Shadowrun 3rd Revised, our backs turned, looking down the path Options

[Dawnshadow]

Not really -- I'm making a distinct and clear difference between astral perception and astral projection.

I remember the rule, and I think it should apply -- when dealing with other astral entities. It's when crossing the boundry between astral and mundane that I referred to.

It weakens the astral spy slightly -- they can do layouts and pinpoint where an ambush is being prepared, or find someone, but can't listen in to a conversation and get the juicy details. You might allow something like manifesting, which gives physical senses as well, but that's in addition to things (and I'd probably make it require a metamagic).

Edit: SLJames -- of course it is. And that's the nice thing about it -- since the patterns and beliefs for a person won't change, you can just say what it is if you want, and have it understood that there's a whole wealth of symbolism and metaphor, while not having to spend time describing it.

[tisoz]

It seems that things that are transparent on the physical need to be transparent on the astral. Otherwise how could one see through normal atmosphere? Nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc. is present.

[Sir_Psycho]

So when are we creating a sub-thread about Vehicles/drones/Rigging? If simplifying the vehicle/rigging rules is possible, that would be quite nice.

Driving a vehicle and doing anything more complicated than a parallel park is ridiculously complicated and clunky.

The manuever score? Can we sacrifice it without making the system hollow?

[Sphynx]

Kagentenshi, change your search to find 'opaque'. It doesn't say glass in the rule.



Nezumi, I don't have my books to give you quotes, but let's assume for a moment that there is no quote from the book that states 'intent' has the power I imply in the Astral Plane. Let's assume it's just a hypothesis.

Fact: You can see through windows from the Astral Plane.
Fact: Your Astral Senses quote shows that 'intent' does play a role.

You seek to destroy a fact because it makes no sense to your own perception of what Astral Perception should be.

I offer an explanation that does not go against anything the Astral Perception rules limit it from being. Hypothesis don't require proving, they require disproving (or an alternative possibility offered as a hypothesis).

Regardless, I see insufficient cause to remove the ruling as I've shown that thematically it fits with what the Shadowrun perception of the Astral is.

[Kagetenshi]

[nezumi]

[Sphynx]

No, the intent of a stop sign is not to be red. It's intent is to provide order. The purpose of the sign was never to add a little red to the neighborhood. Astral perception of a stop sign would show crisp, clear feels and sight. Red has nothing to do with it.

Glass is not intended to 'be' anything, hence why you see no rules for it. Glass is not 'clear' in Astral space either, a computer monitor is grey, you don't see the lights behind it. The intent of that glass is not to be clear or to provide a sensory throughput.

However, the 'intent' of putting any opaque object within a barrier is to provide sensory throughput. Hence the rules for opacity. You've not disproved anything. You are throwing random mishmash together and calling it rebuttal. I don't think you understand what 'intent' means.

As for electronic vs optical magnification, I don't think you understand what electronic mag is. It takes a photo, uses a super-fast computer to enhance it, allowing you to see more miniscual details. Then sends that image to you via a monitor (or in the case of cybereyes, through direct neural interface). You're not seeing the object, you're seeing a modified copy of the object enhanced through computer modifications. Optical on the other hand, you may see the bird 2 miles away, but you couldn't see how many feathers it had on its wing.

[nezumi]

[Sphynx]

Soapy Suds advertisement/billboard: No. However, if it were done by an artist who really felt strongly for Soapy Suds, yes. However, the 'intent' isn't the ad, it's the board. A feeling of commercialism would be felt from the Astral Plane, but the creation of the board's current ad is too generic to leave intent.

Ice on glass: Yes, no intent change. You can see through the ice.

A disguise is more likely to send off feelings of 'hiding something', not actually hiding the person. However, in order for that to correlate to the 'seeing through glass' conundrum you have in your head, you'd have to change that to ask, "The hat I put on as a disguise, does it look like someone else's hat since I intend for it to?" (Intent of the hat, not your intent)

Camera to monitor. Again, as with nearly everytime, you do the same thing of mixing your intent with the intent of an object. This discussion is pointless because you are unable to seperate the two. And no, it wouldn't work, since that's not the 'intent' of the camera or monitor.

As for personal accusations, none were intended. I can see how my reply may have seemed harsh, I didn't mean it as so. You are, however, wrong. The book says you can see through things that a person can see through physical (that is intent). You're trying to bring in all sorts of non-related arguements to prove the book is wrong in order to see a change. There's no need for a change, not only because there is a perfect explaination of 'intent', but because there is no balance issues being broken.

I'm not being insulting when I say that, the book says you can see through windows, come up with your own explanation if you want, but nothing about that ruling breaks the logic of astral perception, except in your own head.

As for SR4, irrelevant. If I cared at all for what the SR4 writers did to the system, I wouldn't be playing SR3 still. They can agree with you all they want, it remains a fact though, that in 3rd edition, glass is see-thru via the Astral.

[nezumi]

Could you please post your precise definition of "intent", since that seems to be a point of confusion?

[Sphynx]

You have the right definition, but you keep using it against the wrong object. The intent of a thing, not the intent of other things, or of actions.

Intent of a red-wall: To act as an obstacle. Color is irrelevant.
Intent of a camera: To act as a storage medium (Could possibly use one to trap a spirit, hence the fear of some tribes to be photographed since it could steal your soul)
Intent of a monitor: To act as a data-translation medium (Could possibly be used by a ghost to 'pass a message' over to the other side, making the 'ghost in the machine' even scarier)

Intent of a camera attached to a monitor: Irrelevant. Intent is per-object



OF course I can't give the perfect definition of 'intent' in regards to the Astral plane. Just as 'of course' though, there's no way for them to have given examples of even a small percentage of possibilities with the Astral.

The game designers took an idea that breached multiple genres and attempted to do something no other game had done. Explain it. People like yourself (that is not intended as an accusation) needle their already-over-generous explanations to a point that it all breaks down. Whatever doesn't fit your concept of the Astral, get rid of. But don't, please, try to remove it from the game entirely for everyone else because of your inability to explain it. It turns into an SR4, and makes even less sense because it's all scientific/explainable.

As a side note, a 'House Rule' I use in the Astral. You can't go through walls unless you use the 'Pressing through a barrier' rule. Doors, regardless of material (unless it's specifically anti-astral material, such as FAB) you can go right through (intent). You can however go through ceilings and floors in my world. Material doesn't effect your passage, intent does. Walls are meant as barriers, floors and ceilings are meant as protection and stability, and since they're not barriers, going through them is easy. I find that more in-line with their expression of the Astral, but I wouldn't go asking Kage to change the rules for my interpretation of it.

[nezumi]

I do like your interpretation, although I disagree with it. More specifically, I would like your method if I used entirely your method (walls slow you down but doors don't). That's an extension of your explanation to its logical conclusion, and I do think that, for the most part, it seems logically sound. I could play in a game like that and enjoy it. My primary complaint would be how do you define intent? A glass beaker is made to contain acids and bases safely, as well as to serve as insulation. The fact that it's transparent is a happy coincidence. So would it allow a psychic reading to pass through it?

My primary complaint against your model, however, is that SR3 doesn't use it. If it did, I wouldn't complain it's internally inconsistent. It doesn't use my model either. My complaint has been that it uses two models, and jumps back and forth between them higgeldy piggeldy. That problem is something I would fix in SR4 (which was the prompt of the thread).

Now whether Kage decides to use your method or my method or no change at all is completely up to him, HOWEVER, in the spirit of the original thread, I feel it does need to be examined and at least considered, to get a sense of what would benefit the most players. Of course, should anyone not want to run with a particular SR3R rule, they are under no obligation to use it.

[Sir_Psycho]

[Sphynx]

Nezumi, honestly, I don't think that the people who created the Astral explanations (who helped me understand 'intent') would let you 'look through' a glass beaker. It would exude toxicity, especially if it had been used to hold acids and bases. Or happiness if it just held flowers. Either way, the aura around it, due to usage, would over-ride the transparency rule. If it were sitting, brand new on a shelf, un-used, I think it would be relatively invisible to the astral perceiver (fully transparent). Windows however, usually don't have those attachments, so simply remain transparent due to intent being so much stronger than emotional rubbing in those cases.

I don't see how any of the things I said would go 'against' the definition of the Astral presented in the books. Sure, the book says that transparent objects are transparent, but it also talks about auras. Much like in the physical plane, glass is transparent, but light also reflects off of glass, making it impossible to see through into a dark room when there's a bright light behind you. Doesn't make the glass less transparent, just stops you from seeing through it. Same principles in the Astral. Doesn't make the Physical Plane 'internally inconsistent' or 'higgeldy piggeldy'. :P

[Sir_Psycho]

Why isn't this all in the magic/astral etc. sub-thread?

So are we going to revise the drug rules at all, to make them less... lethal?

[Kagetenshi]

[Sir_Psycho]

Damn Kage you're quick.

It's not so much a case of wanting drugs to be very powerful in game terms, honestly it's more for the sake of roleplaying, but it should still have effects. I just want to get rid of the easy three step program of "take - addiction - new character sheet!"

I have no idea how, though.

[Kagetenshi]

Reorganization in progress, working on adding a running "in progress/resolved" section to the start of each individual-topic thread.

~J

[Sir_Psycho]

Sounds good, if I could assign Karma I would. When shall we start a melee combat revision? personally I think "cyber implant combat" should be a specialization of unarmed, and I can't say I'm the only one.

[Kagetenshi]

Post some proposed opening issues in the main SR3R thread and I'll probably open it up. That and Rigging are long overdue.

~J

[Slump]

Personally, I think Cyber-Implant Weapons (Melee) should be a specialization of unarmed, whereas the various implanted ranged weapons should be specializations of what they're based off of.

It doesn't make much sense for a cyber-shotgun to be a specialization of unarmed (though that would be one hell of a punch)

[Kagetenshi]

Oh, yeah, I'm awake. Totally.

(For reference, I thought we were in the ranged combat section when I posted the above)

Anyway, we've got that, anything else we should have in the opener for Melee Combat?

~J

[Chance359]

Idea for revised melee combat

For every 2D6 extra initiative dice you have over another combatant, you are able to cancel out 1 point of reach that combatant has against you.

Maximus, an unarmed street sam with Wired Reflexes lvl 2 is facing off in some corner of the sprawl against an unwired troll gang member armed with a butcher's knife (reach 1). With his extra speed Maximus is able to counter out the gang members natural extended reach. (reducing his base target number from 5 back to 4)

[Wounded Ronin]

[Sphynx]

Something we did once as a House Rule but dropped entirely for some unknown reason was to have Friends in Combat reduce your effective skill by 1 for each additional friend, but only to half your skill rating. So BruceLee with his Unarmed of 8 against 5 TKD Soccer Moms with unarmed of 2 would still outclass the 5 mome since he'd be an an 'effective skill' of 4 (8-5 < 8/2).

It worked nicely, but I think our group was just too rarely in melee for us to remember that we were using those rules and just kinda forgot.

BTW, considering +1 is the most common Reach you see, rarely a +2 and almost unheard of for +3 or +4, I like the Initiative Dice idea. But I think maybe per +1dice over the opponent is better. It only negates the modifier, doesn't reduce the TN, so it's not unbalancing.