Sell me on 5th edition? Options

[Laodicea]

Basically, I've houseruled my 4th edition into the kind of shape where I consider it to not only be playable, but I actually think it's a fantastic game.

I don't really feel the need to have a 5th edition. Particularly when it seems that the 5th edition is really just a 4.5. I'm already running a 4.5.

I want to try to be open minded about it. I honestly haven't ready every bit of data about 5th edition that has been released, so I may be missing some spectacular features.

Thoughts?

[hermit]

What are your houserules?

Otherwise, wait until 12th. There should be a number of reviews soon after the launch date.

[Isath]

Even worse, so far SR5 (to me) appears to be a prequel to SR4, a SR3.5 so to say. While I have to admit, that it appears to improve a few things, it is more of a step backwards from the first real step forward SR has ever made (meaning SR4). To me SR4 was a brave and a good step, one that they chickened out now. Also I really do not like the "bucketloads of dice" concept SR5 falls back to.

[Elfenlied]

Even worse, so far SR5 (to me) appears to be a prequel to SR4, a SR3.5 so to say. While I have to admit, that it appears to improve a few things, it is more of a step backwards from the first real step forward SR has ever made (meaning SR4). To me SR4 was a brave and a good step, one that they chickened out now.

Gotta agree with that. I feel that the return of decking and the supposed differences between magic traditions were reintroduced purely for "old times sake".

[Sendaz]

Gotta agree with that. I feel that the return of decking and the supposed differences between magic traditions were reintroduced purely for "old times sake".

*shakes his cane at the whippersnappers* Get off my LAN!

I think the decking is sort of in limbo, they made decking more common place so that everyone could do a little hacking, but so many didn't like the rules for it they never used it. Which is sort of a shame as it did add that GitS flavour a little.

So now they are going back to the concept of dedicated decking types and the necessity for more in-depth gear and skills for it.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, but again it depends on how your tastes run.

[Backgammon]

Gotta agree with that. I feel that the return of decking and the supposed differences between magic traditions were reintroduced purely for "old times sake".

Traditions work the same they did in SR4, not sure where you got your information.

SR5 fixes the idea SR4 wanted to do in terms of the Matrix vulnerabilities. You could have gear, but a combat hacker could mess you up - the idea of a digital mage working on the digital layer. Note well that I say this is a 4th edition idea. But what happened is there was no downside to turning everything off and hiding, so everyone did. SR5 reworks the rules so that is you do simply take your chips off the table, you're also losing a little something. So, in essence, it resuscitates the idea that 4th introduced. In my opinion, this is the best new aspect of SR5. It introduces a vulnerability that wasn't there before, which seems to rile people. Sometimes I wonder why they play, but whatever. Perhaps my perspective as a GM is different.

Aside from that, it does not regress to 3.5, no. It goes back to an initiative system similar to what was in 3rd, but only for the initiative. The combat system is something we have never ever seen. It is vastly different. As a GM, I find it easier to handle and more streamlined.

Matrix actions, other than the "equipement wars" discussed in first paragraph, is also vastly streamlined and very different. Again, as a GM, I feel I can use this much better and present interesting scenes for the hackers, with a variety of things to do. It's no longer hack-get file-get out with "cybercombat" being a synonym of "you failed".

So, if I was to sum it up:

* New things for players to do
* New things for GM to challenge players with
* Faster rules for less looking stuff up, more getting on with he action and storytelling

[Nath]

- Priority System for character creation, so that players get to choose the repartition key at the beginning of the process.
- Skills that go up to 12 after chargen, so that even hyper-specialized characters can have something to spend their first 100 karma on.
- Higher prices for augmentations and hacking gear, to prevent characters from getting them without a significant investment.
- Limits on the number of hits, to prevent lucky break based on dice results alone when a character's attributes, gear or Edge cannot explain it.
- New (old) initiative rules, that makes magical or technological initiative boosts less powerful.
- Less powerful direct combat spells, so that indirect combat spells may not be a lesser choice.
- Higher drain on spells.
- Attribute involved in Matrix test.

[Moirdryd]

Gotta agree with that. I feel that the return of decking and the supposed differences between magic traditions were reintroduced purely for "old times sake".

That "old times sake" seems to be attracting back a lot of the SR3 crowd to the new product. The decking thing isnt hard to work around if you don't like the idea of "Deckers", all you do is make Cyberdecks cost as Comlinks and everyone can be part of the hacking party. But again it comes down to how close to GitS/Appleseed you want to play. Again there are already other games that do this better than SR in the first place and it doesnt fit very well with a lot of the established concepts of the Sixth World.

Also, there wasn't a supposed difference between magical traditions, the differences were both functional and relevant and played into the Corp/Anarchist model to the original cyberpunk-dystopian. Thats why a lot of Corps had Mages but not Shaman, it also allowed for lateral expansion in the setting materials and source books and play options. The UMT only allows for linear expansion. In the core book yes there is still not much difference, but the magic supplements are apparently bringing those back.

There is a reason for many of the things being done having been done and it applies across the RPG market. Look at nWoD, it's most popular products (at least according to several of my FLGs) were things like Changeling The Lost, because it was 100% new (IE: a totally different theme, setting style and everything from CTD). Where as WTF and VTR were less popular rehashings of the established games from oWoD and were not actually new enough to be different games. The same can be said of D&D, I have a group that really enjoys 4E and I enjoy running it for them, but I would never use it for say a Forgotten Realms or a Dragonlance campaign. 3.5 was the best edition to run in those Established Settings (or AD&D) but 4E was perfect for my custom campaign world (which was familiar in AD&D too).

SR4 was to many people very close to nWoD, it came out around the same time and it also had shades of the same mechanical systems. It also made major setting alterations that deviated from the flow of the world as written since it appeared in '89, sure it has happened before in the product line, but so much was different it was very like holding up VTM and VTR next to each other. There was a thread a goodly while ago (before I registered on Dumpshock I think and was just a guest browser) which compared the D&D Campaign games (and some others) to the SR campaign games and noted an interesting fact. It was a common tendency for most SR GM's to stick to the cannon material fairly regularly and even write up twists in their campaigns to fit with new released material. Most DM's usually had written their own worlds instead of playing in an established setting (or had made major changes) and often iognored updates in the Cannon Story to their campaign, instead using it when a new game began. WoD ST's were often somewhere in the middle. That alone shows how many people enjoyed the Sixth World as written which meant to world changes shook up that fanbase far worse than say the Spellplague in the Realms, Age of Mortals in Dragonlance or even the Apocalypse/Gehenna did in WoD (or War in Concordia etc).

SR5 to my eyes, while doing some things that I remain cagey about (and will be houseruling or re-logicing a little), seems to be a honest attempt to try and blend back in some of the sixth world as was written through 3 editions of the game (even as people have said borrowing a little from multiple matrix ideaologies) with some of the "progress" in tech theme (and system overhaul) made in 4th. It's trying to do streamlined things with a system without making it utterly bland. How well it does that I wont know until I run my first few games of it. But from what I ahve seen it does it, conceptually, well enough to work with.

That's why I shall be getting it and thats why I think other people should give it a go too.

[Jhaiisiin]

There was a lot of blowback when SR4 hit about the change from "Deckers" to "Hackers", and the loss of flavor it implied, which may have driven the name change back. That said, an in world explanation could be thus:

The term "Hacker" could have been a fad, that quickly got booted when decks finally started making their appearance again. They were rendered obsolete briefly until someone figured out ways to make them even better and give an edge back to the hardcore elite. Thus the return of Deckers.


"Thus" needs to be used more often, I think. Thus. Thusly. Thussification. Okay, maybe that's going to far.

[Sendaz]

Okay, maybe that's going to far.

Only if you believe thus. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Tanegar]

SR5 reworks the rules so that is you do simply take your chips off the table, you're also losing a little something. So, in essence, it resuscitates the idea that 4th introduced. In my opinion, this is the best new aspect of SR5. It introduces a vulnerability that wasn't there before, which seems to rile people. Sometimes I wonder why they play, but whatever. Perhaps my perspective as a GM is different.

If you run "autistic" (to borrow a GitS term) in Shadowrun 4, you're definitely losing something. You don't have access to communications, to a tacnet, or to any drones you may have. Deckers do not need to be able to brick the opposition's cyberware to have things to do in combat. SR5 is less a case of introducing a vulnerability that wasn't there before than solving a problem that never existed.

[cndblank]

I haven't ran 5th edition yet, but I'm jonesing to give it a try.

Raising the max skill to 12 is a great solution to the legendary not being very legendary in 4th.
It was way to easy to get your prime skill to a 6 and that was only one dice behind what the best of the best would have.

The new initiative system looks really good.

A fit non enhanced character can get two passes per turn (Say Reaction and Intuition are 5).
Yeah! The mooks are now something of a threat.

Someone with Wired 2 rolling 3d6 to add to their Initiative stat will provided more of a range than it they were rolling their Initiative stat and adding the successes.
This is a good thing. I have an gunslinger Adept and a Street Samurai in my party. With Attribute Boost the Adept usually goes first.
Now things will be mixed up more and the Samurai will get to go first more often.

The one attack per turn will speed up play and spread the fun around.
With the above two PCs, you could have 4 dead after only two players had gone.
This makes the individual turns faster but makes the combat as a whole last a little longer.
Which lets the rest of my players get in to the act.
It is also a plus that it will take the GM a little longer to finish off a PC (Gives the other PCs a chance to join the fun).
And you can use a Multiple Attack and split your dice if you want to attack more.

I also love the -10 to go all Defense and -5 to defend against a single attack (Block, Grab Cover, and so on).
In 3rd there was no difference if you had a 21 Initiative or a 30. You get a pass at 11, 21, 31, and so on.
In 5th, if you have a 26 to 30, you can pull a -5 Initiative defensive action and still get the same number of passes.

Finally everyone gets 1 free action per pass so you can still react to what is going on around you even if you have no passes left.

[LurkerOutThere]

If you like mages and hack errr deckers Sr5 is great. SAMs need not apply.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If you like mages and hack errr deckers Sr5 is great. SAMs need not apply.

Which is sad, really. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[Daedelus]

Unfortunately Laodicea I think this is a bad place to ask for an Objective opinion. There is a lot of opinion flying about based on speculative information at best, and you question is a difficult one to boot. Without knowing your play style, whether you come from a gamist or simulationist viewpoint, and what you liked and disliked about SR4 It is nigh impossible to say if it is worth it to you.
I am excited about the new edition. In my opinion it seems to fix quite a few pitfalls that plagued SR4. It tightens some of the good rules even more, and effectively, on the surface at least, overhauls the matrix rules. I believe that the matrix bonuses and combat hacking will promote more deckers in the game, and adds a richness that was part of the lore but never made the transition to the game table in groups I played with. My focus is 80-85% Gamist, so YMMV. Please keep in mind that this is the opinion of myself and 12-15 of the 15-20 members of my core gaming group. We try to always look at new editions in a stand alone manner, as it is our opinion that comparing them to older editions beyond the level of did they fix conceptual problem X is an ineffective measure. I hope this helps you make your decision.

[Epicedion]

Basically, I've houseruled my 4th edition into the kind of shape where I consider it to not only be playable, but I actually think it's a fantastic game.

I don't really feel the need to have a 5th edition. Particularly when it seems that the 5th edition is really just a 4.5. I'm already running a 4.5.

I want to try to be open minded about it. I honestly haven't ready every bit of data about 5th edition that has been released, so I may be missing some spectacular features.

Thoughts?

Generally speaking, the Matrix and Magic rules appear to have been sharpened.

Previously it was possible to be a magical superpower without ever having to worry about Drain, and now it appears Drain is back on the table in line as risk vs reward. You can still drop cheap direct spells on the enemy, but they're not going to trounce anyone like a high Force fireball will.

The Matrix rules get rid of the giant whopping mess that 'nodes' created. Nodes were a, to borrow someone else's term here, a very gamist approach to the Matrix. Basically, nodes were worthless as a place for actual functioning people, businesses, and corporations to get any work done, because of a combination of accessibility and subscriber limits. Even a nexus could only let some 30-odd people in, which would mean that a real business would have to have dozens or even hundreds of the things linked together just to make an average office work. This completely flew in the face of the described setting, as walking into a nightclub like Dante's Inferno with its hundreds of customers all interacting with the nodes via AR would be impossible without huge numbers of nexuses. But to actually do this in the game would mean that a hacker would have to sift through and hack dozens of nodes to get anything done.

Grid / Object / Host is just a better way of sorting things. The replacement of extended hacking tests and the largely-unexplained user/security/admin access levels with marks is a very efficient and tactile way of handling Matrix actions, as well. Overall, the Matrix will probably be an accessible system to all players, and not just the ones who want to learn the gigantic cluster of bizarre architecture they had to in SR4.

Combat-wise, Initiative seems to matter more, since that's how you get your IPs again. Restricting to 'one attack' (though that's really not quite accurate, as there appear to be ways to split attacks, requiring split dice pools) will speed things along turn to turn, and combined with the extra defense dice and options but higher damage, possibly making combat engagements lasting longer than 6 seconds game time a possibility. And a little less "I shoot I dodge."

From what's been said, burst fire will subtract from the defender rather than adding more damage (note: subtracting from the defender has the net effect of adding more damage by net hits). This improves the list of tactical options, and also makes things like vehicles more resilient (shooting a tank with a full auto machine gun should no longer wreck the tank).

All in all, the system appears much more usable than SR4. With SR4, I did what you did -- I house-ruled nearly every single system. But I eventually got frustrated with the amount of work that needed to be done to fix it (and with systems like the Matrix that just couldn't be fixed).

[Bull]

Which is sad, really. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

Also, not even remotely accurate. I'm playing a Street Sam in our current game, and besides being a huge hit with the Ladies and the inspiration for the term Shadowrun, Shadow Ron is very, very effective.

[Epicedion]

Also, not even remotely accurate. I'm playing a Street Sam in our current game, and besides being a huge hit with the Ladies and the inspiration for the term Shadowrun, Shadow Ron is very, very effective.

Yeah, I'm not seeing the reduction in Street Samurai ability. For Magic to really outcompete wires, you're talking sustained Force 8 spells. Having Initiative + Initiative Dice pretty much means that Street Samurai will go first and go more often. Being combat-focused skill and attribute and gear-wise means that they'll have the dice to split to take down a couple opponents at once, where others would have to focus their attention on one target.

Oh, and their guns do helluva damage.

All in all it seems like a pretty big win for Street Samurai.

[Tzeentch]

Gotta agree with that. I feel that the return of decking and the supposed differences between magic traditions were reintroduced purely for "old times sake".

-- I basically skipped Fourth Edition entirely (well, I SORT of kept track but didn't play). So it's not "old time" for some of us, it's how the game was played (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Sendaz]

Also, not even remotely accurate. I'm playing a Street Sam in our current game, and besides being a huge hit with the Ladies and the inspiration for the term Shadowrun, Shadow Ron is very, very effective.

Yes, but isn't that due to Shadow Ron taking Exceptional Attribute, but appling it toward anatomy instead of a stat? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Or that's what the girl's down at The Cutting Edge have been saying. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[cndblank]

Since Mages have lost the one shot overcast spell kills, Sams have it a lot better.

I think non awakened characters will be just fine as long as the GM keeps two things in mind.

1) Keep ware hacking and bricking fairly rare at least for the pros.
Just to keep the GM sane, I figure a good runner team, a SWAT Team, or a High Threat Response Team (like the Red Samurai) will have near mil spec matrix security and be mostly immune to it.
The Amateurs not so much.
A little GM's grace to the Sams until this shakes out will do a lot to keep them happy.

2) Never forget the background count. Even a super wild street party can generate a mild background count. And a 1 or 2 background count will do a lot to balance out the Sams against the Mages and the Adepts. Especially with the spirits if you have a budding conjuror.
And if they complain, tell them they can always gets some ware that doesn't mind that mystic mumbo jumbo.

Just don't go overboard and remember that a place with a nasty background count will have a much larger area around it with a lower background count. Have most of the action occur there. So you can give the Sams a chance to shine without totally shutting down the Awaken. This is super real easy to forget about and too often I've let this one slide.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Since Mages have lost the one shot overcast spell kills, Sams have it a lot better.

I think non awakened characters will be just fine as long as the GM keeps two things in mind.

1) Keep ware hacking and bricking fairly rare at least for the pros.
Just to keep the GM sane, I figure a good runner team, a SWAT Team, or a High Threat Response Team (like the Red Samurai) will have near mil spec matrix security and be mostly immune to it.
The Amateurs not so much.
A little GM's grace to the Sams until this shakes out will do a lot to keep them happy.

If this is the default table agreement, then the new rules are not needed, seeing as this is what pretty much happened in SR4A to begin with. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Note: I like how it is handled in SR4A. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[binarywraith]

And if they complain, tell them they can always gets some ware that doesn't mind that mystic mumbo jumbo.

Why couldn't we just tell the deckers the same thing, again? If you don't like being useless in combat, get some combat ware and a gun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/love.gif)

[Epicedion]

If this is the default table agreement, then the new rules are not needed, seeing as this is what pretty much happened in SR4A to begin with. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Note: I like how it is handled in SR4A. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The Matrix rules don't exist just to allow gear bricking. There's a host of other features.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The Matrix rules don't exist just to allow gear bricking. There's a host of other features.

Indeed there are, and they work just fine (as far as I am concerned) in SR4A. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)