I think video games have made me *more* interested in firearms realism than anything else could have been. I play a lot of video games and in many senses they did raise me. But my interest in how firearms really work as opposed to how they work in movies was first raised by games like America's Army, Rainbow Six, Soldier of Fortune II, and so on.

for the love of--this exists, do you understand? players don't use the surgery rules much, because they're fairly complex, which means they're perpetually unfamiliar with them, which exacerbates the learning curve associated with learning them. you can call that circular, self-reinforcing, or purple, and it won't change the fact that this is why people don't use the rules.

if i had to guess, i'd say that's because you're still not understanding the difference between the complexity of the system and how many modifiers can be plugged into that system. and/or you're really, really bad at summarizing. the actual rules only take up 17 pages at what looks to be 12pt, including a decent number of pictures, charts, and lots of titles that take up their own line.

incorrect. i'm describing a guy with 6 skill (a professional) rolling against TN 4 with a threshold of 3.

Quoted for truth.

The rules just aren't enjoyable for most people, and they're pretty complex and cumbersome on top if it.

In a game -- you know, something where you're supposed to have fun -- that's just a recipe for fail.

You can judge for yourself if you want: you have only to ask for a copy. But I will say that I find the lifestyle rules to have been much more densely written than the surgery rules. I am fairly certain I could have reduced the text in the surgery section to about 2/3 of the current, and I know some of those tables could have been better consolidated: haven't yet done the same summary as for the lifestyle rules, but my early estimate for chart form is four pages at the same pt value. FWIW I am a professional writer and editor and developer, heavy on the hard and especially medical sciences but having covered just about every field at some point or other. Human resources experts keep trying to get me to become an efficiency engineer.

Except that your TN is -- well, negative -- and your threshold only matters if you don't want any negative options: most of which don't matter anyway if you are only getting the datajack and aren't expecting to take it into a standard shadowrun lifestyle. Under standard or better operating conditions, the only likely + to TN for a basic datajack surgery is if your surgeon is teleconferencing (+1). Anyone under a corporate umbrella would have -2 (medical facility/hospital), medical gear of better grade than necessary, because it's cost-efficient (-2), and possibly an additional doctor (-1). None of the negatives apply to standard one-off procedures involving normal 'ware.

1. You did say you wanted to know why. There it is.
2. It's a game. It's supposed to be gratifying.
3. In my experience, the surgery rules don't just fail to be gratifying immediately, they simply fail to be gratifying. Ever. Boring, cumbersome, and complex.

Rather that should be ...

What does not add anything of value to the game, in the opinion of both the Players and the GM will be discarded.

We all looked at the rules. Most of us probably even tried to make them work in some kind of useable and enjoyable manner, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of both Players and Gamemasters alike agree that they leave a lot to be desired.

Uhh, no. I'm not going to watch office politics, because I'm not talking about office politics. You shouldn't be talking about office politics, either. For the love of dice, please stop doing your freaky best to drag every single fucking topic as far away from gaming/Shadowrun as you possibly can.

I don't care about office politics, and it's not my job to hunt for examples, much less "find others around me." You said the rules of the game Shadowrun get changed all the time because players hate them, I asked you to tell me when that happened, and then you started talking about office politics.

The burden is on YOU to provide examples of the times the rules to the game Shadowrun have been changed as a direct result of people complaining about them. The burden isn't on me to go find such examples (as they pertain to Shadowrun, or office politics). The burden is on YOU, you made the statement.

The reason I think so much of what you say is irellevent is that so much of what you say is irellevent. When someone tells you to provide them with examples of something you say happens very often, you should respond with -- hey, I dunno -- examples of that something happening.

So, for instance... people griped about Shadowrun firearms not being realistic, and now SR4 came around and Shadowrun firearms still aren't realistic (and people are still griping about that), so...Talia has what point again? Quick! Talk about office politics or living in an either/or world!

If it happens all the time (rules changing because players complain about them), why are you having such a hard time just finding me examples?

