Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Noticing Magic

Posted by: Eleazar Mar 4 2007, 06:27 AM

A hermetic mage with no shamanic mask, no gestures, no chanting, and no flashy effects casts a force 10 stunbolt in front of a mundane character. According to the rules the only way for a mundane to notice the spell is by seeing the intense look of concentration since all the other effects listed are if you have geas, a disadvantage, or a shaman. A mana spell doesn't even show up in the physical world like a lightning bolt spell would. What exactly is this mundane noticing? 10-6 is 4. Which means there is no way they wouldn't notice it. But, notice what? The intense look of concentration? That's it? How do they even notice a spell has been cast then?

According to RAW they would notice it; I am not questioning this. What I am questioning is what exactly they notice. I am sure some of you that have been playing SR for a while would know.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 4 2007, 06:31 AM

I din't think it ever explicitly says. I always figured that , for one, it would differ by tradition. It coud be hand gestures the caster thinks is necessary, could be visible energy building up. Remember Big Trouble in Little China by chance? Good example for your lightning bolt.

Posted by: Slump Mar 4 2007, 06:39 AM

Have you ever felt something wierd? Like someone is about to touch you, but nobody's around? I would imagine that mundanes feel mana spells like that.

Posted by: Aaron Mar 4 2007, 06:40 AM

Check your hymnal; there are smatterings of references to various methods of perceiving magic. And yeah, I play it that magical effects of Force 6 or higher are obvious as being magical: there's a ripple through the air or some such; it doesn't have to be just visual.

Posted by: Eleazar Mar 4 2007, 06:44 AM

Yeah, but that is a lightning bolt, that makes sense. What about a stunbolt, mind probe, control thoughts, and any other spell that doesn't show up in the physical world. They aren't noticing hand gestures because the mage in question doesn't have any geasa. So he wouldn't be making hand gestures. All they have to go by is the intense look of concentration which could mean practically anything. Maybe he is: playing a video game, in a virtual world, reading a book, watching a trid, or any other normal thing which could require an intense look of concentration. What differentiates this from any other intense look of concentration?

Think about it, this is something important to know. It is all about roleplaying. The NPCs or PCs seeing it would respond differently depending. If my character is walking through a slaughter house he is going to smell a very terrible smell because he notices it. The thing that he is noticing is the smell of the blood and meat. In this scenario there is no thing that they are noticing that is sufficient to lead someone to the rational belief that a spell is being cast. They have nothing to go by except the intense look of concentration. Which could actually mean many things other than casting a spell. Especially with the influence of movies with magic in them. All of them have really flashy insane special effects. So wouldn't a mundane be looking for this when they think they see a spell? What about all the misconception mundanes have about magic? Why would the intense look of concentration even signal magic is being used to them, when they expect much more to begin with?

I realize that the spell is being noticed; I just would like to know why and how.

Posted by: Eleazar Mar 4 2007, 06:46 AM

QUOTE (Aaron)

Mana spells do not create a physical visual cue. A ripple through the air is a visual cue. I did check the hymnal, as you can see by my rather targeted specific questions.

Posted by: Eleazar Mar 4 2007, 06:49 AM

QUOTE (Slump @ Mar 4 2007, 01:39 AM)

Have you ever felt something wierd? Like someone is about to touch you, but nobody's around? I would imagine that mundanes feel mana spells like that.

This is definitely a perception test as the rules clearly states. Also, this is not mentioned in the fluff. The sort of sense you described also implies some sort of magic ability to be able to recognize the flow of mana being formed/manipulated. While interesting there is nothing in the RAW or fluff to indicate this.

Posted by: Konsaki Mar 4 2007, 06:54 AM

Remember that perception runs the gambit of Audio, Visual, Scent, Taste and Touch.

So you, as a GM, think that mana spells cant be seen. Ok, what about hearing them though? A mana buildup of 6+ might have a hum of power in the air or maybe send shivers down your spine for apparent reason. You might be able to taste the power in the air or smell it like you might smell lightning in the air.

Posted by: mfb Mar 4 2007, 06:59 AM

it's important to note that someone who succeeds at a perception test to notice a spell being cast notices a spell being cast. that is to say, whatever it is they see, they know it's a spell. they're not going to mistake a stunbolt for a gust of wind or something--they're going to be aware that it's a spell, and if they see the effects of the spell (someone being hit by it), they're going to have a reasonable idea of what type of spell they saw being cast.

beyond that, it doesn't matter what the specific cues are, because they're not going to be mistaken for anything else.

Posted by: Eleazar Mar 4 2007, 07:19 AM

QUOTE (mfb @ Mar 4 2007, 01:59 AM)

This doesn't answer anything I didn't already know. The problem here is the specific cues. So to just toss them away to being inconsequential doesn't make sense. It does matter because this is a roleplaying game. It isn't enough just to say something happens.

I also disagree that they would know what spell is being cast. The text says they notice the magic or force. In order to know the spell being cast they would have to assense it or be familiar with spells themselves, which would require the appropriate knowledge skill. So, the mundane somehow(not really sure) notices magic is in use. Now in the case of stunbolt, if they are in direct observation of the magician casting the spell and the target it is being cast on, they most likely would be able to put two and two together. They notice magic being used and then the target of the spell begins bleeding terribly and his body just viciously contorted. They won't know it is stunbolt, but they will know a combat spell was just cast on the target.

Posted by: mfb Mar 4 2007, 07:26 AM

QUOTE (Eleazar)

in real life, the perceiver would notice the sensory cues of the spells and figure out that a spell is being cast. this, however, is a game, and it must follow game logic in order to better emulate real life. therefore, this is what happens: the perceiver passes his perception check, and as a result knows that a spell is being cast. from that point, the GM and the players must shape their descriptions of the events in order to take that fact into account. if the perceiver passes his test, you don't get to say "well, my spell has no sensory cues." he passed the test, therefore it has sensory cues and it is up to you to decide what those cues are.

which is why i said it doesn't matter what the specific sensory cues are--it's your job to provide descriptions of sensory cues which match the die rolls.

QUOTE (Eleazar)

I also disagree that they would know what spell is being cast.

that's not quite what i said. i said, "they're going to have a reasonable idea of what type of spell is being cast." to put it in your words, they can put two and two together.

Posted by: Thanee Mar 4 2007, 08:53 AM

Spells, like elementals, probably have some visual effect in astral space, which is also visible to much lesser extent physically. A high force effect has a more noticable effect.

Bye
Thanee

Posted by: the_dunner Mar 4 2007, 01:52 PM

QUOTE (Eleazar)

The problem here is the specific cues.

Several people have already given examples of specific cues, but I'll reiterate just in case

The hair on the back of their neck stands up.
They feel a cold chill in the air.
A shiver runs up their spine.
They get a sudden rash of goosebumps.
They feel their ears burning.
There's an odd tingle in the air.
They suddenly feel their gut wrench.
They get an aching feeling from your bones.
They see a movement out of the corner of their eye, when they turn their head, nothing's there.

Basically, any of the classical sensations associated with a paranormal experience. Any of these sensations should be things that are internalized, and the actual experience could probably vary from character to character.

Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 4 2007, 02:13 PM

I have no problem with the spell being noticed, or possibly being noticed.

My question about the whole issue is, could a mundane who noticed something be able to tell who cast the spell, if there are no obvious clues (lightning bolt, power bolt, etc..)?

Example: Mage in the mall, in the food court, apparently listening intently to his spouse critize him. If he casts Mind Probe on a secretary as they walk by (to get the travel itiniary, new password, who has won the ABC contract, etc..). Even if a large number of mundanes noticed, would any be able to ID the hen pecked husband as the mage?

Posted by: knasser Mar 4 2007, 02:15 PM

From a piece of Shadowrun fiction I wrote:

QUOTE

Suddenly it felt as though the world had opened up, that the sky was just a shell and there was another, colder universe just out of sight. The girl in the leathers was still smiling at him, but there was something alien about her now. He shivered as her eyes tracked forms he couldn't see.

But then I portray magic in my game as something sinister and enclosing.

Posted by: djinni Mar 4 2007, 05:39 PM

QUOTE (Mistwalker)

Even if a large number of mundanes noticed, would any be able to ID the hen pecked husband as the mage?

think of it like "a ghost"
some people see it others don't.
everyone "sees" it differently.

in your example you have to ask, do you want a real world situation? or a cinematic one.

Posted by: HullBreach Mar 4 2007, 05:50 PM

This would make for an interesting optional rule for 'covert casting'. If a mage wants to cast without drawing notice, I could see giving them a small penalty. However on the other hand, if they make a big show of it (hand gestures chanting etc.) I could see giving them a small bonus.

The happy medium would be somewhere in between with a small hand gesture and some muttering.

Posted by: Eleazar Mar 4 2007, 10:37 PM

QUOTE (the_dunner @ Mar 4 2007, 08:52 AM)

QUOTE (Eleazar @ Mar 4 2007, 02:19 AM)

The problem here is the specific cues.

Several people have already given examples of specific cues, but I'll reiterate just in case

The hair on the back of their neck stands up.
They feel a cold chill in the air.
A shiver runs up their spine.
They get a sudden rash of goosebumps.
They feel their ears burning.
There's an odd tingle in the air.
They suddenly feel their gut wrench.
They get an aching feeling from your bones.
They see a movement out of the corner of their eye, when they turn their head, nothing's there.

So I am guessing all of these cues would be directed towards the caster. Otherwise they could mean anything to a mundane. Even with these cues, why does the mundane feel it is magic causing them? Not being able to actually observe anything, what indicates it as magic in use to them? A lot of these cues can easily be doubted as even being real to the mundane or any sort of concrete way to know magic has just been noticed. The RAW paints a picture of noticing magic that is unmistakable to anyone who makes the test. It would be the same as succeeding in a perception test to see a pressure plate. The specific cues you and others gave are smothered with ambiguity and fail to fully answer the question of exactly how the mundane knows it is magic. Such feelings could be caused by many other things. What takes the mundane from observing/feeling these specific cues and leads them to believe magic is being used?

Things like hand gestures, chanting, shamanic mask, and flashy effects make perfect sense. Yet there is nothing to indicate magic being used for your average hermetic without flashy effects and geasa. At least, this is the way it appears. The rules say differently, so where is the fluff that goes along with it.

All of the specific cues mentioned are very acceptable, inventive, and well thought out. But how, as a GM do you explain the situation. I mean, there is something called suspension of belief. Can a GM really expect a player to believe a mundane NPC knew they were casting magic because shivers went up their spine? I understand that currently it is all we have to work with in this sort of situation unless the GM house rules that all spells can manifest physically and thus be perceived.

Looking at it in another way, why wouldn't a mundane always notice someone shooting a lightning bolt out of their hands. I mean a lightning bolt is a lightning bolt whether it is force 1 or force 10. Albeit it might be smaller and harder to see but no way is something like that not going to be seen. Especially when there is a low amount of light. All in all, I have to say this is a rule that needs some tweaking and some way to account for all spells with believability. If that means giving everyone in the Sixth World some sort of "sixth sense", which these specific cues seem to be leading to, then so be it.

Posted by: Trigger Mar 4 2007, 10:49 PM

My thoughts on this is that all magic that a regular mage does takes some sort movement/ speech/ something for the mage to able to direct its will properly to complete the spell. Sure, magic can be done without any signs by the caster, but it is going to be a lot harder on the mage than normal and is probably not going to come out as powerful as if they had done physical part of the casting. The movements aren't neccesary but they help a whole lot. I would grant penalties to mages who try to cast without any signs, also a penalty on the perception test of anyone trying to notice the mage casting. Though I don't know about doing it the other way around, as some movement will help a mage, but anything more is just being excessive and will only get the mage spotted quicker.

Posted by: the_dunner Mar 4 2007, 11:47 PM

QUOTE (Eleazar)

So I am guessing all of these cues would be directed towards the caster. Otherwise they could mean anything to a mundane. Even with these cues, why does the mundane feel it is magic causing them?

Well, it's been 60 years since the awakening. There's been a fair bit of writing in pop culture about how to recognize when your next door neighbor is trying to hex your dog, seduce your spouse, or get rich quick using alchemy. No doubt there are grade school classes that cover the basics on how to recognize magic use. Some of these would probably be instrumental in detecting children who had greater potential for awakening later.

