Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Frank Pelletier (Trinity) fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:07:32 -0500
Okay,

We all know how munchie a mage/shama can become once, if his initiation
rating is high enough, he tries to cram cyber into his body...

So the question is this... We all know there are no rules against
Mages/Shamans getting cyber... We all know all they must do is leave a
magic rating of 1 intact, and the initiations will compensate for any loss
(although I'm obviously talking about high-level characters here).

So, should roleplaying dictate the fact that a mage/shaman
(goddamn...magic-user :) ) cannot get cyber? Should we ostracize any player
with munchie intentions, or, as GMs, make them hard as hell on them to get
cyber?

I view with much doubt a Magic-user who intends to have himself cybered-up,
since it's obviously not a way to advance his character's persona/story/etc,
but a blatant move to boost his already formidable stats (we're talking
about a level 2-6 initiate) and powers...

Isn't that the definition of a munckin? Can anyone justify a mage of
perfect health getting cyber, in the name of "character development"?

I don't think so...

*stands ready for the flames*

Trinity
---------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
fpelletier@******.usherb.ca

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -M. Gandhi

Trinity on the Undernet and EFNet
Message no. 2
From: Kama kama@*******.net
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:01:27 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Frank Pelletier (Trinity) wrote:

>
> So, should roleplaying dictate the fact that a mage/shaman
> (goddamn...magic-user :) ) cannot get cyber? Should we ostracize any player
> with munchie intentions, or, as GMs, make them hard as hell on them to get
> cyber?
>
> I view with much doubt a Magic-user who intends to have himself cybered-up,
> since it's obviously not a way to advance his character's persona/story/etc,
> but a blatant move to boost his already formidable stats (we're talking
> about a level 2-6 initiate) and powers...
>
> Isn't that the definition of a munckin? Can anyone justify a mage of
> perfect health getting cyber, in the name of "character development"?
>
> I don't think so...
>

I think so.

However, it does depend on a number of things. One of the most critical
factors is how much cyber and ifi the character has a GOOD reason to
explain why.

Anderson, a dog shaman in our campaign, opted for cybereyes when his
natural eyes were destroyed during a hosed run. He opted for cyber becuase
of the improvemnts he could get built into the cyber eyes even though the
money was available for him to wait and get clonal replacements. He
decided that as long as he was going to have surgery he might as well do
things properly and got a smart gun link put in as well. I believe he had
one more piece of cyber put in at that time as well, though I cannot
remember what. All in all, the minimal amount of cyber that Adnerson put
in was the few things he thought would give him a serious boost to his
survival potential while spending very little essence (less than a point).
Even if circumstances had not prompted him into getting the eyes when he
did, I believe Anderson had considered these limited cyber options before
the bad run.

Another character in our campaign named saphire has done the initiate and
cyber routine. However, it has fit well with her personality. She
sonsiders herself to be a death machine. She has little affection for
people and tends NOT to make friends despite her high charisma becuase of
her kill at any cost personality. She does tend to initate with a list of
cyber in mind so that she clenas herself out of both Karma nad money at
the same time. She is played well, with her social problems being used to
off-set teh advantages she has gotten through this trade off. However, if
she were being played in a campaign where the social disadvantages were
not so freuently emphasized, she owuld be munchy.

To summerize, I have no problem with a mage or shaman thinking long and
hard before deicding that a SMALL amount of cyber is worth the loss. I
agree, that mages and shamans who constantly up their level of intiation
in order to fit in more cyber can be dangerously close to munchy. However
I have seen it done well.

Kama
Message no. 3
From: David Fallon dfallon@****.edu
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:13:49 -0800
>We all know how munchie a mage/shama can become once, if his initiation
>rating is high enough, he tries to cram cyber into his body...
>
>So the question is this... We all know there are no rules against
>Mages/Shamans getting cyber... We all know all they must do is leave a
>magic rating of 1 intact, and the initiations will compensate for any loss
>(although I'm obviously talking about high-level characters here).
>
>So, should roleplaying dictate the fact that a mage/shaman
>(goddamn...magic-user :) ) cannot get cyber? Should we ostracize any
player
>with munchie intentions, or, as GMs, make them hard as hell on them to get
>cyber?
>
>I view with much doubt a Magic-user who intends to have himself cybered-up,
>since it's obviously not a way to advance his character's
persona/story/etc,
>but a blatant move to boost his already formidable stats (we're talking
>about a level 2-6 initiate) and powers...
>
>Isn't that the definition of a munckin? Can anyone justify a mage of
>perfect health getting cyber, in the name of "character development"?


It's _very_ hard to justify a true roleplaying reason for having a mage just
walk into a chopshop and go "hey, doc, pop out my eyes, I want a new pair.".
In fact, that should be fairly difficult for _anyone_ to do, much less
someone so in tune with their body. I would recommend two things if a
player persists in doing this. One, slap a psychological penalty on them.
They're either clinically paranoid, or start developing multiple
personalities, or become suicidally depressed, or something. Basically, some
device that allows you to justify taking control of the character for brief
periods of time and having them act crazy. This will put a health scare into
the player... They all of a sudden wake up and realize they're tottering on
the edge of a ledge on the top of their building.
Second, I'd continue to encourage a player like that to keep getting
cyberware installed. Have them see brochures on the subject, tell them
there's a special deal... wired reflexes 2 alphaware for the low, low
price...
Get them to point where they're tottering right on the edge of being a
mundane... Then give 'em a deadly wound or two, and see how they handle the
mundane world. Don't let them just install a beta smartgun link and mag3
eyes...
Message no. 4
From: Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:18:43 -0500
Frank Pelletier (Trinity) wrote:
> We all know how munchie a mage/shama can become once, if his initiation
> rating is high enough, he tries to cram cyber into his body...
>
You mean "powerful", I think. Munchie is what players are...

> So the question is this... We all know there are no rules against
> Mages/Shamans getting cyber... We all know all they must do is leave a
> magic rating of 1 intact, and the initiations will compensate for any loss
> (although I'm obviously talking about high-level characters here).
>
Except for the difficulty in healing them and other essence-related
tests.

> So, should roleplaying dictate the fact that a mage/shaman
> (goddamn...magic-user :) ) cannot get cyber? Should we ostracize any
> player
> with munchie intentions, or, as GMs, make them hard as hell on them to get
> cyber?
>
Nope. The mage goes on a run, something goes wrong, the mage's leg
gets shot off. The mage can't wait for a clonal replacement (or can't
afford one), so he gets a cyber leg. Bang - the mage has an excellent
reason to get cyber, easily within character (at least, within most
characters) - what's the problem? Cyber shouldn't be any harder to
get for mages than non-mages (apart from the +2 TN for surgery).

> I view with much doubt a Magic-user who intends to have himself
> cybered-up,
> since it's obviously not a way to advance his character's
> persona/story/etc,
> but a blatant move to boost his already formidable stats (we're talking
> about a level 2-6 initiate) and powers...
>
What!? Obviously not within character!? That depends *greatly* on
the individual in question. What about mages starting with cyber?
They had to make a decision (or had a decision forced on them) at
some point in their lives to get cybered. Are you now saying that
burnt-out mages shouldn't exist because you think they're overpowered?

> Isn't that the definition of a munckin? Can anyone justify a mage of
> perfect health getting cyber, in the name of "character development"?
>
Well, my last example wasn't "perfect health", so here's another one.
The mage is sick and tired of being target #1 in the party (because
he has no visible cyber). He could get some fake cyber made, but
it's not much of a drain on his abilities so why not get the real
thing? He gets a pair of cybereyes installed along with a smartlink.
Now he fits right in with everybody else, his spells are still
effective (although weaker than before) - but he's generally a better
runner.

Shadowrunners *want* to become more powerful.

James Ojaste
Message no. 5
From: David Fallon dfallon@****.edu
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 11:24:14 -0800
>Anderson, a dog shaman in our campaign, opted for cybereyes when his
>natural eyes were destroyed during a hosed run. He opted for cyber becuase
>of the improvemnts he could get built into the cyber eyes even though the
>money was available for him to wait and get clonal replacements. He
>decided that as long as he was going to have surgery he might as well do
>things properly and got a smart gun link put in as well. I believe he had
>one more piece of cyber put in at that time as well, though I cannot
>remember what. All in all, the minimal amount of cyber that Adnerson put
>in was the few things he thought would give him a serious boost to his
>survival potential while spending very little essence (less than a point).
>Even if circumstances had not prompted him into getting the eyes when he
>did, I believe Anderson had considered these limited cyber options before
>the bad run.


Erm.... That's pretty munchkin. Anytime the logic goes "It's only X
essence", the character is looking at the rules, and not at their character
background.

>Another character in our campaign named saphire has done the initiate and
>cyber routine. However, it has fit well with her personality. She
>sonsiders herself to be a death machine. She has little affection for
>people and tends NOT to make friends despite her high charisma becuase of
>her kill at any cost personality. She does tend to initate with a list of
>cyber in mind so that she clenas herself out of both Karma nad money at
>the same time. She is played well, with her social problems being used to
>off-set teh advantages she has gotten through this trade off. However, if
>she were being played in a campaign where the social disadvantages were
>not so freuently emphasized, she owuld be munchy.


That sort of fits, but I'd hope she was self-initiating... Even still,
that's pushing it. :) Having a character's personality be "I am a munchkin"
doesn't make it good roleplaying.

>To summerize, I have no problem with a mage or shaman thinking long and
>hard before deicding that a SMALL amount of cyber is worth the loss. I
>agree, that mages and shamans who constantly up their level of intiation
>in order to fit in more cyber can be dangerously close to munchy. However
>I have seen it done well.


Even a small bit of cyberware is really pushing it. I recommend reading a
book called 2XS by Nigel D. Findley, if you haven't already. I think it's
out of print, but it's a _really_ good book to make some of the issues a
character _should_ have with cyberware clearer. The main character is a
private detective who does his best to survive on the street without
cyberware, because he likes his body just the way it is, thank you. I don't
think every character should be like this, but some of this should be in the
back of every character's minds, especially mages.

On a separate note, 2XS is also a really good way to get some perspective on
BTL addiction...
Message no. 6
From: Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:32:05 -0500
David Fallon wrote:
> >remember what. All in all, the minimal amount of cyber that Adnerson put
> >in was the few things he thought would give him a serious boost to his
> >survival potential while spending very little essence (less than a
> point).
> >Even if circumstances had not prompted him into getting the eyes when he
> >did, I believe Anderson had considered these limited cyber options before
> >the bad run.
> Erm.... That's pretty munchkin. Anytime the logic goes "It's only X
> essence", the character is looking at the rules, and not at their
> character
> background.
>
Huh? Next you'll say "anytime the player buys the gun with the
biggest damage code, it's munchkin"! The characters will have access
to similar info - sams can buy gun mags with penetration specs and
mages can see how much a given piece of cyber affects the aura.

Why not even have a standard rating system that mages can rate aural
damage on? We'll have the scale go from 0 to 6, and we'll call it
essence...

> >the same time. She is played well, with her social problems being used to
> >off-set teh advantages she has gotten through this trade off. However, if
> >she were being played in a campaign where the social disadvantages were
> >not so freuently emphasized, she owuld be munchy.
> That sort of fits, but I'd hope she was self-initiating... Even still,
> that's pushing it. :) Having a character's personality be "I am a
> munchkin"
> doesn't make it good roleplaying.
>
It doesn't make it bad roleplaying either.

> Even a small bit of cyberware is really pushing it. I recommend reading a
> book called 2XS by Nigel D. Findley, if you haven't already. I think it's
> out of print, but it's a _really_ good book to make some of the issues a
> character _should_ have with cyberware clearer. The main character is a
>
"A character". Not, "A magically-active character" I notice.
Therefore, according to your opinion, cyber is munchy and nobody
should be able to get it. (R.A.A.)

> private detective who does his best to survive on the street without
> cyberware, because he likes his body just the way it is, thank you. I
> don't
> think every character should be like this, but some of this should be in
> the
> back of every character's minds, especially mages.
>
Sure it should. It shouldn't be the *only* thing in their minds.
Don't forget that the grass is always greener... You can't know
how much good it'll do you until you try. Well, you've already
gone this far, what's a little more going to hurt?

There's a reason it's called "the path of the burnout".

James Ojaste
Message no. 7
From: David Buehrer dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:37:00 -0700 (MST)
For the mere cost of a Thaum, David Fallon wrote:
/
/ >Isn't that the definition of a munckin? Can anyone justify a mage of
/ >perfect health getting cyber, in the name of "character development"?
/
/ It's _very_ hard to justify a true roleplaying reason for having a mage just
/ walk into a chopshop and go "hey, doc, pop out my eyes, I want a new pair.".

Okay, there are two schools of thought on this.

A: The GM should enforce character development and should require players
to come up with good reason for character changes.

I don't ascribe to this school for a few reasons. One, it isn't my
character. Two, I don't believe in enforcing my will on others. Three,
telling a player what the can and cannot do won't teach him anything.
He'll learn much better by doing and making mistakes on his own.

B: The GM should let players do what they want and run his game with the
goal of having fun.

If you focus your energy on being a good GM and having fun, then everything
else will fall into place.

So what if the player has an unrealistic character? That problem will
resolve itself when the player tries to roleplay the character and
discovers that he has a mishmash statistics and toys instead of a
character. He will learn on his own that cyberware, magic, and high
stats and ratings do not make a character a character.

Let the players set their own boundaries.

/ I would recommend two things if a
/ player persists in doing this. One, slap a psychological penalty on them.

Why?

If you punish a player he learns that you will lash out at him if he
doesn't meet your expectations. He will stop playing for fun and will
start gauging your expectations and try to meet them, or he will feel
hurt and lash out himself by crossing the boundaries you have set.