I don't recall DS crawling with "Target Numbers suck!" threads, or "Man, we need more attributes RIGHT NOW" rants going on, or "ARGH, I hate the flexibility that combat pool provides, GET RID OF IT RIGHT NOW!" being a weekly topic of conversation. Maybe I'm just confused, because I remember (and participated in) plenty of threads saying just the exact fucking opposite as more information about SR4 was revealed, but if you remember all these complaint threads, please, share them with the rest of the class.

HOLY SHIT, IMAGINE THAT! If something in a game isn't fun, people don't like it. Wow. What a revelation.

(Though of course you'll point out that it isn't cause-effect direct result, and I'll point out in turn that I didn't introduce the concept of "direct result" in the first place, for a reason. I'm only looking at where SR has morphed in the direction of public opinion, and what the patterns suggest about both public opinion and the future path of SR.)

That's your statement. "Hate will get the rules changed."

Not "can." Not "might." Not "it happened this one time, at band camp." Not "one rule changed, because of hate towards it and a ton of other stuff."

Just "Hate will get the rules changed."

All I'm asking for is you to point out times that that's happened. Times that someone said they hated ___________, and ___________ changed as a result. That's it. You started talking about office politics, and telling me I should look around and find my own examples of Shadowrun rules changing in everyday life. That's...pretty silly, and irrelevent. Sorry if you disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that it is so.

Politics at my office (or even your office) have nothing to do with Shadowrun rules changes. Similarly, if you were to ask me about a Firearms rule I don't like (as a for instance), I wouldn't reply with "I like cheeseburgers," and be thought of as having a discussion like a human being. My like or dislike of cheeseburgers -- much like politics around the office -- has nothing to do with Shadowrun's rules.

So if you can't find stuff to back up your statement, that's fine. If you want to retract the statement, instead of finding all these complaint threads that were met with rules changes, I'll understand. Just don't ask me what my favorite flavor of milkshake is, instead of acknowledging that maybe the rules don't get changed just because people complain about them.

I still say that. It's not a cause-effect relationship, but the relationship exists: call it a syndrome-symptom relationship. Enough hate exists, the rules will change. I probably should have qualified the key demographics most listened to.

Example One:

1. I think we've demonstrated that the surgery rules are hated. No houseruling: this ruleset was simply ignored -- but the opposition had a strong voice on Dumpshock.
2. The rules on surgery have changed.
3. The rules on surgery have changed in an utterly predictable manner.

Or -- let's try another one: cyberlimbs.

Example Two:

1. Players have often wanted cyberlimbs, but hated the rules (which they saw as unnecessarily restrictive). Much houseruling, but players didn't see why they should have to houserule this. The opposition had a strong voice on Dumpshock.
2. The rules on cyberlimbs have changed.
3. The rules on cyberlimbs have changed in an utterly predictable manner.

It's the ability to reliably predict that suggests relationship. Do you see isolated, unrelated events?

That's a wide-reaching question. I don't know the answer. That's probably a good thing, since it's tightly linked to complete manipulative control of human beings.

Only when that rule changes predictably. Predictability defines relationship.

Why do you say this? Do you apply a different set of rules to your NPCs than you do to your PCs? I don't, at least—with a few important exceptions—which means that there generally isn't anything that PCs can do to inflict damage on NPCs that the NPCs can't do. Unless you mean wageslave-style NPCs?

As for the exceptions, I don't play an NPC through several years of gameplay to their karma total. I don't roll to make sure they join their magical group, or that they got their 'ware implanted. Essentially, every negative part of the process doesn't exist for NPCs, and without a lot of work, those parts won't exist. You say the surgery rules are simple? Are they simple enough to do six times before every session, and a dozen or more before major fights?

I also think you are deeply misinformed as to the expectations of the "videogame generation"—or at least that there is a generation gap there you're failing to see. One consistent factor of older games, or even recent ones—see, for example, the new Ninja Gaiden Foo. The consistent of your experience is you die a lot. It is not a design goal that everyone should be able to finish the game. See an older game like Columns, where not only is there no victory condition, the hardest difficulty level (which is naturally reached during sustained play) drops pieces faster than most players can react to, and of the players who can react to it many can only do so for a limited time before fatigue ends their streak. Hell, see even Shadow of the Colossus, which, while not an insanely difficult game, isn't easy, and ends ultimately very ambiguously as to whether or not doing what you did has actually made things better for you or for others.

In short, if you see a trend of self-gratification, you're right if you only average the most popular games. You don't need to dig very far below the surface, though, to find exceptions starting to appear.

(Of course, the people playing Ninja Gaiden Foo probably find dying a lot enjoyable, at least in some way—but then, so do people who participate in any other activity)

No, it isn't. Coming up with good rules, that are balanced and not hideously exploitable and don't have edge cases where you end up with extra ears implanted where your eyes were, is hard. Very few areas of the rules can be altered easily and without far-reaching effects.

Which is why the most common house-ruling is total removal, not alteration.

Thanks to Fourier Analysis, it can be represented via composition of sinusoidal basis functions no matter what its frequency is.

~J

As I recall, the sentence immediately preceding that quote was:

To identify an observed pattern is not to agree with that pattern ... or disagree with it, for that matter. In and of itself, it's simply a pattern.

Most of the scenarios I have run suggest to use this or that template straight from the books for the "generic" NPCs. This I've done. In doing so, I've accepted that that particular NPC isn't going to have the same depth as a PC. However, every NPC who has become important to the group does get that same depth. I think only two have gotten 'ware upgrades during the active storyline: and those did go through the surgery rules, yes.

FWIW, I've understood the surgery rules to be used for PCs only for in-game upgrades, not during chargen.

It's entirely possible. I know there's far more I don't catch than I do. It's a large world.

Although I'll just say that popular games are popular for a reason: and the current direction of SR4 parallels it. I do find it entirely appropriate that there should be a counterculture in the videogames. And now there is a counterculture within SR.

Okay, so the creation of houserules is an agonising exercise to which roleplaying groups willingly subject themselves repeatedly. I've got a binder full. We're real masochists!

Hmm ... there's an interesting assertion. I honestly don't know. In your case, you tend to remove, you say; while in our case we usually amend ... lots of amendments post SR4. Would you throw open a thread and ask? I'd be curious as to the ratios.

And Fourier sequences also demonstrate that a number is only an infinite sequence: though that doesn't do us much practical good when we're counting oranges. Do we choose to look at this as all relationships being meaningless, or all relationships being meaningful, or that all relationships have similar value?

Absolutely. But for an NPC, chargen goes as far as you want--you can't create a PC out of chargen with Delta MBW-IV and all the trimmings, but you can make an NPC out of "chargen" that way.

Absolutely. We're not talking about "popular" and "unpopular" here, though--Ninja Gaiden Foo has sold very well and is a well-known title. Same with Shadow of the Colossus. Neither is selling comparably to The Sims, or the GTA series, or the Halo monstrosity, but they're nevertheless seeing solid results.

Going back a bit,

Out of interest, what did you mean by this? I can interpret it several ways.

~J

no, the TN is 4, because i specifically picked out a TN 4 situation. as for negative options, those are the negative results i've been talking about this whole time.

i have never heard anyone besides you refer to the lifestyle rules as complex. as a matter of fact, most people i've talked to about them praise them for being so simple and easy to use. the lifestyle rules certainly involve a large number of factors, but the vast, vast, vast majority of those factors are all applied in the same manner, and they're all applied to one basic mechanic--add up points, compare the point total to a chart. the surgery rules, on the other hand, involve a large number of factors that are all applied to different mechanics--one for finding a provider, one for getting the provider to treat you, one for creating the medical profile, one for creating the surgery plan, one for doing the surgery, one for recovering from the surgery, and finally one for tallying up the price of the work. as i've explained several times now, the difference lies not in the number of factors involved but in the complexity of the base mechanic. the basic mechanic for the advanced lifestyle rules is very simple; therefore, it's easy to use even for someone who's never read them. the combat mechanics are complex, but they are used with great frequency; therefore, it's easy to use even rarely-encountered aspects of the combat system, because familiarity with the basic rules is ingrained.

i've used these rules every time a character of mine has gone under the knife. i haven't ever enjoyed using them. this is not a case of "that looks hard, i'm not going to use it", as you are implying.

most of the vehemence is in response to your tone. if you'd stop acting like anybody who doesn't use the surgery rules is a drooling X-Box generation munchkin, there probably wouldn't be any vehemence at all. whether you intend it or not, that really is the attitude you're projecting through the tone of your posts. if that's not the attitude you intend to project, post differently.

