Yep, you lose flexibility of dice pools to ease of stat + skill. Who ever said otherwise?

when did I do that?

Nope, but why do you think I would, and what does it have to do with the discussion at hand?

Again, you're reading what you want t read, not what I wrote. Keep trying, eventually you'll get it.

Bascially, if my views were so black and white I'd have long ago been able to explain myself even to you.

I can't speak for playtest material, but fiction guidelines have nothing to do with how the game is supposed to be played, only how they want their stories told.

That's nice, but don't you realize that this is a bit outdated information?
The game does not only restrict itself to such a narrowsetting, but even mentions alternative ones.

You're joking.

Let's take a look at character creation alone. First of all, we have a fixed number of Edges/Flaws you can take. That doesn't scale with the power level of your game; so even if you're playing a low-end game, you can gain up to 35 points to boost your character. And in a low end game, that's means a lot more than the same 35 in a high end game.

Second, we have the skill caps. No matter how hard you try, you cannot start with 3 skills at 5. We're not even talking maxed-out, here; you can't even be expert in those areas... which means, even though you're playing a 600 point character, your firearm skills are no better than the average SWAT team member (see p 109). Skill groups are capped as well, so that really messes things up. Power levels are thus forced downward.

Third, we have attributes. No matter how many points you have, you can only one stat at racial max. Even if you've got a 10,000 BP character, you can't have more than one stat at a 6. You can't have a character who's at max in more than one area, regardless of how high-powered you want your game to be.

Fourth, we have cash. Cash is capped at 50 points, for 250,000 . Which is plenty for a standard game; but if you want a high-powered game, you're not going to be able to afford the betaware that's now availiable. And in a lower game, you can still buy as much as before, which means your stats will be relatively higher. In fact, in a lower powered game, better gear becomes more essential, since it's the easiest way to bolster your stats.

*All* of these areas need to be scaled to truly accomodate varying power levels. The only area that scales automatically is the BP restriction on attributes; you can only spend 1/2 your BP, which means lower powered characters are guaranteed to have lower powered attributes. But the game is most defintiely *not* easily scaled to fit multiple playstyles. It's designed for 400 point characters, and doesn't handle characters outside of that range very well at all.

Really now? You mean, you never said, oh, maybe in the first page of this thread:

That's the biggest example of GM fiat I've ever seen. I've learned that it's much better to say: "I don't like that because I think it's an exploit. Is there another way we can get you what you want?" and proceed to discuss options. *You* wrote it, not me. If you care to backpedal and admit I was right all along, I promise to not rub it in.

In other words, you don't like what I'm saying, and don't have any logical arguments to counter it.

Moon Hawk has it right. You'd need guidelines on how to scale things properly, otherwise it's too easy to miss things. If a system is designed to be easily scaled, like GURPS, it'll give detailed guidelines as to how to do so. SR4 just says: "Hand out less points", which isn't really all that helpful. You'd need to reduce everything I mentioned, as well as starting availiability, to really limit a campaign (and possibly even restrict gear ratings as well).

Under GURPS, for example, starting cash and gear can be readily scaled to fit your campaign, and the various edges that increase your money are based on a fixed starting point. The max number of flaw points availiable is also easily adjusted, with examples of what you can expect at certain ratios.

In order to fix SR4's scaleability issues, I'd suggest doing a lot of what Moon hawk is suggesting; additionally, I'd consider altering the cash/BP ratio to reduce the nuyen you gain-- maybe for a lower powered game, you only get 2500 per point. None of these are *easy* fixes, of course-- which does go to show that SR4 isn't really very scaleable at all. You'd need some major changes to truly accomodate a range of power levels. Still, it can be fixed.

No, actually I believe I'm paraphrasing Synner.

I believe I've adequately demonstrated that simply handing out more BPs at chargen doesn't magically create a higher powered game. Similarily, simply handing out less BP's doesn't instantly create a lower powered game.

Shadowrun is a game with so many intricate moving parts, the thought that you can alter everything and keep it balanced with one single trick has got to be a joke. That applies to *all* editions of Shadowrun, not just 4th-- Shadowrun has never been a game that scaled well, and 4th is not an improvement. You've always had to adjust multiple things in order to scale the game appropriately; and you've always had to balance the changes very carefully, lest you break something.

No matter what the press releases say, Shadowrun is not now, nor has it ever been, "scalable to multiple playstyles and power levels so as to satisfy as many people as they could." The game mechanics have always assumed a certain default power level for the PC's; the game becomes overly lethal if you stray too low from them, and starts breaking down if you go too far over. The problem is, SR4 reaches that breaking point very quickly-- the caps show what the theoretical maximums are, and they're reached awfully fast.

Again: it doesn't and they aren't. You can come close to the (existing) theoretical maximums if you hyperspecialize at creation (dice pools close to 20), but that's a character design choice and one limited to a narrow field of specialization - the usefulness of which varies from game to game and gamemaster to gamemaster. A year's table top play tells me that those theoretical maximums are not reached awfully fast in actual play. I'm sure you have a comparable experience to bring to the discussion...

The suggestions in SR4 for scaling up or down the power levels of campaigns are the most basic and simplest ways to wing it for the time being - you know, just like the suggestions for scaling power levels in SR3 compared to those in the SRComp - and are not meant to be exclusive, exhaustive or complete.

The material in the basic rule book is intended to provide, go figure, a basic framework. It's meant to offer a default level of play and style that is what the devs intended for the default SR setting (which by the way hinges on a chargen character no matter how naturally talented being a relative newcomer rather than a grizzled veteran of the shadows). It is also meant to be "scalable to multiple playstyles and power levels," while using the default setting as a reference. That isn't to say the basic rules as they stand allow you to scale everything in a balanced and orderly fashion, but the system does, and future supplements will. Whether the high (and low) power levels that the advanced rules (when they see the light of day) will eventually allow are high enough for you is another issue.

When did I say it was because my players were immature? When did I say I hadn't discussed it with the players beforehand? In my game, you can't overrun Z-O with agents. You call it GM Fiat, I call it players and GMs wanting a believable world. What I call it is right, because I'm there seeing what's hapening. What you're calling it is wrong because you're only taking what you've seen and trying to force it into your own beliefs about the surrounding situations. Nice try though.

If "I've already reponded to that" means "I have no response" then yes, you're absolutely right. But of course, it doesn't, so you're absolutely wrong. Nice try though.

You know, I'm really trying to avoid the SR3-4 comparisons here. I'll say that neither system is particularily good at it, and leave it there.

Which translates to mean: "It's not scaleable, but we'll advertise it as such, and promise to fix it later." You're contradicting yourself, here-- you're saying that it's both scaleable and nonscaleable at the same time.

Let's use other games as a comparison. GURPS is perhaps the champion of scaleability; every campaign world has a reccomended point value, and provides sample characters for comparison. It scales very easily to any desired level, and gives guidelines as to how to scale everything else appropriately. SR4 doesn't even come close, and I doubt that apocryphal future supplements will be able to do much to narrow the gap.

D20's a bit trickier, since the default assumption is a 1st-level character-- rock bottom. We can't really scale it downward. However, we can scale it upward very easily, simply by increasing the character levels. Creating an epic-level character that's truly epic is a trivial task. Again, SR4 can't even come close to that; it'll never scale as easily.

In both cases, we have scaleability baked right into the core rulebooks. And they're making the same scaleability claims that you are right now. I'd say that the SR4 system certainly doesn't match the competition in this area, even though they're making similar claims.

First, where did you get the idea that I personally like high-powered games? I'm defending the concept that people prefer a variety of playing styles, low and high powered. SR4 does not do a good job with either.

Second, the system does *not* allow for high and low power levels adequately. At the high end, you end up with so many dice, you'll never fail. At the low end, you run out of dice too quickly, and start autofailing everything you try. The system of Xd6 vs fixed TN, where penalties remove dice, creates this problem. It's in the core mechanic of the game.

In other words: You're right, they're wrong, and if they don't like it they can leave. You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper, here.

Your response was not a logical argument. It was:"Not in my game you can't." A declaration is not the same as an argument. If that is your answer, then you have no argument.

Response != Logical, reasoned argument.

We'll be waiting for you to post one.