| From: | "Like, dude, where's the firefight?" <MURRAYMD@******.BITNET> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | YAR to YAR |
| Date: | Mon, 19 Apr 1993 01:59:33 -0400 |
>>mechanics of my games, but that is only a personal viewpoint. I was happy
>>to see that you had not totally disregarded the effects of the force of the
>>spell.
>Okay. How would YOU recommend changing it, with the restrictions?
>Rev
I wouldn't reccomend making the changes that the good Doktor
prescribed. That is simply a difference in opinions. Considering the
"high power" aspect of the game I admit I am at a bit of a disadvantage.
Allow me to offer my opinions, with a minimum of rules quotations, and
allow you to go from there.
There are several changes in the Shadowrun rules from the 1st to
the second edition. A majority of them were for the better thankfully.
The biggest change, and the one that had the most impact in my opinion, is
the overall change in the magic system. The SR1 magic system was very
skewed towards the magic user and made life short for the mundane. I quit
playing the game for some time until the 2nd edition came out just because
of the poor quality of the magic rules. Why play anything but a magic user
under the first edition rules? I see Shadowtech/Bioware rules an attempt
on FASA's part to bring the Street Sam back in line as the combat guru (as
he/she should be) where before it was the 6+ Sorcery skill combat mage that
was the death dealer. I saw the rules concerning channeling spells from
astral down a spell lock as an attempt to keep magic users from locking
Increase Reaction +4 as standard practice. The potential for rules rape
under the 1st edition magic rules is staggering. Hence the reason why I
dislike them so much.
So when I sit at my terminal and read mail messages that change/
modify the rules to magic, I take a look at them and see what they do to
the balance of the game. When I read the rules ideas that Herr Doktor
posted I saw that these changes would make magic users even more powerful
(more than likely). I didn't like that. When I found out that these
changes were for 1st edition, I got beligerent. And when I found out that
the GM wanted these rules, I became incredulous. (This should explain why
I jumped down that one guy's throat a while back when he posted his ideas
about changing the magic rules.)
If Initiation is such a minor change to the magic user in your
campaign (an assumption, if I'm wrong it won't be the first time) then I
suggest some time be spent reviewing what you are doing. If it sounds like
I'm being a jerk about your campaign/GM, I probably am. I really don't
like the idea of high power games. It takes away a lot of the "grimey" and
mercenarial feel of the game. In my opinion the line between high power SR
and superheroes games blurs as the game gets more high powered. If this is
what and how you kids like to play, then cool, have a good time.
I can't really give any suggestions on how to make magic attribute
a more integral part of spell casting. I find such a change unnecessary. Nor
on making magic users more powerful because I have been spending all of my
time making them less powerful. If your GM doesn't like the SR1 rules for
magic then I suggest SR2, a more balanced game system. Since your GM
doesn't like SR2, then I would say that she is on her own...
*************************************************************************
* What should I do today? | Matt Murray at the University of Dayton *
*1) Carpet Bomb the Vatican? | MURRAYMD@******.BITNET *
*2) Club a baby seal? | MURRAYMD@******.OCA.UDAYTON.EDU *
*3) Have a beer? Beer! | "Like, dude, where's the firefight?" *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Star Fleet Battles Battletech Shadowrun Space Marine AD&D *
*************************************************************************
