Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: SaintHax Sep 24 2010, 06:28 PM

Here are some points of contention. I'll list them, and provide a suggestion to fix it-- my suggestion may not be the best, or to Bull's liking, but I'd like to offer something. Maybe someone else will have something better. I’m going to break them up into several quick posts to make people that quote them a more sane endeavor.

Posted by: SaintHax Sep 24 2010, 06:28 PM

1. No optional Rules -- sounds great, but it is in fact not true (examples will follow). Since we are already forced to change the rules, I think we should change this to "No Optional Rules unless noted in the FAQ". If we keep the FAQ small, we can include one or two optional rules without disrupting the balance. Let's be honest, there are core rules that disrupt the balance as is anyway.

The next section are all "introduced rules". They may be just added, and not listed as "optional", but it's not RAW and something each player needs to know. See my foot note about cheating also.

Posted by: SaintHax Sep 24 2010, 06:28 PM

2. Forced 4:1 rule. I despise this rule, as it messes with mechanics of the game. It makes sense as an option for players, but not when it's forced. I think the FAQ should footnote that if there is not time at the end of an adventure to do an extended test, then the 4:1 rule can be used to achieve it. We should also force all in between adventure activities to happen at the end of an adventure, so that a group at a Con doesn't have to wait for a (e.g.) mage to bind 3 force X spirits.

Posted by: SaintHax Sep 24 2010, 06:29 PM

3. Diminishing Returns. Before SR4A came out, we were told that this was going to be a mandatory thing in the new rules. It's not (pg. 64 SR4A). As mentioned in the "Learning New Skills" discussion-- where it's impossible to increase a skill with the forced 4:1 and diminishing returns: I think it should be stated in the FAQ that a GM can determine if the action can be accomplished by anyone if given enough time, then this rule is not used. Examples would be finding a legal item, or learning a new skill.

Posted by: SaintHax Sep 24 2010, 06:29 PM

4. Fencing. Where to begin? Start using some of the rules: a Negotiations + Charisma test should be required. A contact should be needed. The base value for a fenced item should be 30%. I'm not sure why SRM02 and SRM03 made it easier to fence goods by removing the social test and contact, but the decrease in value was to make up for vulture players that "take time" to strip everything. This is unrealistic, but I've not seen a GM point that out to the uber characters taking time to collect clanky Predators pistols to sell.

You could still leave the power in the GM's hands with "guide lines" in the FAQ (and possibly in the mod for rare items). Such as, "Common items cannot be fenced or at best only one of the items will be bought due to a flooded market. As a rule of thumb, most items with a value of 500 or less and armor with an availability of 2 or less will fall into this category for the purposes of ShadowRun Missions. Note that stolen vehicles will require a specialized Fence who will require a month of 'cool down' period before buying the stolen item". Just a suggestion, but really you need GM's to be reasonable if someone steals a Horizon helicopter and tries to sell it later that day.

Posted by: SaintHax Sep 24 2010, 06:29 PM

5. Qualities/Flaws banned. No real change here, but this is not RAW and we do use it, so I'm putting it here to track our "optional" rules we don't use.

6. Contacts. The RAW leaves acquiring and improving contacts in the world of "GM discretion". We've created a system where GM's feel (maybe rightfully so) they can only give out contacts that are print outs in the mod. The worst part is, everyone just get's them. My Charisma 1, no social skills Ork was getting the same amount and type of contacts as our face. I really can't see my loyalty level with Peace Man increasing past 1, but it did. SR has a published book of contacts, and I can't see why contacts can't be award from it if the story leads to that logical conclusion-- and the character has the talent and skills to warrant a contact and not just a one time deal. Loyalty rating should also not because you already have the contact.

Posted by: SaintHax Sep 24 2010, 06:30 PM

Lastly a rule I’d like added to SRM

7. Payscale. Pay should be done on an individual basis and the players should not be allowed to split it evenly. At GenCon the Green level characters should not have received the same pay as the veteran players just b/c they were dragged through a TR 6 game. Sure, they should have gotten some type of “danger bonus”, but it’s not fair to the other players who don’t have a big brother to take them through a game. It’s also not realistic, as a Johnson will hire a runner based on their skill.

This could also open the door to bonus pay—though this is a sticky wicket that SRM staff needs to watch in mods—for bonus pay to characters with unique and exotic skill sets. A runner that has sky diving, may get a little more pay in a mod that really can use it. Maybe it’s just enough to be a nod to the player as “good idea”, but a nod is appreciated too.

Lastly, Notority is unused, and here is a great place for it. Someone with Notoriety should be getting a pay cut as less people want to hire him b/c of his flaw. In the real world, the runners would most likely accept the pay they get b/c they deserve it—at the table, players are a lot more prone to still give a portion of their pay to the drag chute that is in the party. This is why a no Gifting rule needs to be in place: good to prevent twinking too.

Posted by: SaintHax Sep 24 2010, 06:30 PM

*My note about preventing cheating…

No one wants to play with a cheat, but the main goal of SRM has got to be “have fun”. If the additional paperwork and rules is such that it lowers my fun more than the off chance that someone sits down at my table with a portable laser he didn’t earn… it’s failed its goal. I believe it’s impossible to stop a cheater that wants to cheat. They can bump stats and not pay the karma for it, and who would know. So why spend so much effort to kill my fun to stop those who cheat.

END

Posted by: Neurosis Sep 24 2010, 07:46 PM

On a theory level (as a GM and the creator/runner of a long-running game for dozens of people) I agree pretty strongly with everything SaintHax has to say.

Of course, I can never get to anywhere Missions are being run and have played like one ever and it was IIRC 3E and set in Denver. So...yeah.

Posted by: Bull Sep 24 2010, 07:54 PM

One caveat to my notes here... The FAQ officially kicks in with Season 4, so GMs can and probably should still be using the S3 FAQ and rules until that point.

1. Already Done.

2. Already Done. Keep in mind that rolling at the table is allowed only at the end of the adventure (Not before, as this can potentially eat into available play time), and only at the GMs discretion and if he feels he has the available time.

3. Keeping Diminishing returns. However, I'm making allowances in the Missions Rules for some tests that end up being relatively impossible. Keep in mind though that even for things like learning skills, it's tough to find a spot where it becomes flat out impossible to learn a new skill. It might require a trainer or a tutorsoft, though. But still, I'm trying to cover these situations as best I can. Generally though, Buying Hits will usually be faster than the alternatives.

4. Straight up, I hate Looting and Fencing. I'll be honest. So don't expect much change here. This isn't D&D, where you kill things and take their stuff. 10% still gives a little cash for players who insist on doing it, but it's not enough of a percentage that it's worth going out of your way for most of the time. I have no problem stealing something if you're going to use it. But I've seen players who are effectivly Shadowrun Kender, even with the crappy sell rate, and it's kind of ridiculous.

5. I'm planning to clarify qualities a bit, and will be reviewing the full list to see if any changes or additions need to be made.

6. Contacts are tricky. The burden is on the GM to use them properly. I've given players random NPCs as contacts when they earned them in games, and I've not given players a loyalty bump if I didn't feel they earned it. There's nothing in the Missions rules that says that players cannot earn additional contacts, and we give guidelins for how players earn bonus loyalty for contacts. But, to be fair, GMs are often pressed for time, and take the easy way out and just automatically give out contacts and give them the loyalty bumps. That's not the fault of Missions though, that's the GM.

7. Again, this is tricky. At the end of the day, we go for simple, quick, and easy. It's just the nature of a living campaign.

8. I'm not really worried about cheating. It will happen regardless, if someone wants to be a douche and cheat. My concern is that there is a level playing field for all players, and that's my main concern with the FAQ and Guidelines.

I have three rules that I follow for Missions.

1. Make it fun.

This is most important to me. It should be fun.

2. Make it simple.

Again, I try and simplify when possible, to speed up pretty much everything. Make the players lives easier by providing ways to do things when there are no GMs around to witness rolls. Make the GMs lives easier by removing some of the tedious bookkeeping that can go on. Just streamline the process as much as possible.

3. Follow the rules.

When possible, I stick with the core SR rules. We assume that most players are familiar with these. And they may not be familiar with the Missions specific stuff. So when possible, we use the default core rules as much as possible.

4. You can't make everyone happy.

This isn't a rule I follow, just something I try and keep in mind, especially when reading DS, the OSR, and talking with players at cons. SOmeone will always be unhappy. The trick is to measure it and minimize it... Make the fewest people unhappy as possible.

Bull

Posted by: Bull Sep 24 2010, 07:55 PM

Denver was 4th Ed. The 3rd Edition Missions were Season 0 and Season 1, and were set in Seattle.

Posted by: Neurosis Sep 24 2010, 08:01 PM

Right you are. The one I played was 'A Fork In Fate's Path'. Which was indeed set in Seattle. (Just got it confused with all the 4E Denver Missions that I RAN for my players.)

Really disagree with this point. Fencing paydata and incidental gains is where a lot of a Shadowrunner's income should come from, including taking guns, commlinks, and whatever else isn't nailed down from vanquished enemies if it is realistically feasible time allows (key point). However, I often find myself as a GM encouraging players to loot MORE. Unlike in D&D, every Shadowrun PC is ostensibly a CRIMINAL. Short of being shot at or running on a time limit, why would Shadowrunners NOT be doing this? Isn't 30% an adequately crappy rate to discourage something like filling your pockets with Ares Predators? Also I'm not sure why the usual fencing rolls are not involved.

Posted by: Bull Sep 24 2010, 08:31 PM

It's a simplification tool to speed up pretty much everything.

The Fencing rolls only serve one purpose... To determine how long it takes to fence an item. YOu can never bump an items value up at all. You can, however, willingly lower it to sell it faster.

The book also says that it's a GMs call to lower the value for used items, items used in a crime, fences take a cut, etc etc etc. Fencing loot requires a lot of math, and the only time you'll ever get a full 30% of the items price is if you were selling a brand new, never used, and legally obtained item

So the 10% cuts down a lot of crap. It eliminates the math and calculations, and it eliminates "selling time" as well. It's instant money, rather than waiting days or weeks to sell an item.

That said, one of the first FAQ items is that a GM may, time permitting and if the GM is willing (Just as key a point as time), players make make rolls instead of using the default downtime rules. Which means that it will be allowed for you to use the Fencing Gear rules. I've been considering working an option in for this, and codifying the price reductions for "loot". Chance are real good, you'll be selling at 10% regardless.

Bull

Posted by: Neurosis Sep 24 2010, 08:38 PM

Isn't it possible to change an item's price with a separate Charisma + Negotiation (+ Loyalty) roll? I mean I know this happens at my table, but I thought it was also supported by RAW (if not by Missions).



Wait a second? I thought the reason we were losing the INITIAL 70% OF THE VALUE (or at least some of it) was because it was hot goods? i.e. used in a crime, etc.



I see. This does seem like a fairly elegant fix as far as a format like Missions goes. I still disagree with your anti-looting stance for Shadowrun in General.

Posted by: Chance359 Sep 24 2010, 08:39 PM

How about this, runners declare they are looting, and their loot is a flat 40% of what the job pays. This should help speed things along with the players and gm no longer having to argue over the price of each and every single piece of gear looted.

Posted by: Neurosis Sep 24 2010, 08:44 PM

I think 10% of what they actually loot is better, Chance. Because it does not throw verisimilitude so utterly and completely out the window.

Posted by: Bull Sep 24 2010, 09:35 PM

30% is because they're selling to dealers. It's like taking your comics or baseball cads up to a local shop and selling them... You'll rarely ever get better than 50% of "Book value", and likely will get something closer to 30%. Then the shop turns around and sells it at full value.

And nope, negotiation doesn't help. I think SR2 or SR3 had some rules that started you lower (Like 10 or 20%) and you could negotiate the price up a bit. But for SR4, it's a straight cut off.

See Page 312-313 of SR4A. The steps to fencing loot are thus:

1. Determine the items Street Value. Use the Street Costs table to modify the Base Value of the item.

For the average item a runner will try to fence, you're looking at Used, Stolen, and probably used in an active crime scene. So that's -40% to -50% of the base price.

2. Calculate the fencing price for the item. Which is 30% of "Original Price". Original Price is modified by the Street Value.

3. The Fence Price can be further modified at GM's discretion based on condition. So it it's beat up, the price drops even more. There's not even a suggested amount here, just "GM can do it if he chooses".

4. Determine how long it takes to sell the item. This is a Negotiation + Charisma Extended Test (10, 6 Hours). YOu get bonus dice equal to the items Availability, and you get a bonus dice for every 5% you knock off the Selling Price.

A lot of groups either aren't familiar with the full rules and use variations of the earlier edition rules, where you could negotiate up more, or they simply house rule it out. Which I totally get.

And like I said, I'm against Looting, but... There's not really any way to stop it. So it's not like I'm saying you can't do it. Everyone plays the game a little differently, after all.

But, do keep in mind, you're Shadowrunners. Runners may be criminals, but that doesn't mean they have to be petty thieves (Though they can be). You're professionals, mercenaries (for all intents and purposes). As such, your money should come from your payments from Mr Johnson, not stealing a bunch of crap to sell.

Bull

Technically, you use the "Street value" price to determine the sale price of an item (WHich for the average runner will be a used, stolen item from an active crime scene, which means you're looking at -40 to -50% of the base price right there). Then you go to Fence the gear, which has a THreshold of 10, with an int

Posted by: SaintHax Sep 24 2010, 09:55 PM

This is both a misreading of the rules, and bad math. This has also already been addressed, please see http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=32387&st=25&p=974443&hl=loot&#entry974443

Again though let me point out the fact you only FENCE stolen goods. Anything not stolen is called "selling". If anyone would like to discuss this one item further, please add it to the thread linked above to keep this open for something not already hashed over.

Posted by: Chance359 Sep 24 2010, 10:08 PM

And if the job doesn't pay me what my time is worth I'm going to look for ways to make up the difference. Unless Mr. Johnson orders me (or pays me not to) take a bit of swag I'm going to. It would be nice to see little nuggets of paydata or loot scattered throughout a mission. In previous editions, many of the nodes came with paydata that could be lifted, but they also came with some risk.

Posted by: SaintHax Sep 24 2010, 10:58 PM

What Chance is talking about is inline with the fiction that's written for SR. You don't hear about stripping downed guards of their commlinks, but you do read about extra paydata found.

Posted by: Wraith235 Sep 25 2010, 05:17 PM

I hope Im posting this in the right place if I have not please feel free to move it to the appropriate location

Id like to see the table rating dice mod go away in favor of a scaled system

a Lot of times the TR mod works ... other times .... meh .... Id like to see each NPC have different Loadouts based on TR e.g.

at TR 1 they run base
at TR 2 some improved skills and maybe some better gear
at TR 3 more improved skills, better gear and some extra cyber / spirits bound / spells ect

ect

note this is not the model I would follow but its a quick rendition to get the idea across

the reason for this is if you look at the scaling, at TR2 your non grunts get +1 DP to all tests (aside from damage resistance)
but looking at the actual math and going with the average

Perception 3 (+1) equivelant 8 Karma
Firearms 3 (+1) another 8 karma
Defense roll 3 (+1) equivelant 20 karma

and so-on and so-forth

and this is only the basic average ..... when you start getting into the 4's and 5's its exponentially increased (not to mention the higer TR's)

I have personally run across a mod where the mage relied on Cutting someone with their knife .... yet low and behold no blades skill

I think that this type of change will Even out the challange dramatically

now while I know this is not the job of the missions Coordinator I believe it should be a required condition in writing mods

yes I know this will most likely in the end encourage min maxing of NPC's but IME players are already doing this

Posted by: Neurosis Sep 25 2010, 06:44 PM

Stealing to supplement incomes on runs is not innately unprofessional. It just depends what you're stealing, how much of it, and how well you're making out. A great example of this is deckers/hackers who are constantly crusing around nodes and systems after the main objective is complete, looking for additional paydata. This kind of sets the example that runners should be taking everything that's not nailed down. In fact, fourth edition adventures have been written DETAILING the monetary value of various extra shit you can steal that's incidental to the mission.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Sep 26 2010, 05:41 AM

Thoughts:

The qualities section needs update, in addition to In Debt there are some other qualities out there that are kind of wierd with a living campaign or require way too much GM arbitration to work, Sprite Link sticks in my head but a new thread with a top down review might be beneficial.

I think the actual rule regarding skill improvement between modules needs to be changed to allow one skill improvement between mods. There really isn't another sane interpretation in a Living Campaign. Frankly the roling dice to improve skills rule is often overlooked anyway, might as well make it official.

Nitpicky thing: If used cyberware is not permissible at character creation that should be moved into the rules on character creation. I'm actually pretty happy with the "no harvesting ware" houserule otherwise. It does funny things with encounter balance otherwise.

It is my personal belief that possession mages should be banned, I am currently playing a psionic so I think i'm fairly justified in this belief.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Sep 26 2010, 07:47 AM

It's funny, my rigger mystic has a possession tradition specifically to abuse the "possess my drone" ability, but I've yet to use it because I feel guilty about the cheesiness.





-k

Posted by: Wraith235 Sep 26 2010, 01:14 PM

Sadly I agree

also IMHO Control thoughts needs to be banned as well

Posted by: Neurosis Sep 26 2010, 09:05 PM

That is THE WORST idea I have seen in a long time.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Sep 26 2010, 11:34 PM

I really don't think any "game balance" based changes to ever happen in SRM, unless it's using a published optional rule.

Missions is supposed to be the "official" Shadowrun campaign. It's supposed to represent Shadowrun. Having a bunch of houserules kinda runs counter to that.



-k

Posted by: Fringe Sep 27 2010, 01:24 AM

I think that's an excellent point, Karma. I think it's well worth keeping that in mind when making any decisions about the Missions campaign. And my understanding is that Bull and Jason have been working closely for just that reason.

Although I suggested a change to the 4:1 rule, it does have to balance the needs of the campaign with the integrity of the system it represents.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Sep 27 2010, 02:38 AM

Heck, even 4:1 wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the degrading dice part.



-k

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Sep 27 2010, 04:24 AM

Well i don't normally make game balance suggestions, the problem with possesion is it is poorly worded, poorly understood and insanely powerful. It requires a signifigant amount more GM overhead then normal spirits. The best argument from a balance perspective though is the pages in Digital Grimore devoted to telling us how "possession is totally balanced you guys" and then having to go on for a further page or so suggesting ways to counter or control it.

Posted by: SaintHax Sep 27 2010, 01:44 PM

We are getting into Fahrenheit 451 territory now. If we ban every rule in the SR4A book that people think is overpowered or disruptive, we will be left with nothing eventually.

Posted by: Wraith235 Sep 27 2010, 07:12 PM

Possession traditions are rough ... I personally had 3 possession mages in the denver missions ... one even combined possession Tradition ... Shapechange (Ape) and Weapon foci .... it was insane


Control Thoughts and the AE version of it

my thoughts on this one is basically that spell is the Swiss Army spell .... there is almost nothing a mage CANT do with that spell ... and theres no real reprocussions if the spell wears off ...


now note I did not say Control Actions or Influence .... as both of those are IMHO more balanced ...

Actions - willpower as a Negative dice pool to the commanded actions

Influence - Permenant effect after a sustainable duration + Target gets a Spell resistane test anytime they are confronted with the wrongness of said action

Thoughts ... you get pretty much nothing .... once hit with it ... depending how bad the mage is .... your pretty much dead


sorry for lack of clarification on my reasons

Posted by: Neurosis Sep 27 2010, 09:06 PM

If 'dead' is the issue, manabolt makes you dead faster and more reliably for less drain.

Posted by: Wraith235 Sep 28 2010, 12:54 AM

AE Version .... Mob mind (think thats the thoughts AE version).... all players put their guns to their head and start pulling trigger .... Dead team

Posted by: Dumori Sep 28 2010, 01:11 AM

They get a roll against suicide by RAW. A better use would be to have the disarm the guns and sitdown and comple to the HTR teams instructions. Also ManaBALL is still better for the killing.

Posted by: Wraith235 Sep 28 2010, 03:24 AM

While I agree that they Should .....

No ... they dont .... your thinking influence which is the Permanent duration where they are given a test every time they are confronted with the wrongness of the Idea

.... Control thoughts there is no such resistance test ... its been hashed out over and over on these forums

BUT ... if you can give me a page # and book I will believe you

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Sep 28 2010, 04:20 AM

I concur, one of the best arguments for outright banning control thoughts is there are multiple spells that do basically the same thing that are not patently ridiculous.

Posted by: Wasabi Sep 28 2010, 10:16 AM

The Influence and Compulsion powers of spirits (Invoked in the case of Compulsion) should be included in anything that happens to Control Thoughts/Mob Mind. They act much the same without any Counterspelling resistance.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Sep 28 2010, 06:43 PM

I've found that mind-control builds in nearly every game system tend to be broken.




-k

Posted by: Dumori Sep 28 2010, 09:49 PM

It is mind control.

Posted by: SaintHax Sep 29 2010, 12:33 AM

Did you really just take the time to post for a hyphen?

Posted by: KarmaInferno Sep 29 2010, 01:03 AM

I think he meant it as "It IS mind control, after all, it's inherently broken."




-k

Posted by: Wasabi Sep 29 2010, 03:49 AM

It wasn't as bad in prior editions where there was a threshold of the targets willpower. Adding that makes it very easy to mitigate or allow on a goon by goon basis.

Posted by: Wraith235 Sep 29 2010, 09:22 PM

Id forgotten about that .... and yes ... IMHO Control thoughts with a threshhold equal to the targets Willpower would HELP the spell signifigantly .... I dont think it would fix it

Posted by: Wasabi Sep 29 2010, 10:19 PM

Thresholds in 4th reduce hits so its pretty harsh to have a threshold of willpower.

EG:
Caster: 6 hits
GM: Threshold 4 so you have 2 hits (rolls 3 willpower dice and 4 counterspelling dice) ...the target gets 2 hits, so you net no hits.

The example above assumes 18 casting dice (Spellcasting 6, magic 6, mentor spirit for 2 and restricted gear rating 4 power focus) versus a target with willpower 3 and a enemy mage providing 4 counterspelling dice.

On average its a tie and thus a fail. The threshold is HARSH and even moreso against Dwarves and such. It pretty much means you'll have to spend edge to net any hits and thats about as far as a nerf stick can go before flat out arbitrary removal.

Posted by: Neurosis Sep 30 2010, 12:36 AM

Um, wouldn't the Threshold be 3 if the target's Willpower is 3?

I hate the idea of removing Control Thoughts. It is dumb and it sets a dangerous precedent. Control Thoughts is a perfectly balanced spell.

You want to talk about a spell that's ACTUALLY broken? Stunbolt.

Posted by: SaintHax Sep 30 2010, 01:22 PM

I'm 99% positive that SRM will not remove a core spell from play. SRM is now backed by ShadowRun, and how does it look to say that your sponsor has a rule that is so broke we can't play with it. I do agree with the stunbolt, it's been a problem for a while.

Link: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=9144&hl=stunbolt

Posted by: Neurosis Sep 30 2010, 06:32 PM

IMHO Stunbolt is the single most powerful spell in Shadowrun 4E, and is much more glaringly overpowered than in previous editions. You can cast it at whatever force you want and you will take no drain. Force 10 Stunbolt all day and all night. And it doesn't stop you from killing people.

But more importantly, THIS:

I emphatically agree. Even including stunbolt. SRM has to be representative of the core game. It can't just go houseruling out spells.

EDIT: Wow that topic you linked me to sure is old!

Posted by: naga-nuyen Sep 30 2010, 07:32 PM

I say BAN shadowrunners...there illegal anyway!!!!

PC creation process: Roll for which corp you start in, now here is your skill soft and datajack..... and 1 cubicle.
PC created lets start to role play a day at work!

Posted by: Fringe Sep 30 2010, 09:37 PM

Your first assignment is to extract some donuts from the office next door.

Posted by: naga-nuyen Sep 30 2010, 10:46 PM

Whichever Corp scooped up voodoo doughnut is the one I am working For! OmNom bacon goodness!

http://www.voodoodoughnut.com/

Posted by: Wraith235 Oct 10 2010, 05:44 PM

been thinking about the extended tests thing .... Im fine with buying hits ... but I dont feel that we should be double penalize us by removing 1 die each time we make the test ....

Posted by: cndblank Oct 12 2010, 06:23 AM

I offer my players a 10% option.

Basically there are fences available that specialize in making hot merchandise disappear and you won't have to worry about it coming back to haunt you.

Yeah they only pay 10%, but what every you fence with them will get scrubbed down, filed down, and more often than not broken down for spare parts, and scattered to the four winds.

They deal in bulk and all transactions are totally cash and carry with no records kept.



Most of the time my players like the hassle free nature and the peace of mind.

Posted by: Neurosis Oct 12 2010, 06:25 PM

Not having to calculate what (30% of 3750) -20% -20% -10% comes out to is definitely a good thing.

Posted by: Bull Oct 12 2010, 08:33 PM

For the record... The official Season 4 FAQ ruling will look something like this:

Anything stolen, hot, damaged, or something that you cannot legally own (Anything with an F (Forbidden) availability code) sells for 10%.

Anything you legally obtained (Starting gear counts as legally obtained for this purpose), which includes non R (restricted) or F (forbidden) availability items that you purchased through contacts, R (Restricted) items purchased with a valid, legal SIN and License, or items awarded to the players by COntacts and Factions as part of their Mission Payment can all be sold for 30%.

Again, no sell times or rolls are used to simplify the process. At the end of any adventure, mark off what you're selling and have the GM sign off on it.

Bull

Posted by: Bull Oct 12 2010, 08:33 PM

And to Clarify, that applies to Season 4 and up, for now Season 3's FAQ is still in effect. This will apply to SRM 04, the 2011 CMPs, and the Prime Missions.

Bull

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Oct 12 2010, 10:30 PM

Bull this doesn't make a lot of sense, why would a legally aquired item be worth more to the black market? It's not like they check your license when you pawn it to the fixer.

Posted by: Wasabi Oct 13 2010, 12:05 AM

The SINner quality is pretty clear cut but the legal license part eludes me. How does one get a legal license?

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 13 2010, 06:14 AM

Who says you're selling the legal stuff through a black market fixer?

Maybe you're just hocking on Ebay, via a fake SIN.



-k

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Oct 13 2010, 06:50 AM

If it's a fake sin it's not a legal transactions o it doesn't matter. This also has the potential to turn Sinner(which is a disadvantage) into an advantage. Not a huge one sure, but it does make it somewhat counter intuitive.

Posted by: Chance359 Oct 13 2010, 07:21 AM

Rather than write up a new set of rules for the new season, we could use the rules in the core book. I understand that some feel that keeping runners money low is a good thing, but there are those of us who disagree.

Posted by: Fringe Oct 13 2010, 08:18 AM

Maybe "valid, legal SIN" should just be "valid SIN" with the caveat that you have a valid license for the item in question. It's all "legal" until someone finds out it's fake. Having to have a license means you're losing money for a lot of items anyway, since you wouldn't be able to sell the license itself and each license is tied to a specific item.

I see part of the purpose of this as being to prevent excessive downtime rolling at the end of an already cramped 4-hour con session...especially with those who loot everything that isn't nailed down and then want to spend an hour at the table fencing it all. Another part, I think, is to at least give some benefit to characters who get something they don't want as a Mission reward; it's at least some compensation for the "what's in the box" syndrome.

Posted by: SaintHax Oct 13 2010, 11:39 AM

Hey, when I roll a Face with lots of contacts and fences, can I simplify the part of the game I'm not good at... e.g. combat and simply say I beat all the bad guys and take 10% damage while doing so? That sure would save time; and I think all those rolls and combat options are very time consuming.

EDIT: Oh, I think hacking is very complex and time consuming-- can we circumvent the RAW on this also? I like the more simplified approach to SR4A that SRM is taking. We can probably fit 2 mods into a 4 hour slot if we can get rid of all the dice rolling.

Posted by: Fringe Oct 13 2010, 02:10 PM

An interesting point. Although SRM 4 seems to be set already, perhaps something to keep in mind for the future is just having the Face/Fence do the 'buying hits' program like all the other downtime activities.

The FAQ (and/or each Mission) could just say that stuff 'acquired' outside of the stated Mission reward cannot be kept and sells for no more than enough to compensate for Mission-related expenses. Place limits on those expenses to things like legwork and replacement of expendables actually used during that Mission.

But if the intent is to prevent people from looting the bodies, why not just prohibit it outright? It might be reasonable to assume, for instance, that a typical fence won't be interested in buying a half-dozen blood-soaked Horizon-issued sidearms. And while a helicopter might be worth more, it's also going to be quite a bit harder to fence. Others might argue that for such a big-ticket item the potential profit outweighs the risk, it's certainly a GM (or campaign) call. For Affiliate rewards, though, if the reward is worthless to you, is it really a reward? The Affiliate probably would be willing to exchange it for some cash or something of use in order to keep you in their pocket.

Posted by: Caine Hazen Oct 14 2010, 06:30 PM

Man you're all a whiney bunch. Sorry your face is all butthurt by getting some downtime rolls taken away... This is a "living campain" and since downtime has to be take into account, without actually having a babysitte for you, it was simplified for everyone. You'll get over it. The bo-hooing of the vocal minority on this site is so grating I can see why people might be turned off of learning the damn game at a Con. I figure that if we give you all a week hough, you'll find some new way to game the system anyway, so why cry? If the Missions just "don't do it for you" move on and quit ruining the good time for everyone else. Otherwise STFU and get back to enjoying a good Shadowrun.

Posted by: suoq Oct 14 2010, 08:03 PM

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=20411&pid=629616&st=0&#entry629616

Thank you.

Posted by: Caine Hazen Oct 14 2010, 08:53 PM

indeed? You've become a Mod now? Wait, no, you haven't...

But I'm calling it like I see it... most of this whining doesn't help the forum, nor does it help develop Missions. Calling people out on their negtive behaviour and telling them how it effects something isn't much trolling or flaming though. More bitching and whining over a sense of entitlement will not help te game. The constructiv criticism has gone through the roper channels, decisions have been made, people who don't like it need to move onwith their lives for now

Posted by: Chance359 Oct 14 2010, 11:18 PM

People dont like being told they are "whiny" when they continue to focus on what they see is a legitimate issue they feel is being ignored.


Oh and seeing that kind of heavy handed attitude drives people from the game.

Posted by: Redjack Oct 14 2010, 11:29 PM

1. Please use the "Report" button rather than acting as a moderator.

2. Personal attacks are a violation of the TOS. Impersonal attacks leveled by a writer and moderator from the official Shadowrun Forum at the "vocal minority on this site" fall within that category.

Play nice.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 15 2010, 02:49 AM

Your analogy is flawed.

Hacking and combat affects the success or failure of a mission. They definitely affect everyone at the table. They are an integral part of the game session.

Selling off gear affects only the player involved. It more or less is external to most missions, being a "downtime" activity. Having it be more involved or complex means eating up player and GM time, which can be precious especially at conventions or game days that have rigid time slot schedules.

If you were to have hacking or combat somehow occur in "downtime", sure, those should be abstracted to flat results too, for the same reason that selling gear is - it's a campaign structure necessity, not a game balance thing.



-k

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2010, 02:51 AM

Looting and fencing are definitely the least Shadowrun parts of the game, and subject to video-game-like abuse of the Social system to boot. If the run is a gear-steal, that's one thing.

Posted by: LurkerOutThere Oct 15 2010, 04:27 AM

Actually by design hacking is not an essential part of Missions. It will never be required that to succeed at at a Mission that you have to hack a system. I can dig up Bull's post of same but I believe he plans on keeping it this way. Can it make life easier? Yes, a lot easier in some missions but then again so can having more money. The analogy is more accurate then i think you give it credit. If someone is looting gear, especially big ticket items like the aforementioned helicopter all the groups I've seen do split the profit. Even after the group split a fenced helicopter makes an appreciable dent on the bottom line or significantly increases the groups capabilities(after they have taken efforts to scrub it) if they keep it.

Whether people like it or play that way fencing gear and items is a part of the game. Improving and buying gear and increasing capabilities is also a part of the game. This game is at least at the surface about shooting people in the face for money.As such it's perfectly natural for people want to make more money. All that said i'm pretty comfortable with the 10% rate and the no looting 'ware rule. It means you can kit out the opposition without having to worry about how you've changed the runs pay factor.

@Cain: Your "I should shut the fuck up now" sensor needs some percussive maintenance. There's no other way I can think of to post it. By coming over here and thread shating you've accomplished no measurable good and believe it or not you are alienating people in a very real sense. You have a difference of opinion on how things should be played then Sainthax. (or just a difference in general) That's fine, both your styles are theoretically valid. He's no more "gaming the system" then any given combat monster. This is a game system we're talking about.


On the initial subject i've given it a lot of thought and my top two fixes would be:

No skill checks to raise skills.
Change the 4 to 1 buying rule to 3 to 1 or make the buying hits round up to account for the lost dice on extended tests. This keeps downtime activities simple while still allowing for people to use their skills and make their characters as they see fit. After all if people arn't meant to be improving their characters between runs we might as well not bother with a living campaign at all, or see if we can acquire rights to living Paranoia. New mission, new clones!

Everything else is pretty much gravy, yes I'd like to see certain things in the magic section verbotten, especially things like control thoughts that has a mechanically sound duplicate, but I'm not hung up on it. People that are going to abuse the system are going to abuse the system. The writers and campaign staff (myself included) just need to makehave the tools so no one archetype runs roughshod over the

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 15 2010, 09:30 AM

I think you got hung up on the wording of my post and missed my point. (which really has nothing to do with how much Missions uses hacking in general.)

Hacking and combat = Happens during game play.

Selling loot = Downtime activity.

THAT is the reason for the fast and simple flat 10%. Everything else is secondary.

It's to minimize the time spent at the beginning or end of the slot on this kind of thing, because selling loot only benefits the players involved yet takes up the GM's time. Which either eats up play time, or cuts into the break between slots (or into the next slot for some conventions).



-k

Posted by: Wasabi Oct 15 2010, 10:52 AM

To say gear acquisition is a downtime activity doesn't do justice to how dependent SR characters are on their gear.

Hacking impacts a small percentage of the at-table time.
Combat impacts a larger percentage of the at-table time.

Short of being railroaded Shadowrun characters are usually so nerfed without their gear that gear acquisition/improvement is a big factor in how WELL they can hack, engage in combat, and can even impact social tests via Tailored Pheromones and other implants. The players desire for their power creep almost always shows in gear improvement.

I believe this focus on gear is why players care so much about 'loot', sellback percentages and swaying transactions via Face characters. Even if performed in downtime it affects the game as a whole.

The difficulty in downtime actions is a separate issue. I believe a 3:1 with a diminishing dicepool is reasonable OR that a 4:1 with no diminishing dicepool is reasonable. If both are to remain in effect then tests like skill training need to be removed and just allowed to happen using a set amount of lifestyle.

