Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 17:50:03 EST
Okay folks, just to satisfy my own personal curiousity, I'm going to
start a Wishlist for the Shadowrun 3rd Edition. Right now will be
the preliminary stages....

Reply to this post with everything you want to be included (see the
following examples). I'll then set up a Web Page with the count, and
people can them email me to vote for the ones they agree with.
(Please, no cheating).

(Please Keep "Wishlist" in the subject line, as that is what I'll
have my mailer sort them based on)

The reason for the Wishlist will be to satisfy personal curiousity,
and [hopefully] to shine light on the areas of SR2 we'd like to have
change for the developers.

I'll split the list into different sections....for example: Magic,
Combat, Vehicles, Mechanics, equipment, etc.

The reason for the voting is to avoid debates with two sides. For
example, we can all agree that Grounding needs an answer. We can
(probably) all agree that we'd prefer to have one, even if we
disagreed with it. But issues such as "You need to weaken/empower
nature spirits" we don't all agree on.

Okay, here is the list of issues I'm voting for:

Clear up Grounding issue
Include Availibility/Street Index in future books (Grrrr, R2)
Include a realistic Illusion spell
Keep vehicles from getting killed by a pop gun.
Clean up Otaku
LOS issues with Elementals

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 2
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:30:31 +1100
I want FASA to:

Make SINs clearer (who issues them, how easy they are to fake, how
demandable the data is by other organisations etc)

Print a list of vehicles saying HOW MANY WHEELS THEY HAVE! :) (I was
customising a Bison using the new R2 rules and was wanting to replace
the tyres. Nowhere could I see a figure for how many tyres I'd have to
buy.)

Make it clear whether or not nature spirits can attack on the physical
plane and what damage they do.

Clean up some of the Edges and Flaws

Produce some easily comprehensible decking rules. (Yes, VR2 makes
decking easier - once you've past the learning curve for the damned
rules.)


Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 3
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:52:36 -0500
I wish for...

The whole who gets force pints at CharGen to be cleared up.
Stealth rules in the main book.
Different magicians!!! Magic is much too Western.
Overviews for campaigns for more than just one city.
Karma pools revised.
CharGen for creating Buddies and Followers (Contacts and gangs too).
Revise Recoil (penalties until end of turn instead of action unless
offset)
Fully cover magical healing and First Aid / prolonged medical care.
Review and reweigh PhysAd power costs.
Grounding (need I say more)
Explain rewarding Karma better.

Oh yeah, and incorporate a lot of Steve's ideas of revamping magic
(revised view of astral projection and Geasa -> Rock On!)

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

Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal names
more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves, they
answered to another name, because if another discovered their real name,
it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 4
From: NightRain <nightrain@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:50:56 +1000
>>>Okay folks, just to satisfy my own personal curiousity, I'm going to
start a Wishlist for the Shadowrun 3rd Edition. Right now will be
the preliminary stages....<<<


>>>Okay, here is the list of issues I'm voting for:

Clear up Grounding issue
Include Availibility/Street Index in future books (Grrrr, R2)
Include a realistic Illusion spell
Keep vehicles from getting killed by a pop gun.
Clean up Otaku
LOS issues with Elementals<<<

Clear up the initiative issue. Preferably by using my idea of making the
intitiative spells and cyberware and physad powers and whatever fixed
instead of relative.

NightRain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL : nightrain@***.brisnet.org.au
: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 5
From: Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 22:13:43 +0000
Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU> once wrote,

(snipped the explanations)

> Clear up Grounding issue
Yes...please do
> Include Availibility/Street Index in future books (Grrrr, R2)
Of course
> Include a realistic Illusion spell
Nope, don't see the need...no more new spells, we already have
tons...however, a more balanced spell creation system would be nice
, but that's probably coming in Big Book O' Magic next year...
> Keep vehicles from getting killed by a pop gun.
Yes! Yes!
> Clean up Otaku
Again, a necessity...
> LOS issues with Elementals
Huh? I was never aware there was one...

Now for my suggestions:

-Add all the optional rules from FoF
-Create a more balanced spell creation system
-Make the point based character creation system standard
-Make the edges and flaws standard
-Get rid of that lame Seattle section at the end (Buy Seattle 2)
-Include gear lists from all sourcebooks
Message no. 6
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:11:54 -0500
MC23 once dared to write,

> I wish for...

<snip>

How could I forget, I don't wish for world peace. I want my war
between the CAS and Aztlan.

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

I swear to tell
the Truth, the partial Truth, or something like the Truth.

I am MC23
Message no. 7
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:10:47 -0700
Brett Borger wrote:
|
| Okay folks, just to satisfy my own personal curiousity, I'm going to
| start a Wishlist for the Shadowrun 3rd Edition. Right now will be
| the preliminary stages....

All IMHO :)

Get rid of the resisted test rules where the opposing TN is the
opponent's stat. The resisted test rules for Melee combat (using a
base TN of 4) work great. Use a base TN of 4 for all resisted
tests.

Use the same movement rules for both characters and vehicles.

Get rid of the rules for Staging damage and change it to a simple,
"Each extra success earned by the attacker increases the damage by
one box. Each success earned by the target, when resisting damage,
reduces the ammount of damage done by one box." This also replaces
the overflow rules nicely.

Let the Rule of Six apply to 1 initiative die.

Try to do something with the Karma Pool so that it doesn't constantly
regenerate. In the James Bond RPG Hero points are never a fixed
number. Characters earn them based on skill and luck. And once
they're spent they're gone. With SR the PCs always know that their
Karma Pool will regenerate, and that reduces the challenge of the
game, IMO. I don't have a fix for this, otherwise I'd post it.

Well, those are my biggies.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 8
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:18:41 -0500
At 08:10 AM 10/29/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Get rid of the resisted test rules where the opposing TN is the
>opponent's stat. The resisted test rules for Melee combat (using a
>base TN of 4) work great. Use a base TN of 4 for all resisted
>tests.
I think this is probably a good idea, as it doesn't stack things in the
favor of those with high ratings quite so much.
>
>Get rid of the rules for Staging damage and change it to a simple,
>"Each extra success earned by the attacker increases the damage by
>one box. Each success earned by the target, when resisting damage,
>reduces the ammount of damage done by one box." This also replaces
>the overflow rules nicely.
It doesn't replace the overflow rules that I can see, and it means that
more than ever someone with a lot of dice can whack someone with a moderate
number and not even break a sweat. I know this would seriously frag with
the power levels and balance in my games anyway.

>Let the Rule of Six apply to 1 initiative die.
Is this just to make initiative more random?
>
>Try to do something with the Karma Pool so that it doesn't constantly
>regenerate. In the James Bond RPG Hero points are never a fixed
>number. Characters earn them based on skill and luck. And once
>they're spent they're gone. With SR the PCs always know that their
>Karma Pool will regenerate, and that reduces the challenge of the
>game, IMO. I don't have a fix for this, otherwise I'd post it.
First edition rules, baby. No Karma _Pool_. You get karma, you spend it,
either for re-rolls and saving your ass when things go bad, or to advance
things and learn new spells (ad infinitum). You ear your luck, as you go,
and decide how you feel like spending it (or how you have to spend it, to
not get cacked).
Message no. 9
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:35:48 -0500
>Now for my suggestions:
>
>-Add all the optional rules from FoF

Definitely a good idea, also little knick-knack items like the rules for
falling damage (originally hidden away under the hydraulic jack in
ShadowTech...)

>-Make the point based character creation system standard
>-Make the edges and flaws standard
I don't think either of these are a good idea. I recently started working
on starting up a new SR campaign, wanted to offer things from the
Companion, and once I saw edges and flaws I summarily wrote them out. No
edges or flaws allowed. A lot of the edges and flaws are just giving
characters points for personality quirks and the like. They should be kept
in the Optional category.

>-Get rid of that lame Seattle section at the end (Buy Seattle 2)

The point of the main rulebook is that you can buy it (and no, $30 isn't
cheap to a lot of people) and play. You can fill in any gaps in the
background yourself but it's a minimal starting point at least by itself.
Telling them to buy Seattle 2 to get background reminds me of AD&D... One
book for characters, one book for rules, one book for monsters, and a boxed
set for a setting. SR should stay a one-book game as much as possible (if
only because it encourages people to get started and expand when they can
afford it). If you make peope buy a lot of stuff just to start, you're
making it harder on people without a lot of cash to spend. I had to save
up a long time to buy a gaming book when I was a teenager, and they were
only $15-20 then.
Message no. 10
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:11:15 -0700
losthalo wrote:
|
| >Get rid of the rules for Staging damage and change it to a simple,
| >"Each extra success earned by the attacker increases the damage by
| >one box. Each success earned by the target, when resisting damage,
| >reduces the ammount of damage done by one box." This also replaces
| >the overflow rules nicely.
|
| It doesn't replace the overflow rules that I can see, and it means that
| more than ever someone with a lot of dice can whack someone with a moderate
| number and not even break a sweat. I know this would seriously frag with
| the power levels and balance in my games anyway.

With the BBB rules a Deadly wound is a Deadly wound. 10 boxes of
damage, that's it. FoF has an optional rule for overflow damage
that's kinda a pain in the ass, IMO. If you use "one success equals
one box of damage" you have a simple overflow rule. If Sam shoots
Fred with his Predator(9S) and gets 7 successes (poor Fred) he does
(6 + 7) 13 boxes of damage. Each success Fred gets when resisting
the damage counters one box of damage. So if Fred rolled 4 successes
he would reduce the damage to 9 boxes of damage. Even with Sam's 7
successes Fred is still alive and has a chance to get the heck out of
Dodge on his next action (unless Sam is wired and Fred isn't, in
which case Fred is SOL).

It's fast, simple, and easy. What's not to like? :)

| >Let the Rule of Six apply to 1 initiative die.
| Is this just to make initiative more random?

FWIW a lot of people on this list do this. It does make initiative
more random and doesn't automatically guarantee that wired characters
have the upper hand. Of course, when that die comes up a 6 for the
wired characters... What can I say, it works great in my game and my
players like it. BTW, apply that rule of six to a *specific* die (an
odd colored one), not to just any initiative die. A character with
3d6 initiative dice might have two white dice and one blue die (the
"lucky" die). If the white dice come up as sixes that's all they
are. The rule of six only applies to the blue die.

| >Try to do something with the Karma Pool so that it doesn't constantly
| >regenerate. In the James Bond RPG Hero points are never a fixed
| >number. Characters earn them based on skill and luck. And once
| >they're spent they're gone. With SR the PCs always know that their
| >Karma Pool will regenerate, and that reduces the challenge of the
| >game, IMO. I don't have a fix for this, otherwise I'd post it.
|
| First edition rules, baby. No Karma _Pool_. You get karma, you spend it,
| either for re-rolls and saving your ass when things go bad, or to advance
| things and learn new spells (ad infinitum). You ear your luck, as you go,
| and decide how you feel like spending it (or how you have to spend it, to
| not get cacked).

What I don't like about that is that it links luck with experience.
For example, you study hard for a semester racking up karma. The day
before the final you blow it all to keep from getting run over by a
bus. You fail the final because you don't have any karma to spend.
?!? IMHO experience and karma should be seperate. Maybe give the
characters the option of converting karma to experience, but not visa
versa. Gah. Like I said, I don't have a fix that *I* like. If I
ever figure it out, I'll let you know :)

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 11
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:23:49 -0500
At 10:11 AM 10/29/97 -0700, you wrote:

>With the BBB rules a Deadly wound is a Deadly wound. 10 boxes of
>damage, that's it. FoF has an optional rule for overflow damage
>that's kinda a pain in the ass, IMO. If you use "one success equals
>one box of damage" you have a simple overflow rule. If Sam shoots
>Fred with his Predator(9S) and gets 7 successes (poor Fred) he does
>(6 + 7) 13 boxes of damage. Each success Fred gets when resisting
>the damage counters one box of damage. So if Fred rolled 4 successes
>he would reduce the damage to 9 boxes of damage. Even with Sam's 7
>successes Fred is still alive and has a chance to get the heck out of
>Dodge on his next action (unless Sam is wired and Fred isn't, in
>which case Fred is SOL).
>
>It's fast, simple, and easy. What's not to like? :)
I guess I just see a big difference between a Deadly wound that you're
still alive due to overflow (unconscious, slowly bleeding to death, maybe
DocWagon will get there in time if your friends drag you out of the
crossfire) and taking a Serious wound that only hampers your abilities
(quite a bit, yes, but you're still active unlike the Deadly-wounded fellow
hoping his friends act fast).
>
>FWIW a lot of people on this list do this. It does make initiative
>more random and doesn't automatically guarantee that wired characters
>have the upper hand. Of course, when that die comes up a 6 for the
>wired characters... What can I say, it works great in my game and my
>players like it. BTW, apply that rule of six to a *specific* die (an
>odd colored one), not to just any initiative die. A character with
>3d6 initiative dice might have two white dice and one blue die (the
>"lucky" die). If the white dice come up as sixes that's all they
>are. The rule of six only applies to the blue die.
Yeah, I got that it was for a specifid die, and while I don't hate this
idea really, I don't see it as helping anything much. It's just different.
It's not much of a chance for non-wired characters to act first unless the
scores were close in the first place, *and* it's just as much of a chance
for the wired folk to outstrip the virgins even more. I can see it as a
house rule, but don't see why it should be in the main rulebook as a
standard rule.

>What I don't like about that is that it links luck with experience.
>For example, you study hard for a semester racking up karma. The day
>before the final you blow it all to keep from getting run over by a
>bus. You fail the final because you don't have any karma to spend.
>?!? IMHO experience and karma should be seperate. Maybe give the
>characters the option of converting karma to experience, but not visa
>versa. Gah. Like I said, I don't have a fix that *I* like. If I
>ever figure it out, I'll let you know :)
My point here is that rather than saving that karma to help your rolls on
the test, you should be spending it on *learning* the skill you'll be
tested on, and maybe saving a point or two for a re-roll if you have a 'bad
day' to save your butt. That's how I see it working.
Message no. 12
From: Stooge <jab7@**.MSSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:40:48 -0600
I Still think there is no reason for a VCR rig to cost the same essence as
a Wired Reflexes rig. Yes, more than a Datajack but there is no way that
surgery is as invasive as wired reflexes is!

Stooge
Message no. 13
From: Stooge <jab7@**.MSSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:44:02 -0600
Oh yeah, and in most of the SR novels they have Magicians manifesting from
astral to reality, can they cast into reality once manifested? If a spirit
can manifest and use all of it's abilities why can't a mage.
Message no. 14
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:45:01 -0700
losthalo wrote:
|
[snip: one-to-one damage and overflow]
|
| I guess I just see a big difference between a Deadly wound that you're
| still alive due to overflow (unconscious, slowly bleeding to death, maybe
| DocWagon will get there in time if your friends drag you out of the
| crossfire) and taking a Serious wound that only hampers your abilities
| (quite a bit, yes, but you're still active unlike the Deadly-wounded fellow
| hoping his friends act fast).

The problem that I've run into is that it generates a comic book
environment. "Oh, I took a deadly wound from a PAC. I'll just wait
DocWagon to show up and save me." Or, "I jump out of the plane, fall
3000 feet, land on concrete, and take a deadly wound. No problem."

Overflow has to be accounted for somehow (unless you want to run a
cinematic/comic game, in which case go for it :) FoF has the option,
but like I said, it's kinda clunky. My way is simple and easy, and
balanced IMO.

Also, I came up with it because the 2 success per increase/reduction
of damage was slowing things down. 1 success equals 1 box just makes
it so much easier. And it also adds variety. A moderate wound isn't
always 3 boxes of damage. It could be 4-5, it could be 2.

| Yeah, I got that it was for a specifid die, and while I don't hate this
| idea really, I don't see it as helping anything much. It's just different.

Okay, it's personal taste :)

| I can see it as a
| house rule, but don't see why it should be in the main rulebook as a
| standard rule.

Oops. You're right. This one isn't a requirement IMO. I guess I got
carried away. Blame it on Brett(?). He used the term "wish" :)

[snip: karma]

The point is that the current system for Karma Pool isn't working.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 15
From: "David R. Lowe" <dlowe@****.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:45:33 -0800
At 10:11 AM 10/29/97, David Buehrer wrote:

>| >Try to do something with the Karma Pool so that it doesn't constantly
>| >regenerate. In the James Bond RPG Hero points are never a fixed
>| >number. Characters earn them based on skill and luck. And once
>| >they're spent they're gone. With SR the PCs always know that their
>| >Karma Pool will regenerate, and that reduces the challenge of the
>| >game, IMO. I don't have a fix for this, otherwise I'd post it.
>|
>| First edition rules, baby. No Karma _Pool_. You get karma, you spend it,
>| either for re-rolls and saving your ass when things go bad, or to advance
>| things and learn new spells (ad infinitum). You ear your luck, as you go,
>| and decide how you feel like spending it (or how you have to spend it, to
>| not get cacked).
>
>What I don't like about that is that it links luck with experience.
>For example, you study hard for a semester racking up karma. The day
>before the final you blow it all to keep from getting run over by a
>bus. You fail the final because you don't have any karma to spend.
>?!? IMHO experience and karma should be seperate. Maybe give the
>characters the option of converting karma to experience, but not visa
>versa. Gah. Like I said, I don't have a fix that *I* like. If I
>ever figure it out, I'll let you know :)
>


We've been experimenting with a slightly larger karma pool, but it lasts
over the entire run, not each scene. It definitely gives the more
experienced players the edge, but they are stingy about when and how they
use their dice.

D.

David R. Lowe (dlowe@****.com)
Photography/Graphic Design

"I'm not a wuss, I just don't want to shoot the bunny."

-
GC3.1 GCA$ d- s: a- C++++ U P L E? W+ N++ o K w-- O- M++$ V--
PS++ PE Y+ PGP- t 5 X+ R+++$ tv- b++ DI++ D--- G++ e++ h--- r++ y+
-
Message no. 16
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:07:59 -0500
David Buehrer writes:
> losthalo wrote:
> |

> The problem that I've run into is that it generates a comic book
> environment. "Oh, I took a deadly wound from a PAC. I'll just wait
> DocWagon to show up and save me." Or, "I jump out of the plane, fall
> 3000 feet, land on concrete, and take a deadly wound. No problem."
>
> Overflow has to be accounted for somehow (unless you want to run a
> cinematic/comic game, in which case go for it :) FoF has the option,
> but like I said, it's kinda clunky. My way is simple and easy, and
> balanced IMO.
>

Just my two cents. In my game, players know better. In certain
situations, I don't care what the dice say, or what the overdamage
rules say. If you jump from a plane, without a shoot, your dead.
(Unless keeping you alive is vital to the story). This should
be the common sense rule principal.


> Also, I came up with it because the 2 success per increase/reduction
> of damage was slowing things down. 1 success equals 1 box just makes
> it so much easier. And it also adds variety. A moderate wound isn't
> always 3 boxes of damage. It could be 4-5, it could be 2.
>
> | Yeah, I got that it was for a specifid die, and while I don't hate this
> | idea really, I don't see it as helping anything much. It's just different.
>
> Okay, it's personal taste :)
>
> | I can see it as a
> | house rule, but don't see why it should be in the main rulebook as a
> | standard rule.
>

Heh..this wish list thread is going nuts.
I think everyone has covered the suggestions I have off the top
of my head. Oh..back to the topic....in my campaign, I use
the staging by two up to deadly. Then each dice two dice
after that, remove a point of body (possibly permanently).
Thus, if you have a higher body, it is possibly to kill you, but
if I do enough overflow and your body hits 0, its over.
Later.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 17
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:51:57 -0500
At 10:45 AM 10/29/97 -0700, you wrote:
>The problem that I've run into is that it generates a comic book
>environment. "Oh, I took a deadly wound from a PAC. I'll just wait
>DocWagon to show up and save me." Or, "I jump out of the plane, fall
>3000 feet, land on concrete, and take a deadly wound. No problem."
If a GM doesn't have the guts to tell a player his character is dead after
falling 3000 FEET (!) then I guess he has problems on his hands. The rules
won't save him.

>Also, I came up with it because the 2 success per increase/reduction
>of damage was slowing things down. 1 success equals 1 box just makes
>it so much easier. And it also adds variety. A moderate wound isn't
>always 3 boxes of damage. It could be 4-5, it could be 2.
Well, I do like variety, but I just don't see much to make this better than
the current system, and to make a change to something like this I think in
the base rules there needs to be some obvious benefit. Otherwise it's an
interesting house rule that some people might use.

>Okay, it's personal taste :)
Which doesn't make for it being something to add to 3rd edition rules as
the canon way of handling damage staging.
>
>Oops. You're right. This one isn't a requirement IMO. I guess I got
>carried away. Blame it on Brett(?). He used the term "wish" :)
Gotcha. :) It's all *his* fault... :)
Message no. 18
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:12:11 -0500
David R. Lowe writes:
> At 10:11 AM 10/29/97, David Buehrer wrote:
>

> >What I don't like about that is that it links luck with experience.
> >For example, you study hard for a semester racking up karma. The day
> >before the final you blow it all to keep from getting run over by a
> >bus. You fail the final because you don't have any karma to spend.
> >?!? IMHO experience and karma should be seperate. Maybe give the
> >characters the option of converting karma to experience, but not visa
> >versa. Gah. Like I said, I don't have a fix that *I* like. If I
> >ever figure it out, I'll let you know :)
> >
>
> We've been experimenting with a slightly larger karma pool, but it lasts
> over the entire run, not each scene. It definitely gives the more
> experienced players the edge, but they are stingy about when and how they
> use their dice.
>

Personally I wish they'd go back to the karma used in the first
book. I like the idea of what set of karma, that doesn't refresh.
It can give slightly bigger awards, and it makes characters take
alot longer to progress. SHould I up this skill, or save karma
to keep my butt alive?! My house rule is like this, plus a new
team karma rule, that you can voluntarily donate too. The
pool refreshes each adventure, unless when you use some of it,
you can't roll below the current pool on 2d6. In that case
the point is gone for good, until somebody donates another point
after the adventure is over. (Also encourages people to stick
to characters and not treat them like fodder, a character has
to be with the group for two or three runs before they get
access to the pool).
Later.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 19
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:04:05 -0700
David R. Lowe wrote:
|
| We've been experimenting with a slightly larger karma pool, but it lasts
| over the entire run, not each scene. It definitely gives the more
| experienced players the edge, but they are stingy about when and how they
| use their dice.

The characters in my game have karma pools of around 30 (and they
earned it over the course of several years of playing). And it's
driving me nuts. I've instituted a couple stop-gap house rules. For
one, their KP only refreshes when things have calmed down and they
can take a breather. I can structure my adventures to reduce the
number of times their KP refreshes, but it's still tricky. The other
is that KP can be spent on auto successes without burning, but can't
buy re-rolls (this was to speed up game play).

Anyway, lengthening the ammount of time between refreshes isn't the
answer. The refreshing of karma pool is what's causing the problem.

Hmmm.. maybe losthalo was right (about using Good karma).

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 20
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:29:18 -0500
David Buehrer[SMTP:dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG] wrote:
> David R. Lowe wrote:
> | We've been experimenting with a slightly larger karma pool, but it lasts
> | over the entire run, not each scene. It definitely gives the more
> | experienced players the edge, but they are stingy about when and how they
> | use their dice.
>
> The characters in my game have karma pools of around 30 (and they
> earned it over the course of several years of playing). And it's
> driving me nuts.
[snip]
> Anyway, lengthening the ammount of time between refreshes isn't the
> answer. The refreshing of karma pool is what's causing the problem.

Hmmm. Why not borrow a page from Earthdawn - don't have KP
refresh all at once, but only 1 or 2 points per day?

> Hmmm.. maybe losthalo was right (about using Good karma).

GK? Oh, the "no KP" thing. We don't have to deal with most
of these problems - we go by a slightly different interpretation
of the karma rules in the BBB (that was clarified in Comp, but
we still do it our way). Basically, the BBB says that 1/10 of
earned karma goes into KP. In two separate places (about a para
apart, IIRC), it says to a) round in favour of GK, and b) round
in favour of KP.

We apply this 1/10 to *each* karma award, using a). So, if we
earn less than 10 karma in a shot (this happens *really* rarely),
we don't increase our KP. We had a bunch of chars that lasted
through over 70 karma, but still only had a KP of 2.

To make things more interesting, we can burn GK to achieve the
same effect as using KP, so we always keep a few GK on hand,
just in case.

James Ojaste
"Must - post - more - messages. Not - in - top - 100 - posters..."
Message no. 21
From: Drekhead <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:40:43 +0500
On 29 Oct 97 at 11:04, David Buehrer wrote:

> Hmmm.. maybe losthalo was right (about using Good karma).

That's what I do. Your point about experience vs. luck I see as, if a
character wants to rely on his experience, he uses his Karma to
increase his skill. If he wants to rely on luck, he uses his Karma.

--

drekhead@***.net
++++
Sig file lost.
++++
Message no. 22
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:44:20 PST
>
>>Also, I came up with it because the 2 success per increase/reduction
>>of damage was slowing things down. 1 success equals 1 box just makes
>>it so much easier. And it also adds variety. A moderate wound isn't
>>always 3 boxes of damage. It could be 4-5, it could be 2.
>Well, I do like variety, but I just don't see much to make this better
than
>the current system, and to make a change to something like this I think
in
>the base rules there needs to be some obvious benefit. Otherwise it's
an
>interesting house rule that some people might use.
>

Icansee two good reasonsfor FASA to make this a rule in SR#, and one BIG
con.

pro 1: FAST and SIMPLE. Just give each weapon or whatever a base
number of boxes it does, then give more or less for succeses. And no,
the "overflow" isn't that lethal- wee give on box of overflow for every
excess already, and it just means that when you go down, you might not
have as long to live. Thats COOL, IMHO. One shot kills only happen to
characters with low body, But then we have easier dodge rules (constant
4 tn with mods,not power).

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 23
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:49:27 PST
>
>>Also, I came up with it because the 2 success per increase/reduction
>>of damage was slowing things down. 1 success equals 1 box just makes
>>it so much easier.

I can see two good reasonsfor FASA to make this a rule in SR3, and one
BIG con.

pro 1: FAST and SIMPLE. Just give each weapon or whatever a base
number of boxes it does, then give more or less for succeses. And no,
the "overflow" isn't that lethal- we give on box of overflow for every
excess already, and it just means that when you go down, you might not
have as long to live. Thats COOL, IMHO. One shot kills only happen to
characters with low body, But then we have easier dodge rules (constant
4 tn with mods,not power).

pro 2: New weapons can have more varible base damge- 2, 4 ,5 boxes,
whatever. Autofire can add 1 BOX per bullet base damage (OUCH,but thats
the same as the M to S bonus for burst).

Con: New "codes" for everything, especiallyif pro2 is used. Admittedly
easy conversion (nay, trivial), but still, it could bring in new,
unexpected problems or outdate more material.

Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psychotic - Einstein

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 24
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:48:07 -0500
At 10:44 AM 10/29/97 PST, you wrote:

>Icansee two good reasonsfor FASA to make this a rule in SR#, and one BIG
>con.
>
>pro 1: FAST and SIMPLE. Just give each weapon or whatever a base
>number of boxes it does, then give more or less for succeses. And no,
>the "overflow" isn't that lethal- wee give on box of overflow for every
>excess already, and it just means that when you go down, you might not
>have as long to live. Thats COOL, IMHO. One shot kills only happen to
>characters with low body, But then we have easier dodge rules (constant
>4 tn with mods,not power).

Um, myself, I've always thought it would be damned hard to try to dodge a
bullet. Base target number of 4??? Not only no, but hell no... The
person firing a ranged weapon has an advantage over their target, and the
rules should take that into account.
Message no. 25
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:15:07 PST
I'm all over the issues Steve raised, and glad they are headed in
the right dirrection with SR3.
Three things I'd like-



Better combined pedestrian / vehicle movment (you can just make up
a TN for how hard it is to follow the pedaround a tight alley corner,
but it should be clearer when such things are called for, how well the
hoofercan follow the car, and maybe a table for TRAFFIC CONDITIONand
thier impact on each?)



Clariffication of held actions / suprise tests (Player: I step
around the corner with my gun ready- GM: a guy with a held action
wastes you. - Player: But its my inititive, and we're on 37 besides.
Don't I at least get a suprise test (backing up dumptruck of D6)- GM:
no.)
I'd like some system where good player smarts AND caracter speed
both count. With out held actions, Initiative determinesthe winner of
most fights. With them, clearing out a room of alert people when all
each of you hasis pistols and melee weapons is suicidal, n mater how
fast you are, unless a suprise test is allowed, which slows down play.
ARG.

An expanded "Medical" section, detailing damge overflow, healing,
ALL the rules for cyber implantation, damage, and repair, which are
currently scatteredover 3 books and "inconsistant". I don't care how
fast doc-wagon service is- I want to know what i need to buy to do
surgery, what I can expect at a ripper clinic and at a black clinic, and
how much body parts go for used, and if the ambulance will have a rigged
telepresence opperating mini-suite. TN's for doing your own plastic
surgery would be nice, too. Hell, this could be a whole sourcebook, and
I might just offer to write it.



Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psychotic - Einstein

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 26
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:15:48 -0500
losthalo wrote:
> At 10:44 AM 10/29/97 PST, somebody wrote:
>
> >Icansee two good reasonsfor FASA to make this a rule in SR#, and one BIG
> >con.
> >
> >pro 1: FAST and SIMPLE. Just give each weapon or whatever a base
> >number of boxes it does, then give more or less for succeses. And no,
> >the "overflow" isn't that lethal- wee give on box of overflow for every
> >excess already, and it just means that when you go down, you might not
> >have as long to live. Thats COOL, IMHO. One shot kills only happen to
> >characters with low body, But then we have easier dodge rules (constant
> >4 tn with mods,not power).
>
> Um, myself, I've always thought it would be damned hard to try to dodge a
> bullet. Base target number of 4??? Not only no, but hell no... The
> person firing a ranged weapon has an advantage over their target, and the
> rules should take that into account.

Right now, we're playing with a dodge tn of 1.5x the firer's
firearms skill.

Myself, I'd like to see a dodge test become more of an opposed
test - the dodger gets free dice = any penalty modifiers that
the shooter had, and rolls looking for the shooter's skill + 2
(2 => arbitrary base difficulty).

So let's see... Somebody with a firearms of 4 shooting at a
target with cover +1, visibility +1 and each having a combat
pool of 4, with the shooter having a smartlink (short range):
Attacker: 8 dice, looking for 4s => 4 successes
Attackee: 6 dice, looking for 6s => 1 success

Let's make things more difficult for the shooter; cover +2,
visibility +2, medium range (effective +1 modifier):
Attacker: 8 dice, looking for 7s => probably 1 success
Attackee: 10 dice, looking for 6s => 1-2 successes

Now, same as last time, but with a more skilled shooter (skill 6):
Attacker: 10 dice, TN 7 => probably 2 successes
Attackee: 10 dice, TN 8 => 1, maybe 2 successes

Seem sane?

James Ojaste
Message no. 27
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:33:46 PST
>Um, myself, I've always thought it would be damned hard to try to dodge
a
>bullet. Base target number of 4??? Not only no, but hell no... The
>person firing a ranged weapon has an advantage over their target, and
the rules should take that into account.
>

As opposed to a TN of 2 for somebody in heavy armor to dodgee a 3
round SMG burst (using the "clean miss" rule and karma pool)? Our
house rule just puts armored and naked characters on equal footing when
it comes to reducing the attackers succeses to a "clean miss". And note
that I said tn 4 PLUS. It is never lower than 4, almost always higher
(injury, distraction, multiple rounds fired, shotgun spread, restricted
terrain / prone).
It IS damn hard to dodge an already fired bullet, but it isn't out
of line to interpret combat pool spent "dodging" as the character paying
attention to where shooters are and presenting as difficult a target as
possible. Or not paying any attention to that and lining up thier
shots...
If you think armor really is going to help you more, you can still
add combat pool body dice, but at that point you ARE hit, and theres
none of this bullshit with somebody in armor getting clean misses
because the effective attack power was 2, while thier leather wearing
ganger enemy can't dodge to (literally) save his life. Also, pray to
god what you thought was gell from a lp isn't APDS from a hp.


Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psychotic - Einstein

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 28
From: Blade Hunter <bladehnt@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:21:59 -0500
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, losthalo wrote:
> >FWIW a lot of people on this list do this. It does make initiative
> >more random and doesn't automatically guarantee that wired characters
> >have the upper hand. Of course, when that die comes up a 6 for the
> >wired characters... What can I say, it works great in my game and my
> >players like it. BTW, apply that rule of six to a *specific* die (an
<snip>
> Yeah, I got that it was for a specifid die, and while I don't hate this
> idea really, I don't see it as helping anything much. It's just different.
> It's not much of a chance for non-wired characters to act first unless the
> scores were close in the first place, *and* it's just as much of a chance
> for the wired folk to outstrip the virgins even more. I can see it as a
> house rule, but don't see why it should be in the main rulebook as a
> standard rule.

Back when I thought this rule up for my campaign (long time ago now), that
was the reasoning I gave to the players, other gm's, et cetera. People
liked the idea of a little bit more randomness, the possibility for the
normal guy to get that little edge once and a while, and the powergamers
just loved the idea of the slim possibility of inifinite initiative.

That was all a side effect of the real purpose of the house rule. Read
that 'one specific die' as 'natural unaugmented dice,' and fear that
bandersnatch, hellhound, and tiger a lil' bit more. So, I like animals...

Yes, this is the kind of rule that shouldn't be in SR3. Too open to abuse
without an initiative cap and unneeded complexity for a main rulebook,
it'd be more appropiate for something like the SR Companion (chock full of
house-rule quality stuff).

one who saw a 50-something rolled on 1d6 in attempt to resuscitate a dead
chicken...
-me.
bladehnt@*********.net
Message no. 29
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:28:56 -0700
Mon goose wrote:
|
| >>Also, I came up with it because the 2 success per increase/reduction
| >>of damage was slowing things down. 1 success equals 1 box just makes
| >>it so much easier.
|
| Con: New "codes" for everything, especiallyif pro2 is used. Admittedly
| easy conversion (nay, trivial), but still, it could bring in new,
| unexpected problems or outdate more material.

Why? They're fine the way they are.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 30
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:29:57 -0700
Drekhead wrote:
|
| On 29 Oct 97 at 11:04, David Buehrer wrote:
|
| > Hmmm.. maybe losthalo was right (about using Good karma).
|
| That's what I do. Your point about experience vs. luck I see as, if a
| character wants to rely on his experience, he uses his Karma to
| increase his skill. If he wants to rely on luck, he uses his Karma.

Okay, you both have convinced me. Now I just have to convince my
players :)

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 31
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:36:12 EST
> > Include a realistic Illusion spell
> Nope, don't see the need...no more new spells, we already have
> tons...however, a more balanced spell creation system would be nice

We have tons of spells, but this is a very basic spell idea that's in
every known RPG that has spells....and SR allows it but doesn't
provide it..

Agreed with the Spell creation system.

> > LOS issues with Elementals
> Huh? I was never aware there was one...

You must keep Elementals in your LOS except for a Physical service
(for which they must be specifically summoned) or Astral Patrol
service. What, however, happens when they leave your LOS?
Disagreement on this has led different groups to strategies like
"Make the Mage blink" "Make the Mage turn around" etc.

> -Add all the optional rules from FoF
Definitely....but make the overdamage rules simpler.

> -Create a more balanced spell creation system
Yup, Yup.

> -Make the point based character creation system standard
Agreed.

> -Make the edges and flaws standard
Disagreed. I have some major complaints with a lot of them, mainly
because players will use them because "I need points". I had one guy
say he "didn't have many flaws". 29 points. Sigh. Realize that if
you use the point creation system you don't need to balance edges and
flaws out.

I like the idea, keep it optional though for GM sanity. It can,
however, be included in the main book as optional (ala More
Metahumans in 2nd edition)

> -Get rid of that lame Seattle section at the end (Buy Seattle 2)

Disagree. One simple setting should be described in the main book.

> -Include gear lists from all sourcebooks

Hmm...I hate how the current one has SSC. I'd rather have the first
book out have a complete table with updated stats (unlike SSC2 which
didn't reprint the main book's stats.)

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 32
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:56:45 -0500
Just thought of a new item.
How about rules (similiar to those in the plastic warriors books)
dealing with spontaneous spell casting. Gives
a nice reason for Magical Theory, and trying to cast a spell
with anything higher the light drain, there is a good
chance of nailing yourself.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 33
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:58:45 -0500
At 11:33 AM 10/29/97 PST, you wrote:
> As opposed to a TN of 2 for somebody in heavy armor to dodgee a 3
>round SMG burst (using the "clean miss" rule and karma pool)?
It should be easier for the heavily armored character to dodge *becuase*
dodging includes taking attacks on areas that are armored enough to blunt
the attack completely or deflect it without taking damage. This is why
armor reduces the target number to dodge. A "clean miss" occurs when the
character's armor deflects the attack completely, or the attack simply does
not connect. IMO.

Our
>house rule just puts armored and naked characters on equal footing when
>it comes to reducing the attackers succeses to a "clean miss". And note
>that I said tn 4 PLUS. It is never lower than 4, almost always higher
>(injury, distraction, multiple rounds fired, shotgun spread, restricted
>terrain / prone).
I think an uninjured character, with no penalties, should have a hard time
dodging gunfire. Distractions, wounds, and other problems should make it
nigh impossible.

> It IS damn hard to dodge an already fired bullet, but it isn't out
>of line to interpret combat pool spent "dodging" as the character paying
>attention to where shooters are and presenting as difficult a target as
>possible. Or not paying any attention to that and lining up thier
>shots...
But I would say it's difficult to 'present a bad target', in general,
unless that's all you're doing (i.e. not taking actions on your turn just
dodging).

> If you think armor really is going to help you more, you can still
>add combat pool body dice, but at that point you ARE hit, and theres
>none of this bullshit with somebody in armor getting clean misses
>because the effective attack power was 2, while thier leather wearing
>ganger enemy can't dodge to (literally) save his life. Also, pray to
>god what you thought was gell from a lp isn't APDS from a hp.
Again, dodging includes making your armor work for you so the attack
doesn't get a good enough biting agnle to penetrate.
Message no. 34
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 22:07:41 +0100
Stooge said on 11:44/29 Oct 97...

> Oh yeah, and in most of the SR novels they have Magicians manifesting from
> astral to reality, can they cast into reality once manifested? If a spirit
> can manifest and use all of it's abilities why can't a mage.

Because the magician isn't manifesting in the same way a spirit can. The
spirit gets into the physical plane completely, whereas the magician only
makes him/herself visible and audible -- you can throw dead objects
through the "manifested" magician (a living thing would push him or her
away), but you can't throw such objects through a manifested spirit.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
'K moest kloppen want de bel doet het niet.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 35
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 22:07:40 +0100
David Buehrer said on 8:10/29 Oct 97...

> Get rid of the resisted test rules where the opposing TN is the
> opponent's stat. The resisted test rules for Melee combat (using a
> base TN of 4) work great. Use a base TN of 4 for all resisted
> tests.

I'd like to see more open-ended tests, especially in things that will be
resisted by someone else. Stealth is a good example: I let the person
sneaking around roll an open-ended Stealth test, and the roll (plus
situational modifiers) becomes the TN for a Perception test to spot said
person.

> Let the Rule of Six apply to 1 initiative die.

That works really well, especially to give slow characters the occasional
chance to do something early on ina turn. I've been using this as a house
rule for several months now and the only trouble is in getting players to
remember to roll one green die and take white ones for the rest.

I'd also like to see better negotiation rules. As they currently stand
(when you can find them), you can demand ten million for an item worth ten
nuyen and it won't make a difference to the end result.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
'K moest kloppen want de bel doet het niet.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 36
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 22:07:40 +0100
Frank Pelletier said on 22:13/28 Oct 97...

> Now for my suggestions:
>
> -Add all the optional rules from FoF

I think that'd add a degree of complexity that new players might not want
or need. Choosing the most useful ones and adding them into SR3 would be a
good idea, though -- my suggestion would be the athletics, partial cover,
and smoke rules, because they're the ones that come up in games fairly
often.

> -Make the point based character creation system standard

Please register one vote against this idea. I like the ABCDE system better
than the points system...

> -Make the edges and flaws standard

Same problem as with the FoF optional rules... Plus character generation
takes long enough already when players _don't_ take edges and flaws ;)

> -Get rid of that lame Seattle section at the end (Buy Seattle 2)

And end up with an AD&D-like situation where nobody knows anything about
the place the game is supposed to be run without buying another book?
Again, not good for new players, IMHO.

> -Include gear lists from all sourcebooks

Would be nice, but unlikely... It'd make lots of people not buy the other
sourcebooks, which FASA, being a corp, of course doesn't want. The only
reason for them to do this would be if game stats radically change, as
happened between SRI and SRII.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
'K moest kloppen want de bel doet het niet.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 37
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 22:07:41 +0100
losthalo said on 13:48/29 Oct 97...

> Um, myself, I've always thought it would be damned hard to try to dodge a
> bullet. Base target number of 4??? Not only no, but hell no... The
> person firing a ranged weapon has an advantage over their target, and the
> rules should take that into account.

Target number 6 would be better, IMHO, or perhaps a range chart with the
scales inverted (9 at Short range, 4 at Extreme) to dodge. Something like:

Short (9): 0 to 100 m
Medium (6): 101 to 300 m
Long (5) 301 to 600 m
Extreme (4): 601 m or more

That makes it easier to dodge rounds at longer distances, since they take
longer to get to your position. OTOH it should be possible to dodge _into_
the fire at such ranges, so maybe a third option is needed. How about:

If you choose to duck or dodge against an incoming attack, roll an
open-ended Quickness test. Apply the modifiers for any cover you may have
to the roll (+2/+4/+6/+8) and the result becomes the opponent's TN
regardless of what it normally was. Ducking costs a free action and you
count as having moved in the action in which you ducked.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
'K moest kloppen want de bel doet het niet.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 38
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 21:51:01 GMT
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:51:57 -0500, losthalo wrote:

> At 10:45 AM 10/29/97 -0700, you wrote:
> >The problem that I've run into is that it generates a comic book
> >environment. "Oh, I took a deadly wound from a PAC. I'll just wait
> >DocWagon to show up and save me." Or, "I jump out of the plane, fall
> >3000 feet, land on concrete, and take a deadly wound. No problem."
>
> If a GM doesn't have the guts to tell a player his character is dead after
> falling 3000 FEET (!) then I guess he has problems on his hands. The rules
> won't save him.

Well, such a rule should _still_ be included. As we all know, Shadowrun
likes to trade off reality for cinematic gameplay. Some realistic rules to
cover copious amounts of damage should still be included so the referee can
remain in control of the situation. It would also help combat munchkinism
;)



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 39
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:54:32 +1100
> I Still think there is no reason for a VCR rig to cost the same essence as
> a Wired Reflexes rig. Yes, more than a Datajack but there is no way that
> surgery is as invasive as wired reflexes is!

Ack. I told myself I wasn't going to respond to any of the wishlist
posts, but I have to disagree on this one.

Wired Reflexes: Mostly slapping stuff between your synapses to speed up
your nerves, or further insulating them with myelin.

Vehicle Control Rig: Tinkering around inside your *BRAIN* to convert
signals from the vehicle into perceptible sense signals, and to convert
movement instructions from your motor cortex into readable instructions
for your vehicle.

Aieee! I know which I'd prefer! ("Get that buzzsaw away from my skull,
Mr. Surgeon!) I think we're lucky that a VCR is only as dear as Wired
Refs; it really should be dearer! (NOT that I"m arguing for *that*
though.)

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 40
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:19:25 -0500
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:56:45 -0500 Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
writes:
>Just thought of a new item.
>How about rules (similiar to those in the plastic warriors books)
>dealing with spontaneous spell casting. Gives
>a nice reason for Magical Theory, and trying to cast a spell
>with anything higher the light drain, there is a good
>chance of nailing yourself.


Spontaneous spellcasting is a neat idea, but there are a lot of people
around here who disagree (I like the idea myself, though). You might try
rooting around in the list backlogs from over the summer, I think and see
what you dig up on the last discussion on the subject.


--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
Message no. 41
From: Jim Riegel <riegelja@*****.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:27:14 -0400
>
>We apply this 1/10 to *each* karma award, using a). So, if we
>earn less than 10 karma in a shot (this happens *really* rarely),
>we don't increase our KP. We had a bunch of chars that lasted
>through over 70 karma, but still only had a KP of 2.

After a hell of a long time studying and rationalizing the "round up" rule I
said screw it and took my own version....As a gm I will award only good
karma. However, if 1/10th of award is added to karma pool. Round up the
decimal for your effective karma pool dice. eg.

total good karma earned over time by player = 36
karma pool = 3.6
available karma pool dice = 4

player earns 7 more good karma but blew a karma pool die on an auto success.

total good karma earned over time by player = 43 (used to calculate
reputation mainly)
karma pool = 3.3
available karma pool dice = 4

there is no reason to track how many dice have been spent from the karma
pool...just add the 10% of good karma award and round up to next highest
number.

.-^-._.-^-._.-^-._.-^-._.-^-._.-^-._.-^-._.-^-._.-^-._.-^-._.-^-._.-^-._.-^-
._
Warning: Be on the look out for a high speed free spirit. It's preferred
form is a small Native American boy.
Known Aliases: Little Running Joke
Welcome to the Shadows of Washington, DCLXVI Chummer! We got more
demoncrats
and Sinators than you can shake a stun baton at. --Anonymous
----- BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK -----
version:3.1
GAT d@ S++:+ a-- c++++(++$) US>++ P+ L E- W+(--) N+ o-- K- w(--) O- M-- V
PS+ PE Y+ PGP t(+) 5+++ X+ R++ tv+ b+++ DI++++ D+ G+ e>++ h---- r+++
y++++*
------ END GEEK CODE BLOCK ------
Message no. 42
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:07:38 -0500
At 09:51 PM 10/29/97 GMT, you wrote:

>Well, such a rule should _still_ be included. As we all know, Shadowrun
>likes to trade off reality for cinematic gameplay. Some realistic rules to
>cover copious amounts of damage should still be included so the referee can
>remain in control of the situation. It would also help combat munchkinism
>;)

Yeah, maybe, but I always saw the vagueness of SR as a good opportunity to
fill in the blanks myself and *make* it realistic where appropriate. GM
discretion does this better than 'more realistic' rules. :) And we were
doing the 'held action' thing long before 2nd ed came out, among other
things. *shrug*
Message no. 43
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:18:51 -0500
At 11:15 AM 10/29/97 PST, you wrote:

> Clariffication of held actions / suprise tests (Player: I step
>around the corner with my gun ready- GM: a guy with a held action
>wastes you. - Player: But its my inititive, and we're on 37 besides.
>Don't I at least get a suprise test (backing up dumptruck of D6)- GM:
>no.)
> I'd like some system where good player smarts AND caracter speed
>both count. With out held actions, Initiative determinesthe winner of
>most fights. With them, clearing out a room of alert people when all
>each of you hasis pistols and melee weapons is suicidal, n mater how
>fast you are, unless a suprise test is allowed, which slows down play.
>ARG.
Well, the way to clear a room dull of folks is to either move only enough
to make one of them visible, and kill him (either luring his buddies out
into the line of fire one by one, or just gradually picking them off the
same way you did their buddy); or, the easy way:
"I've just got one word: ...GRENADE!!"
Message no. 44
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 02:35:42 GMT
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 22:07:41 +0100, Gurth wrote:

> losthalo said on 13:48/29 Oct 97...
>
> > Um, myself, I've always thought it would be damned hard to try to dodge a
> > bullet. Base target number of 4??? Not only no, but hell no... The
> > person firing a ranged weapon has an advantage over their target, and the
> > rules should take that into account.

I agree, although some would suggest that you are trying to get out of the
way of the axis of the weapon's bore (ie: potential bullet path), rather
than dodge the actual bullet itself. In a comic book campaign, a character
/might/ be able to detect muscle movement in the hand of the shooter in
time to move, but it is still doubtful.

> Target number 6 would be better, IMHO, or perhaps a range chart with the
> scales inverted (9 at Short range, 4 at Extreme) to dodge. Something like:
>
> Short (9): 0 to 100 m
> Medium (6): 101 to 300 m
> Long (5) 301 to 600 m
> Extreme (4): 601 m or more
>
> That makes it easier to dodge rounds at longer distances, since they take
> longer to get to your position. OTOH it should be possible to dodge _into_
> the fire at such ranges, so maybe a third option is needed. How about:

It might be better to simply have a target number of 6 out to a specific
range (50 meters?) and be done with it. Beyond that, the target wouldn't
be able to perceive *when* the shooter was about to fire.

> If you choose to duck or dodge against an incoming attack, roll an
> open-ended Quickness test. Apply the modifiers for any cover you may have
> to the roll (+2/+4/+6/+8) and the result becomes the opponent's TN
> regardless of what it normally was. Ducking costs a free action and you
> count as having moved in the action in which you ducked.

Yikes! This sounds a bit too easy for me, especially knowing one of our
players that rolls at least one 18+ per game session :)



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 45
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 02:35:44 GMT
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:15:48 -0500, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:

> Right now, we're playing with a dodge tn of 1.5x the firer's
> firearms skill.

Our gaming group uses a target number for dodging equal to the sum of their
armour's Ballistic and Impact ratings, minus 1 (with a minimum TN of 3). I
know that a TN of 3 is a bit far-fetched, but it had to be allowed so that
guys in armoured jackets (5/3) could still dodge with *some* chance of
success. I'm sure another formula could be used, like [(B+I)/2]+2, but the
one we used was easier to calculate "on the fly". It also forced people to
choose between light/minimal and heavy armour. As it currently stands in
SR, the only benefit to wearing light armour is concealability (which is
next to useless when you are on a run-- unless you give the person wearing
it an advantage to *avoid* getting hit).



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 46
From: NightRain <nightrain@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:26:43 +1000
>Try to do something with the Karma Pool so that it doesn't constantly
>regenerate. In the James Bond RPG Hero points are never a fixed
>number. Characters earn them based on skill and luck. And once
>they're spent they're gone. With SR the PCs always know that their
>Karma Pool will regenerate, and that reduces the challenge of the
>game, IMO. I don't have a fix for this, otherwise I'd post it.


I just simply say that if the PC spends Karma for anything, it's gone
forever. They can buy one success for 1 point of karma, they can buy a
re-roll for 1 point. What I have changed though is the increasing cost
rule. Every re-roll on the same test still just costs one 1 point.

It gets rid of the 'superhero' syndrome.

NightRain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL : nightrain@***.brisnet.org.au
: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 47
From: NightRain <nightrain@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:48:20 +1000
Mongoose wrote:
> As opposed to a TN of 2 for somebody in heavy armor to dodgee a 3
>round SMG burst (using the "clean miss" rule and karma pool)? Our
>house rule just puts armored and naked characters on equal footing when
>it comes to reducing the attackers succeses to a "clean miss". And note
>that I said tn 4 PLUS. It is never lower than 4, almost always higher
>(injury, distraction, multiple rounds fired, shotgun spread, restricted
>terrain / prone).
> It IS damn hard to dodge an already fired bullet, but it isn't out
>of line to interpret combat pool spent "dodging" as the character paying
>attention to where shooters are and presenting as difficult a target as
>possible. Or not paying any attention to that and lining up thier
>shots...

I use the same rules myself. It most often ends up making things deadlier
as well as making hold outs and the like actually worth looking at.

NightRain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL : nightrain@***.brisnet.org.au
: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 48
From: NightRain <nightrain@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:30:49 +1000
David wrote:
>
>It's fast, simple, and easy. What's not to like? :)

I use the same rules, well sort of similar anyway. When a character gets
to Deadly damage, I just use every success as one extra square of damage
for overflow, but I use (and think I would actually prefer) normal staging
up until that point.

NightRain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL : nightrain@***.brisnet.org.au
: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 49
From: Mirko Cegledi <storm@**********.INFORMATIK.FH-DORTMUND.DE>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:35:16 +0100
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, David Buehrer wrote:

(...)
> one box of damage" you have a simple overflow rule. If Sam shoots
> Fred with his Predator(9S) and gets 7 successes (poor Fred) he does
> (6 + 7) 13 boxes of damage. Each success Fred gets when resisting
> the damage counters one box of damage. So if Fred rolled 4 successes
> he would reduce the damage to 9 boxes of damage. Even with Sam's 7
> successes Fred is still alive and has a chance to get the heck out of
> Dodge on his next action (unless Sam is wired and Fred isn't, in
> which case Fred is SOL).

I don't that a character with nine boxes of damage is able to dodge an
attacking cyber-slug, not to say an attacking sam. Nine boxes of damage!!
Realize it! Your funny little entrails are spread over the street and I
think you have enough and to spare problems by collecting your fleeing
liver than dodging anything evil.

(...)
> What I don't like about that is that it links luck with experience.
> For example, you study hard for a semester racking up karma. The day
> before the final you blow it all to keep from getting run over by a
> bus. You fail the final because you don't have any karma to spend.
> ?!? IMHO experience and karma should be seperate. Maybe give the
> characters the option of converting karma to experience, but not visa
> versa. Gah. Like I said, I don't have a fix that *I* like. If I
> ever figure it out, I'll let you know :)
>
We use a slightly different karma-rule in our party. The first point in
the karma-pool costs the character one point of good karma, the second
costs three points (1+2), the third six points (1+2+3) of good karma and
the fourth and all following points cost ten points of good karma. This
rule assures that the runners will soon have a comfortable karma-cushion.
But all karma beyond the third is luxury. :)

Cu... Storm

P.S.: I hope my english is not too bad. ;)

--
q: how many zen masters does it take to change a light bulb?
a: none. the universe spins the bulb and the zen master stays out of the
way.
mirko cegledi, dept. of computer sciences, fh-dortmund, germany
Message no. 50
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:47:05 +0100
James Lindsay said on 2:35/30 Oct 97...

> > That makes it easier to dodge rounds at longer distances, since they take
> > longer to get to your position. OTOH it should be possible to dodge _into_
> > the fire at such ranges, so maybe a third option is needed. How about:
>
> It might be better to simply have a target number of 6 out to a specific
> range (50 meters?) and be done with it. Beyond that, the target wouldn't
> be able to perceive *when* the shooter was about to fire.

That doesn't mean you can't try to dodge the weapon. You can just be
moving all over the place in an attempt not to get hit (okay, so that
would make you count as a moving target and the attacker gets a modifier).
Probably the easiest way of handling this is to give a flat TN for all
ranges against which Combat Pool is rolled. However, I think 4 is too low,
even with injury and other modifiers.

> > If you choose to duck or dodge against an incoming attack, roll an
> > open-ended Quickness test. Apply the modifiers for any cover you may have
> > to the roll (+2/+4/+6/+8) and the result becomes the opponent's TN
> > regardless of what it normally was. Ducking costs a free action and you
> > count as having moved in the action in which you ducked.
>
> Yikes! This sounds a bit too easy for me, especially knowing one of our
> players that rolls at least one 18+ per game session :)

Okay, then we halve the final result, rounding down. Perhaps it would
also be a good idea to only allow a character to duck when he or she has
a delayed action; someone wants to shoot, the character takes the delayed
action, and ducks.

Alternatively, roll the normal Body dice against the attack to reduce the
damage, and roll Combat Pool dice (instead of Quickness) in an open-ended
test. The CP dice set the TN (as above), and do not reduce the shot's
damage, should it hit. It may be a good idea to change the firearms
resolution to this order:

1) Attacker declares shot
2) Target allocates and rolls Combat Pool dice
3) Attacker makes Success Test
4) Target resists damage

That may be worth testing out sometime, I think...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
'K moest kloppen want de bel doet het niet.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 51
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:59:01 GMT
James Lindsay writes

> On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:15:48 -0500, Ojaste,James [NCR] wrote:
>
> > Right now, we're playing with a dodge tn of 1.5x the firer's
> > firearms skill.
>
i have never liked ideas like this because all it does is encourages
the PC's to buy huge skills so the badguys cannot dodge, extra
successes is enough, by this someone with firearms 7 is nasty, and 8
kills everything, 12s to dodge, bye :)

> Our gaming group uses a target number for dodging equal to the sum of their
> armour's Ballistic and Impact ratings, minus 1 (with a minimum TN of 3). I
> know that a TN of 3 is a bit far-fetched, but it had to be allowed so that
> guys in armoured jackets (5/3) could still dodge with *some* chance of
> success.
so the guy in cloathes, armour 0 needs 3's (-1 minimums to 3)
from fit 3 (4+1) = 5 -1 needs 4's
and that armour jacket is 5+3 - 1 = 7's.

i like trench coats (4+2-1 = 5) under this rule.
What happens with dikoted armour?
This actually has grounding in common sense given that the less
encumbered are more agile, wear armour and you can dodge less. I
would say though you have to be moving (meaning +1 to your TN's to
attack) to benefit from wearing less armour. But with a few more
modifiers (but not many, keep it simple and don't give the munchkins
loopholes) this could be good.

> I'm sure another formula could be used, like [(B+I)/2]+2, but the
> one we used was easier to calculate "on the fly". It also forced people to
> choose between light/minimal and heavy armour. As it currently stands in
> SR, the only benefit to wearing light armour is concealability (which is
> next to useless when you are on a run-- unless you give the person wearing
> it an advantage to *avoid* getting hit).
>
I like the policy of 'what they don't see they don't shoot at',
followed by 'if all else fails hit it so hard its dead before it acts'
which makes concealable armour, masking, improved invis and stealth
high priorities, (and a franchi 22 with APDS under your trenchcoat
for nasty runs just to make sure that if you have to shoot someone
they STAY down, but only use if you have to, weapons fire attracts
attention, and guards that don't answer comms checks attract checkup
squads, and which point 'i found his body' and all hell breaks loose)

Mark
Message no. 52
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 07:25:02 -0500
> From: NightRain <nightrain@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 6:30 PM

> I use the same rules, well sort of similar anyway. When a character gets
> to Deadly damage, I just use every success as one extra square of damage
> for overflow, but I use (and think I would actually prefer) normal
staging
> up until that point.

Gosh, my house rules are even simpler ;)

I just keep on staging the standard way, but allowing the PC to keep
racking up wound levels until he's instantly dead, etc. Thus, if you cause
enough damage to give the character a Deadly wound and still have 2
successes left over, you cause him to take a Light/Deadly wound (light over
deadly). This is the same as a Light wound added to a Deadly wound, or 11
boxes. If you had 4 net successes instead of 2, you would cause a
Moderate/Deadly wound.

It's simple. It's easy. And it follows the same system implemented with
the exception of not capping damage at the Deadly wound level. I don't
like to mess with all the mumbo jumbo in FoF about comparing the Power of
the weapon to whatever, blah blah blah. Just take the cap off the damage
and keep on going. :)

> NightRain.

Justin :)
Message no. 53
From: "Richard L. Zagorski" <CaptainZig@***.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:54:30 -0500
Landsquid scribed:

> >
> >>Also, I came up with it because the 2 success per increase/reduction
> >>of damage was slowing things down. 1 success equals 1 box just makes
> >>it so much easier.
>
> I can see two good reasonsfor FASA to make this a rule in SR3, and one
> BIG con.
>
> pro 1: FAST and SIMPLE. Just give each weapon or whatever a base
> number of boxes it does, then give more or less for succeses. And no,
> the "overflow" isn't that lethal- we give on box of overflow for every
> excess already, and it just means that when you go down, you might not
> have as long to live. Thats COOL, IMHO. One shot kills only happen to
> characters with low body, But then we have easier dodge rules (constant
> 4 tn with mods,not power).

Do you still count armor as auto-successes? Do you run the Body test at a tn
of 4 too?

> pro 2: New weapons can have more varible base damge- 2, 4 ,5 boxes,
> whatever. Autofire can add 1 BOX per bullet base damage (OUCH,but thats
> the same as the M to S bonus for burst).

Alternatly, how about raising the box count by 1 for a burst, and 2 0r 3 for
full auto? After all, how often do all the rounds hit the target? Even at
close range and with compensation.

> Con: New "codes" for everything, especiallyif pro2 is used. Admittedly
> easy conversion (nay, trivial), but still, it could bring in new,
> unexpected problems or outdate more material.

Anyone who uses this kind of rule have any conversion ideas from the present
damage codes?

Also, do you change the damages around for combat spells? Critter attacks?

I like this idea for combat; I've wanted to find something to speed things up
to keep the combat fast and furious.

Anyone else have any other ideas to keep combat zooming along?

-Captain Zig
******************************************************************************
*******************
Lytman (talking to the mage, Necro): Lay some wammy on me! (reffering to
healing magic)
Message no. 54
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:33:06 -0500
John E Pederson writes:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:56:45 -0500 Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
> writes:
> >Just thought of a new item.
> >How about rules (similiar to those in the plastic warriors books)
> >dealing with spontaneous spell casting. Gives
> >a nice reason for Magical Theory, and trying to cast a spell
> >with anything higher the light drain, there is a good
> >chance of nailing yourself.
>
>
> Spontaneous spellcasting is a neat idea, but there are a lot of people
> around here who disagree (I like the idea myself, though). You might try
> rooting around in the list backlogs from over the summer, I think and see
> what you dig up on the last discussion on the subject.
>
Heh..I've seen threads of it recently. Might be a good optional
rule though. (similiar to the stuff in the companion).
I use the rules from PW. (Can't remember which one at the moment) and
haven't had any problems (so far) with players abusing them.
They use it for things like. "I want to make flames sprout from
my finger to light this lady's ciagrette" etc.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 55
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:58:50 -0700
Gurth wrote:
|
| James Lindsay said on 2:35/30 Oct 97...
|
| > It might be better to simply have a target number of 6 out to a specific
| > range (50 meters?) and be done with it. Beyond that, the target wouldn't
| > be able to perceive *when* the shooter was about to fire.
|
| That doesn't mean you can't try to dodge the weapon. You can just be
| moving all over the place in an attempt not to get hit (okay, so that
| would make you count as a moving target and the attacker gets a modifier).

Which would be the best way to deal with it, IMHO. Give the character the
option of "dodging" instead of moving. Use the same modifiers as if he had
walked.

Get rid of the "dodge" aspect of combat pool.

Ta da! :)

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 56
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:12:26 -0700
Gurth wrote:
|
| David Buehrer said on 8:10/29 Oct 97...
|
| > Get rid of the resisted test rules where the opposing TN is the
| > opponent's stat. The resisted test rules for Melee combat (using a
| > base TN of 4) work great. Use a base TN of 4 for all resisted
| > tests.
|
| I'd like to see more open-ended tests, especially in things that will be
| resisted by someone else. Stealth is a good example: I let the person
| sneaking around roll an open-ended Stealth test, and the roll (plus
| situational modifiers) becomes the TN for a Perception test to spot said
| person.

Wouldn't it be easier to have both sides roll vs a base TN of 4? The
sneaker roles his stealth vs a 4. The perciever rolls his
intelligence vs a 4 modified by vision, the sneaker's movement
(reverse the walking/running modifiers) and concealment modifiers.
Whoever gets the most successes "wins".

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not fond of the open-ended test
idea. If it's a base TN 4 resisted test then things are a little
shaky for the sneaker unless his skill is way higher than the
perciever's intelligence. If it's an open-ended test the sneaker is
practically assured of success. For example, a sneaker with an skill
of 4. A perceiver with an inteligence of 4. The sneaker rolls two
successes. All the modifiers balance out so the base TN for the
perciever is a 4. The sneaker's successes raise that TN to a 6.
Odds are that the perceiver won't notice the sneaker, yet they have
*equal skills/stats*. Everything being equal the chances of the
sneaker getting by the perceiver should be 50/50, IMO.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 57
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:12:01 -0500
At 08:58 AM 10/30/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Which would be the best way to deal with it, IMHO. Give the character the
>option of "dodging" instead of moving. Use the same modifiers as if he had
>walked.
>
>Get rid of the "dodge" aspect of combat pool.
>
>Ta da! :)
Very nice, simple and to the point. :)
And less fragging dice to roll!! *cheer*
Message no. 58
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:22:24 -0500
At 08:54 AM 10/30/97 -0500, you wrote:

>Do you still count armor as auto-successes? Do you run the Body test at a tn
>of 4 too?
>

>Alternatly, how about raising the box count by 1 for a burst, and 2 0r 3 for
>full auto? After all, how often do all the rounds hit the target? Even at
>close range and with compensation.

Hm, I'd like to point out a big potential difference between wound levels
and boxes of damage... Even allowing one box per add'l success on the
attack, it may still require a great many successes to cause a deadly wound
with any weapon, no one will ever go down with one shot. Even a weapon
that does 6 boxes requires 4 extra successes to kill someone, for instance,
and right now 6 boxes is a base S weapon (pretty scary). It shouldn't take
four extra successes to get a lethal wound from a hunting rifle, imo.
You're also taking a system that gave increasing rewards for more successes
and making it linear (one box per success) which will have a big impact on
how combats run.

All that said, I kinda like the idea of more flexibility of damage codes
(1-10 boxes of damage). I would also consider, if I were going to
implement this myself, getting rid of the Body roll versus damage and going
to a system where the number of boxes of damage you can take is based off
the Body attribute (with of course threshold ratings where certain
penalties are taken, just as it is now).
Message no. 59
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 16:43:54 GMT
David Buehrer writes
> |
> | I'd like to see more open-ended tests, especially in things that will be
> | resisted by someone else. Stealth is a good example: I let the person
> | sneaking around roll an open-ended Stealth test, and the roll (plus
> | situational modifiers) becomes the TN for a Perception test to spot said
> | person.
>
> Wouldn't it be easier to have both sides roll vs a base TN of 4? The
> sneaker roles his stealth vs a 4. The perciever rolls his
> intelligence vs a 4 modified by vision, the sneaker's movement
> (reverse the walking/running modifiers) and concealment modifiers.
> Whoever gets the most successes "wins".
>
The way i have been running it is the sneaker is looking for 4's plus
wound modifiers as usual in most cases [6's for more open terrain,
maybe 2's or 3's for sneaking across soft ground while a freind
sustains invis on you so you only have noise to worry about and 10's
for timing opening that door when the guards arn't looking], which
modifies the base perception 4 test by 1/success.
This is the FASA method pretty much and works quite well, with
perception modofiers such as lighting and cover 12's to 18's have
been seen as TN's. The problems can be the perciever is making an
open ended test, 1 success 'spots someting' to 4 'notes its a 6 foot
human with an assault rifle climing the drainpipe', is difficult for
the observer to get many successes on but one rouge double open end
(ie good luck for the perciever) and even stealth 6+magic stealth 6
physad's haven't a chance of not getting 'noticed'.
However getting better than GM's discretion at the time on this is
difficult. I do rather loathe the 'opponents rating as TN' tests
because of the thresholds at 5-6 and 11-12, but both vs 4's and
strength 3 folks with a karma point or two beats str 5 too easily
and you cannot give goons threat rating to compensate without
throwing the numbers way out of whack because extra dice become too
powerful.

Mark
Message no. 60
From: William Gallas <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 17:47:29 +0100
A 11:22 30/10/97 -0500, vous avez écrit :
>All that said, I kinda like the idea of more flexibility of damage codes
>(1-10 boxes of damage). I would also consider, if I were going to
>implement this myself, getting rid of the Body roll versus damage and going
>to a system where the number of boxes of damage you can take is based off
>the Body attribute (with of course threshold ratings where certain
>penalties are taken, just as it is now).

Which is what I did.
The number of boxes depends on Body and Willpower. Damage is calculated
from the kind of weapon used, the number of success and the way the guy
fires (straight shot, called shot or full auto).
If some of you are interested, perhaps I'll post this.


Cobra.

E-mail adress : wgallas@*****.fr
Quote : "You are who you know"
Message no. 61
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:56:45 PST
>Well, such a rule should _still_ be included. As we all know,
Shadowrun
>likes to trade off reality for cinematic gameplay. Some realistic
rules to
>cover copious amounts of damage should still be included so the referee
can
>remain in control of the situation. It would also help combat
munchkinism

Which is another argument in favor of staging by boxes and giving
all wepons a rating in base boxes filled- they could have a base rating
of MORE than 10 boxes.
A fall could do something like a number of boxes eaual to the higest
number rolled on dice equal to meters fallen (an open ended test for
total base damage). Having all falls do (1/2 distance ) d or whatever
is silly.

Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psychotic - Einstein

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 62
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 12:18:21 PST
>Wired Reflexes:

"implant nueral boosters and adrenal stimulators". IMO, acceletion
circuitry in the cerebral motor cortex and fight or flight regionof the
hypothalamus, adrenal system (pretty crucial to all hormonal function,
actually), and possibly peripheral nervous system (Nueral Boosters?
vauge, but I'd guess for wires along the spine and out to major muscle
groups to maintain muscle tension at optimum level for rapid movement).

>Mostly slapping stuff between your synapses to speed up
>your nerves,

Thats Boosted reflexes, IMO- a chemical treatment that speeds up
synaptic funtion

> or further insulating them with myelin.

Thats more like Synaptic accelerator bioware, which strangely does not
at all mention synaptic function, except to imply more nureons and a
wider "data path" ie greater synaptic area. IMO, thickening /
multiplying the cells of the spinal collum would be REALLY unhealthy, as
there isn't much room, and the whole shebang MOVES, so I assume the
funtion is mostly periphery.

