Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Dvixen <dvixen@********.COM>
Subject:	?? (was Re: Possession)
Date:	Wed, 24 Dec 1997 01:19:44 -0800

Message no. 1 Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:

> Hey everybody,
> Instead of cheating your players why not try something new? Try playing by
> the actual rules in the SRII rule book? Just a thought here...

Oh, I am. I simply revamp a few things where they do not fit the portrayal
of the world I envision. And I am quite certain, Ivy dear, that your
interpretation of the 'actual rules' is quite different from mine. And don't
flaunt how long you have been playing the game for, cause a) I couldn't care
less, and b) I've been playing just as long as you.

[snip *another* entire, uncommented reply]

> SRII is a game that rewards a good GM, and poor ones have to change the
> rules.

Really? Then I guess a good GM does't find much of a challenge with the
rules as they stand. Pity, then, that you refuse to use your own creativity,
and accuse those who do as lesser GM's as yourself. You must be quite the
'good GM' to be able to stick to the rules as they stand, lacking in such
areas as they are. Stubborn and unbending comes to mind. Is your totem
Steel?

--

Dvixen Code-word : Weevil-chuck. dvixen@********.com
"I'd rather have a face people fear." - Ivanova - Babylon 5
FAQ Flunky of the SRcard and ShadowRN Mailing Lists
http://coastnet.com/~dvixen/shadowrn/srnfaq1.html <= Get it. Memorize!
Required Reading => http://coastnet.com/~dvixen/srtcg/tcgfaq1.html

From:	Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject:	Re: ?? (was Re: Possession)
Date:	Thu, 25 Dec 1997 17:17:57 +0000

Message no. 2 On 24 Dec 97 at 1:19, Dvixen wrote:
> Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
> > SRII is a game that rewards a good GM, and poor ones have to change the
> > rules.
> Really? Then I guess a good GM does't find much of a challenge with
> the rules as they stand. Pity, then, that you refuse to use your own
> creativity, and accuse those who do as lesser GM's as yourself. You
> must be quite the 'good GM' to be able to stick to the rules as they
> stand, lacking in such areas as they are. Stubborn and unbending
> comes to mind. Is your totem Steel?
Sorry to throw myself in there, but of course Ralph and Ivy are right.
When a player has an idea that isn't covered by the rules - "it is not
possible!" In fact, noone could think a human being could bve able to
just run into enemies when it has no "Simple" or "Complex" Action left
that "Phase". By the rules, movement is not an action, but it's
impossible to move into your enemies to distract their aim. Only lower
GMs allow such a nonsense.

No, sorry, didn't want to become sarcastic, but there are several
things _not_ covered by the rules - obviously, one has to expand the
existing rules with creative players (and I am happy I have a few in my
group). Some rules aim for a style not everyone likes - for the overall
benefit of the players and GM, they have to be changed.

If that's a definition for a "poor" GM I am proud to see the faces of
my players, happy with my poor style.

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst | 'Real stupidity |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| beats artificial |
| \___ __/ | | intelligence every |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | time.' |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me | - M. Ridcully |
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary ----(T.Pratchett)+

From:	Frank Pelletier <jeanpell@****.IVIC.QC.CA>
Subject:	Re: ?? (was Re: Possession)
Date:	Thu, 25 Dec 1997 16:16:23 +0000

Message no. 3 Sascha Pabst once wrote,

> On 24 Dec 97 at 1:19, Dvixen wrote:
> > Ralph and Ivy Ryan wrote:
> > > SRII is a game that rewards a good GM, and poor ones have to change the
> > > rules.
> > Really? Then I guess a good GM does't find much of a challenge with
> > the rules as they stand. Pity, then, that you refuse to use your own
> > creativity, and accuse those who do as lesser GM's as yourself. You
> > must be quite the 'good GM' to be able to stick to the rules as they
> > stand, lacking in such areas as they are. Stubborn and unbending
> > comes to mind. Is your totem Steel?
> Sorry to throw myself in there, but of course Ralph and Ivy are right.
> When a player has an idea that isn't covered by the rules - "it is not
> possible!" In fact, noone could think a human being could bve able to
> just run into enemies when it has no "Simple" or "Complex" Action
left
> that "Phase". By the rules, movement is not an action, but it's
> impossible to move into your enemies to distract their aim. Only lower
> GMs allow such a nonsense.
>
> No, sorry, didn't want to become sarcastic, but there are several
> things _not_ covered by the rules - obviously, one has to expand the
> existing rules with creative players (and I am happy I have a few in my
> group). Some rules aim for a style not everyone likes - for the overall
> benefit of the players and GM, they have to be changed.
>
> If that's a definition for a "poor" GM I am proud to see the faces of
> my players, happy with my poor style.

Now..wait, wait, wait, wait...take a deep breath...that's it. Cool.

I can see where Ryan and Ivy might have a point. It's perfectly allright
to invent and adapt existing rules to new situations that weren't taken
into account in BBB or any of the sourcebooks. That's great. Every GM
does that.

But when it comes to modifying existing rules (i.e. Melee, vehicle, etc.),
I think I'll side with R&I. SR was built with a balance between combat,
magic, matrix and vehicle in mind. Everything works fine (hey, it's a
RPG system, not RL in a bottle..so what there's a couple of
inconstintancies? There's some in all systems). Personally, I once had a
GM who modified and boosted the melee system (with martial arts and
maneuvers and shit). Well my my my, the Physads and Sams were having a
blast, but, boy!, did my poor little decker bore himself to death... The
group was great, the rules were fine, and we had fun... But the GM wanted
to add Muay Thai and Karate and all that shit...He ended up with a
campaign full of Street monsters, and one less player...

Now, what I think R&I wanted to say is exactly that. Sure, you must adapt
to new situations...but why worry with realism when SR as a whole works
great? (BTW, that's why I'm pissed with R2...why add a truckload of rules
for a system that works fine?). Heck, as the old saying goes: "If it
ain't broke don't fix it"...

(BTW, again, I wouldn't go so far as to call "Poor GMs" those people who
want to modify those rules...that's what Nerps are for, neh? But some of
you have gone way, way, way overboard with this, to a point where it
couldn't be called "Shadowrun" anymore...)

Salutations

Trinity
------------------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
Trinity@********.com, jeanpell@****.qc.ca

"Life is a blur"

From:	TODD ROBBINS <digger-@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: ?? (was Re: Possession)
Date:	Fri, 26 Dec 1997 00:46:38 -0600

Message no. 4 Frank Pelletier wrote:

> But when it comes to modifying existing rules (i.e. Melee, vehicle, etc.),
> I think I'll side with R&I. SR was built with a balance between combat,
> magic, matrix and vehicle in mind. Everything works fine (hey, it's a
> RPG system, not RL in a bottle..so what there's a couple of
> inconstintancies? There's some in all systems). Personally, I once had a
> GM who modified and boosted the melee system (with martial arts and
> maneuvers and shit). Well my my my, the Physads and Sams were having a
> blast, but, boy!, did my poor little decker bore himself to death... The
> group was great, the rules were fine, and we had fun... But the GM wanted
> to add Muay Thai and Karate and all that shit...He ended up with a
> campaign full of Street monsters, and one less player...

I will agree that a lot of the rules modifications I've seen have been
poorly done and ill considered in the scope of an entire campaign. I
will not agree, however, that all rules modifications are in this
category, even those that alter rules that are already in existence. I
would also hasten to point out that it is within the province of any
gamemaster to alter the rules to fit his campaign. I have a few rules
modifications that I use, and they work well with my campaign.

My players are not twinkies, munchkins or (this is for you Glenn)
"magpies". I do not have a group chock full of combat monsters and
souless killing machines, nor would I want to. The rules modifications
I have chosen to make I did so with the entire campaign in mind, to make
a more balanced set of rules and to remove certain inconsitencies. I
don't believe in adding a lot of rules, in fact I prefer to subtract
rather than add. I'm not overly concerned with realism, the system is
realistic enough IMHO, and has a good balance between realism and
playability.

> (BTW, again, I wouldn't go so far as to call "Poor GMs" those people who
> want to modify those rules...that's what Nerps are for, neh? But some of
> you have gone way, way, way overboard with this, to a point where it
> couldn't be called "Shadowrun" anymore...)

I would agree with the principle of this assesment. I've seen a lot of
rule's modifications posted on the web that were enough to cause me to
laugh until I broke into tears. But to use such a broad paint brush and
apply this to a situation such as my own and that of many others in this
mailing list is ridiculous. You don't know what I've changed, or why,
and to condemn something without knowledge is a dangerous practice
indeed.

Digger

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer