Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Companion: Point based character design
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 00:24:19 -0700
Hello;

under the point based rules in the companion (3rd edition) is there any
rule against taking things like resources or Full mage more than once?
I know doing so violates the spirit of the rules and game. But it is
directly a literal violation?

From what I can find it is not ever expressly stated.

Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be emailed.
/.)\ Stop making sense. Be an Anti Intellectual
\(@/ Be Tao. Live Tao. Feel Tao. But don't do Tao.
Message no. 2
From: Twist0059@***.com Twist0059@***.com
Subject: Companion: Point based character design
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 04:20:00 EDT
In a message dated 7/5/99 3:27:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, arcady@***.net
writes:

> Hello;
>
> under the point based rules in the companion (3rd edition) is there
any
> rule against taking things like resources or Full mage more than once?
> I know doing so violates the spirit of the rules and game. But it is
> directly a literal violation?
>
> From what I can find it is not ever expressly stated.


Well, as far as I know, you can only choose among the Race, Resource, and
Magic Sections once. I suppose there really aren't any rules enforcing this,
but almost all GMs, I believe, would understand their purpose and enforce
them as such.

However, I can imagine GMs letting players choose among the Resources to
paste together an amount that they really need. Like 405,000K, instead of
bumping yourself up to 650,000K.




Twist
Message no. 3
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Companion: Point based character design
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 16:11:07 -0500
:> under the point based rules in the companion (3rd edition) is there
:any
:> rule against taking things like resources or Full mage more than once?
:> I know doing so violates the spirit of the rules and game. But it is
:> directly a literal violation?
:>
:> From what I can find it is not ever expressly stated.
:
:
:Well, as far as I know, you can only choose among the Race, Resource, and
:Magic Sections once. I suppose there really aren't any rules enforcing
this,
:but almost all GMs, I believe, would understand their purpose and enforce
:them as such.


The points are a replacement fot the proiority costs. You still follow
the normal SR3 character creation process (pp. 54-64), which allows you only
1 choice at each stage.

:However, I can imagine GMs letting players choose among the Resources to
:paste together an amount that they really need. Like 405,000K, instead of
:bumping yourself up to 650,000K.


Hmm, so If I take 500 more than 1,000,000, (for 1,000,500) its 30-5%
points? And I can take the "extra" 500¥ 10 or 20 times, right, since
that's the amount of cash I need? 8^)

Mongoose
Message no. 4
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Companion: Point based character design
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:25:48 EDT
In a message dated 7/5/1999 2:27:47 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
arcady@***.net writes:

> under the point based rules in the companion (3rd edition) is there
any
> rule against taking things like resources or Full mage more than once?
> I know doing so violates the spirit of the rules and game. But it is
> directly a literal violation?

Because of a potential violation of the spirit of the game, no, no one should
be allowed to do this. HOWEVER, if you game is either higher end or you have
a character creating a character so as to move into an already established
campaign/game, then it may indeed be a feasible option. Ultimately, it was
*feels* the best for both the GM in question and the remainder of the game
group.

-K

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Companion: Point based character design, 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.