Fixed TN Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Switch to: Standard Linear+

[Toa]

So what do you think about fixed TNs in Shadowrun? This is more about the basic principle of a fixed TN than about the specific way it works out in SR4.

Personally I don't like fixed TNs, since I have the feeling it takes out a lot of the depth of the system. I need both, varying dice pool size AND varying target number.

[Grinder]

As long as the TN is changeable and NOT the number of dices to be thrown, i will be fine with it.

edit: Just read the other thread to this topic. It's really a fixed TN. That sucks imo.

[Capt. Dave]

Fixed TNs make Capt. Dave cry. :(

[Synner]

To sum up for those who haven't bothered checking; the system announced uses a Att+Skill Dice Pool vs. a fixed TN of 5 with varying thresholds/difficulties.

[SirBedevere]

The fixed TN will take some getting used to. I'll wait for the SR4 book before making my final decision on whether or not I like it. My wife Lady Bedevere thinks the concept sucks though!

[NightHaunter]

It does quite well in nWOD and this sounds similar. I'm a fan.
Trying to keep track of your total when you are going for a 24 for instance is irrratating espeshaly when your result is 23. :twirl:

[otaku mike]

I say that's a great idea. But maybe I'm biased :)
Honestly, when you see the rules built on that, you can't think anything else than it's a good idea. Much faster to use.

[Patrick Goodman]

[hermit]

Puts too much emphasis on attributes, unless skills get more dice per point than attributes in some way. It's surely a nice idea to speed things up a lot, which I do appreciate, and simplifies the system a great deal, whcih I also appreciate, but I fear that, this way, a quickness 3, pistols 6 elite sec guard will not be able to shoot as good as a quickness 9 night one who has never held a pistol before, and that's just idiotic.

[Rajaat99]

I've never had a problem with the "old" system. I think it stinks that the rules are being dumbed down.
I don't like fixed TN's. The changing dice pool is fine, but I agree with Toa and Hermit. I would like both changing dice pool and changing TN. This system will also place more focus on attributes than skills.

[Gizmo]

i don't mind fixed TN, as there will be modifications of the number of dice thrown it seems. In the end it comes to the same. Either you increase the difficulty to achieve a hit, or you reduce the number of possible hits.

on a more probabilistic point, i'm not good enough to know. but i think it's a nice change.

[Spookymonster]

I'm guessing this also means the Rule of Six is RIP? While I'm happy to see an end to the whole '6 is really 7' mess, I'm also saddened to see another unique SR element disappear.

[Bigity]

I'd be interested to see the numbers breakdown as far as chance of success with this method vs. the old one.

[Austere Emancipa...]

I'll definitely keep the Rule of Six regardless, combined with Extra Successes for Every 6 Rolled Above TN. Ie. 2 successes for an 11, 3 successes for a 17. Or maybe it'd be simpler to just give the extra successes per 6 rolled, ie. 2 for 12, 3 for 18, etc.

[hobgoblin]

[Elve]

[Austere Emancipa...]

[nezumi]

I'm in favor of variable TNs, but my mind could be changed. This is an area where I'm going on faith that FanPro will make it okay (although I voted I prefer variable.)

Don't fail me, FanPro!! I'm watching you.

[Spookymonster]

[Bigity]

So, instead of having no reason to learn a skill that defaults to a high attribute, there is now no reason to learn a skill higher then 1 that links to a high attribute.

[hobgoblin]

you still end up with the crasy stuff that a night one with minimal training can kick the ass of a avarage guard with avarage training any day...

edit: outch, bigity out-typed me :P

[hermit]

yeap. no matter how I turn this, I see many problems with the apparent upscaling of attribute importance. :|

[Spookymonster]

[Orient]

Absolute crap. For years White Wolf has been using the retarded little brother system to SRs d6 system. Now SR is moving more towards WW...? Absolutely wonderful.

Given that they've done some pretty amazing things in the past, I'll withhold final judgement until I see it, but it doesn't sound very promising..

[CradleWorm]

As far as high attributes go... I have to imagine that the troll ganger with street smarts and a Brawl 3 and Strength 7 is going to be a match for the trained human security guard with a karate 5 and Strength 5. Lets face it, the human knows his stuff... but the troll has 3 feet and 300 pounds on him. It should be tough going on the human.

Now, with high attributes, does it make since to learn skills? Yes, because I'm sure there will be an untrained penalty for using a skill when you have "no skill." Does that make learning a skill at 1 useful? You bet. A really smart guy, lets say Einstein, with no computer skill is going to have a tough time using a computer, but even a normal kid today, with no formal training (skill of 1) can navigate and use a computer effectively. There is a big difference between knowing nothing and just enough to be dangerous.

Also, you are still assuming attributes will be used in the same way as in SR3. Attributes might not be more important then before, just used differently. For example, using body to resist damage may not happen any more. Perhaps, Body just represents how much damage you can take. I personally enjoy the resisted test however, but adding extra dice to resist for armor sounds good.

In the end, FanPro announced that they are trying to streamline the system. Fixing the target number is one way to accomplish that. In SR3 you had to compute a target number and number of dice for every action in combat. Now, you have no dice pools to worry about. Add attribute to skill and your done. GM will add or remove dice for modifications. No more waiting for a player to figure out how to best use pool dice. No more adding up target number modifiers for range, visibility, or injury. It might not be as complex, but it will be fast, and that is what FanPro said they wanted.

[NightHaunter]

I've been covering that very thing Here: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...opic=8041&st=75

Any thoughts

[Vuron]

I don't mind it that much as it will almost certainly end the exploding die system.

Actually if the mechanics are roughly compatible I might go with a (TN 7 d10 with 10s counting double like exalted) as there are some interesting mechanics that could be ported over (stunts etc) that could make shadowrun a more cinematic game.

[StranD]

I've been playing Shadowrun since the first days... Hi to everybody... first post.

Changing the target numbers to a fixed system scares the crap out of me for the flexibility of the game. Regardless...

What if they did something along the lines of the original Shadowrun... You roll your skill plus get an equal number of dice equal to your attribute TO A MAXIMUM OF your original skill level?

It doesn't address the tactics factor of a dice pool but it might be workable. It addresses the issue where somebody will default to an attribute over the lower skill level. Not sure how defaulting to an attribute alone would be handled.

[hobgoblin]

unless the cost for increasing attribs goes way up there is will be a hard sell to take a lot of skill increases over a attrib increase for intel or quickness if the skill connections stay similar to today.

and if one do like strand suggests then it just gets even more interesting to go for attrib over skill unless the untrained pentalty is big. and as the target number is fixed the only mods they can do is decrease dice or increase "hit" requirement. neither is a nice solution...

[mr0b1tsc]

I agree the target number of 5 makes sense, but if there are no modifiers having both a high attribute and a high skill will be needed to pull off some of the high end stunts.

[Rajaat99]

[L.D]

[metal-dog]

Fixed TNs have sucked in StoryTeller so I see no reason they shouldn't suck even more in SR in which the variable TNs worked a lot better than they ever did in ST.

Based solely on this piece of information, I can already say that I will keep using the 3rd ed. rules. If anything for 4th ed looks promising, I suppose I may convert it to the Shadowrun system.

[Ol' Scratch]

[Shadow]

Well it is Fanpro's Shadowrun now, all traces of Fasa have been removed.

[RunnerPaul]

[Synner]

[otaku mike]

And most importantly, I wouldn't care about rules "originality". I'm more interested in a good system that runs smoothly and leaves room for roleplaying, even if it's a pure copy of another game's system, than a completely new and original system, half baked and clunky.
Of course, you're entitled to want the best of both world, with a new original system that works flawlessly, but that's not the point I was addressing...

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Fortune]

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Fortune]

Those adjustments are supposed to be reflected by adding or removing dice from the Pool (made up of Attribute+Skill), or by increasing or decreasing the Threshold of Hits (successes at TN 5). As it stands right now, there is no fluctuation of the TN at all ... it stands fixed at 5.

[Jérémie]

Null vote, because my asnwer is not in it.

A fixed TN is an improvement over the old system. If there is no rule of six, it's again an improvement.

But this system is still "roll 10 to 15 dices with a beginner character", it's still a lot of dices for nothing.

A attribute+skill+dices vs TN would have been better I think... something with 2 or 3 dices, and the all sum up. Like Fusion, or dozens of others systems around here. Quite like what Gurth (iirc) proposed on ShadowRN some times ago.

Why roll 10 or 15 dices when 2 or 3 is enough to add randomness (spelling ?) to a test ?

[Jérémie]

[Eyeless Blond]

What sounds reasonable to me is that you add/remove dice from the dice pool to account for player options, rather like it is in the current system where you can, for instance, withhold dice from your Sorcery test to increase the area of an area spell. Maybe you withhold pool dice from all tests made in that round to use in Dodge tests or something? *shrug*

The adjustment to threshold will be for GM (envorinment)-imposed modifiers; Blind Fire, for instance, would be a +4-8 to Threshold, for instance.

But then that's just what sounds reasonable to me. I'd also have players reroll 6s as if they were another die. This would mean, for instance, you roll 7d6 and get 6, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. You reroll the 6, getting a 5, and thus four (three plus the successful reroll) total successes. Of course it's not my system, so I don't know if that's how it'll actually work or not, but that's what sounds intuitive to me.

[Austere Emancipa...]

[mintcar]

I read it similarily. Modifiers doesn´t have to mean environment modifiers, it can mean equipment and cyber as well. Dice would be modified by personal conditions and player options. Threshold would signify the difficulty of the task itself, and so be modified by the environment and such. Pretty simple and understandable.

[Kanada Ten]

Defaulting without skill may also not always be possible, or half the dice pool, etc. Still the probability curve with a TN of 5 is weak at either extreme.

[GrinderTheTroll]

First Deckers, now no more "rule of six"?

/mourn.

[JongWK]

[Shadow]

If they do something like this, they are going to have to have more than a fixed TN. They are going to have to have a max upper limit to attributes. Say 6. That way there won't be a ton of dice being rolled.

So that's something to look forward to, a max of 6 (or whatever) in any attribute... *cough*cookiecutter*cough*

[Fortune]

It has already been stated that the Attribute maximum will be 6 (plus any applicable racial modifiers).

[Shadow]

[Fortune]

I kind of agree with you. I was very excited about the prospects of SR4 when I first heard about it, but the more actual data I get (not that there's much to start with), the more apprehensive I am getting about the whole idea.

[Shadow]

[Kanada Ten]

I'm interesting in seeing how it all works out. How do cyberware and magic augmentations fit it and so on. If dynamics are playable and worthwhile but not overly so, then I can live with it.

I'm not against a totally new mechanic, though it is surprising and not what I expected. The advantage of it is rather obvious, allowing each effect to have a single line and with simply understood mechanic no need for layers of rules doubling each other.

We could argue the cookie cutter point of view, but I don't know with all of Shadowrun's augmentations how true that will be. Cyber, bio, magic, nanoware, and matrix all mix and allow for so much variety... One could say that all 1st level fighters are the same in d20, but the truth is not at all that clear. In the end it comes down to roleplaying.

[Fortune]

[Kanada Ten]

Another point to keep in mind is that Skill+Attributes are called Dice Pools, which has a rather... interesting connotation to it. If the dice are to be divided between actions or similar, withheld for defense as example, it could supplement the tactical edge given by current augmentations.

[Veracusse]

[Veracusse]

After thinking for a bit, I think that there is one way for this new confangled system to work in Shadowrun. I hope that this post doesn't fall on deaf ears!!!

First of all: The number of successes should be based on difficulty of a given task alone. In other words there should be base number of successes for any given situation. This number, other than the given situation, should not be modifiable. Things that can be included in this category are damage codes, (i.e. L equals 2 successes, M equals 4 successes, etc.), skill tests (easy task equals 2, hard equals 4, etc.). Something along these lines.

Next: Modifiers should affect the number of dice that are rolled. However, to make skill important and reflect that a skilled person is a skilled person no matter what the situation is, dice modifiers should affect the dice that is added from the attribute with a minimum of 1 attribute dice. For example if super ninja night one with 7 Quickness and 2 Pistols is trying to shoot while standing one-handed on the roof of a fast car at night during night-time rush hour, she should have -5 (or something appropriate, I am just making these numbers up for sake of explication) to her quickness attribute, but not her skill. Thus she would have a dice pool of 4 (Attr 7 -5 + skill 2 = 4). Now if an elite sec guard who is not as naturally as fast as super ninja-girl nightone has a quickness of 4 but a pistol of 6, he would have a dice pool of 7 (Attr 4 -5 |1| + skill 6 = 7). Now of course doing the acrobatic stunt in the first place may have been too hard for super elite sec guard. But I am assuming otherwise.

Added dice to the dice pool should only come from character modifications through cyberware, spells, adept abilities, or even decker utilities (oops sorry , Haaaackers! :wobble: ). Most certainly, added dice should not come from characters trying to do stunts for craziness factor. That is cheese! That is an exalted thing, where cheese in that game is mandatory. But NOT in Shadowrun!

The rule of six can be applied here to allow for an open ended amount of successes. My main point is that mods should be done in the right way, Base successes should not be modifiable, and skills should not be modifiable (except only for when a character is defaulting from one skill to the other).

I also want to state that, NO I do not have a lot of faith in the dev staff for various reasons. There is no reason why I should with the recent FAQs that have been comming out. And I think that FanPro should not bite off the hand that feeds. I.E. THere bloody loyal FANBASE of almost twenty years.

Sorry for my tone at the end. But this is starting to become a little too much to swallow.

Veracusse

P.S. I also want some feedback on my idea if it is feasible for a game like Shadowrun or not? From devs, or anyone.

[mfb]

no reason besides the recent books, you mean. that most of these same devs were involved in writing. (assuming you liked the recent books, that is.)

[sapphire_wyvern]

[CradleWorm]

I voted "Top" and let me explain why.

In Shadowrun (1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions yes I've played them all) the biggest obstical has been the time required for "solo" characters. What I mean by this is some character types need to do things alone. The best example is deckers, but riggers and mages can be included in that lot.

Every character has something to do in combat. Every character has something to do while doing legwork. The problem is telling players to go play pick-up-sticks while the decker runs his part or the rigger is involved in a chase while everyone else sits back and enjoys the ride.

What FanPro is attempting to do here is remove or minimize the effect these "solo" characters have. This way, everyone is involved all (or most) of the time.

By fixing target numbers at 5 and removing Pools they have effectively reduced the amount of time it takes to roll a test. They have taken the guess work out of deciding if you should use your extra dice or not.

What I expect to see for your basic test, and potential modifiers is this. Roll your dice pool (Attribute + Skill) and count your successes. More is better. Thats it.

Now, that is to simple for a real system... there have to be modifiers. And for your basic action (a single action in combat is what I mean) I would expect to have modifiers to add or remove dice from your dice pool. Things like Laser Sights and Smartgun Links will add extra dice. Things like Range and Visibility will remove dice.

I would expect thresholds to be used in "extended" actions. These are things that take some time. Example, cracking a Maglock. Simply, each roll takes X amount of time and you need a total number of successes equal to the rating of the Maglock.

If you take a look at the types of tests in Shadowrun (Success Test, Open Test, and Opposed Test), Open Tests go away and the system will keep Success Tests and Opposed Tests.

[Shadow]

In other words, they have simplifed and dumbed the game down enough, that it will go quickly and smoothly for people who have spent a grand total of five minutes reading the rules. That way they can jump right into their munchkined l33t hax0r d00d.

Oh yeah, I wanna play that game.

[Eyeless Blond]

Whine whine whine. Spend all your time moaning and groaning about how complicated the ruleset is, about how decking rules and rigger rules and electronic warfare rules are all so damn complicated and have such a huge barrier to entry, and then when someone comes up with a way to make everything nice and streamlinned you whine about how the new streamlinned rules are too easy and don't provide enough of a barrier to entry for the riffraff who comes in off the streets expecting to actually play a game without having to take night classes.

Honestly, noone here but the mute freelancers/devs have even actually seen the new mechanic. How can you love or hate something you haven't even seen yet, other than a bare few lines offering a hugely oversimplified view of how the system is maybe going to work? I for one am going to stick to the slightly less vacuous passtime of trying to guess what the system actually is, and try to address concerns and offer suggestions that the devs/freelancers may or may not have thought of yet, as that may actually be helpful. Kvetching and moaning about mechanics that we haven't even seen yet helps noone, and only serves to make the devs regret ever posting anything about the game, so stop it before we stop even getting the tiny tiny crumbs we are getting.

[Phantom Runner]

I am absolutely excited about this change. Having played both WoD and Shadowrun for more years than I care to recount, I have to say that the fixed TN and dice pool scaling system has worked out incredibly for White Wolf, a system that was often plague with the same floating TN problems that SR faced. I can't imagine how this change would in anyway make SR any worse. There will be so much less for both players and GMs to keep track of.

[Synner]

Thanks Eyeless Blond, believe me the voice of reason is appreciated.

[Eyeless Blond]

No prob. It's something that needs to be said, and said often, to keep these threads from degenerating into holy wars which help noone.

That said, I and the rest of us "unofficial volunteer consultants" would dearly love to have something more meaty than vague hints at possible changes. It would really help focus out suggestions if we knew where the current focus was headed. I and others, for instance, have been mulling over a modified exploding dice mechanic in another thread that would greatly benefit from knowing where exactly the base "skill+attribute" dice pool comes from, how modifiers to the Threshold and dice pool are handled and where they come from, and if there are ever any changes to the base TN at all and if so where they come from/what situations they come from. Threads on proposed changes to specific spells could really use more concrete statements on how the spellcasting mechanic will work; the debates on how the WMI will be integrated into SR flavor-wise could really benefit from knowing some of the mechanics for the Matrix and how "hacking" will work, etc etc.

Keep in mind that the main reason so many of us are nervous about SR4 is that the same game devs are also responsible for the current SR FAQ, which is rife with inconsistencies, both with itself and the actual canon ruleset. Apart from allowing us to give more helpful suggestions, more concrete hints as to the actual nuts and bolts will help allay the fan's fears that you guys are not just hurriedly pulling random crap out of your asses, as seems to be the case with many of the FAQ answers.

Your fans are not the enemy. Quit keeping us in the dark. :)

[Shadow]

[Eyeless Blond]

*sigh* Yes, you're right. I don't know you. Similarly, you don't know me; if you did (or if you had read the post just above yours) you'd know that I definately *don't* walk around with a "Fanpro can do no wrong" flag in my hand, up my ass, or anywhere on my anatomy. In fact, I think there are a number of things they've done a terrible job on, including but not limited to many of the new skills in SOTA '63, the new adept powers in STOA '64, and that wannabe-Errata page on their site that's attempting to masquerade as an FAQ. Fanpro, IMO, has a terrible track record when it comes to making up new mechanics and balancing new rules with the old ones. In fact the main reason I'm making suggestion after suggestion is because I do *not* trust Fanpro to properly make the SR4 mechanics without assistance from the fanbase, and why I've been advocating more and more releases of the actual mechanics.

All I'm saying is don't start screaming that the sky is falling, just because you have an image in your head about what the new mechanics are going to be and that it's not what you're looking for. Who knows; they might actually come up with something brilliant. Best case scenario everyone ignores you, making your posts nothing more than wasted electrons; worst case scenario Fanpro clams up even more and we get nothing at all until the game is published in August and there actually *is* nothing we can do about it.

[Synner]

[Shadow]

The thing is three months ago I was saying this or that, making suggestions and encouraging people to trust FanPro. I actually knew about the 4th edition coming a while ago. And I was excited. A new edition to clean things up and rework the messed up rules would be great. A 4th edition to do to 3rd what 3rd did to 2cnd.

But thats not what where getting. Where getting a whole new game, and that is not what I (and many others) want, regardless of how good their rules are. I have spent my free time playing this game over the last 16 years. I want the basic mechanic of the game to continue.

Think about it, I started playing SR1 when I was 16 years old. If I can figure out SR1 at 16 some 12 year old (their new market) ought to be able to figure out SR3. So a streamlined and improved version of the game should be a huge hit.

Again, not what where getting. Where getting a whole new rule set. Who's to say this unplayed (in mass quanity) rule set is going to be any better then SR1? Why do that when you can build on an already great game?

That is the question I have been asking, over and over again. Why make a whole new game when you have a great one already. Have I gotten answers? No. I've gotten "stop whining" "wait for the game to come out" "Fanpro knows what they are doing"

or just dodged entirely. Who's decision was it? Was there any kind of input or was it arbitrary?

Cause 2 months ago if you put a poll up asking everyone if they wanted a SR4 to be a whole new game, or just an improvement on the exiting model, the answer WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN a whole new game.

[Shadow]

[Synner]

All I have to say to that is - at this point you haven't seen the new system and you have no way of knowing whether or not this system is actually better suited to the setting and ambiance of Shadowrun, than any of the 2 and a half systems preceeding it (and I'm not saying it is).

You have made up your mind - from the scant information released - that SR4 is a ripped version of the nWoD system shoehorned into the Shadowrun setting and you are passing judgement without the data to judge by.

There are indeed parallels, especially at the level of core mechanics, but having seen a significant portions of the rules, I can honestly say you are wrong. Believe me or not, it's your choice, but I know for a fact that the assumption you are basing your judgement on is incorrect.

And btw - I find it particularly funny that you knew SR4 was coming out months ago when I only heard about it for the first time 4 weeks ago almost to the day.

[Shadow]

But I have seen this:

There will be a fixed tn of 5
No more dice pools
No more Riggers and Deckers
No atts above 6
Modifiers add/subtract dice
Otaku are technomancers

Are all these taken horribly out of context? Cause if they are tell me now cause hate them all. Fixed tn's? For Shadowrun? No more dice pools? And the biggie, lets get rid of Shadowrun lore and call deckers/riggers Hackers.

So tell me I am wrong, tell me the above changes are not being made. Tell me the new system is based on the old system and not an entirly new one with a few passing simularites to the current game.

[Eldritch]

It seems Fanpro is taking a huge chance, doesn't it? Gutting the rules in favor of something completly new? (If what someone said earlier is true - that htis is not a clone of WOD).

I mean, if this is an entirely new system that is. SOunds like Fanpro might be banking on the orginal fan base to get hem into 4th editon, work out the kinks of this new system.

How many playtesters are there? 10, 50, 100?

In this time of OGL/SRD what would it hurt to release the core mechanics ahead of time? Not being whiniy or anything - just curious. That would seem to lessen their risk.

[Eldritch]

Blah, clicked twice and double posted

[Sir Randel]

Well at least SR4 is not D20.

You can ask long-time fans of Aberrant/Trinity what they think of the new version :( .

I played Shadowrun since 2nd edition and SR3 is far from perfect.

Could they have taken the improvement option ?
Yes but i think that with this new edition they want to enlarge their pool of players. And it's rather clear that to do so, they must change the system.

You have the right to be utterly disappointing by the choice of the developpers. You have the right to tell it. There's just no need to be rash.

Will SR4 be a good game? I don't know. But if i don't like the new version, i will stick with SR3.

I think that there is so much to streamline in SR3, it's probably better to change the system.

[Synner]

Okay Shadow, not that I think the answers will please you but here they are.

[Shadow]

I do apreciate you answering my question Synner. You are right they don't make me happy, but they do lay some questions aI have to rest. Since what's done is done I guess all I can do is wait and see. I can hope that I am wrong. That the new system will have the wonderfull complexities that make Shadowrun unique and enjoyable beyond just its setting.

Thanks for taking the time to answer them.

[calm_horizons]

Im looking forward to the background on SR 4, but the new rules on TNs has got me a little worried.

im a little unsure as to what is changed by the modifiers, is it the number of dice roled, the number of "hits" you have to acheive to get a success.
for example with a smartlink would that mean plus one to dice thrown or one less "hit" to get a success.

If its the former then the better you are at the skill and the higher the attribute, the less the bonus, or hinderance is going to affect you ( probability wise ie diminished return), this does seem realistic and could be interesting to play, but would be infuriating to find that something you bought at the bigginning is losing its effectiveness as you progress.

However if the latter is the case then its still pretty much like the current SR3 system and i see little point in changing.

On the vote.... i think ill wait till i see the finished rules before i make my mind up but for now ill say FLOP.

I appologise if ive covered anything thats already been answered, ive quickly skimmed over the other posts, but im really tired.
[edited after actually opening eyes long enough to read other topics]

[Fortune]

[Patrick Goodman]

[Patrick Goodman]

[Kagetenshi]

Optional rules are a tool of the Devil, IMO.

~J

[Slash_Thompson]

[Jérémie]

You (read most of you) know, the more you take a little piece of mechanic and torture it to put it out of context, immediately going to the extreme cases without sit back and think before even writing a DSF post ; you are making this forum very, very hard to follow.

I am no freelancer, no playtester, and frankly I can't follow this SR4 forum the 1/10th I'd like because a good portion of it if whining because of the change (not specific changes, I have concern over of few points too, and I try to express them as concern; but because of the concept of change itself), or out of context specifics (an example ? I've seen multiple times that you won't be able to do some very hard task, because of the htresehold needed or because you won't have dices anymore after difficulty dice minus. What some people would think that the dvlp have taken this into account, and go one way or the other with a conscious choice about it).

Express you concerns and hopes about what we have been told, what doesn't work in SR3 and you would like fixed, and so on. And remember this it not a game for you, he, or me; this is a game for thousands and thousands of players. If there is something you dislike in SR3, but in the light of past ML/forum threads you are about the only one, SR4 threads are not a good place to troll about it again. And please, do express yourself politely.

[Critias]

The more they tell us is changing, the more it's human nature for us to complain about those changes -- especially when those changes aren't cosmetic, minor tweaks (like a slang term changing), but are broad, sweeping, completely new die mechanics (the basic idea of which remained unchanged, only refined, for three editions previously). The entire basic rules mechanic is changing after 15+ years, based upon two lines of FAQ that were shared with us.

People are going to comment on that. You can choose not to read it.

[Jérémie]

[Critias]

How is it any better to disrupt people's conversation about rules changes? We're expressing concerns about major changes to the rules of a game we've been playing for a goodly portion of our lives. You're talking like our mother and telling us to not say anything, if we can't say anything nice.

Who's more irritating and disruptive, really?

[Synner]

Jérémie has hit the nail right on the head and you're missing his point. There is a huge difference between ranting and constructive criticism. Don't get me wrong, complaining is every customer's right (although normally it comes after you've bought the product and know exactly what you're talking about), but there's been a huge amount of the former and only recently something of the latter (despite the absence of concrete data on specific mechanics beyond the core).

I can honestly say I read any positive contribution with an open mind - particularly when they offer an interesting suggestion or extrapolation I or my group haven't thought of - and consequently a couple have made their way into my playtesting reports and so might eventually produce an (admittedly limited) impact on SR4. I'm pretty sure the other freelancers and playtesters on here have similar attitudes.

On the other hand, rants (especially the reactionary don't-mess-with-my-game Shadowrun-as-we-know-it-is-going-to-die kind) and doom-and-gloom judgement calls based on the minute amount of information available contribute nothing (as far as I'm concerned).

FanPro is not suddenly going to back down at this point in development or make fundamental changes to anything they've announced (no company I know would) so it is your call whether to possibly contribute something valid or to just keep on hammering the same key again and again.

[Critias]

I think it's an unfair, petty, generalization to say that anyone who's expressed concern, doubt, or negative feelings at this point is "ranting," much less to whine about how we've (as if we're a coherent group, or a hive-mind) been doing so from the get-go.

Many of us were excited about the prospect of SR4, but have been shoved off that bandwagon as more information was released. I'm not sure how you can look at the last FAQ update -- the one that explains to us how the basic die mechanic is being drasticaly changed -- and call that "a little bit" of information. Those two questions and answers completely flip-flopped my stance on this release.

I don't care if I have to buy new SR books. I buy new SR books anyways, and even if I didn't my money would still go to something stupid like video games. I don't care about the five year time-leap (it's vaguely bothersome, because I genuinely enjoyed and was impressed by the "real-time" timeline treatment up until now, but I don't care enough to complain about it, and have even explained the reason for it to my friends). I don't care that deckers are getting a name change, it's a slang term. I don't care that teh evil megacorp lol omg!!! is out to make a buck (which is most people's assumption whenever anything new is released). I didn't care when we first heard things would be streamlined -- change happens, has happened before, and at the time I was assuming it would be "change" on the scale of SR2 or SR3. See? Those were all things I was positive about, defending SR4's idea about, etc, etc. I kept an open mind as long as I could. I was okay with the updates, kept a positive attitude, and tried to do just what Jeremie's doing -- asking the knee-jerk naysayers to pipe down.

What did eevntually bother me is the complete change of the entire die mechanic, which -- make no mistake -- is what's happening as far as we can tell. I don't doubt there's all sorts of details we don't have yet. I mean, I understand that. If the knowledge shared with us via the FAQ was all we'd need to play the game, you guys would print up and distribute two-page rulebooks for a quarter (not make us a nice new hardbound book). I understand we don't know everything yet.

But what we do know sure makes it sound like an awful lot more than a "streamlining" is going on. Maybe some of the many secrets we don't have yet will satisfy us. Maybe there'll be some character say into how things work in a fight again, and we're worried over nothing. Maybe the set TN won't be as bad as some people think (it doesn't bug me much, but it seems like an awful lot of big changes, all at once). Maybe, maybe, maybe.

We don't know, though, so all we can do is speculate and express concern. That's what we're doing.

If that's not what we're supposed to be doing -- if we're supposed to just quietly read the FAQ, keep up with the devblog, and receive the occasional bullshit hah-hah 'update' from Bull, all without anyone posting anything -- then fine, ask someone to take down the SR4 forums. We're discussing information as it's given to us. Sometimes that discussion will show you we're excited about what we're hearing, sometimes that discussion will show you we're concerned about it. It doesn't mean we expect Fanpro to change it's mind, or whatever, it just means we want to talk to other people about what we're worried about, maybe hash out the specifics of what's concerning us so much, and maybe even discuss those worries enough we overcome them.

I'm sorry if you don't like that. In much the same vein, I guess you're sorry if we don't like what we've heard of SR4 thus far.

In the meantime, though, we've all go four more months of getting tossed morsels and table scraps we may or may not like, while other people (sitting at that table) are already eating dessert and telling us we can't express an opinion. Look at it from our side, just a little. Look at how long some of us have been playing, look at what information we've gotten from the FAQs so far (do your best to pretend you don't have any other information), look at how massive some of those changes are. Look at how much longer we've got to stew and worry about it before we can get a product in ours hands that could settle the issue and satisfy us.

Forgive us if we talk a bit, huh? It's not like many people are being outright rude about it, all things considered (and, in fact, I'm doing my best to not be a total prick right now). If someone, individually, is offensive to you in their complaining, complain to the admin or something (instead of making generalizing sweeps about anyone with an SR4 concern). Don't insult half your fan base by calling anyone who's upset about a FAQ so far a whiner or ratner. This thread, by the way, was fairly on topic until about the last four posts. At least the discussions aren't wandering -- it might feel to you (as someone tangentally involved in SR4) that nothing but complaining is happening, but that's quite simply not the case.

Let us vent a little via mild complaint and potentially constructive discussion, instead of having months and months of pent up rage that needs to be let out at Gencon itself, y'know?

[Jérémie]

[Synner]

From the original SR4 announcement:

[fistandantilus4....]

I know this is all kind of back and forth, and this is just the other side, but it's hard to get down to any serious debating when we really know little or nothing about how the new system will actually work. So al lwe can really do is throw out our opinions. I my self haven't posted much on it becuase I really have no clue what the system is going to be like.

Ok, the TN is set. Ok, you add and subtract dice. I've never used either system, hope it works. Patrick Goodman seems to like it, for now he's opinions good enough, I'll form my own when I see the product.

I think at this point, there's just too much arguing about it. I'm ready to see some more hard and fast rules on ANY aspect really of hhow the game is going to go. I know it's probably not quite at that point yet. Sucks for me. I guess my point is that at this point, with what we know about it, this is kind of what you can expect. We can't really have a meaningful debate without some specifics to debate on. We can't say 'Fixed TN is good/bad' with anything more than our opinion really.

Personally I appreciate the free lancers posting what they can. It sucks that a lot of people blow up over it. Unfortunately, that's kind of what we can expect more of until we get more to work with.

Someone else's turn on the soap box

[Critias]

[Patrick Goodman]

[Critias]

I'd be all for some optional "advanced" rules, even if it meant having to buy another SRComp sort of book to get them (in fact it'd be convenient to have them all in one place like that). I agree it would be a good compromise -- the basic and heavily streamlined rules available for people just starting out or those who think combat runs too slow (as the primary rules set), with rules available to the rest of us, and still just as official, that re-introduce things some of us are worried about the lack of (pools and such).

[Synner]

[Critias]

This is a stupid argument. Whether it's realized or not, we don't even really disagree with each other. Behold: facts.

If you put the emphasis on "complete" a sentence does read a little differently and lead to different assumptions and expectations than if on "revision." If you only tell people a little bit they're going to worry about how they only know a little bit. If you change something some people (on a personal level) don't think is broken, even when they know it's changing for a good reason, they'll get upset. Companies do what companies have to do to stay afloat (and keep producing quality products). And if you love Shadowrun -- whether worried about those changes or not -- you're gonna buy 4th Edition.

There. Now let's all be friends.