QUOTE

Not being able to actually observe anything, what indicates it as magic in use to them?

All the examples that I gave indicate it. If the character makes a perception test, then they noticed something. At this point, I think you're either being deliberately obtuse or just trolling.

QUOTE

The specific cues you and others gave are smothered with ambiguity and fail to fully answer the question of exactly how the mundane knows it is magic.

No. They're smothered in ambiguity in modern times. Modern times where we do not have magic. In a world where magic has been in active use for 60 years, they have a meaning that's abundantly clear.

QUOTE

Can a GM really expect a player to believe a mundane NPC knew they were casting magic because shivers went up their spine?

Yes, absolutely. Remember, magic has been back for 60 years. It's kind of like asking somebody today how they know that there are TV signals being broadcast through the air if they haven't turned on a TV. (Well, kind of. It's not a great example, but it's what I can come up with.)

QUOTE

Looking at it in another way, why wouldn't a mundane always notice someone shooting a lightning bolt out of their hands.

Because the lightning doesn't have to shoot out of their hands. The lightning strike happens to the target, it doesn't have to arc from the caster to the target. In D&D, it's explicitly spelled out that a magic-user physically throws a fireball or a mage holds his hands just so to launch a magic missile. That's not the case in Shadowrun. For example:

QUOTE (SR4 Core p. 197)

These spells create an explosion of flames that flash into existence and scorch the target(s). These spells deal Fire damage

In Shadowrun, the lightning bolt could just erupt from the heavens, a nearby lightbulb, or a power outlet. Similarly, a Shadowrun fireball could just form and explode on the oil drum next to the target. The one that had a bullet ricochet off of it a fraction of a second earlier.

Does that make a little more sense?

Posted by: Eleazar Mar 5 2007, 12:00 AM

QUOTE (the_dunner)

All the examples that I gave indicate it. If the character makes a perception test, then they noticed something. At this point, I think you're either being deliberately obtuse or just trolling.

Are there any more insults you would like to throw into this objective discussion I am trying to have with the Dumpshock community?

Posted by: Konsaki Mar 5 2007, 12:05 AM

QUOTE (Eleazar)

QUOTE (the_dunner @ Mar 4 2007, 06:47 PM)

All the examples that I gave indicate it. If the character makes a perception test, then they noticed something. At this point, I think you're either being deliberately obtuse or just trolling.

Are there any more insults you would like to throw into this objective discussion I am trying to have with the Dumpshock community?

*Brzzt* Oh... I'm sorry, but thanks for playing 'Call Out'. the_dunner hasn't actually insulted you yet, so that means you lose the game. The exit is just over there. Have a nice day.

Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 5 2007, 01:03 AM

@ the Dunner

I have no problem with mundanes being able to notice that magic is being done.
What I would like to know, is, would they be able to notice who was doing the magic, if the caster was being discreet?

Posted by: djinni Mar 5 2007, 03:11 AM

QUOTE (Mistwalker)

What I would like to know, is, would they be able to notice who was doing the magic, if the caster was being discreet?

ask yourself "why not?"
instead of wondering if they can find evidence and discussion to prove to yourself that they cannot.

Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 5 2007, 03:14 AM

I can live with it either way.

The caster could have that otherwordly "feeling" about them as they cast, the same way that spirits are noticible (unless using special powers).

I just wanted to know what the official, or semi-official ruling is. That will allow me to design adventures in a way that is more inline with the RAW.

Posted by: DireRadiant Mar 5 2007, 03:37 AM

You make a perception test, you succeed. What do you see?

You see MAGIC!...

You see someone shoot someone, do we have rules in the book for exactly what you see about the gun in the hand, the bullet leaving the barrel, the explosive gases leaving the barrel, the bullet spinnng as it flies through the air, the tears int eh flsh as it strikes the target, the blood and bones being destroyed?

Or do you just tell the player, "You see so and so shoot someone?"

If the player really wants to know what the heck magic effect they noticed, I'd simply ask, "Well, what do you think magic looks like? That's what you see!"

Or we can come up with about 32 pages of magic perception rules and the neat special effects for each spell and tradition.

Posted by: toturi Mar 5 2007, 03:55 AM

QUOTE (Konsaki)

QUOTE (Eleazar @ Mar 5 2007, 09:00 AM)

QUOTE (the_dunner @ Mar 4 2007, 06:47 PM)

All the examples that I gave indicate it. If the character makes a perception test, then they noticed something. At this point, I think you're either being deliberately obtuse or just trolling.

Are there any more insults you would like to throw into this objective discussion I am trying to have with the Dumpshock community?

*Brzzt* Oh... I'm sorry, but thanks for playing 'Call Out'. the_dunner hasn't actually insulted you yet, so that means you lose the game. The exit is just over there. Have a nice day.

Given that he just accused a moderator of insulting him (when most of us wouldn't have thought that dunner's post was insulting, harsh but not insulting) and that moderator is one of the guys in charge of the official SR4 campaign (which means his house rules/rules interpretations, to me, are as good as RAW itself), well... you do not argue with God. Not if you want to work in this town.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 5 2007, 04:50 AM

A certain amount of story telling is going to have to go into describing the effects of any spell. Like the dunner said, a fireball can simply spring in to being right at it's target. It can also vary from tradition.

As an example, there's a part in one of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books (I think book 7 or so, when the Aes Sedai are casting along side with women they foudn in the port that had all been runaways, against the Seanchan, sorry can't remember what they called he group). Anyways, the Aes Sedai, when they threew fireballs, would wind up liek they were chucking a basebasll, and throw the ball of fire. Where as the other women, who were used to having to cast in secret, just stood there while balls of fire erupted out of no where and sped at the target.

So there is no clear cut "This is what happens" because there is no preset and determined way magic works for everyone in shadowrun. It varies by tradition, it varies within tradition, it varies by force, possibly by what foci are being used. Take what suggestinos have been given here, incorporate a few of your own,and see what you can make. Make something that works with your interpretation of the world.

Posted by: Eleazar Mar 5 2007, 04:57 AM

QUOTE (toturi)

QUOTE (Konsaki @ Mar 5 2007, 08:05 AM)

QUOTE (Eleazar @ Mar 5 2007, 09:00 AM)

QUOTE (the_dunner @ Mar 4 2007, 06:47 PM)

All the examples that I gave indicate it. If the character makes a perception test, then they noticed something. At this point, I think you're either being deliberately obtuse or just trolling.

Are there any more insults you would like to throw into this objective discussion I am trying to have with the Dumpshock community?

*Brzzt* Oh... I'm sorry, but thanks for playing 'Call Out'. the_dunner hasn't actually insulted you yet, so that means you lose the game. The exit is just over there. Have a nice day.

Moderators, GMs, or any authority figure for that matter is not a god. Moderator's are humans just like the rest of us. Just because I see Moderator next to someones name does not mean I have to agree with every single opinion they write on these forums. It also doesn't mean I can't discuss these opinions or even debate them. Yes, I realize he has a lot of experience with Shadowrun, much more than myself. The thing I am failing to see with his posts is any indication or implication in the RAW or fluff of Shadowrun supporting his views as far as a mundane noticing magic. It is very possible that he has yet to reveal where he is getting this information, but until this information is present, I really have no way of knowing. He has also to yet, as far as I know, to claim such information can be found in a Shadowrun source.

So far I disagree with the opinions given because I don't feel they adequately explain how a mundane notices the magic. Let me reiterate this again since it seems to have been missed, I am not disagreeing that the magic is noticed. As I said this is very obvious from just reading the RAW. Somethings is being noticed, yes, we all agree here. I want to know what. Currently you would have me believe something that is the equivalent of detecting an enemy with complete invisibility, that has no smell, makes no sound, has no taste, and can't be touched. Yet somehow this enemy is able to be detected through the equivalent of Spiderman's "spider sense". I don't think mundanes have this "spider sense" and this sense in itself sounds rather non mundane to me.

The only time in Shadowrun I can think of where a mundane can even notice magic in a likewise way is when a spirit or astrally projecting character passes through their aura. This fluff makes sense to me. Though to even notice such a thing the NPC would have to be specially trained. It clearly states in the book this isn't something everyone knows, especially not your average joe. So I find it rather unlikely that they would be able to notice magic in the same way as astral detection, unless trained. If such a sense for noticing magic were to even "go off" likewise to something passing through their aura they wouldn't even know how to interpret it. If what the_dunner says about the schools training mundanes to notice magic, then why isn't this done for astral detection? Why do security teams need to be trained for astral detection to realize the tingling feeling is in fact a spirit or an astrally projecting mage? What if the mundanes didn't go to school? Then would that mean they have no way of knowing? Or would they just have to happen upon learning it from the street? The RAW encompasses every single mundane, yet your example could leave a great degree of mundanes without the adequate knowledge to be capable of interpreting the tingling. The RAW doesn't state such an education is necessary to notice magic, otherwise it would have stated noticing magic is something open for interpretation, relying on the proper education of the mundane to notice the magic.

Lastly, do not try to tell me when or when not I have been insulted. This is what the_dunner said,

"All the examples that I gave indicate it. If the character makes a perception test, then they noticed something. At this point, I think you're either being deliberately obtuse or just trolling."

This wasn't in anyway necessary. At the very worst he is directly calling me deliberately obtuse or a troll. At the very best he is suggesting I am being deliberately obtuse or a troll if I disagree with him. Either way you look at it is an insult. Though if the latter were true then he would have said,

"At this point IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME, I think you're either being deliberately obtuse or just trolling."

Since this was not said or even implied the former is all I have to go by. Not only that, it was rather obvious from the discussion that the_dunner and I have been in disagreement. So yes, I take this as an insult. I can't see any other purpose or reason the_dunner would have for even putting such a statement in his post to begin with. It wasn't even necessary to get his point across, nor very effective for that matter. If this is not an insult then maybe one of you members that knows the_dunner's personality can educate me on exactly how this isn't an insult. Yes, I am actually being serious.

Lastly, I am not trying to troll; I just don't agree with everything said. I most definitely do not think anyone here is an idiot or incapable of providing an intelligent answer to my questions or comments. I realize many of you here are long time Dumpshock members and a respect your opinions. Just because someone disagrees with another person is no reason for hostility towards that person and it doesn't mean the person in disagreement thinks lesser of anyone they disagree with. In a discussion and especially a debate people will disagree. I am sure most of you feel this last paragraph is unnecessary, but I just want to make sure I am not being misunderstood.

Posted by: mfb Mar 5 2007, 05:00 AM

QUOTE (Eleazar)

Yet there is nothing to indicate magic being used for your average hermetic without flashy effects and geasa.

you've said this several times. where is it backed up in the rules? the fact that it's so easy to notice magic says, to me, that high-end magic does have some sort of flashy or otherwise easily-noticed effects, no matter who casts it.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 5 2007, 05:01 AM

Actually I thought most of the rest of the post was unecessary. If you want to discuss the issue, then discuss the issue. Don't spend a very long post saying why you're upset.

Posted by: hyzmarca Mar 5 2007, 05:07 AM

According to the RAW, a mundane noticing a spell being cast would notice the intense look of concentration. For a big spell, this is a very big look of concentration A Force 10 stunbolt is going to produce a DBZ constipation squint or something equivalent in the vast majority of magicians because manipulating the massive amount of mana required to power a Force 10 spell takes an extraordinary amount of concentration.

I'll suggest checking out a television series called Heroes for a good example of this. The character known as Hiro has the power to teleport and stop time, but ding so requires a great deal of concentration. Although no one but him can be aware of what happens when he stops time, it is quite obvious when he is about to do so because of his intense look of concentration, a giant DBZ constipation squint, which precedes the timestop by a couple of seconds.

Posted by: Eleazar Mar 5 2007, 05:07 AM

QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0)

Yep, this sounds like this best advice that can be given considering my POV. Unless of course someone has something else in mind. I think the best way for this ends up being the easiest. This would be to do what Thanee said and have it show up visibly when the force gets so high. Even though the description in noticing magic says that spirits and spells have little, if any visible effect in the physical world. The example for noticing the spell is actually them not noticing the spell or the effect of it, but noticing the spell being "worked up". So it doesn't agree completely with the RAW, but I like it.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 5 2007, 05:13 AM

You could also take the Final Fantasy approach if you'd like. Some aura of magic springs in to being or some such.

