Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: The GREAT Cornholio <mruane@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 23:25:52 -0700
On Tue, 6 Dec 1994, Thomas W. Craig wrote:

> I understand that debates on whether or not magick exists frustrates a lot of
> people; BUT as Magick IS a part of Shadowrun, it is relevant. Not very, but
> it is. More relevant than the discussions of the plotlines of Babylon 5 and
> Star Trek. If I cannot discuss the existence of Magick on this forum, then
> noone can discuss B5 and any other NON-relevant materials; even if one of the
> persons involved IS a list administrator. Same punishment for same crime,
> yes, even for the admin. If the admin don't follow the same rules and
> regulations as the rest of us, the rules and regulations should not be in
> place AT ALL.
> Just making a point,
> Tom Craig
We don't have the problem with the Magick topic. Just when the topic of
whether it exist today or not comes up, then the list gets involved in
the shouting matches. It's a given magic(k) exists in the game, it can
be discussed here. We all welcome the discussion of Shadowrn magic(k),
but the discussion of real world magic(k) is the hotlist topic.

(blots blood off from nasty gash in forehead from Thwack)

Mike TGC
Message no. 2
From: wadycki andrew m <wadycki@***.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 11:12:08 -0600
On Tue, 6 Dec 1994, The GREAT Cornholio wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Dec 1994, Thomas W. Craig wrote:
>
> > I understand that debates on whether or not magick exists frustrates a lot of
> > people; BUT as Magick IS a part of Shadowrun, it is relevant. Not very, but
> > it is. More relevant than the discussions of the plotlines of Babylon 5 and
> > Star Trek. If I cannot discuss the existence of Magick on this forum, then
> > noone can discuss B5 and any other NON-relevant materials; even if one of the
> > persons involved IS a list administrator. Same punishment for same crime,
> > yes, even for the admin. If the admin don't follow the same rules and
> > regulations as the rest of us, the rules and regulations should not be in
> > place AT ALL.
> > Just making a point,
> > Tom Craig
> We don't have the problem with the Magick topic. Just when the topic of
> whether it exist today or not comes up, then the list gets involved in
> the shouting matches. It's a given magic(k) exists in the game, it can
> be discussed here. We all welcome the discussion of Shadowrn magic(k),
> but the discussion of real world magic(k) is the hotlist topic.
>
> (blots blood off from nasty gash in forehead from Thwack)
>
> Mike TGC
>

Actually the discussion about whether magic(k) exists today is relevant
to Shadowrun. I have a bunch of players whose characters don't believe
in magic. On is a physical adept who just thinks its her training that
makes her fast and tough. Another is a Sammie who has yet to have a
spell cast successfully on her (essence 0, bod 6, will 6). They explain
it all as science or something. It kind of interesting having them come
up with new explainations for it. Even when spells work they explain it
differently. So the discussion really isn't that far off topic.
-Andrew
Message no. 3
From: pran r mukherjee <pran@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 14:48:58 -0500
> Actually the discussion about whether magic(k) exists today is relevant
> to Shadowrun. I have a bunch of players whose characters don't believe
> in magic. On is a physical adept who just thinks its her training that
> makes her fast and tough. Another is a Sammie who has yet to have a
> spell cast successfully on her (essence 0, bod 6, will 6). They explain
> it all as science or something. It kind of interesting having them come
> up with new explainations for it. Even when spells work they explain it
> differently. So the discussion really isn't that far off topic.
> -Andrew

I hate to say it, but if your players want to discuss it, that's all well
and good, but it doesn't need to be put up on the mailing list for dozens
or even hundreds of people. When you come right down to it, this is a
game, and discussions of what is or isn't feasible in today's reality is
irrelevant.
Message no. 4
From: wadycki andrew m <wadycki@***.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 14:02:48 -0600
On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, pran r mukherjee wrote:

>
> I hate to say it, but if your players want to discuss it, that's all well
> and good, but it doesn't need to be put up on the mailing list for dozens
> or even hundreds of people. When you come right down to it, this is a
> game, and discussions of what is or isn't feasible in today's reality is
> irrelevant.
>

I am just saying that there are some of us who play the game, like to see
the ways people justify magic. It makes for interesting side plots in
games. Mages who don't know that is what they are, other runners
denying magic all together. That was a major sub-plot of the whole
Secrets of Power trilogy. Sam came to terms with the existance of magic.

-Andrew
Message no. 5
From: The GREAT Cornholio <mruane@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 15:37:30 -0700
On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, wadycki andrew m wrote:

> Actually the discussion about whether magic(k) exists today is relevant
> to Shadowrun. I have a bunch of players whose characters don't believe
> in magic. On is a physical adept who just thinks its her training that
> makes her fast and tough. Another is a Sammie who has yet to have a
> spell cast successfully on her (essence 0, bod 6, will 6). They explain
> it all as science or something. It kind of interesting having them come
> up with new explainations for it. Even when spells work they explain it
> differently. So the discussion really isn't that far off topic.
> -Andrew
>
Sounds like a lot of fun. A shadowrun group of cynics. Sounds like a
bunch of philosophers. I bet they all believe the great Ghost Dance was
a bing coincidence, too. :-)

Mike, TGC
Message no. 6
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 19:13:58 EST
<other stuff deleted>
Andrew writes:

> Actually the discussion about whether magic(k) exists today is
relevant
> to Shadowrun. I have a bunch of players whose characters don't
>believe

We have had this discussion also. The consensus that I got was that
discussing real world magick is a GOOD THING(tm) if it pertains to
SR. That is actually prime with loopholes. It is a BAD THING(tm) to
start flaming and becoming fanatics. So make it relevent, and most of
will not get angry. Then there is The Whistler... :-)


Many people fear Death, saying it is the bitter end.
I say Death is just lonely, crying out for a friend.

-Shadowdancer- <briddle@*****.vinu.edu>
Message no. 7
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 19:45:40 EST
Pran writes:

>
> I hate to say it, but if your players want to discuss it, that's all well
> and good, but it doesn't need to be put up on the mailing list for
dozens
> or even hundreds of people. When you come right down to it, this
is a
> game, and discussions of what is or isn't feasible in today's reality
is
> irrelevant.
>
Doom may THACK me for this but....

It is relevent. We do not know what the future holds for us. As I
mentioned before, some predictions(Nostradomus, the guy predicting
the rise of the real 6th world,etc.) are pretty fragging scary. What if
magick returns to original power it enjoyed in the past? Then the
people who say it is not possible will be eating feet and probably
dieing in magickal crossfires. Or maybe the future holds a SR type
alternative. Then it gets REAL FRAGGING SCARY! Do you see my
point? If not, our discussion does lead a bit of credance to magic in
SR. Try explaining to mundanes how astral travel and spell locks
work. It is very difficult. Try explaining how spells work. Same thing.
Those of us who do not practice magick in one way or another usually
find it even harder. It can also mean the difference between an
excellent game and one where the players are not that interested,
because they cannot explain what is happening.


Many people fear Death, saying it is the bitter end.
I say Death is just lonely, crying out for a friend.

-Shadowdancer- <briddle@*****.vinu.edu>
Message no. 8
From: Erik S Jameson <esj@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 17:57:29 -0700
On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, Shadowdancer wrote:

> Those of us who do not practice magick in one way or another usually
> find it even harder. It can also mean the difference between an
> excellent game and one where the players are not that interested,
> because they cannot explain what is happening.
>
As painful as it may be for me, I have to agree with you. The discussion
about magic (Irefuse to add that "k") does have potential for a strong,
valid SR discussion. However, it rarely happens that way. Instead, we
get situations in which we have one individual spouting off in a
fanatical fashion about how they really are practising mages or witches
or whatever, and that magic is REAL. Then, on the other side, there is
usually an individual who says that is all just drug-induced bullsh*t.
And it becomes ugly, and a dreadful waste of bandwidth. So, IMNSHO, we
really should avoid these discussion whenever possible. Just to be on
the safe side.

Erik, a.k.a. the Whistler
Message no. 9
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 13:23:29 +1100
wadycki andrew m wrote:

> I have a bunch of players whose characters don't believe in magic.
> [...] They explain it all as science or something. It kind of
> interesting having them come up with new explainations for it.

Sounds like an impossibly difficult rationalisation to me, even
though it would be fun to try.

How do they explain Levitate? Mind Probe? Healing? Or is your
campaign very light on magic?

luke
Message no. 10
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@****.CAIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 21:55:27 -0500
On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, wadycki andrew m wrote:

> Actually the discussion about whether magic(k) exists today is relevant
> to Shadowrun.

First off, this is a topic in which there will never, EVER be an
explanation which satisfies more than three people on the list. This has
been proven time and time again, and is made even more clear every time
somebody posts saying "I'm a mage, and I use magick, so I know I'm right."
Not that it isn't possible -- it just can't be proven via textual
electronic communication.
Secondly, this topic comes up approximately once a MONTH, and
everybody who's been on the list more than two months (except, perhaps, or
or two people) are sick to death of it.
In my (hopefully, by now) educated opinion, any slight relevancy
has been overshadowed by all the crap which inevitably surrounds the
discussion.

-------------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@****.com> =========-------------
| Keeper of the FAQ, ShadowRN and NERPS mailing lists at HEARN |
--------========== http://www.cais.com/jdfalk/home.html ==========--------
Message no. 11
From: wadycki andrew m <wadycki@***.CSO.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 00:05:08 -0600
On Thu, 8 Dec 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:

>
> How do they explain Levitate? Mind Probe? Healing? Or is your
> campaign very light on magic?
>

It is getting harder and harder for them to explain it. The one sammie
had sleep cast on her and just wrote it off as extra fatigue from some
combat tatics she hadn't tried before. A lot of it they explain as a
concidence. Healing has never worked (0 essence tends to make it hard).
The group mage seems to be very good with explosives and some wierd
weapons. Their views are starting to fail, but it still is interesting.

-Andrew
Message no. 12
From: Chris Lubrecht <lubrecht@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 09:04:04 -0500
On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, Erik S Jameson wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, Shadowdancer wrote:
>
> > Those of us who do not practice magick in one way or another usually
> > find it even harder. It can also mean the difference between an
> > excellent game and one where the players are not that interested,
> > because they cannot explain what is happening.
> >
> As painful as it may be for me, I have to agree with you. The discussion
> about magic (Irefuse to add that "k") does have potential for a strong,
> valid SR discussion. However, it rarely happens that way. Instead, we
> get situations in which we have one individual spouting off in a
> fanatical fashion about how they really are practising mages or witches
> or whatever, and that magic is REAL. Then, on the other side, there is
> usually an individual who sa.....

(CLIP)

Wow! We go from a discussion about magic, which was irrelavant to the
list, to a disscussion about the discussion of magic and its relevency to
the list. Please stop. You are creating a paradox in my universe.

Nigel
Message no. 13
From: "Wesley W. Walker" <wwalker@****.UARK.EDU>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 11:09:53 -0600
On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, Shadowdancer wrote:
> Doom may THACK me for this but....

**THACK!!**

> It is relevent. We do not know what the future holds for us. As I
> mentioned before, some predictions(Nostradomus, the guy predicting
> the rise of the real 6th world,etc.) are pretty fragging scary. What if
> magick returns to original power it enjoyed in the past? Then the
> people who say it is not possible will be eating feet and probably

[etc.. etc..]

No comment. >:|

[FLAME {tm} THROWER on...]

No.. that's wrong.. I do have one.. TAKE THIS THREAD ELSEWHERE!!
Jeeze, you guys DENSE??!?!?!?! How many people have to complain to let
you know that we -aren't- interested???? It's almost as stupid as "Are we
really alive or are we really just dreaming all of this?" My answer:
DOES IT MATTER???????

Whether magic or magick or life energy or steaming piles of shit
exist, I -don't- care! Go discuss it with you own group.. I'm sure your
account allows you to set up a mailing list of your own. I was actually
hoping that this thing was settled.. IE: It can't be proved either way..
So go cast some spells and raise a corpse or something...

[FLAME {tm} THROWER off...]

Okay (pant pant) I'm fine.. really. I'm just really tired of
hearing all this stuff that I had to read just a month ago.. It's the
same rants.. over and over.. enough. Okay? Please? Besides.. you guys
are sounding kind of weird now.. wait until one of the Great Dragons from
Shadowrun lore pops up and -then- we will have to believe in your magick
reawakening.. till then.. I'm tired of hearing about people talking to
Odin, summoning Thor and whorshipping the devil.

Nuff Said.

Wes

PS- Nothing personal ShadowDancer, I just happened to be on your post
when I cracked after deleting about ten other magick posts after posting
twice to have this thread moved elsewhere as well as several other
listmember's complaints. It's just getting stupid.

PPS- Wasn't there something about being kicked off the list if
continuing a thread that was asked to leave??? Is ANYONE in staff not
going to do anything??

\||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||/
- Wes W. Walker (wwalker@****.uark.edu) * "Truth is well disguised lie and -
- CSCI Major and General Slave * never immediately apparent." -
- Artiste Wanna-be (accepting donations)* -Me -
/||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||\
Message no. 14
From: Gurth <gurth@***.NL>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 20:52:42 +0100
> concidence. Healing has never worked (0 essence tends to make it hard).

Not really. Our group's shaman usually rolls about 12 dice for a healing
spell (Force 4 exclusive plus the full Magic Pool), and usually cures
the elven sam/rigger with Essence 0 and Body Index 3.7.

Gurth@***.nl | GEEK CODE (v2.1): GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g P?(3) !au
Santa Claus, raus | !a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U P? !L !3 E? N++ K-
Rot op met je slee | W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@
Go back to your house | D+(++) B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
In de U.S.A. -The Amazing Stroopwafels
Message no. 15
From: The GREAT Cornholio <mruane@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 17:33:23 -0700
On Thu, 8 Dec 1994, Gurth wrote:

> > concidence. Healing has never worked (0 essence tends to make it hard).
>
> Not really. Our group's shaman usually rolls about 12 dice for a healing
> spell (Force 4 exclusive plus the full Magic Pool), and usually cures
> the elven sam/rigger with Essence 0 and Body Index 3.7.

My goodness! You shamen can roll oodles of 8's/10's with only 12 dice!?
Holy toledo! Get his dice exorcised, quick!

Mike, TGC
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@***.NL>
Subject: Re: Anti-Magick debate Legislation
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 20:43:05 +0100
>> Not really. Our group's shaman usually rolls about 12 dice for a healing
>> spell (Force 4 exclusive plus the full Magic Pool), and usually cures
>> the elven sam/rigger with Essence 0 and Body Index 3.7.
>
>My goodness! You shamen can roll oodles of 8's/10's with only 12 dice!?
>Holy toledo! Get his dice exorcised, quick!

It somehow works quite well. I think I should add that the standard
procedure in our group is that one of the sams (who has Biotech (conc. First
Aid) 5) applies first aid first, which usually drops the wound level by 1.
After that, the shaman casts Treat (easier than Heal) with enough successes
to normally drop the Wound Level to Light or less. I do think she rolls
remarkably high, yes, but this is a shaman who 90% of the time rolls 17 for
Initiative, after applying wound penalties and everything! (OK, she's got a
spell lock with Increase Reflexes +3 dice...)
Gurth@***.nl
Backup not found: |GEEK CODE v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g P?(3) !au !a>?
(A)bort |w+(+++)y v*(---) C+(++) U P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po)
(R)etry |Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++) B? e+ u+@ h!
(P)anic |f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Anti-Magick debate Legislation, 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!