brian Angliss <angliss@******.NET>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 05:17:35 -0600
> Of course, with his return we might also have the return of...dare I say
> his name? Talky!!!

Oh boy, imagine....

But I wonder if the TK environment would accept him anymore.

Regardless of whether it would, it would be cool to have Dan
around again.

And you tell Dan that I have a job, am working on a huge
website, a fiancee as well, and I'm still on! :)

Brian
Message no. 26
From: Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:59:59 -0700
On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Brian Angliss wrote:

> > Of course, with his return we might also have the return of...dare I say
> > his name? Talky!!!

So...who's this "Talky" person...?

[Thumbs through cast-db]

>>Talkie, Magna Tech toaster #17<< [Clicka]

>>Character not found in ShadowTk Cast Listing!<<

Hmmmm. If it ever was there, it's gone now.... I take it someone was
playing a few too many sessions of "Teenagers from Outer Space"?

> But I wonder if the TK environment would accept him anymore.

Dunno.

> Regardless of whether it would, it would be cool to have Dan
> around again.

The more, as they say, the merrier. (Especially if he's a decent writer.)

--Catch you later

Jeff
Message no. 27
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:49:28 -0400
At 05:17 AM 9/18/98 -0600, you wrote:
>> Of course, with his return we might also have the return of...dare I say
>> his name? Talky!!!
>
>Oh boy, imagine....

I have a dream...a dream in which toasters could not only toast, but could
taunt...

>But I wonder if the TK environment would accept him anymore.

Well, things are different now, that's for sure. But the hell with it,
Talky was too cool. And it wasn't like Dan abused Talky.

I still remember when Drake got "toasted"... ;-)

>Regardless of whether it would, it would be cool to have Dan
>around again.

All of us old-timers getting nostalgic...

>And you tell Dan that I have a job, am working on a huge
>website, a fiancee as well, and I'm still on! :)

A fiance? Damn, it seems like a growing number of folks on TK and RN are
getting or are married...seems the Shadowrun audience is aging...I can
remember when nearly everyone on all the lists was in college or high
school...not so anymore...

Erik J.


Respected Elders Relaxation Resort, President of Operations
and Director of Activities

"Hey, how about a game of first edition using only the Blue Book?"
Message no. 28
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:25:02 -0400
At 08:59 AM 9/18/98 -0700, you wrote:

>> > Of course, with his return we might also have the return of...dare I say
>> > his name? Talky!!!
>
>So...who's this "Talky" person...?

Not a person, per se...

>>>Talkie, Magna Tech toaster #17<< [Clicka]
>
>>>Character not found in ShadowTk Cast Listing!<<
>
>Hmmmm. If it ever was there, it's gone now.... I take it someone was
>playing a few too many sessions of "Teenagers from Outer Space"?

I don't recall the exact genesis of Talky, that was actually before my time
even. A really goofy personality that had little to no effect on the game
world, but was really good for laughs. Perhaps a bit out of place given
the general "darker" tone we seem to have now, but more than welcome methinks.

>> Regardless of whether it would, it would be cool to have Dan
>> around again.
>
>The more, as they say, the merrier. (Especially if he's a decent writer.)

I seem to recall Dan being good. He, like Herr Doktor, will probably have
to sit back and watch for a bit to see how things have or have not changed,
but I don't see how he wouldn't be able to fit in.

Bring back Talkie!!!

Erik J.


http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
Message no. 29
From: "Mark A. Imbriaco" <mark.imbriaco@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:09:51 -0400
On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Erik Jameson wrote:

> At 08:59 AM 9/18/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >So...who's this "Talky" person...?
>
> Not a person, per se...
>
> >>>Talkie, Magna Tech toaster #17<< [Clicka]
> >
> >>>Character not found in ShadowTk Cast Listing!<<
> >
> >Hmmmm. If it ever was there, it's gone now.... I take it someone was
> >playing a few too many sessions of "Teenagers from Outer Space"?

No, it's still there. Just broken. *grr* On the upside, I was looking
for a small scale project to work on and had forgotten about the cast-db.
Now I have something to play with tonight. :-)

-Mark
Message no. 30
From: Brion David Wauters <bdw8@****.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:33:50 -0700
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Erik Jameson wrote:

> Do it. Doesn't have to be a major contributor, and it's not like TK and
> Plot-D are massive volume lists...be good to see some of his people again...

Already tried. He claims not to have the time anymore.

> Of course, with his return we might also have the return of...dare I say
> his name? Talky!!!

NO! No more of that blasted toaster! Please! I'm begging!

Brion
Message no. 31
From: Brion David Wauters <bdw8@****.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:36:02 -0700
On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Brian Angliss wrote:

> And you tell Dan that I have a job, am working on a huge
> website, a fiancee as well, and I'm still on! :)

Will Do. It could be fun to have Crush and CB back.

Brion
Message no. 32
From: Brion David Wauters <bdw8@****.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:40:34 -0700
On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Mach wrote:

> So...who's this "Talky" person...?

Talky was a talking (AI) toaster that constantly pestered people to eat
toasted bread products. He ranged from amusing to anoying to occasionaly
usefull (didn't somebody hit Dante with a "toast" virus once?).

> Hmmmm. If it ever was there, it's gone now.... I take it someone was
> playing a few too many sessions of "Teenagers from Outer Space"?

Nope. Watched to much "Red Dwarf".

> The more, as they say, the merrier. (Especially if he's a decent writer.)

He was a good character writer. Dunno if he ever wrote a plot-line (well,
the behemoth hunt, but that was fairly simple).

Brion
Message no. 33
From: Brian Angliss <angliss@******.NET>
Subject: Re: FYI ..
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:45:59 -0600
> Well, things are different now, that's for sure. But the hell with it,
> Talky was too cool. And it wasn't like Dan abused Talky.
>
> I still remember when Drake got "toasted"... ;-)

Yep, Dante's toaster virus. God, that was fun. I'm still
trying hard to come up with a suitably evil character.
Velli's just too powerful sometimes to be really fun.

> A fiance? Damn, it seems like a growing number of folks on TK and RN are
> getting or are married...seems the Shadowrun audience is aging...I can
> remember when nearly everyone on all the lists was in college or high
> school...not so anymore...

Nope. I joined originally when I was in my sophmore year of
college, stuck around with a year-long hiatus last year, but
that's still about 6 years ago. Damn, been that long....
And now I'm done with my Master's, I'm working for a
telecommunications company, and have a fiancee. Oh, how
life does change.

Brian

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about FYI .., 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!