Instead of penalizing poor behavior, reward good behavior. Reward
those players that roleplay well and work on good character
development. Give them that extra 1-2 roleplaying karma points. The
poor roleplayer will want to earn those same rewards. He will either
work on his roleplaying, or he will ask how he can get those rewards.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. However,
if he becomes thirsty he will drink from you trough with gusto.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 8
From: Kama kama@*******.net
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:47:10 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, David Fallon wrote:

> >Anderson, a dog shaman in our campaign, opted for cybereyes when his
> >natural eyes were destroyed during a hosed run. He opted for cyber becuase
> >of the improvemnts he could get built into the cyber eyes even though the
> >money was available for him to wait and get clonal replacements. He
> >decided that as long as he was going to have surgery he might as well do
> >things properly and got a smart gun link put in as well. I believe he had
> >one more piece of cyber put in at that time as well, though I cannot
> >remember what. All in all, the minimal amount of cyber that Adnerson put
> >in was the few things he thought would give him a serious boost to his
> >survival potential while spending very little essence (less than a point).
> >Even if circumstances had not prompted him into getting the eyes when he
> >did, I believe Anderson had considered these limited cyber options before
> >the bad run.
>
>
> Erm.... That's pretty munchkin. Anytime the logic goes "It's only X
> essence", the character is looking at the rules, and not at their character
> background.

Yes, a haracter should not have an exact knowledge of hte essence cost.
However, they do have some clue as to how much of a change a piece of
cyber will make. In this case, part of the reaosn the run went bad was
that anderson couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with a gun and his
magic wasn't working. I don;t see any problem with the character lying in
bed recovering from wounds which killed most of his group thinking things
through and deciding that he will go ahead and get the smart link and the
cyberyes in order to avoid the particular shortcomings that got him hosed
on teh lst run. Acmittedly, he didn't think it through in terms of essance
numbers, but probably did relize that "the smart gun link and the
cybereyes will probably do no more harm to my body intergrity and the
relationship I share with dog than the cybereyes alone".

>
> >Another character in our campaign named saphire has done the initiate and
> >cyber routine. However, it has fit well with her personality. She
> >sonsiders herself to be a death machine. She has little affection for
> >people and tends NOT to make friends despite her high charisma becuase of
> >her kill at any cost personality. She does tend to initate with a list of
> >cyber in mind so that she clenas herself out of both Karma nad money at
> >the same time. She is played well, with her social problems being used to
> >off-set teh advantages she has gotten through this trade off. However, if
> >she were being played in a campaign where the social disadvantages were
> >not so freuently emphasized, she owuld be munchy.
>
>
> That sort of fits, but I'd hope she was self-initiating... Even still,
> that's pushing it. :) Having a character's personality be "I am a munchkin"
> doesn't make it good roleplaying.
>

Depends on what the atmosphere of the campaign is. Personally, most of our
characters tend to be "self-sacrificing fools in the cause of good". We
have had retired Pc spend their time and money on rehabilitating a part of
the barrnes and setting up a series of soup kitchens in Seattle. Most of
our characters will turn down any job that involves hurting "innocents"
and have taken numerous jobs for free becuase a shild was being hurt. The
party even risked thier lives to get two school buses of children free
from the Chicago contianment zone just when things exploded and then set
up a school and orphange as well as metorship programs to help them adjust
to life after Chicago. With a group of civic minded ultruistic
goody-two-shoes the occasional appearance of Saphire (whose player lives
half way across the country) is a wondreful element. Her williingness to
sacrifice her body and magic to cyber wierds out all the magically actives
in the group. Her love of the kill and lack of concern for any collatoral
damage does a great job of shaking up the party's balance and her concern
for power alone causes some great tension when she works with a group
whose primary interest lies in bettering mankind.


> >To summerize, I have no problem with a mage or shaman thinking long and
> >hard before deicding that a SMALL amount of cyber is worth the loss. I
> >agree, that mages and shamans who constantly up their level of intiation
> >in order to fit in more cyber can be dangerously close to munchy. However
> >I have seen it done well.
>
>
> Even a small bit of cyberware is really pushing it. I recommend reading a
> book called 2XS by Nigel D. Findley, if you haven't already. I think it's
> out of print, but it's a _really_ good book to make some of the issues a
> character _should_ have with cyberware clearer. The main character is a
> private detective who does his best to survive on the street without
> cyberware, because he likes his body just the way it is, thank you. I don't
> think every character should be like this, but some of this should be in the
> back of every character's minds, especially mages.
>
Agreed, but NOT EVRY CHARACTER SHOULD BE LIKE THIS, Lena, our non-magical
muscle for a long period, now a retired decker, has been very careful to
keep her essance at 5 and higher. She needed the edge of a little cyber
(she couldn't have survived without the smart link 2 and the jack was
necessary to become a decker) but she was unwilling to stop being
"herself" if ti was unnecesary. On the other hand Zurko, a weapons expert
has cybered herself to the max in order to stop being "herself" - a person
she never liked and still hasn't learned to value. I agree that there is a
bit of madness in being willing to sacrifice pieces of yourself to be a
better machine. However, it would be hard to argue that there is no
madness in any shadowrun character and sometimes this is the form the
madness takes.

KAma
Message no. 9
From: Frank Pelletier (Trinity) fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:51:21 -0500
Ojaste,James [NCR] <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA> once wrote,

>There's a reason it's called "the path of the burnout".
>
>James Ojaste
>

Just the thing I wanted to hear...

Think about it, James...the Path of the Burnout... losing your magic, the
fear that, while you become stronger physically, your magic becomes weaker,
'til it's there no more...

Right?

Wrong.

You know what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that with REAL roleplaying,
you can justify most cybermods on a mage. Hell, if the roleplaying's there,
you can pretty much justify everything.

But how many "abusers" take the Burnout route? Close to none. Do they feel
the power in them slowly ebbing away? Hell no, I just need a couple mroe
karma for Initiation number X and I'm set for another leg...

A true roleplayer will fear cyber (if he plays a mage/shaman, of course),
because it will lead to burnout... Eventually, you'll lose it. If the guy
plays with this fear, and enhances the playing experience for the group, I'm
all for it...

But will you always get those players in your game? Sadly, no... you'll get
the munchie who doesn't care, 'cause he gots 3d6 ini now...

Trinity
---------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
fpelletier@******.usherb.ca

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -M. Gandhi

Trinity on the Undernet and EFNet
Message no. 10
From: David Fallon dfallon@****.edu
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:02:39 -0800
>David Fallon wrote:
>> >remember what. All in all, the minimal amount of cyber that Adnerson put
>> >in was the few things he thought would give him a serious boost to his
>> >survival potential while spending very little essence (less than a
>> point).
>> >Even if circumstances had not prompted him into getting the eyes when he
>> >did, I believe Anderson had considered these limited cyber options
before
>> >the bad run.
>> Erm.... That's pretty munchkin. Anytime the logic goes "It's only X
>> essence", the character is looking at the rules, and not at their
>> character
>> background.
>>
>Huh? Next you'll say "anytime the player buys the gun with the
>biggest damage code, it's munchkin"! The characters will have access
>to similar info - sams can buy gun mags with penetration specs and
>mages can see how much a given piece of cyber affects the aura.
>
>Why not even have a standard rating system that mages can rate aural
>damage on? We'll have the scale go from 0 to 6, and we'll call it
>essence...


A character that's built upon stats _only_ is the definition of munchkin.
Picking out the best gun is a good idea, especially as the ammo load/bullet
size, etc. are all presumably listed in the street sam '55 catalogue. I
don't think the essence cost is listed next to cyberware, however.

When the first guy writes that the logic was "hey, it's only a bit more
essence (*less than a point*)", this is munchkin. Although you're certainly
welcome to play where everyone in game understands what the essence system
is, and what the specific essence cost of various cyberware is, my
understanding is that it's a bit more mysterious than that. I think that's
one of the more abused parts of the system, in fact, as it's very hard to
suppress the fact that you know how much things cost when buying them...
This is why I find street sams with .00001 essence left silly. If you're
trying to roleplay, you should try to avoid using the game rules as the
basis for your *character*'s decisions.

>> >the same time. She is played well, with her social problems being used
to
>> >off-set teh advantages she has gotten through this trade off. However,
if
>> >she were being played in a campaign where the social disadvantages were
>> >not so freuently emphasized, she owuld be munchy.
>> That sort of fits, but I'd hope she was self-initiating... Even still,
>> that's pushing it. :) Having a character's personality be "I am a
>> munchkin"
>> doesn't make it good roleplaying.
>>
>It doesn't make it bad roleplaying either.


Having your character concept be "I am a munchkin! I want everything!" isn't
bad roleplaying? <shrug> okay. We have different definitions of creativity.

>> Even a small bit of cyberware is really pushing it. I recommend reading a
>> book called 2XS by Nigel D. Findley, if you haven't already. I think it's
>> out of print, but it's a _really_ good book to make some of the issues a
>> character _should_ have with cyberware clearer. The main character is a
>>
>"A character". Not, "A magically-active character" I notice.
>Therefore, according to your opinion, cyber is munchy and nobody
>should be able to get it. (R.A.A.)


My next sentence is "I don't think every character should be like this."

>> private detective who does his best to survive on the street without
>> cyberware, because he likes his body just the way it is, thank you. I
>> don't
>> think every character should be like this, but some of this should be in
>> the
>> back of every character's minds, especially mages.
>>
>Sure it should. It shouldn't be the *only* thing in their minds.
>Don't forget that the grass is always greener... You can't know
>how much good it'll do you until you try. Well, you've already
>gone this far, what's a little more going to hurt?
>
>There's a reason it's called "the path of the burnout".


Yup! hence my other comments about how to lead a character down the path of
burnout...
Message no. 11
From: Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:07:07 -0500
Frank Pelletier (Trinity) wrote:
> >There's a reason it's called "the path of the burnout".
> Just the thing I wanted to hear...
>
> Think about it, James...the Path of the Burnout... losing your magic, the
> fear that, while you become stronger physically, your magic becomes
> weaker,
> 'til it's there no more...
>
Well, pretty much - you've only *got* 6 points of essence, no more.
I recall seeing somewhere that you needed an essence of at least 1
to be magically active, leaving the mage with 5 points to play with.

At *that* point, their magic can be powerful *if* they maintain it
with cartloads of karma (at which point the pure sams will have
incredible skills), but it's also fragile. What happens when a
vampire comes along and drains a measly point of essence? *Poof*,
no more mage.

> You know what I'm talking about. I'm not saying that with REAL
> roleplaying,
> you can justify most cybermods on a mage. Hell, if the roleplaying's
> there,
> you can pretty much justify everything.
>
That's my point.

> But how many "abusers" take the Burnout route? Close to none. Do they
> feel
> the power in them slowly ebbing away? Hell no, I just need a couple mroe
> karma for Initiation number X and I'm set for another leg...
>
Until you run out of essence - and don't forget other ways of losing
magic rating. What happens if something *else* gets implanted without
their consent? What if the surgeon rolls badly on the surgery test
and it ends up costing extra essence?

> A true roleplayer will fear cyber (if he plays a mage/shaman, of course),
> because it will lead to burnout... Eventually, you'll lose it. If the
> guy
> plays with this fear, and enhances the playing experience for the group,
> I'm
> all for it...
>
Cyber should be feared no matter what kind of character you're playing.
It should be respected. When the respect outweighs the fear, the
character get the cyber. Simple.

> But will you always get those players in your game? Sadly, no... you'll
> get
> the munchie who doesn't care, 'cause he gots 3d6 ini now...
>
And a whole lot less essence. He's harder to heal magically, he's
still hard to heal medically, he's less human. Don't you think that
sams walk the same line?

James Ojaste
Message no. 12
From: David Fallon dfallon@****.edu
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:09:52 -0800
>> Erm.... That's pretty munchkin. Anytime the logic goes "It's only X
>> essence", the character is looking at the rules, and not at their
character
>> background.
>
>Yes, a haracter should not have an exact knowledge of hte essence cost.
>However, they do have some clue as to how much of a change a piece of
>cyber will make. In this case, part of the reaosn the run went bad was
>that anderson couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with a gun and his
>magic wasn't working. I don;t see any problem with the character lying in
>bed recovering from wounds which killed most of his group thinking things
>through and deciding that he will go ahead and get the smart link and the
>cyberyes in order to avoid the particular shortcomings that got him hosed
>on teh lst run. Acmittedly, he didn't think it through in terms of essance
>numbers, but probably did relize that "the smart gun link and the
>cybereyes will probably do no more harm to my body intergrity and the
>relationship I share with dog than the cybereyes alone".


<shrug> It becomes munchkin when the logic is "what else can I get to make
it exactly 1 point of essence?", which is what it sounds like. My personal
feelings is that 99% of the mages should be absolutely horrified of someone
carving out parts of their body and replacing them with machines, but
certainly if your campaign has a more relaxed attitude then that, then go
with it.

>> Even a small bit of cyberware is really pushing it. I recommend reading a
>> book called 2XS by Nigel D. Findley, if you haven't already. I think it's
>> out of print, but it's a _really_ good book to make some of the issues a
>> character _should_ have with cyberware clearer. The main character is a
>> private detective who does his best to survive on the street without
>> cyberware, because he likes his body just the way it is, thank you. I
don't
>> think every character should be like this, but some of this should be in
the
>> back of every character's minds, especially mages.
>>
>Agreed, but NOT EVRY CHARACTER SHOULD BE LIKE THIS, Lena, our non-magical
>muscle for a long period, now a retired decker, has been very careful to
>keep her essance at 5 and higher. She needed the edge of a little cyber
>(she couldn't have survived without the smart link 2 and the jack was
>necessary to become a decker) but she was unwilling to stop being
>"herself" if ti was unnecesary. On the other hand Zurko, a weapons expert
>has cybered herself to the max in order to stop being "herself" - a person
>she never liked and still hasn't learned to value. I agree that there is a
>bit of madness in being willing to sacrifice pieces of yourself to be a
>better machine. However, it would be hard to argue that there is no
>madness in any shadowrun character and sometimes this is the form the
>madness takes.


:) Yup. There are definitely valid reasons behind a mage getting cyberware.
I'm just saying that there should be *some* reason beyond "this character
has higher stats". Adding up numbers isn't roleplaying, it's math.
Message no. 13
From: Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:36:58 -0500
David Fallon wrote:
> >> That sort of fits, but I'd hope she was self-initiating... Even still,
> >> that's pushing it. :) Having a character's personality be "I am a
> >> munchkin"
> >> doesn't make it good roleplaying.
> >It doesn't make it bad roleplaying either.
>
> Having your character concept be "I am a munchkin! I want everything!"
> isn't
> bad roleplaying? <shrug> okay. We have different definitions of
> creativity.
>
The character may in fact say "If I don't become a combat god, I'm
going to die young." or "If I become a combat god, I'll be a hero,
I'll get all the chicks, the world will be my oyster." Insert evil
maniacal laughter here.

I prefer to go for character concepts that have inherent problems
(my current character wants to bring about Ragnarok, for example, or
the gnome car thief who carries around a booster seat and a pair of
small stilts, or...).

My point is that there *are* characters like that running around in
the universe. Like, say, Hachetman.

> >> Even a small bit of cyberware is really pushing it. I recommend reading
> a
> >> book called 2XS by Nigel D. Findley, if you haven't already. I think
> it's
> >> out of print, but it's a _really_ good book to make some of the issues
> a
> >> character _should_ have with cyberware clearer. The main character is a
> >"A character". Not, "A magically-active character" I notice.
> >Therefore, according to your opinion, cyber is munchy and nobody
> >should be able to get it. (R.A.A.)
> My next sentence is "I don't think every character should be like this."
>
But it shouldn't be the exclusive domain of mages. Everybody loses
humanity when they get cyber. Cyber grants power. People who like
power more than they like being human get cybered. Easy.

> >Don't forget that the grass is always greener... You can't know
> >how much good it'll do you until you try. Well, you've already
> >gone this far, what's a little more going to hurt?
> >
> >There's a reason it's called "the path of the burnout".
>
> Yup! hence my other comments about how to lead a character down the path
> of
> burnout...
>
So would you complain if the characters stole a whole pile of gold
from a dragon because then they'd have too much money? You're in
danger of losing your EGM license... :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 14
From: Seth Fogarty aravthamis@*****.com
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 13:38:31 -0800 (PST)
---"Frank Pelletier (Trinity)" <fpelletier@******.usherb.ca> wrote:
>
> Okay,
>
> We all know how munchie a mage/shama can become once, if his
initiation
> rating is high enough, he tries to cram cyber into his body...
>
> So the question is this... We all know there are no rules against
> Mages/Shamans getting cyber... We all know all they must do is
leave a
> magic rating of 1 intact, and the initiations will compensate for
any loss
> (although I'm obviously talking about high-level characters here).

Keep in mind that, for most cyber-surgery, mages and shamans should
roll for magic loss due to surgery. Wired Reflexes is HIGHLY invasive.

> So, should roleplaying dictate the fact that a mage/shaman
> (goddamn...magic-user :) ) cannot get cyber? Should we ostracize
any player
> with munchie intentions, or, as GMs, make them hard as hell on them
to get
> cyber?

Totems probably won't like Shaman's as much, under SR3, there are
negative effects to Charisma for high-cyber people..double or triple
them for spirits and elementals, since it is especially abhorent in
someone who needs every bit of his aura to channel as much energy as
possible. Make initiation groups dislike him more, make initations
harder: he has defiled. There is certainly a stigma against mages,
ESPECIALLY initiates, getting cyber.

> I view with much doubt a Magic-user who intends to have himself
cybered-up,
> since it's obviously not a way to advance his character's
persona/story/etc,
> but a blatant move to boost his already formidable stats (we're
talking
> about a level 2-6 initiate) and powers...
>
> Isn't that the definition of a munckin? Can anyone justify a mage of
> perfect health getting cyber, in the name of "character development"?

Sure! My wolf shaman would LOVE to get hand razors. That corporate
security mage might feel fine about getting a radio implanted, etc,
etc. My wolf shaman, however, contents himself with forarm
snap-blades, and that corp mage will deal with a headset radio with a
subvocal mike strapped to his throat. The bodyguard mage might
sacrifice some of his magic for wired reflexes, but would probably
just get a spell lock/sustaining focus for increase reaction.

> I don't think so...
>
> *stands ready for the flames*
>
> Trinity
> ---------------------------------------------
> Frank Pelletier
> fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
>
> "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -M. Gandhi
>
> Trinity on the Undernet and EFNet

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 15
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 15:42:17 -0600
:>Anderson, a dog shaman in our campaign, opted for cybereyes when his
:>natural eyes were destroyed during a hosed run. <snip> All in all, the
minimal amount of cyber that Adnerson put
:>in was the few things he thought would give him a serious boost to his
:>survival potential while spending very little essence (less than a
point).


That's not unusual, and seems like it would be typical thinking for a
runner. Thier job is very dangerous; if they can make it less so for a
reasonable cost (one that is much lower than the cost of quitting the
job), they'd do so.

:Erm.... That's pretty munchkin. Anytime the logic goes "It's only X
:essence", the character is looking at the rules, and not at their
character
:background.

Thst being so, why would alphaware and such be developed? Essence is
quantifiable, and I'd expect cyber-implant clinics interested in "informed
consent" (and the trouble it prevents) would council patients
(particularly mages) on the expected side effects, especially essence
loss. In real life, people consider the costs and benefits of everything,
surgery included.


:Having a character's personality be "I am a munchkin"
:doesn't make it good roleplaying.

No, its not really much fun either. Unfortunately, its often a
runners JOB to be a munchkin. People don't hire runners for thier refined
sensabilties and refusal to utilize "unfair advantages".

:>To summerize, I have no problem with a mage or shaman thinking long ad
:>hard before deicding that a SMALL amount of cyber is worth the loss. I
:>agree, that mages and shamans who constantly up their level of intiation
:>in order to fit in more cyber can be dangerously close to munchy.
However
:>I have seen it done well.

It might be reasonable, as a GM's house rule, if that type of thing
caused trouble, to say that a mage who depended on cyber and not on magic
would loose temporary use of magic points just for doing that. A shaman
who goes against his totem runs a similar risk, and magic should be the
CENTRAL element in every mages life.

Mongoose
Message no. 16
From: Stuart M. Willis hbiki@****.geocities.com
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 11:25:40 +1100
>Okay,
>
>We all know how munchie a mage/shama can become once, if his initiation
>rating is high enough, he tries to cram cyber into his body...
>
>So the question is this... We all know there are no rules against
>Mages/Shamans getting cyber... We all know all they must do is leave a
>magic rating of 1 intact, and the initiations will compensate for any loss
>(although I'm obviously talking about high-level characters here).
>
>So, should roleplaying dictate the fact that a mage/shaman
>(goddamn...magic-user :) ) cannot get cyber? Should we ostracize any player
>with munchie intentions, or, as GMs, make them hard as hell on them to get
>cyber?

I think the easy way to deal with it is make the character get ostracised
by *other* magicians. Even if the character themself doesn't have a problem
with getting chromed almost every other shaman and mage will, the former
especially. Talismongers may treat the runner differently, and no longer be
as helpful. Magical contacts could start lecturing the character on
burnout. If the character is a member of a magical group, you could easily
have a field day.

Maybe a verging-on-toxic Eagle shaman decides to hunt the character down
because s/he has corrupted the Art.

Maybe Johnson's feel uncomfortable in dealing with mages with cyberware -
thats probably an indication they're not very good.

Yes, it is mostly role-playing, but role-playing in a way munchkin's
understand.

Incidently, I played a level 2 initiate Troll Earth Mage once. He had
cyberware. But he got it when he was young and on the streets, figuring
that cause he's a troll he should become a street sam. Hence he got a
Smartlink, and DataJack and an Encephelon (he hated being called stupid).
Then he discovered he was actually magically active. Well well well. Weak,
but it was there.

:-)

---
"Wait a sec," Case said. "Are you sentient, or not?"
"Well, if feels like I am, kid..."
- William Gibson, Neuromancer.

hi tech. no life.

egoshrine: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/8905/
ICQ: 4340513
Dangermedia Guild Assassin: http://dangermedia.com
---
Message no. 17
From: Dave Post caelric@****.com
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 16:48:04 -0800
At 11:25 AM 2/9/99 +1100, you wrote:
>I think the easy way to deal with it is make the character get ostracised
>by *other* magicians. Even if the character themself doesn't have a problem
>with getting chromed almost every other shaman and mage will, the former
>especially. Talismongers may treat the runner differently, and no longer be
>as helpful. Magical contacts could start lecturing the character on
>burnout. If the character is a member of a magical group, you could easily
>have a field day.
>
>
>

No, no, no...............maybe in your world, almost every other shaman and
mage would have a problem with cybered mages, but that doesn't necessarily
apply to everyones view of 2060. Show me where, in SR canon, be it a
sourcebook, or main rules, that says cybered mages are ostracized by other
mages (I include shamans when I say 'mages')

Now, I know where I can find the lines that say obvious cyberware causes
social interaction problems, but it does NOT say this is anywhere worse for
mages/shamans.

Also, I can think up many reasons why a mage would get cyberware. I can
also think of many good reasons why not to, both from a character stand
point, and from a 'munchkin' standpoint. Either way, good roleplaying can
justify it.

There's more to being a munchkin than just getting a cybered mage; it's a
long difficult path to follow....;)

Seriously though, cyberware does not make a mage a munchkin, and arbitrary
GM penalties to a mage character just because he got some cyber are wrong;
they do not make sense, they alienate the player, and generally, are bad
all around.

Now, on the other hand, NON-arbitrary penalties can be sensible. Say
Derek, my racoon phjysical shaman decides to get some cyber. Racoon might
have a problem with him doing so. This doubly applies to some of the
totems, and applies somewhat less to other totems. For example, a combat
totem might think it is justified because it helps him in combat. A
peaceful totem would obviously have a larger problem.

As for hermetic mages, some would view it as corrupting the magic, others
might be envious of how fast the cybered mage was. I remember one
shadowquote in ShadowTech about a mage who got a encephelon (might have
been a synaptic accelerator, though) The quote was aboiut how the mage was
now the fastest thing in astral space he has ever seen.

Stats/skills/cyber/equipment don't make a munchkin; its an attitude,
usually pretty obvious that makes a munchkin.

Dave

PS Of course, some are going to disregard this totally because on of my
characters is a physical shaman.....Oh well.... ;)
Message no. 18
From: greg basa demipop@**********.com
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:05:27 -0500
>But how many "abusers" take the Burnout route? Close to none. Do
they feel
>the power in them slowly ebbing away? Hell no, I just need a couple
mroe
>karma for Initiation number X and I'm set for another leg...
>
>A true roleplayer will fear cyber (if he plays a mage/shaman, of
course),
>because it will lead to burnout... Eventually, you'll lose it. If
the guy
>plays with this fear, and enhances the playing experience for the
group, I'm
>all for it...
>
>But will you always get those players in your game? Sadly, no...
you'll get
>the munchie who doesn't care, 'cause he gots 3d6 ini now...


A GM friend of mine effectively killed off this problem by ruling that
is an awakened character loses 6 points of magic, whether from bio,
cyber, or injury, he effectively becomes a mundane. Period.
Initiation means nothing.

Cruel but efficient.

-----
Your favorite anime sucks.

Angelkiller 404

http://www.mindspring.com/~demipop/

ICQ: 2157053
Message no. 19
From: Stuart M. Willis hbiki@****.geocities.com
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:51:40 +1100
Dave Post <caelric@****.com> doth quoth:

[snip]

>Seriously though, cyberware does not make a mage a munchkin, and arbitrary
>GM penalties to a mage character just because he got some cyber are wrong;
>they do not make sense, they alienate the player, and generally, are bad
>all around.

Did I say I supported arbitary GM penalities to a magical character who
decides to get Cyberware? No. Remember I played a mage with cyberware, and
he is one of my fave characters (actually, I love all my characters, but
thats cause I spend so much time on their personalities and the like). I
suffered more racism than I did anything else.

I was offering a role-playing solution to the problem of heavily cybered
mages. Y'know, not rules.

In 2060 seeing mages with datajacks, chipjacks, smartlinks, maybe even
cybereyes and the like is probably reasonably common in the shadows.

However, getting more than that (say obvious cyberlimbs, maybe even
invasive surgery like Wired Reflexes) would suggest someone is on the path
of the burnout (see p. 25 of Awakenings). While they may not be, other
people (magicians or not) may suspect it, and treat the magician
differently. Doubt their abilities, cause their magic "got even slower"
(op. cit).

If you reread the "Cyberware and Social Interaction" section of SR3 (p. 93)
you may notice that it explicitly states that: "Additional modifiers are at
the gamemaster's discretion, depending on the situation" and then offers a
good example.

As far as I'm concerned, the general 'canon' of Shadowrun is that the
majority of Magicians fear getting cybered, some (Especially Shamans)
"shudder at the very thought of implanting metal into a living body." [op
cit.]. The former probably accept Street Sams, while the latter do not -
however, how are they going to treat someone who is, like them, a magic
slinger... ? This person has done what they fear, what they shudder at the
thought at doing. Degrees of discrimination are going to happen, as far as
I'm concerned... and when a mage is heavily cybered up, well, the
discrimation is going to worse (eg "You call yourself a magician and yet
you are more machine than metahuman!? I spit on your kind").

