Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: SR4 in play experience
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
mfb
i think it should be a little bit of both. it's a roleplaying game, a point which i hammer as frequently as possible because many people seem to ignore it.
Azralon
QUOTE (mfb)
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.

Crap, so now we're not allowed to play our characters unless we do research and/or have experts standing by to advise us.
Synner
You're right it is a roleplaying game (sorry couldn't resist). The degree of roleplaying realism required to have fun varies by the type and level of roleplay involved which varies from group to group. For a game to rule one style is better than another is just asking to alienate players.

I've always had a problem with players taking max Int in any RPG game I've played (SR3 in particular because I know my players and most of them don't rate a 5 and their characters won't act like they have a 6) - but most GMs don't really care and its certainly not the metagame's job to dictate which play style is better. In fact for a game to be successful in this day and age it has to accomodate as many styles of play as possible.
hobgoblin
QUOTE (mfb)
i think it should be a little bit of both. it's a roleplaying game, a point which i hammer as frequently as possible because many people seem to ignore it.

and the game part is why we have dice rather then go:

bang, your dead.

no im not.

yes you are!

no im not!!

repeat and add more ! as needed...
mfb
QUOTE (Azralon)
Crap, so now we're not allowed to play our characters unless we do research and/or have experts standing by to advise us.

not if the game already incorporates that research.

regardless, i'm not really concerned at the moment with realism per se. as Synner has said, the level of realism desired varies from group to group. what i'm saying is that it's undesirable to force players to frequently choose between what is likely to give them the best outcome, mechanically speaking, and what fits their character best--and, furthermore, i think there are relatively very few mechanical choices in the game that can be affected by the character's personality anyway. there's no personality test out there that will tell you whether or not a person is going to use full-auto or an aimed shot in any given situation.
Azralon
QUOTE (mfb)
as Synner has said, the level of realism desired varies from group to group. what i'm saying is that it's undesirable to force players to frequently choose between what is likely to give them the best outcome, mechanically speaking, and what fits their character best


I read the above as "I agree with Synner, the desire for roleplaying realism varies between groups." Then immediately after "It's bad to have too little roleplaying built into the system."

I believe Synner's point was that the responsibility of roleplaying (i.e.: making decisions based on a PC's personality rather than a probability spreadsheet) falls completely to the player group. The game system can't be held accountable for anything other than the mechanical element.

QUOTE (mfb)
--and, furthermore, i think there are relatively very few mechanical choices in the game that can be affected by the character's personality


In addition to the mental attributes, there are several Qualities, social skills, and knowledge skills that directly reflect and/or shape the psyche of any given character.
mfb
none of which have any strong bearing on most of the mechanical decisions a player makes. choosing to fire a single aimed shot versus using a full-auto burst is not, in most cases, a roleplaying decision. trying to make it one is just silly. likewise, the decision to cast a spell at force 3 or 4 is not normally a roleplaying decision, nor is deciding to attack IC in cybercombat rather than evade it. these are decisions a player makes based mostly on the situation at hand, and only slightly based on the personality of the character he's playing.
Azralon
QUOTE (mfb @ Mar 24 2006, 08:18 PM)
none of which have any strong bearing on most of the mechanical decisions a player makes. choosing to fire a single aimed shot versus using a full-auto burst is not, in most cases, a roleplaying decision. trying to make it one is just silly.

Okay, I'll give you specific examples. Combat Paralysis tells you exactly how you're going to react in a particular combat situation. The Cat mentor spirit also tells you what you should be doing in a fight.

It's like you're asking for the game system to mechanically determine what your character would do in almost any given situation. Why show up to the game, then? smile.gif
mfb
i'm actually not asking for anything. the conversation has spun off on a wild tangent to what i was trying to say--or, more accurately, what i was disagreeing with.

Combat Paralysis tells you how you're going to act when combat starts. it does not tell you whether your character will take an aimed shot, or cast a spell at force 4. if it applies to cybercombat, it does affect the decision to attack versus evade IC, but it doesn't tell you whether you use the standard Attack program or hit it with Slow (assuming that Slow ends up in some future sourcebook).
Shrike30
I've found one of the easier workarounds for the whole "1/3 of my dice is how many hits I'll get" thing is to simply not clue the players in to what the Threshold for the test is unless it's something that they'd easily know on the fly. On an extended test to do something unknown, I'd probably let someone know, but if they're doing something random and I judge they really don't know how hard it would be, they don't get a Threshold. I also usually roll Opposed test dice in a covered area, to keep the same thing going on.

This certainly increases the rate people go through Edge, too.

As for Gary's Games, well... I'm not sure I'd bill that place as one of the best stores around. The place feels run down, the internal layout isn't really conducive to doing much, and while Greenwood and 85th is the middle of a residential neighborhood, it's not the best location I can imagine to find gamers.

My usual store (due to proximity to my house as well as my liking the guy who runs it) is The Dreaming on University and 52nd. They sold out of the first print run pretty quick. I went downtown to Golden Age Collectibles at the Market, and couldn't find a first-run copy there, either. The third run is selling pretty quick, too... my group alone has two hardbacks and a couple of PDFs. If Gary's isn't selling many copies, I can't tell you why that is.
FrankTrollman
QUOTE (mfb)
what i'm saying is that it's undesirable to force players to frequently choose between what is likely to give them the best outcome, mechanically speaking, and what fits their character best


So... you object to the system being transparent enough that people are able to evaluate the likely results of their actions before committing themselves to them? It's going to be true that your initial thought for what your character might do in any situation is often going to be distinct from what is most likely to generate the result that is most favorable to your character. In any game system or even in real life this is going to happen constantly.

So the only way to keep that from being a choice is by preventing the players from having knowledge of the probable results of any particular action. And since you do keep arguing for more confusing math for action resolution, that does appear to be the thrust of your argument.

-Frank
mfb
that's Cain, man, not me.
Cain
QUOTE
So... you object to the system being transparent enough that people are able to evaluate the likely results of their actions before committing themselves to them? It's going to be true that your initial thought for what your character might do in any situation is often going to be distinct from what is most likely to generate the result that is most favorable to your character. In any game system or even in real life this is going to happen constantly.

So the only way to keep that from being a choice is by preventing the players from having knowledge of the probable results of any particular action. And since you do keep arguing for more confusing math for action resolution, that does appear to be the thrust of your argument.

Not really. No system can be made totally obtuse enough to prevent metagaming, as others have pointed out. However, something that's this basic allows for on-the-fly choices. If I'm applying pressure, building up the tension in a scene, the last thing I want my players doing is pulling out their slide rules and doing a probability analysis. I want their responses, like their actions, to be quick and loaded with the tensions of the moment.

If the players think they can figure out the odds, no matter what the situation, they're more apt to try and pause the game so they can figure it out. If they're not sure if they can figure it out and time is limited/the pressure is on, they're more apt to say: "Screw it, here's what my character would do." We don't prevent them from making the choice, but we do make sure that everyone knows not to interrupt the flow of the game unnecessarily. And we don't need the math to be more complex; it just has to look like it'll take too long.

This isn't even a roleplay vs metagaming thing, also. I've met many players who've explained this as: "My character has such-and-such a background, he would automatically know the best actions to take." Which is fine and dandy, but characters aren't tactical computers. There's also a large stable of players I've met who just like to overanalyze everything. Ultimately, they may or may not always choose the roleplay option, but they do tend to slow down the pace of a game.
QUOTE
My usual store (due to proximity to my house as well as my liking the guy who runs it) is The Dreaming on University and 52nd. They sold out of the first print run pretty quick. I went downtown to Golden Age Collectibles at the Market, and couldn't find a first-run copy there, either.

Haven't been to The Dreaming recently, but IIRC they don't have nearly the space alloted to RPGs that Gary's does. (Check out their used section-- it's half of their back room!) And dear gods, never buy anything from Golden Age! Everything is overpriced to hell and back, their stock is wonky, and their staff has got to be the unfriendliest in Seattle. The only place with worse stock is American Eagle, and that's only because I don't think they've bought new RPG's since the early 90's! (Last time I was there, I saw a copy of Shadowbeat... in original shrink-wrap. eek.gif)
Shrike30
The store is physically smaller than Gary's. It's not a matter of size as much as it is layout and overall aesthetic. 8-10 years ago, Gary's was a good place... it just feels weird now. The Dreaming is a small, friendly comic-with-RPGs store.

As for GAC, I didn't *want* to buy the book from them... but nowhere else HAD it and there's this great hom bow place only a block away. Figured I should check.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
A 'balance through obscurity' approach? grinbig.gif

Well, think of it this way. In real life, we can't always predict the likelihood of our actions to three decimal places.

As dice are thrown in real life, that's factored in already. wink.gif
Hida Tsuzua
QUOTE (Cain)
Not really.  No system can be made totally obtuse enough to prevent metagaming, as others have pointed out.  However, something that's this basic allows for on-the-fly choices.  If I'm applying pressure, building up the tension in a scene, the last thing I want my players doing is pulling out their slide rules and doing a probability analysis.  I want their responses, like their actions, to be quick and loaded with the tensions of the moment. 

If the players think they can figure out the odds, no matter what the situation, they're more apt to try and pause the game so they can figure it out.  If they're not sure if they can figure it out and time is limited/the pressure is on, they're more apt to say: "Screw it, here's what my character would do."  We don't prevent them from making the choice, but we do make sure that everyone knows not to interrupt the flow of the game unnecessarily.  And we don't need the math to be more complex; it just has to look like it'll take too long. 

