| From: | Caric <caric@********.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [SR3] Drainenough to make a |
| Date: | Thu, 3 Jul 1997 15:12:51 -0700 |
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.
I agree that combat is not the be all and end all of everything, but lets
face it that's what keeps the mage alive until he can get enough karma to
have real power and he needs to have a fighting chance.
| 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.
and that's cool, but cut the guy who wants to make a combat mage enough
slack to have a chance.
| 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.
Absolutely, and the rules for altering game lethality should be there as
well, but I just don't think that F drain should be the default that's all.
| 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.
Who doesn't? No one here has ever said that they wanted mages to be more
powerful in combat the anyone else. We just disagree on whether they
already are or not.
| >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.
Again the point of whether it is "casually" deadly is what is under
contention.
| >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.
Granted, that the mage can move into certain areas unmolested, of course
the same could be said for the sammie who when astrally percieved doesn't
light up time square.
| 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.
Agreed...play what you enjoy, but we were asked by Steve what we thought
would be good for the "default" what new players should use until they
decide what will work the best for there game. (Correct me if I am
misrepresenting you here Steve)
| 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.
I still disagree with this in the short term...long term the mage has more
potential sure, but he has to live that long.
| 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.
But from where I sit it is so, when talking about starting characters and
combat.
| >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.
I never took any of it as insulting and hope no one else did either.
| 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.
Big difference...yes. Not Balanced...not in our game.
-Caric
"These pretzels are MAKING ME THIRSTY!!!!!"
