Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	JCARROTHERS@******
Subject:	re; "magic and the matrix"
Date:	Wed, 23 Sep 92 16:18:00 EDT

Message no. 1 >>>>[ We tried, we failed.
-Greyfire (17:34:48/09-23-92)

From:	GADGET <SHALEY@******>
Subject:	Re: re; "magic and the matrix"
Date:	Thu, 24 Sep 92 19:43:00 EDT

Message no. 2 >>>>[ We haven't failed yet...
-Dr. Gadget (19:44:52/09-24-92)

From:	Ben Bernard <bcb@*******.EDU>
Subject:	Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 01:07:51 -0400

Message no. 3 Hey ShadowRN,

A friend of mine earlier today posed to me this question: Is there any way
to cast a spell on the Matrix. My initial respose was no, however, he put
up some interesting arguments. First, supposing you could go direct from
the Matrix to the Astral Plane, he supposed that you, from the astral
plane, could cast something like Power Bolt on the physical computer,
destroying the computer w/o the need of the mage acutally being there.
This might also work when trying to fry a specific decker. Also, in
regards to magic affecting the representation of the Matrix, I said that
while, yes, a spell could theortically accomplish this by actually altering
the flashes of 1s and 0s that occur in a computer, the computer knowledge
required for such as fast was so vast as to make the task impossible. Then
he supposed that if one could somehow summon a "Matrix Spirit" that this
spirit would be able to assist the spellcaster in the fine details, while
the mage could concentrate on the overall effect. I thought the idea had
some merit, and I want to get your guys' ideas on the subject.

BTW, I'm sorry if I just stumbled on a no-no subject for the group, but
I've been lurking for a while, and I hadn't seen it discussed, so here
goes!

Ben

"There is nothing an Agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he
believes in anything or not." -Graham Chapman

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M/MU/PA/S d-(+)@ s:(+) a--- C++(+++)>++++$ UB>++ P L>+ E? W++$>+++ N++
!o K--? w---(--) !O M+(++)>$ !V PS+(++) PE-() Y+>++ PGP--(---) t++(+++)
5-(--) X+>++ R+(++) tv(-) b+++(++++) DI+++(++++) D+ G++>+++ e- h-->++ r- y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Check out the TEC Column at http://www.niagara.edu/~nursing/tec/

From:	Loki <gamemstr@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 1997 22:31:51 -0700

Message no. 4 > A friend of mine earlier today posed to me this question: Is there any
way
> to cast a spell on the Matrix.

I wouldn't buy it. First off, there's an understood FASA ruling that magic
and the matrix don't jive. Shamans and Mages that pull their energy from
the living physical universe have a hard time melding with a totally
articificial universe.

Grimmy 1 was the first sourcebook to suggest giving the magically active a
modifier to all tests while in the matrix (usually equal to their Magic
attribute). There's another example in the Secrets of Power Trilogy with
Sam Verner's headaches whenever he jacked in, and again when Dodger noticed
the limp in Sam's icon.

A mage that was somehow in the matrix and then decided to project, would in
my understanding leave his meat body where it sat and not float out of the
physical location of the matrix where his icon last was. I'm not even sure
if his awareness trully travels through the matrix, as much as it interacts
with the cyberdeck and stays right there in his body. For example, crusing
the Net doesn't mean we step out on the information hiway and romp
around...the Net is brought to us through our computers and browsers.

Even if said mage were to somehow astrally get to the location of the
system he was invading, the rules state in B&W that he can't affect
something on the physical plane while he's on the astral. No spell is going
to touch the computer, and last I knew no computer was dual-planer.

Finally, I don't think I should have to touch on the subject of summoning a
"matrix" spirit. Artificial universe, no living aura of presence to conjure
from, no "matrix" totem (unless someone is SERIOUSLY twisting the idea of
an otaku)...

@>--,--'--- Loki

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- A. C. Clarke

Poisoned Elves http://www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

From:	Dane Jensen <djensen@*********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 1997 22:46:50 -0700

Message no. 5 >A friend of mine earlier today posed to me this question: Is there any way
>to cast a spell on the Matrix.

You read The Lucifer Deck? In it there's a spirit that exists as pure
light. Because the computers of 2050 use optronics it would enter computers
and do what ever it pleased. So yeah...In a way I suppose it's possible

Psyber

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:31:44 +1000

Message no. 6 > A friend of mine earlier today posed to me this question: Is there any
way
> to cast a spell on the Matrix. My initial respose was no, however, he
put
> up some interesting arguments. First, supposing you could go direct from
> the Matrix to the Astral Plane, he supposed that you, from the astral

There is no 'Matrix'. It is something that you are 'imagining', if you
will. If you went straight to the astral from 'The Matrix', you would
appear where your body is in the real world. If you were slotting a
simsense chip, and thought you were in Hawaii, it would make NO difference
to Astral projection.

> plane, could cast something like Power Bolt on the physical computer,

And this could only happen if the computer was astrally active, something
that no computer (that I know of anyway) is capable of.

> destroying the computer w/o the need of the mage acutally being there.
> This might also work when trying to fry a specific decker. Also, in

Only if the opposing decker was in LOS in the real world. A decker in the
'Matrix' is just like the Hawaii simsense chip, it makes no difference what
he imagines he is seeing, because it's all in his head. The opposing
decker's aura is only in the real world, and there is no way that the
mage/decker could cast a spell without being able to align with it (ie it
is in LOS).

> regards to magic affecting the representation of the Matrix, I said that
> while, yes, a spell could theortically accomplish this by actually
altering
> the flashes of 1s and 0s that occur in a computer, the computer knowledge
> required for such as fast was so vast as to make the task impossible.
Then
> he supposed that if one could somehow summon a "Matrix Spirit" that this
> spirit would be able to assist the spellcaster in the fine details, while
> the mage could concentrate on the overall effect. I thought the idea had
> some merit, and I want to get your guys' ideas on the subject.

There is no Matrix, so there is probably no Matrix domain. However, a GM
could rule that as people believe in the Matrix as an actual place, there
could be an equivalent domain. However, even if you did use this ruling,
any altering of 1's and 0's would be no different to the same altering that
a program could do. If the spirit altering these 1's and 0's didn't follow
the right protocols or whatever, the receiving computer would just receive
them as random numbers that mean nothing. If the spirit could fool the
computer into doing something against it's will, then it is just doing what
a program does, but for a cost of significantly more effort.

Ray.

-----------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens,|
| You will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:57:42 +0100

Message no. 7 Loki said on 22:31/15 Apr 97...

> I wouldn't buy it. First off, there's an understood FASA ruling that magic
> and the matrix don't jive. Shamans and Mages that pull their energy from
> the living physical universe have a hard time melding with a totally
> articificial universe.
>
> Grimmy 1 was the first sourcebook to suggest giving the magically active a
> modifier to all tests while in the matrix (usually equal to their Magic
> attribute).

I thought it was Virtual Realities 1, but since I don't own the original
Grimoire you may be right. Anyway, for some reason that rule was left out
of VR 2.0, while IMHO it should have been in it. According to VR 1 (page
52), the GM has the option of either adding the character's Magic
attribute or Sorcery skill rating to _all_ TNs for matrix tests, making it
much more difficult to do anything at all there.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
There's nothing we can not ever fix.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	"Steven A. Tinner" <bluewizard@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 07:33:41 -0400

Message no. 8 > BTW, I'm sorry if I just stumbled on a no-no subject for the group, but
> I've been lurking for a while, and I hadn't seen it discussed, so here
> goes!

Not a no-no AFAIK.
Check out the SR novel The Lucifer Deck - there's something along those
lines there.
In general I'd say no, but there's nothing to stop you.

Steven A. Tinner
bluewizard@*****.com
http://www.ncweb.com/users/bluewizard
"They do not know. They only THINK they know ..."

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:27:51 -0400

Message no. 9 Ben Bernard once dared to write,

>Hey ShadowRN,
>
>A friend of mine earlier today posed to me this question: Is there any way
>to cast a spell on the Matrix. My initial respose was no, however, he put
>up some interesting arguments. First, supposing you could go direct from
>the Matrix to the Astral Plane, he supposed that you, from the astral
>plane, could cast something like Power Bolt on the physical computer,
>destroying the computer w/o the need of the mage acutally being there.
>This might also work when trying to fry a specific decker. Also, in
>regards to magic affecting the representation of the Matrix, I said that
>while, yes, a spell could theortically accomplish this by actually altering
>the flashes of 1s and 0s that occur in a computer, the computer knowledge
>required for such as fast was so vast as to make the task impossible. Then
>he supposed that if one could somehow summon a "Matrix Spirit" that this
>spirit would be able to assist the spell caster in the fine details, while
>the mage could concentrate on the overall effect. I thought the idea had
>some merit, and I want to get your guys' ideas on the subject.

The matrix is all a created experience, not a separate plane like
the astral. Your cyberdeck feeds you the information which it transfers
into a form you can understand, like web browsers do in a much more
limited fashion. You don't travel "in the matrix". If you go astral you
will be right where you're meat body is. I'll discuss the only possible
exception later.
One day perhaps they will learn to use magic that affects computers
directly but it will be even longer before magicians can grasp how
computers work affect them in any way. Also, since magic works in a
holistic way so individual parts (like code) could not be effected.
Matrix spirits? no. If anything there isn't enough belief to create
any yet. Now the only part where this line could even start to get
blurred is with the Otaku. One askew way of looking at the Otaku is that
they are the "magicians" who do effect the matrix. This could only be
because their abilities work on a completely different level and
different subject than normal magicians. I personally play on that
connection on Otaku being the "new mages" very lightly as just a
possibility on their origins.
Even without saying that they are the "new mages" I've considered
altering the CharGen rules where Otaku have to take an A or B priority in
magic to represent their Otaku abilities.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:34:33 -0400

Message no. 10 Gurth once dared to write,

>I thought it was Virtual Realities 1, but since I don't own the original
>Grimoire you may be right. Anyway, for some reason that rule was left out
>of VR 2.0, while IMHO it should have been in it. According to VR 1 (page
>52), the GM has the option of either adding the character's Magic
>attribute or Sorcery skill rating to _all_ TNs for matrix tests, making it
>much more difficult to do anything at all there.

It was VR1.0 that had that rule and not Grimoire 1st (and you know
me, if it made sense I still stand by it even if current rule version
left it out for what ever reason). Of course I prefer using just one half
of the mage's magic rating for this penality. I think that is a great
enough penality at that level.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:18:47 -0600

Message no. 11 MC23 wrote:
|
| Ben Bernard once dared to write,
|
[snip: Magic in the Matrix?]
|
| The matrix is all a created experience, not a separate plane like
| the astral. Your cyberdeck feeds you the information which it transfers
| into a form you can understand, like web browsers do in a much more
| limited fashion. You don't travel "in the matrix". If you go astral you
| will be right where you're meat body is.

However, if a mage created a spell (or magic item) that could act as
an interpreter *and* allow his spells to affect programs, then I
could see it happening. But, I don't think it will ever happen
(hm..maybe an NPC in my game <evil GM grin>).

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:36:37 -0600

Message no. 12 Dane Jensen wrote:
|
| >A friend of mine earlier today posed to me this question: Is there any way
| >to cast a spell on the Matrix.
|
| You read The Lucifer Deck? In it there's a spirit that exists as pure
| light. Because the computers of 2050 use optronics it would enter computers
| and do what ever it pleased. So yeah...In a way I suppose it's possible

But, it wouldn't be able to recognize one program from the next (if
it could even percieve programs at all).

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:02:55 -0600

Message no. 13 Ben Bernard wrote:
|
| Hey ShadowRN,
|
| A friend of mine earlier today posed to me this question: Is there any way
| to cast a spell on the Matrix. My initial respose was no, however, he put
| up some interesting arguments. First, supposing you could go direct from
| the Matrix to the Astral Plane, he supposed that you, from the astral
| plane, could cast something like Power Bolt on the physical computer,
| destroying the computer w/o the need of the mage acutally being there.

Nope, you can't ground out a spell into a computer.

| This might also work when trying to fry a specific decker.

Again, see the rules on grounding.

| Also, in
| regards to magic affecting the representation of the Matrix, I said that
| while, yes, a spell could theortically accomplish this by actually altering
| the flashes of 1s and 0s that occur in a computer, the computer knowledge
| required for such as fast was so vast as to make the task impossible.

Okay, lets say a someone is hooked up to the matrix through a
cyberdeck. The cyberdeck is interpreting the data from the matrix
and then presenting it to the user as a virtual reality. If the user
wants to use a weapon to cause damage to a program the cyberdeck runs
the linked program (say, Blaster), queries the target application to
gauge the effect, and then alters the user's virtual world to
coincide with reality. At no point is the user directly viewing what
is occuring. He is viewing a virtual representation of reality.

Now the user is a mage. The mage is percieving the virtual world
created by the cyberdeck (which is being fed directly into his brain
via trodes or a datajack). If the mage casts a spell he momentarily
shifts his perception to astral (sort of, this spawns a whole new
debate :) which is in the real world and targets whatever is in front
of his real body. The perception of the matrix is an illusion that
is created by the cyberdeck with no real substance. Trying to cast a
spell in the matrix would be analogous(sp?) to casting a spell at a
hologram or an illusion, except that the hologram and illusion have
physical components, whereas the virtual reality does not (it's all
in his mind).

IMO, the only way for magic to affect the matrix, is for the mage to
somehow create a spell or device that allows him to percieve the
matrix, and allows him to channel spells at his perceptions. Said
spell or device would have to create the virtual world for the mage.
Since illusions spells allready exist this should be possible. Then,
said spell or device would have to translate spells cast into magical
"programs" capable of affecting real programs. This would be a major
task, and IMO not worth the effort.

| Then
| he supposed that if one could somehow summon a "Matrix Spirit" that this
| spirit would be able to assist the spellcaster in the fine details, while
| the mage could concentrate on the overall effect. I thought the idea had
| some merit, and I want to get your guys' ideas on the subject.

The matrix spirit would have to act like a cyberdeck, percieving for
the mage, and channeling his spells. I could see this happening.
But, there aren't any matrix spirits, and I don't think there should
be (just my opinion). The matrix is for deckers, and astral space is
for mages. If a mage wants to access the matrix he should buy a
datajack and a cyberdeck.

| BTW, I'm sorry if I just stumbled on a no-no subject for the group, but
| I've been lurking for a while, and I hadn't seen it discussed, so here
| goes!

:) There's no such thing as a taboo subject. The worst you'll get
is a "Oh god, not grounding again <sob>."

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:13:43 -0400

Message no. 14 David Buehrer once dared to write,

>However, if a mage created a spell (or magic item) that could act as
>an interpreter *and* allow his spells to affect programs, then I
>could see it happening. But, I don't think it will ever happen
>(hm..maybe an NPC in my game <evil GM grin>).

But don't forget that magic can only effect the whole and not
components. Anything magic could have an effect on that way is the decker
himself. Now that could still create something to play with.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23

From:	Benjamin Pflugmann
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 18:40:51 +0100

Message no. 15 >
> > BTW, I'm sorry if I just stumbled on a no-no subject for the group, but
> > I've been lurking for a while, and I hadn't seen it discussed, so here
> > goes!
>
> Not a no-no AFAIK.
> Check out the SR novel The Lucifer Deck - there's something along those
> lines there.
> In general I'd say no, but there's nothing to stop you.

I do not think that is would be a good idea to look at novels when you are
pondering about rule questions. There are too many faults in the novels
regarding the rules.

What the author has written can be correct in the sense of the shadowrun
world, but it is possible that it is simply something that the author wishes
(without looking for the correctness of the SR world).

But... i do not know this novel yet. So maybe I am wrong.

Bye,

Benjamin.

--
pfb08188@*****.physik.uni-regensburg.de
benjamin@*****.leibniz.in-passau.de

From:	Benjamin Pflugmann
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 18:58:26 +0100

Message no. 16 > Hey ShadowRN,
>
> A friend of mine earlier today posed to me this question: Is there any way
> to cast a spell on the Matrix. My initial respose was no, however, he put
> up some interesting arguments. First, supposing you could go direct from
> the Matrix to the Astral Plane, he supposed that you, from the astral
> plane, could cast something like Power Bolt on the physical computer,
> destroying the computer w/o the need of the mage acutally being there.
> This might also work when trying to fry a specific decker. Also, in
> regards to magic affecting the representation of the Matrix, I said that
> while, yes, a spell could theortically accomplish this by actually altering
> the flashes of 1s and 0s that occur in a computer, the computer knowledge
> required for such as fast was so vast as to make the task impossible. Then
> he supposed that if one could somehow summon a "Matrix Spirit" that this
> spirit would be able to assist the spellcaster in the fine details, while
> the mage could concentrate on the overall effect. I thought the idea had
> some merit, and I want to get your guys' ideas on the subject.

Hm. There are a few post which quite good explain, why casting spells
related to matrix are quite impossible.

One thing, what should be possible, should be when a mage cast a spell on a
decker (not using something weird like a "matrix connection"). But, the mage
would have to know much about matrix to get a good result.

A possible situation for me: A mage cast an illusion on a decker that
creates some black ice. But for this the mage must have an imagination how
this ice would look like. And which mage knows that? Now mage would like to
look into the matrix. A possibility would be a screen which shows, what the
decker sees............

Bye,

Benjamin.

--
pfb08188@*****.physik.uni-regensburg.de
benjamin@*****.leibniz.in-passau.de

From:	Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:28:07 +0000

Message no. 17 On 16 Apr 97 at 1:07, Ben Bernard wrote:
> A friend of mine earlier today posed to me this question: Is there any way
> to cast a spell on the Matrix.
Hoi, this will be fun *runs, grabs chips, coffee, and a fresh pack of
cigarettes*

> My initial respose was no, however, he put
> up some interesting arguments. First, supposing you could go direct from
> the Matrix to the Astral Plane, he supposed that you, from the astral
> plane, could cast something like Power Bolt on the physical computer,
> destroying the computer w/o the need of the mage acutally being there.
Nice idea. I take it you are GM? Well. Let him have his will: He decks
somewhere where the sensible data he wants destroyed his, thus
establishing LOS. and fires his Powerbolt or -ball spell (against a
rediculous high TN, as we talk high tech here...). Great. Now, lets
have a look at what just happened: The magician directs the interface
of his cyberdeckto read data from the target computer. This data is
interpreted by his deck's ASIST interface and displayed in the
decker's, err, magician's sensory data. Now, the LOS is established,
and congratulations - it would be the user's cyberdeck. Someone just
happily fried his own deck :-)

Get me right: IMHO opinion this is not possible, as SRII states:
"Remote vision, such as through a telecom screen, security camera, or a
remote-sensing spell like clairvoyance are also useless for casting
spells. A good rule of thumb is that magicians must be able to see
their targets with their own eyes or a natural extensions of those
eyes." This is on page 130, for those who keep track, and rules out the
matrix as way to establish LOS. I just liked the above scenario for its
evilness... :-)

> This might also work when trying to fry a specific decker.
Same as above, really. Not possible BTB, but if you are cruel: it's the
ASIST interface in _your_ deck that creates the image...

> Also, in
> regards to magic affecting the representation of the Matrix, I said that
> while, yes, a spell could theortically accomplish this by actually altering
> the flashes of 1s and 0s that occur in a computer, the computer knowledge
> required for such as fast was so vast as to make the task impossible.
Yuck! This is worse then assambler! But again, you can only affect what
you can establish LOS to - and that'd be your deck. Hm... interesting
idea... heal cyberdeck spell... hm...

> Then
> he supposed that if one could somehow summon a "Matrix Spirit" that this
> spirit would be able to assist the spellcaster in the fine details, while
> the mage could concentrate on the overall effect. I thought the idea had
> some merit, and I want to get your guys' ideas on the subject.
What's a "matrix spirit"? *shrug* You might want to read how Otaku
sense the matrix (well, some of them at least). Might bring some
ideas...

On 16 Apr 97 at 19:31, Ray & Xxxxxx wrote:
> A decker in the
> 'Matrix' is just like the Hawaii simsense chip, it makes no difference
> what he imagines he is seeing, because it's all in his head.
No. It's in the decker's cyberdeck. The data received from the network
(matrix) is interpreted much like our day's web browsers interpret HTML
(or even Java, sometimes :-)

On 16 Apr 97 at 8:18, David Buehrer wrote:
> However, if a mage created a spell (or magic item) that could act as
> an interpreter *and* allow his spells to affect programs, then I could
> see it happening. But, I don't think it will ever happen
...especially as the magician could meet some problems finding a LOS to
a program "with his natural eyes"... :-)

Sascha
--
+---___---------+------------------------------------+------------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst |Things that try to look |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@ | like things often do |
| \___ __/ | Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.de | 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 -----------------+

From:	TEGTMEBC@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:04:00 -0500

Message no. 18 > However, if a mage created a spell (or magic item) that could act as
> an interpreter *and* allow his spells to affect programs, then I
> could see it happening. But, I don't think it will ever happen
> (hm..maybe an NPC in my game <evil GM grin>).

The big question would then be, "Are you prepared to open that can of
worms?" If you did create something like that for an NPC, the characrters would
try to get their grubby little hands on it. Once they defeat the NPC, they are
definitely going to try to take the item, or learn the spell that effects the
Matrix. I wouldn't suggest making anything like that unless you don't mind it
becoming pretty common in your game. Bummer, eh?

-The Immortal Mental

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 15:09:50 -0600

Message no. 19 TEGTMEBC@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU wrote:
|
| > However, if a mage created a spell (or magic item) that could act as
| > an interpreter *and* allow his spells to affect programs, then I
| > could see it happening. But, I don't think it will ever happen
| > (hm..maybe an NPC in my game <evil GM grin>).
|
| The big question would then be, "Are you prepared to open that can of
| worms?" If you did create something like that for an NPC, the characrters would
| try to get their grubby little hands on it. Once they defeat the NPC, they are
| definitely going to try to take the item, or learn the spell that effects the
| Matrix. I wouldn't suggest making anything like that unless you don't mind it
| becoming pretty common in your game. Bummer, eh?
|
| -The Immortal Mental

Oh, I learned that lesson awhile back. BTW, the best handling of this I
have ever seen is in the Gargoyles cartoon series. At one point they
defeat a mage that is using the Eye of Odin, and end up with the Eye. In
one of their later adventures the main character puts on the Eye and is
granted god-like powers. It also corupts him.

So whenever I put one of these god objects in my game I go by the maxim
that power corrupts. The players are pretty careful now :)

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~

From:	Brett Borger <SwiftOne@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:22:08 -0400

Message no. 20 MC23 enlightened us with these words of wisdom:
>>I thought it was Virtual Realities 1, but since I don't own the original
>>Grimoire you may be right. Anyway, for some reason that rule was left out
>>of VR 2.0, while IMHO it should have been in it. According to VR 1 (page
>>52), the GM has the option of either adding the character's Magic
>>attribute or Sorcery skill rating to _all_ TNs for matrix tests, making it
>>much more difficult to do anything at all there.
>
> It was VR1.0 that had that rule and not Grimoire 1st (and you know
>me, if it made sense I still stand by it even if current rule version
>left it out for what ever reason). Of course I prefer using just one half
>of the mage's magic rating for this penality. I think that is a great
>enough penality at that level.

I always hated that rule....it ruined the chances of a character bothering
to try cross-learning things, and it just doesn't make sense. Look at it
this way:

1) Hermetics, at least, work with set of laws. Numbers, formulae, etc. The
MAtrix is nothing BUT that, with all the rules KNOWN (in theory). A
hermetic should love this.

2) In several places it has been advanced that the best Matrix users are
those that react instinctively and without considering the "reality" of what
is happening. In otherwords, you see the dragon(IC) and dodge, and the deck
interprets appropriately (shift to Evasion Mode). If you try to think. "IC
attacking, engage Evasion Mode" it doesn't work as fast. Magicians have no
reason NOT to be able to do this. THey spend a lot of time dealing with
situations outside "normal reality".

Granted, not all magicians could deal with the knowledge that what they were
doing wasn't REALLY "real". MAybe LOTS of magicians don't like the matrix
because there is no mana there. But some would. Some would work just fine.
Heck, not all PEOPLE could deal with those concepts. (Try getting my
grandfather to use a computer). I see this as a role-playing facet, and not
a numbers decided thing.

-=SwiftOne=-

From:	Benjamin Pflugmann
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:56:13 +0100

Message no. 21 > I always hated that rule....it ruined the chances of a character bothering
> to try cross-learning things, and it just doesn't make sense. Look at it
> this way:
>
> 1) Hermetics, at least, work with set of laws. Numbers, formulae, etc. The
> MAtrix is nothing BUT that, with all the rules KNOWN (in theory). A
> hermetic should love this.

Hm. An architect is the same. But his need not to love informatic, because
of this. I guess, there is no reason to like something that is based on
mathematics, only because one loves something other that is based on
mathematics.

I think a decker must love to live in the matrix. Same as a rigger loves to
live in his device. This is much more than understanding mathematics. INHO.

> 2) In several places it has been advanced that the best Matrix users are
> those that react instinctively and without considering the "reality" of
what
> is happening. In otherwords, you see the dragon(IC) and dodge, and the deck
> interprets appropriately (shift to Evasion Mode). If you try to think. "IC
> attacking, engage Evasion Mode" it doesn't work as fast. Magicians have no
> reason NOT to be able to do this. THey spend a lot of time dealing with
> situations outside "normal reality".

There is a reason. Somewhere was mentioned that the abilitity to live with
the virtual reality (that is put directly into your brain) is given by
heritage. And that this ability excluses the ability to use magic.

Hm. I think it was something like the same part of the DNA, just showing two
different combinations. (Like it is quite impossible to have red and black
hair at one time).

But I am not sure, where I read it.

> Granted, not all magicians could deal with the knowledge that what they were
> doing wasn't REALLY "real". MAybe LOTS of magicians don't like the matrix
> because there is no mana there. But some would. Some would work just fine.
> Heck, not all PEOPLE could deal with those concepts. (Try getting my
> grandfather to use a computer). I see this as a role-playing facet, and not
> a numbers decided thing.

You are right. Regardless if it is possible or not for a mage to use the
matrix. Surely most of them simply do not want to try it at all, because of
their attitude to high technology (Who like tech, when is power - the magic
- has only little effect on it)

Bye,

Benjamin.

--
pfb08188@*****.physik.uni-regensburg.de
benjamin@*****.leibniz.in-passau.de

From:	Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:16:18 +1000

Message no. 22 > I thought it was Virtual Realities 1, but since I don't own the original
> Grimoire you may be right. Anyway, for some reason that rule was left out
> of VR 2.0, while IMHO it should have been in it. According to VR 1 (page
> 52), the GM has the option of either adding the character's Magic
> attribute or Sorcery skill rating to _all_ TNs for matrix tests, making it
> much more difficult to do anything at all there.

I've always wondered about this since it smacks of the AD&D "character
classes" concept. I eventually came up with this, after much discussion
with friends and on r.g.f.c.

Two cases: 1) The fully magically active and those able to interact
(perceive or project) with the astral plane. 2) Those of limited magical
ability and no astral ability (eg PAs without Astral Perception, or Sorc
Ads).

For those in class 1, their TN penalty in the Matrix is equal to their
Magic attribute minus their Computer skill, all times 2. I.E. Magic = 6,
Gotta have Computer 6 to take no penalty. Comp 5 would give a +2 TN.

For those in class two, it's the same but the TN penalty is only
Magic-Computer. Eg Magic = 6, Comp 5 would give a +1 penalty.

It's meant to reflect that (apart from magic), in the SR world anyone
can do anything. For mages to deck, it just takes a lot more work on
their parts, to overcome their inclinations. So to be like a normal
decker, a mage has to put a lot of Karma into Computer - therefore
making them not as good a mage as one who ignored computers.

Incidentally, I thought that the Computer skill had to be
bought-and-paid-for. Skillwires wouldn't cut it - it has to be known and
instinctive, to override the magical instincts.

What do you all think?

Lady Jestyr

-----------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect in a world full of icebergs
-----------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503/
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-----------------------------------------------
Now a Geocities Times Square Community Leader!
-----------------------------------------------

From:	Loki <gamemstr@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 15:56:49 -0700

Message no. 23 > > Grimmy 1 was the first sourcebook to suggest giving the magically
active a
> > modifier to all tests while in the matrix (usually equal to their Magic
> > attribute).
>
>
> I thought it was Virtual Realities 1, but since I don't own the original
> Grimoire you may be right. Anyway, for some reason that rule was left out
> of VR 2.0, while IMHO it should have been in it. According to VR 1 (page
> 52), the GM has the option of either adding the character's Magic
> attribute or Sorcery skill rating to _all_ TNs for matrix tests, making
it
> much more difficult to do anything at all there.

You're right, my mistake for typing while taking a call at work. The rule
was in VR 1.0...but the point as we made it is the same.

@>--,--'--- Loki

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- A. C. Clarke

Poisoned Elves http://www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

From:	Loki <gamemstr@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:00:34 -0700

Message no. 24 > However, if a mage created a spell (or magic item) that could act as
> an interpreter *and* allow his spells to affect programs, then I
> could see it happening. But, I don't think it will ever happen
> (hm..maybe an NPC in my game <evil GM grin>).
>
> -David

Sounds like the Mana Jack spell resrearch that was the focal point of a
campiagn I ran for a while, a spell and foci combination was being
researched that would filter the matrix' signals in a form a mage or shaman
could interpret. It hasn't been said in the game if this is truly fact or
faction...

<evil GM grin>

@>--,--'--- Loki

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- A. C. Clarke

Poisoned Elves http://www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:19:50 -0700

Message no. 25 Ben Bernard wrote:
>
> Hey ShadowRN,
>
> A friend of mine earlier today posed to me this question: Is there any way
> to cast a spell on the Matrix. My initial respose was no, however, he put
> up some interesting arguments. First, supposing you could go direct from
> the Matrix to the Astral Plane, he supposed that you, from the astral
> plane, could cast something like Power Bolt on the physical computer,
> destroying the computer w/o the need of the mage acutally being there.
> This might also work when trying to fry a specific decker. Also, in
> regards to magic affecting the representation of the Matrix, I said that
> while, yes, a spell could theortically accomplish this by actually altering
> the flashes of 1s and 0s that occur in a computer, the computer knowledge
> required for such as fast was so vast as to make the task impossible. Then
> he supposed that if one could somehow summon a "Matrix Spirit" that this
> spirit would be able to assist the spellcaster in the fine details, while
> the mage could concentrate on the overall effect. I thought the idea had
> some merit, and I want to get your guys' ideas on the subject.
>
> BTW, I'm sorry if I just stumbled on a no-no subject for the group, but
> I've been lurking for a while, and I hadn't seen it discussed, so here
> goes!

Oh no... the infamous "mages and the matrix" thread returns..

Really, it's okay. *Deep breath*

FASA keeps magic and matrix pretty separate -- you could Ram someone's
cyberdeck, but you can't Ram somebody's Avatar. If you were standing
beside a plugged-in decker you could (feasibly) cast a spell on him to
make him think he was looking at Black ICE -- but the cyberdeck doesn't
recognize it; he can't deal it any damage, and it can't touch him either
(unless you somehow disguise a Stunbolt that you lob at him.)

However, this only works with machines standing right in front of you.
Although everything is transmitted over fiber-op lines, the mage isn't
looking *through* the wires; data is being transmitted over them and
being interpreted by his cyberdeck/datajack. (He isn't even really
"looking" through his eyes)

Matrix spirits are an interesting idea, but don't really work out; you
may as well just call them independent viruses, or rogue frames, or
SCKs, or what-have-you. It might make for an interesting "BBS" or
Matrix section -- but again, they would be very distant relatives of
real-life spirits.

I've always been stridently opposed to bumping up target numbers for
mages on the Matrix; there's no real justification for it, and mages
already sack enough to get there in the first place (loss of Essence for
the datajack, Karma for the skills, nuyen for the ware, etc.)

But to each their own.

-Matt

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:15:57 -0400

Message no. 26 Brett Borger once dared to write,

>I always hated that rule....it ruined the chances of a character bothering
>to try cross-learning things, and it just doesn't make sense. Look at it
>this way:
>
<snip>

The reasoning behind the interface problems with mages is because
the mage's senses are tied to the astral. The interface from the
cyberdeck tries to give new and therefor contradictory information to
what his heightened senses are telling him. I don't think that it should
be as high as VR1.0 suggests but there should be some.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23

From:	Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:18:38 -0700

Message no. 27 > Sounds like the Mana Jack spell resrearch that was the focal point of a
> campiagn I ran for a while, a spell and foci combination was being
> researched that would filter the matrix' signals in a form a mage or
shaman
> could interpret. It hasn't been said in the game if this is truly fact or
> faction...
>
> <evil GM grin>
>
> @>--,--'--- Loki

"jerk."

-Craig, Disgruntled former dog shaman

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:31:13 -0400

Message no. 28 Lady Jestyr once dared to write,

>I've always wondered about this since it smacks of the AD&D "character
>classes" concept. I eventually came up with this, after much discussion
>with friends and on r.g.f.c.
>
>Two cases: 1) The fully magically active and those able to interact
>(perceive or project) with the astral plane. 2) Those of limited magical
>ability and no astral ability (eg PAs without Astral Perception, or Sorc
>Ads).

<snip>

>What do you all think?

The type of mage should affect who gets the penalities. Although, I
interpret sorceror adepts as having a limited form of astral perception.
Maybe You could make three catagories or reconsider where the sorceror
adept lies in those groupings.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:06:54 -0500

Message no. 29 >
> The reasoning behind the interface problems with mages is because
>the mage's senses are tied to the astral. The interface from the
>cyberdeck tries to give new and therefor contradictory information to
>what his heightened senses are telling him. I don't think that it
should be as high as VR1.0 suggests but there should be some.

If, if, *if* the mage were dual-natured I could buy this. But a mage
deals just fine with the mundane world; he has to actively *choose* to
perceive. All this means is that amage who jacks in can't (well,
shouldn't) switch to Astral perception -- but switching back to normal
has its own penalty for deckers already, and that, really, is the only
penalty that should apply.

And the information from the jack is handled marvlously well by the
other ninety percent of the population; what makes the mage's brain so
mysteriously unable to hack it?

-Matt

From:	Loki <gamemstr@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:25:58 -0700

Message no. 30 > > <evil GM grin>

> "jerk."
>
> -Craig, Disgruntled former dog shaman

Perhaps some background should be provided to the list when you post a
comment as such...

<raised GM eyebrow>

<rolled glowing astral newspaper hovers before the Dog Shaman's nose>

@>--,--'--- Loki

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- A. C. Clarke

Poisoned Elves http://www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 10:44:40 +1000

Message no. 31 > > It was VR1.0 that had that rule and not Grimoire 1st (and you know
> >me, if it made sense I still stand by it even if current rule version
> >left it out for what ever reason). Of course I prefer using just one
half
> >of the mage's magic rating for this penality. I think that is a great
> >enough penality at that level.
>
> I always hated that rule....it ruined the chances of a character
bothering
> to try cross-learning things, and it just doesn't make sense. Look at it
> this way:
>
> 1) Hermetics, at least, work with set of laws. Numbers, formulae, etc.
The
> MAtrix is nothing BUT that, with all the rules KNOWN (in theory). A
> hermetic should love this.

This is what I have always thought. Hermetics are about as suited as you
can get to the matrix. Why would they have a penalty. That's the reason
that the rule never got used in my game, and why I'm glad that they did
away with it in VR 2.0

Ray.

-----------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens,|
| You will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	Ray & Tamara <macey@*******.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 10:41:39 +1000

Message no. 32 > > A decker in the
> > 'Matrix' is just like the Hawaii simsense chip, it makes no difference
> > what he imagines he is seeing, because it's all in his head.

> No. It's in the decker's cyberdeck. The data received from the network
> (matrix) is interpreted much like our day's web browsers interpret HTML
> (or even Java, sometimes :-)

It may be interpreted in the cyberdeck, but it is all transferred to a
format that is compatible with the way the brain reads sensory input, and
then put into his head. My point was not that if he could cast a spell in
the matrix, that it would zap his head, but merely that it was not real.

Ray.

-----------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens,|
| You will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:48:23 -0400

Message no. 33 Matb once dared to write,

>If, if, *if* the mage were dual-natured I could buy this. But a mage
>deals just fine with the mundane world; he has to actively *choose* to
>perceive. All this means is that amage who jacks in can't (well,
>shouldn't) switch to Astral perception -- but switching back to normal
>has its own penalty for deckers already, and that, really, is the only
>penalty that should apply.

Nope. You misunderstand the mage and the mundane world. Read the Way
of the Burnout in Awakenings for more insight into mages and their
senses. And don't forget that the matrix is everything but the mundane
world.

>And the information from the jack is handled marvlously well by the
>other ninety percent of the population; what makes the mage's brain so
>mysteriously unable to hack it?

What makes a mundane unable to see astral? Mages are a special case,
Get used to it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

- MC23, who feels like he's at the start of another longwinded debate -

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 21:00:34 -0400

Message no. 34 Ray once dared to write,

>This is what I have always thought. Hermetics are about as suited as you
>can get to the matrix. Why would they have a penalty. That's the reason
>that the rule never got used in my game, and why I'm glad that they did
>away with it in VR 2.0

That still doesn't change the fact that even hermetics are receiving
astral information at a subliminal unconsciuos level. That is the source
of the headaches (where the target penalties come from) while jacked in.
The only type of magician that should have a different penalty should be
eagle shamans because of their limitations.

- MC23, who might now be on a soapbox -

From:	Dane Jensen <djensen@*********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:04:12 -0700

Message no. 35 >And the information from the jack is handled marvlously well by the
>other ninety percent of the population; what makes the mage's brain so
>mysteriously unable to hack it?

Maybe that their nervous system is different? To handle magic maybe on some
inpercievalbe level the cells need to be different, or able to conduct mana
more efficiantly. But that same difference resists the digital nature of
the Matrix. Maybe mages are magicly receptive to their aura, and shifting
that preception by decking doesn't shift their aura, and so their latent
preception of the astral (I'm reminded of the story of a burnt-out mage who
said that things didn't look as sharp, his eyes didn't change, but his
ability to latently 'feel' the magic around him lessened) doesn't jive with
with what their body is telling them. Their systems are out of sync with
each other. Of course, this is just a guess.

Psyber

From:	Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:39:28 +1000

Message no. 36 > >Two cases: 1) The fully magically active and those able to interact
> >(perceive or project) with the astral plane. 2) Those of limited magical
> >ability and no astral ability (eg PAs without Astral Perception, or Sorc
> >Ads).
>
> The type of mage should affect who gets the penalities. Although, I
> interpret sorceror adepts as having a limited form of astral perception.
> Maybe You could make three catagories or reconsider where the sorceror
> adept lies in those groupings.

I guess - but I was doing it out of personal interest, since my
rigger/sorceror adept character was at the time interested in decking.
She has no idea what this trippy astral shit is - she's a technoid girl
and proud of it.

Lady Jestyr

-----------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect in a world full of icebergs
-----------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503/
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-----------------------------------------------
Now a Geocities Times Square Community Leader!
-----------------------------------------------

From:	Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:45:36 +1000

Message no. 37 > >This is what I have always thought. Hermetics are about as suited as you
> >can get to the matrix. Why would they have a penalty. That's the reason
> >that the rule never got used in my game, and why I'm glad that they did
> >away with it in VR 2.0
>
> That still doesn't change the fact that even hermetics are receiving
> astral information at a subliminal unconsciuos level. That is the source
> of the headaches (where the target penalties come from) while jacked in.

The point is - the Matrix system has been changed almost completely
under VR2.0 and nowhere in that book does it say that mages have a TN
penalty in the Matrix.

If you want to bastardise rules from one edition to another, go for it -
most groups do, some a greater or lesser extent. But be very clear on
the fact that that IS what you're doing.

Lady Jestyr

-----------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect in a world full of icebergs
-----------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503/
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-----------------------------------------------
Now a Geocities Times Square Community Leader!
-----------------------------------------------

From:	Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:01:40 +1000

Message no. 38 > >And the information from the jack is handled marvlously well by the
> >other ninety percent of the population; what makes the mage's brain so
> >mysteriously unable to hack it?
>
> Maybe that their nervous system is different? To handle magic maybe on some
> inpercievalbe level the cells need to be different, or able to conduct mana
> more efficiantly. But that same difference resists the digital nature of
> the Matrix.

Point 1: the Matrix, AFAI am aware, is analog. Holographic storage, and
all that.

Point 2: If this is so, that mages are "different"in the way that you
suggest, how come they can still, say, rig effectively? Use smartlinks?
Blah blah blah?

Lady Jestyr

-----------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect in a world full of icebergs
-----------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503/
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-----------------------------------------------
Now a Geocities Times Square Community Leader!
-----------------------------------------------

From:	Tim P Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 01:05:58 EDT

Message no. 39 On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:06:54 -0500 Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM> writes:
>And the information from the jack is handled marvlously well by the
>other ninety percent of the population; what makes the mage's brain so
>mysteriously unable to hack it?

The fact that the other 90% aren't magically active.

And the fact that *his* (or *her*) brain just spent the last x years
getting tuned to astral space and the ebb and flow of mana and auras.

(I imagine it's like those age-old right/left-brain problems. Where you
just aren't wired to work well with that concept.)

~Tim

From:	Tim P Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 01:05:58 EDT

Message no. 40 On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:22:08 -0400 Brett Borger <SwiftOne@***.EDU>
writes:

>2) In several places it has been advanced that the best Matrix users are
>those that react instinctively and without considering the "reality" of
what
>is happening. In otherwords, you see the dragon(IC) and dodge, and the
deck
>interprets appropriately (shift to Evasion Mode). If you try to think.
"IC
>attacking, engage Evasion Mode" it doesn't work as fast. Magicians have
no
>reason NOT to be able to do this. THey spend a lot of time dealing with
>situations outside "normal reality".

I think one point that was brought up the last time this thread popped up
(a few months ago should anyone wish to go archive fishing) was that when
a mage makes an instinctive reaction to something, (s)he mostly does so
with magic. That is when the mage starts trying to deal with things in
the matrix he has to keep a tight reign on what his normal instincts are
telling him. The first thing he might want to do if some big dragon pops
up is to throw up spell defence or toss a mana-bolt at it... which of
course would only cost him prescious time as such actions accomplished
NOTHING in the matrix.. worse yet if he instinctively tried to throw
something like Spark or FlameThrower at the IC - which of course would
result in the destruction of what ever happened to be infront of the
decking mage in real life...and of course the possibility of drain.

However, someone else came up with the idea that the magic penalty could
be off-set by the magician's computer skill. Arguing that if s(h)e
managed to get a 4 or something in a decking skill, s(h)e must have over
come some of the disorientation/confusion.

~Tim

From:	Dane Jensen <djensen@*********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:01:11 -0700

Message no. 41 >> Maybe that their nervous system is different? To handle magic maybe on some
>> inpercievalbe level the cells need to be different, or able to conduct mana
>> more efficiantly. But that same difference resists the digital nature of
>> the Matrix.
>
>Point 1: the Matrix, AFAI am aware, is analog. Holographic storage, and
>all that.
>
>Point 2: If this is so, that mages are "different"in the way that you
>suggest, how come they can still, say, rig effectively? Use smartlinks?
>Blah blah blah?
>
>Lady Jestyr

Keep reading, a smartlink wouldnt shift your perception away from your aura
like decking does, and do we know if mages can rig perfectly?

Psyber

From:	TEGTMEBC@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 03:14:39 -0500

Message no. 42 > >Point 2: If this is so, that mages are "different"in the way that you
> >suggest, how come they can still, say, rig effectively? Use smartlinks?
> >Blah blah blah?
> >
> Keep reading, a smartlink wouldnt shift your perception away from your aura
> like decking does, and do we know if mages can rig perfectly?

While it is stated pretty clearly that mages have difficulty decking
as represented by the target modifier, FASA has never stated that mages have
trouble rigging. I've never seen any reference to such a concept in any of the
books. The rule about decking was in VR 1.0, so if such a modifier existed
while rigging it should have been in the RBB, which it was not. If I'm wrong,
please let me know because I've been missing something for years.
The special modifier for decking, IMHO isn't really fair. Why would a
mage get these headaches when shifting his perspective and no one else would
get them. After all, everyone still has an aura, yet only the mages, who are
more in touch with theirs, recieve the modifier. The fact that rigging doesn't
apply these modifiers is a blatent inconsistency. When someone is rigged into a
vehicle, they take the perspective of that vehicle, see what it sees, feel what
it feels, etc. That being the case, it would only make sense that, if any
modifier effects the mage while shifting perspectives into the Matrix, the same
modifier should effect them whenever shifting perspectives. That would either
mean that you should add modifiers in when a mage is rigging, or else ditch the
modifiers when decking. The only difference I can see is that when you shift to
the perspective of the vehicle, there is still an aura around said vehicle. You
may think you are the vehicle, but the astral plane is still connected to the
vehicle, no matter how slight that connection is. While it may seem like I just
shot down my own suggestion, I still think that when you shift perspectives you
are leaving your own body behind (even if it is only in your mind). Any
comments?

-The Immortal Mental

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 12:44:41 +0100

Message no. 43 Lady Jestyr said on 8:16/17 Apr 97...

> I've always wondered about this since it smacks of the AD&D "character
> classes" concept.

It does feel a bit like a forced game balance issue, yes.

[snip "types"]
> For those in class 1, their TN penalty in the Matrix is equal to their
> Magic attribute minus their Computer skill, all times 2. I.E. Magic = 6,
> Gotta have Computer 6 to take no penalty. Comp 5 would give a +2 TN.
>
> For those in class two, it's the same but the TN penalty is only
> Magic-Computer. Eg Magic = 6, Comp 5 would give a +1 penalty.

Sounds like a good idea, that way the more you know about computers the
less your penalty becomes. I suppose it's a bit unnecessary to add that
someone with Magic 6 and Computer 7 won't get a -2 or -1? :)

> It's meant to reflect that (apart from magic), in the SR world anyone
> can do anything. For mages to deck, it just takes a lot more work on
> their parts, to overcome their inclinations. So to be like a normal
> decker, a mage has to put a lot of Karma into Computer - therefore
> making them not as good a mage as one who ignored computers.

You may want to charge a bit extra for creating the MPCP too, since it
has to be written for a magically-active decker -- sort of a limited
reality filter. Maybe add 1 to the actual rating when determining the TN
etc.?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Do you remember, when you were someone else?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 05:37:20 -0700

Message no. 44 TEGTMEBC@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU wrote:
>
> > >Point 2: If this is so, that mages are "different"in the way that
you
> > >suggest, how come they can still, say, rig effectively? Use smartlinks?
> > >Blah blah blah?
> > >
> > Keep reading, a smartlink wouldnt shift your perception away from your aura
> > like decking does, and do we know if mages can rig perfectly?
>
> While it is stated pretty clearly that mages have difficulty decking
> as represented by the target modifier, FASA has never stated that mages have
> trouble rigging. I've never seen any reference to such a concept in any of the
> books. The rule about decking was in VR 1.0, so if such a modifier existed
> while rigging it should have been in the RBB, which it was not. If I'm wrong,
> please let me know because I've been missing something for years.
> The special modifier for decking, IMHO isn't really fair. Why would a
> mage get these headaches when shifting his perspective and no one else would
> get them. After all, everyone still has an aura, yet only the mages, who are
> more in touch with theirs, recieve the modifier. The fact that rigging doesn't
> apply these modifiers is a blatent inconsistency. When someone is rigged into a
> vehicle, they take the perspective of that vehicle, see what it sees, feel what
> it feels, etc. That being the case, it would only make sense that, if any
> modifier effects the mage while shifting perspectives into the Matrix, the same
> modifier should effect them whenever shifting perspectives. That would either
> mean that you should add modifiers in when a mage is rigging, or else ditch the
> modifiers when decking. The only difference I can see is that when you shift to
> the perspective of the vehicle, there is still an aura around said vehicle. You
> may think you are the vehicle, but the astral plane is still connected to the
> vehicle, no matter how slight that connection is. While it may seem like I just
> shot down my own suggestion, I still think that when you shift perspectives you
> are leaving your own body behind (even if it is only in your mind). Any
> comments?
>
> -The Immortal Mental

It's always been my opinion (a strong opinion, I'll admit) that the mage
already suffers a huge penalty when decking or, especially, rigging. To
wit, the blow to his Magic rating.

Drop in a datajack and Maggie Mage is down a full point of Magic
(possibly more if the surgeon *really* botches) Rigger Mage is hurting
for at least two points, possibly another from the surgical wound. Toss
in the cost of a cyberdeck and programs, Karma to get a decent set of
skills, time spent away from magical research or other activities, and
it is a huge price to pay. I could initiate for less, or - with all the
Karma and yen - buy and bond a gigantic focus.

Decking shouldn't be made any more difficult for mages; they suffer
enough to do it already.

-Matt

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:41:21 -0400

Message no. 45 Gurth once dared to write,

>You may want to charge a bit extra for creating the MPCP too, since it
>has to be written for a magically-active decker -- sort of a limited
>reality filter. Maybe add 1 to the actual rating when determining the TN
>etc.?

Interesting Idea, I like it.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 05:09:22 -0700

Message no. 46 Dane Jensen wrote:
>
> >And the information from the jack is handled marvlously well by the
> >other ninety percent of the population; what makes the mage's brain so
> >mysteriously unable to hack it?
>
> Maybe that their nervous system is different? To handle magic maybe on some
> inpercievalbe level the cells need to be different, or able to conduct mana
> more efficiantly. But that same difference resists the digital nature of
> the Matrix. Maybe mages are magicly receptive to their aura, and shifting
> that preception by decking doesn't shift their aura, and so their latent
> preception of the astral (I'm reminded of the story of a burnt-out mage who
> said that things didn't look as sharp, his eyes didn't change, but his
> ability to latently 'feel' the magic around him lessened) doesn't jive with
> with what their body is telling them. Their systems are out of sync with
> each other. Of course, this is just a guess.
>
> Psyber

Ah.. I asked that question knowing the answer. Per Shadowtech, there
is no difference between a mage's brain and a mundanes's. They don't
possess another lobe of the brain, and it's not included in the "normal
parts" - otherwise you could record astral perceptions on simsense, but
that does *not* work. It's left as a mysterious function of equally
mysterious genes.

On that note:

Informed Genetics Announces the *NEW* Magemaker Biodesign!
Yes, the *latest* wave of biotechnology can now make *you*
a mage! Cast spells! Summon spirits! Take a pleasure
cruise on the Astral Plane of Water, it's the Magemaker 2058!

GM Notes: Turns character into fully active magician, as
if he/she/it had chosen Priority A in magic.
Cost: 1,000,000 yen. Body Index: 6.
Not available as cultured bioware.

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:26:05 -0400

Message no. 47 Lady Jestyr once dared to write,

>The point is - the Matrix system has been changed almost completely
>under VR2.0 and nowhere in that book does it say that mages have a TN
>penalty in the Matrix.
I'm not going to second guess FASA on why this optional rule was
left out of VR2.0 but the interface between Man and the Matrix has not
changed. The rules on how a decker affects the matrix was changed.
>
>If you want to bastardise rules from one edition to another, go for it -
>most groups do, some a greater or lesser extent. But be very clear on
>the fact that that IS what you're doing.
BASTARDISE? You make it sound like I'm belittling the system or
breaking rules for munchkin style play. (which a sorceror
adept-rigger-decker sounds more fitting for that). What I'm doing is
still using an optional rule (at half the penality) that I have been
using since VR1.0 came out in `91. The rule does not contradict anything
in VR2.0. I don't see where you get off claiming that doing so is a
Bastardising of the game.
And for the record I would like to add that I was not the one to
bring this rule up. I am merely explaining why it exists. If you don't
care for the rule fine but this aspect of mages and the matrix has been
around since Never Deal With a Dragon.

- MC23, who is now on his soapbox -

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:40:15 -0400

Message no. 48 The Immortal Mental once dared to write,

> While it is stated pretty clearly that mages have difficulty decking
>as represented by the target modifier, FASA has never stated that mages have
>trouble rigging. I've never seen any reference to such a concept in any of
>the books. The rule about decking was in VR 1.0, so if such a modifier existed
>while rigging it should have been in the RBB, which it was not. If I'm wrong,
>please let me know because I've been missing something for years.
<snip>
>Any comments?

I agree that rigging imposes a new perception on top of the mage. I
couldn't hazzard a guess on the difference between a datajack feed of
perception from a cyberdeck differs from a VCR which is inlaid over the
whole body and what that means to a mage. I could only casually say that
the mage would still suffer the same penality he would receive if he was
decking. Otherwise we have little choice but to wait to see if RBB2 has
any added insight.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 05:21:36 -0700

Message no. 49 Tim P Cooper wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:06:54 -0500 Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM> writes:
> >And the information from the jack is handled marvlously well by the
> >other ninety percent of the population; what makes the mage's brain so
> >mysteriously unable to hack it?
>
> The fact that the other 90% aren't magically active.

Grand old circular argument.

> And the fact that *his* (or *her*) brain just spent the last x years
> getting tuned to astral space and the ebb and flow of mana and auras.

SR has it where you can become magically active at (apparently) the drop
of the hat.
Shall we assume the "projecting since birth" shaman has the same
penalties as the "I just met Eagle yesterday" shaman? How do you plan
on handling this issue?

Also: a mage who decks is likely to have spent (x) karma and time
learning to use the deck; all of this is for naught?

Thirdly: a mage depends *that* much on astral senses?? Maybe, whenever
there's a Background count, it should be applied to *everything!* the
mage does. After all, the poor guy's just being inundated with static!

> (I imagine it's like those age-old right/left-brain problems. Where you
> just aren't wired to work well with that concept.)
>
> ~Tim

-Matt

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Magic and the Matrix
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 1997 04:56:19 -0700

Message no. 50 MC23 wrote:
>
> Matb once dared to write,
>
> >If, if, *if* the mage were dual-natured I could buy this. But a mage
> >deals just fine with the mundane world; he has to actively *choose* to
> >perceive. All this means is that amage who jacks in can't (well,
> >shouldn't) switch to Astral perception -- but switching back to normal
> >has its own penalty for deckers already, and that, really, is the only
> >penalty that should apply.
>
> Nope. You misunderstand the mage and the mundane world. Read the Way
> of the Burnout in Awakenings for more insight into mages and their
> senses. And don't forget that the matrix is everything but the mundane
> world.

You misunderstand your sourcebooks (grin) - there's no 'Way of the
Burnout' in Awakenings, though the subtitle does show in Grim II.
Neither really touches on the point: mages do *not* have 'astral
senses' unless they *choose* to perceive.

Now, if you want to argue that a mage takes a penalty whenever he's not
astrally perceiving, you go there.

> >And the information from the jack is handled marvlously well by the
> >other ninety percent of the population; what makes the mage's brain so
> >mysteriously unable to hack it?
>
> What makes a mundane unable to see astral? Mages are a special case,
> Get used to it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It's not having cake and eating it; it's paying a hideously outrageous
cost to gain an ability (in this case, decking) and then having to
suffer a hideously outrageous penalty that's not supported by the rules.

> - MC23, who feels like he's at the start of another longwinded debate -

Hey, it;s the "magic in the matrix" thread. It *has* to be
longwinded... (gr)

-M

Message no. 51 On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 21:00:34 -0400 MC23 <mc23@**********.COM> writes:
>Ray once dared to write,
>
>>This is what I have always thought. Hermetics are about as suited as
you
>>can get to the matrix. Why would they have a penalty. That's the
reason
>>that the rule never got used in my game, and why I'm glad that they did
>>away with it in VR 2.0
>
> That still doesn't change the fact that even hermetics are
receiving
>astral information at a subliminal unconsciuos level. That is the source
>of the headaches (where the target penalties come from) while jacked in.
>The only type of magician that should have a different penalty should be
>eagle shamans because of their limitations.

You'll be happy to know that I agree with you:) If Loki's Manajack spell
were to show up in my game, it would be a special case, but...Likewise, I
can see an Edge which would allow such a character to ignore penalties,
but I'd say it would be at least a 3 point Edge...Again, only special
exceptions.

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, lobo1@****.com
let him prepare for war. canthros1@***.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 52 > >The point is - the Matrix system has been changed almost completely
> >under VR2.0 and nowhere in that book does it say that mages have a TN
> >penalty in the Matrix.
> I'm not going to second guess FASA on why this optional rule was
> left out of VR2.0 but the interface between Man and the Matrix has not
> changed. The rules on how a decker affects the matrix was changed.

This is true - however, to me this omission implies that FASA did not
want this rule to apply any more. If they wanted it to apply, they'd
have put it in the rulebook. Else how are new players supposed to cope?
(And when I say "new", I mean "started since VR1 went out of print")

FASA: Sorry, you're not allowed to do that with a decker.
Player: What? Why? It doesn't say so in my rulebook or the VR2.0
sourcebook!
FASA: Yeah, but sorry, you have to apply a rule from a years-old
sourcebook that is out of print, applies to a different edition of the
game, and has been replaced by something very different.
Player: !!!!

I hope you see my point.

> >If you want to bastardise rules from one edition to another, go for it -
> >most groups do, some a greater or lesser extent. But be very clear on
> >the fact that that IS what you're doing.
>
> BASTARDISE? You make it sound like I'm belittling the system or
> breaking rules for munchkin style play. (which a sorceror
> adept-rigger-decker sounds more fitting for that). What I'm doing is

Oi, skip the name calling. I'm sorry about bastardise, probably not a
good word. Intermix, then.

(And I hardly think with all the drain on the Karma a rigger/sorceror
could be a munchkin. She was USEFUL, but not overpowered. She could do
little bits of most stuff, that's all.)

> still using an optional rule (at half the penality) that I have been
> using since VR1.0 came out in `91. The rule does not contradict anything
> in VR2.0. I don't see where you get off claiming that doing so is a
> Bastardising of the game.

Chill! <handing MC23 a chill pill> All I"m saying is what YOU"RE
ADMITTING TO - that you're mixing and matching rules from the different
editions. That's cool, just about every group does it.

> And for the record I would like to add that I was not the one to
> bring this rule up. I am merely explaining why it exists. If you don't
> care for the rule fine but this aspect of mages and the matrix has been
> around since Never Deal With a Dragon.

And according to the presently available FASA material about decking and
the matrix - to wit, the SRII sourcebook and the VR2.0 sourcebook, the
rule no longer exists.

Lady Jestyr

-----------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect in a world full of icebergs
-----------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503/
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-----------------------------------------------
Now a Geocities Times Square Community Leader!
-----------------------------------------------

Message no. 53 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Lady Jestyr wrote:

> > >The point is - the Matrix system has been changed almost completely
> > >under VR2.0 and nowhere in that book does it say that mages have a TN
> > >penalty in the Matrix.
> > I'm not going to second guess FASA on why this optional rule was
> > left out of VR2.0 but the interface between Man and the Matrix has not
> > changed. The rules on how a decker affects the matrix was changed.
>
> This is true - however, to me this omission implies that FASA did not
> want this rule to apply any more. If they wanted it to apply, they'd
> have put it in the rulebook. Else how are new players supposed to cope?
> (And when I say "new", I mean "started since VR1 went out of
print"
>
> FASA: Sorry, you're not allowed to do that with a decker.
> Player: What? Why? It doesn't say so in my rulebook or the VR2.0
> sourcebook!
> FASA: Yeah, but sorry, you have to apply a rule from a years-old
> sourcebook that is out of print, applies to a different edition of the
> game, and has been replaced by something very different.
> Player: !!!!
>
> I hope you see my point.
>

Ok, now allow me to intervene in a slight point. FASA has clearly stated
that any rules it sets down are subject to GM interpretation. iow, if you
don't like a rule, don't use it. otoh, if you do like a rule, even if the
most recent sourcebook doesn't mention it, go ahead and use it.

That said, I think it's highly inaccurate to say that just because
something doesn't appear in a current supplement, it's no longer valid.
What if someone pointed to a specific spell or phys. ad. ability from
the main book or the grim and said "I want that one." What GM would say
"sorry, you can't use that one, it's not in Awakenings, which is the most
recent sourcebook on magic, and therefore, anything that's not in it
can't be used." What GM would not allow a character to use a weapon from
the ssc because of its not being mentioned in fof?

[snip stuff]

> And according to the presently available FASA material about decking and
> the matrix - to wit, the SRII sourcebook and the VR2.0 sourcebook, the
> rule no longer exists.
>

I see no reason why a rule should be declared no longer
valid because of its _not_ being mentioned. If a rule
clarification/correction is listed in a new book which changes the old
rule, then, fine, the old rule has been replaced and is now
invalid. However, not mentioning something is not the same thing.

---------------------------------------
I dislike Windows95 for the same reason people dislike New Coke
It tastes disgustingly like Pepsi.

Scott "Q" Meyer
Scott.E.Meyer@*******.edu
http://johnh.wheaton.edu/~smeyer

Message no. 54 > That said, I think it's highly inaccurate to say that just because
> something doesn't appear in a current supplement, it's no longer valid.
> What if someone pointed to a specific spell or phys. ad. ability from
> the main book or the grim and said "I want that one." What GM would say
> "sorry, you can't use that one, it's not in Awakenings, which is the most
> recent sourcebook on magic, and therefore, anything that's not in it
> can't be used." What GM would not allow a character to use a weapon from
> the ssc because of its not being mentioned in fof?
>
> [snip stuff]
>
> > And according to the presently available FASA material about decking and
> > the matrix - to wit, the SRII sourcebook and the VR2.0 sourcebook, the
> > rule no longer exists.
> >
>
> I see no reason why a rule should be declared no longer
> valid because of its _not_ being mentioned. If a rule
> clarification/correction is listed in a new book which changes the old
> rule, then, fine, the old rule has been replaced and is now
> invalid. However, not mentioning something is not the same thing.

I think Lady J's point was that wherever the rule had been mentioned
previously, a new text which specifically superceded the previous had
been
made available. If you're going to talk canon - and that's all we can
do -
you have to go with VR2. Not mentioning a rule can be seen as one way
of
dissolving an old rule; I think it's a waste of print to jot out, "We're
leaving out this rule on mages and the matrix that we mentioned before
because we don't think it's an accurate reflection of the Shadowrun
universe."

That being said, has anyone lobbed this question at FASA?

(In incident to your mentioning Awakenings et al, I think that's the
specific
reason FASA reprinted SSC2, to keep the pertinent material available to
all
players. Unlike that vicious Turn to Tree spell...)

-Matt

Message no. 55 > That said, I think it's highly inaccurate to say that just because
> something doesn't appear in a current supplement, it's no longer valid.
> What if someone pointed to a specific spell or phys. ad. ability from
> the main book or the grim and said "I want that one." What GM would say
> "sorry, you can't use that one, it's not in Awakenings, which is the most
> recent sourcebook on magic, and therefore, anything that's not in it
> can't be used." What GM would not allow a character to use a weapon from
> the ssc because of its not being mentioned in fof?

*grin* Reasonable point, but FOF doesn't supersede SSC. Cybertech
doesn't supersede Shadowtech. Awakenings doesn't supersede Grim. They
all ADD to the previous material.

In my understanding, though, VR2.0 SUPERSEDES and REPLACES VR1.0. In a
case like that, I think my point *is* valid.

Lady Jestyr

-----------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect in a world full of icebergs
-----------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503/
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-----------------------------------------------
Now a Geocities Times Square Community Leader!
-----------------------------------------------

Message no. 56 > You'll be happy to know that I agree with you:) If Loki's Manajack spell
> were to show up in my game, it would be a special case, but...Likewise, I
> can see an Edge which would allow such a character to ignore penalties,
> but I'd say it would be at least a 3 point Edge...Again, only special
> exceptions.

The Edge idea may be something I'd consider.

Don't really have the specifics on the Mana Jack. As I said, it was mainly
an NPC plot device. The spell idea is being researched by a Tir
corporation. The idea is that a specially designed "technomantic" focus
gets connected to the cyberdeck. A spell is then cast that opens a link
between the mage's mind and the focus (thus cyberbeck and matrix). The
spell channels the pulses of the matrix and it's articial universe into a
means the Mage is able to better relate to. However, test cases to date,
from a cross section of known magical traditions, have exhibitted varying
degrees of insanity after prolonged exposure to the matrix via the Mana
Jack.

GM's should be able to go from there in their own games...

@>--,--'--- Loki

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- A. C. Clarke

Poisoned Elves http://www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

Message no. 57 > BASTARDISE? You make it sound like I'm belittling the system or
> breaking rules for munchkin style play. (which a sorceror
> adept-rigger-decker sounds more fitting for that). What I'm doing is
> still using an optional rule (at half the penality) that I have been
> using since VR1.0 came out in `91. The rule does not contradict anything
> in VR2.0. I don't see where you get off claiming that doing so is a
> Bastardising of the game.

Doesn't VR2.0 say that it replaces VR1.0 in all places except where noted
or something like that. The sorcerer adept-rigger-decker you mentioned
will be useless at all of the things he can do as he has not specialised in
any one area, and has lost lots of magic. What she was meaning to say was
simply that you are using a rule which was from an older version of SR, and
choosing to carry it over to second edition, If I'm not mistaken, she was
using a house rule to cover this situation in her gaming group as well.

Ray.

-----------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens,|
| You will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

Message no. 58 On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 05:09:22 -0700 Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM> writes:
<snip>
>On that note:
>
> Informed Genetics Announces the *NEW* Magemaker Biodesign!
> Yes, the *latest* wave of biotechnology can now make *you*
> a mage! Cast spells! Summon spirits! Take a pleasure
> cruise on the Astral Plane of Water, it's the Magemaker 2058!
>
> GM Notes: Turns character into fully active magician, as
> if he/she/it had chosen Priority A in magic.
> Cost: 1,000,000 yen. Body Index: 6.
> Not available as cultured bioware.
>

Hey! That's not funny. I have guys who'd try that kinda $#!*...

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, lobo1@****.com
let him prepare for war. canthros1@***.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 59 On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 04:56:19 -0700 Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM> writes:
>MC23 wrote:
<snippy>
>
>You misunderstand your sourcebooks (grin) - there's no 'Way of the
>Burnout' in Awakenings, though the subtitle does show in Grim II.
>Neither really touches on the point: mages do *not* have 'astral
>senses' unless they *choose* to perceive.

Actually, I believe he's talking about a section in Awakenings which is
supposed to be a Burnout's account of his burning out, and it does say
that magicians and adepts apparently receive info off the Astral
constantly. So much that they miss it when it disappears. This could be
used to explain how a sorceror adept can synch auras even though he
doesn't have astrel perception. Or how a true magician can do it without
opening himself to the astral.

>Now, if you want to argue that a mage takes a penalty whenever he's
>not
>astrally perceiving, you go there.

Why? I think I missed the original reasoning here...

>> >And the information from the jack is handled marvlously well by the
>> >other ninety percent of the population; what makes the mage's brain
so
>> >mysteriously unable to hack it?

Two different ways of thinking: magic, even hermetic magic, would reside
more in the right brain (more art than science). Computers would reside
in the left (science over art). <shrug> I liked MC23's explanation
myself.

>>
>> What makes a mundane unable to see astral? Mages are a special
case,
>> Get used to it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
>
>It's not having cake and eating it; it's paying a hideously outrageous
>cost to gain an ability (in this case, decking) and then having to
>suffer a hideously outrageous penalty that's not supported by the
>rules.

I really think there ought to be some way to get around the penalty, but
I think you'll find that there are no non-overlapping character 'classes'
which combine without a serious Karma shortage...though a mage plus
anything is much worse...

>> - MC23, who feels like he's at the start of another longwinded
>debate -
>
>Hey, it;s the "magic in the matrix" thread. It *has* to be
>longwinded... (gr)
>

Why? So it can wind up like certain other subjects around here?

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, lobo1@****.com
let him prepare for war. canthros1@***.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 60 On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:41:21 -0400 MC23 <mc23@**********.COM> writes:
>Gurth once dared to write,
>
>>You may want to charge a bit extra for creating the MPCP too, since
>it
>>has to be written for a magically-active decker -- sort of a limited
>>reality filter. Maybe add 1 to the actual rating when determining the
>TN
>>etc.?
>
> Interesting Idea, I like it.
>

Perhaps the specialized MPCP works by not trying to override the astral
sense info, but in the process loses some portion of the response
increase (sort of like a cool deck)

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, lobo1@****.com
let him prepare for war. canthros1@***.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 61 On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:38:13 +0100 Benjamin Pflugmann
<benjamin.pflugmann@*****.PHYSIK.UNI-REGENSBURG.DE> writes:
<Snip>
>Hm. I read somewhere (but it could have been in a novel, too ;), that
the
>ability to deck (not to know computer science) is given by heritage, in
the
>same DNA part as the ability to be magic active.
>
>So if someone want to be both, there must be something wrong with his
DNA...
>(sorry, I really do not know, where I read it
>

I believe you're thinking of Otaku...no explanation about why they don't
have access to magic is given in VR2.0, but I suppose that may have been
in one of the novels (I don't know, I don't read them...too busy with
school)

[...]
> In fact, check Prime Runners, VR1 and 2, to see that some of the BEST
>> deckers are also quite young.
>>
>> Consider then the fact that many mages don't discover their talent
until
>> the onset of puberty.
>
>You are right. I think there may be a lot of children that know much
about
>computers. But as someone other already said: There is this story of
Samual
>Verner who got headaches from using his interface, because he is has the
>ability to be shaman.

Here's a possibility: What if a young magically active person was given
very intensive training in both computers (specifically decking) and
magic, would he maybe be able to adapt himself to ignore the extra astral
stimuli he would receive, while he's decking?

>> Many FASA references have said that hermeticism is very mathematical,
>> almost a scientific study of magic.
>> Why would a person with this mindset have any trouble with computers?
>
>Such a person would maybe get a hermetic mage instead of a shaman. But
after
>he knows about his ability, why should he be interested to know more
about
>computers?
>
>Btw: How much boys and girls with 13 years would have the interface to
go
>into the matrix?
>
[...]

Depends, is (s)he an otaku?

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, lobo1@****.com
let him prepare for war. canthros1@***.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 62 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:23:16 +1000 Lady Jestyr
<jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU> writes:
[...]
>And according to the presently available FASA material about decking
>and
>the matrix - to wit, the SRII sourcebook and the VR2.0 sourcebook, the
>rule no longer exists.
>

Not to pick, but I believe the rule appears in the Matrix section of SR2.
This could be viewed as being replaced by VR2.0, but I believe the rule
(or something similar) was included in SR2.

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, lobo1@****.com
let him prepare for war. canthros1@***.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 63 > > GM Notes: Turns character into fully active magician, as
> > if he/she/it had chosen Priority A in magic.
> > Cost: 1,000,000 yen. Body Index: 6.
> > Not available as cultured bioware.
> >
>
> Hey! That's not funny. I have guys who'd try that kinda $#!*...

'Course as soon as they install it there magic attribute drops to zero due
to body index and they lose all magical ability...good one ;)

-Caric

"One cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
-Albert Einstein

Message no. 64 [...]

Bull babbled:

>Anyways, to clarify things, what is canon? the definition, I mean..
Once
>you know WHAT it is, you can argue about what sources ARE canon...:]

Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language
says:

Canon (kan'en), n.
1. [skipping this one]
2. the body of ecclesiastical law.
3. the body of rules principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and
universally binding in a field of study or art.
4. a fundamental principle or general rule.
5. a standard.
6. the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine
and inspired. 7. any officially recognized set of sacred books.
8. any comprehensive list of books within a field.
9. the works of an author which have been accepted as authentic:
"There are 37 plays in the Shakespeare canon."
[and a few other esoteric and not really pertinent ones]

~Tim (does that help?)

Message no. 65 Hi..

Just something a little off the current topic...

In our system we play that sites such as Magi-net (a newsgroup for mages)
exists. However, the problem that we ran into was obviously that my street
Sam cum Decker was unable to hold discussion with the members that where
there. Magic theory is not a strong point, but at the same time the mage
didn't know how to use a deck. So what my character did (and I curious
whether it can be considered plausible) was as such.

He ripped on old deck of his so that the output was not through the
datajack but rather through the hitcherjack only, this was connected to one
of those neural nets. The input was modified to accept only the basic
commands i.e. up down left right via the equivalent of a joystick. This
entire thing was then connected to his current deck (upped the BW a little)
except it was connected as a remote program in a dumb frame, the controls
being linked to the joystick.

In essence what it allowed was my character to take the mage to the site,
dump him whereby he made his own way through the chat groups having various
conversations, but negating all the penalties from his magic abilities as
he could monitor and control all the actions, including the ability to run
various programs though the frame itself.

With a little skillful acting and timing, most individuals believed that
the character was hooked up to a proper deck, even though his reactions in
the Matrix where terrible. The side benefit was that it allowed my
character to stand at the 'door' to the chat room and interrogate the
various queries that where sent out regarding our mages id etc. I even had
time to alter incoming answers if I wanted to...

Cheers
--Odd--

Message no. 66 > Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language
> says:
>
> Canon (kan'en), n.
> 1. [skipping this one]
> 2. the body of ecclesiastical law.
> 3. the body of rules principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and
> universally binding in a field of study or art.
> 4. a fundamental principle or general rule.
> 5. a standard.
> 6. the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine
> and inspired. 7. any officially recognized set of sacred books.
> 8. any comprehensive list of books within a field.
> 9. the works of an author which have been accepted as authentic:
> "There are 37 plays in the Shakespeare canon."
> [and a few other esoteric and not really pertinent ones]

I vote for number 7 as the official list definition. :)

Lady Jestyr

-----------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect in a world full of icebergs
-----------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com..au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503/
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-----------------------------------------------
Now a Geocities Times Square Community Leader!
-----------------------------------------------

Message no. 67 L Canthros said on 16:22/18 Apr 97...

> Here's a possibility: What if a young magically active person was given
> very intensive training in both computers (specifically decking) and
> magic, would he maybe be able to adapt himself to ignore the extra astral
> stimuli he would receive, while he's decking?

Isn't that the same thing as Lady J's idea, to give a penalty equal to
Magic Attrbute - Computer skill (doubled for magicians with astral
perception or projection)?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I hate playing Solitaire by myself.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 68 --Odd-- said on 14:32/18 Apr 97...

> In our system we play that sites such as Magi-net (a newsgroup for mages)
> exists. However, the problem that we ran into was obviously that my street
> Sam cum Decker was unable to hold discussion with the members that where
> there. Magic theory is not a strong point, but at the same time the mage
> didn't know how to use a deck.

IMO the things we refer to as "decker comments" are more like the posts
made by everyone here on this mailing list -- people typing away behind a
keyboard, or dictating posts to their computer, rather than using a
cyberdeck to log into the host. Sure, the hotshot deckers (FastJack etc.)
will do it that way, but if that were the only way there'd be no such
thing as Magi-net...

> He ripped on old deck of his so that the output was not through the
> datajack but rather through the hitcherjack only, this was connected to one
> of those neural nets.

That would be a bit superfluous -- a hitcherjack, the way I see it, is
identical to the normal jack a decker plugs into, except it doesn't accept
input from the user. Comparing it to a stereo, I see the primary jack as a
combined Line In/Line Out, while a hitcherjack is only a Line Out.

> With a little skillful acting and timing, most individuals believed that
> the character was hooked up to a proper deck, even though his reactions in
> the Matrix where terrible. The side benefit was that it allowed my
> character to stand at the 'door' to the chat room and interrogate the
> various queries that where sent out regarding our mages id etc. I even had
> time to alter incoming answers if I wanted to...

Sort of like doing IRC with two people at one keyboard... Can be fun,
though :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I hate playing Solitaire by myself.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 69 > > Informed Genetics Announces the *NEW* Magemaker Biodesign!
> > Yes, the *latest* wave of biotechnology can now make *you*
> > a mage! Cast spells! Summon spirits! Take a pleasure
> > cruise on the Astral Plane of Water, it's the Magemaker 2058!
> >
> > GM Notes: Turns character into fully active magician, as
> > if he/she/it had chosen Priority A in magic.
> > Cost: 1,000,000 yen. Body Index: 6.
> > Not available as cultured bioware.
> >
>
> Hey! That's not funny. I have guys who'd try that kinda $#!*...

Not that it would matter. Body Index 6 would leave you with no magic.

Ray.

-----------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens,|
| You will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

Message no. 70 > > 7. any officially recognized set of sacred books.
>
> I vote for number 7 as the official list definition. :)

I guess that I have to second that.

Ray.

-----------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens,|
| You will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@*******.com.au

Message no. 71 Date: 19 Apr 97 Time: 16:34
Subject: Re: Magic and the Matrix)

TO: Lady Jestyr

> I vote for number 7 as the official list definition. :)

Mine goes to #4:

> 4. a fundamental principle or general rule. ;)

a chaoidh teabadaich,

Shaun Sides
arch@****.net
http://www.abts.net/~arch

It's better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool.
-- Harley, from Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man

Message no. 72 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:11:08 -0700 Caric <caric@********.COM> writes:
>> > GM Notes: Turns character into fully active magician, as
>> > if he/she/it had chosen Priority A in magic.
>> > Cost: 1,000,000 yen. Body Index: 6.
>> > Not available as cultured bioware.
>> >
>>
>> Hey! That's not funny. I have guys who'd try that kinda $#!*...
>
>'Course as soon as they install it there magic attribute drops to zero
>due
>to body index and they lose all magical ability...good one ;)
>

Who says they'd tell me first? Hadn't thought of that, though...(Now
they'll be lobbying for the Magic=Essence-1/2 BI, instead of
Magic=Essence-BI (which I currently use))

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, lobo1@****.com
let him prepare for war. canthros1@***.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 73 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:11:21 -0700 Matb <mbreton@**.netcom.com> writes:
[...]
>> Actually, I believe he's talking about a section in Awakenings which
is
>> supposed to be a Burnout's account of his burning out, and it does say
>> that magicians and adepts apparently receive info off the Astral
>> constantly. So much that they miss it when it disappears. This could
be
>> used to explain how a sorceror adept can synch auras even though he
>> doesn't have astrel perception. Or how a true magician can do it >
>without opening himself to the astral.
>
>I won't touch on the sorceror adept - it's a mystery to me too - but the
>bit in Awakenings can be read as just flavor. (Alternatively, I might
>point out that it's being applied only to burnouts; is a datajack enough
>to make a mage go "gray haze"?)

No, not just a datajack. I used the above (like MC23 did) to demonstrate
why the mage picks up the modifier he does, the ASIST interface is trying
to override a bit of magical sensory input, something it can't control
(for the same reason, whatever it may be, that you can't record the
astral plane on simsense), the resulting feedback producing various
problems, like headaches, distraction, etc.

>If it were in a rule section, I'd buy this line hook and sinker.

I wouldn't discout it as 'flavor', because it isn't a decker comment per
se, and FASA, while the Shadowtalk itself is open to speculation, has
promised that the actual info in the book is going to be pretty much
reliable. But, that's your game, play it how you like...as an idea, if
you decide to use the 'gray haze', give the burnout a modifier to all
actions across the board for a period of time, until he gets completely
used to the lack of sensory input.

>> >Now, if you want to argue that a mage takes a penalty whenever he's
>> >not astrally perceiving, you go there.
>>
>> Why? I think I missed the original reasoning here...
>
>Simple: If a mage depends sooo heavily on "astral input" and he's not
>receiving said input... well, you can follow from there.

Except, then, that the idea is that the mage is receiving this
information, even when he is NOT perceiving, because of his greater
attunement to the astral plane, the same kinds of reasons that a mage has
a greater sensitivity to things like background count, even when he isn't
viewing the astral plane (Bug City allowed magicians to make some sort of
test to determine the background count, even if they weren't astrally
active).

>> >> >And the information from the jack is handled marvlously well by
the
>> >> >other ninety percent of the population; what makes the mage's
brain
>> so mysteriously unable to hack it?
>
>> Two different ways of thinking: magic, even hermetic magic, would
>reside more in the right brain (more art than science). Computers
>would reside in the left (science over art). <shrug> I liked MC23's
>explanation
>> myself.
>
>...Yet Shadowtech insists it's done based on brain geometry or
>chemistry.

Did it? I don't remember...

>Was MC23 the one who suggested in inhabited the same portion of DNA as
>"decking ability"? That was so far off scientific theory it wasn't
>funny.

No, that was a different guy, Ben Legangneux (Bull, you haven't greeted
any of the newbies lately!). I think he was thinking of otaku, and, while
the explanation he used was not in anything I've _seen_, it makes sense.

>Magic and decking are both learned skills. Like most skills, they are
>not mutually exclusive.

No, but they also aren't geared toward the same direction, either. "The
mage is the artist, and the components, spells, spirits, and rituals are
the instruments of his art." (Grimoire, 2nd edition, page 15) I stated
earlier that I cannot find my copy of VR2.0 at the moment.

>> >> > What makes a mundane unable to see astral? Mages are a special
>> case,
>> >> Get used to it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
>> >
>> >It's not having cake and eating it; it's paying a hideously
outrageous
>> >cost to gain an ability (in this case, decking) and then having to
>> >suffer a hideously outrageous penalty that's not supported by the
>> >rules.
>
>> I really think there ought to be some way to get around the penalty,
>>but I think you'll find that there are no non-overlapping character
>>'classes' which combine without a serious Karma shortage...though a
>mage >plus anything is much worse...
>
>Er.. you're agreeing with me?

Something like that:)

>My apologies; it's been an awfully long string, and I'm not sure
>(anymore?) where you're coming from, or what stance you're choosing.

My own, of course. I tend to try and see both sides of the coin, though
this time I mostly just happened to agree (partly). Conversely, the
advantages to be gained by a mage/whatever combo are far more enormous
(especially in the area of possible avenues of development) and somewhat
balances out the hideous penalty (magicians being Karmic vacuums on their
own).

>> >> - MC23, who feels like he's at the start of another longwinded
>> >debate -
>> >
>> >Hey, it;s the "magic in the matrix" thread. It *has* to be
>> >longwinded... (gr)
>
>> Why? So it can wind up like certain other subjects around here?
>
>*Grin* Dare I ask which subjects?

Sure, so (FYI) these subjects are taboo or close to it: wo0dchucks (don't
ask), 'My OS is better than yours...' (one OS war is enough, thanks),
Grounding (not again!)...all I can think of (though I'm sure there are
others)...Wait! There's FAB (though that we have an answer to (Thanks,
Mike!)

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, lobo1@****.com
let him prepare for war. canthros1@***.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 74 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:32:56 +0200 --Odd-- <mikes@*****.CO.ZA> writes:
[...]
>He ripped on old deck of his so that the output was not through the
>datajack but rather through the hitcherjack only, this was connected to
one
>of those neural nets. The input was modified to accept only the basic
>commands i.e. up down left right via the equivalent of a joystick. This
>entire thing was then connected to his current deck (upped the BW a
little)
>except it was connected as a remote program in a dumb frame, the
controls
>being linked to the joystick.
[...]

So why not just use a tortoise or cool deck that was guided by the
decker?

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, lobo1@****.com
let him prepare for war. canthros1@***.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 75 On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 10:39:01 +0100 Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:
>L Canthros said on 16:22/18 Apr 97...
>
>> Here's a possibility: What if a young magically active person was
given
>> very intensive training in both computers (specifically decking) and
>> magic, would he maybe be able to adapt himself to ignore the extra
astral
>> stimuli he would receive, while he's decking?
>
>Isn't that the same thing as Lady J's idea, to give a penalty equal to
>Magic Attrbute - Computer skill (doubled for magicians with astral
>perception or projection)?

It probably comes out in the same place, but that wasn't quite what I was
thinking of. I was really thinking about something that was linked to but
independent of the other two abilities. That is, while ignoring or
temporarily shutting off the sensory input received from the astral plane
is connected to both of the other abilities, it is not necessarily a part
of either. I'm guessing that the info they are picking up off the astral
is the product of whatever link allows the use of magic by the character
(the same link that allows a sorceror to recieve enough information off
the astral to synch his aura with another in order to cast spells)

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, lobo1@****.com
let him prepare for war. canthros1@***.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 76 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:32:56 +0200 --Odd-- <mikes@*****.CO.ZA> writes:
>Hi..
>
>Just something a little off the current topic...
>
>In our system we play that sites such as Magi-net (a newsgroup for
mages)
>exists. However, the problem that we ran into was obviously that my
street
>Sam cum Decker was unable to hold discussion with the members thatwhere
>there. Magic theory is not a strong point, but at the same time the mage
>didn't know how to use a deck. So what my character did (and I curious
>whether it can be considered plausible) was as such.

[snip the detailed solution]

Um... just buy the Mage a "tortise" and be done with it.
He can actually USE a joystick, or a mouse, or even just that archaic
number-pad in the coner of the keyboard....

Why do we assume that the only thing that can access the matrix is a
fully- functional cyber deck? And that the ONLY way to tap into it is
with a full-on simsence link?

~Tim (just wondering)

Message no. 77 On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:34:11 +1000 Lady Jestyr
<jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU> writes:
>> Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language
>> says:
>>
>> Canon (kan'en), n.
>> 1. [skipping this one]
>> 2. the body of ecclesiastical law.
>> 3. the body of rules principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic
and
>> universally binding in a field of study or art.
>> 4. a fundamental principle or general rule.
>> 5. a standard.
>> 6. the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as
genuine
>> and inspired.
>> 7. any officially recognized set of sacred books.
>> 8. any comprehensive list of books within a field.
>> 9. the works of an author which have been accepted as authentic:
>> "There are 37 plays in the Shakespeare canon."
>> [and a few other esoteric and not really pertinent ones]
>
>I vote for number 7 as the official list definition. :)
>

Except that 3, 4, & 5 are pretty darn good too.

~Tim (officially recognized by WHO? :) )

Message no. 78 At 06:36 PM 4/19/97 EDT, Tim P Cooper wrote these timeless words:

>>> Canon (kan'en), n.
>>> 3. the body of rules principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic
>and
>>> universally binding in a field of study or art.
>>> 4. a fundamental principle or general rule.
>>> 5. a standard.
>>> 7. any officially recognized set of sacred books.
>>> 8. any comprehensive list of books within a field.
>>I vote for number 7 as the official list definition. :)
>>
>Except that 3, 4, & 5 are pretty darn good too.
>
Well, the only problem is with 3, 4, & 5 ONLY is that they pretty much ONLY
include Rules Books, and don't include the fiction, which I think the
Shadowrun world would be MUCH less filled out and developed without.

I agree that the novels shouldn't be used to try and develope rules from,
but they are definately excellent sources of background, flavor, and ideas.
I know our group draws a lot of it's concept of the SR world from the
novels and stories.

Here I think all 5 of the definitions that I left above can and should
apply...

Here's my motion that I bring to the floor to be voted upon by list members:

That we include both the novels AND the rulesbooks (but only OFFICIAL FASA
books and sourcebooks) as Canon, with this special note: The Novels are
not considered sources of rules, and any exceptional or unusual occurances
that fall outside the rules are just that, exceptional and unusual, and
unique.

How's that?

Maybe if the group agrees with this definition as a whole, we can include
this definition in the FAQ. That would help clarify things, and avoid flames.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I kinda get tired of seeing someone
mention an odd occurance from one of the novels, and then 2 or 3 people
jump down his/her throat an scream "The books aren't Canon!"

<shrug>

Just a suggestion to clear up a matter that I've seen come up a couple
times in the last 6 months since I been on...

Bull
--
Now the Offical Shadowrn mailing List Welcome Ork!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
NEW HOME PAGE!: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html
As well as a sort of new .sig! ;]

Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich (chaos@*****.com)

"BTW - It's time for a new quote at the end of your .sig,
I'm tired of the Mighty One."
-Steven Tinner

Message no. 79 >2) In several places it has been advanced that the best Matrix users are those
>that react instinctively and without considering the "reality" of what is
>happening. In otherwords, you see the dragon(IC) and dodge, and the deck
>interprets appropriately (shift to Evasion Mode). If you try to think. "IC
>attacking, engage Evasion Mode" it doesn't work as fast. Magicians have no
>reason NOT to be able to do this. THey spend a lot of time dealing with
>situations outside "normal reality".

What you are missing is that magicians have a sixth sense. It is what makes
them magicians. It is their connection to astral space. Even if they are an adept
with no conscious astral perception, they can sense some hints of the auras and
things from the spirit world around them. The matrix fakes out sight, it fakes out
hearing, it fakes out touch and smell, but it doesn't fake out this sixth sense.

Imagine you have a particulary vivid sense of smell, but are living in a country
filled with people who dont have much of this sense at all. You go to see a movie
with a bunch of your friends, and they watch the waves and the moonlight and the
swaying palms and feel carried away. You see the exact same things, but
instead of smelling sea air and tropical flowers, you smell rancid popcorn butter,
mildewing carpeting, and what the people around you had for lunch. You aren't
going to enjoy the movie as much as they did, nor is your heartbeat going to go
up as much when the young lovers kiss.

The matrix seems less real to someone with a magic rating. This is unavoidable.
The first edition penalty is too severe, certainly, but there should definetely be
some penalty. Perhaps to initiative, plus making reality filters only half as
effective. I think that's what I'd rule.

Double-Domed Mike

Message no. 80 L Canthros said on 10:58/19 Apr 97...

> Who says they'd tell me first? Hadn't thought of that, though...(Now
> they'll be lobbying for the Magic=Essence-1/2 BI, instead of
> Magic=Essence-BI (which I currently use))

Don't let them get the Essence - 1/2 Body Index thing, though. There's no
reason from existing SR rules why it should work that way.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I hate playing Solitaire by myself.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 81 Date: 19 Apr 97 Time: 22:48
Subject: Re: Magic and the Matrix)

TO: Bull

> >>> 4. a fundamental principle or general rule.
> >Except that 3, 4, & 5 are pretty darn good too.
> >
> Well, the only problem is with 3, 4, & 5 ONLY is that they pretty
> much ONLY include Rules Books, and don't include the fiction, which
> I think the Shadowrun world would be MUCH less filled out and
> developed without.

I don't think #4 precludes any of the fiction.

a chaoidh teabadaich,

Shaun Sides
arch@****.net
http://www.abts.net/~arch

It's better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool.
-- Harley, from Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man

Message no. 82 On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 22:48:45 -0500 Bull <chaos@*****.COM> writes:
>At 06:36 PM 4/19/97 EDT, Tim P Cooper wrote these timeless words:
>
>>>> Canon (kan'en), n.
>>>> 3. the body of rules principles, or standards accepted as
>axiomatic
>>and
>>>> universally binding in a field of study or art.
>>>> 4. a fundamental principle or general rule.
>>>> 5. a standard.
>>>> 7. any officially recognized set of sacred books.
>>>> 8. any comprehensive list of books within a field.
>>>I vote for number 7 as the official list definition. :)
>>>
>>Except that 3, 4, & 5 are pretty darn good too.
>>
>Well, the only problem is with 3, 4, & 5 ONLY is that they pretty much
ONLY
>include Rules Books, and don't include the fiction, which I think the
>Shadowrun world would be MUCH less filled out and developed without.
[...]
>Here's my motion that I bring to the floor to be voted upon by list
>members:
>
>That we include both the novels AND the rulesbooks (but only OFFICIAL
FASA
>books and sourcebooks) as Canon, with this special note: The Novels are
>not considered sources of rules, and any exceptional or unusual
occurances
>that fall outside the rules are just that, exceptional and unusual, and
>unique.
>
>How's that?

I'll vote for it, it works for me:)

>Maybe if the group agrees with this definition as a whole, we can
include
>this definition in the FAQ. That would help clarify things, and avoid
>flames.
>
[...]

That would be nice, hey Fro! How 'bout it?

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, lobo1@****.com
let him prepare for war. canthros1@***.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 83 On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 11:27:14 +0100 Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:
>L Canthros said on 10:58/19 Apr 97...
>
>> Who says they'd tell me first? Hadn't thought of that, though...(Now
>> they'll be lobbying for the Magic=Essence-1/2 BI, instead of
>> Magic=Essence-BI (which I currently use))
>
>Don't let them get the Essence - 1/2 Body Index thing, though. There's
>no
>reason from existing SR rules why it should work that way.
>

Actually, I do have a reasoning for it. It could be supported by the fact
that the TN for the Heal and Treat spells is based on the Essence plus
half of the Body Index. Not I'm planning on using the rule, just
explaining where it came from...

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, lobo1@****.com
let him prepare for war. canthros1@***.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 84 |
| So why not just use a tortoise or cool deck that was guided by the
| decker?

This way the decker had a degree of control over the icon of the mage. In
this case, Limpit could dump Phoenix quicker, but more importantly he could
monitor the signals directly originating from frame and hence the mage. In
essence he created a smart frame with human intelligence(mage) that was
able to interact to a greater degree than the 'standard smartframe'.

--Odd--

Message no. 85 | Um... just buy the Mage a "tortise" and be done with it.
| He can actually USE a joystick, or a mouse, or even just that archaic
| number-pad in the coner of the keyboard....

Just because there is a short way of doing things does not mean that you
have to take that route. But anyway, all the mages involved in the
discussion group where linked up in some way or the other and in this case
we figured that the persons that we wanted to talk to would not take as
much notice of an icon that was obviously linked up to a tortoise.

| Why do we assume that the only thing that can access the matrix is a
| fully- functional cyber deck? And that the ONLY way to tap into it is
| with a full-on simsence link?

I think that it is similar to the current era, where it is possible to
surf away on a 4800 or even 2400, but it is more in style to use a 28.8
(also a lot quicker), I think its a case of why use obviously outdated
equipment when there is the new whiz stuff to use?

For a decker, I don't think that one would be caught dead running a deck
at less than its full potential, after all speed is everything, and rep
rounds the deal off. In essence I think that tortoises are seem similar to
a 'deck with training wheels'.

--Odd--

Message no. 86 > Bull stated quite well:
> Here's my motion that I bring to the floor to be voted upon by list
members:
>
> That we include both the novels AND the rulesbooks (but only OFFICIAL
FASA
> books and sourcebooks) as Canon, with this special note: The Novels are
> not considered sources of rules, and any exceptional or unusual
occurances
> that fall outside the rules are just that, exceptional and unusual, and
> unique.

If no one has yet, I'll gladly second the motion...

@>--,--'--- Loki

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- A. C. Clarke

Poisoned Elves http://www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

Message no. 87 On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 22:02:45 +0200 --Odd-- <mikes@*****.CO.ZA> writes:
>| Why do we assume that the only thing that can access the matrix is a
>| fully- functional cyber deck? And that the ONLY way to tap into it is
>| with a full-on simsence link?
>
> I think that it is similar to the current era, where it is
possible to
>surf away on a 4800 or even 2400, but it is more in style to use a 28.8
>(also a lot quicker), I think its a case of why use obviously outdated
equipment when there is >the new whiz stuff to use?

Instead you have to in effect go over to a friends house and use HIS
computer and almost dictate to him what you want to say/do.

And if all you're doing is chatting with people you don't need the super
speed and fine control of a cyberdeck.

>
> For a decker, I don't think that one would be caught dead
running a deck
>at less than its full potential, after all speed is everything, and rep
rounds the deal off. In
>essence I think that tortoises are seem similar to a 'deck with training
wheels'.

Yes, true, but we aren't talking about deckers. Were talking about
mages/shamans who are using the matrix like an almost-telephone. (Just
cause I wan't to call Bob across town doesn't mean that I need to get a
drek hot computer with some awesome video conferencing software and a
load of video RAM, etc...).

~Tim (who wonder's how many of US are accessing this list or the web with
top o' the line workstations with dual 200+ mhz processors and etc..)

Message no. 88 L Canthros said on 11:36/20 Apr 97...

> >Don't let them get the Essence - 1/2 Body Index thing, though. There's no
> >reason from existing SR rules why it should work that way.
>
> Actually, I do have a reasoning for it. It could be supported by the fact
> that the TN for the Heal and Treat spells is based on the Essence plus
> half of the Body Index. Not I'm planning on using the rule, just
> explaining where it came from...

That's where I thought it came from, too. However, those are two totally
different things, not related in any way except that they both deal with
Body Index and Essence. Anyone thinking of allowing this should think
again, IMHO.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I hate playing Solitaire by myself.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Message no. 89 > That's where I thought it came from, too. However, those are two totally
> different things, not related in any way except that they both deal with
> Body Index and Essence. Anyone thinking of allowing this should think
> again, IMHO.

In general, I think we allow it (though I'm not sure; it doesn't apply
to me) - I think bioware's meant to be more "magic-friendly" than
cyberware, though this may just be a myth.

Lady Jestyr

-----------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect in a world full of icebergs
-----------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503/
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-----------------------------------------------
Now a Geocities Times Square Community Leader!
-----------------------------------------------

Message no. 90 Matb once dared to write,

>You misunderstand your sourcebooks (grin) - there's no 'Way of the
>Burnout' in Awakenings, though the subtitle does show in Grim II.
>Neither really touches on the point: mages do *not* have 'astral
>senses' unless they *choose* to perceive.

Sorry I was going by memory. The correct title is "All Dressed Up
and No Place to Go," Awakenings p25. And It does talk about who cybereyes
effects his regular vision. Mundanes do not have the same effect as his.
My reference stands.

>Now, if you want to argue that a mage takes a penalty whenever he's not
>astrally perceiving, you go there.

It's because this subliminal senses are contradicting the forced
reality of the matrix.

>It's not having cake and eating it; it's paying a hideously outrageous
>cost to gain an ability (in this case, decking) and then having to
>suffer a hideously outrageous penalty that's not supported by the rules.

It was supported by VR1.0 for the longest time. VR2.0 even goes as
far as saying "...gamemasters and players should feel free, as always, to
modify these rules and/or continue to use earlier versions of specific
rules in their games"

>Hey, it;s the "magic in the matrix" thread. It *has* to be
>longwinded... (gr)
>
>-M

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23

Message no. 91 In message <19970420.165003.4871.2.z-i-m@****.com>, Tim P Cooper <z-i-
m@****.COM> writes
>~Tim (who wonder's how many of US are accessing this list or the web with
>top o' the line workstations with dual 200+ mhz processors and etc..)

Started out on this list in early 1995 using a 286... who noticed? Can
anyone tell when I upgraded and what to?

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Message no. 92 >breaking rules for munchkin style play. (which a sorceror
>adept-rigger-decker sounds more fitting for that). What I'm doing is

A sorceror adept-rigger-decker isn't munchkin....in all likelyhood he can't
do ANY of them well :) And if he's a good role-player, his character is a
dilatante(sp), who will throw himself fully into a new skill or task, only
to do so again with a new task or skill a few months down the line....

Sounds like a great character to me.

-=SwiftOne=-

Message no. 93 <snip mages-decking-yes-no thread>

>However, someone else came up with the idea that the magic penalty could
>be off-set by the magician's computer skill. Arguing that if s(h)e
>managed to get a 4 or something in a decking skill, s(h)e must have over
>come some of the disorientation/confusion.

Now THIS, I can handle.

-=SwiftOne=-

Message no. 94 Lady Jestyr once dared to write,

>> Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language
>> says:
>>
>> Canon (kan'en), n.
<snip>
>I vote for number 7 as the official list definition. :)

I'm more for #3

3. the body of rules principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and
universally binding in a field of study or art.

- MC23, who thinks nothing is sacred -

Message no. 95 Bull once dared to write,

>Here's my motion that I bring to the floor to be voted upon by list members:
<snippage on what is canon>

<scratches his head>

Umm... Why is voting on what is canon necessary. This is a
discussion group and I don't think all of us will agree to go along with
the group's decision if it doesn't match personal beliefs. I would say
that novels are not canon depending on who wrote it. It becomes a case by
case scenerio and even then I would say that even then some parts would
still be disregarded. That's my "vote".

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23

Message no. 96 Lady Jestyr once dared to write,

>This is true - however, to me this omission implies that FASA did not
>want this rule to apply any more. If they wanted it to apply, they'd
>have put it in the rulebook. Else how are new players supposed to cope?
>(And when I say "new", I mean "started since VR1 went out of
print")

That's all and good about new players (and for the record there are
still copies of VR1.0 sitting on shelves here) but what's your excuse?
And isn't this also what this group is for. We're here to discuss rules
of all sorts (in print, out of print, and house rules). And we have also
had this discussion of FASA and the fact they are not infallible when it
comes to including and/or clarifying rules. Remember the discussion on
whether or not PhysAds get force points for bonding? Anyway, that was not
the point of my discussion before I got sidetracked.

>Oi, skip the name calling. I'm sorry about bastardise, probably not a
>good word. Intermix, then.

Better.

>(And I hardly think with all the drain on the Karma a rigger/sorcerer
>could be a munchkin. She was USEFUL, but not overpowered. She could do
>little bits of most stuff, that's all.)

I think that's it's just a bit much but mostly I was just biting
your head off for calling my use of the rule bastardizing.

>Chill! <handing MC23 a chill pill>

MC23 just says no to drugs. (Who would have thought?)

>All I"m saying is what YOU"RE ADMITTING TO - that you're mixing and
>matching rules from the different editions. That's cool, just about every
>group does it.
>
>And according to the presently available FASA material about decking and
>the matrix - to wit, the SRII sourcebook and the VR2.0 sourcebook, the
>rule no longer exists.

My major gripe with you about this is the fact that you are using
that as your defense. If people don't know, they don't know. You are not
saying that you don't want to use it because you don't agree with it at
the concept level but simply because it's not in a current rulebook. That
is what is getting me all riled up. Being a member of this list gives you
access to such rules, deciding to use them or not is your business. Now
please treat this as an optional rule and discuss it as such and not just
whether or not the rule is in print.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23

Message no. 97 > Umm... Why is voting on what is canon necessary. This is a
>discussion group and I don't think all of us will agree to go along with
>the group's decision if it doesn't match personal beliefs. I would say
>that novels are not canon depending on who wrote it. It becomes a case by
>case scenerio and even then I would say that even then some parts would
>still be disregarded. That's my "vote".

The problem was that people were disagreeing on what was meant by "canon".
Some held that is was the sum of possibilities.....in otherwords, saying it
isn't Canon Means it isn't possible.

Others (myself included) took Canon to mean Defining rules, and thus saying
a novel wasn't Canon meant that you cannot make rule judgements based on them.

Then Bull came along and showed that BOTH definitions are techincally
possible, thus removing any chance of calling people who thought other than
I thought insulting names. Gee, thanks Bull. :)

-=SwiftOne=-

Message no. 98 In message <18591027C5@**.opp.psu.edu>, Brett Borger <SwiftOne@***.EDU>
writes
>Others (myself included) took Canon to mean Defining rules, and thus saying
>a novel wasn't Canon meant that you cannot make rule judgements based on them.

If I say it's possible it happens in my game.

If I say it can't be done then it can't be done in my game.

Novels? We don't need no steenkin' novels! ;)

Seriously, I don't mind the novels bending "the rules" slightly. Nor do
I object to players saying "can I do XXX?" The answer is usually "Yes,
but it's gonna be hard work and it's going to be a distinctive trademark
because it's so unusual that anyone can do XXX".

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Message no. 99 >Seriously, I don't mind the novels bending "the rules" slightly. Nor do
>I object to players saying "can I do XXX?" The answer is usually "Yes,
>but it's gonna be hard work and it's going to be a distinctive trademark
>because it's so unusual that anyone can do XXX".

Wow, what a long-winded way to do it. In my games, if a player says "can I
XXX?" I grin, and the other players chime in the familiar response: "You
can try".

THis is not an Evil GM response....it means my players spend less time
ASKING me, and more time trying....just as their characters would do.

-=SwiftOne=-

Message no. 100 > A sorceror adept-rigger-decker isn't munchkin....in all likelyhood he can't
> do ANY of them well :) And if he's a good role-player, his character is a
> dilatante(sp), who will throw himself fully into a new skill or task, only
> to do so again with a new task or skill a few months down the line....

She did - to make matters worse, she was slightly hyperactive and had a
mild case of ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). :)

> Sounds like a great character to me.

She was a great character to play.

Incidentally, she *wasn't* a decker. I was thinking about having her
going into decking, but she never did - partly cause I started a new
character, a decker. :)

Lady Jestyr

-----------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect in a world full of icebergs
-----------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503/
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-----------------------------------------------
Now a Geocities Times Square Community Leader!
-----------------------------------------------

Message no. 101 > That's all and good about new players (and for the record there are
> still copies of VR1.0 sitting on shelves here) but what's your excuse?

Still copies? half your luck - ours got stolen and I haven't seen it
since.

> >And according to the presently available FASA material about decking and
> >the matrix - to wit, the SRII sourcebook and the VR2.0 sourcebook, the
> >rule no longer exists.
>
> My major gripe with you about this is the fact that you are using
> that as your defense. If people don't know, they don't know. You are not
> saying that you don't want to use it because you don't agree with it at
> the concept level but simply because it's not in a current rulebook. That
> is what is getting me all riled up. Being a member of this list gives you
> access to such rules, deciding to use them or not is your business. Now
> please treat this as an optional rule and discuss it as such and not just
> whether or not the rule is in print.

No - I was the one that originally posted the suggestion that Computer
skill can cancel out the penalty if it's high enough (so I do have some
original thoughts on the matter!), but I was trying a different tack.

I hereby state for the record:
I think that a high computer skill can cancel out the penalty for magic
*if you wish to say that such a penalty exists*, since high Computer
represents a lot of practice time, and hence you are *used* to getting
"mixed signals" (which seems to be everyone's justification for the
penalty).

I also think that the penalty should not exist at all, because it is not
part of the *present set of rules for decking*. If the penalty *has* to
exist, I think the above rule should apply.

Lady Jestyr

-----------------------------------------------
A titanic intellect in a world full of icebergs
-----------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1503/
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-----------------------------------------------
Now a Geocities Times Square Community Leader!
-----------------------------------------------

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer