I just started to post another thread when I realised that, for as long as I have your patience, it might be best to put them all in one place. Let me know if I have erred.

Question #2: Unintended Consequences re: Magic

I have a slightly different take on magic in Shadowrun, mostly focusing around the Western elements, tradition, and elemental correspondence. Mostly this is just background stuff, but one thing that I noted back in the days of SRII was just how ridiculous mana-based attacks (bolts, etc.) were. I remember storming through some building or other with a waaaaay overdone Sam that was having to target shot through armour visors to gak any of the corp security that we were facing. The mage, on the other hand, just mana bolted them. It was kinda disheartening because, as min-maxed as (I admit) that Sam was, it was nothing compared to the mage.

Sooo. I know (think I know) that it's harder to cast healing on characters with low Essence. I would imagine that the game logic is that, with their aura/Pattern so disrupted there's nothing really for the spell to "latch on" (as it were).

Why is there not a lessening of effect, or an increased difficult, of mana against low-Essence individuals other than, say, annoying bookkeeping or tracking all the mods?

One answer: As long as the person has a shred of a soul/Pattern, they can be targetted. 'Nuff said.

That doesn't work if you view the soul/Pattern as basically "bandwidth" for magical energy to interact with (which is how the balance of the background materials argue?).

I'm interested in your answers but, regardless of that, what are the unintended consequences of making it harder for mages to effect low-Essence individuals? (Well, other than the obvious: cybermancy?)

My take on it was always that just tracking everything was too much pain.

I agree with you that it would make sense - but there are a few ways that you could argue it, including saying that a reduced essence makes you more vulnerable to disruption, not less .... it's a can of worms.

When it comes to rebalancing the system I've always taken a completely different approach.

It seems to me that it would be easier on the GM to have an effect apply universally to all spells of the same type, rather than only some of them.

Health spells, if I recall correctly, have never affected Essence directly, so the issue of 'disrupting Essence' shouldn't come up. A character at full health or on death's door has the same Essence. Physical and Mental Attributes, or the body's/mind's ability to resist external forces are the purview of Health spells. Where Essence does come into play is as a link to the external, magical environment. It is that link through which Health spells are channeled. Merely being able to detect an Essence is not all that is necessary to affect the target of the Health spell.

[soap box]
Weaker link, harder to connect. Harder to connect, harder to affect. Health spells use the same magical mechanism as all other Direct spells. So, the ease or difficulty should be the same for all.
[/soap box]

For some quick context, a part of this is to nerf the ability to mages to spam out mana bolts/balls and toast highly-armoured opposition while the Sam's are hitting their heads against the physical defenses.

How come the sams aren't faster and winning initiative? "Geek the mage first!"

Generally? Tactics.

More importantly, the notion of "Geek the mage first!"

With a nod to Malcolm Gladwell:

Slingers beat infantry; infantry beat cavalry; cavalry beat slingers. None is exceptional in all circumstances, all are so sometimes.

I'd love an edition of Shadowrun that worked that way.

I need you guys/gals to explain that to me.

Yes, magic is ridiculously overpowered. HoweEVER... in your example above, the street sam is hard pressed to get past living security guards, and that kind of makes sense; the game is built so that, if you give the opposition enough weapons and armor, even a highly skilled street sam (the infantry) can be challenged (by other infantry). And yes, Magic (the slingers) can take out that opposition very easily. But the enemy rigger and his three drones (the cavalry) can geek the mage with ease, so it kinda-sorta evens out.

At the risk of teaching senior citizens to pneumatically inhale unfertilized ova: The key is to make encounters that challenge the specific characters, not to use the rules to smear a street sam across the sidewalk, even though the latter is very easy to do, if that is your aim. And keep in mind that the magic-using classes light up the astral plane like suburbs in America in December, so the mages can, should and ought to be extremely careful (i.e. paranoid) about using their powers without scouting ahead and keeping watch on the astral at all times. They are open to attacks from the astral that neither the rigger or street sam can see, defend against - or are subject to.

Although for the metaphor to really work, you'd need to close the loop by having the sam easily able to deal with the rigger and drones. As is, it's like rock-scissors-paper without letting paper beat rock.

Agreed.

Based upon the comments and your experiences, I should chalk this up to "unintended consequence" and steer shy of making it more difficult to impact low-Essence individuals with Mana bolts/etc.

It seems the Sam equivalent is to not bring a knife to a gun fight.

Thanks, everyone. Just what I needed.

Knife?

Oh no, the Sammy brings ALL the guns to the gunfight. That's his do:)

And if the wizworms want to run rampant in a game of MagiRun, a half-decent rigger with their Rotodrone and some semblence of smarts will make them cry all the way to the DocWagon, and their little doggies too.

But yeah - rock/paper/sword foci, right tools for the right job.
As GM's, if someone want to keep something, layered defences are what works, not Paul Bart with an Ingram Smartgun.

-Tir!

Layered defenses is always a good thing to remember, so thanks for the reminder!

I think that Sammies should be able to beat the drones by the fact they should be going first. I mean let's face it, if you're a sammie without monstrously huge initiative, then, IMO, doing it wrong. They have no excuse not to load up on reflex enhancing cyber/bioware.

I said it in another thread, but this can't be emphasized enough, IMO. GMs often throw too much into physical security guards, neglecting every other aspect of how corps approach security, and then complain when these giant security holes are exploited.

Question 3: Mapping Hosts/Computer Systems

Remembering that I'm still catching up with the various editions, I was wondering what system for mapping a host do you prefer? If my skim reading through the various editions that I have (SR2-5), the original "circuit diagram"/node approach of SR2 seems to have fallen rapidly out of favour or, at least, was greatly simplified in Virtual Realities 2.0. After that, it seems to have shifted to a effect/consequence system that is mapless?

My knee-jerk reaction that this was done to as much as possible prevent the sub-game criticism of decking in earlier editions and what was otherwise a "virtual dungeon bash" of going room to room. Would that be a reasonable assumption?

I'm torn in the approach to take for a number of reasons. First, as with the "Rigger" I would things to make sense (to me if no-one else) while maintaining as much as the retrotech elements of SR2 (the base setting) as I can. Second, I'm not sure that I want the headache of full Unwired/SR4-esque hacking and, third, I certainly don't want to have to deal with Technomancers. Thankfully, however, not all of these are equal concerns (especially the latter).

So I have a number of questions for you first, and then an idea/possibility that has percolated up through my grey matter.

• Which version is your favourite?
• Could you give me a quick example hack in your favourite or, if you are feeling really generous, SR4 and/or SR5. (I'm trying to get to grips with the "cause/consequence" approach.)

The Idea/Thought

Is there a middle ground between these two (very broad) approaches that you've explored?

I ask primarily because I was thinking about each one and, clearly, the SR2 one is a tad bit on the slow side, I'm wondering as to the flexibility/depth of the second approach.

Because it's easy to criticise without producing something, where my thoughts are going at the moment is considering each Host to be represented by a Venn diagram. The Host itself is the first circle (with Firewall), that once breached you're obviously into the system and can get up to shenanigans. Within that, however, are other circles representing the notion of (as in another thread) defense-in-depth--secondary firewalls.

Not everything is hidden behind another firewall. Once in the system you can skim through the materials within the public network, but the other circles are core functionality and data.

Circles that are joined represent co-dependent or linked sub-systems or hosts through a data-link, hard-node, or perhaps even just a backwall.

Within the Host, between any circles (if any), is where software operates. The trackers and ICE, key software used by personnel in the Host to do their work etc. Within the higher-security sub-systems, which are tied to physical systems, you have to breach the firewall to get in, but once there you've got access to the systems within that. So, for example, you crack the Security firewall and it's like a playground.

Perhaps one of these nodes is, for want of a better term, the "kernel" that if you get access to it you've basically got superuser access?

As I'm seeing it at the moment (sans critique), you can have the descriptive approach that would have a decker scoping out a system, but also get into the notion of layered defenses. You can see the subsystems but unless you try and breach them they're just opaque... objects (however they are represented). If you can social engineer some user information or get hold of cryptographic keys (biometrics of whatever), you might be able to crack those without actually hacking them. Of course, if you can get to the analogous I/O system for a given sub-system (e.g., the security room), then you don't have to worry about the firewall--just local software. And if you do some social engineering that also might not be a problem.

How does that sound for someone that doesn't feel that the SR "circuit diagram" approach is workable, but also doesn't truly want to get down the minimalist "

Clearly, if you would be so kind as to put which question you're replying to as the first line of the post, that would probably make this easier to keep track of...?

Question 4: Are there any fans of the old Earthdawn/Shadowrun meta-setting?

And, if so, what do you do with it? Or do you just acknowledge it and move on?

I ask primarily because my current project with Shadowrun may require a bit of setting hopping.

Question #5: Drawbacks of Cyber/Tech?

