Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Robert Schaftlein <robert@****.UTS.EDU.AU>
Subject: New Rule
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 14:01:40 +1000
How do youz like this one?

Your target number for hitting opponents in ranged or melee combat is
reduced by the number of extra goes you have compared to the other person.

eg. Street Sam goes on 23, Mage goes on 18. Street Sam has 3 goes...Mage
has 2. Therefore the Sammy has -1 to all his target numbers to shoot or
hit Mage...

The idea behind this rule is that the faster person has so much more
speed and is able to lay into his opponent who is slower to react and
hence dodge/avoid any attacks the faster person makes.

To the faster person it almost seems like the opponent is going in slow
motion...

- Robert Schaftlein
Message no. 2
From: Dave Stone <dstone@******.DREAMSCAPE.COM>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 00:13:53 -0400
On Mon, 4 Sep 1995, Robert Schaftlein wrote:
> How do youz like this one?
> Your target number for hitting opponents in ranged or melee combat is
> reduced by the number of extra goes you have compared to the other person.
> eg. Street Sam goes on 23, Mage goes on 18. Street Sam has 3 goes...Mage
> has 2. Therefore the Sammy has -1 to all his target numbers to shoot or
> hit Mage...
> The idea behind this rule is that the faster person has so much more
> speed and is able to lay into his opponent who is slower to react and
> hence dodge/avoid any attacks the faster person makes.
> To the faster person it almost seems like the opponent is going in slow
> motion...

Don't like it. The faster person has the advantage of getting to
hit first and more. That's more than enough. Now, if the faster person
got rid of a turn to aim(which is in the rules!), then they'd get a -1 TN
modifier.

Because he's faster, he gets more attacks. If he spend one of
those to aim, he gets a lower TN. Doing both(more attacks and lower TN)
is a little too weighted(and unrealistic, IMNSHO). You either get more
attacks due to speed, or a lower TN(through aiming), not both. Would
imbalance the game.

Dave

| David Stone -- dstone@******.dreamscape.com |
| "Five ride forth, and four return. Above the watchers shall he |
| proclaim himself, bannered across the sky in fire..." |
Message no. 3
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 01:30:28 -0400
> Your target number for hitting opponents in ranged or melee combat is
> reduced by the number of extra goes you have compared to the other person.
>
> [...]
>
> The idea behind this rule is that the faster person has so much more
> speed and is able to lay into his opponent who is slower to react and
> hence dodge/avoid any attacks the faster person makes.

Nope. The faster person already has the advantage of hitting the other
guy one more time. And first. If that's not good enough for him...


Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu| "Suppose Euphoria is a state with
My opinions are my opinions. | 'n' cities..."
Please don't blame anyone else. | - Proof in CS 3158
Message no. 4
From: Kelly Martin <kelly@*******.BLOOMINGTON.IN.US>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 23:47:03 EST5
"Robert" == Robert Schaftlein <robert@****.UTS.EDU.AU> writes:

Robert> How do youz like this one? Your target number for hitting
Robert> opponents in ranged or melee combat is reduced by the number
Robert> of extra goes you have compared to the other person.

Robert> eg. Street Sam goes on 23, Mage goes on 18. Street Sam has 3
Robert> goes...Mage has 2. Therefore the Sammy has -1 to all his
Robert> target numbers to shoot or hit Mage...

Robert> The idea behind this rule is that the faster person has so
Robert> much more speed and is able to lay into his opponent who is
Robert> slower to react and hence dodge/avoid any attacks the faster
Robert> person makes.

Robert> To the faster person it almost seems like the opponent is
Robert> going in slow motion...

ack, no. already players with high initiative have a sizable
advantage; this will make it ridiculous.

have you playtested this yet?

k.
--
kelly martin <kelly@*******.bloomington.in.us>

I could tell by his slurred speech, the heavy glaze over his eyes,
and his inability to stand straight that he was under the influence
of a powerful narcotic. That, or he was a graduate student.
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 10:27:47 +0200
>How do youz like this one?
>
>Your target number for hitting opponents in ranged or melee combat is
>reduced by the number of extra goes you have compared to the other person.
>
>eg. Street Sam goes on 23, Mage goes on 18. Street Sam has 3 goes...Mage
>has 2. Therefore the Sammy has -1 to all his target numbers to shoot or
>hit Mage...

This would only lead to even faster combats (like, 2 seconds compared to 4
now), and apart from that, why (if you look at this logically) would the sam
at 23 have a -1? He can try to hit the mage at 23, wwho thjen can hit back
at 18. It's not like the mage is standing still or that the sam has all his
actions beore the mage can do anything... I wouldn't use this rule myself.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Rechter: "Waarom verbouwde u nederwiet in uw kassen?"
Man: "Probeert u maar eens komkommers te verkopen aan een coffee shop."
-> Unofficial Shadowrun Guru & NERPS Project Leader <-
-----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. 6
From: James Pearley Kilbride <kilbrj@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 17:57:59 -0400
> kelly martin
<kelly@*******.bloomington.in.us>
>
> I could tell by his slurred speech, the heavy glaze over his eyes,
> and his inability to stand straight that he was under the influence
> of a powerful narcotic. That, or he was a graduate student.
>-- End of excerpt from Kelly Martin


Very Nice Kelly. I like this one...

Question for all, I just bought Fields of Fire and the book mentions a skill,
Military Science, I haven't been able to find it, where is it and what are
it's concentrations and specilizations, would military history, with a
tactics concentration, be enough to compensate for it.. Just curios, see ya
all later,

C/4c Kilbride
Message no. 7
From: Kelly Martin <kelly@*******.BLOOMINGTON.IN.US>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 18:22:45 EST5
"James" == James Pearley Kilbride <kilbrj@***.EDU> writes:

James> Question for all, I just bought Fields of Fire and the book
James> mentions a skill, Military Science, I haven't been able to find
James> it, where is it and what are it's concentrations and
James> specilizations, would military history, with a tactics
James> concentration, be enough to compensate for it..

i would consider SRII's "military theory" skill (SRII p.73) to be
equivalent to military science. no concentration or specialization
seems called for, unless circumstances dictate otherwise.

i am less than pleased with the structure of the entire knowledge
skills division, but haven't had the time to redo it and then see if
the rebuilt version is any worse (not to mention that it's not all
that relevant in game terms). it has always amused me that all of the
physical sciences together fall under one skill, while psychology and
sociology are separated top-level skills. trust me, psych and soc are
at least as closely related as physics and chemistry, and definitely
closer than engineering and geology. and the specializations under
computer theory are just plain wrong, imo.

k.
--
kelly martin <kelly@*******.bloomington.in.us>

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed
ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet
be determined to make them otherwise. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Message no. 8
From: Ioannis Pantelidis <jpante@******.COMPULINK.GR>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:36:16 +0300
>
> Question for all, I just bought Fields of Fire and the book mentions a skill,
> Military Science, I haven't been able to find it, where is it and what are
> it's concentrations and specilizations, would military history, with a
> tactics concentration, be enough to compensate for it.. Just curios, see ya
> all later,
I think that they want to say that military science=military theory. or
maybe it is a special skill.
Message no. 9
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 11:16:07 +0200
>it has always amused me that all of the
>physical sciences together fall under one skill

Which is why I require people to Concentrate in Physical Sciences...

>while psychology and sociology are separated top-level skills.

I'll open my mouth on Martin Steffen's behalf here (he's on holiday, but he
asked me this question once): why is History a Concentration of Sociology?

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Some use for knowledge can always be found
-> Unofficial Shadowrun Guru & NERPS Project Leader <-
-----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. 10
From: James Pearley Kilbride <kilbrj@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:50:02 -0400
On Sep 5, 6:22pm, Kelly Martin wrote:
> Subject: Re: New Rule
> "James" == James Pearley Kilbride <kilbrj@***.EDU> writes:
>
> James> Question for all, I just bought Fields of Fire and the book
> James> mentions a skill, Military Science, I haven't been able to find
> James> it, where is it and what are it's concentrations and
> James> specilizations, would military history, with a tactics
> James> concentration, be enough to compensate for it..
>
> i would consider SRII's "military theory" skill (SRII p.73) to be
> equivalent to military science. no concentration or specialization
> seems called for, unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
>
> i am less than pleased with the structure of the entire knowledge
> skills division, but haven't had the time to redo it and then see if
> the rebuilt version is any worse (not to mention that it's not all
> that relevant in game terms). it has always amused me that all of the
> physical sciences together fall under one skill, while psychology and
> sociology are separated top-level skills. trust me, psych and soc are
> at least as closely related as physics and chemistry, and definitely
> closer than engineering and geology. and the specializations under
> computer theory are just plain wrong, imo.
>
> k.
> --
> kelly martin
<kelly@*******.bloomington.in.us>
>
> The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed
> ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
> One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet
> be determined to make them otherwise. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
>-- End of excerpt from Kelly Martin

I will agree with you on the skill structure, but rather than play with
things too much I just leave them. The concentrations do need to be worked
on though and physical sciences is just WAY to broad.. I know because for
ROTC I just had to fill my next four years of courses and I didn't get to
many of the Physical science courses in there and they are VERY varied. But
do what you can with what you have. I would suggest maybe, seperating all
the physical science concentrations into seperate skills and then
concentrationing from there.

See ya later,
c/3c Kilbride
kilbrj@***.edu
Message no. 11
From: Ioannis Pantelidis <jpante@******.COMPULINK.GR>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 18:20:39 +0300
>
> I'll open my mouth on Martin Steffen's behalf here (he's on holiday, but he
because when you study history it is like styding sociology. Sociology in
university has many lessons about the history but it is focused on social
condition. So i think the fasa has very well putted this kind of stuff.
Message no. 12
From: Kelly Martin <kelly@*******.BLOOMINGTON.IN.US>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 12:21:26 EST5
"Ioannis" == Ioannis Pantelidis <jpante@******.COMPULINK.GR> writes:

Ioannis> because when you study history it is like styding sociology.
Ioannis> Sociology in university has many lessons about the history
Ioannis> but it is focused on social condition. So i think the fasa
Ioannis> has very well putted this kind of stuff.

it's my opinion that sociology and psychology should both be
concentrations of a "social science" skill along the concentrations
currently under sociology. the concentrations listed under psych
should instead be specializations.

mathematics is notably absent altogether, as are philosophy, religious
studies, and divinity; i consider these skills highly relevant. maybe
religious studies is a branch of magical theory and divinity branches
of the magical skills (a preacher or pastor generally has a doctor of
divinity; this is what qualifies him to perform church ritual).

the biotech, computer, and electronic skill concentrations seems
jumbled and arbitrary (perhaps this is because i'm a computer
programmer with electronics experience, and my mother is a physician).
medical doctor is a technical degree; the "philosophical" degree
(which would be a knowledge skill) is a Ph.D. in medicine, which is
relatively rare. i would classify the skills of a practical (as
opposed to research) physician as biotech, not as biology.

but, as i've said, i don't have the time to completely redo the skill
category system and test it to make sure it works right, and by and
large it isn't worth it. just griping. :)

k.
--
kelly martin <kelly@*******.bloomington.in.us>

When Elvis Presley died in 1977, there were 37 Elvis impersonators in the
world. Today there are 48,000. If the current trend continues, by the year
2010, one of every three people in the world will be an Elvis impersonator.
-- Michael Legault
Message no. 13
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 18:48:21 +0930
Kelly Martin wrote:
>
> the biotech, computer, and electronic skill concentrations seems
> jumbled and arbitrary (perhaps this is because i'm a computer
> programmer with electronics experience, and my mother is a physician).
> medical doctor is a technical degree; the "philosophical" degree
> (which would be a knowledge skill) is a Ph.D. in medicine, which is
> relatively rare. i would classify the skills of a practical (as
> opposed to research) physician as biotech, not as biology.
>

No... The whole focus of the "skill web" is to list PRACTICAL skills. Ones
characters are likely to want, and likely to use. It's not meant to be
comprehensive, either. That's what special skills are for.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 14
From: Kelly Martin <kelly@*******.BLOOMINGTON.IN.US>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 08:53:54 EST5
"Robert" == Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU> writes:

Robert> No... The whole focus of the "skill web" is to list PRACTICAL
Robert> skills. Ones characters are likely to want, and likely to use.

did you read what i wrote? i was speaking specifically of biotech,
computer, and electronic skills. are you saying that these aren't
practical?

Robert> It's not meant to be comprehensive, either. That's what
Robert> special skills are for.

i'm less bothered by the omissions (which are real simple to fix, you
just stick them in) but by the existing errors.

k.
--
kelly martin <kelly@*******.bloomington.in.us>

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed
ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet
be determined to make them otherwise. -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Message no. 15
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: New Rule
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 23:43:04 +0930
Kelly Martin wrote:
>
> "Robert" == Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU> writes:
>
> Robert> No... The whole focus of the "skill web" is to list PRACTICAL
> Robert> skills. Ones characters are likely to want, and likely to use.
>
> did you read what i wrote? i was speaking specifically of biotech,
> computer, and electronic skills. are you saying that these aren't
> practical?
>
But you then went on to say it should be more general... *shrug* just
trying to clarify the issue

> Robert> It's not meant to be comprehensive, either. That's what
> Robert> special skills are for.
>
> i'm less bothered by the omissions (which are real simple to fix, you
> just stick them in) but by the existing errors.

The errors aren't errors, per se... they are correct, if you keep in mind
the focus of the web.

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 16
From: Gallas William <gallas@**.EC-LYON.FR>
Subject: New rule
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 21:39:58 MET
I propose a new collumn to replace the race collumn.
We should call it BACKGROUND and it will allow you to distribute some points
to virtues and flaws.
I propose those points:
A 10/10
B 5 / 7
C 3 / 5
D 1 / 3
E 0 / 1
The first number is the points you can distribute to get some virtues.
The second number is the max. number of flaw points you can get.

A virtue could be, for exemple:
Metahuman (+3): The character is a metahuman. His attributes are modified by
the race modifiers (he can by this way have attributes above 6). He doesn't
have a 2 points Karma Pool. He can get an allergy to gain some extra points
to distribute in attributes and/or skills.

Please send some virtues and flaws. I'll mail some new ones in the future.

Cobra.
Message no. 17
From: Gallas William <gallas@**.EC-LYON.FR>
Subject: New rule
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 15:10:09 MET
Some other virtue/flaw:

Hunted (var.): The character is hunted by some people. Points gained depend
on the size and the quality of the organization.
Examples:
Gang -1 for Ancients
Hermetic Group -1 to -3
Small Corp. -1
Medium Corp. -2
FBI/CIA -3
Big Corp. -5 (ex. Ares)
Country -5
Tir Tairngire -7
The level of the flaw will give you the threat rating of the opponents.
High levels can be played differently. You can introduce an opponent at each
scession and reduce the threat rating at 3 or less. Or you can make this
danger more rare and take a threat rating equal to the level or higher.

Good perception (+1): The character is good at perceiving with ONE sense,
reducing his difficulty by one.

Reduced Essence (var.): The character has lost somehow a part of his essence.
For every essence point lost, he gains 2 points of flaw. Usual rules of magic
lost are used as usual.

Magic Group (+1): The character knows a magic group in which he could initiate.
The character ISN'T initiate at the beginnig of the game.

Alpha Clinic (+1): The character knows an alpha clinic at the beginning of the
game and can buy alpha materials (be it cyberware or bioware) with normal rules
applying (essence cost reduced and cost augmented).

Beta Clinic (+2): As Alpha Clinic but with a beta clinic.
Message no. 18
From: Gallas William <gallas@**.EC-LYON.FR>
Subject: New rule
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 14:06:59 MET
>Topcat:
>I can't believe people actually complain that C priority for race is too
>much. +3 to your stats, naturally improved vision, and (in the case of
>dwarves and trolls) extra bonus "powers" is only worth maybe D or E? Throw
>in allergies and you get another 1-4 points of skills or stats. I think
>that C is far too lenient and, thusly, prefer the A priority rules. To me,
>a C priority is average. The average person in 205X is not a metahuman. It
>is incredibly rare to see metas (all combined) even at 1/3 of human
>population in cities.

If you want you can give this virtue a +5 or even +7 value (I thought you were
able to do it yourself).

With this new system, the magic priority is the same for metahumans and humans.

>Hate to sound passed by, but just what are thes point adjustments TO? some
>alternative caracter creation system, or to skills/ atributes/ Whatever?

As I said, the first number indicates the number of points you can distribute
into virtues while the second is the MAXIMUM number of points you can get from
your flaws (allowing you to buy more virtues).

Some new virtues/flaws:

Bad perception (-1): The character has some problem to perceive with one of his
senses. Increase T.N. by 1 when dealing with this sense.

Spirit friend (var.): A spirit (surely a free one) is a friend of the character.
This relationship could change during the game if the character acts with it as
with a puppet. Cost of the flaw is equal to the force of the spirit.
(see 2XS SR book to have an example).

No astral perception (-5): The mage is not capable of seeing in astral space nor
in projecting into it. It is caused by a weak magic ability or some psycho-
logical problem. This virtue is only available for mages normally capable of
using astral perception and projection.

Cobra.:-)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about New Rule, 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!