4th Edition did hurt my soul..., rant, questions Options

[Larme]

This also reduced the effectiveness of the smartgun (+2 dice instead of -2TN).
IN SR2: MR T has a fire arms skill of 6+6 dice from his combat pool-with a smartlink:He rolls 14 dice getting 10 successes.
IN SR4: MR T has a fire arms skill of 6, agility 4-with a smartlink:He rolls 12 dice getting 4 successes.

Yeah, the smartlink nerf is a big deal -- smartlinks don't just assist targetting in SR3, they make non-smartlinked weapons hilariously pathetic. They also shift the balance against defense, because someone who dodges is always at TN 4, making the game a lot more deadly. Another problem with SR3's dice is arbitariness. It's arbitrary whether something adds dice or changes the TN, it's just based on however the developers were feeling at the moment. In SR4 almost everything changes the dice pool, only a few things change thresholds, and none of those things are directly related to combat because there are no thresholds in combat.

[Dikotana]

Defense balancing with offense is a good thing for fun, probably, but it's bad for realism. You really shouldn't be able to dodge bursts from an assault rifle aimed by a targeting bot in the shooter's eyeballs.

[Larme]

Defense balancing with offense is a good thing for fun, probably, but it's bad for realism. You really shouldn't be able to dodge bursts from an assault rifle aimed by a targeting bot in the shooter's eyeballs.

It's not aimed by nothin'. The smartlink is a dot in your field of vision, it's a glorified laser sight, just more accurate and able to take account of more factors. The aiming is done by the person, and while they have assistance from the smartlink, the link doesn't aim for them.

[Omenowl]

Well if you are going realism for ranged weapons then you would have much lower chances of hitting anything beyond 6 yards in combat. You would start raising the thresholds for each range by 1 or 2. I think we all prefer playability than having an extreme range require 6 successes. We also don't have fatigue, cool under fire or anything else that would make combat both harder and more realistic.

[Cain]

Well if you are going realism for ranged weapons then you would have much lower chances of hitting anything beyond 6 yards in combat. You would start raising the thresholds for each range by 1 or 2. I think we all prefer playability than having an extreme range require 6 successes. We also don't have fatigue, cool under fire or anything else that would make combat both harder and more realistic.

We actually have all of that, it's just assumed to be a property of your character. That's been true of all editions of Shadowrun. Your character is assumed to have been exposed to combat enough so that you won't freeze or lose performance under pressure. And if you want a character without all that, take flaws like Combat Paralysis.

But to expound on mfb's point a bit: it's not that SR3 has fewer flaws than SR4. In fact, that's hardly the case. The issue is that SR3's flaws are in places where people can fix them more easily. In my experience, the flaws of SR4 are much harder to deal with within the system.

For example, Open Tests are a serious flaw in SR3. But you can fix that problem by switching them out for an existing mechanic, such as a simple Opposed test. Longshot tests in SR4 can't be fixed as simply; you can't just substitute another mechanic, you have to rewrite a new set of rules from scratch. You wouldn't believe some of the rules my co-GM suggested to fix the problem of: "All combats end when the mage casts Manaball."

[Bob Lord of Evil]

My operating philosophy goes like this.

Don't let the rules get in the way of a good time. If the players come up with an idea that seems feasible and you got a tempo going with the group, don't stop and go digging for rules. Make a judgement call, pull a TN or number of succeses out of the air and keep moving. Jot down the judgement call for later reference.

As David Lee Roth once said, "I have two rules in life, don't hassle the little shit and it's all little shit." (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Larme]

For example, Open Tests are a serious flaw in SR3. But you can fix that problem by switching them out for an existing mechanic, such as a simple Opposed test. Longshot tests in SR4 can't be fixed as simply; you can't just substitute another mechanic, you have to rewrite a new set of rules from scratch. You wouldn't believe some of the rules my co-GM suggested to fix the problem of: "All combats end when the mage casts Manaball."

