Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: HHackerH@***.com HHackerH@***.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 01:46:47 EDT
After once again reading and rereading a vast majority of commentary, both positive and
negative, I think I've personally reached a position.

Though I will *NOT* be as cinematically negative about the game of Shadowrun as Abortion
Engine or Lehlan is, I have however started to feel some pangs for the game itself as a
whole.

All of these issues that we are hearing about the books being released by FASA ultimately
are about one's playing style, which ultimately is what all of these decisions about
whether or not a "book" is worthwile to ones self or not. It is what AE,
myself, Gurth, Dvixen, Strago ... any of us deem as "being cool" or not.

I have had several reservations about the material in some of the past sourcebooks that
have come out, and yes I have had some hand in trying to shape them for production. But
that doesn't mean I have been satisfied with how they have turned out. I was satisfied
with Man & Machine, and with New Seattle and MitS and Corporate Punishment. They were
all useful books, for not only myself but for the players in my games as well.

I am *NOT* completely satisfied with Cannon Companion. In fact, it falls significantly
short of what I feel personally is "up to snuff" for my favorite RPG. Will I
switch or even threaten to switch to another RPG? No. Will I quit trying to improve upon
the style and depth of the shadowrun universe? Of course not. My reasons are completely
mine own I think.

I still believe the majority of what is being said on the opinion side of things is
nothing by "whining". My reasons for this are probably as in-depth as everyone
elses' have been for why they are voicing their opinions so strongly.

I do miss the "flavor text" within the books, but at the same time I do not miss
the "confusion of the rules" that as a GM I had to constantly sort out. I do
believe the "shadowtalks" could have been done differently, in such a way that
they would not have caused rule conflicts or potential rule conflicts even and yet still
contributed to the game as a whole. I do also realize however that the sheer volume of
information combined with the huge shift in pricing for material in general has forced
some very hard decisions into the laps of the FASA staff as a whole. I believe they have
made the best decisions they could given all the situations that have happened. They are
human, like the rest of us, and are just as bound by their limitations as anyone else is.

I do NOT want to see the game go back to what it once was. I'm not stupid, I realize that
is simply not possible. I do not however want to see the supporters of Shadowrun collapse
into this constant, mindless, state of repetitive drivel that has been going on now for
quite some time. I'm NOT pointing any fingers, because there are as many mirrors for me
to look at as there are windows looking out upon the crowd as well.

I know this.

It's a Game. I've been painfully reminded of that very recently. It's fiction and
fantasy and vergant reality all rolled up into one. We can bend it or strengthen it any
way we, as an individual or collective group, choose to do so. When we constantly choose
to act as purely individuals, with no state of compromise or comprehension, then we ignore
the basic fundamental precepts of the game as a whole.

It's about people. About people getting together to have fun within a shared, fictionally
vibrant, environment. No amount of books or rules are going to ultimately define that
"subset" of reality we choose to interact with.

I said the simplest fact a while back. If you choose to get your point across to FASA ...
go silent. Remove the support you have been giving to the game up to this point in time.
If you are so adamant about the quality of the game, then perhaps it is time to (as we say
in this industry) follow the steps of escalation. Time to put together a real petition
for a change in the style of the game and the style of the released products.

Put it together using your REAL NAMES and information. Have someone whom you could trust
to retain and restrict the access of the information (I personally want no part of it, I
can follow other inroads myself). Do not create falsified or misleading information
(email accounts on YAHOO, Hotmail or even AOL are simply not legitimate enough for such
actions to bear any real weight or argument), as it will have no real weight or value
unless all involved are ready to stand up for what they want or believe in. The internet
is a powerful tool, use it if you really feel this strongly. Post the petition in all
areas and forums available, but do so with civility and professionalism at all times and
request specifically that all involved do the same.

Then take the next step. Send the email to Mort Weisman or Sharon Mulvihill. It is at
least in part their jobs to ensure the quality and customer satisfaction of the products
their company is producing. Ensure that all documentation is kept a copy of, unaltered,
somewhere (stand-alone diskettes that are then placed in sealed envelopes are good for
this).

I personally don't see the huge problem nor the unapproachability to the writers and staff
of FASA. I have almost always held them in the position of respect they have earned ...
if for nothing else having to deal with such a tempermental customer base (many role
players in general are bad at this).

I do see a need to try and re-establish certain qualities of the SR game universe that are
now missing or have been removed. I am not 100% convinced of the continual, productive,
quality of the game or what is being produced. That is why I am not going to quit trying
to create refinable products or submit material that I feel will logically fit into the
"fictional elements" of the game.

Lasers? No, I don't believe they should have been done ... as someone else said, this is
Shadowrun, not Star Wars. I do see other alternatives as being more logical in the
developmental stages of the SR Universe.

But that is where my opinion may stray from other individuals and contributing writers.
That is fine, I know my opinions are not the same as everyone elses'.

So as someone would say.

It's a Game. Have Fun. It's what it was meant for. If it's not being fun for you and
those you are with, perhaps you shouldn't being doing it in the first place.

-K (Hoosier Hacker House)
Message no. 2
From: Deirdre M. Brooks xenya@********.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:37:30 -0700
HHackerH@***.com wrote:
>
> It's a Game. Have Fun. It's what it was meant for. If it's not
> being fun for you and those you are with, perhaps you shouldn't
> being doing it in the first place.

Yeah. what Triple H said. :-)

I don't think any of the new books have reduced my ability to have fun
with the game. I'm also painfully aware of a few things wrt supplements
(esp. since I've started trying to match Steve Kenson's freelance
output). The first is that people do their best to put together the best
book they can and the second is that it's *never* quite as good as was
wanted.

I can live with that as long as everyone learns from their mistakes and
improves. :-)

> -K (Hoosier Hacker House)

--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xenya@********.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
"If you loved me, you'd all kill yourselves today."
-- Spider Jerusalem | http://www.teleport.com/~xenya
Message no. 3
From: Drew Curtis dcurtis@***.net
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:04:33 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 HHackerH@***.com wrote:

> I do NOT want to see the game go back to what it once was. I'm not
> stupid, I realize that is simply not possible. I do not however want
> to see the supporters of Shadowrun collapse into this constant,
> mindless, state of repetitive drivel that has been going on now for
> quite some time. I'm NOT pointing any fingers, because there are as
> many mirrors for me to look at as there are windows looking out upon
> the crowd as well.
>
One quick comment: I hadn't checked the list in 48 hours and when I came
back there were a ton of comments regarding the cannon companion, most of
which came from three or four folks. This is hardly representative of
all the supporters of Shadowrun.

Of all the members on this list the vast majority said nothing, which
implies a neutral stance.

I wouldn't despair that the supporters of Shadowrun have collapsed into
repetitive drivel. Perhaps some members of this list have, but that's
all we can be sure of.

Drew Curtis, President, Digital Crescent, Incorporated
http://www.dcr.net (502) 226 3376 Internet services.
Frankfort Lawrenceburg Shelbyville Owenton Louisville
http://www.fark.com: If it's not news, it's fark.
Message no. 4
From: Guido the Enforcer Guido_the_Enforcer@********.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 07:15:20 -0800 (PST)
--- Drew Curtis <dcurtis@***.net>
> wrote:
>One quick comment: I hadn't checked the list in 48 hours and when I came
>back there were a ton of comments regarding the cannon companion, most of
>which came from three or four folks. This is hardly representative of
>all the supporters of Shadowrun.
>
>Of all the members on this list the vast majority said nothing, which
>implies a neutral stance.
>

Not entirely so. I certainly don't have a neutral stance, I just was getting a little fed
up with the conversation. When I got M&M, I was so tremendously disappointed with the
layout, I didn't read the thing for several weeks. I remember, being frustrated with the
first section of Corp. Download because of its layout, and now with the CC, I've just
accepted that FASA has lost all concept of what a good layout is. Overall, I find the
books harder to read the first run, less enjoyable to read a second time, and I don't find
myself grabbing for them for some quick "I feel like reading time" like I did
with the old books. What really frustrates me though is that in general the content is
very good, I just don't find myself wanting to read these versions nearly as much. I
don't dislike the changes in the system for SR3, or the new rules additions, in fact, I
think in general they're pretty good, it's the small things that are getting to me.

Yes I miss the Shadowtalk (like most everybody else it seems), but other than layout, I
find there is only one other significant problem. Lack of good images. I'll admit, the
art in Shadowrun has generally been going downhill for years, but sakes alive, have they
gotten to the point that they are asking their kids to do it? Besides that, the sheer
number of descriptive pictures has gone down so much, they're virtually gone. From the
"Critters" addition to the GM screen, to M&M and the CC, there is nothing
that lets me say, "oh, I see what it is." That's probably the biggest thing I
miss from all the new series of books. FASA isn't going to lose my business over any of
this, but they certainly aren't making me very happy. Shadowrun is a good game, I like it
because its background is so rich. I like that they changed the system for the better,
improved upon what was bad, and generally made a good product. What I keep getting
disappointed with is they decided to "fix" what wasn't broken, and if it ain't
broken, don't fix it.



=--
Guido the Enforcer

"They say teaching sex education in the public schools will promote promiscuity.
With our educational system? If we promote promiscuity the same way we promote math or
science, they've got nothing to worry about!"
-- Beverly Mickins

_____________________________________________________________
Get YourName@********.com email Today!
Visit http://www.93xrocks.com
Message no. 5
From: caelric@****.com caelric@****.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 07:43:29 -0700
At 09:04 AM 4/12/00 -0400, you wrote:
>

>
>Of all the members on this list the vast majority said nothing, which
>implies a neutral stance.
>
>

Implies, maybe...but it is not true. I, along with other people who have
spoken up before, don't like the way SR is going, and sincerely hope for a
change. However, the last time that I spent reading and replying to debate
on the state of SR, tempers flared, people became defensive, fires started,
and the topic was stopped by GridSec. I am NOT trying to imply that
GridSec took sides; they stopped both sides of the arguement. Anyways,
silence doesn't mean neutrality; for me, it means that I see no point in
debating it on the list.

Dave
Message no. 6
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:02:35 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Drew Curtis wrote:

> Of all the members on this list the vast majority said nothing, which
> implies a neutral stance.

I have to say I agree with Drew's observation that the vast
majority of the posts on this topic have been from a very small number of
very vocal individuals (on either side of the coin). While this makes for
a lively discussion, it tends to have the same effect as media reporting
on politics in real life - it effectively downplays the middle of the
road. All we hear about are people who either love the product or hate
the product.
Personally, I found the Cannon Companion to be a so-so book.
Truthfully, I've been so busy I haven't had time to finish reading it yet,
so I can't really comment on some of the sections people seem to find so
offensive.
What I have read I've been of mostly mixed opinion about. There
are sections I like, there are sections I don't like. As a martial
artist, I was disappointed by the Martial Arts rules. I felt they suffer
from the same problem that so many of the house MA systems on the net
suffered from: they're too complicated, there are too many rules, and too
many exceptions to those rules. They *could* have streamlined the whole
process, but they didn't. Net result? I'll keep using the rules I've
already developed to cover martial arts. I will, however, be
incorporating new option inspired by the material in the Cannon Companion,
because there were a few genuinely new and interesting concepts put forth.
And therein lies the rub. There are a lot of situations where I
like the concept, but I don't like the execution of the concept. Does
that mean I won't play the game anymore? No. Conceptually, I think
Shadowrun is one of the best games on the market. From a rules
standpoint, the basic SR3 rules (those encapsulated in the basic book) are
very sound, and have a fairly good degree of elegance and internal
consistency. I've played with a lot of (bad) rules systems, so believe me
when I say Shadowrun is better than most in that regard.
Do I regret paying $18.00 for the Cannon Companion? No. While
there are some things in it that I won't use, there is a wealth of stuff
that I'll either use straight as it is or will modify and incorporate into
my campaign. Do I absolutely love the product and think FASA can do no
wrong? Of course not. Do I absolutely hate the product and think that a
petition or boycott is in order? Of course not.
As in most things, I'm a radical moderate on the issue. <shrug>
Take from that what you will.

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

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.html.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.html.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 7
From: BrotherJustice50@***.com BrotherJustice50@***.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:39:06 EDT
< Do I regret paying $18.00 for the Cannon Companion? No. While
there are some things in it that I won't use, there is a wealth of stuff
that I'll either use straight as it is or will modify and incorporate into
my campaign. Do I absolutely love the product and think FASA can do no
wrong? Of course not. Do I absolutely hate the product and think that a
petition or boycott is in order? Of course not.
As in most things, I'm a radical moderate on the issue. <shrug>
Take from that what you will. >

I'm with you on this one. Don't hate it, don't love it. I found most of the info useful.
Compared to other games I've seen out there and played, the worst SR book has been far
better than most other game sourcebooks out there. But then, format has never really
bothered me. Artwork I wish there was more of vehicles and guns. I care nothing for
pictures of most cyber or bio, because most of it is internal. But the cars we drive IC,
and the pistols we use could definitely use some pictures. I make do with out them though
and move on. But the next thing I have to say is probably the only time I have heard
someone say this. I am OVERJOYED that the "shadowtalk" is gone. Yes, I did say
OVERJOYED. I found it to be a huge waste of space, personally. It typecast so many things
in SR for so long, I had to work twice as hard to get my players to not try and make the
"older, veteran Fastjack-like decker" or the "tough as nail, professional
sammy like Hatchetman". Yes those are quotes from !
old PC sheets to describe their characters. Now, after much work, I have beautiful story
length long backgrounds of highly unique characters. And I no longer have to put up with
players argue that this is true, "because Fastjack said so right here!" Or the
fact of people confusing the "shadowtalk" as IC knowledge that every character
possessed. Good riddance to all the headaches and pains and heated arguments that those
messy "tidbits of SR life" brought about. So pass me my rulebooks minus the
fluff. I play because I like to make up that fluff in the game. Why does the party's sammy
only buy Colt Manhunters instead of Predators? Because everytime he used a Predator, he
coincedentally rolled a critical failure or at best, a complete miss at an easy target
number. Game events and great roleplaying situations molded our shadowtalk. I find that so
much more satisfying than what Dodger and Ronin have to say about Deus.
Message no. 8
From: Frank Pelletier (Trinity) fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:54:18 -0400
<BrotherJustice50@***.com> once said,

(snipped)

I am OVERJOYED that the "shadowtalk" is gone. Yes, I did say OVERJOYED.

(snipped)

What? That's what I find so lacking in SR books these days. Remember the
old Street Samurai catalog? The little shadowtalk bubbles at the bottom. I
still vividly remember Fastjack's assesment of the Vindicator minigun. That
shadowtalk alone described the danger and fear a minigun puts in you, more
than any "rules" text could.

I decry the lack of art, the lack of variety. Mike M. says we don't need
multiple light pistols, or assault weapons, yet we get Rattan sticks,
harpoons and a fucking morning star, for chrissakes. More and more,
Shadowrun becomes bland, uninspired. The lack of Shadowtalk does a lot for
that. Back in the days (wax nostalgic, cues Wu Tang's "Can it be all so
simple") , I was looking forward to Fastjack and Hatchetman's wry comments,
the secrets the Laughing Man or Big D would give out. One of the most
poignant pieces was in the old Cybertech book, about Hatchetman's demise,
and rebirth. Aztlan actually made the Dragon/IE talk interresting.

Shadowtalk breathes life into the books, makes 'em alive, makes you feel
like there's a world behind them. Now, I get the feeling its just "throw
'em some rules, 'til we cancel the whole line". Again, Cannon Companion, in
its present form, would've been acceptable if it followed SR3's release by a
couple of months, at most. Not 2 years.

Please. Someone tell me a book with meat follows up. If we get nothing but
stupid rules compendiums for the next year, I'll stop buying now.

Frank Pelletier
Fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
"Let them hate me, provided they fear me" - Atreus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Trin on the Undernet, Saffron on Sorcery.net
Message no. 9
From: Elindor Quinn rjakins@******.murdoch.edu.au
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:09:49 +0800
On 12 Apr 00, at 11:39, BrotherJustice50@***.com wrote:

> I am OVERJOYED that the "shadowtalk" is gone.

<SNIP>

> I find that so much more satisfying than what Dodger and Ronin have
> to say about Deus.

i have to say I'm actually very happy with the way FASA is
producing their sourcebooks now. The rule books (MITS, M&M,
CC) are exactly that - rule books. No shadowtalk, since that
confuses the issues (What the hell does "multi-tasking ones
cognitive abilities" actually mean in terms of game mechanics,
anyway?). Granted, the lack of art is disturbing, but a friend of mine
is mailing Mike with something I think is a damned good idea - an
art book, showing these various items (or, at least, a reasonably
decent selection). The advantage - this can be a colour book,
rather than mixing standard and glossy paper (My RTG books are
falling apart in part due to this).

Shadowtalk does have it's place, in the setting books (especially
since these are presented as shadowland documents). Local
information, differing opinions which give an idea of how people view
the topic, and the occasional 'big name' dropping by. I'm not
planning to do away with my copy of Awakenings or Fields of Fire
just because I have MITS and CC - They are world illustrations, not
rule books.
Elindor Quinn
"Look, Ash. Flash is a Troll combat mage. He is not a Pokemon"
- Bull, ShadowRN
Message no. 10
From: kawaii trunks@********.org
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:15:28 -0400
From: "Frank Pelletier (Trinity)" <fpelletier@******.usherb.ca>
> Shadowtalk breathes life into the books, makes 'em alive, makes you feel
> like there's a world behind them. Now, I get the feeling its just "throw
> 'em some rules, 'til we cancel the whole line". Again, Cannon Companion,
in
> its present form, would've been acceptable if it followed SR3's release by
a
> couple of months, at most. Not 2 years.
>

Well, the main feeling, I think, is that it would be nice to have continued
with the same format of sourcebooks being as an extension of Shadowland, be
it the Ares Winter Catalog or what not. If for nothing else, the shadowtalk
sometimes provided nice plot hooks for the various pieces of new equipment,
or information, and so on. I personally loved the in-character feel of the
books, because it would allow you to feel more immerse in the SR universe
itself, but I think we are coming across an old rant that was started a
while back. ;)

Anyhows, as far as CC is concerned, it isn't horrible. It has its uses,
except for the Ballista Missiles were the Mark II is better than the Mark
III according to the charts. ;) Which brings me to the next point.

I don't suppose Errata for CC is out? or M&M?

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 11
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:33:31 -0400
Elindor Quinn wrote:

> <SNIP>

> > I find that so much more satisfying than what Dodger and Ronin have
> > to say about Deus.
>
> i have to say I'm actually very happy with the way FASA is
> producing their sourcebooks now. The rule books (MITS, M&M,
> CC) are exactly that - rule books. No shadowtalk, since that
> confuses the issues (What the hell does "multi-tasking ones
> cognitive abilities" actually mean in terms of game mechanics,
> anyway?). Granted, the lack of art is disturbing, but a friend of mine
> is mailing Mike with something I think is a damned good idea - an
> art book, showing these various items (or, at least, a reasonably
> decent selection). <SNIP>

> You know what? I like this idea. How it would sell, on the other hand,
> is the big question. Not very well, if FASA's experience is any
> indication...

> Shadowtalk does have it's place, in the setting books (especially
> since these are presented as shadowland documents). Local
> information, differing opinions which give an idea of how people view
> the topic, and the occasional 'big name' dropping by. I'm not
> planning to do away with my copy of Awakenings or Fields of Fire
> just because I have MITS and CC - They are world illustrations, not
> rule books.
>

Welcome to the New Blood. We'll change the world yet :^).

*Strago finds one of the people who hate the current direction, places
them in a limo, then hits it five times with his white Hummer. Then, as
he/she is being put on the ambulance, Strago spraypaints NB on their chest
in red spray paint.*
*Five points for anyone who gets that reference*
<SNIP SIG>--
--Strago

In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror,
murder, bloodshed - they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the
Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly
love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they
produce? The cuckoo clock!
-Orson Welles

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2+ SR3++ h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN+ SRFF W+ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+
(o++ d+) gm+ M P
Message no. 12
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:30:22 -0400
From: "Frank Pelletier (Trinity)" <fpelletier@******.usherb.ca>
> <BrotherJustice50@***.com> once said,
> > I am OVERJOYED that the "shadowtalk" is gone. Yes, I did
> > say OVERJOYED.

Here I snip large portions of Trinity's post, with only the caveat that a
heartily, heartily agree with him.

> Shadowtalk breathes life into the books, makes 'em alive, makes you feel
> like there's a world behind them. Now, I get the feeling its just "throw
> 'em some rules, 'til we cancel the whole line".

Bravo! This is what I mean to say.
Message no. 13
From: BrotherJustice50@***.com BrotherJustice50@***.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:00:49 EDT
In a message dated Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:30:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Strago
<strago@***.com> writes:


>
> Welcome to the New Blood. We'll change the world yet :^).
>
> *Strago finds one of the people who hate the current direction, places
> them in a limo, then hits it five times with his white Hummer. Then, as
> he/she is being put on the ambulance, Strago spraypaints NB on their chest
> in red spray paint.*
> *Five points for anyone who gets that reference*
> <SNIP SIG>--
> --Strago
>
> In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror,
> murder, bloodshed - they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the
> Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly
> love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they
> produce? The cuckoo clock!
> -Orson Welles
>
> SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2+ SR3++ h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN+ SRFF W+ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+
> (o++ d+) gm+ M P

Very nice Strago. Very nice. A welcome change to that company indeed. But back on topic, I
don't mind shadowtalk. I don't find it useful. I prefer to come up with those little
tidbits of information on my own. Plus too much of the shadowtalk had to do with the
terrible IE and ED crossover storylines. The runners comments were alright. But I was so
tired of seeing comments from the laughing man about the Enemy. I just don't want the
shadowtalk in my rulebooks. I want rulebooks. Just that. Give me the shadowtalk elsewhere,
in sourcebooks, location books, whatever. But pictures, man I could definitely go for more
art. Good art anyway. I may try and post some artwork that a guy may work on for me if we
can ever get the project off the ground.
Message no. 14
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:25:45 +0200
According to Elindor Quinn, at 0:09 on 13 Apr 00, the word on the street
was...

> i have to say I'm actually very happy with the way FASA is
> producing their sourcebooks now. The rule books (MITS, M&M,
> CC) are exactly that - rule books. No shadowtalk, since that
> confuses the issues (What the hell does "multi-tasking ones
> cognitive abilities" actually mean in terms of game mechanics,
> anyway?).

If you ask me, the mistake made with the shadowtalk was not that it was in
the books; it was that those little comments didn't have little rules to
back them up, even though there was plenty of space for that.

Take a classic example: the Sandler TMP from page 32 of the SSC. A
picture, some advertising lines, a bit of blurb, game stats, and 3 cm
(yes, I measured it :) of white space. Then a comment:

>>>>>[A former associate of mine had a TMP disintegrate in his hands at a
most inopportune moment. Use with caution, or at least make sure the
screws are tight.]<<<<<
--Hermes <09:32:19/12-17-50>

The white space could have been used to add a line reading something like:

"If all ones are rolled on any test to fire the TMP, it comes apart and
can't be used again until repaired, which takes 1 hour and a Firearms B/R
(4) test."

and all problems with the shadowtalk would have been solved. Especially
because this would have set the TMP (in this case) apart from other 6M,
BF/FA SMGs.

(LOL! Just as I finished typing this, I heard from my stereo, "Warning
lights are flashing down at quality control"... :)

> Granted, the lack of art is disturbing, but a friend of mine
> is mailing Mike with something I think is a damned good idea - an
> art book, showing these various items (or, at least, a reasonably
> decent selection).

Nice idea in theory, but I have a feeling this won't come to much... First
of all, the pictures need to be with the items they are pictures _of_.
It's a bit of a hassle to find a gun in SR3 and then have to look through
another book to see if there's a picture of it in there. And then there's
the memory of High Art & Low Life...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 15
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:25:45 +0200
According to kawaii, at 12:15 on 12 Apr 00, the word on the street was...

> Anyhows, as far as CC is concerned, it isn't horrible. It has its uses,
> except for the Ballista Missiles were the Mark II is better than the Mark
> III according to the charts. ;)

I don't see the problem with that. A Mk. III need not be automatically
better than a Mk. II, I'd say -- there are plenty of ways in which a newer
version can actually be worse than the thing it's supposedly an
improvement on. (Anyone here know what an M60A2 Starship is? :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 16
From: kawaii trunks@********.org
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:38:55 -0400
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> According to kawaii, at 12:15 on 12 Apr 00, the word on the street was...
>
> > Anyhows, as far as CC is concerned, it isn't horrible. It has its uses,
> > except for the Ballista Missiles were the Mark II is better than the
Mark
> > III according to the charts. ;)
>
> I don't see the problem with that. A Mk. III need not be automatically
> better than a Mk. II, I'd say -- there are plenty of ways in which a newer
> version can actually be worse than the thing it's supposedly an
> improvement on. (Anyone here know what an M60A2 Starship is? :)

Well, that is understandable, but then what's the point of a Mk III? ;) I
don't have the book in front of me right now, but I remember as I was
reading from it that aside from the avail # being higher for the Mk III,
there was no difference, as far as the charts can tell me.

See, here is where Shadowtalk and/or Art would be helpful. ;) Something
other than numbers to differentiate between the Mk. II and Mk. III. ;)

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 17
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:49:33 -0400
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> If you ask me, the mistake made with the shadowtalk was not that it was in
> the books; it was that those little comments didn't have little rules to
> back them up, even though there was plenty of space for that.

I knew someone would get around to this. Good.

> Take a classic example: the Sandler TMP from page 32 of the SSC. A
> picture, some advertising lines, a bit of blurb, game stats, and 3 cm
> (yes, I measured it :) of white space. Then a comment:
>
> >>>>>[A former associate of mine had a TMP disintegrate in his hands
at a
> most inopportune moment. Use with caution, or at least make sure the
> screws are tight.]<<<<<
> --Hermes <09:32:19/12-17-50>
>
> The white space could have been used to add a line reading something like:
>
> "If all ones are rolled on any test to fire the TMP, it comes apart and
> can't be used again until repaired, which takes 1 hour and a Firearms B/R
> (4) test."

Now *this* is the part that we felt was best left to the GM. This was where
no rules were needed. "Multi-task your cognative needs?" We figured that
out, made our own "rules." The Sandler? Well no-one bought the bloody thing!
But when shadowtalk wasn't clear or was contradictory, it was up to the GM.
This was where the creativity came, the uniqueness of game. When not
everything had a hard rule. We hate hard rules. :)

Remember - and this is what Mike should have said when people "bugged" him
about the meaning of these things - this is all "black" information. And or
all or none of it may be true. It's up to you.

Who cares if the possible lies contradict or aren't covered in the rules? So
what? Why do we need damned rules for everything anyway? Make it up.

> and all problems with the shadowtalk would have been solved. Especially
> because this would have set the TMP (in this case) apart from other 6M,
> BF/FA SMGs.

I think it was already set apart, by the shadowtalk. *That* was what set 200
heavy pistols apart from each other; the shadowtalk. Now? There's nothing.
Everything is the same, or it's "up to you" to find the difference. I liked
it better when there was a start, a hook.

> (LOL! Just as I finished typing this, I heard from my stereo, "Warning
> lights are flashing down at quality control"... :)

I'm afraid that piece of music is unknown to me, and I wish it weren't!
Message no. 18
From: Yiannakos Yiannako@*******.edu
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:49:39 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
. (Anyone here know what an M60A2 Starship is? :)

No, but it sounds like a tank/AV. Am I close?

---Dave ('s not here man)
Message no. 19
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:04:06 -0400 (EDT)
"kawaii" <trunks@********.org> writes:
> Anyhows, as far as CC is concerned, it isn't horrible. It has its uses,
> except for the Ballista Missiles were the Mark II is better than the Mark
> III according to the charts. ;) Which brings me to the next point.

The book's not in front of me (it usually isn't when I post
here, unfortunately), but I remember coming across the same problem
and searching frantically for a bit... IIRC, the mk.3 is capable of
indirect fire, while the mk.2 is not.

Mark
Message no. 20
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:08:29 -0400
From: "Yiannakos" <Yiannako@*******.edu>
> From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> . (Anyone here know what an M60A2 Starship is? :)
>
> No, but it sounds like a tank/AV. Am I close?

It was a tank, sort of. It was a replacement, or was intended as one, for
the M60A1, but the A2 could not fire its missiles after firing its shells. I
believe the system - the one that didn't work worth a damn - was called the
Shillelagh. The tank was quickly phased out; the fire control - and damn
near everything else - was too complex, hence the nickname "Starship." The
turret, though, was the primary problem. I think they only produced it for a
couple of years.
Message no. 21
From: Rat winterhawk@*********.net
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:29:55 -0700
"abortion_engine" <abortion_engine@*******.com> writes:

>
> From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
>
> > (LOL! Just as I finished typing this, I heard from my stereo, "Warning
> > lights are flashing down at quality control"... :)
>
> I'm afraid that piece of music is unknown to me, and I wish it weren't!
>

"...somebody threw a spanner, they threw it in a hole."

Obviously Gurth is a fan of semi-obscure Dire Straits. :) That's
"Industrial Disease," IMO one of their better efforts.

"Two men say they're Jesus...
One of 'em must be wrong..."

--Rat


=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>
Rat - winterhawk@*********.net http://www.magespace.net
Winterhawk's Virtual Magespace - Shadowrun Fiction and More!
DOD#1211 1999 K1200RS - "Dunkelzahn"
"The pickles are staring at me..."
<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<
Message no. 22
From: Yiannakos Yiannako@*******.edu
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:39:40 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rat" <winterhawk@*********.net>

> "...somebody threw a spanner, they threw it in a hole."
>
> Obviously Gurth is a fan of semi-obscure Dire Straits. :) That's
> "Industrial Disease," IMO one of their better efforts.

I love 'em, but I'm kinda a johnny-come-lately fan. What album is that on?

---Dave ('s not here man)
Message no. 23
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:53:13 -0400
From: "Rat" <winterhawk@*********.net>
> "abortion_engine" <abortion_engine@*******.com> writes:
> > From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> >
> > > (LOL! Just as I finished typing this, I heard from my stereo, "Warning
> > > lights are flashing down at quality control"... :)
> >
> > I'm afraid that piece of music is unknown to me, and I wish it weren't!
> >
>
> "...somebody threw a spanner, they threw it in a hole."
>
> Obviously Gurth is a fan of semi-obscure Dire Straits. :) That's
> "Industrial Disease," IMO one of their better efforts.

Well, I know little of Dire Straits - other than the obvious - but the name
of the album certainly sounds intriguing. Of course, I'm less than an hour
from Gary, Indiana, so... :)
Message no. 24
From: Rat winterhawk@*********.net
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:12:17 -0700
"abortion_engine" <abortion_engine@*******.com> writes:


> >
> > Obviously Gurth is a fan of semi-obscure Dire Straits. :) That's
> > "Industrial Disease," IMO one of their better efforts.
>
> Well, I know little of Dire Straits - other than the obvious - but the name
> of the album certainly sounds intriguing. Of course, I'm less than an hour
> from Gary, Indiana, so... :)
>

Actually the album is "Love Over Gold." I'm not familiar with
the rest of it 'cuz I just have the single, but it's a fun
little track.

--Rat

=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>
Rat - winterhawk@*********.net http://www.magespace.net
Winterhawk's Virtual Magespace - Shadowrun Fiction and More!
DOD#1211 1999 K1200RS - "Dunkelzahn"
"The pickles are staring at me..."
<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<=<
Message no. 25
From: Yiannakos Yiannako@*******.edu
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:20:37 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rat" <winterhawk@*********.net>

> Actually the album is "Love Over Gold." I'm not familiar with
> the rest of it 'cuz I just have the single, but it's a fun
> little track.
>
> --Rat

Haven't got that one yet. Finally managed to track down "Alchemy", which
used all my music budget for a while. (Gotta love double CDs)

---Dave ('s not here man)
Message no. 26
From: Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:40:46 -0500
:I don't suppose Errata for CC is out? or M&M?
:kawaii


There are already errata for M&M, in the usual places.

Mongoose

_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Message no. 27
From: Alfredo B Alves dghost@****.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:48:45 -0500
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:25:45 +0200 "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl> writes:
<SNIP>
> I don't see the problem with that. A Mk. III need not be
> automatically
> better than a Mk. II, I'd say -- there are plenty of ways in which a
> newer
> version can actually be worse than the thing it's supposedly an
> improvement on. (Anyone here know what an M60A2 Starship is? :)

Isn't M60A2 the designation of a machine gun? (Sometimes known as, I
think, "the hog" or "the pig") I'd guess that "starship" was
a reference
to an attempt to fix the M60's ammo feed problem that resulted in
misfires.

--
D. Ghost
A Mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems
--Paul Erdos

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 28
From: GuayII@***.com GuayII@***.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:30:04 EDT
In a message dated 4/12/00 6:05:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dcurtis@***.net
writes:

> One quick comment: I hadn't checked the list in 48 hours and when I came
> back there were a ton of comments regarding the cannon companion, most of
> which came from three or four folks. This is hardly representative of
> all the supporters of Shadowrun.
>
> Of all the members on this list the vast majority said nothing, which
> implies a neutral stance.

Would you rather have us all reply and say basically the same thing as those
3 or 4 people? ; ) I kinda like not having 400+ new messages...

Cash
Message no. 29
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:31:28 +0200
According to abortion_engine, at 14:49 on 12 Apr 00, the word on the
street was...

> > "If all ones are rolled on any test to fire the TMP, it comes apart and
> > can't be used again until repaired, which takes 1 hour and a Firearms B/R
> > (4) test."
>
> Now *this* is the part that we felt was best left to the GM. This was where
> no rules were needed.

Not for you or me. According to reports, this was sorely needed for many
other players. Wasn't the prime reason those kinds of comments were
dropped, because players kept asking FASA about how the things mentioned
in shadowcomments actually worked in the game? IMHO that means people need
printed rules for this kind of stuff, not that the shadowcomments are bad
and need to be removed.

> Remember - and this is what Mike should have said when people "bugged" him
> about the meaning of these things - this is all "black" information. And or
> all or none of it may be true. It's up to you.

Certainly. But there doesn't seem to be a way of saying that _and_ not
giving rules to back it up -- which proves or disproves the comments
instantly :/

> Who cares if the possible lies contradict or aren't covered in the rules? So
> what? Why do we need damned rules for everything anyway? Make it up.

Didn't I just do that? :)

> > (LOL! Just as I finished typing this, I heard from my stereo, "Warning
> > lights are flashing down at quality control"... :)
>
> I'm afraid that piece of music is unknown to me, and I wish it weren't!

Dire Straits, "Industrial Disease" (from the album "Love Over Gold").

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 30
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:31:28 +0200
According to Yiannakos, at 14:49 on 12 Apr 00, the word on the street
was...

> From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> > . (Anyone here know what an M60A2 Starship is? :)
>
> No, but it sounds like a tank/AV. Am I close?

It is, a mid-1960s supposed improvement on the M60A1 to be precise. It
took until 1975 for them to enter service, and within ten years, all had
been scrapped. My point here is that something similar could well be
applied to gera in SR: just because there's a new version of an item
doesn't mean it's better than the model that came before.


According to Alfredo B Alves, at 15:48 on 12 Apr 00, the word on
the street was...

> Isn't M60A2 the designation of a machine gun? (Sometimes known as, I
> think, "the hog" or "the pig") I'd guess that
"starship" was a reference
> to an attempt to fix the M60's ammo feed problem that resulted in
> misfires.

That's a different M60 you're thinking of. Not without its problems, but
not quite as bad as the MBT I was referring to. The highly unofficial
nickname "Starship" was a result of the (for the time) complicated
electronics in the tank, that frequently didn't work the way they were
supposed to.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 31
From: Martin Steffens (Berlitz) v-marts@*********.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 05:08:32 -0700
From: Marc Renouf

> I have to say I agree with Drew's observation that the
> vast majority of the posts on this topic have been from
> a very small number of very vocal individuals (on either
> side of the coin). While this makes for a lively
> discussion, it tends to have the same effect as media
> reporting on politics in real life - it effectively
> downplays the middle of the road. All we hear about are
> people who either love the product or hate the product.

the extremes always get more attention anyway because
they're more fun :).

It's a bit wrong to assume that just because I don't talk
about it, doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion that
could be as polarized as the most rabid posters. The thing
is all this stuff is basically a rerun of the comments
given when M&M came out, and I gave my opinion then. It
would not add anything to the discussion to repeat them
now. I guess I am not the only one because there were far
more participants in that discussion.


Martin Steffens
e-mail: v-marts@*********.com
phone: 70 666 44
Message no. 32
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:51:04 -0400
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> According to abortion_engine, at 14:49 on 12 Apr 00, the word on the
> street was...
>
> > > "If all ones are rolled on any test to fire the TMP, it comes apart
and
> > > can't be used again until repaired, which takes 1 hour and a Firearms
B/R
> > > (4) test."
> >
> > Now *this* is the part that we felt was best left to the GM. This was
where
> > no rules were needed.
>
> Not for you or me. According to reports, this was sorely needed for many
> other players. Wasn't the prime reason those kinds of comments were
> dropped, because players kept asking FASA about how the things mentioned
> in shadowcomments actually worked in the game? IMHO that means people need
> printed rules for this kind of stuff, not that the shadowcomments are bad
> and need to be removed.

Couldn't FASA simply tell those people they were idiots and to decide for
themselves? Well, I suppose not. Still, if someone had asked me, as Line
Developer, what "multi-task your cognative needs" meant, here's what I'd
say:

"I don't know. What do you think it means? Seriously, son, it could mean
about anything...or nothing. How much, based on what you read in Shadowtech,
would you trust Smiling Bandit? And did he mean they come that way out of
the box, or that you *could* use them for that? Remember, he said, 'you can
use these babies to multitask your cognative needs.' Maybe he means that
this is a modification that can be done by an educated doctor or cyberware
expert. Or maybe it comes this way out of the box, and you'll find it easier
to talk on the phone while shooting a gun - or maybe only if the skills
you're using are in the chipjacks. Maybe you can truly become multiple
people, doing multiple things, restricted only by having a single body, and
then not restricted if decking or rigging. Or maybe, in order to get this
bonus, you need two of them.

"You see, son, this is the real strength of Shadowrun; you can have that
black information mean anything you want. Take it literally, ignore it,
assume it is a partial truth...it's up to the GM and his players. But we
give you a start, and idea, multiple multiple choice, instead of making you
think all of this up for yourself. Because that's what we're here for, to
give you hooks to start your game. And if we didn't give you that, what the
hell would you be spending your money on? As long as I'm Line Developer, you
won't ever lack for ideas. Not if I can help it."

Then again, if I were Line Developer, SR would never have lost Bradstreet,
either. The game would be a lot different. *sigh...*
Message no. 33
From: BrotherJustice50@***.com BrotherJustice50@***.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:04:17 EDT
<< "I don't know. What do you think it means? Seriously, son, it could mean
about anything...or nothing. How much, based on what you read in Shadowtech,
would you trust Smiling Bandit? And did he mean they come that way out of
the box, or that you *could* use them for that? Remember, he said, 'you can
use these babies to multitask your cognative needs.' Maybe he means that
this is a modification that can be done by an educated doctor or cyberware
expert. Or maybe it comes this way out of the box, and you'll find it easier
to talk on the phone while shooting a gun - or maybe only if the skills
you're using are in the chipjacks. Maybe you can truly become multiple
people, doing multiple things, restricted only by having a single body, and
then not restricted if decking or rigging. Or maybe, in order to get this
bonus, you need two of them.

"You see, son, this is the real strength of Shadowrun; you can have that
black information mean anything you want. Take it literally, ignore it,
assume it is a partial truth...it's up to the GM and his players. But we
give you a start, and idea, multiple multiple choice, instead of making you
think all of this up for yourself. Because that's what we're here for, to
give you hooks to start your game. And if we didn't give you that, what the
hell would you be spending your money on? As long as I'm Line Developer, you
won't ever lack for ideas. Not if I can help it." >>

A_E, STOP IT! You are actually making me reconsider my opinion on Shadowtalk. Darn Brits
making me change my mind! :) You've actually give me some things to think about. Maybe
I'll start making my players experiences into our own shadowtalk. ::the wheels start
turning::
Message no. 34
From: Guido the Enforcer Guido_the_Enforcer@********.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:03:40 -0800 (PST)
--- "abortion_engine" <abortion_engine@*******.com>

>"I don't know. What do you think it means? Seriously, son, it could mean
>about anything...or nothing. How much, based on what you read in Shadowtech,
>would you trust Smiling Bandit? And did he mean they come that way out of
>the box, or that you *could* use them for that? Remember, he said, 'you can
>use these babies to multitask your cognative needs.' Maybe he means that
>this is a modification that can be done by an educated doctor or cyberware
>expert. Or maybe it comes this way out of the box, and you'll find it easier
>to talk on the phone while shooting a gun - or maybe only if the skills
>you're using are in the chipjacks. Maybe you can truly become multiple
>people, doing multiple things, restricted only by having a single body, and
>then not restricted if decking or rigging. Or maybe, in order to get this
>bonus, you need two of them.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was going to write today, so I didn't need to. I loved
the Shadowtalk because a) it gave a lot of flavor to the world, and b) as a GM, I could
make it mean whatever I wanted it to. It kept the players on their toes, and some of the
rules lawyering to a minimum because I could interpret it how I want, and use my GM perks.
There have been many instances where an entire campaign plotline came from one thing said
in one Shadowtalk line, expanding on an entire idea that may have been nothing more than a
passing comment.

So I don't have it in any of the central rule books (which I find disappointing, but I'll
live), I just hope that for future flavor books, or worldbooks have a little more when it
comes to "possible rumor." A lot of people hated Denver in the Shadows, the
Shadowtalk and subsequent options segment for the GMs were one of my favorites. Ah well,
one can hope.

Oh, and you're absolutly correct, losing Tim Bradstreet was a big oops.

=
Guido the Enforcer
http://members.xoom.com/TCShadownode


"They say teaching sex education in the public schools will promote promiscuity.
With our educational system? If we promote promiscuity the same way we promote math or
science, they've got nothing to worry about!"

-- Beverly Mickins

_____________________________________________________________
Minnesota's Pure Rock Radio - 93X
Visit our website, where you can also
get your own free email http://www.93x.com.
Message no. 35
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:12:45 +0200
According to abortion_engine, at 11:51 on 13 Apr 00, the word on the
street was...

> Couldn't FASA simply tell those people they were idiots and to decide for
> themselves?

If that's not a rhetorical question, you need to do some research :)

> Well, I suppose not. Still, if someone had asked me, as Line Developer,
> what "multi-task your cognative needs" meant, here's what I'd say:
[snipped]

IOW, you'd tell them they were idiots but in such words that they'll like
you for it...

> Then again, if I were Line Developer, SR would never have lost Bradstreet,
> either. The game would be a lot different. *sigh...*

No offense, but I'm not _entirely_ convinced having you as line developer
would be a good thing...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 36
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 19:11:51 +0100
In article <200004121823.UAA20145@*****.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.nl> writes
>I don't see the problem with that. A Mk. III need not be automatically
>better than a Mk. II, I'd say -- there are plenty of ways in which a newer
>version can actually be worse than the thing it's supposedly an
>improvement on. (Anyone here know what an M60A2 Starship is? :)

If we're talking the tank, I hadn't heard it called the Starship before... but
it makes your point very well.

Anyone remember MS-DOS 4? Another example where "new" did not mean
"improved"...


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 37
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:52:42 -0400
From: <BrotherJustice50@***.com>
> A_E, STOP IT! You are actually making me reconsider my
> opinion on Shadowtalk. Darn Brits making me change my
> mind! :) You've actually give me some things to think about.
> Maybe I'll start making my players experiences into our own
> shadowtalk. ::the wheels start turning::

And they said I couldn't be constructive with my argumentation. All the more
fools they. ;)
Message no. 38
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:55:13 -0400
From: "Guido the Enforcer" <Guido_the_Enforcer@********.com>
> --- "abortion_engine" <abortion_engine@*******.com>
> Thank you, that's exactly what I was going to write today, so I didn't
> need to. I loved the Shadowtalk because a) it gave a lot of flavor to
> the world, and b) as a GM, I could make it mean whatever I wanted
> it to. It kept the players on their toes, and some of the rules lawyering
> to a minimum because I could interpret it how I want, and use my
> GM perks. There have been many instances where an entire campaign
> plotline came from one thing said in one Shadowtalk line, expanding
> on an entire idea that may have been nothing more than a passing
> comment.

Thank you. Please vote Æ for Shadowrun Line Developer come next November. :)
Message no. 39
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:02:52 -0400
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
> According to abortion_engine, at 11:51 on 13 Apr 00, the word on the
> street was...
>
> > Couldn't FASA simply tell those people they were idiots and to decide
for
> > themselves?
>
> If that's not a rhetorical question, you need to do some research :)

No, no, completely rhetorical.

> > Well, I suppose not. Still, if someone had asked me, as Line Developer,
> > what "multi-task your cognative needs" meant, here's what I'd say:
> [snipped]
>
> IOW, you'd tell them they were idiots but in such words that they'll like
> you for it...

LOL! Yes, thank you, something like that. Although the opposite is generally
true.

> > Then again, if I were Line Developer, SR would never have lost
Bradstreet,
> > either. The game would be a lot different. *sigh...*
>
> No offense, but I'm not _entirely_ convinced having you as line developer
> would be a good thing...

Vote Æ for Shadowrun Line Developer! Watch Shadowrun become the most
irritatingly realistic game ever made, but with no rules and nothing but
shadowtalk and pictures!

<grin>
Message no. 40
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: State of the Game (mildly long)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:34:12 +0200
According to Paul J. Adam, at 19:11 on 13 Apr 00, the word on the street
was...

> >(Anyone here know what an M60A2 Starship is? :)
>
> If we're talking the tank, I hadn't heard it called the Starship before...

US Army tankers apparently called it that. It most certainly wasn't an
official nickname :)

> Anyone remember MS-DOS 4? Another example where "new" did not mean
> "improved"...

I don't remember DOS 4 very well, except that IIRC it was around for a
very short time before 5 got introduced. I guess that says enough...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about State of the Game (mildly long), 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!