Oh yeah, it definitely gets expensive. And we're not even planning out karma on the level of Old Seattle, so it's certainly not going to be too much to worry about. Overall, magic has been definitely powered down for the new edition. But...uh...I'm not sure. What are we discussing again?

We were discussing limits on the number of magic users on grid, which would only be decided post-beta anyway.

Though the thread sorta got into a hair-splitting level of detail, the general ideas have been that:

1) Nobody can agree on the canon for actual population density of magic users, the first reason that was used to justify the limiting of magical characters on Seattle.  Everyone admits that it's rare on the whole, but some say that since most teams depicted in novels and background material have at least one mage, it could even be considered commonplace. 

My stance is that since nobody agrees really, it's impossible to make a decision based on perception of how common mages are or ought to be.

2)  The second point of contention is how powerful magic users are/aren't, their power being one of the reasons they were limited on old Seattle.  I think, from the discussion at hand which pulls in a lot of spam about rules, it's hard to draw any conclusion other than they are far less powerful and all but unable to break the game, thus generally mitigating the need to limit them based on their power.

In SR3, even force 8 spells and spirits could be game breaking, and you didn't need to be that great to use them.  Now to even reliably cast a force 8 spell with full effect, I need 24 dice, a nearly unattainable target because of the immense karma costs to reach 18 grades of initiation and 18 magic attribute increases (or even with foci too it's a total beast).  Plus, higher force still won't break the game to the same extent, opponents always have some recourse to fall back on with the possible exception of combat spells.  But then again, if a mage wants to cast head-explody after 18 initiate grades, I say let them.  A streetsam can do that with a 1500 nuyen ares alpha right out the door.

Hello, I chime in here too because I have not been told to shut up newb! yet. :-)

I for one will not be playing a mage (the rules make my head hurt, plus I like guns)... however in my humble experiance it seems to me the problem has never been Mages and Shamans. Really, they're actually rather hard to play unless you like the rules. In any situation where applications are open, it's the adepts who cram the box.

Adepts being a very nice, compact, story book/hero type character class. You can be Bruce Lee and Doc Holiday all in one (even have that nice pisotleer adept in the book now)

So really for the vast majority of people, they'll probably play an adept if they play a magical. If they play an adept, nine out of ten it's something along the lines of a ninja, or a gun fighter or a super sneaky theif type. Neither of which is very harmful to a magic/normal bent. Esspecially in the new system with bioware and cyber being nicer and cheaper.

If you do take control over the tendancy to get 200 karma in half a year, by just sitting around then you're keeping the small population of actual spell slingers in a much more controlable groove. After all, I don't remember anyone ever complaining about a character who throws down a powerball or a invis or a stink at the right time. It's the guy/gall who walks into a bar with twenty spirits and twice that many mage locks that people complain about.

So ... taking it that way.. if I'm right... that majority of magics will be adepts, and that adepts really aren't all that different from basic gunners, just people who like to have that mystical edge. Then really there is no reason to make a limit, if you do make one.. how about only one mage to an account (if you allow more then one character).

Great comments on both sides of the fence.? And while Noor has expressed that the matter isn't really one that needs to be debated yet due to lack of restraints in Beta, I'd like to reinforce what Aries has said: This is a forum to iron out the kinks inherient in a new system, address issues that have been a problem in the past, and pave the way for the new game to come.

But while I see merit in both argruments, I believe it's important to keep things in perspective.? We've all seen the 'We want to stick to canon' bumper sticker that SR:SE will be sporting, and right next to it, we've noted a commonly quoted statistic: 1% of the population is awakened, therefore magic user's are rare, and ideally, we'd like to keep it this way.

Well, yes.? Erm, I mean 'no'.? Erm wait, where was I going with this?

Oh, right.? The rarity factor.? Of course.

Well, naturally, there are literally hundreds of things that can be found at the 1% of the population margin.? For instance, I'd wager a guess that less than 1% of the people on planet earth are from Zimbabwe (Please correct me if I'm wrong.? I'm only speculating on their population.), and maybe it would be generous to say that 1% of the people on the planet hold a Doctorate's degree?? Maybe 1% of the people on the earth can touch their nose with their tongue, and maybe 1% of the planet are actually criminals, admist the rest of us law abiding citizens.

Wait. Criminals.? Come to think of it, that gives me an idea: I'm going to create a roleplaying game based around an obviously under-represented demographic of the criminal element, load them up with guns, and have them work for the wealthiest 1% of the Corporate world.

Where do you draw the line with respect to actual demographics?? When it's thematically accurate?? Well, by all means, if that is the basis of our decision, that we ought to make sure we have MUSH demographics that match cannon.? We can't have too many english speakers, we'll need a few asians that don't have katanas, and maybe even some dwarves, if anyone can stomach the notion of being short, stocky, and generally unattractive.

Or is the restriction based on Magic because the dynamics of Awakened PCs and Mundane PCs are so skewed that an abundance of Awakened PCs would upset the balance inside the playerbase.? Well, if that's the case, then merely limiting the amount of 'Unbalanced' Archetypes we let through the gates is (And has always been) a poor fix.? Something more fundamental needs to be done.

But regardless, the matter remains that this game is not about demographics, or anything of the sort.? I'd be surprised if there were as many cybernetically altered Super-Samurai as there were Spell-slingers, to be honest.? Afterall, even if you could produce the type of individual that doesn't mind the intrusive severing of their soul that cyberware entails, you've still got to find someone who enough money to foot the bill, and enough interest to get some use out of them.? The fact is: All PCs are exceptional - To be a Shadowrunner, afterall, is a fairly elite occupation.? And all of the silly OOC problems that have arisen from the Magic-is-l337 mentality that has plagued Seattle, aside, it remains that in the hands of a mature roleplayer, each and every concept is unique in it's own rights.? Each and every concept will push the envelope outside of the bounds of what is 'normal', in one way or another.? And mundane, or awakened, one demographic, or another will be broken.

And so, I voice opposition to quotas down the road, despite my inner loathing for awakened PCs - Yes, as much as I think magic detracts from the cyberpunk genre, I do believe that inside the setting, any of you that wish to play awakened PCs should have that right, without restriction.

-CM

Can I hear a huzzah?

Huzzah!

Good post.  I agree fully, except about the part about disliking magic characters... afterall, I'm gonna be playing one.

It'd be nice to see a statistical posting in chargen showing the population breakdown; something you'd be able to see prior to committing to race, archetype, or any other elements of +census.

"Oh, jeez, they've got craploads of elves and adepts right now.? Hrm, but not that many technomancers or dwarves.? Well, that answers my question about what to play."