Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Why do you Shadowrun?
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 24 2006, 12:15 AM
I get mixed messages about what people look for in their games; the consensus amongst the "veterans," at least on my game threads, seems to be "street-levelism." That is, a constant frantic scramble for survival in the shadows of corporate giants that would stomp them to the ground if they weren't so tiny and insignificant. Then again, those same people want to play a game "where he (the hero) looks heroic, shoots the bad guy, and taps the female lead and her sister at the same time." This was http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=8834&hl=creepwood&st=25 who, in the old days of a few months ago, would constantly admonish me for not being "street level" enough.
There also seems to be a consensus against powergaming; it's bad to have stuff that is too good, to have players that are too powerful and effective. I construe this to mean that may people want good role-playing. At the same time, there seems to be a constant pressure to conform to this monochromatically dark standard; people seem to like and even require "mundane hitman/detective/hacker/gangster with a mercenary heart/chip on his shoulder/bad conscience/religious devotion to 'professionalism'" type characters; requisite cliches contrasting with a stated desire for "creativity."
The question I want to have answered is what the hell do people want out of Shadowrun? Do you want a Mary Sue hero or a whiny street emo geek? Do you want anti-productive creativityin which people try not to make specialized, effective characters or dumbass archetypes that people are, if this world has any justice, tired of? Am I not getting something, are people trying to be disagreeable for the sake of testosterone backlog, or none of the above?
Personally, I'm looking for excitement, twisted, dark humor, with moments of genuine heartbreak that are in no way diminished by the objective wrongness of the situations sprinkled in. What about you?
Posted by: Voorhees Apr 24 2006, 12:21 AM
I shadowrun because otherwise my perfectly good basement and virginal friends would sit around collecting dust.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 24 2006, 12:23 AM
But what do you look for in a game?
Posted by: Voorhees Apr 24 2006, 12:28 AM
*Shrug* I like more cinematic gameplay, but based on the kind of cinema I watch. So theres a lot of Road Warrior/The Warriors-esque gangs and whatnot. And then general ridiculousness, like sending the PCs on a run to rob an armored convoy shipment of super-rare awakened coffee beans. Character interaction and conflict is always fun. I once had a character sneak into a PC's girlfriend's house and kill her, because the character felt said PC's girlfriend was becoming a liability and annoyance.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 24 2006, 12:37 AM
Wow... thanks for responding.
Now for all the people who make a habit of shooting down my ideas; what do you want from Shadowrun?
Posted by: Backgammon Apr 24 2006, 01:23 AM
A believable experience where I can pretend I'm a professional badass in a dirty grimey world.
Why? I have no clue. But I love it.
Posted by: Taran Apr 24 2006, 01:24 AM
I mostly enjoy watching people react to the things I've made up; I'm open-minded about the nature of the game in which this happens. The one I'm running right now is pretty high-powered: 100-ish karma, with a bunch of mathematically ept people for players. It's street level in the sense that the characters aren't corporate and wouldn't want to be, but gangs (frex) are a threat only in large numbers or when led with unusual intelligence. The PCs are highly skilled professionals, and their fees (and challenges!) reflect that.
Posted by: James McMurray Apr 24 2006, 02:22 AM
I play it because it's fun. Street level, medium, or ultra-high powered can all have their places. If it's a challenge without being impossible and gives me something to wrap my brain around while sometimes venting frustrations on imaginary targets, great!
Posted by: Paul Apr 24 2006, 02:25 AM
I don't.
I'm the Games Master. I'm way too much of a ball hog to be a player.
Posted by: Dogsoup Apr 24 2006, 02:33 AM
High stakes and and dangerous/nefarious opposition.
Examples: Harlequins back, Double exposure, stuff involving Deus.
Posted by: Glyph Apr 24 2006, 02:38 AM
I play mainly for the roleplaying and the combat. I like the cyberpunk theme, but I don't find the planning phase as interesting, and a lot of games seem to get bogged down in the planning stage of the run.
As far as power level goes, I am flexible. I don't mind low-powered games if the characters can still affect the world around them, even if it's just stopping the local protection racket. I don't mind high-powered games, if there is still enough realism for me to be able to suspend my disbelief, and if there are still real challenges in the game.
Morality-wise, I prefer gritty antiheroes who have to do bad things to survive sometimes, but who are still better than the opposition most of the time. I like romanticized criminals, but not overly-romanticized ones. People who have to occasionally do bad things for the greater good, or even simply to survive. People who fight the system but realize, deep down, that in many ways they are still part of it.
I don't like games where the runners are psychopaths. On the flip side, I don't like the cold pro games that much, either, where there is too much planning and paranoia, and not enough fun (for me, that is. For people who like the planning aspect, these games are probably all kinds of fun).
As far as the game, I try to adapt to the GM's style. The only thing that I really dislike is excessive railroading. There's nothing wrong with a plot, but the PCs should have the ability to affect things.
Posted by: SL James Apr 24 2006, 05:51 AM
Street-level is such mindless posturing bullshit. It's like the argument Synner and I got into over PM last year where he kept bringing up Heat while consistently missing the whole point (Which is why I think he's completely full of shit, or clueless, or both). This was a movie where one of the protagonists fronts $100,000 of his own money to buy the bank job (plus a 10% cut on the backend). There's not one goddamn thing about that crew that is "street" and yet I've been told over and over again that a crew of 20-something street scum are somehow supposed to be on average as professional and skilled as McCauley's crew, yet still live in the fucking gutters.
Bullshit.
I play in the same world as Crit does (Did. Whatever) where professional criminals can make a fairly decent living because they get paid for their skills because their skills are rare and the resources that go into prepping a job usually exceed those of what Fanpro considers a decent average payment for a whole team. But they're still professional criminals where plenty of resources go into covering your ass, plenty of time is spent in the Barrens because that's where the action is and because that's where you can make all those nasty deals and field-test your l33t combat skills with weapons without the Star dropping two platoons of SWAT cops on your ass, and where the likelihood of coming home maimed or not at all from a job is virtually assured.
And that's the game I play, because that's the only way the game makes sense.
Posted by: mfb Apr 24 2006, 05:58 AM
yeah. Heat was good. but it was not street. i don't know of many good crime movies that are all that street-level. Bandits, maybe? The Big Hit? City of Industry is stretching it.
Posted by: eidolon Apr 24 2006, 06:03 AM
| QUOTE (SL James) |
| <snip> |
And the award for the Perfect Master of all that is Shadowrun goes to...
Hey everybody, we might as well sell our books and play d20 My Little Pony. We obviously don't know how to play Shadowrun.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 24 2006, 06:19 AM
| QUOTE (eidolon @ Apr 24 2006, 01:03 AM) | ||
And the award for the Perfect Master of all that is Shadowrun goes to... |
You're just threatened because he's right.
(Well, I won't agree with the assessment of Synner, though I will about his view of Heat if it's accurately presented here. Regardless, that's neither here nor there.)
Shadowrun is "street level" in that Shadowrunners know the street, they frequently know people who live on the street, they even, you know, walk and/or drive on the street. That's just about it. You can certainly play a campaign where everyone is a ganger, just like you can play a campaign where everyone is a Lone Star cop or a DocWagon employee or a white-collar wageslave in Fuchi's most majestic example of mid-'40s architecture. Once you do that, though, you are no longer playing shadowrunners.
~J
Posted by: James McMurray Apr 24 2006, 06:40 AM
| QUOTE (eidolon) | ||
And the award for the Perfect Master of all that is Shadowrun goes to... Hey everybody, we might as well sell our books and play d20 My Little Pony. We obviously don't know how to play Shadowrun. |
LOL! I was going to respond myself, but couldn't have done it better.
Posted by: Straw Man Apr 24 2006, 07:48 AM
Personally, I like the fact that you can create some freak that spews 5 or 6 phases of full auto AV fire per round straight out of chargen.
Why? Because things like that grant players the illusion of invincibility/omnipotence, then they go and USE those skills... and find out that the second they use that godly might, they've forfeited their pay/brought the wrath of a multinational corporation upon themselves/implicated the wrong people through their indiscretion.
The best and most memorable runs I've been on were astounding failures... where we barely got through with enough assets remaining to limp to the drop-off, only to find the guy with our pay had been turned into a thin film coating the majority of the surfaces in the room. Oh noes. And we've still got the package! Shit.
To me, Shadowrun's a system where, if the job is done "right", there's generally very little proof that it was done at all. It's a system where, at some point, the "heroes" have to run for their lives. It's a system where the only cures for paranoia are money and death. It's the Indiana Jones "out of the frying pan, into the fire" progression. It's the little guys fighting against the oppression of the big guys, and losing because they have to play by the big guys' rules.
It's a system where a guy with 18 dice in Cyber-Implant Combat and a pair of dikoted spurs can't succeed on his own, and whose street name is probably "Plan C"
But that's my two cents. Some play heroic fantasy, and that's swell.
Posted by: Synner Apr 24 2006, 08:10 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Apr 24 2006, 06:19 AM) |
| (Well, I won't agree with the assessment of Synner, though I will about his view of Heat if it's accurately presented here. Regardless, that's neither here nor there.) |
Actually SL James is misrepresenting the discussion we had, placing it out of context and twisting it to his own ends (nothing new there)... I'm perfectly okay with him quoting me if he wants to validate his point though only if he does so in context, I no longer have the PMs on file.
Then again this discussion had SL James (or whatever his name was back then) explicitly tell me that his games were so street level that boosting cars was a usual way for his runners to make ends meet (kinda funny in light of his comment above) - so take that at as you will...
What I did say, and this was regarding Heat specifically, was that I felt it featured a pretty typical Shadowrun crew (by canon standards) and that in a "realistic" 2070's world they would be moving around and pulling off heists in several cities - in context, this came from a discussion on whether it was possible to make Shadowrun more international without losing its street-level feel and for a team of professional runners to operate in multiple (regional) sprawls on a regular basis (which, for the record, I believe is possible) given semi-realistic economics of running in a single sprawl with competition from several other pro shadowrunning teams.
Unlike Heat , by 2070, nobody needs to fork out 100k to get a job, and you have to play the market against other such crews...
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| yeah. Heat was good. but it was not street. i don't know of many good crime movies that are all that street-level. Bandits, maybe? The Big Hit? City of Industry is stretching it. |
Heist.
| QUOTE |
| Shadowrun is "street level" in that Shadowrunners know the street, they frequently know people who live on the street, they even, you know, walk and/or drive on the street. That's just about it. |
Pretty much my feeling.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 24 2006, 02:26 PM
If people were paid 20% above lifestyle, they would never buy cool toys. That's enough reason for me to pay my players a lot.
Posted by: hyzmarca Apr 24 2006, 02:48 PM
There are ways to justify the suggested pay scale. Volume, for example. A team that is good at managing their scheduals and working their contacts could do legwork for a several runs all at the same time and then pop them off over the next week.
A four man team could easily do legwork for a dozen runs over a week and finish two per day over the next week. At 2000 
per run split evenly they'll be grossing 12,000 yeach per month. That isn't half bad.
Posted by: nezumi Apr 24 2006, 02:56 PM
I play SR for all sorts of reasons. I do enjoy working 'on the streets' with a gritty feel to everything, where you know your stuff but you're still a small fish. I like the high-level espionage campaigns where the world is your oyster. I like hunting magical critters. I like playing the sasquatch PC in the winnebago. I like the dice system, the attribute break-outs and the magical rules. I wish they had a cyberware list a bit closer to CP2020, but that's okay. I like the ideas emo has that are internally consistent, although in general I like to have clear lines of 'this is the normal world Joe wageslave sees every day' and 'this is the rest of the world', with a reason why the two do not meet (something I think emo's campaigns oftentimes lack). I enjoy a sort of Alice in Wonderland feeling to my games, I suppose.
Posted by: stevebugge Apr 24 2006, 03:12 PM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| If people were paid 20% above lifestyle, they would never buy cool toys. That's enough reason for me to pay my players a lot. |
That's exactly the reason I don't pay a lot. I want the corps to have the cool toys and the characters to have to work really hard to get them. Then again I run and play lower end games where the characters hear about earth shattering events, not participate in them. Just about everything happens in or in the immediate vicinity of Seattle, and that way the characters have to deal with the fallout of their actions. Unlike a lot of games ours tends to be a little lighter, we spend a lot of time laughing about something one character or another did. Our games have sort of a Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels feel if you need a movie description. But mostly we play because it's a good midweek break, we spend 4 hours on a Wednesday night getting in to what trouble we can then getting back out again, hopefully making a little cred and Karma while consuming requisite amounts of snacks and the occasional adult beverage.
Posted by: SL James Apr 24 2006, 11:52 PM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Apr 24 2006, 08:48 AM) |
| A four man team could easily do legwork for a dozen runs over a week and finish two per day over the next week. At 2000 per run split evenly they'll be grossing 12,000 yeach per month. That isn't half bad. |
Assuming that no one gets hurt, killed, captured, hunted, or even known to their targets.
Assuming that doing legwork on a dozen simultaneous targets doesn't send up enough red flags in the shadows to have everyone and his brother ready for you to pull off something (Yes, I use the Wrong Party table religiously. My players fail to perform counterintelligence at their peril).
Assuming that you can actually do legwork on twelve separate targets in a week at all.
Assuming that the missions are accomplished.
Assuming that the Johnson doesn't stiff, backstab, or otherwise screw you.
Assuming that you don't run into unexpected expenses.
Assuming that you aren't planning on saving up resources for your next set of dozen simultaneous legwork operations.
Assuming you aren't planning to pay for anything personal or go anywhere. Hopefully your runs are all expenses paid.
Assuming that you don't need to buy new ammo, weapons and gear - either as replacement or just to keep that AR 6 skill sharp.
Assuming no one bothers spending any time learning new skills, improving attributes or skills, initiating, learning new spells, building gear, repairing gear, or getting any enhancements.
Assuming, basically, that the world revolves around your characters and no one anywhere will ever do anything to interfere with, impede, or sabotage their work, or tries to annoy, interfere with or end their lives for any or no reason whatsoever.
Yeah... Assuming a lot of rather improbable things, I guess it could work.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 25 2006, 01:09 AM
That's why I pay them a ton of money; that means everybody's happy!!!
Except for you, it seems.
Posted by: eidolon Apr 25 2006, 02:10 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| You're just threatened because he's right. |
"Threatened".
Yeah. That's the word I'd use.
Posted by: Quix Apr 25 2006, 03:33 AM
I've got to agree with Straw Man on this one: "The best and most memorable runs I've been on were astounding failures...."
I love the planning, I hate seeing the best laid plans of mice go to pieces, but the most memorable runs have been the ones where our crew was just trying to make it to next week.
Yeah Jack Frost if you see this I mean you.
Posted by: eralston Apr 25 2006, 03:45 AM
I would first like to say that you play one high velocity game of Sr if you think it's conceivable for a runner to two runs a day. The logistics alone might make sense; however, Shadowrun just doesn't work that way. No one is professional enough to not get involved and no one is skilled enough to not get killed.
On the grander scheme, I must say that, in general, I run for "the good runs" that are told around dork tables for years. "Good runs" are generally characterized as high risk. THAT DOESN'T MEAN HIGH DANGER, it means high risk. It means that characters dying, especially NPCs, would mean the loss of not just a life, but a reordering of lives around them. I'm talking about getting players so attached to characters that they do not consider walking away (which is something that would happen a lot if there were only danger).
The ability to apply pressure to create risk instead of danger is the real dividing line between "good" and "bad" (though potentially still viscerally enjoyable) Shadowrun, and I play for the good runs.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 25 2006, 03:46 AM
Oh, I'll have good runs. Wait and see.
Posted by: Valentinew Apr 25 2006, 02:37 PM
| QUOTE (SL James) |
| Assuming... Yeah... Assuming a lot of rather improbable things, I guess it could work. |
I guess it all depends on how your game is run. Improbable in your world might not be so much in someone else's....
Posted by: Dog Apr 25 2006, 03:29 PM
It seems to me that one of the better things about this game is that it combines a highly developed game world with a variety of possible campaign styles. Street punk, carribbean pirate, global corporate espionage. The list goes on. (I do, however, recommend that the GM and players figure out what sort of a campaign it's gonna be before characters are made; Otherwise: train-wreck.)
As far as the character role-playing-ness of it, one of my favourite themes is trying to stay the good-guy in a dark world. Like seeing your buddy sell out and move to a condo on the beach, while you live in a roach-motel because you don't want to answer to the Yaks, or Ares, or whatever.
And remember, kids. Just 'cause what I like ain't what you like, doesn't mean one of us is wrong.
Great thread, Emo.
I like your comments, Eralston. I'll have to give them some more thought.
Also, I love the tongue-in-cheek social satire of it all. There was a lot more of this in earlier editions, and I miss it. It's great when the guy in the next office cubicle has turned into a zombie, but between the flourescent lights and overtime, nobody notices for a week.
Posted by: ArchXL Apr 25 2006, 08:42 PM
| QUOTE (Dog) |
| It's great when the guy in the next office cubicle has turned into a zombie, but between the flourescent lights and overtime, nobody notices for a week. |
Posted by: SL James Apr 25 2006, 09:58 PM
| QUOTE (eidolon @ Apr 24 2006, 08:10 PM) | ||
"Threatened". Yeah. That's the word I'd use. |
There there... It just happens sometimes.
Posted by: mintcar Apr 25 2006, 10:09 PM
Shadowrunners can stay street level even though they earn lots of money. If you look at movies, and real world criminals too, a lot of them still live in the hood. It's just easier to do buisness there, and they feel more at home. They get tons of respect for their fancy cars and what not, while they would be frowned upon in fancier neigborhoods. I could also see a posh face character living in downtown asociate with lowlifs to get a job done. They may be payed the same amount, but they won't necessarily spend it the same way or change their lifestyle because of it.
I GM, and the characters of my players shadowrun because it's what they're good at. At one point they got into a life of crime, and that's part of the background of the characters.
ATM though. We are playing that background instead, and so they haven't even begun shadowrunning. They're gangers and SINless scum, is the reason this time.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 25 2006, 11:04 PM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| There also seems to be a consensus against powergaming; it's bad to have stuff that is too good, to have players that are too powerful and effective. I construe this to mean that may people want good role-playing. At the same time, there seems to be a constant pressure to conform to this monochromatically dark standard; people seem to like and even require "mundane hitman/detective/hacker/gangster with a mercenary heart/chip on his shoulder/bad conscience/religious devotion to 'professionalism'" type characters; requisite cliches contrasting with a stated desire for "creativity." |
No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!
What I want out of a game is a strong tactical aspect along with the unique silly humor that only the 80s can deliver. The last character I played was a melee-only ninja who was designed in a somewhat weak way so that I could maximize both my personal level of tactical challenge in the game as well as continuing "Revenge of the Ninja" references and jokes.
I guess I'm kind of like a milkshake of very serious battles/confontations with hopefully a lot of death and then ridiculous humor in between at the expense of the 80s and usually referencing ninjas.
Posted by: ChuckRozool Apr 25 2006, 11:59 PM
I Shadowrun because it's fun and I can hang out and bullshit with my friends.
The MCP says...
---End of Line---
Posted by: eidolon Apr 26 2006, 04:22 AM
Never mind.
Posted by: Kremlin KOA Apr 26 2006, 04:27 AM
Why? because I need the money
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Apr 26 2006, 05:07 AM
In a game, or maybe I should say when I'm running a game, I look for anything that will provoke an emotional resposnse form players. I love having players sweat, or get anxious, anxiety attacks, anything! I've ran games where literally the entire group was near, or at tears. I look for excitement, fun, and andventure.
The style doesn't matter, as long as it;s tun right. WE've played games where we only picked up dice a few times, and onew where we almost never sat them down. Games from starting gangers trying to get in to gun running to games with PC free spirits and young dragons.
I prefer ones with balanced rules. In answer to emo's question about people harping on him for ideas, I don't like some of the things that you use because they throw off the balance. Even a dragon, eve na great dragon, is within the balance of the game because it is within the rules. If you stay consistent within the system, everything works. I don't like some of your suggestions to overpower things because, IMP, it's like cheating. I only use video game cheats after I've beaten the game. I don't use that sort of stuff in SR because you can't "win".
I'm not in anyway trying to say that I'm right and you're wrong. These are jsut my preferences and my reasons. Sometimes it;s great to have this just totally out there, but you have to keep some sort of in-balance/in-context leash on it. Otherwise things spiral out of control. Like the adventure Paradise Lost. There's something in there that basically completely protects against Black IC. But within a few months the corps compensate and it's worthless. A series of checks and balances keep things from getting to far afield, to where the GM no longer has the control he/she needs to keep the game world within the balance.
You're looking for a different balance, and that's fine because it's your game. I'm just throwing in my two cents. Thank you, come again.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 26 2006, 04:19 PM
What do you mean by cheating? What do I do? I consult the Bug City rules for insect spirits and abide by the book rules as much as possible; what do I do wrong?
Posted by: James McMurray Apr 26 2006, 04:24 PM
And awaaaay we go. 
Remember, anything you do that is outside the rules (like removing chargen caps) is cheating. Not necessarily wrong, but cheating in the "deliberately violating the rules fo the game" definition of the word.
Of course, given that there are rules that contradict one another it's really hard for someone to play a game for any length of time without being forced to cheat.
Posted by: hyzmarca Apr 26 2006, 04:36 PM
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Remember, anything you do that is outside the rules (like removing chargen caps) is cheating. Not necessarily wrong, but cheating in the "deliberately violating the rules fo the game" definition of the word. |
No, it isn't cheating. It nothing is outside the rules because the rules explicitly allow themselves to be changed at GM whim. The GM can chage and rule he doesn't like. That's a rule. The GM can make up any new rule if the old rules don't cover them. That's a rule.
It isn't cheating to change the rules if the rules explicitly allow themselves to be changed.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 26 2006, 05:24 PM
WOOHOO!!
Posted by: James McMurray Apr 26 2006, 06:29 PM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) | ||
No, it isn't cheating. It nothing is outside the rules because the rules explicitly allow themselves to be changed at GM whim. The GM can chage and rule he doesn't like. That's a rule. The GM can make up any new rule if the old rules don't cover them. That's a rule. It isn't cheating to change the rules if the rules explicitly allow themselves to be changed. |
I agree. I was giving the definition of cheating that makes people call someone who does things like remove char gen caps a cheater.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 26 2006, 06:58 PM
CHEATING IS FUN FUN FUN!!!
If K can have a sam with 9 agility and synaptics 3, then I get a cyberzombie with steampunk cyberlimbs and a blood spirit as a hidden life thingie. That's only fair.
Posted by: James McMurray Apr 26 2006, 07:47 PM
Because K is so much better than you that you need the leg up just to feel adequate? 
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 26 2006, 07:48 PM
I will never feel inadequate compared to his character because I let him have 450 BP; no matter how awesome he gets, it will always be due to my magnanimity, nothing else.
Posted by: ronin3338 Apr 26 2006, 08:07 PM
I play because it's a blend of sci fi & magic. Few games even attempt this, and I like the SR mechanics best. I've played since SR1, and I love nearly everything about it.
For style, we play a little gritty and a little cinematic. As has been pointed out, you can play it however you like. If you enjoy the game, then RAW and anything posted here doesn't really matter. If you and your players enjoy high-powered, over-the-top adventures, then do it! If it means bending/re-writing the rules, that's what the GM is for!
Posted by: Unrest Apr 27 2006, 03:06 AM
You know I just like the game system and enjoy playing with it. The only thing I look at in a game is the GM. If their some pompous ass who is going to spend their whole time either trying to kill my character or punishing them unless I have a perfect flawless run every session, then I'm out.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 27 2006, 03:20 AM
| QUOTE (Unrest) |
| You know I just like the game system and enjoy playing with it. The only thing I look at in a game is the GM. If their some pompous ass who is going to spend their whole time either trying to kill my character or punishing them unless I have a perfect flawless run every session, then I'm out. |
Ha ha, is this a reaction to recent threads on DSF?
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 27 2006, 03:41 AM
A lot of people seem like hardasses. It really annoys me.
Posted by: FanGirl Apr 27 2006, 03:50 AM
Yeah, why can't there be more games about feelings and fluffy bunnies? 
But seriously, why do people persist in saying that action movie-esque elements are incompatible with the very concept of Shadowrun, especially since SR4 recommends ways to infuse games with a "cinematic style?" (p. 69)
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 27 2006, 03:51 AM
OOOH... I get it. The reason they spend several books detailing expensive equipment is so you never buy it!!!
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 27 2006, 04:02 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| A lot of people seem like hardasses. It really annoys me. |
You probably think I'm a hardass because I post a lot about ways to kill the PCs. Well, I only feel the way I do today because of several years of GMing Shadowrun. I found out that once a player accumulated a certain amount of karma pool and certain items of equipment is was very very hard to create challenging scenarios for that character while still adhereing to what the books defined as being "average" and "professional", on what equipment was widely available and what wasn't, and so forth.
I had an episode where I had wanted one very powerful character to retire but the player liked powerful characters and so there was a lot of friction between us.
At this present moment, after years of GMing, I don't feel up to GMing anymore. There was a time when some people told me that I was the best SR GM, but what I realized years later is that while I can run a beginning game OK things really fall apart with high power levels unless I do torturous things like throw 100 physads against the PCs and make dice rolls for each one. The high-end player character power levels totally destroyed the enjoyment of the game for me.
So I decided that leading the players nicely along and having them win every time and saving them when the chips are down just dosen't end well. Unless you put people up against enough challenge and danger that they need to be burning that karma and not accumulating it to the level of 15 pool dice, unless you demand tactical meticulousness, and unless you let the dice fall where they may, the game quickly becomes meaningless.
It says somewhere in SR 3 that PCs must "sweat" for each karma point earned. I think I finally understand what that means.
As a player, I lived by that also. I would make weak characters to better challenge myself.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 27 2006, 04:04 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| OOOH... I get it. The reason they spend several books detailing expensive equipment is so you never buy it!!! |
Depends on the Availability, dosen't it?
However, your enemies can use it against you.
Posted by: TheQuestionMan Apr 27 2006, 04:19 AM
Good day Chummers, I like been Game Mastering Shadowrun off and on for 15 years Gaming, but have only been a Player for a grand total of 12 Sessions.
I want to play as a Professional Shadowrunner. Taking jobs to survive and doing the occasional probono
More later
QM
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 27 2006, 04:35 AM
Of COURSE the enemies use that stuff. And I wasn't talking about you; it's just that it seems ridiculous that you'll be paying professional criminals who end up netting you millions barely above poverty level, making sure they never buy cyberware outside of character creation.
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Apr 27 2006, 04:56 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| If K can have a sam with 9 agility and synaptics 3, then I get a cyberzombie with steampunk cyberlimbs and a blood spirit as a hidden life thingie. That's only fair. |
Yes you can. I'm not trying to harp on you or call you a cheater. It's just my POV, or I guess I should say my mind set. Like I said, we do have games with characters taht can be pretty out there. We have removed the skills cap in SR4 and made the skills even more expensive after 6 to compensate.
I think a big part of it is that I'm the kind of guy that likes to start at first level and build up to 20th (or whatever). So I'd be fine with it if a player started out as a 'standard' runner, built up his character, got worked over ,and due to some hefty favors , got built in to a cyberzombie with a blood spirit in it. But the character would have to act like a cyber zombie. He wouldn't be himself with just a shit load more cyber. He would be a cyberzombie. It's just different tastes.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 27 2006, 05:03 AM
The cyberzombie will be very cyberzombie-like even before he gets put back in the body. And I don't take insults as insults; they're just excuses to escalate the insanity until people's minds break and they abandon all pretenses of normality.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 27 2006, 06:30 AM
| QUOTE (FanGirl) |
| But seriously, why do people persist in saying that action movie-esque elements are incompatible with the very concept of Shadowrun, especially since SR4 recommends ways to infuse games with a "cinematic style?" (p. 69) |
FWIW, some of us believe that SR4 is incompatible with the very concept of Shadowrun.
~J
Posted by: hyzmarca Apr 27 2006, 07:07 AM
That being said, some people do like to go overbaord every now and then.
Case in point: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=10341&hl=inhumanoids
Shadowrun, all things being equal, lends itself to absurdity just as much as it lends itself to soul-crushing hopelessness. There's a cliche 80's rocker archetype in one of the editions and there are ninjas. And Drop Bears. You can't get much more absurd than that.
Posted by: Dog Apr 27 2006, 03:25 PM
Anybody notice the debate going on between a two guys calling themselves "Samurai" and "Ronin?"
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 27 2006, 03:40 PM
Holy shit, you're right. And the thing is, the ronin's more of a rules purist than the samurai. That's really weird.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 27 2006, 10:19 PM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Holy shit, you're right. And the thing is, the ronin's more of a rules purist than the samurai. That's really weird. |
Well, "Wounded Ronin" is actually based on the cover of a film that was released in the US as "Samurai Rebellion", which had a black and white photo of a samurai with lots of orange blood painted on. In the movie a samurai decided to rebel against his decadent overlord for being a meanie and deviating from traditional values. Seen in the context of that film you could interpret some kind of championship of rules purism.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 28 2006, 12:23 AM
Hmmm... And according to the Hagakure, going ronin wasn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it didn't happen because you were caught raping kittens; it allowed you to wander and learn about the world. Ditto about being wounded. Then again, it was sort of okay to be emo.
And what did the wounded ronin mean by deviating from traditionalism? Was it cracking a smile in court every so often, or was it the aforementioned raping of kittens?
Posted by: FanGirl Apr 28 2006, 01:09 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Holy shit, you're right. And the thing is, the ronin's more of a rules purist than the samurai. That's really weird. |
And the "samurai" is Chinese-American, too!
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 28 2006, 01:18 AM
Actually, I'm just Chinese. My ancestors will hunt you down for that.
Posted by: eidolon Apr 28 2006, 01:20 AM
Zhende ma? Hui shuo putong hua ma?
And ditto Kage.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 28 2006, 01:21 AM
Shi, wo shi zhong guo ren, wo cong Harbin lai. Keshi, wo jui hui shuo yi dianr zhong wen.
Here's a little bit of English so that I don't lose anybody. And this isn't a translation of what I just wrote.
Posted by: FanGirl Apr 28 2006, 01:45 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Actually, I'm just Chinese. My ancestors will hunt you down for that. |
Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't sure how exactly you identified yourself, so I went for the most PC route.
So when can I expect your ancestors to break down my door and rip me to shreds or whatever? Will it be at a specific time, like just after sundown, or does the supernatural vengeance work more like a cable service--"Please wait between the hours of 3 and 5 PM for your disemboweling?" If I offered them some hell money, would they leave me alone? If so, how much should I offer?
Posted by: Dog Apr 28 2006, 02:18 AM
Lost souls will haunt you at midnight, 12:30 if you're in Newfoundland...
(I lost my copy of Hagakure. Thanks for the reminder. 
)
Since this hijacking is kind of my fault...
I've mentioned in a few other threads that the absurdity that Hyzmarca mentioned is overlooked in later Shadowrun products, and that I miss it. Does anyone feel that their options on character background have become more ...limited... as the game tries to take itself more seriously?
And just to vent an opinion: RPG's themselves are generally ridiculous and I don't usually get why anyone wants them to be realistic. If I wanted realistic street life, I'd go back to my job working with the homeless. If I wanted realistic combat, I would've joined the army when I had the chance. But that's just me, it doesn't mean that others shouldn't do what they enjoy. Me, I prefer escapism.
Posted by: Quix Apr 28 2006, 02:25 AM
Amen to escapism. 
Posted by: Kanada Ten Apr 28 2006, 02:39 AM
Crash 2.0 basically give you the ability to make anyone a runner. One day you could be Daimen Knight's biggest rival or a top pilot with JapanAIR and the next you're SINless and in the gutter. Or worse arrested and slapped with a criminal SIN.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 28 2006, 03:36 AM
Just do what I do: whatever I want. If your GM doesn't allow it, he's a dick.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Apr 28 2006, 03:44 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Just do what I do: whatever I want. If your GM doesn't allow it, he's a dick. |
Which has nothing to do with whether he's a good GM or not.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 28 2006, 03:57 AM
Yes... it... DOES!!!
Okay, good point. But if you limit things because they're too "implausible," then you make him a boring character in an interesting universe. He'll just be a smuggler, or a gangster with 3 skill in guns, or whatever; your characters will be smuggling guns while Novatech is Thor shotting Art Dankwalther and Harlequin saves the world again. My point is if you make them mice among giants, then they tend to end up the same colored mice.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Apr 28 2006, 04:13 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Okay, good point. But if you limit things because they're too "implausible," then you make him a boring character in an interesting universe. He'll just be a smuggler, or a gangster with 3 skill in guns, or whatever; your characters will be smuggling guns while Novatech is Thor shotting Art Dankwalther and Harlequin saves the world again. My point is if you make them mice among giants, then they tend to end up the same colored mice. |
A smuggler who slides cred to his sister in Simtown, because she can't find work. But he doesn't know a local gangster hooked her on beetles and all the money he sends goes to support his habit, not her or the baby - that suddenly arrives at his doorstep a years later looking for a home. But his girlfriend doesn't need another aggravation and kicks them both out on the streets.
... If you take the viewing lense and go to wide angle everything blurs and only the bright flashes reach your eyes. But if you zoom in, you'll see that the mice are not only all different colors and shapes and sizes, but that so are their ticks.
Look, my point is, sometimes a GM has an "inspiration" for a game. He comes to the players and says, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to start out as Mafia soliders who have to work their way up?" Now this limits their backgrounds, it limits the ware they can take, the history they can have - but only in a very small way. And when they are in the heat of it, with characters that they've come to care about, the GM's ability to weave an engaging world becomes more important than whether Harlequin is the next caller, or their bondsman.
There's nothing wrong with any of it, really. I've had PCs with IE family, and PCs who wouldn't know a magic rock if it spoke to them (or survive a gun fight, even).
Posted by: James McMurray Apr 28 2006, 04:14 AM
Mice can be interesting. You don't need ultramagepowerzord to be an interesting character, just personality.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 28 2006, 04:21 AM
The thing is, I need a blank sheet to draw anything I'd look at. I need to be able to make whatever I want; my background has to be what I choose.
Posted by: eralston Apr 28 2006, 05:46 AM
Players generally only need one little hook for their character and they're in love. Like when a man sees a woman and loves her for her large, round....eyes...
Posted by: James McMurray Apr 28 2006, 06:04 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| His life is centered around that fairy tale perfection meeting with the grim darkness of the future; to me, that's quite unique. |
That's generally one of the first things I see people make when they want to "step away from the norm."
Posted by: Kanada Ten Apr 28 2006, 05:43 PM
Maybe I'm just getting old, but that's not exactly unique. Actually, it's practically cliche at this point. Besides [clash of ideal and reality] being the basis of about half of all runners ("I worked for Shiawase and thought we were a family, until I stumbled across..." or "I was a patriot, following orders without question, and then my government tried to eliminate me." and so on); but it's also an actual shadowland character from second edition: Taran Greenbrough. Poor guy disappeared somewhere after Denver. Not that there's anything wrong with that type, my first real character was a Former Paramedic fired for healing a non-contract while on the clock.
Posted by: eralston Apr 28 2006, 05:49 PM
I like the gratuitous backstab background in so far that it creates purpose in a very succinct manner.
Overall, it's hard to craft a good reason to "home grown" shadowrunners. Most every shadowrunner who just up and decides to be one gets killed first thing.
Everyone is an ex-something, I divide them into categories:
1) Gordon Freemans: I was _____, but then _____ happened that caused me to take up a life of ________
2) The A-team: I've always done _____ and when something happened to cause that to end, I just kept doing it
Really no difference
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 28 2006, 05:50 PM
Most of Shadowrun's centered around conflict; you either accept it and become a heartless mercenary, or you don't, and you become a tormented good guy.
Posted by: eralston Apr 28 2006, 05:55 PM
Tormented good guys are kind of a drag. It's really hard to RP moody without crossing into really awful LARPing
Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 28 2006, 06:12 PM
I've always been a big fan of the backstab character background. For example, as far as I can tell my current character once test-drove advanced prototypes for Saeder-Krupp. From what I've gathered thus far her manager probably changed, and she didn't like the new one or the new policies or something and ran to Ares with a bunch of highly sensitive material.
Oh wait, you meant the corp doing the backstabbing
~J
Posted by: hyzmarca Apr 28 2006, 06:17 PM
| QUOTE (eralston) |
| I like the gratuitous backstab background in so far that it creates purpose in a very succinct manner. Overall, it's hard to craft a good reason to "home grown" shadowrunners. Most every shadowrunner who just up and decides to be one gets killed first thing. |
I find it easy to create home grown Shadowrunners. Start with a SINless character growing up poor, have him join a gang at some point, have the gang get offered a job by some guy one day and slowly evolve away from being just a street gang and into something bigger. Have the gang's fixer contacts start hooking them up with real Johnsons for real work and [optionally] have the character split from the gang to to bigger and better things.
Posted by: eralston Apr 28 2006, 08:31 PM
Well, with an assumed beachead in the streets, certainly it's easy to just say they were extraordinary enough to dinstinguish themselves; however, in the specific case of "powerful" or highly competent characters, they generally need a good reason to have access to superior resources and training.
Certainly you can have superior SINless people, but corps are just a lot more efficient at building competent killing machines.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Apr 28 2006, 10:15 PM
Yeah, but the end of SR3 gave us plenty of "national" wars and displaced peoples that one can easily have NAN warriors who fled the Ute or Tsimshian rather than work for the enemy. There was also a few mercenary companies that went kablwee and then Surhand's paladins or the Seraphim from Cross.
One other thing on revenge motivated; the prevalence of hackers in 4 coupled with identity theft of today (and face shifting technology, DNA masking) one could easily be the target of a frame-up. Hackers will look for those who make plausible scapegoats - such as those with violent personalities (they just search around for your online order of lithium, for example) and then erase your alibi and plant the evidence. Sure you could hope that the mindprobe proves you innocent, but with memory modification technology a good prosecutor could knock it down. All the hacker needs to do is lure the mark to the scene of the crime and arrange for the police to catch him red-handed. Maybe the hacker even exaplins this to you as the sirens close in, he's gloating, but you manage to escape (perhaps burning edge) and run to the shadows for protection - and to track the fucker down.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 28 2006, 10:31 PM
| QUOTE (James McMurray @ Apr 28 2006, 01:04 AM) | ||
That's generally one of the first things I see people make when they want to "step away from the norm." |
The thing is, though, Shen is almost literally a fairy-tale figure; his background isn't ex-something you'd commonly see in SR. I thought that would make him fun to play.
Plus, unlike most of the people you mention, he hasn't given up 100% on his ideals; he hasn't given up even 20% on them. He still believes in the humble glory of the individual life, just no in his ability to help people achieve that in his official capacity.
Posted by: eralston Apr 29 2006, 12:41 AM
I suppose I could extend payback a bit, or comment on why I've never played a fairy tale (I seriously don't know anything about this Shen guy, emo. AND IM ME don't crap on this thread just to tell me)
No, I want to extend the reasons list, currently it's:
Pure monetary gain
revenge
being a fairy tale caught in a dystopic future (?)
Posted by: Kanada Ten Apr 29 2006, 12:43 AM
Exoneration - Perhaps it's to escape personal guilt or just a guilty charge... (Examples: The Fugitive, Cane, The Shadow)
Freedom / Independence - Live free and die free or maybe just pick the jobs you do. (Examples: ?)
Status Quo - "I've always been a criminal, my father was a criminal, and his father was a criminal." (Examples: George W. Bush, The Kennedys, Gotti)
Fulfillment - "Killing is the only thing I know how to do." (Examples: Batman, Art Danthwalker)
Excitement - "The only time I feel alive." (Examples: Hatchetman, Brock Sampson, Hackers)
Posted by: shadowfire Apr 29 2006, 01:15 AM
i play shadowrun because i'm a natural at espionage- at least mentally. i can think in those circles pretty easily. so unlike other games, i can use all that ability.
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Apr 29 2006, 04:51 AM
| QUOTE (Kanada Ten) |
| A smuggler who slides cred to his sister in Simtown, because she can't find work. But he doesn't know a local gangster hooked her on beetles and all the money he sends goes to support his habit, not her or the baby - that suddenly arrives at his doorstep a years later looking for a home. But his girlfriend doesn't need another aggravation and kicks them both out on the streets. |
K10, that was beautiful man.
Posted by: emo samurai Apr 29 2006, 06:48 AM
These character concepts seem to be molded far too much by the social context; there's too much inertia in their backgrounds. "My father was a blah blah blah, I've always done blah blah blah, I'm on the street so someone in my family's in a gang/addicted to drugs/saddled with a kid." There's really no overriding conviction in most of their chracter concepts, and that annoys me. There's fear, greed, and ambition, but no real passion. Greed and ambition don't make you unique, and aren't real passions. Greed and ambition reduce you to numbers, and even if you become a big number, you can still be summed up by a number.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Apr 29 2006, 06:56 AM
I could have put in "the passion" idealogy, but that's really just a variation on revenge, exoneration, or fulfillment.
The rest of your post is nonsense. Everything can be reduced to numbers.
[e] And saddled with a kid is fucking comedy gold every time. It allows the character to grow in any direction. They can become more dark, or open to the kid, or just try to "make things right".
Hell, social inertia makes the world go round. 
[e2] Oh, that reminds me of another background:
Dissociation - Whether the person is lost in a Shadowrunner Sim or programmed by p'fix, they run by design. "The chips made me do it!" (Examples: Cyberzombies, Meat Puppets)
Recognition - "I am the best!" (Examples: The Black Archer, Kane, The Gingerbread Man)
Posted by: James McMurray Apr 29 2006, 09:03 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| The thing is, though, Shen is almost literally a fairy-tale figure; his background isn't ex-something you'd commonly see in SR. I thought that would make him fun to play. Plus, unlike most of the people you mention, he hasn't given up 100% on his ideals; he hasn't given up even 20% on them. He still believes in the humble glory of the individual life, just no in his ability to help people achieve that in his official capacity. |
Maybe I should have explained a bit more. "Ex-richboy who hates mommy and daddy's materialism and for <<insert as yet undetermined reason>> runs the shadows, but still holds to his idealism," is a fairly common archetype in my experience. Not as common as "I wanna cut people while being all angsty and honorable," but still not something that never happens.
Relation to royalty is also a fairly common theme in characters, albeit more in fantasy genres than sci-fi ones. Most people I've known to do it generally want it as a fallback escape hatch. Maybe the character doesn't want to rejoin his birthright, but if it became the only way to save his friends he would, be it by getting daddy's court wizard on his team, accessing the family funds, or coming meekly home and offering himself up in exchange for ___ for his friends. I don't know if that's something you've thought about, and it doesn't really matter because it's not a bad thing if handled properly.
Yours has some stuff to make him different than the rest, just like all the good ones do. But in the end he's just another one of the myriad non-infinite possibilities of general concepts highlighted by the possibly infinite small differences.
That doesn't mean he won't be fun to play though.
Don't worry overly much about "can I make something nobody's seen before" and instead focus on "can I make something I want to play." Shen seems to fit that bill for you, so by all means just find the guy a reason to run and then let him start doing it.
Posted by: Dog Apr 29 2006, 04:37 PM
Wow. This has to be one of the most insightful RP discussions I've seen.
I'd like to point out the difference between the issue of background variety and what I guess one'd call power-level of the campaign. A cliche character is just a cutout, whether he's in a street-level protect-the-neighborhood campaign or a Harlequin/James-Bond save the world thing. A well-developed, original, creative character would make either kind of campaign better. My preference for the ridiculous components of the game is just a preference. I don't think it makes a superior game. Nor do I adhere to it. My friend is running a very gritty sort of minor mob-war game right now that I'm enjoying.
Posted by: ronin3338 Apr 29 2006, 05:39 PM
| QUOTE (Kanada Ten @ Apr 28 2006, 07:43 PM) |
| Exoneration - Perhaps it's to escape personal guilt or just a guilty charge... (Examples: The Fugitive, Cane, The Shadow) Freedom / Independence - Live free and die free or maybe just pick the jobs you do. (Examples: ?) Status Quo - "I've always been a criminal, my father was a criminal, and his father was a criminal." (Examples: George W. Bush, The Kennedys, Gotti) Fulfillment - "Killing is the only thing I know how to do." (Examples: Batman, Art Danthwalker) Excitement - "The only time I feel alive." (Examples: Hatchetman, Brock Sampson, Hackers) |
So, where would my character fit in?
He is an ork that used to work for Power and Light, in the tunnels doing fix-it stuff. However, the tunnels are dangerous places with gangs, devil rats, and other assorted nasties, so he picked up some combat skills as well. He has some cyber, but it's all related to his job.
In '64 when the system crashed, he re-applied for a SIN, but through some devious backroom dealings, many of the SINs handed out were issued more than once. His was one of those, and he wound up on suspension while it was sorted out. It took longer to sort out than P&L was willing to wait, so he wound up losing his job.
He has a SIN, but the background shows that glitch occasionally, so it can create some awkward situations. He has useful skills, but can't get "legit" work, because it's hard for him to porve to an employer that his is the valid SIN, and not the duplicate.
He's going into the shadows 'cause he's got to eat.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Apr 29 2006, 05:42 PM
"Pure monetary gain" from the poster above that one. That's not the only work for SINless; but it pays better than picking toxic moss from buildings or the other landscaping jobs they get picked up for - and so on.
Posted by: WyldKarde Apr 29 2006, 08:21 PM
This seems like a good excuse to finally delurk and bore you all rigid by belting on about my current character. 
For a quick yours truly background, I'm a long-time shadowrunner, having cut my teeth on 1st edition shortly after it came out, and I'm currently involved in a 3rd edition campaign being run online through OpenRPG.
For me, when I'm creating a character the most important question is 'Why do they shadowrun?' After all, most starting characters have the sort of skills that can translate into lucrative employment in many less dangerous (or at least, less highly illegal) fields. That means the motive has to be more than just sweet negotiable currency.
So, here's exhibit (a). David Six Guns Blazing, Owlman to some, Blaze to his chummers. 'John Blazer' or 'William Honing' depending on which credstick of dubious provenance he's using to collect payment from you. In terms of stereotypical archetypes he's a street shaman who follows Owl.
So why does he run the shadows? He needs the money. But it's not for him. Blaze is a genuine tribal shaman, it's just his tribe are a little different. They're squatters in Redmond. They've been there for a while now and are well established. They have their own 'turf' carved out, a place where they can walk safely because they enforce the law for themselves in that area. Aside from an occasional clash with local gangs it's a more or less peaceful neighborhood. Sounds like they're doing alright, huh? Except for the fact that everyone lives on or below the poverty line, power and clean water are pretty hard to come by, and conditions are unsanitary at best. Blaze has his work cut out for him just keeping everyone healthy. Then there's that occasional tussle with neighboring gangs that means he's off to provide some magical backup to the tribe's braves and then has to mojo the bullets out of them afterwards. All in all, life's tough and pretty drekky, as you'd expect it to be in the barrens.
Blaze pretty well blundered into shadowrunning by accident. A trip to the local stuffershack one night turned into a firefight (Why yes, there were a lot of newbs at the start of this campaign, how did you guess?) and when the dust settled there was a chromed up dwarf nearby who was impressed with how our young hero handled himself and invited him for some less than honest work.
So Blaze managed to get some serious money for the first time in his life. He rented himself a decent apartment not too far from his tribe's turf and was able to actually eat regularly for a change. Then it all went a bit pear shaped. There was a run, standard stuff, grab the MacGuffin off the couriers. The ambush went as planned and payment was made, but it seems one of the ambushees (a rival runner team) had some kind of honour code or 'saving face' drek that meant the he wanted to hunt Blaze down and 'make him bleed three times for the amount he bled from me'. Trouble is, Blaze was pretty hard to find. Blaze's tribe, on the other hand, were very easy to find. So the rival runner decided to lure the shaman out. Once per night he'd sneak around tribal turf and mug someone. He'd leave them unconscious and unharmed, except that he'd take their ear (Blaze had shot the guy's ear off with a near-miss from his pistol). Once the tribe realised the pattern to these attacks word got out pretty quickly and Blaze managed to end the threat and even get compensation for the attacks.
Trouble is, Blaze isn't a 'pure' Owl shaman. His old mentor was the tribe's former shaman, the late lamented Laughing Hound. Old Man Hound was a shaman of Dog. and as a result Blaze has a distinct Doggish streak to him. One of the things Hound drilled into his apprentice's head was that you always take care of your pack. Blaze realised that while he'd gotten himself out of living in trash, he wasn't able to properly fulfil his duty. It's not enough to get himself out, he has to get them all out.
So that's why he does what he does. Most of the money he gets from Running actually goes into tribal coffers. It pays for food, medicine, chip books to educate the young and so on. Eventually Blaze plans to have enough money to buy some farmland out in Snohomish or somewhere and set the whole tribe up to live a decent life. And on a metagaming note, it's an interesting challenge to play a character who gives away most of the money he makes. No huge strings of Foci for Blaze. In fact, he owns two, and one of those is loot from a defeated enemy.
Well, there you have it. Think I've managed to stay more-or-less on topic. Hope you've not all been bored rigid.
Posted by: emo samurai May 1 2006, 02:13 AM
How close are you to buying the farm?
Posted by: WyldKarde May 1 2006, 09:20 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| How close are you to buying the farm? |
Heh. Yeah, we've had that gag a few times now.
It'll be a while yet, a lot of the money is being soaked up on things like food, medical supplies and chipbooks to educate the young.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 2 2006, 02:52 AM
I actually believe that it's better to run a cliche than an original character. Quite simply, if your character is truly original, no one will "get" him or her but yourself. If you run a cliche, everyone can enjoy because everyone knows what you're talking about.
Posted by: emo samurai May 2 2006, 03:04 AM
Unless you explain him well and you run with smart people.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 2 2006, 03:26 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Unless you explain him well and you run with smart people. |
Screw you. I got a 1510 on my SATs but I still prefer a funny cliche to spending half an hour listening to some disjointed backstory of an "original" character. I'm here to play a game, not write The Mayor of Casterbridge.
Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 03:32 AM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) | ||
Screw you. I got a 1510 on my SATs but I still prefer a funny cliche to spending half an hour listening to some disjointed backstory of an "original" character. I'm here to play a game, not write The Mayor of Casterbridge. |
LOL
Posted by: emo samurai May 2 2006, 03:35 AM
And I got a 1530.
I know what you mean; I was originally going to make a mystical ninja poser whose only social skill is radiating silent menace, but had more fun making Shen instead. And I'm still going to use ninjas.
I have a player who, in a desperate attempt to avoid character development, randomly had bears hate him. I gave him a free point of Knowledge: Bear Studies for that. And random, inexplicable things in his past made for a great run idea. So both ways can be fun.
Posted by: BnF95 May 2 2006, 03:36 AM
It seems to me that a player can ... and should ... play any character s/he is comfortable with ... provided that it fits in the context of the game the GM is running. As an example, my current game is a low-mid powered game (PCs were made on 400BP and are currently in the 50karma range now) and do their runs mostly in Auburn, Tacoma, and Pullayup Barren areas in the beginning, currently even reaching Down Town Seattle now. I left it open and came up with several freaky PCs:
The French-speaking Chinese Chef/Martial Artist from hell.
The gun-hating Ork Gangbanger who likes his "big stick" Cyber-punk w/ a staff and taser.
The Japanese Elf Gun-Adept who is saving enough money for surgery so he can "look normal" and go home to his family in Kyoto.
The twin Elven hit(wo)men who think that shooting people is funny. <-- Obviously psychotic.
The Bear-Shaman from CAS who actually stabilizes enemies because of her Hypocratic Oath.
A new campaign in the works is a military SpecForce unit being "lent" to the Justice Department as part of an under-cover operation to gain intel on "underworld" figures. This one requires that the PCs must be:
a.) UCAS Soldiers (SpecForce qualified)
b.) Volunteers for a "dangerous black op" with "extreme danger and risks" for an "extended duration without contact with families and friends."
c.) Must pass the psych profile standards set by the Justice Department.
So in this campaign, the PCs are built on 500BP, but will literally be "hung-out-to-dry" so their cover won't be blown.
Posted by: caramel frappuccino May 2 2006, 03:43 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| And I got a 1530. I know what you mean; I was originally going to make a mystical ninja poser whose only social skill is radiating silent menace, but had more fun making Shen instead. And I'm still going to use ninjas. I have a player who, in a desperate attempt to avoid character development, randomly had bears hate him. I gave him a free point of Knowledge: Bear Studies for that. And random, inexplicable things in his past made for a great run idea. So both ways can be fun. |
You're both dumbasses, I got a 3625. Million.
Posted by: emo samurai May 2 2006, 03:44 AM
Is that the combined score from your 3,625,000 retakes?
Posted by: caramel frappuccino May 2 2006, 03:52 AM
Damn it, who told you?
Posted by: emo samurai May 2 2006, 03:55 AM
The great god of the Drop Bears. He says that mediocrity in repetition is worse than mediocrity in singularity. Then he teleported and drop-kicked you in the face.
Posted by: eidolon May 2 2006, 04:03 AM
| QUOTE (caramel frap) |
| I got a 3625. Million. |
You and your...3 dimensions.
What?
Nothing. It's cute. We have five.
Th..thousand!
Posted by: emo samurai May 2 2006, 04:04 AM
Okay, despite my ginormous SAT score, I'm confused.
Posted by: caramel frappuccino May 2 2006, 04:08 AM
| QUOTE (eidolon) | ||
You and your...3 dimensions. What? Nothing. It's cute. We have five. Th..thousand! |
Superior life-forms think alike.
Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 04:09 AM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ May 1 2006, 10:26 PM) |
| I got a 1510 on my SATs |
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| And I got a 1530. |
We now have proof positive that the line between genius and insanity is more of a zone then a line. Unless they're both lying.
Posted by: emo samurai May 2 2006, 04:11 AM
Dude, if I was lying, I'd be LOL 1600 LOL!!! And if I was smart enough to hold my lie back, then I'm smart enough to get a 1530.
And smart people don't think like normal people; that's why people think we're insane, and that's why we're smart. Nothing is complicated or convoluted if it's connected; you just don't understand. I tell my family that all the time.
Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 04:15 AM
Nah, I think you;re smart enough to tell what you think is abelievable lie. I'm not saying you're lying, I'm just saying that if you were, it wouldn't be a 1600 lie.
I get in all sorts of trouble because I don't think like other people. I won't say my SAT scores, because those actually don't mean anything other than that you test well. Plus, if I did say them after all that you'd be convinced I was lying.
Posted by: Kagetenshi May 2 2006, 04:16 AM
Can we please move the discussion to a vaguely legitimate form of wankery, like IQ scores?
~J
Posted by: Kanada Ten May 2 2006, 04:19 AM
110! I'm not sure if that's my SAT or IQ.
Posted by: James McMurray May 2 2006, 04:20 AM
Combined total perhaps?
Posted by: emo samurai May 2 2006, 04:22 AM
I have no idea; I took one of those banner ones, but those are designed to make you feel smart so that you buy the real one.
Posted by: Kanada Ten May 2 2006, 04:24 AM
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Combined total perhaps? |
Actually, yes. Since I never took the SAT, anyway.
Posted by: WyldKarde May 2 2006, 06:17 AM
At the risk of approaching the exalted state of being 'on topic' once more, I'd say both the cliche and in-depth approach to characters have their places.
For one off sessions and short campaigns a cliche is an asset, it saves time spent on exposition that can be put into getting on with the game. "Hi, my character is Bok, he's a big dumb troll with more augmentations than natural organs, and he'll be beating the crap out of people a lot. He's not too bright and tends not to say much." Character exposition done, let's play.
The in-depth approach works well when you've got time. The campaign in which Blaze appears has been running for almost a year now, so much of his characterisation and backstory have emerged during play. The fact that we play online is a help as well, because things like that 500 word origins story can be posted for the other players to read at their leisure. In a face-to-face RL situation that wouldn't be quite so convenient because we'd have had to take time out of actually playing during a session to share that information around. There's also the fact that a text only approach to the game means I can include stuff in my characterisation that might be left out in a verbal approach, such as what my character is thinking and feeling when he acts. "Blaze casts a 6D stunbolt at one of the opponents" vs "Blaze opens himself to the astral and draws the power to him. He channels his horror and pain at seeing his ally spirit injured into a single incoherent cry of rage and uses this to channel his power into a bolt of fury at one his enemies."
For myself, I prefer the more in-depth approach with original characters. The fact that I know so much about my character informs how he's played. My GM seems to like it too, as a detailed character gives him more plot hooks to hang story points from. One of Blaze's main worries at the moment for example, is a shift in the balance of power among the local gangs. Is that going to lead to a turf war in which his tribe will become involved? Only the GM knows, but it means Blaze has recently donated another large chunk of change to make sure the tribe's warriors are suitably cannoned up, just in case.
Posted by: emo samurai May 2 2006, 06:22 AM
Dude... why doesn't his tribe shadowrun?
Posted by: mfb May 2 2006, 06:35 AM
i take the opposite approach from Wounded Ronin--though, that said, i'm in complete agreement about the whole thing with longass, disjointed backstories. i play some truly disjointed and weird characters, who don't fit very well into the standard categories. what i don't do is bore everyone with their backstories. i'm probably in the minority in thinking that a big backstory, even a well-written one, is not the best way to define a character.
see, to me? a character only really comes alive when they hit play. all the stuff that happened before the game starts is just, well, background. it doesn't need to jump out with lots of vibrant detail. get a few basics in and get out. the important parts of the character's life are not what has happened, but what is about to happen.
most of my character backgrounds are a few short lines, or even no lines at all--just a vague idea tumbling around in the back of my head. i know the character's personality, i know how they'll react to given stimuli. background details i toss in as i go along, when they're needed.
it doesn't matter if the other players don't 'get' my characters right away. experience has shown me that the guys i most enjoy playing with will enjoy the process of figuring my characters out during play, or at least won't mind it.
Posted by: WyldKarde May 2 2006, 06:35 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai @ May 2 2006, 07:22 AM) |
| Dude... why doesn't his tribe shadowrun? |
That's a good question. It's not one I've directly addressed in-game yet, so this is off the top of my head and subject to change:
Mainly it's poverty. Most of the tribe's bangers have got an outdated SMG as a primary weapon <i>at best</i>. Blaze is lucky in that as a shaman he's got fairly low cash requirements for his profession, and much of his gear he inherited from the former shaman when he got geeked. Then there's the extraordinary risk inherent in running the shadows. Every time Blaze goes to meet a Johnson there's always the nagging worry that this time he won't be coming back. Many of the tribespeople have families and no desire to orphan their children when they can make a subsitence wage doing the typical drek jobs that the SINless can get.
Still, there is one candidate. Mary Westwind is the leader of the tribal braves (which is how the tribe's guards/muscle/police are referred to) is a pretty tough woman, and one of the best street tacticians in the sprawl. If ever Blaze does get geeked, whatever money he leaves behind would probably be spent on buying her some cyber and decent cannons so she can head into the shadows herself and maybe finish Blaze's big dream of getting everyone out.
Edit:
MFB makes a good point, one of the reasons Blaze is so well realised is because I've been playing him for quite a while now and most of the information I'm sharing came out during play. When I started playing him all I had was the standard list of 'tell me about your character' type questions and a 500 word story about the moment when he discovered he was an Awakened.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 2 2006, 10:46 PM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| And I got a 1530. |
*grasps frisbee, performs seppuku*
Posted by: Dogsoup May 2 2006, 11:04 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| i'm probably in the minority in thinking that a big backstory, even a well-written one, is not the best way to define a character. |
Nope: I agree to everything you wrote there, even if I'm just quoting a small part. I just love the "concept" entry in the WoD character sheets; coming up with a catchy definition of your character and his modus operandi in two, three words. A rough backstory in the back of my head is good enough for me when I'm making PCs.
Posted by: Dog May 2 2006, 11:12 PM
Hey, you guys don't do it the same way I do! You must be WRONG! And subject to ridicule...
I never took SAT's, but Myers-Briggs says I'm INTJ. (Everybody whip 'em out, and we'll see who's is bigger!)
Seriously. There's also a fine line between archetypes and cliches. It makes sense to fill a role, but I encourage some depth to personality. And who cares if the other players know everything you've come up with. Just play the guy, or girl, or whatever, and if they're interesting, that discovery will come through play.
(edit: and I'll agree with Dogsoup above. A lot of nothing doesn't make a good character, and sometimes less is more.)
Posted by: emo samurai May 3 2006, 02:34 PM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ May 2 2006, 05:46 PM) | ||
*grasps frisbee, performs seppuku* |
Let's all do it together!!!
And is the idea of me getting a better SAT score than you so disgusting? :.(... (the periods are tears) I mean, if Einstein got a higher SAT score than you, you'd be like, "meh." But here's emo, with his apparently nonexistent sense of rationality outperforming you on the world's most popular standardized test, and you're committing seppuku through suffocation?
*seppukus with frisbee again*
Posted by: BrianL03 May 3 2006, 03:01 PM
Your SAT score does not bother me, for I have never taken the actual exam! I only did my ACT!
Posted by: FanGirl May 3 2006, 03:31 PM
I got a 1460 on my SAT: 660 Math, 800 Verbal. Even though I've never had a good head for numbers, I'm certain I could have gotten a better math score had I not been so nervous during the first section of the test, but who the hell am I to complain? 
Posted by: blakkie May 3 2006, 03:48 PM
| QUOTE (mfb @ May 2 2006, 12:35 AM) |
| i take the opposite approach from Wounded Ronin--though, that said, i'm in complete agreement about the whole thing with longass, disjointed backstories. i play some truly disjointed and weird characters, who don't fit very well into the standard categories. what i don't do is bore everyone with their backstories. i'm probably in the minority in thinking that a big backstory, even a well-written one, is not the best way to define a character. see, to me? a character only really comes alive when they hit play. all the stuff that happened before the game starts is just, well, background. it doesn't need to jump out with lots of vibrant detail. get a few basics in and get out. the important parts of the character's life are not what has happened, but what is about to happen. most of my character backgrounds are a few short lines, or even no lines at all--just a vague idea tumbling around in the back of my head. i know the character's personality, i know how they'll react to given stimuli. background details i toss in as i go along, when they're needed. |
Another mark on the wall. I agree (i think
).The background is just the reference point for the important part, where you are going. That is why reading this http://www.burningwheel.org/ i'm finding so natural. This is really what i've always done, certainly in the most memorable characters. I just always have to work hard to drape with the numbers and within the limitations of whatever system i'm playing, the asinine D&D Alignment being prime on the obstacle list.
The Burning Wheel just has formalized writing "the background looking forward" on the character sheet by having the player writing down the character's 3 top Beliefs. Beliefs are really a combination of goals and outlooks. The Burning Wheel system focuses the player on defining their character's personality because the major points of it are explicitly and concisely written right there on the character sheet as Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits (BITs) along with the normal number based stats, attributes and skills. The BITs are used by the game mechanics to directly impact what the character does in the game.
EDIT: Doing that leads to some interesting effects. For example one of their two demo games is quite literally the World's Simplest Dungeon, but without the Orc! At it's heart it consists of a set of prebuilt character sheets and a 2 short paragraph description of a simple stone room with a treasure (a sword). The special quality of the sword isn't even predetermined by the senario. The players and the GM, together, decide up front what is going to be the special quality or ability of the sword treasure and what of it the characters already know. All the events of the senario then flow from the Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits that define the characters.
P.S. As an added bonus BW is fixed TN, only with rules in place for social interactions.
Well more than rules really, an actual working system. Too bad the author changed the native setting of the game from "gritty sci-fi future" that he started designing it under to fantasy. Otherwise it would be even easier to port the SR setting. Although they do have a Mad Max with a touch of mystic setting for free download. The author of the game is himself apparently a sometimes SR GM.
Posted by: emo samurai May 3 2006, 06:07 PM
I got a 32 on my ACT; not nearly as good as my SAT.
Posted by: blakkie May 3 2006, 06:27 PM
I once took a drug test. I'm pretty sure i got a pass...or a fail. One of those two. I'm not sure, which is the "good one" again?
Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 06:37 PM
It depends on if you're trying to prove to the drug lord that you're not a cop or the bank manager that you're not a junkie.
Posted by: emo samurai May 3 2006, 07:07 PM
Well, I got a 1600 on the drug test. That means that even if I take a ton of cocaine, I'll still pass an hour later, but I also can't buy cocaine, ever.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 3 2006, 09:20 PM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) | ||||
Let's all do it together!!! And is the idea of me getting a better SAT score than you so disgusting? :.(... (the periods are tears) I mean, if Einstein got a higher SAT score than you, you'd be like, "meh." But here's emo, with his apparently nonexistent sense of rationality outperforming you on the world's most popular standardized test, and you're committing seppuku through suffocation? *seppukus with frisbee again* |
Naw, I just get sad every time my cognitive testicles shrink.
See, that's why FG scored less than both of us. She probably dosen't even *have* testicles, let alone *cognitive* testicles.
Posted by: SL James May 3 2006, 09:49 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| i take the opposite approach from Wounded Ronin--though, that said, i'm in complete agreement about the whole thing with longass, disjointed backstories. i play some truly disjointed and weird characters, who don't fit very well into the standard categories. what i don't do is bore everyone with their backstories. i'm probably in the minority in thinking that a big backstory, even a well-written one, is not the best way to define a character. |
You're just jealous.
Posted by: blakkie May 3 2006, 09:59 PM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Naw, I just get sad every time my cognitive testicles shrink. See, that's why FG scored less than both of us. She probably dosen't even *have* testicles, let alone *cognitive* testicles. |
Man, it has been so long since i've been able to see my cognitive testicles without using a mirror that i'm not sure anymore which the bigger one is, the left or the right.
Posted by: FanGirl May 3 2006, 10:10 PM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| See, that's why FG scored less than both of us. She probably dosen't even *have* testicles, let alone *cognitive* testicles. |
What?!
Sure, I'll admit (again) that my Math score left something to be desired, but I got an 800 Verbal! Eight hundred, as in highest score possible! When you factor in the 800 I got on the Writing exam and the fact that I taught myself to read when I was three years old, it should be abundantly clear that my command of the English language is progidious, masterful, and superlatively magnificent! Therefore, I pwn you all!FEAR THE MIGHT OF MY COGNITIVE OVARIES!
Posted by: stevebugge May 3 2006, 10:35 PM
Well this thread certainly has degenerated since my last visit.
Posted by: Ophis May 3 2006, 11:22 PM
This is Dumpshock man, do you expect anything less.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 4 2006, 05:55 AM
| QUOTE (FanGirl) | ||
What?! Sure, I'll admit (again) that my Math score left something to be desired, but I got an 800 Verbal! Eight hundred, as in highest score possible! When you factor in the 800 I got on the Writing exam and the fact that I taught myself to read when I was three years old, it should be abundantly clear that my command of the English language is progidious, masterful, and superlatively magnificent! Therefore, I pwn you all!FEAR THE MIGHT OF MY COGNITIVE OVARIES! |
Well, I got 800 verbal also, and, uh, my fourth grade homeroom teacher wasn't very good. So there!
(Since I got 800 verbal you can calculate my math score; 710. This means that my left cognitive testicle is a bit bigger and lower-hanging than my right one.)
Posted by: emo samurai May 4 2006, 05:57 AM
You also suck at math. 790 math, 740 verbal. Apparently this means my english is 73|-| su><><orZ. Which is why I fall back on 1337 every so often to convey my stronger emotions.
Posted by: blakkie May 4 2006, 06:07 AM
| QUOTE (stevebugge @ May 3 2006, 04:35 PM) |
| Well this thread certainly has degenerated since my last visit. |
Welcome to page 6. Make sure to stop by on page 8 where people will be putting up FLICKR links to old crayon drawnings of their cognitive genitals being touched in the bad way by their grossly incompetent, Wild Turkey Bourbon swilling Kindergarden teacher.
Posted by: emo samurai May 4 2006, 06:12 AM
You'll be the first one to do it, I'm sure.
Posted by: blakkie May 4 2006, 06:32 AM
It would be a fake. Ms. Schmit, later Mrs. Harley, was a fairly competent teacher. And more a rye & coke drinker. I had a few wingnuts teachers, but most were ok. If only a bit short on the uptake. I got lucky and missed out on the choicer ones, like the lady my brothers got who would through chalk at kids that weren't paying attention. Curiously she later came out of the closet (not sure if that was the reason she "retired"), and i found in dealing with her adult to adult that she was fairly easy going, not sure what that all means.
My Algebra teacher up until grade 11, when she retired, was pretty good. Tough, scary old bat, but she'd been doing it so many years that she had it right down pat. I was still better than her though once you left the beaten path of the text book, but she can take at least some credit for that.
The vice pricipal came in to teach Algebra in Grade 12, now that was a real joke. I sat in the back and doodled and worked out mole calculations for making explosives while keeping an eye on his work on the board in case he needed my help. Shit man, i can only imagine what kind of trouble that notebook would get me in these days. Likely would have got me in trouble even back then if anybody had noticed what it was.
In grade 12 physics (which i took a year early because our school alternated years of teaching Physics and Chemistry) i typically got more answers right on the test than the teacher did in his answer key. Seriously. Welcome to school in small town Nowhereville.
Posted by: stevebugge May 4 2006, 03:17 PM
| QUOTE (blakkie) | ||
Welcome to page 6. Make sure to stop by on page 8 where people will be putting up FLICKR links to old crayon drawnings of their cognitive genitals being touched in the bad way by their grossly incompetent, Wild Turkey Bourbon swilling Kindergarden teacher. |
You know is remarkably similar to someone's theory on Rifts that was posted somewhere earlier. Any predicitions on just how bad say page 13 will be?
Posted by: SL James May 4 2006, 03:37 PM
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| It would be a fake. Ms. Schmit, later Mrs. Harley, was a fairly competent teacher. And more a rye & coke drinker. I had a few wingnuts teachers, but most were ok. If only a bit short on the uptake. |
*cues the CD up to "It's Hard Out Here For A Pimp"*
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 4 2006, 09:57 PM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| You also suck at math. 790 math, 740 verbal. Apparently this means my english is 73|-| su><><orZ. Which is why I fall back on 1337 every so often to convey my stronger emotions. |
I heard that most people do better on math than on verbal. I don't know if it's true or not but that always puzzled me. I mean, wasn't it Barbie who once said, "Math is tough"?
Posted by: emo samurai May 4 2006, 10:20 PM
Not SAT math. They go up to Freshman Geometry level, and then they stop. No integrals, theorems, or standard deviations.
Posted by: blakkie May 4 2006, 11:04 PM
| QUOTE (SL James) | ||
*cues the CD up to "It's Hard Out Here For A Pimp"* |
Wordz ta yer mutha.
Speaking of which can you tell her to buy a new set of fishnets, blakkie don't pimp just any old ratty trash on the street corner. Gots me a quality image to maintain.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 4 2006, 11:08 PM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Not SAT math. They go up to Freshman Geometry level, and then they stop. No integrals, theorems, or standard deviations. |
True. Damn, you just woke up traumatic memories of calculus class for me. I took a calculus class in high school and one as an undergrad and I really struggled through both. My math-fu is indeed weak, which is probably why I only scored 710.
On the other hand I can probably say with satisfaction that the vast majority of people on the planet don't study calculus. Therefore, just because I passed a couple of calculus classes I probably know more about t3h math than most people. Uh, even if I already forgot all my calculus already.
Posted by: emo samurai May 4 2006, 11:38 PM
Dude, I blazed through AB calc and Calculus II. I should have taken BC in high school.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 4 2006, 11:57 PM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Dude, I blazed through AB calc and Calculus II. I should have taken BC in high school. |
Yeah, well, I went to a snotty high school so, uh, my calculus class was harder. So there.
Posted by: emo samurai May 5 2006, 12:30 AM
So did I. It was a boarding school for rich kids. I got a 5 on the AP test without studying.
As if people here didn't hate me enough.
Posted by: Platinum May 5 2006, 03:32 AM
Big deal man, there are plenty of us that are mensa material and don't spend all our time bragging about it.
