Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Back to Shadowrun...
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 22:22:48 -0400
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!
Has anyone else out there ever participated in an all-decker
campaign? What a riot...

Marc
Message no. 2
From: Malcalypse The Younger <shadow@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Back to Shadowrun...
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 22:39:05 -0400
On Wed, 26 Oct 1994, Marc A Renouf wrote:

> 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!
> Has anyone else out there ever participated in an all-decker
> campaign? What a riot...

I DO like deckers... but they tend to clog up game time, and most of the
decking rules are rather cumbersome. Agreed, they add an incredible
element to the game, and it would not be the same without them... But, so
far the only rules I've seen for deckers are either cumbersome or kill
the whole experience (fast resolution) If anyone has any alternatives,
I'd love to hear them....

And no, I've neven been in an all decker game... It might be interesting
though. Hm.

Oh, BTW. Is there any interest in a PBIRC (Play by IRC) SR game? I'd be
willing to give it a try some time In the Near Future if people are
interested..
Message no. 3
From: Spellslinger <mruane@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Back to Shadowrun...
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 22:00:27 -0700
On Wed, 26 Oct 1994, Marc A Renouf wrote:

> 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!
> Has anyone else out there ever participated in an all-decker
> campaign? What a riot...
>
> Marc
>
I like to run deckers. The big problem is the rules with the system.
They are hard to interpret and hard to run. Plus, the people we play
with don't like playing with deckers. Personaly, I'd run my decker more
often but the runs e go on often do not require a decker. I have an idea
that intially begins with a decker seeing something horrifying yet
totally amzing in the matrix. great, but we don't have a decker in the
group. opps. It jsut loses a personal element when you have an NPC
relate what he saw. Plus, some of the party member love blowing the crap
out of people. Something deckers really don't get a chance to do, unless
in cyberspace.

Mike aka Spellslinger
Message no. 4
From: Gareth Owen <glowen1@*****.NHS.GOV.UK>
Subject: Re: Back to Shadowrun...
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 10:00:03 +0000
>
> 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!
> Has anyone else out there ever participated in an all-decker
> campaign? What a riot...
>
> Marc
>

Deckers are difficult to run well, IMHO, without spending too much
time on them, leaving everyone else twiddling their thumbs. I tend
to use deckers as support characters (NPC's mostly) or use 'one roll'
resolution of netruns. In my mercrun campaign I'm trying to give
deckers a real element of difference (failing miserably so far), i.e.
most characters won't understand their world, they use their own
slang, etc.

I like the idea of the all decker game though.

Hmmmm.

GLO (hey, I need a nickname)


--
Gareth Owen | Mail: glowen1@*****.nhs.gov.uk
Sytems Programmmer | Phone: (UK) 0495 765021
Gwent Health Authority | "Reboot it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure"
Message no. 5
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Back to Shadowrun...
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 08:42:49 -0700
On Wed, 26 Oct 1994, Marc A Renouf wrote:

> Has anyone else out there ever participated in an all-decker
> campaign? What a riot...

Quite, I agree. They decided to go after someone had done them
dirty, and so they hacked into *every* single bank in Seattle looking for
his name (since they were operating out of a Bison with a SatLink, they
weren't too worried about Trace IC). Finally found his account, and a
few others matching his name/identity.
The things they did to his credit wasn't pretty ....
He also got a mild surprise when a seemingly innocuous credstik
slot melted down his 'stik.

> Marc

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 6
From: Star <KADAMS@*****.VINU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Back to Shadowrun...
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 17:57:56 EST
The only problem is that our group had a decker that neglected to get
the program "auto exe." and he was our only decker. The other 6
members of the party, myself included, got tired of the incessent dice
rolling and we had nothing to do for about two hours. A simple matrix
run that with this program would take 10 min. turned into a complete
matrix battle that lasted around an hour and a half.
The is nothing wrong with deckers, if the people playing tham know
how.
Message no. 7
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Back to Shadowrun...
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 19:53:23 -0400
Actually, decker rules aren't necessarily cumbersome, or even
time consuming. In order for them not to be so, however, both the GM and
the decker player need to know the rules, both backward and forward.

Marc

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Back to Shadowrun..., 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!