| From: | Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? |
| Date: | Mon, 11 May 1998 14:41:35 -0400 |
Two things. You really need to read about the FAT-Bacteria in the
Corporate Security Handbook. That would explain the reasons, in FASA
canon, why your idea simply won't work using game mechanics. Until then,
take this idea back to the work shop and put it in the scrap heap - no
matter how much you want your flesh cannon to work, it cannot work using
SR's mechanics. One astral presence can only push another astral presence
around, it cannot penetrate it; there is no such thing as an astral bullet.
Besides, how in the hell were you going to propel this hunk of bloody
flesh at speeds sufficient to do anything other than go splat?
Second, there's nothing I find more annoying than a rules-lawyer who
doesn't actually know all the rules. You display a cavalier attitude
towards the rules, some of which you apparently don't even know. That
makes you more of a munchkin than a rules-lawyer. No real rules-lawyer
would come up with this horrific concept.
At 11:07 PM 5/10/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Wow. Not the reaction I expected at all.
>I mean I've seen some of your websites, and watched a few of you on
>IRC - guess I expected a little more open mindedness.
What, you expected us to roll over and say, "Gee, that's such a cool idea I
wish I had thought of it first?"
This is a highly diverse list. There are those like Keith that play a
high-powered game, then there are those that play gritty street punk games
and a bunch fall somewhere in the middle. Don't characterize the list by
the actions of a few.
>1) I am sick - Well, yes, I suppose I am. I hereby freely admit it.
You know, this *isn't* a thing to be proud of all the time.
>2) My "Chunk Launcher" Ninja is NOT a shapeshifter - I KNOW shifters
>can't have cyberware, that would be silly. My character has
>regeneration by using the Immortaily Flower from the California Free
>State book, OK? Lot less powerful, lot harder to get, more expensive,
>and more dangerous.
I'm not going to touch this part, aside to say that regeneration, as has
been pointed out previously, sort of precludes cyberware and most bioware.
Hence, you will NEVER see in FASA canon publications either shapeshifters
or vampires with cyberware.
>3) Flesh removed from the body is dead - Where'd that idea come from?
>Certainly not from Biology. Skin grafts, organ transplants, etc. (All
>canon Shadowrun concepts) are certainly alive, and any first year med
>student can tell you that tissue removed from the body can remain
>viable and alive for quite some time after being torn from a body.
It may not be dead in a biological sense, but it is dead from an aura
sense. This bit of flesh would have only an "echo" of the original aura,
enough to make it a viable ritual link but still very weak.
>4) Removed flesh has no aura - where'd that come from? Certainly not
>any Fasa product I've ever seen. Sounds like you're quoting a house
>rule at me.
Any aura that remains is sufficient for things like ritual sorcery and
astral forensics. Nothing more. This is House of FASA.
>Where an aura comes from has never been plainly stated in
>and Shadowrun product, or erratta I've ever seen. (Which is ALL of it.
>:)) You wanna make the aura a part of the "conciousness" fine, I say
>it's a biological abstraction. You say Shamanic, I say Hermetic. :)
A lump of meat, sitting on your plate about to be eaten, has an astral
presence. But it does not have an aura, and not in the same sense that a
human or troll has an aura. A vat of flesh genetically engineered and
biologically viable has an astral presence, but it has no consciousness, no
"life" and so it has no active aura. This, if you read enough of FASA,
especially Awakenings and the Corp Sec Handbook, becomes apparent.
>Just wanted a little input, that's all.
Now I don't know about any sacred trust between player and GM, but you were
attempting to obtain ammunition to take back to your GM to convince him to
use your idea. That's going behind his back, to a certain degree.
If you were my player and you did this, I'd allow you to play the PC just
so I could kill it. And then I'd ask you to never pull a stunt like that
again as long as I'm GMing.
>6)Physical objects don't damage astral objects - Again, this sounds
>like a house rule to me.
House of FASA. If physical objects can damage astral objects, then how
could astrally projecting magicians pass through walls, or get shot at by
Panther Assault Cannons and not get hurt? Those items have an astral
presence, but they do not have an active aura. Plain and simple, it can be
found in the core rules.
>However, I recognize that Fasa has never been
>clear with this, which is why I posted the whole silly thing to the
>list in the first place, to get more ideas.
As stated previously, they've been as clear as crystal on this subject.
There is a very clear separation between the mundane world and astral world
and only in some specifically noted areas do the twain mix. Not always
simple (as previous "grounding through quickenings" arguments show), but
the separation is clear. (pun intended)
>We DO exchange ideas on
>this list right? Or do we just jump all over anyone who posts them and
>make veiled references to Munchkins, and wild guesses about player's
>ages (27 by the way, surprised? :))
I could give a rat's ass about your age. And I didn't think the Munchy
references were that veiled.
But this list is for the exchange of ideas. Some of those ideas are so far
out that we react and stomp on them, in our own personal fashions.
Sometimes even very reasonable concepts get trashed. But what does that
end up doing, if you don't take the critiques as personal attacks? You go
back and make the concept better, fixing the bugs as it were.
You can sometimes think of this list as a premade group of alpha/beta testers.
>7)"Range combat cannot do damage to an astral being [though there
>might be a few exceptions to this rule they don't matter here].
>Hmm, so Distance Strike, Banishing, and Combat Spells, (All ranged
>combat) aren't effective against spirits? (Astral beings, in case you
>missed it.) Gee, guess I'll have to pull those pages out of my
>rulebooks. :)
Banishing isn't ranged combat. Spells, in the astral, have their own aura
and presence and are "alive" during the time it takes them to cross the
distance, so they are only barely a ranged attack by that definition.
Distance Strike is an exception that proves the rule. And instead of
pulling those pages out of your rulebooks, perhaps you should reread them.
>8) What's a THWAP? It looks like a flame to me.
A THWAP (gee, I guess you didn't read the FAQ, did you? Obvious mistake
there.) is a relatively minor and amusing way of one list.member telling
another that something stupid, but harmless, was done and this is their
punishment. It's the list's version of light slap, done to catch
attention, not to hurt or punish.
>I do want to thank those who gave me logical, RULES-based reasons why
>this was a bad idea. (Ereskanti comes to mind quickly)
Rules? You want to talk rules? Go read Awakenings. Go read the Corporate
Security Handbook. Go read the core rules (the BBB). Those contain all
the rules you'll need to discover why your concept was, to be harsh, moronic.
>Oh yeah, what's a "FAB Bat?"
Well, if you were aware of the astrally active bacteria from Corporate
Security Handbook you would know *and* we wouldn't be having this
conversation.
Erik J.
"What was that popping sound?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
