But what is an "Optional Rule?" Are there such things as Mandatory Rules? Should we be talking about NORAW (non-optional rules as written) and RAWIO (rules as written including optional)?

I apologize; sometimes the only way I can think to make a point is the snarky way. What I mean to say is, since the GM decides what rule(s) to use and what rule(s) to ignore, aren't all rules equally optional?

EDIT: also, I'd be lying if I said I didn't giggle at the "arguing with your lizard brains" line.

Thank you for being a flaming troll. You're welcome to stay if you want.

Oh, and by the way, an optional RAW is still RAW, and there's a difference between fluff and crunch. You should learn that.

Well, hello to you too. Since I'm apparently the braindead one here, I'll refrain from pointing out your atrocious spelling, grammar and sentence structure. Or can we maybe try to be civil?


Uh... you do know what rules are, right? Like, game mechanics? Crunch? The stuff that involves numbers and dice? I seriously doubt much of what's said on Jackpoint meets that basic criterion.

When you say "right otu [sic] of the box," what box do you mean? The book, right? Rules As Written are rules published in the game books, right? So how is an optional rule published in a game book disqualified? Are you seriously suggesting that optional rules can't be discussed in terms of RAW vs. (say) RAI? Why ever not? They're. Rules. As. Written.

Exactly. Maybe not equally optional, because explicitly flagging certain rules as optional implies that they're somewhat more optional (and expected to see use at fewer game tables) than the rest, but yeah - the GM is the final rules arbiter for his game, so in a sense all rules are optional. So to those who say optional published rules don't count as RAW... why the hell not? What does RAW even mean in that context?

Often RAW is seen as the strictest(?) interpretation of the rules, which would (in theory) be the common basis for all games, on top of which different gaming groups start to implement optional rules and houserules. Many optional and alternative rules in the books are mutually exclusive, so they do not belong to this definition of RAW. This is by no means the official meaning (there is none). I think it's one of those terms which is almost impossible to nail down in a specific way.

And I don't think we need to. I think Lurker's ultimate point, behind the emotion, was that most of the people here are talking about this 'common ruleset', and then providing their personal extension to it.

It's good to talk about how the rules are generally interpreted, and it's also interesting to know how everyone runs their own game. It's just not very productive to mix these up, and try to find 'the right way' to do it. It's not "the rules are meant to be used in this way" it's "the rules are like this. I play it like that." I hope I was clear enough with this when I voiced my own opinion before.

Neraph, I'm pretty sure your playstyle is not the most common. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to run a game that's as 'cool' and powerful as possible, and stretch the rules as much as you can to that end. It seems to fit you and you enjoy it so that's all very good. It's just not the kind of game most dumpshockers run. Your posts get answered with more balanced, often conflicting opinions because it's not clear to people that you're not talking about common rules, but your own game.

I play the rules as the rules are written, including all applications of said rules. That is how the game is intended to be played. It is not my fault if most of the Dumpshock community rails at the sight of the truth of the rules (such as starting the game with 7 Personalized Pluscoded Skillsofts). I tend to get answered not by "balanced" opinions (and let me stress opinions), I tend to get answered with things like "You can't do that because that's too powerful." Every now and then someone will whip out a rulebook and take me to the letter of the law, and most of the time I'm right.

I mean, yeah, one of my players is a banshee mystic adept, another is a world-class sniper who's about to become a nosferatu, and one of them is a poor ork mechanic who's about to become a wendigo, and all of them are at about 120 karma. That might be powerful to some, but to me they're just trying to survive.

Can we, for a moment, return to the OP?

I think the substance of the question was whether it made sense, for reasons besides play balance, to pay upkeep (patching) on hacked ActiveSofts since presumably a skill's a skill.

The only reason I can see for having to patch MIGHT be pertaining to speciffic changes or additions from particular new weapons/armor/engines/etc. but what about things like the athletics skills or hand-to-hand?

As to the last couple posts, I agree that there is a BIG diference between "Legal", "Balanced" and "Too Powerful!" because the first is (generally) objective, the second (mostly) objective, and the third is ENTIRELY within the eye of the beholder. 150 Karma is definitely getting up into Prime Runner territory, and I'm sure the adventures and opposition are scaled accordingly. For heaven's sake, in the back of Runner's Companion, Netcat undergoes a Resonance Realms quest as part of a 'run to retrieve lost information and is paid HERSELF 100,000Â¥ - more than four times what I would expect an entire shadowrunning TEAM to be paid for a 'run early in their careers. So if you're into playing Prime Runners and the epic sorts of things they get into, have at it. Personally, I have no problem with it as long as it's not just Monty Hall cheeze and if they worked their way up to that karma, who is anybody to judge? Should a group retire just beause they got above the gritty world of the streets and return to decent condos after the 'run is over? I don't think so.

Heh, they're base is in the middle of a Z-zone.

*Snickers*

That could be

a) the only place they're relatively safe from the authorities/corps

b) showing off

c) they're legitimately that bad-hoop that they don't care

d) some kind of pretty cool GM plot related device

Now, if I guess a and b, with a touch of c, am I close?

*grin*

I can't actually see why someone would have a problem with that, as doing that will cost a little over 300k , mening that they will not have much nuyen left for other cool equipment like atribute enchancing ware.

It's actually a little A, a lot of B, and some D in there.

If you're from my group, don't read this:

I think it's pretty hard to separate software degradation from game balance much of the time. The best explanations I've come across have been mentioned already.

1) The programs you go against upgrade, so your software gets worse in comparison (doesn't really work with athletics or hand-to-hand)

1b) Other people can compensate for the software, anticipating the built-in algorithm behind your moves, so your software gets worse in comparison (works with hand-to-hand and some athletics, mainly opposed tests)

2) Everything around the software gets updated, including the OS, and this causes problems with the software due to incompatibility

3) The software degradation is intentional and built-in

There's some overlapping, but these are the main ones I can think of atm.

Just so. I've seen that, but...


Yeah, saying that for most skillsofts is a stretch IMHO. Far easier if you're basing it off of changes to systems (new rifles, etc) to just have the GM say "No, just came out, not in that old patch of yours" which is simple AND realistic.

I don't have a problem with "Technical Skills" requiring patching as generally there's a certain element of SOTA associated with them, especially ANYTHING computer-related.


I think this one's a bit of a stretch to make the fluff fit the rules, unless you're talking about Technical Skills (again) and (again) anything to do with Hacking, where old techniques from last week are useless this week.


The firmware in SkillWires may need patching, but unless you're actually saying it's related to your #3 below, that's a stretch for an implanted 'ware system.


Well, ok, it's Shadowrun and the 6^th World, but it still seems like stretching. I mean, in the end, I can swallow "Because the RAW says so", but I'd much rather have a half-way decent chunk of fluff to hide behind, neh?

The point I was originally adressing and I will at this time apologize for being pretty vitrolic and perhaps a bit drunk was Neraph saying that freeware skillsofts were allowed and the only reason to disallow them was

Someone pointed out point blank that it was an optional rule which leads to an implication of whether or not such a rule was "RAW" because of a flimsy defense about it being in the books seems childish at best especially when one side acuses the other for arguing for the sake of arguing. After all if we can ignore differentiations between optional rules and ones which the system is constructed against then why is anything so differentiated. It's not that I can't distinguish between rules and crunch it's that unelss we're all working from the same baseline such discussion is pointless.

On freeware: None of my players have yet asked for it and if they did I would allow freeware at maximum rank 2 or 3. I would not allow freeware skillwires. Nor would I allow player created custom skill-ware clusters as a matter of course. Whether I don't want my players to succeed I don't know, they still show up to game night so i gotta be doing something right.

Hats up to you sir, for owning up to your words.

I agree with your point, now that it's better formulated.