[X] My Assistant

[UmaroVI]

...you have to calculate it once.
Yeah, you need tables to calculate RC - many other mechanics require those, too; there's nothing wrong with that.
Like, if you're a rogue, what's your bab and fort save on level 11? No peeking at PHB!

+8 and (base) +3. I have literally not played 3e D&D in nearly a year.

[UmaroVI]

Semi-Auto, Short Burst, Long Burst, or Full Auto?

If it differs, answer for each of them. Same for first or second shot.

[Infornography]

Semi-Auto, Short Burst, Long Burst, or Full Auto?

how about a long burst with a 4-step ammo-mix of apds, flechette, exex and tracer?
with damage code, please ...

[Redjack]

The only way to understand the matrix rules is to understand that there are no matrix rules. They can't be fully understood because there just is not a complete, consistent system present to understand.

I have over a dozen gamers that rotate in/out from my table-top game over the course of the year, all of whom have been with us at least 2 years. In that time, I have made several observations about the matrix rules:
1) They are consistent, except for a one rule about hidden nodes between the base book and Unwired. The problem in understanding is that sometimes there are multiple paths to the same goal.
2) The rules are complex. System administrators (in real life) who sit at the table have an easy time with the rules. People who have a good, but incomplete, knowledge of how computer networks, security and hacking work in real life are challenged.
3) The game tends to work best when the GM presents the matrix as per his understanding of the rules.

So how would I make SR5 matrix rules better? I would present a basic, moderate & advanced set of rules with a simple cross matrix of which rules are allowed at each level. The GM then assigns the matrix rating for his/her table and away you go. Of course, the rules would have to build from the previous level so that as a GM/player increases their understanding they can simply step up to the next level of rules at their table. To be honest, having played 7+ Shadowrun games at each of the last 3 Gen Cons (+having 3 other home game Shadowrun GMs) I already find that most GM's do this without realizing. The only thing that is missing is structured rules for multiple tiers of complexity.

[Seerow]

...you have to calculate it once.
Yeah, you need tables to calculate RC - many other mechanics require those, too; there's nothing wrong with that.
Like, if you're a rogue, what's your bab and fort save on level 11? No peeking at PHB!

BAB for a level 11 rogue is +8. Fort is +3. That's easy, it's a pretty clear pattern (medium bab = 3/4 level, round down, bad save = 1/3 level round down). Recoil stacking is a little more complicated because of what does and doesn't stack, but like you mention you only need to worry about it once, then you're done. You write it down on your sheet and it's over with. Or if you use a spreadsheet/chargen it's even easier since those rules are typically programmed in.


edit: And I got ninjad on the answer. That's what I get for typing more than the minimum.

[Blade]

I'm pretty sure Jason and a few select writers have already started thinking about 5th ed. Nothing formal yet, but starting to see who could work on it, what should be changed, how it can be done and so on.

I have to admit that I'm a little worried about that idea. I'm sure Jason and the freelancers are doing their best, I know they love the game, but from what I've read so far they lack three things:
- Direction: ask 3 freelancers how they see the game and you've got 4 different answers. That's not really bad, especially since Shadowrun is open to a lot of playstyles, but from time to time, especially when writing a new edition, you've got to set the tone you want. And when you've got someone who wants to go back to 80s cyberpunk and someone who wants to get rid of it all, you're bound to have problems and risk ending up with a flavorless game with no identity.
- Vision: The latest books are bland and boring. They're not exactly bad, but they bring nothing new. I was used to getting a lot of adventures idea, to thinking "whoa that's cool", "I should have had that idea!" and things like that when I read a new SR book. With the latest books I've done that A LOT less. And that's not because I expected it. I was expecting good things from Attitude and was greatly disappointed. The Shadowrun universe is becoming more and more "2011 with elves and cyberware" and so far the new metaplots all seem pretty uninteresting (or not very well dealt with).
- Background and rule grasp: I know there are long time players and dedicated fans in the freelancer pool, but there are still quite a few mistakes in either rules or existing background in the latest books, and the new background and rules are rarely very good, which doesn't bode well for a new edition.

I hope it'll get better or I'm afraid I'll have to become one of those bitter and disgruntled fans who say that their edition is the best and that Shadowrun ceased to be good after.

[suoq]

Oddly enough, I'm going in a different direction. My hope is that the Germans write SR5 and someone translates that into English.

[Sengir]

Well, core books are by far the best selling RPG books, and generating liquid assets seems to be high on CGL's priority list since last march...on the other hand, producing a usable core book is far more complicated than just expansion products, so maybe they believe that it would go over their heads.
Predicting a company's actions is hard enough under normal circumstances, and we are talking about the company which just de-erratead Arsenal (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Stahlseele]

Oddly enough, I'm going in a different direction. My hope is that the Germans write SR5 and someone translates that into English.

The Probability of that happening are rather slim, because, over here, SR4 has been around less time and over there . .

[Ascalaphus]

So how would I make SR5 matrix rules better? I would present a basic, moderate & advanced set of rules with a simple cross matrix of which rules are allowed at each level. The GM then assigns the matrix rating for his/her table and away you go. Of course, the rules would have to build from the previous level so that as a GM/player increases their understanding they can simply step up to the next level of rules at their table. To be honest, having played 7+ Shadowrun games at each of the last 3 Gen Cons (+having 3 other home game Shadowrun GMs) I already find that most GM's do this without realizing. The only thing that is missing is structured rules for multiple tiers of complexity.

I like this idea.. maybe it could also be applied to differentiate routine and important hacking; using the simple system for routine hacking, and the complex system for hacking when it's a major plot point.



What I'd like to see is a more streamlined equipment system. I want some sort of hold on the amount of detail and customization; for example, keeping track of the camera mods you put on the camera you modded into a vehicle - it just goes too many layers deep.

Basically, I want fully-specified characters to fit on only 1-2 pages instead of needing a small booklet per character.

[Eugene]

I hope 4th stays around for a long while yet. I've got a lot of time, energy, and shelf space devoted to it. Our group likes it. Do we sometimes change / ignore things we don't like? Sure - but we just do that and move on.

A lot of the 4th edition hate, I think, is all mixed up with emotions and factions vis-a-vis AncientHistory, Frank, and Loren's Great Mistake™. A new edition isn't going to help that. Some fans aren't happy with current metaplot (RWARR trees!). A new edition isn't going to help that, either.

That said, I personally wouldn't mind a rewritten Unwired or a Shadowrun Rules Compendium which gives alternate rules and rules "updates" allowing the system to be tweaked without a complete restart.

[Sengir]

1) They are consistent, except for a one rule about hidden nodes between the base book and Unwired. The problem in understanding is that sometimes there are multiple paths to the same goal.

I can add another one off the top of my head: Agents can either access multiple nodes or not, depending on which book you read.

But all in all, I think the matrix rules are more lacking at the basic description of "how does it look like and what am I doing there?"
- What does the matrix look like if I "step out" of a node? Is there are "grid" as described in Neuromancer between the nodes?
- Where is my icon while I'm trying to hack a node? In the neighboring node which routes the signal through, in my home node, or already in some kind of lobby for the target node? Can others see me trying to break into the node, or just the target node?
- What does a stealth program actually do, does it prevent others from seeing that I am logged into the node, or does it just give the impression that my icon belongs there?
- Can nodes run programs besides Analyze? How about exploit for example?
- If I'm jumped into a vehicle, what do I see of the matrix, and how does my icon look like in the matrix?
...

In short, what the matrix needs IMO is a consistent technical description of how it is supposed to work, in-universe. Only then should these actions be populated with rules and such.

[Mayhem_2006]

Surely this is worthy of an administrative warning? No? No single TOS element bans this? Excuse me while I go update the TOS.

Could easily do it - D20 Modern has the monster archetypes, D20 Future has the sci-fi stuff, and the fluff is the fluff...

[tete]

/tangent on

People always say this. I don't think the ones who say this actually play a lot of mmos. D&D 4e is nothing like an MMO mechanically. And if the game plays that way, it's the fault of the DM not the system.

Have you read DMG 2? I dont have it infront of me but they actually praise the MMO mechanical aspects of D&D 4e in it. I've played MMOs since Ultima Online and currently play Rift. I've also played and ran D&D 4e. The way powers work is clearly based off video games (especially things like marking) and MMOs more specifically in how players can get combos off of each other. Skills also work very similarly to Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, where the DCs are based on your level. This is not a BAD thing but it is the way the rules work.

But the 4e method of tanking leaves it up to the GM to weigh the cost vs benefit of just ignoring the mark, in no case is any creature ever forced to attack the guy in full plate to the exclusion of everyone else no matter how stupid that tactic seems or how poorly it is working. This is vastly different from any MMO.

See Everquest Shadow Knight... you can mark an opponent who then takes ability damage when not attacking the shadow knight, it can still attack the mage but it takes necrotic damage IIRC for doing so.

It really boils down to the description of a fair number of powers can be taken directly from several video games.

/tangent off

I think 5e should come out 2013 but... that may be a bit early and I think it depends entirely on how well supplements sell.

2) The rules are complex. System administrators (in real life) who sit at the table have an easy time with the rules. People who have a good, but incomplete, knowledge of how computer networks, security and hacking work in real life are challenged.

I dont think thats true, other than using real world terms for the first time the mechanics are 1e all over again minus the system map, which the map is still implied just not detailed. Its not like actual computer security other than the terms. The problem (much like astral space) is getting the hacker involved without making it involved. I think you do two things, make hacking the best choice for the hacker in combat situations (not as good as the Street Samurai with the shotgun but the hacker should not be pulling a pistol) and secondly no opposed rolls, set threshold and alert stages based on the attempts made. You also have to dump matrix combat because its a solo game and you just cant get around that. Likewise Astral combat needs to go away.

[Fatum]

how about a long burst with a 4-step ammo-mix of apds, flechette, exex and tracer?
with damage code, please ...

You can't mix ammo types in a clip, as per the rules in Core.

+8 and (base) +3. I have literally not played 3e D&D in nearly a year.

Yet you remember which class gets which powers progression.
If that is possible to remember, remembering which RC mods stack and the RC they provide can be remembered also.

2) The rules are complex. System administrators (in real life) who sit at the table have an easy time with the rules. People who have a good, but incomplete, knowledge of how computer networks, security and hacking work in real life are challenged.

This seems to be the case with me, I more or less grasped matrix rules on the first reading, and never had any serious problems with them. Now, magic...

But all in all, I think the matrix rules are more lacking at the basic description of "how does it look like and what am I doing there?"
- What does the matrix look like if I "step out" of a node? Is there are "grid" as described in Neuromancer between the nodes?
- Where is my icon while I'm trying to hack a node? In the neighboring node which routes the signal through, in my home node, or already in some kind of lobby for the target node? Can others see me trying to break into the node, or just the target node?
- What does a stealth program actually do, does it prevent others from seeing that I am logged into the node, or does it just give the impression that my icon belongs there?
- Can nodes run programs besides Analyze? How about exploit for example?
- If I'm jumped into a vehicle, what do I see of the matrix, and how does my icon look like in the matrix?

Uh, absolute majority of those is answered in one way (and book) or another...

[Sengir]

Uh, absolute majority of those is answered in one way (and book) or another...

Not "or another", "and another" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Not "or another", "and another" (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

But they are still answered... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[suoq]

System administrators (in real life) who sit at the table have an easy time with the rules. People who have a good, but incomplete, knowledge of how computer networks, security and hacking work in real life are challenged.

The more I read this, the less sense this makes to me.

Assuming I'm actually a competent programmer and system admin, and therefore your are free to be as technical as you want, could you explain to me how real life experience helps one understand Shadowrun's hacking rules? To me they appear to emulate "Live Free and Die Hard", not reality.

[Ascalaphus]

I think one of the root causes of the Matrix rules' suckiness is that first they wanted an abstract rule system, but then they started adding more technical thingies in, and now the result is a sort of hybrid mes which is neither high- nor low-level abstract/technical. As in, it's not clear and simple, but it also doesn't get "realism" right either.

[Redjack]

The more I read this, the less sense this makes to me.

My point was a generalization based upon my experience: The more technical the gamer is in real life, the better grasp they tend to have on the hacking rules.
Not saying there aren't exceptions, nor that this is some hard fast rule, only my observations.

[Redjack]

As in, it's not clear and simple, but it also doesn't get "realism" right either.

Actually, I would state that overall, the philosophy is right on track. There are a few cases where creative liberties have been taken like encryption, but given 60 years difference in computing power.. who knows?

[squee_nabob]

I have over a dozen gamers that rotate in/out from my table-top game over the course of the year, all of whom have been with us at least 2 years. In that time, I have made several observations about the matrix rules:
1) They are consistent, except for a one rule about hidden nodes between the base book and Unwired. The problem in understanding is that sometimes there are multiple paths to the same goal.
2) The rules are complex. System administrators (in real life) who sit at the table have an easy time with the rules. People who have a good, but incomplete, knowledge of how computer networks, security and hacking work in real life are challenged.

In my experiences, the more technical the gamer is in real life, the more they realize the Matrix rules are a Lovecraftian Horror that eats at your sanity. Man cannot comprehend the Matrix rules. This must mean I fit into the “people who have good, but incomplete, knowledge …” category, which I agree with.

If you know how the matrix rules work (from 2 years of gaming at least), and especially in a consistent fashion, please help me understand them. I play a TM now, and function on a hacked together system of “good enough” houserules. I want to know how the rules work RAW.

If you can provide with two examples, I think I can get a sense of how the matrix works (If you want to provide a whole guide that would be even better).

1) A hacker hacking a node from the concept of “I want to hack a node today” (note, the node is encrypted, data bombed, and hidden for maximal rule usage), Also there is IC on the node with all relevant programs and the hacker needs to get paydata.txt to win.

2) An example of your choice, which explains a common matrix action that (in your opinion) people are frequently confused about.

Thank You!

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

My point was a generalization based upon my experience: The more technical the gamer is in real life, the better grasp they tend to have on the hacking rules.
Not saying there aren't exceptions, nor that this is some hard fast rule, only my observations.

I have had that very same observation. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[tete]

The only advantage a technical person has is that they know what Exploit and Sniffer mean without having to look them up, where as in previous editions more generic terms were used like attack (though sleaze was there to!)

[Redjack]

The only advantage a technical person has is that they know what Exploit and Sniffer mean without having to look them up, where as in previous editions more generic terms were used like attack (though sleaze was there to!)

YMMV. As we said, our observations have been different.