Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (BD)
Subject: Combat Pool changes
Date: Tue May 8 13:10:01 2001
> Plus, it doesn't solve the problem of mages, deckers, and math majors
> being better at raw combat ability than kids who've lived their lives
> out on the streets or even trained professional fighters.

Okay, that's it, stop the car. Let's examine your central argument
(which all boils down to that one paragraph I've left quoted above).
You're making three erroneous assumptions in your zeal to change the rules,
IMO.

1) Intelligence equals genius. No, it doesn't... Intelligence is _not_ a
stat that determines how well you do in school or how well you can play
chess. Sure, it makes those things easier, hence Knowledge skills being
linked to it, but it also represents perception, quickness of mind, perhaps
even subconscious reasoning. These things are _all_ important in combat.
If your mind is quick, you'll remember the cover behind you, you'll see
that the gun barrel is aiming at your legs and dodge accordingly, you'll
notice the ork always swings with his left arm, never his right.

2) Combat Pool equals "Raw Combat Ability." No, it doesn't. The skills
you learn are Raw Combat Ability... Edged Weapons, Rifles, Whips 'n' Chains
'n' Leather, those are what determines how you'll do in a fight. A Combat
Pool of 24 won't do you a ton of good if your skill is 2 (or if you don't
have any skill). Combat Pool usage is limited by the skill you're using.
Combat Pool represents your basic attributes being a resource that you draw
on in a fight; it's not the be-all and end-all of fighting. It's
complementary.

3) Deckers, Riggers and Mages are going to kick street urchins or combat
trained characters's asses. Probably not. Being a decker or rigger or
mage means you've spent Points (or money, but same thing) on a deck, or a
couple vehicles and VCR, or just plain being a mage. Other characters get
to spend the Points elsewhere: on more skills, on better Attributes, on
whiz-bang cyber. It stands to reason that they're going to be more
combat-capable than the specialty characters, simply because that's what
they've focused on!
Granted, you're going to get a decker sometimes who can sling an assault
rifle with the best of them, but that's FINE, because he's PAID for it in
skill points! And if a mage wants to be a devil in unarmed combat, fine,
let her spend the points to make it so.
That's the beauty of Shadowrun... there's nothing saying that shamans can
only take Health spells and mages can't wear security armour and deckers
can't have a Combat Pool higher than 5. I want that kind of system, I'll
play AD&D.


So those are my thoughts. If you still think this should be changed,
hey, that's your right. But why do we have to be converted? Use it in
your game, no-one's stopping you. I'll stick to SR3, no-one's stopping me.
Everybody's happy!

====-Boondocker

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Travis K. Heldibridle)
Subject: Combat Pool changes
Date: Tue May 8 14:25:00 2001
>> Plus, it doesn't solve the problem of mages, deckers, and math
>> majors being better at raw combat ability than kids who've
>> lived their lives out on the streets or even trained
>> professional fighters.

> <<Snip Boondocker's arguments for combat pool>>

> So those are my thoughts. If you still think this should be changed,
> hey, that's your right. But why do we have to be converted? Use it
> in your game, no-one's stopping you. I'll stick to SR3, no-one's
> stopping me.


Amen! I have to say that I agree with Boondocker's assessment of combat pool
and game balance. Specialized characters (Deckers, Mages, Riggers, etc..)
are people, and as people they have the ability to make choices. The only
difference between them and someone who specializes in combat is that they
have to make a few more choices. While the combat monster can pump all of
his cash and karma into being a more efficient killing machine, the
characters with other archetypes have to choose whether they wish to spend
the resources on combat skills/gear or on their other skills/gear. This, in
my opinion, is enough of a balance...


Peace,
--Aristotle
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bob Ooton)
Subject: Combat Pool changes
Date: Wed May 9 01:10:01 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: BD <l3oondocker@*****.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: Combat Pool changes


> > Plus, it doesn't solve the problem of mages, deckers, and math majors
> > being better at raw combat ability than kids who've lived their lives
> > out on the streets or even trained professional fighters.
>
> Okay, that's it, stop the car. Let's examine your central argument
> (which all boils down to that one paragraph I've left quoted above).
> You're making three erroneous assumptions in your zeal to change the
rules,
> IMO.

I highly recommend looking at my other replies...

> 1) Intelligence equals genius. No, it doesn't... Intelligence is _not_
a
> stat that determines how well you do in school or how well you can play
> chess. Sure, it makes those things easier, hence Knowledge skills being
> linked to it, but it also represents perception, quickness of mind,
perhaps
> even subconscious reasoning. These things are _all_ important in
combat.
> If your mind is quick, you'll remember the cover behind you, you'll see
> that the gun barrel is aiming at your legs and dodge accordingly, you'll
> notice the ork always swings with his left arm, never his right.

I understand this, but a person who fully intends never to pick up a gun,
has never seen one fired and will never see on fired, is a genius (which
is mainly associated with perception as opposed to knowledge anyway), and
maintains a strict religious discipline has a naturally high INT and WIL
in the game mechanics. That much is inviolate, correct?

The street kid, on the other hand, never was able to develop those links
that foster genius due to no education and uncaring parents so he has a
low INT. Likewise, he can't stop himself from stealing when he can
because he doesn't know if he'll be able to get something like what he's
stealing ever again. That gives him a low WIL. Then, the kid is out in
the streets a lot, so he's seen his share of drive-bys and other such
events and has managed to stay fast. This also helps him steal as needed
and avoid prosecution or beatings as needed. So he's got a high QUI. All
this jibes again, correct?

Now, who's got a higher combat pool? The first guy. Why does this make
sense to you?

> 2) Combat Pool equals "Raw Combat Ability." No, it doesn't. The skills
> you learn are Raw Combat Ability... Edged Weapons, Rifles, Whips 'n'
Chains
> 'n' Leather, those are what determines how you'll do in a fight. A
Combat
> Pool of 24 won't do you a ton of good if your skill is 2 (or if you
don't
> have any skill). Combat Pool usage is limited by the skill you're
using.
> Combat Pool represents your basic attributes being a resource that you
draw
> on in a fight; it's not the be-all and end-all of fighting. It's
> complementary.

This is something that everyone, and I mean everyone, has missed. Skills
are by definition trained. You have to learn skills. Your raw talent,
that which exists prior to training and assists with skill development and
use, is represented by what? Pools. Any idiot who owns a deck and uses
it gets a hacking pool. If that idiot happens to be barely functional
from an Intelligence standpoint (1 INT), he's worse at decking because his
hacking pool will be worse. His raw ability to hack is pitiful. He may
be trained, but his raw talent - outside of learned skill - sucks. That's
what pools represent in all examples.

> 3) Deckers, Riggers and Mages are going to kick street urchins or combat
> trained characters's asses. Probably not. Being a decker or rigger or
> mage means you've spent Points (or money, but same thing) on a deck, or
a
> couple vehicles and VCR, or just plain being a mage. Other characters
get
> to spend the Points elsewhere: on more skills, on better Attributes, on
> whiz-bang cyber. It stands to reason that they're going to be more
> combat-capable than the specialty characters, simply because that's what
> they've focused on!

It isn't about kicking ass. It's about keeping it safe. As I've
mentioned before, not only does some yutz who sits in the dark all day
decking while living on beer and pizza have a higher combat pool than a
hardened samurai, but he can dodge bullets better because of it! That's
way off what it should be.

> Granted, you're going to get a decker sometimes who can sling an
assault
> rifle with the best of them, but that's FINE, because he's PAID for it
in
> skill points! And if a mage wants to be a devil in unarmed combat,
fine,
> let her spend the points to make it so.

I never said I had a problem with that. A decker who is trained to shoot
can shoot and roll his skill dice without problem. Likewise, if he has a
real and understandable raw talent to perform in combat (combat pool) to
go along with this fantastic skill, he should benefit. To me, the
(Q+I+W)/2 doesn't come close to capturing what is needed to perform in
combat whereas Reaction (+2 per each additional initiative die) does. It
represents how well you *react*, unsuprisingly, and that is the most
important issue in combat situations.

> That's the beauty of Shadowrun... there's nothing saying that shamans
can
> only take Health spells and mages can't wear security armour and deckers
> can't have a Combat Pool higher than 5. I want that kind of system,
I'll
> play AD&D.

Ugh, I've never said otherwise or demanded otherwise, though others have
misinterp[reted that I did so. If a character has the reaction and
initiative to perform better in combat than the average guy - it doesn't
matter if it was from cyberware, magic, bioware, abilities, munchkin
uberpowers, or whathaveyou - then they should benefit. I don't care if
they're a decker or samurai or pizza delivery boy or
weredragon/physad/five-totem-shaman/otaku. Likewise, if you can't react
to combat, then you should suffer accordingly in combat pool even if
you're a street samurai or weredragon/physad/five-totem-shaman/otaku.

> So those are my thoughts. If you still think this should be changed,
> hey, that's your right. But why do we have to be converted? Use it in
> your game, no-one's stopping you. I'll stick to SR3, no-one's stopping
me.
> Everybody's happy!

You had my thoughts wrong, care to work through them again?

| Bob Ooton <rbooton@*****.edu>
| aka TopCat, the cyberware advocate
| Member of the Black Hand Demo Team
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (BD)
Subject: Combat Pool changes
Date: Wed May 9 11:45:01 2001
> You had my thoughts wrong, care to work through them again?

Sure, you deserve that.

> I understand this, but a person who fully intends never to pick up a gun,
> has never seen one fired and will never see on fired, is a genius (which
> is mainly associated with perception as opposed to knowledge anyway), and
> maintains a strict religious discipline has a naturally high INT and WIL
> in the game mechanics. That much is inviolate, correct?

If you equate INT and WIL with spirituality and genius, yes, that's
right.

> The street kid, on the other hand, never was able to develop those links
> that foster genius due to no education and uncaring parents so he has a
> low INT.

I'd argue that bad upbringing and less chances do not a lower
Intelligence make. INT is largely mental quickness. But if you want to
give him a low INT, that's fine.

> Likewise, he can't stop himself from stealing when he can
> because he doesn't know if he'll be able to get something like what he's
> stealing ever again. That gives him a low WIL.

Again, that's simplifying the statistic. But if you want him to have a
low WIL, there you go.

> Then, the kid is out in
> the streets a lot, so he's seen his share of drive-bys and other such
> events and has managed to stay fast. This also helps him steal as needed
> and avoid prosecution or beatings as needed. So he's got a high QUI.
> All this jibes again, correct?

The QUI, yeah.

> Now, who's got a higher combat pool? The first guy. Why does this make
> sense to you?

Any GM in his/her right mind would rule that the former character has to
make some sort of check to avoid being scared out of their minds. But if
you want to go with basic numbers, then yeah, he's got a better chance of
dodging a bullet. A 1 die better chance. Flaw in the game? Maybe. _I_
don't think so; it just doesn't seem like such a big deal when factored in
with situational modifiers, combat skills, and character background. I
really don't think it's 'broke.'

> This is something that everyone, and I mean everyone, has missed. Skills
> are by definition trained. You have to learn skills. Your raw talent,
> that which exists prior to training and assists with skill development
> and use, is represented by what? Pools.

Okay, but remember, your Pool is good for nothing but dodging (usually,
unless you're defaulting from skill to skill, and even then only half the
rating in dice is allowed) if you're unskilled. Use of the Pool depends on
the skill. If your CP's high and you've got no skills to use it with,
you're just dodging, dodging, dodging. And frankly, I've no problem at all
with a game mechanic that increases survivability. Even at the expense of
'realism.'

> I never said I had a problem with that. A decker who is trained to shoot
> can shoot and roll his skill dice without problem. Likewise, if he has a
> real and understandable raw talent to perform in combat (combat pool) to
> go along with this fantastic skill, he should benefit. To me, the
> (Q+I+W)/2 doesn't come close to capturing what is needed to perform in
> combat whereas Reaction (+2 per each additional initiative die) does. It
> represents how well you *react*, unsuprisingly, and that is the most
> important issue in combat situations.

Well, why don't you playtest it for us? If you're happy with it, then
great, you can come back and say, "This is how it's better than core rules
and this is how it isn't, but overall it's better."

> Ugh, I've never said otherwise or demanded otherwise, though others have
> misinterp[reted that I did so. If a character has the reaction and
> initiative to perform better in combat than the average guy - it doesn't
> matter if it was from cyberware, magic, bioware, abilities, munchkin
> uberpowers, or whathaveyou - then they should benefit. I don't care if
> they're a decker or samurai or pizza delivery boy or
> weredragon/physad/five-totem-shaman/otaku. Likewise, if you can't react
> to combat, then you should suffer accordingly in combat pool even if
> you're a street samurai or weredragon/physad/five-totem-shaman/otaku.

That's true, I think I got this from your earlier posts ranting against
non-combatants, and misinterpreted your aims. Apologies.

I think I see a couple seperate options for you (beyond changing Pool
structure). One, have pools refresh every turn, like in 2nd Edition.
Characters with higher reactions are going to have more actions, therefore
will be able to use their entire CP twice, or even three times in a turn.
This means samurai don't have to 'waste' their CP attacking and have
nothing the rest of the turn.
Two, have dodging require a simple action to perform. That way, people
will have to delay simple actions to dodge, and you keep the mages from
reserving their entire pools just for that. This might be a pain in the
ass to implement, but it might be worth a try.

Those are just off the top of my head.. I don't know if either of them
works better than restructuring the CP, but I thought I'd mention them, as
they seem to affect the whole thing you're concerned about. Anyway, like I
say, if changing the CP works for you, great, good, we're all proud :) If
not, oh well, you tried. I just don't see any reason to change it myself,
even with the arguments you've presented. Which doesn't mean you're wrong
(you obviously don't believe that! :) , just that we see it differently.

====-Boondocker

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Lester Ward)
Subject: Combat Pool changes
Date: Wed May 9 11:55:01 2001
> > The street kid, on the other hand, never was able to develop those links
> > that foster genius due to no education and uncaring parents so he has a
> > low INT.
>
> I'd argue that bad upbringing and less chances do not a lower
> Intelligence make. INT is largely mental quickness. But if you want to
> give him a low INT, that's fine.

That's one of the problems with game systems (like Shadowrun) that do not
separate between intelligence and education. By all accounts, for example,
Marilyn Monroe was extremely intelligent, but almost completely uneducated.
(IMO, this duality is one of the main reasons that she is a legend, but I
digress)

Traveller (the original) did a good job of handling this, by making it an
attribute that worked slightly different than the others (particularly at
character creation). It has always seemed to me that education should be
treated as sort of half-attribute, half-skill.
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: Combat Pool changes
Date: Wed May 9 12:30:01 2001
At 11:56 AM 5/9/2001 -0400, Lester Ward wrote:
> > > The street kid, on the other hand, never was able to develop those links
> > > that foster genius due to no education and uncaring parents so he has a
> > > low INT.
> >
> > I'd argue that bad upbringing and less chances do not a lower
> > Intelligence make. INT is largely mental quickness. But if you want to
> > give him a low INT, that's fine.
>
>That's one of the problems with game systems (like Shadowrun) that do not
>separate between intelligence and education.

I've always felt that Shadowrun does a very good job of separating
intelligence and education via knowledge skills.

Someone can be very intelligent, but if they don't have the knowledge
(education), they have a hard time applying it (via defaulting).

However, someone can be very educated (have many/high knowledge skills),
but not very intelligent.

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Gridsec, Nice Guy Division
--
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Combat Pool changes
Date: Wed May 9 13:15:06 2001
According to Graht, on Wed, 09 May 2001 the word on the street was...

> Someone can be very intelligent, but if they don't have the knowledge
> (education), they have a hard time applying it (via defaulting).
>
> However, someone can be very educated (have many/high knowledge skills),
> but not very intelligent.

Not in SR, where your knowledge skill points are based on your Intelligence
rating. The only choice you've got in the matter, once you've chosen your
Intelligence, is whether you want to know a little about a lot, or a lot
about a little (that is, taking many skills at low level or only a few
skills at high levels). Properly representing an uneducated, intelligent
person or an unintelligent, educated person would require another category
in the character creation table, namely one for knowledge skill points.
That would allow you to spend few attribute points on Intelligence and still
get, say, 30 knowledge skill points (or the other way around).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If there are vegetarian hamburgers, why isn't there beef lettuce?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: Combat Pool changes
Date: Wed May 9 14:05:01 2001
At 07:17 PM 5/9/2001 +0200, Gurth wrote:
>According to Graht, on Wed, 09 May 2001 the word on the street was...
>
> > Someone can be very intelligent, but if they don't have the knowledge
> > (education), they have a hard time applying it (via defaulting).
> >
> > However, someone can be very educated (have many/high knowledge skills),
> > but not very intelligent.
>
>Not in SR, where your knowledge skill points are based on your Intelligence
>rating. The only choice you've got in the matter, once you've chosen your
>Intelligence, is whether you want to know a little about a lot, or a lot
>about a little (that is, taking many skills at low level or only a few
>skills at high levels). Properly representing an uneducated, intelligent
>person or an unintelligent, educated person would require another category
>in the character creation table, namely one for knowledge skill points.
>That would allow you to spend few attribute points on Intelligence and still
>get, say, 30 knowledge skill points (or the other way around).

Sorry, I was a too general in my statement.

An intelligent character can represent a poor education by spending those
free knowledge points on knowledge skills that one would learn outside the
education system, say gang sign, area knowledge of their home street/block,
trivid shows from 2045 to 2055, etc. By virtue of having a high
intelligence they are more perceptive and aware of their surroundings and
will file that information away, but high intelligence doesn't have to mean
well educated.

Likewise a person of low intelligence can spend what few knowledge points
they have on education based knowledge skills (math, literature, history,
etc), and can purchase more knowledge skills/levels with character points
during character creation.

:)

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Gridsec, Nice Guy Division
--
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (BD)
Subject: Combat Pool changes
Date: Wed May 9 14:10:01 2001
> Not in SR, where your knowledge skill points are based on your
> Intelligence
> rating. The only choice you've got in the matter, once you've chosen your
> Intelligence, is whether you want to know a little about a lot, or a lot
> about a little (that is, taking many skills at low level or only a few
> skills at high levels). Properly representing an uneducated, intelligent
> person or an unintelligent, educated person would require another
> category
> in the character creation table, namely one for knowledge skill points.
> That would allow you to spend few attribute points on Intelligence and
> still
> get, say, 30 knowledge skill points (or the other way around).

Actually, you can have an uneducated character by taking the Uneducated
or Illiterate Flaws, which give you less knowledge skill points while still
allowing a higher Intelligence. That's probably not as perfect a solution
as you'd like, but hey, it's a start.

====-Boondocker

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Combat Pool changes
Date: Wed May 9 22:10:01 2001
<snipt!(TM)>
> That's one of the problems with game systems (like
Shadowrun) that do not separate between intelligence
and education. By all accounts, for example, Marilyn
Monroe was extremely intelligent, but almost
completely uneducated. (IMO, this duality is one of
the main reasons that she is a legend, but I digress)

Actually, Lester, that's a fallacy - FASA's partly to
blame, but so are the players. The Intelligence
attribute was misnamed - they fixed in in Earthdawn
where they renamed it to Perception. The Intelligence
attribute represents mental acuity - quickness of
thought, perception, that kind of thing. It is, as BJ
has been pointing out, a 'raw' ability, just like any
of the other attributes.

SKILLS are what represent education. Active skills
represent physical training and experience and the
like. Knowledge skills represent experience and
EDUCATION.

Yes, I know. Knowledge skill points are based off
Intelligence. So? Generally the sharper, more mentally
acute people are going to learn more faster. So that's
accurate enough. And if you have a look in the SR
Companion, there's a flaw called Uneducated, which
reduces the number of knowledge skill points you get
(from Int*5 to Int*3, IIRC).

Bob, that's something you should look at. That
uneducated street kid you were talking about doesn't
necessarily have a low Intelligence - he could be
sharp and smart, just not educated. If that's the
case, he'd have a middling to high Intelligence AND
the Uneducated flaw. If he doesn't have that flaw,
he's not uneducated - the system considers him an
average kid with average schooling. You may, of
course, choose to play him differently, but that's how
the game mechanics view him. If he's dumb, but
educated, he'd have a low Intelligence, he'd be a slow
thinker, he'd probably be unobservant (low Perception)
and that would definitely have a bearing on how well
he'd do in combat. If he's dumb and uneducated, then
he'd have a low Intelligence AND the Uneducated flaw.

Just FYI.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @*****.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Combat Pool changes
Date: Wed May 9 22:25:01 2001
<snipt!(TM)>
> Not in SR, where your knowledge skill points are
based on your Intelligence rating. The only choice
you've got in the matter, once you've chosen your
Intelligence, is whether you want to know a little
about a lot, or a lot about a little (that is, taking
many skills at low level or only a few skills at high
levels). Properly representing an uneducated,
intelligent person or an unintelligent, educated
person would require another category in the character
creation table, namely one for knowledge skill points.
That would allow you to spend few attribute points on
Intelligence and still get, say, 30 knowledge skill
points (or the other way around).
> Gurth@******.nl -

Wrong, Gurth.

Like I said, there's such a thing as the Uneducated
flaw. Someone else pointed out that you can buy extra
knowledge skill points at creation. And someone else
pointed out that 'uneducated' people generally know
stuff that's just considered of little value - stuff
about sports, or famous people, or computer games.

I think the SR system (admittedly, with a bit of work
on the player's part) represents the divide between
intelligence and education pretty damn well.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @*****.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Combat Pool changes
Date: Thu May 10 05:30:01 2001
According to Graht, on Wed, 09 May 2001 the word on the street was...

> An intelligent character can represent a poor education by spending those
> free knowledge points on knowledge skills that one would learn outside the
> education system, say gang sign, area knowledge of their home street/block,
> trivid shows from 2045 to 2055, etc. By virtue of having a high
> intelligence they are more perceptive and aware of their surroundings and
> will file that information away, but high intelligence doesn't have to mean
> well educated.

I don't agree. This is saying that education is only what you learn in
school, or some other formal setting, and though that may be true if you
look at the meaning of the word, IMHO "well-educated" in a game system
doesn't necessarily mean having gone to school (and paid attention :)
Rather, I see it as meaning that you have a wide, firm knowledge base,
regardless of how you got it. In SR, this is inevitably linked to your
Intelligence -- with a low Intelligence, you'll never be well-educated in
this sense.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If there are vegetarian hamburgers, why isn't there beef lettuce?
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Combat Pool changes, 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.