I think the problem is that many GMs would rather house rule than stop and think. The flaws you mention aren't insurmountable within the system. Even long shot tests with 8 dice are useless when the threshold is 3 or higher, or when it's an opposed test against people with more than 8 dice. And manaball is solved by background count, visibility modifiers, enemies spreading out, enemies intermixed with friends, enemies inside of an opaque window vehicle... all kinds of things! If one tactic is always winning the day, it's because the GM is always presenting the runners with the same situation. You can't blame runners for using one tactic all the time if they're only faced with one kind of opposition. House rules are almost universally failures of creativity, not objective responses to deeply rooted systemic problems.

[Malachi]

I think the problem is that many GMs would rather house rule than stop and think ... If one tactic is always winning the day, it's because the GM is always presenting the runners with the same situation. You can't blame runners for using one tactic all the time if they're only faced with one kind of opposition. House rules are almost universally failures of creativity, not objective responses to deeply rooted systemic problems.

QFT. Wow. *tips hat*

[Cain]

Don't let the rules get in the way of a good time. If the players come up with an idea that seems feasible and you got a tempo going with the group, don't stop and go digging for rules. Make a judgement call, pull a TN or number of succeses out of the air and keep moving. Jot down the judgement call for later reference.

That's easy to say, but it's hard to come up with a fun, fast, and fair rule on the fly sometimes.

House rules are almost universally failures of creativity, not objective responses to deeply rooted systemic problems.

I have to disagree. Most of the house rules I've seen (because of the groups I was in) come from groups with multiple GM's, and only arise after weeks of discussion and experimentation. You can't blame the GM, since it makes no sense that many GM's would have the same problem if it wasn't mechanical in nature.

And some things are just that insurmountable. The aforementioned Open Test gave just plain crazy results and it couldn't be fixed short of a total replacement. I don't know of a single group that actually used the hated Maneuver Score. And that's SR3! However, both these could be fixed "within the system", so to speak; you could substitute another set of rules instead of having to come up with totally new ones.

In SR4, sometimes you can do that (fix spells by increasing drain) but frequently, you can't (Longshot tests and Pornomancers). You have to invent house rules to compensate. And judging by the cleverness of some of the house rules I've seen, I wouldn't say there's a lack of creativity behind it.

[Malachi]

... but frequently, you can't (Longshot tests and Pornomancers).

Not good examples of "insurmountable" problems, IMO. SR4A introduced a rule (though they call it optional) to have a "roll-over" modifier onto the Long Shot test of -3 per -1. So, for each -3 that the modifiers when over your base DP, that translates into a -1 modifier on your Edge pool. That takes care of the "I won't even bother getting the skill" people. Even before that I didn't think they were that broken. Remember the Called Shot rules state that the GM has to decide if the shot is even possible before you get to attempt it. As for the Pornomancer... meh. It's a one-trick-pony character in the extreme. You cannot solve all SR problems by seducing someone. Seducing someone just means they want to have sex with you, not that they will do anything you tell them to, and Social skills cannot be used in a combat situation. You cannot Seduce someone in 1 IP, or 1 Combat Turn, or even a few Combat Turns.

[Larme]

I have to disagree. Most of the house rules I've seen (because of the groups I was in) come from groups with multiple GM's, and only arise after weeks of discussion and experimentation. You can't blame the GM, since it makes no sense that many GM's would have the same problem if it wasn't mechanical in nature.

And some things are just that insurmountable. The aforementioned Open Test gave just plain crazy results and it couldn't be fixed short of a total replacement. I don't know of a single group that actually used the hated Maneuver Score. And that's SR3! However, both these could be fixed "within the system", so to speak; you could substitute another set of rules instead of having to come up with totally new ones.

Well obviously, if you extensively test something and your group is in agreement, there's nothing wrong with a house rule. But most of the house rules I see posted on dumpshock are pretty much, "My PCs keep using this thing to win, how do I nerf it so that they lose?" I wasn't trying to say that all house rules are bad, or that they're never based on a mechanical issue.

As far as I'm concerned though, neither of the things you mention were ever a problem -- If someone rolls a 33 on their stealth test, then it's almost impossible to spot them. Big whoop, so someone's sneaky. The only reason you'd "need" to fix that is if your personal preferences were offended by how sneaky someone could become by rolling a stealth open test, for instance. As for maneuver scores, I don't even remember what they are, but I played a rigger for quite a while and was never bothered by it... It just goes to show that, all in all, house rules are based on preference which will differ from person to person. Some groups want the rules to be "just so" and are willing to compile an encyclopedia of small tweaks to make that happen. Other groups, like all the ones I've played with, are more concerned with the story and the action than the subtleties of dice mechanics. All rules are, at base, arbitrary, so whatever changes you make are going to be just as arbitrary as the originals...

And I wouldn't agree that mix-n-matching the rules is considered a fix "within the system," that's a house rule, and not what I was talking about at all. What I meant by within the system is that there are ways to deal with the problems you mentioned (from SR4, anyway) without house rules.

In SR4, sometimes you can do that (fix spells by increasing drain) but frequently, you can't (Longshot tests and Pornomancers). You have to invent house rules to compensate. And judging by the cleverness of some of the house rules I've seen, I wouldn't say there's a lack of creativity behind it.

Again, neither of those are insurmountable. Longshot tests are at most tests of 8 dice -- if you make the task harder than what can be accomplished with 8 dice or less, longshot is useless. A player who can accomplish easy tasks, at most 8 times per session, despite having 0 dice or less due to modifiers, is not a problem. You might dislike it, but it doesn't break the game if a player can do things that weren't that hard in the first place, using luck.

And pornomancers are solved in a number of ways -- for one, enemies who are invulnerable to social tests like critters, drones, and spirits. For another thing, astral security that assenses the pornomancer, sees how many magical effects are on her aura, and then keeps an eye on whether she talks to any important people or enters any restricted areas. For yet another thing, enemies who are also pornomancers. For yet another thing, background counts and mana statics which bust the pornomancer's abilities down to almost nothing. Also, ambushes, and plain old bullets.

There are a LOT of counters to both of the things you mentioned. You say it was carefully playtested for weeks and weeks, so I find it hard to believe you wouldn't have figured these things out. What's much more likely is you did figure them out, you just decided that you'd rather have a house rule because the very idea of longshots and pornomancers offended you. If that's how you want to play it, that's fine. But you're clearly incorrect when you say that there's no way to deal with these things without house rules.

[hobgoblin]

Remember the Called Shot rules state that the GM has to decide if the shot is even possible before you get to attempt it.

Sadly, GM fiat seems to offend a lot of people these days.

They want democracy at the table, apparently...

Something about getting a say in the story, and remove any chance of railroading...

To that i have one thing to say, find a new GM...

[O'Donnell Heir]

I have to say I like not having to be an engineer to know the secrets and play the game. SR3 you had already know how to play the game, or be taught by someone else how to play the game. I spent a portion of High School trying to figure out how SR3 worked, and what I could do with it, but unless you'd been playing since release, there was little way to bring new people into it. It just wasn't a system that 3-4 people could pick up and play without experience, someone had to know it's ins and outs beforehand. Our GM was actually an engineer, and was the only one who could do the numbers of the multiple negative and positive modifiers to come up with anything like a coherent story with some actual stuff happening in the areas. Things like modifiers for distance, wind, and terrain were all in SR3, but took alot of thought into making it work.

SR4 is just more streamlined, and I don't see that as an inherently bad word.

[Chibu]

I have to say I like not having to be an engineer to know the secrets and play the game. SR3 you had already know how to play the game, or be taught by someone else how to play the game. I spent a portion of High School trying to figure out how SR3 worked, and what I could do with it, but unless you'd been playing since release, there was little way to bring new people into it. It just wasn't a system that 3-4 people could pick up and play without experience, someone had to know it's ins and outs beforehand. Our GM was actually an engineer, and was the only one who could do the numbers of the multiple negative and positive modifiers to come up with anything like a coherent story with some actual stuff happening in the areas. Things like modifiers for distance, wind, and terrain were all in SR3, but took alot of thought into making it work.

SR4 is just more streamlined, and I don't see that as an inherently bad word.

You're talking about adding and subtracting... single digit numbers... unless I missed something. No system can be played without reading its respective core rules. Shadowrun 3rd edition even has a Quick Start guide which is free and rather short if I recall.

I am not arguing about how streamlined one is over the other nor even state an opinion, as that will end badly.

[Doc Byte]

I know I'm a bit late posting on page 6 of this topic, but I do like SR4 very much. I've played SR1 and IMHO SR4 feels a bit like back to the roots. There's much more SR1 in SR4 than in SR2 or SR3. The first thing I did when Pegasus Spiele announced being the new German publisher was joining their support team. I can't say "the Germans" don't like SR4. The problem was the lack of a publisher for nearly two years. Since Pegasus took over and we get more and more translated core rulebooks I observe a retreat of SR3.

[Malachi]

Sadly, GM fiat seems to offend a lot of people these days.

They want democracy at the table, apparently...

Something about getting a say in the story, and remove any chance of railroading...

To that i have one thing to say, find a new GM...

No RPG system will ever cover all eventualities. GM fiat exists in RPG's whether the rulebook admits it or not.

[TubaTech]

Does anyone else see the futility of arguing for or against the game of your preference?! It's just a game.


Also, I hope I'm not the only one that realizes the irony of so many gamers trying to make a fantasy game more "real".....

[Chibu]

Does anyone else see the futility of arguing for or against the game of your preference?! It's just a game.


Also, I hope I'm not the only one that realizes the irony of so many gamers trying to make a fantasy game more "real".....

What are you talking about? Dunkelzahn lives in my basement.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I think the problem is that many GMs would rather house rule than stop and think. The flaws you mention aren't insurmountable within the system. Even long shot tests with 8 dice are useless when the threshold is 3 or higher, or when it's an opposed test against people with more than 8 dice. And manaball is solved by background count, visibility modifiers, enemies spreading out, enemies intermixed with friends, enemies inside of an opaque window vehicle... all kinds of things! If one tactic is always winning the day, it's because the GM is always presenting the runners with the same situation. You can't blame runners for using one tactic all the time if they're only faced with one kind of opposition. House rules are almost universally failures of creativity, not objective responses to deeply rooted systemic problems.

Manaball isn't solved by those things. Those are work arounds to a bad sub-system, that isn't a solution. Things like manaball should be balanced out of the gate and use use all the fancy mods like background count to create an extra challenge in a certain adventure. If you have to constantly throw a ton of modifiers at a rule sub set to bring it inline with the rest of the rules the rule is messed up and should be fixed, and not covered up with a pile of modifiers. While you can get by with the modifier game this is a case where a house rule is a better solution since it solves the problem from the start and you don't have to constantly come up with on the fly modifiers to gimp the mage back into place.

[hobgoblin]

With 1000+ eyeballs looking, all bugs are shallow...

[Cain]

Larme, with all due respect, you're not discussing how to fix the rules. Fixing the rules means making it so that it works for everyone. What you're discussing is *nerfing* the rules, so a powerful combination doesn't work anymore.

Your suggestions for the pornomancer, for example, don't make it so that the pornomancer is any better or worse. You're just saying that we should punish the player by taking spotlight time away from him. It doesn't fix the fact that he's got a 48 die pool for seducation, and a disgusting number of dice for all other social occasions. Suddenly, everyone meets through the Matrix or drone proxies, making the character-- and player-- feel absolutely useless.

If we apply a fix to the system, the pornomancer won't be stealing spotlight time away from everybody else; will sail through everyday social challenges; will be challenged, but not overwhelmed unless that's what the scenario calls for; and most importantly, *will* have just as much fun as everyelse.

I solved the pornomancer in my games basically by asking nicely: I suggest that everyone cap their dice pools at 20. But that's not a fix to the rules, it's just an agreement to play in the same ballpark. An actual rule would restrict the huge dice pool issues, while still allowing you to benefit from it.

As for the Longshot test "fix", it just creates the problem that it was trying to solve. The whole point of a Longshot test is to make it so there's never an "impossible" shot. However, if the penalties get steep enough, you end up with a zero dice pool again-- an impossible shot. That means Joe Average can't even pull the trigger on an HMG on full auto, even if he spends Edge.

[Larme]

Larme, with all due respect, you're not discussing how to fix the rules. Fixing the rules means making it so that it works for everyone. What you're discussing is *nerfing* the rules, so a powerful combination doesn't work anymore.

Your suggestions for the pornomancer, for example, don't make it so that the pornomancer is any better or worse. You're just saying that we should punish the player by taking spotlight time away from him. It doesn't fix the fact that he's got a 48 die pool for seducation, and a disgusting number of dice for all other social occasions. Suddenly, everyone meets through the Matrix or drone proxies, making the character-- and player-- feel absolutely useless.

Presumably, if there's a problem with the pornomancer, it's because she takes up too much spotlight time. Thus, the solution is to use methods to reduce it. If the pornomancer only takes up her fair share of spotlight time, then what's the big deal?

If we apply a fix to the system, the pornomancer won't be stealing spotlight time away from everybody else; will sail through everyday social challenges; will be challenged, but not overwhelmed unless that's what the scenario calls for; and most importantly, *will* have just as much fun as everyelse.

Your premise is that people who give themselves 48 dice don't have fun automatically winning all social tests? Why did they do it then? The way I see it, it's their own fault for making a character that they don't enjoy playing. If they'd spent less points on seduction and been more versatile, they would have more fun. We don't need to fix the system to protect people from making characters they don't like playing. By your reasoning, we'd also have to "fix" characters that really suck by somehow changing the system so they can't be made. Why not just hold people responsible for the characters they create, and let them make new ones if they're bored?

[hobgoblin]

ah, bad wrong fun (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Omenowl]

Combat paralysis is people being unable to react to a situation it also does not affect accuracy. It does not factor in adrenaline, excitement, anger and fear. All of these things make you clumsy and would reduce your accuracy. It is easy to give range numbers and probability to hit for a stationary target at close range. As soon as the target moves, you move, and there is return fire accuracy drops from a sure thing to almost nil except at close range. I don't mind it for a game, but a lot of people would hate their gun bunny to never hit past 10 yards with a pistol. A lot of this wouldn't matter for hand to hand combat as that is assumed and resisted between to characters. It makes close combat a lot more attractive.

[Larme]

Combat paralysis is people being unable to react to a situation it also does not affect accuracy. It does not factor in adrenaline, excitement, anger and fear. All of these things make you clumsy and would reduce your accuracy. It is easy to give range numbers and probability to hit for a stationary target at close range. As soon as the target moves, you move, and there is return fire accuracy drops from a sure thing to almost nil except at close range. I don't mind it for a game, but a lot of people would hate their gun bunny to never hit past 10 yards with a pistol. A lot of this wouldn't matter for hand to hand combat as that is assumed and resisted between to characters. It makes close combat a lot more attractive.

Shadowrun combat takes, and has always taken, forever. You can have 2-3 combat turns that takes 2 hours. It might be unrealistic, but making it more complicated would be unequivocally, horribly BAD. You want a realistic combat sim, you'd better wait for a new first person shooter. In fact, I really hope they come out with an RPG oriented first person shooter that uses hyper realistic combat simulation, that would be sweet. But in an RPG, short and sweet is much more valuable than realism. If firearm combat was as realistic as real life, it wouldn't just be frustrating, it would be boring -- fire, fire back, fire, fire back, fire fire back... Zzzz.