Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: owen@***.edu.au (Owen McKerrow)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:30:09 +1100
Just in case people missed this on the offical site.....

March 22nd, 2005

A few answers regarding SR4

In the aim of starting an SR4 FAQ, here are answers to a few of the
questions we’ve received or seen posted on forums:

Q. What does this mean for my old books?
A. SR4 is a new rules set — simpler, streamlined, and more accessible,
but new rules nonetheless. That means SR1, SR2, and SR3 rules will be
obsolete in the new system. Source material, however — meaning
background, plot, and world info — will still be relevant. We are
advancing the timeline a slight bit in order to account for some new
technology, but not so far as to completely sever ourselves from
ongoing plots.

So … this means that core rulebooks like SR3, Magic in the Shadows,
Cannon Companion, Man & Machine, Rigger 3, etc. will no longer be
useful, unless you want to keep playing SR3. Any books that are
primarily source material will still be useful.

Q. Are you killing the SR3 stories?
A. Some. Many of the major plotlines we have had ongoing for years
will reach a climax or even an end in the upcoming System Failure book.
A few others may be relegated to obscurity in the jump to 2070. But
others will continue forward, mutating into new post-2070 plotlines in
SR4.

Q. Are deckers called hackers in SR4?
A. Yes. We’re eliminating the clunky old cyberdeck in SR4, and with no
‘deck, it doesn’t make much sense to call them deckers. So we’re back
to calling them hackers, since that’s what they do. (And, yes, we are
aware that some hackers out there don’t like having the term associated
with illegal activities — and SR hackers will primarily be criminals,
like other runners. Realistically, however, “hacking” is the term used
for exploring, learning, and exploiting, whether it’s legal or not, so
it fits.)

Oh, and BTW — the product code for SR4 is 26000. Sorry about the extra
zero, it was as close as I could get.

Q. What organs must I donate to become a playtester?
A. We’re chock full on extra organs right now, but thanks for the
offer (I hear Tamanous is buying, though). We also have all of the
playtesters we really need at this time. Sorry!
Message no. 2
From: mc23@**********.com (MC23)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:29:43 -0500
On Mar 22, 2005, at 8:30 PM, Owen McKerrow wrote:

> Q. Are deckers called hackers in SR4?
> A. Yes. We’re eliminating the clunky old cyberdeck in SR4, and with
> no ‘deck, it doesn’t make much sense to call them deckers. So we’re
> back to calling them hackers, since that’s what they do. (And, yes, we
> are aware that some hackers out there don’t like having the term
> associated with illegal activities — and SR hackers will primarily be
> criminals, like other runners. Realistically, however, “hacking” is
> the term used for exploring, learning, and exploiting, whether it’s
> legal or not, so it fits.)

Don't like how that sounds either.

BTW I wonder if the Secret Service will now seize Shadowrun.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they
are,
not as they ought to be."
-The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce

I am MC23
Message no. 3
From: pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:05:52 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.com>
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:29 pm
Subject: Re: A few answers regarding SR4

> Don't like how that sounds either.
>
> BTW I wonder if the Secret Service will now seize Shadowrun.

In the new normal? We're doomed.
Message no. 4
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:57:55 +0100
According to MC23, on 25-03-2005 02:29 the word on the street was...

> BTW I wonder if the Secret Service will now seize Shadowrun.

Maybe the Secret Service agents want to be able to wear a T-shirt saying
"Secret Service 1 : Gaming industry 1" :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 5
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:43:18 -0800
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:29:43 -0500, MC23 <mc23@**********.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 22, 2005, at 8:30 PM, Owen McKerrow wrote:
>
> > Q. Are deckers called hackers in SR4?
> > A. Yes. We're eliminating the clunky old cyberdeck in SR4, and with
> > no 'deck, it doesn't make much sense to call them deckers. So we're
> > back to calling them hackers, since that's what they do. (And, yes, we
> > are aware that some hackers out there don't like having the term
> > associated with illegal activities — and SR hackers will primarily be
> > criminals, like other runners. Realistically, however, "hacking" is
> > the term used for exploring, learning, and exploiting, whether it's
> > legal or not, so it fits.)
>
> Don't like how that sounds either.

Why? What does it matter? Besides even with the elimination of the
deck, it is unlikely that the terminology will just fade away. Lingo
tends to hang around long past its origins have faded in meaning.
Message no. 6
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:11:20 +0100
According to Failhelm, on 25-03-2005 16:43 the word on the street was...

> Why? What does it matter? Besides even with the elimination of the
> deck, it is unlikely that the terminology will just fade away. Lingo
> tends to hang around long past its origins have faded in meaning.

I still occasionally ask players to roll Firearms skill, or refer to
physical adepts, or ...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 7
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:03:49 +0100
On Mar 25, 2005, at 19:11, Gurth wrote:

> I still occasionally ask players to roll Firearms skill, or refer to
> physical adepts, or ...

Well, *I* often refer to physical adepts (all the time, actually) too,
even though I never played Shadowrun 1 or 2. Go figure... :-D

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 8
From: NightLife@*****.rr.com (NightLife)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:03:17 -0500
At 02:03 PM 3/25/2005, you wrote:

>On Mar 25, 2005, at 19:11, Gurth wrote:
>
>>I still occasionally ask players to roll Firearms skill, or refer to
>>physical adepts, or ...
>
> Well, *I* often refer to physical adepts (all the time, actually)
> too, even though I never played Shadowrun 1 or 2. Go figure... :-D

What people actually call them somatics? :) I've never called them that nor
I have I used the word talents. They're all still adepts, so hackers will
still be called deckers. That isn't going to change, besides called them
hacker is just trying to make them more interesting for newcomers, who
haven't played SR yet. Heck I even occasionally call them netrunners. :)
Message no. 9
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:22:50 -0500
At 02:03 PM 3/25/2005, Max Noel wrote:
>Well, *I* often refer to physical adepts (all the time, actually) too,
>even though I never played Shadowrun 1 or 2. Go figure... :-D

That's pretty common, because prior to SOTA2064 there weren't really many
social abilities for them. SOTA2064 makes the adept a whole new animal.

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 10
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:44:11 -0800
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:22:50 -0500, Timothy J. Lanza
<tjlanza@************.com> wrote:
> At 02:03 PM 3/25/2005, Max Noel wrote:
> >Well, *I* often refer to physical adepts (all the time, actually) too,
> >even though I never played Shadowrun 1 or 2. Go figure... :-D
>
> That's pretty common, because prior to SOTA2064 there weren't really many
> social abilities for them. SOTA2064 makes the adept a whole new animal.

That's good to know, as I don't have it yet.
Message no. 11
From: mc23@**********.com (MC23)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:09:11 -0500
On Mar 25, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Failhelm wrote:

>> Don't like how that sounds either.
>
> Why? What does it matter? Besides even with the elimination of the
> deck, it is unlikely that the terminology will just fade away. Lingo
> tends to hang around long past its origins have faded in meaning.

But this is a deliberate attempt to change the lingo. I take this as
the first example of placing a new vision onto Shadowrun. What we knew
as Shadowrun is being changed not just the game mechanics that makes it
work. To me it they are changing the genre, I don't think the game
needed that.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"When _I_ use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful
tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
-Through the Looking Glass

I am MC23
Message no. 12
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:06:17 -0800
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:09:11 -0500, MC23 <mc23@**********.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Failhelm wrote:
>
> >> Don't like how that sounds either.
> >
> > Why? What does it matter? Besides even with the elimination of the
> > deck, it is unlikely that the terminology will just fade away. Lingo
> > tends to hang around long past its origins have faded in meaning.
>
> But this is a deliberate attempt to change the lingo. I take this as
> the first example of placing a new vision onto Shadowrun. What we knew
> as Shadowrun is being changed not just the game mechanics that makes it
> work. To me it they are changing the genre, I don't think the game
> needed that.

I understand your sentiment. In all fairness though it is tough to
keep a modern game the same for very long. Modern worlds change so
fast, that a mere decade later and everything is different. Nothing
stays the same for long.
Message no. 13
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:02:01 +0100
According to NightLife, on 25-03-2005 23:03 the word on the street was...

> What people actually call them somatics? :)

Doesn't that involve sleeping? :)

> I've never called them that nor I have I used the word talents.

Same here. Using the word "Talented" (especially with that capital T)
just sounds _so_ incredibly pretentious to me... As if the only people
who have any talent at anything whatsoever, are magicians.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 14
From: adamj@*********.com (Adam Jury)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:06:38 -0700
On 26-Mar-05, at 3:02 AM, Gurth wrote:

> Same here. Using the word "Talented" (especially with that capital T)
> just sounds _so_ incredibly pretentious to me... As if the only people
> who have any talent at anything whatsoever, are magicians.

Ask any magician, they'll tell you - it's true, it's true!

Adam
Message no. 15
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:14:34 +0100
According to Adam Jury, on 26-03-2005 11:06 the word on the street was...

> Ask any magician, they'll tell you - it's true, it's true!

