Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Doctor Doom <JCH8169@***.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Assorted & Sundry Replies . . . I - VI
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 02:49:17 -0600
I. Von Fraeulein Debbie Giesbrecht: (Realism vs. Cinema in Combat)

> As a newbie player and a GM, I have found the combat system to be kind
> of confusing and slow. Most of this is probably because I don't know
> exactly what I'm doing. These are some of the problems that I've run
> into and I could use a little advice.

Indeed, the cinematic nature of ShadowRun, especially as applied to
combat, was a source of undeniable vexation for me in the earlier periods
of my campaign. Truly, not only did it struck me as a grievously overly
simplified version of the myriad variations possible in combat, but it
seemed to require forever to complete battle sequences ... until an event
transpired that permitted me to achieve perspective on the situation.

Over the previous season -- my academic schedule demanding attendance at
summer school -- I engaged in what has become, in hindsight, a dubious
flirtation with another system while concurrently engaging in my typical
ShadowRun campaign. This other system, the exact handle of which is
unimportant but conspicuously was NOT Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, had
incorporated into the combat generation system wound locations; critical
strikes; partial, substantial, and total successes; a turn sequence with
significantly fewer actions; and a larger range of reach modifiers as
well as damage values for weapons.

The result? One single skirmish required nigh to the entirety of an
afternoon to complete, despite the deadly nature of the system!

For my own opinions, it shall take quite an innovative step, perhaps
e'en a quantum leap in combat systems to grant me cause to deprecate
the cinematic nature of ShadowRun which I now perceive to be its strength.
For I have seen "realistic" systems ... and shall have none of't. 'Sooth,
ShadowRun combat does verily strike one to drag on ad infinitum; however,
comparatively, as was expressed by Loki who engaged in the experiment with
me, "It goes lickidy-split!"


II. Von dem Shadowdancer: (Wiccan Magic)

>By-the-by, in SR, what would actual Wiccan magick be classified as?
[...]
>wrong. Oh, I have not read Germany Sourcebook, though I have
>heard that it explains some type of nature magick.

Indeed it does ... the excerpt which you shall want to reference is
located primarily on pages 136 and 137. Also pay heed to the Idols,
the German and European versions of Totems -- I once posted them here,
but given present elucidation as to FASA's position on copyrighted
material, I shall not commit that mistake again.


III. Auch von dem Shadowdancer: (Rant on Science)

>When has science done ANYTHING natural! Get with the program.
>Everything that science touches turns to drek!!! The laws of nature
>are wild, free, clean, and deal with magick. The real stuff. To
[ further inflammatory but subsequently retracted statements deleted ]

Naturally, as a bit of an amateur philosopher (by which I mean to indicate
that I have been as yet unable to strike upon a means by which I may earn
funds by it) there is the issue of science concentrating more on what is
possible to be done rather than considering whe'er or not something /should/
be done.

However, in this particular case, I believe you are confusing Science
with industrialization, or perhaps commercialism -- at the very least,
you are the effects and ends to which the knowledge that Humanity has
put the knowledge with which Science has provided it.

I would speculate, Shadowdancer, that you are a proponent of the notion,
one often espoused by adherents of the Pagan and Wiccan belief systems,
that Magic and the practicing thereof is not in and of itself Evil, but
rather the means and purpose to which you apply Magic are what determine
the moral alignment, if you will.

Now, whe'er such an assertion is true or not is neither here nor there, but
within that philosophical paradigm the same could be held true of Science.
Science seeks to unravel or at least quantify the mysteries of the Universe,
to enumerate upon the Laws by which Nature operates, and to throw back the
dark shadows of ignorance and occasionally superstition ... the latter fact
which has often caused it to come to loggerheads with religion, for good or
for bad.

Now, do not misunderstand me in saying that I consider Science incapable of
doing wrong, far from it. It is a question of the /application/ of Science.

>Sorry for the rant, but these things tend to excite me. Please don't be
>offended. It's not personal.

With respect -- and I am fully cognizant of the fact you have both retracted
and apologized for the above statements -- it would be decidedly difficult for
some members on this list /not/ to take a measure of umbrage from these harsh
assertions.


IV. Von Herrn Renouf: (Are Technomancers Useless?)

> Am I the only GM who likes to run deckers? I get the impression
>that everyone things deckers are a total waste of time. Why is that?
>They add such an incredible element to the campaign!

Nay, you are not alone. The character Doctor Doom is a technomancer from his
very origins; although there is a difficulty with net runner characters as I
have observed in the dynamics of our group.

Although they possess undeniable utility, the other players have no patience
for the time requirements of technomancing, and as a consequence, I had to
diversify my skills and talents such that I would remain useful during those
long periods where computer work was not needed. However, I can say without
reservation that many of our missions would not have been accomplished were
it not for someone in the Matrix running interference.

In our contemporary group, we have a Rigger/Decker who typically abhors
entering the Matrix, although even he recognizes the necessity from time
to time.


V. Von Iz The Wiz!: (Free Spirits & The Matrix)

>What would happen if a free spirit with the power of possesion, possessed a
>decker, then tried to jack into the matrix? Would the spirit be able to
>interface with the matrix or not?

Uncertain as I am to exactly what is meant by your usage of the
term interface, I shall answer in the following manner:

It stands to reason that the Free Spirit would be permitted to
perceive the virtual reality of the Matrix via the possessed
technomancer's senses; however, were he/she/it un-equipped with
skills in the area of 'net running or unable to access said skills
within the technomancer's possessed mind, the latitude of movement
would be severely restricted, and actions hampered significantly.

Now, would the Free Spirit be permitted to /enter/ the Matrix as an
Astral entity? No. Technomancers do not even enter the Matrix; it
is an artificially-induced reality derived from an ASIST construct.

VI. Von Jeff Norrell: (Traveling Through Living Water)

>The real problem for me though (and this is probably getting a little
>nit- picky) is what about microorganisms in water; rain, sea, or
>whatever?

I vouchsafe the point that there are living microorganisms within water;
however, this concentration differs from that which is observed in air
and in "living" earth. FASA has drawn an demarcation, albeit arbitrary,
at the concentration levels in Earth to be inhibitory to Astral travel.

Obviously, you find the contemporary official position to be unsatisfactory,
but I am certain you would grant that the boundary must be placed somewhere,
FASA electing to prohibit transportation through the far denser and quite
probably far greater concentration of living organisms, both micro and macro
scopic.

Conceding that it is arbitrarily drawn, it is ne'ertheless sufficient for me.

Consequently, rain and other forms of precipitation would not impede Astral
travel; although a good argument could be made for it interfering with
perception on the Astral plane.


Colonel Count von Hohenzollern und von Doom, DMSc, DSc, PhD.

Doom Technologies & Weapon Systems -- Dark Thought Publications
>>> Working on solutions best left in the dark.
<<<
[ Doctor Doom : jch8169@********.tamu.edu ]
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"Attack, attack, and when in doubt, ATTACK!" -- Frederick the Great of Prussia
Message no. 2
From: Shadowdancer <BRIDDLE@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Assorted & Sundry Replies . . . I - VI
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 20:59:24 EST
When exactly is the Doom to English/English to Doom Translator due
out?:-)
Message no. 3
From: Nightfox <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Assorted & Sundry Replies . . . I - VI
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 09:31:39 -0700
>When exactly is the Doom to English/English to Doom Translator due
>out?:-)

The un-official Doom -> Common Man's English Literary Dictionary, is already
out in it multi-volume unabridged form. The volumes include

The Complete works of Shakesphere
The German -> English Dictionary
Websters Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary

There are no plans at the moment for a complete official Translator, most
because of the fact that no-one would want to carry it around since it would
only fit in the HUGE size gym bags (the ones you stick Freshmen in)

:)

Nightfox
Message no. 4
From: Spellslinger <mruane@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Assorted & Sundry Replies . . . I - VI
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:33:33 -0700
On Mon, 31 Oct 1994, Shadowdancer wrote:

> When exactly is the Doom to English/English to Doom Translator due
> out?:-)
>
it's a good thing they offered Doom in my High School. I can usually
catch the gist of what he's saying, although I bet a lot of it is about
sex. :-)

Mike aka Spellslinger
Message no. 5
From: "David L. Hoff" <DLHOFF@****.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Assorted & Sundry Replies . . . I - VI
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 00:38:00 CDT
Nightfox said:

>The un-official Doom -> Common Man's English Literary Dictionary is already
>out in multi-volume unabridged form. The volumes include

[some stuff deleted]

>Websters Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary

Websters? Hardly. Try OED (that's the Oxford English Dictionary, for you
un-educated types *smile*); I don't think the OED has a word in it that is
less than four syllables long *grin*. You also left out a thesaurus.

--Phoenix
dlhoff@****.wisc.edu

(who doesn't understand a lot of what Doom says, but who thinks that Doom sure
seems to know what he is talking about *grin*)

(By the way, are we really sure that Doom is a _he_?)
Message no. 6
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Assorted & Sundry Replies . . . I - VI
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 01:22:13 -0600
On Wed, 2 Nov 1994, David L. Hoff wrote:

> (By the way, are we really sure that Doom is a _he_?)

I'm not even sure if Doom is human...

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or anyone else
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GJ/CM d- H-- s-:++>s-:+ g+ p? au+ a- w++ v* C++(++++) UL++++$
P+>++ L++$ 3- E---- N+++ K+++ W M+ V-- -po+(---)>$ Y++ t+ 5+++
j R+++$ G- tv+ b+ D+ B--- e+>++(*) u** h* f r-->+++ !n y++**
Message no. 7
From: Firepower <DVANDERS@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Assorted & Sundry Replies . . . I - VI
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 16:13:19 EST
<Spellslinger--...a good they they offered Doom in my HS>

I can only hope you mean the language, not some new drug or
computer game.
Doomspeak is availiable as a linguasoft--but only at level 2.


Firepower

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Assorted & Sundry Replies . . . I - VI, 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.