 SR 4.0 suggestions and requests, Because we don't have a debate...yet |
  |
 Mar 28 2005, 02:57 PM
Post
#101
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 257 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Los Coronados | San Ysidro CA Member No.: 106  |
No, not skills overusage ... attributes overusage. Sorry I wasn't as clear as I could be there. And you are correct in that the skill success test would be the same HOWEVER, the impact of the strength would come into play more. For instance, the Strength would impact the distance of a hammer-toss as a base distance between the Athletics successes might even come into play. Quickness impacts the base running speed before successes might even come into play. Body will have an impact on the fatigue before Athletics come into play (and yeah, I know, this last example gets me a lot of the time too). |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Mar 28 2005, 03:08 PM
Post
#102
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 257 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Los Coronados | San Ysidro CA Member No.: 106 |
On the flipside however, it allows for a "Quick Character" to be made up and played for last minute players to join and/or for a GM to draw upon as an NPC resource for an unforeseen encounter. Everything has a potential usage, the real challenge most of the time is just being a GM-enough to draw upon it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 28 2005, 03:08 PM
Post
#103
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 257 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Los Coronados | San Ysidro CA Member No.: 106 |
This does give me an interesting idea twist.
What you are talking about here is Threshold, which does exist and is something that we have initiated for certain rolls. Also note that Threshold's ultimate example is already in the rules as they stand. For every success the opponent gets it's removing one success (or rather, increasing the number of successes) necessary to hit the person. On the flipside, another version of what you are suggesting might be a variation of how we use certain aspects of the Stealth Skill now, ie; Camouflage. For every net success generated on the Camouflage test, the target number for spotting the individual in the appropriate environment is increased by one (+1). If someone were to actually create an "Evading" skill on the premise of the same mechanic I'm suggesting for Stealth (Camouflage) above, then the person makes the Evading test as part of his Combat (Ranged) test. HOWEVER - Remember that one very special thing happens when you start addendumizing combat rules. You slow combat play way down. You have layer upon layer of mechanic just to determine if you hit someone. A really good example of this (IMO) is the Rigger Vehicle-Electronic rules. Missile Lock-Break Lock-Dodge/Maneuver-Re Establish Lock.... yadda yadda yadda... ad nauseum. Sure, if the game's dramatic moments depend upon something go for it, play for all the fun you can get out of something. Just remember that by adding more and more layers of realism or game mechanism you are likely removing the fun of the role-play itself. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Mar 28 2005, 03:15 PM
Post
#104
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 257 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Los Coronados | San Ysidro CA Member No.: 106 |
Okay, now this is always my favorite subject. High Magic. I am going to be one of the first people to admit that magic intensive games can significantly tilt the scheme of the game play. If you have lots of magical characters and the game becomes magically oriented, that doesn't however mean that it's not Shadowrun ... it just means that is going to be the focus of the game. It might not be someone else's viewpoint of Shadowrun, but it's still the game. Also note that even when you think that High Magic can make you impenetrable, this is where those Attributes come back into play. Limitations on attributes are immensely helpful here, or at least most of the time should be. Force of spirits can be limited. Force of spells can be iffy (Willpower for higher force spells becomes tantamount). Also remember that if a bunch of mages suddenly go actively magic-slinging, background count kicks up a point or two (and every point can count). High Magic campaigns can be loads of fun, but it's kinda like everything else. Anything fun in moderation is fun. Anything in excess gets boring. On a different note - of the campaigns we have, we have one world-story-arc, but the two groups are highly different if still related. One group magic was allowed to run rampant (my characters fault) while the other group was decided to enforce a limit on how many directly magical characters became involved. And to be honest, while I enjoy both games greatly ... I do admit that the one with the more mixed group of characters can come up with a lot more things to do. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 28 2005, 05:27 PM
Post
#105
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916 |
Fortune, you have a lot of the same complaints I do -
Create, for example, an adept who: went through college, joined the UCAS Army and mustered out after four years. Skill packages and "package deals" are one way to answer the problem. How would you solve it, other than creating a large increase in distributed skill points? -Siege |
|
|
|
|
Mar 28 2005, 05:30 PM
Post
#106
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Most of the college stuff is Knowledge Skills and/or the "Well Educated" Edge (if that's the name for it -- it might just be "College Educated"). The UCAS Army bit can be easily done with maybe twenty five or thirty skill points, as long as you don't want him to be some uber-commando super ninja specops guy (which you can't realistically create with starting stats, anyways).
Just look at some of the NPC "generic soldier" statlines. They don't need 6's across the board, they aren't one-man armies (like most PC's try to be). A good solid 4-5 (plus appropriate specialization) in Assault Rifles, and then a bunch of other skills (Athletics, Throwing Weapons/Grenades, Heavy Weapons) as appropriate, all around the 3-4 level (or 5-6 if it's his specialization)... I mean, making a "basic soldier" sort of guy isn't all that tough. Making one that will have the strings and strings of 6's that people expect of a Shadowrunner is the tough part. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 28 2005, 05:41 PM
Post
#107
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I'd say they'd probably have everything at 2s or 3s before specialization, maybe 4 for their overall specialty.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 28 2005, 05:45 PM
Post
#108
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
When I read this, a song ran through my head... :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 28 2005, 06:41 PM
Post
#109
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I do? Are you sure you aren't meaning someone else? I could be wrong, but I don't recall complaining about anything you are talking about. As was said though, a regular soldier and college grad isn't too hard to make under the current system. It's the elite spec-ops trooper turned shadowrunner that is impossible to make in any realistic fashion at chargen with the current system. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 28 2005, 07:50 PM
Post
#110
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916 |
That's entirely possible - I'm weaning myself off of caffiene (again), so take everything I type with a grain of salt. And a shot of tequila. -Siege |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 28 2005, 08:01 PM
Post
#111
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Blasphemy! Caffeine is life! :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 28 2005, 08:07 PM
Post
#112
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916 |
Say that after passing a kidney stone. :grinbig: -Siege |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 28 2005, 08:24 PM
Post
#113
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Wouldn't caffeine in conjunction with sufficient water actually decrease kidney stone risk, as the diuretic effects of the caffeine would result in more flushing of the system?
~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 28 2005, 08:18 PM
Post
#114
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916 |
The key point is sufficient levels of water - the only thing caffiene does is remove water from your system instead of facilitating it cycling through your kidneys. Or so the nurse explained to me.
And it's not like the sugar is really doing my system any good anway. :grinbig: -Siege |
|
|
|
|
Mar 28 2005, 08:20 PM
Post
#115
|
|||
|
Tilting at Windmills Group: Members Posts: 1,636 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Amarillo, TX, CAS Member No.: 388 |
Not necessarily. My fiancee has problems with kidney stones, and one of the first things they told her to do was to cut back on the caffeine. I don't pretend to understand it, but I do know that I don't want her to have to go back in for another lithotripsy procedure, so I'm all for her cutting back on the Dr Pepper. (The doctor didn't say eliminate it, by the way, at least in Tiffany's case, just cut back.) YMMV. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 28 2005, 08:29 PM
Post
#116
|
|
|
Tilting at Windmills Group: Members Posts: 1,636 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Amarillo, TX, CAS Member No.: 388 |
Ooops. Double post.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 28 2005, 08:34 PM
Post
#117
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916 |
She probably needs to do both Patrick - cut back on soda and increase her water intake.
My actual kidney stone was formed from too much protein and not enough water - the soda wasn't a contributing factor per se, but rather an aggravating one. Fortunately, my rock was only 3mm and most patients can pass anything under 5mm without assistance. -Siege |
|
|
|
|
Mar 28 2005, 08:35 PM
Post
#118
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Maybe the fact that I typically consume upwards of four liters of water a day skews my view on these things :)
~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 28 2005, 08:28 PM
Post
#119
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I must be blessed! I drink next to no pure water, and more than 30 cups of coffee a day (and have for over 30 years), and I have no problems in that department. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 29 2005, 12:04 AM
Post
#120
|
|
|
CosaNostra Deliverator Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 346 Joined: 29-January 05 From: Philadelphia, PA Member No.: 7,034 |
I'm a caffeine junky and I've been told that the diuretic effects of caffeine lessen with extensive and chronic use but I don't know if that's true or not.
I do know that drinking too much water (probably >24 liters a day) can cause seizures though. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 29 2005, 12:02 AM
Post
#121
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
That's also dependent on things like vitamin intake. IIRC the seizures are a result of vitamin and electrolyte depletion (pure water isn't actually conductive). It's exacerbated by sodium loss via sweating.
Edit: for immediate ill effects, the number I'm finding is three quarts in a very short time period. Hm, I guess I've gotten uncomfortably close at times. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 29 2005, 01:18 AM
Post
#122
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916 |
It's an aggravating factor, not an instigating factor. My stone came from excess protein and a noted lack of water over the last month. -Siege |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 29 2005, 01:14 AM
Post
#123
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Holy hell. Does no one here pay any attention to nutrition and personal health? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 29 2005, 01:53 AM
Post
#124
|
|||
|
CosaNostra Deliverator Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 346 Joined: 29-January 05 From: Philadelphia, PA Member No.: 7,034 |
I have to admit, I know nothing about guns, unarmed combat or computers but I'm actually well versed in nephrology and neurology :) You are correct that it is low sodium that cause these types of seizures. However, excess free water intake plays a very important role. It drives down serum sodium levels. This effect is part dilutional but is also because when the kidneys dump free water, they inevitably lose some electrolytes as well. Sweating can exacerbate this. And once your sodium falls to 120 or below, seizures are common. And while I am not certain, I believe that osmotic fluid shifts in the central nervous system are more the cause than conduction abnormalities per se. These seizures also will not stop until your sodium is corrected. This can be tricky because most clinicians won't immediately suspect it unless the situation is obvious (e.g. marathon runner). That being said, most providers would certainly check stat electrolytes in a patient with medication refractory seizures. Still, under normal circumstances, it is nearly impossible to drink enough water to seize. So I think you're safe :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 29 2005, 02:01 AM
Post
#125
|
|||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916 |
Um...you do know where you're posting, right? :grinbig: -Siege |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd December 2024 - 10:37 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.