Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers (Con)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:01:09 -0400
OK, now that I have a little time to explain myself here I go.
I think that the modifier should be optional and listed as such in an
appendix in the back of the new magic book right before a cleaned up
version of magical flaws and merits. I will personally continue to invoke
penalties for mages decking and now I will explain why.
Drawing from several sources (Never Deal With A Dragon, VR1.0,
Awakenings, etc.) that astral ability does cause interference (and visa
versa) with technological input. Astral senses is not something that a
magician can explain to the mundane. One fully explain hearing to the
deaf or vision to the blind if they have never known those senses. Astral
sense is not something that the magician turns on or off, they either
concentrate on it or it becomes a very subconscious input. This is why
cyber eyes are so disturbing to the burn-out (Awakenings). This is why a
sorcerer adept can still cast spells. This is why Sam Werner suffered his
decking migraines. This subtle input of astral impressions is still
coming in when the cyberdeck inputs it's information that is design to
fool the other senses. It is in this conflict of sensory information that
creates the distraction the decking/rigging magician suffers.
Just like the natural thermagraphic vision of some meta-humans
changes the way they view the world (see also dwarven art from Denizens
of Earthdawn Vol. 2) astral sense produces a different way the magician
perceives the world. Part of what makes the magician so special also sets
him a part from the mundane world. Being a magician does not make one
superhuman in all aspects. Even such great gifts can have have a cost to
them.

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

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. 2
From: MCP <mcp@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers (Con)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:12:57 -0400
At 08:01 PM 10/21/97 -0400, MC23 wrote:
> Just like the natural thermagraphic vision of some meta-humans
>changes the way they view the world (see also dwarven art from Denizens
>of Earthdawn Vol. 2) astral sense produces a different way the magician
>perceives the world. Part of what makes the magician so special also sets
>him a part from the mundane world. Being a magician does not make one
>superhuman in all aspects. Even such great gifts can have have a cost to
>them.
>
So, since natural thermo gives some metahumans a different world-view,
that means that they should get the same penalty that mages get in
using the matrix?

MCP
Message no. 3
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers (Con)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:52:25 -0400
MCP once dared to write,

>So, since natural thermo gives some metahumans a different world-view,
>that means that they should get the same penalty that mages get in
>using the matrix?

No. What the reference was to is that because thermagraphic has
always been a part of their senses it affects how the perceive the world.
Dwarven paintings (the reference I was making) looks odd to all
meta-humans not possessing thermagraphic because the dwarves paint what
they see. This attempt means that they are in fact trying to paint the
temperature patterns that they see as part of their normal vision. The
colors they choose will be off because of this. They cannot paint any
differently because thermagraphic sight is always giving them information
that they cannot separate from standard color vision.
Does their vision give them penalties for decking? No. Would they
suffer penalties in any situation? I would say yes for a situation like
trying to paint in "standard color" for the rest of us.

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

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. 4
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers (Con)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:14:48 -0700
MC23 wrote:

> MCP once dared to write,

> >So, since natural thermo gives some metahumans a different world-view,
> >that means that they should get the same penalty that mages get in
> >using the matrix?

> No. What the reference was to is that because thermagraphic has
> always been a part of their senses it affects how the perceive the world.
> Dwarven paintings (the reference I was making) looks odd to all
> meta-humans not possessing thermagraphic because the dwarves paint what
> they see. This attempt means that they are in fact trying to paint the
> temperature patterns that they see as part of their normal vision. The
> colors they choose will be off because of this. They cannot paint any
> differently because thermagraphic sight is always giving them information
> that they cannot separate from standard color vision.
> Does their vision give them penalties for decking? No. Would they
> suffer penalties in any situation? I would say yes for a situation like
> trying to paint in "standard color" for the rest of us.

OTOH, any Dwarf without an artist skill is going to be limited to ugly
ol' doddles anyway, and any *serious* Dwarven artist is going to see the
patterns which crop up in Human art but not Dwarves', and be able to
copy it.

Incidentally, for most traditional forms of art, IR doesn't play much of
a role (I've been through this with a character of mine, Meth), and, in
keeping with the sf theme of Shadowrun, most future art may end up being
digital art, where thermo plays no role whatsoever.

And I agree with the comment that, if you're going to penalize mages for
having a different worldview, you're a) roleplaying the character for
the player, and b) going to have to slosh around a lot more penalties
then just the one for mages.



-Mb
Message no. 5
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers (Con)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:43:10 -0400
Matb once dared to write,

>And I agree with the comment that, if you're going to penalize mages for
>having a different worldview, you're a) roleplaying the character for
>the player,

No, I'm using a penalty for a physical response not a metaphysical
one. Perception, that is the physical reception of information, works
differently for magicians. That is the origin for this rule. It comes
from the logical repercussion of how this extra information affects the
magician's dealings.

>and b) going to have to slosh around a lot more penalties then just the one
>for mages.

I don't follow you. I'm talking about the information a magician
receives by being astrally aware not just a half-full, half-empty glass
response to what the information means to them.

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

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. 6
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers (Con)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:55:22 -0700
MC23 wrote:

> Matb wrote:

> >And I agree with the comment that, if you're going to penalize mages for
> >having a different worldview, you're a) roleplaying the character for
> >the player,

> No, I'm using a penalty for a physical response not a metaphysical
> one. Perception, that is the physical reception of information, works
> differently for magicians. That is the origin for this rule. It comes
> from the logical repercussion of how this extra information affects the
> magician's dealings.

I see no canon source that a mage is constantly bombarded by astral
perceptions. He, she or it *chooses* to perceive. Presumably, when
they're not perceiving, they see normally.

This, again, falls into your own house rules on how magic works. [This
actually reminds me of a long-running - maybe even still-running -
rgf.cyber argument about wired characters and their perceptions, and why
a reflex trigger even needed to be invented.] FASA canon is open enough
to allow either interpretation, so I see know reason to implement a rule
that relies on one particular viewpoint.

> >and b) going to have to slosh around a lot more penalties then just the one
> >for mages.

> I don't follow you. I'm talking about the information a magician
> receives by being astrally aware not just a half-full, half-empty glass
> response to what the information means to them.

I'll buy into the spurious claim that mages, receiving a set of signals
they're not used to, react differently to the Matrix than any other
person.

Riggers jack into their machine of choice and then - guess what
happens? They start receiving all sorts of information they never had
access to. Even if you go by the "Well, your brain don't grok
'tailpipe' so you think 'sacroiliac' instead" school, there's a lot of
information the brain has to process that everyone else is completely
immune to. Since we all know all riggers live in their cars, should we
impose a penalty for riggers when they have to step outside?

Deckers, too, *live* the Matrix. They're constantly being peppered with
signals from beyond - status updates on programs, logon sequences, and
so forth. When they're not jacked in, do they suffer a penalty from
reality?

Now, *before* you get to be a decker, what do you do? Read, putz around
with a non-Matrix machine. A mundane taps a few keys and reacts his
way; a mage taps a few keys and .. reacts his own way. If it means
that, before you log on to the LTG, you think, "Now don't flex that
mage-muscle, boyo," then so be it. After a while, ignoring this
fanciful etheric data becomes second habit, as you learn to deal with
the digital data in front of you (virtually speaking). And given that
SR is set in the 2050's, I find it difficult to swallow that anyone is
going to be unfamiliar with computers (and those that certainly won't be
deckers).

Given that most of the real "I wanna be a decker!" habits are going to
be formed in youth, overcoming fictional magical sensory bombardment
that you haven't even learned to really attune to yet should be a piece
of cake. Any difficulty learning to deck magically in later years
should be reflected by a Karma increase in learning the skill, not..
this.

So, in summa: I find the basis for this objection in doubt, as it stems
from (at best) flavor text and personal gaming style. Even granting it,
I find the extension of applying a penalty from it to be questionable as
well.


-Mb
Message no. 7
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers (Con)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 03:47:36 -0400
Matb once dared to write,

>I see no canon source that a mage is constantly bombarded by astral
>perceptions. He, she or it *chooses* to perceive. Presumably, when
>they're not perceiving, they see normally.

A-hem, from Awakenings p.25
"A mojo-man friend of mine explained it to me, finally. My eyes and ears
worked fine, but my brain was so used to having extra input from the
astral that it translated the missing data as hazy vision and muffled
sound."

>This, again, falls into your own house rules on how magic works.

No, from VR1.0, Spells and Astral Space from SR2, and All Dressed Up
and Nowhere to Go from Awakenings.
As far as your references goes about Riggers and Deckers, do you
assume that once the datajack or VCR is installed the character suddenly
integrates himself into the new sensory inputs instantly? He has to be
trained and it's not going to be easy.

>So, in summa: I find the basis for this objection in doubt, as it stems
>from (at best) flavor text and personal gaming style. Even granting it,
>I find the extension of applying a penalty from it to be questionable as
>well.

No, it stems from existing rules and text designed to explain the
phenomenon. VR2.0 did not cover magicians and the matrix at all so I
hardly call that a flat out approval.
Now if you want a system that is completely open for a character to
diversify in every direction unhindered, fine. But that can be just as
bad as a system that completely limits what one can do in the end. After
all there is a cost in all choices, that's what life is. To keep the
suspension of disbelief high enough that the game can be enjoyed it has
to be observed at some level.

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

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. 8
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers (Con)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 12:16:38 +0500
On 23 Oct 97 at 3:47, MC23 wrote:

> Matb once dared to write,
>
> >I see no canon source that a mage is constantly bombarded by astral
> >perceptions. He, she or it *chooses* to perceive. Presumably, when
> >they're not perceiving, they see normally.

That's the way I understand it, too. Otherwise, they would always be
astrally active, which we know they are not.

> A-hem, from Awakenings p.25
> "A mojo-man friend of mine explained it to me, finally. My eyes and
> ears worked fine, but my brain was so used to having extra input
> from the astral that it translated the missing data as hazy vision
> and muffled sound."

Flavor text; one man's comments on his burn-out experience.

Question for you, MC23. Since a sorcerer adept has no access to
astral space, I assume you do not see a problem with them decking?
Astral perceptions were never a part of their reality, right?
Just curious.

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 9
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers (Con)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 02:22:14 -0400
Drekhead once dared to write,

>Question for you, MC23. Since a sorcerer adept has no access to
>astral space, I assume you do not see a problem with them decking?
>Astral perceptions were never a part of their reality, right?
>Just curious.

You can't cast spells without some astral input. That's from the BBB
itself. After a lot, and I mean a lot, of reflection on this I had to
explain the sorcerer's spell casting ability on the fact that his astral
awareness never developed past the rudimentary input needed for spell
casting. (If you do not agree then none of the astral awareness type
spells should be usable to sorcerer adepts). The different levels of
astral sight was also discussed in Earthdawn's Magic: A Manual of Mystic
Secrets which also lends some credibility to this. I will admit that the
explanation is my own to cover canon rules already in place.
Conjurers and PhysAds I see as potentially less of a problem with
them decking because whether they have any astral awareness at all is
debatable.

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

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. 10
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers (Con)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:31:47 +0500
On 24 Oct 97 at 2:22, MC23 wrote:

> Drekhead once dared to write,
>
> >Question for you, MC23. Since a sorcerer adept has no access to
> >astral space, I assume you do not see a problem with them decking?
> >Astral perceptions were never a part of their reality, right?
> >Just curious.
>
> You can't cast spells without some astral input. That's from
> the BBB itself.

Agreed. But it implies that at the time of casting the spellcaster
opens himself to the astral. No where does it state that a mage has a
constant influx of input from the astral. Such an input would make
the mage astrally active all the time. Are you saying that mages are
always astrally active? Your theory cannot exist without that
assumption.

> After a lot, and I mean a lot, of reflection on this I had
> to explain the sorcerer's spell casting ability on the fact that his
> astral awareness never developed past the rudimentary input needed
> for spell casting.

I agree. But he only has access to that input when he is in the
process of casting a spell. That's it. Why would he need that
information any other time?

> different levels of astral sight was also discussed in Earthdawn's
> Magic: A Manual of Mystic Secrets which also lends some credibility
> to this. I will admit that the explanation is my own to cover canon
> rules already in place.

Well, I find it odd that one must refer to another game's
sourcebooks for the basis of a Shadowrun arguement. I do not play
Earthdawn, so I really don't care what it says in those books. Keep
this to SR. And if your agruement cannot be validated by a SR source,
well then....

> Conjurers and PhysAds I see as potentially less of a problem
> with them decking because whether they have any astral awareness
> at all is debatable.

I would think conjurers would contact the astral similar to a
sorcerer adept, but only at the time of conjuring.

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 11
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers (Con)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:58:48 -0400
Drekhead once dared to write,

>Agreed. But it implies that at the time of casting the spellcaster
>opens himself to the astral. No where does it state that a mage has a
>constant influx of input from the astral. Such an input would make
>the mage astrally active all the time. Are you saying that mages are
>always astrally active? Your theory cannot exist without that
>assumption.

You are not astrally active (by standard definition) when casting a
spell or you could be ground through. That is also stated in the rules.

>I agree. But he only has access to that input when he is in the
>process of casting a spell. That's it. Why would he need that
>information any other time?

Why do you smell most of the time but notice things more when you
pay more attention to it? It's a sense and is always active but not
anywhere as developed as our standard sight.

>Well, I find it odd that one must refer to another game's
>sourcebooks for the basis of a Shadowrun arguement. I do not play
>Earthdawn, so I really don't care what it says in those books. Keep
>this to SR. And if your agruement cannot be validated by a SR source,
>well then....

I said lends some credibility not outright supports this. You might
not care but FASA does and they do try to keep the game logic compatible
with both systems. By it's nature Earthdawn is complimentary and can be
used for more insight for your Shadowrun gaming.

>> Conjurers and PhysAds I see as potentially less of a problem
>> with them decking because whether they have any astral awareness
>> at all is debatable.
>
>I would think conjurers would contact the astral similar to a
>sorcerer adept, but only at the time of conjuring.

I haven't convinced myself completely of those thoughts but I would
agree simply for the fact of keeping an easily defined level of astral
perception. This is why I felt the need to define a passive astrally
aware state. Their attunement is less than those possessing full astral
sight so I could see a lessening of the astral input.

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

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. 12
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Deckers (Con)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:30:42 -0700
MC23 wrote:

> Matb once dared to write,

> >I see no canon source that a mage is constantly bombarded by astral
> >perceptions. He, she or it *chooses* to perceive. Presumably, when
> >they're not perceiving, they see normally.

> A-hem, from Awakenings p.25
> "A mojo-man friend of mine explained it to me, finally. My eyes and ears
> worked fine, but my brain was so used to having extra input from the
> astral that it translated the missing data as hazy vision and muffled
> sound."

MC, do you realize this isn't even related to decking? The character in
question has *burnt-out*.
His Essence is pitted. Now, unless you have Datajacks at a 5 Essence
cost, this isn't the same situation. (Since, if you have extra "astral
senses" bleeding over, they're not disturbing your senses.) And if it's
so slight a sense as to provide no real information at all, I somehow
doubt it's going to negatively affect decking. (Just as most people
don't concentrate on what they smell most of the time. Even
subconsciously, there just isn't that much information being
transmitted.)

And, to ward off a possible counterargument, I don't see the loss of
such a subliminal sense affecting someone in the Matrix. The Matrix
doesn't look or even *act* like reality (unless you're in an UV node, or
a highly sculpted filter), so you better be prepared to leave
"real-world" logic behind.

As importantly, this is flavor text. One guy's opinion on the way his
world works. Does it describe "extra astral senses" in the SR2 sections
on Projection? How about the Astral Space section in the Grimoire, or,
better yet - anywhere else in Awakenings? No?

Then you know why I don't feel the penalty should be made a part of core
rules.



-Mb



> >This, again, falls into your own house rules on how magic works.

> No, from VR1.0, Spells and Astral Space from SR2, and All Dressed Up
> and Nowhere to Go from Awakenings.
> As far as your references goes about Riggers and Deckers, do you
> assume that once the datajack or VCR is installed the character suddenly
> integrates himself into the new sensory inputs instantly? He has to be
> trained and it's not going to be easy.

> >So, in summa: I find the basis for this objection in doubt, as it stems
> >from (at best) flavor text and personal gaming style. Even granting it,
> >I find the extension of applying a penalty from it to be questionable as
> >well.

> No, it stems from existing rules and text designed to explain the
> phenomenon. VR2.0 did not cover magicians and the matrix at all so I
> hardly call that a flat out approval.
> Now if you want a system that is completely open for a character to
> diversify in every direction unhindered, fine. But that can be just as
> bad as a system that completely limits what one can do in the end. After
> all there is a cost in all choices, that's what life is. To keep the
> suspension of disbelief high enough that the game can be enjoyed it has
> to be observed at some level.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Magical Deckers (Con), 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!