Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Snake Eyes snake.eyes@********.att.net
Subject: Rule of 6 (was: Die rolls)
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 01:27:18 -0700
At 01:55 PM 8/7/99 -0400, MC23 wrote:

> >If SR does eventually come out with a Fourth Edition, maybe FASA should
> >switch to a percentile system or start using 10-sided dice. What does
> >everyone think?
>
> d10 would have been better but the whole system is based on a d6
>scale, the conversions need would be tremendous, so much so you could
>consider being another game system altogether (after 10 years of
>existence it would be a bad idea). Percentile does not lend itself well
>to success levels (and limits on such) that Shadowrun it set to.

If FASA ever implements a percentile system, I'll bypass eBay completely
and dump my entire SR collection right in the incinerator. Well, probably
not, but a D% system would be a horrible departure from a very well
integrated system. Perhaps a D10 system would have worked better in some
regards, but I really like the way that the entire game revolves around the
D6, especially the open-ended "Rule of 6."

Which reminds me: Am I the only guy that thinks the "Rule of 6" should
still apply to Initiative rolls? Why did they ever change that, anyway?

~ Snake Eyes
Message no. 2
From: MC23 mc23@**********.com
Subject: Rule of 6 (was: Die rolls)
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 04:39:34 -0400
Once upon a time, Snake Eyes wrote;

>If FASA ever implements a percentile system, I'll bypass eBay completely
>and dump my entire SR collection right in the incinerator. Well, probably
>not, but a D% system would be a horrible departure from a very well
>integrated system. Perhaps a D10 system would have worked better in some
>regards, but I really like the way that the entire game revolves around the
>D6, especially the open-ended "Rule of 6."

I was thinking of an open d10 not just as straight d10, but I don't
care to see that change anyway.

>Which reminds me: Am I the only guy that thinks the "Rule of 6" should
>still apply to Initiative rolls? Why did they ever change that, anyway?

You never could.
Open ended d6 initiative would screw game play and believability.

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

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. 3
From: Snake Eyes snake.eyes@********.att.net
Subject: Rule of 6 (was: Die rolls)
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 02:44:23 -0700
At 04:39 AM 8/8/99 -0400, MC23 wrote:

> >Which reminds me: Am I the only guy that thinks the "Rule of 6" should
> >still apply to Initiative rolls? Why did they ever change that, anyway?
>
> You never could.
> Open ended d6 initiative would screw game play and believability.

I beg to differ on both counts. Nobody in my group could ever find any
notation anywhere in SRI that limits open-ended Initiative rolls. It never
screwed up game play for us -- it just seemed to make combat that much more
quick and lethal, especially for the wired & magically enhanced, which is
exactly how we thought it was intended in the first place.

As we were relatively new to the cyberpunk genre in general (and to
Shadowrun specifically), neither was there ever any appreciable impact on
believability. I think we'd already suspended disbelief in order to
swallow magic, cybernetics, elves, trolls & dragons.

We kept it in as a house rule when we upgraded to SRII and I still apply
the Rule of 6 to Initiative rolls in SRIII because I like it like that. Of
course you are entitled to your opinion and your mileage may vary.

~ Snake Eyes
Message no. 4
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: Rule of 6 (was: Die rolls)
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 07:31:11 -0700
On Sun, 08 Aug 1999 01:27:18 Snake Eyes wrote:

>Which reminds me: Am I the only guy that thinks the "Rule of 6" should
>still apply to Initiative rolls? Why did they ever change that, anyway?

I don't think it should apply all-out, but I currently apply the rule of 6 to everyone's
1st initiative die. Any augmented initiative dice don't have this benefit. This is kinda
nice because it allows everyday Joe Average to get 3 actions sometimes.

>~ Snake Eyes

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 5
From: MC23 mc23@**********.com
Subject: Rule of 6 (was: Die rolls)
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:18:57 -0400
Once upon a time, Snake Eyes wrote;

>I beg to differ on both counts. Nobody in my group could ever find any
>notation anywhere in SRI that limits open-ended Initiative rolls. It never
>screwed up game play for us -- it just seemed to make combat that much more
>quick and lethal, especially for the wired & magically enhanced, which is
>exactly how we thought it was intended in the first place.

I found it here on my Clarification Sheet for 1st edition (the flip
side for it was a corrected skill web). I have it in my hands right now.
It was given out at Origins/DragonCon (which was what 1990?) as well as
to retailers to give out to their customers. Sorry it didn't make it to
you (or was overlooked) but it's the truth. Open ended initiative was
never part of Shadowrun.

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

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. 6
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Rule of 6 (was: Die rolls)
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 11:36:33 -0700
> Which reminds me: Am I the only guy that thinks the "Rule of 6" should
> still apply to Initiative rolls? Why did they ever change that, anyway?

Because while it makes sense that a slow person might sometimes get the edge
and go sooner it doesn't make sense that they might suddenly gain control
over the time space continuum and go 376 times in 3 seconds flat.

Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be emailed.
/.)\ Stop making sense. Be an Anti Intellectual
\(@/ Be Tao. Live Tao. Feel Tao. But don't do Tao.
Message no. 7
From: Graht Graht@**********.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Rule of 6 (was: Die rolls)
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 13:17:56 -0500
Kelson wrote:
/On Sun, 08 Aug 1999 01:27:18 Snake Eyes wrote:
/
/>Which reminds me: Am I the only guy that thinks the "Rule of 6" should
/>still apply to Initiative rolls? Why did they ever change that, anyway?
/
/I don't think it should apply all-out, but I currently apply the rule of 6
/to everyone's 1st initiative die. Any augmented initiative dice don't have
/this benefit. This is kinda nice because it allows everyday Joe Average to
/get 3 actions sometimes.

I also apply the Rule of 6 to the first initiative die, and it's been
working just fine for the last couple of years.

-Graht
--
ShadowRN GridSec
The ShadowRN FAQ: http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3
Geek Code: GCS d-( ) s++:->+ a@ C++>$ US P L >++ E? W++>+++ !N o-- K-
w+ o? M- VMS? PS+(++) PE+(++) Y+ !PGP t+(++) 5+(++) X++(+++) R+>$ tv+b++ DI++++
D+(++) G e+>+++ h--->---- r+++ y+++
http://home.att.net/~Graht
"My assistant, Bob the dinasaur, will now demonstrate
how to give a cat a 'fur wedgie.'"
Message no. 8
From: Starrngr@***.com Starrngr@***.com
Subject: Rule of 6 (was: Die rolls)
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 15:13:21 EDT
In a message dated 8/8/99 1:33:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
snake.eyes@********.att.net writes:

> Which reminds me: Am I the only guy that thinks the "Rule of 6" should
> still apply to Initiative rolls? Why did they ever change that, anyway?

Off Hand, I'd say they changed it because sometimes with using the rule of
six people wound up with obsene init scores. Especially types with a lot of
dice
Message no. 9
From: Snake Eyes snake.eyes@********.att.net
Subject: Rule of 6 (was: Die rolls)
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 1999 12:46:05 -0700
At 01:18 PM 8/8/99 -0400, MC23 wrote:

> >I beg to differ on both counts. Nobody in my group could ever find any
> >notation anywhere in SRI that limits open-ended Initiative rolls. It never
> >screwed up game play for us -- it just seemed to make combat that much more
> >quick and lethal, especially for the wired & magically enhanced, which is
> >exactly how we thought it was intended in the first place.
>
> I found it here on my Clarification Sheet for 1st edition (the flip
>side for it was a corrected skill web). I have it in my hands right now.
>It was given out at Origins/DragonCon (which was what 1990?) as well as
>to retailers to give out to their customers. Sorry it didn't make it to
>you (or was overlooked) but it's the truth. Open ended initiative was
>never part of Shadowrun.

Oh, well, then I guess I stand at least technically corrected. I'll keep
using open-ended initiative here, though. I do like the idea of allowing
only the naturally unaugmented die to roll open-ended. That might even
things out a bit. Is that "Clarification Sheet" publicly available for
download anywhere? Although I no longer use the SRI rules, it would be
nice to have just for the sake of posterity.

~ Snake Eyes
Message no. 10
From: Twist0059@***.com Twist0059@***.com
Subject: Rule of 6 (was: Die rolls)
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 16:19:37 EDT
In a message dated 8/8/99 2:41:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, arcady@***.net
writes:

> > Which reminds me: Am I the only guy that thinks the "Rule of 6"
should
> > still apply to Initiative rolls? Why did they ever change that, anyway?
>
> Because while it makes sense that a slow person might sometimes get the
edge
> and go sooner it doesn't make sense that they might suddenly gain control
> over the time space continuum and go 376 times in 3 seconds flat.


Which is why it seems to me that rerolling init 6s should stay to the domain
of the Edge in the SRComp. (What was it, Adrenaline Surge?) If a mundane,
uncybered goon wants to act as fast as the chromeboys or the adepts, even
just occasionally, he should have to pay for it.



-Twist
Message no. 11
From: stefan casanova@***.passagen.se
Subject: Rule of 6 (was: Die rolls)
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 00:20:00 +0000
> Which reminds me: Am I the only guy that thinks the "Rule of 6" should
> still apply to Initiative rolls? Why did they ever change that, anyway?

We used the rule of 6 for pretty much all die rolls including
initiative. We changed it lately thou to only allow the rule of six
for the first basic die that everyone gets and not for augumentation
and it has been working great so far.

.stefan


------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Frag you and the datastream you came on!" - Sinjin the decker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
... E-Mail .............................. casanova@***.passagen.se ...
... HomePage .................... http://hem.passagen.se/casanova/ ...
... ICQ ................................................... 793828 ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 12
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: Rule of 6 (was: Die rolls)
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 19:34:03 +0200
Snake Eyes wrote:
>

>
> Which reminds me: Am I the only guy that thinks the "Rule of 6" should
> still apply to Initiative rolls? Why did they ever change that, anyway?

Ummm, that was NEVEr be the rule, initiatiove was always without the
rule of 6 ....

--
Barbie

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" - Adolf Hitler

barbie@********.de
http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie/index.html

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++
dk sh++++ ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Rule of 6 (was: Die rolls), 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!