I feel misled! You told me "But since you now demand an explicit ruling I have to concede: There is none =>The actual wording would then resolve like this:"

I feel like I have to do it all over again, because now you say that the actual wording does not in fact say what we described. Please, tell me this is not the case!

I don't want to change those things. I just want to show that the uber-strict actual wording is as absurd as can be, so we should instead make assumptions that result in reasonable rules.

By showing that, I mean to say that should not complain that the FAQ is strictly-speaking incorrect just because the assumptions made by the FAQ do not match our own. Unless, of course, you make no assumptions and use the uber-literal rules -- then you can complain about the FAQ all you want (and then later about 100% of your group being Magicians Way Adepts ).

The wording is pretty much the same as in english ... using the same words like "extra" and the connection power point or metatechnique for the special rule about magician adepts and the rise of the magic attribute and subsequent power point gain for adepts (without distinction of type) in general.

The german version however would hardly allow the interpretation that Zazen provided in our last dispute on that issue, where he said that once you reduce it to the literal wording, then magician adpets could initiate normally and then additionally gain either a power point or a metatechnique ...

Even with the english version that literal interpretation is quite hard, since the sentence before that "either / or"-choice deals with the 20 Karma rule, thus creating a not too easy deniable context, where the word "extra" is of great importance. And since it also deals with initiation, it's hard to deny a connection with option one of all initiatory options ...

I currently do not have my books in reach, but I'll provide the quotes if really necessary.

______________

Sorry, that was not necessarily my intention ...

That's simply the acknowledgement that by being strictly literal that will open the interpretation you presented ...

No need doing that, since I still accept as one valid interpretation ... rigid but correct.

The difference for me is that when making such assumptions that I have to use connections already made within the rules. Looking for context and such.
I cannot find that in the FAQ version, since there are connections being made that those rules in MitS don't even touch (option 2 of the initiatory rules).
As for being "reasonable": I wouldn't call the version with two possible power points really unreasonable, while I do consider empty magic attributes (i.e. magic attributes that don't affect anything but potentially one power *distance strike*) and gimping of magician adepts as "unreasonable" ...

See the thing is, that the FAQ strictly speaking is incorrect, since the assumptions made cannot be backed with the rules as written. It's simply impossible to disregard wordings like "extra" and different connections made. It's pretty much the same with armor negation rules that went into that FAQ ...
At least for me there's still a difference between interpretation existing passages and assuming things that are nowhere to be found.

Even if I where to use the uber-literal version, that would not result in a Magician Adept only group for me
Simply because the players who like magically active characters would not give up the possibility of astral and metaplanar projection on a regular basis ...

This is really the heart of my complaint. Your version makes a certain assumption (namely, that the 'metamagic or power point' choice replaces only the normal gain of a metamagic, but not the normal gain of a power point). The FAQ version makes a different assumption (that the choice replaces both the metamagic and power point, and only those things). Neither are written anywhere in the rules!


Now, saying that your assumption was gained from insight while looking for context or special connections or whatever is fine, but it's still just an assumption. It's no better or worse than the FAQ making a different assumption, and so saying that yours is more accurate is completely unfounded. And so, as I said before, let us discuss which is more reasonable rather than which is more correct.

Yet my "assumption" (I still prefer interpretation) only takes what actually is mentioned. It does not include unreferenced parts of the rules. The FAQ version however does so.
And it is still connected to other aspects that (at least to me) strengthen my position: The mentioned context of the 20 Karma rule and the word "extra" that at least to my knowlegde means "additional" ...

That's still the problem: The power point is nowhere directly connected to a metatechnique. It's magic attribute and power point. The metatechnique comes on its own with option 1. So that assumption to me is still not based on anything in the rules ... ~shrugs~

But I'm not creating new connections. And that's the thing that I critizise about the FAQ version.

Thus I still believe that my interpretation (opposed to an assumption) is more accurate and mots definitely not unfounded ...

Which has been covered in this thread already by Funk, myself and others... until you came back to my initial statement

In brief: I find the FAQ solution to be very unreasonable, since rulewise it creates inconstistancies (empty magic attribute).
I furthermore find it unreasonable to particularly gimp a character type which costs more than a normal adept and is supposed to better than a pure adept when comparing them directly.
I do not find the 2 power point solution as unreasonable, but I'll accept that people can have a balance issue with it. That's why (besides the fact that it would be more consitant and thus more reasonable) it prefer magician adepts to initiate normally.
Last but not least I'd be happy to see an Errata that

a) removes that initiatory restriction a.k.a "gimping for no reason" including that gamemechanically bad idea of having empty magic attributes

b) removes that "lose magic talent first and never regain it once all point of that power have gone" rule, that again is very inconsistant anc can leave an adept who has metatechniques he can no longer access, simply because he lost his magic talent power ...

Then I must again ask you to reference the part of the rules that says that the choice does indeed replace the normally gained metamagical technique, but not the power point or any other benefit.

You've said earlier that it does not exist! That means your assumption doesn't "only take what actually is mentioned". It doesn't "not include unreferenced parts of the rules". It has, in fact, made something up.

~sigh~

You're still not getting my point ...

1. Yes, my interpretation is based on sometghing that you call "assumption".
2. My "assumption" still only uses what can be found in the rules as written:

- extra power points (game mechanic found in BBB)
- metatechniques (found in initiation rules)

3. The FAQ creates completely new connections and even expands them onto initiatory option 2 (which most definitely is not remotely touched by the rules as written)

You cannot change my opinion on that, so I suggest that we leave it at that. Agree to disagree, since it was your own suggestion to debate reasonable rules instead of semantics or my POV on as to why I perceive my interpretation to be "better in line with the wording" in comparison with the FAQ solution.

I tried to go back to that discussion in my previous post, but once again you go back => It's not me who's unnecessarily delaying this whole issue.

You're right, I must not be getting it. I cannot figure out what you mean; I see no distinction. The FAQ ruling also uses:

- extra power points
- metamagical techniques

If I made up a rule that says that magicians way adepts get 10 power points and 3 metatechniques every initiation, it would still use:

- extra power points
- metamagical techniques

I truly do not mean to mock you, just explain why I'm confused. Perhaps you could provide more details about how those particular rules imply that the metamagical technique normally gained through initiation is the only thing replaced by the rule for magician's way adepts?

That's not quite what I said. I want the discussion to focus on reasonableness because of our realization that attempts to understand the literal view are impractical, not just to make this particular thread kinder and friendlier. If we don't first make that realization then it's silly to use a conclusion drawn from it, and it certainly doesn't do us any good in the future.

Now, I'm a believer in finding things out (especially in a case like this where the elements are all laid out before us), but I do realize that this kind of discussion can get intense and stressful. So if you'd really like us to abandon it then please ignore the first part of this post and say so, and I'll happily oblige.

May I ask where the FAQ ruling actually uses extra power points?

Although I could claim that my not being native speaker of the english language bars me from understanding all possible meanings of the word "extra", I'm pretty sure that extra in this context means "in addition to what you normally have".

Now I'm aware that you could say that the power point gained through magic increase in the initiation rules is "extra" to what you had before initiation. However, within the context of initiation that's an inherent or normal trait: Increase magic attribute => new power point.

Since the rule on magician adepts operates within that context (it deals with initiation), anything that is referenced as "extra" at least to my understanding of the word "extra" should be in addition to what is normal for initiation.

As for the metamagical techniques:
Yes, the FAQ uses them, but it suddenly expands the connection made between metatechnique and power point onto signature change and power point.

In this case the word "extra" would actually be correct, wouldn't it?
And your use of metatechniques would not expand into areas that the rule itself doesn't touch (i.e. signature) ..

Did this clear up some of your confusion?

Do we actually need that realization to evaluate the outcomes of either interpretation?
At least I would not have any problem to evaluate the "reasonableness" of both interpretations in regards to things like consistancy of game mechanics (as impartial as possible) and the thing people tend to call "game balance" (this one being very subjective).

Eh, I hate analogies for this reason: they are all flawed. In this case, the flaw is that you do not provide the same context for your use of the word "extra" as is provided in the MiTS text. A "better" analogy would be one that more closely resembles the topic of discussion. In this case:

Lets say that two people have 6 dollars and they typically earn a dollar every week. At the end of week 1, neither really has an "extra" dollar - they each have the "normal" amount. However, if one of those people were to find a dollar in addition to the one he would typically earn that week, that found dollar would be "extra," insofar as it provides him with a greater amount than he would otherwise have (as evidenced by the amount of money possessed by the other person at the end of the week).

Note, however, that I am sure that this analogy is also flawed, and do not intend to defend it other than to say it is a more relevant analogy than BitBasher's.

I disagree, that's naver stated in context in the SR book we're discussing. The quote is what happens when a Magical Adept initiates, not what happens when a Magical Adept initiates in addition to what happens what a normal Adept initiates. The paragraph is offering an alternate scenario for that character type, not an addition for that character type. Context is important.

Realistically it can be explained either way, however your GM chooses to. Neither is entirely wrong or right. That's all I really feel the need to get across.

I dont care which interpretation anyone uses as long as they can see that theirs is not the only valid interpretation by the way it's written.

It's the Physical Magicians Schroedinger's Cat.

Amen, brother. It's not just you

So this leads to the 2 power point version, doesn't it?

It's most definitely not only you. That's the overall solution I'm aiming at myself.
I haven't got any problem with that 2 power point version either, since it doesn't create real inconsistancies.
But I do loathe the FAQ version for that very reason: It's not in line with the wording, it creates major inconstistancies with the game mechanisms and last but not least unnecessarily gimps magician adepts when compared to standard adepts.

Or it's not, and instead means "in addition to what they had before". In my experience, most people think this when they read the text.

If the context were obvious or clear-cut, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Sorta. It opens up a whole discussion about "extra", but doesn't really address my question about how we pick and choose which rules to be replaced by the point-or-technique rule.



Here's my best attempt to show you what I mean, without ever raising the question of the meaning of "extra":


I'm playing a magicians way adept. In the past I've been sodomized by the NYPD and lost magic, but the GM was kind enough to geas it to a plunger talisman. I'm sick of carrying it around, though (it smells), so I go ahead and initiate. I tell my GM I want to shed my geas and he says OK.

By chance someone's girlfriend is reading the text for magicians way adepts. When she turns to see me eyeballing her cleavage, I quickly look at the book and a sentence catches my eye:
"If a magician adept initiates, she can choose to either gain an extra Power Point or learn a metamagical technique."

"Cool", I say, and inform my GM that I'll be taking two levels of Improved Rimjobbing with my new grade. He balks, I show him the rule, but he refuses to follow it. He says "That's meant to replace a metamagical technique you would otherwise gain. No, it doesn't say that anywhere, but I can figure it out from context and connections and stuff. Think about that the next time you're checking out my girlfriends tits." Sucks for me. I decide to hold off on initiating for a day and try it with a different GM who has a more stick-to-the-rules attitude.


Cue tomorrow. I'm excited because this GM always sticks to the rules as literally and brutally as possible. I ask to initiate, show him that rule again, and ask to shed a geas and gain my power point. He reads it aloud:
"If a magician adept initiates, she can choose to either gain an extra Power Point or learn a metamagical technique"

"I don't see where it says you can choose to shed a geas", he says. "You get a power point or metamagical technique, period. No, no magic point either. Got a quote that says otherwise?" I don't, but that's fucking insane! Better leave this alone for now and wait for a different GM that'll run tomorrow. Shit.


Tomorrow comes, I bring it up again, and she reads the rule:
"If a magician adept initiates, she can choose to either gain an extra Power Point or learn a metamagical technique."
She thinks for a while. "When you would otherwise gain a power point and a metamagical technique, you have to choose. That's what this means." But where does it say that? Nowhere, you fucking ice bitch. Better wait for tomorrow.


Tomorrow's here, and I'm in luck: the GM is a stoner and I'm supplying the shit tonight! I lay my rap on him and he reads the rule:
"If a magician adept initiates, she can choose to either gain an extra Power Point or learn a metamagical technique"
He's really surprised. "Well, yeah, I guess it does say that. You're a magician adept, you initiated, so you can choose to gain an extra power point or a metamagical technique. Power point, you say? Sounds ok to me." I smile, hand him the plate of cookies, and begin altering my sheet.




This is long winded and cheesy but I hope it will shed light on my confusion. I cannot figure out who is "right" because they're all making assumptions about which rules are superceded by which other rules. None are actually confirmed in the text, but there are plenty of opinions about what the context means and so forth. Those opinions, however, don't help me one bit in the search for "right".

To eventually journey here! :

Oh, happy day!

That is exactly the conclusion I wanted us to reach. It is indeed subjective, and there is not a better answer. Now there's no reason to state "the rules say exactly this" ever ever again! I think it's time for a nice cold beer

I disagree. After actually reading all of the rules relating to initiation and magician adepts, it's clear that the FAQ is wrong. It's absolutely no surprise (as mentioned in my previous post) that the same arrogant people in this thread who constantly assume that they're right and never admit to being ignorant are the same ones refusing to admit they're wrong here.

The rules are crystal clear in that the Power Point adepts receive when initiating is not an advantage of initiation. It's a side-effect of it. Whenever their Magic Attribute increases because of initiation, they receive another Power Point for their powers. The only things an adept directly receives with each grade of initiation are:

1. Magic Point + Metamagic
2. Magic Point + Altered Signature
3. Shedded Geas

Note the total lack of the word "power point" in those options.

The rules are also crystal clear regarding magician adepts. They initiate just like adepts except that they get a fourth option where they can choose an extra Power Point instead of a Metamagic Technique. There is no ambiguity in those rules. A magician adept receives the following choices:

1. Magic Point + Metamagic
2. Magic Point + Power Point
3. Magic Point + Altered Signature
4. Shedded Geas

Just like other adepts, they also receive a Power Point with their Magic Point. They are one in the same for an adept, and none of the rules state the opposite is true for magician adepts.

The FAQ is wrong, period, as are those in this thread refusing to acknowledge the actual reading of the rules. All you have are two or so people clutching on to pathetically minor nitpicks and semantics because they know they're wrong but, again, refuse to admit it.

Why the discrepency? If the Power Point-or-Metamagic Technique is truly a side-effect of Magician adept initiation, and otherwise they initiate normaly as adepts then they get their choice in addition to whatever an adept normally receives. Therefore they should get either:

1) Magic Point + Metamagic, plus as a side-effect their choice of a metamagic technigue or Power Point,
2. Magic Point + Altered Signature, plus as a side-effect their choice of a metamagic technigue or Power Point,
or 3. Shedded Geas, plus as a side-effect their choice of a metamagic technigue or Power Point.

Clearly this is an overpowered and stupid way to rule, but saying that what a magician adept gets from initiation is a side-effect of the normal adept initiation rules nets you this interpretation. What you are suggesting is that a magician adept can forgo learning a metamagic technique from Option 1 for another power point. While that's slightly more balanced, it is again just another way of interpreting the rules.

Good to know.

So you're only posting to call us arrogant dumbasses and ignorant twits?

Calm down and take a break, man. Smoke a joint or get a blowjob or something.

Of course there still is a reason to say this from time to time again:

Since my subjective POV won't change, my view on the FAQ answer won't change. Thus I will still call it "wrong" by saying that the rules actually tell something different

But I'll take the beer anyway ...