Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: valeuj@*****.navy.mil (Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3))
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:36:08 +1000
This is kinda a general question to GMs...
When you have your players roll, do you give them a TN or just tell them to
roll?
My group is new to Shadowrun, but they all have some RP expierence.
However the one twink in the group doesn't like the way I run things.
That is to say, I tell them to roll without giving a TN.

This same twink also spent about 3 essence points on eyes and ears.
Yes, that's including the .5 that's free with both.
He also plays a decker that has no idea how the Matrix works, and he
borrowed the BBB a couple of times.
He hated the fact that he could only wear his armor clothing and jacket and
not with his urban camo suit, lined duster, and vest with plates on top of
that.
I've already foretold the other players, and they agree with me, that he
will be the death of the group.
Anyway, enough of that. The twink's my problem, and screwing him (and the
rest of the team) over is part of my Evil GM training.

How do you guys handle Dice and Target numbers?
Message no. 2
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
[snip explanation]

comment: you have my sympathy... twinks suck.

> How do you guys handle Dice and Target numbers?

I never tell people TN unil after they have rolled their dice. I
actually tell them to roll, rolling out all 6's, and write the roll
down. I supply my players with Post-It notepads by the pile (buy
them in packs of 24 about every month or so). They toss me the pad,
I write the TN on it, and toss it back. Sometimes, when they could
have calculated the TN for themself (combat, rigging, that sort of
thing), I'll just tell them... after they write down their roll.
With someone seated on either side of them, there are plenty of eyes
to help check for "math errors". Works like a charm.

My one cheater in the last 3 years got cured of his cheating very
quickly. The other players would just gently point out that he'd
"misread" a die or "added wrong", and so on. Everyone acted like he
was making honest, stupid mistakes. Patronizing, joking, and
meanwhile announcing his real rolls. Soon enough, he gave up trying
to cheat. And no one else was ever tempted. Imagine spending
session after session mocked by everyone for your inability to "read
dice" or do "simple math". Maddening when what you are really doing
is cheating, because you don't dare defend yourself. No one accuses
you of what you are really doing wrong. Call it Machiavellian peer
pressure.

======Korishinzo
--my players don't call me an evil bitch for nothing :>




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 3
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:19:06 -0400
At 11:36 PM 6/23/2004, Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3) wrote:
>This is kinda a general question to GMs...
>When you have your players roll, do you give them a TN or just tell them to
>roll?

[Snip!]

>How do you guys handle Dice and Target numbers?

I think your bigger problem is a trust issue. If you don't trust the
player, remove him from the game. I've seen way too many games go down the
tubes because of one bad apple, more often when the GM doesn't have the
guts to flat-out put a stop to it.

In answer to your question, though... As both player and GM, I prefer to
share the TN. Unless you're doing something totally ad hoc, where you need
to be careful anyway, they're going to figure it out. If you're hiding the
TNs, you might as well just roll the dice yourself, too. Part of the fun of
gaming in general is the kineticism, the motion, of throwing dice. I don't
know about you, but I have all sorts of different dice rituals (they even
vary from game to game).


At 11:59 PM 6/23/2004, Ice Heart wrote:
>I never tell people TN unil after they have rolled their dice. I
>actually tell them to roll, rolling out all 6's, and write the roll
>down. I supply my players with Post-It notepads by the pile (buy
>them in packs of 24 about every month or so). They toss me the pad,
>I write the TN on it, and toss it back.
[Snip to End!]

Don't you find that the full-rolling and writing takes a lot of time?

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 4
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:18:02 -0700
Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3) wrote:
>
> This is kinda a general question to GMs...
> When you have your players roll, do you give them a TN or
> just tell them to roll?
> My group is new to Shadowrun, but they all have some RP expierence.
> However the one twink in the group doesn't like the way I run things.
> That is to say, I tell them to roll without giving a TN.
>
> This same twink also spent about 3 essence points on eyes and ears.
> Yes, that's including the .5 that's free with both.
> He also plays a decker that has no idea how the Matrix works,
> and he borrowed the BBB a couple of times.
> He hated the fact that he could only wear his armor clothing
> and jacket and not with his urban camo suit, lined duster,
> and vest with plates on top of that.
> I've already foretold the other players, and they agree with
> me, that he will be the death of the group.
> Anyway, enough of that. The twink's my problem, and screwing
> him (and the rest of the team) over is part of my Evil GM training.
>
> How do you guys handle Dice and Target numbers?
>

Okay, I will address a couple things here:

1) As far as rolling, I don't usually give my players a TN# to roll against.
Generally, they know, by the situation. Still, by not giving them that
information, I am giving myself the ability to fudge results (not only in my
favor, but also in theirs) if the case warrants it.

2) As I understand it, the combined ratings of the armor a character is
wearing, if it exceeds the characters Quickness attribute, reduces the
characters combat pool by one for every two points. (Page 283 SR3)

3) Knowing about the point (2) above, I also allow my players to layer their
armor thusly:

Character - Form-fitting Armor - Armor Clothing (includes camo suit) - Armor
Vest - Jacket/Long Coat/Coat/Overcoat/etc - Outside world (armor on car,
etc)

This can give a character something of a high armor rating, at the expense
of combat pool. Let's say this, as an example.

Joe "Dicer" VanZant

B: 6
Q: 6
S: 5
C: 1
I: 6
W: 6
Combat Pool: 9 [(Q+I+W)/2]

Form-fitting lvl3 (4/1)
Camo Clothing (3/1)
Vest w/ plates (4/2)
Armor Jacket (5/3)
Total Armor: 16/7 (or 10/5 with armor layering)

22 Armor - 6 Quickness = 15/2 = -7 Combat Pool
16 Ballistic - 6 Quickness = +10 to all Quickness related tests and a
movement rate -10 [(6x3)-10].

As you can see, the character may not have any problems standing, and
perhaps moving a little, but they will soon realise that mobility is better
than the ability to soak bullet after bullet. So, yes, I have no problems
allowing my players to layer armor. *eGMg*

Zebulin
Message no. 5
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:12:37 +0200
According to Valeu, John W. EM3 (AS40 R-3), on Thursday 24 June 2004 05:36
the word on the street was...

> When you have your players roll, do you give them a TN or just tell them
> to roll?

Either, depending on the situation -- though I tend to not tell them and
just have them roll, often even without telling them how many successes
they have. This is usually in situations where the character can't really
know; for stuff of which the player and/or character can work out the
difficulty, I normally just tell them ("You need six 3's to have no
Drain", that sort of thing).

I normally make some exceptions for new players, who I do tell the TN more
often (and if I do, I frequently also tell them how I arrived at it) so
they understand what's going on.

> My group is new to Shadowrun, but they all have some RP expierence.
> However the one twink in the group doesn't like the way I run things.
> That is to say, I tell them to roll without giving a TN.

I don't see any problem with it, but I can see some players might. However,
from a GM's perspective I prefer to keep many TNs secret because telling
them to the players already gives them more information than their
characters have. I've seen it happen lots of times where a player decided
the character wouldn't do something because the TN was (too) high due to
complications the character wouldn't know about before starting, and I
don't like that kind of behavior :)

> He hated the fact that he could only wear his armor clothing and jacket
> and not with his urban camo suit, lined duster, and vest with plates on
> top of that.

Hey, he can do that -- just make sure to work out the Combat Pool penalty
he'll suffer, and only give him the armor that the rules say he should
have (highest + one-half next-highest, rounded down).

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 6
From: docwagon101@*****.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:31:15 +0100 (BST)
> > That is to say, I tell them to roll without giving
> a TN.
>
> I don't see any problem with it, but I can see some
> players might. However,
> from a GM's perspective I prefer to keep many TNs
> secret because telling
> them to the players already gives them more
> information than their
> characters have. I've seen it happen lots of times
> where a player decided
> the character wouldn't do something because the TN
> was (too) high due to
> complications the character wouldn't know about
> before starting, and I
> don't like that kind of behavior :)
> Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age:

Have you guys looked at this from the other side of
the coin? What if you don't share such ridiculously
high numbers, the player rolls a decent total and
still fails? There could then be the perception that
you're fudging things AGAINST the players. If that
happens too often, you then get into trust issues -
it's not good if you as a GM don't trust a player, but
I can assure you, it's a lot worse if your players
don't trust YOU as the GM? That's one of the quickest
ways for resentment to grow within a group, especially
when these "fudges", real or imagined, prove costly to
the characters.

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

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger -
sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Message no. 7
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:38:46 +0200
Gurth wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > That is to say, I tell them to roll without giving a TN.
>
> I don't see any problem with it, but I can see some players
> might. However, from a GM's perspective I prefer to keep many
> TNs secret because telling them to the players already gives
> them more information than their characters have. I've seen
> it happen lots of times where a player decided the character
> wouldn't do something because the TN was (too) high due to
> complications the character wouldn't know about before
> starting, and I don't like that kind of behavior :)
>
> [snip]

So you don't allow it. Providing them with the TN is simply an aspect of
game mechanics and how the GM chooses to run the game. Once you've told them
the TN, they've already made the decision IC to perform the action, so
there's no backing out.


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon



**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message no. 8
From: wilson.reis@*****.com (Wilson Reis)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:48:54 -0300
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:38:46 +0200, Steve Garrard
<steveg@***********.co.za> wrote:
>
>
> So you don't allow it. Providing them with the TN is simply an aspect of
> game mechanics and how the GM chooses to run the game. Once you've told them
> the TN, they've already made the decision IC to perform the action, so
> there's no backing out.
>
> Slayer
>

There are some skills that they should at least have some ways to
figure the TN.
If one of my PCs is about to jump a cliff and asks me how difficult it
is, as long as he has the time (one complex action, perhaps) to
examine it, i would tell him the TN for the Athletics test. Obviously
things like Etiquette, Stealtlh, Negotiation or Resisted Spells are a
complete different matter.

Will
Message no. 9
From: d_hyde@***.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:58:00 -0500
On Jun 24, 2004, at 7:38 AM, Steve Garrard wrote:
> So you don't allow it. Providing them with the TN is simply an aspect
> of
> game mechanics and how the GM chooses to run the game. Once you've
> told them
> the TN, they've already made the decision IC to perform the action, so
> there's no backing out.
>
I had to institute this rule with my old group, the pussy of the pack
would back out of anything with a target number above 5 cause he more
likely than not would fail....I laid down the law that once you were
given a TN you were rolling because you'd set your action in
stone....the players got a lot more intelligent from then on cause they
wouldn't get told oh well this is this TN, this over here would get you
this TN and doing this like this will get you this one and then they
pick the lowest one and go with it....
Message no. 10
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:30:24 +0000
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 01:18:02AM -0700, zebulingod wrote:
> 2) As I understand it, the combined ratings of the armor a character is
> wearing, if it exceeds the characters Quickness attribute, reduces the
> characters combat pool by one for every two points. (Page 283 SR3)
>
> 3) Knowing about the point (2) above, I also allow my players to layer their
> armor thusly:
>
> Character - Form-fitting Armor - Armor Clothing (includes camo suit) - Armor
> Vest - Jacket/Long Coat/Coat/Overcoat/etc - Outside world (armor on car,
> etc)
>
> This can give a character something of a high armor rating, at the expense
> of combat pool. Let's say this, as an example.
>
> Joe "Dicer" VanZant
>
> B: 6
> Q: 6
> S: 5
> C: 1
> I: 6
> W: 6
> Combat Pool: 9 [(Q+I+W)/2]
>
> Form-fitting lvl3 (4/1)
> Camo Clothing (3/1)
> Vest w/ plates (4/2)
> Armor Jacket (5/3)
> Total Armor: 16/7 (or 10/5 with armor layering)
>
> 22 Armor - 6 Quickness = 15/2 = -7 Combat Pool
> 16 Ballistic - 6 Quickness = +10 to all Quickness related tests and a
> movement rate -10 [(6x3)-10].
>
> As you can see, the character may not have any problems standing, and
> perhaps moving a little, but they will soon realise that mobility is better
> than the ability to soak bullet after bullet. So, yes, I have no problems
> allowing my players to layer armor. *eGMg*
>
> Zebulin
>

Bit of a nitpick here: According to the CC, form fitting armor does not impose combat
pool or quickness penalties when layering. That's what makes it so cheap. That said,
keep in mind that according to the original description in the SSC, a full suit of form
fitting armor is a *full suit*. Head to toe, gloves, everything. You cannot hide a full
suit under ordinary clothing (you can wear it under ordinary clothing, of course, you just
can't hide it). For some situations that doesn't matter but I hope your players don't
regularly walk around like that.

Also, was the combat pool penalty based on the sum of the ratings? I thought it was just
the highest rating. Maybe I'm just being stupid, but where is that 22 coming from?
16+7# anyway. I'll have to check SR3 again when I get home...

Finally, I'm not sure I would allow the layering of clothing, vest, and jacket combined.
Vest and jacket or clothing and jacket, sure. Hell, maybe even clothing and vest. But
with all that one has to wonder how there is physically room on the character's body to
put it...

I'm curious, do any GMs enforce these rules even when not layering? For instance, would a
character with average quickness, 3, really suffer penalties when just wearing an armored
jacket?

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 11
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 06:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
> >I write the TN on it, and toss it back.
> [Snip to End!]
>
> Don't you find that the full-rolling and writing takes a lot of
> time?

Actually, not as much as you'd think. With new players, yes. My
veteran players will have decided on their action, selected their
dice, and written up their rolls by the time I call on them. They
describe what it is they want to do and toss me the post-it pad. I
figure the TN and toss it back, already describing the outcome for
everyone's benefit. When everyone is paying attention, game play
moves along crisply. Remember, in cases where the TN could be
computed by anyone (combat, usually), I just tell them the TN. They
already have their roll, so they can immediately tell me how many
successes. On rolls where the TN should never be known (some
Perception tests, for example), I just look at their rolls and toss
the note pad back, telling them the results. It works well.

======Korishinzo
--no rest for the wiki-d



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 12
From: SteveG@***********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:39:25 +0200
Derek Hyde wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2004, at 7:38 AM, Steve Garrard wrote:
> > So you don't allow it. Providing them with the TN is simply
> an aspect
> > of game mechanics and how the GM chooses to run the game.
> Once you've
> > told them the TN, they've already made the decision IC to
> perform the
> > action, so there's no backing out.
> >
> I had to institute this rule with my old group, the pussy of
> the pack would back out of anything with a target number
> above 5 cause he more likely than not would fail....I laid
> down the law that once you were given a TN you were rolling
> because you'd set your action in stone....the players got a
> lot more intelligent from then on cause they wouldn't get
> told oh well this is this TN, this over here would get you
> this TN and doing this like this will get you this one and
> then they pick the lowest one and go with it....

When it comes to telling the player how difficult something is to perform,
based on their ability to assess such things, do it IC. Describe to them in
terms relevant to their PCs knowledge of the situation how difficult they
perceive the action to be. They may be right, they may be wrong, depending
on their PC's skill at reading the situation. If the PLAYER wants to know
the exact TN, you can tell them once they've decided to go for it, but then
there's no turning back.

On the other hand if you want to be REALLY evil, you could equate telling
them the TN with that split-second intuition that occurs in RL when you do
something. Let's say you're trying to jump from one building's rooftop to
another. You examine the situation using whatever knowledge and
understanding you have of physics etc. to determine whether or not you want
to try. You decide to go for it, take your running jump and the split-second
before your feet leave the ground, your intuition sparks and you "feel"
whether or not you're gonna be successful. In SR terms, you've just been
told the TN. Should you suddenly decide to change your mind about attempting
this feat, well it's too late now, but a moment's hesitation could cause you
to fly face-first into the wall opposite. Whether or not you WOULD have
succeeded becomes irrelevant. Commitment to your task is often worth more.

Your players will think twice about changing their mind next time they know
the TN *egmg*


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon



**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message no. 13
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:48:51 -0700
David Kettler wrote:
>
> Bit of a nitpick here: According to the CC, form fitting
> armor does not impose combat pool or quickness penalties when
> layering. That's what makes it so cheap. That said, keep in
> mind that according to the original description in the SSC, a
> full suit of form fitting armor is a *full suit*. Head to
> toe, gloves, everything. You cannot hide a full suit under
> ordinary clothing (you can wear it under ordinary clothing,
> of course, you just can't hide it). For some situations that
> doesn't matter but I hope your players don't regularly walk
> around like that.
>
> Also, was the combat pool penalty based on the sum of the
> ratings? I thought it was just the highest rating. Maybe
> I'm just being stupid, but where is that 22 coming from?
> 16+7# anyway. I'll have to check SR3 again when I get home...
>
> Finally, I'm not sure I would allow the layering of clothing,
> vest, and jacket combined. Vest and jacket or clothing and
> jacket, sure. Hell, maybe even clothing and vest. But with
> all that one has to wonder how there is physically room on
> the character's body to put it...
>
> I'm curious, do any GMs enforce these rules even when not
> layering? For instance, would a character with average
> quickness, 3, really suffer penalties when just wearing an
> armored jacket?
>

Right, I had missed the formfit doesn't affect quickness/combat pool. I was
going off memory, since I didn't have the books on me. As for the error in
math, well, it WAS late. [: That said, yes, I realise that the highest
level of formfit is a full suit. From SR3, it appears to me that the
disadvantages of the quickness/combat pool is based on the total sum of
armor. As for the layering, I'd agree, it is pretty ridiculous, but one of
my players is in the guard and has shown me that he can wear his flak vest
(armor vest?) with a jacket over it. It isn't comfortable, and it limits
movement, but it can be done. (Hence the quickness and combat pool
modifiers.)

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 14
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
[SNIP]
> As for the layering, I'd agree, it is pretty ridiculous, but
> one of my players is in the guard and has shown me that he can wear
> his flak vest (armor vest?) with a jacket over it. It isn't
> comfortable, and it limits movement, but it can be done. (Hence the
> quickness and combat pool modifiers.)

Yes, but was it an armored jacket? I doubt it. I treat a vest like
a standard poice-issue vest, with room for extra (removeable) plates.
I treat the jacket as having fixed plates and being about as bulky
as a vest. I will let players put a vest (without the extra plates)
under an armored jacket, but not a vest with the extra plates. I let
players put a long coat/lined coat/great coat over a vest (with or
without plates) ~or~ over a jacket, but not both. The real benefit
of a vest over a jacket is the extra concealability, especially under
a long coat (I grant the +2 to concealability for armor just as I do
for small weapons). Someone glancing at the runner will be less
likely to realize how armored they are with the vest hidden under
their long coat. Of course, there are still those unpleasant Combat
Pool and Quickness modifiers due to excessive layers of armor. :)

And yes, if someone has a 3 Quickness (low end human average) than
the weight/bulk of an armored jacket will slow them down and limit
their mobility.

======Korishinzo
--has seen a decker with an effective quickness of 1 (for movement)
and a CP of 2 because of armor penalties... took six combat rounds to
get across a parking lot :>



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 15
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:54:37 -0700
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:48:51 -0700
"zebulingod" <zebulingod@*******.net> wrote:
> David Kettler wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> one ofmy players is in the guard and has shown me that he can wear his flak
> vest armor vest?) with a jacket over it. It isn't comfortable, and it
limits
> movement, but it can be done. (Hence the quickness and combat pool
> modifiers.)
>
> Zebulin
>
> "Per Ardua ad Astra"
I have always pictured oversized jackets similar in concept to what gridiron
players wear over their padding.

--Anders
Message no. 16
From: msde_shadowrn@*****.com (Mark S)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Another alternative, if you simply can't get around different
conceptual issues, is to let PCs wear as much armor as they want.
Protection is the biggest + half the second, with the others being
cosmetic. To use the previous example:

> Character - Form-fitting Armor - Armor Clothing (includes camo suit)
- Armor
> Vest - Jacket/Long Coat/Coat/Overcoat/etc - Outside world (armor on
car,
> etc)
>
> Form-fitting lvl3 (4/1)
> Camo Clothing (3/1)
> Vest w/ plates (4/2)
> Armor Jacket (5/3)

Total Armor: 7/4 (Armor jacket + 1/2 vest)




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 17
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:49:20 +1000
> Derek Hyde <d_hyde@***.com>
> On Jun 24, 2004, at 7:38 AM, Steve Garrard wrote:
>
>> So you don't allow it. Providing them with the TN is simply an aspect of
>> game mechanics and how the GM chooses to run the game. Once you've
>> told them
>> the TN, they've already made the decision IC to perform the action, so
>> there's no backing out.
>>

The TN serves more of a purpose than that - it tells you, in an in-game
way, how hard the task actually is. Since for a lot of things, the game
mechanics don't necessarily make for real-world results, it's kinda
important to let people know about TN's unless they really should have
absolutely no idea whether they'll succeed or fail.

> I had to institute this rule with my old group, the pussy of the pack
> would back out of anything with a target number above 5 cause he more
> likely than not would fail....I laid down the law that once you were
> given a TN you were rolling because you'd set your action in
> stone....the players got a lot more intelligent from then on cause they
> wouldn't get told oh well this is this TN, this over here would get you
> this TN and doing this like this will get you this one and then they
> pick the lowest one and go with it....
>

Our GM (ta Damion!) worked this by simply adding up all the modifiers
out loud, meaning we all learnt how to do it pretty quickly.

ie - "How hard will it be to shoot goon number 3?"
"well, you're at short range, 4 (holds up 4 fingers), smartlink -2
(drops 2 of them), minimal light, but you've got good eyes (ie - low
light) so +2 (raises two), he's in 4 points of cover (holds up 4 more)
and you're running for +2 (and two more) for a total of (holds up both
hands) 10."

"Oh. Guess I'll shoot the guy who's out in the open then - so I only
need... 6".

That way everyone learns the rules, and so you don't need to harshly
penalise someone who's asking for an in-game estimation of his odds. It
also means they learn how valuable NOT standing out in the open is...
Message no. 18
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:57:04 -0700
Ice Heart wrote:

> I treat the jacket as having fixed plates and being about as
> bulky as a vest. I will let players put a vest (without the
> extra plates) under an armored jacket, but not a vest with
> the extra plates. I let players put a long coat/lined
> coat/great coat over a vest (with or without plates) ~or~
> over a jacket, but not both. The real benefit of a vest over
> a jacket is the extra concealability, especially under a long
> coat (I grant the +2 to concealability for armor just as I do
> for small weapons). Someone glancing at the runner will be
> less likely to realize how armored they are with the vest
> hidden under their long coat. Of course, there are still
> those unpleasant Combat
> Pool and Quickness modifiers due to excessive layers of armor. :)
>

I will not allow a long coat to be worn over a jacket for one simple reason:
It has sleeves. Not sleeves like a long t-shirt or sweater, but full-on
armored sleeves. That's my one rule when it comes to layering armor. That
being said, I do agree with your point about the armor jacket over the armor
vest with plates. I think I shall disallow that...or something. Still, with
the advances in armor technology, I think the negatives for layering armor
more than makes up for any conceived notion of the runner looking like the
michelin tire guy. [:


Mark S wrote:
>
> Another alternative, if you simply can't get around different
> conceptual issues, is to let PCs wear as much armor as they want.
> Protection is the biggest + half the second, with the others
> being cosmetic. To use the previous example:
>
> > Character - Form-fitting Armor - Armor Clothing (includes camo suit)
> - Armor
> > Vest - Jacket/Long Coat/Coat/Overcoat/etc - Outside world (armor on
> car,
> > etc)
> >
> > Form-fitting lvl3 (4/1)
> > Camo Clothing (3/1)
> > Vest w/ plates (4/2)
> > Armor Jacket (5/3)
>
> Total Armor: 7/4 (Armor jacket + 1/2 vest)
>

The problem I have with that line of thought (and I have thought of it, plus
it's right there in the book) is that realistically (and, yes, you shouldn't
argue physics in a world of magic, or reality in a fantasy game), adding
another layer of armor *should* increase your resistance to bullets. My
players argued the point, and I tend to agree.

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 19
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:34:31 +0200
According to Steve Garrard, on Thursday 24 June 2004 14:38 the word on the
street was...

> So you don't allow it. Providing them with the TN is simply an aspect of
> game mechanics and how the GM chooses to run the game. Once you've told
> them the TN, they've already made the decision IC to perform the action,
> so there's no backing out.

This only works if you have players who will accept a decision like that
without trying to argue over it, though. (I'm not saying my current group
would argue (much, anyway :) but I have definitely had players who did.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 20
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:40:58 +0200
According to Derek Hyde, on Thursday 24 June 2004 14:58 the word on the
street was...

> I had to institute this rule with my old group, the pussy of the pack
> would back out of anything with a target number above 5 cause he more
> likely than not would fail....I laid down the law that once you were
> given a TN you were rolling because you'd set your action in
> stone....

That's much like the BattleTech game I ran yesterday: one of the players
declared what his 'Mech was going to fire, and only then did we figure out
that he couldn't actually hit the target. He then complained about how I
still had him mark off his ammo, on the grounds that the shot was
impossible so he obviously wouldn't be making it, and so shouldn't lose
the ammo. My argument was that he was looking at the same map I was, and
so he could have worked out at least whether the shot was basically
possible, or even the exact TN, _before_ declaring his fire...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 21
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:45:45 +0200
According to David Kettler, on Thursday 24 June 2004 15:30 the word on the
street was...

> That said, keep in mind that according to the
> original description in the SSC, a full suit of form fitting armor is a
> *full suit*. Head to toe, gloves, everything. You cannot hide a full
> suit under ordinary clothing (you can wear it under ordinary clothing,
> of course, you just can't hide it). For some situations that doesn't
> matter but I hope your players don't regularly walk around like that.

The SSC says that level 3 form-fitting armor (which in CC got renamed to a
full-body suit) covers 90% of the body, and has a Concealability of 12.
I've always interpreted that as covering everything except your head, your
hands, and probably your feet -- IOW, why give it a Concealability if it's
obvious?

> Finally, I'm not sure I would allow the layering of clothing, vest, and
> jacket combined. Vest and jacket or clothing and jacket, sure. Hell,
> maybe even clothing and vest. But with all that one has to wonder how
> there is physically room on the character's body to put it...

Just buy a larger size :)

> I'm curious, do any GMs enforce these rules even when not layering? For
> instance, would a character with average quickness, 3, really suffer
> penalties when just wearing an armored jacket?

I own a RL flak jacket, and although I obviously don't wear it in daily
life like a shadowrunner would, I did notice very quickly that your
freedom of movement is restricted as soon as you put it on. So yes, IMHO
your average guy wearing an armor jacket would definitely suffer some
penalties from it.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- 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. 22
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:46:57 +0100
At 09:34 AM 6/25/2004, Gurth wrote:
> > So you don't allow it. Providing them with the TN is simply an aspect of
> > game mechanics and how the GM chooses to run the game. Once you've told
> > them the TN, they've already made the decision IC to perform the action,
> > so there's no backing out.
>
>This only works if you have players who will accept a decision like that
>without trying to argue over it, though. (I'm not saying my current group
>would argue (much, anyway :) but I have definitely had players who did.)

How about only telling the players the TN (in circumstances where they
can't work it out for themselves) if they take a free Observe action, they
can then make a Willpower (4) test to change their action if they wish once
they know it but...


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? C++(+) US++ P! L E? W++ N o? K? w+ O! M- V? PS+ PE-()
Y PGP? t+@ 5++ X- R+>+++$>* tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e+ h r* y+>+++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 23
From: honken101@********.net (Fredrik Holmqvist)
Subject: Rolling the bones...
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:49:36 +0200
>
>How do you guys handle Dice and Target numbers?

Skill rolls, or general rolls when i don't want to reveal the result i
usually roll myself. Not making it evident if they failed, had an ooops and
so forth.

/Honken

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Rolling the bones..., 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!