Posted by: apollo124 Mar 5 2007, 05:35 AM

How about a sudden feeling of dread for no apparent reason? I know this sounds like the old "shivers down the spine" thing, but I think it would work. Magic might be noticeable to a mundane by feeling a sudden, inexplicable tightness in their breathing or feeling of terror or heat, cold, static electricity. Someone might feel the spell beginning to work on their brain (illusions and mind affecting spells) or their body (calcify, levitate, treat, etc..)

Posted by: Eleazar Mar 5 2007, 05:38 AM

QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Mar 5 2007, 12:01 AM)

Actually I thought most of the rest of the post was unecessary. If you want to discuss the issue, then discuss the issue. Don't spend a very long post saying why you're upset.

***THIS POST IS ONLY ANSWERING fistandantilus3.0 post as quoted***
***You don't have to read this.***

In my point of view it was necessary due to others getting involved in the situation, then making statements I interpreted to be false, thus, in my mind, requiring a response. Sure I could have chosen to say nothing, but I didn't see that as an option due to the circumstances. I can assure you that I would very much like to not have to post anymore on those matters. But, if another post revisits said circumstances, I would find it necessary to give response.

The only reason I felt it necessary to even explain myself was due to my statements being questioned and/or portrayed as baseless in the first place.

I apologize for your inconvenience, though I can't assure you I wouldn't act in the same demeanor if such circumstances were to arise again. In the future I will have the courtesy to give warning in the post and mark off the section which deals with a sidebar discussion. Hopefully this will be sufficient as to not inconvenience you or others a second time in the unfortunate event such a response becomes necessary.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 5 2007, 05:43 AM

You can just PM me if you'd like to keep it private.

The best way to avoid an arguement, is to simply avoid an arguement.

Don't feed the fire, just move on. I know it's easier said than done at times, but please do try. That pretty much goes for everyone.

Posted by: Ravor Mar 5 2007, 07:01 AM

Well I do remember reading in the Fluff mages going on and on about how that although most mage do make gestures, chant, ect, that it is possible to kill with a mere glance, so personally I think I'd tend towards the mundane getting a 'spidey sense', and here is why;

It is my understanding from reading about Earthdawn that as the mana levels rise everyone will awaken in one way or another, so although a mundane isn't considered awakened at the current mana levels, the gathering of mana needed for those big spells is enough to spark the deeply hidden seed of magic that is actually inside us all. At least enough to notice where the spell came from if he made his perception check.

Posted by: Thane36425 Mar 5 2007, 07:20 AM

The way I handle was that mana spells were very hard, if not impossible to see. Physical spells, slighlty more obvious. Indirect spells that require a roll to hit probably are visible, particularly since SR3 and earlier said that the spells were affected by physical barriers and the like.

So, a mage throwing a stunbolt would exhibit the look of concentration. If powerful enough, say Force 6 and up, there might be a slight distortion around the casting mage. A Powerbolt spell would be a little more noticable. Throwing a fireball would probably look like throwing a baseball as mentioned above. That presentatin could vary with tradition and personal tastes. One mage might actually throwing burning red baseballs while another threw flaming green skulls, while one with a sense of humor could throw smiley faces with slight variations for the spell in question.

Posted by: toturi Mar 5 2007, 07:44 AM

QUOTE (Eleazar)

Which part of "which means his house rules/rules interpretations, to me, are as good as RAW itself" was unclear?

He might even be scrapping it off the walls, but since he is one of the guys in charge of SRM, I'd give his opinions as much weight as I would give a SR4 writer. And since to me, RAW=Canon, then SRM guy=writer=voice of God

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Mar 5 2007, 08:52 AM

So you are hearing voices, then?

Posted by: DireRadiant Mar 5 2007, 03:04 PM

How does a character hear a sound?
How does a character see something?
How does a character feel something?
How does a character taste something?
How does a character sense magic?

It's not described in the book!

It's a new sense for a new thing, Magic!

I can't figure out what to tell the character because I personally can't sense magic myself, so I must ask other people if they can tell me what they see when they see magic!

Posted by: Konsaki Mar 5 2007, 03:39 PM

To my knowledge, all a mage has to do to cast a spell, barring any geas, is see/touch the area/target and concentrate.

That being said, IMO, any mundane who notices a spell has been cast would perceive the effects of the spell, but probably wouldn't know who cast the spell unless it was plainly obvious. (IE the mage is the only one there or the mage touched the target)
The inderect combat spells just say the effect happens at the target and nothing about having the effect start at the caster and run to the target. Here is a quote from the Flamethrower and Fireball spells.

QUOTE

These spells create an explosion of flames that flash into existence and scorch the target(s). These spells deal Fire damage (see p. 155).
These flames burn out after striking the target, but their secondary effects may ignite flammable materials that will continue to burn after the spell is exhausted.
Flamethrower is a single target spell, while Fireball is an area spell.

Nothing in there about a line of fire or throwing a ball of fire. IMO, alot of people see 'Magic' and automaticly think the effects work the same as D&D magic, which isnt how magic in SR works. At least that's my two CAS cents.

Posted by: knasser Mar 5 2007, 07:02 PM

QUOTE (toturi)

You might. I certainly wouldn't. There is no authority attached to being a developer or a moderator. More experience in the former case, more power in the latter. But reason to accept something disagreed with? Not at all.

Posted by: Kenshi Mar 5 2007, 09:21 PM

I love threads like this!

Bottomline: You can't make a rule for absolutely everything. It all comes down to GM discretion. There are a lot of great suggestions in this thread but in the end, it's up to how you want to interpret the rules. Do you want to have mundanes be able to see magic? There's no reason to get upset because you're not getting the answer you want.

Posted by: Thane36425 Mar 5 2007, 09:28 PM

QUOTE (Kenshi)

That's a good point. Take Shamanic Masks. In SR4, the rules say you can have it or not. In the old versions, you always did and it always showed, to one degree or another. I usually played with a variant that you could show it or not.

