Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:36:28 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Tarek Okail wrote:

> Let's compare;

[SNIP comparison]

> SR3- Result: Joe shoots before the tiger attacks.
> modified SR2- Result: Joe shoots before the tiger attacks.

Only in this particular circumstance. Had Joe been standing a
mere 3 meters closer, the difference would have been more extreme. The
Tiger would have gone on 32, 22, and reached Joe on a 12, *before* he got
to act. But only once, as opposed to the 3 attacks it would have
gotten with SR2's distorted and wrong movement scheme, or getting shot at
once with SR3's distorted and wrong initiative scheme.

> Here's the difference between SR2 and SR3; In SR2, the tiger
> (adjacent to Joe, with an initiative of 32) would have mauled Joe
> several times before Joe can shoot. In SR3, the tiger (adjacent to
> Joe, with an initiative of 32) gets to maul Joe *once* before Joe can
> shoot.

I'm sorry, but if you're adjacent to a Tiger and it all of
a sudden decides it wants to maul you, you *should* get your head torn
off. You should have thought ahead.

> From both the GM's perspective and the player's perspective,
> the SR3 initiative system is much better than the SR2 system. Gangers
> are now a real threat, and PC's are no longer in danger of being cut
> to shreds before they can act. PC's with Wired Reflexes 3 or Quickened
> Increase Reflexes +3 spells are not combat gods anymore.

No, it's not. Neither from a player perspective, nor from a GM
perspective. Aaaaaarrrrgh! How many times do I have to say it? Speed is
not the be-all and end-all of SR2 combat? PC's with Wired-3 or IR+3
quickenings *never were* combat gods. They had an edge in certain
circumstances, but *only* in certain circumstances. The problem is that
too many GM's only remember the -2 modifier for smartlink and call it
good. If your PC's *always* hit what they shoot at, then yes, speed is a
problem. Otherwise, it's just more ammo you can generate stray rounds
with.
As for SR3, if they were going to reduce the effectiveness of
Wired reflexes, why didn't they drop the cost? Think about it: it takes
Resources of A or 22 build points (nearly a fifth of your total) to even
be able to *afford* Wired-3. It costs 5 full points of Essence,
drastically decreasing the amount of other cyberware you can have. Why
the hell would I give away that much if I only get to go once before even
the slowest opponent? What's the point?
I'm sick of people saying "speed kills" like it was gospel. It's
not the case, it's never been the case, and if you look at the numbers,
you'll see it's not the case. It comes in handy. It makes you better
than the average joe in a fight, but you paid through the nose for it and
it's not overpowering. Players in my games have actually moved away from
big budget quickenings and wires, simply because they realized that in
many cases, they weren't as cost effective as other things (like higher
skills or more variety in one's cyberware). And I still use SR2
initiative.
I'd rather use something that has some thought and years of
playtest behind it than a shortsighted kludge that was included as a
crutch to help bad GM's "get players into the action quicker." Call me
opinionated. :)


Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.html.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.html.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@********.att.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 2
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:05:58 +0200
Marc Renouf wrote:
>

> I'd rather use something that has some thought and years of
> playtest behind it than a shortsighted kludge that was included as a
> crutch to help bad GM's "get players into the action quicker." Call me
> opinionated. :)

Amen brother, finaly somebody who sees it as I do :)
<sniffle> I don`t feel so alone anymore <g>

--
Barbie

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

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++ dk
sh++++
ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 3
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:39:11 -0700
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:05:58 Barbie LeVile wrote:

>Amen brother, finaly somebody who sees it as I do :)
><sniffle> I don`t feel so alone anymore <g>

Heh. Count me in. SR2's initiative system (not the movement system) is superior and more
realistic. It wasn't the rules that needed changing, rather the GMs who can't seem to
challenge their players because the PCs were too fast. Puh-leze. It's all about realism
and TN mods. ;)

>--
>Barbie

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 4
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:57:56 -0500
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:39:11 -0700 " Kelson " <kelson13@*******.com>
writes:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:05:58 Barbie LeVile wrote:
>>Amen brother, finaly somebody who sees it as I do :)
>><sniffle> I don`t feel so alone anymore <g>

>Heh. Count me in. SR2's initiative system (not the movement system)
>is superior and more realistic. It wasn't the rules that needed
>changing, rather the GMs who can't seem to challenge their players
>because the PCs were too fast. Puh-leze. It's all about realism and
>TN mods. ;)

It's not a matter of realism. The two systems are EQUALLY unrealistic.
SR3's version is just newer and doesn't make speed demons unearthly
combat monsters. How many people take SOME sort of reaction enhancers on
a character so that he/she/it won't get slaughtered in the first combat
your GM throws at you? I know I've done it. Even when the character
concept doesn't quite fit. Only one of my current batch of characters
doesn't have intiative mods. In SR2, intiative determines who kills who.
In SR3, there's more factors. And THAT is why I like the SR3 initiative
system better. Not because it limits speed demons (they still have the
same number of actions), not because it gives non-wired characters a
chance -- because, a wired up the ass speed demon still has to worry that
some punk is going to get a shot off. THAT is realistic. No matter how
fast you are, you're still not fast enough that you don't have to worry
about that lucky shot. Deny that and you are living in a dream world.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel)
"Your Johnson is a one-eyed Snake Shaman"

___________________________________________________________________
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.
Message no. 5
From: nocturnal@*******.net nocturnal@*******.net
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:16:09 -0500
> Heh. Count me in. SR2's initiative system (not the movement system) is superior and
more realistic. It wasn't the rules that needed changing, rather the GMs who can't seem
to challenge their players because the PCs were too fast. Puh-leze. It's all about
realism and TN mods. ;)
>
> Justin

100% agreed. As everyone's probably seen, I'm not a fan of SR3. SR2, in my opinion, is the
best platform Shadowrun's been on. I didn't see the need for a change so drastic- GMs
should learn that if their players are that fast, the campaign should be too. When I run,
the GM makes the
rule that total armor cannot exceed 7/5 on bodies, or else squatters start carrying
assault rifles, and everyone else is staged up as well. Military armor pretty much means
giving a squatter a PAC... combat monsters usually suffer in my campaign... if they can't
accept the challenge,
well, they can find another campaign- I've only had one mutinee in my campaign too, and
I'm pretty damn proud of my players.

Nocturnal
Message no. 6
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:57:04 -0400 (EDT)
dghost@****.com writes:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:39:11 -0700 " Kelson " <kelson13@*******.com>
> writes:
> >On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:05:58 Barbie LeVile wrote:
> >>Amen brother, finaly somebody who sees it as I do :)
> >><sniffle> I don`t feel so alone anymore <g>
>
> >Heh. Count me in. SR2's initiative system (not the movement system)
> >is superior and more realistic. It wasn't the rules that needed
> >changing, rather the GMs who can't seem to challenge their players
> >because the PCs were too fast. Puh-leze. It's all about realism and
> >TN mods. ;)
>
> It's not a matter of realism. The two systems are EQUALLY unrealistic.
> SR3's version is just newer and doesn't make speed demons unearthly
> combat monsters. How many people take SOME sort of reaction enhancers on
> a character so that he/she/it won't get slaughtered in the first combat
> your GM throws at you?

Yep. Having an initiative averaging less than the mid teens
used to mean that either you were a mage and were used to open a
combat, or you sat around a lot. You weren't considered a
combat-ready character by most parties I met without some speed
increases, with the 4+2d6 from Wired 2 being close to the minimum
cutoff. Most combats I saw tended to end by the time initiative
rolled down to the single digits.

Now, you can challenge a reasonable party without sending
elite hit teams (read, high initiative), a carefully set up ambush, or
sending 20+ guys. I'm very happy with this, it means I have to come
up with less contrived scenarios and still make the party worry, but
not cause instant death.

Mark
Message no. 7
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:58:58 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 dghost@****.com wrote:

> It's not a matter of realism. The two systems are EQUALLY unrealistic.

Well, okay, you've got a point here. :)

> SR3's version is just newer and doesn't make speed demons unearthly
> combat monsters. How many people take SOME sort of reaction enhancers on
> a character so that he/she/it won't get slaughtered in the first combat
> your GM throws at you?

Surprisingly few in my campaign, actually. The most heavily wired
character has Wired-2, and that's mainly to keep from getting surprised as
easily.

> In SR2, intiative determines who kills who.

No, no, no, no, and no. Maybe in a fully lit room at short range
where there's no cover, everyone has smartlink 2's, nobody's wounded or
moving, and everyone's weapon has full recoil compensation. But that
never happens (or if it does it's because somebody went to a hell of a lot
of trouble to plan it that way).
If you include any mods at all the target number rapidly climbs
into pretty ridiculous numbers pretty quickly. 10+ is downright common.
Do you know what my faster players tend to do with their extra actions?
Aim. They aim so that they have a prayer in hell of hitting anything.
Skill and smarts become the limiting factors. It took a couple of
my players a really long time to figure out that faster is not better
(they had been "trained" by a lazy GM who never used target # mods). They
kept making progressively faster and meaner combat monsters, only to have
them chewed to shreds by unaugmented gangers and goons with average skills
and a little bit of smarts. They didn't understand what was going wrong.
Finally they got the hint that combat is difficult, dangerous, and
requires planning to be done effectively. Now they have a tendency to
eschew (my 50 cent word of the day) the more expensive and
Essence-unfriendly wires in favor of making more rounded characters that
can hold their own in a wider variety of situations.
Which is the whole freakin' point.

> And THAT is why I like the SR3 initiative system better. Not because it
> limits speed demons (they still have the same number of actions), not
> because it gives non-wired characters a chance -- because, a wired up
> the ass speed demon still has to worry that some punk is going to get a
> shot off. THAT is realistic.

It certainly is - but it's equally "realistic" in SR2 if done
right - and it doesn't heavily penalize the people that *want* to make
fast characters.
Don't get me wrong, there are benefits to being blazingly fast.
You are harder to surprise, quicker on the draw, and you have a little bit
better chance to hit (since you can use extra actions aiming). But it's
not hard to surprise someone with Wired Reflexes, especially if you have a
decent Stealth skill. All the initiative in the world does you zero good
when the other guy kills you before you know he's there.
Similarly, since the target number is frequently so high, it often
ends up that the wired characters just waste ammo faster. Chances are
you're not going to hit your target in the first shot, and even if you do
he or she may be able to resist the damage (especially when dealing with
goons, cops, etc) because you have fewer successes.
Like anything else, reflex enhancement is a tool. It has a
specific use. There are situations where it is immensely useful. There
are certain types of combat (close range, no cover, stationary, usually by
surprise) where wired characters can be devastating. But getting your
opponent into such a situation where you have the edge often requires
careful planning.
It's like anything else - you want to emphasize your strengths and
your opponents' weaknesses. If you can do that, then yes, reflex
enhancement is a powerful weapon. If you can't, then no amount of wires
will help you.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.html.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.html.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@********.att.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 8
From: Logan Graves logan1@*****.intercom.net
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:53:25 -0400
in our last episode, Barbie LeVile commented on:
>
> Marc Renouf's post:
>
> > I'd rather use something that has some thought and years of
> > playtest behind it than a shortsighted kludge that was included as a
> > crutch to help bad GM's "get players into the action quicker." Call
me
> > opinionated. :)

I must agree also. This is pretty much my only gripe about SR3's rule changes.
You have summed up the issue perfectly!


> Amen brother, finaly somebody who sees it as I do :)
> <sniffle> I don`t feel so alone anymore <g>

You never were, Barbie. You never were. ;-)

--Fenris (nevermind the fact that I play lots of Speed Sammies...)

______________________________________________________logan1@*****.intercom.net
-----BEGIN SR GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 0.22
SR1+ SR2++ SR3++(+++) SR2œ+++ S+++ h+ b+++ B939++ UB>+
SB+++ IE+ RN++(!RN+++) NERPS>+ SRC STK+ SRFF+ W+++ sa+++
dk- rk-- m(e+,o+) gm++>- M---(M--) P(P*-)
------END SR GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 9
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
> I'd rather use something that has some thought and years of playtest
behind it than a shortsighted kludge that was included as a crutch to
help bad GM's "get players into the action quicker." Call me
opinionated. :)
> Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

You're opinionated.

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

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 10
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
<Snippola(TM)>
> I'm sick of people saying "speed kills" like it was gospel. It's
not the case, it's never been the case, and if you look at the numbers,
you'll see it's not the case. It comes in handy.
<Snipples(TM)>

Yes and no, Marc. Target modifiers can only go so far. Sure, you can
pile them on until the cows come home, but they start getting
ridiculous and you start getting irritated players and you STOP having
a lethal game, which is what Shadowrun is meant to be. The main
problems with target modifiers is that a) a lot of them are easy to get
around, and b) unless you have each and every one memorised, piling on
heaps of target numbers can really slow the game down as you go
searching for them. Okay, you could have them all written out on paper,
but I like to be able to rattle off target numbers in a few seconds
instead of taking 30 seconds to figure out the difficulty of each shot.
Keeps things flowing, y'know? The less game mechanics come into the
game, the happier I am. And target modifiers don't always work.

Just as an example, I once had a group of runners in a bus on a
highway, in a firefight with bikers and some goons in cars. Target mods
up the ying-yang because of the rocking bus, the relative speeds of the
attackers and targets etc. The only ones they didn't have was for
lighting, as this was during the day - and almost all of the runners
had vision mods, so this one benefited the goons mostly. There were
more than twice as many goons as runners, but none of them were
augmented (laser sights were standard, though, as was relatively heavy
body armour). ONE RUNNER took out nearly two thirds of the goons (he
was the one with the combat shotgun :) ). His first three bursts killed
five goons (one on a bike, then a passenger in a car, then the driver
of that car, causing the car to crash and killing the other two
passengers). Yes, he was the fastest guy on the team, but that's not
the point. I think each of his shots had modifiers of around about +4
or more (with recoil added on afterwards), but with his vision mag,
firearms aptitude and locked enhance aim spell, that didn't bother him
much. So in his case the target mods didn't hinder him, and the fact
that he was fast let him (and the other runners for that matter) shred
the gangers and goons before they could do diddly-squat in return. I
think the overall bodycount was 16 goons dead, 4 stunned into
insensibility. On the runners' side, 3 light wounds were taken.

So there are still problems with your approach.

> I'd rather use something that has some thought and years of playtest
behind it than a shortsighted kludge that was included as a crutch to
help bad GM's "get players into the action quicker." Call me
opinionated. :)
> Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

All right. That's fine by me. But I've always thought (except when I
was playing a combat monster :) ) that the SR1 and SR2 initiative
systems, while playtested for years, were BAD SYSTEMS. Forgive me, but
I think the SR3 system is a quicker and more convenient way (and thus
better for MY games, if not yours) of levelling the playing field to an
extent. And I DO hope you're just calling the initiative system a
"shortsighted kludge" and not all of SR3 itself. To my mind, SR3 is a
quantum leap ahead of SR2 - perhaps not in everything, but with the new
knowledge skills, with workable rules for actually USING most of the
skills and with a bunch of other improvements, I think SR3 is
wonderful. :)

So, anyway, unless you can impart the true secrets of target modifiers
(which I've obviously been missing) to me, Marc, I'm going to have to
stick with SR3's system.

Your turn to call ME opinionated. :)

*Doc' has one thing to say about SR2/SR3 initiative. "Suppressive fire
with a minigun..."*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 11
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:58:53 -0400
At 07:01 PM 6/14/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Yes and no, Marc. Target modifiers can only go so far. Sure, you can
>pile them on until the cows come home, but they start getting
>ridiculous and you start getting irritated players and you STOP having
>a lethal game, which is what Shadowrun is meant to be. The main
>problems with target modifiers is that a) a lot of them are easy to get
>around, and b) unless you have each and every one memorised, piling on
>heaps of target numbers can really slow the game down as you go
>searching for them. Okay, you could have them all written out on paper,
>but I like to be able to rattle off target numbers in a few seconds
>instead of taking 30 seconds to figure out the difficulty of each shot.
>Keeps things flowing, y'know? The less game mechanics come into the
>game, the happier I am. And target modifiers don't always work.

