Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: LXR LXR@***.net
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 11:18:55 +0200
Sorry, none from me -- I suffer from the same affliction... When the
players start thinking out loud about how they're going to do <whatever>,
I often have the tendency to point out some good or bad points of their
plan. Luckily I can usally restrain myself when it comes to mentioning the
important flaws or holes in their plans, but for some reason I can't
"switch off" until their planning is done... :/

--
Gurth@******.nl -
Message no. 2
From: Daniel Brace dbrace@**********.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:20:53 -0400
ERROR: This message seems to be empty. It is located at Week-of-Mon-19991025.txt::153129,421.
Message no. 3
From: Lars Ericson lericson@****.edu
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:36:58 -0500
If a spirit attacks a drone, then armor counts and the damage is reduced
as normal. Impact armor protects a runner, so vehicle armor should
protect as well. Spirit attacks (not special abilities, not standard
attacks) are going to be subject to the invulnerability of vehicle armor
also.

Can the drone still fight? Sure. The reason a person has trouble doing
anything in melee is that the opponent is trying to stop them and hurt
them. A drone can just back up and blaze. Most drones will be able to
move faster than a spirit can (remember its materialized), so there
shouldn't be any problem here.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Lars Ericson: Professional Vagabond
Smalley Research Group, Rice University
E-Mail: lericson@****.edu
WWW: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/

Life is like a Wankel Engine. In between the emptiness of boredom and
despair, and the compression of stress in one's life, there's that one
spark of enjoyment that keeps you going.




From abortion_engine@*******.com Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:47:35 -0400
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:47:35 -0400
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Dumb Things [Long : ae]

> > ] Has anyone else out there banned the use of the
> Common Sense edge? [What, me, tell the players when
> they're being idiots? How would they all die after one
> of them shot the guy a foot from him with an AP
> grenade?]
>
> Okay, that's just plain mean, AE. :)

I [attempt to] play in as realistic a fashion as possible. And sometimes, in
the heat of the moment, players and characters alike forget things. And I
let them. And sometimes, the other players know what's going on. But their
characters don't, and we [try] to keep those two knowledge pools totally
separate.

My games, as I'm certain I've mentioned, are not just for fun. Sometimes
they are fun, but that's not the focus. It's like the difference between
Half-Life and the Urban Combat Simulator. My games are a simulation of
impossible situations in real life. It's more an exercise in creative and
Message no. 4
From: Lars Ericson lericson@****.edu
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:18:26 -0500
> You mean, would a dragon be able to create a spell that allows him to do
> what an Otaku does? If it's a Great Dragon, sure. If it's a lesser
> dragon, sure, if he got the spell from a Great Dragon. Would a mage be
> able to use the same spell? Sure. <EGMG> Course, there's no telling what
> that would do to the mage. (I connect the poor sot to the matrix
> permenantly. He'd be living in both the matrix and the real world
> simultaneously. Between the two he wouldn't last long. The next adventure
> would be finding a Great Dragon, and talking it into dispelling the spell.)

You've got the idea Dave, but for whatever reason you over did it on what the
spell would do. I'm just talking about a spell that would allow for a person
to "interact" with Simsense, not perform like a
Message no. 5
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:26:29 EDT
From dbuehrer@****.org Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:38:42 -0600
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:38:42 -0600
From: dbuehrer@****.org dbuehrer@****.org
Subject: Cyber dragon???

Ereskanti@***.com wrote:
\ In a message dated 10/26/1999 12:50:02 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
\ dbuehrer@****.org writes:
\
\ > You mean, would a dragon be able to create a spell that allows him to do
\ > what an Otaku does? If it's a Great Dragon, sure. If it's a lesser
\ > dragon, sure, if he got the spell from a Great Dragon. Would a mage be
\ > able to use the same spell? Sure. <EGMG> Course, there's no telling what
\ > that would do to the mage. (I connect the poor sot to the matrix
\ > permenantly. He'd be living in both the matrix and the real world
\ > simultaneously. Between the two he wouldn't last long. The next
adventure
\ > would be finding a Great Dragon, and talking it into dispelling the
spell.)
\
\ You've got the idea Dave, but for whatever reason you over did it on what
the
\ spell would do. I'm just talking about a spell that would allow for
Message no. 6
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
Getting the hint, she ran out the front where she'd
parked her bike. The spirit followed her. I thought
she was going to take off, but she decided to ram it.
I shrugged and decided that, yeah, ramming the bike
into the spirit while on it fit the parameters of
hitting it with a willpower-based attack and decided
to use the rules from Rigger 2 for ramming.

Bam. Spirit gets turned into chunky bits. In the
meantime, the bike takes moderate damage (damaged
front fork from the impact) and our heroine twists her
wrist (light wound).

Those ramming rules can be DEADLY...

*Doc' wonders if the ramming rules can be applied to
sexual acts...but decides he'd rather not find out...*

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

.sig Sauer
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com




From docwagon101@*****.com Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Dumb Things [Long : ae]

<Snip bit about giving warnings>
> I do usually do that. I know it's not exactly
realistic, but it's only fair; the character should
usually by a little smarter in firefights than the
player, although this isn't always true. In fact, it's
pretty much the biggest warning I can give, because I
never say it unless something is about to go *very*
wrong. *Very* wrong. But I've got one guy who never,
ever, listens.

Well, that's pretty much all you can do, especially in
a gritty game.

<Snip bit about not making the rest of the team pay
for the idiot's idiocy>
> And that's what I *try* to do. Although I have to
say, if your character was stupid enough to take a guy
like this on a working trip, you deserve what you get.
But my players' characters always have the option of
saying "no" to a run, "no" to a team, or, their
favorite, shooting the idiot.
Message no. 7
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*****.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:19:45 -0500
:How would you resolve the problem?


We just have the spirit make its attack, and reduce the damage as normal
for non-AV attacks. The vehicle isn't likely to be able to counter-attack
(unless it has arms or something), but there are rules for a rigger
"dodging" an attack- we always allow that.
However, if the vehicle were moving, it would also make sense that the
rigger could choose to evade the attack, or ram (sideswipe) the attacker-
pounding on a moving vehicle as it zooms by is really risky! Unfortunately,
the SR3 and R2 rules are not very good for this. I think you'd have to cook
up some variant of the vehicle combat rules that treated pedestrians as
vehicles, or something, so that you can figure out who gets to hit who.
Because of the many possibilities (range of speeds, vehicle sizes, attacker
skill and movement abitlies), such rules would probably bas complex as any
of the vehicle combat rules, if not more so. Yuck.






From docwagon101@*****.com Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Oh my god.

> I stumbled across this today. What I'd like to
know--among other things--is what you guys think of
this, particularly the endgame. I thought my GM was
occasionally a little, er, outrageous, but this
is...forget it.
>
> Just check this out:
> http://www-ece.rice.edu/~rickj/Shadowrun.html
>
> Now, the endgame I was mentioning is in the fifth
"season," under "War and Peace."
>
> Please, let me know what your opinions are. Please,
tell me I'm not insane. Please.
<ae>

Oh...my...gawd...

*Doc' begs forgiveness, but no other phrase could do
it justice...*

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

.sig Sauer
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com




From m0ng005e@*****.com Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:57:38 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:57:38 -0500
From: Sebast
Message no. 8
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*****.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:57:38 -0500
She accelerated away, then swung around and
accelerated back.

> and why didn't;t the sprit do something to stop her
(like using its powers, a ranged attack, or a simple
action to de-materialize)?
> Mongoose

I had the spirit chasing her. Oops. When it was her
turn and she swung around and headed back, the fact
that she was still accelerating meant she more than
covered the ground back to the spirit in the space of
her turn. Not exactly realistic
Message no. 9
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
Btw, what do you mean, ranged attack? Toxic earth
elementals have RANGED attacks???

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

.sig Sauer
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com




From gurth@******.nl Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:57:31 +0200
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:57:31 +0200
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Cyber dragon???

According to vocenoctum@****.com, at 23:11 on 26 Oct 99, the word on the
street was...

> Most cyber on animals that has been done in books so far (IIRC) has
> always been combat mods.

I don't remember many cybered animals appearing in SR books; IIRC most
guard animals in adventures were either unmodified dogs or paranormal dogs
(like hellhounds), plus the occasional mention of piasmae and similar
critters.

> They do not care whether they frag the animals brains or not. Most will
> have some form of outside control or sedation, but they never put
> encephalons or such, just wired and cyberfangs etc. So, it may be human
> or animal cyber, but teh animals don't handle it either way.

I would expect most cyberware implanted in animals to have been at least
adapted to that animal, and probably designed specifically for it. I mean,
how do you implant human-sized spurs into a medium-sized dog?
Message no. 10
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*****.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 04:33:44 -0500
Yeah, I was just checking and there's not one story
by you... somehow that strikes me as very strange :)


Martin Steffens
e-mail: v-marts@*********.com
phone: 70 666 44




From Sven.DeHerdt@***********.be Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:28:54 +0200
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:28:54 +0200
From: Sven De Herdt Sven.DeHerdt@***********.be
Message no. 11
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:38:00 EDT
It could have theoretically picked up a rock and thrown it at her too. (smirk)


-K
[Hoosier Hacker House]
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
ICQ#-51511837




From Ereskanti@***.com Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:43:57 EDT
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:43:57 EDT
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Cyber dragon???

In a message dated 10/27/1999 3:56:57
Message no. 12
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:39:34 EDT
> According to vocenoctum@****.com, at 23:11 on 26 Oct 99, the word on the
> street was...
>
> > Most cyber on animals that has been done in books so far (IIRC) has
> > always been combat mods.
>
> I don't remember many cybered animals appearing in SR books; IIRC most
> guard animals in adventures were either unmodified dogs or paranormal dogs
> (like hellhounds), plus the occasional mention of piasmae and similar
> critters.

On a goofily related note, some of the party members here decided a *WHILE*
ago to buy a "Cyberchomps" (getting the idea while perusing my deck of SR
cards). They didn't really follow through on the control measures though, so
the one player had it hooked up to a "remote control".

(Player-Atlas) "See ... if I push this button, he attacks someone ... i
Message no. 13
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:58:20 -0700
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.




From ravenhrtx@*******.net Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:38:34 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:38:34 -0500
From: Sabrina ravenhrtx@*******.net
Subject: Goth Weenies

I agree.. I like white wolf games .. but geeze the freaks that play make
me love shadowrun all the more... at least shadowrun players rank high
in the wearing deoderant and showering area..unlike AD&D, and mini
players, who all seem to exceed the weight limit of their shirts and
never shower...
oh yea this is SR related...
lets say a player wants to play a gnome what are the price mods to adapt
things to them...

--
"... If you come from God, I do not fear you ... if you come from the
Devil, I fear you even less."


__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html




From cybertroll@******.crosswinds.net Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:50:33 +0300
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:50:33 +0300
From: Cybertroll cybertroll@******.crosswinds.net
Subject: OT: White Wolf has been sold

Quindrae
Message no. 14
From: Scott W iscottw@*****.nb.ca
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:54:54 -0300
White Wolf has not been sold.

http://www.white-wolf.com/

Do the research.





From vocenoctum@****.com Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:07:47 -0400
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:07:47 -0400
From: vocenoctum@****.com vocenoctum@****.com
Subject: White Wolf has been sold

For those still paying attention, White Wolf has posted to their site
that it was a hoax. They did it as to draw some interest for Hunter. The
link went to an IC site for Hunter, to give a feel for the new game.

Vocenoctum
<http://members.aol.com/vocenoctum>;

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.




From iridios@*****.com Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:26:43 -0400
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:26:43 -0400
F
Message no. 15
From: JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:57:24 EDT
Vehicles (drones or otherwise) can't make force of will attacks.

Drones are not affected by the Confusion or Fear powers. EVEN IF A RIGGER
IS DIRECTLY CONTROLLING THEM. (Remote telepresence doesn't qualify for aura
synchronization.) Drones with electrical power plants are GENERALLY (but
not "always") not affected by the Engulf power in any form.

"Sebastian Wiers" <m0ng005e@*****.com> wrote,

> One problem is that there are not clear rules for ANYBODY attacking a
> vehicle (of any type) in melee.

Try this on for size:

Consider a melee attack on a vehicle equivalent to a "ramming" action made
by the pedestrian. Use the appropriate Combat Skill in place of the Driving
Skill. For weapons with a Strength-based Damage Code (for example
(STR+1)M), also add to the Power the vehicle's Speed, divided by 10,
rounded down. (Effectively the vehicle's momentum adds to the impact of a
strength-based attack.) Melee weapons are considered normal weapons, so
they get to halve the Power and reduce Damage Level by one step before
making their Damage Resistance Test.

Unlike a regular Ramming Test, a character doesn't make a Damage Resistance
Test if he succeeds in hitting the vehicle. However he DOES have to make a
Dodge Test, regardless of whether the "ramming" attempt succeeded or not.
Modifiers that apply to the Ramming Test also apply to the Dodge Test. If
the character blows the Dodge Test, he gets hit by the vehicle and takes
damage as such. (Don't forget to stage the damage UP, as per the Vehicle-
Pedestrian Collision rules on p. 148 of SR3.)

I haven't had a chance yet to try this one out, so let me know what you
think.

> Another is that you'd have to make up
> "signature ratings" for manifest spirits yourself, if for some reason they
> were neaded.

I would say use the rules for signatures of biological forms (p. 61, R2) as
a baseline. Gaseous spirits (air elementals, nature spirits of the skies)
get an additional +2 modifier to their Signature. Earthen (earth
elementals, nature spirits of the land) or fiery spirits get a -2 modifier
to their Signature. Great form spirits with a Physical Bonus (p. 107, MitS)
also reduce their Signature by -1 for every point of Physical Bonus.

> However, if the vehicle were moving, it would also make sense that the
> rigger could choose to evade the attack, or ram (sideswipe) the attacker-
> pounding on a moving vehicle as it zooms by is really risky! Unfortunately,
> the SR3 and R2 rules are not very good for this. I think you'd have to cook
> up some variant of the vehicle combat rules that treated pedestrians as
> vehicles, or something, so that you can figure out who gets to hit who.
> Because of the many possibilities (range of speeds, vehicle sizes, attacker
> skill and movement abitlies), such rules would probably bas complex as any
> of the vehicle combat rules, if not more so. Yuck.

Actually, the vehicle rules DO make provisions for integrating vehicles and
pedestrians in combat. (That was one of the first things I wanted to
implement when I wrote Rigger 2.) Pedestrians are assigned a flat Maneuver
Score equal to their Quickness. (No fiddling about with speeds, vehicle
maneuverability, terrain, or anything like that.) This is mentioned on p.
138 of SR3.

True, this means that pedestrians will always be at a severe tactical
disadvantage. But I had intended the model for for vehicle combat to be a
dynamic, motion-based one (as opposed to a position-based model, which
normal combat is). In such a fluid model, slow-movers (like pedestrians)
should naturally be at a disadvantage.

-- Jon




From angelkiller404@**********.com Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:00:23 -0400
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:00:23 -0400
From: Angelkiller 404 angelkiller404@**********.com
Subject: Wacky things

-----Original Message-----
From: Raije <murk@****.org.au>
To: shadowrn@*********.org <shadowrn@*********.org>
Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: Wacky things


>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
>To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 12:57 PM
>Subject: Wacky things
>
>
>> Okay, here's a question for you guys.
>>
>> What's the wackiest thing you've thrown at your
>> players as a piece of irrelevant fluff during a run?
>> Did they assume it was important to the run? And did
>> they actually manage to make use of it in the run?
>


I almost forgot this one from Transmetropolitan: two devil rats
manipulating a lighter and a cigarette. I threw this one in my first
time GMing, and for giggles, I decided to roll in Reaction and
Intelligence tests on the rats to see if they could possibl
Message no. 16
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
<Snipples(TM)>
> > I'd start, but I have good players. *sigh* How
boring.
>
> Yeah, I was just checking and there's not one story
by you... somehow that strikes me as very strange :)
> Martin Steffens

*lol*

Remember, Martin, the GM doesn't necessarily reflect
on the players.

Which is probably quite fortunate in this case.
Otherwise I'd be getting sued for defamation of
characters...:)

*"Sorry, I know that isn't really punny, but I can't
help myself. I'm a punaholic..."*

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

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

.sig Sauer
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com




From mcmanus@******.albany.edu Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:19:25 -0400
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:19:25 -0400
From: Danie
Message no. 17
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
From ahrain_drigar@*******.com Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:43:27 EDT
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:43:27 EDT
From: Ahrain Drigar ahrain_drigar@*******.com
Subject: Damn the crasy ppl are real

>From: Cybertroll <cybertroll@******.crosswinds.net>
>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 03:35:48 +0300
>
>Iridios wrote:
> >
> > > Chipeloi wrote:
> >
> > > then someone asked if the where real that was not this is:
> > >
> > > http://www.farsinet.com/truth/fag.html
> > ^^^
> >
> > That should be faq, now shouldn't it.
>
>yeap.
>But even there u don't see nothing else but titles. The links are not
>working
>However the rest of the site is pretty much interesting.
>It's funny to see how people think when they have almost no brains and
>try to interpret the holy scripts :-)
>
>
>Cybertroll
>
>--


Being both a practicing martial artist and practicing pagan living in the
middle of "the Bible Belt" I found this both ammusing and boring (as I here
this sort of thing all the time). It also a little scary that people can be
so vehement about their
Message no. 18
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:19:41 EDT
The rest of the rule suggestions you make however are straight on IMO,
especially the idea of a 'Dodge Test' with regards to "Vehicular Jousting"
(my phrase, not yours). Just not, IMO, this one.

-K
[Hoosier Hacker House]
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
ICQ#-51511837




From bull@***********.com Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:28:04 -0400
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:28:04 -0400
From: Bull bull@***********.com
Subject: A What??!!?? (Re: Dumb Things [Long : ae])

At 01:14 AM 10/28/99 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 10/27/1999 8:59:51 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>docwagon101@*****.com writes:
>
> >
> > What did the other players and/or characters do to him
> > afterwards? A shiv in the Fuchi jail, perhaps? :)
>
>Okay, I've gotta ask. What is a "shiv"????
>
>-K

I couldn't tell you what "Shiv" means or is short for, but it refers to a
home-made knife, usually made while in
jail so that you have a Weapon.

Bull
--
Bull -- The Best Ork Decker You Never Met
bull@*******.net == bull22@***********.com == bull@***********.com
http://shadowrun.html.com/users/bull
ICQ: 35931890
====================================================== =
= Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any Fours? = =
Message no. 19
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:14:31 -0700
From Ereskanti@***.com Thu, 28 Oct 1999 02:32:51 EDT
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 02:32:51 EDT
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: A What??!!?? (Re: Dumb Things [Long : ae])

In a message dated 10/28/1999 12:29:08 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
bull@***********.com writes:

> > > What did the other players and/or characters do to him
> > > afterwards? A shiv in the Fuchi jail, perhaps? :)
> >
> >Okay, I've gotta ask. What is a "shiv"????
> >
> >-K
>
> I couldn't tell you what "Shiv" means or is short for, but it refers to a
> home-made knife, usually made while in
> jail so that you have a Weapon.

Ah, for some reason this actually rings a mnemonic bell now. For me, the
nick means something else.

-K
[Hoosier Hacker House]
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
ICQ#-51511837




From m0ng005e@*****.com Thu, 28 Oct 1999 02:26:23 -0500
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 02:26:23 -0500
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*****.com
Subject: A What??!!??


:> Okay, I've gotta ask. What is a "shiv"????
:> -K
:
:AFAIK (I can't say defi
Message no. 20
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:27:00 -0400
It its grossest form, Signature is a measure of how easy it is for a sensor
to detect something. Its really a combination of how loud the object is
(aural), how hot it is (thermal), invisible to electromagnetic radiation
(radar), and how easy it is to see (visual).

Gaseous spirits are by nature diffuse (hard to see), are very quiet and
would blend right in against radar. Fiery spirits light up thermal. Earth
spirits are going to be loud as they move and give you all sorts of returns
on radar, not to mention easy to see. Great Form spirits are much bigger
than normal, so all of those extra physical serve to make them more solid,
hence easier to detect.

>The rest of the rule suggestions you make however are straight on IMO,
>especially the idea of a 'Dodge Test' with regards to "Vehicular Jousting"
>(my phrase, not yours). Just not, IMO, this one.

I liked them too. Not that its come up yet, but you never know.

>-K
>[Hoosier Hacker House]
>[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
>ICQ#-51511837


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.




From abortion_engine@*******.com Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:45:25 -0400
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:45:25 -0400
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Dumb Things [Long : ae]

> <snip more dumb>
> > GM: [Pause.] Okay. That's subtle.
> > Player 1: Yeah. I'm not going to take any other
> guns. I want to keep it quiet.
>
> *Doc' busts a gut laughing...*
>
> He SERIOUSLY didn't realise you were being sarcastic?
> Man, some of the fittings upstairs must be loose.

Yeah. Some of his fittings. Particularly if *some* means *all.* Then it
works best.

> <snip more stupid>
> > Player 1: So I could wear it over the form-fitting?
> > GM: You're going to pass out.
> > Player 1: But I could do it?
> > GM: [Pause} Yeah. Sure.
>
> *Doc' is struck dumb with disbelief...*
>
> <Snippage(TM) of rest of ae's horror story>
>
> Lordy, I didn't think people like that really
> EXISTED...
>
> What did the other players and/or characters do to him
> afterwards? A shiv in the Fuchi jail, perhaps? :)
>
They didn't know *what* to do. They never really got a cha
Message no. 21
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*****.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:55:46 -0500
Considered trying a physical adept? That's what they are FOR. Every
one of the things you metion is reflected by an adept power. If you wan't
to meditate to recover damage (not HP- this was a Shadowrun question,
right?), just put a geas on "Increase Body" or "Rapid Healing" (thier
cost
is often the same). On the other hand, you WILL need armor, unless you have
hellacious combat pool and a lot of luck.

:But! Most of all, I'm looking forward to a class I can combine with the
:Sorcerer class for a ver
Message no. 22
From: JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:44:17 EDT
Still, you'd probably get better results having a magician banish the
fragging thing.

(Oh, about that bit about ItNW not exactly being the same as hardened
armor: in SR3, hardened armor will bounce any attack if the base Power (not
modified by autofire or special ammo) is less than or equal to the Armor
Rating. Under the description of ItNW, it simply says "In addition, if the
Power of the damage does not exceed twice the creature's Essence, it
automatically has no effect." (p. 264, SR3)

(That can be a bit vague. If a weapon can beat the 2x Essence number by
firing burst or full auto, does that mean it can (potentially) affect the
spirit? Or if a weapon's Power equals 2x Essence (which normally means the
attack gets bounced), will using explosive ammo (+1 Power) make it capable
of "penetrating"? That could be a loophole that got overlooked, or it could
have been deliberate. You'll have to ask Steve Kenson about that, since he
wrote that chapter.)

And then there's ramming. Remember that the Damage Code is based on the
vehicle's current speed, so a drone that can get a good head of steam going
is going to do some serious damage. Also, in my book, I would consider a
spirit to be a "pedestrian," so the damage is going to be increased
further, per the Vehicle-Pedestrian Collision rule on p. 148 of SR3.

And yes, trying to run down a spirit, even if you actually are behind the
wheel, is not considered a force of will attack. For pretty much the same
reason that using ranged weapons (even bows and arrows) are not considered
a force of will attack. Only an attack in hand-to-hand combat is considered
a force of will attack. (It's a symbolism thing.)

If you want to debate the intricacies of force-of-will attacks and why only
melee attacks count, you'd be better off asking Steve about this issue.

-- Jon




From mcmanus@******.albany.edu Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:51:01 -0400
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:51:01 -0400
From: 00DNA mcmanus@******.albany.edu
Subject: simsense rules from M&M?

> > I can't remember who posted it, but someone recently said that
> > the Simsense
> > rules that were going to be included in Man & Machine were cut
> > due to space
> > and will be appearing in the Canon Companion.
>
>If I remember correctly, the rationale for this is that simsense rules will
>be used mainly for skillsofts, typical tool of the trade of sammys (the
>actual target audience of CC :)
>
>-paolo

Well I guess that would be ok then...hahaha, like I'm the only one they
have to please...


--00DNA
"...user connection terminated."




From dv8@********.nl Fri, 29 Oct 1999 18:08:01 +0200
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 18:08:01 +0200
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Disguise Skill

Hail Runners,

How would one categorize a supposed "Disguise" skill? Would it be a subset
of "Stealth" or would it, since it's partly a charisma-linked skill, be a
skill on it
Message no. 23
From: LXR LXR@***.net
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:06:06 +0200
I've already asked this question sometimes ago but it wasn't answered to my
satisfaction. So I ask again.

How do you handle a situation where the rules require a specific
specialisation but the charakter only has the base skill. This is especially
important with the rigger rules or still the etiquette test.

For example, a rigger can use the non-matrix programming specialisation for
improving the test to give commands to drones. But the rigger has only
computer as a base skill. The normal rule would be to let the player role on
the base skill. But, like in riggerII, the rule explicitly demand that
specific specialisation. Does this mean the rigger can't use that skill at
all or is there just a modifier to the die role? What would be a fair
modifier?

AlEx





From Nitewing@********.de Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:10:36 +0200
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:10:36 +0200
From: Nitewing Nitewing@********.de
Subject: Initiative in SR3[comments and rule conversion]

>:similar a
Message no. 24
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:50:43 EDT
It resists the damage normally.

> Is this how you would handle the situation?


At the very basic levels of action, yes.

-K
[Hoosier Hacker House]
[http://members.aol.com/hhackerh/index.html]
ICQ#-51511837




From sphere9@***********.com Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:18:14 -0700
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 11:18:14 -0700
From: Sphere9 sphere9@***********.com
Subject: Dumb Things [Long : ae]

----- Original Message -----
From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: Dumb Things [Long : ae]


> <Snippola(TM)>
> > Player 1: [Pause, looking at character sheet.] Uh,
> okay. I'm going to take my Ares Alpha, my HVAR, my
> Guardians, and my Walther.
> > GM: [Pause.] Okay. That's subtle.
> > Player 1: Yeah. I'm not going to take any other
> guns. I want to keep it quiet.
>
> *Doc' busts a gut laughing...*
>
> He SERIOUSLY didn't realise you were being sarcastic?
> Man, some of the fittings upstairs must be loose.
>

I was running a game once when one of the players wanted to play a rigger with an armored
van. I told him to make it reasonable and don't put too much stuff on it or it will stand
out and attract too much attention. What did he do? He gave it 24 points of armor, 2
quad-mounts of light machine guns, and a rocket launcher. His explan
Message no. 25
From: LXR LXR@***.net
Subject: Spirits vs. Drones
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:14:57 +0100
until level 5 anywayy...

_____________________sabrepunk@**********.net_
Raije
sabrepunk@**********.net
UIN-2799894
~Simple Guide to Cyberpunk~
http://gateway.to/cyberpunk/
"Shit Happens, So Carry Toilet Paper"





From murk@****.org.au Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:12:27 +1100
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:12:27 +1100
From: Raije murk@****.org.au
Subject: Rule of One

> The only thing I don't allow is the use of Karma to foil a botch. Also, I
> only apply the Rule of One in critical situations.
>

Really? We apply it all the time, usually with hilarious consequences.
Like trying to remove the case from a keypad and the thing triggers the
ugliest alarm...and the person has taken a flaw about noise, or the gun
blowing up in the troll's hand and he acts as though it was a mosquito!
Some other stuff's happened (like when the rigger went to the carwash after
taking his G

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Spirits vs. Drones, 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!