Shadowrun 4 Anniversary Changes Options

[tete]

Magic Changes

I picked other because I am still unsure how I feel about them.

[toturi]

I voted Other.

Because I do not yet have the book, I would say my opinion would hinge greatly on how the rules are changed to accomodate and balance both old and new player characters without any unpleasant grandfather issues.

If the book was meant (and marketed) as an whole seperate edition (an SR4.5 if you will), instead as just another printing of the old SR4 that is backward compatible with existing characters, then sure. As it is, the way I see it, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. IMO SR3 was not much more than SR2.5 but FASA had the good courtesy of selling me a whole new edition.

[Cardul]

*looks at Critias' well crafted posts*

OK, sometimes, Critias, I wonder if you are smoking something, as there are plenty of times where I really disagree with what you are saying, and think it is as paranoid as Cain's ramblings. This, time, however, you hit the nail on the head. I am a Battletech Player, as well, and I get frustrated by the grognards over on the Battletech forums who only want 3025, nothing new, nothing to change, ever. I see that alot here, as well, but, unlike Battletech, the Shadowrun rules change with each new edition. It may be the old timers who kept these great games going during the darkness that was the shut down of FASA, but it is the new players who bring life to the games. Sometimes, I get frustrated when I have to explain something I took for granted to a new player, but, hey, you know..it is the new players, the ones who come in with fresh eyes who can sometimes capture those moments of joy we all had when we were learning the setting. I enjoy the game, and, I like the changes. I look forward to my next game, which I plan to run in Seattle to take my players back to basics...(I am looking forward to running my old Fixer, Frederick Olivier Hollywood, again!). SR4A is what SR4 should have been, and I am glad for it. And it will definately appeal to new players. Especially since many core books I have seen for other game lines have full colour main books. D&D4E(bleg), Battletech, CthulhuTech...the times, they are a changin'. However, SR4A is also very much "Plus ca Change" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Muspellsheimr]

Except that many agree it should have been changed, but think it was done poorly, at best.

In regards to the opinion of newer players - my experience has been that, at least until they spend a good amount of time getting used to the system, their opinion on how the rules should work is almost always going to be as it is written. Even veteran players will sometimes think anything not RAW is to powerful or incorrect, regardless of how blatantly terrible RAW is, simply because it is not in official print.

I am also curious how many people voted for keeping it the same, not because they like it, but because they would rather not deal with it - yes, I know I have a Do Not Care option, but I would bet a number of people who should have voted for that did not do so.

[Angier]

It is rather idle to argue about what anyone better should have voted. They voted the way they have. deal with it.

[Fuchs]

"Low post count" does not equal "new player".

[Cardul]

"Low post count" does not equal "new player".

Thank you again, Fuchs. It seems alot of people on here keep forgetting that. I do not post here anywhere near as often as I do on the Battletech Forums, simply because, well, there is just not as much to say. I am not a House Rule Fetishist like so many of the people here, and, honestly, to me, here is just killing time until Holostreets is unveiled.(OK..yeah, I admit it: I still believe in Holostreets, a Battletech Movie, Battlecorps Exclusives other then miniatures every couple years, and the Jerry Bruckheimer Rifts Movie..) But, I have been playing Shadowrun in one form or another since 1993. Does that make me a new player, simply because I only have 475 or so posts on here?

[ornot]

i've not read the new rules yet, although they do sound interesting.
I've no problem with the karma increase for attributes. Advancement is not a big deal for me. However, i would be inclined to normalise for metatypes in exactly the manner suggested by the OP. My only reservation would be the problems this offers adepts, but they seem to have been thrown a bone elsewhere in the rules.
The changes in drain rules sound interesting, but reading peoples opinions and explanations leads me to want to change them slightly. I don't think the caster should have the opportunity to alter the net hits used. If you get lucky you should be boned almost as much as if the spell hadn't gone off at all! This emphasises the double edged nature of magic I like to present!
As for the ads, not having read the book I can't comment on how well integrated the are or how appropriate they are to the tone. Their simple presence isn't an issue for me.

[hermit]

In regards to the opinion of newer players - my experience has been that, at least until they spend a good amount of time getting used to the system, their opinion on how the rules should work is almost always going to be as it is written. Even veteran players will sometimes think anything not RAW is to powerful or incorrect, regardless of how blatantly terrible RAW is, simply because it is not in official print.

Or maybe it is a player who rather adheres to RAW because his group/pool of players prefers it that way so as to not always have to deal with one another's preferred and different sets of house rules? The minute you have more than one GM, you have more than one set of houserule preference. To avoid having to build characters for each, which many dislike, you then go with RAW.

I am also curious how many people voted for keeping it the same, not because they like it, but because they would rather not deal with it - yes, I know I have a Do Not Care option, but I would bet a number of people who should have voted for that did not do so.

Analysing how people would have voted in your way but did not is just showing you cannot take a vote that does not go your way.

[Angier]

besides that - older players could be done with the system only having fun by testing out the flaws of it. no system is perfect, the question is if the design focus of it was reached and is broad enough to cater to the majority of play styles.

conclusion: it is rather dull to rant about possible irritations in the poll.

[Hankinstien]

Two cents from a newbie --

I just started playing Shadowrun about a month or two ago with a group, we are totally new to it. Some of us have played D&D before, some of us are new to gaming completely. I feel pretty broadsided by the changes, simply because I just bought my 4th ed book like 3 weeks ago, not knowing there was going to be a new version with new rules coming out. So in that sense, I wish there had been more advance marketing so I wouldn't feel like I wasted my cash, or my time.

We are just now getting used to the SR4 rules without the new changes, and so I don't plan to add a level of confusion to my players by telling them that several of the rules we're just now starting to get a hang of are getting overhauled.

I don't see anything in the new rules that "bothers" me really, although until we've playtested it ourselves, I don't know how they'd work out. I just want to keep it the same and simple for a while. Once we've been playing for longer and feel really comfortable with the SR4 rules as they are, then we can talk about changing it, and maybe I'll pick up the new book (I am tempted by the full-color and new art, etc).

As for now, it just feels like too much too fast, although I understand thats probaly just me, since we just started. For those of you that have been playing 4th for a few years, maybe the changes are welcome.

[NockerGeek]

"Low post count" does not equal "new player".

Amen. I have a ridiculously tiny post count, and I've been playing SR off and on since that first edition back in '89.

And for the record, I like the SR4A changes.

[InfinityzeN]

Karma cost for Attributes? Yes I agree with the change, since it brings them in line with the skill cost.

Direct Combat Spells? I think the new way is not the best way. A 1 or 2 flat increase in Drain, plus doing something the Nerf Overcasting across the board is what I would have rathered.

Ads? They are fine, though as someone said earlier, they could have been done much better to fit the appearance and flow of the rest of the book. Make them fit the style of the rest of the book.

[knasser]

"Leave as is" still seems to be ahead in the Attributes and Ads polls, but at time of posting, Direct Combat spells has now shifted somewhat toward dissatisfaction with the errata.

65 voters for leaving as is.
47 voters wanting something different.

That's 3 to 2 in favour of keeping the changes which is actually pretty close.

On the subject of generalising about the stance taken by long-time vs. new players, it's meaningless to do so. It wont be accurate. I have played since 1st edition (skipped 3rd) so am certainly a long-term player. I am in favour of nearly all the changes except one which I see as flawed and one I am neutral on. So how has my stance been governed by the length of my playing?

It's moderately insulting to both new and old players to believe that our ability to determine the pros and cons of something must be derived from some arbitrary date of first playing rather than based on our ability to reason and evaluate. And if it's meaningless to generalise then it's meaningless to try and attribute a motive to the developers of favouring old or new players.

[crizh]

I'm sorry I brought it up.

It was really only a smokescreen for a different suspicion that seems to have been disproved on the other thread. My bad.

[Bull]

That seems odd to you?!?

That's the way Dumpshock has always been. Were you here when SR4 came out?

Message boards tend to go one of two ways...

The most common way is that the majority of the active posters like to "bitch". Part of this is that the internet is a great way to anonymously be a jerk and vent your frustrations, and part is that some people like the idea that possibly their gripes are being heard by someone official. Of course, people being people, they start assuming it's their right to bitch non-stop at every possible turn, and things just spiral down from there.

There's also a much rarer thing that happens with a message board, and that is the majority of the posters are active, and very positive about whatever it is they're discussing. Usually though, this is just as bad as the previous issue, because they group tends to form a hive-mind mentality, and are almost vicious to anyone that wants to have a negative opinion about any aspect of the subject or the hivemind.

It's incredibly rare to find any board that's achieved any kind of balance, and even when one does, it invariably doesn't survive for long, as members come and go.

It's sad, but it's true. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[Doc Byte]

I could live much better with the new attribute costs, if skills would be lowered to x1,5 an skillgroups to x3. But that didn't find much fans at Pegasus' forum in Germany because it is believed to make the rules too complex.

[crizh]

The Hivemind thing is definitely a problem and it cuts both ways.

There are the mindless Thralls following the company line. Been there done that, defended Matrix:Reloaded until I was blue in the face.

But then there are the sheep that follow the herd that bitches and moans about anything and everything just for the sake of it.

Trouble is how do you sort out valuable opinions of people with genuine concerns from the clamour of those two groups.

And then there's the Trolls.....


OT Why does the Poll claim 131 people have voted but I can only count 120 votes?

[ornot]

it prolly includes null votes.

[jago668]

The easiest way to sum up my opinion is this. I won't run using the new rules, nor will I play in a game that uses the new rules.

[fistandantilus4....]

Can I make an observation? It's genuinely not a criticism.

Apart from Hermit, who might well argue black was white for a good fight, kidding, almost everybody in all 17 threads discussing this who thinks the nerfs are a good idea are people who haven't had much to say up until this week. Very few have a post count of over a thousand.

The folks who dislike some or all of the changes are almost without exception people who are on here every day discussing SR4 and what they like and dislike about it and how they would like to see it changed.

Wow, I know that this was the other day, but I had to comment on this. Can you seriously think that the number of posts a person has reflects on their knowledge of Shadowrun? I've got near 5 times the post count to Hermit or Knasser, and I'm quite certain that both of them have a better grasp of SRs rules and their intricacies than I do. Post count means jack all. The more avid posters tend to be people who want to share (or press) their opinion more. I happen to like a lot of the changes, and disagree with a few. I also don't feel a real pressing need to argue it out. I know what I'm going to go with at my table, and leave it at that.

The understandable concern is what is going to be considered hard and fast rules in the future at conventions and Missions. The difference between the vocal minority and majority and those aren't is just that they are vocal. Everything else is opinion or preference.

[Ragewind]

Seeing the Direct Combat spells change left a bad taste in my mouth, guess what my vote was?

[Cain]

The pool is poorly-written. The first option is: "Leave as is"; which, since most people here don't have SR4.5 yet, may mean to them to leave it as in SR4.

I'd like to see a poll where the exact changes were listed as options. With the high dissention levels, I'd bet things would swing around real quick.

[The Jake]

All,

I am not seeing an errata. Do I have to buy the book to see the rules updates?

If so, then 'I Don't Care' as this book and version of the rules will not be used by my group as we've just bought two copies of the BBB between us and won't be wasting money on a new one.

- J.

[Muspellsheimr]

It will be released as Errata sometime in the near future, supposedly (date is unclear, but it will be in errata).

For those who do not yet have the book (I am not including OR changes or limits on upgrades, as those are not part of this poll):

Direct Combat spells involve channeling mana directly into a
target as destructive and damaging energies rather than generating a
damaging effect. Affecting the target's being on this fundamental level
with raw mana requires more focus and more power than producing
basic effects; as a result every net hit used to increase the damage value
of a Direct Combat spell also increases the Drain DV of the spell by +1.

A character can increase Physical or Mental Attributes, Magic,
Resonance, or Edge by 1 point at a time. The cost of improving a natural
attribute rating is the new rating x 5. For example, if a character
wants to improve her Agility from 4 to 5, the cost is 5 x 5, or 25 Karma.

Advertisement Preview (5 total)