What's the big deal? How often do you expect someone to enter a situation where they're unaware and can't even default? If it's often, that person should get an incompetence flaw. If not, then they don't.

Earlier you said:

What rules are you reading? You can have rating 0 in a skill simply by not putting any points into it. Or do you think that everybody gets all skills at rating 1?

In fact, and I quote

It's right there in the purchasing skills section (pg. 75).

It's the only way to be "unaware" in a skill, a wholly different (and incredibly rarer) animal. "Unaware" is such an uncommon occurrence they could have ignored it altogether and just tossed in a line somewhere saying "some characters may have had no experience whatsoever in something, and thus could not even default to an attribute (example: a luddite and technological knowledges)."

Now, that *really* makes no sense. If someone desires a high powered game, for example, simply ramping up the BP's isn't enough-- you need to also lift the skill and attribute caps. Otherwise, they don't become more powerful, they just become more unwieldy. Obviously, this is an individual GM thing, and should be left to the "GM approval" stage. However, why are power levels so constrained, while gaping loopholes and rule imbalances were considered ok?

Power levels are definitely an individual thing. Massive imbalances between edges and flaws causes damage to the entire character creation system-- and a working chargen system is a necessity for *all* GMs.

Again it's all contingent on what you qualify as a high powered game. In my game it would be enough to increase the BP allocation because my players are comfortable with the closed system and know how to play to its strengths. In other games it right require lifting both. What's "more unwieldly" to you is "more versatile" to someone else.

That's the other fundamental misunderstanding we're having. FanPro doesn't believe power levels are "so constrained", they are in fact "balanced with the closed performance range." And I can pretty much vouch for the fact that it doesn't believe there are "gaping loopholes" (a few minor ones, which are adequately covered by using common sense and the flex in the rules themselves, but no "gaping" ones) nor that there are "massive imbalances between" Positive and Negative Qualities that you seem to think (not that we're finished with those). For some reason a number of people seem to agree. Go figure. Note - this is not to say SR4 is without problems or loopholes.

Because you have to be fair about who deserves the extra bonus points. You can always bend the rules, but if you do it for one player, you have to be really careful if you're not allowing it for all players.

My mistake. I meant "unaware". You can't become "unaware" in a category without buying Incompetence of some stripe.

Again: So why did they constrain the power levels so much? As you're pointing out, for some games it might require lifting both. But why are the mechanics designed so it takes a serious rewrite of the core rules and assumptions to pull it off? *Especially* in relation to letting something like the Incompetence trick fall through the cracks?

There's enough people here on the forums griping about the caps that I'd debate that last point. That includes SR4 fans as well as critics. And we've gone over enough "gaping loopholes" on these forums as well, enough to have developed a full chapter of house rules designed to deal with them.

As for the "massive imbalances" within edges and flaws: again, let's compare Incompetence versus Uneducated. Uneducated blocks you out of what, 19 active skills? Plus a whole host of technical knowlege skills, and quite a few others; for this, you gain +20 points. If you took 7 Incompetences in the same areas, you'd still be able to take 12 of those active skills, and have full access to the technical/high-level education knowledge skills; for this, you get +35 points. The Incompetence route has less than half the limitations of Uneducated, and provides you almost double the benefit. Yup, that looks balanced to me.

Again: They're not.

There's no serious rewrite involved either of the rules or the assumptions. You can change the caps to rating x2 or no caps at all without changing anything else. At the high-end of the tweak you can even shift to an open system but that's your choice for your game and doesn't reflect the core mechanic and the performance range FanPro envisioned for the game. Though in fact the linear progression of the fixed TN system means the effective results aren't particularly unbalanced until you go quite a way above rating x2.

Incompetence didn't fall between the cracks. A control was put in place that this minor issue to be adjusted to the taste of each game, it's called "GM approval" and it comes up even before game play starts.

Which point are you debating? That some people seem to agree? I didn't say everyone agrees. What does that tell us? Precious little.

We've got people here on DSF that are handing out 6-7 karma for a game session, when the typical handout in FanPro products is closer to that for an entire adventure. There are people here who offer 30k nuyen per head on for a run when the payoffs FanPro suggests in their products are less than half that. Both those examples skew the development curve in any version of Shadowrun as much as you believe the caps do since they directly impact the way karma is invested.

I disagree, I have yet to see anything I consider a "gaping loophole" on these forums that the rules don't allow for prevention of abuse - some mistakes were made and have been errataed, other issues will be addressed in upcoming FAQs. The Incompetence thing is a good example. The control is built into GM approval of what is viable in his setting. Care to offer other examples?

