Magic v. cyber, Explaining the stats Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Outline Switch to: Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Talia Invierno]

I know the magic v. cyber argument has been pretty much beaten to death around here; and that currently the general voice seems to be about 2/3 feeling that the rules favour Awakened generally, and adepts specifically.

However.

We've been running an on-line open admission long-term campaign for, what, over three years now? We were running it in SR3, we somehow managed a roughshod conversion to SR4 in mid-stream, and it still keeps on ticking. Each player gets one character and only one until PC death -- so it could well be the same character for the entire years-long life of the campaign. We've had applicants who wanted Awakened PCs and mundane PCs, roughly 2:3 ratio (mundane cybered having the edge). Of those who stayed with the game, the ratios remained close to the same -- but for full spellcasters the ratios shifted rather drastically, to approximately 1:8 against. (It's also about the same ratio against metas.) In fact, among those who fell out of the game, that ratio is almost even between mundanes and full magicians -- even though there continue to be far more mundane characters than full magicians.

If the rules favour the Awakened generally, why are we getting this result? (Note: not objecting. We were initially concerned that we would be innundated with people wanting full magicians -- but it never became an issue.) We even made extremely low ES a true social issue, strongly recommending against anything below 3 or 2.

The only reason I can think of is that we never glossed over training and skill improvement -- in fact, easily 90% of the game is "downtime". It could even be said that the entire point of the campaign is the downtime -- by design. But surely that can't explain it fully?

Slight edits to clarify.