Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Shared Worlds/Shared Games (was Re: Initiation)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:05:23 -0500
Bull,
>I think the list, in general, is a good representation of the Shadowrunning
>Community at large... I doubt the percentages, such as tehy are, would be
>much different if one was able to poll every SR GM in the world...

Nah, I don't think it's that great but I could guess how much of
this group represents. I do think that this group is relatively on the
same wave length of thinking. To stay on this group for any length of
time I think you would have to be to some degree.

And now to the new subject at hand...
>I don't think the Shapeshifter rules are very balanced, the meta varients
>are a little off, and the Training Times for upgrading skills are a little
>too much for my game, but I like a lot of the other stuff...
>
>And We have a lot of guys who bounce around in our games from GM to GM.
>They play the same characters in several different campaigns... Basically,
>there's about 6 GM's in the area sharing a game world, and since some of
>the GM's are using all the new rules, it would be a pain in the ass to have
>some characters either suddenly no longer legal, or to have to change stats
>or something to conform.

Shared worlds aren't bad to run but shared games can become rather
difficult. Amongst my friends we realized that we run Shadowrun with very
different styles of play so we don't swap characters between games. One
friend runs Seattle, another runs New Orleans, and I run Charlotte. We
also don't have to worry about what secret plots the other's are up to
(besides from in game that is).
We keep a general concensus on how we are using the rules but house
rules and campaign house rules still apply. I would assume you do hold a
general meeting on how rules like from the companion are being used and
whether or not they would affect game characters cross-over.
In the end, the way we divide up our games work best for us here. I
did think that this topic was worth further exploring though.



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

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. 2
From: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Subject: Re: Shared Worlds/Shared Games (was Re: Initiation)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:36:14 -0700
> From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
> Nah, I don't think it's that great but I could guess how much of
> this group represents. I do think that this group is relatively on the
> same wave length of thinking. To stay on this group for any length of
> time I think you would have to be to some degree.

I tend to agree..While in all other factors I would say that this
list should be fairly representative...

> Shared worlds aren't bad to run but shared games can become rather
> difficult.

I completely agree..My old group tried this..Not very
successfully..One guy wants to run a balanced game..another wants to
be Monty Hall..Ugh..Never More.....

-------------------------------GRANITE
=================================================================
Lord, Grant Me The Serenity To Accept The Things I Cannot Change,
The Courage To Change The Things I Can,
And The Wisdom To Hide The Bodies Of Those People I Had To Kill
Because They Pissed Me Off.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ShadowRunner's Serenity Prayer
Message no. 3
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Shared Worlds/Shared Games (was Re: Initiation)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 22:59:48 -0500
At 09:05 AM 3/5/97 -0500, MC23 wrote these timeless words:
> Shared worlds aren't bad to run but shared games can become rather
>difficult. Amongst my friends we realized that we run Shadowrun with very
>different styles of play so we don't swap characters between games. One
>friend runs Seattle, another runs New Orleans, and I run Charlotte. We
>also don't have to worry about what secret plots the other's are up to
>(besides from in game that is).
> We keep a general concensus on how we are using the rules but house
>rules and campaign house rules still apply. I would assume you do hold a
>general meeting on how rules like from the companion are being used and
>whether or not they would affect game characters cross-over.
> In the end, the way we divide up our games work best for us here. I
>did think that this topic was worth further exploring though.
>
Our game is a good deal more stable than that, duw to the fact that we all
run a very similar style of game. This is due to the fact that Steve
Tinner runs our main game, and introduced us all to Shadowrun over the
years...Me and a couple other guys have picked up the mantle of GM over the
years, and we simply build on each other... We know enough abou everyone's
characters that we can play up the littl;e background mysteries that crop
up from time to time, but as we're never dealing with our own characters,
it's not that big a problem...

It's simply a matter of style, I guess... We all get to play with the same
world, so it's nice...:]

Bull
--
Now the Offical Shadowrn mailing List Welcome Ork!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List

=======================================================
= Bull, aka Chaos, aka Rak, aka Steven Ratkovich =
= chaos@*****.com =
= "Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?" =
=======================================================

"You know, I think I had a dream that I'd go out like
this, only I was wearing a dress."
-Mighty max
Message no. 4
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Shared Worlds/Shared Games (was Re: Initiation)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:17:38 -0500
Quoth the GRANITE,
>..Ugh..Never More.....

- MC23, giving in to temptation -
Message no. 5
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Shared Worlds/Shared Games (was Re: Initiation)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:22:42 -0500
GRANITE wrote,
>> From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
>> Nah, I don't think it's that great but I could guess how much of
>> this group represents. I do think that this group is relatively on the
>> same wave length of thinking. To stay on this group for any length of
>> time I think you would have to be to some degree.
>
>I tend to agree..While in all other factors I would say that this
>list should be fairly representative...

Are you refering to this group's interests and occupations (and
while I'm at it nationalities) outside of Shadowrun or other views on
that wholey remarkable book the word Shadowrun written on it in nice
friendly letters?


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

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: GRANITE <granite@**.NET>
Subject: Re: Shared Worlds/Shared Games (was Re: Initiation)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:02:37 -0700
> From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
> Are you refering to this group's interests and occupations (and
> while I'm at it nationalities) outside of Shadowrun

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

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Shared Worlds/Shared Games (was Re: Initiation), 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!