OK, humor me for a bit here:
1.) Tell me something a samurai can do that a mage/adept can not do as well.
2.) Tell me something a mage/adept can do that a samurai can not do as well.

No humoring, since it isn't important. You want to do something, you chose the character class that can do it. It's that easy. If multiple choices help you achieve your concept, you'll take the one you like best.
It has nothing at all to do with power.
Sure, there are individuals who'll go at it with an optimizer's eye, but as I stated: Most of those I've met went the Cyber/Bioware route.

Cyberware/magic, actually. Unless I forgot something remarkably horrible, cybered adepts were the worst. Or homebrew things like vampire elves or playable free spirits, but that's just random madness.

And this attitude represents everything that's wrong with the current design.




Most powergamers are either 1) Not as good as they think they are or 2) Realize how easy it is to break the game and instead restrain themselves to optimizing suboptimal concepts for their entertainment.

Don't know why you bother asking this. You know the answer. I know the answer. They know the answer. But it's going to get ignored because magic is supposed to be better. Except when they want to argue it's completely balanced. Fuck I hate people.

The thing is: Balance isn't necessary.
This is not Battlefield, or WoW or any other kind of game where you engage in Player vs. Player combat.

It's a collaborative experience. If you're butthurt about the mage being 'better' (and I still maintain, that he's only different), play Cyberpunk or any other kind of campaign where there are no mages. It's really that easy.

Whooo but you are a bitter one indeed O.o
you fit in here quite nicely. i like you already ^^

See this is avoiding the issue. Sure you can say it doesn't matter and ignore it. Or you can address it. It actually is possible to implement magic in such a way that it is not overpowered, you just have to accept that magical != limitless.

You can still have Magic be better than normal people, but a big trope in the game is that cyber/bio is an alternate progression path to Magic. It should provide the same potential level of development that magic does. I don't care if Mages can summon spirits and cybered people can't. That's only reasonable. No, what bothers me is when the magic guy has access to do just about everything and have all sorts of unique effects, while cybered guys are forced to be much more specialized, and the unique effects that cyber grants are practically nonexistant.

Of course, that's just what we already have in SR4. In SR5 we're taking that, buffing adepts, giving mages some new toys, and adding a new penalty to cyber. It's theoretically still possible to get a balanced game out of that, but only if there are massive as-of-yet unhinted buffs to cyberware, and a lot of new limits on magic we haven't heard anything about.

Because the case that's made is that cyberware dehumanizes you just because, you know it's cyberware, which raises the question, do any of the metatypes have an automatic adjustment to their social limit to recognize that they've been dehumanized? Is a strength 8 troll more dehumanized then a strength 8 human who gets their strength from ware? For some reason it does.

Basically what this is essentially saying is there is only ONE TRUE WAY to interpret the way a person views their cyber modifications, so much so that it actually colors their internal world view when dealing with other people. That's bullshit, because int his game where you can play a variety of people from a variety of walks of life and views and beliefs, so much so that for example it can support the Church of Elvis as a valid magical tradition the idea of a person not believing their ware dehumanizes them is rules ingrained verboten.

As to why i'm proably skipping the edition, because so far nothing has been floated that I've looked at and said "Yes that is straight up something the game needed badly." And many things have been changed that i'm kind of "meh" about, and a few things have been put forth, like this, that i'm actually strongly negative on, because they look on their face like a straight up bad idea.

Basically i'm going to try and keep an open mind, but when I see crap like this I have the thought process of "This is something I'm going to have to put up with in missions, and hosuerule if i ever run home campaign." And once we cross that threshhold it's very hard for me to pick up and run the game and evangelize it for others.

Right, so when we're talking about someone playing cybered characters we're all a bunch of minmaxers, when we're talking about changing how magic is balanced balance isn't important and it's not that sort of game right? That's basically your argument?

The most powerful adepts are those with some cyber added. If cyberware indeed gets nerfed to hell, as you fear, that problem would obviously be solved, so what exactly are you complaining about?


Then you would also have to introduce ESS loss or social penalties based on how fat the character's credstick is. The stark divide between haves and have-nots is a core tenet of cyberpunk, therefore having a bit more than nothing clearly distances the character from 99% of mankind.

It really, really, doesn't sound like that is the case.

I just think it's a shame how folks are latching onto a few lines from these previews, and then what-iffing them into the ground, reading them in the least charitable manner, replying to others who have done the same, and whipping themselves into a frenzy of negativity and derision before even seeing the final product. I don't know if the fault lies with the internet in general, human nature, previews, or the crowd in question, but it's...well, it's just a fucking shame, is all.

A lot of time and a lot of work and a lot of fighting and a lot of compromising went into this product, and it sucks that so many people are, for whatever reason, so clearly making up their minds about it before they really know how it all falls together.

So when can we expect to see the formula for the Physical, Mental, and Social Limits?

@Critias:
Because it does not sound as if it were falling together at all . .
It does sound as if it all is falling apart.

You misunderstand. I am saying, that in my opinion, there is no issue. The issue is made up. As thus I am neither avoiding, nor ignoring it. I am debating its very existence.
Sure, all the fields of cyber and magic and gear should be balanced. Inside the respective field and interacting with the rules necessary for this. But as long as the default Shadowrun setting doesn't pit player characters against each other, it does not need to be 'fair' (which is a highly subjective term anyways).


Uh. No. It isn't an alternative at all, because not everyone is magically active. You get it, you're lucky.
Of course, anyone can chose to create a magically active character, but tropes work in the universe, not in the rules. People cyber up to compete in a world full of cybered up and magical characters, but that does not at all mean that it is a similar, or even comparable progression.

It's cool if you see it that way, but it doesn't mean that it needs to be this way for everyone.

I don't know how the Social Limit works, but the essence or lack of essence would only be one factor.
So the social adept Face has a one or two higher limit then the cyber Face.
I'm sure there will be cyberware that will increase the social limit.

That said, I always thought there was too much ragging on cyberware in Shadowrun, a cyberpunk game.
At least in IMHO.

I mean think about it.
Who wouldn't get a data jack (the Awaken aside).

Who wouldn't get cybereyes?
Never have to find your glasses.
Perfect vision, see in the dark, never need shades again, never need swim goggles, take a picture at will, and see the current time and baseball scores at will without moving a muscle.

So everyone who could afford it would likely have a data jack and cybereyes too (since they have the display link).
Add in all the pilots, police, soldiers, and fireman would usually have augmented too (Mostly likely from military service.)
So why then would an obvious cyberarm be that scary?
And we are over 20 years further along so the vast majority of people alive have been dealing with cyberware all their lives.

Add in the reasons to not used cyberware seemed kind of forced.
They can "magically" force grow cloned body parts in weeks or slap in an "O" universal donor transplant, both of which would be way more expensive to create and store than a mass produced cyber replacement. So expensive that there is a thriving black market for human parts...

Unless you were awaken, why wouldn't you have them put in a cyberarm and be done with it?
One office visit and you get given a chip on physical therapy and you are out of there.
Frankly getting an arm transplant is way more creepy to me than having a cyberarm installed.
I mean it used to belong to some one else and you have no idea of where it came from.


I understand why they need to balance this and the whole Essence is self system works for the Awaken 6th World.
Still I like the cyberpsychosis method used in Cyberpunk at least for role playing potential.

Speaking of balance, it seems everyone want's to play an Awaken character.

In my game I offer a 50 thousand nuyen bonus to not play an Awaken character.

I would take that... Awakened Characters make up only about 25% of my concepts, if that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

you'd be paying me constantly.
i hate magic characters <.<

And only about half mine.

I've done a rigger/hacker twice, an eGhost once (sadly never actually got to play him), drake twice (two completely different builds), and...I feel like I'm missing one.

It's not about porn, at least in my case. I'd be straight if I weren't dating trans women as well as cis ones.

Anyways, there's too many posts on social limits, so I'll sum up: It really doesn't make sense that socialware and common cyber should create a social limit, but whopping amounts of magic and regularly staring into What Man Was Not Meant to Know doesn't. Large amounts of magic should dehumanize you, just like large amounts of obvious cyber. Really, that'd do more to nerf the pornomancer than applying yet another arbitrary and easily-ignored limit.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't even have a problem with Magic ratings higher than 6 giving a penalty to the social limit, as a kind of initiation tax. Bargaining with the dark forces and stuff, disconnect from the puny flatscans (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It's just the categorical vehemence and insistence of a need for balance that rubs me the wrong way.

And yet you in the same post make the claim that magic is better and that's perfectly okay. You can't have it both ways. You either say it's made up (and thus need to show that the two are in fact balanced), or admit it's a problem, and it will cause issues at many tables.



So you're saying your characters never run up against other humanoids? Holy shit you're playing a totally different version of shadowrun than I do.




If this is the case the only reason to play a cyber/bio character in game is because you consciously decide you want to be weaker. That's all kinds of bullshit and I can't believe it's actually being presented as a rational argument.

Let me sum it up for you, Seerow and give you back your 'bullshit' ad hominem: Reading comprehension is important.
I said: "Magic is different." and "Power is difficult to quantify" not "Magic is better."

I say: The issue is made up, and therefore there is no need to balance cyberware and magic. I don't understand why you insist on me making an argument for the balancing of the two if I state that there is no necessity for balance at all.
You can wail and gnash your teeth if you want, but the fact of the matter is, the default setting is not "Create a character. Kick other player's characters in the face".
If it was, then yes, balance would be a necessity, as in every competitive PvP setting. But it isn't. It's a roleplaying game, not StarCraft.

Furthermore, don't be ridiculous. Of course my player's characters face off against other humanoids. If you want to construct strawmen, don't use those that go up in flames if you point a looking glass in their general direction.
I'm saying: There is no need to be fair!
The world is unfair. If I decide to place my player's characters against Harlequin or a Great dragon, they'll be dead. I'm not that kind of dick, but if you face off against an NPC, all bets are off. I could throw a cyberzombie against a newbie team. Official adventures do that. I could throw a bug shaman against an experienced team. They'll either get creative, or they die. I'm not saying that I don't leave an opening for the players to exploit, but there is no actual need to make sure that the NPC has a challenge level appropriate to the party's median experience points. If you want that, go play D&D, where you get experience for beating traps.

Finally: People don't usually consciously decide to play weaker. The conscious decision is "I could play that. That sounds like fun." You're making an optimizer's argument in a roleplaying world. There are all kinds of shades between optimizers and 'true roleplayers'. Don't pretend that there is one particular type of player. And dispense with the shit-throwing, please.

Your argument has consistently been "I don't care about balance.

You say that power levels are difficult to quantify. Let's go back to square one.

-Magic can do whatever not magic can do
-Magic can do more things not-magic cannot do.
-Magic can do things that not-magic can do better than the not-magic people can do them.

You are trying to argue this doesn't matter because you can't quantify power. I am saying if the magic guy does literally all the same things, and then some, you have a problem. You can't actually handwave that away. You can ignore that at your table if you want to, but it doesn't mean the game is balanced, it means that your table doesn't care about balance.

This does not mean that balance isn't a problem. It does not mean the game is designed well. Saying "the game's unfair, deal with it" is the worst sort of cop out. I call your argument bullshit, because that's what the whole thing boils down to.



Or consider it this way. If you sat down to play, and one player said "Hey, I had a specific concept I wanted to run, but I needed 600bp to flesh it out properly. I'm going to run that, hope you don't mind", would you let that fly at your table? Would the other players at the table be okay playing along side another character that was so much obviously better than them all around? If that would actually fly at your table, congratulations, you have a perfect group. For the rest of us? Balance is a concern to at least some degree or another, and for many people, Magic being the end-all be-all solution for almost everything is an issue.