From:	David Fallon dfallon@****.edu
Subject:	A perfectly acceptable reason to test the new list...
Date:	Mon, 8 Feb 1999 12:02:39 -0800

>David Fallon wrote:
>> >remember what. All in all, the minimal amount of cyber that Adnerson put
>> >in was the few things he thought would give him a serious boost to his
>> >survival potential while spending very little essence (less than a
>> point).
>> >Even if circumstances had not prompted him into getting the eyes when he
>> >did, I believe Anderson had considered these limited cyber options
before
>> >the bad run.
>> Erm.... That's pretty munchkin. Anytime the logic goes "It's only X
>> essence", the character is looking at the rules, and not at their
>> character
>> background.
>>
>Huh? Next you'll say "anytime the player buys the gun with the
>biggest damage code, it's munchkin"! The characters will have access
>to similar info - sams can buy gun mags with penetration specs and
>mages can see how much a given piece of cyber affects the aura.
>
>Why not even have a standard rating system that mages can rate aural
>damage on? We'll have the scale go from 0 to 6, and we'll call it
>essence...


A character that's built upon stats _only_ is the definition of munchkin.
Picking out the best gun is a good idea, especially as the ammo load/bullet
size, etc. are all presumably listed in the street sam '55 catalogue. I
don't think the essence cost is listed next to cyberware, however.

When the first guy writes that the logic was "hey, it's only a bit more
essence (*less than a point*)", this is munchkin. Although you're certainly
welcome to play where everyone in game understands what the essence system
is, and what the specific essence cost of various cyberware is, my
understanding is that it's a bit more mysterious than that. I think that's
one of the more abused parts of the system, in fact, as it's very hard to
suppress the fact that you know how much things cost when buying them...
This is why I find street sams with .00001 essence left silly. If you're
trying to roleplay, you should try to avoid using the game rules as the
basis for your *character*'s decisions.

>> >the same time. She is played well, with her social problems being used
to
>> >off-set teh advantages she has gotten through this trade off. However,
if
>> >she were being played in a campaign where the social disadvantages were
>> >not so freuently emphasized, she owuld be munchy.
>> That sort of fits, but I'd hope she was self-initiating... Even still,
>> that's pushing it. :) Having a character's personality be "I am a
>> munchkin"
>> doesn't make it good roleplaying.
>>
>It doesn't make it bad roleplaying either.


Having your character concept be "I am a munchkin! I want everything!" isn't
bad roleplaying? <shrug> okay. We have different definitions of creativity.

>> Even a small bit of cyberware is really pushing it. I recommend reading a
>> book called 2XS by Nigel D. Findley, if you haven't already. I think it's
>> out of print, but it's a _really_ good book to make some of the issues a
>> character _should_ have with cyberware clearer. The main character is a
>>
>"A character". Not, "A magically-active character" I notice.
>Therefore, according to your opinion, cyber is munchy and nobody
>should be able to get it. (R.A.A.)


My next sentence is "I don't think every character should be like this."

>> private detective who does his best to survive on the street without
>> cyberware, because he likes his body just the way it is, thank you. I
>> don't
>> think every character should be like this, but some of this should be in
>> the
>> back of every character's minds, especially mages.
>>
>Sure it should. It shouldn't be the *only* thing in their minds.
>Don't forget that the grass is always greener... You can't know
>how much good it'll do you until you try. Well, you've already
>gone this far, what's a little more going to hurt?
>
>There's a reason it's called "the path of the burnout".


Yup! hence my other comments about how to lead a character down the path of
burnout...