Strategic vs Dramatic and my take on SR 4, this is a rather long diatribe Options

[Ellery]

Is there a system that you think handles firearms well? I've played mostly fantasy systems, and I can't say I've been too impressed with the way firearms are handled in those few games I've played that actually had firearms. In comparison, SR3 seems pretty good.

[Nerbert]

This is the perfect example of why I prefer a soft system. Questions like the previous 6 or 7 posts simply do not occur. You might say "Oh, there's more arguments of the rules in a soft system" No way. Nooooo way. Look at that.

Realism. What's the point? Is the point of firing the gun to accurately model in precise medical terms the way bullets inflict damage upon people? Or is the purpose of firing the gun to dramatically slay one's opponents? I honestly can't tell.

[mfb]

a soft system is nice if you value the roleplaying over the game. personally, i place about equal value on both. i prefer fairly hard systems because i know the people i game with are capable of good RP; i don't need to worry about the rules getting in the way of their characterization.

[The White Dwarf]

/agree mfb

Hard systems tend to be more even over time, and across groups/gms/sessions. And it lets the people involve roleplay based on what their characters can do on paper.

Soft systems tend to leave things undefined, and me asking questions of the GM. Which can work for a set group with a good GM, but Id rather just have it handled rules side and focus on playing the game, both role and roll playing.

That said, obviously a well written hard system is implied, as poorly written versions of either tend to be bad heh.

[Wounded Ronin]

OK, I'm going to say what my opinion about hard rules versus role-playing is.

In my opinion, it is hard rules rather than soft rules which validate role-playing. Why is this? Because any action a human being takes is meaningless without the context of the rest of the world. Why is an act of courage an act of courage? It is not an act of courage in isolation. It is an act of courage because of its impact on the rest of the world and because of the risk that the person performing the act of courage bring upon himself.

If you are playing with a soft system there are no hard-nosed guidelines about when you live or die. I can grandstand all day and make my character say dashing things but unless there's a rule mechanic that is capable of grinding him into the ground it's only bravado. On the other hand, though, if my average human with 3s across the board stands up to the troll ganger in order to buy his friend time to escape, *that* is a true act of courage, because statistically we know that my average human is probably about to die.

Unless there's a consistient system defining reality, and unless the PCs are genuinely at risk for all of their heroic actions, they are not truly being heroic; instead they're expressing bravado. True heroic role playing can only emerge when the character acts like a big hero in spite of his falibility and mortality.

[Gambitt]

Aye Ronin, i like what you are saying.
As a small side point it does depend on the GM/play style/friends or club people you run with.

[Quix]

Ronin I think I'm gonna have to disagree on terms with you here. Either I've never played a truely soft system, possible I suppose, or I'm seeing your heroic/bravado arguement as falling into the dramatic/strategic category.
In my experience if one character starts to shoot his mouth off, be it to buy time or what not, then the only way the opposition doesn't smack him upside the head is if the GM is enjoying the drama that the player is helping to create.

[Gambitt]

I still agree with ronin, if im reading him right. With a soft system its easier to stand up to someone when you are outmatched and be of the opinion that "there are fewer rules covering this situation, so whilst its a risk it would be a very harsh GM who just killed me". With hard rules its different, more of a case of " Damn i know im totally outmatched and am so dead... ive read the rules and i need a miracle.... but damn this is a good roleplaying buzz"

It really does totally depend on the GM though.... soft or hard rules can be good, but i do see where ronin is coming from.

[Nerbert]

Wounded Ronin

A Hard System does not reward any dramatic act. There is no encouragment to behave in such a manner unless you're willing to let your character die for the sake of a "good scene". Your heroic mannerisms might get you kudos and karma points for good roleplaying. But you can't spend Karma when you're dead.

A Dramatic system does reward this sort of behavior. The chances for a dramatic success are substantially higher, partially because the gamemaster has less control over the "difficulty" of an action. Good roleplaying is what its all about.

[Gambitt]

But a hard system gives you a better idea of what you are getting yourself into. :P

[Raskolnikov]

Additionally, although a soft system will work fine if you are in a group who all share the same opinions on what is "dramatic" and what is "stupid and lame," if you scale the number of players up, it becomes more and more likely that the difference of opinions will be vast enough to cause very severe problems.

While this doesn't happen too much on tabletop, imagine an open world with 12, 50, or even hundreds of players. At Shadowland we require a hard system, and because you can't get a group that large to agree 100% on any change, we can not modify the cannon text.

This demonstrates two problems that the Shadowlanders see with games systems in general and the SR4 clues specifically that many people may not rate as such high issues. We do not like rules that promote GM fiat because every location is GMed by the person who created it. We do not have a single or even a group of site GMs. This means with soft rules that encourage the GM to do whatever they want despite statistics, players are left at the uncertain mercy of the page holder (or operator of the scene, but I won't go into specific Shadowland mechanics). This harms the openness of our environment.

Secondly, the comment "if you don't like it change it" can not hold on our system. Because everyone is a GM, we must have the same mechanics across all pages. If common situations are defined in the rules poorly, they must be handled poorly because it creates an inability to be consistent if everyone is house ruling said situation differently. Try to get even a dozen people to agree on a house rule across the board. Even if you manage it through the intervention of satan himself then you cripple potential new members because they then need to learn something not located in the books. This alienates them and makes them less likely to want to play an already complex game on an already complex system that it takes some time getting used to.

You can't be as flexible in the most advanced collaborative fiction site on the net as you can on table top. The advantages the Shadowland system offers however far outweigh this loss in our minds, but we need hard rules, good cannon, and no hand-waving from our chosen game.

You can see why many books in SR3 and much of the information coming from SR4 distresses us.

[Nerbert]

Clearly it doesn't make any sense to have all the GMs in a very large game handling things arbitrarily. I don't see this as being a problem. A large, 50-100 person, game requires a level of organization and cooperation that goes above and beyond an individual storyteller.

When you go to play in a game like that, I think its expected that the Gamemaster is allowed to say "No, you can't do that because it would violate the cohesion of our game world."

Also, Soft Systems allow Gamemasters to "cheat" with MUCH more freedom. Gamemasters can, and should cheat whenever necessary. Either to promote the enjoyment of the game by helping the players along or to promote the enjoyment of the game by increasing the challenge on them. Oftentimes in a Hard system is becomes increasingly obvious when your GM is "cheating", players don't like this. With a Soft System, you don't necessarily know whats going on behind the screen.

Obviously this is assuming that you're playing with a Good GM. I don't see the point in talking about playing a game with a bad GM because a truly bad GM can ruin anything.

[Raskolnikov]

When you have 20+ people who are all GMs to some extent, there is no way to garuntee they are "good" GMs.

GMs in large games should -never- cheat because that itself violates the cohesion of the game world.

[Nitr0]

[mfb]

that's the great thing about SR3, actually--it's got built-in cheat codes for the GM, in the form of the various pools. if an encounter turns out to be too tough for the characters for whatever reason, you can even the odds a lot by having the NPCs spend their pools unwisely, or even not spend it at all. likewise, if the oppo is too easy, the GM just has to put a little more thought into his pool use.

and, yeah. if you want to sit around and swap stories and cool descriptions, a soft system is 100% great. if you want to play a game, soft systems are the devil.

[hobgoblin]

heh, maybe thats the strong point of the existing sr system, the pools. it allows you to dramatic when needed by dumping your pool into the roll and pray that it is enough to save your ass from what looks like destruction...

[Critias]

It's one of it's strongest points, yes. Good thing they're getting rid of them. All that pesky "thinking" and "planning" and "counting" ruined the game by making it too slow!

[Nerbert]

There's a difference between a slow game and a glacial one.

And what is roleplaying except for prolonged mental masturbation anyway? Is ponderously planning an extended campaign against a corporate empire that falls apart in the execution because someone forgot to write "duct tape" on their character sheet somehow more fulfilling then exploring the ethical complications in the battle between magic versus technology? Where's the line to be drawn?

As for not cheating. What do you do when your gang of runners happens to hit a lucky streak and decimate an important NPC in a long running campaign? What if, according to the rules, your players break your game forever? You can't plan for everything. And the more people are playing, the more likely this is going to happen.

[Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*]

Glacial? Tell me about glacial when your GM loses his internet connection for 3 months in the middle of combat.

Compared to that, allocating dice pools isn't even part of the equation.

[Critias]

[Nerbert]

My friends are not stupid. Nor am I. It is not the allocation of dice pools that takes up all the time.

What takes time is factoring in all of different possible variables that can come into a given situation.

What takes time is making an attack action with an area of effect spell, dealing with drain, then figuring out line of sight for everyone in a room, then rolling resistances for everyone in the room making sure to take into consideration the magic defenses of everyone in the room, then figuring out damage for everyone in the room.

This takes a lot of time and there are ways to make this easier. D&D, while not in any way comparable to shadowrun, breaks this down into, attack roll, if you fail your save you take x damage, if you pass your save you take y damage and if you're out of range you take no damage.

It seems to me that Shadowrun, as it stands, has the rules of a miniatures based War Game, like Warhammer 50k. Warhammer 50k, as I understand it, is hardly a Role Playing game.

[hobgoblin]

thats 40k. and if im correct, it uses a similar rules set to warhammer fantasy, and that got rewritten as a rpg, or atleast the book i have looks like it got its stats from a tabletop game :P

[Critias]

[Charon]

Back up a minute.

What systems are soft and what systems are hard? D&D? Trinity? nWoD? Call of Chtullu? Lo5R? Riddle of Steel?

People are talking back and forth about hard and soft and I really don't see what they mean.

For example, Ronin talked about courage being meaningless in a game without clear rules that make an action dangerous. Well, I have played dozens of system and I'll be damn if I ever played one where the rules didn't show clearly that you were going to get your ass whooped before even rolling dice if you were trying to bite more than you can chew. From D&D, to WoD and including SR.

So, what games are soft, exactly? Amber? Are we comparing SR and Amber?

[Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*]