 Magical Traditions, The UMI, and Globalization, Continued from Fanpro 2006 YIR thread |
  |
 Jan 24 2007, 11:23 PM
Post
#1
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935  |
This is something I've seen come across more than once, and I reckon now is as good a time as any to really discuss it.
In my estimation, none of the magical traditions of today survive unchanged in the Sixth World. This isn't so much a result of one magical tradition being "right" and others being "wrong" as it is a matter of practicality and adaptation. No magical tradition of the current day contains within its system the full range of magical practices that a Shadowrun player character takes for granted, and during the early days of magic's return the individual limitations of a given magical system were no doubt more pronounced, albeit constantly expanded by research and experimentation. Imagine the heady days of the 2020s, when you might have "mastered" astral projection only to discover-to your surprise and possibly horror-the magical barrier of a shaman's hut. Contact between traditions would inevitably lead to a sharing of knowledge-particularly with the informational infrastructure of the Sixth World-and bids to counter or match the magical feats of others. While the playing field was fairly level by the 2050s, the process still continues, but with different rules. A bunch of magicians snooping on each other and trying to do what the other guy did within their own given paradigm of "magic" (others might say "psychics" or "paranormal science") will help even the playing field, but it won't provide the impetus for true progress beyond the accidental discovery of something new. By the same token, there is only a limited amount of progress that can be obtained by rediscovering the "lost knowledge of the ancients." As with the progression from pseudo-science to true science, the discovery and crafting of "new" magic requires a desire or need for such magic on the one hand, and the application of the scientific method on the other. This equalization of magical ability across traditions has obvious parallels with globalization and the dissemination of technology-hence the reason the Great Ghost Dance and similar formulae are held under the same security as how to build a working nuclear weapon. Also similar to technology, economics plays a large role in dissemination. But if there is a gap in magical knowledge for a given magical tradition, that means there is a demand for that magical knowledge, which megacorps can sell as a product. The translation of formulae and different magical techniques into terms that are applicable for different traditions is no doubt a major factor in magical industry. The portability of magical knowledge lends credence to the idea that no one magical tradition is inherently more correct than any other, but that does not mean that every tradition is created equal. The backwoods wizard in the Appalachians following their own self-made tradition suffers from a serious lack of readily available material (in the form of metamagic theses, spell and focus formulae, etc.) compared to a Hermetic magician working her way through the thaumaturgy program at MIT&T, who has entire libraries devoted to her craft. This seeming disparity is somewhat exacerbated by the individual strengths and weaknesses of the traditions-the strongly logical bent of Hermetics is well adapted to the scientific approach to magic, and may lead to comparatively more researchers. This does not imply that Hermetic theory is any better or more correct, only that it attracts those types with a predisposition to such study. To take shamans as a particular counterpoint, whose approach is more intuitive, there is no indication that a shaman would be a more or less effective researcher than a Hermetic. To take an example, imagine a Hermetic working in the lab and researching in the library and compare her to a shaman going over the oral histories of his tradition and disappearing into the wilderness to test or discover his magic. Neither approach is any more correct or likely to succeed than the other-the Hermetic may attempt to confirm a magical law that is incorrect and fail, the Shaman may misinterpret or misremember the legends and fail. Whether or not the discovery is arrived at through logical deduction and experimentation or trying something you intuitively feel is correct, the method of arriving at the goal does not matter. Now, rampant translation of magical formulae and techniques does lead to a certain dilution in the magical knowledge and practices of a given tradition-when the formulae and techniques that are unique to a tradition become widespread throughout the magical identity, the tradition loses a degree of distinction. In many ways, this process mirrors the progress of Globalization and the Mono-Culture: individual aspects that help to define a given cultural identity are absorbed by the mono-culture, reducing the uniqueness of the original culture, and thus the strength of the cultural identity. This is, in many ways, where I see magical traditions standing in 2071. From a certain perspective, all magical traditions are of equal value: no tradition has greater particular advantages or greater particular drawbacks overall than any other tradition, from a purely magical standpoint; but the individual numbers of practitioners