Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Terry Amburgey <XANTH@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: By The Book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 10:55:32 EDT
I'm largely in agreement with Ivy about using the rules, but for a slightly
different reason - if you use the rules everyone has access to the same
information (assuming they get the rules). My experience may be idiosyncratic
but in 17 years of playing various RPG systems most house rules have been
invoked in the following way: my character attempts to fill-in-the-blank and
the referee says "I don't like rule x, this is the way it works in my game".
At that point I'm hosed.
Many people point that the rules are fluid and the GM can do what he/she wants.
What about the players? Do those of you making modifications consult players or
is it 'your' game? Do you make printed copies of new rules or modifications so
that everyone knows exactly what the rules are?
Players always have the option of voting with their feet and I've left several
gaming groups because a referee played games with the rules. After seeing some
of the 'house' rules described here I have to say that I'd walk away from most
of them and head for Ivy's house.
Terry
Message no. 2
From: Jason Larke <jlarke@**.ITD.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 11:41:49 -0400
>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 1994 10:55:32 EDT, Terry Amburgey
>>>>> <XANTH@****.UKY.EDU> said:
TA> I'm largely in agreement with Ivy about using the rules,
TA> but for a slightly different reason - if you use the
TA> rules everyone has access to the same information
TA> (assuming they get the rules). My experience may be
TA> idiosyncratic but in 17 years of playing various RPG
TA> systems most house rules have been invoked in the
TA> following way: my character attempts to
TA> fill-in-the-blank and the referee says "I don't like
TA> rule x, this is the way it works in my game". At that
TA> point I'm hosed. Many people point that the rules are
TA> fluid and the GM can do what he/she wants. What about
TA> the players?

I've had this problem occasionally. When I ran a game I made
an effort to codify the house rules and explain them to
everyone. More importantly, if I do pull one out of my ass,
I'm usually willing to bend the rule once rather than ream
the player.

House rules can suck when you forget them, but when applied
uniformly, they can make the game *much* more enjoyable.
Message no. 3
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 12:47:28 -0700
Thank you Terry,

On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Terry Amburgey wrote:

> I'm largely in agreement with Ivy about using the rules, but for a slightly
> different reason - if you use the rules everyone has access to the same
> information (assuming they get the rules). My experience may be idiosyncratic
> but in 17 years of playing various RPG systems most house rules have been
> invoked in the following way: my character attempts to fill-in-the-blank and
> the referee says "I don't like rule x, this is the way it works in my
game".
> At that point I'm hosed.

This was definitely one of the things I meant when I talked about
cheating the players.

> Many people point that the rules are fluid and the GM can do what he/she wants.
> What about the players? Do those of you making modifications consult players or
> is it 'your' game? Do you make printed copies of new rules or modifications so
> that everyone knows exactly what the rules are?

When I did use "House Rules" this is what I did. And every new player I
got was leery of the rules, because they weren't what they expected.

> Players always have the option of voting with their feet and I've left several
> gaming groups because a referee played games with the rules. After seeing some
> of the 'house' rules described here I have to say that I'd walk away from most
> of them and head for Ivy's house.
> Terry
>
Thank you, I'm touched. I'd give you an honest game too.

Ivy
Message no. 4
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 11:08:17 +1000
Of _course_ House Rules have to be written up.

In our game, since we have very few arrivals or departures
as the years pass, and since all rules mods are fully discussed
and reasoned through, and playtested for a trial period, they
cause no surprises and don't `cheat the players'.

luke
Message no. 5
From: "I.M. Legion" <legion@***.SC.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 11:24:14 -0600
Ivy writes:
> Thank you Terry,
>
> When I did use "House Rules" this is what I did. And every new player I
> got was leery of the rules, because they weren't what they expected.
>
> >
> Thank you, I'm touched. I'd give you an honest game too.

Excuse me if I don't sound sarcastic (because I am) but you come across as
some sort of benevolent deity regularly taking in new players to spread your
goodness through the world.

If new players were getting leery, than they were either diehard rules-lawyers
or the house rules were some pretty strange ones. I've had some pretty strange
ones in some of my campaigns, but they were campaign specific. What worked
well in one campaign, probably wouldn't work in another.

Reality: That's nice that you think the rules reflect reality better than most
systems. This is probably true, they are good rules. But, why the hell would
you want to play a _fantasy_ game for it's accurate depiction of reality?
What's the point? Might as well play "Pencils and Paperwork".

--
Legion
Students for War & Oppression
@@@@ @ @ @@@@ Counter productive, highly destructive!
@ @ @@ @ @ @ ---
@@@@ @ @@ @ @ @ Celebrating the occurrences of War &
@ @ @@ @ @ @ Oppression since the dawn of time
@@@@ @@@@ @@@@ -- Even the planets were born in turmoil... --
Message no. 6
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 16:38:24 -0500
My thoughts on house rules:

House rules are fine. They should be allowed, certainly, and in many
cases ENCOURAGED.

However, if you're going to have 'em, make them consistent and, to
new players, easily shown.

For instance, in one game, there was a house rule where the Rule of 6
applied to natural dice in initiative, to allow unaugmented players a CHANCE
of being as fast as the Sammies sometimes. However, in many cases, the natural
part was ignored...and the Sammies went even faster (I, on the other hand, was
a mage in the astral at one point, and with my 1 die managed to roll a 6
3 times in a row...)

This was bad.

Of course, the worst in that game was that, without any discussion, the
rule on watchers was changed. I wanted to summon a watcher (to spy on another
party member), but suddenly it was going to cost me 1k=Y= to do so. This is
against the spirit of watchers, to be sure. The main part that was bad was
that there was no DISCUSSION done on this...it just happened, and it was
annoying.

Just discuss it with the players first...

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 7
From: Hamish Laws <h_laws@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 09:39:19 +0700
I.M.Legion writes:
>
>Reality: That's nice that you think the rules reflect reality better than most
>systems. This is probably true, they are good rules. But, why the hell would
>you want to play a _fantasy_ game for it's accurate depiction of reality?
>What's the point? Might as well play "Pencils and Paperwork".
>
Yes, that's why I've always been slightly dubious about TOON, it's
just too realistic : )


*************************************************
There has to be an optimist around here somewhere
*************************************************

Hamish Laws
Message no. 8
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: By the Book
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 08:54:19 -0400
Luke said:
>And a previous member of the list, Ivy, was *adamant* and
>*convincing* that you could still play challenging SR 2 with
>characters whose Karma Pools were 250. (Awesome, neh?)
>
>Despite various people calling her a munchkin, she was able to
>defend her statements. It all came down to the GM. There was
>some magic going on _there_, I suspect.
>
Ivy was also adamant about 'playing by the book'. I suspect that a good GM
can make life challenging without a lot of house rules, even for
lots'o'karma characters. Wasn't there a recent thread about a GM [Marc?] who
'took vision modifiers seriously'? As I recall vision mods and maybe a
little cover jacked up the challenge considerably. Terry
Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 9
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: By the Book
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 14:08:59 BST
Terry :-

> Ivy was also adamant about 'playing by the book'. I suspect that a good GM
> can make life challenging without a lot of house rules, even for
> lots'o'karma characters. Wasn't there a recent thread about a GM [Marc?] who
> 'took vision modifiers seriously'? As I recall vision mods and maybe a
> little cover jacked up the challenge considerably.

It does, I use them all the time, and we the fights do turn into huge
amounts of ammo being wasted, trying to keep the other guy's heads down.

Becuase of the sheer levels of wires involved in the fights, they still
only take 15-30 seconds of real time, but they are a lot longer than
the old 2's Tno, whoever gets the first shot off gets o chew the other
guy to pieces.


If you want to keep your caharacters alive without going the munchkin route
of filling them full of as much cyber and bio as possible, then always use
cover and flash grenades...geeze, the anti-terrorists, etc use smoke,
flash grenades, CS gas, etc, why do you think they do it?

They want to survive as long as possible, and so should your characters.

The last time some idiot stood out of cover, because he didn't want penalties
on his TNo's due to his own cover (as in FoF), the idiot mananaged to
cause a serious injury to one of two kamikazied killers and then spent a
month in hopsital recovering from the 12 rounds he took in the chest...


Vision modifiers, etc are there for your benefit too players, use them...



wow.. that sounded like a public service announcement! :-)

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 10
From: Samuel Jones <sjones1@***.UNICOMP.NET>
Subject: Re: By the Book
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 09:23:57 CDT
>Luke said:
>>And a previous member of the list, Ivy, was *adamant* and
>>*convincing* that you could still play challenging SR 2 with
>>characters whose Karma Pools were 250. (Awesome, neh?)
>>
>>Despite various people calling her a munchkin, she was able to
>>defend her statements. It all came down to the GM. There was
>>some magic going on _there_, I suspect.
>>
>Ivy was also adamant about 'playing by the book'. I suspect that a good GM
>can make life challenging without a lot of house rules, even for
>lots'o'karma characters. Wasn't there a recent thread about a GM [Marc?] who
>'took vision modifiers seriously'? As I recall vision mods and maybe a
>little cover jacked up the challenge considerably.

I would imagine that adding military tactics would increase the challenge
quite a bit as well. (Instead of having go-gangs coming straight at the
characters with a Streetline Special, have them pin the characters down with
crossfire from on top of buildings while others hide behind cars for cover
and start lobbing grenades :-) Or simply stay put and Aim while the
characters come at them...
Message no. 11
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: By the Book
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 15:21:52 BST
> I would imagine that adding military tactics would increase the challenge
> quite a bit as well. (Instead of having go-gangs coming straight at the
> characters with a Streetline Special, have them pin the characters down with
> crossfire from on top of buildings while others hide behind cars for cover
> and start lobbing grenades :-) Or simply stay put and Aim while the
> characters come at them...

Again, all this stuff ought to be compulsory learning for a GM who wants to
put up a serious fight with hios corp sec guards...

somebody put up a selection of tactics for SWAT forces and the like, all
of which are mostly common sense, and were soon learnt by my players, even
though none of us have military/combat experience.... it might have been
Gurth or JD or our late list.grumpy.member... I think I still have a copy
somewhere... anyone want one?

Phil (Renegade)

Ps. Don't forget suppressive fire through a window, then blatantly stop and
eject your clip loudly :-) then when the runner pops up to return fire, a
chummer with a delayed action nails him from concealment...a personal
fave :-)
Message no. 12
From: Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.RIPCO.COM>
Subject: Re: By the Book
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 13:38:35 -0500
> Vision modifiers, etc are there for your benefit too players, use them...

Yeah, they are on the GM screen, but hard for players to look up all the
time. I xeroxed them and covered the spells section on my sams sheet with
all the targ mods. But, generally, the other players don't like it when I set
off flash or smoke grenades.
Sebastian
aka
Mongoose
Message no. 13
From: Sebastian Wiers <seb@***.RIPCO.COM>
Subject: Re: By the Book
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 13:50:17 -0500
>
> somebody put up a selection of tactics for SWAT forces and the like, all
> of which are mostly common sense, and were soon learnt by my players, even
> though none of us have military/combat experience.... it might have been
> Gurth or JD or our late list.grumpy.member... I think I still have a copy
> somewhere... anyone want one?
>
> Phil (Renegade)
>
O goody oh goody yes yes yes
Seb@***.ripco.com
Message no. 14
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: By the Book
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 16:37:27 -0400
On Mon, 3 Jul 1995, P Ward wrote:

> somebody put up a selection of tactics for SWAT forces and the like, all
> of which are mostly common sense, and were soon learnt by my players, even
> though none of us have military/combat experience.... it might have been
> Gurth or JD or our late list.grumpy.member...

Actually, it was me, and if anyone wants a copy, I still have it.

> Ps. Don't forget suppressive fire through a window, then blatantly
> stop and eject your clip loudly :-) then when the runner pops up to
> return fire, a chummer with a delayed action nails him from
> concealment...a personal fave :-)

This was definitely the one I posted. I remember giving this
exact same example. Anyway, the offer stands if y'all want it.

Marc
Message no. 15
From: Samuel Jones <sjones1@***.UNICOMP.NET>
Subject: Re: By the Book
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 20:39:36 CDT
<snipped for space>...
>Again, all this stuff ought to be compulsory learning for a GM who wants to
>put up a serious fight with hios corp sec guards...
>
>somebody put up a selection of tactics for SWAT forces and the like, all
>of which are mostly common sense, and were soon learnt by my players, even
>though none of us have military/combat experience.... it might have been
>Gurth or JD or our late list.grumpy.member... I think I still have a copy
>somewhere... anyone want one?
>
Please post it! I'd love to have that stuff<evil grin>
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: By the Book
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 11:57:46 +0200
>somebody put up a selection of tactics for SWAT forces and the like, all
>of which are mostly common sense, and were soon learnt by my players, even
>though none of us have military/combat experience.... it might have been
>Gurth or JD or our late list.grumpy.member... I think I still have a copy
>somewhere... anyone want one?

That was Marc A. Renouf I believe -- Jani just gave me a copy of the text
you're probably referring to a few days ago, and I found it pretty OK for
games whose name _doesn't_ begin with "S" and ends with "hadowrun" --
face
it, most (not all, mind you) SR fights end in two turns with one side dead
and the other side a bit wounded and a bit not.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Coming up after the break: more of the same nonsense!
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 17
From: Paolo Marcucci <marcucci@***.TS.ASTRO.IT>
Subject: Re: By the Book
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 12:17:07 +0000
On Jul 4, 11:57am, Gurth wrote:
[snip]
> face
> it, most (not all, mind you) SR fights end in two turns with one side dead
> and the other side a bit wounded and a bit not.
>
> Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html

TWO Turns?! What slow you are...

Paolo


--
________________________________________________________________________
Paolo Marcucci http://www.oat.ts.astro.it/marcucci/home.html
marcucci@***.ts.astro.it
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A loaf of bread, a jug of wine, a big TV with a hi-fi VCR and a nice
stereo, a full fridge, a microwave, a UNIX system, two phone lines,
a high speed modem, internet access.... and thou."
Message no. 18
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: By the Book
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 14:38:21 BST
> Yeah, they are on the GM screen, but hard for players to look up all the
> time. I xeroxed them and covered the spells section on my sams sheet with
> all the targ mods. But, generally, the other players don't like it when I set
> off flash or smoke grenades.
> Sebastian

Not exactly what I meant chummer.... :-)

Just be aware that if you;re in a reduced light siuation, then it's
harder for the other guy to hit you....

Be aware that if you have natural low-light, you suffer NO PENALTIES
in reduced partial light conditions, that's dark street-lighting, etc..
whereas those other saps get a +2 :-)

Phil (Renegade)


PS. Mongoose, are you player or GM? If the other don;t like it when
you set off smoke or flash, that's there problem,.l it's keeping your
character alive, and that's important...
Message no. 19
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: By the Book
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 14:45:06 BST
Marc Wrote :-
> Actually, it was me, and if anyone wants a copy, I still have it.

Aha, so that's who it was, thanks chummer... all stuff I wa already doing,
but it was real nice to have a lucid version written so I could hand it over
to the players and let them peruse it...

>> Ps. Don't forget suppressive fire through a window, then blatantly
>> stop and eject your clip loudly :-) then when the runner pops up to
>> return fire, a chummer with a delayed action nails him from
>> concealment...a personal fave :-)
>
> This was definitely the one I posted. I remember giving this
>exact same example. Anyway, the offer stands if y'all want it.