I'll admit right out that I learned Shadowrun from Marc many moons ago, so
I got used to this style of play right away. But I brought over people over
from other systems that had minimum modifiers and after a few sessions they
got right into the swing of things. When I'm playing I just go down my
checklist and figure it out from there.

1) Base number from distance
2) Vision mag, Smartlink, etc
3) Vision mods
4) Cover
5) Movement
6) Recoil
7) Miscellaneous (aiming, second target, etc.)

Takes maybe 10 seconds to figure out the shot, and goes a lot faster if the
player does it and the GM just confirms. That way each player is ready to
go when his turn is up.

>Just as an example, I once had a group of runners in a bus on a
>highway, in a firefight with bikers and some goons in cars. Target mods
>up the ying-yang because of the rocking bus, the relative speeds of the
>attackers and targets etc. The only ones they didn't have was for
>lighting, as this was during the day - and almost all of the runners
>had vision mods, so this one benefited the goons mostly. There were
>more than twice as many goons as runners, but none of them were
>augmented (laser sights were standard, though, as was relatively heavy
>body armour). ONE RUNNER took out nearly two thirds of the goons (he
>was the one with the combat shotgun :) ). His first three bursts killed
>five goons (one on a bike, then a passenger in a car, then the driver
>of that car, causing the car to crash and killing the other two
>passengers). Yes, he was the fastest guy on the team, but that's not
>the point. I think each of his shots had modifiers of around about +4
>or more (with recoil added on afterwards), but with his vision mag,
>firearms aptitude and locked enhance aim spell, that didn't bother him
>much. So in his case the target mods didn't hinder him, and the fact
>that he was fast let him (and the other runners for that matter) shred
>the gangers and goons before they could do diddly-squat in return. I
>think the overall bodycount was 16 goons dead, 4 stunned into
>insensibility. On the runners' side, 3 light wounds were taken.

1) Base number of whatever.
2) Vision mag (takes a free action per level to activate cyberwear and
reduce range)
3) No vision mods
4) 2 Points partial cover for bus (+1), at least 2 points cover for bike or
car (+2).
5) Attacker walking difficult ground (equivelent for bus +2), target
running (+2)
6) Heavy weapon recoil for shotgun, burst (+6 per burst)
7) Aptitude -1, Force 6 aim spell (-3)

So he is at a total of +3 before anything is added in for the recoil.
Assuming that it is zeroed out, he has a target number of 7 for the first
burst, 9 for the second burst at a different target. Even with a smartlink
(which I don't remember if it works with smartlink) its a 5 and a 7. I made
a few assumptions here, but the basics are right and didn't take very long
at all.

>So there are still problems with your approach.
>
>> I'd rather use something that has some thought and years of playtest
>behind it than a shortsighted kludge that was included as a crutch to
>help bad GM's "get players into the action quicker." Call me
>opinionated. :)
>> Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)
>
>All right. That's fine by me. But I've always thought (except when I
>was playing a combat monster :) ) that the SR1 and SR2 initiative
>systems, while playtested for years, were BAD SYSTEMS. Forgive me, but
>I think the SR3 system is a quicker and more convenient way (and thus
>better for MY games, if not yours) of levelling the playing field to an
>extent. And I DO hope you're just calling the initiative system a
>"shortsighted kludge" and not all of SR3 itself. To my mind, SR3 is a
>quantum leap ahead of SR2 - perhaps not in everything, but with the new
>knowledge skills, with workable rules for actually USING most of the
>skills and with a bunch of other improvements, I think SR3 is
>wonderful. :)

I'm sure that he'll resopond himself up here, but I do know that Marc is a
very big supporter of SR3. AFAIK, the Initiative is one of the few things
that he doesn't like. I do know that he steadily works on a few others
around here to bring the SR3 light to them. :)

>So, anyway, unless you can impart the true secrets of target modifiers
>(which I've obviously been missing) to me, Marc, I'm going to have to
>stick with SR3's system.

Hope the above helps a little with TN modifiers. I'm with it too, although
I'm still not sure which init I like better...

>Your turn to call ME opinionated. :)

Okay, can I call you opinionated? :)

>*Doc' has one thing to say about SR2/SR3 initiative. "Suppressive fire
>with a minigun..."*
>==>Doc'
>(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

Second thing to say: "Called shot to head with 4 actions of aiming with an
SLII modified sniper rifle..."

Sommers
"Insert witty quote here."
Message no. 12
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:58:15 +0200
dghost@****.com wrote:
>
>
> It's not a matter of realism. The two systems are EQUALLY unrealistic.

thats utter crap Pix, SR2`s system is realistic, while sr3`s is not.

Example: a turn has three sec, so char a rolled a 30 and char b a 10, in the
old system
it goes a a ab and in sr3 it goes a b a a.

So if you take the time to look at the timeframe for each action you will
see that SR2 matches it, while sr3 does not.

so a has three complex action this turn, therefore 3secs/3=1sec per complex
action, while b needs the full 3 secs per complex. therfore it goes as
follows:

a at 1 sec, at 2 sec and 3 sec, and b at 3 sec time, and now you tell me
both systems are unrealistic Pix?

Wake up, sr3 init is only a artificial system to equalize things that are
not equal.
been utterly speedy and wiered is a key element in the cyberpunk genre, take
that away and you loos parts of it.

and in sr3 speed wars are to expensive essence/nuyen cost anyway now.

> some punk is going to get a shot off. THAT is realistic. No matter how
> fast you are, you're still not fast enough that you don't have to worry
> about that lucky shot. Deny that and you are living in a dream world.
>
Ummm, he doesn`t has to worry in SR2?? you must do something wrong then ...

--
Barbie

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

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++ dk
sh++++
ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 13
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
> Second thing to say: "Called shot to head with 4 actions of aiming
with an SLII modified sniper rifle..."
> Sommers

*Doc' blinks. "You're using a Shadowrun sniper rifle with a smartlink
II and you actually BOTHER with a head shot??"*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 14
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:54:07 -0500
:Just as an example, I once had a group of runners in a bus on a
:highway, in a firefight with bikers and some goons in cars.
<snip>
:body armour). ONE RUNNER took out nearly two thirds of the goons (he
:was the one with the combat shotgun :) ). His first three bursts killed
:five goons (one on a bike, then a passenger in a car, then the driver
:of that car, causing the car to crash and killing the other two
:passengers). Yes, he was the fastest guy on the team, but that's not
:the point. I think each of his shots had modifiers of around about +4
:or more (with recoil added on afterwards), but with his vision mag,
:firearms aptitude and locked enhance aim spell, that didn't bother him
:much.

3 bursts = 5 kills = scatter rounds =/= full effect use of smart link or
enhanced aim

Kinda hard to aim a cloud of shrapnel, eh, spell or no?

Mongoose
Message no. 15
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
> :Just as an example, I once had a group of runners in a bus on a
highway, in a firefight with bikers and some goons in cars. <snip> body
armour). ONE RUNNER took out nearly two thirds of the goons (he was the
one with the combat shotgun :) ). His first three bursts killed five
goons (one on a bike, then a passenger in a car, then the driver of
that car, causing the car to crash and killing the other two
passengers). Yes, he was the fastest guy on the team, but that's not
the point. I think each of his shots had modifiers of around about +4
or more (with recoil added on afterwards), but with his vision mag,
firearms aptitude and locked enhance aim spell, that didn't bother him
much.
>
> 3 bursts = 5 kills = scatter rounds =/= full effect use of smart link
or enhanced aim
>
> Kinda hard to aim a cloud of shrapnel, eh, spell or no?
> Mongoose

*sigh*

Read more carefully in future, huh, Mongoose? He was using shot rounds
- he made three kills shooting people and the last two died because he
killed the driver of the car they were in and the car crashed and burned...
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 16
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:45:32 -0500
:> Kinda hard to aim a cloud of shrapnel, eh, spell or no?
:> Mongoose
:
:*sigh*
:
:Read more carefully in future, huh, Mongoose? He was using shot rounds
:- he made three kills shooting people and the last two died because he
:killed the driver of the car they were in and the car crashed and burned...
:==:Doc'


Ah. 'Nother kind of shrapnel altogether! Thanks!

Mongoose
Message no. 17
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
> :> Kinda hard to aim a cloud of shrapnel, eh, spell or no?
> :> Mongoose
> :
> :*sigh*
> :
> :Read more carefully in future, huh, Mongoose? He was using shot
rounds - he made three kills shooting people and the last two died
because he killed the driver of the car they were in and the car
crashed and burned...
> :==> :Doc'
>
> Ah. 'Nother kind of shrapnel altogether! Thanks!
>
> Mongoose

*Doc' laughs. "You could say that, I guess."*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 18
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:39:21 +0200
According to Barbie LeVile, at 4:58 on 15 Jun 99, the word on
the street was...

> thats utter crap Pix, SR2`s system is realistic, while sr3`s is not.

There is just about _no_ initiative system in an RPG that's realistic,
IMnsHO.

> Example: a turn has three sec, so char a rolled a 30 and char b a 10, in the
> old system
> it goes a a ab and in sr3 it goes a b a a.

So add a next turn.

SRII: TURN 1 TURN 2 TURN n
a a b a a a b a a a b a

SR3: TURN 1 TURN 2 TURN n
a b a a a b a a a b a a

What is the conclusion? There are three actions of character "a" between
each action of character "b" in either system. The only real difference is
in the first turn.

> Wake up, sr3 init is only a artificial system to equalize things that are
> not equal.

While SRII's system does the opposite: exaggerate the speed differences
between characters.

> been utterly speedy and wiered is a key element in the cyberpunk genre, take
> that away and you loos parts of it.

That's still the case. As a street sam, you still get to shoot three times
as many bad guys as the decker will. It's just that with the new system,
the decker's player isn't sitting around getting bored until the end of
the turn, when nobody is still standing. (Tell me _that_'s realistic:
firefights that take 6 seconds...)

IMHO, if you want a reasonably realistic system in SR, use a compromise
between the two systems.

Step 1: everybody rolls for initiative.
Step 2: everybody determines how many actions their characters get.
Step 3: the highest roll determines how many initiative passes there are
in a turn.
Step 4: determine in which pass(es) each character get actions, based on
how many actions the character has available. The table below is a handy
reference, but basically it's a ratio system: divide the total number of
passes in the turn by your number of actions.

Number Number of passes
of actions in turn
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 1 2 2 3 3 4
2 - 1,2 1,3 1,3 2,4 3,5
3 - - 1,2,3 1,3,4 1,3,5 2,4,5
4 - - - 1,2,3,4 1,2,4,5 1,3,4,6
5 - - - - 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,4,5,6
6 - - - - - 1,2,3,4,5,6

For example, we have a situation with three characters. The sam rolls 22,
the decker 6, and the mage 15. This means there are three passes in the
turn, and the same gets an action in each pass. The mage has an action in
passes 1 and 3, while the decker has an action in pass 2.

Step 5: actions are declared and resolved for each pass in the order of
highest-rolled initiative to lowest. At the end of every pass in which a
character gets an action, subtract 10 from that character's initiative.

For example: in pass #1, the same has an action on 22, and the mage on 15.
In the next pass (#2), the sam has an action on 12, followed by the decker
on 6. In the third pass, the mage goes on 5, followed by the sam on 2.


I'll grant you that it takes a bit more work than the normal system(s),
but you do end up with a somewhat more realistic staggering of actions
rather than the all-or-nothing approach that seems to cause such a big
split ATM.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Here I am, still intact, and I should give myself credit for that
-- Tilt, "Unravel"
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 19
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:38:29 +0200
Rand Ratinac wrote:
>
> > Second thing to say: "Called shot to head with 4 actions of aiming
> with an SLII modified sniper rifle..."
> > Sommers
>
> *Doc' blinks. "You're using a Shadowrun sniper rifle with a smartlink
> II and you actually BOTHER with a head shot??"*

Ummm, a called shot does not by pass armor in SR, you only get a one level
higher base damage rating, thats all. Armor counts fully.

--
Barbie

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

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++ dk
sh++++
ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 20
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:48:19 +0200
Gurth wrote:
>
> There is just about _no_ initiative system in an RPG that's realistic,
> IMnsHO.

RM CATS is <shrug>
>
> > Example: a turn has three sec, so char a rolled a 30 and char b a 10, in the
> > old system
> > it goes a a ab and in sr3 it goes a b a a.
>
> So add a next turn.
>
> SRII: TURN 1 TURN 2 TURN n
> a a b a a a b a a a b a
>
> SR3: TURN 1 TURN 2 TURN n
> a b a a a b a a a b a a
>
> What is the conclusion? There are three actions of character "a" between
> each action of character "b" in either system. The only real difference is
> in the first turn.

and here lays a fundamental problem in turn bases combat actions, its
nothing that happens in RL, and in SR a general problem is that actions
don`t take time, they take time between actions. then wehn you look at this
from the angle of the time needed to perfom a caction, SR2 makes ALOT more
sense, since EVERYONe starts at the same time, namely the begin of the
combat turn and carries out his actions, but since the combatants are at
different reaction speeds, the actions takes different times. A boosted up
char would need a lower times to carry out its actions, and would therefore
be finished with it before a slower char would finish the same action, aka
the faster has more actions before the slower.
>
>
> While SRII's system does the opposite: exaggerate the speed differences
> between characters.
>
Yes, it does so, but in a way it would be actualy happen.

Okie, here it comes, my homebrewed init system:

Initiative

Definitions:
Base Times: Free Actions 0.30 sec
Simple Actions 1.50 sec
Complex Actions 3.00 sec

Damage
Damage modifications are to be applied immediately.

Delayed actions
At any point a character can delay a available action to be able to
react to
something. A delayed action can only be preformed after the time to perform
the
action has passed, IE a simple action is declared delayed, so the delayed
simple
action can be performed anytime after the time for a simple action for the
delaying character has passed. Such delayed action must be the same kind of
action that was declared as delayed or it must be a action that will take a
lower time to perform. Its not possible to delay a simple action and then
perform a complex action. If the declared delayed action is to be changed,
start
the time count from the point the character starts to act anew for this
character.

Combat sequence
Initiative is only rolled once at the begin of the combat, after this,
simply the elapsed time will be traced, counting from zero second up till
the
combat is over.

1. Refresh all pools, except karma pool.
2. Roll initiative
3. Each involved character declares her next action, beginning with the
lowest
init result. 4. The characters resolve their actions, beginning with the
character which action is finished first as per the time factor table. 5. A
character which action is finished declares her next action, which will be
resolved when the time to perform the action is passed.

Melee Combat
A melee attack has a associated speed factor, listed below, each -1 adds
5
to the init result as long as the weapon is used. For a positive weapon
speed
its the other way around, it subtracts 5 from the init result, down to an
minimal init result of 1.

Speed
Bare hands and using un-material weapons -2
Knifes, bottles and so -1
Swords, Katanas, Batons +0
Two handed Swords, Boo staffs +1
Whips, Helbards +2

For weapons not listed here, use the reach of the weapon in question and the
presented weapons as guideline for applying a speed to it.

Reach
Is use as target number modifier as per SRC optional rules.

Ranged Combat
Full autofire: Using a weapon in full auto is a two step process, first
simple action is to target the weapon and prepare for the recoil. Second
simple
action is the actual firing, the firing counts over the whole time frame of
the
simple action. Per simple action used after the first one to control the
weapon,
a -1 to recoil is applied, up to a maximum of -2.

Time factor table
initiative
Action 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Free 0.43 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.37 0.36 0.34 0.33 0.31 0.30
Simple 2.17 2.10 2.02 1.95 1.87 1.80 1.72 1.65 1.57 1.50
Complex 4.25 4.10 3.95 3.80 3.75 3.60 3.45 3.30 3.15 3.00

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Free 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15
Simple 1.36 1.25 1.15 1.07 1.00 0.93 0.88 083 0.79 0.75
Complex 2.72 2.50 2.30 2.14 2.00 1.88 1.77 1.66 1.58 1.50

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Free 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10
Simple 0.71 0.68 0.65 0.63 0.60 0.57 0.56 0.54 0.52 0.50
Complex 1.43 1.36 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.15 1.11 1.07 1.03 1.00

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Free 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Simple 0.48 0.47 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.41 039 0.38 0.37
Complex 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.86 0.83 0.81 0.79 0.77 0.75

For initiatives above the listed values make the following calculations:
Multiply the base time by ten and divide the result by the initiative roll,
round to the nearest hundredth.

