Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@*********.CERN.CH>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons (and something else...)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 11:03:38 +0200
(I'm replying to several mails here, conserves bandwith and my nerves... :)

(Sorry, this became rather long... Bear with me)

(It may also look a bit like random... Well it is since I didn't write it
sequentially...)

On Tue, 28 Jun 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:

> come from to raise the amplitude? Decreasing amplitude is more
> reasonable, to my eyes at least.

Ho hum. Maybe you're right... I just stated the first example coming to
my mind :) The fluctuation might as well be random, for what we know
it... Even if a sinusoidal would look nice... :)

> Ivy

On Wed, 29 Jun 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:

> Ivy writes:
> > As a shamaness I can tell you that you have just described exactly how
> > working shamans, faced with real operating magic, would approach the
> > thing. All magic has rules, or it doesn't work. But the rules aren't
> > something that you use the scientific method on.

Well, why not? I think the scientific method is as valid here as it is on
anything. You observe, then you make theories, then you test the best of
them. Trial and error. Then explain. Then iterate your explanation or
ditch it if something new that doesn't fit the theory comes along.

> > You do a lot of it by feel, and sensitivity is more important than theory.
>
> And that's the seat-of-the-pants (heart?), shamanic approach.

Yes. I think there is a very clear distinction visible, a romantic and a
classic approach to things. (Yes, I've read my Pirsig :) If you don't
like/understand him, too bad.) Others like to see the inside, the inner
workings of everything (classic/hermetic), others look the outside, what
it looks like (romantic/shamanic). To a romantic person, computer may be
jsut a boring piece of technology with a capability of showing pretty
pictures. He/she would mainly be interested in the applications/uses of
the computer. Classical person would be interested in the question "how
does it work" and he/she might see the beauty of computer programming,
while the romantic cannot understand what can be beautiful in a bunch of
numbers/letters.

Neither of these approaches is inherently wrong, however. Both are
completely valid ways of seeing things, and most people tend to see
things either way. Some people have the capability of seeing BOTH ways.

Okay, what is it that I am trying to explain? IMHO, the shamanic and
hermetic approaches are just that. Approaches. Both are completely valid
ways, but they are just ways of observing/explaining things. Humans
always wish to understand everything, and thus they create different
models (science, religion... I can feel the flames already...) to explain
the world.

I think the hermetic/shamanic thing is more in the people's minds, not
how it actually works. But it is possible that we cannot EVER find out
how it really is. In which case we just have to muddle along as well as
we can...

> > Mechanistic rules, sure, and understanding, definitely, but you work
> > from what works, not from what you 'think' might work.
>
> Are you _really_ saying that you don't experiment, based on what you
> 'think' might work?

If you'd always do whatever you know works, you will NEVER learn anything
new. No true kamikaze-spirit in that :)

> > That's a sure trip to the grave when you're playing with the power.

People have made sacrifices before. Those who tried something crazy and
survived usually became famous and well-known. (Columbus, Pisarro, A.
Hitler for example. Granted, he was not a scientist, but definately
crazy.) Those who don't dare, die old but forgotten. Those who don't
survive, die young and forgotten. There are risks in everything...

> Not intrinsically. You'd just have to come up with a theory behind them
> that would let you make predictions and test them with experiments.
> Scientists can be as imaginative and creative as anyone else. Look at
> quantum mechanics.

Yea, if something in this world is close to magic, quantum mechanics
is... (Disclaimer: This is, of course, not the opinion of CERN, my current
employer :)

> luke

On Wed, 29 Jun 1994, the holy Entombed wrote:

> own logical reasoning, their own "recipies." (I believe Mr. Kendall
> brought up the term "recipie book")

Yes, I think the dragons, being so alien, do not observe the artificial
limits we are placing on ourselves. They might have their own limits, but
we might not understand them... I think the dragons are beyond a simple
hermetic/shamanic division.

> I again want to make the point that we're discussing a game, based on
> rules that are designed to be interpreted by the individual. I'm not
> looking to shoot anyone's ideas down, or have my own attacked, but to
> throw in my too-sense about an aspect of the GAME, and how I run it.
> Historical references do not necessarally apply to Shadowrun, although it
> may be implied...

