 Edge, Potential? |
  |
 May 27 2005, 11:50 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550  |
What I liked the most (and will miss the most) about the karma pool, is that it wasn't an attribute that could be bought up at chargen. It wasn't a derived attribute that you could min-max and tweak with certain bits of cyberware. To have karma pool, you actually had to go out there and earn it. That's what I liked about it.
I know it's just a game, but when the world is so focused on getting something for nothing, it's always nice to see something that can only be gotten through (imaginary) blood, sweat, and tears. |
 |
 
|
|
May 28 2005, 12:07 AM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 527 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,118 |
You now have a choice whether or not to devote karma points to it. Of course, unless it's ridiculously easy to raise, you'll end up spending more karma when and if you choose to purchase points in the Edge attribute, compared to the 1/10th or 1/20th of your earned karma that you automatically and without choice devoted to Karma Pool in SR3. This makes Edge, per point, more precious and difficult to acquire than Karma Pool.
An easy fix, to deal with the increased cost and subsequent lower values, if it works just like karma pool, would be to simply make its costs static (1,2,3,4) rather than advancing triangularly (1,3,6,10) when used. For instance, instead of three sequential rerolls costing 6(1+2+3) karma pool, it would simply cost 3 points (1+1+1) of Edge. |
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 01:05 AM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
If it functions similar to karma pool, it is the ability to buy it up at character creation that I have the biggest beef with.
Basically, so far we have lost the derived pools, karma pool, and god knows what else. These are some of the things that I thought (way back when I started playing) set SR apart from the other games I had played at the time, and in my mind are uniquely SR, even if others have used the idea. Jst one man's opinion, but this new game is sounding like "SR lite". |
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 01:16 AM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 527 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,118 |
Well, you're overlooking a bright side. If the karma pool type mechanic is now an attribute, it is possible to create characters with varied levels of experience without crude external mechanics such as granting sums of good karma after creation but before play. If creation costs for submersion, allies, and all the rest are introduced (perhaps as advanced rules), it could be possible to create a character at any point in their career within the bounds of the creation process itself. That could be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 02:25 AM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 109 Joined: 26-April 05 Member No.: 7,360 |
Actually, with Edge being an attribute it no longer represents experience, since a starting character (as in a character who has quite literally just stepped into the shadows) can have their Edge attribute at 6 whilst a hardened veteran of the streets may still have an edge attribute of 1. As an attribute it now represents nothing more than pure luck.
I never considered Karma Pool to be all that representative of experience anyway. I've seen long standing characters with a Karma Pool less than 5, mainly because they have had to burn off karma pool points permanently to buy those critical extra successes. In my experience it is characters with high karma pools that act as if they are 'inexperienced', these are the characters who engage in all sorts of insane and suicidal behaviour simply because their players know they have that enormous karma pool with which to haul their asses out of the fire. I must admit I have not yet made up my mind about wether edge is a good thing or not. On the one hand it seems to be a cap on how high a characters 'luck' can get, which means they can't just rely on being able to reroll dice an insane number of times to get the result they want. But on the other hand one player can now start with much higher 'luck' than anyone else, and if Edge functions anything like Karma pool did that can mean problems balancing the opposition. |
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
May 28 2005, 02:26 AM
Post
#56
|
|
Guests |
That would be nice, which probably means it's not even been considered.
|
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 02:47 AM
Post
#57
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
People need to stop looking at karma pool as a hard number that represents this ambiguous "experience". As I was saying earlier, we hardly ever have a karma pool over 2, but we're still playing characters who are pushing the 200 karma mark.
Karma pool is not a mark of experience, and having a huge sum of it doesn't automatically mean you have more experience than the guy with only 2. In my opinion, it's the total karma a character has earned that represents experience (only in game terms of course). Karma pool is just a byproduct of that experience. It is a game mechanic that allows the veteran to overcome things that a "greenie" might not be able to. It represents being able to reach down for "that little bit more" and get the job done, "because you know you can and you've done it before." Hell, if your characters are accumulating karma pool that's pushing the double digits and it's a problem, you're not pushing them enough. Time to pull out a "Big Score", or a powerful enemy (that after 100 karma they should have, even if it's smaller enemies collaborating) to really rock the characters' worlds. I don't know about you, but to me, escaping by the skin of your teeth after blowing that precious karma pool is a lot more fun than "yet another successful run, another karma die to my pool". Just one man's opinion. Edit to keep with the topic: If Edge works similar to karma pool, I will be very disappointed. For some reason, I see every character picking up a good amount of edge at chargen. Why do I see this? I'm not exactly sure. If it is more a measure of luck, I won't like it either. Luck is how the dice fall. I think I've been around enough to see that luck is one of those fickle things that rises and falls with the tide, not a permanant aspect of your life that never changes. They may as well introduce bonuses for your astrological sign while they're at it. Plus, being able to "buy" luck by spending karma just seems chessy to me. |
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
May 28 2005, 02:57 AM
Post
#58
|
|
Guests |
No, you're right. It's luck and experience. The luck aspect of it is in how much KP you've burnt. I don't particularly see what the point is in, "hardly ever hav[ing] a karma pool over 2" myself because it means you can't even reroll a test a second time. I look at WK's character and see far more utility in having a large KP to temporarily spend 55 KP to reroll one test (And what a test...) rather than just enough KP to burn them permanently and buy more successes. Buying successes is too wasteful to me, but I can see why people might do it and have no qualms about letting them.
But I don't know. If it's going to be an attribute under this so-called streamlined system, it would make sense to treat it as much like every other Attribute as possible. I have no problem with Attributes being treated differently under SR3. It makes sense. But Fanpro should at least be consistent between their words and actions before piling tons of exceptions and therby defeating the whole point. |
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 03:14 AM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
Burning pool is the best way to stay alive if something should by all rights kill you--the TN is ridiculously high, and since you lucked out and got one success, you burn pool to knock down the damage or whatever to a manageable level. Burning pool is also sometimes useful for other high-TN tasks (e.g. learning a very high-force spell--might be worth it to knock a month off of the time to learn it so you have it ready before rather than after the next run).
If the characters are choosing to get in really high-risk situations (with correspondingly large rewards, hopefully), then it can be hard to keep karma pool because they keep needing to burn it now to survive. If the characters are choosing to get into not-quite-so-high-risk situations but do it very often, then it makes sense to try really hard not to burn any pool permanently. If they can manage, their pool will grow, and they'll be able to handle the same situations with more confidence and less risk. |
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
May 28 2005, 03:24 AM
Post
#60
|
|
Guests |
Yes, of course. I know why you might (I even said I did). My point is that your few example notwithstanding, it has been my impression (oh, and let me just say that it's been through your games in many cases) that rerolls kick the ass of burning. I can also see how a player with less than 10 KP might find themselves more inclined to burn in a situation where someone with double or triple that would not.
I also think that with the exception of a very rare few cases of a final TN over 30, the Hooper-Nelson Rule is useless. |
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 04:01 AM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
Hwoops. What I was trying to get accross with my rarely have a pool over 2 thing (however distracted i was at the time), was that even though the characters only have 1 or 2 karma pool, it doesn't mean they are neccessarily less experienced than the guy with more, they just have run into more crazy crap that they couldn't normally handle.
It was supposed to be in keeping with my "It's not a measure of experience" standpoint. |
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 05:18 AM
Post
#62
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Validating Posts: 1,618 Joined: 29-January 03 From: Montevideo, Uruguay. Member No.: 3,992 |
Whoa. First, I never suggested that. Second, stop the senseless bashing. Take a deep breath or whatever, use NERPS if you have some, but please get over with it. :| EDIT: I know the above might be somewhat snappy, but... People, the game is being designed by people who love the game. The FAQs might have not been what we all expected so far, but let us not make the proverbial storm in a glass of water, ok? This post has been edited by JongWK: May 28 2005, 05:30 AM |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 28 2005, 05:47 AM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Why does everyone keep acting like good intentions is all it takes to create a quality product?
|
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 06:44 AM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Validating Posts: 1,618 Joined: 29-January 03 From: Montevideo, Uruguay. Member No.: 3,992 |
Critias: Point taken. I wanted to go on, but it's 3.30 AM here and in the end I just settled for a short comment. :sleepy:
Bashing SR4 has gone beyond reasonable, though, and seems to have become a sport for some. I mean, has anyone actually stopped to think why this forum stands mostly empty of people involved with SR4 (other than our NDAs, that is)? |
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 07:49 AM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
If the developers (in many cases the same developers who've worked on SR3 products) can make official press release/FAQ statements bashing SR3, why can't the SR3 fans make wholly unofficial, message-board-in-the-middle-of-nowhere, statements bashing what little we know of SR4?
|
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 08:42 AM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Validating Posts: 1,618 Joined: 29-January 03 From: Montevideo, Uruguay. Member No.: 3,992 |
Because it's also a sure way to alienate people (like Patrick Goodman) who've actually tried to clarify a few points?
|
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 08:54 AM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 79 Joined: 8-October 02 Member No.: 3,425 |
Its easy to kick and punch someome when they have their hands tied behind their backs.
|
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 09:11 AM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Rob (I assume he's been writing his own FAQs) has no hands tied anywhere. Anyone else whose hands he may have tied (and not without reason, mind you) who wishes to stand in front of him takes their own chances.
~J |
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 09:23 AM
Post
#69
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 79 Joined: 8-October 02 Member No.: 3,425 |
Well i think Kage just answered that in his last post :P |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 28 2005, 09:32 AM
Post
#70
|
|||
|
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714 |
Then maybe those people -- PG in particular -- need to get a little thicker skinned. Some random schmuck on a message board saying vaguely negative things about a product they're purchasing isn't any sort of personal attack worth getting upset over. He seems like a good guy -- most of the devs do -- but it's just the freakin' internet. Right now it feels like half the energy, effort, and information we're getting from the FAQ is bashing the current product instead of psyching us up for the new one. That's not a very wise marketing practice, unless you're setting out to alienate your current fan base. I mean, in addition to our favorite RPG (the current product) getting chopped up into little pieces and put sort-of back together, we're getting that favorite game bashed by the very people who create it. If it's reasonable for Patrick (as a for instance) to get all offended by us saying we don't like what we've heard about SR4, it's every bit as reasonable for us to get offended by other people saying they hate SR3. Choosing to leave was just how he expressed that offense was taken. Staying and continuing to post our opinions, and increasingly commonly making it clear how frustrated and bitter we are, might just be how the rest of us show that we've taken offense. Am I blunt by nature? You bet'cha. Does that make me abrasive, when I'm not actively working at not being abrasive? Sure, if you get caught up in how I'm saying things instead of what I'm saying. Are blunt, abrasive, people a dime a dozen on the internet, and as such not really worth crying over? Yup. Does being blunt and abrasive mean what I'm saying is automatically untrue, or somehow less correct an opinion? Not in the slightest. |
||
|
|
|
||
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
May 28 2005, 10:05 AM
Post
#71
|
||||||||||||||
|
Guests |
I said this:
Then you said this:
Perhaps you didn't suggest it directly, but by suggesting that it hadn't been discounted it burned this disgusting hole in my head full of stupid that is burning Attributes.
Senseless? What part of my comments that the FAQs are poorly written do you not understand? If I wrote like that, I'd be fired. If the devs write the rules like that, I can't fire them but I can not buy their crap.
Fuck their love of the game. Fuck their intentions. I don't care how much they like it, love, want it to succeed, to outsell every WotC product and line in existence, or whether they hate the game, want it to fail, and don't give a damn about SR or the players. Intent means nothing to me. Mike M and the SR3 devs--including the current Line Developer--loved the game, had good intentions for the game, and wanted the game to succeed when they created an edition that in the latest FAQ suffered ad hominem attacks of vague and useless nature. What they did was say they wanted a less cartoonish, darker, more "street" version of SR that you could play without needing 6 rulebooks. What they gave us was the exact opposite. I did what I could about the cartoonish elements of SR3, got the 7 rulebooks for SR3, and I like power. So what in the world makes you think that I care about or trust their intentions to even the slightest degree? I could not care less about what the devs love, intend, or want if someone stuck a gun to my head and told me to care. And I am sick to death of people saying, "but the devs love the game, too." Bullshit. I don't know that. None of them have called or e-mailed me and said that they do, and I'm not about to get second or third-hand hearsay on DS and accept it as fact. As far as I know, the devs hate SR (They hate SR3 enough to bash it in the FAQs, but not enough to say one word as to why other than "it's too complex" (which I don't believe and think is false).), hate every d6 ever made because they had a bad weekend in Vegas, hate the existing fanbase, and intend to drop this game off a cliff. So unless Rob Boyle could ring my doorbell, tell me he loves SR and wants it to eat every other RPG and become a ubiquitous social presence, then maybe I might believe it. And maybe I might also think that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and in spite, or even worse, due to their "love" of the game that they don't realize they put out a piece of crap product to appeal to people who can't seem to understand the basic SR rules (Yeah, Decking and Rigging are fucked. In part because of one of the SR4 devs. How much do you think I really trust their intentions compared with output with that fact staring me in the face every time I think about SR4?). My concern, my only concern, is what I want. What I want is a useful, playable game that maintains the SR tone as defined within the parameters of the mechanics, which is already thrown out the window. I don't care what anyone says, namely PG, about throwing out the rules but keeping the storyline, because the rules define the micro-level storyline of individual runners and gaming groups. It is only with the exception of macro-level metaplot events which benefit from the magical handwaving abilities of the authors to do whatever they want if it suits their desires in keeping the storyline the same. But when I read the FAQs, the only official word coming from Fanpro US HQ, a little bit of me dies each time, and I care less about the game each time. They suck. There's no easier way to say it. And I cannot look at the level of writing, the level of obfuscation and disregard for actual information that is contained in those FAQs and not think that if the core book is written like that, then SR4 will kill the game. All I have is a writing sample and the C.V. past material. Some of the C.V. is encouraging, and some of it isn't, but mostly it is useless because it is not rules-heavy and it is not any indication of future performance within the parameters that have been established. I have no idea how they will created a Fixed TN dice mechanic because they've never done it. Even looking at SR3 rules means nothing because it's like translating something from English to Ancient Egyptian. But the writing samples we've been given so far are very disappointing. They've told me why they want some WoD player's money already, and why they want SR4 (basically, because SR3 sucks for the purpose of taking the WoD player's money). But they haven't given me one good reason to care about SR4, and care less about SR3, other than because it will have the Shadowrun name on it. Why does SR3 suck, and how will SR4 fix it under the rules paradigm that has been laid forth? Why Fixed TN? We have yet to get a straight answer, or anything approaching one, from anyone who isn't a member of the DS peanut gallery (another group of people whose opinions mean precisely squat), that is--a Dev. So I'm pretty much going to remain poised to tear apart any further FAQs that don't give a straight answer. Given their track record with the SR3 FAQs and the five SR4 FAQs, I am sensibly confident in that it will continue because past performance has been a pretty good indicator of future performance. I will continue to not trust them, because I have zero reasons to do so. Finally, I will continue to not care one bit about their intentions because I don't care about their intent. I care about their actual output. Intentions don't fix gaping holes of logic and game mechanics on the day after.
No, because I don't care what they think. Due to their NDA constraints, I have no faith in their abilities to gave a straight answer about SR4, so frankly I don't miss them. If they care about SR4, then they would be using their time more wisely by not responding to what I have to say (especially if it's more of this self-righteous crap that, "we love the game, and have the best of intentions, and you just don't understand how great SR4 is because you're not special enough."), but instead spend more time playtesting the rules for all types of characters from low-powered campaign PCs to Abominations with KP measured in the hundreds so that SR4 doesn't just work for one set of characters. And, yeah, it's a sport for me. I love the idea that I have nothing good to even conceive of about SR4 anymore. I love the fact that I might have to stop playing SR4 if I don't use the rules but most of SL does. It's a game for me to point out errors and problems that for all I know, no one at Fanpro or involved in this game have actually thought for a second about. Yeah, you're right. It's all sporting and fun to be up at 4 AM defending myself from people who seem to relish in their smug superiority that somehow I'm the asshole in all of this because I have the balls to ask questions and demand accountability from the game designers fully knowledgeable in the fact that my questions could either go unheeded, heeded and ignored, or heeded and fixed, and I won't know unless it's mentioned in another FAQ or when I pick up a copy of a book for a game (it's a new game as far as I'm concerned, not a new edition) that I probably won't play. It's all sporting. Sure. I've tried diplomacy. I've tried really hard to be reasonable. I've never said a single personal thing about a dev, freelancer, or random passerby involved in SR, and if I have it was positive. I like Steve Kenson. I think his writing is muddled, poor, and often incomprehensible. But he's a nice guy. I can't get more blunt than that. I don't understand how in the world someone can attack my comments, my style, and think it's okay. I can't understand why someone can call me and everyone who looks like me a "poo-flinging monkey." Not my comments. Not anything I've written. Me. Lil' ol' CD is a "poo-flinging monkey." So compared to that, I have done nothing wrong. I've asserted myself as vigorously as possible within my limits as a reasonable and decent human being. But you know what... Fuck this. This isn't just to Jong, but to everyone. You don't like what I say, then we can argue about it. We can have a reasonable discussion like grown-up adults. I'll continue to act like an adult and discuss potential problems and speculations because that's the whole point of this forum. But I am not about to acknowledge the existence of anyone who feels like making some smartass, self-righteous personal attack on me for being who I am. And I'm not leaving, not picking up my ball and slinking off, because someone attacked my person. You're just dead to me. As for you, Jong, unless you can give me the official answer to that one overriding question I just asked, I don't give a damn what you say. As far as I'm concerned, you don't exist. Any attempt to derail a perfectly good critique of a potential flaw in the mechanics will be met with silence. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
May 28 2005, 11:06 AM
Post
#72
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
one thing we keep forgetting is that a sr character is never realy a new person in the shadows. they have contacts, they have gear worth up to a million:Y: in value and so on. this is not some person that have just been kicked out of lonestar or some corp security force or where ever else they get their training. these are people that have gone the round.
and that can be the reasoning behind edge being buyable at chargen. rather then picking up gear or skills the person have picked up steet-smarts or something else that is hard to define in skills or other numbers then a general modifier that the player can apply when needed the most. oh, and i have allready seen to many threads on this part of the forum degenerate into discussions about the ability or inability of the people working on sr4. lets pass judgement when we have the final product, hmm? |
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 02:55 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Unless you buy more, they have two contacts. Two, and these are the kinds of contacts who may or may not remember your name if asked.
~J |
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 03:44 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
FATALITY! Crimsondude...wins!
|
|
|
|
|
May 28 2005, 03:56 PM
Post
#75
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Yes, and unless you buy more you have zero attribute and active skill points. Zero. And unless you pay more for it, you're a human. Human. And unless you pay to be a magician, you're a mundane. Mundane. etc. Your point? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 7th August 2025 - 04:03 PM |
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.