Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Adam J <adamj@*********.HTML.COM>
Subject: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 23:05:27 -0600
At 21:40 9/3/98 -0700, Wilbur The new adept wrote

> THESE SHOULD BE NPC ONLY...

Why? Why should Anything be NPC only? If a GM thinks he can handle it, more
power to him! Denying something merely because it's powerful, without
justification, is a cop out. If it doesn't fit into your current campaign,
fine, but IMO there is nothing that should be NPC only just because it's
powerful or has the potential for abuse.

-Adam J


-
< TSS Productions down temporarily - New URL Soon! / fro@***.ab.ca >
< ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader / TSA Co-Admin / ICQ# 2350330 >
< FreeRPG & Shadowrun Webring Co-Admin / The Shadowrun Supplemental >
< "Raven loves me! He just bought me a new rubber ducky!" - Lodi >
< TSS : ftp://thor.flashpt.com/pub/srun/ShadowrunSupplemental/pdf >
Message no. 2
From: Rick Musci <Chocobo219@***.COM>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:11:36 EDT
In a message dated 9/3/98 10:07:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
adamj@*********.HTML.COM writes:

> > THESE SHOULD BE NPC ONLY...
>
> Why? Why should Anything be NPC only? If a GM thinks he can handle it, more
> power to him! Denying something merely because it's powerful, without
> justification, is a cop out. If it doesn't fit into your current campaign,
> fine, but IMO there is nothing that should be NPC only just because it's
> powerful or has the potential for abuse.
>
> -Adam J

What we all seem to forget from time to time, is the simple fact that many of
our postings are our personal opinions. So, calm down... its your personal
opinion that nothing should be NPC only. Its Wilbur's that they some should be
limited. People's opinions differ, its a fact of life. So don't fret it.

Steel Katana
Message no. 3
From: Adam J <adamj@*********.HTML.COM>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 23:22:42 -0600
At 01:11 9/4/98 -0400, Rick Musci wrote

>> Why? Why should Anything be NPC only? If a GM thinks he can handle it,
more
>> power to him! Denying something merely because it's powerful, without
>> justification, is a cop out. If it doesn't fit into your current
campaign,
>> fine, but IMO there is nothing that should be NPC only just because it's
>> powerful or has the potential for abuse.

>What we all seem to forget from time to time, is the simple fact that many of
>our postings are our personal opinions. So, calm down... its your personal
>opinion that nothing should be NPC only. Its Wilbur's that they some
should be
>limited. People's opinions differ, its a fact of life. So don't fret it.

I am -perfectly- calm. If people do not state their opinions, what exactly
is the purpose of a discussion list?

He stated his opinion. I stated mine -- I was even thoughtful enough to
isolate it from the rest of the thread, and I clearly stated that it was
IMO only. If he or somebody else wishes to discuss it further, it will be
discussed further.

Trust me, I don't fret over somebody elses gaming style, unless I happen to
be gaming with them, in which case I won't return or ask them back if I
don't wish to play with them.

-Adam J
-
< TSS Productions down temporarily - New URL Soon! / fro@***.ab.ca >
< ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader / TSA Co-Admin / ICQ# 2350330 >
< FreeRPG & Shadowrun Webring Co-Admin / The Shadowrun Supplemental >
< "Raven loves me! He just bought me a new rubber ducky!" - Lodi >
< TSS : ftp://thor.flashpt.com/pub/srun/ShadowrunSupplemental/pdf >
Message no. 4
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 15:32:33 +1000
Adam J writes:
> Why? Why should Anything be NPC only? If a GM thinks he can
> handle it, more
> power to him! Denying something merely because it's powerful, without
> justification, is a cop out. If it doesn't fit into your current
> campaign,
> fine, but IMO there is nothing that should be NPC only just because it's
> powerful or has the potential for abuse.

I beg to differ, Adam... there's no way I'd let my players get, say, a
billion nuyen worth of shares in Renraku, but there are NPCs who would.

Nor would I let a player chose to be the long-lost Troll son of Ehran the
Scribe, but I introduced an NPC like that once.

Nor would I let my players gain access to nuclear missiles, or give them the
Great Ghost Dance, or let them become President of the UCAS.

There's lots of things that are NPC only...