I have met several extremely "gifted" individuals that barely had enough life skills to survive. You might be book smart but I am not seeing strong evidence of you being able to apply that to the real world.
Posted by: Kagetenshi May 5 2006, 03:33 AM
| QUOTE (Platinum) |
| I have met several extremely "gifted" individuals that barely had enough life skills to survive. |
Did someone call?
~J
Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 03:34 AM
You missed where he said it was a boarding school for rich kids. That means his grades were bought and paid for, making a correlation between them and actual intelligence (or even book smarts) hard to derive.
Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 03:35 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Did someone call? |
No, that was just your banana phone ringing. Or maybe it was my shoe phone.
Posted by: emo samurai May 5 2006, 04:08 AM
Dude, AP test 5. I don't think the administrators can manipulate that. And this whole thing started because Wounded Ronin pretended to get offended, so don't be a dick about this.
Platinum, I label you my new Critias to my... well, me. Have fun being a forum vulture.
Posted by: Platinum May 5 2006, 04:15 AM
blah ... witty comment removed. Not feeding trolls anymore.
Posted by: emo samurai May 5 2006, 04:16 AM
Hopefully, you drop the hobby the way your predecessor did.
Posted by: caramel frappuccino May 5 2006, 04:19 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Platinum, I label you my new Critias to my... well, me. Have fun being a forum vulture. |
Did you just call yourself a forum dead piece of meat?
I titter at you.
Posted by: emo samurai May 5 2006, 04:20 AM
Yeah, vulture seems too baroque. How about boar. A boar with ticks on it. (Those would be you.)
Which would make me the Green Knight!!
Posted by: caramel frappuccino May 5 2006, 04:24 AM
Somehow I see you as more of a Black Knight, flailing about sans limbs.
Posted by: emo samurai May 5 2006, 04:25 AM
This is getting tiresome. I could say "And you're the tool who got a sword through the face before Arthur came," but seriously, I need to work.
Posted by: caramel frappuccino May 5 2006, 04:26 AM
Why you gotta be hatin' like that, Melissa Jo?
Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 04:31 AM
I'm sorry, I didn't reakluize that it was ok for you to make jokes about the source of your education, but not me.
Grades and test scores mean absolutely nothing in the real world past having them on your resume. And after X amount of years in a profession they don't mean anything there either. Even the much valued IQ test means practically little outside of the small field of things it tests. Show me results in real life and I'll be impressed.
The above was not directed at emo to say "you aren't smart" but at anyone who thinks scoring well on a test means anything beyond a demonstration of a person's ability to score well on a test. I've known people (myself included) who score excellently on tests, especially the standardized ones. Some were actually smart people, some were dumb but with good short term memories, and some just knew how to take tests well.
Posted by: FanGirl May 5 2006, 05:11 AM
I would just like to apologize to anyone who was weirded out by my "cognitive ovaries" comment. It's just that WR's comment about testicles implied that I was dumb because I was a girl, and I felt obligated to defend my feminine honor and all that stuff.
I agree with you about testing as a measure of intelligence: I adhere to Gardner's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences because it makes sense given my own abilities. I have scads of linguistic intelligence, but my mathematical and interpersonal intelligences are definitely subpar. I'm probably about average in most of the others, but I'm certain that when it comes to kinesthetics, I'm a downright retard.
I don't think that that's stopped members of my extended family from viewing me as an all-around genius, though. For example, my cousin once remarked to me that I'm "gonna cure cancer or something," even though I barely know a carcinogen from a pathogen. I've kinda resented being labeled as "the smart one" in the family because I want people to take a fuller view of me and my personality. There was a time when, whenever a family member would comment on what a genius I was, I would snap, "I'm not smart--I'm merely the product of a superior educational system!*" But then the grownups would just laugh at me, so I eventually stopped.
*I spent most of my life going to a snotty and secular private day school, the kind of place where children between ages 3 and 18 are sent to be groomed into philosopher-kings. For example, the high school has neither a cheerleading squad nor a football team: all the cool kids do Model UN.
Posted by: emo samurai May 5 2006, 05:16 AM
I don't like to nip at people who don't hate me; sorry, James.
Posted by: mfb May 5 2006, 05:17 AM
congnitive ovaries can't be any worse than journalistic ovaries.
Posted by: emo samurai May 5 2006, 05:19 AM
FanGirl, I also don't think you were being targeted by all the hatred and stuff; it was just general "swarm emo samurai kekekeke" bullshit.
Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 05:34 AM
Heh heh. Nip away. It just ups my feistiness factor in the other threads I'm debating in.
I personally think that one of the most attractive parts of a woman are her cognitive ovaries. The ability to conceive, gestate, and give birth to thought is a necessity for any date that wants to go beyond the "get drunk and do the horizontal Lambada" stage.
Not that there's anything wrong with drunken debauchery of course. If it weren't for that I'd have stayed inside playing games all through college.
Posted by: emo samurai May 5 2006, 05:35 AM
Happy fun James is back!!!
Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 05:38 AM
I just shaved. In some ways my morale is inversely proportional to the amount of whiskers on my face, changing to exponentially proportional when they reach the length that they start to itch.
I was a total bastard for my entire goatee-wearing sophomore year.
Posted by: emo samurai May 5 2006, 05:39 AM
Dude, I got an idea! We should singe your face so that it doesn't grow back!! Then you'll always be happy!
Posted by: caramel frappuccino May 5 2006, 05:43 AM
| QUOTE (FanGirl) |
| I've kinda resented being labeled as "the smart one" in the family because I want people to take a fuller view of me and my personality. There was a time when, whenever a family member would comment on what a genius I was, I would snap, "I'm not smart--I'm merely the product of a superior educational system!*" But then the grownups would just laugh at me, so I eventually stopped. |
Enough beatings applied with a baseball bat corrects all undesired misconceptions.
Posted by: emo samurai May 5 2006, 05:43 AM
If you knew her in real life, you could not say that without laughing. She couldn't hit a puppy, much less a pigheaded relative. Oh wait, she could and probably should.
Posted by: Kremlin KOA May 5 2006, 06:20 AM
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Heh heh. Nip away. It just ups my feistiness factor in the other threads I'm debating in. I personally think that one of the most attractive parts of a woman are her cognitive ovaries. The ability to conceive, gestate, and give birth to thought is a necessity for any date that wants to go beyond the "get drunk and do the horizontal Lambada" stage. Not that there's anything wrong with drunken debauchery of course. If it weren't for that I'd have stayed inside playing games all through college. |
Disses Emo and Hits on Fangirl all in one post
Multitasking
Now if I can work out a way to defend Emo and ask for Fangirl's MSN in a single Post I can go for the Title of the AntiJames
Posted by: FanGirl May 5 2006, 06:28 AM
I don't have MSN, so that title is technically unattainable. . .
Better use your Edge.
Posted by: emo samurai May 5 2006, 06:33 AM
Jesus Christ, are you passive agressive, James? I didn't even see that side of the post until Kremlin pointed it out!
Then again, it's possible it's just the internet. The internet NEVER creates misunderstandings.
Posted by: eralston May 5 2006, 06:35 AM
You know, my one regret about the internet is that vendettas cannot be pursued in flashy sword fights with orchestral accompaniment
No...no...boring words
Posted by: Kremlin KOA May 5 2006, 06:37 AM
Well given my edge stat.... nah even then betteroff going for something possible
AIM? Yahoo? email? which of these should i try to get to become the AntiJames?
Posted by: eidolon May 5 2006, 07:58 AM
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| I just shaved. In some ways my morale is inversely proportional to the amount of whiskers on my face, changing to exponentially proportional when they reach the length that they start to itch. I was a total bastard for my entire goatee-wearing sophomore year. |
Odd, I seem to suffer the opposite condition.
I get more angry the more days in a row that I have to shave. Not only that, but I was buying blades two days ago, and it hit me (AGAIN...I have this revelation a lot) that I was PAYING fifteen freaking dollars every month or so to do something that I not only despise doing, but that actually causes me a good deal of discomfort. All I can think when I buy razors is "How fucking stupid is this?".
Ah. Eight more weeks, and I can "legally" have facial hair again.
Posted by: Kremlin KOA May 7 2006, 06:32 PM
legally have facial hair? care to explain that one?
Posted by: Kagetenshi May 7 2006, 06:35 PM
I suspect it has something to do with school regulations, given the timeframe (though late June seems… well, late to be getting out).
Either that or maybe he's in the military and is getting out soon?
~J
Posted by: James McMurray May 7 2006, 08:01 PM
I'm rereading that post and wondering how it is I dissed emo by telling him it's ok to pick at me?
I also wasn't hitting on FanGirl, just making a general statement about my views on the attractiveness of women. Not that I wouldn't hit on her of course.
And yeah, sometimes I can be passive aggressive. Other times I'm an ass. It all depends on the mood.
Posted by: emo samurai May 7 2006, 08:03 PM
The Internet is, after all, a perfect communication medium. Especially when there's no tone to read.
Posted by: FanGirl May 7 2006, 08:39 PM
If I were you, Kremlin, I'd try and get my AIM name. Make a Charisma + Negotiation test.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 7 2006, 09:33 PM
| QUOTE (FanGirl) |
| *I spent most of my life going to a snotty and secular private day school, the kind of place where children between ages 3 and 18 are sent to be groomed into philosopher-kings. For example, the high school has neither a cheerleading squad nor a football team: all the cool kids do Model UN. |
Heey! I played Model UN all the way from middle school through undergrad! Are you saying I'm a philosopher king....uh, I mean...you *are* saying I'm a philosopher king!
I got a 5 on AP French. So ha!
Posted by: eidolon May 7 2006, 09:37 PM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Either that or maybe he's in the military and is getting out soon? |
[announcer voice]That is correct! Johnny, tell him what he's won.[/voice]
Indeed. I have about 8 weeks left. I am the winner, the power is mine, go go gadget facial hair growth.
It's been a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong six years.
Oh, and I used "legal" because it seemed better than "within regs".
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 7 2006, 09:45 PM
| QUOTE (eidolon) | ||
[announcer voice]That is correct! Johnny, tell him what he's won.[/voice] Indeed. I have about 8 weeks left. I am the winner, the power is mine, go go gadget facial hair growth. It's been a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong six years. Oh, and I used "legal" because it seemed better than "within regs". |
Sweet! You can be the official DSF dual-wielding M249s consultant.
Q: So it says in the rules I can dual wield pistols can I dual wield LMGs can I can I can I it would be so cool I have this katana trenchcoat vampire PC lol lol lol.
A: No.
Posted by: eidolon May 7 2006, 11:51 PM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Sweet! You can be the official DSF dual-wielding M249s consultant. |
Actually, if you had slings on both of them, and ammo drums instead of belts...
You might not hit much, but you could put some lead in the air.
Posted by: emo samurai May 8 2006, 01:36 AM
So anyway, how does everyone structure their roleplaying sessions? Do you have "Do job, go home," or "Do job, have players talk after job," or what? After my first run, the characters all visited a bar and talked about themselves.
In other words, how much do you RP, and what do you RP?
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 8 2006, 01:52 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| So anyway, how does everyone structure their roleplaying sessions? Do you have "Do job, go home," or "Do job, have players talk after job," or what? After my first run, the characters all visited a bar and talked about themselves. In other words, how much do you RP, and what do you RP? |
Hmm. IIRC usually after a run everyone would go and hide out at someone's High Lifestyle and usually annoy that person with their idocyncracies.
Posted by: emo samurai May 8 2006, 01:53 AM
That'll probably happen to my dude.
"Don't... eat all the... goddammit."
"No, you can not pelt my landlord's house with paint grenades."
"Stop hacking people's cars and running them into each other on my lawn!"
Posted by: FanGirl May 8 2006, 02:05 AM
I really want the chance to RP "downtime"--the times when I'm not actively running. http://archive.dumpshock.com/bjcorner/ShowBJ.php3?page=toilet.htm is a great article about roleplaying downtime. Anyway, I'm definitely going to try and do stuff with my team as we get to know each other better, like treat them to ice cream after a successful run. Why ice cream? Sometimes spending your free time in a bar can get old, especially when drinking, gambling, drinking, fighting, drinking, and drinking is not especially interesting to you. You need something wholesome and simple to balance out all that grit, and what could be more wholesome than ice cream?
Posted by: emo samurai May 8 2006, 02:12 AM
All I have to do is go "FREE KARMA FREE KARMA" and they'll jump on this like starving feral children.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 8 2006, 02:17 AM
| QUOTE (FanGirl) |
| I really want the chance to RP "downtime"--the times when I'm not actively running. http://archive.dumpshock.com/bjcorner/ShowBJ.php3?page=toilet.htm is a great article about roleplaying downtime. Anyway, I'm definitely going to try and do stuff with my team as we get to know each other better, like treat them to ice cream after a successful run. Why ice cream? Sometimes spending your free time in a bar can get old, especially when drinking, gambling, drinking, fighting, drinking, and drinking is not especially interesting to you. You need something wholesome and simple to balance out all that grit, and what could be more wholesome than ice cream? |
You know, the irony of your statement is that ice cream is probably *more* wholesome in the SR world than it often would be at an ice cream parlor today. Basically, ice cream is bad for you because although it has a lot of calcium it has too much fat and too much sugar. People don't realize it but cheap ice cream is better for you than premium ice cream because it's thickened with carageenan (a seaweed product) instead of eggs and thus it actually contains dietary fiber. Add artificial sweeteners without sugar and you could probably get rid of a lot of the bad stuff that's in ice cream, especially if you did your best to make it low fat by minimizing the actual dairy ingredients.
IRL generally speaking I don't want to eat ice cream. It's funny because a lot of my fellow Americans out here in the Federated States of Micronesia are often buying ice cream and homemade frozen confections from stores and things as a respite from the tropical heat and humidity. Me, I haven't bought ice cream yet. That shit is bad for you.
The way I see it, if you're gonna take on so many calories and do something unhealthy, you might as well get something from it; you might as well drink alcohol. I'm a huge fan of mixed drinks. So that's sort of a reversal (bar>ice cream).
That being said, if I were magically transported by a Shadowrun novel into the Shadowrun universe I might eat ice cream if it failed to contain real dairy products. I'd eat fat free nutrasweet carageenan based ice cream any day because it's pretty much "guilt free".
Posted by: eidolon May 8 2006, 02:28 AM
In my last game, the ratio of running/downtime was probably around 50/50. Good stuff.
Posted by: emo samurai May 8 2006, 02:37 AM
Have you ever eaten ice cream? That stuff rocks. Or do you mean that the only ice cream you've ever eaten somebody else bought for you?
Posted by: FanGirl May 8 2006, 02:40 AM
I use the term "wholesome" more in the sense of being associated with moral health than with physical health. I never said that ice cream wasn't bad for you nutritionally--it's just that the act of eating ice cream at an ice cream parlor is very innocuous and above-the-board, not to mention much safer than drinking at a runner bar. I'd expect that exchanges of blows and bullets are less frequent at ice cream parlors than they are at bars, even in an especially violent world like the SR universe.
Posted by: emo samurai May 8 2006, 02:46 AM
I'm sure ice cream, if it's any good in Shadowrun, is really expensive. Then again, in Beggars in Spain, there was genemoded soy-based ice cream that tasted better than the "real" thing, so I don't know.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 8 2006, 02:51 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| Have you ever eaten ice cream? That stuff rocks. Or do you mean that the only ice cream you've ever eaten somebody else bought for you? |
I used to eat ice cream before I learned about health. I'll still eat it for a special occasion if someone buys it for me; I wouldn't want to refuse a gift in the setting of a special occasion unless I felt like I was literally in danger from that gift. (For example, if someone gave me a meat dish that had been prepared the night before and had been out on a counter all day; food poisoning can be truly horrific.)
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 8 2006, 02:57 AM
| QUOTE (FanGirl) |
| I use the term "wholesome" more in the sense of being associated with moral health than with physical health. I never said that ice cream wasn't bad for you nutritionally--it's just that the act of eating ice cream at an ice cream parlor is very innocuous and above-the-board, not to mention much safer than drinking at a runner bar. I'd expect that exchanges of blows and bullets are less frequent at ice cream parlors than they are at bars, even in an especially violent world like the SR universe. |
I think it's all about attitude when you go into t3h seedy bar. I did my graduate classes at the Tulane University public health school in New Orleans pre-Katrina. Since I'm a miserly bastard who hates spending money *and* a great lover of alcohol I would often try to save money by going to the seediest, most-cheap looking bars off of Canal Street that I could find. In New Orleans there was a very high crime rate at that time, there were a lot of people out on the street who were clearly on crack, and there was a lot of poverty-centric racial tension.
Thing is, though, for the most part no one ever bothered me when I was buying my cheap beer at seedy bars. Once a delusional old lady on crack kissed the back of my neck, but as far as incidents in actual seedy bars goes that's it.
At the end of the day most people don't want anything bad to happen to them. Even if they want to mug someone or smack someone down they'll go for someone who looks weak instead of someone who looks like they might put up a fight.
Therefore, I would think that unless your shadowrunner inexplicably looks really weak or nervous he or she would do just fine in t3h shadowrunner bar. I mean, even if your character is the Bod 2 effeminite decker who looks fun to beat up chances are no one would bother to got beat up on him as long as he's got his heavy pistol. Even if you probably could beat him up why take the risk when all you wanted to do was get a few creds or let off some steam? Go beat up on some hobo outside who can't defend himself.
Posted by: emo samurai May 8 2006, 03:06 AM
Or if your dude has light coming out of his hands and a watchful vaguely-human-shaped thing of pure fire constantly popping in and out of existence next to him.
And Wounded, are you military? And is it just me, or are there lots of military dudes on this board? I heard once that the armed forces is one of the biggest markets for RPG's; is this true?
Posted by: FrostyNSO May 8 2006, 03:08 AM
Maybe your shadowrunner pals would like to sit around the space heater in your squat, swap stories, and pop open a few cans of http://www.bodyconcept.com/family/1354/display.html?
Posted by: emo samurai May 8 2006, 03:12 AM
That does NOT look healthy.
And they just got 20,000 for their last run; they should be able to eat better.
Posted by: FrostyNSO May 8 2006, 03:16 AM
Actually it's pretty good tasting, and it beats the hell outta protein shakes all the time.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 8 2006, 03:21 AM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| And Wounded, are you military? |
Lol, no, I'm like military multiplied by negative one. I'm a Peace Corps volunteer. I'm not even allowed to own or operate a firearm.
Posted by: hyzmarca May 8 2006, 04:14 AM
Hot chocolate syrup and whiped cream together are like true love, only they are cheaper, more widely available, and usually last longer. But the only thing they go well with is ice cream.
Posted by: SL James May 8 2006, 04:14 AM
In the Peace Corps? I'm shocked.
Posted by: FanGirl May 8 2006, 04:54 AM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| I think it's all about attitude when you go into t3h seedy bar. I did my graduate classes at the Tulane University public health school in New Orleans pre-Katrina. Since I'm a miserly bastard who hates spending money *and* a great lover of alcohol I would often try to save money by going to the seediest, most-cheap looking bars off of Canal Street that I could find. In New Orleans there was a very high crime rate at that time, there were a lot of people out on the street who were clearly on crack, and there was a lot of poverty-centric racial tension. Thing is, though, for the most part no one ever bothered me when I was buying my cheap beer at seedy bars. Once a delusional old lady on crack kissed the back of my neck, but as far as incidents in actual seedy bars goes that's it. At the end of the day most people don't want anything bad to happen to them. Even if they want to mug someone or smack someone down they'll go for someone who looks weak instead of someone who looks like they might put up a fight. |
I suppose you're right. . ..but then again, I'm a sheltered upper-middle class white girl who, in terms of street smarts, is downright retarded. If I went to one of your Canal Street bars, it would probably take all the willpower I could muster to keep myself from huddling under the nearest table and whimpering to myself. Thank God I don't have to do runner-type stuff in real life!
Posted by: Kremlin KOA May 8 2006, 04:56 AM
Damn it FanGirl. you are bringing out all my protective urges
STOP IT! please
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 8 2006, 05:11 AM
| QUOTE (SL James) |
| In the Peace Corps? I'm shocked. |
One of my fellow volunteers said, "there's nothing peaceful about him!" because I'm interested in combative sports and I had some cheap pads and mouth guards shipped out so I can hold kickboxing classes with sparring.
Posted by: emo samurai May 8 2006, 05:18 AM
If you knew her in real life, this response would feel totally rational.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 8 2006, 11:34 PM
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| If you knew her in real life, this response would feel totally rational. |
Well, if her pops is a lawyer she should learn about self defense law and carry a 1911. Then you only have to worry about her fumbling with her weapons when she's suddenly assaulted on the street at a time when the last thing she thought she'd be thinking about was fighting for her life. Because 1911s are t3h win.
Posted by: FanGirl May 9 2006, 01:12 AM
I don't like guns.
Also, Dad is a law professor, not a lawyer. His main areas of expertise include blackmail (as has been already mentioned), extortion and bribery, inheritance law, and other similar subjects. More recently, he's been dabbling in empirical research and sociological-type stuff, and he contributes to a somewhat popular conservative political/legal blog. He is also a former lobster chef.
Anyway, he hasn't really given me much in the way of self-defense lessons--except for the advice to always give up your valuables if you're being mugged, and to fight back and make the biggest scene possible if you're being abducted. He certainly hasn't gone into the details of self-defense law with me.
Posted by: SL James May 9 2006, 01:52 AM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) | ||
One of my fellow volunteers said, "there's nothing peaceful about him!" because I'm interested in combative sports and I had some cheap pads and mouth guards shipped out so I can hold kickboxing classes with sparring. |
I knew there was a reason I liked you (not in that way, you fucking preverts).
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 9 2006, 01:54 AM
| QUOTE (FanGirl) |
| I don't like guns. Also, Dad is a law professor, not a lawyer. His main areas of expertise include blackmail (as has been already mentioned), extortion and bribery, inheritance law, and other similar subjects. More recently, he's been dabbling in empirical research and sociological-type stuff, and he contributes to a somewhat popular conservative political/legal blog. He is also a former lobster chef. Anyway, he hasn't really given me much in the way of self-defense lessons--except for the advice to always give up your valuables if you're being mugged, and to fight back and make the biggest scene possible if you're being abducted. He certainly hasn't gone into the details of self-defense law with me. |
I was pleasantly surprised when I read this post because Professor Pa told his daughter to fight back in an abduction situation. I get so sick and tired of so-called experts telling people not to fight back but instead to roll over and be easy victims. I think that a lot of people *already* act like victims way too easily and we sure as hell don't need that being reinforced. Plus, peoples' general naivite and lack of toughness and mental aggression helps to facilitate the growth of bullshit consumerist martial arts in the US because people don't demand any real evidence that the techniques they're being taught are really effective or not.
I guess that anyone who used to be a chef can't be that bad. I really enjoy cooking myself.
Anyway, I do have one point of confusion, though. Why does Professor Pa tell you to fight against an abductor but then not cover the basic elements of self-defense law? (Requirement of retreat, equal amounts of force, self defense vs. revenge, castle doctrine, etc.) It's kind of good to know if you are seriously thinking about defending yourself.
Lastly, 1911s are really cool and very historical. Even if you don't like guns in general I think 1911s have a historical appeal to them that would make even the most left-leaning academic love them.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 9 2006, 01:57 AM
| QUOTE (SL James) | ||||
I knew there was a reason I liked you (not in that way, you fucking preverts). |
Gee, thanks, James! Coming from you that's a real compliment. It's so kind of you to express that.
Posted by: FanGirl May 9 2006, 01:58 AM
| QUOTE (SL James @ May 8 2006, 08:52 PM) |
| <snip>you fucking preverts<snip> |
Hey! I don't mind it if you call us nasty names, but comparing us to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A9vert is totally crossing the line!
Posted by: eidolon May 9 2006, 02:05 AM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| that would make even the most left-leaning academic love them. |
Yes, because being left-leaning and smart = not liking guns.
Posted by: FanGirl May 9 2006, 02:23 AM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Anyway, I do have one point of confusion, though. Why does Professor Pa tell you to fight against an abductor but then not cover the basic elements of self-defense law? (Requirement of retreat, equal amounts of force, self defense vs. revenge, castle doctrine, etc.) It's kind of good to know if you are seriously thinking about defending yourself. |
Hee, "Professor Pa." Anyway, I'm not sure why he didn't go into that stuff: I'll have to ask him about it sometime.
BTW, even though Dad is a (fiscal) conservative, he just doesn't find guns appealing. Sorry.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 9 2006, 02:36 AM
| QUOTE (eidolon) |
| Yes, because being left-leaning and smart = not liking guns. |
And
| QUOTE |
BTW, even though Dad is a (fiscal) conservative, he just doesn't find guns appealing. Sorry. |
Eh, I'm the only left-leaning person I know who likes guns. Everyone else I've met who isn't a conservative thinks that they're inestimably dangerous and uncontrollable and yet if you legislate against them they'll magically disappear. Furthermore, outside of a rural setting, NO ONE NEEEEDS GUNS, DAMMIT!
I mean, I used to be like that. Then I became a history major as an undergrad. And then on top of that I took a couple of firearms courses.
Then I realized that a firearm is not a Wand of Magic Missile that automatically hits you and practically instapwns the Level 0 Fighters walking around the city and that in fact if you don't know what you're doing you can miss all the time at beyond 30 feet. I also realized that there was a lot of historical evolution that went into the designs of firearms and that this historical progression is wound deeply in the history of the major wars this century. I think that in my mind firearms morphed from these all-powerful artefacts of effortless death into something closer to reality.
I also think that there's a lot of non-factual ideological crap that gets tied into the gun debate, at least with lefties like me. I don't think that many lefties, even smart ones, really appreciate all the history that is represented by having a 1911 in your hand today, and they don't necessarily appreciate the engineering aspect of the technology either. They don't get interested in the medical aspect of firearms and learn about blood loss, shock, cavitation, and rehabilitation. I think that actual guns get sucked into a kind of ideological demonization of violence in the media and the fetishization of violence in movies becomes ideologically tied to people wanting to own firearms in real life.
Basically, I think that in the absence of people handling, practicing with, and really appreciating what firearms do and don't do there's room in a creative and abstract mind to grow a gun-shaped demon.
Posted by: FanGirl May 9 2006, 02:44 AM
Okay, okay! Next time my college's gun club goes to the firing range, I'll tag along. Would that make you feel better?
(Yup, you read that post right: there is such a thing as a "college gun club." And it's at a fairly liberal college, too.)
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 9 2006, 02:50 AM
| QUOTE (FanGirl) |
| Okay, okay! Next time my college's gun club goes to the firing range, I'll tag along. Would that make you feel better? (Yup, you read that post right: there is such a thing as a "college gun club." And it's at a fairly liberal college, too.) |
It would, actually. Just for kicks, ask someone ahead of time if they can bring a 1911 for you to fire.
Luckily, plenty of liberal colleges have gun clubs and gun classes. That was my initiation and I think I got a very good introduction. I got to play with a variety of firearms since the instructors were collectors.
Posted by: James McMurray May 9 2006, 03:27 AM
Because I can't see a good discussion without chiming in...
I personally am not anti-gun, nor do I own a gun. The reason is that I'm anti-"gun in the house with small shildren." Either I'll put it somewhere that I could actually get to it during a breakin and my kids could also get to it, or I'll put it soemwhere that they can't get in to and neither can I in an emergency. Since putting it where they couldn't get it would mean the top of the closet, in a box, locked, behind a few things, with the key hidden in the locked car, and the bullets in the trunk.
I am, however, anti-"getting shot."
If we could somehow wave our hands and make all guns go away it might end up being a better world, or it might not. The instances involving people dying from gunshot woulds would completely go away, but it could engender an aristocracy powered by the people with the heaviest armor and best sword / bow skills (i.e. feudalism all over again). Since I'm way too lazy to take up swordfighting, I think I'll stick with the guns for now.
Posted by: Kremlin KOA May 9 2006, 03:33 AM
FanGirl
Ignore the 1911 hype, fire a .22 or a .38 for ya first 50 rounds or so, get used to how guns kick and not anticipate recoil before ya use a heavier weapon
James McMurray: go look into gunsafes
There are a couple ofmodels that are quick release even with a decent code.
WHen you are awake ya could have the weapon on you so the kids can't get it
and put it into the safe at night
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 9 2006, 03:41 AM
| QUOTE (Kremlin KOA) |
| Ignore the 1911 hype |
Too bad this forum dosen't have the smiley of the crying eagle head in front of an American flag. That smiley would have been ideal for this post.
Posted by: mfb May 9 2006, 03:43 AM
| QUOTE (FanGirl) |
| Hey! I don't mind it if you call us nasty names, but comparing us to a post-WW2 French poet is totally crossing the line! |
2 karma to FanGirl for making the GM laugh.
Posted by: James McMurray May 9 2006, 03:48 AM
Ah, but I'd have to want a gun in the house enough to get a gunsafe. Then I'd have to carry a gun around with me all day (I tend not to wear a full set of clothes, and certainly wouldn't wear a holster all day).
No thanks, it's not my cup of tea.
Posted by: hyzmarca May 9 2006, 04:37 AM
Actually, if you wanted to have a gun around for self-defense but didn't want to let children have access to it I'd recomend a barrel lock instead. As gun locking mechanisms go, barrel locks are superior to trigger locks in every way. They are more sturdy, more reliable, and come off much quicker in an emergancy. They also prevent accidental discharge since a propper barrel lock makes it impossible to chamber a round while trigger locks do not.
And all you'd need to keep on your person is a tiny key like the kind they use for display cases and drink machines.
Of course, making it impossible for children to access the weapon in an emergancy kind of defeats the purpose of having a gun for self-defense in the first place. People who use such measures will be very embarassed if their children are ever butchered by sterotypical axe-murders bjust because the kids couldn't use the gun which is why I perfer actual firearms use and safety training at a young age.
It is odd but both liberals and conservatives loudly bang on the stop our children from being violent drum and bang on the protect our children from imaginary Frakenstien-like gigantic rabid murderous pedophiles drum at the same time without understanding that those two goals are mutually exclusive.
Posted by: Kagetenshi May 9 2006, 05:06 AM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ May 8 2006, 08:54 PM) |
| I was pleasantly surprised when I read this post because Professor Pa told his daughter to fight back in an abduction situation. I get so sick and tired of so-called experts telling people not to fight back but instead to roll over and be easy victims. |
Psht. You should never, ever fight back. Instead, you should get a tooth replacement with cyanide or some similar substance inside. If someone tries to abduct you, bite down hard—that'll teach them.
| QUOTE |
| The instances involving people dying from gunshot woulds would completely go away, but it could engender an aristocracy powered by the people with the heaviest armor and best sword / bow skills (i.e. feudalism all over again). |
See, that's just it—feudalism didn't display those properties at all. Where those traits (power and skills/armor) coexisted, it was largely because those with power had the most money and free time—the one being critical to obtaining and maintaining armor, the other to acquiring and maintaining skill with weaponry.
Even if your assertion were true, though, it's only worse now. Here you are with your guns and maybe some kevlar, while the "feudal lords" are equipped with missiles and tanks and who knows what else. At least under feudalism you were facing the same class of weaponry that you were using (siege weapons being largely ineffectual against human targets—not that big guns are so hot against individual people these days, but when you're using a big explosive instead of a big rock a miss will be a lot more dangerous).
| QUOTE |
| People who use such measures will be very embarassed if their children are ever butchered by sterotypical axe-murders bjust because the kids couldn't use the gun |
Have you watched any horror movie ever, or maybe the Home Alone series? Any kid who can't stand up to an axe murderer with nothing but household materials doesn't deserve to live.
~J
Posted by: hyzmarca May 9 2006, 05:17 AM
If a crazy axe murder breaks into your home with the intent to kill you and you injure him with some crazy MacGuyvered device then he can sue you and he will almost certainly win. If you kill him with a gun then he can't sue.
Posted by: Kagetenshi May 9 2006, 05:49 AM
You or I? Absolutely. A ten-year-old kid? He will get put in jail for life for contempt of awesome if he fails to use a Rube Goldberg death machine.
~J
Posted by: FanGirl May 9 2006, 05:58 AM
Sig'd!
Posted by: James McMurray May 9 2006, 06:35 AM
Ahem...
I. Don't. Want. A. Gun. In. My. House. With. Kids.
If my children are half as devious as I was (they'll probably be twice as devious) they'll be able to get into anything I can get into. I have absolutely no problems with anybody else doing whatever they want within their own homes.
I was merely offering up my opinion, not looking to be convinced (which won't happen).
Kage: the offhand crack about feudalism was just that: an offhand crack. I am not held in check because my government has bigger and better weaponry then me and cajoles me out of fear. I most likely wouldn't be no matter how the disparate weaponry existed, because of a couple of reasons:
1) I don't live under a government that rules its populace by fear.
2) If things got that bad I'd get up and leave, walking myself and my kids to Canada or farther if needbe. Given that I live in Texas, that's a pretty long walk.
Posted by: mfb May 9 2006, 06:41 AM
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| 1) I don't live under a government that rules its populace by fear. |
arguable, these days. maybe not a winnable argument... but arguable.
Posted by: James McMurray May 9 2006, 07:01 AM
Yeah, you could argue it. But since I have no fear of my government, you'd lose any argument predicated on me being ruled by fear.
Posted by: Oracle May 9 2006, 07:11 AM
The fact that you do not fear your government does not necessarily mean it is not ruling by fear. Possibly they rule by making the populace fear others. Communists, minorities, other countries, terrorists, religions... Fear allows a government to cut freedom with the populace applauding.
Posted by: eidolon May 9 2006, 07:16 AM
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| 1) I don't live under a government that rules its populace by fear. |
HAhahhaHAhAhAhAaHAHAhahaHAHAhahahahahahaHAHAHAhahaHahAHaHaHahaHaHAHaHAHaHahahahAhahAhahAHAhaa....haha....ha........HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAhahahahHAHAhahaahAHHAHaHAHAHAHAhAHAHAHAHA....whew...
Yeah. That was good. Tell another one!
| QUOTE (Oracle) |
| The fact that you do not fear your government does not necessarily mean it is not ruling by fear. |
Damn well said, and logically sound to boot. For further examples to build on your list, see
- constant usage of "9/11" to justify stomping on civil rights
- constant reminders that if we don't give the government carte blanche to maim, torture, and detain without cause anyone they want, we'll all die in a fiery maelstrom
- the "god's on our side" method of ruling
- the constant reminders that everyone outside out border is an "enemy" unless they're currently, repeatedly, and openly kissing our collective ass
- rampant and open cronyism and position purchasing
Anyone that isn't worried isn't paying attention.
Posted by: Oracle May 9 2006, 07:58 AM
But please keep in mind that this is not a politics board. This only leads to flamewars.
Posted by: mfb May 9 2006, 09:29 AM
no it doesn't! you're stupid, and also a communist nazi!
Posted by: Oracle May 9 2006, 09:44 AM
Posted by: hyzmarca May 9 2006, 09:48 AM
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| I. Don't. Want. A. Gun. In. My. House. With. Kids. |
Understandable, but what about your kids' friends' houses? It is impossible to have complete control over every place your children may play. It is far better to instill in your children a complete understanding of what guns can do and how to handle them safely rather then send them out into the cruel wiorld with nothing but ignorance for a shield.
As a genral rule, people who are properly educated about firearms safety don't accidently shoot themselves or others.
Posted by: Oracle May 9 2006, 09:55 AM
How does it happen, that here in Germany the number of gun accidents is so much smaller?
Posted by: hyzmarca May 9 2006, 10:02 AM
Proper education.
Posted by: Oracle May 9 2006, 10:11 AM
No. Much fewer guns in private households. Which is possibly a result of proper education.
Posted by: mfb May 9 2006, 10:19 AM
heh, cute. i think it's simply cultural. americans view guns as a way to solve problems, because they have been accepted as such pretty much since the country got started. other places, it's not like that.
Posted by: Oracle May 9 2006, 10:21 AM
I see it the same way.
Posted by: hyzmarca May 9 2006, 10:51 AM
Violence is a way to solve problems. It is often the best solution. Guns are simply a tool with which one can commit violence at range. However, it is just as easy to beat someone to death with a solid bronze bust of Golda Meir.
It is a problem that people don't observe basicly safety rules with firearms because there is a serious lack of education about them in some places. There is certainly a corelation between safety training and reduced risk of firearms accidents. By the same token there are countless heavy blunt object accidents because people aren't properly trained to deal with heavy blunt objects. No one ever talks about the children who are crushed to death by solid bronze busts of Golda Meir because heavy bronze busts are not such a controversial issue.
Posted by: Oracle May 9 2006, 11:01 AM
Purpose of a gun: Killing people.
Purpose of a bronze bust of Golda Meir: Showing ones reverence for Golda Meir.
I see a difference.
Posted by: mfb May 9 2006, 12:16 PM
like hyzmarca said--bronze busts are not as controversial an issue. for instance, i would disagree with your statement that the purpose of guns is to kill people. that's simply their most controversial application. and even given that their purpose is to kill people, that's not necessarily the reason why someone would buy a gun. ask Raygun how many of his guns he's purchased in order to kill someone, or even with self-defense in mind.
Posted by: Kagetenshi May 9 2006, 12:36 PM
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| heh, cute. i think it's simply cultural. americans view guns as a way to solve problems, because they have been accepted as such pretty much since the country got started. |
Especially what with the whole country-starting thing having been solved by them.
And the French, but for some reason people don't like to talk about that anymore… (no more France control!)
You're correct that the purpose of guns is not to kill people. However, it is to kill things—animals of various sorts, including people. That is the only purpose. You can use them for other things, certainly, but that's not what they were made to do.
~J
Posted by: Oracle May 9 2006, 12:39 PM
I think in most cases hunting weapons can be clearly distinguished from others.
Posted by: mfb May 9 2006, 01:05 PM
haha! that's what the Democrats said in 1994. they were quite incorrect.
Posted by: FanGirl May 9 2006, 01:58 PM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| And the French, but for some reason people don't like to talk about that anymore… (no more France control!) |
Let's not forget that pretty much every family in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland has a gun, and we all know what a hotbed of violence and lawlessness that country is.
Posted by: James McMurray May 9 2006, 03:06 PM
My kids have an understanding about the danger inherent in all tools of violence, from fists to guns(I haven't discussed Golda Meir busts, but hopefully that falls under the purview of "don't hit your sister"). I prefer a two-pronged approach: educate and isolate. If one of my kids does find a gun at a friend's house, the education should hopefully stop him from shooting himself. Not having one in my house prevents my kids' friends from finding one and shooting themselves because they're uneducated.
Posted by: hyzmarca May 9 2006, 03:40 PM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ May 9 2006, 07:36 AM) |
| You're correct that the purpose of guns is not to kill people. However, it is to kill things—animals of various sorts, including people. That is the only purpose. ~J |
Target shooting is a recognized olympic sport and there are plenty of firearms that are made specificly for competetive shooting.
Posted by: SL James May 9 2006, 07:42 PM
Target shooting = killing paper targets.
Posted by: Kagetenshi May 9 2006, 08:09 PM
The discovery that things can be used for something other than their purpose is not a new one.
~J
Posted by: mfb May 9 2006, 08:34 PM
well, technically, the purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet through the air. this happens to be a handily effective way of killing things. people buy and design guns for several end purposes, and i think it's important to note those purposes rather than making blanket statements based on the purported basic purpose of all guns--which is what will happen.
Posted by: Kagetenshi May 9 2006, 08:52 PM
No, that is the method of operation of a gun. Likewise, a sword's purpose is not to have a moderately sharp edge—its purpose is also to kill things. The sharp edge is, much like the propelled bullet, the means to that end.
You can do all sorts of other things with that means, but that doesn't change the purpose.
(Though I do understand what you're saying, and I do think that it's important that it be understood that "killing things" is an acceptable purpose, I believe it's very important that we not lose sight of that purpose.)
~J
Posted by: mfb May 9 2006, 09:01 PM
except that, in the event, the statement is incorrect. a target pistol is not designed to kill things; it is very much designed for the express purpose of putting holes in paper targets. the purpose of a flaregun is to attract attention. what's the point of keeping in mind that "the purpose of guns is to kill things" if you're buying an antique black powder musket?
Posted by: Kagetenshi May 9 2006, 09:36 PM
I'll carry on this discussion tomorrow. I think I had too much coffee today or something.
~J
Posted by: mfb May 9 2006, 09:57 PM
heh. i've gotten maybe 6 hrs of sleep in the past 48; acquired a 2-litre of Mt Dew after not drinking soda for maybe a month straight.
anyway. the thing that worries me about statements like "the purpose of guns is to kill things" is that those sorts of statements lead to extreme viewpoints. "killing things is bad, therefore guns must be bad, therefore we should get rid of them." any upside to that statement--gun safety's the only upside that comes to mind--isn't, to me, worth the hassle and the stupidery of people who take the statement to its extremes.
Posted by: James McMurray May 9 2006, 10:15 PM
Without killing things the human race would have died out long ago. Killing things, in the proper circumstances, is a necessity.
Posted by: mfb May 9 2006, 10:19 PM
not to mention fun!
Posted by: Calvin Hobbes May 9 2006, 10:38 PM
Out of curiosity, what credentials does everyone who's making these broad, sweeping comments about our anthropological history have? Because some of these comments sound kind of... unresearched?
Posted by: James McMurray May 9 2006, 11:34 PM
I have no credentials whatsoever, but I think it's safe to say that if the first cave men hadn't killed predators and prey they wouldn't have lived long.
Posted by: Laser May 10 2006, 12:57 AM
| QUOTE (Calvin Hobbes @ May 9 2006, 05:38 PM) |
| Out of curiosity, what credentials does everyone who's making these broad, sweeping comments about our anthropological history have? Because some of these comments sound kind of... unresearched? |
shh... you've exposed one of the dark secrets of the internet. Look out, the Illiterati watches for that kind of thing and brutally represses it, lest the teeming masses find out the truth: no one on the internet actually knows anything
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 10 2006, 01:55 AM
| QUOTE (Oracle) |
| I think in most cases hunting weapons can be clearly distinguished from others. |
Um...have you ever actually gone out and practiced with a variety of firearms? I don't really understand why you think that is so.
Posted by: nezumi May 10 2006, 01:56 PM
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| I have no credentials whatsoever, but I think it's safe to say that if the first cave men hadn't killed predators and prey they wouldn't have lived long. |
It's interesting to note that back in prehistory, I believe around the time of australopithecus, there were two 'missing link' type species. One was fairly peaceful and herbivorous. They liked bunnies and puppies and lived in perfect harmony with nature. The other was omnivorous and dedicated a large amount of time and attention to bashing in the skulls of the local fauna (including each other), sometimes with the intent of eating the contents.
One of these species survived and evolved into humans. The other did not. Can you guess which is which?
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 11 2006, 12:37 AM
OK, the firearms discussion on this thread reminded me of something.
The firearms customization rules in CC were silly. Specifically, the "remove safety" thingie made utterly no sense.
Along with other things. But that one sticks in my mind.
That is all.
Posted by: James McMurray May 11 2006, 02:01 AM
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| One of these species survived and evolved into humans. The other did not. Can you guess which is which? |
Given that I have canine teeth in my mouth, I'm guessing I was designed as an omnivore.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)