| From: | "Fisher, Victor" <Victor-Fisher@******.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Ambient Power Levels in a Game [was SR3 Combat Spells] |
| Date: | Wed, 16 Jul 1997 18:32:50 -0400 |
>For the sake of Shadowrun as a playable game and not some overpowered AD&D
>or Rifts piece of munchkin crap, I've argued against the proposed
>modification to combat spells. He argues that they should be changed based
>on what I (and Shadowrun) would call an overpowered campaign. I argue that
>combat spells should not be changed at all based on a starting campaign, the
>logical progression of power levels from there, the theory behind combat
>spells, and game-balance.
>
>Kohl replys:
> I personally have no problem with the 'power levels' of the spells in
>the game, with attendant drain, as presented, but maybe I'm in the minority.
>Anything can be perverted, GMs just have to keep a handle on things.
>
>Perhaps you wouldn't call Caric's gaming pathetic, but I do. It reeks of a
>"give the players the world and smile as they kill everything and get the
>treasure and karma, yay!" game to me. Yes, I do have a great deal of
>sentiment against such gaming as it kills a game (see AD&D or Rifts).
>
>Kohl replys:
> I also don't play Rifts. I don't think it's a bad game; the power
>levels just not for me. But I know some people who do and like it. They're
>tastes are just as valid as mine.
>
><Lots o' snipping>
>
> I like to not *have* to have a 6 Willpower or Body to
>survive and normal Shadowrun doesn't require this. That's why I like it as
>it is.
>
>Kohl replys:
> I understand what you're saying. I just don't think you're saying it the
>right way. I don't think the rules should be adjusted too much either. [fires
>up anti~carp force screen, preparing for incoming deluge!].
> Also I'm a bit confused as to what you're referring to as a 'normal'
>game. That seems a pretty subjective calling to me. I mean, except for
>certain 'specials' most of the opponents my PCs will meet are things that
>can't be handled with small arms. When a PC requires something bigger, that's
>because it's the exception as one of the BIG baddies, NOT the rule. DOes that
>make my game not normal? Hopefully, my players are still enjoying it.
> Would you consider, say, BUG CITY a normal game, running it with
>characters who have all stats and skills of 3 or lower? I'm not critizing it,
>and if they survive, they got MY respect. What about 'Harlequin's Back'? Is
>that a normal game for your group?
> We all have our 'normal' meter adjusted a little differently, and when a
>few of us have it in the same range, we usually get together and game. My
>favorite example of a power gamer, he and I finally had a parting of the
>ways, because I didn't want to run the level and type of game he wanted to
>play. No bitter feelings [a few nightmares, though], but it's better than
>spending hours bickering, when I could be having fun running thru a story
>with the rest of the group.
>
>Now what's more pathetic, Adam: having fun playing a realistic campaign of
>SR or having fun playing a powergamer/munchkin campaign?
>
>Kohl replys:
> Now, now. Play nice.
>
>Kohl, you know who [Beep! Beep! Vrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooommmmmm!]
