Shadowrun vs Cyberpunk realism
C G Caruth
author had a few good points for technology and such, but I would like to point
out why I believe that Shadowrun is far more realistic than Cyberpunk ever can
be.
Cyberpunk is solidly grounded in cutting edge technology and politics. That I
believe no one is likely to dispute, and for those surface reasons Cyberpunk
appears to be a more "realistic" game universe than Shadowrun.
Shadowrun, too, is based very solidly on modern science, politics and more
importantly society.
Cyberpunk by no means has an advantage on the technology side. Shadowrunners
employ cyber and a matrix and all sorts of high tech equipment, just as their
Cyberpunk counterparts do. Politically, Shadowrun and Cyberpunk are very
similar, in that corporations dominate the economic and thus political
landscapes. Nation states have become weak, and balkanized, once great
superpowers are reduced to small, weak, decadent entities, vainly trying to
rekindle the glory of their golden years.
On these issues alone it is difficult to claim that one game is more realistic
than the other.
However, Shadowrun is able to explore the sociological aspects of the world we
live in to a far greater degree than Cyberpunk is capable.
In Shadowrun, the game designers have introduced new Races, the elves, orks,
trolls, and dwarfs. These races become a metaphor for the very racism that
divides our own country today, and the world's obsession with ethnicism.
Racism can be more easily addressed, revealed and studied using a fantasy
setting that is not so threatening to the players. A white man is more willing
to play a poor Ork in the Seattle slums who suffers racism in Shadowrun, than a
Cyberpunk poor black kid in a New York hood dealing with essentially the same
discrimination.
The magic system in Shadowrun is easily a metaphor for the warring belief
systems of today. Shamen and mages replace priests, rabbis, and scientists.
The most deep seeded conflicts in our world are ones involving religion and
beliefs. Shadowrun's magic allows the players to participate in these
conflicts in a non-threatening manner. Today's world is being rocked by the
conflicting belief systems of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and
Science (any one who does not believe science is a belief system should show me
an atom. We "know" atoms exist only because we have faith that they do. No
one can ever prove that an atom even exists without relying upon indirect
means.)
It is the very fantasy elements in Shadowrun that make it a more realistic
universe. It is the fact that Shadowrun is actually willing to confront these
sociological issues that make it a more realistic game.
Orville Clark
elrick
C G Caruth wrote in message <19990411154358...@ng23.aol.com>...
[snip CP vs. SR]
>It is the very fantasy elements in Shadowrun that make it a more realistic
>universe. It is the fact that Shadowrun is actually willing to confront
these
>sociological issues that make it a more realistic game.
>Orville Clark
Damn hippies.
-e.
"Science never cheered up anybody. The truth about the human situation is
just too awful."
-Kilgore Trout
Gary Astleford
about which game is better"? What does some self-righteous gamer on one
side of the fence or the other have to bring shit like this up every six
months?
C G Caruth wrote:
> However, Shadowrun is able to explore the sociological aspects of the world we
> live in to a far greater degree than Cyberpunk is capable.
I disagree with your opinion that SR is better than CP in the respects
you've detailed. Both games have their merits. However...
> In Shadowrun, the game designers have introduced new Races, the elves, orks,
> trolls, and dwarfs. These races become a metaphor for the very racism that
> divides our own country today, and the world's obsession with ethnicism.
> Racism can be more easily addressed, revealed and studied using a fantasy
> setting that is not so threatening to the players. A white man is more willing
> to play a poor Ork in the Seattle slums who suffers racism in Shadowrun, than a
> Cyberpunk poor black kid in a New York hood dealing with essentially the same
> discrimination.
Indeed, SR uses these metahuman races as a crutch for the insecurities
of the players therein, who need such metaphors in order to play with
such a mature and dark theme as racism. I've played and run plenty of
CP games where racism was an underlying theme, and I've also played
Shadowrun where racism was part of the story. The racism in CP was much
more personal, since we could identify with it on an honest, human
scale. If you want your own little fantasy world where humans love one
another regardless of our own ethnic variations, but refer to trolls as
"troggies" and elves as "dandilion eaters," that's fine. You go right
on and do that. But it doesn't make SR any more or less realistic than
CP, not by a long shot.
> The magic system in Shadowrun is easily a metaphor for the warring belief
> systems of today. Shamen and mages replace priests, rabbis, and scientists.
> The most deep seeded conflicts in our world are ones involving religion and
> beliefs. Shadowrun's magic allows the players to participate in these
> conflicts in a non-threatening manner. Today's world is being rocked by the
> conflicting belief systems of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and
> Science (any one who does not believe science is a belief system should show me
> an atom. We "know" atoms exist only because we have faith that they do. No
> one can ever prove that an atom even exists without relying upon indirect
> means.)
Ditto for the religion aspect what I said about racism.
> It is the very fantasy elements in Shadowrun that make it a more realistic
> universe. It is the fact that Shadowrun is actually willing to confront these
> sociological issues that make it a more realistic game.
By these arguments of yours, AD&D is just as mature a game
(sociologically and politically) as Shadowrun. Heck, aren't any of
those games on the market that present differing magic/religious
systems, in addition to multiple races/species, just so damn mature? Of
course, it's not like Fasa was trying anything new and interesting out
when the authors cobbled SR together from standard fantasy sources, in
addition to modern cyberpunk fiction, did they?
Any GM wishing to confront such issues in an adult, mature manner can
do it, and he doesn't need SR or CP to do it, either. If you're deluded
enough to insist that one game is superior to the other, at least open
your eyes enough to understand that each game is different depending on
the GM who runs it.
Gary
Grommit
C G Caruth wrote:
> These races become a metaphor for the very racism that
> divides our own country today, and the world's obsession with ethnicism.
Good point
> Racism can be more easily addressed, revealed and studied using a fantasy
> setting that is not so threatening to the players.
And this is realistic? When I referee I like to be utterly ruthless with the
players. Make them spend hours creating their characters and background. This
establishes a raport between the player and character so the next time yourr
afro-carribean character is faced with a gang of neo-nazis he will begin to
empathize with his character.
> Shadowrun's magic allows the players to participate in these
> conflicts in a non-threatening manner.
See previous point.
> It is the very fantasy elements in Shadowrun that make it a more realistic
> universe.
I beg to differ. Without sounding patronizing it seems, from your argument, that
Shadowrun has introduced these 'sociological equivalents' to help players realise
them and role-play them easier. This is a fine point but it seems to be taking the
players by the hand as if they are not capable of carrying out the role-playing for
themselves.
> It is the fact that Shadowrun is actually willing to confront these
> sociological issues that make it a more realistic game.
Sorry, I disagree.
However you will find, as in any discussion such as this, that the whole point is
missed. People are blinded by their own experience. I have never come across a
player of CP who prefers SR and vice versa. A majority of people will stand by
their favorite game and most of the time don't know why. Could it be a good
combination of scenario, good RPers etc? I've played both and now run a CP campaign
(on the web soon). I prefer CP so my judgement is coloured and therefore is not
truly valid.
Whichever is more realistic truly is irrelevant. As all RPGs encourage players to
use the rules as guidelines it is up to the players to alter/add/remove what they
see fit. Some would say forcing the players to confront racial/religeous predjudice
through fantastic creatures and beliefs is unrealistic and constraining others
would welcome the refreshing change.
Bet you played SR first then CP? :)
------------------------------------------
Grommit gro...@grommits-lair.demon.co.uk
www.grommits-lair.demon.co.uk
ICQ - 27531381
'And when the angel comes down,
Down to deliver us,
We'll find out after all,
We're only men of straw.'
elrick
this about Shadowrun:
Shadowrun uses many metaphors to parallel life in a (somewhat)
less-enlightened time, without getting themselves in trouble. (Parents who
hear words like "trog" or "daisy-eater" coming from their kids' room are a
lot less likely to call their congressman than those who hear harsher
slurs.)
Corporations run uncontrolled, the way they did before the rise of
liberalism. It is once again socially acceptable to think of some human
beings as inferior. Where people used to sign their lives away for the
promise of a better life across the ocean, now they will sign their lives
away for a better life in an ivory tower. There are still people so gifted
that they toy with power that no one else understands, but instead of
engineers or scientists, they are called magicians. Just as they were called
centuries ago.
All that as it may be, Shadowrun is very much a fantasy game. It is so
fantastical that it should never be thought of as realistic. If a Dragon did
appear in the world, he would not be elected President. If Native Americans
erupted volcanoes, the US government would not back down. Think about it.
That's what I love about Shadowrun: It is a world that no longer makes
sense. If not for the Earthdawn tie-ins, I would call it the end times.
-elrick.
Gary Astleford
> CP, IMHO, appears to have been made with a "what would be cool" approach.
> Throughout the books I have seen, there's examples of this, where extra
> limbs appear and have every conceivable accessory latched on, corporations
> act like total bastards without regard to public appearances, the law is
> patchy at best. It seems to try to create the oh-so-popular urban decay
> setting, without any examination of the issues inherrant to the setting.
> I hestitate to compare a moderately cool game like CP to the farce that is
> Rifts, but the way I see it, similarities can be drawn to Rifts' tendancy
> to bring in newer, cooler and better things all the time, to CP's every
> new gimmick under the sun approach.
No, no, you're right. One of the problems I have with CP from time to
time is that it is, by and large, a game about gadgets. New guns, new
cyberware, new tech which seems to be above and beyond what I would
attribute to a "high tech, low life" genre. This attitude is
perpetuated on the 'net, and in what few CP games I've seen at
conventions. It's no longer so much about the characters (ie, attitude
& style) as it is about what kind of gun they're packing (substance).
Funny, when you consider that it was always billed as a game of style
over substance...
Still, I've played CP since it was originally released. I've bought
everything that's been put out for it to date. I like having a wide
range of things to choose from (insofar as guns and gear are concerned),
but I also like to keep a tight rein on what my players have their
characters buy.
In essence, CP (to me) was never (until recently) a game where the
designers said, "Hey, this is the way our campaign world is -- play it
exactly as written." The books, IMO, were a guideline, to be used or
not used at my option. I never had any problem filling in the blanks
for myself. In fact, I prefer to do that. I don't like using
established NPCs in a front-line, meeting the characters sense, and I
don't like having to use a timeline that I might not agree with.
I don't hate SR, not like I used to. I prefer the mechanics of
Interlock (as modified by my house rules), I don't like SR's fantasy
aspect (the magic theory of the game is great, but the
races/monsters/etc bother me), and (the clincher, in any case) I can't
stand SR's timeline. It's not a world I would want to play in because
too much has been established.
Gary Astleford
> I never said anything about maturity...
>
> I never said Shadowrun is more mature than Cyberpunk...
>
> I'm not quite sure where you got maturity from...
I guess it was this phrase that you used :
"However, Shadowrun is able to explore the sociological aspects of the
world we
live in to a far greater degree than Cyberpunk is capable."
To me, exploring sociological aspects and their effects on the world
and people exposed to them is a mature thing to do. The themes you
discussed are, by and large, mature themes. That's where my rant on
maturity came from.
> if you want to get right down to it NO roleplaying game can be said to me
> mature...
I can debate that. Several games on the market are geared towards
someone else's opinion of what is mature. It's hard, however, to market
a game as "mature" without being pretentious. IMO, you can't publish a
game with several drawings of exposed breasts and label it "mature."
The same goes for depictions of ultra-violence, pagan ritual, or any
other "questionable" behavior.
The surest way to publish a "mature" RPG is to present things in a
realistic, matter-of-fact, blunt fashion. Don't glitz it up so that
it's less likely to upset people -- instead, tell it like it is.
Very few game publishers actually do this. As someone already said,
it's to protect themselves and the younger portion of their audience.
I've got no trouble with that. In such a case, it is the GM's job to
determine how much mature content to introduce into his own game.
Simple enough, isn't it?
C G Caruth
I never said anything about maturity...
I never said Shadowrun is more mature than Cyberpunk...
I'm not quite sure where you got maturity from...
if you want to get right down to it NO roleplaying game can be said to me
mature...
C G Caruth
But definately prefer GURPS :)
James Lownie
> > live in to a far greater degree than Cyberpunk is capable.
> Any GM wishing to confront such issues in an adult, mature manner can
> do it, and he doesn't need SR or CP to do it, either.
That's all that this argument is going to boil down to. But for my money Shadowrun
feels like it's been sanitised, and is therefore less interesting to me.
> The magic system in Shadowrun is easily a metaphor for the warring belief
> systems of today. Shamen and mages replace priests, rabbis, and scientists.
Being a mage doesn't mean you have any particular beliefs, whereas being a priest,
rabbi or scientist does. How is this a metaphor?
> The most deep seeded conflicts in our world are ones involving religion and
> beliefs. Shadowrun's magic allows the players to participate in these
> conflicts in a non-threatening manner. Today's world is being rocked by the
> conflicting belief systems of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and
> Science
What has magic got to do with belief? In SR magic has tangible and measurable
effects, and can be proven to exist. Where's the conflict of belief?
James
CHRIS MINNERY
I tend to think that Shadowrun is a more realistic game from an
"approaches" standpoint. I have played both games extensively (though SR
more extensively because I prefer it to CP), and I believe that both games
have a lot separating them from modern-day reality, though both retain
elements of today's world. It's how the two games approach their "new
elements" that defines their realism.
I admit this is bit of a strange and metaphorical argument, but it's
fundamental to why I like SR and dislike CP.
SR takes strange new things like magic and new races (to name but a few),
and approaches them in a way that seems realistic. When I read SR
products, I can easily see that IF new races erupted, then the situation
in shadowrun is very plausable. IF a dragon appeared, the reaction would
be as it is in SR. Fantastical elements (magic etc) are meshed with
modern elements, for example the Department of Justice setting up an
insect spirit task force and so on. The skill of this "meshing" of
fantastic and realistic elements is what draws me to SR.
CP, IMHO, appears to have been made with a "what would be cool" approach.
Throughout the books I have seen, there's examples of this, where extra
limbs appear and have every conceivable accessory latched on, corporations
act like total bastards without regard to public appearances, the law is
patchy at best. It seems to try to create the oh-so-popular urban decay
setting, without any examination of the issues inherrant to the setting.
I hestitate to compare a moderately cool game like CP to the farce that is
Rifts, but the way I see it, similarities can be drawn to Rifts' tendancy
to bring in newer, cooler and better things all the time, to CP's every
new gimmick under the sun approach.
I know that GMs colour the game as much as whatever appears in the
sourcebooks, probably more so. I also know that this is a poor
explanation at best of what I mean, and I will most likely be flamed for
quite some time about this post. But these ideas aren't just my own; I
share them with many of the gamers I play, and I think it would be
interesting to find out if other gamers feel the same way.
--Chris Minnery
C. "Fürst Luzifer" Kräuter
C G Caruth schrieb in Nachricht
<19990411154358...@ng23.aol.com>...
I am tired of system-bashing discussions, but the following lines hurt my
brain while reading them...
>Cyberpunk by no means has an advantage on the technology side.
Shadowrunners
>employ cyber and a matrix and all sorts of high tech equipment, just as
their
>Cyberpunk counterparts do. Politically, Shadowrun and Cyberpunk are very
>similar, in that corporations dominate the economic and thus political
>landscapes. Nation states have become weak, and balkanized, once great
>superpowers are reduced to small, weak, decadent entities, vainly trying to
>rekindle the glory of their golden years.
>
>On these issues alone it is difficult to claim that one game is more
realistic
>than the other.
Well, I wouldn't call a dragon holding the majority of an mega-corporations
shares realistic, neither do I fancy the Idea of trolls doing lap dance in
seedy bars...
>
>However, Shadowrun is able to explore the sociological aspects of the world
we
>live in to a far greater degree than Cyberpunk is capable.
>
Anybody seen a good killer ork around here lately? Darn, that goddam
shaman's hellhound has been shitting on my lawn again, and I'm getting tired
of it...
>In Shadowrun, the game designers have introduced new Races, the elves,
orks,
>trolls, and dwarfs. These races become a metaphor for the very racism that
>divides our own country today, and the world's obsession with ethnicism.
>Racism can be more easily addressed, revealed and studied using a fantasy
>setting that is not so threatening to the players. A white man is more
willing
>to play a poor Ork in the Seattle slums who suffers racism in Shadowrun,
than a
>Cyberpunk poor black kid in a New York hood dealing with essentially the
same
>discrimination.
>
Well, that's a point in making the game interesting, but not realistic. I
wouldn't call a fantasy-rpg more realistic than 'Harn' only because it
sported some dwarfs and elves...
Then, the discrimination in SR can be based on facts, as the races ARE
different. Trolls ARE dumb and strong (hence the modifiers), while the
average humen (even nowadays) are created almost equally in mattters of mind
and body. There are intelligent black men, as well as dumb white ones. But
with the SR folks, there are no brilliant trolls. Point.
>The magic system in Shadowrun is easily a metaphor for the warring belief
>systems of today. Shamen and mages replace priests, rabbis, and
scientists.
>The most deep seeded conflicts in our world are ones involving religion and
>beliefs. Shadowrun's magic allows the players to participate in these
>conflicts in a non-threatening manner. Today's world is being rocked by
the
>conflicting belief systems of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and
>Science (
That's the worst bullshit I heard in weeks. The magic in SR has definitely
nothing to do with religion. It's simple and plain AD&D magic, with funnily
clothed people hurling balls of fire (or whatever) against each other. No
religion. Hermetic mages and shamans simply do not have enough differences
playwise. They even use the same spells...
And for the 'non-threatening manner': Most SR-Mages tend to munchkinism (but
then again, so do almost all SR-chars...). They know what to do with a
fireball, and that sure ain't roasting marshmallows...
>It is the very fantasy elements in Shadowrun that make it a more realistic
>universe. It is the fact that Shadowrun is actually willing to confront
these
>sociological issues that make it a more realistic game.
sociologically more interesting: agreed. Realistic: naaaaaah...
While CP is a mix of the more common elements and visions of the 80ies
literature movement of the same name, Shadowrun is just a mix of fantasy and
Hi-Tech elements. It doesn't even emphasize on the 'Hi-tech, low-life' style
that is so common with CP novels. It's about as realistic as Rifts; a nice
background (if you like the Idea on gun-toting fantasy folk), but as
realistic as a picture by Dali.
Even most of the CP-stuff is pretty unrealistic, given the timeline and the
advances in science today. I doubt that there will be functional cybernetic
limbs in 20 years, whereas a graphical interface as the matrix might be
available in 5 to 10 years time. But it is based on real-life physics,
rather than the magic mumbo-jumbo in SR. It's gritty, dirty and has a feel
that no SR campaign can ever hope to attain.
Even the supplements of SR make the above statements about discrimination
sound like bullshit. They emphasize on heavy weapons, heavy firefights and
really dumb cyberware. There's no such thing as a metaphysical question.
Just 'Shot-first, forget to ask questions later'. And as SR is played mostly
by younger players, there's no audience for such stuff as 'racial
discrimination'.
Shadowrun sports an abstract skill/combat/magic/whatever system that is
almost unplayable without a rulebook handy, and lacks realism to a degree
that I can get shot with a 10mm in the head and walk away singing. The
vehicle rules are 4 pages of cryptic writings, with 30-40 Minutes of work to
simulate the simple act of shooting at a car from out of another one.
Thanks, but systemwise CP is at least realistic enough to give credible
results (That means a 9mm from point-blank without body armor will send you
calling for the trauma team). And it's faster, no matter what else is told
by 'expert SR-gamers'. I've been on enough gaming conventions to rest
assured on this point of view.
As for realism and magic: Those two do not fit together well...point. It's
either 'realistic' magic as in Angeli,Ars Magica or Mage, or the simple
fireball-throwing as seen in AD&D and the like. But even those tend to wreck
the realism.
Just my 0,02 EB...
FL
----------------------------------------------------
Nemo me impune lacessit!
elrick
<37112...@news.ka.choin.net>...
[snip bulk of message]
>. . . The magic in SR has definitely
>nothing to do with religion. It's simple and plain AD&D magic, with funnily
>clothed people hurling balls of fire (or whatever) against each other. No
>religion. Hermetic mages and shamans simply do not have enough differences
>playwise. They even use the same spells...
No, they don't.
A Wolf Shaman's favored attack spell is very different than a Combat Mage's,
even if both character sheets say "Manabolt." In one case, the caster is
calling on his patron to vanquish his enemy. In the other, he is focusing
ethereal energy into a weapon, just as if he was picking up a rock and
throwing it. A Christian 'slinger could be requesting the support of an
angel or saint to help fight an evildoer. The dice-rolling difference is
minimal, but the role-playing difference is huge.
The SR magic system is very "bare-bones," making it easy to create a
tradition. "Magic Fingers" could just as easily be called "Spirit Hands,"
"Telekinetic Control," or some string of latin words, and each version could
have its own quirks, because the effects are very basic as written. Ditto
most of the published spells. You can also modify the hell out of most
spells, tweaking them one way or another, adding visual effects, losing
benefits, whatever. You can even create new spells with relative ease, and
it's easy to declare that any given tradition can't use any given spell.
Chances that a Bear Shaman has Hellblast? Slim. Chances that an urban mage
has Plant Passage*? Nearly none.
Besides, even Shamanism is more than dressing funny and hurling fireballs. A
totem is a way of life.
*Plant Passage: My own creation, reducing movement and stealth penalties
while moving through thick plant life. It took about ten minutes to design,
using the rules in the Grimoire.
Grommit
C G Caruth wrote:
> But definately prefer GURPS :)
Damn. There' always one! :)
Grommit
elrick wrote:
> Parents who
> hear words like "trog" or "daisy-eater" coming from their kids' room are a
> lot less likely to call their congressman than those who hear harsher
> slurs.
Fair point but is Shadowrun aimed at kids? The only RPG I recall with a warning
and a disclaimer is Rifts.
I would say CP is far harsher as I encourage players to swear, loose their
temper and really get the adrenalin pumping.
My 14 year old brother wants to play CP but I will not Ref a game with him
playing for a couple of reasons:
1. The themes covered are not suitable for younger ears (racism, prejudice,
drugs, sex, extreme violence AND intelligent puzzles and plots (no I'm not just
an action junkie)).
2. As mentioned b4. If the players get pissed off I encourage them more so. It
proves that the player is empathizing with his charcter.
3. I like to run games which involve a lot of player/NPC interaction and I don't
thing younger players would fit in well.
Sorry I digress.
An older mate of mine is a major SR fan and takes it very seriously. I don't
think that, after reading some of these postings, that I will ever be able to do
so. :)
Tell u what.
To save arguments mail me your opinions on both games or just say which is your
fave and I'll publish the results next week. Just 4 a laff.
Don't clog up this group with the old 'mine's better than yours' crap.
Have fun and may the blue light never cross your path.
Craig L Wigda
Gary Astleford <oce...@connectnet.com> wrote:
[snip of arguments]
> By these arguments of yours, AD&D is just as mature a game
>(sociologically and politically) as Shadowrun. Heck, aren't any of
>those games on the market that present differing magic/religious
>systems, in addition to multiple races/species, just so damn mature? Of
>course, it's not like Fasa was trying anything new and interesting out
>when the authors cobbled SR together from standard fantasy sources, in
>addition to modern cyberpunk fiction, did they?
> Any GM wishing to confront such issues in an adult, mature manner can
>do it, and he doesn't need SR or CP to do it, either. If you're deluded
>enough to insist that one game is superior to the other, at least open
>your eyes enough to understand that each game is different depending on
>the GM who runs it.
This is very true. I'm glad you said I (I was going to but you beat me to
it).
The level of maturity of ANY RPG is based on the maturity of the GM and the
players. If the GM is not mature or does not have a strong grasp of what he
wants the game to be it just sort of drags along. I'm guilty of this at times
and other times I really know what I want out of the game session and it
just shines throught and the players are drawn into it.
The GM is both stroy writer, story teller, and location scout (for like in
a movie). If any part of this is weak the entire story can suffer. The
same applies to the players or charcters in the story. Just like any
movie if the plot is good (story writer), the presentation is well done
(story teller) and the scenes are outstanding (location) but the actors
stink (characters/players) the entire movie stinks.
In all my years of playing only two game really shined and was outstanding.
The GM was excellent in both story plot/telling/and setting. All of the
players added to the story and furthered the plot. There was one other game
that game close but it fell short due to one player trying to further his
own ideas and attempted to take control of the game so he could get all the
attention he wished. The sad part was it was at a convention and one of the
two previous games I mentioned that really shined was done by the same GM and
had 5 of the 6 people from the pervious outstanding game.
So, no matter how great the GM may be if the players refuse to move along with
the story the impact of the GM's efforts can be lessen. Still the majority
of the effort does remain with the GM for not matter how good the players
are if the GM does not set up the events or plot well they can not carry the
entire game.
No system is any better then the GM or the players in the gamming session.
Craig Wigda
- Increase the Entropy in the Universe, Have Children. -
elrick
>. . . but is Shadowrun aimed at kids? The only RPG I recall with a warning
>and a disclaimer is Rifts.
I think it used to be, but all these damn kids want to play nowadays are
card games.
[Taps cane on the ground.]
Why, in my day . . . [incoherent muttering]
-elrick.
"I don't know, I just know that . . .
. . . I don't know nothing."
-Brick
Blank Dave
>playing for a couple of reasons:
>1. The themes covered are not suitable for younger ears (racism, prejudice,
>drugs, sex, extreme violence AND intelligent puzzles and plots (no I'm not
just
>an action junkie)).
>2. As mentioned b4. If the players get pissed off I encourage them more so.
It
>proves that the player is empathizing with his charcter.
>3. I like to run games which involve a lot of player/NPC interaction and I
don't
>thing younger players would fit in well.
You might be suprized with how well he might handle it. Many of the things
you mentioned earlier (prejudice, sex?,drugs etc) he may have faced already.
As for intellegent puzzles, it sounds like you think he mightn't be able to
handle them. I think it's better for starting player to begin with facing
them, than starting out with the old hack and slash....That way they then
don't have to unlearn that drive. Plus the introducing of interaction is
also a good thing. I've seen many players, including myself, that had to
try and make that cross over from "classical gaming" (read stereotypical
hack and slash) and found it very difficult, because they weren't used to
the NPCs being people. I feel the sooner you get him started down that
road, the better trip he might have. But then again YOU know him, and I
don't, just don't underestimate what he might know and how he might adapt.
Blank Dave
I had to fight my way to the top of the food chain, to become a vegetarian?
There is a certain freedom in being totally screwed. It means that nothing
you do is going to make it any worse.
Ian Birchenough
<cgca...@aol.com> writes
<snip>
>However, Shadowrun is able to explore the sociological aspects of the world we
>live in to a far greater degree than Cyberpunk is capable.
>
>trolls, and dwarfs. These races become a metaphor for the very racism that
>divides our own country today, and the world's obsession with ethnicism.
>Racism can be more easily addressed, revealed and studied using a fantasy
>setting that is not so threatening to the players. A white man is more willing
>to play a poor Ork in the Seattle slums who suffers racism in Shadowrun, than a
>Cyberpunk poor black kid in a New York hood dealing with essentially the same
>discrimination.
The Poor kid in the 'hood in CP is just as likely to be white, Asian or
anything else you can think of as black. The future in CP isn't split on
racial lines-pretty much everyone got s**t on with the collapse of the
US. The have's are employed by Corps and live in beaverville, everyone
else has the other end of the stick - unless they're prepared to go out
and do something about it. As a metaphor for current race relations
problems Orks elves etc. might do, but as I don't play SR I can't say
how many people take Orks and therefor whether your comment about
players being more prepared to take Orks than Blacks. As a CP ref and
player my only comment is that you aren't playing in the same games as I
have for the last 10+ years, Skin colour doesn't count on the edge!
>
>The magic system in Shadowrun is easily a metaphor for the warring belief
>systems of today. Shamen and mages replace priests, rabbis, and scientists.
>The most deep seeded conflicts in our world are ones involving religion and
>beliefs. Shadowrun's magic allows the players to participate in these
>conflicts in a non-threatening manner.
So you're saying that SR shaman rouse flocks of believers to go round
killing and raping the followers of other totems?
> Today's world is being rocked by the
>conflicting belief systems of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and
>Science (any one who does not believe science is a belief system should show me
>an atom. We "know" atoms exist only because we have faith that they do. No
>one can ever prove that an atom even exists without relying upon indirect
>means.)
and how does this make it a more realistic game?
>
>It is the very fantasy elements in Shadowrun that make it a more realistic
>universe. It is the fact that Shadowrun is actually willing to confront these
>sociological issues that make it a more realistic game.
>
>
>Orville Clark
>
--
Ian Birchenough
Ian Birchenough
100...@sparrow.qut.edu.au>, CHRIS MINNERY <n216...@sparrow.qut.edu.au>
writes
<snip>
>
>CP, IMHO, appears to have been made with a "what would be cool" approach.
>Throughout the books I have seen, there's examples of this, where extra
>limbs appear
>and have every conceivable accessory latched on,
Whitewall tyres? etc. etc. - just applied to everything other than
cars. If you can afford it why not?
> corporations
>act like total bastards without regard to public appearances,
your goods - and in near monopoly conditions who else will they buy
from?
>the law is
>patchy at best.
> It seems to try to create the oh-so-popular urban decay
>setting, without any examination of the issues inherrant to the setting.
>I hestitate to compare a moderately cool game like CP to the farce that is
>Rifts, but the way I see it, similarities can be drawn to Rifts' tendancy
>to bring in newer, cooler and better things all the time, to CP's every
>new gimmick under the sun approach.
of the current model as you can, when sales start to dip bring out the
"all new, Improved " version. Watch some detergent ads if you think I'm
wrong. The words "New" or "Improved" seem almost compulsory.
>
>I know that GMs colour the game as much as whatever appears in the
>sourcebooks, probably more so. I also know that this is a poor
>explanation at best of what I mean, and I will most likely be flamed for
>quite some time about this post. But these ideas aren't just my own; I
>share them with many of the gamers I play, and I think it would be
>interesting to find out if other gamers feel the same way.
>
> --Chris Minnery
>
--
Ian Birchenough
Night Flyer
Craig L Wigda wrote in message <7et8lc$g...@gdwest.gd.com>...
>No system is any better then the GM or the players in the gamming session.
Unless of course the system is so unplayable as to make the GM bad (works
harder trying to undersatnd the mechanics than working on a plot line) I
have seen this many times,
Night Flyer
>However, Shadowrun is able to explore the sociological aspects of the world
we
>live in to a far greater degree than Cyberpunk is capable.
huh? just because it doesnt say racism exists, and GM worth their salt would
know that it does (unless of course they are stuck in the happy elve world
of D&D)....
>
>In Shadowrun, the game designers have introduced new Races, the elves,
orks,
>trolls, and dwarfs. These races become a metaphor for the very racism that
>divides our own country today, and the world's obsession with ethnicism.
huh? comparing ethnicism to completly different "races" make for a very BAD
example. the other races (orcs,trolls,elves, etc) ARE different, BUT a
human is a human is a human, on an individule basis some are
stronger/smarter/pertier/weaker/dumber/uglier but not according to "race",
where as Trolls, Dwarves and Elves are NOT human, and ARE different. By
implying what you are, you are saying that there are REAL (besides
appearance) differences in the Africans, Europeans, Orientals, Hispanics, &
American Indians thus propetuating the racism that exists
>Racism can be more easily addressed, revealed and studied using a fantasy
>setting that is not so threatening to the players. A white man is more
willing
>to play a poor Ork in the Seattle slums who suffers racism in Shadowrun,
than a
>Cyberpunk poor black kid in a New York hood dealing with essentially the
same
>discrimination.
it may be more easially addressed, but it definitally DOESNT make it more
realistic
>
>The magic system in Shadowrun is easily a metaphor for the warring belief
>systems of today. Shamen and mages replace priests, rabbis, and
scientists.
>The most deep seeded conflicts in our world are ones involving religion and
>beliefs. Shadowrun's magic allows the players to participate in these
>conflicts in a non-threatening manner. Today's world is being rocked by
the
>conflicting belief systems of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and
>Science (any one who does not believe science is a belief system should
show me
>an atom. We "know" atoms exist only because we have faith that they do.
No
>one can ever prove that an atom even exists without relying upon indirect
>means.)
>
so what you are saying is that AD&D is more realistic than Cyberpunk then
cause that is where SR got their ideas from... and mages in SR are nothing
more than another way to blow shit up...
>It is the very fantasy elements in Shadowrun that make it a more realistic
>universe. It is the fact that Shadowrun is actually willing to confront
these
>sociological issues that make it a more realistic game.
Ummm.... what are you smoking and where can I get some...
>
>
>Orville Clark
>
Grommit
Night Flyer wrote:
> Unless of course the system is so unplayable as to make the GM bad (works
> harder trying to undersatnd the mechanics than working on a plot line) I
> have seen this many times,
Had this once when playing Vampire. The GM loved the game and the background
but had never GMd. When questioned, instead of admitting never GMd and gaining
help and support from the player she claimed she had run loads of games. After
a few sessions everyone thought she was crap and it kind of fell apart. ie
everyone else carried on with a different GM.
The point is I don't think I have ever come across a system that is completely
unplayable. If a GM loves one system for whatever reason regardless of
complexity, if he can grasp the rules and, as mentioned further up the thread,
can tell stories and atmosphere then this will make the players life easier
aswell as encouraging them to learn the system.
Ever tried RPing with no rules?
With the right group of peeps it works surprisingly well.
Night Flyer
Grommit wrote in message <3711E05C...@grommits-lair.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
>Night Flyer wrote:
>
>> Unless of course the system is so unplayable as to make the GM bad (works
>> harder trying to undersatnd the mechanics than working on a plot line) I
>> have seen this many times,
>
> Had this once when playing Vampire. The GM loved the game and the
background
>but had never GMd. When questioned, instead of admitting never GMd and
gaining
>help and support from the player she claimed she had run loads of games.
After
>a few sessions everyone thought she was crap and it kind of fell apart. ie
>everyone else carried on with a different GM.
Storyteller is one of the simplest systems that I have found, and recently
we have been playing it more than anything (werewolf wild west to be exact
:)
>
>The point is I don't think I have ever come across a system that is
completely
>unplayable.
we have run accross a couple (see example below)
> If a GM loves one system for whatever reason regardless of
>complexity, if he can grasp the rules and,
there is the problem, some of these companies decide complexity makes a good
game, I say they are wrong (but thats my opinion). a really good example
(for our group anyway) was bloodshadows from WEG, the background was
marvelous, the system was horrid...
>as mentioned further up the thread,
>can tell stories and atmosphere then this will make the players life easier
>aswell as encouraging them to learn the system.
>
>Ever tried RPing with no rules?
>With the right group of peeps it works surprisingly well.
no, but I know it can be done, weve done games with no rolls were needed in
CP, it was fun indeed (for everyone)
Night Flyer
>> corporations
>>act like total bastards without regard to public appearances,
>when the public have no voice who cares what you do as long as you sell
>your goods - and in near monopoly conditions who else will they buy
>from?
think Microsoft if you dont see where Ian's point is coming from
>>the law is
>>patchy at best.
>Law is for those who can pay for it.
kinda like that today
>> It seems to try to create the oh-so-popular urban decay
>>setting, without any examination of the issues inherrant to the setting.
but the oh-so-popular urban decay setting is around us today, we know what
the issues are, we dont need them spelled out to us again, just watch the
evening news (unless you live in some podunk town in Kansas)
>>I hestitate to compare a moderately cool game like CP to the farce that is
>>Rifts, but the way I see it, similarities can be drawn to Rifts' tendancy
>>to bring in newer, cooler and better things all the time,
RIFTS had a problem with the authors trying to "out-do" each other, one
cannot play a basic character out of the main book without having his ass
handed to him on a platter, CP's Original roles and equipment are still
enough to wax those that need waxing (FN-RALs still get the job done)
>> to CP's every
>>new gimmick under the sun approach.
>on the contrary CP is simply mirroring business practice - sell as much
>of the current model as you can, when sales start to dip bring out the
>"all new, Improved " version. Watch some detergent ads if you think I'm
>wrong. The words "New" or "Improved" seem almost compulsory.
>>
maybe we need a new and improved thread :)
>>I know that GMs colour the game as much as whatever appears in the
>>sourcebooks, probably more so.
Nope, I make my own stuff up, I use some of the stuff out of the
sourcebooks, but mostly as an example of the New and Improved stuff that has
developed since the source books came out...
>> I also know that this is a poor
>>explanation at best of what I mean, and I will most likely be flamed for
>>quite some time about this post. But these ideas aren't just my own; I
>>share them with many of the gamers I play, and I think it would be
>>interesting to find out if other gamers feel the same way.
to be honest Chris, I have NO idea what you are saying....
Night Flyer
>corporations? What about the cops (no matter how lazy they are, if
>corporation stage black ops at the drop of the hat, kill innocents and
>don't even bother to properly disguise their identity, the cops will have
>to act).
not if they are "owned" by the corps, and most black Ops do disguise their
identity... otherwise they wouldnt be black ops
>How about the politicians (who won't get voted in if they're
>seen as ineffectual)?
umm... as long as the economys good the people wont give a rats ass (just
look at DC right now)
> No matter what any of the corporations do, there's
>never any change in the public perception of that corporation, apart from
>the "Arasaka is bad" standard response.
>
>
>Cyberware is rediculously cheap (not just somewhat cheap, but
>rediculously cheap). There is no examination of this at all.
supply and demand, they overproduce they cyberware to drive down the price
so "everyone can get in on the act"
>
>Someone on a good salary can have limbs replaced with a couple of months
>pay. The culture would develop that if it's broke, replace it, and this
>would outrage at least some people.
are you telling us that this so-called "culture" doesnt already exist 1999?
disposible contacts, cheap electronics, throw away cars, Dr Kavorkian (sp)
>If the air force nowadays spends one
>million dollars on training each pilot, the army would have (at the low,
>low prices in the books) entire armies of full borgs, simply becuase its
>silly not to.
yes, BUT they would STILL have to train them, AND give them a triple dose of
psychiatric help
> This would revolutionise warfare completely, but there is
>little sign of this. There would be bank loans specifically for
>cyberware. Cyberpsychosis/humanity loss, in a world where its cheaper to
>have a fully-functioning pair of cybernetic legs with all the bells and
>whistles than a moderately cool car,
um, it still rains and doesnt matter how "cool" those cyberlegs are, a
drowned rat isnt very cool, plus the body would still take a massive beating
if the only mode of transportation was cyberlegs....
elrick
>. . . I think SR doesn't go anywhere near
>far enough in extrapolating the effects of the changes. I think they've
just
>drawn in the most obvious results (ie racial tension, minor changes in the
>structure of society like the insect spirit task force) and failed to
provide
>anything really interesting. With the introduction of magic the world
would
>be a totally different place, the laws of physics have been circumvented,
>power balances would be changed irreversably . . .
A simple example:
Gravity is an acceleration, za? It is constantly pulling you downward.
The Levitate spell counteracts gravity. Thus, it is constantly pushing
upward. Just to hold something in place it is accelerating it at a fair
clip, to counter the reverse acceleration of gravity.
The Levitate spell can be Quickened for a few Karma. This would create a
(theoretically) endless wellspring of energy, with that astral conduit
constantly pumping energy into the physical world.
Within five years of the Awakening, somebody would have put together a power
plant running on spell locks. Think about it, man. It's virtually free
energy, after you've paid off the start-up.
Failing that, you just replace the radioactive substances in nuclear plants
with fire elementals. They boil the water just fine, and only cost a few
grand to conjure . . .
CHRIS MINNERY
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Ian Birchenough wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.93.990412141914.27342B-
> 100...@sparrow.qut.edu.au>, CHRIS MINNERY <n216...@sparrow.qut.edu.au>
> writes
> <snip>
> >
> >CP, IMHO, appears to have been made with a "what would be cool" approach.
> >Throughout the books I have seen, there's examples of this, where extra
> >limbs appear
> as replacements for war injuries initially
> >and have every conceivable accessory latched on,
> Would you like your Chevy with air conditioning? Chrome bumper?
> Whitewall tyres? etc. etc. - just applied to everything other than
> cars. If you can afford it why not?
Part of the problem is that it is so rediculously cheap. As one of my
players pointed out, why buy any of the vastly overpriced cars or bikes
when you can buy Speeding Bullet legs?
> > corporations
> >act like total bastards without regard to public appearances,
> when the public have no voice who cares what you do as long as you sell
> your goods - and in near monopoly conditions who else will they buy
> from?
What about the rockers who appear all the time? How about the other
corporations? What about the cops (no matter how lazy they are, if
corporation stage black ops at the drop of the hat, kill innocents and
don't even bother to properly disguise their identity, the cops will have
to act). How about the politicians (who won't get voted in if they're
seen as ineffectual)? No matter what any of the corporations do, there's
never any change in the public perception of that corporation, apart from
the "Arasaka is bad" standard response.
> >the law is
> >patchy at best.
> Law is for those who can pay for it.
> > It seems to try to create the oh-so-popular urban decay
> >setting, without any examination of the issues inherrant to the setting.
> Such as?
Cyberware is rediculously cheap (not just somewhat cheap, but
rediculously cheap). There is no examination of this at all.
Someone on a good salary can have limbs replaced with a couple of months
pay. The culture would develop that if it's broke, replace it, and this
would outrage at least some people. If the air force nowadays spends one
million dollars on training each pilot, the army would have (at the low,
low prices in the books) entire armies of full borgs, simply becuase its
silly not to. This would revolutionise warfare completely, but there is
little sign of this. There would be bank loans specifically for
cyberware. Cyberpsychosis/humanity loss, in a world where its cheaper to
have a fully-functioning pair of cybernetic legs with all the bells and
whistles than a moderately cool car, would be a massive problem
threatening humanity as a whole, rather than a thing tacked on to stop
borgs being too powerful.
(SNIP)
> --
> Ian Birchenough
--Chris Minnery
James Lownie
> SR takes strange new things like magic and new races (to name but a few),
> and approaches them in a way that seems realistic. When I read SR
> products, I can easily see that IF new races erupted, then the situation
> in shadowrun is very plausable. IF a dragon appeared, the reaction would
> be as it is in SR. Fantastical elements (magic etc) are meshed with
> modern elements, for example the Department of Justice setting up an
> insect spirit task force and so on.
I have the opposite opinion of this issue, I think SR doesn't go anywhere near
far enough in extrapolating the effects of the changes. I think they've just
drawn in the most obvious results (ie racial tension, minor changes in the
structure of society like the insect spirit task force) and failed to provide
anything really interesting. With the introduction of magic the world would
be a totally different place, the laws of physics have been circumvented,
power balances would be changed irreversably, but the SR world is little
different to CP2020.
James
Deric Bernier
Night Flyer wrote:>
No matter what any of the corporations do, there's
> >never any change in the public perception of that corporation, apart from
> >the "Arasaka is bad" standard response.
Um who says the general public thinks Arasaka is bad, in fact in my game people
favor Arasaka to Militech. Arasaka actually branches out and makes things
everyone can use through their subsidiary companies, while Militech is strictly
a military machine and just as evil as Arasaka in every definition of the word.
>
> >
> >
> >Cyberware is rediculously cheap (not just somewhat cheap, but
> >rediculously cheap). There is no examination of this at all.
>
> supply and demand, they overproduce they cyberware to drive down the price
> so "everyone can get in on the act"
>
You are also forgetting that only a nutcase gets perfectly good limbs replaced
by artificial ones.
>
> >
> >Someone on a good salary can have limbs replaced with a couple of
> months>pay. The culture would develop that if it's broke, replace it, and
> this would outrage at least some people.
>
> are you telling us that this so-called "culture" doesnt already exist 1999?
> disposible contacts, cheap electronics, throw away cars, Dr Kavorkian (sp)
No shit.
>
>
> >If the air force nowadays spends one
> >million dollars on training each pilot, the army would have (at the low,
> >low prices in the books) entire armies of full borgs, simply becuase its
> >silly not to.
>
> yes, BUT they would STILL have to train them, AND give them a triple dose of
> psychiatric help
He is also forgetting that soldiers aren't generally going to volunteer for full
conversion, the military is gonna grab guys that are severly wounded and would
be a cripple the rest of their lives.
>
>
> > This would revolutionise warfare completely, but there is
> >little sign of this. There would be bank loans specifically for
> >cyberware. Cyberpsychosis/humanity loss, in a world where its cheaper to
> >have a fully-functioning pair of cybernetic legs with all the bells and
> >whistles than a moderately cool car,
>
> um, it still rains and doesnt matter how "cool" those cyberlegs are, a
> drowned rat isnt very cool, plus the body would still take a massive beating
> if the only mode of transportation was cyberlegs....
And again, you aren't going to replace your egs if they work fine, besides your
body (maybe not your legs but definately your body) would still get tired if
your were running all day.
D
Wraith
>world we live in to a far greater degree than Cyberpunk is capable.
I'm afraid I have to disagree, I think the background of SR is actually
the problem when it comes to exploring sociology. SR has a very well
defined and tightly controlled background, which is constantly fleshed
out in novels and new sourcebooks. In comparison CP has quite a flimsy
background which is more of a travel guide and shopping catalogue than
an actual fully defined world. This means that the CP GM has to do more
work than the SR GM in defining the world, but it also means he has a
lot more freedom.
If you're going to explore things like racism, sexism, the growing
divide between the have's and the have not's etc. etc. in your game I
feel you need this flexibility. Exploring these issues isn't about
saying 'the way the world is sucks'. Any angst-ridden teenager can tell
you that. In my opinion it's about saying 'the world sucks...what am
_I_ going to do about it?' And this is where I feel SR falls down.
Because the world is so well defined, because there is so much
background, because SR has a consistent world that steadily progresses
throught time it is that much more difficult for players to feel that
they can make a difference, and it is that much more difficult for the
GM to feel that he can let them.
In CP on the other hand, because the GM is in control of the world it is
easier for big changes to happen. So if you decide that Arasaka (or
Militech) is the evil empire and decide to take them down then it can
happen (in a high enough power game of course). And then you get to
explore the more difficult 'what happens next' side of things. There's
a huge gap in the power structure of the world...who's going to fill
it? Some altruistic corporation, or a nastier, more vicious one? It's
always easy to say you don't like something, it's a lot harder to say
what would be better.
>In Shadowrun, the game designers have introduced new Races, the elves,
> orks,trolls, and dwarfs. These races become a metaphor for the very
> racism that divides our own country today, and the world's obsession
> with ethnicism. Racism can be more easily addressed, revealed and
> studied using a fantasy setting that is not so threatening to the
> players. A white man is more willing to play a poor Ork in the Seattle
> slums who suffers racism in Shadowrun, than a Cyberpunk poor black kid
> in a New York hood dealing with essentially the same discrimination.
Again I disagree. I think the races actually distance you from dealing
with those sorts of problems. People don't play orks because they want
to explore modern day racism through the metaphor of magical races -
they play an ork because they are big and hard and can carry huge guns
(generalising wildly of course). If playing a different race in SR
really required dealing with a lot of prejudice and racism then why do
you have to pay such a high priority to get it? In SR (as in most
fantasy RPGs) it's the human players who are disadvantaged, not the
orks, dwarves, elves etc. If you want any evidence of this you just
have to look at the percentage of non-human player characters versus the
percentage of non-humans in the SR universe.
>The magic system in Shadowrun is easily a metaphor for the warring
> belief systems of today. Shamen and mages replace priests, rabbis, and
> scientists. The most deep seeded conflicts in our world are ones
> involving religion and beliefs. Shadowrun's magic allows the players
> to participate in these conflicts in a non-threatening manner.
> Today's world is being rocked by the conflicting belief systems of
> Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Science (any one who does
> not believe science is a belief system should show me an atom. We
> "know" atoms exist only because we have faith that they do. No one
> can ever prove that an atom even exists without relying upon indirect
> means.)
Again I don't believe it does. In SR magic is a skill, not a belief.
There is proof, and repeatable experiments that can show that magic
works. There is no clash of beliefs in SR magic, all the different
branches can be shown to work, so there is no faith required.
The problem with religious arguments comes from the fact that it relies
entirely on faith. This leads to two stumbling blocks which generally
prevent sensible discussion/arguments. Firstly there is very little
evidence which can be shown to back up points, and secondly because
faith requires so much personal investment people tend to take religious
arguments very personnally. With SR magic there is evidence to back up
points, and because of that it is easier for people to see other's point
of view.
Most people don't get angry and upset because John Elway can throw a
football further and more accurately than they can...it's just a skill
he has. However, as the ex-England manager found out to his cost, if
you state your beliefs and they don't fit with the self-appointed moral
majority's beliefs then people will become very angry and upset.
>It is the very fantasy elements in Shadowrun that make it a more
> realistic universe.
It's the very fantasy element that makes SR a _less_ realistic universe
(IMHO of course). It constantly reminds you that this is only a game,
nothing you do really matters, and you don't have to answer the hard
questions. CP is far closer to what could actually happen, and it is
easier for me to suspend my disbelief in CP.
> It is the fact that Shadowrun is actually willing
> to confront these sociological issues that make it a more realistic
> game.
It seems to me that far from confonting those social issues it actually
perpetuates them. Orks are different and strange, therefore they can be
discriminated against. Elves are different and strange, therefore they
are discriminated against. Dwarves are different and strange therefore
they should be discriminated against. Blacks are different and...oops
how did that one slip in there? That's not social commentary, that's a
perpetuation of the myth that different races, creeds, colours, whatever
are different from you, and if they are different then they must be kept
separate.
CP is far more egalitarian. It dosen't care if you are black, white,
Christian, Muslim, English, Scottish, or whatever. If you are poor then
you are scum, if you are rich then you are better dressed scum.
All the above is just my beliefs, and as I said above people tend to
take that personally. <sarcasm>I just can't wait until the personal
attacks begin.</sarcasm>.
CYA
Wraith
--
Cyberpunk Roleplaying, New Fiction, Book Reviews, and more...
Visit World's End at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~shadows/
Ian Birchenough
>players pointed out, why buy any of the vastly overpriced cars or bikes
>when you can buy Speeding Bullet legs?
you run as fast as a car or a bike. and they won't let you run from
Night City to LA (but that's up to you to fill in one of those "gray
areas" in the rules where the power requirements of Cyberwear have been
glossed over.
>> > corporations
>> >act like total bastards without regard to public appearances,
>> when the public have no voice who cares what you do as long as you sell
>> your goods - and in near monopoly conditions who else will they buy
>> from?
>
>What about the rockers who appear all the time?
sparked a big riot - lots of people killed. End result - nil!
> How about the other
>corporations?
are SovOil and Petrochem) the rest are pre-eminent in their own fields.
Mostly it seems from the books that if you want to buy product X you can
only get it from Company Y. If you're choices are Companies X & Y then
you can bet that they are staging false flag ops to blame the other for
their misdeeds.
> What about the cops (no matter how lazy they are, if
>corporation stage black ops at the drop of the hat, kill innocents and
>don't even bother to properly disguise their identity, the cops will have
>to act).
street. I agree if other corporate employees are wantonly slaughtered
then the cops might pay attention- along with the security forces of
whoever they worked for, but streeters? I think not, most police forces
are more concerned with keeping them from creating problems. A dead
streeter or a group of dead gangers are just Body lotto statistics.
> How about the politicians (who won't get voted in if they're
>seen as ineffectual)?
registered beaverville dweller? If your choice is vote for the candidate
the company board approve of or get sacked who do you vote for?
Politicians are bought and paid for in CP.
> No matter what any of the corporations do, there's
>never any change in the public perception of that corporation, apart from
>the "Arasaka is bad" standard response.
Arasaka is simply the corporation that Contracts their police force, or
the security guards in their Mall. The real truth about Arasaka is
something the players are supposed to discover!
>
>> >the law is
>> >patchy at best.
>> Law is for those who can pay for it.
>> > It seems to try to create the oh-so-popular urban decay
>> >setting, without any examination of the issues inherrant to the setting.
>> Such as?
>
>rediculously cheap). There is no examination of this at all.
>
>pay. The culture would develop that if it's broke, replace it, and this
>would outrage at least some people.
true, but what will they do about it? Most cyberwear (Husquevana Chain
rips and other Black items aside) is helpful in your day to day life
(Neural Processors, Plugs, links, Anti Plague Nanotech, Enhanced
antibodies etc.).
Replacement of a healthy limb with cyberwear is always going to be
"odd". Most employers would find such activities amongst their "normal
workers" to be highly undesirable. Having their "shock troops" enhanced
like this is another matter, but such enhancement would be low key
rather than the flashy wolvers and such like of doubtful combat value
for organised units.
> If the air force nowadays spends one
>million dollars on training each pilot, the army would have (at the low,
>low prices in the books) entire armies of full borgs, simply becuase its
>silly not to.
Only if they can find the soldiers willing to surrender their bodies and
replace them with a borg chassis. Its possible to do this when your body
is already a total loss due to combat damage and the choice is borging
or death, but would you want to do that to people who were unbalanced
enough to volunteer?
> This would revolutionise warfare completely, but there is
>little sign of this.
Small units of Full borgs exist, but mostly ACPA is a better option
> There would be bank loans specifically for
>cyberware.
Maybe if you want them in your game ;-)
> Cyberpsychosis/humanity loss, in a world where its cheaper to
>have a fully-functioning pair of cybernetic legs with all the bells and
>whistles than a moderately cool car, would be a massive problem
>threatening humanity as a whole, rather than a thing tacked on to stop
>borgs being too powerful.
Don't you think the formation of special police squads doing nothing
other than monitoring and terminating Cyberpsychos is an indication that
this might actually be the case?
>
>(SNIP)
>> --
>> Ian Birchenough
>
>
> --Chris Minnery
>
--
Ian Birchenough
paul...@lan2wan.com
> I read a discussion about how Cyberpunk is more realistic than Shadowrun.
The
> author had a few good points for technology and such, but I would like to
point
> out why I believe that Shadowrun is far more realistic than Cyberpunk ever can
> be.
I disagree that either is more - or less - realistic than the other, or that
any advantages to telling a story based on moral choices (which is what you
seem to be aiming at) reside in either game system...as opposed to the gm and
players.
I would love to know Mike Pondsmith's take on this, as a designer from the
CP2020 side who, I know, takes the moral content of gaming seriously, as do I.
> Shadowrun, too, is based very solidly on modern science, politics and more
> importantly society.
Nope.
> A white man is more
willing
> to play a poor Ork in the Seattle slums who suffers racism in Shadowrun, than
a
> Cyberpunk poor black kid in a New York hood dealing with essentially the same
> discrimination.
And less likely to learn from it. It distances him from the personal shock of
confronting racial hatred, makes it a comic book experience, like people
hating muties in the X-Men.
> The magic system in Shadowrun is easily a metaphor for the warring belief
> systems of today.
No, not really.
> Science (any one who does not believe science is a belief system should show
me
> an atom. We "know" atoms exist only because we have faith that they do. No
> one can ever prove that an atom even exists without relying upon indirect
> means.)
Pictures of atoms are regularly taken using tunneling microscope technology.
Including the recent demonstration lining up atoms on a sliver of metal to
spell out IBM.
> It is the very fantasy elements in Shadowrun that make it a more realistic
> universe. It is the fact that Shadowrun is actually willing to confront these
> sociological issues that make it a more realistic game.
FASA tends to run for the hills when authors suggest storylines that actually
confront these issues. Changeling, Chris Kubacik's novel, got close, at
times. Forget it as far as selling adventure packages that go there. As do
most publishers (occasionally White Wolf and the folks who did Kult prove me
wrong on this).
This is not to gainsay that Shadowrun (like CP2020) can support adventures
where the ethical component might even outweigh the bangbang and technowhiz.
And it certainly isn't to say that the designers at RTG, or FASA (for that
matter) didn't have that aspect in mind...but both games are written by GAME
DESIGNERS...and both of us were stealing from Gibson, Shirley, Sterling, et
al with both hands when we designed the backgrounds to boot.
The ability of the systems to model human interaction is NOT a function of the
rules, or the backgrounds, but of the GAMERS.
Paul Hume
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Avery Davies
> > No matter what any of the corporations do, there's
> >never any change in the public perception of that corporation, apart from
> >the "Arasaka is bad" standard response.
> That isn't a standard response. As far as the public is concerned
> Arasaka is simply the corporation that Contracts their police force, or
> the security guards in their Mall. The real truth about Arasaka is
> something the players are supposed to discover!
Exactly. There's even mention of the good deeds Arasaka does in the
Corpbook One. For every black op thats uncovered, there's ten thing
Arasaka has done for the community and the public at large. For example,
the disappearance of a group of Arasaka corporate defectors may make
page 20 in the screamsheets, but on the first nineteen pages is the
groundbreaking of a new stadium Arasaka lobbied for, a new hospital for
Danubian war orphans, a new artifical reef in the harbor to preserving
the local enviroment, and a subsidary opening up a local meatpacking
plant, give the area over 10,000 new jobs.
"ARASAKA MEATS: You Eat Our Competition"
--
This is the Avery Davies within your computer.
James Moore
>Within five years of the Awakening, somebody would have put together a
power
>plant running on spell locks. Think about it, man. It's virtually free
>energy, after you've paid off the start-up.
>
>Failing that, you just replace the radioactive substances in nuclear plants
>with fire elementals. They boil the water just fine, and only cost a few
>grand to conjure . . .
>
Why generate electricity by boiling water and piping the steam when you can
make a SPARK spell perminent or just quicken it?
No one seems to have thought this though fully
jay
Ronald Boehm
Yes, it is a good question. One reason I can think of is that nobody
knows if magical energy is limited in any way and people are reluctant
to overuse it. Casting a Fireball during a run is one thing, but using
dozens of powerful spells as an energy supply is a completely different
matter.
Just a thought.
Ronald
Brian Trosko
: >
: > Why generate electricity by boiling water and piping the steam when
: > you can make a SPARK spell perminent or just quicken it?
: Yes, it is a good question. One reason I can think of is that nobody
: knows if magical energy is limited in any way and people are reluctant
: to overuse it.
I say it's because of scale.
I don't know what a spark spell does, but it doesn't sound like much.
What sort of current does it generate? Certainly not enough to crank a
car's starter motor, or run a band saw. Industrial voltage is 220/440
volts, and industrial equpiment can draw hundreds of amps. What's your
permanent spark spell going to do about that? And the current it
generates, is that DC or AC? If it is, as the name implies, simply a
static discharge, it's DC, unsuitable for most applications. What about
efficiency losses in the transmission lines? When transmitting
'lectricity long distance, you want as high a voltage as possible, and
voltages of 400 kV or 600 kV aren't rare. If that spell can generate a
potential of 600,000 volts, "spark" is a bit of a misnomer.
Something similar applies to elementals. A power plant boils thousands of
gallons of water to turn turbines. What's the power output of your
typical fire elemental? Probably a few megawatts. A few dozen megawatts
at most. A typical nuclear plant has a power output of roughly 1000
megawatts today; it'd take quite a few fire elementals using up quite a
few services to do that, so you're resummoning some constantly, and
there's a materials cost to go along with that, not to mention the hiring
of the mages to do it. And each elemental is going to be *small*, because
no mage will want to risk his life to heat some water . And it's 2060'
they've got D-T fusion. It's no stretch for me to believe that it's
cheaper to extract deuterium from seawater than it is to be summoning
Force 1 or 3 fire elementals around the clock each day.
Avatar
<SNIP of technology level comparisons and added realism in SR and CP>
:
: However, Shadowrun is able to explore the sociological aspects of the world we
: live in to a far greater degree than Cyberpunk is capable.
:
: In Shadowrun, the game designers have introduced new Races, the elves, orks,
: trolls, and dwarfs. These races become a metaphor for the very racism that
: divides our own country today, and the world's obsession with ethnicism.
: Racism can be more easily addressed, revealed and studied using a fantasy
: setting that is not so threatening to the players. A white man is more willing
: to play a poor Ork in the Seattle slums who suffers racism in Shadowrun, than a
: Cyberpunk poor black kid in a New York hood dealing with essentially the same
: discrimination.
I fail to see how the inclusion of the various races makes someone more
willing to play a character that will be dealling more often with
discrimination than Cyberpunk. I do like the way that SR jabs at the
current levels of societal racism we see in RL, with their "Why worry
about the color of that guy's skin when the thing next to him has a hand
bigger than your head??" comments, but at the same time they also
intensify the attitude again by including strong racial stereotyping and
dislikes to the game environment. To me this seems more like a holdover
of the old AD&D limits placed on demi-humans to make up for their
advantages over humans. IMO, regardless of those silly types of rules,
racism is something that should have some basis in character existence and
not just in the fact that he is human, therefore he shouldn't like orks.
: The magic system in Shadowrun is easily a metaphor for the warring belief
: systems of today. Shamen and mages replace priests, rabbis, and scientists.
: The most deep seeded conflicts in our world are ones involving religion and
: beliefs. Shadowrun's magic allows the players to participate in these
: conflicts in a non-threatening manner. Today's world is being rocked by the
: conflicting belief systems of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and
: Science (any one who does not believe science is a belief system should show me
: an atom. We "know" atoms exist only because we have faith that they do. No
: one can ever prove that an atom even exists without relying upon indirect
: means.)
So?? I'm not really sure how this shows Shadowrun to more *realistic*.
Sure it shows that SR is much more metaphorically based, but doesn't
exactly prove your point.
: It is the very fantasy elements in Shadowrun that make it a more realistic
: universe. It is the fact that Shadowrun is actually willing to confront these
: sociological issues that make it a more realistic game.
Personally I don't see either system to be all that much more realistic
than the other. Yep, SR has its fantasy elements, but the cyberpunk genre
is still a fictional/fantastic environment itself. Both can be used to
create very gritty and realistic campaigns that still include those
fictional/fantastic elements....Arguing as to which is more realistic is
like watching the Matrix and watching Dragonheart and trying to decide
which is more realistic in approach....
Avatar
Theo McGuckin
> power
> >plant running on spell locks. Think about it, man. It's virtually free
> >energy, after you've paid off the start-up.
> >
> >Failing that, you just replace the radioactive substances in nuclear plants
> >with fire elementals. They boil the water just fine, and only cost a few
> >grand to conjure . . .
>
> make a SPARK spell perminent or just quicken it?
>
With all these examples there are obvious problems.
Covering a powerplant with spell locks is fine. But that much arcane
energy is going to attract all kinds of nasty astral predators. And spell
locks (at least in SR2) are some of the most vulnerable astral objects out
there. Do spell locks lose effect if taken from their owner? I can't
remember. I do know that the spell lock forms an astral link with the
mage, so all those nasty predators could hunt down the mage quite easily.
Fire Elementals- Well in order to evaporate the water they need to expend
their own energy (to generate heat) so they would most likely get used up
pretty damn quick, which would mean a lot of summonings which would mean a
lot of cost and a lot of drain.
Can you quicken and instaneous spell? What would a quickened fireball do?
See spell lock arguments above.
-Theo McGuckin, Operations
"Are we going to push it to the edge of the envelope and beyond,
Brain?"
"No Pinky. We may, however, reach the sticky part."
Avatar
:
: Well, I wouldn't call a dragon holding the majority of an mega-corporations
: shares realistic, neither do I fancy the Idea of trolls doing lap dance in
: seedy bars...
So what?? Its not exactly all that realistic that a corp like Araska has
the holdings it does and also the military/security presence it does
either, so what exactly is your point??
: Anybody seen a good killer ork around here lately? Darn, that goddam
: shaman's hellhound has been shitting on my lawn again, and I'm getting tired
: of it...
Again you are lost on the fantasy elements and seem to be incapable of
looking beyond them or even noticing that Cyberpunk has its own fantasy
elements as well...
: Then, the discrimination in SR can be based on facts, as the races ARE
: different. Trolls ARE dumb and strong (hence the modifiers), while the
: average humen (even nowadays) are created almost equally in mattters of mind
: and body. There are intelligent black men, as well as dumb white ones. But
: with the SR folks, there are no brilliant trolls. Point.
This is a good point, but by the same token discussing "average" is always
going to give you an average look at the race in question. There
certainly are smarter trolls. These are those who accel in their fields
and pay the karma/experience costs to raise their intelligence to a higher
level. Allowing the average stats to determine whether there can be any
smart trolls or even slow elves is pretty silly. By your logic every
human in cyberpunk effectively is the same too....
: That's the worst bullshit I heard in weeks. The magic in SR has definitely
: nothing to do with religion. It's simple and plain AD&D magic, with funnily
: clothed people hurling balls of fire (or whatever) against each other. No
: religion. Hermetic mages and shamans simply do not have enough differences
: playwise. They even use the same spells...
: And for the 'non-threatening manner': Most SR-Mages tend to munchkinism (but
: then again, so do almost all SR-chars...). They know what to do with a
: fireball, and that sure ain't roasting marshmallows...
Certainly your opinion on the matter. The differences between hermetic
and shamanic practitioners is one that should come out more from a
roleplaying perspective than having two completely separate magic systems
for each tradition. Each already has its own approach to conjuring, but
what does it matter if both use the same spell listings??
As for SR mages and minchkinism, that is of course dependent on the
*player* not the character set up itself. Plenty of folks roleplay
excellent mages in my games without cheesing out their characters. And
of course we all know there is absolutely no way to munchikin out on the
cyberware front of *either* game...Not!
: While CP is a mix of the more common elements and visions of the 80ies
: literature movement of the same name, Shadowrun is just a mix of fantasy and
: Hi-Tech elements. It doesn't even emphasize on the 'Hi-tech, low-life' style
: that is so common with CP novels. It's about as realistic as Rifts; a nice
: background (if you like the Idea on gun-toting fantasy folk), but as
: realistic as a picture by Dali.
:
: Even most of the CP-stuff is pretty unrealistic, given the timeline and the
: advances in science today. I doubt that there will be functional cybernetic
: limbs in 20 years, whereas a graphical interface as the matrix might be
: available in 5 to 10 years time. But it is based on real-life physics,
: rather than the magic mumbo-jumbo in SR. It's gritty, dirty and has a feel
: that no SR campaign can ever hope to attain.
But the tech portions of Shadowrun are also buily on real-life physics.
How are cyberpunk cyberware systems more *realistic than SR cyber
systems?? Both are pretty unrealistic from a real world technology
standpoint....As for CP being grittier and dirtier than Shadowrun I
suggest you take your generalizations and actually think about them for a
bit. Not one of my players would ever even think to tell you that my SR
campaigns are bright and shiny happy places. The environment sucks.
Running sucks. Life is hard as hell. Regardless if I am running CP or
SR....
: Even the supplements of SR make the above statements about discrimination
: sound like bullshit. They emphasize on heavy weapons, heavy firefights and
: really dumb cyberware. There's no such thing as a metaphysical question.
: Just 'Shot-first, forget to ask questions later'. And as SR is played mostly
: by younger players, there's no audience for such stuff as 'racial
: discrimination'.
I'm curious where you get your information about SR only being played by
younger players. I know tons of people who play SR regularly and all of
them are 25 and above. Hardly young players by any stretch. Besides any
game system in the hands of mature players has the capability to be a
mature system. It is the players in any particular group that determine
such things, not the system itself. Personally, I have yet to find
adventure modules for any game system that are not overtly combat heavy,
with the exception of Call of Cthulu where thought and escape is usually
better than direct confrontation. Combat is the one universal aspect that
all players can relate to in adventures. Plot twists and subtleties can
be lost on many players, old and young. I can't say I've been all that
impressed with a lot of the supplements for SR or CP myself...
: Shadowrun sports an abstract skill/combat/magic/whatever system that is
: almost unplayable without a rulebook handy, and lacks realism to a degree
: that I can get shot with a 10mm in the head and walk away singing. The
: vehicle rules are 4 pages of cryptic writings, with 30-40 Minutes of work to
: simulate the simple act of shooting at a car from out of another one.
: Thanks, but systemwise CP is at least realistic enough to give credible
: results (That means a 9mm from point-blank without body armor will send you
: calling for the trauma team). And it's faster, no matter what else is told
: by 'expert SR-gamers'. I've been on enough gaming conventions to rest
: assured on this point of view.
Oooooo you are so impressive. You been on enough gaming conventions, huh?
So we should take your drivel as expert testimony, huh?? Considering that
the SR system is consistnent within itself, if you can play it without
reading the rules every time perhaps it is a personal difficulty you are
having?? The SR combat system takes dodging and such into account with
respect to weapon hits. It is also very unlikely for someone to take a
9mm rnd pointblank and be unaffected by it, either. I would certainly
give you these arguements in the SR 1st edition, though, but since that
version is long gone your argeuments hold no validity. To date the most
realistic attempt at combat/firearms damage I have seen in a game is in
Millennium's End, and that system really *does* take a bit too much time
to use at times. Plenty of us are willing to accept a bit of abstraction
(as can be seen in a good 98% of roleplaying games out there) in order to
facilitate combat in a quick and speedy manner.
: As for realism and magic: Those two do not fit together well...point. It's
: either 'realistic' magic as in Angeli,Ars Magica or Mage, or the simple
: fireball-throwing as seen in AD&D and the like. But even those tend to wreck
: the realism.
Realistic magic?? Oh my...now your argeument is getting really
interesting....So some game systems have "realistic" magic. How exactly
is the Mage version of magic, so much more realistic than the SR
interpretation of magic?? Give me a break.....
Next time why not actually have some semblance of a clue when you are
going to bash a system that you seem to know very little about...If you
had played SR to any degree at all you would have seen that most of your
arguements don't really hold any water....
Avatar
Sakura
>C G Caruth (cgca...@aol.com) wrote:
>
><SNIP of technology level comparisons and added realism in SR and CP>
>:
>: However, Shadowrun is able to explore the sociological aspects of the world we
>: live in to a far greater degree than Cyberpunk is capable.
>:
>: In Shadowrun, the game designers have introduced new Races, the elves, orks,
>: trolls, and dwarfs. These races become a metaphor for the very racism that
>: divides our own country today, and the world's obsession with ethnicism.
>: Racism can be more easily addressed, revealed and studied using a fantasy
>: setting that is not so threatening to the players.
>
>willing to play a character that will be dealling more often with
>discrimination than Cyberpunk.
Based on personal observation: people are more likely to play non-human
characters than they are to play characters of a different human ethnicity
(and sometimes even gender) than they are.
I very rarely see white players with black or hispanic characters. (Asian
characters and Native Americans seem to be the exception, for some
reason, possibly because they're portrayed as 'cool' in games liek
Shadowrun.)
> I do like the way that SR jabs at the
>current levels of societal racism we see in RL, with their "Why worry
>about the color of that guy's skin when the thing next to him has a hand
>bigger than your head??" comments, but at the same time they also
>intensify the attitude again by including strong racial stereotyping and
>dislikes to the game environment.
Are you suggesting that in a dark future like that of Shadowrun, there
would /not/ be prejudice against ugly, green-skinned, warty guys the size
of a small car? I think it's incredibly realistic for that to be the
basis of discrimination.
> To me this seems more like a holdover
>of the old AD&D limits placed on demi-humans to make up for their
>advantages over humans. IMO, regardless of those silly types of rules,
>racism is something that should have some basis in character existence and
>not just in the fact that he is human, therefore he shouldn't like orks.
This is very true. However, I don't think I've seen anything in Shadowrun
saying 'all humans hate orcs', just 'lots of humans hate orcs' or even
'the prevailing climate of society is anti-orc'. It's a statement of
fact, just like saying 'a few decades ago, society was prejudiced against
blacks'. That doesn't mean that /everyone/ was racist, just that there
was a lot of it prevalent in the society.
And, really, if you're looking for a reason for a character to be racist,
a lot of times it will be because they were brought up that way and/or
because they don't know any better.
J
--
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - je...@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
Avatar
: Any GM wishing to confront such issues in an adult, mature manner can
: do it, and he doesn't need SR or CP to do it, either. If you're deluded
: enough to insist that one game is superior to the other, at least open
: your eyes enough to understand that each game is different depending on
: the GM who runs it.
:
Thank you....Its about time someone said that....
Avatar
Avatar
:
: Had this once when playing Vampire. The GM loved the game and the background
: but had never GMd. When questioned, instead of admitting never GMd and gaining
: help and support from the player she claimed she had run loads of games. After
: a few sessions everyone thought she was crap and it kind of fell apart. ie
: everyone else carried on with a different GM.
i could never understand GMs like that....I and my friends have never had
a problem with someone new taking the reins and running a completely new
game and dealing with the rough spots as we go. Some people are better at
glossing over the rough spots than others are, though. Its just the
nature of people. In the middle of a game session if someone asks to do
something that I don't remember the exact mechanic for I will make it up
and verify it *after* the game. Keeps things running and doesn't screw
with the continuity at all...
: The point is I don't think I have ever come across a system that is completely
: unplayable. If a GM loves one system for whatever reason regardless of
: complexity, if he can grasp the rules and, as mentioned further up the thread,
: can tell stories and atmosphere then this will make the players life easier
: aswell as encouraging them to learn the system.
:
I have also not found a game system that was unplayable. Even the Torg
rules which left a lot of questions to be answered in some areas, were
still playable. in all my years of GMing I have yet to find a game that
we have played without tweaking it in some way to make it more what *we*
wanted.....
: Ever tried RPing with no rules?
: With the right group of peeps it works surprisingly well.
:
With the wrong group it just gets annoying...I do get bothered by generic
arbitrary rulings that affect a character's abilities in system without
rules.....I have played plenty of diceless systems, but they did have very
distinct rules....
Avatar
Avatar
: I don't hate SR, not like I used to. I prefer the mechanics of
: Interlock (as modified by my house rules), I don't like SR's fantasy
: aspect (the magic theory of the game is great, but the
: races/monsters/etc bother me), and (the clincher, in any case) I can't
: stand SR's timeline. It's not a world I would want to play in because
: too much has been established.
I think it is interesting that you play Cyberpunk, which has its own
history involved, and have no problems with using things that suit you and
disregarding other aspects that don't. Why then is SR so much more
difficult to do that with?? I've canned lots of things the SR history,
because they didn't fit my own vision of the environment and have removed
a lot of elements from the ongoing updates of the world as well. At the
same time I have added cyberpunk and Cthulu aspects into the mix to turn
the setting into something that I and my players find stimulating and
interesting to play in....Shadowrun works very nicely as a techno-horror
environment and that is how I tend to use it. Things are a lot more
realistic, but there is that supernatural element that is thrown in to
keep the player's interest high....Oddly, when I run cyberpunk I use the
exact same environment, because the players like it....
Any game can be exactly what you want it to be, don't need to abide by any
of the established historical elements if you don't want to.
Avatar
Avatar
:
: Unless of course the system is so unplayable as to make the GM bad (works
: harder trying to undersatnd the mechanics than working on a plot line) I
: have seen this many times,
This is still not the fault of the system, but a fault of the GM. A GM
needs to be an entertainer, not just a rules quoter. Plenty of those bad
GMs would turn into pretty decent GMs if they would just get over their
hang ups of having to follow every little rule to the exact letter as set
down in the books...*That* is what makes GMs bad, not the system, but the
expectation they set for themselves that their capability with the rules
must be *perfect* and they can't cut any corners....Put together the plot,
grab the basic mechanics and the rest can be fudged as needed and everyone
has a good time...
Avatar
elrick
James Moore wrote in message
<924110602.7511.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Why generate electricity by boiling water and piping the steam when you can
>make a SPARK spell perminent or just quicken it?
Well, as it's written you can't . . . (Instantaneous Spells can't really be
Quickened) . . . but the idea is valid.
Lightning Bolt/Lightning Ball (3rd Ed. version of spark)
"These spells create and direct electricity." SRIII, pg. 197
Is everybody paying attention? You can create electricity - enough to kill a
human being - by waving your hands in the air for three seconds.
-e.
elrick
>. . . nobody knows if magical energy is limited in any way
Well, it may be limited, but mana ain't the limiting factor. When the
Artificer takes over the plant . . . Well, that'll be years down the road.
>and people are reluctant to overuse it.
Ha! Sorry, but there's profit to be had . . .
>Casting a Fireball during a run is one thing, but using
>dozens of powerful spells as an energy supply is a completely different
>matter.
The thing is that mana doesn't really go anywhere. My guess, based on my
interpretation of the rules, is that mana flows in and out of the world, and
is never really consumed. A child is born, a spell is cast, mana is used. An
old man dies, a spell's effect fades, mana is released. It is life essence,
which does not come or go but simply changes in form.
What does that imply for my power plant? I refer you to my .sig . . .
elrick
>I don't know what a spark spell does, but it doesn't sound like much . . .
>If that spell can generate a potential of 600,000 volts, "spark" is a
>bit of a misnomer.
If it helps, for SRIII it's been renamed "Lightning Bolt".
>. . . It's no stretch for me to believe that it's
>cheaper to extract deuterium from seawater than it is to be summoning
>Force 1 or 3 fire elementals around the clock each day.
Well, the fire elemental thing was kind of a joke . . . It'd be a waste of
effort anyway, when you could quicken a spell for a one-time cost . . . Say,
what about a Bound Free Spirit? They're stuck forever, right? :)
elrick
>. . . Covering a powerplant with spell locks is fine. But that much arcane
>energy is going to attract all kinds of nasty astral predators.
That's a point.
>And spell locks (at least in SR2) are some of the most vulnerable
>astral objects out there.
Yeah. But I have to assume there are other ways to sustain spells magically.
Spell locks are just handy for personal use, and building magical materials
into buildings just ain't something I need to see rules for.
Geez, now that I think of it, what are Druidic Circles and Ley Lines but big
fat astral power conduits? And they've got pretty good ratings when active.
All you need is some way to transfer that into physical energy, which
shouldn't bee too hard . . . Of course, the Druids use mages as (disposable)
fuses . . .
Brian Trosko
: Lightning Bolt/Lightning Ball (3rd Ed. version of spark)
: "These spells create and direct electricity." SRIII, pg. 197
: Is everybody paying attention? You can create electricity - enough to kill a
: human being - by waving your hands in the air for three seconds.
It doesn't take much electricity to kill a human. A milliamp signal at 60
Hz can do it if directed across the heart. By contrast, to crank the
starter motor of a car's engine can require hundreds of amps.
And again, what *sort* of electricity is generated? Lightning is a huge
static discharge, really useless for utility applications. I'd say that
this spell functions by allowing the mage to create a potential between
two locations, and once the potential is large enough a spark jumps the
gap to equalize things. You could never use this method to operate a
computer, for instance, because the transient response will fry the
circuitry; it's essentially just a big power surge. Remember, controlling
magic in SR is much more difficult than setting it loose. If this spell
recreates a lightning bolt, well, real lightning bolts can deliver 200,000
amps in 1/5th of a second. That's gonna be real, real hard to do anything
useful with. Watch what happens to your stereo, television, and computer
if lightning strikes your house. Or even nearby your house, due to
induction.
Even assuming you can control this spell with the delicacy needed to do
anything with it, it's DC. AC current that's delivered through the power
grid is balanced 3-phase. That's what every single piece of electric
equipment you plug into your house is designed to run on; feeding it a DC
signal of equivalent voltage will fry it. So for this spell to be useful
for delivering power to the consumer, every piece of electrical equipment,
and indeed, the entire delivery grid, will need to be redesigned and
reinstalled. Remember, the biiiig advantage of AC signal is that you can
step up and step down the voltage with transformers. You send out minimal
current across the long-distance lines at 600 kV, to minimize IR^2 power
losses. Then you can step it down to 50 kV and less for local
distribution, and step it down again to 120 V before it goes into a house.
You can't do this with DC. That's some pretty hefty redesign work that
needs to be done to deliver useful power this way.
And again, it's 2060. Commercial fusion power has been achieved, and
costs per kilowatt hour are probably down in the nickel range. It almost
certainly has a clear competetive advantage over redesigning the national
power transmission system, every piece of industrial and consumer
electronic equipment, and hiring a bunch of persnickity wage mages.
To sum up, if the spell is really powerful, it's hard to do anything
useful with it. If the spell isn't really powerful, it's hard to do
anything useful with it.
James Lownie
> Ronald Boehm <ronald...@tu-clausthal.de> writes:
> : >
> : > Why generate electricity by boiling water and piping the steam when
> : > you can make a SPARK spell perminent or just quicken it?
>
> : Yes, it is a good question. One reason I can think of is that nobody
> : knows if magical energy is limited in any way and people are reluctant
> : to overuse it.
>
> I say it's because of scale.
So use large numbers of the spells working in banks. The only limit to
spellcasting is the fatigue of the mage, right? So given enough time you can
create as many as you want.
> I don't know what a spark spell does, but it doesn't sound like much.
> What sort of current does it generate? Certainly not enough to crank a
> car's starter motor, or run a band saw. Industrial voltage is 220/440
> volts, and industrial equpiment can draw hundreds of amps. What's your
> permanent spark spell going to do about that? And the current it
> generates, is that DC or AC? If it is, as the name implies, simply a
> static discharge, it's DC, unsuitable for most applications. What about
> efficiency losses in the transmission lines? When transmitting
> 'lectricity long distance, you want as high a voltage as possible, and
> voltages of 400 kV or 600 kV aren't rare. If that spell can generate a
> potential of 600,000 volts, "spark" is a bit of a misnomer.
>
> Something similar applies to elementals. A power plant boils thousands of
> gallons of water to turn turbines. What's the power output of your
> typical fire elemental? Probably a few megawatts. A few dozen megawatts
> at most. A typical nuclear plant has a power output of roughly 1000
> megawatts today; it'd take quite a few fire elementals using up quite a
> few services to do that, so you're resummoning some constantly, and
> there's a materials cost to go along with that, not to mention the hiring
> of the mages to do it. And each elemental is going to be *small*, because
> no mage will want to risk his life to heat some water . And it's 2060'
> they've got D-T fusion. It's no stretch for me to believe that it's
> cheaper to extract deuterium from seawater than it is to be summoning
> Force 1 or 3 fire elementals around the clock each day.
The point is that these things haven't been considered in the game design and
are not a part of the game world. Even if the restrictions you brought up
were found to be inescapable, what about when someone designs a spell
specifically for the purpose of creating electricity? Sooner or later there's
going to be unlimited power.
James
Brian Trosko
: So use large numbers of the spells working in banks. The only limit to
: spellcasting is the fatigue of the mage, right? So given enough time you can
: create as many as you want.
Still doesn't get around the limitations I'm talking about, and vastly
increases expense, which fundamentally determines what sees use.
: The point is that these things haven't been considered in the game
: design and are not a part of the game world.
So what? It's not like it requires a whole lot of disbelief suspension to
accomodate it. You can easily explain it away in a self-consistent and
logical fashion.
: Even if the restrictions you brought up
: were found to be inescapable, what about when someone designs a spell
: specifically for the purpose of creating electricity?
Who's to say that's even possible? There's no "take over the world, win
the game" spell, either, but I don't feel I need to offer a specific
explanation why there's not.
Say it's not possible. Megacorps sunk billions of nuyen into trying to
find a way to do it, but gave it up as a bad idea several decades ago.
Hell, remember background count? Say that continual use of magic in a
static location very gradually increases the background count, and this
was discovered back in 2050, when the first mage-driven turbine spun down
unexpectedly after 6 months of operation, jumping off its foundation and
decapitating several, and they couldn't get it started again.
Say it *is* possible, theoretically, but the eevul fusion power
comglomerates kill/disappear anyone looking into it to closely, in much
the same way GM keeps that car that can get 250 miles to the gallon locked
up in a garage. Say it is possible, but fusion power is so cheap that
it's just not an economically viable alternative. Again, look at today:
electric cars are *possible*, but nobody's buying them because gas costs a
buck a gallon.
There hasn't been a game system yet which properly considers the actual
impact of magic on society. AD&D is perhaps the most blatant example of
this. A medieval feudal system simply wouldn't coexist with the sort of
magic flying around in most campaigns. But *that* doesn't even bother
players.
It's just no big deal. There are any number of reasonable explanations as
to why electricity isn't generated by mages sparking off into the grid.
Pick one.
CEvans9159
>: > you can make a SPARK spell perminent or just quicken it?
>
>: Yes, it is a good question. One reason I can think of is that nobody
>: knows if magical energy is limited in any way and people are reluctant
>: to overuse it.
I'm not sure if anyone brought this up...but using the ammount of spell
energies to provide power to a metroplex like Seattle would create a real nice
bridge for the Horrors.
-----------------
Tay-Dor
"How come you never have traffic problems in Shadowrun? In Seattle, if it
rains for a minute, there's at least 6 pile-ups in various areas."
Wraith
>
> > Science (any one who does not believe science is a belief system
> > should show me an atom. We "know" atoms exist only because we have
> > faith that they do. No one can ever prove that an atom even exists
> > without relying upon indirect means.)
>
> technology. Including the recent demonstration lining up atoms on a
> sliver of metal to spell out IBM.
Ok, this isn't really what this thread is about, but I had to
reply...let's just see how long it takes to get a religion -v- science
argument going ;)
The original comment said that you can't prove that an atom exists
"without relying upon indirect means". Now to me, a tunneling
microscope is pretty indirect. As far as I know (which isn't very far),
scanning microsopes don't actually show atoms, they show increased
electrical potential or some such thing. If anyone knows that I am
wrong I would be interested in how they actually work.
Even if I am wrong, the point that science is a belief system still
remains. If you can show me an atom, then show me a sub-atomic
particle, show me an electron, show me a photon. Show me the Big-Bang
(and not some simulation which gets everything right, except there's no
gravity). Show me the infinite, yet constantly expanding universe.
Show me the creation of life from the primordial soup. I'm not saying
that these things don't exist, or didn't happen...just that it is
impossible to _prove_ that they did.
You may notice that in science everything is called a 'theory'. That
means that we don't know if it is right, we just believe that it is (to
varying degrees of certainty). Now if you believe that what is stated
in a theory is true, then you have faith in that theory...and what is
faith if not religion? As Jesus said to 'doubting' Thomas, "blessed are
they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Sounds pretty much
like most of the science I learned at school.
CYA
Wraith
p.s. This is not meant to start any of the religion -v- science debates
that infest the newsgroups, and I apologise in advance if it does.
Ville Salo
>The original comment said that you can't prove that an atom exists
>"without relying upon indirect means". Now to me, a tunneling
>microscope is pretty indirect. As far as I know (which isn't very far),
>scanning microsopes don't actually show atoms, they show increased
>electrical potential or some such thing. If anyone knows that I am
>wrong I would be interested in how they actually work.
Well. I can't see anything, I merely sense fotons which is of course, the
same thing. By the same argument we could argue that the fact that we exist
at all is a sort of belief system.
>Even if I am wrong, the point that science is a belief system still
>remains. If you can show me an atom, then show me a sub-atomic
>particle, show me an electron, show me a photon. Show me the Big-Bang
>(and not some simulation which gets everything right, except there's no
>gravity). Show me the infinite, yet constantly expanding universe.
>Show me the creation of life from the primordial soup. I'm not saying
>that these things don't exist, or didn't happen...just that it is
>impossible to _prove_ that they did.
But those things make sense. They are logical. If scientific measuring of
things shows that primordial soup is the only place life could have become
from, then primordial soup is where life has came from. There are of course
different scientific theories. If one believes in one of them, ignoring the
others, that's religion. Religions don't make sense.
--
Ville Salo remove "removthis" to reply
Finnischerechtschreibungsführer of the RGMW Grammar Nazi League
(Une remarque pour les francaises, "Ville Salo" est
vraiment mon nom, pas l'insulte "vil salaud")
Theo McGuckin
> >. . . Covering a powerplant with spell locks is fine. But that much arcane
> >energy is going to attract all kinds of nasty astral predators.
>
> That's a point.
> >And spell locks (at least in SR2) are some of the most vulnerable
> >astral objects out there.
>
> Yeah. But I have to assume there are other ways to sustain spells magically.
> Spell locks are just handy for personal use, and building magical materials
> into buildings just ain't something I need to see rules for.
Yeah, but any way you lock/quicken/whatever the spell is still going to
leave a permanent "open door" between the astral and mundane world. And
any big nasty could, theoretically, come waltzing through that door at any
time, or worse, follow the doorway through to the originating mage. So now
your talking about around the clock guards to keep an eye on all those
doors, and not just normal guards, magic ones. That is going to get
expensive and dangerous.
> Geez, now that I think of it, what are Druidic Circles and Ley Lines but big
> fat astral power conduits? And they've got pretty good ratings when active.
> All you need is some way to transfer that into physical energy, which
> shouldn't bee too hard . . . Of course, the Druids use mages as (disposable)
> fuses . . .
Yeah, but I think the ley lines are just faucets that mages can tap into.
As long as they don't open the faucet nothing can come out. They use
special rituals to tap into the energy safely. And aren't those rituals
draining? It becomes a simple matter of high cost vs. high risk. Any
company is better off just opening a nuc. plant and dumping the waste in
the ocean when no one is looking.
Hey, wouldn't it be neat if someone opened a nuc. plant on top of a ley
line and some kind of weird interaction was caused with the atom smashing
to open a gate or something? Just think of the nasty mutated fraggers that
could come out of something like that!
redr...@bellsouth.net
electricity, we discuss some mundane applications of magic.
Simple spells for tidying up the doss...dusting, organizing, etc.
Spells for synthesizing food (can ayone say NERPS?)
Spells for keeping you at the ideal temperature, regardless of
atmospheric conditions.
Any more suggestions?
--Fenrir Wolf
fen...@geocities.com
Inspektor1
>remains. If you can show me an atom, then show me a sub-atomic
>particle, show me an electron, show me a photon. Show me the Big-Bang
>(and not some simulation which gets everything right, except there's no
>gravity). Show me the infinite, yet constantly expanding universe.
>Show me the creation of life from the primordial soup. I'm not saying
>that these things don't exist, or didn't happen...just that it is
>impossible to _prove_ that they did.
>
>means that we don't know if it is right, we just believe that it is (to
>varying degrees of certainty). Now if you believe that what is stated
>in a theory is true, then you have faith in that theory...and what is
>faith if not religion? As Jesus said to 'doubting' Thomas, "blessed are
>they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Sounds pretty much
>like most of the science I learned at school.
>
>CYA
>Wraith
>
The basic premis of Science is it doesn't "Prove" anything. You can't PROVE
anything in science. A Scientist advances a theory, then basically says "Prove
me wrong." Other scientists set out to duplicate the experiment and disprove
it';s authenticity. If they can't then the theory is considered to be "true."
BUT, if someone in the future does disprove the theory, it is discarded. As
einstein said, (roughtly) "a million experiemnts will not prove me right, but
one will prove me wrong."
Cheers,
The Inspector
Brian Trosko
: that they can make accurate observations of an eternal and independent
^^^^^^^
Typos are bad. Typos that change one word into another are worse. Typoes
that change one word into another that entirely changes the meaning of the
sentence are the worst.
IBIM "external." HTH.
Brian Trosko
: The original comment said that you can't prove that an atom exists
: "without relying upon indirect means". Now to me, a tunneling
: microscope is pretty indirect. As far as I know (which isn't very far),
What's direct? Even if I were to take a baseball and set it on a table in
front of you, how do you observe it? Photons from an external light
source bounce off the baseball, and travel to your eye. They pass through
your eye's lens, which focuses them on the retina. This signal travels
through your optic nerve to your brain, and your brain interprets the
image, at which point you say "Oh, a baseball."
Is this direct? If you're not willing to trust our senses to the extent
that they can make accurate observations of an eternal and independent
universe and use those observations to construct a tunneling electron
microscope so we can "see" atoms, why would you be willing to trust our
senses to the extent that you're really seeing a baseball?
: Even if I am wrong, the point that science is a belief system still
: remains.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that I believe the process of
scientific investigation can lead to knowledge, and therefore science
is a belief system?
Well, hell, that's trivial. Of course it's a belief system on that basis.
And so is religion. So is pragmatism. So are a whole bunch of other
things.
But that doesn't mean all belief systems are equal. Some belief systems
lead to knowledge, and some do not. Of those that do, some lead to
knowledge with a higher degree of reliability than others.
: If you can show me an atom, then show me a sub-atomic
: particle, show me an electron, show me a photon. Show me the Big-Bang
: (and not some simulation which gets everything right, except there's no
: gravity). Show me the infinite, yet constantly expanding universe.
: Show me the creation of life from the primordial soup. I'm not saying
: that these things don't exist, or didn't happen...just that it is
: impossible to _prove_ that they did.
And that's irrelant. Proof is something that exists only in the realms of
logic and mathematics. Reality is a good deal messier than that. If we
defined knowledge in such a way as to limit it to only those propositions
that can be proved, we'd know very little at all. But that's not what
knowledge is.
And the scientific process isn't concerned with proving anything. It's
concerned with *disproving*. You can make Hypotheses A, and do a thousand
experiments to test A, and have every experiment lend support to A, and
still not *prove* A.
: You may notice that in science everything is called a 'theory'. That
: means that we don't know if it is right, we just believe that it is (to
: varying degrees of certainty).
No. A theory is a hypothesis that provides a systematic explanation of a
diverse set of phenomena by showing that the events in question all result
from the operation of a few basic principles.
It is true that we don't know if one is right, but we have *reason* to
believe that they are. Additionally, theories must be *falsifiable*. If
there is nothing that could theoretically count as evidence *against* a
hypothesis, then that hypothesis is not a theory.
: Now if you believe that what is stated
: in a theory is true, then you have faith in that theory..
Well, no. Faith is belief *without* reason. If I had no reason to
believe in the theory of relativity, and persisted in my belief
nonetheless, then that would be having faith in the theory. But I have no
need of faith, because I have *reason* to believe. The theory of
relativity explained the observed precession in the orbit of mercury. The
theory of relativity predicted that light would be bent by the presence of
a mass, and this prediction was confirmed by observation. If the theory
of relativity provided less than a reasonably accurate depiction of the
external world, particle accelerators all around the world wouldn't work.
If I have reason to believe in something, what need have I for faith?
: faith if not religion? As Jesus said to 'doubting' Thomas, "blessed are
: they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Sounds pretty much
: like most of the science I learned at school.
Then your education is woefully lacking.
Ian Birchenough
<vs...@removthis.sci.fi> writes
>Wraith wrote:
>
>>The original comment said that you can't prove that an atom exists
>>"without relying upon indirect means". Now to me, a tunneling
>>microscope is pretty indirect. As far as I know (which isn't very far),
>>electrical potential or some such thing. If anyone knows that I am
>>wrong I would be interested in how they actually work.
>
>Well. I can't see anything, I merely sense fotons which is of course, the
>same thing. By the same argument we could argue that the fact that we exist
>at all is a sort of belief system.
>
I prove that you exist? I believe that you do, but I have no proof! :-)
>>Even if I am wrong, the point that science is a belief system still
>>particle, show me an electron, show me a photon. Show me the Big-Bang
>>(and not some simulation which gets everything right, except there's no
>>gravity). Show me the infinite, yet constantly expanding universe.
>>Show me the creation of life from the primordial soup. I'm not saying
>>that these things don't exist, or didn't happen...just that it is
>>impossible to _prove_ that they did.
discrimination to perceive them, other than by the indirect means you
require us not to use. Just as a point of interest do you believe that
objects requiring viewing through binoculars, telescopes and microscopes
(all indirect means I think) don't exist or will you accept their
evidence?;-)
>
>But those things make sense. They are logical. If scientific measuring of
>things shows that primordial soup is the only place life could have become
>from, then primordial soup is where life has came from. There are of course
>different scientific theories. If one believes in one of them, ignoring the
>others, that's religion. Religions don't make sense.
>
>--
>Ville Salo remove "removthis" to reply
>Finnischerechtschreibungsführer of the RGMW Grammar Nazi League
>(Une remarque pour les francaises, "Ville Salo" est
>vraiment mon nom, pas l'insulte "vil salaud")
--
Ian Birchenough
elrick
Brian Trosko wrote in message <7f3hiq$m84$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...
>To sum up, if the spell [Lightning Bolt] is really powerful, it's hard to
do anything
>useful with it. If the spell isn't really powerful, it's hard to do
>anything useful with it.
This spell, but this spell ain't the one that would be used. The point is
that electricity can be created using a spell. The Hermetics will figure out
the details.
elrick
>The point is that these things haven't been considered in the game design
and
>were found to be inescapable, what about when someone designs a spell
there's
>going to be unlimited power.
Yes, and it's mine, ALL MINE!!! Yah hah hah hah hah!
elrick
>. . . Say it [Magical Electricity] is possible, but fusion power is so
cheap that
>it's just not an economically viable alternative. Again, look at today:
>electric cars are *possible*, but nobody's buying them because gas costs a
>buck a gallon.
Where I live, gas station managers have had to order extra "2"s in order to
mark the gas prices on the signs, because the oil-producers are slowing down
production (among other things). If magelectricity is possible, the
megacorps and the governments all want it . . . just in case.
You made some other good points, though.
elrick
<19990415043013...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
> I'm not sure if anyone brought this up...but using the ammount of spell
>energies to provide power to a metroplex like Seattle would create a real
nice
>bridge for the Horrors.
Wouldn't it just? Heh, heh . . .
elrick
>leave a permanent "open door" between the astral and mundane world. And
>any big nasty could, theoretically, come waltzing through that door at any
>time, or worse, follow the doorway through to the originating mage.
Huh? Most astral critters (all of them that I'm aware of) don't need a
doorway to screw with the world. Unless you're talking about . . . (Of
course, most people don't know about the Horrors, so they wouldn't be an
issue.)
The astral link thing is true . . . Of course, we're to believe that one of
Dunkie's lairs (as described in Jak Koke's Dragon Heart Trilogy) has had
sick amounts of magical barriers up for a good long time, and they're still
up after his death . . . Either he found a way around the link, or he just
wasn't worried.
So it's Dragon Magic. So Lofwyr gets rich(er). Or maybe Masaru . . . that'll
piss the Japanacorps off.
>. . . Any
>company is better off just opening a nuc. plant and dumping the waste in
>the ocean when no one is looking.
Someone is *always* looking.
Grommit
Avatar wrote:
> ...In the middle of a game session if someone asks to do
> something that I don't remember the exact mechanic for I will make it up
> and verify it *after* the game. Keeps things running and doesn't screw
> with the continuity at all...
Yup. I think most games mention this in the GM section. Unfortunately some GM see
this as an insult or personal shortcoming, and this in turn affects the game. I
found the best way to handle peeps like this is to start another game with a
different GM. Help 'em pick up a few pointers and possibly a couple of one on one
games to ease them in.
> I have also not found a game system that was unplayable. Even the Torg
> rules which left a lot of questions to be answered in some areas, were
> still playable. in all my years of GMing I have yet to find a game that
> we have played without tweaking it in some way to make it more what *we*
> wanted.....
Never played Torg. As for tweeking rules to suite the group, I fully agree. Not only
does it make the players feel they've put something into the game it's a refreshing
change to play with others with different 'quirks'.Often I find if a game has
potential (ie good baakcground, idea, char gen etc) then the players will
simplify/modify as necessary.
About 4/5 years ago we were heavilly into Car Wars. So we designed a RPG for it (not
just your basic kills=skill points for more combat skills). After about a year, as
the rules got more refined, we had others join who subsequently got strange looks
saying they had been 'role-playing Car Wars'. Worked rather well. Anyone interested?
------------------------------------------
Grommit
gro...@grommits-lair.demon.co.uk
www.grommits-lair.demon.co.uk
ICQ - 27531381
'And when the angel comes down,
Down to deliver us,
We'll find out after all,
We're only men of straw.'
Grommit
Inspektor1 wrote:
> The basic premis of Science is it doesn't "Prove" anything. You can't PROVE
> anything in science. A Scientist advances a theory, then basically says "Prove
> me wrong." Other scientists set out to duplicate the experiment and disprove
> it';s authenticity. If they can't then the theory is considered to be "true."
> BUT, if someone in the future does disprove the theory, it is discarded. As
> einstein said, (roughtly) "a million experiemnts will not prove me right, but
> one will prove me wrong."
It's about bloody time that someone quoted something sensible of Einstein as
opposed to quoting (completely incorrectly) the obvious to end an
argument/conversation 'cos they're too narrow minded and gullible to believe
everything they've been told. Sorry got a bit carried away.
Believe nothing but do not disbelieve anything.
James Lownie
> James Lownie <jlo...@hotmail.com> writes:
> <snip>
> : The point is that these things haven't been considered in the game
> : design and are not a part of the game world.
>
> So what? It's not like it requires a whole lot of disbelief suspension to
> accomodate it. You can easily explain it away in a self-consistent and
> logical fashion.
a) It requires a lot of belief suspension for me to accept it, which is why I
don't.
b) The fact that it hasn't already been explained away is an illustration of how
the Shadowrun world hasn't been properly thought through.
> : Even if the restrictions you brought up
> : were found to be inescapable, what about when someone designs a spell
> : specifically for the purpose of creating electricity?
>
> Who's to say that's even possible?
Well there already exists a spell that creates electricity, for the purpose of
damaging someone. Why is it going to suddenly become impossible to create
electricity for the purpose of generating power?
> There's no "take over the world, win
> the game" spell, either, but I don't feel I need to offer a specific
> explanation why there's not.
Since there are no spells that produce effects that could be used to "take over the
world, win
the game", I think that's reasonable.
James
Matthew J Wilson
>Brian Trosko wrote:
>> There's no "take over the world, win
>> the game" spell, either, but I don't feel I need to offer a specific
>> explanation why there's not.
>Since there are no spells that produce effects that could be used to "take over the
>world, win
>the game", I think that's reasonable.
Wouldn't such gems as "Control Thoughts" and "Mob Mind" come under that
category?
--
Matt.
Brian Trosko
: > : Even if the restrictions you brought up
: > : were found to be inescapable, what about when someone designs a spell
: > : specifically for the purpose of creating electricity?
: >
: > Who's to say that's even possible?
: Well there already exists a spell that creates electricity, for the purpose of
: damaging someone. Why is it going to suddenly become impossible to create
: electricity for the purpose of generating power?
Two possible explanations, right off the top of my head, which I've
already offered and you saw fit to ignore:
a. As the SR section on magic states, it's easier to set power loose than
it is to control it. It's easier to release a burst of electrical current
to damage someone then it is to control electrical current in a fashion
necessary to power equipment. Maybe someone's come up with such a spell,
but to cast it requires the mage to resist Deadly drain. If that's the
case, how many people would be willing to cast it just to run someone's
hot water heater?
b. Repeated use of magic in an area eventually increases the background
count. Magical residue builds up, making future spellcasting or spells in
that area more unstable, prone to fault. Somebody *did* make a spell to
spin a turbine, but it became unstable enough to shut off after a few
months, and they couldn't get it going again without building a new
turbine in a new area, rapidly increasing expense.
All that needs to happen for fusion power to be preferred over magical
sources is for fusion power to be more economic. If you can't come up
with reasonable reasons for why it is, you don't have much imagination.
: > There's no "take over the world, win
: > the game" spell, either, but I don't feel I need to offer a specific
: > explanation why there's not.
: Since there are no spells that produce effects that could be used to "take over the
: world, win
: the game", I think that's reasonable.
Mind control? A single spell that instantly renders everyone on the
planet susceptible to mind control by the casting mage, quickened or spell
locked.
Here, tell me why nobody's done *that* yet.
James Lownie
> James Lownie <jlo...@hotmail.com> writes:
> : > : Even if the restrictions you brought up
> : > : were found to be inescapable, what about when someone designs a spell
> : > : specifically for the purpose of creating electricity?
> : >
> : > Who's to say that's even possible?
>
> : Well there already exists a spell that creates electricity, for the purpose of
> : damaging someone. Why is it going to suddenly become impossible to create
> : electricity for the purpose of generating power?
>
> Two possible explanations, right off the top of my head, which I've
> already offered and you saw fit to ignore:
I ignored them because I am not trying to put forth an idea, I am explaining why I don't
find the SR world convincing. We could argue about magical theory for a long time
without achieving anything, because it is poorly defined and there is no consensus as to
how it functions and what it's limits are.
> : > There's no "take over the world, win
> : > the game" spell, either, but I don't feel I need to offer a specific
> : > explanation why there's not.
>
> : Since there are no spells that produce effects that could be used to "take over the
> : world, win
> : the game", I think that's reasonable.
>
> Mind control? A single spell that instantly renders everyone on the
> planet susceptible to mind control by the casting mage, quickened or spell
> locked.
>
> Here, tell me why nobody's done *that* yet.
Presumably the same reason that no-one's cast a fireball that destroys the planet yet,
because it requires too much power. Although hey, if there's no rule that specifically
prohibits it, then maybe in all realism it should have already been cast.
James
Juergen Hubert
>
> Even if I am wrong, the point that science is a belief system still
> remains. If you can show me an atom, then show me a sub-atomic
> particle, show me an electron, show me a photon. Show me the Big-Bang
> (and not some simulation which gets everything right, except there's no
> gravity). Show me the infinite, yet constantly expanding universe.
It's right up there in the night sky. ;-)
Seriously, the universe, according to current scientific knowledge,
doesn't have to be infinite. It just doesn't have any limits... ;-)
> Show me the creation of life from the primordial soup. I'm not saying
> that these things don't exist, or didn't happen...just that it is
> impossible to _prove_ that they did.
>
> You may notice that in science everything is called a 'theory'. That
> means that we don't know if it is right, we just believe that it is (to
> varying degrees of certainty). Now if you believe that what is stated
> in a theory is true, then you have faith in that theory...and what is
> faith if not religion? As Jesus said to 'doubting' Thomas, "blessed are
> they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Sounds pretty much
> like most of the science I learned at school.
I'd label science not as a system of belief, but as a system of
disbelief...
- Juergen Hubert
elrick
>>Since there are no spells that produce effects that could be used to "take
over the
>>world, win the game", I think that's reasonable.
then Matthew J Wilson wrote:
>Wouldn't such gems as "Control Thoughts" and "Mob Mind" come under that
>category?
I don't know, you'd need to pull a hell of a lot of dice to get that kind of
radius on a spell . . .
Wraith
>
> Wraith <wra...@shadows.globalnet.co.uk> writes:
> : The original comment said that you can't prove that an atom exists
> : "without relying upon indirect means". Now to me, a tunneling
> : microscope is pretty indirect. As far as I know (which isn't very
> : far),
>
> in front of you, how do you observe it? Photons from an external light
> source bounce off the baseball, and travel to your eye. They pass
> through your eye's lens, which focuses them on the retina. This signal
> travels through your optic nerve to your brain, and your brain
> interprets the image, at which point you say "Oh, a baseball."
>
> Is this direct? If you're not willing to trust our senses to the
> extent that they can make accurate observations of an eternal and
> independent universe and use those observations to construct a
> tunneling electron microscope so we can "see" atoms, why would you be
> willing to trust our senses to the extent that you're really seeing a
> baseball?
Hmmm...it's all getting a bit towards philosophy isn't it :) Do we
create the world by observing it? Is this all a very detailed dream of
mine? Am I a brain in a jar hooked up to a computer that is providing
input to all my sensory nerves?
Can you trust your senses...it's a difficult question. The answer, if
you were being really honest is probably not. Certainly for me, I am
red-green colour blind and short-sighted, so I have learned not to
completely trust what I see with my eyes, and to look for supporting
evidence. This improves the probability that my brain has picked the
right item from the flawed input my eyes give it. (I once saw some
strawberries at the back of a dimly lit coffee shop. When I asked for
them it turned out they were chocolate truffles..DOH!). There are many
many ways to fool the eyes, from simple optical illusions, to
holograms. I don't know of ways to fool the other senses, but I'm sure
there must be some.
In any case there is a vast difference between trusting my own senses,
and trusting the vast number of people who were involved in making an
increadibly complex tool like an electron microscope. I know very
little of the theory, or implementation of an electron microscope, so I
have to have faith that when someone shows me a picture of IBM written
in atoms that they are not lying to me, and that no-one has made an
innocent mistake at any stage in the process.
> : Even if I am wrong, the point that science is a belief system still
> : remains.
>
> What do you mean by that? Do you mean that I believe the process of
> scientific investigation can lead to knowledge, and therefore science
> is a belief system?
No I mean belief system in that we believe that what scientists tell us
is the truth, although we have no way of proving it to be so.
> Well, hell, that's trivial. Of course it's a belief system on that
> basis. And so is religion. So is pragmatism. So are a whole bunch of
> other things.
If they require you to believe something without proof then yes, a whole
bunch of things are belief systems.
> : If you can show me an atom...<sniped some more nitpicking>
> : I'm not saying that these things don't exist, or didn't happen...just
> : that it is impossible to _prove_ that they did.
>
> And that's irrelant. Proof is something that exists only in the realms
> of logic and mathematics. Reality is a good deal messier than that.
> If we defined knowledge in such a way as to limit it to only those
> propositions that can be proved, we'd know very little at all. But
> that's not what knowledge is.
No it's completely relevant. To call something knowledge without having
proof takes faith in the correctness of your statement. The very fact
that science includes far more than what has been proved in it's 'big
book of knowledge' indicates that it is a belief system. i.e. Here is
the list of things we believe to be true...
> And the scientific process isn't concerned with proving anything. It's
> concerned with *disproving*. You can make Hypotheses A, and do a
> thousand experiments to test A, and have every experiment lend support
> to A, and still not *prove* A.
Agreed, which is what I meant by "it is impossible to _prove_ that they
did".
>
> : You may notice that in science everything is called a 'theory'. That
> : means that we don't know if it is right, we just believe that it is
> : (to varying degrees of certainty).
>
> No. A theory is a hypothesis that provides a systematic explanation of
> a diverse set of phenomena by showing that the events in question all
> result from the operation of a few basic principles.
> It is true that we don't know if one is right, but we have *reason* to
> believe that they are.
That would seem to be a definition of what a theory is followed by a
different way of saying: "we don't know if it is right, we just believe
that it is (to varying degrees of certainty)." Depending on how strong
the reasons are, the degree of certainty will be different. I fail to
see what you disagree with.
> Additionally, theories must be *falsifiable*.
> If there is nothing that could theoretically count as evidence
> *against* a hypothesis, then that hypothesis is not a theory.
I'm afraid I don't really know too much about falsifiability, I'm a
software engineer not a scientist. I read your statement to mean that
if no one can come up with a way a theory might be wrong then it must be
right. Surely this is similar to the 'thousand experiments' problem
above? Just because no-one can work out how it could be wrong, doesn't
mean it isn't. If my understanding of falsifiability is flawed, I would
be interested in reading a fuller description of it.
> : Now if you believe that what is stated
> : in a theory is true, then you have faith in that theory..
>
> Well, no. Faith is belief *without* reason.
No, faith is belief without _proof_, not without reason. Stupidity is
belief without reason (IMHO of course).
> If I had no reason to
> believe in the theory of relativity, and persisted in my belief
> nonetheless, then that would be having faith in the theory. But I have
> no need of faith, because I have *reason* to believe. The theory of
> relativity explained the observed precession in the orbit of mercury.
> The theory of relativity predicted that light would be bent by the
> presence of a mass, and this prediction was confirmed by observation.
> If the theory of relativity provided less than a reasonably accurate
> depiction of the external world, particle accelerators all around the
> world wouldn't work.
I don't know how much of the relevant research you have participated in,
but for my part I have only read books which discuss the examples
above. I haven't done any of the calculations myself, and I know very
little of the detailed theory. So my 'knowledge' about these examples
is purely based on my faith in the books I have read. I had not heard
that Mercury's orbit was affected by relativity (any more details?), so
if I were to now believe that then I would have to have faith in what
you tell me.
> : faith if not religion? As Jesus said to 'doubting' Thomas, "blessed
> : are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Sounds pretty
> : much like most of the science I learned at school.
>
> Then your education is woefully lacking.
Not true at all. Education is about teaching children what is commonly
held to be true, it is not about showing them the entirity of physics,
chemistry, mathematics etc. from first principles. I was taught that
atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons - I have never seen
a proton, a neYtron, or an electron, yet I still believe they exist. I
was taught that if an spaceship travelled away from the earth at the
speed of light, then returned again at the speed of light, more time
would have passed for people on earth than for people on the spaceship -
I have never travelled in a spaceship at the speed of light, yet I still
believe it is true. I was taught about the Schroedinger's Cat thought
experiment - I have never put a cat in a box with a canister of poison
set to go off when radioactive decay occurs, yet I still believe the
concept.
If you have personally witnessed every single thing that you believe
from your education, then either you believe a very small number of
things, or you have been studying for longer than any other person has
lived.
As a parting thought I decided to lookup the definitions of the word
'faith' in one of the on-line dictionaries. The following definition is
definition 4 from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?isindex=faith&method=exact
"That which is believed on any subject, whether in science, politics, or
religion;"
Pretty interesting eh?
CYA
Wraith
Avatar
:
: > I do like the way that SR jabs at the
: >current levels of societal racism we see in RL, with their "Why worry
: >about the color of that guy's skin when the thing next to him has a hand
: >bigger than your head??" comments, but at the same time they also
: >intensify the attitude again by including strong racial stereotyping and
: >dislikes to the game environment.
:
: Are you suggesting that in a dark future like that of Shadowrun, there
: would /not/ be prejudice against ugly, green-skinned, warty guys the size
: of a small car? I think it's incredibly realistic for that to be the
: basis of discrimination.
No what I'm saying is that I found it amusing that they jab at racism in
RL, and then move it into another form....Not saying the racism should not
exist....I don't expect that humanity is going to all of a sudden wake up
in the next 40-50 years or so....
: And, really, if you're looking for a reason for a character to be racist,
: a lot of times it will be because they were brought up that way and/or
: because they don't know any better.
:
Yep and that is what we call: background, as I said....;)
Avatar
Avatar
ago we were heavilly into Car Wars. So we designed a RPG for it (not :
just your basic kills=skill points for more combat skills). After about a
year, as : the rules got more refined, we had others join who subsequently
got strange looks : saying they had been 'role-playing Car Wars'. Worked
I would be really interested in seeing a Car Wars roleplaying system that
does not involve GURPS or Champions (for those of you with the ancient
Autoduel Champions supplment), though I guess e-mail would be a better
location for that info...
Avatar
Peter Meilinger
Anyone interested in industrial uses of magic would do well to pick
up GURPS Technomancer by David Pulver. The premise is that the first
atomic explosion test brought magic to the world and I think it's at
least a slightly more realistic take on the idea than Shadowrun or
any other modern magic game. All sorts of industries gleefully
incorporated magic into their products and procedures. There's stuff
like assembly lines for magic carpets and military wands, a chain
of shops where you can get various simple spells cast on you for
various effects, that sort of thing. It's just plain a great
read too.
Pete
Jens Hage
> Brian Trosko wrote:
>>
> them it turned out they were chocolate truffles..DOH!). There are many
> many ways to fool the eyes, from simple optical illusions, to
> holograms. I don't know of ways to fool the other senses, but I'm sure
> there must be some.
Put one hand in cold water, one in hot, then switch them to a lukewarm
water bowl.
Estimate the size of an object using your feet.
Those are two I can think of for touch off hand.
> In any case there is a vast difference between trusting my own senses,
> and trusting the vast number of people who were involved in making an
> increadibly complex tool like an electron microscope. I know very
> little of the theory, or implementation of an electron microscope, so I
> have to have faith that when someone shows me a picture of IBM written
> in atoms that they are not lying to me, and that no-one has made an
> innocent mistake at any stage in the process.
True, but here's one interesting thing. We still don't know how any of the
senses really work. We have good ideas of specific parts, but no real idea
how they work the way they do in gestalt, and the senses are very gestalt.
In comparison, you can look closely at the assumptions and math implicit
in the scientific intrument. That may not -help- any, but at least it's
laid out. The senses are still very much a black box.
Brian Trosko
: Can you trust your senses...it's a difficult question. The answer, if
: you were being really honest is probably not.
No, to assert that is simply to engage in intellectual masturbation. All
evidence we have about anything comes indirectly or directly through the
sense. If you're not willing to extend provisional trust to them, you
literally can't know anything.
: red-green colour blind and short-sighted, so I have learned not to
: completely trust what I see with my eyes, and to look for supporting
: evidence.
In other words, you extend provisional trust to your senses. If you did
not, that "supporting evidence" would be meaningless. You see something
red, but it might not be red, so you ask someone esle. But if you didn't
trust your senses, you'd have no reason to believe that that someone else
was real, not just a hallucination.
There is no test you can conceive of that does not rely on evidence
provided by your senses. There is no evidence that could conceiveably
count against the assertion that "We cannot trust our senses." Therefore,
the assertion "We cannot trust our senses" is nonfalsifiable, useless for
acquiring knowledge.
: In any case there is a vast difference between trusting my own senses,
: and trusting the vast number of people who were involved in making an
: increadibly complex tool like an electron microscope. I know very
: little of the theory, or implementation of an electron microscope, so I
: have to have faith that when someone shows me a picture of IBM written
: in atoms that they are not lying to me, and that no-one has made an
: innocent mistake at any stage in the process.
No, you don't have to have faith. You have ample evidence of that, which
precludes faith.
: > What do you mean by that? Do you mean that I believe the process of
: > scientific investigation can lead to knowledge, and therefore science
: > is a belief system?
: No I mean belief system in that we believe that what scientists tell us
: is the truth, although we have no way of proving it to be so.
And again, that's irrelevant. Read this again: You can have proof in
logical systems, or in mathmatics. Proof exists nowhere else in the
universe.
Does that mean we can't know anything outside of logic or mathematics?
Does that mean there is no truth outside of logic or mathematics?
Of course not. Don't be absurd.
: > Well, hell, that's trivial. Of course it's a belief system on that
: > basis. And so is religion. So is pragmatism. So are a whole bunch of
: > other things.
: If they require you to believe something without proof then yes, a whole
: bunch of things are belief systems.
Sure. But if you believe something with proof, then that is also a belief
system. The phrase "belief system" is fairly useless, because it is so
nonspecific. *Everyone* believes things. The question is, how did they
arrive at those beliefs.
: > propositions that can be proved, we'd know very little at all. But
: > that's not what knowledge is.
: No it's completely relevant. To call something knowledge without having
: proof takes faith in the correctness of your statement.
Bollocks. If you believe that, you simp0ly don't know what knowledge is.
There are three sorts of knowledge. There is propositional knowledge, the
knowledge that for any proposition A, A is true or false. There is
procedural knowledge, the knowledge how to do something, as in "Kerri
Strug knows how to perform gymnastics," and this sort of knowlege cannot
be reduced to propositional statements. And there is knowledge by
acquaintance, as in "I know Bob," or "I've known war."
: The very fact
: that science includes far more than what has been proved in it's 'big
: book of knowledge' indicates that it is a belief system.
Sure. And again, that's trivial. The issue is how those beliefs were
arrived at? Or, more directly, are we *justified* in those beliefs?
: Agreed, which is what I meant by "it is impossible to _prove_ that they
: did".
But it is possible to disprove, which is more important.
: > It is true that we don't know if one is right, but we have *reason* to
: > believe that they are.
: That would seem to be a definition of what a theory is followed by a
: different way of saying: "we don't know if it is right, we just believe
: that it is (to varying degrees of certainty)." Depending on how strong
: the reasons are, the degree of certainty will be different. I fail to
: see what you disagree with.
I disagree with the idea that knowledge requires proof. It does not.
: > Additionally, theories must be *falsifiable*.
: > If there is nothing that could theoretically count as evidence
: > *against* a hypothesis, then that hypothesis is not a theory.
: I'm afraid I don't really know too much about falsifiability, I'm a
: software engineer not a scientist. I read your statement to mean that
: if no one can come up with a way a theory might be wrong then it must be
: right. Surely this is similar to the 'thousand experiments' problem
: above?
You read my statement totally wrong.
If no one can come up with way a theory might be wrong, then it's not even
a *theory*. It's just a hypothesis, or an assertion, and a useless one at
that. If we can't disprove it, if there's no conceiveable evidence that
can count against it, we have no way to know if it is true or not.
There's a little bit in Carl Sagan's _The Demon Haunted World_ about this:
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the
psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion
to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself.
There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the
centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and
see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to
mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture
the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, except she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint
won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a
special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal,
floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If
there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable
experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say
that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis
is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that
cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically
worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in
exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes
down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
: mean it isn't. If my understanding of falsifiability is flawed, I would
: be interested in reading a fuller description of it.
I suggest a rigorous reading of the works of Karl Popper.
: > : Now if you believe that what is stated
: > : in a theory is true, then you have faith in that theory..
: >
: > Well, no. Faith is belief *without* reason.
: No, faith is belief without _proof_, not without reason. Stupidity is
: belief without reason (IMHO of course).
That's an awful definition. There are many statements that are
definitionally true, for which formal proofs do not exist. "Circles have
no corners," is one; there is no *proof* of that, but that's the way we
define circles, so it is definitionally true.
It seems silly to say that you have *faith* that circles have no corners.
: I don't know how much of the relevant research you have participated in,
: but for my part I have only read books which discuss the examples
: above. I haven't done any of the calculations myself, and I know very
: little of the detailed theory. So my 'knowledge' about these examples
: is purely based on my faith in the books I have read. I had not heard
: that Mercury's orbit was affected by relativity (any more details?), so
: if I were to now believe that then I would have to have faith in what
: you tell me.
Again, that's a silly defimnition of faith. How do you know that 2+2 = 4?
A formal, fundamental proof of that will take up many pages of paper, as
the mathematics are built up from fundamental axioms and symbolic logic.
I know *I've* never performed such a proof. Do I therefore only have
*faith* that 2+2 = 4?
Consider the effects of your epistemology:
Do you know that the world is round? No.
Do you know that 2+2 = 4? No.
Do you know that I exist? No.
Do you know that men landed on the moon? No.
Do you know that there is a moon? No.
: If you have personally witnessed every single thing that you believe
: from your education, then either you believe a very small number of
: things, or you have been studying for longer than any other person has
: lived.
And if you require a personal witness in order to have knowledge, you know
less than most people who have ever lived. You overlook an
incomprehensible number of true things.
That indicates your epistemology is flawed. The object of an epistemology
is to believe in things that are true, and to disbelieve in things that
are false. While yours is better than absolute gullibility or absolute
skepticism, it's not much better.
: Pretty interesting eh?
Relying on dictionaries to give accurate definitions of technical terms in
specific fields is a bad, bad idea.
Beyond that, I'm really not sure what your point is. You seem to be
implying that science = a belief system, and that religion = a belief
system, and that therefore science = religion.
That's nonsense, as even a cursory examination of the evidence will show.
besides, it's flawed logic.
--
"It was muthafuckin' zero hour, man." - Herbert Kornfeld,
Accounts Receivable Supervisor
Mike Bruner
Brian Trosko wrote:
> James Lownie <jlo...@hotmail.com> writes:
> : > : Even if the restrictions you brought up
> : > : were found to be inescapable, what about when someone designs a spell
> : > : specifically for the purpose of creating electricity?
> : >
> : > Who's to say that's even possible?
>
> : Well there already exists a spell that creates electricity, for the purpose of
> : damaging someone. Why is it going to suddenly become impossible to create
> : electricity for the purpose of generating power?
>
> Two possible explanations, right off the top of my head, which I've
> already offered and you saw fit to ignore:
>
> a. As the SR section on magic states, it's easier to set power loose than
> it is to control it. It's easier to release a burst of electrical current
> to damage someone then it is to control electrical current in a fashion
> necessary to power equipment. Maybe someone's come up with such a spell,
> but to cast it requires the mage to resist Deadly drain. If that's the
> case, how many people would be willing to cast it just to run someone's
> hot water heater?
>
> b. Repeated use of magic in an area eventually increases the background
> count. Magical residue builds up, making future spellcasting or spells in
> that area more unstable, prone to fault. Somebody *did* make a spell to
> spin a turbine, but it became unstable enough to shut off after a few
> months, and they couldn't get it going again without building a new
> turbine in a new area, rapidly increasing expense.
>
> All that needs to happen for fusion power to be preferred over magical
> sources is for fusion power to be more economic. If you can't come up
> with reasonable reasons for why it is, you don't have much imagination.
Here's a few more reasons:
1. It's been established many times now that most people don't fully trust mages and
magic just yet in the SR world. Freely turning your city's power supply over to something
you don't even understand how it works isn't something most people are going to want to
do. Besides, you are effectively trusting a single man instead of a plant-full of
workers; how do you know your pet mage isn't going to turn on you and put a few
"adjustments" in his spell to benefit himself?
2. Spells can be dispelled much faster than they can be cast on that scale. Relying on a
single spell for your power supply leaves the place vulnerable to one mage with a grudge
and a good dispelling ability (toxic shamans in particular would LOVE that kind of target
("I can shut down that entire accursed blight on Mother Gaia by breaking a single spell?!
Get outta my WAY!!!!!" :))). Protecting the spell from such a fate would undoutably
require huge magical defenses, which would add quite a bit to the expense.
--
Mike Bruner...@delaware.infi.net
"Ignorance killed the cat- curiosity was framed."
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Avatar <ava...@netaxs.com> spake:
>I fail to see how the inclusion of the various races makes someone more
>willing to play a character that will be dealling more often with
>discrimination than Cyberpunk. I do like the way that SR jabs at the
>current levels of societal racism we see in RL, with their "Why worry
>about the color of that guy's skin when the thing next to him has a hand
>bigger than your head??" comments, but at the same time they also
>intensify the attitude again by including strong racial stereotyping and
>of the old AD&D limits placed on demi-humans to make up for their
>advantages over humans. IMO, regardless of those silly types of rules,
>racism is something that should have some basis in character existence and
>not just in the fact that he is human, therefore he shouldn't like orks.
Yep. Worse, they then actually make those prejudices true by making
Orks and Trolls stupid, while the pretty-boy races are as smart as
Humies... If the Orks and Trolls are meant to be metaphors for
hispanics and blacks, while Elves and Dwarves are, what, asians and
jews?, then that's about the most insulting bit of racism I've seen
outside of David Duke's diatribes in years.
However, it appears most likely that the original designers just
grabbed the stock Tolkien races, pasted them in, and then pasted some
vague Watts-riot stuff in on top, not stopping to think about what
they'd just done. I'd rather believe they were acting out of stupidity,
not malice.
Anyway, I plan to remove the Intelligence mods but leave the
descriptions unchanged, and I'll only tell any affected players
initially, to represent typical Human bigotry. But then, I'm also
replacing the Dwarves with Goblins 'cuz I hate cute demihumans, and
making the Elves a "monster race" like Dragons and other inimical
paranormal life forms, so my take on SR is a bit different than usual
(yes, I'm using SOME of the original game - much of the system is
unchanged, and magic and tech are still pristine).
-- <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
Wraith
>
> Wraith <wra...@shadows.globalnet.co.uk> writes:
> : Can you trust your senses...it's a difficult question. The answer, if
> : you were being really honest is probably not.
>
> No, to assert that is simply to engage in intellectual masturbation. All
> evidence we have about anything comes indirectly or directly through the
> sense. If you're not willing to extend provisional trust to them, you
> literally can't know anything.
Which is pretty much my point, it is impossible to truly _know_
anything. We can be reasonably sure of things, but it is impossible to
know anything without possibility of doubt. I think this
argument<del><del><del> discussion is kinda going around in circles
about what is _reasonable_ to call knowledge and what we can actually
truly know. I don't think that either of us would disagree about the
huge range things that it is reasonable to say that we know. My point
is simply that we do not, and cannot actually know them, we are just
very sure that they are right.
> : red-green colour blind and short-sighted, so I have learned not to
> : completely trust what I see with my eyes, and to look for supporting
> : evidence.
>
> In other words, you extend provisional trust to your senses. If you did
> not, that "supporting evidence" would be meaningless. You see something
> red, but it might not be red, so you ask someone esle. But if you didn't
> trust your senses, you'd have no reason to believe that that someone else
> was real, not just a hallucination.
Which, to be honest, I have no way of actually knowing. As everything
is received through the senses it is not possible to tell the difference
between real input and hallucination. Our brain simply filter reality
based on what it perceives to be possible or impossible.
> No, you don't have to have faith. You have ample evidence of that, which
> precludes faith.
Faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive (at least in my opinion).
Faith and proof are mutually exclusive, but not faith and evidence.
> : No I mean belief system in that we believe that what scientists tell us
> : is the truth, although we have no way of proving it to be so.
>
> And again, that's irrelevant. Read this again: You can have proof in
> logical systems, or in mathmatics. Proof exists nowhere else in the
> universe.
Exactly.
> Does that mean we can't know anything outside of logic or mathematics?
> Does that mean there is no truth outside of logic or mathematics?
>
> Of course not. Don't be absurd.
Depends on your definition of 'know'. Like I said above, we are arguing
around the difference between what it is reasonable to say we know, and
what we actually do.
> : > Well, hell, that's trivial. Of course it's a belief system on that
> : > basis. And so is religion. So is pragmatism. So are a whole bunch of
> : > other things.
>
> : If they require you to believe something without proof then yes, a whole
> : bunch of things are belief systems.
>
> Sure. But if you believe something with proof, then that is also a belief
> system. The phrase "belief system" is fairly useless, because it is so
> nonspecific. *Everyone* believes things. The question is, how did they
> arrive at those beliefs.
I would say that if you have proof you don't believe something, you know
it. I can see this being a fairly difficult point as, like you say,
"belief system" (and most of the rest od the english language) is so
generic.
> There are three sorts of knowledge. There is propositional knowledge, the
> knowledge that for any proposition A, A is true or false. There is
> procedural knowledge, the knowledge how to do something, as in "Kerri
> Strug knows how to perform gymnastics," and this sort of knowlege cannot
> be reduced to propositional statements. And there is knowledge by
> acquaintance, as in "I know Bob," or "I've known war."
I think we're basically dealing with prepositional knowledge here. The
argument being whether it is actually possible know if A is true or
False, or whether it is only possible to be very sure which it is.
> : The very fact
> : that science includes far more than what has been proved in it's 'big
> : book of knowledge' indicates that it is a belief system.
>
> Sure. And again, that's trivial. The issue is how those beliefs were
> arrived at? Or, more directly, are we *justified* in those beliefs?
Well I was only arguing that science is a belief system, which you seem
to agree with. I will leave whether we are justified in our beliefs
entirely to the philosophers, scientists, and theologians.
> I disagree with the idea that knowledge requires proof. It does not.
In absolute terms I think it does. Which of these statements is more
correct?
(a) I believe the universe started as described in the Big Bang theory.
(b) I know the universe started as described in the Big Bang theory.
I personally think that (b) is impossible, but if you know better then
please tell me how I (or anyone) can _know_ how the universe started..
> : > Additionally, theories must be *falsifiable*.
> : > If there is nothing that could theoretically count as evidence
> : > *against* a hypothesis, then that hypothesis is not a theory.
>
> : I'm afraid I don't really know too much about falsifiability,
>
> You read my statement totally wrong.
>
> If no one can come up with way a theory might be wrong, then it's not even
> a *theory*. It's just a hypothesis, or an assertion, and a useless one at
> that. If we can't disprove it, if there's no conceiveable evidence that
> can count against it, we have no way to know if it is true or not.
Doesn't 2+2=4 come under that category? Things that are true by
definition cannot conceivably be disproved, yet they are very valuable
e.g. Pi=3.14..., a square has 4 sides etc. My interpretation of what
you said above, and again I'm probably wrong, is that the definition of
a theory requires some uncertainty, and a way of testing it. If there
is no uncertainty then it is an assertion, if there is no way testing
then it is a hypothesis. Is this correct? If most of science is
theory, and people assume that the theory is true, then that requires
faith/belief, and science is a belief system.
> I suggest a rigorous reading of the works of Karl Popper.
I'll add it to my list.
> : > Well, no. Faith is belief *without* reason.
>
> : No, faith is belief without _proof_, not without reason. Stupidity is
> : belief without reason (IMHO of course).
>
> That's an awful definition. There are many statements that are
> definitionally true, for which formal proofs do not exist. "Circles have
> no corners," is one; there is no *proof* of that, but that's the way we
> define circles, so it is definitionally true.
>
> It seems silly to say that you have *faith* that circles have no corners.
The proof of such statements is the definition. The definition of a
circle as a shape with no corners proves that a circle has no corners.
As proof exists, no faith is required.
> How do you know that 2+2 = 4?
> A formal, fundamental proof of that will take up many pages of paper, as
> the mathematics are built up from fundamental axioms and symbolic logic.
> I know *I've* never performed such a proof. Do I therefore only have
> *faith* that 2+2 = 4?
Essentially yes. You have been told by people you trust that such a
proof exists, and experimentally 2+2=4 has always been true in your
experience. Therefore you are very very sure that 2+2=4. But without
doing the proof you cannot _know_ it.
> Consider the effects of your epistemology:
> Do you know that the world is round? No.
> Do you know that 2+2 = 4? No.
> Do you know that I exist? No.
> Do you know that men landed on the moon? No.
> Do you know that there is a moon? No.
But do I believe all those statements? Yes. Does it make any
difference to my life whether I know or simply believe them? No.
> And if you require a personal witness in order to have knowledge, you know
> less than most people who have ever lived. You overlook an
> incomprehensible number of true things.
>
> That indicates your epistemology is flawed. The object of an epistemology
> is to believe in things that are true, and to disbelieve in things that
> are false. While yours is better than absolute gullibility or absolute
> skepticism, it's not much better.
I do indeed aim to believe in things that are true, and disbelieve in
things that are false. I do not however believe that for all (or even
many) things I can actually know if they are true or false. I have to
rely on varying degrees of belief, but very little actual knowledge.
> Relying on dictionaries to give accurate definitions of technical terms in
> specific fields is a bad, bad idea.
Relying on a dictionary to give an accurate definition of a common word
is however a very very good idea. I don't think 'faith' falls into the
'technical term in a specific field' category, at least not the way we
were using it.
> Beyond that, I'm really not sure what your point is. You seem to be
> implying that science = a belief system, and that religion = a belief
> system, and that therefore science = religion.
I'm not trying to imply that science = religion. I am implying that
science is a belief system, and I will agree that religion is also a
belief system. However I am not trying to say that religion and science
are the same thing - they are very different things.
The point I am trying to make is as follows:
1. When you get right down to it is actually impossible to know anything
(outside of some specific areas such as mathematics and formal logic).
2. It is therefore impossible to know if scientific theories are true.
3. People believe that scientific theories are true.
4. Science is therefore a belief system and requires an element of
faith.
Brian Trosko
: > sense. If you're not willing to extend provisional trust to them, you
: > literally can't know anything.
: Which is pretty much my point, it is impossible to truly _know_
: anything.
Don't you see the absurd contradiction you fall into in making that
statement? If you argue that it is impossible to know anything, you are
making a knowledge claim: you are saying that you know that it is
impossible to know anything. But if it is impossible to know anything,
how can you argue that it is impossible to know anything?
: We can be reasonably sure of things, but it is impossible to
: know anything without possibility of doubt.
Well, which is it? Is it impossible for us to know anything, or is it
impossible to know anything without possibility if doubt? The two
statements are radically different. Nobody is suggesting that knowledge
precludes doubt.
: I think this
: argument<del><del><del> discussion is kinda going around in circles
: about what is _reasonable_ to call knowledge and what we can actually
: know
Let's confine this to propositional knowledge. What would you say it
means to *know* something?
What knowledge means in epistemology is this:
Say I believe that A. In order to know A,
1. A must be true.
2. I must have reason to believe in A.
Let's say that I assert that, if I turn my key in my car's ignition, my
car will start, unless my car is broken. This is something that is true;
I can turn the key, and demonstrate it to you. But unless I have *reason*
to beliueve that my car will start when I turn the key, that belief
doesn't constitute knowledge. If I tell that that I know the car will
start, because there's a tiny little elf living under the hood who
receives a signal when I turn the key and kickstarts the engine, then my
belief that turning the key will start my car is *not* knowledge.
: Which, to be honest, I have no way of actually knowing.
Then all you're doing is engaging in intellectual masturbation. In order
to know anything, you need to give at least provisional assent to the idea
that our senses provide us with reasonably accurate information about an
external and independently existing universe. You're correct: if you
don't do that, you have no way of knowing anything.
Therefore, not doing that is useless. You can go ahead and play in
traffic, because there's really know traffic.
: > And again, that's irrelevant. Read this again: You can have proof in
: > logical systems, or in mathmatics. Proof exists nowhere else in the
: > universe.
: Exactly.
Yes, but *that's irrelevant*. Knowledge doesn't *require* proof in the
formal meaning of the word.
: > Does that mean we can't know anything outside of logic or mathematics?
: > Does that mean there is no truth outside of logic or mathematics?
: >
: > Of course not. Don't be absurd.
: Depends on your definition of 'know'.
I'm working by the technical definition of the word "knowledge," the one
used in the epistemological sense.
I'm not sure what definition you're using.
: I would say that if you have proof you don't believe something, you know
: it.
Not at all. If you know something, you believe in something that is true,
and have justification for doing so. Belief is a prerequisite for knowing
something.
: In absolute terms I think it does. Which of these statements is more
: correct?
: (a) I believe the universe started as described in the Big Bang theory.
: (b) I know the universe started as described in the Big Bang theory.
Which of these statements is more correct:
a. I believe the earth has a moon orbiting it at a distance of roughly
250,000 miles.
b. I know the earth has a moon orbiting it at a distance of roughly
250,000 miles.
: Doesn't 2+2=4 come under that category?
Nope. It's not a theory. It's a conclusion that derives logically from
the axioms on which mathematics are built.
If I say:
a. All sweaters are red.
b. Rob is wearing a sweater.
then c. Rob is wearing a red sweater follows logically from a. and b.
This argument is logically valid, and if a. and b. are true, it is also
logically sound.
Now, that's just an example. C isn't a theory, it's something that
follows logically from the premises. This is a bit different from 2+2 =
4, because to prove that, you can't just demonstrate that it follows from
premises. You need to demonstrate that it eventually follows from your
*axioms*, which are usually definitional in nature.
Axioms are not proveable. They do not rely on their truth value on
propositions; if they did, there would simply be an infinite regression of
propositions, with no foundation. Axioms are statements which are
undeniably true.
For example, the 3 logical axioms of Aristotelian logic are the Law of the
Excluded Middle (For every proposition P, P is true or Fale), the Law of
Contradiction (For any P, P cannot be simultaneously true and false, or
alternately, P can not equal !P), and the axoim that "The denial of a true
statement is false, and the denial of a false statement is true."
Metaphysical axioms include such laws as "Existence exists." Note the
undeniable truth of that axiom. Epistemological axioms include
"Consciousness exists," and "it is possible to know the truth," among
other things.
:Things that are true by
: definition cannot conceivably be disproved, yet they are very valuable
: e.g. Pi=3.14..., a square has 4 sides etc.
Those things also aren't theories.
: My interpretation of what
: you said above, and again I'm probably wrong, is that the definition of
: a theory requires some uncertainty, and a way of testing it.
For something to be a theory, it requires a means of falsification.
Let me give you an example. In the great free-will debate, there is a
school of thought that free-will doesn't exist. Everything you do is
determined not by the free decisions of a conscious mind, but as the
inevitable results of heredity and environment. When you decide to get up
and go to work, this school of through will tell you that it really wasn't
a decision, that you had no choice in the matter, that *who you are*
dictated that you got up to go to work.
That's all very interesting. But how would you go about disproving this
idea? What sort of evidence could you gather against it, even
potentially?
There is none. There's no conceiveable evidence that would count against
such an idea. Therefore, it's not a theory, it's just an idea. An
assertion, if you like.
: then it is a hypothesis. Is this correct? If most of science is
: theory, and people assume that the theory is true, then that requires
: faith/belief, and science is a belief system.
You're so hung up on this belief stuff. Belief is necessary for
knowledge. If you don't believe proposition P is true, then you certainly
can't know P is true.
: > It seems silly to say that you have *faith* that circles have no corners.
: The proof of such statements is the definition. The definition of a
: circle as a shape with no corners proves that a circle has no corners.
: As proof exists, no faith is required.
No. That is not proof. It may be something you call proof, but it is not
proof in the formal sense of that word.
: I do indeed aim to believe in things that are true, and disbelieve in
: things that are false. I do not however believe that for all (or even
: many) things I can actually know if they are true or false. I have to
: rely on varying degrees of belief, but very little actual knowledge.
It's beyond that. Your definition of knowledge results in the entire mass
of humanity not knowing *anything*.
That's a useless definition of the term. Feel free to define it that way,
but then go take a course in epistemology and fail miserably. Please.
: is however a very very good idea. I don't think 'faith' falls into the
: 'technical term in a specific field' category, at least not the way we
: were using it.
I'm using it in the metaphysical sense. You're using it in the day-to-day
sense, which is a bad idea, because we're hardly having a day-to-day sort
of discussion.
: The point I am trying to make is as follows:
: 1. When you get right down to it is actually impossible to know anything
: (outside of some specific areas such as mathematics and formal logic).
: 2. It is therefore impossible to know if scientific theories are true.
: 3. People believe that scientific theories are true.
: 4. Science is therefore a belief system and requires an element of
: faith.
How does 4. follow from 1., 2., and 3.? I see no logical connection. Not
to mention that your conclusion 4. directly contradicts one of your
premises, 1.
o2tox
> Yep. Worse, they then actually make those prejudices true by making
> Orks and Trolls stupid, while the pretty-boy races are as smart as
> Humies... If the Orks and Trolls are meant to be metaphors for
> hispanics and blacks, while Elves and Dwarves are, what, asians and
> jews?, then that's about the most insulting bit of racism I've seen
> outside of David Duke's diatribes in years.
>
> However, it appears most likely that the original designers just
> grabbed the stock Tolkien races, pasted them in, and then pasted some
> vague Watts-riot stuff in on top, not stopping to think about what
> they'd just done. I'd rather believe they were acting out of stupidity,
> not malice.
>
> Anyway, I plan to remove the Intelligence mods but leave the
> descriptions unchanged, and I'll only tell any affected players
> initially, to represent typical Human bigotry. But then, I'm also
> replacing the Dwarves with Goblins 'cuz I hate cute demihumans, and
> making the Elves a "monster race" like Dragons and other inimical
> paranormal life forms, so my take on SR is a bit different than usual
> (yes, I'm using SOME of the original game - much of the system is
> unchanged, and magic and tech are still pristine).
>
> -- <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
>
I suggest you leave the intelligence mod in your game unless you want to be
overrun with orc PCs. And why do you think dwarves are cute? In my games
they are all about 4 feet tall, hairy and fat. Elves are the reall
twinkies of the bunch, too tall, too thin, and too pretty. They might as
well have painted targets on their foreheads. Of course that's just my
style of GMing.
Avatar
:
: I suggest you leave the intelligence mod in your game unless you want to be
: overrun with orc PCs. And why do you think dwarves are cute? In my games
: they are all about 4 feet tall, hairy and fat. Elves are the reall
: twinkies of the bunch, too tall, too thin, and too pretty. They might as
: well have painted targets on their foreheads. Of course that's just my
: style of GMing.
We've not had a problem with people jumping on the metahuman band wagon
just because they can. We made it easier to be metahuman in the game
(still costs one level more than human on the chart) and our metahuman to
human percentages stayed about the same. Everyone continued to play what
they liked to play. Human players and metahuman players. I get amused by
the doomsayers who continue to say "Oooooo if you take away that limit
everyone will be orcs." Perhaps you should play with non-munchkin type
players for a while....
Avatar
dog_s...@my-dejanews.com
they would normally prefer anyway then why remove the intelligence modifiers?
If that is the style of game you have and you're focusing on the roleplaying
then it shouldn't matter. After all, there are no real Orcs or Trolls to be
offended by stereotyping.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Theo McGuckin
> : overrun with orc PCs. And why do you think dwarves are cute? In my games
> : they are all about 4 feet tall, hairy and fat. Elves are the reall
> : twinkies of the bunch, too tall, too thin, and too pretty. They might as
> : well have painted targets on their foreheads. Of course that's just my
> : style of GMing.
> :
> We've not had a problem with people jumping on the metahuman band wagon
> just because they can. We made it easier to be metahuman in the game
> (still costs one level more than human on the chart) and our metahuman to
> human percentages stayed about the same. Everyone continued to play what
> they liked to play. Human players and metahuman players. I get amused by
> the doomsayers who continue to say "Oooooo if you take away that limit
> everyone will be orcs." Perhaps you should play with non-munchkin type
> players for a while....
I concur with the above. My old group went with the old "more metahumans"
rule and of the seven char. two were metahumans (and ork street samauri
and an elven street samaurai). We never had any problems, if anything the
ork was majorly weak because of his no cyberware shtick.
I think that the majority of good players will play what they want to
play. They generally get an idea for a char. and then build the char. as
best they can in the rules. They don't build a street sam and then decide
that they could do better if they make him an ork (or troll). They come up
with an idea for a char. (a former british royal-brat that expressed into
a minatour) and then fit the concept into the rules.
With the standard (a.k.a. harsh) rules for metahumans you are basically
penalizing players for trying to inject a little variety.
Hope I didn't miss the mark on this thread, came into it kinda late.
-Theo McGuckin, Operations
"Are we going to push it to the edge of the envelope and beyond,
Brain?"
"No Pinky. We may, however, reach the sticky part."
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Theo McGuckin <t...@jlabs1.jlab.org> spake:
>> : I suggest you leave the intelligence mod in your game unless you want to be
>> : overrun with orc PCs. And why do you think dwarves are cute? In my games
>> : they are all about 4 feet tall, hairy and fat.
Put a little hat on 'em and they're garden gnomes. And they don't
even have an Int penalty, yet they don't seem to be completely
dominating most campaigns, from what I see on the Web.
>I concur with the above. My old group went with the old "more metahumans"
>rule and of the seven char. two were metahumans (and ork street samauri
>and an elven street samaurai).
And note that SR3 has very cheap metahumans, and doesn't even have
allergies any more (I think removing those was a mistake, because they
added flavor to the metahumans, but the liability lawsuits in the sixth
world must've been hell on corps; maybe they have better allergy-control
drugs by 2060).
> We never had any problems, if anything the
>ork was majorly weak because of his no cyberware shtick.
>
>I think that the majority of good players will play what they want to
>play.
Exactly. I don't tolerate munchkins at all, and I play with a
near-perfect group of real roleplayers, so it won't be a problem for me.
And if I was with another group, well, I really learned to GM from open
gaming clubs where ANYONE could walk up and sit down (just think about
that for a moment and know REAL GMing fear), so I control munchkins with
a 2x4 in the face, not rules... Rules are just for creating the
campaign tone I want.
dog_s...@my-dejanews.com
kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) wrote:
> Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:24:31 -0400:
> Theo McGuckin <t...@jlabs1.jlab.org> spake:
> >> : I suggest you leave the intelligence mod in your game unless you want to
be
> >> : overrun with orc PCs. And why do you think dwarves are cute? In my
games
> >> : they are all about 4 feet tall, hairy and fat.
>
> Put a little hat on 'em and they're garden gnomes. And they don't
> even have an Int penalty, yet they don't seem to be completely
> dominating most campaigns, from what I see on the Web.
>
That would be because their feet can't reach the pedals in a car, and they
have a lot of trouble going up and down stairs. That doesn't even cover
not getting waited on because the server can't see you etc.
>
>I concur with the above. My old group went with the old "more metahumans"
> >rule and of the seven char. two were metahumans (and ork street samauri
> >and an elven street samaurai).
>
My old Shadowrun group had over half metahuman PCs and that was without the
"more meta rules" We started right after SR 1 came out and campaigned until
about March of 1998
>
And note that SR3 has very cheap metahumans, and doesn't even have
> allergies any more (I think removing those was a mistake, because they
> added flavor to the metahumans, but the liability lawsuits in the sixth
> world must've been hell on corps; maybe they have better allergy-control
> drugs by 2060).
>
> > We never had any problems, if anything the
> >ork was majorly weak because of his no cyberware shtick.
> >
> >I think that the majority of good players will play what they want to
> >play.
>
> Exactly. I don't tolerate munchkins at all, and I play with a
> near-perfect group of real roleplayers, so it won't be a problem for me.
If they are near perfect poleplayers then why remove the intelligence
mods?
> And if I was with another group, well, I really learned to GM from open
> gaming clubs where ANYONE could walk up and sit down (just think about
> that for a moment and know REAL GMing fear), so I control munchkins with
> a 2x4 in the face, not rules... Rules are just for creating the
> campaign tone I want.
>
A 2x4 in the face?? I've been in several biker bars and never knew of any
of them that had an open RPG club in the back room.
> -- <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
dog_s...@my-dejanews.com <dog_s...@my-dejanews.com> spake:
>In article <slrn7ho9sq....@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu>,
> kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) wrote:
>That would be because their feet can't reach the pedals in a car, and they
>have a lot of trouble going up and down stairs. That doesn't even cover
>not getting waited on because the server can't see you etc.
That doesn't seem to match SR's source material at all, where many of
them are riggers, and they receive no noticeable social penalties. I
didn't see many "No Dwarves Allowed" signs in Seattle Sourcebook. They
don't suffer from a Cha penalty.
They seem to hold a fair number of socially-responsible positions,
too, unlike Orks and Trolls. If there's bigotry against the runts, it's
*REALLY* subtle.
>My old Shadowrun group had over half metahuman PCs and that was without the
>"more meta rules" We started right after SR 1 came out and campaigned until
>about March of 1998
And how old were your players when you started? You needed to pull
out the LART (Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool) and start breaking
skulls until they came vaguely close to the racial percentages listed
like roleplayers would.
>If they are near perfect poleplayers then why remove the intelligence
>mods?
You have the reasoning entirely backwards there.
I *WANT* to remove the Int penalties in the first place because it's
racist to have them in, if the Orks and Trolls represent real-world
racism. If there was no overtone of dealing with racism, and I thought
the Int penalty was appropriate, I'd leave it be, but there is no way in
hell I'll perpetrate that kind of "Bell Curve"-style bigotry of my own
free will. On top of which, I think it's amusing to have them really be
as smart as everyone else, because I hate genre cliches.
I'm not afraid to remove the Int penalties *because* they're good
*R*oleplayers and I know they won't all take super-smart Trolls and Orks
just to piss me off and gain more "power".
>> And if I was with another group, well, I really learned to GM from open
>> gaming clubs where ANYONE could walk up and sit down (just think about
>> that for a moment and know REAL GMing fear), so I control munchkins with
>> a 2x4 in the face, not rules... Rules are just for creating the
>> campaign tone I want.
>>
>A 2x4 in the face?? I've been in several biker bars and never knew of any
>of them that had an open RPG club in the back room.
The only good munchkin is a dead munchkin.
Ryan J. Powers
>
> And how old were your players when you started? You needed to pull
>out the LART (Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool) and start breaking
>skulls until they came vaguely close to the racial percentages listed
>like roleplayers would.
Didi you even think about htis before posting it? Since when is your
average group of shadowrunners a statistically representative sanmple of
anything? Well let's see, 1% of the population is magically active. We
have four PC's. Nope you can't play a mage for the next 24 campaigns we
jsut had one. Sheesh.
> I *WANT* to remove the Int penalties in the first place because it's
>racist to have them in, if the Orks and Trolls represent real-world
>racism. If there was no overtone of dealing with racism, and I thought
>the Int penalty was appropriate, I'd leave it be, but there is no way in
>hell I'll perpetrate that kind of "Bell Curve"-style bigotry of my own
>free will. On top of which, I think it's amusing to have them really be
>as smart as everyone else, because I hate genre cliches.
>
> I'm not afraid to remove the Int penalties *because* they're good
>*R*oleplayers and I know they won't all take super-smart Trolls and Orks
>just to piss me off and gain more "power".
>
So you want to change the rules because you think that they are racist,
but don't expect them to change anything. I f it won't make a difference,
why change the rule?
ANd who is to say that the penalties aren't justified. They don't exist
remember, I haven't met a troll ever, have you? I'm not saying don't
change them, but "it's not realistic so I'm going to change it" based on
a fantasy race is a pretty flimsy reason.
You don't like it IFne, change it, but because someone else doesn't think
it is bad does not make them a munchkin. Maybe your right, orks and trolls
don't need the intelligence penalty, you do for going off without thinking
for a bit. Although I don't think you're not intelligent, I don't actually
know you, but if you are you didn't use it for that post.
The old, "He doesn't agree with me he must be a munchkin" line is getting
rather old, you've argued by throwing insults at otehr players, GM's and
characters instead of supporting you arguments wiht anything more thatn "I
said so so everyone must agree..oh yeah and I'll use the word racist so I
can feel morally superior to those who don't"
Ryan
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Ryan J. Powers <rjpo...@pace1.cts.mtu.edu> spake:
>Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
>>skulls until they came vaguely close to the racial percentages listed
>>like roleplayers would.
>
>Didi you even think about htis before posting it? Since when is your
>average group of shadowrunners a statistically representative sanmple of
>anything? Well let's see, 1% of the population is magically active. We
>have four PC's. Nope you can't play a mage for the next 24 campaigns we
>jsut had one. Sheesh.
Most SR teams will have disproportionate skill sets, but I see no
reason why the racial mix would be far out of the ordinary - unless some
munchkin is just grabbing a metahuman for the bonuses.
>So you want to change the rules because you think that they are racist,
>but don't expect them to change anything. I f it won't make a difference,
>why change the rule?
Excuse you? It *WILL* make a difference - they'll be smarter than
many bigoted dipshits in the game world think. It *WON'T* cause there
be more Ork and Troll characters in my games, because I don't play with
munchkins. See, that's what we call a "roleplaying" issue.
Go back and read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
>ANd who is to say that the penalties aren't justified. They don't exist
>remember, I haven't met a troll ever, have you? I'm not saying don't
>change them, but "it's not realistic so I'm going to change it" based on
>a fantasy race is a pretty flimsy reason.
Yeah, and who's to say those same exact biases about blacks and
hispanics and asians, that produced results exactly like the Night of
Rage and "Human Only" clubs, aren't right?
If you LIKE having based-in-verifiable-fact racism in your game, go
for it, but I ain't playing there. And yeah, I do think that makes me,
if not morally superior, at least morally aware.
>You don't like it IFne, change it, but because someone else doesn't think
>it is bad does not make them a munchkin.
Saying that "everyone will play an ork if you don't have penalties" is
the most perfect munchkin response imaginable.
>don't need the intelligence penalty, you do for going off without thinking
>for a bit. Although I don't think you're not intelligent, I don't actually
>know you, but if you are you didn't use it for that post.
You need reading comprehension and some civility. Fuck off until you
have both (is that language you can understand? Email me if you need it
in more one-syllable words.)
elrick
Dwarves, Elves, Orks, and Trolls are all fantastical creatures, all with
their own racial traits. These traits, as presented in Shadowrun, can be
summed up as follows:
*Dwarves are short and stocky. They enjoy drinking. They relate better to
jobs in confined spaces (be it a mine shaft or an air handler), and tend to
be more willful than most people.
*Elves are attractive, slender, artistic, and generally considered pansies.
*Orks are tough, surly, loud, and slow-witted. They are also loyal to their
friends and will go to great lengths to defend them.
*Trolls are big and dumb, and getting one angry is never a good idea.
These traits are not universal, they are simply common. An Ork can have an
intelligence of 6, or 7, or 8, if you want them to, but it is rare. A Troll
can have a high Charisma, but it is rare. Very rare.
The only correlations you can draw between these species and the different
races of real-life are those imposed by individual prejudice or an awareness
of common prejudice. (I'm not trying to call anybody a racist here, so don't
get upset.) As far as I know, there is no race generally thought of as being
big, dumb, and ugly, or short, unathletic and biased toward living
underground. My experience with the races in this world have brought me to
conclusions about real-life racial traits that fail to match up with any of
the descriptions above. Therefore, I can only conclude that, although the
concept of racism stays the same, there is no parallel between the specifics
of today's racism and those of Shadowrun's racism.
Incidentally, I'd like to point out that, even though they don't admit it,
FASA has kept today's cultural racism alive and well in the Shadowrun
universe. It still sucks to be a gaijin working for a Japanacorp. Amerinds
probably aren't looked on too fondly in the UCAS. I'm willing to bet that
Blacks still get a raw deal in parts of the CAS. And nobody can convince me
that Californians like Aztlaners. There's still fighting in the Middle East
(as referred to, I think, in Dunkie's Will). And so on, and so forth. Why
would they need to create a metaphor for a problem that's still around?
-elrick.
Kalan Kier
Note: opinions are mine and mine alone. Discussion/questions welcome as
always, flames to /dev/null/, etc.
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:7fat0g$d7k$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com...
> Wraith <wra...@shadows.globalnet.co.uk> writes:
> : > sense. If you're not willing to extend provisional trust to them, you
> : > literally can't know anything.
>
> : Which is pretty much my point, it is impossible to truly _know_
> : anything.
>
> Don't you see the absurd contradiction you fall into in making that
> statement? If you argue that it is impossible to know anything, you are
> making a knowledge claim: you are saying that you know that it is
> impossible to know anything. But if it is impossible to know anything,
> how can you argue that it is impossible to know anything?
Basic logical idea: You cannot disprove the existence of anything. Mind
you, you can establish that its opposite is true, and therefore it logically
cannot exist, but you cannot actually disprove something's existence, just
pile on evidence to the contrary. All science, heck to some extent all
knowledge, depends on someone having X amount of evidence, enough to
convince people of the validity of their idea.
2+2=4. I can show you a proof for this. I can show you several. I can
show you proofs for the proofs. Assuming you accept that mathematics are
internally consistent, that we agree on the laws of mathematics, etc., I can
present a mountain of evidence that 2+2=4. Thus, rational people who are
literate enough to know what a number looks like on paper can easily have it
shown to them WHY 2+2=4. Most simply understand, count on their fingers
once or twice, and move on.
>
>
> : We can be reasonably sure of things, but it is impossible to
> : know anything without possibility of doubt.
>
> Well, which is it? Is it impossible for us to know anything, or is it
> impossible to know anything without possibility if doubt? The two
> statements are radically different. Nobody is suggesting that knowledge
> precludes doubt.
Knowledge ENCOURAGES doubt. If I know that people do not fly unaided, and
you then tell me that you saw someone flying, I will doubt you more or less
instantly. If, on finding out more info, I realize that you saw said person
flying in a Superman movie, I am considerably more likely to belive you. If
you said you saw someone flying on the STREET, I will likely think you a
loon. If I then see on the PM news that someone was seen flying over
downtown, I will rethink my earlier analysis of your mental state. Note: We
were both correct. My knowledge that people do not fly was based on
empirical evidence, experience, biology, physics, etc. Your knowledge of
someone flying down the street was based on experience. A hypothesis that
said flying man is not a normal human being would thus likely be valid.
1. People do not fly unaided
2. You saw someone flying unaided
3. Several people, cameras, etc back up your observation
4. Said flying person was a)using an aid that was not detected, or b)not a
normal human
Logic, albeit greatly simplified.
Well, no. If you don't trust your senses, there MAY not be traffic. There
may be no such THING as traffic. Wanna take the chance?:)
>
> : > And again, that's irrelevant. Read this again: You can have proof in
> : > logical systems, or in mathmatics. Proof exists nowhere else in the
> : > universe.
>
> : Exactly.
Well, no. What if you don't belive in mathematics since the only way you've
experienced them is through your senses? If you REALLY don't trust anything
based on sensory perception, NOTHING can have logical validity, since you
cannot trust your perception of the underlying logic.
Give or take the standard wordplay exceptions that people love to tout.
"Love sucks." "Death hurts." Etc. These, of course, have no weight here,
I throw them in merely to point out the difference between logic and
sematics.
1. If it's impossible to trust your senses, it's impossible to prove
mathematical laws. So it is impossible to know things about math and formal
logic by your definition. However, you can (again according to your
definition(s)) BELIEVE in them.
2. What's a theory? I read the definition once, but I don't really trust my
eyes...
3. Some do. Some do not. Ask the average fundamentalist Catholic if he
believes in evolution, then duck...
4. Again, if you TRULY cannot trust your senses at all, you cannot logically
define science (or, for that matter, logic). Your definitions of these
things depend on you having found out at some point what they mean. That
information came from sensory input (reading a definition, or hearing a
teacher explain it, etc.). Can you be sure that you're reading this post
correctly?:) If I later say that you misquoted me, can you prove me wrong?
Remember, I trust my senses, you do not trust yours...
Food for thought, hold the lettuce.
-Kalan Kier
Wraith
>
> Sorry to come in so late to this... but I couldn't resist.
> Note: opinions are mine and mine alone. Discussion/questions welcome as
> always, flames to /dev/null/, etc.
>
> Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote in message
> news:7fat0g$d7k$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com...
> > Wraith <wra...@shadows.globalnet.co.uk> writes:
My news server seems to be stuffed, so I didn't actually get Brian's
response to my letter, only Kalan's response to Brian's so I'm going to
reply from there. This probably means that I will get things wrong, but
hey...fear of getting things wrong hasn't stopped me so far :)
This argument seems to have evolved from whether science is a belief
system, to whether it is possible to know things, or to have knowledge.
It's not what I was originally discussing, but I'll run with it :) I'm
also going to shorten this alot because it's getting _huge_, if I
misquote then please correct me.
> > : I think this
> > : argument<del><del><del> discussion is kinda going around in circles
> > : about what is _reasonable_ to call knowledge and what we can actually
> > : know
> >
> > Let's confine this to propositional knowledge. What would you say it
> > means to *know* something?
> >
> > What knowledge means in epistemology is this:
> >
> > Say I believe that A. In order to know A,
> > 1. A must be true.
> > 2. I must have reason to believe in A.
Ok, this seems a pretty good definition to go with. My point would be
that (1) is impossible to know. I fully agree with (2), and that would
be where my opinion that science is a belief system comes in. Without
(1), no matter how good your reasons are, you will not 'know'.
I think this is going to come down to one of those arguments about
absolute truth. As I've said before, I'm opinionated but not the best
informed, so here's a question about the above definition of knowledge:
Do you have to know (1) in order to have 'knowledge', or is it enough
that it is true whether you know it or not?
This would seem to have problems whichever way it is answered. If you
have to know it is true for knowledge then this becomes a recursive
definition. If you don't have to know that it is true, then I will
concede that knowledge is possible. However it doesn't change my
position that science is a belief system, because we won't know who has
knowledge, and who doesn't (based on an unknown 'truth' factor).
> > Therefore, not doing that is useless. You can go ahead and play in
> > traffic, because there's really know traffic.
>
> Well, no. If you don't trust your senses, there MAY not be traffic.
> There may be no such THING as traffic. Wanna take the chance?:)
No I don't want to take the chance, because I _believe_ there is
traffic. I could be hallucinating and there isn't any traffic, but it's
not worth the chance. Doesn't change the fact that I don't _know_ that
there is traffic.
> > : > And again, that's irrelevant. Read this again: You can have proof
> > : > in logical systems, or in mathmatics. Proof exists nowhere else in
> > : > the universe.
> >
> > : Exactly.
>
> Well, no. What if you don't belive in mathematics since the only way
> you've experienced them is through your senses? If you REALLY don't trust
> anything based on sensory perception, NOTHING can have logical validity,
> since you cannot trust your perception of the underlying logic.
The point about formal logic and discrete mathematics is that it isn't
based on sensory perception. I don't need to know that the pattern '1'
is a one, and '2' is a two, to be able to know that 1+1=2 no matter what
symbols are used. Logic is in fact very separate from the symbols, for
example 1+1=10 is nonsense in decimal, but is correct in binary.
To clarify, here is an example of something which has logical validity,
but which also suffers from my lack of trust in my perception. As I
have said earlier in this thread I am red-green colour blind. However I
know that in the UK the colour of traffic light which means 'stop' is
'red'. So my internal logic knows that 'red means stop'. However,
shown a traffic light in the distance and asked what state it was in I
would not be 100% sure of my answer. There is nothing wrong with my
logic, just my input.
> > : In absolute terms I think it does. Which of these statements is more
> > : correct?
> > : (a) I believe the universe started as described in the Big Bang
> > : theory.
> > : (b) I know the universe started as described in the Big Bang theory.
> >
> > Which of these statements is more correct:
> > a. I believe the earth has a moon orbiting it at a distance of roughly
> > 250,000 miles.
> > b. I know the earth has a moon orbiting it at a distance of roughly
> > 250,000 miles.
Sorry I fail to see the difference between our statements. I don't know
that the moon is really there, I'm just very very sure. So my answer
would still be (a).
> > If I say:
> >
> > a. All sweaters are red.
> > b. Rob is wearing a sweater.
> >
> > then c. Rob is wearing a red sweater follows logically from a. and b.
> > This argument is logically valid, and if a. and b. are true, it is also
> > logically sound.
<snip some propositional logic>
I fully agree that it is possible to know things defined in such a way,
because they are internally consistent and do not rely on the symbols
used to portray them. Therefore it does not require trusting your
senses to know logic.
> > Axioms are statements which are undeniably true.
> >
> > Metaphysical axioms include such laws as "Existence exists." Note the
> > undeniable truth of that axiom. Epistemological axioms include
> > "Consciousness exists," and "it is possible to know the truth," among
> > other things.
I suppose that's pretty much what epistemology requires to call itself
true. I personally wouldn't agree that it is undeniably true that "it
is possible to know the truth". It is possible to know something which
is the truth, but is it possible to know you know? Is this even
required in epistemology? Comes back to my previous question about the
definition of knowledge.
> > Let me give you an example. In the great free-will debate, there is a
> > school of thought that free-will doesn't exist.
Hey, I've a great idea...once we've solved this debate, why don't we do
free will -v- determinism, then we could do nature -v- nurture, then we
could do is there a god?, then... :) I'm only joking of course,
everbody reading this: I was ONLY JOKING......oh man what have I
done...it's then end of the newsgroup....ahhhhh ;)
> > You're so hung up on this belief stuff. Belief is necessary for
> > knowledge. If you don't believe proposition P is true, then you
> > certainly can't know P is true.
Well all I originally started by arguing that science was a belief
system so I think that about wraps that one up :) Only 'knowledge' to
go :)
> > : > It seems silly to say that you have *faith* that circles have no
> corners.
> >
> > : The proof of such statements is the definition. The definition of a
> > : circle as a shape with no corners proves that a circle has no corners.
> > : As proof exists, no faith is required.
> >
> > No. That is not proof. It may be something you call proof, but it is
> > not proof in the formal sense of that word.
Ok it is an axiom, you still don't need faith.
> > It's beyond that. Your definition of knowledge results in the entire
> > mass of humanity not knowing *anything*.
And your definition results in the vast majority of historical humanity
not knowing anything, as the failed the truth criteria with most early
science. But we're still here, and our science is still in the position
it is in. Knowledge isn't required to live your life, or discover new
scientific theories or whatever. Belief is.
B.t.w. I'm using belief in the way we've used it in this discussion, not
in any religious way which is irrelevant to this discussion.
> > That's a useless definition of the term. Feel free to define it that
> > way, but then go take a course in epistemology and fail miserably.
> > Please.
*grin* Nah, I'd rather be ignorant and spout my theories to the whole
world :) Seriously, epistemology is about the definition of knowledge
and requires certain fundamental beliefs...the axioms you stated above.
If you don't neccessarily accept those foundations, you're not going to
do too well in the course. Telling me I would fail an epistemology
course is like telling an athiest that they would fail a theology
course, or a creationist that they would fail a darwinism course. I
suppose it might even be considered an axiom :)
> > : is however a very very good idea. I don't think 'faith' falls into
> > : the 'technical term in a specific field' category, at least not the
> > : way we were using it.
> >
> > I'm using it in the metaphysical sense. You're using it in the
> > day-to-day sense, which is a bad idea, because we're hardly having a
> > day-to-day sort of discussion.
What is the difference between your 'metaphysical' and my day-to-day
definitions? I would suggest that both mean 'a belief in something for
which you have no proof'.
> > : The point I am trying to make is as follows:
> > : 1. When you get right down to it is actually impossible to know
> > : anything (outside of some specific areas such as mathematics and
> > : formal logic).
> > : 2. It is therefore impossible to know if scientific theories are true.
> > : 3. People believe that scientific theories are true.
> > : 4. Science is therefore a belief system and requires an element of
> > : faith.
> >
> 1. If it's impossible to trust your senses, it's impossible to prove
> mathematical laws. So it is impossible to know things about math and
> formal logic by your definition. However, you can (again according to your
> definition(s)) BELIEVE in them.
As I said above, formal logic does not require trust in you senses. A
computer processor is entirely logical irrespective of the input.
> 2. What's a theory? I read the definition once, but I don't really trust
> my eyes...
Nope, and even if you did you cannot trust language. This is evident in
our discussions of the meaning of 'faith' and 'knowledge'. Language is
not logical and therefore cannot be 'known' (IMHO of course).
> 3. Some do. Some do not. Ask the average fundamentalist Catholic if he
> believes in evolution, then duck...
Ok. 3. _Some_ people believe that scientific theories are true
Is that better? Fundamentalist Catholic getting violent? Hmmm...seems
like they weren't as fundamental as they would like to thing. c.f.
Abortion is bad because it's killing babies, and thou shalt not
kill...lets kill the abortion doctors! What is that all about?
> 4. Again, if you TRULY cannot trust your senses at all, you cannot
> logically define science (or, for that matter, logic). Your definitions
> of these things depend on you having found out at some point what they
> mean.
Well yeah, I cannot know that my definition of science is true. I can
only believe that it is.
> Can you be sure that you're reading this
> post correctly?:) If I later say that you misquoted me, can you prove me
> wrong?
Nope, it's a good thing that courts only require 'beyond reasonable
doubt' for criminal cases isn't it :) (Mind you I only need 'balance of
probabilities for a civil case' - at least I do here.)
> Remember, I trust my senses, you do not trust yours...
Nope, I don't trust my senses...I don't even know if you exist, never
mind whether you trust your senses or not ;)
Mark W Brehob
> Most SR teams will have disproportionate skill sets, but I see no
> reason why the racial mix would be far out of the ordinary - unless some
> munchkin is just grabbing a metahuman for the bonuses.
I can see a lot of reasons. All might be friends from the same
(segregated) neighborhood/town/country. One of them may hate humans and
only work in groups that have few, if any, of them. The fixer may prefer
metahumans or have better contacts with metahumans. And lastly, don't
forget that "society" doesn't really care for orcs or trolls. And Elves and
Dwarves have their own stereotypes. Those motivated souls who would
otherwise be a middle manager somewhere end up on the street.
So I'd expect runners as a whole to have a higher ratio of metahumans than
the general population.
On racism:
* Orc and Trolls are generally ugly, brutish and slower than the
rest of humanity. Thus people don't like them.
* Male Elves are "pretty-boys". People see them as "arty" types
with no real soul. They are also seen as uppity and nasty. They
think they are better than the rest of "us". And many of us
suspect they may be right. A generally disliked group of folks if
ever there was one.
* Dwarves are a bit odd. As stocky and strong as they are, they
also have a reputation for control and precision. Sure that dwarf
can kill you as easily as the orc. But he won't. In the games
I've played "people" are comfortable with dwarves. Dwarves do
have some of the problems orcs and trolls do. They don't fit
anything (clothes, cars, stairs) that humans do. Not a big deal
for the most part. Of all the meta-races, the dwarves see the
least prejudice. They similar to "the rest of us" (unlike orcs
and trolls) but they are not better than "us" (unlike elves)
On the self-image of non-pure human females.
(all IMO and In My World)
* Elf females have few additional problems compared to their male
counterparts. They are generally attractive and match well with
society's definition of what a woman should be. They are often
thought of as cold and uncaring, with hearts of ice. But the
males have that same problem. It seems likely that male elves
have a harder time with self image than the females.
Elven fashions tend to be close to human fashions for both
genders.
* Some orc and troll women have real self image problems. Large
fangs, "warty" skin and being built like a weight lifter does not
match well with society's definition of a woman. However orcs and
trolls often live in their own societies anyways. While the mass
media does reach them, it is their day-to-day interactions with
other trogs which which shape their world view. Further the
"beauty aids" which are used by humans (and dwarves and elves) are
mostly plain silly on an orc or troll (hose, skin conditioner,
etc.) So they have been targeted as a completely separate market
by the beauty industry. To sell this stuff (and other things
marketed to orcs and trolls) "trog TV" has sprung up. This mostly
consists of cheaply done soaps and local "news". [The occasional
good show has come out of this market and hit mainstream. "John
Smith, Orc Detective" is probably the best known of this genre.]
All of this has given orc and troll females their own fashion
models and "ideal" look. While it doesn't jive with the smoothes
ideal, it is more achievable.
"Office" trog fashions for women tend toward earth tones and solid
colors. Older human fashions from Africa, the Mid-east, and India
tend to see heavy use. Hats or headgear of some sort is fairly
common. The face is often emphasized over the rest of the body.
Wigs are considered in poor taste (they were common for years).
Wearing things designed to look more "human-like" is generally
considered to be "selling out".
When male trogs dress up they tend to dress conservatively (ie.
suit and tie). In part because it they need the extra "authority"
it lends them. In part to distinguish themselves from their
mostly lower-class brethren. But mostly because they fill them
out so well. Fashion conscious orc men almost always wear a
jacket of some sort. Perhaps a suit coat, perhaps a leather
duster. But always a jacket.
* Dwarf women have a harder time than the rest in many ways. Their
male counterparts aren't too far from societies norms for a man.
And further dwarves tend not to segregate themselves as much as
the orcs and trolls. All of this can make self image very hard on
female dwarves, especially those who are in their mid to late
teens.
Recently dwarven fashions have started to veer a bit from the
mainstream. Older looks from an idealized feudal Europe have
sprung up. This fashion is called the "Renaissance" look or the
"Dwarven Renaissance" and is the first real fashion successfully
targeted to to dwarves (of both genders). Probably in part
because their parents hate it. (Too "Tolken-like" for those who
had to fight that stereotype for years)
Dwarf "office" fashions for men are very close to their pure human
counterparts. Females are also somewhat similar to pure human,
but many shy away from slacks and go with skirts. For very formal
occasions the "Renaissance" thing is sometimes taken to extremes
(period clothing sometimes with a knife or sword as a fashion
accessory for the men.)
Mark
dog_s...@my-dejanews.com
kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) wrote:
> Tue, 20 Apr 1999 22:45:17 GMT:
> dog_s...@my-dejanews.com <dog_s...@my-dejanews.com> spake:
> >In article <slrn7ho9sq....@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu>,
> > kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes) wrote:
> >That would be because their feet can't reach the pedals in a car, and they
> >have a lot of trouble going up and down stairs. That doesn't even cover
> >not getting waited on because the server can't see you etc.
>
> That doesn't seem to match SR's source material at all, where many of
> them are riggers, and they receive no noticeable social penalties. I
> didn't see many "No Dwarves Allowed" signs in Seattle Sourcebook. They
> don't suffer from a Cha penalty.
Rigging requires the VCR cyberware and an appropiately equipped vehicle,
and of course when decking the Matrix height isn't a problem.
> They seem to hold a fair number of socially-responsible positions,
> too, unlike Orks and Trolls. If there's bigotry against the runts, it's
> *REALLY* subtle.
Yeah, they are short so many "normal" humans don't feel intimidated by them
>
> >My old Shadowrun group had over half metahuman PCs and that was without the
> >"more meta rules" We started right after SR 1 came out and campaigned until
> >about March of 1998
>
> And how old were your players when you started? You needed to pull
> out the LART (Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool) and start breaking
> skulls until they came vaguely close to the racial percentages listed
> like roleplayers would.
I was 32 when we first started, I believe the oldest group member was 33
and the youngest was 29.
>
> >If they are near perfect poleplayers then why remove the intelligence
> >mods?
>
> You have the reasoning entirely backwards there.
>
> I *WANT* to remove the Int penalties in the first place because it's
> racist to have them in, if the Orks and Trolls represent real-world
> racism. If there was no overtone of dealing with racism, and I thought
> the Int penalty was appropriate, I'd leave it be, but there is no way in
> hell I'll perpetrate that kind of "Bell Curve"-style bigotry of my own
> free will. On top of which, I think it's amusing to have them really be
> as smart as everyone else, because I hate genre cliches.
>
> I'm not afraid to remove the Int penalties *because* they're good
> *R*oleplayers and I know they won't all take super-smart Trolls and Orks
> just to piss me off and gain more "power".
Orks and Trolls DON'T represent real world racism. Real world racism is
an ideology based entirely on false premises, it verges on religious among
real racist. In Shadowrun the difference in the races are quiet real.
> >> And if I was with another group, well, I really learned to GM from open
> >> gaming clubs where ANYONE could walk up and sit down (just think about
> >> that for a moment and know REAL GMing fear), so I control munchkins with
> >> a 2x4 in the face, not rules... Rules are just for creating the
> >> campaign tone I want.
> >>
> >A 2x4 in the face?? I've been in several biker bars and never knew of any
> >of them that had an open RPG club in the back room.
>
> The only good munchkin is a dead munchkin.
>
I prefer to make munchkins stand in the corner while everyone els laughs at
them.
> -- <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Grommit
Kalan Kier wrote:
Some cool stuff
and
> 3. Some do. Some do not. Ask the average fundamentalist Catholic if he
> believes in evolution, then duck...
Dinosaur fossils? God put them here to test our faith.Thank god I'm strapped it
right now dude. I think god put you here to test my faith. :-)
PS Where do you get your drugs from. I want some.
------------------------------------------
Grommit
gro...@grommits-lair.demon.co.uk
www.grommits-lair.demon.co.uk
ICQ - 27531381
'And when the angel comes down,
Down to deliver us,
We'll find out after all,
We're only men of straw.'
Grommit
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
> You need reading comprehension and some civility. Fuck off until you
> have both (is that language you can understand? Email me if you need it
> in more one-syllable words.)
Sweet