Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 22:50:22 EDT
Combat time in Shadowrun is measured by a Combat Turn, which is about 3
seconds long. To varying degrees (YMMV), this seems to have been generally
effective for person-vs.-person fights (either running gunfights or melee).
Some here may disagree with that assessment, but I think most people would
agree that it's not TOO far off the mark.

However, sometimes situations arise where 3-second combat turns are way too
short a measurement. This would be particularly true of vehicle-vs.-vehicle
combat, particularly naval and space combat. For example, a Mk 46 ADCAP
torpedo has a range of 20 nautical miles, yet it has a speed of 55 knots.
Consequently, if a sub were to fire it at a target at the extreme limit of
its range, 22 minutes (20/55 x 60) would elapse from the moment it fired to
the time of impact. That's equal to 440 Combat Turns!

Even at the person-vs.-person level this can be problematic. With the sensors
available for drones or even possibly man-portable versions, characters could
detect the enemy long before either side could get into shooting range.
Likewise, if one character had a weapon with a considerably longer range (LMG
versus SMG, for example), several minutes could elapse before everybody else
could get in range just to shoot, never mind hit.

The question I'd like to throw to the list is this: how would you think about
handling such a situation where hostilities would be expected to last for a
relatively long time (say more than a minute)? Would you break it down into
"combat time" and "non-combat time"? Would you use longer segments of
time
(like a ten-second round or a full minute) for such a situation? Would you do
something else?

An OC (observer-controller) at NTC (National Training Center at Ft Irwin,
California) once said that combat consists of several hours of figuring out
where the enemy is, followed by several minutes of waiting for them to get in
range (an optional step), culminating with a few seconds of actual fighting.
I wonder if something like that would be applicable here.

What do you think?

-- Jon
Message no. 2
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:41:51 +0200
According to JonSzeto@***.com, at 22:50 on 22 May 00, the word on the
street was...

> The question I'd like to throw to the list is this: how would you think about
> handling such a situation where hostilities would be expected to last for a
> relatively long time (say more than a minute)? Would you break it down into
> "combat time" and "non-combat time"? Would you use longer
segments of time
> (like a ten-second round or a full minute) for such a situation? Would you do
> something else?

The way I handle these sorts of situations is to only start a combat turn
when there is actually something to shoot at. When all the enemy NPCs have
disappeared from the PCs' view (either because they retreated or are now
dead), the combat turns are over until another target appears -- even if
that's after two seconds already.

This works well in buildings and for other short-ranged combat situations,
like you typically find in a city, but I'm not sure how well it'd go for
long-ranged fire like your SMG vs. LMG in an open field example. Those are
probably best resolved without going to combat turns at all. If one side
can fire at the other at leisure, without fear of return fire, I'd just
let them roll some tests to assess hits and damage without making the
players roll for initiative. After all, when it's a crap shoot, the PCs
can take their time, unlike in a true combat situation where they're more
or less expected to give it all they've got.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Here come the golden oldies. Here come the Hezbollah.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

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. 3
From: kawaii trunks@********.org
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 08:54:04 -0400
From: <JonSzeto@***.com>

> The question I'd like to throw to the list is this: how would you think
about
> handling such a situation where hostilities would be expected to last for
a
> relatively long time (say more than a minute)? Would you break it down
into
> "combat time" and "non-combat time"? Would you use longer
segments of time
> (like a ten-second round or a full minute) for such a situation? Would you
do
> something else?

I have always thought that combat does not really start until one of the two
parties are within attacking range of each other. As far as sensors and
other things of that nature that would detect an enemy, I just run it like
sirens you might hear or something of that nature. ie:

Joe: I scan with my floater drone.
GM: Roll sensors (*sound of rolling dice*). You can see three Lone Star cars
approaching about 1.5 klicks away.

While 1.5 klicks is far enough not to be combat range, Joe and the rest of
the team would usually just go about their business, keeping the fact that
there is opposition coming in the back of their heads. =)

As far as the LMG vs SMG scenerio, I just let them make a few attack rolls
and fudge it accordingly if the encounter is important or not. =)

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 4
From: Aristotle antithesis@**********.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 16:00:49 -0400
>>>Jon wrote:
[ <snip>
The question I'd like to throw to the list is this: how would you think
about handling such a situation where hostilities would be expected to last
for a relatively long time (say more than a minute)? Would you break it
down into "combat time" and "non-combat time"? Would you use longer
segments of time (like a ten-second round or a full minute) for such a
situation? Would you do something else?

What do you think?
<snip> ]

I don't normally allow my campaigns to fall into battles on the scale that
you are talking about. However I do sometimes see things run into points
where the three second mark just seems a little too unbelievable. I told my
group that the length of a single combat round varied from 3 to 10 seconds
and that there were only 10 combat rounds in a minute (some being short and
others long). This doesn't fix what you were talking about I suppose, but I
have found it useful.

On a _somewhat_ related note I've been experimenting with how combat
starts. To me, telling everyone to roll initiative as a confrontation goes
sour seems to imply that the players and NPC's just sorta agree it is time
to start shooting at one another. I've been using the rules for surprise
for the first round of attacks. Giving the side, or individuals, who
initiate the attack a difficulty of 2 on the Reaction test, and those that
are being attacked a difficulty of 4. The successes are tallied and
everyone takes a single Phase, acting only against those who scored lower
than them on the roll. After that I have them roll initiative and the
standard combat rules apply. It has run well so far.

My $0.02
Travis "Aristotle" Heldibridle
Message no. 5
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 20:37:52 GMT
>starts. To me, telling everyone to roll initiative as a confrontation goes
>sour seems to imply that the players and NPC's just sorta agree it is time
>to start shooting at one another. I've been using the rules for surprise
>for the first round of attacks. Giving the side, or individuals, who
>initiate the attack a difficulty of 2 on the Reaction test, and those that
>are being attacked a difficulty of 4. The successes are tallied and
>everyone takes a single Phase, acting only against those who scored lower
>than them on the roll. After that I have them roll initiative and the
>standard combat rules apply. It has run well so far.
>
>My $0.02

It sounds cool except if one side is suprised they get frustrated with not
being able to do anything. I also like the ominous sound of telling the
players to roll initiative.

In my games PCs sometimes get a chance to act out of initiative but as soon
as the first shot is fired we're into combat and you have to wait for the
adept to take his actions before you can fire your guns. :)>

Phil
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 6
From: JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 22:12:41 EDT
"Gurth" <gurth@******.nl> wrote,

> The way I handle these sorts of situations is to only start a combat turn
> when there is actually something to shoot at. When all the enemy NPCs have
> disappeared from the PCs' view (either because they retreated or are now
> dead), the combat turns are over until another target appears -- even if
> that's after two seconds already.

Thinking about it some more today, I think that where combat time (and
its relatively short unit of measure) becomes a problem is in the area
of rockets and missiles, particularly the larger ones. With most
missiles, range > flight speed * 3 seconds, and as the size of the
missile gets larger, it becomes range >> flight speed * 3 seconds (and
sometimes, range >> flight speed * 3 minutes). Starting combat time when
you're in shooting range is all well and fine, but what if you have to
wait 10-20 minutes to see if you even hit?

And as most forms of vehicle combat nowadays and into the foreseeable
future revolve around some kind of rocket/missile/artillery fire, that
means that vehicle combat more or less takes a relatively long time
(game time, not real time). I sometimes think that the vehicle combat
rules would work better if the Combat Turn lasted for 3 minutes rather
than 3 seconds.

Recent rule changes in SR3 (such as missiles impacting at the last phase
of the Combat Turn, or the extended-range missile rules in Cyber-
Pirates) seem to address this, but I still wonder if there's an even
better way to handle this.

> This works well in buildings and for other short-ranged combat situations,
> like you typically find in a city, but I'm not sure how well it'd go for
> long-ranged fire like your SMG vs. LMG in an open field example. Those are
> probably best resolved without going to combat turns at all. If one side
> can fire at the other at leisure, without fear of return fire, I'd just
> let them roll some tests to assess hits and damage without making the
> players roll for initiative. After all, when it's a crap shoot, the PCs
> can take their time, unlike in a true combat situation where they're more
> or less expected to give it all they've got.

How do you take your time when you're being suppressed by LMG fire? :)

The problem I see ATM with handling it in non-combat time is with speed
characters that can act more than once a turn. Sure, for most of those
extra turns all they're doing is duck-and-cover, but it's still an issue
worth mentioning. (If nothing else, then to warn of all the whining from
their players. :)

-- Jon
Message no. 7
From: Scot Hayworth scoth@*********.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 08:08:18 -0600
From: JonSzeto@***.com [mailto:JonSzeto@***.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 8:50 PM

>torpedo has a range of 20 nautical miles, yet it has a speed of 55 knots.
>Consequently, if a sub were to fire it at a target at the extreme limit of
>its range, 22 minutes (20/55 x 60) would elapse from the moment it fired to

>the time of impact. That's equal to 440 Combat Turns!

but the reactions a ship has to take in order to counter or neutralize an
ADCAP are equally long.

>The question I'd like to throw to the list is this: how would you think
about
>handling such a situation where hostilities would be expected to last for a

>relatively long time (say more than a minute)? Would you break it down into

>"combat time" and "non-combat time"? Would you use longer segments
of time
>(like a ten-second round or a full minute) for such a situation? Would you
do
>something else?

In those particular instances I wouldn't actually consider it combat until
forces are clashing in at least Ranged Combat... the rigger can alert his
forces of an impending hostile force inbound and you as the GM should then
find out what your group is going to do....determine when forces are going
to clash and figure out what kind of preparations (if any) the group is
going to make...the worst feeling in the world is sitting in a foxhole
waiting for the oncoming enemy. Wrack your groups mind with uneasiness,
uncertainty and fear of the unknown.

If you like, make your combat rounds as long as needed to make combat seem
reasonable. in an age of Wired reflexes and Matrix running... a minute long
round seems a bit long but in ship to ship combat...a minute (hell even 5
minutes) can seem to be too short.


Scot
Message no. 8
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 00:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
> Thinking about it some more today, I think that
where combat time (and its relatively short unit of
measure) becomes a problem is in the area of rockets
and missiles, particularly the larger ones. With most
missiles, range > flight speed * 3 seconds, and as the
size of the missile gets larger, it becomes range >>
flight speed * 3 seconds (and sometimes, range >>
flight speed * 3 minutes). Starting combat time when
you're in shooting range is all well and fine, but
what if you have to wait 10-20 minutes to see if you
even hit?
>
> And as most forms of vehicle combat nowadays and
into the foreseeable future revolve around some kind
of rocket/missile/artillery fire, that means that
vehicle combat more or less takes a relatively long
time (game time, not real time). I sometimes think
that the vehicle combat rules would work better if the
Combat Turn lasted for 3 minutes rather than 3
seconds.
>
> Recent rule changes in SR3 (such as missiles
impacting at the last phase of the Combat Turn, or the
extended-range missile rules in Cyber-Pirates) seem to
address this, but I still wonder if there's an even
better way to handle this.

The problem with going to a 3 minute round for vehicle
scale combat is that...well, maybe not. How about
this? At close range (under a kilometre or two,
considering that a number of man-portable weapons can
fire that far) a combat round is assumed to take
between 3 and 10 seconds (I'd actually be a lot
happier if the base time for a round was ten seconds -
makes more sense to me, although it'd screw with FA
ROFs even more :) ). Past that, you divided the range
in kms by 10 to get how many minutes each round lasts.
So at 10 kms, each round lasts 1 minute. Everyone
still only gets there standard complement of actions
to one round - this represents them having to take
time to lock on, fire and see what happens before
attacking again. After all, when you're dealing with
rockets and missiles costing thousands, or tens of
thousands of nuyen, you're hardly going to go hosing
them off if the first one might do the job for you. It
doesn't really take mages (with LOS attacks) into
account, but I'm sure you could come up with some
rationalisation - it's a lot tougher to get a clean
LOS and make sure you're hitting what you want to hit
at long ranges, or something like that. Manoeuvring
and the like happens as normal, but the results of
movement are multiplied by ((round time in seconds
divided by ten) divided by the number of passes in the
round). So if there were 3 passes in that 1 minute
round (range of 10km), all results are multiplied by
60/10=6/3=2. So if you would end up outdistancing your
pursuers by 50 metres in the round, you actually
outdistance them by 100 metres. That last bit could
probably use some tweaking. Hell, the whole system
could, but I'd be interested to see how it works. :)

> How do you take your time when you're being
suppressed by LMG fire? :)

*lol* You don't - but you do if you're suppressing the
other guys. :) In a case like this I'd figure out how
long it'd take in rounds for the opposing side to get
in range and have the suppressers make the appropriate
number of tests, modifying all with the partial cover
modifier (I'd assume the suppressees would be trying
to grab as much cover as possible while moving into
range, sometimes finding little to none, while other
times being totally out of view of the suppressers, so
a flat +4 modifier would tend to average things out).

> The problem I see ATM with handling it in non-combat
time is with speed characters that can act more than
once a turn. Sure, for most of those extra turns all
they're doing is duck-and-cover, but it's still an
issue worth mentioning. (If nothing else, then to warn
of all the whining from their players. :)
> -- Jon

Which is one reason why the above system takes that
into account. :)

*Doc' gets hisself an LMG to suppress his whiney
players with...*

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Message no. 9
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 12:47:05 +0200
According to JonSzeto@***.com, at 22:12 on 23 May 00, the word on the
street was...

> Thinking about it some more today, I think that where combat time (and
> its relatively short unit of measure) becomes a problem is in the area
> of rockets and missiles, particularly the larger ones. With most
> missiles, range > flight speed * 3 seconds, and as the size of the
> missile gets larger, it becomes range >> flight speed * 3 seconds (and
> sometimes, range >> flight speed * 3 minutes). Starting combat time when
> you're in shooting range is all well and fine, but what if you have to
> wait 10-20 minutes to see if you even hit?

Then you just let the PCs fire, describe how they can see the missile head
toward the target, and impact 10 minutes later. I don't see the need to go
to combat turns under these conditions, even if the enemy is firing a
similar missile back at them at around the same time.

> How do you take your time when you're being suppressed by LMG fire? :)

You don't -- what I meant was you can take your time when you're the one
doing the suppressing :) Your example was of one side with LMGs against
another side with SMGs; the side with the LMGs can take their time if they
catch the SMG-equipped side at several hundred meters range. Once they
close to 150 m or less, it'll be a combat situation where I'd let everyone
roll for initiative, because at that point they can both fire at each
other.

> The problem I see ATM with handling it in non-combat time is with speed
> characters that can act more than once a turn. Sure, for most of those
> extra turns all they're doing is duck-and-cover, but it's still an issue
> worth mentioning. (If nothing else, then to warn of all the whining from
> their players. :)

Luckily initiative doesn't matter for movement speeds anymore, else it
could be a real problem...

If it's the PCs firing the LMGs (to keep that example going), like I said
before I just make them roll some tests to see if they hit. How fast they
are doesn't matter here.

If it's the PCs being fired on with LMGs, I roll tests for the NPCs
occasionally to see if they hit the PCs. The PCs' speeds don't matter very
much here either, IMHO, though if they insist you can always do something
like make them roll Reaction to dodge incoming fire. I tend to fudge these
things anyway, rolling some dice to see if PCs get hit, followed by "Roll
Body" to players who stand out in the open for too long.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Here come the golden oldies. Here come the Hezbollah.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

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. 10
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 15:07:47 -0700
From: "Jon Szeto" <JonSzeto@***.com>
> > Thinking about it some more today, I think that where combat time (and
> > its relatively short unit of measure) becomes a problem is in the area
> > of rockets and missiles, particularly the larger ones. With most
> > missiles, range > flight speed * 3 seconds, and as the size of the
> > missile gets larger, it becomes range >> flight speed * 3 seconds (and
> > sometimes, range >> flight speed * 3 minutes). Starting combat time when
> > you're in shooting range is all well and fine, but what if you have to
> > wait 10-20 minutes to see if you even hit?

Jon, I assume this has come up if work on YotC and the next Rigger book
material? If so then the best bet is to simply hand off the descriptions to
the gamemaster and not add in needless complexity to a game system that is
not exactly supportive of such detail. The existing missile rules are
abstracted to hell, are you supposing to redefine missile speeds (which
would actually be important in an stretched turn sequence)? If not then why
bother? What about missile ranges, which are also abstracted out? What about
player actions during these extended turns? Given previous changes to the
game vis a vis riggers I can only see the "VCR Gap" widening in such a
situation (I note that according to SR3, riggers can dodge lasers).

Not to mention such systems are not exactly friendly to PC interaction.
Unless of course there is little chance of the players doing anything
worthewhile during that time (such as in space or sitting on a ship waiting
for the "yellow dots to meet the green dots."

Simply put unless you're shooting for an optional abstract system to deal
with such (rare) situations what is the problem with keeping things as they
stand? Even if the next SR books start to switch over to "mo-missiles
mo-betta!" I don't see an urgent need to add much technical detail.
Especially in situations where you have mixed requirements. For example, in
a exoatmospheric combat (YotC perhaps?) what about missiles vs DEW? A
extended-timespan turn sequence would make such contests needlessly complex
and way outside the scope of most peoples games. YMMV but I say "why
bother?"

Ken
---------------------------
There's a war out there, old friend, a world war. And it's not about who's
got the most bullets, it's about who controls the information. What we see
and hear, how we work, what we think, it's all about the information!
Cosmo, 'Sneakers'
Message no. 11
From: JKeith Henry neojudas@******************.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 18:06:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Reflections on time....


<SNIPT!!!> Simply put unless you're shooting for an optional abstract system
to deal
> with such (rare) situations what is the problem with keeping things as
they
> stand? Even if the next SR books start to switch over to "mo-missiles
> mo-betta!" I don't see an urgent need to add much technical detail.
> Especially in situations where you have mixed requirements. For example,
in
> a exoatmospheric combat (YotC perhaps?) what about missiles vs DEW? A
> extended-timespan turn sequence would make such contests needlessly
complex
> and way outside the scope of most peoples games. YMMV but I say "why
> bother?"
>
> Ken

HERE HERE!!!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
NeoJudas ("K" to Friends)
"Children of the Kernel: Reborn"
(neojudas@******************.com)
Hoosier Hacker House (http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/)
Message no. 12
From: MC23 mc23@**********.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 14:01:21 -0400
Once upon a time, Jon Szeto wrote;

>Thinking about it some more today, I think that where combat time (and
>its relatively short unit of measure) becomes a problem is in the area
>of rockets and missiles, particularly the larger ones. With most
>missiles, range > flight speed * 3 seconds, and as the size of the
>missile gets larger, it becomes range >> flight speed * 3 seconds (and
>sometimes, range >> flight speed * 3 minutes). Starting combat time when
>you're in shooting range is all well and fine, but what if you have to
>wait 10-20 minutes to see if you even hit?
>
>And as most forms of vehicle combat nowadays and into the foreseeable
>future revolve around some kind of rocket/missile/artillery fire, that
>means that vehicle combat more or less takes a relatively long time
>(game time, not real time). I sometimes think that the vehicle combat
>rules would work better if the Combat Turn lasted for 3 minutes rather
>than 3 seconds.

First of all, don't call it a combat turn. How I hate the old D&D
subjective time turns where 1 round meant different things at different
times. This would have to be answered in a whole new combat time frame.
As most of the vehicle combat rules handles things in the abstract this
isn't so bad.

>Recent rule changes in SR3 (such as missiles impacting at the last phase
>of the Combat Turn, or the extended-range missile rules in Cyber-
>Pirates) seem to address this, but I still wonder if there's an even
>better way to handle this.

Well, yes, but can you or anybody think of it. Dealing with extremes
here won't make it easy.

>The problem I see ATM with handling it in non-combat time is with speed
>characters that can act more than once a turn. Sure, for most of those
>extra turns all they're doing is duck-and-cover, but it's still an issue
>worth mentioning. (If nothing else, then to warn of all the whining from
>their players. :)

There lies the other extreme. Off the top of my head (and without
much thought I'll admit), it seems like you almost need two time frames
to work with just to handle the fire and forget ranges. The trick is how
to handle things when they get back to immediate concern.
And a good car chase time length should be timed by movie chases as
that should meet people's 'expectations'.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 13
From: JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 18:07:16 EDT
"Tzeentch" <tzeentch666@*********.net> wrote,

> Jon, I assume this has come up if work on YotC and the next Rigger book
> material?

No, it has not. This is general speculation on my part and something I
wanted to throw out for discussion.

-- Jon
Message no. 14
From: JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 18:07:07 EDT
Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com> wrote,

> The problem with going to a 3 minute round for vehicle
> scale combat is that...well, maybe not. How about
> this? At close range (under a kilometre or two,
> considering that a number of man-portable weapons can
> fire that far) a combat round is assumed to take
> between 3 and 10 seconds (I'd actually be a lot
> happier if the base time for a round was ten seconds -
> makes more sense to me, although it'd screw with FA
> ROFs even more :) ). Past that, you divided the range
> in kms by 10 to get how many minutes each round lasts.

I'm not 100% sure I like the idea of a sliding time scale. If the
thought of using a longer time-interval would even be considered, it
would seem simpler to use two discrete intervals (the standard 3-second
turn and this "longer" period), than to have to calculate the time
interval beforehand. I have observed that many gamers seem to have this
neurotic fear of math and react rather violently to the notion of having
to do anything more complex than counting. :)

Incidentally, the idea of going to a ten-second Combat Turn was toyed
with when FASA was developing SR3. It was dropped because it raised more
potential problems than it solved (particularly semi-real measurements
such as Speed and Acceleration, as well as the fact that 10 is not a
clean multiple of 3.)

> So at 10 kms, each round lasts 1 minute. Everyone
> still only gets there standard complement of actions
> to one round - this represents them having to take
> time to lock on, fire and see what happens before
> attacking again. After all, when you're dealing with
> rockets and missiles costing thousands, or tens of
> thousands of nuyen, you're hardly going to go hosing
> them off if the first one might do the job for you.

Ah, yes... the assumption that the characters are really professionals
and act as professionals in spite of what their players say they do. ;)

> It doesn't really take mages (with LOS attacks) into
> account, but I'm sure you could come up with some
> rationalisation - it's a lot tougher to get a clean
> LOS and make sure you're hitting what you want to hit
> at long ranges, or something like that.

That, and the fact that if you get three times as many opportunities to
work magic, you have to make three times as many Drain Tests. :)

> Manoeuvring and the like happens as normal, but the results of
> movement are multiplied by ((round time in seconds
> divided by ten) divided by the number of passes in the
> round). So if there were 3 passes in that 1 minute
> round (range of 10km), all results are multiplied by
> 60/10=6/3=2. So if you would end up outdistancing your
> pursuers by 50 metres in the round, you actually
> outdistance them by 100 metres. That last bit could
> probably use some tweaking. Hell, the whole system
> could, but I'd be interested to see how it works. :)

Again the observation about math-phobic gamers. :) Still, it's food for
thought.

-- Jon
Message no. 15
From: JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 18:07:23 EDT
MC23 <mc23@**********.com> wrote,

> >And as most forms of vehicle combat nowadays and into the foreseeable
> >future revolve around some kind of rocket/missile/artillery fire, that
> >means that vehicle combat more or less takes a relatively long time
> >(game time, not real time). I sometimes think that the vehicle combat
> >rules would work better if the Combat Turn lasted for 3 minutes rather
> >than 3 seconds.
>
> First of all, don't call it a combat turn. How I hate the old D&D
> subjective time turns where 1 round meant different things at different
> times. This would have to be answered in a whole new combat time frame.
> As most of the vehicle combat rules handles things in the abstract this
> isn't so bad.

Agreed. Actually, in the first edition, vehicle combat was paced in its
own interval of "vehicle combat turns" that lasted one minute long. It
was later changed to match the standard 3-second combat turn in 2nd
edition. I'm starting to wonder if that was a mistake.

> >Recent rule changes in SR3 (such as missiles impacting at the last phase
> >of the Combat Turn, or the extended-range missile rules in Cyber-
> >Pirates) seem to address this, but I still wonder if there's an even
> >better way to handle this.
>
> Well, yes, but can you or anybody think of it. Dealing with extremes
> here won't make it easy.

Which is why I posted to the list, to see what others' take would be.

> There lies the other extreme. Off the top of my head (and without
> much thought I'll admit), it seems like you almost need two time frames
> to work with just to handle the fire and forget ranges. The trick is how
> to handle things when they get back to immediate concern.
> And a good car chase time length should be timed by movie chases as
> that should meet people's 'expectations'.

I concur. When you think of all the various types of possible vehicle
combats that can occur in Shadowrun (car chases, aerial dogfights, naval
battles, orbital space wars), how much vehicle action really takes place
in a 3-second span? Not much, bordering on practically nothing, that I
can think of. While keeping a single, character-centered, 3-second time
frame simplifies things, it really does a gross injustice to the
dramatic telling of vehicle action.

