Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: kyle kohler <kkohler@**.UCR.EDU>
Subject: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 17:06:54 -0700
Say Ivy, why so insistent on playing SR by the book? Granted, I
do the same (using the optional rules as I see fit), but there is no
"right" way to play the game. Some of us prefer to go with what is
written while others like to just cut up the rules and use what they
want. I was just curious because I seem to recall you using your own
rules and such a while ago.


Kyle Kohler

Owner of the ever changing .sig
Message no. 2
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 22:31:57 -0700
I have to agree, Ivy. No insult intended, but get off your high horse and
stop bitching avout people using house rules. The first rule of RPG's is
that the rulebook is only a guide.

*******************************************************************************
* See Ya in Shadows * * "Trust No One." *
* Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * The late Deep Throat *
* The Nightstalker * * The X-Files *
*******************************************************************************
Message no. 3
From: kyle kohler <kkohler@**.UCR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 00:06:29 -0700
On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Jason Carter, Nightstalker wrote:

> I have to agree, Ivy. No insult intended, but get off your high horse and
> stop bitching avout people using house rules. The first rule of RPG's is
> that the rulebook is only a guide.
>

Hey, wait a minute. No need to be rude. Ivy was just making a
suggestion that you might find it interesting to play the game as
provided. I just asked about her sudden change of heart because of
curiosity. Perhaps she ran into problems while using her "house rules."
And the first rule of an RPG is to have fun.

Kyle Kohler

Who made a booboo
Message no. 4
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 15:46:06 +1000
Jason Carter, Nightstalker:

> I have to agree, Ivy. No insult intended, but get off your high horse [...]

It may be my fault actually. I have the feeling I may have irritated Ivy in
a private email discussion we've been having about our groups' similarities
and differences in style of play and interpretation of the rules.

luke@*****.mellow
Message no. 5
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 09:35:12 -0700
Well Kyle, it's like this,
SRII is the only game on the market right now that does these things;
On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, kyle kohler wrote:

> Say Ivy, why so insistent on playing SR by the book? Granted, I
> do the same (using the optional rules as I see fit), but there is no
> "right" way to play the game.

Sorry, but there IS a "right way" to play SRII. The rules in the book(s)
are well written and extremely well balanced. The only "right way" to
play SRII is By The Book.

Some of us prefer to go with what is
> written while others like to just cut up the rules and use what they
> want.

If you like to cut up the rules and play what you want, don't call it
SRII. I couldn't care what you do call it, but don't even try to compare
it to the real thing.

1) It actually mirrors "real life" in respects to skills, damages (for
the most part) and actions.

2) It is the only game around that actually balances all the various
effects of technology and magic.

3) It allows the players to play realistic characters, and play them for
a very long time.

4) Those who "cut up the rules and use what they want" are not only
ruining a great set of rules, they are invariably cheating their players.

5) The GM has to work a bit harder in SRII, but the result is a very
realistic game that the GM can take pride in.

I was just curious because I seem to recall you using your own
> rules and such a while ago.
>

The *only* home rules I have ever used are those of doubling the ranges
of most firearms (which I have dropped due to the facts that a. I have to
explain them to my new players. and b. In urban fighting the ranges work
fine) and converting the vehicle speeds from meters per turn to mph and
then back to meters per turn (which I have also dropped because it
complicated things unnecessarily).

The GMs who carve up the rules generally don't understand them, or the
real world, enough to know what they're doing.

Hope that explained my stance. The BTB rules will cover every
eventuality as long as the GM can read english. (I don't know about the
foriegn printings, I've never seen a copy.)

Ivy
Message no. 6
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 12:54:41 -0400
>>>>> "Ivy" == Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG> writes:

>> Say Ivy, why so insistent on playing SR by the book? Granted, I
>> do the same (using the optional rules as I see fit), but there is no
>> "right" way to play the game.

Ivy> Sorry, but there IS a "right way" to play SRII. The rules in the
Ivy> book(s) are well written and extremely well balanced. The only "right
Ivy> way" to play SRII is By The Book.

Ivy, my opinion of you just dropped a peg. The "right way" to play is
whatever works, not "by the book."

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | An it harm none, 'do what thou wilt'
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | shall be the whole of the Law.
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |
Message no. 7
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 11:01:32 -0700
Sorry you agree with the munchkins Jason,

On Thu, 21 Jul 1994, Jason Carter, Nightstalker wrote:

> I have to agree, Ivy. No insult intended, but get off your high horse and
> stop bitching avout people using house rules. The first rule of RPG's is
> that the rulebook is only a guide.

but there hasn't been a suggestion made on this board as yet that doesn't
either make the game safer for the players or cheat the players, or
both. The game works very well as it is written. I say play it that
way, the GM won't find themselves fighting a dying milieu nearly as often
and the players will be happier when they know they aren't being cheated.

Ivy
Message no. 8
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 11:52:25 -0700
Actually Luke, it's not your fault alone. I have played so many different
games that I know which ones work, and which ones don't. And when it
On Fri, 22 Jul 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:

> Jason Carter, Nightstalker:
>
> > I have to agree, Ivy. No insult intended, but get off your high horse [...]
>
> It may be my fault actually. I have the feeling I may have irritated Ivy in
> a private email discussion we've been having about our groups' similarities
> and differences in style of play and interpretation of the rules.

comes to people who think that they can "improve" on the only game around
that works all the time, and believeably at that, I tend to get out of
shape. The things I was writing Hardworld because of are minor nits,
things that I notice simply because of my experience with playing SR for
every day for almost 5 years. In 7 days it will actually be 5 years to
the day, in fact.

SRII completely solved the problems with SRI, and didn't leave any
loopholes behind it. As long as the GM goes by the rules and makes the
players go by them too. There are two problems in SRII, still. One is
their vehicle system, and the other is that their weapon ranges are about
1/2 real-world, but neither of them make a real difference in play. The
vehicle rules wewre written for drama, and the weapon rules are very
accurate for urban fighting, so I have ceased to worry about them.

It simply gripes me to no end to see people who don't really understand
the rules that they have in their hands trying to "improve" the game. I
have seen it all, and done a bit of it in other games, and I know that
bastardising a game winds up with an unplayable mess that both the GM and
the Players will drop long before it is "worn-out". Drop simply because
they aren't getting out of it what is possible.

It just works so much better when the GM takes the time to learn the
ruleset and then puts her effort into challanging the player's
characters. Instead of spending the time trying to find, or figure, out
new and unnecessary rules to handle things that are either handled in the
real rules or are problems only because the GM doesn't understand either
the magic system or the combat system or the decking system.

Believe me, I have had to learn the rules because of my players and their
monster characters. It has been worth it. This game is as good as you
can get. No other publisher even comes close.

Ivy
Message no. 9
From: Matthew McCormick <mcormick@*****.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 13:15:25 -0600
>= Ivy Ryan
> Sorry, but there IS a "right way" to play SRII. The rules in the book(s)
> are well written and extremely well balanced. The only "right way" to
> play SRII is By The Book.

The only right way to play SRII is in a way which is enjoyable to
you and your players. In the case of my campaign, some of the rules in
official SRII are restrictive and to be blunt, rather stupid. So I
changed them and explained them to the players. Since then I have had no
complaints or problems. As long as the GM and the players agree on the
changes, there is nothing wrong with them and, they are just as valuable
as the official rules or the "right way" as you put it.

The Grand Poobah!
Students for War & Oppression
@@@@ @ @ @@@@ Counter productive, highly destructive!
@ @ @@ @ @ @ ---
@@@@ @ @@ @ @ @ Celebrating the occurrences of War &
@ @ @@ @ @ @ Oppression since the dawn of time
@@@@ @@@@ @@@@ -- Even the planets were born in turmoil... --
Message no. 10
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 12:45:55 -0700
Gee Rat, I'm sorry

On Fri, 22 Jul 1994, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:

> >>>>> "Ivy" == Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG> writes:
>
> >> Say Ivy, why so insistent on playing SR by the book? Granted, I
> >> do the same (using the optional rules as I see fit), but there is no
> >> "right" way to play the game.
>
> Ivy> Sorry, but there IS a "right way" to play SRII. The rules in the
> Ivy> book(s) are well written and extremely well balanced. The only "right
> Ivy> way" to play SRII is By The Book.
>
> Ivy, my opinion of you just dropped a peg. The "right way" to play is
> whatever works, not "by the book."

that I've "dropped a peg" but I don't think I'll lose sleep over it. You
just bombed off my screen too, try not to lose any sleep over it. The
rules are written for a reason. This set happens to work. Whatever
works is non-reproducible, the rules aren't.

Sorry 'bout that, Charlie.

Ivy
Message no. 11
From: DAVID M GIRARDOT <dmg5@***.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 23:36:18 -0400
On Fri, 22 Jul 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:

>[...]
> If you like to cut up the rules and play what you want, don't call it
> SRII. I couldn't care what you do call it, but don't even try to compare
> it to the real thing.

I remember Gary Gygax taking a similar stand on the AD&D rules a while
back, with little good result. However, I can't see the point in arguing
that such and such house-rules "are not Shadowrun". If people play them
and are happy, so what?

>
> 1) It actually mirrors "real life" in respects to skills, damages (for
> the most part) and actions.

Not true. As any "simulation" of reality, Shadowrun has many innaccuracies
inherent in the system. (The 'damage track' is one such example.)
Skills in Shadowrun are far-generalized from their prototypes in
real life. Furthermore, Shadowrun deals not at all with natural aptitudes,
indeed, your skills are not at all affected by your attributes. Skills
in Shadowrun are not improved by direct practice, but by an intangible
concept like Karma. Given all of this, one can hardly say that
Shadowun mirrors "real life" in the areas of skills and damages.

>
> 2) It is the only game around that actually balances all the various
> effects of technology and magic.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Balance implies that an
equilibrium is
struck. While the jury is still out on whether your average sammie can
take your average shaman, it is my point of view that because magical
ability can grow with Initiation, magic has more potential than technology.

However, be that as it may, I think you will find there are a great deal
of other "multi-genre" games that have their own equally interesting
approaches to techology and magic: Torg, Gurps, Hero, and Rifts to
name but a few.

>
> 3) It allows the players to play realistic characters, and play them for
> a very long time.

See my comments on your first point for my views on Shadowrun's 'realism'.
Frankly, I don't think realism is the point. Shadowrun provides a very
interesting mix of genres and an equally interesting world to play
in. Whatever its limitations, there is something very compelling, at
least to me, about its strengths.

>
> 4) Those who "cut up the rules and use what they want" are not only
> ruining a great set of rules, they are invariably cheating their players.

Why be satisfied with status quo? Your argument assumes that FASA has
a better idea of how you can play a good RPG than you do. I've known
a lot of GMs and players, many of whom use house rules, who are far
more creative and ingenius in their own games than any games maker could
ever be.

On the other hand, there is a trap in changing rules willy nilly and
on a whim. For one thing, you may annoy your players. For another,
it is easy to regret a hasty and illthought change. Still, that's
the best way to learn. How many other people, when first GMing AD&D,
would hand out randomly-rolled artifacts from the table in the back of
the DMG despite all the warnings in the book not to? I learned the
pointlessness of monty haulism the hard way, as I beleive most others
have too.

>
> 5) The GM has to work a bit harder in SRII, but the result is a very
> realistic game that the GM can take pride in.

Where does "pride" come into it? As in: "My game is more realistic than
yours"?

>
> I was just curious because I seem to recall you using your own
> > rules and such a while ago.
>
> Hope that explained my stance. The BTB rules will cover every
> eventuality as long as the GM can read english. (I don't know about the
> foriegn printings, I've never seen a copy.)

The flavor of the Shadowrun rules, for the most part, favors generality
and "fudging" -- which is something I like about them. However, I think
that insisting that all "real GMs" use the BTB rules is a dangerous stance
because it assumes that none of us have the sense to know what's good
for our games. The nature of the rules in Shadowrun lends itself to
house-interpretations.

I just don't see what the big deal is, I guess.
The rules aren't some divine pedestal that must remain unsullied by
our unskilled hands, they are a foundation (however flawed) to expand
upon.

-- David

---David M Girardot-----dmg5@***.cc.lehigh.edu---dmg@**.com---dmg5@******.edu-
------Documentation Specialist: CorNet Ltd---Freelance Consulting-------------
---EdTech: Lehigh University------Residence: Easton, Pa-----------------------
------"My opinions are my own, even when they don't make any sense."----------
Message no. 12
From: kyle kohler <kkohler@**.UCR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 01:55:59 -0700
Well, I agree that keeping the game as close to the rules as
possible (in my case, playing exactly by the rules) is generally a good
idea. It really depends on the system. I never have had any problems
with the Shadowrun rules. But every role-playing game I've ever read
says somewhere in it's contents, something to the effect of, "If you don't
like a rule, don't use it or change it!"

