Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Chipeloi)
Subject: Up/DOWNgrading the game
Date: Mon May 21 20:00:01 2001
OK now ppl i've read most of the post lately and i got an question:
The posts i'm referring to are like the chipejack expert driver
Now a lot of ppl say: it to powerful so the Best thing to do is to
downgrade it/ make it harder to get/ put a few disadvantages in it

And i see that with a lot of things also with a few things a hear from
gurth, and then when i ask ok you downgrade that why not balance
the downgrade with a Upgrade for something that is just to
expensive/hard to get/ to much essence ect

The answer most if not all ppl give is : it is in the rules so it "fine"
Now i don't get this you are willing to make something that is in
your opinion to to "good"/ to cheap/ to easy abused harder to get
"downgrade" it and not the other way around

And i'm sure some groups have done that but most ppl who post
gripe about things that are to good /ect
And when we got something like the pocketsec or decks like gurth
says they are way to expensive compared to the comps now
How many ppl would change it in there campaigns not a lot i think...

Why not? wel maybe they don;t want there players to get it to
easy or they just don't want to make the trouble for it i don't know
but i think that if you downgrade something you need to upgrade an
other ...

But as gurth put it: "I'm not downgrading anything i'm trying to
balance it" yes ok nice thought but if i ask to upgrade the overdrive
chips he says :" no way its in the rules so we keep it that way"..
Wel ok this might work but not for me and a lot of ppl do it that way


Now my questions are:

1: does anyone understand what i mean
2: Did anyone get the point?
3: Does anyone have an answer?

--
>If you thought Chipeloi was crazy just wait till you meet me !
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damion Milliken)
Subject: Up/DOWNgrading the game
Date: Tue May 22 00:05:01 2001
Chipeloi writes:

> 1: does anyone understand what i mean
> 2: Did anyone get the point?
> 3: Does anyone have an answer?

I think I understand what you mean, Chipeloi. When someone encounters a
problem in the game that revolves around game balance, they often choose to
reduce the bonus, rather than increase the penalty. In the case of the CED,
I decided to reduce the bonus that it gave. I could have decided to make it
cost 10 times as much, but still provide the same bonus. Both of these
situations would have probably maintained game balance.

I think that the response taken in each instance depends upon the 'realism'
of the options available. I couldn't justify making the CED simply cost
more nuyen or Essence, as I couldn't justify what it did in game terms even
then.

In response to your query, I took a look through my house rules. I counted
42 rules that make something either more powerful or more readily available
or attractive, and only 22 rules that limited or decreased the capabilities
of something. This is, of course, somewhat arbitrary, but I think it shows
that fixing "dud" things in the rules as at least as much of a priority to
me as fixing "overpowerful" things.

For instance, how many people have ever used a Laser Crescent Axe in
preference to the much cheaper, and much better in game terms, Combat Axe?
Is the Combat Axe too good, or the Laser Crescent Axe too poor? In my
games, the Laser Crescent Axe recieves the armour piercing bonus. I could
have decided to increase the cost of the Combat Axe, or reduce the damage,
or reach, or whatever, to make the two items balanced, but I instead went
the other way. To me, the Combat Axe was perfectly reasonable as written.
It was illogical to reduce the bonuses it gave. Therefore, it was the Laser
Cresecent Axe that was too suckworthy, and needed to be boosted.

I think that we just see a lot more of "this item's too powerful" because, at
heart, we're all munchkins and powergamers, so these things are more obvious
to us. Or perhaps our players are more munchkinous and powergamerous, so we
more often see such overbalanced problems, rather than seeing underbalanced
problems.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong
Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: dam01@***.edu.au
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d- s++:-- a24 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------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Up/DOWNgrading the game, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!