Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@***.IM.MED.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mage Hood
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 15:48:55 -0400
>have a look at the noticing spell casting, FASA don't say that you
>have to speek but from the noticing rules casting spells that have
>force near your magic attribute is probably helped by speaking and
>waving your arms about a bit. Ok its not strictly neccessary but i
>generally slap on a +2 for difficult conditions, eg trying to cast
>with your hands bound behind you as it is such an unusual position it
>would at least be distracting. But its gm discretion time here.

In my opinion, that is a bit steep. Why? Because the target number
modifier for "defeating" a geas is +2. If you don't have a speaking or
chanting geas, you should not need a +2 modifier to cast your spell.
The small gesture and power word(s) that some mages use when casting
spells, IMO, are not necessary, but are minor crutches used by most (it
just makes things easier), but they are NOT geas, and should not be
treated as such. Without a speaking/chanting geas, a mage should be
able to cast just as effectively with his/her mouth
bound/gagged/stuffed/full--whatever as with it empty and fully useable,
IMO.

As far as the hood covering your head, it would stop a mage from
astrally perceiving outside of it....you *can't* astrally perceive
through physical material.

I am not sure what the white noise would do. It may make it difficult
to concentrate (gm's discretion), but perhaps a willpower check would
suffice to see if it does or not.

Just thought I would plop my .02 cents in. :)

Justin :)
Message no. 2
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Mage Hood
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:13:10 GMT
Justin Pinnow writes

> >have a look at the noticing spell casting, FASA don't say that you
> >have to speek but from the noticing rules casting spells that have
> >force near your magic attribute is probably helped by speaking and
> >waving your arms about a bit. Ok its not strictly neccessary but i
> >generally slap on a +2 for difficult conditions, eg trying to cast
> >with your hands bound behind you as it is such an unusual position it
> >would at least be distracting. But its gm discretion time here.
>
> In my opinion, that is a bit steep. Why? Because the target number
> modifier for "defeating" a geas is +2. If you don't have a speaking or
> chanting geas, you should not need a +2 modifier to cast your spell.
> The small gesture and power word(s) that some mages use when casting
> spells, IMO, are not necessary, but are minor crutches used by most (it
> just makes things easier), but they are NOT geas, and should not be
> treated as such. Without a speaking/chanting geas, a mage should be
> able to cast just as effectively with his/her mouth
> bound/gagged/stuffed/full--whatever as with it empty and fully useable,
> IMO.
>
You have something of a point but this sort of thing generally occurs
at times when i have more important things to do than remeber
equivalences to odd rules. Fair enough just a brocken arm, hands tied
in front, simply gagged e.t.c. probably is not worth a penalty
(unless you get the one for broken geas) but some of the more
compormising things intelligent NPC's do to that captured PC are
pretty distracting/uncomfortable as well as merely restraining. I
tend to be wary of sloppily tying up captives as players are
inventive enough without giving them easy ways out.

In the end it comes down to does the GM think this particular
situation is far enough from the ordinary to rate extra modifiers or
not.

> Justin :)
>

Mark
Message no. 3
From: Justin Pinnow <jpinnow@***.IM.MED.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mage Hood
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 08:23:39 -0400
>You have something of a point but this sort of thing generally occurs
>at times when i have more important things to do than remeber
>equivalences to odd rules. Fair enough just a brocken arm, hands tied
>in front, simply gagged e.t.c. probably is not worth a penalty
>(unless you get the one for broken geas) but some of the more
>compormising things intelligent NPC's do to that captured PC are
>pretty distracting/uncomfortable as well as merely restraining. I
>tend to be wary of sloppily tying up captives as players are
>inventive enough without giving them easy ways out.

>In the end it comes down to does the GM think this particular
>situation is far enough from the ordinary to rate extra modifiers or
>not.

I agree. There is always the possibility of situational modifiers.
The part I really disagreed with was the fact that the mouth gag (tube,
whatever) created just as much of a target modifier as breaking a
verbal geas....just was too steep. The target modifier is of course up
to GM discretion.

Thanks!

Justin :)
Message no. 4
From: Phil Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Mage hood
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 14:46:11 +0100
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>

>>>Then what good is a mage hood? Actually, I always did wonder that.
>> Actually, the mage hood does lots of things that the SR game system says is
>> unnecessary: the gag tube for instance. Nobody needs to speak to cast magic,
>> unless they've got a speaking geas;
>
> Well, it'd be irritating, distracting, humiliating and (rarely)
> useful for those geased people. Isn't that enough?

Not really :) If you're keeping him captive then keep him unconcious
and if your interogatting him then a gag is a _real_ bright idea :)

>> the hood won't block your astral
>> perception I guess, because which organs do you use to astrally perceive?
>
> I think this argument is a furphy. Can you see through walls?
> Nope. You can't see through physical objects with astral perception.

The obvious retort is that I'm a sorcery adept and don't need to percieve
to start tossing spells :)

> Some people claim that a mage can astrally perceive with their eyes
> shut; this sounds ludicrous to me, and leads to contradictions like
> the above. What _is_ the justification for it, anyway?
>
> Blind mages can astrally perceive. Maybe the astral sight is a
> magical field effect localised to the place the optic nerve emerges,
> or something.

Yes I reckon you can percieve with eyes closed as your 'receptors' cannot
be the optic nerve as it has to be on the outside of your aura,
since you cannot see through your own aura. And if your aura cannot
does not extend beyond the hood then it won't extend beyond normal clothes
which could therefore be used as masking :) by covering your aura, or that
of your foci under your clothes.

>> Maybe it boils down to WYTIWYG... think that the hood won't allow you to
>> cast spells, and hey presto, and you can't cast spells...
>
> Have I ever commented on just how open to abuse the What You Think Is
> What You Get model is? It seems so obvious an invitation to munchkinism.

I'm not sure its was intended that literally, I think someone suggested
that you couldn't change the fundamental laws of astral space or magic
but rather the extent to which your understanding/link to astral space went
affects the extent of your limitations etc.. that wasn't very clear was it?
such as a shamans totem modifiers are an example of greater understanding
of empathy with
certain areas and more limited in others, and how the
greater link provided by initiation explains the higher powers... sort of..

> `Gee, my mad mage believes he's got 6 people in his head - so he can
> cast 6 spells per action, cause he thinks he can.'

Ahh but does he _really_ believe? :)
anyway he can, its called spell stacking now add +12to his TN and
watch him drop from the drain.

From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>

>>>Then what good is a mage hood? Actually, I always did wonder that.
>
> Also, as the hood material is opaque, you cannot "see" through it
> physically or astrally (in my game astral sight stem from the head, but
> not necessarily the eyes).

See above, note that I have not said you can see through them only
that sorcery adepts do not percieve to cast spells, and I believe the
aural synching is required with los so that the entity that is the spell
can see the target, this does not therefore require astral perception
for spell casting.

I suppose its like saying you don't need infravision to use a
heat seeking missile :)

> And finally, up to 90 dB of white noise will put a serious cramp
> in your day. I would call this a major target # penalty, on the order of +6.

but since the only time the mage needs to be awake is during interrogation
then it is almost as bad as the gag. as you cannot concentrate on
interogating and he/she cannot concentrate on answerring.

>> Maybe it boils down to WYTIWYG... think that the hood won't allow you to
>> cast spells, and hey presto, and you can't cast spells...
>
> Will you guys can it with the WYTIWYG thing. It's such a lame
> kludge, and is rapidly becoming the catch-all "well, it's magic and we
> don't want to think about how it works, so WYTIWYG."

Yes I agree that while there are valid aspects of it it is not a complete
explanation, actually its barely an explanation at all.

how about WYTIWYTYG - What You Think Is What You Think You Get.
Message no. 5
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Mage hood
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 15:10:17 +1000
>>>Then what good is a mage hood? Actually, I always did wonder that.
>> Actually, the mage hood does lots of things that the SR game system says is
>> unnecessary: the gag tube for instance.

Luke:

> Well, it'd be irritating, distracting, humiliating and (rarely)
> useful for those geased people. Isn't that enough?

Phil Hayward:

> Not really :) If you're keeping him captive then keep him unconcious
> and if your interogatting him then a gag is a _real_ bright idea :)

Relax, the gag would be removable. And you can keep mages captive
without keeping them unconscious. Remember that astral bodies can't
move through living things, and that astral bodies aren't deformable
like amoebae.

luke> Nope. You can't see through physical objects with astral perception.

ph> The obvious retort is that I'm a sorcery adept and don't need to percieve
ph> to start tossing spells :)

Irrelevant. You may not need full astral perception, but you still
need that sense that is used to synchonise auras. And if you can't
do this, you can't cast spells. Sorcery adepts can't cast spells
`blind', through walls, remember.

ph> Yes I reckon you can percieve with eyes closed as your 'receptors' cannot
ph> be the optic nerve as it has to be on the outside of your aura,

That was just an example. I'm suggesting it's `sympathetically'
related to the optic nerve, in the magical sense of the word.

ph> since you cannot see through your own aura.

Of course you can. Otherwise you'd have to say that the magical
sensory organ is outside your aura - which is a contradiction, you see?


Phil Hayward:

> I'm not sure [WYTIWYG] was intended that literally, I think someone suggested
> that you couldn't change the fundamental laws of astral space or magic
> but rather the extent to which your understanding/link to astral space went
> affects the extent of your limitations etc.. that wasn't very clear was it?
> such as a shamans totem modifiers

I see what you're trying to say, and it's true to that extent. But the
term `what you think' is so vague as to be deceptive. Ever since the
first person coined the seductive little term, it's been wielded with
gleeful imprecision and clouded all sorts of debates.

It's a poisonous viral meme (idea). Personally, I urge people to reject
it, and stop using it.

luke:
> `Gee, my mad mage believes he's got 6 people in his head - so he can
> cast 6 spells per action, cause he thinks he can.'

Phil Hayward:

> Ahh but does he _really_ believe? :)
> anyway he can, its called spell stacking now add +12to his TN and
> watch him drop from the drain.

Sure. And there are 6 different people casting the spell, so
why are you penalising them? (Insidious, these munchkins. :-)

Phil Hayward:
> that sorcery adepts do not percieve to cast spells, and I believe the
> aural synching is required with los

Yep.

> so that the entity that is the spell can see the target,

Nope. The mage does the synching of _her_ aura with all the targets.
(Yeah, all. Don't ask me how, I didn't write the rules. :-)

> this does not therefore require astral perception for spell casting.

True, but not relevant. LOS is required for the aural sync, which
is a lesser (not even named) magical ability.

> how about WYTIWYTYG - What You Think Is What You Think You Get.

Heh. And WYTYRIWYR - What You Think You're Resisting is What You Resist.

luke
Message no. 6
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mage hood
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 13:31:05 -0400
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Phil Hayward wrote:

>>>> I wrote...
> > Also, as the hood material is opaque, you cannot "see" through
it
> > physically or astrally (in my game astral sight stem from the head, but
> > not necessarily the eyes).

> See above, note that I have not said you can see through them only
> that sorcery adepts do not percieve to cast spells, and I believe the
> aural synching is required with los so that the entity that is the spell
> can see the target, this does not therefore require astral perception
> for spell casting.
>
> I suppose its like saying you don't need infravision to use a
> heat seeking missile :)

Aaaaaarrrgh. I think you missed the point. Even if you don't
*need* to use astral perception, you still can't cast spells with a hood
on anyway, because you can't *see* your target. No LOS, no spell (unless
it's touch required). You don't need infravision to use a heat seeking
missile, but try to use one while blindfolded sometime. That's the
equivalent of what's happening here. The hood blocks both normal and
astral sight, making spellcasting damn near impossible.

Marc
Message no. 7
From: cocheese <ZKLJ1@****.EAST-TENN-ST.EDU>
Subject: Re: Mage hood
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 15:36:53 EDT
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Luke:
> Well, it'd be irritating, distracting, humiliating and (rarely)
> useful for those geased people. Isn't that enough?
Phil Hayward:

> Not really :) If you're keeping him captive then keep him unconcious
> and if your interogatting him then a gag is a _real_ bright idea :)

I always use a tranq patch to be quickly followed by a trauma patch. :)

CoCheese
Message no. 8
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Mage hood
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 10:49:09 BST
CoCheese

> I always use a tranq patch to be quickly followed by a trauma patch. :)

argh, no, never use Tranq Patches, they're a piece of drek, even on a body
3 target, you're only assured of pulling 7 boxes for a tranw 10, hit him
with Narcoject if you want him unconscious, or Hyper if you want him
tractable.

(Or a brick if you want answers ;-) )

Phil (Renegade)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Mage hood, 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!