Theorycrafting with Shadowrun, Looking at the math behind the game system Options

[MindandPen]

One of my hobbies (obsessions?), is looking into the mathematical modeling that games use. With computer games, once you begin to figure out the rules (or they are published) the math becomes easy to build. Once you have live data, you can compare the actual results against the models and have discussions on things such as are your damage dealers (DPS) doing what they should, how are the healers performing, are your tanks soaking damage like they should, etc.

I've done some looking into the Shadowrun 5 rules with an eye towards the same type of analysis. I did this with SR4 when it came out, and recently with SR3 for grins. What I was curious about, was to see how well balanced the classes were to each other and were the rule changes driven by the various new platforms Shadowrun is moving into?

Now, let me preface this with a few things:

• Shadowrun is predominately a story telling game - which is what I like about it
• Balance in a tabletop RPG is far more subjective than balance in a computer based game
• Card games live somewhere between the two
• We're about to have 2 computer games and a card game somewhat based on the SR5 rules
• My analysis is no where near complete, or to the rigor of a published paper

My high-level (and rather cursory analysis) has a couple of interesting conclusions:

• SR3, 4 and 5 all appear to have had some mathematical modeling done to help build them
• SR5 appears to have had more detail placed on balance and ease of functionalizing the math
• SR5 rules appear to be built to be easily "ported" to a computer based / card based game system
• Regarding roles and the archetypes:
  
  • SR5 appears to have the following mapping of archetypes to traditional computer game role types (and yes, many of these are a "well, duh"):
    
    • Primary Damage (DPS)
      
      • Combat Adepts (Ranged or Melee)
      • Street Samurai and other Cyber based combat Archetypes (Former Company Man, Mercenary, etc.)
      • Combat focused Spellslinger (Combat Mage)
      • Combat focused Decker/Technomancer
    • Secondary Damage (Support DPS)
      
      • Generalist Archetypes (Occult investigator, Private Eye, etc.)
      • Decker/Technomancer with additional matrix skills or focus
      • Spellcaster with other non-direct combat focus (summoning)
      • Rigger
    • Tank
      
      • Street Samurai focused on soaking damage (Troll Street Samurai)
      • Decker/Technomancer with defense focused skills/programs
      • Spellcaster with defense focused spells
  • SR5 appears to not have a dedicated "Healer" archetype
  • SR5 has specific roles that are uniquely RPG based, such as the "Face"
  • The Technomancer and the Decker have some oddities going on in their math in relation to each other
• I've come to the conclusion that the Spellcasters/Technomancers were "nerfed" to provide a mechanism for better balance between the "classes" when moving to other platforms that are more reliant on class blance

In general, I like Story over Game Mechanics in all the games I play (for example I don't play World of Warcraft anymore, but I do play Star Wars: The Old Republic because of the story in the latter). I have always enjoyed Shadowrun for the story element, which is why I stopped playing D&D and its variants.

I liked Technomancers and Spellcasters in SR4 better, which is what led me to do this analysis. My hunch was that the rules had been changed to help make the game fit across multiple platforms easier, and I think that is one of many design influences in the new rules. I'll be interested to see what happens with Technomancers in the future and the Matrix in general.

Those are my thoughts, feel free to trash and burn as you see fit. Hopefully I'm not crazy or off base.

-M&P