Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject:	Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:46:10 -0400

Message no. 1 Survey Question for the listmembers:

What are your top ten [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the
Shadowrun magic system. This includes rules you think are broken, questions
which need answering, stuff you don't get and so forth.

I've seen a lot of magical discussion on the list in the time I've been on it
and I'm interested in what things people most think need to be fixed or
addressed. If I get enough response on something, maybe I'll propose some
changes to FASA : )

Either post your top ten to the list for discussion or feel free to email me
privately at talonmail@***.com.

Take care,
Steve K.

From:	Brett Barksdale <brett@***.ORST.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:23:12 -0700

Message no. 2 >What are your top ten [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the
>Shadowrun magic system. This includes rules you think are broken, questions
>which need answering, stuff you don't get and so forth.

Ok buddy, you asked for it. :-) But I could only think of seven off the
top of my head. I'm sure there are more...

7) Undeveloped astral populations

So many "munchkin tricks" that develop work because not enough GM's have
things in the astral plane around to "pop" spell locks or pound on quickened
effects. I hate to put it this way, but a good "wandering monster" table for
the astral plane would be a /great/ GM aid.

6) Inconsistent drain codes

It seems like the punishment (the drain) doesn't fit the crime (the spell) in
a lot of cases. Yes, I could painstaking go thru and edit all of the drain
codes, but that's what the FASA playtesters were supposed to have done.

5) Wimpy drain codes.

Okay, they /do/ include a section on how to "toughen up"
the drain codes, but the /default/ codes (that, let's face it, most GMs will
go with) should be based on F and /not/ F/2. Otherwise, as soon as a mage gets
a single spell as force level 6, they can force enemies to resist at TNs of 6
(real tough) and they can resist stun at TN's of 3 (real easy). If they want
to throw the "big juju", then they should face the "big drain". :-)

4) Conjuring rules in general.

The rules on conjuring (the /entire/ set from the basic rulebook through
the Grimiore and Awakenings) are very clunky. It seems like every time FASA
releases a new magic sourcebook, they focus on making MORE clunky rules to
compensate for their earlier clunky rules rather than just saying "we screwed
up" and correcting their earlier clunky rules.

3) The imbalance between shamanic and mage summoning.

Shamans can summon at will and for free. Big deal. Compare this to what
mages can do. Mages have to pay (relatively small for successful runners)
nuyen and spend a few hours to summon an elemental. However, they can keep
this elemental around forever (according to the rules, it can be stored in
the "deep astral" requiring a complex action to bring back - as long as it's
there, the 24 hour clock is not ticking), thus negating the shamanic "summon
at will" benefit. (Shamanic summoning takes a complex and the mage
"recall"
takes a complex. It's effectively the same deal.) And while spirits can do some
moderately neat things, those
abilities /pale/ in comparison to what elementals can do for their masters:
sustain spells, remote service, add dice to learning spells, add dice to spell
casting. It's no contest.

2) Vague astral plane rules

FASA provides some basic rules (basic combat, etc.) on how to handle the
astral plane, but there are a zillion things that players (and GMs) want
to do in the astral plane that require house rules to cover. The infamous
and omnipresent "grounding" discussion is the classic symptom of this
problem. FASA needs to definitively say 'yes' and 'no' to many questions about
the astral plane. Yes, I know a GM should be able to handle some issues on
their own, but this is WAY to big of an omission to the basic rules. If I
wanted to do /that/ much, I would write a friggin' game system myself and not
bother buying SR, wouldn't I?

And the number one problem is...

1) Versatility.

Magic is too damn versatile in SR. (Actually, this is true in
most systems.) The high level-initiate is, by far, the most powerful character
in the game. There is practically no ability of the other character archetypes
(especially street sams) that they can't eventually do with magic. The systems
needs to be overhauled so that there are many things that the mage (or shaman)
just /can't/ do. Spells like increased reflexes etc. are an abomination to
game balance.

From:	Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:10:07 -0700

Message no. 3 | Survey Question for the listmembers:

As if you weren't opening a can of worms in the first place....=)

| What are your top ten [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the
| Shadowrun magic system. This includes rules you think are broken,
questions
| which need answering, stuff you don't get and so forth.

THIS had to be your question....well you asked for it. ;-)

Top Ten Pet Peeves of Caric-the-zap-'o'-matic-shaman [in no particular
order]

1) Now this is purely personal, but I would love to see some more
"specific" magical items. ie: can only be used by Dog shamans etc etc.
Maybe some named stuff ala Earthdawn. [ducks from incoming carp]

2) Personally I prefer the Voodoo rules from that whitewolf issue to the
ones in Awakenings.

3) I wish FASA had done more with Shamanic Adepts then say that they are
just for roleplaying purposes. When Loki and I designed them for our game
we based them loosely on Wolf (the guy who works for Dr. Raven)from the
original SR anthology. If you want more info on how WE do it lemme know.

4) Wrecker. [Personal Grudge don't worry about it]

5) Contrary to another post that I read in response to this question I like
the versitility of SR magic, it's what first attracted me to play a shaman.
I would like to see however some further discussion of spirits and their
abilities...if they were more defined I think they would be more widely
used.

6) My biggest pet peeve ever up until Awakenings was that there was no one
spell table that contained all of the spells...thankfully this has been
remedied, but I would like to see more done with Initiation and where it
takes a magically active person. [ie: I wanna be a space mage too :-)]
I think that the power of mages is balanced out by the fact that they are
Karma sinks...there is never enough for what you want to do...if there is
in your game then you are getting too large of awards.

7) New metamagic is always nice...as would be a physads handbook.

8) I would like to see FASA get away from the big nasties of magic and
gear up to the street style a little bit more. I like big huge plots from
time to time, but as the mana level rises there are going to be some drek
hot street kids slingin' the mojo...maybe an in-depth look at the street
lifestyle what kind of rituals do they use I liked the idea of a street
grimoire, take it a step further.

9) Cantrips. This is something that Loki and I had discussed a long time
ago. There are no real all purpose spells in SR, I know we could make
them, but for some reason it makes me feel guilty. :) Anyway more of the
ability to harness raw magic is what I am looking for. Can I just open the
channel to astral space and bombard something with waves of astral energy
and mana? Obviously this would frag the magician doing it, but what would
the effects be and could it happen?

10) I find anchoring too cumbersome and non-karma efficient to be used by
a PC in anything but the most extreme cases. Just a personal gripe, but
hey that's what you aksed for.

Well that's it...I know that they are not all pet peeves, but deal with it.
=)
Anyway I hope at least some of them made sense.

-Caric

"I was NAKED!!!!!!!!!!!"
-Blackjack our Racoon Shaman when asked why he ran away from one
particular fight."

From:	"Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:35:34 -0500

Message no. 4 You wrote:
> >What are your top ten [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the
> >Shadowrun magic system. This includes rules you think are broken, questions
> >which need answering, stuff you don't get and so forth.

> Ok buddy, you asked for it. :-) But I could only think of seven off the
> top of my head. I'm sure there are more...

> 7) Undeveloped astral populations

> So many "munchkin tricks" that develop work because not enough GM's have
> things in the astral plane around to "pop" spell locks or pound on
quickened
> effects. I hate to put it this way, but a good "wandering monster" table
for
> the astral plane would be a /great/ GM aid.
C'mon, how many Astral denizens really have reasons to frag with a mage who
happens to have a locked spell? If there were a lot, no one would _use_ spell
locks, neh? People have reasons to frag with a mage's spells, locked or
Quickened, and they do, but spirits have better things to do with their time.

> 6) Inconsistent drain codes

> It seems like the punishment (the drain) doesn't fit the crime (the spell) in
> a lot of cases. Yes, I could painstaking go thru and edit all of the drain
> codes, but that's what the FASA playtesters were supposed to have done.
This is too much a matter of opinion, I'm pretty comfy with the drain codes
as-is. And as for the F rather than F/2 as the base drain? Well, I figure
mages have to take drain just for using their main abilities, that's enough;
sammies can pull triggers with no sweat whatsoever...

> 4) Conjuring rules in general.

> The rules on conjuring (the /entire/ set from the basic rulebook through
> the Grimiore and Awakenings) are very clunky. It seems like every time FASA
> releases a new magic sourcebook, they focus on making MORE clunky rules to
> compensate for their earlier clunky rules rather than just saying "we screwed
> up" and correcting their earlier clunky rules.
Can you be more specific about 'clunky'? Which parts really bother you? Maybe
this list could offer some advice for improving them...

> 3) The imbalance between shamanic and mage summoning.

> Shamans can summon at will and for free. Big deal. Compare this to what
> mages can do. Mages have to pay (relatively small for successful runners)
> nuyen and spend a few hours to summon an elemental. However, they can keep
> this elemental around forever (according to the rules, it can be stored in
> the "deep astral" requiring a complex action to bring back - as long as
it's
> there, the 24 hour clock is not ticking), thus negating the shamanic "summon
> at will" benefit. (Shamanic summoning takes a complex and the mage
"recall"
> takes a complex. It's effectively the same deal.) And while spirits can do some
> moderately neat things, those
> abilities /pale/ in comparison to what elementals can do for their masters:
> sustain spells, remote service, add dice to learning spells, add dice to spell
> casting. It's no contest.

Allow Shamans to have multiple spirits conjured at a time, that should go a
long way to making up for it, though it does get pretty nasty imo. Make the
limit equal to Charisma like hermetics.

> 2) Vague astral plane rules

> FASA provides some basic rules (basic combat, etc.) on how to handle the
> astral plane, but there are a zillion things that players (and GMs) want
> to do in the astral plane that require house rules to cover. The infamous
> and omnipresent "grounding" discussion is the classic symptom of this
> problem. FASA needs to definitively say 'yes' and 'no' to many questions about
> the astral plane. Yes, I know a GM should be able to handle some issues on
> their own, but this is WAY to big of an omission to the basic rules. If I
> wanted to do /that/ much, I would write a friggin' game system myself and not
> bother buying SR, wouldn't I?
Here I agree, and agree, and agree some more. They needed concrete examples of
Astral activity, and some clearer explanations of what it's like to _be_ in
Astral space. Instead they did the 'we'll leave it to the GM to decide'.
Same as the Storyteller system and the Umbra. grrr

> And the number one problem is...

> 1) Versatility.

> Magic is too damn versatile in SR. (Actually, this is true in
> most systems.) The high level-initiate is, by far, the most powerful character
> in the game. There is practically no ability of the other character archetypes
> (especially street sams) that they can't eventually do with magic. The systems
> needs to be overhauled so that there are many things that the mage (or shaman)
> just /can't/ do. Spells like increased reflexes etc. are an abomination to
> game balance.
I see that just as a problem with Initiation, myself. Initiation is my great
big gripe about the SR magic system. For one (admittedly large) expenditure of
Karma, you get _five_ new abilities all of a sudden? This does not make sense.
Rather, where I have allowed Initiation in my games, it has been a matter of
one new Metamagic ability per Grade. This provides for a gradual increase in
abilities rather than the 'I'm Grade 0 now, time to go back to raising my
Sorcery Skill.' The difference between a non-Initiate and an Initiate is too
great. I also have a specific pet peeve regarding Masking, which makes no
sense to me what-so-ever, if Astral is a place where you see the true nature of
things. How does one go about masking one's aura and foci?

losthalo

From:	"Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:57:31 -0500

Message no. 5 You wrote:
> Top Ten Pet Peeves of Caric-the-zap-'o'-matic-shaman [in no particular
> order]

> 1) Now this is purely personal, but I would love to see some more
> "specific" magical items. ie: can only be used by Dog shamans etc etc.
> Maybe some named stuff ala Earthdawn. [ducks from incoming carp]
So introduce rules for tradition-specific foci, and do some description for
them. That's really GM purview more than anything. ED can afford to do that
because magic is practically the entire game, SR has other things on it mind.

> 2) Personally I prefer the Voodoo rules from that whitewolf issue to the
> ones in Awakenings.
Who's stopping you from using them?

> 5) Contrary to another post that I read in response to this question I like
> the versitility of SR magic, it's what first attracted me to play a shaman.
> I would like to see however some further discussion of spirits and their
> abilities...if they were more defined I think they would be more widely
> used.
I used them a lot, as have most of the people I've GMed for. They're damned
useful, but yes, some more _description_ would be nice.

if there is
> in your game then you are getting too large of awards.
This is really, really just opinion.

losthalo

From:	Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:37:34 -0400

Message no. 6 At 04:10 PM 6/11/97 -0700, Caric wrote these timeless words:
>| Survey Question for the listmembers:
>
>As if you weren't opening a can of worms in the first place....=)
>
<grin>

Come on, Caric... We live for this stuff...:]

>| What are your top ten [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the
>| Shadowrun magic system. This includes rules you think are broken,
>questions
>| which need answering, stuff you don't get and so forth.
>
>THIS had to be your question....well you asked for it. ;-)
>
>Top Ten Pet Peeves of Caric-the-zap-'o'-matic-shaman [in no particular
>order]
>
Zap-o-matic-Shaman? What kind of totem is That? :]

>1) Now this is purely personal, but I would love to see some more
>"specific" magical items. ie: can only be used by Dog shamans etc etc.
>Maybe some named stuff ala Earthdawn. [ducks from incoming carp]
>
personally wouldn't mind seeing both Tradition Specific Items, as well as
some more "individual" magic items. Granted, this starts hitting shades of
AD&D, but that's ok. I'd keep these items pretty rare, but one of these
would make a great campign, as the magician char goes on a great search for
this thing.

>2) Personally I prefer the Voodoo rules from that whitewolf issue to the
>ones in Awakenings.
>
Hmmm, I REALLY gotta get a copy of the New Orleans stuff for my group.
We're probably heading down that way once we "retire" :]

>3) I wish FASA had done more with Shamanic Adepts then say that they are
>just for roleplaying purposes. When Loki and I designed them for our game
>we based them loosely on Wolf (the guy who works for Dr. Raven)from the
>original SR anthology. If you want more info on how WE do it lemme know.
>
This would be cool... I kinda gave my Urban Spider Totem benefits and
restrictions for Phys-Ads. And I would be interested in seeing what you've
come up with personally, Caric. I have a Coyote Shamanic Adept in my grup
now...;]

Oh, and the Wolf stories are still one of my favorites...:] Speaking of
which, Michael Stackpole, Author of said Wolf and Doc Raven stories (As
well as the Dark Conspiracy novels and the new X-wing: Rogue Squadron
series:)) will be at Gen Con! :]

>4) Wrecker. [Personal Grudge don't worry about it]
>
Ummm, ok?

>5) Contrary to another post that I read in response to this question I like
>the versitility of SR magic, it's what first attracted me to play a shaman.
> I would like to see however some further discussion of spirits and their
>abilities...if they were more defined I think they would be more widely
>used.
>
Agreed. i wish the basics were defined in a LOT greater detail :]

>7) New metamagic is always nice...as would be a physads handbook.
>
<grin>

yeah, right :]

>8) I would like to see FASA get away from the big nasties of magic and
>gear up to the street style a little bit more. I like big huge plots from
>time to time, but as the mana level rises there are going to be some drek
>hot street kids slingin' the mojo...maybe an in-depth look at the street
>lifestyle what kind of rituals do they use I liked the idea of a street
>grimoire, take it a step further.
>
Expand upon the Street Shaman archetype...:]

>9) Cantrips. This is something that Loki and I had discussed a long time
>ago. There are no real all purpose spells in SR, I know we could make
>them, but for some reason it makes me feel guilty. :) Anyway more of the
>ability to harness raw magic is what I am looking for. Can I just open the
>channel to astral space and bombard something with waves of astral energy
>and mana? Obviously this would frag the magician doing it, but what would
>the effects be and could it happen?
>
Hmmm... I think, unless CAREFULLY defined, this could be far to abusive.

>Well that's it...I know that they are not all pet peeves, but deal with it.
> =)
>Anyway I hope at least some of them made sense.
>
Sure they did...:]

And since I'm not as familiar with the magic system as I would like (Hey, I
play a combination Decker/Rigger/Sammy as my main char. What do you want?
:)), I stuck with just commenting on some of trhe Peeves...:]

Bull

--
Now the Offical Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
NEW HOME PAGE!: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

"The best Ork Decker you never met"
-Me, in the upcoming "Target: UCAS" Shadowrun Sourcebook!

From:	The Spaceman <spaced@*.WASHINGTON.EDU>
Subject:	Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:19:03 -0700

Message no. 7 >>>>> Steve Kenson didst say unto the aether thusly:

# Survey Question for the listmembers: What are your top ten
# [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the Shadowrun
# magic system. This includes rules you think are broken,
# questions which need answering, stuff you don't get and so
# forth.
As others have said, this may have been a mistake for email
volume.....

Anyway, I only have a few, which tend to boil down to one problem:
Most of the spells that are against a victim's willpower are too powerful
given the "average" willpower of 3. Yeah, I already screw with the target
numbers in creative ways, but it's be nice not to have to every once in a
while.

Examples: Control Thoughts, Control Actions, Sleep

One other spell-specific peeve: Shape Earth. Shades of D&D's dig,
with it's instant burial effect.......... Plus, you can use it to make a
mondo-fraggin' hole in nigh-on anything. urgh.

The Spaceman |Giving money and power to government
spaced@*.washington.edu |is like giving whiskey and car keys to
Check out the Bill Page! |teenage boys - P.J. O'Rourke
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~spaced/bill.html
New maintainer of the Shadowrun Player Directory:
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~spaced/srdir/

From:	Tim P Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:28:05 EDT

Message no. 8 On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:10:07 -0700 Caric <caric@********.COM> writes:

>3) I wish FASA had done more with Shamanic Adepts then say that they are
>just for roleplaying purposes. When Loki and I designed them for our
game
>we based them loosely on Wolf (the guy who works for Dr. Raven)from the
>original SR anthology. If you want more info on how WE do it lemme
know.

I hate to break it to ya, but Wolf isn't like the way he is 'cause he's a
shamantic adept...
He knows wolf in a way shamans could only dream about.

~Tim

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:05:18 -0700

Message no. 9 > Top Ten Pet Peeves of Caric-the-zap-'o'-matic-shaman [in no particular
> order]

> 1) Now this is purely personal, but I would love to see some more
> "specific" magical items. ie: can only be used by Dog shamans etc etc.
> Maybe some named stuff ala Earthdawn. [ducks from incoming carp]

I'd like to see more spice to the foci in SR, too. Maybe add a
section to the enchantment rules: foci that can only be bound to one
individual (presumably, it's maker). Cost might not change, but it's
effective Astral rating would improve, and it would cost more Karma
to bond (since it's more of a personal item.)

I have a baker's dozen of feti/foci variants (including some obvious
ones, like ward foci) on my non-existent web-page, and *of course*
I'd love to see FASA adapt them all.

> 2) Personally I prefer the Voodoo rules from that whitewolf issue to the
> ones in Awakenings.

Haven't seen em, can't comment.

I'd like to see a break away from the pseudo-Amerind based shamanism,
though, and other variants offered in its stead (with more meat than
Awakenings offered.) I /liked/ the Voodoo rules because the regular
SR rules are hedgy on whether Totems are internal constructs or external
ones. (Okay, Voodoo isn't that clear either). It also provides some
system for when a shaman breaks with a Totem and shacks up with a new
one.

But there are net.rules for Chinese magic floating around, and I'd
really like to see them, and others, implemented.

Also, provide some Totems with low dice bonuses, but other abilities
(nothing too far-fetched; perhaps even just something like "learns
Health spells as if they were one point higher force."

Clarify rules on toxic shamanism ("But they summon *elementals!*) and
insect shamans. I've got rules for a non-meld Termite shaman that I
developed before Queen Euphoria (Queen Eudora) came out; if Totems
are based on how they're perceived, what about communities that
see insects in a more positive light? (I shit you not. There *are*
such religions.)

<< 3) I wish FASA had done more with Shamanic Adepts then say that they are
just for roleplaying purposes. When Loki and I designed them for our game
we based them loosely on Wolf (the guy who works for Dr. Raven)from the
original SR anthology. If you want more info on how WE do it lemme
know.>>

I just wish FASA had defined the adepts a bit better! Clarify which
metamagic abilities are available to which adepts (and why.) Give
the Astral Adept something else to do. Create a Mental Adept and stop
trying to claim Psionics as an alternate form of magic.

Better yet, develop some alternate Adepts who can do things normal mages
can't - an advantage the PhysAd had until the Physical Mage (ugh) came
along.

> 4) Wrecker. [Personal Grudge don't worry about it]

My personal hate is "Enhanced Aim" - can we say Smartgun? Of course
we can!

On that level, be daring and differentiate between technology and magic.
The two should /not/ overlap as much as they do; Increased Reflexes just
adds munchkinism to the game (and forces that "Can I have IR+3 and
{Boosted/Wired} Reflexes/Synaptic Accelerators/PhysAd abilities" thread.)
Currently, magic is three steps ahead of tech in the game, and I don't
like that.

<< 5) Contrary to another post that I read in response to this question I like
the versitility of SR magic, it's what first attracted me to play a shaman.
I would like to see however some further discussion of spirits and their
abilities...if they were more defined I think they would be more widely
used. >>

Even out the differences between nature spirits and elementals. State
whether they can or cannot be summoned in the Astral (my vote: Watchers
yes, everything else, no, or with the greatest of difficulty.)

Provide more types of spirits (at least another Sky spirit). Possibly
more elementals (especially if Chinese magic gets the AO.)

Make a ruling (in print) on whether elementals/spirits can be used to
ground spells from the Astral to the mundane plane.

Revamp the rules for Ally spirits; add more powers, drop others (kill
the wealth thing, for instance.) Perhaps make them available only to
initiates (along those lines, more metamagic skills for conjuring, and
possibly enchanting.)

Have the magic pool based on Magic Theory, not Sorcery or Conjuring,
and have both the pool available to both skills (as well as Enchanting
and Assensing.) Switch the conjuring test from the skill to the Magic
attribute, which makes conjurers less cyber happy.

<< 9) Cantrips. This is something that Loki and I had discussed a long time
ago. There are no real all purpose spells in SR, I know we could make
them, but for some reason it makes me feel guilty. :) Anyway more of
the ability to harness raw magic is what I am looking for. Can I just
open the channel to astral space and bombard something with waves of
astral energy and mana? Obviously this would frag the magician doing
it, but what would the effects be and could it happen? >>

Can't agree with this, but I do like the thought of free-form magic as
a metamagic ability.

> 10) I find anchoring too cumbersome and non-karma efficient to be used by
> a PC in anything but the most extreme cases. Just a personal gripe, but
> hey that's what you aksed for.

My own:

a) Reincarnation. Think about it.

b) Step up the cost of initiation. I know it's not supposed to break a
player's back, Karma-wise, but it's not too difficult to do after a good
run or two, and it seems to me that getting initiated requires more than
a month's experience. This is from a guy who's given out one point of
Karma as the entire reward for a run! Either that, or have a
graduated-power system, as some have suggested, getting one metamagic
skill at Grade 1, another one at Grade 2, etc.

c) Revamp the Ritual rules. Allow for foogy things like Ritual
Summonings.

d) Add some amount of definition to the Astral. Kill the FAB debate;
the Astral doesn't have to follow Einsteinian physics (it's magic!)
Give better descriptions for metaplanes, revamp the entire Astral Quest
scheme (which left off with Charette). Add in Elemental Metaplanes
(a bit too xx&xish, but they are present in SR, too.)

e) I'll mention it when I think of it.

Sorry if I got to sounding snappy ("Do this! Do that! Oooh!
Do that again!!")

-Matt

From:	SwiftOne <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:59:24 +0000

Message no. 10 > What are your top ten [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the
> Shadowrun magic system. This includes rules you think are broken, questions
> which need answering, stuff you don't get and so forth.

1) Grounding Debates.

We've gotten LOTS of pages of "how the magic system works" which
lead to arguments like Rat's "astral conduit" theory. What we
haven't gotten is a YES, this works, and NO, this doesn't.

2) FAQ lack.

I'm putting together a vast FAQ to cover all the issues that are
obscurely hidden in the books....Why doesn't FASA? They have one for
BattleTech? SR won't release Erratta for the Web Page (I actually
asked FASAMike about this, and he said that since the recent
printings are corrected, there is no need!) This goes beyond magic,
but is very important there.

3) Drain.
Many of my players learn MAnaBolt or Stun Bolt at high force.
Target resists with Willpower (which is usually less than body) with
targets ranging from 6-10 depending on the fervor of the mage. Mage
resists targets from 3-5 for the Mana, and 2-4 for the Stun. Usually
no drain. I tried doing the F rather than f/2 thing, but this
rendered mages useless after 1 spell, or they used lowforce spells
that EVERY enemy resisted. Also, Some don't make sense (Why is Mob
Mind easier than Control Thoughts, when one is an area effect of the
other?)

4) Spell Creation rules
Nice, but look at trying to use them. Can you do a sustained
damaging manipulation? How would I do a sustained
make-your-body-go-gradually to sleep spell? And Illusion....they use
Simple / involved/ complex /very complex in creation rules, then use
single-sense, multi-sense etc in the actual spells. Does Personal
mean it has no radius or it only works on you? Can you do a
"skin-tight" spell? What about combining effects? You yourself,
publisher of one of the most useful collections of spells, faked most
of your spell codes. Flame Aura's don't-hurt-me effect? The rules
need revamped and expanded. What is the modifier for getting to
decide elements of the spell at casting rather than pre-determined?
(for example, Crowd Scene has a pre-determined object, but
Entertainment doesn't)

5) Vague spell descriptions.
Okay, so Levitate Person is harder than Levitate Item....Does this
mean it can do items too? Can't I just have a Levitate spell? What
is the difference between Levitate Item and Magic Fingers if MF can't
manipulate "parts" of an item? Can MAkeover change Hairlength and
skin color? Can shapechange change race? Can Levitate Person be
used offensively? Does Bullet Barrier prevent you from shooting?
Does PErsonal Silence prevent you from knocking on a door? Can you
Talk? Do Barriers move? What happens if I lock Levitate
person...can I control it or not? Why did Rikki in the example of
Quickening in the Grimoire have to "center" Stink on someone? How
does Disregard work?

6) Timing, Radius, Duration, and LOS
Can you sustain a spell in your sleep? While sustaining, can you
recover from drain? [I have answers to these...but FASA didn't give
them] Is spell casting "instant", or can someone interupt it? CAn I
leave the room while sustaining a spell on something there? What
happens if someone enters and leaves the area of effect for something
line Normal (not Improved) Invisibility? What happens with your
Elemental if you turn around? Can I be knocked out of concentrating
on sustaining?

7) General Rules
I may know Force 10 Hellblast, but can't light a fire (without
toasting a forest). How about some rules for shaping magic in
general as opposed to always using formulas.

8) Karma (part. Allies)
MAges get killed with Karma. Also, try summoning an Ally that is
worth anything.

9) Traditional Magic
SR has elves, dwarves, trolls, dragons, fireball spells,
etc....but can't manage a cloak of invisbility that won't peter out.

10) AStral Space too powerful.
I had to seriously beef up astral security to prevent mages from
ruling the world. As it is, in astral they learn the true nature of
anything without MAsking (and I get tired of Masking everything,
which leads to questions about the Metamagics, but I digress, and I'm
already at 10...) they can pass through walls, they can flit through
the world instantly, and they can tell if a person is cybered, magic,
and even if he is having a bad day. Not to mention grounding through
any enemy mage you try and bring up....(I know it works both ways,
but the sammy is powerless to fight this. I consider versatility a
GOOD thing with Mages, I think Power is sometihng that should be
avoided.)

11) Ten was too few.

From:	"Steven A. Tinner" <bluewizard@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 01:17:12 -0400

Message no. 11 > What are your top ten [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the
> Shadowrun magic system. This includes rules you think are broken,
questions
> which need answering, stuff you don't get and so forth.

1 - More spirit/elemental types. Challenge magazine (way back when) had a
nice guide in it with a TON of different nature spirits, and IIRC some
elemental types too.

2 - Ritual Summoning is needed, as is a revision of the old ritual rules.
We are using a house rule system right now, but I'd like to see this
addressed in future products.

3 - Grounding rules need corrected.

4 - Quickenings and Anchorings need help as well.

5 - FAB! And Strain 3 too!

6 - Horrors. I want more of them, and stats to boot.

7 - More paranormal critters.

8 - Maybe a slow advance system for metamagic. Ie. learn one ability at a
time?

9 - Better, clearer spell design rules to allow GM's to make more spells.

10 - I wanna have my name in a book like Bull! ;-)

Steven A. Tinner
bluewizard@*****.com
http://www.ncweb.com/users/bluewizard
"The color and the shape."

From:	tom Cone <Brother-1@*****.NET>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:28:23 -1000

Message no. 12 >6 Horrors.
I'd rather not. At least, not yet.
>Slow advance for metamagic
I thought this was already an option in one of the books. My group uses
it, but it might be a house rule.
>I wanna have my name in a book like Bull!
Nice to have goals. That's one of mine too.
I'll have to become more quotable.
>Ritual Summoning.
That is something I would like to see.

From:	John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 01:29:32 EDT

Message no. 13 On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:23:12 -0700 Brett Barksdale <brett@***.ORST.EDU>
writes:

I'm just going to make a few comments here, just to lend support or show
my personal disagreement with various things:) And because I can.:):) And
I'll snip the exlanations of the actual peeves, if people need them,
they're in the original message.

<Big Snip>
>
>7) Undeveloped astral populations

Agreed. Something like the 'random encounter' table from Sprawl Sites
would be nice (I might have to see about buying that book off of a friend
of mine...)

>6) Inconsistent drain codes

I'll agree here as well. Some spells simply have a drain code that's too
high for the limited use they get. OTOH, they were probably desigined
using the spell creation rules in Grimoire, which lends some consistency
to the system.

>5) Wimpy drain codes.

Here, I disagree. I think Pete/Dark Avenger will agree with you, but I
don't. I find the drain codes to be fine for me, anyway.

>4) Conjuring rules in general.

As someone else suggested, some examples would be useful, especially for
those of use who haven't had the opportunity to use them:) This goes also
for the Voudoun rules. If someone could tell exactly what about the rules
in Awakenings were so clunky, it would be real nice:)

>3) The imbalance between shamanic and mage summoning.

A good point, and one that hasn't been quite made before. However, that
assumes a well-prepared team, which not all are (like my guys. 'Planning?
Forethought?')

>2) Vague astral plane rules

:) This would be _real_ nice, especially for those of us who, again,
haven't had the opportunity to use these rules:)

>And the number one problem is...
>
>1) Versatility.

Okay, here, I definitely disagree. Part of what defines the SR magic
system, or, rather, magic itself in the SR world, is the fact that it can
do absolutley anything the GM wants. The only limits are the imagination.
A magical tradition is only limited by its users' beliefs. If you don't
want to allow such spells, make a judgment call and don't allow them for
most people, assume that their magical beliefs simply don't encompass
magic used that way.

--
-Canthros
And ye shall know the truth, and lobo1@****.com
the truth shall set you free. canthros1@***.com
--John 8:32, KJV
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

From:	John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 01:29:32 EDT

Message no. 14 On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:46:10 -0400 Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
writes:
<<Survey Question for the listmembers:

What are your top ten [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the
Shadowrun magic system. This includes rules you think are broken,
questions which need answering, stuff you don't get and so forth.

I've seen a lot of magical discussion on the list in the time I've been
on it and I'm interested in what things people most think need to be
fixed or addressed. If I get enough response on something, maybe I'll
propose some changes to FASA : )

Either post your top ten to the list for discussion or feel free to email
me privately at talonmail@***.com.>>

I'll post mine to the list, thanks:)

Now mind you, I'm not a real experienced GM, and most of my experience
with SR's magic system comes from my use of a certain character (who may
as well have been a sorceror, I have yet to have spirits actually
involved in [one exception not worth discussing] any game I was involved
in). So, most of my questions will come from a desire to know more about
how it all works - what can be done? what can't? How do you do it? What
is this? How does it work? That kind of thing. I've learned more about
how SR works in practice, and more about the art of role-playing and
GMing, in the last year or so (I'll have been here exactly ten months on
July 11, excepting a two-week absence due to an e-mail screw up) than I
learned in the first year and a half to two years since I played my first
game. So, if my questions don't seem to have much basis in-game (or don't
seem to be particularly useful), it's because many of the situations that
the rest you have simply haven't come up for me, I haven't been doing
this long enough for it to do so. If any of these seem to have obvious
answers, it'll be for the same reason. (They say curiosity killed the
cat, but I'm a werewolf, so I don't have to worry;)

1. Grounding - Okay, it's kinda obvious, around here, but I still want an
*official* ruling from FASA:)
2. Some clarifications on ritual sorcery - are any special materials
needed to make a hermetic circle? What exactly are in the 'ritual
materials' for ritual sorcery and elemental summoning?
3. Magic and the Matrix - Just how difficult is it to affect the Matrix
with magic? Can you design spells specifically to affect the Matrix? (or
to affect your deck?) Could a 'technomancer' exist?
4. What exactly is involved in an initiation? What kind of ceremonies or
rituals do various groups practice? What kind of thing happens during an
'initiatory experience'? Some examples for these would be real useful,
especially for groups like the Black Lodge, the Illuminates, or just your
basic, joe-shmoe magical group.
5. I want a book that puts all of the magic stuff in one place, dammit! I
don't want to have to buy two magic sourcebooks, two different place
sourcebooks, an adventure and God-knows-what-else to get access to all
the magic rules. It doesn't have to look pretty with all kinds of images
and fiction all over the place. I just don't want to have to wait for
SRIII to finally see stats and descriptions on some of this stuff and I
don't want to have to spend 12-18 dollars a pop on books that I only want
ten pages out of. The same goes for things like gear and cyber. I'm
cheap:) I don't have tons of money to spend on books from you guys (no
matter how much I enjoy buying them:) Even if all you do is put out
supplements for the GM's screen that collect and update the VR and Magic
rules, it would help. A Totems book would be nice, especially if it
contained all of the supplementary magic rules scattered over about 6
books otherwise unrelated to each other or to the single bit of magic
content in them:) I guess what I'm asking for is a Magic Companion for
SR:) (Wow! That was a lot longer than I intended.) SET RANT=OFF
6. Why can't Magic affect Nuclear Radiation? Why does it have such a hard
time with technology? All we've ever been given is 'just because' answer.
I'd like an explanation:)
7. I'd like to see some rough guesstimates on what is considered a 'high'
Initiate Grade. There's obviously enough Grade 3 and 4 initiates to throw
around and 13 is apparently nearing god-like status. What's considered
'average'? What's ungodly? What's downright scary?
8. What _are_ the totems, really? And if magical ability comes from the
totem, why do toxic shamans exist? Shouldn't the totem shut off the
shaman's magical ability? Could a toxic mage exist? Why or why not? (this
one's not so hard, I'm just feeling curious:)
9. Why the barrier at <checking> 80km? What's out there? When do we find
out?
10. The Negamage. He's not covered anywhere in anything by FASA that I
know of, but nearly everybody's got houserules about him. What's the
official stance?

I don't know that there are too many 'broken' rules (I haven't had the
opportunity to use most of them):, but those are the things _I_ would
like taken care of:)

--
-Canthros
And ye shall know the truth, and lobo1@****.com
the truth shall set you free. canthros1@***.com
--John 8:32, KJV
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

From:	NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 01:44:50 -0400

Message no. 15 >>5) Wimpy drain codes.

>Here, I disagree. I think Pete/Dark Avenger will agree with you, but I
>don't. I find the drain codes to be fine for me, anyway.

Gotta, disagree with you. it's too damn easy to toss a whole lot of spells
without suffering drain at at. Putting them at force lets the mage toss a
spell but keep him in check when he really want to toss a whole bunch of
them or a really bif one.

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

YES and my followers will be legion! The world will be mine
"SO SWEARS THE LEADER!"
All will bow before my might and bask in my radience. Kneel before you lord
and master. Kiss the ruby ring of power and cower before me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From:	Bruce <gyro@********.CO.ZA>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:04:30 +0200

Message no. 16 At 05:46 PM 11-06-97 -0400, you wrote:
>Survey Question for the listmembers:
>
>What are your top ten [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the
>Shadowrun magic system. This includes rules you think are broken, questions
>which need answering, stuff you don't get and so forth.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>OK here goes,

1) Rather undefined differences between traditions. I suggest completely
different spell lists for mages and shamans to add real flavour and "point
of veiw" diferrences. Spells could be named more cretively. Look at the
Vampire card game for some great names.

2) Not enough detail on the Astral Plane and the MetaPlanes. esp what or who
dwells there and how they are organised.

3) Careful adressing of the power balance betwwen the traditions is
necessary esp where conjuring is concerned. The duration of spirits vs.
the cost of summoning (both monetarily and physically) must be well balanced.

4) I need to know more about spirits and what they can and cannot do. Can I
hang out with a Force 6 city spirit in a bar. Surely he'd have some great
stories to tell.

Thats it from me.

>>>>>>BRUCE
"Dont hit me, I just drive the car!"
-Sharkboy, our Rigger to peeved razorgal<<<<<<<

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:19:15 GMT

Message no. 17 Steve Kenson writes

> Survey Question for the listmembers:
>
> What are your top ten [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the
> Shadowrun magic system. This includes rules you think are broken, questions
> which need answering, stuff you don't get and so forth.
>
Well things really started.

> I've seen a lot of magical discussion on the list in the time I've been on it
> and I'm interested in what things people most think need to be fixed or
> addressed. If I get enough response on something, maybe I'll propose some
> changes to FASA : )
>
ok, no particular order and i'm sure i'll miss somethng though i'm
usually fairly happy with things.

1) By the book spell locks can be turned on and off for a complex
action. This is incredibly powerful, a barrier the size of secuirty
armour thats in your inside pocket and quite invisible while off, or
my favourite flying invisible mage which from trying on GM's causes
complaints even when i'm picking up the +4 sustaining both of them,
let alone locked.
[note i have a house rule that bans this one]

2) Ally spirits. Even if you allow folks to quicken increase attribute
health spells to them they are hopelessly wimpy near characters built
on enough karma to summon them. Sure you might not be supposed to use
then in combat and they are incredibly useful but a magic point and
50+ karma is just too much if the first fireball kills it.

3) By the book 'staging down of spells'. I and all the GM's i have
ever played with rule that if a spell hits you then you have to stage
it all the way down to zero. By the book the caster needs a net
success for the spell to work. This is probably an oversite in the
1st to 2nded conversions but against 2nd edition initiate shielding
this is a joke! even with grade 0 characters.

4) Some new updated guidelines on the rarity of initiation now.
Reading recent sourcebooks it seems every second decker nows the
basic abilities of an initiate let alone mages posting, which kind of
suggests finding out how to initiate yourself is rather easy, which
means once the Pc's reach about 50 karma points you nearly never use
non initiated mages for serious runs because the bad guys don't stand
a chance otherwise. I don't believe this is the intended scenario.

5) A few metamagic problems. Does shielding affect the TN for
damaging manipulation spells, i say not but some argue the point. Can
you dispell critter powers and 'permanent spells' 'suggestion' comes
to mind as a prime candidate. Awakenings helped a lot in this sort
of area but players and inventive GM's well.

6) masking.
of quickened spells, anchored spells (anchored to the initiate
him/herself), tricks from the novels like masking spells on other
people (well at least suppressing thier visibility) spring to mind.

I'll leave it there for now. I could probably ask questions all day
but i'll save a few slots for any more important ones i think of.

Mark

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:35:39 GMT

Message no. 18 Steven A. Tinner writes
>
> 2 - Ritual Summoning is needed, as is a revision of the old ritual rules.
> We are using a house rule system right now, but I'd like to see this
> addressed in future products.
>
sounds interesting.

> 6 - Horrors. I want more of them, and stats to boot.
>
I doubt it off FASA. Take ED step and subtract 2 for SR attribute.
Powers convert on how you feel (nasty). Armour values can be used 'as
is', yes they have a LOT. Oh and no drain from spellcasting :) and
read the rules for 'astral pollution' :).

> 8 - Maybe a slow advance system for metamagic. Ie. learn one ability at a
> time?
I refer you to the SR companion :)

> 9 - Better, clearer spell design rules to allow GM's to make more spells.
>
Oh you haven't seen the ED one then! oh my 23 pages long but FASA did
manage to built a 'pretty well' munchkin proof system unlike SR's
which needs discretion in places.

Mark

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:58:14 GMT

Message no. 19 John E Pederson writes

> 7. I'd like to see some rough guesstimates on what is considered a 'high'
> Initiate Grade. There's obviously enough Grade 3 and 4 initiates to throw
> around and 13 is apparently nearing god-like status. What's considered
> 'average'? What's ungodly? What's downright scary?

> 8. What _are_ the totems, really?
i thing you'll be so lucky but. Try reading HB for a little info.

> And if magical ability comes from the
> totem, why do toxic shamans exist? Shouldn't the totem shut off the
> shaman's magical ability? Could a toxic mage exist? Why or why not? (this
> one's not so hard, I'm just feeling curious:)

> 9. Why the barrier at <checking> 80km? What's out there? When do we find
> out?
I have done plenty enough digging myself about this one.
cross your fingers and hope for a space sourcebook. My research
reached a point where everything works out till you hit the changes
FASA made when they made SR and ED compatible at which point it all
falls appart as the truth no long fits the published hints.

Mark

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:53:34 GMT

Message no. 20 Bruce H. Nagel writes
>
> > 1) Versatility.
>
> I see that just as a problem with Initiation, myself. Initiation is my great
> big gripe about the SR magic system. For one (admittedly large) expenditure of
> Karma, you get _five_ new abilities all of a sudden? This does not make sense.
> Rather, where I have allowed Initiation in my games, it has been a matter of
> one new Metamagic ability per Grade.
FASA put a gradual initiation system in the Shadowrun companion.
A very similar system (i think by the same author) is also available
in a web publication.

> This provides for a gradual increase in
> abilities rather than the 'I'm Grade 0 now, time to go back to raising my
> Sorcery Skill.'
No grade is useful, for masking and that TN off centring vs TN
penalties.

> The difference between a non-Initiate and an Initiate is too
> great. I also have a specific pet peeve regarding Masking, which makes no
> sense to me what-so-ever, if Astral is a place where you see the true nature of
> things. How does one go about masking one's aura and foci?
>
Something about absorbing their auras into yours. This is a more
common magic ability in FASA's universe than just that power,
Awakenings added masking and alarm wards as well.

Mark

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:49:41 GMT

Message no. 21 Caric writes

> 2) Personally I prefer the Voodoo rules from that whitewolf issue to the
> ones in Awakenings.
do you need a carp ? :)

> 6) My biggest pet peeve ever up until Awakenings was that there was no one
> spell table that contained all of the spells...thankfully this has been
> remedied, but I would like to see more done with Initiation and where it
> takes a magically active person.

> [ie: I wanna be a space mage too :-)]
Good luck! Someone once posted a couple more points about that they
had gotten privately well.......[Not that the info ammounted to
anything like, other tahn forget acheiving it]

> 10) I find anchoring too cumbersome and non-karma efficient to be used by
> a PC in anything but the most extreme cases. Just a personal gripe, but
> hey that's what you aksed for.

Anchoring actually is cheap enough if you are creative. Someone
forgot to ban you from anchoring exclusive and fetish using spells
and you might not be able to aim anchored spells but you sure can
point what they are anchored to at a target!

Mark

From:	The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:40:00 +0100

Message no. 22 On Wed, 11 June 1997, Matb wrote:

> Have the magic pool based on Magic Theory, not Sorcery or Conjuring,
> and have both the pool available to both skills (as well as Enchanting
> and Assensing.) Switch the conjuring test from the skill to the Magic
> attribute, which makes conjurers less cyber happy.
I don't agree with this as it would make the Sorcery skill practically
useless. What I would like (and its easy enough to implement) is to have a
Conjuring Pool which equals the conjuring skill. Summoning should use the
Conjuring Pool rather than the skill. the only difference this will make
will allow mages to split the dice to help resist Drain.

To counter the magic attribute, maybe have Drain for Conjuring based upon
Magic Attribute and not Charisma, as this will allow Initiates to safely
conjure more powerful spirits and won't penalise Trolls and Orks so much.

> b) Step up the cost of initiation. I know it's not supposed to break a
<snip>
> Karma as the entire reward for a run! Either that, or have a
> graduated-power system, as some have suggested, getting one metamagic
> skill at Grade 1, another one at Grade 2, etc.
What I'd like is to see a base cost for Initiation (to get the extra Magic
Point etc) and then Metamagic abilities being paid for separately. So a
mage could spend a load of Karma and become a Grade 0 initiate with all
the Metamagic, or he could become Grade 3 but only have the metamagic
ability of Shielding. Sort of like the WWGS' Vampire Thaumaturgy, where
Thaumaturgy is bought separately from the various Paths (Movement of Mind,
Lure of Flames etc).

This will give greater variety in initiates and allow
for High grade initiates to exist without necessarily being so powerful,
as they may not have all the powers. The Metamagic power should only work
at its bought level i.e. Shielding will only add dice to the shielding
pool equal to its bought Power, Dispelling will only dispel spells with a
Force less than its bought rating etc.

The Digital Mage aka Grant Erswell - mn3rge@****.ac.uk
"Sadder still to watch it die, than never to have known it"
-Rush, Losing It

From:	The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:42:30 +0100

Message no. 23 On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Brett Barksdale wrote:

> 3) The imbalance between shamanic and mage summoning.
>
> Shamans can summon at will and for free. Big deal. Compare this to what
> mages can do. Mages have to pay (relatively small for successful runners)
> nuyen and spend a few hours to summon an elemental. However, they can keep
> this elemental around forever (according to the rules, it can be stored in
This is compensated to some degree by the fact that a Conjuring circle and
Conjuring Library is needed. The former requires a great deal fo space
(especially if one for each element is maintained) and the latter costs
large amounts of money and is difficult to carry around (as its either a
stack of books or on disc/chip and a computer is needed).

The Digital Mage aka Grant Erswell - mn3rge@****.ac.uk
"Sadder still to watch it die, than never to have known it"
-Rush, Losing It

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:33:21 +0100

Message no. 24 Bruce H. Nagel said on 19:35/11 Jun 97...

> Allow Shamans to have multiple spirits conjured at a time, that should go a
> long way to making up for it, though it does get pretty nasty imo. Make the
> limit equal to Charisma like hermetics.

In a limited way, they already can: the spirits have to be in different
domains, and by the time the shaman shifts his/her attention to another
domain, the spirit must have a task that takes a while to complete.

As a house rule, this would be easy enough to alter slightly by saying
that spirits stick around in their domain even if they haven't been given
an order. That way, if the shaman leaves the domain and then comes back
into it, there'll be a spirit waiting (provided the sun hasn't gone down
or come up in the mean time, of course).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Drowning in the main-stream.
-> 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------

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:33:21 +0100

Message no. 25 John E Pederson said on 1:29/12 Jun 97...

> Agreed. Something like the 'random encounter' table from Sprawl Sites
> would be nice (I might have to see about buying that book off of a friend
> of mine...)

Don't bother. Just borrow it so you can see if the table is _really_ what
you want (I found it the most useless part of the book because 99% of
the "encounters" are too long and/or involved to be encounters).

> >6) Inconsistent drain codes
>
> I'll agree here as well. Some spells simply have a drain code that's too
> high for the limited use they get. OTOH, they were probably desigined
> using the spell creation rules in Grimoire, which lends some consistency
> to the system.

Some still don't work out, most likely since FASA tells us in the design
system to adjust the Drain Code if it doesn't feel right. A small number
are WAY out from what they should be, though, appearing like someone just
plucked a number and a letter out of the air and said "Let's use that as
the Drain Code!"

> >4) Conjuring rules in general.
>
> As someone else suggested, some examples would be useful, especially for
> those of use who haven't had the opportunity to use them:) This goes also
> for the Voudoun rules. If someone could tell exactly what about the rules
> in Awakenings were so clunky, it would be real nice:)

The problem I have with the conjuring system is that the Magic rating
isn't involved at all. You can be an excellent conjurer even with a Magic
rating of 1, since all you have to do is get high Charisma and high
Conjuring skill -- just take an elf, put 6 points into Charisma and
Conjuring, and concentrate your Conjuring in either elementals or
nature spirits.

Recently I've been thinking of replacing "Charisma" on the Conjuring Drain
Table with "Magic Rating," but still use a Charisma test to resist Drain.
This will mean most magicians can summon spirits more easily, since their
Magic rating will be higher than their Charisma, so I'm also thinking of
adjusting the Drain Codes a bit, making them like this:

Force less than half conjurer's Magic (Force)M Stun
Force less than conjurer's Magic (Force)S Stun
Force greater than conjurer's Magic (Force)D Stun
Force greater than twice conjurer's Magic (Force)D Physical

Any thoughts?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Drowning in the main-stream.
-> 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------

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:43:44 GMT

Message no. 26 Brett Barksdale writes
>
> 6) Inconsistent drain codes
>
> It seems like the punishment (the drain) doesn't fit the crime (the spell) in
> a lot of cases. Yes, I could painstaking go thru and edit all of the drain
> codes, but that's what the FASA playtesters were supposed to have done.
Yes. SR2 mostly is guilty of some very iffy drain codes, though this
might be because it came out well before the second ed spell design
system.

> 5) Wimpy drain codes.
>
> Okay, they /do/ include a section on how to "toughen up"
> the drain codes, but the /default/ codes (that, let's face it, most GMs will
> go with) should be based on F and /not/ F/2. Otherwise, as soon as a mage gets
> a single spell as force level 6, they can force enemies to resist at TNs of 6
> (real tough) and they can resist stun at TN's of 3 (real easy). If they want
> to throw the "big juju", then they should face the "big
drain". :-)
>
Compare a force 6 manabolt with a decent shotgun sometime against
typical armour. both will need about 6's to stage down, the gun with
laser sight is 2's base manabolt 3's or more base, the gun does D on
burst fire and is a simple not a complex to fire and now the poor
mage takes drain.

> 1) Versatility.
>
> Magic is too damn versatile in SR. (Actually, this is true in
> most systems.) The high level-initiate is, by far, the most powerful character
> in the game. There is practically no ability of the other character archetypes
> (especially street sams) that they can't eventually do with magic.
It does take a lot of karma. This is more a fact of a limited dice
system and no cap on magicial advancement soon or later if you keep
going for more combat power the SR system just falls appart, true of
bigger guns as well. It works at typical street levels but just
cannot cope beyond a certain point.

> The systems
> needs to be overhauled so that there are many things that the mage (or shaman)
> just /can't/ do. Spells like increased reflexes etc. are an abomination to
> game balance.
no a total life saver. Given the best a mage can do with magic is +4
quick, int and reac plus 3 dice = 14+4D6 initiative it's tame. Try
putting moveby wire 4 and all the add on's in a character, 24+6D6 is
too acheivable. (sure move by wire 4 is not wise but the sammies
still win big time)

Mark

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 07:54:55 -0600

Message no. 27 The Spaceman wrote:
|
| >>>>> Steve Kenson didst say unto the aether thusly:
|
| # Survey Question for the listmembers: What are your top ten
| # [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the Shadowrun
| # magic system. This includes rules you think are broken,
| # questions which need answering, stuff you don't get and so
| # forth.
| As others have said, this may have been a mistake for email
| volume.....
|
| Anyway, I only have a few, which tend to boil down to one problem:
| Most of the spells that are against a victim's willpower are too powerful
| given the "average" willpower of 3. Yeah, I already screw with the target
| numbers in creative ways, but it's be nice not to have to every once in a
| while.

Ditto on that. I've allready posted my fix, but here it is again.
For any resisted test both sides have a base target number of 4.

1. Any spell that allows mind reading. The human mind is an
incredibly complex thing. For a spell to be able to simply pull
thoughts and memories from a targets mind without some pretty
hellatious drain, or for a spell to be even able to read someone's
mind at all.. well, I don't like it. And, it's a pain in the ass for
the GM :/

Ditto for any spell that influences a target's mind. Look at how
hard it can be for a decker to surf IC? And that's a person vs a
programs running on a binary computer!

2. Can elementals and spirits attack physically, and if so what are
the mechanics? There are plenty of house rules and interpretations,
but I'd like to see an official rule.

3. Grounding :)

4. Not really a peev, just an idea. I'd like to see a Physad with a
limited number of abilities, but able to cycle through them. Say a
Physad can have a number of abilities equal to his Magic rating. But
he can only those active that he can pay for with his Magic, but he
can switch back and forth (a complex action to turn off a power, a
complex action to turn one on). Maybe this would be a rank A physad,
as opposed to a rank B.

Sorry, that's it for me.

-David
--
"What's the point spread on World War III?"
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

From:	Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:14:19 +0000

Message no. 28 On 11 Jun 97 at 17:46, Steve Kenson wrote:

> What are your top ten [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the
> Shadowrun magic system. This includes rules you think are broken, questions
> which need answering, stuff you don't get and so forth.

The biggest problem I have (and maybe its me) is explaining the magic
system to new players. This is complicated by the fact that the
information is spread out over several books. I would like to see a
"Beginner's Guide to Magic" or something. It took me a good hour to
explain the difference between Physical and Mana Combat Spells and
Damaging Manipulations. And when asked why couldn't shamans conjur
elementals, or heremetics not conjur spirits, I couldn't answer him.

I would like to see more versatility with conjuring.

Grounding has always bugged me. Certainly there is a better way to
game balance spell locks (or other things I will not get into :) ),
which is really the only reason I see for grounding anyway. Mages
should be able to have toys too, without fear of being nuked. Maybe
you could make groundings only possible with ritual sorcery or
something, or only by initiates. I don't know...

And speaking of ritual sorcery, I would like to see more on that too.

Drain codes seem to be inconsistent, but keep them at (F/2).

I agree with others that say that Increase Reflexes is too
unbalancing. Mages are power, not speed. If they could keep a barrier
locks on without worry, they wouldn't need to be fast. But I won't
address that again....

I like the new options for magicially active characters in the
Companion, especially after the clarifications you (Steve Kenson)
posted to the list. I would like to see more, like maybe a
sub-physical adept with one or two powers, or a sub phys/mage with
onr or two powers, and one or two spells. Basically just a way to mix
and match magical disciplines, but only in a limited way; nothing
earthshattering.

I guess that's all for now.

--
=DREKHEAD========================================================
drekhead@***.net --- http://users.aol.com/drekhead/home.html ---
=================================================================
=================================================================
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot
stomping on a human face...forever. -George Orwell

From:	The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:41:15 +0100

Message no. 29 On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Mark Steedman wrote:

> 3) By the book 'staging down of spells'. I and all the GM's i have
> ever played with rule that if a spell hits you then you have to stage
> it all the way down to zero. By the book the caster needs a net
> success for the spell to work. This is probably an oversite in the
> 1st to 2nded conversions but against 2nd edition initiate shielding
> this is a joke! even with grade 0 characters.
I like this rule personally as it prevents PC mages toasting any NPC I
throw at them. What was happening (I used teh stage down ruling for combat
spells previously) was that Stun Bolt were getting chucked around and NPCs
would have to get 6 more successes than the caster to receive no drain. If
I wanted an NPC not to get toasted then even by giving them cover +4Tn,
Visibility modifiers +4 etc the mage could still often get 1 success
(especially with the use of karma).

If you're worried about the PC mages initiating and becoming invulnerable
hit them with a damaging manipulation (shielding IMHO does not work as
magic pool does not).

> 4) Some new updated guidelines on the rarity of initiation now.
Amen to that.

The Digital Mage aka Grant Erswell - mn3rge@****.ac.uk
"Sadder still to watch it die, than never to have known it"
-Rush, Losing It

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:45:14 GMT

Message no. 30 Drekhead writes
>
>
> I agree with others that say that Increase Reflexes is too
> unbalancing. Mages are power, not speed. If they could keep a barrier
> locks on without worry, they wouldn't need to be fast. But I won't
> address that again....
>
The problem is if you limit 'pure' magicians to about 6 +1D6 it gets
very frustrating for the player when a couple of sammies with wired 3
go in the mid 20's all the time, always get 2 actions before him (or
> 90% of the time anayway) and even when he gets to act get 3 times
as many actions. Basically its just not fair to say 'you can have
lots of actions a round and you cannot unless you sacrifice your
magic for it big time' given the combat system as it stands. The
benefit of speed in SR is just to great, initiative averages over 20
are easy to acquire and my game record is 58! and if you actually set
out to break that you could do so suprisingly easily without any use
of magic.
In my opinion mages are flexibilty and subtlty which are 'power' in
SR now, you want to chase the sammies for speed you have no choice
but to imitate them. I could also reiterate the point 'folks messing
about at the fence, oh gangers, i'll worry when they come over.
snooze...', and 'mage hanging about the fence astrally, you WHAT!
SHADOWRUNNNERS!!!!, red alert etc.' Magic attracts attention, i have
seen PC's really put thier foot in it using magic for snooping at the
wrong time.

Mark

From:	Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:19:59 -0400

Message no. 31 We're off to a good start on feedback. Some points I would like to make and
then some comments:

1) CONSTRUCTIVE criticism please. If you say you don't like something, please
explain why. Why are the Voodoo rules from White Wolf better than the ones
from Awakenings? Why is the Wrecker spell annoying? And so forth. Just "this
sucks" doesn't provide any ideas on what needs to be fixed.

2) On a similar note, while I think everything is up for discussion, no one's
opinion is necessarily right or wrong here. This is brainstorming, so ALL of
the comments are "just someone's opinion" and shouldn't be dismissed on that
basis.

Some feedback on the feedback (in no particular order):

THE ASTRAL
I agree astral space needs to be better defined and rules for how it works
need to be clear and concise as possible. IMHO, the biggest problem with the
astral seems to be the "interface" or interaction between astral space and
normal-space: the FAB debate, the grounding debate, the
"if-a-living-net-is-thrown-over-an-astral-form-what-happens?" debate and so
forth. My suggested solution: reduce and/or remove the interaction between
the two planes as much as possible.

DRAIN
I think the drain codes for some of the spells are a bit wonky myself. I
personally don't agree that drain is too low. I don't think a magician should
suffer as much drain casting a combat spell as he inflicts in damage with it,
which tends to be pretty close to what happens with Drain at full Force,
unless the magician reserves all of his magic pool for resisting Drain. As
someone said, you can fire a 9M gun without any drain at all.

CONJURING/SPIRITS
It seems many people feel nature spirits are underpowered compared to
elementals. To my mind, that says the power of elementals needs to be reduced
or limited rather than increasing the power of nature spirits. Otherwise you
get a magical "arms race" and I think spirits in SR are pretty powerful as it
is. How about limiting a mage to only having one elemental performing
services for him at a time? He can bind many, but only use them one at a
time. That would bring elementals more in line with nature spirits. Perhaps
also give nature spirits more defined combat abilities. Any other ideas?

INITIATION
I agree initiation seems like a quantum leap in ability. Of course, any
magical theorist will tell you that's what initiation is SUPPOSED to be, but
perhaps we could better define it as a leap in magical POTENTIAL. Rather than
upping the Karma cost to be an initiate I would agree with either: 1)
granting only one metamagic ability per Grade; player's choice or GM decides,
some abilities might have others as prerequisites; or 2) having a seperate
Special Skill for each metamagical ability (like the Centering Skill). The
initiate learns each skill seperately; Centering Skill, Quickening Skill,
Shielding Skill, etc. This allows for varying levels of metamagical
skill/ability and cost more karma to be good at EVERYTHING, but it adds
another level of complexity to the system that may not be desireable.

POWER/VERSATILITY
I think the versatility of Shadowrun magic is one of its appeals. I would
tend to be against adding to the versatility with multi-purpose spells and
on-the-fly magic, they tend to be game-breakers, in my experience.

FOCI
More examples and some different types of foci are certainly possibilities.
My personal pet peeve with foci is Spell Locks: they are too powerful, IMHO.
As someone (several someones) on the list pointed out, why bother building a
spell anchor when you can have a spell lock you can turn on and off? The
on/off ability of spell locks makes them more useful than quickenings (which
can't be turned off) in many ways. That's not right.

I do think foci should be encouraged to be "less generic" and there should be
more information on unique magical items/foci in the game universe.

Keep those lists and comments coming, gang.

Steve K.

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:39:24 -0700

Message no. 32 > > Have the magic pool based on Magic Theory, not Sorcery or Conjuring,
> > and have both the pool available to both skills (as well as Enchanting
> > and Assensing.) Switch the conjuring test from the skill to the Magic
> > attribute, which makes conjurers less cyber happy.

> I don't agree with this as it would make the Sorcery skill practically
> useless.

It replaces Magic Theory as useless skill of the month. You'd still use
your sorcery skill for designing/learning new spells, ritual
spellcasting,
and possibly assensing spells in Astral (I don't use the Assensing
skill).

> What I would like (and its easy enough to implement) is to have a
> Conjuring Pool which equals the conjuring skill. Summoning should use the
> Conjuring Pool rather than the skill. the only difference this will make
> will allow mages to split the dice to help resist Drain.

Using Magic Theory as the basis for the magic pool would assist in
conjuring.
I agree with the additional dice (you can play it safe with that huge
elemental but only get a few services, or you can lay more on the line
and beat it into submission.)

> To counter the magic attribute, maybe have Drain for Conjuring based upon
> Magic Attribute and not Charisma, as this will allow Initiates to safely
> conjure more powerful spirits and won't penalise Trolls and Orks so much.

I agree. Of course, n house rules, I've completely separated Conjuring
from Charisma (unless, for whatever reason, you lack the Conjuring
skill, at which point you can default.)

> > b) Step up the cost of initiation. I know it's not supposed to break a

> What I'd like is to see a base cost for Initiation (to get the extra Magic
> Point etc) and then Metamagic abilities being paid for separately. So a
> mage could spend a load of Karma and become a Grade 0 initiate with all
> the Metamagic, or he could become Grade 3 but only have the metamagic
> ability of Shielding. Sort of like the WWGS' Vampire Thaumaturgy, where
> Thaumaturgy is bought separately from the various Paths (Movement of Mind,
> Lure of Flames etc).

Can't say much for Vampire (though I am fond of Mage:The Ascenscion).
The big question, of course, is how much to pay for the various
metamagic abilities.
There's also the question of where you learn these skills (and can I get
them
without Initiating at all?)

How much does one pay to get to access the Metaplanes?

> This will give greater variety in initiates and allow
> for High grade initiates to exist without necessarily being so powerful,
> as they may not have all the powers. The Metamagic power should only work
> at its bought level i.e. Shielding will only add dice to the shielding
> pool equal to its bought Power, Dispelling will only dispel spells with a
> Force less than its bought rating etc.

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:24:49 GMT

Message no. 33 The Digital Mage writes
> On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Mark Steedman wrote:
>
> > 3) By the book 'staging down of spells'. I and all the GM's i have
> > ever played with rule that if a spell hits you then you have to stage
> > it all the way down to zero. By the book the caster needs a net
> > success for the spell to work. This is probably an oversite in the
> > 1st to 2nded conversions but against 2nd edition initiate shielding
> > this is a joke! even with grade 0 characters.
> I like this rule personally as it prevents PC mages toasting any NPC I
> throw at them. What was happening (I used teh stage down ruling for combat
> spells previously) was that Stun Bolt were getting chucked around and NPCs
> would have to get 6 more successes than the caster to receive no drain.
no damage surely ?

> If
> I wanted an NPC not to get toasted then even by giving them cover +4Tn,
> Visibility modifiers +4 etc the mage could still often get 1 success
> (especially with the use of karma).
>
Sure. But by the book a grade zero willpower 6 initiate sits in
cover, and throws up 6 dice of shielding and well, you mate need 16's
good luck getting net success on any force spell that won't knock you
out. And thats assuming no other modifiers, sorry but i don't like
invulnerable PC's, they stage my bad guys down enough as it is.

> If you're worried about the PC mages initiating and becoming invulnerable
> hit them with a damaging manipulation (shielding IMHO does not work as
> magic pool does not).
>
Well it provides more dice to roll but yes i play that shielding does
not affect DM TN's. I have seen very annoying PC's turn around and
announce they weren't hurt after tossing force 10 Damaging
manipulations thier way with a pile of successes, and no the target
was not wearing milspec. [ok so it blew their karma pool but!] And
you see why i don't like PC's being immune to spells for no net
attackers successes. When i was playing and the GM found this rule it
got lost again awful quick after i just said 'shielding'.

> > 4) Some new updated guidelines on the rarity of initiation now.
> Amen to that.
>

Mark

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:11:39 -0700

Message no. 34 Steve Kenson wrote:

> Some feedback on the feedback (in no particular order):

> THE ASTRAL
> I agree astral space needs to be better defined and rules for how it works
> need to be clear and concise as possible. IMHO, the biggest problem with the
> astral seems to be the "interface" or interaction between astral space and
> normal-space: the FAB debate, the grounding debate, the
> "if-a-living-net-is-thrown-over-an-astral-form-what-happens?" debate and so
> forth. My suggested solution: reduce and/or remove the interaction between
> the two planes as much as possible.

I'd love to see the Astral completely separated from the mundane world.
However, there are those dual-natured creatures to contend with...

> CONJURING/SPIRITS
> It seems many people feel nature spirits are underpowered compared to
> elementals. To my mind, that says the power of elementals needs to be reduced
> or limited rather than increasing the power of nature spirits. Otherwise you
> get a magical "arms race" and I think spirits in SR are pretty powerful as
it
> is. How about limiting a mage to only having one elemental performing
> services for him at a time? He can bind many, but only use them one at a
> time. That would bring elementals more in line with nature spirits. Perhaps
> also give nature spirits more defined combat abilities. Any other ideas?

a) Make an obvious equation between Elementals and Nature Spirits.
Spirits of the Sky would help a shaman in the same situations an Air
Elemental would (learning/casting/sustaining detection spells).
Similar, Spirits of the Landêrth Elementals, Water=Water, Man=Fire.
(Only the last is a stretch.)

I like a clear distinction between the two traditions, though, and this
just smudges them together.

b) Add in other Nature Spirit powers. Supposedly, each has different
powers already.
Personally, I think the powers are the best benefit a nature spirit
provides, but they're
not very well defined in SRII. (Can you resist the Accident power?)

c) Rather obviously, a mage should only be limited to having one /type/
of elemental present with him. Some sort of elemental rivalry occurs
when two different types are present, and the two attack each other like
rabid dogs. (At the very least this should apply to
diametrically-opposed spirits.)

I'm not so sure about a single spirit, though.

> INITIATION

I'm starting to lean toward the skills myself.

From:	Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:11:57 -0700

Message no. 35 | >As if you weren't opening a can of worms in the first place....=)
| >
| <grin>
|
| Come on, Caric... We live for this stuff...:]

Shhhh...you're not supposed to tell...now they'll never fall into my trap
again.

| >Top Ten Pet Peeves of Caric-the-zap-'o'-matic-shaman [in no particular
| >order]
| >
| Zap-o-matic-Shaman? What kind of totem is That? :]

Buuuulllll...don't go there man you know that leads to the dark side. The
side where w**dch*cks dwell.

| personally wouldn't mind seeing both Tradition Specific Items, as well
as
| some more "individual" magic items. Granted, this starts hitting shades
of
| AD&D, but that's ok. I'd keep these items pretty rare, but one of these
| would make a great campign, as the magician char goes on a great search
for
| this thing.

Exactly, but more with the feel like the soy cafe cup mentioned earlier.

| >2) Personally I prefer the Voodoo rules from that whitewolf issue to the
| >ones in Awakenings.
| >
| Hmmm, I REALLY gotta get a copy of the New Orleans stuff for my group.
| We're probably heading down that way once we "retire" :]

I highly recommend you do. I know another post responded to this by saying
"so use them" (sorry i deleted it with a bunch of others I meant to
respond, but c'est la vie). Well we DO use them and they work great, but
we were asked for our pet peeves so I gave 'em to ya. FASA knew the other
rules were out there being used, and still they came out with some that
obviously took some ideas from the White Wolf rules (which is a good
thing), but made the system *searches for right word in vain* more
complicated to do less. (not exactly what i'm trying to say, but it's early
and i'm tired.)

| This would be cool... I kinda gave my Urban Spider Totem benefits and
| restrictions for Phys-Ads. And I would be interested in seeing what
you've
| come up with personally, Caric. I have a Coyote Shamanic Adept in my
grup
| now...;]

Wow a coyote shaman, i'll have to think of their
advantages/disadvantages...ok i'm done here's a list.

NONE

Ok who's next. =) j/k I'll send you the rules on how we handled the wolf
adept in a private e-mail Bullster.

| Oh, and the Wolf stories are still one of my favorites...:] Speaking of
| which, Michael Stackpole, Author of said Wolf and Doc Raven stories (As
| well as the Dark Conspiracy novels and the new X-wing: Rogue Squadron
| series:)) will be at Gen Con! :]

I say that...I love his writing and he lives in Phoenix...speaking or
writers I picked up "Stranger Souls" yesterday...so far it's looking very
good Jak.

| >4) Wrecker. [Personal Grudge don't worry about it]
| >
| Ummm, ok?

I think Loki is on the verge of strangling me if I bring this up again.
:-)

| >8) I would like to see FASA get away from the big nasties of magic and
| >gear up to the street style a little bit more. I like big huge plots
from
| >time to time, but as the mana level rises there are going to be some
drek
| >hot street kids slingin' the mojo...maybe an in-depth look at the street
| >lifestyle what kind of rituals do they use I liked the idea of a street
| >grimoire, take it a step further.
| >
| Expand upon the Street Shaman archetype...:]

Hey Bull do you want a full time job as an interpreter? :)
Basically I guess that's exactly whaat I would like to see, maybe
sub-archtypes, and some street specific foci.

| >9) Cantrips. This is something that Loki and I had discussed a long
time
| >ago. There are no real all purpose spells in SR, I know we could make
| >them, but for some reason it makes me feel guilty. :) Anyway more of
the
| >ability to harness raw magic is what I am looking for. Can I just open
the
| >channel to astral space and bombard something with waves of astral
energy
| >and mana? Obviously this would frag the magician doing it, but what
would
| >the effects be and could it happen?
| >
| Hmmm... I think, unless CAREFULLY defined, this could be far to abusive.

Absolutely, i'm not looking for raw magic like in Earthdawn, but if the
shaman is a link between the mundane and the astral can't the flood gates
just be opened up. I think this would kill the shaman doing it, but it
would be a cool way to go.

| Sure they did...:]

Good.

| And since I'm not as familiar with the magic system as I would like (Hey,
I
| play a combination Decker/Rigger/Sammy as my main char. What do you
want?
| :)), I stuck with just commenting on some of trhe Peeves...:]

Hey! If you combine Bull with Caric the Dog Shaman we'd have Sam Verner!!!
*grumble grumble fraggin' pansy grumble harumph*

-Caric

"I was NAKED!!!!!!!!!!!"
-Blackjack our Racoon Shaman when asked why he ran away from one
particular fight."

From:	Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:19:40 -0700

Message no. 36 | >3) I wish FASA had done more with Shamanic Adepts then say that they are
| >just for roleplaying purposes. When Loki and I designed them for our
| game
| >we based them loosely on Wolf (the guy who works for Dr. Raven)from the
| >original SR anthology. If you want more info on how WE do it lemme
| know.
|
| I hate to break it to ya, but Wolf isn't like the way he is 'cause he's a
| shamantic adept...
| He knows wolf in a way shamans could only dream about.

I know he isn't an adept, it's almost like he has been "mounted" by Wolf.
I was just using him as my guide when thinking of rules.

-Caric

"I was NAKED!!!!!!!!!!!"
-Blackjack our Racoon Shaman when asked why he ran away from one
particular fight."

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:57:36 -0600

Message no. 37 Steve Kenson wrote:
|
| DRAIN
| I think the drain codes for some of the spells are a bit wonky myself. I
| personally don't agree that drain is too low. I don't think a magician should
| suffer as much drain casting a combat spell as he inflicts in damage with it,
| which tends to be pretty close to what happens with Drain at full Force,
| unless the magician reserves all of his magic pool for resisting Drain. As
| someone said, you can fire a 9M gun without any drain at all.

Remember, combat spells are LOS. I think that more than justifies
the high drain code. It's not my fault that none of my players take
advantage of this <shrug>.

-David
--
"What's the point spread on World War III?"
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

From:	William Monroe Ashe <wma6617@****.TAMU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:13:08 -0500

Message no. 38 On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, David Buehrer wrote:
> | DRAIN
> | I think the drain codes for some of the spells are a bit wonky myself. I
> | personally don't agree that drain is too low. I don't think a magician should
> | suffer as much drain casting a combat spell as he inflicts in damage with it,
> | which tends to be pretty close to what happens with Drain at full Force,
> | unless the magician reserves all of his magic pool for resisting Drain. As
> | someone said, you can fire a 9M gun without any drain at all.
>
> Remember, combat spells are LOS. I think that more than justifies
> the high drain code. It's not my fault that none of my players take
> advantage of this <shrug>.

One thing that I'm not sure a lot of people do is to apply the visibility
modifiers to spells. Watch a mage rip his hair out when a target number =
3 spell goes up to a target number = 7 because the intended victim is hiding
behind a tree at night (i.e partial cover and reduced vis. [if I got the
actual numbers wrong I apologize])

Bill

From:	Brett Barksdale <brett@***.ORST.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:21:23 -0700

Message no. 39 >> 7) Undeveloped astral populations

>> So many "munchkin tricks" that develop work because not enough GM's
have
>> things in the astral plane around to "pop" spell locks or pound on
quickened
>> effects. I hate to put it this way, but a good "wandering monster"
table for
>> the astral plane would be a /great/ GM aid.

>C'mon, how many Astral denizens really have reasons to frag with a mage who
>happens to have a locked spell? If there were a lot, no one would _use_ spell
>locks, neh? People have reasons to frag with a mage's spells, locked or
>Quickened, and they do, but spirits have better things to do with their time.

True enough. I wasn't very clear, but I wasn't limited my concept of an "astral
wandering monster" to be only spirits. How about mages and shamans? You're in
a city - you've got to be running into other people in the astral all the
time, don't you? What are the chances of running into some gang shaman who
likes to "prank" people by blowing out spell-locks. Hell, it could be a
deliberate game (like mailbox golf) with some street magic groups.
Maybe there is an "astral gang" that stakes out territory in the astral.
I haven't really seen anything out there address these possible astral
subcultures.
My point is, it would be really REALLY handy to have a comprehensive list of
what floats around the astral - both in urban settings and in the "boonies". It
strikes me as something that FASA should've developed by now. Presently, the
astral is very big conceptually, but there is very little /practical/ game
information out there on it - including what can be found there and at what
frequency. It's not just about blowing locks.

>> 6) Inconsistent drain codes
>
>> It seems like the punishment (the drain) doesn't fit the crime (the spell) in
>> a lot of cases. Yes, I could painstaking go thru and edit all of the drain
>> codes, but that's what the FASA playtesters were supposed to have done.

>This is too much a matter of opinion, I'm pretty comfy with the drain codes
>as-is. And as for the F rather than F/2 as the base drain? Well, I figure
>mages have to take drain just for using their main abilities, that's enough;
>sammies can pull triggers with no sweat whatsoever...

I respect your opinion, but I just see magic as too easy to sling with F/2
drain codes. The populace can defend against mundane means - no matter how
nasty they are. And it /is/ 2057 - technology is supposed to be easier, faster
and (essentially) better at blowing people away than magic.

I have no problem with mages being able to cast magic with no drain. Let them
cast at force 3 or 4 if they wish. The average (or even above average) shmoe
will still get pasted since they don't have a magic pool to defend themselves
with. However, it's the ability to sling Force 6+ juju AND USUALLY NOT TAKE
DRAIN that bugs me. Force 6 spells can level even top-notch opponents without
too much trouble. Spells cast at THAT force should /not/ be cast casually and
without drain.

And mages can pull the trigger on guns just as easily as sammies. It's not
like they're limited to using only magic. People seem to have this paradigm
where mages primarily use magic. I would think that mages, despite their
talents, will still use tech most of the time. Why wouldn't they?

>> 4) Conjuring rules in general.
>
>> The rules on conjuring (the /entire/ set from the basic rulebook through
>> the Grimiore and Awakenings) are very clunky. It seems like every time FASA
>> releases a new magic sourcebook, they focus on making MORE clunky rules to
>> compensate for their earlier clunky rules rather than just saying "we
screwed
>> up" and correcting their earlier clunky rules.
>Can you be more specific about 'clunky'? Which parts really bother you? Maybe
>this list could offer some advice for improving them...

Sorry, but the Union of Shadowrun Rules Debaters (Local 115) doesn't allow me
to bring out this debate more than once a year. It hasn't been a year since
I started the "firm 24 hr. rule" debate, so I'll have to pass for now.

The theory is that the original rules (main SRII rulebook) has some game balance
problems or vagueness about them. And, rather than clear it up or balance the
existing rules, they add rules for Great Forms and Elementals Escaping Control
and other stuff to "compensate" where it would be a lot easier and would provide
a more balanced system to keep it simple and go back and fix the EXISTING rules.

Bottom-line: FASA needs basic, WORKING comprehensive rules for conjuring based
as much on the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle as possible.

>> 3) The imbalance between shamanic and mage summoning.

>> Shamans can summon at will and for free. Big deal. Compare this to what
>> mages can do. Mages have to pay (relatively small for successful runners)
>> nuyen and spend a few hours to summon an elemental. However, they can keep
>> this elemental around forever (according to the rules, it can be stored in
>> the "deep astral" requiring a complex action to bring back - as long
as it's
>> there, the 24 hour clock is not ticking), thus negating the shamanic
"summon
>> at will" benefit. (Shamanic summoning takes a complex and the mage
"recall"
>> takes a complex. It's effectively the same deal.) And while spirits can do
some
>> moderately neat things, those
>> abilities /pale/ in comparison to what elementals can do for their masters:
>> sustain spells, remote service, add dice to learning spells, add dice to spell
>> casting. It's no contest.

>Allow Shamans to have multiple spirits conjured at a time, that should go a
>long way to making up for it, though it does get pretty nasty imo. Make the
>limit equal to Charisma like hermetics.

Certainly this is a good fix for balancing it. My only problem is that I
would want to go the /other/ way (make elementals weaker rather than make
shamanic summoning stronger). I like games where elementals and spirits are
supplementary and don't have the potential to be a primary force. But that's
just my opinion.

>> 2) Vague astral plane rules

>> FASA provides some basic rules (basic combat, etc.) on how to handle the
>> astral plane, but there are a zillion things that players (and GMs) want
>> to do in the astral plane that require house rules to cover. The infamous
>> and omnipresent "grounding" discussion is the classic symptom of
this
>> problem. FASA needs to definitively say 'yes' and 'no' to many questions about
>> the astral plane. Yes, I know a GM should be able to handle some issues on
>> their own, but this is WAY to big of an omission to the basic rules. If I
>> wanted to do /that/ much, I would write a friggin' game system myself and not
>> bother buying SR, wouldn't I?
>Here I agree, and agree, and agree some more. They needed concrete examples of
>Astral activity, and some clearer explanations of what it's like to _be_ in
>Astral space. Instead they did the 'we'll leave it to the GM to decide'.
>Same as the Storyteller system and the Umbra. grrr

Yeah. I should've just rolled in problem 7 into this problem. It's mostly the
same thing...

>> And the number one problem is...

>> 1) Versatility.

>> Magic is too damn versatile in SR. (Actually, this is true in
>> most systems.) The high level-initiate is, by far, the most powerful character
>> in the game. There is practically no ability of the other character archetypes
>> (especially street sams) that they can't eventually do with magic. The systems
>> needs to be overhauled so that there are many things that the mage (or shaman)
>> just /can't/ do. Spells like increased reflexes etc. are an abomination to
>> game balance.
>I see that just as a problem with Initiation, myself. Initiation is my great
>big gripe about the SR magic system. For one (admittedly large) expenditure of
>Karma, you get _five_ new abilities all of a sudden? This does not make sense.
>Rather, where I have allowed Initiation in my games, it has been a matter of
>one new Metamagic ability per Grade. This provides for a gradual increase in
>abilities rather than the 'I'm Grade 0 now, time to go back to raising my
>Sorcery Skill.' The difference between a non-Initiate and an Initiate is too
>great. I also have a specific pet peeve regarding Masking, which makes no
>sense to me what-so-ever, if Astral is a place where you see the true nature of
>things. How does one go about masking one's aura and foci?

Initiation to me, actually, isn't that bad. This is because it involves
growth on the part of a mage/shaman that doesn't infringe on other character
archetypes abilities. The things that gets me is that FASA had a great idea
to destroy a mage's magic if they use cyberware etc., but undid their good
work by allowing mages spells to do what the key cyberware does (i.e. increased
reflexes). How dumb is that? Pretty dumb. But that's just a "hot" button with
me. I am a stickler when it comes to the diversity and balance of character
archetypes (character "classes") w/ respect to each other. I think diversity
makes for a better game in general.

- Brett

From:	Brett Barksdale <brett@***.ORST.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:16:41 -0700

Message no. 40 >> The systems
>> needs to be overhauled so that there are many things that the mage (or shaman)
>> just /can't/ do. Spells like increased reflexes etc. are an abomination to
>> game balance.

>no a total life saver. Given the best a mage can do with magic is +4
>quick, int and reac plus 3 dice = 14+4D6 initiative it's tame. Try
>putting moveby wire 4 and all the add on's in a character, 24+6D6 is
>too acheivable. (sure move by wire 4 is not wise but the sammies
>still win big time)

With all due respect, this is where we totally disagree. Just because
the extreme street sam (move-by-wire 4) example can beat the best magic
at "the initiative game" does not make a good or balanced system.

Why the heck did FASA ever cause cyberware to mess with a mage's ability
to use magic? One reason: game balance. But then, if you want to punish
a mage character for using cyberware to get extra dice on initiative,
WHY OH WHY would you allow a spell into the game that allows the same
damn function? Sure, maybe the mage can't get to the SOTA level of cyberware.
But he can get most of the way there. Can a street sam develop most of a
mages abilities in time? No. Why not?

To my way of thinking, mages are SUPPOSED to be in deep sh*t when they are
in an "initiative" war with sammies. There shouldn't be any spells to
"soften the blow", so to speak.

The Increased Reflexes and Raise Attribute spells were crutches created
by game designers that couldn't think of better, more appropriate spells
and didn't think about game balance all that much. Mages can already
use the astral (with all of the possibilities it offers), initiate (another
six abilities, although Masking is only good vs. other mages), do all of the
funky "basic" magic stuff like control people, read minds, cast
combat spells (and do damage at HUGE ranges with binoculars), use magical
healing, conjure useful and powerful spirits/elementals and a host of other
very powerful and useful abilities. This is all stuff that NO OTHER ARCHETYPE
can do.

Plus, mages can get the benefit of a large amount of the technology out there
that is avaiable as long as it isn't internal. They can shoot a gun (w/ external smartlink
and smartgoggles if the want to be extra efficient). They can use a
computer (but not jack in unless they want to take an essence hit). They can
drive a car, etc. The key is while magic characters can infrige a great deal
on the "realm" of tech characters, tech characters can NOT infringe in even the
tiniest amount into the "realm" of magic characters.

Now, I understand that you can't have complete separation. You can't really
rationalize a game where mages can't pick up a gun etc. (I never liked that
mages can't use swords or armor thing from DnD, etc.) HOWEVER, you sure as
sh*t can keep deliberate game-unbalancing screw-ups like Increased Reflexes
out of the game. Mages do NOT need to be able to enchant themselves into being
Superman on top of the already-impressive list of things that they can
already do.

- Brett

From:	"Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:24:41 -0500

Message no. 41 You wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, David Buehrer wrote:
> > | DRAIN
> > | I think the drain codes for some of the spells are a bit wonky myself. I
> > | personally don't agree that drain is too low. I don't think a magician should
> > | suffer as much drain casting a combat spell as he inflicts in damage with it,
> > | which tends to be pretty close to what happens with Drain at full Force,
> > | unless the magician reserves all of his magic pool for resisting Drain. As
> > | someone said, you can fire a 9M gun without any drain at all.
> >
> > Remember, combat spells are LOS. I think that more than justifies
> > the high drain code. It's not my fault that none of my players take
> > advantage of this <shrug>.

> One thing that I'm not sure a lot of people do is to apply the visibility
> modifiers to spells. Watch a mage rip his hair out when a target number =
> 3 spell goes up to a target number = 7 because the intended victim is hiding
> behind a tree at night (i.e partial cover and reduced vis. [if I got the
> actual numbers wrong I apologize])

Those only apply to Physical MAnipulation spells such as Flame Bomb or
Spark,not to Combat Spells such as Mana Bolt. The advantage of Combat Spells
is that you only have to see the edge of them to hit them, the advantage of
Manipulations is that you can attack targets you can't necessarily see.

losthalo

From:	Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:08:53 -0700

Message no. 42 <snip Canthros' disclaimer>

| 1. Grounding - Okay, it's kinda obvious, around here, but I still want an
| *official* ruling from FASA:)

I think i've given up on an official ruling...too controversial it seems.

| 2. Some clarifications on ritual sorcery - are any special materials
| needed to make a hermetic circle? What exactly are in the 'ritual
| materials' for ritual sorcery and elemental summoning?

That would add nice flavor.

| 3. Magic and the Matrix - Just how difficult is it to affect the Matrix
| with magic? Can you design spells specifically to affect the Matrix? (or
| to affect your deck?) Could a 'technomancer' exist?

I think this is to avoid what I call "Sam Verner Syndrom" one person cannot
be the be all end all at everything. You can be all that but dammit you're
not getting my bag of chips too!!!

| 4. What exactly is involved in an initiation? What kind of ceremonies or
| rituals do various groups practice? What kind of thing happens during an
| 'initiatory experience'? Some examples for these would be real useful,
| especially for groups like the Black Lodge, the Illuminates, or just your
| basic, joe-shmoe magical group.

Again this would be good flavor, I think i'll start the Joe Schmoes magical
group. :)

| 5. I want a book that puts all of the magic stuff in one place, dammit! I

<snip rant, but with good reason :)>

I guess what I'm asking for is a Magic Companion for
| SR:) (Wow! That was a lot longer than I intended.) SET RANT=OFF

Amen brother...<sound of high fives>

-Caric

"I was NAKED!!!!!!!!!!!"
-Blackjack our Racoon Shaman when asked why he ran away from one
particular fight."

From:	"Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:39:45 -0500

Message no. 43 You wrote:
> With all due respect, this is where we totally disagree. Just because
> the extreme street sam (move-by-wire 4) example can beat the best magic
> at "the initiative game" does not make a good or balanced system.
I agree. By the same token, given the extreme boost of WR, it's nice to have
at least a little something to boost the mage's speed so he at least gets to
_Act_ before the fight is over... Unless you want mages to be non-combatants.
I don't agree with Increase Reflexes +3dice, but maybe +1die would still be
okay. I've been the mage who never acts in a fight because the sammies are
done already first, and it gets boring to be a 'support' character. This is
why the spells to increase Initiative came about, I think.

> Why the heck did FASA ever cause cyberware to mess with a mage's ability
> to use magic? One reason: game balance. But then, if you want to punish
> a mage character for using cyberware to get extra dice on initiative,
> WHY OH WHY would you allow a spell into the game that allows the same
> damn function? Sure, maybe the mage can't get to the SOTA level of cyberware.
> But he can get most of the way there. Can a street sam develop most of a
> mages abilities in time? No. Why not?
No, but by the same token, mages rarely have the attributes or Combat Pool of
sams or physads. Putting your A priority in Magic (which many sammies put into
skills or attributes) really dampens the mage's ability to do what the sammy
does anyway, YMMV.

> To my way of thinking, mages are SUPPOSED to be in deep sh*t when they are
> in an "initiative" war with sammies. There shouldn't be any spells to
> "soften the blow", so to speak.
Yes, they should still be slower than sammies, and should not be able to
compete in mundane combat.

> The Increased Reflexes and Raise Attribute spells were crutches created
> by game designers that couldn't think of better, more appropriate spells
> and didn't think about game balance all that much. Mages can already
> use the astral (with all of the possibilities it offers), initiate (another
> six abilities, although Masking is only good vs. other mages), do all of the
> funky "basic" magic stuff like control people, read minds, cast
> combat spells (and do damage at HUGE ranges with binoculars), use magical
> healing, conjure useful and powerful spirits/elementals and a host of other
> very powerful and useful abilities. This is all stuff that NO OTHER ARCHETYPE
> can do.
I agree that mages get a wide range of abilities, but it'd still be nice if
they could participate in combat, considering the number of spells they have
specifically for that.

> Plus, mages can get the benefit of a large amount of the technology out there
> that is avaiable as long as it isn't internal. They can shoot a gun (w/ external
smartlink and smartgoggles if the want to be extra efficient). They can use a
> computer (but not jack in unless they want to take an essence hit). They can
> drive a car, etc. The key is while magic characters can infrige a great deal
> on the "realm" of tech characters, tech characters can NOT infringe in even
the
> tiniest amount into the "realm" of magic characters.
As do Riggers, Physads, basically anyone. These are not 'sammy' things, rather
they are things that sammies use the most.

> Now, I understand that you can't have complete separation. You can't really
> rationalize a game where mages can't pick up a gun etc. (I never liked that
> mages can't use swords or armor thing from DnD, etc.) HOWEVER, you sure as
> sh*t can keep deliberate game-unbalancing screw-ups like Increased Reflexes
> out of the game. Mages do NOT need to be able to enchant themselves into being
> Superman on top of the already-impressive list of things that they can
> already do.
Well, there are drawbacks to those things anyway. Even without grounding
rules, relying on a rating 1 focus to keep your reflexes up is risky. Any
spirit could easily destroy it in Astral combat, leaving you without it (and
down a point of Karma. It's not only a neat bonus, it's also a resource to
defend (unlike the sammy's WR that are a permanent part of him).

losthalo

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:16:16 -0700

Message no. 44 > I guess what I'm asking for is a Magic Companion for
> | SR:) (Wow! That was a lot longer than I intended.) SET RANT=OFF

Only, *please* let it be a sourcebook, and not this half-fiction,
half-sourcebook thing they've been pulling lately. I like a little
fiction (hey, I'm trying to get published through FASA) but Awakenings
was far too much for my gullet.

From:	"Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:09:02 -0500

Message no. 45 You wrote:
> FOCI
> More examples and some different types of foci are certainly possibilities.
> My personal pet peeve with foci is Spell Locks: they are too powerful, IMHO.
> As someone (several someones) on the list pointed out, why bother building a
> spell anchor when you can have a spell lock you can turn on and off? The
> on/off ability of spell locks makes them more useful than quickenings (which
> can't be turned off) in many ways. That's not right.
The disadvantage to Spell Locks is that they are easy to break. A Rating of 1,
no matter what, means that even a Watcher can be sent to smash it (and the mage
is either busy defending his Lock, or turns it off. Allowing them to be turned
on and off is perhaps a mistake, tho'. Maybe create a second type of Lock
which can be switched on and off, and make it more expensive (both in Karma and
Nuyen)?

losthalo

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:31:15 -0700

Message no. 46 Caric wrote:

> Matt retorted with these well thought out words:

> | c) Revamp the Ritual rules. Allow for foogy things like Ritual
> | Summonings.

> foogy? kewl. How about ritual enchanting or ritual Allies...a spirit
> loyal to a specific group would be cool.

Wow... *swipe!*

It also makes disbanding the group very unpleasant...

New item on the agenda: Expand the legal (and possibly political)
ramifications of magic use. The LoneStar sourcebook touched on this
briefly; what about the areas where the Star doesn't have a contract?
Perhaps as a result of the Bug infestation, Chicago's clamped down hard;
it would be nifty to see some hard-line rules against public magery -
and a realistic scheme on how it would be enforced.
(Pet peeve: LoneStar has that ridiculous FireTrack net. A mage can't
command spirits remotely (SRII somewhere); a spirit can't see a flashing
signal, so how does it work? How did it get past the censors?)

But I'd like to see more on the how mage groups function in society; I
cannot believe they're all secret initiatory Illuminatus-inspired
cabals.

From:	"Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:18:21 -0500

Message no. 47 You wrote:
> I have no problem with mages being able to cast magic with no drain. Let them
> cast at force 3 or 4 if they wish. The average (or even above average) shmoe
> will still get pasted since they don't have a magic pool to defend themselves
> with. However, it's the ability to sling Force 6+ juju AND USUALLY NOT TAKE
> DRAIN that bugs me. Force 6 spells can level even top-notch opponents without
> too much trouble. Spells cast at THAT force should /not/ be cast casually and
> without drain.
How are people doing this, aside from throwing a lot of MAgic Pool into it?

> The theory is that the original rules (main SRII rulebook) has some game balance
> problems or vagueness about them. And, rather than clear it up or balance the
> existing rules, they add rules for Great Forms and Elementals Escaping Control
> and other stuff to "compensate" where it would be a lot easier and would
provide
> a more balanced system to keep it simple and go back and fix the EXISTING rules.
Yes, this is am SR trend (cf. FirePower ammo, IPE Grenades, Reactive
Triggers.. and that's just the Street Samurai Catalog!). Revising is better
than tacking-on (this being AD&D's biggest problem in trying to make it a
better system).

> Bottom-line: FASA needs basic, WORKING comprehensive rules for conjuring based
> as much on the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle as possible.
What exactly don't you like about the current Conjuring rules? (sorry if I just
missed this)

> Certainly this is a good fix for balancing it. My only problem is that I
> would want to go the /other/ way (make elementals weaker rather than make
> shamanic summoning stronger). I like games where elementals and spirits are
> supplementary and don't have the potential to be a primary force. But that's
> just my opinion.
Fair enough, though I think even one spirit at a time can be very
powerful/useful, and don't like Sorcery overshadowing Conjuring (as someone
else pointed out).

> Initiation to me, actually, isn't that bad. This is because it involves
> growth on the part of a mage/shaman that doesn't infringe on other character
> archetypes abilities. The things that gets me is that FASA had a great idea
> to destroy a mage's magic if they use cyberware etc., but undid their good
> work by allowing mages spells to do what the key cyberware does (i.e. increased
> reflexes). How dumb is that? Pretty dumb. But that's just a "hot" button
with
> me. I am a stickler when it comes to the diversity and balance of character
> archetypes (character "classes") w/ respect to each other. I think
diversity
> makes for a better game in general.

They also gave mages a way to overcome Magic loss (Initiation Magic attribute
gains, which I don't think I care for). :( I don't see why it's needed in the
game, sounds more like a 'give them something neat' to me.

losthalo

From:	Brett Barksdale <brett@***.ORST.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:37:16 -0700

Message no. 48 >I agree. By the same token, given the extreme boost of WR, it's nice to have
>at least a little something to boost the mage's speed so he at least gets to
>_Act_ before the fight is over... Unless you want mages to be non-combatants.
>I don't agree with Increase Reflexes +3dice, but maybe +1die would still be
>okay. I've been the mage who never acts in a fight because the sammies are
>done already first, and it gets boring to be a 'support' character. This is
>why the spells to increase Initiative came about, I think.

I can understand this. I've both run games with mages and played a mage
and I know that it can get boring at times when the sammies are taking
a zillion actions before you get to go. I think that rather than allowing
a single extra die for mages, I'd go the other way and make it /that/ much
more difficult to get (and keep w/o running into the Law or whatnot) wired
3 calibre or higher cyberware. When it comes to imbalances, I'm definitely
pro-reduction rather than pro-escalation. (Similarly, I think that elementals
need to be made weaker instead of making spirits stronger to balance the
conjuring power imbalance between mages and shamans.)

However, we're sort of looking at the situation from the perspective of
a "everyone ready? now DRAW!" sort of gunfight. I think that if a mage gets
caught in that position (either by being ambushed or from personal stupidity),
then they /should/ have to sit there. Mages, by their design and abilities,
need to be extremely proactive prior to the commencement of hostilities.
What the heck is the sammie going to do when they are being peppered by magic
attacks at distance when they can't see the mage? Barring physical manipulations,
there are no telltale signs that a sammie can use to find a mage with cover
and a pair of binoculars, for example. Now, it's the sammie that has all of
these combat phases to do stuff, but has nothing to do but run and/or take
cover.

The infamous sammie vs. mage battle is usually won /before/ the firing starts.
If the sammie gets close range, bye-bye mage. If the mage sees the sammie a ways
off, bye-bye sammie. There will always be exceptions, but that's the basic
rule. I don't see a problem with keeping /all/ magical enhancements to
initiative out of the game since the situation we've been talking about is the
"mage f*ck-up". In that situation, where everyone rolls for initiative inside
each other's range, the mage is hosed. I'm comfortable with that. The moral
of the story (for the mage) is: don't get that close. Easier said than done,
of course. There are no sure things - for either the sammie or the mage. That's
what makes the game fun - among other things.

As far as the waiting problem goes, it's the same with a 4d6 sammie vs. a
d6 mage as it is with a 5d6 sammie vs a 2d6 mage. Given the similar waiting
times, I'd rather just "stick to my guns" and not allow /any/ magical
initiative enhancements. It makes for easier rules and more reasonable and
controllable cyberware availability. (I happen to think a great deal of potential
is wasted by SR games that allow the characters to start with wired 2 or
higher or certain of the key spells. But that's another subject matter
entirely... :-)

>> Why the heck did FASA ever cause cyberware to mess with a mage's ability
>> to use magic? One reason: game balance. But then, if you want to punish
>> a mage character for using cyberware to get extra dice on initiative,
>> WHY OH WHY would you allow a spell into the game that allows the same
>> damn function? Sure, maybe the mage can't get to the SOTA level of cyberware.
>> But he can get most of the way there. Can a street sam develop most of a
>> mages abilities in time? No. Why not?

>No, but by the same token, mages rarely have the attributes or Combat Pool of
>sams or physads. Putting your A priority in Magic (which many sammies put into
>skills or attributes) really dampens the mage's ability to do what the sammy
>does anyway, YMMV.

Basically true. But without GM intervention to prevent minmaxing, what's to
prevent a mage character from going high in QUIC, INT, and WP (thus giving
a combat pool of 8 or 9) and lower BODY and CHAR (build it up for future conjuring)
and a STR (why would they need it?) of 1? And defaulting to the
already high quickness allows them to fire a gun reasonably well if they want
to go for high magic-related skills from the get-go and not get Firearms.

That's just start-up anyway. Eventually, the mage can earn karma and slowly
build these up. Whereas, the sammie can't /ever/ get magic abilities. Obviously,
the longer a campaign runs and the more karma that is awarded, the worse this
problem becomes.

>I agree that mages get a wide range of abilities, but it'd still be nice if
>they could participate in combat, considering the number of spells they have
>specifically for that.

They already can participate in combat (see above). They just can't
participate in "quickdraw gunfights". There's a big difference. Mages
are strategic (long-term) whereas sammies are tactical (short-term).

>> Plus, mages can get the benefit of a large amount of the technology out there
>> that is avaiable as long as it isn't internal. They can shoot a gun (w/ external
smartlink and smartgoggles if the want to be extra efficient). They can use a
>> computer (but not jack in unless they want to take an essence hit). They can
>> drive a car, etc. The key is while magic characters can infrige a great deal
>> on the "realm" of tech characters, tech characters can NOT infringe in
even the
>> tiniest amount into the "realm" of magic characters.

>As do Riggers, Physads, basically anyone. These are not 'sammy' things, rather
>they are things that sammies use the most.

Correct. It might be more appropriate to discuss characters as either being
magic characters (mages, shamans, phys adepts) and non-magic characters
(sammies, deckers and riggers). There really /shouldn't/ be separate "classes"
like sammies or riggers or deckers. It's all just a choice of what they do
and what they put inside of their bodies. Being 1/2 sammie, 1/2 decker is just
fine as is 2/3 sammie, 1/3 rigger or what have you.

>Well, there are drawbacks to those things anyway. Even without grounding
>rules, relying on a rating 1 focus to keep your reflexes up is risky. Any
>spirit could easily destroy it in Astral combat, leaving you without it (and
>down a point of Karma. It's not only a neat bonus, it's also a resource to
>defend (unlike the sammy's WR that are a permanent part of him).

Good point. However, again, as the campaign goes on, the mage initiates
and learns how to quicken. Then they overspend Karma on their key spell(s)
like, you guessed it, Increased Reflexes, and knocking down the effect
becomes significantly more difficult, but not impossible.

- Brett

From:	Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:36:05 -0700

Message no. 49 | We're off to a good start on feedback. Some points I would like to make
and
| then some comments:
|
| 1) CONSTRUCTIVE criticism please. If you say you don't like something,
please
| explain why. Why are the Voodoo rules from White Wolf better than the
ones
| from Awakenings? Why is the Wrecker spell annoying? And so forth. Just
"this
| sucks" doesn't provide any ideas on what needs to be fixed.

Fair enough i'll try to get both of the Voodoo rules in front of me and
come up with some more solid points. As for wrecker don't worry about it.

| 2) On a similar note, while I think everything is up for discussion, no
one's
| opinion is necessarily right or wrong here. This is brainstorming, so ALL
of
| the comments are "just someone's opinion" and shouldn't be dismissed on
that
| basis.
|
| Some feedback on the feedback (in no particular order):
|
| THE ASTRAL
I like the ideas that have been showed here. Astral space is being
"meshed" with the mundane realm too much.

| DRAIN

We tend to use stun weapond fairly often in our game, and drain on top of
that is a killer. Drain for spells seems to be perfectly balanced for our
game.

| CONJURING/SPIRITS

From what I have gathered from the list, most people are looking for more
information on spirits such as the combat instances, but they also want
more "tourist" information. What are their attitudes and do they ever
occur naturally? Not necessarily free spirits, but do forrest spirits
sometimes wander their domain, I know spirits are not supposed to like
being on the "normal" astral plane or manifesting, but they are still tied
to a specific domain correct? Does one forrest spirit only get summoned in
a specific forrest? I would like to see elementals and spirits have powers
that are more equivalent.

| INITIATION

I like the idea of one power per initiation far more than the separate
skills idea. I think increasing the cost of initiation might be in order,
but having five or six new skills would bury a magician even further into
the karma hole.

| POWER/VERSATILITY
| I think the versatility of Shadowrun magic is one of its appeals. I would
| tend to be against adding to the versatility with multi-purpose spells
and
| on-the-fly magic, they tend to be game-breakers, in my experience.

I guess I have been unclear on this partially...by multipupose I am
refering mostly to illusion spells...why can't I have a spell that mimics a
variety of sounds? Something like that. On-the-fly magic would be a game
breaker I agree, I don't think that sorcerers should be able to harness
astral energies into impromptu spells, but if the magic user is a conduit
under desperate conditions can they open the flood gates and let 'er rip.
I gather that is similar to what is happening when people die during
rituals such as the great ghost dance and the one in the end of the secrets
of power trilogy.

| FOCI

| I do think foci should be encouraged to be "less generic" and there
should be
| more information on unique magical items/foci in the game universe.

huzzah!!

| Keep those lists and comments coming, gang.

You know us Stevie.

-Caric

"I was NAKED!!!!!!!!!!!"
-Blackjack our Racoon Shaman when asked why he ran away from one
particular fight."

From:	Brett Barksdale <brett@***.ORST.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Top 10 Magical Pet Peeves
Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:53:22 -0700

Message no. 50 >> I have no problem with mages being able to cast magic with no drain. Let them
>> cast at force 3 or 4 if they wish. The average (or even above average) shmoe
>> will still get pasted since they don't have a magic pool to defend themselves
>> with. However, it's the ability to sling Force 6+ juju AND USUALLY NOT TAKE
>> DRAIN that bugs me. Force 6 spells can level even top-notch opponents without
>> too much trouble. Spells cast at THAT force should /not/ be cast casually and
>> without drain.

>How are people doing this, aside from throwing a lot of MAgic Pool into it?

That it - they just throw a lot of magic pool into it. A standard spell with
drain (F/2)M cast at force 6 requires '3' to resist drain. A mage with WP
6 (does /any/ mage not take a WP of 6?) will get the 4 3's necessary, on
average, without ANY magic pool added at all. Toss in one or two magic pool
dice just to be safe, and this leaves 4 (of the starting mage's magic pool of
6) to toss into the offense. Force 6 + 4 pool dice = 10 dice to blast with.
Standard "tough" target has a WP of 5 or 6 (let's say 6). So, 10 dice vs.
6 dice - both shooting for 6's. Mages wins on average by 1 die. Even with a
tie, the mage still wins (assuming they got one success themselves) and does
and 'M' damage amount (on average). And God help the target if the mage has
any of the appropriate foci to toss even MORE dice into this. And, what if
the mage prepared and brough an fire elemental along to add dice to the combat
spell. Ouch. These aren't easy additions for the mage, but the fact remains
that the target has NO access to ANY extra defense - difficult to get or otherwise.
(Well, they can get spell defense dice from a friendly mage, but that just
keep that mage from counterattacking the original mage with any effectiveness...)

>> Bottom-line: FASA needs basic, WORKING comprehensive rules for conjuring based
>> as much on the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle as possible.

>What exactly don't you like about the current Conjuring rules? (sorry if I just
>missed this)

Ummm. It's a long story that got covered here for about a month about 6 months
ago. Basically, my biggest bitch is the vagueness with which mages can summon
elementals and "store" them away. Does the 24 hour rule apply ALL the time or
just when they are current with the mage? And while the concept of "the
elemental goes free" is standard mage mythology, the basic SRII rulebook has
all of one or two sentences about it. And those sentences don't make sense.
The only elementals weak enough NOT to succeed in the test to leave and go home
(as opposed to staying and fighting the summoning mage) are the force 1 and 2
ones - the one's that pose no real threat. Where's the downside when the only
elemental that will stay around to ever fight you is too small to DO anything?
Then, with the Grimiore etc., rather than fix this BASIC rule, they add all of
this crap about Great Forms and Binding Times for elementals. It would've been much
easier (and better) to re-write the basic two sentences in SRII then to further
muddy the problem with even MORE obscure rules. But, of course, you can't sell
new sourcebooks with 2 sentence fixes. You must have more muddy rules. :-)

>Fair enough, though I think even one spirit at a time can be very
>powerful/useful, and don't like Sorcery overshadowing Conjuring (as someone
>else pointed out).

That's an /excellent/ point and one I never really though about. Sorcery
really /does/ beat the hell out of conjuring. Of course, by now you realize
that my personal choice would be to weaken sorcery than to strengthen
conjuring. I am strongly in favor of drain codes based on F instead of F/2.
That would really slow down sorcery, wouldn't it?

>They also gave mages a way to overcome Magic loss (Initiation Magic attribute
>gains, which I don't think I care for). :( I don't see why it's needed in the
>game, sounds more like a 'give them something neat' to me.

Yeah, the "neat-o" bug runs rampant in the SR magic system. But, you see,
the "neat-o" stuff sells source books (like Grimmy) and common sense that
can fit into the basic SRII book does not. :-(

- Brett

Message no. 51 You wrote:
> However, we're sort of looking at the situation from the perspective of
> a "everyone ready? now DRAW!" sort of gunfight.
Actually I was looking at it not as a mage vs. a samurai duel, but as mage in a
group with sammies versus other folks, trying to keep up and be useful.

> As far as the waiting problem goes, it's the same with a 4d6 sammie vs. a
> d6 mage as it is with a 5d6 sammie vs a 2d6 mage. Given the similar waiting
> times, I'd rather just "stick to my guns" and not allow /any/ magical
> initiative enhancements. It makes for easier rules and more reasonable and
> controllable cyberware availability. (I happen to think a great deal of potential
> is wasted by SR games that allow the characters to start with wired 2 or
> higher or certain of the key spells. But that's another subject matter
> entirely... :-)
Whereas I prefer having everything available at the start, and allow the
players to portray 'experienced' characters if they like.

> Basically true. But without GM intervention to prevent minmaxing, what's to
> prevent a mage character from going high in QUIC, INT, and WP (thus giving
> a combat pool of 8 or 9) and lower BODY and CHAR (build it up for future conjuring)
> and a STR (why would they need it?) of 1? And defaulting to the
> already high quickness allows them to fire a gun reasonably well if they want
> to go for high magic-related skills from the get-go and not get Firearms.
If someone really wants to min/max, the group/GM should get a handle on it.
The rules should present a generally equal level of power, but they can't
completely rule out min/maxing (unfortunately). Lowering the overall level of
power just means that the min/maxers don't end up with as much power
objectively; subjectively they're still more powerful.

> That's just start-up anyway. Eventually, the mage can earn karma and slowly
> build these up. Whereas, the sammie can't /ever/ get magic abilities. Obviously,
> the longer a campaign runs and the more karma that is awarded, the worse this
> problem becomes.
True. But I still think (YMMV) that the wide variety of things a mage must
advance eats up a lot of Karma.

> They already can participate in combat (see above). They just can't
> participate in "quickdraw gunfights". There's a big difference. Mages
> are strategic (long-term) whereas sammies are tactical (short-term).
The only type of combat I usually see in SR is 'quickdraw'.

> Good point. However, again, as the campaign goes on, the mage initiates
> and learns how to quicken. Then they overspend Karma on their key spell(s)
> like, you guessed it, Increased Reflexes, and knocking down the effect
> becomes significantly more difficult, but not impossible.
If Quickening is a problem, eliminate it. Don't change other rules around to
defend one which is giving you headaches.

losthalo

Message no. 52 You wrote:
> | INITIATION

> I like the idea of one power per initiation far more than the separate
> skills idea. I think increasing the cost of initiation might be in order,
> but having five or six new skills would bury a magician even further into
> the karma hole.
So let them pick and choose, rather than having all the goodies. =)

losthalo

Message no. 53 You wrote:
> >How are people doing this, aside from throwing a lot of MAgic Pool into it?

> That it - they just throw a lot of magic pool into it. A standard spell with
> drain (F/2)M cast at force 6 requires '3' to resist drain. A mage with WP
> 6 (does /any/ mage not take a WP of 6?) will get the 4 3's necessary, on
> average, without ANY magic pool added at all. Toss in one or two magic pool
> dice just to be safe, and this leaves 4 (of the starting mage's magic pool of
> 6) to toss into the offense.
This leaves them open to anything and everything, magically. It's the
equivalent of spending all your Combat Pool to hit the other guy, hoping to
take him down, you're sacrificing your defense. And if you have a buddy to
rely on for spell defense, and are only facing one magician opponent, that odd
guy out was fragged from the start and we all know it.

A agree with your observations about spirits rule.

> That's an /excellent/ point and one I never really though about. Sorcery
> really /does/ beat the hell out of conjuring. Of course, by now you realize
> that my personal choice would be to weaken sorcery than to strengthen
> conjuring. I am strongly in favor of drain codes based on F instead of F/2.
> That would really slow down sorcery, wouldn't it?
I myself have no problems whatsoever with straight ol' Sorcery, nor with what
spirits can do as written. I feel they are balanced with the prices paid to
use them.

> Yeah, the "neat-o" bug runs rampant in the SR magic system. But, you see,
> the "neat-o" stuff sells source books (like Grimmy) and common sense that
> can fit into the basic SRII book does not. :-(
Yes, FASA is guilty of this in a lot of SR material, which is a shame. :( Why
do you think PhysAds were introduced? So people could play powerful fighters
w/o the roleplaying drawbacks of a low Essence (I'm talking 1st Ed here, btw).

losthalo

Message no. 54 Brett Barksdale said --

<<I am strongly in favor of drain codes based on F instead of F/2.>>

I guess I should point out that it is an option in Big Black (it's
misprinted, though, so running with Drain at full-force is considered
Low Lethality. Go figger.)

Possibility: Introduce some heavy-duty spells (perhaps along ED lines -
I Know Not Of What I Speak, so if this is a bad thing, tell me!) that
use Force as a base target number - or higher. Individual GMs could
augment this to F*2 or whatever.

How about better rules for purchasing spell formulae? (I know wiz mages
are supposed to create their own, but hey - doesn't buying a Hellblast-6
off the shelf for 6K seem a little low? It's not like a Panther where
you've gotta buy ammo for it to, and it seems to me there ought to be
some licensing involved...)

Message no. 55 Mark Steedman said on 11:53/12 Jun 97...

> FASA put a gradual initiation system in the Shadowrun companion.
> A very similar system (i think by the same author) is also available
> in a web publication.

It's in NERPS: ShadowLore. The author of that was Jason Carter, whose name
doesn't appear in the Companion, so I doubt he wrote that "official bit...
The two are very similar though -- basically they both say that you get to
choose a power when you gain an initiation grade, rather than getting them
all at grade 0.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Drowning in the main-stream.
-> 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. 56 The Digital Mage said on 12:40/12 Jun 97...

> I don't agree with this as it would make the Sorcery skill practically
> useless. What I would like (and its easy enough to implement) is to have a
> Conjuring Pool which equals the conjuring skill. Summoning should use the
> Conjuring Pool rather than the skill. the only difference this will make
> will allow mages to split the dice to help resist Drain.

It looks like you're overlooking one fundamental difference between
sorcery and conjuring: with sorcery, the skill itself _isn't_used_ -- you
roll the spell's Force, not a skill test. Sorcery skill only helps
indirectly, by means of the Magic Pool.
Summoning a spirit, OTOH, is a test with the Conjuring skill -- giving a
pool equal to the skill {c|w}ould effectively double the skill rating,
whereas in sorcery what basically matters is the Force of the spell, not
the magician's ability to manipulate its energies.

Allowing the magician a Conjuring Pool that can be split up between
summoning and resisting Drain doesn't work for me...

> To counter the magic attribute, maybe have Drain for Conjuring based upon
> Magic Attribute and not Charisma, as this will allow Initiates to safely
> conjure more powerful spirits and won't penalise Trolls and Orks so much.

That one I do agree with, since Drain for spells isn't based on Willpower
either.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Drowning in the main-stream.
-> 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. 57 I'm going to be the only one mentioning this one,
I know, but here it goes:

Why can you see through transparent items w/
astral perception? Transparent to what
wavelengths? With what photons? Why can
you target spells through mirrors, binoculars etc.

<stand on soapbox, following is IMHO>
Astral perception is unrelated to sight. Solid
items are opaque. Spell targeting requires (at
least) subconscious astral perception of the
target, so no targeting through windows,
binoculars, one-way mirrors, of (worst of all)
fiber optic lines. Astral perception doesn't
require eyes, so cyber-eyes are not an issue at
all.

Also, astral beings shouldn't be able to effect
single-natured objects AT ALL, except as
illusionary ghostlike "manifestations", which
should be hard work for the mage, and easy to
miss (think of ghost stories). Please re-evaluate
FAB!
<gets off soapbox>

Maybe I'll think of some more peeves later.

Double-Domed Mike

Message no. 58 Steve Kenson said on 11:19/12 Jun 97...

> We're off to a good start on feedback. Some points I would like to make and
> then some comments:
>
> 1) CONSTRUCTIVE criticism please.

Ouch! This must be "Great ShadowRN Discussions From The Past" week... :)

> Why is the Wrecker spell annoying?

I'd say because its mechanics are really complicated. I understand the
reasoning behind it (combat spells attack from the inside out) but that
makes it require what's almost a completely new set of rules, which makes
it annoying to use.

> And so forth. Just "this sucks" doesn't provide any ideas on what needs
> to be fixed.

Beg to differ. It does indicate what needs to be fixed, in the poster's
opinion; it just doesn't add how he or she would like it fixed :)

> THE ASTRAL
> I agree astral space needs to be better defined and rules for how it works
> need to be clear and concise as possible. IMHO, the biggest problem with the
> astral seems to be the "interface" or interaction between astral space and
> normal-space: the FAB debate, the grounding debate, the
> "if-a-living-net-is-thrown-over-an-astral-form-what-happens?" debate and so
> forth. My suggested solution: reduce and/or remove the interaction between
> the two planes as much as possible.

I don't really have a problem with the current level of interaction,
except for the living nets stuff. IMHO interaction shouldn't be reduced,
let alone removed, unless there is a real problem (like with FAB if
that's used in certain ways).

> CONJURING/SPIRITS
> It seems many people feel nature spirits are underpowered compared to
> elementals. To my mind, that says the power of elementals needs to be reduced
> or limited rather than increasing the power of nature spirits. Otherwise you
> get a magical "arms race" and I think spirits in SR are pretty powerful as
it
> is. How about limiting a mage to only having one elemental performing
> services for him at a time? He can bind many, but only use them one at a
> time. That would bring elementals more in line with nature spirits. Perhaps
> also give nature spirits more defined combat abilities. Any other ideas?

Combat abilities of nature spirits should definitely be listed, if only to
avoid the question of what damage they do (which has popped up a lot
lately, not to mention before that). Likewise, something about the
physical capabilities of nature spirits: can they open a door? Push a
truck out of the way? And so on. This is too open right now. For the rest,
I'm happy with the differences in capabilities between elementals and
nature spirits, since a mages take so long to summon an elemental, they'll
think twice about using up a service (I hope; it's been years since I've
had a mage PC in my game), while nature spirits have all these funky
powers but they aren't all that easy to apply in many cases.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Drowning in the main-stream.
-> 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. 59 <snip lots of good stuff>
I think my biggest gripe is the fact that a mage can take Exclusive and
Expendable fetish, raise the Force by 4, making it a 9 (Force 5 is better
than Force 6, cause the drain is one less, and noone is going to get an
appreciable amount of successes on a 9 OR on a 10). So my mages cast to
them a force 5 spell, drain is 2, maybe 3. Then, the other guy has to
resist using Willpower against a 9. The mage rolls 9, throw in 2 for good
luck at the targets Willpower. The chump has to roll 6, (Tough Willpower)
against a 9. Who is going to win? 11 vs. 6 or 6 vs. 9. Then the mage
throws 10 (6 + 4 from MP) against a 2. If they are bright, and most are,
they'll throw a lot more in to the attack, and surprise, surprise roll off
the drain no prob.
That, IMnsHO makes mages WAY to tough. No one, can hope to resist that
kind of spell.

-=Court

/* Court Schuett, a totally modern boy.
schuett@*****.ivcc.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I like Sprite.
-Joel Barlow
*****************************************************************************/

Message no. 60 You wrote:
> <snip lots of good stuff>
> I think my biggest gripe is the fact that a mage can take Exclusive and
> Expendable fetish, raise the Force by 4

FWIW I've _never_ allowed anyone to take more than one Force Modifier on a
spell, though it's not explicitly forbidden by the rules.

losthalo

Message no. 61 Mike Elkins wrote:
|
| I'm going to be the only one mentioning this one,
| I know, but here it goes:
|
| Why can you see through transparent items w/
| astral perception? Transparent to what
| wavelengths? With what photons? Why can
| you target spells through mirrors, binoculars etc.

<In Character> Because glass is inately(sp?) magical. The powers of
glass just happen to parallel the laws of physics. Lenses don't
refract light (though it may appear so) but in fact magically magnify
the image. Ditto with mirrors, it's magick. <Out of Character>

I know, it's a cheating to use the above, but until FASA (or maybe
Steve) do better I'm going with it :)

-David
--
"What's the point spread on World War III?"
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

Message no. 62 >>You wrote:
>> <snip lots of good stuff>
>> I think my biggest gripe is the fact that a mage can take Exclusive and
>> Expendable fetish, raise the Force by 4

>FWIW I've _never_ allowed anyone to take more than one Force Modifier on a
>spell, though it's not explicitly forbidden by the rules.

This is really the heart of the problem with the SRII rules. I mean, there
isn't ANY problem that can't be fixed by adding more house rules to
enforce certain game balances, etc. The problem is, SR is FULL of areas
that need to be "shored up" - especially in the magic/astral area. This
is stuff that I would've expected playtesters to find and fix - especially
since this is SECOND edition SR and not first edition.

- Brett

Message no. 63 >><<I am strongly in favor of drain codes based on F instead of F/2.>>

>I guess I should point out that it is an option in Big Black (it's
>misprinted, though, so running with Drain at full-force is considered
>Low Lethality. Go figger.)

Yeah, most of us are aware of this fact. (Including myself, who wrote
the above statement.)

However, when it only shows up on one page and the /default/ drain codes
are all based on F/2 and every magic expansion book (Grimmy and Awakenings)
comes out and lists F/2 drain codes, guess what happens? That right -
we all tend to default to F/2 because that's the "standard".

It takes a significant amount of games to playtest out a system. (I've had
a once-a-week game going for a year now and I'm still finding GLARING holes
in the basic rules as new situations come up.) My problem is that, now that
I know what I know, I either start over (which I don't want to do) or I
have to make insanely large-scale, sweeping changes over the game. My
players have made many decisions over the past year based on their knowledge
of the game world (i.e. sourcebooks and the rules). Changing stuff the way
in NEEDS to be changed (in my opinion, anyway), requires messing with a
critical balance that the players and I have built. Either way, something
significant is lost.

It's annoying to say the least.

- Brett

Message no. 64 You wrote:
> <In Character> Because glass is innately magical. The powers of
> glass just happen to parallel the laws of physics. Lenses don't
> refract light (though it may appear so) but in fact magically magnify
> the image. Ditto with mirrors, it's magick. <Out of Character>
This is silly.

It's because the astral relies on ideas, and one of the ideas about glass is
that it is transparent (remember that mundane things keep their appearance in
the astral). Simple? Make more sense than all glass being magical?

losthalo

Message no. 65 From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
> <In Character> Because glass is inately(sp?) magical. The powers of
> glass just happen to parallel the laws of physics. Lenses don't
> refract light (though it may appear so) but in fact magically magnify
> the image. Ditto with mirrors, it's magick. <Out of Character>
>
Does that mean glass is dual-natured? Goody, now we can ground
through more things!

<ducks under desk>

Mike

Message no. 66 You wrote:
> Yeah, most of us are aware of this fact. (Including myself, who wrote
> the above statement.)

> However, when it only shows up on one page and the /default/ drain codes
> are all based on F/2 and every magic expansion book (Grimmy and Awakenings)
> comes out and lists F/2 drain codes, guess what happens? That right -
> we all tend to default to F/2 because that's the "standard".

> It takes a significant amount of games to playtest out a system. (I've had
> a once-a-week game going for a year now and I'm still finding GLARING holes
> in the basic rules as new situations come up.) My problem is that, now that
> I know what I know, I either start over (which I don't want to do) or I
> have to make insanely large-scale, sweeping changes over the game. My
> players have made many decisions over the past year based on their knowledge
> of the game world (i.e. sourcebooks and the rules). Changing stuff the way
> in NEEDS to be changed (in my opinion, anyway), requires messing with a
> critical balance that the players and I have built. Either way, something
> significant is lost.

> It's annoying to say the least.

The thing is, I've not had so many problems with the 2nd Ed. rules in my time.
Usually my biggest problems have been a matter of looking up obscure points and
working them out in my head (for instance, despite criticism to the contrary, I
think spell grounding through foci is not broken). And working this out is
easier than 1st Ed. which gave me headaches until we figured some points out
(coming to it from AD&D and nothing else, btw).

losthalo

Message no. 67 In message <970611174439_1857318799@*******.mail.aol.com>, Steve Kenson
<TalonMail@***.COM> writes
>Survey Question for the listmembers:
>
>What are your top ten [please, no more than ten : )] pet peeves about the
>Shadowrun magic system. This includes rules you think are broken, questions
>which need answering, stuff you don't get and so forth.
>
>I've seen a lot of magical discussion on the list in the time I've been on it
>and I'm interested in what things people most think need to be fixed or
>addressed. If I get enough response on something, maybe I'll propose some
>changes to FASA : )

Okay. In the order I thought of them...

1 - Quickened Spells. Can you turn them on and off? What happens when
you try to pass a magical barrier? And, the biggie, can they be grounded
through? :) This one, as I'm sure you know, has caused much heated
debate. Clarification would be useful.

I'd be inclined to reduce the interaction between the planes, myself,
but that's just me, my mage PCs very rarely project.

2 - Magicians can, with time, do too many things too well. With Increase
Reflexes and Improved Aim, there becomes few reasons to play a samurai.
I don't disagree with magic being able to do almost everything: I do
disagree that it should do so many things so much better than
technology, purely from a game balance point of view. With long-
established characters, the magician becomes tiresomely powerful:
mercenaries and samurai retain many more vulnerabilities.

I don't mind magic being versatile. What I do mind is that with two
spells, a magician can be as fast and skilled with a gun as a wired
samurai whose speciality this is meant to be.

The AD&D idea that "Magicians can't use swords or wear armour. Why not?
Because." irked me, and I have no problem with a magician using a laser-
sighted weapon or getting a smartlink, or acquiring wired or boosted
reflexes and accepting a reduction in their magical abilities in
exchange for lethal speed. That sort of tradeoff is what makes
roleplaying fun. Getting it from a spell makes it too easy.

3 - Anchored spells have a lot of potential, but if you make having
"grounding targets" somewhat hazardous in an attempt to rein in focus-
toting magicians, nobody will touch an item with an Anchored spell with
a bargepole in case they mysteriously explode. Some McGuffin to make
them a bit less vulnerable when carried by non-mages would help.

4 - _Slightly_ more limitation on the "line of sight" description of a
many spells: make it clearer that it's necessary to see and identify the
targets. Magicians with binoculars on a hilltop become a little too
lethal for comfort otherwise. "I have line of sight, I can cast..."

5 - Ally spirits are useful, but very expensive in Karma and extremely
vulnerable. The cost, in most people's opinion, seems to outweigh the
benefits: they die too easily if anyone notices them.

6 - At risk of getting AD&Dish, a few magical items usable by mundanes
(other than other peoples' spell locks or Anchored items) might be
interesting, posing risks or demanding prices other than being
groundable through or astrally attacked. (Might be scarce enough to be
GM-invented the way ours is, though, else you end up with an embarrasing
proliferation).

7 - Initiation seems overpowerful for the Karma cost involved: mundanes
don't get anything like this sort of power boost available to them. This
causes a degree of friction on occasion :)

8 - Abolish magical reaction increases. You want to move faster, get
Wired Reflexes and pay the Essence and Magic costs :)

9 - Elementals seem overpowerful, especially in swarms.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Message no. 68 > Gotta, disagree with you. it's too damn easy to toss a whole lot of
> spells without suffering drain at at. Putting them at force lets the
> mage toss a spell but keep him in check when he really want to toss
> a whole bunch of them or a really bif one.

In my experience, this is only true up to a point. A spellcaster is
usually fine tossing off most of his/her spells until they begin to
accrue wound penalties. At this time, things tend to go downhill
fairly quickly. I think much of this has to do with character
creation... many players look at the spell drain codes and say "this
is an acceptable risk of drain for me" and take the spell at that
level.

Then, when those additional target number modifiers come in to play,
they start to lose control of things... and they either stop casting
so many spells, or take increasing amounts of drain for doing so...

Motto: Geek the mage first. At least a little bit.

------------------------------------------------
Jerry Hill agh60070@*******.cc.ucf.edu

Message no. 69 On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:40:00 +0100 The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
writes:
>To counter the magic attribute, maybe have Drain for Conjuring based
upon
>Magic Attribute and not Charisma, as this will allow Initiates to safely
>conjure more powerful spirits and won't penalise Trolls and Orks so
much.

Could just give Initiates an increase to the MP based on Grade...

~Tim

Message no. 70 On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:19:59 -0400 Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
writes:
>We're off to a good start on feedback. Some points I would like to make
and
>then some comments:

>CONJURING/SPIRITS
>It seems many people feel nature spirits are underpowered compared to
>elementals. To my mind, that says the power of elementals needs to be
reduced
>or limited rather than increasing the power of nature spirits. Otherwise
you
>get a magical "arms race" and I think spirits in SR are pretty powerful
as it
>is. How about limiting a mage to only having one elemental performing
>services for him at a time? He can bind many, but only use them one at a
>time. That would bring elementals more in line with nature spirits.
Perhaps
>also give nature spirits more defined combat abilities. Any other ideas?

I don't know, just 'cause spirits aren't the combat monsters that
elementals are doesn't that they are any less powerful. In my experience
spirits are a bit more subtle than the flat out confrontational services
that elementals can provide. IMHO just clarifying what spirits can do in
combat would remove quite a bit of percieved imbalance.

>POWER/VERSATILITY
>I think the versatility of Shadowrun magic is one of its appeals. I
would
>tend to be against adding to the versatility with multi-purpose spells
and
>on-the-fly magic, they tend to be game-breakers, in my experience.

Yup, SR is the one game where you can play a magician who DOESN'T suck
until he gets to 6th level, or something. And a game where magic is on
par with the conventional weapons in use (un-like something like Rifts -
as much as I enjoy playing it).

>FOCI
>More examples and some different types of foci are certainly
possibilities.
>My personal pet peeve with foci is Spell Locks: they are too powerful,
IMHO.
>As someone (several someones) on the list pointed out, why bother
building a
>spell anchor when you can have a spell lock you can turn on and off? The
>on/off ability of spell locks makes them more useful than quickenings
(which
>can't be turned off) in many ways. That's not right.

The funny thing is that until I got to this list, I was under the beliefe
that a spell-lock was on until removed, and if you pull it off the spell
goes *poof* and it has to be re-bound. None of this "light switch"
stuff. If that makes spell locks too powerful, the go back to how we
used to play it.

~Tim

Message no. 71 [Refering to Sprawl Sites]
> Don't bother. Just borrow it so you can see if the table is _really_
> what you want (I found it the most useless part of the book because
> 99% of the "encounters" are too long and/or involved to be
> encounters).

They can make great adventure hooks though... some short, some long,
some no more than a scene, but they can be used as wonderful
inspiration when you just have nothing else planned.

------------------------------------------------
Jerry Hill agh60070@*******.cc.ucf.edu

Message no. 72 > Okay. In the order I thought of them...

> 2 - Magicians can, with time, do too many things too well. With Increase
> Reflexes and Improved Aim, there becomes few reasons to play a samurai.
These two are a problem. Gack them and most others are not a problem.

> The AD&D idea that "Magicians can't use swords or wear armour. Why not?
> Because." irked me, and I have no problem with a magician using a laser-
> sighted weapon or getting a smartlink, or acquiring wired or boosted
> reflexes and accepting a reduction in their magical abilities in
> exchange for lethal speed. That sort of tradeoff is what makes
> roleplaying fun. Getting it from a spell makes it too easy.
All depends on you group, I think. Mages in some groups need boosts to
initiative. (Not to mentiont he 'Are they _done_ yet' syndrome)

> 3 - Anchored spells have a lot of potential, but if you make having
> "grounding targets" somewhat hazardous in an attempt to rein in focus-
> toting magicians, nobody will touch an item with an Anchored spell with
> a bargepole in case they mysteriously explode. Some McGuffin to make
> them a bit less vulnerable when carried by non-mages would help.
I don't think they can serve as a bridge for grounding (Quickened Spells,
either, if I read the rules aright). So, no sweat.

> 4 - _Slightly_ more limitation on the "line of sight" description of a
> many spells: make it clearer that it's necessary to see and identify the
> targets. Magicians with binoculars on a hilltop become a little too
> lethal for comfort otherwise. "I have line of sight, I can cast..."
Sorry, as the rules go, so long as the binocs have glass lenses (i.e. aren't
digital) they _do_ count as valid LOS to the target. Same as a scope on a
rifle, where's the problem with this, really?

> 5 - Ally spirits are useful, but very expensive in Karma and extremely
> vulnerable. The cost, in most people's opinion, seems to outweigh the
> benefits: they die too easily if anyone notices them.
They can switch from Manifest to Astral forms, thus avoiding danger, and are
intelligent enough to realize their options in combat. Also, they can learn
and cast spells (a very welcome addition to your combat potential, _I_ think).
Some may no think them worth the effort.

> 6 - At risk of getting AD&Dish, a few magical items usable by mundanes
> (other than other peoples' spell locks or Anchored items) might be
> interesting, posing risks or demanding prices other than being
> groundable through or astrally attacked. (Might be scarce enough to be
> GM-invented the way ours is, though, else you end up with an embarrasing
> proliferation).
I don't see why they're needed, but have no real problem with it if it's
something you want to do. I see Quickening and Anchoring as perfectly
legitimate ways of making 'magic items' for use by mundanes. What else do you
have in mind?

> 7 - Initiation seems overpowerful for the Karma cost involved: mundanes
> don't get anything like this sort of power boost available to them. This
> causes a degree of friction on occasion :)
*nod*

> 8 - Abolish magical reaction increases. You want to move faster, get
> Wired Reflexes and pay the Essence and Magic costs :)
Or perhaps just limit them to low levels (+1 die or so) so they can't compete
with sammies, but still don't fail to act ebcause the fight's already over.

> 9 - Elementals seem overpowerful, especially in swarms.
If you are raking in the nuyen enough to send _several_ elementals to attack
someone, you're either very successful (and thus facing threats that aren't
unduly impressed by several elementals) or you're burning up a lot of resources
to get something done... I've seen mages barely make any money or even end up
in the hole for all the conjuring materials they blew in a run.

losthalo

Message no. 73 Tim P Cooper wrote:

> I think that the rules as to totems are internal or external are hedgy
> because people in the SR universe don't know either.

I'll agree with the sentiment, but these are rules, not viewpoints, that
we're talking about. I'd be happy to see an ** Optional ** rule on
having Totems be more active (searching out Dog on the Canine Metaplane
to leanr that powerful Detect Hydrant spell). Most of it is
role-playing, but allowing for a few, rare, wonderful incidents would be
nice.

>>On that level, be daring and differentiate between technology and
>> magic. The two should /not/ overlap as much as they do; Increased
>> Reflexes just adds munchkinism to the game (and forces that "Can I
>> have IR+3 and {Boosted/Wired} Reflexes/Synaptic Accelerators/
>> PhysAd abilities" thread.)

>> Currently, magic is three steps ahead of tech in the game, and I don't
>> like that.

> Three steps ahead? How do you figure?

> (In my experience the IR spells just keep magicians alive during combat.)

I don't feel combat should be the center of the game. (I also don't
feel everyone should be walking around with Wired-2, but I'll wait for
Steve to open up the "Top Ten Cyber Peeves" thread.)

> >Revamp the rules for Ally spirits; add more powers, drop others (kill
> >the wealth thing, for instance.) Perhaps make them available only to
> >initiates (along those lines, more metamagic skills for conjuring, and
> >possibly enchanting.)

> I think you are confusing Ally spirits with Free Spirits.
> But, generally, more detail to Allys spirits would be a good thing.
> More metamagic for Conjurers and enchantors would work too.

Yeah, I realized my foopah.

> >Have the magic pool based on Magic Theory, not Sorcery or Conjuring,
> >and have both the pool available to both skills (as well as Enchanting
> >and Assensing.) Switch the conjuring test from the skill to the Magic
> >attribute, which makes conjurers less cyber happy.

> I sympathize with the problem but disagree with the solution.
> Magic pool (for it's uses) should stay a function of sorcery (otherwise
> sorcery becomes a skill that's only use is to cap your maximum spell
> force).

Borrowing off of the Companion, perhaps allow magic pools to be split
across skills.

>>c) Revamp the Ritual rules. Allow for foogy things like Ritual
>> Summonings.

> Well given what you have about conjuring and about how ritual sorcery
> works, it shouldn't be too tough to come up with a hybrid. (just don't
> expect to have a bunch of shamans whipping up a massive fire elemental
> just cause the leader is a hermetic.)

Steve was opening up the door for possible amendments by FASA (at least,
that's what I hope he was getting at). *I* don't want to make up hybrid
rules; I want FASA to!

Agree with the shaman/elemental thing - it's a good point.

> AFAIK Elemental MetaPlanes already exist in SR (Grimoire).

In their weird in strange way. However, there's no differentiation
between them (until you come to the Place of Knowledge). Perhaps more
importantly, I think the Astral Quests should be based more on
role-playing than resisting damage (which the current system
emphasizes.)

I'd like to see some Metaplanar creatures, maybe even spirits that only
appeared in the Astral (though their purpose escapes me at the moment.)

-Matt

Message no. 74 >> 4 - _Slightly_ more limitation on the "line of sight" description of a
many spells: make it clearer that it's necessary to see and identify the
targets. Magicians with binoculars on a hilltop become a little too
lethal for comfort otherwise. "I have line of sight, I can cast..."

>Sorry, as the rules go, so long as the binocs have glass lenses (i.e.
> aren't digital) they _do_ count as valid LOS to the target. Same as a > scope on
a rifle, where's the problem with this, really?

Because a mage can have LOS from five miles away (I've see farther with
a a 20x). While a gunshot, theoretically, could travel that far, it
stands no chance of hitting. Not true for the mage.

>> 5 - Ally spirits are useful, but very expensive in Karma and
>> extremely vulnerable. The cost, in most people's opinion, seems to
>> outweigh the benefits: they die too easily if anyone notices them.

They _do_ recover one box of damage per minute, outside of combat.

>> 8 - Abolish magical reaction increases. You want to move faster, get
>> Wired Reflexes and pay the Essence and Magic costs :)

> Or perhaps just limit them to low levels (+1 die or so) so they can't > compete
with sammies, but still don't fail to act ebcause the fight's > already over.

Or make WR less available. The problem is, Wired-2 is /easily/
available to most non-mage characters.

Recommended fix for Increase {Foo}: Have a thresh-hold number equal to
the level of increase. Giving a mage (Reaction 3) Increased Reflexes 1
would require only one 6 (out of how many dice again?) where IR+3 would
require three. (Maybe double the thresh-hold for IR...)

>> 9 - Elementals seem overpowerful, especially in swarms.

> If you are raking in the nuyen enough to send _several_ elementals to attack someone,
you're either very successful (and thus facing threats that aren't unduly impressed by
several elementals) or you're burning up a lot of resources to get something done... I've
seen mages barely make any money or even end up in the hole for all the conjuring
materials they blew in a run.

Nonsense. Onec your mage settles down with a few foci, there's not much
else to spend money on (excepting mundanities). Pick your elemental,
conjure it, stuff it away in the metaplane for a rainy day. Go on some
runs, save enough money, repeat process. It's just like putting money
in the bank (especially since you can resummon services from them.) )

> losthalo

Message no. 75 Matb wrote:
<SNIP>
> I don't feel combat should be the center of the game. (I also don't
> feel everyone should be walking around with Wired-2, but I'll wait for
> Steve to open up the "Top Ten Cyber Peeves" thread.)
> -Matt

I'LL open up the "Top Ten Cyber/Bio Peeves" thread. Go.

Message no. 76 >>CONJURING/SPIRITS
I think spirits are more powerfull than elementals, for severals reasons : a
spirit is conjurated in a few time (10 s.) ; spirits are funny by their
appearence; they are 'nt very strong to blast and to fight but spirits are
useful to help shaman in many cases : it's useful a spirit who knows where
is hidden an enemy in a corpo. An elemental needs a lot of nuyens to be
conjurated and time ( which is often important while a shadowrun).

>>FOCI

Foci are helpfull for magicians, I can't play a magician without foci which
boost "reflexes" and "reaction". I don't want to must wait for 3
rounds to
cast a spell while samourais have fun to blast every enemy who move.

>>>>Shamans are often more interesting to play because of their totems and
background than magi who are more superficials.<<<<

~~~Putain, c'est chiant d'ecrire en anglais, j'espere que quelqu'un
comprendra quelque chose...
~~~§£/!!#, it's "boring" to write in english, I hope somebody could
understand anything...

Message no. 77 Mbreton wrote in reply to someone else..:
> > foogy? kewl. How about ritual enchanting or ritual Allies...a spirit
> > loyal to a specific group would be cool.

> Wow... *swipe!*
*punt* *grab* (After a fierce tackle another GM storms in from the
sideline and grabs the idea!)

> New item on the agenda: Expand the legal (and possibly political)
> ramifications of magic use.

Assorted comments heard which matches politics and magic:

(The magicians wants to bring bugs into every city, so that they can
control us norms. We must fight back!! They almost made it in
Chicago!).

(Mages must be excluded from all politics! Since they can influence
minds, who can make sure an election or campaign is fair, when a mage
runs it.. or even assists in it?)

(Mages are more powerful than normal people. This power can be
abused, and should be strictly controlled and monitored. No mage
should be allowed to work magic in public areas, nor infleunce
anything outside public areas. The same rules for arms go for foci
and fetishes - carried concealed is the same as concealing a weapon
and is illegal, carrying it openly is threatening with a weapon and
is illegal.).

(Mages are hip, dude!)

> But I'd like to see more on the how mage groups function in society; I
> cannot believe they're all secret initiatory Illuminatus-inspired
> cabals.

What purpose would a magical group have? One of two.. idealistic, or
fraternistic. Idealistic groups would function as similar idealistic
groups today, but with different means at their disposal. (Sample
groups: WWF, Greenpeace, the Labor Union, neo nazis, women's
liberation.. also a lot of universities would have one (funded by
a corp, but that comes as no surprise.). Fraternistic groups would be
introvert or extrovert, secretive or open, but basically just be a
'club' for likeminded with no particular agenda. Some Freemason
groups, basically fraternities with an agenda, would also exist, but
be rather few. (They're the illuminati cabals).

That's mostly old news, though.
--
Rune Fostervoll

"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."

Message no. 78 Mark wrote in reply to Brett:
> > The systems
> > needs to be overhauled so that there are many things that the mage (or shaman)
> > just /can't/ do. Spells like increased reflexes etc. are an abomination to
> > game balance.

> no a total life saver. Given the best a mage can do with magic is +4
> quick, int and reac plus 3 dice = 14+4D6 initiative it's tame. Try
> putting moveby wire 4 and all the add on's in a character, 24+6D6 is
> too acheivable. (sure move by wire 4 is not wise but the sammies
> still win big time)

IIRC MBW-4 costs more than 6 essence, 3+ millions, and is otherwise
pretty nasty. It's not something players are prone to get their hands
on. In a game when WR - II is default, a mage can cope well enough
with just a Inc. dice +2 or +3. In fact, what makes it unbalancing in
such a campaign is that there is no real difference between increased
reflex dice +1 and +3 - they will be quickened or spell locked no
matter what, and then the drain difference is immaterial.

Is that broken? Does it need a fix?
Bonding cost for quickened or spell locked spells multiplied by drain
level, for instance? (L=1, M=2,S=3, D=4)
--
Rune Fostervoll

"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."

Message no. 79 I have tried really hard to resist this thread BECAUSE I knew it was just a
survey. :) But there are two things that I have felt the need to reply to.
Two re occuring "peeves" against magic have been ....

1. Target numbers of spells being too low (eg Willpower) and the resistance
of spells being so DIFFICULT and ...
2. Drain codes being too wimpy.

In response to that I would like to mention a couple of arguements.

1. Firstly, in an all out "shoot em up" scenario the street sam normally
does more damage (assuming the mage can NOT fire off an area effect spell).
His target number is base "4" (most have smart gun links so the target
number is "2"). A standard burst of 3 with a sub machine gun and the victim
is looking at a hideous resistance roll of "11". Even assuming the victim
has good armor (say 5/3) he is now looking at a resistance roll of "6". He
gets his body to resist the damage and combat pool dice remaining.

What I am trying to say is that "firepower in SRII" is as tough as magic if
not tougher in a "shoot em up" adventure. A perfect example is some of the
scenarios in Harlequin's Back. I think FASA made a conscious effort to equal
the two out much more in 2nd edition. So I think the target numbers are
extremely fair. PLUS I do not know of many PC's that run around with a
willpower less than "4". I dont think it is "Munchk....*cringe*", as
opposed
to smart play. I find that a good street sam can do more damage to my PCs
than a good mage can.

2. "Drain codes" The reason why people think that drain codes are unfair is
that the "punishment does not fit the crime". You can toss a manabolt at a
character and get 6 successes, which effectively means that the poor sucker
needs 5 successes to NOT die. While the mage can get NO successes and still
not collapse from the drain.

My arguement is quite simple. Why would people bother with magic if the
shaft was as bad as the spell? Drain is something that my PCs take often.
"4S" drain can be nasty if they dont have magic pool left. And if they do
have too much magic pool dice left then the spell they have cast does not
have too many dice in it! :)

Drain really becomes nasty when mages take a wound or two! :)

I suppose what I am trying to say is that people need to be a little careful
when analysing magic in SRII. A typical running group could contain 50% of
PC playing mages. Where as the general population does NOT contain 50% of
mages. Mages are not common and magic "is powerful" - no one disagrees with
that. Mages are hard characters to role play and GM's should be tough on the
role playing aspect of all mage PC's. Magic is a way of life NOT a
profession!!!!

It sounds like I am trying to defend mages and that they are my favourite
characters BUT that is not correct. Just too often I hear about mages being
too tough and that FASA should get their act together, BUT as a veteran of
SRI I for one take my hat off to FASA for balancing the game in SRII. If
people think magic is tough go play SRI for a while! :)

Have fun all,

Gav

"In crises the most daring email: lewis@**.edu.au
course is often the safest" tel: +61 8 9239 5525
fax: +61 8 9239 5544
Henry A. Kissinger Gavin Lewis
The University of Notre Dame - Aust.

Message no. 80 On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Jerry Hill wrote:

> > Gotta, disagree with you. it's too damn easy to toss a whole lot of
> > spells without suffering drain at at. Putting them at force lets the
> > mage toss a spell but keep him in check when he really want to toss
> > a whole bunch of them or a really bif one.
>
> In my experience, this is only true up to a point. A spellcaster is
> usually fine tossing off most of his/her spells until they begin to
> accrue wound penalties. At this time, things tend to go downhill

It also isn't so easy to cast powerful spells and take no drain when there
is an opposing magician in the area as magic pool will likely be used for
spell defense and not for casting or resisting drain.

The Digital Mage aka Grant Erswell - mn3rge@****.ac.uk
"Sadder still to watch it die, than never to have known it"
-Rush, Losing It

Message no. 81 ---Matb wrote:
>
> Because a mage can have LOS from five miles away (I've see farther
with
> a a 20x). While a gunshot, theoretically, could travel that far, it
> stands no chance of hitting. Not true for the mage.

You do have the LOS Spell Range Modifier Table in Grimmy, page 111:

0-150m +0
151-300m +2
301-600m +4
601-1,2,50m +6
1,251-2,500m +8
2,501-5,000m +10
5,001m+ Target not visible

Don't know if you're already using that or not...

===

@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

If in your adventures you happen across the skull of a dragon, turn
and leave that place quickly. Whatever killed the dragon may still be
around.

_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

Message no. 82 On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Bruce H. Nagel wrote:

> > I like the idea of one power per initiation far more than the separate
> > skills idea. I think increasing the cost of initiation might be in order,
> > but having five or six new skills would bury a magician even further into
> > the karma hole.
> So let them pick and choose, rather than having all the goodies. =)

Exactly - just what I've been advocating from the start :)

The Digital Mage aka Grant Erswell - mn3rge@****.ac.uk
"Sadder still to watch it die, than never to have known it"
-Rush, Losing It

Message no. 83 Brett Barksdale writes

> I have no problem with mages being able to cast magic with no drain. Let them
> cast at force 3 or 4 if they wish. The average (or even above average) shmoe
> will still get pasted since they don't have a magic pool to defend themselves
> with. However, it's the ability to sling Force 6+ juju AND USUALLY NOT TAKE
> DRAIN that bugs me. Force 6 spells can level even top-notch opponents without
> too much trouble. Spells cast at THAT force should /not/ be cast casually and
> without drain.
But when you get faced with a lot of PC's who take willpower 6 even
as mundanes to stop magic you have an imbalance. If you are going to
make high force spells really difficult to cast you need some way to
force the mundanes to play fair on the willpower attributes they take.

> And mages can pull the trigger on guns just as easily as sammies. It's not
> like they're limited to using only magic. People seem to have this paradigm
> where mages primarily use magic. I would think that mages, despite their
> talents, will still use tech most of the time. Why wouldn't they?
Use whats appropriate.
I like mages but they still use guns when applicable, with shielding
about you cannot trust combat magic TN's those your barret 121 you
can trust :), also like enfield AS7's lovely gun or ranger arms SM3,
better range and more invisible than a manabolt, more damage, no
drain, 2attacks/action :).
Ruthymoid polymers, sure expensive but supremely effective!

Mark

Message no. 84 On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:08:53 -0700 Caric <caric@********.COM> writes:
><snip Canthros' disclaimer>
>
>| 1. Grounding - Okay, it's kinda obvious, around here, but I stillwant
an
>| *official* ruling from FASA:)
>
>I think i've given up on an official ruling...too controversial it
>seems.

Actually, if Steve is serious, this is the perfect time to press for an
official ruling on this.

>| 2. Some clarifications on ritual sorcery - are any special materials
>| needed to make a hermetic circle? What exactly are in the 'ritual
>| materials' for ritual sorcery and elemental summoning?
>
>That would add nice flavor.

That, and some of us are just plain curious:)

>| 3. Magic and the Matrix - Just how difficult is it to affect the
Matrix
>| with magic? Can you design spells specifically to affect the Matrix?
(or
>| to affect your deck?) Could a 'technomancer' exist?
>
>I think this is to avoid what I call "Sam Verner Syndrom" one person
cannot
>be the be all end all at everything. You can be all that but dammit
you're
>not getting my bag of chips too!!!

I'm not looking for some way to be a super-jack-of-all-trades character,
remember the other half of the saying, "Jack of all trades, master of
none" I just want to know what all would be involved in using a magical
interface with the Matrix. I don't think anybody but the truly obsessed
would bother with it, though. It'd be either too complicated or too hard
physically for your average Johnny Q. Magician. And his skills in both
decking and magic won't be nearly up to snuff for the equivalent rank of
either of the two archetypes he supplants.

>| 4. What exactly is involved in an initiation? What kind of ceremonies
or
>| rituals do various groups practice? What kind of thing happens during
an
>| 'initiatory experience'? Some examples for these would be real useful,
>| especially for groups like the Black Lodge, the Illuminates, or just
your
>| basic, joe-shmoe magical group.
>
>Again this would be good flavor, I think i'll start the Joe Schmoes
magical
>group. :)

:) I would just like to know what all is involved in the deal. I mean,
sure we've got all that wonderful stuff about the traditions within
various magical groups, their organizations and all that other crap:) but
we still don't really get told what it means to be initiated, what kind
of ceremonies or stuff is involved, except for a couple of references to
self-initiations (once in Awakenings, once in D's Secrets).

>| 5. I want a book that puts all of the magic stuff in one place,
dammit! I
>
><snip rant, but with good reason :)>
>
> I guess what I'm asking for is a Magic Companion for
>| SR:) (Wow! That was a lot longer than I intended.) SET RANT=OFF
>
>Amen brother...<sound of high fives>

<high fives returned> Some of my problem may be solved when I finally get
all of these checks from my last B-day cashed, and also because I've
(just about) got a job and will be getting paid for training for it over
the next couple of weeks before I start. Unfortunately, most of the job
money has got to go towards college (&*%$@! private college tuition) in
the fall. But, hopefully I can get at least a part of it:) (now I'm
rambling). Well, good-night everyone.

--
-Canthros
And ye shall know the truth, and lobo1@****.com
the truth shall set you free. canthros1@***.com
--John 8:32, KJV
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 85 NAGELBH@******.acs.muohio.edu wrote:

> You wrote:
> > Because a mage can have LOS from five miles away (I've see farther with a 20x).
While a gunshot, theoretically, could travel that far, it
stands no chance of hitting. Not true for the mage.

> And how often does this sort of range issue ever come up in SR? If you're really
concerned about it, you should look at the ranges for, say, Sniper Rifles, as they are
also not their realistic ranges...

You make my point nicely. It's an enormous advantage the mage has over
the samurai.

> > Nonsense. Onec your mage settles down with a few foci, there's not much else to
spend money on (excepting mundanities). Pick your elemental, conjure it, stuff it away in
the metaplane for a rainy day. Go on some runs, save enough money, repeat process. It's
just like putting money in the bank (especially since you can resummon services from
them.) )

> My runners are usually not too comfortable with the money they're making, but that's
me. This depends entirely on how much money you're handing out for jobs. If you make
enough money in the job to cover your expenses for several elementals' conjuring
materials, yeah, you're doing fine. If using up three elementals' worth isn't big deal
to you (12,000 isn't a lot of money to use up in one run?) then there's a lot of cash
floating around, you're a really successful runner, and should be getting harder jobs,
imo. It's at least a helluva lot more than the sammie spends on his ammo...

Or, you conserve your power until you know you really need it.

Even relying on FASA material, it's not that difficult to develop swarms
of elementals, each at a five or six level.

I think you think that once you summon an elemental, you're sentencing
it to a quick end. So long as you get a decent number of initial
services,
you just reconjure your elemental to regain services (or restore Force).
So your 12k nuyen is actually being defrayed ove several runs, and it
ends up being fairly cheap.

> losthalo

Message no. 86 ---Brett Barksdale wrote:
>
> This is really the heart of the problem with the SRII rules. I mean,
there
> isn't ANY problem that can't be fixed by adding more house rules to
> enforce certain game balances, etc. The problem is, SR is FULL of
areas
> that need to be "shored up" - especially in the magic/astral area.
This
> is stuff that I would've expected playtesters to find and fix -
especially
> since this is SECOND edition SR and not first edition.

Again, I'd like to bring up something I mentioned in another post. One
of the seminars at Gen Con is a Shadowrun Q&A. Caric and I are for
sure hitting it, as are some others off the list I would think.

Let's try to put together a prepared list of something we want brought
up, and might hopefully get an answer or two on.

For starters, I'm already going to ask about:

Etiquette: is it handled just like anything other Base
Skill/Concentration/Specialization combination?

What are the physical attack abilities of Nature Spirits, if they even
have one?

**Other suggestions from you guys?

===

@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/

If in your adventures you happen across the skull of a dragon, turn
and leave that place quickly. Whatever killed the dragon may still be
around.
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

Message no. 87 > Drain really becomes nasty when mages take a wound or two! :)

My group has been holding that Since drain is a resistance test, the
wound modifiers don't apply to it....(to the casting yes, but not the
resistance)...have we been playing it wrong, or is this one of those
"gray" undefined areas?

Message no. 88 You wrote:
> > Drain really becomes nasty when mages take a wound or two! :)

> My group has been holding that Since drain is a resistance test, the
> wound modifiers don't apply to it....(to the casting yes, but not the
> resistance)...have we been playing it wrong, or is this one of those
> "gray" undefined areas?

Accaording to the Big Black Book, you are correct.

losthalo

Message no. 89 In a message dated 97-06-13 10:27:17 EDT, you write:

<< CONJURING/SPIRITS
It seems many people feel nature spirits are underpowered compared to
elementals. To my mind, that says the power of elementals needs to be
reduced
or limited rather than increasing the power of nature spirits. Otherwise you
get a magical "arms race" and I think spirits in SR are pretty powerful as
it
is. How about limiting a mage to only having one elemental performing
services for him at a time? He can bind many, but only use them one at a
time. That would bring elementals more in line with nature spirits. Perhaps
also give nature spirits more defined combat abilities. Any other ideas?
>>

Greetings!!!

I personally think the balance between shamens are mages, as far as spirits
are concerned is just fine as it is. True, given the right set of
circumstances a shamen can have many spirits at her service, but only one in
the domain.

However what I personally would like to see is more defined shamens, perhaps
restricts on how they initate. Dog shamans should be more compelled to seek
out a group to iniate with than a cat shaman.

I agree that nature spirits should have a defined attack power. Saves in
confusion and such.

-Bandit

"At my lemonade stand I used to give the first glass away free and charge
five dollars for the second glass. The refill contained the antidote."

Message no. 90 > Again, I'd like to bring up something I mentioned in another post. One
> of the seminars at Gen Con is a Shadowrun Q&A. Caric and I are for
> sure hitting it, as are some others off the list I would think.
>
> Let's try to put together a prepared list of something we want brought
> up, and might hopefully get an answer or two on.
>
> For starters, I'm already going to ask about:
>
> Etiquette: is it handled just like anything other Base
> Skill/Concentration/Specialization combination?
>
> What are the physical attack abilities of Nature Spirits, if they even
> have one?
>
> **Other suggestions from you guys?
Quickening, sustained spells and astral attack. (No, don't start a
list discussion on it.).

Critters and hardened armor... does it work as vehicle armor or
hardened normal armor? (It states vehicle, sounds like regular).

What exactly can be used with a full - cyborg conversion?
(Bioware, whatever. What does it mean to be a full conversion? Is
there *ANY* flesh left? Do they eat or just plug into a wall socket?)

Are no initiative dice adders cumulative? (Except for MBW/Syn.
acc.). (Someone said that was official, but not sure.).

That's the ones off the top of my head I'm curious about.

Possibly, what do you think of using -20 initiative per action
instead of -10, but keeping the same number of actions?
(So someone with 21 init. gets an action at 21, 1 and -19. So slow
folks act 'in the middle of the turn' rather than at the end.).
(That one's to the list.).

--
Rune Fostervoll

"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."

Message no. 91 On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 11:15:20 +0800 Gavin Lewis <lewis@**.EDU.AU> writes:
>I have tried really hard to resist this thread BECAUSE I knew it was
just a
>survey. :) But there are two things that I have felt the need to reply
to.
>Two re occuring "peeves" against magic have been ....
>
>1. Target numbers of spells being too low (eg Willpower) and the
resistance
>of spells being so DIFFICULT and ...

[snip his good arguments against the above statement]
I agree completely, SRII is one of the few games where magic truely *is*
on equal footing with conventional firepower. And to even *consider*
raising the T#'s above where they are now would compromise that balance.
And if anyone thinks that spells have it too easy T# wise, consider the
fact that in most cases spells have exactly the same conditional
modifiers (light, cover, etc..) as firearms do, except that the target's
attributes are ALSO factored in, where as a smart-linked gun doesn't care
much whether the target has a high Willpower/Body/whatever. And if that
doesn't convince you, then try tossing a PowerBolt as your stereotypical
troll street sam.....If you think getting 15's or 25's or something is
just WAAAY too easy for the mages, then maybe you're using different dice
than I am.

>2. Drain codes being too wimpy.

[snip his arguments against this too]
I also agree. Go back to SRI and try to cast something like a force 6
Hellblast, and without using your magic pool, try to remain conscious....
IIRC it was something like [F]D4, meaning that you needed 4 successes to
drop it even one damage level.... then you need to get enough successes
to actually do some damage, and even then the targets to resist against
the force of the spell... which basically means that after the first
Hellblast, most of the muscle will still be standing and you (the
magician) will be suffering from some serious drain.

~Tim

Message no. 92 You wrote:
> Possibly, what do you think of using -20 initiative per action
> instead of -10, but keeping the same number of actions?
> (So someone with 21 init. gets an action at 21, 1 and -19. So slow
> folks act 'in the middle of the turn' rather than at the end.).
> (That one's to the list.).
This is a possibility that I rather like. :) This has real potential if you
want to tone down your speed monsters a little bit, and doesn't require a lot
of changes in the system.

losthalo

Message no. 93 You wrote:

> Drain really becomes nasty when mages take a wound or two! :)
I agree with your comments regarding mages being balanced (at least until
Initiation comes into the mix, that is). One little reminder, the base target
# for Resisting damage doesn't go up from wound penalties.

Another note in general, to those who complain about Quickening making spells
invulnerable: you can still attack a Quickened spell in Astral space. The
benefit of Quickening is that it has a higher Force than 1 to resist attempts
to tamper with it. Now, if you let people cover them with Masking, it's a
different story... need to be an Initiate to penetrate the Masking to see the
spell to arrack and break it. Still possible, though...

losthalo

Message no. 94 Brett Borger said on 15:45/16 Jun 97...

> My group has been holding that Since drain is a resistance test, the
> wound modifiers don't apply to it....(to the casting yes, but not the
> resistance)...have we been playing it wrong, or is this one of those
> "gray" undefined areas?

Wound modifiers don't apply to Damage Resistance Tests; since Drain is one
of those, wound mods don't apply to the TN, no. The do apply to the
caster's TN for the actual spellcasting, though.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Drowning in the main-stream.
-> 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. 95 At 04:35 PM 12-06-97 -0500, you wrote:
>I'm going to be the only one mentioning this one,
>I know, but here it goes:
>
>Why can you see through transparent items w/
>astral perception? Transparent to what
>wavelengths? With what photons? Why can
>you target spells through mirrors, binoculars etc.

>>>>>>Mikes right on target with this one. The Astral body does not rely
on mundane wats of sight or any other sense for that matter.<<<<<<<

><stand on soapbox, following is IMHO>
>Astral perception is unrelated to sight. Solid
>items are opaque. Spell targeting requires (at
>least) subconscious astral perception of the
>target, so no targeting through windows,
>binoculars, one-way mirrors, of (worst of all)
>fiber optic lines. Astral perception doesn't
>require eyes, so cyber-eyes are not an issue at
>all.
>
>>>>>>> This should give some Mageboys a headache or two heheheh!
Astrally active binoculars anyone?<<<<<<<

>Also, astral beings shouldn't be able to effect
>single-natured objects AT ALL, except as
>illusionary ghostlike "manifestations", which
>should be hard work for the mage, and easy to
>miss (think of ghost stories). Please re-evaluate
>FAB!

>>>>>>>FAB cant affect a mundane (except for the smell:) IIRC).
What I would like to see is a more "mystical" approach to the magic
system in SRII. Give it a sense of wonder and I hesitate to say
"occult" feel, instead of the current "just another manabolt"
feel.<<<

Thats me, Thanks
>>>>>>BRUCE
"Dont hit me, I just drive the car!"
-Sharkboy, our Rigger to peeved razorgal<<<<<<<

Message no. 96 At 02:56 AM 13-06-97 +0000, you wrote:
>Mbreton wrote in reply to someone else..:
>> > foogy? kewl. How about ritual enchanting or ritual Allies...a spirit
>> > loyal to a specific group would be cool.
>
>> Wow... *swipe!*
>*punt* *grab* (After a fierce tackle another GM storms in from the
>sideline and grabs the idea!)

>>>>>>>Is there a big deal about this idea that I am missing? Surely
what
can be acheived with a quick spell can be acheived with a ritual
spell? And in a ritual environment the ritual leader will surely
have a thing or two to say about the loyalty of any spirits
summoned/conjured.<<<<<

Thats me, Thanks
>>>>>>BRUCE
"Dont hit me, I just drive the car!"
-Sharkboy, our Rigger to peeved razorgal<<<<<<<

Message no. 97 Rune Fostervoll said on 0:55/18 Jun 97...

> What exactly can be used with a full - cyborg conversion?

FASA doesn't _have_ full cyborgs, except maybe if you take someone and
give him/her a cybertorso, cyberskull, and four cyberlimbs... Are you sure
you're not confusing FASA stuff and a certain net.sourcebook.conversion?
;)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Drowning in the main-stream.
-> 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. 98 > Again, I'd like to bring up something I mentioned in another post.
> One of the seminars at Gen Con is a Shadowrun Q&A. Caric and I are
> for sure hitting it, as are some others off the list I would think.
>
> Let's try to put together a prepared list of something we want
> brought up, and might hopefully get an answer or two on.
>
> For starters, I'm already going to ask about:
>
> Etiquette: is it handled just like anything other Base
> Skill/Concentration/Specialization combination?
>
> What are the physical attack abilities of Nature Spirits, if they
> even have one?
>
> **Other suggestions from you guys?

I don't know how well this works, but if you guys could record that
for me.....
or at least send a transcript.

Anyway, questions:

Does Hardened armor drop the damage level one as vehicle armor does?

How does an Otaku download files....does he need storage, or do they
stay in his head?

Message no. 99 On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:16:16 -0700 Matb <mbreton@**.netcom.com> writes:
>> I guess what I'm asking for is a Magic Companion for
>> | SR:) (Wow! That was a lot longer than I intended.) SET RANT=OFF
>
>Only, *please* let it be a sourcebook, and not this half-fiction,
>half-sourcebook thing they've been pulling lately. I like a little
>fiction (hey, I'm trying to get published through FASA) but Awakenings
>was far too much for my gullet.

Actually, I found Awakenings to be a nice change of pace, but then, it
was the first book I got that wasn't only rules or stats. But, I was
hopoing that this would be a _rule_ book, rather than the current set-up.
After all, it isn't there to set the stage for SR's magic, it's just to
collect everything _somewhere_ so that we don't have to buy eight books
to get everything (or have to page through them to find one rule):

--
-Canthros
And ye shall know the truth, and lobo1@****.com
the truth shall set you free. canthros1@***.com
--John 8:32, KJV
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Message no. 100 You wrote:
> It also isn't so easy to cast powerful spells and take no drain when there
> is an opposing magician in the area as magic pool will likely be used for
> spell defense and not for casting or resisting drain.

This is the real limiting factor. How often do they gamble their whole Magic
Pool on an early spell, hoping there is no opposing mage just because they
haven't seen him? Once in a while, they should regret doing that. :)
Because the best thing for taking out a mage _is_ another mage with a
still-full Magic Pool and a Physical Combat Spell (PowerBolt :).

losthalo

Message no. 101 | > Drain really becomes nasty when mages take a wound or two! :)
|
| My group has been holding that Since drain is a resistance test, the
| wound modifiers don't apply to it....(to the casting yes, but not the
| resistance)...have we been playing it wrong, or is this one of those
| "gray" undefined areas?

No it's not you have been playing it correctly, but I think what they are
referring to is the fact that when you have wounds and then start adding
drain on top of them you can get some serious modifiers for your mojo.

-Caric

"I was NAKED!!!!!!!!!!!"
-Blackjack our Racoon Shaman when asked why he ran away from one
particular fight."

Message no. 102 >> New item on the agenda: Expand the legal (and possibly political)
>> ramifications of magic use.

> Assorted comments heard which matches politics and magic:

> (Mages must be excluded from all politics! Since they can influence
> minds, who can make sure an election or campaign is fair, when a mage
> runs it.. or even assists in it?)

Shades of the Big "D".... :)

Message no. 103 In message <636E9D7DD9@******.eee.rgu.ac.uk>, Mark Steedman
<M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk> writes
>But when you get faced with a lot of PC's who take willpower 6 even
>as mundanes to stop magic you have an imbalance. If you are going to
>make high force spells really difficult to cast you need some way to
>force the mundanes to play fair on the willpower attributes they take.

Of course, it could be said that the PCs are taking high willpower
because without it, they're terribly vulnerable to magic...

SR2 is better, but in SR1 any character with a Willpower less than 6
could expect to sleep through most firefights as best, die at their
outset at worst (Mana Blast or Sleep spells).

Magic is extremely powerful, and most players learn to fear it.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Message no. 104 On 12 Jun 97 at 12:37, Brett Barksdale wrote:

>
> >Well, there are drawbacks to those things anyway. Even without grounding
> >rules, relying on a rating 1 focus to keep your reflexes up is risky. Any
> >spirit could easily destroy it in Astral combat, leaving you without it (and
> >down a point of Karma. It's not only a neat bonus, it's also a resource to
> >defend (unlike the sammy's WR that are a permanent part of him).
>
> Good point. However, again, as the campaign goes on, the mage initiates
> and learns how to quicken. Then they overspend Karma on their key
> spell(s) like, you guessed it, Increased Reflexes, and knocking down the
> effect becomes significantly more difficult, but not impossible.
>
> - Brett

Brett makes a good point about mages being able to strike from a
distance. But I'll dispute it on a couple of points. Riggers and Deckers
both have the same capacity, the Decker by using the Matrix to access
security systems, traffic lights and so on. The rigger through drones.
Even the sammies can get in on the long range warfare by using sniper
rifles, or from FOF mortars and ballista missile systems.
However, all this is incidental to an even more important point. This is
Shadowrun, how often do runners get involved in "long range warfare"?
They're runners, their job is covert ops, breaking into corporate
compounds for various reasons. IMHO, the biggest reason the Paranormal
books failed is that most runs take place inside corporate compounds in
cities, not out in the wilderness. A mage with a pair of binocs isn't
going to have any advantage when the guards are arcross the room. Again,
IMHO, that's why the increase spells came about.
As for using quickening to make these spells permanent. Frankly I've
always been short on karma with my magical characters, so pumping 12
points of karma into quikening a F 6 spell was a bit "painful" to do.
Especially when a handful of watcher spirits attacked it and destroyed it
(the fact that they were obliterated in the process was no consolation to
my character). Spell locks are much cheaper, but much more vulnerable.
On the other hand when they get destroyed, they are easier to replace.
Anchored spells I tend not to bother with. Too much trouble for too
little reward in most cases.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 105 On 12 Jun 97 at 12:42, The Digital Mage wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Brett Barksdale wrote:
>
> > 3) The imbalance between shamanic and mage summoning.
> >
> > Shamans can summon at will and for free. Big deal. Compare this to what
> > mages can do. Mages have to pay (relatively small for successful runners)
> > nuyen and spend a few hours to summon an elemental. However, they can keep
> > this elemental around forever (according to the rules, it can be stored in
> This is compensated to some degree by the fact that a Conjuring circle
> and Conjuring Library is needed. The former requires a great deal fo
> space (especially if one for each element is maintained) and the latter
> costs large amounts of money and is difficult to carry around (as its
> either a stack of books or on disc/chip and a computer is needed).
>
This is something that's puzzled me. I hear about all these hermetics
running around with troops of Force 8 elementals. But how many of those
heremetics have Rating 8 Conjuring Libraries (On chip the cost would be a
base 76,800 or 153,600 after street index, with an availability of an 8),
plus a 1-4 conjuring circles (each 11m in diameter, one per elemental
type), plus the 40k+ worth of conjuring materials. That's quite a tab to
run up. Most canned (published) runs pay about 10-20k per inidividual,
some less, some more. So unless the hermetic is very inventive, where's
all this cash coming from? Do I even need to point out that the only
magical archetype that even has a library is the Former Wage Mage?
Without a conjuring library, all those hermetics can't do any conjuring at
all! (except for watchers). Shaman on the other hand can conjure up a
nature spirit of any rating they dare attempt on a moments notice with
only a complex action. And while nature spirits aren't the combat golems
that elementals are, they are subtly powerful. Nature spirits can do
many things that a hermetic would have to learn additional spells to
duplicate. Further, nature spirits make great scouts, sentries, and can
be effective in combat. IMHO, it seems that anyone who thinks a shaman
with nature spirits is less powerful than a hermetic hasn't learned to
use shamen to full advantage. Hermetics are very direct in combat, shaman
need to be a bit more subtle. On the other hand, hermetics need lots of
prepartion and fore thought, shaman are tend to just get on with it and
adapt as it all happens. BTW, personally I play hermetics, they suit me.
But I have plenty of respect for shaman.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 106 On 12 Jun 97 at 15:53, Court Schuett wrote:

> <snip lots of good stuff>
> I think my biggest gripe is the fact that a mage can take Exclusive and
> Expendable fetish, raise the Force by 4, making it a 9 (Force 5 is better
> than Force 6, cause the drain is one less, and noone is going to get an
> appreciable amount of successes on a 9 OR on a 10). So my mages cast to
> them a force 5 spell, drain is 2, maybe 3. Then, the other guy has to
> resist using Willpower against a 9. The mage rolls 9, throw in 2 for
> good luck at the targets Willpower. The chump has to roll 6, (Tough
> Willpower) against a 9. Who is going to win? 11 vs. 6 or 6 vs. 9. Then
> the mage throws 10 (6 + 4 from MP) against a 2. If they are bright, and
> most are, they'll throw a lot more in to the attack, and surprise,
> surprise roll off the drain no prob. That, IMnsHO makes mages WAY to
> tough. No one, can hope to resist that kind of spell.

They don't have to worry resisting if you run out of fetishes OR if
you're busy sustaining a defensive spell. Either of which would keep you
from casting that killer spell. Fetishes are the SR equivalent of
Material Components, with all the same problems. The GM should keep
careful track of them and make sure the player actually expends them. In
my own gaming group fetishes have become a lot less popular. Especially
after the GM ruled that various things could render the fetish unusable
(like a powder type fetish getting soaking wet... flamable fetishes
getting burned after an opposing mage tossed a fireball, etc.)
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 107 On 16 Jun 97 at 14:34, Bruce H. Nagel wrote:

> You wrote:
>
> > Drain really becomes nasty when mages take a wound or two! :)
> I agree with your comments regarding mages being balanced (at least until
> Initiation comes into the mix, that is). One little reminder, the base
> target
> # for Resisting damage doesn't go up from wound penalties.
>
> Another note in general, to those who complain about Quickening making
> spells invulnerable: you can still attack a Quickened spell in Astral
> space. The benefit of Quickening is that it has a higher Force than 1 to
> resist attempts to tamper with it. Now, if you let people cover them
> with Masking, it's a different story... need to be an Initiate to
> penetrate the Masking to see the spell to arrack and break it. Still
> possible, though...

Let's just keep in mind that if the Quickened spell is of a high enough
force to make it hard to break, then you're going to have to be a
high grade initiate to mask it. And that's assuming you don't have any
foci to mask as well, or any other quickened spells. It all adds up in a
hurry. In my own experience, using masking to hide quickened spells and
foci works a lot better in theory than it does in practice.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 108 On 12 Jun 97 at 12:53, Brett Barksdale wrote:

>
> That it - they just throw a lot of magic pool into it. A standard spell
> with drain (F/2)M cast at force 6 requires '3' to resist drain. A mage
> with WP 6 (does /any/ mage not take a WP of 6?) will get the 4 3's
> necessary, on average, without ANY magic pool added at all. Toss in one
> or two magic pool dice just to be safe, and this leaves 4 (of the
> starting mage's magic pool of 6) to toss into the offense. Force 6 + 4
> pool dice = 10 dice to blast with. Standard "tough" target has a WP of 5
> or 6 (let's say 6). So, 10 dice vs. 6 dice - both shooting for 6's. Mages
> wins on average by 1 die. Even with a tie, the mage still wins (assuming
> they got one success themselves) and does and 'M' damage amount (on
> average). And God help the target if the mage has any of the appropriate
> foci to toss even MORE dice into this. And, what if the mage prepared and
> brough an fire elemental along to add dice to the combat spell. Ouch.
> These aren't easy additions for the mage, but the fact remains that the
> target has NO access to ANY extra defense - difficult to get or
> otherwise. (Well, they can get spell defense dice from a friendly mage,
> but that just keep that mage from counterattacking the original mage with
> any effectiveness...)

I think you're forgetting a few things in that example Brett. Where are
the opposing magicians? And what about those sammies who almost always go
first (even if the mage does have increased reflexes)? A gunshot to the
head will severely cramp the style of any mage. And if said mage has no
dice left for magical defense, it's going to get nasty when the
opposition's mage slams a powerbolt into him. Mind you, I do apply wound
modifiers to resisting drain. I also apply modifiers for distractions of
other kinds (that siren blaring in your ear, that flash pack that just
went off, not to mention being worried about all that lead flying around,
tends to make it hard to concentrate on controlling all that raw mana).

> >What exactly don't you like about the current Conjuring rules? (sorry if I just
> >missed this)
>
> Ummm. It's a long story that got covered here for about a month about 6
> months ago. Basically, my biggest bitch is the vagueness with which mages
> can summon elementals and "store" them away. Does the 24 hour rule apply
> ALL the time or just when they are current with the mage? And while the
> concept of "the elemental goes free" is standard mage mythology, the
> basic SRII rulebook has all of one or two sentences about it. And those
> sentences don't make sense. The only elementals weak enough NOT to
> succeed in the test to leave and go home (as opposed to staying and
> fighting the summoning mage) are the force 1 and 2 ones - the one's that
> pose no real threat. Where's the downside when the only elemental that
> will stay around to ever fight you is too small to DO anything? Then,
> with the Grimiore etc., rather than fix this BASIC rule, they add all of
> this crap about Great Forms and Binding Times for elementals. It would've
> been much easier (and better) to re-write the basic two sentences in SRII
> then to further muddy the problem with even MORE obscure rules. But, of
> course, you can't sell new sourcebooks with 2 sentence fixes. You must
> have more muddy rules. :-)

The rules for going free in the black book have been replaced by the
rules in the Grimoire for Free spirits. Look on p76 under Born Free. In
brief, roll 2d6, if the die result is less than the Force of the spirit it
goes free and you got yerself a contender. If the die result is higher,
it vanishes. Doesn't seem muddy to me.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 109 On 13 Jun 97 at 2:56, Rune Fostervoll wrote:

> Assorted comments heard which matches politics and magic:
>
> (The magicians wants to bring bugs into every city, so that they can
> control us norms. We must fight back!! They almost made it in Chicago!).
>
> (Mages must be excluded from all politics! Since they can influence
> minds, who can make sure an election or campaign is fair, when a mage
> runs it.. or even assists in it?)
>
> (Mages are more powerful than normal people. This power can be
> abused, and should be strictly controlled and monitored. No mage
> should be allowed to work magic in public areas, nor infleunce
> anything outside public areas. The same rules for arms go for foci
> and fetishes - carried concealed is the same as concealing a weapon
> and is illegal, carrying it openly is threatening with a weapon and
> is illegal.).

Hmmmm... for those who watch Babylon 5 this starts sounding like the
situation with the PsyCorps and the general attitude the public has
towards tepes (telepaths). Personally, I think the idea has real
potential. Would be a wonderful way to explain why a hermetic mage in
particular (who really needs some kind of education to learn those skills
when you stop and think about it), would be running the shadows instead of
working for some corp making big bucks.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 110 woneal@*******.NET writes
>
> Let's just keep in mind that if the Quickened spell is of a high enough
> force to make it hard to break, then you're going to have to be a
> high grade initiate to mask it. And that's assuming you don't have any
> foci to mask as well, or any other quickened spells. It all adds up in a
> hurry. In my own experience, using masking to hide quickened spells and
> foci works a lot better in theory than it does in practice.
> --
It works supurbly in practice as long as you are realistic about the
amount of permanent spells you want. +3D6 reflexes for speed and
detect enemies to give you a better chance to know its comming and
dive for cover in time are real lifesavers. After that common snese
is more useful than anything else. Body increasing spells are usually
the next on the list as dermal armour is just too essence unfriendly.
As thats 3 masks at least you won't be having anything else in a
hurry unless you want risks. If you need more than this find less
dangerous emplyment and let them hire the grade 6 initiate that can
mask all that lot. Magicians that want rating x power foci, weapon
foci and lots of +4 attribute spells are like sammies that want wired
3, 4 cyber limbs and skillwires+6, they are asking for it.

Mark

Message no. 111 On 23 Jun 97 at 10:35, woneal@*******.NET wrote:

>Would be a wonderful way to explain why a hermetic mage in
> particular (who really needs some kind of education to learn those skills
> when you stop and think about it), would be running the shadows instead of
> working for some corp making big bucks.

Few do it for money. I don't... and I bet you don't.

Khayman
Mikkel Hansen, Denmark, Maribo 4930 EMail: gunnerhansen@********.dk
Homepage: http://cybercom.dk/remote/mikkel/greenman.htm
"Alas, ice surround me, my hand burns itself on the icyness!
Alas, thirst is in me, it craves after your thirst." -Nietzsche (my trsl.)
________________________________________________________________________

Message no. 112 On 24 Jun 97 at 2:32, Khayman wrote:

> On 23 Jun 97 at 10:35, woneal@*******.NET wrote:
>
> >Would be a wonderful way to explain why a hermetic mage in
> > particular (who really needs some kind of education to learn those skills
> > when you stop and think about it), would be running the shadows instead of
> > working for some corp making big bucks.
>
> Few do it for money. I don't... and I bet you don't.
>
Then you'd lose a bet. Most of the mages I play are in it for money.
I'm very mercenary in my attitude about shadowrunnning. I don't have any
moral baggage or idealism tripping my character's up. They know the
score, their disposable, that's how the world sees them, that's how it is.
They are also professionals and they expect to be paid as such. They get
the best price they can, do their job and get out. The don't have any
delusions about gratitude or justice or loyalty from a corp or other
employer. But most of them also have some sort of criminal record, which
was kind of my point. In a world where magic was tightly regulated and
controlled by governments and corps, then any mage with a criminal record
would be forced into the shadows to keep their freedom. It would make
playing a mage a lot tougher in many respects. Mainly by forcing "free"
mages (those who have dodged government regulations) to be far more
careful and subtle in their use of magic. Obvious and showy displays of
magical power would get you some serious drek in a hurry.
--

Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)

"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman

Message no. 113 woneal writes
> In a world where magic was tightly regulated and
> controlled by governments and corps, then any mage with a criminal record
> would be forced into the shadows to keep their freedom.
Yeah. Corps might accept difficulty form mages but not them doing as
they please. And many folks would be very diskeen on ritual samples
from thier hide lying about, which is probably very common in
Corporations.

> It would make
> playing a mage a lot tougher in many respects. Mainly by forcing "free"
> mages (those who have dodged government regulations) to be far more
> careful and subtle in their use of magic. Obvious and showy displays of
> magical power would get you some serious drek in a hurry.

Yep. Magicians are rare so they attract attention and stand out. Now
i wonder why masking is simply the most useful ability ever, dress
like joe bloggs, mask mundane and don't carry anything silly. this is
one thing that detecting bioware through astral scanning ruined for
mundanes, there is no longer any way to get enhanced mundanes that
are good but difficult to detect with magic, (initiates becoming
harder to catch at this trick the more powerful they become)

Mark

Message no. 114 On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:50:11 -0400 "Fisher, Victor" writes (while
forgetting to SNIP):

>> DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO! REMEMBER, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!!!

"..I'm not!"

~Tim

Message no. 115 At 10:32 PM 6/25/97 EDT, Tim Cooper wrote these timeless words:
>On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:50:11 -0400 "Fisher, Victor" writes (while
>forgetting to SNIP):
>
>>> DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO! REMEMBER, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!!!
>
>"..I'm not!"
>
<aol>

Me too!

</aol>

Bull-one-of-the-most-original-character-you'll-ever-meet-...-or-not :]
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Gen Con, here I come!"
-- Me

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer