there are aspects of 2nd ed that were better by some players arguments.
My old GM actually stuck with 2nd ed for a while because he preferred it.
I had to talk him into switching to 3rd and, at the time, the only reason that I wanted to do that was the new Skill set-up for firearms that removed the general skill of firearms
Full Version: How do you move your guns?
That's unfortunate. It was broken, but a bit less broken than the current setup.
| QUOTE (Arethusa @ Nov 30 2004, 02:03 AM) |
| That's unfortunate. It was broken, but a bit less broken than the current setup. |
As a long time 2nd edition player, I just have to say, eh?
Matter of opinion of course...
Oh, no you don't. Not getting me to derail this thread that easily. If you're really curious, start a new thread or just run a search on weapons skills divisions or somesuch.
Stumps, I agree about the skills. That's one reason I would like to switch. I also like the new initiative rules, where everyone gets at least one turn in the first pass. In 2nd Ed, the wired characters would get 2-3 actions before anybody else could even move!!! 
I also like how they split the combat pool up over the course of the turn, as opposed to each action. Running/walking is the same, and makes more sense now. I haven't read too much besides that, but the new cyber and gear sounds pretty interesting.
Well, enough hijacking already...
Anybody ever thought about equiping a character with a bunch of guns, like in
Boondock Saints? That's one of my next character ideas, just for fun...
*Edit* Do you think there would be a penalty to concealing 6 pistols under your jacket at a time? Might get kinda bulky, but sure beats reloading!!!
I also like how they split the combat pool up over the course of the turn, as opposed to each action. Running/walking is the same, and makes more sense now. I haven't read too much besides that, but the new cyber and gear sounds pretty interesting.
Well, enough hijacking already...
Anybody ever thought about equiping a character with a bunch of guns, like in
Boondock Saints? That's one of my next character ideas, just for fun...
*Edit* Do you think there would be a penalty to concealing 6 pistols under your jacket at a time? Might get kinda bulky, but sure beats reloading!!!
With the setup provided in CC for gel rounds, its probably more worthwhile to use gel rounds in a normal pistol loading the chemical cocktail you want, than using narc pistols themselves.
| QUOTE (Shrapnel) |
| *Edit* Do you think there would be a penalty to concealing 6 pistols under your jacket at a time? Might get kinda bulky, but sure beats reloading!!! |
Actually, it doesn't. Reloading is a simple action with a Smartlink-2. I guess, if you only quickdraw all the time, new pistols are arguably a little better. With Shadowrun's ridiculous reload times, though, it's marginal.
Shrapnel.
I really actually hate SR's intitiative system.
Wait...let me re-phrase that.
I hate every initiative system from any game I've seen.
It's my biggest nit-pick for some reason, so I can't agree with you there.
Although most others seem to enjoy it so it must be on the right track.
As to the 6 guns.
I had a character who did that.
He had a total of 13 guns.
12 were on him for combat and one was in a hard-case backpack in three pieces.
He had 6 Pred III's on his torso.
2 uzi's in sholder slings
2 roomsweepers on springloaded-forearm-holsters with explosive rounds
1 Pred in a back-hip holster with flechette rounds
1 sawed-off shotgun in his trenchcoat-holster (basically, a 4'' pocket and two straps of velcro made the holster)
The rifle was the 13th gun and it was in 3 pieces as defined above.
(more info on the guns flavor stuff in spoiler)
Was this concealable....um....no.
It was his "battle suit".
He didn't wear it every where. He just wore it when it was going to be a mess.
He didn't reload. Not unless he actually ran out of every weapon.
He had quickdraw so holstering and drawing weapons was faster than reloading two weapons at a time.
And he actually used two weapons at a time. (ON THE SAME TARGET. not john woo)
Often I would just fire one weapon until it went dry while holding the other, and at no expense to me, start firing the second weapon.
I really actually hate SR's intitiative system.
Wait...let me re-phrase that.
I hate every initiative system from any game I've seen.
It's my biggest nit-pick for some reason, so I can't agree with you there.
Although most others seem to enjoy it so it must be on the right track.
As to the 6 guns.
I had a character who did that.
He had a total of 13 guns.
12 were on him for combat and one was in a hard-case backpack in three pieces.
He had 6 Pred III's on his torso.
2 uzi's in sholder slings
2 roomsweepers on springloaded-forearm-holsters with explosive rounds
1 Pred in a back-hip holster with flechette rounds
1 sawed-off shotgun in his trenchcoat-holster (basically, a 4'' pocket and two straps of velcro made the holster)
The rifle was the 13th gun and it was in 3 pieces as defined above.
(more info on the guns flavor stuff in spoiler)
Was this concealable....um....no.
It was his "battle suit".
He didn't wear it every where. He just wore it when it was going to be a mess.
He didn't reload. Not unless he actually ran out of every weapon.
He had quickdraw so holstering and drawing weapons was faster than reloading two weapons at a time.
And he actually used two weapons at a time. (ON THE SAME TARGET. not john woo)
Often I would just fire one weapon until it went dry while holding the other, and at no expense to me, start firing the second weapon.
[ Spoiler ]
the original topic of this thread makes me want to write:
by the truckload
and stumps, nice char
but i wonder what your perfect initiative system would be, or if i should even ask as that would bring in a totaly diffrent topic to this thread...
by the truckload
and stumps, nice char
but i wonder what your perfect initiative system would be, or if i should even ask as that would bring in a totaly diffrent topic to this thread...
| QUOTE (Crusher Bob) |
| Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but AE and I sprang fully formed from teh head of Raygun... :rofl: |
I'd find that insulting, if I were Raygun...
And, to be fair, I had posted almost a thousand messages on the old forums before I even changed to this name.
Back in the military, we had a almost-idiot proof way to remind ourselves to reload. We loaded the last 4 rounds of the magazine with tracers (meaning you load the tracers first). When we hit a 2 tracers in a row, we know it is time to reload. If you can't see the tracers, you've no business using a firearm.
In SR, I suppose with all the book-keeping, there is no need for such an arrangement.
In SR, I suppose with all the book-keeping, there is no need for such an arrangement.
| QUOTE |
| and stumps, nice char |
danka
| QUOTE |
| but i wonder what your perfect initiative system would be, or if i should even ask as that would bring in a totaly diffrent topic to this thread... |
Quick answer:
Don't know, haven't made it or found it yet.
When I used to run live fire ranges, we just counted. Not a perfect system, but since none of the targets we were rushing ever fired back, it never really mattered. The tracer thing is a good idea, except I wouldn't be comfortable advertising the fact I was reloading. Ideally, your squad will keep up the volume of fire, but if you were fighting an enemy who was familiar with your tactic, you'd have to wonder how long it would take for the team to hit their tracers at the same time.
In Shadowrun, with the smartlinks and LCD displays and the fact that players generally keep track of their rounds on a sheet of notebook paper, the argument is somewhat academic, as you've pointed out.
In Shadowrun, with the smartlinks and LCD displays and the fact that players generally keep track of their rounds on a sheet of notebook paper, the argument is somewhat academic, as you've pointed out.
Actually, when I see my buddy fire his tracers first, I'd slow down my fire, usually by firing SA rather than burst. It all depends on your training doctrine. I am used to visual cues and in a CQB situation, the noise level really get very loud so you might hear shouting, but you wouldn't know what is being shouted. Your buddy might be shouting, "Reload!" from 2m away and you'd be going "What?"
The tracers work for general infantry-work decently well, but I wouldn't suggest this for shadowrunners, who are more often working alone or in small teams where other members cannot be trusted to cover the one who runs out of ammo while reloading. Shouting that you're reloading wouldn't be much better, for that matter. Datajack/Wossname-linked encrypted radio works better.
Most of the SR2 books are not made obsolete with the advent of SR3. Only the mechanics have changed ... all the background and flavor is still valid (and sometimes unavailable in SR3).
[edit] Note to self: check for new page before posting! [/edit]
[edit] Note to self: check for new page before posting! [/edit]
Again, I find a majority of the posting assuming that all shadowrunners are mercs on a professional level.
Damn Stumps...and I thought my primary character carried a lot of guns, but he only has 7.
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| Most of the SR2 books are not made obsolete with the advent of SR3. Only the mechanics have changed ... all the background and flavor is still valid (and sometimes unavailable in SR3). |
Sounds a lot like the other game in that regard.
| QUOTE (Stumps) |
| Again, I find a majority of the posting assuming that all shadowrunners are mercs on a professional level. |
That's because most of this started with "well, my merc character wouldn't forget to reload, so even if I don't say I do, the GM should assume I don't make mistakes." Problem is that if you go that route, now the GM either makes everyone reload between fights like a trained group of professionals— which, of course, they very well may not be— or he makes a call based on how professional or trained he thinks you are, at which point he is taking your character out of your hands and you cannot make mistakes. Kind of kills all the suspense. Unless you place responsibility for the character's failures and mistakes on the player, the player will never identify with the character's decisions and successes.
Everybody enjoys different things about Shadowrun, and about gaming in general. Some people don't really care for combat one way or the other (it sounds bizarre, but I've seen them). Some people, IRL, know nothing about guns other than what they see in movies (and if the movies they see are less than realistic, they may assume that double barrel shotguns have a full auto setting).
The people who don't care about combat, as I see it, are like a protected species. (Nature would like to see them eradicated, but we're going to waste hundreds of man hours and thousands of dollars putting fences around them to keep them alive.) I'm willing to cut them some slack if I have to: as a GM, I may assume they reload their guns between combats. As a player, I may take a hit I otherwise would like to avoid to keep them from getting clobbered.
Because, these people who aren't that interested in combat (as strange as it sounds) do add something to the game. They tend to be pretty rare, or maybe they just play other systems, but when they're around they bring another viewpoint to the table, which is diversity, which takes the game in unexpected directions, which is fun. Who wants to game with a bunch of people who think exactly alike?
The people who don't care about combat, as I see it, are like a protected species. (Nature would like to see them eradicated, but we're going to waste hundreds of man hours and thousands of dollars putting fences around them to keep them alive.) I'm willing to cut them some slack if I have to: as a GM, I may assume they reload their guns between combats. As a player, I may take a hit I otherwise would like to avoid to keep them from getting clobbered.
Because, these people who aren't that interested in combat (as strange as it sounds) do add something to the game. They tend to be pretty rare, or maybe they just play other systems, but when they're around they bring another viewpoint to the table, which is diversity, which takes the game in unexpected directions, which is fun. Who wants to game with a bunch of people who think exactly alike?
I'm fine with these people playing. What bothers me is that these people, knowing nothing about combat, would then want to play characters who do without being willing to do any research on combat or whatever the applicable field is. What I'm really advocating is knowing your character and, within reason, knowing what your character knows.
I mean, if I can't tell you the difference between a tire and a wheel and have never driven a standard shift in my life, I have no place playing a street racer.
I mean, if I can't tell you the difference between a tire and a wheel and have never driven a standard shift in my life, I have no place playing a street racer.
To quote my old high school science teacher, "I don't disagree with you, but I think you're wrong."
If a prehistoric Inuit frozen in ice was discovered, thawed, taught English and then wanted to play a street racer-- despite the fact hes never seen a car-- I would be all for it. It might be more work, but thats what the game is about. We pretend. A lot of the time, we're pretending to do things we have no actual experience in. A lot of the guys in my group work with computers, and they know a lot about computers (in any event, more than me), but they don't play deckers. They're probably sick of computers, so they play characters who use greande launchers, machine guns, fast cars, and spells, despite the fact they have little real world knowledge of these things.
In the end, its a game. People should be able to play whatever they want to play. There's no entrance exam to get into most games. I can understand what you're saying if a player is trying to take advantage of the GM, or if they are trying to cheat the rules under the guise of ignorance, but to imply that someone can't play a character because they "don't know enough about it" is just bizarre to me.
If a prehistoric Inuit frozen in ice was discovered, thawed, taught English and then wanted to play a street racer-- despite the fact hes never seen a car-- I would be all for it. It might be more work, but thats what the game is about. We pretend. A lot of the time, we're pretending to do things we have no actual experience in. A lot of the guys in my group work with computers, and they know a lot about computers (in any event, more than me), but they don't play deckers. They're probably sick of computers, so they play characters who use greande launchers, machine guns, fast cars, and spells, despite the fact they have little real world knowledge of these things.
In the end, its a game. People should be able to play whatever they want to play. There's no entrance exam to get into most games. I can understand what you're saying if a player is trying to take advantage of the GM, or if they are trying to cheat the rules under the guise of ignorance, but to imply that someone can't play a character because they "don't know enough about it" is just bizarre to me.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| What bothers me is that these people, knowing nothing about combat, would then want to play characters who do without being willing to do any research on combat or whatever the applicable field is. What I'm really advocating is knowing your character and, within reason, knowing what your character knows. |
This line has been used a lot here, but I actually have the opposite problem. I've got a guy who knows a lot about hand-to-hand combat playing a phys-ad martial artist. He gets pissy when I say stuff like "the guy you just hit draws his pistol" and tries to explain that he can prevent anyone from drawing a weapon if he's standing next to them. I don't know if he's right or not, but every time I have to tell him "yea, maybe for someone untrained but this guy knows how to use his gun and he pulls it on you"
Does anyone out there have house rules for preventing a draw? How about drawing a weapon concealed in a weird place?
</my futile attempt to bring the thread back to topic>
| QUOTE (draco aardvark @ Nov 30 2004, 03:12 PM) |
| Does anyone out there have house rules for preventing a draw? How about drawing a weapon concealed in a weird place? </my futile attempt to bring the thread back to topic> |
I'd say for houseruling it, allow him to make an immidiate check to disarm against said weapon after it is drawn. Success at it would mean he managed to make them fumble their weapon in the process of drawing it, and thus drop it.
I'd probably go with an Opposed Quick-Draw Test with a +2 TN (+4 if it's a Concealed Holster) penalty to the guy attempting to thwart the quick-draw. If he gains more successes than his competition, he succeeded at stopping him from quick-drawing (but that's it; the other guy could still draw the weapon, but it'll be a Simple Action now).
If he wants to snatch the gun from the other guy's holster, I'd use the same rule but with a +4 TN (+6 if Concealed) penalty.
It's not likely to succeed unless you're way ahead of the competition in the Reaction department.
If he wants to snatch the gun from the other guy's holster, I'd use the same rule but with a +4 TN (+6 if Concealed) penalty.
It's not likely to succeed unless you're way ahead of the competition in the Reaction department.
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| I'd probably go with an Opposed Quick-Draw Test with a +2 TN (+4 if it's a Concealed Holster) penalty to the guy attempting to thwart the quick-draw. If he gains more successes than his competition, he succeeded at stopping him from quick-drawing (but that's it; the other guy could still draw the weapon, but it'll be a Simple Action now). |
The only issue I have with that is it isn't his skill at quick-drawing a weapon that allows him to prevent the draw, its his skill at fighting in close that does.
Feel free to replace it with an Opposed Melee Skill test with the same TNs, only with the result stopping him from pulling out the weapon as opposed to dealing damage.
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein) |
| Feel free to replace it with an Opposed Melee Skill test with the same TNs, only with the result stopping him from pulling out the weapon as opposed to dealing damage. |
That I like.
Though i don't know off hand how they work.
the grappling rules in CC?
the grappling rules in CC?
Maybe if he hadn't been so concerned with hitting the guy, the guy wouldn't have taken the hit, stepped back half a meter and drawn his piece. Instead he should have delayed action and disarmed the guy when he drew. If the guy decides not to draw, he can go ahead and use his delayed action to beat his ass. There is no need to houserule something when a system is already in place for it, and I agree with your "the guy drawing the gun knows what he is doing as well" explanation. Most anti-weapons sessions I've seen have been about preventing people from whipping out a piece rather than drawing a gun.
With the SR melee combat system their are going to be discontinuities with real life. The wired street sam fighting a mundane martial artist who outclasses him will be beaten two or three times faster than the other mundane martial artist (or non-wired street sam if there is such a thing) who is outclassed an equal amount.
With the SR melee combat system their are going to be discontinuities with real life. The wired street sam fighting a mundane martial artist who outclasses him will be beaten two or three times faster than the other mundane martial artist (or non-wired street sam if there is such a thing) who is outclassed an equal amount.
That's one of the drawbacks in having players who can't seperate real knowledge from the functionality of game mechanic.
A little knowledge can be useful and it can also be a dangerous thing - it all depends on the player.
-Siege
A little knowledge can be useful and it can also be a dangerous thing - it all depends on the player.
-Siege
| QUOTE (Stumps @ Nov 30 2004, 12:51 PM) |
| Again, I find a majority of the posting assuming that all shadowrunners are mercs on a professional level. |
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| That's because most of this started with "well, my merc character wouldn't forget to reload |
It started with me saying:
| QUOTE (Stumps) |
| I think it would have been better to have asked the player exactly how their character was going to go about checking if their gun was loaded. (...to sum up...) I make only one assumption. That the players are trying something but may not be telling me right. |
And Shrapnel Asking:
| QUOTE (Shrapnel) |
| Stumps, just curious, but do you do things like remind your players to reload between firefights? |
The reason that it keeps turning to Merc is because folks around here continue to see SR as a Mercs-R-Us (and I'm not bad-mouthing anyone or this view. It's a simple fact if you read through the forums.)
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| I mean, if I can't tell you the difference between a tire and a wheel and have never driven a standard shift in my life, I have no place playing a street racer. |
By this logic:
-No one has a place playing mages.
-About 12,000 players across the world have no place playing as Jedi in SWG.
-None of us have any right to use cyberware.
-Riggers should only be able to play characters that are capable of only what the player has driven and experienced, thus negating VCR's (not that Doc would mind)
I mean...really...it's a game.
People play it to play characters that they can't be very often.
And all that's required to play the game, at the highest level, is that the players read the rules that pertain to their character.
Very commonly, players learn a bulk of their rules from the GM and other players in game.
----------------
As to the stopping the draw of a weapon.
I like Doc's idea, but in all seriousness.
Over 3 seconds of time, we're going to stop a guy from pulling out his gun vs. beating the crap out of him until he's unconcious?
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| I mean, if I can't tell you the difference between a tire and a wheel and have never driven a standard shift in my life, I have no place playing a street racer. |
I'm sorry, but that is easily the single most idiotic thing I have EVER read on these boards. EVER. You really need to get out of the house.
| QUOTE (Stumps) |
| As to the stopping the draw of a weapon. I like Doc's idea, but in all seriousness. Over 3 seconds of time, we're going to stop a guy from pulling out his gun vs. beating the crap out of him until he's unconcious? |
Hey, they were asking for a house rule mechanic for countering a quick-draw attempt. I have no problem with trying that, though if I were going to try it I'd go for trying to get the gun out of their holster and either drop it or keep it for myself rather than just stop the attempt and wait for him to try again. That's why I included the extra bit.
| QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein @ Nov 30 2004, 09:52 PM) | ||||
I'm sorry, but that is easily the single most idiotic thing I have EVER read on these boards. EVER. You really need to get out of the house.
Hey, they were asking for a house rule mechanic for countering a quick-draw attempt. I have no problem with trying that, though if I were going to try it I'd go for trying to get the gun out of their holster and either drop it or keep it for myself rather than just stop the attempt and wait for him to try again. That's why I included the extra bit. |
Well that quote is qualified somewhat by his other statment in that post. Really he has a point IMO. I may not have stated quite that way but meh. It really makes it hard on the GM and the player I guess when you have to sit around and think about what your player would know vs. what you know if anything. It's a bit better for overall gameplay if you have SOME idea of what your supposed to be doing and referring to the books to get an idea for what your character might know, which will in effect educate you as well.
On an aside: how do I keep my GM from destroying our rides on every run?
| QUOTE (Stumps) |
| By this logic: -No one has a place playing mages. -About 12,000 players across the world have no place playing as Jedi in SWG. -None of us have any right to use cyberware. -Riggers should only be able to play characters that are capable of only what the player has driven and experienced, thus negating VCR's (not that Doc would mind) |
That's purely fallacious and you know it. You have no place playing a mage if you refuse to read any information on magic in the 6th world whatsoever. You have no place playing a Jedi anywhere if you have no knowledge of the force lore in the Star Wars universe (never mind the fact that SWG and the like are not really roleplaying games to begin with). And so on. Firsthand experience has nothing to do with it. This is about an unwillingness to research the knowledge base of the character and the impact that that knowledge would have on the character's actions, mannerisms, lifestyle, and so on.
It's a frelling GAME. You're neither expected nor forced to do fragging RESEARCH into proper gun maintenance or any of the other crap you mentioned in your original post in order to play a CHARACTER with a decent firearms skill. Ditto for EVERY other aspect of the game.
Can doing so improve your ability to protray your character? Sure. Can it improve your enjoyment of the game? Sure. Should you be forced to have a damn Ph.D. in order to play a character? NO.
Christ.
Can doing so improve your ability to protray your character? Sure. Can it improve your enjoyment of the game? Sure. Should you be forced to have a damn Ph.D. in order to play a character? NO.
Christ.
Funny how that argument straw mans its way past the "within reason" and "read a few pages of background information" caveats I predicated all of this on.
Guess what. I don't know a damn thing about firearm safety or maintenance. Ditto when it comes to vehicle maintenance (I couldn't tell you the difference between a carborator and an air filter, let alone point them out if you opened the hood). And guess what else: I've never had a single complaint about playing a character who does. OH MY GOD, NO! How can that possibly be, Arethusa?!? I shouldn't have ANY PLACE playing such characters, yet here I am. Playing them on a regular basis. Imagine that.
But then again idiotic statements like what you've been spouting out -- even with your asinine "within reason" statements that you completely negate with the rest of your post -- makes perfect sense coming from someone who admits that he's hardly ever played the game. Go figure.
But then again idiotic statements like what you've been spouting out -- even with your asinine "within reason" statements that you completely negate with the rest of your post -- makes perfect sense coming from someone who admits that he's hardly ever played the game. Go figure.
Argumentative logic once again takes a back seat.... 
| QUOTE |
| Funny how that argument straw mans its way past the "within reason" and "read a few pages of background information" caveats I predicated all of this on. I mean, if I can't tell you the difference between a tire and a wheel and have never driven a standard shift in my life, I have no place playing a street racer. |
To bring up the post I had an issue with that you now are defending against my comments of.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| What bothers me is that these people, knowing nothing about combat, would then want to play characters who do without being willing to do any research on combat or whatever the applicable field is. What I'm really advocating is knowing your character and, within reason, knowing what your character knows. |
Games require no devotion to research to play.
You show up, you play.
Walking up to an arcade machine does not require a degree. You simply plop a quarter in and play.
Likewise, playing a rolerplaying game is, believe it or not, "Pretending". It's just that now, unlike our 5 year old bouncing-bullet age, we are pretending with rules.
I'd sooner explain things to my players if they don't feel like reading it but they are curious about playing as something.
I'm not going to make it mandatory for them to read a single damn thing though.
They can very well just walk in and know nothing about SR and play because I'm not incapable of explaining it to them while they make a character and play.
To the extent you were discussing, it's the issue of people who know SR but want to play characters who do things that they don't know anything or nearly nothing about, which drives you nuts because (I'm guessing) you know something about it and what they're saying that they're doing comes off as dumb to you because of your knowledge of the area they are functioning in.
While this is understandable, if this is true, try to be patient and just accept that they don't know, obviously, and that you do and take the oppertunity to explain to them more of the area that they apparently know little or nothing about.
As to:
| QUOTE (Stumps) |
| By this logic: -No one has a place playing mages. -About 12,000 players across the world have no place playing as Jedi in SWG. -None of us have any right to use cyberware. -Riggers should only be able to play characters that are capable of only what the player has driven and experienced, thus negating VCR's (not that Doc would mind) |
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| That's purely fallacious and you know it. |
Seriously, no. I don't. And no. It's not.
| QUOTE |
| You have no place playing a mage if you refuse to read any information on magic in the 6th world whatsoever. |
To you.
Perhaps not to another group.
I know many groups who, for example, could care less if the new woman to the group knows about magic when she wants to play a shaman.
You have a consistent pattern of making absolute statements of RPGing law based off of your personal feelings and decisions on the subject.
| QUOTE |
| You have no place playing a Jedi anywhere if you have no knowledge of the force lore in the Star Wars universe (never mind the fact that SWG and the like are not really roleplaying games to begin with). |
Again not true. I can play Jedi and know absolutely nothing about the force's lore.
All I need to know is that I get to roll this many die to do this thing to that guy.
| QUOTE |
| Firsthand experience has nothing to do with it. |
Agreed.
| QUOTE |
| This is about an unwillingness to research the knowledge base of the character and the impact that that knowledge would have on the character's actions, mannerisms, lifestyle, and so on. |
That is entirely up to the player and not up to the GM at all in any way, shape, or form.
Actions: up to the player
Mannerisms: up to the player
Lifestyle: up to the player
...
Rules about what happens: GM.
The GM can hate the character all he wants, and he has the power to not allow the character into the game, but he doesn't have any control over the players choices on their characters Actions, Mannerisms, or Lifestyle.
If a player wants to make a StreetSam who juggles on the street corner, flips off Mr. Johnson, pisses on LoneStar cars, lives in the dumpster, never baths, and uses a rusted out .48 special on every other tuesday then that's entirely up to them.
Again.
You have a consistent pattern of making absolute statements of RPGing law based off of your personal feelings and decisions on the subject.
| QUOTE (Astere Emancipator) | ||
I'd find that insulting, if I were Raygun... |
*floats downstream, raises a beer with one hand, waves with the other*
| QUOTE (Solstice) |
| On an aside: how do I keep my GM from destroying our rides on every run? |
Sometimes you gotta turn those lemons to lemonade.
GM pulled the same trick on us a few times, If we didn't have someone wathcing our vehicle, you'd come back and there would be a kilo of plastique strapped to the fuel tank, it was seriously inconviniencing and resulted in some abandoned vehicles. (fortunately our characters were fairly paranoid and always checked) So the next time it happens a quick call go to our fixer. "Yeah, I need a favour...just get him to meet me at the corner of 23rd street, money isn't a problem"
Call to the fixer, find a demo man, defuse the bomb - now your characters have their hands on a wad of C12 which would otherwise be hard to come by on the streets - it brings a good price if you have a fence too.
Having a few points in demo works as well.
Also, having the rigger work via telepresence also helps. they get proximity alerts, move the vehicle, toast the perp. and still can provide cover from 20 km away
Also, having the rigger work via telepresence also helps. they get proximity alerts, move the vehicle, toast the perp. and still can provide cover from 20 km away
The best way to get the GM to stop destroying your vehicles? Start demanding compensation as part of your payment from the various Johnsons, even if it means a slightly lower pay than normal. Now, everytime the GM feels the need to trash your ride "just cause," he's the one who has to pay for it.
| QUOTE (Nikoli) |
| Having a few points in demo works as well. Also, having the rigger work via telepresence also helps. they get proximity alerts, move the vehicle, toast the perp. and still can provide cover from 20 km away |
No, demolitions is one of those things that if you're not really good at it, its best not to mess around with.
"Lets see... which wire..."
| QUOTE (ES_Riddle @ Nov 30 2004, 06:27 PM) |
| With the SR melee combat system there are going to be discontinuities with real life. The wired street sam fighting a mundane martial artist who outclasses him will be beaten two or three times faster than the other mundane martial artist (or non-wired street sam if there is such a thing) who is outclassed an equal amount. |
Simple house rule to fix. In close combat, if the defender's current inititive isn't 1 or above, they don't deal damage even if the defender wins. The faster guy still can't kill Jackie Chan, but he is moving quick enough to avoid getting himself hit with every opening he presents the other guy.
Something I would like to see in the hopefully-long-way-off SR4
[QUOTE=draco aardvark,Nov 30 2004, 03:12 PM] [QUOTE=Arethusa]I don't know if he's right or not, but every time I have to tell him "yea, maybe for someone untrained but this guy knows how to use his gun and he pulls it on you"
[/QUOTE]
If someone is standing right next to you and you see him reach for his holster, you could theoretically reach down and jam his hand, right? Just like if I had a paintbrush or squirt gun and you tried to stop from getting dirty by grabbing my arm or jamming it.
Would that actually work in practice 100% of the time? No more than anything else that you might attempt in a stressful combat situation. Therefore, house rules pertaining to applying the Unarmed Combat skill towards that probably make a lot of sense.
Personally, I find the Shadowrun hand to hand combat rules unrealistic and abstract enough that I wouldn't actually bother with a house rule. I'd just say that by the rules of the game for the non-advanced hand to hand combat rules that you can't stop the guy from drawing and shooting you. Not realistic, but that's how the rules work. Next time delay an action and try to punch him out.
[/QUOTE]
If someone is standing right next to you and you see him reach for his holster, you could theoretically reach down and jam his hand, right? Just like if I had a paintbrush or squirt gun and you tried to stop from getting dirty by grabbing my arm or jamming it.
Would that actually work in practice 100% of the time? No more than anything else that you might attempt in a stressful combat situation. Therefore, house rules pertaining to applying the Unarmed Combat skill towards that probably make a lot of sense.
Personally, I find the Shadowrun hand to hand combat rules unrealistic and abstract enough that I wouldn't actually bother with a house rule. I'd just say that by the rules of the game for the non-advanced hand to hand combat rules that you can't stop the guy from drawing and shooting you. Not realistic, but that's how the rules work. Next time delay an action and try to punch him out.
| QUOTE (Stumps) |
| To the extent you were discussing, it's the issue of people who know SR but want to play characters who do things that they don't know anything or nearly nothing about, which drives you nuts because (I'm guessing) you know something about it and what they're saying that they're doing comes off as dumb to you because of your knowledge of the area they are functioning in. |
Actually, I find that this happens with me and novels. Lots of authors don't know jack about various subjects but they end up writing about them in their novels. So, if you know about these subjects and then read the author's bizarre amateurish take on them, you burst out laughing and suspension of disbelief is destroyed.
I guess this dosen't actually have anything to do with the issue of background knowledge in role players, though. But I just thought it was interesting how a lot of novels seem to hit a brick wall when something like this comes up.
While that can be true for novels, as you point out, it's not a truth in role playing.
Novels are made for reading, and if you don't like it you can simply put it down and get another one. You are the only one involved.
In Roleplaying there are multiple people involved and thus the same principles can't apply as the over all fun of the group will suffer if the play is stopped and a character removed, or something to that liking, everytime it is found that the player in charge of that character doesn't know enough about the character's job or skills to make realistic decisions for their characters actions.
Novels are made for reading, and if you don't like it you can simply put it down and get another one. You are the only one involved.
In Roleplaying there are multiple people involved and thus the same principles can't apply as the over all fun of the group will suffer if the play is stopped and a character removed, or something to that liking, everytime it is found that the player in charge of that character doesn't know enough about the character's job or skills to make realistic decisions for their characters actions.
| QUOTE (Club) |
| Simple house rule to fix. In close combat, if the defender's current inititive isn't 1 or above, they don't deal damage even if the defender wins. The faster guy still can't kill Jackie Chan, but he is moving quick enough to avoid getting himself hit with every opening he presents the other guy. |
I just rule that if the defender has no further actions for that turn, he can only use Full Defence in response to melee attacks.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.