and the relative mass of magical knowledge available to each tradition is not even. It's fine for the Hermetics to talk of how wonderful a Unified Magic Theory would be, because Hermeticism is one of the primary magical traditions in terms of practitioners, breadth of knowledge, and support. What is worse is that the lack of relative benefits to being a member of a "minority" tradition-due in part to the dilution of magical expertise by spreading magical knowledge unique to certain traditions into common practice-may eventually lead to the eventual elimination of such magical traditions unless they take steps to maintain an edge in magical research. The alternative is that they excuse themselves from accepting the products of other traditions, and see the State of the Art go beyond their grasp. In the end, decisions don't lie in any mythical council in charge of each tradition-it is up to each individual magician, just as it is up to individual consumers as to whether they recycle, refuse to support product lines that use slave labor, or pay more to gain an authentic product of a certain cultural group rather than the cheaper and/or mass-produced counterpart. In this case, the magician paying more for a formula crafted by a member of their own tradition is not paying for a superior product-they are paying to support their tradition over others. |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Jan 24 2007, 11:50 PM
Post
#2
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
A good analysis. Many good, strong points. Definitely worth reading 10 more times. However, I would like comment a little bit...
Very, probable. Helps explain a lot. But something about it feels uncomfortable with the world of Shadowrun. Simply assuming that information is useful because its valued as a product, isn't really enough reason to make it useful. It's always been a tenet of Shadowrun that information is hoarded and secrets are abundant. This free-flow-of-information or information-should-be-free idealistic goal of total cooperation seems very anti-thetical and I can't help wonder why this hasn't expanded to every industry and medium. Second, the production of magical knowledge seems to center on the idea that different groups can come together and increase their production rates in a united effort, which is supported by the basic premise of the Universal Magic principle (and basic economics). However, since the initial statement you're putting forward this case to prove is why magical traditions are not the same as we know today, you can't really use the universal magic principle as a premise in the explanation. That's like saying they aren't the same because they work differently. That's not an explanation; that's just a statement. Magical traditions are the same. Magical traditions are not like we know today They are the result of shared magic and increased production This is because they can share knowledge derived from Universal Magic Principle. A Universal Magic Principle exists and explains the universalness of magical traditions. Am I making sense? You're using your basic premise as an explanation to explain itself. Traditions are the same because there's a Universal Magic Principle at work. The Universal Magic Principle, by definition, means there is no difference between traditions. Therefore, traditions are all similiar to each other because traditions are all similiar to each other. Therefore, traditions are not like traditions of today? Why? Because they are different than traditions of today. If there was no Universal Magic Principle, this explanation would make no sense. You wouldn't be able to increase magical productions simply by sharing your magical technique with another. Your also starting out with the assumption that magical theory has no direct relavence to the personal preferences or personality of the user, which contradicts most RL magical theory or mythology, as far as I know. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 24 2007, 11:51 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 208 Joined: 15-January 07 Member No.: 10,652 |
Very well said. Good job.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 25 2007, 12:21 AM
Post
#4
|
|||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
Well, one of the things I purposely did not address was the nature of bleeding-edge top-secret magical research from the corporate/government perspective, because it is effectively removed from the globalization paradigm except under extraordinary circumstances. The freedom of information through anarchic peer-to-peer networks and the like actually serves as a force to feed globalization tendencies, but you have to acknowledge both the desire for such information, and again the personal choice of the magician-whether bootleg or "homebrewed" knowledge is acceptable to them, with all the inherent perceived associations and risks.
Actually, no. I merely state that no one group has a monopoly on magical research, and are effectively equivalent from a purely arbitrary standpoint. The UMI principle is that there is some sort of rock-bottom magical tradition...and while it can be conjectured, it has not yet been proven. There is not, for example, a symbolic universal magical language that can be used to create a formulae that can be read and used by every tradition without need for translation.
I get where you're going, but you may have misinterpreted a few of the points. In the beginning, each individual tradition expanded through experimentation and contact with other magical traditions, thus realizing that there was more possible that they could do and working up the means to do so from their own theoretical basis rather than directly porting the information over from another tradition. It's not like the Hermetics knew how to create wards and the Shamans knew how to create medicine lodges and the two groups just swapped grimoires, it's more like individual magicians of those traditions found out that the other group was doing these things they could not do, and then because they knew it was possible began working out how to do it themselves. It was this initial expansion of the body of magical lore beyond the traditional limitiations of a given system that give rise to the primary differences you see between current magical traditions and their SR counterparts. The ability of every metahuman tradition to reproduce the results of every other metahuman tradition does not necessarily prove the existence of a Universal Magical Principle, but it does serve as a cogent argument by UMI supporters. Dissenters might point out anthropological similarities between magical systems as a means to explain the ability to translate the symbolic code of magical formulae, or any of a number of other arguments. In fact, there is nothing to say that there is a single definition of what the Unified Magic Theory is. Many groups might have different concepts of it. What a "minority" magical tradition would fear, however, is the possibility of the Unified Magic Theory leading to the extinction of different magical traditions, much as many individuals fear the elimination of their cultures to the global mono-culture. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Jan 25 2007, 01:32 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,032 Joined: 6-August 04 Member No.: 6,543 |
So the 100 monkey rules? Haha I'll post more later time is running out for me
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 25 2007, 02:28 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
If the various traditions were equated as businesses and markets, and magical information was regarded as a product, wouldn't there be a greater focus on innovation within the traditions, rather than mere replication? In that case, it would be more likely that certain traditions would be at different points of development in key areas, while others are still trying to catch-up in those same areas. No?
Further, to stretch the economic "knowledge as a product" analogy, shouldn't we also assume that certain traditions have a comparative advantage in the production of certain areas of knowledge? Or at least that they once did? Such that Tradition-1 (hermetics?) might continue to make further and further advances in Knowledge X (wards?) while Tradition-2 (shamans?) would develop Knowledge X (wards) at a dramatically slower rate? In this case, at any given point in history, assuming the traditions couldn't just trade with each other, then the traditions would have to be at different "technology levels" in their magical knowledge in various fields. A tradition with an emphasis on conjuration, for example, should continue to innovate in the field of magical knowledge in response to increased worldwide demand in that area. Thus, this conjuring-emphasizing tradition would have dramatically more development in conjuration than the ward-advantaged tradition. So long as innovation and the desire to meet increased market demand remain constant, there's no reason this shouldn't continue indefinitely so that at future points of history the various traditions would grow apart and resemble each other even less, not try to mimick each other by playing "catch up" against someone else's comparative advantage. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 25 2007, 03:00 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,589 Joined: 28-November 05 Member No.: 8,019 |
I think that happens already in SR. I mean, Sensing and Channeling were first introduced in Awakened Lands, implying that the more traditional... uh, traditions found them first. It wasn't until a SOTA book that they invented them for magic in general.
And I think a lot of magic is based on ideas, or seeds of metamagicka. I think after a tradition thinks of an idea, it's only a matter of time and multiple metaplanar quests before they find a way to do it. Copying from other traditions can help plant these seed ideas in disparate traditions. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 25 2007, 03:06 AM
Post
#8
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
No. For one thing, traditions as a whole only experience progress when every member of that tradition gains access to a given technique or piece of information. A magical tradition is not a monolithic entity any more than all the sects of a single religion are a monolithic entity (with, of course, the notable exception of traditions that are sufficiently small and/or regimented that they are monolithic), and progress occurs based on the research of individual members or, more likely in the Sixth World, groups of magicians (sometimes of the same tradition, sometimes not) researching on behalf of someone else-be it a corporation, government, university, secret society, etc. In any event, either the research is not released to the public-in which case the tradition is not likely to gain access to it-or it is released to the public, even if on a commercial basis as a product, and it becomes available to every tradition (at least, theoretically). To give an example, let us say a group of researchers at MIT&T, operating under a UCAS government grant, discovered a new Sorcery-group skill called Shaping. If the project is secret, the UCAS government will take steps to insure Shaping is not released to the world at large, and thus no tradition as a whole will know Shaping, though individual members would know it. At some point, due to a hacker, or a group member teaching the secret, or parallel research by another group, Shaping will eventually be made publicly available. At such time that every member of a magical tradition is aware of Shaping and can learn it within the context of their tradition, it cannot be said that the tradition knows Shaping. Naturally, this is taking a rather extreme example. A plausible advancement might be no more than a formula, a new type of focus, or at the outside a new specialization of an existing skill. But in the early days of the Awakening, the lack of what is today considered a "core" skill such as Spellcasting, Summoning, Banishing, Enchanting, etc. might have been a real possibility; not to mention those techniques which are not skills in the normal sense-such as setting up a magician's lodge, astral tracking, or creating a ward.
