Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun Missions _ Martial Arts styles not allowed in SRM?
Posted by: CrowOfPyke Aug 1 2010, 06:47 PM
So... the Martial Arts styles are in the "More Ways To Die" chapter of Arsenal. The character creation guide says the combat rules from that chapter are not allowed for SRM play, but does not mention the styles directly, saying the chapter is "out".
Does anyone know if they really meant to remove the Martial Arts styles from SRM play as well? It would seem excessive since the styles aren't making new combat rules, just giving character options....
Posted by: SaintHax Aug 1 2010, 09:16 PM
Yes, you could have searched for this 
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=20675&hl=martial+arts+styles
It sucks, IMO.
Posted by: VillainsVision Aug 1 2010, 09:57 PM
Thanks I was wondering the same thing and was having issues finding that thread
Posted by: CrowOfPyke Aug 2 2010, 04:01 AM
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=20675&hl=martial+arts+styles
It sucks, IMO.
Wow. That is just incredibly lame. Seems to be no reason for it other than it is in the same chapter as the alternate combat rules. Oh well....
Posted by: SaintHax Aug 2 2010, 12:15 PM
The reason is for consistancy: the rule is "no option rules", and sadly Catalyst marked this as "Optional". I think it sucks, but at the same time I feel for the SRM staff that wants to avoid new players needing a SRM Guideline sheet in front of them to make a character. Instead, this way they can be told briefly what the rules are, and there's no exceptions to remember.
One day that will also catch up with using the standard Fencing loot rules, and not forcing a 4:1 success buy. The last regime felt the need to justify these exceptions to the rule. I'm hoping Bull will overturn this.
Posted by: Bull Aug 2 2010, 02:40 PM
If I do, it'll be in favor of a flat "No fencing loot" rule, as I'm not a fan of the "Kill them, take their stuff" D&D Mentality that some players take with fencing loot.
Bull
Posted by: SaintHax Aug 2 2010, 11:17 PM
Bull
There's a better way. I've seen pawn shop runners in action and it is a bit much.
Posted by: Chance359 Aug 3 2010, 12:02 AM
The easiest way to get runners to not steal everything nailed down is to pay them not to. In the missions environment, each job could have bonuses (no trace = X bonus, little trace = x-50% bonus). Sort of how karma is awarded now.
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Aug 3 2010, 01:01 AM
The pay would need to start getting LOTS better if the no fencing rule was put into play. I'm already loosing money on a few missions.
Also I can live with martial arts being out of the picture as Krav maga is evidently the greatest martial art ever practiced and makes one a better shootist then firefight. Awesome.
Posted by: Reg06 Aug 3 2010, 01:15 PM
The martial arts thing sucks, but it's not like melee combatants were that competitive with it.
Fencing loot is necessary for characters whose improvement relies on nuyen. Or the missions need to pay more.
Posted by: KarmaInferno Aug 4 2010, 10:35 PM
Huh. The "no optional rules" thing means that we have access to all the Armor modification gear from Arsenal, but don't use the optional rules about armor having limited slots?
-karma
Posted by: Dakka Dakka Aug 5 2010, 02:42 PM
Exactly
Posted by: Bull Aug 9 2010, 03:29 AM
Temper things with a bit of common sense. I don't entirely discourage GMs from killing abusive twinks
Posted by: KarmaInferno Aug 9 2010, 02:18 PM
I think it would not be a horrible thing if there WERE a few of the optional rules added into SRM.
Some of them make sense, like the aforementioned armor capacity rules.
Honestly, I don't know WHY the armor cap rules were tagged as "optional". Optional makes sense for new content, new options, that sort of stuff.
Stuff that is basically re-balancing existing rules to correct power levels or errors shouldn't be optional.
-karma
Posted by: UmaroVI Aug 10 2010, 02:50 AM
I dunno about that; I think it's poor game design. Putting non-optional rules in sourcebooks that supercede the core rules is really annoying; it makes it difficult to learn the rules because you read the core rules, and you (hopefully) (mostly) understand them, then you start reading contradictory stuff. Or you try to look something up, and you find the rule, but there's another rule that overrules it in another book. At the very least, they should have changed things like that in SR4A or the SR base book errata.
Posted by: LurkerOutThere Aug 10 2010, 01:54 PM
The registration rules in unwired are a prime example of something that should be optional as are the piracy rules at they drastically change items in the core book.
Posted by: KarmaInferno Aug 10 2010, 06:13 PM
Actually, thinking about it deeper, it's not so much that the armor rules are optional, but that they're intended to work with the new Armor gear and equipment they appear with.
So we have this weird disconnect in SRM where you have a bunch of new character options allowed, but the accompanying rules designed to manage and control the use of those options isn't in force.
-karma
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)