Am I the only person who actually likes the SR4 rules as written? Everywhere I look I see people arguing one thing or another. If it's not that technomancers suck, it's that magic is too powerful, or not powerful enough, or that the hacking mechanics are completely different than all other mechanics. Apparently there are even people who have a problem with starting contacts.
I've only been playing SR4 for a little over a year now (DragonCON 06) and nowhere near as much as some of the people on this forum, but int he time I have played I have yet to decide that a houserule was needed for anything.
I've seen technomancers completely take over rival street sams, while at the same time using sprites to give everyone in their own group +6 dice with their weapon of choice. I've seen a mage completely decimate a a fully loaded police squadron, then lose everything to the group of gangers that found his passed out body.
The hacking mechanics are different from everything else, but the Matrix is really like nothing else. And I understand that if I give someone a tool (program) then train them how to use that tool (skill) then thaty don't have to be a genius to get things done with it. No that doesn't truly work with todays computer systems, but it's getting there. I know engineers and architects who know next to nothing about computer systems but use autoCAD programs everyday to design bridges and buildings.
I'm not trying to start a fight with everyone else on the forum. I just want to know if there is anyone else out there who uses SR4 rules as they are written.
Full Version: SR4 Rules
Well, depends if you count tweaking the rules section as RAW.
Currently, we are using the RAW, with one of the tweaks.
We haven't hit any situation where house rules were really needed, but I have looked at possible situations that might need them.
I am looking forward to the FAQ and Errata for SM.
Currently, we are using the RAW, with one of the tweaks.
We haven't hit any situation where house rules were really needed, but I have looked at possible situations that might need them.
I am looking forward to the FAQ and Errata for SM.
The game definitely works as written. There are some parts, which I'm not totally fond of, but it's not like the game or parts thereof were impossible to play or something.
I use house rules to improve the game and make it closer to what I want from it.
Bye
Thanee
I use house rules to improve the game and make it closer to what I want from it.
Bye
Thanee
PirateChef, I'm completely with you. Only house ruling I have ever made is when, as GM, I don't want to throw dice when the game mechanics wants to. But those things happen usually when they have advantage to my players (like firing a pistol from not-even-your-grandma-could-miss-from-here position).
But yes, I have no need for any house rulings. Only clarifications for some rules and this place is most excellent for looking them.
But yes, I have no need for any house rulings. Only clarifications for some rules and this place is most excellent for looking them.
I play with the RAW - almost.
I introduced few houserules, and most of them cover stuff that's not in the rules yet (like not magically healing drain, or how to upgrade cyberware), or is unclear in the RAW (like breaking up skillgroups at chargen).
So, in time, most (hopefully all) houserules of mine will be replaced with the RAW
.
I introduced few houserules, and most of them cover stuff that's not in the rules yet (like not magically healing drain, or how to upgrade cyberware), or is unclear in the RAW (like breaking up skillgroups at chargen).
So, in time, most (hopefully all) houserules of mine will be replaced with the RAW
.
But really, you're getting a skewed view.
This is a forum for the discussion of the SR4 rules. As such, there are going to be a lot of posts about the rules.
If everyone that didn't change things just posted threads that read "Hi, I'm Bob. I play Shadowrun just like in the book" over and over, it would be a pretty boring forum.
People that mod will post their mods. People that don't will read them and comment.
Other than that, it's just clarification and flavor.
Sorta like going to a tech support forum and wondering if anyone has a computer that works. They do. They just don't post nearly as often about it.
That being said, my group uses the RAW for pretty much everything. The only parts we don't are those that aren't clear, where we make judgement calls.
This is a forum for the discussion of the SR4 rules. As such, there are going to be a lot of posts about the rules.
If everyone that didn't change things just posted threads that read "Hi, I'm Bob. I play Shadowrun just like in the book" over and over, it would be a pretty boring forum.
People that mod will post their mods. People that don't will read them and comment.
Other than that, it's just clarification and flavor.
Sorta like going to a tech support forum and wondering if anyone has a computer that works. They do. They just don't post nearly as often about it.
That being said, my group uses the RAW for pretty much everything. The only parts we don't are those that aren't clear, where we make judgement calls.
| QUOTE (PirateChef @ Oct 30 2006, 07:19 AM) |
| Am I the only person who actually likes the SR4 rules as written? |
I like them as written. Generally speaking I think it can be run RAW perfectly fine. Played them for a year that way.
The biggest beef I have are the insane numbers for the ammo types. That's the one change I feel any need to change, and you can even play with them if you have to. They just make the game a bit more gonzo as the underlying numbers on them are absurd. *shrug*
I however happen to love two sub-systems from a different game for abstract resources and contacts. So I've adapted those to into one and translated them into SR4. They just fit the style of game I run better, which is less preset determined by me and more adapting to where the players take things.
EDIT: Note that I actually purposely waited through a year of play before putting the house rules in effect to avoid the knee-jerk rule changes you see here a lot.
P.S. Note that many Skills require what I refer to as "soft house rules" to actually play. Such as setting Thresholds, die modifiers, and such. As well I find there is one entry in RAW that I just toss out as rubbish, the one talking about the maximum Threshold being 4. I feel perfectly justified tossing this out since RAW itself does in a few places, for example Assensing. I also play up the personality of the Spirits more than as explicitly written in RAW to keep the Conjurer abuse down and help me avoid having to switch to the Optional rule of -2 die per active Spirit.
I'm sure the rules as written work, but I'm a compulsive tweaker. Given the time, I'll rewrite the whole damn thing to suit my needs. I had to restrain myself just recently from completely rewriting the way Matrix actions work (having already changed the way combat turns resolve and replacing the chase combat rules entirely, as well as tweaking the capabilities of several pieces of gear and cyber). I stick fundamentally with the rules in the book primarily because I'm not going to type up a whole new rulebook to distribute to my players.
It's all a matter of preference, really.
I haven't actually changed any rules with the intention of altering game balance, primarily because I haven't had any balance issues in game. All of my mods have been to make the game flow better, or just to make things the way I like them.
I don't really see the rules as broken or anything, I'm just the sort to manhandle any game system I get my hands on.
It's all a matter of preference, really.
I haven't actually changed any rules with the intention of altering game balance, primarily because I haven't had any balance issues in game. All of my mods have been to make the game flow better, or just to make things the way I like them.
I don't really see the rules as broken or anything, I'm just the sort to manhandle any game system I get my hands on.
Well, crap. Somebody said "ammo." This thread's done for. Soon it will be riddled with bullets both realistic and not. Better start a new one.
My group uses the book as written and hasn't had a problem yet. It's been a long time since we played though, we've been doing other games, so we don't have any experience using Street Magic.
My group uses the book as written and hasn't had a problem yet. It's been a long time since we played though, we've been doing other games, so we don't have any experience using Street Magic.
It's the nature of this forum. We like to talk shop about SR and so you'll usually hear about the mechanical criticisms or how people are tweaking or changing the rules. The people who have no problems at all usually have no reason to start a thread!
For the most part, I find the RAW to work pretty good. There is alot of grey area that lets the GM play fiat and add his personal spin on the world, and some areas that really could use some more explanations, but for the most part, things work.
Even the Technomancer rules, as is, work fine for me so far. I've played one for 5 months now, though I admit that it's on the forum here, so I've only hacked 4-5 things. You just have to be in a different mindset and play it differently than a hacker to make it work.
Sure I wont argue that a Technomancer is a karma sink if you want to make it just like a hacker by getting all the CFs to 6. Still, you dont have to do that, due to the fact that you can just compile a sprite to do the action for you right on the spot, and for the most part, it will do it better than you could have. I've hacked 3 of the 5 nodes while in AR, so as not to give away my abilities to other people.
When I first started reading into Technomancers, I had that knee-jerk reaction of wanting to lower all the karma costs, but after playing by the book for a while, its made me think up new ways to get things done, which I might have not though up otherwise.
Even the Technomancer rules, as is, work fine for me so far. I've played one for 5 months now, though I admit that it's on the forum here, so I've only hacked 4-5 things. You just have to be in a different mindset and play it differently than a hacker to make it work.
Sure I wont argue that a Technomancer is a karma sink if you want to make it just like a hacker by getting all the CFs to 6. Still, you dont have to do that, due to the fact that you can just compile a sprite to do the action for you right on the spot, and for the most part, it will do it better than you could have. I've hacked 3 of the 5 nodes while in AR, so as not to give away my abilities to other people.
When I first started reading into Technomancers, I had that knee-jerk reaction of wanting to lower all the karma costs, but after playing by the book for a while, its made me think up new ways to get things done, which I might have not though up otherwise.
50% of my players are old school shadowrunners (played at least SR2/3 and one actually played snce day one of SR), and the others are new to the game. SR4 is good as is. But (and isnt there always a but?) there are a lot more rule coverage (rules for doing various things) in SR2/3. They are more fleshed out. SR4 is a great as is but not as complete. Now that Street Magic is out, the Magic rules are "more complete". Other areas are not soo complete. That is where i am "filling" in some house rulings (I am not sure if I would call the house rules) until the offical word comes out (via Arsenal, Augmentation, Unwired). Most of the house rulings are basically SR3 rules applied to SR4. I am lucky that so far all my players are staying within the new normal rules and arent expanding to the boundries. Well all but one but he knows more about the SR game systems than I do. And he and I talk about the rulings/rules offline between sessions to make sure we are in alignment for the games.
Gary Gygax (did I misspell his name again?) said it best. "The written rules are a guideline for the DM to use for his world.. nothing more than a strong suggestion..." Yeah I know he was talking about DnD, but it applies to any RPG.
dog
Gary Gygax (did I misspell his name again?) said it best. "The written rules are a guideline for the DM to use for his world.. nothing more than a strong suggestion..." Yeah I know he was talking about DnD, but it applies to any RPG.
dog
If you can deal with the base rules as written, good for you.
For me, the Karma / BP imbalance is too big an issue - it makes it so that mathematically there is an "optimal" starting character, and that character ends up being horribly min-maxed. Making characters for RAW isn't fun - they're always wrong because they're unrealistically min-maxed or wrong because they threw away karma to be well rounded. It's not fun.
Other than that, the rest of the rules are reasonably workable. It does bother me that hackers don't need a high logic attribute. Ammo is a bit off. Spirits seem to get more powerful every time I re-read the rules (at least their stats got errata'd down from stuff like force*3) . The rules on movement are the "you move as you act" fuzzy crap that means that every GM will nerf you differently (and exploit the crap out of their visualization of movement with their NPCs), and the way that movement interacts with initiative passes is just janky.
Being able to start at the attribute caps is weird. The result of the mechanics of Encrypt/Decrypt makes no sense. I'm still not sure why you can't just pick an arbitrarily high number and run that many cracked Agents to go do whatever you want in the matrix.
There are a bunch of other things that will probably get clarified in the FAQ (if that ever actually gets published...).
So... I guess the rules are fine if none of your players considers the BP/karma differential and the GM is able to come up with consistent and reasonable rulings whenever the rules get fuzzy. There's still a problem... the posts in this forum are a strong indication that there's no obviously correct answer for a lot of the weird spots.
For me, the Karma / BP imbalance is too big an issue - it makes it so that mathematically there is an "optimal" starting character, and that character ends up being horribly min-maxed. Making characters for RAW isn't fun - they're always wrong because they're unrealistically min-maxed or wrong because they threw away karma to be well rounded. It's not fun.
Other than that, the rest of the rules are reasonably workable. It does bother me that hackers don't need a high logic attribute. Ammo is a bit off. Spirits seem to get more powerful every time I re-read the rules (at least their stats got errata'd down from stuff like force*3) . The rules on movement are the "you move as you act" fuzzy crap that means that every GM will nerf you differently (and exploit the crap out of their visualization of movement with their NPCs), and the way that movement interacts with initiative passes is just janky.
Being able to start at the attribute caps is weird. The result of the mechanics of Encrypt/Decrypt makes no sense. I'm still not sure why you can't just pick an arbitrarily high number and run that many cracked Agents to go do whatever you want in the matrix.
There are a bunch of other things that will probably get clarified in the FAQ (if that ever actually gets published...).
So... I guess the rules are fine if none of your players considers the BP/karma differential and the GM is able to come up with consistent and reasonable rulings whenever the rules get fuzzy. There's still a problem... the posts in this forum are a strong indication that there's no obviously correct answer for a lot of the weird spots.
| QUOTE (Chandon) |
| So... I guess the rules are fine if none of your players considers the BP/karma differential and the GM is able to come up with consistent and reasonable rulings whenever the rules get fuzzy. There's still a problem... the posts in this forum are a strong indication that there's no obviously correct answer for a lot of the weird spots. |
Really, those are both no brainers to me.
Once you understand the bp/karma issue, it's simple enough to spot it being abused. A gm that is afraid to hit his players for abusing things like that will have lots of issues anyway.
And consistent and reasonable rulings when the rules get fuzzy is something I expect from my GMs, and I haven't been disappointed. Maybe it's because I started out with old DnD (Red box) and have gone through many different systems, but I'm fine with GMs making rulings on the fly. Granted, I'll whine and moan if they contradict the RAW, but if the GM tells me "I know. I'm changing it," then I hush, and get on with things....
The RAW requires houserules and tons of GM fiat. There are dozens of instances where the book mentions that a situation is "up to GM discretion" (off the top of my head - glitches, elemental damage, node break in reactions, effectiveness of contacts, half the section on hacking, drug prices and availability, addiction rules). Some parts of the book I love, I just wish it was a little more complete in some areas so I had a benchmark from where I could houserule from. I don't like being required to use so much GM fiat.
Coming from DnD, I also wish they made the system more grid friendly. I've had to make several houserules for that to work also.
Coming from DnD, I also wish they made the system more grid friendly. I've had to make several houserules for that to work also.
| QUOTE (Chandon @ Oct 30 2006, 11:15 AM) |
| For me, the Karma / BP imbalance is too big an issue - it makes it so that mathematically there is an "optimal" starting character, and that character ends up being horribly min-maxed. |
This has been discussed to death. They are only "optimal" if the GM chooses to run a very narrow game.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| This has been discussed to death. They are only "optimal" if the GM chooses to run a very narrow game. |
I believe that the fact that it being discussed 'to death' and still disputed is evidence that not everyone shares your faith in that statement.
None the less, adding my own two cents - My largest problem with SR4 is just making the adjustment from the previous versions. I know this is a pretty obvious statement, but they're two different systems, and as I look to compare the two, they just seem to be more and more radically different.
Is RAW horrible? No, far from it. Is it difficult at times to readjust to ways of accomplishing things (I'm generalizing here) that contradict the previous three generations of the game? Perhaps a bit. And part of that is finding new solutions, or fine tuning old ones, in this different implimentation of the genre.
At the end of the day? Rob Boyle said it best when he said that much of what draws people to Shadowrun is it's setting, theme, and storyline. So whether you're running vanilla SR4, or the Super-HouseRule-Deluxe model, we're all unifed in our appreciation of the concept. (Except for the rampant running loose of magic, tromping over technology. You knew I had to say that. That part pretty much blows.
)
The RAW are untouched as far as I play. I'm happy with them. Now some of the Fluff as Written, I take apart severely. For example, no Dunklezahn for president, no technomancers and Bug City hasn't happened yet because I want to scare the players silly when it does.
... So you are playing SR2 with SR4 rules?
| QUOTE (Konsaki @ Oct 30 2006, 01:03 PM) |
| ... So you are playing SR2 with SR4 rules? |
More or less. I've said some of this before in other posts, so I wont go into it in great detail, but there are three reasons. First off, I started off with SR1 and progressed to 2, long ago and enjoyed it immensely. We foiled Queen Euphoria and we did some odd delivery work for some crazy elf. There was a dragon that owned a theme park, but we never met him. And then the group broke up and I missed the latter parts of SR2 and all of SR3. So in part I'm just taking up where I left off.
But a bigger and more important reason is that I think when you're a long term player and you've gone through the previous history of Shadowrun, you're a lot more accepting of some things than a new player is. The president's a dragon? Sends entirely the wrong message for the mood that I want to create. It sends players straight into fantasy mode. They think they can go out and buy a unicorn with a MMG mount. The effect that I want, is a realistic, near future where magic and its harbingers are new, strange and menacing.
Of course I keep much of the setting, e.g. a wireless matrix, because quite frankly we can see where our own world is going and much of the new stuff is meant to bring the shadowrun world back into line with what is plausible, for all that history has branched already.
So the year is 2070, there's a wireless matrix, a global oligarchy and you can drive a car with your commlink. But there are these strange people in your city who want you to join their brotherhood, the trid has footage of a supernatural war in South America and when Mr. Johnson turns out to be a dragon, it's a scare not a cliché.
Basically, I feel that if I want Shadowrun to keep its edge, then I need to feed the players it's stranger aspects in small pieces. Otherwise there is no baseline for anything to be strange or outsider. And I'm enjoying the chance to spring a few favourite old surprises. With a bit of luck, in January, my players might be asked to abduct a famous adult sim-sense starlet. It should be easy money.
| QUOTE (Steak and Spirits @ Oct 30 2006, 11:51 AM) | ||
I believe that the fact that it being discussed 'to death' and still disputed is evidence that not everyone shares your faith in that statement. |
It is better put that it is evidence that people are STILL not being hunted down and summarily shot for the crime of stupidity.
Basically the only actual character I've ever seen presented on the matter was something that would have netted the player a well earned kick in the manberries for the bullshit Incompetence Qualities they were trying to slide. And the character was still basically a one-trick pony gimp. Nothing more than a glass cannon looking for a place to shatter. Hardly optimal at all. :/
EDIT: Actually I do recall a Mr. Block or something too. A Troll that was sort of like a placeholder. Really hard to kill, but often easy to ignore and kill last because he wasn't much of a threat or use to anyone.
RAW? *whistles*
Though in truth one-trick ponies make ideal starting characters.
Sure the are 'wiz-bang' at what they do; however, once the hit the streets they realize life is alot more then just 'hacking' (or slinging-mana, or shooting a pistol).
'Runners' may have better skills in their narrow focus, but most 'Mercs' won't touch them with a 10 foot pole. The Merc know that team-work, cordination, and professionalism mean far more then being 'the fastest gun' or being able to toss the 'biggest fireball'.
Now a 'one-shot' pony has a low life expectency, but then so do most 'noobs' hitting the shadows.
While not as impressive, the well rounded 'ganger' who is smart enough to take jobs he can handle will generaly have a higher life expectancy, but the focus 'prodigy' is a valid concept. Just dont expect to be cut any slack for not having roudned skills... and when is <evil gm mode> expect Mr. Murphy to be visting the one trick pony far more often then the well rounded character.
Sure the are 'wiz-bang' at what they do; however, once the hit the streets they realize life is alot more then just 'hacking' (or slinging-mana, or shooting a pistol).
'Runners' may have better skills in their narrow focus, but most 'Mercs' won't touch them with a 10 foot pole. The Merc know that team-work, cordination, and professionalism mean far more then being 'the fastest gun' or being able to toss the 'biggest fireball'.
Now a 'one-shot' pony has a low life expectency, but then so do most 'noobs' hitting the shadows.
While not as impressive, the well rounded 'ganger' who is smart enough to take jobs he can handle will generaly have a higher life expectancy, but the focus 'prodigy' is a valid concept. Just dont expect to be cut any slack for not having roudned skills... and when is <evil gm mode> expect Mr. Murphy to be visting the one trick pony far more often then the well rounded character.
AS to the RAW / House rule.
RAW SR4 is like saying is RAW Amber DRPG.
They both rely totally on a skiled GM. When a very large percentage of your rules say: "gm judgement™' then saying the rules are weak are saying YOU (or your GM) is weak.
With a mature GM and preferably atleast some mature players. RAW is fine, but will need a lot of 'fudge factor'.
There are a lot of things I would make into house rules, as opposed to on the fly 'fudge factor'. Some to help with consitancy and expectations. Some to actually change a few rules.
Do I like SR4 RAW.
It is not a bad system. There are far far far worse systems out there.
There are very few totally 'better' systems out there.
There is a little too little delination between 'noobs' 'professional' and 'the best of the best' for my liking. (Much like Last Unicorns Games: Star Trek an fun fast system, but a 3d6 difference between a wet behind the ears engineer and Scotty aint right. Likewise a 'starting' hacker and Fastjack just dont have enough between them for my total liking.
Editing / layout could have been a little better in RAW and would have helped some of the confusion.
Overal I would give RAW a 8 on a 1-10.
SR3 as written probably a 7, numerous years of built up house rules maybe a 9.
I fully expect to have SR4 housed ruled to a '9' probably quicker then SR3 (since overall the ssytem is cleaner) and probably very shortly after the last main book is out.
RAW SR4 is like saying is RAW Amber DRPG.
They both rely totally on a skiled GM. When a very large percentage of your rules say: "gm judgement™' then saying the rules are weak are saying YOU (or your GM) is weak.
With a mature GM and preferably atleast some mature players. RAW is fine, but will need a lot of 'fudge factor'.
There are a lot of things I would make into house rules, as opposed to on the fly 'fudge factor'. Some to help with consitancy and expectations. Some to actually change a few rules.
Do I like SR4 RAW.
It is not a bad system. There are far far far worse systems out there.
There are very few totally 'better' systems out there.
There is a little too little delination between 'noobs' 'professional' and 'the best of the best' for my liking. (Much like Last Unicorns Games: Star Trek an fun fast system, but a 3d6 difference between a wet behind the ears engineer and Scotty aint right. Likewise a 'starting' hacker and Fastjack just dont have enough between them for my total liking.
Editing / layout could have been a little better in RAW and would have helped some of the confusion.
Overal I would give RAW a 8 on a 1-10.
SR3 as written probably a 7, numerous years of built up house rules maybe a 9.
I fully expect to have SR4 housed ruled to a '9' probably quicker then SR3 (since overall the ssytem is cleaner) and probably very shortly after the last main book is out.
The karma/BP issue is a matter of character balance. If you got teammates that can cover your weaknesses and you can avoid those situations that you are weak in, then it works. If you can survive to get the karma, you can rapidly shore up your weaknesses and soon your-used-to-be-unbalanced-but-now-balanced-and-powerful PC is outstripping the balanced-at-chargen PC. But consider, unless your GM smacks down every unbalanced PC with GM fiat, even if the GM does "tests" the PC weaknesses(considering a fair GM that tests all PCs equally), eventually (a small number of) unbalanced but lucky(doesn't matter if it is the Edge or real life lucky) PCs are going to get through.
Ok Blakkie.
Assume that two players are both building characters of the same archtype. In fact, they both come up with identical character sheets except for one difference. One of them has Strength 2 and Agility 5. The other one has Strength 3 and Agility 4. Both of them eventually want to have Strength 4 and Agility 5.
The first guy will spend 3*3 + 4*3 = 21 karma to get there. The second guy will instead spend 4*3 + 5*3 = 27 karma.
Should the player in my example who starts with more "min-maxed" attributes be rewarded with 6 karma for his character generation choice?
Assume that two players are both building characters of the same archtype. In fact, they both come up with identical character sheets except for one difference. One of them has Strength 2 and Agility 5. The other one has Strength 3 and Agility 4. Both of them eventually want to have Strength 4 and Agility 5.
The first guy will spend 3*3 + 4*3 = 21 karma to get there. The second guy will instead spend 4*3 + 5*3 = 27 karma.
Should the player in my example who starts with more "min-maxed" attributes be rewarded with 6 karma for his character generation choice?
| QUOTE (Chandon @ Oct 31 2006, 02:08 PM) |
| Should the player in my example who starts with more "min-maxed" attributes be rewarded with 6 karma for his character generation choice? |
Why not? He has to live with that character until such time as he gets the Karma to raise his Strength. In the meantime, another more pressing need for that Karma may pop up, therefore making him live with his chargen choices even longer.
If you really need every character to start out exactly the same, and progress at almost exactly the same rate (and cost), then there are game systems out there that reflect this. Alternatively, you could just allow straight 3's in all Attributes and a specific number of rank 4 Skills, rank 3 Skills, etc.
Chandon:
If that was the only differnce probably not and as GM probably wouldnt do much of anything.
Now if that was 'one' point, and generally across the board player B had gone for BPeffecincy, then rest assured
Player B is going to be put in situations where he is going to be making alot more strength checks
If that was the only differnce probably not and as GM probably wouldnt do much of anything.
Now if that was 'one' point, and generally across the board player B had gone for BPeffecincy, then rest assured
Player B is going to be put in situations where he is going to be making alot more strength checks
| QUOTE (Chandon) |
| Ok Blakkie. Assume that two players are both building characters of the same archtype. In fact, they both come up with identical character sheets except for one difference. One of them has Strength 2 and Agility 5. The other one has Strength 3 and Agility 4. Both of them eventually want to have Strength 4 and Agility 5. The first guy will spend 3*3 + 4*3 = 21 karma to get there. The second guy will instead spend 4*3 + 5*3 = 27 karma. Should the player in my example who starts with more "min-maxed" attributes be rewarded with 6 karma for his character generation choice? |
Yeah, because 2 and 5 is -totally- min/maxed. Except for the 'min' part.....and the 'max' part.
| QUOTE (laughingowl) |
| Player B is going to be put in situations where he is going to be making alot more strength checks |
So, do you often punish your PCs for making valid chargen choices?
Then the guy with the higher Strength had better have made his Strength work for him, somehow somewhere somewhen and survived because of it. Inevitably in any game system there is a dump stat, there will be. How much the dump stat impacts game play is dependent both on the GM and on the game system. Maybe the lower Strength guy can't carry as much ammo and runs out at a critical time or cannot bring a piece of equipment. The min-maxed PC has to live to earn his karma, the odds of survival may be in favour of the non-min-maxed PC, but how much in favour is up for debate.
EDIT: Laughingowl(sorry, blakkie!),
Why is the lower strength guy making more Strength checks, shouldn't he be making as many Strength checks are the other guy? Or if he is smart enough to avoid situations that require Strength are you going to handwave it into a Strength check as well?
EDIT: Laughingowl(sorry, blakkie!),
Why is the lower strength guy making more Strength checks, shouldn't he be making as many Strength checks are the other guy? Or if he is smart enough to avoid situations that require Strength are you going to handwave it into a Strength check as well?
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
So, do you often punish your PCs for making valid chargen choices? |
"Nope, I jsut don't punish characters for making valid charcter CONCEPTS"
Also:
| QUOTE |
| Now if that was 'one' point, and generally across the board player B had gone for BPeffecincy |
As I stated if that was the only difference I doubt I would even notice it. If every stat on player B is geared to maximized BP effeciency, then yes I will see that they 'pay' for the advantages they got.
For the same reason if you take: Allergy (sever,siamese cats) you better belive that while perhaps not every adventure (unless you said they were common, and took the extra points for 'common'), you WILL encounter siamese cats. Sometimes in just annoying situations and quite likely on occasion in hazardous sistuations.
Again it all comes down to what the player is doing. Not knowing your background, dont know how long you have run games Fortune, but do you have any real problem identifing those who 'min/max' versus those that build a character (possibly effectively, but they have a character in mind then make them, NOT spreadsheed ammortized blueprint, that they happen to stuck a name on).
Been running games since chainmail, and never really had any complaints. One of the jobs of a GM is balancing the 'challanges' in the game based on those that are a 'natural' at building effective characters, and those that are 'role-players' but could make a gimped 800bp charactrer (with a great concept, story, and personality, but about as surviable as your average 'contact').
Each of the character will generally 'suceed' and 'fail' an equal amount. The 'rounded' ones may get a little of small sucesses and failures, the 'one-trick ponies' might get a few spectualr successes, but they are also going to generally get more failure (and/or bigger failures).
Rule number one of combat:
Charlie / Murphy WILL hit you were you are weakest, least preapred, most vunerable, or least desire it.
So why should the game be any different.
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| Blakkie, Why is the lower strength guy making more Strength checks, shouldn't he be making as many Strength checks are the other guy? Or if he is smart enough to avoid situations that require Strength are you going to handwave it into a Strength check as well? |
What the fuck are you talking about?
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| Yeah, because 2 and 5 is -totally- min/maxed. Except for the 'min' part.....and the 'max' part. |
You're right. It's not. In fact, with the character generation rules everyone will tend to have a 2 attribute, and a 5 isn't especially high. That's what makes my example useful - it would obviously be absurd for a GM to nerf the player for that build decision.
My point is that it's also absurd for the game system to punish the player who made the other choice.
| QUOTE (laughingowl) |
| "Nope, I jsut don't punish characters for making valid charcter CONCEPTS" |
Almost anything could be considered a 'valid character concept'. Character concepts don't necessarily rely solely on stats.
As to Attributes, it takes 160 BP to put 3's in every Attribute, making up an average person's stats. That leaves only 40 BP remaining from the 200 allowable at chargen to distribute among all 8 Attributes without lowering any of the Attributes from 3.
| QUOTE (laughingowl) |
| Not knowing your background, dont know how long you have run games Fortune, but do you have any real problem identifing those who 'min/max' versus those that build a character (possibly effectively, but they have a character in mind then make them, NOT spreadsheed ammortized blueprint, that they happen to stuck a name on). |
See the post above. A character concept has nothing to do with a set of stats.
| QUOTE |
| Been running games since chainmail, and never really had any complaints. |
As have I. Are you done comparing dick sizes yet?
