Snowlily

*Points out it's Dr. Pepper, and not Mountain Dew*

But thanks... I needs mah caffeine.

Parts of SR4 can get plain silly without a good GM 'riding herd' so to speak. I've seen builds with starting characters pulling out as many as 40 dice for social tests. Or Mages starting with force 15 bound spirits, (Which pretty much Godzilla over everything). A good GM is a must for any Pencil and Paper game, even ones without people who try to break the system.

I am currently in a game that has been running weekly for over two years now. We are getting ready to reset because most of the characters are in the 200-220+ karma range. In that crew if you can't throw 18+ dice at a problem, you are doing something wrong. But it is stretching the bounds of what the system can handle, so we're working on a big blow out retirement run, (Think, The Italian Job) and going to reset after a short break.

And our Hacker never has had a problem having stuff to do, in combat or out of it. Hacking comlinks for false text messages ("Pull back!") or voice calls, messing with the friend/foe settings on smartguns, sending an Agent into an enemy drone or vehicle, and of course - keeping enemy hackers from doing the same to us - is only the beginning. Opening Exit routes, Cutting off bad guy reinforcements, hacking the traffic grid to help in high speed chases, plain old Electronic Warfare - Jaming, Counter-Counter Measures, and keeping us linked up are all part of his job description.

I think the only guy making more rolls is the Sam, who's got four passes (Where most of the party other than the hacker averages one or two).

IMO, Hacker is the only 'not-optional' member of a team. So by all means, play a Hacker . Even if you are new. Dive in with both feet.

When I was thinking about how I was going to respond, I sat and stared at my quoted passage blankly for a good fifteen minutes. As it rolled over to after midnight, I was haunted by the memory of one of my favorite webcomics:

Xkcd #386

(I <3 xkcd)


I find your answer perplexing, given how many artists I know work from references - including an art professor at a major university who teaches Anatomy of the human form, and all of her assignments use references - none of them are live models. You learn to draw the human form by drawing the human form. You learn to do it right by looking at the real thing. Not everyone has access to a model (or models) to work out the solutions to a particular piece they are going to work on. Sometimes taking a picture of yourself in your underwear works, and that's fine and good for portraits (if you are the same general shape and gender of your subject). For the rest of the time, you need a good reference and you can't always find a stock piece in the right pose, or the right lighting, or whatever. Sometimes you leaf through your favorite art book (or deviant art) and see how other artists solved your particular problem. (Tough to find stock photo models doing mid cartwheel flips like spidey - and often expensive, easy to find ridiculous McFarlane poses all over the intrawebz for free. Free is important when you are just drawing Sipdey for your own amusement/practice and then want to show it off to friends when it comes out good.)

Anyway, it's after midnight, I can form no coherent thoughts other than "I disagree, but mostly in the 'intellectual debate' sense, not the 'oh my god I hate your face' sense". Tomorrow is i17, and I'll be too busy trying to get my real work (stupid real life and it's stupid deadlines) done for the day so I can roll up my demon summoner and eat Longbow faces.

So: I mostly disagree with you, and I'm too tired to justify my position clearly so I've just sort of been rambling on (this is why I lurk most of the time - my forum time is when my brain is too mushy to do real work, and I embarrass myself).

Yeah.. good night.

So where does stock photography fit into this? That is, photo references taken for the deliberate purpose of being used as reference material for artists of all mediums. Especially stock photography that's for sale? (two seconds on google and you'll find several sites doing a thriving business). Do artists who use stock photography to create pieces 'mar' their work? Are they just ripping off the photographer?

Speaking as a photographer (rather than a line artist, as most of you seem to be) it is entirely impossible for me to partake in my chosen medium of art without using some form of reference . I must take a picture of something. By many of the definitions outlined here, that makes anything, any picture I take, a derivative work. Using the car example, if I want a picture of a sports car, and I take a shot of a Porsche, regardless of the technique I use, or the tools, or the style: I am still 'photocopying' someone else's design work. There is no getting around the fact that photography does not 'create' anything new and original in the eyes of most people (especially line artists <3).

Except that it does.

One of my favorite photography books on landscaping is titled, "Painting with Light". I think the title alone is descriptive of what the author's view of (landscape) photography is, and I do not disagree, I would extend the metaphor to all forms of photography.

This is especially important when these days, a photographer's work is hardly done when the studio session is over, there is arguelably even more work to be done in the dark room/photoshop (depending whether using film or digital), transforming the raw photoage into something more expressive. very photo photos are as impressive or stunning right out of the camera. Sometimes you get lucky, but most of the time it's a process.

So here I am, taking a shot of a model from a studio shoot (lets further complicate the issue and say someone besides me designed her dress, someone else did her hair, and yet another person did her make up), and I begin using photoshop to airbrush her; perhaps even changing the color and tone of her original dress, make-up or hair. Or smudging her hair out to something more pleasing to the eye. What if the pose is derivative of something well known, such as Marilyn Monroe's windy dress pose? (And how much of that was Her skill as a model, or the camera man's skill with a camera?)

Who does the credit go to? The Model? The Make up artist? The photographer? How much do I have to change before the work becomes mine? (not speaking legally, I know the answer to that.)


T.S. Elliot is often misquoted as saying 'Good Writers borrow, great writer's steal.' (He didn't by the way, despite what the internet tells you.) And the sentiment is usually (when not being used as an excuse for being lazy) interpenetrated as good work inspires great work. We all (as artists) rely on each other to go from Good to Great. If we are forbidden from using other artists as inspiration, in even broad strokes (such as style, form, etc) then what the Heck are we doing forming communities as artists? You are better off (and safer) sequestering yourself and never looking at anyone else's work. Of course that's not true, and I don't believe anyone here thinks it is.

Anything after that though is a matter of degrees, and where you draw the line. (pun intended.)

I agree this is the likely breakdown of powers.

I really hope it's not fire control with electric graphical effects plus one -END -Recovery power. Oh and a sleep instead of smoke.

But I agree what you have is the likely set up of the power structure.

According to Mids I am sitting at 39.4% melee def, 40.7% ranged def, and 33.8% aoe def.

Soft cap is 45 right?

*scratches head* I'm confused.

(edit datalink fixed?)