Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu (S.F. Eley)
Subject:	VR 2.0?
Date:	Wed, 1 Nov 1995 00:47:20 -0500 (EST)

Message no. 1 Quick question.. Does anybody know when Virtual Realities 2.0 has been
scheduled for release? (I should say "this time.." I know it's been
delayed several times.)

I'm itching because the group's decker is fairly new and I've been holding
off on Matrix-heavy runs until the new rules come out, so I'd like to know
approx. when that will be. Thanks to any who answer.

Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu|"If the human brain was so simple that
My opinions are my opinions. | we could understand it, we would be so
Please don't blame anyone else. | simple that we wouldn't." - Emerson Pugh

From:	U-Gene <R3STG@***.CC.UAKRON.EDU>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0?
Date:	Thu, 02 Nov 95 10:32:42 EST

Message no. 2 S.F. Eley:
>Does anybody know when Virtual Realities 2.0 has been scheduled for
>release? (I should say "this time.." I know it has been delayed a
>couple of times)

Well not exactly, but I believe it's supposed to be out this month sometime.
_Supposedly_ :) But it also depends on where you live to I would imagine.
But I'm guessing you live in the US same as me. (Georgia Tech?)

>I'm itching because the group's decker is fairly new and I've been holding
>back on Matrix heavy runs until the new rules come out, so I'd like to know
>approx. when it will be. Thanks to any who answer.

No problem. But the conversion for deckers is supposed to be simple with
the new rules so that there doesn't have to be eraser holes in the decker
character sheet :) But of course if when you say "the group's decker is
fairly new", I don't know if you mean the decker _character_ is new or the
player playing the decker is new. I suspect you mean the latter.
Which would mean that you probably didn't want to confuse him with the
new rules if you start playing with the old ones until VR 2.0 comes out.
In which case you would be just gambling on when it comes in. Good Luck :)

But I babble on.

U-Gene << Also awaiting VR 2.0 as he considers the lit match under VR 1.0 >>

From:	"Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0?
Date:	Fri, 3 Nov 1995 12:16:50 +0100

Message no. 3 U-Gene said on 2 Nov 95...

> >Does anybody know when Virtual Realities 2.0 has been scheduled for
> >release? (I should say "this time.." I know it has been delayed a
> >couple of times)

That reminds me: my brother reads comics and has this new releases catalog
(what's it called, Wizard or something?) and in the latest issue, in the
Games section, it said that Running Short will come out in November. When
I read the bit I was a little disappointed -- only three adventures. I had
expected at least five or six for some reason...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Amerika: het land van de onbegrensde onmogelijkheden
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	Randy "Wistler" Szabadics <wistler@**.net>
Subject:	RE: V.R. 2.0
Date:	Mon, 25 Mar 96 12:11:11 -0500

Message no. 4 >From: "Andre' Selmer" <031ANDRE@******.wits.ac.za>
>
> A few things (it could be my imagination) I noticed though:
>
>- Are they trying (hinting) that buying a deck is more appropriate
>then building your own.

Not neccesarily true. The way I read it they were trying to hint that a decker should
build his own deck. Much cheaper and safer that way for the decker.

>- I noticed that the Computer Theory Skill has all but become
>non-existant (might almost be worth it to specialize)

That is true. I noticed that too. This is one rule I'm not altogether thrilled with. My
character has spend mucho karma and time improving his theory skill(Now a 10) for the
purpose of becoming a cyberdeck fixer. Now the skill is obsolete in his feild and I wasted
all that karma.

>- Despite the fact that in theory you are rolling the equivilent or
>more dice, is it not more difficult to do any thing.

Not neccesarily. The systems not have lower tolerance threshholds then they did. And they
are a lot more sensitive to outside influence. Don't get to cockey. It may get your decker
in a lot of trouble.

>- They got rid of the autoexec file (yay!).

Ditto.

>- There are fewer limits on the decks with the result that now it is
>up to the decker (read players) skill to advoid notice.

True. With the new rule it is noe up to the decker not the cyberdeck to pull himself out
of a jam. It's no longer possible for a newbie with a fairlight to out deck a veteran with
a fuchi-6 equivilant. The new rule relly a lot more on skill than hardware.

Randy "Wistler" Szabadics
wistler@**.net
"Never underestimate the power of the Dark side."
Darth Vader , Star Wars.

Andre'

-- We exist because you want us to, because you are
|__|__ afraid to fact the facts. We are what you fear
/\ /\ \ in the deep recesses of your soul, yourselves.
|\ /\ /| | It is there in the shadows of your soul and those
|/ \/ \| | of the street that we exist. Through the use of
\/__\/ might, magic, cunning, blood, sweat and tears we
protect you from your fears, from youselves, from
others and keep your utopia, not ours, intact.

From:	Rob Kean <rkean@****.net>
Subject:	RE: V.R. 2.0
Date:	Mon, 25 Mar 1996 14:29:08 -0500

Message no. 5 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BB1A5A.1C6B6640
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

----------
From: Randy "Wistler" Szabadics[SMTP:wistler@**.net]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 1996 12:11 PM
To: Andre' Selmer; shadowrn@********.itribe.net
Subject: RE: V.R. 2.0

>>From: "Andre' Selmer" <031ANDRE@******.wits.ac.za>
>>
>> A few things (it could be my imagination) I noticed though:
>>
>>- Are they trying (hinting) that buying a deck is more appropriate
>>then building your own.
>
>Not neccesarily true. The way I read it they were trying to hint that a =
>decker should build his own deck. Much cheaper and safer that way for =
>the decker.
>
>>- I noticed that the Computer Theory Skill has all but become
>>non-existant (might almost be worth it to specialize)
>
>That is true. I noticed that too. This is one rule I'm not altogether =
thrilled >with. My character has spend mucho karma and time improving =
his >theory skill(Now a 10) for the purpose of becoming a cyberdeck =
fixer. >Now the skill is obsolete in his feild and I wasted all that =
karma.

IMHO, if I were your GM, I'd let you move the points you spent in =
computer
theory into (your choice) Computer SW and/or Computer B/R
------ =_NextPart_000_01BB1A5A.1C6B6640
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BB1A5A.1C6B6640--

From:	Robert Watkins <robertdw@*******.com.au>
Subject:	RE: V.R. 2.0
Date:	Tue, 26 Mar 96 12:47:19 +1030

Message no. 6 >>- Are they trying (hinting) that buying a deck is more appropriate
>>then building your own.
>
>Not neccesarily true. The way I read it they were trying to hint that a
>decker should build his own deck. Much cheaper and safer that way for the
>decker.

OTH, they are hinting that you wouldn't necessarily burn your own
chips... Design the deck, go out and buy the hardware, then assemble it.

--
_______________________________________________________________________
/ \
| "As soon as we started programming, we found to our surprise that it |
| wasn't as easy to get programs right as we had thought. Debugging |
| had to be discovered. I can remember the exact instant when I |
| realizedthat a large part of my life from then on was going to be |
| spent infinding mistakes in my own programs." -- Maurice Wilkes |
| Robert Watkins robertdw@*******.com.au |
\_______________________________________________________________________/

From:	"Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject:	RE: V.R. 2.0
Date:	Tue, 26 Mar 1996 11:24:33 +0100

Message no. 7 Rob Kean said on 25 Mar 96...

Actually what he said doesn't matter to me at the moment, what I'd like
to know is, what are those binaries Mr. Kean keeps attaching to his
mails? My mailer calls it "Binary data, File Unknown, type Unknown".

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
only the extreme makes an impression
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject:	Re: V.R. 2.0
Date:	Tue, 26 Mar 1996 07:29:07 -0700 (MST)

Message no. 8 Gurth wrote:
|
|Rob Kean said on 25 Mar 96...
|
|Actually what he said doesn't matter to me at the moment, what I'd like
|to know is, what are those binaries Mr. Kean keeps attaching to his
|mails? My mailer calls it "Binary data, File Unknown, type Unknown".

It's uuencoded text. If your using UNIX, and know how, you can uudecode
the thing (I have UNIX but haven't figured out the subtleties of
uudecoding, so I have no idea what it is).

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"Wanted: All Kathey Lee Gifford albums. Including her "Greatest
Hits" album and her Christmas album. Contact the Possum Lodge Skeet
Shooting Club."
~~~~~~~~~~www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~~~~

From:	Carsten Baermann <Carsten.Baermann@****.uni-giessen.de>
Subject:	Re: V.R. 2.0
Date:	Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:41:58 +0100 (CET)

Message no. 9 On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, David Buehrer wrote:

> It's uuencoded text. If your using UNIX, and know how, you can uudecode
> the thing (I have UNIX but haven't figured out the subtleties of
> uudecoding, so I have no idea what it is).
>
> -David

Just drop the text in a file und type 'uudecode <filename>'. That should
do it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carsten Baermann carsten.baermann@****.uni-giessen.de
http://www.uni-giessen.de/~gcg4
GeekCode v3.1: GM d s:- a21 C+(++) UA+>++ US 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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:	"Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
Subject:	VR 2.0
Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 1997 10:28:29 +0100

Message no. 10 Hi all there!
Some problem with VR 2.0 . In the book, the reality filter is
mentioned several times. But I could not find the price. Am I just
too stupid to read a book, or did Fasa actually forget it? And if,
what do you think would be appropriate?
ss

From:	mike.paff@*****.COM
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:29:34 -0800

Message no. 11 > From: "Simon T. Sailer" <Simon.Sailer@****.AC.AT>
>
> Some problem with VR 2.0 . In the book, the reality filter is
> mentioned several times. But I could not find the price. Am I just
> too stupid to read a book, or did Fasa actually forget it? And if,
> what do you think would be appropriate?
>
I know that the rules for adding a reality filter are described
under the section detailing the construction of the MPCP (it basically
increases the size as if the MPCP was 2(?) levels higher). I don't
remember if it is listed in the section under buying decks, but you
could probably just use the cost based on the adjusted MPCP level.

Alternately, the GM could just rule that a reality filter needs to
be customized to the decker to have its full effect, so it needs to
be programmed by the decker and cannot be purchased. This is probably
a little harsh, though.

Mike

From:	Ted Cabeen <cabeen@******.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:16:44 -0600

Message no. 12 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 10:28 AM 2/5/97 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi all there!
>Some problem with VR 2.0 . In the book, the reality filter is
>mentioned several times. But I could not find the price. Am I just
>too stupid to read a book, or did Fasa actually forget it? And if,
>what do you think would be appropriate?

It's hard to find, but in 2.0 reality filters are part of the MPCP. They
increase the level of the MPCP by two and are part of the chip. Thus if you
wanted to have two seperate filters, you'd need two different chips. Same
thing if you want to turn the filter off. (Just swap in a new un-filtered
chip).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5

iQEVAgUBMvj4tdBqlyHCkS2NAQHblAf+NQcg9UlDkbMHtssZydDu8ddaF4IrZW1v
S4pEVFT+gC26YuCEtFPDhIQektKSbE3Lg60vp3C5thbIN73HKkf0veg+eQMkTUaO
ZKPm98c50QuNodfEC+xw+7qXcS2a5Pu8QOzVMfvBAesALGU9zDirDq8PmwkfgopY
gUBpf4NYPOBtsEQe0QJBIerBQXbDvpRRi+hxq/DcVUYNpk0xC/5kmry0wlrpryiy
6EBtTDsK53Pod5ecq7GwtXeXRuq9JXWPMG1JjW5ECzmvE7Ns1WrBe3EB9N0X7mYg
qt3T9gEBuOp4HTJmBdIMbtcyFOeAhR1o7PUMW+kylSmj1qWGOgyOAg==
=qwMU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
______________________________________________________________________________
Ted Cabeen http://shadowland.rh.uchicago.edu cabeen@******.com
Check Website or finger for PGP Public Key secabeen@******.uchicago.edu
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province." -F. Bacon cococabeen@***.com
"Human kind cannot bear very much reality."-T.S.Eliot 73126.626@**********.com

From:	Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 1997 21:48:13 -0500

Message no. 13 Simon T. Sailer enlightened us with these words of wisdom:
>Some problem with VR 2.0 . In the book, the reality filter is
>mentioned several times. But I could not find the price. Am I just
>too stupid to read a book, or did Fasa actually forget it? And if,
>what do you think would be appropriate?

I don't know about Vr2.0 (I haven't run any deckers for a while), but in
Vr1.0, a reality filter was programmed into the MPCP....and it simply
increased the difficulty....

(If I recall, it effectively lowered the MPCP by one in use, but increased
it by one with respect to difficulty and cook time...)

-=SwiftOne=-

From:	The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:12:55 +0000

Message no. 14 On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 mike.paff@*****.com wrote:

> I know that the rules for adding a reality filter are described
> under the section detailing the construction of the MPCP (it basically
> increases the size as if the MPCP was 2(?) levels higher). I don't
> remember if it is listed in the section under buying decks, but you
> could probably just use the cost based on the adjusted MPCP level.

Yes, an RF has an effective rating of +2 of base for purposes of design
(and size also?), but when its running its effective rating is at -1 of
base -but it does give +2 Reaction +D6 initiative.

The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
"So that which I imagine, is that which I believe" -Rush
Shadowrun Web Site http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun.html

From:	Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject:	VR 2.0
Date:	Sat, 16 Aug 1997 05:04:41 -0400

Message no. 15 ARGH!!! My brain hurts!

<sigh>

After recently (and finally) obtaining a copy of VR 2.0, I sat down and
tried to read the bloody thing. I've done so once before, when Tinner
first bought the book and we decided to switch to Matrix 2 system, but that
was really just a cursory read so that I could rebuild my character. Even
then we kept discovering through the next couple matrix runs that I missed
little things here and there, like Deception so I could perform graceful
Logon's and Logoffs (I had, at first, assumed it was a different type of
Sleaze...)

After slogging through the first 50 pages or so, I have figured out what's
wrong with the book... it's BORING. it suffers from the same fate that
Corp Shadowfiles, Lone Star, and most of the rest of the books put out
during the end of Tom Dowd's reign as DLOH and during the Interim with
<shudder> Carl Sargent (I liked his first couple novels, however, but
that's another thread...:)). That fate is, of course, it's crammed with
WAY too many dry facts and reads more like a tech manual than a game book.

For every paragraph that tells you how to do something in game terms,
there's 4 or 5 paragraphs explaining, usually in tech-ese, how this
sub-system relates to that sub-system and blah blah blah. And in general,
all 4 or 5 paragraphs of that tech-ese could be summed up into a single
paragraph to go with that paragraph of rules...

Anyways, I'm digressing from the point of this post...

I'm working on an Unnoficial Errata sheet, as well as trying to simplify
and explain some of those areas of VR 2 that just didn't quite make
themselves understood. Plus maybe work in a combination of VR 1 and VR 2
somewhere along the line...

This is just a pet project in the back of my mnind (and my HD) at the
moment, but if you can think of any problem areas, let me know and we'll
see if we can clean them up...

Hell, I figure I been playing a Decker this long, I may as well figure out
how the decking system really works... <grin>

After I've read some more, I should have the first of my own observations
up in a day or two... But anything you can suggest now will help give me
something to focus on...:]

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"CrapGame, you bitch!"
-- R.C. during the Drive in the Country tournament

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Sat, 16 Aug 1997 14:19:26 +0100

Message no. 16 Bull said on 5:04/16 Aug 97...

> After slogging through the first 50 pages or so, I have figured out what's
> wrong with the book... it's BORING.

It's badly organized, IMHO. If you need to find something, it's usually
scattered across two or three different places and takes a lot of flipping
back and forth (and using dice, calculators, fingers, and more as page
markers) before you know what you wanted to know.

> it's crammed with WAY too many dry facts and reads more like a tech
> manual than a game book.

That might have been intentional, since it's aimed at computer-geek-PCs.

> I'm working on an Unnoficial Errata sheet, as well as trying to simplify
> and explain some of those areas of VR 2 that just didn't quite make
> themselves understood. Plus maybe work in a combination of VR 1 and VR 2
> somewhere along the line...

How about adding that into the Wo[censored]ck Guide?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Our foreign policy is not a political issue."
--Harry S. Truman
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:21:12 -0700

Message no. 17 > I'm working on an Unnoficial Errata sheet, as well as trying to simplify
> and explain some of those areas of VR 2 that just didn't quite make
> themselves understood. Plus maybe work in a combination of VR 1 and VR 2
> somewhere along the line...

So we can look forward to VR2.0 v2.0? (Owwww....) :)

> This is just a pet project in the back of my mnind (and my HD) at the
> moment, but if you can think of any problem areas, let me know and we'll
> see if we can clean them up...

Ahhh, nothing at the moment. Wish I had time to offer helping out, but
I'm bogged out at the moment. Sounds like a great idea, though - I'll
look forward to the end results.

From:	George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Sat, 16 Aug 1997 14:49:54 -0400

Message no. 18 In a message dated 97-08-16 08:59:07 EDT, you write:

> After I've read some more, I should have the first of my own observations
> up in a day or two... But anything you can suggest now will help give me
> something to focus on...:]

Yeah, before you do clarifications, find the explanation of the matrix
somebody on this list has on the web. It'll make your life infinitely easier
and does a damned good job of giving certain types of IC the boot.

Wolfstar

From:	Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Sat, 16 Aug 1997 18:14:00 GMT

Message no. 19 on 16.08.97 gurth@******.NL wrote:

g> > it's crammed with WAY too many dry facts and reads more like a tech
g> > manual than a game book.
g>
g> That might have been intentional, since it's aimed at computer-geek-PCs.

Hey, I'm a computer geek (kind of) and I agree with bull 100%! :)
For a real 'geek', it's not logical enough.

Tobias
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##

From:	Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Sat, 16 Aug 1997 19:58:02 -0400

Message no. 20 At 02:19 PM 8/16/97 +0100, Gurth wrote these timeless words:

>> it's crammed with WAY too many dry facts and reads more like a tech
>> manual than a game book.
>
>That might have been intentional, since it's aimed at computer-geek-PCs.
>
Well, then, that was just a huge mistake then...:]

It's still a game book, not a tech manual. Besides, how many real life
Comp-Geeks play deckers? Seems to me that most "Geeks" that I know tend to
play Sammy's or Mages, so that they get to play what they aren't in RL...
And guys like me, who barely can type, play deckers so we can pretend we
actually CAN use a computer...

Bull
--
Bull, aka Steven Ratkovich, aka Rak, aka a lot of others! :]

The Offical Celebrity Shadowrn Mailing List Welcome Ork Decker!
Fearless Leader of the Star Wars Mailing List