I'll ask someone next time I'm in the almost-local game store/paranormal
junk shop :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 16
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:15:33 +0100
On Mar 26, 2005, at 11:02, Gurth wrote:

>> I've never called them that nor I have I used the word talents.
>
> Same here. Using the word "Talented" (especially with that capital T)
> just sounds _so_ incredibly pretentious to me... As if the only people
> who have any talent at anything whatsoever, are magicians.

Well, a number of my magically active characters use the word Talented
for that very reason. (I'm very good at roleplaying arrogance and
dragon-like egos ^^)

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 17
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:37:24 +0000
> But this is a deliberate attempt to change the lingo. I take this as
> the first example of placing a new vision onto Shadowrun. What we knew
> as Shadowrun is being changed not just the game mechanics that makes it
> work. To me it they are changing the genre, I don't think the game
> needed that.

Well, it's not like the old books will spontaneously combust when when
the new ones hit the shelves. There's nothing stopping you from
playing 3rd Edition (or 2nd, or 1st) and ignoring the updates, or
using just the bits you like and discarding the rest.

Since I've been discarding large chunks of the setting since I've
started GMing Shadowrun, the change actually seems interesting to me.
I'm curious enough to buy the new corebook, and I prefer to wait and
see before I pass definite judgements on wheter it will become better
or worse.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 18
From: zebulingod@*******.net (Zebulin)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:02:35 -0800
Bira wrote:
>
> Well, it's not like the old books will spontaneously combust
> when when the new ones hit the shelves. There's nothing
> stopping you from playing 3rd Edition (or 2nd, or 1st) and
> ignoring the updates, or using just the bits you like and
> discarding the rest.
>
> Since I've been discarding large chunks of the setting since
> I've started GMing Shadowrun, the change actually seems
> interesting to me.
> I'm curious enough to buy the new corebook, and I prefer to
> wait and see before I pass definite judgements on wheter it
> will become better or worse.
>

I will also buy the new core rulebook, as I am curious to see the changes.
I'll base my opinion on what I see at that time. [:

Zebulin

>From The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord

15. I will never employ any device with a digital countdown. If I find that
such a device is absolutely unavoidable, I will set it to activate when the
counter reaches 117 and the hero is just putting his plan into operation.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.3 - Release Date: 3/25/2005
Message no. 19
From: lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:45:19 -0500
On Mar 27, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Zebulin wrote:
> I will also buy the new core rulebook, as I am curious to see the
> changes.
> I'll base my opinion on what I see at that time.

Amen.
Message no. 20
From: zebulingod@*******.net (Zebulin)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:04:20 -0800
Wordman wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Zebulin wrote:
> > I will also buy the new core rulebook, as I am curious to see the
> > changes.
> > I'll base my opinion on what I see at that time.
>
> Amen.
>

Well, and the reason I say that was because when I heard about the new D&D I
flew off the handle, immediately vowed never to play the new version, etc
and even sent WotC a very strongly worded letter about being out of touch
with their current gamers. Recently, though, I had a chance to actually play
the new D20, and it didn't seem as evil as I had thought. Now, that doesn't
mean I'm gonna go out and buy all the new books, and I'll keep playing 2nd
Ed AD&D, but at least I know what I'm not using.

I'd hate to think I passed up on what could be a very very good thing for
Shadowrun, based purely on a knee jerk reaction.

Zebulin

>From The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord

15. I will never employ any device with a digital countdown. If I find that
such a device is absolutely unavoidable, I will set it to activate when the
counter reaches 117 and the hero is just putting his plan into operation.
Message no. 21
From: kelvaris@***********.us (Jeff Haskell)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:23:56 -0900
>Bira wrote:
>
>
>>Well, it's not like the old books will spontaneously combust
>>when when the new ones hit the shelves. There's nothing
>>stopping you from playing 3rd Edition (or 2nd, or 1st) and
>>ignoring the updates, or using just the bits you like and
>>discarding the rest.
>>

Shadow replied:

You know I am really tired of hearing this. Yes all my books will still
be available to me. Duh. But the living universe that is Shadowrun will
continue. And some of us do not like to make up a whole continuity on
our own we prefer to take the prepackaged one. Up till now we have liked
it. But if we don't like the revision (specifically the deletion of
Deckers) were out of luck. The new continuity will go on with out it. So
we have three choices, get used to a new world that we don't like, or
invest hours (that we don't have) to keep the old one alive.

Here is the third, we can make our opinions known now, in the hopes that
The Powers That Be hear them and reverse a decision that is CLEARLY
unpopular. The problem with Decking was never the idea, it was the
rules, don't throw the baby out with the bath water, reinstate the term
now before it's to late.


-Shadow
Message no. 22
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:36:27 -0500
At 05:23 PM 3/27/2005, Jeff Haskell wrote:
>Here is the third, we can make our opinions known now, in the hopes that
>The Powers That Be hear them and reverse a decision that is CLEARLY
>unpopular. The problem with Decking was never the idea, it was the rules,
>don't throw the baby out with the bath water, reinstate the term now
>before it's to late.

Personally, I think SR3's matrix is the clearest and most concise ruleset
in the whole game. Once you realize that a trip into the matrix comes down
to nothing more than getting what you need without accumulating too much
Security Tally, it all falls into place.

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 23
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:11:09 -0500
On 3/27/2005 5:04 PM, Zebulin wrote:
> Wordman wrote:
>
>>On Mar 27, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Zebulin wrote:
>>
>>>I will also buy the new core rulebook, as I am curious to see the
>>>changes.
>>>I'll base my opinion on what I see at that time.
>>
>>Amen.
>>
>
>
> Well, and the reason I say that was because when I heard about the new D&D I
> flew off the handle, immediately vowed never to play the new version, etc
> and even sent WotC a very strongly worded letter about being out of touch
> with their current gamers. Recently, though, I had a chance to actually play
> the new D20, and it didn't seem as evil as I had thought. Now, that doesn't
> mean I'm gonna go out and buy all the new books, and I'll keep playing 2nd
> Ed AD&D, but at least I know what I'm not using.

Of course, this doesn't include the whole 3.5 edition that came out only
a couple years later, with a whole new set of "core" rule books. And
this whole thing was preplanned from the beginning!
Message no. 24
From: lrdslvrhnd@*****.com (Kevin McB)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:14:59 -0500
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:23:56 -0900, Jeff Haskell
<kelvaris@***********.us> wrote:
>
> You know I am really tired of hearing this. Yes all my books will still
> be available to me. Duh. But the living universe that is Shadowrun will
> continue. And some of us do not like to make up a whole continuity on
> our own we prefer to take the prepackaged one. Up till now we have liked
> it. But if we don't like the revision (specifically the deletion of
> Deckers) were out of luck. The new continuity will go on with out it. So
> we have three choices, get used to a new world that we don't like, or
> invest hours (that we don't have) to keep the old one alive.
>
Y'know, as the GM (I assume, if you're not a GM then you're really
bitching about nothing here, as far as I can tell... no offense, but
players don't really spend the time you're implying on the game world,
except as they actually play 8-} ), it's really up to YOU to pick what
to use. You don't like letting hackers use the Matrix without a
deck... don't let 'em. Keep 'em as regular deckers. Or at least
don't about it until you see what exactly DOES change, other than a
quickie blurb. It shouldn't be too drastically difficult, to adapt
the rules around what you want. And there's nothing to say that you
HAVE to move your own game's timeline forward to adapt, especially if
you haven't been incorporating all the stuff that's happened; mix and
match rules as you like. There's nothing stopping you from having a
basic SR4 game, set in 2060, substituting SR3's Matrix rules for the
new ones.

And hey... once you see 'em, you might even <GASP> like 'em.

> Here is the third, we can make our opinions known now, in the hopes that
> The Powers That Be hear them and reverse a decision that is CLEARLY
> unpopular. The problem with Decking was never the idea, it was the
> rules, don't throw the baby out with the bath water, reinstate the term
> now before it's to late.

If it's just the terminology that's bugging you... frag it. If you
don't like the new terms... dont' use 'em. Keep calling 'em deckers.
I know people (and, in some cases, characters) that still use
"Physads" instead of "Adepts" just 'cause they like the sound better.
I'm sure there'll be plenty of characters who'll prefer 'deckers' to
'hackers', too *g*

Kevin
Message no. 25
From: jhubert@***.de (JÃŒrgen_Hubert)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:28:17 +0200
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Haskell" <kelvaris@***********.us>

> Here is the third, we can make our opinions known now, in the hopes that
> The Powers That Be hear them and reverse a decision that is CLEARLY
> unpopular. The problem with Decking was never the idea, it was the rules,
> don't throw the baby out with the bath water, reinstate the term now
> before it's to late.

Clearly unpopular with whom?

Personally, I don't mind the name change. And I guess I'm not the only
one...


- Jürgen Hubert

Urbis: http://juergen.the-huberts.net/dnd/urbis/index.html
LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/~jhubert/
Message no. 26
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:19:21 +0200
According to Timothy J. Lanza, on 28-03-2005 00:36 the word on the
street was...

> Personally, I think SR3's matrix is the clearest and most concise
> ruleset in the whole game. Once you realize that a trip into the matrix
> comes down to nothing more than getting what you need without
> accumulating too much Security Tally, it all falls into place.

Agreed, but I can't say I've ever the Matrix much fun to play, either
with the SR1/VR1/SR2 rules, or the VR2/SR3 rules. Not to mention the way
it tends to distract from the actual action that's going on.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 27
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:19:33 -0800
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:04:20 -0800, Zebulin <zebulingod@*******.net> wrote:
> Wordman wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Zebulin wrote:
> > > I will also buy the new core rulebook, as I am curious to see the
> > > changes.
> > > I'll base my opinion on what I see at that time.
> >
> > Amen.
> >
>
> Well, and the reason I say that was because when I heard about the new D&D I
> flew off the handle, immediately vowed never to play the new version, etc
> and even sent WotC a very strongly worded letter about being out of touch
> with their current gamers. Recently, though, I had a chance to actually play
> the new D20, and it didn't seem as evil as I had thought. Now, that doesn't
> mean I'm gonna go out and buy all the new books, and I'll keep playing 2nd
> Ed AD&D, but at least I know what I'm not using.
>
> I'd hate to think I passed up on what could be a very very good thing for
> Shadowrun, based purely on a knee jerk reaction.

Try still playing 1e :)
Message no. 28
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:30:39 -0800
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:23:56 -0900, Jeff Haskell
<kelvaris@***********.us> wrote:
> Shadow replied:
>
> You know I am really tired of hearing this. Yes all my books will still
> be available to me. Duh. But the living universe that is Shadowrun will
> continue. And some of us do not like to make up a whole continuity on
> our own we prefer to take the prepackaged one. Up till now we have liked
> it. But if we don't like the revision (specifically the deletion of
> Deckers) were out of luck. The new continuity will go on with out it. So
> we have three choices, get used to a new world that we don't like, or
> invest hours (that we don't have) to keep the old one alive.
>
> Here is the third, we can make our opinions known now, in the hopes that
> The Powers That Be hear them and reverse a decision that is CLEARLY
> unpopular. The problem with Decking was never the idea, it was the
> rules, don't throw the baby out with the bath water, reinstate the term
> now before it's to late.
>
> -Shadow

This is normal in the gaming industry though, unless you are using a
generic system like GURPS or D20. Anytime you use a pre-packaged
setting you will eventually have to make it your own, or marry the
manufacturer's evolution of the product. If the rules change to much,
you'll just be in the same boat that thousands of other gamers are in,
when they refuse a major revision of rule sets.

This couldn't have come as a big surprise? Or perhaps its just me and
I have just gotten used to it and have come to expect it.

I'm in the crowd that will buy the basic book, I think we owe that to
them. This is their first crack at it, and deserve at least our
consideration.
Message no. 29
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:31:41 -0800
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:19:21 +0200, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Timothy J. Lanza, on 28-03-2005 00:36 the word on the
> street was...
>
> > Personally, I think SR3's matrix is the clearest and most concise
> > ruleset in the whole game. Once you realize that a trip into the matrix
> > comes down to nothing more than getting what you need without
> > accumulating too much Security Tally, it all falls into place.
>
> Agreed, but I can't say I've ever the Matrix much fun to play, either
> with the SR1/VR1/SR2 rules, or the VR2/SR3 rules. Not to mention the way
> it tends to distract from the actual action that's going on.

Yeah, short of just making computer checks, the Matrix became a solo
while the rest of the players went for lunch. Even when streamlined,
it was rough on the non-deckers.
Message no. 30
From: zebulingod@*******.net (Zebulin)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:36:39 -0800
Failhelm wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, but I can't say I've ever the Matrix much fun to
> play, either
> > with the SR1/VR1/SR2 rules, or the VR2/SR3 rules. Not to
> mention the
> > way it tends to distract from the actual action that's going on.
>
> Yeah, short of just making computer checks, the Matrix became
> a solo while the rest of the players went for lunch. Even
> when streamlined, it was rough on the non-deckers.
>

I cannot say that I agree with you or Gurth here. I found the SR3 rules to
streamline decking so well that you could have deckers doing their thing
alongside everyone else. Now they aren't any more distracting than, say,
someone astral projecting.

Zebulin

>From The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord

15. I will never employ any device with a digital countdown. If I find that
such a device is absolutely unavoidable, I will set it to activate when the
counter reaches 117 and the hero is just putting his plan into operation.
Message no. 31
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:54:50 +0200
According to Zebulin, on 28-03-2005 17:36 the word on the street was...

> I cannot say that I agree with you or Gurth here. I found the SR3 rules to
> streamline decking so well that you could have deckers doing their thing
> alongside everyone else. Now they aren't any more distracting than, say,
> someone astral projecting.

Glad to hear your game is different in this respect than mine :) Deckers
always went off to do their own thing in a way that had no relationship
to the rest of the group, and so they very quickly lost interest --
often, an astral magician is at least scoping out the area you're going
into in the physical world, so paying attention will come in handy.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 32
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:09:54 -0300
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 13:23:56 -0900, Jeff Haskell
<kelvaris@***********.us> wrote:
>
>
> You know I am really tired of hearing this. Yes all my books will still
> be available to me. Duh. But the living universe that is Shadowrun will
> continue. And some of us do not like to make up a whole continuity on
> our own we prefer to take the prepackaged one. Up till now we have liked
> it. But if we don't like the revision (specifically the deletion of
> Deckers) were out of luck. The new continuity will go on with out it. So
> we have three choices, get used to a new world that we don't like, or
> invest hours (that we don't have) to keep the old one alive.

It's the disadvantage with using everything prepackaged. From what
I've seen, tough, mantaining something like the current setting isn't
something that will take hours out of your time. All you have to
concern ourself with is the part of the setting your runners are going
to see, which, considering the level of play most GMs seem to prefer,
isn't large at all.

Even for more "epic" games, all a GM has to do is plan out the parts
that will be directly involved in the next adventure. Eventually, the
information generated by your own games will make up your own campaign
setting. It will be much more meaningful to your group than the
prepackaged stuff, and you won't need to spend any more time out of
game than you already do preparing our standard game sessions.

> Here is the third, we can make our opinions known now, in the hopes that
> The Powers That Be hear them and reverse a decision that is CLEARLY
> unpopular. The problem with Decking was never the idea, it was the
> rules, don't throw the baby out with the bath water, reinstate the term
> now before it's to late.


I don't think it's so "clearly" unpopular. Some of the oldest members
of this list disliked it because it's a significant departure from
what they're used to, but even if the entire list hated the changes,
it would still be a pretty small sample.


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 33
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:21:24 -0500
At 10:54 AM 3/28/2005, Gurth wrote:
>According to Zebulin, on 28-03-2005 17:36 the word on the street was...
>
>>I cannot say that I agree with you or Gurth here. I found the SR3 rules to
>>streamline decking so well that you could have deckers doing their thing
>>alongside everyone else. Now they aren't any more distracting than, say,
>>someone astral projecting.
>
>Glad to hear your game is different in this respect than mine :) Deckers
>always went off to do their own thing in a way that had no relationship to
>the rest of the group, and so they very quickly lost interest -- often, an
>astral magician is at least scoping out the area you're going into in the
>physical world, so paying attention will come in handy.

At that point it becomes a fault of the decker, not wanting to be a team
player. That, or you're /allowing/ deckers to spend all their time going
after paydata, then maybe deckers shouldn't be in your game. In either
case, it's not a failing in the rules themselves. As I see it, the failing
came with the advent of CCSS. Turning site security over to riggers gave a
decker no good way to help a group penetrate a building.

I don't see how they made the leap from a /vehicle/ control rig to using it
as a security device. A vehicle has analogues to the human body, things
that can be mapped by the rig - a building does not. A vehicle blows tire,
and you can map that to a person injuring their foot (a good rigger
understands what really happened, but those are the pathways that the rig
would stimulate).

In CCSS the rigger spends all day checking to make sure that nobody is
trying to go through any of his six hundred bodily orifices. I don't know
about you, but I don't have enough cavities so that my brain would be
comfortable with that idea.

Also, doors are going to use computers to check IDs. It's highly unlikely
that any reasonable number of riggers would be able to verify every ID that
passes through every door every day. Computers are far better at things
like that. Perhaps in high-security areas, you have somebody watching a
camera, but there's no need for that person to be a rigger. A meat lump
watching a physical monitor, or using a regular simsense deck wired into
the camera's feed, or a decker logged onto the security host can do the job
just as well, if not better than a rigger. After all, if he's looking up
data from some source other than sensors, isn't he now decking?

Point is... in my games, closed-circuit simsense does not exist. Riggers
are not responsible for building security, computers and deckers are. This
makes deckers much more integral to the team. I think that's what got lost.

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 34
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:26:28 +0200
According to Timothy J. Lanza, on 28-03-2005 19:21 the word on the
street was...

> At that point it becomes a fault of the decker, not wanting to be a team
> player. That, or you're /allowing/ deckers to spend all their time going
> after paydata

Not going after random paydata, but trying to get stuff that would
actually help the run along already slowed things down far too far.

> then maybe deckers shouldn't be in your game. In either
> case, it's not a failing in the rules themselves.

I never said it was a failure of the rules -- I, in fact, agreed with
your (?) view that the Matrix _rules_ are some of the most consistent in
the game.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 35
From: bandwidthoracle@*******.net (bandwidthoracle)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:38:58 -0700
On Mar 28, 2005, at 7:31 AM, Failhelm wrote:
> Yeah, short of just making computer checks, the Matrix became a solo
> while the rest of the players went for lunch. Even when streamlined,
> it was rough on the non-deckers.

Your players play non-deckers?
I kid I mine too, just most of the time more than 50% of the players in
our group are Deckers.
The matrix can be very team oriented, it can be really handy to have
multiple people in a host.
Message no. 36
From: mc23@**********.com (MC23)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:57:47 -0500
On Mar 27, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Bira wrote:

> Since I've been discarding large chunks of the setting since I've
> started GMing Shadowrun, the change actually seems interesting to me.
> I'm curious enough to buy the new corebook, and I prefer to wait and
> see before I pass definite judgements on wheter it will become better
> or worse.

I don't discard much. While I'm not foolish enough to say my mind's
fully made up ahead of time, their press releases are far from
convincing. New editions are inevitable but using that as an excuse to
change what is going on in the game as well is a bad idea. And I hate
the Deus Ex Mechina change the world to change the game. It did not
need that. I hate it enough for that reason alone right now!

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed,
briefed, debriefed, or numbered "
-No. 6, The Prisoner

I am MC23
Message no. 37
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:49:15 -0800
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:38:58 -0700, bandwidthoracle
<bandwidthoracle@*******.net> wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2005, at 7:31 AM, Failhelm wrote:
> > Yeah, short of just making computer checks, the Matrix became a solo
> > while the rest of the players went for lunch. Even when streamlined,
> > it was rough on the non-deckers.
>
> Your players play non-deckers?
> I kid I mine too, just most of the time more than 50% of the players in
> our group are Deckers.
> The matrix can be very team oriented, it can be really handy to have
> multiple people in a host.

My players all but refused to play deckers, they felt overwhelmed by the rules.

I was more speaking for when I played a decker, which I usually did.
I'm an avid techno geek in real life and would take advantage of some
powerful aspects of the decker. However, even though this helped the
team out, it would still take time to do things. If more players were
deckers or at least capable of decking, then that would help.

Either way, the other players always complained that I was taking too
long. Not sure what we were doing wrong or that I was being
"anti-group", but trying to hack some systems just took a long while.
The GM would needed to explain the environment, and I had to dice for
my character and his various cronies.

My own complaint with decker rules, were that it was your deck and
your programs that made a good decker. Short of 5 or 6 computer skill
you were hosed, and this seems at odds with the concept of a 5 or 6
being of exceptional quality.
Message no. 38
From: failhelm@*****.com (Failhelm)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:48:59 -0800
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:57:47 -0500, MC23 <mc23@**********.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Bira wrote:
>
> > Since I've been discarding large chunks of the setting since I've
> > started GMing Shadowrun, the change actually seems interesting to me.
> > I'm curious enough to buy the new corebook, and I prefer to wait and
> > see before I pass definite judgements on wheter it will become better
> > or worse.
>
> I don't discard much. While I'm not foolish enough to say my mind's
> fully made up ahead of time, their press releases are far from
> convincing. New editions are inevitable but using that as an excuse to
> change what is going on in the game as well is a bad idea. And I hate
> the Deus Ex Mechina change the world to change the game. It did not
> need that. I hate it enough for that reason alone right now!

Especially if you had Deus destroyed post the Arcology, which I did.
Message no. 39
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:14:21 +1000
> Gurth <gurth@******.nl>
>
> I never said it was a failure of the rules -- I, in fact, agreed with
> your (?) view that the Matrix _rules_ are some of the most consistent in
> the game.
>

I'd have to agree with this comment to some degree - right up until you
trigger IC...

OTOH, the matrix rules aren't consistent with the equivalent rules for
doing the same stuff in the real world, which makes them really
inaccessable to most people. Some people say "you can just take a
character, buy some computer skill, a datajack and a deck, and you've
got a decker", but it's not true - the player in question also has to
read through and understand the matrix rules.

That wouldn't be the case if they matched up with the basics.
Message no. 40
From: lists@*******.com (Wordman)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:22:29 -0500
On Mar 28, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Zebulin wrote:

> I found the SR3 rules to
> streamline decking so well that you could have deckers doing their
> thing
> alongside everyone else. Now they aren't any more distracting than,
> say,
> someone astral projecting.

I don't think I ever told anyone this, but I always just used the rules
for astral quests for decking runs that could not be otherwise avoided.

Wordman
Message no. 41
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:10:30 -0800 (PST)
--- Max Noel <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr> wrote:
>
> On Mar 26, 2005, at 11:02, Gurth wrote:
>
> >> I've never called them that nor I have I used the
> word talents.
> >
> > Same here. Using the word "Talented" (especially
> with that capital T)
> > just sounds _so_ incredibly pretentious to me...
> As if the only people
> > who have any talent at anything whatsoever, are
> magicians.
>
> Well, a number of my magically active characters
> use the word Talented
> for that very reason. (I'm very good at roleplaying
> arrogance and
> dragon-like egos ^^)

The fact that 'Talented' is written with a capital 'T'
is probably an indication of the fact that it is a
different conception than your ordinary conception of
talented. Therefore any valuations you would care to
attach to it are in fact mere figments of your
imagination.

cheers,

Jan Jaap



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Message no. 42
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:10:36 -0800 (PST)
> Glad to hear your game is different in this respect
> than mine :) Deckers
> always went off to do their own thing in a way that
> had no relationship
> to the rest of the group, and so they very quickly
> lost interest --
> often, an astral magician is at least scoping out
> the area you're going
> into in the physical world, so paying attention will
> come in handy.

UV hosts and the whole "party gets involuntary
datajack implanted" in the Deus saga helps solve the
problem of deckers distracting the party from their
own particular worries, as everybody ends up being a
decker anyway. Conversely, as Wordman put it: when
decking *has* to be done, it's magic making it work.

cheers,

Jan Jaap



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Message no. 43
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:00:57 +0200
According to Jan Jaap van Poelgeest, on 31-03-2005 02:10 the word on the
street was...

> The fact that 'Talented' is written with a capital 'T'
> is probably an indication of the fact that it is a
> different conception than your ordinary conception of
> talented.

As in "more pretentious"?

> Therefore any valuations you would care to
> attach to it are in fact mere figments of your
> imagination.

I take it you're one of those people who refers to magicians as having
"the Talent"? :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 44
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:12:03 -0400
At 05:36 PM 3/27/2005 -0500, you wrote:

>Personally, I think SR3's matrix is the clearest and most concise ruleset
>in the whole game. Once you realize that a trip into the matrix comes down
>to nothing more than getting what you need without accumulating too much
>Security Tally, it all falls into place.

Unfortuntely, it made the previous adventure descriptions obsolete. :-(
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 45
From: paul@*********.demon.co.uk (Paul Squires)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:26:12 +0100
Ubiquitous wrote:
> At 05:36 PM 3/27/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>>Personally, I think SR3's matrix is the clearest and most concise ruleset
>>in the whole game. Once you realize that a trip into the matrix comes down
>>to nothing more than getting what you need without accumulating too much
>>Security Tally, it all falls into place.
>
>
> Unfortuntely, it made the previous adventure descriptions obsolete. :-(


Not that we're ever going to face that sort of situation again 'cos
Fanpro love us so...

So, what's been going on for the last few months? Have I missed anything?

:D

--
Paul Squires
paul@*********.demon.co.uk | OpenPGP Key ID: 0x423003E0
MSN: pa_squires@*******.com | ICQ: 318471677
Support the campaign against UK ID cards - www.no2id.net
-=-=-
"A man is a person who will pay two dollars for a one dollar item he
wants. A woman will pay one dollar for a two dollar item she doesn't
want." - William Binger.
Message no. 46
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 06:14:31 -0400
At 06:31 AM 3/28/2005 -0800, you wrote:

>Yeah, short of just making computer checks, the Matrix became a solo
>while the rest of the players went for lunch. Even when streamlined,
>it was rough on the non-deckers.

We used to go out to Subway and he still wasn't finished when the six of us
returned.
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 47
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:33:22 -0400
At 12:22 AM 3/29/2005 -0500, Wordman wrote:

>I don't think I ever told anyone this, but I always just used the rules
>for astral quests for decking runs that could not be otherwise avoided.

Ooohhh!!!!
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 48
From: efreeman@*****.net (efreeman)
Subject: A few answers regarding SR4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:12:10 -0700
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 3:17am Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net> wrote:
> At 06:31 AM 3/28/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >Yeah, short of just making computer checks, the Matrix became a solo
> >while the rest of the players went for lunch. Even when streamlined,
> >it was rough on the non-deckers.
>
> We used to go out to Subway and he still wasn't finished when the six
of us
> returned.
> --

What my group does is to make a story out of it, with the decker dealing
extensively with the icons and environment. It makes the run
entertaining and quick, with only a couple of critical rolls.

=í

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about A few answers regarding SR4, 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!