Two more things Ivy:

1. Is there anything you aren't. I mean, Top Secret
Clearance and a practicing mage? =)

2. Did you get a job from FA$A as "Official Praiser of
Shadowrun II Rules?" =)


Kyle Kohler

Who started something that he's not sure was a good thing
Message no. 13
From: Dylan Northrup <northrup@*****.CAS.USF.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 12:40:14 -0400
On Fri, 22 Jul 1994, DAVID M GIRARDOT wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:
> >[...]
> > If you like to cut up the rules and play what you want, don't call it
> > SRII. I couldn't care what you do call it, but don't even try to compare
> > it to the real thing.

For those of you who also have the first EarthDawn book, DLoH wrote
something that I shall paraphrase (because all my Rp stuff is presently
unavailable for reference).

"If you want to change something in these rules so that it fits how you
want to play the game, go ahead. We won't be knocking on your door to
make sure that you are playing th official version of the game. We
haven't finished with all the ShadowRun people yet."

If you want to play the game your way and still call it SR, go ahead. I
do and heaven knows I don't play by the book!

> Skills in Shadowrun are far-generalized from their prototypes in
> real life. Furthermore, Shadowrun deals not at all with natural aptitudes,
> indeed, your skills are not at all affected by your attributes. Skills
> in Shadowrun are not improved by direct practice, but by an intangible
> concept like Karma. Given all of this, one can hardly say that
> Shadowun mirrors "real life" in the areas of skills and damages.

Karma is meant to represent the real-world use of your skills. In my
game, if someone wants to improve a given skill or attribute really fast,
they can spend game time and game money to train and support themselves.
However, that means no runs (must keep up with your regimen/studies) and
that means that your nuyen flow is always out. Joe Sam may imporve his
firearms skill without having to spend that karma, but look at the money
and real-world experience he has missed out on.

Karma is an abstraction.

> > 3) It allows the players to play realistic characters, and play them for
> > a very long time.
>
> See my comments on your first point for my views on Shadowrun's 'realism'.
> Frankly, I don't think realism is the point. Shadowrun provides a very
> interesting mix of genres and an equally interesting world to play
> in. Whatever its limitations, there is something very compelling, at
> least to me, about its strengths.

If realism were the point, everyone would be role-playing computer system
admins and college students and would be playing scenarios set in present
day. Role Playing is an escape from the every day. If I want realism, I
just pull out my checkbook and start paying bills.

> > 4) Those who "cut up the rules and use what they want" are not only
> > ruining a great set of rules, they are invariably cheating their players.

So a tailor who custom fits an Armani suit to your specifications is
ruining the suit? No, she is making it more comfortable so that it suits
you (pun unintended).

> I just don't see what the big deal is, I guess.
> The rules aren't some divine pedestal that must remain unsullied by
> our unskilled hands, they are a foundation (however flawed) to expand
> upon.

Well said.

*****************************************************************************
* Dylan Northrup <northrup@*****.cas.usf.edu> * I'm not a computer genius *
*********************************************** I just play one in the lab *
* <http://www.cas.usf.edu/dylan.html>; * KIBO# *******************************
* PGP key available via WWW & e-mail * seven * C++ - language or religion? *
*****************************************************************************
Geek Code: GED/S/MU d- h@ s+/ !g p? !au0 a- w(++) v+(--) C+$ US+++ P+>+++
L- 3++ E----(+) N++(+++) K++>++++++ W---(+) M-- !V-- -po+ Y+
t 5++ j++ R(++) G? tv+ b+(++) D+ B--- e*(+) u** h* f+ !n y+

-----------------------
Random Babylon 5 Quote:
-----------------------
"You are not ready for immortality."
-- Ambassador Kosh, "Deathwalker"
Message no. 14
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 09:13:22 -0700
Well, I'm 49 years old,

On Sat, 23 Jul 1994, kyle kohler wrote:

> Two more things Ivy:
>
> 1. Is there anything you aren't. I mean, Top Secret
> Clearance and a practicing mage? =)

and I have really spent my life trying to become a Campbellite "Competent
Woman". I've done a lot of other things too. An Army career gives you a
lot of opportunity.

> 2. Did you get a job from FA$A as "Official Praiser of
> Shadowrun II Rules?" =)

Nah, I wish they would. I have played, or at least read, everything put
out in the wargaming miniatures and rpg fields since they started. Well,
since RPGs started, wargaming is older than I am... ;) I found SRII
through SRI and saw what a great system it was. Yes, you are correct.
SRII does have a few places where they say "IF you don't like these
rules, change them." but as I have said repeatedly, none of the changes
I've seen on this ___ <whatever (I'don' wanna hurt JD's lil' feelin's>
are any improvement. Invariably they mess up the game.

This is the firstb one that really works, so I can't see whay people just
have to mess with it. Kinda like AD&D, why screw around with a good
thing? And even more, why tell other people that your kludge is better
than the designers could have done, when they did it right?

Ivy
Message no. 15
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 10:44:42 -0700
Ivy said:

>>Sorry you agree with the munchkins Jason,

I never agree with Munchkins. Munchkins change the rules to give the players
advantages over the NPC. I'm always against such changes. Any changes/house
rules I support are consistant on both sides of the fence.

>> I have to agree, Ivy. No insult intended, but get off your high horse and
>> stop bitching avout people using house rules. The first rule of RPG's is
>> that the rulebook is only a guide.

>but there hasn't been a suggestion made on this board as yet that doesn't
>either make the game safer for the players or cheat the players, or
>both. The game works very well as it is written. I say play it that
>way, the GM won't find themselves fighting a dying milieu nearly as often
>and the players will be happier when they know they aren't being cheated.

That's your opinion. Other people feel that the changes they institute make
the game more enjoayable for themselves and thier players. Heck, FASA likes
house rules so much that they write and publish them their selves. What do
you think Optional Rules are? What do you think the Lethality adjustment
rules are?

Besides you can only cheat your players by making changes they don't know about
or don't agree with. Heck, some players will feel cheated buy using only the
book rules.

*******************************************************************************
* See Ya in Shadows * * "Trust No One." *
* Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * The late Deep Throat *
* The Nightstalker * * The X-Files *
*******************************************************************************
Message no. 16
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 11:45:40 +1000
Ivy Ryan:

Look, I hope you don't take this mail too personally, because I enjoy our
discussions. But I decided to ease up a little on the politeness in this
mail, to try to make my points a little more concentrated...

Ivy> but there hasn't been a suggestion made on this board as yet that doesn't
Ivy> either make the game safer for the players or cheat the players, or
Ivy> both.

Sorry, I had to laugh when I read this. So, you haven't read a suggestion
on this mailing list that doesn't either make the game _easier_ for the
characters, or _harder_ for them. I'm sure you're right.

(Did you really mean to write that?)

I guess the idea of not allowing mages to see through glass on the astral
plane is an example of cheating the players. And the higher drain codes
for the spells in SR I is another example. Or not allowing astral mages to
manifest.

The thing that I don't understand, is this belief that your game is tougher
on the players, and more realistic. Even if this was true, a 200 Karma pool
sort of balances it out, eh?

> The game works very well as it is written. I say play it that
> way, the GM won't find themselves fighting a dying milieu nearly as often
> and the players will be happier when they know they aren't being cheated.

It works ok, but if you play it by the book, then it's too easy for mage
characters to rape the game. Nothing in our private email has shown me
any way around this. If you have a group of players that don't see how to
do this, well, I guess you're lucky.

I'd also have to take exception to your claims that the rules are well
written. We went through the process recently of checking on how astral
combat works. The facts you need are scattered about all through the
main book and the grimoire. The rules are anecdotal - needed facts appear
at whatever point the writer seemed to be at when he thought of it; the
index is a joke (but that's traditional in RPG rules, it seems). I could
go on.

And as for the magic system being realistic? It bears only a passing
resemblance to the Western magic tradition of the last few hundred years,
and ditto for the Native American. I have no knowledge of `New Age' magic.
Maybe you mean it's like that.

`Realistic magic system' has been said once too often, and seems to be
snowballing as it's repeated. Just thought I'd apply a touch of the
brakes to what appears to be gathering some crazy momentum.

luke

luke
Message no. 17
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 10:21:05 -0700
On Sun, 24 Jul 1994, Jason Carter, Nightstalker wrote:

> Ivy said:
>
> >>Sorry you agree with the munchkins Jason,
>
> I never agree with Munchkins. Munchkins change the rules to give the players
> advantages over the NPC. I'm always against such changes. Any changes/house
> rules I support are consistant on both sides of the fence.

NO house rule gets applied "across the board" in my experience.

> >> I have to agree, Ivy. No insult intended, but get off your high horse and
> >> stop bitching avout people using house rules. The first rule of RPG's is
> >> that the rulebook is only a guide.
>
> >but there hasn't been a suggestion made on this board as yet that doesn't
> >either make the game safer for the players or cheat the players, or
> >both. The game works very well as it is written. I say play it that
> >way, the GM won't find themselves fighting a dying milieu nearly as often
> >and the players will be happier when they know they aren't being cheated.
>
> That's your opinion. Other people feel that the changes they institute make
> the game more enjoayable for themselves and thier players. Heck, FASA likes
> house rules so much that they write and publish them their selves. What do
> you think Optional Rules are? What do you think the Lethality adjustment
> rules are?

At least the Optional rules were written by the people who designed the
game, for purposes they understood and with continuing balance in mind.
Hey, I put a couple of optional rules into Hardworld too. But I checked,
cross-checked and then double-checked first just to make sure that the
options didn't unbalance the game.

Hades, there was just an argument on this list about whether or not the
"More Metahumans" rule was unbalancing. That shows how much
comprehension of the rules really exists.

> Besides you can only cheat your players by making changes they don't know about
> or don't agree with. Heck, some players will feel cheated buy using only the
> book rules.

Yeah, I'm sure that most munchkins feel cheated by having to play by the
rule-book. I've seen it in action for years. It;s one of the character
traits of munchkins in fact. So?

I really never thought that I would find myself defending the concept of
"Playing by the Rules" before. This is really sounding like Alarums and
Excursions back in the 80's. There is a really neat rule-set out, free
even, on this 'net. It's called Fudge. It is just the thing for those
who can't play by the rules of a game. There are no rules past a simple
skill / combat system. Each GM(?) can go ahead and make up their own.
No problems at all.

Ivy
Message no. 18
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 11:09:16 -0700
Hey, I don't take things personally <grin> but I do tend to ripost.

On Mon, 25 Jul 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:

> Ivy Ryan:
>
> Look, I hope you don't take this mail too personally, because I enjoy our
> discussions. But I decided to ease up a little on the politeness in this
> mail, to try to make my points a little more concentrated...
>
> Ivy> but there hasn't been a suggestion made on this board as yet that doesn't
> Ivy> either make the game safer for the players or cheat the players, or
> Ivy> both.
>
> Sorry, I had to laugh when I read this. So, you haven't read a suggestion
> on this mailing list that doesn't either make the game _easier_ for the
> characters, or _harder_ for them. I'm sure you're right.

No, I said "CHEAT" and I meant it. Such as the rule that characters can
have only a Karma Pool of 2 but that they can spend (permanently, I
assume) Good Karma for successes. Sure, they can buy successes (and
without needing to roll at least one success first) which definitely is
GOOD for the Character. BUT They haven't the use of their Karma Pools
which is cheating the Characters. I do hope that's pelucid.

> (Did you really mean to write that?)

As oy can see above, Yes, I did meant to write that.

> I guess the idea of not allowing mages to see through glass on the astral
> plane is an example of cheating the players. And the higher drain codes
> for the spells in SR I is another example. Or not allowing astral mages to
> manifest.

The glass deal, and the manifestation rules are cheats, as is the other
UNLESS you are playing SRI. SRII is a completely different game. The
two are not mixable without really messing the game up.

> The thing that I don't understand, is this belief that your game is tougher
> on the players, and more realistic. Even if this was true, a 200 Karma pool
> sort of balances it out, eh?

Actually, I have players with characters ranging from 1 Karma Pool to 378
Karma Pool. The various characters are offered different jobs, do
different things, and generally don't interact at all. If a 1 Karma Pool
character gets into something designed for characters with 20 Karma Pool
they might survive. If they get into something designed for 50 Karma
Pool characters they're meat. And the big kids (the High Karma Pool
characters) charge way too much to be hired for a junkyen run. The world
has it's variations, and the thermodynamic rule of "the higher the fewer"
really applies.

> > The game works very well as it is written. I say play it that
> > way, the GM won't find themselves fighting a dying milieu nearly as often
> > and the players will be happier when they know they aren't being cheated.

> It works ok, but if you play it by the book, then it's too easy for mage
> characters to rape the game. Nothing in our private email has shown me
> any way around this. If you have a group of players that don't see how to
> do this, well, I guess you're lucky.

Strange, I use the rules I have talked to you about, and I have a player
who will stretch any rule till it screams (Her favorite game is Vampire,
tM) and yet her character is under control. I don't see what your
difficulty is, actually. The rules are there, all that needs to be done
is to enforce them. And having a wiz-kid pop a spell lock is NOT
cheating the character or player.

> I'd also have to take exception to your claims that the rules are well
> written. We went through the process recently of checking on how astral
> combat works. The facts you need are scattered about all through the
> main book and the grimoire. The rules are anecdotal - needed facts appear
> at whatever point the writer seemed to be at when he thought of it; the
> index is a joke (but that's traditional in RPG rules, it seems). I could
> go on.
>
Anecdotal? The entire thing is handled inside of 2 sections on pg. 147
of SRII. If you have an Initiate then you do have to go to the Grimthing
II, Left column, pg.91 but that seems reasonable as initiates are
introduced in the Grimoire. And the rules take you through the
performance step by step, a useful style that I am following in the
writing of Hardworld.

> And as for the magic system being realistic? It bears only a passing
> resemblance to the Western magic tradition of the last few hundred years,
> and ditto for the Native American. I have no knowledge of `New Age' magic.
> Maybe you mean it's like that.

Funny. Really funny. The magic system was written by a hermetic mage,
using the hermetic system, and I, a shamanistic priestess, find the same
rules reasonable and as close as one can really come to putting something
like that into actual words. What "western Traditions" are you referring
to? AD&D?

> `Realistic magic system' has been said once too often, and seems to be
> snowballing as it's repeated. Just thought I'd apply a touch of the
> brakes to what appears to be gathering some crazy momentum.

I still say "REALISTIC" and include the words Magic System. I also feel
that the rest of the game is as realistic as a game can be except for the
vehicle system, and that was purposly made very abstract to avoid getting
the players involved in auto-shadow-dueling instead of role-playing.

Unrealism is a "roll to see if you hit" and "now roll to see how much
damage you did" system. Or a skill system in which you either pass or
you fail. Or a system in which a single pistol shot has no chance to
kill a man. Or a system in which a person with a strength of 14 (SRII
scale) can throw a van! AD&D is even better than any of the ones I
referred to above. And SRII is infinitely better. IF it is played by
the rules.

Ivy
Message no. 19
From: Jason Larke <jlarke@**.ITD.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 17:00:44 -0400
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 1994 10:21:05 PDT, Ivy Ryan
>>>>> <ivyryan@***.ORG> said:

IR> On Sun, 24 Jul 1994, Jason Carter, Nightstalker wrote:
>> Ivy said:

IR> At least the Optional rules were written by the people
IR> who designed the game, for purposes they understood and
IR> with continuing balance in mind. Hey, I put a couple of
IR> optional rules into Hardworld too. But I checked,
IR> cross-checked and then double-checked first just to make
IR> sure that the options didn't unbalance the game.

Ivy, "balance" is in the eye of the beholder. The people who
wrote the game may think it's balanced- but I may disagree,
and since I'm running the game, my opinion is as valid as
their opinion. In the long run, game balance is not a matter
of arithmetic, it's a matter of keeping everyone- the GM and
the players- feeling like their contribution is significant,
while preventing anyone from going over the top. What that
requires is always likely to differ from game to game.

IR> Hades, there was just an argument on this list about
IR> whether or not the "More Metahumans" rule was
IR> unbalancing. That shows how much comprehension of the
IR> rules really exists.

Did it ever occur to you that different people may
have different opinions about where the proper balance is?
I'm starting to get real tired of your constant implications
that the rules are "right" and all the changes to them are
"wrong".

Many times when I cook I leave out one of the
original ingredients and add a few of my own. The fact that
my spaghetti doesn't include onions and does have cayenne
pepper doesn't mean it's not spaghetti, or that it doesn't
taste good. The fact that my SRII game is a little non-stock
doesn't mean I'm not playing Shadowrun.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Jason Larke- jlarke@*****.edu- Computer geek, philosophy major, bassist|
| "Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash, from Army of Darkness |
| I don't speak for anyone except myself, so drop it. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 20
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 10:21:20 +1000
Well, Ivy, we're still disagreeing on lots of things, but I'm sure
that others are tiring of this, and I only have limited time to do
this, so I'll just repsond to a couple of bits:

Ivy> Funny. Really funny. The magic system was written by a hermetic mage,
Ivy> using the hermetic system, and I, a shamanistic priestess, find the same
Ivy> rules reasonable and as close as one can really come to putting something
Ivy> like that into actual words. What "western Traditions" are you
referring
Ivy> to? AD&D?

AD&D? Hee hee. No, I mean the western tradition that you read about -

magic circles, Kabbalism, demon summoning, alchemy, etc. (Even Aleister

Crowley didn't stray _too_ far.) And if you've read much hermetic stuff,
you know that it's open to wild variation and interpretation. Certainly
there's nothing like the instant spells with super-concrete effects that
SR has. Naturally enough, since the magic never clearly worked. If it
did, then you'd have a whole lot of people doing it, and spending money
researching it. (Guess we'll have to wait for the Awakening, eh? :-)

luke> I'd also have to take exception to your claims that the rules are well
luke> written. We went through the process recently of checking on how astral
luke> combat works. The facts you need are scattered about all through the
luke> main book and the grimoire. The rules are anecdotal - needed facts
appear
luke> at whatever point the writer seemed to be at when he thought of it; the
luke> index is a joke (but that's traditional in RPG rules, it seems). I could
luke> go on.

Ivy> Anecdotal? The entire thing is handled inside of 2 sections on pg. 147
Ivy> of SRII. If you have an Initiate then you do have to go to the Grimthing
Ivy> II, Left column, pg.91 but that seems reasonable as initiates are
Ivy> introduced in the Grimoire. And the rules take you through the
Ivy> performance step by step, a useful style that I am following in the
Ivy> writing of Hardworld.

Anecdotal, yes. For instance, in one place it says `this is what applies
for a dual-natured creature', and 50 pages away you find it mentioned that
a manifesting spirit is considered dual natured. There are dozens of
examples like this; not just in the magic system, but all through the rules.

I happen to have a reasonable amount of experience at critiquing and
improving manuals; partly because my wife is a technical writer (in
fact, a good one, which is rare) - but partly just through lots of
practical experience.

As a general rule of thumb, if the writer hasn't bothered to produce a
good index, and the subject is complex, then you can be pretty sure
that the writer doesn't know what he or she should even be _trying_ to
achieve.

FASA would really benefit from hiring a _good_ technical writer to go
over their rule books and fix them. But that is never going to happen.
Almost everyone who knows how to write, believes that they know how
to write well. If you've ever read any computer manuals, VCR manuals,
you'll know that nothing could be further from the truth.

luke
Message no. 21
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 00:52:08 -0500
> Unrealism is a "roll to see if you hit" and "now roll to see how
> much damage you did" system. Or a skill system in which you either
> pass or you fail. Or a system in which a single pistol shot has no
> chance to

Uh...Ivy? The last one here IS impossible in Shadowrun...

It IS impossible to kill someone with a single pistol shot. COMPLETELY
impossible, until FoF came out...now, it's almost impossible to do even serious
damage to someone with a light pistol, for instance...and it is impossible if
the user only has a skill level of 2, and has a combat pool of 1 (I'd still
be scared of a little, dumb guy in a wheelchair with a light pistol...)

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 22
From: Paolo Marcucci <marcucci@***.TS.ASTRO.IT>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book (fwd)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 08:20:01 METDST
[snip]
>
> Many times when I cook I leave out one of the
> original ingredients and add a few of my own. The fact that
> my spaghetti doesn't include onions and does have cayenne
> pepper doesn't mean it's not spaghetti, or that it doesn't
> taste good. The fact that my SRII game is a little non-stock
> doesn't mean I'm not playing Shadowrun.
>
> |Jason Larke- jlarke@*****.edu- Computer geek, philosophy major, bassist|

Onions? Cayenne pepper? Who told you how to cook spaghetti?

The Devil?

:P

Bye, Paolo
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Paolo Marcucci Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste - Italy
marcucci@***.ts.astro.it http://www.oat.ts.astro.it/marcucci/home.html
Message no. 23
From: Neil Smith <NSMITH@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 10:17:41 GMT
>Jason
>
> Many times when I cook I leave out one of the
> original ingredients and add a few of my own. The fact that
> my spaghetti doesn't include onions and does have cayenne
> pepper doesn't mean it's not spaghetti, or that it doesn't
> taste good.

The man makes pasta with onions? This I have to try!

Neil.
Message no. 24
From: "I.M. Legion" <legion@***.SC.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 08:29:34 -0600
Ivy Ryan writes:
> Such as the rule that characters can
> have only a Karma Pool of 2 but that they can spend (permanently, I
> assume) Good Karma for successes. Sure, they can buy successes (and
> without needing to roll at least one success first) which definitely is
> GOOD for the Character. BUT They haven't the use of their Karma Pools
> which is cheating the Characters. I do hope that's pelucid.

My goodness. Forcing your characters to play with low to no karma pools?
We can't have that, now can we? Why, that might induce -- dare I say it --
"Role-Playing!" Someone should put a stop to this! Oh, I see someone
already has!

When our group first started playing Shadowrun (SRI), we threw the karma
pool stuff out the window. Never had anything like it before, so why should
we change our style of play to match a game's idea of character survivability?
Sure the game was much more lethal, sure we killed off more characters than
we retired. But then again, none of us have ever had an AD&D character who
reached a level higher than 25. And any Champions games we played never went
more than two sessions. (If you're not seeing some references to munchkinism,
you should be.)

We do use the karma pool stuff now (both personal and team pools), but we're
all used to actually role-playing situations out instead of just performing
some quick math and figuring out how to get the most successes. Example:
a couple of sessions ago, we found ourselves in Bremerton. One player, playing
a car thief, set out on the street to look for a street doc to help an
injured teammate. He throws his street etiquette and says "OK, I got 3
successes." The GM just looks at him and says, "Fine, now how are you looking
for this street doc? Who, or what kind of people are you going to ask?" This
usually breaks down into a quick discussion of what the character would/could
or should know, and then the outcome is reached, with the number of successes
helping to determine, in the end, if a street doc was found and if so, how good.

--
Legion -- who spent 6 years in the Army and knows that the Signal Corps is
not part of the 'real' Army. They pretend pretty good, but they
just don't quite have it down yet. Damn flag wavers... (signal flags)
Message no. 25
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 08:32:58 -0700
On Mon, 25 Jul 1994, Jason Larke wrote:

> >>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 1994 10:21:05 PDT, Ivy Ryan
> >>>>> <ivyryan@***.ORG> said:
>
> IR> On Sun, 24 Jul 1994, Jason Carter, Nightstalker wrote:
> >> Ivy said:
>
> IR> At least the Optional rules were written by the people
> IR> who designed the game, for purposes they understood and
>
> Ivy, "balance" is in the eye of the beholder. The people who
> wrote the game may think it's balanced- but I may disagree,

Actually your opinion is valid up until you get a player. A player
expects to play by the book he or she bought.

>
> IR> Hades, there was just an argument on this list about
> IR> whether or not the "More Metahumans" rule was
>
> Did it ever occur to you that different people may
> have different opinions about where the proper balance is?
> I'm starting to get real tired of your constant implications
> that the rules are "right" and all the changes to them are
> "wrong".

So?

>
> Many times when I cook I leave out one of the
> original ingredients and add a few of my own. The fact that
> my spaghetti doesn't include onions and does have cayenne
> pepper doesn't mean it's not spaghetti, or that it doesn't
> taste good. The fact that my SRII game is a little non-stock
> doesn't mean I'm not playing Shadowrun.

Ask an Italian cook about that one time, then duck. Or, if he or she is
nice, they will simply give you a sorrowful look and stop talking to
you. There are ways to do everything, and while you may like your
modifications, it still isn't old time spaghetti. It's "Spaghetti ala
Larke" instead. Whole different animal.

Like, when you play Metal Health, do you stay with the rythmn and the
beat, or do you wander off somewhere and then tell everyone "It's Metal
Health, I just "improved" it a bit. But it's the same thing."

Ivy
Message no. 26
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@****.CAIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 11:56:07 -0400
On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, I.M. Legion wrote:

> My goodness. Forcing your characters to play with low to no karma pools?
> We can't have that, now can we? Why, that might induce -- dare I say it --
> "Role-Playing!" Someone should put a stop to this! Oh, I see someone
> already has!
[very good example deleted for space]

That's exactly why I haven't gotten in on this conversation much
so far...you can't force role-playing on people who aren't used to it, as
much as I feel a good dose of _real_ role-playing would help a number of
people on this list. (Not that I don't have the occasional munchkin
tendencies myself, of course -- but at least I know the difference.)
In a RIFTS campaign I was a part of a few years ago, the GM made
photocopies of a very good article from Dragon(tm) magazine about the
importance of role-playing. This came as a shock to me, because less
than a month before he had described role-playing to a new player as
"just like acting, only with rules and dice."
True, he wasn't real far off -- but he then pretty much forced
this new player (who was his girlfriend at the time) to play one of the
more complicated roles -- I think it was a RIFTS vampire. What ended up
happening is that she'd look to him, he'd tell her what to do, she'd get
all the experience and we'd get bored.
Needless to say, in the intervening time I stopped gaming with
the guy, she broke up with him, and we've both pretty much lost contact
with the guy...though she's now one of my closest friends.

/-----------------\
| J.D. Falk | "Remember when you were young?" -Pink Floyd
| jdfalk@****.com | "Ramble on!" -Led Zeppelin
\-----------------/
Message no. 27
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 10:17:04 -0700
Still coming, huh Luke? Ok,

On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:

> Well, Ivy, we're still disagreeing on lots of things, but I'm sure
>
> Ivy> Funny. Really funny. The magic system was written by a hermetic mage,
> Ivy> to? AD&D?
>
> AD&D? Hee hee. No, I mean the western tradition that you read about -
> magic circles, Kabbalism, demon summoning, alchemy, etc. (Even Aleister
> Crowley didn't stray _too_ far.) And if you've read much hermetic stuff,
> you know that it's open to wild variation and interpretation. Certainly
> there's nothing like the instant spells with super-concrete effects that
> SR has. Naturally enough, since the magic never clearly worked. If it
> did, then you'd have a whole lot of people doing it, and spending money
> researching it. (Guess we'll have to wait for the Awakening, eh? :-)

Yep, there are a lot of writings, indeed. The actual roots are pretty
fixed though. And well depicted in SRII. Instead of demons they have
Horrors and Invae, Alchemy is alive and well, and circles too. Summoning
circles used by Mages to call Elementals are an example. Demons aren't
used for obvious reasons (fundies and fools) but a lot is. And if magic
worked it would probably work in exactly that way.

> luke> I'd also have to take exception to your claims that the rules are well
> luke> written. We went through the process recently of checking on how astral
> luke> go on.
>
> Ivy> Anecdotal? The entire thing is handled inside of 2 sections on pg. 147
> Ivy> of SRII. If you have an Initiate then you do have to go to the Grimthing
> Ivy> II, Left column, pg.91 but that seems reasonable as initiates are
> Ivy> introduced in the Grimoire. And the rules take you through the
> Ivy> performance step by step, a useful style that I am following in the
> Ivy> writing of Hardworld.
>
> Anecdotal, yes. For instance, in one place it says `this is what applies
> for a dual-natured creature', and 50 pages away you find it mentioned that
> a manifesting spirit is considered dual natured. There are dozens of
> examples like this; not just in the magic system, but all through the rules.

There is a problem in writing rules. Part of the problem is handled by
telling the GM to read the whole thing first. I didn't expect that to be
a problem because I am familiar with the Spirits and their abilities, but
if you aren't familiar with the books that kinda thing can hurt. I'm
familiar with the game, and I still check the rule-books whenever I
answer a question on the 'net.

> I happen to have a reasonable amount of experience at critiquing and
> improving manuals; partly because my wife is a technical writer (in
> fact, a good one, which is rare) - but partly just through lots of
> practical experience.
>
> As a general rule of thumb, if the writer hasn't bothered to produce a
> good index, and the subject is complex, then you can be pretty sure
> that the writer doesn't know what he or she should even be _trying_ to
> achieve.

Well, I know what I'm trying to achieve, and I haven't even started on
the index as yet. I'm kinda worried about this myself.

> FASA would really benefit from hiring a _good_ technical writer to go
> over their rule books and fix them. But that is never going to happen.
> Almost everyone who knows how to write, believes that they know how
> to write well. If you've ever read any computer manuals, VCR manuals,
> you'll know that nothing could be further from the truth.

So, where do I get a _good_ technical writer to go over my game when I am
living on a retirement check? Hades, where do I find a _good_ technical
writer at all? I know what I'm trying to do, but I don't know _any_
technical writers at all, though I used to write technical papers and
reports for the Army, I am not good at it. But you have a very good
point there, one most people who do games forget. And actually the SRII
index is better than almost every other except AD&D. (They are the best
for technical writing. Thank Gygax, he insisted on it.)

> luke
>
Ivy
Message no. 28
From: Dylan Northrup <northrup@*****.CAS.USF.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 13:06:56 -0400
On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jul 1994, Jason Larke wrote:
> > IR> On Sun, 24 Jul 1994, Jason Carter, Nightstalker wrote:
> > >> Ivy said:
> >
> > IR> At least the Optional rules were written by the people
> > IR> who designed the game, for purposes they understood and
> >
> > Ivy, "balance" is in the eye of the beholder. The people who
> > wrote the game may think it's balanced- but I may disagree,
>
> Actually your opinion is valid up until you get a player. A player
> expects to play by the book he or she bought.

A player expects to play in a manner that is internally consistent. As
long as the rules are clearly stated at the beginning ("We are going to
be using this altered combat system, ok?") and agreed upon, then there is
not a problem.

> > Did it ever occur to you that different people may
> > have different opinions about where the proper balance is?
> > I'm starting to get real tired of your constant implications
> > that the rules are "right" and all the changes to them are
> > "wrong".
>
> So?

So, you sound pompous, self-righteous, and arrogant.

> Ask an Italian cook about that one time, then duck. Or, if he or she is
> nice, they will simply give you a sorrowful look and stop talking to
> you. There are ways to do everything, and while you may like your
> modifications, it still isn't old time spaghetti. It's "Spaghetti ala
> Larke" instead. Whole different animal.

It's tomato sauce with long noodles. Sounds like spaghetti to me.

> Like, when you play Metal Health, do you stay with the rythmn and the
> beat, or do you wander off somewhere and then tell everyone "It's Metal
> Health, I just "improved" it a bit. But it's the same thing."

Ever seen a Neal Young concert? Or Bob Dylan in concert? Those songs
are definitely different than the originals, but are they the same
songs?

*****************************************************************************
* Dylan Northrup <northrup@*****.cas.usf.edu> * PGP and Geek Code available *
*********************************************** via WWW and upon request *
* Will code HTML for food * KIBO #7 * <http://www.cas.usf.edu/dylan.html>; *
*****************************************************************************
-----------------------
Random Babylon 5 Quote:
-----------------------
"You can not run away from your own heart, Susan, not even in space."
-- Rabbi Koslov, "TKO"
Message no. 29
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 10:51:00 -0700
Hello Tim!
Uhh, I'm gonna get a little pedantic here folks, so you all know where
the 'D' key is...

On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Tim Skirvin wrote:

> > Unrealism is a "roll to see if you hit" and "now roll to see how
> > much damage you did" system. Or a skill system in which you either
> > pass or you fail. Or a system in which a single pistol shot has no
> > chance to
>
> Uh...Ivy? The last one here IS impossible in Shadowrun...
>
> It IS impossible to kill someone with a single pistol shot. COMPLETELY
> impossible, until FoF came out...now, it's almost impossible to do even serious
> damage to someone with a light pistol, for instance...and it is impossible if
> the user only has a skill level of 2, and has a combat pool of 1 (I'd still
> be scared of a little, dumb guy in a wheelchair with a light pistol...)

Sorry Tim, but I have to prove you wrong. No hard feelings, I hope.
Incidentially, no-one can have a Combat Pool of 2 unless they are a
congenital idiot. Requires that their Willpower, Intelligence and
Quickness add up to 4, y'see.

Give the average person (Attributes 3, Skills 3, Combat Pool 4) and it is
Hard to kill someone with a Light Pistol. Say they roll their complete
pool and skill (7 dice) against a 4 (short Range) they'll probably get 3
Successes and so do a Serious Wound. OK? Now the wounded guy (another
normal as above) rolls their 3 Body dice and 4 Combat Pool dice and get 1
Success (average) they are left with a Moderate Wound. They are NOT dead.

Incidentially, 96% of the shootings in america leave the victim alive,
and generally seriously wounded. Realistic, like I keep saying SRII is.

Now take your average samurai out of the SRII rulebook with the errata
posted to it (Firearms 5, Combat Pool 7, Karma Pool 1). He shoots the
average man (Attributes 3, Skills 3, Combat Pool 4) with a Light Pistol.
He rolls 12 dice against a 2 and will probably get 10 successes, one
Karma reroll gets him all 12. Mr. average rolls his 7 dice and gets one
(Average) success taking it down to 11 Successes. This is Deadly + 2 and
Mr. Average has at most 20 minutes to live. He is in a very near death
state. Indeed, he isn't dead, quite, but it's close enough I think.


Given a heavy pistol and example 1 leaves the victim Seriously wounded
and D+3 in example two.

This is using the Exceeding the Condition Monitor rule on pg. 111, right
Column in SRII. Close enough for government work, I would say. (The
only weapon Di'mon's normally carries is a Czeska vz/120, and one-shot
kills are normal for her. Of course, she is a bit more experienced than
a starting street samurai too.)

Ivy
Message no. 30
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book (fwd)
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 10:54:42 -0700
Thank you! Paolo, thank you so very

On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Paolo Marcucci wrote:

> [snip]
> >
> > Many times when I cook I leave out one of the
> > original ingredients and add a few of my own. The fact that
>
> Onions? Cayenne pepper? Who told you how to cook spaghetti?
>
> The Devil?
>
> :P
>
> Bye, Paolo

much you wouldn't believe it. I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type.
What a GREAT response! <ROTFL>

Ivy
Message no. 31
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 12:43:34 -0700
Hmmmm,

On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, I.M. Legion wrote:

> Ivy Ryan writes:
> > Such as the rule that characters can
> > have only a Karma Pool of 2 but that they can spend (permanently, I
> > assume) Good Karma for successes. Sure, they can buy successes (and
> > without needing to roll at least one success first) which definitely is
> > GOOD for the Character. BUT They haven't the use of their Karma Pools
> > which is cheating the Characters. I do hope that's pelucid.
>
> My goodness. Forcing your characters to play with low to no karma pools?
> We can't have that, now can we? Why, that might induce -- dare I say it --
> "Role-Playing!" Someone should put a stop to this! Oh, I see someone
> already has!

Role-Playing isn't enforced by no Karma Pools. My players Role Play.
They have to.

> When our group first started playing Shadowrun (SRI), we threw the karma
> pool stuff out the window. Never had anything like it before, so why should
> we change our style of play to match a game's idea of character survivability?
> Sure the game was much more lethal, sure we killed off more characters than
> we retired. But then again, none of us have ever had an AD&D character who
> reached a level higher than 25. And any Champions games we played never went
> more than two sessions. (If you're not seeing some references to munchkinism,
> you should be.)

Yep, sure am seeing it.

> We do use the karma pool stuff now (both personal and team pools), but we're
> all used to actually role-playing situations out instead of just performing
> some quick math and figuring out how to get the most successes. Example:
> a couple of sessions ago, we found ourselves in Bremerton. One player, playing
> a car thief, set out on the street to look for a street doc to help an
> injured teammate. He throws his street etiquette and says "OK, I got 3
> successes." The GM just looks at him and says, "Fine, now how are you
looking
> for this street doc? Who, or what kind of people are you going to ask?" This
> usually breaks down into a quick discussion of what the character would/could
> or should know, and then the outcome is reached, with the number of successes
> helping to determine, in the end, if a street doc was found and if so, how good.

That's exactly the way the game is supposed to run. How I do it myself
in fact. No ideas, no results.

> --
> Legion -- who spent 6 years in the Army and knows that the Signal Corps is
> not part of the 'real' Army. They pretend pretty good, but they
> just don't quite have it down yet. Damn flag wavers... (signal flags)
>
6 years? 6 WHOLE years? Wow, what experience! You might think we
weren't "real army" but we were on the job 365 a year, 24 a day, and we
worked for it. I've been in 4 combat zones (1 twice) and under fire a
few times. And we women weren't even supposed to _see_ combat the whole
time. And, FYI, the only signal flags I ever saw were on my brass.

Ivy <Who has see Tel Aviv from the top of the Golan Heights, The senic
Sinai, Viet-Nam, the Russian Border from the wrong side and T-54's from
60 feet on the Korean DMZ. 20 years of fun, travel and adventure>
Message no. 32
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 20:23:24 -0500
> Incidentially, no-one can have a Combat Pool of 2 unless they are a
> congenital idiot. Requires that their Willpower, Intelligence and

I did say a dumb guy in a wheelchair...

> Incidentially, 96% of the shootings in america leave the victim
> alive, and generally seriously wounded. Realistic, like I keep
> saying SRII is.

Yes. Seriously wounded. Moderate damage is not seriously wounded...

> (Average) success taking it down to 11 Successes. This is Deadly +
> 2 and Mr. Average has at most 20 minutes to live. He is in a very
> near death

There IS no Deadly + 2. That's why this is screwed up. They would
take DEADLY damage, no matter what.

You want realistic? To be realistic, it would have to allow people
to die instantly if someone pulled the trigger of a gun while it was directly
against their head (yes, realistically this won't happen very often). As
it is in the rules, the best that can happen is that they die in (for an
average person) half an hour. I'd say that they were dead right then.

Other things that are screwed up? Anything with hardened armor. No
matter how much armor someone has, there should be a way to kill them. A
weak spot, something. As it is, light pistols can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
to a tank, no matter where they hit. This is also true against cars...and
this just doesn't work. The pistol should do SOMETHING.

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 33
From: Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@*********.CERN.CH>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 10:59:57 +0200
On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:

> Sorry Tim, but I have to prove you wrong. No hard feelings, I hope.
> Incidentially, no-one can have a Combat Pool of 2 unless they are a
> congenital idiot. Requires that their Willpower, Intelligence and
> Quickness add up to 4, y'see.

I don't have my SR book here, but I thought you should round it down...
So 5 should suffice.

> Give the average person (Attributes 3, Skills 3, Combat Pool 4) and it is
> Hard to kill someone with a Light Pistol. Say they roll their complete
> pool and skill (7 dice) against a 4 (short Range) they'll probably get 3
> Successes and so do a Serious Wound. OK? Now the wounded guy (another
> normal as above) rolls their 3 Body dice and 4 Combat Pool dice and get 1
> Success (average) they are left with a Moderate Wound. They are NOT dead.

Now, again... If I remember correctly, you cannot take more dice from
your Combat Pool to your Offensive Test than your skill is. If your skill
is 2, the maximum amount of dice you can take from your combat pool is 2.
That makes four dice, and thus makes it impossible to kill ANYONE, even
if the dice would turn up most favorably (all 4 dice succeed, opponent
gets none. Result is L staged twice upwards, a Serious wound). Okay, you
can of course Call a Shot to the head, but that will make your target
number 8 and the maximum amount of damage D. Which for the average guy
results in 40 minutes of bleeding before permanent death.

I don't know, but if I get shot to the head with a 9mm pistol (which I
imagine a light pistol is), I really wouldn't count on living after that.

> Incidentially, 96% of the shootings in america leave the victim alive,
> and generally seriously wounded. Realistic, like I keep saying SRII is.

This brings another point to my mind. In SR II, if you shoot someone and
give him a Serious Wound, there is no rules in the rulebook to prevent
him from walking around for 5 weeks if he wishes. If someone is Seriously
Wounded (for instance from a shotgun wound), he should bleed to death if
no healing (magical/mundane) is applied. Please someone prove me wrong,
this can't be this stupid...

> This is using the Exceeding the Condition Monitor rule on pg. 111, right

Nonononono... Please someone explain me in NITPICKING DETAIL where is the
rule that allows you to stage damage from ONE SHOT so that it results as
worse than Deadly Wound. I want a clear quote or a line number. There is
a rule that says that you cannot get more damage than D for any given shot.

> Ivy

Janne Jalkanen ///! For those who have to fight for it
jalkanen@******.cern.ch /// ! life has a flavor
Janne.Jalkanen@***.fi \\\/// ! the protected will never understand
-'Keep on going...' \XX/ ! (anonymous, Viet Nam, 1968)
Message no. 34
From: Alexander Borghgraef <Alexander.Borghgraef@***.AC.BE>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 13:32:42 --100
>I don't know, but if I get shot to the head with a 9mm pistol (which I
>imagine a light pistol is), I really wouldn't count on living after that.

I don't think (mm is a light pistol anymore.Light is .22 or .30 IMHO.

>This brings another point to my mind. In SR II, if you shoot someone and
>give him a Serious Wound, there is no rules in the rulebook to prevent
>him from walking around for 5 weeks if he wishes. If someone is Seriously
>Wounded (for instance from a shotgun wound), he should bleed to death if
>no healing (magical/mundane) is applied. Please someone prove me wrong,
>this can't be this stupid...

Not a bad idea
Message no. 35
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 21:51:09 +0000
Somebody writes:

> I don't think 9mm is a light pistol anymore.Light is .22 or .30 IMHO.

We had this discussion when I first came on the list. It was generally
decided that up to 9mm was light, and 9mm to 14mm was heavy. Hold-outs are
still disputed. Obviously there are a few exceptions, 9mm parabellum (sp?) and
magnum rounds were generally not quite in the same catagories as other rounds
of the same calibre.

> >This brings another point to my mind. In SR II, if you shoot someone and
> >give him a Serious Wound, there is no rules in the rulebook to prevent
> >him from walking around for 5 weeks if he wishes. If someone is Seriously
> >Wounded (for instance from a shotgun wound), he should bleed to death if
> >no healing (magical/mundane) is applied. Please someone prove me wrong,
> >this can't be this stupid...
>
> Not a bad idea

Good idea in fact. But most wounds receive at least preliminary (non-healing)
treatment almost immediately, and this is assumed to stop bleeding. If someone
wants to keep on going, for lengthy periods of time without even the basic
treatment, then have 'em bleed to death.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+
Message no. 36
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 22:10:00 +0000
Ivy writes:

> > Legion -- who spent 6 years in the Army and knows that the Signal Corps is
> > not part of the 'real' Army. They pretend pretty good, but they
> > just don't quite have it down yet. Damn flag wavers... (signal flags)
> >
> 6 years? 6 WHOLE years? Wow, what experience! You might think we
> weren't "real army" but we were on the job 365 a year, 24 a day, and we
> worked for it. I've been in 4 combat zones (1 twice) and under fire a
> few times. And we women weren't even supposed to _see_ combat the whole
> time. And, FYI, the only signal flags I ever saw were on my brass.
>
> Ivy <Who has see Tel Aviv from the top of the Golan Heights, The senic
> Sinai, Viet-Nam, the Russian Border from the wrong side and T-54's from
> 60 feet on the Korean DMZ. 20 years of fun, travel and adventure>

Ivy, do you always take everything as a personal attack? I dont think he was
trying to make your experiences seem less valid than his. I feel he was just
having a joke at the signal corps expense. We all know you have experienced
more than almost all of us on the list put together, but hey, it comes with
age, neh? :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+
Message no. 37
From: Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@*********.CERN.CH>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 14:39:07 +0200
On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Somebody writes:
>
> > I don't think 9mm is a light pistol anymore.Light is .22 or .30 IMHO.
>
> We had this discussion when I first came on the list. It was generally
> decided that up to 9mm was light, and 9mm to 14mm was heavy. Hold-outs are
> still disputed. Obviously there are a few exceptions, 9mm parabellum (sp?) and
> magnum rounds were generally not quite in the same catagories as other rounds
> of the same calibre.

(Your spelling is correct.) I always thought that Holdouts are .22LR,
Light Pistols around 9mmP or .45 ACP and Heavy pistols from there up.
*shrug* No point of discussing this again, then... Thanks.

> Good idea in fact. But most wounds receive at least preliminary (non-healing)
> treatment almost immediately, and this is assumed to stop bleeding. If someone
> wants to keep on going, for lengthy periods of time without even the basic
> treatment, then have 'em bleed to death.

How'bout this: Every 10 minutes you get another box of damage whenever you
have an untreated wound (Light wounds excepted, they are too... well...
light ;). A logical continuation of the Physical Overflow rule?

(Still at least 5 weeks without a game of SR... Why are my hands shaking
this much?)

Janne Jalkanen ///! For those who have to fight for it
jalkanen@******.cern.ch /// ! life has a flavor
Janne.Jalkanen@***.fi \\\/// ! the protected will never understand
-'Keep on going...' \XX/ ! (anonymous, Viet Nam, 1968)
Message no. 38
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 23:00:35 +0000
Tim writes:

> Other things that are screwed up? Anything with hardened armor. No
> matter how much armor someone has, there should be a way to kill them. A
> weak spot, something. As it is, light pistols can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
> to a tank, no matter where they hit. This is also true against cars...and
> this just doesn't work. The pistol should do SOMETHING.

Yeah, true, but how 'ya gunna fit it into the existing ruleset? It wouldnt do
a light wound, and thats the least the rules allow.

While we're on the subject of hardened armour... The concensus (sp?) was that
a human wearing hardened armour (ie military class armour) got (armour + bod)
taken from the power of an attack, and got (bod + 1/2armour) to resist. How
'bout if I'm layering my form fitting 3 with my light military armour?

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+
Message no. 39
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 23:25:11 +0000
Janne writes:

> > We had this discussion when I first came on the list. It was generally
> > decided that up to 9mm was light, and 9mm to 14mm was heavy. Hold-outs are
> > still disputed. Obviously there are a few exceptions, 9mm parabellum (sp?) and
> > magnum rounds were generally not quite in the same catagories as other rounds
> > of the same calibre.
>
> (Your spelling is correct.)

Is this unusual for me? Or is it unusual for the list in general? :-)

> I always thought that Holdouts are .22LR, Light Pistols around 9mmP or .45
> ACP and Heavy pistols from there up. *shrug* No point of discussing this
> again, then... Thanks.

Well, I'll just point out that that was the impression I got out of it.
Tommorrow we'll probably see a whole hoard of messages about gun calibres
again. I'd always assumed hold-out to be 22LR as you did, and that a heavy
pistol was 9mm or a .357 type thing (I know, they arent the same [or are
they?]). The bigger heavy pistols (like ruger superwarhawks) I assumed were
the 44's and 45's. This was all soon shown to be incorrect (in the general
agreement). Anyway, we have probably said enough on calibres to start a full
scale calibre disscussion again, so battern down your hatches, we're in for a
rough ride. :-)

> How'bout this: Every 10 minutes you get another box of damage whenever you
> have an untreated wound (Light wounds excepted, they are too... well...
> light ;). A logical continuation of the Physical Overflow rule?

Sounds OK, but what are we going to classify as treatment?

> (Still at least 5 weeks without a game of SR... Why are my hands shaking
> this much?)

he he. I've gone dry for the last 3 months. It really sucks eh? :-(

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+
Message no. 40
From: Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@*********.CERN.CH>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 15:43:38 +0200
On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, Damion Milliken wrote:

> > I always thought that Holdouts are .22LR, Light Pistols around 9mmP or .45
> > ACP and Heavy pistols from there up. *shrug* No point of discussing this
> > again, then... Thanks.
>
> pistol was 9mm or a .357 type thing (I know, they arent the same [or are
> they?]). The bigger heavy pistols (like ruger superwarhawks) I assumed were
> the 44's and 45's. This was all soon shown to be incorrect (in the general
> agreement). Anyway, we have probably said enough on calibres to start a full
> scale calibre disscussion again, so battern down your hatches, we're in for a
> rough ride. :-)

AFAIK, they're not. However, I do have a friend who is very much an
expert in these matters... So maybe I'll just wait to see the discussion :)

> > How'bout this: Every 10 minutes you get another box of damage whenever you
> > have an untreated wound (Light wounds excepted, they are too... well...
> > light ;). A logical continuation of the Physical Overflow rule?
>
> Sounds OK, but what are we going to classify as treatment?

Any BioTech/magical healing roll, whether it succeeded or not. Fumbling
results into an extra box of damage (wasn't there a rule about this?)

(Omigod, I've just breached net.etiquette by having more quoted material
than original... But I am tired and hungry. Forgive me.)

Janne Jalkanen ///! For those who have to fight for it
jalkanen@******.cern.ch /// ! life has a flavor
Janne.Jalkanen@***.fi \\\/// ! the protected will never understand
-'Keep on going...' \XX/ ! (anonymous, Viet Nam, 1968)
Message no. 41
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 11:17:28 -0700
Let's try again...

On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Tim Skirvin wrote:

> > Incidentially, 96% of the shootings in america leave the victim
> > alive, and generally seriously wounded. Realistic, like I keep
> > saying SRII is.
>
> Yes. Seriously wounded. Moderate damage is not seriously wounded...

It'll do for me, a +2 to everything you do is pretty serious.

> > (Average) success taking it down to 11 Successes. This is Deadly +
> > 2 and Mr. Average has at most 20 minutes to live. He is in a very
> > near death
>
> There IS no Deadly + 2. That's why this is screwed up. They would
> take DEADLY damage, no matter what.

You got SRII? If so read page 111, the section headed with Exceeding the
Condition Monitor.

> You want realistic? To be realistic, it would have to allow people
> to die instantly if someone pulled the trigger of a gun while it was directly
> against their head (yes, realistically this won't happen very often).

Actually, this is in the book, (can't find it right now, but it is
there) if you has a gun in someone's face and pull the trigger, They die.

As
> it is in the rules, the best that can happen is that they die in (for an
> average person) half an hour. I'd say that they were dead right then.
>
> Other things that are screwed up? Anything with hardened armor. No
> matter how much armor someone has, there should be a way to kill them. A
> weak spot, something. As it is, light pistols can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
> to a tank, no matter where they hit. This is also true against cars...and
> this just doesn't work. The pistol should do SOMETHING.

Take a .22 and shoot at a tank, or even a car sometime. Or even a .380.
Useless, you're lucky to have the bullet get inside the vehicle on a car,
and you can shoot .50 M2HB's at a tank all day long if you like hearing
ricochets. Won't penetrate at all.

Ivy
Message no. 42
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 12:00:45 -0700
Hi Janne,

On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, Janne Jalkanen wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:
>
> > Sorry Tim, but I have to prove you wrong. No hard feelings, I hope.
> > Incidentially, no-one can have a Combat Pool of 2 unless they are a
> > congenital idiot. Requires that their Willpower, Intelligence and
> > Quickness add up to 4, y'see.
>
> I don't have my SR book here, but I thought you should round it down...
> So 5 should suffice. Yep, a total of 5 gives the same results.
>
> > Give the average person (Attributes 3, Skills 3, Combat Pool 4) and it is
> > Hard to kill someone with a Light Pistol. Say they roll their complete
> > pool and skill (7 dice) against a 4 (short Range) they'll probably get 3
> > Successes and so do a Serious Wound. OK? Now the wounded guy (another
> > normal as above) rolls their 3 Body dice and 4 Combat Pool dice and get 1
> > Success (average) they are left with a Moderate Wound. They are NOT dead.
>
> Now, again... If I remember correctly, you cannot take more dice from
> your Combat Pool to your Offensive Test than your skill is. If your skill
> is 2, the maximum amount of dice you can take from your combat pool is 2.
> That makes four dice, and thus makes it impossible to kill ANYONE, even
> if the dice would turn up most favorably (all 4 dice succeed, opponent
> gets none. Result is L staged twice upwards, a Serious wound). Okay, you
> can of course Call a Shot to the head, but that will make your target
> number 8 and the maximum amount of damage D. Which for the average guy
> results in 40 minutes of bleeding before permanent death.

Yep, you are correct. I was using the maximum, and I shouldn't a' been.
And yes, if you have a skill of 2 you probably can't kill someone with
one shot with a Light pistol... In the game, or in real life either.

> I don't know, but if I get shot to the head with a 9mm pistol (which I
> imagine a light pistol is), I really wouldn't count on living after that.

9mm is a heavy pistol. Re: Browning Max-Power.

> > Incidentially, 96% of the shootings in america leave the victim alive,
> > and generally seriously wounded. Realistic, like I keep saying SRII is.
>
> This brings another point to my mind. In SR II, if you shoot someone and
> give him a Serious Wound, there is no rules in the rulebook to prevent
> him from walking around for 5 weeks if he wishes. If someone is Seriously
> Wounded (for instance from a shotgun wound), he should bleed to death if
> no healing (magical/mundane) is applied. Please someone prove me wrong,
> this can't be this stupid...

Don't take the names of the wound levels that seriously (grin>. Of
course, a +3 to all TNs is pretty bad.

> > This is using the Exceeding the Condition Monitor rule on pg. 111, right
>
> Nonononono... Please someone explain me in NITPICKING DETAIL where is the
> rule that allows you to stage damage from ONE SHOT so that it results as
> worse than Deadly Wound. I want a clear quote or a line number. There is
> a rule that says that you cannot get more damage than D for any given shot.

Page 111 of SRII, R-column: it starts with the words Exceeding the Condition
Monitor. Paragraph 2 is the one you want. starts with; If the Physical
Condition Monitor is exceeded, the character is in trouble... If that
doesn't let you find it, nothing I can do to help ya. In the American
version the section I am talking about is right next to the line where it
says that Deadly is the highest wound level someone can take.

Ivy
Message no. 43
From: "I.M. Legion" <legion@***.SC.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 13:14:52 -0600
Ivy writes:
>
> Take a .22 and shoot at a tank, or even a car sometime. Or even a .380.
> Useless, you're lucky to have the bullet get inside the vehicle on a car,
> and you can shoot .50 M2HB's at a tank all day long if you like hearing
> ricochets. Won't penetrate at all.

*BUT*, the operational capability _can_ be affected. All the periscopes
used to see outside the vehicle are made of glass, which can be damaged
by small arms fire. A small unit (4-5 men) can effectively disable a
tank without firing one round at it. Jam some logs into the rear of the track
by the sprockets or in between the roadwheels; immobile. Spraypaint the
periscopes black; blind. Use a sledgehammer to drive a section of a tree trunk
into the gun tube; ain't gonna fire that puppy. Easy way: one sniper shot
to the doghouse (sight housing on top with daylight/thermal sights) and
the tank is almost crippled in the firepower department.

Oh, BTW... Soviet sabot rounds _will_ bounce off of an M1/M1-A1's armor. :-)

--
Legion
Students for War & Oppression
@@@@ @ @ @@@@ Counter productive, highly destructive!
@ @ @@ @ @ @ ---
@@@@ @ @@ @ @ @ Celebrating the occurrences of War &
@ @ @@ @ @ @ Oppression since the dawn of time
@@@@ @@@@ @@@@ -- Even the planets were born in turmoil... --
Message no. 44
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 12:09:12 -0700
Sorry bout that, folks, I'm a tad touchy right there...

On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Ivy writes:
>
> > > Legion -- who spent 6 years in the Army and knows that the Signal Corps is
> > >
> > 6 years? 6 WHOLE years? Wow, what experience! You might think we
> > weren't "real army" but we were on the job 365 a year, 24 a day, and
we
> >
> > Ivy <Who has see Tel Aviv from the top of the Golan Heights, The senic
>
> Ivy, do you always take everything as a personal attack? I dont think he was
> trying to make your experiences seem less valid than his. I feel he was just
> having a joke at the signal corps expense. We all know you have experienced
> more than almost all of us on the list put together, but hey, it comes with
> age, neh? :-)

Yer prob'ly right Damion. I just get my back up when some 'pounder
slangs the Signal. Like, his ammo, food, supplies, medics and support
all have to get their word through us. You can't run a war without the
signal, and I have taken a lot of heat over the years from Treads and
'pounders who thought that we were a waste of time. Jokes? Not really,
the line always thinks we sluffed it, no matter where or when.

Ivy
Message no. 45
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 16:47:47 -0500
> It'll do for me, a +2 to everything you do is pretty serious.

SERIOUS is serious.

> You got SRII? If so read page 111, the section headed with
> Exceeding the Condition Monitor.

Just looked. It's impossible to go over D damage in one hit, unless
you're using FoF. That's all there is to it.

You can exceed the condition modifier, sure, but NOT IN ONE HIT.

> there) if you has a gun in someone's face and pull the trigger,
> They die.

Nice rule, wouldn't you think?

> Useless, you're lucky to have the bullet get inside the vehicle on
> a car, and you can shoot .50 M2HB's at a tank all day long if you
> like hearing ricochets. Won't penetrate at all.

From underneat? How about from above? There are always going to be
weak spots on any tank...and certainly on cars. It will be possible to do
damage with any weapon, no matter how unlikely.

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 46
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 16:50:27 -0500
> And yes, if you have a skill of 2 you probably can't kill someone
> with one shot with a Light pistol... In the game, or in real life
> either.

Exactly...but I'd be scared of ANYONE pointing a gun at me.

Their skill doesn't matter if they hit you in the heart.

> Condition Monitor is exceeded, the character is in trouble... If
> that

But the condition monitor can't be exceeded in one hit...

> That's why I use the Intelligence + Initiation + 1d6 instead of
> Intelligence x 2 etc.

(This is from the last message)

Ivy...what? A HOUSE RULE?

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 47
From: Hamish Laws <h_laws@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 08:53:12 +0700
Tim Skirvin writes

>> Incidentially, no-one can have a Combat Pool of 2 unless they are a
>> congenital idiot. Requires that their Willpower, Intelligence and

Is that Dan Quayle level?

>
SNIP
>
> You want realistic? To be realistic, it would have to allow people
>to die instantly if someone pulled the trigger of a gun while it was directly
>against their head (yes, realistically this won't happen very often). As
>it is in the rules, the best that can happen is that they die in (for an
>average person) half an hour. I'd say that they were dead right then.

Other times they survive and, I have heard from professional health
workers, occaisionally remain concious.

>
> Other things that are screwed up? Anything with hardened armor. No
>matter how much armor someone has, there should be a way to kill them. A
>weak spot, something. As it is, light pistols can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
>to a tank, no matter where they hit

Uh, If the hatch is sealed I would have thought that this is
completely accurate. Mind you I do not have military experience and know
relatively little about tanks.


*************************************************
There has to be an optimist around here somewhere
*************************************************

Hamish Laws
Message no. 48
From: Chris Siebenmann <cks@********.UTCS.TORONTO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 21:01:38 -0400
Rules are many things.

One of the things they are is a compact agreement between the GM
and the players as to what the characters can and can't do, and how
well; they provide predictability, and encode a large amount of
writing. They fail when people aren't agreeing to the same thing,
either because of a difference in interpretation or because of
changes not known to everyone.

Another of the things they are is an attempt to (re)create the
feel of a genre. The important question is not 'is this realistic',
but 'is this genre'; and the important question for people using
them is 'am I interested in this genre?'

If a rulesystem produces a genre that is close to what you want,
modification of it is easier than starting from scratch.

The genre that FASA attempts to present through their Shadowrun
products is not consistent, and when it is consistent it's not to
everyone's liking; it's certainly not entirely to mine, and I choose
interpretations and make modifications to adjust it to my tastes.

People proposing rules interpretations or modifications could do worse
than to sit back and think 'what will the effect on the genre be?' And
then include your opinions on the genre change along with the rules
change.

- cks
[Please send any replies you want me to read by private mail; I'm likely
to skip this subject in my SHADOWRN mail. Yes, this is arrogant of me.]
Message no. 49
From: Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@*********.CERN.CH>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 10:18:16 +0200
On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:

> Yep, you are correct. I was using the maximum, and I shouldn't a' been.
> And yes, if you have a skill of 2 you probably can't kill someone with
^^^^^^^^
> one shot with a Light pistol... In the game, or in real life either.

No, discard that 'probably'. It is *impossible* to kill anyone with a light
pistol, unless you get extra dice from your Karma pool. Rerolls don't
help now.

In real life, you could always get lucky and hit someone in a vital place
like heart, major arteries, spinal cord, etc.

> 9mm is a heavy pistol. Re: Browning Max-Power.

Erm. When I said 9mm I meant 9mmP, which really shouldn't be a heavy
caliber. As everyone knows, the caliber is not the only thing that
matters, you need to know how big the shell is (length) and how much
powder is packed into it. That Browning Max-Power can be anything whose
bullet measures 9mm in diameter (crude approximation). How about 9mmx53?
That'd put it in heavy assault rifle category...

> > This brings another point to my mind. In SR II, if you shoot someone and
> > give him a Serious Wound, there is no rules in the rulebook to prevent
> > him from walking around for 5 weeks if he wishes. If someone is Seriously
> > Wounded (for instance from a shotgun wound), he should bleed to death if
> > no healing (magical/mundane) is applied. Please someone prove me wrong,
> > this can't be this stupid...
>
> Don't take the names of the wound levels that seriously (grin>. Of
> course, a +3 to all TNs is pretty bad.

Yes, but the fact that he can run around five weeks with just +3 to all
target numbers is not pretty bad. It stinks. And most people I know tend
to bleed when shot at. Shouldn't they bleed more (and eventually to their
deaths) unless treated somehow instead of just having a +3 to target numbers.

> Page 111 of SRII, R-column: it starts with the words Exceeding the Condition
> Monitor. Paragraph 2 is the one you want. starts with; If the Physical
> Condition Monitor is exceeded, the character is in trouble... If that
> doesn't let you find it, nothing I can do to help ya. In the American
> version the section I am talking about is right next to the line where it
> says that Deadly is the highest wound level someone can take.

I am playing with the American version (SR II, hardcover) and I cannot
find such a rule anywhere. It does not say you can stage from 10 boxes
(D) upwards. It only says that overflow damage is possible when you get
TWO different wounds so that their added damage goes over 10 boxes.

There is no such rule. Just out of interest, how does the
'Insta-Kill(tm)' rule in FoF go? I haven't even SEEN FoF yet... Is it
worth getting?

> Ivy

Janne Jalkanen ///! For those who have to fight for it
jalkanen@******.cern.ch /// ! life has a flavor
Janne.Jalkanen@***.fi \\\/// ! the protected will never understand
-'Keep on going...' \XX/ ! (anonymous, Viet Nam, 1968)
Message no. 50
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 19:55:23 +0000
Janne writes:

> > Sounds OK, but what are we going to classify as treatment?
>
> Any BioTech/magical healing roll, whether it succeeded or not. Fumbling
> results into an extra box of damage (wasn't there a rule about this?)

That sounds good. I dont think there was any rule anywhere about taking an
extra box of damage if you rolled all ones though. It is a catastrophic
failure, and the exact outcome is up to the GM. An extra box of damage is
about right though, except for spells, I think they just give the caster +2
to his drain test (I dunno if thats a rule or a GM ruling though).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+
Message no. 51
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 20:06:25 +0000
Ivy writes:

> > You want realistic? To be realistic, it would have to allow people
> > to die instantly if someone pulled the trigger of a gun while it was directly
> > against their head (yes, realistically this won't happen very often).
>
> Actually, this is in the book, (can't find it right now, but it is
> there) if you has a gun in someone's face and pull the trigger, They die.

Yeah, it mentions something about diving on grenades somewhere, and it says
something akin to "player dies". A GM ruling. I would say the same with
gunshots directky to the head (although people have been known to survive...).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+
Message no. 52
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 20:34:37 +0000
The Official Praiser of SRII Rules writes:

> 9mm is a heavy pistol. Re: Browning Max-Power.

It says the Max-Power is a 9mm? Where?

> Page 111 of SRII, R-column: it starts with the words Exceeding the Condition
> Monitor. Paragraph 2 is the one you want. starts with; If the Physical
> Condition Monitor is exceeded, the character is in trouble... If that
> doesn't let you find it, nothing I can do to help ya. In the American
> version the section I am talking about is right next to the line where it
> says that Deadly is the highest wound level someone can take.

Yeah, this is about the fifth time I've read it, and I cannot see any way to
interpret it so that you can dish out more than deadly damage with a single
hit. Thats what the new FoF rule allows. The only way to go over 10 boxes of
damage in SRII was to get hit multiple times, like for two serious wounds, 6
boxes, then 6 boxes, makes for 10 boxes, and 2 overflow. Even if (by the SRII
main book) I hit with an assault cannon, get 12 successes, and the enemy gets
none, I still only do 10 boxes of damage.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+
Message no. 53
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@******.UOW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 20:37:50 +0000
Legion writes:

> *BUT*, the operational capability _can_ be affected. All the periscopes
> used to see outside the vehicle are made of glass, which can be damaged
> by small arms fire. A small unit (4-5 men) can effectively disable a...

Yep, its called "Calling a Shot". The GM resolves what occurs. It also says
this is the only way for weapons rated as light to actually damage a vehicle.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-Mail: u9467882@******.uow.edu.au

(Geek Code 2.1) GE d@ H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v C+ U P? !L !3 E? N K- W+ M
!V po@ Y t(+) !5 !j r+(++) G(+) !tv(--) b++ D+ B? e+ u@ h+(*)
f+@ !r n--(----)@ !y+
Message no. 54
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 09:34:05 -0700
A light pistol shouldn't affect a tank, because, well, it can't.
Let's take a pistol firing 9x19mm Parabellum ammo, about 15mm of
steel penetration, and since you have most components of a tank being
thicker than that the pistol simply isn't going to do anything. Period.
Of course, you *might* shoot away an antenna, or if the driver
happens to be sticking his head out of the hatch, the bullet will
ricochet off the coaming and straight into his jaw, but other than that
you're outta luck.
Just like you can't fly by flapping you're wings real hard and
praying. Physics works, after all.
(Now if we could only get Causality nailed down good and proper.)

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 55
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 10:08:02 -0700
OK, I ain't a Tread. If you say that small arms will cripple a tank, you
have the experience.

On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, I.M. Legion wrote:

> Ivy writes:
> >
> > Take a .22 and shoot at a tank, or even a car sometime. Or even a .380.
> > Useless, you're lucky to have the bullet get inside the vehicle on a car,
> > and you can shoot .50 M2HB's at a tank all day long if you like hearing
> > ricochets. Won't penetrate at all.
>
> *BUT*, the operational capability _can_ be affected. All the periscopes
> used to see outside the vehicle are made of glass, which can be damaged
> by small arms fire. A small unit (4-5 men) can effectively disable a
> tank without firing one round at it. Jam some logs into the rear of the track
> by the sprockets or in between the roadwheels; immobile. Spraypaint the
> periscopes black; blind. Use a sledgehammer to drive a section of a tree trunk
> into the gun tube; ain't gonna fire that puppy. Easy way: one sniper shot
> to the doghouse (sight housing on top with daylight/thermal sights) and
> the tank is almost crippled in the firepower department.

But tree-trunks into the treads and the barrel aren't exactly like
shooting it with a Light Pistol. And that "Doghouse" isn't such a good
target either. There are ways to criple a tank without heavy weapons,
but they are called "Desperation Moves" for a reason.

> Oh, BTW... Soviet sabot rounds _will_ bounce off of an M1/M1-A1's armor. :-)

Yeah, I know. I just kinda wonder how many people have any idea of the
kinetic energy behind that round, and the several orders of magnitude of
difference between it and a .380 (9mm Kurz) Light Pistol round.

Ivy
Message no. 56
From: Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@*********.CERN.CH>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 19:28:06 +0200
On Thu, 28 Jul 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:

> OK, I ain't a Tread. If you say that small arms will cripple a tank, you
> have the experience.

Small arms crippling a tank... No thanks. Maybe if you manage to find an
open hatch and fire inside ;->

> But tree-trunks into the treads and the barrel aren't exactly like
> shooting it with a Light Pistol. And that "Doghouse" isn't such a good
> target either. There are ways to criple a tank without heavy weapons,
> but they are called "Desperation Moves" for a reason.

The good ol' Molotov Coctail, eh ;-)

> > Oh, BTW... Soviet sabot rounds _will_ bounce off of an M1/M1-A1's armor. :-)
>
> Yeah, I know. I just kinda wonder how many people have any idea of the
> kinetic energy behind that round, and the several orders of magnitude of
> difference between it and a .380 (9mm Kurz) Light Pistol round.

Okay, so 9mm is now Light pistol... ;) Anyway, has anyone ACTUAL
experience of being inside a tank while a cannon round explodes on the
surface? It may not penetrate the armor, but wouldn't the men (or women
:) inside still feel the shock/hear the explosion/become jello? I mean,
the kinetic energy (and also the force of the charge) are somewhat big...
There must be /some/ effect from it for the people inside. So, after a
couple of close rounds, they will probably be blind and deaf for a few
moments. I hope.

As I said, anyone with experience to answer the question?

> Ivy

Janne Jalkanen ///! For those who have to fight for it
jalkanen@******.cern.ch /// ! life has a flavor
Janne.Jalkanen@***.fi \\\/// ! the protected will never understand
-'Keep on going...' \XX/ ! (anonymous, Viet Nam, 1968)
Message no. 57
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 10:30:30 -0700
Hoi Tim,
Well, It looks to me that we are in another of those
On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, Tim Skirvin wrote:

> > It'll do for me, a +2 to everything you do is pretty serious.
>
> SERIOUS is serious.

I don't think you've ever been shot. It's serious, even if the SRII
rulebook calls it a Moderate wound.

> > You got SRII? If so read page 111, the section headed with
> > Exceeding the Condition Monitor.
>
> Just looked. It's impossible to go over D damage in one hit, unless
> you're using FoF. That's all there is to it.
>
> You can exceed the condition modifier, sure, but NOT IN ONE HIT.

OK, I went back and reread it, and the entry in the FOF, and y'know
what? You're (and everyone else who has been saying the same thing)
correct. So, I guess I do have a "House Rule" after all. (I've read
that section 20 times, and I still didn't get that one <Done to keep the
characters alive, Dowd says...>)

> > there) if you has a gun in someone's face and pull the trigger,
> > They die.
>
> Nice rule, wouldn't you think?
>
Yeah, and I found it this morning. Problem is, it actually came from a
conversation on GEnie back in 1990. I was asking them why SRI was so
wimpy, and Tom Dowd told me that one. Oh, well. (Guess I have 2 "House
Rules")

> > Useless, you're lucky to have the bullet get inside the vehicle on
> > a car, and you can shoot .50 M2HB's at a tank all day long if you
> > like hearing ricochets. Won't penetrate at all.
>
> From underneat? How about from above? There are always going to be
> weak spots on any tank...and certainly on cars. It will be possible to do
> damage with any weapon, no matter how unlikely.

Sorry Tim, I guess life is unlikely. It sure is unfair. Normal cars
have about 1 1/2" inch of batting, foam and plastic, plus the metal body,
between the top and the inside, the underneath has about 3/4" of sound
deadening material (And how do you shoot at the bottom?) and that
stuff'll stop Light Pistol bullets cold. But that's life. As for tanks,
I have a buddy who was in Armor for 18 years. He's seen a couple of
vision blocks cracked (Not useless, just cracked) over the years. Crazy
people might try the log trick Legion talked about (maybe, if they're
REALLY nutz) so that leaves you with the designed in weakness on the M1,
the "doghouse". Somehow I don't think an M16 will do much to it. Light
Pistol? Forget it.

Ivy
Message no. 58
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 10:31:57 -0700
No, That one is in the Grimoire II

On Wed, 27 Jul 1994, Tim Skirvin wrote:
>
> > That's why I use the Intelligence + Initiation + 1d6 instead of
> > Intelligence x 2 etc.
>
> (This is from the last message)
>
> Ivy...what? A HOUSE RULE?

Ivy
Message no. 59
From: "I.M. Legion" <legion@***.SC.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 13:12:45 -0600
Ivy writes:
>
> OK, I ain't a Tread. If you say that small arms will cripple a tank, you
> have the experience.

Not necessarily cripple, but hinder operation. (BTW, it's "tread head" :-)

> But tree-trunks into the treads and the barrel aren't exactly like
> shooting it with a Light Pistol. And that "Doghouse" isn't such a good
> target either. There are ways to criple a tank without heavy weapons,
> but they are called "Desperation Moves" for a reason.

True, but if you're close enough to shoot at a tank with a light pistol
it would probably be more effective to climb up on it or shove something
in the track to immobilize it. This is all very dependant on terrain of course.
And all very desperate, cuz you're about to get turned into track grease.
And hopefully the tank doesn't have a close-in personal defense system.

> > Oh, BTW... Soviet sabot rounds _will_ bounce off of an M1/M1-A1's armor. :-)
>
> Yeah, I know. I just kinda wonder how many people have any idea of the
> kinetic energy behind that round, and the several orders of magnitude of
> difference between it and a .380 (9mm Kurz) Light Pistol round.

My XO and I sat down once and figured out the impact from a 105mm sabot round
once. It came to around 60 tons (english) per square inch; which happens to
be about the same amount of area the penetrator hits with. That's with the
Tungsten penetrator; the 120mm has a DU penetrator and flies a bit faster.

--
Legion
Message no. 60
From: "I.M. Legion" <legion@***.SC.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 13:23:36 -0600
Ivy writes:
> Crazy people might try the log trick Legion talked about (maybe, if they're
> REALLY nutz) so that leaves you with the designed in weakness on the M1,
> the "doghouse". Somehow I don't think an M16 will do much to it. Light
> Pistol? Forget it.

I heard about this trick from my buddy who was in the 3rd Ranger Battallion
for four years. He _is_ "REALLY nutz".

And the doghouse is actually the covering for the top of the Gunner's Primary
Sight (GPS). There are two lenses, one for daylight and one for the Thermal
Imaging System (TIS). I've seen a TIS lense shatter from overpressurization
of the coolant system. That glass is _quite_ thin, but very strong. The
doghouse itself is nothing but solid metal/armor with a couple of swing
doors in front of the lenses controlled from inside. Take these lenses out
and the gunner's operating with his auxillary sight, which isn't the best.

The "designed in weakness" on the M1 series is the near-complete lack of
top and belly armor. There is about half an inch of armor. That's it.

--
Legion
Message no. 61
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 00:14:01 -0500
> I don't think you've ever been shot. It's serious, even if the
> SRII

Well, true, but I think that I'd consider a LIGHT wound with a gun
serious...at least to me.

Not much on pain...

> correct. So, I guess I do have a "House Rule" after all.

<grin> I admit, your system makes a LOT more sense. If I ever get
around to GMing a Shadowrun game, I would probably use it myself (actually,
I figured long ago that it was a good idea.)

Oh, and as for the car stuff? I surrender. I refuse to get into
a "relative powers of guns" debate, especially since I don't know anything on
the subject, and have fired a gun a grand total of 2 times (one rifle, one
pistol, and no, I don't remember what they were).

But as for the firing from the bottom part...haven't your players
tried that one for a trap, yet?

<grin>

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 62
From: Alexander Borghgraef <Alexander.Borghgraef@***.AC.BE>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 13:39:50 --100
>The "designed in weakness" on the M1 series is the near-complete lack of
>top and belly armor. There is about half an inch of armor. That's it.
>
>Legion

Then what about air attacks?
Message no. 63
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 09:56:42 -0700
Hello again...

On Thu, 28 Jul 1994, Janne Jalkanen wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:
>
> The good ol' Molotov Coctail, eh ;-)

I don't know how well that would work against a modern tank, to be
honest. They are sealed against chemical, biological and radiological
warfare after all.

> > > Oh, BTW... Soviet sabot rounds _will_ bounce off of an M1/M1-A1's armor.
:-)
> >
> > Yeah, I know. I just kinda wonder how many people have any idea of the
> > kinetic energy behind that round, and the several orders of magnitude of
> > difference between it and a .380 (9mm Kurz) Light Pistol round.
>
> Okay, so 9mm is now Light pistol... ;)

um, Janne, there are 2 9mm rounds, the 9mmKurz or .380, which IS a LIght
Pistol round, and the 9mmParabellun, which is a Heavy Pistol round.

Anyway, has anyone ACTUAL
> experience of being inside a tank while a cannon round explodes on the
> surface? It may not penetrate the armor, but wouldn't the men (or women
> :) inside still feel the shock/hear the explosion/become jello? I mean,
> the kinetic energy (and also the force of the charge) are somewhat big...
> There must be /some/ effect from it for the people inside. So, after a
> couple of close rounds, they will probably be blind and deaf for a few
> moments. I hope.
>
> As I said, anyone with experience to answer the question?

I have been in a commo van when a 100mm round hit the other end. Really
loud BANG (ears rang for about 6 hours) and a bit of shock. I have also
known Israeli tankers who got hit 5 or 6 times a day. SSII missiles, the
Russian varient of the same, and 100mm cannon rounds. What they said was
that it's noisy, the jets of flame can be real disconcerting, but they
could still function. They had hearing protection, and they didn't lock
their hatches (so that when a rocket hit all the overpressure did was
open the hatches), they only thing they said that they worried about was
being in front of the jet of flame from the shaped charge when it
penetrated because that's kill them. I have also looked inside a russian
T54 that had been hit with a HESH round, it was FULL of hamburger. (But,
thankfully for my Israeli friends, the russians used solid projectiles
and if they didn't penetrate, they did no damage except for that loud
bang. And tanks are noisy inside anyway.

Ivy
Message no. 64
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 10:01:49 -0700
On Thu, 28 Jul 1994, I.M. Legion wrote:

> Ivy writes:
> > Crazy people might try the log trick Legion talked about (maybe, if they're
> > REALLY nutz) so that leaves you with the designed in weakness on the M1,
>
> I heard about this trick from my buddy who was in the 3rd Ranger Battallion
> for four years. He _is_ "REALLY nutz".

Yup, no doubt at all. ;) I knew some of them too, and I used to be
married to one. No joke, nutz is too gentle a term.

> And the doghouse is actually the covering for the top of the Gunner's Primary
> Sight (GPS). There are two lenses, one for daylight and one for the Thermal
> Imaging System (TIS). I've seen a TIS lense shatter from overpressurization
> of the coolant system. That glass is _quite_ thin, but very strong. The
> doghouse itself is nothing but solid metal/armor with a couple of swing
> doors in front of the lenses controlled from inside. Take these lenses out
> and the gunner's operating with his auxillary sight, which isn't the best.

At least he has something left. So it isn't completely out of action.

> The "designed in weakness" on the M1 series is the near-complete lack of
> top and belly armor. There is about half an inch of armor. That's it.

My Goddess! That's thin enough to let .50s and 14.5 Russian) through.
What idiot assumed that we'd always control the airspace over every
battlefield?

Ivy
Message no. 65
From: Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@*********.CERN.CH>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 20:06:22 +0200
On Fri, 29 Jul 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:
> My Goddess! That's thin enough to let .50s and 14.5 Russian) through.
> What idiot assumed that we'd always control the airspace over every
> battlefield?

I think the trouble is that when you put such an massive front armor as
M1A1 has, the weight of the tank gets so big that you have to leave away
armor from somewhere else. Otherwise you'd get a big chunk of metal
that'd move nowhere. In modern war, maneuvrability plays a very big role
(as I am sure most of you know ;)

> Ivy
>

Janne Jalkanen ///! For those who have to fight for it
jalkanen@******.cern.ch /// ! life has a flavor
Janne.Jalkanen@***.fi \\\/// ! the protected will never understand
-'Keep on going...' \XX/ ! (anonymous, Viet Nam, 1968)
Message no. 66
From: Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@*********.CERN.CH>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 20:15:04 +0200
On Fri, 29 Jul 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:

> > Okay, so 9mm is now Light pistol... ;)
>
> um, Janne, there are 2 9mm rounds, the 9mmKurz or .380, which IS a LIght
> Pistol round, and the 9mmParabellun, which is a Heavy Pistol round.

Actually there are (according to my friend who owns a copy of 'Modern
Cartridges of the World) over 40 different 9mm rounds, ranging from PF's
between 50 to 175 (which definately is already a heavy pistol).

9mmP varies (depending on the maker) from 110 PF to 175 PF (from czech
pistol rounds to finnish SMG stuff ;), enough to make the variation from
the Light to Heavy class. In Practical shooting, 175 is considered the
Major Class of weapons (for really BIG guns, that is) and 120 the Minor
Class (for regular weapons).

So, actually there is quite a lot more variation than that. 9mm can thus
be considered to be either Light or Heavy, depending on your standpoint.
The caliber does not matter that much, since for instance 10mmAuto counts
at about 220 PF (which is a hell of a lot for a handgun, .44 Magnum goes
at about 400 PF (if I remember correctly)).

BTW, PF = Power Factor, the momentum of the bullet, calculated in
bullet weight (grains) * speed (in feet/sec) / 1000.

Don't know why they don't use SI units ;)

> penetrated because that's kill them. I have also looked inside a russian
> T54 that had been hit with a HESH round, it was FULL of hamburger. (But,

T54 can be damaged with a can opener, if you have the patience... ;-)

> Ivy

Janne Jalkanen ///! For those who have to fight for it
jalkanen@******.cern.ch /// ! life has a flavor
Janne.Jalkanen@***.fi \\\/// ! the protected will never understand
-'Keep on going...' \XX/ ! (anonymous, Viet Nam, 1968)
Message no. 67
From: "I.M. Legion" <legion@***.SC.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 13:57:02 -0600
Janne Jalkanen writes:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:
> > My Goddess! That's thin enough to let .50s and 14.5 Russian) through.
> > What idiot assumed that we'd always control the airspace over every
> > battlefield?
>
> I think the trouble is that when you put such an massive front armor as
> M1A1 has, the weight of the tank gets so big that you have to leave away
> armor from somewhere else. Otherwise you'd get a big chunk of metal
> that'd move nowhere. In modern war, maneuvrability plays a very big role
> (as I am sure most of you know ;)

Trust me, adding a few more inches of armor up top and underneath would do
little to the speed capability of the Abrams. The M1-A1 already weighs
63 tons, and the turret is only 21 of that. The low top and belly armor is
a trade off, I believe, for better offensive capabilities.

First, modern tactics tries to keep tanks from "hedgerowing", but it will
still happen. When it does, though, be assured that the vehicle is going to
moving at a pretty good clip. It will most likely _jump_ the berm, or
what have you, and level out once the back of the track comes off the berm.
I've had an -A1 about 3 feet off the ground more than once; it _can_ take
the landing, just like on the commercial you may have seen.

Second, where the armor is thin, it is also horizontal. Ground troops/vehicles
firing large caliber weapons are more likely to hit the side armor than the
top or bottom. Tanks are also equipped with .50 cal HB machineguns, which act
as air defense vs. aircraft. 14 tanks in a company putting up a wall of lead
is more than enough for your average fighter pilot to think twice about going
near that area. And land mines can be so powerful that putting mine-defeating
armor down there is unfeasable.

With all that in mind, let us move to the interior of the turret. There ain't
a whole lot of room in there. I'm just under 6' and I can't stand up straight
inside. If too much more armor was added, then the interior would be too
cramped. And, yes, the armor would have to go 'inside' because that was one
of General Dynamics' selling points: a low profile. Lower than a Bradley,
quieter and cooler (we call the NBC system the air-conditioner -- NBC is
'Nuclear Biological Chemical').

--
Legion -- tour guide
Message no. 68
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 14:54:05 -0700
Hmmm, Actually, for the purposes of SRII all the

On Fri, 29 Jul 1994, Janne Jalkanen wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Jul 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:
>
> > > Okay, so 9mm is now Light pistol... ;)
> >
> > um, Janne, there are 2 9mm rounds, the 9mmKurz or .380, which IS a LIght
> > Pistol round, and the 9mmParabellun, which is a Heavy Pistol round.
>
> Actually there are (according to my friend who owns a copy of 'Modern
> Cartridges of the World) over 40 different 9mm rounds, ranging from PF's
> between 50 to 175 (which definately is already a heavy pistol).
>
> 9mmP varies (depending on the maker) from 110 PF to 175 PF (from czech
> pistol rounds to finnish SMG stuff ;), enough to make the variation from
> the Light to Heavy class. In Practical shooting, 175 is considered the
> Major Class of weapons (for really BIG guns, that is) and 120 the Minor
> Class (for regular weapons).
>
> So, actually there is quite a lot more variation than that. 9mm can thus
> be considered to be either Light or Heavy, depending on your standpoint.
> The caliber does not matter that much, since for instance 10mmAuto counts
> at about 220 PF (which is a hell of a lot for a handgun, .44 Magnum goes
> at about 400 PF (if I remember correctly)).

9mmParabellum are considered Heavy Pistols. The difference between a 9mm
Kurz and a Czech 9mmP are much greater than the difference between a Czech
9mmP and a Finnish 9mmP.

> BTW, PF = Power Factor, the momentum of the bullet, calculated in
> bullet weight (grains) * speed (in feet/sec) / 1000.

> Don't know why they don't use SI units ;)

Tradition

> > penetrated because that's kill them. I have also looked inside a russian
> > T54 that had been hit with a HESH round, it was FULL of hamburger. (But,

The hESH didn't penetrate, they don't, they cause internal spalling and
the scabs are what kill.

> T54 can be damaged with a can opener, if you have the patience... ;-)

Who's got a century to spare? ;)

Ivy
Message no. 69
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Playing by the book
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 15:11:34 -0700
Actually, I was thinking of a trick the Afgans used more than once,

On Fri, 29 Jul 1994, I.M. Legion wrote:

> Janne Jalkanen writes:
> > On Fri, 29 Jul 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:
> > > My Goddess! That's thin enough to let .50s and 14.5 Russian) through.
> > > What idiot assumed that we'd always control the airspace over every
> > > battlefield?
> >
> > I think the trouble is that when you put such an massive front armor as
> > M1A1 has, the weight of the tank gets so big that you have to leave away
>
> Trust me, adding a few more inches of armor up top and underneath would do
> little to the speed capability of the Abrams. The M1-A1 already weighs

All you need to add is 1/2 inch to stop both of those weapons.

> First, modern tactics tries to keep tanks from "hedgerowing", but it will
> still happen. When it does, though, be assured that the vehicle is going to

emplace a few HMGs up high and fire down on the tank. Or helicopter. Or
the Russian trick of using armored helicopters to fly over from behind
and open up the top armor with their 14.5 HMGs. One chopper in the front
would be enough to get everybody inside with the hatches closed.

> Second, where the armor is thin, it is also horizontal. Ground troops/vehicles
> firing large caliber weapons are more likely to hit the side armor than the

Not to mention the old standby, the rifle grenade, which comes Down on
it's target. Or mortars, which do the same. Sounds like a bad plan to
me. Real unintelligent trade-off. The tanks can't be at speed all the
time, and if they're stopped for refueling a Stalin's Organ could reap a
bloody harvest.

> With all that in mind, let us move to the interior of the turret. There ain't
> a whole lot of room in there. I'm just under 6' and I can't stand up straight

Low really helps if your only opponents are other tanks, but it still
looks to me as though there was a bit of underplanning in the design
department. Good reason to find another MOS.

Ivy

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Playing by the book, 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!