Just my .02 cents - Dumpshock Forums

Just my .02 cents, Diving into the madness...oh what a fool

Options

SR4-WTF?

Jun 9 2005, 04:08 AM

Post #76

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: 4-June 05
Member No.: 7,427

QUOTE (Raskolnikov @ Jun 8 2005, 10:51 PM)

If you think you did not imply that, then I'll take your word that you did not mean to. You are trying to be very precise in your wording, that much is obvious. Much of the phrasing is pained and overly complex. You may be mistakenly lacking accuracy though.

Thanks for taking my word for it. Please read it that way.

mfb

Jun 9 2005, 04:18 AM

Post #77

Immortal Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670

QUOTE (SR4-WTF?)

So while the problem exists in many gaming groups, the problem is more exasberbated for larger groups like SL.

yes. that means we have to be careful about what changes we make. it doesn't mean we don't want change.

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*

Jun 9 2005, 06:00 AM

Post #78

Guests

QUOTE (SR4-WTF? @ Jun 8 2005, 08:32 PM)

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ Jun 8 2005, 09:23 PM)

Perhaps you should feel it out a little more then, and you'll realize how foolish that perception is.

You are James, right?

I'm Crimsondude, and that's all you'll ever know.

QUOTE (mfb)

the only SLer i know of who is actually against SR4 is Crimsondude. he likes SR3, and doesn't want to see it change. the rest of us are very much pro-SR4. we're just not thrilled with the SR4 that FanPro seems to be putting out.

This is only partly true.

I wanted a SR4 for a while. I was really hyped about it when it was announced. But as I cooled and ultimately became aghast at what I know of SR4, I've been considering the things I didn't like about SR3 and it so happened that in doing so I evaluated some of the house rule ideas I had looking rather pathetic. So, given all of that I figured I'd rather go with the devil I know. I may tweak it later, or I may not. I don't even know what is really going to happen on SL or what most people will use (especially most newbies), but I'd rather stick with canon SR3 than try and make Crimson Shadows that is irrelevant to everyone else on SL.

But I really fail to see what this has to do with SR4 anymore.

Critias View Member Profile	Jun 9 2005, 06:19 AM Post #79
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714	I'm not even sure what sort of point SR4 is trying to make any more.

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*	Jun 9 2005, 06:22 AM Post #80
Guests	SL sucks? Who cares anymore?

Critias View Member Profile	Jun 9 2005, 06:38 AM Post #81
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714	I'm just rereading the thread, and trying to find the exact point where SL became the center of discussion instead of SR4. I see a few of us mentioning problems with the "house rule the game 'till it doesn't suck!" approach, due to the size of our gaming group. So, I mean, that's the point at which SL was introduced to the conversation... It looks like about two posts after that it became "vaguely criticise SL, and those who play there" instead of anything in particular to do with SR4, and I can't figure out why. Care to enlighten us, WTF?

Ellery

Jun 9 2005, 08:46 AM

Post #82

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 778
Joined: 6-April 05
Member No.: 7,298

QUOTE (SR4-WTF)

QUOTE (Ellery)

My stuff isn't a complete rebuild. It uses all the existing mechanics of edges, flaws, and metamagics. . . . And it introduces new rules for learning metamagics (that replace the old rules) since the old rules break when you have too many metamagics.

Ya, I too think Magic needs a serious rework to keep the addons to it from snapping.

I don't consider that a very serious rework. It's a modest fiddling with the existing system--replacing one small subsystem (which occupies two pages out of the 211 pages of magic rules in the BBB & MitS) with a similar but better-structured subsystem, and adding onto the rest using existing rules.

I think the magic system could use a modest reworking. That's plenty. It already works pretty well in most cases.

QUOTE (SR4-WTF)

QUOTE (Ellery)

The problem is caused by "simple" linear trends interacting with caps and subtraction.

Funny, I see that problem stemming from trying to make things realistic and/or complex. If you don't use multiple trends to try model something in a "realistic" way you get rid of or at least reduce the chances for oddies occuring due to interactions.

You're either missing the point, or don't want a game with rules.

If you're missing the point, the point that you're missing is that at some level you do want at least a tiny bit of realism from your mechanics. Every action shouldn't be like shooting a Wand of Wonder. ("I'll shoot him!" *clatter* "You sit down and eat a cheese sandwich. Sharp cheddar, too--yum!") When you want to implement realism, the temptation is to have linear trends and caps, which often turn out poorly. That's the point.

Alternatively, if you got the point, then you apparently want to remove rules entirely--just pick what you want, for instance. So rather than having opposing weapons and armor, you just, what, let the GM decide? Have all armor and all weapons be the same? Eventually, you're not using dice any more. Diceless systems are okay, if you want to play a diceless system.

It's kind of silly to make players roll dice, but to make the effect of dice so fickle and unhelpful as to make the play the same way a diceless system plays. Just go all the way and remove the dice entirely.

QUOTE (lots of people)

Blah blah blah, SL, mumble mumble

This is pretty off-topic, isn't it, now that we've established that there exist groups that really benefit from having a good-enough set of core rules because house rules are hard to implement?

If people want to play the "let's guess which user is from group X so we can stereotype them and not listen to what they say!" game, they're free to go for it from my perspective. I don't find it very useful to do that myself, but if other people want to--well, it's their intellectual dishonesty. And if people want to note trends, while realizing that there are individual differences, that's fine too. Aside from this, I'm going to attempt to ignore all such distractions, try to stay on topic, and respond to posts on DS on the basis of what the content of the post is (and the history of content from that poster).

SR4-WTF?

Jun 9 2005, 01:13 PM

Post #83

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: 4-June 05
Member No.: 7,427

QUOTE (Ellery @ Jun 9 2005, 03:46 AM)

QUOTE (SR4-WTF)

QUOTE (Ellery)

The problem is caused by "simple" linear trends interacting with caps and subtraction.

Funny, I see that problem stemming from trying to make things realistic and/or complex. If you don't use multiple trends to try model something in a "realistic" way you get rid of or at least reduce the chances for oddies occuring due to interactions.

You're either missing the point, or don't want a game with rules.

If you're missing the point, the point that you're missing is that at some level you do want at least a tiny bit of realism from your mechanics. Every action shouldn't be like shooting a Wand of Wonder. ("I'll shoot him!" *clatter* "You sit down and eat a cheese sandwich. Sharp cheddar, too--yum!") When you want to implement realism, the temptation is to have linear trends and caps, which often turn out poorly. That's the point.

Alternatively, if you got the point, then you apparently want to remove rules entirely--just pick what you want, for instance. So rather than having opposing weapons and armor, you just, what, let the GM decide? Have all armor and all weapons be the same? Eventually, you're not using dice any more. Diceless systems are okay, if you want to play a diceless system.

It's kind of silly to make players roll dice, but to make the effect of dice so fickle and unhelpful as to make the play the same way a diceless system plays. Just go all the way and remove the dice entirely.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. How exactly does or don't want a game with rules jive with me giving examples for rules?

Sure I gave two, one more extreme than the other. But the first I gave contained the "realism" of it taking as long or longer to learn a metamagic from someone than it does discovering it yourself. Is it flush with lots of different variables? No, the only variable is when self taught if you have a higher, unspecified, ability that the chances increase for a shorter learning time. Not a cap in sight. The speed increase of self taught is roughly linear with the ability increase, but the underlying ability increase is likely not linear with karma purchase. Making it nonlinear. It doesn't take into account the phase of the moon, unless the underlying learning ability does. It doesn't take into account the power of the metamagic, but I went with the assumption that all metamagics are roughly the same bitesized chunks of power. It doesn't take into account the magic ability of the instructor, just whether he knows a certain technique or not.

But it does seem more than a little above a percetile role for random cheese sandwiches.

You find this inadequate modeling? It seems I got the point plenty fine. I gave an example of a paired down rule mechanism to try avoid wierd interactions and you immediately swear it might as well be diceless and procceed to want to clutter it up chasing the realism phantom.

QUOTE

QUOTE (lots of people)

Blah blah blah, SL, mumble mumble

This is pretty off-topic, isn't it, now that we've established that there exist groups that really benefit from having a good-enough set of core rules because house rules are hard to implement?

It doesn't seem that off topic for DSF. Witness the MA-A-GIC DE-AHR. But sure, side topic dropped and I won't reply to any outsiding questions.

Ellery View Member Profile	Jun 10 2005, 04:29 AM Post #84
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298	I agree that there exist cases where you can have rules even simpler than linear progressions. That was not my intended point. Do you understand my point? Can you come up with a equally simple mechanic for combat, or for determining who wins a race, or for casting a spell on a group of five people?

Not of this Worl... Not of this World View Member Profile	Jun 19 2005, 01:54 AM Post #85
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 284 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Metroplex Member No.: 217	I'm really not impressed with what was mentioned of SR4. I don't mind improvements, make the game run more efficient. But the description sounds like a "Shadowrun for dummies" book. Rework it and trivialize it. Rewrite the Shadowrun universe (there are no longer deckers???) I followed SR1, I followed SR2 until it got too far whacked out from the horrors. Think I took a break and left it, coming back with SR3. Sounds like it is time to forget about any new material for SR unfortunately. I understand the pen and paper RPG industry is hurting, but I don't think this kind of change will invigorate it. In fact I think it will only hurt it more. People expect more, not less out of their games these days.

blakkie

Jun 19 2005, 04:58 AM

Post #86

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (Ellery @ Jun 9 2005, 10:29 PM)

I agree that there exist cases where you can have rules even simpler than linear progressions. That was not my intended point.

Do you understand my point?

Understand your point? Personally i'm having a hell of a time just trying to cipher out WTH you mean by linear progression if the first example rule is simpler than linear progressions.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »