 Shadowrun 3rd Revised, our backs turned, looking down the path |
  |
 Jul 7 2005, 06:26 PM
Post
#126
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 669 Joined: 25-May 03 Member No.: 4,634  |
Especially considering how much karma you have to put into Centering to make it worthwhile (i.e., Centering at 4-6, an artistic skill at 4-6, and the actual initiation, which may include joining an initiatory group and paying dues). |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Jul 9 2005, 07:10 AM
Post
#127
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Well, as canon stands, normal Melee skills are what are usually used when fighting hand-to-hand on the Astral. Sorcery is merely an option that can be used in place of Melee skills any time a person has access to the Astral.. Remember that not all combat on the Astral takes place between Projecting beings. Some combattants are Dual Beings, and/or are using Astral Perception. There is no reason why someone would use Charisma (or Sorcery) when they are still using the meat muscles when fighting. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 9 2005, 04:59 PM
Post
#128
|
|||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Never heard of Wallhacker. Anyone else familiar with this? EX ammo: this is true, but in this case it's because it shouldn't be a multiplier in the first place. This just comes down the the devs not knowing math; if you want EX ammo to be 2-3 times as powerful then you just reduce the barrier rating by 1-2. Halving the barrier rating actually squares the power of the ammo (roughly) rather than multiplying it. So you're right in this case, but the conclusion you're drawing isn't.
I'd round *down*, actually. That's actually how it works in most cases already; the only times I can recall rounding up is on a few Pool calculations. Drain = half Force, round down; successes divide into base time, round down; Essence costs round down. Less has to change to implement the rule, so there's less breakage. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 9 2005, 05:00 PM
Post
#129
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
(EDIT: double post)
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 9 2005, 05:13 PM
Post
#130
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
As for splitting up Sorcery and Computers... e, let's not. If we did stuff like split up a bunch of skills, we'd have to get more complicated in other ways as well: we'd have to raise skill points at chargen to allow compatable builds, and then provide restrictions on how skill points are spent to prevent cherry-picking of a bunch of useful but non-related abilities, etc etc. The point is quickly becomming moot anyway; note that in the ranged combat section there is already discussion about consolidating the ranged weapon skills, which kinda takes away the argument that "Firearms got broken up; let's break up Sorcery and Computers too!"
It's just more hassle than it's worth IMO; this is a revision, not a rewrite. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 9 2005, 08:37 PM
Post
#131
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-July 03 Member No.: 4,963 |
No, it's laziness. Regardless, I've probably made my point. Anyone working on this might stop and think for a moment about what they're doing before doubling or halving something, which was my goal. If you look over my recent post over on the Ranged Combat thread, I do double something at one point, so it's not like I'm the crazy guy on the street corner demanding we give up the number 9. Ironically, the thing that needs fixing in what I wrote isn't what I doubled, it's what I added things together for(I did a double-whammy on gel rounds. -2 power AND ball+imp? Overkill). So the problem is more "Copying and pasting without thinking makes bad math".
.
Yes. This hit me yesterday as I went about double-checking the rules on a particular character. In most cases we already round down, so I'm going to change my mind and say that's where I lean now. --- Also, I concur on splitting up the other skills. Don't do it folks, that'll just make baby jesus cry. SR4 can split up skills because they're already totally re-writing the system from the ground up. Plus, they're going BeCKs so diversification wont be as painful. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 9 2005, 08:35 PM
Post
#132
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-July 03 Member No.: 4,963 |
No, it's laziness. Regardless, I've probably made my point. Anyone working on this might stop and think for a moment about what they're doing before doubling or halving something, which was my goal. If you look over my recent post over on the Ranged Combat thread, I do double something at one point, so it's not like I'm the crazy guy on the street corner demanding we give up the number 9. Ironically, the thing that needs fixing in what I wrote isn't what I doubled, it's what I added things together for(I did a double-whammy on gel rounds. -2 power AND ball+imp? Overkill). So the problem really is "Writing numbers down without actually checking what they look'll like in play.
Yes. This hit me yesterday as I went about double-checking the rules on a particular character. In most cases we already round down, so I'm going to change my mind and say that's where I lean now. --- Also, I concur on splitting up the other skills. Don't do it folks, that'll just make baby jesus cry. SR4 can split up skills because they're already totally re-writing the system from the ground up. Plus, they're going BeCKs so diversification wont be as painful. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 10 2005, 05:21 AM
Post
#133
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
You also round up when calculating Maximum Attribute Ratings. Incidently, which Pools round up? I also think splitting the skills is not the optimum solution, but I really think something needs to be done with the current Sorcery/Spell Defence mechanic. My 'Spell Pool only' ruling for Spell Defence seems to work well in practice, and has the added benefit of pretty much halving the maximum amount of dice a character can assign in comparison to the current system. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 10 2005, 03:15 PM
Post
#134
|
|||||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
And only then when you have the Exceptional Attribute Edge.
Um, Hacking Pool I think. Nope, actually I was thinking of Detection Factor, which does round up. All pools round down.
And it makes intuitive sense too; it's much like combat pool can be used to dodge, control pool can be used to help with crash tests, Hacking Pool can be used to help dodge attacks (Improvised defense rules), so can spell pool be used to help resist. It's good from a rules mastery point of view, which is what SR really is lacking in right now. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jul 10 2005, 03:34 PM
Post
#135
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
If spell pool is the only one that can be applied to spell defence, then for the sake of making it more consistent, it should probably not require allocating in advance. Same with reflection/absorbtion, although not shielding.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 10 2005, 03:46 PM
Post
#136
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
That's not actually accurate. I assume you're referring to the fact that a normal human has all 6/9s with no fractions to round, but a Troll's Quickness RML is 5 and the racial max is 8 without any edge whatsoever. ~J |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 10 2005, 04:41 PM
Post
#137
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 164 Joined: 7-July 03 Member No.: 4,891 |
It sounds like in SR3, the de-facto rule for rounding is "round in whichever direction helps the players".
I could live with that. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 10 2005, 04:49 PM
Post
#138
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Heh, except Pool rounds down, and so do a few other things that would help the player to round up. The rule was probably "round the opposite direction that everyone expects." :)
Huh, I guess I read that section wrong then. Thanks Kag. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 10 2005, 08:52 PM
Post
#139
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 669 Joined: 25-May 03 Member No.: 4,634 |
Really? I always figured it was exactly the oppostie; you typically round whatever way that screws the players, from what I've seen in the rules. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 14 2005, 06:04 PM
Post
#140
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Here's another question: what do people want to see done with the Contact rules? Personally, I'd love at the very least a mechanic for defining what a contact can do and to what degree, but that may introduce too much complexity. I'll flesh this out more later when I get more time.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jul 14 2005, 10:16 PM
Post
#141
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 164 Joined: 7-July 03 Member No.: 4,891 |
Doh, I forgot about pools. Also, about skill costs. There is no pattern. WRT contacts: I don't think there's any harm in complexifying the contact rules. Contacts are just NPCs, so if the rules are too annoying for a particular situation, or if they don't make sense, it's easy to replace them with more roleplaying. Mechanically, how about defining them along two axes (how well you know them, and how powerful they are)? That'd make it possible to become friends for life with the local bouncer without spending the equivalent of 1000kg of Compound 13. On the other hand, 'power' is a terribly relative measure so the power axis would likely boil down to some guidelines and a lot of GM's discretion. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 14 2005, 10:26 PM
Post
#142
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I was planning on having several axes:
As an example (and I'll need to come up with a better one for everyone not in the Tuesday game), Sigrun would probably be medium/upper-medium along the Closeness axis, medium-high along the Power axis, relatively low along the Versatility axis, and quite high on the… hm. Immediacy? That fourth axis. As for legality, she'd range from reasonably deep black up to lower-end legit, but in her case that isn't something that shows up at the player's end so maybe it's an argument against that being a paid-for axis. As is obvious from this, SR3R contact levels will not necessarily translate cleanly from SR3 contact levels. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Jul 15 2005, 01:22 AM
Post
#143
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 669 Joined: 25-May 03 Member No.: 4,634 |
Ever heard of Risus? I've always wanted to use a system for contacts that just used the Risus Cliche system for contacts. So you have 10 points to spend on a contact (for instance). It costs nothing for him to just be a "contact," but L2 (Buddy) costs 3 points and L3 (Friend for Life) costs 5. Then, whatever skills left over get applied to Cliches like "Street Doc," or "Fixer." Hell, I wrote something up about all this for a set of SR houserules (Basically, I wanted to make a generic cyberpunk system out of Shadowrun). Here's what I had: Basically, you got points to spend on contacts equal to x + CHA, where x increases dependant on where you put contact as a Priority (it was a Priority in this system), but it was the multiples of 5 from 5 to 25. Contacts are defined by two attributes: competency and familiarity. For any contact, it costs 1 point to have a simple acquaintance, 5 to have a buddy, and 10 to have a friend for life. Competency is bought at a one-for-one ratio, so that a contact with a competency of x costs x contact points. Competency: This attribute describes how well the contact is in certain generalized fields that describe their "job." Those familiar with Risus will recognize this as the basic Cliche System. Examples of competency fields are Fixer, Street Doc, Informant... basically any of the contact archetypes. A contact can have multiple competency fields. The GM should roll competency whenever the contact's ability to do something is in question. Use the field closest related to the task at hand; for example, roll Smuggler to see if the contact can transport something illegally, or Street Doc to see if a contact can heal a wound. Target numbers should be as for the skill being supplanted by competency. Contacts may have to perform tasks outside their chosen field; in these cases apply a TN modifier. For tasks closely related but not really within the contact's expertise (e.g., a Street Doc acquiring illegal drugs) add two to the TN. For tasks distantly related but with some similarities to a field (e.g., a Street Doc repairing cyberlimbs) add four to the TN. For a task completely out of the field's domain (e.g., a Street Doc firing an assault cannon) add eight to the TN. In combat, competency fields can be used for combat skill rolls where applicable. When a contact needs to use a specific attribute, apply the closest field applicable (e.g., Talismonger for resisting a spell, Street Samurai for damage resistance rolls), and apply TN modifiers for unrelated fields if they need to be used. An applicable competency field can be used to help find gear for characters; simply roll against the availability. In general, it is up to the Gm's discretion to decide what tasks fall within a competency field. Familiarity:As described in the character generation section, these are the acquaintance/buddy/friend for life distinction from SR3. They work in exactly the same way. It's a bit rough, but I liked it. Never tried it though. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 15 2005, 01:32 AM
Post
#144
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 669 Joined: 25-May 03 Member No.: 4,634 |
Here's an example of what can be done with such a system:
Given 20 points you could get... A badass mage whose life you saved when he nearly killed himself from drain; his magical group has an oath that you must show your gratitude for one who saves your life by treating that person as a brother or sister. Friend for Life (10pts) Combat Mage 6 (6pts) Conjuror 4 (4pts) OR A competant arms dealer who sort of knows you... Contact (1pt) Gun Runner 5 (5pts) Smuggler 3 (3pts) ...and a good street doc who you're friendly with. Buddy (5pts) Street Doc 6 (6pts) Again, this system is sort of a quickie abstraction, and it doesn't jive perfectly with SR rules, but for quick resolution of a contact's abilities and greater player control over said abilities, I think it does well. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 4 2005, 08:24 PM
Post
#145
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
As a note, I'm currently working on my contact-rules rework. I'll be diving back into ranged combat once I've got something presentable here.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Aug 4 2005, 10:49 PM
Post
#146
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 488 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 90 |
And as soon as my job slows down from 50 hours a week, I'll post my version of the revised rigging/driving rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 12:05 AM
Post
#147
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 8-February 05 Member No.: 7,066 |
In re: to contacts, I was just thinking about this this morning. I would change the classification for each contact as follows (instead of the contact, friend, buddy): 1. Informed. 2. Lucrative or 3. Support. And then, give them a Professional Rating to determine how effective they are in their given field of expertise. All contacts purchased at char gen are Prof. Rating 1. These ratings can be raised using money or karma.
1. Informed Contacts. This is your legwork contact, regularly purchased at 5K nuyen. She's the one that knows the stuff you're trying to find out. Examples of these contacts would be; Bartenders, Secretaries, Tribesmen, Reporters, and so on. 2. Lucrative Contacts. These characters run a business that you find useful for maintaining your characters lifestyle. Taking a lucrative contact at 10k nuyen should perhaps give you a bonus, determined by that contacts Prof. Rating. Ie. An Armorer, rating 1, may be able to give a 1 to 5 % discount on the purchase of firearms. Examples of Lucrative Contacts are; Amorer, Deckmeister, Street Doc, Talismonger, etc. 3. Support Contacts. These characters are basically other runners, to fill gaps in a campaign where a runner might be needed but no PCs or NPCs are available. At 200k, they're still expensive to buy at char gen, but then again, it might help to have a second mage on your stat sheet if you want to put together a magic group. Obviously, any archetype could be a Support Contact. And Corp. Rigger, Decker, Mage and so on, would also classify. Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
Aug 6 2005, 03:31 PM
Post
#148
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 11-December 02 From: The other end of your computer screen Member No.: 3,724 |
Just a quick question:
First, though, I think this is a great venture that all of you are taking. Question I have is: Is there a Site where all of this compiled revision can be read or downloaded (hopefully in some PDF format or the like) in the plans somewhere down the line? |
|
|
|
|
Aug 6 2005, 04:09 PM
Post
#149
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Yes. A whois on sr3r.net may be enlightening :)
~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 12 2005, 05:19 PM
Post
#150
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
First, I want to put my personal bias on the table. While I'm against needless complexity, I am a big fan of the "one game, many systems" aspect—in my opinion it is one of the greatest strengths of Shadowrun. If one grows tired of the way melee works they can switch to a pistol. If they grow tired of that, time for a decker. If they get sick of having a TN of over 2, they make a Rigger ( ;) ). So on and soforth. That said, I'd like explanation of how, in your opinion, open tests unbalance the game. The best way to convince me would be to come up with an elegant replacement for open tests (even in just one area, say Stealth), but poking enough holes in the current system is enough to get me to start looking for an alternative myself.
Mm. Well, I'd like to hear additional comments on it, but at first glance I don't think it's a good idea. Particularly the VCR would have to be dramatically reworked/rebalanced to fit in with this. That said, the rigging rules are going to see a serious overhaul anyway, so that'll offer more chances for something like this to slip in. Still, anyone else have feedback on it? ~J |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 18th February 2025 - 08:18 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.