From: pmwg1641@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter M. White)
Subject: Re: SRUN: A few observations
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:41:19 GMT
Keywords: general comments

v125qj86@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Jeffrey B Rogers) writes:


>By my understanding, they seem to be interested in playing runs
>that are exactly as straightforward as their employers claim they are. My
>opinion is that underlying sneaky plots are part and parcel of it being a 
>cyber-punkish game. Opinions?

I don't think that you should crowbar your player's into game scenarios
that they do not like, but a certain amount of backstabbing is definitely
part of the genre.  After all, shadowrunners are sneaky & dangerous crooks
hired by sneakier & dangerous crooks.  Habitually screwing them over is
tiresome; however, they definitely should not be allowed to let their
guard down.

For a change, you could give them some straightforward runs.  Plot twists
take some creativity to come up with, while anyone can make up a decent
simple run.  Then, put them on a FASA scenario without their realizing
it to keep things spicey.

You can also look to other cyberpunkish game system modules.  They require
some adaption work, but their plots are what is important.   I have
seen this done a couple times with success.  The advantage to using some
other company's module is that each game system has a slightly different
feel.  Used with care, I think this change of pace can liven things up.


>	2) A recent discussion thread dealt with melee combat and splitting
>dice. This brought up in my mind a particular conundrum with the way the ess-
>ential dice mechanic of the game is handled. The numbers in SR seem to have
>conflicting definitions. Things like attributes, skills, spells, etc. have 
>numerical ratings that act simultaneously as potential (a number of dice, 
>which may or may not succeed at any given moment) and as concretely descrip-
>tive (as target numbers, or as descriptive levels). 
>Am I saying this clearly
>enough? For instance, a long-standing character in my campaign has an Intell-
>igence of 10 (don't ask how, its a long story). If I treat this as a descrip-
>tive level, then this character is automatically assumed to be brighter and
>more observant than most, or all, of the humans on the planet. This would be
>reflected in npc's trying to use a Social Skill on him, with their T# = 10.

I do dislike this aspect of the SR system.  Consider an Opposed Skill
Test.  Person A rolls his skill dice, let us say, 6 of them, against
a target number equal to person B's same skill.  Say B has a skill of 7.
B will win somewhat more than half the time.  Fine and dandy.  Now, what
if B's skill were only 5?  Person A will trounce him most of the time.
But the difference between skill 5 vs. 6, and skill 6 vs. 7 should not
be very large.

Possible solution: opposed success tests should be against a standard
target number for both parties.  Say target number 4.  (3 also is
a good choice.)  Beware that this has a strong leveling tendency
compared with the standard rules.

The above will work with Resisted Tests.  How about Unresisted Tests?
Well, perhaps make into a resisted test.  Or use the standard rules.
Or make something up on the spot, such as: roll dice in opposition to
the Social Skill equal to level the target attribute is in excess to
the skill; all target numbers equal to 4.

>BUT, at the same time, it must be treated as a potential (although large)
>which could possibly be outpeformed by someone else who rolls good when he
>(the PC) rolls bad. Do you see what I mean? What are y'alls thoughts and 
>feelings on this paradox-of-sorts?

Well, personally, I do not see a problem here.  Intelligence, or any
acquired skill, is not like weightlifting: the higher rating does
*automatically* imply greater success, and even weightlifters have
good and bad days.  I will never outlift Arny, but I just *might* be
able to outsmart some genius in solving a mental puzzle.  Except
for the most trivial tasks, you cannot equate a ability rating with
some absolute speed for accomplish a particular task.

>							J.B.Rogers
>	sig. in planning, 'til the right people get their cut. 


--Peter


______________________________________________________________________________
						|
     "Guards!  Let me draw their fire!"		|	p-white@uiuc.edu
		   --Scapegoat,_Marshal Law_	|
______________________________________________________________________________