Re: [BNW] OT: Shadowrun

["travis lide" <sinisterdexter@mindspring.com>]

----- Original Message ----- >
> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 08:09:59 EDT
> From: GMPax@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [BNW]  OT: Shadowrun
>
> In a message dated 4/22/00 4:22:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> darious@darious.com writes:
>
    <SNIP>
> >
> >  But it was one of the first games I encountered that heavily emphasized
> >  setting - and it worked, despite the - IMO - clunky mechanics.  We just
did
> >  what most gaming groups do anyway and  made up a list of house rules
and
> >  changes to the system.   Of course, by the time we were done - our
house
> >  rules were 8 pages long.  :-)
> >  -------------------
>
> If you haven't yet, please check out the Third Editionrules, a lot of the
> patchwork nature has been replaced by a more unified mechanic
(spellcasting
> is now MUCH different than before, for example).

And MUCH better, I might add.. as is the initiative system. No longer are
your Mages stuck saying, "I rolled a 4. Guess I'll let the Samurai handle
this one again. Whee."

> Granted, the number crunching needed for Riggers to modify or
personal-design
> drones and such is very involved, ditto for deckers making their own gear
...
> but actual *play* mechanics have been smoothed out and unified a lot.

Who cares... Deckers and Riggers suck in any edition of Shadowrun, as far as
I'm concerned. Sometimes you have to have them, but it's rare.

 Let the GM run the decker or rigger in the 1 out of 100 times they're
actually required. It costs a lot, but keeps the party poor.

That's my opinion anyway.. and I know a *LOT* of people who disagree with
me. I just can't stand either one. They're tedious and boring. (again, IMO.)

sinisterdexter@mindspring.com