Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject:	Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Sun, 4 May 1997 00:13:15 -0400

Message no. 1 At 04:42 PM 5/3/97 -1000, you wrote:
>>I always thought that 9 out of 10 players used
>>brute force.
>
>In my group we have a saying:"F8ck subtlety"
>
>Brother-1. Decker for hire.
>>Visit Dot's Deck Technologies! Just north of the Sea-TAC!

Ahhh the ugly head of Conspicious Run comes to the foreground. Once a long
time ago in the year 1989 the comcept of Shadowrun was born in the offices
in Fasa. The idea was for a cyberpunkish world filled with both magic and
technology, in roughly equal porporations. The whole realm revolved around
the gibonisque idea of highly trained professionals who got to together to
do a highly illegal job that nobody else wanted. This team survived by
intellect, stealth, team work and good overall planning. Magic did it's job,
the samarui provided muscle when it was necessary and the teams electronic
boys did the survellience and handled the secirity systems. All in the form
of a well oiled machine. The only time when subtultey got thown out is when
the opposition did a better job than the team did and survival depended on a
quick exit. Then the product carrying this concept got let out to the gaming
public and those who admired it for it's concept and background developed
along the same lines. The rest of the people got ahold of it and said "Look
it got a lot of cool looking guns and cyberstuff and it's got some magic
too!" They proceeded down the road of the munchkin and quickly developed
characters like the D&D gods they previously played and set out to conquer
the world before lunch. The rest of us worked with the motto "Violence the
refuge of the incompetent!" Gunplay had it's time and place and served it's
purpose within the game it didn't become the focus of the game.

A dialogue between myself and a player at a con I attended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
( Me) What are you playing?

( Him ) Shadowrun?

So what equipment do you have?

A high velocity heavy machine gun, some full military power armor and a
missle launcher. Along with a tactical computer and wired reflexes 3 all of
it gamma grade. With all the necessary permits.

So what's your mission?

We're working a missing persons case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

Needless to say I don't run with that type of player.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ah at last! The TRANSFORMATION is complete!
For YEARS they mocked me! They took the name EMMANUEL LEWIS in vain!
But tonight RETRIBUTION will be mine!
For I am REBORN as --WEBSTER--, The adorable scamp of DOOM!
Ma'am's and Georges beware Webster walks the earth and he's got a
HANKERIN' for some SPANKERIN'!

Man did I nail this mad doctor routine or WHAT?
"Deadpool #4"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From:	tom Cone <Brother-1@*****.NET>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Sun, 4 May 1997 06:20:26 -1000

Message no. 2 >They proceeded down the road of munchkin.
Hmmm. Don't think this applies to me. However, just to be clear, the
saying "f&ck subtlety" is used by our Orc Merc whenever the drek hits
the fan, usually when automatic gunfire is already headed our way. I'm
all for character above mechanics.

Brother-1. Decker for hire.
>Visit Dot's Deck Technologies! Just north of the Sea-TAC!

From:	Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Sun, 4 May 1997 18:30:18 +0100

Message no. 3 In article <199705040413.AAA23324@******.san.uc.edu>, NightLife
<habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU> rambled on endlessly about Pro's & munchies
was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?

...<snippy>
>. This team survived by
>intellect, stealth, team work and good overall planning.

In many games today, this is still a constant rather than a unique
situation. The view presented here on the list, of shadowrun and
munchkins is possibly more "condensed" than it would be at a game con,
or magazine with greater coverage and more participants.

Many people advocate the essentiality of "subtle runs". Where the
runners get in and out silently, it can result in good runs, good
roleplaying, excellent decision making, but little "fun". Consider it,
a team of players runs through ten scenarios, of which they screw one,
and there's a firefight. Which one is likely to be remembered during
happy "bull" sessions after the game - the firefight.

Why? because there was excitement, threat, and manic dice-rolling to
kill the opposition and get away. Snap decisions by the players may
make the combat amusing, or add more danger due to a bad call.

Will the other runs be remembered? Yes, but not as fondly.

I don't advocate the noisy run, as my players well know. Security,
police and all sorts of nasty incidents arise as a result of discharging
weapons in a "limited zone". But the runs they remember are the ones
where adversity was noisy, not subtle. For instance, one player,
although it cost the PC's life remembers a shoot out in a shopping mall
with strange fondness, he took out seven bad guys, one an almost
impossible headshot while diving through the air, security killed him on
the way out. He'd exhausted his ammo and options. Prior to that they'd
had a series of successful, but quiet runs. These are remembered, but
vaguely. Another remembers a battle the team had in the forests of the
NAN, even though his character was seriously injured and the run failed
as a result. My wife remembers several runs where combat occured, even
though it has cost her two characters. One was an extremely noisy
finale to a "Yakuza" run, resulting in the destruction of a pier and an
extremely expensive motor yacht and cargo ship.

Players are strange creatures. Many GMs prefer to pit their wits
against the players, one mind against many, and derive great
satisfaction from this opposition, but for the players, sitting around a
table, it may instigate good roleplaying, character interaction and all
those other gems we all dream of, but their interest doesn't really come
to the fore until they need to access skills, dice, and the pressure
adds itself in with gunplay.

Another run that my players were involved in, was a mix of red herrings,
facts, and strange NPCs. It took the players five sessions of going
nowhere fast, before one of my players got fed up with another player,
and read through all the notes he'd been making, that 30 minutes of
anger on his part, cracked the game, he had the answers and the solution
written down across several pages of notes, he just hadn't seen the
links before. On that sixth session, the team cracked the case.
Although that incident is remembered, and attention is now paid to the
clues and subtle innuendos that are given out in a game, the run itself
is not remembered clearly, only the incident that solved it.

Yes, subtlety should be the norm. A team of runners shouldn't walk out
the door, with every heavy weapon known to mankind, heavy armour, and
gunning for dinosaurs rather than bear. But it is the possibility of
necessity that produces this reaction to the game. In an effort to
counter this, I've noticed that many GMs will suggest heavier opposition
to counter the "munchkin", resulting in PC assassination. There are so
many possible methods of dealing with the munchkin that they are almost
innumerable. Personally I don't think any of them are sure fire ways of
dealing with the situation. I've had mages that initiate, and then run
"rules master" sessions to justify their "super mage". Quoting rules
variations and incomplete rules,that are wide open to interpretation and
argument. (One of my pet hates - the argumentative player - see below.)
I've had street sams who are so fast and strong they outrun Testerossa
class vehicles. and Shamans who specialise in dropping acid on everyone.
(This was interepreted by the players as dumping multi-dice force 1-2
acid bombs. Logic being that the target couldn't possibly resist so many
successes.) All met sticky ends. The mage had a bus dropped on his
head, the sam missed a turning and hit a ferro-crete wall, the shaman
threw himself out of a fifth story window.

The only thing achieved, was the destruction of the PC, not a cure for
the players. One gun nut that played in my game (collected all known
available weapons from the books) now uses a narcojet and light pistol.
Why? Because I made it pointless for his character to carry anything
bigger.

How? Detection gates at meeting places (restaurants or secure areas in
bars/clubs) Increased security at the entrances to his favourite clubs
and bars, as a result of shooting incidents. Increased security
presence on the streets. And of course that strange thing that seems to
be ignored - a huge _lack_ of opportunity for combat. Most of the runs
the players were hired for required that strange beast "subtlety", the
times a guard was taken out, it was done by one of the other players in
a non-lethal manner, making his armamement senseless and wasteful.
Money was spent in paying contacts and snitches for information, spent
in getting from a-b and back again, more money was spent travelling
across the country, using internal airlines, where the player couldn't
take his weapons, and had no contacts in the next city to acquire new
ones. Amazingly, the player gave up trying to make everything into a
John Woo gunfight, and got down to the real purpose of being there,
playing the game.

>Magic did it's job,

Magic is one of my personal dislikes with Shadowrun. I don't object to
it's presence, or it's use in the game. Used correctly, magic can be
the greatest opponent, highest threat and most useful tool in a
Shadowrun. What I don't like is the ability to misinterpret the rules,
and abuse them. This brings me to the next thing that I don't
understand about some players. Arguments.

The game session is run by the GM, not the players. It is the GM who
must create the world, the scene and the scenario, and hold the player's
interest. Providing them with an escape from reality for a few hours.
Then comes what I call the "Rules Lawyer", the nasty little oik who
forgets that it is the GMs game and world, and that the GMs word is
final and law. And argues silly little points for the simple reason
that it would be helpful to his/her character. There is nothing worse
than a player who sits at a game session and reminds the GM that "My
character can do that, because it says so in the book." and then
proceeds to quote pages and paragraphs. So what? If that player is so
determined to run the game by the rules, then fine, he/she can run the
damn game and to hell with it.

Again, rules interpretation is a strange thing. Some players will
interpret the rules to the best of their ability to suit their
characters. This is not only destroying the illusion of reality that
the GM is trying to create, but spoils a lot of situations where
spontaneity is more important than rules interpretation. Why can't
players just simply accept that the Gm is running the game. Rules
interpretation is down to the GM, not a twenty minute argument half way
through a game. if the GM doesn't understand something, I'm sure he/she
wil ask the players for their interpretation and input. Why can't
players ignore the rules, ignore the rule books ignore "player"
knowledge, and play in a game using their imagination rather than quotes
and concepts from books that have no bearing whatsoever on their
characters.

The one thing that always breaks game flow, is the smart arse who sits
up and quotes a rule in the middle of combat, or something else. Boom,
the game is ruined, continuity is lost, and the session becomes a
debate. The most important thing to remember when "playing" in a game
is something I mentioned to a friend just recently.

The GM is there running the game, because he/she likes to lose. Don't
forget, the GM has 40+ books and modules to call upon, they can be as
deadly as the GM wishes, and no player can survive beyond the opening
seconds of a game if the GM so wishes. The GM _likes_ losing, that is
why they run the game, they _know_ they are going to lose, and try to
make the game as much of a challenge as possible while leading to that
final foregone conclusion. It is the players who set the tone for the
game, it is the players who set the manner and method of the game. It
is the Gm who sets the scene and atmosphere. In all fairness, the
players should defer to rules interpretations of the the GM, and leave
it at that. If they disagree with a call, then fair enough mention it,
and let the GM know, but don't quote rules and regulations, they are not
laid in concrete and made by god in the form of commandments, rules are
merely guidelines for the GM, and can be interpreted and used in any
form the Gm wishes. Most GMs have house rules which they use in place
of things in the books they disagree with, or that are poorly defined.

Again, regarding the "munchkin". Every player has that potential within
them, it is only through self regulation and the use of logic that the
average player is not a munchkin. It shouldn't be down to the GM alone
to sort out a munch, it is the responsibility of the players as well,
after all, the munch is spoiling their enjoyment of the game as well,
and making the lives of their PC's consequently shorter.

>quick exit. Then the product carrying this concept got let out to the gaming
>public and those who admired it for it's concept and background developed
>along the same lines. The rest of the people got ahold of it and said "Look
>it got a lot of cool looking guns and cyberstuff and it's got some magic
>too!"

Unfortunately you are right, this type of person does exist out there in
game land, and their number is increasing. There are several ways to
beat this in a way that leaves the essential concept of the game intact.
Limit everything available to the minimum possible requirements. Make
everything so expensive that players are unable to afford these items,
it works but makes all the players suffer.

The one I prefer, is to make everything available, that fits in with
your tech level and time period, *everything*. Allow the players to
purchase whatever is within their price range. Watch carefully what the
players have purchased and make a note of it. Then run a series of
games that are calculated to prevent the use and access to this
equipment. If the players have beta grade cyberware that makes them
super fast killing machines, fine, no problem. Make the runs outside of
the city, in another location, they'll set off airport detection grids,
move the run to another country - just for a while, and inform the
players that he/she will be refused entry into the country without the
relevant restrictors and limitations. A series of events that make the
heavily armed/cybered/magic bound person pointless. Concentration on
NPC/PC interaction negates the need for weapons, cyber and magic.
Slowly the character becomes a useless appendage, something that can be
cut free from the team and not missed. Another side to this is that the
munch becomes bored with his/her character and will change it for
something more suitable. Not a guaranteed sure fire method, but it
works given sufficient time and patience.

The munch that becomes difficult is the "exersizer" the silly oik that
sees every situation as an opportunity to flex muscles and beat up on
NPCs. This situation can also be beaten with patience. The more the
character beats up on people, the less likely the team are to succeed,
alternatively allow the team to split. The munch has fun in a bar
fight, achieving nothing except from a bad reputation and a few
injuries, while other team members solve the problems, and earn the
cash and karma.

Alternative to all of the above, is the "useful munchkin". Say what!?
A USEFUL!! munchkin?

Yes. Think about it. The team are hired to achieve an objective, they
need a distraction. Who better to employ than the munch? Send the
munchkin to another area of the site or city/location with the
instructions to make as much noise as possible, to distract security and
create a nice noisy cover for the players to sneak in and achieve their
objective.

The munchkin will likely leap at this opportunity, even with the
knowledge that their character may not survive (will not survive) the
encounter. The players achieve their objective, watching the fireworks,
smoke and gunbattle from a distance. The munchkin is finally taken down
by the combined efforts of the security and police forces, either
captured and prosecuted under law, (a game session in itself, where the
munch has to think rather than act - the other players can be
prosecution, defence, judge and jury) - or killed in the battle.

Result, a happy team of players, who have succeeded in their mission,
earned the money offered, gained some all important karma, and a happy
munchkin who has gone the way of all munchkins, they died in a blaze of
glory, protecting their buddies. OK, they didn't earn any money, they
didn't gain any karma, but what the hell. There are plenty of other
characters to play. <grin>

After a period of time the munchkin will become bored with this solution
to life, the other players will have powerful characters, with mucho
karma, decent lifestyles and a series of strong contacts, the runs are
more lucrative, the players are taking on more dangerous missions
because they know they can rely on the munch to deal with the opposition
while they gain more and more glory. Eventually the munch is going to
put two and two together. If they don't, it doesn't really matter,
after all, the team is successful, the players are enjoying themselves,
and the munch is having fun at their own expense. A nice little doormat
for the players to wipe their feet on.

>They proceeded down the road of the munchkin and quickly developed
>characters like the D&D gods they previously played and set out to conquer
>the world before lunch.

In all fairness Nightlife, though I agree with you in much of what you
say, this statement is a tad unfair. Yes the majority of people who
play Shadowrun, have at some point in their lives played AD&D as well,
but it's not entirely accurate to blame this system alone. Rifts,
Champions, Super Heros, Ninjas & Superspies, Cyberpunk, Rolemaster and
many other games also encourage munchkinism. AD&D is possibly the worst
culprit, in it's insistence to pay people experience points for kills
and treasure gained, but it is not alone.

>The rest of us worked with the motto "Violence the
>refuge of the incompetent!" Gunplay had it's time and place and served it's
>purpose within the game it didn't become the focus of the game.

This is very much how it should be, however, until the players of
various games finally admit to themselves that they are playing in
someone elses game, and that maybe things would be just as interesting
without the obligatory firefight, there will always be the combat
oriented session and the existence of munchkins. A sorry state of
affairs, but something that is not impossible to beat. The rejection of
a munchkin from a gaming group is one of the hardest and most brutal
judgements a GM has to make. I've been reduced to the necessity of
asking a player to leave, because they were ignoring the advice from the
group, and just making everyone's life miserable. It took four years,
but that player learnt by his mistakes, and I am happy to invite his
return to the game.

<snip convo>
>So what's your mission?
>
>We're working a missing persons case.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, been there, done that. :) It never fails to amuse me how some
players will do this - just in case, and that GMs will allow it. I
mean, c'mon, the police are there to uphold law and order, and wil do so
to the best of their ability, simply because it means their life, wages
and contract if they fail, other do it of rmore moral reasons. However,
the other players in a game are better equipped to deal with a munchkin
and teach them a lesson that the GM is.

Anything the GM does to the munchkin is likely to reflect poorly on the
other PCs as well. Increased security etc panders to the presence of
the munch, and forces the other players to equip accordingly, eventually
reducing the game to a situation many wish to avoid. The safest way to
deal with them, is to play with them, but let them have their own little
game within the main game. Their character will be excluded from much
of the planning sessions and subtle runs because they simply don't fit
the profile, but that doesn't mean they're useless. A munchkin is
excellent distraction for security and police forces. Send them two
blocks over as a diversion, get them to attack a bar by telling them
that a person inside is essential to the mission, the munch will of
course kill that person, but they'll make a hell of a lot of noise doing
it, pulling security/police away from the area of the run. A running
gun battle in the streets is also likely to attract the attention of the
resident security as well, giving the team a chance at undetected entry.

>Needless to say I don't run with that type of player.

Ah, but Nightlife, you are missing out on so much fun. Munchkins are
small minded people, and they are so easy to mislead. Mislead them in
the right direction, and you benefit while they suffer. It's quite
satisfactory. :)

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Webbie thingy at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

From:	David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Sun, 4 May 1997 15:02:39 -0400

Message no. 4 Avenger wrote:
>
>Again, rules interpretation is a strange thing. Some players will
>interpret the rules to the best of their ability to suit their
>characters. This is not only destroying the illusion of reality that
>the GM is trying to create, but spoils a lot of situations where
>spontaneity is more important than rules interpretation. Why can't
>players just simply accept that the Gm is running the game. Rules
>interpretation is down to the GM, not a twenty minute argument half way
>through a game. if the GM doesn't understand something, I'm sure he/she
>wil ask the players for their interpretation and input. Why can't
>players ignore the rules, ignore the rule books ignore "player"
>knowledge, and play in a game using their imagination rather than quotes
>and concepts from books that have no bearing whatsoever on their
>characters.
>
>The one thing that always breaks game flow, is the smart arse who sits
>up and quotes a rule in the middle of combat, or something else. Boom,
>the game is ruined, continuity is lost, and the session becomes a
>debate. The most important thing to remember when "playing" in a game
>is something I mentioned to a friend just recently.
>
I basically I agree with what you have said here, but as a GM and player I
want to speak in partial defense of the rules lawyers. Often when I find
myself arguing against a rules interpretation it is because I had counted on
the rule working the way I thought it would. It was part of my planning and
thinking, and if the GM did it his way, I would get screwed because I hadn't
planned on the GM's interpretation. I have nothing against house rules, or
GM's views, I just don't like to discover them in the middle of a game or
combat. I agree the GM is in charge of the game, but you make the GM sound
like God. Bullshit. The GM is the one with the most responsibility, but I
don't think they have any right to set the rules for the game. If there is
an argument in the middle of play, the GM decides, but, overall I think all
the players and GM should agree on any specific house rules or
interpretations before hand. Once the GM starts making arbitrary decisions
to suit his wishes, the game is no longer Shadowrun, it's watch GM get mad
and kill. Before you lord your power as GM over the players, remember
you're just playing a game, and if you piss the players off, no one is going
to have fun.

--DT

From:	GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Sun, 4 May 1997 14:06:45 -0700

Message no. 5 > From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>

You are in rare form today ;) I will point out only one point
though...

> Many people advocate the essentiality of "subtle runs". Where the
> runners get in and out silently, it can result in good runs, good
> roleplaying, excellent decision making, but little "fun". Consider it,
> a team of players runs through ten scenarios, of which they screw one,
> and there's a firefight. Which one is likely to be remembered during
> happy "bull" sessions after the game - the firefight.

It is all how things are handled..the norm is not to have 9 runs
anywhere in a row or a career for that matter that go off without a
hitch..In and out with nobody the wiser..Even James Bond gets caught
with his hand in the cookie jar..The way things usually pan out in no
runs go off without a hitch...And then....EGMLOL....Throw in a
flawless run...Fudge everything..they start a fire in a room covered
with heat sensors..make a rat chew through the wiring to keep the
alarms from going off...But make lots of rolls...see how tense they
get...in the end they get to remember the one that went off like a
dream..Now here is where you make it fun...next run...EGMS...Start
things off the same way..make them think it is going off without a
hitch..right up until they start to get over confident..then stop
fudging the rolls.....
--------------------------------GRANITE
=================================================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer

From:	Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Sun, 4 May 1997 23:15:41 +0100

Message no. 6 In article <2.2.32.19970504190239.00712a8c@********.cis.yale.edu>, David
Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> rambled on endlessly about Pro's &
munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
>Avenger wrote:
>>
>>The one thing that always breaks game flow, is the smart arse who sits
>>up and quotes a rule in the middle of combat, or something else. Boom,
>>the game is ruined, continuity is lost, and the session becomes a
>>debate. The most important thing to remember when "playing" in a game
>>is something I mentioned to a friend just recently.

>I basically I agree with what you have said here, but as a GM and player I
>want to speak in partial defense of the rules lawyers.

Fine, I figured somebody would.

But, in all honesty there is no defence for the rules lawyer. They are
an irritating infestation onto what could be a smooth flowing game. The
rules lawyer will argue all and every point if it doesn't suit their
interpretation of the rules system, they take great pleasure in
destroying games, players and GMs as a result of this continual arguing.
The rules lawyer is the worst of all possible munchkins, they are too
cowardly to run their own games, yet continually contradict those of
other people.

There are times when a rule can be misinterpreted, and occassionally a
player has a need to point it out to the GM, and get a ruling on it.
However, the "Rules Lawyer" is a sad disease that exists in this and
other game systems as a bane on the lives of players and GM's alike.

I have only once found a situation that a Rules Lawyer is useful, and
that is in free form games, where there is no plot, just interaction
between multiple players. At this time, and only at this time, when
intimate knowledge of the game system and game mechanics is needed does
the Rules Lawyer become a godsend.

>Often when I find
>myself arguing against a rules interpretation it is because I had counted on
>the rule working the way I thought it would. It was part of my planning and
>thinking, and if the GM did it his way, I would get screwed because I hadn't
>planned on the GM's interpretation.

The majority of the rules are pretty plain speaking and not really open
to much interpretation, some are difficult to determine because of
conflicting areas elsewhere in other rules books or a lack of clarity,
magic use is the worst culprit of this. However, if there is a rule
that you are using because you think it will do you a favour, then it
seems reasonable to assume that particular rule is open to debate. If
that is the case, it's often worth slipping the GM a note and asking.
At least that way you are both aware of the situation. Alternatively,
rather than pass a note, because the rule is open to differential
interpretation, it is worth asking, rather than just acting, and arguing
the point afterwards, it is this very argumentativeness that destroys
the enjoyment for everybody. It never hurts to ask, simply acting and
then arguing afterwards is counter-productive to the game. Simple
solution ask. "Hey, I want to do ****, the rules say ****. Do you
agree?"

>I have nothing against house rules, or
>GM's views, I just don't like to discover them in the middle of a game or
>combat.

That's a fair comment, and one that I mostly agree with. But still, if
there are house rules, and you are new to the game then it is the GM's
responsibility to make you aware of these rules, and to hand you a
printout of these house rules that you can refer to in a time of need.

>I agree the GM is in charge of the game, but you make the GM sound
>like God. Bullshit.

Ok, at which point of my previous post did I once state that the GM was
God?

The GM is in control of the game. It is his or her game, and the game
is not open to arbitrary contradiction and argument by the players. If
the player is so disatisfied with the way the GM interprets the rules
this can either be mentioned during a bull session, or the player can
offer to run a game. The game, in my opinion is not open to continual
argument and rules quotation. When a player has a valid point, it is
the GM's duty to listen to that point, and act accordingly, admitting,
in full grace if they are proved to be wrong. However, it is not the
players part to question every call the GM makes in the flow of a game,
nor to contradict everything that is done, just because it doesn't suit
them. Everybody sees things differently. I know quite a few people on
this list who disagree with my opinions and views of certain things
regarding Shadowrun, but the rules back up my arguments and theirs. In
a game situation, my ruling is the one that stands, and is not to be
argued against. If I play in someone else's game I show them the same
courtesy, though it may not agree with my view it is not my game.

>The GM is the one with the most responsibility, but I
>don't think they have any right to set the rules for the game.

Oh, so you think the GM should sit there and accept the crap they're
going to get from a contradictory munchkin player who simply wants the
game to go his way, and bugger everyone else?

That is an interesting statement you have made, and open to considerable
argument. If the GM doesn't have the right to set the rules for the
game, then who does? The players? I don't think so. The type of
player we are discussing here is likely to demand a rule that suits
their style of play and their character type. Unacceptable.

The GM doesn't set the rules for the game, they use and interpret the
rules as set down by FASA. If something crops up that isn't covered by
FASA then it is the GMs call to govern a ruling in place of that lack,
if the players object, then constructive conversation can help to hash
out a house rule, but immediately leaping into the manual and shouting
the GM down with a "you can't do that, you're only a GM!" would result
in me handing that player the books and saying "Fine. you run it then."

>If there is
>an argument in the middle of play, the GM decides,

Firstly, there shouldn't be an argument in the middle of play. Rules
are there as guidlelines to play, not hard and fast laws that must be
adhered to. It is the GM's privilege to be able to alter those rules
and guidelines to best suit their style of game. If the player can't
accept that, look for another game, or run one themselves.

>but, overall I think all
>the players and GM should agree on any specific house rules or
>interpretations before hand.

House rules are things the players and GM should have designed together
as a result of some failing within the system. Interpretations cannot be
discussed before hand for the simple reason that most people won't be
able to cover something that grand, without several days of debate, and
there's no guarantee that any given situation will bring that into play.
Most arbitrary rulings are mur of the moment, to cover something a
player does, to promote game flow and keep everything running. Any house
rules should be given to a new player as a print out so that the player
can familiarise themselves with that house ruling.

As I'm sure you'll agree this is not always possible, most rules calls
are made in the middle of something that occurs during play. However,
if the rule is obviously ridiculous and designed to make the players
lives a living hell, then yes, objections should be voiced, but to
openly discuss a potential house rule in the middle of a gaming session
or argue the interpretation of a rule because it doesn't agree with your
particular view is no only counterproductive but highly destructive to
game flow. I have played in many games over the years where the Gm has
made calls that I disagreed with, but at no point will I start an
argument in the middle of a game, just to make my point. I'll save it
for the end, regardless of whether it's cost me a character. Simply
put, if the GM was wrong then I expect a ruling regarding the death of
that character, even to the point of momentarily adopting the
Dragonlance "mysterious death" rule.

>Once the GM starts making arbitrary decisions
>to suit his wishes, the game is no longer Shadowrun,

No different to watching the player destroy your game from pure
bullheadedness as a result of a disagreement because it "doesn't suit
them" Provided the core of the system is intact, provided that the Gm is
sticking to their rulings consistently and not just making things up
continually on the spot to govern situations and contradicting
themselves constantly then it is still Shadowrun. If a player
continually argues a point or rules call because it doesn't suit them it
ceases to be Shadowrun, and becomes simple contradiction.

>it's watch GM get mad
>and kill.

Answer, don't make the GM mad.

The statement can also be made towards players. If a player feels like
being particularly spiteful, they can screw a game up just as quickly as
a GM. Simply kill everyone and everything they meet. Start fights,
start arguments, out of mere spitefulness they can destroy the game. So
don't try and put all the onus on an angry GM. The question that should
be asked, is *why* did the Gm get angry? Is it because a player
continually thinks they know better, or because they got out the wrong
side of bed?

Save your arguments till the end. Mention to the GM at the end of the
session or during a munchies break that you disagree with a calling. You
may be surprised to find that most Gms will receive this a lot more
openly than bouncing up and down in your seat and screeching just
because you didn't like a particular ruling.

The game is run by the GM. It is the GM who makes the rules calls, not
the players. If the players were free to do this as they feel, then
there is no point to the GM's presence. And I certainly would not run a
game for people with this kind of attitude, they would be invited to do
it themselves, after all, my job as a GM is no longer a valid
proposition amongst this type of player.

>Before you lord your power as GM over the players, remember
>you're just playing a game, and if you piss the players off, no one is going
>to have fun.

And before you lord it over your GM, remember it is just a game, and
that if you don't like it you can always run your own. Piss your GM
off, and the game ends, and nobody has fun.

I can't think of any threat more sickening and pathetic than "If you
don't do what I say, I won't play anymore." Not only is that childish,
but it is tantamount to blackmail, and no different to school yard
bullying. I've heard it many times from spiteful players when I've sat
in on our local club, usually aimed at new or inexperienced GMs, it's a
rather sad state of affairs when a player thinks they hjave an
inalienable right to tell the GM of a game how to run that game. Would
you have a rules argument in the middle of a convention? unlikely,
because in the end you would embarrass yourself, and most likely be
asked to leave the game, so why do it in a private game?

It's no different when a GM uses the same bullying tactics, however, the
GM shouldn't have to resort to that. The logic that is usually
followed, at least in the area I live, is that the game is run by the
GM, end of story. Another game may not be run by that Gm, but someone
different who has a different view of things. There are at the moment
seven Shadowrun Gms at the local club, most rules interpretations are
pretty static and consistent between them, but some things vary on a
wild scale. Having an argumentative player will usually result in
considerable argument as the other GMs in the club will leap to his/her
defence, and rightly so. If the player is so disatisfied with things
that they feel the need to have an argument, then why not run a game and
show people how it should be done. Don't destroy the enjoyment of other
players over a technicality.

I don't have that problem, I will not be bullied by a player. If people
don't want to play in my games, because of this, then that's fine by me,
I care not. Both I and my players have a lot more fun, than if there's
some smart arse rules officianado attached who is going to argue every
call made during the game, because it disagrees with some dream the
player has of ruling what is not his/her game. I do have players, and
many of them are several years loyal. I also GM regularly for our local
club, and they are more than aware of my opinion towards argumentative
players, and constant contradiction and threats. So, people don't argue
with me, but I still get a lot of people willing to sit in on my games.
Maybe it's because they know they can get on with the game without any
fear of having some smart arse stand up and start quoting page numbers,
paragraph numbers and rules at me. Maybe it's because they also know
I'm fair and won't make arbitrary judgements to suit me, so that I can
win in a situation that is designed for the Gm to lose.

The player is playing in the GMs game, and has accepted that the GM will
make the rulings for the game when required. If that is unsatisfactory,
then the player should run his/her own game, as he/she is obviously
unhappy with the current method, and quite evidently of a far superior
intellect and able to make far more accurate interpretations of the
rules. If you are playing in a game where the GM is inexperienced,
either with the system, or as a GM, don't bully the poor schmuck, it'll
just make them sour and mean. Treat them as any new player and guide
them through the rules and books, help them, don't argue with them,
don't make stupid statements like "You can't do that because..." point
out to the new Gm that they "may have made a mistake, the rule appears
to be..." Don't start arguments in the middle of the game. Put up with
it, mention it afterwards, or while everyone's having a break. Screw up
the game and nobody has any fun, just endless pointless argument that is
better held at other times.

Yes there are GMs who are kinda stupid with their rulings, and I've made
my fair share of mistakes over the years, but I will not tolerate
someone who contradicts me in the middle of a game that is running
nicely, unless I have made a particularly strange ruling, in which case,
if I am blatantly wrong, then I'll apologise and try to get back on
track as quickly as possible, there will however be _no_ argument. But
then, I'm lucky, I have a bunch of very considerate players, they're not
rules lawyers or munchkins. They play in a game and accept my rulings
regarding that game. If the favour is returned and one of them wishes
to run a game, they will not receive any problems from me if their world
and game differs from mine, which I would hope it would.

My opinion is mine, and mine alone. It is not intended as a flame or as
an attitude of right and wrong, it is and always will be, simply *my*
_opinion_ :)

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

From:	David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Sun, 4 May 1997 20:15:05 -0400

Message no. 7 snip Avenger's lengthy account of GM's power.

I agree, I guess my problem is that I'm usually right :) so I find myself
disagreeing occasionally -- full-fledged arguments rarely happen (I can't
remember one) -- I just usually go with the ruling and curse the GM under my
breath like a good player.

The other problem is that much of what I'm saying is in reference to a GM
who makes more than occasional mistakes, and loves to kill players (Monk,
for those of you who know). Sometimes the player is just right, so GM's
should listen, that's all I'm really trying to say.

--DT

From:	Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Sun, 4 May 1997 20:18:11 -0400

Message no. 8 >But, in all honesty there is no defence for the rules lawyer. They are
>an irritating infestation onto what could be a smooth flowing game. The
>rules lawyer will argue all and every point if it doesn't suit their
>interpretation of the rules system, they take great pleasure in
>destroying games, players and GMs as a result of this continual arguing.
>The rules lawyer is the worst of all possible munchkins, they are too
>cowardly to run their own games, yet continually contradict those of
>other people.
>
>There are times when a rule can be misinterpreted, and occassionally a
>player has a need to point it out to the GM, and get a ruling on it.
>However, the "Rules Lawyer" is a sad disease that exists in this and
>other game systems as a bane on the lives of players and GM's alike.

As a recovering Rules Lawyer (we're like alcoholics....we never truly get
over it) I can through in some 1st person perspective here.

Why Be one?: I hate not understanding the system. When I joined a game, I
would buy all the books and study until I knew the rules better than the GM.
With vague systems like WhiteWolf's Umbra system, it drives me nuts.

Advantages: In a good group that doesn't allow you to feed your addiction
in a game, it can make you a better player since you tend to know the world
very well.

Disadvantages: In a bad group, you screw up the game. Also, it stresses
role-playing, since you tend to know the world better than a character would.

Side effects: I ended up as GM. I didn't bother anyone there. :) After my
11 step recovery ( I read ahead and figured out a shortcut) I have few other
problems.

Cure: None

Treatment: Lay down the law: Any rules arguments happen AFTER the session
is over. Until then, your word is law. After that, if he convinces you,
you MAY make it up to him. This has several advantages:

1) You can tell him to shove it, and the ensuing argument doesn't disrupt
the gameplay, since it already happened.

2) You may learn a few things, and again, it doesn't disrupt game-play

3) Once the game begins to flow, he may actually be a good player.

>I have only once found a situation that a Rules Lawyer is useful, and
>that is in free form games, where there is no plot, just interaction
>between multiple players. At this time, and only at this time, when
>intimate knowledge of the game system and game mechanics is needed does
>the Rules Lawyer become a godsend.

Been there, done that.

>>I have nothing against house rules, or
>>GM's views, I just don't like to discover them in the middle of a game or
>>combat.
>
>That's a fair comment, and one that I mostly agree with. But still, if
>there are house rules, and you are new to the game then it is the GM's
>responsibility to make you aware of these rules, and to hand you a
>printout of these house rules that you can refer to in a time of need.

Agreed. Actually, I have channeled my former weakness. I have no problem
with bending the rules....I just like to know what I'm bending.

Quick Quiz: How many house rules does your group use (this is to all
listmembers)..

My group was using abuot 3, and I've bumped it up to 5.

-=SwiftOne=-

From:	Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 00:37:05 +0100

Message no. 9 In article <19970504200901422.AAA414@********.gj.net>, GRANITE
<granite@**.net> rambled on endlessly about Pro's & munchies was Re:
Runnersºd Tenants?
>> From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
>
>You are in rare form today ;)

I'm a rare type of person Granite :)

> I will point out only one point
>though...
>
>> and there's a firefight. Which one is likely to be remembered during
>> happy "bull" sessions after the game - the firefight.
>
>It is all how things are handled..the norm is not to have 9 runs
>anywhere in a row or a career for that matter that go off without a
>hitch..

It was only an example, offering a reason why it is inadvisable to have
loads of quiet runs. ;) However...

>In and out with nobody the wiser..Even James Bond gets caught
>with his hand in the cookie jar..

Ah, but Bond is an imperfect being. He has a multitude of flaws, not
least of which are gambling, women and the inability to refuse a
challenge, he is also extremely well knonw in the intelligence
community, making him vulnerable, his MOD is well know to the worlds
security agencies and Smersch etc are more than familiar with him even
to the point of using his faults to trap him. Having said that, there
is indication at the beginning of several films and books where he *has*
carried off a mission without a hitch.

There is of course the other side of the coin where Bond is a fantasy
figure who stars in films, and nobody is going to pay to go and see a
Bond movie where the set doesn't get destroyed in the end, and
everything goes off so smoothly that there's no need to have made the
film inthe first place.

>The way things usually pan out in no
>runs go off without a hitch...And then....EGMLOL....Throw in a
>flawless run...

Flawless runs can occur even in the most adverse conditions. Over the
years the games I run have travelled over from the more blatant boom
boom games to what I suppose could be loosely termed as intellectual,
where the players are more evolved to problem solving than action.
That's not to say they don't have or enjoy the occassional conflict, but
mainly they're into more complicated stuff with less violence. The
theory being that most times they can talk their way out of a situation
rather than shoot their way out.

>Fudge everything..they start a fire in a room covered
>with heat sensors..make a rat chew through the wiring to keep the
>alarms from going off...But make lots of rolls...see how tense they
>get...

Well, in respect to this, which does work, and similar situations have
been used in many games run by people on this list. I've had players
sweating without the need for obvious pressure, simply from an "unknown"
standpoint. Most of the time I will try to create an atmospheric
situation for the players, using NPCs to create situations and set the
tone, other times I'll let the players set the tone for the game, mostly
it succeeds, though sometimes it doesn't, either through my or another's
fault. Characters can be pressurised and driven to extremes without
ever introducing a drawn weapon, blazing mage or dragon.

The ease with which GMs can screw players and kill, main or simply
destroy is scary. By their very definition a GM must show considerable
self restraint when running a game, having an itinerant or
argumentative player serves only to make the GM angry, or fed up, and
that's when trouble starts. My point was that in my opinion players
shouldbe more considerate of the games they are playing in. Yes of
course if there is something drasticly wrong with the game, and Dvixen
could probably mention a few things that have almost reduced her to a
screaming fit, then something needs to be done, the Gm isn't there for
their own personal aggrandizement, they are there to create an enjoyable
and dynamic world for the players to adventure in. Every GM is a born
loser, they revel in losing, otherwise they shouldn't be GMs. The point
of the situation is that they can have a _lot_ of fun losing, with a
munchkin in sight, or an argumentative rules lawyer, that fun soon
deteriorates, and every game session becomes a battle between rules and
fun. Munchkins can be used to help a game, I've already suggested a few,
but rules lawyers and blant argumentative prats only destroy the game.

>in the end they get to remember the one that went off like a
>dream..Now here is where you make it fun...next run...EGMS...Start
>things off the same way..make them think it is going off without a
>hitch..right up until they start to get over confident..then stop
>fudging the rolls.....

Something I think most, if not all Gms have done from time to time. Dice
fudging by a GM is almost an art form, if only to give the players a
break now and again. There's nothing worse than when you've got a good
player and a good character and the dice rolls have already injured
him/her, and the next set send that character into oblivion.

I doubt very much though whether it is necessary to create the
situations that you mention, after all, many players won't be aware of
the plot, or the personalities, so will invariably make a mistake that
can be exploited without forcing a situation. I've found that players
will find their own excitement and make their own situations without the
need to fudge situations and rolls. The only rolls I fudge are the
"you're definately, incontrovertibly dead" rolls, unless the player has
been incredibly and obviously stupid. I don't think I've deliberately
killed a character in almost a year now, though the opportunity is
always there. The characters are still relatively low powered and not
combat monsters or gods. But then, I prefer low powered games anyway,
it adds more pressure and less gunplay. Nothing worse than a character
who is a god and can't go anywhere, and virtually controls the game,
making the opposition so ridiculously tough as to be laughable. The
characters who are heading to that status are usually retired by the
players, as they prefer a game with more challenge from every quarter
without the "super-duper npc" crap.

Another thing that I've used to great effect is the GM "smirk". The
players will watch the GM throughout the game, when he/she reaches for
the dice, there's an instant reaction. The one thing players seem to
hate the most is the "smirk", the "I know something you don't." smile.
That invariably sets off the paranoia faster than random shuffling of
dice. There's a reason the Gm is grinning, and the players start
analysing their every move, trying to figure out what's happening and
why. The GM has a lot of power within the game, and although it should
be used to effect, it must be used fairly.

I feel that the same should be given by players, they should have some
respect and consideration for the Gm and their interpretation of the
game, not just random contradiction because it suits them, and a call by
the GM has affected their character in an adverse way. Munchkins don't
usually tend to argue a rules point, they are only interested in rapid
self advancement, acquiring the best and biggest of everything that will
turn their character into a god. Rules Lawyers are, I feel the worst of
the bunch, as their only interest in life, is the continual quoting and
re-quoting of rules, and forcing the GM to become a rules lawyer, making
calls on silly things just because there's a rule covering it. I have
played in that type of game, and hated every minute of it, up to and
including taking the "lawyer" to one side and threatening his life if he
didn't shut up. The game was being destroyed, the GM was getting wound
up, and the other players were having a really lousy time.

GMs have massive responsibility to keep their games balanced. There is
so much possibility for character assassination that it's ridiculous to
even consider a being a "mean" GM. Any character who leaves his secure
bomb shelter can be taken out by a single shot from an opposition sniper
at any point in the game, or a drive by shooting from a local street
gang, or any one of a hundred different ways. No character is
indestructable, and this is why I find it so hard to accept the few
"selfish" players out there who abuse the system, bending rules and
arguing minor little points just to further their own pathetic little
cause. Thankfully these people are few and far between.

The GM is almost forced to be as fair as possible within a game, so why
can't those few players accept that, and behave accordingly? That's not
to say everybody is like that, there are some damn good players out
there, and some very bad GMs. I've met quite a few of both so I know
they exist, but somewhere, hiding in the wings waiting for a chance is
the munchkin, the sad little oik who's only purpose in life is to create
havoc, whether they be player or GM.

My opinion is mine, and mine alone. It is not intended as a flame or as
an attitude of right and wrong, it is and always will be, simply *my*
_opinion_ :)

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

From:	Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 02:15:06 +0100

Message no. 10 In article <2.2.32.19970505001505.00716104@********.cis.yale.edu>, David
Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> rambled on endlessly about Pro's &
munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
>snip Avenger's lengthy account of GM's power.
>
>I agree, I guess my problem is that I'm usually right :) so I find myself
>disagreeing occasionally -- full-fledged arguments rarely happen (I can't
>remember one) -- I just usually go with the ruling and curse the GM under my
>breath like a good player.

That sounds like a sort of apology, I'm sorry if I gave the impression
that I was attacking you, that wasn't the intention of the post, just me
getting some exersize for my fingers again :) Partly the reason I got
like that is I'd had a similar argument this evening with just such a
person, so I guess I came across a bit harder than normal.

A new GM started with the club, one who had previously played Shadowrun,
but only run AD&D, he was given a very hard time by a rules lawyer, who
was just contradicting the poor guy all through the evening, in the end
two of us abandoned our games and ganged up on the oik and sorted him
out, he's now licking deep and hopefully permanent wounds, and won't
repeat the episode in a hurry.

>The other problem is that much of what I'm saying is in reference to a GM
>who makes more than occasional mistakes, and loves to kill players (Monk,
>for those of you who know).

This is something that does happen, and is just as disgraceful as bad
players. The GM can "win" so easily, too easily in fact, and this kind
of abuse is something that is wide open to employment by GMs. Something
that logically should not occur. In that situation the Gm should be
brought to book, again there are several ways to do this, but I won't
bother listing them, as no doubt you've tried most. The only real way
is through talking to the Gm, or adopting a GM stance yourself, if the
other players are willing to play in an alternative game, then do so,
and invite the current GM to play, he might just learn something, if of
course the guy turns out to have the same attitude towards play that he
does to GM'ing then you have what is known as a lost cause, and the only
thing to do is turn the person over to a decent therapist.

>Sometimes the player is just right, so GM's
>should listen, that's all I'm really trying to say.

Agreed, and as I stated in my previous post, there are Gms who should
listen to their players, I know D has a similar problem with her GM, and
is driven to distraction sometimes. I do agree that sometimes the
players are right, I just don't advocate the argumentative stance that
so many players take. After all, it's a game, their real lives don't
depend on it. Rational conversation achieves so much more than bellowing
at each other. :)

My opinion is mine, and mine alone. It is not intended as a flame or as
an attitude of right and wrong, it is and always will be, simply *my*
_opinion_ :)

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

From:	Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 02:36:44 +0100

Message no. 11 In article <633E73D49@**.opp.psu.edu>, Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
rambled on endlessly about Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?

>>There are times when a rule can be misinterpreted, and occassionally a
>>player has a need to point it out to the GM, and get a ruling on it.
>>However, the "Rules Lawyer" is a sad disease that exists in this and
>>other game systems as a bane on the lives of players and GM's alike.
>
>As a recovering Rules Lawyer (we're like alcoholics....we never truly get
>over it) I can through in some 1st person perspective here.

:) A rules lawyer... Hmm. Now where did I put that 12 gauge. :)

>Why Be one?: I hate not understanding the system.

Fair enough. Most people like to have an understanding of the game
system they're playing in. I have two players (not counting Paul) that
have the main rule book, out of curiosity rather than need, they wanted
to understand, the other three don't bother, they understand the game
system from playing it.

>When I joined a game, I
>would buy all the books and study until I knew the rules better than the GM.

I know someone personally, (for many years) who I class as a rules
lawyer, and he is very much like this. But...

>With vague systems like WhiteWolf's Umbra system, it drives me nuts.
>
>Advantages: In a good group that doesn't allow you to feed your addiction
>in a game, it can make you a better player since you tend to know the world
>very well.

In some cases. In the case of the chap I know, it makes him a bad
player, regardless of the group. Because he has such an intimate
knowledge of the game, game mechanics and world he's a damn pain in the
arse. Example. His forte is AD&D. It gets really irritating when
playing to hear him spouting off stats for critters that are
encountered, spouting off rules that govern "to hit" numbers etc etc.
When the GM makes a call that isn't 100% on the mark, he contradicts it,
if a call is made that adversely affects his character, he will argue
the point, loudly, at length, up to and including chucking his dice
across the room and storming off in a little tantrum. The reason he is
still allowed to play - he's the GMs brother.

>Disadvantages: In a bad group, you screw up the game. Also, it stresses
>role-playing, since you tend to know the world better than a character would.

Yeah, also, the argumentative nature of a rules lawyer comes to the
fore, and in my personal experience, rules lawyers _are_ argumentative,
they just love showing off their knowledge of the game system. :-/

>Side effects: I ended up as GM. I didn't bother anyone there. :) After my
>11 step recovery ( I read ahead and figured out a shortcut) I have few other
>problems.
>
>Cure: None

Really? I think there is a cure, you found one. Run the game, your
intimate knowledge of the game should theoretically make the sessions
run smoother, for the simple reason you don't have to reach for a book
as often as us mere mortals. <g>

>Treatment: Lay down the law: Any rules arguments happen AFTER the session
>is over. Until then, your word is law. After that, if he convinces you,
>you MAY make it up to him. This has several advantages:

Yeah, that's one thing that I prefer. If their is a difference of
opinion it's always best done after the session. I've actively
encourage my players to talk after the session to iron out anything that
has cropped up in the game, though occassionally something will crop up
while the wife is sorting out munchies. I've witnessed and been
personally involved in some of the arguments caused by the "Rules
Lawyer" and they have a surprising tenacity when they "know" they're
right. The only occassion when I've had to get physical was when one
attacked me for asking, (ok, maybe "asking" is a bit light), him to be
quiet and get on with the game. Poor scmuck actually thought I should
worship his knowledge or something. Needless to say it didn't do him
any good, but it did kinda disrupt the game for a short time, while he
was ejected. :)

>>That's a fair comment, and one that I mostly agree with. But still, if
>>there are house rules, and you are new to the game then it is the GM's
>>responsibility to make you aware of these rules, and to hand you a
>>printout of these house rules that you can refer to in a time of need.
>
>Agreed. Actually, I have channeled my former weakness. I have no problem
>with bending the rules....I just like to know what I'm bending.
>
>Quick Quiz: How many house rules does your group use (this is to all
>listmembers)..

No house rules as such, a lot of open interpretation. I prefer low
powered games, and PC/NPC interaction, so I very rarely use the rule
book. Mostly decisions are made based on logic, and so far I've not had
any complaints.

Though in respect to magic, I suppose there's 1.

My opinion is mine, and mine alone. It is not intended as a flame or as
an attitude of right and wrong, it is and always will be, simply *my*
_opinion_ :)

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

From:	NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Sun, 4 May 1997 23:44:00 -0400

Message no. 12 >Fine, I figured somebody would.
>
>But, in all honesty there is no defence for the rules lawyer. They are
>an irritating infestation onto what could be a smooth flowing game. The
>rules lawyer will argue all and every point if it doesn't suit their
>interpretation of the rules system, they take great pleasure in
>destroying games, players and GMs as a result of this continual arguing.
>The rules lawyer is the worst of all possible munchkins, they are too
>cowardly to run their own games, yet continually contradict those of
>other people.
>

Why Dark Avenger I think I'm in love. ;-)

>Oh, so you think the GM should sit there and accept the crap they're
>going to get from a contradictory munchkin player who simply wants the
>game to go his way, and bugger everyone else?
>
>That is an interesting statement you have made, and open to considerable
>argument. If the GM doesn't have the right to set the rules for the
>game, then who does? The players? I don't think so. The type of
>player we are discussing here is likely to demand a rule that suits
>their style of play and their character type. Unacceptable.

Huzzah!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ah at last! The TRANSFORMATION is complete!
For YEARS they mocked me! They took the name EMMANUEL LEWIS in vain!
But tonight RETRIBUTION will be mine!
For I am REBORN as --WEBSTER--, The adorable scamp of DOOM!
Ma'am's and Georges beware Webster walks the earth and he's got a
HANKERIN' for some SPANKERIN'!

Man did I nail this mad doctor routine or WHAT?
"Deadpool #4"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From:	NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Sun, 4 May 1997 23:52:09 -0400

Message no. 13 >I agree, I guess my problem is that I'm usually right :) so I find myself
>disagreeing occasionally -- full-fledged arguments rarely happen (I can't
>remember one) -- I just usually go with the ruling and curse the GM under my
>breath like a good player.

Fine curse us. Just remember we aren't deal either.

>The other problem is that much of what I'm saying is in reference to a GM
>who makes more than occasional mistakes, and loves to kill players (Monk,
>for those of you who know). Sometimes the player is just right, so GM's
>should listen, that's all I'm really trying to say.

If the comment can be heard and resolved in under 5 minutes fine. But what
myself, DA, and other are speaking of are the 10 minute plus arguements that
make us stop what we're doing and deal with another persons view. If you
still feel your right bring it up after the game not during the middle of
it. Gm's do listen when a arguements brought before us in a calm and
rational manner not a screaming of "NO! it's not Fair!" I haven't got the
time or desire to listen to that. Also unless you have a rotating gm
schedule the gm usually does all the work and doesn't like it when somebody
in the background is having a temper tantrum.
> --DT
>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ah at last! The TRANSFORMATION is complete!
For YEARS they mocked me! They took the name EMMANUEL LEWIS in vain!
But tonight RETRIBUTION will be mine!
For I am REBORN as --WEBSTER--, The adorable scamp of DOOM!
Ma'am's and Georges beware Webster walks the earth and he's got a
HANKERIN' for some SPANKERIN'!

Man did I nail this mad doctor routine or WHAT?
"Deadpool #4"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From:	NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Sun, 4 May 1997 23:55:49 -0400

Message no. 14 >GMs have massive responsibility to keep their games balanced. There is
>so much possibility for character assassination that it's ridiculous to
>even consider a being a "mean" GM. Any character who leaves his secure
>bomb shelter can be taken out by a single shot from an opposition sniper
>at any point in the game, or a drive by shooting from a local street
>gang, or any one of a hundred different ways. No character is
>indestructable, and this is why I find it so hard to accept the few
>"selfish" players out there who abuse the system, bending rules and
>arguing minor little points just to further their own pathetic little
>cause. Thankfully these people are few and far between.
>
>The GM is almost forced to be as fair as possible within a game, so why
>can't those few players accept that, and behave accordingly? That's not
>to say everybody is like that, there are some damn good players out
>there, and some very bad GMs. I've met quite a few of both so I know
>they exist, but somewhere, hiding in the wings waiting for a chance is
>the munchkin, the sad little oik who's only purpose in life is to create
>havoc, whether they be player or GM.

I'm definately in love now DA. ;-)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ah at last! The TRANSFORMATION is complete!
For YEARS they mocked me! They took the name EMMANUEL LEWIS in vain!
But tonight RETRIBUTION will be mine!
For I am REBORN as --WEBSTER--, The adorable scamp of DOOM!
Ma'am's and Georges beware Webster walks the earth and he's got a
HANKERIN' for some SPANKERIN'!

Man did I nail this mad doctor routine or WHAT?
"Deadpool #4"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From:	NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 00:02:45 -0400

Message no. 15 >Fine curse us. Just remember we aren't deal either.

Ummm that was supposed to be "deaf".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ah at last! The TRANSFORMATION is complete!
For YEARS they mocked me! They took the name EMMANUEL LEWIS in vain!
But tonight RETRIBUTION will be mine!
For I am REBORN as --WEBSTER--, The adorable scamp of DOOM!
Ma'am's and Georges beware Webster walks the earth and he's got a
HANKERIN' for some SPANKERIN'!

Man did I nail this mad doctor routine or WHAT?
"Deadpool #4"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From:	Shaun Sides <arch@****.ABTS.NET>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 07:52:56 -0500

Message no. 16 Date: 4 May 97 Time: 20:18
Subject: Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runner

TO: Brett Borger

> Quick Quiz: How many house rules does your group use (this is to
> all listmembers)..

I have about a 100k file that I use for my [unmentionable] game. :)

a chaoidh teabadaich,

Shaun Sides
arch@****.net
http://www.abts.net/~arch

Thought for the day:
Bagpipes (n): an octopus wearing a kilt.

From:	Shaun Sides <arch@****.ABTS.NET>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 07:52:56 -0500

Message no. 17 Date: 4 May 97 Time: 20:15
Subject: Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runner

TO: David Thompson

> The other problem is that much of what I'm saying is in reference to
> a GM who makes more than occasional mistakes, and loves to kill
> players (Monk, for those of you who know). Sometimes the player is
> just right, so GM's should listen, that's all I'm really trying to
> say.

My own method in GM'ing (though never have done SR) has always been
to try my best first off to make my house rules known to the players,
then if anyone has a beef, I am more than willing to listen and give
a ruling based on what the player has to say. I make very plain up
front, however, that I have absolutely no intention of spending a
game session arguing over something. Once I make the ruling, that's
it.

a chaoidh teabadaich,

Shaun Sides
arch@****.net
http://www.abts.net/~arch

Thought for the day:
The only thing that hurts more than paying income tax
is not having to pay income tax.

From:	Shaun Sides <arch@****.ABTS.NET>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 07:57:31 -0500

Message no. 18 Date: 5 May 97 Time: 2:36
Subject: Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runner

TO: Avenger

> Yeah, that's one thing that I prefer. If their is a difference of
> opinion it's always best done after the session. I've actively

Reason I don't use this method (gave it very serious consideration)
is the chance that I might actually make a mistake to a player's
detriment, and I don't ever reverse a call once it's part of the
story.

a chaoidh teabadaich,

Shaun Sides
arch@****.net
http://www.abts.net/~arch

Thought for the day:
Advertising (n): the science of arresting the human
intelligence for long enough to get money from it.
-- Stephen Leacock.

From:	Gossamer <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 09:29:04 -0500

Message no. 19 >>There are times when a rule can be misinterpreted, and
>>occassionally a player has a need to point it out to the
>>GM, and get a ruling on it. However, the "Rules Lawyer"
>>is a sad disease that exists in this and other game systems
>>as a bane on the lives of players and GM's alike.
>
>As a recovering Rules Lawyer (we're like alcoholics....we
>never truly get over it) I can through in some 1st person
>perspective here.

Since we're all coming out of the closet now (or the woodwork,
whichever perspective you take on RL's), I must say that I
might in some circles be considered a Rules Lawyer, but not
nearly so extreme as some people fear. And with that, I'd
like to add my half-newyen to the debate...

>Why Be one?: I hate not understanding the system.

I hate not understanding it too, but there's another reason:
Protection against ego driven, snotty, immature people who
become GM's so they can run other people into the dirt and
who can afford to buy most of the books and so are considered
experts by everyone even though they haven't read half of the
material. Uh, oh yah, that was not meant as any sort of
statistically significant portion of the population, it was
an anecdotal account and a bitch at an ego driven, snotty...
Well, you get the picture.

And while we're at it, let's get into this 'Understanding
the Rules' thing a bit more, and say that, in my case at
least, it's not that I want to understand the rules, but
rather, I want the group that I play with to all understand
and use the same rules. And there are times when the rules
say I can do something, or when the rules say the someone
else can or cannot do a thing, AND WHEN I PLAN ON USING
THAT TO MY ADVANTAGE, and then I get smicked in the face
by a GM who is unaware of the rule, or interprets it differently
than I do, I want to know what she understands and why the
ruling went that way.

Now, let me tell you a story about some of the greatest
gaming I've ever been involved in...

After having played with the same group of people for over
5 years in this one gaming system (Champions if anyone cares).
We all had a mutual understanding of the rules, and we all
had similar interpretations of the rules. So when an NPC
did something that crushed our group that should have been
blatantly against the rules of the world we were playing in,
instead of arguing about a rules interpretation, we all
determined that 'something else was going on'. Duh? We
eventually figured out why he could do what he did, and we
crushed him like a bug, thank you very much, but my point
is this: If we hadn't hashed out the rules and our
interpretations of them, we would never have been able to
have had such subtle gaming.

And it is my assertion that the hashing out process, the
rules lawyering that went on in my group, eventually made
our game some of the best role playing I've ever had the
pleasure of engaging in. I have been in other groups, and
played characters that are subtle, but they are too subtle
for a lot of other people. And hashing out interpretations
of the rules (like we do on this list btw) is IMNSHO is the
only real way to achieve that type of intimacy/subtlety.

>Advantages: In a good group that doesn't allow you to feed
>your addiction in a game, it can make you a better player
>since you tend to know the world very well.

Again, I this point as an offshoot of the hashing out process.

>Disadvantages: In a bad group, you screw up the game. Also,
>it stresses role-playing, since you tend to know the world
>better than a character would.

I think that if you let your own rules interpretations affect
your character's actions in an out-of-character way, you sick.
If that's one of the defining characteristics of an RL, then
I'm not one.

>Side effects: I ended up as GM. I didn't bother anyone there.

Me too. Everyone loves the worlds I create. The problem that I
have is that it usually takes me about 6 months to get my new
players to trust that my world is as complete and subtle as
it is. For example:

Me: "And then the bad guy does X."
NewPlayer: "but he can't do that in the rules."
Me: "Oh, and why not?
NP: "because that would mean he's got Y and Z and ABC."
Me: "I'm aware of that."
NP: "so then he can't do that."
Me: "Uhm, (sarcastic pause) he can."
NP: "but that would mean!?!" (alarm sounds)
Me: "All of these things are things of which your character is
aware as well, so you can go ahead and draw whatever
conclusion you choose..."
NP: "But that would mean..." (fear of what's going on finally setting in)
OldPlayer: (grinning) "Be afraid, be very afraid..."
Me: (EGMLOL)
NP: (very small) "Oh my..."

And then at the end of the adventure, I give the New Player extra
experience awards for hashing out the rules and their implications
in an in-character framework, and soon he's brought into the
fold, a convert to subtle, good-rules-lawyery gaming.

>Cure: None

>Treatment: Lay down the law:

This is a very fair thing to do with a Rules Lawyer, for the
simple fact that you'll be establishing a rule that can be
fairly and consistently followed. As long as the GM is fair,
and does concede a point from time to time. On of the greatest
causes of RL arguements is inconsistent behavior on the part
of self-proclaimed, infallible, GM's. I hate it when the GM
can't admit to having made an error. The 'It's my world, my
word is law' school of GMing really pisses me off. That lack
of maturity and insensitivity really sucks.

>>I have only once found a situation that a Rules Lawyer is
>>useful, and that is in free form games, where there is no
>>plot, just interaction between multiple players. At this
>>time, and only at this time, when intimate knowledge of the
>>game system and game mechanics is needed does the Rules
>>Lawyer become a godsend.
>
>Been there, done that.

Amen.

>>>I have nothing against house rules, or GM's views, I just
>>>don't like to discover them in the middle of a game or
>>>combat.
>>
>>That's a fair comment, and one that I mostly agree with.
>>But still, if there are house rules, and you are new to the
>>game then it is the GM's responsibility to make you aware of
>>these rules, and to hand you a printout of these house rules
>>that you can refer to in a time of need.
>
>Agreed. Actually, I have channeled my former weakness. I
>have no problem with bending the rules....I just like to know
>what I'm bending.

And when they bend. And whom do they bend for. And do they
bend the same way no matter which way them wind blows.

Gossamer

From:	Gossamer <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 09:45:44 -0500

Message no. 20 >>The other problem is that much of what I'm saying is in
>>reference to a GM who makes more than occasional mistakes,
>>and loves to kill players (Monk, for those of you who know).
>>Sometimes the player is just right, so GM's should listen,
>>that's all I'm really trying to say.
>
>If the comment can be heard and resolved in under 5 minutes fine.
[rest of Nightlife's comment deleted]

Oh!!!! I was starting to get really angry until I read this.
None of your other posts mentioned anything about being reasonable.
They just contained insulting, inflamatory language aout how you
were right and anyone who disagreed was wrong...

I've never had a rules related arguement go over 5 minutes...
I didn't know they could...

Boy, I must live in a sheltered world.

Gossamer, writing from Holy Mother of Eternal Internals Convent.

From:	David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 11:32:03 -0400

Message no. 21 At 09:29 AM 5/5/97 -0500, Gossamer wrote:

>>>There are times when a rule can be misinterpreted, and
>>>occassionally a player has a need to point it out to the
>>>GM, and get a ruling on it. However, the "Rules Lawyer"
>>>is a sad disease that exists in this and other game systems
>>>as a bane on the lives of players and GM's alike.
>>
>>As a recovering Rules Lawyer (we're like alcoholics....we
>>never truly get over it) I can through in some 1st person
>>perspective here.
>
>Since we're all coming out of the closet now (or the woodwork,
>whichever perspective you take on RL's), I must say that I
>might in some circles be considered a Rules Lawyer, but not
>nearly so extreme as some people fear. And with that, I'd
>like to add my half-newyen to the debate...
>
>>Why Be one?: I hate not understanding the system.
>
>I hate not understanding it too, but there's another reason:
>Protection against ego driven, snotty, immature people who
>become GM's so they can run other people into the dirt and
>who can afford to buy most of the books and so are considered
>experts by everyone even though they haven't read half of the
>material. Uh, oh yah, that was not meant as any sort of
>statistically significant portion of the population, it was
>an anecdotal account and a bitch at an ego driven, snotty...
>Well, you get the picture.
>
>And while we're at it, let's get into this 'Understanding
>the Rules' thing a bit more, and say that, in my case at
>least, it's not that I want to understand the rules, but
>rather, I want the group that I play with to all understand
>and use the same rules. And there are times when the rules
>say I can do something, or when the rules say the someone
>else can or cannot do a thing, AND WHEN I PLAN ON USING
>THAT TO MY ADVANTAGE, and then I get smicked in the face
>by a GM who is unaware of the rule, or interprets it differently
>than I do, I want to know what she understands and why the
>ruling went that way.

HEAR HEAR, that is exactly what I was trying to say. GOOD Point!

>>Side effects: I ended up as GM. I didn't bother anyone there.
>
>Me too. Everyone loves the worlds I create. The problem that I
>have is that it usually takes me about 6 months to get my new
>players to trust that my world is as complete and subtle as
>it is. For example:

Me Too, (sometimes).

>This is a very fair thing to do with a Rules Lawyer, for the
>simple fact that you'll be establishing a rule that can be
>fairly and consistently followed. As long as the GM is fair,
>and does concede a point from time to time. On of the greatest
>causes of RL arguements is inconsistent behavior on the part
>of self-proclaimed, infallible, GM's. I hate it when the GM
>can't admit to having made an error. The 'It's my world, my
>word is law' school of GMing really pisses me off. That lack
>of maturity and insensitivity really sucks.

This was what I meant, and I heard inklings of this in all the
self-righteous whining about how players had opinions and were ruining the
GM's game (notice possessive).

Thank you Gossamer, your suspicion of GM fairness is exactly what I had in
mind when speaking in PARTIAL defense of rules lawyers. "Inconistent
behavior on the part of self-proclaimed, infallible, GM's" begs for someone
to step forward and correct the situation -- someone who knows the rules.
Rules lawyering as a tool of muchkinism (arguing solely for the advantage of
the player) is totally different, and is what is coming under such harsh
attack from Avenger and Nightlife -- rightly so.

--DT

From:	Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 18:57:11 +0000

Message no. 22 On 4 May 97 at 20:15, David Thompson wrote:
[snip]
> I agree, I guess my problem is that I'm usually right :) so I find
> myself disagreeing occasionally -- full-fledged arguments rarely
> happen (I can't remember one) -- I just usually go with the ruling
> and curse the GM under my breath like a good player.
It helps to write the mistake onto a piece of paper, slipping it to the
GM. This avoids instant rules discussion (which really destroys any
athmo... atmo... feeling) and the GM can check when the players start
discussing among themselves (about the plot, hopefully, not rules :-)
or even after the session. This works quite good in my experience (and
I think I know the rules quite good - although not the table
of elementals... *sigh*)

Oh, btw, Thanks, Pete, for your articles. I've send them to my players
and a GM I happen to know (hoping it will bring one of them to GM for
me :-)

From:	Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 17:49:08 -0700

Message no. 23 ---Shaun Sides wrote:
>
> My own method in GM'ing (though never have done SR) has always been
> to try my best first off to make my house rules known to the players,
> then if anyone has a beef, I am more than willing to listen and give
> a ruling based on what the player has to say. I make very plain up
> front, however, that I have absolutely no intention of spending a
> game session arguing over something. Once I make the ruling, that's
> it.

That more or less sums up my GMing style, and I've been running
Shadowrun for about eight years (when were the 1st edition hardbacks
released - '89?)

Anyways, I feel I try to be fair in both house-rules are core rule
interpretation. I'm more than willing to bounce ideas of my players
and get their feedback before setting down a ruling. My players have
also seen me admit to being wrong or find one of their intrepretations
better than my own. However, my group also respects my position as GM
and once I've laid down a final ruling it stands.

===

@>--,--'--- Loki <gamemstr@********.com>

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic."
- A. C. Clarke

Poisoned Elves: http://www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/
_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.rocketmail.com

From:	Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Tue, 6 May 1997 01:18:19 +0100

Message no. 24 In article <m0wORdb-0004wkC@*******.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE>, Sascha
Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.DE> rambled on endlessly
about Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?

>I think I know the rules quite good - although not the table
>of elementals... *sigh*)

Table of elementals or table of elements, there's a big difference. :)

>Oh, btw, Thanks, Pete, for your articles. I've send them to my players
>and a GM I happen to know (hoping it will bring one of them to GM for
>me :-)

S'Okay I'm glad someone found them useful :) Normally I'm just letting
off steam and exersizing my fingers :)

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

From:	Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Tue, 6 May 1997 01:49:44 +0100

Message no. 25 In article <2.2.32.19970505153203.006fdc74@********.cis.yale.edu>, David
Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU> rambled on endlessly about Pro's &
munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
>At 09:29 AM 5/5/97 -0500, Gossamer wrote:

>>of self-proclaimed, infallible, GM's. I hate it when the GM
>>can't admit to having made an error. The 'It's my world, my
>>word is law' school of GMing really pisses me off. That lack
>>of maturity and insensitivity really sucks.

The game, the world and the rules belong to the GM. It his his or her
world, their word *is* law, end of story. However...

There are limitations to this. No GM is beyond reproach, as I'm sure
people will agree. There are some GMs out there who have a vision of a
world, and absolutely no logic whatsoever governs this world. Granite
could probably explain better than I about one such twit. He sent me an
outline for a game world someone had designed for PBEM, and it was the
biggest load of nonsense I have ever read, with little or no common
sense covering it. Re-writes of the rules twisting the game beyond what
it is intended to be. This is fine, provided the GM is prepared to
listen to input from the players and make relevant adjustments. If they
simply greet everything with evasion, because they don't know, or don't
care, they are going to have a well deserved problem.

>mind when speaking in PARTIAL defense of rules lawyers. "Inconistent
>behavior on the part of self-proclaimed, infallible, GM's"

Self proclaimed infallible GM's come into the same section of misery
that Rules Lawyers fall into.

There are uses for people who are familiar with the game they are
playing, of course there are, I'd have to be stupid to say otherwise.
As you mention below, it is the little twat who argues incessantly to
their own benefit that was the point of my rants, not the intelligent
one who is able to keep their opinion civilised and within a decent
manner of behaviour. I have in the past, asked someone for a rule on a
particular calling because I wasn't sure, and knew they knew what it
was.

Although I still maintain that the GM's word is law, that the world and
game he/she designs belongs exclusively to them, in much the same manner
as a Producer and Director of a movie, the players or actors do have a
say in some of that world. The game develops and becomes better and
more enjoyable with co-operation. A player who is only interested in
themselves is as useless to the game as a GM who doesn't listen to
his/her players.

>begs for someone
>to step forward and correct the situation -- someone who knows the rules.
>Rules lawyering as a tool of muchkinism (arguing solely for the advantage of
>the player) is totally different, and is what is coming under such harsh
>attack from Avenger and Nightlife -- rightly so.

Someone else mentioned in another post that they were surprised to hear
that an argument could go on for several minutes. I have many years ago
played in a couple of games where rules arguments went on for several
hours. There was a game of sorts, usually five minutes of play, 90
minutes of argument, 5 minutes of play... That sort of attitude just
makes one wish that murder was legal.

On the other side of the coin, I've also played in a game run by a rules
lawyer GM, who stuck rigidly to everything in print, preventing
character actions simply because they weren't covered, swinging on a
chandelier, jumping over a suit of plate mail, blind firing round a
corner, I lost a character to what I call bendy spear syndrome. My
character was standing, back against a wall to the side of door, the GM
had four targets, three in plain view, and mine, he rolled a d4, it came
up 4, a spear shoved through the door jam, turned 90 degrees mid shaft
and my character died... Hmmm... <grumbe grumble> when the relevant
rules were pointed out, the decision stood, regardless of logic -
temptation for that sort of person - a swift smack in the mouth.
Thankfully I'm a cool, calm person, who rarely loses their temper :)
The GM hasn't changed one bit in the 23 years I've known him. Even
though I regularly berate him for his stupid attitude.

There are so many examples of player aggravation and GM ignorance, that
could be so easily avoided if a little logic/common sense and thought
was involved. Arguing rules points to suit your character, or arguing
rules points to kill a character are in my opinion, bloody stupid and a
waste of time. The game is for enjoyment, if that enjoyment is being
trashed by this sort of attitude, it is no longer fun, and no longer
worth playing.

I still feel that rules discussion should take place during a break, or
at the end of a game, not in the middle, however, there are occassions
when it is a matter of a simple comment to correct an error, but that
was not the point of my waffling. :)

My opinion is mine, and mine alone. It is not intended as a flame or as
an attitude of right and wrong, it is and always will be, simply *my*
_opinion_ :)

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

From:	Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Tue, 6 May 1997 01:20:39 +0100

Message no. 26 In article <199705050344.XAA27925@******.san.uc.edu>, NightLife
<habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU> rambled on endlessly about Pro's & munchies
was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?

>>The rules lawyer is the worst of all possible munchkins, they are too
>>cowardly to run their own games, yet continually contradict those of
>>other people.
>
>Why Dark Avenger I think I'm in love. ;-)

Should I be worried? <grin>

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

From:	TEGTMEBC@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 21:55:11 -0500

Message no. 27 You wrote:
> >>The other problem is that much of what I'm saying is in
> >>reference to a GM who makes more than occasional mistakes,
> >>and loves to kill players (Monk, for those of you who know).
> >>Sometimes the player is just right, so GM's should listen,
> >>that's all I'm really trying to say.
> >
> >If the comment can be heard and resolved in under 5 minutes fine.
> [rest of Nightlife's comment deleted]

> Oh!!!! I was starting to get really angry until I read this.
> None of your other posts mentioned anything about being reasonable.
> They just contained insulting, inflamatory language aout how you
> were right and anyone who disagreed was wrong...

Knowing Nightlife as I do, I'll admit, quite honestly, that he is very
opinionated, but that isn't really a bad thing. He has his opinions, and will
get in your face if you just come up to him and yell, "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!".
BUT when you go about it diplomatically, and point out where your
interpretations stem from, he is willing to listen. He probably won't agree
because he doesn't like being wrong, but who does? But if you put up a good
case, and have reason to think like you do, sometimes he does change his mind.
Hell, it only took me three years to convince him that I had at least one
functioning brain cell, even if it is just shadowboxing up in my empty head.
:) About his posts sounding unreasonable, well, you just have to know him to
realize that he forgets to mention things like that.

> I've never had a rules related arguement go over 5 minutes...
> I didn't know they could...

OH, can they!Ever have your mood ruined for a week because of everyone
having their own take on how things should go? What's that, you haven't? You're
lucky. Luckily, things like that don't happen too frequently, and this entire
discussion is making it seem that this type of stuff runs rampant every session
where ever Shadowrun is played, but the truth is that all these problems only
seem to rare their ugly heads every once in a while. At least I hope.

-The Immortal Mental

From:	tom Cone <Brother-1@*****.NET>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 17:22:18 -1000

Message no. 28 >I've never had a rules related argument go >over 5 minutes...didn't
know they could...

I took this as sarcasm without the appropriate
smiley.

Brother-1. Decker for hire.
>Visit Dot's Deck Technologies! Just north of the Sea-TAC!

From:	Gossamer <kajohnson@*******.TEC.WI.US>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 22:44:20 -0500

Message no. 29 > Knowing Nightlife as I do, I'll admit, quite honestly, that he
> is very opinionated, but that isn't really a bad thing. He has his
> opinions, and will get in your face if you just come up to him
> and yell, "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!". BUT

Boy, I'm about to jump into it now, but here I go...

Compared to the Stainless Steel Rat (Rat to everyone here), Nightlife is
a diplomat. No, a gentleman. At least after Nightlife is done yelling
at you, he'll read critically what you say, and give you credit when
you make a point...

There was one time when I wrote in to agree with Rat and he
ripped me apart over it. He's the one person that I've seriously
considered hunting down and killing... he was the reason I left the
list the first time I signed on.

Wonder what repecussions that statement will have...

> > I've never had a rules related arguement go over 5 minutes...
> > I didn't know they could...
>
> OH, can they!Ever have your mood ruined for a week because
> of everyone having their own take on how things should go? What's
> that, you haven't?

Nope I haven't. I have been very fortunate to have gamers that feel
they all own the world they play in, and GM's (including myself) who
feel that it is their job to fairly see that the world works in complete
a format as possible. And a typical dispute would go:

GM: And so then, X happens...
Player: Huh? how did that happen?
GM: Well, I used rule Y and thought about it like this...
Player: Oh, that doesn't make any sense because rule Z says...
GM: Yes, but I wasn't thinking about X with respect to rule Z.
I only had in mind this idea...
Player: Well, that's blatantly unfair to PC's.
Player2: Hmmm... yes, it is sort of unfair.
GM: Hmm... I guess I see your point.
Player: Yah, I mean, it would just suck to be if your interpretation
was used. It makes me basically powerless in a
situation where I shouldn't be.
GM: Well, we'll go with it now because I have something in mind,
But I'll change it after this, ok?
Players: Cool, just make sure you do, stud; we know where you live...
GM: whatever.

That's about the extent of it.

If that means I'm not a rules lawyer, then I'm not.

Gossamer, who usually finds an amicable solution

From:	Gossamer <kajohnson@*******.TEC.WI.US>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 23:02:10 -0500

Message no. 30 > >I've never had a rules related argument go
> >over 5 minutes...didn't know they could...

> I took this as sarcasm without the appropriate
> smiley.

Sorry, it's the truth. No sarcasm. I've never had
a rules based arguement go that long...

Gossamer

From:	GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Mon, 5 May 1997 22:55:25 -0700

Message no. 31 > From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
> I'm a rare type of person Granite :)

I think we all know that.... :)

> It was only an example, offering a reason why it is inadvisable to have
> loads of quiet runs. ;) However...

Ahh...For a moment I thought that perhaps you had gone soft on us....
;)

> The ease with which GMs can screw players and kill, main or simply
> destroy is scary.

Too true..I perfer to screw with their heads rather than their
characters..I know I get quite attached to the characters I
create..Lots of time, effort, and thought goes into them..Some GMs
forget this...

>...... My point was that in my opinion players
> should be more considerate of the games they are playing in.

It would be nice...

Yes of
> course if there is something drasticly wrong with the game, and Dvixen
> could probably mention a few things that have almost reduced her to a
> screaming fit,

LOL...Er..sorry..I am pretty sure I can relate...

> ....but rules lawyers and blant argumentative prats only destroy the game.

And IMNSHO should straighten up or lose thier place at the gaming
table..

> I doubt very much though whether it is necessary to create the
> situations that you mention,......

Not normally..I was speaking more of way to revitalise a group that
has lost their edge..a way of returning the sphincter factor to its
proper levels...

> Another thing that I've used to great effect is the GM "smirk".

That is an excellent point..and one we haven't really talked about in
a long time....Little stuff like a simple raised eyebrow after a
player does something that should seem normal..or rubbing your hands
together like you are about to run them through a pot of gold...This
stuff usually has a real affect of them...If they aren't snoozing of
course..but if this is happening them you have a totally different
problem...
>......There is
> so much possibility for character assassination that it's ridiculous to
> even consider a being a "mean" GM.

There is a diferance..a "Mean" GM is an arse..an "Evil" GM..Well..it
is what most aspire to..and a few of us are... [Evil G]

>......there are some damn good players out
> there, and some very bad GMs.

But you know..it is much worse to have a bad GM than it is to have a
bad player...As a bad GM makes everyone miserable all of the
time..and a bad player..well..can be run off...Usually the GM is the
dude with all of the books...making dealing with him/her a bit more
difficult..

> I've met quite a few of both so I know
> they exist,....

And not to change the subject..but..I have met both as well..adn the
greatest examples of each I met at GenCon..the winners of the FASA SR
tourney were some of the very best players I have ever had the
priveledge of GMing for...As well as a couple of 10 year olds the
joined a game we were in with a couple of generic tickets..They were
phenominal roleplayers....Ok..I'll stop now..I just got excited for a
moment..I can't wait till Aug...

> My opinion is mine, and mine alone. It is not intended as a flame or as
> an attitude of right and wrong, it is and always will be, simply *my*
> _opinion_ :)

You should know by now I am not going to take your comments
personally...And besides there are those who share your opinions..if
there weren't this list wouldn't be her..now would it...

--------------------------------GRANITE "Rock Steady"
=====================================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer

From:	TEGTMEBC@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Tue, 6 May 1997 00:51:51 -0500

Message no. 32 Gossamer wrote:
> > Knowing Nightlife as I do, I'll admit, quite honestly, that he
> > is very opinionated, but that isn't really a bad thing. He has his
> > opinions, and will get in your face if you just come up to him
> > and yell, "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!". BUT

> Boy, I'm about to jump into it now, but here I go...

> Compared to the Stainless Steel Rat (Rat to everyone here), Nightlife is
> a diplomat. No, a gentleman. At least after Nightlife is done yelling
> at you, he'll read critically what you say, and give you credit when
> you make a point...

Well that's why I added that "BUT" into it. He does listen, but only if
you are willing to discuss things intelligently, not that you should listen to
people when they just attack you with no reasoning to base their opinions on.
Even if the reasoning is flawed somehow, you can point that out and discuss the
differences of opinion. Much like people try to do here on the list, when
people disagree they tell the others what they base their opinions on and
discuss the options. Rational like. :)

> There was one time when I wrote in to agree with Rat and he
> ripped me apart over it. He's the one person that I've seriously
> considered hunting down and killing... he was the reason I left the
> list the first time I signed on.

I think I remember that, was it a few months ago? I remember someone
agreeing with him and he misunderstood it thinking they were attacking his
reasoning. But the only time I paid much attention to what he was saying was
when I first joined the list and he was arguing about grounding through
sustained spells or something like that. I was even dumb enough to disagree
with what he was saying. I'm still not sure why he didn't rip my head off,
since I've seen how he reacted to other people. Maybe it was because I admitted
that I didn't know much about what the discussion was about.

> Wonder what repecussions that statement will have...

Other than the woopin' Nightlife will give you for calling him, not
just a diplomat, but a gentleman as well? I don't mind telling you I wouldn't
want to be you. :) It's just not healthy to do such things.

> > > I've never had a rules related arguement go over 5 minutes...
> > > I didn't know they could...
> >
> > OH, can they!Ever have your mood ruined for a week because
> > of everyone having their own take on how things should go? What's
> > that, you haven't?

> Nope I haven't. I have been very fortunate to have gamers that feel
> they all own the world they play in, and GM's (including myself) who
> feel that it is their job to fairly see that the world works in complete
> a format as possible. And a typical dispute would go:

<snip intelligent discussion of differing interpretations>

Had to get rid of that, it was waay to rational for the type of SNAFU
that I'm talking about. From what you just wrote, it sounds like you are
fortunate. Everyone accepting what the GM rules, and discussing it BRIEFLY to
realize that the GM is taking other rules into account. Then getting on with
it. That would be great, and in our games most of the older players (the ones
playing in the group longer, not necessarily older) understand what our GM
knows in the rules, and if he doesn't know it, he generally asks me, since he
figures one of us should know it. It's the newer players that can start these
big arguments because we use many house rules that we don't even realize are
house rules. Many of us played First Ed. and we frequently use an older rule
from that edition. After you play in the group awhile, you get used to them,
but if you just start quoting the book, then you won't get anywhere since we
aren't necessarily using THAT book. See where a lot of these problems can crop
up? I know that house rules should be made common knowledge before play begins,
but we don't even realize they are house rules until it's too late. The other
side of the coin is that we might even think the rule is in the book, but it's
actually from First Ed. Sorry about being long winded, there's just a lot to
say. Like I said, you are very fortunate to have those understanding players.

-The Immortal Mental

From:	NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Tue, 6 May 1997 01:27:13 -0400

Message no. 33 >>Why Dark Avenger I think I'm in love. ;-)
>
>Should I be worried? <grin>

You're just saying that you little tramp. ;-)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ah at last! The TRANSFORMATION is complete!
For YEARS they mocked me! They took the name EMMANUEL LEWIS in vain!
But tonight RETRIBUTION will be mine!
For I am REBORN as --WEBSTER--, The adorable scamp of DOOM!
Ma'am's and Georges beware Webster walks the earth and he's got a
HANKERIN' for some SPANKERIN'!

Man did I nail this mad doctor routine or WHAT?
"Deadpool #4"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From:	Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Tue, 6 May 1997 16:50:42 +0000

Message no. 34 [*SNIP* GM vs. Rules Lawyer]

Some views the Rules Lawyers as pure evil - they disrupt play for
personal gain or just because they can. The other view is that they
are needed as a power check on arbitrary GM's. Both views is,
technically, valid, but being a Rules Lawyer to check on the GM is
not the best way to handle that problem. It is, in fact, close to the
worst, since it would, at least for me, only give rise to a lot of
aggrevation rather than resolve anything, and we are, after all, in
this for fun and the occassional self-searching moment.

The error a Rules Lawyer does is to put too much importance on the
written rules. While there is an advantage to mostly follow the
rules, being consistency, special cases can deserve special
rulings.(For instance a nuke in your lap.). Also, there is sometimes
a difference in the spirit of a rule and the wor d of it. Do not
brand all players who voice concern over rules as rules lawyers,
though - only if they consistently do not accept the Gm's rulings.
(Or ingraciously do so - 'Well, GM, I think this rule sucks, but we
have to go on with your game, so can it, OK?'. ).

The error a too arbitrary GM does is put too much importance in
himself. Players and GM's are both there to have fun, and neither
would have much to do without the other. The GM is in a special
position, and he (usually) puts a lot more work in than the playesr.
That earns him the right to have a greater say in things, let alone
the fact that he also is the 'manager' of the story. The GM has two
responsibilities: The first is to weave a good story, using the
threads the players give him. The other is to make sure they all have
a good time. (Good =/= fun, btw).

I have experienced a terrible GM. He threw 'super enemies' at his
players, usually killing a player or two every other session -
incidentally, the same players every time, whom he personally didn't
like too much. The one or two times I played with him as GM I got...
(this was back in the ED&D days (Not to be confused with AD&D)) a
castle and an artifact. Not very fun, even then; I quit.

Any other GM's have this problem, btw? I have found that I am not
really able to play as a player after about 6 years of GM'ing.. I
end up as a rules lawyer because the way I imagine the world working
isn't the same as the other GM's. I try not to, but .. well.

Fourthly, I'm using Pegasus now and shouldn't generate unknown
attachements. So no need for those '.. even ATTACHMENTS!!' comments,
Okay? :)

"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."

From:	David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Tue, 6 May 1997 15:58:44 -0400

Message no. 35 At 04:50 PM 5/6/97 +0000, you wrote:

>The error a Rules Lawyer does is to put too much importance on the
>written rules. While there is an advantage to mostly follow the
>rules, being consistency, special cases can deserve special
>rulings.(For instance a nuke in your lap.). Also, there is sometimes
>a difference in the spirit of a rule and the wor d of it. Do not
>brand all players who voice concern over rules as rules lawyers,
>though - only if they consistently do not accept the Gm's rulings.
>(Or ingraciously do so - 'Well, GM, I think this rule sucks, but we
>have to go on with your game, so can it, OK?'. ).
>
>The error a too arbitrary GM does is put too much importance in
>himself. Players and GM's are both there to have fun, and neither
>would have much to do without the other. The GM is in a special
>position, and he (usually) puts a lot more work in than the playesr.
>That earns him the right to have a greater say in things, let alone
>the fact that he also is the 'manager' of the story. The GM has two
>responsibilities: The first is to weave a good story, using the
>threads the players give him. The other is to make sure they all have
>a good time. (Good =/= fun, btw).

A very well balanced view, and I'm not just saying that to get more karma :)

The problem I was having was it sounded like the GM (I think it was
Nightlife) was going the path of putting too much importance in himself, but
whoever it was explained that they were just pissed because they just got in
a huge argument with a Rules Lawyer.

>Any other GM's have this problem, btw? I have found that I am not
>really able to play as a player after about 6 years of GM'ing.. I
>end up as a rules lawyer because the way I imagine the world working
>isn't the same as the other GM's. I try not to, but .. well.

Maybe that is another part of it...hmm...

--DT

From:	Brett Borger <SwiftOne@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Tue, 6 May 1997 19:53:13 -0400

Message no. 36 >> Quick Quiz: How many house rules does your group use (this is to
>> all listmembers)..
>
>I have about a 100k file that I use for my [unmentionable] game. :)

Yeah, but is this 100k Text file (about 200 rules) or a MS Word file (about
10 rules)

-=SwiftOne=-

From:	Brett Borger <SwiftOne@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Tue, 6 May 1997 19:53:14 -0400

Message no. 37 >>Disadvantages: In a bad group, you screw up the game. Also,
>>it stresses role-playing, since you tend to know the world
>>better than a character would.
>
>I think that if you let your own rules interpretations affect
>your character's actions in an out-of-character way, you sick.
>If that's one of the defining characteristics of an RL, then
>I'm not one.

I think you misuderstand. In addition to learning all the rules, I learn a
lot of GM material....it makes it more challenging to play your average
runner (pre-Bug City) when I know all about Bugs, Horrors, IE's, etc. I can
pretend I don't, but playing the whole "discovering what they are" bit just
doesn't work well.

>Me: "And then the bad guy does X."
>NewPlayer: "but he can't do that in the rules."
>Me: "Oh, and why not?

Nope, in my game it would be: "Yeah, well, you haven't ever been able to do
X, but this guy just did, so what are you going to do about it?" Arguements
are for AFTER the game.

-=SwiftOne=-

From:	Gossamer <kajohnson@*******.TEC.WI.US>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Tue, 6 May 1997 20:19:17 -0500

Message no. 38 > I think you misuderstand. In addition to learning all the
> rules, I learn a lot of GM material....it makes it more
> challenging to play your average runner (pre-Bug City)
> when I know all about Bugs, Horrors, IE's, etc. I can
> pretend I don't, but playing the whole "discovering what
> they are" bit just doesn't work well.

Oh, yes, I see your point, and I've had this same trouble.
I apologize for my misinterpretation. And there's no fix
for this other than not going into those places... I've
never been to Chicago, and, although we do see Bug
Spirits from time to time, we don't tend to play 'way out
on the edge' in our games. We are content to be Corp
raiders and trying not to get killed by Mitsuhama. I
have found in our games that after you've broken into
a Corp complex 5 times in 3 years, they tend to be not
very happy to see you again... And then you have to
run very far away. Maye I'm not ambitious enough,
but we have plenty of newyen from fragging over a
Corp, or a store owner or whatever.

So, why do I not feel the need to get bigger?
Does anyone else not get bored doing the same basic
runs... I mean there's a Renraku guard that we've
knocked out or captured 7 or 8 times. It's like the
alien abduction thing: he's getting a 6th sense of
when we're coming, but he can't stop us, so he
goes a little nuts each time. Thus far we've been
very nice to him, and we've even taken care of his
family on a couple of episodes.

So why don't I feel the need to push the envelope?

> >Me: "And then the bad guy does X."
> >NewPlayer: "but he can't do that in the rules."
> >Me: "Oh, and why not?
>
> Nope, in my game it would be: "Yeah, well, you haven't
> ever been able to do X, but this guy just did, so what are
> you going to do about it?"

After the GM/Players reach a rapport, that is exactly what
happens. And after a while, after very firm trust is
established, we don't even go through that... but it was a
conscious effort on our part to establish and maintain
that trust through much beer, soda, chips, dip, tacos,
and occasionally tequila. Oh, and we hashed out group
interpretations of the rules whie we were at it...

> Arguements are for AFTER the game.

I agree that if a real arguement happens it gets handled
after the game, but apparently, I've never been in one.

Cheers,

Gossamer

From:	Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Wed, 7 May 1997 02:03:33 +0100

Message no. 39 In article <199705060527.BAA06333@******.san.uc.edu>, NightLife
<habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU> rambled on endlessly about Pro's & munchies
was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
>>>Why Dark Avenger I think I'm in love. ;-)
>>
>>Should I be worried? <grin>
>
>You're just saying that you little tramp. ;-)

Rubbish! After our friendly little conversations </sarcasm?> regarding
dead, dying or mutant frogs, gauntlets and Hollywood genetics, and then
you make a remark like that, and seriously think I'm not going to worry?
Really!

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

From:	Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Wed, 7 May 1997 02:34:00 +0100

Message no. 40 In article <19970506045738967.AAA225@********.gj.net>, GRANITE
<granite@**.net> rambled on endlessly about Pro's & munchies was Re:
Runnersºd Tenants?
>> From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
>> I'm a rare type of person Granite :)
>
>I think we all know that.... :)

Hmmm... Yeah.

>Ahh...For a moment I thought that perhaps you had gone soft on us....
> ;)

Me, go soft. Nah, just being polite :) (ish)

>> The ease with which GMs can screw players and kill, main or simply
>> destroy is scary.
>
>Too true..I perfer to screw with their heads rather than their
>characters..

This is something that becomes difficult. A player has no knowledge
whatsoever of the situation they are in, they are working completely
blind in whatever scenario is being played, even if familiar with a
scenario, it is possible to change small subtle things that change it
completely from what it was. However, even the simplest things, that
are glaringly obvious to the GM, and written in glowing neon above the
gaming table can be missed by the players. Simple clues like "the
documents are on the desk," are amusingly ignored, as they decide that's
too obvious, and tear the office to shreds looking for the papers
they're after. There have been so many occassions when my players have
considered ideas far more devious than anything I've had planned for
them, and I've felt almost obligated to reward them with something for
all their effort.

Players are wonderful creatures, they add so much amusement to the game
<g>

>I know I get quite attached to the characters I
>create..Lots of time, effort, and thought goes into them..Some GMs
>forget this...

Can't comment here, I've not played in quite some time, so I don't have
any characters I'm attached to. I do however, have a _very_ old stable
of dead characters - about 175 last count. :)

>> could probably mention a few things that have almost reduced her to a
>> screaming fit,
>
>LOL...Er..sorry..I am pretty sure I can relate...

Yeah, probably, especially after that wonderful outline you posted to
me. :)

>> ....but rules lawyers and blant argumentative prats only destroy the game.
>
>And IMNSHO should straighten up or lose thier place at the gaming
>table..

This is where life usually gets difficult. These creatures are normally
attached in some way, either to another gamer, a friend or are a
relative, they seem to feel that because their is some sort of
relationship involved, they can abuse things even more. Creting a
nightmarish situation for the GM where they are at risk of causing great
upset by enforcing logic. I'm a bit more militant in that respect, and
will take the guilty player to task, regardless of consequences, but I
can see how others get very nervous about laying down laws of behaviour.
In this sort of situation it's a bit nerve wracking to risk losing a
friend as a result of stupid gaming attitude.

>Not normally..I was speaking more of way to revitalise a group that
>has lost their edge..a way of returning the sphincter factor to its
>proper levels...

Other than asking them to sit back while you plug their chairs in, you
mean?

>> Another thing that I've used to great effect is the GM "smirk".
>
>That is an excellent point..and one we haven't really talked about in
>a long time....Little stuff like a simple raised eyebrow after a
>player does something that should seem normal..

The dreaded eyebrow, oh that's a nice one. I've had players in absolute
fits of panic with that little move, even more so when it's attached to
a half smirk and a "look".

>or rubbing your hands
>together like you are about to run them through a pot of gold...

This doesn't have any effect on the guys at the club, the damn place is
so cold, that most people do it to keep warm :) even in summer. One
thing that I've found very useful is a little trick I pull regularly on
my players when using a module, and that is to close it. They have
arrived at the conclusion now that the only time they're getting
something right, is when I open the module and check a few pages, the
rest of the time they're panicking trying to figure out where they went
wrong, and what they've missed. I do tend to use it quite a bit in my
games, running much of it "off the cuff" so to speak, but it has a
startling effect on the players when I actually open the module. Sweat
is wiped from foreheads, notebooks and scribblepads are put down, and
they all relax. Then I close it again... :)

Ah, power, it's so addictive <g>

>course..but if this is happening them you have a totally different
>problem...

Only two that I can think of. a) the Gm is one _booooring_ person, or
b) the game has lasted beyond the 72 hours most are capable of. I
remember one mammoth session that went on for four days, over a
christmas a few years back, beer, pretzels, pizza and gallons of
coffee.. I think we all collapsed for 24 hours after that. :) It was
fun though. All based around Santa Claus, a polo mint and a dwarf clan.
:)

>>......There is
>> so much possibility for character assassination that it's ridiculous to
>> even consider a being a "mean" GM.
>
>There is a diferance..a "Mean" GM is an arse..an "Evil"
GM..Well..it
>is what most aspire to..and a few of us are... [Evil G]

Ah, c'mon Granite, the "Evil" Gm is a myth perpetrated by Gms in general
to keep players paranoid. Yes there are a few, who revel in the
destruction of PC's, both property and physically, but others just like
to be thought of as such. I have a nasty habit of applying vast amounts
of pressure to PCs, from their peers, media, security and "other"
sources. But I don't remember doing an awful lot to them. They've been
chased from one side of the world to the other in a variety of
scenarios, but in four years only six characters have died, the rest
have been retired.

Mind you, having said that, the players I've had for the last few years,
have worked very hard with their characters to work out nicely detailed
backgrounds, during creation, and I have a wonderful time incorporating
their lives into the game world, and working the consequences and
benefits for them. It's a great feeling of satisfaction when a player
is proud of their character because they meld with the game world and
seem a part of it. Doormen, that greet them by name, and are friendly,
maitre'd that has a table reserved for them whenever they turn up, a
beat cop who's on nodding acquaintance, little things, that seem to mean
a great deal to the players.

>But you know..it is much worse to have a bad GM than it is to have a
>bad player...As a bad GM makes everyone miserable all of the
>time..and a bad player..well..can be run off...Usually the GM is the
>dude with all of the books...making dealing with him/her a bit more
>difficult..

Yes and no. A bad GM is less likely to get players, but GMs are more
likely to get bad players. So in a way the statement doesn't work, but
I agree, bad GMs make everyone miserable. Not least of which is another
Gm sitting at another table having to listen to it. :(

>> I've met quite a few of both so I know
>> they exist,....
>
>And not to change the subject..but..I have met both as well..adn the
>greatest examples of each I met at GenCon..

Never been to one. I've often considered the possibility, but I've
always found better uses for my money. :)

>moment..I can't wait till Aug...

Tough, you're going to have to wait aren't you. ;)

>> My opinion is mine, and mine alone. It is not intended as a flame or as
>> an attitude of right and wrong, it is and always will be, simply *my*
>> _opinion_ :)
>
>You should know by now I am not going to take your comments
>personally...

You aren't but others do. Not many, most people are aware of my
"opinions", many more know that I'm an opinionated vociferous nitwit who
will waffle incessantly on and on and on...

>And besides there are those who share your opinions..if
>there weren't this list wouldn't be her..now would it...

The comment is something you'll see quite often on the list. Especially
after a longish rant, for the simple reason, it's often very easy, and
I've done it myself, to lose the fact that the person you are
reading/answering isn't having a screeching fit at everybody in general.
The little paragraph is just a reminder to the new people on the list
who don't know me as well as some, that my opinion is not to be taken as
god's own truth, it's just me rambling. :)

And we do get through some people these days, newbies come and go faster
than the seasons. Speaking of which, what is going on? It's May, and
we've got freezing temperatures, snow and sleet along with a potential
drought situation, over here in the UK, bloody wierd if you ask me.

I wonder if the Americans on the list fancy posting some of that flood
water over to the UK to top up our reservoirs <grin>.

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

From:	"Q (not from Star Trek)" <Scott.E.Meyer@*******.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Tue, 6 May 1997 21:50:32 -0500

Message no. 41 On Wed, 7 May 1997, Avenger wrote:

[snip]

Speaking of which, what is going on? It's May, and
> we've got freezing temperatures, snow and sleet along with a potential
> drought situation, over here in the UK, bloody wierd if you ask me.
>

Well, I think we can rule out global warming :)

-Q

---------------------------------------
I dislike Windows95 for the same reason people dislike New Coke
It tastes disgustingly like Pepsi.

Scott "Q" Meyer
Scott.E.Meyer@*******.edu
http://johnh.wheaton.edu/~smeyer

From:	GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Tue, 6 May 1997 23:40:03 -0700

Message no. 42 > From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
> Me, go soft. Nah, just being polite :) (ish)

Are you well??? ;)

> Players are wonderful creatures, they add so much amusement to the game
> <g>

Yes..and where would we be without them?? Wait a minute..I think I am
living the answer to that one... :(

> Can't comment here, I've not played in quite some time, so I don't have
> any characters I'm attached to.

But you have created NPCs and they count too...

> Yeah, probably, especially after that wonderful outline you posted to
> me. :)

[Smile]

> >And IMNSHO should straighten up or lose thier place at the gaming
> >table..
> This is where life usually gets difficult.

True...

>These creatures are normally attached in some way, ......

Been there and done that..One of my players wife was in..while not a
lawyer..she had an infant to take care of...[Before anybody goes off
it wasn't mine so I really didn't care who took care if it..that was
their deal]...We tried a couple of times to allow the infant
around..but it was WAY too big of a distraction..And unfortunately I
had to bar the baby from the gaming area...Wasn't easy..but Something
had to be done or I would have had a mutiny...

>...... but I
> can see how others get very nervous about laying down laws of behaviour.

I never quite understood this...In my experiance these people were
guests in my home [that put things in my court] and there were things
that simply would not be tolerated in my home..I had one friend Who
did not allow cheese in his home [religion based rule] so we accepted
this and either ordered something other than pizza [in the US all
pizza has cheese] or we went elsewhere to eat...I have one friend who
was just starting to get into the marshall arts..and liked to kick
alot..my wife freaked..I had to lay down the law..He was
gracious..[now he is a Black belt I believe]..Most folks don't
realise they are being an ass..and when it is explained to them
things change..if they don't...well...

> Other than asking them to sit back while you plug their chairs in, you
> mean?

Well..when you do that every week..They kinda get used to it...Some
even start to like it.... ;) They drool alot but they like it...

> Ah, power, it's so addictive <g>

Better than anything..well almost anything..I can think of ;)

> Yes and no. A bad GM is less likely to get players,......

That all depends..The place most bad GMs get players is
conventions...By the time you find out it is too late..all the other
events have started...I have been known to walk out on a game or 2
though..I don't like being rude to the GM but when they misrepresent
their game..Well I don't have to take it...So I have left them
staring with thier mouths open..as I said "No thanks..Not even
close..See ya.."

> >moment..I can't wait till Aug...
> Tough, you're going to have to wait aren't you. ;)

D@**..I was hoping you would have a temporal accelerator hidden away
somewhere...

> The little paragraph is just a reminder to the new people on the list
> who don't know me as well as some,

Oh..yea..I forgot about them...They have blended fairly well..

> Speaking of which, what is going on? It's May, and
> we've got freezing temperatures, snow and sleet along with a potential
> drought situation, over here in the UK, bloody wierd if you ask me.

It was hot here today..But I saw snow falling past the Grand Mesa..So
I couldn't answer that one...

--------------------------------GRANITE "Rock Steady"
=====================================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer

From:	Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Wed, 7 May 1997 10:29:42 +0100

Message no. 43 |>>>Why Dark Avenger I think I'm in love. ;-)
|>>
|>>Should I be worried? <grin>
|>
|>You're just saying that you little tramp. ;-)
|
|Rubbish! After our friendly little conversations </sarcasm?> regarding
|dead, dying or mutant frogs, gauntlets and Hollywood genetics, and then
|you make a remark like that, and seriously think I'm not going to worry?
|Really!

CAT FIGHT!!!
CAT FIGHT!!!!!

<EVIL GRIN>
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	Shaun Sides <arch@****.ABTS.NET>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Wed, 7 May 1997 09:07:59 -0500

Message no. 44 Date: 6 May 97 Time: 19:53
Subject: Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runner

TO: Brett Borger

> Yeah, but is this 100k Text file (about 200 rules) or a MS Word file
> (about 10 rules)

Hehehe.

Good point.

It's a vanilla ascii file, but it does have some formatting (I use
the Boxer editor religiously). The formatting doesn't add to the
bulk, though the file has a snazzy ascii header and a table of
contents which do take up a little space.

The contents are new kits, new character classes, rule
clarifications, how to play by email, house rules, and so on. Then
I have a separate file for the world that all of this takes place
on. :)

It's all at my web site (in html format, of course) if anyone is
interested.

a chaoidh teabadaich,

Shaun Sides
arch@****.net
http://www.abts.net/~arch

Thought for the day:
Dictatorship (n): a form of government under which everything
which is not prohibited is compulsory.

From:	Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Thu, 8 May 1997 13:21:19 GMT

Message no. 45 > From: Gossamer <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU>

> I hate not understanding it too, but there's another reason:
> Protection against ego driven, snotty, immature people who
> become GM's so they can run other people into the dirt and
> who can afford to buy most of the books and so are considered
> experts by everyone even though they haven't read half of the
> material. Uh, oh yah, that was not meant as any sort of
> statistically significant portion of the population, it was
> an anecdotal account and a bitch at an ego driven, snotty...
> Well, you get the picture.
>
all too well,

> And while we're at it, let's get into this 'Understanding
> the Rules' thing a bit more, and say that, in my case at
> least, it's not that I want to understand the rules, but
> rather, I want the group that I play with to all understand
> and use the same rules.
yes, players that can explore the rules system can be helpful to an
interesting game, as long as they do it for fun not always to thier
advantage.
It makes sorting out house rules etc much easier, and avoiding
campain balance problems.
I remember a GM finding the rule that states that you need net
successes with magic to hurt them at all in 2nd ed, this would have
had the effect of encouraging much higher force spells than were
going about at the time, all i said was 'shielding' [being the only
player who knew what it did having been allowed to read that part of
the Grimoire on getting my character initiated (before the GM told me
exactly what i would get) and therefore the player standing to
benefit most from this rule correction] amazing how fast that rule
got dumped.

> And there are times when the rules
> say I can do something, or when the rules say the someone
> else can or cannot do a thing, AND WHEN I PLAN ON USING
> THAT TO MY ADVANTAGE, and then I get smicked in the face
> by a GM who is unaware of the rule, or interprets it differently
> than I do, I want to know what she understands and why the
> ruling went that way.
>
Yeah. one reason why i tend to discuss the more interesting things
that you can do with the system before they are used. I banned folks
doing certain things but i have seen a GM's reaction to the idea of
spell locking improved invis and leviate person (that was a much
poorer GM than the one i delt with in the situation above, the
reaction went along the lines of, Not in my game or you get nuked
from orbit!) despite the fact that for some reason in that game
everything in sight had ultrasound sights.

> Me too. Everyone loves the worlds I create. The problem that I
> have is that it usually takes me about 6 months to get my new
> players to trust that my world is as complete and subtle as
> it is. For example:
>
The benefit of the GM being fair and the consequent trust of the
players is enormously valuable for running more interesting
scenarios, things where the PC's are supposed to get captured etc,
which are almost unrunable without Player GM trust ( well at least
without generating friction thats bad for the game)

> This is a very fair thing to do with a Rules Lawyer, for the
> simple fact that you'll be establishing a rule that can be
> fairly and consistently followed. As long as the GM is fair,
> and does concede a point from time to time. On of the greatest
> causes of RL arguements is inconsistent behavior on the part
> of self-proclaimed, infallible, GM's. I hate it when the GM
> can't admit to having made an error. The 'It's my world, my
> word is law' school of GMing really pisses me off. That lack
> of maturity and insensitivity really sucks.
Agreed. Nothing worse than GM's that won't at least consider your
point of view. Sure its the GM's game and they are allowed to set the
rules how they like but
The NPC's can do ... but you cannot! sucks, sure you meet NPC's
capable of feats you cannot emulate but 99% of the time it should be
possible for the PC's to emulate them, maybe in the future but. Some
exceptions for plot purposes can be allowed but you have to be pretty
careful things stay fair.

> Gossamer
>
Mark

From:	NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Wed, 7 May 1997 23:16:00 -0400

Message no. 46 >Rubbish! After our friendly little conversations </sarcasm?> regarding
>dead, dying or mutant frogs, gauntlets and Hollywood genetics, and then
>you make a remark like that, and seriously think I'm not going to worry?
>Really!

Don't worry it all in fun. ;-) You forgot some smiley's here have a few ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ah at last! The TRANSFORMATION is complete!
For YEARS they mocked me! They took the name EMMANUEL LEWIS in vain!
But tonight RETRIBUTION will be mine!
For I am REBORN as --WEBSTER--, The adorable scamp of DOOM!
Ma'am's and Georges beware Webster walks the earth and he's got a
HANKERIN' for some SPANKERIN'!

Man did I nail this mad doctor routine or WHAT?
"Deadpool #4"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From:	Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:	Re: Pro's & munchies was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
Date:	Thu, 8 May 1997 22:40:40 +0100

Message no. 47 In article <199705080316.XAA24026@******.san.uc.edu>, NightLife
<habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU> rambled on endlessly about Pro's & munchies
was Re: Runnersºd Tenants?
>>Rubbish! After our friendly little conversations </sarcasm?> regarding
>>dead, dying or mutant frogs, gauntlets and Hollywood genetics, and then
>>you make a remark like that, and seriously think I'm not going to worry?
>>Really!
>
>Don't worry it all in fun. ;-) You forgot some smiley's here have a few ;-)
>;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

Nope Nightlife, sorry, got ya! <g>

I deliberately left out the smiley's on the off chance that I could
destroy this sudden "attraction" you have for me, and my comments and
provoke a nice argument. We haven't had one for tooooo long :)

Oh, well, better luck next time.

<now where did I put that gauntlet?>

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
Web page at: http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer