| From: | Brett Barksdale <brett@***.ORST.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [SR3] Drain |
| Date: | Thu, 3 Jul 1997 14:31:23 -0700 |
>every time you actually succeed in casting a spell strong enough to make a
>dent in the opposition.
I call this the "Munchkin's Dilemma". (Chill. I'm /not/ calling you a munchkin.
:-)
The dilemma is involved with the mindset that a character is only as useful
or as powerful as their ability to fight (combat ability).
Just because one runs a serious risk of passing out if they throw some serious
juju does NOT make the mage weak. The power of the mage - the TRUE power - in
both gameworlds that use F as well as F/2 for drain - is their /versatility/.
Given time and space, a mage can do great and wondrous things. They can achieve
their goals without necessarily having to "blast" people. Compare the power
of astral perception, mind control, invisibility, healing, yadda yadda yadda
with the ability to pull a trigger. (Which mages can still do, despite their
magical ability, by the way.) There's no contest.
Give me a /well-developed/ game world with an economy and developed corps with
develop personalities and hierarchies and needs and desires and I will take
a mage with ZERO ZIP NADA combat ability over any other archetype in the game
if I'm only interested in overall effectiveness.
Like it has been said, if you like the "wild and wooly" magic system where
even a beginning character can stand on a hill with binoculars and level
vehicles, sammies, aircraft etc. without taking drain, then go for it. The
game /is/ there to have fun.
But don't get bent out of shape that a lot of us like a very carefully balanced
game world where there are checks and balances and we don't have this fixation
on the "combat ability" of our characters.
>And as far as the topic of Street Sams being more suited to battle, because
>that's all they do, my response would be to say: so what about combat
>mages? They fall into the same category...battle is all they do.
> Magic is supposed to be deadly.
That is a gameworld assumption. Magic, like anything else in sufficient
quantities, is deadly. But nothing jumped out of a burning bush and proclaimed
for the world to hear that magic must be /casually/ deadly - that even a beginning
mage should be able to kill a trained street sam with a mere thought.
>It's a wild card. That's why it costs 20 points or
>A priority to even get the privaledge of using it to it's full potential.
Question your assumptions. The fact that is costs class A (or B for adept
capabilities) to be magical affirms nothing - proves nothing. It only matters
in what /others/ get in comparison for the same cost. The sammie gets
the same basic A/B/C priority char gen system. And yet, you profess that
the combat mage should be roughly equal in combat to the sammie. And yet, the
mage has ALL SORTS of additional abilities (astral, for example) that the
sammie has NO access to. The mage also has several environmental advantages
such as hidden ability. He can go into certain areas without setting off
metal detectors and chem sniffers etc. And, while a lot of the time, /everyone/
notices ole Mr. Chrome Eyes, the mage looks like Joe Average - until he
zotzes you.
Again, from the "religious" perspective of whose game world view is superior,
there is no right or wrong. There is only what is fun for you and me and what
is not.
However, from a advantage/disadvantage/who-gets-more-bang-for-their-buck sort
of analysis, there IS a clear and distinct winner: the mage. Hell, the mage
can even buy some guns and armor and gain some of the advantages of tech
as well. It's NO contest.
Does this make F/2 or pro-mage worlds wrong? Of course not. As long as you
are just going to profess to liking one over the other, then that's just
fine.
But don't /even/ try to claim an equality from a mechanistic standpoint.
It just ain't so.
>That makes a mage much weaker in either, skills, attributes, or resources.
>These weaknesses can be exploited. Try to use some creativity instead of
>just slamming the mage.
I think you're taking this a little too personally. No one is "slamming" the
mage. "Slamming" implies insults and ill will. There is none here. I am
simply stating facts that are easy for all to see.
>None of this was intended as insulting. It just bothers me to see the
>thread of mages being too powerful all the time. I have had mages smeared
>all over the floor many times. They aren't all that.
ANYONE gets smeared all over the floor at given times. Again, this is
irrelevant. This is a simple comparison between mages and sammies. The
fact that they each get smeared out there means nothing. No one is claiming
that mages = God. We're just saying mages > any-other-character-archetype.
Big difference.
- Brett
