Who said anything about magic missile being overpowered? I said it's overused, because it's better at what it does than the other first level spells. But thank you for misinterpreting my post and bringing amusement to my heart because of it.

Who said anything about taking control of every die roll everyone makes? I think you might be getting a little confused.

SL James: At some point, without a group that works incredibly well together, something will come up that destroys the campaign. At that point you can say "you can't do that" or you can say "great, a loophole destroyed all of our hard work." I prefer the former, but I somehow doubt that either option means you've got to hang up your GM hat.

Interesting - that's a bit different from Matrix p. 110.

I do beg your pardon. The past few months of your posts somehow gave me the wrong idea about that.

What a great idea! Good day.

if it's not overpowered, then it's not germaine to the discussion, because we're talking about things which are overpowered. what the heck are you talking about, and when did you get confused?

i said it.

yep. never got an answer out of FanPro about how it all works, either. best i can tell, you use both rules.

don't go away angry, Azralon...

Correction - every node in the tiered security access chain has a chance to detect them. Granted only the highest of high security systems would have an extensive gateway system but.

I won't even get into how fast the system would come down on you (or simply shut down) if all those "individual" agents tried to access with the same account.

Exactly what an agent can or cannot do will be described in Unwired as will its limitations and advantages. There will be further clarifications on how subscription and accounts work and more importantly how corporate systems protect themselves beyond the basics described in SR4. I don't think it's stepping out of bounds to say that if a teamwork option is allowed it will only be with agents running on through the same commlink as the hacker (due to node subscription and access issues) and will be limited to those currently subscribed (due to the interaction necessary to properly cooperate rather than get in each other's way).

I'm just not sure whether the clarification will be in a FAQ or in Unwired.

eh. that works, but it just seems like a really roundabout solution. it basically comes down to who has more computers, and it still leaves individual commlinks horribly vulnerable.

I prefer the latter, but I'm stupid like that, taking responsibility for dealing with loopholes and, you know, GM stuff. "Oh, noes, I got thrown for a loop by a rule!" You know how many times that's happened? Zero. Compared to the numerous times canon setting retconning has screwed up a campaign? Well, that's only happened too many times to count.

There's a huge distinction between a "loophole" that exists because the existing rules didn't have space to cover everything in sufficient in the one published rulebook and a loophole created by a massive design flaw and inconsistency. unfortunately some people don't seem to know the difference.

I don't bother to say this very often, because I think it should be obvious at this point, but here goes:

SR4 is here to stay. FanPro fully intends to support the new edition of the game well into the future and has no intention of revising or modifying the core rules (beyond necessary errata and eventual clarifications in the planned SR4 FAQ). FanPro already has a production schedule full of SR4 goodies for the next couple of years and then some. The 4 core rule supplements will attempt to address and expand on as many of the outstanding issues left by the SR4 corebook as possible, and will attempt to do so in the most streamlined and efficient manner. FanPro and Shadowrun has no intention of returning to the SR3 system. Period. If SR4 isn't your cup of tea nobody will stop you from playing SR3 or from updating it to continue using it with the new setting material. If you're interested in helping SR4 be the game it can be constructive criticism as well as any useful and intelligent suggestions are always appreciated and will continue to be taken into account. Raging about how your favorite game has now been ruined and nitpicking about apparent flaws will accomplish absolutely nothing.

Then perhaps you haven't been reading as deeply as you think you have?

Again, I'll agree to disagree. I've been GMing it every week for almost a year now. 5-6 hour sessions, adventures (On the Run as a typical example) spread over 3 sessions on average, karma pay-offs of 6-7 per adventure and a group of 4 PCs - the tweaked out ork samurai I mentioned in another thread, a mage that has been known to spellcast with 19 dice pool, an elf hacker/infiltrator and a troll bounty hunter. Some of my players were die hard SR3 fans who hated the idea of changing system, and even they've come round. Though I admit that sitting down and playing SR4 tabletop and seeing how the rules translate to practice was what brought them round.

Nobody has specifically commented on problems with either flexibility and probablity. In fact they've actually welcomed the compression of the ability/results range and the impossibility of certain actions.