THIS. This right f*ing here. Your unrelenting tone of smug self-satisfaction and superiority is driving me nuts. I haven't even had an argument with you and I'm hating you just from reading the way you talk to everyone else on DS. It has nothing to do with your opinions/ideas, and everything to do with the way you present them.

Text is admittedly ambiguous, but you have been nothing if not consistent. I'll freely admit that this may not be your personality, or the way you intend to present it, but I don't think mfb and I are completely alone in our perception of the way you present yourself, and the burden is on you to make sure that you're presenting yourself the way you want to be perceived.

edit: One more thing. If mfb and I really are completely alone in our perception, then I'll admit that the problem is probably with us and we probably need to practice our reading skills, but I do not believe that is the case, and unfortunately it wouldn't really be appropriate for a poll.

edit: Again, I edit. Okay, having had some time to calm down, this probably didn't come across in the most diplomatic way possible. And that's my fault. This post has been up here long enough that I think editing what I wrote would be dishonest, and y'know, I don't really want to change it either. But try to take it more as a helpful suggestion than a frothing rant.

Don't worry, you aren't.

Mostly that much of the underlying ideas were underway long before SR4 was finalised, but the developers of SR4 chose to go an utterly different route. I don't think any of those ideas made it, even in concept form, into SR4.

As to the deletion: copyright was said to be an issue, and it's the prerogative of those who run the board to decide their personal tolerance levels. Thus it has nothing to do with this topic.

Correct me if my math is wrong here.

From p.2, the original described scenario was:

Now to M&M.

A standard professional surgeon has Biotech/Medicine of 6.

Part 1 is medical profiling (p.144). The test is Medicine (4). A single success is needed (extras reduce the required time). Not succeeding will give a surgical modifier for "lacking medical profile" of +1.

Part 2 is creating a surgical procedure, which translates out to determining surgical data, is described on pp.146-7. The test is Medicine(4, +1 for every desired positive option). A single success is needed (extras reduce the required time). If it doesn't get successfully created, the surgical modifier for "lacking surgical data" is +1.

Part 3 is the surgery itself. A datajack is considered implant surgery, which gives a base TN of 4, +1 for every positive option desired (p.147). For simplicity, we'll just install the basic datajack, no bells or whistles. We do have to choose two negative options though (p.144, p.148). Per the table on p.144, we know that we need one success to succeed at all, and three successes not to have any negative options.

Now to determine TN.

The base TN for implant surgery (install cyberware) is 4. (p.147)

TN modifers: (text and chart, p.146)

-2 (medical facility/hospital)
-2 (medical gear of better grade than necessary)

Because it's only a standard issue datajack, we don't have an Essence of 2 or less, or any of the upgraded 'ware modifiers. Most people aren't Awakened, so we won't use that +1 modifier either.

This gives a revised TN of 0.

Another possble positive modifer is if an additional doctor is involved of skill at least Biotech/Medicine 4 (-1). Possible negative modifiers are teleconferencing (+1), lacking medical profile (+1), or lacking surgical data (+1) (just in case the earlier steps didn't succeed. This gives a final TN range of -1 to +2.

You could even choose to skip the first two steps entirely, and it would only penalise your TN by +2, changing the final TN range to between 1 and 4. And you'd still have six dice to roll.

The possible negative options for implant surgery of a datajack are an increased Essence cost (d6 x 0.05), Fragility (+1 to future stress tests), and Sensitive (twice as likely to be stressed, relative to its Essence slot ratio). None of these would be particularly relevant in a non-shadowrunning lifestyle where the only piece of 'ware is a datajack.

One success out of six dice is all that is needed to successfully implant the datajack. The second success removes one negative option. The third removes the other negative option.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't look to me like a 1/3 chance of catastrophic failure.

You will notice that I didn't use that word.

Actually, the vehemence I was referring to predates this thread, even to the word "hate", and as it happens I hadn't posted in those threads. Reading them was what gave me the idea for this thread.

So you and Moon-Hawk (and Fortune and Critias) will have to look elsewhere for the cause.

no. that was not the original scenario. that was my response to your response to the original scenario. the original scenario was:

as i've said, i intentionally picked out a TN 4 scenario--no positive or negative modifiers.

fine. the lifestyle rules aren't complex, which means you've wasted everyone's time by bringing them up. thank-you.

you're going to have to look elsewhere for a conversation. i'm done with your smug bullshit. go play word games with someone else's honest attempt to explain things to you, you silly bint.

Part of the problem is the assumption that people's preferences (and that's what we're really talking about here) need to be objective or rational.

1. I don't find that the surgery rules add anything enjoyable to the my games (a preference not needing objective or rational justification).
2. Because I find the rules cumbersome (opinion not needing justification), and because of {1}, the rules detract from my enjoyment of the game (again, something that doesn't need justification)
3. Because of {1} and {2}, I don't like the surgery rules.

It's not necessary to objectively and/or rationally justify such a progression; it's like asking someone to justify their dislike of a certain flavor.

I brought it in because I had a high confidence level that you were going to reference it. I'll grant that the most popular games dole out rewards fairly easily—but nevertheless, other games that cannot not be called "popular" don't. We're finding variety within the spectrum of "popularity", not having to go to games that no one has ever heard of.

Also, something to toss out there—how much effort is demanded of someone to watch a movie to the end?

They pared down the number of Matrix actions and Utilities, just like we did. Other than that, we went in nearly diametrically opposed philosophical directions.

Pink elephants could have been said to be an issue. It is the prerogative of those who run the board to decide what remains on it—nothing else matters.

It's not impossible that my mind is less open than I believe it to be. I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this, at least barring the possibility that there is no "objective" and "rational", at least for the human mind, though, and if you aren't, I'm so thoroughly irrational about my approach that I can't even begin to see that.

Be aware, though, that my dislike of the surgery rules is based on quite a bit of pondering and debate as to what goes into good game design.

So did you ever provide a reason why

either isn't a problem or isn't inherent to the rules?

(Post flows badly due to numerous edits)

~J

*Shrugs* That is what tends to happen when you twist statements such as;

into;

All the while standing tall on your soap box and letting slip the occassional jab implying that people who generally like the direction Fourth Edition went are part of a younger, videogame raised generation.

An interesting point. In parallel: is the percentage of students who try to do book reports by watching the film instead changing? I've recently been running across many, many college English BAs who have poor writing skills and who have stated they hate reading; plus I used to grade papers when I worked as a TA, and edit/tutor students long before that: so I've learned not to take anything for granted anymore.

I'm not thrilled about the threads deletion either. I'd have been much more upset if you hadn't been given a copy of all the threads. (You have, haven't you?)

Actually, from the first page I was suggesting not only that this may in fact be the case, but also that the desire to eliminate as much as possible compromise or any type of ceded control to an NPC may have been a dominant factor in SR4 rules changes generally. I believe I cited the changes to Astral Gateway as another example thereof.

In this case btw, I'd suggest that maybe the compromise and/or ceded control elements of the game are not an inherent problem. The powers of the world are not the PCs alone after all; and temporary circumstances may even bring temporary power to the least powerful of NPCs. Anaesthesia is even one of the classics of storyline.

Removing these elements consistently in favour of total PC control, however, does drift the game in the directions NightmareX suggests. (Here's hoping I don't kill that thread with this link.)

It's a curious point that the power of this particular debate arose only because what had always been taken for granted was (a) questioned and (b) examined without assuming an underlying inherent problem. And you're right, Pendaric: it could have stopped instantly had I only accepted blindly what was always taken for granted.

What few may realise is that I really don't care about who rules which way on which rules. Before I wrote that last post I was literally speechless -- voice and written alike -- with helpless laughter: what could I possibly write to that? especially since the one thing I've been trying to avoid all along is a polarity? I'm really not trying to fight for one side. I'm just trying to keep the overwhelmingly dominant view from being the only view: something I think runs counter to understanding.

I'm just curious about what underlies reactions to specific patterns of rules -- especially where stated preferences sometimes surface-appear to contradict each other: and thereby obtain some level of understanding and predictability as to how perspectives evolve ... and thus maybe develop some idea about where canon SR is going?

I think you're over generalizing. The rules changes in question (the new surgery rules, the new Astral Gateway rules) aren't symptomatic of the greater design philosophy of SR4 - that's just me personally as a writer (and by extension, Peter Taylor as an editor). I like to tie mechanics in to other mechanics and to remove hanging rules text or fringe cases where players can die without getting to roll dice.

But there's no world mandate for that. I just like it better that way - and if reviews are any indication I'm not alone.

And the thing that I think you should step back and really take note of is that you are being a jerk.

Seriously. You think that you're out there trying to get people to think rationally about a concept and look at all the points of view - but what you're actually doing is repeatedly insulting the intelligence of everyone involved. Playing devil's advocate is all fine and all - but if you just tell people that they aren't being objective over and over again you're being... well... insulting.

-Frank

Frank is a regular member. Freelancers have no other rights or privileges on the boards than you do. Nor do they recieve special treatment. When someone posts something they should not, we either post a comment in-thread, or send a direct PM. IF someone does get a warning, we don't feel the need to report it to the boards as a whole.

I can understand that people here have issues with the way people post. That however is not the purpose of this thread, nor any thread. Please keep this on topic.

Guilty. There are many more diplomatic ways to clal attention to wording errors, but tactically it does call attention to those wording errors and gets things changed. The statement "I don't like the text on page 178" changes nothing, but my profanity laced tirade about recursive spirit invasion got unbound remote service errataed. Similarly for the text on Essence holes on page 127. Swearing and hat stomping does get the problematic text noticed (and since it doesn't even say what the alternate interpretation wanted it to say, it does need attention).

But consider that there is a difference between:

• Swearing and raising a fuss because some text is deficient.
  and
  
• Repeatedly condescendingly stating that the opinions of another person are not true and therefore wrong.

The first is being a jerk, but actually structurally neutral. Noone needs to be offended by that, it's not specifically directed to anyone. The second is directly belittling another person and virtually guaranteed to piss them off to no end.

As a self proclaimed total asshole, believe me when I say that there are lines that you don't cross if you don't want to start blood feuds. It's all well and good to insult inanimate objects, blocks of text, or even ideologies - but the instant you carry that over to individual people you've lost the moral high ground.

Fist covered that quite well. I am just a member. And yes, I can get warnings. Just as Ancient History can get himself banned from RPG.net, and I can get banned from the WotC forums, I could very plausibly get banned from here.

-Frank

Please, find one single place in this thread where I said that something was not true -- unless it is in the part about complexity, which I demonstrated to allow working through using one TN + modifiers (ie. far less complex than combat). That I did state, and repeatedly: and I cited the numbers to prove it.

If I can prove a point quantifiably and absolutely, why should I back down from it?

Because you can't prove this point. You're comparing tangerines and guava.

One is an open test coupled to a success test, with the TN of the success test varying depending upon a considerable number of variables, and the results of the Open test likewise floating based on a series of variables some of which are outside of player control and some of which have to be selected from a list.

The other is an opposed test between two characters where the TN floats based on circumstance.

---

If people are telling you that figuring the results and odds of an open test coupled to a success test is "too complicated" while running any number of success tests one after another is not - maybe that's just not something you can objectively disprove. Possibly, quite possibly, people are getting pissed off at you because they have told you that in their experience doing that particular mathematical exercise is a pain and you told them repeatedly that in "absolute terms" they were somehow wrong.

-Frank

Are you high?

-Frank

Oookay. Time to put an end to this. Talia, Frank, to your corners. You're just butting heads now and refusing to back down. Since you're not making any progress, and it's just frustrating the both of you, I think it's time to close up shop before anything gets out of hand.

Bull