D&D 4E, Split from The Great CGL Rumors and Speculation Thread Options

[Redjack]

Please continue D&D 4E discussions here.

[Dwight]

Thanks.

It might not be a perfect fit, but if it would result in a SR session where all the players sat down with characters that were of about the same level of competency and the GM had some sort of clue of exactly what they could or couldn't handle, it might be worth it.

Strange, those are two problems that I've never really had in SR. Both uneven levels of competency, since the areas of competency tended to be spread wider across situations than in D&D, and judging what some team may or may not be able to handle. Other than SR tends to retain deadliness that D&D slowly removes with higher levels (though not as much in D&D 4e). Of course changing the later is a pretty serious change to the world/conflict resolutions. Respect for a mook with a shotgun is something that would create a very noticeable, wide felt change in the atmosphere of the results of the conflict resolution if removed. Ergo it is not a problem, it is a feature.

It might be a worse fit if melee didn't play such a large role in SR, but it does, so rules based off D&D 4e would work pretty well since they do melee and ranged.

Tellingly in a decidedly different manner. Then there is the matter of how the spaces of modern worlds mean something very tactically/strategically different than the spaces of even faux medieval worlds. It is actually something that SR isn't the greatest at modeling, and it's been built for a modern setting from the very beginning, and obviously D&D is pointed somewhere very different. For good reasons.

A better fit for a system is something a bit more modular where the core isn't the combat system. So you can readily replace out the combat system if it isn't geared towards the modern setting without gutting the system core. Also keeping combat more a peer of other actions.

[Cheops]

Of course range doesn't matter in SR depending on how you normally run your games. If you are constantly fighting in buildings or smallish compounds it isn't an issue -- may as well be in a dungeon. I think it would be good enough to deliniate a short range (which may come up in a grid combat) and a maximum which will let you know for longer ranges. YMMV, but I haven't seen any SR tactical combat being used for long range battles at my tables (usually this is because it is a sniper or ambush at range so the other side doesn't even get a chance to fight back). Huge range battles, like mortar fire, naval battles, dogfights, and artillery bombardments are probably best handled through the skill systems or skill challenges -- not grid combat.

Competency isn't about coverage -- its about usefulness. Try putting a Street Sam into a party of 4 mages. How useful is he? Not very. How much better is a group of 4 mundanes just by the addition of 1 mage? What is at issue is why can't everyone be just as useful? Let's say you need to add a Striker to the group and you have the choice of a Magical one or an Augmented one. In SR you are almost always better off with the Magical one. In SRD&D4 it wouldn't matter -- what does the player want to play? Does he want to shoot fireballs or shoot guns? Both are equally useful to the team and both do the designated role.

Actually the competency of the D&D system is that it DOESN'T make any rules for stuff outside of combat. That is left completely up to the group to decide at the table. There's a rough skills guideline but the idea was to leave decisions about fluff and setting to be decided at the table and not in the rulebook.

[tete]

With all respect to people who want D&D SR this is not a game I would want.

Here is why

I HATE COMBAT!!!!! I have no interest in playing a combat game, I'd rather go play counter-strike. Shadowrun is AWESOME because its about sneaking and lying your way in to get something and getting out without having any combat. What drew me to Shadowrun was that if we did it right there was no combat and if we did it wrong combat was over fast and people were dead (usually us). I also dont want a balance RPG. I enjoy playing a mundane face, decker, magician, everything. Its not about winning or balance its about having a good time and getting to play a fictional character. I dont want my mage and my street sam to play the same at all, they should feel very different. Also I love dice pools!

[Cheops]

Who says you aren't allowed to sneak around and be clever in a D&D version of the game? At least if you failed and ended up in combat you'd have a very solid, exciting, and balanced set of rules for simulating that combat. I'd rather have a super slick combat system and then be allowed to have lots of leeway in handling the non-combat stuff than the other way around.

The reason balance in characters matter isn't because you can't have fun being weaker than someone else. It's because it is a royal pain in the ass for the GM if the group is as unbalanced as a typicall SR group. If you have 1 character who can routinely get around/through/over absolutely every challenge single-handed then, when the GM throws something that is a challenge for that 1 character it guarantees that the other players won't be able to contribute or that their characters die. It's not about the players -- it's about the GM.

[Crank]

Who says you aren't allowed to sneak around and be clever in a D&D version of the game? At least if you failed and ended up in combat you'd have a very solid, exciting, and balanced set of rules for simulating that combat. I'd rather have a super slick combat system and then be allowed to have lots of leeway in handling the non-combat stuff than the other way around.

The reason balance in characters matter isn't because you can't have fun being weaker than someone else. It's because it is a royal pain in the ass for the GM if the group is as unbalanced as a typicall SR group. If you have 1 character who can routinely get around/through/over absolutely every challenge single-handed then, when the GM throws something that is a challenge for that 1 character it guarantees that the other players won't be able to contribute or that their characters die. It's not about the players -- it's about the GM.

I'm not sure what the hang up on "balance" is for some people. I've haven't cared if I was the toughest, weakest or on equal footing with everyone else in a long time. SR isn't a game where "balance" is measured easily as a face with no combat skills is just as likely to complete a run as a cyberzombie, they just have to go about it differently.

I have found that DnD would not support the concept of a sneak around game at all. The whole game is geared around combat encounters which net you x amount of experience and y amount of treasure. Get outside of combat and the game breaks down.

[tete]

because you can't have fun being weaker than someone else.

Yes, you can...

My personal best example is I had a BLAST playing a 0 level character in AD&D because when I rolled up my 3d6 stats I didnt even get a 9 in anything. For 2 years (off and on because we played other games) I played this character. I was the only PCs who didn't die at some point. Some of the guys even hit level 9 and I was still having fun with my 0 level commoner. When a monster attacked, I ran and hid! BEST D&D GAME I EVER PLAYED IN!

It's because it is a royal pain in the ass for the GM if the group is as unbalanced as a typical SR group.

Whos to say its not balanced as is. My face can walk right into a building convincing the guards im someone else and walk out without a shot being fired. I dont need to even have any firearm skill. That is balance, I'm a face guns/magic not my thing, lying is my skill.


[edit] To use D&D 4 for example, a shadowrun game would be a series of various skill challenges with combat only occurring if a skill challenge fails. So all those at-will etc powers that they have, would come up rarely if ever in actual play.

[Cheops]

<Gross Misquote of what I wrote>


Whos to say its not balanced as is. My face can walk right into a building convincing the guards im someone else and walk out without a shot being fired. I dont need to even have any firearm skill. That is balance, I'm a face guns/magic not my thing, lying is my skill.


[edit] To use D&D 4 for example, a shadowrun game would be a series of various skill challenges with combat only occurring if a skill challenge fails. So all those at-will etc powers that they have, would come up rarely if ever in actual play.

First of all if you are going to Quote me then please quote the entire context. I did NOT say that it isn't fun being weaker. I said that it ISN'T because of lack of fun. It is because it is difficult for the GM to judge the appropriate difficulty if combat does start when the PCs are unequal.

Why can't you be just as competent as the Street Sam/Mage in combat just because you are good at lying? Since you choose to focus on being good at lying they are better at other areas than you by investing their resources differently.

You are correct. If it was a run I needed to get out of the way quickly in SR D&D I would just run it as a Skill Challenge. That would be an example of a sub-quest (our target is building A but we are going to hit building C so that we can zip line over) or a run that is a set-up for greater plot elements later in the story. Eg:

Story for the session is that the group pulls a run that results in the Mafia's interests being harmed. The main plot of the session is that the Mafia has it out for the group and now the group needs to find a way to deal with it (negotiation, make an offsetting run against the yaks, etc). However, instead of just handwave the run I do it as a Skill Challenge instead.

So, out of combat balance. Let's say that your face, a street sam, a hacker, and a mage are all trying to infiltrate the building to succeed in the above Skill Challenge. Your face is successful at every single Diplomacy and Bluff check you are called to make because you are an awesome people person and liar. However, the mage screws up one too many times checking the Arcana aspects of the security. Now security is alerted and combat starts and lets say that your face is discovered at the start of combat by more stringent accreditation checks. The GM had decided that the combat with security should be moderately difficult for the party. How does he do that in SR4?

The mage and the street sam are much better combatants than the hacker and the face. Something that will be moderately difficult for them will likely be killer for the other two. However, something that is moderately difficult for the Face will be a cake-walk for the street sam and mage. In D&D4 this is no problem -- all are equally good in combat. It is also easier to scale if someone is missing. Let's say your face manages to get away before being discovered. The GM knows exactly how many NPCs to subtract to make it equally difficult without the other character.

If it is the out of combat stuff and role-playing that defines your character then why does everyone being on the same footing in combat cause so much hatred?

Edited: for clarity in first paragraph.

[tete]

apologies for the mis quote.

That said, what if I as a Face dont want to be good at combat... My tactic is to RUN AWAY.

If it is the out of combat stuff and role-playing that defines your character then why does everyone being on the same footing in combat cause so much hatred?

Hopefully no mis-quote here.

Because I dont want to be good at combat, I dont ever even want to enter combat. You know how people say when the decker does his thing we go grab a pizza. Thats how I feel about combat, when you go into combat I want to go do something else call me when your done. Dynamic combats and short combats are better but I would like to spend less than 10% of my roleplaying time in combat. D&D 4e is all about the combat. They did a great job offering abilities making terrain matter etc. Kudos to WOTC, but none of that interests me. I've got to a few demos and been bored out of mine mind because its all about the combat. Sure you can do things outside of combat but really they are segways to get to the monster. The best Shadowrun games I've played in had 0 combat. We planned it out, did the leg work, broke in, got the item got out and got paid. AWESOME.

[histoy] I started with D&D redbox, we played it like a board game... HATED IT. Later a guy invited me to Traveller promised me it was nothing like D&D. IT WAS AWESOME, we were merchants dealing which getting good prices on goods then selling them at a profit it was like Settlers of Catan with acting! LOVED IT. I didnt get into RPGs through wargaming I got into them through improv acting so apreciation of the tactics of wargaming are lost on me. Never something I enjoyed.

I understand some people like tactics of wargaming and enjoy combat but the thing that always drew me to shadowrun was that if combat happened it was a punishment for doing something wrong not something that was going to happen every game.

[Cheops]

apologies for the mis quote.

That said, what if I as a Face dont want to be good at combat... My tactic is to RUN AWAY.

Then you run away. How is this a hard concept? You can be better at something out of combat while still being equally useful in combat. Whether you decide to participate in combat is up to you and your table -- not the game designers.

However, for those of us who do participate in and enjoy combat we get the best of both worlds. We can all be just as useful in combat but still have some spotlight time out of combat when our specialty comes up. Also, now that you are just as useful as everyone else at the table, if the session ends up being combat heavy (say the Street Sam decides to settle the Mafia issue with his guns) then you don't get excluded because you can't fight.

[tete]

but your forcing my character to be good in combat, I dont want that. Under the current rules I could spend my nuyen and skill points to be good in combat and lying if I wanted, or I can be good in basket weaving and lying.

[edit] Lets take your combat heavy example, I want to be excluded... Thats not my character. If the street sam choose that route either A. I dont go or B. I assist in other ways, perhaps as a distraction. or C. I turn the street sam in and gain a favor from the mafia.

There is nothing wrong with everyone having there own time to shine, for the street sam that is combat. I don't need to be a part of his shining moment if I dont build my character that way. I get the choice.
Doing it the D&D 4 way I am forced into a character concept that I will be good at combat.

So yes your gaining the best of both worlds FOR YOU. What about those of us who want to play a social game with no combat. If you say theres no reason you cant do that, I say to you well then remove all the combat rules except the skills needed (no movement, techniques etc) now play your combat focused game, there is nothing in the rules preventing you from doing that.

[edit 2] Again nothing against D&D 4. I think they did a great job designing a game based on what the design goals were. Mission Accomplished! Its just that the design goals they had have nothing to do with the type of game I personally enjoy. Shadowrun is a game that I currently enjoy, I would hate to see it go down that path. Not because it wouldnt be well done but because I would no longer buy or play it. I would either have to play an older edition (nothing wrong with that) or change games.

[Particle_Beam]

It is far easier for you to give yourself penalties to symbolize the combat deficiency of your character than the other way around, making your character worthwhile and good in combat while also being good in non-combat stuff.

Also, if your character betrays the street sam, prepare to get a punch in your face by the player of the street sam, as you rightly deserve it, "roleplaying" or not.

People moan and bitch about how they have to focus and specialise being good in something and mediocre/sucky in the rest, and all Shadowrunners ought to be good in tailing, sneaking, fighting, and escaping, be it the muscle, the mage, the mesmerizer or the matrix-jockey, else they're dead weight and a liability.

You're always allowed to screw yourself over with stats-wise and make your character a retarded luddite with spasms and epileptic seizures if you don't want to play a character who can contribute to the essentials of shadowrunning.

[tete]

First off, betraying the street sam is option C. The guys I play with it wouldnt happen because they wouldnt Fing go after the mafia. Thats just stupid! Better plan on retiring after that run cus payback will be a bitch.

I'm not making a luddite just because I have no combat skills. I can spend those points on driving, sneaking, all kind of useful abilities. Especially in a game where combat doesnt happen.

Put my group in perspective, in 6 months of play (about 20 runs) we have had 3 combats. Combat only happens when we F up. Now this might not be your group but please dont penalize mine by forcing your style of play on us. These are the types of groups I look for and play in. Its the type of game I enjoy.

[edit] SR4e has already forced a style of play because now as a Face I max out without cyberware where as before I could just keep spending karma on my Negotiations without ever buying cyberware because there was no cap.

[Particle_Beam]

First off, betraying the street sam is option C. The guys I play with it wouldnt happen because they wouldnt Fing go after the mafia. Thats just stupid! Better plan on retiring after that run cus payback will be a bitch.

Then that option never existed in the first place. And betraying means that the other player is allowed to punch you in your face with no consequences.

I'm not making a luddite just because I have no combat skills. I can spend those points on driving, sneaking, all kind of useful abilities. Especially in a game where combat doesnt happen.

Of course you're making a luddite. You can't even use a gun and smart-link to fend yourself in the sixth world, so this cripple who drags everybody down might as well go back in the woods naked and look for the company of satyrs and sasquatch who won't maul him to death. Perhaps a pack of hell hound wil find him first, hopefully.

Put my group in perspective, in 6 months of play (about 20 runs) we have had 3 combats. Combat only happens when we F up. Now this might not be your group but please dont penalize mine by forcing your style of play on us. These are the types of groups I look for and play in. Its the type of game I enjoy.

And you think that when your character (and everybody else) has good combat stats, you'd suddenly be forced to play dungeon-hacks and hour-long combat scenes every time you meet? Either you don't know what you're really talking about, or you don't trust your gaming group.

[edit] SR4e has already forced a style of play because now as a Face I max out without cyberware where as before I could just keep spending karma on my Negotiations without ever buying cyberware because there was no cap.

So what? You're still able to play a retarded luddite with spasms and epileptic seizures, even if you have well-rounded stats everywhere, and 40 dices as an average pornmancer who talks as sexy as a redneck hillbilly performing intercourse with his livestock and giving birth to his cousin.

[Tanegar]

I'm with tete on this one. D&D4 forces you to be, first and foremost, a combatant. Everything revolves around combat. The vast majority of powers are combat powers; before the advent of utilities (I forget which book introduced utility powers), every power was a combat power. The entire game is built on the assumption that your character goes around killing monsters and taking their stuff. If you want to do something other than kill monsters and take their stuff, well, you're on your own. Skill challenges are a laudable effort to disguise just how half-assed and tacked-on the skill system really is, but don't actually change the fact that the skill system is half-assed and tacked-on.

In SR4, by contrast, the skill system is the game. You are not forced to take any skills or qualities that you don't want. You can be a completely badass hacker who doesn't know which end of a gun the bullets come out of, or the slickest con man who ever walked the earth but who runs screaming from battle, or a magician who refuses to harm anyone, but is still an asset to the team with creative use of illusions and other non-combat magic. None of those concepts are mechanically supported in D&D4. My experience as both a player and DM in D&D4 is that once you become familiar with the rules, you hit the boundaries very quickly. SR4 also has boundaries, but they're much more generous, IMO.

[Particle_Beam]

I'm with tete on this one. D&D4 forces you to be, first and foremost, a combatant. Everything revolves around combat. The vast majority of powers are combat powers; before the advent of utilities (I forget which book introduced utility powers), every power was a combat power.

That would be the Player's Handbook 1. Where all the combat powers are introduced first too.
I'm pretty sure that you actually mean something else than utility powers, as you'd have to be blind to oversee them in the Player's Handbook 1.

The entire game is built on the assumption that your character goes around killing monsters and taking their stuff. If you want to do something other than kill monsters and take their stuff, well, you're on your own. Skill challenges are a laudable effort to disguise just how half-assed and tacked-on the skill system really is, but don't actually change the fact that the skill system is half-assed and tacked-on.

That's the price the skill system in D&D has to pay since 3rd edition. The good is that the mechanism (roll a d20, add modifiers, compare result wih difficulty check) is the same as for combat (roll a d20, add modifiers, compare result with armor class), which hasn't changed in 4th edition. Who knows what the developers where smoking when they thought about skill challenges and how it would change the skill system of D&D.
At least, you're not incapable of being intimidating or climbing as a fighter anymore.

In SR4, by contrast, the skill system is the game. You are not forced to take any skills or qualities that you don't want. You can be a completely badass hacker who doesn't know which end of a gun the bullets come out of, or the slickest con man who ever walked the earth but who runs screaming from battle, or a magician who refuses to harm anyone, but is still an asset to the team with creative use of illusions and other non-combat magic. None of those concepts are mechanically supported in D&D4. My experience as both a player and DM in D&D4 is that once you become familiar with the rules, you hit the boundaries very quickly. SR4 also has boundaries, but they're much more generous, IMO.

You can easily play a retarded character in D&D (all editions, some forcing it upon you) too, just the same as in Shadowrun. Just give yourself some penalties that make you have a roll of -100 if you try to attack or whatever when your character started having an epileptic seizure and was masturbating at the same time, because you want him to be a retard who goes into danger.

No other player should be forced to have a character that is good at combat, but incredibly sucks at interacting with other mentally npcs and dirt farmers, or a player who wanted to play a cunning bard and powerful mage like Väinämöinen, but is foced to suck so hard in combat, he might as well play something on his x-box 360 or similar.

But if you really want to be Dumbdumb, the fighter who is too stupid to breath, or Elan from the Order of the Stick prior to gaining a level in Dashing Swordsman, then you're allowed and encouraged to handicap your character for your amusement.

I mean, seriously, are you people trying to tell me that if you see normal combat stats in a pen-and-paper rpg, that you become retarded in real life and will only play out combat situations for the rest of your life?

[Dwight]

Of course you're making a luddite. You can't even use a gun and smart-link to fend yourself in the sixth world, so this cripple who drags everybody down might as well go back in the woods naked and look for the company of satyrs and sasquatch who won't maul him to death.

As someone that has played a Shadowrun character without a firearm/ranged weapon skill other than a couple points in a Flare Gun, and a bear minimum in fisticuffs Skill (that he never really used, and was only taken for defense during combat), and an IP of 1, I assure you he wasn't a cripple that dragged everyone down.

There were other people to handle the bulk of the shooting. That wasn't his time to shine (though he did save the bacon of a couple on his team by once by untrained shooting of some pesky guards using a firearm he picked up off a body during the run. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) His time to shine was when there was a need for some oddball skill like piloting a boat or talking their way into some place or trying to understand some magical effect/artifact (not Awakened but he had a serious academic knowledge of the arcane).

Then you run away. How is this a hard concept? You can be better at something out of combat while still being equally useful in combat. Whether you decide to participate in combat is up to you and your table -- not the game designers.

However, for those of us who do participate in and enjoy combat we get the best of both worlds. We can all be just as useful in combat but still have some spotlight time out of combat when our specialty comes up. Also, now that you are just as useful as everyone else at the table, if the session ends up being combat heavy (say the Street Sam decides to settle the Mafia issue with his guns) then you don't get excluded because you can't fight.

D&D proper is still, despite improvements over the decades, and some attempts during the d20 years, relatively weak outside of combat. It very much centers on combat, the definition of character abilities center around it. I don't hold that against D&D, 4e is one fine kill-things-and-take-their-stuff game. But I sure don't deny it. So no, you wouldn't actually get the best of both worlds.

When I started on replacing the SR system I went to one that even more emphasized other abilities on equal standing with combat. As well it's combat is even more modular, so I could swap out it's out-of-the-box medieval combat systems. Yes, systems. It actually comes with a few of them to provide choice between different levels of detail depending on how much screen time you want a given combat to have. Then I completely replaced the combat systems to give a much stronger tactical feel than SR 4e, consistent with modern firearms/combat/vehicles/spaces.

Of course I wouldn't consider it particularly "Shadowrun" in that the SR systems generate fairly flashy results. The action is somewhat over-the-top. I made my choice because I wanted something slightly more mundane feeling. Because I'm big into movie imagery I set the primary benchmarks for one of the particular types of combat (the most detailed but not the chase/dogfighting one) as the final shootout in Way Of The Gun. That is the atmosphere I decided I must be able to create. Well that and I had to be able to do the scene off the cover of 1e/2e SR, which so far is working well, too (though I've only tested play of that archtype scene at a contemporary tech level, not at SR level tech, yet).

The result, while even closer to the movies often listed in those "what movie is SR to you" threads, is even further from what you get with the D&D combat/system.

[Particle_Beam]

As someone that has played a Shadowrun character without a firearm/ranged weapon skill other than a couple points in a Flare Gun, and a bear minimum in fisticuffs Skill (that he never really used, and was only taken for defense during combat), and an IP of 1, I assure you he wasn't a cripple that dragged everyone down.

There were other people to handle the bulk of the shooting. That wasn't his time to shine (though he did save the bacon of a couple on his team by once by untrained shooting of some pesky guards using a firearm he picked up off a body during the run. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) His time to shine was when there was a need for some oddball skill like piloting a boat or talking their way into some place or trying to understand some magical effect/artifact (not Awakened but he had a serious academic knowledge of the arcane).

So you mean your character wasn't a cripple and a drag because the gm created very specific situations where the cripple is useful, like Elan before training under the captain of the Mechane was sometimes useful (he knew how to climb up a horse and tell others how to do it)...

[Dwight]

So you mean your character wasn't a cripple and a drag because the gm created very specific situations where the cripple is useful, like Elan before training under the captain of the Mechane was sometimes useful (he knew how to climb up a horse and tell others how to do it)...

No. Other than, you know, the GM didn't artificially dictate/create situations where combat Skill use was the only ingredient to what was dictated as the single/only viable solution(s).

P.S. I picked up the watercraft piloting skill in response to what we the players saw as an opportunity to procure and use a boat as part of a solution. Because that was his job, to have/learn oddball Skills. His catch line was "Can I ____? I've been around ____ all my life!" So he proclaimed he'd "been around boats all his life", even though he grew up in the desert. *cough* Then while the others were busy trying to rent a nice boat he was at boating school learning the basics of running one. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


EDIT: He might also have had a point or two in bladed weapons. I'm not sure, I'd have to check. I do know he had a knife. I don't recall him ever having stabbed someone...though he did infamously once take on a speeding car with a knife...and won*!

* 'Won' being defined as 'didn't die'.

[Particle_Beam]

Either you had many months to prepare and the run was unimportant, or you're going to have a hard time explaining how your character learned driving a boat without ramming the next giant tanker that fast. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

And combat skills will be important as when you're entering a high security facility to steal a prototype/extract a scientist/find out about the connection of victim to a company man/upload a virus into their unconnected network/re-arrange the furniture to create a bad Feng-Shui for the execs and other stuff, you're going to deal with armed guards, spirits, paranormal creatures, noisy wage slaves, security drones and other hazards. No matter how good the best one is, it's the die results from the one who rolled the worst that matters.
High stealth, good combat abilities, and ways of escaping from law enforcement are the bread and buutter of any average Shadowrunner working for your average mysterious Johnson.

[Dwight]

Either you had many months to prepare and the run was unimportant, or you're going to have a hard time explaining how your character learned driving a boat without ramming the next giant tanker that fast. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Have you ever seen a James Bond movie? Like that. Edge, baby. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Plus, what's the Attribute again? Reaction? The Threshholds he was rolling against were pretty high. Six or eight or something. The write-up of the AP is somewhere on these forums.

And combat skills will be important as when you're entering a high security facility to steal a prototype/extract a scientist/find out about the connection of victim to a company man/upload a virus into their unconnected network/re-arrange the furniture to create a bad Feng-Shui for the execs and other stuff, you're going to deal with armed guards, spirits, paranormal creatures, noisy wage slaves, security drones and other hazards.

Sure combat skills are really useful at times. That's why he tolerated the psychos he worked with. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

No matter how good the best one is, it's the die results from the one who rolled the worst that matters.

Wah? For shooting things? That's silly. For stealth, for the people at some particular point where sneakiness is required, sure. That's why you send scout-types off by themselves. EDIT: Not that I'd personally ever bother everyone to roll Stealth is some situation. Just the one with the worst ability + worst modifiers.

High stealth, good combat abilities, and ways of escaping from law enforcement are the bread and buutter of any average Shadowrunner working for your average mysterious Johnson.

Go Team!

[Particle_Beam]

Have you ever seen a James Bond movie? Like that. Edge, baby. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Plus, what's the Attribute again? Reaction? The Threshholds he was rolling against were pretty high. Six or eight or something. The write-up of the AP is somewhere on these forums.

James Bond works alone (or is hindered by some chick who'll land in his bed). And he gets state-of-the-art equipment that the russians (or Blofeld's minions) won't ever get even if they begged on their knees for it. 007 is also backed by a national counter-intelligence agency. A typical shadowrunner can be glad if he that "beta-grade cyberware" really is "beta".

Sure combat skills are really useful at times. That's why he tolerated the psychos he worked with. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You have to be mentally challenged to work as a terrorist for hire together with other building-blowing mercenary terrorists without any means to defend yourself.
Shadowrunners are not the good guys. They're the ones who will blow up orphanages, sky scrapers, airports and hotels for the right price when hired by a Mr. Johnson with connections to religious fundamentalistic organisations. Being a pacifist while working as a Shadowrunner is like screwing little children to prevent pedophiles from screwing them. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

You can of course claim that your character is a bloody amateur who will soon let himself be overrun by a car, that's understandable. After all, playing a tragic clown can be funny.

Wah? For shooting things? That's silly. For stealth, for the people at some particular point where sneakiness is required, sure. That's why you send scout-types of them off by themselves.

Everybody has to sneak by the entrance for starters. Having the runners with the good stealth skill being alone in the facility while the hacker who needs to disable to security system inside because it's not connected to the wireless matrix (ohz noez) staying outside or worse, being detected will lead fast to such problems. And then shooting will be determined which team works better. Security, soon backed up by law enforcement, or the rag-tag gang of greedy kidnappers and terrorists hired by an ominous Mr. Johnson who needs deniable assets? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sarcastic.gif)

[Dwight]

James Bond works alone (or is hindered by some chick who'll land in his bed). And he gets state-of-the-art equipment that the russians (or Blofeld's minions) won't ever get even if they begged on their knees for it. 007 is also backed by a national counter-intelligence agency. A typical shadowrunner can be glad if he that "beta-grade cyberware" really is "beta".

Slim had no implants so he did not need to worry about reported quality of implants.

Also, James Bond improvises all the time with things/vehicles other than his own r33t Q supplied goodies. Maybe you haven't seen anything other than trailers?

You have to be mentally challenged to work as a terrorist for hire together with other building-blowing mercenary terrorists without any means to defend yourself.

I tire of your circular logic. Conflict must be resolved by combat, so combat is the central skill. Combat is the central skill so conflict must be resolved with it. :/

[Tanegar]

I tire of your circular logic. Conflict must be resolved by combat, so combat is the central skill. Combat is the central skill so conflict must be resolved with it. :/

QFT.

[nspace]

D&D 4E works just fine out of combat as long as someone isn't kicking and screaming about how the game is all about combat and is willfully sabotaging the out of combat gameplay. You just think up what your character could do in a situation and the GM has enough guidelines to tell you what to roll to see how it works out. The limit is really your imagination.

Just because some people play D&D 1E, 2E, 3E and even 4E for combat, does not mean D&D is about combat. In SHADOWRUN it is called playing a pink mowhawk game. Should we run around screaming about how shadowrun is all about combat because some people run pink mowhawk games? Of course not, that would be silly. It is equally silly to make those accusations against D&D.


Now, D&D 4E does things differently than Shadowrun, in that they made the decision that having players taking turns dominating the spotlight doesn't make a good team based game. Combat for example is about the party working as a team to be successful instead of one or two players with absurdly over the top combat monsters destroying everything without using any sort of teamwork.

In reality, the D&D4E 'team effort' model respects the idea of 'you've got to respect a mundane with a gun' better than SR4 does. In D&D4E your characters that are "bad" at combat (i.e. a controller or a leader), won't put out as much damage or absorb as much damage as a striker or defender, but they can do well enough to be dangerous, or they can lend support to the combat characters. So you can have your leader face that is "bad" at combat run around and hide and shout out warnings, and fire off shots with your "dude its a gun, you point it that way and pull the trigger" training (which in the SR setting is supposed to be enough to be dangerous), while tricking attackers into chasing you or tricking them into falling back, or confusing them, or hacking their communications and smart links, or any number of "I'm not a gun fighter" activities that you can do during combat.

Roleplaying games are group activities, why do people want to set a group of people down at a table and then not cooperate as a group? It seems very strange.