| From: | Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: An Opposing View (Re: SR3 Magic Terms) |
| Date: | Tue, 30 Dec 1997 23:19:46 -0800 |
> > them in the same manner as SR2. Neither Concealment nor Invisibility
> > works by changing the aura; both work on the physical (non-Astral)
> > presence; neither affect what the aura looks like or is.
> I was referring to the terms as a comparison. Meaning the "Aura Masking"
> trick alters the target numbers for perception tests. In SR, the only thing
> that is absolute isn't Invisibility it's the confusion...
Right. Except that Invisibility (et al) are rather obvious in that they
add to Perception rolls in the physical realm, not the Astral. (With
Concealment being given to the individual GM's decision.) So they
really don't apply in this case.
> > And if mages were spirits (of any sort) I might be tempted to agree with
> > you. (Actually, I see any possible mechanics working by rather
> > different means.) However, this relies on extending the Perception
> > tests able to be altered by Concealment to the Astral, which is rather
> > house-rulish.
> No, it's game rulish...same thing as "masking foci" actually. And if you
see
> such possible alternatives, please, let us all hear/read them. Seriously, I
> would like to know...
Actually, masking foci is completely different from aura morphing (I'll
stick with Bruce's term). Masking foci is rather like masking one's own
aura - you make both seem mundane - but, excepting that they deal with
the aura, neither bears a similarity to aura morphing.
I can buy masking, as it stands: neither "subconscious masking" nor
"intended masking" (I think those are the right terms..) will hold up
once you start slinging magic; in fact, you can't sling magic while
deliberately masking. Similarly, with a focus, you're taming it down
when it's not in use. If you still examined it from the Astral, it
would still look like a gem, or bracelet, or what-have-you.
If it weren't for the fact that mages can project, I'd be tempted to let
this one sit. No, that's not really true; if it weren't for the fact
that it clashes with the description of Aura already provided.. and, on
many levels, you're own previous statements about the aura.. it's an
interesting thought, but not SR.
> > What you're describing above are the rules for Masking (Grimoire, page
> > sumfink-er-udder). Note that the description of Masking therein does
> > not allow you to actively change what your aura looks like, just whether
> > it's magically active or no. It's sort of like seeing something made
> > out of clay -- it's not important, in this instance, whether it looks
> > like a sculpture, or if its glazed; whatever you do with it, it's going
> > to remain obvious that it's made of clay. (A weak analogy, admittedly.
> > No, you can't paint your astral clay. This is obvious by a majority of
> > sources. Your house rules are welcome to vary.)
> Actually, your analogy isn't weak. It's very good, just "aimed"
incorrectly.
> The "clay" is what is left to interpretation. And by making things appear
> "mundane or not" is altering their appearance.
Thank you for appropriating my analogy. May I have it back?
> > This is already handled in Awakenings. (See "Alarm Wards" for an
> > example of a "CCSS" ward.)
> I have, and they aren't quite there even....and the rules for establishing
> such "wards" aren't even included....
Oish. Grim2, page doodlyums, handles it.
> > > How about with those additional explanations....????
> > Still a nifty idea, still doesn't work.
> It doesn't work aren't the right words....how about..."I don't agree with
> them."
Apparently you're not satisfied with appropriating just metaphors. How
about, "It doesn't work!"
> > There's still no difference between assensing something (in detail) and
> > studying spiritual and elemental energies of an object (in detail). If
> > it's gonna fool you, it's gonna fool you.
> Not correct either...a "detailed assensing" for example does NOT have the
same
> weight in Ritual Sorcery that having the objects "True Name" does (in this
> case referring to the rules for Free Spirits of course).
....which applies how?
> > As far as a modifier for routine actions, that's left to the individual
> > GM; I don't see how that applies here, especially as masking (or
> > learning how to mask because you've seen a spirit do so) is going to be
> > easier, rather than harder.
> No? Not even if you are in a "preferred environment", similar to the rules
> for "Domain Geasa" in the SR rules? What about if the magician in question
is
> operating inside a "very familiar" territory, such as a Corp mage who is
> "patrolling" the grounds he's worked within for weeks, or longer? Maybe
the
> mage wants to make sure he is going to get the "drop" on anyone else in the
> area.
Given that being in a preferred domain doesn't change the nature of
one's aura, no.
If you're looking to ambush someone on the Astral, there are better
options.
> Another related question...just what does a "Quest of Masking" allow for in
> the SR rules?
Nothing, as the term doesn't appear in either the Grimoire or
Awakenings.
> > Sounds like you've shifted from the position that masking is going to
> > allow you to cast illusions about yourself, however, so I'll leave off
> > here.
> No, I never said that. I was using "illusions" as a comparison. And you
are
> welcome to leave off "leave off here" if you choose.
And a vaguer sentence was never spoken (or typed, as it were).
-Mb
