Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: dion.scher@*******.co.za (DION SCHER)
Subject: Living Conditions
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 96 17:22:00 +0200
It has come to my attention that often players don't seem to give
two hoots about whether they live in the gutter, or not. While this
can be deemed bad roleplaying on behalf of the player, some
characters may not have the resources to do much else. I've thus
come up with an idea that will counteract bad RPing in this regard,
but more importantly gives more of an atmosphere to the lifestyle a
character lives in down time.

Living in the gutters is more hazardous to a person's well being
than living in a 3 storey mansion (Anyone Disputing? :)).
Thus it's only reasonable that a person living in a hovel etc..
would be more 'accident' prone.

I've assigned base percentage values for living conditions:
Streets 15%
Squatter 10%
Low 5%
Med 3%
High 2%
Lux 1%

This is as far as I've got on this idea so far. The follow up will
be that if the character scores under the respective percentage,
then they role once again on another table to see the severity of
the incident. These incidents range from the flu to broken
limbs,muggings,diseases etc.

I'm looking for suggestions regarding harzards which a character
would be subject to. Any ideas?
---
* SPEED 2.00 [NR] * It's more than a reader. It's a message base manager!
Message no. 2
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Living Conditions
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 12:56:30 -0600 (MDT)
DION SCHER wrote:
|
|It has come to my attention that often players don't seem to give
|two hoots about whether they live in the gutter, or not. While this
|can be deemed bad roleplaying on behalf of the player, some
|characters may not have the resources to do much else. I've thus
|come up with an idea that will counteract bad RPing in this regard,
|but more importantly gives more of an atmosphere to the lifestyle a
|character lives in down time.
|
|Living in the gutters is more hazardous to a person's well being
|than living in a 3 storey mansion (Anyone Disputing? :)).
|Thus it's only reasonable that a person living in a hovel etc..
|would be more 'accident' prone.
|
|I've assigned base percentage values for living conditions:
|Streets 15%
|Squatter 10%
|Low 5%
|Med 3%
|High 2%
|Lux 1%
|
|This is as far as I've got on this idea so far. The follow up will
|be that if the character scores under the respective percentage,
|then they role once again on another table to see the severity of
|the incident. These incidents range from the flu to broken
|limbs,muggings,diseases etc.

People in all walks of life have "hazardous" encounters.
There lifestyle tends to define the encounters that occur.
You are correct that low lifestyles result in encounters
with diseases and crime. But high lifestyles result in
encounters such as stock crashes, reputation attacks, loss
of face/honor, etc. The basic difference is that low
lifestyle hazards are usually more life threatening. No
matter what a person's lifestyle they are going to have to
deal with problems. Another basic difference is that low
lifestyle bad events tend to have short lasting effects
(except for death of course) while high lifestyle bad
events tend to have a long lasting effect.

And another thing. I personally do not like random
encounter tables. I prefer to plan out a "random" event.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~~~~
Message no. 3
From: Helge Diernaes <ecocide@***.econ.cbs.dk>
Subject: Re: Living Conditions
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 10:49:40 +0200 (METDST)
On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, David Buehrer wrote:

[Lots snipped]

> People in all walks of life have "hazardous" encounters.
> There lifestyle tends to define the encounters that occur.
> You are correct that low lifestyles result in encounters
> with diseases and crime. But high lifestyles result in
> encounters such as stock crashes, reputation attacks, loss
> of face/honor, etc. The basic difference is that low
> lifestyle hazards are usually more life threatening. No
> matter what a person's lifestyle they are going to have to
> deal with problems. Another basic difference is that low
> lifestyle bad events tend to have short lasting effects
> (except for death of course) while high lifestyle bad
> events tend to have a long lasting effect.
>
> And another thing. I personally do not like random
> encounter tables. I prefer to plan out a "random" event.

I've inceasingly distanced myself from random encounter tables, as my
style has grown more interactive with the gamers over the years. Rather,
if the event is truly random, it's more a question of feel - is this a
dangerous place, is it a nice place, and so forth. Also, if I'm very
nasty, the streets are _unsafe_, especially in tough neighbourhoods.
For me, random events are very fine tools to create the atmosphere one wants
for a session or in general :)

Otherwise, I agree wholly that low or squatter lifestyle should be rather
more exposed to random crime than higher levels of lifestyle.

For starters, a physad I've just started to play, lay beneath blanket of
trash and tried to look non-robworthy, as I wanted to be able to sort
of sleep.
Being waked by strange sound - got _good_ hearing - I see that the sewer
hole about 15 meters down the street has been removed, and two troll-like
beings are about to drag several non-moving bodies into the sever.
I decides to get roof over my head. I've nothing against cannibals, I'm
one myself, but I definitely would dislike being eaten as another lowlife :)

--
R,

Silhouette

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fae doer,
fraende doer,
selv doer jeg engang.
En ting ved jeg aldrig doer.
Dommen over doed mand.

- Havamaal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helge Diernaes | ecocide@***.econ.cbs.dk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 4
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Living Conditions
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 08:07:19 -0600 (MDT)
Helge Diernaes wrote:
|
|On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, David Buehrer wrote:
|
|> And another thing. I personally do not like random
|> encounter tables. I prefer to plan out a "random" event.
|
|I've inceasingly distanced myself from random encounter tables, as my
|style has grown more interactive with the gamers over the years. Rather,
|if the event is truly random, it's more a question of feel - is this a
|dangerous place, is it a nice place, and so forth. Also, if I'm very
|nasty, the streets are _unsafe_, especially in tough neighbourhoods.
|For me, random events are very fine tools to create the atmosphere one wants
|for a session or in general :)

Random Encounters are a hold over from **&*. And there's
nothing wrong with them, especially for beggining GMs. I've
just reached the point where I like to use them to get a
feel for what could happen and the environment of an area.
But I make the decision as to what is actually going to
occur. Even if I need something quick I'll look over the
table and say, "That one ought to do it." Or the table will
spark an idea for something completely different.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~~~~
Message no. 5
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Living Conditions
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 08:13:35 -0600 (MDT)
Helge Diernaes wrote:
|
|Being waked by strange sound - got _good_ hearing - I see that the sewer
|hole about 15 meters down the street has been removed, and two troll-like
|beings are about to drag several non-moving bodies into the sever.
|I decides to get roof over my head. I've nothing against cannibals, I'm
|one myself, but I definitely would dislike being eaten as another lowlife :)

Here's a good encounter: <in the Barrens> An orc with a push cart
coming down the street in the early morning light calling out, "Bring
out your dead! Bring out your dead!" When asked what he's doing he
answers, "Hey, a guy's gotta eat."

<duck>

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~~~~
Message no. 6
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Living Conditions
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 11:49:00 +0100
David Buehrer said on 8:07/15 Jul 96...

> Random Encounters are a hold over from **&*. And there's
> nothing wrong with them, especially for beggining GMs. I've
> just reached the point where I like to use them to get a
> feel for what could happen and the environment of an area.
> But I make the decision as to what is actually going to
> occur. Even if I need something quick I'll look over the
> table and say, "That one ought to do it." Or the table will
> spark an idea for something completely different.

I've never held with the random encounters in Sprawl Sites. I bought it
when I had only GMed SR for a few months, and I find the contacts and
location archetypes nice and useful, but the middle section of the book
sucks, IMHO.
The encounters are too detailed to be encounters, and too vague to be
mini-adventures. Every time I decide to roll one up, I end up with an
encounter that just doesn't seem able to fit in with the current
situation in the game, and assumes too much about the players as well.
Random encounters when I GM consist more of robberies (after which the
players tend to shoot the shit out of the robbers) and police sirens
(after which the players usually run) than anything else.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Desolate and without purpose.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----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------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Living Conditions, 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!