Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Dave Mowbray dave_mowbray@*****.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:41:36 -0400
This subject may have already been hashed over by all many times, but I was
just curious as to what people felt was an appropriate level of realism in
their games. I, for one, like realism and try to make my campaigns as
realistic as possible. My players occasionally complain and say that SR is
supposed to be a cinematic setting. While I agree with this to an extent,
I also feel that adding realism equates with challenging the players. In
some cases this boils down to game lethality, (should any punk with a gun
be a threat?) but it also often involves target numbers for outrageous
feats. There also seems to be a feeling amongst players that anyone they
shoot should go down on the first hit, whilst they should be well nigh
impervious to bullets. In some cases this boils down to simple
munchkinism, but others (certifiably not muchkins) want the cinematic
scenes where one man with an SMG guns down the hordes of bad guys with
bigger guns who have him cornered.
What do y'all think?
-D
Message no. 2
From: Wildfire Wildfire@*************.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:58:29 -0400
Dave Mowbray wrote:
<snip incedianary device>

Yes, it's been hashed over serveral times which degraded into screaming matches
and GridSecs having to step in. There's a whole lot about the subject on the
Archives at www.jackpoint.com, IIRC.

Wildfire
Message no. 3
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:42:15 -0400
> Yes, it's been hashed over serveral times which degraded into screaming
matches
> and GridSecs having to step in. There's a whole lot about the subject on
the
> Archives at www.jackpoint.com, IIRC.
>
Ahh, yes; however, the realism in those cases being discussed generally was
not one of "action-film" versus "real-life," but rather one of
"bloodbath
rapefest" versus "mr. nice guy." The screaming matches usually started over
some psycho saying that as long as your players and GM don't mind it, child
rape and gratuitous murder were A-O-K. [I should remember; I've been that
psycho.] Then the screaming began, as other people said, "hey, not in my
game."

The part everyone forgot was, "in my game." At that point, everyone was
arguing how EVERYONE should play the game. And that's just plain silly. I
like this guy's question; "How do YOU play?" And, as morality is not at
issue, only physics and the odds of one guy with a pistol taking out a
battalion of Aztlan troops, the question is less "charged," if you will.

For my own part, I prefer realism in all aspects of the game. Now, of
course, this does not mean that I don't include magic in my game, etc., but
rather that I like the game to be internally consistent. I don't like my
games to be comic-book like hero-fests where the good guys always win. My GM
has traditionally run comic-book type epic action-film adventures. We're
slowly getting him back around to the way I like to play, which is more a
creative problem solving, tactical situation and personal interaction game.
Whatever, that didn't make any sense, but I think you get the point.

Oops. Must go. Flight leaving soon. See you all again in a day or so. More
when I return home.
Message no. 4
From: Dave Mowbray dave_mowbray@*****.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:39:59 -0400
<snip>
>For my own part, I prefer realism in all aspects of the game. Now, of
>course, this does not mean that I don't include magic in my game, etc.,
but
>rather that I like the game to be internally consistent. I don't like my
>games to be comic-book like hero-fests where the good guys always win. My
GM
>has traditionally run comic-book type epic action-film adventures. We're
>slowly getting him back around to the way I like to play, which is more a
>creative problem solving, tactical situation and personal interaction
game.

I guess that I wasn't really addressing morality at all, more of the
question of whether your NPC's resemble real people, PC's or it depends on
the situation. Personally, I like to have a nice mix. Strago will tell
you about the agonized screaming (which I love!) when, after getting hosed
by an LMG and taking light to no damage, a PC hoses an NPC with an LMG and
they take similar damage. I mean... you're running the shadows... if you
run up against a corporate hit squad/ other shadow runners isn't it
realistic to assume that they would be on par with the runners, if not
better?

I also like to give my runners challenges which involve creative problem
solving, tactical situations and a chance to use those oft maligned social
skills. The problem with creative problem solving is that the runners often
don't see the answer and begin thinking with their guns. I don't really
care whether or not the runners are "good" or "evil" so to speak, just
how
much of a challenge it is for them to realize their goals. As an occasional
runner myself, I like gunfights as much as the next guy (maybe even more
so), but the intellectual challenges and social skills can be just as much
fun. Ask Strago about situations where some of my characters have spoken
their minds to people/beings who could kill them in an eyeblink.

-Dave
Message no. 5
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:00:25 -0400
Dave Mowbray wrote:

> <SNIP>

> I guess that I wasn't really addressing morality at all, more of the
> question of whether your NPC's resemble real people, PC's or it depends on
> the situation. Personally, I like to have a nice mix. Strago will tell
> you about the agonized screaming (which I love!) when, after getting hosed
> by an LMG and taking light to no damage, a PC hoses an NPC with an LMG and
> they take similar damage.

Yup, I've heard it. I don't think I've ever said it. But I think that having
them defend a hill against the Aztlan Army was a bit much...

> <SNIP>
> I also like to give my runners challenges which involve creative problem
> solving, tactical situations and a chance to use those oft maligned social
> skills. The problem with creative problem solving is that the runners often
> don't see the answer and begin thinking with their guns.

Or they misunderstand the Johnson and think "we've got to TAKE the package
instead of just picking it up"; a classic PC mistake that I won't ever forget.
Remember, if it's unclear, ASK for a clarification!

> I don't really care whether or not the runners are "good" or
"evil" so to
> speak, just how
> much of a challenge it is for them to realize their goals. As an occasional
> runner myself, I like gunfights as much as the next guy (maybe even more
> so), but the intellectual challenges and social skills can be just as much
> fun. Ask Strago about situations where some of my characters have spoken
> their minds to people/beings who could kill them in an eyeblink.
>

Like Lofwyr and Dunklezhan? Or that Elven High Lord? While it wasn't realistic,
I was quite impressed. I probably should have had you roll Willpower, but I
figured I'd be nice...

>
> -Dave

--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+
M-
Message no. 6
From: Dave Mowbray dave_mowbray@*****.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:08:59 -0400
> <SNIP>

>Yup, I've heard it. I don't think I've ever said it. But I think that
having
>them defend a hill against the Aztlan Army was a bit much...

It wasn't just a hill, it was a military compound... it even had sandbag
walls with gun emplacements as I recall... and you never DID get around to
actually finishing that did you?
-Dave
Message no. 7
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:34:19 -0400
Dave Mowbray wrote:

> > <SNIP>
>
> >Yup, I've heard it. I don't think I've ever said it. But I think that
> having
> >them defend a hill against the Aztlan Army was a bit much...
>
> It wasn't just a hill, it was a military compound... it even had sandbag
> walls with gun emplacements as I recall... and you never DID get around to
> actually finishing that did you?
> -Dave

The operative question is: do we WANT to finish it? The answer: NO! That's a
job for mercenaries, not Shadowrunners. If IronRaven was here, he'd know all
sorts of ways for us to get out of that, as would Paul J. Adam. As for us, I
don't think that we're capable of that. But that enters another realm of
realism: would the characters ACTUALLY be put in that situation? Are they
capable of performing the job? If not, then why did the Johnson ask them to
perform it?

--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+
M-
Message no. 8
From: lomion lomion@*********.escnd1.sdca.home.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:27:24 -0700
>
>The operative question is: do we WANT to finish it? The answer: NO! That's a
>job for mercenaries, not Shadowrunners. If IronRaven was here, he'd know all
>sorts of ways for us to get out of that, as would Paul J. Adam. As for us, I
>don't think that we're capable of that. But that enters another realm of
>realism: would the characters ACTUALLY be put in that situation? Are they
>capable of performing the job? If not, then why did the Johnson ask them to
>perform it?


One thing I think that needs to be asked of realism...how is that
defined? Real as in internally consistent with the game world/rules that
are setup. Or real as in compared to everyday? I prefer the former,
which can fit with more cinematic styles.


--lomion
Message no. 9
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:08:27 -0400
lomion wrote:

> <SNIP>
> One thing I think that needs to be asked of realism...how is that
> defined? Real as in internally consistent with the game world/rules that
> are setup. Or real as in compared to everyday? I prefer the former,
> which can fit with more cinematic styles.
>
> --lomion

Real as in internally consistent with the game world/rules that are set up.
--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+ M-
Message no. 10
From: Wildfire Wildfire@*************.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:21:03 -0400
Strago wrote:

> Dave Mowbray wrote:
>
> > <SNIP>
>
> > I guess that I wasn't really addressing morality at all, more of the
> > question of whether your NPC's resemble real people, PC's or it depends on
> > the situation. Personally, I like to have a nice mix. Strago will tell
> > you about the agonized screaming (which I love!) when, after getting hosed
> > by an LMG and taking light to no damage, a PC hoses an NPC with an LMG and
> > they take similar damage.
>
> Yup, I've heard it. I don't think I've ever said it. But I think that having
> them defend a hill against the Aztlan Army was a bit much...
>
> > <SNIP>
> > I also like to give my runners challenges which involve creative problem
> > solving, tactical situations and a chance to use those oft maligned social
> > skills. The problem with creative problem solving is that the runners often
> > don't see the answer and begin thinking with their guns.
> > I don't really care whether or not the runners are "good" or
"evil" so to
> > speak, just how
> > much of a challenge it is for them to realize their goals. As an occasional
> > runner myself, I like gunfights as much as the next guy (maybe even more
> > so), but the intellectual challenges and social skills can be just as much
> > fun. Ask Strago about situations where some of my characters have spoken
> > their minds to people/beings who could kill them in an eyeblink.
> >

Oh, okay. I think at least one of my former players is lurking around here
somewhere, and he could atest to the fact that there was rarely a plot which could
be solved by guns/fighting alone. There was always a double-cross, something that
the Johnson "forgot" to mention, or things like temporal displacement to hinder
them. I liked throwing in lots of plot turns, and things that made the players
think before acting, or ar least have to talk things out with NPCs or adversaries.

Wildfire


________________________________________________________
NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you?
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 11
From: lomion lomion@*********.escnd1.sdca.home.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:19:10 -0700
>
> Real as in internally consistent with the game world/rules that are
> set up.

Ok that is important...i've always tried to run any games with internal
consistency with some "bending" for the sake of making it more cinematic
after all my goal wasn;t to kill the PC's(just to maim them maybe heh) but
to make sure they enjoyed it, as long as things were A. fair and B.
consistent they wouldn't complain, couldn't really. I personally don't
like it when it comes down to number crunching and has to be 100%
compatable with real world physics. I mean the game has magic and elves,
orks, dwarfs and trolls running around. Plus magic is the great equalizer neh?


--lomion
Message no. 12
From: Ignacio De Lucas morrisjila@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 06:06:51 GMT
>From: Dave Mowbray <dave_mowbray@*****.com>
>Reply-To: shadowrn@*********.org
>To: "'shadowrn@*********.org'" <shadowrn@*********.org>
>Subject: Realism
>Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:41:36 -0400


Well it depends on what you call realism, there is a lot of diference
between realism and dificulty level. If you like your campaigns to be hard,
then let them be, if you think its a relaxing moment of the game, then go
easy on your gamers. See players, or at least my group, like challenge, for
example going against a powerful enemy, not only in combat but also in
everything that cahlenges us, diplomatics, negotiation, charisma, etiquete,
you name it, its cool, but we also like to feel powerful, so uor gm throws
some punks at us so that we can crack them easy and and party about it. but
if you think your targets go hard sometimes we roll at targets of 20 up, and
it is very exiting when you are rolling you third six on the dice. then
again dont exagerate on those because it can get imposibble.

Ok returnig to realism, its hard, i guess the game should be realistic in
some things and not in others. For example how real can you get when your
mage is throwing a fireball out of his hands and burning al hole out of a
wall. or when your phys ad kicks a man and sens him flying 7mts away. What
we call realism is when our Johnson is dealing whith us, or whaen at a
gunfight, the police bursts in and sudenly things get nastier than they
where, for example whe are not allowed to roll our sklls in some situations
because it is notlikely to happen in the real world.

IMHO anyways. Hope it helps.
ATTE el MORRIS

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 13
From: Ignacio De Lucas morrisjila@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 06:38:03 GMT
>From: Dave Mowbray <dave_mowbray@*****.com>
>Reply-To: shadowrn@*********.org
>To: "'shadowrn@*********.org'" <shadowrn@*********.org>
>Subject: RE: Realism
>Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:08:59 -0400


Hey guys, just a question, what is it whith Aztlan anyways, i read the
Sourcebook, and I must admit I was impressed, it was quite close to reality
but then again some things werent. So I wanted to ask you what are your
opinions about thee subject. why are we the bad guys, any reasons are well
accepted just dont ofend remember there are some of us here, and nothing
will do any harm.
thanks.
ATTE el MORRIS

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 14
From: Sven De Herdt Sven.DeHerdt@***********.be
Subject: Realism
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:45:06 +0200
On Tuesday, September 28, 1999 9:42 PM, Dave Mowbray
[SMTP:dave_mowbray@*****.com] wrote:
> This subject may have already been hashed over by all many times, but
I
> was
> just curious as to what people felt was an appropriate level of
realism
> in
> their games. I, for one, like realism and try to make my campaigns as

> realistic as possible. My players occasionally complain and say that
SR
> is
> supposed to be a cinematic setting. While I agree with this to an
> extent,
> I also feel that adding realism equates with challenging the players.
In
> some cases this boils down to game lethality, (should any punk with a
gun
> be a threat?)

In my game punk would indeed pose a threat to most of the teammembers
and should be handled accordingly.

>but it also often involves target numbers for outrageous
> feats. There also seems to be a feeling amongst players that anyone
they
> shoot should go down on the first hit, whilst they should be well nigh

> impervious to bullets. In some cases this boils down to simple
> munchkinism, but others (certifiably not muchkins) want the cinematic
> scenes where one man with an SMG guns down the hordes of bad guys with

> bigger guns who have him cornered.
> What do y'all think?
> -D

I try to keep a certain sense of realism in my games in a way that it
has to be logical and explainable within the game settings (not in RL).
fi. the street punk mentioned above would normally not wield anything
more than light pistol (perhaps occasionally he got get his hands on a
heavy one) and no armor what so ever (IMHO).

I always considered shadowrun not be a heroic-like game, but instead
more 'realistic'. Therefor cinematic scenes would only work if indeed
the runners have superior firepower or if they out-number the 'bad'
guys. Once in a while I do use cinematic scenes as a GM when powerful
NPCs join in either to rescue/help the runners or the corner them.
Mostly I use this technique to create a certain atmosphere during the
game and to make certain statements, fi. "Don't even try to mess with
this guy" or "Just come along nice and quit".
I always try (hope) to get the runners to solve their problems using
their wits and through role-playing to get them out of the mess, instead
of entering blazing guns and heroic gestures/actions.

I always try to keep a certain consistency and logic my games, but
always within the game limits and NOT within RL rules. Everything (or
most things) can be explained how and why they happened and why the
runners got involved or at least I try to keep this sort of logic and
realism in the games.

Just my thoughts,

--
Sven :)
SRCG v0.2 SR1! SR2++ SR3++ h b++>+++ B>+ UB->++ IE+(-) RN+(-) dk++>+++
sa- ma++ sh++ ad+ ri+ mc- m+ gm+>++(+++) M-(+)
Message no. 15
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:01:48 -0400
> I also like to give my runners challenges which involve creative problem
> solving, tactical situations and a chance to use those oft maligned social
> skills. The problem with creative problem solving is that the runners
often
> don't see the answer and begin thinking with their guns. I don't really
> care whether or not the runners are "good" or "evil" so to speak,
just how
> much of a challenge it is for them to realize their goals. As an
occasional
> runner myself, I like gunfights as much as the next guy (maybe even more
> so), but the intellectual challenges and social skills can be just as much
> fun. Ask Strago about situations where some of my characters have spoken
> their minds to people/beings who could kill them in an eyeblink.
>
I have regularly played characters who are either totally or nearly
combat-useless, characters with a charisma of six and a good, smarmy
attitude. Guys who could talk the guards out of the keys to the queen's
bedchamber, that sort of thing. And you're right; it's a lot of fun. And it
works to my personal skills, which run much more to the manipulation of
people with spoken word, and much less to the rolling of dice to see who's
dead.

Of course, then you run into everyone's least-favorite arguement; if a troll
has a strength of 10, he can pretty easily dead lift the front of a car, a
clearly super-human feat. But if I have a charisma of 10, why can't I con
some ganger into handing me his gun? ["Hey, no, man. Look, this situation is
bad enough. Do you want to lose your whole gang? These guys are big trouble,
and they're not going to stop. So why don't you just hand me the gun, and
I'll make sure--no, no, I want you to understand, I will personally make
certain--that these guys don't touch another of your buddies. No one else
has to die here today. Come on; let's get some help for these wounded. Just
hand me the gun, and it will all be over. In a day, you won't even remember
this happened. Trust me."]

Yeah, superhuman. Yeah, unlikely. But so's picking up a car!

Just had to get in my complaint about the times that the GM is obsessed with
plot device and not realism. ["But they've got to fire shots, so that the
guards upstairs hear them. If they can get out of this without firing a
shot, they're basically going to walk through the door, and no one's going
to stop them. Oh, god, that idiot's trying to convince the guard there's
been a mistake, and they should be let through.]
Message no. 16
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:05:32 -0500
:Of course, then you run into everyone's least-favorite arguement; if a
troll
:has a strength of 10, he can pretty easily dead lift the front of a car, a
:clearly super-human feat. But if I have a charisma of 10, why can't I con
:some ganger into handing me his gun?

A troll with a strength of 10 can lift the same weight as 3 average
humans. That's probably not enough to lift even one end of a car. More to
the point, SR attributes are "linear"- a 10 isn't so much super human as it
is twice as good as a 5. If somebody with a 5 in something has a snowballs
chance in hell, having a 10 gives you double-sized snowballs chance...
I'd say you could con a ganger into giving you his gun; they aren't
known for intelligence or willpower. Then again, they aren't known for
steady nerves, and might shoot you even though they WANT to surrender. But
guards? If they are halfway competent, I figure they take a "your name
ain't on the list" attitude, and try to figure out who to call, if just to
cover their own butts.

Mongoose
Message no. 17
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:49:22 EDT
In a message dated 9/29/1999 8:05:04 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
m0ng005e@*********.com writes:

> A troll with a strength of 10 can lift the same weight as 3 average
> humans. That's probably not enough to lift even one end of a car. More to
> the point, SR attributes are "linear"- a 10 isn't so much super human as
it
> is twice as good as a 5. If somebody with a 5 in something has a snowballs
> chance in hell, having a 10 gives you double-sized snowballs chance...

And of course this entirely depends upon the car and the effects of a "+10D6"
in total kilograms that are added to the effect. In *some instances btw, it
*might* be feasible to apply "adrenaline rules" which have led to the stories
of "superhuman strength". One concept that we use *now* is that if a point
of karma is spent (burned) by the character for the purposes of lifting, then
the Willpower of the individual -OR- the Essence attribute (measuring the
power of the "meta/human spirit") is added for *one* strength/endurance
(something) roll IF the circumstances merit it.

> I'd say you could con a ganger into giving you his gun; they aren't
> known for intelligence or willpower. Then again, they aren't known for
> steady nerves, and might shoot you even though they WANT to surrender. But
> guards? If they are halfway competent, I figure they take a "your name
> ain't on the list" attitude, and try to figure out who to call, if just to
> cover their own butts.

Hmm...not sure I would agree to this, but if the story and the enjoyability
of a given game were at stake, then literally "whatever works best" would go
IMO.

-K
Message no. 18
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 02:30:15 -0500
:> A troll with a strength of 10 can lift the same weight as 3 average
:> humans. That's probably not enough to lift even one end of a car. More
to
:> the point, SR attributes are "linear"- a 10 isn't so much super human as
it
:> is twice as good as a 5. If somebody with a 5 in something has a
snowballs
:> chance in hell, having a 10 gives you double-sized snowballs chance...
:
:And of course this entirely depends upon the car and the effects of a
"+10D6"
:in total kilograms that are added to the effect. In *some instances btw,
it
:*might* be feasible to apply "adrenaline rules" which have led to the
stories
:of "superhuman strength". One concept that we use *now* is that if a point
:of karma is spent (burned) by the character for the purposes of lifting,
then
:the Willpower of the individual -OR- the Essence attribute (measuring the
:power of the "meta/human spirit") is added for *one* strength/endurance
:(something) roll IF the circumstances merit it.

That all makes the trolls strenght even LESS super-human, actually; If a
human can "boost" strenght up to 10 or 12, and a troll up to 15 or so, then
the troll really isn't all that much stronger, numerically. Not that the
numbers really mater there, though. If its fun and fits the character (say,
if he's so huge its truely inconvineint) let him move whatever they have
to. After all, most people can lift and carry thier own weight when they
have to, although it seems that most trolls technically could not.

:> I'd say you could con a ganger into giving you his gun; they aren't
:> known for intelligence or willpower. Then again, they aren't known for
:> steady nerves, and might shoot you even though they WANT to surrender.
But
:> guards? If they are halfway competent, I figure they take a "your name
:> ain't on the list" attitude, and try to figure out who to call, if just
to
:> cover their own butts.
:
:Hmm...not sure I would agree to this, but if the story and the enjoyability
:of a given game were at stake, then literally "whatever works best" would
go
:IMO.


I wasn't implying you couldn't bullshit them still; it would just be
harder. It is supposedly thier job not to take bullshit, and they (might
be) trained how to deal with it. Then again, theres a lot of guards who are
NOT halfway competant...

Mongoose
Message no. 19
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Realism
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 11:21:52 +0200
According to Sebastian Wiers, at 15:05 on 29 Sep 99, the word on
the street was...

> A troll with a strength of 10 can lift the same weight as 3 average
> humans. That's probably not enough to lift even one end of a car.

Using the rules for Hauling The Load (SR3 p. 274), a troll with Strength
10 can lift a grand maximum of 260 kg: 20 x Strength + 6 x Strength
(assuming you get only 6s on your 10D6, naturally). Enough to lift medium-
sized motorcycles, but even a small car weighs at least half a ton --
lifing one end off the ground might be _just_ managable for a troll, but
that's it IMHO.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Het is een boek om in het donker te lezen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 20
From: Arclight arclight@*********.de
Subject: Realism
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:51:25 +0200
And finally, Gurth expressed himself by writing:

> Using the rules for Hauling The Load (SR3 p. 274), a troll with Strength
> 10 can lift a grand maximum of 260 kg:

That's a bit low IMO. I've seen people [rather steroids in
a human shape ;)] lift VW Golfs [about 700 to 800kg, that's 1540
to 1760 lbs IIRC] or pull small trucks. Maybe "athletics" should
be figured into this somehow...

arclight
Message no. 21
From: Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 14:03:07 +0200
Arclight wrote:
>
> And finally, Gurth expressed himself by writing:
>
> > Using the rules for Hauling The Load (SR3 p. 274), a troll with Strength
> > 10 can lift a grand maximum of 260 kg:
>
> That's a bit low IMO. I've seen people [rather steroids in
> a human shape ;)] lift VW Golfs [about 700 to 800kg, that's 1540
> to 1760 lbs IIRC] or pull small trucks. Maybe "athletics" should
> be figured into this somehow...
>
> arclight

If you've ever wtched the Strongest Man in the World competition (or
some such name) you;ll see people racing to see who can overturn
something like 5 cars in the shortest time... and managing in times of
under a minute
--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com

QANTI CANICVLA ILLA IN FENESTRA
Message no. 22
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:31:38 -0400
> :Of course, then you run into everyone's least-favorite arguement; if a
> troll
> :has a strength of 10, he can pretty easily dead lift the front of a car,
a
> :clearly super-human feat. But if I have a charisma of 10, why can't I con
> :some ganger into handing me his gun?
>
> A troll with a strength of 10 can lift the same weight as 3 average
> humans. That's probably not enough to lift even one end of a car.

I won't repeat the comments other have made about this; but I will say that
the statement is incorrect. [Perhaps well within the rules, but untrue.]

> More to
> the point, SR attributes are "linear"- a 10 isn't so much super human as
it
> is twice as good as a 5. If somebody with a 5 in something has a
snowballs
> chance in hell, having a 10 gives you double-sized snowballs chance...

Um. If the "Maximum Unmodified Human" rating is 6, and I have a ten,
wouldn't that literally be superhuman?

> I'd say you could con a ganger into giving you his gun; they aren't
> known for intelligence or willpower. Then again, they aren't known for
> steady nerves, and might shoot you even though they WANT to surrender.
But
> guards? If they are halfway competent, I figure they take a "your name
> ain't on the list" attitude, and try to figure out who to call, if just to
> cover their own butts.
>
See, you're doing it too. "Well, you're not on the list, sorry. No, I don't
care how inhumanly convincing you are, I don't care that for no reason I can
guess you fascinate me and I want to do everything I can to please you, I
just don't want to let you in." If I'm Jesse Jackson, I can talk my way into
most things. But that's a six. We're not talking a little seven here; we're
talking about over 150% as likeable as as the most likeable person, ever, on
Earth. A Ten! Come on!

My point is this; people tend to allow insane, inhuman feats to be done with
physical attributes. [Hey, those bullets just bounce off your armor skin!
Amazing!] But with mental attributes, the source of all real ROLEplaying,
people tend to take much more of a, "well, that's just impossible" approach.
[Look, I know you have an intelligence of ten, but I don't think you can
develop a new theory of quantum mechanics. You're not that smart.]

My guess is, it is likely because those attributes cannot be quantized in
the same way as physical attributes. Twice as strong is a pretty obvious
stretch. Twice as likeable is not.
Message no. 23
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:13:21 -0500 (CDT)
Today, Arclight spoke on RE: Realism:

> > Using the rules for Hauling The Load (SR3 p. 274), a troll with Strength
> > 10 can lift a grand maximum of 260 kg:
>
> That's a bit low IMO. I've seen people [rather steroids in
> a human shape ;)] lift VW Golfs [about 700 to 800kg, that's 1540
> to 1760 lbs IIRC] or pull small trucks. Maybe "athletics" should
> be figured into this somehow...

I don't know about a single person, but one friend and I (and niether of
us are strong, I might be 4 and him probably 3) could pick up the back end
of out music teachers pickup truck and move it around freely. The front
end is a bit different though (damn heavy engines!)

Also, use of steroidal drugs could push humans up into the 9-10 range as
far as 'natural' strength, assuming they start at 6. Although, use of such
things are likely to take a toll on both the muscles and the mind of the
individual.

Althletics should *definately* be figured into the Bench Press type
lifting, adding 1/2 successes rolled against strength to strength, or
something like that. [The more talent you have, the less technique can
help... unles you have really good technique.]

But, it don't think it should be used in the same way
for just carrying X ammount. I would say they could roll athletics against
weight / ( strength * 10 ), or maybe that's to low, and the successes
would put of the fatigue. (For example, if they are carrying enough to
give the a 'light wound' after 1 hour. Each success would lengthen this by
30min - 1hr. If they are straing and they are gonna pass out if they hold
this for more than 5 min, successes could length that by 2 - 5 mins.)

Da Twink Daddy
ICQ: 514984
Message no. 24
From: lomion lomion@*********.escnd1.sdca.home.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 09:30:14 -0700
>
> A troll with a strength of 10 can lift the same weight as 3 average
>humans. That's probably not enough to lift even one end of a car.

A strength 10 could lift one end of a car. There are ppl today who do
this. I've seen it.



--lomion
Message no. 25
From: lomion lomion@*********.escnd1.sdca.home.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 09:36:32 -0700
At 10:13 AM 9/30/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Today, Arclight spoke on RE: Realism:
>
> > > Using the rules for Hauling The Load (SR3 p. 274), a troll with Strength
> > > 10 can lift a grand maximum of 260 kg:
> >
> > That's a bit low IMO. I've seen people [rather steroids in
> > a human shape ;)] lift VW Golfs [about 700 to 800kg, that's 1540
> > to 1760 lbs IIRC] or pull small trucks. Maybe "athletics" should
> > be figured into this somehow...
>
>I don't know about a single person, but one friend and I (and niether of
>us are strong, I might be 4 and him probably 3) could pick up the back end
>of out music teachers pickup truck and move it around freely. The front
>end is a bit different though (damn heavy engines!)

Reminds me of story i heard from an old friend..he and some buddies in
high school flipped some guy's VW Bug because he flippedt hem off or
something. This was about 3 guys..they had it overturned in the middle of
the street and were spinning it around...

--lomion
Message no. 26
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:41:18 -0500 (CDT)
Today, lomion spoke on RE: Realism:

> Reminds me of story i heard from an old friend..he and some buddies in
> high school flipped some guy's VW Bug because he flippedt hem off or
> something. This was about 3 guys..they had it overturned in the middle of
> the street and were spinning it around...

Up the road about 15 miles, 6 of the schools football players put the
coach's truck such that it had a 2 inches of clearance in the front and
back between to trees.

He then made them move it back.

Da Twink Daddy
e-mail: bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ: 514984
Message no. 27
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:50:29 -0500
:> guards? If they are halfway competent, I figure they take a "your name
:> ain't on the list" attitude, and try to figure out who to call, if just
to
:> cover their own butts.
:>
:See, you're doing it too. "Well, you're not on the list, sorry. No, I don't
:care how inhumanly convincing you are, I don't care that for no reason I
can
:guess you fascinate me and I want to do everything I can to please you, I
:just don't want to let you in."

If you fall for that line, you are not really roleplaying a determined,
charismatic person, so yeah, you'll fail. Give the GM a reason the person
should let you in; manufacture some support for your story, whatever. But
don't just say "they will, because I have a 10 charisma".

:Amazing!] But with mental attributes, the source of all real ROLEplaying,

I figure the PLAYER is the source of all ROLEplaying, not some numbers
on a piece of paper. Don't you?

Mongoose
Message no. 28
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:48:06 -0500 (CDT)
Today, Sebastian Wiers spoke on Re: Realism:

> I figure the PLAYER is the source of all ROLEplaying, not some numbers
> on a piece of paper. Don't you?

Point is: WHAT THE HELL IS CHARISMA FOR THEN? -- I mean, if I'm a total
slob that couldn't convince a baby to cry what happens when I want to play
a charismatic character? R U saying, no you can't, there's no way you
could roleplay that character so, you can't have him.

If that's true then I can't have a Magically active character because I've
never felt magic. (Okay, so I have, assume I haven't) Nor can I play a
street sam because I've never had my eye spooned out and cold plasteel
sphere pushed in. Nor can I play a decker/rigger because I've never been
completely surrounded by a virtual reality foreign to my own.

The numbers are there for a reason. *I* as a player am not responsible for
talking my GM into letting me in, my character (who happens to have 47
charisma) is respnsible to talking the guard into letting *him* in.

Can I bench press 300lbs? No. Can my troll? Yes.
Can I run the mile in 4 min.? No. Can my speed-elf? Yes.
Can I shoot the wings off a fly at 100yds? No. Can my Sniper? Yes.
Can I shrug off a 22? No. Can my sams w/ orthoskin? Yes.
Can I fling mojo or summon spirits? No. (Really, I can't is the SR sense)
Can my Mages? Yes.
The same thing for metal attributes and social skills?
Can I talk a baby out of a rattle? No. Can my negotiator? Yep.
Can I calculate the E-M field for a non-symetric dynamic situation using
maxwell's law and raw in-my-head integration? No. Can my thinker? Sure.
Can I not screem when I'm in extreme bodily pain? No. Do I remain clam
when a fireball is on my face? No. Does my character w/ 14 will? He could.
Can I talk the low-paid tired guard into letting me pass whilst I'm in a
trenchcoat with no ID? No. Can my character with taylored pheremones and
maxed charisma? YOU BETCHA!

(Okay, sorry, this might be considered a flame. If so, please disregard
it; I must have lost my mind and slipped back to childhood for a moment.)

Da Twink Daddy
e-mail: bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ: 514984
Message no. 29
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:52:59 -0500
From: Da Twink Daddy <datwinkdaddy@*******.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.org <shadowrn@*********.org>
Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Realism


:Today, Sebastian Wiers spoke on Re: Realism:
:
:> I figure the PLAYER is the source of all ROLEplaying, not some
numbers
:> on a piece of paper. Don't you?

:If that's true then I can't have a Magically active character because I've
:never felt magic. (Okay, so I have, assume I haven't) Nor can I play a
:street sam because I've never had my eye spooned out and cold plasteel
:sphere pushed in. Nor can I play a decker/rigger because I've never been
:completely surrounded by a virtual reality foreign to my own.

:(Okay, sorry, this might be considered a flame. If so, please disregard
:it; I must have lost my mind and slipped back to childhood for a moment.)


The whole thing degenerated into a flame. I wrote a huge reasoned reply
to abortion_engine's post, the deleted it because it was rambling, and typed
up a short flame, which slipped into my outbox as flames are wont to do.

My simple (?) point at this threads begining was that mental stats do
indicate some quantitative measure of POTENTIAL capability, but that the
players choice of course of action affects the actual results. This applies
to physical tasks as well as mental; if you sharpshooter intentionally takes
a really crappy shot (shoots blind, for example), he's likely to miss.
It seemed that the claim was being made that people could accomplish
social tasks based just on their characters stats, which is not the case. I
never saw the mention of ANY social skill or appropriate use of knowledge,
or any supporting evidence like a fake ID, matrix plants, a confederate, or
whatever- just that 10 charisma. Most social engineering really requires
that you have an effective plan, just as most tactical combat does. There's
a lot more to it than just being "superhumanly like-able".
I'm not at all against the effective use of those tactics; I just don't
think they add much fun to the game if they have to be reduced to "I've got
a 10 charisma, so I win." At least with "superhuman" physical feets,
there's some amusing descriptions of the actions taken and the results.
If somebody can come up with some good combat tactics, thats as
important as their character having good skills, isn't it? If they can't,
they should run the risk of death, despite high skills, right? So,
shouldn't the same apply to social situations?

Mongoose
Message no. 30
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 01:12:55 -0400
Sebastian Wiers wrote:

> <SNIP> At least with "superhuman" physical feets,
> there's some amusing descriptions of the actions taken and the results.
> If somebody can come up with some good combat tactics, thats as
> important as their character having good skills, isn't it? If they can't,
> they should run the risk of death, despite high skills, right? So,
> shouldn't the same apply to social situations?
>
> Mongoose

Would you consider when a player just says "I try to Fast-Talk the guard
who's pointing the AR at me that we aren't really hostile, we're from [insert
Black Ops-type institution from government in control where the action is taking
place] and we're here on an emergency. The reason we don't have ID is because
our mission is so top secret that we can't carry it. Just trust me on this. And
I say this more convincingly." Because very few members of our group could be
considered social butterflies. I know for certain that I couldn't convince a
Hari Krishna that I was willing to join their cult. I couldn't interact with the
GM in an actual one-on-one conversation because I'd say the TOTAL wrong thing
and end up with a bullet in the brain of my character. That falls into the realm
of character knowledge, IMO. A character who can actually talk to people would
be able to talk down the guard. Maybe the player wouldn't. But I don't think
that the character should be penalized for that lack.
All of this is simply IMHO, and in my experience.

--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+ M-
Message no. 31
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Realism
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:28:56 +0200
According to Sebastian Wiers, at 23:52 on 30 Sep 99, the word on
the street was...

> My simple (?) point at this threads begining was that mental stats do
> indicate some quantitative measure of POTENTIAL capability, but that the
> players choice of course of action affects the actual results. This applies
> to physical tasks as well as mental; if you sharpshooter intentionally takes
> a really crappy shot (shoots blind, for example), he's likely to miss.

However, taking a shot at someone doesn't involve roleplaying (unless you
want your character to have psychological problems from killing someone)
while using Charisma will -- at least, the way you use it in your example.

I agree with your basic point, though. If the player doesn't come up with
some good lines to say to the person they're trying to fast-
talk/con/seduce/whatever, even the highest Charisma and social skills
won't be much help. However, what I feel is the best way to do this, is to
let both come into the picture. Set the basic TN for the Charisma/social
skill test, and modify it based on what the player is saying to the NPC.
This should, IMHO, take the player's personality into account -- if you,
as the GM, know the player doesn't have a "way with words" but the
character does, don't set the requirements as high as for a player who
does have plenty of RL social skills (and experience in using them).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Het is een boek om in het donker te lezen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 32
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:01:12 -0400
> :> guards? If they are halfway competent, I figure they take a "your name
> :> ain't on the list" attitude, and try to figure out who to call, if just
> to
> :> cover their own butts.
> :>
> :See, you're doing it too. "Well, you're not on the list, sorry. No, I
don't
> :care how inhumanly convincing you are, I don't care that for no reason I
> can
> :guess you fascinate me and I want to do everything I can to please you, I
> :just don't want to let you in."
>
> If you fall for that line, you are not really roleplaying a
determined,
> charismatic person, so yeah, you'll fail. Give the GM a reason the person
> should let you in; manufacture some support for your story, whatever. But
> don't just say "they will, because I have a 10 charisma".

I don't think I've ever said that. :) I have something of a way with words,
most specifically the spoken word [as legions of women in bars across the
city will tell you, "he just wouldn't shut the hell up! I mean, I like the
way he talks, but can you imagine spending time with him?" :) ]

This is one reason I play the CHA 10 fast-talk "Face" type of characters.
Lately, I've been playing a mage with a permanent Physical Mask spell, who
doesn't seem to have complete control over what he's doing. [He doesn't
realize that he's not a mage, has never been a mage. Sometimes, Spider talks
quietly.] And so every day when he wakes up, he's a different person. It's
become something of a personality problem. After the two weeks this has been
happening, he is no longer quite sure, between not recognizing himsefl in
the mirror, and the voice of Spider in his head, just who the devil he
actually is.

So, he's taken to becoming the master of diguise, if you will, sometimes
disguising himself so well that even he doesn't know he's not the mark. "Um.
Hello! I'm Holly Brighton. He he!" It's been quite fun, developing
personalities and distinct vocalizations for each person he becomes. It's
like having a new character once a week. [Except the karma and money are
cumulative. :) ]

So I play the face, always the first guy who talks, always the negotiator. I
frequently play the guy, who, for whatever reason, knows how to get inside
peoples' heads. [For instance, my latest character can get inside other
people's heads by actually HAVING other people's heads.]

So, no, my GM would never stand for me saying, "they will, they will,
because I have a 10 charisma." Or anyone else. Even if the player isn't good
with words, we make him try anyway, attempting to make him improve [if he so
desires], but not holding him to the standards of the rest of the group. I
am held by a higher standard in all things [in SR] because I've been playing
since first printing. [My karma awards are multiplied by .5, so if I want as
much karma as the next guy, I have to be twice as good.] But we try to
maintain a balance between dice and roleplaying, as someone mentioned.

> :Amazing!] But with mental attributes, the source of all real ROLEplaying,
>
> I figure the PLAYER is the source of all ROLEplaying, not some numbers
> on a piece of paper. Don't you?
>
Well, what I actually meant was that the player brings the character more to
life using the mental attributes than the physical. Only a few personality
traits come from being strong: I, for instance, being larger than average,
find I am far too likely to get myself in a physical altercation, due to my
overweening confidence. My friend Pink, on the other hand, weighs 105 pounds
and is 5'8", and so, when physical matters are at hand, either runs like
hell ["I won my last fight by six blocks."] or cleverly amuses his way out
of it; ["Don't make you kick my ass."]

Charisma, though, and Intelligence; those seem, to me, to be the foundation
of characterization moreso than how strong or fast you are. Just my opinion,
heavily influenced, I am certain, by the fact that I am primarily a cerebral
person and not a physical one, despite my size.
Message no. 33
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:13:43 -0400
> :> I figure the PLAYER is the source of all ROLEplaying, not some
> numbers
> :> on a piece of paper. Don't you?
>
> :If that's true then I can't have a Magically active character because
I've
> :never felt magic. (Okay, so I have, assume I haven't) Nor can I play a
> :street sam because I've never had my eye spooned out and cold plasteel
> :sphere pushed in. Nor can I play a decker/rigger because I've never been
> :completely surrounded by a virtual reality foreign to my own.
>
> :(Okay, sorry, this might be considered a flame. If so, please disregard
> :it; I must have lost my mind and slipped back to childhood for a moment.)

Well, it seems to be an appropriate application of sarcasm to me. Maybe
that's a good answer for you. :)

> The whole thing degenerated into a flame. I wrote a huge reasoned
reply
> to abortion_engine's post, the deleted it because it was rambling, and
typed
> up a short flame, which slipped into my outbox as flames are wont to do.
>
> My simple (?) point at this threads begining was that mental stats do
> indicate some quantitative measure of POTENTIAL capability, but that the
> players choice of course of action affects the actual results. This
applies
> to physical tasks as well as mental; if you sharpshooter intentionally
takes
> a really crappy shot (shoots blind, for example), he's likely to miss.

Agreed.

> It seemed that the claim was being made that people could accomplish
> social tasks based just on their characters stats, which is not the case.
I
> never saw the mention of ANY social skill or appropriate use of knowledge,
> or any supporting evidence like a fake ID, matrix plants, a confederate,
or
> whatever- just that 10 charisma. Most social engineering really requires
> that you have an effective plan, just as most tactical combat does.
There's
> a lot more to it than just being "superhumanly like-able".

You're also right here. I was over-simplifying. I ALWAYS have a plan. [Okay,
so maybe I develop the plan a picosecond before I open my mouth, but still.
:) ] And I usually have the relevant social skills. [Not always; there's
your "primitive rustic charm."] But yes, there is a real need for some type
of tactical plan, even when you're fast-talking. I just sort of assumed
people would read between the lines. Then I re-read my post and realized I'd
spaced the lines WAYYY too far apart. :)

> I'm not at all against the effective use of those tactics; I just
don't
> think they add much fun to the game if they have to be reduced to "I've
got
> a 10 charisma, so I win." At least with "superhuman" physical feets,
> there's some amusing descriptions of the actions taken and the results.
> If somebody can come up with some good combat tactics, thats as
> important as their character having good skills, isn't it? If they can't,
> they should run the risk of death, despite high skills, right? So,
> shouldn't the same apply to social situations?

In fact, this is really exactly what I mean. I just keep getting in trouble
with the GM because, "there's no action," because I keep talking my way out
of it. [I'd rather talk than have people shoot at me.] But the risks of
failure are the same. And in the end, isn't that what counts?

Besides, all combat can take away is lives, or exact its price in flesh or
blood. Human contact is far more risky; what price is life to shame?
Message no. 34
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Realism
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:14:58 -0400 (EDT)
"abortion_engine" <abortion_engine@*******.com> writes:
> > I'd say you could con a ganger into giving you his gun; they aren't
> > known for intelligence or willpower. Then again, they aren't known for
> > steady nerves, and might shoot you even though they WANT to surrender.
> But
> > guards? If they are halfway competent, I figure they take a "your name
> > ain't on the list" attitude, and try to figure out who to call, if just to
> > cover their own butts.
> >
> See, you're doing it too. "Well, you're not on the list, sorry. No, I don't
> care how inhumanly convincing you are, I don't care that for no reason I can
> guess you fascinate me and I want to do everything I can to please you, I
> just don't want to let you in." If I'm Jesse Jackson, I can talk my way into
> most things. But that's a six. We're not talking a little seven here; we're
> talking about over 150% as likeable as as the most likeable person, ever, on
> Earth. A Ten! Come on!

Personally, I think that Cha 10 is only as likeable than the
most likeable person on earth. (Still very impressive)

Anyways, the problem with negotiation is that it's hard to
simplify a fast-talk into just a roll of the skill and still have it
feel gratifying. At least for me, anyways. :) Combat might get as
simple as "I attack him." for some groups, but I want more detail than
that.
The other problem with negotiation is that it takes a battle
plan, and it's a give and take scenario. In the situation above, I
don't care how charismatic you are, you're not getting in without an
excuse. You're going to have to give the guard some motivation for
getting in. If your charisma is decent (3+), and your fast-talk is
decent (3+), I'd be willing to let you in with something as simple as
slipping the guard a nice tip*. If you've got the ungodly charisma of
17 or so (Elf with 12 Cha + Pheromones + exceptional attribute), I'll
probably let you in with an autograph or even just a conversation, but
they're still going to call their superior to gush about who just
dropped by, or perhaps follow you around, unless you provide further
motivation.
If, as a player, you're got the charisma of a pile of bricks,
I suggest talking to other players to get a plan of attack before you
confront the situation. I don't think most GMs would mind as long as
you do this before the situation arises.

Mark

*If I'm in a particularly generous mood and don't trust the player's
ability to fast-talk, I might even suggest that the guard is bribable
through conversation. However, it's still up to the player to take
that approach.
Message no. 35
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:10:48 -0400
> > > I'd say you could con a ganger into giving you his gun; they
aren't
> > > known for intelligence or willpower. Then again, they aren't known
for
> > > steady nerves, and might shoot you even though they WANT to surrender.
> > But
> > > guards? If they are halfway competent, I figure they take a "your
name
> > > ain't on the list" attitude, and try to figure out who to call, if
just to
> > > cover their own butts.
> > >
> > See, you're doing it too. "Well, you're not on the list, sorry. No, I
don't
> > care how inhumanly convincing you are, I don't care that for no reason I
can
> > guess you fascinate me and I want to do everything I can to please you,
I
> > just don't want to let you in." If I'm Jesse Jackson, I can talk my way
into
> > most things. But that's a six. We're not talking a little seven here;
we're
> > talking about over 150% as likeable as as the most likeable person,
ever, on
> > Earth. A Ten! Come on!
>
> Personally, I think that Cha 10 is only as likeable than the
> most likeable person on earth. (Still very impressive)

No, SIX is as likeable as the most likeable person on earth. That's the
maximum unmodified human. Ten is nearly twice that. [Which, of course, would
be so impossible to quanitify that it is absurd for me to use the word
'twice' to describe it, but still...]

> Anyways, the problem with negotiation is that it's hard to
> simplify a fast-talk into just a roll of the skill and still have it
> feel gratifying. At least for me, anyways. :) Combat might get as
> simple as "I attack him." for some groups, but I want more detail than
> that.

I heartily agree. [Besides, it gives me an opportunity to talk; I like
that.]
Message no. 36
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:51:37 -0500
:No, SIX is as likeable as the most likeable person on earth. That's the
:maximum unmodified human. Ten is nearly twice that. [Which, of course,
would
:be so impossible to quanitify that it is absurd for me to use the word
:'twice' to describe it, but still...]


An experienced PC can spend karma and raise their Charisma (or any stat)
to their racial MAXIMUM, which in this case (human charisma) is 9. The
"Maximum unmodified" referred to above is the is the maximum a starting
character could normally have- which is lower than racial maximum.
I'd figure a charisma of 10 isn't much beyond what you see today in
leaders of nations and such. I think you must assume that "the most likable
person on earth" (even by today's human standards) is going to be (much)
better than any starting PC, or else you are setting your standards WAY to
low. Hell, give them a "make friendly" skill- there's no limit on how high
skills can eventually go, although starting characters are so limited.
Of course "the most likeable person on earth" probably has multiple
edges relating to charisma (increasing racial max to 10, for example) and to
social tests, and has really really high (9+) social skills, etc. A big
minus to social test TN's (I can see how to get -5 or more on some social
tests with enough edges) is going to make a HUGE difference. <Joke>But
you'd still need ID to cash a check, so you'd better bring VISA....<Joke>
When you say "Most Foo on Earth", think monster mega munchkin overkill,
and then take it up a few notches. Don't sell them short- you're talking
about the BEST of 6 billion (today's population)... that's the .0000002
percentile.

Mongoose
Message no. 37
From: Iridios iridios@*****.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 18:48:52 -0400
abortion_engine wrote:

> No, SIX is as likeable as the most likeable person on earth. That's the
> maximum unmodified human. Ten is nearly twice that. [Which, of course, would
> be so impossible to quanitify that it is absurd for me to use the word
> 'twice' to describe it, but still...]

Six is not the maximum, according to the rules human characters can
use karma to raise that six (racial modified limit) to a nine
(attribute maximum). (pg 245 of SR3)

IMO, a six is possible by just about anyone who takes the time to
learn some basic (to intermediate) etiquette, politeness, smooth
demeanor, and etc. But there are/have been people in this world which
exceed that. For example (and I don't mean to offend anyone), Adolf
Hitler would be (IMO) a nine charisma. Not many people of the time
could have convinced a whole nation that taking on the world and
attempting to kill off a whole ethnic group was a good idea.

--
Iridios
"Accept what you cannot avoid,
Avoid what you cannot accept."
Message no. 38
From: Starrngr@***.com Starrngr@***.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:15:51 EDT
In a message dated 10/4/99 15:42:51 Pacific Daylight Time, iridios@*****.com
writes:

> For example (and I don't mean to offend anyone), Adolf
> Hitler would be (IMO) a nine charisma. Not many people of the time
> could have convinced a whole nation that taking on the world and
> attempting to kill off a whole ethnic group was a good idea.

I wouldn't totaly agree with that, Iridos, for a couple of reasons. One of
which is the one problem with the skills as they are set up now. Once you
have a skill of 1 or more in something, it ceases to matter how high the
controlling stat is.

The reason I bring up *that* dead horse is because One of the reasons Hitler
was as successful as he was is because he was telling people what they wanted
to hear. Remember that when he first started out he got himself arrested!
It wasnt unti germany was in bad shape that his popularity skyrocketed....
because he had a plan to fix what was wrong. In effect, he told the people
what they wanted to hear, which would be just as much a social skill
(Political speaking, maybe?) if not more than raw charisma.

No, I'm noty saying that the little snot wasnt a charasmatic SOB, I'm just
pointing out that there was more to said snots rise to power than just his
raw charisma.
Message no. 39
From: Bruce gyro@********.co.za
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:03:11 +0200
>No, SIX is as likeable as the most likeable person on earth. That's
the
>maximum unmodified human. Ten is nearly twice that. [Which, of
course, would
>be so impossible to quanitify that it is absurd for me to use the
word
>'twice' to describe it, but still...]

We had a similar discussion over in SCR and I'm afraid it is possible
to exceed that limit by up to 50%, AE.

Therefore, maximum unmodified human stats are 9.

- + - BRUCE
<gyro@********.co.za> - <hex@*************.net>

Dis die blond dis die blou
Dis die veld dis die lug
En n bomwerper draai bo
In eensame vlug
Dis al.
Message no. 40
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:14:01 -0400
> :No, SIX is as likeable as the most likeable person on earth. That's the
> :maximum unmodified human. Ten is nearly twice that. [Which, of course,
> would
> :be so impossible to quanitify that it is absurd for me to use the word
> :'twice' to describe it, but still...]
>
>
> An experienced PC can spend karma and raise their Charisma (or any
stat)
> to their racial MAXIMUM, which in this case (human charisma) is 9. The
> "Maximum unmodified" referred to above is the is the maximum a starting
> character could normally have- which is lower than racial maximum.
> <snip>

Really? Is this some new SR3 rule? [Yes, I've read the book, but you know,
when you've read the other two a million times, sometimes you miss the new
stuff.] I recall six being the human maximum. Unless, of course, you're
talking about the racial maximum-times-1.5 rule that is the maximum
raisable, in which case I agree with you.

Okay, I'll buy your arguement on those terms, although it does not change my
original arguement; why won't GMs give you the kind of credit for mental
attributes that they do for physical.

And, following one of your arguements, why is it that everyone talks about
Charisma needing a relevant social skill to reach it's full usefulness, but
no one talks about the rating of your lifting skill when it comes to
strength?

And why, with an Intelligence of 10, natural, raised by Karma, can't I
develop a fully unified theory? I'm as smart as Einstein or Hawking, and
have sixty [at least] more years of research to build on? [Mostly, this
question is rhetorical. Mostly.]

I'm just sick of GMs letting guys with absurd strengths look like badasses
and be able to tear walls off buildings, but guys with hideously high
strengths don't seem to get anythng but a few extra perception test dice.
Message no. 41
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:17:12 -0400
> > No, SIX is as likeable as the most likeable person on earth. That's the
> > maximum unmodified human. Ten is nearly twice that. [Which, of course,
would
> > be so impossible to quanitify that it is absurd for me to use the word
> > 'twice' to describe it, but still...]
>
> Six is not the maximum, according to the rules human characters can
> use karma to raise that six (racial modified limit) to a nine
> (attribute maximum). (pg 245 of SR3)

Gotcha.

> IMO, a six is possible by just about anyone who takes the time to
> learn some basic (to intermediate) etiquette, politeness, smooth
> demeanor, and etc. But there are/have been people in this world which
> exceed that. For example (and I don't mean to offend anyone), Adolf
> Hitler would be (IMO) a nine charisma. Not many people of the time
> could have convinced a whole nation that taking on the world and
> attempting to kill off a whole ethnic group was a good idea.
>
So, a six in strength is possible by just about anyone who takes the time to
do some basic (to intermediate) weightlifting? I don't buy that.
Message no. 42
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 08:21:22 -0400
> > For example (and I don't mean to offend anyone), Adolf
> > Hitler would be (IMO) a nine charisma. Not many people of the time
> > could have convinced a whole nation that taking on the world and
> > attempting to kill off a whole ethnic group was a good idea.
>
> I wouldn't totaly agree with that, Iridos, for a couple of reasons. One
of
> which is the one problem with the skills as they are set up now. Once you
> have a skill of 1 or more in something, it ceases to matter how high the
> controlling stat is.

Say what? So you're saying, once I get a lifting skill, I will use that in
place of Strength at every applicable opportunity? And then I could lose my
strength through atrophy and still lift as much, because after all, I've got
a high lifting skill?

I'm so confused.
Message no. 43
From: De Herdt Sven Sven.De.Herdt@***************.be
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:38:38 -0000
> abortion_engine[SMTP:abortion_engine@*******.com] wrote:
>
>And why, with an Intelligence of 10, natural, raised by Karma, can't I
>develop a fully unified theory? I'm as smart as Einstein or Hawking,

You probably would be able to come up with a fully and consistent theory. I
would even allow players with, natural, intelligence of 10 to do so, IF they
develop the theory through ROLEPLAY. I WON'T allow a player to say to me
(GM): "I have an intelligence of 10, I should know this. I will role the
dice and then you can tell me what I should do next."

I can tell you it won't work that way, at least not with me. The player
should at least initiate his idea or make the first steps or give me some
ideas on what he wants to do or what he wants to develop with his theory. I
won't tell you the campaign plotlines, just because your character has an
intelligence of 10.
<story>Please don't laugh, I actually heard people say (it was another RPG
though) I have an intelligence of 20/20, I should know what to do next, so
tell me what spell should be best to use (the character was a mage).
Unfortunately for him out GM at the time was quite consistent in these
matters and simply replied: "You wanted to play a mage and handle 120
different kinds of spells, so you should know what spell to use or otherwise
you should have choosen a different character. By the way you got 10
seconds real-time left to decide."</story>

>and
>have sixty [at least] more years of research to build on? [Mostly, this
>question is rhetorical. Mostly.]

I would say that this depends on your background, contacts and knowledge
skills

Just my thoughts,

--
Sven :)
Message no. 44
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 08:52:53 -0400
At 08:14 AM 10/5/99 -0400, you wrote:
> > An experienced PC can spend karma and raise their Charisma (or any
>stat)
> > to their racial MAXIMUM, which in this case (human charisma) is 9. The
> > "Maximum unmodified" referred to above is the is the maximum a
starting
> > character could normally have- which is lower than racial maximum.
> > <snip>
>
>Really? Is this some new SR3 rule? [Yes, I've read the book, but you know,
>when you've read the other two a million times, sometimes you miss the new
>stuff.] I recall six being the human maximum. Unless, of course, you're
>talking about the racial maximum-times-1.5 rule that is the maximum
>raisable, in which case I agree with you.

The jist of it is that the highest that a human can start with is a 6. With
a lot of hard work (read extra karma), he can jack it up to 9. I always
thought that 6 was the best any normal person could get. When you raise
over normal maxes, your pushing your body to the peak of what it can do.

>Okay, I'll buy your arguement on those terms, although it does not change my
>original arguement; why won't GMs give you the kind of credit for mental
>attributes that they do for physical.

Possibly. Then again, its not as simple as that.

>And, following one of your arguements, why is it that everyone talks about
>Charisma needing a relevant social skill to reach it's full usefulness, but
>no one talks about the rating of your lifting skill when it comes to
>strength?

Strength is a very specific case. Its very easy to measure a brute strength
kind of thing. Give the human a strength 9 and a weight to lift, and he
does it. If he does have a lifting skill he's much better at lifting, and
is going to be able to push around significantly more. It will also be
cheaper, with the karma cost derived from the strength score, to raise
lifting. Better potential leads to better skill.

For a social skill, the high charisma gives you good natural talent, but
needs to be refined. You need the social skills to be able to tailor your
response to the situations. A high charisma character might be very
likable, and adapt easily to most situations. But if he doesn't know the
rules of the game that the people he is influencing are playing, he's not
going to get very far.

>And why, with an Intelligence of 10, natural, raised by Karma, can't I
>develop a fully unified theory? I'm as smart as Einstein or Hawking, and
>have sixty [at least] more years of research to build on? [Mostly, this
>question is rhetorical. Mostly.]

Intelligence mostly measures how quick you are to pick things up. You use
it for Perception Tests to determine which little details you notice. It
also measure how quickly you learn new information, like all Knowledge
skills. With a natural 10, you can't develop a fully unified theory for 2
reasons.

1) It doesn't exist. ;)
2) Because you have a 10 Int, but could refer to your understanding of
physics, your insight into polisci, or your ability to program a computer.

The Intelligence measures potential. What it means is that you have a high
aptitude to do whatever you want, but still have to put in the work. That
10 in Intellignce won't get you the FUT, but it will make it easier to but
the physics, quantum physics, differential equations, and other skills you
need to do so.

>I'm just sick of GMs letting guys with absurd strengths look like badasses
>and be able to tear walls off buildings, but guys with hideously high
>Intelligence don't seem to get anythng but a few extra perception test dice.

First, never, ever scoff at perception dice. Get them and love them. And
then, use that high Intelligence to learn a few skills mighty quick.
They'll be cheap, and subtle, and in the long run do a lot more than the
high strength will do.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 45
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:17:03 -0400
> > > An experienced PC can spend karma and raise their Charisma (or any
> >stat)
> > > to their racial MAXIMUM, which in this case (human charisma) is 9. The
> > > "Maximum unmodified" referred to above is the is the maximum a
starting
> > > character could normally have- which is lower than racial maximum.
> > > <snip>
> >
> >Really? Is this some new SR3 rule? [Yes, I've read the book, but you
know,
> >when you've read the other two a million times, sometimes you miss the
new
> >stuff.] I recall six being the human maximum. Unless, of course, you're
> >talking about the racial maximum-times-1.5 rule that is the maximum
> >raisable, in which case I agree with you.
>
> The jist of it is that the highest that a human can start with is a 6.
With
> a lot of hard work (read extra karma), he can jack it up to 9. I always
> thought that 6 was the best any normal person could get. When you raise
> over normal maxes, your pushing your body to the peak of what it can do.

Right.

> <snip>
> >And, following one of your arguements, why is it that everyone talks
about
> >Charisma needing a relevant social skill to reach it's full usefulness,
but
> >no one talks about the rating of your lifting skill when it comes to
> >strength?
>
> Strength is a very specific case. Its very easy to measure a brute
strength
> kind of thing. Give the human a strength 9 and a weight to lift, and he
> does it. If he does have a lifting skill he's much better at lifting, and
> is going to be able to push around significantly more. It will also be
> cheaper, with the karma cost derived from the strength score, to raise
> lifting. Better potential leads to better skill.

That's one of the tough things about mental attributes, obviously; they're
impossible to quantify.

> For a social skill, the high charisma gives you good natural talent, but
> needs to be refined. You need the social skills to be able to tailor your
> response to the situations. A high charisma character might be very
> likable, and adapt easily to most situations. But if he doesn't know the
> rules of the game that the people he is influencing are playing, he's not
> going to get very far.

I [mostly] agree, with some reservations. In certain situations, it doesn't
even matter if you know the players in the scene you're in. And in a very
few, you're actually better off.

> >And why, with an Intelligence of 10, natural, raised by Karma, can't I
> >develop a fully unified theory? I'm as smart as Einstein or Hawking, and
> >have sixty [at least] more years of research to build on? [Mostly, this
> >question is rhetorical. Mostly.]
>
> Intelligence mostly measures how quick you are to pick things up. You use
> it for Perception Tests to determine which little details you notice. It
> also measure how quickly you learn new information, like all Knowledge
> skills. With a natural 10, you can't develop a fully unified theory for 2
> reasons.
>
> 1) It doesn't exist. ;)

Well, duh. :)

> 2) Because you have a 10 Int, but could refer to your understanding of
> physics, your insight into polisci, or your ability to program a computer.

An excellent point. Not that that has ever stopped by GM. In essence, I am
limited by the knowledge I have learned, in my games. With very high skills,
I know a lot, but I have never been allowed to develop any new theories. I
guess the GMs worried I'm going to outsmart him and trick him into allowing
some obscure mathemetical theorem ruin his game. I mean, doesn't that happen
all the time? :)

> The Intelligence measures potential. What it means is that you have a high
> aptitude to do whatever you want, but still have to put in the work. That
> 10 in Intellignce won't get you the FUT, but it will make it easier to but
> the physics, quantum physics, differential equations, and other skills you
> need to do so.

Right.

> >I'm just sick of GMs letting guys with absurd strengths look like
badasses
> >and be able to tear walls off buildings, but guys with hideously high
> >Intelligence don't seem to get anythng but a few extra perception test
dice.
>
> First, never, ever scoff at perception dice. Get them and love them. And
> then, use that high Intelligence to learn a few skills mighty quick.
> They'll be cheap, and subtle, and in the long run do a lot more than the
> high strength will do.

My worry is that people just take the extra INT to get some more dice. I
love perception. It is my baby. But I'm kind of a fan of being smart, too,
and everyone overlooks the latter for the former.

One problem with every roleplaying game is the fact that you're boiling down
a person to a set of numbers, which means you can have a few numbers, and
gloss over the rest with roleplaying [SR], or have a million numbers for
every situation [insert game I don't like here.]

That said, perception and intelligence shouldn't be grouped together.
Neither should quickness and dexterity. Neither should resistance to disease
and resistance to physical injury. Almost every SR attribute should be
divided into two [or more] separate attributes, which may or my not be
dependant on each other. But then your character takes on the sheer math
aspect of a custom-built LAV under the RBB2 rules. Which is fine, in a
vehicle, but for a person, would be stupid.

And, of course, there are types and types of intelligence. Potential in
mathematics does not mean potential in english.

So, I just want to roleplay it all out. But I don't get allowed to. I play a
character with high mental attributes, and I get screwed, because it
generally seems that the people I roleplay with feel physically powerless in
real life, but mentally secure. Thus, in game, they want to acheive what the
cannot acheive in real life; physical domination. And my GM, ex-military
fellow that he is [as you may know, I have no reason to hold that against
him :) ] thinks every problem should be solved with a hammer, using the game
as an outlet for his physical perception of the world, as opposed to an
escape from it.

And I do the same thing he does, only sideways; in real life, I solve most
problems with my wit and intellect. I roleplay to apply those talents to
other situations, some which could not exist in real life, thus honing those
abilities.

So, I roleplay with a bunch of whimps who desire to overcome their
limitations, to live vicariously through others, and with a GM who wants to
hone his tactical abilities through their application in a fictional world.
To sum up; several guys who are sick of the mental world, which is all they
have, and one guy, nominally in charge, who eschews such abilities in lieu
of the strategic application of force. And then me, dissaffected
intellectual.

See why I get a little upset when no one lets me be mental?
Message no. 46
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:42:14 +0200
According to abortion_engine, at 8:14 on 5 Oct 99, the word on
the street was...

> Really? Is this some new SR3 rule? [Yes, I've read the book, but you know,
> when you've read the other two a million times, sometimes you miss the new
> stuff.] I recall six being the human maximum. Unless, of course, you're
> talking about the racial maximum-times-1.5 rule that is the maximum
> raisable, in which case I agree with you.

In SRII, 6 was the racial maximum, and if the the GM allowed it, it was
possible to get up to 1.5x racial maximum. In SR3, they changed the
wording a bit and made it a standard rule, though the book still
recommends keeping such high attributes rare in the game.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I would have it all if I'd only have this much
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 47
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:42:14 +0200
According to abortion_engine, at 8:17 on 5 Oct 99, the word on
the street was...

> So, a six in strength is possible by just about anyone who takes the time to
> do some basic (to intermediate) weightlifting? I don't buy that.

When it comes to Strength, I see a 6 or a 7 as an Olympic Games level
weightlifter. 9 would be the kinds of people participating in "Strongest
Man" competitions -- where they do events like lift treetrunks or pull
trucks. However, as this discussion has proven, YKMV.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I would have it all if I'd only have this much
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 48
From: Ignacio De Lucas morrisjila@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 22:09:39 GMT
>
> > Anyways, the problem with negotiation is that it's hard to
> > simplify a fast-talk into just a roll of the skill and still have it
> > feel gratifying.

Couldnt agree with you more but there is a problem see having a numerical
skill doesnt mean that the person must have it in real life, thas why the
are called RPGs your character can do many things you dont so here is a
small discusion I had with my GM about it, I was arguing about an el Racoon
Shamaness whith a charisma of 8 who had lied to me about looting a dead
body. OK what I said was that she couldnt conn me that easily, starting with
the problem that I didnt truster in the first place, besides the player was
a very quiet person herself. So I said how could she convice me only by
rolling dice, His explanation was that Paloma (players name) was very quiet
but her character wasnt so if she couldnt roll it correctly it didnt mean
her character couldnt overtalk me so what he did and does in most cases like
this is :

GM--Ok paloma what do you say to him
Paloma-- No I didnt rob him
GM-- Nacho (my name) you?
Me-- no i dont blive her
GM-- Why?
Me-- Because she got near to him?--Joke
GM--Ok paloma roll your charisma eight against target 4 (my charac charima
rate.
Nacho roll your charisma target 7

So because Paloma couldnt come up with a good expalnation it doesnt mean her
character cant. so he aplies modifiers which include our own rol playing,
the situation the background and the skill or atribute being used, So there
is a cool way IMO to solve problems involving charisma and almos all socialt
skills rolls.


ATTE el MORRIS.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 49
From: Graht Graht@**********.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Realism
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 17:14:25 -0500
Starrngr@***.com wrote:
/ Once you
/have a skill of 1 or more in something, it ceases to matter how high the
/controlling stat is.
/
/The reason I bring up *that* dead horse...

Nothin like a good dead horse floggin to start your day ;)

A few neurons in my brain crossed and came up with this option ...just in
case you feel the need to throw a wrench in the works :)

For every two points the controlling attribute is above/below 5, a
character receives a -1/+1 TN modifier.

For example, a character with an intelligence of 7 attempting to use an
intelligence based skill would have a -1 applied to the TN. A character
with an intelligence of 4, 5, or 6 would have no modifier. A person with
an intelligence of 3 would have a +1 TN modifier. And a person with an
intelligence of 1 would have a +2 TN modifier.

Fine

-Graht
--
ShadowRN GridSec
The ShadowRN FAQ: http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3
Geek Code: GCS d-( ) s++:->+ a@ C++>$ US P L >++ E? W++>+++ !N o-- K-
w+ o? M- VMS? PS+(++) PE+(++) Y+ !PGP t+(++) 5+(++) X++(+++) R+>$ tv+b++ DI++++
D+(++) G e+>+++ h--->---- r+++ y+++
http://home.att.net/~Graht
"My assistant, Bob the dinasaur, will now demonstrate
how to give a cat a 'fur wedgie.'"
Message no. 50
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:04:35 EDT
In a message dated 10/4/1999 11:12:35 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
abortion_engine@*******.com writes:

> > Personally, I think that Cha 10 is only as likeable than the
> > most likeable person on earth. (Still very impressive)
>
> No, SIX is as likeable as the most likeable person on earth. That's the
> maximum unmodified human. Ten is nearly twice that. [Which, of course,
would
> be so impossible to quanitify that it is absurd for me to use the word
> 'twice' to describe it, but still...]

AE: the "6" option is only followed if "6" is the maximum limit you
will
allow human beings in your games (I'm not going anywhere on other races for
this example). IF, you allow for the "50% maximum attribute", then the
maximum human option on Earth becomes a 9, barring the "Exceptional
Attribute" edge.

Follow the examples, and include everything.

-K
Message no. 51
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:27:34 EDT
In a message dated 10/5/1999 7:15:38 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
abortion_engine@*******.com writes:

> Okay, I'll buy your arguement on those terms, although it does not change my
> original arguement; why won't GMs give you the kind of credit for mental
> attributes that they do for physical.

Because AE, and I'm sure you can identify with this one. MOST players will
never be able to comprehend those "Mental" attributes.

> And, following one of your arguements, why is it that everyone talks about
> Charisma needing a relevant social skill to reach it's full usefulness, but
> no one talks about the rating of your lifting skill when it comes to
> strength?

Actually, if you change all tests in resisted tests vs. Attribute, then you
begin to get an idea why. Strength vs. Strength (arm wrestling) for instance.

-K
Message no. 52
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:29:34 EDT
In a message dated 10/5/1999 7:18:28 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
abortion_engine@*******.com writes:

>
> So, a six in strength is possible by just about anyone who takes the time
to
> do some basic (to intermediate) weightlifting? I don't buy that.

And it is good that you don't buy into it, because that isn't true. Recall
that the *human* average is a 3. In order to achieve "100% the average", you
would have to do performing at nothing less than "100% average exercise".
And no, I don't want to hear any crap about 100 X 0 equals 0. 100% increase
means 100% increase or complete improvement.

And, as for comparing attribute ratings and credit, *this* is an example of
exactly what I mean by not being able to comprehend or understand attributes
of those ratings.

-K
Message no. 53
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:32:08 -0400
> > Okay, I'll buy your arguement on those terms, although it does not
change my
> > original arguement; why won't GMs give you the kind of credit for
mental
> > attributes that they do for physical.
>
> Because AE, and I'm sure you can identify with this one. MOST players
will
> never be able to comprehend those "Mental" attributes.

A point in your favor. [Must...shoot...stupid...people...]

> > And, following one of your arguements, why is it that everyone talks
about
> > Charisma needing a relevant social skill to reach it's full usefulness,
but
> > no one talks about the rating of your lifting skill when it comes to
> > strength?
>
> Actually, if you change all tests in resisted tests vs. Attribute, then
you
> begin to get an idea why. Strength vs. Strength (arm wrestling) for
instance.

K, armwrestling is a little different from "Lifting," as in the skill. I'm
not certain I understood your point here. Clarify?
Message no. 54
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:37:09 -0400
> > So, a six in strength is possible by just about anyone who takes the
time
> to
> > do some basic (to intermediate) weightlifting? I don't buy that.
>
> And it is good that you don't buy into it, because that isn't true.
Recall
> that the *human* average is a 3. In order to achieve "100% the average",
you
> would have to do performing at nothing less than "100% average exercise".
> And no, I don't want to hear any crap about 100 X 0 equals 0. 100%
increase
> means 100% increase or complete improvement.

Well, there you go, then. The idea that a six in CHA was possible with some
basic (to intermediate) social study, which was put forth earlier on this
board, is absurd. Six is neither basic, nor intermediate. It is advanced. At
least.

> And, as for comparing attribute ratings and credit, *this* is an example
of
> exactly what I mean by not being able to comprehend or understand
attributes
> of those ratings.

Oh, I just thought you meant most people were idiots. [I'm joking; I knew
what you meant. Really.]
Message no. 55
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Realism
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:15:21 EDT
In a message dated 10/6/1999 3:34:11 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
abortion_engine@*******.com writes:

>
> K, armwrestling is a little different from "Lifting," as in the skill. I'm
> not certain I understood your point here. Clarify?

I tried in a different post. (shrug)

-K

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Realism, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!