As usual you're focusing on the mechanical benefits. You're choosing to ignore that both Qualities are roleplaying tools, they represent significantly different things to the characters that take them. Uneducated means exactly what it says. You have no formal education. This has a number of other implications in play besides the obvious skill restrictions. Incompetence is entirely different, it reflects natural ineptitude (as opposed to aptitude) in one skill set. Players taking one or the other are going for completely different character concepts.

If it helps I have it on good authority that the upcoming SR4 FAQ will advise (as in "suggest", not "rule") that GMs only allow multiple Incompetences be taken in skills that are directly relevant to their campaign and fit the character concept.

i really don't see how you can say this. there are hard, built-in limits on just about every possible area in which a character can grow--limits which most characters can reach very easily. there is a concretely defined point where the game says "you can not go any higher." how is that not a constraint on the power level?

furthermore, even if those caps were removed, the game would still be largely unplayable due to its low tolerances for higher levels of power. once you hit 30 dice or so, it's simply not worth rolling anymore--unless the GM manages to contrive a situation in which you are not allowed to make a roll (which gets old real fast), it's simply impossible to stack up enough modifiers against you to make failure possible. heck, at that point, it's hard to stack up enough modifiers to significantly reduce your chances at getting a resounding success.

basically, even if the power levels weren't constrained by caps, they'd be constrained by playability.

Apparently some hapless people can't handle that flexibility.

As mfb pointed out, the caps do come into play fairly quickly, and can't be broken easily without some major changes to the way the game handles skills and attributes.

So, you don't let the GM's decide what the max caps of their game is going to be, but you allow them to decide freely rather or not they can catch an abuse written into the core chargen rules? That sounds really inconsistant to me.

I already have, in the first page of this thread. Here's a few highlights:

• The Edge vs Longshot test problems.
  
• Teamwork test abuseability.
  
• Multi-commlink usage. (See the "commlink sanity" thread for an example of how a starting character can break into Zurich Orbital without effort.)
  
• The character generation system's various exploits.
  
• Sprites.
  

You can't fix any of these things without altering some fundamental assumptions of SR4. You cannot fix these things within the rules, you have to go way outside of them to solve it.

That's because roleplaying is an individual thing. Not everyone buys a game for the roleplaying aids, some players are perfectly capable of bringing that aspect of the game in by themselves. However, everyone shares in the mechanical edges and flaws of a game system. Generic systems are an excellent example of this-- they seldom, if ever, offer any roleplaying aids in the core rules. They do provide stable mechanical systems, though, and people seem to roleplay in those games just fine.

I guess we have different ideas of what "serious rewrite" means. IMO, telling the players "get 500 points and ignore the caps" is a footnote, not a serious rewrite. A serious rewrite would be one that switched to variable TNs.

And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: Can you provide a legitimate reason for someone to take Incompetence x 6 instead of uncouth? You implied that it was possible but then completely ignore requests for proof.

Not a problem. If you don't like there being chances that someone can't succeed, just make sure they always get at least one die, or at least one die per edge, or something else. None of them are major rewrites of the system.

Please elucidate. And try to avoid tossing out situations that the GM won't just say "that's silly, any other ideas?"

Haven't gotten that far yet, but you've definitely grabbed my interest. I'll have to go find that thread now.

Not a problem. It's that whole "GM approval" thing. When sitting down to run a game a GM has an idea of what power level he's looking for. If someone finds an exploit that breaks that power level, he is required by the rules to veto it. He could instead alter his game assumptions, but that's his choice. Nobody has to let a character who is incompetent in 15 different illogical skills into their game.

Shadowrun's ruleset is oo deeply invested in its worldview to be considered a game that people will buy without the idea of roleplaying in a Shadowrun environment. Some might, but the percentage of buyers doing that is almost assuredly so low that they can be ignored when it comes to deciding what merits and flaws to use.

You and I disagree on what "way outside" means, but that's cool. Can you tell me honestly that yuo don't have any GM set limits in your SR3 games, and that you use every single rule as written? If not, then you've had to go "way outside" the rules to fix things. You accept imperfection in your pet version but villify it in another. Where's the logic in that?

Ok, I stopped reading at page 4, so I'm not sure exactly what the attack strategy was, but I'm assuming it has something to do with a pack of agents. But no matter what the actual route to victory was, it's easily stopped: The GM Says No.

I'll ask again: can you honestly tell me that your SR3 games have never had something come up where the GM had to say no because it was a rule exploit? Or because it didn't fit the flavor of the campaign?

