Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: lordmountainlion@***.rr.com (Scott Peterson)
Subject: Munchkinism, Scotts retort.
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:22:38 -0700
Ok Ill say thi after donningmy nomex suit. you all talk about realism and
munchkinism like its a big thing. Dont get me wrong I lovegame balance.
But being one of the few here on the list having seen combat (Korea 88/89,
Panama and gulf) when your in the shit you want everything and all things
you can get your hands on to save your ass. I could belabour you with
stories of how ai loaded my Hummer for combat in Korea but lets just say I
had one of everything except a tow. Want to call me a munchin for packing a
smooth tube and saveing my ass fine. But sooner or later you'll be daed and
ill be buying ammo.

Scott
Message no. 2
From: ValeuJ@*************.navy.mil (Valeu John EMFA)
Subject: Munchkinism, Scotts retort.
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:02:36 -0800
>Ok Ill say thi after donningmy nomex suit. you all talk about realism and
>munchkinism like its a big thing. Dont get me wrong I lovegame balance.
>But being one of the few here on the list having seen combat (Korea 88/89,
>Panama and gulf) when your in the shit you want everything and all things
>you can get your hands on to save your ass. I could belabour you with
>stories of how ai loaded my Hummer for combat in Korea but lets just say I
>had one of everything except a tow. Want to call me a munchin for packing
a
>smooth tube and saveing my ass fine. But sooner or later you'll be daed
and
>ill be buying ammo.

Ok, a few things. One, you're expecting heavy combat and making a lot of
noise. Two, you can actually afford (or were allocated) the weaponary.
Three, It's a game. Suspend disbelief. Sure, you care about your
character, but if it dies... make another one. Now if you're protecting
your own ass... that's another matter entierly.
Message no. 3
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Munchkinism, Scotts retort.
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:18:45 +0200
Valeu John EMFA wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Ok, a few things. One, you're expecting heavy combat and
> making a lot of noise. Two, you can actually afford (or were
> allocated) the weaponary.
> Three, It's a game. Suspend disbelief. Sure, you care
> about your character, but if it dies... make another one.
> Now if you're protecting your own ass... that's another
> matter entierly.

I agree on all points but one: suspension of disbelief. This IS a game, and
NOT RL, but from a good-roleplaying point of view, if you're not prepared to
equip your character as "logically" as you would yourself in similar
circumstances, then you're not really roleplaying very well.


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message no. 4
From: flakjacket@***********.com (flakjacket@***********.com)
Subject: Munchkinism, Scotts retort.
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:34:40 +0000 (GMT)
Steve Garrard wrote:

> I agree on all points but one: suspension of disbelief. This IS a game, and
> NOT RL, but from a good-roleplaying point of view, if you're not prepared to
> equip your character as "logically" as you would yourself in similar
> circumstances, then you're not really roleplaying very well.

Well I suppose you could argue that unless you're playing yourself you should equip the PC
with what the /character/ would be most likely to carry. But that'd just be if you wanted
to be an awkward bastard. ;)
Message no. 5
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Munchkinism, Scotts retort.
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:58:41 +0200
flakjacket@***********.com wrote:
> Steve Garrard wrote:
>
> > I agree on all points but one: suspension of disbelief. This IS a
> > game, and NOT RL, but from a good-roleplaying point of
> view, if you're
> > not prepared to equip your character as "logically" as you would
> > yourself in similar circumstances, then you're not really
> roleplaying
> > very well.
>
> Well I suppose you could argue that unless you're playing
> yourself you should equip the PC with what the /character/
> would be most likely to carry. But that'd just be if you
> wanted to be an awkward bastard. ;)

Well actually that's what I meant. To equip your character as "logically" as
you would equip yourself in similar circumstances would include you being a
mage/street sam/decker or whatever, and equipping yourself ideally based on
your skill-set and preferences, but also the need to survive.

However, it's a fine line. :)


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message no. 6
From: justin@***********.net (Justin)
Subject: Munchkinism, Scotts retort.
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 14:46:30 -0500
Steve Garrard said the following on 3/7/2003 8:58 AM:
> flakjacket@***********.com wrote:
>
>>Steve Garrard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I agree on all points but one: suspension of disbelief. This IS a
>>>game, and NOT RL, but from a good-roleplaying point of
>>
>>view, if you're
>>
>>>not prepared to equip your character as "logically" as you would
>>>yourself in similar circumstances, then you're not really
>>
>>roleplaying
>>
>>>very well.
>>
>>Well I suppose you could argue that unless you're playing
>>yourself you should equip the PC with what the /character/
>>would be most likely to carry. But that'd just be if you
>>wanted to be an awkward bastard. ;)
>
>
> Well actually that's what I meant. To equip your character as "logically"
as
> you would equip yourself in similar circumstances would include you being a
> mage/street sam/decker or whatever, and equipping yourself ideally based on
> your skill-set and preferences, but also the need to survive.
>
> However, it's a fine line. :)

I'd still say as your character would equip themself. For instance, I
would deck myself out as much as possible, but should I be playing a
self assured arrogant merc/mage/whatever I may just pack light
Message no. 7
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Munchkinism, Scotts retort.
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 20:12:51 +0000
At 01:58 PM 7/3/2003, Steve wrote:
>Well actually that's what I meant. To equip your character as "logically" as
>you would equip yourself in similar circumstances would include you being a
>mage/street sam/decker or whatever, and equipping yourself ideally based on
>your skill-set and preferences, but also the need to survive.
>
>However, it's a fine line. :)

And that fine line is the difference IMO between Thinking out the job and
deciding you need (I don't know... just off the top of my head) a mortar,
prepping one when you have the spare cash to do so & being ready to use it
effectively and always carrying an IWS launcher, 2 assault rifles and a
concealability 26 orbital Ion Minigun.


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? C++(+) US++ P! L E? W++ N o? K? w+ O! M- V? PS+ PE-()
Y PGP? t+@ 5++ X- R+>+++$>* tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e+ h r* y+>+++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 8
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Munchkinism, Scotts retort.
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:26:10 +0200
Lone Eagle wrote:
> At 01:58 PM 7/3/2003, Steve wrote:
> >Well actually that's what I meant. To equip your character as
> >"logically" as you would equip yourself in similar
> circumstances would
> >include you being a mage/street sam/decker or whatever, and
> equipping
> >yourself ideally based on your skill-set and preferences,
> but also the
> >need to survive.
> >
> >However, it's a fine line. :)
>
> And that fine line is the difference IMO between Thinking out
> the job and
> deciding you need (I don't know... just off the top of my
> head) a mortar,
> prepping one when you have the spare cash to do so & being
> ready to use it
> effectively and always carrying an IWS launcher, 2 assault
> rifles and a
> concealability 26 orbital Ion Minigun.

LOL. Indeed. I think excessive stress and lack of caffeine perhaps muddled
my point. Pack IC, but pack to survive IC. IOW, as someone said, if you're
playing an overconfident street sam you may decide that assaulting the Aztec
arcology with your trusty Predators and a pack of Lucky's is enough to get
the job done, but if you're a well-balanced professionally-trained street
sam you may decide to pack a little heavier (or skip the mission altogether
:) ).

I like to draw the comparison between shadowrunning and spec ops. As a
general rule (and I know there will be those who disagree) spec ops-type
teams will carry only the barest minimum required to accomplish their
mission and survive, be it SMGs and flash-paks or AR-15s and HE grenades
with heavy weapons support (gimble-mounted LMGs, GLs, or whatever is
needed). SWAT teams for example, a type of low-end civilian spec ops team
IMO, generally select 9mm SMGs for indoor incursions and reserve the assault
rifles for the outdoor missions, or those involving minimal potential
civilian casualties, simply due to the tendency of assault rifle rounds to
penetrate internal walls. Stealth, maneuverability, and flexibility are the
order of the day.

Considering the MO of SR teams this approach holds true. You have to
remember that unlike combat soldiers in the field who may have to survive
without support or reinforcements for several days or longer, SR teams work
on the "get in, get out" tactical approach. So perhaps I should have stated
that what any given character may consider mandatory survival equipment
should still fall within the bounds of the team's tactical MO. IOW,
concealability 26 Orbital Ion Miniguns, or mortars for those underground
facility jobs, would be IMO out of the scope of survival gear and into the
scope of "what the hell do you need THAT for?".


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Munchkinism, Scotts retort., 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.

Thwap!