The problem is that players can always figure out their chances of success. Either they have a good background in probability theory and can come up with a formula for success, or they could write up a program that calculated the chances of success, standard deviation, and the like from several million rolls. Then a chart can be made with the results for easy reference. Really either should be done with every dice system anyways to check for odd results (such as the old WOD's standard deviation due to its rule of 1).
Cain
Oh, one of my gaming buddies is an ex-Microsoft programmer with a degree in mathematics. He can do base-six math in his head faster than I can do base-ten with a calculator. The only way to get him out of the analytical mindset is to keep the intensity high. Once he stops thinking like a calculator, he starts reacting, going with instinct, and generally becomes a better player. However, that's *my* job to help bring that out. I have to convince him that the roleplay option-- with no dice to roll-- is at least as attractive as the mathematically sound one. If I can do that, he won't try and overanalyze everything-- he'll just focus on roleplaying and having fun.
MaxHunter
Focus on roleplaying and having fun sounds like what it should be.

Maybe you should start running more intense adventures or limit the real time a player has to come up with a decision.

"No John, you can't spend 10 minutes to decide between full auto or 2 bursts, shoot now!"

One of my former players was a Microsoft (partner) techie, he is not playing much anymore after he started an argument about whether the roof was 6 ft high including the stalactites or from the ceiling.

Must be something on their coffee...

Cheers,

Max
Hida Tsuzua
The answer is that you don't decide on such things in play. Instead you crunch the math during non-game time, it's pretty simple to get a good idea when it's a good idea to full auto or burst fire, for example "if I'm rolling X or more dice with my weapon, it's better to do <this>. If they have a dodge higher than Y <that> is better." Heck you could print yourself a cheat sheet. Heck all RPG books should have a chart of chances for easy reference. That way you'll have more time to read the setting info multiple times for full flavor than working on stuff I hope the writers have done.

I've been some very intense combats where my character's life might have come down to a snap decision and a die roll. What is better? Not knowing what your chances or that it's only 70% chance of success? I'll take the latter, that way I know how much trouble I'm in.
Cain
QUOTE
Focus on roleplaying and having fun sounds like what it should be.

Maybe you should start running more intense adventures or limit the real time a player has to come up with a decision.

"No John, you can't spend 10 minutes to decide between full auto or 2 bursts, shoot now!"

That's more-or-less what I try to do. As long as I do my job right, he's not a problem at all. Still, he makes a good example: if players think they can do the math quickly enough, they're more apt to try and pause the game to figure it out. If they don't think they can calculate it quickly, they're more willing to go with the flow of the game.

QUOTE
The answer is that you don't decide on such things in play. Instead you crunch the math during non-game time, it's pretty simple to get a good idea when it's a good idea to full auto or burst fire, for example "if I'm rolling X or more dice with my weapon, it's better to do <this>. If they have a dodge higher than Y <that> is better." Heck you could print yourself a cheat sheet.

I can counteract that by not telling the players how many dodge dice the opponent has (and let's face it, why should I?) and/or ratcheting up the intensity until they forget about their cheat sheet. However, the second option is difficult to keep up, so I just prefer to try and get players to decide based on feelings, roleplay, and game flow rather than statistics. This gets players to contribute more to the game: maybe they'll come up with a really fancy new trick; or they'll do something totally stupid that leaves everyone rolling in laughter. I'm cool with either one of those.
Azralon
QUOTE (Cain)
Oh, one of my gaming buddies is an ex-Microsoft programmer with a degree in mathematics. He can do base-six math in his head faster than I can do base-ten with a calculator. The only way to get him out of the analytical mindset is to keep the intensity high. Once he stops thinking like a calculator, he starts reacting, going with instinct, and generally becomes a better player. However, that's *my* job to help bring that out. I have to convince him that the roleplay option-- with no dice to roll-- is at least as attractive as the mathematically sound one. If I can do that, he won't try and overanalyze everything-- he'll just focus on roleplaying and having fun.

That's a fault in the player, not the system. As you have all but said.

And what game is he playing when he does this?
Cain
QUOTE
That's a fault in the player, not the system.

It's both. In his case, we have to push things a bit further than for nomral players; but the same thing applies. Overly predictable systems lend themselves to rollplay thinking.
Hida Tsuzua
QUOTE (Cain)
I can counteract that by not telling the players how many dodge dice the opponent has (and let's face it, why should I?) and/or ratcheting up the intensity until they forget about their cheat sheet.  However, the second option is difficult to keep up, so I just prefer to try and get players to decide based on feelings, roleplay, and game flow rather than statistics.  This gets players to contribute more to the game: maybe they'll come up with a really fancy new trick; or they'll do something totally stupid that leaves everyone rolling in laughter.  I'm cool with either one of those.


I agree that you shouldn't tell the players how many dodge dice the enemy has. On the other hand, it's pretty easy to figure out a rough idea of what it is. Normal people have 3-6 dice, most combat heavy characters will have 8-12, and the true dodge masters 14+. You know what you roll so you have half of the variables. Sure you might have to spend a shot with your "default" attack (whatever works out in most cases) but it's pretty easy to eyeball. As for intensity, I usually don't have to badger my PCs to make dumb mistakes. They tend to do that themselves ("You throw a torch at the troll. It isn't impressed").

I guess that in my experience is that when the players don't have a good idea of their odds, they do the same things over and over again based off prior luck, familiarity, or what have you. Sure they'll do things that affect the pools like go after cover (who wouldn't?), but their strategies will stay more or less the same.

Also if they handle on their odds, even a rough one, they'll have a much better handle on how much trouble they're in. They'll also be more likely to take risks as they'll have less doubt. That and it can create dramatic choices ("are you going to take the sure shot or the shot that is risky but has a better payoff?").
Azralon
QUOTE (Azralon)
And what game is he playing when he does this?

You didn't answer this part, Cain. Is your spreadsheet-addict player doing this in SR4?
Cain
QUOTE
I guess that in my experience is that when the players don't have a good idea of their odds, they do the same things over and over again based off prior luck, familiarity, or what have you. Sure they'll do things that affect the pools like go after cover (who wouldn't?), but their strategies will stay more or less the same.

The rest of that is a GM thing. I have to present multiple options as being equally attractive, in a similar way to how the characters would percieve it. For example, Mr. Single Shot is likely to keep up his usual tactics against a bunch of standard goons, but if I say: "You are surrounded by a bunch of tough-looking, heavily armed guards, with a furious look in their eyes as they see their buddy fall to a shot from your gun", then he's going to want to consider full-auto a lot more. Mathematically, he might be better off with single shots-- but the sight of a character cracking a little under the pressure, feeling the fear course through him, adds a lot of dramatic tension to the game.

QUOTE
You didn't answer this part, Cain. Is your spreadsheet-addict player doing this in SR4?

Yes. And it's much harder to stop him, because he does the math so quickly. Roleplaying is about being something other than you are; and since he's a living calculator in real life, I'm not doing him any favors with a system that encourages instant calculations and predictability.
hobgoblin
hmm, max number of target you can attack is 3 pr pass with a full auto weapon...

still, even in SR3 i could guesstimate the outcome as each target have a TN penalty and the burst. i cant say the exact avarage outcome, but i can see what would give a better chance of getting in a round or two so that each target will now have a wound modifier to deal with...
Cain
QUOTE
hmm, max number of target you can attack is 3 pr pass with a full auto weapon...

Unless you go supressive fire on them, which can potentially hit an unlimited number of opponents.

QUOTE
still, even in SR3 i could guesstimate the outcome as each target have a TN penalty and the burst. i cant say the exact avarage outcome, but i can see what would give a better chance of getting in a round or two so that each target will now have a wound modifier to deal with...

Good, now calculate that vs your chances with one or two of them totally removed from the fight. Mr. Single Shot can presumably kill someone outright, so which is more advantageous-- taking out two, or wounding a lot? And can you calculate that in the ten seconds or so I'm pushing you to react in?

You probably can't calculate the numbers for either 3rd or 4th in ten seconds; but under 4th, you'd be a lot more tempted to try and pause the action to figure it out.
hobgoblin
like i said, i would guesstimate, not calculate to the lowest decimal. and i was guessing the chance to hit, not trying to find the best way to survive. if so then yes, dropping 2-3 would help more then wounding a lot. but if they are wounded, there is a slightly higher chance that they will miss, therefor even tho they are still standing, im less at risk. so it will take longer to kill them all, but in that time, im potentialy at less risk to get hurt by return fire...

so m to hit chance is only half the calculation. and by not knowing the skill rating of the guards, i cant do a proper evaluation...

as for supressive fire, that only works when all targets are within a cone in front of you. the expression surrounded suggest to me that they are on all sides, therefor is suppression fire not an option...
Hida Tsuzua
QUOTE (Cain)
The rest of that is a GM thing. I have to present multiple options as being equally attractive, in a similar way to how the characters would percieve it. For example, Mr. Single Shot is likely to keep up his usual tactics against a bunch of standard goons, but if I say: "You are surrounded by a bunch of tough-looking, heavily armed guards, with a furious look in their eyes as they see their buddy fall to a shot from your gun", then he's going to want to consider full-auto a lot more. Mathematically, he might be better off with single shots-- but the sight of a character cracking a little under the pressure, feeling the fear course through him, adds a lot of dramatic tension to the game.

How will that make me think of autofire? Now suppressive fire might be a good idea in this case, but that'll heavily depend on the character and his knowledge of the guards (will this spook them?). I've got to admit I haven't checked fully on the rules for moving autofire so that might be much better that it used to be. My first reaction would be though single shot a guard and find some cover or get away, possibly though the hole made in their circle. If I was in SR3, it'll be a shotgun blast of the shot or slug variety. And that's after one second of thought (okay the moving autofire ironically took a bit longer because I'm used to viewing it as a bad choice). Now, I'll be worried because there might be more guards coming or some that can't be taken out easily, but that's regardless of the odds. Anyways, making players do stupid things doesn't make the combat better, they'll do stupid things on their own and you can gloat more as you had nothing to do with it.

I've been in some quite intense combats. What made them intense wasn't the GM trying to hurry the players, but rather us knowing what we were in and our chances such as the time where my samurai came dangerously close to dying in the opening rounds of combat in L5R or another battle where we fighting someone with magic in a normally extremely low magic game. However regardless of the odds, all rolls come down to the dice. You can figure out your odds, but you can't do the same to your roll. That's where the excitement comes. And if you know the odds you can enjoy the freakishly high or low rolls with that much more.
Cain
QUOTE
like i said, i would guesstimate, not calculate to the lowest decimal. and i was guessing the chance to hit, not trying to find the best way to survive. if so then yes, dropping 2-3 would help more then wounding a lot. but if they are wounded, there is a slightly higher chance that they will miss, therefor even tho they are still standing, im less at risk. so it will take longer to kill them all, but in that time, im potentialy at less risk to get hurt by return fire...

My mathematically inclined players *would* try to calculate it out exactly. (And could probably do it, too. eek.gif) However, if the numbers aren't as obvious, they're less likely to ask for a pause to try and crunch the numbers.
QUOTE
so m to hit chance is only half the calculation. and by not knowing the skill rating of the guards, i cant do a proper evaluation...

That's why this is partly a GM thing as well. If I don't describe them as standard guards, he's less likely to try and crunch the numbers, with or without allowing for variables in their skills. Still, the more it looks like the calculation is possible within a reasonable timeframe--say, before the end of the game session sarcastic.gif-- the more they'll tend to ask for the time to think.

QUOTE
as for supressive fire, that only works when all targets are within a cone in front of you. the expression surrounded suggest to me that they are on all sides, therefor is suppression fire not an option...

A cone up to 10 meters wide. If they're close, then that could cover almost everything in slightly less than 180 degrees in front of you.

QUOTE
How will that make me think of autofire?

Because autofire is a good way of hitting a lot of targets at once, while single shots can only kill one target at a time.
QUOTE
I've been in some quite intense combats. What made them intense wasn't the GM trying to hurry the players, but rather us knowing what we were in and our chances such as the time where my samurai came dangerously close to dying in the opening rounds of combat in L5R or another battle where we fighting someone with magic in a normally extremely low magic game. However regardless of the odds, all rolls come down to the dice. You can figure out your odds, but you can't do the same to your roll. That's where the excitement comes. And if you know the odds you can enjoy the freakishly high or low rolls with that much more.

I think you'll also notice that the atmosphere the GM sets is critical for making a combat intense. You can set up whatever situation you like; if you aren't pumping up the adrenaline, it can be dry and boring as hell. Also, you can enjoy the freakish rolls even if you don't know the exact odds; if you succeed against a TN of 42, you don't need to have calculated the odds of that to the fifth decimal place to know you did well. In fact, the more you know the odds, the less fun it turns out to be: when I botch on three dice, I know my odds are precicely 1:216, and it's not a big deal. But when I botch on 12 dice? The odds are somewhere in the range of millions to one! The more I have it calculated, the less fun I have anticipating it.
Hida Tsuzua
QUOTE (Cain)
I think you'll also notice that the atmosphere the GM sets is critical for making a combat intense. You can set up whatever situation you like; if you aren't pumping up the adrenaline, it can be dry and boring as hell.

Yes, but knowing one's odd doesn't impact the atmosphere. Yes, if one's taking one's time in the middle of combat it can slow things up, but so does a simple rules question. However, you can cruch numbers ahead of time and have them ready for reference in the time it takes you to get your dice. Heck this might speed up combat more as you have a better idea of your action before it's your turn.

As for excitement, it depends on what's at stake, not how fast the GM talks or tries to get the PCs to do certain actions. I've seen fast eventful combats that were boring and long drawn out affairs that had us by our seats based on what's at stake. Knowing one's odds helps to figure out the danger a character's goal or life is under.
Cain
QUOTE
Yes, but knowing one's odd doesn't impact the atmosphere.

Oh, yes it does. People who have the odds figured out to ten decimal places will be a lot less emotional about their roll. You ever seen professional gamblers at work? They're not whooping and cheering every time they roll a seven, or draw to a full house. You only see that kind of excitement among the players who *don't* have everything figured out.
QUOTE
However, you can cruch numbers ahead of time and have them ready for reference in the time it takes you to get your dice. Heck this might speed up combat more as you have a better idea of your action before it's your turn.

If you have to consult a spreadsheet to decide your actions, you're not roleplaying anymore. You're playing a fancy game with dice.
QUOTE
As for excitement, it depends on what's at stake, not how fast the GM talks or tries to get the PCs to do certain actions. I've seen fast eventful combats that were boring and long drawn out affairs that had us by our seats based on what's at stake. Knowing one's odds helps to figure out the danger a character's goal or life is under.

Knowing the odds != A lot at stake. In fact, if you don't know the odds, and there's a lot at stake, things tend to get even more exciting. Again, watch professional gamblers at work, versus the total amateurs. The pros won't even blink, no matter what's on the table; while the old grannies will jump for joy every time their number comes up, and even higher when they've won a lot of money.
James McMurray
I could be wrong, but aren't you free to continue using SR3 and its TN system?
Cain
Like mfb said: Yes, but now that the game is no longer supported, it's a lot harder to find people who are willing to play it. If I really tried, I could find people who'll play 1st ed D&D-- but finding the original books is a chore, there's plenty of rules questions that were never addressed (and never will be) and there's not going to be any expansions for them in the future. The fact that the TN system was IMO a better fit for Shadowrun, and a better system overall for every gamer group I've ever encountered in the last twenty-five years, is just a sideline detail.
James McMurray
Rolemaster 1st edition has been out of print since the early 80s (even longer than D&D 1e). That didn't stop me from teaching my group how to play. It didn't stop them from buying the books they wanted (at cheaper prices but harder searches)**. It never stopped us from having fun playing the game. If SR3 is truly the game you want to play, it won't be too hard to find people willing to play it.

But it wouldn't surprise me at all in 10 years to hear you lamenting the loss of SR4 when SR5 comes out. Or at the least a large number of people like you. That's just the way it is. When a new game comes out, some keep the old one, some use the new, and some leave entirely. Usually, the number that leave is at least replaced by a number of new people, and thus the game continues. It happened when RM2 switched to RMSS, it happened when AD&D switched to D&D 3.x, it happened when D&D 1e switched to D&D 2e. It happened when WoD switched to WoD 2e (or is it 3?).

Heck, it probably happened when some yahoo thought it would be cool if the knight could move in an L, as the strategic chess world was knocked upside down by a piece able to move through other pieces in a non-linear direction.

** By "harder searches" I mean they couldn't walk down the street. Instead they had to hit Google and Ebay, then wait a week for the book to arrive. In many instances (as with SR3) PDFs are cheap and fairly easy to find.

QUOTE
a better system overall for every gamer group I've ever encountered in the last twenty-five years


Either your experience is highly limited or you're exaggerating. Everybody I know has jumped at the new SR (and it's close cousin WoD). But then, we don't have to contend with a bunch of spreadsheet crunchers, so maybe we're just lucky.
Hida Tsuzua
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE
Yes, but knowing one's odd doesn't impact the atmosphere.

Oh, yes it does. People who have the odds figured out to ten decimal places will be a lot less emotional about their roll. You ever seen professional gamblers at work? They're not whooping and cheering every time they roll a seven, or draw to a full house. You only see that kind of excitement among the players who *don't* have everything figured out.
QUOTE
However, you can cruch numbers ahead of time and have them ready for reference in the time it takes you to get your dice. Heck this might speed up combat more as you have a better idea of your action before it's your turn.

If you have to consult a spreadsheet to decide your actions, you're not roleplaying anymore. You're playing a fancy game with dice.
QUOTE
As for excitement, it depends on what's at stake, not how fast the GM talks or tries to get the PCs to do certain actions. I've seen fast eventful combats that were boring and long drawn out affairs that had us by our seats based on what's at stake. Knowing one's odds helps to figure out the danger a character's goal or life is under.

Knowing the odds != A lot at stake. In fact, if you don't know the odds, and there's a lot at stake, things tend to get even more exciting. Again, watch professional gamblers at work, versus the total amateurs. The pros won't even blink, no matter what's on the table; while the old grannies will jump for joy every time their number comes up, and even higher when they've won a lot of money.

I agree that professional gamblers show less emotion. However I say that's because they're professional gamblers and therefore they're seen it all, do this for a living, and know it's better to not show or be affected by emotion while gambling. The grannies are doing it for fun. I bet if anyone roleplayed professionally they'll be as jaded as the gamblers, as that's the nature of doing something professionally. And I never said that emotions had to be sacrificed. After all, you'll find yourself with many options for any situation and you need to filter them quickly. Crunching the math just helps to do so.

Also a roleplaying game is a fancy game with dice. I also don't see how roleplaying is effected deciding between a long burst, a short burst, or a single shot especially if you can figure it out quickly. Roleplaying comes into why you're shooting in the first place. I mean everything we do in life involves figuring out the odds, why shouldn't runners?
Cain
QUOTE
Either your experience is highly limited or you're exaggerating. Everybody I know has jumped at the new SR (and it's close cousin WoD).

No exaggeration, and not due to limited experience. Among the Shadowrun fans I know personally, there's a bundle of 2nd Ed fans who just barely tolerate 3rd, and won't touch 4th with a ten-foot polecat. There's also a lot who are in the "wait and see" camp. Among the non-SR fans, I have seen a lot of them jump at nWoD; but many of them seem to think SR4 is a pale imitation. I certainly don't know many nWoD fans who've invested in SR$ as well. I know the nWoD books have been flying off the shelves at the FLGS's here; SR4 isn't doing anywhere near as well.
QUOTE
I agree that professional gamblers show less emotion. However I say that's because they're professional gamblers and therefore they're seen it all, do this for a living, and know it's better to not show or be affected by emotion while gambling. The grannies are doing it for fun. I bet if anyone roleplayed professionally they'll be as jaded as the gamblers, as that's the nature of doing something professionally.

I actually knew a few WotC employees in their RPG department during the playtests for D&D 3.0. They're probably as close to professional roleplayers as we could hope to find, and they were plenty excited. I've also known a few LARPers who were effectively hired to run stories; they were pretty fired up about what they did as well.
QUOTE
And I never said that emotions had to be sacrificed. After all, you'll find yourself with many options for any situation and you need to filter them quickly. Crunching the math just helps to do so.

This is the classic "roleplaying vs rollplaying" debate, which isn't going to get us very far. Suffice to say, massive number-crunching is more in the "rollplay" camp.
QUOTE
Also a roleplaying game is a fancy game with dice. I also don't see how roleplaying is effected deciding between a long burst, a short burst, or a single shot especially if you can figure it out quickly. Roleplaying comes into why you're shooting in the first place. I mean everything we do in life involves figuring out the odds, why shouldn't runners?

In real life, people seldom decide things based on the odds. Drivers on the road speed all the time, even though the odds favor the slower drivers. And roleplaying comes into every aspect of the game: if your character is usually a cool customer, he'll just tend to fire single controlled shots. If he's panicked, he's more likely to spray and pray. (Go to a gun range and watch the shooters. The amateurs tend to fire very quickly, while the experts tend to fire very deliberate, slow-paced shots.) If you're playing a cool character who loses it in a firefight, having him go full-auto is a good way of showing that pressure. The other players will pick up on that tnesion, and their intenity levels will be raised. This way, everyone contributes to the overall atmosphere of the game.
Azralon
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE
You didn't answer this part, Cain. Is your spreadsheet-addict player doing this in SR4?

Yes.

How horrible for you to run in a system you dislike so much.
Waltermandias
QUOTE
I certainly don't know many nWoD fans who've invested in SR$ as well.


*raises hand*

Here's one.

New Mage on Wednesdays, new Shadowrun on Thursdays.
Grinder
What is this? A meeting of the Anonymous nWoD-players? biggrin.gif
Waltermandias
Hello, my name is Walter, and I play a Ventrue with three dots in protean...

*hangs head in shame*
MaxHunter
Group Chorus: We LOOVEEE you Walter.

Now sit down and show us your neck.

Cheers,

Max

PS: I used to Gm for WoD a lot, but we quit after It got too backstabby to be enjoyable. (That's what you get when people start understanding how to roleplay powerful blood sucking monsters...)
James McMurray
Another nWoD player invested in SR4.

Maybe not so much limited experience as it is a limited selection pool and lack of data?
Cain
Two people, or even five to ten, doesn't even match the dozens of WoD players I know from the old and current live-action games. Among most of those groups, I'm pretty much the only Shadowrun fan. And among the Shadowrun fans I know, there's enough who aren't touching SR4 to say that it's not anywhere near universally admired, worshipped, or heralded as the next great thing in gaming. nyahnyah.gif
James McMurray
But how much of that has to do with the world it's set in?
Old school Mage players like Technocracy and Vampires for enemies. Shadowrun fans like megacorps and dragons. Personal opinion of a game system's campaign setting has nothing to do with the rules of the game, or who likes which rule set more.

And it seems pretty obvious we're from different ends of the gaming spectrum. Every single WoD player I've gamed with (except perhaps 3 or 4) have also played SR with me. I'm also talking dozens.

In my experience the people that have crossed the line did so because someone talked a LARPer into playing a PnP game of WoD, and that group then switched to SR at a later date. Alternatively (this was my path) the SR player got talked into a LARP of WoD which eventually became a PnP group as well.

Maybe your situation is just a amtter of the SR GMs and WoD Storytellers having such dissimilar styles that people don't generally cross the threshold and enjoy it. Or maybe you just have a group of people set in their ways who don't like to think outside the box. Or maybe I just have a playgroup of a-statistical oddities who somehow like to cross the line.

Neither my limited experience, nor yours, will answer that. No matter how superior you feel your position is.

Like I said, a limited selection pool and lack of data. If I were to try and say my experiences across the WoD / SR barrier have anything to do with WoD or SR being held as the next great thing in gaming, I'd be just as asurredly stepping outside the bounds of the things I can honestly deduce from my experiences.
MaxHunter
QUOTE
Two people, or even five to ten, doesn't even match the dozens of WoD players I know from the old and current live-action games.



So, dear Cain your perception is definite, regardless evidence and other people's perception?

Just as I said before, and check the topic title please, I AM very pleased, and so are my players. I do not think SR4 is perfect or "the next great thing in gaming", it's just good enough for me and my group. Other games weren't. I wonder how this is so difficult to acknowledge.

Cheers,

Max
Cain
QUOTE
Every single WoD player I've gamed with (except perhaps 3 or 4) have also played SR with me. I'm also talking dozens.

In my experience the people that have crossed the line did so because someone talked a LARPer into playing a PnP game of WoD, and that group then switched to SR at a later date. Alternatively (this was my path) the SR player got talked into a LARP of WoD which eventually became a PnP group as well.

Maybe your situation is just a amtter of the SR GMs and WoD Storytellers having such dissimilar styles that people don't generally cross the threshold and enjoy it. Or maybe you just have a group of people set in their ways who don't like to think outside the box. Or maybe I just have a playgroup of a-statistical oddities who somehow like to cross the line.

Well, for one, I've LARPed with perhaps thousands of people. That's a bit much to have hanging around your kitchen table. When we cut that down to the tabletoppers I know plus the WoD crowd, we're down to maybe two-three hundred or so. Of those, most are myopically focused on their preferred games, just like you said-- the WoD crowd generally doesn't see anything but WoD, so I'm not even sure how many of them even know about Shadowrun in the first place, let alone a 4th edition. I know a few dozen dedicated Shadowrun fans, and slightly more in general-interest gamers-- gamers who own more than, say, ten different systems and can play in them all. Of the Shadowrun fans, I've just been invited to join a seven-person game of SR3; the Gm flat-out refuses to look at 4th. I haven't seen SR4 being welcomed with universal open arms, that's for certain. Among the general gamers, I don't know a one who's actually bought SR4 just yet-- they're investing in other systems, or just don't have enough cash for anything but the used bins. That number might pick up as SR4's popularity starts to drop, since then the book will appear in the used section.
QUOTE
So, dear Cain your perception is definite, regardless evidence and other people's perception?

Just as I said before, and check the topic title please, I AM very pleased, and so are my players. I do not think SR4 is perfect or "the next great thing in gaming", it's just good enough for me and my group. Other games weren't.

No, I realize that this is very much a YMMV thing. However, I can say: "If you like X for this reason, you might just like Y better."
James McMurray
I'm talking people I currently game with. I've been to hundreds of conventions and played thousands of games with thousands of people, but figured I should keep my first hand experience down too the level if what I know for sure rather than what I've bumped into over the years. But thank you for that cute little display of elitism by virtue of exposure. It was my first giggle all day, not including the one from the stench of my daughter's poop filled diaper, which, by the way, held more value than your little tirade.

So what you're saying is that the people you game with haven't bought SR 4 because they're getting other systems instead or are broke? wow. That really means a lot. Heck, I know people who don't own computers because they buy other stuff or are broke. What does that matter to the relevant usability of modern computers.

And before you say "but they do have SR 3" I know people with really old and crappy computers who don't upgrade because they're buying other things also.
Cain
QUOTE
So what you're saying is that the people you game with haven't bought SR 4 because they're getting other systems instead or are broke? wow. That really means a lot.

That's quite a bit, actually. They're the target market for SR4.

And when I say I've LARPed with thousands of people, I mean it. I've LARPed with thousands of people at once. Other than that, I really suggest that you pull back on your tone. I'm not going to start insulting you, no matter what I might think of what you have to say.
James McMurray
It is quite literally impossible to have LARPed with thousands of people at once unless you're giving or listening to a speech. What's the largest group of people you've actually interacted with at once? Thousands of people on your SCA ground doesn't really mean much if you spend most fo your time with 5 guys.

I somehow doubt that your broke SR3 holdouts are the target market for SR4 anymore than my broke Pentium III holdouts are the target market for te newest video cards. You see, target markets generally involve people with purchasing power.

Besides, aren't you running SR4? Or am I confusing you with another of our SR3 advocates who've posted here lately?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012