Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Mon May 21 00:25:01 2001
Hi. This is my first post to the list. I unfortunately don't have the
time to game currently (being a graduate student - Ph.D. Program in
Molecular Genetics), but do sometimes relieve the stress by taking a
look at a few RPG books et al. The below is thus completely
unplaytested.

I've been contemplating the Smartlink (and Smartlink II) and have
had a few thoughts. Sorry if any of these have come up
before on the list, but I haven't been able to locate a search engine
for it. Perhaps they should be in the FAQs?

First, a question: Anyone have any idea where the
"Limited Simsense Rig" (M&M pg 32-33) would be for a pair of
Smartgoggles? I suggest that one can have _either_ a simsense rig or
some other way to tell where the gun is - such as a microwave or
UV-laser link (nice and directional, so no problems with detection)
link between the gun and goggles. (Yes, the smartsight itself will
have an inertial movement tracking unit to do this, but such do tend
to get off-track over time and need updating from an external source.)

Second, would Smartgoggles (including their mirrored sunglasses
disguise) disrupt a mage's ability to have line-of-sight? I would
suggest not, since from modern-day equipment of that type they're
likely to be a HUD - head's-up-display - that's _projected_, either
onto the inside of the goggles or directly into the eye (a la the
lasers in _Snow Crash_ interfacing). The same would be true of the
thermographic or low-light display (and correspondingly for the
_optical_ goggles/binoculars with those options), meaning that a mage
couldn't use _that_ image (the thermal or low-light display one) for
line-of-sight, but still could for anything they could see with
natural vision.

Third, one problem with smartgoggles is that you'd have to either go
around with them hooked up to the gun (rather removing
concealability), or fit the cable into the gun whenever you wanted to
use them. I therefore introduce the following piece of gear, which
I'll put up on archive.dumpshock.com after people have commented on
it:

Smartgloves:
These are the equivalent of smartgoggles for the pad portion
of a smartgun system. Someone with a set of smartgoggles
linked to these can do a fast-draw of a smartgun and have the
system fully functional. They come as either a set of pads
that strap to the hands, or (for double cost) as a set of gloves
(customarily thin (no armor, but also no penalty for touch or
manipulation) synthetic leather). (The latter include a spare
glove for the hand without the link.) [I have no idea how
concealable the latter should be (in terms of detectability as
being smartgloves instead of plain leather gloves). Any
suggestions?]
Weight: .1
Availability: 3/36 Hrs
Cost: 300 [See the normal induction pad cost from Man
& Machine; this is 1.5 times that, which is
actually a bit more than the markup from going
from an implanted system (2,300 for the
critical parts) to a set of smartgoggles
(3,000)] or 600
Street Index: 1
Legality: 4P-N

Fourth, does anyone have any idea what the concealability rating of
smartgoggles that look like mirrored sunglasses (in terms of
detectability as being smartgoggles, that is) should be?

Yours,

-Allen

--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Mon May 21 05:20:19 2001
On Mon, 21 May 2001 00:33:29 -0400 "Allen Smith"
<easmith@********.rutgers.edu> writes:
<SNIP>
> I've been contemplating the Smartlink (and Smartlink II) and have
> had a few thoughts. Sorry if any of these have come up
> before on the list, but I haven't been able to locate a search
> engine
> for it. Perhaps they should be in the FAQs?
>
> First, a question: Anyone have any idea where the
> "Limited Simsense Rig" (M&M pg 32-33) would be for a pair of
> Smartgoggles? I suggest that one can have _either_ a simsense rig
> or
> some other way to tell where the gun is - such as a microwave or
> UV-laser link (nice and directional, so no problems with detection)
> link between the gun and goggles. (Yes, the smartsight itself will
> have an inertial movement tracking unit to do this, but such do
> tend
> to get off-track over time and need updating from an external
> source.)

I would go with internal gear with external calibration knobs, dials, and
such. Where are talking about combat gear. Everything will have to be
calibrated and re-calibrated often. Might as well use something that
/won't/ give away your position to someone with the right gear ...

> Second, would Smartgoggles (including their mirrored sunglasses
> disguise) disrupt a mage's ability to have line-of-sight? I would
> suggest not, since from modern-day equipment of that type they're
> likely to be a HUD - head's-up-display - that's _projected_, either
> onto the inside of the goggles or directly into the eye (a la the
> lasers in _Snow Crash_ interfacing). The same would be true of the
> thermographic or low-light display (and correspondingly for the
> _optical_ goggles/binoculars with those options), meaning that a
> mage
> couldn't use _that_ image (the thermal or low-light display one)
> for
> line-of-sight, but still could for anything they could see with
> natural vision.

Mages can target through optical scopes and goggles. I believe that the
only barrier to their targeting is electronic vision magnification. I
believe that Starlight scopes are optical today and it is conceivable
that thermo scopes are optical as well. Thermographic vision relies on
reflected light and thus a simple filter, or collection of filters,
could, in theory, shift the light into the visible spectrum allowing the
mages to target using thermo graphic imaging. Smartlinks fall outside of
this argument as they, IMO, do not occupy enough of the display to block
LOS and do not need to be opaque.

> Third, one problem with smartgoggles is that you'd have to either go
> around with them hooked up to the gun (rather removing
> concealability), or fit the cable into the gun whenever you wanted
> to
> use them. I therefore introduce the following piece of gear, which
> I'll put up on archive.dumpshock.com after people have commented on
> it:
>
> Smartgloves:
<SNIP>

other options:
Radio, infrared, or other transmitted link.
Intermediate cable (ie, running along you jacket)

> Fourth, does anyone have any idea what the concealability rating of
> smartgoggles that look like mirrored sunglasses (in terms of
> detectability as being smartgoggles, that is) should be?

I would say 6 to 9 to spot the smart gear while worn, and 8 or 9 to spot
the pocketed glasses (-1 or 2 while in a case)

> Yours,
>
> -Allen
>
> --
> Allen
> Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu

Just an off note: You signed your email twice. Nothing wrong with it;
just wondering if it was intentional.

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Mon May 21 05:30:10 2001
According to Allen Smith, on Mon, 21 May 2001 the word on the street was...

> Hi. This is my first post to the list.

Welcome. Hope you enjoy your stay :)

> First, a question: Anyone have any idea where the
> "Limited Simsense Rig" (M&M pg 32-33) would be for a pair of
> Smartgoggles? I suggest that one can have _either_ a simsense rig or
> some other way to tell where the gun is - such as a microwave or
> UV-laser link (nice and directional, so no problems with detection)
> link between the gun and goggles. (Yes, the smartsight itself will
> have an inertial movement tracking unit to do this, but such do tend
> to get off-track over time and need updating from an external source.)

No offense, but I think you're trying to dig too deeply here :) For most
purposes "It works" will be perfectly adequate, and trying to find exact,
scientific reasons for _why_ something works generally gets you into so
many details and subsequent new problems that I personally hardly ever find
it worth the bother... The above is a good example: you come up with a
solution, which involves all kind of tech that has various other problems.
This is something that can go on for a while :)

Note that I'm not saying "Shut up, we don't want to hear what you have to
say" -- far from it. I'm just saying you shouldn't try to find reasons that
no game designer thinks of :)

> Second, would Smartgoggles (including their mirrored sunglasses
> disguise) disrupt a mage's ability to have line-of-sight? I would
> suggest not, since from modern-day equipment of that type they're
> likely to be a HUD - head's-up-display - that's _projected_

Agreed; it might impose some kind of slight visibility penalty (and even
that is unlikely), but the magician should have no problems with not being
able to do magic when wearing smart goggles.

> The same would be true of the thermographic or low-light display

I'm not too sure about this, though. If you're using a low-light system,
there is generally little that can be seen without it (after all, why would
you be using one if there's enough light to see by without it?). It can be
done, sure, but I don't really see the practical use of it.

> meaning that a mage couldn't use _that_ image (the thermal or
> low-light display one) for line-of-sight, but still could for anything
> they could see with natural vision.

And an extra penalty, IMHO, because the low-light or thermo image is
overlaid on the normal one, causing targets to be obscured. So you're
looking at a +4 for partial darkness, and a +4 for targets in 50% cover...
better switch off the night vision system, then :)

At any rate, my solution would be to get cybereyes with a bunch of options,
but then again, when it comes to shadowrunner magicians I don't see anything
wrong with losing 1 or 2 Magic points to enhance your physical abilities.

> Smartgloves:

There's a similar device in Chromebook 3 for Cyberpunk 2020 :)

> These are the equivalent of smartgoggles for the pad portion
> of a smartgun system. Someone with a set of smartgoggles
> linked to these can do a fast-draw of a smartgun and have the
> system fully functional. They come as either a set of pads
> that strap to the hands, or (for double cost) as a set of gloves
> (customarily thin (no armor, but also no penalty for touch or
> manipulation) synthetic leather). (The latter include a spare
> glove for the hand without the link.) [I have no idea how
> concealable the latter should be (in terms of detectability as
> being smartgloves instead of plain leather gloves). Any
> suggestions?]

I'd call it 8 (you have to pick some figure, why not that?). I would
suggest you re-write the text a bit, as it's rather messy ATM :)

> Weight: .1
> Availability: 3/36 Hrs
> Cost: 300 [See the normal induction pad cost from Man
> & Machine; this is 1.5 times that, which is
> actually a bit more than the markup from going
> from an implanted system (2,300 for the
> critical parts) to a set of smartgoggles
> (3,000)] or 600
> Street Index: 1
> Legality: 4P-N

Looks good to me.

> Fourth, does anyone have any idea what the concealability rating of
> smartgoggles that look like mirrored sunglasses (in terms of
> detectability as being smartgoggles, that is) should be?

I've put Concealability at 5 for similar equipment. Not great, but a lot
better than normal smart goggles.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Who needs that now?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Mon May 21 21:15:03 2001
>Second, would Smartgoggles (including their mirrored sunglasses
>disguise) disrupt a mage's ability to have line-of-sight? I would
>suggest not, since from modern-day equipment of that type they're
>likely to be a HUD - head's-up-display - that's _projected_, either
>onto the inside of the goggles or directly into the eye (a la the
>lasers in _Snow Crash_ interfacing).

That seems right. Something that completely re-placed the users natural
sigthing without reducing thier field of vission would probably be harder to
build, not easier.

> The same would be true of the
>thermographic or low-light display (and correspondingly for the
>_optical_ goggles/binoculars with those options), meaning that a mage
>couldn't use _that_ image (the thermal or low-light display one) for
>line-of-sight, but still could for anything they could see with
>natural vision.

Low light goggles by thier very nature intercept every photon of light and
create new ones viat electronic means, so they DO block natural line of
sight. I think termo would have to do the same.
If you had a low light / thermo camera capturing an image that was then fed
to a HUD the iuser could see through, the camera and eye would be out of
alignment, and some sort of re-mapping would be needed. Maybe SR tech could
handle that, but its not how I've seen the gogles described.

BTW, the only "optical" low-light is basically a very large diameter lense
or mirror that gathers light- not very practicle in combat, maybe do-able
for a mage in a survielance / sniping situation. For obvious reasons,
there's no purely optical thermo device.

-Mongoose
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Mon May 21 21:30:01 2001
On May 21, 5:44am, Gurth wrote:
> According to Allen Smith, on Mon, 21 May 2001 the word on the street was...
>
> > Hi. This is my first post to the list.
>
> Welcome. Hope you enjoy your stay :)

Thanks.

