[X] My Assistant

[Glyph]

Yeah, when defensive dice pools go up, it has the same effect as decreasing offensive dice pools. I actually like the raise in skill maximums, if only to get rid of the ludicrous hyperbole that SR4 had, treating a single die (1/3 of a success on average) as if it represented a vast gulf of effectiveness. But despite that positive change, SR5 seems less cohesive and balanced as a whole, especially in magic (over-nerfed) and the matrix (illogical wireless bonuses and rules for bricking).

[Fatum]

Not much I can say to that other than that I don't think you've grasped the basics of game design here very well.

Well I think your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries, so? Anything of substance to contradict my point?

@Fatum: IMO you don´t need the last few dice using SR4, so you can skimp on 2-3 dice from skill if you got yourself nice attributes and solid gear. On the other hand I would not like to loose dice using SR5. Combats last much longer when offensive and defensive pools are on the same level (say 14), compared to a 16:8 gap.

Ah yes, the glorious "let the dozen sources of bonus dice replace skills and attributes for my character".
Sure, yeah, plus or minus one or two dice aren't really significant compared to what you can get that way.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I have a 2E Character with over 500 karma (roughly 3 years of play), another guy in that group is nearing 1k. These characters were not possible in 4e as there was no room for growth. You have 1k karma in 4e and your playing the Mage/Hacker/Street Sam with nothing to spend karma on.

I highly disagree here. Mainly because I do not agree with the unlimited skill growth that was supported by SR2/3.
I Have 400+ Karma characters in SR4 who still are not where I want them to be; and even with an additional 1000 Karma (yes, I have characters with advancement plans that would take more than an additional 1000 karma to realize) would not be where I would like them to be.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

We've got a very different definition of 'competent team member' if yours requires the expectation of a maxed-out skill (noted in the fluff as 'best in the world class') coming out of chargen.

Basic characters with zero advancement should not be the best in the world at what they do. They aren't Prime Runners. They are very, very small fish in a very big ocean, who might maybe survive to be big fish given a few years and a whole shit-ton of luck.

Which falls back on the caveat that you are not required to build to the highest possible level to enter play.
Just because you CAN start out best of the best in the world does not mean that you MUST start out that way.

[binarywraith]

Which falls back on the caveat that you are not required to build to the highest possible level to enter play.
Just because you CAN start out best of the best in the world does not mean that you MUST start out that way.

Unfortunately that becomes the necessary starting point for stuff like Missions if you can start out that way. Because players will, and if you want to be able to take part in an adventure that may or may not have such players, then you have to build to their scale to not be completely overshadowed.

In a home game, it's not a big deal, the GM can control it.

[Mikado]

Unfortunately that becomes the necessary starting point for stuff like Missions if you can start out that way. Because players will, and if you want to be able to take part in an adventure that may or may not have such players, then you have to build to their scale to not be completely overshadowed.

In a home game, it's not a big deal, the GM can control it.

So then... The real question should be "Why are they not running missions with the same GM balance that people play at their own tables?"

I have never seen the full abuse that people talk about here and on other forums regarding pornomancers and such. As it is, every character I have ever made for any 4th edition game I was in had dice pools in the 10 to 14 range and I was a rock star with them, saving the team on multiple occasions.

[binarywraith]

So then... The real question should be "Why are they not running missions with the same GM balance that people play at their own tables?"

I have never seen the full abuse that people talk about here and on other forums regarding pornomancers and such. As it is, every character I have ever made for any 4th edition game I was in had dice pools in the 10 to 14 range and I was a rock star with them, saving the team on multiple occasions.

Because it's a living-world game. The GMs don't get to 'fix' the rules by fiat, and all and all have much less control over a Missions table than a home game. Missions tries to run as close to RAW as possible (presence/lack of errata notwithstanding). So if something abusive is good under the rules as written, it'll fly for Missions games unless Bull or folks with the demo teams decide it's too disruptive to let keep happening.

[Mikado]

Because it's a living-world game. The GMs don't get to 'fix' the rules by fiat, and all and all have much less control over a Missions table than a home game. Missions tries to run as close to RAW as possible (presence/lack of errata notwithstanding). So if something abusive is good under the rules as written, it'll fly for Missions games unless Bull or folks with the demo teams decide it's too disruptive to let keep happening.

Part of RAW is the GM's ability to say... NO... Just because some jackass sits down with a completely broken "pornomancer" does not make it any less the GM's responsibility to say jack off. Mission or not...

[Glyph]

The pornomancer is the easiest character for the GM to balance within RAW, since social skills are so subjective - conversely, faces are overpowered mainly in campaigns where GMs treat social skills like magical mind control rather than subtle manipulations. They can't override inflexible protocols, make people spontaneously change their deepest convictions, or even get the Johnson to go over the maximum that he is authorized to offer the group (although it might get you a bit more logistical support). You need a situation where you can use the social skill (in other words, the charging troll swinging a combat axe at you is not going to screech to a stop because you use leadership skill).

Etiquette lets you fit in, nothing more. Con lets you temporarily fool people, and it is a good idea to be gone when they figure out they've been fleeced. Leadership lets you command people, if you have authority (impersonating a corporate VP) or are taking charge in a crisis situation (getting people to evacuate a building without panicking). Negotiate lets you come out ahead on bargaining, driving the price you get for something or the money you get paid for a service up, generally to some hard limit. That's it, that's all they do. Social skills don't make people give you free stuff, or let you command them to shoot themselves, or change their sexual orientation just for you, or any of the other ludicrous things that people have let pornomancers get away with.

Also note that Missions does use the optional dice pool cap rule.

[Mikado]

The pornomancer is the easiest character for the GM to balance within RAW, since social skills are so subjective - conversely, faces are overpowered mainly in campaigns where GMs treat social skills like magical mind control rather than subtle manipulations. They can't override inflexible protocols, make people spontaneously change their deepest convictions, or even get the Johnson to go over the maximum that he is authorized to offer the group (although it might get you a bit more logistical support). You need a situation where you can use the social skill (in other words, the charging troll swinging a combat axe at you is not going to screech to a stop because you use leadership skill).

Etiquette lets you fit in, nothing more. Con lets you temporarily fool people, and it is a good idea to be gone when they figure out they've been fleeced. Leadership lets you command people, if you have authority (impersonating a corporate VP) or are taking charge in a crisis situation (getting people to evacuate a building without panicking). Negotiate lets you come out ahead on bargaining, driving the price you get for something or the money you get paid for a service up, generally to some hard limit. That's it, that's all they do. Social skills don't make people give you free stuff, or let you command them to shoot themselves, or change their sexual orientation just for you, or any of the other ludicrous things that people have let pornomancers get away with.

Also note that Missions does use the optional dice pool cap rule.

I was only using the Pornomancer as an example...

That being said, even for Missions if you saw someone come up to the table with a Body, Agility, Reaction all maxed out while having Strength and Charisma at 1 while having virtually no skills save for Automatics at max with the cyber to go along with maxing the whole beast out you would just let them play??? I am sorry, I don't buy it.

EDIT: Look... I don't really care. I do not play "Missions" except for the ones we play at our own table. I am a proponent of "friendly play" where everyone agrees not to be an ass.

[tete]

I highly disagree here. Mainly because I do not agree with the unlimited skill growth that was supported by SR2/3.
I Have 400+ Karma characters in SR4 who still are not where I want them to be; and even with an additional 1000 Karma (yes, I have characters with advancement plans that would take more than an additional 1000 karma to realize) would not be where I would like them to be.

Well I dont have any 400 Karma characters in SR4 but my Street Sam was done by 50. I'm a firm believer in niche protection so I'm not making characters that are good at everything, most start out as good as possible within their role and then spend a 100 karma or so to round them out a bit and I'm done. I dont think this is a unique to me problem but I'll admit these characters have weaknesses and cant do a Shadowrun alone.

[Moirdryd]

In answer to oe of the questions... Yes the edition changes are normally this, I'm gong to go with "nasty". 3rd - 4th wasn't very shiny and to be honest I never liked the look or feel of 4th and still don't. Skill Caps went DOWN, hacking was suddenly something everyone could do with a phone, the Matrix became just the Internet, Magical Traditions vanished in the blink of an eye, AIs suddenly seemed far more "common place", system variables diminished... The list goes on and became for many the tirade of what was wrong with 4th.

5th? Well, it needs more clarification on several rules (or errata), many people are reading things wrong (just look at the auto fire multi attack threads and the myth that you cannot shoot multiple targets with only one gun). Technomancers seem to hurt to do anything (lower fading codes are a must). It suffers from trying to use simple systems to do complicated things (which is why I dare say we shall see rules expansions for Magic, TMs etc in their appropriate books) and much if it comes across as the core of a much bigger system. SR3's strength and bane at once was it's subsystems and if a GM and player were willing to pr soe time into understanding them then you could really go far with the Character type because you had a Ruleset that catered to your needs, but it could also be massively over complicated in parts. SR4 ripped away the Fat and Musle to ave just goes and built upon that skeleton something new to the similar framework. SR5 is attempting to take the best of both worlds and put it in one. It's not there yet but has a great potential to achieve those goals.

For sone other comparisons
4 out of 5 SR editions core chargen mechanic has been Priority Gen (note Core).
4 out if 5 editions have had a skill advancement scheme above 6 iirc
4 out of 5 editions have presented the concept that you're a Starting Runner with skills that people want (need) but also requiring a Team to get the Job done. You're not and will not be a legend at regular chargen in any focus.
5 out of 5 editions ave ad drawbacks to the awakened in some way, each one as been differant.
Every edition has seen a differant diversity in spell selections and how effective those lists are.
Spirits are dangerous in every edition and those that think they are lacklustre from one to the next typically get killed by them.
In 5 out of 5 editions Great Dragons will ruin your day.
Cyber is Still a great Equalizer, why? Because it typically doesn't rely on a law of averages to do what it does for you and that law of averages Will screw you at some point when it hurts the most because the Great Gods of Gaming are Fickle!

[Smash]

5th? Well, it needs more clarification on several rules (or errata), many people are reading things wrong (just look at the auto fire multi attack threads and the myth that you cannot shoot multiple targets with only one gun).

but....

Characters sometimes want to really put on the hurting
in a single Action Phase and can choose to attack more
than once in a single Action Phase by using the Multiple
Attacks Free Action. This action represents both
attacking multiple times from a single melee weapon
and attacking with two different weapons (firearms
or melee).

Hardly a myth when the section on multiple attacks is quite clear that single melee weapons can but firearms only can with multiple weapons. Admittedly the SA burst section says you can do it but I have to wonder why you would ever use 2 weapons otherwise? considering that reloading is a perfect time to reset your recoil.

[Glyph]

I would dispute that SR4 lets you start out as a "legend". It lets you get close to the maximum in one single skill, with a high opportunity cost in a finite pool of the points you need to create your character. Indeed, such hyper-specialists are usually even more in need of a team, since they can only do one thing. I never liked SR4's narrow skill range, but starting out with a skill of 7 did not close off any meaningful future advancement.

Comparing the core character creation systems is pointless, when point builds were not introduced until later in SR3, and karmagen was not introduced until later in SR4. While I don't mind SR5's priority character creation, it is still a step backwards as far as flexibility in character creation.

[Fatum]

I would dispute that SR4 lets you start out as a "legend". It lets you get close to the maximum in one single skill, with a high opportunity cost in a finite pool of the points you need to create your character. Indeed, such hyper-specialists are usually even more in need of a team, since they can only do one thing. I never liked SR4's narrow skill range, but starting out with a skill of 7 did not close off any meaningful future advancement.

I agree absolutely on the sentiment that being competent in one thing only makes a team more necessary. However, the problem with SR4 is that of your primary pools, the vast majority of the dice you can have in them, you'll have out of chargen, and adding new ones will be prohibitively expensive.
It's still essentially the same in 5, but further skill advancements possible mitigate it somewhat.

[Moirdryd]

I meant it more to point out that getting to the top of any one Skill Tree used to take time and effort in a lengthy campaign. From the way it's been represented in the last page or so SR4 sounds like that after 2months of play with 1game a week using the average award characters should easily be maxed in their primary focus if they didn't leave Chargen that way.

[binarywraith]

I meant it more to point out that getting to the top of any one Skill Tree used to take time and effort in a lengthy campaign. From the way it's been represented in the last page or so SR4 sounds like that after 2months of play with 1game a week using the average award characters should easily be maxed in their primary focus if they didn't leave Chargen that way.

It's supposed to take time and effort. A maxed out skill+stat pool means that the character is in fact at the literal human maximum in that skill. We're talking Olympic level athletes, maybe a dozen people in the world that good sort of levels. Having that be an expected possibility coming out of character creation means the system is broken.

Hence why I'm happier with SR5's chargen.

[Moirdryd]

Yep, I'm in your camp there binarywraith.

[Ryu]

It's supposed to take time and effort. A maxed out skill+stat pool means that the character is in fact at the literal human maximum in that skill. We're talking Olympic level athletes, maybe a dozen people in the world that good sort of levels. Having that be an expected possibility coming out of character creation means the system is broken.

Hence why I'm happier with SR5's chargen.

I consider the option of having all levels of skill up front a strength. I play with people I know for 8-25 years now, we agree on power levels and it just works. Adjusting max. power for SR4 or starting ressources for SR5 is easy. I agree that limited starting power is more natural to SR5.

I´d establish some guidelines for spending karma using either system. Under SR4 we watch total dicepools, under SR5 it should be considered unsporting to only raise attributes.

[Nath]

It's supposed to take time and effort. A maxed out skill+stat pool means that the character is in fact at the literal human maximum in that skill. We're talking Olympic level athletes, maybe a dozen people in the world that good sort of levels. Having that be an expected possibility coming out of character creation means the system is broken.

If you ask me, an olympic Athlete is going to have a maxed out attribute with the Exceptional Attribute quality (unlike Aptitude, it is not supposed to be one-in-a-generation rare), maxed out skill with a specialization, the Natural Athlete quality, and a maxed out or near maxed out Edge (because if you don't plan on spending Edge when you have the chance to qualify for the Olympics, I seriously don't know when you'll use it). But, yes, the 4th edition allow that at chargen.

There currently is something like 13,000 athletes participating in the Olympic Games, to which you must add a bunch of people at similar levels who come in excess to the number of athlete allowed to compete for their country (the US could certainly assemble half a dozen, if not more, basketball teams of Olympic level, for instance). On the other hand, the creation system allows me to build a Maltese Troll Magician who is also a talented sniper, knows Muay Thai, can fly any aircraft in existence, speaks fluently Lakota and Japanese, and has a Mafia connection. Which I don't think is there is even a dozen in the world (withstanding the "troll magician" part).

The question to ask is what is the purpose, or purposes, of the creation system. Initially, the first goal ought to be balancing player characters with different focus within a group, so that everyone can get its share of fun.
I guess a lot of people assume that the world balance suppose that what is powerful must be rare. They are thus willing to use cost to enforce rarity. That means if something is rare in the game universe, then it should require a significant investment, often with no regards to how useful or game-breaking it actually is. Those who summon reality here don't realize than in real life, skills are not conveniently into all-encompassing label like "Software" or "Pilot groundcraft" and that a gun can cost 50 bucks more and not be better.
If only applied to each item separately (by item, I mean attribute/skill/quality/equipment...), it leads to what I just underlined: rare items remains rare, but baroque combinations are totally allowed. So because Olympic athletes are rare, I can't play an Olympic sport shooter, but because magic happens and cyberarms are mass-produced and customizable, I can totally play an elven sniper adept with a cybered arm with maxed out Agility that will roll just as much dice, if not more. It certainly doesn't help the game balance, but it doesn't enforce world believability much more.

