| From: | Ereskanti <Ereskanti@***.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Metamagic?! |
| Date: | Thu, 5 Mar 1998 21:50:13 EST |
> Urm, I think this needs to be hashed out here Ereskanti (sorry, I don't
> have your RL name in front of me). It sounds like much of what you are
> talking about, through Binder-in-the-dark, as metamagic is frighteningly
> similar to Earthdawn magic techniques.
First of all, it's Keith. Picture of me and some of our ideas at...
http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/intro.htm
http://members.aol.com/ereskanti/index.html (home page)
> I had a e-mail conversation with Steve "Magic Guru" Kenson about a year
ago
> in this regard. I had asked him to critique a piece on new magic
> techniques for the Shadowland magazine (which did get published). He
> basically "made me" tone things down a lot. He said that the level of
> magic technology, not to mention the mana level, was far too low for
> anything resembling ED type magic, such as Spell Matrices, Spell Matrix
> Items, blood charms, physical transfer over the astral, and so on.
Oh no, I wasn't going for any of that. Steve and I had a discussion of some
of this stuff that "Binder" is discussing. What I was attempting to tell him
is that we (being the game group here in Lafalot) were trying to advance
magical theory but NOT do so in a manner reflecting Earthdawn (nice game, but
WAY to powerful, even IMHO).
Yes, in game, Binder and the characters here, have encountered Horrors and
stuff, but that is how we play. For "TK", I am not playing up that extent.
At least not in full. "Metamagic" is a way for us to consider "advancing
magic" in a way that makes steps or stages. "Skill Based" was the goal,
not
level based. I am working on putting more stuff upon Hacker House later in
the Metamagic area, just so I can have the information accessable to others
for opinions. "Aura Masking" is up now, and sadly I've just gotten too
distracted to get much more.
"Blood Magic", as is interpreted by us, is more defined after the "Aztlan
Sourcebook" definitions, using Essence and Damage as measurement systems (the
Wraith is one idea). We once-upon-a-time did have stuff more "Earthdawnish",
but it was so unbalanced that we have ultimately trashed it in favor of the
current theory.
"The Books" (the ones in wax) that Binder mentioned are based upon the Books
of Horrow (sp?) from ED, but more from the POV of someone who -did- manage to
get a translation of them and rewrote the material in his/her own words and
included personal bias (which makes them 'not quite' what they should be). A
VAST amount of material that we have used and placed into a playable game
mechanic comes from the Bible, the Necronomicon and the Cabal actually (I
know, what a trio).
> One example was a variation of Centering I proposed. It was available only
> to high-level initiates (above Grade 5 or something) and only gave a bonus
> to the Centering target number. I also proposed a Drain Focus, that
> followed all the basic rules of foci, but only helped with drain. I wrote
> a few other things, but those two items were as close to Earthdawn magic as
> I could get away with.
Variations of Centering exist all over the place. A "Drain Focus" is IMO,
merely a Power Foci or similar object that assists in resisting magical
backlash from various sources. Either of which are doable within the current
rules of SR and not hurting/straining anyone's game balance. Our idea of
"stretching" is a "Metascapes Foci", which is more expensive
karmically than a
Power Foci and assists in "Metamagic Talent Usage" (slightly overgeneralized,
but I think you get the idea).
> And since Steve Kenson wrote Awakenings, among other SR books, I would tend
> to go with his word on this. And since Mike Mulvihill approved the article
> for publication, it comes close to SR canon.
Actually, there's a particular female that probably did the approving (right
Bruce?), Mike read it and said "okay" probably, but I have come to doubt more
and more what is his consistent idea and what is not (sorry).
> If this is the sort of thing Binder is talking about, fine. If it's as
> close to Earthdawn as it looks to me, it may need some re-working of some
> sort.
Believe me, ED is NOT what we are working towards...we like to think this
"Age" is gonna be magically different than the last couple of them...
> Please get back to me ASAP regarding this so I can properly respond on TK.
> Erik J.
I tried to with this ... sorry for the ripples ...
Actually, I am not sorry, but I am apologetic (forget it, the words aren't
coming).
-K
