Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	sp@*****.gr (Stefanos Patelis)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:19:57 +0300

Message no. 1 Steve Garrard wrote:

>Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
>
>
><SPILER SNIP>
>
>

>While some here would argue that none of this matters because it's a game, a
>storytelling exercise in a fantastical world, I would argue that while I
>agree with that premise up to a point, there is the ever-present "suspension
>of disbelief" that Kori mentioned. This is a term often used in Hollywood
>pertaining to action films and the like. There is only so far you can push
>the envelope of what people are willing to accept, in spite of what they
>know, before they're all gonna start walking out of the theater. Hollywood
>has the advantage of special effects to further stretch this boundary
>(Independence Day, for example...big floating spaceships are ridiculous, but
>they looked kinda cool and blew s**t up and we forgave them because of the
>eye candy).
>
>But when you start asking people to believe that something has not only
>caused California to split from the continent, but also that this was
>achieved in such an isolated way as to leave most of the planet unharmed,
>well...
>
>
>
>
But surely all of this bogs down to what your advertise your film or
Game as...
If you come to my games wanting to have an explanation for everything
then you are asking for trouble, like if I come to your games and don't
want to have a "quick" reality-check everytime my character attempts to
do something.

I mean for crying out loud if someone goes to the movies to watch
Independance Day or Arnie taking on the Devil and he expects things ot
be realistic he is just asking fo rit...I am sorry but I can't see the
point. REalism is only one of the many facets that make up a _fictional_
story. The Core was trying to play with a scenario that seemed realistic
and I didn't even bother to go see it - just listened to others who
viewed it. But when last month I watched Mr and Mrs Smith and I heard
people coming out of the movies saying "That was crap- It wasn't
realistic at all!" well I burst out laughing...I would have doen the
same if people said something along the lines about Sin city or the
X-Men...It is fictional for crying out loud...And as long as it does not
try to be specific about why something happens but concetrates in plot
on "Ok this happens and these are the reactions of peopel around it" or
other aspects then I am fine. (Granted things like the X-Men are on grey
ground because some plots try to explain how things happened and usually
fail miserably)

I would really like to hear explanations on why people are happy to use
things like "Oh you now have a Moderate Stun wounds and a Light one and
your Trauma Patch heals three squares!" or "Hey at some point in life a
comet passed an Orichalcum came to be which needs magic to be created"
or "You know sometime in the 21century some humans grew tusks and pointy
ears-let's call it something!"...Really did you people sit down and
explain all these in realistic 20-21 century physics and maths before
you started playing Shadowrun?

Sorry but I am really loosing the plot here...
Stef

--
ÐáôÝëçò
ÓôÝöáíïò

EWORX S.A.
22 Rodou Street - Maroussi 15122 - Greece
tel: +30 210 61 48 380, +30 210 61 48 360
mob: +30 6978853066 - fax +30 210 6148381
mailto:sp@*****.gr -- http://www.eworx.gr

From:	Steve.Garrard@********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:25:38 +0200

Message no. 2 Stefanos Patelis wrote:
> I mean for crying out loud if someone goes to the movies to
> watch Independance Day or Arnie taking on the Devil and he
> expects things ot be realistic he is just asking fo rit...I
> am sorry but I can't see the point. REalism is only one of
> the many facets that make up a _fictional_ story. The Core
> was trying to play with a scenario that seemed realistic and
> I didn't even bother to go see it - just listened to others
> who viewed it. But when last month I watched Mr and Mrs Smith
> and I heard people coming out of the movies saying "That was
> crap- It wasn't realistic at all!" well I burst out
> laughing...I would have doen the same if people said
> something along the lines about Sin city or the X-Men...It is
> fictional for crying out loud...And as long as it does not
> try to be specific about why something happens but
> concetrates in plot on "Ok this happens and these are the
> reactions of peopel around it" or other aspects then I am
> fine. (Granted things like the X-Men are on grey ground
> because some plots try to explain how things happened and
> usually fail miserably)
>
> I would really like to hear explanations on why people are
> happy to use things like "Oh you now have a Moderate Stun
> wounds and a Light one and your Trauma Patch heals three
> squares!" or "Hey at some point in life a comet passed an
> Orichalcum came to be which needs magic to be created"
> or "You know sometime in the 21century some humans grew tusks
> and pointy ears-let's call it something!"...Really did you
> people sit down and explain all these in realistic 20-21
> century physics and maths before you started playing Shadowrun?

Well this is not my argument. I would not argue that the SR writers must
give up creative license. However while we all accept the simplistic
mechanics of damage, for example, they are still just simplistic
representations of reality based on real-world laws. For situations with NO
representation in the rulebooks, what yardstick are we meant to use to
determine how to deal with it? Joe Sammie now has 3 boxes of damage (or
whatever) from punching his TV...but how did the GM decide on this? This is
not covered in the rulebooks. He may have used the sammie's strength to
determine whether or not he broke the screen, and decides the damage is
higher because of cuts on the hand (or maybe he was electrocuted), whatever.
But to get there in the first place, we must use knowledge we have that is
not covered in the rules. I know this is a very basic example, but I hope it
illustrates my point.

Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon

________________________________________________________________________
This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar
malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan.

DISCLAIMER

This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential
and may contain privileged or copyright information. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Microgen.

If you are not the named or intended recipient of this email you
must not read, use or disseminate the information contained within
it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received
this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete this email from your system.

It is your responsibility to protect your system from viruses and
any other harmful code or device, we try to eliminate them from
emails and attachments, but accept no liability for any which remain.
We may monitor or access any or all emails sent to us.

In the event of technical difficulty with this email, please contact
the sender or it.support@********.co.uk

Microgen Information Management Solutions
http://www.microgen.co.uk

From:	sp@*****.gr (Stefanos Patelis)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:42:55 +0300

Message no. 3 Steve Garrard wrote:

>Stefanos Patelis wrote:
>
>
>>[My SNIP]
>>
>>
>
>Well this is not my argument. I would not argue that the SR writers must
>give up creative license. However while we all accept the simplistic
>mechanics of damage, for example, they are still just simplistic
>representations of reality based on real-world laws. For situations with NO
>representation in the rulebooks, what yardstick are we meant to use to
>determine how to deal with it? Joe Sammie now has 3 boxes of damage (or
>whatever) from punching his TV...but how did the GM decide on this? This is
>not covered in the rulebooks. He may have used the sammie's strength to
>determine whether or not he broke the screen, and decides the damage is
>higher because of cuts on the hand (or maybe he was electrocuted), whatever.
>But to get there in the first place, we must use knowledge we have that is
>not covered in the rules. I know this is a very basic example, but I hope it
>illustrates my point.
>
>
>
>
Ah yes...now I feel I have regained the plot. :-)

Most probably we are looking at the same conclusion but from different
angles then. I conceed that I will have to use real world logic to
determine things like your example. What I was saying - and I am trying
to hard to fit your scenario example to mine :-) - is:

If that TV had to be alive and kicking for the nefarious purposes of
the plot I would have to find a way to keep it intact even after Joe hit
it with his cyberarm...Now the chances for a plausible explanation would
be difficult to come up. And someitmes you have to go for a less
realistic approach...Perhaps the screen broke but the system remained
intact and Jim Decker (after scolding Joe) could patch himself into the
TV's internals and view what HAD to be viewed for the plot to
progress....Perhaps I would have to introduce a similar TV somewhere
else in the building even though it might make no sense to have two of
the same kind (Surveilance footage)...Perhaps the TV was protected with
a Magical Force Barrier (a solution which would most defintely spark up
a debate and even most definetely make Joe Sammie WANT to destory it
even if all Hell broke loose!)

Am I making sense?

Stef

--
??????? ????????

EWORX S.A.
22 Rodou Street - Maroussi 15122 - Greece
tel: +30 210 61 48 380, +30 210 61 48 360
mob: +30 6978853066 - fax +30 210 6148381
mailto:sp@*****.gr -- http://www.eworx.gr

From:	Steve.Garrard@********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:42:41 +0200

Message no. 4 Stefanos Patelis wrote:
> If that TV had to be alive and kicking for the nefarious
> purposes of the plot I would have to find a way to keep it
> intact even after Joe hit it with his cyberarm...Now the
> chances for a plausible explanation would be difficult to
> come up. And someitmes you have to go for a less realistic
> approach...Perhaps the screen broke but the system remained
> intact and Jim Decker (after scolding Joe) could patch
> himself into the TV's internals and view what HAD to be
> viewed for the plot to progress....Perhaps I would have to
> introduce a similar TV somewhere else in the building even
> though it might make no sense to have two of the same kind
> (Surveilance footage)...Perhaps the TV was protected with a
> Magical Force Barrier (a solution which would most defintely
> spark up a debate and even most definetely make Joe Sammie
> WANT to destory it even if all Hell broke loose!)
>
> Am I making sense?

Yes :) I agree, and this goes to the GM's creative license. I wasn't arguing
against that. I was arguing against some list members' apparent stance that,
like in "SR the Video Game(tm)" Joe Sammie actually can't punch the TV, no
matter how hard he clicks on it, because the rules don't cover such a
scenario specifically.

Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon

________________________________________________________________________
This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar
malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan.

DISCLAIMER

This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential
and may contain privileged or copyright information. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Microgen.

If you are not the named or intended recipient of this email you
must not read, use or disseminate the information contained within
it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received
this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete this email from your system.

It is your responsibility to protect your system from viruses and
any other harmful code or device, we try to eliminate them from
emails and attachments, but accept no liability for any which remain.
We may monitor or access any or all emails sent to us.

