Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:35:29 +1000
Mark D. Fender wrote:

> Never, in all my years playing SR (since thta glorious day the Blue Book
> arrived in stores) have I ever heard anyone complain about how SR is mage
> biased.

Our whole group thinks it is. So that's eight people. My eyes bugged
out when I read the quote, above. I'd guess that you're misunderstanding
some of the magic or character generation rules. (Or I am!)

> Sure, they get the spellls. But in Character Creation, they suck!
> [...] the mage was slow, had no skill points, was weak, and couldn't
> afford an Ares Assault.

Huh? You put a low priority on Attributes, make Will high, buy a couple
of spell locks, and lock Increase Reaction and Willpower. Etc. etc.

> It's a bitch making a mage and very rarely does it turn out the
> way you want it.

I found it to be very easy, and it turned out exactly the way I wanted.
None of the other mages in the group had a problem with generation,
either.

And once they start Initiating ... !

luke
Message no. 2
From: Jason Ustica <usticaj@**.ERAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 22:35:34 -0700
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Luke Kendall wrote:

> > Sure, they get the spellls. But in Character Creation, they suck!
> > [...] the mage was slow, had no skill points, was weak, and couldn't
> > afford an Ares Assault.

But he has magic. Otherwise he'd just be a normal joe off the street (well
maybe not, but you get my drift). Where as the non magic using character has
good stats, decent equipment, and decent skills, they don't have the
tremendous advantage of using magic.

> Huh? You put a low priority on Attributes, make Will high, buy a couple
> of spell locks, and lock Increase Reaction and Willpower. Etc. etc.

Uugh... spell locks. They're nice until some one gets smart and starts
grounding away through them. Also, does every mage in you group take
this route to become powerful? Wouldn't that get old? Half the fun of
having a character (at least for me) is making unique stregnths _and_
weaknesses. If I had a mage character that died, and I wanted to make a
new mage, I wouldn't make a little clone of the last one, with the same
priorities, same spell locks to make up for weak attributes, etc..

I view the mage/non-mage dilemma in SR to be the same as AD&D. Mages suck
big time in the beginning, where as fighters can hold their own. However
as time and experience progress, mages become unbelievably powerful.
Most fighters never expereince the exponential growth in power while they
progress in levels as Mages do. In SR the mage has nearly unlimited
potential for growth and advancement, while the muscle character is
fairly constrained in ways to grow. I beleive this is the way it should
be, so as to limit the effectiveness of mages in the beginning. Just
imagine in AD&D (I'll assume most of you play, I admit I do) if the mage
was allowed to use armor, use swords and the like, _and_ cast spells?
This is what happens when mages go about the way which is described in
the above quoted text, which I happen to think is really lame. It stifles
character development, and detracts from the entire spirit of being a mage.

Flame me if you will, I doubt I'll ever change my mind about how I feel
about mages vs. muscle during chracter creation and development.

/------------------------\/-------------\
|Jason Ustica || Embry-Riddle|
|usticaj@**.erau.edu || Aeronautical|
|GO L.A. KINGS!! (please)|| University |
\------------------------/| Prescott,AZ |
\-------------/
Message no. 3
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 16:26:01 +1000
I wrote:

> Huh? You put a low priority on Attributes, make Will high, buy a couple
> of spell locks, and lock Increase Reaction and Willpower. Etc. etc.

Jason Ustica wrote:

> Uugh... spell locks. They're nice until some one gets smart and starts
> grounding away through them. Also, does every mage in you group take
> this route to become powerful? Wouldn't that get old? Half the fun of
> having a character (at least for me) is making unique stregnths _and_
> weaknesses. If I had a mage character that died, and I wanted to make a
> new mage, I wouldn't make a little clone of the last one, with the same
> priorities, same spell locks to make up for weak attributes, etc..

I was leaving roleplaying out of it, since that's an independent issue.

Are you seriously saying that when someone plays a mage in your group,
they never use spell locks, or quickening, or anchoring? Even if you
are, you're saying that in your groups, the game isn't biased towards
mages because you don't use the things that biases the game towards
mages.

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

As far as `does every mage in your group take this route to become powerful?',
well, they use bits and pieces of all the things that make them powerful.
And because there are so many routes to power - no, this doesn't get old.

And just a mention of roleplaying - the mages are almost all played
mainly with roleplaying in mind, not maxing-out power. Except for the
Snake Shaman - he mostly tried to push the game to its limits (the limits
imposed by FASA's rules, but further reined in by the GM and other players).

But like FASA say: in the Sixth World, Magic is power, chummer.

:-)

luke
Message no. 4
From: Jason Ustica <usticaj@**.ERAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 01:50:53 -0700
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Luke Kendall wrote:

> Are you seriously saying that when someone plays a mage in your group,
> they never use spell locks, or quickening, or anchoring? Even if you
> are, you're saying that in your groups, the game isn't biased towards
> mages because you don't use the things that biases the game towards
> mages.

No, but they do not attempt to "max out" any of their weaknesses. Most
believe a weakness is someting fun to play, an obstacle to be overcome.

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

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

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

Sorry if their was a misunderstanding.

/------------------------\/-------------\
|Jason Ustica || Embry-Riddle|
|usticaj@**.erau.edu || Aeronautical|
|GO L.A. KINGS!! (please)|| University |
\------------------------/| Prescott,AZ |
\-------------/
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:28:02 +0200
>> It's a bitch making a mage and very rarely does it turn out the
>> way you want it.

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


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I used to think that today would never come
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:28:10 +0200
>Except for the Snake Shaman

Making a snake shaman is a good way to get killed :)


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I used to think that today would never come
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 7
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 13:38:02 +0200
> > Sure, they get the spellls. But in Character Creation, they suck!
> > [...] the mage was slow, had no skill points, was weak, and couldn't
> > afford an Ares Assault.
>
> Huh? You put a low priority on Attributes, make Will high, buy a couple
> of spell locks, and lock Increase Reaction and Willpower. Etc. etc.

Yeah and loose then in the first 5 minutes of play :) There are
a lot of weird mage-dudes flying the astral you know.

> > It's a bitch making a mage and very rarely does it turn out the
> > way you want it.

I fully agree, but thats the price for versatility. The system is
fine as it is.

> I found it to be very easy, and it turned out exactly the way I wanted.
> None of the other mages in the group had a problem with generation,
> either.

Well both our mage players think that the char gen system forces
the players to make one dimentional mages - but as I said thats the
price you pay for all that versatility. Do sammies complain about
their cyberpsychosys :)

> And once they start Initiating ... !

Why would anyone want to initiate beyond grade 0 anyway. It costs
LOADS of karma and all you get for it is masking. Why not just
increase your attributes/skills... ?

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

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 8
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 14:30:46 +0200
> > > Sure, they get the spellls. But in Character Creation, they suck!
> > > [...] the mage was slow, had no skill points, was weak, and couldn't
> > > afford an Ares Assault.
>
> But he has magic. Otherwise he'd just be a normal joe off the street (well
> maybe not, but you get my drift). Where as the non magic using character has
> good stats, decent equipment, and decent skills, they don't have the
> tremendous advantage of using magic.

If he did, he'd be a mage with good stats, decent equipment, and decent
skills :) The SR system generation system is pretty balanced, and definitely
fair.

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

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 9
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 14:45:10 +0200
> Are you seriously saying that when someone plays a mage in your group,
> they never use spell locks, or quickening, or anchoring? Even if you
> are, you're saying that in your groups, the game isn't biased towards
> mages because you don't use the things that biases the game towards
> mages.

We *never* use quickenings (too karma expensive no safety whatsoever)
the ocasional lock crops up (always incr. reflexes +3), but the owner
is *always* *VERY* carefull (read he uses it once a year :) and anchorings
are too expensive/dangerous/give not enough.
As you can see we dont use them because their use is not feasible
not because we decided to do to balance things out or some othe
weird reason.

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

I mostly go along with the modules, if FASA things they should use
them I let them. I suppose that their use would be some sort of
fad/imagined-need kinda like drugs/cigarretes today :) Runners
on the other hand know whats realy cool (cause they have the rules :)

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

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 10
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 14:52:42 +0200
> >> It's a bitch making a mage and very rarely does it turn out the
> >> way you want it.
>
> How do you figure this? It's not very hard making a magician, if you ask me.
> Just don't expect him to have attributes like a sam and he'll turn out fine
> IMHO.

How about expecting him to have average stats and enough willpower to
be able to cast spells without falling on his butt with drain. :)

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

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 11
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 12:06:01 -0500
>> How do you figure this? It's not very hard making a magician, if you ask me.
>> Just don't expect him to have attributes like a sam and he'll turn out fine
>> IMHO.

> How about expecting him to have average stats and enough willpower to
>be able to cast spells without falling on his butt with drain. :)

The problem I think that is arising is the "need" for mages to have
resources B. 9 times out of 10, A is magic, B is resources, and C is
metahumanity (though I can't stand that option... it leads too heavily to
munchkinism). D and E get split between stats and skills. He'll probably
take an allergy and put his stats at E. So what you get is a seriously
attribute deficient mage with a power focus and spells that are too high in
rating for him to effectively resist drain on. Perhaps if more force points
were spent on spells, the focus left til later, resources dropped to C, not
a metahuman, Stats bounced up to B... you'd have a more useful character.
But this is a samurai's opinion... take it as you will. Optionally, stats
can go to D and skills can be moved up to B, which I would enjoy playing more.


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Message no. 12
From: Craig S Dohmen <dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 13:14:13 -0400
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Luke Kendall wrote:

> Are you seriously saying that when someone plays a mage in your group,
> they never use spell locks, or quickening, or anchoring? Even if you
> are, you're saying that in your groups, the game isn't biased towards
> mages because you don't use the things that biases the game towards
> mages.

Am I the only mage-playing person who doesn't go in for this stuff?
1) spell locks are too dangerous
2) I don't have the karma to blow on quickening
3) I never had a real need to anchor anything

I had no healing spells and no increase attribute spells. I am an
initiate, but only level 0. I have a pistol that's never been
fired. (I keep it nice and shiny, though.) The only spirit I've
ever summoned was a watcher to irritate one of the other players in
the group. (He made a few comments about mages taht I didn't like. :)
I denied everything, of course.) I can probably count on my fingers
the number of NPC's I've killed. And with all that, I still had endless
amounts of fun.

> And just a mention of roleplaying - the mages are almost all played
> mainly with roleplaying in mind, not maxing-out power. Except for the

Right. For me, all those plusses are nice, but I'm not willing to pay
the price for them. Maybe I'm just cheap. :)

--Craig
Message no. 13
From: "Mark D. Fender" <mfender@******.SGCL.LIB.MO.US>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 12:20:02 -0500
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Jani Fikouras wrote:

> > > > Sure, they get the spellls. But in Character Creation, they suck!
> > > > [...] the mage was slow, had no skill points, was weak, and couldn't
> > > > afford an Ares Assault.
> >
> > But he has magic. Otherwise he'd just be a normal joe off the street (well
> > maybe not, but you get my drift). Where as the non magic using character has
> > good stats, decent equipment, and decent skills, they don't have the
> > tremendous advantage of using magic.
>
> If he did, he'd be a mage with good stats, decent equipment, and decent
> skills :) The SR system generation system is pretty balanced, and definitely
> fair.
>
> --
Haven't made a metahuman recently, then, have you? Now,
_there's_unbalancing. Although there is the possiblity of the rulebook
not saying anything about taking multiple allergies. . .
Message no. 14
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 18:07:47 +1000
Luke Kendall writes:

> Mark D. Fender wrote:
> > Never, in all my years playing SR (since thta glorious day the Blue Book
> > arrived in stores) have I ever heard anyone complain about how SR is mage
> > biased.
> Our whole group thinks it is. So that's eight people. My eyes bugged
> out when I read the quote, above. I'd guess that you're misunderstanding
> some of the magic or character generation rules. (Or I am!)

Or everybody else I've ever spoken to has as well. Seriously Mark, why do
you not think the game is biased (perhaps biased might not be the best word,
but comparatively, magicians can easily be made much more powerful than
mundanes. The rules are set so that a magically active person can be much
more effective than a mundane. That's why they're feared so much, the
addition of a magician to one side of a mundane-mundane battle will almost
certainly turn the tide. And have you not heard the oft called phrase - at
least in my games - "geek the mage!"?). Magicians are always the first and
primary target in any engagement, if you can take out your oppositions
spell-slinger, then your own will pretty much toast what's left.

luke still thinks them too powerful, and his group has made many a
modification to the rules to limit the power of magically active persons. In
the Grimything, there is a line which says "Welcome to the Sixth World,
where magic is power." And it is all too true in my (and many other's)
experience.

And, while I grant that there are exceptions to my observations (riggers in
T-birds tend to be pretty nasty power-wise), magicians tend to have the
advantage as far as ability and effectiveness goes. [Generalisatins again,
gee I'm naughty aren't I Bob? :-)]

As far as role-playing goes, well, I won't delve into that... <grin> (But
suffice to say I agree with Bob - a remarkable occurance eh? :-))

--------------------
Jason Ustica writes:

> [Magicians suck at the start and end up real grunty]

More or less, yeah. A magically active character will not be as good as a
mundane in the mundane aspects (like stats, skills, resources), but I think
MAGIC makes up for this plus a bit (a lot actually). And this is only
accentuated by the things you mentioned about growth and devolpment of
magically active characters. But, I tend to like it that way myself too (and
there are always exceptions which are fun to play).

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

> Why would anyone want to initiate beyond grade 0 anyway. It costs
> LOADS of karma and all you get for it is masking. Why not just
> increase your attributes/skills... ?

I find that about the only reason to go beyond Grade 0 is to replenish lost
Magic Points. It sucks to be a magician with a Magic Attribuet of 3. :-)
(like one of my players, can we say "burn out"? He is a 1st level initiate,
and has a Power Focus rating 2, and still only has the Magic Attribute he
started with <evil GM grin>). Otherwise, the benefits just do not befit the
extreme karma cost.

---------------------
Mark D. Fenderwrites:

> Haven't made a metahuman recently, then, have you? Now,
> _there's_unbalancing. Although there is the possiblity of the rulebook
> not saying anything about taking multiple allergies. . .

Well, if you use the _optional_ More Metahumans rule, and the _optional_
allergies rule, then you gotta expect Metahumans to be more powerful. If you
use neither, then they are maybe even underpowered in my view. You gotta find
a balance.

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

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 15
From: Dave Woods <spuwdsda@*******.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 09:55:44 +0100
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Craig S Dohmen wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Luke Kendall wrote:
>
> > Are you seriously saying that when someone plays a mage in your group,
> > they never use spell locks, or quickening, or anchoring? Even if you
> > are, you're saying that in your groups, the game isn't biased towards
> > mages because you don't use the things that biases the game towards
> > mages.
>
> Am I the only mage-playing person who doesn't go in for this stuff?
> 1) spell locks are too dangerous

Only if you can't mask them. The neat thing about spell locks is that
they are force 1 whatever the spell force you have locked. Spells like
personal barrier and improved invisiblity are worth the occassional (GM
dependent) grounding.

> 2) I don't have the karma to blow on quickening

You have a good point my first SR charecter went for incr.att. &
init dice. Now he's a 97 karma charecter but 20+ have been lossed in
broken quickenings and locks. But can you live without rolling four dice for
inititive, stuck with one action for everyone elses three?

> 3) I never had a real need to anchor anything >

Unless you can mask them they are worse then locks. However a force 1
Heal spell with lots and magic pool and a sustaining link is a useful
thing. You don't want to be casting Heal with +6 target numbers.

> I had no healing spells and no increase attribute spells. >

No Healing? No Cure disease? No Detox Deadly? I've lossed count of the
times these spells (could) have saved charecter lives.

> --Craig
>

-David
Message no. 16
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:33:13 +0200
> >> How do you figure this? It's not very hard making a magician, if you ask me.
> >> Just don't expect him to have attributes like a sam and he'll turn out fine
> >> IMHO.
>
> > How about expecting him to have average stats and enough willpower to
> >be able to cast spells without falling on his butt with drain. :)
>
> The problem I think that is arising is the "need" for mages to have
> resources B. 9 times out of 10, A is magic, B is resources, and C is
> metahumanity (though I can't stand that option... it leads too heavily to
> munchkinism). D and E get split between stats and skills. He'll probably
> take an allergy and put his stats at E. So what you get is a seriously
> attribute deficient mage with a power focus and spells that are too high in
> rating for him to effectively resist drain on. Perhaps if more force points
> were spent on spells, the focus left til later, resources dropped to C, not
> a metahuman, Stats bounced up to B... you'd have a more useful character.
> But this is a samurai's opinion... take it as you will. Optionally, stats
> can go to D and skills can be moved up to B, which I would enjoy playing more.

Now dont get me wrong, I am not complaining - as I said (once too often)
the system is very well balanced and complaining about the low stats such
a configuration results in would be like complaining about the cyberpsychosys
resulting from a ton of 'ware.
But what if I really *want* to play that metahuman-high.resources-magician
dude ? Oh and I usualy take attributes over skills - this makes it bearable.

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

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 17
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:39:06 +0200
> Am I the only mage-playing person who doesn't go in for this stuff?
> 1) spell locks are too dangerous
> 2) I don't have the karma to blow on quickening
> 3) I never had a real need to anchor anything
>
> I had no healing spells and no increase attribute spells. I am an
> initiate, but only level 0. I have a pistol that's never been
> fired. (I keep it nice and shiny, though.) The only spirit I've
> ever summoned was a watcher to irritate one of the other players in
> the group. (He made a few comments about mages taht I didn't like. :)
> I denied everything, of course.) I can probably count on my fingers
> the number of NPC's I've killed. And with all that, I still had endless
> amounts of fun.

Way to go dude !!! This is how I see it, definitely.

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

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

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 18
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:42:08 +0200
> > > > > Sure, they get the spellls. But in Character Creation, they
suck!
> > > > > [...] the mage was slow, had no skill points, was weak, and
couldn't
> > > > > afford an Ares Assault.
> > >
> > > But he has magic. Otherwise he'd just be a normal joe off the street (well
> > > maybe not, but you get my drift). Where as the non magic using character
has
> > > good stats, decent equipment, and decent skills, they don't have the
> > > tremendous advantage of using magic.
> >
> > If he did, he'd be a mage with good stats, decent equipment, and decent
> > skills :) The SR system generation system is pretty balanced, and definitely
> > fair.

> Haven't made a metahuman recently, then, have you? Now,
> _there's_unbalancing. Although there is the possiblity of the rulebook
> not saying anything about taking multiple allergies. . .

Thats your GMs problem, I never allow more than one allergy - not that
my players would want to get more. As I see it an allergy has to be something
that counts (not stuff like allergy to owl feathers) and my players now
that I would enforce it so....

BTW I once allowed an allergy to bird feathers (for the sammie) but only
because the shaman was a follower of eagle :)

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

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 19
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 14:32:30 +0200
> Or everybody else I've ever spoken to has as well. Seriously Mark, why do
> you not think the game is biased (perhaps biased might not be the best word,
> but comparatively, magicians can easily be made much more powerful than
> mundanes.

(warning this post if full of generalisations)

Definitely no, the "problem" is that mundanes have only one edge namely
cyberware and can excel in only one field, dealing damage (mega generalisation).
Whereas mages can "bend" the laws of physics to do all sorts of unnatural
nifty things that help them go a long way with a minimum of effort.

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

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

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

> luke still thinks them too powerful, and his group has made many a
> modification to the rules to limit the power of magically active persons. In
> the Grimything, there is a line which says "Welcome to the Sixth World,
> where magic is power." And it is all too true in my (and many other's)
> experience.

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

> And, while I grant that there are exceptions to my observations (riggers in
> T-birds tend to be pretty nasty power-wise), magicians tend to have the
> advantage as far as ability and effectiveness goes. [Generalisatins again,
> gee I'm naughty aren't I Bob? :-)]

The most powerfull archetype is the decker, definitely.

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

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 20
From: Craig S Dohmen <dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:53:54 -0400
On Fri, 21 Apr 1995, Dave Woods wrote:

> > Am I the only mage-playing person who doesn't go in for this stuff?
> > 1) spell locks are too dangerous
>
> Only if you can't mask them. The neat thing about spell locks is that
> they are force 1 whatever the spell force you have locked. Spells like
> personal barrier and improved invisiblity are worth the occassional (GM
> dependent) grounding.

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

> broken quickenings and locks. But can you live without rolling four dice for
> inititive, stuck with one action for everyone elses three?

Yes I can. Always have. What's the big deal? After all the fast people
have made all the noise and woken up all the cops in the neighborhood, I
calmly turn to them and ask, "Are you through now?" :)

> > I had no healing spells and no increase attribute spells. >
>
> No Healing? No Cure disease? No Detox Deadly? I've lossed count of the
> times these spells (could) have saved charecter lives.

No. No. And no. Let 'em find another mage. Dammit Jim, I'm a mage,
not a doctor! IIRC, the only spells I had were manaball, manabolt
powerbolt, imp. invisibility, and shadow. Maybe one other. Got lots
of contacts, though.

--Craig
Message no. 21
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 01:17:04 -0500
>And, while I grant that there are exceptions to my observations (riggers in
>T-birds tend to be pretty nasty power-wise), magicians tend to have the
>advantage as far as ability and effectiveness goes. [Generalisatins again,
>gee I'm naughty aren't I Bob? :-)]

(still anxiously awaiting ritual samples from Australia...)

>As far as role-playing goes, well, I won't delve into that... <grin> (But
>suffice to say I agree with Bob - a remarkable occurance eh? :-))

Not really, 99% of the time we agree to argue a topic to death and beyond <G>.

>Well, if you use the _optional_ More Metahumans rule, and the _optional_
>allergies rule, then you gotta expect Metahumans to be more powerful. If you
>use neither, then they are maybe even underpowered in my view. You gotta find
>a balance.

True. A good balance exists in Andy Butcher's character generation system.
I modified it a touch to...

Human mundane = 18
Human magician = 10
Human adept = 12
Metahuman mundane = 15
Metahuman magician = 7
Metahuman adept = 9

I know it's not for everyone, but that system has made many a player that I
know happier with their starting characters. They aren't necessarily more
powerful, but they aren't _forced_ to be weak in any area, either. I
recommend this system to anyone who is having probs with power levels. Dump
the allergies and everything's cool. Add allergies and it (and the base
system) start to get out of hand. Allergies, if at all possible, will not
be in my campaign. And if they are on some existing characters... then
they'll pay for them. All it takes is one guy to see that a silver blade
did a number on a runner to get the word out on the street. Suddenly
everyone who has to deal with the guy is carrying silver bullets or somesuch.


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Message no. 22
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 01:19:10 -0500
> Now dont get me wrong, I am not complaining - as I said (once too often)
>the system is very well balanced and complaining about the low stats such
>a configuration results in would be like complaining about the cyberpsychosys
>resulting from a ton of 'ware.
> But what if I really *want* to play that metahuman-high.resources-magician
>dude ? Oh and I usualy take attributes over skills - this makes it bearable.

Then you have to take what you get for stats/skills and deal with it.
Them's the breaks, chummer.


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
To paraphrase the old saying... "Ya pays yer points an ya takes yer chances..."
Message no. 23
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 11:04:11 GMT
Jani Fikouras writes

>
> > > It's a bitch making a mage and very rarely does it turn out the
> > > way you want it.
>
> I fully agree, but thats the price for versatility. The system is
> fine as it is.
>
It is only a pain if you are sensible and keep the spell locks under
control. Not only are too many munchkin (they are very hard) but they
turn you into an astral 'Christmas tree' hey i'm hard. Ever heard of
folks trying to 'beat the fastest gun in the west'.

> Well both our mage players think that the char gen system forces
> the players to make one dimentional mages - but as I said thats the
> price you pay for all that versatility. Do sammies complain about
> their cyberpsychosys :)
>
> > And once they start Initiating ... !
>
> Why would anyone want to initiate beyond grade 0 anyway. It costs
> LOADS of karma and all you get for it is masking. Why not just
> increase your attributes/skills... ?
>
For masking, the most wonderful ability out.
This allows you to tell lies on the astral plane, hey i'm a mundane
joe bloggs, and he looks it! well till he starts dropping manabolts
anyway.
Also this allows you to use spell locks without people grounding
things through them. Masked detect enemies is very nice, enemy mage
sneaking up behind you, thinks you're mundane and goes BLAM, only to
whatch in dismay as the shielding pops up (enemy detect you knew it
was comming) and one pissed initiate turn round and give him a lesson
in manners. (particularl;y if hes also got maked +3d6 initative
locked.)
[carefull though too much karma and this gets very munchkin very
easily, i fourtunately have not seen it done by as PC yet in practice]

> --
> "Believe in Angels." -- The Crow
>
Mark
Message no. 24
From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 12:03:06 GMT
Jani Fikouras writes

> > Are you seriously saying that when someone plays a mage in your group,
> > they never use spell locks, or quickening, or anchoring? Even if you
> > are, you're saying that in your groups, the game isn't biased towards
> > mages because you don't use the things that biases the game towards
> > mages.
>
> We *never* use quickenings (too karma expensive no safety whatsoever)
> the ocasional lock crops up (always incr. reflexes +3),
what a suprise, i have seen very few PC magiciand without this and
any played for long tended to aquire it, but with wired 2 virtually
standard it is required if you want a reasonable initative score
though if you are clever that is not required to be effective.

> but the owner
> is *always* *VERY* carefull (read he uses it once a year :)
Turn off if not using until you can mask it, get enough initiation to
mask the thing as fast as possible and the problem goes away (well
nearly all the time)

> and anchorings
> are too expensive/dangerous/give not enough.
Yeah, i did eventually figure out a trick worth the karma cost for PC
useage but tend to regard this as a good for the GM to bring on
something special ability, which works if you can keep the players
out of the grimoire till you've used it.

> As you can see we dont use them because their use is not feasible
> not because we decided to do to balance things out or some othe
> weird reason.
>
> "Believe in Angels." -- The Crow
>
Mark

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about No mage bias?!!! (Was: potential ...), 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.