Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:07:27 -0600
:>You assign your troll 1 point in charisma. You apply racial modifiers.
:>You lose two points of charisma, and go down to -1. At this point, you
:>can't create the troll, as you can NOT have a character with less than
:>1 point in each stat.
:
:Right. It (reduction of Attributes) stops at 1

Looked at from your SAC / TAC viewpoint; what specifically allows that
attribute to remain at 1, or what speceifically prohibits it from becoming
0 or -1? You say it stops at 1, but WHY? The only refrence is back on p
55- before the racial modifiers.
Theres nothing there saying that they will have a value of 1- just
that they can't go under 1. To me, that make it the players responsabilty
to keep them at 1.
In logical terms, saying "value x cannot be less than y" does NOT mean
"value x equals y if x is less than y". It simply means you have an error
if x is less than y.


:Again, please show me a rules reference for this. I'd be very surprised
if
:you could.

Ditto. Nothing in the racial mods section states that attributtes under 1
are incresed to 1.



Mongoose
Message no. 2
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 15:27:01 -0600
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.net>
Date: Thursday, October 29, 1998 2:22 PM

>:>At this point, you can't create the troll, as you can NOT have
>:>a character with less than 1 point in each stat.
>:
>:Right. It (reduction of Attributes) stops at 1
>
> Looked at from your SAC / TAC viewpoint; what specifically allows that
>attribute to remain at 1, or what speceifically prohibits it from becoming
>0 or -1? You say it stops at 1, but WHY? The only refrence is back on p
>55- before the racial modifiers.

As I explained to Caric, at this point it becomes a matter of practicality:
You can't roll -1 dice (though I am now toying with the concept of someone
having a 0 Charisma). At that point, you stop it at 1 and the character has
a permanent +2 modifier (or whatever) to that stat, until he buys it off
with Karma (how much Karma is left to GM discretion).

But I concede that there's nothing written down on the subject...which is
part of the problem.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 3
From: laughingman <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:54:29 +0100
I will just point out prior to this post that all is IMO.

I just squished all of my comments and thoughts as I had reread the
section on SR3rd. page 55 2nd column 3rd paragraph:

"No character may start the game with any attribute higher than 6
(before applicable racial modifiers, and none of a characters Physical
or Mental attributes can be lower than 1."

Yes, I know it is arguable, but IMHO it seems very clear that although
the application of the racial modifiers are only explicite written for
Attribute ratings 6, the same rules apply for the ratings that are on
the end of the line, the 1 rating attributes. I formyself think that is
the answer to our question. If it is not in your oppinion, ok, but
unless FASA (Hello guys!) does not clear this up (we will not come to an
end as both sides have good arguments why they should do or why they
forbid it). I for myself never ever thought of the posibility of having
the system work the way that some on the list suggest (1 point for a
Troll having rating 1 Charisma). But that is IMO.
I realy think that system messes with Gamebalance as earlier posted. And
also both sides are right that is nowhere explicitly stated that it is
either allowed, nor seems it to be forbidden. Although I tend to the
second thought of this topic, the above mentioned just clarifies that
for myself. Just common sense might help us here, but with that it is
the same with everything. We have 5 people with 10 opinions how it works
and actual 15 options how it could be meant to be.
So any further talk is more or less speculative and unless I find no
exact point how to "convince" my fellow listees here of the one or the
other option, I'll keep myself out of this thread as I do not see a
possibility to find an end.
That is unless of course you can consider my above quote to be enough to
be passed, but I doubt it, I myself see some small holes in the above
from a lawyers point of view. Damn Law I study

OK, Annyway, keep clean and go for it, I'll listen until I find another
point of this in the SR3rd. Rules.
BTW, haven't another one the above quote alread posted and wasn't he cut
to pieces literaly? Hope I will endure longer. Well, that is unless my
Comp will not once again smolder to pieces.
;o)
--
---> Steadfast...Selfproclaimed Protector of Gerber BABY's
Surfin' through the 'trix is
not like dustin crops boy!
Uh, 089 of 200 it states in Gerber BABY...
Message no. 4
From: Sean McCrohan <mccrohan@*****.OIT.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 21:08:04 -0500
Quoting laughingman (laughingman@*******.DE):
> I will just point out prior to this post that all is IMO.
>
> I just squished all of my comments and thoughts as I had reread the
> section on SR3rd. page 55 2nd column 3rd paragraph:
>
> "No character may start the game with any attribute higher than 6
> (before applicable racial modifiers, and none of a characters Physical
> or Mental attributes can be lower than 1."
>

Okay, though I almost hate to get involved, note that it does NOT
say "No character may start the game with any attribute higher than 6 or
below 1, before racial modifiers." What the bit quoted above says is:

"No character may start with any attribute higher than 6, before
racial modifiers." <End clause>
"None of a character's Physical or Mental attributes can be lower than
1."

Technically, the bit about not going lower than one is NOT a specific
reference to 'when the game starts'...it stands by itself, and just happened
to be mentioned at the same time. I don't know if that's what they intended,
but that's literally what it says. (They had to specify Physical and Mental
attributes because Magic can be 0, and Essence can be < 1).
That said...go ahead and do it however you like :) I'm of the opinion
that the rule as written forbids negative attributes at all times, but hey,
I'm probably not in your game.

--Sean
--
Sean McCrohan (mccrohan@**.gatech.edu) | "He uses his folly as a stalking
Grad Student, Human-Computer Interaction | horse, and under the presentation
Georgia Institute of Technology | of that he shoots his wit."
http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/~smccrohan | _As You Like It_, Act 5 Sc 4
Message no. 5
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 18:19:16 -0800
> Okay, though I almost hate to get involved, note that it does NOT
> say "No character may start the game with any attribute higher than 6 or
> below 1, before racial modifiers." What the bit quoted above says is:
>
> "No character may start with any attribute higher than 6, before
> racial modifiers." <End clause>
> "None of a character's Physical or Mental attributes can be lower
than
> 1."
>
> Technically, the bit about not going lower than one is NOT a
specific
> reference to 'when the game starts'...it stands by itself, and just
happened
> to be mentioned at the same time. I don't know if that's what they
intended,
> but that's literally what it says. (They had to specify Physical and
Mental
> attributes because Magic can be 0, and Essence can be < 1).
> That said...go ahead and do it however you like :) I'm of the
opinion
> that the rule as written forbids negative attributes at all times, but
hey,
> I'm probably not in your game.
>
> --Sean

What about decrease attribute spells? What happens when a spell drops a
stat to 0? Why not handle a stat that's dropped to 0 or lower during
generatio the same way?
Message no. 6
From: Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 03:22:52 +0100
And so it came to happen that laughingman(Steadfast) wrote:
<snip>
> I just squished all of my comments and thoughts as I had reread the
> section on SR3rd. page 55 2nd column 3rd paragraph:
>
> "No character may start the game with any attribute higher than 6
> (before applicable racial modifiers), and none of a characters Physical
> or Mental attributes can be lower than 1."
<snip>

I just had forgot the abravations, sorry to post again, but I do not
wan't anyone think that I quote wrong as the above quote could be
interpreted different than intended with the abravation gone.
Sorry once again.
--
---> Steadfast...Selfproclaimed Protector of Gerber BABY's
Surfin' through the 'trix is
not like dustin crops boy!
Uh, 089 of 200 it states in Gerber BABY...
Message no. 7
From: "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject: FW: Attribute Minimums
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 14:35:25 +1100
Hatchetman - your Reply To field is overriding the list.

> <snips>
> What about decrease attribute spells? What happens when a spell drops
> a stat to 0? Why not handle a stat that's dropped to 0 or lower during
> generatio the same way?
> (Hatchetman)
>
> Err...because that means your character is, basically, non-functional.
> The reason that such a situation is even covered is because a
> character can have an attribute reduced to 0 - but ONLY be a spell. 1
> is the minimum attribute rating for any character. In my game I'd rule
> that a character who had a rating reduced to 0 by anything except
> temporary magic would die (physical attribute) or become a brain-dead
> vegetable (mental attribute). If you REALLY wanna do it, though,
> here's my take.
>
> As far as I can recall, a character with a 0 in quickness is
> physically incapable of moving - they're that slow. A character with a
> 0 intelligence is treated as a turnip, and doesn't have the
> intelligence to take any actions.
>
> Okay, so this doesn't apply to the other attributes (I can't remember
> if the exact effect on other attributes is ever discussed), but I
> think that, reasonably, you'd have to extrapolate from these rulings.
> If you had a character with a 0 rating in:
>
> Body, he would not physically be able to SURVIVE walking down the hall
> and bumping into something. He's just THAT infirm. Could make an okay
> stay-at-home decker, I suppose, but eventually, SOMETHING is going to
> kill him. (A stubbed toe, perhaps?)
>
> Strength, he would not be able to move, lift a spoon to his mouth or
> go down to social security to collect his disability pension, because
> he physically does not have the strength to move his own weight.
>
> Charisma, he would have no INTEREST or INCLINATION in dealing with
> other people in a social setting - or if he did, he'd be so goddamned
> disgusting, the first street monster he met would gun him down.
>
> Willpower, he wouldn't be able to MOTIVATE himself to get up in the
> morning, let alone go on a shadowrun.
>
> Okay, these are my takes on things, but I'd REALLY say if having a 0
> rating in quickness or intelligence incapacitates you, having a 0
> rating in anything else would have the same effect (even if it's only
> 'social incapacitation').
>
> Oh, and if you were playing in SR3, I'd rule that a character with a 0
> in an attribute CANNOT purchase ANY skills that are linked to that
> attribute.
>
> *Doc', with his Charisma of 0 and no social skills, tries to chat up
> the ladies, picks a cybered street monster because of his Intelligence
> of 0, and gets his head knocked off when she slaps him, because of his
> Body of 0*
>
> Doc'
>
> .sig Sauer
Message no. 8
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:01:24 -0800
> Hatchetman - your Reply To field is overriding the list.

Huh? What do you mean, I don't get it.
Message no. 9
From: Caric <caric@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:19:58 -0700
> From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.bc.ca>

> > I'm probably not in your game.

Fine Sean I'll stop saving you a seat then. <harumph>

> What about decrease attribute spells? What happens when a spell drops a
> stat to 0? Why not handle a stat that's dropped to 0 or lower during
> generatio the same way?

Now that I would find humorous.

Player: Okay I assign 1 attribute point to my trolls quickness.

GM: Okay no problem.

Game play begins.

GM: Okay <insert trollish name here> you are laying on the ground fighting
for breath and slowely dying. What do you want to play next?

Sorry struck me as funny <shrug>

Caric
Message no. 10
From: "O'Mordha, Michael" <michael.omordha@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 11:52:01 -0800
Now that I would find humorous.

Player: Okay I assign 1 attribute point to my trolls quickness.

GM: Okay no problem.

Game play begins.

GM: Okay <insert trollish name here> you are laying on the ground fighting
for breath and slowely dying. What do you want to play next?

Sorry struck me as funny <shrug>

Caric
-------------------------
This brings up a point used in our game. At the return of orks and trolls,
the SR history indicates that some people died, often painfully. In our
game, that is the reason that we don't allow racial adjustments to drop an
attribute to less than one (1). The rationale is that those orks and trolls
and other metahumans with an attribute less than 1 die (if physical) or
become vegetables (if mental, but same effect).
O'Mordha
Message no. 11
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:38:08 -0600
:> If you had a character with a 0 rating in:
:>
:> Body, he would not physically be able to SURVIVE walking down the hall
:> and bumping into something. He's just THAT infirm. Could make an okay
:> stay-at-home decker, I suppose, but eventually, SOMETHING is going to
:> kill him. (A stubbed toe, perhaps?)

Only deadly wounds would kill (unles you play as a 0 Body drone).
Butr the total inabilty to heal (without magic) would eventually get him.


:> Strength, he would not be able to move, lift a spoon to his mouth or
:> go down to social security to collect his disability pension, because
:> he physically does not have the strength to move his own weight.

That's basically the "quadrpligia" flaw. You could be a rigger, no
problems, or just somebody with qulity home care. Fine for a mage or
decker that doesn't go (physically) on runs, but still a major flaw.


Mongoose
Message no. 12
From: "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:27:34 +1100
> :> If you had a character with a 0 rating in:
> :>
> :> Body, he would not physically be able to SURVIVE walking down the
> hall
> :> and bumping into something. He's just THAT infirm. Could make an
> okay
> :> stay-at-home decker, I suppose, but eventually, SOMETHING is going
> to
> :> kill him. (A stubbed toe, perhaps?)
>
> Only deadly wounds would kill (unles you play as a 0 Body drone).
> Butr the total inabilty to heal (without magic) would eventually get
> him.
>
Mongoose - if one of my players was stupid enough to try this on me, I'd
give them a deadly wound from their stubbed toe and say "Sorry, combat
pool dice don't apply". But I guess that's because how I feel about the
issue.

> :> Strength, he would not be able to move, lift a spoon to his mouth
> or
> :> go down to social security to collect his disability pension,
> because
> :> he physically does not have the strength to move his own weight.
>
> That's basically the "quadrpligia" flaw. You could be a rigger,
> no problems, or just somebody with qulity home care. Fine for a mage
> or decker that doesn't go (physically) on runs, but still a major
> flaw.
> Mongoose
>
Errr...again, I would make it a lot different (and harsher).
Quadraplegics can't move their limbs (or body) because of a severed (or
damaged) spinal cord. They still tend to be able to move their heads.
Someone with a strength of 0 is a different matter. They have muscles of
jelly. I'd rule that someone with a strength of 0 doesn't have the neck
strength to support the weight of their head (or anything else for that
matter). They'd basically spend life as a quivering ball of flesh. You
really want to live like that?

*Doc' forgoes his usual smartarse comment because he wanted to make his
feelings on this one plain.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer
Message no. 13
From: Hatchetman <hatchet@*********.BC.CA>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 19:08:23 -0800
> Errr...again, I would make it a lot different (and harsher).
> Quadraplegics can't move their limbs (or body) because of a severed (or
> damaged) spinal cord. They still tend to be able to move their heads.
> Someone with a strength of 0 is a different matter. They have muscles of
> jelly. I'd rule that someone with a strength of 0 doesn't have the neck
> strength to support the weight of their head (or anything else for that
> matter). They'd basically spend life as a quivering ball of flesh. You
> really want to live like that?
>
> *Doc' forgoes his usual smartarse comment because he wanted to make his
> feelings on this one plain.*
>
> Doc'
>
> .sig Sauer

Yeah, you could live in a vat of goo like Herr Joseph Virek. No fun, but
you'd get to be a wiz decker if you're spending your entire life jacked in.
But eventually you'd go semi-insane and you're body would go expanding
until your vat was filled and then maybe go like that guy who wanted to
posses Ryan Mercury's body. Roxbourough or something like that.
Message no. 14
From: "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:50:27 +1100
> > Errr...again, I would make it a lot different (and harsher).
> > Quadraplegics can't move their limbs (or body) because of a severed
> (or
> > damaged) spinal cord. They still tend to be able to move their
> heads.
> > Someone with a strength of 0 is a different matter. They have
> muscles of
> > jelly. I'd rule that someone with a strength of 0 doesn't have the
> neck
> > strength to support the weight of their head (or anything else for
> that
> > matter). They'd basically spend life as a quivering ball of flesh.
> You
> > really want to live like that?
> >
> > *Doc' forgoes his usual smartarse comment because he wanted to make
> his
> > feelings on this one plain.*
> >
> > Doc'
> >
> > .sig Sauer
>
> Yeah, you could live in a vat of goo like Herr Joseph Virek. No fun,
> but you'd get to be a wiz decker if you're spending your entire life
> jacked in. But eventually you'd go semi-insane and you're body would
> go expanding until your vat was filled and then maybe go like that
> guy who wanted to posses Ryan Mercury's body. Roxbourough or something
> like that.
>
Thomas Roxborough. See the first book in the Dragon Heart Saga (or
whatever it's called) and a little bit in Aztlan.

Btw, who's Joseph Virek?

*Doc' admits his ignorance while stuffing his Colt Manhunter up your
left nostril. "Wanna make somethin' of it, boy?"*

8-)

Doc'

.sig Sauer
Message no. 15
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:57:47 +1000
Ratinac writes:
> > Yeah, you could live in a vat of goo like Herr Joseph Virek. No fun,
> > but you'd get to be a wiz decker if you're spending your entire life
> > jacked in. But eventually you'd go semi-insane and you're body would
> > go expanding until your vat was filled and then maybe go like that
> > guy who wanted to posses Ryan Mercury's body. Roxbourough or something
> > like that.
> >
> Thomas Roxborough. See the first book in the Dragon Heart Saga (or
> whatever it's called) and a little bit in Aztlan.
>
> Btw, who's Joseph Virek?

Throwing my memory back... wasn't Virek a character in Gibson's Neuromancer
series? (It's been bloody ages since I read any Gibson)

If so, he was an extremely rich person who lived entirely in a vat for
various reasons (cancer, I think). His body keeps growing, though, and he
eventually dies when the vat fails to contain his body.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 16
From: John Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 23:08:09 -0500
Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> Ratinac writes:
> >
> > Thomas Roxborough. See the first book in the Dragon Heart Saga (or
> > whatever it's called) and a little bit in Aztlan.
> >
> > Btw, who's Joseph Virek?
>
> Throwing my memory back... wasn't Virek a character in Gibson's Neuromancer
> series? (It's been bloody ages since I read any Gibson)

Count Zero, actually (Gibson's second novel, set in the same world as
Neuromancer, was published in 1986). I don't recall if Virek appeared in
Neuromancer (I don't think he did, though)

--
John Pederson, otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Oooooh! Big talk from Mr. Got-All-My-Limbs! 'Look at me! I've got arms
and legs! JERK!" --Sluggy Freelance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864/index.html ICQ UIN: 3190186
pedersje@******.rose-hulman.edu lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com
----------------------
"I'm not fifty!" "SPOONMAN!!!" No. 2 -- with a
bullet!
Sergeant-at-Arms and Greatest Swordsman of the Frinch Army
Message no. 17
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 22:48:22 -0600
:Errr...again, I would make it a lot different (and harsher).
:Quadraplegics can't move their limbs (or body) because of a severed (or
:damaged) spinal cord. They still tend to be able to move their heads.
:Someone with a strength of 0 is a different matter. They have muscles of
:jelly. I'd rule that someone with a strength of 0 doesn't have the neck
:strength to support the weight of their head (or anything else for that
:matter). They'd basically spend life as a quivering ball of flesh. You
:really want to live like that?

Just how much strenght do you think you typical high quadripligic has?
(rhetorical- I will answer) Not enough to breathe (many are on
ventalators or even in iron lungs, whic would be portable "corsets" in
SR). Not always enough to lift thier heads (supporting it takes little
muscle, just positioning).


I'm not saying its a good ide for a PC, but if you DO have the
quadripligia flaw, putting any points in STR seems pretty pointless
(unless they plan on finding soem way to "cure" themselves), and I can't
see a zero STR being explotative in that case. Thier strength IS zero, by
all measurments needed for SR. It might be fully apropriate for an Otaku,
for example.
BTW, even a 1 str is pretty useless in SR. One of the SR3 architypes
(Street Mage) has a 1 str, and can't carry all her gear for long before
fallin unconcious.

Now, as to whether I'd want to live like that- I know a few people who
do, and they seem to adjust to it. You could still play SR, given a voice
comp, a rules CD, and a dice rolling program...

Mongoose
Message no. 18
From: "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 17:35:04 +1100
> :Errr...again, I would make it a lot different (and harsher).
> :Quadraplegics can't move their limbs (or body) because of a severed
> (or
> :damaged) spinal cord. They still tend to be able to move their heads.
> :Someone with a strength of 0 is a different matter. They have muscles
> of
> :jelly. I'd rule that someone with a strength of 0 doesn't have the
> neck
> :strength to support the weight of their head (or anything else for
> that
> :matter). They'd basically spend life as a quivering ball of flesh.
> You
> :really want to live like that?
>
> Just how much strenght do you think you typical high quadripligic
> has? (rhetorical- I will answer) Not enough to breathe (many are on
> ventalators or even in iron lungs, whic would be portable "corsets" in
> SR). Not always enough to lift thier heads (supporting it takes
> little muscle, just positioning).
>
> I'm not saying its a good ide for a PC, but if you DO have the
> quadripligia flaw, putting any points in STR seems pretty pointless
> (unless they plan on finding soem way to "cure" themselves), and I
> can't see a zero STR being explotative in that case. Thier strength
> IS zero, by all measurments needed for SR. It might be fully
> apropriate for an Otaku, for example.
> BTW, even a 1 str is pretty useless in SR. One of the SR3
> architypes (Street Mage) has a 1 str, and can't carry all her gear for
> long before fallin unconcious.
>
> Now, as to whether I'd want to live like that- I know a few people
> who do, and they seem to adjust to it. You could still play SR, given
> a voice comp, a rules CD, and a dice rolling program...
> Mongoose
>
Mongoose, you're missing my point. I (and I think most GMs - most,
Patrick, I said most :) ) see someone getting a strength of 0 as an
abuse of the system. THAT'S why I'd make things so difficult for them.

Oh, and quadraplegia is different to having no strength at all. Yes,
they're going to lose a lot of muscle tone, but (unless I'm sadly
mistaken) don't quadraplegics go through physiotherapy sessions designed
to keep their muscles from atrophying completely? This is something
different. Even a quadraplegic in SR rules has a strength of 1. Take
your example of the Otaku (I was going to before, but I don't think it
relates exactly). Even the worst off of them (the ones with serious
physical disabilities, including quadraplegia) have a strength of 1.