Ambush and surprise
A abushed character can loss actions acording to the ambush skill rules,
in
such case add the time such character would need to perform the lost actions
togther. The character can again act freely when this time amount has
passed.
For surprise situations proceed in the same manner. A surprise stituation
occurs
when two or more parties stumble across each other without knowing about the
others beforehand. In such case all involved characters make a surprise
test,
putting their reaction attributes against each other, net success will be
subtracted from the losing characters available actions in the same way it
is in
a ambush situation. The surprise test is modified by perception
modifications.


--
Barbie

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

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++ dk
sh++++
ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 21
From: Kate. liliths_childe@*******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:45:10 GMT
>>Second thing to say: "Called shot to head with 4 actions of aiming with an
>>SLII modified sniper rifle..."
>>Sommers
>
>*Doc' blinks. "You're using a Shadowrun sniper rifle with a smartlink II
>and you actually BOTHER with a head shot??"*

Style over substance, little brother... style over substance...


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Message no. 22
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:17:03 -0500
> Ummm, a called shot does not by pass armor in SR, you only get a one level
> higher base damage rating, thats all. Armor counts fully.

Then you're not doing something right. Unless the guy's got an armored
head, he's going down hard since his armor won't be in the way to save him.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 23
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:30:18 -0400
At 06:38 AM 6/15/99 , Barbie LeVile wrote:
>Rand Ratinac wrote:
>>
>> > Second thing to say: "Called shot to head with 4 actions of aiming
>> with an SLII modified sniper rifle..."
>> > Sommers
>>
>> *Doc' blinks. "You're using a Shadowrun sniper rifle with a smartlink
>> II and you actually BOTHER with a head shot??"*
>
>Ummm, a called shot does not by pass armor in SR, you only get a one level
>higher base damage rating, thats all. Armor counts fully.

Sorry, we use a House Rule (tm) for variable called shots. If you want to
avoid armor, you take a modifier for how much you want to bypass. If you
want to target a specific area, it varies from +2 to +8 depending on how
large the area is. A called shot to the head is a +8 and does 1 extra level
of damage. I also use the rule (from Gurth I believe) that a helmet adds
its rating to overall armor, except in called shots to the head. Then its
the armor value that most closely matches it (a normal helmet being 6/4
IIRC). Of course, if they have no helmet the armor vest does them squat.

Called shots are a lot easier with Smartlink II, not to mention 4 actions
of aiming (with a specialized skill of 8). And there is also the style
factor...

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 24
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 06:36:18 -0700
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:57:04 Mark A Shieh wrote:

>dghost@****.com writes:

>> It's not a matter of realism. The two systems are EQUALLY unrealistic.
>> SR3's version is just newer and doesn't make speed demons unearthly
>> combat monsters. How many people take SOME sort of reaction enhancers on
>> a character so that he/she/it won't get slaughtered in the first combat
>> your GM throws at you?

> Yep. Having an initiative averaging less than the mid teens
>used to mean that either you were a mage and were used to open a
>combat, or you sat around a lot. You weren't considered a
>combat-ready character by most parties I met without some speed
>increases, with the 4+2d6 from Wired 2 being close to the minimum
>cutoff. Most combats I saw tended to end by the time initiative
>rolled down to the single digits.

> Now, you can challenge a reasonable party without sending
>elite hit teams (read, high initiative), a carefully set up ambush, or
>sending 20+ guys. I'm very happy with this, it means I have to come
>up with less contrived scenarios and still make the party worry, but
>not cause instant death.

Okay, I will respond to both of these posts at once since my response would essentially be
the same. :)

The problem mentioned by both of you isn't with the initiative system - it's with the
GMing style used. Increased reflexes don't indicate high perceptive abilities, so even
wired-to-the-gills PCs can be ambushed and slaughtered prior to being able to do anything
about it - it just takes some planning, 'tis all.

And here's a very important thing to keep in mind:

Using the appropriate TN mods is ESSENTIAL to keeping the playing field manageable.

The SR system (all 3 versions) were designed with a fairly extensive amount of TN mods.
If you don't use them, there's no wonder why you can't seem to challenge your PCs with
non-speed freaks because keeping the TNs unrealistically low makes speed the deciding
factor of who lives and who dies. Once the TNs are low, any skilled person will be able
to get successes. If this is the case, getting more shots off makes all the difference
and the wired folks will smear the unaugmented guys.

If, on the other hand, you use the system as it's given to you (using ALL appropriate TN
mods, not just the 2 or 3 that you remember to use), then the TN mods in a firefight can
get pretty darned high (it's uncommon for anyone to get a TN of less than 10 unless the
shootout is a well-planned ambush). At such high TNs, it's not the speed that matters as
much as the skill of the character. I'm not just talking about the actual skill value,
but also the character's ability to use the situation to his/her advantage as much as
possible (use cover well, etc.)

Sure, memorizing the situational TN mods charts can be a pain. So, just keep it handy
when playing - I know I do. Yes, it takes a few extra seconds to use all the TN mods, but
that's the best way to keep highly-skilled/wired/magically enhanced characters in line
without unrealistically mounting the opposition against them (giving squatters Panthers,
etc.). Also, after doing this for awhile, the TN mods will become almost second nature
and you'll be able to rattle them off pretty quick without having to look them up all the
time. In the long run you don't lose much time and you gain a world in which combat is
much more realistic and everyone can have their toys of choice - at least for awhile.

>Mark

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 25
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:35:39 -0500
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:39:21 +0200 "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl> writes:
>According to Barbie LeVile, at 4:58 on 15 Jun 99, the word on
>the street was...

>> thats utter crap Pix, SR2`s system is realistic, while sr3`s is not.

>There is just about _no_ initiative system in an RPG that's realistic,
>
>IMnsHO.

Have you seen the one in Rolemaster Comanion 6? Uhm, it may be realistic
but bring your calaculator. The intiative system is based on your
quickness-calculated time to complete a given action. Now tic off the
sceonds.

<SNIP>
>> been utterly speedy and wiered is a key element in the cyberpunk
genre, take
>> that away and you loos parts of it.

Yeah, and you can't have magic either or it's not cyberpunk.

>That's still the case. As a street sam, you still get to shoot three
times
>as many bad guys as the decker will. It's just that with the new system,

>the decker's player isn't sitting around getting bored until the end of
>the turn, when nobody is still standing. (Tell me _that_'s realistic:
>firefights that take 6 seconds...)

Uhm, well ... it could happen ... :)

>IMHO, if you want a reasonably realistic system in SR, use a compromise
>between the two systems.
<SNIP Suggested System>
>I'll grant you that it takes a bit more work than the normal system(s),
>but you do end up with a somewhat more realistic staggering of actions
>
>rather than the all-or-nothing approach that seems to cause such a big
>
>split ATM.

On a quick glance it looks like Hero Speed system. Why not just create a
chart with intiative scores (ie, entries would be intiative <0 to 5, 6 to
10, etc) up to 50 (if your score is over 50, you get actions for 50 PLUS
actions for intiative score - 50). Should be quicker than calculating
each time.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel)
"Your Johnson is a one-eyed Snake Shaman"

___________________________________________________________________
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.
Message no. 26
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:32:02 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Rand Ratinac wrote:

> Yes and no, Marc. Target modifiers can only go so far. Sure, you can
> pile them on until the cows come home, but they start getting
> ridiculous and you start getting irritated players and you STOP having
> a lethal game, which is what Shadowrun is meant to be.

Actually, it makes it more lethal, not because you can't kill
someone in a blazing fusillade of gunfire, but because combat takes
longer. It's not over so quickly. The only combat I've had run fewer
than 5 full rounds recently in my game was an ambush.
Combat doesn't have to be slow, either. Much of the time is spent
not firing or lobbing grenades or rolling gobs of dice, but in getting
into a better position, moving to where you have good cover, and trying to
mentally and physically outflank your opponent.


> The main problems with target modifiers is that a) a lot of them are
> easy to get around...

But harder than you'd imagine. And some of them you have no
control over (like a moving target).

> ...and b) unless you have each and every one memorised, piling on
> heaps of target numbers can really slow the game down as you go
> searching for them.

Okay, this is a cop out. How hard is it to take a few minutes and
memorize like 20 numbers. Or, as you pointed out, just put them on a
sheet of paper. It doesn't take long to figure a target number, either.
I do it out loud, enumerating the modifiers verbally as I go. "medium
range is a 5, smartlink drops it to a 3, his cover brings it to a 7, your
cover brings it to a 9, glare ups it to an 11, but your flare comp drops
it back to a 10. Both of you are stationary, so there's no movement.
Your first shot is at a 10, and recoil brings your second to an 11 (since
you're a wuss and you have foregone your recoil comp for a silencer)."
How hard was that?

> And target modifiers don't always work.

You're absolutely right. Sometimes they don't. But they go a
hell of a long way towards evening the odds.

> ONE RUNNER took out nearly two thirds of the goons (he was the one with
> the combat shotgun :) )... I think each of his shots had modifiers of
> around about +4 or more (with recoil added on afterwards), but with his
> vision mag, firearms aptitude and locked enhance aim spell, that didn't
> bother him much.

That's your problem. It's not that the system sucks or that the
runner was totally overwhelming. It's that your scenario was virtually
tailor-made for him to excel in. In a situation where there are difficult
shots made engaging multiple moving targets who are more or less in the
open, *OF COURSE* the guy with the aptitude, enhanced aim, and combat
shotgun is going to kick ass. What were you expecting?
Try putting that same character in a situation where there is a
lot of cover, where targets aren't visible long enough to aim on, and
where the range and quarters are tight enough that the shotgun spread
won't be able to drop his target number. Then speed and aptitude are his
only advantages, and aptitude only works if you actually get to fire.

> And I DO hope you're just calling the initiative system a
> "shortsighted kludge" and not all of SR3 itself.

Heavens no. I agree that SR3 is a *massive* step up from SR2.
There are just a few things I felt they did wrong (as well as a few
problems they still haven't made any attempt to fix - like autofire).

> So, anyway, unless you can impart the true secrets of target modifiers
> (which I've obviously been missing) to me, Marc, I'm going to have to
> stick with SR3's system.

I would love to have you come and play in one of my games. I
think seeing it first hand would make it click.
But in the short term, consider this: modifiers are the lifeblood
of the Shadowrun system. They determine difficulty. They reflect the
fact that sometimes the odds are *not* in your favor. Without modifiers
to up the difficulty, everything is easy. If everything is easy, then
fast people do stuff more quickly. Actually *look* at the different
combat modifiers, ask yourself how many of them really applied to your
last firefight, and look at how few of them you included. If that doesn't
show my point, then consider the scenarios you're putting your players in.
If you go easy on them then of course they're going to walk all over the
opposition.

> *Doc' has one thing to say about SR2/SR3 initiative. "Suppressive fire
> with a minigun..."*

Suppressive fire is a great way to start the day. It often gives
you a better chance to hit, especially against moving opponents. The
trick is that you have to know where to point it in advance.

Marc
Message no. 27
From: Mockingbird mockingbird@*********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:35:36 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Barbie LeVile <barbie@********.de>
To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)


> Gurth wrote:
> >
> > There is just about _no_ initiative system in an RPG that's realistic,
> > IMnsHO.
>
> RM CATS is <shrug>
> >
> > > Example: a turn has three sec, so char a rolled a 30 and char b a 10,
in the
> > > old system
> > > it goes a a ab and in sr3 it goes a b a a.
> >
> > So add a next turn.
> >
> > SRII: TURN 1 TURN 2 TURN n
> > a a b a a a b a a a b a
> >
> > SR3: TURN 1 TURN 2 TURN n
> > a b a a a b a a a b a a
> >
> > What is the conclusion? There are three actions of character "a"
between
> > each action of character "b" in either system. The only real
difference
is
> > in the first turn.
>
> and here lays a fundamental problem in turn bases combat actions, its
> nothing that happens in RL, and in SR a general problem is that actions
> don`t take time, they take time between actions. then wehn you look at
this
> from the angle of the time needed to perfom a caction, SR2 makes ALOT more
> sense, since EVERYONe starts at the same time, namely the begin of the
> combat turn and carries out his actions, but since the combatants are at
> different reaction speeds, the actions takes different times. A boosted up
> char would need a lower times to carry out its actions, and would
therefore
> be finished with it before a slower char would finish the same action, aka
> the faster has more actions before the slower.
> >

Hi,
Please forgive me if this sounds like a flame or makes incorrect
assumptions. (I am assuming that you have little or no real life combat
experience. I have some (mainly Live Role Playing with realistic fights
(IFGS if anyone knows what I am talking about) which I am using to below. I
hope that the people with more experience will correct me if I am wrong).
Now, to get back on track. The combat does not start at the beginning
of the round. It starts thirty seconds ago when the runners see the guards.
Or, five minutes ago when the runners enter the building. The new rules
simulate a group of prepared runners who are expecting a firefight. They
go on the assumption that the runners have wepons out and are constantly
watching for an ambush. In this case, the decker with one action a round is
going to get that first shot in quickly after which his innate reflexes take
over, and he becomes slower to reaquire and retarget. Now, if your players
don't have guns ready, then getting them ready becomes their first action,
and everything is back to SR2.

Mockingbird
Message no. 28
From: Sven De Herdt Sven.DeHerdt@***********.be
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:14:53 +0200
On Tuesday, June 15, 1999 4:36 PM, Mockingbird
[SMTP:mockingbird@*********.com] wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Please forgive me if this sounds like a flame or makes incorrect
> assumptions. (I am assuming that you have little or no real life
combat
> experience. I have some (mainly Live Role Playing with realistic
fights
> (IFGS if anyone knows what I am talking about) which I am using to
below. I
> hope that the people with more experience will correct me if I am
wrong).

Appologies for going a bit OT here, but IMO and in my experience Live
Role Playing is NOT realistic either. I don't know what LARPs you are
referring to, but the once I participated in (LARPs in a medieval
setting) made it possible to resist 4 or more strikes of a sword before
your character would die. Let me tell you from my experiences with
medieval re-enactment (using real swords/daggers/... and armour) that
this is NOT realistic at all. One strike of a sword would probably kill
any unprotected man/woman or at least disable him/her for the rest of
the fight.

IMHO it is impossible to make RPGs realistic unless you are trading
roleplaying and gaming methods for complicated mathematical rules and
methods.

> Now, to get back on track. The combat does not start at the
beginning
> of the round. It starts thirty seconds ago when the runners see the
guards.
> Or, five minutes ago when the runners enter the building. The new
rules
> simulate a group of prepared runners who are expecting a firefight.
They
> go on the assumption that the runners have wepons out and are
constantly
> watching for an ambush. In this case, the decker with one action a
round is
> going to get that first shot in quickly after which his innate
reflexes take
> over, and he becomes slower to reaquire and retarget. Now, if your
players
> don't have guns ready, then getting them ready becomes their first
action,
> and everything is back to SR2.

I can agree with this point.

Usually when you're not dealing with a surprise situation you will be
prepared and trying to anticipate on your opponents. This would mean
that you would have your guns ready or within hands reach. Adrenaline
would be pumping and you would react whenever you encounter a hostile
situation or whenever your reflexes take over and would determine the
speed in which to react.

> Mockingbird
>
Just my thoughts on this subject.