Again, taking the example of traditions as a whole is tricksy. But yes, this type of development no doubt has occurred and will again. However, the nature of the magical market to achieve an equilibrium is such that any such knowledge which becomes publicly available will quickly spread. Consider the player of a magical character that buys a new sourcebook that lists new options for wards. From that point on, the character can be said to be aware of these new techniques (provided no metamagic et al. is needed as a prerequisite first) immediately. There is room for specialization in certain areas, but the sheer number of members of a magical tradition usually preclude the tradition as a whole from capitalizing on the secret. This is why there are multiple magical groups and societies, each with their individual magical secrets that they attempt to keep exclusive to their members. At some point, the magical secrets will become stolen, sold, or given away-which brings them into the public domain-or they are lost, and must await rediscovery. Consider, for example, a hypothetical group that was the first to create the Sacrificing metamagic. Armed with this technique, that was kept secret within the group (which may or may not have been a small monolithic tradition), the group as a whole held an edge. As time went on, the secret of Sacrificing was stolen, bartered away, or independently discovered, and the edge was lost. However, the group could in the meantime have continued their researches, creating the Cannibalize metamagic and maintaining their edge. And so on.
A possibility, except that at this point there is no tradition as a whole which possesses such a singularity of focus in regards to magical skills. The reason for this can be seen by the fact that a magical tradition acts, above all else (at least from our perspective), as a paradigm for using magic-not just one specific type of magic, but magic in all of its forms. The lack of aboriginal groups or independent lines of development from the Sixth World mainstream means that there is no current context against which to judge how successful this approach might be. While you see the dissemination of magical knowledge through translation and reproduction as a drawback to the tradition's progress as a whole, consider instead that the dissemination prevents a lack of duplicated effort, freeing up research time to pursue new developments. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 25 2007, 03:52 AM
Post
#9
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Okay, I'm on board with everything you're saying here. Very good explanations. But...
It's an interesting example you use in the third quote here, because it seems to contradict everything you are saying in the first two. At any given time, let's say 2060, this hypothetical Icky Group developed Sacrificing metamagic. Clearly, they have a focus in a certain area of magic, which contradicts your first point. Now, "as time went on", perhaps by 2070, "the secret of Sacrificing was [made public]" and so everyone has spent some part of the last 10 years (let's say 7 years) learning and adapting to Sacrificing metamagic. While they were doing that, the Icky Group, who already had Sacrificing magic, spent their last 10 years developing "Cannibalize" metamagic and maintained their edge in that area. So members of the Icky Group would not be like everyone else in 2070, but would have a skill that many others don't have and would likely lack certain magical techniques that others have. By your own example. The more time passes, the more common and extreme this becomes. You also haven't really taken into account that, while yes, magical study may be an individual choice, members of a particular group/tradition share certain characteristics, beliefs, possibly temprements or habits, or at least perspective of the world. It's not unreasonable to assume there might be several influential and resourceful magical traditions that do not have any use or temperament for Sacrificing metamagic and will spend their 10 years in development of "Dreaming" or whatever. Meanwhile, other traditions who are playing catch-up, will divide their efforts between studying Dreaming and studying Sacrificing. Thus, if each skill takes 7 years and 10 years have passed, some groups will have Sacrificing, another group will have Dreaming, one group will have Sacrificing and Cannibalize, and another group won't have any of them but will be more than half-way toward development of both Dreaming and Cannibalize. The more traditions and magical groups and interested parties you throw into this model, the more benefits and opportunities there are for specialization. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 25 2007, 04:32 AM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Such innovation that the few (very few) mages who saw magic as objectively formulaic with laws (i.e., they were using the objective SR rules) managed to not only convince others within the Hermetic tradition, but convinced every magician in the world in a relatively short time that they were right. Since magicians in SR have never been unyieldingly dogmatic about their tradition, or paradigm, or religious-magical system ever. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 25 2007, 01:15 PM
Post
#11
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,748 Joined: 5-July 02 Member No.: 2,935 |
The point I'm making here is that it is the so-called Icky Group, rather than a tradition as a whole, which maintains an interest and edge in a particular area. While it is possible for an entire tradition to turn their energies to such specialization, it is highly unlikely without an overarching structure. So on average, traditions as a whole will not display such specialties, but there is always room for a theoretical exception.
Again, it comes down to realizing that magical research is not conducted at the level of traditions, but through individuals and groups. It is of course the take that members of certain magical traditions will be more or less likely to participate in certain research, and even then there are members of those traditions whose personal beliefs and idiosyncrasies make them more or less amenable to such studies. The point you are trying to get at is, of course, that the proliferation of magical groups that "specialize" in a given knowledge will continue, and that those specialists will retain their edge through concerted research. This may or may not be the case. It is true that the proliferation of magical groups continues (Aleph Society, Ordo Maximus, Blood Mage Gestalt, etc.), and that does not even consider the more secretive corporate and government research programs. Such groups do have an edge-but it is inevitably either leaked, sold, stolen, or lost.
On a small scale, yes. Much like in early societies, specialization of labor can produce excellent results. However, the benefits are lost if the groups do not share and communicate their results with one another-you essentially end up with the high fantasy wizards locked in their ivory towers, stealing as much lore as possible and wasting effort duplicating what some other magician already did three years ago. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 25 2007, 07:57 PM
Post
#12
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Wait a minute. You're saying that specialization is only beneficial on small scales to early societies?
How are the benefits lost?! What exactly do you think the benefits are? In our example before the Icky Group kept their edge by keeping their results to themselves and building upon the knowledge that they are good at. Other groups could do the same, but would have to build up the knowledge that the Icky Group already possesses first, meaning the Icky Group keeps their edge in this area of study.
What? You're the one who said that the reason groups will lose their edge is because other groups are stealing the information and spending all of their time, effort, and resources, needlessly duplicating the effort. You cite demand for a reason, but simply mimicking something someone else has done will not satisfy demand and it becomes less profitable for every business entity that attempts it in that same market. "stealing as much lore as possible and wasting effort duplicating what some other magician did three years ago" That's exactly what happens under your explanation. They can't just "trade grimoires", so they have to adapt what someone else has already done. This is done instead of persuing your own objectives, innovating other things, or capitalizing on the resources and information you already possess. You do NOT have this if each group is assumed to be innovating, trying new things, and experimenting, all in hopes of evolving to the next great magical discovery. It's highly unlikely that any group, tradition, company, or individual honestly believes right now that magic has all been discovered and there's no reason to innovate and explore new things within the framework of their tradition/group/company/individual comparative advantage. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 25 2007, 08:02 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Also, I think there's a strange argument of semantics going on. I don't really care whether we talk about tradition or group or whatever. If traditions work the way you're saying and traditions were all more or less the same, there really is no tradition, and what magicians would identify is whatever magical group or society or whatever that governs their personal ethos, views of the world, and most importantly, explores magical research in efficient and advantageous ways.
If you say "all druids are just like all shamans" but then you have a large Druidic Order of the Leaf that has specialized only in eco-based magic, declared a war against all toxic shamans, and disdain the Icky Group's use of Sacrificial powers, then that's what folks will identify with, that's who they'll talk about when discussing magical theory, that's who will be on the front-line of magical research in all nature-based magicks, and that's the group people of the world (and most importantly, players) will be discussing when they say "I want to play a magician". Why have different groups or traditions with no solid differences and then try to say "I'm sure there are groups that have differences" but try to shove them under the bland traditional rugs? |
|
|
|
|
Jan 25 2007, 08:13 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
Cetiah and Ancient History are Dump Shock Forum Members...
Are Dump Shock Forum Members the Same? Are Cetiah and Ancient History the Same? They both write english. They both read english. They both are members of Dumpshock Forums. They must be the same! Yet why do they argue and disagree? How cna they be different? Etc etc etc etc |
|
|
|
|
Jan 25 2007, 08:28 PM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
It's actually a better example than it appears to be. Let's say a new member joins dumpshock. What do you suppose is most likely? 1) He will develop his own opinions and agree with them 2) He will agree with Cetiah or Ancient History or some other board member. 3) He will agree with "Dumpshock Forum Members". So when a "player" decides to "play" a "Dumpshock Member", which one of these three activities would you say he'd more likely use to describe his preferences? Personally, I can't really see #3 happening. We can take it a step further. Should we assume that every board member on Dumpshock Forums has read every single thread, and therefore is equally versed in Dumpshock Knowledge, or should we assume that each has gravitated toward those areas that most interest them and contributed to the threads in which they feel they have the most expertise? I'd say, overall, everyone's level of Dumpshock Knowledge has improved, and many of us have borrowed and traded ideas with other members that we use in our own individual games, but that doesn't mean all our games are the same as a result of our exchanged knowledge. If anything, we've found ways to improve on our specializations, since those areas have recieved the most attention and communication by each individual member. The brain adept, adept foci, and adept adjustment conversations don't interest me, and so I'm not involved in them even though I see they are quite active, but any thing related to hacking, I'm interested in. That "interest" is my comparative advantage, and consequently, I have a larger body of knowledge there and can both contribute more and recieve more help from hacking-related threads than adept-related threads. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 25 2007, 08:45 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 993 Joined: 5-December 05 From: Crying in the wilderness Member No.: 8,047 |
I think I have followed this:
AH is explaining sota advancement while retaining a dynamic evolution flux derived from individual discovery, thus explaining why there is more choice in SR4 for the magician but underlining that certain secrets are still beyond the grasp of the many. cetiah is underlineing that individuality is derived from the methods of a tradition rather than the store of its mystic lore but the store of mystic lore is effected by the society's methods. As such your both not disagreeing. AH admits that each traditon retains its practices but its breath of abilities are increased but this leaves the previous boundries blurred somewhat by individual advancements within all traditions. cetiah admits that all traditions innovate but retain their agenda with individual strengths derived from their efforts. I think. As to my take. Proliferation/evolution of martial arts, both western and eastern, demonstrate the differences and the strengths/weaknesses and the methods of transit that information between groups takes. Certain philosaphies and inherited traits may be taught freely or retained and jealously guarded by a single teacher/group/nation. In both cases the urge to eliminate weakness or gather strengths leads to evolution by inovation/theft. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 25 2007, 10:11 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Pendaric, I agree with all of that and believe that's a fairly accurate judgement of the discussion so far. My disagreement goes a little beyond the points specified, extending to the game level, as well. I think a player, for example, might be more interested in making a martial artist belonging to one of these traditions you speak of, rather than a "generic martial artist" who's individual differences have been hand-waived away by the assumption that anyone learns from everyone else anyway, so no tradition maintains differences.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 25 2007, 10:45 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 993 Joined: 5-December 05 From: Crying in the wilderness Member No.: 8,047 |
Generic x as a game mechanic I have seen work well, as a take on a personal definition during roleplay, it sucks. I would agree the 'flavour' that a distinct tradition brings defines the character making it more fun. Though I hate bring up White wolf's Mage at this point, the word paradigm and the influence there of springs to mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th April 2024 - 08:05 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.