SR 4.0 suggestions and requests, Because we don't have a debate...yet Options

[Siege]

Attributes

1. Will the attributes have a more meaningful impact on skills and success of skills?

Skills

1. Are the skills going to be re-distributed with a more even-handed approach to everything or will we continue to see broad groups in the less popular areas like Negotiations, Electronics and Biotech versus the popular areas of...well...Firearms?
2. Will the subject of knowledge skills be a little more clearly defined or remain as is?
3. For that matter, will we continue to see a splitting of the skills into the deliberately useful and accidentally useful?

-Siege

[Patrick Goodman]

I don't think I'm violating anything when I answer these, since they seem generic enough, and I can give easy answers without having to give details.

ATTRIBUTES
1. Yes.

SKILLS
1. I think so.
2. Ditto.
3. Again, I think so.

Some of the skill stuff is still up in the air, as I recall.

[Nikoli]

I totally agree that attributes should play a bigger part in the mechanics. As it stands, they are only the limit for how far your skills can go and how much they cost. (No skill can be more than 2*linked attribute, attributes have a maximum, which means, without edges at the chargen, a human can only have an 18 skill max which is a truly scary thought)
I personally, would like skills to modify TN and you roll dice based on attributes. But that's me.

[Sharaloth]

Hm. I'd have to see how they do the integration to have a good opinion on it. Oh, and skills CAN (in 3rd edition, at least) be more than 2x the linked attribute. Personally, I like the TN set by circumstances (such as how hard what you're doing is) and skills as the # of dice you roll. I'm so very interested in what they will do for SR4, though. Can barely wait the several months until release.

[Siege]

And if some of Nigel Findley's bones happened to be ground into a powder and mixed into an ink...would you consider printing a couple of special editions?

:grinbig:

-Siege

[NeoJudas]

For the general record, please keep in mind that attributes also play a part in the limits of success tests especially with regards to Physical Tests (how much I lift, how much I weigh, how fast I run, how much can I throw, how hard do I hit). They also play a limit in the size of teams (Charisma) for developing things/working together. They have an impact on Cyberdecks (though that may be changing with the Matrix chagnes... who knows). They also can have an impact on the way you focus/distribute your attention (Willpower).

Attributes are *very* influential in the current game version. If they become more so in the future, I'd wager that a potential for overusage of skills could occur. Note I said "could occur" not will occur.

[Siege]

Without counting the inane addition of altering skill improvement costs, I have never had a relative attribute impact on game play.

My long-standing argument runs along these lines:

A human with Strength 8 and Athletics 4 has the same skill chance of performing an action successfully as a Strength 2, Athletics 4 human.

The augmented human could default to his Strength for performing the action, but then he suffers a penalty for defaulting to an attribute.

-Siege

Edit: And how would an "overusage" of skills occur?

[Kagetenshi]

Don't forget that attributes determine pool. They're much more valuable than skills in a general sense.

~J

[SuperSpy]

Also, Body and Willpower are directly used for damage resistance. Quickness is directly responsible for movement rate. Intelligence determines your knowledge skill pool. Charisma is used directly when dealing with spirits/elementals.

Edit: almost forgot about Strength which figures your melee damage.

[Eyeless Blond]

Strength is directly used to calculate encumberance. Though right now it is far *far* too linear and crappy at the low ends; I don't know anyone who can't carry 5-15 kilograms without getting tired who isn't physically disabled far beyond the normal range of humanity. Combine this with the fact that canon weights are off by a factor of at least 2, and you have a recipe for encumberance rules being ignored by most games; I know *I'm* always surprised when I find out that encumberance rules are actually enforced in any particular game.

[Penta]

A plea. Can we see some 'if you've done this, you'd probably have these skills' things?

The most popular backgrounds (police, military) at least.

It'd be great for helping set up characters.

[Arethusa]

I'll be happy if skills are set up to allow us to build real human beings. I don't want to see a rehash of the time I ran through examples of how Priority wouldn't let me build evena third of the skillset you'd get from going through basic training, point got me half way, and even BeCKS couldn't even get there.

[SuperSpy]

I always liked the skill packages that the Mechwarrior RPG rules offered (can't remember which edition). Basically they gave you a discount in skill points for a particular group of skills according to the character's education track.

In SR terms, a "Lone Star Academy" package might give you Pistols 4, Shotgun 3, Athletics 2, Computers 2, Electronics 2, Car 3, Etiquette(Law Enforcement) 3(5) for 18 skill points (rather than spending 20 for all those on your own).

[Arethusa]

I really hate that shit. All it does is enforce narrow character concepts and penalize people with creative backgrounds. It's a horrible idea.

[SuperSpy]

Gee, my Wheaties suddenly taste like urine.

I see where you're coming from, but it could be done well. If the packages include a range of skill that aren't normally taken by one character, the packages could be used to encourage types of characters not normally created due to players tendencies to specialize.

In other words if a package saved a character 2 points, included Boat 4, and didn't give the character enough skills to be a proper rigger, it doesn't really help out the munchkins - in fact it would cost them 2 more points than if they left Boat off all together. But, for someone wanting to make a former Naval officer, it would be a real boon.

At the end of the day, as neat as I think it is, it's not one of those things I would buy or not buy a book over though.

[Fortune]

I think this is something that is best left to each individual GM on a campaign-to-campaign basis.

[Kanada Ten]

One way to handle packages is to make sample NPCs (something neat for the webpage, too) using the creation rules for various commonly encountered roles, and additional contacts. Of course, this can also be handled communally or using a resource like TSS. This allow the "packages" to be nothing more than possibilities, by keeping them away from the rules.

[Penta]

SuperSpy has much of what I'm thinking.

This was inspired by repeated attempts to answer players' queries of 'Well, my character was X, what skills would he have?'

Sometimes, you just want to get the skills someone would have gotten from training; Yes, I was inspired by the MechWarrior RPG's system, or the similar system used by Twilight 2000.

Building characters point by point is great for advanced players. For players that don't want to use the samples but do want a quicker system than the point-by-point routine, these would be great.

[Arethusa]

I have no problem with packages set up to make things easier for people ignorant of, say, police and military skill sets. That's fine. Set up a package for each common background with explanation and information to teach them about why the packages are what they are. That's fine. Just keep it the hell away from mechanics and don't give them discounts. Do not penalize people who want to be creative.

[Penta]

I agree totally. That was never my intention, Arethusa.

I wouldn't want discounts. But I do want an easier way for players to build common characters.

[Dizzo Dizzman]

I really hate skill packages. All they do is cut down on the amount of character originality. I would, however, be perfectly happy they were included in an optional book. It could be something included in the new "Companion" book for those who want to create characters quickly or want to play a certain type of game.

As for attributes, I hope they don't get too much more powerful. As it is, I usually take attributes over skills when a make a character using the priority system for the following reasons:

1) If you want to play any type of character with good skills starting out you need good attributes.
2) If I'm playing a Sam with an melee weapon, nothing beats a high strength.
3) A high body is absolutely essential to survive any kind of combat.
4) Ditto for a decent combat pool.
5) Being able to resist drain and summon high force spirits for low drain make a high charisma and willpower essential.
6) Being able to resist a variety of spells makes a decent willpower essential for most characters.
7) Intelligence is absolutely vital for those all important perception tests.
8) Intelligence and willpower are extremely useful for deckers and riggers.

Really, if they make attributes any more powerful, I'll be forced to use the point system just so I can throw all my points into attributes! ;)

[GunnerJ]

The thing with attributes is, it's so much harder to raise them than skills. Hence, I go the attributes-monkey route.

[Fortune]

[Dizzo Dizzman]

Yeah, I find it really hard to talk intelligently when I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Doesn't stop me from trying though. :S

[Kagetenshi]