Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	[SR3] General Format
Date:	Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:02:25 EDT

Message no. 1 Okay, I promised Dvixen and Adam I would do this as best as possible, so I'll
break up the topics a bit as we go. I'll start out with the book's general
appearance and format.

Nice, -meaty- I believe was the word that Mike Mulhillvil used, book. Really
good size, 330 some-odd pages. There is a table of contents AND an index (4
page or so, 8 point text size, three column), again to quote Mike M., "If it
ain't in the index, it ain't in the book". (He might have used proper english
;)

Good look and far better organized. Major sections go as

Introduction (which is what it says, including a new story intro (See How they
Run).

And so it came to pass (I actually skipped this, but will be going back over
it).

Game Concepts (rules comprehension and explanation)

Creating a Shadowrunner (Archetypes are going to be a term on the way out).

Skills (this is the reason the term Archetypes is going to be fading)

Combat (and how to do it now)

Vehicles and Drones (most of the R2 stuff that everyone will need to use to
begin)

Magic (a good beginning, but no Initiation).

Matrix (again, a good beginning, but no Otaku or -really- strange stuff)

Running the Shadows (a look at the fun parts, with a LOT of stuff from the Neo
A's tossed in and some clarfications on other material).

Beyond the Shadows (Karma, Character Advancement, NPC's, Diseases, etc...).

Contacts (says it all, note "Gangs" are no longer purchasable as a single
contact; Teeg was not thrilled)

Spirits and Dragons (these are the ONLY critters introduced in the Third Ed
book actually, and with good reasons given by Mike IMO).

Street Gear (haven't made it through this beyond a skimming, but you get the
idea...legality ratings and such are now involved).

Seattle and the Modern Northwest (the beginning scenario idea, but NOT enough
to make anyone drool all over themselves. That is left for a Seattle 2 type
of thing).

The Developer's Say (nice note from Mike).

Sourcebook Updates (includes some necessary errata for information covered in
Rigger 2, VR 2, as well as guidelines for converting some characters.

Index.

And so far, it all makes sense to me.

-K

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:10:06 -0400

Message no. 2 Once upon a time, K is the Symbol wrote;

>Okay, I promised Dvixen and Adam I would do this as best as possible, so I'll
>break up the topics a bit as we go. I'll start out with the book's general
>appearance and format.
<snip>
>And so far, it all makes sense to me.

Some of the problem areas I was worried about are there (that's all
I've looked for so far). Not game breaking but still annoying to me.
It'll will take a while before I decide what I need to make house rules
for and what I can let slide.

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

CRY HAVOC! And let slip the flames of SR3

I am MC23

From:	Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:10:18 -0700

Message no. 3 <from MC23>
> Some of the problem areas I was worried about are there (that's all
>I've looked for so far). Not game breaking but still annoying to me.
>It'll will take a while before I decide what I need to make house rules
>for and what I can let slide.
>

That should be interesting- mind telling us what you were worried about /
looking for?

Mongoose

From:	Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:16:33 -0700

Message no. 4 -----Original Message-----
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 11:00 AM
Subject: [SR3] General Format

>Okay, I promised Dvixen and Adam I would do this as best as possible, so I'll
>break up the topics a bit as we go. I'll start out with the book's general
>appearance and format.
>

Since nobody is taking the time, I'll note my favorite changes, hopefully
ones
NOT mentioned previously by Bull.

>Nice, -meaty- I believe was the word that Mike Mulhillvil used, book. Really
>good size, 330 some-odd pages. There is a table of contents AND an index (4
>page or so, 8 point text size, three column), again to quote Mike M., "If it
>ain't in the index, it ain't in the book". (He might have used proper English
>;)

And it has that lovely "new book " smell, plus BOTH covers are quite nice.

Another general paraphrased comment; "If you had to [make a housrule],
there's something wrong." In many cases, SR3 uses elements that many people
have already been playing, written in an easy to understand format.

>Game Concepts (rules comprehension and explanation)
>

Including some new test type concepts, my favorites being the opposed
success contest (more flexible than a straight opposed test) and opposed open
tests (not directly stated, but used often; an open test creates the TN for
another test, like stealth Vs perception).

>Creating a Shadowrunner (Archetypes are going to be a term on the way out).
>

This is pretty damn well done- I hope to never have to explain to another
new player how the priority system works, because they can go step by step
with TWO examples.
Metas are either C (troll / elf) or D (orc / dwarf), as Bull said. Trolls
get a running mod of 3 and no willpower penalty, dwarves have no quickness
penalty. Mike says this gibes with his straw poll on perceived race balance,
and gives a "punch" to less popular races that SHOULD be common (the dwarves
and orcs are rare PC's in our campaign, and I think many others).

>Skills (this is the reason the term Archetypes is going to be fading)
>

And the biggest single change. Not worth discussing if you DON'T have the
book- the new system seems pretty good, and "fixes" a lot of things, but it is
a large (and not directly translatable) change. Mike said one of his goals
was to make defaults / skillweb stuff simpler and more
sensible, and it is.

>Combat (and how to do it now)
>
Combat seems likely to be nasty, and Mikes "Hong Kong Action" image may be
accurate (except that if you try anything that stupid, you will die). Cover is
your friend, and speed maketh not gods.
Love this section- so many of our (collectively) houseless are in there,
it's
NUTTY. I hope you'll like them as much as I have.
Of course, there's the Initiative thing, and the fact pools only refresh
once per turn (at its start).

Then, there's the fact that you can use combat pool to do dodging at a TN
NOT
related to attack power (but tied to other factors). Ourselves and many
others already did that. Also, reach is not the single detriment of melee
success, because the mod applies to only ONE combatant; also, successes past
those
needed to stage melee damage to deadly increase POWER. (K- if this is
mentioned anywhere besides the melee combat resolution procedure, please tell
me)

>Magic (a good beginning, but no Initiation).
>

No initiation, but (physical) adepts ROCK. They were hands down my call
for the most under powered characters before- they were interesting, but not
(IMO) effective enough. Now they stand out as effective characters in their
own right, with very interesting rules. Notably, their magic rating
determines the maximum level of ANY single power, and they can get more powers
WITHOUT raising their magic level at a fair, but high, karma price.
Another cute bit is that you always loose magic on a roll of "2" when
making that roll. Yes, you CAN burn out completely from damage and drugs.
Spell casting and spell defense are different, wards work quite well,
dispelling is standard. Nuff said.
ONLY MANA SPELLS can be cast at astral targets. Result; NO GROUNDING.
Its not even an issue. Neither can you "attack" a spell, or intercept it-
they don't exist except as visible man effects. To affect the, you must
manipulate man using sorcery, either as defense or dispelling (or of course as
spell casting or by creating a ward). VERY COOL.

>Matrix (again, a good beginning, but no Otaku or -really- strange stuff)

Trace IC is not included, but the "Track" utility is. In fact, the
utility description refers to the program as IC. Oops. (I'll try to alert
the
proper people).
Other things: dump shock is based on host security code (blue = light, red
= deadly); this isn't noted as new in the sourcebook updates, but its new to
me.

>Beyond the Shadows (Karma, Character Advancement, NPC's, Diseases, etc...).
>

Humans get 1 karma poll per 10 karma earned- metahumans put only every
Twentieth karma point in their karma pool. This seems to more than balance
the lower creation priorities and (for trolls and dwarves) improve modifiers
Metas got.
Attributes cost more to raise (2x new rating to racial "max", 3x new
rating to "max" x 1.5)- this makes them more than skills, and ties in to the
new skill costs [raising a skill past a linked attribute is expensive, but the
cost of raising the attribute AND the skill is still more].

>Spirits and Dragons (these are the ONLY critters introduced in the Third Ed
>book actually, and with good reasons given by Mike IMO).

Worth noting is that powers are cleaned up, described as physical or mana,
and ALL affecting living beings can be resisted (as, in fact, can any spell).
Movement used offensively CAN be resisted. At a Q=A, it was mentioned that
the GM screen would clarify some further- movement used on vehicles (for
speed) will assist acceleration / acceleration tests, for example.

>
>Street Gear (haven't made it through this beyond a skimming, but you get the
>idea...legality ratings and such are now involved).

Skillwire and soft costs are changed (made more like programs /
computers), and communication gear gets a much closer look. Cyberlimbs (maybe
bull noted) also get a changed to Obvious / easily enhanced or "synthetic" /
expensive to modify.
The whole section seems better laid out.

>And so far, it all makes sense to me.
>
>-K
>

It may be so well written, there will be no need to ever discuss SR3
specific rules questions on this list. :P

But truthfully, SR3 does seem to allow more focus on creativity (like the
way knowledge skills work to create a background) and less on understanding
obscure rules.

Mongoose

From:	Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Mon, 10 Aug 1998 20:31:59 -0400

Message no. 5 At 06:16 PM 8/10/98 -0700, you wrote:

>>Creating a Shadowrunner (Archetypes are going to be a term on the way out).
>>
> This is pretty damn well done- I hope to never have to explain to another
>new player how the priority system works, because they can go step by step
>with TWO examples.

Okay, this sounds exactly like what they gave us for playtesting.

Which brings up my next and main question to Mongoose, MC23 and others; how
close is the final product to what we were playtesting? I'm curious on
several levels.

> Humans get 1 karma poll per 10 karma earned- metahumans put only every
>Twentieth karma point in their karma pool. This seems to more than balance
>the lower creation priorities and (for trolls and dwarves) improve modifiers
>Metas got.

Huh. Interesting. I doubt it's enough to drag me screaming from SR1 Karma
rules, but interesting.

> Attributes cost more to raise (2x new rating to racial "max", 3x new
>rating to "max" x 1.5)- this makes them more than skills, and ties in to the
>new skill costs [raising a skill past a linked attribute is expensive, but
the
>cost of raising the attribute AND the skill is still more].

Now THIS is the scoop that I am really waiting for, since it was one of my
main concerns. Very cool.

> It may be so well written, there will be no need to ever discuss SR3
>specific rules questions on this list. :P

Yeah, right. Pete and I had this discussion a while back...but honestly, I
do think that it *should* kill a number of recurrent threads and questions,
at least in a few months once everyone has had a chance to get it and look
at it.

> But truthfully, SR3 does seem to allow more focus on creativity (like the
>way knowledge skills work to create a background) and less on understanding
>obscure rules.

Outstanding. True story time, from the vaults of playtesting...

One of the PCs decided to take "Yo-Yo" as a knowledge skill, with some of
those freebie points. Okay, it was breaking the rules just a bit to make
it an active skill instead of just knowledge about yo-yos, but it didn't
and still doesn't seem to be a problem. I mean, what sort of game affect
could knowing how to spin a yo-yo have? I would soon find out...

Nicking a proposed plot concept from TK, the group went into a bar called
T-Minus. All timing devices (such as watches) were removed, as were all
weapons, cost thousands of nuyen to get in. As they entered, thick but
lightweight manacles were placed on their wrists. Turns out they were
explosives. People would come in, buy time, bet against other patrons, and
see how close they could get to their alloted time before having their arms
blown off. Made the PCs extremely nervous once they found out...except for
yo-yo boy. Kept tossing his yo-yo, and basically kept time with it. Ended
up winning several bets and about 10 grand.

The skill is unlikely to ever come into play ever again, but it's an
example of how even the goofiest skills selected initially just for RP
purposes, can actually affect a game. If I play long enough, I fully
expect to see something like "Underwater Basket Weaving" come into play and
affect a story line.

Erik J.

http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World

From:	Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Mon, 10 Aug 1998 20:13:11 -0700

Message no. 6 >Which brings up my next and main question to Mongoose, MC23 and others; how
>close is the final product to what we were playtesting? I'm curious on
>several levels.
>

The material that was playtested was genrally used in SOME form, but it
would have been tough to predict that form from just playtesting. Intiaitve
and the (final) character creation changed little- the magic rules are NOT
always the ones we tested- they are better!

>> Humans get 1 karma poll per 10 karma earned- metahumans put only every
>>Twentieth karma point in their karma pool. This seems to more than balance
>>the lower creation priorities and (for trolls and dwarves) improve modifiers
>>Metas got.
>
>Huh. Interesting. I doubt it's enough to drag me screaming from SR1 Karma
>rules, but interesting.

Well, fi you don't like pools, making them smaller for meta's won't
change things. Certain pool use costs are increased, though. If you use good
karma still, will you charge meta's double?

>
>> Attributes cost more to raise (2x new rating to racial "max", 3x new
>>rating to "max" x 1.5)- this makes them more than skills, and ties in to
the
>>new skill costs [raising a skill past a linked attribute is expensive, but
>the
>>cost of raising the attribute AND the skill is still more].
>
>Now THIS is the scoop that I am really waiting for, since it was one of my
>main concerns. Very cool.

Yes, another thing that need never annoy you again IF you buy now, only
$25, $30 limited at Gencon, come one, come all ...

>
>> It may be so well written, there will be no need to ever discuss SR3
>>specific rules questions on this list. :P
>
>Yeah, right. Pete and I had this discussion a while back...but honestly, I
>do think that it *should* kill a number of recurrent threads and questions,
>at least in a few months once everyone has had a chance to get it and look
>at it.

THAT would be well worth while- its the SAME OLD questions that get
boring.

<snip amusing and cool story about bizarre situation / knowledge skill use>

That's truly twisted. OTOH, I played a mage with the "time sense" edge,
and found almost as many uses. One thing I noticed; SR3 doesn't NEED the
M+F's from the SRC to make interesting characters.

Mongoose

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:06:01 -0400

Message no. 7 Once upon a time, Mongoose wrote;

> Metas are either C (troll / elf) or D (orc / dwarf), as Bull said.
>Trolls
>get a running mod of 3 and no willpower penalty, dwarves have no quickness
>penalty. Mike says this gibes with his straw poll on perceived race balance,
>and gives a "punch" to less popular races that SHOULD be common (the dwarves
>and orcs are rare PC's in our campaign, and I think many others).

Reducing the priority because nobody plays the is the most
mechanically unsound thing I've heard. There are some new racial subtlies
added so that I will play with these as-is to decide how they do work.
For all you people out there wondering what I mean, Dwarves and Trolls
now have a net +4 attribute bonus and now under gear suffer incresed
prices for equipment that needs to be tailored for their size.

> It may be so well written, there will be no need to ever discuss SR3
>specific rules questions on this list. :P

riiiigggghhhhtttt..... I'm searching now for an answer to a question
I already have.

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

CRY HAVOC! And let slip the flames of SR3

I am MC23

From:	Randy Nickel <LrdDrgn@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:01:29 EDT

Message no. 8 So far I must say that nothing I have read makes me want to buy SR3.

I am a GM and I prefer that characters in my game raise a little faster so
that I can throw them into bigger things.

The fact that metas do not get the same amount of karma pool as humans would
be one thing that I would not follow. The double cost for attributes would be
another and as I understand it skills will be more expensive also.

Then there is the change in pool......

In short I am worried about buying this latest book and then deciding that I
will stick with SR2. As I know that there are a few people that still play
SR1.

The only way that I will really know if I want to purchase this book is if a)
someone local buys it and I take a look at their book, or b) I read enough
about on this list that I can make a decision.

So as soon as people have the books, I would like to hear opinions about the
changes.

Thx,

Otter

From:	Jon Stoltenberg <rabiddwarf@******.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:02:49 -0500

Message no. 9 Mongoose wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
>

<Snippage>

> >Creating a Shadowrunner (Archetypes are going to be a term on the way out).
> >
>
> This is pretty damn well done- I hope to never have to explain to another
> new player how the priority system works, because they can go step by step
> with TWO examples.
> Metas are either C (troll / elf) or D (orc / dwarf), as Bull said. Trolls
> get a running mod of 3 and no willpower penalty, dwarves have no quickness
> penalty. Mike says this gibes with his straw poll on perceived race balance,
> and gives a "punch" to less popular races that SHOULD be common (the
dwarves
> and orcs are rare PC's in our campaign, and I think many others).
>

<snippage>

I was curious, was the character creation ONLY the priority system, or was the
point system also included?

--
Rabid Dwarf

Some people attempt to cope with reality.
I attempt to make reality cope with me.

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:11:52 -0400

Message no. 10 Once upon a time, Randy Nickel wrote;

>So far I must say that nothing I have read makes me want to buy SR3.

