| From: | ">>>>> Axlrose - ... <<<<<" <axlrose@**********.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Catching up with "Genetic Lab" discussion... |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:57:48 -0500 |
does edge away the time from the computer...
Going back to my generalization about "token is a token and gear is a gear"
- the way I understand the card game, anything that is ~useable~ to a
runner can be classified as gear : whether it be cyberwear, drones, magic,
weapons, etc. They can be traded back and forth among runners and ~used~
when needed. Off-hand, the two tokens from the game I can think of is the
drug token and the info token. The debate went on about whether or not
they can be tradable and FASA decided or planned that no, they can not be
traded among runners. Yet they are ~used~ by runners when needed.
Therefore, it would seem that the difference between a gear and a token is
whether or not it can be traded among runners. Both are ~useable~ when
needed.
I might have missed other tokens from the game, not referring to those
players use to keep track of something.
Also, locations can be ~used~ by a runner, but that seems more along the
line of visiting, or ~using~ the services of the location.
And I do not have the post in front of me, but when Brad was debating early
on the potential that a drug and/or info token can be used as gear, someone
replied (which I took sarcastically myself) that a "token is a token and
gear is a gear". Point made and end of the discussion... (but Brad carried
onward before the whole flamed out into the shambles it became for a while).
Now the word token is brought up again, this time attached to the word
runner to refer to the clone of that runner. Going with the above logic
per se, the runner token is something that is ~usable~ to a runner, but can
not be traded. Yet because the clone is the alleged exact replication of a
runner (and I will not go into the discussion on whether or not a "true"
clone down to the last microscopic detail of a living entity would retain
the experiences and memories, thus able to use every aspect of a runner
card, including abilities, gear, and skill, but game balance is required),
you can not say a runner is ~useable~ to a runner (without splitting fine
hairs here). Therefore, the word 'token' has a new definition. A token is
something that is ~useable~ to a runner unless the token itself represents
a living entity.
So I would say that yes, a token is a token, a gear is a gear, and a runner
is a runner unless the 'token' word is further defined. Saying a 'runner
token' is not the same as a 'drug token' is logical, but in this case,
'token' has two meanings! The first 'token' can do nearly anything that a
normal runner can do while the second 'token' is only ~useable~ to a single
runner. Without plunging into the whole semantics affair again, perhaps a
different word could have been used. Because with future expansions, if
the word 'token' is used to represent something else, rule lawyers can
always argue that if that token can do it, then this token should be also.
Which originally started the whole "token can be a gear" debate.
Could a runner token gain drug tokens while reading info tokens? If so,
then as Matt I believe mentioned, if the clone takes damage and the
original feels it, wouldn't a clone doing drugs and scanning info become
felt and known to the original too?
My thoughts on the whole, hopefully met with intellectual responses to
counter my ramblings to further prompt the debate's future.
>>>>>Axlrose - ...<<<<<
