Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:34:43 -0700
A player of mine is under the impression that a vehicle can be created at
character creation, and that during the vehicle design process, the player
can choose to use either the design points or the customization. He does
this to get around the problem of armor being so expensive as a design
option but not nearly as expensive as being a customization option. I have
tried to tell him that during the design process, you can only use the
design points rules (except for options which don't list a design cost) but
he refuses to listen to logic.

Am I asking too much?

Here's what he's trying to do. He wants an APC for his character. He wants
the tracked version with a fuel cell engine. He wants to add 12 points of
vehicle armor to the APC to make it even more invulnerable to attacks.

During the design process, each point of armor costs 50 design points and
(Body2x5)kilograms. As the APC has a body of 7, we're looking at 245kg per
armor point or 2695kg for 11 points, which is well within the Load max of
6000. As I ruled that this particular APC was at least security (due to
ECM/ECCM suite) the mulitplier will be at least x2 for the Markup Factor.
This means that each armor point will end up costing 50x100x2¥ or 10,000¥.

The customisation process has the same load reduction, but each point of
armor costs 1250¥. There's also a Build/Repair test that goes along with
this, as well.

And that's why he wants to be able to use the customisation rules where it
fits for him. Keep in mind, this is all at character creation, where he
wouldn't be required to make any build/repair tests, etc. That's why I have
issues with it. You shouldn't get things for free at character creation, and
not having to make tests is one of those things.

As far as I'm concerned, at character creation, if you choose to design a
vehicle, you get to use the design points to design it. Once character
creation is over, and the game is being played, the customisation rules are
in effect (unless you want to design a new vehicle, etc).

Yes, I know I can just tell him no, so that isn't the answer I'm looking for
here.

(X-posted to SR livejournal.)

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 2
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:12:53 -0600
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:34:43 -0700, zebulingod <zebulingod@*******.net> wrote:
> A player of mine is under the impression that a vehicle can be created at
> character creation, and that during the vehicle design process, the player
> can choose to use either the design points or the customization. He does
> this to get around the problem of armor being so expensive as a design
> option but not nearly as expensive as being a customization option. I have
> tried to tell him that during the design process, you can only use the
> design points rules (except for options which don't list a design cost) but
> he refuses to listen to logic.
>
> Am I asking too much?

[snip: details]

> As far as I'm concerned, at character creation, if you choose to design a
> vehicle, you get to use the design points to design it. Once character
> creation is over, and the game is being played, the customisation rules are
> in effect (unless you want to design a new vehicle, etc).
>
> Yes, I know I can just tell him no, so that isn't the answer I'm looking for
> here.

I'm on your side. IMHO during the character creation process you are
creating/designing *everything*. <chuckle> You could give him the
option of using the customization rules for the vehicle *if* he also
uses the skill/attribute cost formulas for increasing skills and
attributes (instead of the 1:1 cost during character "design") ;)

Anyway, that's my arguement. He is in essence designing the
character, not customizing the character (which takes place *during*
the game). The same philosophy that applies to character creation
should apply to *all* aspects of character creation, so he should use
the design rules to design his character's vehicle, not the
customization rules.

Also, the customization rules are used to customize something that's
already built and in the game. Since his character's vehicle isn't in
the game during character creation, he can't use the customization
rules.

--
-Graht
Message no. 3
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:17:47 +0200
Le 28 juil. 2004, à 18:34, zebulingod a écrit :

> A player of mine is under the impression that a vehicle can be created
> at
> character creation, and that during the vehicle design process, the
> player
> can choose to use either the design points or the customization. He
> does
> this to get around the problem of armor being so expensive as a design
> option but not nearly as expensive as being a customization option. I
> have
> tried to tell him that during the design process, you can only use the
> design points rules (except for options which don't list a design
> cost) but
> he refuses to listen to logic.
>
> Am I asking too much?


Well, actually you're wrong on one point. As stated in Rigger 3, the
vehicle design rules are not made so that characters get to design
their own vehicles at chargen. They're made so that a player or a GM
can design a vehicle that's being produced by a corporation (prototype,
limited run or mass-produced, you decide, however anything the two
former options give you a price multiplier, availability modifiers and
sometimes some other various quirks), and that anyone, given the right
permits, authorizations and amounts of money, can buy. IOW: if it's
good enough at what it does, chances are high the character won't have
been the only one to notice.

Aside from that, you're mostly right. Designing a vehicle must be done
by using the design rules. Customization comes into play after the
vehicle goes in production, when people buy it, decide they don't like
some part of it and go get their tools.
There is one loophole, however. The customization rules can be used
right after the vehicle is bought, even during chargen (which is what
almost every rigger will do, given that very few vehicles come with
rigger adaptation, and that a large number of drones are pretty much
useless unless customized).
If you allow your player to control the design process, he'll have it
be an unarmored APC (would that be an UPC?), then have his character
buy it and customize it (adding armor) during chargen. Back to square
one.

That's where the part of the rules that say "all player-created
[insert item category] require GM approval" comes into play. The very
concept of an unarmored APC is ridiculous. No company in their right
mind would ever think of designing, let alone producing and selling
such a thing. And if they did, they'd probably go under after selling,
well... Zero of them, as no army in their right mind would ever think
of buying such a thing.
Considering the armor ratings of the Ares (City|Mob)Master series
(which are much lighter -- Body 5 -- vehicles), it's safe to assume an
"off-the-shelf" APC will have at least 10 Armor, probably more.

And if your player complains, remind him that you're already doing him
a big favor by letting him have an APC, as those toys are
military-grade vehicles which according to Rigger 3 shouldn't even have
Street Indexes and Availability ratings.

(be sure to pick up the R3 to R3R conversion guide at
http://www.srrpg.com/ , by the way -- it fixes a lot of availability
ratings and SI's, among other things)

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 4
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:44 +0200
According to zebulingod, on Wednesday 28 July 2004 18:34 the word on the
street was...

> I have tried to tell him that during the design process, you can
> only use the design points rules (except for options which don't list a
> design cost) but he refuses to listen to logic.

That's the way I'd handle it, too: you use either one or the other, but not
both at the same time.

> Yes, I know I can just tell him no, so that isn't the answer I'm looking
> for here.

Uhh... what answer _are_ you looking for, then? Your post, when I read it,
seems to say "Here's what he wants to do. Would you allow it, yes or no?"

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 5
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:16:40 +0200
According to Graht, on Wednesday 28 July 2004 19:12 the word on the street
was...

> Also, the customization rules are used to customize something that's
> already built and in the game. Since his character's vehicle isn't in
> the game during character creation, he can't use the customization
> rules.

So how do you handle it if a player, during character creation, wants to
have a standard Ford Americar with some armor and a souped-up engine in
it? Do you figure out the vehicle's points cost and modify that, have him
design the vehicle from the ground up (so it ends up with the same stats
as the Americar), or take the easy route and charge nuyen on top of the
Americar's purchase price instead?

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 6
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:20:06 +0200
According to Max Noel, on Wednesday 28 July 2004 19:17 the word on the
street was...

> Well, actually you're wrong on one point. As stated in Rigger 3, the
> vehicle design rules are not made so that characters get to design
> their own vehicles at chargen. They're made so that a player or a GM
> can design a vehicle that's being produced by a corporation

And...? All that requires is the player saying "My character has an Ares-GD
TigerHawkKillerSnail Mark 16L APC". The GM will reply along the lines of,
"A what?!" and the player can say "Here are the stats I designed for it
using Rigger 3."

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 7
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:41:37 -0600
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:16:40 +0200, Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Graht, on Wednesday 28 July 2004 19:12 the word on the street
> was...
>
> > Also, the customization rules are used to customize something that's
> > already built and in the game. Since his character's vehicle isn't in
> > the game during character creation, he can't use the customization
> > rules.
>
> So how do you handle it if a player, during character creation, wants to
> have a standard Ford Americar with some armor and a souped-up engine in
> it? Do you figure out the vehicle's points cost and modify that, have him
> design the vehicle from the ground up (so it ends up with the same stats
> as the Americar), or take the easy route and charge nuyen on top of the
> Americar's purchase price instead?

Okay, I got distracted at work and lost track of my real arguement.
Please ignore the quoted paragraph above :)

In the example you mentioned, I would let the player use the
customization rules to customize the Ford Ameicar.

However, in the example Zebulingod used I would not let the player use
both the design rules *and* the customization rules to make the APC
unless the player could come up with something other than, "It doesn't
say I can't do it in the rules." If, however, the player came up with
a good background story like, "My character stole the APC from so and
so and then with the help of his contact (insert name here) he
customized it, beefing up the armor," then I would let him use both
the design rules (to create the factory APC in the first place) and
the customization rules to "create" it for his character.

It doesn't sound like Z's player is using character background as an
arguement tho, just trying to take advantage of the rules and
powergame. And in any case I wouldn't let him use the customization
rules to pay for all of the APC's armor, as some of the armor has to
come from the design rules (the factory build as it were).

Okay, I think I got it right this time :)

--
-Graht
Message no. 8
From: msde_shadowrn@*****.com (Mark S)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Max Noel, on Wednesday 28 July 2004 19:17 the word on
> the
> street was...
>
> > Well, actually you're wrong on one point. As stated in Rigger 3,
> the
> > vehicle design rules are not made so that characters get to design
> > their own vehicles at chargen. They're made so that a player or a
> GM
> > can design a vehicle that's being produced by a corporation
>
> And...? All that requires is the player saying "My character has an
> Ares-GD
> TigerHawkKillerSnail Mark 16L APC". The GM will reply along the lines
> of,
> "A what?!" and the player can say "Here are the stats I designed for
> it
> using Rigger 3."

And then the GM says "You can't have it *OR* the Panther Assault
Cannon." 12 points of armor feels military grade to me, but I don't
know my rigger 3.

Mark

PS - Does the original poster seriously have a player trying to drive
around in an APC with 12 points of armor? I'd almost let him have it
out of spite, just for not knowing the difference between armor and
concealed armor.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 9
From: james@****.uow.edu.au (James Niall Zealey)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:26:11 +1000
> Subject:
> Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
> From:
> "zebulingod" <zebulingod@*******.net>
> Date:
> Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:34:43 -0700
> To:
> "'Shadowrun Discussion'" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
>
> To:
> "'Shadowrun Discussion'" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
>
>
> A player of mine is under the impression that a vehicle can be created at
> character creation, and that during the vehicle design process, the player
> can choose to use either the design points or the customization. He does
> this to get around the problem of armor being so expensive as a design
> option but not nearly as expensive as being a customization option. I have
> tried to tell him that during the design process, you can only use the
> design points rules (except for options which don't list a design cost) but
> he refuses to listen to logic.
>

Which your argument unfortunately isn't. What do the design point rules
represent? They represent industrial grade design and manufacturing.
What do the customisation rules represent? Home-grown tinkering.

There are precisely zero rules which support your side of the arguement.

> Am I asking too much?
>

Yes. Tell him he can't use the design point rules. Otherwise you end up
with horrible horrible brokenness. No, really, I'm serious. The DP rules
allow you to assign a cost to something that you made up. If you
approach them from the rules end of things (ie - try to min max with
them) they totally fall apart.

For instance - your player is actually being quite easy on you. If he
wanted to be nasty, he'd have used the DP rules to design a drone which
mounted a weapon turret, all his electronic devices and a high-power
sensor suite, then hard wired it onto his vehicle. Why? It gives him a
90% price break on every component in the drone.

Other items are the absurd price of built-in armour for decent sized
vehicles (10,000 a point! What??), or the ludicrously low price of
performance enhancements.

Just make him buy a vehicle and then vamp it up with customisation. If
you're feeling nice, then ask him what sort of stock model he wants to
buy, and design it for him. Don't make the rolls for customisation -
they just tell you how long it took to make something, not how much it
cost, or whether it got done, assume he spent as much time as it needed.

Or, let him use the lot and expect monstrosities. I can't really see a
justification for only allowing factory-level production of a vehicle
from scratch, and then disallowing modifications to the vehicle in
operations which require far less than that.
Message no. 10
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:56:25 -0700
Mark S wrote:
>
> PS - Does the original poster seriously have a player trying
> to drive around in an APC with 12 points of armor? I'd
> almost let him have it out of spite, just for not knowing the
> difference between armor and concealed armor.
>
>

Yes, that's what they're trying to do.

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 11
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:50:43 +0200
According to Graht, on Wednesday 28 July 2004 20:41 the word on the street
was...

> Okay, I got distracted at work and lost track of my real arguement.

I think that's happened to all of us, and probably more than once, too :)

> However, in the example Zebulingod used I would not let the player use
> both the design rules *and* the customization rules to make the APC
> unless the player could come up with something other than, "It doesn't
> say I can't do it in the rules."

And I agree with that.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 12
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:54:53 +0200
According to Mark S, on Wednesday 28 July 2004 22:26 the word on the street
was...

> And then the GM says "You can't have it *OR* the Panther Assault
> Cannon." 12 points of armor feels military grade to me, but I don't
> know my rigger 3.

After which the player replies "It has an Availability of 8 or less, so I
can have it as part of chargen..." (Hey, if you're going to design
something like this, you do it right, right? :)

> PS - Does the original poster seriously have a player trying to drive
> around in an APC with 12 points of armor? I'd almost let him have it
> out of spite, just for not knowing the difference between armor and
> concealed armor.

My group, back when I was playing instead of GMing, stole^H^H^H^H^H got
hold of an Ares CityMaster, which we decided to paint and modify
(externally) to resemble a generic DocWagon-style ambulance. Our reasoning
was that that way, we could drive it on the street without too many people
wondering about what an APC was doing there.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 13
From: msde_shadowrn@*****.com (Mark S)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Mark S, on Wednesday 28 July 2004 22:26 the word on the
> street
> was...
>
> > And then the GM says "You can't have it *OR* the Panther Assault
> > Cannon." 12 points of armor feels military grade to me, but I
> don't
> > know my rigger 3.
>
> After which the player replies "It has an Availability of 8 or less,
> so I
> can have it as part of chargen..." (Hey, if you're going to design
> something like this, you do it right, right? :)

What is the availability on a 12 armor vehicle? I was sure it's
considered military grade, since he's putting the armor on during
character generation. Are the rigger 3 availability ratings that
broken?

> > PS - Does the original poster seriously have a player trying to
> drive
> > around in an APC with 12 points of armor? I'd almost let him have
> it
> > out of spite, just for not knowing the difference between armor and
> > concealed armor.
>
> My group, back when I was playing instead of GMing, stole^H^H^H^H^H
> got
> hold of an Ares CityMaster, which we decided to paint and modify
> (externally) to resemble a generic DocWagon-style ambulance. Our
> reasoning
> was that that way, we could drive it on the street without too many
> people
> wondering about what an APC was doing there.

I could see that working if it was actually a CityMaster, and not some
custom rig. This is some custom built APC with no armor, retrofitted
so that it has twice? the armor of a typical APC. It's like driving
around in a stretch Hummer. You can put any paint job on it you want,
people are still going to laugh at it.

Mark




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 14
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:00:32 +0200
Le 29 juil. 2004, à 18:15, Mark S a écrit :

> What is the availability on a 12 armor vehicle? I was sure it's
> considered military grade, since he's putting the armor on during
> character generation. Are the rigger 3 availability ratings that
> broken?

Yes, because they're based solely on the (nuyen) cost of a vehicle.
The exact formula is Avail = max(2, Cost/20000), rounded up. However,
the rules also state that the GM should resort to common sense when it
comes to security- or military-grade vehicles and gear, and up the
availability and street index accordingly.
Which wasn't done at all in the original version of the book,
resulting in the SR3 equivalent of the SR2 plastic handcuffs scam. You
bought a Lone Star Strato-9's (30 000¥, availability 3), stripped off
the sensors package (rating 5 -- 15 000¥, avail. 8) and the medium
machine gun (5 000¥, avail. 10 -- that's the only way to get one at
chargen), put them on a better vehicle (alternative: give the MMG to
your friendly neighborhood troll street sam) and used whatever remained
as spare parts or as a cheap, disposable rotodrone.

> I could see that working if it was actually a CityMaster, and not some
> custom rig. This is some custom built APC with no armor, retrofitted
> so that it has twice? the armor of a typical APC. It's like driving
> around in a stretch Hummer. You can put any paint job on it you want,
> people are still going to laugh at it.

Actually (I forgot to mention it in my last post), the APC chassis
come with an Armor rating of 6, which means no APC can have less than
that. However, you still have a point: even like that it'd be
ridiculous, given that even a Citymaster (which is only a
security-grade vehicle) comes with a whopping 10 armor and that an APC
is both bigger and military-grade.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 15
From: geoff@*************.co.uk (Euphonium)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:40:18 +0100
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "zebulingod" <zebulingod@*******.net>
>To: "'Shadowrun Discussion'" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 5:34 PM
>Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
>

>A player of mine is under the impression that a vehicle can be
created at
>character creation, and that during the vehicle design process, the
player
>can choose to use either the design points or the customization.
[snip]

Personally, I wouldn't allow a custom-designed vehicle at CHR-gen with
normal-power starting characters. I would say the player can take
any stock vehicle that doesn't exceed the starting availability level
limit (availability 8?) and customise it according to the
customisation rules (availability applies to parts too). Having a
custom designed- and built- from scratch vehicle of any sort just
seems... err.... ....innapropriate.

I might consider bending a little for a VERY good back story though.

This is of course, just IMHO
Message no. 16
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:44:39 +0200
According to Mark S, on Thursday 29 July 2004 18:15 the word on the street
was...

> What is the availability on a 12 armor vehicle?

The armor alone, if you want to add it as a customization, has 6/12 days in
my original edition of Rigger 3. However, if you build a vehicle from
scratch its Availability is its purchase price divided by 20,000, rounded
up -- so anything that costs 160,000 nuyen or less can be had at character
creation. It's pretty easy to build a vehicle with armor 12 within this
limit, I think, although you may have to leave out other desirable stuff.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 17
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:46:35 +0200
According to Max Noel, on Thursday 29 July 2004 19:00 the word on the
street was...

> the SR2 plastic handcuffs scam

I must have missed that one. What do you mean?

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 18
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:54:03 +0200
Le 30 juil. 2004, à 10:46, Gurth a écrit :

> According to Max Noel, on Thursday 29 July 2004 19:00 the word on the
> street was...
>
>> the SR2 plastic handcuffs scam
>
> I must have missed that one. What do you mean?

In the SR2 core rulebook, plastic handcuffs are listed (due to a typo)
as costing zero nuyen. So a character could theoretically buy an
infinite number of them, resell them on the black market, for infinite
profit.

Now, the fact that you're not aware of it leads me to believe that
this was either a typo specific to the French version of SR2, or
something someone in my group actually misread, leading us to laugh for
years about something that never existed in the first place. IOW, I may
be wrong.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 19
From: crowley@*********.ch (Michael Schmidt)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:17:45 +0200
Max Noel schrieb:

> In the SR2 core rulebook, plastic handcuffs are listed (due to a
> typo) as costing zero nuyen. So a character could theoretically buy an
> infinite number of them, resell them on the black market, for infinite
> profit.
>
> Now, the fact that you're not aware of it leads me to believe that
> this was either a typo specific to the French version of SR2, or
> something someone in my group actually misread, leading us to laugh for
> years about something that never existed in the first place. IOW, I may
> be wrong.

At least in the German SR2 the survival knife for 450Y comes with a
trauma patch in the grip container, and list price for trauma patches is
500Y. So I ruled that dumping the empty survival knifes costs at least
60Y each.

I guess the rules are full of more or less obvious loopholes. And as
role players are a bunch of very creative chummers, they find a way to
exploit you (and the rule authors) would never have imagined. That's
what gamemaster's discretion is for.
Message no. 20
From: mestre_bira@***.com.br (Bira)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:50:36 +0000
Michael Schmidt wrote:
>
>
> I guess the rules are full of more or less obvious loopholes. And as
> role players are a bunch of very creative chummers, they find a way to
> exploit you (and the rule authors) would never have imagined. That's
> what gamemaster's discretion is for.
>
>

And if this sort of thing becomes an ongoing battle between GM and
players, maybe it's time to find better players.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 21
From: failhelm@*****.com (failhelm)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
>>zebulingod <zebulingod@*******.net> wrote:
>>
>>[SNIP]
>>
>>Here's what he's trying to do. He wants an APC for his character. He wants
>>the tracked version with a fuel cell engine. He wants to add 12 points of
>>vehicle armor to the APC to make it even more invulnerable to attacks.

Can't you impose the No rating above 6 rule? - I have this apply to a lot of stuff -
Players try their hardest to find ways around it but if you keep on your stuff you can
really keep them under control.

Another option is to just not allow customized stuff @ creation - I once made a cyberdeck
with insane stats @ start - even though the MPCP was only 6 I had my character program
every Utility under the sun - and only paid OCC and burning costs - which I later made up
for by selling the source code ;o

>>[SNIP]
>>
>>(X-posted to SR livejournal.)
>>
>>Zebulin
>>
>>"Per Ardua ad Astra"



---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://warthog.dumpshock.com/pipermail/shadowrn/attachments/604075eb/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
Message no. 22
From: geoff@*************.co.uk (Euphonium)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:15:46 +0100
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
>To: "Shadowrun Discussion" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
>Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 9:54 AM
>Subject: Re: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or
Customise?
>

>My group, back when I was playing instead of GMing, stole^H^H^H^H^H
got
>hold of an Ares CityMaster, which we decided to paint and modify
>(externally) to resemble a generic DocWagon-style ambulance. Our
reasoning
>was that that way, we could drive it on the street without too many
people
>wondering about what an APC was doing there.

We just stole a DocWagon HTR ambulance that was in for maintenance.
It's been very handy, especially since our rigger is quite a good
paramedic. She's customised it further by making the lights
retractable, and using colour-switchable polymers to replace the
DocWagon & ambulance markings, so at the flick of a switch, she goes
from driving an unmarked white van to an Ambulance, and back.
Message no. 23
From: greenripper13@*******.com (Green Ripper)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:07:25 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
To: "Shadowrun Discussion" <shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?


According to Max Noel, on Wednesday 28 July 2004 19:17 the word on the
street was...

> Well, actually you're wrong on one point. As stated in Rigger 3, the
> vehicle design rules are not made so that characters get to design
> their own vehicles at chargen. They're made so that a player or a GM
> can design a vehicle that's being produced by a corporation

And...? All that requires is the player saying "My character has an Ares-GD
TigerHawkKillerSnail Mark 16L APC". The GM will reply along the lines of,
"A what?!" and the player can say "Here are the stats I designed for it
using Rigger 3."

--

That'a a pretty easy argument to refute. The player is not Ares. I
terms of my game the GM is the company, policlub, terror cell, crime
organization. etc.

--Green Ripper
Message no. 24
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:47:12 +0200
According to Green Ripper, on Thursday 29 July 2004 01:07 the word on the
street was...

> --

Could you please not use two dashes followed by a space as a reply
separator? :) Well-behaved mailers assume that's where the signature
starts, and so strip everything below it from the reply message...

> That'a a pretty easy argument to refute. The player is not Ares. I
> terms of my game the GM is the company, policlub, terror cell, crime
> organization. etc.

True, but OTOH, if the GM allows, say, vehicles taken from web sites or
net.sourcebooks to appear in the game, then banning a player-designed
vehicle would be a bit strange.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 25
From: caseless@*****.com (Stephen Allee)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:16:34 -0700
Ummm...

I _am_ the "unreasonable player.

The debate about the APC actually devolved from examining the
Roadmaster / Citymaster variable equipment. The actual point of
discussion was whether or not a character (still in concept, not yet
being put together, by the by), could do the following:

-Design a vehicle from scratch.
-Build modular packs using the vehicle custimization rules

I was looking for th ability to bolt on additional components to
fulfill specific mission requirements, not build an über-APC.

The rules I remember from RBB-3 state that vehicles created through
the Design Points option are onlyfor mass-produced vehicles. For a
one-off vehicle, final cost should be doubled. Additionally, anything
military grade should have a final cost multiplier of x4. The APC
starts with 6 points of vehicle armor. The goal was to be able to
apply an additional 6 points or so of armor within a few hours forthe
rare occaisions when it is needed. As this is not a standard part of
the vehicle, it seemed like a better idea to buy it using the
customization rules and install it when needed. I was in the process
of designing other mission-specific packages for ground drones and
missile/rocket variants as well.

The goal was to design a broad range of specialized packages into a
basic modular chassis, sort of like the ones we have for HMMWV's,
rather than build several different specialized vehicles with
correspondingly higher optempo costs and loss of parts
interoperability. But, I guess I'm the bad guy for trying to simplify
my logistics ;)
Message no. 26
From: caseless@*****.com (Stephen Allee)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:35:49 -0700
Yup. That would be me. 12 points of armor, an APC, and several LMGs.

Of course, _our_ Seattle is currently overrun by (not even kidding)
semi-intelligent incredbly fast flesh eating zombies who bounce
standard LMG ammo and take 4 10-round shots of EX-Explosive (from said
LMG) before they go down. The city is shut down a la Bug City and the
zombies are circling ever closer.

Anyone else for an APC?

Of course, ZebulinGod neglected to mention those little details.
Message no. 27
From: pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:52:08 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Allee <caseless@*****.com>
Date: Friday, July 30, 2004 11:16 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?


> The goal was to design a broad range of specialized packages into a
> basic modular chassis, sort of like the ones we have for HMMWV's,
> rather than build several different specialized vehicles with
> correspondingly higher optempo costs and loss of parts
> interoperability. But, I guess I'm the bad guy for trying to simplify
> my logistics ;)

<geek>

It should be noted that the various HMMWV variants are *manufactured* that way, not
field-modified.

</geek>
Message no. 28
From: caseless@*****.com (Stephen Allee)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 21:05:07 -0700
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:52:08 -0400, John C. Penta <pentaj2@********.edu> wrote:

> It should be noted that the various HMMWV variants are *manufactured* that >way,
not field-modified.

Umm, sort of, but not really. There are several variants of the HMMWV
in production but the vehicle chassis is the same amongst the
different designations. Some of the engine components vary amongst the
different models, as are the body panels, but with the right
mission-oriented body kit and SKO (Sets, Kits, and Outfits), a
"standard" canvas-topped HMMWV can become one of the up-armored
infantry carriers, or an ambulance, or even an Avenger system. It's
more a matter of having the kits and the mechanics than anything else.
The biggest reason why a softback doesn't get turned into an uparmored
variant isn't cost or even time. It's just an absolute pain to get the
MTOE paperwork changes so you can order the parts.

(HMMWV stands for High-Mobility, Multi-purpose Multi-use Wheeled
Vehicle.It was designed from the ground up to be modular).
Message no. 29
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:08:48 +0200
According to John C. Penta, on Saturday 31 July 2004 05:52 the word on the
street was...

> It should be noted that the various HMMWV variants are *manufactured*
> that way, not field-modified.

Still, the idea of an add-on up-armor kit that can be installed quickly
does exist IRL -- they're available for German MAN military trucks and
Faun tank transporters, for example, and these are fairly widely used on
vehicles deployed to places like Kosovo and Afghanistan.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 30
From: crowley@*********.ch (Michael Schmidt)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:17:34 +0200
Gurth wrote:
>> That'a a pretty easy argument to refute. The player is not Ares. I
>>terms of my game the GM is the company, policlub, terror cell, crime
>>organization. etc.
>
>
> True, but OTOH, if the GM allows, say, vehicles taken from web sites or
> net.sourcebooks to appear in the game, then banning a player-designed
> vehicle would be a bit strange.

The problem already starts if you leave the tracks of the core book.
Assume all players own the core book and nothing more. Then a new player
joins the team. The new character starts with, let's say, with an MPUV.
The GM has never laid hands on the FOF and asks: "He has a what?!?"

An MPUV is not big trouble, but it's another category of equipment then
SR2 core rules, and so unbalances the game if not everyone has access to
the source book in question.

The main question should always be the why.
- Why does the player want this exotic piece of equipment.
- Why does he think, his character needs it.
- Why does he think, the character had the possibility to acquire it.

And if its custom build or designed by the player himself:
- Why should anybody produce this kind of equipment.

Rhein-Ruhr-Metall wouldn't produce a civilian heavily armored
Hover-Gauss-Carrier propelled by cereals, because there are not enough
elven rigger out there taking the legality troubles and buying it.
Message no. 31
From: crowley@*********.ch (Michael Schmidt)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:55:36 +0200
Bira schrieb:
> Michael Schmidt wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I guess the rules are full of more or less obvious loopholes. And as
>> role players are a bunch of very creative chummers, they find a way to
>> exploit you (and the rule authors) would never have imagined. That's
>> what gamemaster's discretion is for.
>>
>>
>
> And if this sort of thing becomes an ongoing battle between GM and
> players, maybe it's time to find better players.

Or make them to have faith in you.
When this kind of argument comes up in my group and there is time to
discuss, we discuss about it 2 to 5 minutes. If there is no time I say:
"I'm GM and we'll do it this way." Then there is at least one player who
say: "Well, he's ever been fair, he'll take care of us. Be it so."

The problem is your players see you as evil GM (TM). I believe in being
the good GM playing the bad guys. I believe in providing a good
challenge and I believe in having fun.
Message no. 32
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 08:10:38 -0600
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:35:49 -0700, Stephen Allee <caseless@*****.com> wrote:
>
[snip: armor plated zombies]
>
> Of course, ZebulinGod neglected to mention those little details.

But it doesn't matter, because Zebulingod was asking if it whether or
not it was allowable by the rules. And even so, if he wants to run a
game where the PCs are mice in the jungle, that's his choice. GMing
and campaign philosophy is a completely different topic.

--
-Graht
Message no. 33
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 18:30:54 +0200
From: "Max Noel" <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr>
> In the SR2 core rulebook, plastic handcuffs are listed (due to a typo)
> as costing zero nuyen. So a character could theoretically buy an
> infinite number of them, resell them on the black market, for infinite
> profit.

But who would pay more than 0¥ for plastic handcuffs on the balack market,
when you could buy them legally for 0¥?

I think it going to be a bad idea.

Lars
Message no. 34
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:18:33 +0200
According to Michael Schmidt, on Saturday 31 July 2004 15:17 the word on
the street was...

> The problem already starts if you leave the tracks of the core book.
> Assume all players own the core book and nothing more. Then a new player
> joins the team. The new character starts with, let's say, with an MPUV.
> The GM has never laid hands on the FOF and asks: "He has a what?!?"

I don't see the problem there -- the player who wants the MPUV obviously
has access to the book, so that means the book can be taken to the game
and made available to the GM. And in that case, everyone can know what it
is and what it does, so unfamiliarity shouldn't be an issue.

OTOH if the player had once seen this MPUV in a book owned by a third
party, and can't bring it to the game every time, it could be a problem
and IMHO the GM would be right in not allowing players access to it (on
the basis that the group doesn't have the stats for it, and so it's not
something that will be usable by anyone).

> An MPUV is not big trouble, but it's another category of equipment then
> SR2 core rules, and so unbalances the game if not everyone has access to
> the source book in question.

So you're saying that, since over half my current group does not own the
SR3 main rulebook, we should be playing another game entirely? :)

> The main question should always be the why.
> - Why does the player want this exotic piece of equipment.
> - Why does he think, his character needs it.
> - Why does he think, the character had the possibility to acquire it.

I tend to do things the other way around: Why does the GM think you
shouldn't have it. This is a lot less work all-round, because you only
have to make up reasons for disallowing a few things, instead of reasons
for having just about anything :)

> And if its custom build or designed by the player himself:
> - Why should anybody produce this kind of equipment.

That one is simple: if it's reasonable, it'll be available. If it's some
ungodly munchkin contraption, it's not reasonable, and so won't be
produced by anyone. Probably :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 35
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:40:12 +0200
Le 31 juil. 2004, à 18:30, Lars Wagner Hansen a écrit :

> But who would pay more than 0¥ for plastic handcuffs on the balack
> market,
> when you could buy them legally for 0¥?

Costs always change. The price for plastic handcuffs can't go down
anymore. Sooner or later it will raise, and then the character can sell
them for mathematically infinite profit. You just *can't* lose money in
that venture, that's the beauty of it ;)

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 36
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 20:05:08 +0200
From: "Max Noel" <maxnoel_fr@*****.fr>
> Le 31 juil. 2004, à 18:30, Lars Wagner Hansen a écrit :
>
> > But who would pay more than 0¥ for plastic handcuffs on the balack
> > market, when you could buy them legally for 0¥?
>
> Costs always change. The price for plastic handcuffs can't go down
> anymore. Sooner or later it will raise, and then the character can sell
> them for mathematically infinite profit. You just *can't* lose money in
> that venture, that's the beauty of it ;)

But the cost of the warehouse to store all your plastic handcuffs will break
you before the price will go over 0¥. At least if I'm the GM :-)

Lars
Message no. 37
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 21:37:35 +0200
Le 31 juil. 2004, à 20:05, Lars Wagner Hansen a écrit :

>> Costs always change. The price for plastic handcuffs can't go down
>> anymore. Sooner or later it will raise, and then the character can
>> sell
>> them for mathematically infinite profit. You just *can't* lose money
>> in
>> that venture, that's the beauty of it ;)
>
> But the cost of the warehouse to store all your plastic handcuffs will
> break
> you before the price will go over 0¥. At least if I'm the GM :-)

Indeed. That'd probably be the countermeasure I'd use too (well, if my
primary countermeasure of kicking the player in the groin fails to
work, that is). But hopefully, I'm not aware of this concept ever
getting further than proof-of-concept.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 38
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:41:23 -0700
Max Noel wrote:
>
> Indeed. That'd probably be the countermeasure I'd use
> too (well, if my primary countermeasure of kicking the player
> in the groin fails to work, that is). But hopefully, I'm not
> aware of this concept ever getting further than proof-of-concept.
>

Like someone trying to get away with not paying for a lifestyle at character
creation, and trying to use the rules to see if they'll kick him out? I've
had a player try that one, too.

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 39
From: ShadowRN@********.demon.co.uk (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:01:55 +0100
In article <200407282020.06501.gurth@******.nl>, Gurth <gurth@******.nl>
writes
>According to Max Noel, on Wednesday 28 July 2004 19:17 the word on the
>street was...
>> Well, actually you're wrong on one point. As stated in Rigger 3, the
>> vehicle design rules are not made so that characters get to design
>> their own vehicles at chargen. They're made so that a player or a GM
>> can design a vehicle that's being produced by a corporation
>
>And...? All that requires is the player saying "My character has an Ares-GD
>TigerHawkKillerSnail Mark 16L APC". The GM will reply along the lines of,
>"A what?!" and the player can say "Here are the stats I designed for it
>using Rigger 3."

And the reply is "...and as your character wakes up from the wonderful
dream, the design details of the TigerHawkKillerSnail slither from his
mind like morning mist, and he contemplates the grim reality of his
waking world."

I can and have designed warships (in concept) and they were completely
buildable - but that doesn't mean I've got my own destroyer parked down
in the harbour... the rules say what is possible, the GM says what's
actually in service.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 40
From: crowley@*********.ch (Michael Schmidt)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:01:26 +0200
Gurth schrieb:
> According to Michael Schmidt, on Saturday 31 July 2004 15:17 the word
> on the street was...
>>
> I don't see the problem there -- the player who wants the MPUV
> obviously has access to the book, so that means the book can be taken
> to the game and made available to the GM. And in that case, everyone
> can know what it is and what it does, so unfamiliarity shouldn't be
> an issue.

I don't mean unfamiliarity but balance. Okay, the MPUV is not really a
problem but a lot of equipment in add-on source books is just another
league than core book equipment. That does not mean that I disallow
this equipment. It's just that I want everything, which can be owned by
my players, can also be owned by their enemies. It's unbalancing if my
players own cyberware from M&M and the NPCs are just outfitted with core
book cyberware because I don't have a M&M copy at hand when I prepare
the sessions. Of course it's the same vice versa.

The group has to decide which power level the games should run in. So
prior the beginning of our campaigns we agree on the source books we use
equipment from and on the rules we use. This usually works quite good.

> So you're saying that, since over half my current group does not own
> the SR3 main rulebook, we should be playing another game entirely? :)

I did not say own, just have access to ;-)
If one player is allowed to choose equipment from a specific source book
at character creation, the other characters should be allowed to.
And if they are allowed to use this equipment, I need the source book
from time to time to equip my NPCs.

>> The main question should always be the why. - Why does the player
>> want this exotic piece of equipment. - Why does he think, his
>> character needs it. - Why does he think, the character had the
>> possibility to acquire it.
>
>
> I tend to do things the other way around: Why does the GM think you
> shouldn't have it. This is a lot less work all-round, because you
> only have to make up reasons for disallowing a few things, instead of
> reasons for having just about anything :)

Everyone owns an Ares Pred, so what. So there is no need to explain why,
but OTOH I have experienced that the players come up with better fleshed
out characters when they first have to think about why their characters
have some piece of equipment or a combination of skills. Creating a
character is a dialog between GM and player this way and it's worth the
effort.
Message no. 41
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:45:28 +0200
According to Michael Schmidt, on Sunday 01 August 2004 23:01 the word on
the street was...

> It's unbalancing if my
> players own cyberware from M&M and the NPCs are just outfitted with core
> book cyberware because I don't have a M&M copy at hand when I prepare
> the sessions. Of course it's the same vice versa.

What is this "preparing" you talk about? :) I think we're having a
discussion over this because of different GMing styles -- I fudge just
about everything at the moment I need it, instead of deciding in advance
who will have what -- which means I don't need the books, I just give the
NPCs, for example, initiative 6+2D6 without really wondering what kind of
cyberware they'd need to get that. As a result, I don't need to look in
books to do this sort of thing, and so don't have a problem with players
taking gear from a book that I may or may not always have access to.
(OTOH, I have the most extensive collection of SR books in my group, so
it's usually the other players who don't have access to a book :)

> The group has to decide which power level the games should run in. So
> prior the beginning of our campaigns we agree on the source books we use
> equipment from and on the rules we use. This usually works quite good.

I've always allowed players to take (very nearly) anything from the books,
as long as it's within the rules for things like Availability and ratings
at character creation. After that, if they can make the Availability roll,
or happen to find it somewhere, they can have it.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 42
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 07:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
--- Stephen Allee <caseless@*****.com> wrote:

> Yup. That would be me. 12 points of armor, an APC, and several
> LMGs.
>
> Of course, _our_ Seattle is currently overrun by (not even kidding)
> semi-intelligent incredbly fast flesh eating zombies who bounce
> standard LMG ammo and take 4 10-round shots of EX-Explosive (from
> said
> LMG) before they go down. The city is shut down a la Bug City and
> the
> zombies are circling ever closer.
>
> Anyone else for an APC?
>
> Of course, ZebulinGod neglected to mention those little details.

Hmmm... those sound familiar. Zebulin...? ;)

======Korishinzo
--evil GMs unite!



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 43
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 07:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
> Or make them to have faith in you.
> When this kind of argument comes up in my group and there is time
> to
> discuss, we discuss about it 2 to 5 minutes. If there is no time I
> say:
> "I'm GM and we'll do it this way." Then there is at least one
> player who
> say: "Well, he's ever been fair, he'll take care of us. Be it so."
>
> The problem is your players see you as evil GM (TM). I believe in
> being
> the good GM playing the bad guys. I believe in providing a good
> challenge and I believe in having fun.

The problem I have found with this is that players start depending on
your "good GMness" to save them from being stupid. They do things
that make no sense and then expect that the GM will save them because
the GM cares about campaign continuity and the player's fun.

My players know I am fair and just... brutaly so. If they do stupid
things, they will always pay for it, sometimes terminally. They
"know" that I never fudge dice (well I do, but never to hurt them,
and they don't ever know about it :> ). They know that I make my
NPCs realistic people, and I apply realism to my scenarios. Things
will be consistant with the context of the game, with cause and
effect relationships firmly in existence.

My players seem to universally fear my games while simultaneously
enjoying them. There is a palpable sense of risk whenever they sit
at my gaming table. The world I create for them is real, and not at
all friendly... to anyone.

To paraphrase a passage from one of my favorite books:

"It is best for a GM to be both loved and feared. If, however, the
GM must choose between them, it is better to be feared than loved."

:>

======Korishinzo
--Machiavelli was a genius





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 44
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 18:49:25 +0200
Le 2 août 2004, à 16:18, Ice Heart a écrit :

> Hmmm... those sound familiar. Zebulin...? ;)

Now, in all fairness, ours could be taken down with just heavy pistol
fire. Okay, lots of it. Sometimes, being the support character who
stays at home building radios has a dramatically positive effect on
life expectancy. :)

-- Wild_Cat
(still waiting for turn 6)
Message no. 45
From: mestre_bira@***.com.br (Bira)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 21:10:52 +0000
Ice Heart wrote:

> The problem I have found with this is that players start depending on
> your "good GMness" to save them from being stupid. They do things
> that make no sense and then expect that the GM will save them because
> the GM cares about campaign continuity and the player's fun.

I think it's more of a matter of talking to the players out of game and
explaining to them what the game is about, and what kind of campaign is
being run.

I've said it several times already, but I find this "players are the
enemy and must be policed"/"the GM is evil and must be tricked" attitude
sort of alien. I've been through all of this before, and I found my
gaming got much better once I got over it.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 46
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 21:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
> I think it's more of a matter of talking to the players out of game
> and explaining to them what the game is about, and what kind of
> campaign is being run.

You are blessed to have players this works with. Mine tend to nod
fervently, ensuring me they understand completely. Generally it
takes them at least 15 long minutes to forget everything I have said.
I shouldn't really complain, though, it used to take 30 seconds.
:p

> I've said it several times already, but I find this "players are
> the enemy and must be policed"/"the GM is evil and must be tricked"
> attitude sort of alien. I've been through all of this before, and >
I found my gaming got much better once I got over it.

No... my enemies are smart and must be eliminated. My player, OTOH,
are foolish and must be educated.

The GM is utterly Evil...

...and I long for players who can actually trick me. I mean really
catch me napping with a creative plan or use of skill/spell/device.
Not ~try~ and trick me with some rules loop-hole they found, or some
killer munchkin combo of min-maxed numbers; but an actual glimmer of
non-linear, creative thought. Some trick that I did not see coming
and have to (gleefully) award karma for, as I marvel that they
managed to sneak up on me (mentally).

As to "getting over" anything...

Not likely. :)

This summer marks my 22nd year of gaming, and my 15th year of
Shadowrun GMing. If anything, I "got over" whatever kept me from the
Evil I now thoroughly enjoy.

======Korishinzo
--cue insane, mad-scientist laughter



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 47
From: mestre_bira@***.com.br (Bira)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:34:47 +0000
Ice Heart wrote:
>>I think it's more of a matter of talking to the players out of game
>>and explaining to them what the game is about, and what kind of
>>campaign is being run.
>
>
> You are blessed to have players this works with. Mine tend to nod
> fervently, ensuring me they understand completely. Generally it
> takes them at least 15 long minutes to forget everything I have said.
> I shouldn't really complain, though, it used to take 30 seconds.
> :p


In other places, the standard answer to the question of hopeless players
tends to be "find better players". And if there aren't any others
around, make some.


> No... my enemies are smart and must be eliminated. My player, OTOH,
> are foolish and must be educated.

It's still the same basic attitude. The relationship between GMs and
players is viewed as antagonical in some way or another. The particulars
tend to vary between groups, but it seems to me that all Shadowrun
groups operate in this same basic way after some time. The game is a
contest between the two sides where the GM defines the rules, and
anything he doesn't approve of is labeled "munchkin". There's an "arms
race" going on that's as bad as the one surrounding a few pieces of
software, with new "bugs" on the system being found daily and
precipitously "patched" by house rules.

It's gotten to the point it's the topic people talk about the most in
the Shadowrun forums I've seen (this one included). Every weird rule is
a potential disaster. Of course it's going to be exploited! Players
think it's the only way to "win the game", after all.

> The GM is utterly Evil...
>
> ...and I long for players who can actually trick me. I mean really
> catch me napping with a creative plan or use of skill/spell/device.

If you actually reward them for creativity whenever it happens, then you
are the blessed one :).

I've seen many GMs who just call it "munchkin" and treat it like any
other deviation from "canon" (be it rules or setting).
>
> Not likely. :)
>
> This summer marks my 22nd year of gaming, and my 15th year of
> Shadowrun GMing. If anything, I "got over" whatever kept me from the
> Evil I now thoroughly enjoy.

Well, this "Evil GM" schtick is usually a joke, but in my experience it
tends to get serious rather quickly in settings where the typical
session is similar to Shadowrun's.


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 48
From: crowley@*********.ch (Michael Schmidt)
Subject: Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:31:43 +0200
Ice Heart schrieb:
> No... my enemies are smart and must be eliminated. My player, OTOH,
> are foolish and must be educated.

Yes, often they are ;-)

> ...and I long for players who can actually trick me. I mean really
> catch me napping with a creative plan or use of skill/spell/device.
> Not ~try~ and trick me with some rules loop-hole they found, or some
> killer munchkin combo of min-maxed numbers; but an actual glimmer of
> non-linear, creative thought. Some trick that I did not see coming
> and have to (gleefully) award karma for, as I marvel that they
> managed to sneak up on me (mentally).

I view this as it's not really tricking the GM but the evil NPC. If I am
tricked by my players because I forgot to draw a motion detector on a
security map where definitely should be one, then there is one there
when they ask. Period.
I am not a security professional, so my knowledge is not equal to that
of my NPCs. I apply the "Common Sense" edge also to GM planning. But you
are right, if the players are really creative, they have to be awarded.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Vehicle Creation at Character Creation: Design or Customise?, 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!