| From: | Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Controlling Mages |
| Date: | Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:39:10 -0500 |
> Yes they do, and I don't like it. The very idea of a speed mage is
> ludicrous; which is why in my game initiative boost spells do not
> exist. Speed is for the sammies, and the physad.
>
In that case, it would seem logical for a mage to just suck the essence
drain and get some cyber- or bioware. Magic could be regained through
initiation, and I would suspect that in such scenarios, that that is the
only way a mage could stay alive.
Also, why don't increase reflex spells exist in your game? Removing
something simply because 'speed is for the sammies, and the physad' makes
no sense in game terms. Like I have said before, a mythical game balance
is one of the worst excuses for changing rules, especially something as
major as removing an entire type of spell effect. If you have a consistent
magic system, one can only imagine the collateral effects of such an
action. What would be the effects of the lack of this spell effect on
other increase attribute spells, especially quickness and reaction?
Finally, how does your decision affect the combat mage archetype? The
entire idea of the combat mage is that magicis just a potent weapon as
cyberware and a gun, and that a competent mage could easily hold his own
against a sammie, physad or other combat oriented character. Your mages
would seem to come across as more of the stereotypical **&* mages, who
spend all their time studying arcane arts without learning any combat
oriented skills. Thus, an advanced mage who goes solo against even a base
level sammie with wired-3 would be toast, as the sammie would usually have
about two actions to go before the mage could even duck. Even if the mage
was able to suck most of the damage, the sammie would have enough sense to
get out of LOS before the mage had a chance to react. Your system seems to
be very mage unfriendly for combat syatems. I just hope you don'y play
your NPCs with the 'geek the mage first' strategy.
Now, in more general terms, there seems to be a very strong anti-mage
sentiment on ShadowRN, with almost every post about magic arguing for some
new limitation to be placed on magic. This seems indicative of very
uncreative GMing; if the only thing a GM can think of to control mages
from becoming too 'powerful' is to remove spells or otherwise alter the
mechanics of the game in some way, I would argue that that person should
not be GMing. The SR magic system is flexible enough that mages can be
controlled in a great many ways.
Too many spell locks? Simply have the enemy mages attack them the first
chance they get. After a while, that 45,000-90,000 NY per lock gets
expensive, especially if you run a low NY campaign.
Quickened spells? Well, first a mage must be an initiate, and the GM can
have all sorts of fun with initiate groups. Even self-initiation can be
interesting, although the high Karma costs often make it prohibative for
more than one or two grades.
Also, anything a PC mage can do, the NPC mages can do better. Not only
will NPC mages have locked or quickened increase reflexes, but they will
also have decrease reflex spells. Now, I am not saying that the best way
to handle powerful PCs is with simple escalation of power, but the
enemies, especially if they are corps., governments or other powerful
entities should always have a greater depth to their defenses than the PCs
can muster for their offense. For example, one mage might be dedicated to
astral combat, attacking locks, quickenings and other astral entities,
while another might be devoted entirely to health spells, both beneficial
to his side and adversarial (those decrease attribute spells are really
nasty, especially decrease charisma -4)
Finally, the easiest way to control mages is to run low Karma campaigns.
