That's pretty much a given. But even factoring that into the equation, and only giving him a measly 1 Karma/year (which is pure and utter bullshit), Harley would still have more than enough Karma to improve his Magic. And in an age where it's extremely tough to perform Magic, he'd have all the incentive he needed to up those skills to a level where it was at least feasible for him to be able to do it reasonably well.

I see where you're coming from, but I dont treat them that way, so I dont have a problem with it.

That's because IMHO they have absolutely no place being incorporated into any normal game of SR. I acknowledge this, but that doesn't mean that for that reason they don't exist in my world. There are many things that exist in the world of SR that are far beyond the players scope of influence. That doens't mean they shouldn't exist. I deal with them primarily only as OOC flavor. They do add a certain depth to the game that way IMHO.

I agree somewhat, but I disagree that there's nothing you cant get from a grade 20 that you can't get from a grade 88, mainly being focus addiction and the amount of magic that can be masked without conscious thought. Those two things I find very important. It's the forethought and magical defenses that make IE's and GD's tough to kill. I'm not going to sell short someone that's been alive for 30,000 years because I dont feel like doing the math to make them all they should be.

I agree that NPC's should follow the same rules, I totally agree that NPC's that don't have to roll are cheating. I totally disagree that a grade 10 will do in this case and do them any justice.

And

Then why bother doing the math?

My problems remain twofold. One, I don't need the Grade 88. If this means I don't need the IE and I can use a guy born in Jersey in 2032, then the shortest distance between two points goes through Jersey.

Two, I disagree with the way IE's are written. Also, GD's. Their intelligence seems too human to me, as though immortality and all power of the ages is something that would simply augment a human instead of something that would change it's fundamental nature. (Again, you may read it differently. This is one of those gaming discussions in which I freely admit that many different types of viewpoints are perfectly valid).

If I were going to use IE's, I'd have to use them as someone who--because they are 30,000 years old and a Grade 88 Initiate-- is completely alien.

But thats me. It goes back to my basic core belief that mortality is the blessing and immortality is the curse (which, if you'll recall, I got from watching the Twilight Zone). To quote Brad Pitt in Troy (something I swore I'd never do), "The Gods envy us because we are mortal. Because we are here, and we will never be here again."

We're batting personal opinion back and forth. I'm not trying to convince you to stop using IE's or that you're wrong. But what I like about having ths discussion is it allows me to really hammer out what I don't like about IE's and what I would change to make them workable in my style of game. From that angle, forgetting IE's as written, and forgetting for a moment the concept of in game power, what do you think the difference between a 30 year old and a 30,000 year old would be?

Let's say we use the downcycle, and for our purposes the IE's are effectively mundane. How would they differ from someone else? What would the downsides be?

I won't argue with that either. I agree completely. But then again, I basically never use them. ever.

Personaly I like to play them (or rather would play them if and when they showed up) as presented. As human and falable as anyone else, just with lots of power, and knowledge. I dont realy see why living a realy long time would make someone less human. Heck, in Dunkies case I think it made him more human. I mean back when he was Mountain Shadow he wasnt exactly as nice as in the 6th world, that that may have been the influence of the Jewel of Memory.

The GM can cheat. I've watched them.

The kind of game I playing is one where the players have a chance to do anything they want. That's what seperates a role-playing game from a video game or a short story. They get to determine where the story goes. For me as a GM to say "You fail" without giving them a chance goes against the entire idea of a role-playing game.

I've played in games where the GM has the story set up and no matter the group does, the story moves along as he wants it. Even when the story is fantastic, its less interesting to me than the idea that the group can actually determine what it wants to do, and that it will have some effect on where they end up. That to me is way, way (way, way) more exciting than the most intricately, beautifully plotted thing I can't affect. If a GM doesn't want the pcs to "screw" up his story, he shouldn't be running it.

That's my mantra. I totally agree.

I'm not sure what your point is, at least when it comes to my post.

In your example, if a character pulls out in the middle of the run (which he is perfectly free to do), the consequences might be a loss of reputation, or an enemy gained, or any of a number of other things, depending on the exact circumstances.

As far as free-form gaming goes, I'm all for it. If the players want to do something, great ... less planning for me (not that I do a tremendous amount of pre-planning anyway). Individual story and plot lines are incidental ... and unimportant in the long run. If the characters all of a sudden get it in their heads to run off to Antarctica and dig for Atlantis, fine ... but I'm not going to bury Atlantis there just because they think it should be.

really? you don't think outliving generation upon generation of people you know and love would change a person? you don't think the ability to rip apart armies by the strength of your will would change a person? you don't think the flexibility of personality required to blend in with the civilizations that rise and fall over the millennia of your life might change a person? you don't think a person who has to change that much, over that much time, would eventually evolve (personality-wise) into something shorter-lived people wouldn't recognize as 'human'?

Most of the IEs seem All-too-human. They're petty, self absorbed, powerhungry, reclusive, not mention most are openly racist to some degree or another. But really, if stacked up next to anyone else with just their wealth and political power, would anyone really notice they acted differently?

Comes from several millenia of being Earthdawn's version of a Paladin.

Or at least were when the adventure was written (ie. before SR3).

LMFAO!

Considering the game has awarded points for less in official adventures, your sarcastic comment there is completely plausible. Though, based upon those same awards, it would depend on how the meeting went down.

For all we know, just "telling nothing" about the 4th World is enough to earn tons of karma every time the subject comes up. Keeping quiet dished out up to four points of karma in A Killing Glare (p. 41 if you're interested).

No because it's a retarded award anyway. The Braggart should lose his or her chance at the Roleplaying karma, that's for sure. You really can't bring up 1st and 2nd edition modules as examples of karma awards since 3rd uses a different scale for everything.

If so, then he wouldn't get the Roleplaying award for staying in character.

Well, 3rd ed only starts in 2060, so obviously most of the time Harley wouldn't be using those rules.

~J

Only the ones that require a player in the description, which, IIRC is all the Roleplaying awards. Squids, I should really start reading the rules again if I want to arguee with you.