Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: MC23 <mc23@**********.COM>
Subject: Staging Codes and New Additions to SR3
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:06:19 -0400
I'm sorry to say that I am against changing back to the old codes.
The standard staging code of 2 greatly helped game play speed. And what
ever is difficult to stage up can also be difficult stage down. Making a
success tests and resistance tests handled slightly differently is not
that bad but does make Shadowrun even just a little more difficult for a
new player to learn. Don't forget that most of the rule books would also
now need an errata sheet for this new code. It sounds better as an
optional rule (companion 2?) than core rule book.
Don't forget that what we are actually talking about here is just a
better version of 2nd edition brought up to date with VR 2.0 and RBB2.
This is about updating the core rulebook and not the entire system. Most
optional rules should be in supplements where they belong. I don't like
seeing a main rule book littered with optional rules. It doesn't show
much conviction from the designers and it doesn't make me feel good about
running it. Leave the rules checklist to Rolemaster. Additional rules for
realism that are optional does not bother me though as they do not
contradict what was previously written.


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

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. 2
From: "Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Staging Codes and New Additions to SR3
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 13:51:26 -0500
You wrote:
I don't really care if the game is a neency bit harder to learn, if it makes it
better. I managed to learn SR1 and run it without ever having seen it played
and with my only previous experience being AD&D... And SR2 was clarified and
simplified to encourage newer gamers, so it could be their first game, a trend
I don't like, and hope isn't carried further in 3rd Ed.

> Don't forget that most of the rule books would also
> now need an errata sheet for this new code. It sounds better as an
> optional rule (companion 2?) than core rule book.
What happened when SR2 came out? Major rules revisions, some of which really
improved the game:
* new rules for burst and autofire that really sped up play and made full-
auto weapons worth something
* completely new damage codes
* completely new drain codes
* new rules for attacking through foci, making mages a little more squeamish
about using them
*complete change in combat dice pools, elimination of Astral Pool

All these required people to adjust a lot, but most people seem to like 2nd Ed
a *lot* better than first...

> Don't forget that what we are actually talking about here is just a
> better version of 2nd edition brought up to date with VR 2.0 and RBB2.
> This is about updating the core rulebook and not the entire system. Most
> optional rules should be in supplements where they belong. I don't like
> seeing a main rule book littered with optional rules. It doesn't show
> much conviction from the designers and it doesn't make me feel good about
> running it. Leave the rules checklist to Rolemaster. Additional rules for
> realism that are optional does not bother me though as they do not
> contradict what was previously written.

I don't want just an 'update', if they're going to bother doing this, I'd like
to see a better system come out of it. Remember 2nd Ed AD&D? Few rules really
changed, I could have been playing with the old books. Why bother? Sorry, not
trying to sound preachy.


losthalo
Message no. 3
From: TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Staging Codes and New Additions to SR3
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 15:07:56 -0500
At 10:06 AM 7/4/97 -0400, MC23 wrote:
> I'm sorry to say that I am against changing back to the old codes.
>The standard staging code of 2 greatly helped game play speed. And what
>ever is difficult to stage up can also be difficult stage down. Making a
>success tests and resistance tests handled slightly differently is not
>that bad but does make Shadowrun even just a little more difficult for a
>new player to learn. Don't forget that most of the rule books would also
>now need an errata sheet for this new code. It sounds better as an
>optional rule (companion 2?) than core rule book.

I agree with MC23 here. Keep the staging codes as they are maybe work with
the damage codes and power levels to get them more realistic.

Light pistols (what I would call 9mm and below) should do more than 6L base
damage. I would think that 4-6M would be more representative of the
weapons. Heavy pistols (10mm, .40 cal and above) should have damages
ranging from 7-9M. Submachineguns should be based on the ammo-type used,
since most rely on light pistol ammo, most would do light pistol damage.
Some do use heavy pistol ammo and their damage should reflect this. Assault
rifles appear to be fine, as do sporting rifles, but sniper rifles are a
disaster. Lower them to the 7-10S range and they should be fine. There are
many hunting rifles out there that exceed the power of many sniper rifles...

Anyway, there's my opinion on damage-related SR3 stuff...
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Staging Codes and New Additions to SR3, 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!