FAQ Update, or, SR v4.5 Options

[SaintHax]

Since we are playing version 4.5 of the rules, why don't we put something in the FAQ to fix the problem of spirit's abilities and scaling. Obviously a F6 spirit getting 12 dice to use an ability defended by only one stat and no skill (e.g. Fear) is unbalanced. It would seem to me that a spirits skills being F/2 would be a good enough patch.

Now, you maybe saying that SRM is not here to add rules. That we are still playing core (not optional) SR 4. Except...

1. No used gear
2. Some banned qualities
3. Build point flexibility for some secondary characters
4. Fence value based on misunderstood math-- you don't "fence" legal items, those are sold.
5. Contact not needed for fencing
6. Social roll not used for fencing-- so much easier
7. Forced 4:1 buy rule for extended tests
8. Diminishing returns (GM discretion item per RAW) always in effect
9. Skill training circumvented
10. Learning spells test circumvented
11. New rule created for your contacts getting gear
12. Healing rules circumvented between adventures-- and as someone who took a Deadly wound twice in SMR00, this is a big change.
13. Created rule for hiring a weaponsmith
14. Oredeals for initiates are restricted
15. No mind affecting spells
16. No possession traditions
17. No item creation

While I agree some are necessary (and some are crazy), we clearly have no problem with altering and even adding rules. The banning of core rules, is pretty much us saying that Catalyst screwed up here. While I agree-- which is why the post about spirits both has merits and is satirical for the purpose of saying "woe, slow down"-- I find it odd that a Catalyst backed group is able to make these implications.

FYI, mages are unbalanced-- possession mages cause problems when the GM doesn't understand them. Like during a SRM Scramble and allowing a F6 spirit to mount someone and go unnoticed.

Another note: if SRM can fix the SR4 issues I'll still play, but currently I'm planning on taking a hiatus from it until SR5 comes out. While this FAQ change did nerf my voodoo shaman with astral haze idea, the rules themselves are the most streamlined of all SR's, but the most broke. Melee sucks hard, social skills don't scale, and spirits are so broke it's unreal.

[LurkerOutThere]

First off: Possession traditions are now banned so there is that at least.

Secondly: Change it now i'm leaving isn't the most constructive attitude and doesn't make it any more likely to happen. Some small tweaks have been made to make things fit the structure of SRM, but outside of the aforementioned possession mage item that has been the guiding focus of every change. Most if not all of the rest of the stuff works to some degree or another.

[UmaroVI]

There's also a big difference between "X is banned" and "The rules for X have been changed in a complicated way, learn these new rules." Presumably, Bull wants to keep things to the former rather than the latter.

[Bull]

Indeed. Missions' job is to support Shadowrun as much as possible. It's well beyond the scope of what we're doing to start actively changing rules. The only rule additions I've made thus far were either to cover things actively missing (specific costs for Instructors, costs/rules for hiring someone to mod gear) or to streamline and simplify downtime (Rules for "autobuying" gear from Contacts between Missions).

I agree SR4 and SR4A (There is no such thing as SR4.5, and considering most uses of it are derogatory, it really irritates me when it gets used) have some flaws. Some scaling issues. But, it's not really my call to change the rules right now.

As for the rest... There's a difference between limiting what's allowed, and making up whole new replacement rules on the fly. If I start down that path, there are a LOT of things I'd want to change. And it wouldn't take long till we were playing Bull's Version of SR5 and not SR4.

Bull

[SaintHax]

First off: Possession traditions are now banned so there is that at least.

Secondly: Change it now i'm leaving isn't the most constructive attitude and doesn't make it any more likely to happen. Some small tweaks have been made to make things fit the structure of SRM, but outside of the aforementioned possession mage item that has been the guiding focus of every change. Most if not all of the rest of the stuff works to some degree or another.

You misread my post: I don't think Possession traditions should be banned. I think all mages are overpowered, and possession traditions only seem more broke b/c of the lack of GM education with them. Which, shouldn't be the basis of a rule change, or we should give all Hackers a bonus-- GM's ignorance hurts them. Banning an archtype b/c it's "overpowered" is directly changing SRM from SR.

I also didn't threaten a "Change it now or I'm leaving". I clearly stated that I'm planning on leaving until SR 5 comes out, b/c I currently think that SR 4 (not SRM) is broke. If... IF... SRM is able to fix this, then, yes I will stay. However, it was not a threat-- I think fixing SR 4 is out of scope for SRM.

That conflicts with the first point: if SRM is going to ban items b/c they simply don't work-- not that they don't work in a network game-- then why not go the whole nine and fix the rest. Or, why doesn't SR errata somethings that are clearly broke.

[Yerameyahu]

*shrug* Banning things isn't the same as adding things.

[SaintHax]

*shrug* Banning things isn't the same as adding things.

I'd like you to read the list and pay attention to points 3, 11 (several parts created), 12 (added auto-heal), and 13 are definite additions. Though your statement is true, it isn't germane to this thread.

[Yerameyahu]

I think it's pretty germane. You implied that what you'd like is a fairly significant number of genuinely new additions, overhauls, etc. The Missions 'method', on the other hand, seems to be to avoid that as much as at all possible. And by 'seems', I mean only that Bull said exactly that in his last post. The things that qualify as additions are very small, as I understand it.

[SaintHax]

I think it's pretty germane. You implied that what you'd like is a fairly significant number of genuinely new additions, overhauls, etc. The Missions 'method', on the other hand, seems to be to avoid that as much as at all possible. And by 'seems', I mean only that Bull said exactly that in his last post. The things that qualify as additions are very small, as I understand it.

What I implied is: if we are going to make such changes to the game, then let's give it an overhaul. What I'd like, is since it's not for missions to fix SR4A, let's stop creating so many rules. The loot rules are totally made up: look at what the RAW gives your contact for his Connection rating-- frankly, it's laughable. So, SRM has changed this entirely. Pick a side: don't ban or change core rules (unless it has to be b/c it would require the same GM or special quest to work) or house rule all the breaks in the system. SRM tends to voice one side, but strays when SRM staff wants. The banning of Astral Haze, Possession Shaman, fence rules, and contact Connections being prime examples.

[Yerameyahu]

I understand, but I simply think 'make small additions and ban things, when necessary' is a coherent position. SR5 would be great, but ponies would also be great.

[LurkerOutThere]

How's this then: No.

The universe is not required to conform to your worldview, shocking as it is. Bull has stated why he makes the changes he does and while I do wish there were certain things done different I get the logic train.. There was a fair amount of rattle around on them before the FAQ got released and the decision was made to alter as little as possible to make the game possible in the missions format. What you want, what your throwing a tantrum about is the changes made havn't been the ones you've wanted. If you want to take your ball and go home that's your biz.

Almost every single thing on the list has been done with an eye to simplying running and playing, simplifying balance, or trying to find a common ground for a world wide campaign. What you want is people to make the specific changes you want that not even everyone would agree on.

[KarmaInferno]

The idea is to make the minimum changes needed to have the game run relatively smoothly in the Missions campaign format.

Every single change made was to accommodate the fact that this is a campaign with multitudes of GMs and players, many of who may have never seen each other before sitting down at a table together and may have no idea what each other's playstyle is going to be or what they're bringing to the table.

Changes are made to streamline activities outside actual table play, or to address problems that certain rules cause that would normally be okay in a home game but would be problematic in games where you don't have GMs and Players regularly playing together and coordinating their activities.

If it does not address these campaign needs, then a change will simply not be made.

The purpose of any rules changes in SRM is only to make the game fit the venue. Anything besides that is outside the campaign's authority.



-k

[Critias]

The idea is to make the minimum changes needed to have the game run relatively smoothly in the Missions campaign format.

This.

No game's "living campaign" should be the proverbial slippery slope on purpose. What changes there are have been made grudgingly, not eagerly, and Bull is (and should be) in no hurry to just go throwing things in or out willy-nilly. Just because X has changed doesn't mean Y should, in other words.

[SaintHax]

How's this then: No.

The universe is not required to conform to your worldview, shocking as it is. Bull has stated why he makes the changes he does and while I do wish there were certain things done different I get the logic train.. There was a fair amount of rattle around on them before the FAQ got released and the decision was made to alter as little as possible to make the game possible in the missions format. What you want, what your throwing a tantrum about is the changes made havn't been the ones you've wanted. If you want to take your ball and go home that's your biz.

I wasn't asking any question that can be answered "yes" or "no". I was stating an opinion and some facts that went with it. Lurker, you need to stop with the knee jerk responses that you continue to make int his forum as you misread or assume things from posts. Take a second and notice that you are starting to troll here.

The purpose of any rules changes in SRM is only to make the game fit the venue. Anything besides that is outside the campaign's authority.

Karma, I agree with everything you said; however, I don't think that's what's being done. To stick with one example that's the clearest: read the rules for a contact getting your gear in SR4A and then read the way his/her Connection rating works in SRM04's FAQ. It's a big change and has nothing to do with time constraints or network game play. If the other side concedes on this, I am able to go on with other points.

Oh, and if Lurker is concerned with my blood pressure: this is not a tantrum. I'm not interested in playing anymore, so I have no need to kick up my feet. That's not a threat of me leaving: things change, we get new interests, and we sometimes leave a game behind for a while and pick it up again later. I do love the ShadowRun IP and I've been closer with SRM (since I was a small part of VS's launce as SRM00) and would like to see it be the best campaign it could be.

[Bull]

Karma, I agree with everything you said; however, I don't think that's what's being done. To stick with one example that's the clearest: read the rules for a contact getting your gear in SR4A and then read the way his/her Connection rating works in SRM04's FAQ. It's a big change and has nothing to do with time constraints or network game play. If the other side concedes on this, I am able to go on with other points.

This actually has everything to do with time constraints. Mainly because through convention play, I noticed one big thing happening... PLayers were not using their contacts to get gear. Instead, they were relying on every face character they played with, because they got a much better dice pool than what generic contacts could come up with. This added time for book-keeping, it meant that face characters were constantly swamped with requests to get gear, and it just wasn't much fun for anyone.

Anything that happens outside of the actual Mission itself is a pain in the ass, due to bookkeeping, tracking hits and time, etc. I don't want to remove downtime stuff completely, because as with a lot of things, it's a balancing factor and a limiter to what you can do between sessions. But, at the same time, anything that can streamline this process and make it easier for the GMs and Players to sign off on quickly and painlessly is a good thing.

Again, this doesn't effect in-game play at all, which is a big factor. It's also partly to represent that the players you're dealing with in Season 4 have good connections and ready access to equipment and gear.

It's not a perfect fix, but it's also fairly minor in the long run.

Anyway, you guys can keep arguing this if you like, but I'd suggest you not. It's pointless, and you're only making each other angry. I said what I needed to say, and I'm done for now.

Bull

[Stahlseele]

This.

No game's "living campaign" should be the proverbial slippery slope on purpose. What changes there are have been made grudgingly, not eagerly, and Bull is (and should be) in no hurry to just go throwing things in or out willy-nilly. Just because X has changed doesn't mean Y should, in other words.

Even if it means not allowing your adept stuff, as sad as that may be.
Also, see his hairs getting grey because of the de-errataed books *snickers*

By the way, Bull?
How about trying and setting up, i don't know, something of a Database for Mission-Characters?
Where the Missions GM's can enter Characters and so they can be validated and used for missions everywhere?

[Hida Tsuzua]

By the way, Bull?
How about trying and setting up, i don't know, something of a Database for Mission-Characters?
Where the Missions GM's can enter Characters and so they can be validated and used for missions everywhere?

That would be nifty. We could do a poor man's version and make a thread in the mission's forum which is "post your missions character!"

[Stahlseele]

The answer will probably be no, because, no!

[Tycho]

Why don't you just fix the rules if you realize that they are in some way broken or imbalanced instead of ignoring the problem and banning stuff from the missions?
Seems like a lazy solution and it sucks. It is your obligation as publisher to improve the game if you realize a flaw, not just ban it from official games.

Also I a GM doesn't understand the rules, don't let him run a game.

cya
Tycho

[Yerameyahu]

… Cuz he's not the publisher?

[Wasabi]

While we're wishing.... I wish the publisher would playtest new releases (Paizo-style) through the playerbase so its print products were more solid.

[KarmaInferno]

Why don't you just fix the rules if you realize that they are in some way broken or imbalanced instead of ignoring the problem and banning stuff from the missions?
Seems like a lazy solution and it sucks. It is your obligation as publisher to improve the game if you realize a flaw, not just ban it from official games.

Also I a GM doesn't understand the rules, don't let him run a game.

cya
Tycho

Every single change has been made purely to make the campaign work in the Missions format, where the only control you have over what characters show up is the FAQ. There is little to no GM oversight of characters, outside of actual gameplay. Additionally, this is the Official Campaign. Every deviation from the Core Rules has to be approved by Catalyst to some degree. And they want the play experience to be as close to how the rules are written as is practical in the Missions format.

This isn't some home game where you can just arbitrarily decide you don't like a rule and change it.

If you are talking about Catalyst actually changing and improving the rulebooks, I agree, publishers have an obligation to provide quality to their customers. But this is Missions, Bull does not have that level of authority.

Also, have you ever coordinated a game convention? You NEVER ever have enough GMs to go around. Turning a GM away potentially means that 4-7 players don't get to pay a game they may have spent hundreds of dollars in transportation, housing, and attendance fees to be there for. So a GM has to be pretty terrible, or get considerable numbers of complaints, before they get told, "No, we don't need your help."



-k

[Tycho]

Sure, I organized SR events at convention in Germany for Pegasus, including "Internationale Spieletage" in Essen with 150000 visitors, not like your small US events like Gencon (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
We don't ban anything, playing standard SR rules. It is not that hard, I run games at about 7-8 conventions a year and never had problems with mind control magic. It is a part of SR, you just have to take it into account when designing your plot.

Point being: I don't mind excluding optional rules and such, but to outright ban things like "mind control" magic is just bad: That is one of the core aspects of magic. If it seem that it is to strong, you should push for an errata. If nobody is willing to do that (since errata seems to be very low or non-existent on the todo lists of Hardy), you have to stick it out, learn the rules and plan your missions accordingly.
These are not things that only involve the mission campaign, it is pretty much part of the core game aspects.

[KarmaInferno]

Again, you are confusing what Bull can do with what Catalyst can do.

Bull has a limited set of options. Mostly "ban" or "allow". "Modify" is not usually available.

Catalyst could do more on their end, but they have not.

So you have a LOT of GMs reporting to Bull that mind control is making things "un-fun". As everyone is looking at him to fix the problem, he can't just very well tell folks to suck it up. So all he can do is simply remove the offending rules.

Bull doesn't get to personally meet or approve GMs, either. Those are chosen by the individual conventions. You might have plenty enough volunteers at your uberconvention, but I have to say at the smaller ones over in the US, as I said before, never have enough GMs, so the local convention coordinators are usually loathe to turn away any volunteer.




-k

[Tycho]

But you work for CGL and therefor it should be very easy for you to talk to Jason and release a errata, if you realise that there is a problem with the rules...

If I can officially extinguish the Slow Spell from War! without ever having talked to Jason, you should be more than able to get some rules changed...

cya
Tycho