Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: xsansara Apr 11 2009, 09:27 AM

Can someone point me to a thread or discussion, detailing the reasons as to why the the attribute costs were raised and the real life effects on the game? It seems to be a serious nerf on the non-mundane. One that at least Technomancers hardly seem to deserve. I did use the Search Engine, but it doesn't seem to like me.

I always admired the thoughtfulness of the devs for not letting themselves be fooled into applying the BP math on attributes and skills, as the average raise cost of an attribute is automatically higher, since the attributes tend to be higher then skills. I mean 5 is a really high skill value already, often your best skill, while you probably have more than one 5er attribute (even more so after the change). Attributes, on the other hand, can easily go as high as 8 or 9 on metahumans, something completely unachievable for skills. So, attribute raising is already more costly than the multiplier would suggest.

Also, this change up-values all attribute-raising cyberware, downvalues skillwires (that have been seriously nerfed anyway), makes Hacker-progression even less Karma-dependant (like they needed that) and non-mundane progression even more karma-costly. It rewards attribute min-maxxing at character creation. Etc.

But maybe I am missing an important point of two, as I haven't factored in the increase in Karma reward and resulting change of the expected Karma/Nuyen ratio. Which I found hard to balance anyway.

I currently setting up a new group with new characters encorporating the newer rules (I don't like to change rules in the middle of a game) and some house rules, so I am kind of careful about this. We did have some problems with varying progression pace in our last group, to the point where the Adept was pressured to "borrow" her money to the Sam to even out. I didn't like that at all, not that she needed the money, it just doesn't seem fair and pretty meta-gamy. Also, I didn't want to simply dish out the money myself, especially as their lack of money was mostly due to a string of botched runs. (Yes, I do believe that failure is a possible outcome for a run, even for "heroes". ) So, any changes in progression pace of different character "classes" is of special interest to me.

Maybe I should use one of the alternative advancement schemes from the Arsenal(?). Has anyone any hands-on experience with the BP-system?

Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Ryu Apr 11 2009, 12:32 PM

You have 50% more karma gain, and a 66% increase in attribute cost.

It would be harder to handle, but they could instead have increased the attribute cost by 11% and decreased all other cost (including initiation, submersion, foci, complex forms) by 33% . So if you used to spend more than 3/4th of your karma on attributes, you pay more now. All who didn´t do that get a boost.

It does follow that technomancers and mages benefit from the change, much. TMs were widely considered too expensive before, and mages have to deal with a threshold modification and (optionally) changed direct combat spell drain rules.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 11 2009, 05:12 PM

As a possibility, you could leave Magic/Resonance increase-cost at the old x3 value.

Posted by: Muspellsheimr Apr 11 2009, 09:27 PM

80%+ Karma gain, actually. Suggested values went from 4 - 5 to 8 - 9. That is a 100% - 80% increase.

Posted by: xsansara Apr 12 2009, 11:47 AM

Sorry Ryu, I didn't quite get how mages and Technomancers benefit? Complex forms become comparitively cheaper, ok. But everything else?

Did Nuyen also get 80% inflation or is the Karma/Nuyen ratio further shifted towards Karma? More Karma on less Nuyen, however, would be a big boost to everyone non-mundane even with the increase in attribute costs.

I think, I will switch to the BP system. I find beginning characters quite balanced and since we have new players, they will probably not build min-maxed characters, for kick-started progress. That should be easier fixable with BP than with Karma.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 12 2009, 05:37 PM

Very true.

Posted by: Kingboy Apr 12 2009, 05:44 PM

Did the text actually change to state as such? Last I had a chance to look at it, the chart had changed, but the descriptive text still suggested 4-5 as an average.

Posted by: Archaos Apr 12 2009, 06:19 PM

It's the solution I choose to.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 12 2009, 08:57 PM

Yes. The chart in the pre-release PDF was wrong.

Posted by: Ryu Apr 12 2009, 09:12 PM

Hmm. You gain more karma, and everything but attributes costs the same as before. Mages and TM´s spend little karma on attributes (Initiation/Submersion, CFs/spells, ally spirits, foci, skills...), while quite a few mundanes used to spend most (if not all) karma on attributes.

As for the karma/nuyen change, look at the table. You can add 1 karma for survival, and 1-3 for the challenge level. Effectivly +1-4 for dangerous missions. More complex missions tend to have more objectives - more karma. Dangerous and complex missions should also pay more money. Nuyen/karma rules of thumb should work better now.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 13 2009, 12:23 AM

I am definitely looking forward to the Karma Gains....

Posted by: Cain Apr 13 2009, 12:39 AM

I dunno about that. Initiations and attributes tend to be the focus of an otaku and/or a mage. Everything they do is tied to their key attribute, so it got raised frequently. In fact, I can't think of a game that went long enough where the mage *didn't* raise his/her Magic as soon as possible.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 13 2009, 03:21 AM

Very True...
In some cses, I ONLY Initiated/Raised the Magic Rating... Gonna be a little harder now, but that is okay by me...

Posted by: Ryu Apr 13 2009, 09:07 AM

1. Even if you went low on the initiations and high on the magic, you will not have managed to spend less than 25% of your karma on initiations.

2. If you forego spells and foci you are missing out on style AND power. I can "get" an initiate degree of 3-5, but raising magic beyond 5 never seemed worth it for me.

Posted by: AngelisStorm Apr 13 2009, 09:30 AM

Really? An extra die is an extra die. Plus being able to cast more damaging spells without physical drain is pretty nifty. But I must mention the Mystic Adept. While previously there was always the problem of power points vs. magic points (useful powers vs. casting & summoning), which is just a part of the flexibility they have, this new change hits them even harder than it does the Adept. Raising magic for the Adept & Mystic Adept (not to mention Technomancer) is very important. If you don't, what is the point of playing such a character? (The whole stik of playing them is those powers.)

Posted by: Ryu Apr 13 2009, 11:24 AM

I have not made an argument regarding adepts. The optional "power point instead of metamagic" rule makes sure that our adepts will have more power points than before.

If you wanted to know what options I consider superior to having magic 6 (old-new) as a magician: magical group/Initiation 1-2 with ordeal/ 1-2 spell(s), 3-6 spells, power focus 2-4, spellcasting focus 4-7, ally spirit force (0-)3...

Posted by: xsansara Apr 13 2009, 11:41 AM

My experience is also, that Mages and TMs focus their Karma spending on their Magic/Resonance.

Say, roughly 20 % go for flavour (eg. flavour skills that are independant from being a Mage or TM),
30 % synergy stuff (foci, complex forms, useful skills, specialization),
50 % for initiation and Magic (or the equivalent).

I would have to check the logs for my old group, but I can distinctly remember one mage and one adept writing up half their Karma separately for that exact reason.

Mundanes however, seem to go
40 % flavour
60 % synergy

and our Hacker started complaining about not being able to spend any more meaningful Karma on his craft at about 100 Karma. At that point he had all the relevant skills on 6 or 7 and a couple of advantages.

So my question remains:
What did the devs try to fix with the change?

Posted by: Malachi Apr 13 2009, 07:34 PM

Hey, that's better than SR3 when the Decker had ONE skill to improve in their specialty area.

"I think I'll improve..... Computer?"

Posted by: deek Apr 13 2009, 07:48 PM

In my last campaign, SR4, I disassociated karma from objectives. This is more "real-world" coming into effect. Our group met twice a month and we figured that the campaign would last about 2 years before we'd want to retire the characters, they'd all be dead or we wanted to just break from SR4. So karma was awarded based on that, and came out to about 10-13 karma per session.

The only problem we ran into was training times. Most didn't want a heck of a lot of downtime between missions, so everyone had a ton of karma unspent and was just waiting for time to pass so they could train up.

Posted by: Malachi Apr 13 2009, 07:50 PM

In SR3 I would often award a 2 Karma "being a Mage" bonus since the Awakened characters were so obviously Karma sink-holes.

Posted by: Mr. Unpronounceable Apr 13 2009, 08:00 PM

And computer B/R...and after the matrix splatbook hit, about 20 knowledge skills that hadn't previously existed, but were now included in TN calculations.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 13 2009, 08:02 PM

Enter one of the reasons why I'd like to see skill caps after char gen raised to 12.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 13 2009, 11:25 PM

Got a Grade 8 Initiate Adept with a Magic Rating of 11... That is a LOT of Karma my Friend...

Posted by: Bull Apr 14 2009, 04:34 AM

Honestly, i think that if I ever run an SR campaign again, I would probably tweak the caps a bit myself. I dunno about 12's for skill, but I'd at least do 9. I'd also probably change the post-chargen Attribute caps to 1.5 base max/2.0 Boosted Max. So humans could hit 9's naturally, and 12's with Cyber/Bio/Magic.

With the increased attribute costs, I don't see that really being a huge issue, and once a games gone long enough for characters to raise their attributes and skills to those levels, theyt're likely running with the big dogs of the SR world anyways, so power levels become much less of a factor.

But that's another topic... Back to the one at hand!

Err... I don;t really have anything to add, other than the only net effect I see is that players will likely focus on skills moreso than attributes, and Mages/TMs are still a Karma sinkhole.

Has anyone considered a house rule for initiation costs that combine Initiate Level with a Magic rating boost, ala SR1-3? Maybe base the whole thing on your magic rating, and make it 6x instead of the standard 5x? Hrmm... Not sure how well that would work, espeically when you got into the higher magic ratings...

Posted by: Cain Apr 14 2009, 05:11 AM

I have to agree with some of the others, Ryu. Foci are expensive, and only give you a limited boost. Ally spirits are a major investment in terms of time and karma. Raising magic was a cheap and fast boost to your power. And that's ignoring otaku, for whom raising Resonance is pretty much the only way they have to boost their powers.

Bottom line: most of the time, players focus on raising their magic/resonance pretty heavily. These new rules gimp that soemwhat.

Posted by: ElFenrir Apr 14 2009, 05:42 AM

Right now, in the game we play, we have no skill hardcaps. No one has even hit a 7 yet, but knowing this certainly makes skill increases prettier. We still use the older rules, though. I myself allow natural attribute increases beyond the maxes, but I put a slowly increasing cost on them.

We don't really use augmented maxes either; it's pretty rough to reach them as it is, and it doesn't come up often. The only times it does, due to diminishing returns and the like of actually overtwinking a stat, is for total flavor. But your method actually sounds really nice.

Posted by: xsansara Apr 14 2009, 06:55 AM

I am not a big fan of giving experienced characters options that starting characters do not have. I feels kind of D&D-ish. (You high-trained archer can't use Uber-Shot as it is level 4 Prerequisite...)

The other games we play a lot are WoD (o and n) and GURPS and you kind of get used to not having that artificial distinction of beginning character and played character. Skill caps aren't that bad otherwise the game becomes a who-guesses-the-higher-number and you constantly have to tweak the numbers for world class, eg. how many points of unarmed combat does Muhammed Ali have (used to have)?

The underlying problem with the Hacker seems to me that char progression runs on two different ressources: Karma and Nuyen for different character "classes". That is pretty unique in the roleplaying world. The Hacker wouldn't have problems spending more Nuyen on his char. On the other hand our Adept basically didn't know how to spent her Nuyen effectively after session two.

All that is well enough as long as the two ressources are equally available. Some archetypes however benefit from both, eg. Mages (who can buy those uber-expensive foci), Rigger (who can always raise just another skill) and Faces (who strictly speaking run on a third ressource called connection). So, if you want to avoid the problem, cash-for-Karma is the more elegant solution, which does not nerf or tweak anyone else. In our case, the Hacker started to take on other jobs in off-time, which secured him a good income, but cost him Karma instead of gaining him.

On a sidenote: I am currently working for a very large company and it actually feels like losing Karma for money, so that is not even unrealistic

Posted by: Ryu Apr 14 2009, 07:26 AM

Since there is a bit of convincing me going on, let me agree that many players raised magic as much as they could.

Or you could tweak Aptitude (now named "Expert"): Can be had for 5 BP / 10 karma, and raises your skillcap by 2 or 3.


Rolling initiation into magic is difficult, as you have magic increases that don´t require initiation, and generous 40% rebates are available via the initiation mechanics. So you do it the other way round. Old cost is (10+3*(grade))*modifier+(new magic)*5. Let´s assume that (new magic) is (grade+6), and we end at 40 + (grade)*8, which can be had with 40% rebate for 24+(grade)*4.8. Slight kick in the nuts for augmented initiates, as they implicitly pay for more magic than they actually get.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 14 2009, 02:56 PM

On the other hand, it means that after char gen there is very little opportunity for character growth.

Posted by: Bull Apr 14 2009, 04:42 PM

Yup, this is my issue as well.

Starting characters are, well, starting characters. They can be good, very very good (WHich puts them head and shoulders above a 1st level D&D character), but they shouldn't be able to start off maxed out in their primary traits and attributes. Granted, a character that does that is pretty much a one trick pony and will likely need to burn karma just to make himself competent in other areas, but still... You should be able to grow and improve, even in your best areas. Otherwise, why have Karma and character advancement at all?

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Apr 14 2009, 04:56 PM

That is a much bigger question.

Posted by: ElFenrir Apr 14 2009, 04:56 PM

My biggest problem with the hard caps was what I liked to call ''Fastjack Syndrome.''

Fastjack, as most know is, well, Fastjack. When it comes to computers and electronics, IMO, very, very few should be able to match the old coot. Yes, there are outside modifiers, but anyone can get them. Sure, someone super-duper-smart(8 starting logic, cerebral boost 3, etc), can get damn good, but those skills. Under the normal, regular, rules, Fastjack can probably tweak his Logic up to...12 with mods? But this would require that he SURGED(metagenic improvement), and I don't think he did. So we'll say PuShed and Exceptional Attribute: Logic with 3 level of Cerebral Boosters. Okies, the man himself has an 11. But so can a starting character.

On top of this, there is the skill cap. 1 6 and the rest 4 or less, sure, at the start, but the hacker can stick a 6(7 with Aptitude) into, say, Hacking or Cybercombat, and boom, he's equal to Fastjack. Probably the greatest decker alive. And this is a starting character. (Yes, the other skills are likely lower-and I'm sure Fastjack somehow gets around that ''one aptitude'' clause somehow and has several 7's. But even then...the other guy can still load up on 4's for the rest of those skills(and for a hacker, it's not difficult-they don't need many BPs for other things), and specialize, and eventually pay his 22 karma for each skill to bring them from 4 to 6. But that wouldn't take terribly long.

Now, without Karma pool(one thing that could also separate runners, this same runner can have Edge rather equivalent to Fastjack, as well. Now, granted, a starting character probably lacks the ol' Fasty's programs and decks(that's probably some stuff he's built up over his 55 or so years of hacking, if not more...he's 70, is he not?), but the fact is, by the numbers, [i]he is as good as the greatest decker in the world, out of the box[i], at a skill, thanks to hard skill caps. Now, of course, Fast probably has max skill in ALL of those comp and electronic things, something the starting character can't have...but he can turn those 4's to 6's rather quickly.

Take away skill caps, and this goes away. I just don't even see the reason for keeping them there. Taking the caps away certainly makes skills look very pretty.

Posted by: Malachi Apr 14 2009, 06:37 PM

I agree ElfFenrir. When I first read SR4 I spotted the problem right away, and I call it "compression of scale." With most things in the universe being graded on a scale of 1-6 or possibly up to 7, there just aren't enough levels to accurately depict how much better someone/something can be than another. When you run the probability numbers, (assuming they have the same attribute value) a character with a skill 7 just isn't that much better than one with a skill 4. The person with a skill 7 should be much better, given the fluff description.

The other place I saw the problem was in the Matrix (however it has now been fixed with Unwired). A starting PC Hacker should really have Rating 5 everything. So, what's the rating of a top-secret corporate research host? Umm.. 6. What about Lofwyr's personal diary on world domination? That's... a 6. What about the Zurich-Orbital Banking System. That has to be.... 6? Now, Unwired removed the 6 "cap" on Matrix gear, so its quite conceivable that FastJack would have some pretty unbelievable gear, but the problem persists in other areas.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 14 2009, 07:39 PM

Zurich I believe has rating 11 software/hardware. It's in Unwired somewhere, the sample systems.

Posted by: Malachi Apr 14 2009, 07:43 PM

Right. As I said, Unwired fixed the problem by removing the Rating 6 cap, but the problem remains in other areas.

Posted by: Kingboy Apr 14 2009, 09:01 PM

I'm aware of that, and even made note that it had been changed (or was slated to be changed) in the corrected version. The question I asked did not pertain to the chart, it pertained to the descriptive text near the chart which, last I saw it, still suggested 4-5 Karma per run.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 15 2009, 02:10 AM

Remember, even in the original SR4 hardbook... Rating 6 gear was what was available to purchase... it never said that higher rated gear did not exist; in fact, it said completely the opposite, you just COULD NOT PURCHASE SUCH GEAR...

So, the cap fpr technology was a character ceiling for chargen, not a technological ceiling for the tech...

That being said, Let me ask another question...

Do you REALLY need 20+ Dice to be world class? I think that the levels of skills are okay, if you take into account the actual ratings and what they mean... you are right that rating 4 skills are not FUNCTIONALLY much different, but in the verisimilitude of the Ficitonal World, they are MILES apart... Remember, the PC's are supposed to tbe the best of the best BECAUSE THEY ARE PC's...

Having played in many games (using many systems) where that scale must be continuously adjusted to keep the Opposition (or Cannon NPC's) somehow superior to the PC's, I am happy with the fact that Shadowrun has solid skill caps... it is an easy way to immediately evaluate a character in relation to the rest of the world...

If your campaign continuously runs up agains the skill caps, and it is considered Bad form because you are now equivalent to "Fast Jack" or (pardon the useage) "James Bond," well you might want to consider that maybe you are looking at it the wrong way...

Sure, Player Characters can reach exceptional skill in a relatively short amount af time if all you care about is the mechanics... On the other hand, if you remember that a Skill rating of 3 is Professional and a 4 is Veteran capabilities, then you should have YEARS of playtime ahead of you before you hit the skill caps... For an exapmle, I have a highly competant Physical Adept (Grade 8 Initiate) who has an impressive 386 Karma and 28 Skills (both Active and Knowledge) of which only 2 are above a 3 (both are 4). Yes he has a fairly robust Initiate Grade and Magic Rating, and 3 stats are augmented above a 6 (all 7's)... I played this character for years and he is barely a veteran by Skill Fluff... Is he highly competant.. You Betcha, does he complain that he generally only has an upper range dice pool of 14 (for 2 Skills, with many of the rest falling into average ranges of 6-8 Dice) ... NO!

Now I know not everyone likes to play that way, but I would say that that is how Shadowrun is intended to be played, where you might have a single skill above a 4 (if you are lucky)... Now, I know that a LOT of (Player) characters take advantage of the one 6 or two 5's in skills at chargen, but when you do so, you should not complain that you are in the elite with the best in the world... There are so many things that you can use your Karma for now that I am not even sure why skill caps are a problem...

Any Way, Just wanted to point that out... Take it for what it is worth, which is exactly Two Cents

Posted by: Cain Apr 15 2009, 04:39 AM

Sure, if playing deliberately-gimped characters is your style, then go for it! Fun is where you find it.

But if you want to play characters that feel effective at what they do, you're going to want to min/max. In fact, min/maxing is a good thing, since it means your character has interesting highs and lows. In SR4, the point of effectiveness is around 16-20 dice, or roughly the ability to buy a critical success without rolling. Not only can you pull off routine things easily, you do so with *flair*.

Posted by: TheOOB Apr 15 2009, 04:47 AM

Fastjack, for example, most likely has maxed every attribute and skill related to hacking(possibly even a little above the game limits, not all NPCs have to follow player rules), but his real advantage is equiptment(I would expect 8+ on most things), rep, and resources. He may not be a huge amount better then you, but he has way more to work with.

Posted by: ElFenrir Apr 15 2009, 05:29 AM

Still, though, I personally(and our table does too, hence getting rid of hard caps) prefer the fact some folks just have higher skills than the norm can have...to a point. I mean, can a PC eventually get a 15 in Computers like Fastjack? Sure! It just takes awhile, as it well should.

I mean, my current character, who has some Karma under his belt, isn't some god. For his top 3 skills, he does throw(before modifiers like smartlinks) 12-16 dice for them(with some mods like Smartlinks, Reach for Kick attack and weapons etc), bringing his highest DP 17 for his unarmed attack. Otherwise? He's between 7-9 for most, 10-11 for a couple and even 5-6 for a few skills. it fits him. He's not maxed on all things I want him to be-I wanted to branch him out on a couple things before I maxed his Unarmed and Armorer skills.

But I'm glad we can go above 6 in our games. Eventually, I really would like to see him with some crazy scores in Unarmed, Blades, and Armorer(the three skills that probably define his speciality best.) In addition to qualities(martial arts, etc.) I'd like to see him, should he live, at that level of some of the classics have. But there are other skills I still want to buy. Also, planning how a character grows with Karma can be hard...you always end up with those skills that you didn't think of before(I plan on getting him a Locksmith of 1, for example, due to defaulting with his little multitool several times to pull the team out of some heat.)

In other words-no, you don't need ALL die pools at 20+ to be effective. BUT, I just personally have a bit of problem with the fact that a legendary decker who has been hacking for most of his 70 years reaches the pinnacle of one of his skills(or one under the pinnacle for 2 of them), right out of the gate.

As for NPCs breaking rules-I admit, I ain't a fan of this. I mean, this is one reason that while I don't mind stuff like IEs and GDs, I don't use them in my own campaigns. They seem above the rules, and I sorta get rubbed the wrong way from that.

So yes, while Fastjack probably has gear the PC's might never hear of, let alone see(Gear, yes, doesn't have such hard and fast rules), the stats and skills still abide by the rules. I mean, I doubt I'd ever end up putting Fastjack in the campaign, like, ever, and if I did I wouldn't make the PCs ''fight'' him, since his vast contacts would just have him disappear, anyway, but I like the idea of being able to break the skillcap like in SR3. It also gets around things like the classic old master who is a bit physically past his prime(Agility 2, Skill 7), being schooled by his skilled, but still less skilled student because he's souped up faster(Agility 10, skill 4.)

Posted by: xsansara Apr 15 2009, 05:50 PM

Apparently skill caps are a matter of personal taste.

If a character concept reads: I am the world champion in X. Then the question should be, do the points cover that?
If you don't agree, you should consider lowering BP at char gen (300 work surprisingly nice, you can't max anything, unless you really compromise)

BTW I never said that the Hacker complained at being world class. His problem was that he wasn't because he couldn't afford the equip.

That aside, just that you have the maxed skill in something, doesn't necessarily mean that you are actually successful in your field. I bet there are a lot of unemployed acting 7 actors, while the actors we get to see on TV are often astonishingly mediocre. Scientific Noble prize winners consistently have an IQ above 120, but that is far from having IQ maxed. Considering recent events, I am pretty sure that investment bankers aren't making career for their skill in banking. And I happen to know first-hand that IT specialists are not paid based on their skill level, although we are probably closer to that than most other careers.

Your career as a Shadowrunner isn't determined on how many dice you roll. It is how successful you are. Dice pool size is relatively unimportant for that. Fastjack probably doesn't even have maxed out skills. Why should he? He is Fastjack. Everyone already knows he is the best Hacker out there.

I had a SR3 character once, who was famous on Cons for solving problems fast and elegantly. That character had nothing maxed, she was a wannabe Trideo-actress that needed some money on the side and tried to avoid getting into too much trouble for that. I was always nervous that the GM would ask me to roll something, because I never read the SR3 rules, but was pretty sure that the character couldn't do anything. But, for some reason, every run she had ever been on went super smooth. Every person she asked a favour, miraculously did what she wanted. Whenever a group fractured, she happened to be on the right side. Whenever the shit hit the fan, she came out smelling like rose water (admittedly, she did have a spell for that). I never knew where the rep exactly came from, but at some point other people told me stories about my own character, other characters declared having a life debt to mine and Johnsons paid me double share, without my asking. My point is: even without a mechanic like Karma pool, reputation is more important for fame and success than actual skill.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 15 2009, 11:18 PM

Where are you getting this "Point of Effectiveness" at 16-20 Dice?
As I have stated in previous posts, with average dice pools between 9-12, I generally succeed in the things that I do as a character... Sometimes it is with a single success, Occassionally, I get 7 or 8 successes... Seems like success to me... all you need is 1 Net success to hurt somoeone (maybe they soak it and maybe they don't, that is not the issue here)... What is, is that I have succeeded, and DON'T feel gimped in any way, shape or form...

Again, I will take you back to the current rating system in skills... a 3 is Professional Level... Most characters SHOULD have 3's or 4's for their relevant skills... if you are sticking to the Fluff... if you are not, don't complain that you have no where to advance your primary skills... it is your own doing...

There is always a little min/maxing inherent in Shadowrun, but when you are going over the top, you force your GM to go over the top, and therefore you are creating a self-fulfilling prohecy in that you MUST be high powered because your Opponents are High Powered... Can't you see that you are causing the paradox that you are arguing for?

Maybe another cent of information, but there you go...

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 15 2009, 11:21 PM

Very much agreed here...

Show me a starting character with 8-10 skills (Active and Knowledge) in the 6 (or 7) range with 200+ points of contacts, maximized Mental Stats (and possible some high to max physical stats, but not necessary), and ALL Equipment/Programs in the 8+ Range... Can't be done, can't even be done with several hundred Karma...

Once you get there, well, then you are a contemporary... congratulations...

Posted by: Cain Apr 16 2009, 02:40 AM

Like I said: it is where you can buy critical successes without rolling. You don't have to roll out winning the target shooting match at the range, you just buy your way through the preliminary rounds with your huge dice pool. It's hardwired into the system.

Let's look at programming. We have Mr. Incompetent versus Fastjack. Mr. Incompetent is, naturally, Incompetent in the Software skill, but has an impressive Longshot pool of 8. Fastjack has high skill, high attributes, an advanced programming suite, and all kinds of computer toys to help him out, giving him a dice pool of 25.

We cut them both loose writing an Edit 2 program for a friend. This takes them both the same amount of time, regardless of skill. When they're finished, both simply buy the successes they need. Mr. Incompetent's program, according to the rules, will function just as well as Fastjack's. In fact, the only difference is that Fastjack gets to add a bunch of flourishes to his program, making it cooler. That's the power of buying critical successes: you can't do anything better than anyone else, but you can be flashier about how you do it.

So, if you like playing characters that barely squeak by most of the time, more power to you! But if you want to play characters who do things with flair, you need the dice pool to back it up. And style, flair, and special detail add a lot to roleplay.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 16 2009, 03:23 AM

YOU DO NOT NEED A HIGH DICE POOL FOR FLAIR... FLAIR IS A ROLEPLAY THING, NOT MECHANICS

As for your example... both programs are rating 2... therefore, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE PROGRAMS... they will both perform the functions of the Edit Program equally well, regardless of the "Flair" that you assign to it because of the "si-called" superior number of hits acquired for the higher dice pool...

Now, I will grant you that MR. Incompetant is only able to Auto success that rating 2, but he could roll and conceivable complete that Rating 8 Edit in the same time frame... By the same token, Fast Jack COULD take his 6 autosuccesses, or he could roll and completely critically fail to create the program, having to start over from scratch due to faulty coding... either is a valid conclusion ot the scenario as presented... My point is that you DO NOT NEED high dice pools (16+) to accomplish ANYTHING in Shadowrun, and in fact, the dice pool average, according to the Fluff of the Game World would be more in line with 10 Dice for a Veteran in his field (4 Skill, 4 Stat, and a specialty), technology aside...

SO Again, Success is success... those things that are everyday, mundane things, you should not be rolling dice for anyway, so the uncommonly high dice pools of 16+ are not truly necessary... Now, you may decide to have that dice pool of 24, but there is no functional reason to have such a high dice pool...especially when you can succeed with a pool half that size...

I will say it again, for those that might have missed it... when you design characters with common dice pools above 16, YOU FORCE THE GM TO DO THE SAME THING... this results in an Arms Race (for Dice Pools) that is generally not a lot of fun. When your characters are hyper-proficient, then so too is your opposition, which ultimately reinforces the condition upon itself... it becomes a sel-fulfilling prophecy... I NEED HIGH DICE POOLS because my OPPOSITION HAS HIGH DICE POOLS, and thus the cycle starts again...

In the end, all you have is a page of crazy statistics and mathematical constructs... a piece of paper that has absolutely no personality, no drive to become any better (because he can't), no roleplay potential, and no "Character"...

Numbers or Character... I think that I am going to go with the Character...
Your declaration that characters with dice pools less than 16 are incapable of having flair, or of accomplishing anything of significance is a total fallacy... Try it sometime, you might actually enjoy roleplaying of someone who is just a mere mortal, rather than one step removed from divinity...

But hey, Just my Two Cents...

Posted by: Five Eyes Apr 16 2009, 04:52 AM

In terms of skill caps, it's possible that you could instead adjucate that Fastjack has numerous as-of-yet unpublished Qualities that boost his dice pool, if you did not want to discard skill caps or raise them to the double digits. Raising skill caps can get problematic in various ways because distinctions have to be shifted to account for it, or your scale gets wonky (i.e. it's easy to tell the difference between 3 (professional) and 4 (veteran), but what about 14 and 15?).

Well, sort of. You're operating in a system that measures degree of success by "degree by which the threshold was met or exceeded." I.e. meeting the threshold is "adequate success." Hits in excess of the threshold *do* matter, it's just that the system doesn't recognize that rules-wise in a number of scenarios. Fastjack's program is different (superior), in numerous non-game-mechanical-factors. He got more hits. That's what critical success *means*.
If you're having trouble with that, imagine it as an opposed test - "Who makes the better program?"

The talented amateur, in other words, meets the necessary specs. Fastjack blows the project out of the water. Fastjack could, in fact, match the talented amateur while undergoing a double-digit penalty. He could write the other guy's program while being swarmed by bees.



"High dice pools means bad roleplaying" is just as empty an argument as "low dice pools mean bad roleplaying." I don't think that a character needs a 16-20 dice pool to be "Competent," but I don't think having one makes the character *bad*.

Also, I am painfully aware of how a high dicepool does not provide godly powers. My poor adept!

Posted by: ElFenrir Apr 16 2009, 05:29 AM

Oh, I've seen high die pools succeed poorly, and low ones well...and I've also seen the opposite.

When my sam fights someone with 9 DP hand to hand, he severely beats them. Severely. They basically need to blow Edge to have a chance 9 times out of 10. His 17 dice are too much for them. But is he the best in the world? Oh, no. Hell, I made a starting build for fun(more or less playing with character builds), and this guy could probably smack him around pretty effectively. The guy I built in the 800 BP thread could probably turn him into a little crying mass. In any case, he'd force my sam to have to use up some Edge. Hell, my sam had already used up Edge in one battle to ensure his victory. (One to blow up 6's, one to reroll failures. It worked. It was versus a large, cybered, critter that could have mauled the party pretty bad had it had been left to it's devices.)

At the same time, my Sam's 6-9 social pools make him decent, but guess what...the Face out faces him with her 14. I don't think I've ever rolled more successess on a Negotations test with his 6 dice. On average, the person with more dice will succeed at their tests.

Due to the current die mechanic, anything under 6 becomes rather hairy I've found. Sure, I succeed sometimes, but it becomes rather difficult. In those cases, you really need to start bringing in the outside modifiers.

However, indeed, die pools do not determine how rich a characters background is, how much personality they have. I've seen low die pool characters who were just as cardboard as their high-pool counterparts. Likewise, it's hard to compare characters across games. My characters have run the gamut(and this is even just at the 750 Karmagen level, I've built characters at a lot of levels), highest die pools that ranged from 13 to 20. All types can be fun. My current guy just happens to have die pools that range from 6 to 17, ith a middleground of 7-10. But I've had from 5-16, 8-20, 4-12...whatever fits the mood, really.

But yeah, sometimes there are things that I like my characters to really succeed at, and thus kick those pools up a bit. Again, it depends on the character. For Kael, it's his unarmed combat and blades. Sometimes, though, there is nothing I really think I need to ''crazy succeed'' at and thus only boost the skills for what I feel they really need for what they do.

That being said, the no skill caps have worked fine for us...mainly because no one has quite gone there yet. But a few of us have plans to succeed the 7 when the time comes. Again, there is usually just too many other little things we end up buying(a lot of active and knowledge skills at 1-2 end up bought, for example.) It's just nice that we know that if we want, we can continue growing up...or out if we choose so instead. Options are nice to have.

Posted by: Cain Apr 16 2009, 05:44 AM

Wrong! If you read the critical success rules, they're the only way a player gets to add flourishes to their actions. It is very much a mechanical thing.

Second, as 5 Eyes pointed out, SR4 is a threshold plus system. The further you go above the threshold, the better you do. It's not just enough to know that you hit the guard, you have to know how well you hit him. Successes above the threshold are very much a necessary part of the system; it is not enough that you scrape by, you must succeed by a wide margin.


I would say that depends on how skilled your GM is.

And now the roleplaying elitism reveals itself....

In the hands of a good player, you can take the most munched-out monster and have it become the best character of a session. Or, you can take the most gimped "real character" and have him turn out to be completely boring-- or worse, such a drama queen that he spoils the game far more than the combat munchkins. I'll take the combat monsters over the drama queens any day of the week.

Numbers and personality are not enemies. In fact, they go hand in hand. A character without high and low points is boring. A character with extremes, however, can be the most fun and interesting to play. You don't have to deliberately gimp a character to give it personality-- in fact, the opposite is usually true.

Try it sometime, you might enjoy playing a character who is actually a character.

Posted by: The Jake Apr 16 2009, 06:31 AM

I'm with Cain on this. The rules speak very clearly about the ability to buy successes over the target threshold. This pretty well defines how you can buy your way to a critical success.

RE: skill caps.

I'm undecided.

In ye old days, I had one player whose troll sammy had 10s in most of his combat skills and nothing under a 6. His attributes were maxed as well and was a borderline cyberzombie back in SR2 days. I also remember one character doing nothing but sinking karma into Unarmed Combat and when we stopped playing, it was listed at 22. These characters were played around 3-5 years actively at a minimum.

I like the idea of caps (in a way) because it forces players to become more well rounded. I have one PC who is playing a former company man/spy investing skill points into Biotech, Nanotech Knowledge skills and Biological Warfare skills because of an interest in using/abusing nanotech weaponry. I doubt I'd never get that player to do that if I allowed him to raise his Unarmed Combat and Firearms above 6 (he's a notorious minmaxer).

If I abolish skill caps first, I'm likely to turf them on magical spells/adept powers first and on attributes. The current limitations on adept powers like Improved Ability renders adepts almost redundant IMHO. I have to pay 10BP to get Adept, 40BP-65BP extra to get magic to a respectable level (cyberadepts will want to max it) and then overspecialise. A cybered equivalent might be a couple of dice less on the key roll but be much more well rounded. At least in older editions you could accept the fact you would be weaker than the cybered mundane early on, but would eventually outstrip him. There's no assurance of that now.

If I change skill caps, I'm thinking of a sliding scale on karma caps - e.g. x2 karma for skills 7-9, x3 karma for skills 9-11, x4 karma for 12...etc. This allows for progression but would at least make a player really think "Is it worth my sammy getting that extra dice on the Firearms Group when I could get another rating on Influence and Stealth?"

I don't know. My plan at this stage is to run through Ghost Cartels, let the players accumulate karma and re-evaluate how the PCs are enjoying it. I have 3 magicians in my group so I doubt they'll complain in a hurry. If anything I'm expecting my mundanes to complain.

- J.

Posted by: toturi Apr 16 2009, 07:53 AM

Perhaps you can enlighten us what you mean by "flair". Usually a GM simply describes an action taken by your PC and maybe, he adds some little details if he is feeling nice. But you get to describe certain cool things your character does, instead of your GM doing the description, when you roll a critical success. You, not your GM. This is when "flair" comes in. You get as much "flair" as you like when you roll a Crit Success.

The way you are defining flair is quite different from many of us here.


You do not force your GM to do anything. He can force you to adhere to his house rules, his rulings, his campaign. But you do not get to force him to do jack. When you design characters with common pools above 16 (or any number you like, 20, 30, etc), your GM has a choice - to recognise that you are building a character that is able to accomplish things far above what a normal human can achieve or he can choose to "challenge" you by engaging you in an arms race. It is his choice.


Good stats imbues the character sheet with its own personality and makes it leap off the page and grab you by your balls and doesn't let go. Numbers can be character if only you allow it. A character is more capable of flair the more dice he has. 16 dice is a good guide. You can have less dice, but you got to be content with as much flair as your GM deems to grant your character. If you want to grab the "flair" and stand in the spotlight, you'd need more dice. Your implication that characters with dice pools less than 16 are as capable of "flair" as those with more is a total and absolute fallacy. Try it sometime, fly with the gods instead of plodding on the ground like a mere mortal. You might actually enjoy it, if you can stop shouting on the internets long enough.

Posted by: AngelisStorm Apr 16 2009, 08:38 AM

It is an old adage that talent will only take you so far; after that you've got to practice, practice, practice. This is true, the best athlete in the entire world cannot try a sport he or she has never played before, and beat a good member of that sport first time out. With this being the case, it does seem strange that skills can only go up to 6; it seems that the developers are saying talent is alot more important than good training and longtime experience. If working from the base human 6 stat 6 skill, it works fine. But we know from the getgo that other races will have higher traits, and we know that we can get augmentations to be better/faster/stronger. So logically, you should also be able to boost your skills up to (human trait max 9, skill max of 9, which the max is). But outside of adepts, I believe there is only the one bioware skill booster, and it only gives you +1 to your skill.

So it seems relatively balanced between stat and skill, if there was a way to augment your skills up to 9, without magic. (There might be, and I'm forgetting it.) As for 6 not being "high" enough, the same arguement can be made for Mr. Average and Mr. Example of Human Perfection in traits. If you build your character to be the best, then he should be the best. Where do the best go? They either stay the best, or they fall down. You can't be the "bestest." Our character's aren't 1st level characters, they are (potentially) the James Bonds, Snipers, and Excorsists of the world. Or they are gangers and street trash trying to scrape themselves out of a hole. But that is up to the GM and players to decide.

(Incidently, I give starting reputation points to characters for 5's and 6's that they have. They are world class, so unless they are somehow kung fu masters from inside Tibet, there should be some rep attached to high skills.)

Posted by: Muspellsheimr Apr 16 2009, 09:15 AM

I commented on this recently in another thread. Not only has the descriptive text not been updated to take into account changes to the chart, it blatantly contradicts the chart.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 17 2009, 12:57 AM

However, in the grand sceme of things... it is irrelevant... they both function as a Edit 2 Program... all those successes aside, there is NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE in the programs... My opinion would be if you want more "options" then program a more intricate program (raise the rating of the program)... Programs of equal rating are identical in all respects...



I never argued that Fastjack was not a better programmer, what I said was that equal program ratings indicate equal capabilities and functions... Sure, Fastjack is a better programmer... in that regard he could program a Rating 8 Edit Program in the same time that Joe Average programs the Rating 2 Program... However, equal ratings are equal in function (I do not pay more for a Rating 2 Edit Program made by Fastjack than I would from Joe Average Programmer, assuming that both of succeeded in actually programming the program)... so whether or not the programmer received 1 net success or 100 net successes is completely IRRELEVANT to the function of the program itself...



I never said that it equaled Bad Roleplaying, I indicated that the need was not truly there, it was an illusion. With the SR4 System, dice results have become more random, which I view as a good thing. If you are trying to completely overwhelm the outcome of the dice resolving the drama, by piling on as many modifiers as you can, then you are denying yourself a story (probably a very good one) that cannot be completely controlled by the character. Always winning gets REAL boring after a while...

Posted by: Kingboy Apr 17 2009, 12:59 AM

That's what I thought, thanks for the (second ) confirmation...

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 17 2009, 01:21 AM

For the vast majority of things that you do in a shadowrun game, all you truly need to succeed is 1 Net Success (NEED being the operative word)... There is absolutely no mechanical benefit for me to accumulate 15 NET successes to program a Edit 3 Program, or create a Rating 6 Response Chip, or repair my vehicle... The only time that more successes generate a mechanical effect is in Combat... More hits = more damage... In any opposed test, outside of combat, 1 Net over your opponent is more than enough to SUCCEED... When is the last time that you actaully had a mechanical effect from gaining 15 net successes for programming a program? I would be willing to bet NEVER, as there ARE NO BENEFITs for such successes outside of combat...



See the above post...it only really matters IN COMBAT... Wide margins are irrelevant outside of combat...




So you are freely admitting that you take advantage of your GM because he cannot build characters as well as you do? How... Droll



Thanks for the assumption that I do not roleplay... You would be wrong... Many, if not all of my characters have "character," I just don't need 20+ dice to accomplish that... seems like it is acting as a crutch to the way you play your character if you cannot have that without the 20+ dice yourself...

You are right, numbers and roleplay are not enemies... but when the numbers take precedence over the roleplay, the Character suffers... You are right...a character does need his highs and lows, but you can accomplish those highs and lows with a range of 5-15 Dice(Low to High) rather than what seems to be your opinion of 8-20+ (Low to High)...

You have continuously stated that you cannot have an effective character with main skills less than 20+ dice pools, and at this I cry Foul... You can have very effective and successful characters with dice pools averaging 8-12... it is all in your opposition... if you have dice pools of 20+, then your opposition MUST have dice pools that are equal or superior... so now what do you do when your opposition now throws 30+ dice to oppose you?

When my Primary Enemies begin throwing 12-14 dice, I dont sweat it a much as if they started throwing those 20+ dice that you are so fond of... If I DID encounter such an opponent, I would probably run to fight another day, and confront him at a later time with a bigger stick than I had to start with (probably in the form of numbers or maybe some superior tech)... it would not make me want to all of a sudden have 20+ dice of my own in my primary skills... for the record, I HAVE NO CHARACTER with combat stats in the 20+ Range, and they have all played quite well, in spite of your supposition that they should be inept wanks...

Different style than you are apparently used to...

I still contend that you DO NOT NEED DP's at the 20+ range to be competent or successful... sure, Larger dice pools may well add additional; successes, but I have not been in any game where it was absolutely a MUST HAVE to compete...

With Inflation, My 1 Centm Hope that I did not Bore anyone...
Thanks for letting me rant a little...

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 17 2009, 02:01 AM

Maybe... But the Flair you (or the GM) inject into the character's actions are independant of the Mechanics of the system... again, multiplle net successes only have a mechanic attached in combat...




And if the GM Chooses to limit you to a reasonable dice pool? What then? Do you go along with Cain's suggestion that you just get another GM?




The Don't complain when you have no where to improve when you start as on of the best in the world... That is the price that you pay to be the best...

As for Soaring with the gods, I do quite well with the characters that I choose to play, thank you very much... as I have said before...it becomes QUITE boring when you are not ever challenged by anything... If I wanted that I would go play SCION or something...

I prefer the challenge of a well written story to always winning...

My Two Cents

Posted by: toturi Apr 17 2009, 02:04 AM

So you are freely admitting you judge your GM by how well he builds his NPCs? Afterall, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, no? A GM's skill is not determined only by how well he builds his characters. Rather by how well he challenges you or how much fun you are getting from his game. It does not matter if he throw 1 million Grunts at you or he sends 1 cyberzombie, or he can just drop you into a Background 4+ zone for Awakened characters.

The SR rules allow the GM a far greater amount of resources to build your Primary Enemies - Superior/Superhuman/etc. As a reminder, these Prime Runner NPCs scale with you, which means you will be outclassed since for every 1 karma you get, these guys get 1+ karma. Your GM can choose to challenge you with anything he deems fit. He does not need to challenge you with 1 guy with a dice pool of 20+. He can challenge you with 10 guys with a dice pool no greater than yours. But you are doing yourself no favors by keeping your own dice pool at a level lower than that necessary to gain a critical success since you gain brief narrative control over your PC. At all other times, narrative control lies with the GM.


I did not see anyone make any assumption that you do not roleplay. I see however that you are assuming that someone is assuming you are not roleplaying. Your claim that you roleplay means nothing in any case, no one usually will willingly admit that they do not roleplay, on the contrary, many people claim to roleplay. In fact, far more people with little interest in game mechanics claim to "roleplay" than those who put effort into creating a mechanically viable character. In fact, there are "roleplayers" that I have seen "roleplay" nothing but a pain in the ass.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 17 2009, 03:17 AM

I have no complaints about the way our campaign is run... I do not judge by how well NPC's are built, I judge by how much fun is involved, as this is a hobby that is supposed to be FUN for everyone involved...



I have no complaints about this... Narrative control is the purview of the GM, when Narration is warranted...at all other times it is a collaborative endeavor... as it should be... otherwise you are just an observer in someone else's novel...




Cain as much as said it, please re-read his post and you will see... And you are right, many people have a very different definition of roleplay, even amongst themselves... but this is not the problem... when numbers trump the essence of the character, it becomes a problem, and that was my point... "Mechanically Viable" is in the the eye of the campaign...

I have yet to see a campaign where it is required that to be mechanically viable you need dice pools in the 20+ range... that is just... ludicrous to me, when in my experience, the 10-12 dice range has functioned quite well in all regards that have been brought up...

And for the record, I do agree with your "pain in the ass" analogy...
Thanks for letting me rant though...

My Two Cents

Posted by: Cain Apr 17 2009, 04:40 AM

You gain a tangible benefit in the form of a Critical Success.

You forgot Conjuring, which is a big-time opposed test. Yes, one net "succeeds", but there is a tangible benefit to having more successes. In social combat, the more net successes the better you do, such as when you're negotiating. More successes = more money. Those were the first two that popped up; I'm sure there's plenty of other opposed tests where the more successes you roll, the better you do.

So, that means extra successes help in most social, magical, and combat tests. I think that covers most of the tests you make in a game.


Generally, I am the GM. I don't play the arms race game, either. I assume you are also the GM, which is why you complain about the arms race?


That's a player problem, not a character-building one. It's the player who will focus on the numbers, and ignore the personality. This would happen no matter what you put on the character sheet. Some players will always do certain things, regardless of what they're playing or how munched-out they are.


Really? Quote me.

You will not find a single quote from me saying you cannot have an effective character with a dice pool of less than 20+. I did say that the point of "coolness" comes with a dice pool of 16-20, where you can simply buy critical successes. As you pointed out, if you're only outscoring the opposition by one or two successes, there's not much difference... but if you're outscoring him by four or more, your stuff is noticeably better.


Not in SR4. In a game like Wushu, you have a great deal of shared narrative control. In a game like SR4 (and, to counter the charges of SR4-bashing, GURPS and D&D), the player has minimal control over the narrative. That's just the way the game is written. In SR4, the only time the player takes a starring narrative role is when he scores a Critical Success, allowing him to distinguish his actions from the ordinary.

In the case of our program, Fastjack's program could come with a smaller memory requirement, a slicker interface, smoother operations, and a flashier icon. Mr. Incompetent's would just be plain vanilla.

Posted by: ElFenrir Apr 17 2009, 06:04 AM

About all of this challenging PC's with bigger die pools-who said challenge has to come in the form of combat, anyway? Also, put a 24 die pool sword dude against 6 10 DP guards with a mix of light guns with stick n shock and see what happens. I'm willing to bet he comes out of that very, very groggy and in handcuffs.

I have a good friend who played in a campaign for a long time(I was only a sporadic member due to my schedule), that a friend of ours GM'd. They had a blast in it(and I did, too.)

He said some of the biggest challenges were A. All optional-they weren't forced into things, B. He never got the feeling that it was ''Them against Him'', and C. Some of the greatest challenges were the moral dilemmas and the like that didn't even use dice.

Sure, there were tough combats-but again, the toughest? Optional. And the main characters were extreeemely competent.

In my current campaign, we tend to win our combats not due to enormous die pools(nice, but not excessive), but due to a lot of planning and tactics. I have a feeling, though, that the biggest challenges are going to come from other things not combat related. The problem with combat related challenges is that they can escelate without even having huge pools. If the PCs feel that they are coming too damn close for comfort, they may use Karma to increase the combat related stuff, and the GM can fire back. But why always challenge with combat? Why are opposed tests the only way to challenge people? IMO, the stuff that doesn't take dice is the most challenging, because you can't rely on huge pools to get the job done. You have to rely on your own decisions.

Again, our die pools are not 20+. They're between 13-17 for most combat situations(and the 17 is only for one particular situation.) Even with those solid mid teens, though, we do need to think.

Posted by: Cain Apr 17 2009, 07:02 AM

It's worth mentioning, though, that most SR4 planning and tactics involves getting bonuses to your dice pool and/or minimizing the dice pool of the other side. So, it still comes down to dice pool size, you're just not doing it through character creation.


Even those with 20+ dice pools need to think. Despite what TJ asserted, a dice pool of 20+ is not a living god, merely very, very good at what he does.

Posted by: toturi Apr 17 2009, 08:10 AM

I think that it is also worth mentioning that while the players are tactical geniuses, their PCs aren't likely to be(unless they have the appropriate knowledge skills, which leads us again to dice pools).

But I agree, 20+ dice pool is that damned good, but nowhere near god yet. A god pool is somewhere just that little bit more than what a pre-SR4A pornomancer would have.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 17 2009, 01:37 PM

I'm not a tactical genius, but I do know How to Not Be Seen.
("Mr. Bradshaw, would you please stand up?")

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2009, 03:21 PM

When all you need is one... big deal...



Again... you may be right in that more can provide som ebenefit, BUT YOU STILL ONLY NEED QA SIBGLE SUCCESS to SUCCEED... Yes, More successes oon spirits means a few more services, negotiation success may indeed benefit you (as could intimidation)... However, the examples you give still by default only need a sngle net TO SUCCEED...




NO, I am not the GM (though I could be If I so chose to do so), I complain about the arms race of dice pools because it quickly becomes BORING for those who either Don't want to play the arms race (Me) or those who do not desire the Arms Race (Some others I know, who would NEVER even consider such a thing because it does not fit with the way that the rules are written)... Note that I said Don't... we are all capable of maximizing a character to ridiculous levels, as you have so obviously demonstrated, however, it is my contention that it is not necessary if you keep the guidelines of the Skill Level Descriptions and the fluff of the Game World as written by RAW... Can you Obtain obscene dice pools ... SURE... Should You... NO...

Just my opinion, but one I generally stick to...




Yes, Some players do this regardless of the circumstances, but I would submit that it is your duty as a GM (or senior player) to help develop these players into players that would not do such things... not everyone is a skilled roleplayer right out of the box...



Here is your quote: Emphasis is Mine...


I submit that this is not accurate... and greatly implies that if you are not playing characters with exceedingly high dice pools that you are a freak... and is, frankly, very insulting to those who believe that min/maxing for crazy dice pools is a violation of the spirit of the game...

There is a fine line when discussing min/maxing characters... Some of that is encouraged in character creation (one stat at 6, one skill at 6 (or two at 5))... however, when that is taken that to the whole different level that you seem to espouse, it becomes somewhat ludicrous (for example, the so called Pornomancer that I have heard about on these forums)...



I submit that this is also wrong... if you are not contributing to the "narrative" then you are missing out on strong character development opportunities. Yes, it is true that the G< copntrols the story arc, but it is the characters that control the character arcs (or it should be) which is where the collaboration comes in... If you, as a GM, do not allow this, than i think that we have found the problem with our discussion... in our campaign, we are encouraged to develop our characters through the narrative (nboth ours and the GM's)... Is this not the case in your game?



Counter to your examples:
1. Memory requirement is irrelevant, no points there...
2. Interface may be more interesting, but it has not mechanical effect so... No points there.. You want a better interface that means something, program a better program (higher rating or additional options)
3. Smoother operations... see Above... Same Response...
4. Flashier Icon... See Above... Same Response...
5. Plain Vanilla functions JUST like Critical Success boy... No MECHANICAL Difference...

Counter example... I always describe my programs (that I write) as haveing various "tweaks" tot eh way it looks, however, I never expect for my software to have mechanical benefits... and the descriptive text for the programs that I write in game are just that, descriptive... You will always know what my programs look like in the matrix, regardless of the program variation. that is how it works... BUT, Descriptive text is a result of the roleplaying aspects of the character, not a mechanic of how many successes that I achieved over the rewuired minimum number fo successes to succeed. If i even asked for "additional" effects (cosmetic or not), that I did not include in the program at coding, the GM would look at me and wonder exactly why I was trying to gamne the system... You want in game benefits in your software, then program them into the software (through options or rating increases). Description of the outcome is how you gain the "flair" that you are talking about...

Just because you wish to describe your results as Plain Vanilla for success does nto mean that everyone does so as well... Success is Success after all...

Posted by: Cain Apr 18 2009, 05:14 PM

SR4 is a degree-of-success game. There is usually a tangible benefit in more successes, even if it's just flavor. If you'e constantly getting only one net success, the GM is free to describe your actions as "barely scraping by"-- and, in fact, is encouraged to do so. Versus the guy who not only gets 4+ services out of that huge spirit, but earns extra descriptive lavishment through the rules.

Besides which, you're ignoring the point. In most social, magical, and combat tests, there is a mechanical benefit to earning extra successes. Therefore, you are rewarded for having a huge dice pool. That is just the way the system works.


Then I'd quit being insulting to GM's. Also, I'd quit assuming that a good GM is forced into an arms race. You don't GM, you don't know.

That still has nothing to do with what's on the character sheet. A good player can take just about anything, and turn it into an interesting and fun personality. Characters really *are* just numbers on a sheet. What springs forth from those numbers depends on the player, and not the numbers.

In other words, I'd rather see a "god" character in the hands of a good roleplayer, than a "well-balanced" one in the hands of a munchkin. I think you'll discover most Dumpshockers have had similar experiences.


And it does not say what you stated it does. I did not say you need 20+ dice to have an effective character.

SR4 is a game of crazy dice pools. The BBB street samurai, which is not a min/maxed monstrosity, throws 17 dice for Automatics.

The Pornomancer throws 51 dice. That's a far cry above what I've been pointing out as the point of "coolness", where you can buy routine critical successes.

According to the SR4 rules (and the rules of most traditional games) you cannot contribute to the narrative, only your own character's actions. SR4 has one exception, in the form of the Critical Success rules. If you really want to debate this, go to the Forge and read a couple of essays on GNS theory, so we're on the same page. Otherwise, this argument is going to go nowhere.

Posted by: Draco18s Apr 18 2009, 05:19 PM

/support Cain

I constantly seem to agree with him, but I've got no further input to this particular debate.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2009, 05:21 PM

I am pretty sure that I have not insulted GM's in genreal...

Also, I have been a GM for close on 20 Years... I just choose not to run SR4 currently (I am running way to many other games right now... I want to PLAY Shadowrun, not run it)... Quit making baseless assumptions on capability here...

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2009, 05:52 PM

I would rather see a balanced character, and provide assistance to those who have issues with unlimited/hyper-excessive power (and why it is bad for the game world), helping them come to the realization that there are other alternatives that may be more fulfilling...



1. It does say that... the term Gimped is used, which implies incompetence... You blatantly stated that unless you are throwing a minimum of 16-20 Dice you are just barely capable of survival... Also, just as a side note... just becasue you have 16-20 dice does not guarantee a critical success upon using the autosuccess rule... you get 4-5 autosuccesses, your opponent who does the same thing generates 2-4 (or so successes, assuming that you are better than he) nets you 1-2 NET successes... at that point we are back to my definition of Net Success = Success...

2. 17 Dice in a single skill is not accurate according to my BBB... 5/7 Stat, 5 Skill and Smartlink = 14... There are no specialties evident and nothing else that I can see that will provide the missing 3 dice (which is possible, as I do not have the erratta handy)...

3. That example of 51 Dice is completely Ludicrous and I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of SR GM's would not allow it in their games EVER (I know that I would not, even if you could prove that it was within the RAW)... It breaks the spirit of the game and violates Verisimilitude (I would say Rapes and Tortures it) in more ways than one...

Quick Note...Take a look at the characters in the BBB their high end dice pools fall in the 12-14 area for 1 or 2 skills, the rest are in the 4-12 range with a concentration in the 6-10 range... that alone tells me that the developers intent is to not have characters with abusively massive dice pools that stretch believability to the snapping point...



Boy, you must be a riot to game with... it seems like what you are saying is that "characteriztion be damned, it is my story and you will comform with no regards to your wishes"... Are you telling me that your players never take the story in a direction that you have never anticipated? Ever? This I do find hard to believe... in the last 23 years of my gaming carreer, I have seen it countless times, in more game systems than I care to remember...

Seems pretty counter to the idea of a roleplaying game where a group of friends comes together to tell a story that THEY CREATE TOGETHER... why don't you just go write novels instead?

BTW, What traditional games are you referring to may I ask?

1. D&D - Traditionally is not that story intensive, yet if you are willing to put the work in, is extremely satisfying when the characters and thje GM collaborate to tell the story...

2. World of Darkness (Old and New, All game Lines) - STORYTELLING SYSTEM... what more need be said... you get together to tell a story collaboratively...

3. Feng Shui - Same Argument

4. Dangerous Journeys (pretty Obscure) - Same Argument

5. Shadowrun - I woiuld use the same argument for this system as well...

Etc, Etc, Etc...

When players realize that they have absolutely NO input into the way the world works, well then they tend to lose interest...

Yes, there may be some systems that discourage this approach, but if so, I would not play those systems, nor would I run them... However, in my experience, these systems would be few and far between, and with a little effort you could overcome this small obstacle to the system in question.

IF you are willing to put forth the effort into collaboration, and if you can leave ego behind, then collaborative efforts lead to Phenomenal game sessions that people talk about for years... I know this because I have both played and GM'd these types of games...

Can you choose to not do so and still have good games, ABSOLUTELY... can they be more fulfilling, YOU BETCHA

To each his own...

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 18 2009, 08:21 PM

In an attempt to return to the Original Topic at hand, I do not think that the change to the Karma awards/expenditures has seriously altered the balance of the game, assuming that the game that you are playing is balanced to begin with... Though the system encourages some min/maxing at character generation, if controlled, then the newer Karma awards/expenditure costs will tend to keep everything in balance for the long run...

If your games are not balanced, then no alterations to the Karma Award/Expenditure has any hope of bringing balance to the game... Balance is something that the GM must enforce for the enjoyment of ALL his players... In a well balanced campaign (of which I think that Shadowrun System does a fair to good job of providing) everyone will have their strong points and weak points, and everyone should be having fun... if this is not the case, then changes ned to be made...

Can Any game system be broken... Yes, some with little effort and some with a lot of effort... the fact that a game CAN be broken, however, does not necessarily imply that the system is broken, or will be broken...

Hopefully we can return to the discussion as originally posited...

Thanks

My Two Cents

Posted by: Cain Apr 18 2009, 11:32 PM

I'd rather have fun than lecture players who do not conform to my playstyle, and I'd imagine they feel the same.

"Excessive" is a relative term. You make it sound like you've never played an over-the-top game.

And I'm helping *you* come to the realization that there is no single one best way of gaming. Just because someone has a dicepool of 12+ doesn't mean you should start screaming: "MUNCHKIN! UNCLEAN!" The most fulfilling alternative is the one that meant you had a good time.


Quote me. Or quit lying about my statements.

Um, dude, 5 minus 1 = 4, not 1 or 2. You might like to recheck your meth.


It's practically a Dumpshock given that the BBB sample characters are poorly-done, poorly-optimized, and loaded with errors. It's taken them four years to fix the worst of the mistakes. If you want something better, I helped put together a Sample Character Archive in Community Projects. Those characters aren't dicepool monsters, but they can at least accomplish what they say they can do.


No, that is not what I am saying. Please perform the following steps:

1. Go to The Forge, or a similar site.
2. Read a few definitions on GNS theory.

By those definitions, a player in a SR4 game (and D&D, and GURPS) has almost no narrative control. Then try out a game like Wushu, where you have almost total narrative control. See the difference?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 19 2009, 12:56 AM

It has nothing to do with Lecturing, it has to do with showing that some choices are a bit... over the top... I do not lecture in game, I generally save that for the out of game discussions that abound... as you apparently do as well...

You are right... Excessive IS a relative term... As for over the top, I have indeed played such a game (Champions), but in that genre, it is excpected that you will be "over the top" as you are playing a superhero, whose characters are by definition "Over the Top"




Can't help you there... you refuse to acknowledge that the implications of your word choice were offensive... in that light, not much that I can do to help out there...



Umm Dude... reread the post... (4 to 5) minus (2 to 4) equals a net of (1 to 2)... my math is quite correct... how about yours?
Last time I checked 5-4=1 and 4-2 equaled 2... and for the extreme of my example 5-2=3... Nowhere is there a Critical Success there... Basic Math indeed.



There is that word again... "Optimized"... seesms that you cannot get past the idea of playable vs. overpowered... as for the "fixes" that you say took them over 4 years to correct, well, I still see no characters with more than 14-15 Dice in any given pool, and very few indeed even in that category.

As for the character archive that you helped to create, I have not looked at them yet, but if their dicepools are in line with the fluff that has been set forth in the Shadowrun Worldview, then I would probably not have any thing against them.. It really depends upon what your definition of Dice Pool Monsters is... and accomplishment is success in my book...



Though I am not interested in Definitions to limit my enjoyment of the game, I will investigate the information that you support so voiciferously.

What I am trying to show you is that you can get any game system to be collaborative, comparable to what you see and enjoy in Wushu... it just takes a little effort on your part... if you are not interested in that effort, then this discussion has no real purpose.

I, for one, actually put in the effort (whether I am a GM or a Player) in any game that I am involved with to ensure that the story is collaborative... is this a LOT of WORK... Indeed it is... I am happy to pay that price for the hobby that I truly enjoy... I know a LOT of people that do the same thing... This is what roleplaying is all about... Spending time with your group of friends engaged in collaborative storytelling...

AS I have said before... when Characters become secondary to the GM's marration, then the fun tends to fade as well...
No one wants to sit there and play second fiddle to narration; almost every one that I have gamed with prefers to be part of the story, making decisions that affect the world around them. it is the difference between "reading" a story amd "writing" a story...

By the way... Just looked at the GNS Theory that you tout so much... Can't see exactly how that suports your theory in any way at all, and in fact contradicts some of your stances... The definitions are rather less than helpful to say the least, and have no bearing on my stance as to what makes a game collaborative...

Anyway, We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, as I am sure that everyone is getting rather bored with the way this topic continues to be derailed...

Thanks for an interesting conversation.

Posted by: InfinityzeN Apr 19 2009, 01:06 AM

You know, sometimes over the top games are the most fun. One of the best one shot over the top games I ever played was using the Palladium RPG. GM had us build a bunch of 12th level 'Evil' characters. In a system that only goes up to 15th level, six guys pushing 12 is nasty. Lets see, we had a Mage totally fascinated with raising undead (especially puppies), a Fire Warlock who tossed around massive burn'in'ation, a Diabolist who on the surface looked the weakest (me), a Priest of Darkness who summoned shades and death magic, a Assassin who could shapeshift and was *really* good with poison, and a Warrior who was a variable unstoppable juggernaut of destruction (he had more HP and SDC then everyone else combined).

Our job was to assassinate one guy and we pretty much destroyed a small city-state to do it. Just so you know, setting off six Maximized, Empowered, Greater Explosive Runes does a whole lot of damage. When I set them off, the GM actually stopped and said "You do HOW MUCH DAMAGE to HOW MUCH AREA?!". (Was 48d6 damage to a 240 yard radius each, with an average none combatant able to take 10 damage and an average combatant about to take 20~50.)

Not something I would want to play all the time, but sometimes it is nice to be able to just lay royal waste to everything as far as the eye can see.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 19 2009, 01:16 AM

And you know... in those circumstances, I have no problem with over the top characters, as the campaign is designed for them... I too have played in such games where you are some of the more powerful characters around (D&D, Champions, Palladium (Rifts, Heroes/Villains Unlimited, Ninja & Superspies))... They are indeed fun, but everyone is on the same page as well...

Where it is not fun is when one player can do it all, leaving the other players to just watch... been in a few of those as well... BORING...

Posted by: toturi Apr 19 2009, 01:30 AM

Cain's words were not offensive by implication, they are however designed to make you uncomfortable. Which I think is precisely the point.


Boring for you, perhaps. Certainly it is fun for at least one participant. These sort of comments are simply symptoms of punishing people for being good. I do not punish people for being good. If one character can do it all without cheating, then it is possible for the other players to do the same, it is then a choice to "not do it all". Complaining about it is as fair as complaining Prince William is heir to a lot of money.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 19 2009, 03:30 PM

You may have a point there Toturi, however, some people are better at "optimization" than others are, and it would then be somewhat unfair to let that player run rampant upon all the others just because he can... I am addressing the purpose of the game here, which is to have fun... it is generally not a lot of Fun when you are left out in the cold...

And to forestall the inevitable response... I use to be the guy that would optimize the hell out of my characters because I could (in some cases it was because I was told that there was no way that I could design characters that would break the campaign... After smugly and completely destroying several campaigns with characters that I created (AS STARTING CHARACTERS), I started to think)... eventually, I realized that it was not a lot of fun for those around me when I could "do it all"... it removed the fun for the rest of the group around the table... as a result, I took a look at my motivations and eventually realized that the group's fun was what it was all about, and thus scaled back the craziness in my character creation...

Now I tend to build characters in line with the design intent of the game world in which I play... using those rules as guidelines, my characters have been just as interesting and deep, but now I am a contemporary with the other players, rather than being the overpowering character that did not need anyone else around...

That being said, I still design competant characters, I just do so with the design intent of the specific world that I am playing in...

Anyway... Thanks for the opportunity to let me explain my position...

Posted by: Cain Apr 19 2009, 06:41 PM

Again, that's a player fault, not a character one. Just because you have a character that could theoretically break the game for everyone, doesn't mean that you will do so. Most Dumpshock characters could break a game without trying, the players simply choose to not do so. Heck, a bad player will break a game faster than a powerful character will.

Like I said before, I'd rather see a power munchkin than a drama queen in my games, even though the power munchkin has the more powerful character. He's less of a disruption than the drama queen.

Posted by: ElFenrir Apr 19 2009, 06:49 PM

Also, breaking the game has many meanings. It's very difficult, IMO, to make a character from the start who can break a game power-wise in EVERY possible situation.

I mean, Character A may be able to own all in combat with nary a scratch, but they probably won't be able to completely own at social, vehicle, technical, or stealth related skills(well, maybe Infiltration due to it's Agility link and stuff like Chameleon coating.) Likewise, uberface might be able to talk bullets out of the air, but they won't really be breaking the game for the combat characters.

I suppose if you really, really, tried and twinked your ass off you might be able to make a character that owns all hardcore in a couple of places, but there simply isn't enough points, even in 750 chargen, to make a character that's a god at everything right out of the gate.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 19 2009, 06:54 PM

I think that you miss my point, but that is okay...

Both extremes that you posit are problem characters, definitely...

The Powermonger can overshadow others without even meaning to do so, which is my point (no one else is generally given the chance to accomplish things)... The Drama Queen can detract from the game if they are too much of a Drama Queen... (GM having to pay too much attention to the character)...

And my point about the Power character (with the Dice Pools of whatever exotic level you choose to create) is that he may not mean to overshadow others, he just tends to do so without thinking about it...

Example... Whay would anyone EVER attempt to do anything social with your Pornomancer? EVER? In the most likely scenario, they would metagame and just let you take care of it, because you are SO much better at it than they are, even if they were the ones to come up with the idea for whatever social thing that is going on... It may not be that much of a problem for YOU in your game, but any new player coming along would be intimidated and would probably NEVER even put points into the skill set that you are so hyper powerful in... this is what I mean by it being a bad thing... you have just stifled someone without ever intending to do so...

It generates an immediate reaction to the character... and I contend that it tends to be a bad reaction... Maybe not always (you may get the "Cool, way to go" comment on occassion), but in my experience, these types of characters (unless that is the scope of the campaign) tend to draw negative attention...

Just my 2 cents again... Adjusted for inflation

Posted by: Cain Apr 19 2009, 08:00 PM

You can deal with the powermonger much more easily, though. The rules can help you slow them down, and they don't tend to cause interpersonal conflicts. Drama Queens are much worse.


Why pick up a gun skill, if you've got a powerful street sammie in your group? Why pick up matrix abilities, when you have a skilled decker in your group? Heck, you don't need a pornomancer for your example, an ordinary Face means the same thing.

Shadowrun has always been about teams of specialists, working together. Cross-training is its own reward, regardless of rather you have a face or pornomancer in your party.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Apr 19 2009, 08:33 PM

Granted... teams is where it is at... but if you never have the opportunity to use that skill that you just bought, then it is a waste of resources...

Just saying

Posted by: Cain Apr 20 2009, 12:04 AM

My latest mage has yet to shoot anyone, despite the fact that she has the Pistols skill and always goes about armed. I wouldn't consider it a waste of resources, though. Just because the samurai has a combat dice pool of 20+ doesn't mean she can't contribute in a gunfight. Similarly, you can always help the Face out, even if you can't match his social skills; there might be more than one person who needs to be talked to.

Bottom line: huge dice pools only break the game if the player makes it a problem. If you've got good players-- or the patience to help people learn to become good players-- then it's not an issue.

Posted by: Dumori Apr 20 2009, 01:16 AM

I'm running a game 1250 karma gen. With a 'GMPC' for my amusement. My PC rolls 26-28 dice with his sniper rifle. The others are just as dangerus with one one persed Mage with atrbutes of around 15. Now my job is to both challenge and have the game fun. So far it's all be soicaly based but even in combat the teams job. It will be do able. One I'm running this gamefir the fun and for the roleplaying being know to be that good gives. I'm playing in a 250BP game as a free spirit his pools are 'GIMPED' rolling a max of 5. But again it's for the RP. I know my spirit will need luck and help to survive any thing. But both are play able. Ok is inherntly better as a charctor ability wise. One will challenge me RP wise. Both will be fun. It's a given that my sniper will have more flair. But personality isn't a obvious winner to be seen. One was a min/max one wasn't I'll leave it up to you to guess who. I'm with Cain on this one.

Posted by: suppenhuhn Apr 20 2009, 06:30 PM

Uh, how do you get to roll 5 dice with 2 in every attribute and no skills?

Posted by: Dumori Apr 20 2009, 08:44 PM

35 BP form qualities.... and sorry its a 4 it was a 5 before but I lowered to pick up another skill.