Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: valeuj@*****.navy.mil (Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3))
Subject: Fresh start
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:51:29 +1000
Ok, soon I'll be moving off my boat and have a place of my own. I'm going
to ask my cousin to ship my things to me. In order to keep the package
small, I'm only going to have him ship the main books for my games (SR,
Hunter, SW). Now the question is, should I have him send me SR1 or SR3?
And what would be the points for each version of the system? I know that
SR1 seemed very simple to use, but then again SR3 has the most complete
rules. Being where I am, I don't expect to find a lot of players but I plan
on converting a few. Any ideas?
Message no. 2
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: Fresh start
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:20:00 -0700
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:51:29 +1000
"Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3)" <valeuj@*****.navy.mil> wrote:
[snip]
> Now the question is, should I have him send me SR1 or SR3?

[federally mandated SNIP]

I find SR3 to be much more playable than SR1. The rules are much better
developed, and they don't have that stupid variable staging.
--Anders
Message no. 3
From: frontendchaos@**********.com (Jim Montgomery)
Subject: Fresh start
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:48:24 -0400
>>Now the question is, should I have him send me SR1 or SR3?
>
> I find SR3 to be much more playable than SR1. The rules are much better
> developed, and they don't have that stupid variable staging.

Well, I came into SR with 3rd edition, and was really impressed that it
cleared up any preconceptions I had about earlier editions. You can play
all the main character types with the main book and the rules are all
consistent and seem pretty well balanced. Reading the "Developer Says"
sections of the books I've been collecting, I really can't imagine how
bad SR1 must have been to get a handle on, but SR3 has been pretty nice
so far.

Jim
Message no. 4
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Fresh start
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:08:51 +0200
From: "Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3)" <valeuj@*****.navy.mil>
> Now the question is, should I have him send me SR1 or SR3?

I would go for SR3 for a number of reasons.

> And what would be the points for each version of the system? I know that
> SR1 seemed very simple to use, but then again SR3 has the most complete
> rules.

SR1 variable staging is more difficult for newcomers to understand, than the
fixed staging of SR3 is. It difficult to explain why I can kill somebody
with a knife and 4 successes, while it takes 6 successes to do the same with
a katana.

SR1 general combat rules are a lot more complicated, especially auto-fire,
where you roll for each and every bullet.

The amount of action you get in a combat round in SR1, is based on a table
(Initiative 1-10=1, 11-16=2, 17-22=3, 23+=4 actions), instead of the much
easyer system in SR3 (every 10 initiative gives 1 action).

The books thare are generally available, and all new books pblisher will be
SR3 rules. It would be a shame if you get somebody hooked, and they happely
buy the MiTS book, despite you playing with SR1 rules.

SR3 is based on nearly 10 years of player feedback, so it should generally
be better than something based on some designers and the friends/playtesters
ideas.

Lars
Message no. 5
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Fresh start
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:12:21 +0200
According to Jim Montgomery, on Tuesday 30 September 2003 17:48 the word on
the street was...

> I really can't imagine how bad SR1 must have been to get a handle on

It wasn't a bad game, but it was written with a lot more "advanced"
audience in mind than the current edition is. Lots of things were not
explained as well as they are today, leading to confusion and/or a need to
improvise. I remember how my group got damage application quite wrong
initially, because the SR1 rules tell you to start marking off the lowest
empty box on the condition monitor -- so we alternated between marking the
the Stun and Physical tracks, whichever had the least crossed-out boxes,
unless the weapon specifically did Stun damage, in which case it was
always put onto the Stun track. Only after a while did we reach the
conclusion that the rule meant to mark off the Physical track starting at
the lowest empty box. The problem was that they didn't _say_ that,
exactly...

Another minus point was that SR1 had some game mechanics that sound good in
theory but don't _really_ work (automatic successes, for example -- it
worked for armor, in a way, but if you think adepts are too powerful now,
find a copy of the first-edition Grimthingy and read the original physical
adept rules...) often making the game too lethal or too easily survivable,
depending on which side you were on.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Don't you know you know what's right?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 6
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Fresh start
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:15:01 +0200
According to Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3), on Tuesday 30 September 2003
13:51 the word on the street was...

> Now the question is, should I have him send me SR1 or SR3?

SR3 would get my vote.

> And what would be the points for each version of the system?

You will have to improvise a lot more things with SR1 than if you use SR3,
quite simply because the latter is much more complete, even in the main
rulebook. Don't count on doing much vehicle combat if you only have the
SR1 main rules at hand, for example.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Don't you know you know what's right?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 7
From: grimjack@******.com (Martin Little)
Subject: Fresh start
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:30:07 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Gurth wrote:

> According to Jim Montgomery, on Tuesday 30 September 2003 17:48 the word on
> the street was...
>
> > I really can't imagine how bad SR1 must have been to get a handle on
>
> It wasn't a bad game, but it was written with a lot more "advanced"
> audience in mind than the current edition is. Lots of things were not
> explained as well as they are today, leading to confusion and/or a need to
> improvise. I remember how my group got damage application quite wrong
*snip*
> Another minus point was that SR1 had some game mechanics that sound good in
> theory but don't _really_ work (automatic successes, for example -- it
> worked for armor, in a way, but if you think adepts are too powerful now,
> find a copy of the first-edition Grimthingy and read the original physical
> adept rules...) often making the game too lethal or too easily survivable,
> depending on which side you were on.
>
Wasn't SR 1 voted as the game you were most likely to survive a missile to
the chest in?

I can't remember which publication I read that in :)
Message no. 8
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Fresh start
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:17:00 +0200
According to Martin Little, on Tuesday 30 September 2003 19:30 the word on
the street was...

> Wasn't SR 1 voted as the game you were most likely to survive a missile
> to the chest in?

I don't know, as it's the first time I heard of that, but there's some
truth in it. Even wearing no armor at all, you could fairly easily survive
any missile in the SR1 rulebook except the anti-vehicle one -- both the
APM and HEM caused only M damage, and if the shooter didn't get 3 or 4
successes, respectively, it wouldn't even stage up...

The anti-vehicle missile was another story, though. Eight successes were
needed to get it down from Deadly, plus whatever successes the shooter
rolled. Wearing full heavy armor (8/6 IIRC) would be a good idea here...

> I can't remember which publication I read that in :)

My guess is White Wolf Magazine, which had an annual (?) awards thingie
where the awards had titles like that.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Don't you know you know what's right?
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 9
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: Fresh start
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 08:15:21 -0700
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:17:00 +0200
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
>
> > I can't remember which publication I read that in :)
>
> My guess is White Wolf Magazine, which had an annual (?) awards thingie
> where the awards had titles like that.
>
>
Naah, that was The Space Gamer, with it's monthly presentation of wierd RPG
rules.
--Anders

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Fresh start, 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!