--
************************************************************************
* .--_ # "My opinions may have changed, but not the fact *
* _-0(#)) # that I'm right." -- Old Fortune Saying *
* @__ )/ # *
* )=(===__==,= # Robert Watkins <---> robert.watkins@******.com *
* {}== \--==--`= # *
* ,_) \ # "A friend is someone who watches the same *
* L_===__)=, # TV programs as you" *
************************************************************************
Message no. 5
From: Michael Broadwater <neon@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 01:03:12 -0500
At 03:32 PM 9/4/98 +1000, Robert Watkins wrote:

>I beg to differ, Adam... there's no way I'd let my players get, say, a
>billion nuyen worth of shares in Renraku, but there are NPCs who would.
>
>Nor would I let a player chose to be the long-lost Troll son of Ehran the
>Scribe, but I introduced an NPC like that once.
>
>Nor would I let my players gain access to nuclear missiles, or give them the
>Great Ghost Dance, or let them become President of the UCAS.
>
>There's lots of things that are NPC only...

These are things that you won't let your pc's do, these aren't things that
pc's can't do. It's conceivable that a pc could own a ton of stock in
Renraku (how, I don't know) or become president. It's not something I
would do in my game, but that does not rule out the possibility that it
_can_ be done. Maybe not in your game, but in another. That's why you
shouldn't say that something should be "npc only", because it limits a
game. Not just yours, but mine. If their aree rules for something, why
shouldn't I allow a player to use them? Do you have characters that could
realistically earn a billion nuyen? If so, why wouldn't you let them buy
stock? Do you just not let them buy stock at all? I could allow a pc in
my campaign to be Ehran the Scribe's long lost troll son. Because you say
you wouldn't allow it, does that mean I shouldn't? If I have a character
who has a SIN, why can't I run for UCAS president? Because you won't allow
it? But I'm not in your game. Saying, "I wouldn't allow this in my game"
is different than saying "This should be pc only". In one, you define the
rules for you world, in the other, you define mine. You have no right to
do that.


Mike Broadwater
"Finite game players play within boundaries. Infinite game players play
_with_ boundaries."
- From "Finite and Infinite Games."
Message no. 6
From: "Ratinac, Rand (NSW)" <RRatinac@*****.REDCROSS.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:18:29 +1000
> These are things that you won't let your pc's do, these aren't things
> that
> pc's can't do. It's conceivable that a pc could own a ton of stock in
> Renraku (how, I don't know) or become president. It's not something I
> would do in my game, but that does not rule out the possibility that
> it
> _can_ be done. Maybe not in your game, but in another. That's why
> you
> shouldn't say that something should be "npc only", because it limits a
> game. Not just yours, but mine. If their aree rules for something,
> why
> shouldn't I allow a player to use them? Do you have characters that
> could
> realistically earn a billion nuyen? If so, why wouldn't you let them
> buy
> stock? Do you just not let them buy stock at all? I could allow a pc
> in
> my campaign to be Ehran the Scribe's long lost troll son. Because you
> say
> you wouldn't allow it, does that mean I shouldn't? If I have a
> character
> who has a SIN, why can't I run for UCAS president? Because you won't
> allow
> it? But I'm not in your game. Saying, "I wouldn't allow this in my
> game"
> is different than saying "This should be pc only". In one, you define
> the
> rules for you world, in the other, you define mine. You have no right
> to
> do that.
>
Ummm - actually he has the same right to do that as anyone working for
FASA. If it's his idea, he can set limitations on it. That doesn't mean
that you can't say, okay, within my game, it's allowable - I'm sure
almost every GM does that with published material too. But some things
are outlawed for PCs for a reason. Consider the use of blood magic as
described in Aztlan. FASA most specifically and definitely stated that
there should be no pc blood mages and for good reason, I'd say. Perhaps
some GMs might like exploring that realm of possibility - but your
average GM probably wouldn't. I'm sure that most players would object to
having their friendly neighbourhood spellworm slit his or her throat to
power a spell, wouldn't you?

In all honesty, it should probably say something like, 'this is strongly
recommended to be for NPC use only'. Then the author has given you some
good advice and can rest easy and you can make your own decision on the
matter. You don't have to jump down his throat over what could merely be
poor wording (although probably isn't exactly in this case).