In the event of technical difficulty with this email, please contact
the sender or it.support@********.co.uk

Microgen Information Management Solutions
http://www.microgen.co.uk

From:	sp@*****.gr (Stefanos Patelis)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:10:19 +0300

Message no. 5 Steve Garrard wrote:

>Stefanos Patelis wrote:
>
>
> <MY SNIP>
>
>Yes :) I agree, and this goes to the GM's creative license. I wasn't arguing
>against that. I was arguing against some list members' apparent stance that,
>like in "SR the Video Game(tm)" Joe Sammie actually can't punch the TV, no
>matter how hard he clicks on it, because the rules don't cover such a
>scenario specifically.
>
>
>Slayer
>
>"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
> - Unknown Dragon
>
>
>
Yup fair point...This borders into jumping a whole new subject. See; my
stance on roleplaying is that the centre is the players. In most jobs
one of your main concerns is that the customers keep coming back to you.
RPGing ain't that differing. You wanna keep players - you gotta keep em
happy...but not spoiled. No matter how detailed a rule system is the
players will definetely abide with Murphy's laws and try something that
completely screws the rules three times to Sunday...

Now you as GM have the power to
A) Screw them back by saying "you can't do that."
B) Do a) but also explain to them why it can't be done opening up the
possibility of a debate.
C) Improvise and come up with what you think fits best to the scene,
incorporating any relevant rules , common sense etc etc etc
D) Other (I can't hink of something else but I am sure someone will so I
got him cover here :-P )

If you are a computer then you most probably do A). It is highly
unlikely that we will soon see computers that can take a cognitive
approach, that can actually think and make assumptions. the reasearch
done on this field is amazing and things happen already which are
bordering on Aasimon like concepts but we got a long way to go for true
thought and decission making as we define the human one (when we get
around to properly define it).

If you are a tabletop GM you will probably wanna go for C) as in B) the
game usually goes down the drain if B) is applied once to many and gives
the players the option to challenge everything. (all they need is a
internet ready laptop in the session with access to virtual libraries,
wiki's and Shadowrun related pages and there goes the session..."HALT!
In website so.and.so.com, under Canon Rules it CLEARLY states that Joe
Sammie can break the TV but he suffers STUN damage...Let's go back and
replay the scene as my character has not suffered damage in that case
because as website <....> etc etc etc)

Stef

--
??????? ????????

EWORX S.A.
22 Rodou Street - Maroussi 15122 - Greece
tel: +30 210 61 48 380, +30 210 61 48 360
mob: +30 6978853066 - fax +30 210 6148381
mailto:sp@*****.gr -- http://www.eworx.gr

From:	cmd_jackryan@***.net (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:35:40 +0000

Message no. 6 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stefanos Patelis wrote:
>
>
> Yup fair point...This borders into jumping a whole new subject. See; my
> stance on roleplaying is that the centre is the players. In most jobs
> one of your main concerns is that the customers keep coming back to you.

Absolutely agreed. Difficult thing, though: Different gaming-styles in
the same group. More on that later.

> RPGing ain't that differing. You wanna keep players - you gotta keep em
> happy...but not spoiled. No matter how detailed a rule system is the
> players will definetely abide with Murphy's laws and try something that
> completely screws the rules three times to Sunday...

Every single one of them. A "good" GM can handle that (a second source
for valid data, previously unknown informations about the target of the
extraction, what ever) in advance, while a "bad" GM has to handle it on
the spot.

> Now you as GM have the power to
> A) Screw them back by saying "you can't do that."

And if that happens too often, you loose players, sooner or later.

> B) Do a) but also explain to them why it can't be done opening up the
> possibility of a debate.

Which can throw a game completely off track, happened to me more often
than not, which led to a "rule discussions after the gaming session,
please" policy.

> C) Improvise and come up with what you think fits best to the scene,
> incorporating any relevant rules , common sense etc etc etc

For example the optional Karma Pool uses. One thing I like about SR is
that the game developers thought a lot about the possible gaming styles:
SR allows a "down to earth" scientific approach (as it is cyberpunk, and
thus "only" a few steps a head of us, but if you follow the science news
you can see cybertechnology coming, as well as the "John Woo is a n00b
compared to my cineastic skills" approach.

> D) Other (I can't hink of something else but I am sure someone will so I
> got him cover here :-P )

D) You have players who come up with an other, more probably solution to
a problem than they first thought of. Instead of blowing an oil tank to
kingdome come to reduce UniOils market share, they deck into the
Matrix-controlled pumps to empty it.
In my experience, most "Doh, can't do that" situations are a result of
instinct-reactions, sometimes in-character sometimes not, and better
thought over, a more "realistic" situation comes up.
That is a positive about gaming: You can revise decisions, if they
seemed too stupid or out-of-character after a second thought.

> If you are a computer then you most probably do A). It is highly
> unlikely that we will soon see computers that can take a cognitive
> approach, that can actually think and make assumptions. the reasearch
> done on this field is amazing and things happen already which are
> bordering on Aasimon like concepts but we got a long way to go for true
> thought and decission making as we define the human one (when we get
> around to properly define it).

Yeah. This comes up in SR, too. Considering that AIs were (and still are
deemed by a few) a myth prior to the Arcology incident in Seattle, which
stems from a lack of information about (digital) decision making in the
first place. Consider, that Deus always followed its set of
instructions, except for "serving" Renraku.
If Renraku gave Deus morals, maybe this all never had happened?

> If you are a tabletop GM you will probably wanna go for C) as in B) the
> game usually goes down the drain if B) is applied once to many and gives
> the players the option to challenge everything. (all they need is a
> internet ready laptop in the session with access to virtual libraries,
> wiki's and Shadowrun related pages and there goes the session..."HALT!
> In website so.and.so.com, under Canon Rules it CLEARLY states that Joe
> Sammie can break the TV but he suffers STUN damage...Let's go back and
> replay the scene as my character has not suffered damage in that case
> because as website <....> etc etc etc)

Yes, the Digital Rules Lawyer. :)

And no I will try something foolish: To sum up the discussion.
Basically, we have here a discussion about different gaming styles:
On the one side the "Physics-Of-Real-World"-faction, as I dare to call
them ;), and on the other the
"To-Heck-With-Physics-Let's-Get-Gaming"-faction, as I name them.

The first argues from a more "down to earth" standpoint, trying to
explain occurences within our given natural laws (without discounting
the magic of SR!), in part trying to incorporate it into the game.

The second argues from a more cineastic stand point, arguing from the
standpoint of the game world, basically: "Everything is possible. It is
the Awakened World!".

Both points are valid in and of itself. We have a more philosphical
debate here, than a debate resulting in clear-cut results.

And as others have pointed out, the positions aren't at odds. They just
attack the problem from (next to) opposite angles.

And now to my opinion:
Considering the gaming-part of our hobby, the truth is in-between:
On the one hand, the game world is intended as being realistic. But not
as much as to boggle gaming down or requiring a Physics major to play.

The physics, where needed, are a watered down version of actual Natural
Laws, the dice representing the "uncertainity factor" if something will
happen as intended under the given circumstances. The watered physics
help to encourage a dramatic-cineastic gameplay. In the real world, you
wouldn't stand a chance surviving a sniper round, or an explosion, but
SR makes that possible. Especially the combat system is "unrealistic" as
it tries to make for fast game-play, so many values are incorporated in
two dice throws: Hitting, and how good, your target. And your target
evading, being armored, avoiding getting killed.
In reality, if body-armor stops a bullet, you'd get a major bruise,
something that is discounted in a game. Why?
Realism is fun. But only as long as it is fun to play with it.

- --
Phillip Gawlowski

Bastard Gamemaster from Hell

"We are proud to deliver any round in under 24 hours"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDBdIbkbmIhbNRDo0RAhZXAJ9a1qpw1UdeB7pHbZMp5gbeExZ17gCggEGr
or+9eY9fP+Ca7ofAKcLw5+MŸXD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From:	korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 08:53:57 -0700 (PDT)

Message no. 7 > And no I will try something foolish: To sum up the discussion.
> Basically, we have here a discussion about different gaming styles:
> On the one side the "Physics-Of-Real-World"-faction, as I dare to
> call them ;), and on the other the
"To-Heck-With-Physics-Let's-Get-> Gaming"-faction, as I name them.

Actually, this entire thread started from somewhat less extreme
viewpoints. One side said "wait, earthquakes can't do that... wtf?"
and the other side said "oh, quit whining, it's a game not real
life".

Kieth pointed to the fact that sniper rifles have ridiculously short
ranges. Someone else keeps picking on the damage system, the
"Moderate" wound abstraction. Now, one side of this debate would
say, "sniper rifles ranges are short and that's that. Don't question
it, don't apply real world knowledge, because the rules define the
laws of ballistics." To which I say, "Malarky! Change the fragging
sniper rifle ranges to something more accurate!!!"

I keep harping on this, and I always will.

The rules are an abstraction of a reality, not the reality itself
(reality used here to mean world - in this case an imaginiary one).
When a PC in my game get's shot, I do NOT say "you take an M wound".
Once the dice are all rolled (damage resistance, knockdown test, etc)
I say something like this: "The round slams into your chest, high up
on the left. The slug itself fragments across your armor, one piece
of hot lead scoring a furrow in your cheek. The shock wave sends you
staggering back a meter or so, and you feel bone and tendon give a
bit in your ribes and shoulder." Then, either by note or as a quick
aside, I say "Moderate wound".

The game designers did NOT delineate laws of physics when they said a
heavy pistol does 9M. DID. NOT. What they did was make some
decisions about probability and game balance. And how to make their
resulting model kind of fit what they knew about physics. A heavy
pistol should be, relative to a light pistol, THIS hard to resist and
do THAT much damage on average. In other words, they made the
mechanics try and represent a set of physical laws abstractly. And
the physical laws they were trying to represent were the same ones
that operate in the real world. Period. They did the same thing
with every rule they set to paper. Looked at the world, and tried to
approximate it with abstract mechanics. And extrapolated from the
real world where fantasy elements were introduced. And they
sometimes screwed up. Case in point, sniper rifle ranges. And
vehicle acceleration rules. And the metahuman height/weight tables
(TSS 13 anyone?). You don't have wave the screw ups away by saying
it is magic. It breaks the whole paradigm of a near future earth
that works pretty much like ours with some spiffy tech, magic, and
really unjust socio-economic structures.

Which is why some of us were crying foul about California drifting
out to sea (exagerated for effect).

It is not like my gaming table has a physics book on it. Hell, I
barely passed physics in college. I am a system administrator
working on an MBA. Science is NOT my topic. Believable
storytelling, OTOH, is my bread and butter. I don't hand wave
bulls**t, I fix it. If the NPC in the car needs to live, and the PCs
just fireballed the car, I solve things within the framework of the
game. Maybe the car has a built-in fire suppression system becasue
the owner has a phobia about being trapped in a burning wreckage.
Maybe a passing squatter coyote street shaman initiate decided it
would be funny to have a great form city spirit watch the battle and
run magical interference for random individuals. Maybe I *gasp*
rewrite my story to accomodate the player's actions. That is, after
all (as someone pointed out), the focus on the game. To let the
players play. What I do NOT do is make the fireball fail for no
apparent reason. That is Deus Ex Machina crap. That makes the
players lose all faith in the game and the gamemaster. "Oh, the
story is more important than the characters in it." Plotline
snipping is the ultimate player privelige. Fragging the storyline to
hell is going (and needs to be allowed) to happen. I once ran a
Werewolf game where the plot called for the characters to tromp
around northern Arizona seeking a lost artifact. Second session, one
of the PCs blew a cop away. The entire group fled the country. Kind
of screwed the whole Arizona thing. The "storyline-over-realism"
school of thought would have me making the gun jam and cop
oblivious... even though the cop was looking at the PC, and the
firearms roll did not botch.

Hand waving realism and consistency away whenever it is inconvenient
makes your players look to you for answers to everything. Not just
because they know you'll advance the story no matter what they do,
but also because they no longer know what they can expect to happen
when they do something. If the player does not think they can
interact with the TV, the sammie will ignore it. Eventually, every
prop and person in the game world gets ignored. The game devolves
from storytelling to dice rolling and rules jargon.

Player: I got 5 successes on my Pistols roll.
GM: The guy takes a Serious. He uses his SMG.
Player: I rolled crappy on my Body test, can I use Karma?
GM: Yea, it refreshed after the end of the last fight.
Player: Cool, okay I rolled 4 successes.
GM: Okay, you take a Light.

GM: The Johnson tells you he'll pay 4K for the data.
Player: I use Negotiations, and I got 8,5,5,3, and 1.
GM: Okay, he gives you 4.5K for the date.

(I've sat in on these sorts of sessions. Blah.)

======Korishinzo
--(Storytelling) Gamemaster

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

From:	keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:48:11 -0700

Message no. 8 > And no I will try something foolish: To sum up the
> discussion. Basically, we have here a discussion about
> different gaming styles: On the one side the
> "Physics-Of-Real-World"-faction, as I dare to call them ;),
> and on the other the
> "To-Heck-With-Physics-Let's-Get-Gaming"-faction, as I name them.
>
> The first argues from a more "down to earth" standpoint,
> trying to explain occurences within our given natural laws
> (without discounting the magic of SR!), in part trying to
> incorporate it into the game.
>
> The second argues from a more cineastic stand point, arguing
> from the standpoint of the game world, basically: "Everything
> is possible. It is the Awakened World!".
>
> Both points are valid in and of itself. We have a more
> philosphical debate here, than a debate resulting in
> clear-cut results.

Well, then there's another faction, the one into which
I happily fall... the Rules Lawyer Faction. These guys
feel that the rules of the game actually define the
reality within the game. They feel that if everyone
has (or could have) a thorough understanding of the rules
(their interpreation *and* intent), if that understanding
is similar enough to each other's, then their characters
are/will/do experience the same world. If folks don't
have the same understanding, then everyone who is
different experiences a different world. That's why
Rules Lawyers argue the interpretation of the rules
all the time. They're trying to come to a mutual
understanding between all involved.

Rules Lawyers believe that a common understanding and
interpretation of the rules between/among players and
GMs leads to a harmonious and unified world view within
the game.

That's why, when people bring up "well, in the real
world..." type scenarios, the Rules Lawyer balks.
For the Rules Lawyer, adding the uncertainty of
needing to interpret the real world into game rules
is scary because very little of it is quantified
such that it incorporates seemlessly within the
existing framework of the rules. If the rules do
a good job of defining the game world, don't
complicate things with 'reality,' just adjust your
mind to the world that the rules define...

Let me add another thing that's not necessarily about
Rules Lawyers. One of the things that I have observed
about *good* gamers and GMs is that the both feel and
inspire a trust that the game is fair, that no one
necessarily has an advantage other than the angles
they choose to play. The thing that I've found is that
as long as this trust relationship exists, the game
goes really smoothly. It's when folks start feeling
taken advantage of that discussions/argumets start
occurring.

Lastly, I think that I agree that our positions here
aren't *really* at odds. That became clear to me as
I was reading the last 10 posts on the same subject.
I kept saying, "Hey that's what I'm trying to say,
from exactly the backward angle," and things like
that.

Oh, and with the TV thing... I'd let the guy
destroy the TV, then let the group suffer the
consequences... but I'm an EvilGM (tm).

Peace,

-k

From:	sfeley@*****.com (Stephen Eley)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:01:36 -0400

Message no. 9 On 8/19/05, Keith Johnson <keith@***********.com> wrote:
>
> Well, then there's another faction, the one into which
> I happily fall... the Rules Lawyer Faction. These guys
> feel that the rules of the game actually define the
> reality within the game. [ . . . ]
>
>That's why, when people bring up "well, in the real
> world..." type scenarios, the Rules Lawyer balks.
> For the Rules Lawyer, adding the uncertainty of
> needing to interpret the real world into game rules
> is scary because very little of it is quantified
> such that it incorporates seemlessly within the
> existing framework of the rules. [ . . . ]
>
> Oh, and with the TV thing... I'd let the guy
> destroy the TV, then let the group suffer the
> consequences... but I'm an EvilGM (tm).

I don't get it. How would you know what Barrier Rating to assign the
TV, to determine whether they can destroy it? I don't see one listed.
For that matter, I don't see "TV" defined in the game rules or the
gear listings. Are you sure it exists?

I suppose you could create a new piece of equipment called a TV, but
where would such an idea come from? And when the runners chose to
destroy it, on what basis would you determine the initial BR? Surely
not "the real world" -- that's scary!

>8->

...Or, could it be, your game/reality separation isn't quite as
cut-and-dry in its gleaming perfection as you claim here?

--
Have Fun,
Steve Eley (sfeley@*****.com)
ESCAPE POD - the SF podcast magazine
http://escape.extraneous.org

From:	keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:42:21 -0700

Message no. 10 >The rules are an abstraction of a reality, not
>the reality itself (reality used here to mean
>world - in this case an imaginiary one).

In exatly the same way that s=1/2at^2 is an
abstraction of motion under constant acceleration.

In exactly the same way that the fundamental laws
of physics and chemistry are abstractions that
define our world.

You use these terms to confuse the point, dude!

The rules of a game define reality within the
game in exactly the same way as the rules of
physics define our reality.

>When a PC in my game get's shot, I do NOT say
>"you take an M wound".

In exactly the same way that when a guy gets
shot in this world, no one stops to say, "My
there significant kinetic energy invloved, lets
solve some equations!"

That doesn't mean that the laws of physics
didn't define what happened to the poor bastard.

>The game designers did NOT delineate laws
>of physics when they said a heavy pistol
>does 9M.

Sure they did! They decided what action in the
game would produce what outcome. That's the
definition of defining the laws of physics

>DID. NOT.

Totally fuckin' DID TOO!!!!!

>What they did was make some decisions about
>probability and game balance. And how to make
>their resulting model kind of fit what they
>knew about physics.

...and thus defined the laws of physics for
the game world.

>A heavy pistol should be, relative to a
> light pistol, THIS hard to resist and do
>THAT much damage on average. In other words,
>they made the mechanics try and represent a
>set of physical laws abstractly.

...and thus defined the laws of physics for
the game world.

>And the physical laws they were trying to
>represent were the same ones that operate
>in the real world. Period.

Not quite... they tried to come close, knowing
that they needed something people could relate
to from their own experience, yet internally
consistent within the framework of the rules.

>They did the same thing with every rule they
>set to paper. Looked at the world, and tried
>to approximate it with abstract mechanics.

You keep using this word 'abstract' like it
doesn't applied to EVERYTHING within a gaming
universe... heck and most things in this
univsers. Abstract as opposed to concrete...

Keep in mind that the laws of phsyics are
abstractions of the physical world...

