Sure, I've even suggested that a relatively easy way for a new dragon to earn some extra cash is to contact the local Talismongers, "For a limited monthly fee, I'm willing to fill that cup with whatever you want."

But if you look at the rules, the starting Dragon character DOESN'T have enormous magical skills. He's going to fit in pretty much equally with other starting characters. No centuries of practice, no world ending spells, etc etc. Sure, depending on how you arrange it, he might be slightly better than a street shaman, but it won't be by much. And then we're back to being owned by the corporation



But we've already seen it. Atleast one Dragon has been scooped up by a corporation and had cyberware implanted into him against his will. And you still seem to be operating under the assumption that this is a Great Dragon or something, or a character that's massively more powerful than any other starting character, and for the most part, they aren't.



And? Again, I've never suggested that a Dragon doesn't need a good reason to run,and that a PC dragon doesn't need a good reason. I've said exactly the opposite. I've merely stated that as a fictional character, I don't need to know Tessien's reasons for running. He's not in my game, he's not my PC, I don't need to know his motivations. Just like I don't need to know Hart's, I don't need to any other Prime Runner's reasons, I don't need to know what the motivations of the original Sullanciri, I don't need to know the motivations of "The Merlin" from Dresden fame, nor do I need to know what possessed the Dancing Joker to do what he does.

Its only when someone sits down at the table and says "Here, this is what I want to play," that the motivations and reasons behind the character matter to me. And the rules give them the chance to do so, so having the rules and the options is perfectly fine. Its not some license to say "Well, because I'm a dragon I don't need to have a background or motivations," or "Because I'm a dragon I don't need to answer the 20 questions," etc. Its not even some magical Red Line that's going to ruin Shadowrun. Its simply another choice in a game that has many.

Funny when I voted I never said anything about right, wrong, left, right, nor about agreement.

Quit trying to put my foot in my mouth, I can do that myself.

To me it is interesting the various POV's that have been expressed in the various topics about this.

Later young one

WMS

I agree WMS. What bothers me are the responses that are basically "This is a horrid idea to such a degree that it negatively affects the entire product line, not just my game where I won't use it anyways."

I would dare say that no one here uses the full extent of the rules. I doubt everyone used everything in the RC book for previous editions. Much of the stuff was neat but not entirely useful to the group I was with. So we used what worked for us, changed what didn't but we felt we needed, and ignored the rest.

And funnily enough, what we did in our games never bothered anyone else's game. Yet providing an optional (that's 'Not Required' for those that don't understand what optional means) rule that allows for PC Dragons at the GM's discretion (like pretty much anything else in a RPG) is so bad it's going to ruin everything? What will it do, kick someone's dog?

Go figure, eh?

I just wanted to chime in to say Changling: the Lost is not about rape. I just didn't want to put anyone off the game because of an offhand comment by someone who didn't like the game. I would go into more what it is about but this is not the place.

Check it out and decide for yourself. I would say if you like the game use it if you don't, well don't.

I give the same advice on Dragon PCs.

Or don't check it out and go on with whatever you do knowing that C:tL might or might not be about rape.

I think that many fear that it'd be harder to brand people playing dragons as (insert insult of your choice) if there are official rules for it. Some also voiced their opinion that having rules to play dragons diminishes the status of dragons as a whole.

And some may just not like the idea that dragon could be PCs, and could therefore be (relatively) easily killed, and again prefer to be able to brand people who play dragons like that (as PCs or NPCs) as (insult).

(The emphasis is mine; please compare it to the two other quotations below)


Are you sure we're looking at the same rules?


(Emphasis is mine)


(Emphasis is mine; please compare to your statement)

Just in case we aren't in posession of the same PDF, I'll give you a little list of what I see concerning a dragon's magical capabilities as opposed to your street shaman:

• Dragons start with all magically relevant attributes at a rating of 5 (magic 6), and although their BP are limited, they may extend these ratings to 10 at character creation. [your street shaman is limited to a maximum of 6 and has to buy these ratings BP by BP]
• With a magic of 10 (or let's say 9), a dragon's maximum force for spells, spirits and stuff is 18 (20, if you take magic 10; world ending spells, anyone? ) [for your street shaman, overcasting ends with 10 or 12, which is half as much]
• Dragons are (theoretically) not restricted to materialisation or posession traditions [not relevant at character creation, though; your street shaman, however, will never enjoy this benefit] (By the way: Has anybody seen the drain attribute for the "draconic tradition", if there is a fixed one at all?; must've been forgotten)
• Dragons may summon all 10 types of spirits, who are not restricted to spell categories as per the tradition [Street shaman? *whistles*]
• Young adult dragons (yes, I know we're not talking of the ancient ones, as you keep on repeating constantly) use foci just as your shaman
• In astral combat, dragons have the equivalent of a weapon focus, which is undestroyable, needs not be bound with karma and does not cost any money, but provides them with 10P, +2 reach and and -2 AP in astral combat [let's just forget about the street shaman here, okay?]

If you still don't believe me: Grab youself a munchie and let him build an uber-street shaman, I'll pick out my best munchie and have him build a dragon PC, and then, we'll let them carry out our difficulties in a chat fight *g* (bets will be accepted via pm )
And before you start bugging me with it: I am aware of the fact that the downsides of being a dragon have not yet been included in the PDF preview. However, I doubt that we will see any restrictions to their magical capabilities.



For one Eliohann, how many (adult, not ancient -.-) dragons work for the corps? Would you please stop making the exception the norm?

The Tessien-question isn't getting a step forward, although I would really like to have your comment on the Dunkie/Damien example. As for the game table situation, how about at last giving an example of what you would regard as a plausible explanation?

Aztechnology employs few adult dragons. Numbers are vague, but Aztec Dragon Agents seem to be everywhere something noteworthy happens. I think Denver alone has three ex-Aztech Dragons.

Not much of a surprise, is it? They're trying to fight fire with fire in Denver

Personally, I think such rules should be added. I do know of a few games that have done so, that have managed to make it atleast partially balanced. I have to admit that I am a big FanBoy of Dragons though. I've always been sure not to take it way to far in RP though, I'm not wanting/asking to be DunkelZahn, just random Noob Adult # 23432. It can be done if you RP it well, and can expect developement to be delayed for a bit to keep it balanced. (You make 14 Karma, Taxes by Lofwyr takes 10 sort of thing.)<<< not really, but I'm sure the point is made. Maybe it's payment to the free spirit that saves your ass?

I don't tend to UberGame as I've mentioned in previous posts. Normally I work something out with the GM that makes it mutually entertaining. I also tend to have to earn whatever I end up running, as in have to RP it, have to make sure not to Munchkin(basically there is no cake-walk, If I play a Dragon there is definately some diplomatic transactions between players, I don't Drak out in public, during a run, etc. And if I do tend to go all scaly and rampage, there will be a Fast Response team to burn me out of the sky.) There is always a serious downside to playing such a being in a game, and it is only allowed in runs/stories that are open to such characters. There is no Burninator going on a spree, even being allowed a Draconic character there would still be extreme subterfuge. As I mentioned about my Elven Magician character, very few people have ever seen my characters real face, with quite a number of visages/phsical builds being attributed to my Chars usage name(which in no way resembles his actual name).

I tend to play my characters "In Developement" I get bored way to fast otherwise. Probably why when playing the Dreaded D's I tend to disagree with other players about what the general ECL of the Characters should be, I'm probably not the only one that was thinking An Elven Wiz with a few levels and ended up with A Storm Giant, an Earth Elemental Lord and an Archon in the party. I did have a Dragon Character in Forgotten Realms using the Draconomicon, but that was hardly a prepossessing Dragon being barely in the Young category. I also made a point of having a very good background story agreed upon before hand with the DM, Was used in storyline, and basically the game was set up in such a way as to make my char one of the most vulnerable in the party. I played a Gold Dragon and the Baddy was an Advanced Red Great Wyrm.

However, I do admit that said above game is open to major munchkining, as is basically any. Should they come up with rules for Dragon PC's/NPC's it would greatly simplify and be far more balanced a way to create Draconic Chars player or Non-player alike. I tend to like having rules for creating just about anything that might be encountered, as I am personally willing to admit being rather horrible with coming up with a balanced enemy otherwise. I make up for this by consulting people that are more experienced and skilled at such things, and using foes that I can understand basically. I would do much better with a BP/ Karma build cost for the various sapient beings that might be encountered. I wouldn't expect the type of thing shown in D&D monster manuals, more like something similar to what they put in the BBB with bp/karma costs to create/customize them.

I actually don't care if they added in rules for dragons or not, it's just something else that's available for my tools in GM'ing.

One thing I would do for sh*ts and giggles is to have a short dragon campaign game if the players want it. Why? Just because, and then the game will be totally out there. This will be the level where it's crazy powerful, the dragons are dealing things on the megacorp level, fighting horrors (time to introduce verjigorm), what have you... Then it's back to the other game of street level gangers or 'mundane' professionals. The dragon game would be used to quench the power gaming, world shattering appetites some of them may have of running a megacorp, etc...
OR
I don't even use it, but it'll be of reading for fun and I can use some of the stuff to flesh out a dragon npc.
OR
not even use it. the horrors!

Yes, Dragons are more magical than the normal human for the most part. But they're not excessively so (sorry, got sidetracked, haven't been on the forums for a few days) at character creation. Sure, the Dragon could get to 9 or 10 in magic at character creation, but thats going to cost them quite a bit. Chances are, based on BP costs shown, attributes for most people are going to remain about the same.

The bonuses you listed are nice, but not game breaking. Yes, dragons have bonuses, but they also have negatives.

They certainly aren't some mythical Red Line that's going to destroy the game. The bonuses they have certainly would make them attractive to the corporate world, but there's no guarantee that they'll be protected from things like "Since you're now contracted to us, do THIS." Their abilities make them attractive to the corporate world, but they don't limit him to that world.

And yes, I'll continue to use Eliohan and Tessien and whoever as examples, because they prove my point. You may not like the fact that they're there, or you may not like the book that they're in, but the fact that they're there, the fact that they are what they are, the fact that they're exceptions to what people consider to be the norm means that there ARE exceptions to the norm, and there can be more.

That's what the RPG is all about. Doing things with a character that you made and you wanted and you run. The fact that the designers are adding something that increases the options in the game is hardly a disturbing thing, its a good thing.

The fact that people are lamenting options, becoming self proclaimed decriers of things simply because THEY don't like them, or it doesn't fit in THEIR games is the bad thing in this thread.

Wait, they're including horror PCs as well!