But if the rules exist, why reprint them (in another book)? I think the average GM if not the average player could come up with the stats for initiatory groups using MitS as a reference. Why expand the book and perhaps have to cut other sections for something that the GM can (and arguably should) have to decide on their own. Kinda like how matrix security sheaves are left up to the GM to decide for like 90% of the hosts (actually, I can't think of any published security sheaves for a specific host that weren't used as an example, but I don't have Target: Matrix so I'm probably wrong).

Because they're not a reprint of rules. They're a use of the rules. It's like detailing information on a new vehicle but not supplying a stat block for it. It's like detailing information on a new spell but not telling you what the Drain Level, Target, Range, or Type of spell it is. It's like detailing information on a new pistol without telling you how much damage it does, its ammo capacity, or its Concealability. It's like detailing a new cybernetic implant without telling you how much Essence it takes up, how much it costs, or what its Availability is. etc.

And just as a side note, Target: Matrix does include a large list of security sheafs.

Okay, I see that distinction now. Still reserve the right to disagree with the necessity of the stats but I understand your PoV where I didn't before. I guess that's better, right

Cool. Might have to check that out. Thanks!

Not just you. I hated all the bookkeepping for groups and so there are no initiatory groups in my games. You can still have a group of mages that work toward a goal (i.e. Aleph Society ) but they can't help you initiate.

But, I made initiation with ordeal = group initiation so there is a much larger benefit to ordeal initiations.

That was actually pretty much the idea. My players were joining groups just to initiate and then were mad at me when I made the group a real entity in the game and made them honor those pesky oaths and scriptures. The solution was to provide a "discount" to initiation and then allow mages interested in roleplaying the group to be in one. Incidentally, I've still had mages join groups to roleplay their character. It's been a positive rule, actually. I didn't think the players would go for it, but they did. Maybe now that I'm playing with entirely new players in a different state I'll relax on that one, but it was a game-saver at the time.

Yeah, that happened to us too. A whole bunch of us who played magicals worked out that shadowrunning magi had different needs etc to "normal" magicals, and started an initiating group dedicated to shadowmages. It didn't hurt that we were owed a couple favours from a free spirit from way back.

[QUOTE]


Wow. Slippery slope much.

But the proposition that such material ought not be included simply because the GM can do it him/herself is properly refuted that way. It is similar to the argument that a car can excusably not include seats as the end-user can supply something similar themselves if desired.

~J

Funkenstein, if you're really going to critique the contents of a book try taking a look between the covers first. Let's put some of those comments in perspective.

First and foremost, SOTA64 presents 28 pages of adept material. This is almost as much as all the previous references to adepts in SR canon in Grimoire, Grimoire 2, Awakenings and MitS combined.

Second, a third of the overall wordcount is dedicated to rules.

Third, the fiction material is divided up into the aspects of adepthood that were deemed most important to players and which lacked any kind of in character grounding in SR3, to wit:

• a) generalities on the nature of adept abilities;
• b) typical and atypical testimonies that illustrate what Ways are like from the inside and how they affect a character's mindset and power development;
• c) a handful of new groups geared towards integrating adepts into the fabric of the Sixth World (rather than simply introducing more magical/initiatory groups, this means not all of them are actually magical groups) ;
• d) and a forum style discussion that visits some of the recent breakthroughs and developments in adept metamagic and powers cataloguing and provide context to the rules that follow.

All that in 19 pages. Did we miss anything major? I don't think so. Did we do a good job of providing In Character context that was lacking? I think we did, but I'm biased and mileage will vary.

Fourth, the rules section you seem to be deducing to be quite limited, actually includes:

• a) basic advice/encouragement for GMs to make Ways integral to their roleplaying and an optional rule for those that one to give Ways teeth.
• b) 2 new initiatory ordeals.
• c) completely new metamagic techniques (3) and advanced metamagic techniques (4).
• d) 33 completely new adept powers.
• e) 2 new adept-specific foci.
  All that in 8 pages (feel free to compare with previous products to compare use of available space). To put it in perspective, almost as much was added in terms of rules for adepts in those 8 pages than in the previous SR3 sources combined (the BBB and MitS).

This chapter is probably the most rules intensive in the book.

Fifth, as some of the people on here have already noted, and I'd expect you would too if you had read the material, of the groups introduced only ExTSix and the Sisters are actually initiatory magical groups in the strictest sense, and others like Jamil Islamyah and the Alexa Group operate on entirely different levels and function as an umbrella for smaller groups/cells. This being the case the writers decided, taking into account the required formatting and amount of explanatory information as compared to its practical usefulness, that the wordcount could be put to better use detailing other rules. I stand 100% by that decision. There is nothing introduced I would drop to include those 2 or 3 sets of stats and their explanatory text. Note that when I said that the web supplement would include stats for all the groups, I was assuming the people interested had read the material and would realize it meant specific cells/groups within some of the umbrella "associations", as well as the couple of groups which are actually described as magical groups. Seems to me that it isn't very constructive to snipe about what isn't in the book, when you don't know either what is or how, within that context, the missing information might be indeed be less pertinent than the stuff that occupies that space.

Finally, it's a poor writer who doesn't know he's going to have to cut some of his ideas from the very first day he's handed an assignment and told his target wordcount. From the very start, the Adept crew knew there was stuff even in our proposal which wasn't going to make it, both fiction and rules. It was necessary to pare things down to what we believed was essential. That's what made the book. We knew going in there were going to be mixed reactions to such an update (admittedly not on the level we've seen). There always is. You're never going to please everybody and the best you can hope for is to please most of your audience with the material the format allows. That was taken into account, whether it was a good or bad call remains to be seen. I've seen at least as many positive and even enthusiastic responses to the material that is there as I've seen negative ones.

That's not how it works, I honestly wish it was. You don't add 2 pages, you add 16 (varies depending on the printer) and you add another $3 or $4 to the price which many people already think is pretty high.

and

While others did point to the fact they were missing, you've made assumptions about what is and isn't in the book (ie. a rule allowing GMs to enforce Ways in power development which is actually there) and it's actual relevance without reading the book. Would you have made the same comments knowing that only 2 of the 5 groups introduced in the fiction are actually magical groups in the strictest sense? And what if reading the fiction you actually found that most of those stats can easily be deduced from the material (which I won't say is the case)?

Probably, and to a point I would agree. However given restraints relevance and usefulness is everything and this case, given that the groups presented are there for purposes beyond supplying characters with potential initiatory means - and given that a couple of them will prove rather hard to use in that capacity at all - saddling or boxing in the GM with hard stats for potential allies, foes or contacts is of relatively low importance especially when quite a bit of information and leeway is granted in the actual background for the GM to take these wherever he will (and even less so when you've just been told the relevant information is going to be offered up for free to anyone who really wants it).

This was ultimately our call as authors, one which I don't in the least regret, which is why I was both explaining the context (mainly for your benefit since you hadn't read the material) and the reasons why such a call was made. That still doesn't make it the right decision and you are obviously entitled to complain, hell, everyone's entitled to complain and I'm not flinching from that one, but I'd rather they complain in full possession of the facts.

I was making a point as to what actually was in what I feel is a rules-heavy part of the book and also to what we thought was a priority (ie. "relatively important information") instead of those particular stats.

As I'm sure you'll agree not everyone's comments are well-informed (myself included). And general comments, while they may bear out, are prone to not taking into account the details. Personally, I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing your eventual comments or review of this book given some of your concerns in previous threads.

Agreed, everyone is entitled to their opinion just like I'm entitled to outline the background behind any given call. No one has to agree with me, but at least people won't be debating whether something was meant some way or another 10 years down the line.

However knowing myself as I do and being tempted with continuing this debate into counterproductive territory, I will from this point on refrain from further explanations and comments on this or other adept threads, beyond answering specific questions which is what I originally set out to do.

Like I said above, I for one am going to be waiting to see your posts after you've read it. I'm hoping you do, but having read the book several times over by now, I can forsee some stuff you're definitely not going to like.