Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Tournament Rules
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 11:07:00 -0800
So, lately I've been trying to come up with some nice rules for running
a tournament of Shadowrun. Most of it is pretty basic stuff -- this
many cards, reversed-polish type advancement, win after ten zillion
Reputation, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Then I started thinking: wouldn't it be nice if you could use previous
Rep in the game you're currently playing? So, I came up with the
following (still sketchy) rules:

Advancement: Players accumulate Reputation from game to game. The
total amount of Reputation they have at the end of the game is added or
subtracted from their "Good Reputation". The following modifiers also
apply:

Winning a game: +15 Good Reputation
Tieing a game: +5 Reputation

(No, I have no idea how you would tie a game, I just want to make sure
all the bases are covered).

In addition, Good Reputation may be spent *before a game begins* in the
following ways:

+1 Y to Crestick: 40 Good Reputation
+1 card in hand: 50 Good Reputation
Begin with card of choice: 100 Good Reputation
Remove a card from your deck: 15 Good Reputation
Return card to deck: 30 Good Reputation
Go first in game: X Good Reputation

Notes: Remove a card from the deck -- Players must still meet the
minimum deck limits (ie 60/6 cards). This is a possible way to enact
sideboards, however.

Go first in game: Each player may write down (secretly) the amount of
Good Reputation he is willing to spend to go first. The player who bid
the most goes first; the plaeyr(s) who bid the least divide the
Reputation among themselves.



This provides some interesting effects late in the tourney; Given that
the game is considered "won" at 100 Reputation, I don't think I'd see
anyone using the "begin with card of choice" option.

Additionally, I was going to create some rules for players to place
side-bets on other games, although that might speed the gameplay up
*too* much (and if there are ever $10,000 prizes in SRTCG, might lead to
collusion....)


Thoughts, comments, flames welcome.


-Mb
Message no. 2
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Tournament Rules
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 19:57:18 -0500
At 11:07 AM 12/23/97 -0800, Matb wrote these timeless words:

> Winning a game: +15 Good Reputation
> Tieing a game: +5 Reputation
>
>(No, I have no idea how you would tie a game, I just want to make sure
>all the bases are covered).
>
Simple... Saeder Krupp :]

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka Chaos, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Cuddly Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome and Archive
Answer Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
---- in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"Bah! Humbug!"
-- Wise man on Christmas :]
Message no. 3
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Tournament Rules
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 15:40:42 -0800
Bull wrote:

> At 11:07 AM 12/23/97 -0800, Matb wrote these timeless words:

> > Winning a game: +15 Good Reputation
> > Tieing a game: +5 Reputation

> >(No, I have no idea how you would tie a game, I just want to make sure
> >all the bases are covered).

> Simple... Saeder Krupp :]

Y'know, I thought there was something I was missing....



-Mb
Message no. 4
From: "Ken Dirk (DrugDoc)" <dirkkenn@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Tournament Rules
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:16:59 -0800
Matb wrote:
>
> So, lately I've been trying to come up with some nice rules for running
> a tournament of Shadowrun. Most of it is pretty basic stuff -- this
> many cards, reversed-polish type advancement, win after ten zillion
> Reputation, yadda, yadda, yadda.
>
> Then I started thinking: wouldn't it be nice if you could use previous
> Rep in the game you're currently playing? So, I came up with the
> following (still sketchy) rules:
>
> Advancement: Players accumulate Reputation from game to game. The
> total amount of Reputation they have at the end of the game is added or
> subtracted from their "Good Reputation". The following modifiers also
> apply:
>
> Winning a game: +15 Good Reputation
> Tieing a game: +5 Reputation
>
> (No, I have no idea how you would tie a game, I just want to make sure
> all the bases are covered).
>
> In addition, Good Reputation may be spent *before a game begins* in the
> following ways:
>
> +1 Y to Crestick: 40 Good Reputation
> +1 card in hand: 50 Good Reputation
> Begin with card of choice: 100 Good Reputation
> Remove a card from your deck: 15 Good Reputation
> Return card to deck: 30 Good Reputation
> Go first in game: X Good Reputation
>
> Notes: Remove a card from the deck -- Players must still meet the
> minimum deck limits (ie 60/6 cards). This is a possible way to enact
> sideboards, however.
>
> Go first in game: Each player may write down (secretly) the amount of
> Good Reputation he is willing to spend to go first. The player who bid
> the most goes first; the plaeyr(s) who bid the least divide the
> Reputation among themselves.
>
> This provides some interesting effects late in the tourney; Given that
> the game is considered "won" at 100 Reputation, I don't think I'd see
> anyone using the "begin with card of choice" option.
>
> Additionally, I was going to create some rules for players to place
> side-bets on other games, although that might speed the gameplay up
> *too* much (and if there are ever $10,000 prizes in SRTCG, might lead to
> collusion....)
>
> Thoughts, comments, flames welcome.
>
> -MbGreat idea. My only modification would be to decrease the rep cost to
get +1 card in hand. I would make it cost less than the +1Y at the
beginning of the game. I am assuming that the +1 card in hand is a one
shot deal and that the player doesn't get to refresh up to 8 cards rather
than 7.

Ken Dirk (DrugDoc)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Tournament Rules, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.