As for mundanes. Well, they generally distrust magicians (read the opening
sections of Awakenings if you disbelieve me) or at least don't understand
them. How they are going to react to a mage with cyber? I wager they'd be
even more distrusting... cause s/he's *obviously* got to be more dangerous,
if not in combat, then at least mentally.

It's not going to happen all the time, but its a good way of reminding
players of their characters and the fact that these characters live in a
world populated by people.

To me, this is to some degree implied in the SR canon - but it need not be
stated, cause its a) relatively obvious and b) a matter of GMs discretion
at how they construct the RP atmosphere of 2060... the latter is really
hard to capture in Sourcebooks.

>Now, on the other hand, NON-arbitrary penalties can be sensible. Say
>Derek, my racoon phjysical shaman decides to get some cyber. Racoon might
>have a problem with him doing so. This doubly applies to some of the
>totems, and applies somewhat less to other totems. For example, a combat
>totem might think it is justified because it helps him in combat. A
>peaceful totem would obviously have a larger problem.

So what's the problem with my role-playing of ostracisation? Or at least
distrust from other characterS? It's not like I'm suddenly making the
magician loose half their spell pool or the like.

>
>PS Of course, some are going to disregard this totally because on of my
>characters is a physical shaman.....Oh well.... ;)

:-) I was tempted to make the character I am working on a Physical Tiger
Shaman, cause I've already given her martial art skills and the like (she's
Japanese, human, and from SF :-)), and she sees herself as some kind of
Ninja. However, I did decide against cause she's actually an NPC for my
current group cause none of them are magicians, and I figure they'd be
hosed if they didn't at least *know* a magician.


care,
s.

---
"Wait a sec," Case said. "Are you sentient, or not?"
"Well, if feels like I am, kid..."
- William Gibson, Neuromancer.

hi tech. no life.

egoshrine: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/8905/
ICQ: 4340513
Dangermedia Guild Assassin: http://dangermedia.com
---
Message no. 20
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 11:38:38 +0100
According to Frank Pelletier (Trinity), at 13:07 on 8 Feb 99, the word on
the street was...

> So, should roleplaying dictate the fact that a mage/shaman
> (goddamn...magic-user :) ) cannot get cyber? Should we ostracize any player
> with munchie intentions, or, as GMs, make them hard as hell on them to get
> cyber?

Nope. If a magician wants cyberware, as far as I'm concerned they can go
and get all they want (and can pay for). The reduction in Magic Attribute
and the geas they have to take for every 2 Magic points lost are enough
problems for magicians with cyberware, IMHO.

> I view with much doubt a Magic-user who intends to have himself cybered-up,
> since it's obviously not a way to advance his character's persona/story/etc,
> but a blatant move to boost his already formidable stats (we're talking
> about a level 2-6 initiate) and powers...

You are generalizing. You can give a burned-out mage (for those who
remember the archetype) a really good background, persona, roleplaying
opportunities, and so on etc. blah blah blah, but according to you this
character should be illegal siply because it's a magician with cyberware?
Please let's not get into the fantasy RPG mindset of "Magicians can't wear
armor."

> Isn't that the definition of a munckin?

No, a munchkin is someone out to make a superpowerful character without
regard for the rules. A munchkin cyber-magician would suffer no Essence
loss (and thus no Magic loss) because the cyberware is Omega-grade, which
actually increases Essence thus making the character a better magician...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If it's no use pretending, then I don't want to know.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 21
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 11:38:38 +0100
According to David Fallon, at 11:24 on 8 Feb 99, the word on
the street was...

> Erm.... That's pretty munchkin. Anytime the logic goes "It's only X
> essence", the character is looking at the rules, and not at their character
> background.

So? I have a feeling there are _very_ few SR players who truly never
thought to themselves "Well, if I get this then I can add that in for less
Essence..." By your reasoning, any time a street sam gets cybereyes with
low-light, thermographic, and flare compensation (IOW the standard
package), it's munchkin because the player is paying attention to the
Essence loss...

Furthermore, it's easy enough to explain all this _in_ character as well:
the doc tells the character: "I can either remove your eyes and saw away
part of your skull to accomodate all the options you want in your eye,
then replace your own eyes, or I can remove the natural eyes and pop in
cybereyes that have all those featurs built in and give you perfect vision
at the same time."

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If it's no use pretending, then I don't want to know.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 22
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 06:49:15 EST
In a message dated 2/8/1999 1:41:17 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
fpelletier@******.usherb.ca writes:

>
> Isn't that the definition of a munckin? Can anyone justify a mage of
> perfect health getting cyber, in the name of "character development"?
>
> I don't think so...
>
> *stands ready for the flames*

*hands Frank the candle*

Actually, have patience, you won't feel nearly so bad in the future...PROMISE

-K
Message no. 23
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 06:55:31 EST
In a message dated 2/8/1999 2:21:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dfallon@****.edu writes:

<snip the story of Anderson>
>
> Erm.... That's pretty munchkin. Anytime the logic goes "It's only X
> essence", the character is looking at the rules, and not at their character
> background.

Okay, now let's back up a step there. The rules in the books are the
guidelines that the roleplaying is often based upon (not always, admittedly).
This isn't much of a difference, at least IMO. If you've suffered the loss,
then options are looked at differently. And, folks, above all else, though
this isn't CP, it's still Shadowrun, and the world isn't always fitting into a
single picture that works for everyone.

-K
Message no. 24
From: Elindor Quinn rjakins@****.murdoch.edu.au
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 22:11:12 +0800
Ojaste,James [NCR] indicated RE: A perfectly acceptable reason t

> Well, my last example wasn't "perfect health", so here's another one.
> The mage is sick and tired of being target #1 in the party (because
> he has no visible cyber). He could get some fake cyber made, but
> it's not much of a drain on his abilities so why not get the real
> thing? He gets a pair of cybereyes installed along with a smartlink.
> Now he fits right in with everybody else, his spells are still
> effective (although weaker than before) - but he's generally a better
> runner.

Of course, you could just make it look like you have cyberware.
Cybernetic eye protectors, mirrored? Or how about a second hand
datajack, a toolkit and some temporary adhesive, plus spend the
however few nuyen it is to get a cyberdeck case. Voila, instant
fake decker.

Elindor Quinn
People tell me things. I'm approachable.
Message no. 25
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 10:06:38 EST
In a message dated 2/9/1999 5:41:09 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.nl writes:

>
> No, a munchkin is someone out to make a superpowerful character without
> regard for the rules. A munchkin cyber-magician would suffer no Essence
> loss (and thus no Magic loss) because the cyberware is Omega-grade, which
> actually increases Essence thus making the character a better magician...
>
Omega Grade?!? Where can Padre' get some??? Increase Essence?!? $hit yeah,
sign me up for two!!!