Just out of interest, how m,any times ahve your players fallen for this
after the first?

Mine got very used to it... damn :-(

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 20
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: By the Book
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 15:15:06 BST
Gurth
> That was Marc A. Renouf I believe -- Jani just gave me a copy of the text
> you're probably referring to a few days ago, and I found it pretty OK for
> games whose name _doesn't_ begin with "S" and ends with
"hadowrun" -- face
> it, most (not all, mind you) SR fights end in two turns with one side dead
> and the other side a bit wounded and a bit not.

Sometimes, but the way we play it, the same tactics get used, they only
get used faster.... with all those wires around, and the opposition using
the same stuff, there's still the need for a goo dgrounding in mil-spec
tactics.

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 21
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: By The Book
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 15:18:12 -0400
>Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 10:16:49 +0200
>From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
>Subject: Re: no subject (file transmission)
>
>>I must have missed that in the rules. Was that anywhere near the section
>>that said (and I paraphrase) 'Use what you want, delete what you don't, feel
>>free to deviate from these guidelines?'
>
>That's what FASA stresses in just about any game they bring out these days,
>and IMHO that's exactly what they should print in every set of game rules...
>My own attitude is "Don't like the rules? Change them!" (Luckily Ivy isn't
>on this list anymore, or we'd have a heated discussion again :)

Well let me fill in for Ivy. IMHO thats exactly what should be DELETED from
every set of game rules. Going 'by the book' allows EVERYONE the same
knowledge base for playing [both GM and PC's], it helps hold down the number
game designer wannabe's who think they can do a better job of creating a
consistent and playable game setting, and [last but not least] it would
reduce the occurrence of a common thread on the list: Larry Lurker asks a
rules question, Joe Blow posts an answer, Gary Guru points out the correct
answer, Joe Blow responds 'Oh yeah, that's a house rule'.

Create whatever Rube Goldberg game you want but don't call it Shadowrun.

Heated discussion anyone?

Terry
Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 22
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 22:43:19 +0200
>Well let me fill in for Ivy.

Just a little question: is this a serious remark (do you believe in what you
wrote) or were you trying to be funny? (Not meant as a flame or whatever, BTW)

>IMHO thats exactly what should be DELETED from
>every set of game rules.

Why? I think you should think for yourself instead of let others make up the
rules for you (and not only in gaming).

>Going 'by the book' allows EVERYONE the same
>knowledge base for playing [both GM and PC's], it helps hold down the number
>game designer wannabe's who think they can do a better job of creating a
>consistent and playable game setting

A game setting is something different from a set of rules. I am very much in
favor of altering the rules when you think there is something that needs to
be altered, or when there is something you _want_ to alter. I've modified
loads of things in my SR game which "weren't broken" (as most people would
call it), but nearly all of them were minor things and my players agree with
the changes.
Now altering a game setting is something I _wouldn't_ do. Things like Paul
Adams' Shadowrun world (zou hij het deze keer wel doorhebben, Martin? :),
where people like Lugh Surehand get overthrown by the PCs. That's something
that would not happen while I'm GMing -- I want to keep the _game_world_ as
close to the original as possible.

> and [last but not least] it would
>reduce the occurrence of a common thread on the list: Larry Lurker asks a
>rules question, Joe Blow posts an answer, Gary Guru points out the correct
>answer, Joe Blow responds 'Oh yeah, that's a house rule'.

That's why Gary is a guru and Joe isn't :) Seriously, I like to see people's
house rules, even though I might never use them myself. I also think Joe
Blow should think about whether or not he might be posting a house rule
before doing so (though I don't think many people make this mistake very
often). If he does post a house rule, maybe he should add something like "Or
so we play it."

>Create whatever Rube Goldberg game you want but don't call it Shadowrun.

I'll call it whatever I damn well want *starts chanting "It's my right! It's
my right!" then remembers he's not an American :)*

>Heated discussion anyone?

Like I said, was this a serious post or not? (It was really hard to tell, IMHO)

And from Terry's other message about Ivy:

>A former listmember that publicly advocated using the Shadowrun rules as
>published. This, of course, violates one of the two sacred tenets of gaming
>discussions:
>1. Roll playingºd Role playing=good

Not necessarily true, IMHO: in some cases it's much better to just roll dice
than try and play it out completely.

>2. House rules are superior to published rules

Don't start to generalize things. Not all house rules are better than
published rules. I am a proponent of writing your own rules if you feel like
it, and I think you _certainly_ shouldn't stick to the published rules
_because_ they're published rules. Change what you like, and let others know
about your changes. Then they can make up their own minds about whether they
like the changes or not -- and preferably without flaming the person who
made the changes if they don't like them.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
hold on to nothing as fast as you can
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 23
From: Gary Carroll <gary@****.COM>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 14:09:19 -0700
Cybermancy quote:
>>>I must have missed that in the rules. Was that anywhere near the
>>>section that said (and I paraphrase) 'Use what you want, delete
>>>what you don't, feel free to deviate from these guidelines?'

>>Gurth:
>>That's what FASA stresses in just about any game they bring out
>>these days, and IMHO that's exactly what they should print in every
>>set of game rules... My own attitude is "Don't like the rules?
>>Change them!" (Luckily Ivy isn't on this list anymore, or we'd have
>>a heated discussion again :)

I agree but when in discussion state both, the book answer and your
own alternates *that you think work better*.

>Terry
>Heated discussion anyone?

I'll nibble on this...

>Well let me fill in for Ivy. IMHO thats exactly what should be
>DELETED from every set of game rules.

This opinion is acceptable.

>Going 'by the book' allows
>EVERYONE the same knowledge base for playing [both GM and PC's],
>it helps hold down the number game designer wannabe's who think
>they can do a better job of creating a consistent and playable game
>setting,

Halt...
OK yes everyone has the same knowledge base but, what % of that base
is used and how well laid out is the knowledge. *as we know see can
be a definate issue with rules scattered about most of the different
books* I also don't believe that everyone out here is trying to
be a game designer... I do think that the majority of the
discussions are related to the fact that FASA isn't capable or
doesn't take the time to write out and explain all of the rules
so well that right and wrong can be determined. Thus we discuss what
they are eluding to or how everyone has interpreted it.
If done correctly with house rules and decisions contradicting the
rulebooks will be written down and also available to the Players
prior to game start (i.e. I don't want everyone runnung around with
autocannons that cost 200 -Y- *a typo* instead of 7200 -Y-).

If GM didn't use their deductive little Game Designing minds
then many games I know would stop in mid play and wait for 2 years
till FASA finally decided to come out with rules pertaining to that
situation. *face it there are way to many imaginations running
wild to cover all situations*

>Create whatever Rube Goldberg game you want but don't call it
>Shadowrun.

Oh please that kind of comment will encourage yelling not a debate.

Thanks
Gary C.
Message no. 24
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 18:10:49 -0400
Terry Amburgey writes:

> >That's what FASA stresses in just about any game they bring out these days,
> >and IMHO that's exactly what they should print in every set of game rules...
> >My own attitude is "Don't like the rules? Change them!" (Luckily Ivy
isn't
> >on this list anymore, or we'd have a heated discussion again :)
>
> Well let me fill in for Ivy. IMHO thats exactly what should be DELETED from
> every set of game rules.

You're kidding, right? Tell us you're kidding. (Or that you did this
deliberately to stir up that "heated discussion" and get folks' opinions..)

If not, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think your opinion is both
wrong and dangerous. I'll respond to the rest of your post, on the slim
chance that you're serious:


> Going 'by the book' allows EVERYONE the same
> knowledge base for playing [both GM and PC's],

It's the responsibility of the GM to KEEP everyone on the "same knowledge
base," and make sure everyone's informed. It's the responsibility of the
players to understand their GM's "knowledge base," and abide by it. If the
player feels the GM is wrong, the player should voice an objection. If the
GM overrides the player's objection, she should stick to the GM's decision
or find another GM. (Perhaps the player herself.)

"The book" does NOT always provide an authoritative, common knowledge base.
If it did, we wouldn't ever be arguing about book interpretations. "The
book" is there to give people ideas, and provide a common reference frame
to fill in the spots where people don't have a reference frame of their own.


> it helps hold down the number
> game designer wannabe's who think they can do a better job of creating a
> consistent and playable game setting,

Oooooh. Creativity BAD. Don't ever trust your imagination. Trust FASA's.
Theirs is better. (*hunts around for middle-finger key on keyboard*)

This is the one I really hope you weren't serious about. If you weren't,
you should've made the sarcasm more obvious. If you were, I do not EVER
want to role-play with you. Role-playing is an exercise to foster and
culitvate creativity, and the more it does so, the better. EVERYONE who
plays the game is a "game designer wannabee," to some extent -- everyone is
creating the reality around their characters. You don't have to agree with
someone else's game design, but trying to suppress it is whole-heartedly
AGAINST the spirit of the game.


> and [last but not least] it would
> reduce the occurrence of a common thread on the list: Larry Lurker asks a
> rules question, Joe Blow posts an answer, Gary Guru points out the correct
> answer, Joe Blow responds 'Oh yeah, that's a house rule'.

Look at the way you phrased that. CORRECT answer? What's a "correct"
answer in a role-playing game? Gary Guru can point out the _BOOK_ answer,
and it may even be a more sensible solution than Joe Blow's, but it doesn't
make Joe's answer "wrong."

I've only been GM'ing Shadowrun about a month-and-a-half, and already we
have plenty of "house rules." Some of them fill in for what I consider
rulebook oversights. (E.g., everyone gets a native Language for free, equal
to their Intelligence.) Some of them simplify existing rules, and some of
'em are just for the hell of it. We actually have a written rule that
prohibits setting the kitchen on fire while gaming. Are you suggesting
that, to play "real Shadowrun," setting the kitchen on fire must be
allowed?


> Create whatever Rube Goldberg game you want but don't call it Shadowrun.

I don't have to create a Rube Goldberg game, that's CP 2020. >8-> I WILL
play Shadowrun anyway I want to, however, and I will call it Shadowrun. If
you have a problem with that, you're entirely welcome not to play with me.
Just don't tell me how I'm "supposed" to do it.. To me, that sort of attitude
disqualifies any worthwhile opinions you might have.


Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu|
My opinions are my opinions. | "Never trust a smiling Game Master."
Please don't blame anyone else. |
Message no. 25
From: Duke Diener <DukeDragon@***.COM>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 19:35:14 -0400
Terry wrote:

>Well let me fill in for Ivy. IMHO thats exactly what should be DELETED from
>every set of game rules. Going 'by the book' allows EVERYONE the same
>knowledge base for playing [both GM and PC's], it helps hold down the number
>game designer wannabe's who think they can do a better job of creating a
>consistent and playable game setting, and [last but not least] it would
>reduce the occurrence of a common thread on the list: Larry Lurker asks a
>rules question, Joe Blow posts an answer, Gary Guru points out the correct
>answer, Joe Blow responds 'Oh yeah, that's a house rule'.
>
>Create whatever Rube Goldberg game you want but don't call it Shadowrun.
>
>Heated discussion anyone?

Yep, would sure hate for originality to break out all over the place :p If I
wanted to play the same game of SR everywhere I went I'd just load it into my
computer and let it do all the playing for me.

IMHO role-playing is being invited into some one elses fantasy world. Enter
that world with respect and appreciation for how it is different from your
own, then share the fantasy with him/her.

Duke
Message no. 26
From: Mike and Jill Johnson <shadow@******.NET>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 19:45:00 MDT
>reduce the occurrence of a common thread on the list: Larry Lurker asks a
>rules question, Joe Blow posts an answer, Gary Guru points out the correct
>answer, Joe Blow responds 'Oh yeah, that's a house rule'.
>


Isn't changing the rules part of making your game, *your game*? We have
house rules, unofficial rules and not to mention stuff we import from other
games. Sure it might cause some problems on the list, but hey others might
hate that same rule and decide to change it or delete it aslo.


Jill
Message no. 27
From: Ian Smith <KildTheCat@***.COM>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 01:26:28 -0400
Though I see that many on this list seem to fiddle with rules, and it seems
that many of you succeed ( kudos! ), as someone who has been gaming for quite
a long time now ( at least a very large portion of my small portioned life .
. . ) I would point out that game balance is not as easy to create or
preserve as it seems to the novice.
I figure that drekking around with the rules of a game is one of the things
that follows my cardinal rule - " If it's stupid and it works then it's not
stupid. But it better work"
Message no. 28
From: Ian Smith <KildTheCat@***.COM>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 01:30:57 -0400
>>> IMHO thats exactly what should be DELETED from every set of game rules.
<<<

I think this works. If it doesn't say one may fiddle with the rules, the
inexperienced will tend not to, while those that have achieved a certain
amount of RPG savvy will tinker with the rules no matter WHAT the book says.
Message no. 29
From: Ian Smith <KildTheCat@***.COM>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 01:34:51 -0400
>>> Role-playing is an exercise to foster and
culitvate creativity, and the more it does so, the better. EVERYONE who
plays the game is a "game designer wannabee," to some extent -- everyone is
creating the reality around their characters. You don't have to agree with
someone else's game design, but trying to suppress it is whole-heartedly
AGAINST the spirit of the game. <<<

Hmmm. Let the creative spirit vent itself within the world of the game.
There is plenty of room for it to play there. A game where game balance has
gone askew is a game which is not as fun to play.
Message no. 30
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 10:16:45 +0200
>I think this works. If it doesn't say one may fiddle with the rules, the
>inexperienced will tend not to while those that have achieved a certain
>amount of RPG savvy will tinker with the rules no matter WHAT the book says.

Of course they will -- what is the point of sticking to some or another rule
you don't like because the rulebook doesn't say you're allowed to change it?
IMHO you'd have to be pretty stupid anyway, to assume that it's somewhere
close to illegal to change game rules -- it's only a game, remember? Nobody
(except T$R maybe :) can force anybody else to abide by the rules of the
game as they were originally written, and I for one hope nobody will ever try.

[Non-SR sidenote: this reminds me of about half a year ago, when I had to
talk some guy in order for me to find a job, because I am unemployed. He
asked me what my hobbies were, so finally he sort of understood that I'm a
gamer. Later he told me that society has some rules you have to stick to,
"just as in a game..." A trick on his part of course to try and make me
comform to those rules, by playing on my hobbies. Too bad for him I hadn't
told him about my attitude toward RPG rules :) ]

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
hold on to nothing as fast as you can
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 31
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 10:16:41 +0200
> Isn't changing the rules part of making your game, *your game*?

Another thing is that SR wouldn't even exist if nobody changed game rules.
We'd all be playing the same RPG (probably *&*, or whatever the first RPG
was...)

>We have
>house rules, unofficial rules and not to mention stuff we import from other
>games. Sure it might cause some problems on the list, but hey others might
>hate that same rule and decide to change it or delete it aslo.

With me it's not so much a question of hating rules (except for 90% of the
matrix rules), I usually want more detail or maybe some more complexity or
choices than what the base rules offer, so I steal bits from other games and
adapt them to SR, or I just start writing something up myself (usually
influenced by other games anyway).

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
hold on to nothing as fast as you can
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 32
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 12:07:50 -0400
Gurth writes:

> [ . . . ] Nobody
> (except T$R maybe :) can force anybody else to abide by the rules of the
> game as they were originally written, and I for one hope nobody will ever try.

An amusing side note to this.. From the Gamemaster section of _Earthdawn_,
p. 230:

"As with all the rules in this book, treat the following as guidelines. If
you and the players don't like the way a rule works or feels, feel free to
change it. This game is yours. You spent your own money for it, and no
one, not even us, can tell you how to use it. Besides, no one is going to
stop by your house in the middle of the night to check on how you're playing
_Earthdawn._ FASA hasn't finished checking up on all its _Shadowrun_ players
yet."

>8->


Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu|
My opinions are my opinions. | "God is a polytheist."
Please don't blame anyone else. |
Message no. 33
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: By the book
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 20:36:50 +0200
I noticed the following sentence in Information Overload, a net.book for CP2020:

>You don't ever need to be concrete with a game system. Half the
>fun is in making the changes and fleshing out the world. Go out
>there, look for material, and adapt it to your system.

Appropriate for the present discussion, don't you think? :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
hold on to nothing as fast as you can
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 34
From: Cugel the Clever <cugel@**.NET>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 20:36:52 +01.0
On 17 Aug 95 at 15:18, Terry Amburgey wrote:

> >That's what FASA stresses in just about any game they bring out
> >these days, and IMHO that's exactly what they should print in every
> >set of game rules... My own attitude is "Don't like the rules?
> >Change them!" (Luckily Ivy isn't on this list anymore, or we'd have
> >a heated discussion again :)

> Well let me fill in for Ivy. IMHO thats exactly what should be
> DELETED from every set of game rules. Going 'by the book' allows
> EVERYONE the same knowledge base for playing [both GM and PC's]

If the rules were open for only one interpretation, I could see a
reason for this (not that I'll do it). But as it is impossible to
make the rules cover absolutely everything and take out all the
holes, you have to change them sometimes.

> it helps hold down the number game designer wannabe's who
> think they can do a better job of creating a consistent and playable
> game setting.

I find this argument offensive for all of us who tried to improve the
rules. A lot of the additional proposals posted to the list actually
enhance the game and improve realism. It doesn't mean that we could
write a whole setting, but we can recognize the errors or weaknesses in
the greater work and figure something out to patch them up or improve
them. And it's not so easy as you might think, you need a very good
sense of what's unbalancing the game and what's not, a good knowledge
of the rules, statistical knowledge, and last but not least, need to keep the
additional rules playable.
I don't use that many additional rules, but a few mods here and there
never hurt someone, especially if they improve the game. Take the
case of close combat; my players all started to use the mono-whip.
Not because it's a cool weapon and easily concealable, but they found
out (the hard way) that spurs versus the whip is a terminally unwise
thing to do. So everyone ditches the low reach weapons and goes for
the high reach stuff. Again not because they're munchkins (not these
in any case) but because the penalty for fighting with spurs against
someone with superiour reach is so great, that's almost impossible to
win (especially when FASA introduced trolls with combat axes in their
modules). So this official rule started to unbalance the game. I
changed a few bits here and there, talked it over with my players and
tried it out. After a few fights we decided the new rules are better,
so they become official in my Shadowrun game. On the other hand, some
new ideas didn't made it that far, because we couldn't agree on them.
So it's all a question of fiddling with the rules, player-GM
discussions, and then new rules, and I see no problem with that.
Only if my GM (I'm the GM most of the time) would start to introduce
new rules without talking about it and/or I oppose those rules, I would
agree with you.

> and [last but not least] it would reduce the occurrence of
> a common thread on the list: Larry Lurker asks a rules question, Joe
> Blow posts an answer, Gary Guru points out the correct answer, Joe
> Blow responds 'Oh yeah, that's a house rule'.

Joe Blow should have said that the moment he posted his answer, I
agree with you on that. But as far as I can see most of us do so. And
then it's up to you to use 'em or ditch 'em (or to your GM).
BTW most answers are not "right" per se. Most of the time it's more
an agreement on how to deal with a vague part of the rules.

> Create whatever Rube Goldberg game you want but don't call it
> Shadowrun.

Oh, no, you're Ivy incarnate!!! :>
My game's called Shadowrun, wether I use different rules than you or
not. The greatest part of the rules is still intact, the world-system
is (the most important part of a game), and the few mods I've made
wouldn't qualify under copyright regulations as a new game, so I
prefer to call it Shadowrun, no mather what you might think of that.
And everything which enhances a game, doesn't change it's name. I use
a lot of Gurth's PlasticWarriors-books, but the stuff in there enriches the
game instead of changing it.

> Heated discussion anyone?

Yeah sure, I like discussions. Go on, reply!! :) (only don't forget
the occasional smiley next time)


Martin Steffens (Cugel@**.net / bdi05626@***.rhij.nl)
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in
your home. -- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
Geek Code v3.0:
GLS d-(+) s+:+ a?(26) C+(++) U P? L? E? W+ N++ K? w+ O- M- V? PS+
PE- Y+ PGP t+(--) 5? X++ R+(++) tv b+++ DI? D++ G+ e++ h+(!) r y+
Message no. 35
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 16:26:16 -0400
> Hmmm. Let the creative spirit vent itself within the world of the game.
> There is plenty of room for it to play there. A game where game balance has
> gone askew is a game which is not as fun to play.

And if the GM and players have a clue, they will realize they're not having
as much fun as they should, and do something to fix it. I still maintain
that experimentation is a Good Thing(TM). Game balance is something that
varies from campaign to campaign, and sticking to FASA's rules won't help..
There are a number of FASA hooks that FASA itself admits can threaten game
balance, and plenty of munchkins get their munchkinism by taking the
rulebook and game world to its logical extreme.


Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu| "Heathen: A benighted creature who has the
My opinions are my opinions. | ignorance to worship something that he can
Please don't blame anyone else. | see and feel." _The Devil's Dictionary_
Message no. 36
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 17:08:28 GMT
Gurth wrote:
> Now altering a game setting is something I _wouldn't_ do. Things like Paul
> Adams' Shadowrun world (zou hij het deze keer wel doorhebben, Martin? :),
> where people like Lugh Surehand get overthrown by the PCs. That's something
> that would not happen while I'm GMing -- I want to keep the _game_world_ as
> close to the original as possible.

I willingly admit that our small group has developed considerable
momentum in an unorthodox direction :)

BTW is the Dutch aimed at me? <he says in paranoid tones>...

My only defence is, it seemed natural: it offered a great deal more role-
playing potential than endless "Tir Taingire try to kill you. Again."
runs, and was a lot more satisfying than the (much more likely) option
that the players ended up retired in deep cover, or dead.

> Don't start to generalize things. Not all house rules are better than
> published rules. I am a proponent of writing your own rules if you feel like
> it, and I think you _certainly_ shouldn't stick to the published rules
> _because_ they're published rules. Change what you like, and let others know
> about your changes. Then they can make up their own minds about whether they
> like the changes or not -- and preferably without flaming the person who
> made the changes if they don't like them.

We have a lot of house rules: some cover areas the SR book doesn't (artillery,
for instance <ducks under Gurth's swinging carp :) > which I may kick into
some form of usable shape and either post here, or e-mail to anyone who
wants them. Others are just variations on the way SR does things to make
it fit our perception of "how things work" better: minimise that "But it
works
well for real!" "But not under this rule..." effect and I only throw those
in here if they seem especially relevant or different.

I'm always interested in how other people solve the same problem, though, which
is one reason I like this list.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 37
From: "Victor Rodriguez, Jr" <sedahdro@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 15:27:00 EST
>>>I must have missed that in the rules. Was that anywhere near the section
>>>that said (and I paraphrase) 'Use what you want, delete what you don't, feel
>>>free to deviate from these guidelines?'
>>
>>That's what FASA stresses in just about any game they bring out these days,
>>and IMHO that's exactly what they should print in every set of game rules...
>>My own attitude is "Don't like the rules? Change them!" (Luckily Ivy
isn't
>>on this list anymore, or we'd have a heated discussion again :)
>
>Well let me fill in for Ivy. IMHO thats exactly what should be DELETED from
>every set of game rules.
I take it you are playing devil's advocate here. So I shall respond to your
offer of debate. First of all, by not allowing an individual (the GM) to
change the rules or modifying, he would lose control of the game. If there
was a rule that unbalanced the game somehow he could not do anything about
it. Lets take the new Cybermancy rules for an example. The GM would have
to allow players become "cyberzobies" if they so chose. He would not have
the option of ommiting that section. Another example: The GM just happens
to own copies of SRI and SRII. In SRI when wearing armor A character has a
number of autosuccesses equal to the Armor rating of armor. In SRII there
are no autosuccess with armor, instead the character ads the armor rating to
is body when rolling to avoid damage. Intersting dilema here, which rule is
he suppose to use. He can't change them, your version won't allow it. But
the real version does. That's the wonderful thing about this game if you
don't like the rules change them. Every rule in shadowrun is an optional
rule. Without it this game system would me unplayable because of the two
different Editions.

>Going 'by the book' allows EVERYONE the same
>knowledge base for playing [both GM and PC's], it helps hold down the number
>game designer wannabe's who think they can do a better job of creating a
>consistent and playable game setting
Not if you and/or your players of both Ed's of the game.
Player: What do you mean I have no autosuccesses the book says I do.
(holding a copy of SRI)
GM: My book says you don't. (holding a copy of SRII)
They're both right. Like I said above without the option to change the
rules this game is unplayable.:)
>,and [last but not least] it would
>reduce the occurrence of a common thread on the list: Larry Lurker asks a
>rules question, Joe Blow posts an answer, Gary Guru points out the correct
>answer, Joe Blow responds 'Oh yeah, that's a house rule'.
Sure it would, but of course this list would also die.:)
>Create whatever Rube Goldberg game you want but don't call it Shadowrun.
Rube Goldberg? Help me out here anybody, who is he?
>Heated discussion anyone?
Yes.
---Sedah Drol
Message no. 38
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 10:01:34 +0200
>If the rules were open for only one interpretation, I could see a
>reason for this (not that I'll do it). But as it is impossible to
>make the rules cover absolutely everything and take out all the
>holes, you have to change them sometimes.

There are, IMHO, two ways of writing game rules: the roleplay way and the
wargame way. Neither is better or worse than the other, I think, but the way
I see it the main difference between the two is that roleplay rules describe
what _might_ happen, while wargame rules describe what _can_ happen. If it's
not in the rules of the wargame, it's not possible. OTOH, if it's not in the
rules of an RPG, it is up to the GM to decide how to do it. This is of
course also possible in a referee-run wargame, but for what I'm trying to
say I assume wargames have no (need for a) referee.

>And it's not so easy as you might think, you need a very good
>sense of what's unbalancing the game and what's not, a good knowledge
>of the rules, statistical knowledge, and last but not least, need to keep the
>additional rules playable.

In my experience, yes and no; there's more ways than one to design game
rules. The FASA way is (obviously) the "fake it all" method -- write
something that looks good and plays well without paying any real attention
to realism. The other end of the spectrum would be something like Phoenix
Command which is very detailed (and I actually found it playable when I
played it for the first time today, though a bit confusing).

>Not because it's a cool weapon and easily concealable, but they found
>out (the hard way) that spurs versus the whip is a terminally unwise
>thing to do. [snip] I
>changed a few bits here and there, talked it over with my players and
>tried it out. After a few fights we decided the new rules are better,
>so they become official in my Shadowrun game.

Post them, if you don't mind.

>My game's called Shadowrun, wether I use different rules than you or
>not. The greatest part of the rules is still intact, the world-system
>is (the most important part of a game),

My opinion exactly. You could remove all rules and replace them by a
different set and still call it "Shadowrun" I think -- mostly because the
_world_ is Shadowrun, not the set of rules. There aren't too many systems
suitable for doing this with SR I think, so it won't happen a lot, but it
could be done (I am still intending to do a Shadowrun astral quest in which
every metaplane is a different game system, with the characters taking part
in the quest being converted through the various systems as appropriate.
Yes, I still call it Shadowrun.)

>And everything which enhances a game, doesn't change it's name. I use
>a lot of Gurth's PlasticWarriors-books, but the stuff in there enriches the
>game instead of changing it.

:)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
hold on to nothing as fast as you can
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 39
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 12:17:07 +0200
>BTW is the Dutch aimed at me? <he says in paranoid tones>...

I'll let you figure that out for yourself... *grin*

>We have a lot of house rules: some cover areas the SR book doesn't (artillery,
>for instance <ducks under Gurth's swinging carp :) >

I wouldn't thwap you for writing rules, I'd encourage it.

>which I may kick into
>some form of usable shape and either post here, or e-mail to anyone who
>wants them.

I'd like to see these artillery rules. I came up with indirect fire rules
myself, though not really aimed at artillery weapons but more at grenade
launchers, and I'd like to see what other people have brewed up :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
don't know what I want but I know how to get it
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 40
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 12:17:10 +0200
>Another example: The GM just happens
>to own copies of SRI and SRII. In SRI when wearing armor A character has a
>number of autosuccesses equal to the Armor rating of armor. In SRII there
>are no autosuccess with armor, instead the character ads the armor rating to
>is body when rolling to avoid damage.

You're mistaken here: in SR2 you _substract_ the armor rating from the Power
Level of the attack, it doesn't give you extra Body dice. I think this is a
case of posting house rules without realizing they are...

>Intersting dilema here, which rule is he suppose to use.

The simplest solution is to say "The most recent rules are the ones we use"
-- look at the dates: SR1 is 1989, SR2 is 1992 -> use the SR2 rules.

>That's the wonderful thing about this game if you
>don't like the rules change them. Every rule in shadowrun is an optional
>rule.

Every rule in every RPG is optional when you talk to me :)

>Without it this game system would me unplayable because of the two
>different Editions.

As said above, no it isn't because you can look at the dates in the books.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
don't know what I want but I know how to get it
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 41
From: "Victor Rodriguez, Jr" <sedahdro@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 05:40:00 EST
>>Another example: The GM just happens
>>to own copies of SRI and SRII. In SRI when wearing armor A character has a
>>number of autosuccesses equal to the Armor rating of armor. In SRII there
>>are no autosuccess with armor, instead the character ads the armor rating to
>>is body when rolling to avoid damage.
>
>You're mistaken here: in SR2 you _substract_ the armor rating from the Power
>Level of the attack, it doesn't give you extra Body dice. I think this is a
>case of posting house rules without realizing they are...
Oops, my fault, I misread the rules. I confused the part with dermal armor
and body armor. Sorry. Will you ever forgive me? :) Thanks for pointing
it out though I've been using the wrong rules. No wonder why combat seemed
to painful.:)
---Sedah Drol
Message no. 42
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 02:29:17 +1000
Ian Smith writes:

> I would point out that game balance is not as easy to create or preserve
> as it seems to the novice.

Nor would it seem to be for the expert either. The writers of SR have
included an entire section devoted to fiddling with the holy Game Balance,
should such a need arise. "Game Lethality" is the section I'm referring to,
in the Behind the Scenes section.

> Hmmm. Let the creative spirit vent itself within the world of the game.
> There is plenty of room for it to play there. A game where game balance has
> gone askew is a game which is not as fun to play.

Similarly is a game where the game balance has gone askew due to an imperfect
rule or an unclear rule that has been interpreted wrongly. Not to mention
the situations that arise where there are no written rules. And also,
remember that very often when GMs design some new corp R&D product, or some
magical item, they are actually creating house rules themselves. Things
would be pretty dull without new stuff coming in that hasn't come from
official sources.

I can't see anything wrong with designing your own rules. Either for
situations that the book doens't cover (actually, the rules suggest this),
or to replace or expand rules that are simply inadequate, or incorrect. As
long as the GM discusses such changes with his players, and the rules are
created with a bit of sense and thought (not just as munchkin exercise), then
there's absoluetly nothing wrong with it. However, as the rules say, "if you
don't like it, change it", sooo, <mischiefous grin> just change the part of
the book that says that. :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GE d- s++:-- a19 C++ US++>+++ P+ L E W(+) N o(@) K? w(+) O(@) M- V? PS+ PE(@)
Y+ PGP@>+ t+ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--- b++(+++) DI? D+@ G++(+) e h(*) !r y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 43
From: Cugel the Clever <cugel@**.NET>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 00:45:14 +01.0
On 19 Aug 95 at 10:01, Gurth wrote:

> There are, IMHO, two ways of writing game rules: the roleplay way
> and the wargame way. Neither is better or worse than the other, I
> think, but the way I see it the main difference between the two is
> that roleplay rules describe what _might_ happen, while wargame
> rules describe what _can_ happen. If it's not in the rules of the
> wargame, it's not possible. OTOH, if it's not in the rules of an
> RPG, it is up to the GM to decide how to do it. This is of course
> also possible in a referee-run wargame, but for what I'm trying to
> say I assume wargames have no (need for a) referee.

Hah, I don't think so? Try and visit one of our wargaming sessions
sometimes (at least when we have them), we're constantly bickering
over the rules. Trust me your avarage wargame is just as full of holes
as a normal roleplaying game. It's just that the roleplaying games
suffer from it more, because the reason you gave. But it doesn't make
wargames immune to errors, vagueness, contradictions and other
untruths.

> >And it's not so easy as you might think, you need a very good
> >sense of what's unbalancing the game and what's not, a good
> >knowledge of the rules, statistical knowledge, and last but not
> >least, need to keep the additional rules playable.

> In my experience, yes and no; there's more ways than one to design
> game rules. The FASA way is (obviously) the "fake it all" method --
> write something that looks good and plays well without paying any
> real attention to realism. The other end of the spectrum would be
> something like Phoenix Command which is very detailed (and I
> actually found it playable when I played it for the first time
> today, though a bit confusing).

In my experience it is always a balance between realism and
playability (and of course the holy GameBalance(tm) :). The more
realism the slower a game becomes. As Shadowrun is aimed at the
general public, and not at a bunch of gun-nuts :), I think the system is
a good balance between realism and playability (with the magic rules
as the best part :)

> >[snip, snip, close combat] After a few fights
> >we decided the new rules are better, so they become official in my
> >Shadowrun game.

> Post them, if you don't mind.

It's not much though, and I've posted them before (without much
enthousiasm for it then :), but ooh, well:

For every two points of skill in armed/unarmed combat over that of
your opponent, you may delete one point of penalty;
Blazing Blades the sammie with spurs and a skill of 8 can ignore the
penalty for reach when fighting against Simon Sword with a skill of 6
(or lower)

Martin Steffens (Cugel@**.net / bdi05626@***.rhij.nl)
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in
your home. -- (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
Geek Code v3.0:
GLS d-(+) s+:+ a?(26) C+(++) U P? L? E? W+ N++ K? w+ O- M- V? PS+
PE- Y+ PGP t+(--) 5? X++ R+(++) tv b+++ DI? D++ G+ e++ h+(!) r y+
Message no. 44
From: John IV <John.Moeller@*.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 01:06:09 -0600
On Fri, 18 Aug 1995, Ian Smith wrote:

> . . ) I would point out that game balance is not as easy to create or
> preserve as it seems to the novice.
> I figure that drekking around with the rules of a game is one of the things
> that follows my cardinal rule - " If it's stupid and it works then it's not
> stupid. But it better work"

I have some experience with this. I tried to redo a lot of the little
things that I don't like in SR (decking, damage, healing, rigging, magic,
cyberware [I tried to introduce cyberpsychosis, thwap me with a wet
carp], combat), and obviously, I was spending so much time redesigning
the system into something that wasn't SR that I may as well have bought
Cyberpunk.

On the other hand, playing it strictly by the book is senseless. "The
book" is so open to interpretation that you'd need a team of lawyers to
help you GM.

It's all a matter of personal taste. I personally don't like GMs who
have no flexibility with the rules. I also don't like GMs who have so many
house rules that you're confused even if you've been playing with them
five years.

Anyway, the choice is personal. I can hear you all saying "duh, John." :)

John IV <John.Moeller@*.cc.utah.edu>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes after an electrical storm I see in 5 dimensions. Why are the
sixty of you looking at me like that?"

--Cornfed, from _Duckman_
Message no. 45
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 10:18:47 +0200
>Trust me your avarage wargame is just as full of holes
>as a normal roleplaying game. It's just that the roleplaying games
>suffer from it more, because the reason you gave. But it doesn't make
>wargames immune to errors, vagueness, contradictions and other
>untruths.

I didn't say they weren't, I said (or meant to say) that in theory a wargame
doesn't need a referee because anything that isn't in the rules can't happen
in the game. BTW, there is another difference: a referee in a wargame isn't
usually playing one of the sides in the battle, while in an RPG, the GM is...

>As Shadowrun is aimed at the
>general public, and not at a bunch of gun-nuts :), I think the system is
>a good balance between realism and playability (with the magic rules
>as the best part :)

I have to agree here, it's a really playable system that leaves you a lot of
freedom as to what you can('t) do, though it could have been just as
playable with a bit more realism (mainly weapon damage codes, but don't get
me started on that :).

>It's not much though, and I've posted them before (without much
>enthousiasm for it then :), but ooh, well:

Well, you can post the same thing three times here and get three totally
different general reactions to it :)

>For every two points of skill in armed/unarmed combat over that of
>your opponent, you may delete one point of penalty;
>Blazing Blades the sammie with spurs and a skill of 8 can ignore the
>penalty for reach when fighting against Simon Sword with a skill of 6
>(or lower)

Sounds good, that way it can start to look like that martial arts movie I
saw parts of on RTL yesterday (you know, one of those with more sound
effects than pictures :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The Teddy Pugh Interview
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 46
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: By the book
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 12:38:56 -0400
>From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
>Subject: Re: By The Book
>
>>Well let me fill in for Ivy.
>
>Just a little question: is this a serious remark (do you believe in what you
>wrote) or were you trying to be funny? (Not meant as a flame or whatever, BTW)

Serious enough to consciously avoid a smiley, not serious enough to be upset
when I get toasted. Terry

Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 47
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: By the book
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 12:49:41 -0400
>Halt...
>OK yes everyone has the same knowledge base but, what % of that base
>is used and how well laid out is the knowledge. *as we know see can
>be a definate issue with rules scattered about most of the different
>books* I also don't believe that everyone out here is trying to
>be a game designer... I do think that the majority of the
>discussions are related to the fact that FASA isn't capable or
>doesn't take the time to write out and explain all of the rules
>so well that right and wrong can be determined. Thus we discuss what
>they are eluding to or how everyone has interpreted it.
>If done correctly with house rules and decisions contradicting the
>rulebooks will be written down and also available to the Players
>prior to game start (i.e. I don't want everyone runnung around with
>autocannons that cost 200 -Y- *a typo* instead of 7200 -Y-).

I won't quibble with this. However the houserules that show up on the list
don't seem to be clarifications of ambiguous rules; they're much more likely
to be variations of the 'based on my military experience the autofire rules
suck, here's how I'd do it' theme. If J.D. charged money everytime someone
developed new autofire or range rules the list would have a new hard drive
in no time.

>If GM didn't use their deductive little Game Designing minds
>then many games I know would stop in mid play and wait for 2 years
>till FASA finally decided to come out with rules pertaining to that
>situation. *face it there are way to many imaginations running
>wild to cover all situations*

Again, I wouldn't argue with the creation of rules where none exist, but I
also see no reason to bag rules that do exist just because the GM has a
'better' idea of what the cyclic rate of fire should be in 2050.

>>Create whatever Rube Goldberg game you want but don't call it
>>Shadowrun.
>
>Oh please that kind of comment will encourage yelling not a debate.

Point well taken.

>Thanks
>Gary C.


Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 48
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: By the book
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 13:55:53 -0400
Victor wrote:
>>
>>Well let me fill in for Ivy. IMHO thats exactly what should be DELETED from
>>every set of game rules.

>I take it you are playing devil's advocate here

Yup.

>So I shall respond to your
>offer of debate. First of all, by not allowing an individual (the GM) to
>change the rules or modifying, he would lose control of the game.

Why the GM? Why not the players?

>If there
>was a rule that unbalanced the game somehow he could not do anything about
>it. Lets take the new Cybermancy rules for an example. The GM would have
>to allow players become "cyberzobies" if they so chose. He would not have
>the option of ommiting that section.

Exactly. If 4 PC's want to become 'cyberzombies' and 1 GM doesn't why should
the GM decide? Many responses to my post cite the GM's right to be creative.
What about PC's? Do players get the same options in creatively molding a
character? No, THAT'S munchkinism.

>Another example: The GM just happens
>to own copies of SRI and SRII. In SRI when wearing armor A character has a
>number of autosuccesses equal to the Armor rating of armor. In SRII there
>are no autosuccess with armor, instead the character ads the armor rating to
>is body when rolling to avoid damage. Intersting dilema here, which rule is
>he suppose to use. He can't change them, your version won't allow it. But
>the real version does. That's the wonderful thing about this game if you
>don't like the rules change them. Every rule in shadowrun is an optional
>rule. Without it this game system would me unplayable because of the two
>different Editions.

This one seemed a bit of a stretch to me.

>>Going 'by the book' allows EVERYONE the same
>>knowledge base for playing [both GM and PC's], it helps hold down the number
>>game designer wannabe's who think they can do a better job of creating a
>>consistent and playable game setting
>Not if you and/or your players of both Ed's of the game.
>Player: What do you mean I have no autosuccesses the book says I do.
>(holding a copy of SRI)
>GM: My book says you don't. (holding a copy of SRII)
>They're both right. Like I said above without the option to change the
>rules this game is unplayable.:)

ditto above

>>,and [last but not least] it would
>>reduce the occurrence of a common thread on the list: Larry Lurker asks a
>>rules question, Joe Blow posts an answer, Gary Guru points out the correct
>>answer, Joe Blow responds 'Oh yeah, that's a house rule'.

>Sure it would, but of course this list would also die.:)

I guess it would slow down a bit :)

>>Create whatever Rube Goldberg game you want but don't call it Shadowrun.

>Rube Goldberg? Help me out here anybody, who is he?

Inventor of cartoon machines many times more complex than is necessary to
carry out their function.

>>Heated discussion anyone?
>Yes.

twasn't heated, you didn't even call me a rules fascist :)




Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 49
From: Andre' Selmer <031SEA@******.WITS.AC.ZA>
Subject: Re: By The Book
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 12:16:06 +0200
|>>> IMHO thats exactly what should be DELETED from every set of game rules.
| <<<
|
|I think this works. If it doesn't say one may fiddle with the rules, the
|inexperienced will tend not to, while those that have achieved a certain
|amount of RPG savvy will tinker with the rules no matter WHAT the book says.
|
Hear Hear ! We've been playing for the better part of 5 years
(Shadowrun that is), and I cannot think of any rule that we have not
debated or modified in some or the other way

Andre'

+----------------------------------------------------------+
|It has been said that the they who follow the shadows have|
|no soul, no depth, no moral conviction. But how can one |
|say this when, it is they who have lost themselves in the |
|search utopia. We are the realists, we work from the |
|unseen corners of society, we do what no another has the |
|strenght to do, with our cybered bodies and magic extreme |
|we prevent the corruption from spreading and destroying |
|your dreams not through power, but bulletts, sweat, tears |
|and blood. All of this we do for your sake, and few nuyen.|
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 50
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: By the book
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 15:27:57 -0400
Terry Amburgey writes:

> Victor wrote:
>
> >So I shall respond to your
> >offer of debate. First of all, by not allowing an individual (the GM) to
> >change the rules or modifying, he would lose control of the game.
>
> Why the GM? Why not the players?

The players also can, and should. The GM, however, is the final arbiter of
what rules are adopted in her game campaign. This is because she needs to
deal with them much more than the players, and has the responsibility of
creating and running encounters under those rules. The GM can, and should,
get player input on rules changes, but it's not a democracy. If the players
don't like what the GM decides, they can find someone else to GM.


> >If there
> >was a rule that unbalanced the game somehow he could not do anything about
> >it. Lets take the new Cybermancy rules for an example. The GM would have
> >to allow players become "cyberzobies" if they so chose. He would not
have
> >the option of ommiting that section.
>
> Exactly. If 4 PC's want to become 'cyberzombies' and 1 GM doesn't why should
> the GM decide? Many responses to my post cite the GM's right to be creative.
> What about PC's? Do players get the same options in creatively molding a
> character? No, THAT'S munchkinism.

As I said above, it's not a democracy. The reason is because, if it were,
laissez-faire character empowerment would go out of control. Every player
wants his character to excel. Of COURSE they do; it's a sensible and
reasonable approach. Without limits set by the GM, the characters would
rapidly develop to the point where they no longer make sense in the GM's
gmae world. Remember, the PC's don't create the world; the GM does. The
GM is logically the person to decide what the PC's can get away with.

Players SHOULD have control over their characters, and model them by the
players' own tastes and wishes -- within the limits of the game world, which
is dictated by the GM. If players could have full control over everything
that ever happens to their characters, why even HAVE a Gamemaster?

BOB: "Okay, I think I'll take a week off to get that Ares MP Laser mounted
on my cyberarm."
GM: "Erm, you can't do that.. It's way way WAY too big and heavy.
B'sides, you don't have the 5 million cred that it would cost."
BOB: "So I call my buddy Doc Whistle, who used to work for Ares and runs a
charity clinic out in Redmond. He owes me four favors; I can get this
stuff at a discount. He'll upgade my cyberarm, too, give me the
strength to handle it."
GM: "Never heard of 'im."
BOB: "Oh, it was a few years back for my character. You remember, right
folks?"
ALL: "Oh, yeah, yeah, of course! Wonderful guy, that Doc. Go for it, Bob!"
GM: "The fuel cells?"
BOB: "Prototype."
ALL: "Prototype!"
GM: "It'll take three weeks."
BOB: "Five days. Doc does this all the time."
ALL: [put to a vote] "Heck, four days!"
GM: [growling] "I suppose the rest of you want this, too, right?"
JIM: "Nope.. I want the rocket launcher attachment!"
JOE: "My lasers are contained in my cybereyes instead. Superman's heat
vision, ya know."
SUE: "Can't hurt my Essence that much. I think I'll just research the
Laser spell. Force 6."
GM: [irate] "Aaaaargh! Suddenly, hostilities between the UCAS and
Imperial Japan escalate to nuclear proportions! Seattle is bombarded
with MIRV's.. The whole Metroplex is vaporized, and your characters
with it!"
JIM: "Of COURSE not. We've _always_ had contacts in the Japanese military,
right folks? Let's see, what would we roll to get word to head for
California.. Target Number... 3? Yeah, that sounds good. Target
Number 3."
GM: [heads to other room to quietly slit throat]


Don't tell me this doesn't happen.. I've played in "no-limits" game
environments, and it takes less than an hour for them to get either boring
or ridiculous.


Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu|
My opinions are my opinions. | "Everybody wants to go to heaven,
Please don't blame anyone else. | but nobody wants to die."

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about By The Book, 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!