Shadowrun 5 & a lot more in 2013! Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

<nature of complaint="It's all fluff">
<suggested resolution="Use more fluff" />
</nature of complaint>

You seem to miss that SR4A uses a Lot of Fluff to bolster the mechanics. You may not like it, but others do. *shrug*
We sure don't need more mechanics for that stuff.
Maybe we are way off topic here? I was just curious as to where the Loa Tradition was located. Apparently it sounds like it was the Voodoo Tradition from 2nd Edition. Since we have a Voodoo Tradition, and I like it (mostly, I think the Spirit selection coud be changed a bit), I guess this part of the conversation has been satisfied. Thanks for the Information Draco18s and Larsine.

[Draco18s]

You seem to miss that SR4A uses a Lot of Fluff to bolster the mechanics. You may not like it, but others do. *shrug*

I like fluff as much as the next guy, but it bothers me when the crunch doesn't match. I, and others, would like to see a larger distinction between hermetics and shamanics, which can be extended to other traditions. And it's not supposed to be "here's another rule book on running Tradition X" it just has to be a "this is how this is different and why you take Tradition X instead of [hermetics|shamanics]" and take up a short paragraph.

Traditions are so...generic and undiferentiated that I had a character who believed that he found a UV node which is why he has magic (underlying code, and all that jaz). Which completely violates how Shadowrun works. Except it doesn't because it is what the character believes, not what is actually true.

Since we have a Voodoo Tradition, and I like it (mostly, I think the Spirit selection coud be changed a bit), I guess this part of the conversation has been satisfied. Thanks for the Information Draco18s and Larsine.

No problem.

[_Pax._]

I like fluff as much as the next guy, but it bothers me when the crunch doesn't match. I, and others, would like to see a larger distinction between hermetics and shamanics, which can be extended to other traditions. And it's not supposed to be "here's another rule book on running Tradition X" it just has to be a "this is how this is different and why you take Tradition X instead of [hermetics|shamanics]" and take up a short paragraph.

I agree 100%.

I liked that there came to be three "types" of tradition, where spirits were concerned:

• Hermetic - cost money to summon; spirits could go anywhere; dawn and dusk meant nothing special.
• Shamanic - cost nothing to summon; spirits restricted to Domain summoned from; dawn and dusk ended service.
• Voodoun - cost nothing to summon, but required a vessel; spirits could not manifest, they had to possess.

Note, the actual die rolls to summon and bind a spirit were the same between Hermetics and Shamans (and Voodounistas, mostly at least). Largely, it was a bunch of "also rules" that further defined (refined?) the WHEN and WHERE of it all. That made each type of spell-chucker mechanically distinct, in ways that directly supported the fluff. SR4, however, does away with most of the mechanical distinctness ... making the difference between Hermetics and Shamans largely a matter of Handwavium. And I don't entirely like that.

Don't get me wrong, I like that SR4 lets you build your own traditions. I just wish there were more ways to differentiate them, one from the other. And the old divide between Hermetic and Shamanic conjury, with a few more possible flavors thrown in, would be an awesome thing to return to teh game, IMO. Come up with 3 or 5 however-many variations, balance each to the others, and ... "pick one".

[Patrick Goodman]

I like fluff as much as the next guy, but it bothers me when the crunch doesn't match. I, and others, would like to see a larger distinction between hermetics and shamanics, which can be extended to other traditions. And it's not supposed to be "here's another rule book on running Tradition X" it just has to be a "this is how this is different and why you take Tradition X instead of [hermetics|shamanics]" and take up a short paragraph.

I agree 100%.

I liked that there came to be three "types" of tradition, where spirits were concerned:

• Hermetic - cost money to summon; spirits could go anywhere; dawn and dusk meant nothing special.
• Shamanic - cost nothing to summon; spirits restricted to Domain summoned from; dawn and dusk ended service.
• Voodoun - cost nothing to summon, but required a vessel; spirits could not manifest, they had to possess.

Note, the actual die rolls to summon and bind a spirit were the same between Hermetics and Shamans (and Voodounistas, mostly at least). Largely, it was a bunch of "also rules" that further defined (refined?) the WHEN and WHERE of it all. That made each type of spell-chucker mechanically distinct, in ways that directly supported the fluff. SR4, however, does away with most of the mechanical distinctness ... making the difference between Hermetics and Shamans largely a matter of Handwavium. And I don't entirely like that.

Don't get me wrong, I like that SR4 lets you build your own traditions. I just wish there were more ways to differentiate them, one from the other. And the old divide between Hermetic and Shamanic conjury, with a few more possible flavors thrown in, would be an awesome thing to return to teh game, IMO. Come up with 3 or 5 however-many variations, balance each to the others, and ... "pick one".

QFT.

[Bull]

More importantly with 2nd edition Voodoo... The possessed target had to be willing (Or, ya know, a corpse, which was slightly different anyway), it cost Karma to become a host for the Loa, AND most importantly, neither the possessee nor the summoner had control of the Loa. YOu bargained with it and hoped it did what you wanted, but it wasn't bound to you in any way.

Oh, and the Loa could repossess a host at any time it felt like it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I had a Voodoun player in 3rd ed that I ran using the 2nd ed rules, mostly (because I felt they got watered down too much in 3rd). I had a lot of fun with that, as did the players.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

More importantly with 2nd edition Voodoo... The possessed target had to be willing (Or, ya know, a corpse, which was slightly different anyway), it cost Karma to become a host for the Loa, AND most importantly, neither the possessee nor the summoner had control of the Loa. YOu bargained with it and hoped it did what you wanted, but it wasn't bound to you in any way.

Oh, and the Loa could repossess a host at any time it felt like it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I had a Voodoun player in 3rd ed that I ran using the 2nd ed rules, mostly (because I felt they got watered down too much in 3rd). I had a lot of fun with that, as did the players.

Interesting (2nd Edition Differences). The Voodoo character I have currently does indeed bargain with the Loa for Services, and hope that they keep to the bargain. He is interesting, but has had very little playtime. I tend to play my Black Magician Occult Investigator/Face much more often.

[Falconer]

I'm reading this and wondering what other people were doing... 3e voodoo was broken as hell. And of course most of the worst elements got ported into 4e when they broke the astral -> physical attack ban by putting in possession.

2e was nothing more than free spirit bargaining... got news it's still in the 4e rules... there is NOTHING stopping you from doing a 2e voodoun simply by bargaining with free spirits and spending some karma here and there.

3e was rediculous... you possess and for the duration you get UNLIMITED services and augmentation of your form. Yeah that wasn't abused at all....

I haven't seen anything to make me want more MECHANICAL differences between magicians... fluffwise and some MINOR benefit... great! I'll repeat what I posted on the SR4 boards... keep the unified magic. But give a small benefit similar to a mentor spirit to reflect the traditions history/goals. IE: hermetics get +2 dice to arcana roles (rarely used but nice skill). Shamans get +2 to summon spirits from the local domain... but -2 to summon spirits not of the local domain.


If possession has to stay... make it and only possession subject to bpund spirits only.. not both. Without summoning on the fly and it's higher force limits a lot of the worst cheese goes away. (summon a force 10... use it's magic of 10 instead of mine of 5... no more summoning just the right task spirit on the fly... you have either bound the right skill in advance for $$$ or you haven't.)

Sorry I've never seen possession work well in any edition of the game... mage becomes superman... street sam... i might as well go home, other magicians damn this geek the mage crap why should I get shot up because they can't hurt him, techy types... why should I bother he'll just summon a task spirit with the right skill anyhow with 8 or 10 skill ranks and mental attribute and have it possess him while he retains full control. Under 3e it was also possible for the mage to astrally project and possess an unwilling target IIRC and take over it's body... yeah that wasn't a problem at all.

[_Pax._]

Right ... so because you've got a mad-on for Possession mechanics in 3E and 4E, you want to throw out the whole idea of real, not-just-die-pool-modifier, mechanical differences between traditions ...?

Baby with the bathwater, much??



EDIT TO ADD: it isn't terribly difficult to reign in the "instant superman" bit with Possession mages, btw. Just limit the effect Possession has on the subjects attributes to their Augmented Maximum. Poof, that Body 3 mage is NOT going to become Bulletproof Charlie, just because he whistled up a F6 possession spirit.

[Falconer]

Yes... because it's always been a huge boondoggle in prior editions with every single tradition having it's very own unique rules. Call it whatever you like. It exacerbated powergamer problems as the vast majority of options were completely ignored as irrelevant and grossly inferior.

And PAX... that *IS* the official position of the company... possession *IS* limited to augmented maximums, which does nothing except make things like trolls or orcs better picks for possession than anything else. (penalized mental attributes replaced for drain purposes; and higher physical caps for the others). Just possessing an average body is +3 to all physical stats... while a materialized spirit is limited to a mix which only averages +1 per attribute.


Unified magic is one of the best things to happen to the system.
The only bit I agree with is fluffwise and MINOR MECHANICAL... there isn't enough differentiation.

I chalk this up to two main reasons... in 3e you had over 20 spirit types in the main book... in 4e we had only 7... 11 with street magic.
I don't believe there are enough spirit types to make unified magic work properly since every tradition shares about half it's spirits with any other tradition.


Another way I feel magic is problematic is I think ritual spellcasting should go the way of the dodo (too niche and I rarely see people take the group for it)... counterspelling should be it's own individual skill. And the spellcasting group be changed into 5 individual spelltype skills so you can actually have 'combat mages' who focus on say combat spells and others who focus on healing or whatnot. So instead of dropping 24Bp on spellcasting 6 and never touching it again... 20BP is only getting a fraction of the dice in all the sub casting skills.

So yes even though i primarily end up playing spellcasters... i think SR5 should continue the tradition of nerfing casters as magic becomes more and more 'normal' to the world and people learn to deal with it more.

[Tashiro]

Personally, I want to see possession as 'willing subject only' unless you're dealing with blood or shadow spirits. I actually enforce the 'services' thing with possession - demanding a spirit of possession to defend you, for example, is a single task. Or attacking your opponents. Just like normal spirits.

The other thing I want to see is Concealment restricted to the physical plane only - no concealment on the astral plane under normal circumstances. Make astral concealment a separate power, so that magicians don't just call up a spirit, and conceal the entire party, and their vehicles, all in one go. (Either that, or have each person concealed by one task, that could work).

[Demonseed Elite]

The SR5 design goals say all the right things, but don't really say much at all. That is, I agree with all of them without having a clue what they really mean for SR5's design and mechanics. But we'll have to wait and see how the details shake out.

For the most part, I like SR4's Attribute + Skill rolls and fixed TN. It's a much simpler resolution system and I like simple for resolution. The variable TNs had some strengths, but they were a pain to keep track of and had built-in weirdness. I do agree with Epicedion's comments on another thread about how the current SR4 Attribute + Skill system doesn't internally balance Attributes versus Skills very well and consequently causes some imbalance when it comes to self-improvement, a big theme in Shadowrun. Attributes weigh too heavily into resolution and some Attributes are much easier to improve than others.

On the topic of hermeticism vs. shamanism and general tradition mechanics, I know there's a lot of controversy on that, but I like the SR4 system. Seeing as how I'm partially responsible for the changes, that's probably a given. But I think there's some misinterpretation of the decisions behind the changes. I am and always have been a big support of diversity among traditions, not only in fluff, but mechanically. But I felt the better way to accomplish that was to have all traditions start on the same mechanical ruleset and then allow GMs to customize from there, through magical groups, geasa, spirit mentors, etc. The original hermeticism versus shamanism division worked okay back in early SR when those were your only options, but it didn't support the vast variety of traditions that exist in the entire Sixth World. And since they were fundamentally different, you either had to pigeon-hole other traditions into one of the two (which didn't make the historically-accurate side of me very happy) or you had to introduce entirely new mechanics, like the Third Edition Voudoun system.

[All4BigGuns]

So yes even though i primarily end up playing spellcasters... i think SR5 should continue the tradition of nerfing casters as magic becomes more and more 'normal' to the world and people learn to deal with it more.

As someone who doesn't play the casters that much, and would probably benefit from magic being "nerfed", no it shouldn't be. Magic should go back to being that unknowable and mysterious force that no mundane has any real defense against unless they have a caster on their side.

[Draco18s]

I am and always have been a big support of diversity among traditions, not only in fluff, but mechanically. But I felt the better way to accomplish that was to have all traditions start on the same mechanical ruleset and then allow GMs to customize from there, through magical groups, geasa, spirit mentors, etc.

The problem is that those restrictions are entirely optional and provide zero benefits.

It's kind of like "would you like to remove one of your characters legs (and not replace it with cyberware)? [Yes|No]"

[Patrick Goodman]

Thanks for chiming in, Jay. I still don't support the decision, but it was nice to finally get an explanation, from the horse's mouth, after trying to get a simple piece of reasoning for something like 9 or 10 years.

[Halinn]

As someone who doesn't play the casters that much, and would probably benefit from magic being "nerfed", no it shouldn't be. Magic should go back to being that unknowable and mysterious force that no mundane has any real defense against unless they have a caster on their side.

That is fine for fluff, but it makes for seriously bad game balance.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I'm reading this and wondering what other people were doing... 3e voodoo was broken as hell. And of course most of the worst elements got ported into 4e when they broke the astral -> physical attack ban by putting in possession.

2e was nothing more than free spirit bargaining... got news it's still in the 4e rules... there is NOTHING stopping you from doing a 2e voodoun simply by bargaining with free spirits and spending some karma here and there.

3e was rediculous... you possess and for the duration you get UNLIMITED services and augmentation of your form. Yeah that wasn't abused at all....

I haven't seen anything to make me want more MECHANICAL differences between magicians... fluffwise and some MINOR benefit... great! I'll repeat what I posted on the SR4 boards... keep the unified magic. But give a small benefit similar to a mentor spirit to reflect the traditions history/goals. IE: hermetics get +2 dice to arcana roles (rarely used but nice skill). Shamans get +2 to summon spirits from the local domain... but -2 to summon spirits not of the local domain.


If possession has to stay... make it and only possession subject to bpund spirits only.. not both. Without summoning on the fly and it's higher force limits a lot of the worst cheese goes away. (summon a force 10... use it's magic of 10 instead of mine of 5... no more summoning just the right task spirit on the fly... you have either bound the right skill in advance for $$$ or you haven't.)

Sorry I've never seen possession work well in any edition of the game... mage becomes superman... street sam... i might as well go home, other magicians damn this geek the mage crap why should I get shot up because they can't hurt him, techy types... why should I bother he'll just summon a task spirit with the right skill anyhow with 8 or 10 skill ranks and mental attribute and have it possess him while he retains full control. Under 3e it was also possible for the mage to astrally project and possess an unwilling target IIRC and take over it's body... yeah that wasn't a problem at all.

Works for me. I like the Unified Theory of Magic, Myself, and agree that it does not need to go.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The SR5 design goals say all the right things, but don't really say much at all. That is, I agree with all of them without having a clue what they really mean for SR5's design and mechanics. But we'll have to wait and see how the details shake out.

For the most part, I like SR4's Attribute + Skill rolls and fixed TN. It's a much simpler resolution system and I like simple for resolution. The variable TNs had some strengths, but they were a pain to keep track of and had built-in weirdness. I do agree with Epicedion's comments on another thread about how the current SR4 Attribute + Skill system doesn't internally balance Attributes versus Skills very well and consequently causes some imbalance when it comes to self-improvement, a big theme in Shadowrun. Attributes weigh too heavily into resolution and some Attributes are much easier to improve than others.

On the topic of hermeticism vs. shamanism and general tradition mechanics, I know there's a lot of controversy on that, but I like the SR4 system. Seeing as how I'm partially responsible for the changes, that's probably a given. But I think there's some misinterpretation of the decisions behind the changes. I am and always have been a big support of diversity among traditions, not only in fluff, but mechanically. But I felt the better way to accomplish that was to have all traditions start on the same mechanical ruleset and then allow GMs to customize from there, through magical groups, geasa, spirit mentors, etc. The original hermeticism versus shamanism division worked okay back in early SR when those were your only options, but it didn't support the vast variety of traditions that exist in the entire Sixth World. And since they were fundamentally different, you either had to pigeon-hole other traditions into one of the two (which didn't make the historically-accurate side of me very happy) or you had to introduce entirely new mechanics, like the Third Edition Voudoun system.

Well said Demonseed Elite. And since you were at least partially responsible for the SR4 UMT. A hearty thanks for me and those at our table.
Interestingly enough, it seems that we have been in step with your intent (for varied Traditions) from the start, as our Traditions have always been differentiated through magical groups, geasa, spirit mentors, etc.. A job well done in my opinion.

[Demonseed Elite]

The problem is that those restrictions are entirely optional and provide zero benefits.

It's kind of like "would you like to remove one of your characters legs (and not replace it with cyberware)? [Yes|No]"

I don't agree one hundred percent, though I do agree that a lot more should have been done with them. Entirely optional? Well, that depends on the game. But I do feel like a GM should have some control over the available traditions, magical groups, etc. in their campaign.

Zero benefits? No, not really, though this system can and should be improved. Geasa are worth build points, magical groups come with lifestyle benefits, research benefits, etc. Mentor spirits come with a set of clear advantages and disadvantages. Spirit pacts come with a list of potential advantages, at the cost of a Quality and a bargain with a spirit. I think where SR4 was lacking was in a framework for tying all of this together and examples of it.

[_Pax._]

For the most part, I like SR4's Attribute + Skill rolls and fixed TN. It's a much simpler resolution system and I like simple for resolution. The variable TNs had some strengths, but they were a pain to keep track of and had built-in weirdness.

In general principle, I agree; it's a nice, easily understood system overall.

I do agree with Epicedion's comments on another thread about how the current SR4 Attribute + Skill system doesn't internally balance Attributes versus Skills very well and consequently causes some imbalance when it comes to self-improvement, a big theme in Shadowrun. Attributes weigh too heavily into resolution and some Attributes are much easier to improve than others.

My knee-jerk reaction to that is to contemplate just doubling the dice contribution of skills. That is to say, 3 ranks fo skill means 6 dice in the DP.

This has a follow-on effect, IMO also a benefit, of de-emphasising purely equipment/gear based benefits.

Currently, for example, if you have Agility 3, Pistols 3, you get 6 dice. Raising either Agility or Pistols gives you 1 more dice, and Agility costs a bit mroe - but also benefits asmany as six or eight other skills. Or you could just get a Reflex Recorder, for +1 die to the entire Firearms group (3 skills).

Doubling the skill dice changes the whole calculus of improvement; now, sure, Agility 4 will mean +1 die to a half-dozen skills. Bit Pistols 4 will mean +2 dice to that ONE skill. So you can either generalise, or you can specialise.

It's certainly not a perfect solution as-is; it will almost certainly raise new questiosn which would need answers. But it would still, nonetheless, shift emphasis back to skill, rather than Attribute.

On the topic of hermeticism vs. shamanism and general tradition mechanics, I know there's a lot of controversy on that, but I like the SR4 system. Seeing as how I'm partially responsible for the changes, that's probably a given. But I think there's some misinterpretation of the decisions behind the changes. I am and always have been a big support of diversity among traditions, not only in fluff, but mechanically. But I felt the better way to accomplish that was to have all traditions start on the same mechanical ruleset and then allow GMs to customize from there, through magical groups, geasa, spirit mentors, etc.

The problem here is twofold.

On the one hand, it just never really happens. It's more work than most GMs are willing to put into something that really only benefits one or two players, in all but a handful of edge cases. It's always easier if you have "off the shelf" components to work with.

On the other hand, it's also not how SR4 really works. Any mage can have any mentor - there's no limit, a Hermetic can have "Oak" just as readily as a Shaman, or a Druid. Noone is required to take any Geasa, nor to join any magical groups, either. So rules-wise, there is nothing in support of true variation between the traditions.

The original hermeticism versus shamanism division worked okay back in early SR when those were your only options, but it didn't support the vast variety of traditions that exist in the entire Sixth World. And since they were fundamentally different, you either had to pigeon-hole other traditions into one of the two (which didn't make the historically-accurate side of me very happy) or you had to introduce entirely new mechanics, like the Third Edition Voudoun system.

Baby and the bathwater, v2.0

Why not design a system by which you can point-build a Tradition? Decide what the baseline Sorcery and Conjury is, then come up with a mixed bag of Qualities (even, built-in Geasa, for example) to each. Use that system to build the setups for the Traditions offered in the core rules .... and with-hold the system itself for the Magic-specific supplement. TELL people it'll be published in that book, even. (That has two effects. One it drives more sales of teh magic supplement. But two, flipside, it keeps the Core book stuff from getting over-complicated for newcomers.)

Now, when you want to introduce a completely new Tradition? You simply pick up that point-build system, and build it. If it needs somethign that isn't there ... make new Qualities for that tradition, price them carefully, and include them in whatever book the Tradition is part of. (Espeially, that Magic supplement).

...

And in the interest of unified systems? Do the same kind of thing for Technomancer Streams.

If you're feeling especially ambitious, also do the same general thing for various Adept "ways".

...

People who want to delve into the "build your own" will be very happy, because they'll have something they can point to and reasonably claim that their personalised Tradition isn't extremely unbalanced. Those who don't want to, can ..... just ignore it, and use the pre-packaged ones. Win-win for everyone.

[Draco18s]

Zero benefits? No, not really, though this system can and should be improved. Geasa are worth build points, magical groups come with lifestyle benefits, research benefits, etc. Mentor spirits come with a set of clear advantages and disadvantages. Spirit pacts come with a list of potential advantages, at the cost of a Quality and a bargain with a spirit. I think where SR4 was lacking was in a framework for tying all of this together and examples of it.

I'll point out that it's 10 BP. There are no other upsides.

An example is no spellcasting at [day|night] (84 hours/week) compared to a 10 point day job flaw that only restricts you for 10 hours a week.

This is considered equivalent how?

[Falconer]

Yeah the geasa and limited specialist abilities are pretty bad in terms of point cost.


While I disagree strongly with Pax's baby with bathwater bits...

His criticisms of mentor bonuses being completely unliked to tradition are spot on.

Point buy is interesting but brings up a whole lot of other problems... it also makes powergaming more problematic as cost benefit analysis instead of package deals becomes a bigger deal. Do you have a 25point magician quality and a 10 point one... are all spirits created equal... how much does it cost for each class of spells... etc. etc. etc.

[NiL_FisK_Urd]

It's certainly not a perfect solution as-is; it will almost certainly raise new questiosn which would need answers. But it would still, nonetheless, shift emphasis back to skill, rather than Attribute.

The only obvious problem i see is magic defense (as counterspelling is not always available) and defense against ranged attacks, because these two normally only roll with an attribute.

[Sengir]

Why not design a system by which you can point-build a Tradition? Decide what the baseline Sorcery and Conjury is, then come up with a mixed bag of Qualities (even, built-in Geasa, for example) to each.

I must say that sounds like a great idea, describe each tradition by a series of attributes to give the fluff some mechanic backing.

[Demonseed Elite]

Pax, I basically agree with you and that was essentially the intent. Maybe not exactly a standard point-buy system like character building, but certainly a "build your own magical framework" system. My feeling was that this would be a conversation between players and GMs, that a magical framework had to be appropriate for the campaign (which is where the GM comes in) but at the same time gives the player some freedom to define their character (where the player comes in). I do agree with you that SR4 needed better "off the shelf" examples.

And Draco, I also agree with you that Geasa were not well handled. At the very least, they should have a BP range, because you can't just lump every possible geas into a 10 point value. And I would have liked to see a better structure for magical groups that have built-in geasa that are traded off for built-in advantages, whether those are built-in positive Qualities or some other mechanical advantage.

And Pax, I totally agree with building the core rulebook "off the shelf" examples with an underlying system and then using the expansion books to flesh out that custom system. The problem there was the haphazard way SR4 was developed. SR4's early development only brought in part of the freelancer crew and it was kept secret from other freelancers. So, for instance, I was not brought into SR4 until late-stage playtesting and then was brought into Street Magic to work on the custom frameworks. Those discussions should have happened earlier, so we could have had nice off the shelf examples of Seattle setting Hermetic and Shamanistic traditions, magical groups, etc.

It was a terrible way to build a new edition and I really hope that they'll address that with SR5's development.

[Draco18s]

Why not design a system by which you can point-build a Tradition? Decide what the baseline Sorcery and Conjury is, then come up with a mixed bag of Qualities (even, built-in Geasa, for example) to each. Use that system to build the setups for the Traditions offered in the core rules .... and with-hold the system itself for the Magic-specific supplement. TELL people it'll be published in that book, even. (That has two effects. One it drives more sales of teh magic supplement. But two, flipside, it keeps the Core book stuff from getting over-complicated for newcomers.)

I like.
The advanced lifestyles rules, for example, are amazing. It's also really hard to munchkin (largely because while Stat A is really beneficial and Stat B isn't, it means that your character is living in a hell hole...but it's got a SWEET entertainment system (or whatever), which is the kind of thing we encounter all the time in the real world: do we want a safer neighborhood? A larger house? Maybe a school nearby for the kids?).

Then your hermetics/shamanics would have ABC vs. CDE here's a few tweaky things FGH if you want to build your own tradition. Then a splatbook can come out (Street Magic, whatever) with Even More traditions that utilize options AEH, BCG, AEF, etc. and also provide even more options, IJKLMNOP.