isn't there even a kind of magician that switches totems like other people switch their weapons? O.o
kinda like evry other . . not sure if it was week, but i think it was month another totem with another set of benefits and deficits to boot O.o

Not unless it's in some zany German book, like Immortal Dwarves.

I voted "Yes, SR without ED is still SR" on the basis that you have no need to refer to ED to run SR and have a good game.

After all, isn't SR about having some elf shoot some ork in the face 'cause some human paid him to, and then shooting the human in the face 'cause he set the elf up?

The fact that the rules support and encourage you to create your own traditions, whatever they may be, is more than a simple implication; it's a downright "yes, it is based on your belief."

The fact that there can be/are/will be Elvis shaman, Toaster shaman, and Teletubby Magi -- all of which are 100% supported, appropriate, and viable by the rules -- says more about the subject than anything else can. Unless, of course, you want to seriously try and argue that Elvis, Toasters, and Teletubbies are real gods that have always existed and always will exist, but no one knew about them until a short time ago.

If it didn't work that way, there wouldn't be variations of a theme. Everyone's magic would work exactly the same, especially within a given tradition. The individuality of magical effects -- spells and spirits alike -- are solid proof that the belief of their creator (ie, the magician) is the key and that mana is just a shapeless, formless energy until willed into being something more specific.

Elvis, Toaster, and Teletubby totems could simply be modern manifestations of other, more primal entities. and that individuality is certainly proof of something, but not necessarily what you say. it could simply be proof of how complex the magical universe is. or it could be proof that while belief shapes magic, it doesn't alter it at any significant level.

I guess our definitions of "shapes" and "alters" are drastically different.

it's a question of how great the effect is. belief can affect what your summoned spirits look like, it might affect what totem you get. that doesn't necessarily mean it can allow you to break the 'rules' of magic and/or create something completely new. basically, it goes back to the original point that started this whole tangent--someone proposed that the reason SR magic and ED magic are different is that people in SR believe different things from people in ED. i think that the material in SR hints that this may be true, but it presents enough counterevidence (largely through lack of evidence) that i'm not convinced. and i don't think the material is intended to convince the reader that the belief theory is true--i think the material is intended to simply raise the possibility and make you wonder.

there are a lot of wacky people who believe a lot of wacky things. that's true today, when there isn't much evidence that magic is real. i can only imagine that such wackiness would reach critical mass if one in every hundred people you knew could perform real, tangible magical effects. i don't think SR has nearly enough wackiness in it to justify the theory that anybody who believes something really hard can make it come true.

I agree with mfb that, while magic is shaped by belief, the belief only lets your mind tap into that energy - it still operates by its own rules. One mage might summon a djinn, one might summon a swirling cloud of bats, one might summon a whirlwind with glowing eyes, and one might summon a gossammer-tressed sylph. However, all of these spirits will all have the stats for an air spirit.


On the other hand, while belief can only tap into magic, not break its rules, that same belief can act as a limiter. The old psionic tradition couldn't use certain spells, because those spells didn't fit into their explanation of magic as psychic abilities. So you don't need to have the laws of magic themselves changing for Earthdawn magic to be weaker, you only have to have a reinforcing pattern of belief, built up over generations, that magic can do so much, and no more, in certain areas. That's if you absolutely have to shoehorn Earthdawn into there. I can't quite buy it, myself, because I don't see how you could have no one ever making an intuitive leap and breaking one of those "limits".

Let's look at it another way, then. Dragons, Earthdawn, the Horrors, and the Origin of the World.

Dragons had a theory that the Horrors were responsible for creating the world and everything. Nevermind that they weren't there to witness it, that doesn't matter. It's their creation myth and a firm belief for many of them. A belief held by, arguably, the most powerfully innate magicians the world has ever known; to a point where they're nearly one in the same.

Not surprisingly, that mass belief by a huge cadre of mind-bogglingly powerful magicians ended up becoming "true." At least the existance of these Horrors -- creates that come from the deepest, darkest corner of the astral plane (a place of pure mana). And low and behold, they were every bit as powerful as those amazingly potent magicians claimed they were. Right down to every single detail.

Details they knew nothing about first hand, except through their creation myth.

So, much like most religions, which is it? Did the Horrors actually exist and create the world exactly as those ignorant but powerful magicians said they did, or did those ignorant but powerful magicians inadvertedly cause the myths, dreams, and nightmares to manifest through their belief? And how did they know all these amazing facts without being there themselves?

Basically, did God create man, or did man create God? And on another tangent, if [god(s) of choice] did manifest physically what becomes of faith? Something that practically relies on your beliefs not having any solid proof?

As a side note (since this whole discussion is a side note to the original post), it seems entirely possible to say that "belief influencing reality is a cornerstone of SR magic" and that "no one knows exactly how magic works nor will they ever." Those aren't mutually exclusive phrases, and both are borne out again and again in the fluff.

Meh, personally I like another option, Dragons like all other intelligent beings make up myths that inflate their own place in the universe. Remember that Earthdawn is the Fourth World, so assuming that the Mana Cycle theory is correct the myth just doesn't hold true, no mana means no magical Horror/Dragons being able to redeem themselves and bring life to the world in the First World.

Also remember that even if you throw the Dragon Myth out then the world has already gone through a Scrouge in the Second Age (Or more if you assume that the Mana Cycle has always come and gone and we only call it the Sixth World beause that is what the fragging Dragons claim.) so it isn't really all that impressive to me that the Dragons were able to describe the Horrors in their myths in the Fourth World.

On magic: the discussion here only seems to show that the MitS had it right. If you ask 10 different mages what the nature of magic is, you'll get 13 different answers.

Personally, I like the high level of customization the SR4 gives us. While it did have to 'blandify' hermetization and shamanism a bit, it's important to note that it seems that Shadowrun has been trying to broaden its focus. It's no longer cyberpunk in North America. It's a world stage, with all the mixtures that would be provided by a 'fast forwarded' current real world. It includes the cyberpunk staples, of course; a virtual reality network, and cyberware. It also has stuff cyberpunk never thought of in the early days. Bioware, nanoware, advanced manufacturing techniques ( that aren't just fancy black boxes that work 'very well, thank you' ); all things which our current progress hints at.

And so, magic changed with it. To allow for a wider variety of beliefs to shape how magic works for people. Whether or not it is those beliefs shaping the magic, or if its that old stories, fairy tales, and personal religions from an older time are just being given a chance to re-manifest now that the mana level is up again.

Which brings us to the ED angle. I -love- Shadowrun. While I've only ( heh. 'only' ) been playing since SR3, I love everything about the setting. While I recognize that there is supposed to be some kind of link with Earthdawn, I tend to ignore it. I realize that the dragons were alive in an earlier magic age. I recognize that the immortal elves have been around since that time, and are now doing whatever it is immortal elves do. However, I've never so much as seen an Earthdawn book. I do not know Earthdawn.

I know that it is supposedly the source of the Horrors, which ( I think? ) are things like insect spirits ( score one point for magic not based on belief. I mean, how many people would have to -really believe- in those things to make them so very very true as to lead to a city being nuked? ), Shedim, and the like. Nice flavor touch, but it doesn't matter to me that my magical threats have a fancy umbrella name. And I don't know what Horrors are beyond that. Again, I do not know Earthdawn.

This does not prevent me from running Shadowrun. My players are not archeologists, and they do not care about the source of this ultra-ancient rare artifact. They just nod, the mage says "Well, it's -theorized- that there was an earlier age of magi." *heads nod, voices go 'mmhmm', one guy goes 'oh god, Magey-boy's get talky on the run again', and the team moves on*

I don't need Earthdawn. This is not meant to be an insult to it, but I don't feel that Shadowrun needs Earthdawn to be Shadowrun, either.

Vaguely-related note on the Elvis ( edited: Typo. Said Elves before. ) shaman: Sure, they'll pop up. Belief forming magic, or magic being based on something more primitive/more 'real magic' in order to allow this belief to manifest the King for summon spells? Does it matter? While these can exist in the new rules, and players -will- make them ( players will do anything you let 'em get away with ), it's worthwhile to note that these rarities probably won't get far. There is probably a almost non-existent community to support the poor mage, and while he'll find plenty of true believers who'll tell him the King still lives, without a -magical- support community, his magic will probably suffer. He'll probably have to homebrew almost everything his does, and spend lots of karma on initiation ( unless he -can- find a group willing to suffer his bizarre magic interpretation ). A path only for the strong of will and stubborn of mind. Or crazy of mind. Nuttier things have happened.

...@MikeTrevin. Well said. I remember that line from MitS.

Yes SR has been a world stage now, something I have been trying to do, but often players in my neck of the woods (the Pacific NorthWet) tend to be "homers" for the more familiar shadows of Seattle (which for me has become somewhat stale after 18+ years)

I have run past campaigns set in London, the Kingdom of Hawai'i, Australia, and the Balkans. One of my favourite site-fluff books is the old London Sourcebook which I still used in 3rd ed. When Shadows of Europe and Shadows of Asia came out I was at my FLGS immediately.

The only thing with 4th ed, is we have to wait for time to catch up in all these other locations again. Corporate Enclaves is the next step (Tokyo and Europort), but there eventually needs to be more for in the revision the world has returned to being primarily Seattle-centric again. I would like to know what has transpired concerning the Pendragon and Lord Marchmont in the UK, is there finally real peace in the Balkans (hinted at in SOTA 2064), and what the situation in Russia is like concerning the Trans Polar Yakut and Poland?

...SS? I thought the Ghosts were from the TT...?

bet Mars/Ares was royally pissed that the hammers were not named after him *g*

Well, the corp named after him owns most of them...

am i the only one imagining the ares corporation headquarters being hit with a thor shot and ares/mars looking angryly down at it while thor is standing there gloating? *g*

Yes!

I tend to think of mana as a force. Living minds (mostly) can manipulate it, but they lack precise control. Belief is that X factor that allows the brain (or the soul, or the chi) to harness that force. Its like the way a pitcher throws a baseball; he doesn't think about the muscles, about the physics, he just does it. He trains his muscles, he learns the physics, and he practices it to the point that when it comes time to throw the ball, if he's still thinking he's going to screw it up. He has to throw with an empty mind. This was pretty much the plot of the movie, Bull Durham. To wit:

Crash Davis: A player on the streak has to respect the streak, because they don't come along that often. If you think you're winning because you're getting laid or you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you are. And you should know that.

Hell, it doesn't really matter if it's correct or not. It's just a theory. No one really understands how magic works and they probably never will, that's not really the point. A theory doesn't have to be correct to be useful. Astronomers who thought the Earth was at the center of the universe still had charts that could accurately predict the path of the planets; it didn't matter that they were wrong, they still worked. The watched what the planets did, and wrote their charts based off that.

Magic in SR is in a similar state. If a guy says he can fly because Tony the Tiger tells him he can, and then he flies, then he's right. He's more right than the guy who's telling him Tony the Tiger can't tell him to fly. Personally, I never cared for the D&D concept of giving the deities and demigods home addresses and stats. It doesn't take much faith to believe in Thor is you can cast a spell and ask Thor about it. (Given that divine magic works and the gods periodically show up and do stuff, it isn't faith in D&D, but plainly observable fact.) Which is neither here nor there, except as an example that I can turn anything into bitching about D&D.

I would say at that point it's not "faith" any more, though, but perhaps better described as "trust" or "confidence" or even just "obedience."

Faith is often defined as the belief in something despite there being proof as to it's existence. Picking a deity out of a pantheon and sticking to it is more like choosing a football team than showing "faith" in something. If you know that shit's real, you're not so much being faithful to it as picking a favorite.

Eh, without getting into a debate on religion (which as fun as it is, isn't terribly game related), the only reason it matters at all for us to have an idea of how magic functions in the game-- even if no one outside our group shares it-- is because not every eventuality can be covered in the rule book. GM's, and players to a certain extent, have to make judgment calls in every aspect of the system, but particularly in Magic. With Combat, Vehicles or the Matrix, you can fall back on a knowledge of physics or computers or action movies; a lot of the time what you're dealing with are updated versions of things that exist today (although that is more true now than when the game first came out-- nobody was controlling a pong game with their mind back then), but Magic is a complete fabrication, it obeys only its own laws. The only points of reference we have are the ones we or someone else makes up.

In the strictest terms, it doesn't really matter where magic comes from. I mean, it comes from the rules; characters have Magic Ratings, they buy Powers and Spells, the roll their Dice Pools. Cubes of plastic are the only true source of mana in the game, but beyond the mechanical function the fluff can be almost anything. But when situations come up that aren't covered in the book, when you're off the edge of the map with the mechanical functions, the fluff is all you have to go on

There's a difference between expressing your opinion and insulting anyone else who has a different opinion. There's a difference between saying you don't agree with something and mocking it.

I'm not starting a flame war. I'm just telling Mercer he needs to act with a bit more respect for other posters' beliefs. Sincerity doesn't have anything to do with it. I may sincerely disagree with, say, Catholicism, or the Islamic faith, or neo-paganism, but that doesn't mean you'll see me mocking those beliefs in my posts.

I don't see any disrespect there. He made no value judgments, or even disparaging commentary about any specific religion. In fact, I believe that Mercer is being quite sincere in his expressed belief that not many people actually envision God (or Jesus or Muhammad, or Vishnu, or ...) as a giant humanoid being standing among the stars.