| From: | Wafflemeisters <evamarie@**********.NET> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: FASA's On/Off Course? |
| Date: | Thu, 7 May 1998 02:59:41 -0500 |
>
> > Does anyone remember the
> > little slogan you see about Shadowrun in the game shop posters?
> > "Where man meets machine in an age of magic". The way things are
> > going, I wouldn't be surprised if Haley's Comet takes all of the
> > magic with it when it leaves.
You admit to playing less SR thanothergames (what others?), and more
mages / magic campaigns when you do. Do you have something AGAINST more
"mundane" campaigns / characters / games? I personally LIKE to see a
non-mage character do something useful and important (besides protecting
the mage).
> If it does, I guarantee right now that I'll stop buying SR stuff and
> keep what I've got. The original premise for SR (IMHO) was a
> cyberpunk game where magic was just beginning to return to the earth.
> The way the game's bg is written, you simply CAN'T get rid of the
> magic and still have it be SR. You can LIMIT it, yes. But if it
> totally gets removed from the game you no longer have SR, you have CP
> 2020.
I'm sure FASA is not on any sort of general "anti-magic" kick. They
mayhave been spending a while emphasizing major NON-MAGICAL events, and
letting magic remain at a "steady state", which has not happened almost
since the games introduction. Hell, people STILL find new tricks for
old magic in the basic book.
Second, really powerful magic (including mage PC's who are better than
99% of corp sec magic forces) make for problematic world developement,
so some balance needs to be restored to the magic system. Some magic
plotlines / rules were introduced with poor consideration for larger
eventual impact, and need to be refined.
>
> > A [magic] de-emphasization turns this
> > into another Rifts, where we buy more books just to see what new
> > toys we've been provided with, rather than what it was intended to
> > be: a point where both magic and technology, two otherwise
> > irreconcilable forces, were both necessary to get shit done.
Another "Rifts"? As opposed to another "Mage: the Assension"?
:) As
for the "new gadget / book" factor- how many mages go WITHOUT intiating
for more than a few runs? About 0%? I'd say thats a hefty "new gadget
factor" that should be looked at. Just because 90% of the munchi mage
stuff is all in one book doesn't mean its better for the game....
In actuality, creating new areas of interest removes no utility from
mages, it just shows how other developements are just as interesting /
threatening / important.
New mundane gear is often doubly imbalancing in the hands of mages, and
should be done with more concern for "interest" than power escalation.
I'm pretty sure it will be.
There is also no evidence that future TECH (and general rule) revisons
won't be just as limiting as future MAGIC revisions. AFAIK, to the
contrary. SR3 could do a LOT in that area.
>
> Not only that, but by forcing us to have more firepower and ppl on a
> team, it attempts to force us to play merc campaigns
>
Well, if deckers and riggers were more common than mages, which as PC's
AND published NPC's, they ain't, and less of a pain to use (say, as
quick, simple, and half as effective as mages), they would fill many of
the role mages do now: scouting, nonviolent security nuetralization,
misidirection, intellegence, and concealment.
Also, Mundane =/= machine gun toting yahoo (ie, merc sterotype, which
you have not gone beyond here), and saying so is offensive to people who
play intellegent mundanes who prefer non lethal (even SOCIAL) solutions
to problems. Iv'e seen plenty a mage who's generic solution was "I'm
invisible, spell-locked. I Cast Fireball."
> > > >One OFF
> > >
> > > Two with mine.
> > Three..
> Make it four
Two ON, I believe. From what I know, the arco shutdown stuff ROCKS,
and has some very cool "larger implications". Could make bug city look
like- well, a bunch of stupid bugs.
-Mongoose