Obviously Essence is the primary drawback for cyber/tech, but I wondered if anybody took this any further? For the obvious cinematic reference you've got Johnny Mnemonic and his "data bleed" for more information. Equally, in Shadowrun you've got the mention in SR2 that people without a trigger for Wired Reflexes tend to be "twitchy." The same would, I guess, apply to the Suprathyroid Gland (SR2, ShadowTech, p. 20) given the text commentary in the book.

Has anyone actually taken these descriptive effects and turned them around into mechanics that can impact the character as they roleplay (rather than relying that they do so themselves)?

As another example, I love the premise of skill softs, but I also imagine that they come with a certain level of predictability. Indeed, I imagine that the "level" of the skill soft is not just about how high it is, but who they had to pay to record it. With that said, if you're running old Level 3 "Kung Fu" programme, there's going to be a bit more of predictability to it than if you're running a Level 7 "Ghost Who Walks Inside."

Or what about the physical toll of using Boosted or Wired Reflexes?

Just a thought that I'm playing around with.

Re: Question 4

The Horrors & Bugs. Best nasties to crawl out of Earthdawn.
Threats 1&2: Read them abuse them. (Ignore the Winternight "we're really triggering the end of the world, we promise" motions of grandeur and stick to a secret, ever so secret cabal of super toxics and their nefarious plots.)
Deus...well, it got nerfed, but before the Showdown, it was just something unfathomable, lurking in the dark corners of the matrix.

Also - Los Alamos 2000. Those guys are creepy as all-hell. Very very sketchy. Monsters hiding in plain sight.

-Tir

Re: Question 5: Cyberware.


USE the Racism tables, and use the "Cyberwear Racism" rule-of-thumb, which I think was a +1 to any social TN if your essence is below 5, Below 6 if they are magic/nature orientated. Always round down:) Ie:

See Sammy.
Sammy has 2.31 Essence, as they are a Street Monster.
Sammy is trying to make that they are a normal/Meet new people/Organize work.
Vs the tree-hippy knife-ears, Sammy has a +4TN to all social rolls, apart from intimidation.
See Sammy Intimidate.
See Hippy Knife-ear Summon Spirit.
See Hippy Knife-ear get a hold of friends.
See Friends summon Spirit of asskicking.
See Sammy.
See Sammy RUN.


Or:
See Sammy.
See Sammy trying to fast-talk to get into office, as the Face is sleeping off some gamma-scop that was "lying around"
See Secretary
See "Summon Security button" under table.
Press button Secretary, Press!


Regarding slottable skills over 7 - well, you're going to need the physical attributes to bring those bad-boys into action. And for chipped skills of those ratings, they're going to be rare, controlled and HUGE (Mp-wise). Also might be a bit buggy, or have some ungodly copy-protection ("Dear User, you have 2 uses left before trial ends, and the indoctrination mindbender ICE is installed. Or was it one?").

Early (2040's-2050's) yeah, if you were a metal monster, you'd be treated that way. Later, as tech got a lot more familiar, affordable and cheap, grudging acceptance would increase, only to be rejected out of hand when rogue AI's, nanoswarms and mind viruses started to pop up everywhere...

Easy rule-of-thumb, if the character looks like an Optimus Prime stunt double, treat them like one when they got into the Stuffer-Shack for a Suffer Slushy.

-Tir

Or it could go like this:

Sammy has 2.31 Essence, as they are a Street Monster.
Sammy is trying to make that they are a normal/Meet new people/Organize work.
Vs the tree-hippy knife-ears, Sammy has a +4TN to all social rolls, apart from intimidation.
See Sammy Intimidate.
See Sammy seeing Hippy Knife-ear starting to concentrate and Weird Shit™ starting to happen, activates wired reflexes and cyber spurs. Sammy then pulls Hippy Knife-ear's beating heart out of his chest and feeds it to him, then pisses on the corpse.


Just because someone has magic does NOT make them invincible. 9 out of 10 mages do NOT have the reflexes a good Sammy has, and that will be... painful. Hippy Knife-ear usually catches a severe case of Dead.

Thanks for the replies. I probably shouldn't have added so many questions, but hey-ho!


Oh certainly. And if this game has some legs--it's running online--that's definitely going to be something that they'll be tinkering with in a major way. (Getting this game was part of an original campaign seed called "Shadowrun Apocalypse" that took a spike event to mirror some of the shenanigans of the computer game, Hellgate: London.)

What about the other stuff? The IE's, for example? The kind of stuff that was in the Dawn of the Artefacts?


Do you have a reference for that? I did a quick search on my SR4 and SR5 digital books but couldn't find anything.


Of course, you're right. The setting is fairly clear about how decreasing Essence gives people the cold willies.

What I'm talking about, however, are the kind of things that impact the individual directly. It could be a consequence of implant, perhaps, or the result of second-hand tech (e.g., Johnny Mnemonic where a character is "jacked up so tight she shakes"). (Equally, the mention in the SR books that someone without a Wired Reflex trigger that has it always on tends to be... twitchy.)


Again, some very good points raised. I agree with all of your points, so I guess the major thrust of this is that if you're running a 5-year old Lvl 4 Morgan Blackhand (sorry, switching systems there ) then there are going to be some issues.

I guess it could apply to software in general--the older it is, the less useful it is going to be?


My main point--premise?--is that cyberware may have a cost purely because of what it does. Biotech that tweaks with your adrenaline, for example, is going to have a subsequent cost (e.g., you suffer from fatigue).

With that said, I'm not sure that the whole "unnatural feature" argument is going to play out too much in 2050 (or later) given all the crazy stuff that people are being subjected to. Well, not unless someone really tries.


Which is a great thing to remember (and one that has left an indelible mark on the psyche of one of my players). On the other hand, it's not quite what I'm going to get at with this question.

Again, all, thanks for engaging.

Question #6 - Your Problems With Cyber/etc.?

One of the things that I've been doing is looking into the cyberware (etc.--protheses) and trying to figure out what it actually does. This sometimes goes above and beyond what it does in the game RAW.

What do you say? Is there any cyber (or whatever) that doesn't work in the way that you want or, if you could remake it, would work slightly differently?

Not this player. If I had wanted to play Call of Cthulhu, I would have picked that game and not Shadowrun. To me, the notion of a Big Bad Coming to Destroy All should either be used to unite the actors on Earth, or, at the very least, to make actors on Earth realise who are pro-life and who are not. And it is not. It is toyed with a little, then seemingly forgotten, even by those in the know, who engage in what is obejctively petty squabbles (why don't the dragons at least have a discussion about whether or not it makes sense to argue among themselves when the Horrors, Terrors or whatever they are called this week are en route to eat them all?). Piss poor plot device, sez I.

I get where you're coming from, though I've never quite gotten the gist of taking an exclusionary stance to what is already a crossover game. Of course, different strokes for different folks and, as above, it wouldn't be fun if everyone agreed on everything.


I guess I'm far more cynical about people than you are.

To me, even the worst of Megacorporations will side with living because it doesn't matter how many toys you have, if you're dead, you can't play with them.

A valid perspective. Of course, if you want the best toys and don't want the others to have them?

I mean, it's all good and well being altruistic but how does that change the bottom line?

Nothing altruistic about surviving. Bottom lines only matter if you are alive to brag about them.

We shall have to agree to disagree, then. I mean. Climate change after all.

*shrugs*

I'm sorry Ka_ge, but I think you might be getting a little to pedantic.

"Climate Change" is not going to kill us RIGHT NOW. Insect Spirits in Shadowrun want to kill you and wear your body like a meat suit. Shedim wait until you're dead and then take over your corpse. Dragons think you are crunchy and go good with ketchup. Etc, etc, ad nauseam.

I mean when someone comes out with data that isn't "massaged" (two links below from reputable sources for your reading enjoyment), then we can talk. Also, you'll have to get China to stop polluting and that might be a bit of a problem.


Anyways back to Shadowrun, Mega Corps are NOT going to want to die just so nobody else can have the pretty toys. They'll accept having less toys for being able to survive.



https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sear...=clnk&gl=us
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...ature-data.html

To be fair, and with respect, that was far from pendantic--just illustrative of how humans can act against their best interests especially when long-term planning is required. I realise that this might not have been what came across with the flippant answer, so apologies for that.

There are, of course, some cultural variations. The West, for example, is inclined towards short-term planning while China, for example, is cultural predicated towards a more long-term process. (I don't say this in any way to suggest that "Western Culture" is lesser than that of China or the East or even vice versa.)

The immediacy, while highly questionable given what is happening on a global scale (YMMV etc.), is not the point--only that humans don't always act in their best interests, especially in the long-term. In fact, immediacy is only the flip side of the threat analysis coin (as it were; see later).

The analogy to metahumanity in the Sixth World is, for me, fairly clear. Not everyone is automatically "in the know" about the Scourge metaplot. It's a secret except to some. The MegaCorps don't know about it, only a few ancient actors in the game--dragons, IEs etc. Each of those have a different ability to move the Sixth World and, likely, different opinions on how things should work.

Basically, everyone is creating a Risk Assessment based upon the information that they have to hand. There isn't perfect sharing of information, so everyone is dealing with different information, different values, different missions etc. And that's before you even get to the point about knowing that Risk Assessments, such as those produced by security and intelligence agencies, are obviously subjective--they're just dealing with better information than the average Jo(an).

That's just for immediate threats because they're easier to track than long-term ones.

So, yes, I think that everyone can agree that short-term threats like you describe are going to be seen just as that: threats.

Buuuuttttt... Can you think of any situations where an obvious threat has been considered an opportunity for the few, the bold? Or there were different opinions on how to deal with a threat? Should smallpox be obliterated, or should they keep samples (etc. etc.).

Or, if you want to turn to fiction, there are plenty of examples there, too. Damn it, Burke!

In this scenario, "Climate Change" also becomes a great example for other reasons such as reaction to an existential threat that deals with the long-term when it comes to the reaction of different demographics. "Demons are coming for us!" scream some, while others scream "Show me objective data!" or whatever.

As to the short-term? One person being killed by an unusual tornado, or a Shedim, only becomes illustrative of a wider pattern when you have the data and the insight to put it together. And, then, the belief of policymakers are wealthy loons to go along with you.

So, yeah, not so "pedantic," I feel.

(FWIW, I don't actually want to get into a discussion climate change per se, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be used for illustrative purposes, e.g. your own suggestion about data manipulation.)


FWIW, as a Brit who lives in the States, I find it very surprising to have anyone refer to the "Daily Mail" as a respectable source. With that said, I'm not going to comment on them except to talk about the generalities as they may apply rather than my specific beliefs here or there.

I would think Chicago would exhibit number one for "Demons are coming!"

Also, you dismissed the Shedim as a "rare" event that only kills a few people. I would like to point out Badr al Din Ibn Eisa, leader of the New Islamic Jihad, was a Master Shedim and killed thousands of people and set peace in the Middle East back quite a ways.

Master Shedim, like all Shedim, HATES humanity. Not, "I hate you, and I hope you have a bad day!". I'm talking about true utter hatred "I hate you and I'm going to torture you to death, but only after I murder you wife, your kids, your mother, your father, your friends, the bitch you took to the Prom, and your Goddamn pet rock! I am then going to summon more of my friends to possess their dead bodies so they can go on and murder more of their families." kind of hatred.



I quoted the Daily Mail, because when I use Fox News, I get "FAUX NEWS IS NOT NEWS!"

With the caveat that I'm still trying to get back into the Shadowrun lore while, at the same time, thanking you for bringing my attention to it...


My understanding (read: memory) of Chicago through Universal Brotherhood is that it was all about Insect Spirits, right?

My first thought on that is that what it revealed is that insect spirits are bad mojo. My second thought is that, reading through the materials available to me, you can quite clearly see that MegaCorps are not suddenly becoming all altruistic and wanting to save the world given knowledge about Invae. Third, even if there is a growing body of lore in the "those in the know" this in no way translates to a monolithic approach. I mean, clearly.

Even knowledge of the threat of Invae in absolutely no way translates to actionable intelligence about the Horrors/Scourge. There is, as far as I can tell, literally no singular agency in Shadowrun that is dealing with this in a substantive way. Everything else is just piecemeal.


I think that you're misreading what I said, especially when it comes down to the difference between short-term and long-term planning (and events). More so when I'm trying to differentiate between "boots on the ground" interpretations and what you seem to be suggesting which is, as far as I can tell, translating events into a meta-reaction?

That might be unfair, so apologies. I would love to hear more about this perspective if you're willing to give it.

At the same time, given the background materials I'm trying to gel this utopian and positivist approach to humanity that I'm reading in the materials that I have access to. Clearly I don't have access to everything so I would love to learn more. This is not what I'm seeing.

With that said, and again, any amount of real-world situations can match this without linking to some global conspiracy or ultimate truth to the the universe. (Sometimes, however, conspiracy theories can be true.)


To be fair, the Daily Mail is often viewed in the same light as Fox New. Full disclosure, though? I have some involvement in a field that parallels climate science. I may be biased by my own expertise and deference to others in the field.

*shrugs*