There isn't any more mental math in 1-3e than there is in 4e. Giving a TN to hit is no different than giving a player the right # of penalty dice. I found it easier because I wasn't juggling a different number of dice all the time for the same NPC template. All the thugs just rolled 4 dice for shooting with he pistol or whatever I just adjusted the TN for each NPC, I didn't have to constantly switch up how many dice I had in my hand. Also I find different subsystems easier to remember in game than a exception based core rule system.

If you are talking probability, I could care less what the odds are. You have a TN is 8 roll and find out how many successes you got.

Also in 1-3e I found it a whole of a lot less necessary to make it a penalty based game like 4e is. 4e seems to try to feebly balance archetypes with different penalty systems. You should always have a background count of X or the mage is going to be too powerful, blah blah. If I constantly have to create modifiers to form the internal balance between archtypes I have a lot more work on my hands.

Maybe it is just me, but I think that the streamlining of 4th edition is a godsend, as it makes learning the game for new players a great deal easier than the older editions...

Also, I see no problems balancing the archtypes against each other (Real life is not balanced after all), without going to the extremes that you describe (such as background count always an X)...

Keep the Faith

Changing the number of dice with fixed TN (which we already did back in 2nd Ed.) just seems more natural with a dice pool system, where it is the number of successes (yeah, hits), that is relevant.

It also plays out more intuitively at least for me. The streamlining surely plays a big part here.

Bye
Thanee

You're right, it is just you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

SR4 is not really more streamlined than previous editions. It *is* better-written and laid out, which helps make it more intuitive and easy to grasp. But that's due to the writers, and not the system.

Just a quick note I have had the chance to run 2 sessions for my wife as a decker/hacker. One in 3e and one in 4e, all she has played various short shots of shadowrun (maybe a half dozen games) and never really liked it. She has played the old sega game alot. She found 3e much easier to grasp. This is partly because I know 3e better and the adventure for 3e was a bit better suited for a decker to have alot to do. So its not quite apples to apples but it does show that at leased from a players perspective 3e can be more strait forward than 4e.

[edit] some of her thoughts... The target numbers made gauging how tough the node was easier. Tests were easier because all you rolled was the skill + a dice pool if you had one (which is obvious, hack pool for hacking). You didn't have to try and remember "oh yeah logic caps my successes". Program names were easier to understand what they did. There were less skills, you didn't have to look up if it was cybercombat or hacking for that test. Another example was datasearch & computer, too many similar skills.

If you're building large numbers of NPCs with the PC character creation rules, you're doing too much work. Most characters don't need to be fully fleshed out. They need attributes and they need dice pools for the tasks they're going to perform. Decide how good you want them to be at things, make up some numbers, and you've got yourself a character.

Priority saves a bit of time on character creation, but it's still possible to make a terrible character with poor point allocation. In particular, there's a huge barrier to entry with equipment in every SR edition. You've got a huge pile of nuyen to spend ((IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) 1,000,000 in SR3!) and a huge list to spend it on. Buying the right guns, cyberware, decks/commlinks, drones, vehicles, and so on and so forth requires a huge amount of knowledge of the system. If you know how to equip a character, you understand the game well enough that with priority or with build points you can put something together quick that isn't a trainwreck of a character sheet.

In 2nd/3rd Ed. every 2 net successes an attacker made increased the damage level of an attack by one. Every two net successes the defender made on their Damage Resistance Test reduced the damage level by one.

So, if you got hit with, say, a 16D attack (power 16, Deadly damage), and your ballistic armor only soaks up 4 points of the power of the attack (12D attack), and you rolled one success one your Damage Resistance Test (which means you rolled a 6, than rerolled the 6 [using the Rule of Six] and got a second 6, for a total of 12, thus hitting the Target Number of 12, which is a pretty good roll, all things considered), that one success is not enough to downgrade the damage of the attack to Serious (you need 2 net successes to reduce the damage by one level). Thus, you take Deadly damage. You cross off all ten boxes on your Condition Monitor, and you are unconscious. Not dead, per se, but most certainly out.

That's what they need, but according to the rules, you must build them with BP's. I prefer eyeballing them as well, but by the book, I'm not allowed to. I believe that SR1-3 recommended the eyeball method as well.

This is where you and I would disagree... there are no more (or at least a minimum of) sub-systems, this is a big change from SR3 to SR4+ (where everything was a subsystem)... with everything working the same, it IS more streamlined in a lot of ways (though not everyone understandable likes this change)...

This change alone makes it more intuitive, though the layout and design also help a great deal in this matter as well...

Keep the Faith

Why exactly are you building the NPC's with BP's?

Use the NPC templates and customize to your taste... takes about 2 minutes per NPC (if you even change anything)... the only NPC's built with BP/Karma are Prime Runners... if you are spending BP's for every NPC you stat, you are doing too much work...

Some of this seems to come from mis-understanding.

How are the Rating of nodes diffrent across editions?

4e is Skill+Program. How hard is that?

Logic Capping successes is a houserule.

Program Names are better? Half the time they have the same names.

To many skills? You use like 3 while hacking.
Are you fighting? Cybercombat
Are you Hacking? Hacking
Are you using a regular computer acess? Computer.

I agree with you about data search, though.

I guess I never saw this as a problem as the attacker also needed pairs of successes to stage the damage up to deadly. The only weapons that do strait deadly (thus only needing one success) should kill you outright anyway. Thanks for the clarification as I can see what your saying.



So nodes are now system+firewall the PC gets no prior knowledge to what they need. The metagame of 1-3e the gm may tell you the target number before hand (rather than potentially having you roll infinitely with the rule of 6) thus giving away the difficulty of the system. So you could use the metagame knowledge to jack out.

The problem she had wasn't with the mechanics (which are actually a rehash of the original mechanics) it was with the terms. Deception is more strait forward as to what it does than Exploit. You have to remember to that she has played the sega game alot so the program names from 1-3 she kinda already knows.

Your correct, this was an error on my part thinking that the optional rule listed in 4A where you use attribute+skill hits capped by program rating worked the same in reverse for the regular system.

The programs that threw her off were all the new ones and the couple of name changes.

Yes your using 3 for hacking... compared to 1 skill in 1-3e.

Again this was not quite an apples to apples test. 4e had two things against it going into the test. 1) my experience level, I can run 1-3e in my sleep having run over 100 sessions of 2e, and over 50 of 3e and at leased a dozen of 1e while having at most 1/2 dozen games of 4e. 2) the 4e adventure was not as well designed to give the decker things to do. It was interesting to here my wifes points however coming from someone who as a whole doesn't like shadowrun. 3e was much easier for her grasp (I blame the sega game, and terms used). She has not read the books (other than some novels) so this in no way has anything to do with the quality of writing but just the choice in terms used.

I'll throw in my .02 nuyen and say that I prefer 4th edition to any previous edition. I've been playing off and on since 1st edition in '89. My preference is based on a whole bunch of small reasons, many of which have been mentioned by other posters in this topic. I find the core die-rolling mechanic to be a vast improvement on the old one. I have a much easier time as GM estimating probable success for a given size die pool. I didn't much care for dice pools, so I don't miss them. I like Edge. I like the new BP chargen system. I like that not all magicians start at 6 Magic. I could go on in that vein for a while.

Biggest single selling point is the updated computer and communications tech. My tastes in near future gaming have trended toward the Transhuman Space direction, but I hate GURPS and I like the tech/magic mashup of Shadowrun. So I'm glad they've made the SR setting a little more in line with current trends in SF futurism; even if all the AR and wireless stuff is less than 20 years off, not 50. In fact, I'm considering introducing more Transhuman Space elements like full digital consciousness transfer and more prevalent nanotech.

Is it simpler overall? Maybe a little bit. Certainly more unified, but not much simpler. Doesn't matter to me, since simpler wasn't the selling point anyway.

I agree that there are no more subsystems, at least as far as the core book goes. But in both cases, the subsystems are just a twist on the core mechanic. (Discounting the Maneuver Score, of course--I *despise* the maneuver score.) The streamlining is largely an illusion.


Because that's the rules. You are supposed to build each and every NPC using the PC rules, and eyeballing it or modifying the existing templates is technically cheating. I *like* modifying and eyeballing better, but I don't pretend
I'm following the rules when I do so.

Acording to my rulebook, only Prime Runners are build with BP. Grunts Abilities and Skills are dependent on their profession rating.

I have to admit that as a GM I always had trouble keeping track of the NPC's dice pools. I either had to write them down (which took time) or make them up (which wasn't fair).

Other than that I think that a good example of the streamlining is the posession spirits rules. In SR3 there was at least one ruleset per spirit type (bug, shedims, voodoo...) now there's only one posession rule that covers them all with little to no impact on the fluff. That's the kind of change the streamlining is about.

Well its also Me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
And Yes SR4 is more streamlined.
In SR3 you had Riggers and Deckers and they had different Rules or accessing the Matrix .As a Decker ,you needed
special "Riggerware" even though both used the same Matrix.
Now in SR4 they use the same stremlined Rules.Much better,much easier ,for Players and for the DM.
What about the MiJi Rules.3 separate Tracks,that made the Takingover of a Drone very cumbersome and lengthy.
What about slow and complex and difficult Matrix Rules in SR3 .I've been (and I'm still going) to a lot of Convenbtions. Most often SR3 GM's didn't want any Deckers because the Rules where very Complex. Now in SR4 the hacker is a needed
Member of the Runners Party 'cause the rules are easier (I used to Play some SR3 Deckers, my SR4 Hackers are much easier to Play)
Magic : !!
in SR3 you had one Set of Rules for each different Tradition.One for Hermetics,one for Schamans,Voodoo, WuJen,etc. They where all different Rules,the Spirits where all different.
Now in SR4 its all Streamlined you have the Same Kind of Spirits no matter what kind of Mage you are (they're only different in One way ,when theyre Possession Spirits)
so its so much easier for GM and Player alike
Now its the Fluff of the Tradition thats more Important,so its more "Roleplay" (I hope you get my Meaning,sometimes its not Easy for me to find the right Words (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif) )

Oh,one more Thing
Cain Is wrong,when he says that SR4 NPCs have to be Build with BP.
Its their Profession Rating thats important. only High Class NPCs are build with BPs (Same as SR3 NSCs)

With the right Dance (I Hope)
Medicineman

I have played 3rd edition from time to time in past, but once we really got to try out 4th edition i have to say it is a joy now.

I always found the setting to be interesting enough to play the game even if that meant I was not too fond of the core mechanics and combat system that was overly complicated.

Add to that, that most of the times we played without magic in the setting and without deckers (since the decker was a solo game anyways, we used an NPC for that).

The biggest change is truely the better layout of the book, even if a few references are off, it is nothing compared to 3rd.

I remember it was very frustating trying to grasp rules for rigging (we didn't have expansion book for riggers). It was basicly 1½-2 page in the book that gently touched the concept of rigging or so i recall.
Another example i remember was me asking another player, what this table column was short for, we found out it was not even in the book. That is so far out its not even funny.

Actually it is alot of small and big things that makes it simpler, that is best described as a generel overhaul. That is not say that it has become very simple, there are still a lot of speciel rules, most related to modifiers and the process of accomplishing something.

There are other things as well, like edge and new BP system, that makes 4th cool.

Been a while since I looked at 3e, but as I recall the 3e program names where really confusing. Names like sleaze are way less obvious than 'stealth'. 'exploit' should be easy enough for anyone that knows english most of the time.

Didn't 3e have a bunch of other unclear names along the lines of sleaze and schmooze?

I think your girlfriend/wife (Don't remember what you said) got a bit of a biased view since you yourself are exceedingly more experienced at running 3e than 4e, and her previous experience with the SNES game (Which is awesome by the way). She isn't all that objective when she has had tons of experience with the old system and none with the new.

Stealth, attack, data bomb, encrypt, armor, medic. All the 4e names seem entirely self explanatory to me.

As a GM, there are no rules, only guidelines. Nothing I do, if done in the service of making the game fun for everyone, is cheating.

I picked up SR 1 the first Gencon it came out, ran a nine year campaign using Third at the end.

Been running SR4 for almost 2 years now.

SR4 does a wonderful job covering all the ground that 3rd did using a fairly uniformed game mechanic.

I had serious trouble keeping up with all the game mechanic subsystems towards the end. And some of them were pretty bad (like rigger on rigger combat for control of a building system).

No knock on third, but 4th is better written and they already knew everything they needed to cover so it is much better organized.

Yes I miss some of the detail in third, but having simpler game mechanics that are so much easier to learn or teach really makes it worth while to me.

I think that sums up how I am feeling about it but I started this thread because people kept telling me move your group to 4e because its simpler. The more I read/play 4e the more I feel that while it has its improvements, simpler is not one of them.



I disagree, deckers have been easy to play since vr2.0, infact you can play them with little to no mini game (at leased no more than a face character or anyone else gets) unless you get wrapped up in the fluff of describing the matrix. Most of the time you can handle matrix runs in 1-4 rolls, unless they set off the alarm and theres matrix combat its pretty quick. The new rules may be slightly faster just because the target threshold against all the tests is the same where as in 3e they could change the target number of a test based on action. The only way they are more useful is the fluff, now with common wireless (3e had wireless just not everywhere) and hacking peoples cyberware they have more they can do but thats a timeline thing not a rules thing.



Yes, all the more uncommon programs had gonzo names. 4e lines up more with common computer terms (more so), however if your not in the biz the term doesn't mean anything to you.

Let me use slightly more precise terminology. If you think of the SR4 rules as a systems hierarchy chart, I think you'll see a smaller number of higher order levels in SR4 compared to SR1,2,3, representing the (mostly) unified core mechanics. At the bottom level you still have the same bewildering variety of little things to remember like all the DP modifiers and sub-mechanics like Full Defense, Surprise, Grenade Scatter, and on and on. SR4 is less complicated because there are fewer higher order levels, but it's just as complex as previous editions because of the number of entries in the lowest order level. For instance, in 3rd edition you have the 3rd order level entries of Magic, Combat, Rigging, Matrix and others I'm forgetting. Under Magic you had a lower order entry for each of the traditions, and each of those traditions had a set of lowest order rules. SR4 dispenses with all of the second order entries for the Magic system, essentially turning it from a three-tier to a two-tier system.

Is this making sense?

Actually, you didn't need that; your decker could add an extra datajack, but then he could rig and deck with the best of them. I ran a rigger/decker for a long time, and I never had different trules for accessing the matrix. You didn't control drones through the matrix.

I've heard a lot of people complain about the Matrix rules, but few (if any!) can point specifically to what makes it a problem. I think it comes down to the writing again: SR3 was obtuse and impenetrable, while SR4 is easy to read and accessible. That makes SR4 seem to be easier, since it is more inviting. But the systems themselves are still very complicated. SR4 also uses a bundle of special-case rules for the Matrix, especially if you add in Unwired.

Nice to see you haven't changed a bit Cain. I'm glad you feel the way you do, but not everyone agrees with you. Feel free to give me several more pages of you reinforcing that you like it, but for my dollar and my personal preference no version of Shadowrun, and I've played all 4, does the Matrix in a way I like, or find useful at my weekly table top game.