Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Aspected Magicians
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Ol' Scratch
My opinion is that unless a quality is permanent, it's not something worth mentioning as a stat. A footnote in your background, yes. This most definitely includes "Aspected Magicians" who aren't aspected but simply haven't unlocked their full potential; that's what attribute, skill and gear selections are for. That kind of "Aspected Conjurer" is just a magician who hasn't discovered his full potential or invested very much of himself into Sorcery or the other magical arts. They're not a magician who is metaphysically handicapped for life... which is what the negative quality represents. Just like the Mystic Adept who only spends points on Adept Powers in the beginning because he doesn't realize he can cast spells or conjure spirits yet. Or a Hacker who's only focused on being a Drone Rigger. Or a Street Samurai who hasn't discovered he's a crackshot with a sniper rifle. Or any other concept that can be "fixed" simply by buying a few skills or pieces of gear.

Of course, I also forbid qualities (both positive and negative) that don't fit in with that, too. Incompetence is just a fucking joke and right out (as are Infirm and all the other "free points for just not buying any skills or raising your attributes very high" flaws). A Day Job is a background note and covered by your Contacts and Knowledge (or sometimes Active) Skills. Enemies are just inverted Contacts so are allowed, but are treated exactly like Contacts as to what happens when you lose them. etc.
Rasumichin
In general, i have no problems with buying off Qualities, as long as that Quality is somehow reversible and the player undertakes what is necessary to get rid of it.
Of course, you can represent many aspects of a character just by attribute and skill selection (and players in general shut put some thought into what the numbers on their sheet actually represent), but Qualities tend to be more tangible and plastic than mere numbers, so they are a good way of fleshing out a character.

As far as Aspected Magician is concerned, it could very well mean a lifelong, irreversible impairment of the character's awakened abilities- he may indeed simply have not the potential to learn certain aspects of magic.

But even though this is the default setting for this flaw, i wouldn't have problems to sit down and talk with a player wether it's actually a temporary condition and could be reversed under certain circumstances.
It could as well be a mental block or something and buying it off could tie in nicely with character development.
It also has different effects in game than just not buying a skill.
The character can actually have that skill and be more impaired at it than someone who has just a low skill rating.
That's quite different from simply not spending points on something.
If that's exactly the effect a player wants and he also has plans for character development that involve overcomming his limitations and realizing his full potential, i will gladly pick up such opportunities for roleplaying and character development.
Especially as i see neither the flaw in itself nor buying it off as in any way unbalancing to the game.


Regarding flaws such as Infirm, i do not disallow them, but actually discourage anyone from taking it.
Not because "the player didn't want to buy ranks in that skill anyway".
If somebody wants to permanently discard certain basic abilities for his character, that's worth a couple of BP in exchange.
The problem with Infirm (and similar flaws such as Uncouth and Uneducated) is that most people are not aware of what they really mean and how severely they affect the game.
Just read up on the description again-the GM can, at any time, ask players to roll for tasks "normal" people would automatically succeed at.
And in fact, he should do so regularly, because these flaws represent very severe deficits instead of little to no proficiency.
An infirm character isn't just a bit out of shape, that's what low attributes and not buying ranks in Athletics are for.
A character with this flaw will have to roll a test to see if he is able to walk up a staircase without stopping midway due to exasperation.
He may be an octogenarian, incredibly obese or have some kind of physical disability.
The uncouth character isn't just not very talkative and slightly awkward in social situations, he is almost automatically going to misbehave in even the most casual circumstances, constantly making a complete jerk out of himself and embarassing the entire team.
He's not just a shy guy or an awkward nerd, he's a sociopath almost unable not to stick out in gross and memorable ways when having to deal with other metahumans or he is some paracritter who doesn't know anything about the social norms in metahuman society (such as not growling or sniffing at people when you meet them for the first time, not chewing with an open mouth and belching loudly in downtown's best restaurant or not urinating in public).
These are really serious flaws and players will regret it if they take them for the wrong reasons.
Players should be aware of the consequences- otherwise, the Qualities would either be handled incorrectly, both by RAW and RAI, or i would come across as an asshat GM.
That's why i warn people about Infirm, Uncouth and Uneducated and inform them of what these flaws mean in my game.
Kerenshara
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Aug 25 2009, 04:04 AM) *
Of course, I also forbid qualities (both positive and negative) that don't fit in with that, too. Incompetence is just a fucking joke and right out (as are Infirm and all the other "free points for just not buying any skills or raising your attributes very high" flaws). A Day Job is a background note and covered by your Contacts and Knowledge (or sometimes Active) Skills. Enemies are just inverted Contacts so are allowed, but are treated exactly like Contacts as to what happens when you lose them. etc.

Wow, so you think that a Magician who can't even attempt to default on, say, Ritual Spellcasting is BS?

Considering the number of times a Day Job has come back to bite me, I don't see that one as BS either.

It's your table I suppose, but that's awfully tight there, Doc.
Red-ROM
I tend to get irritated by "free point" flaws (er...negative qualities) , but only when there's no story to back it up or go with it. and I can usually tell when it's BS. Incompetent irks me a lot.
Rasumichin
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Aug 25 2009, 05:52 PM) *
Wow, so you think that a Magician who can't even attempt to default on, say, Ritual Spellcasting is BS?


You can't default on Ritual Spellcasting anyway. wink.gif

As far as "free BP" flaws are concerned, i'm a bit lenient there.
Everybody can need some extra BP if you start with 400BP characters IMHO.
So if i don't raise the amount of starting BP or we play with 750karma characters, it's ok for me if a PC has one or two minor flaws that actually won't notably impair the character.
Of course, if somebody would speculate on squeezing 35BP out of flaws without any impact, i may have to be concerned, but i've never actually seen that happening.

In general, a negative Quality should be something the player enjoys to roleplay when it comes up.
And he should be aware of the impact a flaw can have in a game i run, as well as he should consider the overall power level of the group and the campaign.

As long as these criteria are all met, why should i bother?
We're supposed to play this game to have fun, everybody's better off when we all take it a bit easier.

Most of the things people complain about on this or any other RPG-related board aren't that much of an issue in actual play anyway, or wouldn't be if GMs would stop worrying about balance, plot and all that other bullshit that basically boils down to "i'm the GM, i want to have everything under total control".
Just roll with it and see what happens instead of bickering about how unbalanced something is.
Nothing is more gamebreaking than an inflexible, angered GM who only struggles to keep everything under his thumb instead of doing his job.
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Aug 25 2009, 12:52 PM) *
Wow, so you think that a Magician who can't even attempt to default on, say, Ritual Spellcasting is BS?

Considering the number of times a Day Job has come back to bite me, I don't see that one as BS either.

It's your table I suppose, but that's awfully tight there, Doc.

Only if you consider restricting relatively free BPs as "awfully tight," I guess.

And for the record, I am rather lenient during the actual character creation process. If someone needs a few extra points to make their concept come alive, they just have to ask for them and convince me that they can't sacrifice something elsewhere to make it happen. No need to cheese it up by adding shit like Incompetent: Pilot Aerospace to their sheet, or even worse (for me) Aspected Magician with the unspoken addenum "Until I decide I want to explore other aspects of my magical ability, then I'll just buy it off. Teehee."
Kerenshara
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Aug 26 2009, 08:40 AM) *
Only if you consider restricting relatively free BPs as "awfully tight," I guess.

And for the record, I am rather lenient during the actual character creation process. If someone needs a few extra points to make their concept come alive, they just have to ask for them and convince me that they can't sacrifice something elsewhere to make it happen. No need to cheese it up by adding shit like Incompetent: Pilot Aerospace to their sheet, or even worse (for me) Aspected Magician with the unspoken addenum "Until I decide I want to explore other aspects of my magical ability, then I'll just buy it off. Teehee."

Oh, I agree on the Incompetent(Something NOBODY in the campaign will ever use) being BS. But if a mage takes Incompetent(Ritual Spellcasting) or Incompetent(Binding) - and since you can't default like Rasumichin reminded me above - I'd say they have to live with it forever, and that's not "BS" to me; Those are important skills that might become vital later on that they're deprived of. How about Incompetent(Driving)? Restricted to being a passenger always since you can't default? I can see problems here. There are others, too.

On the other hand, a Mage with no 'ware taking "Sensitive System" really chapps my ass. Now, if they take some chrome, even a single implant, then it's shiny with me.

And lastly, if they spend Karma at 2:1 (which is about right) to buy off something, they aren't spending it on other improvements like the rest of the party, so I don't see where it's a problem. OTOH, you could say charge them 3:1, representing the difficulty of getting past something like that, and I wouldn't complain as the player. That way, there's a penalty for having gotten bonus points to start (where they're at a premium) and seeking to nix the problem later when Karma's more easily available without binding the character eternally in irons. 15 Karma is the equivalent of 3rd level Initiation (going from 2 to 3) or three new spells, so that mage is giving up a LOT if you think about it.

What do you say? I agree (always have) that certain flaws taken by speciffic characters are BS, but to disallow the flaw entirely is a little too tight IMHO. As GM you always have a right to reject a flaw that isn't properly supported; Just make sure you tell them up front that if they pick a flaw that is inappropriate and/or unsupported, you're going to dissalow it and if it's eggregious enough, you will put another flaw of equal value in its place. That way they're warned ahead of time, and you shouldn't even have one of them show up. Heck, I would expect them to come to you early in the design and ask for feedback on their choices if you made a ruling like that up front, and that's all good, right?
pbangarth
QUOTE (Kerenshara @ Aug 26 2009, 09:45 AM) *
On the other hand, a Mage with no 'ware taking "Sensitive System" really chapps my ass. Now, if they take some chrome, even a single implant, then it's shiny with me.


I've vacillated in my thinking about Sensitive System. Lots of people complain about this one, and yet many others also have written here, particularly about adepts rather than mages, that it is illogical to avoid implants because they give so much power for less cost than the magical equivalent. Any player who makes such a PC has been portrayed in Dumpshock as being himself 'incompetent'.

With this logic, it would be necessary to find some reason why the character would not do the 'sensible thing'. Sensitive System is one answer, and one that can be argued to balance the maximized power of a magic/technology mix.
Kerenshara
QUOTE (pbangarth @ Aug 26 2009, 09:56 AM) *
I've vacillated in my thinking about Sensitive System. Lots of people complain about this one, and yet many others also have written here, particularly about adepts rather than mages, that it is illogical to avoid implants because they give so much power for less cost than the magical equivalent. Any player who makes such a PC has been portrayed in Dumpshock as being himself 'incompetent'.

With this logic, it would be necessary to find some reason why the character would not do the 'sensible thing'. Sensitive System is one answer, and one that can be argued to balance the maximized power of a magic/technology mix.

Check the more recent posts on the topic; I'm usually the one doing the math.

I did say "Mage", and I was being speciffic. I guess my thinking ran that if you're going to take 'ware as an Adept, it makes the MOST sense to take it at CharGen when availability and recovery times aren't a factor. Thus, if they have even a single implant at CharGen, in my book, they're off the hook for the negative quality in question. If not, it suggests to me they intend to go pure magic, and that's where my backside gets chapped.
Rasumichin
I've seen enough minmaxed magic/ware builds on this board (including mages, not only adepts) to come to the assumption that a character without any ware, even with Sensitive System, is less powerful.
Which is why i wouldn't disallow the Quality for unaugmented characters- i view it as a compensation for "pure Magic" concepts (and BTW, if my doctor tells me that my immune system will react extremely negative to cyber, isn't it more plausible if i don't get any implants?).

Just look at what visibility modifiers do to mages- if they don't take cybereyes for style reasons, it's fine with me if they try to get some form of compensation for that (yeah, i know, metahumans will face less problems, but they'll still be at a disadvantage compared to mages who have eyes with both IR and low light).
Ol' Scratch
Sensitive System doesn't prevent you from getting implants, it just increases the Essence loss. An Awakened character can get all the important things they "need" for 0.5 Essence easily.

That said, it's one of the few qualities I don't mind at all. It's a solid penalty with a solid reasoning behind it, and it's something that can potentially come up in any game, even against your will (such as the old Renraku Arcology debacle where cyberware was forcefully implanted in player characters [which, as a side note, I hated with a passion]).
Rasumichin
QUOTE (Dr. Funkenstein @ Aug 26 2009, 07:47 PM) *
Sensitive System doesn't prevent you from getting implants, it just increases the Essence loss. An Awakened character can get all the important things they "need" for 0.5 Essence easily.


Yeah, i know, i was just referring to the relatively widespread practice of taking Sensitive System instead of any ware at all.
Of course, one could easily get cybereyes and still have room for stuff like a Trauma Damper and so on without breaking into the second lost Essence point.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012