Well, we are not an advertisement.

>I am a GM and I prefer that characters in my game raise a little faster so
>that I can throw them into bigger things.

Award them more Karma or give a starting amount.

>The fact that metas do not get the same amount of karma pool as humans would
>be one thing that I would not follow. The double cost for attributes would be
>another and as I understand it skills will be more expensive also.

Attribute increases was the greatest abused feature with my old
gang. At twice the cost it's still a bargain!

>Then there is the change in pool......

It needed to be re-chlorinated.

>In short I am worried about buying this latest book and then deciding that I
>will stick with SR2. As I know that there are a few people that still play
>SR1.

And there are some people who still play AD&D and not any edition of
SR. None of that affects you.

>The only way that I will really know if I want to purchase this book is if a)
>someone local buys it and I take a look at their book, or b) I read enough
>about on this list that I can make a decision.

Now that sounds like you are making sense.

>So as soon as people have the books, I would like to hear opinions about the
>changes.

That's what I'm doing. And I'm just warming up. B>]#

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

CRY HAVOC! And let slip the flames of SR3

I am MC23

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:14:52 -0400

Message no. 11 Once upon a time, Jon Stoltenberg wrote;

>I was curious, was the character creation ONLY the priority system, or was
>the point system also included?

The Companion is still a valid book. There was no need to strip out huge
sections that didn't need to be in the core book.

Companion. <bleagh>

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

CRY HAVOC! And let slip the flames of SR3

I am MC23

From:	K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:20:39 EDT

Message no. 12 In a message dated 8/10/1998 6:17:01 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
evamarie@**********.net writes:

> Also, reach is not the single detriment of melee
> success, because the mod applies to only ONE combatant; also, successes
past
> those
> needed to stage melee damage to deadly increase POWER. (K- if this is
> mentioned anywhere besides the melee combat resolution procedure, please
> tell
> me)

I think I may have found what I was initially confused with/by. The Barrier
spells were redone considerably, and actually made them FAR more effective
IMO. They have the "what to do with the extra successes concept" rules nicely
stated within their description(s).

As for the damage beyond, I don't know. I may be getting the "treat the
manipulation as ranged combat" thing mixed up with Unarmed Combat. I finally
finished ready the whole thing tonight, and I KNOW I have to go over things
again just to be certain.

-K

From:	K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:34:43 EDT

Message no. 13 In a message dated 8/10/1998 7:38:17 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
erikj@****.COM writes:

> The skill is unlikely to ever come into play ever again, but it's an
> example of how even the goofiest skills selected initially just for RP
> purposes, can actually affect a game. If I play long enough, I fully
> expect to see something like "Underwater Basket Weaving" come into play
and
> affect a story line.
>
Actually, for some reason, I really recall this happening once, but I'm not
sure if it was underwater or not...it was a basket, and it did involve
weaving...but damn if I can remember the details this time..

-K

From:	NightLife <habenir@*****.UC.EDU>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:38:04 -0400

Message no. 14 snippty snip.

> Attributes cost more to raise (2x new rating to racial "max", 3x new
>rating to "max" x 1.5)- this makes them more than skills, and ties in to the
>new skill costs [raising a skill past a linked attribute is expensive, but
the
>cost of raising the attribute AND the skill is still more].

You know this was the only thing that I didn't like. The 1.5 seems too be a
bit much for me unless they plan to do the same for critters later on. But
for now I'm keeping with the racial max at the absolute limit until I see
something with a 50% thresehold increase to a critter stats. Other that
that they're definately on the ball.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"I am telling you nothing - merely asking you to remember that death come in
many shades. Some are harsh and infinitely painful to look upon; others can
be
as peaceful and beautiful as the setting sun. I am an artist, and many colors
lie on upon my palette. Let me paint him a rainbow, and give you the means to
decide where it ends."

Erik from the book Phantom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From:	Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:41:49 EDT

Message no. 15 In a message dated 11/08/98 00:38:35 Central Daylight Time,
habenir@*****.UC.EDU writes:

> You know this was the only thing that I didn't like. The 1.5 seems too be a
> bit much for me unless they plan to do the same for critters later on. But
> for now I'm keeping with the racial max at the absolute limit until I see
> something with a 50% thresehold increase to a critter stats. Other that
> that they're definately on the ball.

Actually, it already has a precedent (great thing about a small room is you
can reach everything from your chair). Check out page 232 of the BBB2 (as
opposed to the BBB1, BABY, or BBB3), second column. Exceptional critters can
go up to 50% above normal... its just that most meet the numbers as they are.

Nexx

From:	Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:57:26 -0700

Message no. 16 -----Original Message-----
From: Randy Nickel <LrdDrgn@***.COM>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [SR3] General Format

>So far I must say that nothing I have read makes me want to buy SR3.

Didn't you post just HOURS ago you'd pay EXTRA for a B.A.B.Y.? :)

>The fact that metas do not get the same amount of karma pool as humans would
>be one thing that I would not follow. The double cost for attributes would be
>another and as I understand it skills will be more expensive also.

The first wierds me out too, but might work once tried (I now LIKE humans
for SOMETHING!). The second makes total sense, epsicialy in the larger
picture of the skill sytem / costs. It also avoids the situation were the
easiest thing to do is to raise your stars to 6+, which makes all experienced
characters look the same. In point of fact, skills quite often cost LESS
under the new system, which is very cool.

>The only way that I will really know if I want to purchase this book is if a)
>someone local buys it and I take a look at their book, or b) I read enough
>about on this list that I can make a decision.

Thats a good idea in any case, IMO. It also seems likely a good idea to
start a new campaign for sr3, imo, so there's no need to rush if Sr2 works for
you.

Mongoose

From:	K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:53:03 EDT

Message no. 17 In a message dated 8/10/1998 11:07:32 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
mc23@**********.COM writes:

> > Metas are either C (troll / elf) or D (orc / dwarf), as Bull said.
> >Trolls
> >get a running mod of 3 and no willpower penalty, dwarves have no quickness
> >penalty. Mike says this gibes with his straw poll on perceived race
> balance,
> >and gives a "punch" to less popular races that SHOULD be common (the
> dwarves
> >and orcs are rare PC's in our campaign, and I think many others).
>
> Reducing the priority because nobody plays the is the most
> mechanically unsound thing I've heard. There are some new racial subtlies
> added so that I will play with these as-is to decide how they do work.
> For all you people out there wondering what I mean, Dwarves and Trolls
> now have a net +4 attribute bonus and now under gear suffer incresed
> prices for equipment that needs to be tailored for their size.

Which is how it should have been to begin with actually, the rules of SR3
merely take to heart the concept of "Realism" that so many out there seem to
rant and desire, but don't like once it comes to them.

> > It may be so well written, there will be no need to ever discuss SR3
> >specific rules questions on this list. :P
>
> riiiigggghhhhtttt..... I'm searching now for an answer to a question
> I already have.

And since you so desperately sought it out, you found it, and didn't even
appear to consider the reasons for a group mechanics versus "scene stealer"
power of the super-fast in previous editions.

-K

From:	Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 01:03:21 -0700

Message no. 18 >You know this was the only thing that I didn't like. The 1.5 seems too be a
>bit much for me unless they plan to do the same for critters later on. But
>for now I'm keeping with the racial max at the absolute limit until I see
>something with a 50% thresehold increase to a critter stats. Other that
>that they're definately on the ball.

>

We always used the optional rule from Sr2 that you could;d raise stats to
1.5 max for double cost- and feared the same was true for critters. Few
characters over used it, and none more than twice (once on body, once on
intelligence, in my case). Hell, at a minimum 15 karma (intelligence 5
troll), the new rule is NOT a give-away!

Mongoose

From:	Randy Nickel <LrdDrgn@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:07:38 EDT

Message no. 19 In a message dated 8/10/98 10:53:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
evamarie@**********.net writes:

> Didn't you post just HOURS ago you'd pay EXTRA for a B.A.B.Y.? :)
>

That would indeed be me. Though it was more of a collection issue. After
having a Hard Cover SR2, and seeing how quickly that fell apart, I would not
use the SR3 for gaming. I would purchase one of the soft covers and then tear
the pages out and punch holes in it so I could put in a binder. :)

BTW, cool name Mongoose!

Otter

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:14:07 -0400

Message no. 20 Once upon a time, K is the Symbol wrote;

>> riiiigggghhhhtttt..... I'm searching now for an answer to a question
>> I already have.
>
>And since you so desperately sought it out, you found it, and didn't even
>appear to consider the reasons for a group mechanics versus "scene stealer"
>power of the super-fast in previous editions.

That wasn't what I was looking for. That thing I found.
As far as not considering the affects of superfast characters, you have
forgotten many of my past posts on this lists! From the onset of SR1 we
were plagued by a host of speed demons. Many houserules were created to
deter and punish such abuses. I've had my share of "scene stealer" and do
my best to suppress them. I take high offense at your comment. Where the
hell did you ever come to that conclusion?

On a related note,
MC23's Houserules and Guide to Better Gardening: Recoil penalties
apply until end of Combat Turn. (as opposed to Combat Phase).
It's a SR1 playtest rule Dowd seemed to recall playing with before
finalization of SR1.

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

"Say what you mean, and say it mean!"
-Scraping Foetus off the Wheel, Ramrod

I am MC23

From:	Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:44:19 -0400

Message no. 21 At 01:53 AM 8/11/98 EDT, K is the Symbol wrote these timeless words:

>> > Metas are either C (troll / elf) or D (orc / dwarf), as Bull said.
>> >Trolls
>> >get a running mod of 3 and no willpower penalty, dwarves have no
quickness
>> >penalty. Mike says this gibes with his straw poll on perceived race
>> balance,
>> >and gives a "punch" to less popular races that SHOULD be common
(the
>> dwarves
>> >and orcs are rare PC's in our campaign, and I think many others).
>>
>> Reducing the priority because nobody plays the is the most
>> mechanically unsound thing I've heard. There are some new racial subtlies
>> added so that I will play with these as-is to decide how they do work.
>> For all you people out there wondering what I mean, Dwarves and Trolls
>> now have a net +4 attribute bonus and now under gear suffer incresed
>> prices for equipment that needs to be tailored for their size.
>
>Which is how it should have been to begin with actually, the rules of SR3
>merely take to heart the concept of "Realism" that so many out there seem to
>rant and desire, but don't like once it comes to them.
>
Just as a note, it was not done because of Realism or because of what races
were "unplayed", but because of WHY those races weren;t played.

Simply put, between Elves not having a penalty and the Trolls hugs bonuses
(Which I never thought were balanced by his penalties in the least. Body
is by far a more useful attribute than the others in 90% of the
situations), these were more powerful than the Orks and Dwarves, who got
more minimal bennies. I personally think they needed broken up a little
more, but... <grin>

I like the new system though :] But we all knew that already :]

Bull
--
Bull -- The Best Ork Decker You Never Met
chaos@*****.com ===== bull22@***********.com
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604

=======================================================
= =
= Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any Fours? =
= =
=======================================================

"Can the Gummi Worms really live in peace with the Marshmallow Chicks?"
-- Pinky, "Pinky and the Brain"

From:	Robert Nesius <nesius@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:12:07 -0700

Message no. 22 At 08:03 -0000 8/11/98, Mongoose wrote:
>>You know this was the only thing that I didn't like. The 1.5 seems too be a
>>bit much for me unless they plan to do the same for critters later on. But
>>for now I'm keeping with the racial max at the absolute limit until I see
>>something with a 50% thresehold increase to a critter stats. Other that
>>that they're definately on the ball.
>
>>
>
> We always used the optional rule from Sr2 that you could;d raise stats to
>1.5 max for double cost- and feared the same was true for critters. Few
>characters over used it, and none more than twice (once on body, once on
>intelligence, in my case). Hell, at a minimum 15 karma (intelligence 5
>troll), the new rule is NOT a give-away!
>
>Mongoose

My experiences are similar to Mongoose's.
The SR3 rules are what my houserules have been. Very very
rarely does anyone go above "standard racial max." x3 target cost is
very high. Mages especially never bother to spend karma when
they can buy spells. Hmmm. But those spell locks are gone.
Hmmmm. Interesting implications.

-Rob

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Nesius | Forget that polygon/second crap. Angband beats all
nesius@******.com | "next-gen" games, and does so w/ ASCII characters.

From:	Lehlan Decker <DeckerL@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format -Reply
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:43:59 -0400

Message no. 23 > Reducing the priority because nobody plays the is the most
>mechanically unsound thing I've heard. There are some new
>racial subtlies
>added so that I will play with these as-is to decide how they do
>work.
>For all you people out there wondering what I mean, Dwarves
>and Trolls
>now have a net +4 attribute bonus and now under gear suffer
>incresed prices for equipment that needs to be tailored for their
>size.
> It may be so well written, there will be no need to ever discuss
SR3
>specific rules questions on this list. :P
>riiiigggghhhhtttt..... I'm searching now for an answer to a
>question I already have.
I'll go with MC23 on this, I've never found a game yet I didn't
have house rules for. However....I spent last night digging
through the book (my girlfriend may never speak to me again).
In general I like the new character generation, and the
examples are wonderful, giving the races differing priorities
bothers me a bit, and having them have karma pools
at different rates bothers me as well. (And if for some
reason you liked the exotic races of shifters from SRComp,
you now have a third priority for race?!?!).
However, overall I will reserve judgement until I play a few
games. The book is beautiful, the editing very nice, the art
fantastic. Overall I may not agree with everything, but they
did a damn good job clarifying, explaining, etc. However I want
MITS now! Not in January. :) (I also miss more critters, but I'll
wait for the GM Screen)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker, Unix Admin (704)331-1149
deckerl@******.com Fax 331-1159
Moore & Van Allen, PLLC Pager 1-888-608-9633

From:	Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:33:38 -0500

Message no. 24 >> For all you people out there wondering what I mean, Dwarves and
>> Trolls now have a net +4 attribute bonus and now under gear suffer
>> incresed prices for equipment that needs to be tailored for their
>> size.
>
>Which is how it should have been to begin with actually, the rules of SR3
>merely take to heart the concept of "Realism" that so many out there seem
to
>rant and desire, but don't like once it comes to them.

Now this part I tend to buy into, since clothes and equipment for trolls, at
least, *would* cost more. I spent some time writing an article a while back
on something similar to this.

Did they change the basic body weights for the various metaraces? Most of
those were so far off as to be ridiculous.

>> riiiigggghhhhtttt..... I'm searching now for an answer to a question
>> I already have.
>
>And since you so desperately sought it out, you found it, and didn't even
>appear to consider the reasons for a group mechanics versus "scene stealer"
>power of the super-fast in previous editions.

If what I've read of the speed vs. skill problem, from MC23's description,
is accurate, I think I'm going to have to side with MC23 on this issue. Of
course, it'll help once I actually have SR3 in hand to see for myself, but
something sounds drastically off-kilter.

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:51:36 -0400

Message no. 25 Once upon a time, Patrick Goodman wrote;

>Did they change the basic body weights for the various metaraces? Most of
>those were so far off as to be ridiculous.

In fact they did.

From:	Justin Bell <justin@******.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:54:19 -0500

Message no. 26 At 09:51 AM 8/11/98 -0400, MC23 wrote:
# Once upon a time, Patrick Goodman wrote;
#
# >Did they change the basic body weights for the various metaraces? Most of
# >those were so far off as to be ridiculous.
#
# In fact they did.

are they more realistic?

--
/- justin@************.com ---------------- justin@******.net -\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Simon & Schuster | Attention span is quickening. |
|Programmer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\------------ http://www.mcp.com/people/justin/ ---------------/

From:	Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:59:11 -0500

Message no. 27 >>Did they change the basic body weights for the various metaraces? Most of
>>those were so far off as to be ridiculous.
>
>In fact they did.

Happy happy joy joy...I was wondering how much of a rewrite I was going to
have to do....

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:39:11 -0400

Message no. 28 Once upon a time, Justin Bell wrote;

>At 09:51 AM 8/11/98 -0400, MC23 wrote:
># Once upon a time, Patrick Goodman wrote;
>#
># >Did they change the basic body weights for the various metaraces? Most of
># >those were so far off as to be ridiculous.
>#
># In fact they did.
>
>are they more realistic?

Average Weights
Dwarf 54 kg
Elf 72 kg
Human 70 kg
Ork 95 kg
Troll 225 kg

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

CRY HAVOC! And let slip the flames of SR3

I am MC23

From:	Justin Bell <justin@******.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:42:39 -0500

Message no. 29 At 10:39 AM 8/11/98 -0400, MC23 wrote:
# Once upon a time, Justin Bell wrote;
#
# Average Weights
# Dwarf 54 kg
# Elf 72 kg
# Human 70 kg
# Ork 95 kg
# Troll 225 kg
my god!
that is almost 1/4 of a tonne

--
/- justin@************.com ---------------- justin@******.net -\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Simon & Schuster | Attention span is quickening. |
|Programmer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\------------ http://www.mcp.com/people/justin/ ---------------/

From:	Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:43:50 -0500

Message no. 30 > Average Weights
>Dwarf 54 kg
>Elf 72 kg
>Human 70 kg
>Ork 95 kg
>Troll 225 kg

Getting better, they are, but at 2.8m, a troll is likely to weigh a lot more
than that. We'll have to see how much of a rewrite this is going to cause
until we get the book, though....

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

From:	Matt Penn <steelclaw@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format)
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:53:09 -0400

Message no. 31 On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:21:11 -0700 Robert Nesius <nesius@******.COM>
writes:

>No kidding? I see lots of Orks and Dwarves in the games I've
>played over the years. If people aren't playing them because of
>a perceived, or even actual, inequity in attribute adjustments
>at creation, well, fooey on them. :)

Yeah. Granted, I haven't been in that many games but for my new campaign
the first metatype picked was a Dwarf. Though I can see why some
wouldn't care much for Orks nor Dwarves. Munchies would figure that if
you're going to pick something strong and ugly, you might as well go all
the way for the Troll. Everybody loves Elves, whereas Dwarves are short.
Still, I've never seen a lack of any metatype in games I've seen/played
in. 'Cept humans.

-Matt, Homo Sapiens Robustus
"How could you *not* wanna play an Ork?! We're da drek."

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	Tim Burke <ranger@********.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:59:13 +1000

Message no. 32 At 12:43 AM 8/12/98 , you wrote:
>> Average Weights
>>Dwarf 54 kg
>>Elf 72 kg
>>Human 70 kg
>>Ork 95 kg
>>Troll 225 kg
>
>Getting better, they are, but at 2.8m, a troll is likely to weigh a lot more
>than that. We'll have to see how much of a rewrite this is going to cause
>until we get the book, though....
>
>---
>(>) Texas 2-Step

225kg for a troll seems to be quite realistic. I'm two metres tall and I
weigh about half that and I'm a solid guy. The thing that gets me is
elves having a higher average body weight than humans. Can this be
right or is it a typo? Surely an elf would have a lower average body
weight.

And on to the question that I have been dying to ask

DOES SR3 HAVE A COHERENT INDEX IN THE BACK???????????

Cheers,
Tim Burke
Brisbane, Australia.

Who's happy cause he just bagged Universal Brotherhood
_and_ SR3 will be in stock in Australia _this_ week!!! WooHoo!!

From:	Lehlan Decker <DeckerL@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format -Reply
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:14:12 -0400

Message no. 33 <Snip a troll's body weight :)>

>DOES SR3 HAVE A COHERENT INDEX IN THE
>BACK???????????
Actually the index in both front and back, is quite good IMHO.
I found APDS, Foci, and various other topics fairly quickly.
Its not perfect, but I'd say its a huge huge improvement.
The editing was much better as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker, Unix Admin (704)331-1149
deckerl@******.com Fax 331-1159
Moore & Van Allen, PLLC Pager 1-888-608-9633

From:	Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:12:16 -0500

Message no. 34 >>>Elf 72 kg
>>>Human 70 kg
>>>Troll 225 kg

The others weren't in contention, and it looks like they fixed my
biggest gripe about dwarves, so....

>>Getting better, they are, but at 2.8m, a troll is likely to weigh a
>>lot more than that.
>
>225kg for a troll seems to be quite realistic. I'm two metres tall and
I
>weigh about half that and I'm a solid guy.

225 kg for a troll is still way light, Tim. We'll use you as an
example, since you volunteered. <g>

Weight is a product of three dimensions, length (height) x width x
depth. You stand 200 cm tall, and for ease of mathematics I'll say 100
kg. A troll is 80 cm taller than you, or about 140% of your total
height. That 1.4 times isn't just an increase in height, though; it's
also an increase in body depth through the chest, and an increase in
width. So that 1.4 gets cubed; 1.4 x 1.4 x 1.4 = 2.744. Multiply that
by the easy math weight of 100 kg, and you get 274.4 kg that you would
weigh if you were 280 cm tall and maintained your proportional weight.

Now, add the extra muscle mass a troll has (Strength bonus) and the
better body fat ratio (Body bonus) they have, all of which increase
mass, and the extra bone (dermal plating) in their epidermis, and
they're going to be a hell of a lot heavier than that.

>The thing that gets me is elves having a higher average body weight
than
>humans. Can this be right or is it a typo? Surely an elf would have a
lower
>average body weight.

Why wouldn't they? They're 20 cm taller on average than humans, and
it's only 2 kg. They're still light for their size.

From:	Steve Collins <einan@*********.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:42:21 -0400

Message no. 35 >At 12:43 AM 8/12/98 , you wrote:
>>> Average Weights
>>>Dwarf 54 kg
>>>Elf 72 kg
>>>Human 70 kg
>>>Ork 95 kg
>>>Troll 225 kg
>>
>>Getting better, they are, but at 2.8m, a troll is likely to weigh a lot more
>>than that. We'll have to see how much of a rewrite this is going to cause
>>until we get the book, though....
>>
>>---
>>(>) Texas 2-Step
>
>225kg for a troll seems to be quite realistic. I'm two metres tall and I
>weigh about half that and I'm a solid guy. The thing that gets me is
>elves having a higher average body weight than humans. Can this be
>right or is it a typo? Surely an elf would have a lower average body
>weight.
>

The Troll and Ork seem about right, but the other three seem a little
light to me although I'm not too sure about the dwarf because I don't
know how tall they are on average, anything over about 1.25M (~4.25ft)
has them too light. Humans males weigh on average about 80 to 85 Kg (175
to 185 lbs) at an average height of 1.85m (6 ft) Females are on average
20% smaller both height and weight. Elves are supposed to be taller and
thinner than humans so they may have about the same average weight or
slightly less but probably not more, somewhere around 80kg average weight
and 2.05 cm average height.

Steve

From:	Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:37:49 -0400

Message no. 36 At 08:13 PM 8/10/98 -0700, you wrote:

> The material that was playtested was genrally used in SOME form, but it
>would have been tough to predict that form from just playtesting. Intiaitve
>and the (final) character creation changed little- the magic rules are NOT
>always the ones we tested- they are better!

Which would indicate to me that perhaps playtest comments did indeed make a
difference, at least with magic. Thanks for the info.

> That's truly twisted. OTOH, I played a mage with the "time sense" edge,
>and found almost as many uses. One thing I noticed; SR3 doesn't NEED the
>M+F's from the SRC to make interesting characters.

M+F's? Do you mean Edges and Flaws? That's the one bit I've been using
from the Companion to really try and push the PCs out of the cookie cutter
and into something more real, if not odd. But you are right, used
properly, various bits from CharGen that I saw do make for more interesting
PCs.

Thanks.

Erik J.

http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World

From:	Duncan McNeillBurton <dmcneill@************.EDU>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 13:48:07 -0400

Message no. 37 On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Steve Collins wrote:

> >At 12:43 AM 8/12/98 , you wrote:
> >>> Average Weights
> >>>Dwarf 54 kg
> >>>Elf 72 kg
> >>>Human 70 kg
> >>>Ork 95 kg
> >>>Troll 225 kg
>

< snip >

> The Troll and Ork seem about right, but the other three seem a little
> light to me although I'm not too sure about the dwarf because I don't
> know how tall they are on average, anything over about 1.25M (~4.25ft)
> has them too light. Humans males weigh on average about 80 to 85 Kg (175
> to 185 lbs) at an average height of 1.85m (6 ft) Females are on average
> 20% smaller both height and weight. Elves are supposed to be taller and
> thinner than humans so they may have about the same average weight or
> slightly less but probably not more, somewhere around 80kg average weight
> and 2.05 cm average height.

The average human male is not 6 feet tall by any stretch of his own
imagination. The average is closer to 5'9". The last I saw placed the
US average at 5'10". FASA's numbers for humans are pretty accurate,
though I have yet to see any artwork that gives justiceto the sheer
hugeness of trolls.

Later-
Duncan McNeill-Burton
-Smiter of 39 days...and short guys who lie about their height

From:	Mongoose <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:46:19 -0700

Message no. 38 > Reducing the priority because nobody plays the is the most
>mechanically unsound thing I've heard.

"Mechanically Unsound"? What does that mean- that they obvious mathmatic
aspects of the characters don't balance? In's the fact that few people choose
them an indication of some inferiority? It would be in any other supply and
demand situatuation. I personally don't play trolls because, if knocked out,
your often left behind (to heavy to move)- whres that work into "mechanical
soundness"?

>There are some new racial subtlies
>added so that I will play with these as-is to decide how they do work.
>For all you people out there wondering what I mean, Dwarves and Trolls
>now have a net +4 attribute bonus and now under gear suffer incresed
>prices for equipment that needs to be tailored for their size.
>

And of course, the karma pool bite on all metahumans. Ouch.

>> It may be so well written, there will be no need to ever discuss SR3
>>specific rules questions on this list. :P
>
> riiiigggghhhhtttt..... I'm searching now for an answer to a question
>I already have.
>

That was a JOKE, all you people. (note the :P ) I have no doubt that
some big issues will come up- but I doubt it will be something as glaring as
G******** T****** Q********.

Mongoose

From:	Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:01:56 -0500

Message no. 39 >Humans males weigh on average about 80 to 85 Kg (175
>to 185 lbs) at an average height of 1.85m (6 ft)

Average human height, worldwide, is about 5'8" or so; SR puts them at
about 5'7", which is about right. I'm curious where you came up with
the 6' figure you provided.

>Females are on average 20% smaller both height and weight.

Where'd you get this? If it's more than about 10% worldwide, I'd be
kind of surprised.

>Elves are supposed to be taller and thinner than humans so they may
have
>about the same average weight or slightly less but probably not more,
>somewhere around 80kg average weight and 2.05 cm average height.

The actual math doesn't bear you out. Even if an elf is 80% of the
weight of a human the same height, the body weight will still come out
to 78kg, at the game-standard height of 190cm. At 205cm, at 80% of a
proportional human's weight, they'd be around 98kg (a SR human at 205cm
would be aroun 123kg).

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

From:	Steve Collins <einan@*********.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:21:47 -0400

Message no. 40 >The average human male is not 6 feet tall by any stretch of his own
>imagination. The average is closer to 5'9". The last I saw placed the
>US average at 5'10". FASA's numbers for humans are pretty accurate,
>though I have yet to see any artwork that gives justiceto the sheer
>hugeness of trolls.
>
>Later-
>Duncan McNeill-Burton
>-Smiter of 39 days...and short guys who lie about their height
>

Oops my bad I tend to think large anyway as I am 6'1" 325lbs. I was
thinking of the average height of my generation in america which from
what I have heard is the tallest in history, averaging 5'11" for men. I
was not thinking of the worldwide average. The difference between men and
women I quoted was for body mass not height. The height difference is
anly about 4 or 5 inches >10%. Another case where I should take the time
to think before ripping a post off the top of my head :).

Steve

From:	"Frank Pelletier (Trinity)" <jeanpell@****.QC.CA>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:43:12 -0400

Message no. 41 Steve Collins <einan@*********.NET> once wrote,

>Oops my bad I tend to think large anyway as I am 6'1" 325lbs. I was
>thinking of the average height of my generation in america which from
>what I have heard is the tallest in history, averaging 5'11" for men. I
>was not thinking of the worldwide average. The difference between men and
>women I quoted was for body mass not height. The height difference is
>anly about 4 or 5 inches >10%. Another case where I should take the time
>to think before ripping a post off the top of my head :).
>
>Steve

Nah, it's a fact...this generation (18-25) is taller than the last. I'm
6'5'' myself, and I have a couple of friends who are taller than me. Most of
them are over 5'10'' (Hell, my sister is 16 and 5'10''). It's not
surprising for us "young'uns" to look down on our elders, just because we're
a lot taller than them. Evolution, I guess... but I wonder what pushes us
to grow taller. It's not like there's some basic survival need we're
fulfulling with that. *shrugs*

Trinity
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca
This message was brought to you by Asian Dub Foundation - "Rafi's Revenge"

"Happy Happy...Joy Joy" - Ren&Stimpy

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:51:03 -0400

Message no. 42 Once upon a time, Frank Pelletier (Trinity) wrote;

>Nah, it's a fact...this generation (18-25) is taller than the last. I'm
>6'5'' myself, and I have a couple of friends who are taller than me. Most of
>them are over 5'10'' (Hell, my sister is 16 and 5'10''). It's not
>surprising for us "young'uns" to look down on our elders, just because we're
>a lot taller than them. Evolution, I guess... but I wonder what pushes us
>to grow taller. It's not like there's some basic survival need we're
>fulfulling with that. *shrugs*

Diet.

From:	John E Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:52:57 -0500

Message no. 43 Frank Pelletier (Trinity) wrote:

> Nah, it's a fact...this generation (18-25) is taller than the last. I'm
> 6'5'' myself, and I have a couple of friends who are taller than me. Most of
> them are over 5'10'' (Hell, my sister is 16 and 5'10''). It's not
> surprising for us "young'uns" to look down on our elders, just because
we're
> a lot taller than them. Evolution, I guess... but I wonder what pushes us
> to grow taller. It's not like there's some basic survival need we're
> fulfulling with that. *shrugs*

Hormones. The stuff they treat cows with, you know?
Each generation is usually better fed than the one(s) previous to it.

--
John Pederson otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes
convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a
spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we
with our modest powers must feel humble."
--Albert Einstein
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com pedersje@******.rose-hulman.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
"I'm not fifty!" "SPOONMAN!!!" Number Two -- with a bullet!

From:	Justin Bell <justin@******.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:59:19 -0500

Message no. 44 At 05:51 PM 8/11/98 -0400, MC23 wrote:
# Once upon a time, Frank Pelletier (Trinity) wrote;
#
# >Nah, it's a fact...this generation (18-25) is taller than the last. I'm
# >6'5'' myself, and I have a couple of friends who are taller than me.
Most of
# >them are over 5'10'' (Hell, my sister is 16 and 5'10''). It's not
# >surprising for us "young'uns" to look down on our elders, just because
we're
# >a lot taller than them. Evolution, I guess... but I wonder what pushes us
# >to grow taller. It's not like there's some basic survival need we're
# >fulfulling with that. *shrugs*
#
# Diet.

well... and improvements in living conditions in the last century

--
/- justin@************.com ---------------- justin@******.net -\
|Justin Bell NIC:JB3084| Time and rules are changing. |
|Simon & Schuster | Attention span is quickening. |
|Programmer | Welcome to the Information Age. |
\------------ http://www.mcp.com/people/justin/ ---------------/

From:	Steve Collins <einan@*********.NET>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:30:24 -0400

Message no. 45 >Steve Collins <einan@*********.NET> once wrote,
>
>>Oops my bad I tend to think large anyway as I am 6'1" 325lbs. I was
>>thinking of the average height of my generation in america which from
>>what I have heard is the tallest in history, averaging 5'11" for men. I
>>was not thinking of the worldwide average. The difference between men and
>>women I quoted was for body mass not height. The height difference is
>>anly about 4 or 5 inches >10%. Another case where I should take the time
>>to think before ripping a post off the top of my head :).
>>
>>Steve
>
>Nah, it's a fact...this generation (18-25) is taller than the last. I'm
>6'5'' myself, and I have a couple of friends who are taller than me. Most of
>them are over 5'10'' (Hell, my sister is 16 and 5'10''). It's not
>surprising for us "young'uns" to look down on our elders, just because we're
>a lot taller than them. Evolution, I guess... but I wonder what pushes us
>to grow taller. It's not like there's some basic survival need we're
>fulfulling with that. *shrugs*
>

It seems to have two causes. Better nutrition and health care during
youth, and the extensive use of growth hormones in the meat supply which
in turn end up in our bodies.

Steve

From:	David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:15:50 -0400

Message no. 46 On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, MC23 wrote:

->Once upon a time, Frank Pelletier (Trinity) wrote;
->
->>Nah, it's a fact...this generation (18-25) is taller than the last. I'm
->>6'5'' myself, and I have a couple of friends who are taller than me. Most of
->>them are over 5'10'' (Hell, my sister is 16 and 5'10''). It's not
->>surprising for us "young'uns" to look down on our elders, just because
we're
->>a lot taller than them. Evolution, I guess... but I wonder what pushes us
->>to grow taller. It's not like there's some basic survival need we're
->>fulfulling with that. *shrugs*
->
->Diet.
->
I'm 6'5" myself and have often wondered where on Earth all
my height came from. Your post made me think: growth hormones in the
food we have been eating might explain our generational tendency toward
increased heights. Notice many third-world basketball players over 7 feet
tall? Perhaps the combination of magic and the residual genetic traces of
growth hormones could contribute to Dwarves, Orks and Trolls in
Shadowrun... just a piece of food for thought.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?

From:	MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:54:36 -0400

Message no. 47 Once upon a time, David Foster wrote;

>On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, MC23 wrote:
>->Diet.
>->
> I'm 6'5" myself and have often wondered where on Earth all
>my height came from. Your post made me think: growth hormones in the
>food we have been eating might explain our generational tendency toward
>increased heights. Notice many third-world basketball players over 7 feet
>tall? Perhaps the combination of magic and the residual genetic traces of
>growth hormones could contribute to Dwarves, Orks and Trolls in
>Shadowrun... just a piece of food for thought.

The Japanese average height increase has been attributed to (&
coinsides with) the introduction of Western foods into their regular
diet. You are what you eat, neh?

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

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle
- G.I.Joe

I am MC23

From:	Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:02:32 +1000

From:	Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:04:35 +1200

Message no. 49 Quoth Lady Jestyr (1303 12-8-98 NZT):

>> _and_ SR3 will be in stock in Australia _this_ week!!! WooHoo!!
>
>It WILL??? How do you know?!

And do you know if it'll be available on the Kiwi side of the Tasman
soon?

Danyel Woods - 9604801@********.ac.nz
Please, let it be so!

From:	Bai Shen <baishen@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: [SR3] General Format
Date:	Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:51:46 -0400

Message no. 50 > > The skill is unlikely to ever come into play ever again, but it's an
> > example of how even the goofiest skills selected initially just for RP
> > purposes, can actually affect a game. If I play long enough, I fully
> > expect to see something like "Underwater Basket Weaving" come into
play and
> > affect a story line.
> Actually, for some reason, I really recall this happening once, but I'm not
> sure if it was underwater or not...it was a basket, and it did involve
> weaving...but damn if I can remember the details this time..

I've never used it, but one of the people on one of the lists I'm on
had. One of the chars could do a divination in still water. However,
none of the group had anything to hold water in. So, the char with the
basket weaving skill made a basket so that the other char could preform
the divination, IIRC.
--
Bai Shen
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
http://www.series2000.com/users/baishen
UIN 3543257 (Don't ask to join if you aren't going to send me anything.)

Message no. 51 In a message dated 98-08-11 17:46:21 EDT, you write:

> Nah, it's a fact...this generation (18-25) is taller than the last. I'm
> 6'5'' myself, and I have a couple of friends who are taller than me. Most
of
> them are over 5'10'' (Hell, my sister is 16 and 5'10''). It's not
> surprising for us "young'uns" to look down on our elders, just because
we're
> a lot taller than them. Evolution, I guess... but I wonder what pushes us
> to grow taller. It's not like there's some basic survival need we're
> fulfulling with that. *shrugs*

Also, though, the shorter people are getting shorter. I'm big myself (6'4",
275#), but I know several people who don't come much higher than midchest on
me (about 5')...

Nexx

Message no. 52 Am I going blind, what did they exactly do to the Group karma award rules in
SR3?

All I found was about one to two sentences stating how a group could get up to
10-12 karma, (or something like that) while they list out the individual karma
awards.

I found this kind of odd since it's potentially confusing for someone who
would be starting out running Shadowrun, not having a guideline of some sort
for group karma.

Of course I could be just missing the whole thing, but I figured I might as
well ask anyway.

Jalong1

Message no. 53 On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:43:50 -0500 Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET> writes:
>> Average Weights
>>Dwarf 54 kg
>>Elf 72 kg
>>Human 70 kg
>>Ork 95 kg
>>Troll 225 kg

>Getting better, they are, but at 2.8m, a troll is likely to weigh a lot
more
>than that. We'll have to see how much of a rewrite this is going to
cause
>until we get the book, though....
>
>---
<SNIP>

Okay, I don't have a copy of SR3 (yet :) so I don't know if the average
heights have changed (I'm guessing they didn't since weights didn't
change) ... however according to heights in SR2 (pg 36-38), a human with
the same height should weigh:

Dwarf (1.2 m) 24 kg
Elf (1.9 m) 96 kg
Human (1.7 m) 69 kg
Ork (1.9 m) 96 kg
Troll (2.8 m) 308 kg

According to build/body proportions differences, Trolls and Dwarves
should weigh more than a human of the same height and elves would weigh
slightly less.

In RM (Where I got this formula from), elves weigh 75% less (which would
give them an average wt of 72 kg) and dwarves, IIRC (still can't find RMC
1 :~( ), weigh 125% more (which would give them an average wt of 30 kgs).
Trolls would probably have some obscene 150% or more of normal weight
since they have longer arms, shorter legs (which means more of that
height is trunk), and different bone structure (including dermal deposits
and probably thicker skulls). I can easily see trolls have 150-175% of a
normal humans weight (making the average troll weigh in at 461-538 kgs
[and you want a motorcycle that'll carry a troll???]).

(The above was calculated using: Ht x Ht x Ht x .00136 x .08898 x.08898 x
47 with Ht being in inches and the result being in pounds mass and all
neccisary conversions handled by Quatro Pro 8)

D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
o/` Trideo killed the Video Star ... o/`

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 54 >> We always used the optional rule from Sr2 that you could;d raise
stats to
>>1.5 max for double cost- and feared the same was true for critters. Few
>>characters over used it, and none more than twice (once on body, once on
>>intelligence, in my case). Hell, at a minimum 15 karma (intelligence 5
>>troll), the new rule is NOT a give-away!
>>
>>Mongoose
>
>My experiences are similar to Mongoose's.
>The SR3 rules are what my houserules have been. Very very
>rarely does anyone go above "standard racial max." x3 target cost is
>very high. Mages especially never bother to spend karma when
>they can buy spells. Hmmm. But those spell locks are gone.
>Hmmmm. Interesting implications.

I can't just see it that way for myself. Oh well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"I am telling you nothing - merely asking you to remember that death come in
many shades. Some are harsh and infinitely painful to look upon; others can
be
as peaceful and beautiful as the setting sun. I am an artist, and many colors
lie on upon my palette. Let me paint him a rainbow, and give you the means to
decide where it ends."

Erik from the book Phantom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Message no. 55 At 11:02 AM 8/12/98 , you wrote:
>> _and_ SR3 will be in stock in Australia _this_ week!!! WooHoo!!
>
>It WILL??? How do you know?!
>
>Lady Jestyr
>

Lady J,

I've had e-mail correspondence with Colin from MilSims in
Melbourne saying that SR3 is expected to be available for
shipping either Friday or early next week. He didn't mention
a price though but told me to check back Friday.

Cheers,
Tim Burke
Brisbane, Australia
ranger@********.com.au

Message no. 56 >Okay, I don't have a copy of SR3 (yet :) so I don't know if the average
>heights have changed (I'm guessing they didn't since weights didn't
>change)

Heights haven't changed, but the weights have, in some cases significantly,
from SR2.

>...according to heights in SR2 (pg 36-38), a human with
>the same height should weigh:
>
>Dwarf (1.2 m) 24 kg

I get 24.6; something might be getting lost in the conversion.

>Elf (1.9 m) 96 kg

97.7.

>Human (1.7 m) 69 kg

70, as per the SR3 weights given (my baseline).

>Ork (1.9 m) 96 kg

Again, 97.7. They got this one the closest.

>Troll (2.8 m) 308 kg

312.7. We both appear to be on the same basic page; either it's getting
lost in translation, or our formulae differ slightly.

>According to build/body proportions differences, Trolls and Dwarves
>should weigh more than a human of the same height and elves would weigh
>slightly less.

Orks should weigh more, too. Alfredo, I've got something you might want to
read. I'm trying to get it cleaned up for SR3 as soon as I get it, but the
SR2 version is ready now.

>In RM (Where I got this formula from),

RM? Scouring my game shelves, I can't find anything with that particular
acronym.

>elves weigh 75% less (which would
>give them an average wt of 72 kg) and dwarves, IIRC (still can't find RMC
>1 :~( ), weigh 125% more (which would give them an average wt of 30 kgs).

My multiples are based on one man's WAG about how Strength and Body equate
to body weight, and then just some plain old WAGs. Didn't give elves 75%
(gave them 80%), and dwarves are *really* big with the multiplier....

>(The above was calculated using: Ht x Ht x Ht x .00136 x .08898 x.08898 x
>47 with Ht being in inches and the result being in pounds mass and all
>neccisary conversions handled by Quatro Pro 8)

I just used (New Height / Base Height)^3 x 70 and a calculator.

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

Message no. 57 In a message dated 8/12/1998 10:03:46 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
remo@***.NET writes:

> >In RM (Where I got this formula from),
>
> RM? Scouring my game shelves, I can't find anything with that particular
> acronym.
>
I think for some reason that he's using "Rolemaster" and looking for his
"Rolemaster Companion Vol. 1".

Remo, a note of advice, do NOT try and convert too many ideas to SR on this
kind of stuff from other game systems. I heard from Mike and a few of the
other FASA SR people a couple of reasons' why not this last week, and they
make sense.

The simplest one???

Shadowrun (FASA) is a unique world, we don't take from anyone else, we can
stand on our own.

-K (god I loved this last week)

Message no. 58 >> >In RM (Where I got this formula from),
>>
>> RM? Scouring my game shelves, I can't find anything with that
particular
>> acronym.
>
>I think for some reason that he's using "Rolemaster" and looking for his
>"Rolemaster Companion Vol. 1".

That appears to be the case from what Adam mentioned a little while ago. I
think I looked at Rolemaster once,

>Remo, a note of advice, do NOT try and convert too many ideas to SR on
>this kind of stuff from other game systems.

I'm not. That sort of thing doesn't appeal to me at all, and I'm curious as
to how you got the impression that I was doing so. The article I'm
submitting to TSS is simply one man's WAG on what the weights should be for
the different races.

>I heard from Mike and a few of the other FASA SR people a couple of
>reasons' why not this last week, and they make sense.
>
>The simplest one???
>
>Shadowrun (FASA) is a unique world, we don't take from anyone else, we
>can stand on our own.

And so they can just ignore basic mathematics at will, eh? Sorry...don't
buy it.

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

Message no. 59 In a message dated 8/12/1998 12:30:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
remo@***.NET writes:

> >Shadowrun (FASA) is a unique world, we don't take from anyone else, we
> >can stand on our own.
>
> And so they can just ignore basic mathematics at will, eh? Sorry...don't
> buy it.

No, that is not what I was saying at all, and making those kind of drastic
comparisons is bad for the feel of things overall. What was intended was "we
can come up with the mathematics, and draw inspiration sure, but we aren't
going to go so far as to steal or plagiarize anyone else's product. (the
previous was a paraphrasement, not a quote).

-K

Message no. 60 >> >Shadowrun (FASA) is a unique world, we don't take from anyone
>> >else, we can stand on our own.
>>
>> And so they can just ignore basic mathematics at will, eh?
>> Sorry...don't buy it.
>
>No, that is not what I was saying at all, and making those kind of drastic
>comparisons is bad for the feel of things overall.

That's just the way I interpreted what you said; I've been wrong before,
I'll be wrong again someday. I've learned to deal with it, more or less.

>What was intended was "we can come
>up with the mathematics, and draw inspiration sure, but we aren't
>going to go so far as to steal or plagiarize anyone else's product.
>(the previous was a paraphrasement, not a quote).

Please tell me you're not drawing the conclusion that I plagiarized or
copied some other system, since I'll be quite offended if you do. I didn't
base the system I use for character weights on anything other than basic
solid geometry and some basic gut instincts on how stats contribute to the
character's weight.

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

Message no. 61 In a message dated 8/12/1998 1:52:20 PM US Eastern Standard Time, remo@***.NET
writes:

> >What was intended was "we can come
> >up with the mathematics, and draw inspiration sure, but we aren't
> >going to go so far as to steal or plagiarize anyone else's product.
> >(the previous was a paraphrasement, not a quote).
>
> Please tell me you're not drawing the conclusion that I plagiarized or
> copied some other system, since I'll be quite offended if you do. I didn't
> base the system I use for character weights on anything other than basic
> solid geometry and some basic gut instincts on how stats contribute to the
> character's weight.

No, actually I was not saying so, and if I did sound that way, I do apologize
up front and now.

Along the original topic of character weight, has *anyone* figured out some
better concepts of physicality of a metahuman beyond 'comparing them to us'???

-K

Message no. 62 On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Patrick Goodman wrote:

->Please tell me you're not drawing the conclusion that I plagiarized or
->copied some other system, since I'll be quite offended if you do. I didn't
->base the system I use for character weights on anything other than basic
->solid geometry and some basic gut instincts on how stats contribute to the
->character's weight.

I happen to agree with you. I never understood why they put that
table in Shadowrun Companion anyway. My players just choose how much
their characters weigh. If it sounds like it makes sense, I let them go
at it and play. Formulae are not necessary... honestly. Just make up a
gut number and run with it.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?

Message no. 63 >> Please tell me you're not drawing the conclusion that I plagiarized
>> or copied some other system, since I'll be quite offended if you do.
>> I didn't base the system I use for character weights on anything other
>> than basic solid geometry and some basic gut instincts on how stats
>> contribute to the character's weight.
>
>No, actually I was not saying so, and if I did sound that way, I do
apologize
>up front and now.

'Salright; it's been kind of a bad day/week and I was a little cranky
myself. I, too, apologize for snapping.

>Along the original topic of character weight, has *anyone* figured out
>some better concepts of physicality of a metahuman beyond 'comparing
>them to us'???

Such as? Keith, metas are humans, too, and frankly, we don't *have* another
means of comparing them to anything that I can see. I used some multipliers
based on stats and stat bonuses (and some fudge factors, in the case of a
couple of variant races from SRComp), but basically, that's the only weigh I
know to compare things. I have a decent imagination, but a limited frame of
reference, seeing as how I've never seen a troll.

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

Message no. 64 >I never understood why they put that table in Shadowrun Companion
>anyway.

This is going to sound stupid, David, but...what table in SRComp?

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

Message no. 65 In a message dated 8/13/1998 12:19:58 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
remo@***.NET writes:

> >I never understood why they put that table in Shadowrun Companion
> >anyway.
>
> This is going to sound stupid, David, but...what table in SRComp?

IF I remember the correct / original topic, I think he is referring to the
table of allergies and their values vs. intensities (proper description for
such?) within the Edges/Flaws section of that text.

-K

Message no. 66 >> >I never understood why they put that table in Shadowrun
>> >Companion anyway.
>>
>> This is going to sound stupid, David, but...what table in SRComp?
>
>IF I remember the correct / original topic, I think he is referring
>to the table of allergies and their values vs. intensities (proper
>description for such?) within the Edges/Flaws section of that text.

No, we were talking about character body weights; he dropped me a private
note that jogged my memory. There's not a table in SRComp, but there is one
to get an approximate weight in CYBERTECHNOLOGY, p. 52. It's based soley on
Body, doesn't take Strength into account, and it doesn't work.

---
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer