| From: | Mike Loseke <mike@******.VERINET.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Munchies!!! [Was Sr3 Combat spells] |
| Date: | Thu, 17 Jul 1997 08:35:14 -0600 |
>
> At 08:54 AM 7/17/97 +1000, LJ wrote:
> >> Panther Cannon? I'd have a field day with that. I call that severe
> >> powergamer, btw.
>
> >Oh, be reasonable. It's a FASA published item - that means the
> >production team must have envisaged a situation where it would be
> >appropriate. Sure, carrying everywhere you GO is powergaming (and
> >begging for a jail term) but the item in and of itself isn't munchy -
> >it's how and when you use it.
>
> 18D at mammoth ranges is pretty much a powergamer's wet dream with sugar on
> top. It isn't munchy as it is in the rules, but I called it powergaming.
> It's like I've said to my players "you can have anything, just expect
> consequences if you choose to act or purchase unwisely". The better the
> item, the more likely someone will be to attempt to steal it. Also,
> crimelords wouldn't be too happy knowing that some schmoe down the street
> (in their teritory no less) is storing heavy artillery.
I think I like Matt's approach a little better (Matt is one of our
2 GM's). He says "You guys can have any weapon in the book, as long as
I get to shoot you with it first." Needless to say, we have a pretty
conservative group, powerful-item wise. In our current campaign, my
techie/thief/gun-guy (who happens to be the deadliest combat guy so far
in this group) has a Walther PB-120, a Savalette Guardian and a Narcojet
pistol. By keeping the power level low on our side, intentionally, the
power levels encountered will most often match. When the opposing force
is better equipped, it just makes it more fun and challenging.
> >I think your vision of SR is significantly different from mine. That's
> >fine, I respect your right to hold your own interpretations and play the
> >way you like. Please extend us the same courtesy.
>
> As I've said before and will doubtlessly have to say again, play as you
> want. Just don't try to state that powergaming is the norm in the game and
> everything will be just fine. Also, don't try to accomodate powergaming by
> altering the rules to demand such a practice. As far as I know, you haven't
> done so. You've missed my point often by a considerable degree, but
> hopefully this post will cure that.
I don't want to sound too antagonistic here, but you seem to be
contradicting yourself. First you say "play as you want" then you go
on to say "don't try to accomodate powergaming by altering the rules
to demand such a practice." If that is how a group wants to play then
what's wrong with that? We all have our house rules, and every one of
those house rules will look munchkinous or powergamery to someone who
does not play in that group. Live and let live. Now if you were both
arguing a point over game balance within the affected system...
> As to my vision of SR... it's heavy on the roleplaying and light on the
> combat. Numbers matter, but not near as much as they do in most campaigns.
> Good decision-making and proper use of available resources and contacts is
> what defines the success of the runner team.
Aye, what you say is true, the use of contacts and resources is the key
to success, even though in our games we tend to split the combat and
roleplaying about 50/50. Half of us being in combat arms in the military
will do that to a group. :)
--
|
Mike Loseke | You never know how fluffy poodles are,
mike@*******.com | until you step in one.
|
