[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I know Lormyr disagrees but I wish they had got rid of all the permanent sustaining methods for mages. You want +4 agility at all times, buy ware.

Personally.. I agree.  That's the "price" of quick and easy and no essence cost and immunity to hacking (and essentially no nuyen cost, at least compared to the nuyen cost of 'ware): it goes away easy.  Easy come MUST be easy go.

[Lormyr]

Hence the requirement for all quickened spells to use the buying successes rule.  Even mid-session.

Heck, ALL downtime rolls must buy hits, for that matter.  Quickened spells are special only in that you must buy hits during play, too.

I may not have been clear, let me try again. Yes, I agree. The issue is that we know a PC's dice pools, we know a Contacts dice pools (Connection x2 as you informed me of above), but we do not know random non-contact NPC's dice pools. If a PC chooses to get quickening from that route we need a formula for that that is not GM fiat, since that can and will lead to wild inconsistency.

Edit 2: Unless you mean that the only non-PC, non-Contact NPC source that can be used is a named, statted mage with quickening present in the Mission where the quickening is purchased?

I know Lormyr disagrees but I wish they had got rid of all the permanent sustaining methods for mages. You want +4 agility at all times, buy ware.

Yeah. If I was making a wish it would be that the general magic system was more balanced so that quickening attributes seemed like less of a big deal to those it bothers and everyone could have augmented attributes (to some degree) without fucking their archetype.

Edit: Something like adepts can use powers to augmented physical stats, mages spells for mental ones, and ware does a combination of all because it is the most costly.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Hence the requirement for all quickened spells to use the buying successes rule.  Even mid-session.

Heck, ALL downtime rolls must buy hits, for that matter.  Quickened spells are special only in that you must buy hits during play, too.

I may not have been clear, let me try again. Yes, I agree. The issue is that we know a PC's dice pools, we know a Contacts dice pools (Connection x2 as you informed me of above), but we do not know random non-contact NPC's dice pools. If a PC chooses to get quickening from that route we need a formula for that that is not GM fiat, since that can and will lead to wild inconsistency.

Edit 2: Unless you mean that the only non-PC, non-Contact NPC source that can be used is a named, statted mage with quickening present in the Mission where the quickening is purchased?

Well in the case of Increasing an attribute, the extent of the variation that is possible is +1 to +4.  I'm not sure I agree that counts as the potential for wild variation.
So, sure there's the other spells that give bonuses that are not subject to augmented limits. What's to keep a GM from letting someone quicken Improved Invisibility or Armor on themselves with a ridiculous number of hits?

Since it's bought hits, the NPC spellcaster must have had a dice pool of 4xnet hits.  Even if you want +5 to something, then the GM invented a NPC for the mission with 20+ dice pool. Is there wild variation between GMs thinking 20-ish dice is unreasonable for an unwritten NPC? 

Maybe?  It depends on what you call wild variation, and that's gonna end up being opinion based, rather than objective.  SRM's already got a couple rules to address this indirectly.  There's the In GM We Trust to allow a GM to insert un-written factors into the mission.  There's also the In Player We Trust to be inclined to take their word for "that last GM signed off on it".  And on the other side to bound things in is the rule about GMs not going overboard with rewards, like not giving players Lowfyr as a contact.  Due to the requirement for buying hits, by the time a quickened spell is strong enough to be problematic it should be fairly easy for reasonable people to determine if the NPC who cast it had an inappropriate dice pool.

And more than that... unlike having say a Banshee LAV or being best buddies with Lowfyr, a quickened spell is trivially easy to just take away by any subsequent GM.  All an astrally projecting NPC mage only needs is 4 dice in their Sorcery pool to casually rip the spell down 1 hit at a time.  If a mundane even noticed what was happening (and that's a big if), there's drek-all he could do to stop it.  Or of course, you know.  The old "oops you walked thru a mana barrier.  Lol!" trick in the GM book.

[Lormyr]

Practically speaking, for what I anticipate to be the most used quickening (attributes), you're right. Anything past 4 hits doesn't matter a lot other than for dispelling, but that is a factor. If I was min-maxing (and I usually am) I'd buy as many hits with as much drain as possible specifically for the purpose of acting as a dispelling buffer. I just think it would benefit from a hard universal formula, basically x money for x hits. Food for thought.

That said, I will be flat out amazed if the coming magic book doesn't make more hits very desirable for new spell options. My expectation is the magic power creep will be awe inspiring, but I would love to be proven wrong.

I am also interested to see how liberal GMs are with the dispels since the FAQ basically gives GM a license for corp and law enforcement to do it willy nilly. While I think those entities employing those tactics in non-combat scenarios is acceptable, I also think it should only come after a warning they can't enter the premises like that and/or after a failed license check. After all, if you have a license that passes check, law enforcement then just stripping them anyway would itself be illegal, not to mention a flat out dick GM move.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Practically speaking, for what I anticipate to be the most used quickening (attributes), you're right. Anything past 4 hits doesn't matter a lot other than for dispelling, but that is a factor. If I was min-maxing (and I usually am) I'd buy as many hits with as much drain as possible specifically for the purpose of acting as a dispelling buffer. I just think it would benefit from a hard universal formula, basically x money for x hits. Food for thought.

The way I read it is you can't select more than 4 hits, since you're capped at +4 bonus.  By my understanding you cannot select 5+ hits for the purposes you're describing.  But I can see where you're coming from, too.  And yes I agree a formula such as you describe would be useful.  Of course the devil's in the details... imo most notably in setting a price (rather than the "universal" pricing as is).  How expensive SHOULD it be, given how easy it is to be dispelled/disrupted, AND given how much more or less likely this GM or that one is to actually have that happen?

That said, I will be flat out amazed if the coming magic book doesn't make more hits very desirable for new spell options. My expectation is the magic power creep will be awe inspiring, but I would love to be proven wrong.

Ditto and ditto.

I am also interested to see how liberal GMs are with the dispels since the FAQ basically gives GM a license for corp and law enforcement to do it willy nilly. While I think those entities employing those tactics in non-combat scenarios is acceptable, I also think it should only come after a warning they can't enter the premises like that and/or after a failed license check. After all, if you have a license that passes check, law enforcement then just stripping them anyway would itself be illegal, not to mention a flat out dick GM move.

All valid points, but otoh while you're on corp extraterritorial territory they get to decide what's legal.  And yak/mafia/seoulpa/vory/etc compounds don't really care overly much about respecting intruders' legal rights.

[Lormyr]

The way I read it is you can't select more than 4 hits, since you're capped at +4 bonus.  By my understanding you cannot select 5+ hits for the purposes you're describing.  But I can see where you're coming from, too.  And yes I agree a formula such as you describe would be useful.

Well this sort of goes back to our previous discussion about a "total" augmentation, after negatives. By my reading there is nothing in the spell (or any other spell) that stops you rolling rolling or buying greater than 4 hits, you just don't benefit from more than 4. For example, if a mage cast increase charisma, and sustains it with 6 hits, that is what the spell has vs. dispelling, it's just that he only benefits from 4 of those hits to his attribute.

All valid points, but otoh while you're on corp extraterritorial territory they get to decide what's legal.  And yak/mafia/seoulpa/vory/etc compounds don't really care overly much about respecting intruders' legal rights.

Totally. If criminals do it at whim, 100% legit. Likewise for corps if they are in extraterritorial territory (not all are in some locations). Personally, I think the game reality circumstances should be taken into consideration though. Sure, that Yakuza mage could dispel you. . .but if he thinks you will murder his ass in response, that is a pretty strong deterrent from proceeding.

Anyhow, when I personally run, non-combat dispels are only going to happen as a result of failed warnings, failed license checks, or shocking player stupidity.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Anyhow, when I personally run, non-combat dispels are only going to happen as a result of failed warnings, failed license checks, or shocking player stupidity.

Oh, agreed. 

You absolutely have a point about the possibility of a spell being dispelled "just because it's easy to do it" is not a nice thing for a GM to do.  But if it makes sense in the context of what's going on?  Well... it's easy to rip down!

[0B]

There's nothing stopping the GM from deciding that corpsec is 5 dragons with AK-47s, but there are certainly a lot of reasons not to do such of things.

[Lormyr]

In response for both of you, with reasonable GMs, none of this is an issue. 25 years of gaming experience has just driven home that those are a commodity at times, so I typically assume given inches will be taken a mile until an individual GM has proven otherwise.

I freely admit that my experience with SR Agent GMs has been significantly better than other living campaigns by comparison though.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

For what it's worth, this time around we're making a sister document to the SRM FAQ, a GM Primer intended for GM eyes.  It's not that players can't look at it (indeed, a player one week is the GM another week?) but the doc is solely dedicated to GMing questions and providing advice for consistent experiences across SRM tables.

Some of the points you've been making Lormyr is good fodder for that.

[Lormyr]

My nerd! <3

[Sir Ludwig]

SSDR,

I think the new documents will be a nice addition, do you have an ETA?

Thanks,
SL

For what it's worth, this time around we're making a sister document to the SRM FAQ, a GM Primer intended for GM eyes.  It's not that players can't look at it (indeed, a player one week is the GM another week?) but the doc is solely dedicated to GMing questions and providing advice for consistent experiences across SRM tables.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Anyhow, when I personally run, non-combat dispels are only going to happen as a result of failed warnings, failed license checks, or shocking player stupidity.

Oh, agreed. 

You absolutely have a point about the possibility of a spell being dispelled "just because it's easy to do it" is not a nice thing for a GM to do.  But if it makes sense in the context of what's going on?  Well... it's easy to rip down!

Its one of the few things a security mage can do from the astral, so I'd see it as commonplace.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Anyhow, when I personally run, non-combat dispels are only going to happen as a result of failed warnings, failed license checks, or shocking player stupidity.

Oh, agreed. 

You absolutely have a point about the possibility of a spell being dispelled "just because it's easy to do it" is not a nice thing for a GM to do.  But if it makes sense in the context of what's going on?  Well... it's easy to rip down!

Its one of the few things a security mage can do from the astral, so I'd see it as commonplace.

Yeah.  I'm sure that in the Sixth World there are "no magic allowed on the premises" signs that are as common as "no weapons allowed" signs.  For all the same reasons.

[Lormyr]

Anyhow, when I personally run, non-combat dispels are only going to happen as a result of failed warnings, failed license checks, or shocking player stupidity.

Oh, agreed. 

You absolutely have a point about the possibility of a spell being dispelled "just because it's easy to do it" is not a nice thing for a GM to do.  But if it makes sense in the context of what's going on?  Well... it's easy to rip down!

Its one of the few things a security mage can do from the astral, so I'd see it as commonplace.

Yeah.  I'm sure that in the Sixth World there are "no magic allowed on the premises" signs that are as common as "no weapons allowed" signs.  For all the same reasons.

Signs, 100%, and repercussions for ignoring them, also 100%. Still, I personally will never be onboard with just coming out with it in a non-combat situation without warning. Not my style, or how I like to be treated at a table.

But at the end of the day, most of the characters that rely on quickening are typically not really the blank trench coat type to begin with. So if you plan to glow like a christmas tree as a criminal, I expect you'll also likely pink mohawk right through that poor astral fuck.