Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: U-Gene <C14101@*******.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 09:00:56 EDT
Bob Ooton writes:
<< A lot about stereotypes (ie. "Wolverine" Sammies, and kung-fu Phys-ads
>>

I'll agree with you on this Bob. Street Sams can be a PILE of fun to role-
play. A character in the campaign I'm running (They finished Harlequin and on
their way to HB) named Kernal is an ex-marine who participated in some of the
Euro-wars. Although this sounds like it could be a Wolverine varient, he
isn't. He tries to come up with good plans and play them out (Hannibal from
the A-team). Bob (the other sammie) is the far end of the scale. He does the
craziest burned out sammie things believable. (He attacked a powereful
initiate mage vampire with a pipe wrench. I could go on but it would be
pointless. They add some of the best role-playing to the group.

As for the kung-fu Phys-ad stereotype, all I have to say is the decker of the
party can beat him in hand-to-hand combat. Billy (the Phys A) is modeled as
an old west gunfighter. He doesn't need that cyberware balogna. Armed with
Ruger-Warhawks, he is probalbly the deadliest shot in the party. (I belive
someone mentioned Phys-ads weren't as tough as sammies.

And someone asked how many GM's let the mages walk around with +3d6 Inc. Refl
lock (sorry I can't quote, I lost my mail). Well I am one of them. Though,
when the party is attacked by a strike team, the +3d6 lock is the first thing
to go. :)

Wow, that was a mouth full! :)

If anyone has suggestions on running HB, private E-mail me.
c14101%akronvm.bitnet@**.cnuce.cnr.it
--

"They sort have this club house thing..."
"Yeah, a place to sharpen their knives"
--Big Trouble in Little China
Message no. 2
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 16:06:03 +6000
Jani fikouras goes on to say:
>> The key seems to be people SAYING that Street Samurai can't be roleplayed.

> No this is wrong sammies can actually be roleplayed *much* better than
> mages because they are much closer to our current day outlook. That is why
> roleplaying a sammie is easier more feasible and thusly easier to enjoy.

Though there is a challenge to be had in more awkward characters to
roleplay, (obviously there are many ways to do this with a street sam.
although an easier character like a Sam leaves you to concentrate on other
aspects of roleplaying the character.)

> OTOH mages have more options in their hands, a player playing a magician
> can be more creative (in a rulsy kinda sence) that is why they tend to be more
> interesting to play and to discuss - its got nothing to do with roleplaying.

We discuss mages cos their rules are more twisted up :)
(or because certain people with mages post more :) )

> It goes without saying that their complexity makes them harder to roleplay
> as they have a definitely alien outlook compared to our worldview....

Which is part of the fun of role-playing them (particularly shamans)

Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Message no. 3
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 17:08:29 -0500
U-Gene writes...

>As for the kung-fu Phys-ad stereotype, all I have to say is the decker of the
>party can beat him in hand-to-hand combat. Billy (the Phys A) is modeled as
>an old west gunfighter. He doesn't need that cyberware balogna. Armed with
>Ruger-Warhawks, he is probalbly the deadliest shot in the party. (I belive
>someone mentioned Phys-ads weren't as tough as sammies.

Tough? Compare Billy to Kernal. My guess is that, while Billy could well
be a better shot (i.e. higher firearms skill), a)he can't take a bullet as
well... b)doesn't have NEAR the combat pool that Kernal has... c)doesn't
have as wide a variety of skills... d)is slower... e)doesn't see as well at
night... f)anything else that will be evident once you look at the char sheets.

But you know what? I have to congratulate whoever plays Billy for being his
own character. Kudos to ya, whoever ya are!

>And someone asked how many GM's let the mages walk around with +3d6 Inc. Refl
>lock (sorry I can't quote, I lost my mail). Well I am one of them. Though,
>when the party is attacked by a strike team, the +3d6 lock is the first thing
>to go. :)

Yep, that was me asking that one. Read one of my rambles about how to solve
the lock problem cheaply and efficiently (as any megacorp would do it).

-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Message no. 4
From: FireFly <mskarina@*****.MSCC.HUJI.AC.IL>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 02:11:12 +0300
U-Gene wrote:

> I'll agree with you on this Bob. Street Sams can be a PILE of fun to role-
> play. A character in the campaign I'm running (They finished Harlequin and on
> their way to HB) named Kernal is an ex-marine who participated in some of the
> Euro-wars. Although this sounds like it could be a Wolverine varient, he
> isn't. He tries to come up with good plans and play them out (Hannibal from
> the A-team). Bob (the other sammie) is the far end of the scale. He does the
> craziest burned out sammie things believable. (He attacked a powereful
> initiate mage vampire with a pipe wrench. I could go on but it would be
> pointless. They add some of the best role-playing to the group.
>

That really sounds like fun!
I think the way you play the characters is more important than their
archetype, or how powerful they are.
Sure, the extent of your power (all those dice thingies), wether cybered,
magical or whatever can be crucial for your survival against the baddies,
but consider this: why survive at all?
What makes the RPG worth playing, is both the Role (=character) and the
Playing (=good story line); the Game (=combat) adds the spice element,
but IMHO it's not the most important thing about it. Otherwise, you might
as well be playing football...
This digression (relevant to one of the paralel threads, btw), leads me
to my point:
The question of what your character does for a living, pales before the
question of HOW he does that. And I'm not talking about firing the gun
vs. the power missile. What really counts is the way the character's
character is built and projected during the game.
The archetype does NOT mean you have to play it stereotypically. Why ever
should a sammie be stupid or a mage smart?
Just for the sake of argument, you can have a genius neuclear physicist (or
cyberwear expert?), heading the research staff of a major corporation, decide
one day that he's fed up with it all, quit his job (getting some high brass
really pissed at him) and pursue the much less stressful career of street
samurai, just to relax a bit (as many true geniuses, he used himself as a
guinea pig in a couple of research projects, so now he's lightly but
originally cybered).
Your mage (fill in the archetype) can be an incredibly gifted
idiot-savant, capable of learning new spells in an ultra short time, and
possessing photographic memory (A walking spell book...), but otherwise
uncapable of leading normal life or surviving the tough realities of the
SR universe (he/she should have someone to take care of him. The sammie,
perhaps?)

Whow! That sounds like a grand idea for a story, isn't it?

My own (PBEM) character is not as exotic - FireFly is an elven mage runnig
away from home and stumbling into her first run. She sometimes acts a bit
bitchy (isn't she Robert? *grin*), but she's really not as tough as she
wants ppl to believe.
I don't think I'm playing her as well as I should (a basic rule book
could also be of some help...) But hey! Give the newbie (me) a break...

Well, that was me, torchuring you with my ideas :)

FireFly
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 10:42:57 +0200
>Just for the sake of argument, you can have a genius neuclear physicist (or
>cyberwear expert?), heading the research staff of a major corporation, decide
>one day that he's fed up with it all, quit his job (getting some high brass
>really pissed at him)

And quite possibly getting a sniper on his tail to make sure he doesn't go
work for another corp...

>and pursue the much less stressful career of street
>samurai, just to relax a bit (as many true geniuses, he used himself as a
>guinea pig in a couple of research projects, so now he's lightly but
>originally cybered).

You're forgetting one thing (you couldn't have known it, I guess), and that
is that most people are quite happy working for a corp -- partly because
it's all they know. Especially the high-level R&D folks are treated very
well by the corp, because the corps understand that without them they can't
make more and more money -- of course with the exceptions explained in teh
Doing Business chapter of Corporate Shadowfiles...Dire Straits were prophets! :)

>Your mage (fill in the archetype) can be [snip] capable of learning new
>spells in an ultra short time

Not with a Sorcery library of rating 1 she can't :)

>(he/she should have someone to take care of him. The sammie,
>perhaps?)
>
>Whow! That sounds like a grand idea for a story, isn't it?

How about a troll physad with a crush on her?


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Be yourself no matter what they say
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 6
From: U-Gene <C14101@*******.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 09:11:45 EDT
Bob Oaton writes:
>> U-Gene writes...
>> <snip> about Billy the phys ad gunfighter and Kernal the street sam
>> <snip> about Billy being best shot in the party...
>> (I believe someone mentioned Phy ads weren't as tough as sammies?)
>
>Tough? Compare Billy to the Kernal. My guess is that, while Billy could well
>be the a better shot(i.e. higher firearms skill), a)he can't take a bullet
>as well...

Well your right there. (bod=4 and of course no cyber or bio) :)

>b)doesn't have NEAR the combat pool the Kernal has...

About the same. (billy 9, kernal 10. I believe)

>c)doesn't have as wide a variety of skills...

About the same. Kernal spent most Karma on stats and aquiring a good drive
skill (just got VCR 1 not to long ago). Billy has SCUBA and you wouldn't have
guessed it, SURFING! 2 or 3 dice I think. (The group had participated in
Paradise Lost and Billy couldn't help himself)

>d)is slower...

Not by much. Although I use the house rule Phys Ads can by wired reflex
equivelant costing 2,3,5 magic points. I feel they got the shaft here.

>e)doesn't see as well at night...

Billy sees better then the Kernal at night. Billy has natural low-light
vision (bought with Magic) which I believe reduces darkness penalties.

>f)anything else that will be evident once you look at the character sheets.

I looked at the character sheets, and they looked relatively even. Although
Billy is a better shot, the Kernal can take more damage.
But looking again I'd say in most combat situations, the Kernal does have
an advantage.

>But you know what? I have to congradulate whoever plays Billy for being his
>own character. Kudos to ya, whoever you are!

Billy is played by my brother Matt. His charater never uses anything other
Warhawks, his custom made lever action rifle, and his newly acquired double
barrel shotgun, all traditional western guns. (Well, he's been forced by
other players to use a silenced Predator occasionally since his other weapons
can't be silenced!) I thank you for your compliment on Matt's behalf.

Thanks Bob for posting to this posting. I believe, as do most of my players
that a good character concept is most important of all in making a character.

Kernal: "What are you doing behind me?"
Billy: "I figured I'd get cover bonus. <grin>"
Message no. 7
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 10:31:51 +6000
Jason wrote:
> No, but they do not attempt to "max out" any of their weaknesses. Most
> believe a weakness is someting fun to play, an obstacle to be overcome.

Which it is, but there are more weaknesses to play than my mage has weak
stats. Isn't he overcoming his weakness with the use of spell locks?
while my shaman has two spell locks they are invisibilty and combat sense
as I felt increase attributes had been done before and these are more
suited towards my cat shaman, and he still has his weaknesses, like he
veryrarely kills. Our rigger's weakness is that she finds it impossible to
resist spending all her money earned from a run on new drones/programs etc
and thus her slippery route into debt.

>> (This seems strange to me. What about the Bad Guys? Do they also
>> refrain?)

> Definite no. But our bad guys are usually well suited to the group. They
> are never unstoppable, usually having a few weaknesses of their own.

Sounds reasonable, just don't make their weaknesses too obvious :)

> The reason I brought this up was because the way you sounded, it seemed
> that your method was the norm for all the mages in your group. It seemed
> as if all of the mages you knew were dripping with increase attribute
> spell locks, even when the characters were brand new. I was merely
> pointing out that this would (to me) detract from the fun of being a
> mage.

Well I feel it certainly lacks originality :) I tried to play my mage
with the feeling that foci/fetishes were a weakness as was relying
on anything other than his own strength/power so I had no locks for a long
while (finally giving out to their advantages) I also had this include
relying on friends as part of this as it fitted in with the cat totem
and it is a continual development as he begins to trust his fellow runners
more.

Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Message no. 8
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:05:29 +6000
Gurth wrote:
>> It's a bitch making a mage and very rarely does it turn out the
>> way you want it.

> How do you figure this? It's not very hard making a magician, if you ask
> me. Just don't expect him to have attributes like a sam and he'll turn
> out fine IMHO.

Sure, the only problem is expecting/wanting too much (that could be the
cause of munchkinism) My shaman is the best character I ever developed
sure he started with strength of 1, bod of 2 but you'll notice that
low attributes are the easiest of things to correct once you earn karma
they are only expensive to buy once you go over 3 or 4.

Now making a metahuman mage without more metahumans rule - thats a bitch

Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Message no. 9
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 20:49:01 -0400
One of the ways to even the ground out a little bit is to keep
the old SR1 rule that attributes can only be raised *once.* This really
makes the prioritization of things crucial in character creation. It
also keeps mages from having just runaway stats (without locks etc.)
later in the game. Just something to think about.

Marc
Message no. 10
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:31:08 +6000
>> Am I the only mage-playing person who doesn't go in for this stuff?
> 1)) spell locks are too dangerous

Not if your real careful. I have two and they're only active once in
blue moon. So far I've only replaced one of them.

>> 2) I don't have the karma to blow on quickening
agreed and it means one less reason for getting initiated

>> 3) I never had a real need to anchor anything
>>
True again, its also a means of burning karma that could be the
difference between sorcery 6 and 7.

<description of character/game style>

>> Way to go dude !!! This is how I see it, definitely.
>>
It's very hard to reply to your posts when your opinion and gaming
style matches my own so closely all I have left is to say me too :)

>> BTW: This happens to be a very acurate description of my favourite
>> character :) Only difference is that I used to have a couple of
>> Elementals on stand by - just in case,

It's not so easy with spirits, though they can be summoned quickly enough.

I disagree with the opinion that magic has to be the be all and end all
for any magic capable person. Having magic is a matter of genes.
not everyone likes what they are born with, you could play a mage who
dislikes using magic because of the responsibility of wielding so much
power. Or like my shaman, he has a lot of respect for magic so tries
not to abuse it prefering to use firearms overcombat spells.
Not all mages would follow magic to the max. I know of one mage who
places decking above magic with magic of 4 only a handful of spells
and a good trust in his gun arm, but major skill/gear for running
in the matrix.

Another point someone else made was speed. You can play adequately
with 1 or 2 dice for initiative, I just rely on the others to keep
the firepower of me before I get to do my stuff. Sure I'll improve
it, faster is better but it's not top on priorities at the moment
its all a question of individual style.

Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.uk>
Message no. 11
From: Jonas Gabrielson <m94jga@*******.TDB.UU.SE>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 13:57:50 +0200
On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Philip Hayward wrote:

> >> 2) I don't have the karma to blow on quickening
> agreed and it means one less reason for getting initiated
>
> >> 3) I never had a real need to anchor anything
> >>
> True again, its also a means of burning karma that could be the
> difference between sorcery 6 and 7.

I think perhaps the key to this Mage bias thingie is the large
amounts of karma they have to invest to keep paces with other character
"classes". Like some others have alredy mentioned, the SR system is
actually pretty balanced with reference to magic vs. technology (here we
go again...).

However, some of this balancing requires the use of karma, for
Initiation and other things. To make an example, Physical Adept powers
and Cybernetics are *very* unbalanced to the untrained eye. This is so,
because Magic and Essence costs are directly translateable to each other,
but not at equal levels. Wired Reflexes cost 5 Essence, but getting the
same improvements with PA powers would "cost" more than 6 Magic (I
haven't got the figures in my head).

On the up side, PA's can increase Magic, and thus the amount of powers
they can buy, with Initiation, while a Sam can't increase Essence beyond
6 (unless he's a Vampire...). But Initiation costs precious Karma, points
the sam can use to increase skills.

What I propose is some way to get Karma or other Mystic Energies
through other means than 'running. Perhaps meditation, or studying,
depending on the Magic User (there's that AD&D term again). This could be
analogous to the Potency (formerly Threat Rating) of Toxic Shamans and
Insect Shamans, although on a lower scale. Do something that's good for
your philosophy, and you get insight to spend on occult pursuits.


Jonas Gabrielson (m94jga@*******.tdb.uu.se)
Message no. 12
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 15:11:21 +6000
Jani continues once more:

>> Or everybody else I've ever spoken to has as well. Seriously Mark, why do
>> you not think the game is biased (perhaps biased might not be the best word,
>> but comparatively, magicians can easily be made much more powerful than
>> mundanes.

I am beginning to despair. A sam with tech is completely different to
a mage using just magic. How can you define or quantify the power of a
character? each has strengths/weaknesses abilities to do thinks others
cannot.

> (warning this post if full of generalisations)

> Definitely no, the "problem" is that mundanes have only one edge namely
> cyberware and can excel in only one field, dealing damage (mega-
> generalisation.)

No. mundanes are better than that. Sams maybe some are just killing
machines, but what about decking, communication/surveillence with
tech and cyberware offers all these and more, rigging and drones etc
That was not just general but simply untrue.

> Whereas mages can "bend" the laws of physics to do all sorts of unnatural
> nifty things that help them go a long way with a minimum of effort.

But you can do an heck of a lot with those laws as they stand.
are you calling magic unnatural? I ain't no friggin toxic. :)

> That does not mean however that the game is unbalanced, everyone
> has got his own specialty. If you want to shapechange into a dragonfly
> play a mage and if you want to blow things up make a dundane/sammie
> /rigger. -------

No its not unbalanced, but maybe for different reasons.

> Complaining and saying that mages can do too much is like complaing about
> a sammies initiative - thats what he does for a living, his specialty.
> Its only natural that he is better at it than others.

While mages as a whole can do alot there are very few mages/shamans who can
do it all. I may have illusion and manipulation spells down real slick
but my combat and detection spells are lousy.

> If you doubt that a mundane person can be deadlier than a magician
> I am happy to take you up in another munchkin competition :)
> Especialy since our PA debate seems to have come to an end.

No, thank you :) not that again. besides all in down to the situation.

> Extra Modifications are not nececary, just use the rules as they are
> and make sure that magicians get to feel the disadvantages they already
> have. for expample sustained spells, most people I know take the
> fact that they can sustain a spell for granted. What they forget however
> is that sustained spells are as effective grounding gates as locks
> and quickenings. Do your players know that ?

I know ones with a physical component are, and assume all were but I'd
not been sure. Mayhap a GURU will clarify, or anyone who can find
a definitive statement in a rulebook.

> The most powerfull archetype is the decker, definitely.

Knowledge has almost always been the key to power.
ahh but also the most specialized maybe? I mean decking not deckers
as in people who can deck since that could be anyone including mages.

Phil this one :)
or is that the other one
Message no. 13
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 22:47:05 +1000
On the topic of Mages (or, as it really is, magic vs tech).

Magicians are more poweful than other character types, because they can do
_everything_ that the rest of them can do _plus_ they have magic. And magic
is powerful indeed.

Fortunatly, FASA has evened things up a bit with the character generation
process. To be magically active, you have to be poorer in other areas. There
is no reason for this but Game Balance. An NPC magician could be as capable a
samurai as any real samurai. A PC one cannot (usually). At least initially.
Given time, they can. But this would indeed require lots and lots of time
(and karma). And the real samuari will always be a litle ahead (unless the
magician truely ignores the magic side of his character) in the 'samuari'
things.

For the most part, ecah has pluses and minuses. But a really really good
magically active character is going to be better than a really really good
mundane.

And also, tell me how many of you experience the "geek the mage" phenomenum?
This is common as far as I can see. Is it not indicitive of the danger
people associate with magically active opponents compared to mundane ones? I
can only remember one occasion when my PCs went for a mundane opponent first
when there were magicians on the other side as well. And that was an extreme
example (missiles are more scarey than Fireballs). In nearly every
circumstance, a team of players will attempt to eliminate the magical
opposition before the mundane. This to me says that magically active persons
are superior (at least in players minds) to mundane ones. If it were not a
good tactical move to kill off the magical opposition quickly, then players
would not do it.

One can get no empirical formula to say A is better than B. But as Adam and
Paul both say, anecdotal evidence holds a decent sway. Is it not, in you guys
experience, that magicians tend to get "picked on" in a fight? Is this not
fair evidence to conclude there must be some reason for this? And can we not
say that it is because they are _better_? Makes sense to me.

And yes, I admit, there a many many circumstances where a magically active
character will not peform as well as a mundane. However, that is what
specialisation is all about. We have to expect it. Not everyone can do
everything. A rigger is poor when it comes to decking (unless he has devoted
time/nuyen/karma to decking as well). Likewise a magician is poor at decking
(unless he too has devoted time/nuyen/karma to developing decking abilities).
The edge the magician has is that he can develop abilities in everyone elses
field, but they _cannot_ do the same for his field of expertise. Magic.

----------------------
Philip Hayward writes:

> [Grounding through sustained spells]
>
> I know ones with a physical component are, and assume all were but I'd
> not been sure. Mayhap a GURU will clarify, or anyone who can find
> a definitive statement in a rulebook.

As the rules stand, you cannot ground through quickened, or sustained
spells. At all. The DLoH has ruled that Quickenings with physical effects
can be ground through. Quickenings with Mana effects, and sustained spells
can not be ground through (yet). I can get page references etc for you if
you want, and I have a quote from Tom Dowd on the clarification.

> > The most powerfull archetype is the decker, definitely.

I really do have to agree with you Jani. He who controls nuyen and
information controls everything. A decker in an orbital station can steal
nuyen, and pay hoards of hitmen to kill off anybody who challenges him. (And
seriously, magic loses its bonus in space, and the decker has every
technological edge over all his possible opponents.) Just for an example.
Don't bother giving exceptions or ways to "geek the decker", 'cause I or
someone else can come up with counter arguments forever, and then we'll be
at it again...

------------------------
Jonas Gabrielson writes:

> What I propose is some way to get Karma or other Mystic Energies
> through other means than 'running. Perhaps meditation, or studying,
> depending on the Magic User (there's that AD&D term again). This could be
> analogous to the Potency (formerly Threat Rating) of Toxic Shamans and
> Insect Shamans, although on a lower scale. Do something that's good for
> your philosophy, and you get insight to spend on occult pursuits.

Whatever it is you finally decide on, it must apply equally to magicians and
mundanes. Otherwise you'll end up with a Game Balance blow out.

---------------------
Jani Fikouras writes:

> Cyberware does have definite advantages and no real disadvantages (well for
> non mages) as opposed to stuff like locks and quickening.

The only real disadvantage of a low Essence is that it is a prick to get
healed magically. May sammies are most jealous of the speed the PA usually
gets healed by the teams magician, compared to the pretty poor results
achievable on them.

----------------------
Craig S Dohmen writes:

> Hmm hrm, does masking the lock also mask the spell? Instead of seeing
> the spell and the lock, does an astral observer just see this big
> glowing spell instead? I don't have my Grimoire handy.

That's the way I read it yeah. But I am curious (and shall ask the Dark
Lords one day) if it is possible to mask either Quickenings or sustained
spells.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 14
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 19:34:20 +0200
> On the topic of Mages (or, as it really is, magic vs tech).
>
> Magicians are more poweful than other character types, because they can do
> _everything_ that the rest of them can do _plus_ they have magic. And magic
> is powerful indeed.

I dont agree, but I suppose that everyone on the list already knows that :)
So allow me to rephrase that. Theoretically magicians are more powerfull
than other character types, because they can - given unrealistic amounts of
karma - theoretically do _everything_ that the rest of them can do _plus_
they have magic.
Now this is more acurate. :)

Note: And they (magicians) would still be slower.

> Fortunatly, FASA has evened things up a bit with the character generation
> process. To be magically active, you have to be poorer in other areas.

No that is an understatement.

> There
> is no reason for this but Game Balance. An NPC magician could be as capable a
> samurai as any real samurai. A PC one cannot (usually). At least initially.
> Given time, they can.

Would the time Harlequin had sufice ? :)

> But this would indeed require lots and lots of time
> (and karma). And the real samuari will always be a litle ahead (unless the
> magician truely ignores the magic side of his character) in the 'samuari'
> things.

No to mention about (3d6) +~20 faster.

> For the most part, ecah has pluses and minuses. But a really really good
> magically active character is going to be better than a really really good
> mundane.

I am still prepared to take you up with that :)

> And also, tell me how many of you experience the "geek the mage"
phenomenum?

I honestly dont, and the reason is that the magician of the group actually
protects them from magicall threats instead of stamping off casting fireballs.
My players usually go for the fodder first - because they are the ones that
go the most damage. One really good badguy can fire 4 times tops in a complex
action. But 10 cannon-fodder dudes can fire 40 times - so no matter how
bad they are they *will* hit you.

But honestly what mage can be a threat when someone is shielding you ?

> One can get no empirical formula to say A is better than B. But as Adam and
> Paul both say, anecdotal evidence holds a decent sway. Is it not, in you guys
> experience, that magicians tend to get "picked on" in a fight? Is this not
> fair evidence to conclude there must be some reason for this? And can we not
> say that it is because they are _better_? Makes sense to me.

No No and the reason why that happens to others is because they apparently
have no (capable) magical support.

A magician's main advantage when it comes to combat is that mundanes have
no way to defend themselves against his attacks because his attacks are of
a totally different nature. He is not more powerfull he is different.

Now take this same magician and put him up against another magician. Can you
say boring ? I think that in a spelltossing contest even Harlequin would
have a HARD time killing your average 0 grade initiate. Thats how
powerfull magic is. NOT !!!

> And yes, I admit, there a many many circumstances where a magically active
> character will not peform as well as a mundane. However, that is what
> specialisation is all about. We have to expect it. Not everyone can do
> everything. A rigger is poor when it comes to decking (unless he has devoted
> time/nuyen/karma to decking as well). Likewise a magician is poor at decking
> (unless he too has devoted time/nuyen/karma to developing decking abilities).

A mage is totally useless at decking no matter how much karma he has devoted,
magicians get a penalty equall to their magic rating when in the matrix.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 15
From: Craig S Dohmen <dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 12:52:36 -0400
On Sat, 22 Apr 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> As the rules stand, you cannot ground through quickened, or sustained
> spells. At all. The DLoH has ruled that Quickenings with physical effects
> can be ground through. Quickenings with Mana effects, and sustained spells
> can not be ground through (yet). I can get page references etc for you if

Sustained spells with physical effects can be grounded through as well.

On the topic of sustained damaging manipulations:
I would make the caster roll for drain every round. My rationalization
is that constantly sucking energy from astral space and making "real"
materials from it really puts the hurts on one's system.

--Craig
Message no. 16
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 16:51:14 +1000
Craig S Dohmen writes:

> Sustained spells with physical effects can be grounded through as well.

Reference?

> On the topic of sustained damaging manipulations:
> I would make the caster roll for drain every round. My rationalization
> is that constantly sucking energy from astral space and making "real"
> materials from it really puts the hurts on one's system.

This sounds fine, but no other sustained spells require multiple drain
tests, and they too channel astral energies for their entire duration. So
why would Sustained Damaging Manipulations?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 17
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 17:19:32 +1000
Jani Fikouras writes:

> [Mages' require lots and lots of time to be as good as others at what
> others do]

Obviously. It is logical after all. The can, however, get pretty close
within PC type karma and nuyen limitations. Not as good at what a sammy does
as a true sammy is (for example), but they can get skill and attribute (and
initiative) ratings only lacking by a small amount. And yes, this small
amount can make all the difference, but only in really close situations.
Normally they are so much ahead of most opposition that it doesn't matter
all that much whether the sammy's a point in front of the magician. If it
comes down to that one point though... But magic is a lot more useful than
one or two points better on a skill/Attribute/etc IMHO.

> [Challenge to munchkin test]

No thanks, it is simply pointless to compare two such completely different
character types as these. But if you want I can whip up a magician
character, give it X nuyen and Y karma, and you the same for a sammy. The
magician can pretty easily be very close to the ability of a sammy in sammy
things if he really wants to (like similar stats, skills, even initiative
can be obtained for a magician through the use of things such as spell locks
and quickenings), and the magician still has the amazing versatility of
magic at his disposal (not all that useful in a straight out munchkin fight
obviously, but in terms of use in an actual game situation it's a heck of a
lot more handy).

> I honestly dont, and the reason is that the magician of the group actually
> protects them from magicall threats instead of stamping off casting
> fireballs.

All the more better reason to knock him off first. Once he's gone, then all
those fireballs he was stopping will decimate what's left of the team. (OK,
probably not that badly, but in general terms, once you take out one sides
magical support, your's can have a field day.)

> My players usually go for the fodder first - because they are the ones
> that go the most damage. One really good badguy can fire 4 times tops in a
> complex action. But 10 cannon-fodder dudes can fire 40 times - so no matter
> how bad they are they *will* hit you.

Have you ever tried a battle like taking 24 gang member archetypes from the
SRII book, and trying to take on a team of runners with them? They don't
last long, nor do they so much as put a scratch on the runners (sure, like
you said, some of them *will* actually hit, but none of them will actually
do any damage. This is assuming the magician doesn't Sleep them all into
unconsiousness first, or the sammy grenade them all to death or similar).
Now take a few sammurai archetypes and try it. Odds are that they'll
actually do something. Quality _is_ important. If you throw in a combat mage
amongst all those ganger's, I'll bet I can tell you who would be the first
target.

> But honestly what mage can be a threat when someone is shielding you ?

Like I said above. This just adds more reason to eliminate the magical
opposition even faster. The quicker the opposition is deprived of their
magical support, the quicker yours can lay waste to the mundanes that are
left. [But I completely agree that a magical battle with 2 initaites, one on
each side, will take quite some time. Sheilding is good.]

> No No and the reason why that happens to others is because they apparently
> have no (capable) magical support.

Or they have good magical support who knows that to kill off all the
opposition magicians means they can absolutely waste the mundane rabble
that's left.

> A magician's main advantage when it comes to combat is that mundanes have
> no way to defend themselves against his attacks because his attacks are of
> a totally different nature. He is not more powerfull he is different.

Interesting way to look at it. Also true. But I'd say that someone who was
able to crap on me because he uses an ability I cannot use nor defend
against would fit quite nicely into the "more powerful than I" box. I'd have
great repect and regard for such an individual, and great fear should he be
on the other side of a confontation with me.

> A mage is totally useless at decking no matter how much karma he has
> devoted, magicians get a penalty equall to their magic rating when in the
> matrix.

I seem to remember this being optional (was it?), and fairly highly
contested. But yes, the VR penalty for magicians in the matrix was something
I'd forgotten. So there is something a magician cannot do as well as a
mundane. Oh well. (I wonder if someone who's actually a magician, but
doesn't believe so would get the modifier? You know, like the examples in
the NAGA. I also wonder about PAs).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 18
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 11:34:39 +0200
> > [Mages' require lots and lots of time to be as good as others at what
> > others do]

Well that is one way of seeing it, I however prefere to think that its
impossible for mages to become that good. I guess its a matter of karma
the GM gives to the players and a matter of time the players get to keep
one character befor retiring him.

> Obviously. It is logical after all. The can, however, get pretty close
> within PC type karma and nuyen limitations. Not as good at what a sammy does
> as a true sammy is (for example), but they can get skill and attribute (and
> initiative) ratings only lacking by a small amount. And yes, this small
> amount can make all the difference, but only in really close situations.
> Normally they are so much ahead of most opposition that it doesn't matter
> all that much whether the sammy's a point in front of the magician. If it
> comes down to that one point though... But magic is a lot more useful than
> one or two points better on a skill/Attribute/etc IMHO.

I agree, given amounts of karma no player should have a magician can
achieve levels of performance comparable to those of true specialist.
Why do you think everybody fears Harlequin and how do you think Ehran
managed to "steal" Tir Tairngire from the SS-Council?
I do not mean to say that magic is not powerfull, but the point is
that no player should get the kind of karma that would allow him to
fully exploit that power to his advantage.

> > I honestly dont, and the reason is that the magician of the group actually
> > protects them from magicall threats instead of stamping off casting
> > fireballs.
>
> All the more better reason to knock him off first. Once he's gone, then all
> those fireballs he was stopping will decimate what's left of the team. (OK,
> probably not that badly, but in general terms, once you take out one sides
> magical support, your's can have a field day.)

Your question was whether my players go for the mage first and the answer is no.
I take it that you are asking whether my NPCs go for the magicain of the group,
the answer to that is that they would if they could. Trust is a two way street
and as the magician protects the mundanes so do the mundanes protect the magician.
In generall none of out magicians enters a combat zone visible/without cover.
They are generally the "vanguard" and stay out of the fight.
One thing I have learned from playing basketball is that a good defence is
much more important than a good offence. A good defence may take a bit longer
but it'll always win the game for ya.

> > My players usually go for the fodder first - because they are the ones
> > that go the most damage. One really good badguy can fire 4 times tops in a
> > complex action. But 10 cannon-fodder dudes can fire 40 times - so no matter
> > how bad they are they *will* hit you.
>
> Have you ever tried a battle like taking 24 gang member archetypes from the
> SRII book, and trying to take on a team of runners with them? They don't
> last long, nor do they so much as put a scratch on the runners (sure, like
> you said, some of them *will* actually hit, but none of them will actually
> do any damage. This is assuming the magician doesn't Sleep them all into
> unconsiousness first, or the sammy grenade them all to death or similar).
> Now take a few sammurai archetypes and try it. Odds are that they'll
> actually do something. Quality _is_ important. If you throw in a combat mage
> amongst all those ganger's, I'll bet I can tell you who would be the first
> target.

No combat gumby could possibly be quicker than a PC street samurai. If
you look at it logically it would take a madman to invest all that money
in combat cyberware. I mean (supposing that someone had resources A - one mil)
what mentally-healthy (meta)human would flush one mil down the drain when he
could gethimself a permanent high-lifestyle.
What I am trying to say is that the PC sammie will almost always (using
the rule of 6 helps a bit here) get the highest initiative - effectively
geting a free go at choosing what individuals are gona die first. Thats why
kick-ass bad guys are very uneffective (in my experience).

> > No No and the reason why that happens to others is because they apparently
> > have no (capable) magical support.
>
> Or they have good magical support who knows that to kill off all the
> opposition magicians means they can absolutely waste the mundane rabble
> that's left.

So you are suggesting that the oppositions magician should go after the
groups magician :) That was nice :) Do you have any idea how long such
a magical fight would last ? And besides If our sammies saw anyone going after
the magician they would sooner take a hit themselves than let the attacker
get by them. Its a tough world chummer and if you cant trust your friends
you are minced-bioware.

> > A magician's main advantage when it comes to combat is that mundanes have
> > no way to defend themselves against his attacks because his attacks are of
> > a totally different nature. He is not more powerfull he is different.
>
> Interesting way to look at it. Also true. But I'd say that someone who was
> able to crap on me because he uses an ability I cannot use nor defend
> against would fit quite nicely into the "more powerful than I" box. I'd
have
> great repect and regard for such an individual, and great fear should he be
> on the other side of a confontation with me.

The way I see it his being "different" only gives him an advantage
as long as the opposition doesnt have any means to defend itself. Magical
support automatically negates that advantage.
No to mention that being "different" is a two way street too, that means
that a dedicated mage is as vulnerable to mundane attacks as mundanes are
to magical attacks.

> > A mage is totally useless at decking no matter how much karma he has
> > devoted, magicians get a penalty equall to their magic rating when in the
> > matrix.
>
> I seem to remember this being optional (was it?), and fairly highly
> contested. But yes, the VR penalty for magicians in the matrix was something
> I'd forgotten. So there is something a magician cannot do as well as a
> mundane. Oh well. (I wonder if someone who's actually a magician, but
> doesn't believe so would get the modifier? You know, like the examples in
> the NAGA. I also wonder about PAs).

I could be an optioanl rule, anyway I use it cause it makes sence. And it
makes totally useless deckers out of magicians. OTOH its a pure "worldview"
thingy (VR explains it as the magicians inability to cope with the abstract
world of the Matrix as magicians are used to working with living things -
as in magic is life ).

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 19
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 12:12:29 +0200
>> And also, tell me how many of you experience the "geek the mage"
phenomenum?
>
> I honestly dont, and the reason is that the magician of the group actually
>protects them from magicall threats instead of stamping off casting fireballs.

What a tick... Remember the first thing Wally said in that bar fight?
Doesn't that go against that statement?


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Sanity is contagious
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 20
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 12:30:05 +0200
> >> And also, tell me how many of you experience the "geek the mage"
phenomenum?
> >
> > I honestly dont, and the reason is that the magician of the group actually
> >protects them from magicall threats instead of stamping off casting fireballs.
>
> What a tick... Remember the first thing Wally said in that bar fight?
> Doesn't that go against that statement?

That was for comic relief man :) We'r geting way too serious!!

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 21
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 21:41:15 +1000
Jani Fikouras writes:

> Well that is one way of seeing it, I however prefere to think that its
> impossible for mages to become that good.

You're right. There will _always_ be a gap (it's built into the character
creation system, and unless the sammy spends all his karma on something very
non-sammy like, then the magician can _never_ quite catch up). But, the gap
can be closed considerably, for eg +4 Strength can be got by a magician for
only 1 karma, while it'll cost the sammy quite a lot more. (It'll probably
be about even by the time one compares due to the number of spell
locks/Quickenings the magician has had to replace though <evil GM grin>.)

> I do not mean to say that magic is not powerfull, but the point is
> that no player should get the kind of karma that would allow him to
> fully exploit that power to his advantage.

It is possible to close the gap very closesly, however. The magician in my
game had superior Attributes to the samurai at one stage, and these guys
have only earned ~100 karma. Since then he's worked out Quickenings are
pretty poor since they get destroyed so often...so his stats are back to the
lower end once again (but they're still way above average). But obviously,
he can't quite shoot as well as the cyber-nut, even though he often beats
him in initiative. I do not feel that it would take "extreme" amounts of
karma to get a magician into the range of ability of a mundane specialist,
obviously they'll never be quite as good, but they can get very close indeed.

> Your question was whether my players go for the mage first and the answer
> is no.

All I can say to that is that your teams magician must be a pacifist or
something. Even the sammies in my teams realise that if their buddy Mr Mage
can get in a turn with no magical opposition then the battle is very close
to won.

> I take it that you are asking whether my NPCs go for the magicain of
> the group, the answer to that is that they would if they could. Trust is a
> two way street and as the magician protects the mundanes so do the mundanes
> protect the magician.

Yeah. :-)

> In generall none of out magicians enters a combat zone visible/without
> cover. They are generally the "vanguard" and stay out of the fight.

That's generally what mine do too (hide behind the Troll sammy to get the
cover bonus - what a laugh).

> One thing I have learned from playing basketball is that a good defence is
> much more important than a good offence. A good defence may take a bit longer
> but it'll always win the game for ya.

Oh oh, offense vs defence. I don't really want argue with you, but I reckon
if you get a go in before your opponents, then you're better off wasting
them than defending yourself...as they say, if you geek them quick, you'll
never need to defend yourself...

> No combat gumby could possibly be quicker than a PC street samurai.

A generalisation, but usually very true.

> If you look at it logically it would take a madman to invest all that money
> in combat cyberware. I mean (supposing that someone had resources A - one
> mil) what mentally-healthy (meta)human would flush one mil down the drain
> when he could gethimself a permanent high-lifestyle.

One word: Shadowrunners

> What I am trying to say is that the PC sammie will almost always (using
> the rule of 6 helps a bit here) get the highest initiative - effectively
> geting a free go at choosing what individuals are gona die first. Thats why
> kick-ass bad guys are very uneffective (in my experience).

I wasn't indicating that a single superlative opponent is the way to go.
More like an even number of moderate opponents will perform a heck of a lot
better than a large number of truely wussy opponents. Unless you give them
all grenades or something like that...

> > > No No and the reason why that happens to others is because the
> > > apparently have no (capable) magical support.
> >
> > Or they have good magical support who knows that to kill off all the
> > opposition magicians means they can absolutely waste the mundane rabble
> > that's left.
>
> So you are suggesting that the oppositions magician should go after the
> groups magician :) That was nice :) Do you have any idea how long such
> a magical fight would last ?

Yes I do know how long it would take (I said so in my last post). But, no, I
was not indicating that the NPC magician should go after the PC magician. I
was pointing out that there are two reasons why one would single out enemy
magicians for the first target 1) because you yourself have no magical
support (ie you feel that the enemy magicians are more of a threat to you
than the mundanes), like you suggested, and 2) that the magical support on
your own side is tactically minded, and has made sure everyone knows just
how effective they can be if the other side has no magicians.

> The way I see it his being "different" only gives him an advantage
> as long as the opposition doesnt have any means to defend itself. Magical
> support automatically negates that advantage.

And I agree. And I further point out that this makes it imperitive in any
combat to make sure that the other side does _not_ have their own magical
support (ie "geek the mage first").

> No to mention that being "different" is a two way street too, that means
> that a dedicated mage is as vulnerable to mundane attacks as mundanes are
> to magical attacks.

But a magician who is a Combat Magician will have enough tactical brains to
ensure he is adequately protected from mundane threats as well. And it can
easily be done. Mundanes can also make themselves less vulnerable to
magical attacks if they so desire (like increase their Willpower). But, on
the whole, only PCs do this (the PC mundanes usually place a high emphasis
on Willpower, to avoid getting their heads exploded from Manabolts, and the
PC magicians are usually well aware of just how vulnerable all those
wage-mages the sammies regularily blow away are, so they ensure they are
better protected from mundane threats). NPCs are generally not as well
protected from their opposite threats (ie NPC grunts usually have low
Willpowers [the security guard in SRII has a Willpower of 2], and NPC
magicians tend to have poor Body stats, and wear shitty armour [like the
magicians in DNA/DOA when compared to the mundanes]).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 22
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 23:59:22 +0930
Gurth wrote:
>
> >> And also, tell me how many of you experience the "geek the mage"
phenomenum?
[Snip about how Jani doesn't experience it... ]

> What a tick... Remember the first thing Wally said in that bar fight?
> Doesn't that go against that statement?

That was different, Gurth... Wally wasn't worried about the mage casting
Fireballs (I was, but Jani wasn't. :) )... Jani wanted to get rid of their
magical protection. :)

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 23
From: Craig S Dohmen <dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 12:45:43 -0400
On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> > Sustained spells with physical effects can be grounded through as well.
>
> Reference?

Tom Dowd. Nothing in print yet. Maybe in the NAGM.

> This sounds fine, but no other sustained spells require multiple drain
> tests, and they too channel astral energies for their entire duration. So
> why would Sustained Damaging Manipulations?

Well, yeah, you're channeling energy from astral space for, say, a barrier
spell, but you don't actually _do_ much with it. With a sustained DM,
you have to take that energy, channel it through your body, and change
it into, for example, a flaming ball of death. :) And you have to keep
doing it.

--Craig
Message no. 24
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 14:54:41 -0400
On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Have you ever tried a battle like taking 24 gang member archetypes from the
> SRII book, and trying to take on a team of runners with them? They don't
> last long, nor do they so much as put a scratch on the runners (sure, like
> you said, some of them *will* actually hit, but none of them will actually
> do any damage. This is assuming the magician doesn't Sleep them all into
> unconsiousness first, or the sammy grenade them all to death or similar).

I hate to say it, but if 24 gangers didn't hurt your runners, you
were doing something *severely* wrong. In order for them to all be
"sleep-ed" or grenaded, they'd all have to be standing in a small area.
They'd have to be in the open, in broad daylight, and not moving to have
no mods in their favor. If the PC's did the same thing, it wouldn't take
much to waste them either.
God forbid they should get into HTH with the runners. The "friends in
combat" modifier alone is enough to crush even experienced fighters.
The only way I would change the gangers to make them a little bit
heftier is give them real guns (say Colt L-36's or Ares Predators as
opposed to Streetline Specials. Maybe even one or two SMG's). It would
even be more realistic (I mean, what self-respecting ganger is gonna
carry around a fragging Streetline Special?). Other than that, they are
plenty dangerous in number.

> Now take a few sammurai archetypes and try it. Odds are that they'll
> actually do something. Quality _is_ important.

No, odds are they'll clean your runners' clocks, just like the
gangers would. It's just that it takes fewer of them to do so. Quality
*is* important, but as the Russians proved, quantity has a quality all
its own.

> If you throw in a combat mage amongst all those ganger's, I'll bet I
> can tell you who would be the first target.

Yes, but the gangers aren't stupid either. Do you think the
runner mage will fare any better? I don't care how many spell locks and
quickenings you have, if a bunch of guys are shooting at you, you *will*
run out of combat pool. And then you *will* take wounds. And then
you're screwed. If there are two dozen gangers all blazing away at "the
guy throwin' fire" he's gonna get spammed.
If you run combat the way it actually happens (chaos, shitty
conditions, everyone moving, and everybody and his brother taking the
best cover they can find) it gets much more difficult to face off
against even gangers.
Just a few thoughts...

Marc
Message no. 25
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 12:50:18 GMT
Jani Fikouras writes

note heavily trimmed
> > On the topic of Mages (or, as it really is, magic vs tech).
> >
> > Magicians are more poweful than other character types, because they can do
> > _everything_ that the rest of them can do _plus_ they have magic. And magic
> > is powerful indeed.
>
> I dont agree, but I suppose that everyone on the list already knows that :)
> So allow me to rephrase that. Theoretically magicians are more powerfull
> than other character types, because they can - given unrealistic amounts of
> karma - theoretically do _everything_ that the rest of them can do _plus_
> they have magic.
> Now this is more acurate. :)
>
Given enough karma and by that i figure of about 200 - 300 is the
best guess i have managed yet (have not really tried to fry the
system that badly though its easy enough to do a fair job)

> Note: And they (magicians) would still be slower.
>
no with +4 quck, int and reac plus a +3D6 initative mages that go as
fast as wired 3 become very easy to create, four grades masks the lot
and no essense cost thought the karma is cost high but you get a load
of other goodies out of grade 4 initiate.

> > Fortunatly, FASA has evened things up a bit with the character generation
> > process. To be magically active, you have to be poorer in other areas.
>
> No that is an understatement.
>
At least at startup that is true if you don't just use a pile of
spell locks and invite the GM to crisp you with the first astarl mage
that happens by.

> > There
> > is no reason for this but Game Balance. An NPC magician could be as capable a
> > samurai as any real samurai. A PC one cannot (usually). At least initially.
> > Given time, they can.
>
> Would the time Harlequin had sufice ? :)
>
Just slightly, plus he's got ED rated magic when the mana's good
enough plus enough 'self activating defences (read anchoring or
equivalent)' to bounce nearly anything.

> > But this would indeed require lots and lots of time
> > (and karma). And the real samuari will always be a litle ahead (unless the
> > magician truely ignores the magic side of his character) in the 'samuari'
> > things.
>
> No to mention about (3d6) +%20 faster.
>
lock and mask +3D6 initative ex problem, ok it won't equal wired 2 on
it's own but the difference is small enough

> But honestly what mage can be a threat when someone is shielding you ?
>
try an damaging manipulation, so you've shielded to body 18 so, i
still need 4's to stage up as this is not affected by your stat
score, if the things about force 8 or 9 at half impact armour that
mage is in trouble. If that does not work due to barrier spells or
milspec armour either the guys not supposed to die ro its time to
bring on a rigger with APDS loaded vehicle weapons
Ingram valient 10 round burst = 17D with APDS that should solve the
problem and can be mounted on most drones.

>
> Now take this same magician and put him up against another magician. Can you
> say boring ? I think that in a spelltossing contest even Harlequin would
> have a HARD time killing your average 0 grade initiate. Thats how
> powerfull magic is. NOT !!!
>
no he'd just treat the guy to a force 20 odd flame thrower or it's
equivalent if he really had to, can we say i need 4's (not stat
dependant target number) you need (something over 12)) oops! pile of
ash.


> "Believe in Angels." -- The Crow
>
Mark
Message no. 26
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 11:36:11 -0400
> Jani Fikouras writes

> > Now take this same magician and put him up against another
> > magician. Can you say boring?

That's why every "mage duel" I've ever seen in Shadowrun consists
of a Reaction test to see which one can get his gun out quicker. With
spell defense, shielding, and drain, it's just easier to blow the guy's
head off.
When I played a combat mage, my favorite anti-mage weapon was a
Remington Roomsweeper. And it worked very nicely, thankyouverymuch.

Marc
Message no. 27
From: Eve Forward <lutra@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 10:55:27 -0700
Actually in a lot of our battles, it would be us mundane grunts
hosing each other in a firefight, with our mage, behind cover, doing
astral battle with the opponent's mage. We just kept praying he'd
win. Whichever mage won first would then procees to toast the mundane
opponents.

-E
Message no. 28
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 20:12:13 +0200
> > Well that is one way of seeing it, I however prefere to think that its
> > impossible for mages to become that good.
>
> You're right. There will _always_ be a gap (it's built into the character
> creation system, and unless the sammy spends all his karma on something very
> non-sammy like, then the magician can _never_ quite catch up). But, the gap
> can be closed considerably, for eg +4 Strength can be got by a magician for
> only 1 karma, while it'll cost the sammy quite a lot more. (It'll probably
> be about even by the time one compares due to the number of spell
> locks/Quickenings the magician has had to replace though <evil GM grin>.)

I agree this is probably GMing style, but I would never allow
for someone to run around with incr. attributes locked all over him.
I might be lenient with a detect enemies or even a invisibility spell,
but incr. attribute is out of the question. So (in my game) no mage can
have that kind of stats.

> > I do not mean to say that magic is not powerfull, but the point is
> > that no player should get the kind of karma that would allow him to
> > fully exploit that power to his advantage.
>
> It is possible to close the gap very closesly, however. The magician in my
> game had superior Attributes to the samurai at one stage, and these guys
> have only earned ~100 karma. Since then he's worked out Quickenings are
> pretty poor since they get destroyed so often...so his stats are back to the
> lower end once again (but they're still way above average). But obviously,
> he can't quite shoot as well as the cyber-nut, even though he often beats
> him in initiative. I do not feel that it would take "extreme" amounts of
> karma to get a magician into the range of ability of a mundane specialist,
> obviously they'll never be quite as good, but they can get very close indeed.

Dont get me wrong, but I think that a character designed to be a
munchkin can go a *very* long way with 100 karma. As a matter of fact I
think that a character should (generally) get required between 100-200
karma. But once again this is IMHO.

> > Your question was whether my players go for the mage first and the answer
> > is no.
>
> All I can say to that is that your teams magician must be a pacifist or
> something. Even the sammies in my teams realise that if their buddy Mr Mage
> can get in a turn with no magical opposition then the battle is very close
> to won.

To tell you the truth I am the teams mage (when I do not GM, when I do
our shaman is the other GM) and I must admit that even though I am no
pacifist (nor do I play one) I always go for a defencive startegy when one
is called for. Thats when the opposition has magical support, if they
dont, well then its a totally different can'o worms.

> > No to mention that being "different" is a two way street too, that
means
> > that a dedicated mage is as vulnerable to mundane attacks as mundanes are
> > to magical attacks.
>
> But a magician who is a Combat Magician will have enough tactical brains to
> ensure he is adequately protected from mundane threats as well. And it can
> easily be done. Mundanes can also make themselves less vulnerable to
> magical attacks if they so desire (like increase their Willpower). But, on
> the whole, only PCs do this (the PC mundanes usually place a high emphasis
> on Willpower, to avoid getting their heads exploded from Manabolts, and the
> PC magicians are usually well aware of just how vulnerable all those
> wage-mages the sammies regularily blow away are, so they ensure they are
> better protected from mundane threats). NPCs are generally not as well
> protected from their opposite threats (ie NPC grunts usually have low
> Willpowers [the security guard in SRII has a Willpower of 2], and NPC
> magicians tend to have poor Body stats, and wear shitty armour [like the
> magicians in DNA/DOA when compared to the mundanes]).

I agree on the whole, but I believe that even if one can make oneself
"less vulnerable" as you accurately pointed out, its still very hard
to battle an opponet that uses "different" means. This goes both for
magicians and sammies. I guess we'll get to see whos right now that
Phil joined us. Just for the record, I have my reservations as to
the outcome of our contecst as Phil's magician will be optimised to the
point where he'd no longer be feasible if he were a runner.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 29
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 21:28:30 BST
Damion Milliken wrote:

> Have you ever tried a battle like taking 24 gang member archetypes from the
> SRII book, and trying to take on a team of runners with them? They don't
> last long, nor do they so much as put a scratch on the runners (sure, like
> you said, some of them *will* actually hit, but none of them will actually
> do any damage. This is assuming the magician doesn't Sleep them all into
> unconsiousness first, or the sammy grenade them all to death or similar).

Man, sounds like you need to change your ganger's tactics :-)

I almost never use the stats from the archetypes, come to think of it,
I almost never actually write stats down, I just go along with what
feels right at the time... Zen and the Art of Shadowrunning.

(Move the stone the way that it wants to go, not the way you wish it to go)


Todays modern day gangers do not go up against someone they know to be a
dangerous opponent armed only with hold-outs, they have auto-shotguns and
SMG's, worse in the really tough areas.

I know it's just an example, but never let the runners get away easy,
unless they really deserve it for doing their jobs _RIGHT_.

Lynch is one runner I know would get out of my games untouched. He has the
moves down pat.

Phil (Renegade)

Don;t let
Message no. 30
From: "Paul J. Adam" <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 22:04:45 GMT
In your message dated Wednesday 26, April 1995 you wrote :
> > Jani Fikouras writes
>
> > > Now take this same magician and put him up against another
> > > magician. Can you say boring?
>
> That's why every "mage duel" I've ever seen in Shadowrun consists
> of a Reaction test to see which one can get his gun out quicker. With
> spell defense, shielding, and drain, it's just easier to blow the guy's
> head off.
> When I played a combat mage, my favorite anti-mage weapon was a
> Remington Roomsweeper. And it worked very nicely, thankyouverymuch.

When my initiate Coyote shaman did the run in Native American Nations 1
(solo) she ran up against thr evil toxic shaman at the end... he threw
up an anti-bullet barrier and started throwing spells at this irritating
mundane samurai.

Quinn being a shielded initiate, they bounce. And his barrier is not quite
enough to completely stop an Ingram Smartgun, smartlink, big bursts...

He never did work out what was going on before he died. She cut off one of
his fingers anyway, even after she put a whole magazine through his head.
He hasn't been back. So far.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 31
From: "Paul J. Adam" <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 23:02:18 GMT
> Damion Milliken wrote:
> > Have you ever tried a battle like taking 24 gang member archetypes from
> > the SRII book, and trying to take on a team of runners with them? They
> > don't last long, nor do they so much as put a scratch on the runners
> > (sure, like you said, some of them *will* actually hit, but none of
> > them will actually do any damage. This is assuming the magician
> > doesn't Sleep them all into unconsiousness first, or the sammy grenade
> > them all to death or similar).
>
> Man, sounds like you need to change your ganger's tactics :-)

Yep. Lots of Y20 smoke grenades and mob the runners hand-to-hand. Or flash
grenades, placed in ambush mode... All those gimmicks and goodies are
out there. The best way to introduce a new toy to the campaign is to have
it nearly kill a PC... "Wow! This must be *really* good!" There's no reason
for a gang to parade in close order in front of the PCs, so they make good
grenade/magic bait. It's common knowledge, so they won't bunch up.

> Todays modern day gangers do not go up against someone they know to be a
> dangerous opponent armed only with hold-outs, they have auto-shotguns and
> SMG's, worse in the really tough areas.

Worse than an autoshotgun loading APDS slug or EX explosives? :-) How much
armour are you letting your NPCs wear anyway?

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 32
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 12:37:31 +0930
Paul J. Adam wrote:
> Quinn being a shielded initiate, they bounce. And his barrier is not quite
> enough to completely stop an Ingram Smartgun, smartlink, big bursts...

Quinn being a level 4 shield initiate?? Ugh... (And the barrier CAN stop an
Ingram Smartgun. Heck, when I GM'd it, it stopped assault rifle rounds).

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 33
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 23:12:42 +1000
Craig S Dohmen writes:

> > Reference?
>
> Tom Dowd. Nothing in print yet. Maybe in the NAGM.

Not in the NAGA. But the quote from the DLoH that I have only specifies
Quickenings, not sustained spells. Did he make another ruling as to
sustained spells?

> Well, yeah, you're channeling energy from astral space for, say, a barrier
> spell, but you don't actually _do_ much with it.

But you still do _something_. You are still channeling energy, you are still
forming it to your on desires. Exactly the same with a Sustained Damaging
Manipulation. You don't take drain repeatedly from any other type of
sustained spells, so you won't from a Sustained Damaging Manipulation. The
harshness of the spell and the amount of energy you are required to channel
to use it is represented by the drain code. Detect Enemies has a pissy drain
code, as very little energy is channeled to use the spell. Inferno would have
a horrendous drain code, representing the severe amounts of energy you need
to channel to use it. But with both, you pay for the amount of energy
channeled with the drain code, not with the number of times you take drain.

---------------------
Marc A Renouf writes:

> [24 gangers can kick a runner teams butts]

Well, OK, I was being a little too bit dramatic when I made the (now a bit
infamous) "24 gangers can't do shit to runners" comment. I admit it was an
exaggeration. But, seriously, I don't think I exaggerated all that much. An
average team of runners will have, say, two sammies, two magicians, and a
rigger and maybe a decker. The sammies will get 2 actions before any
gangers, and kill/disable a minumum of 4. The magicians (if the are combat
orientated) can do at least as well, and a rigger with drones wil be just as
good. Not healthy for the gangers.

And even assuming that the gangers got a go, how effective are they going to
be? Firearms skill ~3, Threat Rating ~1-2. That means they'll be lucky to
hit with every second round (assuming standard combat conditions like you
specified, with a bit of cover and movement modifiers). And even if you give
them decent weapons, say heavy pistols, rather than the pussy things the
archetypes pack, then they still won't be all that more effective. 9M, with
1 success, against a typical runner, with say, an armour jacket, layered
with, say FFBA (assuming GM allows it, if not, then then the runner can get
some other combo which is nearly as good), gives an armour rating of about
7. The runner needs twos to resist. The runner only needs about 4 or 5
successes, and with Body alone this is quite possible. When Combat Pool, and
even Karma Pool are taken into account, then most runners are home free from
at least 1/2 a dozen consecutive attacks.

The only way I could ever see them doing any significant damage was if they
packed some serious firepower, or all rushed into melee combat to get the
"friends in the melee" bonus. And if they did the second, then they're all
concentrated in the same area (and most magicians wouldn't think twice to
cast a sleep spell and get all their teammates as well as themselves). The
first has the problem that all said good gear will end up in the runners
hands at the end (assuming you don't geek all the runners with it...).

And yes, if everyone takes cover, and lighting is poor etc etc, then I still
feel what I say holds true. It just takes a little longer for the combat to
be resolved. With base TN's of 8 or so, then most poor shooters will not
hit. That means that the runners will hardly ever be having to resist
damage. And runners are not poor shooters, so they'll tend to hit still. Not
as badly, but the "snowball" effect really sucks.

---------------------
Jani Fikouras writes:

> I agree this is probably GMing style, but I would never allow for someone
> to run around with incr. attributes locked all over him. I might be lenient
> with a detect enemies or even a invisibility spell, but incr. attribute is
> out of the question. So (in my game) no mage can have that kind of stats.

Yeah, I agree (like I said, the particular magician I used as an example has
since found that spell locks and quickenings are uneconomical on the karma
side of the equation). But really, a GM can't instantaneously fry ever focus
the magician ever makes active, it's just not on. He can (and should in my
view) destroy them, but it is unrealistic to do it immediately. And there is
always masking to consider as well.

> Dont get me wrong, but I think that a character designed to be a munchkin
> can go a *very* long way with 100 karma. As a matter of fact I think that a
> character should (generally) get required between 100-200 karma. But once
> again this is IMHO.

It really depends on style I guess. I feel that the characters in my
campaigns could keep going up to well over 500 karma, but I _did_
purposefully start them all off a little less powerful than the book
suggests. But remember, one word - "Ivy". <grin>

> To tell you the truth I am the teams mage (when I do not GM, when I do
> our shaman is the other GM) and I must admit that even though I am no
> pacifist (nor do I play one) I always go for a defencive startegy when one
> is called for. Thats when the opposition has magical support, if they
> dont, well then its a totally different can'o worms.

Can we look at it this way:

Sammy: "Well, I seem to remeber that last bunch of corporate bozo scum we
took on lasted about 0.02 of a second. And I didn't do anything. Why was
that? Anyone got any ideas?"

Rigger: "Well, um, if you remember, they didn't have magical backup. Our
magician cleaned their clocks real good."

Sammy: "Hey! I've got a great idea! How about, in future, we make sure that
any magical opponents become our primary target. That way our magician can
do the same to the mundanes that are left."

Ring a bell? Magic, and magicians, are TERRIBLY effective.

> I agree on the whole, but I believe that even if one can make oneself
> "less vulnerable" as you accurately pointed out, its still very hard to
> battle an opponet that uses "different" means.

Yep. That's what I was getting at from the very beginning. Magicians can do
horrible nasty things to the rest of the non magical population. And the
only real way to counter this is another magician. Hence, magicians are
more powerful than mundanes.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 34
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 19:53:12 +0200
Ok I think that I have to make a statement here as I think that
some people have misunderstood what I am trying to say.

First off all, I believe that magic kicks ass against mundane
targets as they are practically defenceless. OTOH so does tech/muscle
against a dedicated magician (someone that actually considers magic
his profesion).

When the other side has no magical support any magician would be
out of his mind if he didnt drop them all instantly with a manaspell.

In the world of SR (particularly 2054-onwards) you generally *dont*
come across groups of people interested in a fight that dont have
their group magician.

So I think that when in combat against a group with magical support
the best strategy is to primarily provide adequate magical defence to
ones own side and let the sammies clean their clocks. This does not
mean that the magicina should just sit there and shield, but defence
should be his primary concern. Elementals/Spirits can come in very
handy here and one should never underestimate the effectiveness of a
good'ol burst from a machinegun.

Sammies OTOH should act offensively taking out the most dangerous
targets first. These targets are not nececerily the magicians of the
opposition, but magicians are certainly targets that should be taken
into concideration.

Ok I think that this should clear things up a bit :)

> Jani Fikouras writes:
>
> > I agree this is probably GMing style, but I would never allow for someone
> > to run around with incr. attributes locked all over him. I might be lenient
> > with a detect enemies or even a invisibility spell, but incr. attribute is
> > out of the question. So (in my game) no mage can have that kind of stats.
>
> Yeah, I agree (like I said, the particular magician I used as an example has
> since found that spell locks and quickenings are uneconomical on the karma
> side of the equation). But really, a GM can't instantaneously fry ever focus
> the magician ever makes active, it's just not on. He can (and should in my
> view) destroy them, but it is unrealistic to do it immediately. And there is
> always masking to consider as well.

I see what you mean, I think that I have been very fortunate in that
department as we have some sort of understanding when it comes to such things.
We the GMs have made it quite clear what will eventually happen to such devices
and the players simply refrain from using them.

> > Dont get me wrong, but I think that a character designed to be a munchkin
> > can go a *very* long way with 100 karma. As a matter of fact I think that a
> > character should (generally) get required between 100-200 karma. But once
> > again this is IMHO.
>
> It really depends on style I guess. I feel that the characters in my
> campaigns could keep going up to well over 500 karma, but I _did_
> purposefully start them all off a little less powerful than the book
> suggests. But remember, one word - "Ivy". <grin>

Yeah, but instead of <grin> its more like *shrudder* :)

> > To tell you the truth I am the teams mage (when I do not GM, when I do
> > our shaman is the other GM) and I must admit that even though I am no
> > pacifist (nor do I play one) I always go for a defencive startegy when one
> > is called for. Thats when the opposition has magical support, if they
> > dont, well then its a totally different can'o worms.
>
> Can we look at it this way:
>
> Sammy: "Well, I seem to remeber that last bunch of corporate bozo scum we
> took on lasted about 0.02 of a second. And I didn't do anything. Why was
> that? Anyone got any ideas?"
>
> Rigger: "Well, um, if you remember, they didn't have magical backup. Our
> magician cleaned their clocks real good."
>
> Sammy: "Hey! I've got a great idea! How about, in future, we make sure that
> any magical opponents become our primary target. That way our magician can
> do the same to the mundanes that are left."
>
> Ring a bell? Magic, and magicians, are TERRIBLY effective.

Things dont exactly look like that in our game as the magician
*very rarely* gets to play. Let me repeat that *very rarely* :)
When sammies get 4-5 actions per turn there is generally very
litle left for the magician to do.

> > I agree on the whole, but I believe that even if one can make oneself
> > "less vulnerable" as you accurately pointed out, its still very hard
to
> > battle an opponet that uses "different" means.
>
> Yep. That's what I was getting at from the very beginning. Magicians can do
> horrible nasty things to the rest of the non magical population. And the
> only real way to counter this is another magician. Hence, magicians are
> more powerful than mundanes.

But using this logic sammies are more powerfull than mages as
they can always kick the crap out of them. And PAs are more powerfull
than sammies as they can whip/bash the shit out of them. :)
This logic is flawed...

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 35
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 14:33:01 +1000
Jani Fikouras writes:

> [Stuff on magic]

Yeah, I basically agree.

> But using this logic sammies are more powerfull than mages as
> they can always kick the crap out of them. And PAs are more powerfull
> than sammies as they can whip/bash the shit out of them. :)
> This logic is flawed...

Not so much flawed as way too overgeneralised. There are obviously many
circumstances where what I said does not apply, but there are usually (due
to the fact that magicians are a mere 1% of the population) more situations
where it does than where it doesn't.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 36
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 17:30:21 +0200
> > [Stuff on magic]
>
> Yeah, I basically agree.
>
> > But using this logic sammies are more powerfull than mages as
> > they can always kick the crap out of them. And PAs are more powerfull
> > than sammies as they can whip/bash the shit out of them. :)
> > This logic is flawed...
>
> Not so much flawed as way too overgeneralised. There are obviously many
> circumstances where what I said does not apply, but there are usually (due
> to the fact that magicians are a mere 1% of the population) more situations
> where it does than where it doesn't.

So what you are basically saying is that mages are powerfull because they
are so few :) no offense, but this sounds a bit funny.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 37
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 17:46:35 +1000
Jani Fikouras writes:

> So what you are basically saying is that mages are powerfull because they
> are so few :) no offense, but this sounds a bit funny.

Well, you said it yourself, magicians can do nasty things to mundanes to
which the mundanes have little or no defence. And most of the world is
mundane. Most magicians can therefore do nasty things to most of the rest of
the world with most of the rest of the world being able to do bugger all
about it. Sounds like a good way to define "more powerful" to me.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 38
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 17:36:10 +0200
> > So what you are basically saying is that mages are powerfull because they
> > are so few :) no offense, but this sounds a bit funny.
>
> Well, you said it yourself, magicians can do nasty things to mundanes to
> which the mundanes have little or no defence. And most of the world is
> mundane. Most magicians can therefore do nasty things to most of the rest of
> the world with most of the rest of the world being able to do bugger all
> about it. Sounds like a good way to define "more powerful" to me.

I dont think that anyone can ague with that, but this logic can be
used the other way too. Sammies can do nasty things to magicians
to which the magicains have litle or no defence. And most of the world is
mundane. So the magicians are not only vulnerable to mundanes they are
also heavily outnumbered.

Anyway this is obviously geting nowhere as its more a POV thing than
anything else, so I think that its time to drop it.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 39
From: Craig S Dohmen <dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 14:35:49 -0400
On Fri, 28 Apr 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Not in the NAGA. But the quote from the DLoH that I have only specifies
> Quickenings, not sustained spells. Did he make another ruling as to
> sustained spells?

I think I heard him say it at GenCon. And here I thought the NAGM would
clear up all these questions. :) Anyway, _if_ you allow grounding through
Quickenings, why not sustained spells?

> But you still do _something_. You are still channeling energy, you are still
> forming it to your on desires. Exactly the same with a Sustained Damaging
> Manipulation. You don't take drain repeatedly from any other type of

Not really the same. For something like a barrier, all you do is draw the
energy down from the astral, and form it into a wall. You don't even
really have to renew it, just maintain it. (At least, that's how I see it.)
Detection spells are even easier because you don't even have to "solidify"
the energy into a wall. For DM, though, you would have to constantly
draw more power to renew the spell effect from second to second.

--Craig
Message no. 40
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Mage bias
Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 15:57:58 +1000
Craig S Dohmen writes:

> I think I heard him say it at GenCon. And here I thought the NAGM would
> clear up all these questions. :) Anyway, _if_ you allow grounding through
> Quickenings, why not sustained spells?

That's what I reason. So I do. I as just arguing the rules.

> Not really the same. For something like a barrier, all you do is draw the
> energy down from the astral, and form it into a wall. You don't even
> really have to renew it, just maintain it. (At least, that's how I see it.)
> Detection spells are even easier because you don't even have to "solidify"
> the energy into a wall. For DM, though, you would have to constantly
> draw more power to renew the spell effect from second to second.

But you don't have to renew the effect of a DM. You, like with the Barrier
spell, just have to maintain it once it's started. You initially open the
astral "gate" to allow the energy to flow through to the real world, just
like you do with a Barrier spell, then you cop the +2 sustained penalty
while you keep the gate open. You don't have to keep recasting the spell
every few seconds.

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Mage bias, 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!