Nah, I figured that was just common sense. UMT is kinda terrible, both in-world and from a game design perspective because it removes an interesting facet of the game without adding anything cool in return.

I actually liked the UMT. I actually used it to explain why my elementals were actually sapient rather than automatons.

I also liked the bit from Forbidden Arcana of Chain Breaker. Yeah, you can't bind spirits, but you get two extra spirit types. It fit the concept I had for my Chaos Mage. His personal magic was hermetic, but he belief with spirits was shamanistic.

Elementals, like all spirits, were sapient before UMT.

Correct.
The difference was that Elementals were basically slaves bound by the Hermetic and the Shamans on the spot Spirits were asked nicely to help and let go immediately afterwards.

I spoke a bit fast about the "like all spirits" on second thought, because of things like watchers, or some kind of malveolent entities you can find in the Critters' book from SR3 for example.

I don't know how much nature spirits are not "slaves" too. They had not much choice but to follow your orders, and sometimes it was hardly beneficient for their domains. Many spirits of man have contributed to the utter destruction of the research laboratories they personified.

I actually disagree with this sentiment...

I love UMT...
UMT opens up large vistas of creativity in my opinion. And to be fair, magical practices and traditions are mostly fluff anyways. That is where the interesting alterations take place.

Both disagreeing with that sentiment and loving UMT is certainly your prerogative but then again others certainly have the right to disagree with you (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)



I'd agree with that if UMT had (just) been used to establish a more precise depiction of how SR magic is supposed to work on its (abstract) metaphysics level. Unfortunately UMT instead also interfered with established crunch and fluff and thereby created that image of "robbing without actually giving anything (new)". I'll get back to this a bit further down.



And that's where SR4 and onward failed to actually deliver with how they handled UMT: Instead of maintaing some of the very clear distinctions - part in crunch and part in fluff - between practices and traditions it just created a - to me totally non-interesting - pabulum of "same by different name".

To elaborate a bit further:

UMT on metaphysics level wasn't actually anything new by the time the label itself was used for the first time during the end phase of SR3 and certainly wasn't anything revolutionary when it became the (seemingly new) foundation of SR4 and onward. Prior sources had already told the player that the trappings, techniques and the resulting traditions were actually mental crutches that meta-human magicians used or rather had to use in order to successfully express their magic ability. Certain comments by magical power players like dragons always suggested that the underlying rules - i.e. the actual metaphysics - of magic technically allowed things that meta-human magicians simply couldn't comprehend or use to the fullest extend. Back then it seemed that this was an intended design choice for SR magic that neither players (nor NPCs with very distinct exceptions) should be able to overcome within the setting's lifespan.

Just take a look at bound spirits vs. unbound spirits: Both concepts already existed prior to UMT. Basic crunch on how to conjure either spirit type was pretty much identical just like UMT later said as well. The interesting part came where - on crunch and not just fluff level - the associated mechanics were (seemingly) mutually exclusive in one tradition because all officially depicted traditions always only used one of the mechanics but never both at the same time. Then came SR4 with UMT as the foundation of metaphysics, actual crunch and fluff ... all at the same time. So suddenly all known traditions mixed and matched all available mechanics with next to no limitation and thus ultimately without anything that made them "unique" to a noticable degree. Where it previously was desirable to secure the man-power of say a hermetic or chaos mage for their elementals now any type of magician could provide that "product". So here UMT deprived the game of something and didn't truly add anything worthwhile in return.

I would have had less objections towards UMT if it had been built as a "magic construction kit" on metaphysics level that described all the various magic phenomena that are supposed to be possible within the setting, then provided the crunch for these phenomena and how they can and connot be combined with each other ... and on fluff level (and thus ingame perspective) the whole idea of UMT should have been kept behind the curtain with just some small hint of "more" like what Great Dragons had hinted at every now and then. This would have kept the ongoing "debates" between the various traditions vivid and meaningful just as it would have kept the choice of tradition something truly meaningful for both the narrative and the player.

Agreed.

To go a step further, I think this is a current problem with the game as a whole, I think the fluff after about the mid 2060's suffers horribly. I get that to keep the crowd interested you need to reveal answers and develop the setting, but we've been given so many answers and so few new mysteries that things really feel "solved."

We have answers about horrors, great dragons, the deepest secrets and metaphysical mechanics of magic (UMT). What's there left to wonder about? The lore has reached a point where it needs a reboot. Even the deepest of magical mysteries are now just...mundane.

UMT would be great if it were presented as a flawed theory that has good predictive power, but still failed to explain enough phenomena to gain strong acceptance. You can imply, rightly, that perhaps UMT is true in the fluff, but that some secrets are so deep it'll take forever to unravel them and fully flesh out a true UMT.

Instead, UMT is pretty much "Yep, magic's solved. What's next?" I feel like TARS & Cooper from Interstellar went on a metaplanar quest and came back with the quantum magic black hole data. We've solved gravity magic! UMT for everyone! (Don't get me wrong I loved interstellar, but that was a movie about gaining knowledge. Magic is about the deep unknowable mysteries.)

It's not what "you" think, but we collectively think and therefore each point is open to discussion.

And like traumatic events, emotional content transforms items and locations. This is mechanically evident in background count and magical thesis. To preserve the magical properties, you would instead need to harvest the materials in such a way as not to introduce magical properties (that could potentially conflict with the base properties). In the example of the bear pelt, the raw belt may not have significant properties, but charging it with an energy, which could be at the harvesting stage or at the killing stage, may add usable energy.

I don't know how that would be a detractor if it was true. I also don't know what form of physics describes the transfer of intent and emotional content via action.

That would still make UMT part of the in fiction magic science and that's actually still a situation that I would want them to avoid in a new edition - with or without a reboot - as much as possible.



In terms of describing magic for the player on crunch level (and above) I have nothing against telling him or the gm "Yes, this is how magic works with those faint exceptions that you deliberately create under rule No.1". I'm actually all for telling the player exactly what can and cannot be done on a theoretical level ... just like the list of things that spellcasting is supposed not to be able to accomplish that got outright ignored by a certain writer in a certain SR4 product with a spell that shall not be named now.

Whether you want to call those metaphysics UMT or label them differently is ultimately of no concern but the thing that should not happen (again) is that those metaphysics can be mixed and matched on crunch level without discretion or conflict within the narrative. Even if that metaphysical framework does get an ingame representation that somewhat overthrows previous systems (like shamanism or hermeticism) to a certain extend it should neither completely invalidate them nor be without problems of its own. Think of stuff like Newtonian physics still working fine for many day to day applications and not being completely rendered invalid by Relativity and Relativity still being at (large) odds with Quantum Mechanics.

But I'm explicitly asking you to explain to me why (and where) you think that the existing material would support what you presented as your opinion there. It's you who said that things "should" do this or that ... not an anonymous collective.



Which still has no effect on the "preservation" part when it comes to "magical properties".



The thing there is: those particular transformations not only "preserve" magical properties but technically intensify them further to a point where they outright break analogies to physics that might come to mind.



The important part in all depections I have seen in SR so far wasn't about "not introducing (further) magical properties" but rather about not trying to access the available ones with means that were based on tools derived from highly abstract thinking that ultimately remove the person trying to harvest stuff from the overall equation and thus destroy what the person tried to access.
Come to think of it I now even wonder why the author of that talismongering section didn't include a Comment from the talismonger that went on saying that killing the bear with bare hands in an open fight would result in the best possible result and the axe - as per United Talismonger Association regulations - just was the solution where the results were still deemed acceptable. That would certainly have been a "crazy" spin on the whole thing.



It's just that to my knowledge none of the known source materials ever suggested it in this particular way but very explicitly told the player that certain forms of aide at either the harvesting or the killing stage would render the material less valuable than it was in its prior "living" state. The more technological know-how and economic thinking was involved the less throughput you got (and still get).



Because it's ultimately too one-sided and brings SR magic straight back to the "physics that have yet to be understood" territory which at least the first three editions most definitely tried to avoid ... and something at least I would like to see preserved (pun intended) for whatever comes "next".



Yet you primarily try to use physics and associated analogies to describe such transfers of intent and emotional content via action and go as far as telling me that certain things "should" be this or that.

I apologize, I misread what you said originally. However, I said that "I would argue that it should" which is far less definitive than you are suggesting.

If you look at is a lesser equivalent to background count and a thesis, emotion and trauma contaminate the base properties, perhaps in a negative way (equivalent to normal background count) or a positive way (equivalent to aspected background count).

When a horrible event creates background count, introduces new magical properties. The horror of Auschwitz wasn't laying dormant under the surface of the site until the event, that energy was added to the site and was previously alien to it. It transformed the site. It did not preserve the previously existing qualities; if anything, it destroyed them.

A thesis, a focus, a lodge all behave in the same way. The objects don't have inherent properties, the magician created those properties and imbued them in the object.

I am not following what you are trying to say here.

It's almost explicit in the enchanting section in SR5, page 306 (obtain telesma). The more raw or the more effort put into crafting it, the easier it is to enchant.

I do not follow how a physics-based model for magic leads to it not being understood. I think there are steps in that argument that are missing.

If you want physics minded parallels to magic, I consider magic fairly Newtonian (drain being an equal and opposite reaction to casting a spell). Gravity is not understood in terms of how it works, but the effects are understood. Someone with a better understanding of physics could probably draw more parallels.

No. Nothing on this topic was physics-based until this post. Transfer of intent and emotional content are not physics concepts.

One concept that has been a common element across elements, though perhaps played down in SR5, is that SR magic is belief-driven. It works a certain way because we believe it should, not on an individual level, but collectively. Carl Jung would probably have a field day. Elves have pointy ears because our myths define them as having pointy ears. That in turn leads us to whether our myths are defined by the previous cycle of magic.

You have stated that you don't like UTM, but combining UTM with the belief-driven nature of SR magic, we can look to myths to explain SR magic. I think you can find a common theme in myths that when harvesting magical ingredients, deliberate (sometimes ritual) methodology is required to preserve the properties. Brutality is often associated with carelessness which in turn ruins what was being harvested, or at least diminishes the usable material.

And I'm still asking for the "why". To me your text so far has only provided what you think "should" be the new concept for magic in the theorized next edition. But I haven't seen why you think that what you're arguing for would "make more sense within SR magic's metaphysics" or how it would "create a better game experience".



And what if I do so? What's the goal in terms of the overall metaphysics of SR magic there?



Nothing that was questioned to begin with. One - quite important - question there however is: Why do you think that the permanent background count phenomena is the same underlying magical principle that we're dealing with when talking about the creation / harvesting of "telesma"?



So you're saying that said horror technically turned Auschwitz into a super-sized telesma?



So at this point you should ask yourself: Is your concept really a fit and truly applicable to the collection / creation / harvesting of telesma? My answer should be obvious.



And yet I'd ask again if that particular form of imbuing items with magical properties is or should be truly the same principle within the greater metaphysics of SR magic?




Well, this is an observation based on what the various incarnations of the SR magic rules have very consistantly told the player about what makes magic "tick": SR magic on a very basic level seems to operate under a concept where things must be in some sort of "natural state" in order to make magic usable. This creates the constant dilemma that if you alter that "natural state" you automatically lose at least part of the magic. Yet it's obviously still possible to apply some degree of processing and preserve magical properties to a certain degree. The more archaic you approach things - talismongering in partciular - the better your results are:

• use techniques and technology that are reminiscent of traditional hunter-gatherer societies and you get the highest yields in terms of raw magic power but relatively low numbers
• use techniques and technology that are reminiscent of pre-industrialized societes and you can increase the numbers but raw magic power decreases (typically by introducing negative modifiers on crunch level)
• use techniques and technology that are reminiscent of industrustrialized societes and raw power drops even further ... to a point where even the theoretically increased production volume utimately doesn't yield more material due to its inferior "nature"
• use techniques and technology that are on the current technological curve and the raw power drops to levels where things become too difficult to be worth their while outside of "because I can and want to" scenarios

Now each step in that above list represents a different level of abstract thinking that was necessary to develop the associated tools / technologies and the higher up you get in the development chain, the less direct involvement of an actual human being is required within the final process (that's why he's come up with the tools in the first place). Subsequently I'm under the impression that since page 306 of SR5 does actually not explicitly state otherwise it just maintains those proeviously established concepts and the "effort" part you're currently trying fixate on is just a coinciding part of that very premise.



Not so much "missing steps" but rather simple "communication hurdles based on language use". I didn't say that a physics-based model for magic would lead to magic not being understood. I actually said something to the contrary:

If you use a physics-based model as basis for the metaphyiscs of SR magic on design level you'll turn the whole thing into a "mere extenstion of (traditional) physics that has yet to be (fully) understood" by scientists from within the game universe.
Just like with UMT this would create a situation where magic traditions with a nature scientific setup are - with or without knowing - more or less "correct" about magic whereas spiritually shaped traditions would be "wrong" and fool themselves with thinking that they are doing one thing while they are actually doing something else.

I'm not a fan of such a premise nor would I want a reversal where the spiritual thinkers have nailed it completely and the science guys are just fooling themselves. I want magical traditions to be more or less equally "wrong" and "correct" about the actual metaphysics of SR magic.



I have objected to some of your approaches because despite of what your saying here many of your analogies and explaination attempts looked very physics driven to me. So while transfer of intent and emotional content are not physics concepts to me it looked as if you shaped a large number your analogies and examples in way that attempted to turn those two things into physics concepts.

I'm on my phone and it's a pain to do segmented quotes with context. I may come back to the rest of the post later.



In every case other than your proposal for explaining harvesting telesma, emotionally raw, brutal, and physical ordeals transform the environment or objects. Despite this, you argue that it is a component of preserving existing properties.

This is logically inconsistent with magical thesis, temporary and permanent background count (aspected or not), and focus creation. What are you gaining from a logical break in the internal consistency of SR magic?

In a sense, yes. Or to put it another way, telesma that is easy to work with because of the emotional investment you put into it is a miniature aspected background count.

I could see a group, likely toxic mages, incorporating pieces into foci.

To tie this back on target, I would like to see the object resistance table to be based purely on the complexity of the object and then modified by your personal investment into it, perhaps preserve some of the modifier if there was a strong connection to someone of the same tradition.

If Linus (Peanuts), the talismonger wants to enchant his Blanket as a counterspelling focus, the material composition is moot; his connection is so strong that he will ace the enchanting test even if it is made from titanium and kevlar nanobots.

It's not my "proposal" but the established "how things work" within the available sources of now 5 editions. As far as as "every other case" is concerned: "Transformation" with regards to certain aspects does not exclude "preservation" of other aspects. This whole "transformation" agenda of yours is actually one of the things that evoked the "physics driven" vibe I get from you. It's like your your constantly arguing about transitions between energy states like kinetic enegry vs. potential engery vs. other energy forms which also happen to "transform" one into another. In your attempt of explaining it you're exchanging "emotional energy" to "magical energy"



I'd say that I'm not arguing that "despite" anything there because non of these "other cases" have actual depictions that would prove the correctness of your assertion ... but even if they did: Preservation as a non-logical deviation from an established pattern in this particular case would be something that - given how I like SR magic to be or rather get back to - would be a welcomed element where the metaphysics simply don't work how some - including you - might expect.



I still object to the notion that the creation of a magical thesis is truly the same magical phenomenon as background count (temporary or otherwise). And I maintain the point that focus creation and particularly its subset of talismongering for telesma isn't the same phenomenon either => Subsequently for me there's actually no need for "logical consistency" between these different phenomena.



The "crazyness" / "insanity" that SR magic was all about during the first two editions? Something that in fiction magic users and scientist have to ponder about like "forever" because the magic system itself doesn't require such a internal consistency across the board but merely within observed occurances of the same particular phenomenon? A system inherent element that causes "magic" to stay "magic" in the long run, bceause "magic" ultimately makes no sense!?



Which isn't "logically consistent" either with regards to background count on various levels (and I'm not going into all of them):

Most emotional "investments" that people would categegorize as exceeding those that you have to do for creation of "virgin telesma" are only suitable to create temporary background count. Permanent background count is not created by an indiviudal ... not even a group of people will cause something like that. Yet for telesma you now suggest that way lower emotional investments create both a permanent miniature background and one that's even positively aspected. If "logical consistency" truly is a goal of yours you just missed.

Those inconsistencies aside: SR3 "experimented" with magic users creating locallized aspected background count with the Virtuoso metamagic. Let's just say that that's one of the things that should never return ... particularly not on such a fundamental level.



And what exactly would define the "complexity" of the object there? Because ...



... somehow I have this strong feeling that a blanket made from wool has a significantly lower level of "complexity" than one where titanium is shaped into a structure that exhibits cloth-like properties and includes futher kevlar nanobots.


Oh, and I still haven't heard the "why" for all of this.

Honestly, UMT should have been presented as some stuffed-shirt Hermetic from MIT&T's thesis, with shadowtalk running along the lines of 'Dog thinks you're barking up the wrong tree' and 'Cool story, bro, let's see you manifest Killing Hands'. Possibly a quote from The Laughing Man that's just two pages of HAHAHA.

UMT is correct in-game; any belief system can be used as a magical tradition, whether it is "right" or not - what matters is that the practitioner believes that magic works that way. However, I do not see it being widely accepted outside of hermeticism, or other nuts-and-bolts traditions such as chaos magic. People who believe they are being guided by the LOA, or speaking with the spirits of their ancestors, or performing miraculous healing, won't suddenly give up their religious/cultural view of magic simply because of some academic theory.

The thing is, even though magic may spring from the same source, there should be more difference between the traditions. Belief systems should hobble practitioners in some ways, and empower them in others. I think it would work better if magical talent was divided more into components, with more positive and negative modifiers that can be taken with them, and if the traditions had some unique drawbacks or advantages. It would be more work, and more difficult to balance, but it is better than spirit types, materialization or possession, and Drain Attribute being the only non-fluff differences between traditions.

The behavior of strong emotions in SR magic is established over 5 editions. My assertions of parallels to physics are your imagination. I am attempting to find internal logic for the SR magic. If anything, I am drawing from Jungian psychology.

I have demonstrated consistency in the results of emotional investment transforming objects and their surroundings. You would do well to reexamine your assumptions and dial down the attitude.


I have explained it and you have deliberately ignored it. I am done contributing to derailing the thread.

UMT can find wider viewed as underlying principles that require the cultural and mythological framing for metahuman utilization. In which case, the UMT may actually act as a bridge between cultures and religions, at least the less close-minded organizations.

Yeah, try to tell that to the Sylvestrines, or the Aztecs.

One thing hasn't been discussed a lot : background and storyplots? Should they continue with the same things that are done in 5th ? (way to expend it, style, and so on?...)

I have a couple of reactions.

First, as discussed above, I think that the game needs a reboot. At this point we have a foundation of crazy paving, topped with a layer of packed sand, covered in asphalt, on which someone erected a pup tent coated in metallic paint.

Dynamite it out of existence, and rebuild.

As for the writing, I liked the style of 3rd Edition, with shadowtalk as per 2nd Edition.

Shadowtalk is a powerful way of adding commentary, doubts and wiggle room.

I would like to see a return to IE/draconic and corporate meta plots (a mix of the two) driving the story, but in the background. If anything features one of the groups directly, it would be in a dedicated adventure and still not necessarily featuring direct interaction.

I would also like to see an updated threats book with content that is either featured in follow up books/adventures or has guidelines for rebranding content to fit the group....

As someone who loves the Earthdawn connections in Shadowrun, I very much agree.

I'm not sure it's a good thing usually. For exemple, Vampire went back to it's roots and Requiem never became the iconic game Masquarade was.

Or maybe minor retconning, I don't know.


I have a personnal exemple with a french game called INS/MV. In this game, you played demons or angels in a satyrical version of our world. They made a campaign in their second edition where Matthias, an archangel, fell down for betrayal and trying to seize power by alliance with viking gods.

After his fall, he was replaced by Emmanuel (I think).

Now third edition, the devs retconned stuff that added complexity to the background. They decided that Matthias still was incharge and another minor stuff.

I hated it, and honestly, couldn't take their retconning as cannon for my own game as the same players, same characters did beat Matthias when they played. That would have made no sense at all.



If I translate this to shdowrun: if you had to clean up the background, you'd have to change the NAN that makes no sense in demography for exemple and, maybe, keep the story plot but reduce the size of their lands to something so much smaller. But now, how do you sell such a change to your gaming group?

Impossible.

Which ends up fragmenting the community even more than what 3rd/4th/5th does.


With one perfect edition, you can reunite them like DD 5th does.

With 2 different backgrounds, it's impossible like it is in WoD.