The problem, of course, with having two time frames is handling the
transition from one to another and back again. What would call for such
a transition? How would it be handled? And how would you account for
vehicle actions in character-time, or character actions in vehicle-time?

Like you said, it won't be easy. Question is, is it "too hard to do"?

-- Jon
Message no. 16
From: Alfredo B Alves dghost@****.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 19:07:09 -0500
On Mon, 22 May 2000 22:50:22 EDT JonSzeto@***.com writes:
<SNIP>
> An OC (observer-controller) at NTC (National Training Center at Ft
> Irwin,
> California) once said that combat consists of several hours of
> figuring out
> where the enemy is, followed by several minutes of waiting for them
> to get in
> range (an optional step), culminating with a few seconds of actual
> fighting.
> I wonder if something like that would be applicable here.
>
> What do you think?

Sorry, this is one of the threads I sort of marked to read later.

SR is rather Turn-oriented. IMO, that's a mistake. Particularly for
things like vehicles. In three seconds, in general, nothing is
accomplished. Insofar as combat is concerned, I think some sort of
maneuver roll should be made to determine vehicle's suitability as a
fighting platform (or semi-comfortable ride) for the next minute or
something like that.

Some possible maneuvers:
Scram! (Screw the passengers, we're getting outta here now with everyone
mostly intact)
Evasive (I'll just try and dodge their implements of destruction. You do
what you can to shoot them.)
Maneuver (I'll set you up for a shot; make sure you make it count!)
Kamikaze! (If you want anything done right, you've got to do it yourself
...)

All but the last one would likely last for a minute or more (IMO).

I don't see what the problem with saying "okay, it won't hit for 22
minutes, make a missiles Intelligence rating test (Sig of target) test
every five minutes and once again at the 22 minute mark. What is everyone
doing `till then?"

--
D. Ghost
Profanity is the one language all programmers know best
- Troutman's 6th programming postulate.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 17
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 23:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
> > The problem with going to a 3 minute round for
vehicle scale combat is that...well, maybe not. How
about this? At close range (under a kilometre or two,
considering that a number of man-portable weapons can
fire that far) a combat round is assumed to take
between 3 and 10 seconds (I'd actually be a lot
happier if the base time for a round was ten seconds -
makes more sense to me, although it'd screw with FA
ROFs even more :) ). Past that, you divided the range
in kms by 10 to get how many minutes each round lasts.
>
> I'm not 100% sure I like the idea of a sliding time
scale. If the thought of using a longer time-interval
would even be considered, it would seem simpler to use
two discrete intervals (the standard 3-second turn and
this "longer" period), than to have to calculate the
time interval beforehand. I have observed that many
gamers seem to have this neurotic fear of math and
react rather violently to the notion of having to do
anything more complex than counting. :)

*lol*

I can understand that. On the other hand you could
adapt this to a table dealing with ranges like 2-5km,
5-10km, 10-20km, 20-40km, 40-80km etc. or something
similar. Then you just put in details like the time
each round takes and any effects the longer round has
on things.

Basically, the entire idea was to avoid having to
seriously screw with the basic rules of the game in
order to deal with longer rounds (for instance, the
samurai with 3 actions per round getting 60 actions in
a 1 minute round or something similarly ridiculous).
If you move to a longer round, the point is to equate
that and the shorter round so that a one minute (or
ten minute or whatever) round only takes as long in
gameplay as a 3 second round.

> Incidentally, the idea of going to a ten-second
Combat Turn was toyed with when FASA was developing
SR3. It was dropped because it raised more potential
problems than it solved (particularly semi-real
measurements such as Speed and Acceleration, as well
as the fact that 10 is not a clean multiple of 3.)

I just always find it amusing (and in this case that
really isn't a good thing) that SR fiction simply
can't deal with a 3 second round (in which,
potentially, a guy fighting in melee with 4 actions
could hit another guy with 4 actions eight times, if
not more!) because except when abstracting it to a
game, we can't truly comprehend it ourselves. I've
tried it - it's impossible to write people moving that
fast without making it seem ridiculous. :) Ah well,
never mind.

> > So at 10 kms, each round lasts 1 minute. Everyone
still only gets there standard complement of actions
to one round - this represents them having to take
time to lock on, fire and see what happens before
attacking again. After all, when you're dealing with
rockets and missiles costing thousands, or tens of
thousands of nuyen, you're hardly going to go hosing
them off if the first one might do the job for you.
>
> Ah, yes... the assumption that the characters are
really professionals and act as professionals in spite
of what their players say they do. ;)

*lol* Well, it's a good assumption (mostly - I'd laugh
if someone argued that about the guys in the ganger
campaign I'm in) and if it can be worked into the
mechanics themselves, even better.

> > It doesn't really take mages (with LOS attacks)
into account, but I'm sure you could come up with some
rationalisation - it's a lot tougher to get a clean
LOS and make sure you're hitting what you want to hit
at long ranges, or something like that.
>
> That, and the fact that if you get three times as
many opportunities to work magic, you have to make
three times as many Drain Tests. :)

There you go. :)

> > Manoeuvring and the like happens as normal, but
the results of movement are multiplied by ((round time
in seconds divided by ten) divided by the number of
passes in the round). So if there were 3 passes in
that 1 minute round (range of 10km), all results are
multiplied by 60/10=6/3=2. So if you would end up
outdistancing your pursuers by 50 metres in the round,
you actually outdistance them by 100 metres. That last
bit could probably use some tweaking. Hell, the whole
system could, but I'd be interested to see how it
works. :)
>
> Again the observation about math-phobic gamers. :)
Still, it's food for thought.
> -- Jon

This is where the table would come in handy. You'd
have to abstract it a bit, though, because you
couldn't deal with variable numbers of actions per
round. You might have to work in something where
having extra actions will give you a bonus in the
tests so the base number is better for you before any
calculations take place. The results are always going
to be even numbers (in multiples of 10 - ANYONE can
multiply by 10 :) ) for this. All you do is glance at
the table, check the multiplier (range 10km,
multiplier...5 (or whatever)) and do it quickly (I
outdistanced him by 50...that's 250 metres). I can see
the concern, but I think if you take out multiple
multiplications and divisions (heh) and only give the
players one multiplier to deal with they'd be able to
handle it.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
Message no. 18
From: Colin colin@******.demon.co.uk
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 11:25:19 +0100
For some strange, unfathomable, reason: Rand Ratinac
<docwagon101@*****.com> just wrote:
>> > The problem with going to a 3 minute round for
>vehicle scale combat is that...well, maybe not. How
>about this? At close range (under a kilometre or two,
>considering that a number of man-portable weapons can
>fire that far) a combat round is assumed to take
>between 3 and 10 seconds (I'd actually be a lot
>happier if the base time for a round was ten seconds -
>makes more sense to me, although it'd screw with FA
>ROFs even more :) ). Past that, you divided the range
>in kms by 10 to get how many minutes each round lasts.

The thing is: how many actions would you get in such a round? And how
would you deal with it if one person you are in combat with is closer
than the other? What if there's a fight for control of the vehicle? I'm
personally on the side of keeping the 3 second turn.

Another problem is visibility: Isn't it only just over 2 KM that a man
of average height can see due to the earth's curvature? Sitting in a car
would reduce this as your horizon is closer (although this may not apply
to larger vehicles).
>>
>> I'm not 100% sure I like the idea of a sliding time
>scale. If the thought of using a longer time-interval
>would even be considered, it would seem simpler to use
>two discrete intervals (the standard 3-second turn and
>this "longer" period), than to have to calculate the
>time interval beforehand. I have observed that many
>gamers seem to have this neurotic fear of math and
>react rather violently to the notion of having to do
>anything more complex than counting. :)
>
Which RPG was it that you even needed to integrate a formula to find out
how long a hyperspace journey took? Traveller? Not nice. Perhaps just
treat long combat turns as a number of shorter ones? But then how would
you integrate 9-15 second actions with actions people are taking at the
3 second level.

>*lol*
>
>I can understand that. On the other hand you could
>adapt this to a table dealing with ranges like 2-5km,
>5-10km, 10-20km, 20-40km, 40-80km etc. or something
>similar. Then you just put in details like the time
>each round takes and any effects the longer round has
>on things.

