Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Forming Magical Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:48:29 -0500
> Question. Why is it that in nearly every game I've seen, nearly every
> mage character I've read about on the list and elsewhere, the mage is
> always initiated. How did this happen? How is it, that a SINless
> individual with no personal history of no fixed abode, was instantly
> accepted by a magical group, a - by it's own definition - paranoid
> magical group, gains entry, intiates and becomes a fully fledged member,
> without some serious hard work to prove themselves, and without becoming
> a "normal member of society".
By making their own. The rules for creating a magical group in the
Grimoire are quite easy, and far simpler than actually going out and doing
all the work to find a group, become a member of the group deal with all
the obligations that creates.

To change the subject, what are people's general thoughts on the rules
about the formation of magical groups by PCs? As they are now, the rules
are quite unclear about a number of things like the determination of
ordeals, the effects of roster changes on the compostition of a magical
group and a few more things I can't think of at the moment...
Message no. 2
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Forming Magical Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:20:37 PST
>> Question. Why is it that in nearly every game I've seen, nearly
every
>> mage character I've read about on the list and elsewhere, the mage is
>> always initiated.

Because initiation allows the PC mage to have a betterchance of
survival, and to do soem interesting things that are fun to roleplay and
sometimes vital to completing an adventure. It is pretty karma
effecient, even to Self Initiate, for the benifits it gives.

>> How did this happen? How is it, that a SINless
>> individual with no personal history of no fixed abode, was instantly
accepted by a magical group, a - by it's own definition - paranoid
magical group, gains entry, intiates and becomes a fully fledged member,
without some serious hard work to prove themselves, and without becoming
a "normal member of society".

In our game, 1 started with a group member as a contact (same costas
gang, I think), 2 formed thier own group that 1 later joined, and 3
payed the karma to intitate without joining a group. The last option is
very common for adepts, physical or magical, who might have trouble
finding groups that fit thier needs, or just for mages wishing to avoid
entanglements. Look ma, no strictures!

Not all magical groups are paranoid, andmany can keep a secret. You
mightalso ask how they rentan appartment, orget a car, or whatever.
Shadowrunners practice deciept, or try to deal with people thay can
trust not to out them.

Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psychotic - Einstein

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 3
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Forming Magical Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 01:11:51 +0000
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.971119013935.2273A-100000@*****>, Jeremiah
Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU> waffled & burbled about Forming Magical
Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
>> magical group, gains entry, intiates and becomes a fully fledged member,
>> without some serious hard work to prove themselves, and without becoming
>> a "normal member of society".
>By making their own. The rules for creating a magical group in the
>Grimoire are quite easy, and far simpler than actually going out and doing
>all the work to find a group, become a member of the group deal with all
>the obligations that creates.

So, you're saying that any mage character can create a magical group,
with a total membership of - 1. And that allows immediate iniation,
(with appropriate costs)?

>To change the subject, what are people's general thoughts on the rules
>about the formation of magical groups by PCs? As they are now, the rules
>are quite unclear about a number of things like the determination of
>ordeals, the effects of roster changes on the compostition of a magical
>group and a few more things I can't think of at the moment...

This is only my view of it, and not based on the rules...

I don't allow it. If a mage wants to use this facility, he or she is
going to have to do some serious soul searching. There are "groups" of
mages in my gameworld, but these groups are there as support for each
other and to assist in giving across a more "acceptable" view of mages
in general - I use public bias against mages as a fairly strong part of
the games - so these places are very careful over who they let in
through the doors.

They are also few and far between. Not to say there aren't shadow
groups - but... they're well hidden, and finding one could take a
lifetime.

Magic is powerful in Shadowrun, it's supposed to be. Magic _is_
powerful, why play it any other way? Which means, in my opinion, that
some other form of regulating it within the game logically has to exist.
Otherwise why play any other character type? A few spell locks, a few
quickened spells, a bit of this a bit of that, four or five mages
working in concert, and who the hell needs any other character type?
Except - maybe - a decker.

Allowing player characters to form their own iniatory groups is not a
useful way of regulating the power of magic in the game. Hell, it's
wasteful, and allows the mage character to become overly powerful, too
quickly.

Look at how many players abuse this facility. Come to think of it, look
at how many players abuse magic.

The very fact that the rules aren't extremely clear, means they are open
to abusive interpretation - and that is precisely what powergamers and
munchkins do - abusively interpret the rules to suit their own - not the
games' - but their own purposes. To hell with game balance, to hell
with logic, to hell with the game - when you can have a mega killer
mondo mage by just screwing the GM's game.

Nope. Sorry, but I don't allow it.

--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
Message no. 4
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Forming Magical Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:40:18 -0500
At 01:11 AM 11/20/97 +0000, you wrote:
>So, you're saying that any mage character can create a magical group,
>with a total membership of - 1. And that allows immediate iniation,
>(with appropriate costs)?

I really don't think that's what was meant. I think the comment was in
reference to PCs (note the plural) forming their own group to get the
benefits of such.

>This is only my view of it, and not based on the rules...

>They are also few and far between. Not to say there aren't shadow
>groups - but... they're well hidden, and finding one could take a
>lifetime.

But it's not possible that some player characters might try to found such a
group. All players want is power, so don't let them try this.

>Magic is powerful in Shadowrun, it's supposed to be. Magic _is_
>powerful, why play it any other way? Which means, in my opinion, that
>some other form of regulating it within the game logically has to exist.
>Otherwise why play any other character type? A few spell locks, a few
>quickened spells, a bit of this a bit of that, four or five mages
>working in concert, and who the hell needs any other character type?
>Except - maybe - a decker.

I don't see that as being the case, as mages have their downsides as well.
They stick out, at least to astral security. Their quickened spells bump
up against astral barriers. :) They don't have spells for every occasion,
even if they are versatile. Skills are important to SR, that's why other
types of characters are important, that's why mages don't easily take the
place of samurai.

>Allowing player characters to form their own iniatory groups is not a
>useful way of regulating the power of magic in the game. Hell, it's
>wasteful, and allows the mage character to become overly powerful, too
>quickly.

It's also a chance for great roleplaying possibilities.

>Look at how many players abuse this facility. Come to think of it, look
>at how many players abuse magic.

Look at how many players abuse cyberware. I have one PC in a campaign I'm
starting tomorrow who's fairly maxed essence and body index already, but
hey... It's going to be interesting, 'cause the campaign boils down to a
lot more clue-finding and thinking than combat, even if combat skills will
be important. Power doesn't have to be a problem. Though sometimes it is,
and perhaps you should just think about eliminating initiation, if you have
to go so far to make it difficult to get. Or use the Gradual Initiation
rules (which I like far better than the original scheme)?

>The very fact that the rules aren't extremely clear, means they are open
>to abusive interpretation - and that is precisely what powergamers and
>munchkins do - abusively interpret the rules to suit their own - not the
>games' - but their own purposes. To hell with game balance, to hell
>with logic, to hell with the game - when you can have a mega killer
>mondo mage by just screwing the GM's game.

It's far easier to limit munching by just outing players who insist on it.
They don't like to hear a GM's interpretation of the rules, or take on the
situation, usually. Either that, or just explain things from the word go,
and brutally enforce what you want.

losthalo, who think it sounds like all you see are munchkins :(
losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 5
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Forming Magical Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:22:33 -0500
On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Avenger wrote:

> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.971119013935.2273A-100000@*****>, Jeremiah
> Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU> waffled & burbled about Forming Magical
> Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
> >> magical group, gains entry, intiates and becomes a fully fledged member,
> >> without some serious hard work to prove themselves, and without becoming
> >> a "normal member of society".
> >By making their own. The rules for creating a magical group in the
> >Grimoire are quite easy, and far simpler than actually going out and doing
> >all the work to find a group, become a member of the group deal with all
> >the obligations that creates.
>
> So, you're saying that any mage character can create a magical group,
> with a total membership of - 1. And that allows immediate iniation,
> (with appropriate costs)?
No, it requires at least two mages of any tradition (hermetic, shamanic,
physad or any lesser adept). Also, the group must attempt to keep their
astral connection open every month. Still, any mage can self-initiate,
albeit at higher karma costs.

>
> >To change the subject, what are people's general thoughts on the rules
> >about the formation of magical groups by PCs? As they are now, the rules
> >are quite unclear about a number of things like the determination of
> >ordeals, the effects of roster changes on the compostition of a magical
> >group and a few more things I can't think of at the moment...
>
> This is only my view of it, and not based on the rules...
>
> I don't allow it. If a mage wants to use this facility, he or she is
> going to have to do some serious soul searching. There are "groups" of
> mages in my gameworld, but these groups are there as support for each
> other and to assist in giving across a more "acceptable" view of mages
> in general - I use public bias against mages as a fairly strong part of
> the games - so these places are very careful over who they let in
> through the doors.
Intersting, since I would think that the conspiatorial groups would do the
most to damage the reputation of mages in society. Of course there are
good guy magical groups, but the public would only really be concerned
with the ones plotting dark and evil things for society. And don't tell me
the media wouldn't know about it. Even today, there is a good deal of info
about most secret societies and conspiratorial organizations, most of it
giving them a far worse image than they actually deserve.

>
> They are also few and far between. Not to say there aren't shadow
> groups - but... they're well hidden, and finding one could take a
> lifetime.
>
> Magic is powerful in Shadowrun, it's supposed to be. Magic _is_
> powerful, why play it any other way? Which means, in my opinion, that
> some other form of regulating it within the game logically has to exist.
> Otherwise why play any other character type? A few spell locks, a few
> quickened spells, a bit of this a bit of that, four or five mages
> working in concert, and who the hell needs any other character type?
> Except - maybe - a decker.
>
> Allowing player characters to form their own iniatory groups is not a
> useful way of regulating the power of magic in the game.
I never said it was. Actually I said just the opposite.
>Hell, it's wasteful, and allows the mage character to become overly
>powerful, too quickly.
>
> Look at how many players abuse this facility. Come to think of it, look
> at how many players abuse magic.
>
> The very fact that the rules aren't extremely clear, means they are open
> to abusive interpretation - and that is precisely what powergamers and
> munchkins do - abusively interpret the rules to suit their own - not the
> games' - but their own purposes. To hell with game balance, to hell
> with logic, to hell with the game - when you can have a mega killer
> mondo mage by just screwing the GM's game.
>
That's more of a GM/PC problem than a problem specific to the rules of
Shadow Run. Some people just don't seem to want to play the game. Its
unfortunate, but thats just the way it is.
> Nope. Sorry, but I don't allow it.
>
> --
> Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk -
> Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
> Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
> http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
>
Message no. 6
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Forming Magical Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:33:37 -0500
At 11:22 PM 11/19/97 -0500, you wrote:

>Intersting, since I would think that the conspiatorial groups would do the
>most to damage the reputation of mages in society. Of course there are
>good guy magical groups, but the public would only really be concerned
>with the ones plotting dark and evil things for society. And don't tell me
>the media wouldn't know about it. Even today, there is a good deal of info
>about most secret societies and conspiratorial organizations, most of it
>giving them a far worse image than they actually deserve.

Okay, for all the paranoid folks on the list, all SORTS of warning bells
just went off. :) Heh. I love statements like this, they sound so... I
don't know, innocent. Like: "They're not really trying to destroy the
world, just all the civilizations on it! :)" Sorry, I'm being silly. I'll
stop now before some sort of fish come flying my way.


losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 7
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Forming Magical Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 04:22:42 +0000
In article <3.0.3.16.19971119104612.2d2f6d22@**********.com>, losthalo
<losthalo@********.COM> waffled & burbled about Forming Magical Groups
(Was: Magic and the Law)
>At 01:11 AM 11/20/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>So, you're saying that any mage character can create a magical group,
>>with a total membership of - 1. And that allows immediate iniation,
>>(with appropriate costs)?
>
>I really don't think that's what was meant. I think the comment was in
>reference to PCs (note the plural) forming their own group to get the
>benefits of such.

Oh right. My mistake then, but... Could it be done by a single PC?
Could each Shadowrun team have an initiated mage, as a member of his/her
own "house"?

>>They are also few and far between. Not to say there aren't shadow
>>groups - but... they're well hidden, and finding one could take a
>>lifetime.
>
>But it's not possible that some player characters might try to found such a
>group. All players want is power, so don't let them try this.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what your trying to say here.

It's possible for a single player to want to do this yes. But it's
going to cost, in time, karma, money, and research. We all know ISP's
exist to connect to the net, but how about forming one? Buy a PC add in
software (what software??) An ISDN line or something else. What else
is needed?

I don't see it should be an easy thing to do, not by a long shot... :)

>>working in concert, and who the hell needs any other character type?
>>Except - maybe - a decker.
>
>I don't see that as being the case, as mages have their downsides as well.

Yes. And on that note, I'm sure everybody is already more than familiar
with my opinion there. :)

>types of characters are important, that's why mages don't easily take the
>place of samurai.

Not easily...

>>wasteful, and allows the mage character to become overly powerful, too
>>quickly.
>
>It's also a chance for great roleplaying possibilities.

Well, I'd trust my players to do it. But the group I occassionally
attend? Not a chance. I don't think there's anyone amongst the 50 or
so people there that could be trusted to "roleplay" rather than "roll-
play" that kind of power possibility.

I have an advantage though, if my players misbehave, I can kill them.
They know this. <g>

>>Look at how many players abuse this facility. Come to think of it, look
>>at how many players abuse magic.
>
>Look at how many players abuse cyberware.

Oh agreed 100 percent. That happens all too often unfortunately, and is
directly tied into the super-mage problem, Nothing worse than Super
Sammie. I mean if the players thought about it they'd realise how
stupid their characters look with their shorts on the wrong side of
their pants.

>lot more clue-finding and thinking than combat, even if combat skills will
>be important.

If the player can be trusted to play this sort of power without being a
complete asshole, then more power to the player. But, so few can. And
so few GMs are actually able to maintain the "investigation" and
suspense side of the game. Shadowrun lends itself very nicely to
cinematic battles where several tons of lead are hurled around in
shopping malls, with little or no colateral damage. Players in the main
like shooting at things. They like standing up in the middle of a hail
of bullets confident that their armour will stop every one of the light
arms that security are using...

As my players will verify - God help you in my game.

>Power doesn't have to be a problem. Though sometimes it is,
>and perhaps you should just think about eliminating initiation, if you have
>to go so far to make it difficult to get. Or use the Gradual Initiation
>rules (which I like far better than the original scheme)?

Gradual Initiation is something we've been reviewing, I like the rules I
got from the net, they're rather nice, and add in that necessary
limitation that makes it a bit more interesting, but it needs something,
I just haven't figured out what yet. :)

We have play tested those rules in the game, with a previous mage
character, and in the main they work quite nicely. But once you factor
in the spell locks and quickenings, services and slaves. the mage
becomes one scarey guy, and the power level of the game increases
accordingly.

These are street people, operating in a hostile, deadly environment. I
make this situation a lot harder for my players in as much as anything
they want, they've got to work damned hard to get it, and make sure they
make the right friends along the way. Whether it be guns, ammo, armour,
cyber or magical thingiewotsits.

>>with logic, to hell with the game - when you can have a mega killer
>>mondo mage by just screwing the GM's game.
>
>It's far easier to limit munching by just outing players who insist on it.

Chucking a player out from a game is not easy, and for some it's damn
nigh impossible.

I'm a belligerent sod anyway, so I don't have a problem with it. But I
know a couple of GMs who put up with the crap from the munches and
powergamers because they don't want to lose players and stop playing.
Once you throw a player out of a game, you're not just throwing out
someone in a competition, you may be throwing out a friend or relative.
That's a lot harder. I've done it, and as a result people who know me,
know they can't play stupid sods with the game - munch out and screw the
fun for the others, and you're out. At the club, I get a different type
of player. Munches and power gamers exist down there, but because I'm
so restrictive, they don't want to play in my games, those that do,
claim they have more fun... One can't help feeling sorry for the guy
who doesn't have the willpower or personality or determination to stand
up and be hated.

>They don't like to hear a GM's interpretation of the rules, or take on the
>situation, usually. Either that, or just explain things from the word go,
>and brutally enforce what you want.

Easy to say, not so easy to do. Remember a lot of game groups are close
friends and/or relatives. Kick out your brother because he's munching,
and he'll make you suffer, kick out your best mate's girlfriend, and
it's a new ball game altogether.


--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
Message no. 8
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Forming Magical Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:44:20 -0500
The credit and reputation of virtue is a help,
but the practice of it is an impediment-
Machiavelli




^
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ ___ \
/ ( * ) \
/ ----- \
/_____________\
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ P.M.C.V. \
/_______________________\
IMPERIAL ORDER of the KNIGHTS of the ILLUMINATI

On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, losthalo wrote:

> At 11:22 PM 11/19/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >Intersting, since I would think that the conspiatorial groups would do the
> >most to damage the reputation of mages in society. Of course there are
> >good guy magical groups, but the public would only really be concerned
> >with the ones plotting dark and evil things for society. And don't tell me
> >the media wouldn't know about it. Even today, there is a good deal of info
> >about most secret societies and conspiratorial organizations, most of it
> >giving them a far worse image than they actually deserve.
>
> Okay, for all the paranoid folks on the list, all SORTS of warning bells
> just went off. :) Heh. I love statements like this, they sound so... I
> don't know, innocent. Like: "They're not really trying to destroy the
> world, just all the civilizations on it! :)" Sorry, I'm being silly. I'll
> stop now before some sort of fish come flying my way.
>
Like I'm actually going to say..."Yes, of course there are all sorts of
really powerful conspiratorial groups out there, and the Illuminati,
Gnomes of Zurich and the rest of us, we're running the show." No, we want
sympathy because the media is giving us a bad rap...and once you are
sympathetic to us you are all that much more easy to control. BHAHAHA.
Oh fuck, I think I just gave it all away...
:)
Message no. 9
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Forming Magical Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:04:51 -0500
At 01:48 AM 11/19/97 -0500, you wrote:

>By making their own. The rules for creating a magical group in the
>Grimoire are quite easy, and far simpler than actually going out and doing
>all the work to find a group, become a member of the group deal with all
>the obligations that creates.
>
>To change the subject, what are people's general thoughts on the rules
>about the formation of magical groups by PCs? As they are now, the rules
>are quite unclear about a number of things like the determination of
>ordeals, the effects of roster changes on the compostition of a magical
>group and a few more things I can't think of at the moment...

I think they suck. It is too easy with enough ordeals, and totally
unintersting. Along the lines of what I posted a while back, if the GM
actually decides on what the ultimate astral contact will be -- design a
free spirit or something, then the hole process can be centered around the
personality of that free spirit. Make a colorful NPC the center of the
process, and suddenly whole adventures and numerous fun antics will replace
a couple of dice throws each month. It also provides a framework around
which to place ordeals, and I'm sure free spirits are going to be partial
to Karma.

--DT
Message no. 10
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Forming Magical Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:27:39 -0500
At 01:04 PM 11/20/97 -0500, you wrote:

>I think they suck. It is too easy with enough ordeals, and totally
>unintersting.

Perhaps you don't find it interesting, and that's unfortunate. Some GMs
might be rather stringent about what constitutes an ordeal, however, and
players and GMs might be creative. Just because the book is vague means
nothing; the book has to be vague to allow room for interesting ideas, in
this instance. Colorful examples would have been nice.

Along the lines of what I posted a while back, if the GM
>actually decides on what the ultimate astral contact will be -- design a
>free spirit or something, then the hole process can be centered around the
>personality of that free spirit. Make a colorful NPC the center of the
>process, and suddenly whole adventures and numerous fun antics will replace
>a couple of dice throws each month. It also provides a framework around
>which to place ordeals, and I'm sure free spirits are going to be partial
>to Karma.

While I don't fault the interesting nature of your interpretation of
'astral contact', the Grimoire doesn't suggest that the astral contact is
an _entity_.
Rather it describes it as a closer psychic link to astral space.
Interesting idea, as I said, but you're in house rule territory.

losthalo
Message no. 11
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Forming Magical Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:18:26 -0500
At 01:27 PM 11/20/97 -0500, you wrote:

>
>Perhaps you don't find it interesting, and that's unfortunate. Some GMs
>might be rather stringent about what constitutes an ordeal, however, and
>players and GMs might be creative. Just because the book is vague means
>nothing; the book has to be vague to allow room for interesting ideas, in
>this instance. Colorful examples would have been nice.

I agree, so we made it more interesting. That was my point. The rules are
dry, but there is no reason to leave it that way.

>
>Along the lines of what I posted a while back, if the GM
>>actually decides on what the ultimate astral contact will be -- design a
>>free spirit or something, then the hole process can be centered around the
>>personality of that free spirit. Make a colorful NPC the center of the
>>process, and suddenly whole adventures and numerous fun antics will replace
>>a couple of dice throws each month. It also provides a framework around
>>which to place ordeals, and I'm sure free spirits are going to be partial
>>to Karma.
>
>While I don't fault the interesting nature of your interpretation of
>'astral contact', the Grimoire doesn't suggest that the astral contact is
>an _entity_.
>Rather it describes it as a closer psychic link to astral space.
>Interesting idea, as I said, but you're in house rule territory.

I know, because it is much more interesting that way. The Grimmy doesn't
really say what a contact is, but I'll tell you right now a psychic link
sounds boring to me. Now, a free spirit who drives cabs and smokes
stogies, that's fun!

--DT
Message no. 12
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Forming Magical Groups (Was: Magic and the Law)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:18:19 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-19 23:51:02 EST, losthalo@********.COM writes:

> >So, you're saying that any mage character can create a magical group,
> >with a total membership of - 1. And that allows immediate iniation,
> >(with appropriate costs)?
>
> I really don't think that's what was meant. I think the comment was in
> reference to PCs (note the plural) forming their own group to get the
> benefits of such.

I missed the original commentary I guess (or haven't caught up to it yet). I
only know that a "group" is the key word to the description, meaning more
than one (and no, "Me, Myself and I" does not count ;)

> >This is only my view of it, and not based on the rules...

Ah, an admission. Nicely put.

> >They are also few and far between. Not to say there aren't shadow
> >groups - but... they're well hidden, and finding one could take a
> >lifetime.

Could or Will? That would depend on the game I suppose.

> But it's not possible that some player characters might try to found such
a
> group. All players want is power, so don't let them try this.

I think I missed something in this statement. You are saying that all
players (oooo...love those collective statements) want power and some of them
are going to pay the price for just wanting to advance?

> >Magic is powerful in Shadowrun, it's supposed to be. Magic _is_
> >powerful, why play it any other way? Which means, in my opinion, that
> >some other form of regulating it within the game logically has to exist.
> >Otherwise why play any other character type? A few spell locks, a few
> >quickened spells, a bit of this a bit of that, four or five mages
> >working in concert, and who the hell needs any other character type?
> >Except - maybe - a decker.

Ah, I think I understand. This argument has been thrown around in both of
the groups here recently. It comes down to whether or not the players and/or
the GM is being nice and letting the situation take the "easy way out". In
this case, Magic. Magic is the easy way out in a situation. If the group
wants that, then rewards them accordingly. If they go for the "distance" or
the "ritual" all the time, scare 'em a bit with a secret note passed on from
an elemental or an "apparent" watcher that walks up and shakes their hand in
the physical (could be a spirit with metamasking just to prove a point).

What I am saying is a good group does need more than just a mage. I don't
like to sqash one or more players fun, so mix and matching is fun. I allow
LOTS of adepts in the game, but only one or two full magicians at a time.
Besides, Adepts are a challenge and they need to expand their abilities and
horizons if they are going to survive.

> I don't see that as being the case, as mages have their downsides as well.
> They stick out, at least to astral security. Their quickened spells bump
> up against astral barriers. :) They don't have spells for every
occasion,
> even if they are versatile. Skills are important to SR, that's why other
> types of characters are important, that's why mages don't easily take the
> place of samurai.

Very true statement. In fact, if they do, then the GM could be "evil" and
create someone with a chip on their shoulder and a point to prove and decide
to take it out "on the miracle mage", should s/he become a problem.

> >Allowing player characters to form their own iniatory groups is not a
> >useful way of regulating the power of magic in the game. Hell, it's
> >wasteful, and allows the mage character to become overly powerful, too
> >quickly.
>
> It's also a chance for great roleplaying possibilities.

Both statements can be true. I like to consider the latter. Last night
(Monday's Game) had this situation. Two members who recently "reignited the
fires" of an old order between them missed one of their own attendance dates.
They had to go to the place of study and "commit to the hail mary's"
(literally, the group they are in is Catholic-Based)....and they discovered
some things along the way while they spent the karma to gain the success(es)
needed to make up for the infraction.

Being an initiated magician is a way to accumulate power, true. It is also a
way to expand. If the magician is interested in "just power", then s/he is
not interested in "the magic". Though the two are not exclusive in any
fashion to each other, they are NOT the same thing. One if far more diverse
and complex than the other.

> >Look at how many players abuse this facility. Come to think of it, look
> >at how many players abuse magic.

As I said, taking the easy way out.

> Look at how many players abuse cyberware. I have one PC in a campaign I'm
> starting tomorrow who's fairly maxed essence and body index already, but
> hey... It's going to be interesting, 'cause the campaign boils down to a
> lot more clue-finding and thinking than combat, even if combat skills
will
> be important. Power doesn't have to be a problem. Though sometimes it
is,
> and perhaps you should just think about eliminating initiation, if you
have
> to go so far to make it difficult to get. Or use the Gradual Initiation
> rules (which I like far better than the original scheme)?

Good suggestion and fairly good example. As the other group's GM recently
reminded me also, Bioware actually has no limit, it just has a "safe" limit.
It's just that if you go beyond the the Body, physical actions start getting
more difficult. He's got a player or two that decided to take that/those
risks.

> >The very fact that the rules aren't extremely clear, means they are open
> >to abusive interpretation - and that is precisely what powergamers and
> >munchkins do - abusively interpret the rules to suit their own - not the
> >games' - but their own purposes. To hell with game balance, to hell
> >with logic, to hell with the game - when you can have a mega killer
> >mondo mage by just screwing the GM's game.

At that point, the GM -should- become "evil", and remove the character and if
necessary the player. But -THAT- is an entirely different line of thought.

> It's far easier to limit munching by just outing players who insist on it.
> They don't like to hear a GM's interpretation of the rules, or take on the
> situation, usually. Either that, or just explain things from the word go,
> and brutally enforce what you want.

Sad thing to have to do. Initiate Groups are far better tools of control
actually if they are implemented correctly. Perhaps the GM in question
should consider that. The group does NOT have to Conspiratorial to
"control". Look at the Auric Aurora....they "frown on violent
actions" and
will constantly harras their members should they display such.

> losthalo, who think it sounds like all you see are munchkins :(

I have to agree with ya Halo...scarey though neh?

-K

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Forming Magical Groups (Was: Magic and the Law), 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!