Is 4th edition worth it for my game group? Options

[Medicineman]

The Fluff Change from SR2---> SR3 regarding Astral Space & Travel is significant
its ImO nearly as important for Mages as the WiFi Change was from SR3---> SR4 for Mundanes

with a significant Dance
Medicineman

[sk8bcn]

No, there's not, as most of the time, you roll opposed test and success test for very different tasks.

It is, see below...

EDIT : + if you think this is a problem for 3rd edition, I really don't see how it is not a problem for 4th edition.

I've bought 4th ed. Still haven't read it nor played it. I was pointing the weakness I've found in 3rd ed.

No, the main idea behind the system is that you have to beat a Target Number to achieve a task. If you beat the task is achieved, if you fail, it is not. Then, counting the success would help determine how well you achieved, but this is secondary. These were two different stuff.

And, once again, it is logic that difficult task, that you fail a lot at, wouldn't be achieved perfectly very often.

I'm don't disagree with your opinion, Freudqo.

Still, remains that inconsistency with the system. And it's bad for the "suspension of disbelief".

A rough skill 8 TN 10 at 50% success chances, 40% at skill 6, 30% at skill 4..., 8% at skill 1....

As a GM I can't allow a luck roll for something impossible. Characters are able to succeed anything (unless you increase by a LOT the TN what feels unfair). Now make it resisted and the character turns out to be way more street levelled.


I can house rule or correct it. Simply by making most tests resisted.

Like: if a character tries to hide a weapon to some random guards, by RAW, they roll unresisted. The character will fail. I try to rule it resisted.

I never said it was hard to overcome the glitch. But there's one. And point is: the game feeling/spirit is too different when you roll unresisted vs resisted.

[freudqo]

A rough skill 8 TN 10 at 50% success chances, 40% at skill 6, 30% at skill 4..., 8% at skill 1....

As a GM I can't allow a luck roll for something impossible. Characters are able to succeed anything (unless you increase by a LOT the TN what feels unfair). Now make it resisted and the character turns out to be way more street levelled.

Once again, it depends on your definition of impossible, which might differ from what the game implies. Skill 8 is world-class person. Is it crazy that world-class person succeed 50% of the time at something a beginner succeed 8% of the time ? The author considered impossible something a beginner would achieve barely 1 time out of 10. Do you consider that impossible is the question ?

I have seen a lot of TN way higher than 10 by the way, but it's a different matter. It just means that you can have challenging tasks even at very high skill level.

And what are the resisted test you actually refer to here ? I have a hard time seeing where it comes from… And I have a hard time seeing why when someone is trying to oppose you, it wouldn't be harder than when success depends only on you.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I like SR4. I never got to play SR3, unless you count Corrosion as playing SR3... But, I like it, specifically for a lot of reasons other people don't.

As regards the dice system, I greatly prefer SR4's to SR3, probably because I was into Shadowrun 4 for a little while, couldn't find a game that lasted, then got into Exalted - where the dice pool system is very much the same, just using D10s instead of D6s - and then came back to Shadowrun.

Note to self: ask my group what they think about experimenting with a shift to D10s and what they think the appropriate TN should be.


As regards other things...

1) SR4 isn't cyberpunk, it's transhumanist. The SR4 gameworld is fundamentally different from the SR1-3 gameworlds, with a few scraps of familiar wallpaper tacked up.

I both agree and disagree with this. Shadowrun 4 is very transhumanist in that Bioware is becoming a mature technology, geneware is starting to show up, and nanoware is the cutting edge, but mechanical augmentations are always going to have a place. You can't bioware yourself a direct neural interface or a computer in your head. You can't genetically add an image link, or spurs. And quite frankly, there's no way to get the Adam Jensen look without cyberware. So SR4 is very transhumanist - and cybernetic augmentations are the bedrock of those augmentations. I think the rules even go out of their way specifically to encourage you to mix both to taste, by giving you a 50% discount on the Essence cost of whichever ware type you have less of.


I got into a huge argument with someone on IRC - actually, one of the Exalted line freelancers who's a huge SR3 fanboi - about why he snubs SR4, and basically it boils down to all the things I like about SR4: the setting is changing. It's evolving. It's not grimmest, darkest, Neuromancer cyberpunk anymore. National governments are getting both hands on their ballsacks and recalling the times before a panel of retarded idiots listened to a company called Shiawase when they said they should be able to carve their corporate territory out of the nation's laws. Lone Star was not performing to requirements, and they were held accountable by losing their contract. Horizon has emerged as a good-guy AAA. (For given values of 'good-guy,' but in present company they're practically paladins.) Overall, things are getting better.

Shadowrun remains a dystopia, but it's no longer at the grimdark nadir of dystopia - as of SR4, I feel that it's starting to climb back up. There are rays of hope peeking through the shit-colored clouds. It's an interesting time to be a Runner, because your shadows might start shrinking... But that would be a good thing, wouldn't it, if the world gets better? Of course, just because there are rays of hope doesn't mean the world isn't still a terrible place full of Aztechnology blood sacrifice and Lofwyr who will summarily eat you if you come across his radar and what-not.

It's a pretty big change. Some people can't cope. But I like the 2070s, and I like the mechanics.

3) SR4 doesn't put characters in the hospital at nearly the same rate.

This is a plus in SR4's column in my evaluation of things. Too much grit isn't fun.

4) SR4 magic is awful in general. Specifically, traditions are too similar -- all of the intricacies have been stripped out of it. Spirits are elementals are all the same. Spellcasting overtly favors a couple of spells, with the remainder having a "why would anyone ever use this" caveat.

Why should things be different, anyway? SR4's magic system makes a lot of sense - Magic is Magic, how you view it colors it, but they remain fundamentally the same force being acted on in different ways but to largely the same ends. I prefer Spirits and Elementals being two names for the same thing. As for spellcasting favoring certain spells and others being derp options... Well, that's a price I find acceptable to pay.

5) "I've only got one box of stun left, so I'm going to take off all my armor so I can take damage on the physical track and stay in the fight."

There's an easy way to fix this; under normal circumstances, all damage to the Physical track is mirrored on the Stun track, with only modifiers from the highest track applying. Or don't let people huck off their armor in the middle of a fight/run.

6) In SR3, using lethal force is easy, and using nonlethal force is difficult and costly and unpredictable. In SR4, nonlethal force is easy, and lethal force is unpredictable (due to armor rules), making the most efficient choice for a team to gear toward using all stun weaponry and stun magic (since you can reliably do only stun damage instead of mixing stun and lethal based on die rolls), with lethal backups for the odd situation in which they're called for (such as shooting out the engine block of a pursuit car). Combined with a system in which people either have roughly the same Physical and Stun damage tracks, or waaaaaaaaaay more physical than stun (but never waaaay more stun than physical), if everyone follows the path of least resistance (as they generally should) it turns the game into an elaborate game of tag.

This one I do think is weird. Nonlethal measures are inherently superior to lethal measures because they almost always have better odds, and you can always choose to kill a subdued opponent if you needed him dead. But it was the same in SR3 - look at Corrosion. Everybody's slinging Gel ammo because it's simply superior; Gel hits on Impact armor and everything has lower Impact than Ballistic.

If you wanted to fix this, you could muck around with expanding the Stun track greatly; you can pretty quickly toss up enough modifiers to someone's rolls to make him much less effective in combat, but knocking him outright unconscious will be much harder.

Still, this one goes in my 'prices I'm willing to pay' column, too.

[ShadowDragon8685]

7) In SR4, being able to hack everything will make the hacker want to try hacking everything. The system isn't very clear on this -- on one hand it suggests that hacking someone's cybereyes is possible, but on the other hand it offers no good examples on how this might actually work.

Suggesting that hacking cyberware was possible was pretty stupid; failing to include examples or rules on what you can do with hijacked cyber was just stupid. Most players and GMs solve this by assuming that most people set their cyberware to completely ignore all wireless commands.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Given the state of computer security in SR4, anyone who puts anything important on a wireless node is an idiot.

Well, yeah. There has to be some way to encourage people to still want a datajack. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) And to want to do physical intrusions rather than just hacking for the win from the comfort of your own mobile hacker pad.

9) Top-level computer networks in SR4 can have about a dozen people connected. As there's no indication that standalone terminals are popular (or wouldn't suffer the same connection limit problem as other devices), it means that a normal office would be unable to have have normal office drones function without access to dozens of nodes. A popular AR nightclub would be in the same boat.

Suggestion: Ignore subscription limits. They're kind of retarded, especially when computers are assumed to have WTFROFFLE amounts of bandwidth and processor speed/power. Nothing at all breaks if you ignore them and make them not exist. They never really become any kind of balance factor.

10) Wired Reflexes + AR hacking. Numerous other overly complex hacking issues in SR4. At least in SR3, the decking complexity was focused and easily defined. If a primary complaint with SR3 is that decking takes too long or is too complicated, SR4 delivers hacking that impractical and thematically unsound.

You say "flaw," I say "feature." Wired Reflexes being useful if you're doing AR hacking makes hacking without going into full sim VR possible, and it makes pulling double-duty as a hacker and a gun bunny easier.

11) Rolling 25 dice at things.

For me, that's not an issue, as I play via IRC with a dicebot. If you have a problem physically rolling 25 dice, then use a computer to do it for you - such as a smartphone app, or a program on a laptop.

12) The excitement of uninterrupted extended tests: "I got 3 hits" "Not yet" "I got 4 more" "Still no" "I got 2 more" "Getting there" "I got 5 hits" "Pretty close" "Two more?" "Not quite" "Crap, only 1" "That did it."

Okay, uninterrupted extended tests are a little derpy, I'll admit, but they're hardly something to raise a fuss about.

[AStarshipforAnts]

Since each dumpshocker's individual tastes are not likely to make your decision any easier, I suggest jumping into a SR4 play by post and see how you like it.

[cndblank]

I say yes.
3rd was dying under all the different add on mechanics.
As a GM it was almost impossible to keep up.
The straw the broke the camel's back was rigger/spider (building security rigger) combat for control of a building's security system.


Just having one uniform set of mechanics makes the game run so much faster and I can concentrate of the game instead of the game mechanics.


Now I run old school (2055) and while wireless is out there, every thing really critical goes through fiber (both for security and due to the connection requirements of full VR simsense).
But it really lets me limit the most powerful bio, nano, and cyberware.

[Blackbird71]

Shadowrun remains a dystopia, but it's no longer at the grimdark nadir of dystopia - as of SR4, I feel that it's starting to climb back up. There are rays of hope peeking through the shit-colored clouds. It's an interesting time to be a Runner, because your shadows might start shrinking... But that would be a good thing, wouldn't it, if the world gets better?

Better for the world? Yes.

Whether this is better for a game setting is highly debateable, and I think this becomes the sticking point for a lot of people on both sides of the fence.

[Fortinbras]

In terms of flavor, Shadowrun 1e and 2e are "The future according to the 80's" A lot of people dig that. Others think some of the anachronisms that come with it are too much to bear. Some think a dystopia in a wireless world is impossible. If you dig the feel of 2050 and have no qualms with the setting, then I say if it ain't broke don't fix it. It's what you and your players are used to, so if y'all are all having a good time there is no particular reason to gum up the works.
If, on the other hand, you find things are just a bit too stale and folks would like the setting to evolve, then I'd say give 4e a try. If you play it and it turns out you don't dig it, you can always go back. Try out the quickstart rules and get a sense of how folks around the table felt about it.

In terms of mechanics...well, if everything is broken then nothing is broken.
The only thing I've ever heard about 4e mechanics is that the Matrix, Combat, Magic, Vehicles, Charisma and Everything is broken, terrible, unfixable and unplayable. Heck, a quick glance of some rules discussions on Dumpshock and you'd think everyone here hated Shadowrun and never played it.
I, personally, have never had any problems with the rules in actual game play that couldn't be resolved by a consensus around the table and only a handful that couldn't be resolved by RAW. Most of the rules issues I've had with 4e have been entirely theoretical and have never come up in actual game play.
I've played 4e for years and have never found the game "broken" in the slightest. Sure, it's not perfect and there are somethings I disagree with, but it's a rules heavy system. Unless you're dealing with an OSR type game, there are going to be rule arguments which come up. But as long as you aren't playing with people who are jerks, it shouldn't really be an issue.
The same goes for 2e. Especially decking. There are no small number of people who think those rules are equally broken on all fronts, it's just that it's not still in publication so I think people are less likely to throw their hands in the air and declare it unplayable when they know these issue will never be fixed in subsequent material.

The biggest issue with mechanics from 2e to 4e is decking/hacking. If you prefer a non-wireless world, I'd say stick with 2e. If you want to give wireless a go, give 4e a try. Heck, try both and keep what you like from one system and integrate it into the other!
Whatever you do, don't let salty old grognards sour your taste for what is a pretty cool game no matter which edition.

[freudqo]

Why should things be different, anyway? SR4's magic system makes a lot of sense - Magic is Magic, how you view it colors it, but they remain fundamentally the same force being acted on in different ways but to largely the same ends. I prefer Spirits and Elementals being two names for the same thing. As for spellcasting favoring certain spells and others being derp options... Well, that's a price I find acceptable to pay.

Well, some people liked the fact that by making a shaman or a mage, you were making a real choice rather than just some roleplaying flavour. You had real advantages and real disadvantages which differed from one to the other. Not so unexpectedly, it actually added a lot of flavor to the game. You didn't have to play them different because you liked roleplaying, but because they were different, and fighting them was different.

For me, that's not an issue, as I play via IRC with a dicebot. If you have a problem physically rolling 25 dice, then use a computer to do it for you - such as a smartphone app, or a program on a laptop.

I'm not sure that's what the poster thought about, but 25 dice pool are a real problem not only linked to physically rolling them. It is the origin of the famous "immunity to normal modifiers" trick. Unless you really are unfair and overcripple the character's pool regulary, he will never fail no matter the difficulty. Even at -15 penalty, he will average 3 hits…

[The Jopp]

There are many things that are good with SR4 - I especially like the Cyberware/Bioware rules in regards to essence.

BUT...

I prefer the damage system in SR3 as you CAN kill someone by simply giving them 'deadly' damage instead of just adding boxes to be resisted.

That part changes the system completely.

[sk8bcn]

Once again, it depends on your definition of impossible, which might differ from what the game implies. Skill 8 is world-class person. Is it crazy that world-class person succeed 50% of the time at something a beginner succeed 8% of the time ? The author considered impossible something a beginner would achieve barely 1 time out of 10. Do you consider that impossible is the question ?

I have seen a lot of TN way higher than 10 by the way, but it's a different matter. It just means that you can have challenging tasks even at very high skill level.

And what are the resisted test you actually refer to here ? I have a hard time seeing where it comes from… And I have a hard time seeing why when someone is trying to oppose you, it wouldn't be harder than when success depends only on you.

Say you negociate. You have Negociation Skill 8 and charisma 4. Your opponent has skill 4, charisma 5.

You win the negociation 54% of times, draw 22% and lose at 24%.

If your opponent had charisma 4:
You win the negociation 80% of times, draw 12% and lose at 8%.

I have no problem with both statistical approches. Unresisted roll is a roll (IMO) pulp style. The character can win against all odds.
Resisted roll is gritty. A single +1 or -1 at your TN can change the win chances by A LOT.

And both resolution ways existing together creates at my taste an inconsistency. I don't like the fact that a little modifier can be gamechanging or barely noticeable depending on the type of test.


I like my game gritty. I find that it makes the game more tactical (each little advantage counts -e.g. Make an interrogation in an environnement that inspire fear, and the bonus you may get could change drastically the outcome of your trial-), what I want for this game (on the other hand for a exemple, I want HeroQuest to be heroic, so griityness is not an absolute Gamemastering style). I somewhat house rule most rolls so that they are resisted.

Not hard to bypass that weakness, but by RAW, I find it to be a big rule mistake.

[freudqo]

Say you negociate. You have Negociation Skill 8 and charisma 4. Your opponent has skill 4, charisma 5.

You win the negociation 54% of times, draw 22% and lose at 24%.

If your opponent had charisma 4:
You win the negociation 80% of times, draw 12% and lose at 8%.

I have no problem with both statistical approches. Unresisted roll is a roll (IMO) pulp style. The character can win against all odds.
Resisted roll is gritty. A single +1 or -1 at your TN can change the win chances by A LOT.

And both resolution ways existing together creates at my taste an inconsistency. I don't like the fact that a little modifier can be gamechanging or barely noticeable depending on the type of test.


I like my game gritty. I find that it makes the game more tactical (each little advantage counts -e.g. Make an interrogation in an environnement that inspire fear, and the bonus you may get could change drastically the outcome of your trial-), what I want for this game (on the other hand for a exemple, I want HeroQuest to be heroic, so griityness is not an absolute Gamemastering style). I somewhat house rule most rolls so that they are resisted.

Not hard to bypass that weakness, but by RAW, I find it to be a big rule mistake.

I believe negociation targets intelligence, but it doesn't change anything.

Well, first of all, I actually don't like the way negociation tests are written. But the problem to me is more of the TN being an attribute. I like shadowrun 3rd because skill is the most important. This is rather bad that at the price he would have paid for his etiquette skill of 9, a 2 charisma troll will not easily overcome an etiquette contest with a charisma 5 skill 4 elve.

But if it were success contest much like combat, I would actually have no problem with it… In this case, if only one protagonist would get a +1, this would mean not only disadvantage for him, but advantage for the other one… It seems fair to me that in such situations TN modifer have more influence than when it only depends on you.

I guess this is more a question of personnal test, and the definitions of "barely noticeable" and "gamechanging".