Heh. as I said earlier, anything more than 2-3km (perhaps more for
trolls & less for dwarfs :) ) would really need to be airborne/elevated.
>
>Basically, the entire idea was to avoid having to
>seriously screw with the basic rules of the game in
>order to deal with longer rounds (for instance, the
>samurai with 3 actions per round getting 60 actions in
>a 1 minute round or something similarly ridiculous).
>If you move to a longer round, the point is to equate
>that and the shorter round so that a one minute (or
>ten minute or whatever) round only takes as long in
>gameplay as a 3 second round.

Okay: I'm in a desert somewhere and I'm on the tail (perhaps a KM or so
away) of the target of my run as he heads for Border-X. In such a
situation I see no problem with a 3 second round.

The thing is that there are no real combat situations which would take
very long apart from those involving non-LOS ballistics (Think artillery
or missiles), and even then I don't see why people wouldn't want to take
actions at the 3 second level too

>> Incidentally, the idea of going to a ten-second
>Combat Turn was toyed with when FASA was developing
>SR3. It was dropped because it raised more potential
>problems than it solved (particularly semi-real
>measurements such as Speed and Acceleration, as well
>as the fact that 10 is not a clean multiple of 3.)

Yeah, don't forget the fact that people can
>
>I just always find it amusing (and in this case that
>really isn't a good thing) that SR fiction simply
>can't deal with a 3 second round (in which,
>potentially, a guy fighting in melee with 4 actions
>could hit another guy with 4 actions eight times, if
>not more!) because except when abstracting it to a
>game, we can't truly comprehend it ourselves. I've
>tried it - it's impossible to write people moving that
>fast without making it seem ridiculous. :) Ah well,
>never mind.

Yeah, although I've yet to see a 4-action roll.
>
>> > So at 10 kms, each round lasts 1 minute. Everyone
>still only gets there standard complement of actions
>to one round - this represents them having to take
>time to lock on, fire and see what happens before
>attacking again. After all, when you're dealing with
>rockets and missiles costing thousands, or tens of
>thousands of nuyen, you're hardly going to go hosing
>them off if the first one might do the job for you.

What if there's more than one target? They don't want to wait another
20-60 seconds before they can grab the other launcher/prep another
missile and fire it at the 2nd craft.
>>
>> Ah, yes... the assumption that the characters are
>really professionals and act as professionals in spite
>of what their players say they do. ;)

:)
>
>*lol* Well, it's a good assumption (mostly - I'd laugh
>if someone argued that about the guys in the ganger
>campaign I'm in) and if it can be worked into the
>mechanics themselves, even better.
>
>> > It doesn't really take mages (with LOS attacks)
>into account, but I'm sure you could come up with some
>rationalisation - it's a lot tougher to get a clean
>LOS and make sure you're hitting what you want to hit
>at long ranges, or something like that.

The thing is: at what range does someone become non-los? A mage on a
space station can still see the earth, the could have direct LOS to
everyone on a clear day, but could they really powerbolt someone on the
ground? Perhaps with level 5-6 optical magnification, nut not without.
>>
>> That, and the fact that if you get three times as
>many opportunities to work magic, you have to make
>three times as many Drain Tests. :)

It works, but then you have to say that the enemy takes three times as
much damage. Medium base attacks sound about right...
>
>There you go. :)

>
>> > Manoeuvring and the like happens as normal, but
>the results of movement are multiplied by ((round time
>in seconds divided by ten) divided by the number of
>passes in the round). So if there were 3 passes in
>that 1 minute round (range of 10km), all results are
>multiplied by 60/10=6/3=2. So if you would end up
>outdistancing your pursuers by 50 metres in the round,
>you actually outdistance them by 100 metres. That last
>bit could probably use some tweaking. Hell, the whole
>system could, but I'd be interested to see how it
>works. :)

The modelling of movement is extremely tricky. Especially anything
involving 3 dimensions. (Aircraft, Submarines etc)
>>
>> Again the observation about math-phobic gamers. :)
>Still, it's food for thought.
>> -- Jon
>
>This is where the table would come in handy. You'd
>have to abstract it a bit, though, because you
>couldn't deal with variable numbers of actions per
>round. You might have to work in something where
>having extra actions will give you a bonus in the
>tests so the base number is better for you before any
>calculations take place. The results are always going
>to be even numbers (in multiples of 10 - ANYONE can
>multiply by 10 :) ) for this. All you do is glance at
>the table, check the multiplier (range 10km,
>multiplier...5 (or whatever)) and do it quickly (I
>outdistanced him by 50...that's 250 metres). I can see
>the concern, but I think if you take out multiple
>multiplications and divisions (heh) and only give the
>players one multiplier to deal with they'd be able to
>handle it.
>
Why don't you just let the players decide what they want to do? When
talking about something as big and spongy turn-wise as a minute, you
take the average number of turns a char gets (assume initiative die roll
3.5, an odd die rolls a 3, 10+3d6 = 10+10 = 2 turns) and multiply that
by the number combat turns in the time-space (20/minute, 40 actions in
total) The character can realistically take up to 40 actions in that
time space, but relatively few of those will be shooting a weapon at the
enemy and any mass-performed actions (accelerating etc are performed in
batches of actions as above). If it ever gets to the case where detailed
time-tracking does become necessary (they get into close enough range
for normal weapons fire), the characters roll initiative normally.

Just remember to keep a count on how many actions they've taken and make
sure it doesn't exceed 40, close time tracking does not really come into
play unless two actions interfere with each other in which case the
person who has taken less actions can 'interrupt' someone who has taken
more than him.

IE:
Go round the group asking them what they want to do:
Rigger wants to accelerate for his first 5 actions then switch the car
to auto before manning the assault cannon-
At that point Streetsam interrupts as he was planning on manning the
assault cannon and he did this while rigger was accelerating.

Comments?
--
Colin Pickup, colin@******.demon.co.uk
Message no. 19
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:41:35 -0600
I'm not sure who wrote what...

>The problem with going to a 3 minute round for
>vehicle scale combat is that...well, maybe not. How
>about this? At close range (under a kilometre or two,
>considering that a number of man-portable weapons can
>fire that far) a combat round is assumed to take
>between 3 and 10 seconds (I'd actually be a lot
>happier if the base time for a round was ten seconds -
>makes more sense to me, although it'd screw with FA
>ROFs even more :) ).

The problem with the FA rules is that they treat FA fire as a burst, when
it isn't.

An easy fix is to rule that a character to use FA fire on their first
initiative pass only, and that firing a weapon on FA uses all their actions
for a combat turn. And rule that FA fire may only be used as suppressive
fire (you can't fire at a single target with FA fire).

If you increase the length of a combat turn to 10 seconds, all you have to
do to accommodate FA fire is increase the number of rounds fired in FA
mode. Course, that would make suppressive fire *very* effective.

[snip: suggests using a time scale based on the opponent's range]

ick :)

>Basically, the entire idea was to avoid having to
>seriously screw with the basic rules of the game in
>order to deal with longer rounds (for instance, the
>samurai with 3 actions per round getting 60 actions in
>a 1 minute round or something similarly ridiculous).
>If you move to a longer round, the point is to equate
>that and the shorter round so that a one minute (or
>ten minute or whatever) round only takes as long in
>gameplay as a 3 second round.

Understood.

However, keep in mind that the majority of Shadowrun combat is personal,
and the rules reflect that. If you add vehicles and heavy weapons to the
mix, things are going to bog down.

I take the easy way out by assuming that technology has increased to the
point that vehicles and vehicle weapons are as responsive as characters,
and that vehicle combat moves as fast as personal combat. In my game that
anti-vehicle missile can fly the length of it's range within three seconds.

Two pieces of fiction come to mind. I think the first was by Gibson and
related what it felt like to be a jump jet pilot. The story gave me the
impression that aerial combat in his world took place in a very small time
frame, that the aircraft could turn on a dime and that the wired pilots
could react with a thought. The second was Hardwired, when the
panzerboy(?) finally used his tank. The scene was over with so quickly
that I had to re-read it a few times.

I think the main problem is that SR vehicles are portrayed as being
slow. And this impression isn't helped by the fact that vehicle cruising
speeds are lower than today's RL cruising speeds. I portray them as being
fast and responsive, using the aforementioned pieces of fiction as guides.

>I just always find it amusing (and in this case that
>really isn't a good thing) that SR fiction simply
>can't deal with a 3 second round (in which,
>potentially, a guy fighting in melee with 4 actions
>could hit another guy with 4 actions eight times, if
>not more!) because except when abstracting it to a
>game, we can't truly comprehend it ourselves. I've
>tried it - it's impossible to write people moving that
>fast without making it seem ridiculous. :) Ah well,
>never mind.

Huh? It may be impossible for you, but that doesn't mean it's
impossible. Check out Timothy Zhan's Cobra series :)


To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday ... and all is well."
Message no. 20
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 19:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
> >I just always find it amusing (and in this case
that really isn't a good thing) that SR fiction simply
can't deal with a 3 second round (in which,
potentially, a guy fighting in melee with 4 actions
could hit another guy with 4 actions eight times, if
not more!) because except when abstracting it to a
game, we can't truly comprehend it ourselves. I've
tried it - it's impossible to write people moving that
fast without making it seem ridiculous. :) Ah well,
never mind.
>
> Huh? It may be impossible for you, but that doesn't
mean it's impossible. Check out Timothy Zhan's Cobra
series :)
> -Graht

Did he abstract it, Graht? Or did he truly convey a
sense of someone moving faster than thought?

For instance, I had a combat scene where a guy leaps
forward and punches a troll in the knee, breaking it.
The details aren't that important, but I honestly
couldn't find any words to use to demonstrate that
what he was doing happened in a fraction of a second.
Then the next scene someone's watching the fight on
video and, by abstracting it, I could just describe it
as a blur of motion and then the troll was falling,
all in less than a second. THERE you get the sense of
speed, but not in the detailed combat version. That's
what I was talking about. People have a certain
perspective, so if you describe something happening,
even if you've already SAID it's happening fast, they
see it happening at a "normal" speed, because that's
how they understand things.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Message no. 21
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:13:46 -0500
From: Rand Ratinac
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 9:14 PM

> > Huh? It may be impossible for you, but that doesn't
> > mean it's impossible. Check out Timothy Zhan's Cobra
> > series :)
>
> Did he abstract it, Graht? Or did he truly convey a
> sense of someone moving faster than thought?

I'm not a huge Zahn fan, but I seem to recollect that he got that across
rather well.

> For instance, I had a combat scene where a guy leaps
> forward and punches a troll in the knee, breaking it.
> The details aren't that important, but I honestly
> couldn't find any words to use to demonstrate that
> what he was doing happened in a fraction of a second.

Do you write in third person or in first? I've found that writing this sort
of thing seems to work better in first person. If I might have the
indulgence of the crowd for a moment....

=== Begin Scene ==
From where we were, facing each other, getting ready to duke it out in
earnest, I could see the big clock on the bank's sign ticking my life away.
Why do they put a seconds readout on those things? I poured on the juice,
speeding my own reactions as fast as they'd go, and I watched the clock slow
down. 1:19:43.
I've always been fast, as long as I could remember; it's been one of
the joys of my life as an adept. I launched a spinning back kick, and he
showed me what fast really meant. He sidestepped my kick like I was moving
in slow motion, catching my leg in mid-swing and planting his own boot in my
belly. He pitched me over by the leg he'd caught, and did a spear strike at
my neck as I went down, trying to end the fight early. I managed to evade
that, and did a quick kip-up as the clock rolled over to 1:19:44.
I landed a solid mule kick to his sternum and spun around, just in time
for him to land a solid one-two punch to my jaw; he hadn't even noticed the
kick. The world started getting dark around the edges. The clock ticked to
1:19:45.
No one that big could be that fast.
I'm still chasing the darkness away when he lands a pair of rights to
my body, punches that break ribs even through my vest, then gives me a left
uppercut to my chin. I fell back again; in desperation, I lashed out with a
snap kick as I went down, and caught him squarely in the groin. He cried
out, clutching himself as he fell to the ground. It was 1:19:46.
I rose as quickly as my injuries would let me, which wasn't very
quickly at all, and backed away from the man, who was already showing signs
of recovery. I'd always imagined that they armored that area better when
they put a dermal sheath on a man, but I guess I was wrong.
He started to rise; I turned and ran. If I kept playing his game, I
was going to die there.

=== End Scene ==
Okay, so it's a little contrived (you seldom have all your fights near a
handy time-piece, after all), and it's certainly not the best prose I've
ever turned out, but I think it shows you that it can be done. (And I don't
think it's bad for 10 minutes work.)

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

I apologize to the list for that; I know it's not really the place for that
sort of thing, but I needed to illustrate a point.

--
Patrick E. Goodman
remo@***.net
"I'm going to tell you something cool." -- Gene Wolfe
Message no. 22
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 21:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
> Do you write in third person or in first? I've
found that writing this sort of thing seems to work
better in first person. If I might have the
indulgence of the crowd for a moment....

I'd have to agree with that. 3rd person is what I -
and most people - write in. Which is where the problem
comes in.

> === Begin Scene ==<Snippage(TM)>
> === End Scene ==>
> Okay, so it's a little contrived (you seldom have
all your fights near a handy time-piece, after all),
and it's certainly not the best prose I've ever turned
out, but I think it shows you that it can be done.
(And I don't think it's bad for 10 minutes work.)

Stylistically, not bad. If I were reading it in a
book, however, I'd think it was contrived and
gimmicky. No offense intended, Patrick, but that's how
it seems. And what happens when you need to write
fight scenes at this speed 5 or more times in the
book?

Except for when you put in a gimmick (the clock),
people's perceptions will screw with what you write
when they read it. And gimmicks get ridiculous after a
while.

I stand by what I said, although I'll change it to
"virtually impossible". :) I especially stand by my
original point - I've never seen this done well in SR
fiction, except in abstract. The sole exception would
be in Plus ca Change.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Message no. 23
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 21:44:51 -0500
From: Rand Ratinac
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 11:51 PM

> > Okay, so it's a little contrived (you seldom have
> > all your fights near a handy time-piece, after all),
> > and it's certainly not the best prose I've ever turned
> > out, but I think it shows you that it can be done.
> > (And I don't think it's bad for 10 minutes work.)
>
> Stylistically, not bad.

You're too kind. It's not really, IMHO, representative of what I do; I
don't tend to write in first person, either. And I really was cranking out
really fast, all things considered. Probably not even the ten minutes I
flattered myself with yesterday.

> If I were reading it in a book, however, I'd think it was
> contrived and gimmicky. No offense intended, Patrick, but
> that's how it seems.

It was contrived and gimmicky; I think I said so myself. <g>

> And what happens when you need to write
> fight scenes at this speed 5 or more times in the
> book?

I don't tend to go into great detail, myself. I've found it unnecessary to
go into that sort of detail for each fight scene.

--
Patrick E. Goodman
remo@***.net
"I'm going to tell you something cool." -- Gene Wolfe
Message no. 24
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 23:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
> > Stylistically, not bad.
>
> You're too kind. It's not really, IMHO,
representative of what I do; I don't tend to write in
first person, either. And I really was cranking out
really fast, all things considered. Probably not even
the ten minutes I flattered myself with yesterday.

And not really a good example of your point then. :)
But never mind.
>
> It was contrived and gimmicky; I think I said so
myself. <g>

Contrived was your word. Gimmicky was mine. ;)

> > And what happens when you need to write fight
scenes at this speed 5 or more times in the book?
>
> I don't tend to go into great detail, myself. I've
found it unnecessary to go into that sort of detail
for each fight scene.
> Patrick E. Goodman

Neither do I when I can help it, especially with
larger scale ones. On occasion, however, you need to,
especially when it's the dramatic confrontation with
the big, bad guy, or another small scale, but
important fight.

I thought about it and here's what I figured out. I
mentioned perceptions before - but it's ALL a matter
of perception. With third person, the reader imposes
their perceptions on the story. Unless you use a
gimmick (the clock or something similar) it's
virtually impossible to dictate to the reader a
concept of time. That, I would suggest, is why
Shadowrun authors don't seem to bother trying to
convey the speed of combat.

With first person, you CAN impose the narrators
perceptions on the reader, but it still more or less
requires a gimmick. Why? Because to the narrator the
speed they're operating at is NORMAL, and they'll
treat it as such. If the narrator is a juiced samurai,
punching a guy four times in a second is normal to
him, so he won't remark specially on it, or give a
true sense of the speed at which he's operating. Only
if the narrator is an average person (speed-wise),
will he automatically convey the speed of wired combat
- because to him it's FAST.

The only way to surely and easily impose your own
perceptions on the readers and make them realise just
how fast things are moving is to filter the action
through another person. This can apply to both first
and third person writing. With the former, the
narrator is watching someone else fight and can
comment on how fast they're moving (although again
that comes back to the narrators perception - that
juiced sammie is still unlikely to say much about the
speed of the fight, because he's used to it being that
fast). With the latter, you can have someone else
viewing the fight from a distance, via a recording or
surveillance camera etc. and you can describe how fast
things are moving there. The issue of the viewer's
perceptions isn't as big, because you're not DIRECTLY
viewing it through their eyes. They could be a juiced
samurai, to whom the fight seems normal - or slow! -
but the writer is still writing from third person ("To
Jim-Bob, it seemed they were moving through treacle,
but even so he knew each second of the fight brought a
flurry of blows." - REALLY bad writing, but you see my
point). By using THAT person's, or the camera's, or
whatever's perceptions as a filter, the writer finds
it easier to remark on the speed.

The only way where you can ALWAYS guarantee a sense of
speed, no matter how you're writing, is by having an
average hero, because to him it ALL seems fast.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Message no. 25
From: GuayII@***.com GuayII@***.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:37:53 EDT
In a message dated 00-05-30 22:14:25 EDT, you write:

> > >I just always find it amusing (and in this case
> that really isn't a good thing) that SR fiction simply
> can't deal with a 3 second round (in which,
> potentially, a guy fighting in melee with 4 actions
> could hit another guy with 4 actions eight times, if
> not more!) because except when abstracting it to a
> game, we can't truly comprehend it ourselves. I've
> tried it - it's impossible to write people moving that
> fast without making it seem ridiculous. :) Ah well,
> never mind.

I've alway imagined it to be like Antonio Banderas's character in Interview
with a Vampire (I hope I'm getting this right...it's been 5 years since I've
seen the movie). IIRC, he moved so quickly that Tom Cruise didn't have a
chance.

Cash
Message no. 26
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 07:19:16 -0600
Rand Ratinac wrote:
> > >I just always find it amusing (and in this case
>that really isn't a good thing) that SR fiction simply
>can't deal with a 3 second round (in which,
>potentially, a guy fighting in melee with 4 actions
>could hit another guy with 4 actions eight times, if
>not more!) because except when abstracting it to a
>game, we can't truly comprehend it ourselves. I've
>tried it - it's impossible to write people moving that
>fast without making it seem ridiculous. :) Ah well,
>never mind.
> >
> > Huh? It may be impossible for you, but that doesn't
>mean it's impossible. Check out Timothy Zhan's Cobra
>series :)
> > -Graht
>
>Did he abstract it, Graht? Or did he truly convey a
>sense of someone moving faster than thought?

IMHO, yes.

>People have a certain
>perspective, so if you describe something happening,
>even if you've already SAID it's happening fast, they
>see it happening at a "normal" speed, because that's
>how they understand things.

I'm a child of this generation, and have seen numerous movies that use
special effects to inflict raw speed on the viewer. I've seen it. I can
visualize it.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday ... and all is well."
Message no. 27
From: JKeith Henry neojudas@******************.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 09:14:59 -0500
From: <GuayII@***.com>
Subject: Re: Reflections on time....


> I've alway imagined it to be like Antonio Banderas's character in
Interview
> with a Vampire (I hope I'm getting this right...it's been 5 years since
I've
> seen the movie). IIRC, he moved so quickly that Tom Cruise didn't have a
> chance.
> Cash


I'm going to presume you actually mean Brad Pitt's (Luey) character
parlaying around Christian Slater's (the Interviewer) character at the
beginning of the movie where they are first getting situated for the actual
interview.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
NeoJudas ("K" to Friends)
"Children of the Kernel: Reborn"
(neojudas@******************.com)
Hoosier Hacker House (http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/)
Message no. 28
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 07:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
> >Did he abstract it, Graht? Or did he truly convey a
sense of someone moving faster than thought?
>
> IMHO, yes.

Then he's a very talented author (which I never
disputed anyway, being a Star Wars fan). Must check it
out sometime.

> I'm a child of this generation, and have seen
numerous movies that use special effects to inflict
raw speed on the viewer. I've seen it. I can
visualize it.
> -Graht

Sure, you can. So can I. So can anyone on this list
probably. Do you? What about the average person who
DOESN'T subsist on a diet of superhumanly-fast
cyberpunk? Can they? WILL they?

I probably should have explained myself better, but I
had two points. 1. It's impossible, or practically
impossible, to write in a way that FORCES the average
reader to view the action as something other than
"normal" fast, without making it look ridiculous. By
ridiculous I don't mean silly, or funny - well, maybe
silly. You can do it by using gimmicks, but repeated
use of gimmicks wear thin and look ridiculous. If you
check another post of mine, I've listed some other
ways you can do it. However, to convey the speed to
the average reader, rather than people like us, who
KNOW these fights are supposed to be going faster than
humanly possible requires contrivances. And they all
get old fast. After my discussion with Patrick, I've
relaxed my stance on this point, but I still say it's
VERY difficult to nigh impossible to do it REGULARLY.
Once or twice in a story is okay, because you can use
gimmicks and they won't stand out as gimmicks because
they're rare. Doing in multiple times in one book and
then writing multiple books in the same way, on the
other hand...

2. I've never seen it done well in Shadowrun, which is
what I thought was odd, considering that Shadowrun
probably possesses the fastest, non-superhero
characters in fiction. I've only seen the writers
abstract it - which works, to an extent, but can't
convey the true whirlwind of an SR fight. As I said,
the closest I can remember an story coming to
capturing the essence of this is in Plus ca Change -
and that's only a short story, so it doesn't have to
deal with the issues of repetition and gimmicks.
Practically every SR novel I've read has given me the
impression (looking at them objectively as opposed to
bringing my SR knowledge into play ("I KNOW these
fights are really fast")) of average speed. They feel
like fight scenes from action movies, not from
superspeed cyberpunk. And I certainly stand by that.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com
Message no. 29
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:34:58 -0600
Rand Ratinac wrote:
> > >Did he abstract it, Graht? Or did he truly convey a
>sense of someone moving faster than thought?
> >
> > IMHO, yes.
>
>Then he's a very talented author (which I never
>disputed anyway, being a Star Wars fan). Must check it
>out sometime.

I highly recommend the first book in the Cobra series. After the first
book the plots get a little thin/contrived, but they are still fun to read.

David Drake's... (crap, can't remember the name of the books, surfs the
web...can't find it <boggle>)

Anyway, David Drake wrote a book in which several characters are
effectively wired, and can move *much* faster than your average
person. IMHO he carried it off very well.

>I probably should have explained myself better, but I
>had two points. 1. It's impossible, or practically
>impossible, to write in a way that FORCES the average
>reader to view the action as something other than
>"normal" fast, without making it look ridiculous.

Um, I don't entirely agree with you. Nothing is impossible.

>You can do it by using gimmicks, but repeated
>use of gimmicks wear thin and look ridiculous.

Okay now, which is it. First you said it's impossible. And then you said
you can do it. :)

And if you don't want the effect to wear thin and look ridiculous by
repeated use, don't use it repeatedly.

> If you
>check another post of mine, I've listed some other
>ways you can do it. However, to convey the speed to
>the average reader, rather than people like us, who
>KNOW these fights are supposed to be going faster than
>humanly possible requires contrivances.

Any kind of writing in which you are trying to convey something about which
the reader knows nothing about requires contrivances. What's your point?

> And they all
>get old fast. After my discussion with Patrick, I've
>relaxed my stance on this point, but I still say it's
>VERY difficult to nigh impossible to do it REGULARLY.

Well, that's a different issue. And it's possible to do it
regularly. However, as you stated earlier doing so runs the risk of making
it "old". Heh, reminds me of the Clan of the Cave Bear series. The sex
scenes between the main characters go so old that I would skip from "He
kissed her pasionately" to "The lay on the ground exhausted". Ditto with
the writer's description of the land, flaura, fauna, ecological message,
yada yada yada.

The mistake that author made was that she followed the same pattern every
time, with very few exceptions. Also, the plot didn't need the repeated
detailed sex scenes. And it certainly didn't need the environmental
education, IMHO. But I digress.

>Once or twice in a story is okay, because you can use
>gimmicks and they won't stand out as gimmicks because
>they're rare. Doing in multiple times in one book and
>then writing multiple books in the same way, on the
>other hand...

Okay, what's a gimmick in your opinion? Does the following example us a
gimick, and if so what is the gimick?

Bob faced off against the man who seemed intent on fighting him. Bob had
apologized when the man accused him of bumping into him on purpose, but the
man had decided that he wanted to fight Bob. The man threw a punch and Bob
reacted. Other patrons of the bar jumped out of the way as the man was
knocked backward over a table and fell to the ground unconscious.

One of the patrons knelt down next to the man, and after a moment of
inspection exclaimed, "Jesus, he's busted all to hell. He's barely
breathing." The patron, looked up at Bob and asked, "What'd you do to
him?"

"Lemme see," Bob answered, "I punched him in the face, throat, chest,
kicked him in knee and groin, and face, and finished off with a side kick
to his chest." Bob paused before continuing. "I'm wired. Faster than the
eye can see. Now, does anyone else have an issue with me that they would
like to settle before I sit down and have a beer?"

>2. I've never seen it done well in Shadowrun, which is
>what I thought was odd, considering that Shadowrun
>probably possesses the fastest, non-superhero
>characters in fiction. I've only seen the writers
>abstract it - which works, to an extent, but can't
>convey the true whirlwind of an SR fight.

So.. you want a detailed description of a fight that conveys the sense of
the speed of wired characters, without a gimick?

Sorry, but you have to have "gimicks". We live in a world of time and
space, and detailed descriptions must be based on that. Even abstract
writing is based on real world time and space.

And why can't an abstract representation convey the true whirlwind of an SR
fight?

You've contradicted yourself and failed to be specific. I don't understand
the point that your are trying to make.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"All things are at all times, in motion. Take the time to watch the dance."
-John Caeser Leafston
Message no. 30
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
> So.. you want a detailed description of a fight that
conveys the sense of the speed of wired characters,
without a gimick?
>
> Sorry, but you have to have "gimicks". We live in a
world of time and space, and detailed descriptions
must be based on that. Even abstract writing is based
on real world time and space.

Okay, with adequate snippage.

No, you don't. First person writing can convey the
sense of speed by filtering what you see through the
narrator's perspective, as I mentioned in another
post. It's easiest to do when the narrator isn't wired
up, but it doesn't REQUIRE a gimmick.

And by gimmicks I mean things like Patrick's clock
(check the archives if you don't remember that).

As for your example, Graht...well, a) it wasn't really
all that good (no offense - I don't write well if I
just dash something off in a minute or two and think
most people fall into the same boat :) ) and b) it
didn't give us a sense of the speed AT ALL. What you
did there was abstract it completely. All we had was a
guy falling down, then this other guy saying what he
did (hell, for all we know he could be exaggerating to
make himself sound tougher and faster). There's a huge
difference in the imagery involved and how much the
reader is drawn in between that and actually
experiencing (through "being there" while reading) the
speed.

> And why can't an abstract representation convey the
true whirlwind of an SR fight?

Look at it this way. I always recall Nigel Findley's
description of the wired elf in Shadowplay (whose name
I can't remember) - he described him popping up at a
window, shooting at the bad guys "like a chipped
jackrabbit". Interesting simile (which is why I
remember it), but it isn't the same as if he'd gone
into detail describing the elf hopping up and down,
popping caps, blasting the bad guys away etc. It's in
the level of detail - the more detail, the better you
can picture the scene and the more of a feel you get
for it. On the whole.

I'm not saying "abstract bad, detailed good" - I AM
saying I've never seen "detailed" done successfully in
a shadowrun story.

> You've contradicted yourself and failed to be
specific. I don't understand the point that your are
trying to make.
> -Graht

On the contrary, I haven't contradicted myself - I've
just elaborated what I was saying (which may have
contradicted what YOU thought I was saying), and after
hearing what Patrick had to say and considering more I
REVISED my opinion - to a degree. And I don't
understand how you could miss my points now. So I'll
just leave it here.

Well, not quite. Forgetting the issue of how hard it
is to write "fast", my original contention was that
I've never read a Shadowrun book that, when going into
detail as opposed to abstracting the action, gave me a
true sense of that action happening at superhuman
speed. None of the stories have successfully forced my
perspective there (by this I mean that if I was
reading cyberpunk for the first time, knowing nothing
about it, none of the detailed scenes would cause me
to go "wow, that's fast"). In fact, few have even
tried to do so. Obviously, I can't prove this with
examples. :) If you have some examples of your own
that disprove what I'm saying, though, send 'em over.

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

S.S. f. P.S.C. & D.J.

.sig Sauer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com
Message no. 31
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Reflections on time....
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 11:54:21 -0600
Rand Ratinac wrote:
> > So.. you want a detailed description of a fight that
>conveys the sense of the speed of wired characters,
>without a gimick?
> >
> > Sorry, but you have to have "gimicks". We live in a
>world of time and space, and detailed descriptions
>must be based on that. Even abstract writing is based
>on real world time and space.
>
>Okay, with adequate snippage.
>
>No, you don't. First person writing can convey the
>sense of speed by filtering what you see through the
>narrator's perspective, as I mentioned in another
>post. It's easiest to do when the narrator isn't wired
>up, but it doesn't REQUIRE a gimmick.
>
>And by gimmicks I mean things like Patrick's clock

Oh, like counting the number of rounds fired between hearbeats, kicking a
guy several times before a dropped bear mug hits the floor. Got it.

Now, how do you do it without a gimick?

>As for your example, Graht...well, a) it wasn't really
>all that good (no offense - I don't write well if I
>just dash something off in a minute or two and think
>most people fall into the same boat :) )

It wasn't meant to be good.

> and b) it
>didn't give us a sense of the speed AT ALL.

I didn't give *you* a sense of the speed at all. You're making a sweeping
arguement and applying your opinion to "us". Sorry, but you are not us.

>What you
>did there was abstract it completely.

Yes.

> All we had was a
>guy falling down, then this other guy saying what he
>did (hell, for all we know he could be exaggerating to
>make himself sound tougher and faster).

Not so. It was collaborated by the patron who examined the guy that was
beat up.

>There's a huge
>difference in the imagery involved and how much the
>reader is drawn in between that and actually
>experiencing (through "being there" while reading) the
>speed.

Now that sentence doesn't make any sense to me at all.

> > And why can't an abstract representation convey the
>true whirlwind of an SR fight?
>
>Look at it this way. I always recall Nigel Findley's
>description of the wired elf in Shadowplay (whose name
>I can't remember) - he described him popping up at a
>window, shooting at the bad guys "like a chipped
>jackrabbit". Interesting simile (which is why I
>remember it), but it isn't the same as if he'd gone
>into detail describing the elf hopping up and down,
>popping caps, blasting the bad guys away etc. It's in
>the level of detail - the more detail, the better you
>can picture the scene and the more of a feel you get
>for it. On the whole.

Just because Nigel Findley chose a poor way of abstracting SR wired speed,
doesn't mean it can't be done.

>I'm not saying "abstract bad, detailed good" - I AM
>saying I've never seen "detailed" done successfully in
>a shadowrun story.

Can't argue that.

> > You've contradicted yourself and failed to be
>specific. I don't understand the point that your are
>trying to make.
> > -Graht
>
>On the contrary, I haven't contradicted myself

Yes you did, and I pointed it out. You said it was impossible to do it,
then you said it could be done. You contradicted yourself. And instead of
making concrete arguements/points, you're posts have wandered far afield.

>And I don't
>understand how you could miss my points now.

That's being rather presumptuous. What if I'm not as smart as you think I am?

>Well, not quite. Forgetting the issue of how hard it
>is to write "fast", my original contention was that
>I've never read a Shadowrun book that, when going into
>detail as opposed to abstracting the action, gave me a
>true sense of that action happening at superhuman
>speed. None of the stories have successfully forced my
>perspective there (by this I mean that if I was
>reading cyberpunk for the first time, knowing nothing
>about it, none of the detailed scenes would cause me
>to go "wow, that's fast"). In fact, few have even
>tried to do so. Obviously, I can't prove this with
>examples. :) If you have some examples of your own
>that disprove what I'm saying, though, send 'em over.

As I've only read one Shadowrun novel, I'll take your word for it.

In earlier posts it sounded as if you were making sweeping statements
saying that writing a detailed scene of a "wired" character for the
"average" reader was not possible.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Anything I have ever done that ultimately was worthwhile....
initially scared me to death."
-Betty Bender

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Reflections on time...., 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!