Posted by: Chance359 Oct 15 2010, 11:04 AM

how about this:

Contacts with a connection rating 1 or 2 will only handle regular gear
3 or 4 will handle restricted gear
5 or 6 will handle forbidden gear.

This might make contacts worth having again.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2010, 02:26 PM

Selling loot isn't gear acquisition. It's extra-mission-reward acquisition. Buying gear isn't subject to the 10% looting rule.

Posted by: Caine Hazen Oct 15 2010, 04:35 PM

KarmaInferno and Yerameyahu seem to get it. Feel welcome to my table anytime I happen to run Missions guys.

I think Bull made a huge mistake even giving you all a preview without just dropping the whole FAQ on you. Its been vetted and pretty much approved, they're just working the last of the niggling details I think. Some will laugh, some will cry, but its what we'll use and bitch about ceaselessly. I think this is the tip of the iceburg however, there's plenty more that will stir up a storm when is finally approved and released.

Posted by: Chance359 Oct 15 2010, 05:00 PM

Since the constant theme from the company seems to be "Shut up and pay", I've just stopped caring about how missions are run. I realize that my business will not be missed because I'm just a in the whiny minority so one more dissenting voice has been silenced.

Posted by: Fringe Oct 15 2010, 05:09 PM

That's what I'd figured. My feedback was more for the far future...which means it'll be forgotten by then.

I look forward to seeing the final document. Not that I actually get to play all that much...

Posted by: SaintHax Oct 15 2010, 07:18 PM

Obviously a matter of perspective.

The RAW requires a minimum skill and contact to sell loot. I don't play a Face, I play a Charisma 1 (now 2), no contact, no negotiations, combat character. The fact is I saved points and karma not acquiring the skills to let me do social actions, and SRM is going to let me do them anyway. This is as unfair to the Face as it would be to me if they allowed him to circumvent the combat rules. By the rules, my character would never be able to fence loot.

To expand, I have just as many contacts as the Charisma 12 Elven mage in our group that's played the same adventures as me. This makes no sense at all. In addition, you, Bull, and others have taken the system we are endorsing, and then determining which rules (not marked optional) are trivial and not needed. I think this is also insulting to the company and writers of those rules.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2010, 07:46 PM

You're overstating things. No matter how ugly and stupid, if you go to the fixer, he could give you 10%. In fact, he's not likely to give you vastly more just because you're pretty. *shrug* It is very odd that you're a shadowrunner who doesn't know a single fixer.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 15 2010, 07:46 PM

Whether or not this is true, it is completely irrelevant to my post.


Irrelevant. It's still part of the mission.


Irrelevant. It's still part of the mission.

Selling loot is not part of the mission. It is downtime. In fact, it can even be done at a LATER game. I can play a game where I get a piece of gear. Six real world months later, I go play another SRM game and sell that gear there.

So there's no WAY that it is a part of any mission. Therefore, it is downtime activity.

Not that I did not say that selling gear was unimportant in any way. I am not addressing that point at all. But even if it is important, that does not make it anything but downtime activity.


Your arguments, while logical, do not address at all the problem that the 10% rule is designed to fix.

The 10% rule has nothing to do with fairness or game balance.

It is entirely a construct to deal with the convention slot time restrictions inherent to Living style campaigns.

If you can suggest a system to allow the dice rolling that will NOT occupy a GM's time more than a flat result, please do so.


-k

Posted by: Caine Hazen Oct 15 2010, 09:38 PM

You know this is all vetted and checked by the line dveloper right? Meaning that it is company approved? Which is why the adventues are sold with the Catalyst logo on them. Missions is no longer a fly-by-night fan run thing. You know all this right? Then why make a statement like that?

Posted by: Neurosis Oct 15 2010, 10:07 PM

Now hold on a second, k. The truth is, fencing really does effect the whole team and their chance of success. Everyone on the team should be doing all transactions through the Face--that is part of what makes being the Face important, and the Face can even charge the other players commission or a vig. If everyone can just sell stuff for 10% (that's the floor and that's the ceiling) then that shits in the Face's cheerios.

If you remove fencing, you save time but you prevent the face from contributing to the team's success. It is akin to choosing to just abstract hacking or combat.



SaintHax has a point, and that point is that there is a strong disincentive to play a social specialist in Missions. You get a chunk of your resources taken away and your role reduced by the exclusion of contacts and fencing. In terms of effect (not intent) it is like saying "okay guys, no assault rifles or heavy pistols".



This is hard to argue with. But I have a suggestion. If anyone from Missions actually took note of it, I would jump for joy. Well, unless they stepped in to say how retarded it was. Then I would cry like an infant. Here goes:

Hot loot is fenced for Negotiation x 5% (minimum 5%).

1. Charisma is obviously not underpowered. It can be used during the mission. So can Negotiation...but not as much as other Social skills. In any case, that's why Charisma has no effect on how much you fence for in this case.
2. No dice rolling.
3. Faces get to fence loot more efficiently.
4. Faces get to contribute something more to the team. And may charge them for it.
5. No dice rolling. No downtime inflation. No GM time issues.
6. Allows for use of Contacts to fence. They use their Negotiation...and charge a percentage.

Now on the outliers, this gets a little strange, but it only allows a character with Negotiation 7 to eke out a lousy extra 5% beyond RAW, and considering how many valid character options you'd be wasting to get Negotiation 7...yeah. (I'm ignoring wonky things like 'Improved Ability: Negotiation'. You could cap at 40%. Hell, you could cap at 30% if you really wanted to.).

Disadvantages:

15% is harder to calculate than 10%.

Note that this doesn't 'break' Negotiation as a skill. It's still going to be less important, than, say, just as a for-instance, every combat skill.

Posted by: RobertB Oct 18 2010, 02:32 PM

So, to paraphrase, "We really weren't interested in any of your input on the perceived shortcomings of the system. We've got it all worked out. No, don't worry about the fact that we're on our fifth campaign organizer in 6 years. Kthx."

Next time, don't even bother with posting "suggestions" threads. Just release the changes to the FAQ, and damn the torpedoes. It would be a lot more honest.

Robert (aka Spanner)

Posted by: SaintHax Oct 18 2010, 02:33 PM

You are clever there at the end, but overlooked the fact that what you stated isn't what's done. I'd be happy to include a system where everyone CAN fence for a flat 10% through their fixer, or have the option for the 30% through their contacts using the rules written on pg. 312.






First part of your argument can be disputed by replacing all occurences of "mission" with "game". We do play this as a game, not just as a mission. Note that we do not spend karma as part of the mission, yet it's a major appeal of the SRM campaign.

The second part I find more valid, and I believe on page one or two we suggested requiring fencing to be done at the end of adventures if there was time. As you pointed out, it can be done at a "LATER game,". This coupled with the option in my reply Yerameyahu seems like a fair way to do this all around.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 18 2010, 03:24 PM

If you're fencing through a contact, that's a fixer. If you're fencing through a fixer, that's a contact. I meant that it's kinda impossible that you don't have a single contact, and still function as a shadowrunner.

Posted by: Caine Hazen Oct 18 2010, 03:35 PM

Which in turn, shows that using a contact is handled on p.287, which the contact subtracts 5% for every point they have in connction rating. So your uberFixer has a connection of 5, menaing you sold the item for 5% of its value, insted of 30%. This is what you're angling for now?

It breaks down really really simple. The rule is 30% value, + or - factors that the GM determine. The roll that the Face gets just reduces that time tofind a buyer. So instead of having a system wherein the Con GM hs to make up all that shit on the fly; tosave time Bull gave us a system that allows you to do it all as downtime and have no worries.

And Spanner, did you ever take ito account that perhaps all of the input you guys gave on the forum may actually have been taken into consideration? Perhaps a majority of the info came direct from repors fromother Con goeres and GMs and that perhaps the disagreed with the assesments made here on the forums?

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 18 2010, 06:47 PM

There's no "first part" or "second part". They are both functions of the same argument. They both relate to the time impact of the loot fencing.

Here's the crux of what I was saying:

You cannot take a combat or hacking roll from one game session and decide to do it at at a different game session at a convention six months later. It is integral to that particular game session, MUST be done at that table and is therefore "in-game".

A loot fencing activity CAN in contrast be done at a later session, so it's effectively "out of game", or a downtime activity.

In-game activities must by nature be played out. They affect the success or failure of a mission.

Individual downtime activities should certainly be doable, but their degree of success has little or no impact on the success of any given mission. They also primarily only affect an individual player rather than the whole table.

As such the intent of the 10% rule is to minimize the impact one player's loot fencing has on the time of GM and the other players.

Even in cases of "group loot", a flat percentage is faster and simpler than calculating every modifier out and rolling skills.

With the 10% rule, a GM merely has to glance over the sales notation before he signs the mission log. No dice rolls, no figuring out modifiers. Just two seconds to look at one box on the sheet.

Again, this has nothing to do with "fairness". It is an artifact of the convention-based campaign.

If your system has the same time impact as this, great. Does it?



-k

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 18 2010, 06:51 PM

Yeah, Bull takes a very personal interest in the opinions and comments of the player base.

I don't get how people think he's making decisions in some ivory tower.

Is it because he hasn't personally come to each and every person who has presented an idea, shaken their hand, and told them, "Thanks for the feedback! I will consider it carefully!"?



-k

Posted by: SaintHax Oct 18 2010, 08:23 PM

There is a serious math issue on the fourms currently: a 25% finder fee on the price of the item. If you sell a 100 nuyen item at 30% cost, and pay a 25% finders fee, you net get 22.5 nuyen from the sell-- not 5%. The fixer get's 25% of what you get. Seriously, this is how it works, I'm 100% positive.

Regardless, you quoted a piece of my post, but disregarded my actual suggestion. I stated that 10% for those that have to use a Fixer (or swag rule) made sense, but allow a person that actually has the skills to do it themselves to use the rules in the rule book... when... time... permits.




No idea who Spanner is, nor do I remember who suggested anything to which you refer.




Stating that you'd only be able to use the RAW for fencing if time permited... yes it does. However, it's only fair to point out that you missed my point, or chose to not reference it: we are not playing this solely as a mission. And I challenge you to state that spending karma (a downtime activity) has little effect on the success of future missions. We play this not for a part, but for the whole of the game. If we just wanted a "mission", we could play a one shot with pre-gens.




I dont' think that anyone thinks that any of the directors of SRM does this. However, when a rule that is in the book is changed, there is going to be some controversy about it.

Posted by: Bull Oct 19 2010, 02:58 AM

Ok guys, please, lets not argue. Everyone has opinions. Everyone has reasons for these opinions. Most folks reason are good ones. But not everyone's opinions or reasons always agree with each other.

Here's the deal, from my end...

1) Missions takes up a crazy amount of time, especially since I barely get paid.

I'll be upfront and honest. I get $50 per published adventure. That's it. All the time I spend writing up documents for the writers, the FAQ, in meetings, writing up ICAs for contracts, doing development work with the writers, meetings, generating art notes, giving feedback on the art and maps, all of that good stuff? That all amounts to $50 per published adventure. I spent 6 hours today doing emails and the like, and on average I spent about 20 hours a week, probably more, working on this stuff. Our schedule for 2011 calls for at least 24 adventures. If we stick to our schedule for 2010, I'll have personally worked on and gotten released (CMPs are considered released when they hit the convention circles) 15 adventures. In theory, it works out to about 2 a month, though the CMPs muck that up a lot because they're worked on in batches.

The point of the above is that I'm not doing this for the money. I'm doing this because I love Shadowrun, and because I want to make Shadowrun and Shadowrun Missions be the best that it can. And everything I do, I do because I very strongly believe it will be for the betterment of the game, and to increase the enjoyment levels of all the players as a whole.

2) I have a lot of venues for input.

There are three public venues online: Here, the official forums, and Facebook. Besides the public postings, I get several PMs from all three each week as well from folks.

I get emails through the Missions Coordinator email address.

I read and discuss things on the CDT Agent forums with Demo Team Agents.

I frequently discuss things with members of the Missions Freelance team as well as the general Shadowrun Freelance pool.

I spent a LOT of time this year talking with players at Origins and Gen Con, especially those that aren't active on the message boards. Along with that, I talked quite a bit with Chuck and Kai about how the games went, and I asked the GMs who ran events to send me feedback on how they went and what comments the players had.

We also have a small pool of playtesters who run through the Missions, and I get some good feedback from them as well.

Trust me when I say, I take a LOT of feedback into account. Dumpshock is but one of many sources.

3) Nothing I do is in a Vacuum.

I have a lot of leeway with Missions, but at the end of the day everything I do goes through Jason Hardy. Almost every idea I have, and almost every document I generate (Such as the Promotion rules and the FAQ) goes through Jason Hardy, Brent Evans (Our Art Director) and Matt Heerdt (Our main Layout guys) first for comments, since they're all big Shadowrun fans. I meet weekly on Skype with Jason, Peter Michelenka (The eBook developer) and Mike "Southpaw" Miller (Demo Team Coordinator and the new Convention Support Manager) where I update them on everything we're doing and get both feedback and approval.

4) Shadowrun is a tricky beast.

Pure and simple, there is no "right way" to play Shadowrun. Every group has a different idea of how Shadowrun should be run. Hell, even in a single group you'll have several different ideas. With the Missions format, it makes things even trickier, but Shadowrun leaves a LOT of things up to the gamemaster to implement through roleplaying or simply through judgment calls. With a living campaign, you have to be very careful how much is left strictly up to the individual GM, because every GM is different.

Right now, I'm at the hardest part of my job, because with the new Season starting up, the decision was made to review and revamp everything, taking the experiences learned through 3 seasons and attempting to refine those experiences and clean up the rules we use for Missions to balance the game out as best as possible, and to try and increase everyone's fun level as much as possible. Everything that I commented on above goes toward this end.

It starts with me. I review and read and reread and re-review. I take all the feedback I get, and I distill it down. I not only look at the suggestions and comments and opinions, but where possible I look to see the reasons behind those. I've found that there are a lot of misconceptions about how things work, and a lot of misconceptions about why we do the things we do. That has to be taken into account as well.

From there, I work up a draft, writing up what I think we need to do, and most importantly why. Any time I tweak a rule, remove an optional rule, add in an optional rule, whatever, I note it and the reasoning for it.

This then goes to review by Jason and Company. It also goes out to the Missions freelancers, sometimes before (If I feel I need more input than I already have), sometimes after (Jason and I are both fallible and we miss things, so more eyes helps). Jason makes notes, sends it to me, and we bounce it back and forth a couple times.

There's a reason why a lot of this stuff isn't out yet, despite the fact we've been working on it and even talking about it since July. It's a long process, and we want to make sure we get it right, and do it the best way possible.

Everyone's input is important, and I think you for taking the time to give me that feedback. I rarely have the time to respond to everyone, so I hope you don't think that just because I don't respond personally to each post that I'm ignoring anyone. It's hard to find enough time to do everything that needs done, let alone what I want to do.

So thank you to everyone that's responded to my inquiries both here, elsewhere, and privately. Thank you for playing Missions. I hope that you'll continue to play in the future.

Steven "Bull" Ratkovich

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 19 2010, 03:15 AM

I only mentioned the in-game vs out-of-game to illustrate that in-game activities HAVE to be played out at a game session, whereas out-of-game downtime activities can be figured out at home between game sessions and simply added to a Mission Log for a GM to sign off on.

I do not address the potential impact of those downtime activities on future games because it is irrelevant to my point.

My point, and ONLY point, is about time.

ALL downtime activities need to be streamlined to not eat up too much slot time. That includes karma expenditures, loot fencing, purchasing, etc. All of it.



I've been involved with no less than a dozen convention-based "living" style campaigns. They all have one constant that regular home games do not have - the convention format. As such every single one has had to modify their "book" rules to account for the contraints of the convention format.

One of those constraints is time. It is a hard constraint and cannot be ignored.


-k

Posted by: Neurosis Oct 19 2010, 05:38 AM

But this is Dumpshock. It is made of bickering even by internet standards. I've only been here a little while and even I can see that.





Trying not to get too bent out of shape that my post was overlooked...it's better than being flamed!

But what is wrong with the system that I provided at the end of my post at the top of this page? As the creator and GM of a long-running LARP, I have a fair bit of experience with creating diceless systems that can be 'resolved' in about a second, so I understand the time constraint concerns you're addressing. The system I posed has the same metagame 'time cost' as the 'Everyone Gets 10%' system, and gives the Face more to 'do' without creating more dice rolling. The biggest fault with it that I can see is that it is nothing like any other mechanics in SR, but then again, neither is 'Everyone gets 10% and that's that'.

Posted by: SaintHax Oct 19 2010, 05:05 PM

I skipped it b/c it is nothing like the SR4A mechanics. Despite the tension, I think this thread has proposed a good solution as a compromise-- though no one seems to agree on it.

1. Anyone can fence loot through their Fixer at 10%, using the swag rule. (no dice)
2. If you have enough skill you can sell it at the book listed 30% price.
2b. If we are not allowed to roll, and must be forced to use 4:1 buy and diminishing returns, then you'd need a (Char + Negotiation) pool of at least 10 to sell an item in 42 hours using your Negotiations.


This keeps the quick diceless action, but still gives the Face his bonus.

For those interested: a dp of 20-16 takes 18 hours, 15-13 takes 24 hours, dp 12 is 30 hours, 11 is 36 hours, and then 10 is still 42 hours.

Posted by: Neurosis Oct 20 2010, 07:56 PM

What qualifies as enough skill?

Posted by: Redjack Oct 20 2010, 08:00 PM

Posted by: Wraith235 Oct 21 2010, 06:48 AM

I really dont see this as that hot button of an issue ..... but sure I'll weigh in

seems like a lot of ppl dont like the fencing rule .... ok fine ...

but its nothing but bickering on how to handle it

I have a suggestion from my years in other living campaigns

take the Value of all Items obtainable in the mission .... and give them a flat rate "Bonus" if you will based on the Sale price of the Items ...

THEN at the end of the mission give them the option to buy Item X for say ... 50% of the cost untill their next mission ....

I know my #'s are not accurate .... and hopefully this post will come off as more "the spirit of whats being said" Rather than" This is exactly what Im saying"

the issue at hand is .... not every group will have a face ... and sorry but I doubt that the face character wants to spend all of his downtime selling the groups loot when there may be things he wants to buy for himself and this is something I think that is being missed in this convo ...Faces are Charachters too

Posted by: SaintHax Oct 21 2010, 12:20 PM

You are missing part of the problem: SRM is supposed to use SR4A rules, and the problem is that the loot rules are circumventing this. My latest proposal goes inline with the "quick, table time saving" aspect that is mandated, and the SRM 4:1 rule, but still allows almost all of the RAW to be used. I understand your intent, and this works better on big, hot ticket items. It sucks to have one awesome weapon found, and three characters that want it.




I agree, but that has nothing to do what we are talking about. No where are we stating that the Face has to fence your loot. We are talking about getting rid of an ad hoc rule that was introduced.

Posted by: Neurosis Oct 22 2010, 12:32 AM

SaintHax I must say I really dislike the "all or nothing" nature of your suggested patch. Negotiation + Charisma Dice Pool 4 is 10%, Negotiation + Charisma Dice Pool 9 is 10%, Negotiation + Charisma Dice Pool 10 is 30%, and Negotiation + Charisma Dice Pool 18 is still 30%?

It just doesn't seem right. When you turn it into a boolean there's a disturbing lack of granularity. I almost prefer "Everyone gets 10%" to "my face gets triple because he has one more die".

And it is ALSO nothing like the actual SR4 rules.

Posted by: Wasabi Oct 22 2010, 09:57 AM

A diminishing 4:1 buy with no Edge able to be spent is much more artificial to *me* than SaintHax' proposal.

Posted by: SaintHax Oct 22 2010, 12:15 PM

It is the SR4 rules-- as soon as you throw in a forced 4:1 buy rule with diminishing returns that the SRM campaign has. If you were allowed to roll, your right, the person with a DP of 9 would be able to sell the item for 30% with just an average roll; and a person with a slightly smaller DP would get to sell it some of the time with a good roll; and that person with a 10 DP sometimes would fail to find a buyer if they wanted to roll to try to move it quicker.

However, this is the nature of the beast. Given the forced 4:1 that SRM has included b/c of table time, this is how it works out with the rules. Note though that the Face (really any qualifing character) doesn't just get triple-- the Face has to choose what items they want to take the time to sell themselves. If they have nothing else to do in their down time, then they can fence it all. However, purchasing items take longer than fencing them, so I doubt that will occure all the time.

Regardless, I could come up with a proposal that has a more gradual curve, but it would be another fabrication of rules. Also note that you compared a DP of 10 to a DP of 18 as if to make a point they get the same amount. This is how the rules are written-- the only difference is the time it takes to move an item. There is an abstract about how the availability could increase the price, but no guidelines are given and as we all know-- SRM hates dealing in abstracts b/c it isn't a "level playing field".

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 22 2010, 04:37 PM

How about 5% per 1:4 bought hit, minimum 10%?



-k

Posted by: SaintHax Oct 22 2010, 05:02 PM

Again, that's fabricating rules.