Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Kyrie Tarrent <MatrxMstrs@***.COM>
Subject:	More Re: Real ranges.
Date:	Mon, 13 Feb 1995 10:26:03 -0500

Message no. 1 After reading a comment from lericson@***.EDU (Lars Ericson)

>I think that a more realistic change would be to include another
>range catagory. With a 9 target number being all that is needed for
>extreme, the average shootist (Firearms: 3) would probably hit a
>man sized target 20-25% of the time. This is without any smartgun
>or scope modifications. I agree that weapons can fire farther than
>the ranges that SR has them at, but I think those longer distances
>should be harder than a nine, perhaps an 11. Anyone else have any
>comments?

My husband is in the military and I know he talks about weapons in our games
quite offten, although the ranges may or not be in doubt I see from my stand
point that is where skill comes into play. The better the skill the better sho
t. Where as the target numbers should reflect a difference in the folks who
were trained by the military. Even though my spose has taken me to a range
before there is no way to compare to whatever training he recieved. I know
how to shoot a pistol, but I don't think a rifle fires the same. In my games
I have altered the military folks to have a -2 to target number when a
military weapon or similar type is used. I don't use this however on my player
s, I think thier smartlinks and all thier other enhancements are enough of an
edge on most everybody.

Also I would like to bring up full auto in ShadowRun, This could either be on
the list or off the list (which is probably better), I don't want to waste
bandwidth by bringing up something people will flame me for.

TIA

Kyrie, The Matrix Mistress.

From:	Nightfox <DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: More Re: Real ranges.
Date:	Mon, 13 Feb 1995 22:12:24 -0700

Message no. 2 >t. Where as the target numbers should reflect a difference in the folks who
>were trained by the military. Even though my spose has taken me to a range
>before there is no way to compare to whatever training he recieved. I know
>how to shoot a pistol, but I don't think a rifle fires the same. In my games
>I have altered the military folks to have a -2 to target number when a
>military weapon or similar type is used.

But why? there should be no reason to lower the target # for military people,
especially by -2 thats saying that they are 2 times better at shooting than
someone with a laser sight and equal skill, but no "military" training.

If you use this arguement - then you could use it for the CIA, FBI, Cops,
big NRA fanatics. They all receive training in firearms. Also - why should it
be military - the Airforce and Navy aren't that big on guns - hell they don't
care much if you can hit the broad side of a barn 1 year after boot camp.

What the military and other orginizations give you is skill in using the weapon
and WHEN to use it under what conditions. It really doesn't matter whether you
learned your skill in the military or "shooting rats in a junkyard" (anybody
get this obscure G.I. Joe reference?). An equal amount of skill is an equal
amount of skill, and the TN reflects the difficulty of the action attempted at
that range, under those conditions.

>I don't use this however on my players, I think thier smartlinks and all thier
>other enhancements are enough of an edge on most everybody.

A SMART GUN - will give you the same benefits as a laser sight, ie - you know
where your bullet should be going.

A SMART GUN with the player having a SMART LINK - gives you the added advantage
of link partially controlling your neuromuscular response so that you fire when
you should and it moves you arm slightly to track the target better.

Remember - the military usually trains you in either a "Concentration" or
"Specialization" in Assault Rifles / M16 (I think thats what it would go
under)

Summary - the is no need for a TN mod for military people, a great skill in
Military weapons can be shown by a higher skill and/or "con"/"Spec"

>Also I would like to bring up full auto in ShadowRun, This could either be on
>the list or off the list (which is probably better), I don't want to waste
>bandwidth by bringing up something people will flame me for.

IF they flame you for bringing up a topic, then they need to mature.
Now I will say that it has gotten a lot of discussion over the years (my I am
starting to sound old) but it has not been totally beaten to death like
Airplanes and Railguns :)

And if they read the header that will probably read like "FULL AUTO"
They can just delete it and go on.

If its a new system - remember to keep it fairly simple and give examples.
IE - make it idiot proof so that I don't get TOO confused :)

> >TIA > >Kyrie,
The Matrix Mistress.

Well lads - it looks like the lady is already taken, and better yet, she can
play Shadowrun with her other.

Nightfox

DJWA@******.UCC.NAU.EDU - Daniel Waisley - DJW2@****.UCC.NAU.EDU
- Insanity is such a delightful state of mind.
BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!BOINGEE!!!
Geek code V2.1 GE d-? H++ s+:->++: g+ p? !au(-) a21! w++ v+* C++$(++++)
U(-) p? L !3 E? N K- W M+ V+ -po+(---) Y+ t+ 5+++! j-x R+(++) G' tv
b+(+++) D(+) B--- e+ u+*(++)(**) h(*) f+(*) r-->+++ !n- y+*>++

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: More Re: Real ranges.
Date:	Tue, 14 Feb 1995 11:29:06 +0100

Message no. 3 >Also I would like to bring up full auto in ShadowRun, This could either be on
>the list or off the list (which is probably better), I don't want to waste
>bandwidth by bringing up something people will flame me for.

Didn't somebody post alternative rules for full-auto fire last week?

Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Send cash now if you want to be saved! It's the church of funk!
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?

From:	Gareth Owen <glowen1@*****.NHS.GOV.UK>
Subject:	Re: More Re: Real ranges.
Date:	Tue, 14 Feb 1995 10:53:47 +0000

Message no. 4 Kyrie wrote:
> My husband is in the military and I know he talks about weapons in our games
> quite offten, although the ranges may or not be in doubt I see from my stand
> point that is where skill comes into play. The better the skill the better sho
> t. Where as the target numbers should reflect a difference in the folks who
> were trained by the military. Even though my spose has taken me to a range
> before there is no way to compare to whatever training he recieved. I know
> how to shoot a pistol, but I don't think a rifle fires the same. In my games
> I have altered the military folks to have a -2 to target number when a
> military weapon or similar type is used. I don't use this however on my player
> s, I think thier smartlinks and all thier other enhancements are enough of an
> edge on most everybody.

Hmmmm. That seems highly kludgy to me. Is not the difference between
military and non-military shooters that the military types have much
higher skill levels? Putting target number mods on top of thet seems
excessive.

But, if it works for you....

GLO

--
Gareth Owen | Mail: glowen1@*****.nhs.gov.uk
Sytems Programmmer | Phone: (UK) 0495 765021
Gwent Health Authority | "Reboot it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure"

From:	Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: More Re: Real ranges.
Date:	Tue, 14 Feb 1995 20:50:29 -0500

Message no. 5 On Tue, 14 Feb 1995, Gurth wrote:

> >Also I would like to bring up full auto in ShadowRun, This could either be on
> >the list or off the list (which is probably better), I don't want to waste
> >bandwidth by bringing up something people will flame me for.
>
> Didn't somebody post alternative rules for full-auto fire last week?

Yep. That would have been me. Except I think it was two or
three weeks ago. I lose track of time these days...

Marc

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer