| From: | "Q (not from Star Trek)" <Scott.E.Meyer@*******.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Magic and the Matrix |
| Date: | Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:47:15 -0500 |
> > >The point is - the Matrix system has been changed almost completely
> > >under VR2.0 and nowhere in that book does it say that mages have a TN
> > >penalty in the Matrix.
> > I'm not going to second guess FASA on why this optional rule was
> > left out of VR2.0 but the interface between Man and the Matrix has not
> > changed. The rules on how a decker affects the matrix was changed.
>
> This is true - however, to me this omission implies that FASA did not
> want this rule to apply any more. If they wanted it to apply, they'd
> have put it in the rulebook. Else how are new players supposed to cope?
> (And when I say "new", I mean "started since VR1 went out of
print"
>
> FASA: Sorry, you're not allowed to do that with a decker.
> Player: What? Why? It doesn't say so in my rulebook or the VR2.0
> sourcebook!
> FASA: Yeah, but sorry, you have to apply a rule from a years-old
> sourcebook that is out of print, applies to a different edition of the
> game, and has been replaced by something very different.
> Player: !!!!
>
> I hope you see my point.
>
Ok, now allow me to intervene in a slight point. FASA has clearly stated
that any rules it sets down are subject to GM interpretation. iow, if you
don't like a rule, don't use it. otoh, if you do like a rule, even if the
most recent sourcebook doesn't mention it, go ahead and use it.
That said, I think it's highly inaccurate to say that just because
something doesn't appear in a current supplement, it's no longer valid.
What if someone pointed to a specific spell or phys. ad. ability from
the main book or the grim and said "I want that one." What GM would say
"sorry, you can't use that one, it's not in Awakenings, which is the most
recent sourcebook on magic, and therefore, anything that's not in it
can't be used." What GM would not allow a character to use a weapon from
the ssc because of its not being mentioned in fof?
[snip stuff]
> And according to the presently available FASA material about decking and
> the matrix - to wit, the SRII sourcebook and the VR2.0 sourcebook, the
> rule no longer exists.
>
I see no reason why a rule should be declared no longer
valid because of its _not_ being mentioned. If a rule
clarification/correction is listed in a new book which changes the old
rule, then, fine, the old rule has been replaced and is now
invalid. However, not mentioning something is not the same thing.
---------------------------------------
I dislike Windows95 for the same reason people dislike New Coke
It tastes disgustingly like Pepsi.
Scott "Q" Meyer
Scott.E.Meyer@*******.edu
http://johnh.wheaton.edu/~smeyer