The actual debate is whether the creation system should forcefully gives characters room for improvement in their defining traits. The answer is not necessarily obvious. There are plenty of good stories that start with character at the apex of skill (if you try to translate a typical Hollywood action flick into a game, the protagonist would start with most combat skills nearly all maxed out, and they would rather spend the karma they earn to overcome their starting flaws, buy some knowledge skills about the environment they face, and raise Edge as they burn it).

[Sponge]

The actual debate is whether the creation system should forcefully gives characters room for improvement in their defining traits. The answer is not necessarily obvious. There are plenty of good stories that start with character at the apex of skill [...].

Every group of players is free to adjust the character creation limits to suit their storytelling desires, so the system can't actually "force" anything of that nature. The starting character power level as presented by the creation rules is pretty arbitrary, after all, and at best it simply tells players "we've tested the rules with this particular power level and it's reasonably balanced and fun" and hopefully gives some kind of indication as to where that falls on the spectrum.

SR5's higher skill maximums allows for greater resolution in differentiating characters, which is a plus, but SR5's priority system makes actually changing that starting power level somewhat more tricky as compared to SR4's build points.

[Fatum]

Every group of players is free to adjust the character creation limits to suit their storytelling desires, so the system can't actually "force" anything of that nature.

As soon as you agree to modify the rulesystem to serve your purposes, discussing its qualities with others becomes meaningless unless they also play at your table.

Now, the statement Moirdryd makes is

4 out of 5 editions have presented the concept that you're a Starting Runner with skills that people want (need) but also requiring a Team to get the Job done. You're not and will not be a legend at regular chargen in any focus.

as if the fourth edition is lacking in this aspect. Well, it simply isn't: nobody's forcing you to raise the one and only skill allowed to max level, and even if you do, you still have space for growth with qualities, genetics, whatnot. And that might require a long campaign, depending on how you handle rewards for runs. Neither does it eliminate the need for a team - in fact, the limits the fourth places on your skill selection amplify the need for a team, if anything.

The only problem we can talk about, thus, is the relatively higher difficulty of developing your primary skills as opposed to branching out.
Does the fifth address this problem? It does. Does it eliminate it? Not at all.
The same can be said of most changes in the new edition, sadly.

[Moirdryd]

I'm sure you're right in that regard Fatum, but many of the skill / chargen rants have come from SR4 players who seem to believe that the top of the top should be, if not start able with then at least within arms reach. Which is fine for say Prime Runner games or entirely differant genre concepts entirely (like Exalted for example) but for what I've seen presented in 1-3 & 5 that kind if thing isn't portrayed as a core/starting concept outside of the Prime Runner type game. Given that I have not played SR4 and do not own any my only available basis for evaluation are the type of themes expressed and embraced in 1-3 and iterated in 5 vs the seeming objection coming from those who prefere SR4, leading me to believe from what I've read that beginning near the very top of your game in almost every aspect is a promoted concept for the edition.

For those who'd wonder why I'd see this you only have to look at the differance in concept between what Adveturers were in relativistic power terms from AD&D and 3.5 to 4E where you went from marginally better skilled than a twnsperson and brave to heroic and well ahead of most others of your kind. Or the chargen tweaks between 1st and 2nd edition WoD and the 3rd edition series where they went from rank 5 Attributes and Abilities being totally okay as a starting character from core points to things maxing at 3 without FB use and advice to STs to require very good rationales for Attributes of 4+.

Sadly there seems to have been an era in the last 7 years (ish) where the focus has become about Winning the Game with your character being better than the rest of the group's. Balance became less tied to any Theme and more to pure mechanical equality. It seems that is now being shaken off as people are wanting perhaps some more grit in their mechanics, more wriggle room in the system and a bit more variety and complexity in their game again. I'm seeing trends towards not just what is systemically solid but to concepts that sound cool or are based on a rather nice piece of artwork.

Point is SR5 is not a "bad" system (some better editing and more clarity here and there would have been greatly desired, and the internal logic of some of the Wireless stuff is more than questionable). Just as much as SR4 probabley wasn't a "bad" system and nor was 3. You're never going to please everyone and the more history that exists for anything the harder it is to work with. It's not like you cannot still play with the system or editions you enjoy (I still rock out MERP and LUGtrek and D6 StarWars despite owning most of the newer system books, although the new EotE for StarWars is now a favourite too). Sometimes it's nice to ave a new angle on an old favourite and sometimes is good to roll with what you already know.

[Fatum]

I'm sure you're right in that regard Fatum, but many of the skill / chargen rants have come from SR4 players who seem to believe that the top of the top should be, if not start able with then at least within arms reach. Which is fine for say Prime Runner games or entirely differant genre concepts entirely (like Exalted for example) but for what I've seen presented in 1-3 & 5 that kind if thing isn't portrayed as a core/starting concept outside of the Prime Runner type game. Given that I have not played SR4 and do not own any my only available basis for evaluation are the type of themes expressed and embraced in 1-3 and iterated in 5 vs the seeming objection coming from those who prefere SR4, leading me to believe from what I've read that beginning near the very top of your game in almost every aspect is a promoted concept for the edition.

Putting it short: at SR4E chargen, you can have all skills at rating 4, and either one skill at rating 6 (max) or two skills at rating 5. That's pretty far from the top of the food chain (if only because you need more than one skill), but it's definitely up there with skilled professionals.
I started playing pnp SR with fourth, but from what I gather, starting characters were actually more powerful in, say, third edition.

For those who'd wonder why I'd see this you only have to look at the differance in concept between what Adveturers were in relativistic power terms from AD&D and 3.5 to 4E

To... what, sorry? I'm pretty sure D&D's most recent edition is 3.5. There have been some weird boardgames printed under the title, but they have nothing to do with the system itself.

Sadly there seems to have been an era in the last 7 years (ish) where the focus has become about Winning the Game with your character being better than the rest of the group's. Balance became less tied to any Theme and more to pure mechanical equality.

Well, mayhaps straight casters ruling the game might not be to everyone's liking? Actually, ruling multiple games :ь

I'm seeing trends towards not just what is systemically solid but to concepts that sound cool or are based on a rather nice piece of artwork.

That depends purely on the player, the system has little to do with it, don't you think? For a glaring example, remember when Drizzt clones ruled supreme?
The system here only determines what can and can't be fit into its framework, and unless we're talking weird D&D-labeled boardgames, most pnp systems work fine for any concept that stays within the genre they're created to cover.

Point is SR5 is not a "bad" system (some better editing and more clarity here and there would have been greatly desired, and the internal logic of some of the Wireless stuff is more than questionable). Just as much as SR4 probabley wasn't a "bad" system and nor was 3. You're never going to please everyone and the more history that exists for anything the harder it is to work with. It's not like you cannot still play with the system or editions you enjoy (I still rock out MERP and LUGtrek and D6 StarWars despite owning most of the newer system books, although the new EotE for StarWars is now a favourite too). Sometimes it's nice to ave a new angle on an old favourite and sometimes is good to roll with what you already know.

So far my experience with it has been absolutely abhorrent. There are logical holes the size of a barn door even in the rules that are formulated well, and the contradictions in the rest of them make you either write a dozen-page houserule booklet, or drop the thing altogether.
Sure, you can have fun with any system in good company (or without any system, for that matter, too). It's even in my signature. But as far as the formal qualities that allow us to compare systems go, SR5 so far is bad. If anything, it is following the trend in moving from simulationism very far down the road to pure gamism - not just particular rules, but whole subsystems in it only make sense from the gamist point of view.

[Glyph]

I started playing pnp SR with fourth, but from what I gather, starting characters were actually more powerful in, say, third edition.

In SR3, a 6 wasn't the best in the world, but the skill descriptions made skills of 7+ out to be a rarely encounted thing, so a 6 in a skill was actually pretty damn good. Also, there were a lot less necessary skills. Perception was not a skill, athletics and stealth were skills rather than skill groups, counterspelling was derived from spellcasting, aura reading was only a complementary skill rather than one that was required to read auras, con was a specialization of negotiation, etc.


I am curious - is the fluff in SR5 for skills similar to that of SR3 (skills of 7+ are a big deal)?