For exmple: If you were in a hostage situation with multiple targets, a Shamanic Mask showing up would get you killed. The Totem would know this and it stands to reason would allow the effect to be suppressed to keep the Shaman alive if they took action. On the other hand, the mask could be exaggerated for shock effect to frighten the enemy.

In the first case, having some of their number start dropping would be a shock, but they would soon figure out it was magic. The Shaman would be much harder to pick out of the hostages without his head looking like an animal.

In the second case, if confronted by a bunch of gangers or a group of like quality, a Shaman's Mask would leave no doubt that they faced a mage. Seeing that lone person's features suddenly change into a human animal hybrid with magic crackling all around them could very well make them turn tail and run.

Posted by: Spike Mar 5 2007, 09:40 PM

Well, I'm going to have to do some reading in order to really sink my teeth into this, but I'll weigh in with opinion to get my hat in the ring.

To me it's reasonably sensible. While Geasa and such are necessary if you have them, that isn't to say they don't exist for mages who don't have them.

If a simple perception check can show a mundane who has just cast a spell, even one that is techically 'invisible' then obviously there is something to see other than 'squinty face'.

Mages naturally will make hand gestures, maybe get a bit of mana-glow or some such, even may say something, without thinking about it. Casting magic without doing any of these things is possible, certainly. Cue debates on how hard/easy it should be for a bound and gagged mage to cast their mojo about.

But it's not natural or easy to do 'nothing' when summoning all that mojo and forcing it into shape. It would be impossible to actually do it while carrying on a normal conversation. The perception check means the mage DID do something distinctly magelike, and the guy that rolled noticed it. Doesn't matter if the mage was trying to do 'nothing obvious'. They started focusing on their magic and lost track of 'keeping hands steady and 'not chanting the third lay of fuck a brutha up' and the rest is history.

Posted by: eidolon Mar 6 2007, 12:15 AM

Interesting take. I tend along the "subtle ripples of mana cause your hair to stand up on end" or some such than anything physical on the caster's part. Really though, all that matters mechanically is that there is something to notice and that you can notice it. The whats and hows are GM purview and immaterial to the fact IMO. Fill it in with what you like and move on to other things. Like the whats and hows of how you're going to geek the mage you just noticed casting.

Posted by: Mistwalker Mar 6 2007, 04:57 AM

Ah, but that is part of the issue.

You notice something, but do you notice "who" just cast the spell, or just that a spell was cast?

I think I will go with noticing the spell, but not necessarilty knowing who cast it.

Posted by: Konsaki Mar 6 2007, 09:21 AM

I would just say that you know that a spell was cast and maybe who was the target of the spell based on a shimmer. I wouldn't give away who cast the spell unless there was a geas involved or it's just plainly obvious that no one else could have casted it. (IE the mage is the only one there in the room with you)

Posted by: eidolon Mar 6 2007, 02:29 PM

QUOTE (Mistwalker)

Depends on the situation.

Posted by: azrael_ven Mar 6 2007, 04:32 PM

Here is my take as a GM. A physical spell would be quite obvious at higher force because it manifest on the physical plane. Mana spells would be obvious on the target at higher levels, especially the damage variety, because of the effect. Force 10 stunbolt, mage uses edge, gets +8 net hits doing 18 damage will cause blood to pure from victims orifices. This amount of magic power would definite rip through the astral and physical saying magic is in use. People's heads don't usually implode on their own for no reason. I like the DBZ focus that someone came up with. I think in the case mention above the mage definitely would have made a brick in his pants, giving an odor aspect to the visual concentration required. Mental activity at high levels usually have some sort of physical connection. Zoning completely out with a blank stare, to sweating profusely, a slight rocking back and forth, to maybe even a twitching of the eye rapidly. Each person would exhibit something that fits their character.

I think that what is at question here are people's different RPG experience. Some systems spell out everything, while other leave more to GM interpretation. Everything really comes down to having fun to me. Any time rules start to get in the way of role-playing and storytelling, I think it is time to bend them some. Well, there is my 2¥ worth.

-- You wanted an argument? Oh, I'm sorry, but this is abuse, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor

Posted by: Konsaki Mar 6 2007, 04:35 PM

Nice Monty Python reference there.

Posted by: eidolon Mar 6 2007, 06:26 PM

But you're not arguing, you're just contradicting me.

Posted by: Konsaki Mar 6 2007, 06:33 PM

But that is the start of an argument... Either that or we have to have a misunderstanding to start one off.

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Mar 6 2007, 07:09 PM

Uh... per RAW p. 168, you don't notice magic.
You notice someone using magical skills.

Posted by: DireRadiant Mar 6 2007, 07:57 PM

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)

Uh... per RAW p. 168, you don't notice magic.
You notice someone using magical skills.

"Noticing if someone is using a magical skill requires a
Perception Test (p. 117) with a threshold equal to 6 minus the
magic’s Force—more powerful magic is easier to spot. Th e gamemaster
should apply additional modifi ers as appropriate, or if
the perceiver is Awakened themselves (+2 dice), astrally perceiving
(+2 dice), or if a shamanic mask is evident (+2 dice)."

Posted by: Rotbart van Dainig Mar 6 2007, 08:34 PM

Indeed.

Posted by: DireRadiant Mar 6 2007, 08:39 PM

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)

Indeed.

Now we are going to get questions asking what using a magical skill looks like though.

It does get by the whole, what does magic look like, and some of the spell/magical effects issues, but it ends up being the same thing in the end. What does using something none of us have any idea looks like, look like?

While I enjoy the challenge and latitude to make visceral and fun descriptive imaginative flavor to my games, apparently some others want more.

Posted by: Konsaki Mar 6 2007, 08:40 PM

QUOTE (BBB Pg 54)

That being said, we urge you to appreciate the rules in Shadowrun for what they are and not stress out when they don’t simulate real life perfectly or fail to take into account certain conditions or factors. If something in these rules doesn’t quite fit or make sense to you, feel free to change it. If you come up with a game mechanic that you think works better—go for it!

QUOTE (BBB Pg 54)

When the rules get in the way of the story, ignore the rules and tell the story.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 6 2007, 08:42 PM

I love that last one

Posted by: Kenshi Mar 6 2007, 10:20 PM

QUOTE (DireRadiant)

What does using something none of us have any idea looks like, look like?

Imagination. It's a wonderful thing. (Sorry if I sound sarcastic, but that's kind of the point of the whole game.)

Posted by: hyzmarca Mar 6 2007, 10:28 PM

QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0 @ Mar 6 2007, 03:42 PM)

I love that last one

Its sort of like writing a Western in which the protagonist's horse draws a gun and shoots down the seemingly victorious bad guy just in the nick of time.

Sure, the rules say that horses don't have hands, but there is no reason to let that get in the way of the story.

Of course, the rules you set up are a necessary part of the story. To ignore them is to lie to the audience. You don't suddenly decide that horses have the ability to fire guns in the middle of an otherwise genre-standard Western.

In the case of an RPG, ignoring the rules to help the story isn't just lying, it's cheating.

If the BBB says intense concentration, then that is what I'm going to go with, The character can't be sure that the intense concentration is from magic use and can't tell what magic is being used, and I like that.

Posted by: Konsaki Mar 6 2007, 10:33 PM

It wasnt a horse at all, it was the protagonist's sidekicks in a horse costume.

Posted by: eidolon Mar 7 2007, 03:13 AM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

Its sort of like writing a Western in which the protagonist's horse draws a gun and shoots down the seemingly victorious bad guy just in the nick of time.

And that just begs the old "common sense: how much do you have, and how much should you use" argument.

Saying that the lack of a specific rule gives carte blanche for pointless ludicrousness has never been a very strong argument in my opinion.

Posted by: hyzmarca Mar 7 2007, 04:44 AM

QUOTE (eidolon)

QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Mar 6 2007, 04:28 PM)

Its sort of like writing a Western in which the protagonist's horse draws a gun and shoots down the seemingly victorious bad guy just in the nick of time.

I wasn't referring to the lack of a specific rule. I was referring to a rule that says you can ignore any and all rules for the sake of the "story".

Common sense doesn't factor into it. If the pre-established rule is changed or ignored mid-story, that's just bad storytelling. Good storytelling builds on what has already been established and establishes everything important long before it is actually important.

However, in this specific case the lack of a specific rule does give cart blanch.
RPG that is set in the real world, very few rules need to be explained because we are all familiar with the real world. However, Shadowrun contains powerful aspects of fantasy and in a fantasy world anything is possible. Specific rules are necessary when dealing with fantasy aspects of a story.

http://www.watt-evans.com/playinggod.html

QUOTE

In fantasy, you don't know what the rules are until the author tells you. Corpses might well get up and walk when enough moons are in the sky. Guns might only fire if the right spell is said. And a dropped rock might go anywhere. You can't be sure that the sun will rise, that the Earth is round, anything, until the author tells you.

However, while this might seem like a magnificent freedom for the author, it isn't really. If anything, it's a nuisance, a disadvantage--because it means you have to explain the rules to the reader as you go along, without any boring lectures, and you have to do it fairly.

You don't need to do that in other genres, not the same way.

Because Shadowrun is based in an alternate version of the real world, it fills in many of its own blanks. Most people understand enough about computers to understand the matrix, vehicle rules are complex but the vehicles aren't any different from modern vehicles, guns are still guns, and even cyberware has some basis in reality.
Magic, on the other hand, is completely different. In te absence of a specific rule, there is nothing stopping anyone from making stuff up. There is no need for realism because magic isn't real.

However, in this case the rules are quite specific. The only issue is that some people don't like the rule.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 7 2007, 05:51 AM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

In the case of an RPG, ignoring the rules to help the story isn't just lying, it's cheating.

Technically, since ignoring the rules is a rule, it can't be cheating. but that's just annoying semantics. No, the reason I like that statement isn't because you can bypass what ever you want on Gm fiat. I like it because it gives you the freedom to make things out of the norm. You can create things that normally wouldn't work. Some of the most spectacular events are from things that break the rules.

Examples: AI, leonardo, Quicksilver's deck, Dragons (higher Sorcery rating in SR4 as an example), the original otaku.

Now if you don't like those things, then ignore everything I'm saying, it doesn't apply to you, and that's just fine. But for me, as both a player anda GM, I like those things that defy the convention a bit. Spices things up for me. Especially as a player, it gives me a kick to be able to still win when things come out that you don't expect, while still playing by the rule . Kind of an "against the odds" thing. I also am a fan of the occasional exception for players while I'm GMing. Things like the dead man's trigger before there were rules for it, a PC going berserk in an appropriate time, or giving someone a couple of extra dice for a really well described, daredevil type attempt at something. But once again, that may just be me. I like games that break the mold occassionaly.

Posted by: toturi Mar 7 2007, 07:00 AM

QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0)

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

In the case of an RPG, ignoring the rules to help the story isn't just lying, it's cheating.

Therefore you should ignore the rule ignoring the rules, if you want to use it at all. If you do not, then it is cheating.

Posted by: mfb Mar 7 2007, 07:36 AM

QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0)

Examples: AI, leonardo, Quicksilver's deck, Dragons (higher Sorcery rating in SR4 as an example), the original otaku.

i think there's a difference between things which fall outside the rules, and things which break the rules. AIs fall outside the rules. handwaving the 10-success headshot that the sam hit your NPC with because you wanted to use that NPC later, i would call breaking the rules.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Mar 7 2007, 08:28 AM

I agree. I don't think that 's what the statement is intended for and I'd hit anyone that did this with my BBB. Assuming they're within book-smacking distance of course. Some of the coolest games I've seen where ones where the Big Bad Villian bought it in a very quick and unexpected way. I don't think the "ignore rules" rule should ever be used in a way that totally screws the PCs. Defeats the whole purpose of the game.

Posted by: mfb Mar 7 2007, 07:29 PM

cool. just clarifying.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Mar 8 2007, 11:06 PM

In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, I don't think that using magic "looks like" anything. It doesn't show up on film, and it doesn't go out over the trid phone.

People get a perception test to notice sorcery. But there's no perception test to notice sorcery that has been recorded. People are alive and a little bit in tune with Astral Space whether they are currently astrally perceiving or not. Awakened people, who are more in tune with magic, have a correspondingly easier time detecting its use.

But the sense you are detecting it with isn't "sight" or "taste" it's your "living sense" - more like your "empathy". There's no modifier to your chance to notice Sorcery just because you've never seen sorcery in yor whole life - it's instinctual. It's a sense you never use, but as soon as you're confronted with something in it there is no doubt in your mind.

If a man casts a Force 6 Manabolt, another man will fall over dead. And every single other person in the room will know who did it. But it won't "look like" anything.

-Frank

Posted by: Konsaki Mar 9 2007, 01:13 AM

Shows the 'Physical Mask/Trid/Entertainment' spells to Frank.
They do show up on film, cameras and other media if the spell is designed for it. Things like Fireball and other indirect combat spells should be the same since they are dealing with real elements that can be caught on video in real life.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Mar 9 2007, 02:09 AM

QUOTE (Konsaki)

The effects show up on film yes. But the casting does not. If you use control thoughts to get a man to rob a bank - the bank robbery will show up on film. The arcane lines of domination moving from your aura to the targets won't.

When you are a person who happens to be near someone who is casting trid phantasm, you know that they cast a spell. But a man looking at a video camera does not get that knowledge - nor does someone who walks into a room where a phantasm spell is being sustained.

Living people are entitled to a perception test any time someone casts a spell within their vicinity to know that they did that. And that test is extremely easy for even moderately powerful magic.

-Frank

Posted by: Konsaki Mar 9 2007, 02:52 AM

Ok, I agree with you there. I think I misread the previous post. My apologies.

Posted by: Habzial Mar 9 2007, 03:50 AM

In regards to the original topic:

A successful sorcery perception test means, in that single instance, a mundane correctly determined that sorcery had been used based on what s/he could perceive. It does not require that a mundane must be capable of sensing magic or even recognizing magic on a regular basis. Think about perception tests from the opposite point of view. A failed visual perception test, for example, doesn't mean someone is blind. It just means at the time they could notice something visually they failed to do so.

Now, if you're hung up on delving into how a mundane noticed, I can think of two appropriate ways...

The first has already been said: intense concentration. The signs of this could be veins popping out on the forehead, the arteries in the eyes standing out, breaking into a sweat, audibly straining (a quiet, sustained groan for example), physically shaking, gritted teeth, and so on.

Remember, although a mage is not physically doing anything to cast a spell, the act of doing so is very taxing on the body. Outside of decking/rigging, there is no activity a mundane can perform with their mind that causes stun damage. It stands to reason that magic use is the most taxing mental activity possible without mechanical aid. Add to that the fact that a spell only takes 2 or 3 seconds to cast. It's not unreasonable to believe that a mundane could perceive magic use under these conditions.

Your character sees a woman turn deep red and, almost simultaneously, a security guard falls over. She doesn't seem surprised. Your character passes his sorcery perception test. All that success means is that your character correctly determines, based on the course of events and/or woman's behavior afterwards, that the woman has cast a spell. If your character failed the perception test, s/he might simply be confused about what just happened

Perception is not about your senses working properly. Perception is the proper interpretation of the data fed to you by your senses.

Now, if you don't like that, there's an alternate approach that might work.

First, remember that all mundanes are capable of perceiving things which occur on the astral. They are vastly inferior to awakened beings, but that doesn't change the fact they can do so. The Wuxing tower, for example, focuses mana flow so effectively that it's visible to mundanes. (Unfortunately I can't recall which book brings that up.) Likewise, there are numerous examples of mundanes' sixth sense being triggered which have already been listed.

Next, consider that things which occur astrally are not directional. You couldn't sneak up from behind a mage's astral form because it doesn't really have sides. Projecting mages are aware of whatever they're capable of being aware of, based solely on astral perception. A mage may "see" another mage's astral form as a troll in medieval armor, but what they are really perceiving is how the person in range sees themselves inside.

So what does this lead to? All mundanes could be treated as having a sixth sense, based on some of the scraps of information provided about the SR universe. They wouldn't see, hear, smell, feel, or taste a spell being cast. Instead, they would sense what happened on a mental level. That's why psychic abilities are called the "sixth sense;" because they are a source of information in addition to the other five senses. Unfortunately, books tend to try to describe magic-based perception in terms of other senses, to help people figure out how to RP it. It tends to lead to people leaping to the conclusion that mages just have better senses than other people instead of an additional sense.

Let's call this sixth sense "psychic perception," just to avoid confusion with existing terms in the book. Treat psychic perception as a completely different sense from the RL five senses. It works like a radiation detector and you are instinctively able to interpret information from it. This will make RPing sorcery perception a great deal easier. Awakened characters have way, way better psychic perception than anyone else and can actively control it. Mundanes have terrible, involuntary psychic perception. Under certain circumstances (or just blind luck), it goes off and they correctly interpret what it tells them.

If you have trouble imagining how it works, treat it as augmenting any of the other senses. Maybe a mundane would interpret the signals from it and imagine seeing the magic. Maybe they'd interpret it by hearing the voice of someone from their childhood shouting what happened and who did it. Maybe they'd just feel a cold chill that gets worse when they look at the caster. The point is, they'd get the information (during a successful test), then their brain would present it to them in a way that they come to the correct conclusion.

I hope that helps.

Posted by: TheOOB Mar 9 2007, 04:39 AM

Heres a question, if someone casts influence on you, and you fail the resistance check but succeed the check to notice they are using magic, what happens?

Posted by: Habzial Mar 9 2007, 04:44 AM

That's a tough question. If I was the GM, I'd rule that you forget you noticed (at least until breaking the spell), because influence forcefully redirects your train of thought as part of how it functions. Still, there's a lot of room for interpretation.

Posted by: TheOOB Mar 9 2007, 04:50 AM

Perhaps you reconize it was magic, but you don't care at the moment. Perhaps later when you're wondering why you did something so stupid, you relize they cast a spell on you right about the time you did something you wouldn't normally do.

Put 2-and-2 together and you get a good vendetta.

Posted by: Habzial Mar 9 2007, 04:55 AM

Yeah, exactly. It's just like any other information you might lose track of... because you suddenly "decide" to patrol somewhere else, despite being in the middle of questioning a trespasser.