Shadowrun 5th Ed. Preview #2 Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

It's mellowed. I think it's more like "within one step of diety" now. Which makes so much more sense.
(Paladins are a tricky bunch, because classically--by which we mean the definition of the word--is so stuck on the "good" end of the spectrum, and attempts to make "evil paladins" have ended poorly)

A Paladin is really nothing more than a religious zealot, which was done so much better using the Black Company Rules overlay for DnD 3.5. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Bigity]

I never read those but I should, I love the series. At least most of it, the last few was getting weird.

Supposedly he's writing a couple more.

[RHat]

We have always played with "down time" between runs, which is used for things like healing, training, and getting new gear. So, not much was missed out on. None of us wanted D&D with guns, where characters were fully healed within a day or two. We wanted reasons for players to be afraid of getting hurt, beyond the fear of death.

Which is fair - the issue would only come up if, say, you had another part of the run that had to be done in two days; at that point, either you scrub the run, leave the injured party out of it, or the injured guy goes, but his wound penalties severely interfere with what he can do and he can't afford to be around combat at all. I'm not saying it doesn't work for your table (and obviously you should do whatever works best for your table), it's just that I disagree with any suggestion that something like that should become the main rules because of the broader effects it would have.

3) An idea I've recently had is to go back to something similar to the rule of 1s from SR1, SR2, & SR3. If a player rolls a number of 1s greater than his skill rating then he glitches (rather than half the dice as per SR4A & SR5). This puts extreme importance on the skill and prevents low skill players from adding too many dice to their pool from other sources out of fear of glitching. A GM would probably want to allow a player to control the number of Attribute Dice he adds to the pool so as not to be rolling a massive amount of dice to a default skill test.

It's an interesting notion, but I'm curious: Why the need to make a glitch more likely the more generally capable of the task a character is?

As for Paladins: 3.5 also introduced the Paladin of Freedom, a Chaotic Good variant, as well as providing the Crusader towards the end (a more general religious warrior - Crusaders had to be within an alignment step of their god, but they could be of any god). It also introduced the Book of Exalted Deeds, which makes it somewhat clear that Lawful Good isn't somehow the very most Good alignment (it also made it clear that the classical "Paladin Traps" weren't actually traps, by providing a definitive solution).

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I never read those but I should, I love the series. At least most of it, the last few was getting weird.

Supposedly he's writing a couple more.

Amazingly, those rules fixed all the little niggling issues (well, most of them, anyways) I had with DnD. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Patrick Goodman]

I was not on board with limits when they were brought up, lo these many moons ago, when I was brought into the SR5 project (I came in relatively late to the party). Not down with them at all. To some extent, I'm still not.

That said, I had a long talk with several of the people who came up with them, and I began to at least understand their reasoning. And then I started playtesting as things started coming together, and I discovered something: While they do come up, they don't come up all that often. I think the math has them coming into play something like 1 every 5 tests; our playtest experience had them a little less often than that, I think something like 1 in 8 tests (or at least that's what I'm told; I didn't do the actual tracking).

Yesterday, I ran a four-hourish long demo (a slightly modified "Food Fight," in case you're curious), a la the demo that was done at (I think) Pax East a few weeks ago. (And I asked the Powers That Be if I could do this; they said it was okay.) Out of that four hours, IIRC, we had limits (specifically, the accuracy of a Ruger Super Warhawk) come into play once. It's not outside the realm of possibility that I bollixed something and missed one somewhere, but it didn't happen a lot.

I'm still not wild about them, but it's coming to the point for me where I'm not wild about them because they're something else to keep track of, rather than "They're holding me back from being awesome!" as my initial complaints read.

I know, I know, anecdotal evidence and I'm a company shill since I wrote part of the book, so take it for what it's worth.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I was not on board with limits when they were brought up, lo these many moons ago, when I was brought into the SR5 project (I came in relatively late to the party). Not down with them at all. To some extent, I'm still not.

That said, I had a long talk with several of the people who came up with them, and I began to at least understand their reasoning. And then I started playtesting as things started coming together, and I discovered something: While they do come up, they don't come up all that often. I think the math has them coming into play something like 1 every 5 tests; our playtest experience had them a little less often than that, I think something like 1 in 8 tests (or at least that's what I'm told; I didn't do the actual tracking).

Yesterday, I ran a four-hourish long demo (a slightly modified "Food Fight," in case you're curious), a la the demo that was done at (I think) Pax East a few weeks ago. (And I asked the Powers That Be if I could do this; they said it was okay.) Out of that four hours, IIRC, we had limits (specifically, the accuracy of a Ruger Super Warhawk) come into play once. It's not outside the realm of possibility that I bollixed something and missed one somewhere, but it didn't happen a lot.

I'm still not wild about them, but it's coming to the point for me where I'm not wild about them because they're something else to keep track of, rather than "They're holding me back from being awesome!" as my initial complaints read.

I know, I know, anecdotal evidence and I'm a company shill since I wrote part of the book, so take it for what it's worth.

Awesome (Still not a fan of the idea)...
BUT... If they come in to effect that rarely [such that it made no real difference], why have them at all, then?
As you indicate, it is just one more [tedious] thing to keep track of, then.

[Cain]

My complaints can be summed up as follows:

1. It's an additional complication we don't need.

2. It doesn't actually stop dice pool inflation, it just takes the joy out of it for those who do like big dice pool games.

3. There's better ways of solving the problem, such as directly capping dice pools.

Again, I haven't actually played it, so I don't know how it'll work in practice. But I remain skeptical until I see for myself.

[Stahlseele]

1/5=20%
1/8=12,5%
That's supposed to be low odds?
If the rolling of dice has not been severely reduced, limits will pop up very often.

[Black Swan]

Which is fair - the issue would only come up if, say, you had another part of the run that had to be done in two days; at that point, either you scrub the run, leave the injured party out of it, or the injured guy goes, but his wound penalties severely interfere with what he can do and he can't afford to be around combat at all. I'm not saying it doesn't work for your table (and obviously you should do whatever works best for your table), it's just that I disagree with any suggestion that something like that should become the main rules because of the broader effects it would have.

It's no different then older versions of SR, and without it, IMO, players really don't fear getting hurt (they only fear dying).

It's an interesting notion, but I'm curious: Why the need to make a glitch more likely the more generally capable of the task a character is?

It would be less likely to glitch the more capable a character is.

a character with skill of 2 would need to get 3 or more 1s before glitching

a character with skill of 5 would need to get 6 or more 1s before glitching.

it balances out in the end, a character with a low skill but moderate attribute (no other dice modifiers) would have a better chance of glitching than RAW, but a character with higher skill rating and moderate attribute (no other dice modifiers) would have a reduced chance of glitching than RAW. It would also provide a check on players from piling on massive amounts of other bonus dice making them uber-powerful.

[Black Swan]

http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product...roducts_id=3144
or
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/1140...on-Preview-%231

Thank you Larsine.

oh crap, it's just all fluff. . . . . . .lame

[Patrick Goodman]

Awesome (Still not a fan of the idea)...
BUT... If they come in to effect that rarely [such that it made no real difference], why have them at all, then?
As you indicate, it is just one more [tedious] thing to keep track of, then.

To this day, and we've been playtesting this a long time, I'm still not sure I'm doing them right. It's not outside the realm of the possible that I've got such a block to it in my head that I let myself forget as often as not.

Like I said, it's anecdotal. I didn't take extensive notes on the subject.

[Aaron]

Awesome (Still not a fan of the idea)...
BUT... If they come in to effect that rarely, why have them at all, then?

They're intended to come in ... well, I'm going to wait for the release and let the statisticians and number crunchers of Dumpshock figure out how often they actually come into play. The intended value isn't actually useful in a case where there are as many variables as in an RPG the size of Shadowrun--the intended value could be miles away from the actual value.

As to why they're in there, they serve a couple purposes, at least in my opinion, and I think all of them have already been mentioned by others. One advantage is a second axis that the game lost when it switched to static target numbers. That second axis also allows for greater variance in gear (something that was a complaint in Arsenal: why were all the guns so similar?).

Another advantage is that it generates more choices, more decision gates in the game. First, you have to make the decisions that lead up to the limit--are you good with what you've got, or do you want to push it a bit further? And when those extra hits do come up, are you satisfied with your limit, or do you want to push the limit? Choices are good for a game. Aside from the basic value of variation, choices make a game more interesting. Making choices in a game makes the game more valuable to you (incidentally, it's not just for games, I use it in the classroom to increase my students' engagement).

I'm not convinced the system is all that tedious. Limits rarely change during play, any more than your attributes do. Playtesting data seemed to indicate that they added more to the game than they cost it. But once it opens up to the Shadowrun community, we'll see how well it survives its first real stress test, ne?

[Black Swan]

I can't find in the preview where it says skills will be rated 1-12. Can someone point the location out to me?

Thanks,

B.S.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

They're intended to come in ... well, I'm going to wait for the release and let the statisticians and number crunchers of Dumpshock figure out how often they actually come into play. The intended value isn't actually useful in a case where there are as many variables as in an RPG the size of Shadowrun--the intended value could be miles away from the actual value.

As to why they're in there, they serve a couple purposes, at least in my opinion, and I think all of them have already been mentioned by others. One advantage is a second axis that the game lost when it switched to static target numbers. That second axis also allows for greater variance in gear (something that was a complaint in Arsenal: why were all the guns so similar?).

Another advantage is that it generates more choices, more decision gates in the game. First, you have to make the decisions that lead up to the limit--are you good with what you've got, or do you want to push it a bit further? And when those extra hits do come up, are you satisfied with your limit, or do you want to push the limit? Choices are good for a game. Aside from the basic value of variation, choices make a game more interesting. Making choices in a game makes the game more valuable to you (incidentally, it's not just for games, I use it in the classroom to increase my students' engagement).

I'm not convinced the system is all that tedious. Limits rarely change during play, any more than your attributes do. Playtesting data seemed to indicate that they added more to the game than they cost it. But once it opens up to the Shadowrun community, we'll see how well it survives its first real stress test, ne?

In my limited Experience, what you will likely see is that players will go for what gives them the greatest capacity so that the limit does not come into play. At that point, you have no limit, which is the same as not ever having put the mechanic in play at all. Or, as many have called it in the past... One gun to rule them all (in the case of the Limits for Weapons, regardless of how much the weapon actually costs). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Shinobi Killfist]

Hit limits are not to prevent success in cases of astronomical odds, they prevent overwhelming success when success is almost assured. That is, preventing Robin Hood Shots with crappy gear.

(I.e. hit limits are "no you cannot hit that side of the barn, no way no how," they are "you're hitting a man-sized target at 30 meters, but with your gun you're not going to put one bullet through the other's hole.")

Unless it is a threshold test. If my threshold is 4 for a hard test and my limit is 3 I'm hosed from the get go, I can't succeed no matter what outside of edge which I don't want to require for people to go for it and might not be there anymore since you use it. Or if the opposing rolls first. I have no idea if there is a dodge limit but lets say there is and the shooter got 4 hits, if my threshold is 3 I can't dodge it, I can reduce the hits but I can't dodge it. Stealth vs perception is the same thing, if he gets 4 hits and my threshold is 3 I have no chance of spotting him. On top of that for perception how exactly do you choose to use edge, its not like you know you got shot so you use edge to avoid it. You have no idea if you missed something of any import, or anything at all since many DMs give random checks to hinder gaming he system. Yeah it can occur without limits when your dice pool is so small you don't have a shot, but I suspect limits will come into play a lot more often.

[Shinobi Killfist]

1/5=20%
1/8=12,5%
That's supposed to be low odds?
If the rolling of dice has not been severely reduced, limits will pop up very often.

Yah 1 in 5 sounds like a lot to me, like a lot of pisssed off players as their good roles get taken away far more often than edge can deal with.

[Aaron]

I ink 1 in 5 is way too high. I also think that a 3 limit is way low.

[Stahlseele]

With a Dice-Pool of 12 and a Limit of 4 that has a 20% chance of being there, even if you only roll an average of 50% hits on these 12 dice, you will, statistically speaking, lose 2 (a third) of your hits on every 5th roll due to the limits.
If the Limit is 3 instead of 4, you lose half your hits on every 5th roll, if you only get 50% hits on each roll . .

and due to skills going up to 12 now, having a 12 dice pool for rolling is very much mediocre . .

[DireRadiant]

The concept of "limits" is a method of capping. You can cap the entire pool, or cap the results. Works either way for me.

My predictions. Limits won't affect starting characters much. It'll be easy to overcome limits. It's a way of differentiating gear. It makes some gear desirable, improving gear can have a significant effect. Limits make you think carefully about your attributes (I bet a dump stat will affect your limit). Limits will affect characters as they get up into 8+ skills, you will start thinking about buying up attributes instead of skills when doing character advancement.

A limit of 4 on a total dice pool of 6 to 10 probably doesn't come into play that often. And I bet the limits tend to match the linked attributes for the skills they "belong" to. So if your Pool is 12 the limit is likely to be 5+.

[Cain]

The concept of "limits" is a method of capping. You can cap the entire pool, or cap the results. Works either way for me.

My predictions. Limits won't affect starting characters much. It'll be easy to overcome limits. It's a way of differentiating gear. It makes some gear desirable, improving gear can have a significant effect. Limits make you think carefully about your attributes (I bet a dump stat will affect your limit). Limits will affect characters as they get up into 8+ skills, you will start thinking about buying up attributes instead of skills when doing character advancement.

A limit of 4 on a total dice pool of 6 to 10 probably doesn't come into play that often. And I bet the limits tend to match the linked attributes for the skills they "belong" to. So if your Pool is 12 the limit is likely to be 5+.

That's the fine line. If the limits aren't coming into play often, then they're not a limiting factor, and they're not doing any good. If they are coming into play often, they're an added annoyance on the game, and slows down play. There is a middle ground, but it's thin and difficult to see without playtesting the game.

[Black Swan]

Looking back on my earlier ideas, I'm starting to like the "your attribute dice contribution cannot be greater than your skill rating" idea. Reminds me of older SR versions, where the combat pool that you dedicated to a skill test was limited to your skill rating. What can I say, I'm a nostalgic freak.

[CanRay]

A Paladin is really nothing more than a religious zealot, which was done so much better using the Black Company Rules overlay for DnD 3.5. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The only Paladin that should be allowed in Shadowrun.

[RHat]

It's no different then older versions of SR, and without it, IMO, players really don't fear getting hurt (they only fear dying).



It would be less likely to glitch the more capable a character is.

a character with skill of 2 would need to get 3 or more 1s before glitching

a character with skill of 5 would need to get 6 or more 1s before glitching.

it balances out in the end, a character with a low skill but moderate attribute (no other dice modifiers) would have a better chance of glitching than RAW, but a character with higher skill rating and moderate attribute (no other dice modifiers) would have a reduced chance of glitching than RAW. It would also provide a check on players from piling on massive amounts of other bonus dice making them uber-powerful.

So, would it be your view that if two characters have equal Gymnastics ranks, but one has three points more Agility than the other, they should be regarded as equally capable in the area of Gymnastics? Because it is the fact that the second individual has a greater chance of glitching that I'm referring to.

[Black Swan]

So, would it be your view that if two characters have equal Gymnastics ranks, but one has three points more Agility than the other, they should be regarded as equally capable in the area of Gymnastics? Because it is the fact that the second individual has a greater chance of glitching that I'm referring to.

I think I see where you are going with this . . . Easily solved by dedicating the skill portion of the dice to a different colour, and only glitching if those dice come up 1s.

[thorya]

So the implication is that a character that does not rely upon gear is now an impossibility?
And skills go to 12 now, not 11. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Whoa, 12 is like 1 more than 11. It's one higher. All the other runners only go to 11.

(I was going for the spinal tap reference)

I think the implication is more that if you don't rely on gear, you can still perform well or that your limits are based on your attributes. Which makes sense actually, though I'm really hoping that it's not a 1-to-1 thing, or the limits pointless for the attribute loaded no skill character, which was something I was hoping would be changed (or fixed depending on your opinion).