Abstraction abstraction abstraction... it
doesn't mean anything in the context of this
argument.

>It is not like my gaming table has a physics book on it.
>Hell, I barely passed physics in college. I am a system
>administrator working on an MBA. Science is NOT my topic.
>Believable storytelling, OTOH, is my bread and butter.

And, oddly enough, I'm an actor. Storytelling literally
is my bread and butter.

If a game is internally consistent, it doesn't need
fixing based on its differences with your real world
experience... that's all I'm saying.

-k

From:	keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:53:59 -0700

Message no. 11 > > Oh, and with the TV thing... I'd let the guy
> > destroy the TV, then let the group suffer the
> > consequences... but I'm an EvilGM (tm).
>
> I don't get it. How would you know what Barrier
>Rating to assign the TV, to determine whether
>they can destroy it?

<babytalk>
That's easy... there's a statistical concept called
'Interpolation.' Its basically a way to use what
you know to guess about things you don't know.

The way it works is you look for similar items
that are defined in the reality of the rules,
and you set the physical stats of the object
based on how similar the new object is to the
existing one.

The more similar items you can find, and
knowledge as to whether the new item is stronger
or weaker than the similar items, will give
any reasonable person a really good guess as
to what the correct answer should be.
</babytalk>

As long as you have some intellect, you can
figure it out.

<snarky>
Oh, wait... you were being facetious...
</snarky>

-k

From:	sfeley@*****.com (Stephen Eley)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:19:48 -0400

Message no. 12 On 8/19/05, Keith Johnson <keith@***********.com> wrote:
>
> <babytalk>
> That's easy... there's a statistical concept called
> 'Interpolation.' Its basically a way to use what
> you know to guess about things you don't know.

You talk to babies that way? I take it you don't spend much time
around kids. >8->

> The way it works is you look for similar items
> that are defined in the reality of the rules,
> and you set the physical stats of the object
> based on how similar the new object is to the
> existing one.

That still doesn't explain where this alien concept of a "TV" came
from. Even determining what it's similar to necessarily involves
bringing foreign ideas into the isolated system of the game.

That's my point. Everything in the game is an abstraction or
transformation upon something in the real world or upon mythologies
similarly derived from the real world. The game isn't a closed
mathematical system with the simple purpose of defining itself. It's
a map, simplifying the essential meaning of a place into a few lines
and symbols. In SR's case it's a deliberately fanciful map, with some
imaginary lands and dragons scrawled in the margins; but you seem to
be declaring, not only that the territory (our world) has nothing to
do with the map, but that maps are always entirely self-contained and
logically *cannot* have anything to do with territories.

If I looked at maps like that, I suspect I'd have a hard time finding
them useful *or* entertaining.

--
Have Fun,
Steve Eley (sfeley@*****.com)
ESCAPE POD - the SF podcast magazine
http://escape.extraneous.org

From:	cmd_jackryan@***.net (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:51:52 +0000

Message no. 13 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ice Heart wrote:

> Actually, this entire thread started from somewhat less extreme
> viewpoints. One side said "wait, earthquakes can't do that... wtf?"
> and the other side said "oh, quit whining, it's a game not real
> life".

Yes it did. I said I'd try something foolish. ;)

> Kieth pointed to the fact that sniper rifles have ridiculously short
> ranges. Someone else keeps picking on the damage system, the
> "Moderate" wound abstraction. Now, one side of this debate would
> say, "sniper rifles ranges are short and that's that. Don't question
> it, don't apply real world knowledge, because the rules define the
> laws of ballistics." To which I say, "Malarky! Change the fragging
> sniper rifle ranges to something more accurate!!!"

Something I learnt by plaing various computer games and reading on the
subject:
Long range rifles have long ranges, true. But they have relatively short
accurate ranges. SWAT Teams use rifles with ranges of up to 800meters,
with an accurate range (Meaning: Deadly shot on the poor bastard on the
wrong end) of around 25% of that. Maybe SR reflects that? I don't know,
I'd have to ask a developer. I'm quite happy with an extreme range of
1000meters.

> The rules are an abstraction of a reality, not the reality itself
> (reality used here to mean world - in this case an imaginiary one).
> When a PC in my game get's shot, I do NOT say "you take an M wound".
> Once the dice are all rolled (damage resistance, knockdown test, etc)
> I say something like this: "The round slams into your chest, high up
> on the left. The slug itself fragments across your armor, one piece
> of hot lead scoring a furrow in your cheek. The shock wave sends you
> staggering back a meter or so, and you feel bone and tendon give a
> bit in your ribes and shoulder." Then, either by note or as a quick
> aside, I say "Moderate wound".

It is the responsibilty of a GM to translate rule terms in interesting,
in-game descriptions. More about that later, I don't want to repeat too
much of what I write.

> The game designers did NOT delineate laws of physics when they said a
> heavy pistol does 9M. DID. NOT. What they did was make some
> decisions about probability and game balance. And how to make their
> resulting model kind of fit what they knew about physics. A heavy
> pistol should be, relative to a light pistol, THIS hard to resist and
> do THAT much damage on average. In other words, they made the
> mechanics try and represent a set of physical laws abstractly. And
> the physical laws they were trying to represent were the same ones
> that operate in the real world. Period. They did the same thing
> with every rule they set to paper. Looked at the world, and tried to
> approximate it with abstract mechanics. And extrapolated from the
> real world where fantasy elements were introduced. And they
> sometimes screwed up. Case in point, sniper rifle ranges. And
> vehicle acceleration rules. And the metahuman height/weight tables
> (TSS 13 anyone?). You don't have wave the screw ups away by saying
> it is magic. It breaks the whole paradigm of a near future earth
> that works pretty much like ours with some spiffy tech, magic, and
> really unjust socio-economic structures.

I don't think that they screwed up. It is obcenely difficult to
translate real world effects into game mechanics. SR abstracts _a lot_
(use of negotiation or etiquette, racism and combat), and it does a good
job, given that the developers, basically, used a 1 in 6 chance to
represent it (give or take for TNs above 7).
On this basis, I guess, it was decided to switch the system a more
WoDish style.

Sr tries to keep rules simple, to allow for gaming. I know an RPG that
goes over board with realism (in a pure fantasy-setting), called Das
Schwarze Auge (The Black Eye in the US, I think). Introducing such nice
things as the "Waffenvergleichswert" (weapon comparison value),
determining how easy it is for a guy with a dagger to hit someone with a
two-handed-sword. Or the "Bruchfaktor" (breaking factor), determing how
easy a weapon breaks. for a completely realistic game, you'd have to use
both these values, slowing combat extremely down.
And, seriously, I don't need that. SR handles reach quite elegant, and I
don't need values to determine if a weapon jams or falls apart.
If the player doesn't care for his stuff, it will break, sooner or
later. Sometimes when it is convenient for the player, more often when
it isn't.

I personally follow the rules of physics, as far as I know them: things
will not start to fall up, unless a mage is in the area, using magic
finger or something similar.
But I don't use them to keep my players at bay. My players always get a
response appropriate to the "crime" in question. But most times this is
not a question, as my players know the same set of rules (Natural Law
and game) as I do.
Instead, I use physics to the advantage of my plot. (More on that later on).

> Which is why some of us were crying foul about California drifting
> out to sea (exagerated for effect).

By judging less than good evidence, which, as it came to light now, is
wrong anyway, as a much smaller part of California drifted into the sea.
I guess we have to read the appropiate sections in the 4th Edition
rulebook to be any wiser.

> It is not like my gaming table has a physics book on it. Hell, I
> barely passed physics in college. I am a system administrator
> working on an MBA. Science is NOT my topic. Believable
> storytelling, OTOH, is my bread and butter. I don't hand wave
> bulls**t, I fix it. If the NPC in the car needs to live, and the PCs
> just fireballed the car, I solve things within the framework of the
> game. Maybe the car has a built-in fire suppression system becasue
> the owner has a phobia about being trapped in a burning wreckage.
> Maybe a passing squatter coyote street shaman initiate decided it
> would be funny to have a great form city spirit watch the battle and
> run magical interference for random individuals. Maybe I *gasp*
> rewrite my story to accomodate the player's actions. That is, after
> all (as someone pointed out), the focus on the game. To let the
> players play.

That's what I's qualify as a "good" GM: Incorporating the actions of
players into the storyline, and/or preventing certain critical events
from happening (I don't mean the fireball, I mean the results of the
fireball in above's example!).

> What I do NOT do is make the fireball fail for no
> apparent reason. That is Deus Ex Machina crap. That makes the
> players lose all faith in the game and the gamemaster. "Oh, the
> story is more important than the characters in it." Plotline
> snipping is the ultimate player privelige. Fragging the storyline to
> hell is going (and needs to be allowed) to happen.

In no way it is a situation to warrant an obvious Deus Ex Machina. You
have to somehow salvage the situation, or the players lose a key chance
to solve the storyline. The examples you gave above are classic examples
of a Deus Ex Machina: Against all likelyhood, the NSC is saved from
getting killed. Somehow. That it isn't obvious, is not to the point.

> I once ran a
> Werewolf game where the plot called for the characters to tromp
> around northern Arizona seeking a lost artifact. Second session, one
> of the PCs blew a cop away. The entire group fled the country. Kind
> of screwed the whole Arizona thing. The "storyline-over-realism"
> school of thought would have me making the gun jam and cop
> oblivious... even though the cop was looking at the PC, and the
> firearms roll did not botch.

Not in my book. in this kind of situation, the character would have to
lie low for a while, and try to et the artifact anyhow, they just made
it more difficult for themselves. Well, tough luck for them. And it even
doesn't have to be murder: It is possible, though unlikely, to survive a
bullet to the head (especially in the WoD, with all these supernaturals
on the run, if you catch my drift.).
For you, the story line "get-Artifact-out-of-Arizona" was fscked up. For
me, it is an oprtunity: Other forces have the chance to get this
artifact, and thus the players can try once more. That is Storyline over
Realism. Realism shouldn't stop you to create stories. It is just one
more tool.

I said above, I use physics as a tool. Here is a raw example:
The players are to extract a scientist, while she is on vacation. She
spends this holiday in a resort, located on top of a nice cliff, with a
beautiful view to the ocean, and it is located in San Diego. So, the
players have two additional options: They can use the cliff as an
intrusion and/or escape route, and they can make a run into Azzie territory.
Of course, the players climbing up the cliff can make for some intense
drama, when a support-hook gives from their weigh, for example.

One more tool. Realism is one more tool in the GM's tool box. A pretty
important one, too.

> Hand waving realism and consistency away whenever it is inconvenient
> makes your players look to you for answers to everything. Not just
> because they know you'll advance the story no matter what they do,
> but also because they no longer know what they can expect to happen
> when they do something. If the player does not think they can
> interact with the TV, the sammie will ignore it.

I'd be glad if that were the case with players. ;)
Seriously, though: Realism is not equal to consistency. Even unrealistic
things can be kept consistent (Look at Star Trek: Voyager, especially
later seasons), of course this alters the world in which you place your
story.
Realism makes things easy: The sammie knows how the TV will react to his
extreme cybernetic strength, as does the player. But the players don't
know that the TV contains crucial plot information. If the GM wants to
salvage this, there are several options: Backup of the stored data
someplace else, special safeguards that the data will stay intact, no
matter what (the Black Box principle), the sammy get's distracted by
some event or other, requiring the sammy's attention *NOW*.

The plotline is saved, but not by entirely realistic means, without
sending the Holy God of Realism to heck.

> Eventually, every
> prop and person in the game world gets ignored. The game devolves
> from storytelling to dice rolling and rules jargon.
>
> Player: I got 5 successes on my Pistols roll.
> GM: The guy takes a Serious. He uses his SMG.
> Player: I rolled crappy on my Body test, can I use Karma?
> GM: Yea, it refreshed after the end of the last fight.
> Player: Cool, okay I rolled 4 successes.
> GM: Okay, you take a Light.
>
> GM: The Johnson tells you he'll pay 4K for the data.
> Player: I use Negotiations, and I got 8,5,5,3, and 1.
> GM: Okay, he gives you 4.5K for the date.

Examples of less-than-optimal-roleplaying, not ignorance of the
gameworld, IMHO. Happens to me, too, especially if I get cought of
guard. The above example is a result, IMHO, of resolving the combat as
fast as possible to get on with more important things (like a plot, or
sumthing), the latter example is of a lack or unwillingness to use
roleplaying skills.
I personally abhorr the social interaction rules. That's why I am at the
gaming table.

If my players are able to negotiate with Mr Johnson about their money,
they get it. Or a bullet. Depending on Johnsons's mood (which my players
can get from my descriptions).

And maybe we do misunderstand each other:
I have a rule: If the plot's good and fun, rules get out of the window.
(Basically).
Does that make for unrealistic games?

- --
Phillip Gawlowski

Bastard Gamemaster from Hell

"We are proud to deliver any round in under 24 hours"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDBjhWkbmIhbNRDo0RAijxAJ9K6RE9icjQjQMK/SuznZAVDVGcHQCcDrE2
iMLP9nWIyhqPAg3MFLmyp8g=ld6J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From:	korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:03:47 -0700 (PDT)

Message no. 14 --- Keith Johnson <keith@***********.com> wrote:

> >The rules are an abstraction of a reality, not the reality itself
> >(reality used here to mean world - in this case an imaginiary
> >one).

> In exatly the same way that s=1/2at^2 is an abstraction of motion
> under constant acceleration. In exactly the same way that the
> fundamental laws of physics and chemistry are abstractions that
> define our world.
>
> You use these terms to confuse the point, dude!

No. You are wrong. On multiple points. "Dude" being only one of
them.

The laws of physics are not abstractions, per se. They are derived
from direct obseration, and are intrinsically linked to what they
represent. Please, before you accuse me of misuing a word, or using
a word to confuse an issue, take a moment to look that word up. A
painting of a house is not abstract. A painting of a board suspended
over the head of a pig with rain sheeting off entitled "house" is.
The reason is that one of those two examples is divorcing concept
from form. Abstraction, in the context I have been using it, is a
process of seperating the idea from the symbol that represents that
idea.

When a PC is shot, I do not pick up a firearm and shoot the player to
illustrate what the character experiences. I also do tell the player
that the bullet struck at x speed, emparting y joules of energy. I
don't quote them the formulas for computing the pounds per square
inch at impact, or pull medical charts to discuss the effects of
ballistic projectiles striking flesh. All of that pertains to
physical laws. And the designers of Shadowrun said, wisely, "screw
that". They instead divorced the concept of damage from the form of
damage, leaving descriptives of gunshot wounds up to the gamemaster
and her players. They gave us an abstract presentation of damage,
distilling 9M from a host of different physical and physiological
effects. There is not a single observable phenomenon for which you
can say, "Well, that was very 9M." Nor can you plug 9M into a
formula of any sort and derive a ballistics solution. Not even in
some imaginary math and science unique to the SR universe. 9M is, by
definition, an abstraction.

What I cannot figure out is why you are getting annoyed enough to
type "fuckin".

> The rules of a game define reality within the game in exactly the
> same way as the rules of physics define our reality.

The rules of the game define what dice you roll. And how to
manipulate the numbers after you roll. And what to write on a piece
of paper, so you remember how it will influence the next roll.
Concept and form are completely seperate here.

The laws of physics represent observed reality. Define it, if you
will. The SR game designers (and many others) looked at those laws,
those definitions. They used them as guidelines to decide how much
damage a bigger gun would do relative to than a smaller gun. And how
to effect the probability of certain things. Like, what are the odds
a person survives getting shot with a .50 cal pistol, and how can be
present that easily with a few numbers and some dice? They derived
their MODEL for a fake reality by looking at a well established MODEL
of our reality. Then they derived simple conventions for
manipulating their model, loosely based on the complex conventions
describing how the original model worked. So they looked at our
reality, extrapolated their reality, then wrote down shorthand
symbols to explain how it works (9M, Acceleration 8, Reach 1).
Exactly the reverse of what you are describing when you say they
defined the physics when the wrote the rules. No one sat down and
said that the acceleration of gravity in SR would be x formula. They
looked at the acceleration of gravity in our world, said that it
would be the same in the SR world, then derived a simple way to
represent it with dice. Physics, our physics, shaped their view of
the way things would work. That view shaped the dice/modifiers/stats
that they selected to communicate to a player what happens in the
fake world.

Since they borred from our physics to model their reality, it is very
sloppy authoring to occasionally abandon those physics without any
explanantion.

> >The game designers did NOT delineate laws of physics when they
> >said a heavy pistol does 9M.

> Sure they did! They decided what action in the game would produce
> what outcome. That's the definition of defining the laws of
> physics.

Maybe we are just arguing somantics at this point...?

I am saying that the game designers borrowed our physics and then
came up with 9M as the way to say what happens in the parameters of
the game.

Chicken-egg?

> Not quite... they tried to come close, knowing that they needed
> something people could relate to from their own experience, yet
> internally consistent within the framework of the rules.

Would you say that an earthquake sinking part of California and
leaving an island is internally consistant within the framework of
Shadowrun's rules?

> You keep using this word 'abstract' like it doesn't applied to
> EVERYTHING within a gaming universe... heck and most things in this

> univsers. Abstract as opposed to concrete...

It DOES apply to EVERYTHING... in the rules for the game. My point
exactly.

> Keep in mind that the laws of phsyics are abstractions of the
> physical world...

Eh, not so much. Slightly incorrect interpretation of "abstract" I
think. Maybe not. Might just be context.

> Abstraction abstraction abstraction... it doesn't mean anything in
> the context of this argument.

You are right about that. This argument became abstract in and of
itself back a couple dozen messages ago. :) Form and concept
utterly divorced from one another.

======Korishinzo
--This thread is driving me to abstraction... :p

> >It is not like my gaming table has a physics book on it.
> >Hell, I barely passed physics in college. I am a system
> >administrator working on an MBA. Science is NOT my topic.
> >Believable storytelling, OTOH, is my bread and butter.
>
> And, oddly enough, I'm an actor. Storytelling literally
> is my bread and butter.
>
> If a game is internally consistent, it doesn't need
> fixing based on its differences with your real world
> experience... that's all I'm saying.
>
> -k
>
>
>

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

From:	korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:13:55 -0700 (PDT)

Message no. 15 --- Keith Johnson <keith@***********.com> wrote:
> > > Oh, and with the TV thing... I'd let the guy
> > > destroy the TV, then let the group suffer the
> > > consequences... but I'm an EvilGM (tm).

