Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Richard Gaywood r.gaywood@**********.com
Subject:	Simplified decking [was Re: Riggers and Drones]
Date:	Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:50:02 -0000

Message no. 1 Yiannakos wrote:
> I guess this is probably a <RANT>
>
> [SNIP]

I agree, BTW. Not sure about giving quite that much control to the players,
but then, I'm a control freak...

> like. For example, the uber-simplified decking rules that were posted here
a
> while back.

Where might I find a copy of these rules? I'd be *very* interested to see
them.

-=R=-
http://www.clmconsulting.co.uk
ICQ: 66545073
UT ngStats: RichBeard

From:	Yiannakos Yiannako@*******.edu
Subject:	Simplified decking [was Re: Riggers and Drones]
Date:	Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:44:43 -0500

Message no. 2 From: "Richard Gaywood" <r.gaywood@**********.com>

> > like. For example, the uber-simplified decking rules that were posted
here
> a
> > while back.
>
> Where might I find a copy of these rules? I'd be *very* interested to see
> them.
>
> -=R=-

Hunter posted this, oh, a couple of months ago I guess:

Begin quote-

>Because some GMs (who shall remain nameless) don't feel it necessary to
>go through the entire decking process, I want to suggest to the list
>members the following "Quick Decking" rules.
>Make a test for the Host verses the decker's Computer skill or MPCP
>(whichever is lower). The Decker makes a test verses the host rating
>using the Computer skill or MPCP (whichever is lower).
>Higher number of successes wins.

-End quote

I thought that the idea had some merit. Even if this was _too_ simplified
for your taste, I thought finding a middle ground between this and the full
decker rules shouldn't be too hard.

---Dave ('s not here man)

From:	Richard Gaywood r.gaywood@**********.com
Subject:	Simplified decking [was Re: Riggers and Drones]
Date:	Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:43:04 -0000

Message no. 3 Dave wrote:
> Hunter posted this, oh, a couple of months ago I guess:
>
> Begin quote-
>
> >Because some GMs (who shall remain nameless) don't feel it necessary to
> >go through the entire decking process, I want to suggest to the list
> >members the following "Quick Decking" rules.
> >Make a test for the Host verses the decker's Computer skill or MPCP
> >(whichever is lower). The Decker makes a test verses the host rating
> >using the Computer skill or MPCP (whichever is lower).
> >Higher number of successes wins.
>
> -End quote

Uh-huh. Maybe that's a little too simple. Still, it beats doing long-hand
decking just to try find some low-level corp stooge's credit card number.

> I thought that the idea had some merit. Even if this was _too_ simplified
> for your taste, I thought finding a middle ground between this and the
full
> decker rules shouldn't be too hard.

Yeah. Reckon you could use both, and switch between them as appropriate.
Mind you, by "full" I mean the ones on SR3 - the whole hog in The Matrix V2
is a bit too much, IMHO...

Anyway, thanks for posting that and satisfying my curiosity.

-=R=-
http://www.clmconsulting.co.uk
ICQ: 66545073
UT ngStats: RichBeard

From:	Even even@***********.fr
Subject:	Simplified decking [was Re: Riggers and Drones]
Date:	Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:50:34 +0200

Message no. 4 > Uh-huh. Maybe that's a little too simple. Still, it beats doing long-hand
> decking just to try find some low-level corp stooge's credit card number.

It depends on what you mean by "too simple", doesn't it? I agree that it is not
enough in itself, but the problem is not that too few dice are rolled. It's possible to
build a lot of role-playing around that single dice roll, without cumbersome rules bogging
it down.

That is usually fun for the other players, too. In my experience, most players don't mind
listening to an interesting roleplaying encounter without participating in it. It's all
the fumbling about with the rules that bore them.

Of course, some matrix runs should probably be more detailed, but generally this works
fine.

(>)Even.

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer