Fortune is right, I intended to just swap out weapons and weapon skills on the three luckys

and I was thinking one social scene, one stealth scene and one combat scene, in that order followed by a chase scene involving the infamous citymaster, all to get to the pier and see if they can whack the excaping johnson in the boat

dunner, can you recommend a good social scene and stealth scene from the earlier missions?

I will allow gymnastics spec dodge for this: 2 reasons
1: it is a debated idea and i will give Mr Lucky the benefit of the doubt in this. (this way if Lucky fails it was not because of my rulings)
2: Synner said he would allow the canonical Lucky build in his games when it had that specialisation before

Okay, I'll just scroll back to the original MR.Lucky then and write down the char for quick reference.

Synner stated he would allow Mr. Lucky in his game (and actually had). I never mentioned allowing the same exact build when it didn't match the rules. By the book Dodge is not a specialization of Gymnastics, though some groups have allowed Tumbling to work in that situation. On the ocassions we had a Mr. Lucky in play we did playtest that house rule while he was an NPC but not when he was a PC. This is your call.

Synner apparently talks about himself in the third person

wow

In addition with that withdrawl, make the specialisation tumbling, it will apply to dodging in situations where there is enough room to tumble evasively

Putting the citymaster in is not going to help (and I'd go so far as to say moronic), you're just going to cause a fight and not objectively assess anything. If the objective is to test the character concept you really want to put it through the 'wringer' in very typical scenarios. You'll need more than 4 scenes, you'd probably need 12-16, with a number of 'rest pauses' to regenerate edge.

However, its not clear what you are trying to do at all - there are no 'benchmark' characters to be included? What about a control group? What the hell is the goal here?

I agree with Cthuludreams that the citymaster will just bog down this experiment in endless discussions because the Called Shot issue will come up and ultimately its the individual gamemaster who makes a call as to whether in the specific circumstances of his game that shot is possible (ie. I know in my game it wouldn't be.) Furthermore, it will bring up the discussion of whether the vehicle's armor counts as part of the "target's armor" for the purposes of a Called Shot (which it doesn't, but Mr. Lucky's gimmick is partially contingent on it doing so).

I disagree that 12-16 scenes will be necessary. I believe that 4-6 critical scenes (such as those in a single well-run adventure), are more than sufficient as a test.

Can you put that



As an FAQ entry. Like now. That would be sweet

It has already been added to the next list of FAQs and will be updated when that goes up. The specific entry will reiterate that a called shot "is aiming at a vulnerable portion of a target" and hence the only armor circumvented by targeting "an area not protected by armor" is armor that is integral to or worn by that specific target. You will note that the relevant Called Shot rules (p.149) specifically refer to the "target's armor is ignored". Since the target in a Called Shot to a passenger of a vehicle is the passenger and not the vehicle (the distinction between the two possible targets, the vehicle and the passenger, is made in Damage and Passengers, p.182, SR4), it is the passenger/target's personal armor that is circumvented and not the additional protection offered by the vehicle's chassis in the form of Armor.

You mean I finally forced through another rules change? Sweet.

Not really a rules change, more of a clarification...
We've always played it this way...

Oh, I expect it'll make it into the errata sooner or later.

Strangely enough, I'm fairly confident it won't... In fact, I can tell you now that no errata to that effect will be forthcoming, since none is needed.

The rules are explicit with regards to passengers and vehicles being distinct targets (p.182, SR4). Since only the vulnerable spots in the armor of a specific target counts for the purposes of the Called Shot ignoring armor (per the rules on p.149, SR4), no corrections, fixes, or errata are needed. The FAQ will simply direct anyone interested to the relevant sections of the rules already in print and clarify as to how they are articulated for those of you who have difficulty on how to articulate the two rules.

Note this changes nothing regarding the underlying Citymaster "problem", since depending on gamemaster ruling the Called Shot is still feasible if the character is using a big enough weapon to overcome the vehicle's armor and the gamemaster allows the shot. Since in my mind it isn't a problem at all, I wouldn't count on any changes there either.

For the record Cain: you have yet to "force through" anything. In our very first discussion regarding Teamwork tests you were told that the issue had come up late in playtesting and hadn't made the print version. You were also told that an errata was already prepared and awaiting publication. If you chose to twist that into some kind of victory feel free to do so, still doesn't make it true. The actual discussion is on record and I have playtest reports and errata revisions dated before the public release of SR4 on file.

1: Synner please PM me those playtests, you have piqued my curiosity
2: citymaster gone, I will scan the missions for another chase type scene, i figure social -> stealth -> combat -> chase -> hunt down that double crossing johnson is a pretty standard set of cut scenes for 1 run
3:here is the lucky framework

Mr. Lucky:

Body: 5
Quickness: 5 (7 )
Reaction: 4 (6)
Strength: 1 (3)
Charisma: 3
Intuition: 4
Logic: 3
Willpower: 3

Edge: 8
Initiative: 8 (12) IP: 2
Essence: 2.15

Skills
Gun Skill (Specialisation) 7
Gymnastics (Tumbling) 2
Unarmed combat (martial arts) 2
Con (Fast talk) 1
infiltration (Urban) 2

Knowledge Skills (Your choice, but here are mine):
Farming: 3
Sports (Rodeos): 2 +2
BK: Firearms: 3
Safehouse Locations: 5
Denver Border Crossings (Shadow Crossings): 4 +2

Edges:
High Pain Tolerance (Or 5 pts, your choice)
Lucky
Apt: Pistols

Flaws:
35 points your choice

Cyberware

Skillwires (Rating 3)
Smartlink
Wired Reflexes (Rating 1)
Attention Coprocessor (3)
Skillwire Expert System

Bioware

Enhanced Articulation
Reflex Recorder (Skill) (gun skill)
muscle aug 2
muscle toner 2
synthacardium 3


Gear and weapons: 60,000 your choice
15 points contacts.

basically use this framework, pick which gun skill and specialisation you are using, and then fill in the blanks
for those cooking up these guys, please pay attention to skillsofts and a commlink, those softwares are your lifeblood if I read this build correctly

Playtest reports are covered by FanPro and now Catalyst NDAs and are never made available to the general public.

If it comes down to doubting my word regarding the veracity of my claim, however, much as I am loathe to do it, I am willing to provide the relevant reports (in this case covering caps on Teamwork Tests contributions) to a third party who has signed an NDA and could then verify my statements—someone like the dunner for instance—and that would be a one time only event since I am rather tired of Cain repeatedly and publically claiming credit for stuff he had nothing to do with (particularly when the people who did can't take credit because they are bound by their NDAs).

If, on the other hand, you have an interest in becoming a playtester and contributing such reports yourself: we do have ocassionally have recruitment drives for new playtesters, if you are interested in that please drop a line to info@shadowrun4.com and I'll be in touch if and when we have an openning.

First thing first. True, *I* wasn't the one who forced the issue. There were several Dumpshockers that screamed loud and hard about it. For those who weren't there, someone had pointed out that Agent Smith armies could use the Teamwork test rules, magnifying their effectiveness to an incredible degree. Someone offered a house rule that coincidentally looked a whole lot like what was adopted into the errata, and the storm died down.

Second: I don't buy it. If what you say is true, then the Teamwork test fix would have been in Errata 1.1, the first one. It didn't show up in Errata 1.3; in fact, it didn't show up until Errata 1.5. If it was such a problem in playtesting, it should have come up in the earliest errata. In comparison, Bloodzilla's infinite loop got fixed in the first Street Magic errata; you and Frank both said that there was a fix all ready to go, so it got fixed right away. The Teamwork test didn't get fixed until much later; what does that indicate?

And even if you are right? The fact that you delayed so long shows that it wasn't a serious issue to you. The only reason you put in the fix was because Dumpshockers were protesting. I'll grant that you might have considered the issue, maybe even toyed with a few fixes; but you didn't actually *do* anything about it until after we started a furor over it.

It's a fair bet that they implemented the changes and errata that they felt most important in waves. If it took 5 versions to get in, maybe they needed that amount of time to work out HOW to fix it properly. The DS forum is great at coming up with solutions, but those solutions would still need to be tested in controlled environments to insure balance and viability. It's possible it took this long because of all that testing.

Which is actually my point. Dumpshockers (me and a few others) were able to force a rule through raising a storm about the brokenness of a mechanic. I don't mind not being credited with writing the new rule--in fact, I had nothing to do with it--but the truth is, several of us forced a rule into existance. This serves as a sign of empowerment to all Dumpshockers: you can fix the game as well.

Or maybe the playtests were enough to see the brokenness of the mechanic but it took a little time to find fix and playtest, so the fix couldn't be inserted in the first errata.

Sorry I must have misread your post because I distinctly remember you writing... let me check...
Yup. I was right. That seems to be you personally taking credit. But maybe I'm wrong and there's some other rules errata you were referring to and not the Teamwork rules. Some other fix you would like to take credit for?


You might want to look up who did post that "house rule." There's a fair chance you might find that the house rule that "looked like what was adopted into the errata" was in fact posted by one of the people who wrote the errata. So what I object to is you taking credit for someone else's work.


I don't care a whole lot whether you buy it or not. Haven't since you took up your crusade. I do care whether other people buy it or not though, so I will endeavour to clarify.

Errata 1.1 was stuff that was caught in last minute proofing and included almost immediately after the book was rushed to release at GenCon. Several things including Teamwork Tests were left out because we wanted to discuss which one of three different solutions we wanted to apply. It was saved for Errata 1.2. But wait -since you're paying really close attention you will note there was no Errata 1.2. This was a foul up on our end, it never got published. When we did get round to doing another round Errata 1.3 (the next version made public) some of the stuff that was slated for errata in the v1.2 was left out. We're human, we make mistakes. But we included it in the next version we made public v.1.5

Whether you personally believe me or not, I don't care.


That indicates to me you don't really pay attention to what people post. The Teamwork Test was an out-and-out errata, a needed fix to an existing writeup. Bloodzilla was the result of a couple of lines being accidentally cut in editing and the errata adding them back in. I'm sure even you would understand the difference between plugging something back in and chosing/playtesting several different solutions to decide which best serves the game.

It further indicates that should actually research your claims and get your facts straight before you post. Frank never said that a fix was ready to go, in fact, Frank isn't particularly convinced with the errata that came out. The only thing Frank ever said on DSF was that he'd seen a couple of versions of my proposed "errata" (for the record, I say versions because I fiddled with the cap several times before being satisfied). I, on the other hand, did say something to that effect early on when Bloodzilla was brought up as a problem (those people would actually include Frank btw).

Finally, the first round of Street Magic errata was finished two months after the book was ready. The version we've just put out is in fact v.1.2. What does that indicate?


Actually, we didn't actually *do* anything" about it until *long after* there was a furor about it, so as far as you know there is no direct correlation. Furthermore if I'm right—regardless of the reasons for the delays in putting out a solution—the fact remains that you are once again claiming personal responsability for something when, even by your most flattering take on events, you were at most a single voice amongst many. I repeat what I said: You (Cain) have yet to "force through" anything.


However, since this is discussion is way beyond the actual purpose of this thread which is something I am interested in. I do not intend to derail this thread further, so if anyone wishes to test the veracity of my claims on the Teamwork Test issue, I've already got an exempt third party volunteer who has an NDA and is not connected to Catalyst, and who is willing to verify what I've said when I make the material available to him. Take this to PMs though.

Hmmm, you should publish errate more often?

Yes. And that's all that it means. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

I wasn't doubting your word this time. I genuinely was curious about the other proposed solutions

What's ironic is that if you had let Cain have his little glory dance, other Dumpshockers would have either ignored him, or decided that this means that you guys listen ot the fans and that playtesting new ideas for free is something worthwhile for us fans to do for you

ANYWAY people who are my three lucky contestants? we have Spike, Muskie, and who else?

I think you need to pat yourself on the back a little less.

That's fine then should have just asked for them:
Option 1 was to cap the dice pool modifiers resulting from Teamwork Tests by the team leader's Skill (this one was the chosen one).
Option 2 was to cap the dice pool modifiers resulting from Teamwork Tests by the team leader's Logic (on the principle that he would need to coordinate efforts).
Option 3 was to cap the number of participants in Teamwork Tests based on the team leader's Skill (which would still have allowed potentially higher modifiers than we wanted).
Option 4 was to cap the dice pool modifiers at an arbitrary value (probably +6, simply on the principle that too many cooks spoil the broth).
(there were a couple of other marginal options considered but those were the four main ones)


The fact that we recruited someone like Frank Trollman to handle the Spirit rules in Street Magic after he showcased his ideas on DSF, and that a couple of DSF regulars/hardcore Matrix eggheads were hooked into working on Unwired should be evidence enough that fan's constructive contributions are seen and appreciated. In fact I've been regularly trolling Dumpshock for talent since the EuroSB project and there have even been (minor) contributions (and second-hand, but contributions nonetheless) from strong critics of the SR4 system (with their approval). The fact that I hang around here and take the time to reply to people's constructive and productive criticism should also be further evidence that we "listen to the fans".

Unfortunately, Cain's criticisms are rarely, if ever, constructive or productive from a development point of view (you'll understand why "it's broken" and "it's profoundly flawed" don't really hold water as constructive). When Cain comes round to producing constructive criticism, I'll pay attention to him, like I do to pretty much everyone else including vocal critics of some of our ideas whether they're pro-SR4 like Frank Trollman and Serbitar, or in the naysayer crowd like mfb and even SLJames back in the day.

Note- "playtesting new ideas" is something done in a closed environment under NDA, we never have and never will playtest ideas and rules in current development on open forums. That said, we ocassionally recruit new playtesters (just like we recruit new freelancers) from the community. If you (or anyone here) is interested in joining the ranks mail us and I'll look into it when we next bring in new blood.


Right, enough with the derailing and back to the Challenge.