Meanwhile they've raked in about 80+ karma and spent it. Only the sam started out with a maxed out Att and nobody has capped off a second attribute to 6, nobody had increased a skill beyond 5, nobody has peaked and nobody cares about the sam being in that top 14% of human performance (though he's started to prove how good he is and its earning him a reputation). What's more the playtesting notes I've had the good fortune to be privy to indicate this is a common experience. Even in games where high-karma characters (300 karma being about the highest my group thought worth testing) were playtested there were few complaints about ease of capping off or lack of development choices (admittedly these groups have access to some of the advanced options that will be available in upcoming sourcebooks).

So no, I don't really see a problem with flexibility and probability, or character development for that matter. Of course things get wonky when GMs hand out 6 karma a session or payout a million for a run (though no more so than they would in SR3) but that's someone already changing the scope of the game.

I will concede that SR4 wasn't designed to port over characters with 800+ karma but that isn't a problem in 99% of games.

It definitely wasn't directed at you, it was directed at those who continue to pop up in a dedicated SR4 forum to denounce how bad SR4 must be, how irredeemable its flaws, how impossible to overcome its loopholes are - and hijacking a thread that actually starts with "SR4 in play experience, very pleased Gm and players" to do so.

Unfortunately such people, as happened when SR4 was in development, tend to drown out those people who actually have something constructive to add and want to contribute to productive discussion.

There are very few system designed to port over characters.
But, even with 750+, it works fairly well in SR4.

i disagree. i've had million-nuyen payouts in SR3. yes, it creates issues, and yes, it changes the scope of the campaign--but the game itself was able to handle such changes in scope very easily. the inability of SR4 to handle different scopes is one of the main reasons i dislike it. and the fact that you admit that it can't handle multiple scopes is why i get confused when you say things like "SR4 isn't limited".

He has a point. It does undermine arguments when the person making the criticism hasn't experienced the game as it translates from theory to paper. It feels like the person is criticizing on principle and out of pig-headedness, rather than coming back from a game table with a practical and legitimate gripe.

For the record I said "wonky" and not that SR4 was unable to handle it or broke down. The impact of a 1 million pay-off doesn't change much (I'll take Roberts word for the fact that neither does 750 karma) - I meant doing it as anything but an exceptional, highlight of a career event.

And, for the record, the wonkiness isn't far from what I experienced in SR3 when I made the mistake of giving my players the high roller international primerunner game they thought they wanted.

Unfortunately this implies that you don't even consider that playing a new character built within the new system could be a fun experience... and as I've said before in private, that's a pity.

You are free to do so.
Yet, the amusing part is that the character in question started with 500 BP and still relies on skillwires for firearms as there is not yet enough karma for those skills.

Let me phrase it that way:
If he happend to be able 'to perform flawlessly in the face of what should probably be insurmountable odds', I'll tell you first.

yes. and a well-built starting character, in SR4, is hard to challenge within his specialty.

Nah, it's a lot harder not to kill them or make the quit by accident.

I've had quite enough of you trying to insult my players. The fact is, I don't have to GM hammer them at all, since I can do a lot of things through discussion and shared storytelling goals. The fact that the system has fatal flaws stands alone. What I *do* have are players with a healthy dose of skepticism and a liking of believability in my games. I shudder to think of what you must consider to be "mature", if discussion and mutual enjoyment aren't part of it.

You're saying: "The game is perfect, as long as you ignore all the broken bits". Unfortunately, a whole lot of SR4 consists of broken bits. If there's an ubertactic, then the big powers would be using it... which means the players will need to use it as well, if they can. Suddenly, the entire concepts of the game world collapse under the weight of a single ubertactic.

My goal is to help people enjoy Shadowrun. If there's a fatal flaw in the system, it needs to be addressed. However, SR4 has got a lot of fatal flaws, and needs to have some serious rethinking done.

Yes-- when you never have to use GM fiat, that indicates a very high level of player maturity. I'm assuming by your posts that you use it constantly?

So you're working to cover up the problem. That's not very encouraging, to me. The real issue, in my mind, happens to be the mechanics that allow the Burly Man brawl: Teamwork tests and multi-commlink usage. I've seen lots of people here post various exploits about using multiple commlinks, and no believeable reason to stop them. The massive Agent Army is just one permutation of that.

The real problems are in the basic operations and assumptions of the game. It appears that no one stopped to consider using multiple commlinks, and it's pretty clear that no one examined exactly how nasty you can get with teamwork tests.

Again: the problem here isn't just an army of Mr. Smiths. The problem lies in teamwork tests themselves, plus the tricks you can pull by using multiple commlinks. Just like the longshot problem requires an alteration to the basic assumption of a fixed TN to correct, the problems are at the root of the system, not the surface details.

The other problems are pretty well connected to the basic assumptions of the game as well. Synner, you yourself pointed out that SR4 is meant to be a closed system. Unfortunately, that means that even if a group of players desires a higher-powered game, they can't just simply lift the caps and be done with it. The entire scope of the game is *based* on those limits. There's simply no stopping people with 30+dice for a test; the mechanics break down at that point. (I might also add that somewhere on this forum, somebody posted an elven face who has 33 dice for Seduction. Legal starting character, too, IIRC.) The basic power levels of the game assume that the best of the best, the most powerful in their fields, will be tossing between 14-18 dice; the die mechanics also still work within this range. However, once you've gone past that, things fall apart... and there are many things in SR4 that can be pushed to that level.

It's probably pointless to remind you that mfb was a playtester as well, and probably started with SR4 at around the same time you did. More than any of us, he can say he gave it a good try, and has honest reasons for his dislike.

I once played in an experimental game, where everyone started off with 1000 karma. At this stage, you could expect to face down Ryan Mercury and Scale in personal combat, and hope to win. Yes, the differences were huge; but you could stay within the same principles as a lower-powered game.

Honestly I care very little about what you think. I was taking valuable time from my work to clarify and expand on what was intended by the rules - as explained to me by the person who wrote them. I was explaining why certain deductions - which are not grounded in any rules reference in SR4 - are wrong and how the advanced rules for the Matrix will likely address them. Just like the possibility of teamwork has been misinterpreted - admittedly because the rules don't outright say it isn't possible, they simply don't state it is possible - the multi-commlink problem is to a large extent a false one because certain aspects of the Matrix still function similar to the way they did in SR3. However, using separate commlinks to safeguard your PAN is a valid tactic and works just like the corporate chokepoint node chain.

Unless of course you've made a number of wrong assumptions about the way multiple commlinks, subscriptions and access IDs work - which as far as I'm concerned you have.

Many people myself included believe there is nothing wrong with the Long Shot system in place, so I don't see a need to alter anything and it has been found to work the way the devs wanted in playtesting.

I suggest you actually sit down at a table and put this to the test. Others have. I do not advocate lifting the caps and if someone were to do so and ask my opinion, I'd suggest lifting them to Rating x2 producing dice pools that average one maybe two more successes. Regardless of the dicepool difference the linear progression is the great leveler not the modifiers and all you need is to stay alive long enough to make one lucky shot.

Actually, I am fully aware of exactly what mfb and crew playtested and what they didn't, I am also aware of exactly when his crew gave up on playtesting the game, and that he did not playtest the final iteration of the rules (and as far as I know has never actually played them). These included significant changes to combat, the matrix and even rigging.

I have yet to see evidence that you can't do the same thing in SR4. Not that that is relevant, SR4 wasn't designed for the gamer who plays a 1000 karma character, because that gamer and that style of play doesn't reflect the typical gamer and game in today's SR market.

What the heck are you on about? He who? The only playtesters here are myself and mfb, and mfb didn't exploit this "loophole", either in this thread or as a playtester, and if he did, he failed in his "duty as a playtester" because he didn't bring it up in his groups' reports. In fact, mfb will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure his group didn't provide much in the way of "loophole analysis". If anyone came up with an exploit it was Cain. Next time make sure you're in possession of the facts - or that at least your post makes sense.

I apologize mfb, I have no intention of singling you out and I'm sorry I do so above. I know you gave it your best shot and I have thanked you for your contributions (you know which ones). I will not pursue this discussion, because it can only degenerate further from this point and I really do have better things to do with my time.

That's one trick. There are others. Multi-commlinks so you can rapidly switch communications when one is compromised is another. But you're proving a point-- if the multi-commlink trick is so effective, why isn't everyone and his brother doing it? And then, things start to get unweildy on the big end, since everyone now needs fifteen tiers of access to protect themselves. Legitimate users get slowed to a crawl, data traffic snarls, and things start to break down again.

The response/system/active programs relationship is one of these problems, which needs to be addressed. Leaving aside the spiral of death issue, which can be easily house ruled away, it becomes way too easy to crash a system by simply uploading enough programs to reduce its Response-- and thus its System, and its IC-- to zero. Since Data Bombs and Encrypt are all programs, you've just lost almost all the security you had on your file.

And that *still* doesn't address the possibility of Teamwork test abuse. The Million Agent March is just the most obvious example. I can think of several others-- cross-linking a drone army to acquire a target for a missile, for example.

Which is where mfb's "flexibilty" argument comes into play. Guess what, the devs aren't "all gamers", or even "all Shadowrun gamers". People like different styles within their games, and they like a system that can accomodate those variances. You're essentially saying: "It works for us. Too bad if it doesn't work for you."

Once you've reached the point where your average is 10 successes, there's not much out there than can challenge you anymore. The linear progression makes sure of that. The more dice you roll, the less variability you'll see-- this is called "regression to the mean". So, once you're rolling 30+ dice, you'll see those 10 successes on a regular basis. Your characters' effectiveness is now defined by the number of dice they're throwing; that's a bit too much like a level-based system for my liking, where your levels determine your effectiveness.

Now, granted, in just about any multi-die system rolling 30 dice at once is pushing things. However, the fixed TN reduces the variability, and thus raises the power level accordingly. A floating TN system alters the variability either up or down, so it becomes a lot less predictable. Your dice are just one factor in determining the power of your character-- which is part of the setting of Shadowrun. You're good, but you're not *that* good yet, and the pecking order isn't perfectly clear.

Do you *really* want me to go back in this thread and show you all the times you have done exactly that? You said that if you GM fiated a character out of the game, you'd have a player who respected your GM abilities. That alone indicates that you seem to think the sledgehammer is a valid way to earn player respect.

Now, I noticed that you suddenly changed your definition of "mature" players as fitting the mold of the players I was describing. Why change your story now? Before, you said that mature players were the ones who blithely followed the GM decisions. Now, all of a sudden, they're discussing things with you! Wow, what a switch! The next thing you'll know, they'll be learning clever new tricks-- some of which, incidentally, will probably turn game-breaking. Mature players *learn*.

Now, I'll ask you nicely to stop the outright flames. I make snippy and snide comments, but I always stop short of an outright attack. You don't make me sick; I just have to wonder what kind of guy blows his cool just because someone disagrees with him.

Easier? I'd say a bit harder than a normal one, but it both happens quite easily if one does not pay attention.

Oh, not the players - the characters.

way to misquote me. that is, yes, one of the reasons i noted. it's hardly the main reason, let alone the only reason. my reasons for posting here have not changed since the last time i answered this question. if you don't get it, and you're interested in getting it, use the search function. if not, you might consider the fact that it's an even bigger waste of time asking about it as it allegedly is for me to make these posts.

Oh, I'm certainly adressing the issues you have, but apparently, you don't like what you are being told.

If you want to take part in an actual discussion, mfb, instead of just claiming things, you are always welcome.

And then you are extrapolating that as a general issue about how hard it is to challenge them at all.

As a sidenote, there isn't really a doubt about the mechanical behaviour of the chosen systems - the question is whether it does suit the style of play.

I'm talking about how close that application gets them to overall sucess, i.e. how hard it is to challenge them in general.

The point where it started was how one does challenge very experienced characters - and the only conclusion, given the setup of SR4, is that you can mix experience levels way better.