I'm saying that someone with a strength of 0 wouldn't have the strength
to move AT ALL. Total physical dysfunction. I might even go to your
extremes of your ventilator or iron lung if they wanted to breathe.
Muscles of jelly. Sure, hook 'em up to some machines, but they aren't
going anywhere. Maybe if they had some kind of exoskeleton controlled by
DNI they could move. A bit.

Hmmm...this is silly anyway. Let me put it this way. Strength 0 is NOT
being a quadraplegic - although it probably would have similar game
effects. Personally, I would make those effects a lot harsher for
reasons as stated above. On the other hand, quadraplegics don't
necessarily have all the same problems as someone with a strength of 0.

IF I ever allowed someone with strength 0 in my game, they could ALSO
get the quadraplegia flaw (although I wouldn't give them as many points
as they already suffer the same effects) and I would NEVER let them
increase their strength (they have to have something SERIOUSLY wrong
with them to get that way in the first place, right?). They'd probably
do all right as deckers, riggers (although they'd need to have someone
they trusted to help them in and out of their vehicles) and astral
adepts (if those survive to SR3). Apart from that, they'd have seriously
problems, the least of which, I would think would be sanity problems
(roll Willpower not to lose it every so often), mostly because you can't
ALWAYS be rigging or decking or (especially) wandering around the
astral, and when you're not, you're pretty much stuck inside a useless
body. You wanna be SINless? The problem's increased ten times - I'd say
you need a SIN to get any special care for such conditions. See what I'm
getting at?

One thing I'd like to know, Mongoose - do you agree with the idea of
allowing 0 attributes, or were you just trying to think of a game effect
to simulate that (hypothetically, of course)?

*Doc' decides, in the interests of good taste, not to make fun of people
with disabilities.*

Doc'

.sig Sauer
Message no. 19
From: Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 03:20:44 -0600
:One thing I'd like to know, Mongoose - do you agree with the idea of
:allowing 0 attributes, or were you just trying to think of a game effect
:to simulate that (hypothetically, of course)?


Mostly thinking what it would do, hypothetically. Before the
companion came out, I did a disabled NPC with zero quickness and str,
though, simulating incurable quadriplegia (this gives fewer "points than
the flaw, btw). I wouldn't be against it in some cases (to simulate
disability, for babies, etc) because attributes, to me, are measurable
function, not "potential" function.
Having 1 "extra" attribute point, but zero physical mobility, doesn't
seem an abuse to me. Some of your other points were well put- I think I
also had pointed out that, per the companions "training" rules, raising a
zero attribute would be hard (no dice to roll in training test).
That's in direct opposition to the "minimum troll" who still has some
(slight) ability to use mental attributes. I honestly can't imagine
playing the autistic / catatonic personality implied by a zero in a mental
stat, but know enough disabled people that I could imagine zero physical
attributes. Maybe those should just be big flaws, but some also imply
very low attributes.
BTW, in "V:TM" you CAN have a zero attribute, but only as a flaw (all
nosferatue have 0 appearance)- you just automatically fail any related
test.

Mongoose
Message no. 20
From: Steadfast <laughingman@*******.DE>
Subject: Re: Attribute Minimums
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:24:14 +0100
And so it came to happen that Ratinac, Rand (NSW) wrote:
<snip lotsa text>
> One thing I'd like to know, Mongoose - do you agree with the idea of
> allowing 0 attributes, or were you just trying to think of a game effect
> to simulate that (hypothetically, of course)?

Although not adressed in the least I just wan't to state that something
is "0" than it is not there. So a person with an attribut rating of zero
has the conferring attribut not. Strength = 0 means the person has no
muscles IMO. Thats it. No muscle, nothing goes as even the weakest
person has muscles so a Attribute of 1 is the minimum to have unless you
are in a Vat. I do not allow that to happen for PC's. Hm, maybe if the
PC chooses 1 million Y from start and invest this fully to get a
lifestyle permanent that gives proper medical treatment. But than I do
think not many PC's would do this :o).
And of course there is the entry that no Attribute can be lower than 1.

--
---> Steadfast...Selfproclaimed Protector of Gerber BABY's
Surfin' through the 'trix is
not like dustin crops boy!
Uh, 089 of 200 it states in Gerber BABY...

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Attribute Minimums, 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!