Doc'
Message no. 7
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 16:32:53 +1000
Mike Broadwater writes:
> These are things that you won't let your pc's do, these aren't things that
> pc's can't do. It's conceivable that a pc could own a ton of stock in
> Renraku (how, I don't know) or become president. It's not something I
> would do in my game, but that does not rule out the possibility that it
> _can_ be done. Maybe not in your game, but in another. That's why you
> shouldn't say that something should be "npc only", because it limits a
> game. Not just yours, but mine. If their aree rules for something, why
> shouldn't I allow a player to use them? Do you have characters that could
> realistically earn a billion nuyen? If so, why wouldn't you let them buy
> stock? Do you just not let them buy stock at all? I could allow a pc in
> my campaign to be Ehran the Scribe's long lost troll son. Because you say
> you wouldn't allow it, does that mean I shouldn't? If I have a character
> who has a SIN, why can't I run for UCAS president? Because you
> won't allow
> it? But I'm not in your game. Saying, "I wouldn't allow this in my game"
> is different than saying "This should be pc only". In one, you define the
> rules for you world, in the other, you define mine. You have no right to
> do that.

I wouldn't be limiting anyone's game. If someone introduces a concept, the
concept is invariably for their game only. They may have put a bit of effort
into it to make it more palatable for others as well, but it's still for
their game. They do not force you to use it. They do not force you to use it
as is, should you chose to do so.

By saying "This is NPC only", they are defining the concept as they see fit.
If you choose it use it that way, then that is your choice. But the person
who has presented the concept has not defined your world in any way by
presenting it.

As it says in the main book, these aren't rules, they're guidelines.

(Some points on my examples: I wouldn't _let_ a PC be in a position to earn
a billion nuyen, nor buy the stock if they had it (as that much stock
wouldn't be freely available). I wouldn't let a PC be the long-lost Troll
son of Ehran the Scribe, nor would I allow them any such connection to
famous or infamous people. Such things invariably get munchkinised. While I
would freely allow someone with a SIN to run for president, I wouldn't allow
them to get the sort of political or financial power which would let them
succeed. Further more, if I wrote a game rulebook, I would freely mention
such limits on what players can get.)
Message no. 8
From: Adam J <adamj@*********.HTML.COM>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 07:19:30 -0600
At 15:32 9/4/98 +1000, Robert Watkins wrote

>> fine, but IMO there is nothing that should be NPC only just because it's
>> powerful or has the potential for abuse.
>
>I beg to differ, Adam... there's no way I'd let my players get, say, a
>billion nuyen worth of shares in Renraku, but there are NPCs who would.

That is -entirely- different.

The case I quoted was somewhat along the lines of "You can't be that
because it's too powerful/too open for abuse!"

Your example is "You can't -do- that because it's not feasible!"

>Nor would I let a player chose to be the long-lost Troll son of Ehran the
>Scribe, but I introduced an NPC like that once.

The problem with this as a character is working it in with the other
characters as part of a team. It's just not gonna work..

>Nor would I let my players gain access to nuclear missiles, or give them the
>Great Ghost Dance, or let them become President of the UCAS.

All because most PCs could never ever manage to do such a thing.. (And
there's not enough hours in the day to roleplay everything a president has
to do:)

-Adam J
-
< TSS Productions down temporarily - New URL Soon! / fro@***.ab.ca >
< ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader / TSA Co-Admin / ICQ# 2350330 >
< FreeRPG & Shadowrun Webring Co-Admin / The Shadowrun Supplemental >
< "Raven loves me! He just bought me a new rubber ducky!" - Lodi >
< TSS : ftp://thor.flashpt.com/pub/srun/ShadowrunSupplemental/pdf >
Message no. 9
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:30:14 -0400
On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Adam J wrote:

->Trust me, I don't fret over somebody elses gaming style, unless I happen to
->be gaming with them, in which case I won't return or ask them back if I
->don't wish to play with them.

Ditto that. Even if I get really mad at someone I usually forget
all about it the next day. I'll be like "what're you mad at?" ]:-)

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 10
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:46:54 -0400
On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Michael Broadwater wrote:

->These are things that you won't let your pc's do, these aren't things that
->pc's can't do. It's conceivable that a pc could own a ton of stock in
->Renraku (how, I don't know)

Hmm.... create a shell company in some distant country, start
buying shares through that shell company.... kinda simple, really.

->or become president.

Hmmmm... get a SIN, get a REALLY good lifestyle, become active in
politics while keeping your public image clean (ok, easier said than
done). Become the paragon of good public speaking & leadership, then run
for president in 2068 (since it would take a good PR team and a really
charismatic individual still 8 years to get all this done, barring any
setbacks).

->It's not something I
->would do in my game, but that does not rule out the possibility that it
->_can_ be done. Maybe not in your game, but in another. That's why you
->shouldn't say that something should be "npc only", because it limits a
->game. Not just yours, but mine. If their aree rules for something, why
->shouldn't I allow a player to use them?

You let them use them, then realize they're in WAY over their
heads... like being president. Or owning a lot of stock shares (Renraku
WILL notice someone's buying their shares and want to know why.....).

->Do you have characters that could realistically earn a billion nuyen?

Not a billion, but I've had characters earn ten million in one
month of game time. Making orichalcum with a monstrous karma pool & high
magic rating.... something like 120 units of orichalcum. It was my PC and
I SLOWLY sold off the orichalcum in several countries. My GM
was mightily pissed.

->If so, why wouldn't you let them buy stock? Do you just not let them
->buy stock at all?

I recall in one of the canon books that a runner held stock in all
the major AAA companies, if not just for their stock reports. Corporate
Shadowfiles, if memory serves.

->I could allow a pc in
->my campaign to be Ehran the Scribe's long lost troll son. Because you say
->you wouldn't allow it, does that mean I shouldn't? If I have a character
->who has a SIN, why can't I run for UCAS president? Because you won't allow
->it? But I'm not in your game. Saying, "I wouldn't allow this in my game"
->is different than saying "This should be pc only". In one, you define the
->rules for you world, in the other, you define mine. You have no right to
->do that.

First, I agree with you. That being said, he's right too. Why?
Because neither of you play in the same campaign. Cool huh? And he has
every right to say anything he wants as long as he does not try to enforce
it. True? In America (which I realize not everyone on this list is)
freedom of speech is a double-edged sword: You have the right to say it
until it directly AFFECTS someone else. Perhaps the overall use of the
language was not entirely responsible, but he wasn't rude about it.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 11
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:54:21 -0400
On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Robert Watkins wrote:

->By saying "This is NPC only", they are defining the concept as they see
fit.
->If you choose it use it that way, then that is your choice. But the person
->who has presented the concept has not defined your world in any way by
->presenting it.
->
->As it says in the main book, these aren't rules, they're guidelines.
->
->(Some points on my examples: I wouldn't _let_ a PC be in a position to earn
->a billion nuyen, nor buy the stock if they had it (as that much stock
->wouldn't be freely available). I wouldn't let a PC be the long-lost Troll
->son of Ehran the Scribe, nor would I allow them any such connection to
->famous or infamous people. Such things invariably get munchkinised. While I
->would freely allow someone with a SIN to run for president, I wouldn't allow
->them to get the sort of political or financial power which would let them
->succeed. Further more, if I wrote a game rulebook, I would freely mention
->such limits on what players can get.)

This whole thread can be summed up by something a friend of mine
once told me, mostly paraphrased:
"Opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one, when they put it
in your face it usually stinks, and, if used correctly, they can get rid
of a bunch of shit."
My apologies beforehand if I offended anyone. I couldn't think up
a great way of cleaning that one up and still have the effect come across.
Needless to say, as long as we don't throw our opinions in each other's
faces, we can cut to the chaste and move on.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 12
From: Michael Broadwater <neon@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:09:09 -0500
At 11:46 AM 9/4/98 -0400, David Foster wrote:

> First, I agree with you. That being said, he's right too. Why?
>Because neither of you play in the same campaign.

For those of you scoring at home (or even if you're by yourself), that's
what I said. However, what he was arguing for wasn't "I can do what I want
in my campaign, and you can do what you want in yours." It was "There are
things pc's cannot do, no matter what." Whether he was aware that that was
the side of the argument he choose or not, I don't know. But read
carefully. All you're doing is repeating what I said, and while I
appreciate the support, it really adds nothing to the discussion.

BTW, you're incorrect on one point. I have the right to say what I wish to
say for as long as I want, whether or not it affects you or anyone else.
Whomever is listening to me has the right to stop at any time, of course,
but can't shut me up unless they can stop my medium. I could be kicked off
the list, for instance. But why you brought this up confuses me. So far,
everyone's been pretty calm about things.


Mike Broadwater
Member of the Blackhand, White Wolf's Official Demo Team
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon/
Message no. 13
From: Michael Broadwater <neon@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:15:03 -0500
At 11:54 AM 9/4/98 -0400, David Foster wrote:
> This whole thread can be summed up by something a friend of mine
>once told me, mostly paraphrased:
> "Opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one, when they put it
>in your face it usually stinks, and, if used correctly, they can get rid
>of a bunch of shit."

Excuse me, but who the hell asked you? I have every right to express my
opinion on this list. That's what it's for. The point of the thread has
nothing to do with your overused, adolescent phrase. It's whether or not
someone else has the right to make decisions about another's campaign.
Whether or not an author or anyone else can say "This is NPC only"
legitimately. If we don't discuss things, what's the point of the list?
Why are you here?

> My apologies beforehand if I offended anyone.

Apologizing after you say something is apologizing after the fact, not
beforehand.

>I couldn't think up
>a great way of cleaning that one up and still have the effect come across.

What effect? That you think people should express their opinoins on the list?

>Needless to say, as long as we don't throw our opinions in each other's
>faces, we can cut to the chaste and move on.

No one's been throwing opinions in others faces. We've been stating and
debating them. If you have something to contribute, do so, but don't go
around saying that we shouldn't be discussing. Hell, we may even do some
actual, downright arguing. And afterwards, we'll probably all walk away
with a renewed perspective on the entire thing. But not if someone walks
in and says we shouldn't express our opinoins.
Message no. 14
From: Michael Broadwater <neon@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:20:59 -0500
At 04:18 PM 9/4/98 +1000, Ratinac, Rand (NSW) wrote:
>Ummm - actually he has the same right to do that as anyone working for
>FASA. If it's his idea, he can set limitations on it.

This is true, but he doesn't have the right to tell me that I have to
follow those limitations.

>That doesn't mean
>that you can't say, okay, within my game, it's allowable - I'm sure
>almost every GM does that with published material too.

Then you agree with me. I can do what I wish, and you can do what you wish.

>But some things
>are outlawed for PCs for a reason. Consider the use of blood magic as
>described in Aztlan. FASA most specifically and definitely stated that
>there should be no pc blood mages and for good reason, I'd say. Perhaps
>some GMs might like exploring that realm of possibility - but your
>average GM probably wouldn't.

So what you're saying is, that even if FASA says "npc only" it's not really
true, because their are gm's who would run with something that's been
"outlawed", like blood magic. Or, how about, a character infected with
HMHVV? Those are supposed to be (or were) NPC only. I don't allow it in
my campaign, but that doesn't mean every gm doesn't, or shouldn't.

>I'm sure that most players would object to
>having their friendly neighbourhood spellworm slit his or her throat to
>power a spell, wouldn't you?

Yep. But they'd object to being double crossed by a Johnson. But I let
that happen in my game. Just cause they don't like it doesn't mean I won't
do it.

>In all honesty, it should probably say something like, 'this is strongly
>recommended to be for NPC use only'. Then the author has given you some
>good advice and can rest easy and you can make your own decision on the
>matter.

Exactly. You understand.

>You don't have to jump down his throat over what could merely be
>poor wording (although probably isn't exactly in this case).

Heh...if you think this is me jumping down someone's throat, you are far,
far off. But you do understand my point. Or seem to. You should not make
a statement that limits the role playing in my game. While it may be great
for you, it doesn't necessarily fit with me.


Mike Broadwater
Member of the Blackhand, White Wolf's Official Demo Team
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon/
Message no. 15
From: Michael Broadwater <neon@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:29:40 -0500
At 04:32 PM 9/4/98 +1000, Robert Watkins wrote:

>I wouldn't be limiting anyone's game. If someone introduces a concept, the
>concept is invariably for their game only. They may have put a bit of effort
>into it to make it more palatable for others as well, but it's still for
>their game. They do not force you to use it. They do not force you to use it
>as is, should you chose to do so.
>
>By saying "This is NPC only", they are defining the concept as they see fit.
>If you choose it use it that way, then that is your choice. But the person
>who has presented the concept has not defined your world in any way by
>presenting it.

Wrong. If you say "This is NPC only" then you expect the world to follow.
You may not care if they don't, but you didn't provide it as a guideline to
be changed, you said "NPC only". Not "Recommended only for NPC's".
There's a difference in those statements. One you expect me to follow with
religious fervor, and the other you make a suggestion. FASA starts Sr3 off
by talking about how the rule book is all guidelines, and they can be
changed. They don't say "these are the rules as handed down from upon high."

>As it says in the main book, these aren't rules, they're guidelines.

>(Some points on my examples: I wouldn't _let_ a PC be in a position to earn
>a billion nuyen, nor buy the stock if they had it (as that much stock
>wouldn't be freely available). I wouldn't let a PC be the long-lost Troll
>son of Ehran the Scribe, nor would I allow them any such connection to
>famous or infamous people. Such things invariably get munchkinised.

Only if the gm is weak willed and can't control his players more subtley
than saying "no, you can't do that". The rp'ing potential for any
connection to a powerful/famous individual or tremendous. Not everyone
follows through with them or views them that way though.

>While I
>would freely allow someone with a SIN to run for president, I wouldn't allow
>them to get the sort of political or financial power which would let them
>succeed. Further more, if I wrote a game rulebook, I would freely mention
>such limits on what players can get.)

A question about your last statement. Why? Because you don't like to see
people role play freely? You'd rather limit their imaginations? Do you
think you know a campaign and players better then their gm? By saying
"this can't be done." (something you just argued against) you limit the
game. You set artificial boundaries on someone before they've had a chance
to explore the field. You've made the world smaller and more boring. Why
would you want to do that? Suggest, yes. Limit, never.


Mike Broadwater
Member of the Blackhand, White Wolf's Official Demo Team
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon/
Message no. 16
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 12:50:53 -0400
On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Michael Broadwater wrote:

<I'm running out of adjectives snip>
->BTW, you're incorrect on one point. I have the right to say what I wish to
->say for as long as I want, whether or not it affects you or anyone else.
->Whomever is listening to me has the right to stop at any time, of course,
->but can't shut me up unless they can stop my medium. I could be kicked off
->the list, for instance. But why you brought this up confuses me. So far,
->everyone's been pretty calm about things.

Actually, this is where harassment (normal and sexual) begin.
From a legal standpoint, anyways. I was attempting to divert any
hostilites that may have been going on (hell, you can't always tell with
text) towards myself and then taking it to private EMail where it could
be better difused. Used to do it all the time when I was an op in IRC.
Old habit, I guess. We can stop now.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 17
From: "Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 18:08:08 -0300
Michael Broadwater wrote:
>
> At 11:54 AM 9/4/98 -0400, David Foster wrote:
> > This whole thread can be summed up by something a friend of mine
> >once told me, mostly paraphrased:
> > "Opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one, when they put it
> >in your face it usually stinks, and, if used correctly, they can get rid
> >of a bunch of shit."
>
> Excuse me, but who the hell asked you?


As you said somewhere else, anyone has the right to say anything...
:). Following this line, your statement ("you have no right to do
that"),
would be contradictory.

Bira
Message no. 18
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 21:59:17 -0500
Old stuff alert....

<snip>

>I beg to differ, Adam... there's no way I'd let my players get, say, a
>billion nuyen worth of shares in Renraku, but there are NPCs who would.
>
>Nor would I let a player chose to be the long-lost Troll son of Ehran the
>Scribe, but I introduced an NPC like that once.
>
>Nor would I let my players gain access to nuclear missiles, or give them
the
>Great Ghost Dance, or let them become President of the UCAS.
>
>There's lots of things that are NPC only...

In your campaign, perhaps. But don't confuse what's "NPC Only" in your
campaign with what might or might not be "NPC Only" in someone else's
campaign. As Adam said in his original, if *THE GM CAN HANDLE IT* (emphasis
my own), then there's no reason not to let the player and his character have
the 4,000,000 shares in Renraku (and the board seat to which those shares
would entitle him), for instance. Personally, as a GM, I couldn't contain
the probable munchkin tendencies such a thing would incur, so I don't allow
such a thing, but that's me. I don't project that on other GMs.

And, IMHO, neither should you.

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about NPC "only" (Was Re: Disney's), 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!