Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Drevicious Dec 15 2013, 11:31 PM

Hello all

I'm relatively new to Dumpshock, but not Shadowrun. I've been playing since 1st Ed. but have yet to to pick up 5th Ed. and would like some feedback on whether or not its worthwhile to do so.
So I'd like to ask you all for some short honest reviews, thoughts, or a list of pros and cons about 5th edition. I just need some helpful input before I spend the little extra money I have on 5th Ed.

Thanks in advance

- Drevicious -

Posted by: Trismegistus Dec 16 2013, 12:16 AM

In all honesty, I would sit on 4th for a bit. I like the Matrix changes in 5th, but there aren't any supplements for experienced teams.

Also, there are... Editing issues which need to be fully dealt with. I actually have high hopes for 5th in the future, but if you can spare the expense for now, it isn't gonna cost you much.

Posted by: Acenoid Dec 16 2013, 12:29 AM

Started with Shadowrun 3, 6 months ago and still quite happy. Bought some SR4 + SR5 stuff though - never used yet.

Looks like we stick to SR3 for some time

Posted by: Abschalten Dec 16 2013, 12:34 AM

I personally would stick with SR4A (the latest version of the SR4 rules.) You have all the supplements out already and easily accessible, the rules are pretty well-developed, and the writing is more or less pretty good. The quality of the releases doesn't start to decline until after Ghost Cartels. I consider the release of War! to be a watershed moment, where the quality of editing, writing, and rules takes a nosedive into the abyss from which Shadowrun product line never recovered.

I cannot say with any honesty that SR5 is worth the change. I tried to like it, but (in my humble opinon) they fucked too many things up, and decided to lick the boots of SR3 grognards instead of moving forward with the line, resulting in many moves backwards. SR5 has soured me on Shadowrun to the point I have largely moved on to other games and decided not to give Catalyst any more of my money.

Now, that all said I am a huge proponent of people making their own decisions. I urge you to get a copy of the SR5 core rules and giving them a look over, and maybe even give them a side-by-side with the SR4A core rules and see what you think. I admit there are some areas where I think SR5 did great with the rules, and had some ingenious solutions to problems with SR4A. But the places where they messed up, they messed up big, to the point where it isn't worth it to take the whole just to enjoy the modest improvements they implemented.

Posted by: DMiller Dec 16 2013, 12:40 AM

I'd stick with SR3 until more source books are out for SR5. Our group went from SR4 to SR5 mostly right away. We are having to house rule in a lot of source material to keep the game moving and not have characters lose capability. You'll want to wait at least until the main gear, matrix and magic books are out. Run and Gun should be out soon that is the first one. That is the main gear book. I'm sure there will be more digital-only releases between Run and Gun and the next major supplement.

Posted by: paws2sky Dec 16 2013, 02:57 AM

I've played a few SR5 sessions and made numerous characters, but I'm really lukewarm about the entire edition.

For my home games, I'm going to stick with SR4A. For cons and store games, I guess I'll play whatever.

Posted by: Umidori Dec 16 2013, 03:35 AM

Throwing in my 2 to say hold off for a while. This is pretty much prime 4E time, as the rules are literally as clear and cohesive as they'll ever be, and until 5E gets properly fleshed out it can't really compare.

~Umi

Posted by: SpellBinder Dec 16 2013, 04:27 AM

I'm with Umidori and the others for sticking a little more with 4E over 5E. At least until some of the splat books are out.

Posted by: Glyph Dec 16 2013, 04:48 AM

SR5 has some very poorly thought-out rules, especially regarding the matrix (particularly, matrix bonuses and bricking hardware), and some things are so vaguely defined or contradictory that I would hesitate to even call the rules functional at this point.

I would recommend waiting to get any SR5 stuff, at least until they have had some errata to fix/finalize things. Even then, I would hesitate to make the switch - SR3 and SR4 have both been around longer, have had mutiple errata, have a wide range of supplementary material (often available used), and have a wealth of house rules and other fixes for their problematic areas that you can find on the forums.

Posted by: Blade Dec 16 2013, 09:15 AM

I'd suggest you wait until SR5 is out of beta.

Posted by: apple Dec 16 2013, 12:02 PM

Stick with SR4A and wait for SR5 if errata and all core books (magic, cyberware etc) are out.

SYL

Posted by: pragma Dec 16 2013, 06:38 PM

I know I'm in a minority here, but I think SR5 rigging and hacking are leaps and bounds ahead of SR4. As a result, I endorse the system.

Part of the reason I can do so is that one of the main complaints here -- that the extra core rule books aren't out yet -- doesn't really bug me: most of the excellent games that I've run or joined in on have been influenced almost exclusively by the basic rule set. (Though I'll concede that the magic book usually does make life better and more interesting.)

That said, I'm in agreement that there are some rough edges in the editing and "rules numeracy" of SR5. They're not insurmountable, but you need to be ready to do some interpretation or ask Dumpshock for its many opinions.

Posted by: garner_adam Dec 16 2013, 08:00 PM

I played SR4 (I didn't stick around for SR4A) I think SR5 is a big leap forward. The limits system makes a big difference on skill spam. The matrix is much better because it's not just about using commlinks with good programs, you actually need a hacker. The system relies a lot less on extended tests than SR4. From my experience it also seems that super powered or down right bullet proof characters are less common in SR5. (In general I'd describe the whole system as more lethal than SR4) Though I agree with above posts that the editing is very spotty but it's worth noting that compared to SR3 and SR4 the SR5 book has about 120 extra pages and rivals many college text books in it's depth.

Like Pragma most of the Shadowrun I've personally enjoyed was with just the core books.

Posted by: apple Dec 16 2013, 09:03 PM

You needed a good hacker in SR4 as well, not just hardware ...

SYL

Posted by: Drevicious Dec 17 2013, 06:43 PM

Sounds like 4th and 5th Ed. Shadowrun are heading for a very split fan base like 3.5 and 4th Ed D&D

Thanks to everyone who responded to my question, looks like I'll be sticking with 4th Ed. for now.

-Drevicious-

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 17 2013, 09:52 PM

That's not true. You could have gotten away with a good agent program to do all your hacking for you. A rating 6 agent is almost as good as max skilled hacker in SR4.

In SR5, a rating 6 agent is going to be nothing compared to a skill 12 and logic 6 decker.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 17 2013, 10:04 PM

Skill 12 is just dumb... *shrug*

Posted by: Abschalten Dec 17 2013, 10:08 PM

I am a big proponent of SR4A, and I disagree. Part of the problem with SR4/A hackers was that they had to grow outward instead of upwards. What I mean is, they hit their "max" in both skill and hardware entirely too early, and had to diversify into other roles in order to continue growing. I think allowing skills in general to go past 6 (and also scaling SR4 Matrix programs and hardware to a max of 10 or 12) would've solved alot of issues with hackers, and even let them keep up with late-game technomancers.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 17 2013, 10:44 PM

Different Strokes, I guess... I never had a problem (and still don't) with the 9 point Spread (Unaware to 7) of Skill potential in SR4A.
Problem is with starting character levels (It was the rare skill for me that started above 3, so of course I have no problems with the skill system) more than anything else. Well, and the way programs are modeled in SR4A, of course. It also did not help that they divorced stat from the Matrix, which was a horrible choice that they corrected in SR5. As for Technomancers, well, they too were horribly modeled in SR4A, which got some attention in SR5 as well.

Posted by: X-Kalibur Dec 17 2013, 11:22 PM

I think SR5 needs a couple of splat books to grow into it's shoes. Once the cyber, magic, and matrix supplements are released we'll all feel better.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 17 2013, 11:42 PM

I agree with the majority in this thread, but I feel moving to 5e should be postponed till at least a decent errata is out, too.
And I'm not sure I'll be rushing over, given the new matrix, too.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 18 2013, 12:21 AM

But you can't get away with ever inflating dice pools in SR5, like you can in SR4. So it makes sense that there are more ways to increase your DP in SR5.

In SR4, if you have your pornomancer (since they're the easiest to get high DP on) rolling 30+ dice in social tests, they'll pretty much destroy any semblance of game balance.

In SR5, they'll just hit their limit more often.

Really, did it make sense for the technomancer to be able to shoot better with a drone than a Sam who's entire archetype was dedicated to shooting people?

There were too many ways to cheese the system in SR4.

Posted by: Lindt Dec 18 2013, 12:37 AM

How about this:

I played Sr3 for... its entire run. The last time I ran an Sr4 game it was at GenCon the year it was released.

Will I be more happy with Sr5?

Posted by: Smash Dec 18 2013, 01:12 AM

I have no idea why I'm in the minority here either. Probably because I don't have a time machine, unlike everyone else and so I can't scoff at the direction of wireless mechanics based on what technology is like in the 2070s....... even then I don't know why that matters...... because this is like, a game and stuff, but I digress.

5th Ed is leagues ahead of anything in prior editions. How anyone plays 3rd or before is beyond me. Having target number AND pool modifiers makes no sense and statistically it's a basketcase. You can actually read the matrix rules once and have some idea of how it's supposed to work. I guarantee you that you will read the 4th Ed rules 50 times and still basically make all the matrix stuff up on the fly. Yes, like all RPGs it's not perfect but it's better, a lot better than Shadowrun 4.

The only reason I wouldn't upgrade to 5th Ed is if you want to keep the same characters that are heavily invested in another edition, because as others have said we're still on the basic rules at this stage. I've recently restarted a campaign because of 5th Ed and I think it was worth it anyway.

Posted by: Glyph Dec 18 2013, 03:00 AM

I'm not sure. For all of the throwbacks to SR3, SR5 still seems more heavily influenced by SR4, to the point of copy-pasting big parts of SR4 to the new edition.

The good:
Skills, you will probably like more - the problem with SR4 skills was that they had too narrow of a range to represent what they were supposed to. The skill descriptions were over-hyperbolic, describing differences of a point (a third of a success, on average) as if they were wide gulfs in skill. This was compounded by the fact that you could hit the hard caps for a skill at character creation, and that skill was only about a third of your dice pool. A range of 12 gives everyone more room for vertical growth (a mixed blessing - being forced to diversify your skills was not always a bad thing), and doesn't give you absolute-best-in-the-world gunfighters who can often be outshot by Joe Average.

The mixed:
Hacking is greatly simplified, but on the other hand, they also have those horribly implemented wireless bonuses, and the equally bad rules for bricking hardware (messing up something's software, I can see. Shorting out a street samurai's wired reflexes so that they need to actually be repaired is a bit more of a stretch - they went too far in giving the hackerdecker "something to do.") - Rather than having them disrupt communications, hack drones, or mess with security systems, they gave them this, which, like the wireless bonuses, suffers more from implementation than the basic idea.

Initiative is better in the sense that initiative passes and initiative score are tied together again - no more someone who goes last but then goes three more times. The bad is that the difference between a high-augmented initiative and a non-augmented initiative is less than in SR4, and will be really shocking to someone used to SR3 speed sammies.

Limits are a new rule, a limit to how many successes you can get based on either a calculation based on Attributes, or based on a rating of the gear you are using. Some of the formulas/Attribute mixes seem a bit off to me, but overall, I like the concept. I remember reading a Gunsmith Cats manga where the main heroine, Rally, is facing off against a criminal, armed only with a Saturday Night Special, and she realizes that out of an extremely short range, her accuracy will be non-existent, and this is someone who habitually disarms people by shooting their thumbs off. I also liked the idea of having another improvable vector to soak up some of that dice pool bloat - there can be things that add to accuracy instead of to the dice pool, now. I have not really seen it in play, though, so I couldn't tell you how effective it is in practice.

Character creation is the priority system, which an SR3 veteran will at least be familiar with. But anyone other than a beginning gamer will feel constricted by this - it isn't as bad or limited as the SR4 version of priority that they had in Runner's Companion, but it is still a step back, flexibility-wise.

The bad:
The book really need eratta. Already we have things like being told mystic adepts will get a "fix" to the cost to gain power points (it is fairly easy to have a mystic adept with a Magic of 6 for spellcasting, and 6 points of adept powers). Some other things are vague, or cases where you have to house rule what you think the intent of the rules was, because the RAW flat out doesn't work, or is contradicted later.

Mages have been heavily nerfed, with higher spell Drain and much lower damage for direct combat spells. Setting aside the question of whether they have been over-nerfed, I can say that coming from SR3 to SR5 will be a major shock. SR3, honestly, is, in my opinion, the point where mages were the highest powered. SR4 nerfed them, and SR5 continues that direction.

Posted by: apple Dec 18 2013, 03:18 AM

A good hacker has more dices and IPs than a level 6 agent program. Build an optimized agent and an specialized hacker and do the math. It is really simple. A rating 6 agent (with agent autosofts of course) is nothing against a SR4 hacker with supporting knowledge skill, positives qualities, neo cortical nanites, genetics edge, cerebral booster, specialization, encephalon, math SPU, simsense booster/accelerator (and a tricked out agent as well of course) etc.

And please do not forget: an agent can only use rating 6 software - a human hacker can use rating 10 software (military grade software in high power campaings - and hey, you m entioned level 12 skills for a decker).

Of course a specialized hacker is only useful if your group uses the matrix to its full extend and not reduce the matrix to "hack the door". But that is not different from SR1235. And yes, most groups will never go beyond "hack the door" matrix level.

It´s a little bit like magic and astral space. You can loan a spirit from a summoner and for most parts it will be enough ("protect us from astral danger, attack astral enemies, warn us about astral security measures"). The moment you have a complex magic problem, challenge, metaquest at hand, you want someone who really have knowledge (and is usually better). However, if you never go to that level, then yes of course every specialist (a Street Samurai in a campaign, where a low level security guard is the common enemy, a rigger who has only to fight against simple guard bots etc) is not really neccessary and can be replaced by secondary professions (just like a street samurai who buys a 200k deck, upgrades himself with a cerebral booster and learn the hacking skills on level 2 or 3 - it should be enough for most easy issues).



Not really. Someone who is rolling 30 social dices will have a very high limit. Build yourself some faces and test it.

SYL

Posted by: cndblank Dec 18 2013, 03:56 AM

I really loved how SR4 standardized the mechanics for everything.
I still remember the SR3 mechanics for building spider/rigger combats (SHUDDER!)

I think SR5 continued the trend.
Once over learning the changes the game seems to run faster.
The mechanics in SR5 are better because they set out to make serious improvements and were not afraid to make changes.

I agree with the "Whys" of most of what was changed in SR5 but there are several area where they really took it TOO far.
So I'm running SR5 and ignoring what doesn't work for me.


Bring deckers back... Good place to start.

Doubling the max rating of skills really needed to be done.
It really helps to let the really skilled standout.
Now you know when you are facing a Fastjack caliber opponent.

Also having the quality of your gear limit the number of successes helps a lot since it both limits the mega skill dice pools and provides some variety in the weapons and gear.
In real life the best gear can only do so much unless you have the skills to back it up with.

The success limits really make sense and help play. Edge matters more.
Combat actually goes faster when you are only allowed attack per action.

Decks are way too expensive.
Cyber and Bioware went up in price but are still cheaper than they used to be. Still a little too expensive for my tastes.
Reducing the cost of better grades cyberware REALLY needed to happen.
In my game in 2050 I just halved the cost of cyberware and decks (bioware still being new I left the same price.)

The new combat system has some nice features with the norms getting a chance to go twice per turn and defensive actions that reduce your initiative.

SR5 has really made all of your stats more useful with limits and using two stats for most defense rolls.
Considering how much SR characters in general are glass cannons, the two stats on defense is very good.
Also nice to see that all magic is now resisted with two stats.
That helps balance it out some.

Mages may have been nerfed too much at least as far as drain goes but have a lot more options.
I do think they have to specialize more. Certainly Adepts have more options.
Only being able to use Counter Magic dice once certainly makes it use more critical, but that is balanced out since there are way fewer once shot kills and everyone has more dice to resist magic thanks to using two stats to resist magic.
I also like the changes to background counts (per Missions). A dice penalty is easier to handle then reducing a magic stat and still gives the mundanes a chance to shine.

The whole no bonuses unless wireless connected was way too forced.
But from what I've heard, decking is a lot faster.

Still very easy to run NPCs from SR4 in SR5.
Just add a few skill points to the heavy hitter and figure a few limits.

Posted by: apple Dec 18 2013, 04:06 AM

I have read that argument now many times ... is that really the game reality? Because honestly, if I compare usual dice pools in SR5 and compare that the the usual limits (both attribute limits and weapon limits) I cannot image that this often plays a significant role.

attribute limits 5-8
Katana limit 7
Baton 5
Predator 7
HK227 7
Alpha 7
Panther 7

Do you really hit these limits often?

SYL

Posted by: SpellBinder Dec 18 2013, 04:08 AM

Basing my answer on the reactions of a friend who almost did the same (like one or two SR4 based games), odds are highly in your favor that you'll be more happy with SR5.

Posted by: apple Dec 18 2013, 04:23 AM

I would rather ask: what did or didn´t you like in SR3?

SYL

Posted by: DMiller Dec 18 2013, 04:29 AM

It's been my experiance so far (played several sessions of SR5), that you do not bump into your limits all that often as long as you have your own gear. When limits really come into play is if your character is in a possition where (s)he is not using his/her own gear, but having to improvise.

Now you will occasionally bump into your limits even with a properly built character, but it shouldn't happen too often. There are exceptions to this of course. You can also build to ride your limits but you have to try to do that.

At least this has been my experiance, others may have a different story.

Posted by: garner_adam Dec 18 2013, 04:35 AM

This was my experience as well. I liked Shadowrun 3 quite a bit. I played SR4 (no SR4A and no splatbooks) and I didn't enjoy it much. I used to challenge SR3 runners with throngs of weak security and my players liked the "us versus the world" thematic. The characters my friends made with their first go at SR4 seemed bulletproof in comparison to 6-9 dice pool security guards and the tension was lost. It seemed only characters with dicepools surprisingly close to their own could threaten them. In our first game of Shadowrun 5 we noticed a big difference even compared to SR3. One of my players exclaimed "Light pistols can actually kill people!"

Posted by: mrslamm0 Dec 18 2013, 06:01 AM

I feel the same way too, we just started 5th Ed last week and so far im liking a lot of the changes. I started with SR 3 and worked my way to 5th, of course I always went though the whole edition shock/ hate thing but so far each edition has grown on me. I have a feeling 5th will do the same. I looked back to the rules for 3rd ed and came to realize we must of really loved the system to play it all these years but hey stick to whatever edition works for you to tell/play epic shadowruns

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 18 2013, 02:02 PM

Just because you CAN do something in a ruleset does not mean that you have to. *shrug*
And for comparison, If all you care about is DP's, My STARTING Hacker for SR5 has MORE DICE than the Hacker/Cyberlogician I played for Years in SR4A Ended with. So, I think your point is not all that good of a point. *shrug*
It is Ludicrous to have a functional Cap of 19-20 as an Adept FOR A SKILL RATING. Complete Lunacy, in fact.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 18 2013, 02:15 PM

That's funny... My characters almost ALWAYS carried Light Pistols, and had a very high kill ratio with them. More, in fact, than any other weapon they carried.
In comparison, They were never really all that deadly prior to SR4A, in my experience. *shrug*

Posted by: Umidori Dec 18 2013, 03:07 PM

Throngs of weak security? What, like, a dozen enemies? Your combat must take AGES!

Occasionally my Runners ask me to put them through unofficial, non-campaign, non-canon "arena fights" where I send various nasty enemies against them in a preset environment. We did a big "Zombie Invasion" fight once, where I just kept throwing corebook statted Ghouls at them, and they hacked away at wave after wave. It took FOREVER, literally hours, and the only reason they started risking any substantial injury was because they'd get bogged down by a four or five ghouls on a single target and their Defense test dice pools would slowly dwindle with repeated "Defender has defended against previous attacks since last action" negative modifiers stacking to disgusting levels and crippling their dice pools. Eventually their dice luck would fail them and they'd take a grazing blow for a point or two of damage, nothing big, but it slowly stacked up over time, inflicint even more modifiers. It became a masochistic endurance marathon.

That said, if I threw "throngs of weak security" armed with light pistols at my team, short of sending in small armies or continous reinforcements, they'd chew through ten or twelve low level grunts like bubblegum, just as they did against the ghouls. While the problem of defending against multiple previous attacks is made even worse by the ability to "Double Tap" with firearms in SR4, it does still work both ways, and with the Runners typically ending up with higher Initiative than baseline security forces, my three man team can wound or eliminate a good four to six enemies before the other side gets a chance to fire off a shot, evening the odds immensely. Plus, once they start taking hits, their armor allows them to soak quite a lot more than the individual enemy guards can. And goodness help the guards if the runners throw a grenade!

No, I think it makes sense that you need to have on-par enemies, at least in SR4. In SR5, I very much like the boosted damage values and increased lethality of weapons, but even putting that aside, it's just so much more reasonable on every level to send fewer enemies of a more appropriate skill level against your runners than it is to drown them in waves of mooks. If nothing else, it cuts down on bookkeeping, dice rolling, and time spent slogging through combat.

...unless you're the sort of person who grew up on dungeon-crawling combat slogs like early editions of D&D, and actually enjoy spending hours in combat, happy to grind whatever meaty grist your slaughter mill requires.

~Umi

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 18 2013, 03:26 PM

SR5 is generally an improvement to the SR4 system, partly as a scaling back of some of the more ludicrous stacks of modifiers, and partly as a replacement of systems that were originally kludgy or clunky.

Pros:
Initiative is a huge improvement, with the return of "being faster means acting more" instead of the prior disconnect between reaction time and initiative passes. No more acting last but acting 4 times.

Matrix is easier to adjudicate, since almost everything is handled through an opposed test rather than a mix of opposed and extended tests. Having real deckers back with a real Matrix (rather than simply living in a soup of overlapping nodes) is a definite plus.

Rigging. Way easier.

Weapons have hit a good balance of being very dangerous yet potentially resistible. A reduction in rules overhead regarding armor is a bonus -- SR5 doesn't make wearing a coat and a vest and a suit a complicated endeavor.

Magic is better-tuned for damage and drain. Someone who loved dropping Stunbolt nukes on crowds may complain, but it works better in play now.

Cons:
Limits didn't go far enough. Characters tend to have high enough limits that they're not impacted very often. Limits really should've been lower. For example, instead of (Strx2 + Body + Reaction)/3 for the physical limit, (Str+Body+Reaction)/3. An "accurate" pistol probably should have a 4 instead of a 6 (lights ~4, heavies ~3, sniper rifles ~5) making smartlinks, aiming, and future gun mods more desirable. Also if your base limit is 5 instead of 9, it makes limit-modifying adept powers and cyberware more desirable.

Wonky edge cases that you probably won't run into much but will annoy you if you do. See: really low Force spirits and low-Force/high-reagent spells.

Technomancers need.. something. Personally I think they need to be set on fire and dropped down a well, but it wouldn't be fair to disclude them from the Cons list.

Some rules didn't get full treatment, or at least don't seem like they're complete. Explosions are the big culprit right now -- don't listen to the people who complain about grenades destroying walls better than demolition charges, they're just reading the rules wrong. However, the lack of dodging, the nominal speed at which you can detonate a grenade, and their high effect tend to make them extra powerful. Coming from SR3 you might like this, as having to soak a 6S hit (after armor is applied) is a common grenade result in SR3.

Posted by: The Overlord Dec 18 2013, 05:32 PM

SR4 has more options, SR5 has less cluttered rules. Both are good.

Posted by: Umidori Dec 18 2013, 05:59 PM

SR5 doesn't have fewer cluttered rules, it just has fewer rules.

That's like finding praise for genocide because it reduces hunger.

~Umi

Posted by: apple Dec 18 2013, 06:14 PM

I would not make that judgement yet, because for SR5 there is currently only the basic book available. If you compare book to book you don´t have that many possibilities to stack something in SR4 either. But I can image that with the Gun/Magic/Equipment/Matrix/etc book the stacking oin SR5 (as limit increases are a pretty unnecessary and dissatisfying mechanic) will come back.

And of course: SR4 knew real hackers as well, that is not a domain of SR5 with "real deckers".

SYL

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 18 2013, 06:32 PM

I would. I did. I set my SR4 book on fire, planted its ashes, and salted the earth so that nothing would grow from it. Right next to my D&D4 book. I hold them in approximately the same regard.



SR4 didn't actually have a Matrix, so it's not really useful to bring up.

Posted by: binarywraith Dec 18 2013, 06:39 PM

Oh, there's plenty of rules. They're just not organized in any fashion and contradict themselves when repeated in different sections. It's a fun exercise!

Posted by: garner_adam Dec 18 2013, 06:51 PM

EDIT:

I would mostly agree except that in SR2 and SR3 in the hands of a Shadowrunner most guns were extremely deadly. It was very easy to roll 8 - 16 dice (combat pool) with target number 2 and scale up almost any weapon to levels way beyond an opponents available body dice. To make weak throngs of security work in SR2 and SR3 I couldn't actually equip them with light pistols because they were simply too impotent (Dice pool then for a guard was like 3 to 6 due to combat pool restrictions). In SR4 it was improved but notably just the way dice pools played out they were still very weak. There was an interesting moment when we hit SR5 and the throng of security personnel (6-9 dice pools) armed with light pistols let loose and the player's shadowrunners were actually taking damage. (This mostly due to the new burst rules which quickly cut down on dodge madness. Thank you long burst on Baretta 201T)

Umidori, yeah combat takes awhile in the groups I've been running with. I'd say two or three hours of combat and running gun battles and mayhem are not uncommon. That scene in the matrix where Neo shoots up the lobby would be just considered a segment and would be about 30 minutes. Usually it's my players trying to escape a building surrounded by Lonestar patrols trying to contain the scene and wait for back up. In previous editions it was not uncommon to just charge through the line but we noticed that it takes a greater investment of resources to charge through a police line in SR5.

Posted by: DrZaius Dec 18 2013, 08:27 PM

Without getting into a debate with anyone on this board about the relative merits of SR4 vs SR5, I'll add that I like SR5 so far. I've only gotten to play it a few times, but the new Matrix rules are light years ahead of previous editions in terms of simplicity and ease of use.

There's a general gripe about errata, contradicting rules and whatnot; those are all fair complaints about a product someone purchased. My SR3 book literally had all the pages fall out; I had to rebind it with a hole punch and plastic ring. I'm not saying a product shouldn't meet certain minimum standards, but for the most part I think Dumpshock can get stuck in an echo chamber on some issues such as this that in reality don't affect playing the game all that much.

Additionally, and this probably puts me in the minority, I actually like the current lack of splat books. While I certainly would like some things to be fleshed out more (Rigging, alchemy, etc.) I recognize that anytime a new splatbook is added, power creep becomes an issue and actually running a game or campaign is more difficult than just working off the base rules. The comparison I would draw would be the problem D&D had, once it was possible for players to start out of the gate as a half-vampire Kensai, monkeygripping 2 claidhmores.

I like the new matrix. I like the new initiative system (a throwback to 3rd that makes sense and makes combat interesting. The samurai does't get to murder everyone before they get to go- huzzah!). I like the return to the priority system for character generation. Again, this is a board where people want to squeeze every single iota of power out of their builds; and I respect that. I am sure that some future sourcebook will provide rules for karma gen. However, for a game where you want to pick up and play, the priority system makes the chore of character creation much more palatable to new players.

As with all things, YMMV. I don't see a reason to go back to the previous editions; but a game of SR4A wouldn't be the worst in the world; it's all relative.

-DrZ

Posted by: apple Dec 18 2013, 08:32 PM

I find that hard to believe, considering that you always can distribute archetypes and alsways say as a GM "Hey, distribute 20 attribute points, 25-37 skillpoints and divide 50 points between money, edge and race.

SYL

Posted by: garner_adam Dec 18 2013, 09:23 PM

I have seriously considered some thing like this actually for both Shadowrun 4 and Shadowrun 5.

My newer players who mostly started roleplaying With D&D 4 just about fainted when they saw the build point system in Shadowrun 4. In Shadowrun 5 one of my newer players said to me "So what can I play?" I say "There's examples in the archetype section of characters people actually play in Shadowrun run." She says "Yes, but how do I know I'm making a Shaman that isn't breaking any rules? Can I use a Shotgun? There's a lot of choices here. It seems like I might make a character that might really suck or make no sense. How do I know if I should put 4 points in Spellcasting or 6?"

I pretty much had to walk through the whole character creation process and make helpful suggestions the whole way. So yeah I think it's not just a problem for either SR4 or SR5. My players who had played Shadowrun 3 found making characters in SR4 and SR5 to be tricky simply because of various rules interactions. Like for example they might know which skills they need but they still have to math check every thing and make sure the character isn't inherently bogus. One of the things I hear my more experienced players say a lot in SR4 and SR5 when making characters is "Oh that's an opposed check." which roughly translates to "isn't good unless it's highly rated".

Posted by: DWC Dec 18 2013, 09:25 PM

Don't forget that if you do this with SR5, you'll have to point out that most of your players have illegal characters.

I like some things about SR5. I like the changes to the combat system and the increase in skill caps, and the idea of Limits. On the other hand, the way limits were implemented means they're generally high enough to not matter. I also like the idea of progressive recoil as the book describes it. Unfortunately, there are comments from some of the authors suggesting that what they wrote in the book and how they intended it to work are very different and the way they intended it to work makes the change essentially meaningless. I like the change to Initiative, since it means every combatant isn't obligated to spend a ton of Essence on Wired Reflexes. I like that Stunbolt doesn't allow any mage to instantly subdue any mundane and make banishing completely pointless. The changes to the matrix also meant that every hacker is no longer crippled in high level play since his Stealth rating doesn't climb anywhere near as fast as the opposition's ability to search for him.

I also hate some things about SR5. The preposterously expensive cyberdecks mean that the only way most PCs will ever see a cyberdeck upgrade is by prying it from the cold dead hands of another decker. The wireless bonuses and bricking rules create a risk/reward curve so skewed that I have a hard time justifying ever using a Wireless bonus. Drones are so laughably fragile that I can't imagine a PC rigger ever getting to spend cash on anything other than replacing the same blown up drone over and over. The rules for vehicles and control rigs mean a good piece of cyberware will make a motorcycle transsonic. The lack of any rules for device transmission ranges oversimplified the matrix into a set of massive omni-present data layers with no infrastructure to speak of. The Mark system means that rather than making extended tests to hack things, PC deckers just make about the same number of unlinked skill checks, not doing anything to reduce dice rolling unless your SR4 hackers were laughably inept.

And then there's the layout. I got a physical copy of the book out of a sense of loyalty to my FLGS and haven't touched it. None of the tables is ever where it seems like it should be. The list of Skill Groups and what skills they contain isn't even IN the skills chapter. The searchable PDF is essential for finding anything in a book this poorly laid out. Losing Adam Jury has been killing Catalyst for a while, and this is really the zenith of that descent into chaos.

These things aside, I'm enjoying playing Shadowrun 5. Then again, I also enjoyed playing SR, SR2, SR3, SR4, SR4A, almost as many incarnations of Dungeons and Dragons, and have had some great games of dodge ball.

Posted by: apple Dec 18 2013, 09:53 PM

An intro like "there are no classes except magical/nonmagical, what you are is defined by your attributes and freely choosen skills" would be very helpful.

SYL

Posted by: garner_adam Dec 18 2013, 10:12 PM

Yeah it's kind of a given in Shadowrun that there are no classes. But many players (mostly my newer players who came in late D&D 3.5 or D&D 4) find a game like Shadowrun to not have enough guide posts. There's a lot of choices you can make and opportunity costs to consider and they're pretty hard to consider if you actually haven't read the book front to back. I remember helping a player and explaining that they might want some form of image link so they can see AR. I remember a player who took locksmith but didn't realize that the rules for most maglocks also require hardware.

Posted by: apple Dec 18 2013, 10:45 PM

Yeah, I considered writing a DND/PathfindeR style guide to the sam or mage (with blue/red/orange colors *cough*) myself some time ago. For the German boards I wrote a beginner guide, but yeah, it doesn´t reach everyone of course.

SYL

Posted by: Smash Dec 18 2013, 10:53 PM

Haha! Epic. I disolved by 4th ED D&D books in Acid so that no-one would know what happened.

Players - Hey, let's play some 4th Ed.
Me - Ah... Ok. Oh where are the books? Oh well, Let's just play Pathfinder instead.

The only problem was that I needed a lot of acid because for Some reason WotC needed to release a new book for each feat/class/skill in the game..........

Posted by: KCKitsune Dec 19 2013, 03:57 AM

There is no 4th edition of D&D... It was just WotC pen and paper version of Everquest/WoW/<insert flavor of the month MMORPG>... and a poorly implemented version of it too. I like 3.5 edition of D&D. Yeah, it can get to be a power-gamer's dream, but if you have decent player who don't pull crap like that it can make it so that you can have the character YOU want, not some "12th level magic user" who is EXACTLY like another person's "12th level magic user".

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 19 2013, 02:45 PM

Very Much in Agreement on this.

Posted by: DrZaius Dec 19 2013, 02:52 PM

I dunno; I had mixed feelings about 4th. It was a nice change of pace that once you got to 5th level, all the other players weren't the mage's sidekicks. However, I could see how a mage-centric system would appeal to Shadowrun players...

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 19 2013, 03:35 PM

Interesting take. In our last game, the magician was the Dwarven Warrior's Sidekick more than the other way around (DnD 3.5). But I do take your meaning. Hated, Hated. Hated 4th Edition, though. In good part because I despise miniatures and the rules that go with them. The fact that everyone was functionally the same sucked as well. Hated the system to the depths of its core. *shrug*

Posted by: DrZaius Dec 19 2013, 05:39 PM

I agree calling it Dungeons & Dragons is a misnomer. It's not D&D, it's something else; a tactical board-game with some light RP elements. I didn't hate it, but I can see why others did. From what I've heard about 5th, it sounds like 4th is going to be an anomaly, and they're going back to their grognard roots.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 19 2013, 05:48 PM

Maybe... I did not like 5th (Participated in the Beta Testing). Hard to say why.
Probably because 3.5 works well for me, and I have all the books. I absolutely hate buying a new edition's worth of books.

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 19 2013, 06:14 PM

To be fair, you'd have to specify which version of the 5th playtest you're talking about. There were incredibly huge differences between releases and I don't think anyone outside the designers know exactly which systems they're running with. The overall trend toward reducing numbers inflation, unnecessary rules complexity, and many of the largely irrelevant choices (see: hundreds of feats that do virtually nothing) bodes well for the edition and the brand as a whole. I love D&D3.x as much as anyone, but I find it pretty tedious sometimes.

Re: D&D4, the worst thing I can say about it is that it's tedious and requires too much bookkeeping and table management.

To swing back to SR, tedium is what destroys SR4 in my book. The primary culprit is the large number of extended tests that involve throwing gobs of dice over and over until success. By relying heavily on extended tests instead of opposed tests for a large number of systems, it pretty much codifies the idea that you'll always succeed at what you set your mind to (but you'll be bored of dice by the time you get there, see: buying anything ever). That's slow and unexciting.

SR5 solves a lot of that by bringing back time division (base time divided by successes).

Posted by: Fatum Dec 19 2013, 06:25 PM

An extended test of any size is rolled in one bot/dice program command. While the new system gives you a chance to fail even the simplest tasks, much less anything complex, as we have mathcrunched.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 19 2013, 06:42 PM

If the expected outcome is to succeed, regardless... Why are you rolling dice? Narrate and move on.

My experiences are obviously a bit different than yours, but I do understand your position.

Tedium accrues as an Edition progresses. SR5 will have the same issues over time, just like all of its predecessors did (after a certain point, new content starts to get overwhelming for some people). Core books are fairly robust by themselves, but as an edition progresses and more content is added, you gain more options. Those options by their very nature promote the tedium that you are speaking against.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 19 2013, 06:42 PM

Indeed...

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 19 2013, 06:43 PM

Most dice can't run programs.



So? Isn't having a chance of failure why you use the dice in the first place?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 19 2013, 07:18 PM

And yet, Simple tests are exactly that... Simple.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 19 2013, 07:31 PM

Most phones can, though. Which millennium are you living in?

No, Extended tests are primarily used to determine the time it takes to complete the task. Simple ("Success") tests are used to determine success.

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 19 2013, 07:55 PM

Problem: terrible system.
Solution: automate it so you don't have to see how terrible it is?

Sorry, no.



So you should have an expectation of success any time you start an extended test?

Posted by: yesferatu Dec 19 2013, 08:37 PM

Without exception, I prefer 4th ed. rules.
Character creation was more customizable and easier.
Combat rules weren't as simultaneously complicated and nerfed.
Matrix rules were admittedly difficult, but the new rules take just as long and are every bit as convoluted.
5th ed. did not fix the melee problem and made Edge even more broken.
5th edition hates Riggers.

I'll admit 4th ed. had like 4 different versions, including anniversary and reprinted editions, but 5th ed. editing is poorly organized, cute when it should be clear and only consistent in how sloppy it is. I LOVE this game, but if there were a "Shadowfinder" spinoff that just simplified the matrix, limited magic a little and made some minor tweaks to combat - I'd totally buy it.

Posted by: garner_adam Dec 19 2013, 09:10 PM

This is my experience with most extended tests in Shadowrun 4. Unless the time interval is crucial it's pretty much an auto pass. It definitely didn't feel right to me. That being said however it did improve my skills as a game master because it helped me re-evaluate some things. Do they really need to test here? If the test fails will it be interesting? Just why are all these extended tests happening when time is not really a factor?

The big change for me being that I started writing more runs with time crunches in them. This definitely increased tension. Had the side benefit of games not turning in to shopping sprees too.

That being said I should also state that my group did not stick with Shadowrun 4 for more than about five months.

Posted by: Redjack Dec 20 2013, 04:22 AM

There are pieces I definitely like/dislike from both. I will ignore comments about quality control (or lack there of) and play testing (or lack there of).

SR4A Pros:
- Build Point Character Generation
- Breadth of Source Books
- Technomancers are better than hackers in the virtual, but not the physical (at least not with a bunch of submersions)

SR4A Cons
- Stun spells are a game balance issue
- Social characters can definitely become a game balance issue

SR5 Pros
- Level 12 skills/limits
- Realignment of Active Skill (acting group, infiltration + shadowing = sneaking, etc)
- New social skills/group & limits make a face better balanced
- Armor & Damage adjustments
- Background count mechanic is much better
- Contact connection ratings 1-12, allowing more diversity
- Noise mechanic

SR5 Cons
- Price of decks
- According to fluff all decks are hacked together, but no rules to do so
- Ownership is a horrid mechanic
- Rigging has returned to SR3- mentality

Things the jury is still out on:
- Overall matrix rules for SR5. I liked SR4 and it worked very well for my group. There are definitely bad aspects to SR5 matrix, but also some good aspects.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 20 2013, 09:03 AM

if you consider the need to roll a bunch of dice to be "terrible". Apparently, judging by the number of people around here, a few gamers don't.
And yeah, if you find something tedious, you automate it. That's how we have been doing it for the last, what, half a thousand years?

Yes. When you start a project in your area of expertise, and you have time aplenty, you usually expect to succeed.

Posted by: Umidori Dec 20 2013, 09:09 AM

And further back we did essentially the same thing by making other people do it for us! *polishes his whip*

~Umi

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 20 2013, 02:54 PM

It's not the need to roll a bunch of dice, it's the need to roll a bunch of dice ten times in a row to do one thing.



Or you build a less tedious system. It's a game, not an assembly line.

Posted by: Misdemeanor Dec 20 2013, 03:01 PM

I am playing in an SR5 game now; however, if I were to take up the mantel of GM I also would revert back to SR4A. I have never been a fan of the priority system, and, I find that with this system there is a lot more edge and the basic rules have it refreshing after 8 hours of rest.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 20 2013, 04:50 PM

Okay, you can add "make your most burly Germanic slave roll the dice for you" to the recipes already provided.


Sure, go head. I wish you best of luck in this endeavour.

Posted by: Umidori Dec 20 2013, 09:29 PM

Or if you want, I can tell Gerhardt to make a less tedious system for you.

~Umi

Posted by: BouncingCactus Dec 21 2013, 09:40 PM

Coming from someone who has spent at least the last 8 years learning CharOp in D&D 3.5, the last (however long it's been out) years learning D&D 4th and something close to two-ish years trying to learn Shadowrun 4th ed., things like that would be immensely helpful for newcomers like myself.

Being so used to my nerd-forums having a handbook section, it was more than a little daunting to try and figure stuff out here. I'd try my hand at it, if it weren't for the fact that I know far, far too little to say anything about it.

If I could, it'd be something like "Hacking and You - A Decker's Guide", detailing what attributes and skills you need to invest in, perhaps some pointers to useful skill specializations. Recommended gear; bio-/cyberware; other useful equipment and of course the major one; What you need to know about Comlinks (the stats, short description what the programs do etc), stuff like that.
Or maybe something like "Pornomancer? - Helpful hints on making a Face".


Ok, so that was way of topic. Ooops.

Posted by: garner_adam Dec 21 2013, 09:45 PM

Bouncing Cactus,

Did you play Shadowrun 4th edition? If so did you find the build point system easier to understand than the priority system in Shadowrun 5th edition? (and editions prior to 4th).

Posted by: apple Dec 21 2013, 10:05 PM

Well, you can always check out the German guide for SR 101 ... the Google translation is hilarious. ^^

http://www.sr-nexus.de/bb/topic8958.html

SYL

Posted by: BouncingCactus Dec 21 2013, 11:11 PM

I'm afraid that I can't be of much help, 4th edition was my introduction to Shadowrun and I have not had the opportunity to actually play it. I'm the always-the-DM-never-the-player around my parts and my friends have had limited desire to play it. From a system mastery standpoint, from what I've seen is that 5th is easier to use, but I think I prefer the build point system. Alas, I've had very little experience with 5th.

Posted by: binarywraith Dec 22 2013, 10:21 AM

Whereas a number of players, myself included, see the character creation changes and increase of deadliness in combat to be features rather than negatives. As always, your mileage may vary.



The point build system allows a lot of creative flexibility, true. I, however, really prefer the priority system as it requires meaningful tradeoffs in character creation. The 4e point-based system made it entirely too easy to build characters whose power chart had no true lows and very, very high peaks.

Posted by: knasser Dec 22 2013, 11:14 AM

Well first off, "terrible system" served many of us very well for an entire edition, but yes - there are a lot of things that become good ideas if there is no effort involved. Looking up every word I type in a dictionary as I go along would be "a terrible system", but because my computer is doing it automatically right now, I use such a system. Quantitative differences become qualitative, with enough quantity.



If you're going to criticise a system, at least check the rules. SR4A., pg.64:



So if it's a task that you should be able to complete given long enough, e.g. building the Great Wall of China, you just keep rolling. If it's a task that might not be achievable by you, e.g. repairing a car, then you use the diminishing pool. It's spelled out very clearly at the beginning of the book under Extended Tests.

And to answer the OP's question - SR4A without a doubt. It's mature, has all the holes filled in so you're not waiting on errata or supplements, is an excellent system. Some things appear broken at first glance, e.g. Possession and Direct Damage spells, but when you actually apply all the rules and keep things realistic, it works well. A lot of things in Shadowrun are features, not bugs. E.g. the eggshells armed with hammers system design is what leads to so much subterfuge and tactical play. It's one of the best systems that I've ever used.

Posted by: Stahlseele Dec 22 2013, 11:20 AM

Knasser o.O
You're back! o.o
Long time no see ^^

Posted by: knasser Dec 22 2013, 11:26 AM

I basically walked when people like Ancient History and Synner who helped make SR4 what it was, were getting shafted by CGL and the embezzlement affair. There was an influx of what can only be fairly described as "loyalists" were flooding in from BattleTech forums and the whole place was starting to feel like something from the V for Vendetta movie. When CGL actually managed to retain the licence, I was so disgusted I departed. It combined with an implosion of my own game when I found a player had been cribbing my plot notes behind my back and that was it. Haven't touched Shadowrun for three years. Looked back in out of curiosity and found that people are still misunderstanding the rules.

I expected to see a big load of discussion about SR5, but the place is dead.

Posted by: Stahlseele Dec 22 2013, 11:31 AM

Yeah, SR5 has . . not been well received here from what i can gather . .
Still, nice to see you're still well ^^

Posted by: binarywraith Dec 22 2013, 12:19 PM

The biggest discussion of SR5 has, sadly, been tracking down the misprints and outright contradictions in the rules. CGL's 'quality control' and 'editing' were essentially non-extant, and it requires fairly heavy houseruling to even be functional.

That said, it has the bones of a good system, if and when they actually errata the damn thing.

Posted by: knasser Dec 22 2013, 12:45 PM

I gathered from DrZaius' PitFight thread (which I enjoyed), that the old initiative system is back - i.e. score high, keep subtracting ten until people run out of goes. I always preferred that system so that's a plus. And I don't quite get Limits in detail, but I had a house rule in SR4A that hits on a Matrix Test would get capped by Logic (to stop the idiot hackers with great software syndrome), if it is similar to that, it doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Posted by: Stahlseele Dec 22 2013, 12:48 PM

it's kinda sorty maybe a little bit like that . .
but for everything else too. and there are different limits for everything else too.
and different things interact differently with different limits. and pools are still there.
and it's basically the SR3 Damage-System again too. The Armor-System is more like it was in SR3 too.
but i think they got rid of the ballistic/impact part.

technically, this is more SR3.5 than it is $R4.5A *hides*


also, there are at least 2 ways a decker can make himself impossible to attack that i can think up from the top of my head.

Posted by: knasser Dec 22 2013, 01:01 PM

Humph. I don't know why I'm acting surprised. This is the sort of thing I thought would happen when I left a few years ago.



Well there were always ways to make yourself invulnerable to hacking in SR4A. The issue was that by doing so, you made it impossible to be effective. E.g. you can turn off all wireless but you lose all sorts of capabilities, you can make your research computer entirely safe from Runners hacking it, but then it's also almost useless for your employees as well. I'm kind of tempted to get hold of this so I can take a look, but I don't really want to give CGL any money since the debacle.

Posted by: Stahlseele Dec 22 2013, 01:07 PM

No no, you can use these tricks and still have wireless going.
The only times you are vulnerable is when you attack something.
But other than that, yes, you can have your cake and eat it too.

One of these tricks has been acknowledged.
And instead of it being errataed, it is simply banned in mission play.
Because, you know, the rules are not good for (semi)official games.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 22 2013, 01:52 PM

The difference between D&D 3.5 charop and SR charop is immense primarily because SR has all of its options in one book. You don't need to browse through hundreds of feats that give +2 to nosepicking rolls after you've jumped looking for the one feat that will tie your build together in Complete Whatevers; you don't have to pick up spells in obscure books looking for the most optimal setup of them, etc. You just open Core, Arsenal, RC and the book pertaining to your archetype, and choose the options you want.
SR5 is even more that way right now, while it yet only have one serious book.

Posted by: knasser Dec 22 2013, 02:00 PM

And really, I would personally recommend skipping most of Runners Companion. There's far too much dubious stuff in there. Another nice thing with SR vs. D&D is the comparative lack of power-creep. Arsenal and Street Magic offer cool things, but they remain for the most part, quite well balanced with core. Especially if you're using the errata for SR4 (which is all incorporated in SR4A anyway). It's great to open Street Magic or Augmentation and create a Possession mage or add a custom cyberlimb. But if you spend equal build points on just stuff from the core book, you still end up with something balanced against someone with access to the others. With D&D - not so much.

(N.b. the above assumes you are leaving out Runner's Companion which contains some real howlers).

Posted by: binarywraith Dec 22 2013, 08:20 PM

Yeah, the Limits are pretty explicitly a solution to the massive problem 4e had with people stacking up enough circumstance bonuses and dice pools to stage up a sneeze well beyond the ability of anything to soak. In play, I like them, because you'll rarely run into them. The whole thing essentially forces players to make more rounded characters, as the ceiling for optimization is a lot lower as starting characters.

Once you get going in-game, there are ways to raise your limits, but most of them aren't practical at chargen.

Posted by: knasser Dec 22 2013, 08:30 PM

I never really had such a problem with SR4A. I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you give me an example?

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 22 2013, 08:56 PM

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=11911&view=findpost&p=363920 is the most obvious problem child of the dice inflation monster of SR4.

I don't know if you should really use Dumpshock as a good benchmark for how successful or how well SR5 is. I recall coming here when I started SR4, and everyone was talking about how great SR3 was compared to 4th, so I think nostalgia goggles are always going to make the previous version look better than it may really be.

Riggers are their own archetype again. The Matrix works kind of like a combo of Astral and Matrix, with the optional security tally from Unwired. You no longer go into nodes. The Matrix is kind of like astral space with devices floating around. Deckers and Technomancers are both masters of the Matrix, but do it different enough, so they don't step on each other's toes. They added Alchemy, so you can now make potions or magical exploding items, which is pretty fun. They also nerfed direct spells, so they're not a one shot wonderfest with no drain. They made indirect spells drain reasonable, so they're now the go to spells. You don't cap as quickly as in SR4 because skills now go up to 12.

I like it. I think they addressed a lot of the shortcomings of SR4's system. But that's me, everyone else hates it.

Posted by: knasser Dec 22 2013, 09:24 PM

Pornomancer build I recall well enough. It's just that binarywraith talked about staging up a sneeze to the degree that nothing could soak it. I never had any problem like that. The best I can really think of that this translates to is a gun-bunny with a light pistol against someone lightly armoured. Even then they're going to struggle to one-shot someone but quite frankly a person who is an incredibly highly trained marksman (anything skill rating 5 upwards) at short range ought to be able to kill a lightly armoured Sec Guard.

Pornomancer is really an exceptional case that doesn't really work elsewhere (a large part of its dice come from modifiers that are only available in that area like Kinesics) and it takes an absurd degree of specialisation to achieve. Basically a character that would die in short order in any reasonable game due to their hyper-focus on persuasion. Even then, it doesn't really do what it says it does. Yes, it will win any opposed social roll without modifiers. But firstly that doesn't make you able to make people do anything you want and secondly, there are always going to be lots of modifiers. Pornomancer is a thought exercise. You can build it (with Karma), but it's just going to die in an actual game. But anyway, it was the suggestion that there were "massive" problems in combat in SR4A that intrigued me. I ran the game for a long time and had no such problems. And yes - I had a min-maxed troll archer in the game along with other quite optimized characters.



Well yeah, I remember it too, but there were convincing arguments in favour of 4th to oppose the edition inertia. Anyway, I'm not using Dumpshock to guage its success. Only whether I would like it or not. There's enough factual information given here for me to know I would not. Anyway, it's so quiet here compared to how it used to be that there's not enough sample size to tell if it's popular or not either way. I'm just saying to the OP that given SR4A is a mature game with a load of supplements and all the kinks worked out, and SR5 seems its riddled with gaps and issues awaiting errata, I'd probably suggest they stick with SR4A just for that.



I can see the appeal of not capping as quickly. I dislike the sound of Alchemy because "No Magic Items" was always one of the core features of Magic in the Shadowrun setting. I.e. even things like Weapon Foci still required a magician to actually use them which was why you could have no such things as ranged weapon foci spears or guns, etc. The moment it broke from the wielding magician's aura, nada.

Matrix without nodes is weird. So I can no longer build nice layered networks for the places the team infiltrate? We used to have fun with those. Oh well, all academic to me. I appreciate you taking the time to explain, but I'm afraid some basic elements of 5th (reversions to decking for example) mean I'll stick with 4th if I run it again.



Hey, good for you. I wish you a lot of fun with it.

Peace,

K.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 22 2013, 11:17 PM

To be fair, SR4 did away with Matrix mazes too. So its a house rule for nested nodes to make a quasi-matrix dungeon. Technically, you can still do that with Hosts in SR5, by putting hosts within hosts, but that's not how its suppose to work by RAW. Honestly, the Matrix is already such a slog with a million extended tests in SR4, that making a virtual dungeon just means you have to add more extended tests, and for what purpose? To slow down the hacker so they have to roll even more times to open a door or get some paydata? Its an unnecessary bottleneck.

SR5 still has some Matrix bottlenecks, but almost all of them are just oppose tests now, so if you're skilled enough and got the stats, then you can blow through most of them, pretty quickly. If you're not so skilled, you'll die because GOD will converge on you before you can finish a hack.

Alchemy may not be what you think it is. Its basically casting a spell on an item. You have to be a mage or mystic to do this still, and they still have to soak drain as normal. Like wise the preparation only lasts hits in hours, and will begin to degrade hits for every hour if not used. So there is a time limit on them, they aren't magical weapons for mundanes. Like wise, there are two ways you can trigger them. One is by aura contact. The other is by the caster triggering it, which they have to have LoS to do that.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 23 2013, 12:58 AM

Well, power creep is present in SR4 (take FFBA, or the customized cyberlimbs you mentioned, or the nanomagics).
On the other hand, charop can be easily done in D&D on Core material: pick straight caster, get the good old broken cheese like the shapeshifting spells.


Actually, hackers still go into nodes in SR5, they're just not physical any more. And wait, you're actually listing it as a positive effect? You honestly have no problems with SR5, where an extendable baton extends the fastest if given a wireless command?


Mechanically, it's a good change. From the believability standpoint, however, omnipresent GOD is at best surprising.

Uh-huh, and it has always been there, despite not being mentioned in the last twenty years. Or they implemented a new Astral, same as they ported over the Matrix to the new foundational architecture overnight.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 23 2013, 02:05 AM

Its a mechanic. Its not designed to perfectly simulate real life. The idea is that with DNI, you are able to ready it so fast that it doesn't seem like anything. And in comparison that pressing a button or flicking your wrist to extend a baton seems slow in comparison. Its like how programs degrade over time in SR4, rather than have forever inflating program ratings, what ends up happening is that new programs come out that make your old programs look slow and clunky in comparison.

Honestly, all the "drama" around the wireless bonuses honestly seem like people looking for any reason to hate the new system to me. Its not even constructive criticism; it's nit picking.




Well, you have to assume the entire process is automated. Its not like you even see a demiGOD when you get hit with convergence.



Who says that Alchemy isn't something new? How do you explain the universal theory of magic in SR4 or how do you explain how grounding just magically went away? How is that any more unbelievable than someone discovering Alchemy and it becoming widely publicized and people finding out about it. Hell, it can easily be explained with rising mana levels. Do you just hate using your imagination to try and figure out why things are the way they are?

Posted by: Fatum Dec 23 2013, 04:32 AM

Wireless bonuses are not based on DNI, and do not require it. Had they been about DNI, I'd have zero issue with them, and I doubt anyone would.
Hell, they're only called "wireless" bonuses, too - what they require is not even just wireless connection (which'd already be retarded since apparently skinlinks and wires stopped working for signal transmission), it's connection to the Matrix (Core5, p.421). They are specifically said there not to work in dead zones, even.
How can you possibly argue your points when you don't know what you're arguing for?

There is indeed little space for constructive criticism for something making so little sense outside of purely gamist justifications.
See the examples. An implanted cyberspur extends quicker if you give the command over wireless, as opposed to DNI. As per the example in Core, assault rifles hit better because a wireless connection provides them with data for wind corrections and whatnot - and it works the same in top-secret corp labs, too. You can brick an implant, but fixing it is only described in gamemechanical terms (unlike what Cratias claimed when he threw that hysterical fit claiming that I'd accused him of lying). Etc.

Automated or not, corps are de-facto handing some of the control over their networks to an external organization. Any corp would sooner eat its heart out.

Nothing says it is, and same as price adjustments and what have you, the mechanics "have always been this way" usually.
If you read the splats for the editions before the fourth, the universal theory is an in-universe groundbreaking research, which is mentioned as such a few times.

Where is that mentioned? That'd be a revolutionary development, after all.
Why weren't the characters from the previous cycle aware of its appearance to come, if it's tied to rising mana levels?
No, I just hate half-baked fluff decisions as much as I hate half-baked crunch, and this strikes me as one - same as a worldwide switch to new foundational Matrix architecture (at all; and in relative secret; and almost overnight).

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 23 2013, 05:24 PM

So you might not need DNI, but you still need some kind of Matrix input. And seeing how you need a free action; this can be interpreted as thinking with DNI, voice command using a subvocal mic, or some kind of hand gesture with AR gloves. While, sure the rules don't specifically say you need an input, it also doesn't say you need to breathe, but I think its a safe assumption that you need a way to get oxygen in your bloodstream to live, just as you need a way to transmit a Matrix command to a wireless device.

As for skinlinks, just because they're not in the core book, doesn't mean they'll never be back. They were ripe for player abuse anyway, so it makes sense to leave it for a later book.

And for Matrix dead zones. If you don't have your wireless bonuses, then neither does the opposition. Do you REALLY need those free actions or extra dice pool, or else your entire archetype stops working? You can't say that wireless bonuses are mandatory, while saying a moment later that they're useless and everyone will run with their wireless off all the time to avoid being hacked. You can't have it both ways, its one or the other.



Give me a page number. I don't see where it says cyberspurs have a wireless bonus. It gives wireless commands as an example to activate, but it doesn't say its a requirement, or that its faster then a muscle reflex to activate.

Also, the core book is pretty light on fluff on how to repair electronics. I don't see why you need a fluff reason for every rule. Do you think that this core book is the only book that will be released? Or do you think they'll not actually go into detail in a supplement? I like fluff as much as the next guy, but even SR4's core book was light on how every little thing worked. Are you going to hold that against SR4 as well? Example; Everything in SR4 is wireless, even cyberware, how does that work? How do you turn off wireless? Why would you turn it off? How do you turn it on? etc etc. SR4 forced you to be wireless on all the time, but many people just straight up ignored it, and suddenly are damning SR5 for actually giving you a mechanical reason for it. So would you rather have fluff telling you your cyberarm can be hacked, or would you rather at least get some bonus for it before being hacked?



You realize that GOD is a division of the Corporate Court, right? And that all corporations, big or small have to follow by the CC's rules, and only the Big 10 can make CC policies. They didn't surrender anything. Everyone was a hacker in SR4, this clearly is a large security problem. So they had GOD roll out new protocols to prevent so many security holes. Not to mention there are a lot more Matrix threats now, with AIs, free sprites, technocritters, and technomancers. Does it make sense for them to leave an open and free Matrix when a damn ocelot can break into your top secret research facility? It makes sense that corp would try to crack down on this. and close as many loopholes in the system as possible.

Of course you can say, "but there are still loopholes to exploit." Of course there are, the Big 10 need Shadowrunners still. So they probably intentionally left holes in the system. Which I assume GOD was not happy about. But corp need Shadowrunners, because they need to know what their rivals are doing. So they equip their runner's with decks or other ways to subvert security to do their job, which of course makes themselves vulnerable to those same runner's. But that's the price you gotta pay when you need your deniable assets to be deniable and you need to know what the other corps are doing.



Do you honestly think that the Magic book won't go into detail? Where in SR4's core rulebook does it talk about the importance of the universal theory of magic? After all, it's really important, right?



Did you miss Stormfront? Or all the events that led to Stormfront? I guess it makes sense that the new Matrix would catch you by surprise if you stopped buying books and weren't keeping up with the metaplot. But can you really fault CGL for that?

As for alchemy, that's how all magic is explained. Tell me, why is grounding spells gone? Give me the fluff for that. Are you really upset that they took out the ability to nuke people from astral?

Posted by: Fatum Dec 23 2013, 06:54 PM

And flicking an AR switch for an extendable baton is faster than flicking a physical one why, exactly? Why does flicking an AR switch require a functional Matrix uplink?

If they're back (as a replacement for wireless for getting wireless bonuses), the whole conception of wireless bonuses for exposing yourself to a hacker attack will be senseless.

I'm not sure you're following. The thing is, wireless bonuses are not for having your devices communicate with each other wirelessly. They're for them being connected to the Matrix. It takes less time to extend a baton not because you can give it a wireless order (which is ridiculous, but makes at least a modicum of sense), but because it's connected to the wider network. And that wider network is at the same time a fascist uber-controlled area, and is providing your assault rifle with the sensor data needed to shoot the owners of the sensors.

It's actually cyberholsters, p.457. My bad, but the essence of the argument stays the same.

There is a mechanic for bricking implants (which means a sammy has, what, a couple dozen health bars - so much for being rules light!). However, despite the fact that a few implants are completely internal, there is no explanation whatsover how they can be repaired without surgery; common sense does not help here, unlike in the aforementioned breathing case. Neither is there any explanation why would the implants, despite being bricked, retain some of their functionality.

By pressing a button.

You realize the Big Ten are at each others' throats constantly, right? They're surrendering part of their security to an organization affiliated with their most bitter rivals.

Same as at the start of the WMI, except maybe for the technocritters. Except if you look at their stats, they don't hold as much of a threat as it's presented.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 23 2013, 06:55 PM

Or you just have your operatives in the GOD. Access, on a silver plater.



No, http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=38613&view=findpost&p=1217066 http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=38613&view=findpost&p=1217648, and I follow the current excuse for a metaplot. Have you seen a company switch from Linux to Windows, or back again? That's an immense undertaking that's taking a massive amount of time and resources, often taking more than a year, and leading to all kinds of emergency stops throughout the system. At the same time, even Fastjack, Smiling Bandit and Slamm-O! knew jack shit about the new Matrix, which'd cost billions and thousands if not millions of human years to develop and implement.

Shadowrun 2050, p.149.
And grounding certainly gave Astral more reason for existence, other than as a scouting and messaging medium.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 23 2013, 08:01 PM

Its an abstraction. You can't expect the game to perfectly simulate reality. If you want that, then house rule it. But to me, it makes sense. Making the hand sign for love with your AR gloves while reaching for your cyberholder or baton makes sense to activate it and would be quicker than reaching for it and then pressing a button and then to have it deploy in your hand.



Then why are you arguing that they were taking out, if you understand why they were taken out?



Its both. One in the same. In order to have your devices communicating with one another, they have to be on the Matrix. Wireless on, is on the Matrix. The core rulebook is designed to give you enough information to play with. I'm sure the Matrix book will add a number of layers to make this more complicated. Just like Unwired. You don't like it, house rule it.



Common sense does help. So how would you repair internal cyberware? Because you seem to lack imagination, I'll tell you. The internals can be accessed with panels. A head commlink/deck would probably look something like http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/data-positronic-brain.jpg. Something more invasive, like an internal air tank probably has a hollowed out chest cavity with a panel on the breast to access and even replace the air tank, along with the internals. I'd imagine wired reflexes have a small computer placed at the base of the neck or spine to regulate it. Is this an assumption? Yes, but I think its a pretty damn safe assumption.



Really? Is that why the rules for burning out wireless exist in SR4?



Jeez, almost like how the music industry pretty much gave up a lot of rights to Apple to try and stop music piracy? Totally unheard of to ever happen. If the wireless Matrix of SR4 for security was so inadequate, what makes you think the corps wouldn't have a knee jerk reaction to solve the problem when a division of the Corporate Court says that they've got an answer?



And as soon as an agent of GOD is found to be undermining a member of the Corporate Court, we get another Corporation War, or the Corporate Court sends a thor shot on the HQ of the offending corporation and their AAA status is revoked. Yeah, that sounds great. Very worth it, as opposed to hiring Shadowrunners.



Oh no, we have to suspend our disbelief a bit more in a world of Dragon CEOs, banks in space, and a working wireless mesh network. How can a fictional setting about corporations with near limitless resources possibly be able to upgrade all the wireless devices over the course of days or weeks, when everything is already connected to the wireless mesh network, and are receiving wireless updates over the Matrix to keep programs up to date, as has already been established in the canon. There is definitely no way that a commlink can be updated over the wireless.



I don't own it, so I'll take your word for it. But did we really have to wait until 4th ed to get a reason why it was removed?

Posted by: yesferatu Dec 23 2013, 08:34 PM

I don't agree on either point.
Character creation now forces all 5 priorities into a tier, which means you have to spend what you have at that tier.
There is no flexibility anymore - take a tier 1 mage, you MUST have 6 magic, 2 rating 5 skills, 10 spells...even if you don't want em.
Since there's no negative for maxing out a stat, more players are min-maxing their characters more than they ever did in 4th Ed.

I don't see the combat as "deadlier" either.
- Now, instead of one attribute used for dodging, EVERYONE gets two.
- Where there used to be encumbrance rules, now a body/strength 1 character can wear any armor they want.
- With no ballistic/impact difference - melee does even less potential damage.
- Gun modes just take away defense now, they don't increase damage, so extra damage from FA or BF is basically gone.
- Hell, you can't even fire two shots anymore without cutting your dice pool in half.
- The accuracy system caps hits on the attack, but does nothing on defense. So you might get 7 hits on your attack roll, but that troll is still rolling 30 dice on defense and has no cap on hits.
- Even spells do less damage now that they've nerfed direct spells and doubled target defense dice.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 23 2013, 09:05 PM

Why do you need a Matrix uplink for flipping a peace sign to open your cyberholster? In the world of nano-sized computers?

They're taken up to support a particular mechanic. My argument is that the mechanic is ridiculous if basic physics (like, you know, transmitting wireless commands directly between devices, or transmitting signals over wires) have to be taken out for it to work.

Because no two devices can communicate directly now? Despite the WMI Matrix being p2p mesh?

Good luck replacing burned internals (and that's what bricking does, before you ask, p.228) through a comm jack; or good luck making an access panel on an implanted device that lets you access the entirety of its internals.

No, it isn't.

I am sure music industry has A LOT of trade secrets from Apple *fp*

Because in that division, nine of ten employees come from your bitter rivals' ranks, that's why. Because the basic principle of any security, network or not, is keeping strangers out.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 23 2013, 09:05 PM

Of course, the only known reaction to finding an employee of another corporation working directly against you is a Thor shot. *fp*

Settings work on internally consistent logic, if suspension of disbelief is to be maintained. When one failed project sends a megacorp into a downward spiral, replacing the entirety of the world's network infrastructure flies in the face of any kind of logic.

Last time massive renovations had to be done to Matrix infrastructure was after a global Crush, and it still took a few years to bring the new matrix to full speed - despite it being a p2p mash, that is, incredibly scalable even without supporting infrastructure.
Do you have your OS updates enabled? Try updating to another OS, with a complete overhaul of underlying network protocols to boot.

Maybe we didn't, I wasn't around at the time.

Also, for your oft-repeated "if you don't like it, houserule it". It's blatantly obvious that the less subsystems that have to be hand-patched to be workable a gamesystem has, the better it is. SR5 by that estimation is currently much worse than SR4AE.
I frankly tried compiling a list of houserules for SR5, but minding that the book contradicts itself regularly, I just couldn't be bothered to finish that job.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 23 2013, 09:06 PM

This is a correct observation. But it does not say anything negative.



Not entirely true. Because they still can't wear a helmet or shield without taking encumbrance. And if you think someone rolling 12 armor + 1 body for a soak test with 9 condition boxes, how long is that person going to last against a Ares Predator V with -5 ap with APDS doing 8p? So lets play the average game. 13 - 5 = a soak dp of 8, average of 3 hits. Lets assume our shooter gets only 1 net hit after our body 1 guy dodges, so that Predator is doing 9p. 9p - 3 soak = 6p. Our 1 body runner now had only 3 boxes left and is taking -2 to all actions. That body 1 runner sure did break the system by wearing an armor jacket without penalty.



You do realize that melee damage is now strength + weapon, right? Not strength/2 + weapon, right? So you understand that melee does more base damage, right? You do understand, you can't look at rules without context to how other rules affect them, right?




You do realize that a narrow burst gave you a whopping +1 dv. While wide burst is the way normal burst fire is in SR5. What a game changer. If only there was an easy way to house rule the old narrow BF mode or something.



Oh no. If only there was a new rule on something like a semi-auto burst, that makes firing a SA gun into a complex action and fired 3 bullets on one turn. But I understand, you'd rather be able to kill someone so quick that they have no chance for an action of their own.



By defense, I assume you're talking about soaking, not about dodging. In which case, it sure would be nice if a mage knew a spell that ignores armor and is resisted with only one stat, but everyone thinks its totally useless. Or if there was armor piercing ammo. Or if only you could stealth by that troll and just totally avoid the fight. But nope, there is definitely no way to counter a troll rolling 30+ soak dice.



Yep, direct spells are totally gimped and unusable now because you can't one shot everyone with no drain, because that was balanced. Oh, and of course, even though direct spells are only resisted with one stat, lets pretend like its two, to help illustrate how bad SR5 is. And its not at all like indirect spells have been buffed and made to actually be useable by reducing their drain and giving them ap = to force. Yep, magic is totally useless now, lets all roll street sams, so we can be hacked by our own decker who we can't trust.

Posted by: apple Dec 23 2013, 09:18 PM

A narrow burst in SR4 gives +2 DV (which in nonmathematical average is something like 6 additional dices).

SYL

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 23 2013, 09:37 PM

For every person who likes point-buy systems, you'll find a person who hates them. At the core, however, build points and karmagen are simply too expert to be used as the basic, unadorned character generation system. They're fiddly, calculationally intensive, and prone to error. For people who aren't super-knowledgeable about the game, build points can be a huge turn-off to character generation.



Combat is deadlier on average, but prone to "miss or big hit." In SR4, you were much more likely to take 1 or 2 points of damage from any given attack. In SR5, you're more likely to take 5 or 6 points of damage from an attack that hits, but generally more likely to be missed (and thus take 0). What this means is that a gun that delivers a big wallop, like an assault or sniper rifle, is far more likely to severely injure, cripple, or incapacitate a target with a single hit. It makes getting shot a bigger event.

Note that base melee damage was increased by a sizable amount, putting it on par with heavier weaponry. An average dude with a combat axe is putting out better damage than he can with a heavy pistol.

Note also that burst fire decreases defense -- this has the double effect of increasing damage (increasing net hits) and reducing the chance of dealing 0 damage. To say that automatic and burst fire don't increase damage is simply wrong.

Dice-pool splitting for multiple attacks puts things more on par with SR3, where in order to put multiple effective shots downrange you'd have to burn through your combat pool. This is a break from SR4's aberrant "everyone hits all the time but does crap damage" mentality.

The troll isn't rolling 30 dice on defense. He might roll 30 dice on soak (which would itself be amazing). The soft-ish cap on defense is 20 dice, which is maxed out augmented everything and behind cover, whereas the soft-ish cap on attack is 24 dice, which is maxed out augmented everything and a smartlink. The attack limit (with no defense limit) gives the defender the occasional break, but it's certainly not heavily stacked in his favor.

Direct damage spells deal consistent damage versus one defense stat, for what likely amounts to "free" Drain cost. They could probably use some options (hopefully in the forthcoming magic book) to make them a little more clearly useful. That said, indirect damage spells are far and away awesome, since they can do big damage with huge AP and set you on fire.

With the exception of direct damage spells, this puts SR5 back in the ballpark with SR2-3 with respect to combat. SR4 is such a huge deviation at this point that these sorts of arguments you're making are just more fuel to my opinion that people who think SR4 is the bee's knees just don't like Shadowrun that much.

Posted by: yesferatu Dec 23 2013, 09:42 PM

DeathStrobe, you should really just post everything in italics, it is the sarcastic font.

-In 4th ed, a low strength/body character couldn't wear anything above a vest, which changed how people played and encouraged people to diversify their stats.
- Is your argument in defense of unlimited armor really **NOT HELMETS!!!**? Without an impact armor stat, defenders basically get double their old armor dice on melee soak.
So, double the defense dice, double the armor dice and defenders don't have any limits. I'm not convinced that's deadlier.

"Automatic and burst fire don't increase damage" that is a fact. They just decrease defense dice. We could previously add as much as +9 to the DV on one hit or +5 on two attacks.
That's nice if your opponent is rolling 10 dice on their defense, but if they're below that for some reason, it's just net hits only - which is the minimum anyway.

The gun argument is just silly, we've gone from something like 10 possible firing mode choices to 1 that increases damage.
All this "one shot" talk is really just proving my point.
Since you (and consequently, your opponents) can't 1-shot people anymore...the system has become less deadly.

Feel free to disagree, but in my opinion, the new system favors the defender and punishes the attacker.

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 23 2013, 09:47 PM

This really falls into the category of "who gives a shit?" The SR4 Matrix was tedious, bland, and relatively nonexistent (since there was no apparent "backbone" to ride along, making each node an island only accessible by proximity, and no one ever had their wireless turned on to support the peer-to-peer aspects anyway). Now it's gone. They could've said it happened by infectious computer space monkey viruses and that would've been just fine.

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 23 2013, 09:51 PM

Eh? One-shots may be unlikely based on normal distribution peaks, but dice don't always land on the peaks.

Joe Security (body 3) in an armor vest (armor 9) gets shot at (defense 6) by a guy with an ares alpha (attack 14, damage 11 AP-2).

The attack gets 6 hits on a burst. Joe gets 1 hit back. Joe needs to soak 16 damage on 10 dice. Joe soaks an amazing 5 points and still dies.

Yup, one-shots are definitely impossible.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 23 2013, 10:02 PM

Then use a voice command, or DNI. You don't have to use a hand sign, it is merely an example of a free action that can be used to represent how to make a cyberholster to deploy. If you don't like it, adapt something else to work.



I'm not clear what you are trying to argue. Are you saying that wireless shouldn't exist because it makes everything too easy to hack, or that everything should be wireless because its unrealistic to have everything wired?



They are communicating directly, but it just so happens that its also being transmitted to the wireless Matrix as well. If you want some logical fluff behind it, the Matrix protocols are probably designed this way to make sure GOD can home in on illegal Matrix activity.



Because we all know that computers are totally not modular, so it'll be impossible to simply replace or repair a burned out fuse or other burned out system.



I thought the rules for burning out your wireless was in Augmentation, but I can't seem to find it. But it honestly doesn't sound like you can turn off your cyber's wireless in SR4 at all. Its just something people house ruled because they fear hackers.




Not all the Megas need to agree, just enough to make the new protocol happen.



The idea is that they are undermining the Corporate Court. Unless you would prefer a world without Shadowrunners, and at that point, it makes me wonder why do you play this game? The CC is the reason for Shadowrunners to exist as deniable assets. If Corporations could have their own guys working against other corporations directly, without fear of CC reprisal, then Shadowrunners wouldn't exist. The Thor Shot is merely the extreme form of CC reprisal.



Wait, so the Ares Excalibur makes sense, but new Wireless Matrix doesn't? How?



Have you never upgraded a computer or mobile device's OS before? Its normally pretty easy and painless, other than having to learn the new features of the OS. You make it sound like upgrading requires a PhD or something. A lot of updates are now completely automated. Take for example my iPhone. It now downloads App updates in the background, so I don't have to manually do it all the time. Do you think the future would not make almost all this upgrading near seamless?



All systems require house ruling. Because either rules can be ambiguous or just unclear. Do you have your hacker edit the Access Log before they jack out every time they hack something in SR4? Or how about doing a Matrix search, do you have them use their Analyze program + computer or their Browser program + computer to find files? Or do you allow a hacker to do an hacking search and replace the skill with hacking instead of computer and make the computer skill totally useless? Do you make it so that if they need admin access, but only have user, that they have to start all over hacking the firewall but with a much higher threshold with the firewall already having hits to detect them, or do they get to start their current access and only need to get the difference in threshold to get admin? Its not like SR4a is perfect and doesn't have weird ass rules that can be interpreted differently.

Posted by: apple Dec 23 2013, 10:07 PM

That is simply not true. Good rules, good explanation, nothing more is necessary. If you want a 5 minute quick start (something you will not achieve with either point or priority without an extreme good knowledge of the system) you can use archetype or point arrays. There are many other RPGs out there (both rule light and heavy) which use point buy and who are not really recognized as (SLA, Eclipse Phase, CP2020, in some regards Feng Shui, DnD just as some examples)



FA 10 bursts say hi (to the one-shot-stun bolt which seems to be such a big evil for the SR5 crowd). To generalize the attack/soak/defend SR4 system as "1 or 2 damage" is simply wrong. Even when not talking about extremes live 40 dice soaking trolls or 15 shot miniguns you take damage fairly fast fairly easy (look at the usual values even for very good equipped people vs some shots from a shotgun).



Which is simply a lie as well. depending on values, armor, used weapon and situation you can take only a few points of damage ... or you are dead ... or you are something between. What is true that it is indeed fairly simply to damage people (attack is stronger in SR4 than defense).

SYL

Posted by: apple Dec 23 2013, 10:11 PM

In SR4 you can reach each node in the world from the other side of the world (if the node is connected to the matrix and if you are authorized of course).



Just like the NPCs in SR5, yes? Way to go to introduce the nifty wireless boni to make deckers useful again.

In that regard SR4 hat a way better system to make a hacker combat useful (except for the extended test of course which were really a negative point in SR4).

SYL

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 23 2013, 10:12 PM

Ummmmm...
Not sure how you completely missed a Section called "Turning it Off" in the "Wireless Connectivity" section of the SR4A Book.
See Page 314.

Posted by: apple Dec 23 2013, 10:25 PM

I am afraid that the writers of SR5 see it differently if I remember the discussion correctly on Jackpoint. There is no device => device communication anymore in SR5 - because when asked they confirmed that wireless boni do not work in the desert or in wifi inhibiting buildings, even when standing next to each other.



There are no rules for burning out wifi in SR4. You can of course crash the system so it has to reboot, change permissions etc, depending on the specific device.



Perhaps you should check again your basic SR4 book. There is an entire chapter for wifi security => .



No, official rules in the basic book are usually not considered house rules.



Thats a very bold statement. I would rather say that runners exisits, because it´s a very non-perfect world which failing societies, high crime rate, lots of poor people, weak states and insufficient law power.



Have you ever upgraded a network system in a small company? Its normally not pretty easy, as it required long preparation, backup plans and usual on the spot problem solving, especially in older heterogeneous grown networks.

SYL

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 23 2013, 10:30 PM

Your examples are an unpopular game, a version of the SR4 rules with a different setting, and an unpopular game (in part due to its overt complexity). Want to fit Rolemaster in there somehow?



Yes, the one example of an attack that does massive damage but at a huge penalty to hit is the lynchpin of the system's balance. Back in the quasi-normal realm of pistols and SMGs, however, you tend to nickel-and-dime your enemies. Big damage hits are pretty far out on the curve.



Calling something a lie just because it disagrees with your sensibilities is dickish.

SR4 was balanced attack-forward but damage-weak (ie, you hit more often but do less damage per hit). SR5 was balanced defense-forward but damage-heavy (ie, you hit less often but do more damage per hit).

Now, combined with the "need to do more damage than armor or it's Stun" rules, this means that in SR4 you're more likely to deal stun damage, love-taps, and grazes, to the absurd extent that gearing for stun damage is more often than not the most effective mode of operation (the risk of splitting damage is high, and the penalties for damage are low). In SR5, when you hit you're more likely to deal major hits more consistently on the physical track.

The system is objectively more deadly because you're more likely to max out someone's physical track with fewer connecting shots.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 23 2013, 10:40 PM

You can totally one shot people though. Take for example, a strength 10 troll with a combat ax which will do 15p with -4 AP. I don't think very many people will be able to soak that to live and tell the tale of that one time they got cleaved in half by a troll with a combat ax.

Now if we use that same troll in SR4, he'll do 9p and -1 AP. Now call me crazy, but I can't help but think to myself, that taking 60% more damage and getting 4 times that AP, does make SR5 just a bit more deadly. I could be wrong though.


Or lets even go with the low end. Say we got Joe Average who has 3 stats and 3 skills to whatever we need him to have. He's got himself a nice holdout pistol to keep himself safe when he goes out of the Arcology for a night on the town.

In SR4; he's got a Streetline Special, doing 4p. Single shot, so he can only fire once a turn.

But in SR5, Joe has the new Streetline Special that does 6p and is now semi auto.

Both games he's only rolling 6 dice. But oh no, looks like an orc in an armor jacket is harassing poor Joe. The Orc is pretty tough, 4 body. In SR4 armor jacket is 8 balistic. In SR5 the armor jacket has 12 armor.

Playing the averages, because they're quick to calculate. Also the ork is either surprised by Joe's gun or things he can take it on the chin and laugh it off later.

SR4, Joe fires and gets 2 hits. It does 6p. The Ork gets 4 hits on the soak and takes 2s.

SR5, Joe fires, get 2 hits, and does 8p. The Ork soaks and gets 5 hits and takes 3s.

While it is only a 1 box difference. I think it does help illustrate that SR5 is in fact more deadly than SR4, because this is the low end. It gets worse with better gear.

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 23 2013, 10:45 PM

How? There was no "the Matrix" to be "in" so that you could traverse the expanse of linked nodes. SR3 had the telecom grids, SR5 has its grids. What did SR4 have?



It's bonuses.

Which NPCs in SR5 are you talking about? All the NPCs in my games have on or offline gear as necessary, as do the PCs, yet no one has fallen into an apoplectic fit over it.



The system that would see you finding your first target about 5 combat turns after he's dead?

Posted by: apple Dec 23 2013, 10:52 PM

No. But it´s interesting to see that you try to disapprove the argument by saying "they are unpopular systems". DnD in all it´s incarnations is unpopular? Where are you living? Bottrop-Kirchhallen? Perhaps you can have a better argument on why exactly a, lets say 20 point system is prone to failure?



So you are talking about the normal realm. Very well. Lets take the classic setup of body 4 and 8 armor (armor jacket / helm), so 12 dices to resist. Lets assume for the sake of the argument only 1 net hit: 12 dices vs 2x 8P damage (5P base damage, 2 for narrow burst, 1 net hit), average roll. which is 4 net damage per burst and 8 damage for two bursts after damage reduction (and yes, the 5 points recoil can be compensated).

In one complex action.

You claimed "1 or 2 damage", now using your own setup we are at 8 damage. Even with 20 dices to resist two bursts can be dangerous, and that is not even counting multiple net hits (attack is stronger than defense in SR4), used up actions for full defense, special ammuniation or stacking negative modifier for multiple defense rolls.

As long as you are not playing an armor stacked orc or troll even a heavy pistol is something to consider, especially in the normal realm (your words). It may not the most dangerous thing in the world (especially considering FFBA, synthweave, platelet factories and trauma damper) but you cannot simply reduce it to "1 or 2 damage all the time".

Just as a side note: I am running a high powered campaign with a 36 dice soak troll. He can take hideous amount of damage, especially from weak enemys (pistols, short burst MPis etc). The moment however where competent, professional enemys show up (with corresponding weapons, assault rifle, MG, long bursts etc) he usually receives a little bit more than 1 or 2 damage.



Using wrong statements to make a system bad is what exactly? Either a lie or a mistake. And I think even using your statements that your statement is ... wrong. As it seems I assumed that you know the SR4 system. In that regard I may be wrong and I would then redact the statement that you are a liar. You simply do not know the SR4 system.



Yes, but that does not mean that you only take 1 or 2 damage as you claimed. Go ahead, take the SR4 street samurai (or make a streetsamurai of your own) in the normal realm (no 40 dice soaking troll tank, no 25 dices supernsiper) and lets see what some shots or bursts from a shotgun, hunting rifle, MPi, low level assault rifle etc do with the samurai.



That may be the case but that is not something I have commented. I have just commented some of your mistakes or lies (your choice).

SYL

Posted by: apple Dec 23 2013, 11:02 PM

...

Really?

Just from the beginning of the matrix chapter in the SR4 basic book:



Please: at least read the basic SR4 book and the basic rules before even thinking about commenting them. You have now commented several times on the SR4 basic rules and made extreme mistakes. No one is expecting a walking encyclopedia, but basic rules like "you can turn of wifi" or "nodes are linked" should really be known before you comment on SR4 and how bad or good it was. Otherwise you should perhaps reduce your statements to "I like SR5 and I don´t know SR4 that well", which is perfectly fine of course.



Please correct me but didnt SR5 Mission stated that all NPCs have turned off their wifi?



Please read what I wrote. I confirmed that extended test were one of the negative things in SR4 (and it is one of the things SR5 did right by reducing them). The introduction of wifi bonuses would not have been necessary to make hackers "combat viable", only the removal of extended tests. Independent from that SR4 already had systems in place which could be manipulated in combat (especially without extended tests). The discussion if it is really a good game design that you want to make deckers combat viable by adding online battons would have not been neccessary.

SYL

Posted by: apple Dec 23 2013, 11:13 PM

Professional arms dealer would surely advise him to use a SA light pistol. And yes, if you want to compare values you should be so fair to inlcude SA weapons for SR4 because 2 shots/bursts can make a lot of difference when compared to one shot/burst combat system, where only one attack action is possible. Or make the comparison with a Cav Scout (4p SA in SR4).

Just for understanding: I am not claiming that SR5 is not deadly (it is pretty much obvious that it is).

SYL

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 23 2013, 11:20 PM

I'm not going to take the time to try every possible combination. But I assume if you are interested, you can give it a shot and find out. Maybe a full augmented troll tank, vs a elf adept sniper. Or whatever really. Its just a simple bit of anecdotal evidence to quickly disprove that SR4 is not more deadly than SR5.

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 23 2013, 11:46 PM

D&D isn't a point-buy game, or at least 3.5 wasn't. It flirted with point-buy attributes in 3.0, but those were casually misplaced later.



And that's all stun. In SR5, two short bursts would be folded into a long burst, providing several extra net hits from the defense reduction (even considering higher starting defense pools), and the damage (higher base damage + net hits > armor) would look more like 9P. Something about "more deadly."



Someone in another thread asked "so what's Dumpshock like these days?" Answer: people generally being shitty to each other. Bravo.




Last things first: I don't really care about Missions. Missions aren't the same thing as the core system.

Now, by your quotes, devices route to devices route to devices route to devices. Either:

1) You can hack someone's security level 5 Ares black-ops dildo in Japan from the comfort of your Seattle penthouse (ie, mutual signal range is ignorable), or
2) There's nothing on the Matrix and you're stuck working within mutual signal range.

Most people appear to hybridize the two uncomfortably for convenience, so that the nightclub is "on the Matrix" while the broadcasting security drone node is "not on the Matrix" even though they're both online.



The only thing SR5 did wrong was package wireless bonuses as "wireless bonuses." Instead, "offline penalties" could've been equivalent and less controversial. People are averse to risking to gain, but they'll risk to avoid loss.

Posted by: binarywraith Dec 23 2013, 11:47 PM

Both of which explicitly don't work comparably in SR5. In fact, by the base book rules, given that much of the 'wireless bonuses' list is basic functionality, DNI technology has somehow apparently regressed by at least 50 years.


Either that, or physics broke somewhere, and now a wireless signal is faster than direct transmission over fiber optic cable. Over a shorter distance. With less impedance.

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 23 2013, 11:53 PM

I said a long while back that the simple solution is "technology has gotten sophisticated enough such that you can remotely connect to data streams previously locked away in internal wires or skinlinks." Pair this with offline penalties ("you can place your gear into turtle mode to protect it at the cost of performance") and it's great.

Of course it's functionally equivalent to what exists now, just with taupe curtains instead of beige ones.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 24 2013, 12:01 AM

Its that way in SR4 too. Lag is a thing of the past in SR4, and you can hack a node on the other side of the planet without taking a hit to response, its only when you get off planet is when you start to notice lag.

Posted by: binarywraith Dec 24 2013, 12:04 AM

The question, of course, then follows : Why the hell would any self-respecting shadowrunner -do- that.

I like your idea of offline penalties, however, it would need to come with a serious revision. Even the guy who wrote the current wireless bonuses as it stands said he was told that they were going to be bonuses for having stuff connected to any DNI, not the Matrix. Many of the bonuses as they stand right now don't make sense at all, because there is literally nothing the Matrix can do that a DNI connection couldn't for those features.

Overall, it's just another point of shoddy editing for SR5. Hopefully it gets cleaned up in the eventual cyber or matrix splatbooks, or at least errata'd.

Posted by: Glyph Dec 24 2013, 12:09 AM

The main problem most people have with the wireless bonuses is their implementation. They are senseless and illogical, and there is no reason that a DNI connection could not have the same functionality for a lot of things. Bricking is also poorly implemented, namely in how it can apparently cause permanent damage to cyberware and other electronic devices. This leaves archetypes such as street samurai in a precarious position, where they have to choose between basic functionality for things like wired reflexes + reaction enhancers, or smartlinks, vs. being vulnerable to attacks that can permanently damage their expensive augmentations, all but crippling them until they can get it repaired.

Things are less fun for deckers, too, because now they have to babysit the rest of the team, like the mage with counterspelling (although the latter is not as vital now, with spells being nerfed and spell resistance boosted). I am not a reflexive naysayer, I really wanted to like this edition, and had no problems with limits (even if the calculations were a bit wonky) or priority system character creation. But in some areas, they made serious missteps. I may still eventually pick it up, but it will definitely not be until they at least have some errata to fix the errors and contradictory rules.

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 24 2013, 12:25 AM

It's all still part of the metaphor of the Matrix. Back in Real Life (well, Real Life video games), exploiting desynchronization is a thing. I remember a period in Star Wars: Galaxies (among other games) you could unplug your network to desynch, walk through a wall, and plug your network back in before the system realized you'd dropped connection, and the game would interpret your client's new reported location as your actual location in the game.



Hence what I said about "technology can remotely access data on wires." It's trivial to the game mechanics, but eases the anguish.

If you watched the new Battlestar Galactica, the humans had a ban on complex networks specifically because the Cylons could hack into anything more complicated than an isolated computer. In Shadowrun, it would be easy to say that the technology is so complex that once you start hooking systems together, even ostensibly over completely internal connections, there's no way to guarantee that all of the external access points are completely locked down. Remember that hacking is about exploiting the failures inherent to complex designs -- no system in the world (the real world or the fake world) has a port that says "hackers please illegally connect here."

Posted by: Glyph Dec 24 2013, 12:37 AM

If that was the case, how would you rationalize people still having the ability to turn it off? As far as the idea of "offline penalties" - to anyone coming in from SR4, they already are offline penalites, since getting a bonus to hit from a smartlink, or having your wired reflexes and reaction enhancers able to work together, is something they had in SR4.

If they wanted Ghost in the Shell-style 'ware hacking, they should have made it happen over ubiquitous tactical comms (which could give teams bonuses to perception and surprise checks, indirect fire, etc.) rather than having hackable internal hardware. And the concept works horribly with bricking (far too extreme, damage-wise; it should be able to take things temporarily offline, or feed false sensory data, but not permanently disable cyberware), and even more horribly with deckers as their own class. Hacking should be more like stealth - something every shadowrunner has (or should have) rather than the province of specialists. The wireless bonuses were very poorly implemented. I hope they revise and fix most of them, rather than giving a half-assed fluff explanation for them.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 24 2013, 12:51 AM

I feel that you should have at least some understanding of the rules, - maybe by hearsay, at least something! - when you decide to start arguing them.


It's like you aren't reading me at all. For the third time, is there any conceivable reason why your PAN would be unable to recognize your DNI impulse/hand sign/voice pattern without a Matrix uplink?

I'm saying that wireless should make sense.

They are not communicating directly: they can't communicate in a dead zone.

Computers are modular, people usually aren't, and implants typically reside in people, not computers.

Yeah, cause otherwise, evil hackers will hack your Signal 1 periphery devices.

All megas need to agree to invite strangers with admin access into their networks.

Do you remember what lead to Operation Reciprocation? That's the kind of stuff that prompts Corporate Court action, not normal sabotage work. CC does not even possess assets of its own, constituent corporations provide those. Runners are used to hide corp involvement from the target corp first of all - that's who is to be feared, not CC. And yeah, there are numerous types of action for which runners are simply not suited, such as long-term intelligence, for instance.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 24 2013, 12:51 AM

Excalibur plotline (SR5 canon, btw) makes (some) sense if the corps are not as omnipowerfully rich as you're trying to present.

How many foundational protocols changed for your automatic updates? Updating network protocols is not even changing an OS (good luck trying to autoupdate iOS into Android), it's changing hardware firmware on the fly.

Posted by: apple Dec 24 2013, 01:00 AM

DnD (from 3.0 over 3.5 to Pathfinder) had both roll generation systems and point buy system. Please, do yourself a favor and just read the PHB and the DMG. I quote directly from the DMG 3,5



You should really start with the habit of reading rules before commenting on them. You are not a German with the Nick Mercenario on the German SR Board, or? He has the same habit of commenting on rules he never read.

After we have cleared that up I am still waiting for an *argument* why a well made free distribution point buy system should be more problematic that a not so free distribution point buy system (did you know: the priority system is a point buy system as well, just with more categories, a little liike WoD). And please the argument why point is more error prone should have more substance then "the example game systems are unpopular".

They may be unpopular (for example DnD/Pathfinder is a very unpopular systems which is not played by anybody) but it was not a discussion aka "do point buy systems make a system popular". All these systems I mentioned use point buy systems and are known for simple and understandable character creation (even if it can take some time in the case of SLA or EP (which is not a Shadowrun in another setting as you claimed it). And really, if you claim that Feng Shui is a complicated system then we seem to have a very different understanding of the human mind.

Your claim was that inherently point buy stems are prone to error, miscalculation etc.

Please prove that.

With facts.



Yes? And?



Yes? And? I never commented on the deadliness of SR5 and I know that SR5 is deadly. Your claim was that in SR4 high damage is very rare ... with is simply wrong, as proven.



Answering someone who again commented on rules systems (now DnD) without knowing the rules can have these consequences, yes. It is this feeling about talking to a wall. Usually, there is some kind of Gentlemens Agreement of knowing the rules before evaluating them as good or bad. I now, strange concept.



Yes, if level 5 ares black ops dildo is connected to the matrix. If it is not connected than you need to be on sight. Your claim however was that there is no matrix and nodes are not connected and that you need to stand next to the node. Or did I misread/understood you?



No, it would have been the same shitstorm.

SYL

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 24 2013, 02:17 AM

You're deflecting. Even if I'm mistaken about 3.5 ditching point buy in the PHB, it's not really an issue (though I seem to recall it not being in the PHB). You can't stand there either way and suggest that D&D is a point-buy game unless you diminish the meaning of "point-buy system" such that any game system in which you get points to put into things qualifies.

No, when we're talking about "point-buy" we're explicitly talking about a game where character generation is handled by purchasing stats/attributes/abilities/etc with linear or scaled relative costs out of a common pool.



This sort of thing is why this place isn't nice anymore.



Verification is harder. Exploiting expert knowledge of the relative value of things is grossly rewarded.



Then you're rudely misappropriating comments addressing the deadliness of SR5 as compared to SR4. You jumped in to attack comments I made directly at the assertion that SR5 wasn't more deadly than SR4. I'm not responsible for whose bandwagons you like to hop on.



Acting like a dick isn't a consequence. It's more of a lifestyle.

Posted by: apple Dec 24 2013, 02:40 AM

Funny, you were the one commenting the perceived popularity to dismiss the example that there are good point systems who, by there user, does not seems to have the below mentioned problems.



No. It depends on the quality of rules. 23 are not really more or less easier to check as 25 oder 32 to points. 1000 points may take longer, but it is still easy for a normal human being, if the rules are good and well explained (and the necessary information are well presented). There are of course bad point systems (DSA4 *shudder*)



Wells, lets make a recpa, shall we?



Well, yes, if you make an assumption or declare something as a fact and it is wrong I indeed have the habit on commenting that to correct it. If you see the correction of wrong things as a "dick move" or "attack on comments", well, you are always free to leave this board or put me on /ignore. Otherwise please live with the fact that I will correct you if I am interested in the subject and you state false things. You are of course encouraged to do the same (please after reading the rules). Usually it is called a discussion.

SYL

Posted by: Epicedion Dec 24 2013, 03:43 AM

If you care, my initial comment was that for everyone who loves point-buy, there's someone who hates it. The fact that you have to bring out unpopular, dead, or niche games to bolster arguments for point-buy sort of indicates that my initial estimation of one to one might be overly generous toward point-buy.



You're sort of begging the question here by saying that good rules make a good point-buy. It's entirely possible that point-buy is bad rules. Since you're trying to disqualify popularity, what's your metric?



Whatever that is.

In order:

1) Not mine. If you're going to list someone's arguments, attribute them correctly.

2) Points-buy systems are fiddly, calculationally intensive, and prone to error. Fiddly, meaning you have to compare spending X points to buy either Y oranges or Z apples (or XX kiwis, YY lima beans, or ZZ ounces of dashboard cleaner). Calculationally intensive, meaning that instead of adding up a short list of integers you generally have to multiply-add-multiply-add-multiply-add -- the difference between wanting an Attribute to be 5 and spending 5-1=4 Attribute Points to get there, versus spending (5-1)x10 = 40 Build Points, versus spending 2x5 + 3x5 + 4x5 + 5x5 = 70 Karma . Prone to error, meaning that a procedural error or misplaced digit is harder to notice in process and harder to check later (which sort of follows from how intensive the calculations are).

3) Covered elsewhere.

4) D&D isn't a point-buy game. Move on.



There's a line between correcting something (or even just flatly disagreeing) and suggesting that it's a lie, and you crossed it in your very first response to my post. "Cow to insults or leave" is a great defense, though. Keep it up.

Posted by: Glyph Dec 24 2013, 03:53 AM

I thought build points were very well implemented in SR4. They had a lot of hard limits (no more than half of your build points for Attributes, only one Attribute at maximum, no more than 50 points in resources, a maximum of one skill of 6 or two at 5, etc.) and soft limits (maximizing an Attribute point cost 25, rather than 10 points, etc.), as well as not only a step-by-step run-down of creating a character, but two examples to go with it. There were some pitfalls, but honestly, someone using a priority system for character creation is just as likely to take the uncouth quality, or forget to take perception, or nearly any other newbie mistake.

Priority character creation doesn't even save that much time, since making a character background and buying gear are the two most time-intensive parts of character creation. It is only useful for absolute newbies, who might be paralyzed by the sheer number of choices you can make in an open build system. For anyone else, it is a step backwards, flexibility-wise; you have more than you need in one area, less than you need in another area. That said, the priority system was not a deal-breaker for me, especially with the post-creation karma to smooth the rough edges. It isn't as flexible as build points or karmagen, that's all.

Posted by: Dolanar Dec 24 2013, 09:29 AM

To add to Glyphs comment, if you limit the creation of SR4 to the same number of books SR5 currently has, it probably evens out, one thing that does add time besides gear is looking through all of the options.Once SR5 has more options, it will likely take a bit longer as well.

Posted by: apple Dec 24 2013, 10:27 AM

Stop it right here please. I did not comment the fact that there are people who love or hate point buy or priority systems. I commented your claim, that by their very nature, point buy systems are fiddly, prone to error, calculation intensive. I am asking for proof. Again, its not a popularity contest, which system is more loved, but simply your claim, that point buy systems are inherently bad. And that is something I would like to be proven/better explained by your.

Instead you are commenting the (un)popularity of examples for quite easy point buy systems - which was not even the point.

Again: I would like to here your arguments (and a little more then "they are prone to errors because they take long") why exactly point buy systems are "fiddly, calculationally intensive, and prone to error." if they are usually reduced to add 10 + 15 +2. Answering that with "they are unpopular" ... well, they may be unpopular but then again thats not the point I am asking you to prove. I am asking you to prove your own statement.

..

Oh, finally, arguments and not "they are not popular". Hurray. Lets see ..



This is part of almost all systems. Even in the beloved SR5 Point buy system you need to compare your 21 attribute points or your 46/10 skill points to what you actually buy. It may be more specific, but honestly, to distribute 30 skill points in SR4 (120 BP) is the same as buying 46/10 skillpoints with the corresponding "prioritty currency" and distributing the points. It is just another kind of conversion. You dont pay in BP, you pay in priority.



I cannot confirm that. I have used BP systems in their many forms over many years in many different sytems (popular and unpopular). Even with a priority system, if you have 46/10 points to distribute you want some sort of paper/pen, calculator, excel sheet, char creator (like Heros lab) or whatever. Lets take a very simple system as example: SR3 120 point buy (and please, dont even start with SR3 is unpopular - the compendium point system was very well received). You simply add up small numbers. 2 here, 1 there. 400 points are of course more to add up (or 1000), but then again you usually work then with 20 point steps, not with 2.

Perhaps you need a trick to make them easy. My usual steps are:
=> give the char the attributes and skill as you have imagined ("I image the characters with body 4 and charisma 6").
=> Sum up the points in their specific area (like attributes, spells etc) "whoops, 30 points in attribute, -8 for the starting points, that means 220 points distributed.
=> do not add the single cost of every single item, but only the sum of each area (dont calculate 30 for agility and 2 for specialisation and 3 for a spell, simply add 220 for attribute, 30 for advantages etc together).
=> With that you only need to calculate 3-6 numbers (like a number for attribute, skill, race, edge, money) at one time (and not dozens).
=> If you have distributed too much points, reduce one of the areas (hm, 220 attribute points, lets see if I can reduce some attribute by 3).

That is something a normal human being can do in their head if they have a good memory, but usually a paper with pen is absolutely sufficient. The only thing I find prone to error and fiddly is buying equipment for equipment heavy archetypes (hackers, riggers, sams etc). But then again this was already in SR1 the case. To spend 250 000 or 1 000 000 or 450 000 "points" on something small as "50¥" or something as crude as "475¥" is not quite fun. But except for "packs" I have no better solution for that.



Can you really spot easily if someone has really distributed only 46/10 skill points, used 20 karma points for skills etc?

See, that wasn´t so hard. You have made a statement and explained your thinking. Highly appreciated, even if I do not agree.

SYL

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 24 2013, 03:08 PM

The point being made, though, was that the DESIGNERS of the system said that Wireless was ubiquitous and omnipresent and no one would ever turn their wireless devices off because REASONS. And then THOSE SAME DESIGNERS produced Missions and then said that their NPC's had Wireless turned off (ostensibly because having them on was stupid, risky, and provided no real benefit at all). Seems to me they realized after the fact that their REASONS for the Wireless bonuses embedded in the system were crap and they knew it, so they took steps to resolve it in the only way they could (because they had touted it as the bee's knees and later realized that it really wasn't).

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 24 2013, 03:17 PM

Well, to be fair Missions takes place in Chicago, which has a constant noise rating of 2 or so, so they're gear would be useless anyway; since the noise would have drowned out their device rating.

Like wise, its the first missions. Its an introduction to the setting. Its designed to be EZmode. I'd recommend waiting to see how it shapes up in later Missions before you claim that, "wireless has failed and is so unplayable that Bull doesn't even use it."

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 24 2013, 03:24 PM

It is an indicator, no more, but it is a very obvious one. *shrug*
Fact is that it is a poor design choice, and no professional would ever choose to expose himself to that risk, for the ignorant rewards that are supposedly provided. Especially since they can completely secure their devices 100% from ANY hacking that matters. You don't need the Matrix for communications, for example.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 24 2013, 03:45 PM

Just assume that ALL wireless signals are used for the new Matrix. So you're PAN talking to your devices is broadcasting on the same channel, frequency, etc as every other Matrix device. Likewise it's probably to phone home to GOD so that they can attempt to track any illegal Matrix activity. Not that they give a rat's ass if you're doing real illegal activity, but that they care if you are subverting Matrix protocols in your PAN's wireless communication.




Its all made from mass produced parts. Even a custom tailored suit, car, computer, etc are all constructed from mass produced parts.



Corporate Court makes it so they don't need to all agree. There was some Shadowtalk about how some smaller corps were in violation of CC rulings and were dissolved with no idea why. Does this sound like a democracy? This is a dystopian world where the CC is law, and even the Big 10 have to listen to the CC's rulings.



Why do Shadowrunners exist? You say it "hide corp involvement from the target corp." So why would they hide it? Why not send your own guys, who are probably better trained, who have better health, are equipped, and more loyal to the corp, to extract a researcher or prototype MacGuffin or whatever from a rival? There has to be a reason. A layer of bureaucracy makes sense, because this is a dystopian world of Mega Corporations. The layer of bureaucracy comes from the Corporate Court.



But the CC is made up of all the corps, and infact controls all the money of the world too. So their resources might be a bit more far reaching than Ares.



The new Matrix protocols are only changing software though, and how hardware interacts with other hardware through software. So your comparison of changing and iPhone to an Android isn't a valid comparison. Its more like going from IPv4 to IPv6. While a lot of legacy products will stop working, they're obsolete anyway, so it happens.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 24 2013, 03:49 PM

Why would you play Shadowrun if you are just going to ignore one of the cornerstones of its setting; namely the Matrix. While you can ignore Magic and Matrix, it defeats the entire purpose of the game world, setting, and genre themes to leave out one of the three rule systems.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 24 2013, 04:02 PM

A Street Sam would be dumb to expose his cyber to matrix hacking, plain and simple. For him, ignoring that aspect does not hurt him. A HACKER works the matrix. And a HACKER has better things to do than protect his team from Bricking. It does not defeat the purpose of the game world to secure yourself from extraneous hacking attempts. In fact, it is good business to do so. The clusterf#@% of Wireless bonuses and weaponized hacking was just dumb from the get go, and was attempted in SR4. The design team recognized that fact and backed off on it. Unfortunately (and sadly), JH decided he was going to ram that concept down everyone's throat in SR5. So, when I play in SR5, I will ignore Wireless access almost completely, since I see no benefit from it. I will make sure that I have a ZERO Matrix Presence on a run to be sure.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 24 2013, 04:28 PM

So? Change channel division, or encoding, or any of the other signal parameters. You'll have noise from the Matrix, but you should be easily able to build a p2p wireless comm system.

Oh woe is me, I'm a hacker who can code his very own milspec exploit software, and throw together cyberdecks to take on any corp host, but I can't close a leak in my firewall!

Please try to keep track. Or are you internationally trying to redirect the discussion? The issue is not whether you can find parts to replace the burned out ones, it's whether you can actually get into the victim's anatomy to do so.

The Big Ten are the ones making those rulings.

Because it's much more expensive, and risks not only the expensive assets, but also PR losses. Oh, and it risks revealing your involvement to the target, prompting counter-moves.

No, it doesn't control anything near that. So, what, all the corps suddenly have the money to replace their network infrastructure overnight, plus the public networks, plus the backbone lines? Is the CC paying for that?

Except modern cards are built with IPv6 support. So it'd be more like switching from TCP/IP to LAT or NetWare on the fly on the cards that support neither - completely unthinkable.
And that's without tackling the issue of moving the actual applications over to a new system that is not backwards compatible.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 24 2013, 04:29 PM

I imagine tracking matrix health for each piece of gear can also be rather underwhelming for a few players.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 24 2013, 04:48 PM

To say the least.

Posted by: apple Dec 24 2013, 05:21 PM

You are not forced to use online bonuses just to justify the matrix. Right now, even without online bonuses or combat abilities, the hacker/decker is one of the most powerful and versatile archetypes in SR, as he is able manipulate the entire world, from information brokering/gathering to security system override to delay and spoof alerts and information when the alerts triggers.

If the devs would have wanted to make combat hacking making sense, they should have simply used the systems already working and accepted in SR34 (tacnet, drones, radio communication, online links - every thing was already in place, the devs needed just to add some addition rules or better description of possibilities) and not ditching the old system while introducing something stupid, saying that is stupid, not using it for their own adventures and then wondering why some people would have preferred other systems, because they want to combine matrix with rules making sense.

Enforcing people and the entire world to act stupid just to justify stupid rules which are not liked by the devs either is ... stupid.

If you really want to see how combat hacking while influencing the ingame physical world, check out CP2020. And that was 230 years ago.

SYL

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 24 2013, 05:32 PM

Indeed... "Stupid is as Stupid Does, sir."

CP2020 had a great system for Hacking. The MENU was awesome indeed.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 24 2013, 06:16 PM

No, it goes against the very philosophy of the genre. If you are a Street Samurai you are more machine than man. What makes you think that someone like a decker, who is by design meant to manipulate machines should not be allowed to hack a Street Sam's gear/cyber? If you are willing to sell your soul to become a machine, then that by definition should leave you vulnerable. Considering that Street Sams get a lot more of everything in SR5 helps reinforce that. They can get more dice than anyone for attacking, dodging, and soaking. And because of that, they should have more vulnerabilities.

And because this isn't a solo game, you should be forced to actually rely on your teammates. There should be synergy between the archetypes. A Decker needs the Street Sam to murder things. The Street Sam needs the Decker to protect his gear. So you can't be a one man invincible army. Boohoo. How I weep for the SR4 homogeneous archetype of everyone being a hacker with some other off skills.

Posted by: binarywraith Dec 24 2013, 06:22 PM

Because you'd have to be an absolute idiot to sell your soul for tech that can be trivially externally manipulated. Especially when the stuff from five years back had all the same abilities, and -wasn't- easily manipulated. The stuff from ten years before that was even harder to crack.

Posted by: quentra Dec 24 2013, 06:29 PM

Not to mention that the hacker physically cannot provide overwatch for all devices because he hits the master-slave limit real quick. Just think about it - an entire group with cybereyes, smartlinks, bits of miscellaneous gear that may be situational but would be a bitch to deal with if bricked or hacked, comms...and then you throw in everyone's 'ware? You hit the slaving limit a lot fucking earlier than being able to effectively overwatch all of that, not to mention the fucking book-keeping involved in tracking all of that fiddly bullshit.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 24 2013, 06:32 PM

And yet... Your entire Rant (and it is a rant) is nothing but opinion. Opinion that not everyone agrees with, even to the extent of some of the developers. *shrug*

NO ONE should NEED the Hacker/Decker to PROTECT HIS OWN GEAR. Making that assumption is entirely ludicrous. Protect their communications? Sure... Protect their Tacnet? No Problem... But protect their Smartlink, Cyber eyes or Wired Reflexes? Absolutely Not...

As for the Philosophy of the Genre - You are not quite correct in that particular assumption, as evidenced by the MANY systems that do not go where SR5 does, including all previous editions of Shadowrun itself. There are a few that do make some of the same assumptions as you do (Ghost in the shell for one), but they are not universal. *shrug*

Not sure where you got that everyone was a Hacker in SR4A. Everyone had the potential to perform some hacking actions, but not everyone was a Hacker, by any stretch of the imagination. Besides, everyone can be a Hacker in SR5, should they be willing to put in the effort.

Posted by: Medicineman Dec 24 2013, 06:48 PM

Another Way of handling it (Since You're allowed to make only one Attack per Iniphase (which is another Rule/concept the Devs are ramming down our throats )) :
Simple Action :turn Wifi on Smartlink on
Simple Action :use Smart-Weapon with WiFi Bonus
Free Action :turn WiFi Off
....Hmmm
If I have a laserpointer, I could do this for a +1WiFiBonus (Remember: a Laserpointer needs free Matrix access to be able to produce the red Dot and thus give the +1 Bonus )

or I could :
simple Action Take Aim
Simple Action Shoot Weapon with +1 Bonus
and I would keep my free Action
So actually its disadvantageous to use the "New and improved WiFi Online Bonus" The Devs try to lure into using....

with an On and Off Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 24 2013, 06:52 PM

True...
I just tend to create a character who never NEEDS the Wi-Fi bonuses... Not all that hard, since they are not all that necessary to start with.

With an Unnecessary Dance?

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 24 2013, 06:54 PM

All that stuff has already been taken into account in the abstraction of SR5's Matrix. All of that is being handled by your firewall. That's why you use your Firewall to help resist things like snoop, being marked, etc. So you don't need to micromanage to that level anymore, like being forced to have a rating 6 response, so you can have a rating 6 system, so you can have a rating 6 encryption, so you can slow down the hacker, who's not going to be able to do anything anyways, because you have everything skin linked and effectively removed any Matrix threats from the game. Because heaven forbid a core system about an all encumbersome invasive wireless technological information network actually be able to contribute to threats to the game.



If you closed that leak in your firewall, then you've effectively made the game unplayable. If you can do it as a player, then so can the NPC's, and now you've effectively made everything hacker proof and have removed the Matrix from the game. Congratulations! Now you have to play a Street Sam, or become awakened.



I already covered that. It can safely be assumed that all cyberware has some kind of removable panel somewhere on your person to gain access to the internals. Like Mr. Data from Star Trek. Then you said that everyone is different, so I assumed you meant the cyber must be all tailored made to the person, in which case I was attempting to illustrate cyber is made from mass produced parts, so there must be some standards to this. Does that help clear up the point?


And all you need is more of the Big 10 to agree, to make them all have to do it.


I have to imagine that the PR costs are a fixed cost since they have to pay for news reporters or whatever anyway, even when not trying to spin Shadowruns that have gone bad. I don't know if it'd be more expensive. It might be it might not be. It's a hard call considering its a fictional setting. But counter moves is the reason the CC was created. To prevent the escalation of corporate violence between the corps. Which leads me back to the point, if the CC says so, all corps have to follow it.


Who says they needed to replace any hardware? The new Matrix protocols is pure software, or at least until the Matrix book comes out and says otherwise.


My knowledge of LAT and Netware is limited, but I can not assume that you cannot run those networking protocols on modern systems because of hardware limitations.

Posted by: Medicineman Dec 24 2013, 07:07 PM

No, You're totally right
Its way better not to need the WiFiShip at all
But this whole -- urges me to find a way around the Rules
It's a Kind of Challenge or provocation to find a Rules-legal way to beat the System (with its own stick )

Hokahey
Medicineman

Posted by: quentra Dec 24 2013, 07:14 PM

So instead of admitting that you can in fact write rules where such a problem is non-existent, your reaction instead is to claim that such an action is impossible?



You can safely assume based on what evidence? I've never seen anything, ever, in Shadowrun cyberware, that stipulated they all had easily accessible interface panels.

Posted by: apple Dec 24 2013, 07:20 PM

"Allowed" is a very wrong word this kind of question, because the other side would be "why must the decker swallow bullets and is not allowed to stand 50m in full cover, insivisible to the hacker?". Because, well, violence is a core concept in RPGs and in the cyberpunk genre as well. If you allow the hacker to be in cover and hacking, while not being shot at, then you must allow the samurai to get into full cover against the hacker as well (and not being hacked).

That said: there are plenty of ways to make combat hacking viable and interesting (some of them worked for the last 20 years). There is no need for "I enforce your cyberware to be online just that a combat hacker is viable", there are severeal far more elegant, tested and logic ways to do that.



No, he does not. He just can manipulate the environment or drones to do that. A mage does not need a sam either, he can use spells and spirits for that. It is only the street sam who needs magical and/or hacking protection - when it comes to SR he is perhaps the archetype who can be replaced most easily, as "combat" can be solved by several other things (sometimes better, sometimes worse). So no, to be halfway effective he should need to have a hacker on protection duty. He should need a hacker to complete the team for hacking purposes. For the rest there are tacnets, drones, radio communication and/or online links with DNI control (just as a hint how it could have been solved without the shitstorm and devs who think that their own rules are stupid).

SYL

Posted by: Fatum Dec 24 2013, 07:24 PM

Awakening should make you hackable, by that logic.

Posted by: apple Dec 24 2013, 07:26 PM

Then of course my next question would be: why can´t I use my old equipment? You know the thing which run on old protocols which I never updated. Perhaps I have a hacker friend who wrote the programs himself? Well, a link needs to update to connect to the new matrix or at least a converter software. But why exactly went my DNI controled airtank dark in my own nerve system and out of nowwhere I received an email asking me to go online with an update to check out my air status?

Again, I advise you the check out some of the other editions and games just to see how combat hacking was done there. 20 years ago. Tested and approved (and in some cases even well beloved without hurting your fragile logic centre in your brain).

SYL

Posted by: Glyph Dec 24 2013, 07:27 PM

The trouble with that as a justification of wireless hacking is that you can still turn it off, even if you are more machine than man. Your smartlink may not work as well, and your wired reflexes may not be able to work in conjunction with your reaction enhancers, but otherwise you are fine. The biggest problem with wireless bonuses is their implementation - either have a few pieces of gear nerfed, or be vulnerable to hacking. Hacking would have been so much better if they had expanded rules for tactical networks, remote-controlled drones, and security communications - things that make sense being wireless.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 24 2013, 07:38 PM

So, my firewall prevents the devices in my PAN from interacting with each other without a Matrix uplink? Is it cutting tight-beam communications and wired connections, too? It's a bit too fire- for my liking, if such.

Please try to keep track; I am my suggestion of plugging a leak is related to stopping your gear from ratting you out to GOD, as you suggested. The NPCs plugging it will change exactly nothing for a hacker.

For the fourth Marxist time, that'd require access panels across your body for invasive implants like wired reflexes. This is simply not realistic.

Sure, except not a single sane mega would agree to having others' operatives in its network with elevated rights.

You seem to completely misunderstand the purpose and authority of the CC. It's a gentleman's club; it wields no power of its own - only as much as megas invest into it. And while yeah, it can interfere to stop a full-scale corporate war, those are not anywhere near common for a caught operative that can be traced to the source. Not for fear of the CC, but for the good old fear of escalation given mutual assured destruction.

Why aren't they pure magic, while you're at inventing far-fetched excuses for CGL bullshit?

You can by now; there are however a few cases of hardware still being incompatible, despite years-long usage. Such as wifi.letters, for instance. EDGE and LTE - oh, here's a good example for your wireless. Why don't you update your LTE-incompatible cellphone into compatibility?

Posted by: Dolanar Dec 24 2013, 08:13 PM

Hmm, going around the WiFi thing...an agent running whose sole role is to turn all WiFi signals off? Perhaps a free action to turn on, shoot, then the agent turns it all off again?

Posted by: apple Dec 24 2013, 08:19 PM

It would be a little bit like "during the cold war in the 1960s the USA and the Soviet-union exchanged a nuclear missle silo because the UN said so". That would surely work. Both the POTUS and the general secretary would love that, I am sure of that.

SYL

Posted by: Dolanar Dec 24 2013, 08:20 PM

Doubled bleh

Posted by: binarywraith Dec 24 2013, 09:14 PM

Part of why my Missions character to test the rules with is my cowboy adept. No school like the old school when it comes to pistols.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 24 2013, 09:29 PM

Indeed...

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 24 2013, 11:29 PM

Fine. What are these theoretical rules you are speaking of?


http://shadowrun.wikia.com/wiki/File%3a%53ource_cover_en_Shadowtech.jpg maybe?

Or I guess, if you want, you can go under the knife everytime you're cyberware is bricked. You can either make the game playable and consistent in logic, or you can choose to make it unplayable and still consistent with logic. Your call.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 24 2013, 11:44 PM

And to be fair, you can still do ALL of those things still. All, but tacnets, but that's only because the rules aren't there yet. Spoof can send false and confusing messages, and also send false commands to drones. You can also remote control drones, or even jump in if you have an VCR. You can snoop wireless communications. You can still edit camera feeds. You can still do ALL of that same things, which I do admit is really cool, and very much something for hackers to do. But now you also get the option to make devices fail. Why would you be against having more options?

The idea of the cyber cowboy, and actually making cybercombat useful is a GREAT thing. Honestly, cybercombat was completely useless in SR4. It was always better to just go and finish your hack and jack out then it was to stay and fight the IC or spider.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 24 2013, 11:48 PM

Then it'd defeat the point of having the Matrix and Magic be two different systems with opposed philosophies. The idea is that Matrix effects, meat and tech. While Magic effects the astral and meat. Magic is emotions and life, and the Matrix is cold calculating machines.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 24 2013, 11:50 PM

You probably can, but it won't work with the new Matrix. And such devices would be so rare that they wouldn't be covered by the rules. That'd be a pretty edge case, so it'd require houseruling.

Posted by: Koekepan Dec 25 2013, 12:03 AM

This would be awesome.

My first character under this ruleset is going to be a cyberdoc/technician. Shadowruns? Hah. He's going to use those wonderful knowledge and technical skills to build cybernetic lungs which are not vulnerable to Matrix crap, nor reliant upon it to function.

He's going to accept cash money in advance, because anyone who doesn't have it in hand when they show up can go to the back of the line.

And he will be rich. Every street sammy and infiltrator is going to come to him, and they will be polite. They will say yes, sir, and they will say no, sir. They will band together to annihilate any slot stupid enough to look funny at him.

King of the streets, all because the major manufacturers paid no attention to their customers. Life is sweet!

Posted by: Fatum Dec 25 2013, 12:13 AM

You are claiming that sammies should be paying for their extra abilities (by being hackable).
Why shouldn't the Awakened?
What does Matrix have to do with that need?

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 25 2013, 12:27 AM

That's possible. Maybe the firewall is also accessing cloud resources to ensure your anti-virus or whatever is working. And interesting idea I had not considered.


I don't understand what you're arguing for then. Please elaborate.


In what way is it unrealistic? You have two ways to solve repairing bricked cyber. One is that you can either have access panels to repair the damage, or you have to go under the knife every time you need some repaired. They both sound playable, but one sounds like its much easier to deal with than the other, and cheaper


Well, I guess its a good thing that they have their own G-men to do the upgrades for them.


The CC's role is to ensure that the status quo remains. Why do you think Art Dankwalther got a rod from God? I recall Aztechnology also being threaten with a thor shot too, for all their blood magic fiasco. So if they say out with the old Matrix, and in with the new. They pretty much can.


What is so hard to believe about a new wireless protocol being software driven? Do you honestly think that the general CPU will be completely replaced with specialized CPUs? With general CPUs becoming more and more powerful, things like dedicated GPUs or sound cards or whatever, are going the way of the dinosaurs. While it's true that dedicated hardware will usually outperform a general CPU, it is not a leap of logic to assume that a general CPU can handle, on its own, the routing and network functions of a dedicated device.


While cellphones are a pretty good analogy for commlinks, you know they're more than just a smartphone. I am not an expert at the true differences between, LTE, Wifi, Bluetooth, WiMAX, etc etc, but lets assume that pretty much the entire long wavelengths electromagnetic spectrum, that being microwaves and radio waves, are all incorporated into the Matrix. So we can assume that all commlinks have the hardware to send and receive these signals as packets. So now the difference is how each device interprets the packets. If the New Matrix sees an old packet, it'll just ignore it. If it sees a new packet, it will read it for itself, or send it along to the next device. Is that a leap of logic?

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 25 2013, 12:32 AM

The awaken do pay for that. Astrally perceiving or even having an active foci opens themselves up to astral threats. Wards are more problematic for them too, as it deactivates foci and sustain spells. Like wise, ware reduces their magic, which hits them harder than a mundane would be, and also opens themselves up to the Matrix.

Posted by: Koekepan Dec 25 2013, 12:49 AM

I have a better idea: come to Doctor Workgood, the cyberdoc who makes it right! Never worry about being bricked again, it'll work right first time, every time. Strictly cash in advance.



Wow, OK, so I have to jump in here. First off: what you are describing is one half of a cycle of hardware functions being decentralised and recentralised, a process which has happened multiple times in the past and which will undoubtedly happen again. That said, if you want to have something which is going to perform a single, dedicated purpose, in a single, dedicated way, then it turns out to be faster, cheaper and more efficient to do it with dedicated hardware. Why buy the whole computer when all you need is a dedicated device? Why deal with all the crap of a computer's support needs when you can have a set-and-forget dedicated device? There is your reason - maintenance and running costs. Ten bucks a year sounds like nothing - until you multiply it by ten thousand. Suddenly, it's real money.

On the other hand, if you want a generalised CPU to be constantly engaged with all the bandwidth you can possibly cram down it, alongside all its buses, with no acceleration hardware available, you'll be producing a system much less powerful than it should be, net. This is why serious machines today, in the real world, have things like accelerator cards, protocol-aware cards, and we're not even talking about all the fancy stuff you can plug into an actual mainframe.

Seriously, before you make those arguments, look at the reality of the situation. To put it another way, if Renraku came up with a do-it-all-in-software commlink which is cheap! Easy! And fast! Horizon would come up with one with a couple of accelerator chips added, and it would be almost as cheap! Easier! And so very much faster! Because dedicate hardware is more efficient for excellent reasons, and good to mass produce.



Even better plan: I shall now use Old Matrix and I shall be unhackable because everything ignores what I use! DeathStrobe, maybe this wasn't your plan, but I'm starting to look at SR5 as the Land of Opportunity! This is going to be so awesome, I'm hyperventilating while I sit here.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 25 2013, 02:38 AM

Mechanically, that's what throwbacks are for.



This is the future. There probably is little to no difference between dedicated and general CPUs. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2008/09/gpu-sweeney-interview/.


Well, there are a few problems off the top of my head. You can't hack anything or communicate with anything. Software degrades over time, so all programs will become useless after some point in time.

Posted by: Koekepan Dec 25 2013, 03:19 AM

It doesn't matter if they're exactly the identical same chips coming off the exact same identical line in the exact same identical batch. Not at all. It's the purpose to which they're put - and actually in many cases while the central chip doing much of the heavy lifting in, say, a router, is not that different from a chip in a server, there is no reason to believe that it mightn't be cheaper to use a dedicated chip to do protocol conversions. But even if they are identical, if the cost of the chip is a nuyen or two including the packaging, why on earth wouldn't you have circuitry dedicated to different tasks running in parallel, in a dedicated fashion? It's a cinch that the market would go for it at all levels except the very lowest end. However, just the fact that the chips are the same doesn't mean that the electronics are - in fact, in a dedicated unit they certainly wouldn't be. Software-based networking? Maybe, but at the very least you're looking at a huge upgrade worldwide on a timeline it would be generous to call tight.

Moreover, if you want your system to be resistant to interference (like any good megacorp) then you're sure as hell not going to want it to be easily rewritten. You want it to keep doing exactly what you told it to do until you, and nobody else, tells it different. That means that your systems modifications (whatever form they take) will hinge on a hardware switch, or at the very least presentation of credentials (probably quorum-based) which render the rewrite intelligible.

If all it takes to change The Entire Matrix™ is a few hours and a global patch, then no wonder shadowrunners run roughshod over it all.



Software only degrades if the media on which it is stored degrades. Otherwise it continues working just fine if the running environment does. This is why there are so many pieces of software which were written in the 1960s which are still running in banks and utilities today, fifty years later. COBOL, FORTRAN, ALGOL, you name it. They're around. If all you want is one piece of dedicated hardware to keep doing its dedicated thing, and you don't want it communicating with the Matrix or vice versa, just make sure you have it backed up and you're ready to rock. You can tell the opposing team's decker by his expression of frustration, and shoot him last because he poses no immediate threat.

Posted by: Redjack Dec 25 2013, 03:45 AM

An "understatement" does not begin to properly frame your response. The more integrated the environment becomes, the more these antiquated systems become the critical failure point or inconsequential. ergo: Their ability to be a functional component of the environment degrades into obsolescence.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 25 2013, 03:49 AM

Fine, then it wasn't a software update. It was a very expensive hardware update that gets us to the same point in SR5. I prefer my interpretation, that all CPUs have become general and that the protocols can be updated with software. But if you want the Corp to spend XXX-nuyen on the upgrade. That seems less possible, but makes sense.


That is not what I meant. The degrading isn't actually that the software stops working, but that it looks worse and worse each year because new software comes out to make the old stuff look obsolete. I think the rules for it where in Unwired.

Posted by: Koekepan Dec 25 2013, 04:15 AM

That's the entire point. If you don't want something interacting with your environment, that's a definite advantage. Granted, it may constitute security by obscurity, but if there's no equipment in your target corporate office which will interact with your functional equipment, then they have no way of exploiting it short of physical removal or destruction. That's a hell of a boost in a world where an opposing decker would expect to otherwise brick, disable or exploit the samurai's equipment.

Posted by: Redjack Dec 25 2013, 04:57 AM

I'm sorry, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how integrated environments are, even in 2013, let alone in the 2070's and how those much of a vulnerability those antiquated systems are; I must disagree with you.

Posted by: Koekepan Dec 25 2013, 05:42 AM

OK, I'll bite:

please explain precisely how a system which is protocol incompatible with another system can be turned on a dime so as to be used to exploit the other system.

In fact, let's make this example specific and concrete so that you can point out exactly where my argument falls down.

System A (the one you want to attack): a Nokia N770 with its wireless (including bluetooth) turned off, using maemo, on which I'm running scripts which take periodic pictures of my environment, do a pattern-match, and ditch the ones I don't want to keep. If it recognises a pattern I care about, it ... let's say it generates a tone. That's my combat warning system for whatever it is I care about. Maybe a face. Maybe some text. Doesn't really matter.

System B (your tool of choice): an iphone 5, tricked out with the latest iOS, and all its wireless turned on like a christmas tree.

My contention: under combat conditions, in the timespace available during a typical shadowrun combat engagement (what the hell, let's be generous and call it ten minutes), your iphone will not serve as a functional vehicle for a software-based exploit permitting you take control of system A, subvert the function of system A, interrupt the function of system A, or otherwise prevent system A from performing the service for which I intend to use it. The fact that my System A isn't the new hotness with respect to connecting to the corporate wireless system where I'm infiltrating is entirely irrelevant as long as it is doing what I want it to do. The notion that these environments are somehow "integrated" may be true. I'm not sure how, but I'm sure you will shortly explain it.

In fact, I'd go further and point out that if you have a device built to use 1900 MHz, and I'm using a device operating at 810 MHz, it really doesn't matter if they are otherwise as identical as two peas in a pod - you need to do serious changes to yours to even have an operational data connection to mine, let alone a meaningful software exploit. Under combat conditions you have no easy way in. If your system is programmed to use time division multiplexing, and mine is frequency division, you have another hill to climb. If your system sends data in big-endian order, and mine is little-endian, you have yet another hill to climb. Compatibility is a big deal in real world planning and purchasing decisions because overcoming incompatibilities is a monumental pain in the butt on hardware as well as software levels. Even something as simple, allowing for identical networking behaviours, as incorrect assumptions on buffer size affecting packet length can monumentally screw things up - not speculation, this is real world observation. Details matter, which is why network administrators have jobs. And project managers. This is why "system integrator" is a job description which generally goes paired with a six figure salary offer.

But I await your explanation with bated breath. System B owns System A in ten minutes under combat conditions. How?

Posted by: Redjack Dec 25 2013, 12:59 PM

You start with conversations about COBOL systems running banks, but then want an use case with cell phones. How in the world did you get from A to B in that conversation? Phones using outdated/unsupported spectrum cannot even be considered "in the environment" or relevant to the conversation and it definitely doesn't make them secure. It makes them worthless.

In combat in Shadowrun, only you propose your team communicating with radios or iPhones. While your opposition is using state of the art communication and surveillance gear your team will be relying solely on their sniper and squelching the mic on a radio to pass information. Your opposition using drones, tacnets and continual communication will thwart your attempts.

I get that you have some level of expertise in cell phones and related technologies, but tone down the arrogance and talk to us rather than down to us.

Posted by: Koekepan Dec 25 2013, 06:23 PM

OK, here's the set of principles I'm trying to make clear:

• As long as it works for what I need it to do, the technological family, or generation, or functional principle does not have to be the latest and greatest. It can even be improvised and as long as it works, that's what matters. A rifle chambered in .45-70 Government is no less lethal just because Custer's men used that cartridge, and a .22WMR is no more lethal for having been designed after WWII.
• The corollary is that if I get something useful and functional from a commlink which happens to be fundamentally incompatible with everything around me, it is no less functional within the scope of the needs which it satisfies, and in fact its resistance to exploitation can be an actual feature, rather than a bug, even if it was on the market in 2065 rather than 2075.

Here's an example: I have a PDA so old that it has no wireless capability at all. None. Not even a tiny bit. I can put information on it which could be of great value, such as instructions for repairing something, notes on animal husbandry, directions to a friend's house. The fact that some dweeb with more time on his hands than common sense can't connect to it wirelessly and turn it into a cornucopia of lies, pornography, or pornographic lies suits me just fine.

Posted by: Redjack Dec 25 2013, 11:09 PM

A Tavor has so many engineering benefits in it that, as a tactical weapon, you can't simply dismiss it over an Uzi. At the same time, your lack of wireless and current technology (in game) makes it impossible for you to interact with AR, get pay data off target systems, utilize & benefit from a tacnet, receive video feeds from various recon/surveillance inputs, etc. I get that you want to minimize the threat vector to your team from a wireless threat. I just think that the complete nullification path you have selected makes your team ineffective outside of the barrens or any company able to afford reasonably current counter-infiltration security. It also removes any data steals from your team's list of operations.

Don't get me wrong. I'm totally opposed to what appears to be the SR5 connect everything to the matrix and pray mind-set, but unless I'm missing something, your recommendations are the exact opposite.

Posted by: Nath Dec 26 2013, 12:05 AM

You do realize that both of you can find an unlimited amount of real-life examples that will "prove" you right?

Whatever the item is, utility is only a fraction of performance, that only very rarely get close to 1:1. That fraction depends on goals, skills, and circumstances. The corollary is that performance can increase without increasing utility. Despite what the ads may tell you.

If I use a gun to shot door-to-door salesmen by surprise when I open my door, the Tavor is marginally better than the Uzi. If I use to a gun to fight heavily armed insurgents at intermediate range in a dense urban environment, it is a lot better. If I use cellphone to receive videos and perform pattern recognition on them, the latest smartphone is way better than than the one I bought last year. If I use it to send text message, it does me no good.

As far as we know, the Fifth Matrix did not come with a breakthrough in tactical communications or cyberware augmentations. It's just a security update that closed some gaps, and opened others. Security and reliability upgrade increase performance over time, by increasing uptime. But such performance "increase" will often only be assessed as an average over time. It doesn't not guarantee it will not fail you at the worst moment, or actually be more prone to failure the way you use it (like, say, using a smartphone to coordinate firefight against security units with electronic warfare capabilities, rather than simply uploading party videos).

Posted by: Koekepan Dec 26 2013, 12:49 AM

OK, I really think you aren't getting my meaning, so I'll break this down by sentences.

False analogy. I'm not talking about Tavor vs Uzi. I'm not even talking about smartlinked Tavor vs unlinked Tavor. I'm talking about Tavor linked wireless, vs Tavor linked wired and shielded. See? One affords remote access, the other does not. The one operates in a necessarily electronically vulnerable state while the other does not.

• No, AR works fine, it just isn't talking to wireless sources. Your AR will still show you how many bullets you have left, where your anticipated impact point is, where your sonic analysis locates enemies and where your DR inertial/visual analysis location system puts you on your map overlay.
• Communicating with target systems can do fine, just not wirelessly - worst case use a shielded hood over your aerial, and slip it over the target system's aerial, or alternatively tap a physical line.
• Use a tacnet - granted, if you don't have strictly directional non-Matrix communications enabled. But there's no real reason you couldn't.
• Of course you can receive data - just not in Matrix form. If you're passively receiving it, so much the better. Depending on the source and the circumstances a direct optical feed might suit you just fine.

Do all these things mean that you maybe have to work a little harder? Use your technical skills to get what you want instead of what someone else wants you to have? Sure. So you put some points in technical competence rather than another die of asskickfu. Big deal.



True.



Ineffective? I strongly doubt it. Marginally less effective in corner cases where there's no meaningful electronic opposition? Arguably, but please note from the above that most of the advantages can be substituted with a little work. More effective when the opposition doesn't expect my team to have no Matrix vulnerabilities, or consequently underestimates the facilities which are at their disposal? Definitely.



It does no such thing. Scenario: two teams of two. Sammie Samurai and Alex Adept handle cover and maybe distraction, while Isaac Infiltrator and Devlin Decker cozy up to an aerial on a wirelessly connected data library (details insignificant in this context). Both teams are in operational electronic silence. Devlin unscrews the aerial, and pops on a matching connector which leads to a shielded cable which acts as a waveguide. Now he's not broadcasting anything, but has direct signal access to the target machine - and has just disabled that machine's ability to squawk to the rest of the world. Fifteen seconds of electronic rape later, both teams evac. Done.



I think you missed a lot. See above.

Posted by: Redjack Dec 26 2013, 01:02 AM

You are extremely frustrating to have a conversation with when you contradict yourself. You present firearms technology to support your position in one post. I present an argument that debunks your position and you then take off and take my argument completely out of context.

Posted by: Redjack Dec 26 2013, 01:29 AM

Actually it doesn't: You just reduced AR to nothing more than a face HUD rather than a rich interactive, layered, immersive technology.

If you are not sharing data between a certain number of tacnet members (surely you're not running optic cables between each of you) this just doesn't work... and I know you're not suggesting that... Or, if you are, I think you need to reread what a tacnet is.

Oh come on. You're just messing now and have given up on a conversation.

Posted by: DWC Dec 26 2013, 01:31 AM

Don't forget that Shadowrun's mechanics don't actually allow you to use radio communication that doesn't go through the matrix. Evidently, when the new matrix was deployed, all the shadowrunners and the military threw away all their old, reliable technology to embrace the inherently insecure new system.

Posted by: Redjack Dec 26 2013, 01:47 AM

Not to be argumentative, but I disagree with that. I would submit that matrix technologies give you things you cannot get from radio alone. I would submit that mutual signal range is an expression in the rules of blending radio communications + matrix technologies, that do not go "through the matrix", per say.

Posted by: qis Dec 26 2013, 06:30 AM

If I had a player so paranoid that he would disconnect from the matrix entirely, I'd set the following restrictions:

• He has no access to external data at all (maps, documents, etc.).
• If he chooses to download some data before the run starts, he will be hacked because of his outdated software with well known vulnerabilities.
• He can only communicate with his teammates by speaking, hand gestures and body language.
• Great suspicion when usually connected hardware is found in upper class districts during covert operations. (Have to think it through.)

I did not finish the SR5 rulebook yet. Where does it say that you can have wired hardware at all? Assuming that you don't, I'd say:

• It's either extremely exotic or extremely old.
• If it's old, why is it still working? Expect serious malfunctions!
• If it's exotic, how did your character get it and who "installed" it?
• Increase the essence cost. You had to be chopped up pretty good to lay those wires.

The whole point of the new matrix rules is to make deckers useful during a firefight, just like mages were all the time.

Another question about the rules: Can a decker "protect" his teammates from an enemy decker? Not just attack him to draw his attention, but actively prevent him from bricking your chummer's hardware.

EDIT: Ah yes, you can try a walkie talkie but be prepared to use outdated encryption. Even now days access points scan for and locate rogue signal sources. It shouldn't be difficult for an enemy rigger to detect, locate and spy on you.

Posted by: Moirdryd Dec 26 2013, 11:45 AM

Happy Hogswatch all!

Now, with that out of the way. I think people are reading both too much and not enough into the new Matrix. One simple fact is, as yet, we know very little about it save for the chapter in the core book. However, I do recall back in SR3 (and even in bits of Virtual Realities) where it used to talk about the Matric touched every aspect of life, how everyone and everything was cross referenced in the system to within a nanometer of its existence. The new Matrix I think reflects those concepts very very well. Now, I hate most if the implementation of Wireless Boni ad can totally get behind hardwiring and direct connecting (especially in the case of plenty of Cyberware) but I can also see that in the dystopian cyberpunk future that is Shadowrun 207X that the new Matrix touches all forms of wireless traffic signals, including Radiowaves. All that traffic by default passes through the Matrix because the new matrix system intercepts it all. Sure a decker of gman can't brick a two way radio, but they can triangulate its position with barely any effort. So you have to use New Tech, with new protocols, software, encryptions etc that broadcasts through the Matrux securely.

Also, in terms of the Matrix being Unifed from all Corps, despite what the background info currently says, yeah right. The Corporate Court is The unified face of the Megas and we all know how accurate and True that is (towhit, not very) and the new Matrix is a creation of that entity... So while it may all look very all for one you can bet (and it's hinted at) that the Megas are still just as shady, canny and closed as every. But then the Matrix is there to benefit them at the expense of Joe Wageslave. I'm sure Data Trails will help us clarify this Orwellian monster when it releases...

Posted by: Heath Robinson Dec 26 2013, 02:34 PM

Page 421, see the headings 'Turning it Off' (which contains an important Matrix rule) and 'Throwbacks'.

Edit: Typoed the page number and, of course, didn't noticed until hours later.

Posted by: qis Dec 26 2013, 07:32 PM

Looks like I've been completely wrong. I thought bodyware, especially cyberlimbs, are controlled by a device attached to your brain. As far as I can see, cyberlimbs have no wireless bonuses at all, which indicates that they are connected to the nerve endings of the original limb.

From a roleplaying point of view, this is particularly interesting. It should be a unique experience when you install new hardware. You'd have to learn to use it from scratch, learn how to open that hidden compartment and how to slide those hand razors.

Still, I feel a need to punish those "my cyberzombie is immune to all hacking attempts" players. How would you handle this? (I'll write my own thoughts about this when I have finished the book and planned my campaign.)

Posted by: Abschalten Dec 26 2013, 08:58 PM

Yeah, you lost me right there. Your players are very lucky.

Posted by: Koekepan Dec 26 2013, 09:02 PM

Bad players for making intelligent choices based on available knowledge! Naughty, naughty, wicked players! Shame!

That said, I wouldn't try forcing them to be hackable for no sensible reason. I'd look at other qualities. For example, you got your hand razors? They're weapons, and will trigger alarms at checkpoints everywhere. Are they registered? Muscle augs beyond a certain level could count as lethal weapons as well. If you want to be a walking tank, expect that many jurisdictions will simply flat-out deny you access, and send out alarms to each other. Maybe even attempt to incarcerate you simply for trying, during which incarceration they will remove the bits they don't like you having, replace them with innocuous, weak bits, or if they're feeling nice just put in beacons which trace your every move and automatically alert every security team in the area.

You could also look at detection systems which are not obvious, but do measurements. Remember the scene in the first Ghost in the Shell movie where they measure the mass in an elevator and it doesn't match the people in the elevator? Think of that. Also think of cameras which assess people in UV, visible, IR and radio spectra. Anything which looks anomalous is an alarm and motivates a response - which can be as simple as the next door being closed with a couple of security guards requesting papers, or which could be a small army.

If you're working in a panopticon, use its capabilities to your benefit.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 26 2013, 09:12 PM

Are you trying to imply that Cyberzombies should have no weaknesses?

Posted by: binarywraith Dec 26 2013, 09:17 PM

They already have several that have absolutely nothing to do with the Matrix. Hotgluing a wireless hotspot to their foreheads doesn't make it any better.

Posted by: Glyph Dec 26 2013, 10:02 PM

I think he was implying that "punishing" your players for making logical choices is poor GMing. Which I would concur with. Not every single character needs to be vulnerable to every single attack or danger, all of the time. You don't have to "punish" a player for getting an armored jacket by targeting him with a sniper, or "punish" someone for taking a high Willpower by having Harlequin manabolt him. An adept using swords, revolvers, and sawed-off shotguns (or a troll with a baseball bat) is just as "invulnerable" to hacking.

Cyberzombies are physically tough and resistant to magic, and are also cutting edge in every way. A megacorporation that can afford a cyberzombie can afford a top-end cyberdeck to protect any active wireless that he has open (smartlinks, etc.). Why would they make an end-of-level-boss badass and then neglect an obvious vulnerability? The decker will have to work to get to things like his communications or smartlink, and tough luck trying to hack the cyberlimbs (a street samurai with wired reflexes but no reaction enhancers would also have one area "invulnerable" to hacking).

Player characters attempting near-full-body replacement at character creation already pay for the choice, both in opportunity cost (not enough Essence for decent initiative enhancement, or enough resources to trick out those cyberlimbs) and in the problems that come with any kind of semi-obvious 'ware.

Even if you agree wholeheartedly with the wireless bonuses, PCs attempting to minimize their wireless vulnerability are only acting like professional expediters should act. They probably take cover from fire and try to avoid LOS from enemy mages, too.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Dec 26 2013, 10:24 PM

Silly Talk... Everyone knows that you engage in firefights at 30 paces with an unobstructed view of each other.

Posted by: cndblank Dec 27 2013, 05:46 AM

I have to agree.
You shouldn't punish players for playing smart and in character.

If I put 10 million nuyen in to a cyberzombie, I'm going to have military grade matrix security on the internal workings and I'm going to take EXTREME measures to make hacking as hard as possible. If I'm a cyberzombie I don't want NO one driving me.

Things like Updates can only be done with by physical connection using proprietary hardware.
And no physical connections between the internal control hardware and software and the networked comm and tac hardware and software.

My point is if you know you are going up against the best in a high security area and they will be targeting you first, then you are an idiot if you leave the backdoor unlocked, unbolted, unbobby trapped, and unwelded shut.

Certainly there is no reason for there to be any way to remote in to the zombie other than a call home security feature and a kill switch which would be waiting for a signal or lack there of.

Now can you stay on a war footing 24 by 7? No, not without serious consequences.
Are you going to be slower than some one directly connected to tac link yes.
Would you have to work hard to not standout from the rest of humanity. No.
Hell you might need to be running a program that makes it look you have the normal number of RIFD and are watching the game wirelessly while texting your fake sin's grandmother (she is old fashion)

Is there a way around it (Sub induction darts with built in comlinks, using a beetle drone to run a fiber optic link while you were on standby, Trojan viruses in the smartgun batteries.)
Oh yes. Where there is a will there is a way, but it will take planning and extra time.

Flip side this is the Cyberzombie and the Street Samuria's thing.
One of the many sacrifices they make to play with the pros.

You just need to make sure that the Cyberzombie is put in situations where pure combat is NOT the solution often enough to give the other more rounded PC the chance to shine.

A shadowrun has plenty of opportunities to split the team up and force people to work outside their comfort zones because the Face has to handle a "situation" (at least for the non combat part of a run).

If you need a little back, the image of a cyberzombie changing diapers or trying to warm a bottle because screaming toddlers would bring the neighbors calling brings a smile to my lips.

Posted by: qis Dec 28 2013, 02:42 AM

Surely real cyberzombies have a lot of drawbacks, especially the astral signature and enormous costs. But what about heavily augmented street samurais? Should they be immune to certain forms of attacks just by making a few decisions during character creation? I'd rather see a character turn off his wireless at strategically important moments than simply not caring about it at all with minimal drawbacks.

I'm new to GMing, not new to the game though. During our last runs (using SR4) all the matrix stuff was handled by NPCs. It looks like it's about to change with SR5, since now people can understand the matrix rules without risking their sanity.

Looks like the word "punishment" is being frowned upon. Please keep in mind that the form of the punishment was not specified. I usually tell the players what can happen if they choose to venture into the powergamer land. I tell them what drawbacks will come with those fancy immunities.

To me, the Shadowrun universe is a very hostile environment that actively tries to kill you in all possible ways. This is why I think about possible ways to make the lives of the characters miserable. Usually, when realistic and well presented, players perceive it as a challenge and have fun.

Posted by: Redjack Dec 28 2013, 04:23 AM

This.

Posted by: Glyph Dec 28 2013, 06:44 AM

There is a difference between challenging characters, and going out of your way to target them simply because you disaprove of legitimate, logical, in-game choices to limit obvious vulnerabilities. Besides, SR5 already penalizes heavily augmented characters for leaving wireless off! They lose a +2 dice bonus from their smartlink, they can't combine their wired reflexes and their reaction enhancers - heavily augmented street samurai actually pay the most, compared to other types of characters.

I'm glad he does talk to players about their characters before the start of play, though. That is the time where GMs should address where their campaign differs from the basic rules, and get everyone on the same page.

Posted by: Koekepan Dec 28 2013, 08:01 AM

That seems consistent with people making their plans then going silent for the actual job. Although why a guy whose job is breaking things and killing people should care about the Matrix except for publishing pictures of him with the severed heads of his enemies is a bit opaque to me.



When you speak of punishment, it suggests that you are making choices, not in the interests of unbiased game mastering, but in the interests of enforcing some view of proper play. To put it crudely, you're not creating a level playing field and letting the dice fall where they may but instead penalising players because you simply don't agree with their choices regardless of how well justified those choices might be.



See, that's the problem. Characters miserable? Fine, but why? Because they were stupid and made bad decisions? That's obvious, and should flow naturally from a dispassionate assessment of the situation. Because they were intelligent and made a reasonable cost and benefit analysis of the options at their disposal? That most people would call not merely unreasonable, but petty.

Posted by: Redjack Dec 28 2013, 01:40 PM

You misunderstand a dystopian world. His end result is a dystopian world where the characters are continually challenged, always the underdogs, in order that the players have a fun and rewarding experience.

Posted by: qis Dec 28 2013, 11:20 PM

@Koekepan: You have a point. If my players want to play gods who are never challenged or never challenged outside of their field of expertise - I'll let them.

Currently I'm planning a solo adventure for a friend who will play an assassin, starting as an inexperienced character. The most exciting part is to make sure that he has multiple ways to handle all kinds of threats: digital, astral and mundane. Sadly, I fear that he'll have to hire NPCs (sometimes).

Posted by: Glyph Dec 28 2013, 11:44 PM

There is nothing wrong with a tough, gritty future, but it should still consist of the GM being fair and letting the dice fall where they may, even if the world is unfair. For example - the Sensitive System flaw. If the GM singles out the character with that flaw to get abducted and forcibly implanted with cyber, he's being a dick. If everyone is in danger of being abducted and forcibly implanted with cyber, and the character with that flaw is just as likely (or unlikely) to be victimized as everyone else, then the GM is being fair, even if the character with that flaw does have that happen to him, and suffers more because of his flaw.

Maybe he runs it that way, and is just guilty of choosing the wrong words to make himself understood. But when someone talks about "punishing" players, or making them pay for their "fancy immunities", it sounds less like an evenhanded GM running a uniformly dystopian world, and more like a GM singling players out for vindictive treatment because they made an intelligent choice. Shadowrunners are professional criminals. They should be very careful about when, and if, they go wireless. Honestly, it's the people who do go wireless that you need to occasionally target with a matrix attack, or they will be getting those bonuses for nothing. People who turn the wireless off suffer degraded performance and impaired communications - they don't need random shit happening to them for no reason, on top of the quantifiable and meaningful penalties they already suffer.

Posted by: Redjack Dec 28 2013, 11:58 PM

I'm not sure what about my point led you to believe I suggested otherwise...?

Posted by: Koekepan Dec 28 2013, 11:58 PM

This rather misses the point.

Let's say I'm making a character, a standard 400 point character as per SR4A. This is an experienced, seasoned person with a reasonable notion of likely threats, challenges and weaknesses in the game world. Wouldn't such a person make intelligent choices concerning this dangerous way of life? Wouldn't risk mitigation be a reasonable, plausible part of that?

After all, if you can't mitigate risks, you're likely to turn into ghoul munchies sooner rather than later.

Posted by: Glyph Dec 29 2013, 12:46 AM

You were defending qis' GMing style, and apparently took exception to Koekepan stating that characters should not be punished for making intelligent, rational decisions.

I have no problem with "Oh, you turned off your wireless? Remember that your smartlinks don't give you +2 to hit any more, and you can't communicate with your ninja guy inside the compound - no OOC knowledge if something happens to him - and you will need a simple action, not a free action, if you need to activate your suit's oxygen supply." Even if the ninja guy gets caught and they don't know right away, even if they take some damage from defensive tear gas because they couldn't get their internal air supply turned on instantly, even if they miss a shot they might have made with two more dice. Conversely, if they do have their wireless enabled, there is always a chance that the street samurai might get his wired reflexes bricked, or the rigger might have his targeting display suddenly filled with troll-on-elf BDSM porn, or their handgun might eject its clip.

I do have a problem with the GM going "Oh, you're turning your wireless off, huh, you powergaming munchkins? Well, I'll make sure you pay for your fancy immunities!" It's one thing to run a tough and gritty, challenging, but impersonal game, and it's another thing to deliberately target the characters for no reason other than because professional criminals took some sensible precautions.

Posted by: Fatum Dec 29 2013, 01:38 AM

I'm with Glyph on this one: qis seems to be going after his players simply for doing the most reasonable thing that the characters have all the reasons to be doing anyway, if they're professionals and have survived long enough to become them.

Posted by: DeathStrobe Dec 29 2013, 03:14 AM

I don't know. What happens if you're mage starts to mind control guards to kill themselves? Are there consequences for the mage? Is the mage just playing smart?

Posted by: Fatum Dec 29 2013, 03:20 AM

Dunno, if I'm a mage I think playing pnp will not be as attractive.

Otherwise, a mage killing guards with mind control should face the same consequences as one killing them with stunballs (which is much more drain-effective) or in any other way.

Posted by: Glyph Dec 29 2013, 05:18 AM

I am not 100% sure how SR5 works, but I assume the mage has to expend an action to cast the spell, then spend another action giving an order (if the latter is a free action, then maybe both in one initiative pass), then the guard uses his next available action to carry out the order. Assuming success despite any visibility penalties, wards, or counterspelling, then the guard will presumably kill himself (or try to). Not much different than lightning bolting him, other than taking a bit longer.

Consequences? Other than making an attempt at spellcasting that may or may not work, and soaking Drain, only the usual consequences, whatever they may be, for killing corporate personnel. In some campaigns, runners might be expected to have a low body count, or mental manipulation spells might be seen as repugnant. In either case, the runners might have to deal with a hit to their reputation, or be likelier to be targeted by the corporation for revenge. Hopefully, this would have been made clear to the players beforehand.

If the tactic is too easy/successful, the GM should, ideally, either adapt to the tactic (and have the corporations do likewise - it's not like magic hasn't been around long enough for people to have countermeasures against it), or have an OOC discussion where the tactic is banned for PC (and GM!) use in the future. I don't have a problem with games where guards tend to be behind wards, where spirits patrol the grounds and attack when they spot unauthorized magic use, or where the guards are spread out and placed where they are hard to see. I also don't have a problem with the GM banning something because he does not know how to challenge/deal with it (although I would appreciate a chance to change my character's stats accordingly - being allowed to replace control thoughts with another spell, for example).

I do have a problem with a GM who, rather than having logical reactions and consequences, simply sets out to punish the character by having completely unrelated bad things happening to him (snipers, etc. - note that this would be acceptable if the game were one of the aforementioned ones where mind control spells are considered repugnant, and might elicit such a reaction).

Posted by: qis Dec 30 2013, 03:53 PM

@Glyph: Putting up a sniper to protect corp security is no different than giving them a mage. Forcing a player to replace his favorite spell is also punishment - I'd hate it. Still I think that you misunderstand me to some degree. English is my third language and it's difficult to be precise. Sorry.

After a few days of thought I came to the following conclusions:

• Wireless bonuses are much heavier, than I expected. Turning wireless off is well handled by the rules.
• If you're smart, there is always another person out there who is smarter. I, for once, love being outsmarted - you learn from it!
• There can be situations when hacking a player who does not want to be hacked is necessary. Story-wise or for fun (player-fun, not GM-fun).

These are the scenarios that I could think of. Please correct me if I'm wrong (that wouldn't be a surprise):

• The character has set his cyberware PAN range to 1m and uses his commlink/deck as a proxy. Are there even rules for that? I'd allow it because it's a cool solution, but that would make the commlink/deck also a host. An enemy decker would hack this host and then hack the cyberware behind it.
• The character has disabled wireless in his cyberware but uses his commlink/deck for communication. Perfectly fine and covered by the rules. An attacker would hack the icon and throw in a Psychotropic IC that makes the character want to enable his wireless. (Not sure if possible and the rules behind it - will investigate.)
• The character has gone completely wireless. Informing the player about all negative consequences provided by the rules should be enough. If it's really important to hack the player story-wise, then I'd try to capture him with non-lethal force making it possible but difficult to win the battle.

During encounters with hostile NPCs you often have grunts, officers and sometimes legends among them. You know what you're up against when you see a corporate troll with visible cyberware, full body armor and a light machine gun in his hand. You also know what you're up against, when you know this high security facility has a decker and your well protected hardware bricks. Do your legwork and you'll known in advance what to expect.

PS: Thanks to this discussion I learned to be more sensitive about how players perceive challanges and arbitrary GM decisions. It helps to discuss those issues in advance.

Posted by: Warlordtheft Dec 31 2013, 02:01 PM

In which case your OPFOR using its SOTA gear breaks your encryption (if there is any) and broad casts it and records the information, or just jams your radio frequency (so about all you can do at this point is try and yell above the gunfire). Meanwhile OPFOR's tacnet software has calculated your probable positions and a drone with a grenade launcher loitering on the battlefield is about to ruin your day.

Posted by: Warlordtheft Dec 31 2013, 02:23 PM

If the runners continually use the same tactics, it will be like leaving fingerprints at a crime scene. They will then be vulnerable to be tracked down and killed/taken prisoner/reprogrammed.

Also, mages in 4th ed are OP compared with the other archetypes/roles, in 5th the drain codes are much more balanced.

Posted by: Warlordtheft Dec 31 2013, 02:33 PM

Yes, it is call slaving, and you correctly identify the cost/benefit of it.



Yes, it is possible. But at that point, why not make him so completely remorseful that he turns himself in to the nearest security guard.....remeber, Horizon is your friend and they want to help you with your anti-social tendencies.



This..sometimes I get frustrated when players don't do proper legwork. It gets messy, and leads to a botched run. I usually have the objective, what the security setup is, how alert security is, and what vulnerabilities there are securitywise all mapped out. Then I leave it up to the players to figure thing out.

Posted by: cndblank Jan 3 2014, 10:28 PM

It is true that the GM's job is to "punish" the PC with consequences to their actions in such a way that everyone has fun.

Part of the problem is the GM is not only the players' eyes and ear but also the keeper of their pregame memories, world experiences, and final arbitrator of what is making the "smart" play based on the available information.


Players should be rewarded for playing smart but need to understand that the fun usually doesn't get going until some thing goes wrong.
Also making a mistake "in character" as a PC is what put's the role in roleplaying.

A good background with "advantages" and "disadvantages" that map out between the GM and player what misadventures the player wants the PC to have really helps.


It sounds like you are talking to your players which is half the battle of running a good game.


Certainly you can make the case that someone who is totally off the grid will actually stand out more in some situations which helps to balance it out.

If any thing there are plenty who believe that SR5 want too far with wireless bonuses.

It is not so much the bonuses which where changed for good reason as the fact that they erased a lot of common counter measures and stretched suspension of disbelieve by forcing certain bonuses which don't make sense. If nothing else with enough time and nuyen you should be able to come up with a hard wired alternative to the wireless bonuses.

And I'm only suggesting that the best would have tactics to limit the damage of combat "hacking".

Posted by: tete Jan 4 2014, 02:30 AM

this thread has taught me i still need to wait on buying 4 copies of SR5...

Posted by: Fatum Jan 4 2014, 04:35 AM

The issue here is how logical those consequences that are to be enforced are supposed to be. I love Mass Effect as an example in what comes to consequences - like, you know how your guys will die in the last mission to a stray bullet unless you did their loyalty mission? That's consequence alright, but it follows from the world's logic in no way.
Having cyberzombie mage snipers ambush your team for daring to do the smart thing and turn the wireless off makes about as much sense.

Posted by: Glyph Jan 4 2014, 08:50 AM

I think a GM needs to challenge players on multiple vectors, and not worry if they are good at resisting one avenue of attack. Let them get what they paid for or planned for. Let the troll unflinchingly soak small arms fire, or the old-fashioned gunslinger laugh at hackers trying to crack his non-existent wireless link, or the mage stop incoming hostile spells like a magical defensive lineman. There are still plenty of other ways to challenge them! The limited resources available at character creation ensure that even the most well-crafted characters will have some vulnerabilities, by necessary omissions if nothing else.

Posted by: Machiavelli Jan 4 2014, 01:07 PM

I heavily hate SR5. We just had our first session yesterday and i really don´t see any improvement in comparison to SR4. I DO admit, that i only know about combat and magic rules and care a sh**t about hacking/decking, but at least in my 2 fields of work, there is nothing better than before.

Limits: Limits sounded right at the beginning, but after what happened yesterday limits can lick my ba**ls. SR is a game played with dice. The lower your pool is, the lower the chance to succeed in a test. If i play a goon with 3 dice and i have the luck to get 3 successes, these 3 successes SHOULD COUNT. You have earned it, Lady Luck said it so...whatever. But that successes don´t count because of some stupid limit....? What did they think about it? If i play a combat oriented char. my physical attributes are high anyway. So i have limits so high, that i have problems to roll an equivalent number of hits.

Higher Skills: Karma rewards dropped in average by 30% compared to SR4 (IF you don´t fight against high-end runners with dice pools of 20 commonly), but you have skill ratings double as high than before. What does this mean? Either you can´t raise your skills over 6 (maybe just one main skill) and your other dice pools will basically stay the same like at character creation. So why the hell can the skills be raised anyway if barely nothing changes? For the OPTION? Bull***t and you know it. If i can´t reach the maximum skill ratings, i don´t see the meaning of implementing some.

Magic: I don´t think that i have to point out the great developments the Devs did. Direct compat spells are useless, indirect ones are not worth the drain and every GM will hate what will - no, what HAS to happen next: Mind-Control-mages everywhere. Highly specialized on maniulation spells - up to the point they can´t do anything else (because as if the mages weren´t f**ed up enough, now the defensive dice pool of an enemy can be nearly as high as yours (two attributes)) and if your opposition has a mage with spell defense, you can basically go home or order some pizza. To be at least a bit competent you still have to focus on mental attributes, so that you are STILL a glass cannon, but now - newly and improved - without a cannon....have fun!!!

Spirits: If i haven´t overread something important, spirits a still a high risk to summon because of the drain. Low-level-spirits are still useless in combat and high level spirits can now be blown away with a common gun, because the damage codes of the weapons were improved SO MUCH, that even a heavy pistol will automatically bypass the ITNW. Auto-successes really don´t better the situation and a force 6 spirit, hurt by a Ares Predator (without armor piercing ammo) is just wrong.

Rituals: I have to PAY to know a ritual? Karma? From what karma? The one that has been reduced already? The one i have to invest in double-high skills? Now i even don´t know how to summon a Watcher anymore? Or a ward? Things that have been basic knowledge in prevoius editions? Sorry but i don´t get it. How often do you use Ritual Spellcasting? Or a Watcher? It is NEVER worth the costs. Don´t even think about the TIME the need to finish the ritual. Circle of Defense that will be completet after [force] hours? What use should this ritual have? If it would be a Dresden-files-circle-in-a-second....ok. But hours? Useless bull***t, but HEY....THANK YOU FOR OPTIONS...Options that will NEVER be used because of stupidity. Thank you for even more useless watchers, that will now rather be replaced by force 1 spirits.

Echanting / Reagents: read the rules or believe me that it is useless to need hours to make a preparation that will last minutes, (unless you spend karma that you don´t have) and you save a lot of time. But again, THANK YOU FOR THE OPTIONS...if you play a game where your alchemist-lab is located in a van, so that the mage can prepare the useful stuff on-time and can jump in action right after finishing the preparation..it may be different. I still wonder how you will get that van into the high-security-office on the 120th floor you have to inflitrate, but hey....i am sure for every other playing group this is common business....NOT.

Wireless: What did they smoke as they came to this solution? Did a guy from the Shadowrun-Police stay behind them with a club, forcing them to do SOMETHING, no matter if it makes sense? And in the overall panic they came to this rule? Guys: The meaning of a smartlink is to give additional dice. Now the MAIN-PURPOSE only works as an addition? An addition that makes you vulnerable to attacks? Bull***t. And hardware damaged by hacker attacks? Wonder how this can happen. But logic doesn´t seem to be the strong side of these guys. Maybe they shouldn´t have fired all the competent employees and freelancers and keep the game-balancing to guys who know the game.

Mystic Adepts: So you really wanna tell me, that i can be a mage AND a FULLY CAPABLE Adept at the same time, WITHOUT negative consequences? Please tell me, WHY the hell somebody should play a common adept anymore. IIRC the mystic adepts had been called overpowered in SR4 and THIS is your solution? Aha...ok.

Elemental-Attack: only magic meters? Really?

RESULT: See first line of my post. If prevoius books don´t fix the system massively, SR5 is the worst system that has ever been published. Sometimes it looks to me, that they wanted to purchase the licence for Cyperpunk 2077 but couldn´t get it. So they reduce the magic-part of SR over time until it is the same. To the devs: Guys...SR is a game-world WITH MAGIC. MAGIC IS POWERFUL, OTHERWISE IT WOULDN`T BE MAGIC. DEAL WITH IT FOR GODS SAKE!!!

Posted by: binarywraith Jan 4 2014, 05:37 PM

That sure is a lot of butthurt.

The limits and skill limitations are there to create a sense of meaningful growth in character progression. In the SR4 style, and less so but still quite evident in the SR3 style, a character will have 90% of everything they'll ever have coming out of character creation. Limits have since been imposed to make starting characters obviously weaker than experienced characters.

Beyond that, yes. Magic is no long a push to win button. Your mileage may obviously vary on the quality of the methods used. For magic to be a PC usable skill, it has to be able to be brought within a mile or two of being balanced compared to other character choices, rather than being 'cast stunbolt, win combat, rinse and repeat'.

That said, it sounds like you may want to stick with SR4, given how angry a different game balance set seems to make you.

Posted by: Medicineman Jan 4 2014, 06:18 PM

This happened twice to me/my Chars in SR3 and never ,ever in 4A. most of my Chars need some 100 Karma to develope and maybe 800-1000 or more Karma to be at the End of Developement and I consider myself a Min/Maxer.
Saying that all starting Chars are at 90% final Potential is quite ...subjective
But Machiavelli has a good Argument (besides his ranting)
If You need more Karma to develope Your Char and You receive less Karma per Adventure it takes even longer for Chars to develope/prosper and thus the Game can be more frustrating than former Editions

with a developed Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: Stahlseele Jan 4 2014, 06:19 PM

And he did not even mention that you are supposed to get even less karma, if you follow the way of money and not be a goody two shoes instead.

Posted by: Smirnov Jan 4 2014, 07:46 PM

What are these rules contradictions you keep talking about? Besides troll lifestyle costs and all those mistakes from previews

Posted by: Fatum Jan 4 2014, 10:22 PM

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=39006.

Posted by: Smash Jan 4 2014, 11:49 PM

Limits are simply there to stop people heading straight for dice pool caps which slow down the game. Now you have to work on not only your skill pool but your limit as well. Your character still improves but without needing a bucket and a boxing ring to roll your tests (at least initially). Even your example is confusing because in most cases the limit the goon will have with any weapon will be greater than 3.



Does Shadowrun 5 have hard and fast Karma rules now? I haven't read this anywhere (although that certainly doesn't mean it isn't there) but in every edition thus far karma has been totally subjective. You want your game to progress faster then award more karma, if not then award less. I don't see an issue here besides you just looking for things to hate.



Direct combat spells are not useless. They are just niche now instead of a complete no-brainer like they were before. Having indirect spells being more generally effective has made Shadowrun magic more thematic, which is a good thing.

Mind control mages were MORE overpowered in 4th ed than they are now. I think you'll find that most people who have jumped on that concept have not actually read the rules on how mental manipulation spells work now. For instance getting 2 mental stats to resist is a massive improvement and being able to shake the effect is also new.



I think people have lost perspective on how good spirits are. It gives you a sentient follower who can potentially use magic, move through walls, fly and have excellent durability which you can summon with one action. They are better than any single spell by a country mile........... and you hate how they're no longer virtually immortal to non-casters? Jeez.................




I'd suggest that if you were up with your mechanics that force one spirits are actually quite hard to summon and that is probably why they have made watchers a ritual, but that aside I actually kind of agree that perhaps this is not a virtue of the system, although circle of healing is a nice ritual.



Enchanting was more useless in prior editions. It certainly needs some clarification but your description is full of hyperbole. It doesn't take hours to prepare but actually minutes. It doesn't last minutes it actually lasts hours before it even starts to lose potency. When you use the preparation it does actually only last minutes then but how long does it have to last? A combat turn lasts 3 seconds. The benefit of removing drain from combat (and possibly even sustaining penalties, although this pushes the whole thing into over-powered status and needs to be clarified) is simply awesome and easy to manage.

True you can't make 50 of them now and start using them next week but that doesn't make alchemy useless, it just makes it a strategic resource.

Personally, I don't like it, but it's easily ignored just like I assume you have been in 4th edition anyway?



Again, this is a viewpoint generated by people who read the rules and saw the implications to their favorite OP street-sam. The intent of the system is that deckers are rare and should not pose much of a threat to Runners out in the real world. Corporate deckers are too busy guarding nodes to be patrolling corporate grounds waiting to brick Shadowrunner cyberware, especially as a deck that isn't completely worthless costs about $150k. On the flip-side the new marix protocols took 99% of hackers out of the game, so NPCs should feel quite comfortable leaving their wireless on for the benefits. Not only that but if you slave all your gear to a good comlink (or your deckers deck) it's very hard for a decker to touch your stuff and you will know when they are doing it. They basically have to be within 100m to do it to you and have to have spotted your devices in the matrix previously (not just randomly find them online). There are some issues when perhaps a decker becomes familiar with your gear and escapes combat they can THEN find your stuff online but they will have to worry about noice and the GOD (if they are not corp sanctioned) and other hacking duties that don't go away.

The rest of the arguments about wireless are driven by realism, which I don't care about because I play a fricking vampire in the future. Realism need not apply. If you just let the wireless system be what it is it works fine. You may even find that someone might actually want to play a decker which hasn't happened since about 2nd Ed I think in most people's experience.




I agree this needs some work. I think Mystic adepts needed to be improved from 4th Ed but they are definitely too good now. Some minor tweaks will do that. Still not a terminal issue for the edition though.



Maybe a little short. LOS with no range penalty was too good though.



That's clearly not the case. Shadowrun has much better penetration than Cyberpunk which I think no-one has played since about 1990. So for this edition is the best one they've ever made. Deckers are back, cool and playable. A mage can choose other spells besides stun/power/bolt/ball now which is awesome! This is by far the best edition to date.

NOTE: People considering the switch, the pdf is $20, hardly a big deal. Just get it and give it a read. Don't take negative opinions on forums too much into account. No matter what the topic, negative opinions are always over-represented on internet forums because most people happy with a product are too busy being happy with it to come here and tell you about it

Posted by: Smirnov Jan 5 2014, 03:49 AM

I was hoping for some summary. ) Can't force myself to read that thread...

Posted by: tete Jan 5 2014, 04:09 AM

I have a 2E Character with over 500 karma (roughly 3 years of play), another guy in that group is nearing 1k. These characters were not possible in 4e as there was no room for growth. You have 1k karma in 4e and your playing the Mage/Hacker/Street Sam with nothing to spend karma on.

Mind control spells are the only thing I know of in SR4 that doesnt have at least 2 pools to pull from. Its not like they sell mind armor. So broken, 4e was Magic-run more so than 3e which seemed again to be way easy on the Spellcasters compared with 2e (where each drain code was a separate spell you paid exponential karma on). Now magic getting easier makes sense with the whole earthdawn tie ins but Mind control was still stupid easy in 4e.

Posted by: Glyph Jan 5 2014, 05:35 AM

SR3 was probably the high point for awakened characters, power-wise. SR4 made them slightly less powerful, although there were a few problem areas such as spirits being too hard for mundanes to damage at all, overcasting being too easy to do, and mental manipulation spells being potentially game-wrecking. Possession traditions were also a can of worms - mainly from it being abused against opponents (there should have been a rule for it to work on prepared vessels only, rather than making everyone vulnerable to an attack from astral space).

SR5, unfortunately, hit mages too hard with the nerf bat, to the point where they are barely effective. Or maybe it only looks that way. I would love for DrZaius to have a mage vs. mundane battle on his next Saturday Night Pit Fight, so we can see how good (or, more likely, bad) mages are in combat. But spells have higher Drain, do lower base damage (for direct combat spells), and the target gets two Attributes to resist them even though hits are still capped. So they don't look that viable to me, outside of a support role.

Posted by: binarywraith Jan 5 2014, 05:44 AM

You really have to read the thread to get the full scope of just how badly edited the 5e release is. The thing's riddled with issues that a more careful proofing would have eliminated.

My favorite one so far is used cyberware at character creation. The character creation chapter says you can get standard, alphaware, or used cyberware at creation. The gear section uses the exact same sentence structure, but specifically says you can only get standard or alphaware at creation.

Posted by: Medicineman Jan 5 2014, 07:36 AM

@Tete

I Myself have dozens of chars that prove you wrong. I calculated that they neeed 1500-2000 Karma (some even more) to be fully developed.
(and I'm afraid I will never see that coming because I don't play often enough)

Hmmm If You get an average of 5 Karma per run, it would take You about 200 Runs to get at 1000 Karma.
If you play once a week( Each Sunday f.e.) and you finish a Run with one or sometimes two Sessions ( my Groups need mostly 1 or 2 Sessions per Run )
Than you need an average of 6 Years of continous playing with only one Char each week (or even longer)
So If You start playing now each and every Week once You're at 1000 Karma CGL wil bring out SR 6th Ed.
What I'm saying is that talking about extreme high end Chars is ....kinda moot.
It reminds me of People complaining that MAG is theoretically unlimited with Initiations but they keep forgetting that it takes 200 Karma to raise MAG from 5 -->9 only

with a theoretically unlimited Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: binarywraith Jan 5 2014, 07:59 AM

You can tack any amount of karma bloat onto any character, Medicineman. But how much of that was actually honestly going to expand your character's ability in their primary role, and not just adding ability to cover secondary roles and more options in tough situations?

A well-rounded character has many more ways to meaningfully grow, and putting limits on how deeply specialized a character can be coming out of creation is one way to encourage making more rounded characters.

Posted by: Fatum Jan 5 2014, 08:10 AM

Yeah, thing is, sammies encounter the same problems (try saving up the money for wired reflexes 3, especially non-standardware), but don't have that unlimited potential. It's the asymmetry that is the issue.

Posted by: apple Jan 5 2014, 09:11 AM

But even as a Streetsam in SR4 you can put hundreds of karma into combat/physical skills and combat advantages. Increasing the limit to 12 is too much, 8or 9 would have been better - and the so much talked OP of mages is mostly a result of overcasting of spells and spirits (even the infamous stunbolt is only so effective because he can be cast on force 9 to 11 with low drain) and a lot of GMs missing basic rules (like BGC or +4 spelldefense when in cover). Remove overcasting (or reduce it to magic +2), increase the drain of combat spells a little bit, decrease the drain of elemental spells et voila, a lot of problems are gone.

SYL

Posted by: Godwyn Jan 5 2014, 10:29 AM

I wasn't active on forums for the 3rd to 4th changes, but are all edition changes so divisive? I read Machiavelli's long rant about SR5, and most of the points made are changes I liked. Adding limits forced me to reevaluate the way I've built certain archetypes time and again. That's a good thing.

Awakened still rule the world a bit too much sadly, but SR5 has it close to where it needs to be. They just always have more options for development. If ever a piece of cyber is more valuable than a point of magic, they can make that choice, mundanes never get the option in reverse (in the case of latent awakening they are not actually mundane). And with unlimited caps on initiation/magic, there is really no upper limit to either side for them. Though that does rarely come into play.

Honestly, the all caps ranting about magic makes me think, and I admit I could be wrong, that his personal cheese finally got called out, so now he has to adapt and refuses to. The campaign I currently run has 4 awakened and 1 decker with his deck in a cyberarm. So. . .I really don't see this OMG magic is unplayable. If it was maybe I could get more of my players to play cyberpunk not magicrun. And no, none of them are ever useless. From the mage levitating cars to cause wrecks during a car chase, to the adept Sammy who destroys things in combat, everyone does their role well. Which I think is the most important part of an cooperative RPG, everyone has a part to contribute. It is far more difficult for an awakened character to be able to come out of chargen doing everything. I find this to be a good thing. I want the players who play different aspects of the game to not get outshown in that aspect by single spells representing only a 5 karma aside from the mage.

On Mystic Adepts-I have found that in actual play, with the Missions errata to 5 karma per powerpoint at chargen, and the changes to power point acquisition, they are fairly balanced. On paper they look too good, but from what I have seen in play is they get spread too thin.

Spirits- I am comfortable with most of the changes, some bad some good. No longer can I have my half dozen+ watcher spirits floating around, ah well. Spirits do still have some problems, I like them being hurt by mundanes. It helps stop the magicrun problem. If only awakened can deal with spirits, what do mundanes do to spirits on a run? Why have a mundane at all if magic can always contribute, but in some circumstances the mundane never can? My personal preference would be for each spirit type to have a weakness so mundanes could combat them similar to Supernatural, but I will settle for mundanes simply not being useless. This makes having ranks in magical knowledge useful for even a cybersam just to know what loadout to use, and how to identify the types.

Matrix-If they only brought back implanted hard drives and megapulses, I would be set . Best matrix rules in awhile. A very good meshing of workable rules (generally) with SR fluff, without getting too distracted by how computers really work.

Wireless-I dislike the bonuses. Not the concept, the implementation. Too many of them are pointless functionality, or actually a detriment. Stealth suit needing wireless? Why stealth when you are broadcasting your location?

As for hacking them, it is dataspike which is the biggest problem. Though it does take a very good deck to do it, one shotting gear with a dataspike with no marks on it gets pretty easy.

As for editing and typos and layout. Those are all pretty bad. But some excellent artwork and the 3 page fold outs of the cityscapes are phenomenal.

I think it comes pretty clearly that I like the new edition. But I love learning new systems and then playing with them, as long as the system is good and functional. And SR5 is good and functional, though it is a few steps from perfect.

Posted by: Ryu Jan 5 2014, 10:39 AM

A "competent character filling one role" is subjective. In SR4 maxing a single skill at chargen is easy, while in SR5 starting as a competent team member is impossible even for that easy definition.

Specialists will need the additional dice from skills. IE: Samurai need to cope with 15-20ish defense pools pretty often. Let´s call it 100 karma/skill.
Attributes are even more valuable using SR5 due to limits.

If you are coming from some old-school system you´ll feel at home in SR5. For our style of play I´d need to have karmagen available (to amp up the starting ressources), hand out about two times the karma, and limit ingame attribute increases. For comparison: The current SR4 chars have 300 karma, need at least 200 more, and with some breaks from playing (SR4) the journey has taken two years.


Medicineman´s figures are insane, I remember (Just jealous...)

Posted by: Fatum Jan 5 2014, 10:44 AM

Yeah, unless we're talking evolutionary change (like SR1->3, or D&D 3->3.5), edition changes are always divisive. That depends on the quality of the new edition and the depth of the change, of course, so for instance D&D2->3 wasn't nearly as dramatic as 3->4.

Posted by: binarywraith Jan 5 2014, 12:04 PM

We've got a very different definition of 'competent team member' if yours requires the expectation of a maxed-out skill (noted in the fluff as 'best in the world class') coming out of chargen.

Basic characters with zero advancement should not be the best in the world at what they do. They aren't Prime Runners. They are very, very small fish in a very big ocean, who might maybe survive to be big fish given a few years and a whole shit-ton of luck.

Posted by: Fatum Jan 5 2014, 12:09 PM

A competent character is capable of succeeding at typical tasks required of him. And yeah, that requires high skill ratings (what a surprise!)

Posted by: binarywraith Jan 5 2014, 12:13 PM

Not much I can say to that other than that I don't think you've grasped the basics of game design here very well.

Posted by: Ryu Jan 5 2014, 01:09 PM

I´m Ryu, and I´m a skill junkie. I prefer karmagen for the number of possible skills (among other reasons), and despite spending heavily on low-rated skills and skillgroups usually can´t afford what I would like. I still have to admit that some areas can functionally be covered using only 2-3 skills. Especially in one-shot convention games.

I can spend tons of karma within my spec using SR4, and it will take years in RL for said char to be really good. And I´m not really allowed to increase magic beyond 5.

Using RAW numbers said progress takes many times longer using SR5, so I´d look at fixing that. As for relative positions (again, RAW), the SR4 character can be very competent in parts of their given field, while the SR5 character straight out can´t reach the necessary dicepools. Again, some people might prefer the new way of doing things.



@Fatum: IMO you don´t need the last few dice using SR4, so you can skimp on 2-3 dice from skill if you got yourself nice attributes and solid gear. On the other hand I would not like to loose dice using SR5. Combats last much longer when offensive and defensive pools are on the same level (say 14), compared to a 16:8 gap.

Posted by: Glyph Jan 5 2014, 01:25 PM

Yeah, when defensive dice pools go up, it has the same effect as decreasing offensive dice pools. I actually like the raise in skill maximums, if only to get rid of the ludicrous hyperbole that SR4 had, treating a single die (1/3 of a success on average) as if it represented a vast gulf of effectiveness. But despite that positive change, SR5 seems less cohesive and balanced as a whole, especially in magic (over-nerfed) and the matrix (illogical wireless bonuses and rules for bricking).

Posted by: Fatum Jan 5 2014, 04:33 PM

Well I think your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries, so? Anything of substance to contradict my point?

Ah yes, the glorious "let the dozen sources of bonus dice replace skills and attributes for my character".
Sure, yeah, plus or minus one or two dice aren't really significant compared to what you can get that way.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jan 5 2014, 05:20 PM

I highly disagree here. Mainly because I do not agree with the unlimited skill growth that was supported by SR2/3.
I Have 400+ Karma characters in SR4 who still are not where I want them to be; and even with an additional 1000 Karma (yes, I have characters with advancement plans that would take more than an additional 1000 karma to realize) would not be where I would like them to be.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jan 5 2014, 05:29 PM

Which falls back on the caveat that you are not required to build to the highest possible level to enter play.
Just because you CAN start out best of the best in the world does not mean that you MUST start out that way.

Posted by: binarywraith Jan 5 2014, 05:43 PM

Unfortunately that becomes the necessary starting point for stuff like Missions if you can start out that way. Because players will, and if you want to be able to take part in an adventure that may or may not have such players, then you have to build to their scale to not be completely overshadowed.

In a home game, it's not a big deal, the GM can control it.

Posted by: Mikado Jan 5 2014, 06:00 PM

So then... The real question should be "Why are they not running missions with the same GM balance that people play at their own tables?"

I have never seen the full abuse that people talk about here and on other forums regarding pornomancers and such. As it is, every character I have ever made for any 4th edition game I was in had dice pools in the 10 to 14 range and I was a rock star with them, saving the team on multiple occasions.

Posted by: binarywraith Jan 5 2014, 06:59 PM

Because it's a living-world game. The GMs don't get to 'fix' the rules by fiat, and all and all have much less control over a Missions table than a home game. Missions tries to run as close to RAW as possible (presence/lack of errata notwithstanding). So if something abusive is good under the rules as written, it'll fly for Missions games unless Bull or folks with the demo teams decide it's too disruptive to let keep happening.

Posted by: Mikado Jan 5 2014, 07:15 PM

Part of RAW is the GM's ability to say... NO... Just because some jackass sits down with a completely broken "pornomancer" does not make it any less the GM's responsibility to say jack off. Mission or not...

Posted by: Glyph Jan 5 2014, 09:16 PM

The pornomancer is the easiest character for the GM to balance within RAW, since social skills are so subjective - conversely, faces are overpowered mainly in campaigns where GMs treat social skills like magical mind control rather than subtle manipulations. They can't override inflexible protocols, make people spontaneously change their deepest convictions, or even get the Johnson to go over the maximum that he is authorized to offer the group (although it might get you a bit more logistical support). You need a situation where you can use the social skill (in other words, the charging troll swinging a combat axe at you is not going to screech to a stop because you use leadership skill).

Etiquette lets you fit in, nothing more. Con lets you temporarily fool people, and it is a good idea to be gone when they figure out they've been fleeced. Leadership lets you command people, if you have authority (impersonating a corporate VP) or are taking charge in a crisis situation (getting people to evacuate a building without panicking). Negotiate lets you come out ahead on bargaining, driving the price you get for something or the money you get paid for a service up, generally to some hard limit. That's it, that's all they do. Social skills don't make people give you free stuff, or let you command them to shoot themselves, or change their sexual orientation just for you, or any of the other ludicrous things that people have let pornomancers get away with.

Also note that Missions does use the optional dice pool cap rule.

Posted by: Mikado Jan 5 2014, 09:58 PM

I was only using the Pornomancer as an example...

That being said, even for Missions if you saw someone come up to the table with a Body, Agility, Reaction all maxed out while having Strength and Charisma at 1 while having virtually no skills save for Automatics at max with the cyber to go along with maxing the whole beast out you would just let them play??? I am sorry, I don't buy it.

EDIT: Look... I don't really care. I do not play "Missions" except for the ones we play at our own table. I am a proponent of "friendly play" where everyone agrees not to be an ass.

Posted by: tete Jan 5 2014, 10:56 PM

Well I dont have any 400 Karma characters in SR4 but my Street Sam was done by 50. I'm a firm believer in niche protection so I'm not making characters that are good at everything, most start out as good as possible within their role and then spend a 100 karma or so to round them out a bit and I'm done. I dont think this is a unique to me problem but I'll admit these characters have weaknesses and cant do a Shadowrun alone.

Posted by: Moirdryd Jan 6 2014, 01:41 AM

In answer to oe of the questions... Yes the edition changes are normally this, I'm gong to go with "nasty". 3rd - 4th wasn't very shiny and to be honest I never liked the look or feel of 4th and still don't. Skill Caps went DOWN, hacking was suddenly something everyone could do with a phone, the Matrix became just the Internet, Magical Traditions vanished in the blink of an eye, AIs suddenly seemed far more "common place", system variables diminished... The list goes on and became for many the tirade of what was wrong with 4th.

5th? Well, it needs more clarification on several rules (or errata), many people are reading things wrong (just look at the auto fire multi attack threads and the myth that you cannot shoot multiple targets with only one gun). Technomancers seem to hurt to do anything (lower fading codes are a must). It suffers from trying to use simple systems to do complicated things (which is why I dare say we shall see rules expansions for Magic, TMs etc in their appropriate books) and much if it comes across as the core of a much bigger system. SR3's strength and bane at once was it's subsystems and if a GM and player were willing to pr soe time into understanding them then you could really go far with the Character type because you had a Ruleset that catered to your needs, but it could also be massively over complicated in parts. SR4 ripped away the Fat and Musle to ave just goes and built upon that skeleton something new to the similar framework. SR5 is attempting to take the best of both worlds and put it in one. It's not there yet but has a great potential to achieve those goals.

For sone other comparisons
4 out of 5 SR editions core chargen mechanic has been Priority Gen (note Core).
4 out if 5 editions have had a skill advancement scheme above 6 iirc
4 out of 5 editions have presented the concept that you're a Starting Runner with skills that people want (need) but also requiring a Team to get the Job done. You're not and will not be a legend at regular chargen in any focus.
5 out of 5 editions ave ad drawbacks to the awakened in some way, each one as been differant.
Every edition has seen a differant diversity in spell selections and how effective those lists are.
Spirits are dangerous in every edition and those that think they are lacklustre from one to the next typically get killed by them.
In 5 out of 5 editions Great Dragons will ruin your day.
Cyber is Still a great Equalizer, why? Because it typically doesn't rely on a law of averages to do what it does for you and that law of averages Will screw you at some point when it hurts the most because the Great Gods of Gaming are Fickle!

Posted by: Smash Jan 6 2014, 02:07 AM

but....



Hardly a myth when the section on multiple attacks is quite clear that single melee weapons can but firearms only can with multiple weapons. Admittedly the SA burst section says you can do it but I have to wonder why you would ever use 2 weapons otherwise? considering that reloading is a perfect time to reset your recoil.

Posted by: Glyph Jan 6 2014, 09:32 AM

I would dispute that SR4 lets you start out as a "legend". It lets you get close to the maximum in one single skill, with a high opportunity cost in a finite pool of the points you need to create your character. Indeed, such hyper-specialists are usually even more in need of a team, since they can only do one thing. I never liked SR4's narrow skill range, but starting out with a skill of 7 did not close off any meaningful future advancement.

Comparing the core character creation systems is pointless, when point builds were not introduced until later in SR3, and karmagen was not introduced until later in SR4. While I don't mind SR5's priority character creation, it is still a step backwards as far as flexibility in character creation.

Posted by: Fatum Jan 6 2014, 11:30 AM

I agree absolutely on the sentiment that being competent in one thing only makes a team more necessary. However, the problem with SR4 is that of your primary pools, the vast majority of the dice you can have in them, you'll have out of chargen, and adding new ones will be prohibitively expensive.
It's still essentially the same in 5, but further skill advancements possible mitigate it somewhat.

Posted by: Moirdryd Jan 6 2014, 11:40 AM

I meant it more to point out that getting to the top of any one Skill Tree used to take time and effort in a lengthy campaign. From the way it's been represented in the last page or so SR4 sounds like that after 2months of play with 1game a week using the average award characters should easily be maxed in their primary focus if they didn't leave Chargen that way.

Posted by: binarywraith Jan 6 2014, 04:14 PM

It's supposed to take time and effort. A maxed out skill+stat pool means that the character is in fact at the literal human maximum in that skill. We're talking Olympic level athletes, maybe a dozen people in the world that good sort of levels. Having that be an expected possibility coming out of character creation means the system is broken.

Hence why I'm happier with SR5's chargen.

Posted by: Moirdryd Jan 6 2014, 04:59 PM

Yep, I'm in your camp there binarywraith.

Posted by: Ryu Jan 6 2014, 07:43 PM

I consider the option of having all levels of skill up front a strength. I play with people I know for 8-25 years now, we agree on power levels and it just works. Adjusting max. power for SR4 or starting ressources for SR5 is easy. I agree that limited starting power is more natural to SR5.

I´d establish some guidelines for spending karma using either system. Under SR4 we watch total dicepools, under SR5 it should be considered unsporting to only raise attributes.

Posted by: Nath Jan 6 2014, 10:49 PM

If you ask me, an olympic Athlete is going to have a maxed out attribute with the Exceptional Attribute quality (unlike Aptitude, it is not supposed to be one-in-a-generation rare), maxed out skill with a specialization, the Natural Athlete quality, and a maxed out or near maxed out Edge (because if you don't plan on spending Edge when you have the chance to qualify for the Olympics, I seriously don't know when you'll use it). But, yes, the 4th edition allow that at chargen.

There currently is something like 13,000 athletes participating in the Olympic Games, to which you must add a bunch of people at similar levels who come in excess to the number of athlete allowed to compete for their country (the US could certainly assemble half a dozen, if not more, basketball teams of Olympic level, for instance). On the other hand, the creation system allows me to build a Maltese Troll Magician who is also a talented sniper, knows Muay Thai, can fly any aircraft in existence, speaks fluently Lakota and Japanese, and has a Mafia connection. Which I don't think is there is even a dozen in the world (withstanding the "troll magician" part).

The question to ask is what is the purpose, or purposes, of the creation system. Initially, the first goal ought to be balancing player characters with different focus within a group, so that everyone can get its share of fun.
I guess a lot of people assume that the world balance suppose that what is powerful must be rare. They are thus willing to use cost to enforce rarity. That means if something is rare in the game universe, then it should require a significant investment, often with no regards to how useful or game-breaking it actually is. Those who summon reality here don't realize than in real life, skills are not conveniently into all-encompassing label like "Software" or "Pilot groundcraft" and that a gun can cost 50 bucks more and not be better.
If only applied to each item separately (by item, I mean attribute/skill/quality/equipment...), it leads to what I just underlined: rare items remains rare, but baroque combinations are totally allowed. So because Olympic athletes are rare, I can't play an Olympic sport shooter, but because magic happens and cyberarms are mass-produced and customizable, I can totally play an elven sniper adept with a cybered arm with maxed out Agility that will roll just as much dice, if not more. It certainly doesn't help the game balance, but it doesn't enforce world believability much more.

The actual debate is whether the creation system should forcefully gives characters room for improvement in their defining traits. The answer is not necessarily obvious. There are plenty of good stories that start with character at the apex of skill (if you try to translate a typical Hollywood action flick into a game, the protagonist would start with most combat skills nearly all maxed out, and they would rather spend the karma they earn to overcome their starting flaws, buy some knowledge skills about the environment they face, and raise Edge as they burn it).

Posted by: Sponge Jan 6 2014, 11:41 PM

Every group of players is free to adjust the character creation limits to suit their storytelling desires, so the system can't actually "force" anything of that nature. The starting character power level as presented by the creation rules is pretty arbitrary, after all, and at best it simply tells players "we've tested the rules with this particular power level and it's reasonably balanced and fun" and hopefully gives some kind of indication as to where that falls on the spectrum.

SR5's higher skill maximums allows for greater resolution in differentiating characters, which is a plus, but SR5's priority system makes actually changing that starting power level somewhat more tricky as compared to SR4's build points.

Posted by: Fatum Jan 7 2014, 12:05 AM

As soon as you agree to modify the rulesystem to serve your purposes, discussing its qualities with others becomes meaningless unless they also play at your table.

Now, the statement Moirdryd makes is as if the fourth edition is lacking in this aspect. Well, it simply isn't: nobody's forcing you to raise the one and only skill allowed to max level, and even if you do, you still have space for growth with qualities, genetics, whatnot. And that might require a long campaign, depending on how you handle rewards for runs. Neither does it eliminate the need for a team - in fact, the limits the fourth places on your skill selection amplify the need for a team, if anything.

The only problem we can talk about, thus, is the relatively higher difficulty of developing your primary skills as opposed to branching out.
Does the fifth address this problem? It does. Does it eliminate it? Not at all.
The same can be said of most changes in the new edition, sadly.

Posted by: Moirdryd Jan 7 2014, 03:01 AM

I'm sure you're right in that regard Fatum, but many of the skill / chargen rants have come from SR4 players who seem to believe that the top of the top should be, if not start able with then at least within arms reach. Which is fine for say Prime Runner games or entirely differant genre concepts entirely (like Exalted for example) but for what I've seen presented in 1-3 & 5 that kind if thing isn't portrayed as a core/starting concept outside of the Prime Runner type game. Given that I have not played SR4 and do not own any my only available basis for evaluation are the type of themes expressed and embraced in 1-3 and iterated in 5 vs the seeming objection coming from those who prefere SR4, leading me to believe from what I've read that beginning near the very top of your game in almost every aspect is a promoted concept for the edition.

For those who'd wonder why I'd see this you only have to look at the differance in concept between what Adveturers were in relativistic power terms from AD&D and 3.5 to 4E where you went from marginally better skilled than a twnsperson and brave to heroic and well ahead of most others of your kind. Or the chargen tweaks between 1st and 2nd edition WoD and the 3rd edition series where they went from rank 5 Attributes and Abilities being totally okay as a starting character from core points to things maxing at 3 without FB use and advice to STs to require very good rationales for Attributes of 4+.

Sadly there seems to have been an era in the last 7 years (ish) where the focus has become about Winning the Game with your character being better than the rest of the group's. Balance became less tied to any Theme and more to pure mechanical equality. It seems that is now being shaken off as people are wanting perhaps some more grit in their mechanics, more wriggle room in the system and a bit more variety and complexity in their game again. I'm seeing trends towards not just what is systemically solid but to concepts that sound cool or are based on a rather nice piece of artwork.

Point is SR5 is not a "bad" system (some better editing and more clarity here and there would have been greatly desired, and the internal logic of some of the Wireless stuff is more than questionable). Just as much as SR4 probabley wasn't a "bad" system and nor was 3. You're never going to please everyone and the more history that exists for anything the harder it is to work with. It's not like you cannot still play with the system or editions you enjoy (I still rock out MERP and LUGtrek and D6 StarWars despite owning most of the newer system books, although the new EotE for StarWars is now a favourite too). Sometimes it's nice to ave a new angle on an old favourite and sometimes is good to roll with what you already know.

Posted by: Fatum Jan 7 2014, 04:02 AM

Putting it short: at SR4E chargen, you can have all skills at rating 4, and either one skill at rating 6 (max) or two skills at rating 5. That's pretty far from the top of the food chain (if only because you need more than one skill), but it's definitely up there with skilled professionals.
I started playing pnp SR with fourth, but from what I gather, starting characters were actually more powerful in, say, third edition.

To... what, sorry? I'm pretty sure D&D's most recent edition is 3.5. There have been some weird boardgames printed under the title, but they have nothing to do with the system itself.

Well, mayhaps straight casters ruling the game might not be to everyone's liking? Actually, ruling multiple games :ь

That depends purely on the player, the system has little to do with it, don't you think? For a glaring example, remember when Drizzt clones ruled supreme?
The system here only determines what can and can't be fit into its framework, and unless we're talking weird D&D-labeled boardgames, most pnp systems work fine for any concept that stays within the genre they're created to cover.

So far my experience with it has been absolutely abhorrent. There are logical holes the size of a barn door even in the rules that are formulated well, and the contradictions in the rest of them make you either write a dozen-page houserule booklet, or drop the thing altogether.
Sure, you can have fun with any system in good company (or without any system, for that matter, too). It's even in my signature. But as far as the formal qualities that allow us to compare systems go, SR5 so far is bad. If anything, it is following the trend in moving from simulationism very far down the road to pure gamism - not just particular rules, but whole subsystems in it only make sense from the gamist point of view.

Posted by: Glyph Jan 7 2014, 07:18 AM

In SR3, a 6 wasn't the best in the world, but the skill descriptions made skills of 7+ out to be a rarely encounted thing, so a 6 in a skill was actually pretty damn good. Also, there were a lot less necessary skills. Perception was not a skill, athletics and stealth were skills rather than skill groups, counterspelling was derived from spellcasting, aura reading was only a complementary skill rather than one that was required to read auras, con was a specialization of negotiation, etc.


I am curious - is the fluff in SR5 for skills similar to that of SR3 (skills of 7+ are a big deal)?

Posted by: DMiller Jan 7 2014, 08:00 AM

6 - Professional
7 - Veteran
8 - Expert
9 - Exceptional
10 - Elite
11 - Legendary
12-13 - Apex

Reading the text that goes with each of these, 8 or 9 sould normally be max for characters (fluff). At 9 "Your name is synonymous with the skill." At 10 "You are famous, even among the very best in your field."

Posted by: Fatum Jan 7 2014, 08:55 AM

Posted by: Moirdryd Jan 7 2014, 12:53 PM

Aye, it's pretty close to the SR3 chart. It's also worth noting that Rating 6 Professional is the sort with the Capital 'P' it's noted somewhere else that a rank of 3 or 4 (which is something like Trained or competent) is the average skill rank for most people who use that skill on a professional day to day basis. So your average human doing what they do will be Stat2- 3 Skill 3-4. So extrapolating from Average Human Joe's stats: a Low dice pool is 3-4, and Average dice pool 5-7 and a High dice pool 8-9 in any given field of expertise. That bracket includes most Rent-a-cops, Lonestar grunts, Gangers, Weapons Dealers, Casino Jockeys etc.

Shadowrunners will tend to be a bit more varied. The Low Pool will still begin at 3-4 (for those with Stat 2-3 and the raw bones of 1 in skill), the average pool however jumps a little as most runners will tend to have a stat of at least 4 which links best with their chosen field and odds are skills of 4-6(max) pushing the range up to 8-10. The High pool for a Runner is typical max or near max at chargen being 11-12+Specialisations, I would expect to see one or two pools at this level for most runners in their chosen field at chargen. Obviously it shifts around with Metatype adjustments.