From:	"Like, dude, where's the firefight?" <MURRAYMD@******.BITNET>
Subject:	Reply to Doom's reply of my reply to Doom's post. Got it?
Date:	Sun, 18 Apr 1993 17:37:23 -0400

>Meine Kamaraden:

>Well...despite being attacked on all fronts, this topic is a refreshing change
>from copyrights and chain letters, nicht wahr?

Ja, es ist sehr gut!

>On my Proposition for the Manipulation of Metaphysical Energies, several points
>(this shall take a while, so stop now if not interested)

And this reply copies a lot of your post. For those who are not
interested you might want to delete this one. This is gonna take a
while...

>1) I stated quite clearly that what instigated this idea was a friend's desire
> incorporate the Magic Attribute into spell casting such that it possessed a
> far more integral role.

The identity of the person responsible for the idea is not all that
important (unless you are trying to transfer blame or something) for you are
the person who came up with the system changes. To the person who wanted
to make the magic attribute have more of an impact I would have to ask:
"Why?" I thought that the role of the magic attribute was good enough.
The only result I could see from Herr Doktors system was making newbie
magic users more powerful since the force of the spell was effectively
replaced by the magic attribute. This makes the already out-of-whack SR1
magic system even more favorable to magic users.

> Now, many of you like this idea. Others vehemently objected, citing powers
> of Initiation, the lower Karma cost of Sorcery skill, protesting the
> decrease in Force's influence, et cetera, ad nauseam.

Sorry to step on your little toesies Dok. I thought that I saw in
your message something to the effect that you welcomed commentary and I
gave as much as I thought the post warranted.

> What is being missed is that the ENTIRE PURPOSE of this proposal was to
> bestow upon the Magic Rating a far more involved role in wielding magic.

Which you did admirably. I just questioned the need for doing this
and the unbalancing effects of such a venture. I didn't miss the purpose,
nor did I miss the flaws that I saw...

> She said to me, "I feel that Initiation should have a far more DIRECT
> effect upon spell casting." What you see is the result. The entire
> motivational belief is that Initiates are more powerful magic users, and
> this power has a far greater bearing upon magic wielding.

I would be interested in hearing the rationalization behind this
desire to have Initiates be more powerful magic users. Nevermind the fact
that magic users are too powerful in SR1, but Initiates can make themselves
more powerful through the use of the Initiate skill Centering. Any more
direct and one would have to have the grade number affect the casting.

> Hence, the various arguments put forth that this is system is unnecessary
> due to the ability to accentuate spell casting with already existing
> Initiatory powers ARE BESIDE THE POINT.

Thank you for that nice leap of logic. No, the various arguments
are not beside the point since through the use of the already existing
Initiate rules (Centering) Initiates are already more powerful magic users
than non-Initiates.

> Moreover, I never expressed any contempt for Initiatory powers. Rest
> assured that I am quite conscious of their mechanics and existence, and any
> suggestions to the contrary are quite baseless.

Sorry to make the assumption, but based upon what I saw I assumed
that not much attention had been paid to the various powers of the
Initiate.

> Now, those of you who feel that Initiates should be more potent accepted my
> reasoning. Those of you who do not agree objected, and attempted to attack
> my arguments. Both sides may rationalize and interpret the rules to their
> desire in an effort to support their conclusions. Therefore, the majority
> of the interpretive objections are subjective, as well as any interpretive
> defense I offer. Due to each person's various interpretations and
> assumptions, it may appear as though I possess ne'er a foot upon which to
> stand. Contrariwise, from my viewpoint, the same holds true for those who
> disagree.

I like to think that I actually did attack your arguments instead
of attempting an attack. Not only did I attack your reasonings but I also
question the need to make Initiates more potent.

> And as I stated before, if you are fond of the present system, FINE.
> However, should one desire to alter the system such that Initiation plays a
> more vital role, here is an alternative.

>2) The nature of Initiation...

> Herr Murray has conjectured that:

>> Magic Attribute is not an attunuation of the body to the Astral.
>>It is a measure of how much magic you can handle. If the book says
>>otherwise I would like to know the page number for reference.

> GRIMOIRE II, p. 38

> INITIATION

> "Through initiation a magician, be he hermetic or shamanic, is awakened
> to the greater powers of the higher worlds. Initiation sharpens his
> sensitivity to magical energy and purifies his system, allowing him to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> handle more power. It gives him the capacity to wield greater magical
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ability: metamagic, thus providing him access to the metaplanes of
> reality. Magicians who tie their religion and their magic together say it
> brings them closer to their god or gods. Are they right? Who can say for
> sure?"

Thank you for the definition, I did not have my Goomore handy at
the time. I believe that the above definition with the appropriate section
underlined shows that my "conjecture" is more than just that. As presented
by the rules of the game that is what I take Initiation to be. No more, no
less.

> Now, if you are going to endeavor to convince me that Initiation involves
> something as simple as "more power" plus MetaMagic, I shall accordingly
> accuse your definition of being sorrowfully short-sighted.

I think that either:
A) You should accuse the rulebook definition as sorrowfully
short sighted since that is what I take as my definition.

or

B) You should not put too much into what you read.

> I feel it not rash to assume that Initiation is a far more profound
> experience than you would have us believe. I cannot enumerate upon all the
> instances where I have heard Initiation as "bringing one closer to my
> totem" or other metaphorically similar statements from the viewpoints of
> Hermetics. If anything, the ability to wield greater magics is a side
> effect of this process; a process which increases one's affinity with the
> Astral, and a heightening of the relationship one has with one's totem or
> greater insight into Magic's nature and dynamics (dependent upon tradition
> followed.)

Well, this profoundness is all nice and good for role-play, but does
not do a thing for the rules. The "heightening of the relationship one has
with one's totem or greater insight into Magic's nature and dynamics" is
expressed in the rules via the metamagics. When the book says: "Initiation
sharpens his sensitivity to magical energy and purifies his system, allowing
him to handle more power," the rules are expressing this as raising the
Magic Attribute. Your phrase of "a process which increases one's affinity
with the astral..." is expressed I believe in game terms as the Initiate
ability to go to the Meta-Planes in Astral Space. I have yet to see where
the non-game-term description of Initiation has anyplace that gives you
licence to increase the capabilities of the Initiate.


>3) The semantics of Experience...

>> WHOOAA!!! Hang on. Magic Attribute does not equate into
>>experience. Experience comes in the way of karma. This is expressed in
>>the character with a higher Sorcery skill or Initiation. Magic Attribute
>>is a measure of the body's ability to handle magical energies. The body
>>can be conditioned to handle more magical energy through Initiation. The
>>Magic Attribute is not a measure of experience, but experience can be used
>>to allow the body to accept more magical energy: Initiation.

>(Ach, Gott, I am actually about to argue semantics...)

You have to watch your semantics very carefully in a discussion
such as this, especially considering that the only thing that I see is what
you type. I do not see your facial expressions or hear the pitch in your
voice. I see only what you type in and what netiquette expressions that
accompany such.

> You misunderstand.

> Magic Attribute can be an *indicator* of Experience. I am well aware of
> the fact that Karma is utilized for the elevation of Sorcery skill as well
> as in Initiation. I merely strove to differentiate between adroitness or
> ability to cast spells and long-term improvement in their relationship with
> Magic, as exemplified in the graduation to the higher levels by Initiation.

> Perhaps I should have worded it more satisfactorily: Magic Attribute,
> which indicates experience in such cases where it (via the accumulation of
> Karma) has been elevated due to successful Initiation.

I would think that magic attribute is a very poor indicator of
experience. Not every magic user dumps karma into Initiation from day one
(and if they do I would suggest against it). Assuming that the magic user
dumps all their karma into Initiation your indicator can become very off
due to losses in magic attribute (deadly wounds, hospital visits, etc.).
The magic attribute can range quite wildly over the long run, dependent on
rate of Initiation and lethality of lifestyle.

[ ... ]

>5) It should be pointed out that...

> This was designed for a campaign with ShadowRun I drain codes. The Game
> Master in question is still using First Edition rules, and is quite unfond
> of ShadowRun II (ask not why, as I am unable to fathom it myself). She
> desired an alternative to the Grimoire I system, but was dissatisfied with
> the Grimoire II system, the result being that Nightstalker's suggestion,
> although possessive of merit, is NOT a viable option.

And people still play in the game? Oh dear... :)

> Under this system in ShadowRun I, most magicians, in all likelihood, shall
> not be utilizing all of their Magic Attribute dice for the spellcasting
> test, as they shall still require assistance with the old Deadly-4 drains
> codes.

That has the sound that D4 drains are common. How many folks are
throwing around Hellblast and Acidball spells as if it were common duty?
I'm almost tempted to pull out the M word for that! If Initiation is not
good enough for this group it is a problem in the "feel" of the world
instead of the rules.

>6) A great number of you are reacting as I had anticipated, in that you are
> proceeding, or appear as though you are proceeding, from the assumption
> that I mean to replace the present system with my proposal. As I
> emphasize before, this was a theoretical problem. Actually, upon
> completing it and presenting it to the Game Master who requested it (who
> was well pleased with my efforts), I had thought to file it away. Then,
> another group member urged me to post it.

The problem is that your disclaimer at the end of your post was
insufficient to keep the folks from biting at your heels. (Yipe! Yipe!
Yipe! Yipe!)

[ ... ]

>8) Murray, as well as others, have astutely observed that Force has less of
> an impact.

> Correct. It is only natural that when one proposes to alter a closed
> system, or incorporate a new aspect or element into a confined apparatus,
> another element shall suffer. This is the natural order of things.
> Something must "give", so to speak. I have endeavored to perform this
such
> that no one aspect is completely eliminated. This is true of Force in my
> system. Yes, it has been relegated to something only slightly better than
> Weapon Force in ranged combat. However, I feel this is an equitable
> solution.

I wouldn't want the effects of the force of a spell reduced in the
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.

> I DO admit that in the case of unresisted spells (Detection, Illusion, and
> Health) it could be raised to the heights of lunacy. Possibly an addendum
> to the earlier mechanics can be formulated for such cases. I shall have to
> think on't. In line with that, for any who wish to add their own thoughts,
> WITHIN the qualifiers stated, to these possible flaws/problems/loopholes, I
> would very much value such input. It is my wish that this should operate
> as free of errors as feasible.

Good luck! No solutions came to mind when I was looking over your
suggestion. Maybe someone who still plays SRI can help.

> Colonel Count von Hohenzollern und von Doom, DMSc, DSc, PhD.
>
> Thaumaturgical Advisor:
>
> Darkwatch, Doctor of Metaphysics
>
> Doom Technologies & Weapon Systems -- Dark Thought Publications
> >>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
<<<
> [ Doctor Doom : jch8169@********.tamu.edu ]

Friends don't let friends play SR1... :)

*************************************************************************
* 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 *
*************************************************************************