List Flunky of ShadowCreations, creators of the Newbies Guide,
in production now!
HOME PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/3604/home.html

"CrapGame, you bitch!"
-- R.C. during the Drive in the Country tournament

From:	George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Sun, 17 Aug 1997 05:10:54 -0400

Message no. 21 In a message dated 97-08-16 21:41:00 EDT, you write:

> It's still a game book, not a tech manual. Besides, how many real life
> Comp-Geeks play deckers? Seems to me that most "Geeks" that I know tend
to
> play Sammy's or Mages, so that they get to play what they aren't in RL...
> And guys like me, who barely can type, play deckers so we can pretend we
> actually CAN use a computer...

Uhh, what about people like me? I play a combat decker. Does that mean I'm
only part computer geek? =)

Wolfstar

From:	VAEL <ltwiss@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Sun, 17 Aug 1997 22:29:48 +0000

Message no. 22 If memory serves correctly, Bull wrote:

> ARGH!!! My brain hurts!

Do as the puppet in the Tool videos does: Open your cranium and
scratch your brain.

> After slogging through the first 50 pages or so, I have figured out what's
> wrong with the book... it's BORING.

IMHO. Far from boring. It is: USEFUL. Straight HARD rules. This is
what I expect for a _very_ technical aspect of a roleplaying game.

From a _players_ perspective, it probably _is_ boring; but from a GM
stand point, this is what I would like to see more of: Rules.

Rules, that I can ignore and rules that I can use.

When I pick up any FASA related sourcebook, what's the first section
you turn to? Me, I turn right to the back and read the :GAME
INFORMATION section. When something peaks my interest I begin reading
the relating _world_ material.

> That fate is, of course, it's crammed with
> WAY too many dry facts and reads more like a tech manual than a game book.

<rant on>(sorry)

I tell you what is plaguing the newer SR material: It is to much
_story_ and not enough _game_.

If I want a 'story' I'll buy a book. If I want a _game_ I will not be
picking up Target: UCAS, but I will pick up say: Threats.

Threats _was_ pure GM tool. Target: UCAS isn't. It is FASA's
'background story'.

<rant off>(Pete I'm not, huh?<grin>)

From:	George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 1997 03:52:48 -0400

Message no. 23 In a message dated 97-08-18 02:39:23 EDT, you write:

> > After slogging through the first 50 pages or so, I have figured out
what's
> > wrong with the book... it's BORING.
>
> IMHO. Far from boring. It is: USEFUL. Straight HARD rules. This is
> what I expect for a _very_ technical aspect of a roleplaying game.
>
> From a _players_ perspective, it probably _is_ boring; but from a GM
> stand point, this is what I would like to see more of: Rules.

From a player/GM's standpoint - Actually, just from MY Standpoint - VR 2.0
is a decent book. There are several illogical inconsistencies built into the
rules that take more of a "Gibson" understanding of computers than a
technological standpoint, and it IS overly dry. If I want in-depth technical
details, I'll take comp sci. But When I'm reading a book and my brain wanders
WHILE I'm reading(To the point where I've read a page and a half and can't
remember what any of it was about) then the book needs work.

Example of Illogical inconsistency: Sparky IC. Who feeds anything but
fiber-optics into a datajack? Coaxial cable(For cable TV) MIGHT be able to
handle the ASIST bandwidth required, but I doubt it. Fibre-optics is the only
viable option, yet it doesn't carry electricity. So how can it electrically
fry your brain? Never mind the fact that I have yet to see a computer with
more than power-saver software control of a power supply.
Another example is memory. I've seen it mentioned in several places that mem
chips can be either active or storage, and that it's switchable.(This is the
premise behind headware memory as well.) So why are there different costs for
Active and Storage memory? Why is there a distinction? Why is there a load
time? These are significant problems, and at least the memory point is at the
base of the decking rules.
I just realized this turned into a rant, and I didn't warn you. Sorry. =)

Wolfstar

From:	"Paul K. Janetzke" <paul585@******.EMAIL.NET>
Subject:	VR 2.0
Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 1997 06:25:33 CDT

Message no. 24 The reason for the difference in memory chips can be equated to memory chips
today. There is a great difference in price between cache memory chips and
regular RAM memory. There is even a great deal of difference between the
prices of these sub-groups of chips. Look at the difference in price between
DRAMs, SIMMs, DIMMs, and SRAMs. You can design any computer to run off of the
same memory chips, but it would be cost prohibitive to make a computer with
say 32 meg of 6ns SDRAM.

From:	John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:50:53 EDT

Message no. 25 Here's a bit of VR2 that I never quite figured out: all memory and chips
in cyberdecks are holographic memory (This is not the problem:). You can
actively read and write to your Active memory. Okay, fine so far. You can
do the same with your Storage Memory. Again, no problem. Nowhere is it
mentioned that you can write to any of the OCCs (optical code chips) that
your programs (utilities, persona, hardening, etc) are encoded on. Here's
the problem: the Worms virus can 'infect' and corrupt things
(specifically, which your deck cannot write to that I recall). How, then,
does the worm program write its code into the MPCP chip? Conversely, how
does any Gray IC cause permanent damage to the deck's subsystems? This
kind of thing bothers me, since it would be possible to completely safe
guard your deck against Gray IC simply by making sure that the lasers
which read the chips that your programs are on are incapable of writing
to the chips, use diode lasers or something. It would be one thing if all
that was damaged was the circuitry, I can understand if Gray IC caused
the deck to overload its power supply and create a sort of self-induced
power surge (I don't know if this is any more plausible, but it makes
more sense to me), but Gray IC seems to do exactly the opposite.

--
-Canthros (this is the kind of thing that keeps me playing mages)
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1

From:	Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:13:10 -0500

Message no. 26 Canthros wrote:
>it would be possible to completely safe guard
>your deck against Gray IC simply by making
>sure that the lasers which read the chips that
>your programs are on are incapable of writing
>to the chips, use diode lasers or something.

Well, there is a very good reason why having the
programs read-only would not normally be done,
but it's a bit hard to explain. The first point that
needs to be made is that a symbolic system that
cannot encode and manipulate its own rules is
much weaker than one that can. If you read
Godel-Escher-Bach, one fascinating theoretical
discovery is that it would be impossible to make
one of these self-modifiable systems completely
proof against viruses (the book is 1000 pages
long, so just trust me, or read it yourself).

IMHO, the benefits of having programs be able to
modify programs in 205x outweigh the danger of
Gray Ice to any hot decker, who needs the edge
more than he fears the adversary...

Double-Domed Mike

From:	George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:39:45 -0400

Message no. 27 In a message dated 97-08-18 07:26:03 EDT, you write:

> The reason for the difference in memory chips can be equated to memory
chips
> today. There is a great difference in price between cache memory chips and
> regular RAM memory. There is even a great deal of difference between the
> prices of these sub-groups of chips. Look at the difference in price
between
> DRAMs, SIMMs, DIMMs, and SRAMs. You can design any computer to run off of
> the same memory chips, but it would be cost prohibitive to make a computer
with
> say 32 meg of 6ns SDRAM.

That has about zero bearing on the matter. Optical memory chips are capable
of acting as RAM or Storage. To my knowledge, ALL OMC's in SR are like this.
It's actually part of the nature of the chip. To have it arranged otherwise
would imply that you have OMCs for Active Memory/RAM and an electromagnetic
read/write media, ie a Hard Drive, for storage. You cannot easily and cheaply
convert between the two. It takes too long to do it, and the assembly would
be too large.

Wolfstar

From:	George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 1997 14:58:39 -0400

Message no. 28 In a message dated 97-08-18 09:53:39 EDT, you write:

> I can understand if Gray IC caused
> the deck to overload its power supply and create a sort of self-induced
> power surge (I don't know if this is any more plausible, but it makes
> more sense to me), but Gray IC seems to do exactly the opposite.

It's got about zilch plausibility, but you're right, it DOES sound more
plausible, which is really bad. I could see a worm or Grey IC could damage
the persona for the run, and would require a reboot to fix, but it shouldn't
be able to effect them permanently. The reason that a power surge is out of
the question is that you can have the power supply's control "Isolated" so
that the only thing that can vary the power output is the on/off switch. This
is the standard setup with most of today's computers.

Wolfstar

From:	"Wendy Wanders, Subject 117" <KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:38:46 -0500

Message no. 29 You wrote:
<snip valid comments about vr 2.0)

> Example of Illogical inconsistency: Sparky IC. Who feeds anything but
> fiber-optics into a datajack? Coaxial cable(For cable TV) MIGHT be able to
> handle the ASIST bandwidth required, but I doubt it. Fibre-optics is the only
> viable option, yet it doesn't carry electricity. So how can it electrically
> fry your brain? Never mind the fact that I have yet to see a computer with
> more than power-saver software control of a power supply.
The interface between the brain and the Datajack/Encephalon is electrical, as
with all cyber interfaces. Even if everything else is optical, and thus safe,
that is electrical. And yes, overloading that is prolly well outside the
abilities of IC that is interacting with your Datajack only via coded data.

> Another example is memory. I've seen it mentioned in several places that mem
> chips can be either active or storage, and that it's switchable.(This is the
> premise behind headware memory as well.) So why are there different costs for
> Active and Storage memory? Why is there a distinction? Why is there a load
> time? These are significant problems, and at least the memory point is at the
> base of the decking rules.
I don't recall them being equated, but it has been a while since I read the
book. *shrug*

> I just realized this turned into a rant, and I didn't warn you. Sorry. =)
'S okay. There are inconsistencies, unfortunately.

losthalo

From:	John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Mon, 18 Aug 1997 22:24:43 EDT

Message no. 30 On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:13:10 -0500 Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
writes:

>Well, there is a very good reason why having the
>programs read-only would not normally be done,
>but it's a bit hard to explain. The first point that
>needs to be made is that a symbolic system that
>cannot encode and manipulate its own rules is
>much weaker than one that can. If you read
>Godel-Escher-Bach, one fascinating theoretical
>discovery is that it would be impossible to make
>one of these self-modifiable systems completely
>proof against viruses (the book is 1000 pages
>long, so just trust me, or read it yourself).
>
>IMHO, the benefits of having programs be able to
>modify programs in 205x outweigh the danger of
>Gray Ice to any hot decker, who needs the edge
>more than he fears the adversary...

I'm a bit confused here: if the program is ROM, then no changes can be
made in how it runs? This doesn't make much sense to me, since you've got
load the entire program in active memory before you can do anything with
it. Even your persona programs would require some sort of RAM cache
(something similar) to run, IMO. Even assuming that you cannot make
changes if you run a program from ROM: couldn't that be circumvented by
setting it up on two chips: one containing the program itself, the other
containing a configuration file which it would read and write from and
to? The various bits of minutiae that tell the program how to react
within a given set of circumstances would be contained within the program
itself (which they probably are already), while the config file would
tell the MPCP which particular set of circumstances is in place at any
given time. The Sensors program would be writing to the config to get
down info about the area, the MPCP would then interpret that information
according to it's programming.

But then, you're the computer expert, I would guess, and I'm mostly
grasping at straws here.

--
-Canthros, once again opening his mouth where it probably should have
stayed shut
I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud
and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind.
--Francis Bacon
http://members.aol.com/canthros1

From:	George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Tue, 19 Aug 1997 04:43:32 -0400

Message no. 31 In a message dated 97-08-18 21:37:04 EDT, you write:

> The interface between the brain and the Datajack/Encephalon is electrical,
as
> with all cyber interfaces. Even if everything else is optical, and thus
safe,
> that is electrical. And yes, overloading that is prolly well outside the
> abilities of IC that is interacting with your Datajack only via coded
data.

You have a point, but since Sparky IC supposedly causes power surges in your
deck's power supply, which electrocutes you. At the most - and this is a
MAJOR stretch - it MIGHT cause a boosted ASIST signal that could cause neural
damage, but the odds are through the roof, all against that happening.

> > Another example is memory. I've seen it mentioned in several places
that mem
> > chips can be either active or storage, and that it's switchable.(This is
the
> > premise behind headware memory as well.) So why are there different
costs for
> > Active and Storage memory? Why is there a distinction? Why is there a
load
> > time? These are significant problems, and at least the memory point is
at the
> > base of the decking rules.

> I don't recall them being equated, but it has been a while since I read
the
> book. *shrug*

They aren't equated in VR 2.0, but I believe there's mention of them in
Shadowbeat, as well as a remark about memory chips being the same size
regardless of storage capacity. I'll try and check it out tomorrow, and post
what I find on it.

Wolfstar

From:	Phil Levis <pal@**.BROWN.EDU>
Subject:	VR 2.0
Date:	Thu, 28 May 1998 17:07:58 -0400

Message no. 32 Something tells me that this was discussed a long time ago, but I'd like
to hear the thoughts of the present denizens of the list.

In my opinion, Virtual Realities 2.0 is an excellent book; the rules and
systems described are robust and detailed, and the wealth of information
provided allows for campaigns set entirely within the Matrix, in which
every character is a decker.

One aspect of the book bothers me, however: the methods by which deckers
obtain their programs. Either they buy them, or they write them. Writing
them takes excessive amounts of time: the example given of a decker with a
computer skill of 8 (damn good) taking a base time of 128 days to write an
Attack-8S program. Buying them is extremely expensive: Hacker House sells
computer programs for three million nuyen. That Attack-8S could be sold
for 128,000 nuyen. That's a pretty amazing living, 1000 nuyen a day.

Both of these systems seem at odds with one of the aspects of deckers
which I have always thought to be important: the idea that deckers write
their own programs on a regular basis, indeed, use their own programs
almost exclusively.

Given good programming techniques, it seems reasonable to me that one
should be able to 'upgrade' existing programs that you own. For example,
one might buy an Attack-6M utility from some software house, hack it for a
while, upgrading it to Attack-8M, use it a bit, then hack it some more to
add DINAB capability. Eventually, the program will need an overhaul as the
additions begin to tax the design of the original program, but it I find
it quite reasonable that competent deckers should be able to write
programs which are not utterly from scratch.

I've been working on a rules system to allow this, but I'm wondering what
people on the list feel should be important considerations. For example,
when should upgrading a program be a losing proposition as opposed to
rewriting from scratch? Which options should be the most difficult to add?
For example, transforming a one-shot program into a full utility should be
very difficult; the one-shot option has a tremendous amount of
optimization and little tricks which allow it to fit in the smaller memory
space. Additionally, if it were not difficult, software houses couldn't
offer one-shot test programs. Upgrading a program to have an Area option
should be much more difficult than upgrading the Area to a higher rating.

Thoughts?

Phil

From:	"Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Thu, 28 May 1998 14:16:46 -0700

Message no. 33 ----------
> From: Phil Levis <pal@**.BROWN.EDU>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: VR 2.0
> Date: Thursday, May 28, 1998 2:07 PM
>
<snip>
>
> In my opinion, Virtual Realities 2.0 is an excellent book; the rules and
> systems described are robust and detailed, and the wealth of information
> provided allows for campaigns set entirely within the Matrix, in which
> every character is a decker.
>

Hey, this sounds familiar. ;)

> One aspect of the book bothers me, however: the methods by which deckers
> obtain their programs. Either they buy them, or they write them. Writing
> them takes excessive amounts of time: the example given of a decker with
a
> computer skill of 8 (damn good) taking a base time of 128 days to write
an
> Attack-8S program. Buying them is extremely expensive: Hacker House sells
> computer programs for three million nuyen. That Attack-8S could be sold
> for 128,000 nuyen. That's a pretty amazing living, 1000 nuyen a day.
>

One thing to keep in mind that's a programmer working under the bare
minimum's for programming... what I like to think of notepad, a cheap
compiler, and a ton of coffee. If he's got a nice little programming
package... Visual Z++ or the like on a pretty nice platform, he gets a +3
task bonus. So that 128 days becomes 42 days. Divided by the number of
successes. =) 4000+ nuyen a day for drek-hot programming? I don't see a
problem with that. The problem is finding a buyer, though, I think. How
many people can afford an Attack-8S program? The one that really hurts me
is the time/money involved in a Rating 10 MPCP chip with reality filters.
;)

> Both of these systems seem at odds with one of the aspects of deckers
> which I have always thought to be important: the idea that deckers write
> their own programs on a regular basis, indeed, use their own programs
> almost exclusively.
>
> Given good programming techniques, it seems reasonable to me that one
> should be able to 'upgrade' existing programs that you own. For example,
> one might buy an Attack-6M utility from some software house, hack it for
a
> while, upgrading it to Attack-8M, use it a bit, then hack it some more to
> add DINAB capability. Eventually, the program will need an overhaul as
the
> additions begin to tax the design of the original program, but it I find
> it quite reasonable that competent deckers should be able to write
> programs which are not utterly from scratch.
>

I do believe there's upgrading rules in the book. And purchased copies
come with the source code as part of their price. Without the source, it
costs about 25% less. I think you just have to subtract one size from the
other to determine cost/time to program.

From:	Phil Levis <pal@**.BROWN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Thu, 28 May 1998 17:36:01 -0400

Message no. 34 On Thu, 28 May 1998, Jeremy "Bolthy" Zimmerman wrote:

> I do believe there's upgrading rules in the book. And purchased copies
> come with the source code as part of their price. Without the source, it
> costs about 25% less. I think you just have to subtract one size from the
> other to determine cost/time to program.

Yeah... these rules seem a little too simple to me. I'd think that
updgrading a program should take slightly longer. Otherwise, there's no
reason to write things from scratch, because some Restrict-10 Area DINAB
targeting program is actually just the result of a slow improvement of
that Restrict-3 you had five years ago.

Phil

From:	"Jeremy \"Bolthy\" Zimmerman" <jeremy@***********.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Thu, 28 May 1998 14:40:41 -0700

Message no. 35 ----------
> From: Phil Levis <pal@**.BROWN.EDU>
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: VR 2.0
> Date: Thursday, May 28, 1998 2:36 PM
>
> On Thu, 28 May 1998, Jeremy "Bolthy" Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > I do believe there's upgrading rules in the book. And purchased copies
> > come with the source code as part of their price. Without the source,
it
> > costs about 25% less. I think you just have to subtract one size from
the
> > other to determine cost/time to program.
>
> Yeah... these rules seem a little too simple to me. I'd think that
> updgrading a program should take slightly longer. Otherwise, there's no
> reason to write things from scratch, because some Restrict-10 Area DINAB
> targeting program is actually just the result of a slow improvement of
> that Restrict-3 you had five years ago.
>

I'm waiting for the bad part. I'm not a big programmer or anything, but
when I do do stuff, I tend to reuse my old code in some form or another.
Yup, I'm pretty lazy. But it totally makes my job go faster. Ultimately,
it comes down to this for me: I like simple rules. It makes me happy. As
it is, it takes me way longer than I'd really like to figure out how much
it is for such-and-such. My character creation process ground to a halt
while computing costs for all the programs. The last thing I would
ultimately want is to make that process any more complicated than it
already is. =)

From:	Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Thu, 28 May 1998 17:42:33 -0400

Message no. 36 At 05:07 PM 5/28/98 -0400, you wrote:

>In my opinion, Virtual Realities 2.0 is an excellent book; the rules and
>systems described are robust and detailed, and the wealth of information
>provided allows for campaigns set entirely within the Matrix, in which
>every character is a decker.

Good book, but it still confuses me for some reason. Maybe it's because
I'm math-phobic, maybe it's because I simply don't allow deckers in my
games. But parts of that and Rigger 2 leave me scratching my head. Gimme
my Grimmy or Awakening or FoF anyday!

>Both of these systems seem at odds with one of the aspects of deckers
>which I have always thought to be important: the idea that deckers write
>their own programs on a regular basis, indeed, use their own programs
>almost exclusively.

Well, what does a decker do when they're not running? Sure, they're
playing Matrix Quake 23 part of that time. And probably some eating and
sleeping in there too. But I would imagine the bulk of their time would be
spent programming. That's what they do after all.

See, I imagine the bulk of a PCs off-time to be devoted to appropriate skills.

A street sam probably lifts weights, practices martial arts and does target
practice at least 20 hours a week.

A hermetic has his head in a magic book (or on MagicNet) and that sort of
thing at least 30-40 hours a week.

A decker would be programming 30-40 hours a week.

A rigger would be tinkering with their drones and vehicles 20-30 hours a
week, probably stuff like target practice also.

That leaves plenty of time for partying and shadowrunning.

So maybe the base time is a bit high, but not grotesquely high in my
opinion. A serious kick-ass attack program (which is what an 8 is to me)
should take a few weeks to a month.

Erik J.

"Ladies & Gentleman, the newest member of the band, the one and only Spice
Boy, GRUMPY SPICE!!!" <and the crowd goes wild!!!>

From:	'K' is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Thu, 28 May 1998 19:04:09 EDT

Message no. 37 In a message dated 5/28/98 4:09:20 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
pal@**.BROWN.EDU writes:

> One aspect of the book bothers me, however: the methods by which deckers
> obtain their programs. Either they buy them, or they write them. Writing
> them takes excessive amounts of time: the example given of a decker with a
> computer skill of 8 (damn good) taking a base time of 128 days to write an
> Attack-8S program. Buying them is extremely expensive: Hacker House sells
> computer programs for three million nuyen. That Attack-8S could be sold
> for 128,000 nuyen. That's a pretty amazing living, 1000 nuyen a day.

Yes, but considering that an Attack Program is considered Illegal just to have
in your memory (any form), that's a pretty hefty thing. And having it in
"Active memory" is even worse IIRC. so the "1,000 Nuyen" a day seems
a fair
trade to me for jail.

=K

From:	Sean Matheis <sean@****.NET>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Thu, 28 May 1998 16:26:19 -0700

Message no. 38 <nice exposition on VR2 deleted>

> I've been working on a rules system to allow this, but I'm wondering what
> people on the list feel should be important considerations. For example,
> when should upgrading a program be a losing proposition as opposed to
> rewriting from scratch? Which options should be the most difficult to add?
> For example, transforming a one-shot program into a full utility should be
> very difficult; the one-shot option has a tremendous amount of
> optimization and little tricks which allow it to fit in the smaller memory
> space. Additionally, if it were not difficult, software houses couldn't
> offer one-shot test programs. Upgrading a program to have an Area option
> should be much more difficult than upgrading the Area to a higher rating.

One idea is to limit the upgradability of a program based on
either its rating, or its size. Something like you cannot
upgrade a program to more than 1.5* its initial rating. That
Attack-6M can now only go to Attack-9M before it is considered
incapable of being upgraded any further. Adding options would
reduce this multiplier. I don't have VR2 w/ me, and I don't
regularly play a decker, but you should be able to get a general
idea for this. (Perhaps: 1.5* is the max, reduce by one level
for each goodie you add to it)

-Sean (dba. Fieran, Elven PhysAd)

From:	losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Thu, 28 May 1998 22:10:06 -0400

Message no. 39 At 05:07 PM 5/28/98 -0400, you wrote:

<<snip>>

>Both of these systems seem at odds with one of the aspects of deckers
>which I have always thought to be important: the idea that deckers write
>their own programs on a regular basis, indeed, use their own programs
>almost exclusively.

Well, that is your perception of things (and it's not invalid, just not the
only possible take on decking). Ever read Neuromancer, or Count Zero, by
Gibson? Cowboys in Gibson's world frequently make use of progs provided by
their employer or bought from fixers. One character in the novels makes a
living selling both hardware and software for the purposes of cracking
systems.

>Given good programming techniques, it seems reasonable to me that one
>should be able to 'upgrade' existing programs that you own.

Not necessarily, again. Some things, in order to get significantly better
(a rating point's worth, here) have to change their approach or even the
basis of their function. Maybe beyond a certain point, "more" of a given
approach doesn't work, you have to start over if you want to get higher
than a 5 out of your Attack-5 program design. Sometimes what you've
already designed is more a liability than a help in the next stage of
improvement.

Or to put it another way, "Usually you just lose when you sell something
back."

losthalo

From:	Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Thu, 28 May 1998 23:25:32 -0500

Message no. 40 On Thu, 28 May 1998 17:36:01 -0400 Phil Levis <pal@**.BROWN.EDU> writes:
>On Thu, 28 May 1998, Jeremy "Bolthy" Zimmerman wrote:
>> I do believe there's upgrading rules in the book. And purchased
copies
>> come with the source code as part of their price. Without the source,
it
>> costs about 25% less. I think you just have to subtract one size from
the
>> other to determine cost/time to program.

>Yeah... these rules seem a little too simple to me. I'd think that
>updgrading a program should take slightly longer. Otherwise, there's no
>reason to write things from scratch, because some Restrict-10 Area DINAB
>targeting program is actually just the result of a slow improvement of
>that Restrict-3 you had five years ago.
>
>Phil

Golden Rule of Programming: Only code something once.

As a programmer programs, he/she(/it) tends to build a library of
utilities, procedures, functions, etc ... which get reused in later
programs ... Also, it is a good programming practice NOT to write things
all at once ... you write a simple version of a program, then upgrade,
add features, etc ... look at Adam's PS 98, for example (Adam: hope ya
don't mind me using this for an example ;) ... he didn't write the final
version all at once ...

The VR 2.0 rules make good sense, IMO :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
At someone's estimate of 4k nuyen a day, VR 2.0 makes good cents too ;)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Thu, 28 May 1998 23:15:48 -0500

Message no. 41 On Thu, 28 May 1998 17:07:58 -0400 Phil Levis <pal@**.BROWN.EDU> writes:
>Something tells me that this was discussed a long time ago, but I'd like
>to hear the thoughts of the present denizens of the list.
>
>In my opinion, Virtual Realities 2.0 is an excellent book; the rules and
>systems described are robust and detailed, and the wealth of information
>provided allows for campaigns set entirely within the Matrix, in which
>every character is a decker.

Agreed, VR 2.0 is my favorite SB, but then I'm a Comp Sci major so it
kinda follows ;)

>One aspect of the book bothers me, however: the methods by which deckers
>obtain their programs. Either they buy them, or they write them. Writing
>them takes excessive amounts of time: the example given of a decker with
a
>computer skill of 8 (damn good) taking a base time of 128 days to write
an
>Attack-8S program. Buying them is extremely expensive: Hacker House
sells
>computer programs for three million nuyen. That Attack-8S could be sold
>for 128,000 nuyen. That's a pretty amazing living, 1000 nuyen a day.

Well, check the difference in time in the timestamps on the posts in the
SBs, the difference is usually a few hundredths of a second ... if you
can read a post that on average (OTTOMH) runs 2-4 sentences, ponder, and
reply with another average post in .04 seconds, how much code can you
sling? If Shadowland was like IRC, I'd guess that SR deckers are
"typing" 100 times faster than we are in RL. However, Shadowland is a BBS
so that multiple (IMO) should skyrocket ... that's how the deckers (when
jacked into the matrix) can sling so much code.

>Both of these systems seem at odds with one of the aspects of deckers
>which I have always thought to be important: the idea that deckers write
>their own programs on a regular basis, indeed, use their own programs
>almost exclusively.
>
>Given good programming techniques, it seems reasonable to me that one
>should be able to 'upgrade' existing programs that you own. For example,
>one might buy an Attack-6M utility from some software house, hack it for
a
>while, upgrading it to Attack-8M, use it a bit, then hack it some more
to
>add DINAB capability. Eventually, the program will need an overhaul as
the
>additions begin to tax the design of the original program, but it I find
>it quite reasonable that competent deckers should be able to write
>programs which are not utterly from scratch.

I'm just starting in programming (kinda) and haven't gotten into OOP
(Object Oriented Programming) but I thought one point of OOP was that
it'd be easy to upgrade ...

<SNIP>
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Phil

Uhm ... hmmm... yeah, the VR system is good but like everything else in
SR, it sacrifices realism for ease/speed of play (though SR does this
much better than any other game sys, IMO) so yeah, you could muck around
with the sys but can ya do it without hampering game play? (It's usually
a bad sign if every player brings their own graphing calculator to the
game sessions ... ;)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Fri, 29 May 1998 11:43:14 +0100

Message no. 42 Phil Levis said on 17:07/28 May 98,...

> One aspect of the book bothers me, however: the methods by which deckers
> obtain their programs. Either they buy them, or they write them. Writing
> them takes excessive amounts of time: the example given of a decker with a
> computer skill of 8 (damn good) taking a base time of 128 days to write an
> Attack-8S program. Buying them is extremely expensive: Hacker House sells
> computer programs for three million nuyen. That Attack-8S could be sold
> for 128,000 nuyen. That's a pretty amazing living, 1000 nuyen a day.

Same as for magicians making foci, really. What I'm wondering
about is why these things are so damn expensive anyway; sure,
corps (or deckers) invest lots of time and resources in writing
them, but once it exists, you can copy it any time you like --
Street Index being around 0.00001 or something :)

> Given good programming techniques, it seems reasonable to me that one
> should be able to 'upgrade' existing programs that you own.

Agreed.

> I've been working on a rules system to allow this, but I'm wondering what
> people on the list feel should be important considerations. For example,
> when should upgrading a program be a losing proposition as opposed to
> rewriting from scratch? Which options should be the most difficult to add?
> For example, transforming a one-shot program into a full utility should be
> very difficult; the one-shot option has a tremendous amount of
> optimization and little tricks which allow it to fit in the smaller memory
> space. Additionally, if it were not difficult, software houses couldn't
> offer one-shot test programs. Upgrading a program to have an Area option
> should be much more difficult than upgrading the Area to a higher rating.

Upgrading is already covered in VR 2.0, on page 107. Basically
you work out the difference between what it is and what you want
it to be, and base the time required on that. The TN is that for the
full program, so it is just as difficult to upgrade a Cloak-2 to a
Cloak-6/Optimization as it is to write Cloak-6/Optimization from
scratch.

If you want more detail, you could add some stuff around these
rules. However, deciding on when it's better to start from scratch
then to upgrade is probably very difficult to put into rules, unless
you want to add rules for upgrades taking up extra memory,
bandwidth, or whatever (because there'll be some redundant bits
you can't easily remove, or forget to, for example).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- + --+--
Version 3.1: | Incubated into
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N | the First Church of
o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ | the Sqooshy Ball
tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y? | 21 May 1998
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ + --+--

From:	Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Fri, 29 May 1998 04:08:27 -0600

Message no. 43 At 23:25 28/05/98 -0500, you wrote:

>Golden Rule of Programming: Only code something once.

Reduce, reuse, recycle :)

>As a programmer programs, he/she(/it) tends to build a library of
>utilities, procedures, functions, etc ... which get reused in later
>programs ... Also, it is a good programming practice NOT to write things
>all at once ... you write a simple version of a program, then upgrade,
>add features, etc ... look at Adam's PS 98, for example (Adam: hope ya
>don't mind me using this for an example ;) ... he didn't write the final
>version all at once ...

Nope. Started with the basic framework, added some stuff, scrapped it,
started from scratch again (mostly), and from a chat I'm having right now
it's looking like we'll be starting from scratch again. But will we?

Heck no.

Even with the new program concept, most of the old code is still good --
the function to roll dice doesn't change, nor does the XML functions, or
the SQL queries, etc.

When I went to start coding the bioware/cyberware module a few nights back,
what was the first thing I did? Copied all the similar code from the
Deckbuilder module -- then just changed the interface and fixed up the
fields being written/read from teh database. Viola!

Now, if we ever finish the new-new-new version.. it shall truly be
something to drool over >:)

-Adam J
Completely modular? Did you say completely modular?!
-
http://www.interware.it/users/adamj \ fro@***.ab.ca \ ICQ# 2350330
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ FreeRPG Webring \ TSS Productions
The Shadowrun Supplemental \ SR Archive Co-Maintainer \ RPGA Reviwer
"So Marilyn Manson is a criticism of gimmickry while being itself a gimmick."
--- Marilyn Manson

From:	Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Fri, 29 May 1998 13:20:13 -0500

Message no. 44 >Given good programming techniques, it seems reasonable to me that
>one should be able to 'upgrade' existing programs that you own.

If you have the source code, sure. But, speaking from a decade of
experience, there are a lot of times when it just isn't worth it. Here's
how I would model it: upgrading a program can save you a lot of time by
reusing the design points you've already got, but it is inherently more
difficult than when you have a free rein to implement everything exactly
how you want it. Every existing program has a "maintainability rating",
commonly called cruftieness. When you upgrade a program, you don't
need to redo the old design points, but you must add the cruftieness
rating to the TN for your programming test.

Program start with a cruftieness rating of 1.
If you didn't write it, +2 cruftieness.
Each previous upgrade: +1 cruftieness.
(Optional) every two failing dice of previous programming tests: +1
cruftieness

reducing a program's cruftieness requires a programming task with a
target number of 5 and design points equal to 10% of the existing
program per point of cruftieness.

These rules aren't play tested, but something like this may be what you
want. I'd apply them to SOTA upgrades too.

Double-Domed Mike
--Dictated using Dragon NaturallySpeaking, look Ma, no hands!

From:	Waffelmeisters <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: VR 2.0
Date:	Sat, 30 May 1998 04:26:38 -0500

Message no. 45 > Re: VR 2.0 (Phil Levis , Thu 16:36)
>
> On Thu, 28 May 1998, Jeremy "Bolthy" Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > I do believe there's upgrading rules in the book. And purchased copies
> > come with the source code as part of their price. Without the source, it
> > costs about 25% less. I think you just have to subtract one size from the
> > other to determine cost/time to program.
>
> Yeah... these rules seem a little too simple to me. I'd think that
> updgrading a program should take slightly longer. Otherwise, there's no
> reason to write things from scratch, because some Restrict-10 Area DINAB
> targeting program is actually just the result of a slow improvement of
> that Restrict-3 you had five years ago.
>
> Phil

There wasn't any restrict program 5 years ago... but aside from that,
why shouln'ta program be gradually upgraded? The fact that size ~ the
square of rating means high-level upgrades still take a while. Also,
the size of options that are NOT being included should not count- in
fact, I might count them AGAINST the work, if thats the only version you
have, since you need to "remove" those options. Certain optionsmight
then render most of code useless for writting- particulary ones that
affect code size as a "percentage". other versionsFor example, an
Attack with targeting and an Attack with stealth2 are the same size, but
that wouldn't mean theres no "upgrade time"between the two. First you'd
have to "downgrade" to a normal Attack (or use an old Attack to work
from), then upgrade to Attack with stealth. I would say Attack+stealth2
could be upgraded dirrectly to Attack+stealth3, though. In fact, I'd
also say you could "downgrade" a program if you just wanted a smaller
utility. Just "program" the difference in MP's.
This all assumes you have the SOURCE CODE. A "compiled" program can't
be changed, and although theres no mechanic to prevent simple copying,
although I think that is also the intention in VR2.
-Mongoose

From:	Waffelmeisters <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: VR2.0
Date:	Sat, 30 May 1998 21:39:24 -0500

Message no. 46 > VR 2.0 (Phil Levis , Thu 16:07)
> Eventually, the program will need an overhaul as the
> additions begin to tax the design of the original program, but it I find
> it quite reasonable that competent deckers should be able to write
> programs which are not utterly from scratch.
>

In any utility, some basic routines will be needed. Thus, upgrading
even a very low rating program into a better oneis fully sensible. The
great MP size diference makes it not so huge a bonus, anyhow.

> I've been working on a rules system to allow this, but I'm wondering what
> people on the list feel should be important considerations.

I posted another response that showed how, in my view, the standard
rules handle this. Basically, options etc not being used must be
REMOVED, first, before upgrading, at the same task rating as programing
them.

> For example,
> when should upgrading a program be a losing proposition as opposed to
> rewriting from scratch?

When you are removing more code than you would eventually be
incorporating into the"upgraded" program, its easier just to start from
scratch.

>Which options should be the most difficult to add?

The ones that change source codesize the most, obviously- they take
lonbger to add.

> For example, transforming a one-shot program into a full utility should be
> very difficult; the one-shot option has a tremendous amount of
> optimization and little tricks which allow it to fit in the smaller memory
> space.

Itis difficult- the source code sizeis +50%. In fact, since
"deproragramminmg" that code will be done at a TN with the programs full
rating,itmightbe easierto start from scratch, working up through a
series of quickly finished lower rating programs.
"Optimization" is POINTLESS to try to remove, since it doubles
sourcecode size.

> Additionally, if it were not difficult, software houses couldn't
> offer one-shot test programs.

You can't do jack with that "sample" program, since it is NOT source
code. In fact, no rul;es aregiven for those "tes programs", but I'd
saythaey can't be put into storage memory, downloaded, or copi4ed in any
wasy- the "vendor" loads them into your active memory, where they must
stay until used. As one shots, attempts to copy them counts as a "use",
and they disapeer.

>Upgrading a program to have an Area option
> should be much more difficult than upgrading the Area to a higher rating.

It is. Upgrading the utility rating adds to rating for size purposes
AND test TN (plus, Prog rating can't exceed "Software" skill).
Upgrading options adds to rating for size ONLY, not programing test TN's
or programing skill limits.

> Thoughts?

Long since thunk of. Given the importance of good utilities and deck
upgrades, it is not a bad idea for a decker to specialize in "matrix
programing" instead of "decking", and the bonus from a math spu and a
task pool REALLY shines here, more so than in straight decking.
Throwing 14+ dice at a programing task is really, really nice... Also,
the equipment needed for a "task bonus" (at least a big MP personal comp
and programing suite, if not time on a host) is definately a worth while
investment. Its nice, if you can, to run MPCP, masking, and sleaze up
to 10, giving you a detection factor of 12 in stealth mode. Deckers
working as programing teams cn do this failry easily, making an all
decker game knda gross.... In fact, utility swapping and team-programing
is one area where regular deckers can walk all over Otaku, who are
essentially expert loners when it comes to "programing". Thier
"channels" are nice, but often lower in rating than a deckers primary
op-utility (though higher than the many he doesn't poor cash / time
into).
-Mongoose

From:	Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR2.0
Date:	Sat, 30 May 1998 22:22:21 -0500

Message no. 47 On Sat, 30 May 1998 21:39:24 -0500 Waffelmeisters
<evamarie@**********.net> writes:
>> VR 2.0 (Phil Levis , Thu 16:07)
<SNIP Disscusion of Upgrade Rules)

> Long since thunk of. Given the importance of good utilities and
deck
>upgrades, it is not a bad idea for a decker to specialize in "matrix
>programing" instead of "decking", and the bonus from a math spu and a
>task pool REALLY shines here, more so than in straight decking.
>Throwing 14+ dice at a programing task is really, really nice...

Out of Curiosity, where are you getting your numbers? Math SPU 4 = +2
Dice, Starting char can't have above 8 (4 general, 6 concentration, 8
specialization) unless of course, this isn't a starting char ... :) then
Cerebral Booster 2 & Encephalon 4 can give 4 dice ... that adds up 14 ...
is that what you used to calculate it?

>Also, the equipment needed for a "task bonus" (at least a big MP
personal comp
>and programing suite, if not time on a host) is definately a worth while
>investment. Its nice, if you can, to run MPCP, masking, and sleaze up
>to 10, giving you a detection factor of 12 in stealth mode.

oh yes, the programming kit is a great buy 1,500 for +1 task bonus sounds
good to me :)

>Deckers working as programing teams cn do this failry easily, making an
all
>decker game knda gross.... In fact, utility swapping and team-programing
>is one area where regular deckers can walk all over Otaku, who are
>essentially expert loners when it comes to "programing". Thier
>"channels" are nice, but often lower in rating than a deckers primary
>op-utility (though higher than the many he doesn't poor cash / time
into).
>-Mongoose

Yah know, I was reread the Otaku rules recently and I realized something
... an Otaku can start with one channel rating of 6, one of 5, one of 4
and the other two have a max of 3 if said Otaku is a Technoshaman, all
T#s when using channels are reduced by 1 ... if the Otaku places a 6 in
Control, 5 in Access, 4 in index, and 3's in Slave & Files, the Otaku
when trying to deck, for example, Ares' Host A could roll 6-10 dice (from
6 pts in general comp to 8 points with decking specialization) against
T#s of 2 (access), 3 (control), 4 (index), 7 (files & slave) ... not bad
for a starting character! (course that host has no paydata ;)

But a lovely point about Otaku is their Task bonus (Charisma
+Intelligence)/4 with a maximum of +5 (Elf with the halved physical
attributes option plus Exceptional Ability Charisma and Intelligence then
max out those stats ) coupled with being on a mainframe with programming
Suite (+5 task) suddenly the char writes 11 days worth of code per day
... scary!

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	'K' is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR2.0
Date:	Sun, 31 May 1998 00:20:16 EDT

Message no. 48 In a message dated 5/30/98 10:24:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> Yah know, I was reread the Otaku rules recently and I realized something
> ... an Otaku can start with one channel rating of 6, one of 5, one of 4
> and the other two have a max of 3 if said Otaku is a Technoshaman, all
> T#s when using channels are reduced by 1 ... if the Otaku places a 6 in
> Control, 5 in Access, 4 in index, and 3's in Slave & Files, the Otaku
> when trying to deck, for example, Ares' Host A could roll 6-10 dice (from
> 6 pts in general comp to 8 points with decking specialization) against
> T#s of 2 (access), 3 (control), 4 (index), 7 (files & slave) ... not bad
> for a starting character! (course that host has no paydata ;)

Uh, guy, I would suggest rereading the Otaku section very carefully. I have
tried Maxing out all the stats possible and breaking the rules for physical
resources, and there is simply no way that an Otaku is gonna get all his/her
beginning channels at those levels. I think the highest I ever managed was a
bunch of 2's and a 3. Something similar to that anyway.

> But a lovely point about Otaku is their Task bonus (Charisma
> +Intelligence)/4 with a maximum of +5 (Elf with the halved physical
> attributes option plus Exceptional Ability Charisma and Intelligence then
> max out those stats ) coupled with being on a mainframe with programming
> Suite (+5 task) suddenly the char writes 11 days worth of code per day
> ... scary!

Yes, now this munch I can understand, and greatly appreciate. HOWEVER, I have
found that a PAD with Enhanced Centering (Programming) and working on a Suite
boosted Mainframe can be FAR more impressive....

=K

From:	Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR2.0
Date:	Sun, 31 May 1998 00:03:38 -0500

Message no. 49 On Sun, 31 May 1998 00:20:16 EDT "'K' is the Symbol" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 5/30/98 10:24:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>> Yah know, I was reread the Otaku rules recently and I realized
something
>> ... an Otaku can start with one channel rating of 6, one of 5, one of
4
>> and the other two have a max of 3 if said Otaku is a Technoshaman,
all
>> T#s when using channels are reduced by 1 ... if the Otaku places a 6
in
>> Control, 5 in Access, 4 in index, and 3's in Slave & Files, the Otaku
>> when trying to deck, for example, Ares' Host A could roll 6-10 dice
(from
>> 6 pts in general comp to 8 points with decking specialization)
against
>> T#s of 2 (access), 3 (control), 4 (index), 7 (files & slave) ... not
bad
>> for a starting character! (course that host has no paydata ;)

>Uh, guy, I would suggest rereading the Otaku section very carefully. I
have
>tried Maxing out all the stats possible and breaking the rules for
physical
>resources, and there is simply no way that an Otaku is gonna get all
his/her
>beginning channels at those levels. I think the highest I ever managed
was a
>bunch of 2's and a 3. Something similar to that anyway.

uh, guy ;) I don't think it can be done with the priority system in the
BBB, but it can be done using the BP system in SRCo ... But after I
switched to using Wordman's progressive BP costs, I couldn't (at least
not reasonably ...)

>> But a lovely point about Otaku is their Task bonus (Charisma
>> +Intelligence)/4 with a maximum of +5 (Elf with the halved physical
>> attributes option plus Exceptional Ability Charisma and Intelligence
then
>> max out those stats ) coupled with being on a mainframe with
programming
>> Suite (+5 task) suddenly the char writes 11 days worth of code per
day
>> ... scary!

>Yes, now this munch I can understand, and greatly appreciate. HOWEVER,
I have
>found that a PAD with Enhanced Centering (Programming) and working on a
Suite
>boosted Mainframe can be FAR more impressive....
>
>=K

Ewwwww GROSS! ;) this would basically make the PhysAd like an Otaku
(different, but similar) ... the target number for decking be the
subsystem after utilities wouldn't it? I reiteriate ... Ewwwww GROSS! ;)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	'K' is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: VR2.0
Date:	Sun, 31 May 1998 01:29:16 EDT

Message no. 50 In a message dated 5/31/98 12:07:24 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

<snipped comments on Channels Ratings for Beginning Otaku>

> uh, guy ;) I don't think it can be done with the priority system in the
> BBB, but it can be done using the BP system in SRCo ... But after I
> switched to using Wordman's progressive BP costs, I couldn't (at least
> not reasonably ...)

Actually, we used the SR-Comp to try and pull this stunt off. It -still-
couldn't make things they way you are suggesting. Remember that the number of
points is spread out amongst the Channels, not placed in any kind of initial
priority system. Also remember that regardless of the resources that are
aquired via the SR-Comp, the Otaku character does NOT gain that money, hence
the limitation to beginning cyberware.

It is the one place where the SR-Comp does NOT work effectively as a
comparison for a given "Archetype". There was a discussion on the list a
while back about "Otaku" using the "Magicians" priority table in the
SR-Comp,
and the "Force Points" for spells (Full Magician requirement in this case)
being the "Form Points" for the character.

> Ewwwww GROSS! ;) this would basically make the PhysAd like an Otaku
> (different, but similar) ... the target number for decking be the
> subsystem after utilities wouldn't it? I reiteriate ... Ewwwww GROSS! ;)
>
> D.Ghost
> (aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)

Sort of it would, yes. Except that if you are using First Ed rules crossover
concerning magical types and the matrix, it doesn't work that well. A PAD
would never make a good decker under those conditions.

Please note that the Enhanced Centering was also simplified in the example I
gave (hence, the "Programming" option). It normally would work towards a
Whole Category of skills (Technical, B/R, etc...). Just imagine putting
Enhanced Centering (Technical) into the fray of the decker who isn't in a
Combat Situation...

=K

Message no. 51 On Sun, 31 May 1998 01:29:16 EDT "'K' is the Symbol" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
writes:
>In a message dated 5/31/98 12:07:24 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>dghost@****.COM writes:
>
><snipped comments on Channels Ratings for Beginning Otaku>
>> uh, guy ;) I don't think it can be done with the priority system in
the
>> BBB, but it can be done using the BP system in SRCo ... But after I
>> switched to using Wordman's progressive BP costs, I couldn't (at
least
>> not reasonably ...)

>Actually, we used the SR-Comp to try and pull this stunt off. It
-still-
>couldn't make things they way you are suggesting. Remember that the
number of
>points is spread out amongst the Channels, not placed in any kind of
initial
>priority system. Also remember that regardless of the resources that
are
>aquired via the SR-Comp, the Otaku character does NOT gain that money,
hence
>the limitation to beginning cyberware.

The cyber was max ever ... actually, now that I think about it ... I
forgot about the Intelligence bonus bringing the task bonus up to +11 and
12 days worth of programming per day ... also you can allocate points
from skills to the channels and that's how you can Max them out ...

>It is the one place where the SR-Comp does NOT work effectively as a
>comparison for a given "Archetype". There was a discussion on the list
a
>while back about "Otaku" using the "Magicians" priority table in
the
SR-Comp,
>and the "Force Points" for spells (Full Magician requirement in this
case)
>being the "Form Points" for the character.

Yeah ... I thought about that ... could work ... I'm sure most of the
list members are sick of it :) so could you e-mail a (short) summary
privately, if it's not too much trouble :)

>> Ewwwww GROSS! ;) this would basically make the PhysAd like an Otaku
>> (different, but similar) ... the target number for decking be the
>> subsystem after utilities wouldn't it? I reiteriate ... Ewwwww
GROSS! ;)
>>
<SNIP My Sig>

>Sort of it would, yes. Except that if you are using First Ed rules
crossover
>concerning magical types and the matrix, it doesn't work that well. A
PAD
>would never make a good decker under those conditions.

But according to Gurth, IRC the penalty was based on Magical theory ...
so if the PhysAd never learns Magical Theory he's allright ... (what's he
need it for anyway?)

>Please note that the Enhanced Centering was also simplified in the
example I
>gave (hence, the "Programming" option). It normally would work towards
a
>Whole Category of skills (Technical, B/R, etc...). Just imagine putting
>Enhanced Centering (Technical) into the fray of the decker who isn't in
a
>Combat Situation...
>
>=K

Yup yup ... how about Enhanced Centering (Technical) for the group's
PhysAd / Rigger / Decker? What's the centering skill? whistling ...(o/~
Wistle while you work ... o/~)

BTW, If an Otaku is a Cyberadept, does the +1 apply to the Complex form
_AND_ the options? (ie the Otaku pays for & programs a Attack 5 skulk 3,
does the Otaku Get Attack 6 Skulk 4, Attack 6 Skulk 3, or choice of
[Attack 6 skulk 3 or Attack 5 skulk 4?])

Also does a cyberadept's bonus apply to programming Sprites?

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 52 In a message dated 5/31/98 7:32:46 AM !!!First Boot!!!, dghost@****.COM
writes:

> BTW, If an Otaku is a Cyberadept, does the +1 apply to the Complex form
> _AND_ the options? (ie the Otaku pays for & programs a Attack 5 skulk 3,
> does the Otaku Get Attack 6 Skulk 4, Attack 6 Skulk 3, or choice of
> [Attack 6 skulk 3 or Attack 5 skulk 4?])

No, only for the forms, the options only enhance the ability of the form
itself ...

> Also does a cyberadept's bonus apply to programming Sprites?

No ... as they are considered to be free-roaming, and the bonus helps the
otaku only ...

Mike

Message no. 53 >
> Re: VR2.0 (Alfredo B Alves , Sat 22:22)

> Out of Curiosity, where are you getting your numbers? Math SPU 4 = +2
> Dice, Starting char can't have above 8 (4 general, 6 concentration, 8
> specialization) unless of course, this isn't a starting char ... :) then
> Cerebral Booster 2 & Encephalon 4 can give 4 dice ... that adds up 14 ...
> is that what you used to calculate it?

Yep. 14+, the plus being if you spend some karma on raising "matrix
programing", or can use karma pool.

> Yah know, I was reread the Otaku rules recently and I realized something
> ... an Otaku can start with one channel rating of 6, one of 5, one of 4
> and the other two have a max of 3 if said Otaku is a Technoshaman, all
> T#s when using channels are reduced by 1 ... if the Otaku places a 6 in
> Control, 5 in Access, 4 in index, and 3's in Slave & Files, the Otaku
> when trying to deck, for example, Ares' Host A could roll 6-10 dice (from
> 6 pts in general comp to 8 points with decking specialization) against
> T#s of 2 (access), 3 (control), 4 (index), 7 (files & slave) ... not bad
> for a starting character! (course that host has no paydata ;)

Yes, Otaku can be quite good at system ops (well, DUH). On the other
hand, getting much better can cost them GOBS of karma, as each is a
seperate general skill. OUCH. Getting op-utilities seems easy, in
comparison.

>
> But a lovely point about Otaku is their Task bonus (Charisma
> +Intelligence)/4 with a maximum of +5 (Elf with the halved physical
> attributes option plus Exceptional Ability Charisma and Intelligence then
> max out those stats ) coupled with being on a mainframe with programming
> Suite (+5 task) suddenly the char writes 11 days worth of code per day
> ... scary!

Since the programing is of a "complex form", which is entirely inside
the Otaku's head, and can not be uploaded, downloaded, or shared with
other otaku, I'd say ONLY the otaku task bonus aplies to the task.
That's why "Otaku task bonus" and "Programing task bonus" have
diffrent
names, I'd guess. Now, maybe if the went to a UV host to "build" the
representation of the form (which would be a real object there), they'd
get that "mainframe" task bonus- at that point, they are doing the
equivalent of a metaplaner spell design quest!

-Mongoose

Message no. 54 In a message dated 5/31/98 2:32:49 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> >Actually, we used the SR-Comp to try and pull this stunt off. It
> -still-
> >couldn't make things they way you are suggesting. Remember that the
> number of
> >points is spread out amongst the Channels, not placed in any kind of
> initial
> >priority system. Also remember that regardless of the resources that
> are
> >aquired via the SR-Comp, the Otaku character does NOT gain that money,
> hence
> >the limitation to beginning cyberware.
>
> The cyber was max ever ... actually, now that I think about it ... I
> forgot about the Intelligence bonus bringing the task bonus up to +11 and
> 12 days worth of programming per day ... also you can allocate points
> from skills to the channels and that's how you can Max them out ...

AHHHH, I see now. You did the one thing that we immediately saw as being
"overwhelming" here. We don't allow for Skill Points to be allocated in such
a manner for a beginning Otaku.

> >It is the one place where the SR-Comp does NOT work effectively as a
> >comparison for a given "Archetype". There was a discussion on the
list
> a
> >while back about "Otaku" using the "Magicians" priority
table in the
> SR-Comp,
> >and the "Force Points" for spells (Full Magician requirement in this
> case)
> >being the "Form Points" for the character.
>
> Yeah ... I thought about that ... could work ... I'm sure most of the
> list members are sick of it :) so could you e-mail a (short) summary
> privately, if it's not too much trouble :)

Believe it or not, the above -IS- the summary of such. (giggle)

> >Sort of it would, yes. Except that if you are using First Ed rules
> crossover
> >concerning magical types and the matrix, it doesn't work that well. A
> PAD
> >would never make a good decker under those conditions.
>
> But according to Gurth, IRC the penalty was based on Magical theory ...
> so if the PhysAd never learns Magical Theory he's allright ... (what's he
> need it for anyway?)

THAT is a question that I will leave up to Gurth to explain out. As for my
personal opinions concerning Magicians and Matrix. I am going to withhold
such, as that is likely to start another really twisted conversation.

> >Please note that the Enhanced Centering was also simplified in the
> example I
> >gave (hence, the "Programming" option). It normally would work
towards
> a
> >Whole Category of skills (Technical, B/R, etc...). Just imagine putting
> >Enhanced Centering (Technical) into the fray of the decker who isn't in
> a
> >Combat Situation...
> Yup yup ... how about Enhanced Centering (Technical) for the group's
> PhysAd / Rigger / Decker? What's the centering skill? whistling ...(o/~
> Wistle while you work ... o/~)

Oh yeah, we've done this. You want to another one that nearly made us all
throw up here? A Magician gained Enhanced Centering (Knowledge) and started
using his "Computers Skill" as the actual Centering Skill. He was hermetic
and decided to do his design work on said machine. Yep, THAT was annoyingly
funny...

> BTW, If an Otaku is a Cyberadept, does the +1 apply to the Complex form
> _AND_ the options? (ie the Otaku pays for & programs a Attack 5 skulk 3,
> does the Otaku Get Attack 6 Skulk 4, Attack 6 Skulk 3, or choice of
> [Attack 6 skulk 3 or Attack 5 skulk 4?])

NO, the bonus comes -after- the program is purchased. Also, the rating bonus
has never been discussed concerning the "Options Ratings" on Programs/Forms to
my knowledge. Here, we only give the bonus the to the actual "Core Rating" of
the Program/Form.

> Also does a cyberadept's bonus apply to programming Sprites?

It applies to ALL Programming (Matrix most likely limitation, but it could be
read otherwise) activities, including making Sprites.

=K

Message no. 55 In a message dated 5/31/98 2:47:50 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
Airwasp@***.COM writes:

> > Also does a cyberadept's bonus apply to programming Sprites?
>
> No ... as they are considered to be free-roaming, and the bonus helps the
> otaku only ...
>
Ooo, now I answered this one differently. I was referring to the TASK Bonus
as far as programming time and the like. As far as the "Form Bonus" that a
Cyberadept has, I agree completely with Mike here.

=K

Message no. 56 -----Original Message-----
From: 'K' is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
>In a message dated 5/31/98 2:47:50 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>Airwasp@***.COM writes:
>
>> > Also does a cyberadept's bonus apply to programming Sprites?
>>
>> No ... as they are considered to be free-roaming, and the bonus helps
the
>> otaku only ...
>>
>Ooo, now I answered this one differently. I was referring to the TASK
Bonus
>as far as programming time and the like. As far as the "Form Bonus" that a
>Cyberadept has, I agree completely with Mike here.

What about the programs IN the sprite? Say a Cyberadept has writes an
attack 5M program. His +1 makes it Attack 6M. He then creates a Sprite
with a rating of 8 and puts his Attack program in...once in the Sprite it
would still be a 6M program, or would it revert back to a 5M?

Wraith

Message no. 57 On Sun, 31 May 1998 05:04:19 -0500 Waffelmeisters
<evamarie@**********.net> writes:
>> Re: VR2.0 (Alfredo B Alves , Sat 22:22)
<SNIP>
>> But a lovely point about Otaku is their Task bonus (Charisma
>> +Intelligence)/4 with a maximum of +5 (Elf with the halved physical
>> attributes option plus Exceptional Ability Charisma and Intelligence
then
>> max out those stats ) coupled with being on a mainframe with
programming
>> Suite (+5 task) suddenly the char writes 11 days worth of code per day
>> ... scary!

> Since the programing is of a "complex form", which is entirely
inside
>the Otaku's head, and can not be uploaded, downloaded, or shared with
>other otaku, I'd say ONLY the otaku task bonus aplies to the task.
>That's why "Otaku task bonus" and "Programing task bonus" have
diffrent
>names, I'd guess. Now, maybe if the went to a UV host to "build" the
>representation of the form (which would be a real object there), they'd
>get that "mainframe" task bonus- at that point, they are doing the
>equivalent of a metaplaner spell design quest!
>
>-Mongoose

hmmmm... the VR book doesn't say whether they're cumulative or not ... if
they're not then that gives me the impression that Otaku's brains are
like hosts ... Would the Otaku task bonus apply to writing normal
programs?

speaking of UV hosts ... would a UV host give any special task bonuses
(for normal decekrs as well as Otaku)?

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 58 On Sun, 31 May 1998 14:20:36 -0500 Wraith <wraith@************.COM>
writes:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: 'K' is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
>>In a message dated 5/31/98 2:47:50 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>>Airwasp@***.COM writes:
>> >> Also does a cyberadept's bonus apply to programming Sprites?

>> > No ... as they are considered to be free-roaming, and the bonus
helps the
>> > otaku only ...

<SNIP K's "I agree with Mike">

>What about the programs IN the sprite? Say a Cyberadept has writes an
>attack 5M program. His +1 makes it Attack 6M. He then creates a Sprite
>with a rating of 8 and puts his Attack program in...once in the Sprite
it
>would still be a 6M program, or would it revert back to a 5M?
>
>Wraith

It would stay at 6M IMO, the bonus is just to reflect that they are more
adept at programing forms ... so in the time it takes to write (and for
the cost of) a Rating 5 attack prog, they crank out a rating 6 ...

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 59 'K' is the Symbol said on 10:45/31 May 98,...

> > But according to Gurth, IRC the penalty was based on Magical theory ...
> > so if the PhysAd never learns Magical Theory he's allright ... (what's he
> > need it for anyway?)
>
> THAT is a question that I will leave up to Gurth to explain out. As for my
> personal opinions concerning Magicians and Matrix. I am going to withhold
> such, as that is likely to start another really twisted conversation.

According to Gurth and his copy of Virtual Realities, the penalty is
based the rating of either the Sorcery Skill or the Magic Attribute,
not Magical Theory.

I myself would base it on Magic Attribute, else spellcasting
magicians get a penalty while non-spellcasters (physads and
conjuring adepts, for example) don't. Unless you were to use the
character's primary (highest?) magic skill, but then still physads
gt no mod.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- + --+--
Version 3.1: | Incubated into
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N | the First Church of
o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ | the Sqooshy Ball
tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y? | 21 May 1998
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ + --+--

Message no. 60 alfredo b. alves wrote:

| uh, guy ;) I don't think it can be done with the priority system in the
| BBB, but it can be done using the BP system in SRCo ... But after I
| switched to using Wordman's progressive BP costs, I couldn't (at least
| not reasonably ...)

could someone point me to where wordman's progressive BP cost system is??
just email it to me PRIVATELY thank you

roun aka david
roun@***.net

Message no. 61 >alfredo b. alves wrote:
>
>| But after I
>| switched to using Wordman's progressive BP costs, I couldn't (at least
>| not reasonably ...)
>
>could someone point me to where Wordman's progressive BP cost system is??
>just email it to me PRIVATELY thank you

Uh... me to!

Wordman

Message no. 62 > Re: VR2.0 (Gurth , Mon 5:47)

> According to Gurth and his copy of Virtual Realities, the penalty is
> based the rating of either the Sorcery Skill or the Magic Attribute,
> not Magical Theory.
>
> I myself would base it on Magic Attribute, else spellcasting
> magicians get a penalty while non-spellcasters (physads and
> conjuring adepts, for example) don't. Unless you were to use the
> character's primary (highest?) magic skill, but then still physads
> gt no mod.

That reminds me of a Decker physad I made. Ispent points on extra
reaction, as there was no restriction onit NOTworking in the matrix, and
saved poits for "enhanced centering, computer". Woulda been sweet, I
think... I don't recall any penalty for physads either,but we didn't use
a matrix penalty for mages anyhow.

-=Mongoose

Message no. 63 wafflemiester said on 15:33/3 Jun 98,...

> That reminds me of a Decker physad I made. Ispent points on extra
> reaction, as there was no restriction onit NOTworking in the matrix, and
> saved poits for "enhanced centering, computer". Woulda been sweet, I
> think... I don't recall any penalty for physads either,but we didn't use
> a matrix penalty for mages anyhow.

Then I think you shouldn't give a penalty to physads either. As
for the enhanced reaction, that's a tricky one... It doesn't say it
only works in the physical plane, but OTOH the character is called
a _physical_ adept, not a Matrix adept. I'm not sure if I'd have
given the character those extra points while in the Matrix.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
Is it yours, or is it... goodbye!
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- + --+--
Version 3.1: | Incubated into
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N | the First Church of
o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ | the Sqooshy Ball
tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y? | 21 May 1998
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ + --+--

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer