Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 08:47:17 +0200
Ok, following setup:

A character who has 4 arms, equiped with MBW, tactical and the works,
what would happen WHEN:
you give it a backback with a sentry gun system, a sensor suit helmet,
or take the sensor input from the tactical and link that sentry system
to its arms over the MBW, so that the sentry system can control the
movement of the arms and initiate firing of weapons hold there.
Prolly link the weapons over smartgun system for the weapon control
system, not for targeting boni.

Could it be done?
And what would be the results, game mechanics wise?
and why?

--
Barbie

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein F¸hrer" - Adolf Hitler

barbie@********.de
http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++
dk sh++++ ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 2
From: Arclight arclight@*********.de
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 15:26:23 +0200
And finally, Barbie LeVile expressed herself by writing:

> Ok, following setup:
>
> A character who has 4 arms, equiped with MBW, tactical and the works,
> what would happen WHEN:
> you give it a backback with a sentry gun system, a sensor suit helmet,
> or take the sensor input from the tactical and link that sentry system
> to its arms over the MBW, so that the sentry system can control the
> movement of the arms and initiate firing of weapons hold there.
> Prolly link the weapons over smartgun system for the weapon control
> system, not for targeting boni.

First of all: ARGH!!! :)

> Could it be done?

Somewhat, I think.

> And what would be the results, game mechanics wise?

Your GM will run away screaming, then drop a cow.

> and why?

He'll be terrified :)

Ok, let's get serious. I suppose you want Auralis to designate targets
and the sentry system to engage them. You want to store the weapons in
the arms, or put them in mounts there. The sentry can control these
arms through either a smartgun system or the move-by-wire.

Just to sum it up, and clear the mind from bickering ;)

I don't think either the smartgun nor the MBW can provide the sentry
with a sort of control over Auralis' arms, although you could solve
this via some kind of program within the sentry system. Anyway, there
are some problems with the sentry taking over the arms while for example
using a ladder (the sentry decides to fire all weapons on a enemy,
and you start falling). I would integrate something to allow Auralis
to give control over individial arms to the sentry, a kind of captains
chair mode, so to say. The effect would be that the sentry can use the
arms as long as Auralis doesn't "jump" into them -> uses them. Or that
she [?:)] could declare a dedicatet use for each arm.

For the game effects, I think about this:

A link between tactical comp and the MBW, together with a jack for
the sentry system to plug into. Probably 0.2 Essence, cost 10,000.
This is because of the rather rare components and experimental grade
of the cyber. Then another 20,000 for a "BIOS-upgrade" for the MBW
itself. This would allow processing of the sentries commands; as 20k
is not even 10% of a MBW rt1 cost, this is within limits. Each weapon
mount would need smartgun integration, and each arm should contain
a smartgun link to fire the weapons and alter their fire modes etc.

The sentry system should have the same stats as in FoF, perhaps
a cost, availability and SI adjustment, but I'm not sure.

The benefits could be: treat the sentry as a seperate combatant,
with own initiative. It will engage anything moving, as long as
you don't enhance it's programming. Auralis can therefore spend
her normal initiaive turns for running, own fighting, etc.

These is just my penny thrown into the ring, I hope
I don't get change :),

arclight
Message no. 3
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 08:16:32 -0400
At 08.47 09-14-99 +0200, you wrote:
>A character who has 4 arms, equiped with MBW, tactical and the works,

Barbie, you are starting to make me concerned. 4 arms?


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Science: a religion that is bent on denying the nature of reality unless
that reality can be shot, autopsied, measureed, cataloged and stuffed for
display."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 4
From: Tony Rabiola argent1@****.com
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:03:01 -0500
> At 08.47 09-14-99 +0200, you wrote:
> >A character who has 4 arms, equiped with MBW, tactical and the works,
>
> Barbie, you are starting to make me concerned. 4 arms?
>
>
Just now you're getting concerned? Barbie's always had a...unique view of
things...::grin::

Argent
Message no. 5
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:31:20 EDT
In a message dated 9/14/1999 2:02:24 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
barbie@********.de writes:

> A character who has 4 arms, equiped with MBW, tactical and the works,
> what would happen WHEN:
> you give it a backback with a sentry gun system, a sensor suit helmet,
> or take the sensor input from the tactical and link that sentry system
> to its arms over the MBW, so that the sentry system can control the
> movement of the arms and initiate firing of weapons hold there.
> Prolly link the weapons over smartgun system for the weapon control
> system, not for targeting boni.
>
> Could it be done?

In theory, yes. However, after a conversation I've had with Mike M. on the
topic of "new appendiges" (meaning, having more appendiges than we as
(meta)human beings have at the moment...two arms, two legs), at the moment in
SR, no. There needs to be an additiona breakthrough of some sort. However,
"IF" it could be done, the possibilities are extreme, yes.

You would probably need to have stuff along the lines of "IVIS" or
"FDDM" for
the gunnery-related controls of the arms. In this case, IMO, would be the
effects of "Smartlinking" the arms for purposes of firing control.

> And what would be the results, game mechanics wise?

Ew...to be honest Barbie, though at one time I had a player with a character
that actually did this, I'm not sure what it would be. In all honesty, I
would *still* use the essence loss for the extra pair of limbs and the
cybertorso modifier would be a requirement purely for the purposes of such a
drastic measure of alteration to the overall biomechanics.

Usage of the "secondary limbs" would be at a +2 IMO for ALL actions with
those limbs, unless they were being used for something akin to "bracing" or
"gripping" onto larger objects (such as perhaps two arms holding a gun for
recoil purposes for instance).

Oh, and BTW, for whatever reason, the developing staff apparently does NOT
agree with what seems to be a large number of people that "MBW" is an implant
akin to "drone interfacing", so you are going to want to consider perhaps
another approach here.

> and why?

See the above. I *tried* to explain my answers/replies as I gave them.

-K
Message no. 6
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 14:52:25 EDT
In a message dated 9/14/1999 8:25:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
arclight@*********.de writes:

<snip the possible motive for Barbie's Multi-Limb question.>

> These is just my penny thrown into the ring, I hope
> I don't get change :),
> arclight

Guys, I'll say this. Wait. Just Wait...the inspiration and motivation to
possibly get Barbie to move into SR3 is coming if this is truth.

-K (who just thought it was Barbie asking another question like she's been
known to, not any "secret agenda/wanna do the character cool" thingie ;-P)
Message no. 7
From: Jett zmjett@*********.com
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:23:37 -0400
Ereskanti@***.com wrote:

> In a message dated 9/14/1999 2:02:24 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> barbie@********.de writes:
>
> > A character who has 4 arms, equiped with MBW, tactical and the works,
> > what would happen WHEN:
> > you give it a backback with a sentry gun system, a sensor suit helmet,
> > or take the sensor input from the tactical and link that sentry system
> > to its arms over the MBW, so that the sentry system can control the
> > movement of the arms and initiate firing of weapons hold there.
> > Prolly link the weapons over smartgun system for the weapon control
> > system, not for targeting boni.
>
> > And what would be the results, game mechanics wise?
>
> Ew...to be honest Barbie, though at one time I had a player with a character
> that actually did this, I'm not sure what it would be. In all honesty, I
> would *still* use the essence loss for the extra pair of limbs and the
> cybertorso modifier would be a requirement purely for the purposes of such a
> drastic measure of alteration to the overall biomechanics.
>
> Usage of the "secondary limbs" would be at a +2 IMO for ALL actions with
> those limbs, unless they were being used for something akin to "bracing" or
> "gripping" onto larger objects (such as perhaps two arms holding a gun for
> recoil purposes for instance).

Well, the problem with that is that apparently, this thing NATURALLY has four
arms. They aren't cyber, if I recall correctly...which means, presumably, that
the brain is wired and the torso sized to handle the extra limbs.

Not to mention that each arm you want to have smartlinked would require its own
smartlink...that's some nasty essence cost just for the smartlinking. But my
feeling is that this whole thing smacks of rigging a "human" body through a MBW
system and I, personally wouldn't allow it. Considering I have enough trouble
coping with normal rigging and how a tactical computer works, this conceptual is
way overwhelming and in the long run not a very efficient way of doing things.

In other words, why do things the hard way?

--Jett
<*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>

The new improved Shadowrun page: Shadow's Edge.
http://www.scifi-fantasy.com/~zmjett/shadow/

Jett's Elfwood page
http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/zone47/artists/jesgrota/jesgrota.html


"This is the worst place in the world. You shouldn't have come here. You'll die
here."
"Stay in the best place in the world, darling, and you'll die there, too."
-Lord Fanny, to Quimper, The Invisibles
Message no. 8
From: Zixx t_berghoff@*********.netsurf.de
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 22:45:02 +0200
On 14 Sep 99, at 8:47, Barbie LeVile wrote:

> Ok, following setup:
>
> A character who has 4 arms, equiped with MBW, tactical and the works,
> what would happen WHEN:
> you give it a backback with a sentry gun system, a sensor suit helmet,
> or take the sensor input from the tactical and link that sentry system
> to its arms over the MBW, so that the sentry system can control the
> movement of the arms and initiate firing of weapons hold there.
> Prolly link the weapons over smartgun system for the weapon control
> system, not for targeting boni.
>
> Could it be done?

Oh well, he'd just need a new body (probably a cyber-torso might do it),
and a new brain (to handle six limbs). The body should be doable, but a
new brain? Back to the drawing board.

Why do I have the feeling you just aked this to annoy people? ;))

Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx
ICQ: 9293066

A society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a loaded .45

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:-- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+ w---() O-
M-- PS+(+++) PE- Y+>++ t+(++) 5+ X++
R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++ e>+++++(*)
h! r--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 9
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:44:25 +0200
Zixx wrote:
>
> Why do I have the feeling you just aked this to annoy people? ;))
>
No, I`m serious

--
Barbie

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein F¸hrer" - Adolf Hitler

barbie@********.de
http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++
dk sh++++ ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 10
From: Veskrashen veskrashen@*******.com
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 12:11:00 -1100
Jett wrote:
>
> Ereskanti@***.com wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 9/14/1999 2:02:24 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> > barbie@********.de writes:
> >
> > > A character who has 4 arms, equiped with MBW, tactical and the works,
> > > what would happen WHEN:
> > > you give it a backback with a sentry gun system, a sensor suit helmet,
> > > or take the sensor input from the tactical and link that sentry system
> > > to its arms over the MBW, so that the sentry system can control the
> > > movement of the arms and initiate firing of weapons hold there.
> > > Prolly link the weapons over smartgun system for the weapon control
> > > system, not for targeting boni.
> >
> > > And what would be the results, game mechanics wise?
> >
> > Ew...to be honest Barbie, though at one time I had a player with a character
> > that actually did this, I'm not sure what it would be. In all honesty, I
> > would *still* use the essence loss for the extra pair of limbs and the
> > cybertorso modifier would be a requirement purely for the purposes of such a
> > drastic measure of alteration to the overall biomechanics.
> >
> > Usage of the "secondary limbs" would be at a +2 IMO for ALL actions
with
> > those limbs, unless they were being used for something akin to
"bracing" or
> > "gripping" onto larger objects (such as perhaps two arms holding a gun
for
> > recoil purposes for instance).
>
> Well, the problem with that is that apparently, this thing NATURALLY has four
> arms. They aren't cyber, if I recall correctly...which means, presumably, that
> the brain is wired and the torso sized to handle the extra limbs.
>
> Not to mention that each arm you want to have smartlinked would require its own
> smartlink...that's some nasty essence cost just for the smartlinking. But my
> feeling is that this whole thing smacks of rigging a "human" body through a
MBW
> system and I, personally wouldn't allow it. Considering I have enough trouble
> coping with normal rigging and how a tactical computer works, this conceptual is
> way overwhelming and in the long run not a very efficient way of doing things.
>
> In other words, why do things the hard way?
>
> --Jett

Why not use a skillwire type system instead? That is probably the most
equivalent to a drone RCI anyway, as it overrides a person's usual
muscle responses with pre-programmed ones. Personally, I wouldn't go
with all four arms sentry controlled; probably just 2, with built-in
SMGs. That way, the user could still maintain positive conscious control
over the remaining two arms. I would also require an Encephalon 3 (2
extra limbs and the pack) for coordination. Skillwire would limit the
effective "skill" of the sentry system. No penalties to the robot
controlled arms (they're programmed in, after all, and don't have to
worry about "handedness"), but probably add a blanket +1-2 when the user
is trying to engage targets of opportunity as well (he and the computer
getting in each other's way). Other than that, dunno. Though I think
she's right: build a drone from cyber parts, drop in an engine, and just
rig the damned thing. But that's just what we did with a freak of nature
in our team that caught 2 Barret rounds to the back of the head.

-Ves.
Message no. 11
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:09:05 +0200
Arclight wrote:
>

>
> Ok, let's get serious. I suppose you want Auralis to designate targets
> and the sentry system to engage them. You want to store the weapons in
> the arms, or put them in mounts there. The sentry can control these
> arms through either a smartgun system or the move-by-wire.

Exactly, i want to reroute the actual engament of the target to the
sentry system, allowing so multiple targets to be engaged at once.
>
> Just to sum it up, and clear the mind from bickering ;)
>
> I don't think either the smartgun nor the MBW can provide the sentry
> with a sort of control over Auralis' arms, although you could solve
> this via some kind of program within the sentry system. Anyway, there
> are some problems with the sentry taking over the arms while for example
> using a ladder (the sentry decides to fire all weapons on a enemy,
> and you start falling). I would integrate something to allow Auralis
> to give control over individial arms to the sentry, a kind of captains
> chair mode, so to say. The effect would be that the sentry can use the
> arms as long as Auralis doesn't "jump" into them -> uses them. Or that
> she [?:)] could declare a dedicatet use for each arm.

I think along the lines of rerouting the actual motion complex of the
arms from the brain to the sentry system, so she would have to think and
want to fire at a target, but the actual engement gets done independetly
by the sentry system.
>
>
> The benefits could be: treat the sentry as a seperate combatant,
> with own initiative. It will engage anything moving, as long as
> you don't enhance it's programming. Auralis can therefore spend
> her normal initiaive turns for running, own fighting, etc.

Exactly my toughts, freeing up time nd concentration of the combatent.
And the different intiative ratings for the sentry and her would make
things i think simpler, since the normal sentry system is worlds slwoler
then the actual character, it would be a mess to figure out a single
init rating.
But then, why is a sentry system so slow, is it because of the
mechanical setup? in that case it could react fast in this setup because
the host itself is faster.

--
Barbie

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein F¸hrer" - Adolf Hitler

barbie@********.de
http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++
dk sh++++ ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 12
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:10:32 +0200
IronRaven wrote:
>

>
> Barbie, you are starting to make me concerned. 4 arms?
>
Damn, i thought i was scary before :)

Yes, the character in question is a genmodified troll, a little
experiemnt from our loved folks at SK :)

--
Barbie

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein F¸hrer" - Adolf Hitler

barbie@********.de
http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++
dk sh++++ ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 13
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:12:06 +0200
Tony Rabiola wrote:

> Just now you're getting concerned? Barbie's always had a...unique view of
> things...::grin::
>
hmmmmm
Yeah, I`m perhabs abit extrem at times, but hey, extreme ideas are what
will be reality maybe sometimes.
Flying to the moon was insane some time ago too :)

--
Barbie

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein F¸hrer" - Adolf Hitler

barbie@********.de
http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++
dk sh++++ ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 14
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:16:23 +0200
Ereskanti@***.com wrote:
>

> Oh, and BTW, for whatever reason, the developing staff apparently does NOT
> agree with what seems to be a large number of people that "MBW" is an
implant
> akin to "drone interfacing", so you are going to want to consider perhaps
> another approach here.
>
And here i disagree with
the MBW puts the body in a controled seizure, but how is it controled?
by the implant since the brain is not equiped for that by itself, so if
you can interface with the implant you can control how it controls the
seizures, therefore control movenent of the body or parts of it IMO.
In the normal version the MBW gets its control impulses from the brain,
<move me there>
But why should it be impossible to overide some of that with impulses
from a different source?

--
Barbie

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein F¸hrer" - Adolf Hitler

barbie@********.de
http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++
dk sh++++ ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 15
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:17:14 +0200
Ereskanti@***.com wrote:
>

>
> Guys, I'll say this. Wait. Just Wait...the inspiration and motivation to
> possibly get Barbie to move into SR3 is coming if this is truth.
>
> -K (who just thought it was Barbie asking another question like she's been
> known to, not any "secret agenda/wanna do the character cool" thingie ;-P)

/me is now confused abit, care to explain?

--
Barbie

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein F¸hrer" - Adolf Hitler

barbie@********.de
http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++
dk sh++++ ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 16
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 19:18:55 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: Barbie LeVile <barbie@********.de>
To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 2:47 AM
Subject: Munchkin overkill


Ok, following setup:

A character who has 4 arms, equiped with MBW, tactical and the works,
what would happen WHEN:
you give it a backback with a sentry gun system, a sensor suit helmet,
or take the sensor input from the tactical and link that sentry system
to its arms over the MBW, so that the sentry system can control the
movement of the arms and initiate firing of weapons hold there.
Prolly link the weapons over smartgun system for the weapon control
system, not for targeting boni.

Could it be done?
And what would be the results, game mechanics wise?
and why?

-----

Of course it could be done. Just like you could build a whole person out of
cyberware and rig him from a remote deck...wait, I think that's what you're
doing, except there's still a person in the body...

:)

Seriously, of course it could. Why wouldn't it? [I leave mechanics up to
your GM. I'm always too nice to machines.]
Message no. 17
From: Angelkiller 404 angelkiller404@**********.com
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:42:04 -0400
>In theory, yes. However, after a conversation I've had with Mike M.
on the
>topic of "new appendiges" (meaning, having more appendiges than we as
>(meta)human beings have at the moment...two arms, two legs), at the
moment in
>SR, no. There needs to be an additiona breakthrough of some sort.
However,
>"IF" it could be done, the possibilities are extreme, yes.


>Ew...to be honest Barbie, though at one time I had a player with a
character
>that actually did this, I'm not sure what it would be. In all
honesty, I
>would *still* use the essence loss for the extra pair of limbs and
the
>cybertorso modifier would be a requirement purely for the purposes of
such a
>drastic measure of alteration to the overall biomechanics.
>
>Usage of the "secondary limbs" would be at a +2 IMO for ALL actions
with
>those limbs, unless they were being used for something akin to
"bracing" or
>"gripping" onto larger objects (such as perhaps two arms holding a
gun for
>recoil purposes for instance).
>
>Oh, and BTW, for whatever reason, the developing staff apparently
does NOT
>agree with what seems to be a large number of people that "MBW" is an
implant
>akin to "drone interfacing", so you are going to want to consider
perhaps
>another approach here.


Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! Extra limbs?! Yipes, wouldn't that screw around
with the body's natural balance? Can the human brain even comprehend
having four arms? Wait, don't answer that.

Extra limbs...creepy concept. Cool, but whatever Barbie had in mind,
I don't want to run against it...

-----
AK404

http://freespeech.org/ak404/
http://gibbed.com/parasiteve/
ICQ: 2157053

"Just because you win doesn't mean you're right."
Message no. 18
From: Angelkiller 404 angelkiller404@**********.com
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:45:25 -0400
>Ok, following setup:
>
>A character who has 4 arms, equiped with MBW, tactical and the works,
>what would happen WHEN:
>you give it a backback with a sentry gun system, a sensor suit
helmet,
>or take the sensor input from the tactical and link that sentry
system
>to its arms over the MBW, so that the sentry system can control the
>movement of the arms and initiate firing of weapons hold there.
>Prolly link the weapons over smartgun system for the weapon control
>system, not for targeting boni.
>
>Could it be done?
>And what would be the results, game mechanics wise?
>and why?


Of course it can be done. Wanna get really scary? Replace its eyes
with a 360 degree globe with visual capabilities so that it can see
all around itself.

Of course, that's just sick.

-----
AK404

http://freespeech.org/ak404/
http://gibbed.com/parasiteve/
ICQ: 2157053

"Just because you win doesn't mean you're right."
Message no. 19
From: Me bahamut@**.com
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 01:58:57 -0400
<SNIP>>
>
> Of course it can be done. Wanna get really scary? Replace its eyes
> with a 360 degree globe with visual capabilities so that it can see
> all around itself.
>
> Of course, that's just sick.
>

Only problem with this is it would not work the eyes are in the front of
the head if you place a 360 degree globe in the exisiting eye sockets you
are going to be able to see 360 but you still will not see much more then
you curently see or that you would want to see considering your head would
still be a physical solid barrior so when you wanted to look behind you
with your nifty new yes you would either see blackness or your nervs
connecting to the new toys as well as all the nice gorrey details

Just a pleasent thought that came to me at 2:00 a.m. sorry all :)
Message no. 20
From: Frank Pelletier (Trinity) fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 02:29:01 -0400
Me <bahamut@**.com>

> <SNIP>>
> >
> > Of course it can be done. Wanna get really scary? Replace its eyes
> > with a 360 degree globe with visual capabilities so that it can see
> > all around itself.
> >
> > Of course, that's just sick.
> >
>
> Only problem with this is it would not work the eyes are in the front of
> the head if you place a 360 degree globe in the exisiting eye sockets you
> are going to be able to see 360 but you still will not see much more then
> you curently see or that you would want to see considering your head would
> still be a physical solid barrior so when you wanted to look behind you
> with your nifty new yes you would either see blackness or your nervs
> connecting to the new toys as well as all the nice gorrey details
>
> Just a pleasent thought that came to me at 2:00 a.m. sorry all :)
>

Ouch. Use some punctuation, man. :)

First off, I don't think that 360 degree vision orb thing would work. I
think we can assume they wouldn't be placed in eye sockets, since that would
pretty much defeat the whole purpose of having a 360 degree field of view.
:)

Another thing. How would the brain react? Would it actually see? IIRC
(from Biology class), vision works by sending two impulses to the brain,
which it can decode into a three-dimensional view of what is actually seen.
Depth perception and all that shit. Now, a complete 360 degree view would
be pretty two-dimensional, unless two orbs were used. And even then, I
think the brain is not wired to see much more than the 90 or so degrees we
are used to seeing (120 with peripheral vision). How would it react to 360
degrees of info?

Trinity
---------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
"Let them hate me, provided they fear me" - Atreus

Trinity- on the Undernet and EFNet
Message no. 21
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 08:28:35 +0200
Angelkiller 404 wrote:
>
> Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! Extra limbs?! Yipes, wouldn't that screw around
> with the body's natural balance? Can the human brain even comprehend
> having four arms? Wait, don't answer that.

Not a human per see, some genetic weirdo experiment :)
>
> Extra limbs...creepy concept. Cool, but whatever Barbie had in mind,
> I don't want to run against it...

Want a piccy? <g>
>

--
Barbie

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein F¸hrer" - Adolf Hitler

barbie@********.de
http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++
dk sh++++ ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 22
From: Arclight arclight@*********.de
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:08:26 +0200
And finally, Barbie LeVile expressed herself by writing:

<snip>

> I think along the lines of rerouting the actual motion complex of the
> arms from the brain to the sentry system, so she would have to think and
> want to fire at a target, but the actual engement gets done independetly
> by the sentry system.

IMO she would have to just designate the target as long
as at least one arm is controlled by the sentry,

Aur: <designates left subject for removal>
Sen: <fires arms L1 at left guard>

and would have to handle over an arm to the sentry if
she controlled all four before

Aur: <gives sentry control over arms L1 and R1>
Aur: <designates left subject for removal>
Sen: <fires arms L1 at left guard>

> > The benefits could be: treat the sentry as a seperate combatant,
> > with own initiative. It will engage anything moving, as long as
> > you don't enhance it's programming. Auralis can therefore spend
> > her normal initiaive turns for running, own fighting, etc.

<snip>

> But then, why is a sentry system so slow, is it because of the
> mechanical setup? in that case it could react fast in this setup because
> the host itself is faster.

Honestly don't think so. First, even a basic sentry is
lots faster than a normal metahuman, and the speed comes more
from data-processing capabilities than actual servos turning/
elevating the gun. If you are (as always) into superpower-flipmode,
do a experimantal version of the sentry, with softmap integration,
seperate ultrasound sensors to do a 3D-Model of the imediate
surrounding and other techno-gadgets to "explain" 40+4D6 or
whatever you think about :)

--
[arclight@*********.de]<><><><><><>[ICQ14322211]
All suspects are guilty, serious. Otherwise they
wouldn't be suspects, would they?
<><><><[http://www.datahaven.de/arclight]><><><>;
Message no. 23
From: Zixx t_berghoff@*********.netsurf.de
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:48:33 +0200
On 14 Sep 99, at 23:44, Barbie LeVile wrote:

> Zixx wrote:
> >
> > Why do I have the feeling you just aked this to annoy people? ;))
> >
> No, I`m serious

And I wanted to tease you. ;)

Have one HELL of a great day! :)

Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx
ICQ: 9293066

A society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a loaded .45

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:-- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+ w---() O-
M-- PS+(+++) PE- Y+>++ t+(++) 5+ X++
R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++ e>+++++(*)
h! r--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 24
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:14:25 -0700
> Ereskanti@***.com wrote:
> >
>
> > Oh, and BTW, for whatever reason, the developing staff apparently does
NOT
> > agree with what seems to be a large number of people that "MBW" is an
implant
> > akin to "drone interfacing", so you are going to want to consider
perhaps
> > another approach here.

The seeming SOTA is that MBW a single function "hardwired" system, and
very hard to implement, let alone alter. I'm not going to go farther as to
why MBW works how it does and can't externally control the body because 1)
I don't really know 2) I couldn't say if I did 3) I'd probably sound like
an idiot talking around my toes.

> And here i disagree with
> the MBW puts the body in a controled seizure, but how is it controled?
> by the implant since the brain is not equiped for that by itself, so if
> you can interface with the implant you can control how it controls the
> seizures, therefore control movenent of the body or parts of it IMO.
> In the normal version the MBW gets its control impulses from the brain,
> <move me there>
> But why should it be impossible to overide some of that with impulses
> from a different source?
> --
> Barbie

Not impossible, maybe, but unfeasable. Such external routing (and its
resulting functions) might have an inherently high essence cost, so high
that all attempts to create the effect result in death.
Besides, if you turn the MBW to controling limbs with output from an
outside source, what happens to the brain? Its not going to be happy about
that missing feadback. Additionally, I doubt the seizure effect is limited
to the body; all natural seizures have thier origin in the brain, and I
don't see why MBW would not have to expend effort preventing cerebral
incidents. Again, shunting in another source of control would cause
problems in this area. It may not be impossible to control the body
externally with MBW, but you might loose the brain and / or "spirit" doing
it!

Mongoose
Message no. 25
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Munchkin overkill
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:17:10 -0700
> Ok, following setup:
>
> A character who has 4 arms, equiped with MBW, tactical and the works,
> what would happen WHEN:
> you give it a backback with a sentry gun system, a sensor suit helmet,
> or take the sensor input from the tactical and link that sentry system
> to its arms over the MBW, so that the sentry system can control the
> movement of the arms and initiate firing of weapons hold there.
> Prolly link the weapons over smartgun system for the weapon control
> system, not for targeting boni.
>
> Could it be done?

Probably in some fasion, with limited success. It would likely require
more tech (implanted and external) than you mention above, tech that isn't
detailed in SR books.
For example, there's no reason a sentry gun would have any kind out output
that MBW would understand; its pilot rating is designed for a specific
drone structure, not a human body (or arm)! You'd also need various
overide and shunting circuits in the MBW system and the arms, etc.
Similarly, the targeting system a Sentry drone uses is not the same as that
of a smartlink. Its a big old mess, and that means a big old whack of
hardware to sort it all out.
Probably a key componant would be a snakeyes system (and appropriate
battle tac IVIS / FDDM), since its the one thing currently that does allow
fairly free communication with a drone (well, besides a VCR, buit the
snakeyes gives out info, and a VCR doesn't). It probaly wouldn't be enough
in itself (theres still the limb control problem), but it would at least
provide a starting point.

> And what would be the results, game mechanics wise?

Sounds like you know what you want better than people trying to answer the
question would. Since it can't be done directly within game mechanics /
equipment (if it could, why ask) you're going to be guessing as well as
anybody.
I'd say the likely effect would be your extra arms, in total, would have a
pilot rating (and maybe learning pool or whatver else the robot brain and
connected systems granted), and could act (in total) as a "carried" robot
(under appropriate control), if that is what you wanted. This might also
be easy to achive by adding robotic control to an articulate arm (or
tracking mount), for example. But agian, there's no rules for doing so,
even though its not beyond imagining, given the vehicle design, indirect
fire, and other rules.
One result of this would likely be a (big, like 50%) reduction to your
combat pool and quickness, as well as a TN penalty to certain actions,
since you have a good portion of your body mass flailing around
unpredictably without your concious control. Remeber the old penalty for
wearing a gyro-harness? Even if you could compensate for that, you'd be
spending effort compensating, not doing other things, which is basically
the problem to begin with. Another problem might be increased MBW side
effects, due to inconsistant demands / bizare interaction with the brain
(see my other post for more on this).
There should be information in MaM that will make resolving most of the
above questions easier, even if it doesn't specifically adress the issues
and equipment you mention. As Mike said at Gencon, the book was a lot of
work (more than he expected) because most rules were re-considered based
off logical implications of the tech concepts, and with an eye towards how
the affect one another. [I'm paraphrasing; I think his literal words were
more along the lines of "I didn't realize what a mess all this stuff was,
especially when you start using this and that and adding it all to one
body..."] Hopefully, this work will show through, and the book will
provide not only rules, but (through those rules, at least) a clearer
understanding of the "flavor" of the technlogy, its possible ramifications,
and its limits.

Mongoose

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Munchkin overkill, 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!