Yes, I (and some others) seem to be writing as it were really happening,
instead of just arguing about some points in rules. On the other hand,
above I don't talk so much about Shadowrun, but about life in general.
Maybe it does not belong to this list, maybe it does, but then again, I
like to hear people's (well thought) opinions (not flames :)...

I think this discussion is really interesting. It has provided me some
insight into the inner workings of Shadowrun, which I wouldn't possibly
dreamed up myself. This is proving to be really beneficial... And my
players will probably learn to hate me even more :) (See their
description on me at URL "http://www.hut.fi/~ebu/SR.html";. Our group has
a home page there...)

After all, the rules themselves are irrelevant after you play a long
time. Rules are for munchkins. I believe many of you understand what I am
talking about but here goes anyway... I, personally having passed the
"WHAT does it say in the rules" and "HOW does the world work" and
beginning to go to the "WHY all this?" phase don't care any more so much
about the game technicalities (even if they sometimes rise their ugly
little heads) than about the UNDERSTANDING of the World of Shadowrun.
(Which is why I am probably gonna buy Earthdawn soon... Even if we'd never
play it.) I think at this point the consistency and "realness" of the
world is more important than the actual rules. Summa summarum: All this
is just to ENTERTAIN myself as well as my players. Rules are a HINDRANCE
to the game. IMNSHO.

Of course, all of this is just speculation about things that some guy
made up a few years ago. But, as always, things tend to grow out of their
bounds sooner or later... And who needs a life anyway ;-)

> particular clique and were looking for acceptance. The image presented
> to me, therefore, has not been a good one.

As usual, people who do not know what they are talking about ruin the
reputation of those who do... Sigh...

I mean, even if there are real mages around (I am not saying there are
or there aren't because I don't really know) nobody would believe them
because all the hype that is going on. This has happened so many times in
history...

> Whew.

Whew^2.

> Rasputin the (not often) Horrible \\--

<The Evil>

P.S. Thanks to all those people remembering me with the wet carp... They
proved to be most refreshing :)

--
Janne Jalkanen ///! For those who have to fight for it
jalkanen@******.cern.ch /// ! life has a flavor
Janne.Jalkanen@***.fi \\\/// ! the protected will never understand
-'Keep on going...' \XX/ ! (anonymous, Viet Nam, 1968)
Message no. 2
From: the holy Entombed <rasputin@***.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons (and something else...)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 12:24:46 -0400
On Wed, 29 Jun 1994, Janne Jalkanen wrote:

> Yes, I think the dragons, being so alien, do not observe the artificial
> limits we are placing on ourselves. They might have their own limits, but
> we might not understand them... I think the dragons are beyond a simple
> hermetic/shamanic division.

The more I read this type of post, the more I like the idea of Dragonian
magic being outside the "Look, you're either A or B" grouping placed on
humans, dwarves, etc.

I like the idea that dragons have a natural mastery of the magical arts.
Summoning and the casting of certain spells comes as naturally as eating
or breathing (what they breathe, of course, can be interesting...=^).

But I also like to think that perhaps that door swings in the other
direction. Perhaps, assuming that dragon magic use is quite different
than that of man, there are spells or summoning techniques of man that
dragons are unfamiliar with, or could even be surprised by. It's
interesting to think that something an elven mage considers normal would
take Naheka by surprise...

> Yes, I (and some others) seem to be writing as it were really happening,
> instead of just arguing about some points in rules. On the other hand,
> above I don't talk so much about Shadowrun, but about life in general.
> Maybe it does not belong to this list, maybe it does, but then again, I
> like to hear people's (well thought) opinions (not flames :)...

Flaming has become all too common on the net. When full motion
interactive video changes how we converse on the e-way, you'll see alot
less senseless flaming. Take away the virtual aninimity, and it's alot
harder to attack someone face-to-face.

Part of my point on reitterating that SR is a game (surprised?) was to
hint at my usual speech about rules debates and such. Unlike real life,
where many things are "just so," Shadowrun can be what you want it to
be. The line between today's reality and a game of imagination set sixty
years into the future seems to blur quite a bit on this list. It's
evidenced in the "sorry, you're wrong: the rules say..." that seems to
pop up every other day.

> > particular clique and were looking for acceptance. The image presented
> > to me, therefore, has not been a good one.
>
> As usual, people who do not know what they are talking about ruin the
> reputation of those who do... Sigh...
>
> I mean, even if there are real mages around (I am not saying there are
> or there aren't because I don't really know) nobody would believe them
> because all the hype that is going on. This has happened so many times in
> history...

I have heard next to nothing outside of this list and from people I know
about "real life magic." Maybe it just needs more thyme. I mean, look at
the stories of UFO abduction and such: U.S. News and World Report took a
poll a short thyme ago that had a much larger percentage of people
believeing folks were being abducted for bio-tests and God-knows-what,
compared to nearly no one believing the stories only a decade ago. Is it
the movies and TV shows about the phenomenon, or what?

> Janne Jalkanen ///! For those who have to fight for it
> jalkanen@******.cern.ch /// ! life has a flavor
> Janne.Jalkanen@***.fi \\\/// ! the protected will never understand
> -'Keep on going...' \XX/ ! (anonymous, Viet Nam, 1968)

the holy Entombed
Rasputin the (not so) Horrible E.
rasputin@***.umd.edu

rec.sports.nhl needs posts...
Message no. 3
From: Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@*********.CERN.CH>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons (and something else...)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 19:51:34 +0200
On Wed, 29 Jun 1994, the holy Entombed wrote:

> I like the idea that dragons have a natural mastery of the magical arts.
> Summoning and the casting of certain spells comes as naturally as eating
> or breathing (what they breathe, of course, can be interesting...=^).

Isn't the dragon flame attack rather magical by nature already? And also,
I am pretty sure nothing with the aerodynamical properties of a dragon
could fly without the help of some heavy-duty magic... :)

> than that of man, there are spells or summoning techniques of man that
> dragons are unfamiliar with, or could even be surprised by. It's

Hm. An interesting idea. Of course, the dragons have the advantage of
superior experience, but a younger dragon might very well be surprised.
This will require some research :)

> less senseless flaming. Take away the virtual aninimity, and it's alot
> harder to attack someone face-to-face.

True. But then again, face-to-face flames are much harder to take than
those coming in ASCII form. While they are surely rarer, they also have
the power of hurting more deeply.

> I have heard next to nothing outside of this list and from people I know
> about "real life magic." Maybe it just needs more thyme. I mean, look at
^^^^^
thyme \'ti_-m, 'thi_-m\ n : any of several mints with aromatic
leaves used esp. in seasoning

Since english is not my first (and not even second) language, I will make
a wild assumption that you are now meaning there should be more publicity
on those subjects?

> the stories of UFO abduction and such: U.S. News and World Report took a
> poll a short thyme ago that had a much larger percentage of people
> believeing folks were being abducted for bio-tests and God-knows-what,
> compared to nearly no one believing the stories only a decade ago. Is it
> the movies and TV shows about the phenomenon, or what?

Movies, TV & press. BUT this is NOT a good thing IMO. The media works
mainly around profit (yes, I am a cynic (sp?). In this matter anyway.)
And they will change the story by that rule, thus making it look good and
forgetting the essence of the matter. So people will get a completely
false image of the subject, and we all know how hard it is to change old
opinions than to form completely new ones.

Now, even if there were real UFO's (I am not again saying there are or
there aren't since I don't know) the amount of people THINKING they see
UFO's has caused the (possible) real UFO reports to drown in massive
avalanche of misinformation. Also, the people genuinely interested in
Extra-Terrestrial Life are given a bad reputation by all kinds of
huuhaa men. (Huuhaa == finnish word, meaning nonsense, gibberish, utterly
stupid, completely lunatic, false. It fits here better than any english
word I can think about :) )

Even people who *see* something wierd in the sky might not report it
because they'd be mocked upon as idiots.

In the information revolution, what we really need to be wary of is the
stupendous amount of FALSE INFORMATION... (read junk mail :)

> the holy Entombed
>
> rec.sports.nhl needs posts...

Well, I think this mailing list requires also serious posts about
Shadowrun... We are drifting a little bit too far away now :)

ObSR: What are the best character sheets around? I have been using
Wordman's sheets and they're great, but I'd like to see if there are
others floating around the net? Opinions? Pointers to ftp-sites?

--
Janne Jalkanen ///! For those who have to fight for it
jalkanen@******.cern.ch /// ! life has a flavor
Janne.Jalkanen@***.fi \\\/// ! the protected will never understand
-'Keep on going...' \XX/ ! (anonymous, Viet Nam, 1968)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Great Dragons (and something else...), 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.