--
Sven De Herdt :)

SRCG v0.2 SR1! SR2++ SR3++ h b++>+++ B>+ UB->++ IE+(-) RN+(-) dk++>+++
sa- ma++ sh++ ad+ ri+ mc- m+ gm+>++(+++) M-(+)
Message no. 29
From: Mockingbird mockingbird@*********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:27:59 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Sven De Herdt <Sven.DeHerdt@***********.be>
To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 10:14 AM
Subject: RE: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)


> Appologies for going a bit OT here, but IMO and in my experience Live
> Role Playing is NOT realistic either. I don't know what LARPs you are
> referring to, but the once I participated in (LARPs in a medieval
> setting) made it possible to resist 4 or more strikes of a sword before
> your character would die. Let me tell you from my experiences with
> medieval re-enactment (using real swords/daggers/... and armour) that
> this is NOT realistic at all. One strike of a sword would probably kill
> any unprotected man/woman or at least disable him/her for the rest of
> the fight.
>
> IMHO it is impossible to make RPGs realistic unless you are trading
> roleplaying and gaming methods for complicated mathematical rules and
> methods.
>
> Just my thoughts on this subject.
>
> --
> Sven De Herdt :)
>

Agreed. I was just using LARP experience to comment on the "jumping the
gun" syndrome" that allows a slower person to get in a shot before it is
normally expected for them to.

Mockingbird
Message no. 30
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:54:26 -0700
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:35:36 Mockingbird wrote:

>Hi,

<Snip of LARP stuff>

> Now, to get back on track. The combat does not start at the beginning
>of the round. It starts thirty seconds ago when the runners see the guards.
>Or, five minutes ago when the runners enter the building. The new rules
>simulate a group of prepared runners who are expecting a firefight. They
>go on the assumption that the runners have wepons out and are constantly
>watching for an ambush. In this case, the decker with one action a round is
>going to get that first shot in quickly after which his innate reflexes take
>over, and he becomes slower to reaquire and retarget. Now, if your players
>don't have guns ready, then getting them ready becomes their first action,
>and everything is back to SR2.

Actually, this is what the surprise rules are for. They allow everyone 1 action prior to
the initiative rolls. At this point, preparation is KEY (especially if you allow Stealth
to modify the ambush setup as a house rule). If you're not prepared for the ambush, you'd
better be quick (have a high Reaction) or you could be down before you know what hit you.

This is how wired characters are vulnerable to Joe Anyone with a gun and a plan. It's not
a part of the initiative system, but occurs just prior to initiative being determined.

>Mockingbird

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 31
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:55:34 +0200
According to dghost@****.com, at 8:35 on 15 Jun 99, the word on
the street was...

> >There is just about _no_ initiative system in an RPG that's realistic,
> >IMnsHO.
>
> Have you seen the one in Rolemaster Comanion 6?

No. Maybe I should ask some players in one of the groups here (who used
to/still play a MERP/RM combo) if they have that book.

> Uhm, it may be realistic but bring your calaculator. The intiative
> system is based on your quickness-calculated time to complete a given
> action. Now tic off the sceonds.

Much like Phoenix Command, I imagine. That system gives everyone a certain
number of actions per two-second phase, which translates to how many
actions you get in a half-second "impulses" (of which there are four in a
phase). Each action then costs a number of "action counts" (AC) equal to
its time in seconds, times two.

So, a character with 4 AC per phase has one AC in every impulse, while a
character with 6 AC per phase has two AC in impulses 1 and 3, and one AC
in impulses 2 and 4 (sounds complicated, but it's quite simple if you look
at the little table). Every impulse, you spend as many AC as you can (or
want to) on an action, meaning that faster characters (who have more AC)
will complete their actions earlier than slower characters.

> <SNIP>
> >> been utterly speedy and wiered is a key element in the cyberpunk genre, take
> >> that away and you loos parts of it.
>
> Yeah, and you can't have magic either or it's not cyberpunk.

:)

> >(Tell me _that_'s realistic: firefights that take 6 seconds...)
>
> Uhm, well ... it could happen ... :)

It could, but it's highly unlikely you have a firefight in which everybody
gets mowed down by _aimed_ shots in 3 to 10 seconds...

> <SNIP Suggested System>
> >I'll grant you that it takes a bit more work than the normal system(s),
> >but you do end up with a somewhat more realistic staggering of actions
> >rather than the all-or-nothing approach that seems to cause such a big
> >split ATM.
>
> On a quick glance it looks like Hero Speed system.

I can tell you that I've never played or even read any Hero books, so I
didn't steal it from there :)

> Why not just create a chart with intiative scores (ie, entries would be
> intiative <0 to 5, 6 to 10, etc) up to 50 (if your score is over 50, you
> get actions for 50 PLUS actions for intiative score - 50). Should be
> quicker than calculating each time.

Good point. The system would remain the same but the way it's presented
changes a bit.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Here I am, still intact, and I should give myself credit for that
-- Tilt, "Unravel"
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 32
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:55:34 +0200
According to Patrick Goodman, at 7:17 on 15 Jun 99, the word on
the street was...

> > Ummm, a called shot does not by pass armor in SR, you only get a one level
> > higher base damage rating, thats all. Armor counts fully.
>
> Then you're not doing something right. Unless the guy's got an armored
> head, he's going down hard since his armor won't be in the way to save him.

This is one of those situations where common sense and SR rules say
different things. BTB, with a called shot to the head, armor still reduces
the Power Level, while your brain says "There's no armor there." Trouble
is, not applying armor _and_ upping the Damage Level by a category is much
too powerful...

A simple fix is to use a house rule: called shots can either bypass armor,
or increase the Damage Level by one, but not both.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Here I am, still intact, and I should give myself credit for that
-- Tilt, "Unravel"
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 33
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:10:31 -0400 (EDT)
" Kelson " <kelson13@*******.com> writes:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:57:04 Mark A Shieh wrote:
>
> >dghost@****.com writes:
>
> >> It's not a matter of realism. The two systems are EQUALLY unrealistic.
> >> SR3's version is just newer and doesn't make speed demons unearthly
> >> combat monsters. How many people take SOME sort of reaction enhancers on
> >> a character so that he/she/it won't get slaughtered in the first combat
> >> your GM throws at you?
>
> > Yep. Having an initiative averaging less than the mid teens
> >used to mean that either you were a mage and were used to open a
> >combat, or you sat around a lot. You weren't considered a
> >combat-ready character by most parties I met without some speed
> >increases, with the 4+2d6 from Wired 2 being close to the minimum
> >cutoff. Most combats I saw tended to end by the time initiative
> >rolled down to the single digits.
>
> > Now, you can challenge a reasonable party without sending
> >elite hit teams (read, high initiative), a carefully set up ambush, or
> >sending 20+ guys. I'm very happy with this, it means I have to come
> >up with less contrived scenarios and still make the party worry, but
> >not cause instant death.
>
> Okay, I will respond to both of these posts at once since my
> response would essentially be the same. :)

> The problem mentioned by both of you isn't with the initiative
> system - it's with the GMing style used.

No, the problem is made ridiculously clear if the GMing style
used is the one you propose. It's lessened with a proper GMing style,
just like it's lessened with the SR3 initiative system. Introducing
either allows for a range of solutions to the speed freak problem, but
introducing both gives you an even wider range.

> Increased reflexes don't
> indicate high perceptive abilities, so even wired-to-the-gills PCs can
> be ambushed and slaughtered prior to being able to do anything about
> it - it just takes some planning, 'tis all.

If you double check, that's what I'm saying about SR2 (an
ambush was one of the exceptions I made). In SR2, it's generally
necessary to set up a careful ambush in order to threaten the PCs
without excessive force, not impossible to take them out. Now, the
PCs are hopefully unable to stand down a biker gang (~20) people and
take them out with a quickdraw, a few shots, and then a dive for
cover.
What I AM saying is that I really hate planning around the
speed freaks, and it gets old having to ambush the party every time I
want to threaten them with something weaker but not vastly more
numerous than themselves. What I want is for some average but
reasonably competent joes to be able to threaten the party without
laying in ambush. It just doesn't happen in SR2.

I'd also like to have some encounters that occur out in
irrelevant territory, where both sides aren't worrying about
collateral damage. One of the things that has happened before was the
tossing of 4-6 grenades by each sammie before everyone else went,
generally clearing a reasonable number of enemies out even if they had
some cover. I'd really rather them dive for cover and then throw
grenades, rather than throwing grenades and then diving for cover, and
it lets me fire back without having the entire city block ambush them.

> And here's a very important thing to keep in mind:
>
> Using the appropriate TN mods is ESSENTIAL to keeping the playing
> field manageable.

Oh, I agree, and I'm rigorous about this. However, I
generally don't give the NPCs partial cover modifiers until after
their first action, unless it's an ambush situation. (It goes both
ways though, and I only GMed SR2 once.)

> The SR system (all 3 versions) were designed with a fairly extensive
> amount of TN mods. If you don't use them, there's no wonder why you
> can't seem to challenge your PCs with non-speed freaks because keeping
> the TNs unrealistically low makes speed the deciding factor of who
> lives and who dies.

I agree, it gets even worse if you let the TNs drop below 6.
Trust me, I'm not giving them easy shots.
However, even with moderate lighting mods and partial cover,
the PCs can still do moderate+ wounds on each action. This is enough
to incapacitate most non-elites. (Anything but total darkness is only
a +2 average unless I pull out thermal smoke. I blame a bunch of
metahumans.)

To be honest, I'm not having most of these problems as GM,
only as player, but they would be worse if we were playing SR2. We
have two GMs at any point in time, and I happened to draw only one
minmaxer (the one we're actually making progress with), and not the
worst one. My friend is the one who has to deal with natural
thermographic vision, enough recoil compensation to fire a 10 round
LMG spray, and what amounts to a firearms of 6. (damn troll sammies)
In the last fight alone, there would have been about 1/2 as many shots
fired back at us because of him if we had been using SR2 initiative.
(maybe 1/3 if we were also using SR2 combat pool, but that seems to be
a more popular change)
It's also a shame that EX Explosive ammo is available at
character creation. (availability 6)

The best solution I've found to this problem is to just send
more force 5-6 spirits at them, without increasing the number of mages
(last encounter was 2 spirits, 0 mages). They move quickly, they
really scare the sammies, life is good.

Mark
Message no. 34
From: Shawn Plummer plummer@***.cc.geneseo.edu
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:18:09 -0400
> Okay, this is a cop out. How hard is it to take a few minutes and
> memorize like 20 numbers. Or, as you pointed out, just put them on a
> sheet of paper. It doesn't take long to figure a target number, either.
> I do it out loud, enumerating the modifiers verbally as I go. "medium
> range is a 5, smartlink drops it to a 3, his cover brings it to a 7, your
> cover brings it to a 9, glare ups it to an 11, but your flare comp drops
> it back to a 10. Both of you are stationary, so there's no movement.
> Your first shot is at a 10, and recoil brings your second to an 11 (since
> you're a wuss and you have foregone your recoil comp for a silencer)."
> How hard was that?
>

did not realize that the shooter's cover modified target numbers. Is
this so?


--
Plum
shawn@*******.net

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ
from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are not even
capable of forming such opinions."
- Albert Einstein (1875-1955)
Message no. 35
From: Karsten_DÃŒrotin karsten@****.net
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:46:14 +0200
>> It's not a matter of realism. The two systems are EQUALLY
unrealistic.
>
>thats utter crap Pix, SR2`s system is realistic, while sr3`s is not.


A nice opening statement. :-)

BTW, one I deny in full. Both systems, to me, are unrealistic, the main
problem being multiple actions given by a technical device which should
increase your reactions, but not the speed at which you actually move
(where does Shadowrun say that it includes upgrading your muscles and
such? See the running discussion which went before this one).

>Example: a turn has three sec, so char a rolled a 30 and char b a 10,
in the
>old system
>it goes a a ab and in sr3 it goes a b a a.


Agreed here.

>So if you take the time to look at the timeframe for each action you
will
>see that SR2 matches it, while sr3 does not.


I can't support that opinion, and will put the details below.

>so a has three complex action this turn, therefore 3secs/3=1sec per
complex
>action, while b needs the full 3 secs per complex. therfore it goes as
>follows:
>
>a at 1 sec, at 2 sec and 3 sec, and b at 3 sec time, and now you tell
me
>both systems are unrealistic Pix?


Hm. That sounds like he would take the 3 seconds to contemplate things
and just get ready to do something once he decided his 3 seconds are
over? Doesn't he act during the WHOLE time of those three seconds? Can
you tell me how that is reflected in the system?

(More) realistic would be something like: a (complex), b (simple), a
(complex), b (simple), a (complex), since both act all the time. If
someone needed 3 seconds to react, you should be taking any car keys
away from him - he either suffers from severe brain damage or has more
than 1.8 promille alcohol in his blood. Oh, I remember, 'runners are
always drunk, huh? ;-)

BTW, both systems are stupid. I am anything but a master shooter, but I
can pull the trigger of a gun more often than twice in two seconds. And
I can empty an Uzi faster than 10.

>Wake up, sr3 init is only a artificial system to equalize things that
are
>not equal.
>been utterly speedy and wiered is a key element in the cyberpunk genre,
take
>that away and you loos parts of it.


Yeah, it's the reflexes that matter. Oh, and it may be a key element in
Cyberpunk by R. Talsorian, but I can't see all people wired to the max
and being undefeatable machines of death in Gibson's Novels. I also
can't see any people in those novels who don't care for a gun just
because they can massacre someone who holds that gun thrice before he
can even pull the trigger.

>> some punk is going to get a shot off. THAT is realistic. No matter
how
>> fast you are, you're still not fast enough that you don't have to
worry
>> about that lucky shot. Deny that and you are living in a dream
world.
>>
>Ummm, he doesn`t has to worry in SR2?? you must do something wrong then
...


Nope, because with a high enough Initiative, you can butcher six persons
easily before they even get a chance to say "don't shoot" under SR2.

--- Karsten
Message no. 36
From: Karsten_DÃŒrotin karsten@****.net
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:36:16 +0200
All this Initiative Pass/Countdown questions aside, I think that SR3 did
the MOST important step to make sure that speed isn't the single most
improtant question in any Shadowrun game: A character with higher
Initiative takes his actions earlier (that's okay) and probably has more
of them (problematic, but okay), but he doesn't have three or four times
the damn Combat Pool of the slower guy. That's a good thing IMO, since
skill does matter alot more now.

--- Karsten
Message no. 37
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:11:00 -0400
At 11:55 AM 6/15/99 , Gurth wrote:
>This is one of those situations where common sense and SR rules say
>different things. BTB, with a called shot to the head, armor still reduces
>the Power Level, while your brain says "There's no armor there." Trouble
>is, not applying armor _and_ upping the Damage Level by a category is much
>too powerful...
>
>A simple fix is to use a house rule: called shots can either bypass armor,
>or increase the Damage Level by one, but not both.

Or have two called shots, one to bypass the armor, the other to increase
the damage by one level, to a grand total of +8. Of course, if you have
SLII, that goes down to +4. With a skill of 8 (like any self respecting
sniper would with his rifle), you aim for 4 actions for a net of 0. Then
the -2 for a smartlink and it starts getting down to one-shot, one-kill.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 38
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:12:44 -0400
At 12:18 PM 6/15/99 , Shawn Plummer wrote:
>> Okay, this is a cop out. How hard is it to take a few minutes and
>> memorize like 20 numbers. Or, as you pointed out, just put them on a
>> sheet of paper. It doesn't take long to figure a target number, either.
>> I do it out loud, enumerating the modifiers verbally as I go. "medium
>> range is a 5, smartlink drops it to a 3, his cover brings it to a 7, your
>> cover brings it to a 9, glare ups it to an 11, but your flare comp drops
>> it back to a 10. Both of you are stationary, so there's no movement.
>> Your first shot is at a 10, and recoil brings your second to an 11 (since
>> you're a wuss and you have foregone your recoil comp for a silencer)."
>> How hard was that?
>>
>
> did not realize that the shooter's cover modified target numbers. Is
>this so?

Not in the basic SR3, no. It was a rule in FoF for partial cover.
Basically, you determine how much cover you want to take, between +2 and
+8. That number is added to anyone shooting at you. But since your cover
hampers you when shooting, you add half that number (+1 to +4) to your own
modifiers.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 39
From: cmpetro@*********.com cmpetro@*********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:30:09 -0500
All in all I personally like the SR3 movement and initiative as written in
the errata. I always had a problem with the way movement came in spurts.
It's much better now that the movement is continuous throughout the turn.
Of course now everyone has to ask after rolling initative. "Okay GM, how
many passes?"... GM responds "5" ... Players "WHAT!!!" (because
no player
roller over 30) <GM snickers with evil looking grin on face> ... Player
"Damn them bugs are fast!"
Message no. 40
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:21:36 +0100
In article <199906151555.RAA15873@*****.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.nl> writes
>According to dghost@****.com, at 8:35 on 15 Jun 99, the word on
>the street was...
>> >(Tell me _that_'s realistic: firefights that take 6 seconds...)
>>
>> Uhm, well ... it could happen ... :)
>
>It could, but it's highly unlikely you have a firefight in which everybody
>gets mowed down by _aimed_ shots in 3 to 10 seconds...

It can happen - it's called a successful ambush :) You can mow down a
startling number of surprised men in a couple of seconds.

If the enemy are alerted and returning fire, the firefight can drag on for
some time.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 41
From: cmpetro@*********.com cmpetro@*********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:06:37 -0500
>> It's not a matter of realism. The two systems are EQUALLY unrealistic.
>> SR3's version is just newer and doesn't make speed demons unearthly
>> combat monsters. How many people take SOME sort of reaction enhancers
on
>> a character so that he/she/it won't get slaughtered in the first combat
>> your GM throws at you?
>
> Yep. Having an initiative averaging less than the mid teens
>used to mean that either you were a mage and were used to open a
>combat, or you sat around a lot. You weren't considered a
>combat-ready character by most parties I met without some speed
>increases, with the 4+2d6 from Wired 2 being close to the minimum
>cutoff. Most combats I saw tended to end by the time initiative
>rolled down to the single digits.

Been there... In SR 2 my PhysAd was rolling 2d6+5 for initative... I
always said ..."If I actually have to do anything here we're in trouble"...
And yes..combat was usually over before I could do much.

I'm feeling much better now...Of course 3d6+9 is a better initative too!
Message no. 42
From: Karsten_DÃŒrotin karsten@****.net
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:20:44 +0200
>Rand Ratinac wrote:
>>
>> > Second thing to say: "Called shot to head with 4 actions of aiming
>> with an SLII modified sniper rifle..."
>> > Sommers
>>
>> *Doc' blinks. "You're using a Shadowrun sniper rifle with a smartlink
>> II and you actually BOTHER with a head shot??"*
>
>Ummm, a called shot does not by pass armor in SR, you only get a one
level
>higher base damage rating, thats all. Armor counts fully.


Says the rulebook. Some people who like to think for themselves decided
that shooting aimed at a non-armored part of the body means that there
is no armor there to count. So did my friends and me. :-)

--- Karsten
Message no. 43
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: Fwd: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:07:40 -0400 (EDT)
Apologies if this duplicates, but my message seemed to have dropped
off the map.

---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:10:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark A Shieh <SHODAN+@***.EDU>
To: shadowrn@*********.org
Subject: Re: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)

" Kelson " <kelson13@*******.com> writes:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:57:04 Mark A Shieh wrote:
>
> >dghost@****.com writes:
>
> >> It's not a matter of realism. The two systems are EQUALLY unrealistic.
> >> SR3's version is just newer and doesn't make speed demons unearthly
> >> combat monsters. How many people take SOME sort of reaction enhancers on
> >> a character so that he/she/it won't get slaughtered in the first combat
> >> your GM throws at you?
>
> > Yep. Having an initiative averaging less than the mid teens
> >used to mean that either you were a mage and were used to open a
> >combat, or you sat around a lot. You weren't considered a
> >combat-ready character by most parties I met without some speed
> >increases, with the 4+2d6 from Wired 2 being close to the minimum
> >cutoff. Most combats I saw tended to end by the time initiative
> >rolled down to the single digits.
>
> > Now, you can challenge a reasonable party without sending
> >elite hit teams (read, high initiative), a carefully set up ambush, or
> >sending 20+ guys. I'm very happy with this, it means I have to come
> >up with less contrived scenarios and still make the party worry, but
> >not cause instant death.
>
> Okay, I will respond to both of these posts at once since my
> response would essentially be the same. :)

> The problem mentioned by both of you isn't with the initiative
> system - it's with the GMing style used.

No, the problem is made ridiculously clear if the GMing style
used is the one you propose. It's lessened with a proper GMing style,
just like it's lessened with the SR3 initiative system. Introducing
either allows for a range of solutions to the speed freak problem, but
introducing both gives you an even wider range.

> Increased reflexes don't
> indicate high perceptive abilities, so even wired-to-the-gills PCs can
> be ambushed and slaughtered prior to being able to do anything about
> it - it just takes some planning, 'tis all.

If you double check, that's what I'm saying about SR2 (an
ambush was one of the exceptions I made). In SR2, it's generally
necessary to set up a careful ambush in order to threaten the PCs
without excessive force, not impossible to take them out. Now, the
PCs are hopefully unable to stand down a biker gang (~20) people and
take them out with a quickdraw, a few shots, and then a dive for
cover.
What I AM saying is that I really hate planning around the
speed freaks, and it gets old having to ambush the party every time I
want to threaten them with something weaker but not vastly more
numerous than themselves. What I want is for some average but
reasonably competent joes to be able to threaten the party without
laying in ambush. It just doesn't happen in SR2.

I'd also like to have some encounters that occur out in
irrelevant territory, where both sides aren't worrying about
collateral damage. One of the things that has happened before was the
tossing of 4-6 grenades by each sammie before everyone else went,
generally clearing a reasonable number of enemies out even if they had
some cover. I'd really rather them dive for cover and then throw
grenades, rather than throwing grenades and then diving for cover, and
it lets me fire back without having the entire city block ambush them.

> And here's a very important thing to keep in mind:
>
> Using the appropriate TN mods is ESSENTIAL to keeping the playing
> field manageable.

Oh, I agree, and I'm rigorous about this. However, I
generally don't give the NPCs partial cover modifiers until after
their first action, unless it's an ambush situation. (It goes both
ways though, and I only GMed SR2 once.)

> The SR system (all 3 versions) were designed with a fairly extensive
> amount of TN mods. If you don't use them, there's no wonder why you
> can't seem to challenge your PCs with non-speed freaks because keeping
> the TNs unrealistically low makes speed the deciding factor of who
> lives and who dies.

I agree, it gets even worse if you let the TNs drop below 6.
Trust me, I'm not giving them easy shots.
However, even with moderate lighting mods and partial cover,
the PCs can still do moderate+ wounds on each action. This is enough
to incapacitate most non-elites. (Anything but total darkness is only
a +2 average unless I pull out thermal smoke. I blame a bunch of
metahumans.)

To be honest, I'm not having most of these problems as GM,
only as player, but they would be worse if we were playing SR2. We
have two GMs at any point in time, and I happened to draw only one
minmaxer (the one we're actually making progress with), and not the
worst one. My friend is the one who has to deal with natural
thermographic vision, enough recoil compensation to fire a 10 round
LMG spray, and what amounts to a firearms of 6. (damn troll sammies)
In the last fight alone, there would have been about 1/2 as many shots
fired back at us because of him if we had been using SR2 initiative.
(maybe 1/3 if we were also using SR2 combat pool, but that seems to be
a more popular change)
It's also a shame that EX Explosive ammo is available at
character creation. (availability 6)

The best solution I've found to this problem is to just send
more force 5-6 spirits at them, without increasing the number of mages
(last encounter was 2 spirits, 0 mages). They move quickly, they
really scare the sammies, life is good.

Mark
Message no. 44
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: Fwd: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:46:53 -0700
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:07:40 Mark A Shieh wrote:

>Apologies if this duplicates, but my message seemed to have dropped
>off the map.

This is the first message I got like this. I don't think it's been duplicated.

On to the good stuff...

Kelson wrote:

>> The problem mentioned by both of you isn't with the initiative
>> system - it's with the GMing style used.

> No, the problem is made ridiculously clear if the GMing style
>used is the one you propose. It's lessened with a proper GMing style,
>just like it's lessened with the SR3 initiative system. Introducing
>either allows for a range of solutions to the speed freak problem, but
>introducing both gives you an even wider range.

How is that? I don't see how SR3 fixes the speed freak "problem" in any
realistic fashion. In fact, I never thought there was a problem in SR2. Sure, goons with
wired 3 are fast, but how much more cyber can they pack into their meat bods? Not much.
How much magic can they wield? Likely none. There are many ways to skin a cat. Altering
the initiative system to give speed freaks actions later in their turn is just plain
wrong. ;) Seriously, it's not realistic within the scope of the game system at all. If
you're reflexes are enhanced, you will react more quickly to the situation around you.
With SR3, you react just before everyone else then get to act a couple of more times then
this process repeats. The major change here is that you no longer have the advantage of
having multiple actions before some of the slower enemies. With augmented reflexes, you
SHOULD get your actions first. It makes more sense.

>> Increased reflexes don't
>> indicate high perceptive abilities, so even wired-to-the-gills PCs can
>> be ambushed and slaughtered prior to being able to do anything about
>> it - it just takes some planning, 'tis all.

> If you double check, that's what I'm saying about SR2 (an
>ambush was one of the exceptions I made). In SR2, it's generally
>necessary to set up a careful ambush in order to threaten the PCs
>without excessive force, not impossible to take them out. Now, the
>PCs are hopefully unable to stand down a biker gang (~20) people and
>take them out with a quickdraw, a few shots, and then a dive for
>cover.

Let me put this in perspective. If the PCs have skills of 8 all over the place and have
lots of cyberware, while the NPCs have skills of 4 and only a little cyberware, then yes
the NPCs will need a plan to take out the PCs. Period. The initiative system doesn't
change this. If, in your game world, the PCs are far above the NPCs on the
tech/magic/skill track, then it takes either a) mobs of NPCs, or b) NPCs who know how to
plan and execute well. A lot of GMs go for a, but I prefer plan b. It makes more sense
and doesn't force the PCs into the mindset that they need all that cyber to stay alive.
If they're already of that mindset, help change it by using low powered, but intelligent
NPCs who clean the floor with them even though they are relatively weak. Do this enough
times and the players might get the point.

> What I AM saying is that I really hate planning around the
>speed freaks, and it gets old having to ambush the party every time I
>want to threaten them with something weaker but not vastly more
>numerous than themselves. What I want is for some average but
>reasonably competent joes to be able to threaten the party without
>laying in ambush. It just doesn't happen in SR2.

It doesn't happen in SR3, either. See above. PCs with lots of cyber and other toys will
clean the floor with an equal number of NPCs without as many goodies. That's the laws of
probabilities for you. The NPCs have to plan if they want to do anything against more
powerful foes, unless they just plain get lucky (which happens occasionally). Good use of
cover can help out tremendously.

<Snip>

> I agree, it gets even worse if you let the TNs drop below 6.
>Trust me, I'm not giving them easy shots.
> However, even with moderate lighting mods and partial cover,
>the PCs can still do moderate+ wounds on each action. This is enough
>to incapacitate most non-elites. (Anything but total darkness is only
>a +2 average unless I pull out thermal smoke. I blame a bunch of
>metahumans.)

I don't see how this is possible. How are the PCs doing damage every action? Don't the
NPCs take cover? Don't they use fun things like stun weapons? Don't they move around
(thus invoking movement mods)? Sheesh, the only battle in which the PCs can do damage
every action should be a well planned and executed ambush. Otherwise, you're doing
something wrong - probably not using any intelligence in NPC tactics or not using all of
the appropriate TN mods.

<Snip>

> The best solution I've found to this problem is to just send
>more force 5-6 spirits at them, without increasing the number of mages
>(last encounter was 2 spirits, 0 mages). They move quickly, they
>really scare the sammies, life is good.

But that would fall under plan a above. ;) Just throwing more goons at the players
doesn't fix the problem. It only encourages the players to make cyberzombies and kick ass
magicians at character creation. This, of course, makes the GM throw even more goons at
the PCs....see a cycle here? Take some time to figure out what it is that is causing your
PCs to be so powerful when compared to everyone else. Post more questions to the list and
see what happens. I am sure that some of us here will be happy to help you out.

>Mark

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 45
From: dghost@****.com dghost@****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:22:07 -0500
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:55:34 +0200 "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl> writes:
<SNIP>
>This is one of those situations where common sense and SR rules say
>different things. BTB, with a called shot to the head, armor still
reduces
>the Power Level, while your brain says "There's no armor there." Trouble

>is, not applying armor _and_ upping the Damage Level by a category is
much
>too powerful...

If you make a called shot for the head, you might still miss the head and
het the torso.

>A simple fix is to use a house rule: called shots can either bypass
armor,
>or increase the Damage Level by one, but not both.

How about this. Called shot makes the round armor piercing and halves
the armor value (assuming there is no armor in the targeted area.).
Called shots with armor piercing rounds divide the target's armor by 4
(1/2 for armor piercing and 1/2 for called shot), round down. I think
this is okay to use with increased power level. Agree/disagree?

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel)
"Your Johnson is a one-eyed Snake Shaman"

___________________________________________________________________
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.
Message no. 46
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
> How about this. Called shot makes the round armor piercing and
halves the armor value (assuming there is no armor in the targeted
area.). Called shots with armor piercing rounds divide the target's
armor by 4 (1/2 for armor piercing and 1/2 for called shot), round
down. I think this is okay to use with increased power level.
Agree/disagree?
> D. Ghost

Eh...no. It still makes a called shot rather useless.

I think I'll institute a simple called shot system of my own. Stuff
FASA's. I hate to say it, but the Shadowrun called shot system SUX!!!

1) Called shots MUST be preceeded by AT LEAST one simple action of
aiming in the SAME PHASE. No FA called shots. Uncompensated recoil
penalties for burst-fire called shots are doubled, due to the
difficulty of keeping a recoiling weapon trained on such a small
target.
2) Called shots may be taken against the legs, arms or head only.
Particular limbs must be specified.
3) The target modifier is +3 to hit a leg, +4 to hit an arm, or +5 (or
+6?) to hit the head. These modifiers can be reduced by successive
aiming actions. As above, the FINAL aiming action MUST be taken in the
same phase as the shot, precluding FA called shots. Smartlink IIs
reduce the called shot modifers by 2, above and beyond their normal -2
modifier to the target number.
4) Called shots do no extra damage, but only count against what armour
is on each limb. Armour that specifically protects a single location is
quadrupled for these purposes. Thus, a called shot against someone's
arm would encounter no armour if he was wearing a vest, but 5 points of
armour if he was wearing a jacket. A headshot against someone wearing a
security helmet would have to deal with 4 points of armour (normal
value of 1 quadrupled) or 8 points (!) if the shot was made using an
arrow.

There you go. Fairly simple, rather elegant if I do say so myself ( :)
) and probably rather effective. Certainly more realistic than the
current system. Any thoughts?

*Doc' dislocates his shoulder trying to pat himself on the back...*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 47
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:54:31 +1000
Doc Rand writes:
> 4) Called shots do no extra damage, but only count against what armour
> is on each limb. Armour that specifically protects a single location is
> quadrupled for these purposes. Thus, a called shot against someone's
> arm would encounter no armour if he was wearing a vest, but 5 points of
> armour if he was wearing a jacket. A headshot against someone wearing a
> security helmet would have to deal with 4 points of armour (normal
> value of 1 quadrupled) or 8 points (!) if the shot was made using an
> arrow.

Doc... any armour that is not a full body outfit would count as specifically
protecting locations.

A jacket, for example, specifically protects the torso and arms. It leaves
the legs, head and hands uncovered.

The true armour rating would then be calculated by the ratio of the armour
value to the % of the body covered. A jacket covers about half the body, so
you're probably better off doubling it. A helmet, OTH, covers 10% of the
body at best, so a mere x4 increase is shortchanging it a lot.

However, this ignores the fact that certain areas are more likely to be hit,
so armour in those areas would give a larger increase to the total, and so
be disproportionate. For example, probably close to 70% of all shots aimed
at a human would hit (if they hit) the torso, simply because that's where
most people would aim. So good torso armour would count towards 70% of the
overall armour value.

And finally (yes, there is a finally), this ignores the fact that armour
isn't equally strong everywhere. For example, take the armour jacket again.
It is basically a kevlar vest, with plates for extra reinforcement. Have a
guess where the plates are... go on. That's right, the torso. That means, of
course, that the armour on the arms isn't as good as the armour on the
torso, so the arms shouldn't have the same armour rating as the torso,
despite the fact that you're wearing the single piece of armour (the
jacket).

If you want a realistic type of armour, give armour ratings to materials
used, and then decide what material is used where. For example, standard
kevlar weave could be given a ballistic rating of 4, whilst kevlar weave
backed with plating could get 6 or 7. So an armour jacket would give armour
of 4 to the arms, and 7 to the torso. An armoured longcoat (being basically
kevlar weave) would give armour of 4 everywhere. Level 3 armoured longjohns
would give armour of 4 everywhere.

(Then, seeing as how you've already got the location split of the armour,
you can used a randomised hit-location in normal combat, as well)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 48
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
> Doc... any armour that is not a full body outfit would count as
specifically protecting locations.
>
> A jacket, for example, specifically protects the torso and arms. It
leaves the legs, head and hands uncovered.
<Snippola(TM)>

Yeesh!

Robert, did you see the operative word?? Simple! I said SIMPLE!

8-)

Sure, you're probably more or less right there, but it gets too
complicated that way. I'm defining 'specific protection' as ONLY
protection ONE portion of the body - a helmet, a vest etc. Jackets
protect two limbs and the torso and so don't qualify for the
multiplier.

Anyway, I'd like your system if I was going for more detail, but
getting into defining 'percentages of body coverage' and 'average shots
striking particular locations' and the like totally defeats the purpose
of what I was proposing.

*Doc' pulls out a calculator in the middle of a firefight to figure out
if he's better off shooting the ganger normally in his armoured jacket
or trying for a called shot to his unprotected head...*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 49
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 21:24:40 -0500
>>> Ummm, a called shot does not by pass armor in SR, you only get a
>>> one level higher base damage rating, thats all. Armor counts fully.
>>
>> Then you're not doing something right. Unless the guy's got an armored
>> head, he's going down hard since his armor won't be in the way to save
him.
>
> This is one of those situations where common sense and SR rules say
> different things.

Damn skippy. I could never figure out how a person's armored vest protected
their craniums.

> BTB, with a called shot to the head, armor still reduces the
> Power Level, while your brain says "There's no armor there." Trouble
> is, not applying armor _and_ upping the Damage Level by a
> category is much too powerful...

Agreed.

> A simple fix is to use a house rule: called shots can either
> bypass armor, or increase the Damage Level by one, but not both.

This is my house rule as well.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 50
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 21:24:47 -0500
> Says the rulebook. Some people who like to think for themselves decided
> that shooting aimed at a non-armored part of the body means that there
> is no armor there to count. So did my friends and me. :-)

One thing I forgot to mention in my recent reply to Gurth on this subject is
that, of course, the house rule cuts both ways.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 51
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:35:10 +1000
Doc Rand writes:
> *Doc' pulls out a calculator in the middle of a firefight to figure out
> if he's better off shooting the ganger normally in his armoured jacket
> or trying for a called shot to his unprotected head...*

You'd work it out in advance, Doc... there's only so many pieces of armour
in SR (less than 20), and drawing up a table showing the relative armour
strengths would be pretty easy.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 52
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
> > *Doc' pulls out a calculator in the middle of a firefight to figure
out if he's better off shooting the ganger normally in his armoured
jacket or trying for a called shot to his unprotected head...*
>
> You'd work it out in advance, Doc... there's only so many pieces of
armour in SR (less than 20), and drawing up a table showing the
relative armour strengths would be pretty easy.
> robert.watkins@******.com

*sigh*

Point one being, Robert, that it was a joke. :) I was imagining me as a
shadowrunner actually dragging out a calculator in the middle of a
real, live combat situation. :)

Point two being, I'd prefer to say "Called shot? Head? No armour - +6
target minus any aiming actions." rather than looking at a table. But I
suppose you have a point. Mind working the table up? :)
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 53
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:08:08 +1000
> Point two being, I'd prefer to say "Called shot? Head? No armour - +6
> target minus any aiming actions." rather than looking at a table. But I
> suppose you have a point. Mind working the table up? :)

I'll do it tonight, and email it to you tomorrow. Can you view an Excel
spreadsheet?
Message no. 54
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
> > Point two being, I'd prefer to say "Called shot?
> Head? No armour - +6
> > target minus any aiming actions." rather than
> looking at a table. But I
> > suppose you have a point. Mind working the table
> up? :)
>
> I'll do it tonight, and email it to you tomorrow. Can you view an
Excel spreadsheet?

Excel 7.0 only.
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 55
From: Ken Ken@********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 23:26:15 -0400
On Tuesday, June 15, 1999 10:59 PM, Rand Ratinac
[SMTP:docwagon101@*****.com] wrote:
> > > *Doc' pulls out a calculator in the middle of a firefight to figure
> out if he's better off shooting the ganger normally in his armoured
> jacket or trying for a called shot to his unprotected head...*
> >
> > You'd work it out in advance, Doc... there's only so many pieces of
> armour in SR (less than 20), and drawing up a table showing the
> relative armour strengths would be pretty easy.
> > robert.watkins@******.com
>
> *sigh*
>
> Point one being, Robert, that it was a joke. :) I was imagining me as a
> shadowrunner actually dragging out a calculator in the middle of a
> real, live combat situation. :)
>
> Point two being, I'd prefer to say "Called shot? Head? No armour - +6
> target minus any aiming actions." rather than looking at a table. But I
> suppose you have a point. Mind working the table up? :)
> ==> Doc'
> (aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)
>
> .sig Sauer
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
When you're talking target modifiers, are you figuring in things like
smartgun advantages? Lets face it, the only folks out there that would
bother to aim in the middle of a firefight are Sams. No Sam worth the name
would be without a smartlinked weapon (-2). If you want to get fancy, the
laser sight knocks off another (-1). Depending on whether or not your GM
will allow image magnification to be used with smartlink, your initial
target number will be lower. Put a large and solid object between you and
unfriendly fire (adds +8 to the opposing target number) and aim some more.
Then take into account the number of dice you have for combat pool.
pretty much regardless of the weapon you're using, all it would take is a
single hit to take the target out of the action.

Ken
Message no. 56
From: Aaron Binns sparrow@***.net.au
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:33:12 +1000
> > I'll do it tonight, and email it to you tomorrow. Can you view an
> Excel spreadsheet?
>
> Excel 7.0 only.
> ==> Doc'

Id like a copy myself. It is something I think I would find useful :)

I can read any excel spreadsheet up to xl97. No worries there.

GreyWolf
Message no. 57
From: Aaron Binns sparrow@***.net.au
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:36:10 +1000
Ken wrote:

> When you're talking target modifiers, are you figuring in things like
> smartgun advantages? Lets face it, the only folks out there that would
> bother to aim in the middle of a firefight are Sams. No Sam worth the name
> would be without a smartlinked weapon (-2). If you want to get fancy, the
> laser sight knocks off another (-1). Depending on whether or not your GM
> will allow image magnification to be used with smartlink, your initial
> target number will be lower. Put a large and solid object between you and
> unfriendly fire (adds +8 to the opposing target number) and aim some more.
> Then take into account the number of dice you have for combat pool.
> pretty much regardless of the weapon you're using, all it would take is a
> single hit to take the target out of the action.
>
> Ken

I was under the impression that smartlinks (or at least smartlink II) wasnt
compatible with either image magnification (cyber or scope) or with laser
sights.

Is this right?

GreyWolf
Message no. 58
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:43:42 +1000
> Put a large and solid object
> between you and
> unfriendly fire (adds +8 to the opposing target number) and aim
> some more.

Point: Only things you can't see through give a +8 to the TN. And if they
can't see you, you can't see them, so you can't aim...

You'll have to settle for a +6 at best.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 59
From: Scott Wheelock iscottw@*****.nb.ca
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:47:52 -0300
"And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Ken."
] When you're talking target modifiers, are you figuring in things like
] smartgun advantages? Lets face it, the only folks out there that would
] bother to aim in the middle of a firefight are Sams. No Sam worth the name
] would be without a smartlinked weapon (-2). If you want to get fancy, the
] laser sight knocks off another (-1).

<snip>

Hope you meant smartlink (-2) _or_ laser sight (-1). It's one or the
other. And why wouldn't other archetypes aim? If I've only got one
action, why not spend a simple aiming, so I can make my one shot count?

-Murder of One
Message no. 60
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:12:35 -0400
Marc Renouf wrote:

> <SNIP>
> > And target modifiers don't always work.
>
> You're absolutely right. Sometimes they don't. But they go a
> hell of a long way towards evening the odds.
>

Especially when you have a dice roller who is magically able to roll 6s until
the cows come home. (One time, he was firing at a guy who was hiding on the
back of the truck. Shooting BLINDLY over his shoulder up at the TOP OF THE
TRUCK ROOF he was rolling 35s 47s on a CONSISTENT [like every turn] basis. And
he was getting pissed at ME because he didn't see a dead body anywhere. He was
missing the guy; he was shooting in the wrong place, but still he was rolling
35, 39, 43 while I stood over him and looked at his dice.) Now, tell me, all
the modifiers in the world won't save the NPCs in that situation unless I just
snipe him down, at which point the rest of the group whines and pouts...

> Marc

--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+
M-
Message no. 61
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
> >*Doc' blinks. "You're using a Shadowrun sniper rifle with a
smartlink II and you actually BOTHER with a head shot??"*
>
> Style over substance, little brother... style over substance...

BAW, Kate, BAW. :)

I bow before your greater wisdom, big sister.

*Doc' suddenly bursts out laughing at the mental image of a rash of
headshots sweeping corporate Japan...*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 62
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
> > *Doc' blinks. "You're using a Shadowrun sniper rifle with a
smartlink II and you actually BOTHER with a head shot??"*
>
> Ummm, a called shot does not by pass armor in SR, you only get a one
level higher base damage rating, thats all. Armor counts fully.
> Barbie

*sigh*

You missed my point, Barbie. A standard Shadowrun sniper rifle has a
damage code of 14S. Unless you're going up against someone in military
armour or with good body armour and a pumped up armour spell, as long
as you have decent dice to roll, your shot is going to punch right
through whatever he's wearing. Give that sniper EX Exp or APDS and,
well...

*This message speaks for itself, removing the necessity of me making a...doh!!!*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 63
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:05:35 +0200
According to dghost@****.com, at 17:22 on 15 Jun 99, the word on
the street was...

> How about this. Called shot makes the round armor piercing and halves
> the armor value (assuming there is no armor in the targeted area.).

Shouldn't that read "assuming there is armor in the targeted area"? It
doesn't make much sense otherwise :)

> Called shots with armor piercing rounds divide the target's armor by 4
> (1/2 for armor piercing and 1/2 for called shot), round down. I think
> this is okay to use with increased power level. Agree/disagree?

It looks like a fair compromise. I might try it sometime, to see if I like
it in play or not.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Now all of them have gone or changed
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 64
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:05:35 +0200
According to Paul J. Adam, at 17:21 on 15 Jun 99, the word on
the street was...

> >It could, but it's highly unlikely you have a firefight in which everybody
> >gets mowed down by _aimed_ shots in 3 to 10 seconds...
>
> It can happen - it's called a successful ambush :) You can mow down a
> startling number of surprised men in a couple of seconds.

True, but in those cases you can see the enemy coming and have plenty of
time to prepare a reception for them. In SR, a typical firefight happens
when two groups blunder into each other, and then one side incapacitates
the other within a few turns.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Now all of them have gone or changed
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 65
From: Starrngr@***.com Starrngr@***.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 06:23:01 EDT
In a message dated 6/15/99 8:27:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Ken@********.com
writes:

> No Sam worth the name
> would be without a smartlinked weapon (-2). If you want to get fancy, the
> laser sight knocks off another (-1).

Umm, I do bleive it mentions in the book that Lazer sights and Smartlinks
can't be used together.
Message no. 66
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 06:19:22 -0700
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:05:35 Gurth wrote:

>According to Paul J. Adam, at 17:21 on 15 Jun 99, the word on
>the street was...

>> It can happen - it's called a successful ambush :) You can mow down a
>> startling number of surprised men in a couple of seconds.

>True, but in those cases you can see the enemy coming and have plenty of
>time to prepare a reception for them. In SR, a typical firefight happens
>when two groups blunder into each other, and then one side incapacitates
>the other within a few turns.

You missed the word SUCCESSFUL above, Gurth. ;) A successful ambush is one where you
surprise your opponent(s). This would mean that they didn't see you coming and you get a
good drop on them. It sure sucks when you don't even have a readied weapon and you start
taking aimed fire...

This is why it is good to plan an ambush if you intend on taking people out who are more
skilled or numbered than your team (heck, it's always a good idea to plan for this). It
gives you a good chance to get the drop on them and minimize your losses.

Unfortunately, most people don't take advantage of this and spend their time healing
instead. This is why most firefights are impromptu and have high target numbers. Those
well planned and executed ambushes can really lower your TNs and can incapacitate even
heavily cybered and moderately armored opponents quickly.

>--
>Gurth@******

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 67
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 06:39:17 -0700
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:22:07 dghost wrote:

>>A simple fix is to use a house rule: called shots can either bypass
>armor,
>>or increase the Damage Level by one, but not both.

I've used this before, but I used a less abstract system now.

>How about this. Called shot makes the round armor piercing and halves
>the armor value (assuming there is no armor in the targeted area.).
>Called shots with armor piercing rounds divide the target's armor by 4
>(1/2 for armor piercing and 1/2 for called shot), round down. I think
>this is okay to use with increased power level. Agree/disagree?

I make called shots less abstract while still using a simple system. I just say that if
you call a shot to a specific location, you only have to deal with the armor that is worn
on that location. This encourages people to wear helmets and such (which also makes them
more noticeable...). In some of the sourcebooks, helmets have 2 ratings. I use the
higher rating as the one that is used when aiming for said location. So if a helmet has a
rating of 1/4, I use the 1 for abstract purposes (non-called shots) and I use the 4 if
someone is aiming at the head. Same goes for armored boots. This keeps characters from
completely bypassing armor altogether with a simple action as long as the opponent is
wearing a good amount of armor (i.e. doesn't leave his/her head or arms completely
unarmored, etc.) As a note, I only allow called shots to a limb (a specific arm or leg)
or to the head. Anything more specific isn't allowed except in the case of calling a shot
for a special effect (see below). The damage code is not affected in any way when calling
a shot to a specific part of the body - all you are doing is reducing the amount of armor
you have to get through to hit the target. Think of this as a scaled down way to bypass
armor.

Characters also have the option to aim for a special effect, if desired. An example would
be aiming for a knee to slow down an opponent, etc. This doesn't impact the damage code
whatsoever, but armor is calculated as if they were calling a shot to the knee. The
special effect is that the opponenet's movement is severely hindered if the attacker does
a lot of damage.

I also allow characters to aim to up the damage code by 1 level. This is per the standard
rules. It is possible to combine this with either calling the shot to a specific location
or for a special effect by suffering two +4 called shot TN mods (for a total of +8).

This adds more variety without throwing game balance out of whack. It also allows the
players to make more cinematic attacks if they choose to. If a player doesn't call a shot
(which is most of the time), I simply carry out the shot as normal (along with damage
soaking and dodging) then roll on a random hit location chart to see where the bullet hit
and descibe the gory details appropriately. Thus, even though you weren't aiming for the
head, you can still hit it. This doesn't change anything as far as the game is concerned,
but allows for variety other than "you hit". Per the table, you will hit the
torso most of the time and other parts of the body less often.

>--
>D. Ghost

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 68
From: Twist0059@***.com Twist0059@***.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:02:51 EDT
In a message dated 6/15/99 5:48:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kelson13@*******.com writes:

<< Sure, goons with wired 3 are fast, but how much more cyber can they pack
into their meat bods? Not much. How much magic can they wield? Likely
none. >>


Couldn't a magician with Wires-3 and 5 Geasa still throw Force 6 spells under
MitS? One of the reason's I'm not too fond of the new Geasa stuff from a GM
POV. As a player, though, they rock.








-Twist
Message no. 69
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 07:12:56 -0700
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:02:51 Twist0059 wrote:

>Couldn't a magician with Wires-3 and 5 Geasa still throw Force 6 spells under
>MitS? One of the reason's I'm not too fond of the new Geasa stuff from a GM
>POV. As a player, though, they rock.

*shudder* I hope not! If that's the case, I think I will have to keep even more of the
SR2 magic system over the SR3 version. Some of the new magic stuff is good, but some of
it is pretty bad. I haven't read MitS yet, but I will be sure to give it a good once over
sometime soon.

>-Twist

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 70
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:19:54 -0400
At 10:02 AM 6/16/99 , Twist0059@***.com wrote:
>In a message dated 6/15/99 5:48:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>kelson13@*******.com writes:
>
><< Sure, goons with wired 3 are fast, but how much more cyber can they pack
>into their meat bods? Not much. How much magic can they wield? Likely
>none. >>
>
>
>Couldn't a magician with Wires-3 and 5 Geasa still throw Force 6 spells under
>MitS? One of the reason's I'm not too fond of the new Geasa stuff from a GM
>POV. As a player, though, they rock.

How many times he is he going to be able throw all of those Force 6 spells
if he has to follow all 5 geasa at the same time? Remember, break 1 and you
break them all.

If he's a shaman, he takes the shaman geas, so he loses at least one or two
types of spells and most spirits. He has to gesture and use an incantation,
for 2 more. Say he has a talisman geas, for something that's relatively
easy to fix. He still has to take one more, probably the state one (day or
night, drunk, etc). That is not a good way to go.

And if he loses any magic at all he's mundane. His magic rating is 6 only
for casting spells, otherwise its 1. Take a deadly wound, check for magic
loss. Use a stim patch, check for magic loss. Get any other cyberwear,
check for magic loss. Eventually he's going to burn out, and sooner rather
than later.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 71
From: Damian Sharp zadoc@***.neu.edu
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:24:42 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 Twist0059@***.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/15/99 5:48:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kelson13@*******.com writes:
>
> << Sure, goons with wired 3 are fast, but how much more cyber can they pack
> into their meat bods? Not much. How much magic can they wield? Likely
> none. >>
>
> Couldn't a magician with Wires-3 and 5 Geasa still throw Force 6 spells under
> MitS? One of the reason's I'm not too fond of the new Geasa stuff from a GM
> POV. As a player, though, they rock.
>
> -Twist

Theoretically, they could still throw spells. However, it has been pointed
out that 5 Geasa is very difficult to work with. Any disruptions in your
routine is likely to break one of them, and if you break one, you break
them all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Student |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
When someone asks you, "A penny for your thoughts,"
and you put your two cents in, what happens to the other penny?
Message no. 72
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:39:33 -0400 (EDT)
" Kelson " <kelson13@*******.com> writes:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:07:40 Mark A Shieh wrote:
> Kelson wrote:
>
> >> The problem mentioned by both of you isn't with the initiative
> >> system - it's with the GMing style used.
>
> > No, the problem is made ridiculously clear if the GMing style
> >used is the one you propose. It's lessened with a proper GMing style,
> >just like it's lessened with the SR3 initiative system. Introducing
> >either allows for a range of solutions to the speed freak problem, but
> >introducing both gives you an even wider range.
>
> How is that? I don't see how SR3 fixes the speed freak "problem" in
> any realistic fashion. In fact, I never thought there was a problem
> in SR2. Sure, goons with wired 3 are fast, but how much more cyber
> can they pack into their meat bods? Not much.

That's the other reason we don't have the problem. We don't
allow a lot of the SR2 books. In SR2, it's pretty easy to create a
speed freak with plenty of space left (Wired 2 + Enhanced Articulation
+ Muscle Augmentation 2 or Cerebral Booster + Q6 I6 makes for a pretty
good init: 12+3d6) Also, a speed freak to me is anyone whose averages
3 actions, which lets them go twice before the average person.

> Altering the initiative system to give speed freaks actions later in
> their turn is just plain wrong. ;) Seriously, it's not realistic
> within the scope of the game system at all.

I feel the opposite to you on the realism argument, but I'm
talking about the initiative problem more from a playability
standpoint.

> >> Increased reflexes don't
> >> indicate high perceptive abilities, so even wired-to-the-gills PCs can
> >> be ambushed and slaughtered prior to being able to do anything about
> >> it - it just takes some planning, 'tis all.
>
> > If you double check, that's what I'm saying about SR2 (an
> >ambush was one of the exceptions I made). In SR2, it's generally
> >necessary to set up a careful ambush in order to threaten the PCs
> >without excessive force, not impossible to take them out. Now, the
> >PCs are hopefully unable to stand down a biker gang (~20) people and
> >take them out with a quickdraw, a few shots, and then a dive for
> >cover.

> Let me put this in perspective. If the PCs have skills of 8 all
> over the place and have lots of cyberware, while the NPCs have skills
> of 4 and only a little cyberware, then yes the NPCs will need a plan
> to take out the PCs. Period.

I'm not disagreeing with you. However, the first action in
any plan I use involves diving or running for cover. It take a lot
more goons to do anything if the first thing that happens is the fast
PCs shooting 2-3 goons each.

> The initiative system doesn't change this.

In SR3, they get their one action on them based on their
speed, after which they are reacting to each other, with the fast PCs
doing 2-4x more than the slow NPCs. Once they start reacting to each
other, the NPCs aren't being caught flat-footed anymore, they're doing
things, like taking cover, flanking, calling backup, pushing
PanicButtons, whatever.
In SR2, they stand there and absorb fire for a while (My guess
is anywhere between 6 and 10 PC actions), before they get any chance
to move to cover. Plans are completely worthless if you don't have
any time to implement them.

> If, in your game world, the PCs are far above the NPCs on the
> tech/magic/skill track, then it takes either a) mobs of NPCs, or b)
> NPCs who know how to plan and execute well. A lot of GMs go for a,
> but I prefer plan b.

This is true. Under SR3, you don't lose as many NPCs before
they get to start planning or executing, unless the PCs have blundered
into an ambush. (There's another thread commenting on how many
encounters begin by two groups of people wandering into each other and
then deciding that the other group is hostile)

> It makes more sense and doesn't force the PCs
> into the mindset that they need all that cyber to stay alive.

The PCs know this. It's the more suicidial PCs that get
wounded the most, regardless of which ones are faster. Speed lets you
go more often and do more, not have less done to you.

> > What I AM saying is that I really hate planning around the
> >speed freaks, and it gets old having to ambush the party every time I
> >want to threaten them with something weaker but not vastly more
> >numerous than themselves. What I want is for some average but
> >reasonably competent joes to be able to threaten the party without
> >laying in ambush. It just doesn't happen in SR2.
>
> It doesn't happen in SR3, either. See above. PCs with lots of
> cyber and other toys will clean the floor with an equal number of NPCs
> without as many goodies.

Look, I'm not saying that this was ever the case! Please read
what I'm saying fully. I'm saying that the necessary odds drop
significantly in SR3. To threaten 5 PCs without ambushing them, I
might only need, say, 10 normal guys in SR3, rather than the 15 I
might need in SR2. I never claimed that 5 joes should be able to
really threaten 5 shadowrunners in a straight encounter.

> > I agree, it gets even worse if you let the TNs drop below 6.
> >Trust me, I'm not giving them easy shots.
> > However, even with moderate lighting mods and partial cover,
> >the PCs can still do moderate+ wounds on each action. This is enough
> >to incapacitate most non-elites. (Anything but total darkness is only
> >a +2 average unless I pull out thermal smoke. I blame a bunch of
> >metahumans.)

> I don't see how this is possible. How are the PCs doing damage
> every action?

2 Shots in the TN 6-10 range each turn, usually closer to 6 before the
goon's first action. Odds are, they're going to get 2-3 successes
distributed among the shots (more like 4 with their dice), and the
average guys aren't going to be able to dodge that. My players are
using normal ammo, but could have easily purchased EX Explosive,
tasers, or something more painful than silenced heavy pistol.

> Don't the NPCs take cover?

On their first action, yes. In SR2, that's about 8 shots from the PCs
later.

> Don't they use fun things like stun weapons?

Sure, but this doesn't make a difference before their first action.

> Don't they move around (thus invoking movement mods)?

Sometimes, but I'm not going to give them partial cover AND
running mods, except in special cases (running along a low wall, etc.)
Most of the time, you're either taking cover, or leaving yourself
exposed between two pieces of cover.

> > The best solution I've found to this problem is to just send
> >more force 5-6 spirits at them, without increasing the number of mages
> >(last encounter was 2 spirits, 0 mages). They move quickly, they
> >really scare the sammies, life is good.

> But that would fall under plan a above. ;) Just throwing more
> goons at the players doesn't fix the problem.

No, but it gives them something inexpensive to worry about
without spending massive resources at every encounter. They draw fire
off of the goons, letting them last longer.

> It only encourages the players to make cyberzombies and kick ass
> magicians at character creation.

No, it forces them to plan better, and to pick their fights.
When I want to send overwhelming odds at them, I make sure they're
overwhelming for any PC to stand off against.

> This, of course, makes the GM throw even more goons at the
> PCs....see a cycle here? Take some time to figure out what it is that
> is causing your PCs to be so powerful when compared to everyone else.

We figured it out a long time ago, and no longer have this
problem. It consisted of switching to more intelligent NPCs, applying
liberal movement and lighting penalties, and switching to the SR3
rules, in that order. Each individual change helped quite a bit.

However, one of the most important in-genre encounters happens
by wandering through neutral territory and running into a gang level
encounter. It's much nicer having them run into about 10 or 12
unmodified gangers and be at least a little scared, rather than
negotiating from a perceived position of vast superiority because they
know they'll wipe them out before they get to go.

Mark
Message no. 73
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:55:26 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Mark A Shieh wrote:

> In SR3, they get their one action on them based on their
> speed, after which they are reacting to each other, with the fast PCs
> doing 2-4x more than the slow NPCs. Once they start reacting to each
> other, the NPCs aren't being caught flat-footed anymore, they're doing
> things, like taking cover, flanking, calling backup, pushing
> PanicButtons, whatever.

Ahh, this explains a lot. In the rules as written, movement is a
modifier, not an action. You can "move" before your turn comes around.
Hell, dropping prone is a free action, and you can take a free action on
*any* initiative phase. Similarly, speaking a word is a free action, so
calling for help is not out of the question.
If you just have goons and gangers standing there like dopes while
the PC's blaze away, I can see how you're having the "speed kills"
problem.

> Look, I'm not saying that this was ever the case! Please read
> what I'm saying fully. I'm saying that the necessary odds drop
> significantly in SR3. To threaten 5 PCs without ambushing them, I
> might only need, say, 10 normal guys in SR3, rather than the 15 I
> might need in SR2.

Really? I have threatened 5 shadowrunners with three "average
joes." But it was in a mercenary setting, and those average joes were
barefoot, pajama-wearing guerilla soldiers carrying AK-97's. They had no
cyber, no armor, and no special ammunition. And my players were scared
shitless, simply because they knew that something bad can and probably
will happen in a firefight.
The same 3 averages joes standing stationary on a street corner
would be toast. We are in total agreement on that. But the point remains
- if you pick your battles carefully, even weak foes can seriously
threaten hard-core PC's.

> > Don't the NPCs take cover?
>
> On their first action, yes. In SR2, that's about 8 shots from the PCs
> later.

Again, this is yourt problem. You don't have to wait until your
action to start moving.

> > Don't they move around (thus invoking movement mods)?
>
> Sometimes, but I'm not going to give them partial cover AND
> running mods, except in special cases (running along a low wall, etc.)
> Most of the time, you're either taking cover, or leaving yourself
> exposed between two pieces of cover.

A lot depends on the setting. There will be a lot of situations
where there will be more cover than you may have initially though, but
this cover is often minimal (say +2). I often times apply a "clutter"
penalty to situations where there is stuff that blocks line of sight or
obscures part of a target. Everything from trees to hedges to picket
fences to the tables and chairs in the bar. See my previous post about
hitting through cover and you'll see what I mean.

Marc
Message no. 74
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:56:58 +0200
Patrick Goodman wrote:
>
> > Ummm, a called shot does not by pass armor in SR, you only get a one level
> > higher base damage rating, thats all. Armor counts fully.
>
> Then you're not doing something right. Unless the guy's got an armored
> head, he's going down hard since his armor won't be in the way to save him.
>
Tell me where the rules say that a called shot bypasses armor? :) You can`t,
so where I doing something wrong? And as someone else explained nicely,
thats exactly how the SR combat system works.

--
Barbie

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

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++ dk
sh++++
ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 75
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:18:32 +0200
Karsten Dürotin wrote:
>
> Says the rulebook. Some people who like to think for themselves decided
> that shooting aimed at a non-armored part of the body means that there
> is no armor there to count. So did my friends and me. :-)
>
np there, but what do you do in the following sits?
what do you apply as helmet armor?
what is the rating of armor when i lets say make a called shot to you
armored arm?
and so on, bypassing armor does not fit into the way of the abstracted SR
combat system.

--
Barbie

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

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++ dk
sh++++
ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 76
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:32:43 +0200
Aaron Binns wrote:
>

> I was under the impression that smartlinks (or at least smartlink II) wasnt
> compatible with either image magnification (cyber or scope) or with laser
> sights.
>
> Is this right?

Yes, you are right, they are not combatible.

--
Barbie

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

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++ dk
sh++++
ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 77
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:34:16 +0200
According to Kelson, at 6:19 on 16 Jun 99, the word on
the street was...

> >> It can happen - it's called a successful ambush :) You can mow down a
> >> startling number of surprised men in a couple of seconds.
>
> >True, but in those cases you can see the enemy coming and have plenty of
> >time to prepare a reception for them. In SR, a typical firefight happens
> >when two groups blunder into each other, and then one side incapacitates
> >the other within a few turns.
>
> You missed the word SUCCESSFUL above, Gurth. ;)

No, I didn't miss that word. If you read more carefully, you'll see that I
agree with what Paul said, but that I added that most SR firefights (the
ones I've seen, anyway) were not ambushes, successful or otherwise.

> A successful ambush is one where you surprise your opponent(s). This
> would mean that they didn't see you coming and you get a good drop on
> them. It sure sucks when you don't even have a readied weapon and you
> start taking aimed fire...

That is something my players have a hard time figuring out. Most of the
time they dive headlong into a fight, and then either come out victorious
through sheer luck (or sometimes firepower) or they get shot up badly
because the opposition has set an ambush (which can be a planned one, or
an "ambush" that consists of nothing more than a security guard deciding
to sit behind a desk and shoot anyone who comes through the door).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Now all of them have gone or changed
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 78
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:30:03 -0500
:>> been utterly speedy and wiered is a key element in the cyberpunk
:genre, take
:>> that away and you loos parts of it.

:>That's still the case. As a street sam, you still get to shoot three times
:>as many bad guys as the decker will. It's just that with the new system,
:>the decker's player isn't sitting around getting bored until the end of
:>the turn, when nobody is still standing. (Tell me _that_'s realistic:
:>firefights that take 6 seconds...)


If speedfreaks still get to shoot just as often, do the fights actually
last a more "realistic" amount of time? Don't they last basically the same
amount of time?

Mongoose
Message no. 79
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:46:37 -0400
Marc Renouf wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Mark A Shieh wrote:
>
> > In SR3, they get their one action on them based on their
> > speed, after which they are reacting to each other, with the fast PCs
> > doing 2-4x more than the slow NPCs. Once they start reacting to each
> > other, the NPCs aren't being caught flat-footed anymore, they're doing
> > things, like taking cover, flanking, calling backup, pushing
> > PanicButtons, whatever.
>
> Ahh, this explains a lot. In the rules as written, movement is a
> modifier, not an action. You can "move" before your turn comes around.
> Hell, dropping prone is a free action, and you can take a free action on
> *any* initiative phase. Similarly, speaking a word is a free action, so
> calling for help is not out of the question.
> If you just have goons and gangers standing there like dopes while
> the PC's blaze away, I can see how you're having the "speed kills"
> problem.
>



> <SNIP>
> > > Don't the NPCs take cover?
> >
> > On their first action, yes. In SR2, that's about 8 shots from the PCs
> > later.
>
> Again, this is yourt problem. You don't have to wait until your
> action to start moving.
>
> <SNIP>
> Marc

What you are forgetting is that, according to the rules IIRC, you can take a
Free Action in any combat turn AFTER you have taken your first one. The decker
with an initiative of 7 can't drop prone or scream for help at combat turn 37,
but the sammy with the initiative of 43 can.

--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+
M-
Message no. 80
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:44:35 -0700
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:18:32 Barbie LeVile wrote:

>np there, but what do you do in the following sits?
>what do you apply as helmet armor?
>what is the rating of armor when i lets say make a called shot to you
>armored arm?
>and so on, bypassing armor does not fit into the way of the abstracted SR
>combat system.

You're correct, it doesn't. See a post I made earlier today about how to handle the above
situations. It's not that complex, really. If you want a REALLY simple (but potentially
unbalancing) system, allow a called shot to either a) avoid armor, or b) stage up the
damage code. I allow more flexibility than that, except I restrict how much armor can be
avoided by what the target's wearing at the time.

>--
>Barbie

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 81
From: Barbie LeVile barbie@********.de
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:48:15 +0200
Kelson wrote:
>
n some of the sourcebooks, helmets have 2 ratings. I use the higher rating
as the one that is used when aiming for said location. So if a helmet has a
rating of 1/4, I use the 1 for abstract purposes (non-called shots) and I
use the 4 if you don't.

ummm, sure they do, its called ballistic and impact rating .........

--
Barbie

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

SRGC 0.22: SR1 SR2+++ SR3--- h++++ b++ b--- UB++ IE- RN+ SR_D+++ W++ dk
sh++++
ri++++ sa+++ ad+++ m+++(x+++) gm++ m+++ P+++(P*)
Message no. 82
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:15:46 -0700
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:34:16 Gurth wrote:

>> You missed the word SUCCESSFUL above, Gurth. ;)
>
>No, I didn't miss that word. If you read more carefully, you'll see that I
>agree with what Paul said, but that I added that most SR firefights (the
>ones I've seen, anyway) were not ambushes, successful or otherwise.

Oops. I misinterpreted your response where "they" meant the targets of the
ambush. You ment "they" as the planners of the ambush. I apologize.

>That is something my players have a hard time figuring out. Most of the
>time they dive headlong into a fight, and then either come out victorious
>through sheer luck (or sometimes firepower) or they get shot up badly
>because the opposition has set an ambush (which can be a planned one, or
>an "ambush" that consists of nothing more than a security guard deciding
>to sit behind a desk and shoot anyone who comes through the door).

Well, heck. Teach 'em a lesson they'll never forget. Make the opposition noticeably
underpowered, but have them plan well. This will probably end up with the PCs running for
their lives. Hopefully they can learn from it...I know I have (right, Marc?) ;)

>--
>Gurth@******.nl

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 83
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:22:31 -0700
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:48:15 Barbie LeVile wrote:

>Kelson wrote:
>>
>n some of the sourcebooks, helmets have 2 ratings. I use the higher rating
>as the one that is used when aiming for said location. So if a helmet has a
>rating of 1/4, I use the 1 for abstract purposes (non-called shots) and I
>use the 4 if you don't.

>ummm, sure they do, its called ballistic and impact rating .........

Really? I thought I saw somewhere that this was for different purposes with regards to
helmets (i.e. the 1 was for abstract shots and the other number was for something else).
Other armor, of course, uses the ballistic/impact nomenclature but I thought helmets
weren't treated that way. Helmets generally just add 1 to your overall armor rating (to
both ballistic and impact armor). What's the point of giving them ballistic and impact
ratings if that's the case? According to the canon rules, you can't call a shot to the
head, so there's no need to assign the helmet separate ballistic and impact ratings since
they both are increased by 1.

*shrug* I could be wrong. If that's the case, simply increase the target's armor rating
by 1 for abstract shots and use the ballistic/impact ratings for called shots. This is
basically what I do, but I use the 2nd number (that you read as being the impact rating)
for both the ballistic and impact ratings.

>--
>Barbie

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 84
From: Twist0059@***.com Twist0059@***.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:56:48 EDT
In a message dated 6/16/99 10:20:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sommers@*****.umich.edu writes:

<< And if he loses any magic at all he's mundane. His magic rating is 6 only
for casting spells, otherwise its 1. Take a deadly wound, check for magic
loss. Use a stim patch, check for magic loss. Get any other cyberwear,
check for magic loss. Eventually he's going to burn out, and sooner rather
than later.
>>


I thought that Geasa under the new rules apply to everything, including focus
addiction and magic loss. Yet note, this does NOT work in the favor of the
character for magic loss tests, since the lower the magic the less chance of
losing more.









-Twist
Message no. 85
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:04:53 +0100
In article <3767DC68.94521C60@********.de>, Barbie LeVile
<barbie@********.de> writes
>Karsten Dürotin wrote:
>> Says the rulebook. Some people who like to think for themselves decided
>> that shooting aimed at a non-armored part of the body means that there
>> is no armor there to count. So did my friends and me. :-)
>>
>np there, but what do you do in the following sits?
>what do you apply as helmet armor?

If the target has a helmet or similar, then they get their "whole body"
armour rating even on a called shot to the head. It's simpler than arguing
over what the armour rating of various helmets ought to be. (The +1
damage level still applies, and we chose to make it an either/or - you just
get to bypass armour if the target's wearing a helmet, you jump a
damage level if they aren't, not both)


So, Joe Blow's wearing an armour jacket (5/3) and helmet (+1/+1) for a
6/4 armour rating. If he gets shot in the head, he still has 6/4 armour but
the weapon does an extra level of damage.

If he wears a security (+1/+2) helmet, his head would be 6/5 armour,
same as the rest of him.

If he takes the helmet off and gets a called shot to the head, the weapon
does standard damage but Joe has _no_ armour except maybe orthoskin
or bone lacing or other implanted stuff to defend with.

Quick, simple, avoids arguments.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 86
From: Ken Ken@********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:53:48 -0400
On Tuesday, June 15, 1999 11:44 PM, Robert Watkins [SMTP:robert.watkins@******.com] wrote:
> > Put a large and solid object
> > between you and
> > unfriendly fire (adds +8 to the opposing target number) and aim
> > some more.
>
> Point: Only things you can't see through give a +8 to the TN. And if they
> can't see you, you can't see them, so you can't aim...
>
> You'll have to settle for a +6 at best.
>
> --
> .sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
>
>
>
Not so. SR3 calls 75% cover +8. nothing about not being able to see

Ken
Message no. 87
From: Ken Ken@********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:57:58 -0400
On Tuesday, June 15, 1999 11:48 PM, Scott Wheelock
[SMTP:iscottw@*****.nb.ca] wrote:
> "And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Ken."
> ] When you're talking target modifiers, are you figuring in things like
> ] smartgun advantages? Lets face it, the only folks out there that would
> ] bother to aim in the middle of a firefight are Sams. No Sam worth the
name
> ] would be without a smartlinked weapon (-2). If you want to get fancy,
the
> ] laser sight knocks off another (-1).
>
> <snip>
>
> Hope you meant smartlink (-2) _or_ laser sight (-1). It's one or the
> other. And why wouldn't other archetypes aim? If I've only got one
> action, why not spend a simple aiming, so I can make my one shot count?
>
> -Murder of One
>
>
Heh..oops. Could have been my mood at the time but something I got from
the original post gave me the impression of LOTS of lead flying where
someone not as used to firefighting as a sam would have a tendency to fire
without taking the time to aim..more for the cover effect.

Ken
Message no. 88
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:01:31 +1000
> > Point: Only things you can't see through give a +8 to the TN.
> And if they
> > can't see you, you can't see them, so you can't aim...
> >
> > You'll have to settle for a +6 at best.

> Not so. SR3 calls 75% cover +8. nothing about not being able to see

+8 = shooting blind, IIRC... ie, shooting through a wall to get at a target
you know is on the other side.

Mind you, I'm an SR2 guy, not an SR3... so the definition may have changed.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 89
From: Karsten_DÃŒrotin karsten@****.net
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:44:17 +0200
>Karsten Dürotin wrote:
>>
>> Says the rulebook. Some people who like to think for themselves
decided
>> that shooting aimed at a non-armored part of the body means that
there
>> is no armor there to count. So did my friends and me. :-)
>>
>np there, but what do you do in the following sits?
>what do you apply as helmet armor?
>what is the rating of armor when i lets say make a called shot to you
>armored arm?
>and so on, bypassing armor does not fit into the way of the abstracted
SR
>combat system.


First, I wanted to add that I didn't want to offend you. On re-reading,
my comment sounds really snotty. Sorry for that.

Well, we usually don't use Called Shots anyway. We just wait until the
damage is calculated, and then the GM decides where the shot hit. Also,
we don't use much Armor, as I stated before, so this situation seldom
comes up. Yes, you are right. Bypassing armor really would be
problematic if you see it that way... Called Shots in our games are to
hit legs only, or to shoot away a gun from a hand, or situations like
that. "Gimme 5 successes against 8... yup, the gun spins away". See?

--- Karsten
Message no. 90
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:20:59 -0700
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:44:17 Karsten_Dürotin wrote:

>First, I wanted to add that I didn't want to offend you. On re-reading,
>my comment sounds really snotty. Sorry for that.

No offense taken. I didn't see it as snotty at all. Rather, I took it as inquisitive.
:)

>Well, we usually don't use Called Shots anyway. We just wait until the
>damage is calculated, and then the GM decides where the shot hit. Also,
>we don't use much Armor, as I stated before, so this situation seldom
>comes up. Yes, you are right. Bypassing armor really would be
>problematic if you see it that way... Called Shots in our games are to
>hit legs only, or to shoot away a gun from a hand, or situations like
>that. "Gimme 5 successes against 8... yup, the gun spins away". See?

I know what your are talking about, yes. :) I do the same thing using called shot game
mechanics. As a GM, I too determine hit location AFTER the damage has been resisted, etc.
If it's lethal damage, I describe it accordingly (players sometimes get a kick out of
this). What you are describing above is what I term calling a shot for a special effect.
Some of the possible special effects include disarming (shooting a weapon out of someone's
hand), shooting out a knee to slow down a target, etc. Just use the standard called shot
modifier and if the shooter has any net successes, the special effect takes place (the gun
is shot out of the target's hand, the target is shot in the knee, etc.). In the latter
case, the damage caused would determine the movement modifier applied to the target.

This system allows you to use the standard called shot rules, but expand upon them when
needed to do so. It's easy to remember, too.

>--- Karsten

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 91
From: cmpetro@*********.com cmpetro@*********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:48:24 -0500
> > > Point: Only things you can't see through give a +8 to the TN.
> > And if they
> > > can't see you, you can't see them, so you can't aim...
> > >
> > > You'll have to settle for a +6 at best.

> > Not so. SR3 calls 75% cover +8. nothing about not being able to see

> +8 = shooting blind, IIRC... ie, shooting through a wall to get at a
target
> you know is on the other side.

> Mind you, I'm an SR2 guy, not an SR3... so the definition may have
changed.

Blind fire is +10 both in SR2 and SR3 (IIRC)
Message no. 92
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 07:24:29 -0700
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:48:24 cmpetro wrote:

>Blind fire is +10 both in SR2 and SR3 (IIRC)

PLEASE look stats like this up before posting. Otherwise, you'll confuse people even
more. In SR2, blind fire was +8. I am not sure if this changed in SR3 because I don't
have my books here to look it up. I suspect it stayed the same, however.

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 93
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:38:00 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Kelson wrote:

> Well, heck. Teach 'em a lesson they'll never forget. Make the
> opposition noticeably underpowered, but have them plan well. This will
> probably end up with the PCs running for their lives. Hopefully they
> can learn from it...I know I have (right, Marc?) ;)

I'd like to think so. I remember the look on your face when your
oh-so-sly bodyguard badass character got taken down like a sack of
potatoes by a sixteen year old ganger armed with a ball-peen hammer. That
was almost as good as the look of panic you had when trapped behind a car
door taking suppressive fire (and blow-through damage) as a competent team
of runners executed a plan that ran counter to yours.
I keep telling people that you don't need badass NPC's or hordes
of goons to challenge the players - at least you've experienced it
first-hand and actually believe me. :)

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.html.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.html.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@********.att.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 94
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:47:00 -0400
Marc Renouf wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Kelson wrote:
>
> <SNIP>. I remember the look on your face when your
> oh-so-sly bodyguard badass character got taken down like a sack of
> potatoes by a sixteen year old ganger armed with a ball-peen hammer. <SNIP>

Please, tell me how a ganger with a ball-peen hammer was able to take down
a bodyguard badass. I WANT TO LEARN FROM YOU.

>
>
> Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)
>
> Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
> Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.html.com> List Owner
> Adam Jury <adamj@*********.html.com> Assistant List Administrator
> DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
> Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
> David Buehrer <graht@********.att.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
> ShadowRN FAQ <http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3>;



--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+
M-
Message no. 95
From: Cybertroll cybertroll@******.crosswinds.net
Subject: SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 16:53:13 +0300
Kelson wrote:

>
> You missed the word SUCCESSFUL above, Gurth. ;) A successful ambush is one where
you surprise your opponent(s). This would mean that they didn't see you coming and you
get a good drop on them. It sure sucks when you don't even have a readied weapon and you
start taking aimed fire...
>
> This is why it is good to plan an ambush if you intend on taking people out who are
more skilled or numbered than your team (heck, it's always a good idea to plan for this).
It gives you a good chance to get the drop on them and minimize your losses.
>
> Unfortunately, most people don't take advantage of this and spend their time healing
instead. This is why most firefights are impromptu and have high target numbers. Those
well planned and executed ambushes can really lower your TNs and can incapacitate even
heavily cybered and moderately armored opponents quickly.

In order to start taking aim on the target u want to surprise, u have to
see it first :-)
You can't aim on empty space. In most tactical situations, the required
time limit for aiming is a multiple of the time the target stays in your
sites (most targets are not static and therefore not availiable for
multiple aim actions). Therefore, any moving target will not give you
more than 2-3 aim actions (they are simple actions, so it's one phase/2
aims, second phase 1 aim + 1 single shot/burst fire). A -3 on the TN is
good but most combat situations will not let a team coordinate so that
they can all wait for the shooters (most mages, spirits and combat
deckers/riggers will blast away before the shooter takes aim, unless the
party has subvocal microphones or is extremely fine tuned in cobat
situations.
If u have a choice between aiming and blasting away, use the aim option
for high TN targets (because in SR3 the dodge test will negate any
chance to hit them) and the blast option for the low TN targets. Also
note the absence of the dodge test for the suprised opponents. This
REALLY gives u a combat edge. In most cases u will encounter low TN
opponents in face to face situations. So Blast Away :-).


The Wiz (via Cybertroll's e-mail)

PS: The Wiz is here to stay :-)

--
E-Mail : cybertroll@********.gr
ICQ# : 7483400 but u have to beg to get my authorization!! :-)))
Homepage: http://www.crosswinds.net/athens/~cybertroll - WOA Photos!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do u really want to talk to me?? Come to #tavern in Othernet!
U'll find the servers in http://www.othernet.org or in
http://tavern.home.pages.de - the #tavern Homepage by Soth

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about SR3 movement PROBLEM (and initiative rant), 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!