Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: xanth@****.uky.edu (Terry Amburgey)
Subject: Stupid/Unbalancing
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 13:11:29 -0500 (EST)
Blair wrote:
>So Spell-chucker get essense lose and everyone else doesn't. That is what
>the rules say it is true, but it's stupid and unbalancing.

I won't comment on the assertion of stupidity. I beg to differ on the
question of game balance; IMHO anything which makes it less attractive to
cram magicians full of augmentation is a Good Thing. If it were up to me the
'sensitivity to bodily integrity' of magically active types would also make
the implantation process harder and more expensive. A sevenfold increase in
costs [like beta grade cyber] sounds about right to me :) Terry


Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 2
From: "A. Blair Blackwell" <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject: Re: Stupid/Unbalancing
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:46:00 -0500
At 13:11 3/25/96 -0500, Terry wrote:
>Blair wrote:
>>So Spell-chucker get essense lose and everyone else doesn't. That is what
>>the rules say it is true, but it's stupid and unbalancing.
>
>I won't comment on the assertion of stupidity. I beg to differ on the
>question of game balance; IMHO anything which makes it less attractive to
>cram magicians full of augmentation is a Good Thing. If it were up to me the
>'sensitivity to bodily integrity' of magically active types would also make
>the implantation process harder and more expensive. A sevenfold increase in
>costs [like beta grade cyber] sounds about right to me :) Terry
>
>
>Terry L. Amburgey

I have no problem with the rule that magic is lost. Mages crammed with body
augements is wrong. They can augment themselves with magic. My point is that
if they get essense loss for Bioware then everyone should. Rules for one
type of character because of what they are is, IMHO, wrong. It's bad enough
Trolls are as a race dumber then humans. The essense loss is not required to
balance the game, the magic loss is enough.

BLAIR
Message no. 3
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Stupid/Unbalancing
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 11:24:33 +0100
A. Blair Blackwell said on 25 Mar 96...

> I have no problem with the rule that magic is lost. Mages crammed with body
> augements is wrong.

Maybe you'd like to elaborate on this statement? If I'd be playing a mage
and I'd decide to get some cyberware, it's my own choice no matter whether
the GM thinks it's wrong or right or whatever. If I want to play a BTL
addict I WILL play a BTL addict, and I don't think mages with cyberware
are much different from that, roleplaying-wise.

> They can augment themselves with magic. My point is that
> if they get essense loss for Bioware then everyone should. Rules for one
> type of character because of what they are is, IMHO, wrong. It's bad enough
> Trolls are as a race dumber then humans. The essense loss is not required to
> balance the game, the magic loss is enough.

As many of us seem to have been trying to say, a lot of SR players don't
use the Essence loss, just the Magic loss. As with Sustained Damaging
Manipulations (that was before your time), the best thing to do here is
to take your pick and stop whining about how it's not right and how there
should be better rules and what-have-yous...

I'm not flaming you, I want to make that clear, but I do have this
tendency to get a bit fed up with constant repeats of the same
arguments...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
only the extreme makes an impression
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.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. 4
From: Larry <lomion@********.net>
Subject: Re: Stupid/Unbalancing
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 12:05:54 -0500
At 16:46 03/25/96 -0500, A. Blair Blackwell wrote:
<<SNIP>>
>I have no problem with the rule that magic is lost. Mages crammed with body
>augements is wrong. They can augment themselves with magic. My point is that
>if they get essense loss for Bioware then everyone should. Rules for one
>type of character because of what they are is, IMHO, wrong. It's bad enough
>Trolls are as a race dumber then humans. The essense loss is not required to
>balance the game, the magic loss is enough.
>
>BLAIR

I disagree there, it makes a continuity for the reasons why magic is lost.
As for the
essence loss for mages, Mages are already a unique type as are any
magic-types. It also fits with the holistic/'organic' method of magic in
shadowrun. The essence loss thing forces the magic tpye to balance what
they can do more effectively, besides certain augmentations like the
cerebral booster might make up for the loss, imagine an Astral adept with
one of those. As for the Troll thing, i agree, it's a pain in the but, but
hey the benefits to physical attributes kinda outwieghs it.
Larry Sica
lomion@**.cybernex.net
http://www2.cybernex.net/~lomion
-----------------------------------------------
"I see the eyes but not the tears
This is my affliction"
>From "Eyes that last I saw in tears", T.S. Eliot
-----------------------------------------------
Message no. 5
From: Piers Meynell <SAC5PM@*******.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Stupid/Unbalancing
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 17:27:23 GMT
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 12:05:54 -0500
> To: shadowrn@********.itribe.net, shadowrn@********.itribe.net
> From: Larry <lomion@********.net>
> Subject: Re: Stupid/Unbalancing
> Reply-to: shadowrn@********.itribe.net

Hello!

>
> I disagree there, it makes a continuity for the reasons why magic is lost.
> As for the

> Larry Sica

Ahem sorry I had to read this twice just to make sure, did you just
imply that the magic system is a contious whole! <increduality> :)
Its the most wonderful patched together, ever evolving fuzzy logic,
mass of incogruites that I have ever seen, well that and the British
political system :)
But ya gotta love them both! :)

Piers


"Curse the blasted jelly-boned swines, the slimy
belly-wriggling invertebrates, the miserable sodding
rotters, the flaming sods, the sniverlling, dribbling,
dithering, palsied pulseless lot that make up Engand
today. They've got the white of egg in their veins,
and their spunk is that watery it's a marvel they can
breed. Why, why, why, was I born an Englishman!"
D.H. Lawrence (1912)
Message no. 6
From: "A. Blair Blackwell" <ab130f92@*******.adelphi.edu>
Subject: Re: Stupid/Unbalancing
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 14:06:41 -0500
At 11:24 3/26/96 +0100, you wrote:
>A. Blair Blackwell said on 25 Mar 96...
>
>> I have no problem with the rule that magic is lost. Mages crammed with body
>> augements is wrong.
>
>Maybe you'd like to elaborate on this statement? If I'd be playing a mage
>and I'd decide to get some cyberware, it's my own choice no matter whether
>the GM thinks it's wrong or right or whatever. If I want to play a BTL
>addict I WILL play a BTL addict, and I don't think mages with cyberware
>are much different from that, roleplaying-wise.
>
My statement is that mages by their nature are not for body augements. I
actually have a very good street mage turned decker who has initiated, so he
can still cast spells. He's actually one of the most fun players I've got.
Lots of dichotomy to have fun with.

>> They can augment themselves with magic. My point is that
>> if they get essense loss for Bioware then everyone should. Rules for one
>> type of character because of what they are is, IMHO, wrong. It's bad enough
>> Trolls are as a race dumber then humans. The essense loss is not required to
>> balance the game, the magic loss is enough.
>
>As many of us seem to have been trying to say, a lot of SR players don't
>use the Essence loss, just the Magic loss. As with Sustained Damaging
>Manipulations (that was before your time), the best thing to do here is
>to take your pick and stop whining about how it's not right and how there
>should be better rules and what-have-yous...
>
Two things,

One. I didn't thing my point was getting across so I continued but I do
understand your point and generally I agree with it.

Two. (Forgive if this sounds like a flame.) I don't quite get what you mean
by before my time. I've been playing this game since it came out in 1989. I
still have the original hardcover rulebook. (BTW, the story in the beginning
is called Night on the Town. I seem to remeber someone said it had the same
title as the story from SRII.) While I am new to this list I am not new to
this game. Please do not consider me some kind of newbie who doesn't know
what is going on.

>I'm not flaming you, I want to make that clear, but I do have this
>tendency to get a bit fed up with constant repeats of the same
>arguments...
>
Again thank you Gurth, and I know.

BLAIR
Message no. 7
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Stupid/Unbalancing
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:56:13 +0100
A. Blair Blackwell said on 26 Mar 96...

> Two. (Forgive if this sounds like a flame.) I don't quite get what you
> mean by before my time. I've been playing this game since it came out in
> 1989. I still have the original hardcover rulebook. While I am new to
> this list I am not new to this game. Please do not consider me some kind
> of newbie who doesn't know what is going on.

I meant "before your time on this list," not to this RPG. If you've been
playing SR since '89 then that's about 3 years longer than I have, but I
do believe you've only recently joined this list. The SDM thing I referred
to was a thread in which Damion kept whining :) about how he wanted
conclusive rules for sustained damaging manipulation spells, until I told
him to just make up individual rules for each specific spell. I find the
Essence/Body Index/magicians discussion very similar to the SDM one.

> (BTW, the story in the beginning is called Night on the Town. I seem to
> remeber someone said it had the same title as the story from SRII.)

The one in SR2 is Plus Ca Change, with one of those little things
underneath the first C, and it's definitely different than the one in SR1.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
only the extreme makes an impression
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.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. 8
From: "Darrin M. Conant" <dconant@****.spectra.net>
Subject: Re: Stupid/Unbalancing
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:30:41 -0500
At 11:24 AM 3/26/96 +0100, Gurth wrote:
>A. Blair Blackwell said on 25 Mar 96...
------- Stuff regarding magic/essence loos :) for mages --------
>
>As many of us seem to have been trying to say, a lot of SR players don't
>use the Essence loss, just the Magic loss. As with Sustained Damaging
>Manipulations (that was before your time), the best thing to do here is
>to take your pick and stop whining about how it's not right and how there
>should be better rules and what-have-yous...
>
>I'm not flaming you, I want to make that clear, but I do have this
>tendency to get a bit fed up with constant repeats of the same
>arguments...

I second the motion, now lets get back to something important, I think
someone mentioned magic loos a while back .....
--
insert Darrin's signature here
(Impressive, eh?)
Message no. 9
From: Georg Greve <ggreve@*******.hanse.de>
Subject: Re: Stupid/Unbalancing
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 08:10:55 +0100
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 08:10:51 +0100 (MET)

Gurth wrote:

> I'm not flaming you, I want to make that clear, but I do have this
> tendency to get a bit fed up with constant repeats of the same
> arguments...

*applaud* Yup. I think everything that needed to be said was said by
now - noone will be able to convince the others of his point of view,
everyone should just play it the way he likes. HOUGH ! *grin*

Bye...
Georg

P.S. What about Quickenings now ? Argh ! No ! What do you want to do
with that stones ? ;-)

--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "The curse of love is the cause of the pain [...] |
| If you give them a finger, they'll take off your hand" |
| AC/DC - "C.O.D." |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Georg Greve greve@*******.Hanse.DE |
| Tel.: +49-40-8223482 greve@*******.uni-hamburg.de |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 10
From: Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject: Re: Stupid/Unbalancing
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 96 22:37:42 +1030
>The one in SR2 is Plus Ca Change, with one of those little things
>underneath the first C, and it's definitely different than the one in SR1.

It's actually "Plus Ca Change..." (with the ... intentionally). As in
"The more things change,..." <complete the phrase>.

As I once said, it's a very appropriate title.


--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realizedthat a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent infinding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/
Message no. 11
From: mike.diamond@********.org
Subject: Stupid/Unbalancing
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 03:07:00 EST -0400
RW³
RW³ >The one in SR2 is Plus Ca Change, with one of those little things
RW³ >underneath the first C, and it's definitely different than the one in S
RW³
RW³ It's actually "Plus Ca Change..." (with the ... intentionally). As in
RW³ "The more things change,..." <complete the phrase>.
Plus €a Change quelle que meme chose <See, 3 yrs of French did do me some
good...> The more things change... the more they stay the same...
RW³ As I once said, it's a very appropriate title.
Approriate and True...
-Mike
---
þ JABBER v1.2 þ REALITY.SYS Corrupted: Re-boot universe? (Y/N/Q)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Stupid/Unbalancing, 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!