Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Runner's Companion
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Cain
QUOTE
If you've got a pornomancer, he can't do anything but Charisma tests correct?

No. The sample builds I've seen, and worked with, had a complete skill set. Like all characters, some things are weaker than others; they tend to suffer from low combat dice pools, among others. But that doesn't mean they're one-trick ponies, either. I think the last one I saw had 6-8 dice for pistols, which is sufficient to hold off mooks. Against more serious opponents, you can always surrender, claim you're a hostage, and talk your way free. Even worse, you could take Commanding Voice, and talk the other guys into surrendering.
Rasumichin
QUOTE (Cain @ Aug 29 2008, 10:05 PM) *
Generally, since this isn't a player problem, it can be solved by asking the player to rein it in a bit at chargen. You just tell him: "These are the rules I'm using, there are the one's I'm not using, and this is the general power level I want in the game." But if you're an anything-goes style of GM, you're voluntarily waiving that solution. How do you handle this issue?


I'm of the anything goes type of GMs and generally prefer to coordinate character creation, trying to find out the desired power level, individual minmaxing skills, stylistic preferences, setting interpretation and general strategic and tactical outlook of the players.

It does eleminate the chance of mechanically vastly superior as well as dangerously weak characters.
I'll also point out differences in power level between PCs and will, if i haven't GMed for the group before, point out to what extend i'll use the rules, how my interpretation of the setting works, that i don't fudge rolls, that i let characters die from bad rolls, restrict escape certain death use of Edge to once per character and so on.


This approach of collective character creation has other advantages as well.
It does not only lead to better character interaction, closer tie-ins of the characters into the campaign and thematically distinctive groups, but also avoids that characters are stepping on each other's toes or that no one is able to cover a specific skill.


What i really dislike is tailoring challenges to specific players.
I'll adjust the overall difficulty of course and assume that no Johnson would send a team without magical backup into a spirit-ridden nightmare of a security installation.
This means that a team who lacks vital roles will either have to hire backup or miss out on job opportunities.

But in general, i get the feeling that coming up with custom challenges results in an overall worthlesness of character competence, that it doesn't really matter how good the PCs are at what they do, as getting better just means getting tried harder and ebing mediocre would be safer.
It boils down to "don't stat out a hacker, the GM will just send more drones at us and someone will attack our comlinks!"
"Don't put that many points into climbing, the walls will just get higher!"
"Don't max out your mage like this, it will just mysteriously raise background count!"

Of course, teams that perform outstanding on a job, completely walking over what i have set up for them, will get more challenging runs in the future- but not because i feel the need to come up with a greater challenge that shows those pesky twinks that the GM always wins if he wants to (every roleplayer knows that already), but because they have earned a better reputation.
The new, more risky jobs will also pay better.
They have achieved something by being as good as they where and get rewarded for it.
If they have given me good story hooks, it might even bring them one step closer to their personal goals.


I have to add, though, that i don't enjoy playing characters into quadrupple-digit karma, so i will never be confronted with PCs who can really do everything.
I view SR as a game where characters are competent at least in their core aspects when they start game.
It is, in my opinion, not a system designed for leveling up to epic.
So i might just not understand the concerns of GMs who have 20th level initiates who whip up Force 15 spirits with a snap of their fingers at their table.
Wesley Street
QUOTE (Cain @ Aug 29 2008, 08:33 PM) *
No. The sample builds I've seen, and worked with, had a complete skill set. Like all characters, some things are weaker than others; they tend to suffer from low combat dice pools, among others. But that doesn't mean they're one-trick ponies, either. I think the last one I saw had 6-8 dice for pistols, which is sufficient to hold off mooks. Against more serious opponents, you can always surrender, claim you're a hostage, and talk your way free. Even worse, you could take Commanding Voice, and talk the other guys into surrendering.

In that case, I can't say. I haven't run into it yet.
Sweaty Hippo
QUOTE (Ancient History @ Aug 5 2008, 09:19 AM) *
If you want to go through that much effort to be a Special Emo Pretty Butterfly, you're probably playing the wrong game.


I don't see what's wrong with such a concept in your personal game as long as everybody's cool with it. Besides, I just like SR better than WoD (the Vampire RPG).
psychophipps
QUOTE (Wesley Street @ Aug 29 2008, 02:45 PM) *
That's a good question and this is how I typically approach it: I expect my players to know the rules of the game even when I don't. If a player is clever enough to use the rules to create a power munchkin within a 400BP system then good for him. He's a smart cookie. However, I also raise the stakes of the game. If you have a player who's maxed out in regards to firearms and can handle a Panther assault cannon in each hand he's also turned himself into a huge, loud target. So if hypothetically a group of runners were to encounter a squad of corpsec guards and the power munchkin did his thing, I'd turn all of the guards on the munchkin and have them ignore the rest of the runners as the munchkin would logically be the most immediate threat. The other runners could scurry away, just kick back and wait to see what happens after the smoke clears, or move on to do what they're good at while the power gamer gets swarmed like ants on a dead squirrel.


Another good way to slow down the "Power Creep" is my group's, "You bring it into the game and I'm allowed to use it on you guys as a GM" rule. It's absolutely amazing how much the "mil-spec or nothing" horsehockey just plain ol' disappears when the players realize that I can't be tossing APCs, assault cannon, automatic grenade launchers, and other high-end crap at them except as obvious "Don't be messin' now..." plot line bumpers in our adventures.
Wesley Street
GM's discretion always seems to be the answer to half of these questions but it's true. If Player A wants to jack up his runner to be nigh unstoppable you counterbalance. Another simple way is to limit the availability of super-crazy powerful mil-spec equipment and 'ware.

Player A: Yeah, I've got some nuyen to spend so I'm going to buy a railgun.
Me as Arms Dealer: Sorry, we don't have anything in stock.
Player A: But I have a Charisma of 6 and you have a Connection of 6 and I'm paying 500% of the weapon's worth!
Me: Sorry. Can't help you. I had a bad experience with a railgun once. Never again.

Sure, according to the rules he has the capacity to buy but it doesn't say in the rules I have to provide it to him if I don't want him to have it. I'm fairly stingy with karma; if a character didn't have to try hard to accomplish a task, he isn't rewarded for it. There's also the Public Awareness rule; if a character grows to be too high-profile he can be hunted down. Chargen, anything goes so long as it's in the rules. But once your Notoriety and or Street Cred hit a certain point, time to retire or I force you to retire by hunting you down.
Rotbart van Dainig
It always amazes me how the most fundamental mistakes a GM can make are presented as 'solutions'.
QUOTE (psychophipps @ Aug 30 2008, 05:13 AM) *
Another good way to slow down the "Power Creep" is my group's, "You bring it into the game and I'm allowed to use it on you guys as a GM" rule.

Just they don't 'bring it into the game': Either it exists in the game - then it's usual that some other people will have it before them (and use it on them - and can use it on them if they deem worth it...). Or it doesn't.
QUOTE (Wesley Street @ Aug 30 2008, 05:51 AM) *
Sure, according to the rules he has the capacity to buy but it doesn't say in the rules I have to provide it to him if I don't want him to have it.

Actually, you do - that's the whole point of those rules. If he's able to make the Test, he can get it.
Bull
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Aug 30 2008, 05:59 AM) *
It always amazes me how the most fundamental mistakes a GM can make are presented as 'solutions'.

Just they don't 'bring it into the game': Either it exists in the game - then it's usual that some other people will have it before them (and use it on them - and can use it on them if they deem worth it...). Or it doesn't.

Actually, you do - that's the whole point of those rules. If he's able to make the Test, he can get it.


I'm gonna have to disagree here a little bit.

If I'm playing or running a Missions game at a con, where we're sticking strictly "By the Book" and there's not a solid group dynamic, then sure, this is correct. The rules provide a baseline to work with, and if you have an "open" game, where you're going to have "strangers", or at least regular new players, you need to follow this baseline so that everyone's working from the same rules.

But for a home game, with a group of players that are, ostensibly, your friends? These are very valid "house guidelines". I rarely run any game strictly "By the book", and my players know that. The same goes for everyone else that GMs in the group. Almost every one of us has an "inner munchkin" that wants to come out and play occasionally, and we have some ground rules that help curb that annoying little dude.

For one, we have the "If you have it, the NPCs can have it" rule. This isn't necessarily meant to punish the players, or even limit them. But it helps to keep the game on a somewhat even level. When the rest of the group is playing more "Street level" characters and the heaviest thing they have is a heavy pistol, it really throws off the game balance when one player picks up HE grenades and a SNiper Rifle and starts liberally using them. I build my enemies to match my players, to provide a challenge but not so that I overwhelm them. I'm telling a story when I GM, so "realism" and even "logic" take a back seat to creative license and, more importantly, fun.

This isn;t to say I won;t pull out the big gins anyways if the PCs do something stupid. Start shooting up the local mall, murdering innocents, and not getting out of there immediately? Lone Star SWAT shows up. Make a brazen run on a major Aztechnology facility, and you're gonna have to deal with tricked out Jaguars. I don;t reward stupidity. But I do reward for going with the story and staying on track. After all, since I build the entire game around the PCs and their personal lives, it's not exactly in my own best interests to kill off characters. smile.gif

Anyways, this is a bit off track. smile.gif So... Runner's Companion! Woo! smile.gif

I really do wanna make a Pixie. Might work on one this weekend. smile.gif

Bull
Rotbart van Dainig
You know what's so great about Pixies?
No need to worry about ditching the corpses after target practice.
Aaron
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Aug 30 2008, 06:59 AM) *
You know what's so great about Pixies?
No need to worry about ditching the corpses after target practice.

RvD.karma++;
Tiger Eyes
QUOTE (Bull @ Aug 30 2008, 07:23 AM) *
I really do wanna make a Pixie. Might work on one this weekend. smile.gif

Bull


Somehow, after meeting Bull at GenCon, the image of Bull roleplaying a Pixie just makes me chuckle. grinbig.gif
Jackstand
QUOTE (Bull @ Aug 30 2008, 07:23 AM) *
Make a brazen run on a major Aztechnology facility, and you're gonna have to deal with tricked out Jaguars.


Like this?
Aaron
QUOTE
Make a brazen run on a major Aztechnology facility, and you're gonna have to deal with tricked out Jaguars.

Or like this?
Bull
Is it sad that my first thought was "Dam, Aztechnology has Transformers that turn from Cars into Voltron Lions??"

*grin*

And Tiger Eyes, it'll be even worse if John Dunn manages to kill off my Ork Sammy before next year (Assuming we can ever clear up schedules enough to play). Cause then I'm gonna have to do up a costume for that character for next years Scramble smile.gif

(Hrmm. I hope John doesn't consider that a challenge, or a goal now... Nahhh. wink.gif )
psychophipps
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Aug 30 2008, 02:59 AM) *
It always amazes me how the most fundamental mistakes a GM can make are presented as 'solutions'.

Just they don't 'bring it into the game': Either it exists in the game - then it's usual that some other people will have it before them (and use it on them - and can use it on them if they deem worth it...). Or it doesn't.

Actually, you do - that's the whole point of those rules. If he's able to make the Test, he can get it.


Bull pretty well covered my response but I will add that there isn't a rule in our group that you can't get anything in any book (agreed upon by all three GMs, of course) if you make the roll and can roleplay it (which, depending on how the PC goes about their purchase can really reduce the cost and/or raise it or remove it's availability altogether if they act like dinks). The rule is "If you bring it, I can too", to wit, your PC carries AKs on every mission and we'll boost the baddies to match. It makes the players, as well as the GM, responsible for the level of carnage in our setting and adds a real communicative feel so we can adjust the gaming world to suit the needs of the players and their characters and the various GM's stories alike.
You want SOTA bang-bang with grenades and rockets and such? Just dandy. But you need to discuss this with the other players so they aren't left in a rut when the mil-spec stuff gets rolling back their way. Want a gritty street feel with semi-auto weapons and the occasional AR (which is pretty much what we have now)? That's fine too. Our rule is there so that one player, or one GM, can't just toss everything on it's ear and up the carnage for everyone and every story to Panther w/ underbarrel grenade launchers level without everyone else going, "Ok, cool" first.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Bull @ Aug 30 2008, 02:23 PM) *
For one, we have the "If you have it, the NPCs can have it" rule. This isn't necessarily meant to punish the players, or even limit them. But it helps to keep the game on a somewhat even level.

Squatters won't run around with laser rifles just because the PCs do so. Ares Firewatch though might, even if characters didn't even dream of them.
QUOTE (Bull @ Aug 30 2008, 02:23 PM) *
When the rest of the group is playing more "Street level" characters and the heaviest thing they have is a heavy pistol, it really throws off the game balance when one player picks up HE grenades and a SNiper Rifle and starts liberally using them.

That may piss off most of the gangers out there, but it's not usual for them to compete directly.
QUOTE (Bull @ Aug 30 2008, 02:23 PM) *
I'm telling a story when I GM, so "realism" and even "logic" take a back seat to creative license and, more importantly, fun.

Transformer Enemys are a great way to stomp fun. Mostly because the world itself goes offbalance.
That's why SR4 has 'fixed' grunt levels.
QUOTE (psychophipps @ Aug 30 2008, 05:30 PM) *
The rule is "If you bring it, I can too", to wit, your PC carries AKs on every mission and we'll boost the baddies to match.

Congratulations, you got yourself an arms race that makes no sense at all and leaves the game world in shambles.
PCs simply don't have enough impact to influence such decisions on such a scale - sure, they can go after more powerful targets no, but that's their decision.
Tiger Eyes
QUOTE (Bull @ Aug 30 2008, 11:29 AM) *
And Tiger Eyes, it'll be even worse if John Dunn manages to kill off my Ork Sammy before next year (Assuming we can ever clear up schedules enough to play). Cause then I'm gonna have to do up a costume for that character for next years Scramble smile.gif

(Hrmm. I hope John doesn't consider that a challenge, or a goal now... Nahhh. wink.gif )


So... if we want to see you dressed up like a Pixie, we should talk to John? wink.gif
Bull
Rotbart, I'm moving this discussion to a separate thread, since we're far outside of talking about Runner's Companion here, and more talking GM styles.

Check it out here: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=23448
Bull
QUOTE (Tiger Eyes @ Aug 30 2008, 11:28 AM) *
So... if we want to see you dressed up like a Pixie, we should talk to John? wink.gif


Really, for your own sanity, you should probably avoid that wink.gif

I do not look good in fairy wings and a little pink skirt. Trust me! ork.gif
the_dunner
QUOTE (Bull @ Aug 30 2008, 11:29 AM) *
(Hrmm. I hope John doesn't consider that a challenge, or a goal now... Nahhh. wink.gif )

There's another way I could interpret it?

I think this is worth a special paragraph in each Mission about what to do if Bull is a player at your table. devil.gif
BishopMcQ
Dunner-Can we introduce TR 7?

Cain
QUOTE
GM's discretion always seems to be the answer to half of these questions but it's true. If Player A wants to jack up his runner to be nigh unstoppable you counterbalance. Another simple way is to limit the availability of super-crazy powerful mil-spec equipment and 'ware.

The problem here is that if you're running an unlimited campaign, you've just waived GM discretion.

If player A decides to create a Changeling Naga with six arms, 20+ dice pools, and powerful magic ability, and figures out a way to get all that under the rules, you say you'll let him and get even with him in-game. That means you're going to have a lot of problems with your game, especially if you've got a generalist street ganger and a pornomancer in your party. Balancing challenges is going to be nigh-impossible.

On the other hand, using GM discretion before any of this appears in-game is a much better idea. Simply saying: "This is what I want, this is what I think you should have, will you work with me?" is a highly effective thing to do. Not only does it fix problems before the start, it can bring the PC's closer together, as they'll be encouraged to work with one another on their stories and stats.

This is why I'm wary of Runner's Companion. To bring things back on topic, I'm seeing a lot of very powerful options that many GM's are staring at in shock. Before you bring anything into a game, it should be carefully vetted so that it doesn't cause power creep. For example, the introduction of Smartlink-2 in SR3 was a bad idea, because soon everyone was using them, and didn't bother with a normal smartlink. In SR4, I suddenly saw a lot of characters sprout Attention Coprocessors after the release of Augmentation. And these were all just minor options, but they pushed the power level of the games up.

Now, we have a book that's nothing but powerful options. I haven't found a copy in my home town yet, so I only know what's posted here-- but are these options really going to be useful for GM's? If a lot of things are going to be disallowed because they're ridiculous or overpowering or difficult to integrate into a game, then is this book any good?
toturi
QUOTE (Cain @ Aug 31 2008, 07:37 AM) *
If player A decides to create a Changeling Naga with six arms, 20+ dice pools, and powerful magic ability, and figures out a way to get all that under the rules, you say you'll let him and get even with him in-game. That means you're going to have a lot of problems with your game, especially if you've got a generalist street ganger and a pornomancer in your party. Balancing challenges is going to be nigh-impossible.

Then the question would be: why even balance the challenges at all? Why even have balance? This is something I never figured out. As far as I can tell, in a practical sense, there can be no such thing as game balance.

Having fun means meeting the expectations and aspirations of your players. If you think that you are not going to have fun as the GM, then don't run or change your attitude/style towards GMing and start having fun. If your players want to be able to walk all over the opposition and have no challenge, then give them what they want.

QUOTE
Before you bring anything into a game, it should be carefully vetted so that it doesn't cause power creep. For example, the introduction of Smartlink-2 in SR3 was a bad idea, because soon everyone was using them, and didn't bother with a normal smartlink. In SR4, I suddenly saw a lot of characters sprout Attention Coprocessors after the release of Augmentation. And these were all just minor options, but they pushed the power level of the games up.

Again I question the need to prevent power creep. Power creep, so? When there is no game balance, power creep is irrelevant.
Synner667
QUOTE (Cain @ Aug 30 2008, 12:13 AM) *
This also raises issues for what happens when characters max out other parts of the game. If a pornomancer emerged in your game, how would you handle that? We're talking a character with 30+ dice for social tests. If you raise the stakes so that every important NPC has a dice pool to match, the other characters won't stand a chance in a social test. If the pornomancer gets taken out, the NPC will have a dice pool big enough to talk the characters into taking the job for free.

I like the approach of teaching players too, so I prefer to encourage positive behaviors. I've found that simply talking to a player can prevent problems from happening. But that does mean that when I GM, I have to have clear expectations about what I want from the players. I have to be able to say: "A dice pool over 20 might unbalance the game, could you dial that back a bit?" *and* back that up in game, so they don't ever regret not having that huge dice pool. I just don't see how I can accomplish that in an anything-goes environment.

That's pretty much what HERO/Fuzion do...
...Define a campaign's power level by the stat+skill level [fuzion] or ocv/dcv [HERO], and limit characters accordingly.

Tends to work well.

Few of my Players know the rules beyond the basics, so I rarely have to "glass ceiling" them.
Rasumichin
QUOTE (Cain @ Aug 30 2008, 11:37 PM) *
Now, we have a book that's nothing but powerful options. I haven't found a copy in my home town yet, so I only know what's posted here-- but are these options really going to be useful for GM's?


To put this a little in perspective, my copy shipped on saturday morning and after reading through some of it, i must say that RC does seem to have balance issues, but not in a way that it could be called "nothing but powerful options".
And it does seem to have its uses.

The postings here referred, in good DS fashion, mostly to the powerful stuff (and even among that, a lot won't work right with 400BP or is too specific for most campaigns, not just stylewise, but because of hard mechanic drawbacks).
There's also stuff that appears downright broken, at least at first sight.
Along with this, we get even more social DP inflation (at least not as cheap and no-brainy as emotitoys) - pornomancer is either beginning to become a honorific only credited to PCs with 40+ dice in social skills, instead of the usual 30+, or maybe we should coin a new term for them altogether.
I suggest mediablitzer.

There's a whole bunch of options that are mostly there for style, though.
Many of the SURGE traits fall into that category.
People who look like cuttlefish or elephants are not going to break our games (at least not because of the qualities that make them look like such), nor will game balance be endangered by people who blow 25 points on biosonar.

Others are downright broken in the way that it has rarely been that easy to doom a concept for a 5BP bonus.
Bug Features and Liar, among others, practically scream IT'S A TRAP! in your face.


What all of these qualities, and the book as a whole, do have in common, though, is that they elaborate on a very integral feature of SR, which is character customization.
This is where RC does shine, in providing scores of new options.

And these options do not only enrich gonzo campaigns centered around furry rock stars (even though they absolutely need that book), RC also has to offer something for the black ops crowd, as well as street level, pink mohawk shoot-em-all, high magic, hooding and others.

It does not seem to be the most balanced core rulebook (and in fact, every one of these has decreased balancing a little), but it cetainly is extremely inspiring to players as well as GMs.
Squinky
QUOTE (Bull @ Aug 30 2008, 12:38 PM) *
Really, for your own sanity, you should probably avoid that wink.gif

I do not look good in fairy wings and a little pink skirt. Trust me! ork.gif


Hey man, I'm on board for a character drawing smile.gif
Zhan Shi
Just picked up the hardcopy today at my local Game Parlor. This was the SR4 book which I was most looking forward to, with the exception of Street Magic. Dislikes: none; I liked everything, even if I may not use a lot of it. Nice job, Catalyst! Another thought: finally, an SR4 cover that I don't have to wince at when viewing it. biggrin.gif Seriously, has JZ made this available as a poster, lithograph, anything? I'd like to get a copy. As far as game use goes, the section I found to be most appealing was Survival Tips. Although touched upon in previous SR4 books, it was due for an in depth write up, and I'm glad it was included.


Can't wait to but the next one (which I believe is Ghost Cartels). Keep up the good work. BTW, one question: I was intrigued by the mention of Lyonesse. Any ideas on when this location will see its own detailed entry?
Cabral
QUOTE (CanRay @ Aug 5 2008, 08:20 AM) *
I have one complaint.

"Famous Free Spirits".

They forgot the most famous of them all, Buttercup!

Absolutely shocking considering she posted on ShadowRN to boot. wink.gif
Rotbart van Dainig
..what about Barbie, then? grinbig.gif
Rotbart van Dainig
BTW - did anyone notice the Athletics skill group becoming seriously better with RC - and in fact the first skill group containing 5 skills?
QUOTE
Flight (Strength)
The Flying skill is used to increase the distance a character can fly, as well as determine how well she can pace herself and conserve energy while flying. Flying characters may use this skill to dive downward as if sprinting using the running rules (see Using Running, p. 117, SR4); the Diving specialization applies.
Default: Yes
Skill Group: Athletics
Specializations: Diving, Long Distance, Rough Weather

Why it wasn't made a solitary skill like Parachuting or Diving isn't exactly clear to me.
Now every character with the Athletics skill group that is turned into any kind of flying animal with the Shapechange spell can fly like an ace.
CanRay
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Sep 4 2008, 08:13 AM) *
BTW - did anyone notice the Athletics skill group becoming seriously better with RC - and in fact the first skill group containing 5 skills?

Why it wasn't made a solitary skill like Parachuting or Diving isn't exactly clear to me.
Now every character with the Athletics skill group that is turned into any kind of flying animal with the Shapechange spell can fly like an ace.

I'd rule that the skill can only be learned by someone who naturally has the ability to fly. Like Pixies and Dragons.

Fear the Dragon with full ranks in Flying!

...

Hell, Fear the Dragon, Period!
Jaid
yeah, i'd probably consider it to replace the running skill for those races which can fly naturally. i would still allow running to be learned, but it wouldn't be in the athletics group for karma/bp purposes.
psychophipps
I just finished the book and I score it a solid 7/10. Some good stuff in it, including the fiction, but there is also a pretty large amount of stuff that I don't like at all for reasons of game balance.
toturi
A player of mine had asked me about the Lifestyles on a seperate matter, as I had just gotten RC, I decided to read that section first.

Frankly I am quite disappointed. I understand that that section is necessarily an update of the relevant section in the SSG, but I would have be happier with more rules. In particular is the Neighbourhood section of the new lifestyle rules, I do not recall any rules for security or crime rates in a nieghbourhood (refer me to the proper section if there is). I suppose this can be rectified in a later supplement, but Runner Havens and Corporate Enclaves (which are referenced) do not deal with them - the SSG did not have neighbourhood security rules as it was already printed in another book, hence was unnecessary. I am also disappointed that the various Comforts/Entertainment/Necessities did not provide more concrete mechanics affecting the people staying there, apart from the SINless/Vehicles/Workshop sections.

As I go through the book, I will post other thoughts.
Stahlseele
QUOTE (Squinky @ Sep 1 2008, 04:37 AM) *
Hey man, I'm on board for a character drawing smile.gif

something clicked when i found:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b119/sav...ator4873513.jpg
sooner or later, this is what it will end up like, more or less *snickers*
TKDNinjaInBlack
I absolutely love the rules for group contacts and enemies. What more could a GM ask for than a character who has taken the enemy quality with a high incidence rating? Super awesome plot device. Especially when coupled with vendetta where this can go on and on with replacements taking up the charge.

I love the lifestyle section too. It's amazing to have so much detailed out about how the runners live and let it be added up and simplified to one monthly cost. No longer do we actually have to micromanage those "greasing the wheels" segments for security, constructing escape routes or making choke points. I love now that if the runners fall back to ground, the GM knows what levels of security and help the runners might receive and how well they can get away when they need to. Totally awesome.

The metavariant chapter was cool, and provided insight into what you expect to see around the world, but most our group just took it with a grain of salt and skipped over most of them.
Cain
I just got my copy, and spent a few minutes flipping through it. It seems like it's got a lot of very powerful options that no sane GM is going to allow in their game. You can get away with a hell of a lot, and it really spikes up the power level. Unfortunately, I think this will become a "must-have" splatbook, because characters without it are going to be significantly less powerful.
Muspellsheimr
There are some overpowering options in Runners Companion, but there are also numerous seriously underpowered options. Honestly, the book has numerous things I like, but it seems the developers decided to throw balance out the window for this one (very bad thing).

One of my biggest problems is with the Qualities section; there are numerous Qualities that really should not be called such (same problem with Augmentation).

Qualities are special advantages and disadvantages that may help or hinder your character. They aren't special gear or magical powers, but rather innate characteristics that often come to the forefront during the stressful situations shadowrunners often find themselves in.
-Shadowrun 4, p.77


So, tell me, how does Buggy 'Ware (Augmentation), Restricted Gear, Sensei, In Debt, Mysterious Implant, or one of a dozen or more others in these books qualify as a Quality?
TKDNinjaInBlack
I got that impression the first time I read it too, but as with most qualities, their for the GM to keep track of and roleplay to make the storytelling more interesting and fun. With a good GM, trust me, those negative qualities that don't seem like that big of a deal will come back to haunt you (like if you are in debt and now you have enforcers bearing down on you during a bad time on a run). As it says in the qualities section. They can help or hinder you.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ Sep 10 2008, 04:51 AM) *
So, tell me, how does Buggy 'Ware (Augmentation), Restricted Gear, Sensei, In Debt, Mysterious Implant, or one of a dozen or more others in these books qualify as a Quality?

It's especially bad if they only matter at chargen. Then again, it's possibly the only way to integrate those options.
Wesley Street
They could be worked into a character in-game if the GM and player agreed or if the GM just wanted to throw a PC a curveball.

"Hey, that new cyberarm you bought from your street doc? Uh... he just found out it was built by the lowest bidder for a government contract in Shanghai and might have a few problems."
psychophipps
QUOTE (Cain @ Sep 9 2008, 06:53 PM) *
I just got my copy, and spent a few minutes flipping through it. It seems like it's got a lot of very powerful options that no sane GM is going to allow in their game. You can get away with a hell of a lot, and it really spikes up the power level. Unfortunately, I think this will become a "must-have" splatbook, because characters without it are going to be significantly less powerful.


Can't help but agree here. My current game already has two SURGE characters in it, a NPC for now Parker Adept and our Pornomancer (literally, in this case).

Yay. indifferent.gif
Grinder
The art on pg. 47 and 56 is so... wow, ugly! Reminds of the crap Living Room Games had in their ED-books. Urks.
Immortal Elf
QUOTE (Synner @ Aug 5 2008, 02:06 AM) *
We will be revisiting some of mysteries and speculation about the various races/species and other strangenesses in Running Wild. Runner's Companion was pretty full as is.


I'm interested... when's this in the works?
Immortal Elf
QUOTE (psychophipps @ Sep 10 2008, 08:42 AM) *
Can't help but agree here. My current game already has two SURGE characters in it, a NPC for now Parker Adept and our Pornomancer (literally, in this case).

Yay. indifferent.gif


Pornomancer...

I'm only guessing, here. A social adept, with a penile implant?

Does every game come stock with one of these?
Fortune
Social Adept is correct, but why would you assume that a Pornomancer must be male? biggrin.gif
hobgoblin
heh, cat girl, mark 2 smokin.gif
Immortal Elf
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Dec 6 2008, 10:07 AM) *
heh, cat girl, mark 2 smokin.gif


M'kay, I'll take 2 of those biggrin.gif

Don't call me in the morning...
Immortal Elf
QUOTE (Fortune @ Dec 6 2008, 09:45 AM) *
Social Adept is correct, but why would you assume that a Pornomancer must be male? biggrin.gif


Ah, yes, well... suppose I shouldn't. Females can have them too, after all...
Medicineman
QUOTE (Immortal Elf @ Dec 6 2008, 12:12 PM) *
Ah, yes, well... suppose I shouldn't. Females can have them too, after all...


What ? Penile Implants ? eek.gif

No,The Pornomancer is a social adept with a "bucket o'dice" in Seducing or Leadership

with shocked Dance
Medicineman
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012