I think that it depends on what you are wanting out of a game system in how much you mess with the rules.
I am a builder. I have built several systems myself starting with looking at 1st ed Dnd and saying "what the hell??"
On one hand I think that a game system should model life to some degree and should say certain things about the setting. If I have a setting where it is mostly about space craft and blasters then my melee rules will be vague to almost nonexistant. If it is a fanasty setting then I make sure that you can have several different melee experts in the game. I also try and make sure there is enough difference between the melee weapons for people to have a variety that they can enjoy.
On the other hand I have taken several game mechanics and ported them over from one system to another because I found a good way of dealing with a situation and I want to use it in all my games.
I found long ago that your players will direct their characters based on what is logical in the game system before they will for the setting. You could run a very social game in 1st ed DnD and the players will be chomping at the bit to kill monsters because they get rewarded for finding loot and killing monsters. You have to house rule it to change that at all. Then you could run them in World of Darkness and they will avoid some of the combat because it is lethal. Game Mechanics have a great deal to do with how your players will move through your games.
If you want to run a game that exactly matches the setting then that is fine (except the game mechanics often do NOT match the described setting), but if you have a different idea or want to include this cool idea from this book or movie then you will be making at least a few house rules.
We are not here as whinners. We are here because we want to discuss a topic that interests us and excites us.
I am a builder. I have built several systems myself starting with looking at 1st ed Dnd and saying "what the hell??"
On one hand I think that a game system should model life to some degree and should say certain things about the setting. If I have a setting where it is mostly about space craft and blasters then my melee rules will be vague to almost nonexistant. If it is a fanasty setting then I make sure that you can have several different melee experts in the game. I also try and make sure there is enough difference between the melee weapons for people to have a variety that they can enjoy.
On the other hand I have taken several game mechanics and ported them over from one system to another because I found a good way of dealing with a situation and I want to use it in all my games.
I found long ago that your players will direct their characters based on what is logical in the game system before they will for the setting. You could run a very social game in 1st ed DnD and the players will be chomping at the bit to kill monsters because they get rewarded for finding loot and killing monsters. You have to house rule it to change that at all. Then you could run them in World of Darkness and they will avoid some of the combat because it is lethal. Game Mechanics have a great deal to do with how your players will move through your games.
If you want to run a game that exactly matches the setting then that is fine (except the game mechanics often do NOT match the described setting), but if you have a different idea or want to include this cool idea from this book or movie then you will be making at least a few house rules.
We are not here as whinners. We are here because we want to discuss a topic that interests us and excites us.
Toturi:
It was ME that said the lower strength guy would be getting put into situation to make more strength checks.
Much like you said: "Maybe the lower Strength guy can't carry as much ammo and runs out at a critical time or cannot bring a piece of equipment"
If the character just 'happened' to have a strength 2, and it was not a visible trend to min/max a character, then wouldnt think twice.
If the characrer clearly was built to maximize BP/karma costs, then I will pay a little more attention to his 'weakness'
Sure the lower strength will WANT to avoid strength rules, however if the build appears to be an attempt to get extra BP. (I.E the same as taking a flaw), then it will be a flaw.
Would you allow allergy (siamse cats) and never have a siamse cat in the game, or would you PURPOSELY put siamse cats in the game at time.
Having a sub-par stats is exactly like taking a flaw. You will have hardships because of that. Now you wont be making a strength test every time you get out of bed (unless you are str-1 demral playing -4, but probably on more runs then not, you probably will find yourself in a situation that you will NEED to make a strength roll.
Just like the allergy (siamse cat) will find himself occasionally facing a siamse cat. Alot of times it might be annoying. (person next to him at meet with Johnson has a cat with them, he goes through the meet with a stuffy nose), but rest assured there will be atleast ONCE in their life that it is down right hazardous. (they hiding from the security patrol when the mascot of the security team (Kitty) comes up and rubs up against the air duck they are hiding in.)
Likewise if you take make your socially inept troll cha-2 no social skills, then rest assured you are likely going to be making alot more social rolls.
Even the cha-3 ettiqute -1 characer, I will 'buy successes' and they pass the doorman with no issue. (one success).
The troll however, I would likely make a roll (since a good chance he will irrate the doorman and/or cause a scene).
Now understand the FLIP side applies just as much.
Player B, will likely be making an "agility" check for every strength check he fails, and showing his outstanding agility.
The social inept troll, but body 10 str - 10, for every doorman that calls the cops on him, he also will get the team is trapped, the hacker triggered an alarm, and the doors are on lock-down. Door, what door, you mean this piece of junk, RIPPPPP.
Players will make sure their 'strengths' are used (and possibly some GM help), PLAYERS will overlook their weaknesses... the GM needs to remember them.
Which do you hear more often from you players:
A) Rembmer I am a fancynamespellcaster I get +2 dice on my spell casting roll.
or
B) Hey remember I have allergy (water), dont forget to factor in the extra damage from that water elemental.
While I amazingly have good players .... even with them I would still say I hear 80% of the times 'A' applies and probably 40-50% of the time 'B' applies.
Thus as GM, it is MY job to make sure that when 'B' applies I call for it.
That goes for whether it is a direct listed 'flaw' like allergy, or just a 'weak' (or unsocial, or clumsy, etc) character.
It was ME that said the lower strength guy would be getting put into situation to make more strength checks.
Much like you said: "Maybe the lower Strength guy can't carry as much ammo and runs out at a critical time or cannot bring a piece of equipment"
If the character just 'happened' to have a strength 2, and it was not a visible trend to min/max a character, then wouldnt think twice.
If the characrer clearly was built to maximize BP/karma costs, then I will pay a little more attention to his 'weakness'
Sure the lower strength will WANT to avoid strength rules, however if the build appears to be an attempt to get extra BP. (I.E the same as taking a flaw), then it will be a flaw.
Would you allow allergy (siamse cats) and never have a siamse cat in the game, or would you PURPOSELY put siamse cats in the game at time.
Having a sub-par stats is exactly like taking a flaw. You will have hardships because of that. Now you wont be making a strength test every time you get out of bed (unless you are str-1 demral playing -4
, but probably on more runs then not, you probably will find yourself in a situation that you will NEED to make a strength roll.Just like the allergy (siamse cat) will find himself occasionally facing a siamse cat. Alot of times it might be annoying. (person next to him at meet with Johnson has a cat with them, he goes through the meet with a stuffy nose), but rest assured there will be atleast ONCE in their life that it is down right hazardous. (they hiding from the security patrol when the mascot of the security team (Kitty) comes up and rubs up against the air duck they are hiding in.)
Likewise if you take make your socially inept troll cha-2 no social skills, then rest assured you are likely going to be making alot more social rolls.
Even the cha-3 ettiqute -1 characer, I will 'buy successes' and they pass the doorman with no issue. (one success).
The troll however, I would likely make a roll (since a good chance he will irrate the doorman and/or cause a scene).
Now understand the FLIP side applies just as much.
Player B, will likely be making an "agility" check for every strength check he fails, and showing his outstanding agility.
The social inept troll, but body 10 str - 10, for every doorman that calls the cops on him, he also will get the team is trapped, the hacker triggered an alarm, and the doors are on lock-down. Door, what door, you mean this piece of junk, RIPPPPP.
Players will make sure their 'strengths' are used (and possibly some GM help), PLAYERS will overlook their weaknesses... the GM needs to remember them.
Which do you hear more often from you players:
A) Rembmer I am a fancynamespellcaster I get +2 dice on my spell casting roll.
or
B) Hey remember I have allergy (water), dont forget to factor in the extra damage from that water elemental.
While I amazingly have good players .... even with them I would still say I hear 80% of the times 'A' applies and probably 40-50% of the time 'B' applies.
Thus as GM, it is MY job to make sure that when 'B' applies I call for it.
That goes for whether it is a direct listed 'flaw' like allergy, or just a 'weak' (or unsocial, or clumsy, etc) character.
| QUOTE (Chandon @ Oct 30 2006, 09:40 PM) | ||
You're right. It's not. In fact, with the character generation rules everyone will tend to have a 2 attribute, and a 5 isn't especially high. That's what makes my example useful - it would obviously be absurd for a GM to nerf the player for that build decision. |
Obviously you aren't talking to me about this as it basically has dick all to do with what I've said. I'm not even sure where 'nerf' comes from?
| QUOTE |
| My point is that it's also absurd for the game system to punish the player who made the other choice. |
Oh no, there is a slightly more optimal** option that IS NOT a min/max and is available to anyone that wants it. So a lot of characters are going to end up with a 2 stat, maybe even a couple of 2s. Or heaven forbid even occationally a 1 some where.
Along with 3s and 4s and 5s, maybe even a rare 6. As in the whole spectrum. Yah, 'punishment'.
** Talking in localized terms, hypothetically assuming a number of things. Maybe.
P.S. Hey, I'd like to see character generation use the same purchases as during the game. But the game has been tuned to work like this too. The trade-off for having somewhat simpler accounting in character generation, for those that actually still use pencil and paper. And in the end it actually matters very, very, very little when you play the game.
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| As to Attributes, it takes 160 BP to put 3's in every Attribute, making up an average person's stats. That leaves only 40 BP remaining from the 200 allowable at chargen to distribute among all 8 Attributes without lowering any of the Attributes from 3. |
That's precisely where the word 'optimal' comes into play. The vast majority of concepts that use 2s, 4s, and 5s, will find they have an advantage over similiar concepts that get themselves 'average' then stage up from there. This advantage is only agrevated by time, and karma.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| Yeah, because 2 and 5 is -totally- min/maxed. Except for the 'min' part.....and the 'max' part. |
Ahh. Yes. We ought to define our terminology, then, if something is going to be debated. For furture reference, when I use the term 'Min/Max' I will be referring to the following definition:
| QUOTE |
| A state of attribute allocation where the minimum and maximum ratings of the attribute are favored over attributes taken in the center of the spectrum |
When I use the word 'optimal' I will be using a define that can be defined as:
| QUOTE |
| A trend of the allocation of build points that mitigates shortcomings in a character sheet through mid-to-long-term benefits over sheets designed around a similiar concept. |
Which is why the simplified example that Chandon presented is both an example of min/maxing, as well as creating an optimized +sheet. When you, Blakkie, stated that min/maxing had been discussed to death, and implied that we were horribly ignorant wastes of life for disagreeing with you, I can only assume that it must have been our inability to define these terms, in this obvious example. Hopefully we can agree, now, as your reputation of respectable, if not magnificient intellect, could be threatened by disagreeing, now that the terms have been so plainly laid out.
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||||
See the post above. A character concept has nothing to do with a set of stats.
As have I. Are you done comparing dick sizes yet? |
Not trying to compare anything.
Your post implies I am punishing my players.
However you quote a single line of my post and then imply I am punishing my players.
My refence to the length of my expierence and general lack of complaints from my players is to counter you mis-quoted (or imcomplete quote) and inuendo that I 'punish' my players.
My post however clearly states that if this is was ONLY thing 'funny' about the character I wouldnt even notice it. If however it was just a point the build was evidently built to maximize BP/Karma effeciancy, then I will be paying attention to what the characters weaknesses are and making sure that there weakness do come into play atleast occasionally.
I totally agree a character concept has nothing to do with stats. It is also usually very clear when a player has a concept then builds that versus has an idea on how to maximize the system and THEN makes a concept that fits that.
I will state again:
"do you have any real problem identifing those who 'min/max' versus those that build a character (possibly effectively, but they have a character in mind then make them, NOT spreadsheed ammortized blueprint, that they happen to stuck a name on)."
Atleat to me: the two are usually very easy to identify.
Somebody that starts with hmm a german speaking dwarf former desert wars combat mage. Realized money WASNT to be made in the trench, but in the city streets turned runner."
and the:
Hmm dwarves have the best willpower, ok we are playing in seattle so allergy (severe, desert flowers), ...... oh yeah a name, guess I need a name.
The extreme on either end both standout profoundly. The 'poorly designed' but solid character I will generally cut some breaks on. they CHARACER shouldnt be punished by the players lack of ability of maximizing their build. (and/or often I will give pointers suggestion on way to tweak the build).
Likewise the obvious system mechanic who has gone through to maximize his build for specific things, is also equally obviously aware that he has built in weaknesses. If those weakness NEVER come up in game, then he has gotten a pile of free points.
| QUOTE (Steak and Spirits) |
| That's precisely where the word 'optimal' comes into play. The vast majority of concepts that use 2s, 4s, and 5s, will find they have an advantage over similiar concepts that get themselves 'average' then stage up from there. This advantage is only agrevated by time, and karma. |
So why have chargen at all then? Why not just make up cookie-cutter characters that are all perfectly even in Attributes and Skills in both their chosen and peripheral fields, and then distribute thm to the players?
| QUOTE (laughingowl) |
| "do you have any real problem identifing those who 'min/max' versus those that build a character (possibly effectively, but they have a character in mind then make them, NOT spreadsheed ammortized blueprint, that they happen to stuck a name on)." |
Yes, I can tell the difference, but it's really a moot point, as I do extended individual chargen sessions with each player. I get to know the characters inside and out even before the game starts, and am on hand to correct any misconceptions the player might have.
| QUOTE (Steak and Spirits @ Oct 30 2006, 10:15 PM) | ||||||
Ahh. Yes. We ought to define our terminology, then, if something is going to be debated. For furture reference, when I use the term 'Min/Max' I will be referring to the following definition:
When I use the word 'optimal' I will be using a define that can be defined as:
Which is why the simplified example that Chandon presented is both an example of min/maxing.... |
Only it isn't by your definition. Unless 2 and 5 have suddenly ended up as the "minimum and maximum ratings of the attribute". Well I suppose they are the minimum and maximum of a few stats for some metahumans, but that pretty much throws a wrench into using your definition because of the middle part.
Jebus Cruch on a Bike, suddenly having an Attribute or two a little off center become "min/max".
| QUOTE (laughingowl @ Oct 31 2006, 11:56 AM) |
| Would you allow allergy (siamse cats) and never have a siamse cat in the game, or would you PURPOSELY put siamse cats in the game at time. |
1) If there are Siamese cats in the area, then there are.
2) If there are no Siamese cats in the area, then there are none.
If my player wants his PC to be allergic to Saimese cats, and depending on whether I am GMing by the RAW or not(if I am doing RAW, then no since Saimese cats aren't one of the examples), I would determine common/uncommon with respect to 1 and 2. Siamese cats do not fall out of the sky just because a PC in my game is allergic to them. No... I won't have Miss Kitty come up to a PC who is hiding in an air duct. Unless they are in Thailand and the place they are in have the habit of letting Siamese cats into their air ducts. And no, Ghostwalker will not put in an appearance just because a PC is severely allergic to great dragons.
Similarly, if a PC has a Negative Quality that applies to the situation, then it happens. Even if John Doe has Str 1 and he has all the right equipment(or he guessed right) to bypass the door, I am not adding an extra mechanical lock/maglock/palm scanner/eye scanner/etc just because I want to demonstrate the fact that he did not bring enough stuff. If Mr Sam did not bring a ton of ammo, I am not going to put him in the middle of a gang war, just because I want him to run out of bullets. If the probability of a given situation is low or non-existent, then it isn't going to happen. It will not happen just because some PC has a Negative Quality.
If a Role Player makes a gimped PC, he might survive because he played smart and avoided the things he was weak at. If he didn't, then he will just have to deal with the consequences of having a gimped PC.
My group uses nothing but RAW currently. Unless you count adding flavor items as houserules.
For example I've written a little blurb about a few kinds of cola, and introduced them as adds to give flavor.
For example I've written a little blurb about a few kinds of cola, and introduced them as adds to give flavor.
| QUOTE (toturi @ Oct 31 2006, 03:26 PM) |
| If the probability of a given situation is low or non-existent, then it isn't going to happen. It will not happen just because some PC has a Negative Quality. |
Especially in the context of this discussion, seeing as a Strength of 2 should not (in my opinion) be considered a Negative Quality.
| QUOTE (blakkie @ Oct 30 2006, 11:26 PM) |
| Only it isn't by your definition. Unless 2 and 5 have suddenly ended up as the "minimum and maximum ratings of the attribute". Well I suppose they are the minimum and maximum of a few stats for some metahumans, but that pretty much throws a wrench into using your definition because of the middle part. |
You're right. An oversight on my part was clearly spelling out the word 'approaching' in that definition. I thought you'd be bright enough to note that it would be implied. Here. Let's try again.
| QUOTE |
| A state of attribute allocation where approaching the minimum -or- maximum ratings of the attribute are favored over attributes taken in the center of the spectrum. |
| QUOTE |
| Jebus Cruch on a Bike, suddenly having an Attribute or two a little off center become "min/max". |
Of course it becomes min/maxing. And that more frequent it occurs in the creation of a +sheet, the more dramatic degree of min/maxing is occuring.
Um... Wasn't that kind of... You know...
...Obvious?
So anything that even 'approaches' the minimum or maximum ratings should be considered min-maxing, and therefore 'bad'? In a system where stats go from 1 to 6, that doesn't leave much leeway for 'good' players.
I ask again, why not just design the characters yourself to be perfectly equal (in your eyes) and then distribute them to your players?
I ask again, why not just design the characters yourself to be perfectly equal (in your eyes) and then distribute them to your players?
| QUOTE |
| So anything that even 'approaches' the minimum or maximum ratings should be considered min-maxing, and therefore 'bad'? In a system where stats go from 1 to 6, that doesn't leave much leeway for 'good' players. |
Bad? What's bad about it? The system encourages, and rewards it.
But you can't go blindly foaming at the mouth claiming otherwise, after an objective observation.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.