-K
Message no. 26
From: Frank Pelletier (Trinity) fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 13:58:46 -0500
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> once wrote,

>> Isn't that the definition of a munckin?
>
>No, a munchkin is someone out to make a superpowerful character without
>regard for the rules. A munchkin cyber-magician would suffer no Essence
>loss (and thus no Magic loss) because the cyberware is Omega-grade, which
>actually increases Essence thus making the character a better magician...

<Stimpy>

Gurth, you're talking Crazy talk...

</Stimpy>

Anyways, as I was saying, and you probably agree with me, I'm sure someone
somewhere invented that BS. And that's frightening... just check the
archive and you can find Bioware which does not reduce your Magic rating.
What's the basis behind that, other than cramming more stuff in your body
and not paying the price for it.

As I said, I am not, nor will I ever be, opposed to people with a great
background who get cyber because their roleplaying is decent enough that a
GM might find that plausible. More power to them...

I'm just saying that, as a whole, the SR world-view shuns magic-users who
use cyber mods, because they could lose that precious "touch" that makes
them special... You're a mage, you can do things that no other mundane can
do, can ever dream to do... Then you start to slip, slowly descending
towards a mundane existence. It's like being a millionaire, and suddenly
find out you lost it all...

But, many players don't see it that way.. they see it "I'll get to 1.1
essence, so's I don't lose my Magic, then Initiate up from there" (That goes
for Physads I might add)... And that's the problem, IMHO...

Anyways, my game is not your game is not his game... but hell, we're here
to talk, neh?

Trinity
---------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
fpelletier@******.usherb.ca

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -M. Gandhi

Trinity on the Undernet and EFNet
Message no. 27
From: Joshua Mumme Grimlakin@**********.com
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 13:22:58 -0600
Mongoose wrote:

<Snip a whole lotta stuff>

>
>
> It might be reasonable, as a GM's house rule, if that type of thing
> caused trouble, to say that a mage who depended on cyber and not on magic
> would loose temporary use of magic points just for doing that. A shaman
> who goes against his totem runs a similar risk, and magic should be the
> CENTRAL element in every mages life.

Well the way my GM runs it. If you have a totem and are a magic user any and
all cyber ware and or bio ware cost double essence. It is still doable. I
still am considering getting a smartlink system. But it is worth it?
Probably not. I will go for the combat centering.

>
>
> Mongoose

Grimlakin
Message no. 28
From: chimerae@***.ie chimerae@***.ie
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 22:33:54 +0000
Something everyone overlooked is the crippling high mortality rate
for mages in either security or shadowrunning.
Geek the mage might not be as easy as it used to be with three
actions before he spell tosser could even blink, but they're still a
prime target (at least in every game I ever played in).

I can understand a combat mage installing a few pieces of cyber just
to increase his survival chances or to even the odds a bit. I
can't remember many references on how the loss of magic is from a
first person perspective, but it might be very different from the dry
change in stats. Along the lines of :
"So casting a very powerful manaball makes my ears bleed, big deal.
I'm so fast I can pull the wings out of a bee in flight. Next time
those sammies have to eat spells before they shoot me!"


Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 29
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:06:56 +0100
According to Frank Pelletier (Trinity), at 13:58 on 9 Feb 99, the word on
the street was...

> <Stimpy>
>
> Gurth, you're talking Crazy talk...
>
> </Stimpy>

Maybe, but it was an example of the way a munchkin might reason. Simply
adding normal cyberware to a magician and accepting its penalties is not
munchkinism IMHO.

> As I said, I am not, nor will I ever be, opposed to people with a great
> background who get cyber because their roleplaying is decent enough that a
> GM might find that plausible. More power to them...
>
> I'm just saying that, as a whole, the SR world-view shuns magic-users who
> use cyber mods, because they could lose that precious "touch" that makes
> them special... You're a mage, you can do things that no other mundane can
> do, can ever dream to do... Then you start to slip, slowly descending
> towards a mundane existence. It's like being a millionaire, and suddenly
> find out you lost it all...

Yes, and there are lots of millionaires who experience exactly that. I can
very well picture magicians starting out with a datajack (gotten before
they found out they were magically active), then a smartlink (because it
helps them shoot), some boosted reflexes (can't let the mundanes outdraw
you, you know?) and so on, at every step thinking "I can take it..."

> But, many players don't see it that way.. they see it "I'll get to 1.1
> essence, so's I don't lose my Magic, then Initiate up from there" (That goes
> for Physads I might add)... And that's the problem, IMHO...

I'd rephrase that to: it _can_ be a problem, but it not automatically _is_
a problem. My group has several magicians in it (four at one point: a
shaman, a houngan, and two physads) and none of them has taken any
cyberware even though it might help them more than it'll hurt them. So, I
have no need for any rules of this kind.

OTOH in groups where magicians do think the way you laid out, I feel the
GM should enforce all the penalties. Warn the magicians up front, and if
they still want to go through with it, make sure every penalty that
applies, gets applied. However, this kind of treatment should be reserved
for groups who try and abuse the system, not for players who simply want
one or two little things.

> Anyways, my game is not your game is not his game...

True, see above.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If it's no use pretending, then I don't want to know.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 30
From: Jordan findlerman@*****.com
Subject: A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Like I said, I've been out-of touch, so maybe someone's already
brought this up, but oh well. It takes *time* to get throught 293 new
messages.

> but a blatant move to boost his already formidable >stats (we're
talking
> about a level 2-6 initiate) and powers...
>
> Isn't that the definition of a munckin? Can anyone justify a mage of
> perfect health getting cyber, in the name of "character development"?
>
> I don't think so...

OK...if this were my player, I would first
1. whap him upside the head and then,
2. explain that it is one of the core principals of almost *all*
magicians that their body remain pure (free of cyber/bioware)
3. If that fails, make him come up with a viable reason for his
change in beliefs.
4. If that fails, have the shaman's totem cut him off from his
powers....spirits can really be a bitch.
5. With that mage, remember, it's your game. His ally spirit may
become supply much more harder to controll....his touch with the
mana-planes is wearing thinner with each piece of cyber/bio he
gets....because of this, what if you throw on some additional
modifiers not in the rule books. It *is* your game. So, make up some
reasonable excuse as to why there is now a +4 TN to do anything on the
mana planes, or get in contact with his magical side (Not so neat to
have a 2.1 essence, now, is it?)
6. Read Beyond The Shadows.....this is what the flaws that double
essence cost are for...and the best thing, you don't need to tell him
about it...BTS actually advises that with most flaws. Just roleplay
it out until he catches on.

Above all, you are the Gamemaster. What you say goes. If he becomes
too powerful, let him know it and tel him to stick to mana, not metal.
Or let him go cyber-zombie on you. But always make it balanced.

Anyways...need to finish the house cleaning on my In-Box.

--JW
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list..., 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!