> > I don't get it. How would you know what Barrier
> >Rating to assign the TV, to determine whether
> >they can destroy it?
>
> <babytalk>
> That's easy... there's a statistical concept called
> 'Interpolation.' Its basically a way to use what
> you know to guess about things you don't know.
>
> The way it works is you look for similar items
> that are defined in the reality of the rules,
> and you set the physical stats of the object
> based on how similar the new object is to the
> existing one.
>
> The more similar items you can find, and
> knowledge as to whether the new item is stronger
> or weaker than the similar items, will give
> any reasonable person a really good guess as
> to what the correct answer should be.
> </babytalk>
>
> As long as you have some intellect, you can
> figure it out.

Interpolation is fun. One could, given a long rainy day, draw up
stats for every conceivable piece of furniture in a skyscraper. But,
what happens when someone tosses the furniture out the window? If I
check my main book, it seems that I need to roll the furiture's body
against some number. And apply this letter, which tells me how
usable the furiture is after it lands (on scale from L to D, with D
meaning the warranty is void, I think). But what does all that mean,
and how did the writers decide what to put in those tables? I guess
I will wait for the "how to describe L, M, S, and D in a paragraph or
less" sourcebook. I hope they have some pregenerated descriptions,
though. You know, so I can interpolate my own later. Geez, this
would all be so much easier if I had some frame of reference for what
they meant by "couch", "gravity", and "impact". Oh well. I
am sure
they'll have a book telling me what all that means too.

======Korishinzo
--time to stop, prolly, starting to sound snippy

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

From:	keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:26:02 -0700

Message no. 16 > That still doesn't explain where this alien
>concept of a "TV" came from. Even determining
>what it's similar to necessarily involves bringing
>foreign ideas into the isolated system of the game.

Now you're just being difficult.

Internally consistent rules for the way the
physical world of the game works doesn't make
something isolated. TV is not an alien concept
to Shadowrun in exactly the same way as large
sailing ships is not an alien concept in our
world today...

Historical anacronysms both.

A TV is made of materials that have comparable
strength items within the physical rules of the
game.

It doesn't matter what a TV is, it matters that
there's a thin plastic box with a large glass
tube. Who gives a shit what it's called.

And we can interpolate the various strengths of
these materials within the framework of the
game rules because they are internally consistent.

>Everything in the game is an abstraction or
>transformation upon something in the real
>world or upon mythologies similarly derived
>from the real world.

>The game isn't a closed mathematical system

The game mechanics are a closed system with
an internally consistent mathematical
framework.

You're confusing the mechanics (the rules) with
the story. Separate them.

>It's a map, simplifying the essential meaning
>of a place into a few lines and symbols. In SR's
>case it's a deliberately fanciful map, with some
>imaginary lands and dragons scrawled in the
>margins;

I agree totally.

>but you seem to be declaring, not only that
>the territory (our world) has nothing to do
>with the map, but that maps are always entirely
>self-contained and logically *cannot* have
>anything to do with territories.

I don't think I'm declaring that at all. I'm
saying that the legend of the 'SR Map' doesn't
necessarily agree with the legend on the 'real
world map.'

I'm talking about the legend, and you are talking
about the legend, the map, and the stuff that's
off the map.

I'm saying that it's ok if the 'SR Map' wants
to make land pink, water green, and mountains
shown by smiley faces.

Then you get off on a tangient about mud (the TV
scenario), and you say that the mud should be
marked by the color it's marked by on a 'real
world map' (or more correctly you claim that
mud can't be shown on the SR Map because the
legend doesn't have a listing for mud, and you
claim *that* as a valid reason to use the color
of mud from the legend of the real world map...

I come back with the fact that the real
world map legend just uses a blending of the
colors for water and land, and that we should
use the internally consistent color in the
SR Map (some combination of pink and green),
and you come back with nonsense about the
legend not having it...

That's what's going on.

I'm only talking about the maps legend and
it's relationship to the map it's the legend
of... are the colors on the map consistent
with the legend? If so, don't fuck with the
map.

That's all I'm saying.

-k

>
> If I looked at maps like that, I suspect I'd have a hard time
> finding them useful *or* entertaining.
>
> --
> Have Fun,
> Steve Eley (sfeley@*****.com)
> ESCAPE POD - the SF podcast magazine
> http://escape.extraneous.org
>
>

From:	keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:37:35 -0700

Message no. 17 > Something I learnt by plaing various computer games
>and reading on the subject:
> Long range rifles have long ranges, true. But they have
> relatively short accurate ranges. SWAT Teams use rifles with
> ranges of up to 800meters, with an accurate range (Meaning:
> Deadly shot on the poor bastard on the wrong end) of around
> 25% of that. Maybe SR reflects that? I don't know, I'd have
> to ask a developer. I'm quite happy with an extreme range of
> 1000meters.

As I recall, when this issue was first brought up in SR1,
the designers claimed that they set the ranges for game
balance and defined the shorter ranges as due to the fact
that in combat, characters were all running around dodging
thus making it harder to hit folks at longer ranges than
listed.

It was a cop out, but you went with it anyway.

> It is the responsibilty of a GM to translate rule
>terms in interesting, in-game descriptions.

I totally agree. And the rules lawyer in me claims
that if everyone in a given game understands the
same things about the rules, the descriptions are
easier to make.

>Sr tries to keep rules simple, to allow for gaming.

>I know an RPG that goes over board with realism
>called Das Schwarze Auge

We have Phoenix Command here in the US.

I much prefer abstraction physics like SR and HERO
to real world approximations like Phoenix Command.

-k

From:	keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:41:51 -0700

Message no. 18 We apparently are just arguing semantics at this point.

You're looking one way, I'm looking back at you from another way, and we're
disagreeing on what part comes first.

We're describing the same thing from opposite ends.

From:	korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:51:52 -0700 (PDT)

Message no. 19 > I don't think that they screwed up. It is obcenely difficult to
> translate real world effects into game mechanics. SR abstracts _a
> lot_ (use of negotiation or etiquette, racism and combat), and it
> does a good job, given that the developers, basically, used a 1 in
> 6 chance to represent it (give or take for TNs above 7).
> On this basis, I guess, it was decided to switch the system a more
> WoDish style.

Don't get me wrong, I like SR. In 24 years of gaming, it remains my
favorite system to run and play. I've GMed every edition of SR to
date and made it work. House Rules are wonderful things. However,
not everything the game designers give us fits well. For example,
SURGE will probably never see the light of day in my games. Seems a
bit hokey. I have never and will never sic Harley S. Quinn on my
players. And I still clearly remember 1st edition scenarios like a
motorcycle helmet rendering a sabot round from an MGT ineffective.
:) The game designers have always delivered, overall, but the devil
is in the details sometimes.

> Sr tries to keep rules simple, to allow for gaming. I know an RPG
> that goes over board with realism (in a pure fantasy-setting),
> called Das Schwarze Auge (The Black Eye in the US, I think).
> Introducing such nice things as the "Waffenvergleichswert" (weapon
> comparison value), determining how easy it is for a guy with a
> dagger to hit someone with a two-handed-sword. Or
> the "Bruchfaktor" (breaking factor), determing how easy a weapon
> breaks. for a completely realistic game, you'd have to use both
> these values, slowing combat extremely down. And, seriously, I
> don't need that. SR handles reach quite elegant, and I don't need
> values to determine if a weapon jams or falls apart.
> If the player doesn't care for his stuff, it will break, sooner or
> later. Sometimes when it is convenient for the player, more often
> when it isn't.

I have found that the more plausible one's storytelling, the more the
player's are willing to forego the nitpicky rules like percentage
chance of breakage. By keeping the cause and effect relationships if
the game reasonable and believable, the GM earns the player's trust
that things will be fair. Maybe not pleasant all the time, but fair.

> That's what I's qualify as a "good" GM: Incorporating the actions
> of players into the storyline, and/or preventing certain critical
> events from happening (I don't mean the fireball, I mean the
> results of the fireball in above's example!).

Actually, I prefer to keep things even more flexible. I don't make
storylines often where one mistep (destroyed computer, torched NPC,
etc) makes everything come unhinged. The ease of accomplishing their
mission may get altered in unpleasant ways. But, there are
alternative methods available. On those occasions when a single NPC
holds the key, and a trigger happy PC wastes the NPC, well... failure
is a realistic part of life too.

> > I once ran a Werewolf game where the plot called for the
> > characters to tromp around northern Arizona seeking a lost
> > artifact. Second session, one of the PCs blew a cop away. The
> > entire group fled the country. Kind of screwed the whole Arizona
> > thing. The "storyline-over-realism" school of thought would have
> > me making the gun jam and cop oblivious... even though the cop
> > was looking at the PC, and the firearms roll did not botch.

> Not in my book. in this kind of situation, the character would have
> to lie low for a while, and try to et the artifact anyhow, they
just
> made it more difficult for themselves. Well, tough luck for them.
> And it even doesn't have to be murder: It is possible, though
> unlikely, to survive a bullet to the head (especially in the WoD,
> with all these supernaturals on the run, if you catch my drift.).
> For you, the story line "get-Artifact-out-of-Arizona" was fscked
> up. For me, it is an oprtunity: Other forces have the chance to get
> this artifact, and thus the players can try once more. That is
> Storyline over Realism. Realism shouldn't stop you to create >
> stories. It is just one more tool.

Yeesh, that sounds so final. :p The game ran for 9 months, every
week, 8 hour sessions on average. The artifact turned up in some
nasty bad guy's hands. The group had forgotten a lot of the early
mission... even buried most of the original pack. I was not invested
enough in the plot to see it as "fscked". I tell a story that
involves a world full of plots, not a single plot. Snip one
plotline, another is bound to come along. :)

> Realism makes things easy: The sammie knows how the TV will react
> to his extreme cybernetic strength, as does the player. But the
> players don't know that the TV contains crucial plot information.
> If the GM wants to salvage this, there are several options: Backup
> of the stored data someplace else, special safeguards that the data
> will stay intact, no matter what (the Black Box principle), the
> sammy get's distracted by some event or other, requiring the
> sammy's attention *NOW*.

Sounds like we are on the same page here.

> The plotline is saved, but not by entirely realistic means, without
> sending the Holy God of Realism to heck.

Except for this. Plotlines shouldn't need saving. They should be
dynamic, allowing for even failure. :)

> I personally abhorr the social interaction rules. That's why I am
> at the gaming table.

I much prefer the players actually try and roleplay the social
interaction.

> And maybe we do misunderstand each other:
> I have a rule: If the plot's good and fun, rules get out of the
> window.
> (Basically).
> Does that make for unrealistic games?

Depends on you and your players. I find that by making the world as
believable as possibe, cause-effect relationships as plausible as
possible, I get a game where the players always come back for more.
Your math seems to have varied. Beautiful thing about pen-and-pencil
RPGs over computer RPGs... our math can vary without any problems.
:p

======Korishinzo
--Rule: if the players are having fun, to hell with the plot. :)

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

From:	cmd_jackryan@***.net (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:54:41 +0000

Message no. 20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Keith Johnson wrote:

> As I recall, when this issue was first brought up in SR1,
> the designers claimed that they set the ranges for game
> balance and defined the shorter ranges as due to the fact
> that in combat, characters were all running around dodging
> thus making it harder to hit folks at longer ranges than
> listed.
>
> It was a cop out, but you went with it anyway.

Ah, well, and an obvvious at that. A sniper is a hunter wiht loads of
patience. But still, a sniper will et as close to his target as
possible, while still avoiding detection, so I guess the ranges still
apply. Otherwise, you'd have to introduce one more weapon:
Standard SWAT sniper rifle (Like the US M24 (sic?)) and anti-materiel
rifles (Like the US M92 Berett (sic?)).

So I guess we got the lesser of two evils.

> I totally agree. And the rules lawyer in me claims
> that if everyone in a given game understands the
> same things about the rules, the descriptions are
> easier to make.

Yes. Though the both of us seem to have a different approach concerning
rules lawyers: For me, a Rules Lawyer sticks to the rules as GWB to the
Holy Bible, to use them to the best effect (usually to piss the GM off,
but that'S just me :). Of course, rules and their interpretation should
be established before a game begins.

> I much prefer abstraction physics like SR and HERO
> to real world approximations like Phoenix Command.

That's what I like about the Storytelling System: It has few, easy
rules, making for good gameplay, by focusing more on the story rather
than interpretation of the rules.

- --
Phillip Gawlowski

Bastard Gamemaster from Hell

"We are proud to deliver any round in under 24 hours"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDBkcQkbmIhbNRDo0RArFdAJ4/ZOtH6ekrJRgLj9B9CZT01rhBPACeKq4l
7M0HvXpqQBEusNecnBIfEy8m1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From:	cmd_jackryan@***.net (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:28:01 +0000

Message no. 21 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ice Heart wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, I like SR. In 24 years of gaming, it remains my
> favorite system to run and play.

Same here. I have my criticism, too. But that usually results from
knowledge I gathered, that isn't common knowledge.

> I've GMed every edition of SR to
> date and made it work. House Rules are wonderful things. However,
> not everything the game designers give us fits well. For example,
> SURGE will probably never see the light of day in my games. Seems a
> bit hokey. I have never and will never sic Harley S. Quinn on my
> players. And I still clearly remember 1st edition scenarios like a
> motorcycle helmet rendering a sabot round from an MGT ineffective.
> :) The game designers have always delivered, overall, but the devil
> is in the details sometimes.

Same here, basically. I have my own set of House Rules, too (Targeted
shots to the head make D, for example), to fill or eliminate conceived
errors. Usually that means for me making things easier: I don't have to
look up stuff, and thus we have more gaming than ruling time.
I try to be consistent in my rulings, though: I go for a more cineastic
style of gamimastering. For example: We had following situation in
combat: a PCs armor reduced the power level of a bullet to 1. 4 success
were required to stage down the damage to nothingness. I ruled (much to
the horror of one player, who's a Rules Lawyer in the bad aspect of the
term) that no role was required to soak the damage: With a body of 6,
all dices are automatic success, statistically at least one die hast to
be >1, and body tests cannot be botched (at least in my sessions ;)).
Not entirely realstic, since the bullet had hit, but to heck with it, SR
is deadly as it is, and my plot making it even more so: One error, and
the players are Lofwyr's next lunch. *eg*

> I have found that the more plausible one's storytelling, the more the
> player's are willing to forego the nitpicky rules like percentage
> chance of breakage. By keeping the cause and effect relationships if
> the game reasonable and believable, the GM earns the player's trust
> that things will be fair. Maybe not pleasant all the time, but fair.

Nothing more to be said, really. I guess, my players trust me, as they
still wnt to play with my plot.

> Actually, I prefer to keep things even more flexible. I don't make
> storylines often where one mistep (destroyed computer, torched NPC,
> etc) makes everything come unhinged. The ease of accomplishing their
> mission may get altered in unpleasant ways. But, there are
> alternative methods available. On those occasions when a single NPC
> holds the key, and a trigger happy PC wastes the NPC, well... failure
> is a realistic part of life too.

True. Same here. I'm the Bastard Gamemaster from Hell, and I love SR for
making it easy for me. But not in terms of rules, but in terms of the
gameworld. It is so easy to screw players, they don't always register
it. They even took my bait to work for Lofwyr. They could have turned it
down, but they were desperate for allies, after (3 of them) escaping
their contracts with Proteus (German AA con), and drawing everybody they
work with with them. I love SR. :)

> Yeesh, that sounds so final. :p The game ran for 9 months, every
> week, 8 hour sessions on average. The artifact turned up in some
> nasty bad guy's hands. The group had forgotten a lot of the early
> mission... even buried most of the original pack. I was not invested
> enough in the plot to see it as "fscked". I tell a story that
> involves a world full of plots, not a single plot. Snip one
> plotline, another is bound to come along. :)

Yes. But most of the time, my players want to follow the "main" plot
line, that is: mine.
I have to, er, educate them, that I don't want to have all the work. :)

And yes, it was meant to sound final ;P

> Except for this. Plotlines shouldn't need saving. They should be
> dynamic, allowing for even failure. :)

Mostly, they do. But us GMs work with the most thankless, ignorant and
fscking smart customers in the world: Players. No plotline survives
contact with the player. Thus, sometimes there is only this one
possibility left. And if you don't want to let them hang out and dry (3
players in my group are newbies to SR and cyberpunk in general), you
have to take them by their tiny little hands, until they can handle to
concept of the world intent on screwing them.
And at other times, you want to get the plot you intended to move a
long, because it is going to be a major, world-altering event.

Hm, about time I re-read Brainscan, and Threats 2.

> I much prefer the players actually try and roleplay the social
> interaction.

That is what I meant.

> Depends on you and your players. I find that by making the world as
> believable as possibe, cause-effect relationships as plausible as
> possible, I get a game where the players always come back for more.

But that is not automatically realistic, just plausible.
Consider: Ether was a plausible explanation why radio waves get from
emitter to receiver. But now it doesn'T seem to be realistic.

> Your math seems to have varied. Beautiful thing about pen-and-pencil
> RPGs over computer RPGs... our math can vary without any problems.
> :p

Yes. Although I enjoy Computer RPGs. The only nuisance are NSCs. *g*

- --
Phillip Gawlowski

Bastard Gamemaster from Hell

"We are proud to deliver any round in under 24 hours"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDBk7gkbmIhbNRDo0RAuBgAJ0Xj9wcL4ZPhQXCG3Ba8IFQ3uwDtACdGGQJ
62SfWwD9p7GeFrWFoUX963s=gNxJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From:	keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:22:25 -0700

Message no. 22 >In 24 years of gaming, it remains my favorite system
>to run and play.

And in my twenty... whatever years of gaming, SR is
my #2 or #3. HERO is my all time favorite. I love
SR and Rifts/Nightbane/Palladium for similar reasons,
ease of game play, and a complex fleshed out world
with which to interact.

>...not everything the game designers give us fits well.
>For example, SURGE will probably never see the light
>of day in my games. Seems a bit hokey.

Yep.

>I have found that the more plausible one's storytelling,
>the more the player's are willing to forego the nitpicky
>rules like percentage chance of breakage.

And I've found the same thing from exactly the opposite
direction... when everyone has a firm grasp of the
rules that guide their lives, the stories become richer.

An example: a Shaman tries to summon a spirit. The
player knows the TN, throws his dice, and blows the
roll. Then he rolls for Drain, and blows that too...
Everyone looking on knows the rules too. They see
the dice, they know what's coming...

The player, in character, performs his summoning,
performs the failure, and performs his collapse into
nose-bleeding catatonia. All the other players react
in character because they all know how bad what happened
was.

Excellent role play by everyone because everyone
understood the rules and their impact on the gaming
world.

>By keeping the cause and effect relationships if
>the game reasonable and believable, the GM earns
>the player's trust that things will be fair.
>Maybe not pleasant all the time, but fair.

I totally agree.

>Actually, I prefer to keep things even more flexible.

I keep the plot relatively open in games I run. I let
the players do what they want, and I have the world
react accordingly. A require players to make characters
with realistic motivations and backgrounds. That way
the characters tend to drive the story, and as GM, all
I have to do is react and set up.

> > The plotline is saved, but not by entirely
>>realistic means, without sending the Holy God of
>>Realism to heck.
>
> Except for this. Plotlines shouldn't need saving.
>They should be dynamic, allowing for even failure.

Yep... failure is a really good plot device!

>>I personally abhorr the social interaction rules.
>>That's why I am at the gaming table.
>
>I much prefer the players actually try and roleplay
>the social interaction.

And the reason I like them is that I'm a heck of
a lot more likeable than most of my characters.

Oh wait, it's the opposite. Social interaction rules
exist so that we can play differently socially able
characters than ourselves in exactly the same way
that players aren't expected to be physically similar
to their characters.

-k

From:	derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:48:23 -0500

Message no. 23 > But still, a sniper will et as close to his target as
> possible, while still avoiding detection, so I guess the ranges still
> apply.

That's not true, snipers get as close as they have to for the shot and no
closer, getting there unseen and getting the shot is only half the job,
getting AWAY either by yourself or as yourself plus one person....is the
rest of the job....and usually it's quite a hike out from a
shot....therefore...if you can make the shot at 800m take the shot at 800m,
if you can take the shot at 1200m, take it at 1200m. Also, you'd have to
add a lot more than just the M24 and the M92, you'd have to add M82A1, M14,
the Arctic Warfare Magnum, the Dragunov (sp?) and quite a large list of
other sniper rifles used the world over, however, they didn't, that's not to
say that some of us haven't designed them, but, it's nothing more than a
sporting rifle (Remington Model 700VS being a perfect example of a publicly
purchasable sporting rifle that's almost equal to the M24 in accuracy and
range, with an upgraded barrel would probably make the grade). Snipers
aren't their rifle, they're their skill at hiding, moving undetected, and
waiting for the perfect shot.

From:	cmd_jackryan@***.net (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:50:51 +0000

Message no. 24 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Derek Hyde wrote:

> That's not true, snipers get as close as they have to for the shot and no
> closer, getting there unseen and getting the shot is only half the job,
> getting AWAY either by yourself or as yourself plus one person....is the
> rest of the job....and usually it's quite a hike out from a
> shot....therefore...if you can make the shot at 800m take the shot at 800m,
> if you can take the shot at 1200m, take it at 1200m.

I didn't say, that a sniper wouldn't go for safety. I said: As close as
possible. Of course, a sniper has to use the presented window of
opportunity (Otherwise artillery could do the job,t oo, I guess ;)).

> Also, you'd have to
> add a lot more than just the M24 and the M92, you'd have to add M82A1, M14,
> the Arctic Warfare Magnum, the Dragunov (sp?) and quite a large list of
> other sniper rifles used the world over, however, they didn't, that's not to
> say that some of us haven't designed them, but, it's nothing more than a
> sporting rifle

Sorry. I just picked two rifles on my mind as examples of different
"classes" of sniper weapons.

> (Remington Model 700VS being a perfect example of a publicly
> purchasable sporting rifle that's almost equal to the M24 in accuracy and
> range, with an upgraded barrel would probably make the grade). Snipers
> aren't their rifle, they're their skill at hiding, moving undetected, and
> waiting for the perfect shot.

Of course a sniper isn't his weapon. But his weapon defines how a sniper
can opperate. The longer the effective range, the farther away from a
target a sniper can be.
But still, the longer the range, the more difficult the shot (I didn't
say that such a shot would be impossible!), because of wind drift, drag,
gravity, what have you.
It is just easier for the "average" sniper, to get as close as possible.

It has been a while that I heard it: An Australian sniper got some very
high classed medal, for eliminating a Taliban at the maximum range of
his M92. So, it is possible, in the Real World(TM) as well as in SR (A
sniper in my group hit his target at Extreme Range, decapacitating the
target. He could keep the rifle as payment.), just to get the thread
back on topic.

And my point still stands: You'd have to introduce another class of
weapons (Anti-Materiel-Rifle, or .50 sniper rifle, whatever you want to
call it), to accomodate for very different ranges from your "standard"
sniper rifle and the longer ranged .50 caliber rifles.

And I never said, that there weren't Enough weapons for SR. In some
departments it ain't enough, IMHO.

Hm, have to get out the CC again for some work. Hehe. Will try them out
on my players. *EGMG*

- --
Phillip Gawlowski

Bastard Gamemaster from Hell

"We are proud to deliver any round in under 24 hours"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDCQVKkbmIhbNRDo0RAixTAJ40EMpEx0Xmx1jP/HoHVeUOZuwWTQCeI8O+
cbq35rOm9tDeEXs2fjDXCkY=H0PY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From:	derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:07:43 -0500

Message no. 25 > I didn't say, that a sniper wouldn't go for safety. I said: As close as
> possible. Of course, a sniper has to use the presented window of
> opportunity (Otherwise artillery could do the job,t oo, I guess ;)).

I understand....I'm merely pointing out that "as close as possible" isn't
always feasible, and, it's also a matter of preference

> Sorry. I just picked two rifles on my mind as examples of different
> "classes" of sniper weapons.

The M24's in no different class from the MA-2100/WA-2100 or the ranger arms
SM-3, and the Barret Model 121 from SR is a .50 sniper rifle, just like the
M82A1

> Of course a sniper isn't his weapon. But his weapon defines how a sniper
> can opperate. The longer the effective range, the farther away from a
> target a sniper can be.
> But still, the longer the range, the more difficult the shot (I didn't
> say that such a shot would be impossible!), because of wind drift, drag,
> gravity, what have you.
> It is just easier for the "average" sniper, to get as close as possible.

This is true, but, most snipers are trained to do those calculations very
quickly or they've got a spotter to do them for them while they're tracking
the target, adjusting sights, and then pulling the trigger.

>
> It has been a while that I heard it: An Australian sniper got some very
> high classed medal, for eliminating a Taliban at the maximum range of
> his M92. So, it is possible, in the Real World(TM) as well as in SR (A
> sniper in my group hit his target at Extreme Range, decapacitating the
> target. He could keep the rifle as payment.), just to get the thread
> back on topic.

And a canadian sniper team set the world record over in Iraq recently by
obtaining a confirmed kill at 1500 meters

> And my point still stands: You'd have to introduce another class of
> weapons (Anti-Materiel-Rifle, or .50 sniper rifle, whatever you want to
> call it), to accomodate for very different ranges from your "standard"
> sniper rifle and the longer ranged .50 caliber rifles.

Nope, you don't, the Barret Model 121 is a .50 sniper rifle, and would be in
reality considered an Anti-Material rifle) the only thing you'd have to
tweak was the damage and range if you wanted to introduce something like the
AW-Magnum which is a .338 Lapua, which can reliably hit nearly as far out as
the .50 BMG sniper rifles and hits with considerable force at that range,
you'd have to introduce a class of "heavy sniper rifles" with longer range
and more damage, then make the AWM one of those with more recoil reduction
than the rest of them.

(not trying to be argumentative, but, 90% of my old gaming group were all
army or ex-army and we all spent plenty of time debating guns and this kind
of stuff with the people that were civilians in the group because they have
preconceptions of how things work, and once you've been around it, it's
pretty tough not to try to correct those preconceptions)

From:	arclight@*********.de (Arclight)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:02:40 +0200

Message no. 26 At 01:07 22.08.2005, Derek Hyde wrote:

<snip>

>And a canadian sniper team set the world record over in Iraq recently by
>obtaining a confirmed kill at 1500 meters

USMC Gunnery Sergeant Carlos N. Hathcock is still unrivaled with a
confirmed kill on 2500 yards with equals 2286,1 meters...

--
Arclight

Quitters never win, winners never quit,
but those who never quit and never win are idiots

From:	derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:49:25 -0500

Message no. 27 >> And a canadian sniper team set the world record over in Iraq recently by
>> obtaining a confirmed kill at 1500 meters
>
> USMC Gunnery Sergeant Carlos N. Hathcock is still unrivaled with a
> confirmed kill on 2500 yards with equals 2286,1 meters...

My bad....the canadian sniper team was 2430 meters, not 1500 meters...they
trumped his shot with an actual sniper rifle, not a M2 Browning Machinegun
with a 10x scope on it

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/KillingShot_2430Metres.asp

http://www.riflebarrels.com/articles/50calibre/50sniping.htm

There are two sites both documenting the story, the marine's shot was an
amazing one, but, it's been trumped by a bit....

From:	loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject:	The new SR4 map (removed spoilers)
Date:	Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:23:09 +0100

Message no. 28 At 12:07 AM 8/22/2005, you wrote:
>Nope, you don't, the Barret Model 121 is a .50 sniper rifle, and would be in
>reality considered an Anti-Material rifle) the only thing you'd have to
>tweak was the damage and range if you wanted to introduce something like the
>AW-Magnum which is a .338 Lapua, which can reliably hit nearly as far out as
>the .50 BMG sniper rifles and hits with considerable force at that range,
>you'd have to introduce a class of "heavy sniper rifles" with longer range
>and more damage, then make the AWM one of those with more recoil reduction
>than the rest of them.

Does this help at all?
It's somewhat outdated ATM but I haven't got round to publishing the
current version...
Note also that the mention at the bottom of extreme range should read
maximum range.
http://www.wyrmtalk.co.uk/houserules.html

Finally, for those of us who aren't running Internet Exploder I'm afraid
the tables don't quite work right.

--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE 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-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer