Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Effective/True Ratings (Re: silly edges and dumb flaws)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:14:57 EST
In a message dated 98-02-06 14:25:58 EST, t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE
writes:

> It basically that it doesn't matter if you've got a level 1 taccomp or a
> level 4. You get most of your dice from little 'ware that costs much less
> than even the smalles tacomp. And besides, a taccomp at level 10+ ruins
> every fight.
>
> > Hmmm..over the time I got the impresion that I don`t like the third ed at
> all.

I have thought of something, this POV on Taccomps reminds of the POV on
"effective spell force". FASA is a bit too quick to make things "effective
ratings" IMHO. Tactical Computer Level + 5 extra senses means a Rating 6
Tac??? I don't think so, sorry...Sounds like "Force 2 Fireball + 4 magic pool
means effective Force 6 fireball??? NO WAY!!! Not in my book at least.

What I was looking at the idea of is that the "lock on pool" for tacs is
"all
those dice" but the rating (aka target number) to deceive the taccomp is the
'hard/core" rating (in this case, the Rating 1. Maybe the rating could be
doubled, just for a bit more realism/defense on the part of the user.

For example, Joey has a "lock on pool" of 16 (big number, but it's there, with
a Core Taccomp of Rating 3 (nice---). Binder is trying to apply "counter
tactics" maneuvering, so he has a target number of 3 (the tactical computer).
Tactical Computer gets it's entire dice to still achieve the lock on success
test. The difference is that the "counter tactics" roll reduces the number of
successes it achieves from the lock on successes. Additionall successes above
and beyond the taccomps lock on successes (aka, Binder beats Joey) might
actually reduce combat effectiveness in some fashion (+'s to target number or
reducing the combat pool rating in some fashion).

Hows that for a suggestion or two?

-K
Message no. 2
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Effective/True Ratings (Re: silly edges and dumb flaws)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 09:18:37 EST
In a message dated 98-02-06 17:17:01 EST, you write:

> The difference is that the "counter tactics" roll reduces the number of
> successes it achieves from the lock on successes. Additionall successes
> above
> and beyond the taccomps lock on successes (aka, Binder beats Joey) might
> actually reduce combat effectiveness in some fashion (+'s to target number
> or
> reducing the combat pool rating in some fashion).
>
> Hows that for a suggestion or two?

IMHO, I might even say that the opposition then loses initiative points as
they are now receiving false information from their BattleTACs and TacComps
...

Mike
Message no. 3
From: Ashlocke <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Effective/True Ratings (Re: silly edges and dumb flaws)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 23:06:15 -0005
On 6 Feb 98 at 17:14, J Keith Henry wrote:

<big snip>
> Hows that for a suggestion or two?
>
> -K

In theory not bad, in practice it'll bog the game down too much. Now
players have to deal with tactics and counter tactics skills and dice
rolls. More things for both players and GMs to keep track of. It's too
much. If anything the tac comp needs to be simplified so that a set
number (a reasonable number) of dice are added to the combat pool. Maybe
no direct bonus to initiative, but a bonus to the tactics skill. Dunno,
haven't thought it out. What I do know is that last thing SR combat needs
is more rules and dice pools to keep up with. That from long experience.


--
@>->,-`---
Ashelock
o=<======-

GM's Theme: "I am the eye in the sky, looking at you, I can see your lies.
I am the maker of rules, dealing in fools, I can cheat you blind."
Message no. 4
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Effective/True Ratings (Re: silly edges and dumb flaws)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 01:33:02 EST
In a message dated 98-02-07 23:10:45 EST, woneal@*******.NET writes:

> In theory not bad, in practice it'll bog the game down too much. Now
> players have to deal with tactics and counter tactics skills and dice
> rolls. More things for both players and GMs to keep track of. It's too
> much. If anything the tac comp needs to be simplified so that a set
> number (a reasonable number) of dice are added to the combat pool. Maybe
> no direct bonus to initiative, but a bonus to the tactics skill. Dunno,
> haven't thought it out. What I do know is that last thing SR combat needs
> is more rules and dice pools to keep up with. That from long experience.
>
Well, as so many have pointed out, Taccoms and BattleTACS are not that common
in the average setting, so they don't slow things down that much. And the
game group here uses them all the time, stuff is usually handled by a central
individual and the GM, everyone else just gets' the results. Kind of a way to
make someone responsible for others....hasn't slowed us down that much...

-K
Message no. 5
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Effective/True Ratings (Re: silly edges and dumb flaws)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 11:58:46 +0000
> On 6 Feb 98 at 17:14, J Keith Henry wrote:
>
> <big snip>
> > Hows that for a suggestion or two?
> >
> > -K
>
> In theory not bad, in practice it'll bog the game down too much. Now
> players have to deal with tactics and counter tactics skills and dice
> rolls. More things for both players and GMs to keep track of. It's too
> much. If anything the tac comp needs to be simplified so that a set
> number (a reasonable number) of dice are added to the combat pool. Maybe
> no direct bonus to initiative, but a bonus to the tactics skill. Dunno,
> haven't thought it out. What I do know is that last thing SR combat needs
> is more rules and dice pools to keep up with. That from long experience.

Hm. A quick thought. Tactical skill gives a possible bonus to
initiative. Most standard responses to intrusion is due to
(practiced) tactics. Would not that imply that guards at a security
facility should then have an initiative bonus while on-site?
(Which might very often be 0, mind - even skill 6 tactics without
battac rarely gives any bonus.).

And no, I *won't* mention this to my current GM. :)

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 6
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Effective/True Ratings (Re: silly edges and dumb flaws)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 11:06:07 EST
In a message dated 98-02-08 06:00:05 EST, runefo@***.UIO.NO writes:

> Hm. A quick thought. Tactical skill gives a possible bonus to
> initiative. Most standard responses to intrusion is due to
> (practiced) tactics. Would not that imply that guards at a security
> facility should then have an initiative bonus while on-site?
> (Which might very often be 0, mind - even skill 6 tactics without
> battac rarely gives any bonus.).

Really, a Zero huh? That kind of strange, accordingly to the generic
statistics, skill of 6 would get 2 successes (the '5' and the '6') on a set of
die rolls. Oh, and let's not forget the option of getting the "site security"
itself in on the action. Automated Cameras, the Security Rigger, who knows
what else. Yep, LOTS of possibilities.

-K

> And no, I *won't* mention this to my current GM. :)

No skin off of my nose...
-K
Message no. 7
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Effective/True Ratings (Re: silly edges and dumb flaws)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 17:35:29 GMT
On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 23:06:15 -0005, Ashlocke wrote:

> GM's Theme: "I am the eye in the sky, looking at you, I can see your lies.
> I am the maker of rules, dealing in fools, I can cheat you blind."

I thought it was Alan Parsons? :P



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";
ICQ: 7521644 (Sharkey)

Mano au mano, the "Professor"
would kick MacGyver's ass.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Effective/True Ratings (Re: silly edges and dumb flaws), 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!