Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gary Carroll <gary@****.com>
Subject: Discussions
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 95 08:26:14 -0800
I was just curious when this list
stopped being a Shadowrun Discussion
list server

and is now just a chat line.

;{
Gary C.
Message no. 2
From: Rene Tschirley <gremlin@******.ukbf.fu-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: Discussions
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 17:59:07 +0100 (MET)
> I was just curious when this list
> stopped being a Shadowrun Discussion
> list server
> and is now just a chat line.

Yeah, I don't like this, too. Why can't you just write simple mails? I
thought that I could get some valuable information from this Mail
List as I subscribed it some days ago, but now I must admit that I'm
rather disappointed...

Zehntausend Leute im Eishockey-Stadion, und ich bekomme den Puck in die Fresse
___ _ _____ _ _ _
| _ \___ _ _ _// |_ _|__ __| |_ (_)_ _| |___ _ _tschirley@****.fu-berlin.de
| / -_) ' \/ -_) | |(_-</ _| ' \| | '_| / -_) || |gremlin@*****.fu-berlin.de
|_|_\___|_||_\___| |_|/__/\__|_||_|_|_| |_\___|\_, | gremlin@**.tu-berlin.de
WWW : http://fred.ukbf.fu-berlin.de/~gremlin |__/
Uni-Klinikum Benjamin Franklin, Abteilung Medizinische Statistik und Informatik
Message no. 3
From: U-Gene <R3STG@***.CC.UAKRON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discussions
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 95 12:30:09 EST
Rene Tschirley:
[snip -- how this list is turning into a chat line]
>I thought I could get some valuable information form this Mail list
>as I subscribed to it some days go, but now I must admit that
>I'm disappointed...

Now, now. There _are_ some people trying to make this list informative.
You just have to ignore some of those side tracks. Besides, I think
people are a little intimidated about getting back into a deep discussion
after the "Quickened/sustained spell grounding" mess. :)
Plus we also needed to herald the return of Doctor Doom.

So relax

U-Gene << has learned a great many things from this list >>
Message no. 4
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Discussions
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 12:03:29 -0700 (MST)
U-Gene writes:
|Rene Tschirley:
|[snip -- how this list is turning into a chat line]
|>I thought I could get some valuable information form this Mail list
|>as I subscribed to it some days go, but now I must admit that
|>I'm disappointed...
|
|Now, now. There _are_ some people trying to make this list informative.
|You just have to ignore some of those side tracks. Besides, I think
|people are a little intimidated about getting back into a deep discussion
|after the "Quickened/sustained spell grounding" mess. :)
|Plus we also needed to herald the return of Doctor Doom.

Ditto. I'm pretty new and have learned quit a few things (like don't get
involved in Grounding debates unless you know what your talking about and
are wearing asbestos underwear ;) Stick around, it will get better.

BTW I have a question. I recently ran an encounter were the following
situation occured. The PCs were fighting some manifest elementals in a
large room. One of the PCs was a rigger who was jacked into his remote deck
and was controlling a patrol drone. The rigger rolled his initiative (28)
and opened up with the drone's significant firepower. This of course had no
effect on the elementals. On 18 he wanted to unjack so he could get out a
hand held weapon and get involved. I had him reroll his initiative for not
being rigged anymore. He rolled a 12. I ruled that he couldn't go until 8
because he had switched on 18 (18 - 10 = 8). Was this handling of
initiative correct?

Thanks
David (who is investing in asbestos futures)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Buehrer
Data Entry Supervisor
The UnCover Company email: dbuehrer@****.org
3801 E. Florida, Suite 200 Voice: (303) 758-3030 x132
Denver, CO 80210 FAX: (303) 758-5946

"The land that had nourished him and had borne him fruit now turned against
him and called him a fruit. Man, I hate land like that."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 5
From: xanth@****.uky.edu (Terry Amburgey)
Subject: Re: Discussions
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 14:45:10 -0500 (EST)
>
>> I was just curious when this list
>> stopped being a Shadowrun Discussion
>> list server
>> and is now just a chat line.
>
>Yeah, I don't like this, too. Why can't you just write simple mails? I
>thought that I could get some valuable information from this Mail
>List as I subscribed it some days ago, but now I must admit that I'm
>rather disappointed...

If you don't like the threads you see, start new ones. You're allowed to do
so in most cases. Moreover, you don't have to read any posts that you aren't
interested in. If there is some specific 'valuable information' you are
interested in, ask about it and I'm sure you'll get some responses. 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. 6
From: Sebastian Vilstrup <vilstrup@*****.ihi.ku.dk>
Subject: Re: Discussions
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 12:04:50 +0100 (MET)
On Thu, 2 Nov 1995, Rene Tschirley wrote:

>
> > I was just curious when this list
> > stopped being a Shadowrun Discussion
> > list server
> > and is now just a chat line.
>
> Yeah, I don't like this, too. Why can't you just write simple mails? I
> thought that I could get some valuable information from this Mail
> List as I subscribed it some days ago, but now I must admit that I'm
> rather disappointed...

Don't worry, it's not usually like this. It's because we've just changed
server and that started a silly "testing 123" thread that we can't seem
to stop. It'll probably stop in a few months or so...

Usually the list is a rather good spot for questions and ideas.



----------------------------------------------------------
Raving lunatics howl at the moon. I just howl - The Madman
Email me at your leisure - Vilstrup@*****.ihi.ku.dk
----------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 7
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Discussions
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 12:16:50 +0100
Rene Tschirley said on 2 Nov 95...

> Yeah, I don't like this, too. Why can't you just write simple mails? I
> thought that I could get some valuable information from this Mail
> List as I subscribed it some days ago, but now I must admit that I'm
> rather disappointed...

Why? Just as long as the whole list isn't taken over by conversations like
the one I'm participating in now :) I don't see any problem with off-topic
nonsense...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Amerika: het land van de onbegrensde onmogelijkheden
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Discussions
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 12:16:50 +0100
David Buehrer said on 2 Nov 95...

> The rigger rolled his initiative (28)
> and opened up with the drone's significant firepower. This of course had no
> effect on the elementals. On 18 he wanted to unjack so he could get out a
> hand held weapon and get involved. I had him reroll his initiative for not
> being rigged anymore. He rolled a 12. I ruled that he couldn't go until 8
> because he had switched on 18 (18 - 10 = 8). Was this handling of
> initiative correct?

IMHO th best solution to handle something like this is as for magicians
who leave astral projection -- they lose their next action So your rigger
could have unplugged (why don't they stop making those shows? :) on 18,
but would then have lost his action at 8 -> he could only have acted next
turn.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Amerika: het land van de onbegrensde onmogelijkheden
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 9
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Discussions
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 07:55:15 -0700 (MST)
Gurth writes:
|> I ruled that he couldn't go until 8
|> because he had switched on 18 (18 - 10 = 8). Was this handling of
|> initiative correct?
|
|IMHO th best solution to handle something like this is as for magicians
|who leave astral projection -- they lose their next action So your rigger
|could have unplugged (why don't they stop making those shows? :) on 18,
|but would then have lost his action at 8 -> he could only have acted next
|turn.

Thanks Gurth

David (who is wondering why FASA buries a rules like that :(

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Buehrer
Data Entry Supervisor
The UnCover Company email: dbuehrer@****.org
3801 E. Florida, Suite 200 Voice: (303) 758-3030 x132
Denver, CO 80210 FAX: (303) 758-5946

"Whenever I hear the sparrow chirping, watch the woodpecker chirp, catch a
chirping trout, or listen to the sad howl of the chirp rat, I think: Oh
boy! I'm going insane again."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 10
From: "k.lin-student-civ-ghostgum-93087284" <kwlin@***.itd.uts.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Discussions
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 10:21:35 +1100 (EST)
On Fri, 3 Nov 1995, Gurth wrote:

> David Buehrer said on 2 Nov 95...
>
> > The rigger rolled his initiative (28)
> > and opened up with the drone's significant firepower. This of course had no
> > effect on the elementals. On 18 he wanted to unjack so he could get out a
> > hand held weapon and get involved. I had him reroll his initiative for not
> > being rigged anymore. He rolled a 12. I ruled that he couldn't go until 8
> > because he had switched on 18 (18 - 10 = 8). Was this handling of
> > initiative correct?
>
> IMHO th best solution to handle something like this is as for magicians
> who leave astral projection -- they lose their next action So your rigger
> could have unplugged (why don't they stop making those shows? :) on 18,
> but would then have lost his action at 8 -> he could only have acted next
> turn.
>
Hoi chummers,

I'm a newbie, so just if I offend anybody... I sorry (sort of).

Regarding the above, why not just handle it like "dump shock" for a decker?



Kin

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Discussions, 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!