Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Alexander Jenisch <night@********.CO.AT>
Subject: Karma (skill and attribute levels)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 12:53:36 +0200
I've got a question about increasing skills or attributes levels:
Why do you need as much karma to increase your specialized weapon from
level 5 to 6 as it cost to increase your strenght from 5 to 6? I mean in
realation to normal skills (2x karma to increase) is this rather little.
I think improving strenght (or what attribute ever) can't be as easy to
improve as a spezialized skill.
Message no. 2
From: Nexx <nexx@********.NET>
Subject: Re: Karma (skill and attribute levels)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 10:32:00 -0500
----------
> From: Alexander Jenisch <night@********.CO.AT>

> I've got a question about increasing skills or attributes levels:
> Why do you need as much karma to increase your specialized weapon from
> level 5 to 6 as it cost to increase your strenght from 5 to 6? I mean in
> realation to normal skills (2x karma to increase) is this rather little.
> I think improving strenght (or what attribute ever) can't be as easy to
> improve as a spezialized skill.

I think its because, overall, attributes are less important than skills
in Shadowrun. I can be an excellent marksman with a 1 in all of my
physical attributes, because I've got a 9 in my sniper rifle skill. Sure,
attributes do add to your skill in other areas (through dice pools), but
they aren't as important, overall, as the skills.
Message no. 3
From: The Vagabond <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Karma (skill and attribute levels)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 11:41:06 PDT
>I've got a question about increasing skills or attributes levels:
>Why do you need as much karma to increase your specialized weapon from
>level 5 to 6 as it cost to increase your strenght from 5 to 6? I mean
in
>realation to normal skills (2x karma to increase) is this rather
little.
>I think improving strenght (or what attribute ever) can't be as easy to
>improve as a spezialized skill.

Attributes are easier to increase than skills- dat's da rules.
I agree some skills maybe easier to increase than attributes, but by
the same token, some attributes are easier to increase than skills. So,
that begs the question: Which should be harder to increase in
Shadowrun?
Most PCs are Shadowrunners. Their attributes may help them survive
from run to run, but it's their skill that the Johnson's pay for- it's
their "bread and butter". So, skills should be harder to increase- it
also give the PCs a bigger sense of accomplishment, IMO.
I have a house rule that says you may increase skills with karma that
is equal to twice your *current* rating, as opposed to twice the next.
If this rule is too hard for your group, feel free to tweak it, or talk
to you GM about it. Personally, I've seen many-a-powerful SR character,
so I don't think it needs to change any, unless you want to make
attributes just as hard to increase as skills.

-Vagabond
"Under wandering stars I've grown"
________________________________________________________
<nomad74@*******.com> <ICQ 4297972>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 4
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Karma (skill and attribute levels)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 21:20:13 +0100
Alexander Jenisch said on 12:53/26 Apr 98...

> I've got a question about increasing skills or attributes levels:
> Why do you need as much karma to increase your specialized weapon from
> level 5 to 6 as it cost to increase your strenght from 5 to 6? I mean in
> realation to normal skills (2x karma to increase) is this rather little.
> I think improving strenght (or what attribute ever) can't be as easy to
> improve as a spezialized skill.

Shadowrun is basically a skill-oriented game, attributes only really come
into play in resistance tests, special situations ("Lift that beam so
the ceiling won't collapse!"), or when you're defaulting from a skill. For
that reason, general skills cost more to improve than attributes --
because you'll use them more, they're more expensive to prevent people
from getting to very high levels very fast. Concentrations and
specializations cost less, because you need to train in a smaller area.

This does have the net effect of putting specialized skills and attributes
at the same level, but I don't quite see a problem with this. For
example, if the same ratios between general/concentration/specialization
were kept, but the cost to increase a specialization raised, raising a
general skill would become insanely expensive.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
It's better to have loved and lost
Than to listen to an Olivia Newton John record
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----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. 5
From: NightLife <habenir@*****.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Karma (skill and attribute levels)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 16:10:14 -0400
> Attributes are easier to increase than skills- dat's da rules.

Which is a bunch of bull puckey. IMNSHO.

> I agree some skills maybe easier to increase than attributes, but by
>the same token, some attributes are easier to increase than skills. So,
>that begs the question: Which should be harder to increase in
>Shadowrun?
> Most PCs are Shadowrunners. Their attributes may help them survive
>from run to run, but it's their skill that the Johnson's pay for- it's
>their "bread and butter". So, skills should be harder to increase- it
>also give the PCs a bigger sense of accomplishment, IMO.
> I have a house rule that says you may increase skills with karma that
>is equal to twice your *current* rating, as opposed to twice the next.
>If this rule is too hard for your group, feel free to tweak it, or talk
>to you GM about it. Personally, I've seen many-a-powerful SR character,
>so I don't think it needs to change any, unless you want to make
>attributes just as hard to increase as skills.

Here's what I've done which works really well in my group and the players
agree with this bit of ruling. The first time a attribute is increased it's
the normal x1 value. After that it becomes x2 like normal skills. Which I
think accurately reflects RL. As in weight lifting. When you first start
out it fairly easy to get fairly stronger. But theres a hump you reach
where it's really difficult to reach a new plateau. After that it still
requires more work to advance until you reach your limit. This as I've seen
applies to many aspects of improving the mind and body.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"I am telling you nothing - merely asking you to remember that death come in
many shades. Some are harsh and infinitely painful to look upon; others can
be
as peaceful and beautiful as the setting sun. I am an artist, and many colors
lie on upon my palette. Let me paint him a rainbow, and give you the means to
decide where it ends."

Erik from the book Phantom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Message no. 6
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Karma (skill and attribute levels)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 16:42:29 -0400
Once upon a time, Alexander Jenisch wrote;

>I've got a question about increasing skills or attributes levels:
>Why do you need as much karma to increase your specialized weapon from
>level 5 to 6 as it cost to increase your strenght from 5 to 6? I mean in
>realation to normal skills (2x karma to increase) is this rather little.
>I think improving strenght (or what attribute ever) can't be as easy to
>improve as a spezialized skill.

Because the rules for raising attributes are broken.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

"CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are,
not as they ought to be."
-The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce

I am MC23
Message no. 7
From: Quantum <a.hides@*******.QUT.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Karma (skill and attribute levels)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:52:45 +1000
> I've got a question about increasing skills or attributes levels:
> Why do you need as much karma to increase your specialized weapon from
> level 5 to 6 as it cost to increase your strenght from 5 to 6? I mean in
> realation to normal skills (2x karma to increase) is this rather little.
> I think improving strenght (or what attribute ever) can't be as easy to
> improve as a spezialized skill.

The point is that 6 is well and truly above normal, and to get a skill to
this level is extreamly hard and requires a lot of time and effort. To
give an example, if you were talking about a skill called Strategy Games
(chess) <actually a skill a lot of my characters have> then 3 is the level
that the "average" person _who plays a LOT of chess_ would have. A 6 would
probably be well and truely Grand Master level. This would obviously take
a lot of time, of Concentrated effort, and while it's still hard to get
you strength or any other physical attribute up, I think it would still
be less effort than a skill like this.

Quantum

=+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+
The person who says it cannot be done
should never interupt the one who is doing it.
=+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+
hidesy@***.brisnet.org.au
n2347369@*******.qut.edu.au
Message no. 8
From: Jeremiah Stevens <jeremiah@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Karma (skill and attribute levels)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:31:30 -0400
> The point is that 6 is well and truly above normal, and to get a skill to
> this level is extreamly hard and requires a lot of time and effort. To
> give an example, if you were talking about a skill called Strategy Games
> (chess) <actually a skill a lot of my characters have> then 3 is the level
> that the "average" person _who plays a LOT of chess_ would have. A 6 would
> probably be well and truely Grand Master level. This would obviously take
> a lot of time, of Concentrated effort, and while it's still hard to get
> you strength or any other physical attribute up, I think it would still
> be less effort than a skill like this.

I disagree. I would say that a 3 in chess (Games/strategy/chess) would
indicate a knowledge of the rules and maybe some basic strategy, but no
real concept of long term planning. A skill of 6 would understand and be
able to play openings, mid-games and end-games by the book and with a good
degree of precision, but without having that special flair for the game. I
would say that from about 6-8, one would have increasing levels of
technical mastery, but without any real genius. Above level 8, one would
find the real masters who can do the crazy things like playing blindfolded
or against many people simultaneously. Ultimately, I would put the grand
masters at about level 12 and above, with people like Bobby Fisher or Gary
Kasparov in the 15+ range.
Message no. 9
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Karma (skill and attribute levels)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 18:46:12 +1200
Quoth Jeremiah Stevens (1632 27-4-98):

> The point is that 6 is well and truly above normal, and to get
a skill to
> this level is extreamly hard and requires a lot of time and
effort. To
> give an example, if you were talking about a skill called
Strategy Games
> (chess) <actually a skill a lot of my characters have> then 3
is the level
> that the "average" person _who plays a LOT of chess_ would
have. A 6 would
> probably be well and truely Grand Master level. This would
obviously take
> a lot of time, of Concentrated effort, and while it's still
hard to get
> you strength or any other physical attribute up, I think it
would still
> be less effort than a skill like this.

I disagree. I would say that a 3 in chess (Games/strategy/chess)
would
indicate a knowledge of the rules and maybe some basic strategy,
but no
real concept of long term planning. A skill of 6 would
understand and be
able to play openings, mid-games and end-games by the book and
with a good
degree of precision, but without having that special flair for
the game. I
would say that from about 6-8, one would have increasing levels
of
technical mastery, but without any real genius. Above level 8,
one would
find the real masters who can do the crazy things like playing
blindfolded
or against many people simultaneously. Ultimately, I would put
the grand
masters at about level 12 and above, with people like Bobby
Fisher or Gary
Kasparov in the 15+ range.

Depends on the campaign, I suppose. I take the view that anyone with
Skill: 1 has a fairly modest knowledge; s/he knows the rules and basic
strategies (sounds about my level of chess skill). Skill: 3 means
they're pretty good, maybe with the whole-game skills Jeremiah
describes. Skill: 6 is an expert, perhaps even a champion or Master.
Skill: 8 is phenomenal, the many-opponents, blindfolded-playing sort of
thing. Anything in double digits is a god (note small 'g'), the sort of
skill that happens only once or twice a generation. 12+? You'd only
see something like that in a Stallone or Schwarznegger film (one guy
mowing down armies, yadda yadda).

(This attitude arises mainly from the 'retirement notice' Malik
RunningWolf wrote when he 'quit' as a GM just after founding Shadows and
Light netzine, screaming about the 'Vulcan nerve-pinch' phenomenon.
It's linked from the Archive, but I got it some time ago so I couldn't
tell you exactly where. He does make sense, though: if the nastiest
published NPC opponent has a highest skill of 9, and that after a decade
or so of the best training around, how the heck can anyone reach double
digits in a couple of years with no formal training?)

Danyel Woods
9604801@********.ac.nz
'Are you deliberately trying to drive me insane?'
'The universe is already mad. Anything else would be
redundant.'
Message no. 10
From: Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU>
Subject: Re: Karma (skill and attribute levels)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 13:25:45 -0500
At 06:46 PM 98-04-27 +1200, you wrote:
>Quoth Jeremiah Stevens (1632 27-4-98):
>
> > The point is that 6 is well and truly above normal, and to get
>a skill to
> > this level is extreamly hard and requires a lot of time and
>effort. To
> > give an example, if you were talking about a skill called
>Strategy Games
> > (chess) <actually a skill a lot of my characters have> then 3
>is the level
> > that the "average" person _who plays a LOT of chess_ would
>have. A 6 would
> > probably be well and truely Grand Master level. This would
>obviously take
> > a lot of time, of Concentrated effort, and while it's still
>hard to get
> > you strength or any other physical attribute up, I think it
>would still
> > be less effort than a skill like this.
>
> I disagree. I would say that a 3 in chess (Games/strategy/chess)
>would
> indicate a knowledge of the rules and maybe some basic strategy,
>but no
> real concept of long term planning. A skill of 6 would
>understand and be
> able to play openings, mid-games and end-games by the book and
>with a good
> degree of precision, but without having that special flair for
>the game. I
> would say that from about 6-8, one would have increasing levels
>of
> technical mastery, but without any real genius. Above level 8,
>one would
> find the real masters who can do the crazy things like playing
>blindfolded
> or against many people simultaneously. Ultimately, I would put
>the grand
> masters at about level 12 and above, with people like Bobby
>Fisher or Gary
>Kasparov in the 15+ range.
>
>Depends on the campaign, I suppose. I take the view that anyone with
>Skill: 1 has a fairly modest knowledge; s/he knows the rules and basic
>strategies (sounds about my level of chess skill). Skill: 3 means
>they're pretty good, maybe with the whole-game skills Jeremiah
>describes. Skill: 6 is an expert, perhaps even a champion or Master.
>Skill: 8 is phenomenal, the many-opponents, blindfolded-playing sort of
>thing. Anything in double digits is a god (note small 'g'), the sort of
>skill that happens only once or twice a generation. 12+? You'd only
>see something like that in a Stallone or Schwarznegger film (one guy
>mowing down armies, yadda yadda).
>
>(This attitude arises mainly from the 'retirement notice' Malik
>RunningWolf wrote when he 'quit' as a GM just after founding Shadows and
>Light netzine, screaming about the 'Vulcan nerve-pinch' phenomenon.
>It's linked from the Archive, but I got it some time ago so I couldn't
>tell you exactly where. He does make sense, though: if the nastiest
>published NPC opponent has a highest skill of 9, and that after a decade
>or so of the best training around, how the heck can anyone reach double
>digits in a couple of years with no formal training?)

Um lots of use. Training is probably a better way to learn then having a
corpsec goon shoot at you. On the other hand those that don't learn fast
probably don't have to worry about learning anything ever again.

SteveD
>
> Danyel Woods
> 9604801@********.ac.nz
> 'Are you deliberately trying to drive me insane?'
> 'The universe is already mad. Anything else would be
>redundant.'

>
Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams
Message no. 11
From: rabiola <rabiola@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Karma (skill and attribute levels)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 16:13:49 -0500
>
>(This attitude arises mainly from the 'retirement notice' Malik
>RunningWolf wrote when he 'quit' as a GM just after founding Shadows
and
>Light netzine, screaming about the 'Vulcan nerve-pinch' phenomenon.
>It's linked from the Archive, but I got it some time ago so I couldn't
>tell you exactly where. He does make sense, though: if the nastiest
>published NPC opponent has a highest skill of 9, and that after a
decade
>or so of the best training around, how the heck can anyone reach double
>digits in a couple of years with no formal training?)
>


Got an address for this site?

Tony Rabiola rabiola@**.netcom.com
Fourth and Sixth World Adept
Still working on the Fifth...

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Karma (skill and attribute levels), 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!