If you can, then it's obvious to me that in all the years of playing SR3, your group never looked into the rules as deeply as they have into the SR4 rules in the short while they've been out. There are tons of abuses, loopholes, and exploits available in SR3, SR2, SR1, and indeed any game out there.

If your expectation is a game free from those, you're doomed to failure and a life of always playing ancient games house ruled all to hell and back.

Even ignoring the caps, you run across the price limits. For example, if you allow unlimited skills at chargen, then you run across this problem-- if the top point costs 8 BP, what is the new top level set at? You'd also have to lift the augmented maximums, which changes things dramatically-- many of the game assumptions are based on those caps being in place.

And there are several examples. For one, you can always have a character who's a mean, grizzled drill sargeant-- completely socially inept, but is an excellent teacher (high Instruction skill). He'd have 5 social incompetences, 2 others in whatever categories, would be effectively "Uncouth" in just about every social situation, but would keep his high skills. Another example would be someone who's socially withdrawn, as opposed to a sociopath (check the Uncouth description). The big scary brute also comes to mind-- the large troll with a lot of Incomptences can be very intimidating, while the Uncouth one can't scare a mouse (he can't default, and it's an opposed test).

Infirm provides us with better examples. If you bought seven incompetences, you could still keep Perception and Navigation. Pick any other seven you want; you've effectively replicated a character who's a "couch potato" yet still mentally alert. If you have bought Infirm instead, you'd have someone who's not just out of shape, but oblivious as well.

There's actually several problems working here. The one you describe can't be fixed by always giving them one die, since that runs into the other problem: past a certain point, the odds don't change. You can pile on the modifiers as high as you like, your odds of success or failure are identical. The current Edge mechanic actually makes this worse, since high Edge characters are more likely to succeed at difficult tasks than highly skilled ones. SR4 has both extremes baked into the system-- autofailure or autosuccess are facts at the extreme ends.

For example, let's have a skilled marksman who's trying to shoot a Steel Lynx. However, he's got a ton of modifiers against him, reducing his pool to zero. He can't even try if he doesn't have Edge left; and even if he does, he can't score many successes if his Edge isn't high. But if he tosses his gun to the Seriously injured Mr. Lucky (edge 8, -3 in wound modifiers), who doesn't even have the longarms skill at all, Mr. Lucky can go for burst fire and call a shot to bypass armor (an additional -1, -2 and -9, respectively) and still expect to succeed.

Or, there's the Fastjack problem. Let's say that Fastjack has Logic 7, Software 6. He's out to code a Command program for a friend of his; his friend only has a Response 2 commlink, so that's all he's going to try for. Fastjack can also be presumed to have Superior facilites (+1), plenty of reference material (+1), and has Augmented Reality enhancements availiable (+2). He's going to succeed easily, within the base time of one month.

Mr. Lucky is also trying this. He's got Logic 3, Software 1, so he's not apt to pull it off in less than the base time. So, he throws away his reference materials (-2), uses an old cyberdeck instead of a commlink (-2), and sets up shop in the back room of a troll thrash metal club that hasn't been cleaned in years (Terrible Conditions, -4). He now spends a point of Edge. Mr. Lucky can *buy* enough successes to turn out a funtionally idenditcal program just as quickly as Fastjack did. (Yes, a GM can rule that Mr. Lucky's program is far from perfect, and Fastjack's is just cooler overall. However, by the rules, they both have to work the same.)

You can't fix this by pushing the dice modifiers down below zero, because then you still have impossible tasks. You pretty much have to go to a floating TN system to address this issue.

The "commlink sanity" thread went over one of the biggest ones. Basically, let's say that you use a bunch of commlinks loaded with agents. All the agents and the decker launch a massive teamwork hacking test. If you've just got 20 rating 4 agents with rating 4 Exploit, you can assume that you'll get about +100 dice to your hacking roll. If we assume Z-O is a rating 10 ubersystem, it'll still fall in less than one action. (Even better-- have an otaku do this. Once Z-O is cracked, a Crack sprite steps in and Supresses the alarm.) Basically, Z-O would need to be a rating 100+ system to handle a 10-commlink attack. The SR4 system has pretty much broken down at that point.

But that still does not mean that major mechanical gaffes can be forgiven in the name of "roleplay". People can bring the roleplay in by themselves. But they can't do without the mechanics, otherwise they wouldn't be buying the rulebooks. They can get roleplay material out of novels or movies, they don't need core books for that.

Actually, no. Every fix I implemented in the SR3 rules, I fixed by going back to the core mechanic: Xd6 vs floating TN. I dropped open tests in favor of that, the hideous Maneuver score, and so on. I didn't ever have to rewrite the basic die rolling system to accomodate tasks at the high or low end. It's not "way outside", it's using the system at a more basic level.

[edit]

The same thing applies if you use 20 starting deckers or otaku. Using Agents just means you can go back to one player. Sure, you as the GM can say no-- but then, you have to answer why. If you come up with some pseudotechnical gibberish, you're faced with the question-- if people can do it, why can't agents? And if you just hand down GM fiat, you're definitely going to have a disgruntled player.

[Edit 2]

Of course not. However, I didn't expect to find the exploits in SR4 as quickly as I did. Champions is the system I've abused the most, and it took me a full week to find and develop my favorite loopholes. What's more, the increased predicitability of SR4 has made it much easier to calculate the breaking points. I don't ask for a perfect system, I just ask for one that's not *easily* exploited.

James, in the space of two sentences, you have encompassed the entirety of Cain's current existence on Dumpshock.

That's not an example. I said 6 social incompetences, not 5 and 2 others. Nice try though.

You mean he's "antisocial." Oh wait, that's in the Uncouth description.

Yet again, a character with 5 social incompetences. Nice try still though. You said that he was buying incompetence 6 times to get the effects of one other flaw, and was doing it legitimately. You've yet to show how that's possible.

That's what spending years in front of a TV as a couch potato will do to you, make you oblivious. Couch potatoes are not mentally alert. Infirm + 1 rank in Perception gives you a couch potato who is still mntally alert (assuming a halfway decent intuition, which should be a strong suit for acharacter meant to be non-physical. See, no need to "rape the system."

SR3 does the exact same thing, except it makes you waste time rolling against TN 42 if you really want to try soemthing impossible.

That's the way the world works. Luck can and will sometimes beat skill. But a highly skilled character who is also lucky will beat them both. Like it o not there are things taht are impossible to do. a standing high jump of 87' is impossible. If you want to let the players roll dice to try, by all means come up with a system that does it. I prefer to just say "no" and keep the game moving.

Only if the GM is an idiot. Or ddi you not read the part in the buyign successes rule where it says, and I quote,

If you, as a gamemaster, allow someone in that situation to buy successes then you should probably move over to the other side of the screen for a while and give your grey matter a chance to regrow.

So you're saying that when taken to rediculous extremes bad things happen? I could have told you that without 9 pages of a thread.

If they just want a generic ruleset, they're not likely to be getting Shadowrun, are they? They'll instead go get some other ruleset that's supposed to be generic, and will have it's own flaws.

So instead of bastardizing a system one way, you went the other. Good job. Now you've got people breaking into Zurich Orbital in a single combat turn because they can roll a 6 23 times in a row. Given enough tries, they'll eventually succeed. And they'll do it from an airport cyber terminal through a stream of Netzero popups. Or is taking your ruleset to the extreme not allowed?

Nope. I'll have a player who respects my GMing skills. None of the people I play with would honestly expect my campaign to allow instant hacking of Zurich Orbital because of a flaw in the system. Any more than they'd expect instant hacking of Zurich Orbital because of a fluke die roll. Worst case scenario I respond "good job, now make another character while the rest of us play Shadowrun."

Then I give you Shadowrun 4 + a GM worth the title. Or Shadowrun 3 + a GM worth the title. Or any game system ever invented + a GM worth his title.

SR4 has the benefit of simplicity in it's core system. But that causes problems for some people. Those people don't have to use SR4, or can freely change it as they see fit. The same holds true for every single game system out there, including SR3.

I guess I just don't understand your point. If all you're trying to say is there are flaws in the game, then congratulations, you've taken somewhere around (I'm guessing) a couple hundred anti-SR4 posts to say what anyone will tell you in a single one. I have yet to see anyone say that SR4 is the shining light of future gaming.

It seems to me that you're pised off because your flaswless ssytem (SR3 with some common sense injected) is different than the people on this board's flawless system (SR4 with some common sense injected). Here's an idea: don't be surprised that people on an SR4 board like SR4. Do you go to Coke.com and shout about how Pepsi rules?

And that's exactly the kind of redundancy you'd have to have. Even Cain admits to having house ruled SR3 to close its exploits and loopholes.

So you fixed the fact that the supposedly ultimate sniper rifle pales in comparison to a regular hunting rifle because of all the downsides it has? The fact that no sniper with half a brain would ever buy a BArrett when a Ranger Arms + APDS is available?

And you did it by going back to the Xd6 vs floating TN system? I'd be really interested in hearing about that.

Antisocial Personality Disorder. Also known as "Sociopath". Socially withdrawn is different than antisocial.

He did. He bought six Incompetences, is effectively Uncouth in just about every situation, except he can teach anything to anyone/scare the bejebers out of you. Legit character concepts, all according to the RAW, and just incidentally happening to rape a gaping maw in the rules.

You can get the exact same effect by buying seven Incompetences, buying Perception and Navigation, and still have points left over. *Especially* if you want your Perception to be fairly high. You're certainly not going to have a character who's both Infirm and highly Perceptive.

First of all-- I'm not the one bringing up SR3, you are. Bull has asked us to nicely stop, so I'm not going to do a comparison. I will say that I've seen people roll 42+ over the years on exploding dice, but that's not just SR. In the meanwhile, please can the SR3-4 references, since they just seem to aggravate the situation.

Out of respect for the moderator's wishes, I am hereby ignoring the parts of your posts that request a Sr3-4 comparison. I'd ask that you do the same.

It's always better to let players try and fail, than to never let them try in the first place. Famous Last Stands are usually against impossible odds, but if characters always ran from them, there would be a lot less excitement in the game.

And why *wouldn't* a GM allow it? He's not taking out Lowfyr with a spitwad, he's just writing a low-grade program. We're talking a rating two program, with a full month to work in. That sounds like a waste of Edge to me, so why would any sensible GM think to ban it?

It's not "ridiculous extremes". It's well within the reach of a starting character. With Logic 1. What I'm saying is, a system that allows it's most powerful opposition to be taken out so easily has got some serious mistakes running through it.

And I know you'd be mistaken. If a character has dreamed of craking Z-O, and it's baked into his character history, there's no reason to not allow it. You wouldn't have a player who respected you; you'd have a player who resented you for quashing an otherwise-workable and well-developed character concept.

People respect your GMing skills when you *don't* hand out GM fiat. You talk to your players beforehand, you don't shut them down mid-stream with an Orbital Bovine Bombardment.

What I'm saying is, the flaws are enormous. In comparison to other games, such as nWoD, GURPS 4th, Savage Worlds, even Champions-- they all do a lot of the same things SR4 tries for, only they do it better. Asking for a system without major holes isn't a terrible thing-- other publishers do it all the time.

Where have I ever said SR3 was flawless? Or even hinted at it? I've said that SR4 is flawed, IMO fatally in many respects. That's meaningless to SR3. Like I said, I'm not doing the comparisons here, because Bull and Adam have asked us nicely to stop.

If it's a valid character concept it isn't a rape of the rules, even if it doesn't fulfill the criteria you laid out . All it takes is some situations where those incompetnences are actually flaws and the system stays sturdy. And like I said, I might even allow that character, if I felt the flaws were really needed. Keep in mind "Incompetent" doesn't mean "not any good." It means you're "unaware." Not, "you're no good at social niceties." But "has no idea how to even try." Not "doesn't know you're supposed to eat with certain forks." It's "doesn't know you're supposed to eat with forks." Does your drill seargent really deserve incompetence for etiquette in that light? If so, how did he ever achieve the status of officer when he can barely converse with his superiors?

In which case you've stayed true to the flaw as written. Good job.

I'm not asking for a comparison or berating another editon. I'm asking you why, in your opinion, it is that flaws in SR3 are playable, whereas flaws in SR4 are not (by flaws I mean rules holes, not merits and flaws). If you don't want to answer that (or can't) that's fine, but it's not in violation of anything in any moderator post I've ever seen post. and here's a quote:

Hmmm.... Question asked. Ok, what's that mean? It means you may respond.

So then I should be able to sit and roll dice until my three year old solves the age old dilemma "why are we here?" Or until my blind guy with a faulty rifle shoots the wings off a fly 2 miles away?

Because it's not possible for someone to just "get lucky" and write a program. And because it's not allowed, by the actual rules. If you want to throw the self-imposed limits in the rules out the window, then of course crazy things will happen.

There's a huge difference between "an integral part of the character" and "rolling incredibly improbable dice." If you want your character to be focused on taking out Z-O, go for it. But don't expect to sit down and start rolling until you get an 83. Expect to work at it. I've never had a player of mine get mad when I told them they couldn't kill a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at first level, or anything remotely similar.

You gave your list of what you consider the flaws to be. I gave you reason why they aren't flaws. Why is your opinion valid while mine is not?

Sargeant's aren't really officers, for one. And depending on where you are, you can reach that level through sheer ability. Certainly, among the NCO positions, there isn't nearly as much political infighting for rank as there is for comissions. There's a lot more NCO spots availiable, for one.

You seem to have gotten quite heated about the topic, so I'd prefer to keep things civil. However, the short answer is: of the *many* flaws in SR3, the core dice mechanic-- Xd6 vs Floating TN-- was never one of them. I feel the core mechanic of most every Xd6 vs Fixed TN system, where modifiers remove dice, has several serious flaws. For example, in nWoD, you can pile on the modifiers as high as you like; your odds aren't going to be any worse than 1:10.

First of all, it *is* allowed by the rules. If Mr. Lucky has a Software skill, he can write programs. You don't like the idea that he can buy successes? By the rules, he still gets to roll 8 dice, and he's even more likely to make it that way.

The actual rules allow for people to push their modifiers well below zero, spend a point of edge, and have the exact same chances of success as if they were trying something a lot less strenuous. In the first example, Mr. Lucky would have the same chance of hitting if he went for a normal shot, instead of trying to bypass 9 points of armor. There's no reason for him to *not* try for the amazing stunt.

In SR4, you don't have to wait until you roll exceptionally well. Assuming Z-O is a uber-system of rating 10, your 10 commlinks packing 20 agents are going to provide you with a ton of dice. Assuming rating 4 agents with rating 4 exploit, they could potentially *buy* 40 successes. If you disallow straight purchases-- which you are well within your rights to do-- we can expect 52.8 successes, even more than before. Assuming you have Hacking 5 and Exploit 5, you're now rolling 63 dice versus Z-O-- again, we can just buy enough successes to get Admin access, and will likely have even more if we roll instead of buy.

The cost of this? 1100 for the commlinks, 44,000 for the Response upgrades, 2500 for the System upgrade, 10,000 for the Agent program, and 5000 for the Exploit. Total: 62,600 , or 12.5 BPs.

I have never said your opinion is invalid. Obviously, I believe my opinion is superior-- otherwise, why would I have it as my opinion? But no, your opinions are not invalid, and I hope you don't think I'm trying to belittle you.

NCO includes the letter "O." Basically what you're saying is that if you're really good at your job it doesn't matter that you just pissed on the general's daughter?

It's not me that doesn't like buying successes. It's the rules. You can't buy successes unless you have an exceptionally large dice pool. Being limited to your edge is not an exceptionally large pool.

Yep. Other than the GM interjecting common sense.

You're mixing arguments (which I originally did). My response to SR4's ability to hack Z-O like that was "the GM has to interject some common sense." I then expanded that example to include the guy in SR3 sitting down, rolling 83 6s in a row, and thereby hacking Z-O from an airport terminal, from sure luck (i.e. the "thousand monkeys approach"). It was just one of the millions of crazy things that being a slave to the "variable TNs allow anything" stance lets happen. I can jump to the moon, balance the eiffel tower on my nose, and kill Lofwyr with a single shot all at the same time as long as my dice are hot enough.

Seeing the player's face as you say "good job, now let's actually play a game of Shadowrun": priceless.

I won't bother to go around digging up quotes of you belittling people, as we both know they're there.

the thing i don't like about SR4 is, it's a lot easier to do crazy things like that than it is in many other systems. sure, in any system, there's a point at which the GM says "okay, i know the rules technically allow this, but it's just insane so i'm saying you can't do it." in SR4, you hit that point far too early for the tastes of many of us.

Okay, tell you what. Find yourself a sargeant in any of the armed forces, and tell him he's really an officer. Just make sure your medical coverage is paid up first.

The rules expressly allow you to trade 4 dice for 1 success. Page 55-56, in the Game Concepts chapter. If you've got an Edge of 4, you can buy 1 success. If you've got an Edge of 8, you can buy two. You're free to rule that a given situation is too stressful or has too much as stake to warrant a straight buy, but you *can* do it with an Edge as low as 4.

It's called the "infinite monkeys" approach, and the problem is the odds of such an incident happening are astronomical. Your premise is based on this quote: "Given an infinite number of monkeys, with an infinite supply of paper, and an infinite supply of typewriters, they will eventually recreate Hamlet." There's a number of misassumptions about this approach; among them is the assumption that the monkeys will act in a perfectly random fashion. Since no dice is *perfectly* random, we could see that it's actually impossible to get a specific roll. You also either need an infinite amount of time or an infinite number of monkeys to pull it off-- either you're making an infinite number of rolls simultaneously, or you've got infinite time to make rerolls in. With only a thousand die rollers, you're looking at an awfully long time; and at one roller, hitting certain numbers on an exploding d6 will exceed the estimated lifetime of the universe.

Also, as mfb pointed out, once you use Edge and invoke the rule of six, you have the *exact* same problem. You might be looking at 14 succeses on one die instead of a TN of 83, but the result is exactly the same. And I might add that it's much easier to get 14 successes in SR4 than it is to reach a TN of 83 in any Xd6 vs floating TN system.

In SR3 you can roll a huge number and perform an otherwise impossible task becaus there's no point at which the system says "stop rolling." In d20 a farmer can crit a great wyrm dragon just by rolling 2 twenties. If you use one of the dumber variants, he can kill it by rolling 3.

Wow, you showed me. Of cuorse, the fact that he's whizzing on the general's daughter may make him a bit too busy to bother with me.

You're missing the point where it expressly forbids buying them unless you're unlikely to fail and/or have a large dice pool. It's not me saying it can't be done, it's right there in the rules.

Wrong, the expected time for it to happen will, but if it happens on the first try, you just stop right there. I'm not saying you're going to consistently jump to the moon, but saying "it should be possible" is IMO incredibly silly and awaste of time.

Thank you, I know what I meant. 1,000 monkeys can do the exact same thing, it just takes more luck. Your problem with SR4 boils down to: "One monkey (a.k.a. PC) should be able to write Hamlet, if he rolls well enough, but SR4 doesn't allow it."

The discussion was successes off of one die. Getting 14 successes off one die is almost exactly as probable as hitting TN 83. It's actually (if my spur of the moment count is right) slightly harder. and TN 83 means a hell of a lot more in SR3 then 14 successes means in SR4, at least in open tests.

Which it why I would never say "ok, spend your edge and roll, let's see if you can make it to the moon." I would instead say "that's impossible, let's move on." Note that I would do this in any system, not just SR4.

incorrect. in SR3, you can achieve a minimal level of success on one hot die. rolling a 67 in SR3 means that you got one success--which can be dodged, soaked, resisted, whatever. in SR4, if you roll a 67, you win. and in d20, rolling a crit on a great dragon doesn't mean much if you're 1st level. yay, you did 10 damage to the dragon--a minimal level of success. in SR4, a single hot die can achieve the maximum level of success. you're much more likely to jump to the moon in SR4.

Not quite. In SR4, only edge augmented tests are subject to the vagaries of a single hot die. In other words, only those tests where a character decides "man, I really need to be lucky on this" will be capable of such extremes of luck. The rest of the time you're limited by your attribute and skill.

And yippee, you've scored a single success. That means you've just barely done what you set out to do. If you're trying to take out Lowfyr with a peashooter, you haven't staged up your damage.

..."or when the situation is non-threatening and non-stressful." That's right there in the rules as well, which is why I put up the second Mr. Lucky example. Besides which, if you read the *next* page, you'll see a little table that gives you the dice:success ratio for buying successes. You can do it with 4 dice. I see nothing that restricts character with more than four but less than X dice from buying successes, assuming the other circumstances are right.

Actually, you're not factoring in the reroll time. Given a high enough number, the simple time spent picking up and rolling the dice will consume more time than the person is likely to live.

Not at all. My problems with SR4 include the fact that that past a certain point, the difficulty of a roll does not scale with the difficulty of a task. It goes from completely impossible to completely easy, with little room in the middle.

And here's the thing: my scenario is not only likely, it's the most probable outcome given the setup. Your scenario is assuming a single astronomical roll, which *still* doesn't do you any good--in SR3, you needed multiple successes, since all System tests were opposed tests.

And you still are hitting the wrong parts of the infinite monkey theorem. You don't need more luck, you need more time.

First of all, they're identical. That's why I threw out that number. Second, the open test was a secondary mechanic, and not one that I've been defending. Like I said, I greatly prefer the Xd6 vs Floating TN method, which is the core dice mechanic. Hitting a TN of 83 means you've got one success. 14 successes are 14 successes in any version of Shadowrun; it's just that you can score 14 successes much easier in SR4 than in any previous edition. And 14 successes always beats out one, even if that one was on a die roll of 83.

Edit:

No one is saying that SR3 was anything near perfect. Open tests and the Maneuver score are perfect examples of that. However, to be fair, opposed tests in SR3 *were* handled like they are in SR4-- you compare total successes, and not single die rolls.

You're ignoring open tests, because you house ruled them away. So your basic premise is apparently "SR3 works, so long as you throw one of its core rules out the window." I agree.

Great. So now an entire gaming group has died of old age because some guy wanted to jump to the moon. Luckily for me, my group lived because I just said "that's impossible" and we moved on.

It's likely that a programmer is going to throw out all of his resources and pickt he worst possible location? Again, a difference in our games.

Again, I failed to dumb it down enough. Obviously I'm not really expecting a PC to type up Hamlet. I'm instead expecting them to disappear into thin air in the middle of a crowded stadium via the stealth skill. Would a 80 on the roll be sufficient to ensure nobody could neat him? If so you don't need anything more than a minute and a lot of luck.

As secondary as being unaware of a skill? I know that in all the games I've run there have been a lot more times when someone has needed to roll an open test then there have been times when I've needed to make a skill check for someone who had never even heard of the skill before. But wait, isn't Unaware a core concept?

Again, what you're saying is "SR3 works, so long as you throw one of its core rules out the window." And again, I agree.

The same could be said of any game where there are a few stupid rules that competlely wreck how things work. IMO SR4 isn't (yet) one of those.

no. SR3 needs to be thrown out and rewritten from the ground up. it's a terrible system with too much wrong with it to be worth trying to patch up a piece at a time. SR4, however, is not an improvement, in my eyes.

i'm not here to advocate SR3 over SR4. i'm simply using a feature of SR3 that works well to point out a feature of SR4 which doesn't.

You're reading the wrong example. I showed you the exact math involved in predicting the odds of cracking Z-O in less than 1 combat turn.

Open tests were never a good idea, but they weren't permanent, either. You could always call for a reroll whenever the situation changed. You rolled great on your stealth inside the bathroom, but once you get to the open field, things change all over again. I can't think of any situation where an open test alone would have killed someone, regardless of how high that single roll was.

I've certainly seen a lot more defaulting than open tests across the years. And yes, you have to accept that there's something less than skill zero in SR4. It's the only way to play certain character types, like neo-luddites. Presumably, you'll also need the Unaware rules to play shapeshifters, when their rules come out.

No, I'm saying that SR3 worked well *despite* the stupid open test rules. I'm not about to get into a comparison, since you're getting heated enough as is.

I already responded to that one.

Right, so you're invisible until you leave the field. That makes perfect sense.

I didn't say default. I said ":make a skil check for someone who had never heard of the skill before." Nice try though.

Presumably, since it actually mentions them in it. What's your point? Shapeshifters and Luddites are far from "core concepts." Especially given your apparent beliefe in what does and does not constitute a core concept (since open tests aren't a core concept in SR3).

Ah yes, the old "I won't do ___ because you're emotional" maneuver. LOL

Yeah, you said you'd GM fiat it away. What do you do when people use the same trick on every system they have to deck?

In SR3, that equals defaulting. No comparison intended, just straight mechanical description.

Actually, neo-Luddites are definitely a strong part of the setting, and back up the entire Toxic Shaman concepts. Shapeshifters are a repeatedly-mentioned part of the sapient species issue. Certainly shamanism is a core topic of Shadowrun, and the Luddite angle is one part of that.

Actually, I'm not making comparisons, because Bull and Adam have asked us not to. I am not the one who keeps bringing up SR3. The fact that you seem to be getting worked up is just a sign that they were right.

I don't have to. My players are what I like to call "mature" gamers. We're there to have a fun game, not rape the system at every opportunity. If I have a new player wanting to do it my options are

1) Tell them no and move on with the game.
2) Let them do it, then turn them to putty because the corps used 5,000,000 agents to track him down and kill him

With number one I may get a few complaints, but if he can't deal with it then he doesn't really fit my gaming style. With number two my other players would laugh. Then either he wouldn't come back or his next character wouldn't be looking for so many loophles. I've used both options at different times.

Incorrect. SR3 has no rules for never actually having heard of a skill and thus always failing.

Correct. But how many times will you actually have to roll a hacking check for your Neo-Luddite? You don't need an actual rule in place to know that Luddites can't hack. Fanpro was nice enough to give us one. That you don't like the rule or think it is easily abusable is amusing, but not indicative of ttoal system failure.

Right. I'm asking you to explain why your favorite system is better than SR4. I'm not asking you to do a rundown comparison, I'm asking specific questions with specific answers in mind.

Getting worked up? Apparently our ideas of emotional states also have a lot of things that don't mesh well. IF disagreement and an occassional "LOL" is getting worked up, then I died of a heart attack years ago. LOL

that's not maturity. that's simply a preference for roleplaying over gaming. it's no more "mature" to prefer that than it is "immature" to enjoy the gaming side. by your logic, CreepWood was a more "mature" gamer than any of us. your logic makes me giggle.

Only for the people who don't adamantly refuse to be happy.

in order to not find them in SR4, you basically have to pull out your own eyes.