Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: Alternative Essence Loss (was Re: Resiting Drain with Magic)
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 13:28:43 -0700
From: "Philip Smith" <phil_urbanhell@*******.com>
> >> I wish Magic Loss was more gradual. A mage might, realisticly refrain
> >> from getting a lot of cyber. However, as the 1 point of Essence loss
> >> impacts your Magic (insofar as game mechanics are concerned) the same
> >> amount as .1 Essence loss, I think there is a tendency to install
> >> cyberware in magically active individuals in increments of 1 point of
> >> Essence.
> >
> > I wish it were so too. Alas, the limits of a D6 based system

There are multiple ways to handle this actually.

1. Every FULL point of essence loss reduces magic attribute by 1. Of course
then you have the opposite problem of mages getting exactly .9 Essence
cyber.
2. Every FULL point of essence loss reduces MAgic Rating permamently. BEfore
that (up to .9 it only reduces your Magic Rating "virtually." Your virtually
reduced Essence is used for Drain tests and any other test that uses your
Essence to resist an effect.
3. After every .1 increment of Essence loss (up to 1 obviously) roll 2d6-2.
If this rolls EQUAL or LESS then the fraction of loss then you lose the
point then (but don't have to worry about losing more until you get 1.1
Essence loss, etc). This way its a gamble - the closer you get to a full
point the more likely you are to lose the Magic point as normal, but just
getting a .1 Essence Loss doohickey is not going to do anything. That sort
of balances everything out. You get a better probability curve just using a
d10 though ;)

For example, G'nunk the Mage has 6 Essence. He gets .4 worth of cyber
installed. His gamemaster rolls 2d6-2, resulting in a 7. He does not lose a
point of Magic yet. A bit later he gets another .1 worth of cyber and the
gamemaster rolls again. This time he rolls a 5 so G'nunk loses the Magic
point. He does not have to roll for more Magic loss for the next .5 worth of
Essence since hes already lost that point.

I sort of like this system because it actually encourages burnout through
cyber. If you lose the point early your mage is probably going to go "Ahh,
what the hell! And get more cyber." If they keep getting good rolls then
they will probably want to "push their luck" and get more anyways.

Ken
---------------------------
There's a war out there, old friend, a world war. And it's not about who's
got the most bullets, it's about who controls the information. What we see
and hear, how we work, what we think, it's all about the information!
Cosmo, 'Sneakers'
Message no. 2
From: Wavy Davy ctysmd@***.leeds.ac.uk
Subject: Alternative Essence Loss (was Re: Resiting Drain with Magic)
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 17:18:17 +0100 (BST)
On Mon, 1 May 2000, Tzeentch wrote:

> 3. After every .1 increment of Essence loss (up to 1 obviously) roll 2d6-2.
> If this rolls EQUAL or LESS then the fraction of loss then you lose the
> point then (but don't have to worry about losing more until you get 1.1
> Essence loss, etc). This way its a gamble - the closer you get to a full
> point the more likely you are to lose the Magic point as normal, but just
> getting a .1 Essence Loss doohickey is not going to do anything. That sort
> of balances everything out. You get a better probability curve just using a
> d10 though ;)

I like this alternative - it adds and element of randomness to the
whole process, making it less concrete and more, well, magical :)

Also there is the possibilty of bonus's/penalties to the roll for
shamens if they are getting something that does/does not imitate their
totem - eg a rhino shamen getting some horns.

--
Wavy Davy (who shares wins)
...If you go flying back through time, and you see somebody else flying
forward into the future, it's probably best to avoid eye contact.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Alternative Essence Loss (was Re: Resiting Drain with Magic), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!