> > First, a question: Anyone have any idea where the
> > "Limited Simsense Rig" (M&M pg 32-33) would be for a pair of
> > Smartgoggles? I suggest that one can have _either_ a simsense rig or
> > some other way to tell where the gun is - such as a microwave or

[...]

> No offense, but I think you're trying to dig too deeply here :) For most
> purposes "It works" will be perfectly adequate, and trying to find exact,
> scientific reasons for _why_ something works generally gets you into so
> many details and subsequent new problems that I personally hardly ever find
> it worth the bother...

Well... there are a couple of problems with this viewpoint:
A. There can indeed be roleplaying differences - for instance,
if smartgoggles involve a limited simsense rig, that will
affect their concealability, time to put on, etcetera.
B. What about when questions come up about extensions (such as
the below idea regarding the smartpads et al) to the rules
that involve areas that haven't been adequately explored?
A lot of the Magic system falls into this category, at
least in SR2.

> The above is a good example: you come up with a
> solution, which involves all kind of tech that has various other
> problems.

Does it, really?

> This is something that can go on for a while :)
>
> Note that I'm not saying "Shut up, we don't want to hear what you have to
> say" -- far from it. I'm just saying you shouldn't try to find reasons that
> no game designer thinks of :)

I fear that my scientist's nature causes me to tend to insist on
realism (when applicable) and exploring the details whenever
possible... I tend to think of this as filling in where the game
designer left holes (or made goofs, as per how "Move-By-Wire" is
described to work - I fully agree with Hahns on how unrealistic that
one is!).

> > The same would be true of the thermographic or low-light display
>
> I'm not too sure about this, though. If you're using a low-light system,
> there is generally little that can be seen without it (after all, why would
> you be using one if there's enough light to see by without it?). It can be
> done, sure, but I don't really see the practical use of it.

Most low-light systems, however, tend to do things like distorting
colors (the comments in CC (pg 97) regarding anti-sensor camouflage
are of interest here) and also will get overloaded by bright light, so
it can make sense to have ways to turn them off (or have them turn off
for areas of view that have adequate light). The same sort of thing is
true for thermographic, with the addition that sensing heat has
utility beyond seeing in the dark (although I won't get into the
disputes regarding _how_ useful (through walls or not et al), not
being particularly knowledgeable in this area).

> > meaning that a mage couldn't use _that_ image (the thermal or
> > low-light display one) for line-of-sight, but still could for anything
> > they could see with natural vision.
>
> And an extra penalty, IMHO, because the low-light or thermo image is
> overlaid on the normal one, causing targets to be obscured. So you're
> looking at a +4 for partial darkness, and a +4 for targets in 50% cover...
> better switch off the night vision system, then :)

I can see that.

> At any rate, my solution would be to get cybereyes with a bunch of options,
> but then again, when it comes to shadowrunner magicians I don't see anything
> wrong with losing 1 or 2 Magic points to enhance your physical abilities.

Agreed, but there are other modifications (Trauma Damper, Cerebral
Booster, and Mnemonic Enhancer qualify; if using learning rules that
allow for it, the Sleep Regulator is also a nice one) that may well be
preferable uses for those points.

> > Smartgloves:
>
> There's a similar device in Chromebook 3 for Cyberpunk 2020 :)

Ah. I suspected I'd seen something of the sort before, but my copy of
CB3 is currently buried under about a foot of stuff and has been for
over a year...

> > These are the equivalent of smartgoggles for the pad portion
> > of a smartgun system. Someone with a set of smartgoggles
> > linked to these can do a fast-draw of a smartgun and have the
> > system fully functional. They come as either a set of pads
> > that strap to the hands, or (for double cost) as a set of gloves
> > (customarily thin (no armor, but also no penalty for touch or
> > manipulation) synthetic leather). (The latter include a spare
> > glove for the hand without the link.) [I have no idea how
> > concealable the latter should be (in terms of detectability as
> > being smartgloves instead of plain leather gloves). Any
> > suggestions?]
>
> I'd call it 8 (you have to pick some figure, why not that?).

Sounds reasonable - roughly comparable to a Concealability 6 pistol +
2 for a Concealment Holster, for instance.

> I would suggest you re-write the text a bit, as it's rather messy ATM :)

Yes - rough draft written late at night.

> > Weight: .1
> > Availability: 3/36 Hrs
> > Cost: 300 [See the normal induction pad cost from Man
> > & Machine; this is 1.5 times that, which is
> > actually a bit more than the markup from going
> > from an implanted system (2,300 for the
> > critical parts) to a set of smartgoggles
> > (3,000)] or 600
> > Street Index: 1
> > Legality: 4P-N
>
> Looks good to me.

Excellent.

> > Fourth, does anyone have any idea what the concealability rating of
> > smartgoggles that look like mirrored sunglasses (in terms of
> > detectability as being smartgoggles, that is) should be?
>
> I've put Concealability at 5 for similar equipment. Not great, but a lot
> better than normal smart goggles.

What sort of similar equipment?

Yours,

-Allen

--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Mon May 21 21:40:01 2001
On May 21, 5:44am, dghost@****.com wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2001 00:33:29 -0400 "Allen Smith"
> <easmith@********.rutgers.edu> writes:
> <SNIP>

> > First, a question: Anyone have any idea where the
> > "Limited Simsense Rig" (M&M pg 32-33) would be for a pair of
> > Smartgoggles? I suggest that one can have _either_ a simsense rig
> > or
> > some other way to tell where the gun is - such as a microwave or
> > UV-laser link (nice and directional, so no problems with detection)
> > link between the gun and goggles. (Yes, the smartsight itself will
> > have an inertial movement tracking unit to do this, but such do
> > tend
> > to get off-track over time and need updating from an external
> > source.)
>
> I would go with internal gear with external calibration knobs, dials, and
> such.

Way too imprecise, unfortunately...

> Where are talking about combat gear. Everything will have to be
> calibrated and re-calibrated often. Might as well use something that
> /won't/ give away your position to someone with the right gear ...

The circumstances under which these would give one's position away
should be pretty few and far between, especially with a backup setup like
switching to microwave if the UV is blocked by fog or whatever.

> Mages can target through optical scopes and goggles. I believe that the
> only barrier to their targeting is electronic vision magnification.

That's the current system, yes.

> I believe that Starlight scopes are optical today and it is conceivable
> that thermo scopes are optical as well. Thermographic vision relies on
> reflected light and thus a simple filter, or collection of filters,
> could, in theory, shift the light into the visible spectrum allowing the
> mages to target using thermo graphic imaging.

Hmm... possible. I could see arguments either way. Given how much
electronics are around in Shadowrun, an electronic version would seem
easier (e.g., lighter and/or cheaper). OTOH, this isn't done with the
various existing binoculars/goggles/etcetera and the "optical vision
magnification" cyberwear (which I'd interpret as being the one for
"retinal modifications", whereas the "electronic vision magnification"
works for cybereye installations - as previously pointed out, the mage
rule for _essence-costing_ equipment doesn't make much sense...) is
actually _less_ costly in terms of nuyen.

> Smartlinks fall outside of
> this argument as they, IMO, do not occupy enough of the display to block
> LOS and do not need to be opaque.

Right.

[Smartgloves]

> other options:
> Radio, infrared, or other transmitted link.

Possible, especially if adequately directional... but would it be at a
sufficiently high rate of info, especially for a _small_ system? The
gear allowing Matrix running is significantly larger than that for
voice/video communication, for instance.

> Intermediate cable (ie, running along you jacket)

I'd guess that this is what people do anyway...

> > Fourth, does anyone have any idea what the concealability rating of
> > smartgoggles that look like mirrored sunglasses (in terms of
> > detectability as being smartgoggles, that is) should be?
>
> I would say 6 to 9 to spot the smart gear while worn,

I'm thinking 8 (to match Concealment 6 gun and +2 Concealment Holster).

> and 8 or 9 to spot the pocketed glasses (-1 or 2 while in a case)

Are you meaning to spot pocketed glasses at all, or as smartgoggles? A
case would seem to eliminate the latter possibility pretty much entirely...

> > Yours,
> >
> > -Allen
> >
> > --
> > Allen
> > Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu
>
> Just an off note: You signed your email twice. Nothing wrong with it;
> just wondering if it was intentional.

Umm... yes. The purpose of the stuff below the -- is to give my name
and email in case something got messed up in the headers. The purpose
of signing it above is courtesy & in case something cuts off below the --.

Yours,

-Allen

--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Mon May 21 22:55:00 2001
On May 21, 9:34pm, Sebastian Wiers wrote:
> >Second, would Smartgoggles (including their mirrored sunglasses
> >disguise) disrupt a mage's ability to have line-of-sight? I would
> >suggest not, since from modern-day equipment of that type they're
> >likely to be a HUD - head's-up-display - that's _projected_, either
> >onto the inside of the goggles or directly into the eye (a la the
> >lasers in _Snow Crash_ interfacing).
>
> That seems right. Something that completely re-placed the users natural
> sigthing without reducing thier field of vission would probably be harder to
> build, not easier.

Quite.

> > The same would be true of the
> >thermographic or low-light display (and correspondingly for the
> >_optical_ goggles/binoculars with those options), meaning that a mage
> >couldn't use _that_ image (the thermal or low-light display one) for
> >line-of-sight, but still could for anything they could see with
> >natural vision.
>
> Low light goggles by thier very nature intercept every photon of light and
> create new ones viat electronic means, so they DO block natural line of
> sight. I think termo would have to do the same.

Current ones, yes, although if SR is using a lot of optical circuitry
(as indicated by "optical chips"), that may not be the
case... amplification of a light coming in is one thing that
pure-optical circuits are being used for right now in fiber optic
communications, and it'll be pretty much absolutely necessary to go
this route (instead of optical-electronic-optical interfacing) if one
is to use quantum encryption, which the untappability of SR optical
cables indicates is the case with them. Thermographic could well be
working the same way. This is something I hadn't thought of when
writing my original email or my response to the comments on it...

> If you had a low light / thermo camera capturing an image that was
> then fed to a HUD the iuser could see through, the camera and eye
> would be out of alignment, and some sort of re-mapping would be
> needed. Maybe SR tech could handle that, but its not how I've seen
> the gogles described.

Yeah, this would be harder than it has to be. Admittedly, the
processing involving doing a smartsight is similar but
harder... (Thermographic vision is specified in M&M pg 49 as also
involving a visible-light portion using whatever visible light is
available, BTW.)

-Allen

--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Tue May 22 05:15:04 2001
According to Allen Smith, on Tue, 22 May 2001 the word on the street was...

> > No offense, but I think you're trying to dig too deeply here :) For most
> > purposes "It works" will be perfectly adequate, and trying to find
exact,
> > scientific reasons for _why_ something works generally gets you into so
> > many details and subsequent new problems that I personally hardly ever find
> > it worth the bother...
>
> Well... there are a couple of problems with this viewpoint:
> A. There can indeed be roleplaying differences - for instance,
> if smartgoggles involve a limited simsense rig, that will
> affect their concealability, time to put on, etcetera.

Since the description of the smart goggles doesn't mention the simrig, it's
safe to assume there isn't one. If you want to explain it, you could say
that's exactly why it gives only a -1 TN instead of a -2.

> B. What about when questions come up about extensions (such as
> the below idea regarding the smartpads et al) to the rules
> that involve areas that haven't been adequately explored?

Then you make up something based on the rules that are known, rather than
on how you think the physics behind the tech might or might not work :)

> A lot of the Magic system falls into this category, at
> least in SR2.

SR2 actually explains the workings behind magic better than SR3 does, IMHO,
mostly in the text about grounding just before the spell list in the main
rules.

> I fear that my scientist's nature causes me to tend to insist on
> realism (when applicable)

Isn't SR the wrong game to play, then? I would suggest Phoenix Command, or
if you want an RPG, Living Steel, as a target for this obsession :)

> and exploring the details whenever possible... I tend to think of this as
> filling in where the game designer left holes

I tend to call this "Trekkie mentality," because Trekkies are a perfect
example of people trying to rationalize gaps/holes/mistakes/etc. that exist
for story reasons rather than any reason that would exist in the universe
the shows are set in. You are doing much the same with Shadowrun here;
there's nothing wrong with it, but I don't really see the point myself...

> > I'm not too sure about this, though. If you're using a low-light system,
> > there is generally little that can be seen without it (after all, why would
> > you be using one if there's enough light to see by without it?). It can be
> > done, sure, but I don't really see the practical use of it.
>
> Most low-light systems, however, tend to do things like distorting
> colors (the comments in CC (pg 97) regarding anti-sensor camouflage
> are of interest here)

IRL, low-light systems don't show color at all, because they catch incoming
photons and release a bunch of electrons in their place, irrespective of
the photon's color.

As for the anti-sensor camouflage, as the owner of a RL set of that,
I'll say that whoever wrote that got it _almost_ right :)

> and also will get overloaded by bright light, so
> it can make sense to have ways to turn them off (or have them turn off
> for areas of view that have adequate light).

Modern western low-light systems turn themselves down when the light
levels get too high, IIRC. Older models, as well as fairly recent Russian
types, can be damaged from exposure to bright light, though. In SR, I would
expect all low-light systems to work properly regardless of the amount of
light falling into them, being equipped with automatic filters.

> > At any rate, my solution would be to get cybereyes with a bunch of options,
> > but then again, when it comes to shadowrunner magicians I don't see anything
> > wrong with losing 1 or 2 Magic points to enhance your physical abilities.
>
> Agreed, but there are other modifications (Trauma Damper, Cerebral
> Booster, and Mnemonic Enhancer qualify; if using learning rules that
> allow for it, the Sleep Regulator is also a nice one) that may well be
> preferable uses for those points.

I'd say it depends on what you want your character to be. For a
shadowrunner, I'd go for vision enhancements and probably a reflex boost
(depending on what the rest of the group has in terms of Initiative
ratings) and then see what I can do with the Essence points left over. For
corporate research mages, though, cerebral booster and mnemonic enhancer
would be a lot more common.

> > I've put Concealability at 5 for similar equipment. Not great, but a lot
> > better than normal smart goggles.
>
> What sort of similar equipment?

MASMS (Midnight Arms Smart Mirror Shades) from, again, Chromebook 3.
Go to http://plastic.dumpshock.com/shadowrun/supplements.html and take the
Chromebook Conversions link if you want to dig out that CB3 and use it in
Shadowrun...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Who needs that now?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Tue May 22 18:55:01 2001
On May 22, 5:28am, Gurth wrote:
> According to Allen Smith, on Tue, 22 May 2001 the word on the street
> was...
>
> > Well... there are a couple of problems with this viewpoint:
> > A. There can indeed be roleplaying differences - for instance,
> > if smartgoggles involve a limited simsense rig, that will
> > affect their concealability, time to put on, etcetera.
>
> Since the description of the smart goggles doesn't mention the
> simrig, it's safe to assume there isn't one. If you want to explain
> it, you could say that's exactly why it gives only a -1 TN instead
> of a -2.

The current version of the rules says that the TN decrease is due to
the use of something non-cybernetic, but I can indeed see this as a
rules change. In other words, if somebody _did_ strap themselves into
an external simrig (the simlink wouldn't be needed), this would allow
smartgoggles to give the full -2 TN.

> > B. What about when questions come up about extensions (such as
> > the below idea regarding the smartpads et al) to the rules
> > that involve areas that haven't been adequately explored?
>
> Then you make up something based on the rules that are known, rather than
> on how you think the physics behind the tech might or might not work :)

No game designer is going to have nearly as much of a detailed
background incarnated in the rules et al as the current scientific
findings. Basing something off of as much of the latter as possible is
therefore a lot more likely to be self-consistent in the long
run... we _know_ the universe is self-consistent, after all, at least
for scientific purposes!

A third problem with this viewpoint, BTW, is that it makes it a lot
harder to get people who understand science & technology to respect
roleplaying. If people put in nonsense science/technology, it's worse
than no mention at all, admittedly - but Shadowrun already _does_ have
some such knowledge mentioned & involved, so filling in the gaps is
needed.

> > A lot of the Magic system falls into this category, at
> > least in SR2.
>
> SR2 actually explains the workings behind magic better than SR3
> does, IMHO, mostly in the text about grounding just before the spell
> list in the main rules.

Urr... given all the disputes about grounding et al, I'm not so sure
about this... while the magic system in SR2 may be better _explained_,
it's been cleared up to be rather simpler to _understand_ in SR3.

> > I fear that my scientist's nature causes me to tend to insist on
> > realism (when applicable)
>
> Isn't SR the wrong game to play, then?

I mentioned "when applicable". SR is of interest because it involves
not only known science/technology and extensions onto it but also a
magical system that also makes an effort to be
self-consistent. Another example is GURPS.

> > and exploring the details whenever possible... I tend to think of this as
> > filling in where the game designer left holes
>
> I tend to call this "Trekkie mentality," because Trekkies are a perfect
> example of people trying to rationalize gaps/holes/mistakes/etc. that exist
> for story reasons rather than any reason that would exist in the universe
> the shows are set in. You are doing much the same with Shadowrun here;
> there's nothing wrong with it, but I don't really see the point myself...

I'm not trying to rationalize (unless something does actually make
sense once you see how it could work). I'm suggesting rules (or at
least description) modifications that allow things to be realistic.

> > > I'm not too sure about this, though. If you're using a low-light
> > > system, there is generally little that can be seen without it
> > > (after all, why would you be using one if there's enough light
> > > to see by without it?). It can be done, sure, but I don't really
> > > see the practical use of it.
> >
> > Most low-light systems, however, tend to do things like distorting
> > colors (the comments in CC (pg 97) regarding anti-sensor camouflage
> > are of interest here)
>
> IRL, low-light systems don't show color at all, because they catch incoming
> photons and release a bunch of electrons in their place, irrespective of
> the photon's color.

You are quite correct; I should have said "most low-light system
_concepts_".

> As for the anti-sensor camouflage, as the owner of a RL set of that,
> I'll say that whoever wrote that got it _almost_ right :)

Oh? Care to comment further?

> > and also will get overloaded by bright light, so
> > it can make sense to have ways to turn them off (or have them turn off
> > for areas of view that have adequate light).
>
> Modern western low-light systems turn themselves down when the light
> levels get too high, IIRC. Older models, as well as fairly recent Russian
> types, can be damaged from exposure to bright light, though. In SR, I would
> expect all low-light systems to work properly regardless of the amount of
> light falling into them, being equipped with automatic filters.

Agreed... but the point regarding different areas of view still
remains.

> > > At any rate, my solution would be to get cybereyes with a bunch
> > > of options, but then again, when it comes to shadowrunner
> > > magicians I don't see anything wrong with losing 1 or 2 Magic
> > > points to enhance your physical abilities.
> >
> > Agreed, but there are other modifications (Trauma Damper, Cerebral
> > Booster, and Mnemonic Enhancer qualify; if using learning rules that
> > allow for it, the Sleep Regulator is also a nice one) that may well be
> > preferable uses for those points.
>
> I'd say it depends on what you want your character to be. For a
> shadowrunner, I'd go for vision enhancements and probably a reflex boost
> (depending on what the rest of the group has in terms of Initiative
> ratings) and then see what I can do with the Essence points left over. For
> corporate research mages, though, cerebral booster and mnemonic enhancer
> would be a lot more common.

It does partially depend on the character history, as you say; someone
choosing to install cyberwear or bioware specifically for
shadowrunning purposes might well do vision and reflex boosters
(although this appears more likely for combat mages than for more
versatile mages). The character I've been working on for a bit was
created by a corp's "make a better mage" project, so his background is
different. The Trauma Damper's vast utility for mages, together with
the current Bio index & Essence system encouraging taking either
cyberwear or bioware at a given time, will tend to promote bioware
instead of cyberwear for mages in many cases. (Admittedly, many of the
visual enhancements and reflex boosts are also available via bioware.)

> > > I've put Concealability at 5 for similar equipment. Not great,
> > > but a lot better than normal smart goggles.
> >
> > What sort of similar equipment?
>
> MASMS (Midnight Arms Smart Mirror Shades) from, again, Chromebook 3.
> Go to http://plastic.dumpshock.com/shadowrun/supplements.html and take the
> Chromebook Conversions link if you want to dig out that CB3 and use it in
> Shadowrun...

I've got a pdf copy of the conversions from 1-3 (since I use Unix
(IRIX), the RTF versions are pretty inaccessible), so I'll take a look
at that. Thanks!

Yours,

-Allen

--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Wed May 23 06:35:05 2001
According to Allen Smith, on Wed, 23 May 2001 the word on the street was...

> > Since the description of the smart goggles doesn't mention the
> > simrig, it's safe to assume there isn't one. If you want to explain
> > it, you could say that's exactly why it gives only a -1 TN instead
> > of a -2.
>
> The current version of the rules says that the TN decrease is due to
> the use of something non-cybernetic

That in itself is something I don't agree with; I don't see why using an
external cable to connect the gun to the smartlink computer would change
the modifier, for example.

> but I can indeed see this as a
> rules change. In other words, if somebody _did_ strap themselves into
> an external simrig (the simlink wouldn't be needed), this would allow
> smartgoggles to give the full -2 TN.

In which case, all you need is a set of smart goggles that can have a
simrig plugged into it. It does sound like a good idea, though, and
something I'll probably allow in my game if anyone ever gets a simrig and
smart goggles :)

> No game designer is going to have nearly as much of a detailed
> background incarnated in the rules et al as the current scientific
> findings. Basing something off of as much of the latter as possible is
> therefore a lot more likely to be self-consistent in the long
> run... we _know_ the universe is self-consistent, after all, at least
> for scientific purposes!

True, though you can then run into the problem of contradictions -- if the
game rules say that gravity pulls things up, but real world science says it
pulls them down, you're back at the starting line again.

> A third problem with this viewpoint, BTW, is that it makes it a lot
> harder to get people who understand science & technology to respect
> roleplaying. If people put in nonsense science/technology, it's worse
> than no mention at all, admittedly - but Shadowrun already _does_ have
> some such knowledge mentioned & involved, so filling in the gaps is
> needed.

If you see them as a problem, sure, fill them in. But I've found that most
people happily believe in the game world as long as it's internally
consisten, regardless of whether it's accurate or not. OTOH those who "know
better" will want to change the things they perceive as unrealistic, as
you're also getting at.

> > SR2 actually explains the workings behind magic better than SR3
> > does, IMHO, mostly in the text about grounding just before the spell
> > list in the main rules.
>
> Urr... given all the disputes about grounding et al, I'm not so sure
> about this...

Grounding is actually pretty simple, because it can be broken down into
eight separate cases which covers just about everything. Unfortunately,
FASA didn't do this, and so forced everyone to read the rules over and
over again in search of a solution to any particular case.

> while the magic system in SR2 may be better _explained_,
> it's been cleared up to be rather simpler to _understand_ in SR3.

That's true. Still, I like grounding and have kept it in my group's current
campaign.

> > As for the anti-sensor camouflage, as the owner of a RL set of that,
> > I'll say that whoever wrote that got it _almost_ right :)
>
> Oh? Care to comment further?

First of all the colors and pattern aren't accurate (the real thing is
medium green with a dark green grid pattern, and the "filled-in" squares
are actually blots of different sizes), but more importantly it should
also work against non-natural low-light systems. Giving a +1 Signature
against vehicle sensors sound okay, because those use lots of different
types of visual sensors; for low-light, though, I'd give a modifier that
increases with range -- say, +1 per 25 meters, to a maximum of +8. (This
based on comments I've read that say that at 200 m you're effectively
invisible; I've never been able to test this myself because I don't have
access to a low-light system, unfortunately.) If you want to be really
accurate, it should probably also only work well against an even,
featureless background (like a desert, for which it was originally
developed), but I don't think that's really necessary for SR.

[Chromebook Conversions]
> I've got a pdf copy of the conversions from 1-3 (since I use Unix
> (IRIX), the RTF versions are pretty inaccessible), so I'll take a look
> at that. Thanks!

FWIW, the RTF file of the CB1-4 conversions loads OK in my copy of
StarOffice (running under Linux) even though I made it in Word 95 or 97
under Windows. Not that I'm entirely happy with StarOffice, but that's
not important right now :)

BTW, could you _not_ send me a private copy of your replies to my ShadowRN
posts? I have to change the address every time because I keep replying to
the "wrong" one :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Who needs that now?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Thu May 24 01:15:01 2001
On May 23, 6:49am, Gurth wrote:
> According to Allen Smith, on Wed, 23 May 2001 the word on the street was...
> > The current version of the rules says that the TN decrease is due to
> > the use of something non-cybernetic
>
> That in itself is something I don't agree with; I don't see why using an
> external cable to connect the gun to the smartlink computer would change
> the modifier, for example.

Agreed.

> > but I can indeed see this as a
> > rules change. In other words, if somebody _did_ strap themselves into
> > an external simrig (the simlink wouldn't be needed), this would allow
> > smartgoggles to give the full -2 TN.
>
> In which case, all you need is a set of smart goggles that can have a
> simrig plugged into it. It does sound like a good idea, though, and
> something I'll probably allow in my game if anyone ever gets a simrig and
> smart goggles :)

Sounds good to me. Actually, I seem to recall one adventure idea
regarding a network hiring shadowrunners to do a simulated run while
rigged up...

> > No game designer is going to have nearly as much of a detailed
> > background incarnated in the rules et al as the current scientific
> > findings. Basing something off of as much of the latter as possible is
> > therefore a lot more likely to be self-consistent in the long
> > run... we _know_ the universe is self-consistent, after all, at least
> > for scientific purposes!
>
> True, though you can then run into the problem of contradictions -- if the
> game rules say that gravity pulls things up, but real world science says it
> pulls them down, you're back at the starting line again.

At this point I'm recalling one GM of mine who informed us that the
(fantasy) world in question was working by Aristotlean physics -
namely heavy objects falling faster. Admittedly, that he was a
physicist/mathematician helped him handle this...

I still believe that, unless the game world has something definitely
contradicting modern science (and which can't be a bad description,
typo, misunderstanding by the game designer, or whatever, but is
indeed a deliberate change), using modern knowledge will give you a
more consistent world.

> > A third problem with this viewpoint, BTW, is that it makes it a lot
> > harder to get people who understand science & technology to respect
> > roleplaying. If people put in nonsense science/technology, it's worse
> > than no mention at all, admittedly - but Shadowrun already _does_ have
> > some such knowledge mentioned & involved, so filling in the gaps is
> > needed.
>
> If you see them as a problem, sure, fill them in. But I've found that most
> people happily believe in the game world as long as it's internally
> consisten, regardless of whether it's accurate or not. OTOH those who "know
> better" will want to change the things they perceive as unrealistic, as
> you're also getting at.

Yes. There's also the matter of the inconsistency... we are dealing
with a world where modern science is known to work, since it's the
same world as today, modulo magic et al! Therefore, if there's
anything where it can't work a given way by modern knowledge, it
either is something that has changed (and that needs to be explored),
or something where the game designer hasn't gotten it quite right.

> > > SR2 actually explains the workings behind magic better than SR3
> > > does, IMHO, mostly in the text about grounding just before the spell
> > > list in the main rules.
> >
> > Urr... given all the disputes about grounding et al, I'm not so sure
> > about this...
>
> Grounding is actually pretty simple, because it can be broken down into
> eight separate cases which covers just about everything.

Oh? Would you write this up and post it on the Archive, unless it's
there already and I've missed it? Thanks...

> > while the magic system in SR2 may be better _explained_,
> > it's been cleared up to be rather simpler to _understand_ in SR3.
>
> That's true. Still, I like grounding and have kept it in my group's current
> campaign.

How are you finding it going, with the other SR2-to-SR3 changes?

> > > As for the anti-sensor camouflage, as the owner of a RL set of that,
> > > I'll say that whoever wrote that got it _almost_ right :)
> >
> > Oh? Care to comment further?
>
> First of all the colors and pattern aren't accurate (the real thing is
> medium green with a dark green grid pattern, and the "filled-in" squares
> are actually blots of different sizes), but more importantly it should
> also work against non-natural low-light systems.

Because of the grid lines of the photoreceptor plate and phosphor
screen? Ah. The green being because that's typically what the phosphor
plate emits?

> Giving a +1 Signature
> against vehicle sensors sound okay, because those use lots of different
> types of visual sensors; for low-light, though, I'd give a modifier that
> increases with range -- say, +1 per 25 meters, to a maximum of +8. (This
> based on comments I've read that say that at 200 m you're effectively
> invisible; I've never been able to test this myself because I don't have
> access to a low-light system, unfortunately.)

Interesting.

> If you want to be really accurate, it should probably also only work
> well against an even, featureless background (like a desert, for
> which it was originally developed), but I don't think that's really
> necessary for SR.

Agreed.

> [Chromebook Conversions]
> > I've got a pdf copy of the conversions from 1-3 (since I use Unix
> > (IRIX), the RTF versions are pretty inaccessible), so I'll take a look
> > at that. Thanks!
>
> FWIW, the RTF file of the CB1-4 conversions loads OK in my copy of
> StarOffice (running under Linux)

I'm afraid that, while some SGI computers run Linux, IRIX !Linux. StarOffice won't work on
IRIX, unless I'm badly mistaken...

> BTW, could you _not_ send me a private copy of your replies to my ShadowRN
> posts? I have to change the address every time because I keep replying to
> the "wrong" one :)

It's a matter of how the list and my mailer interact - it
automatically puts either your address alone, or both your address and
the list's address on my To: line. I'll try to remember to delete your
address, but I may forget at times.

Yours,

-Allen

--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Thu May 24 04:40:12 2001
According to Allen Smith, on Thu, 24 May 2001 the word on the street was...

> Sounds good to me. Actually, I seem to recall one adventure idea
> regarding a network hiring shadowrunners to do a simulated run while
> rigged up...

The only thing that comes to my mind is one of the "encounters" in Sprawl
Sites, but I'm not even sure about that...

> At this point I'm recalling one GM of mine who informed us that the
> (fantasy) world in question was working by Aristotlean physics -
> namely heavy objects falling faster. Admittedly, that he was a
> physicist/mathematician helped him handle this...

I would have expected it to have been easier on a GM _without_ a physics
background... In my group's D&D campaign earlier this year, I'd made it
clear from the start that the time of day was calculated in medieval
fashion: 12 hours between sunrise and sunset, regardless of the time of
year. This caused quite a lot of (minor) confusion becaue the players are
so used to each hour being a fixed length, rather than have them varying
each day.

"You wake up at first light."
"What time is it?"
"Six o'clock, of course, just like every day at sunrise..."

> > Grounding is actually pretty simple, because it can be broken down into
> > eight separate cases which covers just about everything.
>
> Oh? Would you write this up and post it on the Archive, unless it's
> there already and I've missed it? Thanks...

Wordman put them into the ShadowFAQ some years ago; I suppose it's still in
it, but I haven't checked so I don't know. IIRC you can find it at
http://shadowfaq.dumpshock.com (Adam? Seb?).

> > That's true. Still, I like grounding and have kept it in my group's current
> > campaign.
>
> How are you finding it going, with the other SR2-to-SR3 changes?

It works fine, but that may also be because it doesn't get used much :)
(Which in turn is because, for much of the current campaign, the group's
magician was played by someone who didn't know what his character could do,
though...)

[anti-sensor camoflage]
> Because of the grid lines of the photoreceptor plate and phosphor
> screen? Ah. The green being because that's typically what the phosphor
> plate emits?

Low-light systems only produce green images because that's easier on the
eyes; you could have them make bright yellow pictures if you want to. I'm
guessing it's green because that also provides some camouflage against the
naked eye, whereas black wouldn't, especially in a desert.

> > based on comments I've read that say that at 200 m you're effectively
> > invisible
>
> Interesting.

As one Gulf War veteran told me, "Watch that through NVGs and you
_disappear_."

> > FWIW, the RTF file of the CB1-4 conversions loads OK in my copy of
> > StarOffice (running under Linux)
>
> I'm afraid that, while some SGI computers run Linux, IRIX !=
> Linux.

I know that; I was under the impression there were versions of StarOffice
for different Unix types, but maybe I'm mistaken.

> StarOffice won't work on IRIX, unless I'm badly mistaken...

You could try another RTF-capable word processor that you can compile on
your own system. I haven't really looked for one, though, so I can't
recommend one to you :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Who needs that now?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (BD)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Thu May 24 14:25:01 2001
>> Sounds good to me. Actually, I seem to recall one adventure idea
>> regarding a network hiring shadowrunners to do a simulated run while
>> rigged up...
>
> The only thing that comes to my mind is one of the "encounters" in Sprawl
> Sites, but I'm not even sure about that...

There was an adventure where the runners were hired to take part in a
simulation (not by a network, though); that was part of Super Tuesday.

====-Boondocker

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Message no. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Thu May 24 22:35:01 2001
>>> Sounds good to me. Actually, I seem to recall one adventure idea
>>> regarding a network hiring shadowrunners to do a simulated run while
>>> rigged up...
>>
>> The only thing that comes to my mind is one of the "encounters" in
Sprawl
>> Sites, but I'm not even sure about that...
>
> There was an adventure where the runners were hired to take part in a
>simulation (not by a network, though); that was part of Super Tuesday.

In one of the bug adventuires (Queen Euphoria, iirc) the runners end up
working fo a simsense producer, who offers them a bonus payment if they will
wear simrigs while going into the final combat encounter of the adventure.

-Mongoose
Message no. 15
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions
Date: Fri May 25 04:10:01 2001
According to BD, on Thu, 24 May 2001 the word on the street was...

> >> Sounds good to me. Actually, I seem to recall one adventure idea
> >> regarding a network hiring shadowrunners to do a simulated run while
> >> rigged up...
>
> There was an adventure where the runners were hired to take part in a
> simulation (not by a network, though); that was part of Super Tuesday.

Yes, I know that one, but it's not the same as being paid to wear a simrig
during the adventure. Here we are: Sprawl Sites, page 92, encounter #2 is
the one I was referring to.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Who needs that now?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Some Smartlink thoughts and ideas/suggestions, 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!