Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Magical Deckers
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:03:17 -0400
Hi all, just taking a breather from working on the New Seattle sourcebook to
let everyone know I'm still alive and still reading the list, and to ask a
quick question:

What does everyone think about magical characters using Computer skill and a
datajack to access the Matrix? Virtual Realities 1.0 made mention of the rule
about magical characters suffering a penalty in the Matrix, but it occurs to
me that this rules hasn't been mentioned anywhere in VR 2.0 or any other 2nd
edition product. So...

SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix? On the one hand, I
understand the desire to seperate magic and tech and prevent too many
"multi-class" characters in Shadowrun but, on the other hand, one of the
beauties of Shadowrun is it is NOT a class-based system, and I tend to think
the Karma requirements of being good at either magic or decking (especially
if the decking SOTA rules are invoked) are sufficient to keep most characters
from being very good at both, and if someone wants to play a character who
dabbles in a little magic and a little decking, who's to say no?

The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a Vehicle
Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?

Your thoughts are welcome.

Take care,
Steve K.
Message no. 2
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 11:47:46 -0700
Steve Kenson wrote:

> SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix? On the one hand, I
> understand the desire to seperate magic and tech and prevent too many
> "multi-class" characters in Shadowrun but, on the other hand, one of the
> beauties of Shadowrun is it is NOT a class-based system, and I tend to think
> the Karma requirements of being good at either magic or decking (especially
> if the decking SOTA rules are invoked) are sufficient to keep most characters
> from being very good at both, and if someone wants to play a character who
> dabbles in a little magic and a little decking, who's to say no?

I see no reason to penalize mages (or shamen or adepts) from using the
Matrix. It's tech, like anything else.
Given the Karma, nuyen, and Essence requirements to become skilled in
either (yet alone both), any further penalties seem entirely petty.

So long as it's clear that you can't manabolt someone in the Matrix
(though you could sculpt a 'prog to look like a bolt, sure).

IIRC, otaku were pretty much forbidden from becoming mages, but only
using the prioritization (A-E) system, right? What's the point cost of
being otaku? -- it would certainly seem easier to be mage/otaku with
the Companion, even if you toss fifty-odd build points down the sink for
it.

> The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a Vehicle
> Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?

It should be made blatantly obvious that a mage can't use a drone's
sensors for LOS. Again, there's a beefy penalty for getting a V-Rig
installed. Haven't read R2 yet, so I can't comment too much on mage/rig
interaction.


-Mb
Message no. 3
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:22:28 -0400
> From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
> Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 10:03 PM

<Snip>

> SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix? On the one
hand, I
> understand the desire to seperate magic and tech and prevent too many
> "multi-class" characters in Shadowrun but, on the other hand, one of the
> beauties of Shadowrun is it is NOT a class-based system, and I tend to
think
> the Karma requirements of being good at either magic or decking
(especially
> if the decking SOTA rules are invoked) are sufficient to keep most
characters
> from being very good at both, and if someone wants to play a character
who
> dabbles in a little magic and a little decking, who's to say no?

> The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a Vehicle
> Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?

> Your thoughts are welcome.

My opinion is simple: SR already penalizes "multi-classed" characters
within their system.

Now for the details:

Technology and magic DON'T mix (or at least not well). A mage can NEVER
use their magic in the matrix, and therefore has to invest a lot of karma
(as if they have lots of spare karma lying around anyway) into more skills
and lots of resources. A decker has to throw 20 points into magic (or
their A priority, depending on the chargen system you use) and has to learn
several skills in order to be a competent magician.

Of course, there are exceptions in the system. The Otaku and Cybermancy
come to mind. IMO, I don't like those ideas much because they (again, IMO)
violate the premise that magic and technology don't mix well. Thus, they
don't exist in my campaign (except as a fluke, if at all).

So, sure, let a PC take any skills and magical activity he/she desires at
chargen. Let him/her buy the skills desired throughout the game. I'm sure
you'll find that if (and it's a big if) a player wishes to have his/her PC
know how to deck AND how to wield the arcane energies of magic, the PC
won't become very good at much for quite awhile. This is the same argument
I use for Physical Magicians: Jack of all trades; master of none. That's
its own game balance. SR has it right this time around not including any
additional penalities for your "class". That idea is just plain weak and
pure justification for something they didn't work into the system well
enough the first time around.

Whoo, that was longer than I thought it would be. ;)

> Take care,
> Steve K.

Justin :)
Message no. 4
From: Timothy Little <t_little@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:33:33 +1100
At 10:03 PM 10/20/97 -0400, Steve wrote:

>SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix? On the one hand, I
>understand the desire to seperate magic and tech and prevent too many
>"multi-class" characters in Shadowrun but, on the other hand, one of the
>beauties of Shadowrun is it is NOT a class-based system, and I tend to think
>the Karma requirements of being good at either magic or decking (especially
>if the decking SOTA rules are invoked) are sufficient to keep most characters
>from being very good at both, and if someone wants to play a character who
>dabbles in a little magic and a little decking, who's to say no?

By the book, it appears there is no penalty. VR2.0 superseded VR1, and
mages have no penalty in VR2.

As a house rule, our group developed a mechanic similar to the
"ambidexterity" rule from FoF. There is a Special Skill, "Matrix
Perception", which represents the effort required to encompass two
completely different worldviews.

This skill is subtracted from your Magic Rating to find your total penalty
in the Matrix. If the skill is equal to or greater than your Magic, no
problem.

When you initiate, you are bringing yourself more in tune with magic, and so
it becomes harder and harder to mesh with the artificial world of the Matrix.


I agree that one of the best features of SR is that it is *not* class-based.

My main character is a high-grade initiate and hacker, but he uses a
tortoise so he's not really a "decker".

One of my other characters is a decker and magician though, but
deliberately designed to be less than perfectly competent. :-)
He has the Matrix Perception skill (and a delusion that he can do anything)
("Certainly, I can summon a spirit to conceal us all ..." <Magical chant>
"The
spirits of your fine city are most powerful, and do not wish to be disturbed
right now. I do think I shall respect their wishes. Shall we be running
now?")


>The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a Vehicle
>Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?

I think there should be a lesser penalty if any, since at least in this case
you're doing and perceiving something *real*.

IMG, this wasn't discussed, though one major PC was a magical rigger.

Maybe 1/2 Magic rating as penalty, reduced directly by the same skill?
(Call it something more general, though. Neural Interface Perception? )

--
Little One
Message no. 5
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:55:20 -0400
> From: Timothy Little <t_little@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU>
> Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 10:33 PM

> As a house rule, our group developed a mechanic similar to the
> "ambidexterity" rule from FoF. There is a Special Skill, "Matrix
> Perception", which represents the effort required to encompass two
> completely different worldviews.

<Snipetty snip>

My comment on this is "why"?

Just because you are magically active, you shouldn't have a harder time
understanding the world of the matrix. The time necessary to master the
matrix on top of your other skills might be a bit hard to stretch, however.
Also, karma is stretched even further to purchase the knowledge. IMO, the
karma and time contstraints wholly encompass the difficulty of mastering
both magic AND the matrix. Any further penalties (like the ones you
mentioned) appear to be class-based (i.e.: since you can understand magic,
you have a more difficult time understanding the world of the matrix).
Just let the existing system limit things for you. Trust me, it does this
just fine.

> Little One

Justin :)
Message no. 6
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:29:28 -0400
Steve Kenson once dared to write,

>Hi all, just taking a breather from working on the New Seattle sourcebook to
>let everyone know I'm still alive and still reading the list, and to ask a
>quick question:
>
>What does everyone think about magical characters using Computer skill and a
>datajack to access the Matrix? Virtual Realities 1.0 made mention of the rule
>about magical characters suffering a penalty in the Matrix, but it occurs to
>me that this rules hasn't been mentioned anywhere in VR 2.0 or any other 2nd
>edition product. So...
>
>SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix?

I like a penalty suffered by mages for having a forced perception
overlaid upon their astrally attuned senses. OTOH I feel the target
modifier is too high in VR1.0 . I prefer the target number determined by
the magician's magic rating. I think HALF the magic rating is enough of a
penalty though for decking and that's only for magicians with full Astral
Sight. Those with passive astral abilities (the adepts without Astral
Sight) should suffer less (1/3 magic rating) or none at all. I think it
should be a bit trickier but not crippling for decking attempts. The
Magicknet would be a very lonely place then only visited by tortoises.
The same thing for VCR's would be appropriate as well.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 7
From: adonis <adonis@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:18:11 -0400
[snip]
> Of course, there are exceptions in the system. The Otaku and Cybermancy
> come to mind. IMO, I don't like those ideas much because they (again,
IMO)
[snip]

Um...what's "The Otaku" ? Remember, I just started playing SR....be gentle
:)

SOOiCydE
Message no. 8
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:47:45 -0400
> I like a penalty suffered by mages for having a forced perception
>overlaid upon their astrally attuned senses. OTOH I feel the target
>modifier is too high in VR1.0 . I prefer the target number determined by
>the magician's magic rating. I think HALF the magic rating is enough of a
>penalty though for decking and that's only for magicians with full Astral
>Sight. Those with passive astral abilities (the adepts without Astral
>Sight) should suffer less (1/3 magic rating) or none at all. I think it
>should be a bit trickier but not crippling for decking attempts. The
>Magicknet would be a very lonely place then only visited by tortoises.
> The same thing for VCR's would be appropriate as well.

I have to agree with MC23 here on this one. Having the ability to cross over
from one aspect of the game that you're totally supposed to be at odd with
tends to unbalance a game rather quickly if the decker or the mage isn't
"special" anymore because you've got the decker/mage/rigger combo over in
the corner.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 9
From: Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:00:28 -0700
---Steve Kenson wrote:
>
> What does everyone think about magical characters using Computer
skill and a
> datajack to access the Matrix? Virtual Realities 1.0 made mention of
the rule
> about magical characters suffering a penalty in the Matrix, but it
occurs to
> me that this rules hasn't been mentioned anywhere in VR 2.0 or any
other 2nd
> edition product. So...

<snip>

I was a stringent proponent of Magic being added as a modifier while
in the Matrix when the idea was introduced in 1st edition. I liked the
idea of seperating magic and technology. I could see that Magicians
(and especially Shamans) might have a harder time coping with a purely
artificial universe.

However, after looking at the reality of the karma sink being a
compitent and powerful magician becomes, and then likewise for a
decker, I see the dual-class archetype as self regulating.

I guess I no longer see the need of a modifier in the Matrix for the
magically active as a means of regulating the "jack-of-all-trades"
characters. I would expect the idea of the artifical universe concept
to be something present in roleplaying the character though
(especially shamans).

> The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a
Vehicle
> Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?

I would see this as feasible, even more so than the Mage/Decker as it
doesn't involve artificial reality.

Why do I picture a dwarven beaver shaman going crazy with his
bulldozer? :o)

-== Loki ==-
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fearless Leader of the Shadowrun Trading Card Game Mailing List
SRCard FAQ: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/srstuff/tcgfaq1.htm
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr
SRTCG trade lists last updated 10/11/97
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com
Message no. 10
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:02:39 -0500
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:03:17 -0400 Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
writes:

<<Hi all, just taking a breather from working on the New Seattle
sourcebook to let everyone know I'm still alive and still reading the
list, and to ask a quick question:>>


Hey, Steve! It's good to know FASA hasn't worked you to death (yet:)


<<What does everyone think about magical characters using Computer skill
and a datajack to access the Matrix? Virtual Realities 1.0 made mention
of the rule about magical characters suffering a penalty in the Matrix,
but it occurs to me that this rules hasn't been mentioned anywhere in VR
2.0 or any other 2nd edition product. So...>>


Uh-oh...here it comes :)


<<SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix? On the one
hand, I understand the desire to seperate magic and tech and prevent too
many "multi-class" characters in Shadowrun but, on the other hand, one of
the beauties of Shadowrun is it is NOT a class-based system, and I tend
to think the Karma requirements of being good at either magic or decking
(especially if the decking SOTA rules are invoked) are sufficient to keep
most characters from being very good at both, and if someone wants to
play a character who dabbles in a little magic and a little decking,
who's to say no?>>


I haven't got any real problem with it, since it doesn't often come up.
Neither do I have a problem with assessing a penalty for the poor jerk
wagemage who is so deep into magic that his teeny little brain doesn't
understand computers quite right. If you go with a penalty, you should
probably halve it in Cool ASIST, and blast it totally in tortoise mode
(assuming that such a penatly represents a difficulty in the processing
of such information by the would-be mage/decker's brain). It shouldn't be
based on the Magic Rating of the character, IMO.

Further thought, however leads down the same path as you: realistically,
this difference in mindsets in best demonstrated by a lack of skill (or
the inaptitude flaw at worst).


<<The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a Vehicle
Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?>>


Probably not; not if the VCR works out the character's instinctual
hindbrain, such instincts aren't going to be based very much on the use
of magic (although an instinctual 'cast Barrier' as bullets fly towards
the character will probably screw something up). Take my comments on
Riggers with a grain of salt, though, I have not yet seen RBB2.


<<Your thoughts are welcome.>>


Still?! :)

--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
Message no. 11
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 01:03:01 -0400
Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM> wrote:
>IIRC, otaku were pretty much forbidden from becoming mages, but only
>using the prioritization (A-E) system, right? What's the point cost of
>being otaku? -- it would certainly seem easier to be mage/otaku with
>the Companion, even if you toss fifty-odd build points down the sink for
>it.

No, so far as I know, otaku are forbidden from being magically active PERIOD.
Under any character creation system. From their point of view, they ARE
magical, the mages and shamans of the Matrix, and that precludes otaku from
learning any other kind of "magic" just as surely as a shaman can't turn
around and decide to become a mage.

FWIW, I would probably charge pretty close to the same BPs for being an otaku
as being a magician or an adept (20-15). Your milage may vary.

And just for the record, I hope to make it clear that the different magical
ability options in the Build Point system of character creation in the
Companion CANNOT be combined. You can't pay 30 BPs and be two different kinds
of adept in one unless your GM has a house rule that says you can. I'd also
REALLY like to clear up the stuff with the Magical Talent Edges and Physad
"Force Points" (maybe in the Big Book o' Magic next year...)

Steve K.
Message no. 12
From: Rick St Jean <Platinum@*****.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 01:28:31 -0400
Steve Kenson wrote:
>
> Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM> wrote:
> >IIRC, otaku were pretty much forbidden from becoming mages, but only
> >using the prioritization (A-E) system, right? What's the point cost of
> >being otaku? -- it would certainly seem easier to be mage/otaku with
> >the Companion, even if you toss fifty-odd build points down the sink for
> >it.
>
> No, so far as I know, otaku are forbidden from being magically active PERIOD.
> Under any character creation system. From their point of view, they ARE
> magical, the mages and shamans of the Matrix, and that precludes otaku from
> learning any other kind of "magic" just as surely as a shaman can't turn
> around and decide to become a mage.
>
> FWIW, I would probably charge pretty close to the same BPs for being an otaku
> as being a magician or an adept (20-15). Your milage may vary.
>
> And just for the record, I hope to make it clear that the different magical
> ability options in the Build Point system of character creation in the
> Companion CANNOT be combined. You can't pay 30 BPs and be two different kinds
> of adept in one unless your GM has a house rule that says you can. I'd also
> REALLY like to clear up the stuff with the Magical Talent Edges and Physad
> "Force Points" (maybe in the Big Book o' Magic next year...)
>
> Steve K

so what does this mean now. are magic technology no longer the separate
paths that they once were. If mages start delving in to the matrix...
what's to stop them from designing spells to assist them?? I'm not
taking a stand on either side... I just pointing out some
vulnerabilities. If a mage wants to deck... I would like to see a
penalty. to overcome this penalty I would allow the mage to spend
points on some kinda enhanced centering skill. This would then reduce
the target number of penalties in the matrix. This would be another
Karma sink hole. This makes the character also look at where his/her
priorities lie concerning talents.

an addage to this.... I have been searching around looking for more
edges and flaws. I am compiling a master volume for my library. if
anyone wants to contribute please do so. even trivial ideas may lead to
larger and greater things.
"And that's all I got to say about that." - Forest Gump

Cracking the seal of the second volume from the library of:
Platinum
Message no. 13
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:05:25 +1000
I promised myself I wouldn't buy into this one (and thus sent my
response to Steve privately) but I can't help myself.

> I have to agree with MC23 here on this one. Having the ability to cross over
> from one aspect of the game that you're totally supposed to be at odd with

*Why* are you totally supposed to be at odds with it? Yes, I know, I
know, magic is magic. Still, these Shadowrun mages *grow up* in a
completely technological society. They are immersed from birth in
technologies that seem a perfectly normal part of life, instead of
wondrous and futuristic as they seem to us, 61 years earlier.

I can, perhaps, sanction penalties for *shamans* in the matrix - the
world of the shaman is a holistic, nature-inspired world for the most
part. But hermetic mages are meant to be scientific and methodical in
their outlook, and as such I can see no valid reason as to why they
should be penalised further.

Case in point: I was playing a sorceror adept/rigger. She's a girl of
the streets, who learnt her magic by rote - feel like *this*, and the
guy on the opposite street corner decides to give you some spare cred.
Etc. She can't summon spirits or elementals, she can't see into the
astral plane; she's totally un-mystical. She's also a complete
techno-weenie, loving her vehicles more than anything (and showing a
keen interest in decking, too.) She's taken a massive hit to her magic
already, having had a rather large amount of cyber implanted (VCR,
Encephalon, eyes, etc etc...) not to mention the Karma drain from having
to know an awful lot about a lot of different vehicles *plus* keep her
magic up to par. Why the hell should she be penalised any further? Not
all the magically capable are fetish-wearing mystics; if you limit them
to this mould you're limiting a lot of the flexibility in Shadowrun,
which is what I personally like best about it.

> tends to unbalance a game rather quickly if the decker or the mage isn't
> "special" anymore because you've got the decker/mage/rigger combo over in
> the corner.

Ah... but they're not going to be very good at any of those things, are
they?

Not only that, but let's face it, a lot of the time there's not much for
(say) a decker to do. It's a common problem in many playing groups and
is one of the reasons why so many GMs don't allow PC deckers. If the
decker is also a rigger, who's to complain? If there's a decker/mage and
a totally-dedicated mage-only mage, who's going to be the better mana
chucker?

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 14
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:18:16 +1000
Weird me, replying to my post. I just spotted a few things I want to
clarify.

> I promised myself I wouldn't buy into this one (and thus sent my
> response to Steve privately) but I can't help myself.

I of course meant that I sent my *original* response to Steve privately;
*Simpson forehead slap*

> I can, perhaps, sanction penalties for *shamans* in the matrix - the
> world of the shaman is a holistic, nature-inspired world for the most

I meant to add that I think such penalties should be GM-determined and
roleplaying imposed, not from sheer mathematical game mechanics.

> Case in point: I was playing a sorceror adept/rigger. She's a girl of
> the streets, who learnt her magic by rote - feel like *this*, and the
> guy on the opposite street corner decides to give you some spare cred.
> Etc. She can't summon spirits or elementals, she can't see into the
> astral plane; she's totally un-mystical. She's also a complete

Allow me to further point out her lack of mysticism; she knows nothing
about mysticism, or Magic Theory, and in fact has an Incompetent flaw in
Magic Theory. She doesn't care why or how it works, it just does.

> magic up to par. Why the hell should she be penalised any further? Not
> all the magically capable are fetish-wearing mystics; if you limit them
> to this mould you're limiting a lot of the flexibility in Shadowrun,
> which is what I personally like best about it.

Clarification here: I really mean the "mould" in terms of character
stereotypes. To say that all mages are technophobes who can't
competently interact with the matrix like anyone else, but require
special training above and beyond normal training, is to stereotype and
thus limit a very flexible character archetype.

If you absolutely *must* have a numbers-based penalty, I suggest that it
should be Magic Rating - Computer Skill. Thus, a mage who's put lots of
time and effort into the Matrix suffers no penalty, but doesn't have to
waste Karma on an irrelevant and "forced-for-the-sake-of-game-mechanics"
special skill like Matrix Centring, or Neural Interfacing, or whatever.
This penalty could be adjusted to, say, (2xMagic) - Computer for
shamans, who are most uncomfortable with the Matrix, and down to
(1/2Magic) - Computer for those with a magic attribute who have no
direct access to the Astral plane - PhysAds without Astral Perception,
Sorceror Adepts, etc.

I still don't like it, though, and i don't think Shadowrun needs it.
Artificial divisions, to me, spoil the feel of Shadowrun.

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 15
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 02:17:51 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-21 01:29:36 EDT, you write:

> No, so far as I know, otaku are forbidden from being magically active
PERIOD.
> > Under any character creation system. From their point of view, they ARE
> > magical, the mages and shamans of the Matrix, and that precludes otaku
> from
> > learning any other kind of "magic" just as surely as a shaman can't
turn
> > around and decide to become a mage.

There was also something else I forgot to mention, here in our home game,
otaku can be magically active, they are restricted in that they can only be
adepts and not full mages/shamans.
Message no. 16
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 02:49:40 -0400
>> I have to agree with MC23 here on this one. Having the ability to cross over
>> from one aspect of the game that you're totally supposed to be at odd with
>
>*Why* are you totally supposed to be at odds with it? Yes, I know, I
>know, magic is magic. Still, these Shadowrun mages *grow up* in a
>completely technological society. They are immersed from birth in
>technologies that seem a perfectly normal part of life, instead of
>wondrous and futuristic as they seem to us, 61 years earlier.


I knew this was going to be coming at me from this particular direction.
I'll elaborate. Way back when the game first the burned out mage stuck me as
somebody who had bartered away his magic with the addition of cyber. He
regretted his choice and turned bitter. This was a intrinsic part of the
game the idea of losing the magical edge when one bartered it away with
cyber eventually losing it all in old age as the major mojo burnt out the
human body. These technologies you mention are all outside of a body and
don't cost essence. A trideo is one thing but installing a bit of equipment
that disrupts the body and interferes with the gathering of magical energy
is something else entirely.


>I can, perhaps, sanction penalties for *shamans* in the matrix - the
>world of the shaman is a holistic, nature-inspired world for the most
>part. But hermetic mages are meant to be scientific and methodical in
>their outlook, and as such I can see no valid reason as to why they
>should be penalised further.

Why punish a shaman over a hermetic? Penalized further when a character
chooses to spread themselves thin so be it.

>Case in point: I was playing a sorceror adept/rigger. She's a girl of
>the streets, who learnt her magic by rote - feel like *this*, and the
>guy on the opposite street corner decides to give you some spare cred.
>Etc. She can't summon spirits or elementals, she can't see into the
>astral plane; she's totally un-mystical. She's also a complete
>techno-weenie, loving her vehicles more than anything (and showing a
>keen interest in decking, too.) She's taken a massive hit to her magic
>already, having had a rather large amount of cyber implanted (VCR,
>Encephalon, eyes, etc etc...) not to mention the Karma drain from having
>to know an awful lot about a lot of different vehicles *plus* keep her
>magic up to par. Why the hell should she be penalised any further? Not
>all the magically capable are fetish-wearing mystics; if you limit them
>to this mould you're limiting a lot of the flexibility in Shadowrun,
>which is what I personally like best about it.


Then why isn't she just a street rigger instead of a rigger/adept to boot
unless it was just for the added ability to "chuck spells". Having the
decker/rigger/mage combo as you've explained it just made the need for a
pure decker, rigger or mage significantly less. Why play a decker when the
group already has the nightmare combo over there sitting at the bar.

>Ah... but they're not going to be very good at any of those things, are
>they?

Depends on the way a particular campaign is being run. The difference
between a skill at a 6 isn't to far from being at

>Not only that, but let's face it, a lot of the time there's not much for
>(say) a decker to do. It's a common problem in many playing groups and
>is one of the reasons why so many GMs don't allow PC deckers. If the
>decker is also a rigger, who's to complain? If there's a decker/mage and
>a totally-dedicated mage-only mage, who's going to be the better mana
>chucker?

I've never had a problem integrating a decker into a game especially after
VR 2.0 came out and I got Gurth's host generator. As for the decker/rigger.
The two professions are at least grounded in technology. The leap from cars
to computers isn't nearly as far as the leap from magic to virtual reality.
As for the mana chucker, like I said spread yourself this thin, deal with
it. You choose to be a Jack of all trades. If you still think you're hurting
run out and get a focus.

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 17
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 02:52:49 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-21 01:29:36 EDT, you write:

> No, so far as I know, otaku are forbidden from being magically active
PERIOD.
> > Under any character creation system. From their point of view, they ARE
> > magical, the mages and shamans of the Matrix, and that precludes otaku
> from
> > learning any other kind of "magic" just as surely as a shaman can't
turn
> > around and decide to become a mage.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but otaku and the resonance are not magical in
nature, it is just the easiest way to describe them and their capabilities.
Message no. 18
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 02:58:07 -0400
>I meant to add that I think such penalties should be GM-determined and
>roleplaying imposed, not from sheer mathematical game mechanics.


The mechanics should reflect balance however. Much like a lot of people felt
when the new meta's came out ahead just because they are strange looking.

>Allow me to further point out her lack of mysticism; she knows nothing
>about mysticism, or Magic Theory, and in fact has an Incompetent flaw in
>Magic Theory. She doesn't care why or how it works, it just does.


This is a self imposed limitation and not to mention a way to save on the
karma points. ;-)

>Clarification here: I really mean the "mould" in terms of character
>stereotypes. To say that all mages are technophobes who can't
>competently interact with the matrix like anyone else, but require
>special training above and beyond normal training, is to stereotype and
>thus limit a very flexible character archetype.

There's a big difference between being able to operate the matrix though a
pc as opposed to jacking in. Essence is supposed to be more valuable to them
than just something to be tossed aside for convince.

>If you absolutely *must* have a numbers-based penalty, I suggest that it
>should be Magic Rating - Computer Skill. Thus, a mage who's put lots of
>time and effort into the Matrix suffers no penalty, but doesn't have to
>waste Karma on an irrelevant and "forced-for-the-sake-of-game-mechanics"
>special skill like Matrix Centring, or Neural Interfacing, or whatever.
>This penalty could be adjusted to, say, (2xMagic) - Computer for
>shamans, who are most uncomfortable with the Matrix, and down to
>(1/2Magic) - Computer for those with a magic attribute who have no
>direct access to the Astral plane - PhysAds without Astral Perception,
>Sorceror Adepts, etc.

This is a very nice compromise. I like it a lot. ;-)


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 19
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:05:47 +1000
> somebody who had bartered away his magic with the addition of cyber. He
> regretted his choice and turned bitter. This was a intrinsic part of the
> game the idea of losing the magical edge when one bartered it away with

That's how *one* burned-out mage might go, when he had no power left. To
say that all mages *will* slide the whole way down the slippery slope to
burn-out, and/or that they will *all* react like that, is too much of a
blanket statement when you are dealing with characters who are meant to
be real people. Every individual reacts differently to pressure and to
loss; to say that every character will follow the same path is
unreasonable.

I understand that that's not what you were necessarily trying to do;
but not every mage is going to react like the burned-out mage archetype
in the book.

> don't cost essence. A trideo is one thing but installing a bit of equipment
> that disrupts the body and interferes with the gathering of magical energy
> is something else entirely.

Absolutely. But mages already pay the penalty once over, in the loss of
their Magic rating. I don't think they should have to pay twice.

Also, I was talking about technology in terms of the Matrix, rather than
cyberware.

> >part. But hermetic mages are meant to be scientific and methodical in
> >their outlook, and as such I can see no valid reason as to why they
> >should be penalised further.
>
> Why punish a shaman over a hermetic? Penalized further when a character
> chooses to spread themselves thin so be it.

My point is that they're already under enough penalties - loss of magic,
greater Karma drain etc. - why apply another one?

> >magic up to par. Why the hell should she be penalised any further? Not
> >all the magically capable are fetish-wearing mystics; if you limit them
> >to this mould you're limiting a lot of the flexibility in Shadowrun,
> >which is what I personally like best about it.
>
> Then why isn't she just a street rigger instead of a rigger/adept to boot
> unless it was just for the added ability to "chuck spells". Having the

She certainly wasn't designed as a number combo; I liked the concept of
a rigger/mage, and it fitted the personality I had in mind for her.

> decker/rigger/mage combo as you've explained it just made the need for a
> pure decker, rigger or mage significantly less. Why play a decker when the
> group already has the nightmare combo over there sitting at the bar.

Heh... well, we've never had more than one person wanting to be a decker
at any one time, except once. Then it was my boyfriend and I; I was
playing a Mafia decker/negotiator; he was playing a streetwise
decker/sam. Your arguments apply to any 'multi-class' combo equally, not
just a decker/mage. "Why play a sam? We already have a decker/sammy,
I'll just be useless." If you want each character to fit into a nice
little niche - one mage, one samurai, one shaman, one rigger, one
physad, then so be it, but I don't think it's necessarily the way
everyone has to play.. In real life peoples' abilities and aptitudes
overlap; I find more realism in Shadowrun when the same thing happens.

"Oh, dang, I'm not going to play a Sorceror Adept, because we already
have a Mage who can do everything I can do and more."

> >Ah... but they're not going to be very good at any of those things, are
> >they?
>
> Depends on the way a particular campaign is being run. The difference
> between a skill at a 6 isn't to far from being at

Pardon?

> I've never had a problem integrating a decker into a game especially after
> VR 2.0 came out and I got Gurth's host generator. As for the decker/rigger.
> The two professions are at least grounded in technology. The leap from cars
> to computers isn't nearly as far as the leap from magic to virtual reality.

So? We're not discussing the viability of the decker/rigger combo here;
we're meant to be discussing mage/deckers.

> As for the mana chucker, like I said spread yourself this thin, deal with
> it. You choose to be a Jack of all trades. If you still think you're hurting
> run out and get a focus.

Yes, you *choose* to be a Jack of all trades. To me, Jack of all trades
means:

"I'm a carpenter *and* an electrician. It means I can wire up parts of
houses while I'm building them, and it saves me a lot of time. Sure, I'm
not as good a carpenter as my cousin Billy, who's lived and breathed
sawdust ever since he was fourteen, but I'm good enough to get the job
done."

NOT

"I'm a carpenter *and* an electrician, but for some unexplainable reason
the power cables don't like the sawdust on my hands and I keep getting
electric shocks."

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 20
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:11:49 +1000
> >I meant to add that I think such penalties should be GM-determined and
> >roleplaying imposed, not from sheer mathematical game mechanics.
>
> The mechanics should reflect balance however. Much like a lot of people felt
> when the new meta's came out ahead just because they are strange looking.

I don't know exactly what your point is there.

I'll admit that I don't like the new metas, though.

> >Allow me to further point out her lack of mysticism; she knows nothing
> >about mysticism, or Magic Theory, and in fact has an Incompetent flaw in
> >Magic Theory. She doesn't care why or how it works, it just does.
>
> This is a self imposed limitation and not to mention a way to save on the
> karma points. ;-)

True, it saves me Karma points - though I resent your implication that
I'm a min-maxer. The reason *why* I chose that, was that it fits the
character and her background. To have her as good as magical theory as a
graduate from MIT&M would be more munchkinish, to my mind. As far as I
could see, in game terms I had no justification for giving her a Magic
Theory skill, and in character terms she didn't give a frag about the
whys and wherefores...

> >Clarification here: I really mean the "mould" in terms of character
> >stereotypes. To say that all mages are technophobes who can't
> >competently interact with the matrix like anyone else, but require
> >special training above and beyond normal training, is to stereotype and
> >thus limit a very flexible character archetype.
>
> There's a big difference between being able to operate the matrix though a
> pc as opposed to jacking in. Essence is supposed to be more valuable to them
> than just something to be tossed aside for convince.

For what? Convenience, perhaps? I fail to see your point here...
(perhaps I'm misunderstanding you; the above point doesn't read very
clearly to me.)

> >This penalty could be adjusted to, say, (2xMagic) - Computer for
> >shamans, who are most uncomfortable with the Matrix, and down to
> >(1/2Magic) - Computer for those with a magic attribute who have no
> >direct access to the Astral plane - PhysAds without Astral Perception,
> >Sorceror Adepts, etc.
>
> This is a very nice compromise. I like it a lot. ;-)

As I say; I don't like the entire idea, but it's the best of a bad
bunch. It means that the mage can negate their Matrix penalties just be
learning more *about* the Matrix, rather than spending even more Karma
on a rather contrived-seeming skill. In addition, it rather reflects the
new rigging/decking penalties in R2; the rigger suffers a penalty in the
Matrix which is still easily avoidable.

I still don't like the whole idea of mages gettng a penalty in the
Matrix though. It smacks to me rather of imposing a forced game balance
which has no basis in game reality, as I see it, and is an unneccessary
balance anyway (in that mage deckers are never going to outclass pure
mages or pure deckers; they don't need any help to hold them back.)

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 21
From: Ray & Tamara <macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:52:48 +1000
Steve Kenson wrote:
> SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix? On the one hand,
I
> understand the desire to seperate magic and tech and prevent too many
> "multi-class" characters in Shadowrun but, on the other hand, one of the
> beauties of Shadowrun is it is NOT a class-based system, and I tend to
think
> the Karma requirements of being good at either magic or decking (especially
> if the decking SOTA rules are invoked) are sufficient to keep most
characters
> from being very good at both, and if someone wants to play a character who
> dabbles in a little magic and a little decking, who's to say no?

I really hated that rule in VR1.0. I think that the whole concept of
penalties for mages is just a hang over from the AD&D class idea. Lady
Jestyr got it right when she said that Shadowrun doesn't need that artificial
boundary that this rule makes.

> The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a Vehicle
> Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?

See above. If they want to take a slug on their magic, and fork over the
karma to be a good rigger, more luck to them.

NightRain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 22
From: Ray & Tamara <macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:54:48 +1000
Platinum wrote:
> so what does this mean now. are magic technology no longer the separate
> paths that they once were. If mages start delving in to the matrix...
> what's to stop them from designing spells to assist them?? I'm not
> taking a stand on either side... I just pointing out some

VR stands for _Virtual_ Reality. A mage categorically cannot cast spells in
the matrix, as there is nothing to cast spells at. Just processing going on
in a computer that s/he can't even see.

NightRain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 23
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:43:29 +0100
adonis said on 0:18/21 Oct 97...

> Um...what's "The Otaku" ? Remember, I just started playing SR....be gentle
> :)

Otaku are deckers who don't use a cyberdeck but can still access the
matri, in many cases better even thanthey could _with_ a deck. For the
full rules and background, you'll need to buy/borrow Virtual Realities
2.0, though, as there's a lot more to them than can be explained in a few
bytes.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside you head.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 24
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 20:15:37 -0700
> so what does this mean now. are magic technology no longer the separate
> paths that they once were. If mages start delving in to the matrix...
> what's to stop them from designing spells to assist them??

This is a pretty good point, and one I've never been all too clear on.
Does a Matrix-cruising mage benefit from having an Increase Intelligence
+4 spell put on him? I suppose this overlaps with the magical-cybered
Initiative boosts..

OTOH, it's pretty obvious that you can't manabolt Black IC, or even cast
a Mindlink on theDecker you just bumped into (unless he happens to be
standing next to you in RL). I'm pretty sure all the modifiers are
already in place - TN modifier for doing something in RL while jacked
in, a further TN mod for casting while being distracted -- this is one
of the few areas where I can see a lot of penalties doubling up.

> I'm not
> taking a stand on either side... I just pointing out some
> vulnerabilities. If a mage wants to deck... I would like to see a
> penalty.

Why? After all the money, Karma, and Essence sunk into learning to
deck, why?

> to overcome this penalty I would allow the mage to spend
> points on some kinda enhanced centering skill. This would then reduce
> the target number of penalties in the matrix. This would be another
> Karma sink hole. This makes the character also look at where his/her
> priorities lie concerning talents.

I really can't agree with this at all. You impose one artificial
penalty, and then create an artificial skill to counter it.

There are other ways to achieve the same effect. A technophobic mage?
I'm sure there are plenty, but it's best covered by the Companion flaws
("Inaptitude in Decking") rather than a slew of house rules. And I
guess that's where the real argument lies: it's always possible to make
up house rules, to adjust the gameworld to your particular tastes.

Frankly - awright, grumpily too -- I don't see why FASA should mention a
penalty for mages at all, even as an optional rule. It sets a bad
precedent.


-Mb
Message no. 25
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 07:56:55 +0000
> Hi all, just taking a breather from working on the New Seattle sourcebook to
> let everyone know I'm still alive and still reading the list, and to ask a
> quick question:

Great....can you put me in as flavor Text? That's SwiftOne, one
word. :)

> SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix? On the one hand, I

There are only about two billion other responses, but I'll just make
my vote heard.

No, there should not be penalties. The costs involved in getting
multiple skills, different sets of equipment, contacts, and so forth
are more than enough. Plus, "multi-class" characters significantly
add to the shadowrun universe, and should not be penalized.

As for the argument that mages/shamans have to think in different
ways to manipulate magic than a decker thinks, I agree. But I know
lots of people who do something very artistic, as well as something
very factual and dry. It's a role-playing note only, and should not
have unneeded rules interfereing.

Ditto for riggers. Although I like the rigger/decker problems....a
nice explanation, and a fairly easy solution.

-=SwiftOne=-
(one word :) )
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 26
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:03:27 -0400
Mike Bobroff once dared to write,

>Sorry to burst your bubble, but otaku and the resonance are not magical in
>nature, it is just the easiest way to describe them and their capabilities.

And are you so sure? I think now it has devolved into a
philosophical debate in most campaigns (the players and in the game) if
Otaku are just a new expression of magical talent. Since their abilities
work on a level the standard magician can not understand, there can be no
simple answer. This is complicated by the rarity and newness of the Otaku
phenomenon so there has been no real studies into their nature. Hell, at
this point they are still at the urban myth level and the oldest
practitioners have yet to reach 20.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 27
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:10:07 +0000
> I have to agree with MC23 here on this one. Having the ability to cross over
> from one aspect of the game that you're totally supposed to be at odd with
> tends to unbalance a game rather quickly if the decker or the mage isn't
> "special" anymore because you've got the decker/mage/rigger combo over in
> the corner.

And I would disagree....Your main argument seems to be game balance.
But if you get that rigger/mage/decker combo, what do you have?

Let's see...two datajacks and a VCR is a minimum of 2.2 Essence.

you need vehicle skills, decking, and a set of magical skills.

Vehicles, a deck....if you're a mage you'll need libraries, summoning
materials. Best forget enchanting, you haven't the time or money.
Same goes for writing/building your own vehicles and/or
deck/programs. That means everything costs a fortune.

Sounds like you have a mage who can cast no spells over force 3, has
a deck with MPCP of about....5. And only owns one or two vehicles
and drones. Plus your skills can't be much above 4 average to
cover all of these.

It sounds like:
1) This character has already been penalized
2) Few people will try this, and those willing to should not be
further penalized.

I mean, the real disadvantage to this character is a role-playing
aspect....he has to be a dillatante, a litteral jack of all trades
and master of none. when he gets 5 Karma, where does it go? Save
for initiation? Fill up his weak supply of spells? Improve the many
skills he is weak in? How long will it be until he is good at any of
these?

What advantages does he have? Okay, he is a rigger....but does he
have the vehicles and the upgraded gear to make the most of that?
No? hmmm.. He's a decker, how high is that decking skill? How much
time and money can he devote to writing programs and making his deck?
How decent is the deck he has? Not much. hmmm. He is a mage...
how well does he summon that force 6 spirit? No successes? How
about that large array of spells? Not so large, huh? Well, so he
mana clouds that swarm of insect spirits.....Only a force 3? THat's
a shame.

-=SwiftOne=-

Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 28
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:12:29 +0000
> >IIRC, otaku were pretty much forbidden from becoming mages, but only
> >using the prioritization (A-E) system, right? What's the point cost of
> >being otaku? -- it would certainly seem easier to be mage/otaku with
> >the Companion, even if you toss fifty-odd build points down the sink for
> >it.
>
> No, so far as I know, otaku are forbidden from being magically active PERIOD.
> Under any character creation system. From their point of view, they ARE
> magical, the mages and shamans of the Matrix, and that precludes otaku from
> learning any other kind of "magic" just as surely as a shaman can't turn
> around and decide to become a mage.

I wrote to FASAMike about the otaku deal, and he said he couldn't
give the build point cost because the whole concept of Otaku was
being rethought. hmm..

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 29
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:18:30 -0400
Lady Jestyr once dared to write,

<snip a lot so I can cut to the chase>
>Absolutely. But mages already pay the penalty once over, in the loss of
>their Magic rating. I don't think they should have to pay twice.

The penalty for the essence cost of a datajack is a slap on the
wrist. For a combat mage (light cyber) it is along the lines of a
freebie. For just one point of magic a combat mage (and scary still the
combat adept) can get a Datajack for decking along with the classic
Smartlink and Cyber Eyes. That one point of essence lost is barely
noticed. If that same character is a combat adept with an A priority in
Resources he is pretty much free to run amuck.
Then there is the possibility that Geasa and magic loss will be
handled differently with SR3 so the nature of the essence loss would then
be subdued. Since I really like of changing Geasa along the ways Steve
discussed, I have to consider this aspect of it as well. The price for
essence loss in some games (especially for minor essence loss) will not
even be a factor anymore.
The whole nature of Virtual Reality and Astral Perception
unfortunately must be saved until I have free time tonight to discuss at
length. This is the point I wish I had the time right now to discuss
since this is the reason I support a penalty.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 30
From: Jose Vicente Mondejar Brell <jomonbre@***.UPV.ES>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:51:05 +0000
> SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix? On the one hand, I
> understand the desire to seperate magic and tech and prevent too many
> "multi-class" characters in Shadowrun but, on the other hand, one of the
> beauties of Shadowrun is it is NOT a class-based system, and I tend to think
> the Karma requirements of being good at either magic or decking (especially
> if the decking SOTA rules are invoked) are sufficient to keep most characters
> from being very good at both, and if someone wants to play a character who
> dabbles in a little magic and a little decking, who's to say no?

I like to see Shadowrun a a No-class-related game (I've never
understood why in **&* humans had to be dual-class if they wanted to
have a thief's skills and fight as a warrior and why did learning a
proficiency cost more to ones than others). And I don't think that a
mage would be a bad decker while he spend as much time (and karma,
and money) as any other decker with the same capabilities but the
magic. The same goes for the mage/rigger.

> Your thoughts are welcome.

(See? You dont have to be worried... you will be welcome. Go, go with
him)

> Take care,
> Steve K.

Ok, thanks,
--
Monde
Message no. 31
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:28:30 +0000
> The penalty for the essence cost of a datajack is a slap on the
> wrist. For a combat mage (light cyber) it is along the lines of a
> freebie. For just one point of magic a combat mage (and scary still the

The datajack IS minor, I'll agree. But the deck, the time involved
in programming and building, and the large number of skills is NOT
minor.

> The whole nature of Virtual Reality and Astral Perception
> unfortunately must be saved until I have free time tonight to discuss at
> length. This is the point I wish I had the time right now to discuss
> since this is the reason I support a penalty.

Okay, so you are not going with game balance but instead the
role-playing aspect? That's a stronger argument in my mind.

Okay, so the role-playing aspect says that a person whose mind is
attuned to the astral realities would have difficulties in dealing
with the artificial world of the matrix. Sounds logical, but there
are a few flaws:

For example, that "artificial world" is just an extension of what
happens when you read a book or play a video game and "get into it".
It is totally artificial. You are, in effect, saying that because
they "know" it's false, they can't "get into it" as much. Thus, all
mages would be lousy at video games, because their response time
would be slower. Plus, with that overriding knowledge that it is
false, they'd be uninterested as well.

Second, while not stated many places, I've gotten the impression that
magical talent often expresses itself at puberty. This can go two
ways: 1) The child is magical, but simply hasn't figured it out
until the stress of puberty causes it to manifest. or 2) the child
is still "undefined" emough to be in a null state until puberty, when
the magical talent either is or isn't. (although it can remain
unrecognized).

In the case of 2, the child has been dealing with artificial
environments all it's life....does it lose this ability when it
becomes aware, at whatever level, of the astral?

Heck, by these arguments, Simsense shouldn't be very effective on
mages because of the astral awareness. BTL just doesn't cut it for
them.

While I personally believe that it would be UNUSUAL for a person to
have the temperment that allows one to learn both magical skills and
decking skills, we all tend to play people who are UNUSUAL in the
shadowrun world. I don't think that just because it is unusual that
an additional penalty should be applied. Making a role-playing note
of it (as shamans and hermetics and other have a billion role-playing
notes already, it's okay) sounds great, and I'd encourage that to
discourage this type of character from being played often.

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 32
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:32:50 +0000
PLatinum wrote in reply to S. Kenson:
> > And just for the record, I hope to make it clear that the different magical
> > ability options in the Build Point system of character creation in the
> > Companion CANNOT be combined. You can't pay 30 BPs and be two different kinds
> > of adept in one unless your GM has a house rule that says you can. I'd also
> > REALLY like to clear up the stuff with the Magical Talent Edges and Physad
> > "Force Points" (maybe in the Big Book o' Magic next year...)

> so what does this mean now. are magic technology no longer the separate
> paths that they once were. If mages start delving in to the matrix...
> what's to stop them from designing spells to assist them??

Because they cannot cast spells through their icon..
Because a cyberdeck is a very hard thing to affect with magic. (ORT).
Because magic cannot affect programs much, since programs are
executed on the remote machine, and thus outside LOS. Because if the
programs *were* executed on the deck, then how could magic improve
thier working in any way? (Saying, it's magic, it can do it! isn't
good enough.). The only thing a mage could do is increase his
intelligence with an increased attribute spell, but that can be cast
on another decker as well, so no problem there.

> I'm not taking a stand on either side...
I am. :)

> I just pointing out some vulnerabilities.

I might add that I do not like to see mage-deckers, but getting
together an OK mage is damn hard without having to make him a decker
as well. So as far as I can see it is self- regulating without adding
artificial problems. Words like 'conflicting world views' and
'magic-attuned senses' is so much hogwash. (Not your words, mind; no
flame here.). A mage's mundane vision isn't any more magic attuned
than yours or mine, and as for 'conflicting world views'.. what is
that supposed to mean anyway? And why should it give any sort of
penalty?


> If a mage wants to deck... I would like to see a
> penalty. to overcome this penalty I would allow the mage to spend
> points on some kinda enhanced centering skill. This would then reduce
> the target number of penalties in the matrix. This would be another
> Karma sink hole. This makes the character also look at where his/her
> priorities lie concerning talents.

The only imbalanced thing about decker/mages IMHO is that mages need
karma, and deckers need cash. So once they are beyond a certain
minimum level, they get one cash sinkhole, and one karma sinkhole,
rather than two of each. But that 'certain minimum level' can be very
far away...

Also, if a player makes a munchie char, as always the GM is free to
stomp him.






--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 33
From: Glenn Robb <GLENNROBB@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 07:56:29 -0600
I had once played in a game where the NPC had a decker mage. Fortunately,
magic can't be used inside the matrix, and vice versa. However, I had always
thought that a mage attempting to deck would have a psychological inconstance
with the interface (i.e. Never Deal With a Dragon). So there must be a problem
with deckers trying to learn magic (Mental block?).

Justin Pinnow wrote:

> > From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
> > Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 10:03 PM
>
> <Snip>
>
> > SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix? On the one
> hand, I
> > understand the desire to seperate magic and tech and prevent too many
> > "multi-class" characters in Shadowrun but, on the other hand, one of
the
> > beauties of Shadowrun is it is NOT a class-based system, and I tend to
> think
> > the Karma requirements of being good at either magic or decking
> (especially
> > if the decking SOTA rules are invoked) are sufficient to keep most
> characters
> > from being very good at both, and if someone wants to play a character
> who
> > dabbles in a little magic and a little decking, who's to say no?
>
> > The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a Vehicle
> > Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?
>
> > Your thoughts are welcome.
>
> My opinion is simple: SR already penalizes "multi-classed" characters
> within their system.
>
> Now for the details:
>
> Technology and magic DON'T mix (or at least not well). A mage can NEVER
> use their magic in the matrix, and therefore has to invest a lot of karma
> (as if they have lots of spare karma lying around anyway) into more skills
> and lots of resources. A decker has to throw 20 points into magic (or
> their A priority, depending on the chargen system you use) and has to learn
> several skills in order to be a competent magician.
>
> Of course, there are exceptions in the system. The Otaku and Cybermancy
> come to mind. IMO, I don't like those ideas much because they (again, IMO)
> violate the premise that magic and technology don't mix well. Thus, they
> don't exist in my campaign (except as a fluke, if at all).
>
> So, sure, let a PC take any skills and magical activity he/she desires at
> chargen. Let him/her buy the skills desired throughout the game. I'm sure
> you'll find that if (and it's a big if) a player wishes to have his/her PC
> know how to deck AND how to wield the arcane energies of magic, the PC
> won't become very good at much for quite awhile. This is the same argument
> I use for Physical Magicians: Jack of all trades; master of none. That's
> its own game balance. SR has it right this time around not including any
> additional penalities for your "class". That idea is just plain weak and
> pure justification for something they didn't work into the system well
> enough the first time around.
>
> Whoo, that was longer than I thought it would be. ;)
>
> > Take care,
> > Steve K.
>
> Justin :)
Message no. 34
From: Glenn Robb <GLENNROBB@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:00:20 -0600
Justin Pinnow wrote:

> > From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
> > Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 10:03 PM
>
> <Snip>
>
> > SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix? On the one
> hand, I
> > understand the desire to seperate magic and tech and prevent too many
> > "multi-class" characters in Shadowrun but, on the other hand, one of
the
> > beauties of Shadowrun is it is NOT a class-based system, and I tend to
> think
> > the Karma requirements of being good at either magic or decking
> (especially
> > if the decking SOTA rules are invoked) are sufficient to keep most
> characters
> > from being very good at both, and if someone wants to play a character
> who
> > dabbles in a little magic and a little decking, who's to say no?
>
> > The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a Vehicle
> > Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?
>
> > Your thoughts are welcome.
>
> My opinion is simple: SR already penalizes "multi-classed" characters
> within their system.
>
> Now for the details:
>
> Technology and magic DON'T mix (or at least not well). A mage can NEVER
> use their magic in the matrix, and therefore has to invest a lot of karma
> (as if they have lots of spare karma lying around anyway) into more skills
> and lots of resources. A decker has to throw 20 points into magic (or
> their A priority, depending on the chargen system you use) and has to learn
> several skills in order to be a competent magician.
>
> Of course, there are exceptions in the system. The Otaku and Cybermancy
> come to mind. IMO, I don't like those ideas much because they (again, IMO)
> violate the premise that magic and technology don't mix well. Thus, they
> don't exist in my campaign (except as a fluke, if at all).
>
> So, sure, let a PC take any skills and magical activity he/she desires at
> chargen. Let him/her buy the skills desired throughout the game. I'm sure
> you'll find that if (and it's a big if) a player wishes to have his/her PC
> know how to deck AND how to wield the arcane energies of magic, the PC
> won't become very good at much for quite awhile. This is the same argument
> I use for Physical Magicians: Jack of all trades; master of none. That's
> its own game balance. SR has it right this time around not including any
> additional penalities for your "class". That idea is just plain weak and
> pure justification for something they didn't work into the system well
> enough the first time around.
>
> Whoo, that was longer than I thought it would be. ;)
>
> > Take care,
> > Steve K.
>
> Justin :)

Err. Matrix.

— Elton Robb
Message no. 35
From: Glenn Robb <GLENNROBB@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 07:59:40 -0600
Justin Pinnow wrote:

> > From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
> > Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 10:03 PM
>
> <Snip>
>
> > SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix? On the one
> hand, I
> > understand the desire to seperate magic and tech and prevent too many
> > "multi-class" characters in Shadowrun but, on the other hand, one of
the
> > beauties of Shadowrun is it is NOT a class-based system, and I tend to
> think
> > the Karma requirements of being good at either magic or decking
> (especially
> > if the decking SOTA rules are invoked) are sufficient to keep most
> characters
> > from being very good at both, and if someone wants to play a character
> who
> > dabbles in a little magic and a little decking, who's to say no?
>
> > The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a Vehicle
> > Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?
>
> > Your thoughts are welcome.
>
> My opinion is simple: SR already penalizes "multi-classed" characters
> within their system.
>
> Now for the details:
>
> Technology and magic DON'T mix (or at least not well). A mage can NEVER
> use their magic in the matrix, and therefore has to invest a lot of karma
> (as if they have lots of spare karma lying around anyway) into more skills
> and lots of resources. A decker has to throw 20 points into magic (or
> their A priority, depending on the chargen system you use) and has to learn
> several skills in order to be a competent magician.
>
> Of course, there are exceptions in the system. The Otaku and Cybermancy
> come to mind. IMO, I don't like those ideas much because they (again, IMO)
> violate the premise that magic and technology don't mix well. Thus, they
> don't exist in my campaign (except as a fluke, if at all).
>
> So, sure, let a PC take any skills and magical activity he/she desires at
> chargen. Let him/her buy the skills desired throughout the game. I'm sure
> you'll find that if (and it's a big if) a player wishes to have his/her PC
> know how to deck AND how to wield the arcane energies of magic, the PC
> won't become very good at much for quite awhile. This is the same argument
> I use for Physical Magicians: Jack of all trades; master of none. That's
> its own game balance. SR has it right this time around not including any
> additional penalities for your "class". That idea is just plain weak and
> pure justification for something they didn't work into the system well
> enough the first time around.
>
> Whoo, that was longer than I thought it would be. ;)
>
> > Take care,
> > Steve K.
>
> Justin :)

Forget that last post. It didn't happen (Adam, destroy it please!). I
broke the rules once again. Okay I had once played in an adventure where the
GM and an NPC decker mage. Now as in my last post, there has to be a
psychological incompatability between Mages and their use of the Magic (ie.
Never Deal With a Dragon). I suspose it's the same for deckers too (a Mental
Block, maybe).

— Elton Robb
Message no. 36
From: David Mezerette <mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:02:52 +0100
>Okay, so you are not going with game balance but instead the
>role-playing aspect? That's a stronger argument in my mind.
>
>Okay, so the role-playing aspect says that a person whose mind is
>attuned to the astral realities would have difficulties in dealing
>with the artificial world of the matrix. Sounds logical, but there
>are a few flaws:
>
>For example, that "artificial world" is just an extension of what
>happens when you read a book or play a video game and "get into it".
> It is totally artificial. You are, in effect, saying that because
>they "know" it's false, they can't "get into it" as much. Thus,
all
>mages would be lousy at video games, because their response time
>would be slower. Plus, with that overriding knowledge that it is
>false, they'd be uninterested as well.
>
>Second, while not stated many places, I've gotten the impression that
>magical talent often expresses itself at puberty. This can go two
>ways: 1) The child is magical, but simply hasn't figured it out
>until the stress of puberty causes it to manifest. or 2) the child
>is still "undefined" emough to be in a null state until puberty, when
>the magical talent either is or isn't. (although it can remain
>unrecognized).
>
>In the case of 2, the child has been dealing with artificial
>environments all it's life....does it lose this ability when it
>becomes aware, at whatever level, of the astral?
>
> Heck, by these arguments, Simsense shouldn't be very effective on
>mages because of the astral awareness. BTL just doesn't cut it for
>them.
>
if it was to be a penalty, i think it would come from an unability for the
mages to deal voluntarily w/ the matrix, due to a different thinking scheme
(and i _don't_ mean another mind structure), which does'nt prevent them from
beeing affected by it (as in the case of simsense ot BTLs)

ChYlD
mezeretted@*****.u-nancy.fr
Message no. 37
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:09:40 +0000
> Err. Matrix.
>
> - Elton Robb
>

Elton, above you will see the ENTIRE content of what you said, while
you quoted the ENTIRE length of a huge post.

Please read the FAQ and follow the simple etiquette rules there to
make EVERYONE much happier, and to save yourself from the wrath of
Spike, Barbie, and Dvixen.

(list.member.grumpy, list.member.grumpy.assistant, and list.dictator
respectively :-) )

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 38
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:11:11 -0600
Steve Kenson wrote:
|
| What does everyone think about magical characters using Computer skill and a
| datajack to access the Matrix?

I don't mind if magical character is also a decker. One of the players in
my game made such a character, a shaman conjurer of Snake. Seeing as he
was a shaman of Snake (who seeks to know all) it worked well for the
character. And the expense of karma toward the two more than balanced out
the character.

| SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix?

IMHO, no. Many people claim that technology and magic are two
seperate paths. I disagree. Technology is a tool, an extension of
natural science. Technology is not at odds with magic no more than
music is at odds with paintings. Magic is a science unlike any
other, yet it isn't in dispute with any other science.

| The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a Vehicle
| Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?

Nope.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 39
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:23:13 -0600
Glenn Robb wrote:
|
[snip]
|
| ... there has to be a
| psychological incompatability between Mages and their use of the Magic (ie.
| Never Deal With a Dragon). I suspose it's the same for deckers too (a Mental
| Block, maybe).

Just because one character had an incompatibility doesn't mean that
all mages have an incompatiblity. Maybe the character developed an
alergy/flaw when he became a shaman.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 40
From: Les Ward <lward@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:22:41 -0400
Steve Kenson wrote:
>SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix?
>Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?

No.

The penalty in first edition made sense in the first edition. Back then,
all you needed was a datajack to deck. These days, any real decker is going
to get eaten alive without some cyber enhancement. Cutting edge deckers can
burn quite a bit of essence. Similarly, any good rigger is going to consume
a lot of essense.

So, a magician/decker or magician/rigger must work between two extremes:

1) Spend the essence needed to become a hot shit decker/rigger, thus losing
a considerable amount of magcial power.
2) Hold on to the magic and become essentially a hobbyist as a decker/rigger.

Those that target somewhere in the middle in the worst situation, as while
they can be both mage and decker, they will get their clock cleaned when
they come up against anyone who is a "pure" form of either.

Add to that the karma expenditures your average magician has, and you get a
situation that is just not unbalancing to the game enough to warrant a
decking/rigging modifier for mages.

Wordman
Message no. 41
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:30:41 -0600
| PLatinum wrote in reply to S. Kenson:
|
| > If mages start delving in to the matrix...
| > what's to stop them from designing spells to assist them??

Nothing's stoping a mage from casting spells on themselves, such as
Increase Intelligence. But they cannot cast spells that affect the
matrix. Mages need to be able to see their target, unless it's a
physical manipulation spell. ...wait a sec.

IMO mage's cannot cast non-manipulation spells in the matrix because
they don't have any auras to target. The matrix is a virtual
representation, i.e. not real. However, what's stoping a mage from
designing a manipulation spell that he can cast on a cyberdeck that
can act like a program in the matrix?

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 42
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:41:30 +0000
> IMO mage's cannot cast non-manipulation spells in the matrix because
> they don't have any auras to target. The matrix is a virtual
> representation, i.e. not real. However, what's stoping a mage from
> designing a manipulation spell that he can cast on a cyberdeck that
> can act like a program in the matrix?

The fact that casting a spell on his cyberdeck is hard?

Moreso, the fact that a program is a series of instructions, billions
of 1's and 0's that mean something. A spell trying to manage that
level of complexity would kill the caster (the old cast through a
keyhole complex ^ 10)


-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 43
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:03:44 +0000
Ray & Tamara <macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU> once wrote,

> I really hated that rule in VR1.0. I think that the whole concept of
> penalties for mages is just a hang over from the AD&D class idea. Lady
> Jestyr got it right when she said that Shadowrun doesn't need that artificial
> boundary that this rule makes.

When there's potential for abuse, you can be sure someone, somewhere
will try to exploit that hole. The SR "Class-less" system is, to a
certain extent, one of the main innovations of this game. It's fun,
lets the players do what they want, and doesn't limit the player in
a mystical "I'm a thief, you're a wizard" system (like AD&D, there, I
said it, so sue me).

But is too much flexibility a bad thing? I think so. Example: The
decker. The poor little underated class of SR...Why? Think about
it... What does it take to be a Samurai? Lots and lots of essence,
money and high attributes. A Rigger? about the same thing.
Magician, Physads? Magic rating, karma to burn, etc. Deckers? A
datajack....That's it.... nothing more... No fancy cyber, no mystical
powers, just a plain old datajack. Cranial cyberdecks? Yeah, right.
(BTW, if those cyberdecks gave the decker advantages other than the
lame "Hey, you don't have to carry something light like a keyboard
anymore!"excuse, it would be good..).

So...with minimal complications, some financial investment, and some
karma for skills, any character can be a decker. You end up with
the little original decker, trying wildly to climb that fence, and Mr.
"Street monster" here, who can shoot his way into the mainframe, jack
in, get out, and kill some more people on the way home. And you call
that fair?

IMHO, deckers have something special that no other characters have.
That vision, that mindset needed to see the matrix as something real,
not something virtual. Not to sound trite or anything, but it's the
difference between a RL net-surfer and a RL hacker. Both can surf
the net at leisure, and have fun on IRC and online games. Both can
use email. But when it comes down to serious stuff, the Surfer gets
stumped. The hacker can thrive. Now, I can't vouch for what some
hackers do, but you have to admit, these people have serious computer
skills. So I would think SR would be the same... Deckers should be
a band apart. <end of flimsy parralel>

Now, how can you translate that into something playable? Tough
one... Go the Rolemaster route? and make all skills accesible to all
players, but at different costs? Go the AD&D way? making all classes
separate? I don't think skills have anything to do with this. What
I would like to see is penalties for non-deckers doing serious
things, like fighting IC, and breaking into secure systems. Sure,
Mr. Mage, you can log on to Shadowland and chat with your runner
buddies. But hell, when the Black-9 Fuchi Dragon comes around, you
better hope your friendly neighborhood decker is around... Not make
it impossible, but make tough enough that mages would think twice.
Or, maybe, just maybe, put some risk into it. Most Gray to Black IC
work by sending ASIST spikes to the deck, then to the brain... What
if those spikes could hurt the human brain? What if magic loss was in
play? Make those mages think twice about decking...

Of course, you could also say that the awakened brain cannot
comprehend the raw flow of information coming from the Matrix. Maybe
something to do with it's capacity to see Astral space? Think about
it... Mage characters can see into Astral space, something no other
non-awakened character can do. The rest of us mundanes can see the
Matrix. IMHO, and I'm no brain surgeon, but it looks to me like the
same areas of the brain would be used (perception centers, etc.).
So...maybe the awakened brain gained access to a higher form of
perception (astral space) by sacrificing more mundane modifications
to perceptions (matrix).. Or that, by being awakened, the magical
brain cannot comprehend such raw, useless information.

Just a couple of ideas...

Trinity
------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 44
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:54:44 +0000
> But is too much flexibility a bad thing? I think so. Example: The
> decker. The poor little underated class of SR...Why? Think about
> it... What does it take to be a Samurai? Lots and lots of essence,
> money and high attributes. A Rigger? about the same thing.
> Magician, Physads? Magic rating, karma to burn, etc. Deckers? A
> datajack....That's it.... nothing more... No fancy cyber, no mystical
> powers, just a plain old datajack. Cranial cyberdecks? Yeah, right.

A datajack AND a Computer skill, AND a deck.

Okay, I made a JOAT type character, and decided to give him a deck
even though he wasnt very skilled (and this was without magic).

Computer skill of 4 and 50,000 to spend on a deck.

I ended up with an MPCP of 3. No programs above a three. On
average, I couldn't even ENTER the kind of systems most runners deal
with (and that's only the mild security stuff).

So what does a decker require:

Either A comp skill and a LOT of money, or a Comp skill and A B/R
skill and a LOT of time. (Time = Money with lifestyle too)

> (BTW, if those cyberdecks gave the decker advantages other than the
> lame "Hey, you don't have to carry something light like a keyboard
> anymore!"excuse, it would be good..).

You underestimate the value of that.

> So...with minimal complications, some financial investment, and some
> karma for skills, any character can be a decker. You end up with
> the little original decker, trying wildly to climb that fence, and Mr.
> "Street monster" here, who can shoot his way into the mainframe, jack
> in, get out, and kill some more people on the way home. And you call
> that fair?

You're saying that both these deckers would be on par with one
another. Try again. Go ahead. Design the character and share with
us. Heck, give him some extra cash and Karma and show us that too.

> IMHO, deckers have something special that no other characters have.
> That vision, that mindset needed to see the matrix as something real,
> not something virtual. Not to sound trite or anything, but it's the
> difference between a RL net-surfer and a RL hacker. Both can surf
> the net at leisure, and have fun on IRC and online games. Both can
> use email. But when it comes down to serious stuff, the Surfer gets
> stumped. The hacker can thrive. Now, I can't vouch for what some
> hackers do, but you have to admit, these people have serious computer
> skills. So I would think SR would be the same... Deckers should be
> a band apart. <end of flimsy parralel>

But what sets them apart? A mental concept. How many mages WANT to
learn to deck? It is an investment of time and energy. what
separates your surfer from a hacker? knowledge and willingness. If
your surfer actually wanted to, actually got that thrill, he could be
the hacker (given the skills). If your mage got that thrill, he
could be the decker (given the skills). So it's rare, so what. so
are half the things we do in the game.

> things, like fighting IC, and breaking into secure systems. Sure,
> Mr. Mage, you can log on to Shadowland and chat with your runner
> buddies. But hell, when the Black-9 Fuchi Dragon comes around, you
> better hope your friendly neighborhood decker is around... Not make
> it impossible, but make tough enough that mages would think twice.

If you make a mage/decker character, it already IS tough enough to
make him think a few billion times.

> Or, maybe, just maybe, put some risk into it. Most Gray to Black IC
> work by sending ASIST spikes to the deck, then to the brain... What
> if those spikes could hurt the human brain? What if magic loss was in
> play? Make those mages think twice about decking...

This could make some sense.

> Of course, you could also say that the awakened brain cannot
> comprehend the raw flow of information coming from the Matrix. Maybe
> something to do with it's capacity to see Astral space? Think about
> it... Mage characters can see into Astral space, something no other
> non-awakened character can do. The rest of us mundanes can see the
> Matrix. IMHO, and I'm no brain surgeon, but it looks to me like the
> same areas of the brain would be used (perception centers, etc.).
> So...maybe the awakened brain gained access to a higher form of
> perception (astral space) by sacrificing more mundane modifications
> to perceptions (matrix).. Or that, by being awakened, the magical

hogwash. The mage doesn't sacrifice his brain.


Compensation is built into the system. Any differences are
role-playing only.

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 45
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:50:44 -0500
At 21-Okt-97 wrote Glenn Robb:



> Err. Matrix.

> Elton Robb

You replyed a whole post, just to add two word.
You have putted your reply in front of the original post, you are
don`t qouting, you just add your thoughts at random location to the original
post. STOP this, read the FAQ, read it again, learn it by heart and
remember its contents if you reply to posts<sigh>
When will you learn it?

Ahh, and before we forget it, could you please stand still for a moment?

..... . . . . .. .....
. . . . . . . . .
. ...... . . . . . .
. . . . .. . ...... .....
. . . .. .. . . .
. . . . . . . .


+++++ + + + + ++ +++++
+ + + + + + + + +
+ ++++++ + + + + + +
+ + + + ++ + ++++++ +++++
+ + + ++ ++ + + +
+ + + + + + + +

##### # # # # ## #####
# # # # # # # # #
# ###### # # # # # #
# # # # ## # ###### #####
# # # ## ## # # #
# # # # # # # #


+++++ + + + + ++ +++++
+ + + + + + + + +
+ ++++++ + + + + + +
+ + + + ++ + ++++++ +++++
+ + + ++ ++ + + +
+ + + + + + + +

..... . . . . .. .....
. . . . . . . . .
. ...... . . . . . .
. . . . .. . ...... .....
. . . .. .. . . .
. . . . . . . .


--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 46
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:21:05 +0000
Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU> once wrote,

(snip)

> > (BTW, if those cyberdecks gave the decker advantages other than the
> > lame "Hey, you don't have to carry something light like a keyboard
> > anymore!"excuse, it would be good..).
>
> You underestimate the value of that.
>

Underestimate what? Is carrying around a Cyberdeck any more
conspicuous then loggin' around that LMG? You don't see many cranial
guns out there (okay, the cyberguns, but we all know how useful
those are).

> > So...with minimal complications, some financial investment, and some
> > karma for skills, any character can be a decker. You end up with
> > the little original decker, trying wildly to climb that fence, and Mr.
> > "Street monster" here, who can shoot his way into the mainframe, jack
> > in, get out, and kill some more people on the way home. And you call
> > that fair?
>
> You're saying that both these deckers would be on par with one
> another. Try again. Go ahead. Design the character and share with
> us. Heck, give him some extra cash and Karma and show us that too.
>

Game Balance doesn't end with character creation. Think about the
long run. Heck, just pick up NERPS Edge Runners, and look at some
characters people have posted there. I'm not talkin' about starting
characters here. Most high-end samurai might rather invest some
extra karma into Computer skills than paying a truckload to boost
some already mile-high combat skill. And since decking is only a mattter
of skill and money, well, you get the picture...

> > IMHO, deckers have something special that no other characters have.
> > That vision, that mindset needed to see the matrix as something real,
> > not something virtual. Not to sound trite or anything, but it's the
> > difference between a RL net-surfer and a RL hacker. Both can surf
> > the net at leisure, and have fun on IRC and online games. Both can
> > use email. But when it comes down to serious stuff, the Surfer gets
> > stumped. The hacker can thrive. Now, I can't vouch for what some
> > hackers do, but you have to admit, these people have serious computer
> > skills. So I would think SR would be the same... Deckers should be
> > a band apart. <end of flimsy parralel>
>
> But what sets them apart? A mental concept. How many mages WANT to
> learn to deck? It is an investment of time and energy. what
> separates your surfer from a hacker? knowledge and willingness. If
> your surfer actually wanted to, actually got that thrill, he could be
> the hacker (given the skills). If your mage got that thrill, he
> could be the decker (given the skills). So it's rare, so what. so
> are half the things we do in the game.

Hmm... flimsy parralel indeed ;) Sorry about that one. I just
wanted to emphazise the fact that decking SHOULD be much easier for
pure deckers than for wannabe deckers

> > things, like fighting IC, and breaking into secure systems. Sure,
> > Mr. Mage, you can log on to Shadowland and chat with your runner
> > buddies. But hell, when the Black-9 Fuchi Dragon comes around, you
> > better hope your friendly neighborhood decker is around... Not make
> > it impossible, but make tough enough that mages would think twice.
>
> If you make a mage/decker character, it already IS tough enough to
> make him think a few billion times.
>

Again, I'm not thinking about some beginner... The same thing could
be applied to the Sam/Physad debate. Sure, the Sam can kick the
Physads butt from here to Kalamazoo at lower levels...But when karma
starts piling up, and initiations come around, that Physad suddenly
looks much more threatening. Add some cyber to that Physad, and
"bang", you get something much more powerful than a straight sam
could ever be. Apply that same reasoning to the wannabe decker.
Sure, the pure decker is much more of a threat in the Matrix. But
when that wannabe decker gets more karma, and money... Same thing.

> > Of course, you could also say that the awakened brain cannot
> > comprehend the raw flow of information coming from the Matrix. Maybe
> > something to do with it's capacity to see Astral space? Think about
> > it... Mage characters can see into Astral space, something no other
> > non-awakened character can do. The rest of us mundanes can see the
> > Matrix. IMHO, and I'm no brain surgeon, but it looks to me like the
> > same areas of the brain would be used (perception centers, etc.).
> > So...maybe the awakened brain gained access to a higher form of
> > perception (astral space) by sacrificing more mundane modifications
> > to perceptions (matrix).. Or that, by being awakened, the magical
>
> hogwash. The mage doesn't sacrifice his brain.

No, he changes it... About the same result, IMHO. And this was only
another option I was thinking about, not something I would take as
immuable. Saying that the mage has the same brain as a decker is
bullshit. No, they're different. Maybe that difference could hurt
the mage sometimes...

Trinity
----------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 47
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:06:22 +0500
On 21 Oct 97 at 13:33, Timothy Little wrote:

> As a house rule, our group developed a mechanic similar to the
> "ambidexterity" rule from FoF. There is a Special Skill, "Matrix
> Perception", which represents the effort required to encompass two
> completely different worldviews.

I'm not picking on Tim here, it just came up in his message. But why
is the matrix considered a different worldview? At best, it stills
use the five senses you use in real life. Unlike going astral, which
does use other senses.

I see no reason why a mage, or anyone, couldn't use the Matrix
without penalty. Some people may be prone to motion sickness, like in
real life, but that could be a Flaw.

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 48
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:06:22 +0500
On 20 Oct 97 at 23:29, MC23 wrote:

> I like a penalty suffered by mages for having a forced perception
> overlaid upon their astrally attuned senses.

I disagree. Those astrally attuned senses are passive, not active.
Its not like the mage suddenly goes astrally "blind" when he enters
the matrix. He is astrally "blind" everyday unless he is perceiving,
or projecting.

So why the penalty? I think everyone forgets that the Matrix is not a
place, but a concept.

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 49
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:06:22 +0500
On 21 Oct 97 at 0:47, NightLife wrote:

> I have to agree with MC23 here on this one. Having the ability to
> cross over from one aspect of the game that you're totally supposed
> to be at odd with tends to unbalance a game rather quickly if the
> decker or the mage isn't "special" anymore because you've got the
> decker/mage/rigger combo over in the corner.

Why is having choices a bad thing? That decker/mage/rigger combo is
going to get nailed if he comes up against a counterpart that has not
diversified. It balances out.

I like Shadowrun because it doesn't have classes. And opening that up
even more is a good thing, in my opinion. The game is balanced as is.
That combo you mentioned is going to have to spend some Essense,
which means weaker magic, and is going to be a Karma sink, between
his mage, and SOTA.

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 50
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:08:48 -0600
Frank Pelletier wrote:
|
| When there's potential for abuse, you can be sure someone, somewhere
| will try to exploit that hole. The SR "Class-less" system is, to a
| certain extent, one of the main innovations of this game. It's fun,
| lets the players do what they want, and doesn't limit the player in
| a mystical "I'm a thief, you're a wizard" system (like AD&D, there, I
| said it, so sue me).
|
| But is too much flexibility a bad thing?

Unrestricted flexibility is a bad thing. I've seen this happen with
Fantasy Hero. The GM allowed the players to make anything they
wanted (based off of a 100 point character). You would not believe
some of the PCs that were created. And every single one of them was
unrealistic with hole's in their background you could drive a Mac
truck through.

I've also played in Champion's games where the GM took a stand and
wouldn't let players get away with that kind of bullshit.

| I think so. Example: The
| decker. The poor little underated class of SR...Why? Think about
| it... What does it take to be a Samurai? Lots and lots of essence,
| money and high attributes. A Rigger? about the same thing.
| Magician, Physads? Magic rating, karma to burn, etc. Deckers? A
| datajack....That's it.... nothing more... No fancy cyber, no mystical
| powers, just a plain old datajack. Cranial cyberdecks? Yeah, right.

Deckers need tons of money to get competitive. Then they need tons
of money to stay competitive. And, they need contacts to get all of
those wiz programs and deck components. If the GM is "gracious"
enough to give the decker all that money then it's a cake walk. If
you want to be a decker/whatever you better be real good.

| So...with minimal complications, some financial investment, and some
| karma for skills, any character can be a decker. You end up with
| the little original decker, trying wildly to climb that fence, and Mr.
| "Street monster" here, who can shoot his way into the mainframe, jack
| in, get out, and kill some more people on the way home. And you call
| that fair?

Sure. If the character makes the investment in Sam skills, Decker
skills and equipment for both, then what's the problem?

| IMHO, deckers have something special that no other characters have.
| That vision, that mindset needed to see the matrix as something real,
| not something virtual. Not to sound trite or anything, but it's the
| difference between a RL net-surfer and a RL hacker. Both can surf
| the net at leisure, and have fun on IRC and online games. Both can
| use email. But when it comes down to serious stuff, the Surfer gets
| stumped. The hacker can thrive. Now, I can't vouch for what some
| hackers do, but you have to admit, these people have serious computer
| skills. So I would think SR would be the same... Deckers should be
| a band apart. <end of flimsy parralel>

Now you're talking about roleplaying. *A* decker can have that
vision. Another decker can view decking as a job. Another can view
it as a means to an end. It's the same with any other character. If
a player is jacking up his character's computer skill he should have
a good reason (vision, raw natural talent, greed, whatever). Which
brings me back to unrestricted flexibility. If a GM lets a player
make a Sam/Decker and the character has no good reason to be a
Sam/Decker then the GM should can the character. If, however a
player creates a rich background with motivation for the character
then it's not a problem (unless the GM is running a matrix restricted
game for whatever reason).

| I would like to see is penalties for non-deckers doing serious
| things, like fighting IC, and breaking into secure systems.

Blech. (IMO :)

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 51
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:10:31 -0600
Brett Borger wrote:
|
| > IMO mage's cannot cast non-manipulation spells in the matrix because
| > they don't have any auras to target. The matrix is a virtual
| > representation, i.e. not real. However, what's stoping a mage from
| > designing a manipulation spell that he can cast on a cyberdeck that
| > can act like a program in the matrix?
|
| The fact that casting a spell on his cyberdeck is hard?
|
| Moreso, the fact that a program is a series of instructions, billions
| of 1's and 0's that mean something. A spell trying to manage that
| level of complexity would kill the caster (the old cast through a
| keyhole complex ^ 10)

Okay. I'll buy that.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 52
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:13:00 +0200
.. I'll regret this...

>So...with minimal complications, some financial investment, and some
>karma for skills, any character can be a decker. You end up with
>the little original decker, trying wildly to climb that fence, and Mr.
>"Street monster" here, who can shoot his way into the mainframe, jack
>in, get out, and kill some more people on the way home. And you call
>that fair?

Well, how much investment does it take to become OK in combat?
Say, boosted reflexes - 1, smartgun link, and a firearms skill...

Isn't that a bit cheap too? 6 skill points, 1 essence, and 20K cash.

Okay, he won't be a combat monster, but he certainly could fight his way
out of a paper bag. All characters have potential for doing more than one
thing. That is good, in my opinion.

How much combat cyber and skills can a decker add before he's suddenly not
primarily a decker but a sammie and thus eligible for penalties? It doesn't
work that way and neither should it.
Message no. 53
From: "Mike (Leszek Karlik)" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:13:47 +0000
On 21 Oct 97, Lady Jestyr disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:
<this part shown cloaked>

> > Case in point: I was playing a sorceror adept/rigger. She's a girl of
> > the streets, who learnt her magic by rote - feel like *this*, and the
> > guy on the opposite street corner decides to give you some spare cred.
> > Etc. She can't summon spirits or elementals, she can't see into the
> > astral plane; she's totally un-mystical. She's also a complete
>
> Allow me to further point out her lack of mysticism; she knows
> nothing about mysticism, or Magic Theory, and in fact has an
> Incompetent flaw in Magic Theory. She doesn't care why or how it
> works, it just does.

/nitpick mode on

If she knows nothing about Magic Theory, it means she has a Magic
Theory skill of 0, right? So she can't have the Incompetent flaw...
<grin>

Sorry, couldn't resist.


Mike (Leszek Karlik) - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
IQ - Idiot Quotient.
Message no. 54
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:33:58 -0500
At 21-Okt-97 wrote Drekhead:

>Why is having choices a bad thing? That decker/mage/rigger combo is
>going to get nailed if he comes up against a counterpart that has not
>diversified. It balances out.

Ok speaking as one who runs such a character.
As a Decker I suck in our game. Most of the time I didn`t even find what I`m
searching. Combat is as worse. I have started decking mainly to be able
to do it in an emergency, or if now other Decker is present.
Rigger, I started as a rigger and I`m still the best in our group,
able to fly/drive anything.
Mage, since my magical abilities was forced upon me, I`m such a hot mage,
that even a starting mage can kick my butt to hell, without breaking a sweat.
And initating out of this hole is a real pain.
My abilities as a sam are abit above the norm, if I would go toe-to-toe
with a real sam I`m sure that I would win, but more than one...
So afterall I`m the karma hole incarneted, can do all but only at marginal
levels, besides rigging.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 55
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:45:27 -0500
At 21-Okt-97 wrote Mike (Leszek Karlik):

[snip]

>If she knows nothing about Magic Theory, it means she has a Magic
>Theory skill of 0, right? So she can't have the Incompetent flaw...
><grin>

By the book, she must be able to default from a skill or know the skill
to take the incompetence flaw.

In my game we have ruled that an incompetence can be taken on any skill,
but you will not be able to learn this skill at all.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 56
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:52:46 PDT
>I still don't like the whole idea of mages gettng a penalty in the
>Matrix though. It smacks to me rather of imposing a forced game balance
>which has no basis in game reality, as I see it, and is an unneccessary
>balance anyway (in that mage deckers are never going to outclass pure
>mages or pure deckers; they don't need any help to hold them back.)
>
>Lady Jestyr

A shamanic adept decker with acces to health spells and a few spell
locked "increase attribute" spells can have a very good matrix reaction
and hacking pool. The "one source" limit on hacking pool bonus means
this evens out, but his reaction will still be rather high. I don't
really see anything holding him back - maybe his B/r skills won't be up
as high, but money solves that problem.
One of the first characters in our game was such a decker, and he's
still a good character: the player left, so he's earned little karma,
but he makes a GREAT contact. His view of the matrix, and rep among
deckers, is admittedly a little odd, and hes a total net-spud (he's
kinda like a wyrm shaman-it think he made up a totem). His insistance
that the matrix IS magical does not hinder him- he's sane enough to (and
has enough theory in both catagories) to know his normal magic won't
work there, but he spendsalot of timetracking down "wierd net
phenomina".
Penalizing a mage like him would be smacking down a really amussing
character idea. He's got matrix ettiquette specailized in "weirdo's"!

Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psycotic - Einstien

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


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 57
From: AirWisp <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:52:25 EDT
In a message dated 97-10-21 03:24:54 EDT, you write:

<<<[What does everyone think about magical characters using Computer skill and
a
datajack to access the Matrix? Virtual Realities 1.0 made mention of the rule
about magical characters suffering a penalty in the Matrix, but it occurs to
me that this rules hasn't been mentioned anywhere in VR 2.0 or any other 2nd
edition product. ]>>>

Steve, in Keith's and mine home games here in Lafayette, we allow mages to
access the matrix like any normal decker, there is something however, the deck
they are using must have a reality filter, not too tailor an environment for
themselves but to tailor the information so that the magical part of the mage
does not cause severe pain all the time. The +8 modifier that all people get
to perceive the real world while jacked in is also a modifier to the casting
of magic, though they could only cast magic where they were located
physically, or from live visual feeds from cameras and the like (and this was
limited to Magic Fingers and like Telekinetic spells).

<<<[SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix? On the one hand,
I understand the desire to seperate magic and tech and prevent too many
"multi-class" characters in Shadowrun but, on the other hand, one of the
beauties of Shadowrun is it is NOT a class-based system, and I tend to think
the Karma requirements of being good at either magic or decking (especially if
the decking SOTA rules are invoked) are sufficient to keep most characters
from being very good at both, and if someone wants to play a character who
dabbles in a little magic and a little decking, who's to say no?]>>>

A question of you Steve, why is SR trying their damndest to separate magic and
tech? This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Tell me that none of
the megacorps are not trying their damndest to integrate magic and tech
together to make things. For example, here in the home game, I am making a
panzer that is roughly the class of a MBT Stonewall and there is so much
mixing it is not even funny. How about spells that improve fuel economy by
increasing the oxygen ratio in the fuel before entering into the pistons or
combustion area? How about a magical spell that increases the sensors rating
of a vehicle? What about a spell which enhances the lift for an aircraft,
enabling them to get even better fuel economy, also?

Though I am not going to go into it (Keith would probably wring my neck), and
this is concerning one of the gray areas in the rules, there is something that
would be truly frightening with the combining of magic and technology that is
in one of the 'iffy' areas of the rules, and trying to convince Duncan is
being difficult (and is not working at all, I'm probably not explaining it
well). Oh, it is also possible when combining Delta-grade rules and the
surgical essence reduction to have almost all of the cyber in all of the books
without going into cybermancy (though it comes close).

<<<[The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a Vehicle
Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?]>>>

I don't see why not. And in addition to the point modifer of 8 for decking,
perhaps also adding in the control modifier as an additional modifier in
addition to that, for the mage trying to perform a magical action (what do you
think Keith? - possibility for game balance?)

You are welcome Steve ...
Mike
Message no. 58
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:06:07 -0500
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:41:30 +0000 Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU> writes:
>> IMO mage's cannot cast non-manipulation spells in the matrix because
>> they don't have any auras to target. The matrix is a virtual
>> representation, i.e. not real. However, what's stoping a mage from
>> designing a manipulation spell that he can cast on a cyberdeck that
>> can act like a program in the matrix?
>
>The fact that casting a spell on his cyberdeck is hard?
>
>Moreso, the fact that a program is a series of instructions, billions
>of 1's and 0's that mean something. A spell trying to manage that
>level of complexity would kill the caster (the old cast through a
>keyhole complex ^ 10)


Aha! So you admit that it's possible! :)

If I were to allow the use of magical abilities within the Matrix, I
would a) require that such a spell be a physical manipulation (le duh:),
b) require that the spell's creator have a Computer Theory skill (or
Computer, but Comp. Theory is a bit more obscure and would make more
sense, IMO) equal to the rating of the program/spell, and then require
that they use some average of their Mag. and Comp. Theory skills. *If* I
were to allow that. I don't think it would be *that* big a balance
problem (such a spell would work by triggering a set sequence of optical
pulses or something, and would require bandwidth:), especially since such
a spell would have two basic restrictions: only usable in the Matrix, and
Extreme Complexity.

But that's just my opinion, YMMV.


--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
Message no. 59
From: Max Rible <slothman@*********.ORG>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:19:30 -0800
At 22:03 10/20/97 -0400, Steve Kenson wrote:
>SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix?

I don't see that as necessary, though it's been a penalty in Shadowrun in
the past. If you're a decker or rigger *and* a magician or adept, you're
already needing to divvy up the karma you'd use for upping those skills that
make you a better decker or rigger with the karma you'd use to learn spells
and initiate; the nuyen for new toys for your deck or new drones is also
being spent on conjuration materials and orichalcum; the time you use on
keeping up with the SOTA or customizing your toys takes away from time
learning and inventing spells. As long as there's plenty of tempting
cyberware
to make you a better decker or rigger (and with Shadowtech and R2 there
certainly is!) you've got the risk of Essence loss. That already seems
balanced to me.

--
%% Max Rible %% slothman@*****.com %% http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
%% "Ham is good... Glowing *tattooed* ham is *bad*!" - the Tick %%
Message no. 60
From: Jonathan Wright <jwrigh01@********.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:12:22 -0400
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Steve Kenson wrote:

> SHOULD magical characters suffer a penalty in the Matrix? On the one hand, I
> understand the desire to seperate magic and tech and prevent too many
> "multi-class" characters in Shadowrun but, on the other hand, one of the
> beauties of Shadowrun is it is NOT a class-based system, and I tend to think
> the Karma requirements of being good at either magic or decking (especially
> if the decking SOTA rules are invoked) are sufficient to keep most characters
> from being very good at both, and if someone wants to play a character who
> dabbles in a little magic and a little decking, who's to say no?

IMHO, there shouldn't be a penalty to target numbers for magicians
accessing the Matrix. For a mage, whose conceptual schema of astral space
and magic are already highly ordered and scientific, a computer reality
might just be slightly more comfortable than some of the wilder areas of
astral space! Shamanic traditions might find some cyberspace somewhat
disorienting, this should be represented in _role playing_ any particular
character. I can quite easily see a street shaman who is very computer
oriented, designing spell formulas in VR before creating their physical
representations and using the sensory overload of the Matrix to meditate
on his totem.

Besides if these penalties are in place it should be a two way street,
with deckers having penalties to resist the effects of certain magics.
Any decker undergoing a free spirits Astral Gateway power should suffer
the same penalty as a magician in the Matrix.

I think the karma requirements to be proficient in either discipline serve
as sufficient penalty to anyone who attempts to do more than dabble in
both realities.

Jon Wright
Message no. 61
From: Rick St Jean <Platinum@*****.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:53:07 -0400
Oh btw thanks for the BOMB drop steve. 130+ messages by noon... holy
cow.

Another rant from the library of:
Platinum
Message no. 62
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:04:31 -0400
> As I say; I don't like the entire idea, but it's the best of a bad
> bunch. It means that the mage can negate their Matrix penalties just be
> learning more *about* the Matrix, rather than spending even more Karma
> on a rather contrived-seeming skill. In addition, it rather reflects the
> new rigging/decking penalties in R2; the rigger suffers a penalty in the
> Matrix which is still easily avoidable.
>
> I still don't like the whole idea of mages gettng a penalty in the
> Matrix though. It smacks to me rather of imposing a forced game balance
> which has no basis in game reality, as I see it, and is an unneccessary
> balance anyway (in that mage deckers are never going to outclass pure
> mages or pure deckers; they don't need any help to hold them back.)
>
> Lady Jestyr
To take this idea a step further, I would say that a mage would have an
easier time adapting to the matrix than a regular person. Why? Because a
mage is already used to thinking in metaphorical and allegorical terms due
to the experience of astral space. The artificial-natural dichotomy is
entirely false. Both the matrix and astral space are projections of human
consciouness and are therefore raltive to the mage's socio-historical
horizon. While astral space is sine qua non for an awakened world, the
nature of astral space is relative to the awakened world. Therefore, a
mage from the fourth world would be more out of place in the sixth world
astral space than a sixth world mage would be in the matrix.
Message no. 63
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:19:07 -0600
AirWisp wrote:
|
| Steve, in Keith's and mine home games here in Lafayette, we allow mages to
| access the matrix like any normal decker, there is something however, the deck
| they are using must have a reality filter, not too tailor an environment for
| themselves but to tailor the information so that the magical part of the mage
| does not cause severe pain all the time.

Where does this come from? To my knowledge there are only two
instances of mages and problems with decking. In the 1st Grimmy
there was a rule about. The rule was not carried over to the
GrimII. Sam Verner got headaches when he tried to deck after
becoming a shaman. This doesn't mean that all shamans would get
headaches by decking. If I missed something I'd like to know.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 64
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:29:10 EST
> >Moreso, the fact that a program is a series of instructions, billions
> >of 1's and 0's that mean something. A spell trying to manage that
> >level of complexity would kill the caster (the old cast through a
> >keyhole complex ^ 10)
>
>
> Aha! So you admit that it's possible! :)

Yeah, so? The Great Ghost Dance was possible too. Doesn't mean any
of my players are going to do it.

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 65
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:30:46 EST
> Where does this come from? To my knowledge there are only two
> instances of mages and problems with decking. In the 1st Grimmy
> there was a rule about. The rule was not carried over to the
> GrimII. Sam Verner got headaches when he tried to deck after
> becoming a shaman. This doesn't mean that all shamans would get
> headaches by decking. If I missed something I'd like to know.

Actually it was in VR1, and was not included in VR2. GRimmy never
dealt with it.

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 66
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:54:32 +0100
Brett Borger said on 8:10/21 Oct 97...

[snip decker/rigger/mage combo]
> It sounds like:
> 1) This character has already been penalized
> 2) Few people will try this, and those willing to should not be
> further penalized.

Agreed, anyone trying this will very likely end up with a character who's
not very good at anything, but can try most of them anyway.

> I mean, the real disadvantage to this character is a role-playing
> aspect....he has to be a dillatante, a litteral jack of all trades
> and master of none. when he gets 5 Karma, where does it go? Save
> for initiation? Fill up his weak supply of spells?

Although I agree with the other points, I doubt this sort of character
would have a "weak supply of spells". The way to make a char like this is
A Magic, B Resources if you ask me -- that means a lot of spells.

> What advantages does he have? Okay, he is a rigger....but does he
> have the vehicles and the upgraded gear to make the most of that?
> No?

At least not at the start. In a nuyen-rich campaign, that could change
rapidly.

> hmmm.. He's a decker, how high is that decking skill? How much time
> and money can he devote to writing programs and making his deck? How
> decent is the deck he has? Not much.

Time is always a problem for deckers in the game IMHO. Just figure out the
time needed to program, cook, and install an MPCP-8 without anything else
added onto it. The money may be a problem, unless (as I said above) the
monetary reward for adventures is high in the campaign.

> hmmm. He is a mage... how well does he summon that force 6 spirit? No
> successes? How about that large array of spells? Not so large, huh?
> Well, so he mana clouds that swarm of insect spirits.....Only a force
> 3? THat's a shame.

I think going for a shaman would be a lot better for such a character.
Take a totem that fits in with the jack of all trade idea (Coyote?) and
you have to spend very little money on magical equipment, and nothing on
spirits. Summoning is equally fast and cheap, though the roleplaying
aspect of a shaman with a VCR and a cyberdeck may be a bit... well,
difficult.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside you head.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 67
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:54:33 +0100
Frank Pelletier said on 12:21/21 Oct 97...

> Game Balance doesn't end with character creation. Think about the
> long run. Heck, just pick up NERPS Edge Runners, and look at some
> characters people have posted there.

One thing to take note of is that Erik boosted many of the characters
submitted for the original Edge Runners (back in late '94) above what they
were when people sent them in. Not everyone was all that happy with the
end result; the characters added in later on when Edge Runners became a
NERPS thing are exactly as they were posted to the list.

> I'm not talkin' about starting characters here. Most high-end samurai
> might rather invest some extra karma into Computer skills than paying a
> truckload to boost some already mile-high combat skill. And since
> decking is only a mattter of skill and money, well, you get the
> picture...

This is what I've noticed about just about all characters I've seen played
for any length of time. They start out with a bunch of typical skills and
then start to branch out. In my current campaign, the longest-surviving
character was talking about getting a VCR or a cyberdeck (right now I
can't remember which one exactly, sorry Gabriel :) when he gets enough
money together, and he's sort of a glorified detective (well, an
undercover cop, actually).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside you head.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 68
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:43:32 EST
> > I mean, the real disadvantage to this character is a role-playing
> > aspect....he has to be a dillatante, a litteral jack of all trades
> > and master of none. when he gets 5 Karma, where does it go? Save
> > for initiation? Fill up his weak supply of spells?
>
> Although I agree with the other points, I doubt this sort of
> character would have a "weak supply of spells". The way to make a
> char like this is A Magic, B Resources if you ask me -- that means a
> lot of spells.

I'm used to using the point based creation now, which separates Force
points and Resources.


> > What advantages does he have? Okay, he is a rigger....but does he
> > have the vehicles and the upgraded gear to make the most of that?
> > No?
>
> At least not at the start. In a nuyen-rich campaign, that could
> change rapidly.

Then the fault lies in the GM, not with the system. If you throw
tons of money at the characters, they WILL get powerful.

> > hmmm. He is a mage... how well does he summon that force 6 spirit? No
> > successes? How about that large array of spells? Not so large, huh?
> > Well, so he mana clouds that swarm of insect spirits.....Only a force
> > 3? THat's a shame.
>
> I think going for a shaman would be a lot better for such a
> character. Take a totem that fits in with the jack of all trade idea
> (Coyote?) and you have to spend very little money on magical
> equipment, and nothing on spirits. Summoning is equally fast and
> cheap, though the roleplaying aspect of a shaman with a VCR and a
> cyberdeck may be a bit... well, difficult.

Hmm, I think you're a rarity there. Most of us are voting for
hermetics as the more likely canidates...less likely to cringe at the
cyberware, more likely to have an interest in the technical, more
likely to think in the correct method....

A stereotype, I know, but I'm talking general case, not a hard rule.

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 69
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:14:22 +1000
> <snip a lot so I can cut to the chase>
> >Absolutely. But mages already pay the penalty once over, in the loss of
> >their Magic rating. I don't think they should have to pay twice.
>
> The penalty for the essence cost of a datajack is a slap on the
> wrist. For a combat mage (light cyber) it is along the lines of a

Yes, well, to deck against the best deckers, you need a bit more than a
datajack. Encephalon, Headware memory, the various SPUs. Yep, you don't
need them to be a vanilla decker, but if all you have is a datajack
you're not going to be much threat to the big boys.

> length. This is the point I wish I had the time right now to discuss
> since this is the reason I support a penalty.

Well, I hate the long technical discussions about Astral Spcae and all
that junk. The reason I am against a penalty is for game reasons - we
don't *need* it. There are enough checks and balances holding down a
multi-tasking character - you don't need to impose a special penalty
over the top..

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 70
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:26:03 +1000
> | I would like to see is penalties for non-deckers doing serious
> | things, like fighting IC, and breaking into secure systems.
>
> Blech. (IMO :)

Ditto that. Say someone has all the decker gear - good cyberdeck, good
progrms, Computer skill out the wazoo - but also has damn good physical
stats and Firearms skill. Does that mean he's not really a decker, he's
a sammy? Where do you draw the line?

This is getting a bit tenous - Steve asked for information for SR3, and
I don't know that this is helping all that much, so I'll shut up now
(until the next post I see that makes me yell "What an idiot!" and be
forced to reply to it *grin*)

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 71
From: Timothy Little <t_little@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:51:47 +1100
At 10:55 PM 10/20/97 -0400, Justin wrote:

>> From: Timothy Little <t_little@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU>
>> Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 10:33 PM
>
>> As a house rule, our group developed a mechanic similar to the
>> "ambidexterity" rule from FoF. There is a Special Skill, "Matrix
>> Perception", which represents the effort required to encompass two
>> completely different worldviews.
>
><Snipetty snip>
>
>My comment on this is "why"?

Because there was a penalty in VR1, and there is no explanation why such a
major change happened in VR2. I guess you could say that SOTA advanced,
giving mages a more 'natural' interface than they did previously, but it
isn't
mentioned.

In the absence of an explicit ruling that there is no penalty, my GM prefers
to keep things the way they were.


>Just because you are magically active, you shouldn't have a harder time
>understanding the world of the matrix.

According to VR1, you do. I believe the explanation was on the order of
'magic requires a very special mindset which is incompatible with the
imaginary world of the Matrix' or such. In other words, the same sort of
reasoning which prohibits mages from excluding targets in an area-effect
spell.

>The time necessary to master the
>matrix on top of your other skills might be a bit hard to stretch, however.
> Also, karma is stretched even further to purchase the knowledge. IMO, the
>karma and time contstraints wholly encompass the difficulty of mastering
>both magic AND the matrix. Any further penalties (like the ones you
>mentioned) appear to be class-based (i.e.: since you can understand magic,
>you have a more difficult time understanding the world of the matrix).

I agree. The mage's Matrix penalty does make a large difference between a
magician and a non-magician. As a house rule, we limited that difference by
allowing a special skill to overcome the penalty.

>Just let the existing system limit things for you. Trust me, it does this
>just fine.

I'd agree - but my GM doesn't.

--
Little One
Message no. 72
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:06:46 +1000
> Because there was a penalty in VR1, and there is no explanation why such a
> major change happened in VR2. I guess you could say that SOTA advanced,
> giving mages a more 'natural' interface than they did previously, but it
> isn't
> mentioned.
>
> In the absence of an explicit ruling that there is no penalty, my GM prefers
> to keep things the way they were.

VR2.0 itself says that it supersedes all previously published rules...
that's explicit enough for me.


Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 73
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:20:02 -0400
Lady Jestyr once dared to write,

>VR2.0 itself says that it supersedes all previously published rules...
>that's explicit enough for me.

And FASA forgetting to mention the PhysAds get no force points?
We've had this discussion (argument) before and the truth is that FASA
does make omissions. You are sounding like a rules lawyer with a
simplistic reply like that and I know that's not the case.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 74
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:30:29 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-21 08:08:11 EDT, bxb121@***.EDU writes:

>
> I wrote to FASAMike about the otaku deal, and he said he couldn't
> give the build point cost because the whole concept of Otaku was
> being rethought. hmm..
>
I seriously hope that Mike and the rest of the "Darklords" at FASA don't
unwrite the Otaku. I just hope they (the Otaku) are given some
consideration. Call it for what is folks, an attempt to get more people to
play deckers.

-K
Message no. 75
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:56:30 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-21 10:10:49 EDT, dbuehrer@****.ORG writes:

> Steve Kenson wrote:
> | What does everyone think about magical characters using Computer skill
and
> a
> | datajack to access the Matrix?
> I don't mind if magical character is also a decker. One of the players in
> my game made such a character, a shaman conjurer of Snake. Seeing as he
> was a shaman of Snake (who seeks to know all) it worked well for the
> character. And the expense of karma toward the two more than balanced out
> the character.

Dave, I have to jump in here with a question. Where do you live? The
"Conjuror of Snake" had me thinking of something. Do you have a character
that is aware of the "Mask of Itzamna?" or perhaps a decker named Johanna
de'Burg? How about a snot of a kid named Reflex with a Barghest for a pet?

> IMHO, no. Many people claim that technology and magic are two
> seperate paths. I disagree. Technology is a tool, an extension of
> natural science. Technology is not at odds with magic no more than
> music is at odds with paintings. Magic is a science unlike any
> other, yet it isn't in dispute with any other science.

For once, I find I agree with someone. Magic and Tech are NOT at odds with
things, it is merely the way that the game designers originally tried to
maintain certain levels of game balance. In fact, they are outright stunning
when they work in cooperation with each other.

> | The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a Vehicle
> | Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?
> Nope.
> -David

Again, I agree.
-K (as in Jonathon Keith Henry)
Message no. 76
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:09:16 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-21 10:30:26 EDT, dbuehrer@****.ORG writes:

>
> IMO mage's cannot cast non-manipulation spells in the matrix because
> they don't have any auras to target. The matrix is a virtual
> representation, i.e. not real. However, what's stoping a mage from
> designing a manipulation spell that he can cast on a cyberdeck that
> can act like a program in the matrix?
>
> -David
>
David, a long time ago I posted almost 20+ pages of material based upon this
idea. Rec.Games.Frp.Cyber nearly went over the top when I did it. I even
came up with things that people still scream about to this day (and you folks
know who you are). Here are some strange thoughts Dave, and i'm posting this
to the group just because I can and the RN is for those ideas that really do
push the envelope, even if it is hard enough to open it, spilling the
contents for all to see...

Matrix Projection, a mythic spell designed by a wizkid who had a decker kid
for a pal. He would cast the spell -as- he projected, tranforming his
astrally projecting self into something compatible with the matrix
interactions. Granted, he still needed the datajack and was plugged in "on
standby mode".

Illusions, Manipulations and Detection Magic all have variations that have
nothing to do with "aura symmetry", and thus could effect the "Virtual
Reality" of the Matrix. Illusios spells are in fact VERY potentially
powerful, as their imposed limits in the mundane world are right at home in
the Virtual, illusory, one. A way for the mind to perceive the subjectable
region, even if simrigged thing, is all that is -theoretically- required to
use such magic and give it direction.

With the somewhat defining of the Otaku and the "Resonance", it becomes
questionable just what exactly is the limits of Virtual Reality. Does
performing a Quest of Knowledge for the password to a given file allow for a
mage to gain such information? It opens the door for a new set of
terms...all under the big heading of Paramagical Phenomena. That being
anything that cannot be explained without the existence of magic, but is
determinable as not being magical by those individuals that are experienced
in such.

Chew On this some more.
-K (the Enchanter Rules are on the way soon)
Message no. 77
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:14:16 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-21 15:18:42 EDT, dbuehrer@****.ORG writes:

> Steve, in Keith's and mine home games here in Lafayette, we allow mages to
> | access the matrix like any normal decker, there is something however,
the
> deck
> | they are using must have a reality filter, not too tailor an environment

> for
> | themselves but to tailor the information so that the magical part of the

> mage
> | does not cause severe pain all the time.
>
> Where does this come from? To my knowledge there are only two
> instances of mages and problems with decking. In the 1st Grimmy
> there was a rule about. The rule was not carried over to the
> GrimII. Sam Verner got headaches when he tried to deck after
> becoming a shaman. This doesn't mean that all shamans would get
> headaches by decking. If I missed something I'd like to know.
>
I think the applicable point here is "in Keith's Games". Aka, Me. Allotting
for the worst case scenario (that being FASA keeps the magic modifiers for
matrix), we were implementing solution solving actions.

-K
Message no. 78
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:54:36 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-21 09:35:16 EDT, runefo@***.UIO.NO writes:

> Because they cannot cast spells through their icon..

True.

> Because a cyberdeck is a very hard thing to affect with magic. (ORT).

This has always been a pain.

> Because magic cannot affect programs much, since programs are
> executed on the remote machine, and thus outside LOS. Because if the
> programs *were* executed on the deck, then how could magic improve
> thier working in any way? (Saying, it's magic, it can do it! isn't
> good enough.).

Though the argument is valid, the basis is not. Programs are executed on the
deck in front of the user, they effect the dataflow/trail at their sensory
end of effect.

The only thing a mage could do is increase his
> intelligence with an increased attribute spell, but that can be cast
> on another decker as well, so no problem there.

Yeah, and Increase Intelligence doesn't effect cyberspace stuff for Otaku at
least...

> > I'm not taking a stand on either side...
> I am. :)

Then make that stand on the Strength of Your Convictions Alone...

> > I just pointing out some vulnerabilities.
>
> I might add that I do not like to see mage-deckers, but getting
> together an OK mage is damn hard without having to make him a decker
> as well. So as far as I can see it is self- regulating without adding
> artificial problems. Words like 'conflicting world views' and
> 'magic-attuned senses' is so much hogwash. (Not your words, mind; no
> flame here.). A mage's mundane vision isn't any more magic attuned
> than yours or mine, and as for 'conflicting world views'.. what is
> that supposed to mean anyway? And why should it give any sort of
> penalty?

Because people are afraid of letting their longest reaching
fears/imaginations out of the proverbial closet.

> > If a mage wants to deck... I would like to see a
> > penalty. to overcome this penalty I would allow the mage to spend
> > points on some kinda enhanced centering skill. This would then reduce
> > the target number of penalties in the matrix. This would be another
> > Karma sink hole. This makes the character also look at where his/her
> > priorities lie concerning talents.
>
> The only imbalanced thing about decker/mages IMHO is that mages need
> karma, and deckers need cash. So once they are beyond a certain
> minimum level, they get one cash sinkhole, and one karma sinkhole,
> rather than two of each. But that 'certain minimum level' can be very
> far away...

It can be both very far away and so very close. It depends on a number of
things to be available and/or prevalent.

> Also, if a player makes a munchie char, as always the GM is free to
> stomp him.

There's that word again...damn, but this is getting annoying. You want to
see an example of a spell that effects matrix in an abstract sort of way???

Enhanced Sensory Aptitudes (Technical)
Drain : S2
Type : Mana
Range : Caster
Duration : Sustained
Target Nuber : 4

This spell gives the caster a greater grasp of technical understanding and
general technical theory. It does this by tapping into the "global
subconscious mind", much in the same way that Combat Sense does. This
heightened awareness manifests as a dice pool (based upon Net Successes
generated at the time of casting) that augments tests for Technical Skills,
much in the same way that a Task Pool from an Encephalon Implant does.

As it is sustainable, it is easily convertable to a Quickening or Anchoring
(many magicians place it upon the user's datajack as a sign of rebellion).
At is augmenting the mental capacities of the user directly, it does allow
for it's uses in Matrix Activities of the user, as the user, no matter how
tied up s/he is to the matrix is still suffering the effects of their
physical body at the end of a cord somewhere.

-=-=-=-=-

There....a beginning to the REAL FIRES!!!
-K
Message no. 79
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:59:08 -0500
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Steve Kenson wrote:
> Hi all, just taking a breather from working on the New Seattle sourcebook to
> let everyone know I'm still alive and still reading the list, and to ask a
> quick question:

OOOO I get to help make a Big Decision "Yes Virginia, I did help write SR3
in a small way.":):)

>[should Mage/Deckers be penalized in the matrix]

Well Ive never really read the Magic rules but my gut reaction
agrees with what the list has said so far. Sure let them try to do both
but unless they have a REALLY nice GM they will be cronicaly short of
karma and nuyen while STILL being behind the SOTA curve. Too many skills,
too many deck addons/programs, too many magical suplies are needed.

Now you can perfectly well ROLLPLAY the Mage/Decker as haveing
major problems with the matrix or Astral Space but why put in extra
penalties in the rules.

Hmmm. Now why cant i have a manly Decker who also happens to be
magicaly active and has a hard time understanding the Astral since it
doesnt manipulate like the little bits do in his deck?

> The same question comes up regarding magical characters using a Vehicle
> Control Rig. Should there be a penalty for magical riggers?

Well the massive essence cost of a VCR+Datajack is a big penalty right off
the bat. Pluss the same too many skills, too much to buy problem the
Decker/Mage has. Vehicles are expensive and GMs tend to blow them up on a
regular basis:).

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 80
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:42:03 -0400
>That's how *one* burned-out mage might go, when he had no power left. To
>say that all mages *will* slide the whole way down the slippery slope to
>burn-out, and/or that they will *all* react like that, is too much of a
>blanket statement when you are dealing with characters who are meant to
>be real people. Every individual reacts differently to pressure and to
>loss; to say that every character will follow the same path is
>unreasonable.

Umm no that' how he began his slide down to begin nearly mundane. The idea
of a piece of invasive hardware, especially one as invasive as a VCR is
dangerous to any adept, mage, whatever. A few bad wounds on top of that
already recuced and he's got as much essence left as a toaster.

>Absolutely. But mages already pay the penalty once over, in the loss of
>their Magic rating. I don't think they should have to pay twice.

A loss easily compensated for with a fetish or a focus.]

>Also, I was talking about technology in terms of the Matrix, rather than
>cyberware.

As much as you believe my tems to a blanket, technology is also a blanket term.


>> Depends on the way a particular campaign is being run. The difference
>> between a skill at a 6 isn't to far from being at
>
>Pardon?

I forgot to type the 8. With the idea being that having a skill at a
slightly lower level isn't all that much.

>So? We're not discussing the viability of the decker/rigger combo here;
>we're meant to be discussing mage/deckers.

I was responding to your statment why is a decker/rigger more aceptable than
a decker/mage.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 81
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:46:21 -0400
>I don't know exactly what your point is there.

It was a game mechanics reference. What can I say it was late.

>True, it saves me Karma points - though I resent your implication that
>I'm a min-maxer. The reason *why* I chose that, was that it fits the
>character and her background. To have her as good as magical theory as a
>graduate from MIT&M would be more munchkinish, to my mind. As far as I
>could see, in game terms I had no justification for giving her a Magic
>Theory skill, and in character terms she didn't give a frag about the
>whys and wherefores...

Whatever.

>For what? Convenience, perhaps? I fail to see your point here...
>(perhaps I'm misunderstanding you; the above point doesn't read very
>clearly to me.)

The point being anybody who's magically capable wouldn't squander there
precious essence on somehting like a datajack or a VCR.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 82
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 06:27:49 +0200
>> Also, if a player makes a munchie char, as always the GM is free to
>> stomp him.
>
>There's that word again...damn, but this is getting annoying. You want to
>see an example of a spell that effects matrix in an abstract sort of way???

Okay. I shouldn't use 'munchie'. I should use, 'A character designed to be
stronger than the campaign's accepted norm to a point where it is annoying
to GM and players alike'. Now does that make you feel better? :)


>Enhanced Sensory Aptitudes (Technical)
>Drain : S2
>Type : Mana
>Range : Caster
>Duration : Sustained
>Target Nuber : 4
>*sniP* task pool spell.

Considering how expensive task pool is to get, I think I would think twice
before saying, 'ok' to this spell. Combat pool has a tradition for being
increaseable, as it is also a physad power.

Task pool, increasing all technical and knowledge skills, shouldn't be that
easy to come by IMHO.

And lastly, this spell still makes no difference to the main argument,
because it, like increase intelligence, could be cast on *another* decker.
It doesn't affect the matrix, or the deck, only augments the decker's
abilities. That's not big news.
(Removing the 'caster only' requirement first, of course).
Message no. 83
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 02:23:58 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-20 22:24:24 EDT, mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM writes:

>
> IIRC, otaku were pretty much forbidden from becoming mages, but only
> using the prioritization (A-E) system, right? What's the point cost of
> being otaku? -- it would certainly seem easier to be mage/otaku with
> the Companion, even if you toss fifty-odd build points down the sink for
> it.
>
You are correct. In the games here, we use the 30 point system (at least I
do), as an Otaku has a number of things well above a standard decker
(increased I/O, beginning points in channels, built in flaws/edges, etc.).
The 30 points that are used by a magician for spells are then used for
forms, as "Karma" would be needed for either one (spell or form).

I have allowed for an Otaku to cross over with magic, but it can be a bit
extreme in any regards. I find it interesting personally, that before the
Otaku, a Physical Adept (Initiated with Enhanced Centering: Technical) was
the best decker option out there.

-K
Message no. 84
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 03:08:10 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-21 14:11:12 EDT, lobo1@****.COM writes:

>
> If I were to allow the use of magical abilities within the Matrix, I
> would a) require that such a spell be a physical manipulation (le duh:),
> b) require that the spell's creator have a Computer Theory skill (or
> Computer, but Comp. Theory is a bit more obscure and would make more
> sense, IMO) equal to the rating of the program/spell, and then require
> that they use some average of their Mag. and Comp. Theory skills. *If* I
> were to allow that. I don't think it would be *that* big a balance
> problem (such a spell would work by triggering a set sequence of optical
> pulses or something, and would require bandwidth:), especially since such
> a spell would have two basic restrictions: only usable in the Matrix, and
> Extreme Complexity.
>
> But that's just my opinion, YMMV.
>
And what a good opinion it is. After all, if "symbology" is the way of the
Matrix, triggering such effects with parallel symbols or things that would
generate said symbology, shouldn't be that hard to consider.

-K
Message no. 85
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 04:11:10 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-21 11:11:58 EDT, jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA writes:

> Or, maybe, just maybe, put some risk into it. Most Gray to Black IC
> work by sending ASIST spikes to the deck, then to the brain... What
> if those spikes could hurt the human brain? What if magic loss was in
> play? Make those mages think twice about decking...
>
I admit to snipping stuff, but I wanted to throw a simple thing in on this
area alone.

What if a magically capable character were "hot connected" and got into a
fight with the "Black-9 Fuchi Dragon"? What if the ICe did it's thing. What
would the mage do without realizing it? Certain degrees of power act at the
subconscious. Just imagine the consequences of the mage throwing a powerball
without realizing what he's doing, and it grounds out at "Ground Zero".

Ideas?
-K
Message no. 86
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 04:27:06 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-20 22:25:04 EDT, vanyel@*******.NET writes:

> Now for the details:
>
> Technology and magic DON'T mix (or at least not well). A mage can NEVER
> use their magic in the matrix, and therefore has to invest a lot of karma
> (as if they have lots of spare karma lying around anyway) into more skills
> and lots of resources. A decker has to throw 20 points into magic (or
> their A priority, depending on the chargen system you use) and has to
learn
> several skills in order to be a competent magician.
>
I jumped in at this point to bring up a question or three hundred.

After having read the VR2 and the R2 now completely, and having gone back and
checked on something in the VR2 just for good measure, I find a number of
open spots, potential loopholes and areas where my gamers will question me to
death and beyond (Anubis have mercy!!!).

1. A Datajack has a potential bonuses to the Comprehension tests for
Riggers. I understand why it doesn't help deckers (those programs are
nastier than compiled information IMHO). However, what about an SPU(Math),
which allows for faster rates of flow of information (changed mp load levels
in first ed and early second. What does it do in VR2? What about Riggers?
This little toy helps the decker out with coprocessing for the Hacking Pool.
Riggers' could perrform similar help in the mathematics of physics directly
IMHO.

2. Magic and R2 is extremely weak. A few areas on Combat and Damaging
Manipulation magic. Sorry folks, I know that everyone wants to know how to
destroy the enemies drones/vehicles, but what about helping out the comrades
self-same toys? Fix has LOTS of potential, as does Temper. Use (Skill) is
also easily enterable as is Fashion (hey, it might mention clothes, but what
about changing the paint color of a vehicle?).

3. Domain's and Large Vehicles. Look at it this way folks. Sea Shamans get
a bonus to Ship (Hearth) Spirits. What else counts as a hearth. In my
games, riggers just about -live- in their vehicles. When does that help?

4. Otaku and Riggers. Okay, I know the first are questionable subjects, but
I'm just mentioning it to see what kind, if any, responses I get just for
mentioning it. Come on folks, let the wheels turn here (pun intended).

5. Free Spirits and Wealth power. It says that beings with knowledge in
things can "wealth up" stuff that is more modern. What about a Free Spirit
that passes itself off as a Mechanic or Rigger (and the vehicle in question
he prefers is its personal domain?).

Ideas?
-K
Message no. 87
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:54:57 +0100
And verily, did Rick St Jean hastily scribble thusly...
|
|Oh btw thanks for the BOMB drop steve. 130+ messages by noon... holy
|cow.

That's what happens when new books come out...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 88
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 05:12:27 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-21 02:53:34 EDT, AirWisp@***.COM writes:

> > No, so far as I know, otaku are forbidden from being magically active
> PERIOD.
> > > Under any character creation system. From their point of view, they
ARE
> > > magical, the mages and shamans of the Matrix, and that precludes
otaku
> > from
> > > learning any other kind of "magic" just as surely as a shaman
can't
> turn
> > > around and decide to become a mage.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but otaku and the resonance are not magical in
> nature, it is just the easiest way to describe them and their
capabilities.
>
Well Mike, now that you have stepped in way over your head...I want to point
out that Steve Kenson is who you were commenting too.

Though admittedly, what you said is correct, I believe what Steve was
intending to put forth is that a "Technoshaman" cannot turn around and become
a "Cyberadept", in much the same way that a "Bear Shaman" can't
renounce bear
(well, not in theory anyway) and become a Hermetic Mage.

-K
Message no. 89
From: Ray & Tamara <macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:30:38 +1000
> | PLatinum wrote in reply to S. Kenson:
> |
> | > If mages start delving in to the matrix...
> | > what's to stop them from designing spells to assist them??
>
> Nothing's stoping a mage from casting spells on themselves, such as
> Increase Intelligence. But they cannot cast spells that affect the
> matrix. Mages need to be able to see their target, unless it's a
> physical manipulation spell. ...wait a sec.
>
> IMO mage's cannot cast non-manipulation spells in the matrix because
> they don't have any auras to target. The matrix is a virtual
> representation, i.e. not real. However, what's stoping a mage from
> designing a manipulation spell that he can cast on a cyberdeck that
> can act like a program in the matrix?

Nothing, if the mage can keep track of and in synch with a 320 bit, 10 000
MHz CPU (or whatever a deck's CPU is). Can't see that it would be possible
at all.

NightRain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 90
From: Ray & Tamara <macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:27:57 +1000
> IMHO, no. Many people claim that technology and magic are two
> seperate paths. I disagree. Technology is a tool, an extension of
> natural science. Technology is not at odds with magic no more than
> music is at odds with paintings. Magic is a science unlike any
> other, yet it isn't in dispute with any other science.

Well put. I think that sums things up well.

NightRain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 91
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 07:03:17 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-21 13:38:06 EDT, barbie@**********.COM writes:

>
> Ok speaking as one who runs such a character.

With the exception of the rigging, I understand this completely.

> As a Decker I suck in our game. Most of the time I didn`t even find what
I`m
> searching. Combat is as worse. I have started decking mainly to be able
> to do it in an emergency, or if now other Decker is present.

I am hoping that you meant "no other Decker". Don't ya hate typos?

> Rigger, I started as a rigger and I`m still the best in our group,
> able to fly/drive anything.

Anything huh? Let's go chat a bit, I've got a shuttle for ya test out on...

> Mage, since my magical abilities was forced upon me, I`m such a hot mage,
> that even a starting mage can kick my butt to hell, without breaking a
sweat.

Is that with Degree or Shick Anti-Perspirant? A question does come up? What
about the surprise aspect?

> And initating out of this hole is a real pain.

Initiating in general is a pain.

> My abilities as a sam are abit above the norm, if I would go toe-to-toe
> with a real sam I`m sure that I would win, but more than one...

Again, do you mean "lose more than one..." as in toe?

> So afterall I`m the karma hole incarneted, can do all but only at marginal
> levels, besides rigging.

Ah, then we really should talk. I know, Barbie and Binder can meet at some
emailish/irc bar, get to know each, date, and have kids (oh wait, he's
already got a daughter)....let's hold off on that...and you could
occasionally wear his hat, just be careful of the rabbit...and he's got LOTS
of spare rings...

-K
Message no. 92
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 07:37:38 +0000
> Underestimate what? Is carrying around a Cyberdeck any more
> conspicuous then loggin' around that LMG? You don't see many cranial
> guns out there (okay, the cyberguns, but we all know how useful
> those are).

Well, 95% of the time my runners DON'T lug the LMG. the advantages
to a C^2 are:
1) You can pass customs, guards, etc.
2) You don't have your multi-million nuyen equipment shot (you hope
:)

Basically it's a matter of subtlety....if you use LMG's, than I have
no point in talking to you about subtlety.

> > You're saying that both these deckers would be on par with one
> > another. Try again. Go ahead. Design the character and share with
> > us. Heck, give him some extra cash and Karma and show us that too.
> >
>
> Game Balance doesn't end with character creation. Think about the
> long run. Heck, just pick up NERPS Edge Runners, and look at some
> characters people have posted there. I'm not talkin' about starting
> characters here. Most high-end samurai might rather invest some
> extra karma into Computer skills than paying a truckload to boost
> some already mile-high combat skill. And since decking is only a mattter
> of skill and money, well, you get the picture...

Edge Runners represent HUGE amounts of time, money, and Karma....and
YES, after that, he would be a good mage and a decent decker.....but
if that much had been spent on a normal mage or decker they would
still be twice as strong.

Besides, your complaint seems to be against decking being a matter of
skill and money. Why? That's all it is. You need to have the
interest too, but the role-playing decides that. The only ones that
would do it for the wrong reasons are munchies, and we can't stop
them either way.

> > > IMHO, deckers have something special that no other characters have.
> > > That vision, that mindset needed to see the matrix as something real,
> > > not something virtual. Not to sound trite or anything, but it's the

That is your opinion. I would disagree. That ability is reflected
mostly by the computer skill. The only thing special a decker has is
drive to learn the matrix, and the player does or does not provide
that.

> > If you make a mage/decker character, it already IS tough enough to
> > make him think a few billion times.
> >
>
> Again, I'm not thinking about some beginner... The same thing could
> be applied to the Sam/Physad debate. Sure, the Sam can kick the
...
> Sure, the pure decker is much more of a threat in the Matrix. But
> when that wannabe decker gets more karma, and money... Same thing.

Well, its a lot of money and karma, and if they've spent it, then I
consider them to be a real decker, if a multi-talented one. Most of
the characters I would assume would never make that point...Either
decking is very important to you or it is not. A mage with an
interest in decking might pick up a datajack and a decent deck and
get even up to computer 4, but that leaves him in the cold when it
comes to hacking even most Red systems.

> > hogwash. The mage doesn't sacrifice his brain.
>
> No, he changes it... About the same result, IMHO. And this was only
> another option I was thinking about, not something I would take as
> immuable. Saying that the mage has the same brain as a decker is
> bullshit. No, they're different. Maybe that difference could hurt
> the mage sometimes...

And the artist can never pass calculus because he doesn't "think" the
right way. It may even be right MOST of the time, but it isn't a
rule.

Sorry if I sounded a little harsh here, no offense intended...it's
pretty bloody early my time.
-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie
Message no. 93
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:51:27 -0400
Ray & Tamara once dared to write,

>> IMO mage's cannot cast non-manipulation spells in the matrix because
>> they don't have any auras to target. The matrix is a virtual
>> representation, i.e. not real. However, what's stoping a mage from
>> designing a manipulation spell that he can cast on a cyberdeck that
>> can act like a program in the matrix?
>
>Nothing, if the mage can keep track of and in synch with a 320 bit, 10 000
>MHz CPU (or whatever a deck's CPU is). Can't see that it would be possible
>at all.

Sigh. Magic affect things holistically. About all the attempts
people are trying to do actually targets components and not the whole.
The matrix is a whole and a program is a component. Remember that when
ever you try to interact magic with anything.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 94
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:01:16 -0600
Gurth wrote:
|
| > I'm not talkin' about starting characters here. Most high-end samurai
| > might rather invest some extra karma into Computer skills than paying a
| > truckload to boost some already mile-high combat skill. And since
| > decking is only a mattter of skill and money, well, you get the
| > picture...
|
| This is what I've noticed about just about all characters I've seen played
| for any length of time. They start out with a bunch of typical skills and
| then start to branch out. In my current campaign, the longest-surviving
| character was talking about getting a VCR or a cyberdeck (right now I
| can't remember which one exactly, sorry Gabriel :) when he gets enough
| money together, and he's sort of a glorified detective (well, an
| undercover cop, actually).

Just make sure that the character is branching out because the
character wants to do that. Not because the player wants to.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 95
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:02:36 +0500
On 22 Oct 97 at 0:42, NightLife wrote:

> >Absolutely. But mages already pay the penalty once over, in the loss of
> >their Magic rating. I don't think they should have to pay twice.
>
> A loss easily compensated for with a fetish or a focus.]

A fix easily balanced by focus addiction.

--
drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 96
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:05:01 +0500
On 22 Oct 97 at 0:46, NightLife wrote:

> The point being anybody who's magically capable wouldn't squander
> there precious essence on somehting like a datajack or a VCR.

What if you want to play a character that had that stuff installed
before they discovered their magical potential? I don't like rules
that squander creativity.

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 97
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:53:27 +0500
On 22 Oct 97 at 8:51, MC23 wrote:

> Sigh. Magic affect things holistically. About all the attempts
> people are trying to do actually targets components and not the
> whole. The matrix is a whole and a program is a component. Remember
> that when ever you try to interact magic with anything.

Not only that, the Matrix is a concept. It is not a place, or a
thing. Magic can target concepts now? That's scary, to say the least.

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 98
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:05:22 -0500
>What does it take to be a Samurai? Lots and
>lots of essence, money and high attributes. A
>Rigger? about the same thing.
>Magician, Physads? Magic rating, karma to
>burn, etc. Deckers? A datajack....That's it....
>nothing more... No fancy cyber, no mystical
>powers, just a plain old datajack.

I'm way behind on this thread, but here goes:

This is a good point, but it has a fairly easy fix.
Up the number of skills you need to be a good
decker. Split Computer(Hardware) and
Computer(Software) into separate skills, use
Computer Theory more often, make sure
Electronics, Computer(B/R), Electronnics(B/R)
all get needed too. Make sure the SOTA rules
are being used. Now I dare you to try and be a
Decker as a character creation after-thought.

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 99
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 20:30:55 +0100
Drekhead said on 10:53/22 Oct 97...

> Not only that, the Matrix is a concept. It is not a place, or a
> thing. Magic can target concepts now? That's scary, to say the least.

It can read thoughts and memories that are stored in and retrieved from
various parts of the brain using various chemical and/or physical
processes. A computer doesn't do much else than that, except it's not
alive and can't think for itself (we hope... ;)

However, as MC23 pointed out, magic takes the holistic approach. You can
read someone's thoughts because the target's a some_one_ and not a
some_thing_ -- we all know "things" don't think, so they have no thoughts
that can be read.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside you head.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 100
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:11:47 +0000
"J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM> once wrote,

> I admit to snipping stuff, but I wanted to throw a simple thing in on this
> area alone.
>
> What if a magically capable character were "hot connected" and got into a
> fight with the "Black-9 Fuchi Dragon"? What if the ICe did it's thing.
What
> would the mage do without realizing it? Certain degrees of power act at the
> subconscious. Just imagine the consequences of the mage throwing a powerball
> without realizing what he's doing, and it grounds out at "Ground Zero".
>
> Ideas?
> -K
>

Yes....Why...Yes.... Not Black IC per say, but Psychotropic IC, which
can modify the target's brain and thought patterns... Make him think
he can't use spells anymore... Make him cast that Hellblast at
"ground zero"... Yes.....Mwahahahaha!

Mr. Henry, you must be an official "Evil GM"... ;)

Trinity
-------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 101
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 15:23:03 +0000
Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU> once wrote

(snipped)
> Well, 95% of the time my runners DON'T lug the LMG. the advantages
> to a C^2 are:
> 1) You can pass customs, guards, etc.

You'll set off every metal detector in that airport....

> Basically it's a matter of subtlety....if you use LMG's, than I have
> no point in talking to you about subtlety.

:)

> Edge Runners represent HUGE amounts of time, money, and Karma....and
> YES, after that, he would be a good mage and a decent decker.....but
> if that much had been spent on a normal mage or decker they would
> still be twice as strong.

Oh no.. Sorry to disagree with you here, but the SR "Power-level"
curve is not constant, not by a mile. As characters get stronger,
the difference between them seem to disappear... Take a Sam with a
cumulative Karma of...100, and one with 150... That difference
becomes pretty thin. I think it's wrong to say that a decker
would be twice as powerful... Will he be more powerful? Yes.
Compared to the other decker, will it matter? Nope.

(snip)

> > > hogwash. The mage doesn't sacrifice his brain.
> >
> > No, he changes it... About the same result, IMHO. And this was only
> > another option I was thinking about, not something I would take as
> > immuable. Saying that the mage has the same brain as a decker is
> > bullshit. No, they're different. Maybe that difference could hurt
> > the mage sometimes...
>
> And the artist can never pass calculus because he doesn't "think" the
> right way. It may even be right MOST of the time, but it isn't a
> rule.

Yes, there I have to agree with you. But what I can't tolerate is
that possibility, that someone, somewhere, will (or already has) make
that character. I know, it's none of my business, but on something
as widespread as the 'Net, I'm bound to meet one somewhere, maybe on
some IRC game or PBEM... I already have problems with Mundanes who
got their magical skills through some accident or ritual... I'm
kind of old-school SR...so sue me :)

> Sorry if I sounded a little harsh here, no offense intended...it's
> pretty bloody early my time.

Hey, no problem...it's all friendly ranting ;)

Trinity
---------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 102
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 13:52:46 -0600
J. Keith Henry wrote:
|
| In a message dated 97-10-21 10:10:49 EDT, dbuehrer@****.ORG writes:
|
| > I don't mind if magical character is also a decker. One of the players in
| > my game made such a character, a shaman conjurer of Snake. Seeing as he
| > was a shaman of Snake (who seeks to know all) it worked well for the
| > character. And the expense of karma toward the two more than balanced out
| > the character.
|
| Dave, I have to jump in here with a question. Where do you live? The
| "Conjuror of Snake" had me thinking of something. Do you have a character
| that is aware of the "Mask of Itzamna?" or perhaps a decker named Johanna
| de'Burg? How about a snot of a kid named Reflex with a Barghest for a pet?

Nope. Must be someone else. I live in Denver, Colorado. Although I'm
gonna have to use Reflex as an NPC sometime :)

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 103
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:03:26 -0400
Drekhead once dared to write,

>On 22 Oct 97 at 8:51, MC23 wrote:
>
>> Sigh. Magic affect things holistically. About all the attempts
>> people are trying to do actually targets components and not the
>> whole. The matrix is a whole and a program is a component. Remember
>> that when ever you try to interact magic with anything.
>
>Not only that, the Matrix is a concept. It is not a place, or a
>thing. Magic can target concepts now? That's scary, to say the least.

The matrix is technically all the computers wired into one another
which uses programs to simulate a forced perspective of virtual space.
The hardware that makes this illusion possible is what I was referring to.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 104
From: Sean Martinez <el_bandit@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:26:38 -0400
Gurth replied:

>I'm aware of that one, and I still think anyone except jacked-in riggers
>should roll their normal initiative dice, including any boosts they may
>have.

That's a nice thought, but someone with improved reflexes does not mesh
with the vehicle nor can he use the vehicle as an extension of himself
like a rigger can.

A rigger can, so he should get the full bonus of the VCR, while a street
sam with boosted reflexes should not roll his modified reflexes.

The rule makes riggers the vehicle combat monsters they should be. No
point in allowing another charcter class to steal their fire.

-El Bandit

Http://members.aol.com/elbandit/index.html
Message no. 105
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:08:02 EST
> Oh no.. Sorry to disagree with you here, but the SR "Power-level"
> curve is not constant, not by a mile. As characters get stronger,
> the difference between them seem to disappear... Take a Sam with a
> cumulative Karma of...100, and one with 150... That difference
> becomes pretty thin. I think it's wrong to say that a decker would
> be twice as powerful... Will he be more powerful? Yes. Compared to
> the other decker, will it matter? Nope.

SOTA pretty much kills this though...(as much as I hate the SOTA
rules)

> > And the artist can never pass calculus because he doesn't "think" the
> > right way. It may even be right MOST of the time, but it isn't a
> > rule.
>
> Yes, there I have to agree with you. But what I can't tolerate is
> that possibility, that someone, somewhere, will (or already has)
> make that character. I know, it's none of my business, but on
> something as widespread as the 'Net, I'm bound to meet one
> somewhere, maybe on some IRC game or PBEM... I already have problems
> with Mundanes who got their magical skills through some accident or
> ritual... I'm kind of old-school SR...so sue me :)

Nothing wrong with old-school. (Although I did give one of my
players magical abilities through a ritual...really screwed him over,
as he was a rigger and the ritual recreated his body, and did away
with his cyber. He's now on a quest to try and figure out a way
back. :) [there ain't one] (And then again, he was a player who
never intends to get a magical skill above a rating 2, so I have no
balance problems).

I certainly agree that the role-playing aspect should be emphasized.
Perhaps a penalty as default, and an Edge to ignore it?

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 106
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:25:22 +1000
> > The point being anybody who's magically capable wouldn't squander
> > there precious essence on somehting like a datajack or a VCR.
>
> What if you want to play a character that had that stuff installed
> before they discovered their magical potential? I don't like rules
> that squander creativity.

I know of plenty of characters who have that as a background... and how
can anyone say that "anybody who's magically capable" will or will not
feel like this... you *can't* generalise accurately about the reactions
of thousands of people on an individual basis. To say that any magically
capable person qouldn't squander their essence on 'ware (assuming they
even know of ware's effects on Magic) is like saying that "anyone who's
a student wouldn't dream of leaving a report until the last minute".
Sure, both are the sensible things to do, but I think you'd find lots of
exceptions to the rule - in both cases. ;)

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 107
From: Timothy Little <t_little@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:49:16 +1100
At 09:06 AM 10/22/97 +1000, Lady Jestyr wrote:

>> In the absence of an explicit ruling that there is no penalty, my GM
prefers
>> to keep things the way they were.
>
>VR2.0 itself says that it supersedes all previously published rules...
>that's explicit enough for me.

Except when it explicitly refers to previously published rules, I take it?
In a number of places it refers to SRII, and at least once to VR1.

It also mentions somewhere (I think the RTG/LTG descriptions) that they
tried to minimise the impact on previously-published material.

Dropping a major across-the-board penalty would have a greater effect on
previously published material than changing a couple of security values.

So, it's not so clear-cut (but I agree with you).

--
Little One
Message no. 108
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:44:00 -0500
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:51:27 -0400 MC23 <mc23@**********.COM> writes:

> Sigh. Magic affect things holistically. About all the attempts
>people are trying to do actually targets components and not the whole.
>The matrix is a whole and a program is a component. Remember that when
>ever you try to interact magic with anything.


I would think that would depend upon your POV: to me, anyway, the Matrix
represents an entire other world, just as astral space does, just as an
alternate reality would. Anything within that world which has its own
unique representation (it's own icon) could be considered a single
object, a whole, rather than a component.



--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
Message no. 109
From: Matthew Johnson <mjohnson@*.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 16:21:48 -0600
>
> > Sigh. Magic affect things holistically. About all the attempts
> >people are trying to do actually targets components and not the whole.
> >The matrix is a whole and a program is a component. Remember that when
> >ever you try to interact magic with anything.
>
>
> I would think that would depend upon your POV: to me, anyway, the Matrix
> represents an entire other world, just as astral space does, just as an
> alternate reality would. Anything within that world which has its own
> unique representation (it's own icon) could be considered a single
> object, a whole, rather than a component.
>

I'm not so sure it's a POV. An icon is a representation, but not the same
way astral space represents the physical world. the icons and constructs in
the Matrix "world" could not be targeted, IMO, because: 1) they are made up
of multiple bits and pieces, software and hardware, and 2) your natural
analog(?) sight (or cybereye, or "magic" eye) is not being used.

Matthew Johnson
mjohnson@*.arizona.edu
Message no. 110
From: Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:23:34 EDT
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 07:37:38 +0000 Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU> writes:
>> Underestimate what? Is carrying around a Cyberdeck any more
>> conspicuous then loggin' around that LMG? You don't see many cranial
>> guns out there (okay, the cyberguns, but we all know how useful
>> those are).
>
>Well, 95% of the time my runners DON'T lug the LMG. the advantages
>to a C^2 are:
>1) You can pass customs, guards, etc.
>2) You don't have your multi-million nuyen equipment shot (you hope :)

... or when it gets shot, you a) aren't in a position to really care too
much, and b) have other things to worry about.

~Tim
Message no. 111
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 19:56:06 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-22 00:59:10 EDT, runefo@***.UIO.NO writes:

>
> And lastly, this spell still makes no difference to the main argument,
> because it, like increase intelligence, could be cast on *another* decker.
> It doesn't affect the matrix, or the deck, only augments the decker's
> abilities. That's not big news.
> (Removing the 'caster only' requirement first, of course).
>
Sure Rune, and then put the drain back to D2. I will gladly do so...
-K
Message no. 112
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:36:23 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-22 10:53:03 EDT, drekhead@***.NET writes:

> > Sigh. Magic affect things holistically. About all the attempts
> > people are trying to do actually targets components and not the
> > whole. The matrix is a whole and a program is a component. Remember
> > that when ever you try to interact magic with anything.
>
> Not only that, the Matrix is a concept. It is not a place, or a
> thing. Magic can target concepts now? That's scary, to say the least.
>
Sorry to tell you, but "concepts" has always been included. Try out the
attribute magic for instance. Or how about "Combat Sense"? It isn't scary
at all actually, it's a natural advancement of the parallel
thinking/development aspect.

-K
Message no. 113
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:42:21 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-22 14:33:14 EDT, gurth@******.NL writes:

> It can read thoughts and memories that are stored in and retrieved from
> various parts of the brain using various chemical and/or physical
> processes. A computer doesn't do much else than that, except it's not
> alive and can't think for itself (we hope... ;)

You could never convince an Otaku N/PC of that.

> However, as MC23 pointed out, magic takes the holistic approach. You can
> read someone's thoughts because the target's a some_one_ and not a
> some_thing_ -- we all know "things" don't think, so they have no thoughts
> that can be read.

Okay then, it's time to move another direction. How about this for a
combination of spells/ideas????

A spell with a hypersenses development (Detection) that enables someone to
directly comprehend the optic/electronic pulses of a machine/device, such as
a cyberdeck or cyberterminal?

A spell that would enable/translate the intents/thoughts of a person into a
series of light/optic signals that could therefore be potentially understood
by a machine, such as a cyberdeck or cyberterminal?

Come on folks, you are lagging behind...
-K
Message no. 114
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:47:30 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-22 15:44:34 EDT, jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA writes:

> "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM> once wrote,
> > I admit to snipping stuff, but I wanted to throw a simple thing in on
this
> > area alone.
> >
> > What if a magically capable character were "hot connected" and got
into
a
> > fight with the "Black-9 Fuchi Dragon"? What if the ICe did it's
thing.

> What
> > would the mage do without realizing it? Certain degrees of power act at

> the
> > subconscious. Just imagine the consequences of the mage throwing a
> powerball
> > without realizing what he's doing, and it grounds out at "Ground
Zero".
> >
> > Ideas?
> > -K
> Yes....Why...Yes.... Not Black IC per say, but Psychotropic IC, which
> can modify the target's brain and thought patterns... Make him think
> he can't use spells anymore... Make him cast that Hellblast at
> "ground zero"... Yes.....Mwahahahaha!
>
> Mr. Henry, you must be an official "Evil GM"... ;)
> Trinity

(blushing) Why thank you Trinity...Hey TINNER!!!! Check it out, I made it
guy!!!!

(tossing of invisble blood spot kisses to all in the crowd)

Now then Trinity, to follow that thought, how is this for a topic of a run?
Some goofy guy has come up with a way to follow up on the "Belief" aspect of
magic. Invents Psychotropic ICe.........


-K
Message no. 115
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 21:57:10 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-22 15:52:13 EDT, dbuehrer@****.ORG writes:

>
> Nope. Must be someone else. I live in Denver, Colorado. Although I'm
> gonna have to use Reflex as an NPC sometime :)
>
Just do everyone the favor of not including the vampirism if you use "the
kid" or perhaps remember the barghest (the new one, the old one died) is
better tempermental than the last (and the kid got to grow up even).

-K
Message no. 116
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:00:52 -0400
John E Pederson once dared to write,

>I would think that would depend upon your POV:

???
Nope, its just a forced perception of programing actions.

>to me, anyway, the Matrix
>represents an entire other world, just as astral space does, just as an
>alternate reality would. Anything within that world which has its own
>unique representation (it's own icon) could be considered a single
>object, a whole, rather than a component.

IT's not real and doesn't exist in a form like you are referring to.
Maybe to an Otaku can see it that way but they still understand the
matrix far differently than you refer to it as.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 117
From: Ray & Tamara <macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:36:11 +1000
> >> IMO mage's cannot cast non-manipulation spells in the matrix because
> >> they don't have any auras to target. The matrix is a virtual
> >> representation, i.e. not real. However, what's stoping a mage from
> >> designing a manipulation spell that he can cast on a cyberdeck that
> >> can act like a program in the matrix?
> >
> >Nothing, if the mage can keep track of and in synch with a 320 bit, 10 000
> >MHz CPU (or whatever a deck's CPU is). Can't see that it would be
possible
> >at all.
>
> Sigh. Magic affect things holistically. About all the attempts
> people are trying to do actually targets components and not the whole.
> The matrix is a whole and a program is a component. Remember that when
> ever you try to interact magic with anything.

What? The matrix is not a whole (ie complete) item. It doesn't exist. To
affect what people _see_ as the matrix, you have to affect the deck (or the
computer they are decking into).

Holistic's are all well and fine when you are talking about people, emotions,
spirits, astral space and the like. But when you act with a deck to work
within the matrix, you have to work with the rules that determine what
happens and what doesn't, and that means keeping in synch with a computer.
The matrix is not a big emotional 'place', or a place shaped by beliefs like
astral space, it is nothing more than a huge realm of 'logic' (for want of a
better word) that has to follow certain set in stone rules (ie protocols,
encryption etc) that does not leave much room for magic, unless the mage can
have the magic perform exactly as a program would. Astral space is real in a
sense (you can be killed there, or whatever else you want to define as
'real'). The matrix is not real is the slightest sense of the word, it is
all hallucination. You can be killed, but you are being killed back where
you are squatting, by spiked ASIST signals.

NightRain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 118
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:31:59 -0400
Ray & Tamara once dared to write,

>The matrix is not a big emotional 'place', or a place shaped by beliefs like
>astral space, it is nothing more than a huge realm of 'logic' (for want of a
>better word) that has to follow certain set in stone rules (ie protocols,
>encryption etc) that does not leave much room for magic,...

Which is what I was basically saying

>... unless the mage can have the magic perform exactly as a program would.

Which it can't because then it would be acting like a component.
Electrical currents, binary files, triodes and the like are all part of
the matrix.

>Astral space is real in a sense (you can be killed there, or whatever else you
>want to define as 'real').

Yes

>The matrix is not real is the slightest sense of the word, it is all
>hallucination. You can be killed, but you are being killed back where
>you are squatting, by spiked ASIST signals.

The matrix is all the connected computers and is real. Virtual
Reality is what is not real in the slightest sense of the world.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 119
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:11:24 -0700
J. Keith Henry wrote:

> What if a magically capable character were "hot connected" and got into a
> fight with the "Black-9 Fuchi Dragon"? What if the ICe did it's thing.
What
> would the mage do without realizing it? Certain degrees of power act at the
> subconscious. Just imagine the consequences of the mage throwing a powerball
> without realizing what he's doing, and it grounds out at "Ground Zero".

> Ideas?

....What if a decker bumped into a Renraku Red Samurai whose armor
looked *just like* that IC he tangled with last night, and his
subconscious instinct was to load an Attack-9 prog?

<sarcasm>
Guess we should assume all the Karma the mage spent on Computer went for
nought, eh? After all, he's not a person, he's a mage.

And I guess we should supply all the classes with "Fish out of Water"
rolls, huh?
<sarcasm off>


-Mb
Message no. 120
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:49:51 +0000
J. Keith Henry once wrote,

> Now then Trinity, to follow that thought, how is this for a topic of a run?
> Some goofy guy has come up with a way to follow up on the "Belief" aspect
of
> magic. Invents Psychotropic ICe.........
>
>
> -K

Hmm... which brings an important question... Is Magic, or the
capacity to handle it, only born from the mind? As stated in some
shadowtalk in the Shadowtech book, Scientists have yet, in 2058, to
mark any differences between a mundane brain and an awakened brain.
What if that capacity was always present within us? Only to be awaken
by some specific stimuli... What if someone designed some
Psychotropic ICe, thinking it would only frag up the target's brain
by making him believe he can cast spells, only to find out it
actually can help awaken someones latent magical abilities? I keep
thinking about that "Azroth the God" story in Awakenings... People
who don't believe they are doing Magic, but do it anyways... What
kind of tradition would those people form? Hmm....

Trinity
-----------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 121
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 06:24:42 -0500
At 22-Okt-97 wrote Frank Pelletier:

>J. Keith Henry once wrote,

>> Now then Trinity, to follow that thought, how is this for a topic of a run?
>> Some goofy guy has come up with a way to follow up on the "Belief"
aspect
>of
>> magic. Invents Psychotropic ICe.........
>>
>>
>> -K

>Hmm... which brings an important question... Is Magic, or the
>capacity to handle it, only born from the mind? As stated in some
>shadowtalk in the Shadowtech book, Scientists have yet, in 2058, to
>mark any differences between a mundane brain and an awakened brain

No, its more a thing of the genes. read the metagene chapter in the ST,
page 68 and follows.
The mind only shapes the orientation of believes.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 122
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:50:33 -0400
At 10:05 AM 10/22/97 +0500, you wrote:
>On 22 Oct 97 at 0:46, NightLife wrote:
>
>> The point being anybody who's magically capable wouldn't squander
>> there precious essence on somehting like a datajack or a VCR.
>
>What if you want to play a character that had that stuff installed
>before they discovered their magical potential? I don't like rules
>that squander creativity.

I believe the rule of thumb is Magic is discovered around puberty and
generally not after that. Who's going to get cyber when their 12? If you
want to play a character who gets their cyber at 12, tough.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 123
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:52:23 -0400
At 10:02 AM 10/22/97 +0500, you wrote:
>On 22 Oct 97 at 0:42, NightLife wrote:
>
>> >Absolutely. But mages already pay the penalty once over, in the loss of
>> >their Magic rating. I don't think they should have to pay twice.
>>
>> A loss easily compensated for with a fetish or a focus.]
>
>A fix easily balanced by focus addiction.

If the bother to go over thing limit. Worst case scnario most mages are one
point of magic behind.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 124
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:27:34 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-23 00:28:09 EDT, barbie@**********.COM writes:

> No, its more a thing of the genes. read the metagene chapter in the ST,
> page 68 and follows.
> The mind only shapes the orientation of believes.
>
Really Barbie?; then tell that to the Free Spirits that roam the metaversal
expanses. They know nothing of what we call genes...the argument needs more
room.

-K
Message no. 125
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:30:46 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-23 00:53:06 EDT, habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU writes:

>
> I believe the rule of thumb is Magic is discovered around puberty and
> generally not after that. Who's going to get cyber when their 12? If you
> want to play a character who gets their cyber at 12, tough.
>
Really? A couple of arguments here. The first one is a simple one, those
with reportably shorter lifespans and earlier maturization periods, like
Trolls or Orks, that's who. Get's them their headstart before their
playground chummers the elves, dwarves and humans learn what it means to
really grow up.

And then of course, their is the Otaku, which btw, the Resonance claims most
of it's people -before- puberty, before the activation sequences of magic can
likely take hold. Anyone thought of that?

-K
Message no. 126
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 07:40:57 -0500
At 23-Okt-97 wrote J. Keith Henry:

>In a message dated 97-10-23 00:28:09 EDT, barbie@**********.COM writes:

>> No, its more a thing of the genes. read the metagene chapter in the ST,
>> page 68 and follows.
>> The mind only shapes the orientation of believes.
>>
>Really Barbie?; then tell that to the Free Spirits that roam the metaversal
>expanses. They know nothing of what we call genes...the argument needs more
>room.

Ok, I have forgotten this. Well for physical beings its defined by the genes
and therefor integrated into the astral template as it is in the astral
template
of spirits.
Is this better?

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 127
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 02:07:10 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-22 15:44:15 EDT, jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA writes:

> Yes....Why...Yes.... Not Black IC per say, but Psychotropic IC, which
> can modify the target's brain and thought patterns... Make him think
> he can't use spells anymore... Make him cast that Hellblast at
> "ground zero"... Yes.....Mwahahahaha!
>
> Mr. Henry, you must be an official "Evil GM"... ;)

Now isn't that an interesting thought, use PCP IC to make a mage forget that
he or she can cast spells or even has access to the mojo at all. Is way
cheaper than performing surgery and installing all sorts of useless
cyberware.
Message no. 128
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 02:17:01 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-22 23:59:49 EDT, you write:

> Hmm... which brings an important question... Is Magic, or the
> capacity to handle it, only born from the mind? As stated in some
> shadowtalk in the Shadowtech book, Scientists have yet, in 2058, to
> mark any differences between a mundane brain and an awakened brain.
> What if that capacity was always present within us? Only to be awaken
> by some specific stimuli... What if someone designed some
> Psychotropic ICe, thinking it would only frag up the target's brain
> by making him believe he can cast spells, only to find out it
> actually can help awaken someones latent magical abilities? I keep
> thinking about that "Azroth the God" story in Awakenings... People
> who don't believe they are doing Magic, but do it anyways... What
> kind of tradition would those people form? Hmm....
>

Perhaps it only takes a little bit of faith ...
Mike
Message no. 129
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 02:18:36 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-23 00:28:26 EDT, you write:

> >Hmm... which brings an important question... Is Magic, or the
> >capacity to handle it, only born from the mind? As stated in some
> >shadowtalk in the Shadowtech book, Scientists have yet, in 2058, to
> >mark any differences between a mundane brain and an awakened brain
>
> No, its more a thing of the genes. read the metagene chapter in the ST,
> page 68 and follows.
> The mind only shapes the orientation of believes.

Even this is only a statement that does not follow through completely, the
best example of this is with regards to the loa spirits, when there is a
need, something will respond.
Message no. 130
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 03:12:45 -0400
NightLife once dared to write,

>I believe the rule of thumb is Magic is discovered around puberty and
>generally not after that. Who's going to get cyber when their 12? If you
>want to play a character who gets their cyber at 12, tough.

Otaku get their datajacks at that age and younger.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 131
From: NightRain <macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 15:09:50 +1000
J. Keith Henry wrote:

>A spell with a hypersenses development (Detection) that enables someone to
>directly comprehend the optic/electronic pulses of a machine/device, such
as
>a cyberdeck or cyberterminal?
>
>A spell that would enable/translate the intents/thoughts of a person into
a
>series of light/optic signals that could therefore be potentially
understood
>by a machine, such as a cyberdeck or cyberterminal?

I guess that would work, but you would still be limited by the decks active
memory and the like, as it has to follow the rules that all programs must
follow on cyberdecks.

NightRain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 132
From: David Mezerette <mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:42:01 +0100
At 15:09 23/10/97 +1000, you wrote:
>J. Keith Henry wrote:
>

>>
>>A spell that would enable/translate the intents/thoughts of a person into
>a
>>series of light/optic signals that could therefore be potentially
>understood
>>by a machine, such as a cyberdeck or cyberterminal?
>
>I guess that would work, but you would still be limited by the decks active
>memory and the like, as it has to follow the rules that all programs must
>follow on cyberdecks.
>
i just can't imagine the ratings in Magical theory and
Electronics/Cybertechnology required for designing such a spell, and it
would be a hell of a work for a something a device as simple as an
encephalon does =). Besides, i can't see in which way it would help in
running programs in the matrix.

ChYlD
mezeretted@*****.u-nancy.fr
Message no. 133
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:15:36 -0500
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:30:46 -0400 "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:

>And then of course, their is the Otaku, which btw, the Resonance
>claims most
>of it's people -before- puberty, before the activation sequences of
>magic can
>likely take hold. Anyone thought of that?


Who says the Otaku are magicians?


--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
Message no. 134
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:09:26 -0500
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 06:24:42 -0500 Barbie <barbie@**********.COM> writes:

>No, its more a thing of the genes. read the metagene chapter in the
>ST,
>page 68 and follows.
>The mind only shapes the orientation of believes.


Actually, they don't really know. The 'magus factor', the sequence of
genes which determines magical ability has not yet been found (if it
exists). Even more so, there is some speculation that shamans may not
need the genes for magical ability: their power comes from their totem,
or so they say.


--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
Message no. 135
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:56:08 +0500
On 22 Oct 97 at 11:44, John E Pederson wrote:

> I would think that would depend upon your POV: to me, anyway, the
> Matrix represents an entire other world, just as astral space does,
> just as an alternate reality would. Anything within that world which
> has its own unique representation (it's own icon) could be
> considered a single object, a whole, rather than a component.

This would be true, if the Matrix was another world. It is no more
another world than the Internet of today. It is simply a medium of
exchange.

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 136
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:46:53 +0500
On 23 Oct 97 at 0:50, NightLife wrote:

> >> The point being anybody who's magically capable wouldn't squander
> >> there precious essence on somehting like a datajack or a VCR.
> >
> >What if you want to play a character that had that stuff installed
> >before they discovered their magical potential? I don't like rules
> >that squander creativity.
>
> I believe the rule of thumb is Magic is discovered around puberty
> and generally not after that. Who's going to get cyber when their
> 12? If you want to play a character who gets their cyber at 12,
> tough.

Where does it say this? Again, as Lady Jestyr pointed out, you are
stereotyping and blanketing all mages. Consider this: it is very
possible for someone's magical talents to not be discovered until
they are an adult. Perhaps it never manifested itself, or the
individual was never tested or examined. Maybe the individual's own
feelings about magic keep his abilities repressed. Maybe the
individual just considered the strange things that seem to happen to
him as luck, or divine intervention.

You argue against it, and I still don't know why. It seems to me as
if you want characters to fit a mold. I want to be able to design and
play interesting and diverse characters, if I so desire. I guess that
is where we differ.

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 137
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:46:53 +0500
On 23 Oct 97 at 0:52, NightLife wrote:

> >A fix easily balanced by focus addiction.
>
> If the bother to go over thing limit. Worst case scenario most mages
> are one point of magic behind.

And the problem with that is?

--
drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 138
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:15:49 +0000
Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET> once wrote

(snipped)

> You argue against it, and I still don't know why. It seems to me as
> if you want characters to fit a mold. I want to be able to design and
> play interesting and diverse characters, if I so desire. I guess that
> is where we differ.
>
> --
>
> drekhead@***.net
> ++++
> Sig file lost.
> ++++

Creative and diverse characters? A Magical Decker? Yeah, right...
Sounds to me more like high-class munchkindom than a creative way to
play a character. I'm not pointing any fingers here... For one, I
think everyone on this list (inlcuding newbies like Moi), has at
least some experience with the game, and would be considered very
good players. But, you gotta admit, a Mage/Decker is not exactly "in
character" with the rest of the FASA SR universe, and, goddamnit, I'm
gonna say it openly, IT SOUNDS LAME! (there...) Althought many
non-penalty proponents hate the AD&D system with a passion, a
Mage/Decker/Rigger/Whatever only reminds me of the worst class in
AD&D history...Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Etc... We all know how fun and
roleplayable those were...

Yes, I'm all for flexiblity and creativity. But when I see
Mage/Deckers or Mage/Riggers, I can't help but cringe...How can those
characters be considered "in flavor"? Mage/Deckers are already
covered by the Otaku, IMHO... And Mage/riggers...ah well, Live and
let live, I guess...


Trinity
----------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 139
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:54:06 +0500
On 23 Oct 97 at 13:15, Frank Pelletier wrote:

> Creative and diverse characters? A Magical Decker? Yeah, right...
> Sounds to me more like high-class munchkindom than a creative way to
> play a character.

Whoa. I'm not even going to address the fact that a character cannot
be a munchkin, only a player. That aside, I want you to explain to me
how you can consider a mage that can deck munchkinous, because I
don't see it. This has all been covered before, so I won't go into
detail, but such a character will not be as good as his focused
counterpart. He will also have to blow Karma on magical stuff, and on
SOTA, so that keeps him from advancing on equal pace with his
counterparts. Money has to be divided between SOTA and magic stuff
again, meaning he will not have as many or as good of toys as his
counterparts. Yea, sounds munchkinous to me. God forbid such a beast
gets loose in my game...

> But, you gotta admit, a Mage/Decker is not exactly
> "in character" with the rest of the FASA SR universe,

Why not?

> and,
> goddamnit, I'm gonna say it openly, IT SOUNDS LAME! (there...)

So is it lame or munchkinous, because it can't be both.

--
drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 140
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 14:21:09 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-23 11:00:49 EDT, you write:

> >A spell with a hypersenses development (Detection) that enables someone to
> >directly comprehend the optic/electronic pulses of a machine/device, such
> as
> >a cyberdeck or cyberterminal?
> >
> >A spell that would enable/translate the intents/thoughts of a person into
> a
> >series of light/optic signals that could therefore be potentially
> understood
> >by a machine, such as a cyberdeck or cyberterminal?
>
> I guess that would work, but you would still be limited by the decks
active
> memory and the like, as it has to follow the rules that all programs must
> follow on cyberdecks.

Let's see, as for the first spell, it would be affecting the decker more
than the deck in question, as it is allowing someone to better understand
what the frag is going on in front of him/her/it.

As for the second spell, I'd ay it would need something, like either a simrig
(on a physical person) or something similar.
Message no. 141
From: Spider Murphy <crickel@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:12:47 -0500
John E Pederson wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:30:46 -0400 "J. Keith Henry"
<Ereskanti@***.COM>
> writes:
>
> >And then of course, their is the Otaku, which btw, the Resonance claims
> most
> >of it's people -before- puberty, before the activation sequences of
> magic can
> >likely take hold. Anyone thought of that?
>
> Who says the Otaku are magicians?

Who says that there aren't some Otaku who are magicians?

Spider Murphy
Message no. 142
From: Spider Murphy <crickel@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:21:10 -0500
Frank Pelletier wrote:

> Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET> once wrote
>
> (snipped)
>
> > You argue against it, and I still don't know why. It seems to me as
> > if you want characters to fit a mold. I want to be able to design and
> > play interesting and diverse characters, if I so desire. I guess that
> > is where we differ.

> Creative and diverse characters? A Magical Decker? Yeah, right...
> Sounds to me more like high-class munchkindom than a creative way to

<snip>So then, you think that Samuel Verner, the main character in the
Shadowrun Trilogy.. was a -munchiken- character?

<more snips>

> Mage/Deckers or Mage/Riggers, I can't help but cringe...How can those
> characters be considered "in flavor"? Mage/Deckers are already
> covered by the Otaku, IMHO... And Mage/riggers...ah well, Live and
> let live, I guess...

Otaku don't cast spells. They just deck with their heads instead of
hardware. Mystical? Perhaps. Are they capable of casting spells? Nope. What
would be scary would be an Otaku Magician. "Yes, I can hack into your
computer with my mind. And I can toss fireballs, too!"

And who's to say that the Otaku have no mages? That's a gamemaster's
decision. And, me being a gamemaster, in my world, there may very well be
Otaku mages (any players in my adventures -HINT- -HINT-).

Mage riggers? Well, I'd say, why the hell not, but you ain't seeing auras
on that radar, chummer, so don't even think about casting a spell through
the thing.
Message no. 143
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 17:30:45 +0000
Spider Murphy <crickel@***.EDU> once wrote,

> Who says that there aren't some Otaku who are magicians?
>
> Spider Murphy

The rules, Spider...the rules ;)

Trinity
-------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 144
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 08:00:08 +1000
> Creative and diverse characters? A Magical Decker? Yeah, right...
> Sounds to me more like high-class munchkindom than a creative way to
> play a character. I'm not pointing any fingers here... For one, I

If it's munchkindom to you, that's just fine. To me, the archetypal
munchkin is the armor-plated killing machine whose parents were killed
by <insert race or group here> so he hates <insert race or group here>
with a blind passion and has no emaotional ties to the rest of the
world. To me, a mage/decker is an interesting and by no means
overpowered character, who would be a fun roleplaying challenge.

> gonna say it openly, IT SOUNDS LAME! (there...) Althought many

Right. So you're arguing for a penalty that will affect every Shadowrun
player in the world (most of whom you don't know :) because you think
that a mage/decker "sounds lame". Oh yes, *very* fair. If you must argue
for the penalty, at least have a decent reason for doing so, please! :)

> characters be considered "in flavor"? Mage/Deckers are already
> covered by the Otaku, IMHO... And Mage/riggers...ah well, Live and

The Otaku are *totally* different from a normal mage who also happens to
deck, or a normal decker who can also cast spells.

Lady Jestyr
Anti-Penalty and Proud :)
-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 145
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 18:19:19 +0000
Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU> once wrote,

> > gonna say it openly, IT SOUNDS LAME! (there...) Althought many
>
> Right. So you're arguing for a penalty that will affect every Shadowrun
> player in the world (most of whom you don't know :) because you think
> that a mage/decker "sounds lame". Oh yes, *very* fair. If you must argue
> for the penalty, at least have a decent reason for doing so, please! :)

Ah but I've done so...in about a half-dozen posts... But it all boils
down to this: Do I want my players to be able to do that?
Personnaly, no... Hmmm

Well...I guess it's up to the individuals, in this case... Although I
can see many reasons to ban Mage/deckers from my game, they're MY
reasons, not someone elses... Some other game might find acceptable
reasons to have them...

So in that spirit, and although I am (or was) Pro-penalty, I guess it
shouldn't be in the main book, or as an optional rule... Let the
players make their own choice...

Trinity
Dissillusioned Pro-Penalty Players for Freedom (D3PF)
-----------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 146
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 12:43:40 -0500
On 22 Oct 97 at 11:44, I wrote:

<<I would think that would depend upon your POV: to me, anyway, the
Matrix represents an entire other world, just as astral space does, just
as an alternate reality would. Anything within that world which has its
own unique representation (it's own icon) could be considered a single
object, a whole, rather than a component.>>


On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:00:52 -0400 MC23 <mc23@**********.COM> writes:

<< IT's not real and doesn't exist in a form like you are referring
to. Maybe to an Otaku can see it that way but they still understand the
matrix far differently than you refer to it as.>>



On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:56:08 +0500 Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET> writes:

<<This would be true, if the Matrix was another world. It is no more
another world than the Internet of today. It is simply a medium of
exchange.>>



How your magic works depends on how you believe it will work, correct?

So, if I rationalize the Matrix as being essentially a separate world,
analogous in some ways to the astral plane, (whether it has any sort of
physical component, or astral, for that matter), does it matter that the
Matrix isn't a separate world in the strictest sense? If I believe it to
be such a thing, does is not become so to me, in my mind? And if
something exists within my mind, can I not formulate magic around that
concept? The Matrix *is* more of a world than today's Internet, it
creates the illusion that the user is within another world. What happens
if I believe the illusion?


--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
Message no. 147
From: Max Rible <slothman@*********.ORG>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 14:40:56 -0800
At 12:43 10/23/97 -0500, John E Pederson wrote:
>How your magic works depends on how you believe it will work, correct?

To a degree. Despite the wide variety of ways that people believe that
magic works, fireballs have about the same drain. This suggests that
you can't just come up with a new and interesting belief system and
perform magical feats that no one else can.

--
%% Max Rible %% slothman@*****.com %% http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
%% "Ham is good... Glowing *tattooed* ham is *bad*!" - the Tick %%
Message no. 148
From: Timothy Little <t_little@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:24:19 +1100
At 12:50 AM 10/23/97 -0400, Nightlife wrote:

>I believe the rule of thumb is Magic is discovered around puberty and
>generally not after that. Who's going to get cyber when their 12? If you
>want to play a character who gets their cyber at 12, tough.

How about my character Jamu, who was born learning deficient and needed
cyberware (in his case, an encephalon so he could keep track of his own
thoughts, and language skillsoft to understanddirectly impart knowledge) in
order to learn how to communicate?

Or a very young child has a datajack installed for Halberstam-like purposes?

How about child sim-sense actor?

Has an eye disease which makes cybereyes the best option?

Chalky bones, reinforced with Titanium lacing?

...the list goes on.

--
Little One
Message no. 149
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:51:51 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-23 10:45:32 EDT, lobo1@****.COM writes:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:30:46 -0400 "J. Keith Henry"
<Ereskanti@***.COM>
> writes:
> >And then of course, their is the Otaku, which btw, the Resonance
> >claims most
> >of it's people -before- puberty, before the activation sequences of
> >magic can
> >likely take hold. Anyone thought of that?
> Who says the Otaku are magicians?

Ya know, I believe there is something in the FAQ about answering questions
without understanding the original question. Okay, perhaps it's just some
common sense. The original question had more on the frame of mind of who
get's cyberware at what age and what other things could make magic
appear/manifest to whom.

Good going Lobo, you missed the idea. I didn't say Otaku were magicians,
someone else implied that. I am implying that perhaps the Resonance/Otaku
communities see the potential for such "extraordinary minds" in people, and
get hold of them -before- magic can change/alter/pollute their sense of total
existence...

-Perhaps-

-K
Message no. 150
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:52:42 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-23 10:56:01 EDT, drekhead@***.NET writes:

> This would be true, if the Matrix was another world. It is no more
> another world than the Internet of today. It is simply a medium of
> exchange.
>
A strange thought has come to mind. Remember the terms of belief in the
"Magic" of the age? So many individuals out there completley absorb
themselves into the "Virtual Reality", that is supercedes their own
definitions of reality. If the overall, collective, belief were to gain that
strength, then perhaps there could yet be another source for the "Resonance".
It is the way the "Power" or the "Magic" is manifesting within the
structure
of the world.

-K
Message no. 151
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:56:44 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-23 11:23:17 EDT, macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU
(NightRain) writes:

>
> I guess that would work, but you would still be limited by the decks
active
> memory and the like, as it has to follow the rules that all programs must
> follow on cyberdecks.
>
>
And why would it? The user is no longer limited necessarily to a "cyberdeck"
of any kind, but instead is now directly connecting the mind of the user to
the machine itself. LOTS of GM interaction is required for this, we've used
it. It works, but people have to be careful what they do to the overall game
mechanics and game play.

-K
Message no. 152
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:16:25 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-23 11:42:13 EDT, mezeretted@*****.U-NANCY.FR (David
Mezerette) writes:

<snipped stuff on magical interconnectivity to the matrix.>

> i just can't imagine the ratings in Magical theory and
> Electronics/Cybertechnology required for designing such a spell, and it
> would be a hell of a work for a something a device as simple as an
> encephalon does =). Besides, i can't see in which way it would help in
> running programs in the matrix.

Actually, it would depend on the average skill set for a "good" decker. If
the "6" is the beginning, then you would have to have at least a "10",
IMHO.
If a "9" is not all that uncommon, then it could go higher of course. And
believe it or not, I have figured something out folks.

If the machine were to utilize Elemental Light sources, say from a Light
Spell or something similar, it might actually be contactable from the astral
mediums. The reasons for this? Light Optics used in computers are NOT
Elemental. It's light, sure, it's -Artificial Light-, stuff generated by
machines.

Hey, what can I say....Binder is after that reward for machine interacing
with the astral stuff from Dunkelzahn's Will.

-K
Message no. 153
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 23:26:31 -0500
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:51:51 -0400 "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:

<<Ya know, I believe there is something in the FAQ about answering
questions without understanding the original question.>>


You might be surprised ...


<<Okay, perhaps it's just some common sense.>>


Probably. Although, when you *think* you caught the gist of the question,
you still use common sense, your beginning asumptions just happen to be
incorrect:(


<<The original question had more on the frame of mind of who get's
cyberware at what age and what other things could make magic
appear/manifest to whom.>>


Later analysis (in conjunction with the above statement) has yielded that
conclusion, yes.


<<Good going Lobo, you missed the idea.>>


So it would seem. My apologies. I did not mean to mutilate the original
argument, I am sorry.


<<I didn't say Otaku were magicians, someone else implied that. I am
implying that perhaps the Resonance/Otaku communities see the potential
for such "extraordinary minds" in people, and get hold of them -before-
magic can change/alter/pollute their sense of total existence...>>


Again, my apologies. A mistaken assumption on my part led to my error.



--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
Message no. 154
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:12:35 -0400
>And then of course, their is the Otaku, which btw, the Resonance claims
>most of it's people -before- puberty, before the activation sequences of
magic >can likely take hold. Anyone thought of that?
>
>-K

That's only a problem to the argument if the Otaku turn out to actually be
magical.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 155
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:14:13 -0400
At 03:12 AM 10/23/97 -0400, you wrote:
>NightLife once dared to write,
>
>>I believe the rule of thumb is Magic is discovered around puberty and
>>generally not after that. Who's going to get cyber when their 12? If you
>>want to play a character who gets their cyber at 12, tough.
>
> Otaku get their datajacks at that age and younger.

And that matters how?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 156
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:23:35 -0400
>Where does it say this?

Without going through any books if memory serves that's been in the game
since SR1.

>Again, as Lady Jestyr pointed out, you are
>stereotyping and blanketing all mages. Consider this: it is very
>possible for someone's magical talents to not be discovered until
>they are an adult. Perhaps it never manifested itself, or the
>individual was never tested or examined. Maybe the individual's own
>feelings about magic keep his abilities repressed. Maybe the
>individual just considered the strange things that seem to happen to
>him as luck, or divine intervention.


And if we play "what if" a few more times we'll get all the way around the
block.

>You argue against it, and I still don't know why. It seems to me as
>if you want characters to fit a mold. I want to be able to design and
>play interesting and diverse characters, if I so desire. I guess that
>is where we differ.


Simple it keeps the idea of being a decker, a mage, a sammie special.
orginally keeping magic and technology seperate was one of the corner stones
of the system. Then new people come in and we get cybermancy, and spirits
the run through the matrix. If people want a techno-wizard go play Rifts.
After all of this new blending why play anything that's got limits because
they've narrowed the focus of their charcters to a point while the combo
character gets to run around and do everyhting.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 157
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:25:06 -0400
At 11:46 AM 10/23/97 +0500, you wrote:
>On 23 Oct 97 at 0:52, NightLife wrote:
>
>> >A fix easily balanced by focus addiction.
>>
>> If the bother to go over thing limit. Worst case scenario most mages
>> are one point of magic behind.
>
>And the problem with that is?

My point was that it isn't much of a problem. Sacrificing one point of
essence isn't much of a price to pay to run the matrix and toss spells.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 158
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:33:03 -0400
><snip>So then, you think that Samuel Verner, the main character in the
>Shadowrun Trilogy.. was a -munchiken- character?


No he went and had his jack removed for exactly the reason why some people
believe there should be a modifier. The human mind orginally couldn't handle
both the matrix and magic.

>Otaku don't cast spells. They just deck with their heads instead of
>hardware. Mystical? Perhaps. Are they capable of casting spells? Nope. What
>would be scary would be an Otaku Magician. "Yes, I can hack into your
>computer with my mind. And I can toss fireballs, too!"


No that would be down right munchkinous.


>And who's to say that the Otaku have no mages?

I'll wait until the official answer rolls around.

> That's a gamemaster's
>decision. And, me being a gamemaster, in my world, there may very well be
>Otaku mages (any players in my adventures -HINT- -HINT-).

And in some worlds a mage can take multiple hit from a nuke.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 159
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:42:46 -0400
>How about my character Jamu, who was born learning deficient and needed
>cyberware (in his case, an encephalon so he could keep track of his own
>thoughts, and language skillsoft to understanddirectly impart knowledge) in
>order to learn how to communicate?
>
>Or a very young child has a datajack installed for Halberstam-like purposes?
>
>How about child sim-sense actor?
>
>Has an eye disease which makes cybereyes the best option?
>
>Chalky bones, reinforced with Titanium lacing?

Ok we're playing "what if" now.

Jamu's body can't absorb the mana energies correctly, the new energies make
it difficult for his damaged mind to handle the information is used to. The
experiment suffers from the same problem because a mad scientist decided to
mess with him. The sim actor same deal. The kid with the eye disease will
just have to wait to stop growing or continually get new replacements to
keep up with his growth spurts. The chalky bone gets to live with
excruciating pain as his bone compress against the lacing and having no room
to grow turn into a compressed rotting mess.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 160
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:55:59 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-23 23:18:09 EDT, you write:

> If the machine were to utilize Elemental Light sources, say from a Light
> Spell or something similar, it might actually be contactable from the
astral
> mediums. The reasons for this? Light Optics used in computers are NOT
> Elemental. It's light, sure, it's -Artificial Light-, stuff generated by
> machines.
>
> Hey, what can I say....Binder is after that reward for machine interacing
> with the astral stuff from Dunkelzahn's Will.
>
> -K
>
Though Binder was late on getting the money for having a magic item that can
be wielded by a mundane, which went to a member of the party shortly before
signing a contract wo work for the DFMR.
Message no. 161
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 02:05:06 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-24 01:37:35 EDT, you write:

> > Who says that there aren't some Otaku who are magicians?
> >
> > Spider Murphy
>
> The rules, Spider...the rules ;)
>
> Trinity

Trinity, let me quote you something from the VR2 ... "There is no known
instance of a magically active otaku." As something I have been yelled at
before in the past, they are not saying that they will not exist. Though
yes, it does say that an otaku puts magic priority at E, if you choose to
accept the possibility that otaku can also be magically active (we limit them
to adepts, never full mages).

There are some exceptions to this rule, an otaku learning spells via the
Magical Spell edge. Coming into magic at a late age (the totem or the
elements choose to come on their own, or a loa decides to claim you).

Mike
Message no. 162
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 02:25:02 -0400
NightLife once dared to write,

>>>I believe the rule of thumb is Magic is discovered around puberty and
>>>generally not after that. Who's going to get cyber when their 12? If you
>>>want to play a character who gets their cyber at 12, tough.
>>
>> Otaku get their datajacks at that age and younger.
>
>And that matters how?

I was responding to the question "Who's going to get cyber when their 12?"
Age is a major issue among Otaku. Few are in their late teens and any
above the age of twenty is almost unheard of.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 163
From: NightRain <macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:35:11 +1000
Canthros wrote:
>How your magic works depends on how you believe it will work, correct?
>
>So, if I rationalize the Matrix as being essentially a separate world,
>analogous in some ways to the astral plane, (whether it has any sort of
>physical component, or astral, for that matter), does it matter that the
>Matrix isn't a separate world in the strictest sense? If I believe it to
>be such a thing, does is not become so to me, in my mind? And if
>something exists within my mind, can I not formulate magic around that
>concept? The Matrix *is* more of a world than today's Internet, it
>creates the illusion that the user is within another world. What happens
>if I believe the illusion?

If you were to believe in it as a separate world, and form your magic
around it, then you would have a mage just like those ones in awakenings.
It mentions that it is possible to have mages based on all sort of weird
things, but they nearly always fall apart based on the inconsistencies of
their own unique little tradition.

NightRain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 164
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:49:55 +0100
Spider Murphy said on 16:12/23 Oct 97...

> > Who says the Otaku are magicians?
>
> Who says that there aren't some Otaku who are magicians?

VR 2.0 does, on page 144: "Magic is Priority E for otaku. There is no
known instance of a magically active otaku."

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside you head.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 165
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:49:55 +0100
Frank Pelletier said on 13:15/23 Oct 97...

> Creative and diverse characters? A Magical Decker? Yeah, right...
> Sounds to me more like high-class munchkindom than a creative way to
> play a character. I'm not pointing any fingers here... For one, I
> think everyone on this list (inlcuding newbies like Moi), has at
> least some experience with the game, and would be considered very
> good players. But, you gotta admit, a Mage/Decker is not exactly "in
> character" with the rest of the FASA SR universe, and, goddamnit, I'm
> gonna say it openly, IT SOUNDS LAME! (there...) Althought many
> non-penalty proponents hate the AD&D system with a passion, a
> Mage/Decker/Rigger/Whatever only reminds me of the worst class in
> AD&D history...Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Etc... We all know how fun and
> roleplayable those were...

Game systems aren't munchkinous, the people who play them can be; it's
just that some systems are easier to munchkinize than others. Yes, a
fighter/mage/cleric/thief/bard is probably possible in AD&D, and would
often be looked upon as munchkinous, but it's the attitude of the PLAYER
that determines that, not whether the game system allows it or not. In SR,
you can be a sam/rigger/decker/rocker quite easily, and when someone plays
a character like that it's often called "diversifying" yet as soon as a
magical aspect is added in (mage/riggers, shaman/deckers, etc.) it's
suddenly munchkinous.

I've said this lots of times before, and I'll probably keep saying it
until the list goes under, you can't judge whether a character type or
player is munchkinous without having seen it/him/her in play. And even
then, IMHO it only applies to the particular person you're observing.
A flat-out "[fill in the blank] is munchkinous" doesn't make sense,
IMnsHO.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside you head.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 166
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:05:28 +0200
>Who's going to get cyber when their 12? If you want to play a character who
>gets their cyber at 12, tough.

To some extent I agree. Some cyber would be utterly disastrous to install in
someone who is not fully grown. Bone lacing, dermal armor, muscle replacement,
all headware, smartgun links and most other I can think of would probably not
adapt well to a growing body.

If it's a sick kid who needs this stuff to live, an expensive hospital contract
might agree to 'upgrade' the system as needed (once every six months? Year?)
to avoid neurological damage or stunted growth. If not, I don't think it'd be
worth it.
Message no. 167
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:39:52 -0700
NightLife wrote:
> The kid with the eye disease will
> just have to wait to stop growing or continually get new replacements to
> keep up with his growth spurts.

Actually, as an interesting side-concept, the size of the eye socket
varies very little from birth to old age. (This is one reason why
children in art are always drawn with huge eyes - because,
comparatively, they are.)

The bone structure of the face around the eye definitely changes, but I
don't see much reason for the cybernetics to key into that. Presumably
the mechanical replacement weighs the same and has the same displacement
as the flesh-and-blood version.


-Mb
Message no. 168
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:31:47 +0500
On 24 Oct 97 at 1:25, NightLife wrote:

> My point was that it isn't much of a problem. Sacrificing one point
> of essence isn't much of a price to pay to run the matrix and toss
> spells.

No it isn't, but I challenge you to create such a character that is
as good as a mundane decker.

--
drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 169
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:31:47 +0500
On 24 Oct 97 at 11:49, Gurth wrote:

> Game systems aren't munchkinous, the people who play them can be;
> it's just that some systems are easier to munchkinize than others.
> Yes, a fighter/mage/cleric/thief/bard is probably possible in AD&D,
> and would often be looked upon as munchkinous, but it's the attitude
> of the PLAYER that determines that, not whether the game system
> allows it or not. In SR, you can be a sam/rigger/decker/rocker quite
> easily, and when someone plays a character like that it's often
> called "diversifying" yet as soon as a magical aspect is added in
> (mage/riggers, shaman/deckers, etc.) it's suddenly munchkinous.

Exactly. There seem to be a few people of this list that have a
phobia of mages.

> I've said this lots of times before, and I'll probably keep saying
> it until the list goes under, you can't judge whether a character
> type or player is munchkinous without having seen it/him/her in
> play. And even then, IMHO it only applies to the particular person
> you're observing. A flat-out "[fill in the blank] is munchkinous"
> doesn't make sense, IMnsHO.

Once again, Gurth, you have nailed the point. Several called a
mage/decker munchkinous, implying that such a character was
overpowered, but no one has proven that. How can diluting a character
by diversifying make a character more powerful?

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 170
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:31:47 +0500
On 24 Oct 97 at 1:23, NightLife wrote:

> >Where does it say this?
>
> Without going through any books if memory serves that's been in the
> game since SR1.

Page numbers please. I looked, and I didn't find it.

> And if we play "what if" a few more times we'll get all the way
> around the block.

When is character creation not a game of "what if"? A creative player
will "what if" his character to death to make it interesting. Only in
a class based system to you not need to play "what if". Your a
decker. That's it. 'Nuff said. You seem to prefer that, so more power
to you. I prefer to have more choices.

> If people want a techno-wizard go play Rifts. After all of this new
> blending why play anything that's got limits because they've narrowed the focus of
> their charcters to a point while the combo character gets to run
> around and do everyhting.

The character narrowed to a point would be considered sharp, an ace
in his field. The combo character can dabble in different things,
but never be as good as his focused counterparts. That has been shown
several times here, and I won't go into it again.

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 171
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:08:35 -0400
Drekhead once dared to write,

>The character narrowed to a point would be considered sharp, an ace
>in his field. The combo character can dabble in different things,
>but never be as good as his focused counterparts. That has been shown
>several times here, and I won't go into it again.

Overspecialization OTOH will lead to limited functional ability. How
many players start to diversify their characters after CharGen? Why do
they really do it? Professions involve sacrifices. I think a sacrifice
free system isn't productive for a game system for a more mature
audience.
Just to be ugly, isn't wanting abilities without sacrifices in your
characters one of the understood definition of a munchkin mindset? B>]#

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 172
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:26:40 +0500
On 24 Oct 97 at 10:08, MC23 wrote:


> Overspecialization OTOH will lead to limited functional
> ability. How many players start to diversify their characters
> after CharGen? Why do they really do it? Professions involve
> sacrifices. I think a sacrifice free system isn't productive for
> a game system for a more mature audience.

I think the sacrifice is obvious, and balanced. To deck, the mage
must sacrifice his Magic attribute, and in the future to stay SOTA,
must give up precious Karma. The sacrifice is already built in.
Additional modifiers are not neccessary. That is the crux of the
arguement.

> Just to be ugly, isn't wanting abilities without sacrifices in
> your characters one of the understood definition of a munchkin
> mindset?

Yes, but as I have demonstrated, it is not without sacrifice.

--
drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 173
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:44:22 +0000
Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET> once wrote

> Once again, Gurth, you have nailed the point. Several called a
> mage/decker munchkinous, implying that such a character was
> overpowered, but no one has proven that. How can diluting a character
> by diversifying make a character more powerful?

Although I have since come to the conclusion that individual
playgroups should decide the relevance of penalties for magical
deckers, I couldn't let this one pass... Sorry :)

Please, do not call a mage/decker "diluted"... We have all suffered
from the "jack of all trades" syndrome, where a PC could do many
things, including overlapping on other PCs field of expertise. We all
know what problems arose from such players, especially when said
player constantly stole the limelight, at the detriment of others.

Please, stop thinking about starting characters... Think about the
long run. Example, for the karma required to boost my Sorcery skill
from 9 to 10 (20, if I remember correctly, I don't have BBB handy),
you could start Computer and bring it up to 4 (Argh...18 if I am not
mistaken...)...and maybe specialize in decking, bringing the cost
further down... Most high-end runners have high enough skills that
adding 1 somewhere won't make a difference. So it's nothing for them
to "branch out" in some areas that might alienate fellow players.
I know, I know, it must be IC, and with GMs approval...but some GMs
out there, especially someone new to the game, won't see the far
reaching consequences of such acts...

So, no penalty. Great. I agree for once. Let the individuals make
the decision. Don't bog down a great system like SR. But bury your
head in the sand, saying that those characters would be weak anyways?
Please, have more foresight... (with all due respect, of course)

Trinity
-------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 174
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:41:43 +0500
On 24 Oct 97 at 10:44, Frank Pelletier wrote:

> Please, do not call a mage/decker "diluted"... We have all suffered
> from the "jack of all trades" syndrome, where a PC could do many
> things, including overlapping on other PCs field of expertise. We
> all know what problems arose from such players, especially when said
> player constantly stole the limelight, at the detriment of others.

Such PLAYERS. Sounds like you had a player problem, not a character
problem. As with the munchkin label, do not confuse the issue. I have
never had the syndrome you indicate in a game I have played in, or
GM'ed. In fact, the characters that diverified had more fun, because
they were not left out of the action as much. Of course, the
characters that specialized had fun too, because they could do things
the others couldn't, and it gave them bragging rights.

> So, no penalty. Great. I agree for once. Let the individuals make
> the decision. Don't bog down a great system like SR. But bury your
> head in the sand, saying that those characters would be weak
> anyways? Please, have more foresight... (with all due respect, of
> course)

I never said they would be weak, I just indicated that they are not
the powerhouses they were being portrayed to be, and that the system,
as it is, does balance their existance without need of further
penalties.

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 175
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 13:04:31 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-24 02:08:12 EDT, you write:

> >And then of course, their is the Otaku, which btw, the Resonance claims
> >most of it's people -before- puberty, before the activation sequences of
> magic >can likely take hold. Anyone thought of that?
> >
> >-K
>
> That's only a problem to the argument if the Otaku turn out to actually be
> magical.

Then there is something else that would also add to this problem then, what
if the otaku comes into the magic when puberty hits? Also, there are some
totems out there (like Spider, ans Sea), that would love to have an otaku
under their wing, yet would limit themselves to prevent the otaku from
loosing their potential they already have.

Besides, as I have said on other postings, there is nothing stopping an otaku
player from aquiring the magical spell edges out of the SR companion.

Mike
Message no. 176
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 13:43:38 +0500
On 24 Oct 97 at 13:04, Mike Bobroff wrote:

> Besides, as I have said on other postings, there is nothing stopping
> an otaku player from aquiring the magical spell edges out of the SR
> companion.

Yes, there is, because you have to have a Magic attribute to take
them, and priority E means no magic.

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 177
From: Spider Murphy <crickel@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 13:27:06 -0500
NightLife wrote:

> >How about my character Jamu, who was born learning deficient and needed
> >cyberware (in his case, an encephalon so he could keep track of his own
> >thoughts, and language skillsoft to understanddirectly impart knowledge) in
> >order to learn how to communicate?

> <snippage>

> Jamu's body can't absorb the mana energies correctly, the new energies make it
> difficult for his damaged mind to handle the information is used to.

> <more snippage>

How about this scenario:

The reason that Jamu was labeled "learning deficient" is because the adults
around
him didn't understand that he was magically capable. His brain was never damaged -
people just assumed it was. So, his parents paid to have the stuff put in his head,
and now he acts normally. Perfect solution, cyberware.

Who said that his mind was damaged? A lot of those kids that are called "learning
deficient" aren't brain damaged. Their brains just happen to be organized
differently... or something. There's a lot about the human brain that we simply
don't understand yet. I'm willing to bet that in 2057, there will still be a lot of
stuff we don't understand.

I see no reason that this person could not wield mana energies. Just because he's
got a smallish thumb-sized lump of metal in his head doesn't mean his Magic
attribute dropped to zero.

Suppose an elderly mage falls over and shatters their hip from osteoporosis. They
get a metal hip to replace it. Should they lose all connection to the astral plane?

Suppose a child gets installed with bioware instead of cyberware? That way, it will
grow as the kid grows up. It still has a body index, and so still reduces magical
abilities... For instance, a kid with a weak or missing immune system is given a
pathogenic defense system because otherwise they'd have to live their life in a
plastic bubble-wrapped contaminent-free environment.

Spider Murphy
Message no. 178
From: Spider Murphy <crickel@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 13:31:59 -0500
Gurth wrote:

> Spider Murphy said on 16:12/23 Oct 97...
>
> > > Who says the Otaku are magicians?
> >
> > Who says that there aren't some Otaku who are magicians?
>
> VR 2.0 does, on page 144: "Magic is Priority E for otaku. There is no
> known instance of a magically active otaku."

Ah, HA!! But that's for PC players of Otaku! NPCs have no such limitations!
:)

Just because there are no known instances does not mean they do not exist.
You are using the same argument that I tried to use to dis-prove God. "There
is no evidence that God exists, therefore he does not exist." That argument
is a fallacy, and if I could find my philosophy book, I'd tell you which one
it is precisely.

Spider Murphy
Message no. 179
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:36:46 +0000
Spider Murphy <crickel@***.EDU> once wrote,

(snipped)

> Just because there are no known instances does not mean they do not exist.
> You are using the same argument that I tried to use to dis-prove God. "There
> is no evidence that God exists, therefore he does not exist." That argument
> is a fallacy, and if I could find my philosophy book, I'd tell you which one
> it is precisely.

Hoo... This is not a religious debate...(well, I don't think so
anyways) ;) Rules are Rules... Otaku have E in Magic...that means..no
Magic... yeah, that's it, I think...No magic...did I read that right?
No magic...yeah, that's an E...

Of course, you're allowed to do whatever you please in your game
Spider. If you want to have Magic Otakus (and pink rhinos), that's
your right...

But if I remember correctly, Otakus are some sort of "technoshamans"
following some kind of "Great Resonnance", a Matrix entity akin to a
totem. So that may explain the "E" Magic Priority...They could never
cast Magic,.because they already do...it's just not the "spell
slinging-I-can-see-the-astral" type of Magic...hence the E....Can't
have it both ways, chummers (Like a Mage/Shaman...and if you tell me
this can be done, I'll thwap like hell...).

Trinity
-----------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 180
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:13:13 PDT
>Besides, as I have said on other postings, there is nothing stopping an
otaku
>player from aquiring the magical spell edges out of the SR companion.
>
>Mike
>

With a magic rating of "none", thats how much good the
spellcasting Edge will do you. Base force = magic -1. Raisable with
foci and initiation, but not for mundanes.
Also, the "magic talent" description int the text (bottom p 33, not
the table, right before "miscellanious edges and flaws") says "A
character whose Magic Rating dropsbelow one automatically looses all
Magical Talent Edges." If you have no magical talent, you can't get
magical talent edge.

Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psycotic - Einstien

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


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 181
From: NightRain <macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:26:49 +1000
>> I guess that would work, but you would still be limited by the decks
>active
>> memory and the like, as it has to follow the rules that all programs
must
>> follow on cyberdecks.
>>
>>
>And why would it? The user is no longer limited necessarily to a
"cyberdeck"
>of any kind, but instead is now directly connecting the mind of the user
to
>the machine itself. LOTS of GM interaction is required for this, we've
used
>it. It works, but people have to be careful what they do to the overall
game
>mechanics and game play.


You would need it because, if the spell is imitating a program, then you
need a cyberdeck to run it, as it is imitating a program.

NightRain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 182
From: Spider Murphy <crickel@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 17:41:04 -0500
Mon goose wrote:

> >Besides, as I have said on other postings, there is nothing stopping an
> otaku
> >player from aquiring the magical spell edges out of the SR companion.
> >
> >Mike
> >
>
> With a magic rating of "none", thats how much good the
> spellcasting Edge will do you. Base force = magic -1. Raisable with
> foci and initiation, but not for mundanes.
> Also, the "magic talent" description int the text (bottom p 33, not
> the table, right before "miscellanious edges and flaws") says "A
> character whose Magic Rating dropsbelow one automatically looses all
> Magical Talent Edges." If you have no magical talent, you can't get
> magical talent edge.

That's rather silly. So only Adepts, who have magic, and Magicians, who have
magic, can get get magical edges, which gives them magic. Kind redundant,
don't you think? What the heck are those things in there for, anyway?

Spider Murphy
Message no. 183
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:20:20 -0400
>How about this scenario:
>
>The reason that Jamu was labeled "learning deficient" is because the adults
>around him didn't understand that he was magically capable. His brain was
>never damaged - people just assumed it was. So, his parents paid to have
the >stuff put in his head, and now he acts normally. Perfect solution,
cyberware.


Oh boy more what if. Seeing as to how it wasn't explained that Jamu was
mislabeled. So his parent screwed up and the bugger gets to suffer from the
consquences.


>Who said that his mind was damaged? A lot of those kids that are called
>"learning deficient" aren't brain damaged. Their brains just happen to be
>organized differently... or something. There's a lot about the human brain
that >we simply don't understand yet. I'm willing to bet that in 2057, there
will still >be a lot of stuff we don't understand.

Umm hate to break it to you but that is one of the definations of brain damage.

>I see no reason that this person could not wield mana energies. Just
because >he's got a smallish thumb-sized lump of metal in his head doesn't
mean his >Magic attribute dropped to zero.

It's not just thumb sized lump. It's the device itself, the hook up to the
brain the removal of some tissue to make room for it and the damage done to
the brain in installation. His essence isn't zero he can toss the juju, but
he's gonna have problems.

>Suppose an elderly mage falls over and shatters their hip from
osteoporosis. >They get a metal hip to replace it. Should they lose all
connection to the >astral plane?

Not all some. It's a gradual decline. Old age itself induces burnout.

>Suppose a child gets installed with bioware instead of cyberware? That way,
it will
>grow as the kid grows up. It still has a body index, and so still reduces
magical
>abilities... For instance, a kid with a weak or missing immune system is
given a
>pathogenic defense system because otherwise they'd have to live their life in a
>plastic bubble-wrapped contaminent-free environment.

So his body no longer reflects the aura he was born with the foreign
material material still interferes with the mana because it's not really his
DNA. It's still works out the same. His orginal body has been violated, his
aura no longer matches and can't interface correctly. Same result.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 184
From: Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:37:38 EDT
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:35:11 +1000 NightRain <macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
writes:
>Canthros wrote:
>> ... The Matrix *is* more of a world than today's Internet, it
>>creates the illusion that the user is within another world. What
happens
>>if I believe the illusion?

Well, Gee... your average, everyday Quake engine does the same thing...
does that mean that just cause I believe it's real that I could cast a
powerbolt at a Fiend, or try and use shielding against a Shambler's
lightning bolt?

~Tim
Message no. 185
From: MCP <mcp@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 20:21:19 -0400
At 10:44 AM 10/24/97 +0000, Frank Pelletier wrote:
>Please, stop thinking about starting characters... Think about the
>long run. Example, for the karma required to boost my Sorcery skill
>from 9 to 10 (20, if I remember correctly, I don't have BBB handy),
>you could start Computer and bring it up to 4 (Argh...18 if I am not
>mistaken...)...and maybe specialize in decking, bringing the cost
>further down... Most high-end runners have high enough skills that
>adding 1 somewhere won't make a difference. So it's nothing for them
>to "branch out" in some areas that might alienate fellow players.
>
Yeah, that Computer 4 skill and little or no decking-specific cyber is
really going to threaten the "single-class" decker with a Computer 10 skill,
Encephalon II, Math SPU IV, Cerebral Booster 2, etc.

MCP
Message no. 186
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:37:07 -0500
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:37:38 EDT Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM> writes:
>On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:35:11 +1000 NightRain
><macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
>writes: >Canthros wrote:
>>> ... The Matrix *is* more of a world than today's Internet, it
>>>creates the illusion that the user is within another world. What
>happens >>if I believe the illusion?
>
>Well, Gee... your average, everyday Quake engine does the same
>thing...
>does that mean that just cause I believe it's real that I could cast a
>powerbolt at a Fiend, or try and use shielding against a Shambler's
>lightning bolt?


I suppose, if you can get as wrapped up in a 'tortoise-mode' game world
as one could within the sinsense of the Matrix:)

That's really sort of a poor analogy, if you ask me. The Matrix is an
interactive world which overrides the normal sets of sensory inputs that
you receive (visual, aural, tactile), possibly all five of your normal
senses. In sculpted systems, it takes on the appearance of a world
similar to (and often based on) the real world. And then there's UV
hosts...

I'm not trying to suggest that you could cast combat spells at opposing
deckers from within the 'Trix. Simply that certain spells, or spell
effects, could be replicated within the Matrix through the use of magic
formulated accordingly.


--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
Message no. 187
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 20:47:44 -0400
John E Pederson once dared to write,

>I'm not trying to suggest that you could cast combat spells at opposing
>deckers from within the 'Trix. Simply that certain spells, or spell
>effects, could be replicated within the Matrix through the use of magic
>formulated accordingly.

Except for the fact I keep badgering about which is magic is
holistic. Even in your qualifying statement for affecting the matrix you
say _within_ which is something that cannot occur with magic. If this
holistic law on magic didn't exist then your line of reasoning could be
followed out but it cannot.
We should be thankful for this because the complications of what you
are suggesting would be IMNSHO disastrous. The low energy required for
doing other disastrous things would open a floodgate for abuse that could
easily destroy the game. The manipulation spell to affect the matrix you
suggest could also just creating an air bubble in a person's blood stream
for an effective easy kill. 'For the want of a screw a kingdom was
lost'... or what ever the original quote was, anyway you get my point I
hope.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 188
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 02:27:40 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-24 07:14:33 EDT, you write:

> A spell with a hypersenses development (Detection) that enables someone to
> directly comprehend the optic/electronic pulses of a machine/device, such
as
> a cyberdeck or cyberterminal?
>
> A spell that would enable/translate the intents/thoughts of a person into
a
> series of light/optic signals that could therefore be potentially
understood
> by a machine, such as a cyberdeck or cyberterminal?
>
> Come on folks, you are lagging behind...
> -K

We would be looking at a ESP spell with a little more ooompf behind it. It's
that simple.

Mike
Message no. 189
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 05:00:38 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-24 01:35:04 EDT, habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU writes:

> ><snip>So then, you think that Samuel Verner, the main character in the
> >Shadowrun Trilogy.. was a -munchiken- character?
>
>
> No he went and had his jack removed for exactly the reason why some people
> believe there should be a modifier. The human mind orginally couldn't
handle
> both the matrix and magic.
>
Actually, he didn't. I can't find it in any of the trilogy (SoP).

-K
Message no. 190
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 05:03:23 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-24 01:56:57 EDT, AirWisp@***.COM writes:

> Though Binder was late on getting the money for having a magic item that
can
> be wielded by a mundane, which went to a member of the party shortly
before
> signing a contract wo work for the DFMR.
>
Duh, it was one of his items...how do you think that get's him to this date?
-K
Message no. 191
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 06:11:20 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-24 19:25:05 EDT, macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU
(NightRain) writes:

>
> You would need it because, if the spell is imitating a program, then you
> need a cyberdeck to run it, as it is imitating a program.
>
> NightRain.
>
Hey guy, let me point out one thing for ya. You do -NOT- need a cyberdeck to
run a program...do you remember the "Program Injectors" cyberware
implants...they are still in the books.

-K
Message no. 192
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:58:11 +0100
Drekhead said on 9:31/24 Oct 97...

> Once again, Gurth, you have nailed the point. Several called a
> mage/decker munchkinous, implying that such a character was
> overpowered, but no one has proven that. How can diluting a character
> by diversifying make a character more powerful?

Hell, people complain that in AD&D multi-class characters are munchkinous.
Last time I played that game, I was (IIRC) a mage/cleric while the other
players had single-class characters. Guess who advanced faster?
First-level mage/clerics really suck when it comes to what they can do in
the game, and you stay low level for quite a long time... :/

In SR, the same thing happens: you have to divide your Good Karma between
the different "classes" of character you play -- do you want to learn a
new spell, keep up with Matrix-SOTA, or increase your combat
survivability? If your GM awards Karma at about the same rate I do, you'll
spend a long time before you can build your character as powerful as many
listmembers seem to think mage/decker/sam characters are.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Ten shades of beautiful for every disorder.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 193
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:58:12 +0100
Spider Murphy said on 13:31/24 Oct 97...

> > VR 2.0 does, on page 144: "Magic is Priority E for otaku. There is no
> > known instance of a magically active otaku."
>
> Ah, HA!! But that's for PC players of Otaku! NPCs have no such limitations!
> :)

I guess that's why they added the second sentence, about there being no
KNOWN magician-otaku. It gives the GM the option of adding one to the game
anyway and justify it to any rules-lawyers who may be present.

> Just because there are no known instances does not mean they do not exist.
> You are using the same argument that I tried to use to dis-prove God. "There
> is no evidence that God exists, therefore he does not exist." That argument
> is a fallacy, and if I could find my philosophy book, I'd tell you which one
> it is precisely.

No need for that, as I have no real interest in getting involved in a
religious debate on the list -- if you do, you'll learn very quickly that
religion isn't a thing you can rationally discuss ("just like the American
constitution," he says, thinking about an old argument :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Ten shades of beautiful for every disorder.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 194
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:58:11 +0100
Frank Pelletier said on 14:36/24 Oct 97...

> But if I remember correctly, Otakus are some sort of "technoshamans"
> following some kind of "Great Resonnance", a Matrix entity akin to a
> totem. So that may explain the "E" Magic Priority...They could never
> cast Magic,.because they already do...it's just not the "spell
> slinging-I-can-see-the-astral" type of Magic...hence the E....Can't
> have it both ways, chummers (Like a Mage/Shaman...and if you tell me
> this can be done, I'll thwap like hell...).

It can also be explained by saying that they _think_ they use magic to
work the Matrix (as is implied in the Denver players' book), but don't
actually do that -- they just happen to be really good deckers because
they've started at such a young age (IOW, much the same reason why very
few grandparents can beat their grandchildren at video games), and to
explain their phenomenal abilities they start to believe in some kind of
matrix-magic.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Ten shades of beautiful for every disorder.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 195
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 08:47:54 +0000
MCP <mcp@********.COM>
(snip)
> Yeah, that Computer 4 skill and little or no decking-specific cyber is
> really going to threaten the "single-class" decker with a Computer 10
skill,
> Encephalon II, Math SPU IV, Cerebral Booster 2, etc.
>
> MCP

Okay...the decker will obviously have an edge in skill... But

The Encephalon and Cerebral Booster can be replaced by an anchored
Increase Attribute spell (except for the task pool)

The Marth SPU can be implanted (Hey, if you already lost a magic
point for a Datajack, might as well fill up that point, neh?)

The rest is just money...

Trinity
------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"
Message no. 196
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 10:30:42 -0500
On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 06:11:20 -0400 "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:


>Hey guy, let me point out one thing for ya. You do -NOT- need a
>cyberdeck to
>run a program...do you remember the "Program Injectors" cyberware
>implants...they are still in the books.


You mean Program Carriers? When did those get re-introduced to SR2?
(or have I missed something again?)

--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
Message no. 197
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 10:29:20 -0500
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 20:47:44 -0400 MC23 <mc23@**********.COM> writes:

<<Except for the fact I keep badgering about which is magic is holistic.
Even in your qualifying statement for affecting the matrix you say
_within_ which is something that cannot occur with magic. If this
holistic law on magic didn't exist then your line of reasoning could be
followed out but it cannot.>>


Combat magic, health magic, maybe even detection and illusion, work
holistically. They work by directly affecting the aura of the target(s).
Manipulation magic does not work that way: it damages the target through
an indirect application of magical energy to create effects within the
physical world, with the single exception being when the spell is
intended to over-ride or control the target's mind, or when the spell
creates an effect on the astral plane (such as in mana barrier and astral
static).


<<We should be thankful for this because the complications of what you
are suggesting would be IMNSHO disastrous. The low energy required for
doing other disastrous things would open a floodgate for abuse that could
easily destroy the game. The manipulation spell to affect the matrix you
suggest could also just creating an air bubble in a person's blood stream
for an effective easy kill. 'For the want of a screw a kingdom was
lost'... or what ever the original quote was, anyway you get my point I
hope.>>


You could create the effect you describe above by using a modification of
the "Oxygenate" spell found in the Grimoire, which acts by directly
affecting the blood. As for 'low energy'? Did we totally neglect the
complexity modifiers for spell design? I think *you* are missing part of
*my* point: I specifically said it wasn't easy. I would think that
_at_least_ the +2/+2 mod would be necesary, above and beyond any other
effects intended.


--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
Message no. 198
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 14:15:14 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-25 11:28:42 EDT, lobo1@****.COM writes:

>
> You mean Program Carriers? When did those get re-introduced to SR2?
> (or have I missed something again?)
>
Drat and Darnashin', now they're gone. Yeah, those were what I meant. I
guess we come back to that other argument about "What is Canon in one, is it
Canon in Two?"

-K
Message no. 199
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 16:02:22 -0500
On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 14:15:14 -0400 "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 97-10-25 11:28:42 EDT, lobo1@****.COM writes:
>
>>
>> You mean Program Carriers? When did those get re-introduced to SR2?
>> (or have I missed something again?)
>>
>Drat and Darnashin', now they're gone. Yeah, those were what I meant.
I
>guess we come back to that other argument about "What is Canon in one,
is it
>Canon in Two?"


Well, technically, Program Carriers still exist, the Denver sourcebook
(no page numbers, I heard this off the list) simply said they went out of
style because they caused neural damage, or some such.


--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
Message no. 200
From: Lester Ward <lward@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 20:58:34 -0400
Mike wrote:
>In a message dated 97-10-24 07:14:33 EDT, K wrote:
>
>> A spell with a hypersenses development (Detection) that enables someone to
>> directly comprehend the optic/electronic pulses of a machine/device, such
>> as a cyberdeck or cyberterminal?
>>
>> A spell that would enable/translate the intents/thoughts of a person into
>> a series of light/optic signals that could therefore be potentially
>> understood by a machine, such as a cyberdeck or cyberterminal?

>We would be looking at a ESP spell with a little more ooompf behind it. It's
>that simple.

We would be looking at Otaku. It's that simple.

Wordman
Message no. 201
From: Lester Ward <lward@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:06:41 -0400
J. Keith Henry wrote:
>do you remember the "Program Injectors" cyberware
>implants...they are still in the books.

Incorrect as usual, Keith. FASA never published a cyber system called
"Program Injectors". They did have the "Program Carrier", but that did
not
survive to the 2nd ed.

Wordman
Message no. 202
From: Lester Ward <lward@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 21:16:21 -0400
Gurth wrote
>Spider Murphy said on 13:31/24 Oct 97...
>
>> > VR 2.0 does, on page 144: "Magic is Priority E for otaku. There is no
>> > known instance of a magically active otaku."
>>
>> Ah, HA!! But that's for PC players of Otaku! NPCs have no such limitations!
>> :)
>
>I guess that's why they added the second sentence, about there being no
>KNOWN magician-otaku. It gives the GM the option of adding one to the game
>anyway and justify it to any rules-lawyers who may be present.

When reading VR2.0, it seemed immediately clear to me that the nature of
the Otaku's powers were magical. The reason the are not "magically active"
is because their magic manifested as Otaku ability. Setting the Magic
Priority to E always seemed to me to be just a hack to make the odd nature
of Otaku character generation make sense. In every other way, Otaku have a
very magical feel to them, even having to pick the equivilant of hermetic
or shamanic traditions.

I've always felt that "Magical Deckers" = "Otaku".

Wordman
Message no. 203
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 22:10:58 -0400
Lester Ward once dared to write,

>When reading VR2.0, it seemed immediately clear to me that the nature of
>the Otaku's powers were magical. The reason the are not "magically active"
>is because their magic manifested as Otaku ability. Setting the Magic
>Priority to E always seemed to me to be just a hack to make the odd nature
>of Otaku character generation make sense. In every other way, Otaku have a
>very magical feel to them, even having to pick the equivilant of hermetic
>or shamanic traditions.
>
>I've always felt that "Magical Deckers" = "Otaku".

That's a pet option for Otaku CharGen I've been considering, that
their Otaku ability is bought from the A priority on the magic chart. I
like the concept of doing this regardless on whether the Otaku is brand
new "magical tradition". The purchase is just for the ability and the
nature of their powers are still left to debate amongst the occult and
matrix communities. I like it being an unknown that way that even for me
when I GM.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 204
From: NightRain <nightrain@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 15:56:05 +1000
J. Keith Henry wrote:
>> You would need it because, if the spell is imitating a program, then
you
>> need a cyberdeck to run it, as it is imitating a program.
>>
>> NightRain.
>>
>Hey guy, let me point out one thing for ya. You do -NOT- need a cyberdeck
to
>run a program...do you remember the "Program Injectors" cyberware
>implants...they are still in the books.

Not anymore they aren't. The only people that run programs without decks
are Otaku, and they don't really run programs. The injectors were done
away with in 1st Ed, and if they have come back in another sourcebook, I
certainly haven't seen it.

NightRain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL : nightrain@***.brisnet.org.au
: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 205
From: "Steven A. Tinner" <bluewizard@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 12:37:07 -0500
>Well, technically, Program Carriers still exist, the Denver sourcebook
>(no page numbers, I heard this off the list) simply said they went out of
>style because they caused neural damage, or some such.

The other reason the Program Carriers no longer exist, is because they would
be next to useless with the introduction of Cranial Cyberdecks.
Essentially, PC's just went obselete, and were replaced by the CC's.

Besides that ... they were a stupid idea to start with, and they made
everone think that "the elf on the cover must be a sammy with cyberspurs!"
;-)

Steven A. Tinner
bluewizard@*****.com
http://www.ncweb.com/users/bluewizard
"Imagine how much faster Speed Racer would have been without Spridle and the
monkey in his truck!"
Message no. 206
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 13:11:57 -0500
In a message dated 97-10-26 12:46:42 EST, bluewizard@*****.COM (Steven A.
Tinner) writes:

> he other reason the Program Carriers no longer exist, is because they would
> be next to useless with the introduction of Cranial Cyberdecks.
> Essentially, PC's just went obselete, and were replaced by the CC's.

Okay, I'll admit they are NOTHING against a cyberdeck of any kind, they had
their place. For example, ever wonder what you could put in them? My
favorite was to load Smart or Dumb Frames (way back when) into them. If you
were to allow for the concept of "Virtual Cyberdecks", then you could do even
more.

> Besides that ... they were a stupid idea to start with, and they made
> everone think that "the elf on the cover must be a sammy with cyberspurs!"
> ;-)

Hey, that was a cool, if not a bit lame, picture. I'm surprised they haven't
replaced it with something better.

-K
Message no. 207
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 20:56:47 +0000
|That's rather silly. So only Adepts, who have magic, and Magicians, who have
|magic, can get get magical edges, which gives them magic. Kind redundant,
|don't you think? What the heck are those things in there for, anyway?

Redundant?

Allowing a phys ad to spellcast, or a magician to do phys-addy things?

I wouldn't call that redundant...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
|Principal Subjects in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|Comp Sci & Electronics | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 208
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 16:20:01 -0500
> From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
> Date: Sunday, October 26, 1997 3:56 PM

> |That's rather silly. So only Adepts, who have magic, and Magicians, who
have
> |magic, can get get magical edges, which gives them magic. Kind
redundant,
> |don't you think? What the heck are those things in there for, anyway?

> Redundant?

> Allowing a phys ad to spellcast, or a magician to do phys-addy things?

> I wouldn't call that redundant...

> |Andrew Halliwell

Okay. I've said this before and I guess it needs to be stated again.
Steve Kenson didn't intend the talents to be purchased by the already
magically active. They are there to add flavor to your campaign by
allowing characters who have only minor access to magic (can "cast" one
spell, can astrally perceive, can banish spirits, etc.).

The talents cost a varying number of points, depending upon the specifics
of the talent.

Therefore, you now have full magicians, adepts, and people with talents.
The SR Companion doesn't cover the subject of talents well at all, and what
is stated there can be tossed out the window, IMO.

For the specifics on talents, check out the document created by Mr. Kenson
on many of the SR web pages (probably on Paolo's site and many others).

I hope you enjoy what you read there. I sure do, and I use talents in my
campaign quite a bit.

Justin :)
Message no. 209
From: Les Ward <lward@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 17:33:26 -0500
MC23 wrote:
>Lester Ward once dared to write,
>>Setting the Magic
>>Priority to E always seemed to me to be just a hack to make the odd nature
>>of Otaku character generation make sense.
>>
>>I've always felt that "Magical Deckers" = "Otaku".
>
> That's a pet option for Otaku CharGen I've been considering, that
>their Otaku ability is bought from the A priority on the magic chart

If you do this, I'd suggest you force their Resources Priority to E, and
give them the whatever limited starting cash that they get now (which is
some low number, like 5K, even though they pick Resources as priority A
now). This makes the rules pretty much identical to the way they are now,
just conceptually different.

If you do not do this, you run into two problems, depending on how you
handle Resources priority. If you let the player pick Resources as normal,
you can get a starting Otaku with lots of cash/contacts, would would
probably be bad. If you force them to choose Resource B, with the same
limits as the current rules, you weaken the Otaku pretty significantly
because their remaining priorities are "stepped down" from the original
rules.

Wordman
Message no. 210
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 20:34:32 +0500
On 26 Oct 97 at 16:20, Justin Pinnow wrote:

> Okay. I've said this before and I guess it needs to be stated
> again. Steve Kenson didn't intend the talents to be purchased by the
> already magically active. They are there to add flavor to your
> campaign by allowing characters who have only minor access to magic
> (can "cast" one spell, can astrally perceive, can banish spirits,
> etc.).
>
> The talents cost a varying number of points, depending upon the
> specifics of the talent.
>
> Therefore, you now have full magicians, adepts, and people with
> talents. The SR Companion doesn't cover the subject of talents well
> at all, and what is stated there can be tossed out the window, IMO.

I saved two longish post my Mr. Kenson on this subject, and can
repost them if anyone is interested. It's worth reading; it clearly
indicates his intentions with the Magical edges, and when used
properly gives a player a lot more options.

Question for Mr. Kenson. You had indicated that you were going to
try to have this fixed in an errata or future printings of the
Companion. What is the status of that? I for one would love for it to
become "official", even though posts from the author on the subject
are official enough for me.

--

===DREKHEAD==================================drekhead@***.net====
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/6990/index.html
=================================================================
I'd explain it to you, but your brain would explode.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 211
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:16:46 -0500
In a message dated 97-10-26 12:44:45 EST, you write:

> >Well, technically, Program Carriers still exist, the Denver sourcebook
> >(no page numbers, I heard this off the list) simply said they went out of
> >style because they caused neural damage, or some such.
>
> The other reason the Program Carriers no longer exist, is because they
would
> be next to useless with the introduction of Cranial Cyberdecks.
> Essentially, PC's just went obselete, and were replaced by the CC's.
>
> Besides that ... they were a stupid idea to start with, and they made
> everone think that "the elf on the cover must be a sammy with cyberspurs!"
> ;-)
>
> Steven A. Tinner

Though I do not know much information about Program Carriers, I am trying to
imagine a use for one. Let's see, how about this one. Someone who is taught
by an otaku the channel skills goes ahead and decides to go netting for
information. The person does not have a c2 deck, or even a real deck, so,
using the program carrier the pc/npc could have access to a Analyze or Browse
program while they are netting, or perhaps even an attack program. IMHO,
program carriers would be wonderful for those people who decide that a C2 or
a normal cyberdeck is not their style and would rather being going in naked
on the nets.

Mike
Message no. 212
From: NightRain <nightrain@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:23:26 +1000
Mike wrote:
>Though I do not know much information about Program Carriers, I am trying
to
>imagine a use for one. Let's see, how about this one. Someone who is
taught
>by an otaku the channel skills goes ahead and decides to go netting for
>information. The person does not have a c2 deck, or even a real deck, so,
>using the program carrier the pc/npc could have access to a Analyze or
Browse
>program while they are netting, or perhaps even an attack program. IMHO,
>program carriers would be wonderful for those people who decide that a C2
or
>a normal cyberdeck is not their style and would rather being going in
naked
>on the nets.

They were meant to carry your Evasion, Sensors and Masking attributes. Bod
was determined by your Willpower. They were not actually meant to carry
normal programs, as theses were covered on the fly.

NightRain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL : nightrain@***.brisnet.org.au
: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 213
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:00:00 GMT
on 25.10.97 lward@*******.COM wrote:

[Otaku
l> When reading VR2.0, it seemed immediately clear to me that the nature of
l> the Otaku's powers were magical. The reason the are not "magically active"
l> is because their magic manifested as Otaku ability. Setting the Magic
l> Priority to E always seemed to me to be just a hack to make the odd nature
l> of Otaku character generation make sense. In every other way, Otaku have a
l> very magical feel to them, even having to pick the equivilant of hermetic
l> or shamanic traditions.
l>
l> I've always felt that "Magical Deckers" = "Otaku".

Well, I've always taken them from a more Gibson("Angie")/evolution POV.
The way I see it, the humans race adapts to computers and the result are
the otaku: People, whose brains can communicate with electronic devices
(and sometimes better with them than with other humans). Well, if we go
further that way in SR, by 2200 we'll have a population of mage-otakus...
(I don't say that's possible, but it sounds cool....:))



Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx a.k.a. Charon, your friendly werepanther physad.

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+(+++) o? K?(-)
w---() O- M-- V- PS+ PE- Y+>++ PGP-
t+(++) 5+ X++ R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++
e>+++++(*) h! r-- z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 214
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:49:43 -0500
In a message dated 97-10-25 20:53:13 EDT, lward@*******.COM writes:

>
> >We would be looking at a ESP spell with a little more ooompf behind it.
It'
> s
> >that simple.
>
> We would be looking at Otaku. It's that simple.
>
> Wordman
>
No, actually we would not. I think I like the idea that Otaku are -not-
magical. It means there is yet one more thing out there to try and figure
out (even if it via reverse engineering).

-K
Message no. 215
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:50:55 -0500
In a message dated 97-10-25 21:10:44 EDT, lward@*******.COM writes:

> When reading VR2.0, it seemed immediately clear to me that the nature of
> the Otaku's powers were magical. The reason the are not "magically active"
> is because their magic manifested as Otaku ability. Setting the Magic
> Priority to E always seemed to me to be just a hack to make the odd nature
> of Otaku character generation make sense. In every other way, Otaku have a
> very magical feel to them, even having to pick the equivilant of hermetic
> or shamanic traditions.
>
> I've always felt that "Magical Deckers" = "Otaku".
>
> Wordman
>
Suddenly, a memory flashback occurs. Yes, now I remember Lester. Many years
ago to be precise. How wonderful to see you are still out there shooting
down any ideas for goofy-ness that may wander across whatever terminal you
are sitting at.

Magic =/= Otaku

-K
Message no. 216
From: Czar Eggbert <czregbrt@*********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 23:54:00 -0600
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Spider Murphy wrote:

> John E Pederson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:30:46 -0400 "J. Keith Henry"
<Ereskanti@***.COM>
> > writes:
> >
> > >And then of course, their is the Otaku, which btw, the Resonance claims
> > most
> > >of it's people -before- puberty, before the activation sequences of
> > magic can
> > >likely take hold. Anyone thought of that?
> >
> > Who says the Otaku are magicians?
>
> Who says that there aren't some Otaku who are magicians?
>
Accually if you read the section on Otaku you will see that they have to
assign priority E to magic.. kinda hard to be magical neh?

-=>Czar(100 down 787 to go :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czar Eggbert
Ruler, Dark Side of the Moon.
homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/5648
mailto:czregbrt@*********.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality!? Is that some new game?"
-MDF
"I'll need morphine, lots of it, and a pistol."
-The English Patient
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 217
From: Czar Eggbert <czregbrt@*********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 00:19:51 -0600
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, NightLife wrote:

> ><snip>So then, you think that Samuel Verner, the main character in the
> >Shadowrun Trilogy.. was a -munchiken- character?
>
>
> No he went and had his jack removed for exactly the reason why some people
> believe there should be a modifier. The human mind orginally couldn't handle
> both the matrix and magic.
>
Ummmm... where exactly does it say he got his cyberjack removed? I
really dont remember that... I know he had it at the end of the first
book...

-=> Czar

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czar Eggbert
Ruler, Dark Side of the Moon.
homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/5648
mailto:czregbrt@*********.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality!? Is that some new game?"
-MDF
"I'll need morphine, lots of it, and a pistol."
-The English Patient
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 218
From: Les Ward <lward@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:24:39 -0500
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:50:55 -0500, "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
wrote:

> Suddenly, a memory flashback occurs. Yes, now I remember Lester. Many years
> ago to be precise. How wonderful to see you are still out there shooting
> down any ideas for goofy-ness that may wander across whatever terminal you
> are sitting at.

Oh, I never had any problems with a little goofiness from time to time. I
just never got anything out of posts from people that were always filled
with goofiness, especially from those who become argumentative and snippy
when someone says that "that's a bit goofy".

For the record, while it is no secret that Keith and I have never really
repected each other's Shadowrun ideas or interpersonal skills, I've always
respected Keith's right to run his campaign however he wanted.

Wordman
Message no. 219
From: Czar Eggbert <czregbrt@*********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 01:36:21 -0600
On Sat, 25 Oct 1997, Lester Ward wrote:

> When reading VR2.0, it seemed immediately clear to me that the nature of
> the Otaku's powers were magical. The reason the are not "magically active"
> is because their magic manifested as Otaku ability. Setting the Magic
> Priority to E always seemed to me to be just a hack to make the odd nature
> of Otaku character generation make sense. In every other way, Otaku have a
> very magical feel to them, even having to pick the equivilant of hermetic
> or shamanic traditions.

I always thought that was because of the way people see the
world... Most people seem to fit in eighter a "Shamanic" or "Hermetic"
view of the world. Look around you, at your friends and neighbors, and
you'll notice this trend. Most people are eighter Intuitive or
"Scientific", for want of a better word. The Intuitive
people,"Shamans",
work more with what's around them and don't often delve into minutiae.
While the Scientific, "Hermetics", often are found searching for more and
need to know exactly why and how.

>
> I've always felt that "Magical Deckers" = "Otaku".

<aol>
Me too!
</aol>

Expecally after reading "Black Madona", but after more thought I
think that we will find that they are accually Techno, or at the most the
product of Expeadeated Evolution caused by Magic (this is another Theory
of mine I'll share later :).

-=>Tsar(I think I'll have the Russian Dressing...)

PS sorry about the week old post! I was on break last week.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czar Eggbert
Ruler, Dark Side of the Moon.
homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/5648
mailto:czregbrt@*********.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality!? Is that some new game?"
-MDF
"I'll need morphine, lots of it, and a pistol."
-The English Patient
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 220
From: Knight Rook Brandon Bradley <shadowd@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 19:37:49 -0700
Czar Eggbert wrote:

> I always thought that was because of the way people see the
> world... Most people seem to fit in eighter a "Shamanic" or
"Hermetic"
> view of the world. Look around you, at your friends and neighbors, and
> you'll notice this trend. Most people are eighter Intuitive or
> "Scientific", for want of a better word. The Intuitive
people,"Shamans",
> work more with what's around them and don't often delve into minutiae.
> While the Scientific, "Hermetics", often are found searching for more and
> need to know exactly why and how.

Actually there are several personality profile tests that catagorize people in this
manner. However there also are those people who don't fall neatly into the
Intuitive (Shamanistic) or Scientific (Hermetic) catagory. What about the idea of a
mage that would fall into this type of situation? Maybe something of a Hermetic
Shamen...

Possibly being able to cast spells as though they were Hermetic, but they would
summon spirits instead of Elementals. Another possiblity would be to have access to
both Elementals and Spirits, but this might need something to offset the
possibility for munchkining.

This should neccessarily be a rare thing though, not many people fit into that type
of catagory, something like less than one half of one percent...
--
Knight Rook Shadow Dancer *** shadowd@********.com
\______________)======================================================
WITH ORION'S SWORD THE HUNTER AROSE AND CONQUERED THE WORLD WITH FURY AND GRACE
Message no. 221
From: Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 01:44:42 EST
On Tue, 4 Nov 1997 19:37:49 -0700 Knight Rook Brandon Bradley writes:
>Actually there are several personality profile tests that catagorize
people in this
>manner. However there also are those people who don't fall neatly into
the
>Intuitive (Shamanistic) or Scientific (Hermetic) catagory. What about
the idea of a
>mage that would fall into this type of situation? Maybe something of a
Hermetic
>Shamen...

Well, I had a dwarven mage sorta like that... he spent most of his life
in and around tribal lands/cultures, and it rubbed off onto his style of
magic (we never got to a point to actually decide/discover whether he was
truly just a mage with a slanted POV, or infact a 'repressed' shaman.)

~Tim

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Magical Deckers, 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!