>
>Vehicle Control Rig: Tinkering around inside your *BRAIN* to convert
>signals from the vehicle into perceptible sense signals, and to convert
movement instructions from your motor cortex into readable instructions
for your vehicle.
>

I dunno- who knows what really costs essence. Yes, thats a lot of
deep brain interaction- Your entireself body image is as maliable
as putty!
From a game balnace perspective, the VCR grants more bonus's
(control pool, handling tests, AND inititive), but requres more outside
equipment (a deck and vehicles).

>Aieee! I know which I'd prefer! ("Get that buzzsaw away from my skull,
>Mr. Surgeon!) I think we're lucky that a VCR is only as dear as Wired
>Refs; it really should be dearer! (NOT that I"m arguing for *that*
>though.)
>
>Lady Jestyr
>

(LOL) Cyberwimp! Learn biotech and DIY! :)



Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psychotic - Einstein

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 63
From: David Taylor <Harvester@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 20:31:37 GMT
Just thought I'd give you guys this, although not too specific, maybe som=
ething chew over.
This is the reply I received from Mike Mulvilhill, when asking about SR3.
-------------------------
Thanks for asking about SR3. The book will be released in August of 1998.
Here sre some goals that we have for the book and adresses many of the
problems that arose with SR2 over the years.

1) It will be visually new and exciting (SR has practically looked the =
same
for 8 years)
2) The rules WILL NOT change but they will be rewritten and clarified.
3) The magic section will get the most attention as we fix the holes and
define terms that have not been defined in those 8 years.
4) It will include the new rules from VR2.0 and Rigger 2 (two core rules
books that are radically different than the rules in the Main Rule book.
5) It will update the base game universe to 2060, when most people will =
be
playing the game.
6) Finally, the amount of new players finding out about Shadowrun has inc=
rease
d due to the card game and the upcoming computer game. Those new players =
need
something that welcomes then aboard and not scares the drek out of them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------------------------
I understand war, I understand rules, and regulations, but I don't
understand sorry !! - Charles Manson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------------------------
Harvester@**********.com
Message no. 64
From: NightRain <nightrain@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:13:47 +1000
Justin wrote:
>It's simple. It's easy. And it follows the same system implemented with
>the exception of not capping damage at the Deadly wound level. I don't
>like to mess with all the mumbo jumbo in FoF about comparing the Power of
>the weapon to whatever, blah blah blah. Just take the cap off the damage
>and keep on going. :)

That is exactly why I use the rules I do.

NightRain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL : nightrain@***.brisnet.org.au
: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
ICQ : 2587947
Message no. 65
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 05:24:40 GMT
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 11:59:01 GMT, you wrote:

>James Lindsay writes
>
>> Our gaming group uses a target number for dodging equal to the sum of =
their
>> armour's Ballistic and Impact ratings, minus 1 (with a minimum TN of =
3). I
>> know that a TN of 3 is a bit far-fetched, but it had to be allowed so =
that
>> guys in armoured jackets (5/3) could still dodge with *some* chance of
>> success.
>
>so the guy in cloathes, armour 0 needs 3's (-1 minimums to 3)
>from fit 3 (4+1) = 5 -1 needs 4's
>and that armour jacket is 5+3 - 1 = 7's.
>
>i like trench coats (4+2-1 = 5) under this rule.
>What happens with dikoted armour?

We go by the original B/I ratings, basing it on the relative mass and
weight distribution of the armour. Dikoting would not alter mass
enough to make a difference.



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 66
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:25:08 GMT
James Lindsay writes

> >> Our gaming group uses a target number for dodging equal to the sum of their
> >> armour's Ballistic and Impact ratings, minus 1 (with a minimum TN of 3). I
> >> know that a TN of 3 is a bit far-fetched, but it had to be allowed so that
> >> guys in armoured jackets (5/3) could still dodge with *some* chance of
> >> success.
> >
> >so the guy in cloathes, armour 0 needs 3's (-1 minimums to 3)
> >from fit 3 (4+1) = 5 -1 needs 4's
> >and that armour jacket is 5+3 - 1 = 7's.
> >
> >i like trench coats (4+2-1 = 5) under this rule.
> >What happens with dikoted armour?
>
> We go by the original B/I ratings, basing it on the relative mass and
> weight distribution of the armour. Dikoting would not alter mass
> enough to make a difference.
>
Ok as i thought only its common enough if folks can find the money.
I assume forearm guards likewise don't affect things.
Any more detailed comments on your experiences of how this plays in
game? It all looks good, easy and based on realism and it encourages
more 'SR style' armour values (ie you can dodge in one bit of
concealable armour but 'tanks' cannot.

Mark
Message no. 67
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:26:03 +0100
losthalo said on 11:12/30 Oct 97...

> >Get rid of the "dodge" aspect of combat pool.
> >
> >Ta da! :)
> Very nice, simple and to the point. :)
> And less fragging dice to roll!! *cheer*

And it makes the game a lot more deadly as well. I ran a few SR games at a
con a few weeks ago, and decided not to bother with Combat Pool for the
PCs and Threat Ratings for the NPCs, to save me the trouble of explaining
that to people who've never played SR before. This was a combat-heavy
adventure, but I've never seen so many dead PCs in a single game before...
For the most part, that was because they didn't have the extra "save my
ass" dice that Combat Pool provides.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
'K moest kloppen want de bel doet het niet.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 68
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:26:03 +0100
David Buehrer said on 8:58/30 Oct 97...

> Get rid of the "dodge" aspect of combat pool.

Nice idea, except 99% of everyone on this list sees the use of combat pool
as dodging the attack. FASA does, too, as evidenced by the rule that "more
CP successes than attacker's successes = complete miss".

I think in the game tonight I'll suggest trying out the open-ended dodge
test I thought up yesterday, just to see how it works out.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
'K moest kloppen want de bel doet het niet.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 69
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:26:03 +0100
David Buehrer said on 9:12/30 Oct 97...

> Wouldn't it be easier to have both sides roll vs a base TN of 4? The
> sneaker roles his stealth vs a 4. The perciever rolls his
> intelligence vs a 4 modified by vision, the sneaker's movement
> (reverse the walking/running modifiers) and concealment modifiers.
> Whoever gets the most successes "wins".

That's more or less the standard SR rule, and I don't think either is
easier than the other.

> I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not fond of the open-ended test
> idea. If it's a base TN 4 resisted test then things are a little
> shaky for the sneaker unless his skill is way higher than the
> perciever's intelligence. If it's an open-ended test the sneaker is
> practically assured of success. For example, a sneaker with an skill
> of 4. A perceiver with an inteligence of 4. The sneaker rolls two
> successes. All the modifiers balance out so the base TN for the
> perciever is a 4. The sneaker's successes raise that TN to a 6.
> Odds are that the perceiver won't notice the sneaker, yet they have
> *equal skills/stats*. Everything being equal the chances of the
> sneaker getting by the perceiver should be 50/50, IMO.

What you're suggesting here is not an open-ended test, it's the rule from
the Companion. What I use as a house rule is to roll the STealth dice
utnil there are no more sixes, and note the highest roll. Then that's the
base TN for the Perception test. I'm not great at statistics so I don't
know how the relation between number of Stealth dice and number of
Perception dice affects the probabilities here, but it seems well
enough balanced to me.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
'K moest kloppen want de bel doet het niet.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 70
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 07:20:54 -0700
Gurth wrote:
|
| losthalo said on 11:12/30 Oct 97...
|
| > >Get rid of the "dodge" aspect of combat pool.
| > >
| > >Ta da! :)
| > Very nice, simple and to the point. :)
| > And less fragging dice to roll!! *cheer*
|
| And it makes the game a lot more deadly as well. I ran a few SR games at a
| con a few weeks ago, and decided not to bother with Combat Pool for the
| PCs and Threat Ratings for the NPCs, to save me the trouble of explaining
| that to people who've never played SR before. This was a combat-heavy
| adventure, but I've never seen so many dead PCs in a single game before...
| For the most part, that was because they didn't have the extra "save my
| ass" dice that Combat Pool provides.

I didn't mean that combat pool dice can't be used to augment the
damage resistance test. I meant that the "clean miss" option is
dropped and replaced by the dodge action. Sam shoots Fred and gets 1
success. Fred throws in 4 dice from his combat pool when resisting
damage. Of those 4 dice 3 result in successes. But the clean miss
possibility no longer exists so those 3 successes only apply to
staging down the damage. If Fred had wanted to (and had time) he
could have declared that he was Dodging on his last action and
modifiers would have applied to his actions and Sam's actions as if
Fred had walked.

That's how my house rule works.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 71
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:00:48 GMT
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 09:25:08 GMT, Mark Steedman
<M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK> wrote:

>James Lindsay writes
>
>> >> Our gaming group uses a target number for dodging equal to the sum =
of their
>> >> armour's Ballistic and Impact ratings, minus 1 (with a minimum TN =
of 3). I
>> >> know that a TN of 3 is a bit far-fetched, but it had to be allowed =
so that
>> >> guys in armoured jackets (5/3) could still dodge with *some* chance=
of
>> >> success.
>> >
>> >so the guy in cloathes, armour 0 needs 3's (-1 minimums to 3)
>> >from fit 3 (4+1) = 5 -1 needs 4's
>> >and that armour jacket is 5+3 - 1 = 7's.
>> >
>> >i like trench coats (4+2-1 = 5) under this rule.
>> >What happens with dikoted armour?
>>
>> We go by the original B/I ratings, basing it on the relative mass and
>> weight distribution of the armour. Dikoting would not alter mass
>> enough to make a difference.
>>
>Ok as i thought only its common enough if folks can find the money.
>I assume forearm guards likewise don't affect things.

Our ref *hates* forearm guards (IOW, they "don't exist"). I don't
want to get into *why* he doesn't like them, but no, they would not
affect the dodge TN. Neither would natural, magical, cybernetic, or
biological augmentations.

>Any more detailed comments on your experiences of how this plays in
>game? It all looks good, easy and based on realism and it encourages
>more 'SR style' armour values (ie you can dodge in one bit of
>concealable armour but 'tanks' cannot.

Layering armour has the affect of adding a raw +1/+1 to the armour
with the best B/I rating (regardless of the B/I rating of the lesser
armour). Normally, no more than two layers of armour can be
reasonably be worn. This extra "+1/+1" *does* affect the Dodge TN.

As to how our referee handles "dodging", that appears to change from
campaign to campaign. We haven't played in over six months, though,
so I can even remember the most recent dodge rules we are using :)

There isn't much else to say, really. Our ref prefers a somewhat
lower powered campaign (with smaller cash rewards) so PACs and heavy
security armour is rather rare. Because of this, this rule will
almost certainly give poorer results at higher B/I ratings (Heavy Mil
Spec Armour would have a Dodge TN of 27+, with helmet!). This is why
I quickly came up the other armour dodge "formula" (which hasn't been
playtested, BTW).

Now that I think about it, the idea of averaging the B & I ratings
(rounding down) and adding two to the result is starting to appeal to
me. Sure, using "[(B+I)/2]+2" will mean that lined coats (4/2) and
vests w/ plates (4/3) will have identical dodge TNs, but the lined
coat has the advantage of being able to hide weapons, etc. a bit
easier. Likewise, Formfit II (3/1) and Formfit III (4/1) will have
identical dodge TNs, with Formfit III having a distinct advantage in
concealibility. It's slightly more awkward in the math department
when determining Dodge TNs "on the fly", but it is a bit smoother and
more realistic than "(B+I)-1". Minimum Dodge TNs can also be raised
to a slightly more realistic "4".





"Dodge TN=average of Ballistic & Impact ratings (round down) + 2"


Naked Dude: TN=[(0+0)/2]+2... 2 (min 4)*
Armoured Clothing: TN=[(3+0)/2]+2... 3 (min 4)*
Armoured Vest: TN=[(2+1)/2]+2... 3 (min 4)*
Formfit I: TN=[(2+0)/2]+2... 3** (min 4)*
Formfit II: TN=[(3+1)/2]+2... 4***
Formfit III: TN=[(4+1)/2]+2... 4
Lined Coat: TN=[(4+2)/2]+2... 5****
Vest w/ Plates: TN=[(4+3)/2]+2... 5
Armoured Jacket: TN=[(5+3)/2]+2... 6
Light Security Armour: TN=[(8+5)/2]+2... 8*****
Medium Security Armour: TN=[(8+6)/2]+2... 9*****
Heavy Security Armour: TN=[(9+6)/2]+2... 9*****

* the advantage of having a Dodge TN of less than 4 is that wound
penalties do not begin to affect the individual as quickly (ie:
a Naked Dude with a Serious injury has a Dodge TN of 5+)
** extremely high concealibility compared to other armours with
Dodge TNs of 3
*** same Dodge TN as Formfit III, but with better concealibility
**** same Dodge TN as Vest w/ Plates, but can conceal weapons, etc.
better than any other type of armour
***** +2/+1 helmet included





It is left up to the referee to promote some kind of advantage to
wearing MSA instead of HSA, considering the identical Dodge TNs. The
same can be said for some of the Mil Spec armours that I haven't
bothered to list here.



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 72
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:48:49 +0000
On 29 Oct 97 at 8:10, David Buehrer wrote:

> Brett Borger wrote:
> |
> | Okay folks, just to satisfy my own personal curiousity, I'm going to
> | start a Wishlist for the Shadowrun 3rd Edition. Right now will be
> | the preliminary stages....


1.) Revise the small arms range tables--- current ranges are too
short

LMGs are effective in excess of 1000 meters
Hunting Rifles w/scoped sights are effective to 500-600 meters
HMGs are effective at 2000m +

2.) Assign weapons damage stats to a cartridge rather then a class of
weapons.

Currently (i.e. RL) there are "hold-out" pistols chambered
to "heavy" pistol cartridges (.357Magnum, .45APC, .44 Special),
Rifles chambered for pistol cartridges (.357 Mag, 9mmP, .44 Mag)
Pistols chambered for rifle cartridges (.45-70, .30 carbine) And most
SMGs are chambered for pistol ammo (9mmP and .45 APC). In terms of
game play this would allow selecting weapons with interchangable
ammo. The creation of a greater varity of weapons with some true
differences.

3.) Reliablity ratings for weapons (as opitional rule)

In RL there are good weapons and there are junk. A "less then
reliable" weapon can make for an interesting game. Especially if the
current market is flooded with them.

4.) More minor edges and flaws of the type that permit the creation
of "colorful" characters.

Stinks--character often forgets to change clothes or wash
Warped sense of Humor-- likes telling truely bad puns

5.) Revise (i.e. break up ) the criminal record flaw.

Seperate flaws for criminal record, wanted, on parole or probation,
skipped on bail.





5.)


David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato
Message no. 73
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 08:31:38 -0700
David Hinkley wrote:
/
/ > Brett Borger wrote:
/ > |
/ > | Okay folks, just to satisfy my own personal curiousity, I'm going to
/ > | start a Wishlist for the Shadowrun 3rd Edition. Right now will be
/ > | the preliminary stages....
/
/
/ 1.) Revise the small arms range tables--- current ranges are too
/ short

Ditto that.

/ 2.) Assign weapons damage stats to a cartridge rather then a class of
/ weapons.
/
/ Currently (i.e. RL) there are "hold-out" pistols chambered
/ to "heavy" pistol cartridges (.357Magnum, .45APC, .44 Special),
/ Rifles chambered for pistol cartridges (.357 Mag, 9mmP, .44 Mag)
/ Pistols chambered for rifle cartridges (.45-70, .30 carbine) And most
/ SMGs are chambered for pistol ammo (9mmP and .45 APC). In terms of
/ game play this would allow selecting weapons with interchangable
/ ammo. The creation of a greater varity of weapons with some true
/ differences.

But, it would add a level of complexity to the game. Remember, it's
a roleplaying game, not a wargame :) I like SR combat because it
comes close to real life add flavor to the game, but it doesn't bog
down. All IMHO.

/ 3.) Reliablity ratings for weapons (as opitional rule)
/
/ In RL there are good weapons and there are junk. A "less then
/ reliable" weapon can make for an interesting game. Especially if the
/ current market is flooded with them.

Oy, more dice to roll. I prefer GM judgement on this one.

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 74
From: Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 10:54:19 -0500
David Buehrer writes:
> David Hinkley wrote:
> /
> / > Brett Borger wrote:
> / > |
> / > | Okay folks, just to satisfy my own personal curiousity, I'm going to
> / > | start a Wishlist for the Shadowrun 3rd Edition. Right now will be
> / > | the preliminary stages....
> /
> /
> / 1.) Revise the small arms range tables--- current ranges are too
> / short
>
> Ditto that.
>
> / 2.) Assign weapons damage stats to a cartridge rather then a class of
> / weapons.
> /
> / Currently (i.e. RL) there are "hold-out" pistols chambered
> / to "heavy" pistol cartridges (.357Magnum, .45APC, .44 Special),
> / Rifles chambered for pistol cartridges (.357 Mag, 9mmP, .44 Mag)
> / Pistols chambered for rifle cartridges (.45-70, .30 carbine) And most
> / SMGs are chambered for pistol ammo (9mmP and .45 APC). In terms of
> / game play this would allow selecting weapons with interchangable
> / ammo. The creation of a greater varity of weapons with some true
> / differences.
>
> But, it would add a level of complexity to the game. Remember, it's
> a roleplaying game, not a wargame :) I like SR combat because it
> comes close to real life add flavor to the game, but it doesn't bog
> down. All IMHO.
>
> / 3.) Reliablity ratings for weapons (as opitional rule)
> /
> / In RL there are good weapons and there are junk. A "less then
> / reliable" weapon can make for an interesting game. Especially if the
> / current market is flooded with them.
>
> Oy, more dice to roll. I prefer GM judgement on this one.
>

I'll go with David on this one. I like your ideas (and
use similiar things via story line and House rules), but it
takes a certain type of game and player. The rules
flowing well are the main thing. Seems like half the things
we "discuss" on this list, can be taken care of with a
decent GM and plotline. Remember guys, the books are
just the baseline/starting point. I have two pages
of house rules I hand to my players. (and it grows and
shrinks with time and the campaign).
On another note, I'm compiling R2 tables in Excel.
Might have them done today, if works stays slow. I'll
post a location when their done if anybody wants them.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker 644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nice thing about standards,is there are so many to choose from.
Message no. 75
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:50:44 -0600
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, David Hinkley wrote:
> 4.) More minor edges and flaws of the type that permit the creation
> of "colorful" characters.
> Stinks--character often forgets to change clothes or wash
> Warped sense of Humor-- likes telling truely bad puns

more like player edges and flaws:). well at least the last one is
me. I have a habit of collecting Pun Damage durring games. Right Q?:)

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com
Message no. 76
From: Wilson Reis de Souza Neto <wilson@*****.CETUC.PUC-RIO.BR>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 19:15:00 GMT-3
Brett Borger wrote:
>Okay folks, just to satisfy my own personal curiousity, I'm
>going to
>start a Wishlist for the Shadowrun 3rd Edition.

(snip)

Well, my main complain in SR2 is the Mag System. It "stages" down the
range, but different weapons have different ranges...
Maybe if you say: "Okay, let's assume that there's a different type
of MAgnifyin Scope for each type of Weapon (HPs, ARs, etc...)
But it still sounds too much unreal to me.
I know it's easier to hit with a mag scope, but it's just because now
you can see the target better, but seein' is not the only factor,
there's all that "drek" about the bullet losing it's accuracy, etc.

My idea is :
Let's make a table (no, i'm not a RoleMaster fan!) of Distance
modifiers in TN. The Mag. Scope should apply modifiers in this table
And let's modify the Table in page 87(not sure) which to fit the
modifiers to the base target numbers...

Damn...
I've just read all that i've written .
I really have to review my English classes...

It's it! I'm not gonna write it again, so be pacient and try to
understand.
I'm complainin' just because i really can't realize a base TN 4 just
because the Sam is using a Mag 3.


-----------------------------------------
Wilson Reis de S. Neto
mazoreis@***.com.br
wilson@*****.cetuc.puc-rio.br
UIN: 1686272

http://home.iis.com.br/~mazoreis
Message no. 77
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 17:19:23 -0500
At 09:48 PM 11/6/97 +0000, you wrote:

>2.) Assign weapons damage stats to a cartridge rather then a class of
>weapons.
>
>Currently (i.e. RL) there are "hold-out" pistols chambered
>to "heavy" pistol cartridges (.357Magnum, .45APC, .44 Special),
>Rifles chambered for pistol cartridges (.357 Mag, 9mmP, .44 Mag)
>Pistols chambered for rifle cartridges (.45-70, .30 carbine) And most
>SMGs are chambered for pistol ammo (9mmP and .45 APC). In terms of
>game play this would allow selecting weapons with interchangable
>ammo. The creation of a greater varity of weapons with some true
>differences.
One small problem (though yes it would be a helluva lot more realistic):
There would likely be a lot of different calibres around, just look at what
are available today. Offthe top of my head, for pistols: .22L, .25, .32,
.38 Special, .380 ACP, .45ACP, .357 Mag, .40, ..44Mag, .50AE, 9mmPara,
10mm... And a whole lot more. I just disagree with all the weapons of a
type having a set damage code (light pistols all 6L, for instance). It
would make sense for there to be more variety, especially in hold-out
pistols (why use a .25 derringer when there's a reliable .357? Only 'cause
FASA lets weapon size influence its damage).

>
>3.) Reliablity ratings for weapons (as opitional rule)
>
>In RL there are good weapons and there are junk. A "less then
>reliable" weapon can make for an interesting game. Especially if the
>current market is flooded with them.
Yes, although in general I think the weapons given in SR are the more
reliable types, not the Saturday Night Specials that might explode in hyour
hand. Perhaps someone would care to write up a little section of these
cheapies? :)

losthalo

losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 78
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:43:55 +0100
David Buehrer said on 8:31/ 7 Nov 97...

> / 1.) Revise the small arms range tables--- current ranges are too
> / short
>
> Ditto that.

Although more accurate ranges would be nice, I think it's very unlikely...
The ranges didn't change between SR1 an SRII, so probably for continuity
between versions, my guess is they'll keep such things the same.

> / 2.) Assign weapons damage stats to a cartridge rather then a class of
> / weapons.

See above.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Would it make you feel much better, if it was you against the world?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 79
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 11:43:55 +0100
Wilson Reis de Souza Neto said on 19:15/ 7 Nov 97...

> My idea is :
> Let's make a table (no, i'm not a RoleMaster fan!) of Distance
> modifiers in TN. The Mag. Scope should apply modifiers in this table
> And let's modify the Table in page 87(not sure) which to fit the
> modifiers to the base target numbers...

My house rule is that a telescope extends the range of the weapon --
multiply the ranges by (magnification + 1) after the character has spent a
Simple Action to steady the weapon, and for single shots only. Not wholly
realistic either, but better than having everybody fix mag-3 scopes and
shooting against TN4 at all ranges... Plus it gives sniper rifles a useful
range.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Would it make you feel much better, if it was you against the world?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 80
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 10:32:55 -0500
In a message dated 97-11-08 05:47:01 EST, gurth@******.NL writes:

> Although more accurate ranges would be nice, I think it's very unlikely...
> The ranges didn't change between SR1 an SRII, so probably for continuity
> between versions, my guess is they'll keep such things the same.
>
I find I have to jump in here for this. I agree that most of the weapons
stats probably won't change, but how about something more believable for
Sniper Rifles, especially the Barret? 400?!?!?!? Oh come on...

-K
Message no. 81
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 20:31:15 +0000
On 7 Nov 97 at 8:31, David Buehrer wrote:

> David Hinkley wrote:
[SNIP]
> / 2.) Assign weapons damage stats to a cartridge rather then a class
> of / weapons. / / Currently (i.e. RL) there are "hold-out" pistols
> chambered / to "heavy" pistol cartridges (.357Magnum, .45APC, .44
> Special), / Rifles chambered for pistol cartridges (.357 Mag, 9mmP,
> .44 Mag) / Pistols chambered for rifle cartridges (.45-70, .30
> carbine) And most / SMGs are chambered for pistol ammo (9mmP and .45
> APC). In terms of / game play this would allow selecting weapons
> with interchangable / ammo. The creation of a greater varity of
> weapons with some true / differences.
>
> But, it would add a level of complexity to the game. Remember, it's
> a roleplaying game, not a wargame :) I like SR combat because it
> comes close to real life add flavor to the game, but it doesn't bog
> down. All IMHO.

Yes it would add a bit of complexity, but not so much as I would
consider it a new level. All this would take is to take the damage
values and assign a cartridge designation to it. The weapons stats
would then consist of the Conealment rating, Ammo capasity, Mode,
Cartridge (replace damage), Range Table (replaces classification),
Weight, Availability, Cost, and Street Index. The only increase in
complcation is that you would need to consult two additional
tables (Cartridge damage, Range Tables) when you fill out yor
character record sheet.

> / 3.) Reliablity ratings for weapons (as opitional rule)
> /
> / In RL there are good weapons and there are junk. A "less then /
> reliable" weapon can make for an interesting game. Especially if the
> / current market is flooded with them.
>
> Oy, more dice to roll. I prefer GM judgement on this one.

Only on junk weapons, and I would not make it a new roll but rather a
modification to the "Rule of Ones". Either by including a limited
number of "twos" or having a reduced number of "ones" trigger this
existing rule.

There is much to be said for GM judgement, but ther is also some
thing to be said for Murphy (Things go wrong at the worst possible
time) and allowing luck to control Murphy makes for better player-GM
relations. It will also tend to reduce the ammount of shooting in
low-powered games (where 'junk' weapons would be more common) as you
can only have a failure when you shoot and the more you shoot the
more likely it will fail. This rule wouldalso permit a new plot
device, cheap knock-off conterfits of popular weapons, just think
some one floods the Seatle market with less then reliable copies of
the Ares Alpha and its ammuntion.(Evil GM Grin)




David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org

====================================================
Those who are too intelligent to engage in politics
are punished by being governed by those who are not
--Plato
Message no. 82
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 10:49:53 +0100
J. Keith Henry said on 10:32/ 8 Nov 97...

> I find I have to jump in here for this. I agree that most of the weapons
> stats probably won't change, but how about something more believable for
> Sniper Rifles, especially the Barret? 400?!?!?!? Oh come on...

Sniper rifles and light machineguns are the big offenders on the range
tables; assault rifles are passable (though would benefit from changes as
well), IMHO.

The way I see it, FASA took a bit of a wrong step with the Barret. They
should have made it a clip-fed, semi-automatic heavy machinegun. Sure,
HMGs are of lower power than sniper rifles in SR (another "???" situation)
but at least it would have had believable ranges.

<!-- hypnotize <suggest>How about someone who's done up a realistic range
table sends me one for the house rule book?</suggest> /hypnotize -->

:)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Would it make you feel much better, if it was you against the world?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 83
From: QKSilver <qksilver282@*****.MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:42:58 -0500
On November 09, 1997 at 4:49 AM Gurth wrote:

>Sniper rifles and light machineguns are the big offenders on the range
>tables; assault rifles are passable (though would benefit from changes >as
well), IMHO.

[Snip]
>FASA took a bit of a wrong step with the Barret. They should have >made it
a clip-fed, semi-automatic heavy machinegun. Sure,
>HMGs are of lower power than sniper rifles in SR (another "???"
>situation)
but at least it would have had believable ranges.

Gurth make as good point in figuring out how weapons in SR work - by how
they are rated - The weapon class (though simplistic and narrow) makes the
game play easier for the GM who doesn't have to remember 10 billion
different weapon stats and for the players. However it over simplifies.

In RL the Barret 50 (Official Name) Heavy-Sniper rifle fires .50 cal
ammunition, Semi-automatic in action and carries an 8rd magazine (no
self-respecting operator would call a magazine a clip. BTW I believe it was
8rds might have been 9 - it's been 5 years, sorry). One big flaw of the
original design was the scope - which only gave you accurate fire to about
1250 yds. Not that the rifle couldn't reach out and touch someone further
than that (actually 2200 yds) - just that the scope wouldn't see them. It's
hard, real hard, to hit what you can't see.

These are some of the modifications (house rules) I've made in my game.

Weapon Ratings Table
Type Conc Ammo
Damage Cost St Indx
Pistols
Street Line Special HO 8 6(c)
4L ¥100 .8
Walther Palm Pistol HO 9 2(b)
6M ¥250 1
Remington Room Sweeper HP 6 8(m) 9S(f)
¥300 2

Sniper Rifles
Ranger Arms SM-3 Sniper - 6(m) 14S
¥4500 5
Walther WA-2100 Sniper - 10(m) 15S
¥7100 5

Heavy Sniper Rifles
Barret 121 H-Sniper - 14(c)
16D ¥6000 6

Weapons Range Tables
Short Medium
Long Extreme
Firearms 4 5
6 10
Assault Rifle tn 8 0-50 50-150 150-250
250-500
Sniper Rifle 0-100 100-500 500-1000
1000-1500
Heavy Sniper Rifle 0-200 200-750 750-1500
1500-2300

In addition to this All rifles are classified by themselves. They are
the only weapons which have an 8 target number at extreme ranges. And have
the option of firing at area targets vs. point targets. The Panther Assault
Cannon, and all Machine Guns can only fire at area targets at extreme range.
Area targets are considered concentrations of troops. GM makes the call on
what he considers a concentration (Good basis is 5 men / 5m)

Sorry if I took too much space. Hope this helps.
Message no. 84
From: Knight Rook Shadow Dancer <shadowd@********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:45:35 -0700
David Hinkley wrote:
[snip]
> Only on junk weapons, and I would not make it a new roll but rather a
> modification to the "Rule of Ones". Either by including a limited
> number of "twos" or having a reduced number of "ones" trigger
this
> existing rule.
>
> There is much to be said for GM judgement, but ther is also some
> thing to be said for Murphy (Things go wrong at the worst possible
> time) and allowing luck to control Murphy makes for better player-GM
> relations. It will also tend to reduce the ammount of shooting in
> low-powered games (where 'junk' weapons would be more common) as you
> can only have a failure when you shoot and the more you shoot the
> more likely it will fail. This rule wouldalso permit a new plot
> device, cheap knock-off conterfits of popular weapons, just think
> some one floods the Seatle market with less then reliable copies of
> the Ares Alpha and its ammuntion.(Evil GM Grin)

What about incorporating White Wolf's idea of one's negating successes?
(Just for Junk/Faulty/Jury-rigged Weapons) This lowers the effectiveness
of a weapons that are more likely to have problem's straight accross the
board. If you wanted to limit it to just making them jam or critically fail
more often you could rule that if the number of one's exceeds the number of
successes the rule-of-ones applies.
--
Knight Rook Shadow Dancer *** shadowd@********.com
\______________)======================================================
WITH ORION'S SWORD THE HUNTER AROSE AND CONQUERED THE WORLD WITH FURY AND
GRACE
Message no. 85
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:37:53 -0500
At 03:45 PM 11/10/97 -0700, you wrote:

>What about incorporating White Wolf's idea of one's negating successes?
Frankly, that is my most hated rule out of the Storyteller system (And
yeah, I've played it a bit, and tinkered with the systems a bit). It adds
a lot of randomness on a d10, with d6's it'd be horrible except where you
have something throwing more dice in (Combat Pool, Control Pool, etc.).


losthalo@********.comGoFa6)7(Im6TJt)Fe(7P!ShMoB4/19.2Bk!cBkc8MBV6sM3ZG
oPuTeiClbMehC6a23=n4bSSH173g4L??96FmT1Ea4@*********************
4h7sM8zSsYnk6BSMmpFNN0393NHfsSLusOH5Whileyouarelisteningyourwillingat
tentionismakingyoumoreandmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.
Message no. 86
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:06:14 PST
>> Only on junk weapons, and I would not make it a new roll but rather a
>> modification to the "Rule of Ones". Either by including a limited
>> number of "twos" or having a reduced number of "ones" trigger
this
>> existing rule.
>>

I'd suggest making crappy guns a modifier on the "cutom weapons" rule-
they cost half as much, but you roll one less die while using them.
This even makes rule of 1 fumbles 6 times more likely!

With "rule of two's", you could have a critical faliure while rolling
all successes! (close range, -2for smartlink, assuming a crappy gun
could be smartlinked).

>What about incorporating White Wolf's idea of one's negating successes?
>(Just for Junk/Faulty/Jury-rigged Weapons) If you wanted to limit it
to just making them jam or critically fail
>more often you could rule that if the number of one's exceeds the
number of successes the rule-of-ones applies.

ACK- on a D6?? Anything with a TN over 6 would be impossible, and just
asking for a jam / whatever. I could see tough shots being a matter of
pure luck, although I never liked how WW's "1's negate sucess" rule
totaly negates all levels of skill for certain tests. However, I
certainly don't see why the gun is more likely to jam if I shoot at a
target under cover at long range and less likely if I have a lazer sight
and shoot at close range.

Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psychotic - Einstein

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 87
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:59:14 -0500
On Saturday, November 08, 1997 5:43 AM, Gurth[SMTP:gurth@******.NL] =
wrote:
> Wilson Reis de Souza Neto said on 19:15/ 7 Nov 97...
>
> > My idea is :
> > Let's make a table (no, i'm not a RoleMaster fan!) of Distance
> > modifiers in TN. The Mag. Scope should apply modifiers in this table
> > And let's modify the Table in page 87(not sure) which to fit the
> > modifiers to the base target numbers...
>
> My house rule is that a telescope extends the range of the weapon --
> multiply the ranges by (magnification + 1) after the character has =
spent a
> Simple Action to steady the weapon, and for single shots only. Not =
wholly
> realistic either, but better than having everybody fix mag-3 scopes =
and
> shooting against TN4 at all ranges... Plus it gives sniper rifles a =
useful
> range.

I use that as well(I believe Gurth and I independently developed it), =
along with a major readjustment of the firearm damage codes (which I am =
still playing with).

Latest adjustment to my firearms damage system: sniping rifles =
downgraded to M damage, and slight change in the way armor works. That =
is to say, if armor reduces the power of an attack to below two, lower =
the damage code by one level, add two to the power, and recheck.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)

(Oh, and if I am MIMeing or have other attachments, please let me know, =
as I just re-installed my mailer)
Message no. 88
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:00:49 -0500
On Sunday, November 09, 1997 4:49 AM, Gurth[SMTP:gurth@******.NL] wrote:
> J. Keith Henry said on 10:32/ 8 Nov 97...
>
> > I find I have to jump in here for this. I agree that most of the weapons
> > stats probably won't change, but how about something more believable for
> > Sniper Rifles, especially the Barret? 400?!?!?!? Oh come on...
>
> Sniper rifles and light machineguns are the big offenders on the range
> tables; assault rifles are passable (though would benefit from changes as
> well), IMHO.
>
> The way I see it, FASA took a bit of a wrong step with the Barret. They
> should have made it a clip-fed, semi-automatic heavy machinegun. Sure,
> HMGs are of lower power than sniper rifles in SR (another "???" situation)
> but at least it would have had believable ranges.
>

That is exactly what I did for the Barret. (Course, HMG ammo does a *lot* more damage
under my system....)

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 89
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:50:17 +0100
Jonathan Hurley said on 16:59/14 Nov 97...

> I use that as well(I believe Gurth and I independently developed it),
> along with a major readjustment of the firearm damage codes (which I am
> still playing with).
>
> Latest adjustment to my firearms damage system: sniping rifles
> downgraded to M damage

I've been thinking of re-doing some Damage Codes and ranges, but I've
never really gotten to it. I don't intend to radically change those stats
for all weapons, just those that feel wrong... I was thinking of lowering
sniping rifles to 8S or so, and changing light machineguns to 8M (since
they tend to fire assault rifle ammo IRL). Medium MGs can stay at 9S,
while HMGs would go to something like 12S to 14S.

As for ranges, I had in mind to triple the ranges for assault rifles,
sporting rifles, and sniping rifles, and give light machineguns ranges
equivalent to those of an assault rifle. Perhaps doubling the ranges for
all pistols and SMGs is also a good idea.

> and slight change in the way armor works. That is to say, if armor
> reduces the power of an attack to below two, lower the damage code by
> one level, add two to the power, and recheck.

My house rule for "armor rating greater than Power Level" is that for
every two points that the armor rating exceeds the PL, the target gets an
extra die to roll to resist the damage.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
So what if we're making a scene now?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 90
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 10:05:42 -0700
Jonathan Hurley wrote:
/
/ ...and slight change in the way armor works. That =
/ is to say, if armor reduces the power of an attack to below two, lower =
/ the damage code by one level, add two to the power, and recheck.

Cool! I'm gonna have to try this one.

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 91
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 23:18:54 +0100
>/ ...and slight change in the way armor works. That =
>/ is to say, if armor reduces the power of an attack to below two, lower =
>/ the damage code by one level, add two to the power, and recheck.
>
>Cool! I'm gonna have to try this one.

Considering the drain code system in Grimoire for spels, it appears the
'default' is that 1 damage level equals 4 power. That would be a bit high,
though, for this purpose. Three, perhaps? Two sounds a bit low to me.
Message no. 92
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:32:13 -0500
Rune Fostervoll[SMTP:runefo@***.UIO.NO] wrote:
> >/ ...and slight change in the way armor works. That =
> >/ is to say, if armor reduces the power of an attack to below two, =
lower =
> >/ the damage code by one level, add two to the power, and =
recheck.=20
> >
> >Cool! I'm gonna have to try this one.
>
> Considering the drain code system in Grimoire for spels, it appears =
the
> 'default' is that 1 damage level equals 4 power. That would be a bit =
high,
> though, for this purpose. Three, perhaps? Two sounds a bit low to me.
>

This is 'fix" I implemented because of what I did to pistols and SMGs. I =
upped light pistols to 6-7M damage code, and decided that they fire the =
same ammo as SMGs; namely, pistol cartridges of .30 to .45 caliber (7 - =
10 mm or so) non-magnum. IE, the "light" end of the pistol ammo =
spectrum. Heavy pistols, OTOH, fire the "big" pistols rounds, the .44 =
magnums and .50 AE rounds. The wristbreakers. I decided that the =
smaller, lighter, rounds have higher muzzle velocities, while the =
fatter, heavier rounds depend more on the weight of lead that they can =
throw, thus giving more penetration to the lighter rounds, while the =
heavier rounds are deliver more kinetic energy, but are also more easily =
stopped. Hence, I ended up with a damage code of 5S for the heavy =
pistols. This was OK, but as I ran my game, it very quickly became =
noticeable that armor above 4 or so just wasn't any better against the =
HP rounds than the lighter armor was. (IE, once the power of the attack =
is exceeded by the armor, adding more armor doesn't work.) I found this =
side effect distasteful, and decided to play around with it. For the =
specific areas in which I was concerned, a 2 power to 1 damage level =
works. As the damage is only ever reduced, not increased, it doesn't =
really affect game balance. (If I did a 4 power to 1 level drop, a =
target shot by a 5S heavy pistol round while wearing an armor jacket =
would have to resist what would amount to 1 4M damage code. As I find =
the heavy pistol to be much too effective against armored targets, this =
would not have worked. As I have it, the HP remains as effective against =
unarmored or lightly armored targets as it was before, and the heavier =
end of civilian body armor is mostly proof against being killed by a =
single shot from a pistol-class weapon (as I believe even 1990's-level =
body armor is)).

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 93
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:46:15 +0100
Jonathan Hurley said on 15:32/17 Nov 97...

> This is 'fix" I implemented because of what I did to pistols and SMGs.
> I upped light pistols to 6-7M damage code, and decided that they fire
> the same ammo as SMGs; namely, pistol cartridges of .30 to> --

First, a little request: Quicksilver, can you hit Enter at the end of each
line (every 70-75 characters or so)? Your post showed up as a single line,
which ended up as the above quoted material after I reformatted it.

Then for my actual reply: you did much the reverse of what I changed: I
lowered heavy pistol damage to 6M, because the way I see it, heavy pistols
fire the same ammo as SMGs (and please everyone, no debate over this
decision, since it usually goes nowhere).

BTW, if you've got your weapon modifications typed up, could you send me a
copy for the house rules book I'm putting together?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The future. Available tomorrow.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 94
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:56:10 -0500
Gurth[SMTP:gurth@******.NL] wrote:
> Jonathan Hurley said on 15:32/17 Nov 97...
>
> > This is 'fix" I implemented because of what I did to pistols and SMGs.
> > I upped light pistols to 6-7M damage code, and decided that they fire
> > the same ammo as SMGs; namely, pistol cartridges of .30 to> --
>
> First, a little request: Quicksilver, can you hit Enter at the end of each
> line (every 70-75 characters or so)? Your post showed up as a single line,
> which ended up as the above quoted material after I reformatted it.

I hadn't realized that this was a problem.

> Then for my actual reply: you did much the reverse of what I changed: I
> lowered heavy pistol damage to 6M, because the way I see it, heavy pistols
> fire the same ammo as SMGs (and please everyone, no debate over this
> decision, since it usually goes nowhere).

I have light pistols and SMGs firing the same ammo, and I agree with you about
arguments.

> BTW, if you've got your weapon modifications typed up, could you send me a
> copy for the house rules book I'm putting together?

Sure.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 95
From: AirWisp <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:24:28 EST
In a message dated 97-10-28 17:56:57 EST, you write:

> Clear up Grounding issue

Yes

> Include Availibility/Street Index in future books (Grrrr, R2)

Yes, and availability is listed in the R2, you just have to look for it. I
continue to use the availability for vehicles from all of the other
sourcebooks.

> Include a realistic Illusion spell

No

> Keep vehicles from getting killed by a pop gun.

No, is a matter of GM discretion.

> Clean up Otaku

No

> LOS issues with Elementals

Yes
Message no. 96
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: SR3 Wishlist
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:44:19 +0000
> > Include a realistic Illusion spell
> No
>
> > Clean up Otaku
> No
>

care to elucidate a bit?

-=SwiftOne=-
Brett Borger
SwiftOne@***.edu
AAP Techie

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about SR3 Wishlist, 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!