That just sounds like you want the last word is all, not to be helpful and improve the game.

improve the game? replace it, with luck and hard work, maybe. improving it is a project i gave up halfway through playtesting.

nah I am getting in the last word

for some reason many of the point where made about SR3 to iirc...

end of story is that people love to complain. fix whatever it is they think is wrong and someone else finds something thats wrong.

in the end either shut up or show that you can do better. make a better rules system for SR...

What I find ironic is that some people will take the opportunity to tear into SR4 even when the thread starts with "very pleased GM and players".

I've yet to find a tabletop system that's perfect. I'll be the first to admit that SR4 isn't perfect. But I love it, and I'll tell you why, because I know you're dying to hear it. But I can't really offer any hard, objective evidence of the value of one other the other, because there is none. So here's why I like it.

To put it simply, I'm a lazy, sloppy GM. I can never remember rules. I don't usually calculate modifers, I just make them up. My NPCs consist of two lines in Notepad and a fully fleshed-out personality in my head that routinely screams at me for no reason and demands tequila. I run loose games that brutally punish the stupid. I focus on people, first - personalities. Then I worry about the PCs. Then I worry about the NPCs some more. Then there's plot. Way down, somewhere on the bottom of the list, are the rules I rarely even pay attention to.

The new rules system for SR4 is, frankly, as if the kids at FanPro snuck into my apartment in the middle of the night and siphoned out everything I loved about SR, everything I prided myself on in being a GM, and half of my house rules and poured it all out into a corebook. The encouragement to "eyeball" rolls, the simplified, streamlined way those rolls are made, and the addition of a monofilament chainsaw make my goddamned legs weak with joy. I can finally focus on the fucking roleplay without some jackass hassling me about obscure rules or a doctorate in integral calculus. GM fiat's right there in the beginning of the goddamned book.

This is not for everyone. Some people like rules. I house rule the shit out of everything, so I certainly don't want a game's rules to be perfect, or I couldn't modify them. This is my style of play, which SR4 does well. It presents a system in which I can haul a run out of my ass with five minutes of preparation. SR4, to me, seems much more geared toward making the GM's life easier, and their often thankless job more enjoyable.

This is not for everyone. If it's not, that's cool. I don't judge you based on your preferred system of a freaking RPG. I think the main point here, and this applies heavily to mfb, is "shut. the fuck. up."

I understand that you don't like SR4. I don't like some other game systems that I really can't think of right now. What you need to understand is that the team responsible for SR4 isn't going to swoop out from the shadows, kiss your boo-boo, and overhaul the whole goddamned system to make you happy, no matter how much you bitch and moan. They're busy making the games you play. If you don't like something, house rule it. Or play SR3 and convert SR4 expansions to it.

Honestly, with the fucking effort you've spent in this goddamned forum pissing and moaning about how much SR4 sucks, you could've converted the whole goddamned thing to SR3 and been playing. I know you don't like it. Everyone knows you don't like it. We get it. Why linger around in the SR4 forum? No one's asking your opinion, anymore. We know what it is. Some of us agree, some of us disagree. The discussion, as I see it, is now completed.

I look at it this way, SR4 concept can easily be integrated into SR3 rules. I really liek the Matrix Concept of SR4 but dislike the SR3 mechanics of the matrix, but other words i'm happy with SR4.

I for one appreciate disgression. I have a fairly good opinion of Mfb and SLJames, and I think that moaning and groaning HAS to be a secondary effect of exposure to dumpshock, it's so normal around here.

And I started the post because I am pleased with SR4, and so are the players that play in the group I Gm. No amount of criticism can change that, and I have used some of the comments here to quickly detect the room for abuse and control that. I have not house ruled very heavily, but I did exert some control on character generation and overall game development. (Never forget that GM approval is an important part of any char gen method)

I have found that SR4 has made same moves in the (IMO) right directions, and, while not perfect, many of the developers efforts paid off.

I would have never had the time and the motivation to adapt the game myself, I am too busy playing...

Then again, combat has been very smooth, realistic enough for my group and the rules have stayed under the radar for most of the games we played. I think that as soon as someone gets what she is looking for, all the moaning and groaning dissappears.

Cheers,

Max

I don't have anything personally against anyone here.

I am just curious is all, to much so at times and when I read somthing and sense somthing thats seems odd and out of place, that little itch to know starts to grow.

If one doesnt like the game, gives up on improving it, has nothing redeeming to offer and likes another system better, then whats the point of arguing it when its not the system your playing after so many different threads and pages of threads?

At a point like this where its been hashed and rehashed, then slaped, tickled, spanked and some very odd things done to it, it comes down to personal choice as to what you like and don't like.

After each side stakes their claim as to why SR3 and SR4 is better then the other, the logical conclusion is to break and go your own way.

But here I get the feeling that certain sides want to be a winner even if there is nothing at stake to win. Maybe there is a preceived prize? Emotional satisfaction of a nonexistant victory? But it would seem some personal views must prevail vs all commers or there is a since of loss.

Hell I don't know.

At times it seems like nifty thing to do is make up some stuff and see where it goes.

For I am curious

though it might be noted for future reference that calling someone a drunk asshole is a great way to make it personal.

some rolls totaly impossible? the rule of six is still around, alltho you cant rely on it being present all the time any more

at some point luck runs out. its not that it cant be done, but you have exausted your personal luck pool and pays the cost...

ok, so i miss the dicepools myself. they where kinda unique to SR (no other game i have run into so far has had a system like that). problem was that outside of combat they where hard to regulate. when could it be applyed, when did it refresh?

variable difficultys is fun for a GM, but a pain in the ass for fast play. there is allso the dynamics of targetnumbers that was a multiple of 6 vs those that was multiple of 6 + 1. or rather, there was no vs. if you could do one, you could do the other.

now you trow the dice, look for 5 or 6, if edge is in pick up any 6's and roll again, repeat as needed. its faster in that you dont have to continualy recall what the targetnumber was this time round...

in the end its the old guard that had the old rules so down in their head that they could repeat most of them from memory and point out the flaws in any of them. but now they no longer cant as its not the system the know. they have to sit down and re-learn the whole game.

its a "you cant teach a old dog new tricks" thing...

one thing tho. the only diffrence i have noticed between the SR3 vehicle rules and the SR4 rules is that in SR3 you had a numberd diffrence when i came to distance between the vehicles. all the rest is still there. the driver roll before all else happens, the special actions, the modifiers for what kind of vehicle your driving and what terrain your driving on. so i fail to see what it is that made the old so bad and the new so good, its the same stuff in a new wrapping (and with a new overall dice mechanic)...

was it realy that much work tracking how far the diffrent vehicles was apart?

maybe the death of cap chaos should have been a indicator to people. yes it says 4 on the cover, but this is more of a NG. the world have crashed again, and have been reborn.

it's hardly about teaching an old dog new tricks. if you'll remember (or if you care to look, if you weren't here back then), i was 100% behind SR4 when it was first announced. i made the switch from 2e AD&D to 3e (and 3.5e) D&D with no problem at all. i've played Aberrant and dabbled in WoD 4e, both of which are similar enough to SR4 that learning the new rules was hardly problematic.

i simply don't like the new rules.

Why is SR4 so similar to Nwod?

similar base concepts--roll att + skill against a static TN, willpower/edge provides a boost when the chips are down. they're not the same game, but they're built on similar ideas.

I never intended to make it personal but then it never bothers me to make it personal.

I am just curious what the desired out come is.

maintain interest in other, less seat-of-the-pants playing styles; hook up with other gamers interested in the same. study game mechanics with an eye towards making and running detailed but fast-paced/easy-to-use systems. enjoy some heated debate. and, i'll be honest, vent some frustration that the game i enjoyed playing for many years is effectively dead. no, the FanPro ninjas haven't come and burned my SR3 books, but it's going to become pretty hard to find a group as time goes on and SR3 fades from the public eye. postponing that eventuality is another reason for me to speak up about it.

hmm, you say you was part of the playtest group mfb. so why didnt they change the rules from the feedback of said group? or was you part of the minority that didnt like the rules? (a very vocal minority tho it seems)

NOW that we have reached the heart of the matter and since they are your feelings about the game and therefor a personal view, I can find no fault in what you have said.

I even sympathize on that account.

This is just a suggestion but since you seem to know SR3 so well. Start a fresh post so it wont get lost in this one and point out what SR3 had going for it.

Since SR4 IS out, they are going to have to run with it. Since Dumpshock seems to have so many SR fans, I am sure they read the boards so this would be a good place to try to help them think outside the box and help keep SR improving over the years.

Heck maybe I should start a post on House Rules for everyone to post theirs on and see all the kinds of nifty ideas people have come up with in one place.

Would be nice if they made it s sticky or somthing.

That way, maybe in future SR4 additions they can try to include it in some fashion or at least maybe they can write some option rules like other games do.

I apologize if I came of rather harsh, but there seemed to be more to your posts then just rules that you didnt like and the emotion in them seemed to be clouding what you intened to get accross to others.

But I have no dispute with what you have said and thanks for clearing it up and to the point.

Good Luck
Deadjester

meh. there are plenty of SR3/SR3 vs SR4 threads already. like i said, as long as nobody's interested in it (and shows that disinterest by not starting threads, or continuing threads which have been started), i won't talk about it. but as long as they are...

Haha well ok then, I got out of this thread what I wanted to know, now I will just start my own and see where it goes.

*shrug* I've rolled SR3 critical failures on 13 dice. There's always someone who lives at the extreme ends of the probability curve. The average roller, however, can easily predict what's likely to happen-- and he'll choose the mathematically best approach, instead of the best roleplay approach. I mean, if roleplay isn't going to be effective, why should players do it?

i do not see that (the rule of six does not apply) in the book.

it's right there in every copy i've seen.

err, dashifen's original quote was missing the page refrence...
i see it now...

anyways, its strange that this point about spending edge is not echoed in the text for the long shot text itself. i have a feel that they edited it out of the long shot text but forgot about it being in the spending edge bullet points.

having it said in one place, but not in another (that specificaly talks about the test itself) is just confusing...

Sorry, I closed the PDF and decided i'd finish the post and then go look it up. Didn't think you all were chomping quite that much on the bit

Anyway, I think it was intentional. The paragraph on a long shot test says you spend edge, see p. 67. On p. 67 it says the rule of six doesn't apply. Seems pretty clear to me.

He's saying that when the success rate is easily predicted, players will go for the most mathematically sound option. In any edition.
His point is that in SR3 the success rate was less easily predicted, so the most mathematically sound option was harder to see in more cases.

A 'balance through obscurity' approach?

a "good" roleplayer should be able to do personality over dice any day...

Adding extra layers of complexity is good for additional realism only up to a (very subjective) point. The rule of thumb that I prefer is "unless it adds more fun than hassle, leave it out."

Legislating against metagaming is ultimately a futile pursuit, because every player sitting at that table has some degree of out of character knowledge about the other PCs (as well as their own). I mean, I could guess at my own attribute and skill ratings, but I sure don't have the precision of a character sheet for my real life self.

do actors that play navy seals have actual navy seal background?

no, but they have scripts, and the good scripts are expertly advised by ex-SEALs or other cool guys. and some of them do train extensively for their roles.

heh, should have expected that one...

still, isnt roleplaying about pretending to be something your not?
or is it supposed to be a real life simulation?