Full Version: Target Numbers Systems
| QUOTE |
| If I'm not the type of GM who can draw in new audiences |
Given a choice between your personal experience and sales figures, I'll go with the sales figures.
| QUOTE |
| Exactly! But there's been this guy here who keeps saying that you can simply ignore problems in the rules, or put up house rules to prevent the most egregrious abuses in the system, or just lay down a GM hammer when things come up that he doesn't like. I wish he'd say things like that: that it's far, far better to have a cohesive and unbroken ruleset in the first place, so we're not forced to come up with exotic rule fixes. |
Ah, but you're assuming the two are mutually exclusive. SR4 does have a cohesive and unbroken ruleset. But like all rulesets, when picked and prodded by people looking to force holes, a few (agents and longshot abuse) can be found.
| QUOTE |
| Why? Why should you feel obligated to follow a rules system for a fictitiuous setting? |
Most players I know like to be able to use the books they shelled out money for. If you're house ruling large portions of the texts you're making that more difficult. No, you don't have to use the rules given to you in the books, and I don't think I've ever seen a group use a game exactly as written, but trying to stick as close as possible to the system is usually best because the more you tweak it the more problems can creep in.
| QUOTE |
| Try www.ironcrown.com They've got forums there as well, though I am not active on those. |
Yeah, I'm there. Just on the Spacemaster boards right now, as we're not playing RM. I'll have to see if I can scrounge up a cheap copy of RMFRPG to check out.
| QUOTE |
| As a GM I've wasted a fully loaded troll sam with a ganger with an SMG using narrow bursts and the teams adept with long narrow bursts on an old assault rifle (neither had significant recoil comp or targeting bonii). |
And in SR3, I've dealt out Serious wounds from Joe Averages using hold-outs before, and occasional Light wounds to troll meat shields. Combat in SR3 was plently deadly, if you were handling things right.
| QUOTE |
| I said nothing of the sort. I simply outlined one of the functions of the new Edge attribute and one of its various associated mechanics. Edge has several other functions which can make Combat seriously dangerous, especially when the GM is familar enough with the rules to use them as much as players do. |
And when the GM is forced to powerplay the same tactics that the players are, in order to provide a basic threat level, we've changed combat from an exciting narrative into an excercise in applied Edge.
Besides which, none of that answers the basic question, where full-auto sprays are now less deadly in the hands of Joe Average than single-shots. This is a direct contradiction to both real-world and cinematic conventions: "He's going full-auto? Ok, I'll just stand there, he can't possibly hit me."
| QUOTE |
| Oddly enough I haven't figured in the pdf sales which would have bloated figures even more. I'm just running by the hardcopy printings SR4 has gone through. |
You're running off of print numbers? Have you compared them to the increase in players that came in the late 90's from the upsurge in White Wolf, or the release of d20? What are the print numbers, how many copies per run, and what's the size of the total gamer population in relation to what it was when SR3 came out?
Certain free core systems that have been around since a similar age have had equivalent increases in downloads, but that doesn't mean they're seeing any more playtime. It's just a sign of the new era. Also, have you compared the price point of the SR4 BBB in relation to the cost of SR3, and factored in inflation from the original release date? Basically, are you doing everything necessary to show that your comparison is truly accurate?
| QUOTE |
I've been around since the Deep Resonance days too, and the number of returned players and newbs has never been so high—many of those specifically people saying they've returned directly or indirectly because of SR4. |
This I have to see. Okay, can you show us the percentage improvement over the past year, and compare it to the percentage increases over similar timeframes? That should be easy to prove, if you have actual numbers.
| QUOTE |
| I've basically told you already in another thread one of the various systems that is intended for the Unwired expansion and which was covered in SR4 development. You may call it a patch all you want but its simply one of the many things that simply didn't fit in the core book and was deemed better to leave for the Matrix-specific expansion. |
This is *exactly* what I was referring to. You've told me that thanks to the fuss raised by people here, demonstrating the abuseability of the Teamwork test via the Burly Man Brawl, they're going to release a bunch of fixes for the agent rules. They're *not* going to address the problem in the core mechanic, they're just going to slap a special-case exemption to for the most glaring expression of the problem. Like a technical release, it's better to fix the debug at the source, rather than patch each problem that results from that bug.
| QUOTE |
| Ah, but you're assuming the two are mutually exclusive. SR4 does have a cohesive and unbroken ruleset. But like all rulesets, when picked and prodded by people looking to force holes, a few (agents and longshot abuse) can be found. |
As I've told you in multiple threads, agents are not "a few holes". The entire agent concept isn't a bad one, actually. Instead, two expressions of the core mechanic-- teamwork and longshot tests-- have huge glaring holes in them. Teamwork tests can be fixed a bit more readily, but longshot tests are a direct result of the concept that you need to apply penalties by removing dice. Additionally, there's the double-jeopardy issue, where people get penalized twice by having both threshold increases and pool decreases. There's also the chargen mess, the fact that sprites are pretty much the only reason to play otaku (and completely outshine them, I might add), and the fact that the system rewards hyperspecialization and min/maxing more than ever before. (Because of the caps, it's harder to min/max; but as a result of the caps, the effectiveness of min/maxing is much more dramatic.) There's a lot wrong with the core system, all of which makes it look like they released a promising beta version. The presentation and writing quality is all top notch, and I can see that the developers spent a lot of time on those areas. Unfortunately, the rules mechanics don't show the same degree of robustness.
| QUOTE |
| And when the GM is forced to powerplay the same tactics that the players are, in order to provide a basic threat level, we've changed combat from an exciting narrative into an excercise in applied Edge. |
Yeah, because heaven forbid the rules apply equally on all sides. Or are you still thinking that using the edge rules as written is a "clever trick?"
| QUOTE |
| This I have to see. Okay, can you show us the percentage improvement over the past year, and compare it to the percentage increases over similar timeframes? |
You said almost the exact same thing but in regards to seeing a downward trend. Where are your numbers?
| QUOTE |
| You've told me that thanks to the fuss raised by people here, demonstrating the abuseability of the Teamwork test via the Burly Man Brawl, they're going to release a bunch of fixes for the agent rules. |
Reading comprehension troubles again? Reread what he wrote, and what he's written in the past. He's not saying that "because of X, we're doing Y." He's saying that Y was planned all along.
| QUOTE |
| longshot tests are a direct result of the concept that you need to apply penalties by removing dice. |
Yes, they are. So what? There's still not a problem unless your group wants there to be.
| QUOTE |
| Additionally, there's the double-jeopardy issue, where people get penalized twice by having both threshold increases and pool decreases. |
Again, so what? As long as the rules work, which they do for the most part, it doesn't matter whether difficulty is shown with dice penalties or threshold increases.
| QUOTE |
| fact that the system rewards hyperspecialization and min/maxing more than ever before |
Really? More than ever before? I can't remember an SR edition that didn't reward hyperspecialization when in your area of expertise. Heck, there are very few games at all that don't reward hyperspecialization when in your area of expertise. Of course, that's pretty reasonable, given that real life rewards hyperspecialization when in your area of expertise.
| QUOTE (cain) |
| Besides which, none of that answers the basic question, where full-auto sprays are now less deadly in the hands of Joe Average than single-shots. This is a direct contradiction to both real-world and cinematic conventions: "He's going full-auto? Ok, I'll just stand there, he can't possibly hit me." |
Just a hyperspecialist's response (since half the shit I post about these days seems to be firearm related):
The development of man-portable primary weapons has proven that giving poorly trained people automatic weapons, except in *very* specific situations, is unlikely to increase their survivability. The Russians issued over a million Ppsh submachineguns in World War 2, but the theater they were issued in mostly consisted of very close range urban fighting, where their intended use was in the hands of conscripts who would be fighting trained soldiers at extremely close ranges, where it becomes hard to miss.
The counterinsurgency in Oman (a British effort somewhat like the American one in Vietnam, except that the British plan involved the use of SAS units to train, lead, and provide things like medical care to indigenous forces) demonstrated the inadequacy of untrained automatic fire quite thoroughly. The insurgent forces weapon of choice was the AK-47, which gave them each a great deal of firepower, but their poor fire control left them unable to hit much. The British-Omani firquats were armed for the most part with semiautomatic FALs, instilling by default a certain level of fire control that allowed them to be more effective shooters, and easier to train.
The American forces in Vietnam after the draft are a perfect example of the inappropriateness of poorly trained shooters using automatic weapons. American conscripts with a month of basic training used primarily M16 rifles and M60 machineguns, and while there are a variety of numbers to be found, the best projected ratio of rounds fired to inflicted casualties by the Americans is in the tens of thousands.
Automatic weapons produce enough recoil and muzzle flash that it becomes very difficult to keep them on target without a decent amount of training. "Joe Average" is probably more deadly with an assault rifle on semiautomatic than he would be on fully automatic, because after hosing off the entire magazine on the first burst (and likely not hitting anything if he's not at point blank, because the gun is jumping all over the place) he's out of ammunition... if the weapon was on semiautomatic, he'd have 30-odd somewhat aimed shots between him and an empty magazine, and each of those shots would be noticeably more likely to hit the target he was aiming at.
Automatic weapons make everyone a worse shot. Some people are just well trained enough to compensate for the disadvantages, turning all of those extra rounds fired into a net advantage.
Also, poorly trained people (such as myself) tend to compensate for recoil before it happens, or cause more recoil themselves by subconsciously bouncing the gun up as they pull the trigger (after all, that's what it looks like in the movies).
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| Automatic weapons make everyone a worse shot. Some people are just well trained enough to compensate for the disadvantages, turning all of those extra rounds fired into a net advantage. |
right conclusion, wrong specifics. anyone, trained or untrained, is more likely to get a hit with a full-auto burst than with a single shot--once. an untrained shooter with a semi-auto will be more effective in the long run than an untrained shooter with a full-auto, because the guy with the full-auto is probably going to use up all his ammunition. but on a per-target basis, the guy with full-auto is going to be more effective, because he's firing more shots.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 19 2006, 04:58 PM) | ||
And in SR3, I've dealt out Serious wounds from Joe Averages using hold-outs before, and occasional Light wounds to troll meat shields. Combat in SR3 was plently deadly, if you were handling things right. |
As usual I fail to see your point. I made no comparison to SR3. Maybe if I pointed out that the old lady had no firearms skill at all you could have made some comparison...
| QUOTE | ||
And when the GM is forced to powerplay the same tactics that the players are, in order to provide a basic threat level, we've changed combat from an exciting narrative into an excercise in applied Edge. |
Again, your bias is showing. Powerplay? A GM using NPC's Edge in combat is no different than a GM using Combat Pool, Threat Rating and Karma in combat in SR3 (you know, the things that defined a "basic threat level" in SR3). Using all the options Edge gives is no more powerplaying than using Karma to reroll an NPCs roll.
| QUOTE |
| Besides which, none of that answers the basic question, where full-auto sprays are now less deadly in the hands of Joe Average than single-shots. This is a direct contradiction to both real-world and cinematic conventions: "He's going full-auto? Ok, I'll just stand there, he can't possibly hit me." |
Are you talking about full auto narrow burst, wide bursts, suppressive fire, something else? If you care to indicate exactly what you're complaining about maybe I can provide you with an answer. In my 2-plus-years experience with SR4 I have to say I prefer most of the new firearms mechanics to the SR3 ones.
| QUOTE | ||
You're running off of print numbers? Have you compared them to the increase in players that came in the late 90's from the upsurge in White Wolf, or the release of d20? What are the print numbers, how many copies per run, and what's the size of the total gamer population in relation to what it was when SR3 came out? |
Working in the book trade and game industry, I am fully aware of the current and typical RPG market figures in the US and Europe. Sales (and consequently print runs) of major RPG brands/lines are currently at about 50-60% of their mid-1990s figures (those that are still around) and surprisingly slowly rising (granted more so in Europe than the US). WotC sales have allegedly grown (though they don't distinguish between RPG and card et al. games in their reports so it's impossible to tell). WW was stagnated until it saw a significant drop with nWOD (though Exalted is still going strong). Everybody else has dropped (SJG, AGE, S&S, Palladium, etc) to about 50% of their heyday sales.
Most companies FanPro's size (ie. everybody but WotC and WW) currently do print runs of about 7000 to 10000 of core releases (quantity varies based on hardcover, color prints, pricing issues, etc)- though some will play it safe and go for a 5000 print run to avoid the too many eggs in on The single most important factor in print run sizes is pre-orders based on solicitation. I am not at liberty to disclose FanPro's numbers, but let me put it this way: when the fourth printing hits stores SR4 will have sold (in its first year) more than a third of what SR3 sold during its entire run and when this run sells out it will have sold about half.
This is without figuring in downloads/pdf sales- which in the case of the core book would add another 30%+ to overall sales.
If you have some hard numbers that contradict any of this I'd be happy to hear them and your source.
| QUOTE |
| It's just a sign of the new era. Also, have you compared the price point of the SR4 BBB in relation to the cost of SR3, and factored in inflation from the original release date? Basically, are you doing everything necessary to show that your comparison is truly accurate? |
SR4 is a hardback core rulebook released in a market where 35$ is standard for the product. SR3 was (for the most part) a paperback rulebook released in a market where 30$ was a typical price. Had SR4 been done as a paperback and it would probably have cost 30$ today because that's basically what the market dictates as acceptable pricing. Comparing then and now is useless except to evaluate potential market size. SR3 had a very respectable run for a non-WotC release. SR4 is selling better than SR3 over the same stretch of time in a much reduced market, its keeping its steam after a year, and its main supplements are just about to start hitting the streets.
Today's market is significantly different in numerous aspects that make anything but overall sales figures redundant for comparison. While its smaller, the average gamer is older and more selective, he's also willing and able to spend a bit more on his hobby (probably comes from being older). A greater number of fans are collecting and not playing, particularly continuity- and metaplot-heavy games like Shadowrun. All this factors in to sales of course but its not quantifiable the way you seem to want.
| QUOTE | ||
This I have to see. Okay, can you show us the percentage improvement over the past year, and compare it to the percentage increases over similar timeframes? That should be easy to prove, if you have actual numbers. |
I don't pretend to have hard figures I'm just going by the most superficial look. Just the SR4 board currently boasts 15 threads started by admitted returnees to the game and newbs. Skimming through those and other threads gave up another 3 newcomers and returnees. Doing searches by a number of possible references (newb, just starting, getting started, new GM, etc) on the old board with a 3 year yields only 10 hits on people actually getting back into the game and genuine newbs... that's at a cursory glance. But hey have it your way.
| QUOTE | ||
This is *exactly* what I was referring to. You've told me that thanks to the fuss raised by people here, demonstrating the abuseability of the Teamwork test via the Burly Man Brawl, they're going to release a bunch of fixes for the agent rules. They're *not* going to address the problem in the core mechanic, they're just going to slap a special-case exemption to for the most glaring expression of the problem. |
Honestly this one is not worth discussing further. Suffice it to say: quite a few people don't think the Teamwork mechanic is flawed. Nor do they think the Long Shot Rule is flawed. Or the chargen rules. Etc, etc
| QUOTE (eidolon @ Jun 19 2006, 03:55 AM) | ||
Since when does something cease to be a system when it ceases to be simplistic? Does not compute. |
Reread what I said, then, and it might.
I didn't say that a system has to be simple in order to be a system. I said that it has to be systematic. In other words, in order to be a system, it has to meet the basic definition of a system. Does that compute for you?
SR3 only barely meets the definition of a rules system. Rules are rarely interrelated; even its proponents admit that decking, magic, rigging, et. al. are close to entirely seperate games in and of themselves. It's not a true system, except maybe in the most abstact mathematical sense, as each subset is nearly independent of the others in concept and design. The rules read like individual people wrote whole chapters without referring to or even talking to the other designers, only coming to gether at the very end to write an index and make sure noone was outright contradicting another person.
Not only that, but each subset of rules have exceptions thrown in all over the place, Look at the rules for magic loss, for example. I challenge you to name a single rule anywhere else in the SR3 ruleset that is similar to the rules for rolling for magic loss. If you can do that, then try to relate it in a meaningful way to the rest of the rules in the book, in such a way that someone who knew the rest of the rules but not that particular one could make a reasonable inference of how to roll for magic loss.
Now try to extrapolate the decking rules from the rest of the ruleset. In other words, knowing nothing about decking but knowing absolutely everything elseabout SR3, try to figure out how the decking rules would follow logically from all the other rules in the game.
It's hard, isn't it? And I'll tell you why it's hard: SR3 was not designed with the concept of rules mastery in mind. Mastery is a term I first heard from Monte Cook, one of the designers of D&D 3.0. D&D was a revolutionary game for its time in that it created a core mechanic and (mostly) stuck to it. This created a wonderful system, the d20 system, which has gone on to be the measuring stick of its industry. Quoted from here:
| QUOTE |
| During the design of 3.0, one of the things that we realized was a huge strength of D&D is a concept we called "mastery." Mastery, in this context, is the idea that an avid fan of the game is going to really delve into the rules to understand how they work. We actually designed 3.0 with mastery in mind. For example, we created subsystems that worked like other systems, so that if you knew how one worked, you'd find the other one easier to understand. |
Those with even a cursory understanding of SR3 know that such an idea was not even a consideration for that ruleset. There are very few areas of the rules that even have a passing familiarity with one another, let alone were designed to enhance the overall knowledge of the system. If you look back at the major proponents of SR3, you'll find few people who disagree with the above sentiment; in fact many people falsely believe it's a strength of SR3 that the rules are so logically orthogonal to each other!
Well, think again. All those weird, haphazard additions and exceptions do not make a coherent system at all. They make the system harder to understand, providing a larger barrier to entry to people wishing to learn the system. I fully admit to being fairly new to SR, new enough that I remember the laborious chore it was to learn everything in the core book, the major core supplements, and being horribly confused as to WTF all of you were referring to with this "metaplot" BS because I was having enough problems assimilating the *rules*, let alone all this "plot" that was draped over them. The only people complicated, convoluted rulesets serve are the snobs who brag about how nerdy they are, that they alone know how to play the game and everyone else is a newb.
For this reason I applaud SR4. The rules were designed with the intent of drawing new players into the fold, specifically by being consistent with the application of their core mechanic (mostly), and writing the book with the intent of it being read and actually understood. I don't think that SR4 needed a cop-out, overcompensating and yet in the end false nod to simplicity by using fixed TNs over variable TNs, but I do acknowledge Fanpro making two very big, very important, and very necessary steps forward by:
1) making the rules more internally consistent, and
2) writing them down with far more clarity.
I am also eagerly awaiting the day when Fanpro wises up and gives us back our variable TN system.
well, even if FanPro doesn't get around to it, i'm sure someone will.
I'm betting on Savage Worlds winning *that* race. When was the last time you saw a serious effort to revive SR3R on this forum?
Or worse, a revision that's as far-reaching as *I* want it to be? Kag's revision is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't really work at drawing the disparate subsections of the SR3 rules together, as I'm suggesting needs to be done. Unifying the entirety of SR3 into a cohesive ruleset with a clear, consistently-applied core mechanic? I'd do it if someone were to pay me, but that's a Herculean effort for someone working part-time and for free.
Or worse, a revision that's as far-reaching as *I* want it to be? Kag's revision is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't really work at drawing the disparate subsections of the SR3 rules together, as I'm suggesting needs to be done. Unifying the entirety of SR3 into a cohesive ruleset with a clear, consistently-applied core mechanic? I'd do it if someone were to pay me, but that's a Herculean effort for someone working part-time and for free.
| QUOTE |
| Yeah, because heaven forbid the rules apply equally on all sides. |
The rules never apply equally on all sides, because a GM can draw on as many resources as he wants to. He can ignore, modify, and warp any rule as he sees fit, and can completely ignore restrictions that apply to the players. This is why I objected to you hitting players with the equivalent of every ganger with sniper rifles and mind control magic.
If the only way the GM can balance a PC's powerplay is to duplicate the same powerplay, there's something seriously wrong. And yet, that's exactly what Synner is suggesting.
| QUOTE |
| As long as the rules work, which they do for the most part, it doesn't matter whether difficulty is shown with dice penalties or threshold increases. |
Because they don't work whenever a player pushes the envelope. SR4 makes things impossibly hard at low levels, and disgustingly easy at high ones. The concept of needing both threshold and dice pool penalties is directly responsible for this.
| QUOTE |
| Really? More than ever before? I can't remember an SR edition that didn't reward hyperspecialization when in your area of expertise. |
Oh, I'm not saying that previous editions of Shadowrun didn't reward hyperspecialization. What I am saying is that because it's now impossible to get higher stats, maxing out gives you more bonuses. For example, someone with an ungodly Pistols skill of 10 in SR3 could still be balanced, because you could easily have opponents with enough combat pool dice to routinely dodge their shots. But when you have a maxed-out pistol samurai in SR4, it's impossible to get enough dice to reliably avoid getting hit.
| QUOTE |
| Again, your bias is showing. Powerplay? A GM using NPC's Edge in combat is no different than a GM using Combat Pool, Threat Rating and Karma in combat in SR3 (you know, the things that defined a "basic threat level" in SR3). |
I never had to use those on grunts, and only seldom had to use them on mjor villans. Certainly, I used karma pool a lot less than my players ever did. And I still managed to make combat plently deadly. As you've pointed out, it's now *necessary* to overuse Edge for NPC's, in order to make them even remotely effective.
| QUOTE |
| Are you talking about full auto narrow burst, wide bursts, suppressive fire, something else? If you care to indicate exactly what you're complaining about maybe I can provide you with an answer. |
All right, let's use a specific example. Let's say that Joe Wageslave is caught in the middle of a firefight. He's cowering under a desk, scared out of his mind, but he's seen so many action movies he decides that maybe he can be a hero. He snatches a Steyr from the hands of a fallen guard, then pops up, and starts blasting away.
Joe is only of average ability (Quickness 3) and has never actually fired a machine pistol in his life (automatics 0). He's also not very lucky (Edge 1). When he pops up, he takes the shadowrunner by surprise: Stan Shadowrunner is caught out in the open, under good lighting conditions, at short range.
Joe doesn't have a smartlink, and the Steyr has no other mods worth mentioning. Since he doesn't have any real combat experience, he'll go for a full-auto blast. (It doesn't matter if he's going for a narrow or wide burst for this example.) He starts with a dice pool equal to his Quickness of 3, -1 for defaulting. He gets an additional -1 for being behind cover. And then, he gets a whopping -9 for going full-auto. He's now so far into the negatives, there's absolutely nothing he can do but go for a Longshot. He spends his one edge, for 1 die, which projects to .33 successes. He's probably going to miss badly. (Because longshot dice don't explode, there's absolutely no way that he can score more than one success; if we applied a house rule increasing the threshold on him, he still wouldn't be able to succeed.)
Basically, Joe Average, and Joe Average Security guard, are not just unlikely to succeed on a full-auto burst: it's flat-out impossible for them to even try, without invoking the Edge mechanic.
| QUOTE |
| The single most important factor in print run sizes is pre-orders based on solicitation. |
Preorders from whom? The distributors? They get their orders from the retailers. And despite the overall downturn, there's actually *more* RPG retailers out there than ever before, /if you count internet vendors/. Take a look at the vast number of people selling SR books on Amazon or Ebay Stores, they weren't there when SR3 was released.
Your numbers reflect sales *to* retailers, not actual retail sales. And there are now dramatically more retailers than ever before. Presuming that they all require the same amount of inventory to stock their shelves, that would make sales at the FanPro level look much larger than before. However, that doesn't mean that Shadowrun is actually getting into the hands of players, or that it's actually getting played.
| QUOTE |
| Suffice it to say: quite a few people don't think the Teamwork mechanic is flawed. Nor do they think the Long Shot Rule is flawed. Or the chargen rules. |
And Microsoft didn't think Windows ME was flawed. Or IE6. They still needed to release an ungodly number of patches for them, though.
| QUOTE |
For this reason I applaud SR4. The rules were designed with the intent of drawing new players into the fold, specifically by being consistent with the application of their core mechanic (mostly), and writing the book with the intent of it being read and actually understood. |
I agree with you totally on the second point: the rules were written with the intent of being read and understood. This is a major strength of SR4. However, applying a consistently bad system is no better than applying a haphazard mix of systems. I'll also add that they still put in a haphazard mix of systems, since we have no less than *six* mutually-exclusive combat systems in there. Cybercombat, for example, is either full-defense or "Uh, I try to hit him again". Astral combat isn't even that detailed. Vehicle combat has two different sets of rules, which are mutually exclusive, and neither of which work when you have multiple drones and pedestrians in a battle. (How do you get two opposing drones to do a "Cut off" maneuver in pedestrian combat? Answer: you can't, since the systems work on totally different time scales.)
| QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 20 2006, 07:19 AM) | ||
The rules never apply equally on all sides, because a GM can draw on as many resources as he wants to. He can ignore, modify, and warp any rule as he sees fit, and can completely ignore restrictions that apply to the players. This is why I objected to you hitting players with the equivalent of every ganger with sniper rifles and mind control magic. |
Egad. You're seriously comparing the use of Edge (and Karma/Combat/Threat ratings for that matter) with gangers with sniper rifles. I thought we were discussing the same game, but we're obviously not. If you aren't playing by the set of rules everyone else is there's little point in discussing the fine points of those rules with you.
| QUOTE |
| If the only way the GM can balance a PC's powerplay is to duplicate the same powerplay, there's something seriously wrong. And yet, that's exactly what Synner is suggesting. |
So using a character's (whether NPC or PC) basic luck score is powerplaying regardless? I have to ask: Was using Combat Pool powerplaying? Or Karma Pool powerplaying too?
| QUOTE | ||
Because they don't work whenever a player pushes the envelope. SR4 makes things impossibly hard at low levels, and disgustingly easy at high ones. The concept of needing both threshold and dice pool penalties is directly responsible for this. |
So you keep saying. My experience (and apparently several other people's) tells me otherwise.
| QUOTE | ||
Oh, I'm not saying that previous editions of Shadowrun didn't reward hyperspecialization. What I am saying is that because it's now impossible to get higher stats, maxing out gives you more bonuses. For example, someone with an ungodly Pistols skill of 10 in SR3 could still be balanced, because you could easily have opponents with enough combat pool dice to routinely dodge their shots. But when you have a maxed-out pistol samurai in SR4, it's impossible to get enough dice to reliably avoid getting hit. |
Just because you say it doesn't make it true.
Someone with an ungodly pistols skill of 10 (which btw is nowhere near ungodly in my experience, having played with starting characters with modified Pistols skills in 12-14 range + combat pool) is not going to be dodged with Combat Pool alone (ie. without Karma Pool rerolls). Feel free to post an example in a typical firefight and we'll compare chances to hit and dodge in SR3 and SR4. In my experience an SR4 character actually stands a fair chance of dodging if he goes on full defense or uses Gymnastics Dodge, but I'm willing to put that to the test.
| QUOTE | ||
I never had to use those on grunts, and only seldom had to use them on mjor villans. Certainly, I used karma pool a lot less than my players ever did. And I still managed to make combat plently deadly. As you've pointed out, it's now *necessary* to overuse Edge for NPC's, in order to make them even remotely effective. |
Cain, that you voluntarily chose to ignore integral parts of the combat mechanic and game system for SR3 is your problem, not mine. The system says its there to be used and that's integral to its lethality level. The same applies for Edge in SR4. Note that "overuse" is your bias showing. I'm just using it like its supposed to be used and how it was intended to be integrated in the game system. No more, no less, and certainly no "overuse". Personally I prefer Edge to the Combat Pool/Karma Pool/Threat Rating combo that was integral to SR3- whether you chose to ignore it or not.
There's a reason every character has Edge as an attribute and its as integral to combat as your agility or strength - that you chose to ignore this is your problem, not the system's.
| QUOTE | ||
All right, let's use a specific example. Let's say that Joe Wageslave is caught in the middle of a firefight. He's cowering under a desk, scared out of his mind, but he's seen so many action movies he decides that maybe he can be a hero. He snatches a Steyr from the hands of a fallen guard, then pops up, and starts blasting away. Joe is only of average ability (Quickness 3) and has never actually fired a machine pistol in his life (automatics 0). He's also not very lucky (Edge 1). When he pops up, he takes the shadowrunner by surprise: Stan Shadowrunner is caught out in the open, under good lighting conditions, at short range. Joe doesn't have a smartlink, and the Steyr has no other mods worth mentioning. Since he doesn't have any real combat experience, he'll go for a full-auto blast. (It doesn't matter if he's going for a narrow or wide burst for this example.) He starts with a dice pool equal to his Quickness of 3, -1 for defaulting. He gets an additional -1 for being behind cover. And then, he gets a whopping -9 for going full-auto. He's now so far into the negatives, there's absolutely nothing he can do but go for a Longshot. He spends his one edge, for 1 die, which projects to .33 successes. He's probably going to miss badly. (Because longshot dice don't explode, there's absolutely no way that he can score more than one success; if we applied a house rule increasing the threshold on him, he still wouldn't be able to succeed.) Basically, Joe Average, and Joe Average Security guard, are not just unlikely to succeed on a full-auto burst: it's flat-out impossible for them to even try, without invoking the Edge mechanic. |
Here's the thing. I have no problem with this. I've fired assault rifles and SMGs, and this is what I've seen happen to gun newbs at the firing dock. Hence I find it appropriately realistic for my game. If an inexperienced gunman goes for a full auto blast with a weapon he's never used, no recoil compensation, no bracing and a vague idea of what a gun's kick is like from movies, he should miss—unless he gets extremely lucky. If the guy has an Edge of 1 the system dictates that he is pretty unlucky to begin with, so no surprises there.
I'm pretty sure you've worked out that the guy would have an even smaller chance of hitting in SR3 so I'm not going to bother with that.
Any security guard packing a Steyr is a trained paramilitary, he not only has a basic skill, but he's been trained by whoever put the gun in his hand to understanding how to maximize his potential to hit. Unless he's braced and has serious recoil comp he'll go for a long burst or a short burst - and the mechanics reflect that.
| QUOTE | ||
Preorders from whom? The distributors? They get their orders from the retailers. And despite the overall downturn, there's actually *more* RPG retailers out there than ever before, /if you count internet vendors/. Take a look at the vast number of people selling SR books on Amazon or Ebay Stores, they weren't there when SR3 was released. |
I get the feel you really have no idea what the process is in the hobby industry. Let's get some simple things out of the way first. With a few exceptions (WotC stands out) all publishers use distributors (except for pdfs). Again with a few minor exceptions every single hardcopy book sold (in a FLGS, Barnes and Noble, Amazon reseller, Ebay store, or whatever) comes through those distributors. They are the retailers only source. So regardless of the vendor, the publisher gets his sales from the distributor that supplied the vendor (or in extreme cases the middleman who supplied the vendor). If the publisher has direct sales they figure those in too.
Preorders on solicited products are the clearest indication of market (not public) demand before the book goes to print. After that things get much easier. The market being what it is most companies use preorders (plus however much it wants to risk) as basic print run figures-just in case. (Many companies are even starting to go PoD - print-on-demand - if preorders).
| QUOTE |
| Your numbers reflect sales *to* retailers, not actual retail sales. And there are now dramatically more retailers than ever before. Presuming that they all require the same amount of inventory to stock their shelves, that would make sales at the FanPro level look much larger than before. However, that doesn't mean that Shadowrun is actually getting into the hands of players, or that it's actually getting played. |
Given this system, barring returns, a distributor's sale is pretty much final. Given the state of the market today, distributors rarely overstock and so the risk is entirely in the publisher's hands. However, the good side is that when a distributor comes calling for more books it's because it has not only sold the preorder books but also whatever extra the publisher risked. Things sometimes get complicated if preorders don't sell well at retail and the returns start coming back (typically 6 months after initial release) but in SR4s case FanPro is going for it's fourth printing because the distributor can't keep up with continuing retail orders... (meaning stores are not just restocking their initial orders but the three printings and LE so far have not been enough to satisfy demand). Direct feedback (yep, FanPro gets that too) from select retail (online, FLGS and now even bookstore chains) backs the distributor's figures and demand from retailers continues to be high.
A year is also plenty of time in this industry for the initial interest bubble to deflate and it hasn't. If bad word-of-mouth was going to break SR4 it would have taken effect by now (it did with other games including nWoD). Retail sales are holding steady as illustrated by orders to the distributor to restock (in many cases restock multiple times).
| QUOTE | ||
And Microsoft didn't think Windows ME was flawed. Or IE6. They still needed to release an ungodly number of patches for them, though. |
It was perfectly clear that I didn't refer to devs. I meant the people playing the game.
| QUOTE | ||
I'll also add that they still put in a haphazard mix of systems, since we have no less than *six* mutually-exclusive combat systems in there. Cybercombat, for example, is either full-defense or "Uh, I try to hit him again". Astral combat isn't even that detailed. |
Your inexperience with the system is showing. None of the combat systems are "mutually exclusive" except the Chase rules (an exception the book itself grants). The different combat systems simply offer different options. Cybercombat and possibly Astral combat are given a basic coverage although I expect one or both to have (fully compatible) advanced options to be added in the relevant core books.
| QUOTE |
| Vehicle combat has two different sets of rules, which are mutually exclusive, and neither of which work when you have multiple drones and pedestrians in a battle. (How do you get two opposing drones to do a "Cut off" maneuver in pedestrian combat? Answer: you can't, since the systems work on totally different time scales.) |
The book clearly states that the Chase rules are not intended to be used in normal combat and are outside the normal combat rules. Opposing drones (or any vehicle) in normal combat are meant to use the normal combat rules and maneuvers allowed to vehicles. (ie. an opposing drone declares it willa ttempt to "cut off" an adversary by moving and performing some piloting action that produces the exact same end effect as the "cut off" maneuver in Chase combat). I've used stationary-platform drones, rotordrones, remote controlled trucks and bikes in normal combat without any problem arising (one situation even had a hacker hacking one of the drones, fighting IC and taking the drone over in mid-combat).
| QUOTE |
| This is why I objected to you hitting players with the equivalent of every ganger with sniper rifles and mind control magic. |
This is the second or third time you've said this, but as far as I know nobody, least of all me or Synner, has ever advocated giving all gangers sniper rifles and/or mind control magic. You may find life simpler if you stick to facts.
| QUOTE |
| Because they don't work whenever a player pushes the envelope. SR4 makes things impossibly hard at low levels, and disgustingly easy at high ones. The concept of needing both threshold and dice pool penalties is directly responsible for this. |
Obviously I disagree, as do the experiences of some people here on the boards. My group is playing a moderately low powered campaign right now and we've had no troubles. Some things are hard, but far from "impossbily hard." Emo samurai is running a vastly high powered campaign and I've heard no complaints from people that his game is too easy. Synner, IIRC, has been running a campaign from day one that started low powered and is now getting higher powered, and he doesn't seem to be complaining.
| QUOTE |
| But when you have a maxed-out pistol samurai in SR4, it's impossible to get enough dice to reliably avoid getting hit. |
Really? I disagree, but even if what you're saying is true, that's fine. It means using tactics instead of relying on large amounts of dice.
| QUOTE |
| As you've pointed out, it's now *necessary* to overuse Edge for NPC's, in order to make them even remotely effective. |
Poiting out that something is possible is not the same as pointing out that it is necessary. Nice try though.
| QUOTE |
| Basically, Joe Average, .. are not just unlikely to succeed on a full-auto burst: it's flat-out impossible for them to even try, without invoking the Edge mechanic. |
I've seperated the chunk about Joe Average Security Gaurd out because if your average sec gaurd is using a full auto weapon he'd better be trained in it's use and capable of firing it at full auto. Otherwise you might as well give him a pistol.
| QUOTE |
| And Microsoft didn't think Windows ME was flawed. Or IE6. They still needed to release an ungodly number of patches for them, though. |
Fallacy much?
| QUOTE |
| Egad. You're seriously comparing the use of Edge (and Karma/Combat/Threat ratings for that matter) with gangers with sniper rifles. |
Actualy, this is based on something James said: when I pointed out that the Edge rules are broken, he counterd by saying that the GM could give the same tactic to "every yahoo" as well, and pointed out that it wasn't any more powerful than equipping them with sniper rifles and mind control magic. If you're wondering who's actually playing the same game you are, I'd ask him.
| QUOTE |
| Someone with an ungodly pistols skill of 10 (which btw is nowhere near ungodly in my experience, having played with starting characters with modified Pistols skills in 12-14 range + combat pool) is not going to be dodged with Combat Pool alone (ie. without Karma Pool rerolls). Feel free to post an example in a typical firefight and we'll compare chances to hit and dodge in SR3 and SR4. In my experience an SR4 character actually stands a fair chance of dodging if he goes on full defense or uses Gymnastics Dodge, but I'm willing to put that to the test. |
All right, let's put up an example. OldSkool has a Pistols skill of 10. For whatever reason, he's not using his combat pool on the attack, so he's just making a straight shot. At short range, given normal conditions, he's rolling 10 dice against an expected TN of 4, which will average to 5 successes. His opponent, Classic Cassie, has a very average combat pool of 12, and will be rolling this against a TN of 4 as well, averaging 6 successes. She dodges fairly readily, but still close enough.
NewCoke the 4th ed hyperspecialist has Quickness 7, Pistols 7. He's also got a laser sight, so he's got a dice pool of 15. He takes a shot at Jimmy McMurty, and scores an average of 5 successes. Jimmy has an above-average reaction (4); but there is absolutely no way he can avoid getting hit without going full-defense. His Dodge skill is also above average (4, the practical maximum), giving him 8 dice, which averages to 2.66 successes. So, he gets plugged badly.
As you can see, in SR3, high skills could be counterbalanced. Under SR4, because everything caps, they can't be.
| QUOTE |
There's a reason every character has Edge as an attribute and its as integral to combat as your agility or strength |
I never *had* to rely on Karma Pool or threat ratings to scale up combat, I could do that just with the basic rules. Like every thread on good GMing on Dumpshock says, there's no need to hyperpower the opposition to give a battle some bite. Now, however, you're essentially saying that every fight just depends on escalating uses of Edge. That is a horrific flaw, I wouldn't have believed it was that bad if you hadn't said it yourself.
| QUOTE |
| I have no problem with this. I've fired assault rifles and SMGs, and this is what I've seen happen to gun newbs at the firing dock. Hence I find it realistic. |
I've also taken a few people out to the range, and the thing is, while they're less likely to hit with any accuracy, they're more likely to hit *something*. The whole point of full-auto is to put enough lead downrange to make up for the lack of aim. They'll probably land a few shots somewhere on the paper, although you're absolutely right that they won't come anywhere near center ring. The problem is that full-auto is so nonthreatening, there's no reason to ever try to go for cover. Don't even *try* to tell me that it's realistic to just stand stock-still in the open when someone's raining full-auto down on you.
| QUOTE |
| I'm pretty sure you've worked out that the guy would have an even smaller chance of hitting in SR3 so I'm not going to bother with that. |
Not true. If he had no Edge left. or didn't spend it, then he has a 0% chance of hitting. Under SR3, his odds would be much better than 0%. And quite honestly, a GM shouldn't need to spend Edge on every single shot the NPC's make.
| QUOTE |
| It was perfectly clear that I didn't refer to devs. |
You prove my point. The devs aren't seeing anything wrong, but they're still producing "patches", like you yourself have said.
| QUOTE |
| None of the combat systems are "mutually exclusive" except the Chase rules (an exception the book itself grants). The different combat systems simply offer different options. Cybercombat and possibly Astral combat are given a basic coverage although I expect one or both to have (fully compatible) advanced options to be added in the relevant core books. |
They are indeed "mutually exclusive" in the fact that you can't really use them in any real combination. If you try to run a simultaneous Astral/Ranged/Melee/Cyber/Vehicle combat, you're going to have a complete and utter disaster, since you're invoking five different rulesets at once. If you want to compare it to a higher-crunch system, Savage Worlds cooks through similar situations with ease. Comparing it to a lighter system, such as Amber Exploits or Wushu, and it really looks like a mess. (Wushu, being as rules-lite as it gets, demonstrates what a real unified system looks like. SR4 doesn't offer a unified system, it offers six incompatible ones that are based on similar design principles.)
| QUOTE |
| Opposing drones (or any vehicle) in normal combat are meant to use the normal combat rules and maneuvers allowed to vehicles. (ie. an opposing drone declares it willa ttempt to "cut off" an adversary by moving and performing some piloting action that produces the exact same end effect as the "cut off" maneuver in Chase combat). |
Here's the thing: there are no positioning rules for ranged combat. The chase combat uses an abstraction-- not a bad thing, mind you-- to represent superior positioning, arcs of fire, and the like. Standard ranged combat doesn't haven any of these elements, and doesn't have anything to account for speed differentials, 3-D maneuvers, and so on. You can't actually "cut off" a vehicle in standard ranged combat, since standard ranged doesn't abstract for the cutoff effects.
| QUOTE |
| This is the second or third time you've said this, but as far as I know nobody, least of all me or Synner, has ever advocated giving all gangers sniper rifles and/or mind control magic. |
You have said that if you saw the players use one of the many Edge loopholes I've pointed out, that you'd give "every yahoo" the opportunity to do the same, and that it was the same as using mind control magic and/or sniper rifles. You might find it easier to recall your own arguments; if you want to change your mind, that's cool as well.
| QUOTE |
| Actualy, this is based on something James said: when I pointed out that the Edge rules are broken, he counterd by saying that the GM could give the same tactic to "every yahoo" as well, and pointed out that it wasn't any more powerful than equipping them with sniper rifles and mind control magic. If you're wondering who's actually playing the same game you are, I'd ask him. |
Please provide the quote for this. I remember the exchange, and I had to correct you then as well as now. I have never said that every yahoo should use sniper rifles or mind control magic. I have said that NPCs should use the edge rules. Not because they're broken, but because they're there, and the rules are designed with their use in mind.
| QUOTE |
| All right, let's put up an example. OldSkool has a Pistols skill of 10. For whatever reason, he's not using his combat pool on the attack, so he's just making a straight shot. At short range, given normal conditions, he's rolling 10 dice against an expected TN of 4, which will average to 5 successes. His opponent, Classic Cassie, has a very average combat pool of 12, and will be rolling this against a TN of 4 as well, averaging 6 successes. She dodges fairly readily, but still close enough. |
Your SR3 hyperspecialist has no smartlink? LOL
| QUOTE |
| I never *had* to rely on Karma Pool or threat ratings to scale up combat, I could do that just with the basic rules. Like every thread on good GMing on Dumpshock says, there's no need to hyperpower the opposition to give a battle some bite. |
Using the rules as written is not "hyperpowering" anything. If you choose to gimp your NPCs in one way and compensate for it in another that's fine, but it isn't a good basis for discussion of the rules, because it isn't the rules.
| QUOTE |
| Now, however, you're essentially saying that every fight just depends on escalating uses of Edge. |
When did he say that?
| QUOTE |
| I've also taken a few people out to the range, and the thing is, while they're less likely to hit with any accuracy, they're more likely to hit *something*. The whole point of full-auto is to put enough lead downrange to make up for the lack of aim. They'll probably land a few shots somewhere on the paper, although you're absolutely right that they won't come anywhere near center ring. The problem is that full-auto is so nonthreatening, there's no reason to ever try to go for cover. Don't even *try* to tell me that it's realistic to just stand stock-still in the open when someone's raining full-auto down on you. |
Run the SR3 numbers. Joe citizen (no skill, 3 stat) is rolling 3 dice. His base TN is 6 after defaulting. His modified TN after (IIRC) +6 for autofire is 12. With 3 dice he has a 8.1% chance of success. If he happens to have a karma pool (you wouldn't give it to him) he could reroll failures and have a 15.55% chance of success. He could dump his entire combat pool into it (what would that be, 4? I don't remember the exact formula) he'd have a 17.9% chance. 32.59% with karma reroll.
I've probably screwed all sorts of stuff up, especially the recoil modifier.
| QUOTE |
| Not true. If he had no Edge left. or didn't spend it, then he has a 0% chance of hitting. Under SR3, his odds would be much better than 0%. And quite honestly, a GM shouldn't need to spend Edge on every single shot the NPC's make. |
Given that very few shots NPCs make will be full auto bursts from untrained office workers, I don't see where "every single shot" comes into it. As for the odds, I'm almost positive I screwed up the calculations above, and the guy's odds are lower. That's even assuming he uses his combat pool at all instead of saving it to try and survive return fire.
| QUOTE |
| You prove my point. The devs aren't seeing anything wrong, but they're still producing "patches", like you yourself have said. |
If you're referring to the changes coming in Unwired that have been discussed before, then yet again someone neds to remind you to make a reality check. I'll let you reread what's been written to make that check yourself rather than spelling it out again.
| QUOTE |
| They are indeed "mutually exclusive" in the fact that you can't really use them in any real combination. If you try to run a simultaneous Astral/Ranged/Melee/Cyber/Vehicle combat, you're going to have a complete and utter disaster, since you're invoking five different rulesets at once. |
Wrong. Nice try though. All the systems except the maneuver rules work using standard SR4 initiative. Weaving them all together is as simple as writing everyone's initiative order down on a piece of paper.
| QUOTE |
| You can't actually "cut off" a vehicle in standard ranged combat, since standard ranged doesn't abstract for the cutoff effects. |
Do you mean it's impossible to get one vehicle in front of another in standard ranged combat, thereby hampering the second vehicle's movement. Interesting, albeit flawed, viewpoint.
| QUOTE |
| You have said that if you saw the players use one of the many Edge loopholes I've pointed out, that you'd give "every yahoo" the opportunity to do the same, and that it was the same as using mind control magic and/or sniper rifles. You might find it easier to recall your own arguments; if you want to change your mind, that's cool as well. |
Actually no. What I said is that NPCs can use whatever rules PCs use. I never said that every gang member would start burning through edge like candy. They can't, because they all share a single edge pool, which is usually 1. I certainly never said they'd all have sniper rifles, just that sniper rifles would be available to NPCs. The same with magic. You're confusing "rules work both ways" with "bread and circuses for all NPCs."
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| And in SR3, I've dealt out Serious wounds from Joe Averages using hold-outs before, and occasional Light wounds to troll meat shields. Combat in SR3 was plently deadly, if you were handling things right. |
Sorry for the minor hijack, but...how?
Holdouts did L damage base
Called shots could give +1 damage level (but that pesky +4 tn would screw someone with little-or-no skill, like, say, a Joe Average)
Ammo might give another + 1 damage level.
A typical Joe average would be throwing, what, about 6 dice total (3 skill + 3 combat pool) in SR3? More than that, and you've got a very different definition of 'average' from the book.
At a TN of 4 (no called shot) he'd only expect 3 successes - so the runner would have get less than 3 dodge successes to be hit, and no more than 1 total dodge+soak success to take an S wound.
At a TN of 8 (called shot) Joe Average should get about 1/2 of a success. The runner would have to forget to roll (or possibly forget to wear any armor) to take an S wound.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Run the SR3 numbers. |
McMurray, pay attention. Cain was not in the least
| QUOTE (mfb) | ||
McMurray, pay attention. Cain was not in the least advocating SR3's autofire rules over SR4's. he was saying that SR4's are unrealistic. |
| QUOTE |
| Under SR3, his odds would be much better than 0%. |
He wasn't comparing the two? Really? Interesting, albeit flaed, viewpoint.
SR4's lack of realism was a point he was making. SR3's increased realism was another point he was making.
Who is it that needs to pay attention?
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| SR4's lack of realism was a point he was making. SR3's increased realism was another point he was making. |
that, stripped of 4AMedness, is what i was trying to say. see my soon-to-be-edited post.
ugh. this is why i try to stay out of these massive quotefests. especially at 4AM.
If you're editing just to say that he has two seperate points, don't bother. I know that already.
Besides, editing is revisionist history. It's much more honest to leave your screwups in place.
Besides, editing is revisionist history. It's much more honest to leave your screwups in place.
even better than honest is leaving the screwups in place, but noting the changes. that way, nobody will make the mistake of reading my post, not reading the ones that follow, and jumping in with bad information.
Works for me. My original "I know that" still applies.
| QUOTE |
| Your SR3 hyperspecialist has no smartlink? |
No, he's shooting against a TN of 4. If you understand the math in the example, then you'd know that the presence or absence of a smartlink is an extraneous factor.
| QUOTE |
| Given that very few shots NPCs make will be full auto bursts from untrained office workers, I don't see where "every single shot" comes into it |
Even skilled opposition in SR4 seldom has over 9 dice on the attack; relatively unskilled gangers won't even come close. Only PC's and prime runners will have enough dice, recoil comp, and smart to be able to attempt a full-auto burst without invoking Edge.
| QUOTE |
| All the systems except the maneuver rules work using standard SR4 initiative. Weaving them all together is as simple as writing everyone's initiative order down on a piece of paper. |
And you've actually done this when? Your own threads have said that you haven't done certain things. Quite frankly, no one has said that they can run all five theoretically-compatible systems at once and not run into trouble from the massive rule overlays.
| QUOTE |
| Do you mean it's impossible to get one vehicle in front of another in standard ranged combat, thereby hampering the second vehicle's movement. |
It's impossible to hamper the second vehicle's movement, yes. The standard positioning rules don't allow for this.
| QUOTE |
| What I said is that NPCs can use whatever rules PCs use. I never said that every gang member would start burning through edge like candy. |
What you said was, if you caught your players burning Edge on opposed tests, you'd open it up so that "every yahoo" could do the same. And, you said that what would hold you back from doing so would be the player's cooperation in this area. In other words, you've threatened to escalate the game on them if they use powerplay rules.
| QUOTE |
| Sorry for the minor hijack, but...how? |
The classic example was when the mage bashed down the door, and was surprised to discover that their mark was holding the biggest gun he could find (a hold out with a laser sight) and had essentially held an action to "shoot whatever comes through the door". Joe won the surprise test, essentially being an ambusher. He had a Quickness of 3, and no skill, but he made a called shot and scored 2 successes. Base Damage: L, staged up once for a called shot, and staged up again for the two successes = Serious. The mage, being effectively surprised, had no chance to dodge; and he rolled badly on his soak roll.
| QUOTE |
| Even skilled opposition in SR4 seldom has over 9 dice on the attack; relatively unskilled gangers won't even come close. Only PC's and prime runners will have enough dice, recoil comp, and smart to be able to attempt a full-auto burst without invoking Edge. |
What's your point? Unless you think that every single shot will be full auto from an untrained or undertrained individual, then there exists no need to pull out edge for every single shot. I personally tend to use and encounter trained resistance when running and playing shadowrun.
| QUOTE |
| And you've actually done this when? Your own threads have said that you haven't done certain things. Quite frankly, no one has said that they can run all five theoretically-compatible systems at once and not run into trouble from the massive rule overlays. |
I don't have to do it. Taking actions in turn is taking actions in turn. Some of those actions may be astral, physical, or in VR, but it's still just a matter of going down the initiative order and using whichever rules are appropriate to the action being taken.
| QUOTE |
| It's impossible to hamper the second vehicle's movement, yes. The standard positioning rules don't allow for this. |
Try actually using the rules at some point, with some GM common sense. If there's a truck in front of your compact car, your compact car isn't going forward. There's no need for special positioning rules when a simple understanding of how the world works will suffice.
| QUOTE |
| What you said was, if you caught your players burning Edge on opposed tests, you'd open it up so that "every yahoo" could do the same. And, you said that what would hold you back from doing so would be the player's cooperation in this area. In other words, you've threatened to escalate the game on them if they use powerplay rules. |
There you go again, lying through your teeth. I've said repeatedly that the things which my group holds back on are all agreed upon by the group. I've also said that I don't run every session, and that my group doesn't abuse longshot tests. If they're doing it because I threaten them, that threat would crumble the moment someone else steps behind the screen with a little more lenient attitude.
| QUOTE (me) |
| It would mean that suddenly any group of yahoos with a gun has a chance of automatically scoring 4 net hits with a bullet. |
"Any group." Not "every yahoo." "Has a chance" not "will automatically do so."
Do I have to keep doing your reading for you?
As a minor nitpick, keep in mind that even the unluckiest human in existence will still have an Edge of 2, and most will be better (3-5 on average). An Edge of 1 is reserved for a level of unluck that no human can possibly achieve, so it's a bit outside our normal experience.
| QUOTE (Cain) | ||
And you've actually done this when? Your own threads have said that you haven't done certain things. Quite frankly, no one has said that they can run all five theoretically-compatible systems at once and not run into trouble from the massive rule overlays. |
Dumpshock just ate a long reply but, for now, I ran a Astral/Cybercombat (AR)/Normal/Vehicle combat this past weekend with no problem. The 4 runners were escaping on 2 bikes being chased by 2 elementals and their mage summoner on the astral and a security car and two drones. Since the sam and merc were driving the bikes the hacker and mage had to run interference. The mage summoned a spirit to draw the elementals (Astral) and went for the astral mage (Astral combat). The sam and merc were shooting from their bikes on their extra IPs and the security guys were shooting back from their cars (normal combat with Vehicles). The hacker (Cybercombat) spoofed control of one of the drones and slammed it against the security car. Went off without a hitch and it's not the first time I've done multi-level combats. As James said it's simply a question of writing down initiatives and looking at any possible action (regardless of whether its Cyber/Astral/Physical/Vehicle) as a different combat maneuver option - meaning treating an astral or cybercombat brawl no differently than someone using melee maneuvers in a gunfight.
| QUOTE |
| Unless you think that every single shot will be full auto from an untrained or undertrained individual, then there exists no need to pull out edge for every single shot. I personally tend to use and encounter trained resistance when running and playing shadowrun. |
"Trained resistance", according to the RAW, is a professional rating of 3-4. So, looking at the Triad Posse stats (Professional Rating 4), they have Quickness 5, Shortarms 3 (which I'm going to assume is a typo for automatics). So, they can't fire a full-auto burst from a SMG without invoking Edge. Lone Star cops, at a professional rating of 3, aren't even that good. So, in order for them to be effective within the rules, you have to spend Edge like candy.
| QUOTE |
I don't have to do it. Taking actions in turn is taking actions in turn. |
I just tried a simultaneous physical and cyber combat in my playtest. Things went down to a total crawl in seconds. While Synner sais he can pull it off without a hitch, I'll also point out that he doesn't seem to think that an hour or two per combat is excessive.
| QUOTE |
| If there's a truck in front of your compact car, your compact car isn't going forward. There's no need for special positioning rules when a simple understanding of how the world works will suffice. |
So, you're going to once again say that you'll put in house rules based on your [flawed] understanding of the world shows that the game mechanics work?
You don't drive a car, do you? Otherwise you'd know that you can easily maneuver a compact car around a truck. If you've ever been in rush-hour traffic, you'd see it happening all the time. Well, obviously you haven't; but we can continue this discussion when you pass driver's ed and get your license. 
What's more, there's no rule to model the positioning test in standard combat. Unless you're playing with minis, distances and positions are all abstracted. This is a basic premise of rules theory; all rules are an abstraction of physical situations. The problem is that there's no test to show how well one can take a given position in relation to another vehicle, without resorting to the chase rules. It really needs to be an opposed test, and provide modifiers for what happens afterwards, which the chase combat rules try to model. Unfortunately, the standard rules don't do it.
This is all just basic rules-design and modeling theory, essential for developing any fair and balanced ruleset. I'm beginning to see why you're not seeing the problem, you just haven't got any experience with rules design or comprehension. It should come eventually.
| QUOTE |
There you go again, lying through your teeth. |
"Lying through my teeth" != "Calling you on your own words". You don't like it, try reading what you actually wrote, instead of trying to repeatedly backpedal.
| QUOTE |
| "Any group." Not "every yahoo." "Has a chance" not "will automatically do so." |
"You said "Any group of yahoos". Which, grammatically speaking, is really not distinct from "every group of yahoos". And I might add that every PC "has a chance" of doing the same thing, which is what sparked this argument in the first place. I thought it was extremely heavy-handed of you to threaten your PC's with having "any yahoo" pull off the same trick they used to take down the Big Bad Boss during the climax of the last game. You *still* seem to think it's okay.
| QUOTE |
| Do I have to keep doing your reading for you? |
No, you should probably focus on reading and writing for yourself. You've missed so many of the rules, rule theories, and your own statements, improving your own skills can only help.
| QUOTE |
| As a minor nitpick, keep in mind that even the unluckiest human in existence will still have an Edge of 2, and most will be better (3-5 on average). An Edge of 1 is reserved for a level of unluck that no human can possibly achieve, so it's a bit outside our normal experience. |
Technically, Joe Average is going to be an NPC, and will have a Professional Rating (and thus Edge pool) of 0, or 1 if the GM makes him just barely competent. The normal Edge ranges are for PC's.
| QUOTE |
| "Trained resistance", according to the RAW, is a professional rating of 3-4. So, looking at the Triad Posse stats (Professional Rating 4), they have Quickness 5, Shortarms 3 (which I'm going to assume is a typo for automatics). So, they can't fire a full-auto burst from a SMG without invoking Edge. Lone Star cops, at a professional rating of 3, aren't even that good. So, in order for them to be effective within the rules, you have to spend Edge like candy. |
You can assume whatever typos you want, but if you're assuming them just to make a case it's rather poor form. Obviously these guys aren't meant to be firing on full auto. Most people aren't. Nice try though.
| QUOTE |
| I just tried a simultaneous physical and cyber combat in my playtest. Things went down to a total crawl in seconds. |
Practice makes perfect.
| QUOTE |
| So, you're going to once again say that you'll put in house rules based on your [flawed] understanding of the world shows that the game mechanics work? You don't drive a car, do you? Otherwise you'd know that you can easily maneuver a compact car around a truck. If you've ever been in rush-hour traffic, you'd see it happening all the time. Well, obviously you haven't; but we can continue this discussion when you pass driver's ed and get your license. |
I said you won't be going forward. I said nothing about not going sideways or backwards. Nice try though.
| QUOTE |
| What's more, there's no rule to model the positioning test in standard combat. Unless you're playing with minis, distances and positions are all abstracted. |
I use minis. They aren't necessary for every combat, but if something really needs positioning and you aren't comfortable doing it without minis, then you should pull out the markers and some sort of map. Jelly beans and paper works fine, but miniatures and a battlemat make distances and combatatant recognition easier.
| QUOTE |
| I'm beginning to see why you're not seeing the problem, you just haven't got any experience with rules design or comprehension. It |
No, my experiences with the game just run counter to your ideas about rules design. Nice try though.
| QUOTE |
| "Lying through my teeth" != "Calling you on your own words". You don't like it, try reading what you actually wrote, instead of trying to repeatedly backpedal. |
I did read what I wrote. I even quoted it.
| QUOTE |
| "You said "Any group of yahoos". Which, grammatically speaking, is really not distinct from "every group of yahoos". And I might add that every PC "has a chance" of doing the same thing, which is what sparked this argument in the first place. I thought it was extremely heavy-handed of you to threaten your PC's with having "any yahoo" pull off the same trick they used to take down the Big Bad Boss during the climax of the last game. You *still* seem to think it's okay. |
I guess even having other people do your reading for you doesn't work.
Keep trying.
| QUOTE |
| You can assume whatever typos you want, but if you're assuming them just to make a case it's rather poor form. |
I'm assuming, because it's their primary weapon skill, and they're equipped with SMG's. Besides which, the errata bears me out. I take it you haven't read the NPC section or the errata either, have you?
| QUOTE |
| I said you won't be going forward. I said nothing about not going sideways or backwards. |
When you get your driver's license, I'll explain to you how it's impossible to drive a car sideways. You're always going relatively forward or backwards, you're never going to be traversing at right angles from your front bumper. People go forawrd to get around trucks all the time; I've yet to see anybody back up during rush hour traffic, or suddenly make their car leap sideways.
| QUOTE |
| I use minis. They aren't necessary for every combat, but if something really needs positioning and you aren't comfortable doing it without minis, then you should pull out the markers and some sort of map. |
Of course, no version of Shadowrun has ever truly supported the use of minis. Extensive battlemap usage is yet another house rule. You really *aren't* playing the same game as everyone else, are you?
| QUOTE |
| No, my experiences with the game just run counter to your ideas about rules design. |
Which still tells us all that you have no experience with rule design or game balance. Don't worry, it's common among younger gamers. I'm sure once you're 16 and can get your license, things will start becoming clearer.
| QUOTE |
| I did read what I wrote. I even quoted it. |
And tried to backpedal all at the same time.
| QUOTE |
| Keep trying. |
I have hope for you yet, junior, so I will. Once you graduate high school, get your driver's license, and demonstrate 12th grade reading comprehension, I'm sure you'll start seeing things in a rational light.
| QUOTE |
| I take it you haven't read the NPC section or the errata either, have you? |
Not while responding to that post, since I was nowhere near a book at the time. Your statement that you assume it was a typo completely ignores the other factors you mentioned. Oddly enough, when you said it was an assumption I assumed it was an assumption.
| QUOTE |
| When you get your driver's license, I'll explain to you how it's impossible to drive a car sideways. |
Ah yes, that blunt Cain wit. I know it all too well. I believe you understood what I intended. If not, perhaps some more reading comprehension classes are in order? It is quite possible to go sideways in relation to the direction you start facing in the round. All you have to do is turn and then go straight.
| QUOTE |
| Of course, no version of Shadowrun has ever truly supported the use of minis. Extensive battlemap usage is yet another house rule. You really *aren't* playing the same game as everyone else, are you? |
House rule? Not really. It's merely a representation of the combat, the same as using descriptive text but less prone to interpretation errors.
| QUOTE |
| I'm sure once you're 16 and can get your license, things will start becoming clearer. |
There's that dull wit again. I'm sure your mommy tells you you're funny.
| QUOTE |
| And tried to backpedal all at the same time. |
Yawn. Reread the quote.
| QUOTE |
| I have hope for you yet, junior, so I will. Once you graduate high school, get your driver's license, and demonstrate 12th grade reading comprehension, I'm sure you'll start seeing things in a rational light.' |
The first time was mildly amusing. The second not at all. The third was just plain old. Nice try though. LOL
| QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 20 2006, 08:06 PM) | ||
Actualy, this is based on something James said: when I pointed out that the Edge rules are broken, he counterd by saying that the GM could give the same tactic to "every yahoo" as well, and pointed out that it wasn't any more powerful than equipping them with sniper rifles and mind control magic. If you're wondering who's actually playing the same game you are, I'd ask him. |
If James had made such a mistake, and I didn't read it as such, you're still the one using an erroneous example to back your position.
| QUOTE | ||
All right, let's put up an example. OldSkool has a Pistols skill of 10. For whatever reason, he's not using his combat pool on the attack, so he's just making a straight shot. At short range, given normal conditions, he's rolling 10 dice against an expected TN of 4, which will average to 5 successes. His opponent, Classic Cassie, has a very average combat pool of 12, and will be rolling this against a TN of 4 as well, averaging 6 successes. She dodges fairly readily, but still close enough. NewCoke the 4th ed hyperspecialist has Quickness 7, Pistols 7. He's also got a laser sight, so he's got a dice pool of 15. He takes a shot at Jimmy McMurty, and scores an average of 5 successes. Jimmy has an above-average reaction (4); but there is absolutely no way he can avoid getting hit without going full-defense. His Dodge skill is also above average (4, the practical maximum), giving him 8 dice, which averages to 2.66 successes. So, he gets plugged badly. As you can see, in SR3, high skills could be counterbalanced. Under SR4, because everything caps, they can't be. |
And how about, instead, we actually use a proper example and comparison?
You know, the sort where the two characters are placed in a typical combat situation and face typical modifiers, the sort where they're decked out with the same equipment and cyber, and where they actaully use it, where SR3 Joe uses his Combat Pool like he'd be reasonably expected to, just like the SR4 character might use Edge?
We can even run parralel examples under both systems: one with 2 hyperspecialists and one with 2 grunts. I'm game.
| QUOTE | ||
I never *had* to rely on Karma Pool or threat ratings to scale up combat, I could do that just with the basic rules. Like every thread on good GMing on Dumpshock says, there's no need to hyperpower the opposition to give a battle some bite. |
Karma Pool and Threat ratings were never meant to "scale up combat", they were simply intended to balance it. There is no "hyperpowering" involved. I don't give a rat's ass if you chose to ignore the rules. They're there to be used and they're integral to SR3.
| QUOTE |
| Now, however, you're essentially saying that every fight just depends on escalating uses of Edge. That is a horrific flaw, I wouldn't have believed it was that bad if you hadn't said it yourself. |
Maybe a quote would be in order? I don't recall ever having said such a thing. It does not reflect my experience. Feel free to continue twisting my words and presenting them out of context, it still doesn't make you right.
| QUOTE | ||
Not true. If he had no Edge left. or didn't spend it, then he has a 0% chance of hitting. Under SR3, his odds would be much better than 0%. |
You're right, of course. Let's ignore the fact that your clerk with a Steyr is unluckier than the average human, that if the gun was being used by a trained security guard he'd probably find it on burst fire setting rather than full auto and lacking the skill he wouldn't know how to change it, and that the downed corp sec was using a completely unmodified gun in the first place - and basically the situation is here just for an example. So let's break it down in SR3 to get a realistic impression of what it means in game terms.
The untrained clerk is firing a nine bullet full auto burst from an unmodified Steyr from minimal cover (I'm assuming no other visibility or movement modifiers just to keep to your example). He's got no skill, so he'll be defaulting to his Agility of 3 and adding the default modifier to the TN. He's also not allowed to use Combat Pool because he's defaulting to an Attribute (though on the plus side he can use his Karma Pool for a reroll). That means he's rolling 3 dice with a Target Number of 18 (4 (base) +9 (uncompensated recoil) + 1 (cover) + 4 (defaulting to attribute)). If we're using pedestrian stats he gets one reroll with his Karma. That's your "much better odds".
Except, of course, if the SR4 clerk actually had the 2-3 Edge all non-grunt NPCs typically possess (don't believe me? check the contacts) your comparison begins falling apart...
| QUOTE |
| And quite honestly, a GM shouldn't need to spend Edge on every single shot the NPC's make. |
The GM doesn't. The gun is picked up from a security guard who wasn't stupid enough to be using it on full auto setting in the first place and had a gun with basic modifications.
What you really mean is "a GM shouldn't need to spend Edge on every single autofire burst that the NPC's make with a weapon they don't know how to handle and are lucky to be holding in the right direction". In which case I still disagree.
I've been playing for 12 years and following other people's games for at least as long and I've never seen anyone (either PC or NPC) fire a full auto burst with an unmodified SMG or assault rifle in any edition of SR.
| QUOTE | ||
You prove my point. The devs aren't seeing anything wrong, but they're still producing "patches", like you yourself have said. |
Call them patches if you want. That's how you want to see it fine. You're still wrong and I know differently because I was in on the issue before SR4 was laid out. Mind you, I'm not trying to convince you, because that would be an exercise in futility since you obviously know better.
And for the record there's a simple, obvious and straight-forward answer for those who believe the Teamwork mechanic needs limiting, one that requires no tweaking of rules or changes. It might even have already been offered in the official FAQ replies...
| QUOTE |
| They are indeed "mutually exclusive" in the fact that you can't really use them in any real combination. If you try to run a simultaneous Astral/Ranged/Melee/Cyber/Vehicle combat, you're going to have a complete and utter disaster, since you're invoking five different rulesets at once. |
As I've mentioned before I've done it without a hitch (and took under half an hour even though it involved 12 characters/actors). And I intend to do it again this week when the safehouse the runners are hiding in comes under siege.
| QUOTE |
| SR4 doesn't offer a unified system, it offers six incompatible ones that are based on similar design principles.) |
SR4 was never intended to be rules-lite. It was meant to be cohesive and it is. Though I do understand how it might be ahrd to get a grip on how fluid the system can be when your inexperienced and biased against it. I never really took to Rifts because I was biased against Palladium's system.
| QUOTE |
| Here's the thing: there are no positioning rules for ranged combat. The chase combat uses an abstraction-- not a bad thing, mind you-- to represent superior positioning, arcs of fire, and the like. You can't actually "cut off" a vehicle in standard ranged combat, since standard ranged doesn't abstract for the cutoff effects. |
And here's the really funny thing. You don't need a dedicated positioning rules and maneuvers to perform a "cut off" in Tactical Vehicle combat. Just like you don't need dedicated positioning rules to perform an intercept or movement in melee or ranged combat. You just say what you want to do when its your action (just like normal combat), the GM checks if you should be able to do it given your position (just like normal combat), and, if possible, the GM gives you an appropriate difficulty for the Vehicle Test you need to make. Voilá - a "cut off" maneuver (just like if you had moved your character to block some NPCs escape in normal melee combat). The rules are that simple. The end result is the same, as if you were using the Chase rules only you simply stick to the abstraction of movement in normal combat.
| QUOTE |
| Standard ranged combat doesn't haven any of these elements, and doesn't have anything to account for speed differentials, 3-D maneuvers, and so on. |
I'm pulling this out just to call bull. Standard ranged combat does account and abstract for all these factors whether the actors involved are characters, drones, cars or spirits. Characters regularly run, walk and crawl in standard combat, and in fact they even drive and rig drones (speed differentials are accounted for in the movement modifiers to attacker and target). Characters also move to cut each other off, intercept someone, jump through windows, levitate over roof tops, ram into things, etc (3-D maneuvers).
Dangit! I painfully read my way through that entire post and then when I hit refresh the quote tags started working! 
| QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 21 2006, 10:11 AM) | ||
"Trained resistance", according to the RAW, is a professional rating of 3-4. So, looking at the Triad Posse stats (Professional Rating 4), they have Quickness 5, Shortarms 3 (which I'm going to assume is a typo for automatics). So, they can't fire a full-auto burst from a SMG without invoking Edge. Lone Star cops, at a professional rating of 3, aren't even that good. So, in order for them to be effective within the rules, you have to spend Edge like candy. |
Only if the "trained resistence" is stupid enough to fire full auto with unmodified weapons at dangerous individuals in the first place. "Trained resistence" should know better, it's part of the being "trained resistence" thing. A tight brief burst will put someone down as easy as a full auto burst and stands a better chance of hitting - coincidentally (or not) that's the first thing they taught me at the Army rifle range too.
| QUOTE | ||
I just tried a simultaneous physical and cyber combat in my playtest. Things went down to a total crawl in seconds. While Synner sais he can pull it off without a hitch, I'll also point out that he doesn't seem to think that an hour or two per combat is excessive. |
If you're going to cite me or my game as examples, please present quotes in context. If you're going to twist my words I'm going to call you on it.
Combat last week took less than 30 minutes and involved 12+ actors acting on the Astral, Matrix and physical. I have no doubt the same combat in SR3 would have taken more than an hour to resolve with the same players.
Your lack of experience and your bias against the system is obviously getting in the way.
| QUOTE |
| What's more, there's no rule to model the positioning test in standard combat. Unless you're playing with minis, distances and positions are all abstracted. This is a basic premise of rules theory; all rules are an abstraction of physical situations. The problem is that there's no test to show how well one can take a given position in relation to another vehicle, without resorting to the chase rules. It really needs to be an opposed test, and provide modifiers for what happens afterwards, which the chase combat rules try to model. Unfortunately, the standard rules don't do it. |
Actually the standard rules do do it, it's abstracted in the Vehicle Test in Tactical Vehicle combat (which is to say normal combat) - it's up to the GM will tell you the relevant difficulty based on his perception of your positioning and what you're trying to do (exactly like he has to make a call on whether your character can intercept that grunt running out the door to call reinforcements, or whether your character's running speed allows him to reach cover during your action, or whether your crouching modifies your cover, or whether you can levitate a particular trashcan into exactly the position you want, etc).
If you don't understand how this can work the problem is yours, but the system allows for it all.
| QUOTE | ||
Technically, Joe Average is going to be an NPC, and will have a Professional Rating (and thus Edge pool) of 0, or 1 if the GM makes him just barely competent. The normal Edge ranges are for PC's. |
This one is bull, and while James may need to read the NPC section, you obviously need to read it too:
a) You seem to be confusing grunts with all NPCs,
b) You're ignoring (or chosing to ignore) that none of the contacts in the NPC section (including the Corporate Secretary in the GM screen/booklet) have Edge ratings under 2.
c) You're ignoring (or chosing to ignore) that the use of the grunts rule is itself an option, not mandatory. In fact, the game says that GMs may find it quicker and easier to use grunts when they're dealing with large groups of similar NPCs, but doesn't say this has to be the case or that it is mandatory.
(btw- the untrained clerk in your example would not count as a grunt by RAW).
| QUOTE |
| Karma Pool and Threat ratings were never meant to "scale up combat", they were simply intended to balance it. There is no "hyperpowering" involved. I don't give a rat's ass if you chose to ignore the rules. They're there to be used and they're integral to SR3. |
Hardly "integral", because you can clearly use the normal rules to balance combat without invoking them. You're suggesting that the only way to equalize SR3 combat would be to increase the karma pool/threat rating, which isn't the case.
| QUOTE |
| Except of course if the SR4 version actually had the 2-3 Edge all non-grunt NPCs typically possess (don't believe me? check the contacts). |
Except, of course, I've never fired a SMG in my life, but I know how to switch a gun from burst to full auto. And all NPC's have an Edge pool based on their professional rating, which is going to be 0-1 for Joe Average.
| QUOTE |
| SR4 was never intended to be rules-lite. It was meant to be cohesive and it is. Though I do understand how it might be ahrd to get a grip on how fluid the system can be when your inexperienced and biased against it. I never really took to Rifts because I was biased against Palladium's system. |
I don't like Rifts either, but I can run it smoothly, at least as fast as I can SR4. And while SR4 isd far from rules lite, it's also not especially cohseive. It's got a lot of interrelated subsystems, but not a truly coherent unified system. I can see how when you're personally involved in something, you're more willing to think it's more fluid and cohesive than it really works out to be, though.
Professional rating applies to groups. As a lone NPC the wage slave is not part of a group, and hence has no professional rating (check the contacts and prime runners, they don't have professional ratings). While there are no stats in the section for "office flunky" even the lowly blogger has 2 edge.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 21 2006, 11:31 PM) | ||
Hardly "integral", because you can clearly use the normal rules to balance combat without invoking them. |
I'm not going to discuss the definition of "integral". In this context I simply meant that it is part of the system and as such the system balance was designed with it in mind. If you chose to ignore it and not factor it in you are already modifying the basic system and changing the balance and are not reflecting the canon game.
It's like someone complaining that spellcasting is too deadly and then revealing he doesn't actually use all the visibility and cover modifiers that the game intends you to use. The person's point might even be correct, but this particular argument is flawed because he hasn't used the rules as they were designed and balanced to be used and his evaluation of mechanics is subsequently flawed.
| QUOTE |
| You're suggesting that the only way to equalize SR3 combat would be to increase the karma pool/threat rating, which isn't the case. |
I never suggested any such thing. You're either having reading comprehension problems or you're attempting to twist my words (again). I'd ask you to produce a quote, but I won't waste time because there isn't one.
I've never said it was necessary to increase Karma Pool/Threat Rating to equalize SR3 combat. I did say Karma Pool/Threat ratings were integral to SR3 combat and the system was balanced for their use as written. No more, no less.
In fact, the same applies for NPC Edge or Grunt's Group Edge in SR4.
| QUOTE | ||
Except, of course, I've never fired a SMG in my life, but I know how to switch a gun from burst to full auto. And all NPC's have an Edge pool based on their professional rating, which is going to be 0-1 for Joe Average. |
You seem pretty sure of that... but you're still wrong.
Maybe you should really just take the time to read the rules again before continuing.
Who knows, you might notice that the professional ratings only refer to groups under the Grunt rules (much like the Group Edge rule). Professional ratings do not extend to either Prime Runner NPCs or Contact NPCs because.... they don't extend to all NPCs. But feel free to prove me wrong.
| QUOTE |
| I can see how when you're personally involved in something, you're more willing to think it's more fluid and cohesive than it really works out to be, though. |
Odd thing there is, people not "personally involved" seem to be agreeing with me, even a few who aren't very fond of SR4. But yeah, what you're saying is possible. It's been known to happen to people who actually know the rules pretty well and have been working with them for a couple of years.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| you might notice that the professional ratings only refer to groups under the Grunt rules (much like the Group Edge). Professional ratings do not extend to either Prime Runner NPCs or Contact NPCs because.... they don't extend to all NPCs. But feel free to prove me wrong. |
Beat you to it.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| As a lone NPC the wage slave is not part of a group, and hence has no professional rating (check the contacts and prime runners, they don't have professional ratings). While there are no stats in the section for "office flunky" even the lowly blogger has 2 edge. |
As I've mentioned above the Corporate Secretary in the GM's booklet has Edge 2 too.
Ah, I misread that as Corporate Security and skimmed past the stats.
Edit: nevermind. I was looking in the main book. I don't have the GM Booklet yet.
Edit: nevermind. I was looking in the main book. I don't have the GM Booklet yet.
| QUOTE |
| In this context I simply meant that it is part of the system and as such the system balance was designed with it in mind. |
Karma pool for NPCs is a later addition to the system; it's not "integral", it's an add-on. The actual system design didn't even account for that at all. At any event, it now becomes necessary for NPC's to have a "luck factor" in order to scale their power level appropriately.
| QUOTE |
| Professional ratings do not extend to either Prime Runner NPCs or Contact NPCs because.... they don't extend to all NPCs. |
But Joe Average is neither. In point of fact, "average wageslave" is pretty much the description of a Professional Rating 0 character. So, the professional ratings pretty much *do* extend to almost all generic NPCs; only specially-statted ones get an exemption, which is usually the case in every RPG.
| QUOTE |
| Odd thing there is, people not "personally involved" seem to be agreeing with me, even a few who aren't very fond of SR4. But yeah, what you're saying is possible. |
I know people who think HERO and GURPS are super-light and easy to run. That's fine for them; but when you take a more relative view of what's actually out there on the market, you'll see that SR4 is, at best, steadfastly average at what it does. All it's got going for it is the unique Shadowrun world, and even that's been watered down significantly.
| QUOTE |
| So, the professional ratings pretty much *do* extend to almost all generic NPCs; only specially-statted ones get an exemption, which is usually the case in every RPG. |
Got a rules quote for that? My book puts professional rating square in the camp of groups only.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 27 2006, 10:25 PM) | ||
Karma pool for NPCs is a later addition to the system; it's not "integral", it's an add-on. The actual system design didn't even account for that at all. |
Oops, you must be right. For some reason I thought it was in the core book of SR3, silly me.
No, wait. It is in the core book of SR3. Just like professional ratings. It is a core rule and it was introduced in the basic rules to balance NPCs in combat. You may be confusing things the introduction of Threat Ratings. My point stands. You are ignoring a core rule of SR3 to make your point. SR3 NPCs had Karma Pool built in, if you didn't use it you weren't experiencing SR3 game balance as it was intended.
| QUOTE |
| At any event, it now becomes necessary for NPC's to have a "luck factor" in order to scale their power level appropriately. |
Strangely enough just like in SR3. Maybe you should reread p.248 (Dice Pool, second paragraph) of SR3.
| QUOTE | ||
But Joe Average is neither. In point of fact, "average wageslave" is pretty much the description of a Professional Rating 0 character. So, the professional ratings pretty much *do* extend to almost all generic NPCs; only specially-statted ones get an exemption, which is usually the case in every RPG. |
This is not correct under SR4. Professional ratings (like Group Edge and simplified Condition Monitors) are especifically cited as rules used to simplify play of groups of similar individuals (ie. grunts). If you are applying those rules to a single NPC that is your call (and one any GM could make) but it is not supported by the rule book.
You may decide this is a common sense judgment call as a GM (more power to you), but it's still not covered in the rules - and it is not what FanPro intended (as demonstrated, for instance, by a number of incidental NPCs introduced at several points in On The Run which you mention having played).
Single NPCs are meant to be stated out or lightly sketched in as needed for their role in the adventure - most don't even need stats. For those that do, 9 times out of 10, a cameo NPC is going to be slapped together on the run and given only the stats needed for his cameo. If in need of a one-off incidental character how many people are going to look to the grunt/group rules? As opposed to say, ripping the stats off a generic corporate secretary or blogger contact?
Regardless, in SR4 (like in SR3) NPCs come with Edge (like Karma Pool in SR3) and they're intended to use it.
| QUOTE | ||
I know people who think HERO and GURPS are super-light and easy to run. That's fine for them; but when you take a more relative view of what's actually out there on the market, you'll see that SR4 is, at best, steadfastly average at what it does. All it's got going for it is the unique Shadowrun world, and even that's been watered down significantly. |
You seem to be confused (or you should reread my posts). I never said I thought Shadowrun 4 was super-light, or even that it was light. It isn't. I don't believe it is intended to be. In my experience it is , however, more fluid, more cohesive and faster playing than SR3, while keeping all the atmosphere. Which is what it was intended to be.
From my experience, the only thing slowing down multi"planar" combat are unclear AR/VR rules. Much with the hopeing for unwired. But that is more a result from the well-done streamlining, not the TN system.
On-topic.
Combat is generally MUCH faster now, as bad conditions no longer slow it to a crawl. The odds of having one hit remain acceptable as long as one dice remains...
Concerning full-auto fire from an unmodified SMG: It has now officially happend. Quite satisfactory in several ways.
Concerning variable vs. fixed TNs: A good variable TN-system would need to deviate from the holy d6 IMO. Or use much larger dice-pools. Comparing the specific systems I have in mind right now is forbidden, so lets just comment on "dice pool size" in combination with "#dice modifiers".
Large dice pools: Trained and experienced characters with good gear can accomplish nearly anything. This is because difficulty mods have to be based on average dice-pools. A chance of missing remains (ie target used edge). Fine.
Small dice pools: Mods make a large difference. Equipment does, too. Some things are highly unlikely to succeed. Fine too. If you just vary TNs, even basic training gives you a chance to do ANYTHING.
On-topic.
Combat is generally MUCH faster now, as bad conditions no longer slow it to a crawl. The odds of having one hit remain acceptable as long as one dice remains...
Concerning full-auto fire from an unmodified SMG: It has now officially happend. Quite satisfactory in several ways.
Concerning variable vs. fixed TNs: A good variable TN-system would need to deviate from the holy d6 IMO. Or use much larger dice-pools. Comparing the specific systems I have in mind right now is forbidden, so lets just comment on "dice pool size" in combination with "#dice modifiers".
Large dice pools: Trained and experienced characters with good gear can accomplish nearly anything. This is because difficulty mods have to be based on average dice-pools. A chance of missing remains (ie target used edge). Fine.
Small dice pools: Mods make a large difference. Equipment does, too. Some things are highly unlikely to succeed. Fine too. If you just vary TNs, even basic training gives you a chance to do ANYTHING.
| QUOTE (Ryu) |
| Concerning variable vs. fixed TNs: A good variable TN-system would need to deviate from the holy d6 IMO. Or use much larger dice-pools. Comparing the specific systems I have in mind right now is forbidden, so lets just comment on "dice pool size" in combination with "#dice modifiers". |
Uh oh. Here it comes...
<insert ominous music here>
'Voted for variable TN.
A good system should consider both the difficulty of the task (reflected in the TN) and the character's means of accomplishing the task (reflected in the number of dice).
Something that is near impossible should be that way even for a character with a base dice pool of 20+ while still leaving a minimum probability for low- or mid-level characters.
This would best be accomplished by having dice avaiable for the test fluctuate by everything that makes the task harder or easier for the character, the TN for the task's base difficulty AND fluctuating the threshold for the test for the task's complexity.
Of course this would mean having to abandon D6s as the chosen dice as you'd need a better way to scale difficulty, the old rule-of-6 (SR3-) had some quite odd semi-exponential system which sometimes was a PITA - fun though, don't get me wrong, just a PITA from a mathematical POV. I guess D12s would be the best compromise here, with ... say ... base TNs of about 8 (±1), down to 2 for absolutly easy tasks and up to 12 for nigh-impossible ones.
Fluctuating TNs don't HAVE to bog down play, this only happens when the game designer puts all the emphasis on it as the single existing means to factor difficulty - if done right, most rolls would still be base TN with only a dice pool or threshold modifier.
Just MHO, of course.
A good system should consider both the difficulty of the task (reflected in the TN) and the character's means of accomplishing the task (reflected in the number of dice).
Something that is near impossible should be that way even for a character with a base dice pool of 20+ while still leaving a minimum probability for low- or mid-level characters.
This would best be accomplished by having dice avaiable for the test fluctuate by everything that makes the task harder or easier for the character, the TN for the task's base difficulty AND fluctuating the threshold for the test for the task's complexity.
Of course this would mean having to abandon D6s as the chosen dice as you'd need a better way to scale difficulty, the old rule-of-6 (SR3-) had some quite odd semi-exponential system which sometimes was a PITA - fun though, don't get me wrong, just a PITA from a mathematical POV. I guess D12s would be the best compromise here, with ... say ... base TNs of about 8 (±1), down to 2 for absolutly easy tasks and up to 12 for nigh-impossible ones.
Fluctuating TNs don't HAVE to bog down play, this only happens when the game designer puts all the emphasis on it as the single existing means to factor difficulty - if done right, most rolls would still be base TN with only a dice pool or threshold modifier.
Just MHO, of course.
| QUOTE (Phobos) |
| Of course this would mean having to abandon D6s as the chosen dice as you'd need a better way to scale difficulty, the old rule-of-6 (SR3-) had some quite odd semi-exponential system... |
eh, mneh. that just means that small factors (such as the length of a Norman longsword versus the length of your average katana) get ignored. it's a question of what scale you want your modifiers to work on.
| QUOTE |
| No, wait. It is in the core book of SR3. Just like professional ratings. |
Except SR3 is just a modification of SR2. Which, in turn, is a cleanup of SR1. And guess what, there's no mention of karma pool for NPCs in it. The original balance of the system never even thought about those factors; they're add-ons, which came with different editions. SR4 is not a new edition, it's a new game with Shadowrun-ish trappings.
| QUOTE |
| Single NPCs are meant to be stated out or lightly sketched in as needed for their role in the adventure - most don't even need stats. For those that do, 9 times out of 10, a cameo NPC is going to be slapped together on the run and given only the stats needed for his cameo. |
Which is why the stats I proposed for Joe Average (Quickness 3, Edge 1) are perfectly viable, if against the intent of the rules. A basic civilian-- Someone who is neither a member of a combative group, nor a useful contact, nor a prime runner-- should be represnted by the rules. As you're pointing out, Joe needs to be winged.
| QUOTE |
| I never said I thought Shadowrun 4 was super-light, or even that it was light. It isn't. I don't believe it is intended to be. In my experience it is , however, more fluid, more cohesive and faster playing than SR3, while keeping all the atmosphere. |
I haven't found it to be *significantly* faster than SR3, although this is a matter of perspective; after playing super-tactical and gamist systems like Savage Worlds, which nevertheless run at hyper speeds, all editions of Shadowrun seem to be too slow for words. When compared to other games, the "improvements" you mention turn out to be more theoretical than actual; if it's faster, it's not fast enough to be a real improvement.
As for the world, the atmosphere of SR4 is just sad. Instead of a dark, Gibsonian view of the Matrix; we've got one that sounds suspiciously like the WinXP user's manual. The shadowslang is so on-again, off-again, it's impossible to tell exactly what kind of atmosphere people were going for.
Shadowrun originally revelled in the 80's cyberpunk atmosphere. SR4 tries to apologize for it. Everything else is just an explaination for why they put in a new matrix. It's a very sad state of affairs, really; so much of SR4's atmosphere and history is just trying to beg forgiveness for things. It's like taking a medieval/feudal game, and introducing a constitutional democracy into it as part of the second edition-- it's better to stay within the era, rather than try to apologize for it.
A much better approach would have been to re-imagine the whole thing from scratch. If they absolutely wanted to abandon the 80's atmosphere, then they needed to start fresh, instead of putting together this patchwork mess. I'm reminded of the OWOD mess, where things had simply gotten too complicated, and the world needed a reset. Supposedly, this was a similar reason for SR4.
But instead of trying to fix the old system, or trying to present us with a bold new vision, we're instead given a horrid mishmash. Instead of reinforcing the original themes, or presenting totally new ones, we've been given a watered-down treatment of a bunch of differing themes. In short, SR4 both went too far and yet not far enough: it introduced too many new themes, but didn't remove the old ones that cause setting clashes.
| QUOTE |
| Concerning variable vs. fixed TNs: A good variable TN-system would need to deviate from the holy d6 IMO. Or use much larger dice-pools. Comparing the specific systems I have in mind right now is forbidden, so lets just comment on "dice pool size" in combination with "#dice modifiers". |
This is not necessarily the case. The d6 system, for example, manages to pull things off just fine; the primary difference is that it's an additive dice system, as opposed to an individual-dice system like Shadowrun.
| QUOTE (Cain @ Jun 30 2006, 06:48 AM) | ||
Except SR3 is just a modification of SR2. Which, in turn, is a cleanup of SR1. And guess what, there's no mention of karma pool for NPCs in it. The original balance of the system never even thought about those factors; they're add-ons, which came with different editions. SR4 is not a new edition, it's a new game with Shadowrun-ish trappings. |
Argue it all the way back to SR1 if you want. Truth is you produced an SR3 example for comparison and I refuted it using SR3 and saying your perception of those mechanics are flawed because you are not using the core SR3 rules as written. My points stand, your argument when comparing SR3/4 was flawed.
| QUOTE | ||
Which is why the stats I proposed for Joe Average (Quickness 3, Edge 1) are perfectly viable, if against the intent of the rules. A basic civilian-- Someone who is neither a member of a combative group, nor a useful contact, nor a prime runner-- should be represnted by the rules. As you're pointing out, Joe needs to be winged. |
And again what you were told almost immediately by several people is that Edge 1 means a Joe non-Average in SR4. You may have winged it to your satisfaction, but your winging did not reflect the average stats of pedestrian level NPCs in SR4 - which to me just underlines your unfamiliarity with the balance of the game.
| QUOTE | ||
I haven't found it to be *significantly* faster than SR3, although this is a matter of perspective; after playing super-tactical and gamist systems like Savage Worlds, which nevertheless run at hyper speeds, all editions of Shadowrun seem to be too slow for words. When compared to other games, the "improvements" you mention turn out to be more theoretical than actual; if it's faster, it's not fast enough to be a real improvement. |
As you will note from this thread alone you are in the minority. Even those people who don't like SR4 recognize it runs faster and is more coherent than SR3 (some will say its because it's dumbed down but that does not contradict what I've said above).
It's obviously not enough of a real improvement for you. So be it. FanPro knew going in it was going to lose a lot of fans with the change and they went ahead anyway- there were good reasons for it and the gamble has paid off. Why have been discussed before and I don't feel retreading those discussions. The fact remains that it obviously is enough of an improvement for a great many people.
| QUOTE |
| As for the world, the atmosphere of SR4 is just sad. Instead of a dark, Gibsonian view of the Matrix; we've got one that sounds suspiciously like the WinXP user's manual. The shadowslang is so on-again, off-again, it's impossible to tell exactly what kind of atmosphere people were going for. |
I've said this before but I'll say it again: Take your SR1-3 BBB and reread them again just for background material on the world - disregard what every other SR book put out has added to that (because that's what entry level players do). Then compare any one of those books with SR4 BBB strictly in terms of introducing the setting and the world. Then we'll talk.
| QUOTE |
| Shadowrun originally revelled in the 80's cyberpunk atmosphere. SR4 tries to apologize for it. Everything else is just an explaination for why they put in a new matrix. It's a very sad state of affairs, really; so much of SR4's atmosphere and history is just trying to beg forgiveness for things. It's like taking a medieval/feudal game, and introducing a constitutional democracy into it as part of the second edition-- it's better to stay within the era, rather than try to apologize for it. |
I am at a loss as to where you are getting this in the SR4 BBB. Could you provide quotes?
I'm getting the impression your gripe has actually very little to do with the SR4 BBB or On The Run (the only two products currently out for SR4) but with the way SR has been going under FanPro. This is a perfectly valid complaint but one that's pretty useless in face of the facts. FanPro isn't going to change its development direction when it comes to setting because it has been paying off ever since it basically since it took over with Dragons of the Sixth World.
| QUOTE |
| A much better approach would have been to re-imagine the whole thing from scratch. If they absolutely wanted to abandon the 80's atmosphere, then they needed to start fresh, instead of putting together this patchwork mess. |
Again I get the impression your gripe is oriented at far more than SR4 BBB and On The Run, but since those are the subjects of the discussion - in the interest of debating your points you might want to provide some examples of what you mean by "this patchwork mess" from the 2 books currently available for SR4.
| QUOTE |
| I'm reminded of the OWOD mess, where things had simply gotten too complicated, and the world needed a reset. Supposedly, this was a similar reason for SR4. |
Nope. The game needed a new public face if it was going to survive into the next decade in the current market, it needed to move away from the general perception of being an unduly complex system with a steep learning curve, it needed a new system to bring back drop-outs and bring over new blood, it needed an update consistent with what today's (and tomorrow's) audience expects of a neo-cyberpunk setting, it needed to back away from metaplot development, and it needed to provide a jumping on point - SR4 has accomplished all that.
| QUOTE |
| But instead of trying to fix the old system, or trying to present us with a bold new vision, we're instead given a horrid mishmash. Instead of reinforcing the original themes, or presenting totally new ones, we've been given a watered-down treatment of a bunch of differing themes. In short, SR4 both went too far and yet not far enough: it introduced too many new themes, but didn't remove the old ones that cause setting clashes. |
As far as I'm concerned, as a GM and a player (since I wasn't directly involved in writing it), the SR4 BBB set the foundations for the new setting better than any other of the core books have ever done. I repeat: take a step back and compare SR3 (or SR1-2) BBB to SR4.
SR4 is intended to be newb friendly setting-wise . It is intended to introduce new players to the setting while providing old timers with the basics of what's changed in 2070 with the basic elements and buidling blocks all in place for future development. As far as I'm concerned it does this admirably and I believe you are letting your lugage get in the way.
As far as I'm concerned, and once again comparing the basic various iterations of the core rule books, I disagree with your analysis of the themes and style of SR4. The treatment of all the themes is as detailed as its always been - though admittedly the focus has shifted. There's more setting information to provide a contextual everyday framework for the themes than ever before and none of the setting history has been redressed to keep up with the times (as happened with SR2-3).
Like its predecessors, only more so, SR4 introduced a bunch of themes and concepts which will be built up in future books which is all you can ask of a core book (eg. Technomancers and their place in the world being a good example, since they will feature heavily in both an upcoming campaign/setting book and Unwired).
Any improvements aside (and basic SR4 IS better than basic SR3-, imho), the problem is that SR4 puts us back to evolution-step 1. square. It's more a draft on what SR will be in ... say ... SR6, as all the inconsistencies, bugs and holes are even worse than SR1 !
An other point : Few people left the rules as they were for SR3-, in SR1 house rules were pretty necessary to play at all, in SR2 they were necessary to simulate some thing thatz even remotely resembled game balance, and in SR3 ... well, after playing around with it for some months I had a nearly-balanced and nearly-fast RPG system, and mostly by ignoring rules (and difficulty tables).
Now SR4 ... by being a (more-or-less-)complete new system, if not only puts it's own evolution back at zero, it puts house rule evolution there, too - and it started out with a lot more need for house rules in the first place (my list of known SR4 inconsistencies, bugs, loopholes and plain stupidity lists more items than the book has pages !)
In addition, yes, I think Cain is right, the atmosphere of SR4 does feel ... changed. Shadowrun was always bright and colourfull on the surface, with more darkness and human misery thrown in the deeper you went into the shadows - a glaring contrast between Elves & Dragons & the Miracles of Technology and Cyberpunk ...
Now SR4 ... there might still be some of that old Cyberpunk feeling, but, honestly, I can't really find it in SR4 so far ... perhaps the new wireless world is just too blindingly bright ... well ... it doesn't just feel right, or, in other words, I feel that I'd have to paint the shadows blacker than ever to have it balanced against the glare of the surface world.
Oh, and don't even try to tell me SR4'd be better setting and background-wise ... any real newb trying to use only SR4 to GM ... well here's what SR4 is REALLY missing : Background Info !
SR1/2 had an introduction of Seattle, perhaps even enough of it to use as a campaign setting, SR3 at least at enough infos to be used as an update, but SR4 ? Frag, it's even a PITA for someone who has all previous editions and materials.
"Ummm ... what happened ? Last thing I know, it was '64 and the world was going to hell, and now ... 'guess that thing at my wrist is one of those new commlinks, and the ugly bright-coloured ads all around my field of vision mean it's working ... hmmm ... okay ... and my stats work differently now ... m'kay, not too bad, that might even work ... but ....... WHERE THE HELL AM I ? ... What's moving in the shadows, and Who's moving them ?"
Doing a time warp forward ... okay, but^H^H^HBUT ...
An other point : Few people left the rules as they were for SR3-, in SR1 house rules were pretty necessary to play at all, in SR2 they were necessary to simulate some thing thatz even remotely resembled game balance, and in SR3 ... well, after playing around with it for some months I had a nearly-balanced and nearly-fast RPG system, and mostly by ignoring rules (and difficulty tables).
Now SR4 ... by being a (more-or-less-)complete new system, if not only puts it's own evolution back at zero, it puts house rule evolution there, too - and it started out with a lot more need for house rules in the first place (my list of known SR4 inconsistencies, bugs, loopholes and plain stupidity lists more items than the book has pages !)
In addition, yes, I think Cain is right, the atmosphere of SR4 does feel ... changed. Shadowrun was always bright and colourfull on the surface, with more darkness and human misery thrown in the deeper you went into the shadows - a glaring contrast between Elves & Dragons & the Miracles of Technology and Cyberpunk ...
Now SR4 ... there might still be some of that old Cyberpunk feeling, but, honestly, I can't really find it in SR4 so far ... perhaps the new wireless world is just too blindingly bright ... well ... it doesn't just feel right, or, in other words, I feel that I'd have to paint the shadows blacker than ever to have it balanced against the glare of the surface world.
Oh, and don't even try to tell me SR4'd be better setting and background-wise ... any real newb trying to use only SR4 to GM ... well here's what SR4 is REALLY missing : Background Info !
SR1/2 had an introduction of Seattle, perhaps even enough of it to use as a campaign setting, SR3 at least at enough infos to be used as an update, but SR4 ? Frag, it's even a PITA for someone who has all previous editions and materials.
"Ummm ... what happened ? Last thing I know, it was '64 and the world was going to hell, and now ... 'guess that thing at my wrist is one of those new commlinks, and the ugly bright-coloured ads all around my field of vision mean it's working ... hmmm ... okay ... and my stats work differently now ... m'kay, not too bad, that might even work ... but ....... WHERE THE HELL AM I ? ... What's moving in the shadows, and Who's moving them ?"
Doing a time warp forward ... okay, but^H^H^HBUT ...
| QUOTE (Phobos @ Jun 30 2006, 01:13 PM) |
| Oh, and don't even try to tell me SR4'd be better setting and background-wise ... any real newb trying to use only SR4 to GM ... well here's what SR4 is REALLY missing : Background Info ! SR1/2 had an introduction of Seattle, perhaps even enough of it to use as a campaign setting, SR3 at least at enough infos to be used as an update, but SR4 ? Frag, it's even a PITA for someone who has all previous editions and materials. |
Let's be precise what you're actually saying is that SR4 lacks is a core setting. On the other hand, SR4 contains a whole lot more basic setting material than SR3 ever did (stuff that in fact only made it to print in Sprawl Survival Guide). The background material that is there is largely information that provides generic and everyday context to the shadows rather than one specific setting to use as a backdrop. This was intentional. A growing number of fans and players are looking beyond Seattle, and when FanPro's development team had to decide whether to include material on one core setting or generic details on everyday life in the 70s and the major players, they chose the latter (because unless you're playing in Turkistan or dark Africa the material pretty much applies to every game).
FanPro will no longer be focusing on Seattle as a primary setting and to include it (or any other sprawl) in the core book would have been misleading. Instead a number of sprawls will be introduced in the new "themed" location books over the next couple of years. The (just-released) Runner Havens (Seattle, HK, Cape Town, Caracas, Hamburg and Istanbul) was always intended to be one of the very first releases for SR4, though logisitics and production delays pushed it back further than originally intended.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.