Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Joe McNulty <mcnultyj@****.JMB.COM>
Subject: Vehicles (Ugh!)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 10:58:43 CST
I was wondering if anyone out there has come up with any alternate vehicle
rules.
We were trying to incorp vehicles again last week, and as usual we got very
frustrated, and basically we think the rules suck. Mainly what I'm looking
for is something that the vehicles move during the turn, and some sort of
Movement points system.

The concept we came up with in 1/2 hr was to take the vehicles current speed,
divide it by the number of phases, and have it move that much each phase.
Then, the controlling character would get a number of action points equal
to either quickness of 1/2 quick, chars jacked or rigger would get full or
2x quickness. then each manuever would cost a certain amount of action points
to perform.

Thats about it. Any ideas?

Joe
Message no. 2
From: Role Playing Manager <moria@*****.EERIE.FR>
Subject: Re: Vehicles (Ugh!)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 18:23:48 GMT
I know that a special channel was create on BITNET here, a channel called
KAGE-CAR. This channel was dedicated to new rules fo cars. But no digest
exists now. Only all the mail are available on on ftp site, but don't ask
me where.

Jason Carter ( Hi! Nightstalker) was one of the great member of this list.
Perhaps he is more appropriated to answer you.


Ben - NightWolf

-=-=-

+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Benjamin Legangneux | "How can you find your way in the shadows, |
| | If you have no light ?" |
| e-mail : moria@*****.fr | |
| legangne@*****.fr | Michael Styx - Tales of the Black Dove |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Message no. 3
From: Paolo Marcucci <marcucci@***.TS.ASTRO.IT>
Subject: Re: Vehicles (Ugh!)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 18:24:13 MET
>
> I know that a special channel was create on BITNET here, a channel called
> KAGE-CAR. This channel was dedicated to new rules fo cars. But no digest
> exists now. Only all the mail are available on on ftp site, but don't ask
> me where.
>
> Jason Carter ( Hi! Nightstalker) was one of the great member of this list.
> Perhaps he is more appropriated to answer you.
>
>
> Ben - NightWolf
>

It was on a listserv, and I think I have all the logs somewhere on my disk.
It's about 270k compressed.

Can I post it? :)

--
_____________________________________________________________________
Paolo Marcucci Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste
marcucci@***.ts.astro.it Via G.B. Tiepolo, 11 - 34134 Trieste, Italy
marcucci@***.trieste.it Ph. +39-40-3199215 Fax: +39-40-309418
_____________________________________________________________________
Message no. 4
From: Role Playing Manager <moria@*****.EERIE.FR>
Subject: Re: Vehicles (Ugh!)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 18:44:56 GMT
Paolo

I think you must not post it to the list....
It's dangerous...

Or if you like to be thwap by everybody, do it!!!


Ben - NightWolf

-=-=-

+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Benjamin Legangneux | "How can you find your way in the shadows, |
| | If you have no light ?" |
| e-mail : moria@*****.fr | |
| legangne@*****.fr | Michael Styx - Tales of the Black Dove |
+-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Message no. 5
From: The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicles (Ugh!)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 14:25:30 -0600
>I was wondering if anyone out there has come up with any alternate vehicle
>rules.

Yes. They're called GURPS Vehicles :)

>We were trying to incorp vehicles again last week, and as usual we got very
>frustrated, and basically we think the rules suck. Mainly what I'm looking
>for is something that the vehicles move during the turn, and some sort of
>Movement points system.

Could you elaborate on what makes the current guidelines for determing
the outcome of events involving vehicles "suck"? If you want points,
play Car Fleet Battles.

>The concept we came up with in 1/2 hr was to take the vehicles current speed,
>divide it by the number of phases, and have it move that much each phase.

You're missing the point of the rules: Clear and simple execution of
maneuvers. Rather than map out movement extensivley to an exact degree,
the players and GM describe what they want to do roll dice to
determine the success of their intended course.

Example 1

GM: OK, you're blazing down Ruston Way, coming around downtown and heading north
past Definace Point.It's midnight and only one other car besides that of the
assasins pursuing you is on the road.

Rigger: OK, can we jump off Ruston onto a parallel side street, after swerving
to put the other car between us?

GM: Sure. First action, roll vs TN of enemy driving skill. Then roll vs
TN 8 and make a body test for the vehicle when you land.

Example 2

As above, replace Rigger and 2nd GM quote with:

Rigger: OK, let's see if we can jump off Ruston. . .no, jut a point shy.
We'd end up broad to their arc of fire. Never mind.

GM: OK, they target your tires, but have to decelerate to avoid hitting the
other car. . .lesee, how many points is that. . .


IMO the current rules are adequate.


J Roberson
Message no. 6
From: Joe McNulty <mcnultyj@****.JMB.COM>
Subject: Re: Vehicles (Ugh!)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 15:04:58 CST
> You're missing the point of the rules: Clear and simple execution of
> maneuvers. Rather than map out movement extensivley to an exact degree,
> the players and GM describe what they want to do roll dice to
> determine the success of their intended course.
>
[examples deleted]

>
> IMO the current rules are adequate.
>

Yes, the current rules are adequte for Vehicle to Vehicle combat. Maybe I should
have clarified, when vehicles mix with pedestrians it just doesn't make sense.

I could be traveleding 100km/hr, end the move 10m away from Mr. Street Pizza,
each get 3 actions during that turn to fire from 10m <I have a Sam riding shot-
gun>. And I could decide to not move next turn...

Next, If 2 opposing sides vehicles are fighting and peds are mixed in. One
vehicle attempting to cover the pedestrians, the other trying to kill.
Maneuvering is a little more important.

Also, what about drone movement? I could have a drone that rockets along,
happens to be within 30m of Street Sam who runs up to it and clobbers it,
even if he really only saw it just as it ended it move.

So, vehicle to vehicle is fine, but what about when footmen are added in?

Joe
Message no. 7
From: The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicles (Ugh!)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 22:53:43 -0600
>Yes, the current rules are adequte for Vehicle to Vehicle combat. Maybe I should
>have clarified, when vehicles mix with pedestrians it just doesn't make sense.

Initiative is the same across the board, whether astrally, physically,
virtually, or vehicularly. If you go on a 23 astrally and the samurai
moves on a 23, you go at the same time.

>I could be traveleding 100km/hr, end the move 10m away from Mr. Street Pizza,
>each get 3 actions during that turn to fire from 10m <I have a Sam riding shot-
>gun>. And I could decide to not move next turn...

I would have an obscene TN to go from 100 kph to 0, if I allowed it at all.
Is vehicle movement given per turn? If so, then simply divide the rate
of movement by the number of actions and that's how far the vehicle moves
per action (actions of whoever's in the car, that is.

Better yet, divide by the highest initiative rolled and go from there.

Example:
2 Samurai stand on opposite corners ready to blaze away at the PC car
(with politically correct logos spraypainted all over). Rigger (in car)
gets 14; his buddy the mage gets a six. The sams get 12 and 18
respectively. Car is moving 100m per turn., working out to about 5m
per phase (100/18= about 5, close enough for this example).

Vehicle is 100m away at 18. 95,90,85 and is 80 away at 14, and the
rigger triggers the MGs up front and misses because he didn't buy a
Starbucks {tm} gyro-stabilized espresso bar and hot job warms his chest.
75, 70m at 12 and the next sam blazes away, to find that his bullets make
a pleasant pinging sound. 65,60,55,50m at 8 and sam one ducks into the
building. The vehicle closes and is 40m at 6, 30 at 4, and 20 (GM rules
15 because of the quik 'n' easy dividing) at 2. It ends movement right
about where the sams were. New enish.

>Maneuvering is a little more important.

Map it out and ask the players what exactly they're doing. If it stretches
reality to much, just say no.


J Roberson
Message no. 8
From: Joe McNulty <mcnultyj@****.JMB.COM>
Subject: Re: Vehicles (Ugh!)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 08:12:36 CST
> Example:
> 2 Samurai stand on opposite corners ready to blaze away at the PC car
> (with politically correct logos spraypainted all over). Rigger (in car)
> gets 14; his buddy the mage gets a six. The sams get 12 and 18
> respectively. Car is moving 100m per turn., working out to about 5m
> per phase (100/18= about 5, close enough for this example).
>
> Vehicle is 100m away at 18. 95,90,85 and is 80 away at 14, and the
> rigger triggers the MGs up front and misses because he didn't buy a
> Starbucks {tm} gyro-stabilized espresso bar and hot job warms his chest.
> 75, 70m at 12 and the next sam blazes away, to find that his bullets make
> a pleasant pinging sound. 65,60,55,50m at 8 and sam one ducks into the
> building. The vehicle closes and is 40m at 6, 30 at 4, and 20 (GM rules
> 15 because of the quik 'n' easy dividing) at 2. It ends movement right
> about where the sams were. New enish.

That is similar to what I came up with, but I saw one problem. <Ok, I being
nitpicky... but its what I do...>
If the driver of the car has say an initiative of 6, He really shouldn't be
able to manuever the vehicle in reponse to the actions of those faster.
Hmmm.... I'll have to see if this really matters.

Thanks again,
Joe
Message no. 9
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Vehicles (Ugh!)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 00:17:09 +0930
[Example deleted]
>That is similar to what I came up with, but I saw one problem. <Ok, I being
>nitpicky... but its what I do...>
>If the driver of the car has say an initiative of 6, He really shouldn't be
>able to manuever the vehicle in reponse to the actions of those faster.
>Hmmm.... I'll have to see if this really matters.
>
>Thanks again,
>Joe
>
Well, following strict iniative rules, the lowest people declare their actions,
which can't be changed, and this goes up to the highest iniative. The actions
are then performed.
(I usually have a whiteboard around when I GM, so I write up the actions
there.)



--
Robert Watkins bob@******.cs.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 10
From: The Deb Decker <RJR96326@****.UTULSA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Vehicles (Ugh!)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 11:04:28 -0600
>If the driver of the car has say an initiative of 6, He really shouldn't be
>able to manuever the vehicle in reponse to the actions of those faster.
>Hmmm.... I'll have to see if this really matters.

He can't. Everyone else gets to shoot at the car freely until 6. But the
vehicle still moves forward. Just because it's moving doesn't mean the
driver is controlling it every step of the way.


J Roberson

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Vehicles (Ugh!), 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!