It was brought up in another thread (Petition, I believe) that those arguing against the changes in the SR4A are 'a vocal minority', and that the majority are happy with the changes. I have always despised that counterpoint, because it is equally lacking in support as saying the vast majority oppose a change.

As such, I am presenting this as a poll in an attempt to get a better overall view of opinions, that the developers will hopefully use for deciding what alterations to make, if any.



The system I have proposed for Attribute Advancement is as follows:
Note: This is a cut-and-paste from my personal Karma Generation system. It is not intended to support Karma Generation, but to explain how I believe attribute increases should be handled.

I would prefer to see a modification in Drain such that overcasting any spell, Combat or otherwise, incurs a significant likelihood of suffering Drain, even for a character tricked out to resist Drain.

Voted. As most know, I prefer the Attribute x3 Karma system, with a sidebar option of ''If you want to slow down or speed up advancement'', with a quick rundown of other options, New Rating x 5 included. Yes, a GM can always choose, but I prefer for x3 to be the baseline(and as I've said before, with a group that gets to play not as often, this works best for us.) I mean, I do think your system is good, and if I DID ever want to use 5x Advancement(say we had a group that met very often and ended up with a lot of Karma or something), i'd use yours, but til then, I like the reasonable 3x costs, as I prefer natural, raw potential in characters with more reasonable, ''mid'' level skills and maybe that one or two that you are really super-good at. It just feels better to me, as I, in real life, know far more people that have more raw potential than they do actual training in something. (yeah, i try to keep real life out of shadowrun as much as possible, but this just comes to mind.)

Spells? I say keep em as SR4. IMO, each problem that seems to be fixed seems to add new ones.

And yeah, ads? Keep em in the front or back.

Voted "Other" on the casting rule. I'd nix the current rule and instead of a flat drain increase, I'd review drain cost of indirect combat spells.
To stop overcasting mania, I'd add the rule that the level of overcasting adds directly to the drain DV.

The cost for raising Attributes really was too low in SR4, a change I like a lot in SR4A. I don't mind the ads either; they're small and in all are a very minor inconvenience, if that at all.

For direct combat spells, I'm with It trolls! on this. Overcasting should be discouraged by making it hurt more, so increase the drain DVs for overcasting, not for all direct combat spells.

My question, then, is if you even bothered to look at my proposed change, or consider the impact on metatypes - particularly Trolls (where it becomes all but impossible to increase Strength/Body)?

I did look at them. Personally, it seems like it could work, but realistically it's going to be a lot harder to add to something that's already high. Yes, it punishes metas, but they get rewarded by their BP discount from the start. Karmagen might need some fixing, but I haven't played in a game with karmagen yet, so it might work for that, but I wouldn't really know. Realistically, for someone already with a Body of 6 or 7, it's going to be a lot harder for them to raise it than it would be for someone with a Body of 2 or 3. I can understand what you want to do from a point of mechanics, but it doesn't make too much sense to me.

After thinking about it, even as much as I hate the Attribute x 5 rule, I would be willing to stomach it if Skill Groups were dropped down to x4 or x3. (x4 is more mathematically reasonable in my opinion, considering some groups would give you skills for half price.) This would very much put focus on the most common skills in the game and encourage people to have more of them. Additionally the BP costs in BPgen should be lowered to something like 8BP per rank of a Skill Group to encourage them there as well. Of course if they leave Attribute x 5 in without any sort of help on the skills side (Attributes and Skill Groups both cost x5? Yeah right!) then I'm totally against the change.

See, if you put raising an attribute up against raising a skill group, and make them cost the same, then it's still a no-brainer to raise attributes. But if you lower the cost of skill groups, you make them much more attractive, and the savings (either BP or Karma) can go right back to those attributes that might otherwise be gimped because of the new increase in prices.

Am I making any sense whatsoever?

I was happy just the way things were.

None of the changes above are problems that were causing any significant complaint here on the boards as far as I can tell.

You missed the OR change, that's the one that really twirls my propeller.

The sensors change we knew was coming and we'd asked for the same with some of the others.

These other changes are bolts from the blue and aren't tweaks but major, far reaching architectural alterations.

What really angers me is that they've been snuck into the Anniversary edition. That's just low and struck me as disrespectful.

If Attributes are too fast now, we must really be giving too little Karma, is what I'm thinking.

Since we, on average, give 3-4 a session, it already takes an Ork with a 6 Body(average), 7 weeks(assuming every week) to get a 7, and that's only saving for that one attribute. That's about 1.5-2 months of gameplay, and that's playing every week. Since the Jersey group only really meets about twice a month(again, us making it to about four sessions a year), it's more like 12-14 weeks before seeing a single stat increase for a high stat(and again, that's hoarding for that one stat). For someone bringing a 3 to a 4(12 Karma), that's about six weeks(again, assuming every other week and 4 Karma.) It could be up to eight if a couple are 3-karma weeks.

Since x3 seems to be too fast for folks, I'm thinking 9 karma a week really is more the average given, since that that point, that's a stat every couple weeks(less if they are at 2), in which case, I can see the arguement for wanting them to be x5. But for 3-4 karma a session, two sessions a month? Not too fast at all.

EDIT: Abschalten, I do understand what you are saying. I really, really dislike(almost loathe, but I typically reserve loathing to things that affect me more IRL) the Attribute x5 changes, and would not use them, for reasons above(we just. don't. get to play enough), BUT...and this is a BUT...if skills and groups were lowered to 3x and 1.5 times(the latter for skills), I'd be able to swallow it a BIT more(and also, using Muspel's version of the x5 would also have to be included in this.) ONE other change could let me more into it-if karmagen were tweaked to give more than 750.

I still believe all this change will bring is more BP softmaxing of Attributes and buying them up more with Cyber, and it favors it even more now. It was one of the problems with BP before(even with x3 it was more cost-effective to softmax) and now? Even worse.

How are you compensating Mages and TM's for the 67% increase in the cost of their bread and butter Stat?

I'm not, really, but they'd have extra karma to raise their heavy-lifting skills, like Spellcasting, Hacking, Compiling, and the like.

Granted you're right, the cost of raising those skills is still absurd, and it will limit their growth. I think we'll see alot of awakened/emerged characters choosing to initiate or submerge more often than they raise their Magic or Resonance stat.

But part of the gouge in playing a magician or TM is that with all the karma they put into that special attribute, they have little to go elsewhere. At least this way they can raise up their major skill groups a little more cheaply, and that ought to be worth SOMETHING to them.

Gameplay, & thus mechanics (at least in this case) should always come first. That being said, putting on 20kg of muscle mass would be incredibly difficult for a Human. For a Troll, however, that represents a huge amount less in proportion, & thus would be significantly easier.

By increasing the drain on their bread and butter spells!

BWAHAHAHA

I like the changes, and here is why:

1) The emphasis should have always been on skills, not attributes. What the change does is make increasing an attribute cost the same as raising a skill group. When you stop and think about it, it is still a bargain. Agility has 18 skills under it, including most of the combat skills. Body, yeah, it has only a couple skills in it, but it adds to a damage resistance rolls, disease resistance rolls, fatigue tests, and every 2 points in it boosts your physical damage track. You get alot for every attribute you purchase up, more then purchasing up a skill group.

2) Sure, Overcasting is still a "problem." Witht he clarification in antoher thread that the casting mage can choose how many of his net successes(not Gross Successes, but Net Successes) to put into the damage value of the Direct Combat spell, it gives the mage the option, and remember that net successes is still capped at the Force of the spell, and in the games I have played in, I have never seen more then 2 or so net successes from a realisticly built, non-min-maxed mage, after the resistance tests.

3) I like the ads for how they guide a new player who is just getting into the game on where to go next for more of what they are looking for. They are placed in small blocks, and do not really take away much of anything, and are placed where they make the most sense.

4) Over all, I think the changes move the game mechanically back to Shadowrun, not "D&D with tech," and I am very glad to see them.

1) Again, you are entirely ignoring the impact on metatypes, & how to address it. I agree that the cost should have been increased, but how it was increased is bullshit.

2) Direct Combat spell effectiveness has been barely affected, while Overcasting is being encouraged. This deviates from full & logic. Again, I feel they needed to be reduced in power, but this was not a good way of doing so.

3) And how would they 'not' guide a new player to new material if it was at the beginning of the book, instead of spread throughout?

4) How do you get that? The changes neither move it towards "D&D" or away - it was already distinctly different & this affects that in absolutely no way whatsoever.

Not wanting to get too far into a stat-weight discussion because I did mention it in another thread, this quote did sort of catch me:



Strength is even more useless under this. You literally get nothing for it you can't get with less Karma.

10 Karma gets you a martial art style, which you can use for +1 DV. You can do this 3 times. Critical Strike adds more, Bone Lacing adds more, Hardliners can help with this as well for unarmed; also see Shock Gloves and Stun Batons. Many blades have large DV modifiers(vibro-sword, for example.)

It links to 3 attributes. Yes, they are fairly useful, but they can also be increased in other ways(Synthacardium typically being the big one, and they are also cheaply increased via Adept powers, being non combat skills.)

Lifting rules haven't changed, giving it some alright value there, but it just doesn't come into play that much, and I think the lifting rules could do with some fixing.

It doesn't affect Armor worn(which would also help.)


Under 5x Karma rules, there is no reason for someone to have a strength of more than a mailman(which I'd say is about 3.) And for folks like myself who actually like the stat for flavor purposes, we actually get hosed by this, because we raise it over something that might actually be better; at least under x3 karma we don't have to suffer as much for doing it. Again, this really hits metas(under the RAW change) a lot, since Orks and Trolls already get hosed, now there is really no reason to even look at this stat, let alone even considering paying 20-30 Karma to raise it.

I, too, like the changes.

1) Attributes are still TOO cheap compared what you get for your karma. Especially compared to what awakened or emergent character builds could do with them. The raise in cost was the right way to get them more in line with mundane builds. I had the opportunity to test the change after recalculating the characters in my group. It did wonders, nerfing the awakened as they started to realize that this game is about being a team.

2) Overcasting a DCS was always the best choice to apply a combat spell. the change didn't adress that. It adressed the difference between DCS and ICS comparing what you get for your drain damage. It didn't nerf DCS-Hitmages as hard as the change in attribute cost but it made ICS-Hitmages more fun to play compared (as they now won't feel as sacked as before) to them.

3) As being a SR4 player since '07 I already was familiar with the other books thus the ads aren't useful for me. But I see what they did there

I don't really have trouble with making it harder for metas to raise high stats even higher - I like that.

Hm.

Necessary changes to Attribute cost were necessary.

Maybe the Karmabuild system will get an overhaul, it might need one. Maybe karma levels will just be upped a tad. It is still a bit more viable as BP build, but the possibuilities aren't as sky high anymore.

I feel Muspellsheimr's system is too convoluted, and I don't see why metas need a Karma discount. Trolls have always needed more karfma to max out their body and strength than humans. Also, muscle growth is not linear with creature size. If that is felt by trolls, fine; they were a tad overpowered, especially considering the official armour ratings that would allow them insanely thick armour, anyway. If it makes mages and technos bleed, good, they really needed some nerfing.

Don't care much for the drain levels really, as a non mage player, but since it makes casting one shot knockout stun bolts like a machine gun apparently less appealing, good change. Mages were overvalued in SR4 too.

As for the ads, meh, they're five 1/3 page inserts. That's nothing I see as a reason to get all uppity about. Check out a Games Workshop 'sourcebook' if you want to see a salesmanly, commercial clustered games product (and some seriously bad writing).

I was tempted to go "other" for everything, with my explanation then being "Bring back SR3, woooooooo!" Then maybe I'd light something on fire, or get a crowd to flip over a cop car, or something, I wasn't sure. I fought the urge, though -- as much as I prefer other editions to 4th, I like 4.5's changes even less (or, at least, these controversial two, as far as gameplay is concerned).

I'm genuinely left scratching my head wondering what they were trying to fix with the Drain thing (since we've heard over and over again it wasn't meant to address Overcasting, which is what most people seem to agree was the main issue with direct-combat spells...and that issue's just gotten worse, not better). I've yet to play a mage myself so I don't feel as strongly about this one as I do attribute costs, but it still seems like a horrible fix to the "direct combat spells are too effective" problem, because every time I've seen those spells seem to be too effective, it's been when folks Overcast.

I'm not fan at all of increasing the XP cost of friggin' anything. If too many people were maxing out attributes and not enough were spending xp for skills...why not lower the cost of skills (instead of increasing the XP requirement for attributes, and totally breaking the bank with the costs of skillsofts)? With so much cyberware/bioware already on the market for boosting attributes, all they've done is make the "shortcut" route (technology instead of training) all that much more appealing...which, combined with the increased cost in increasing Magic, really bones some characters (like Adepts).

And, hell, if nothing else lowering the cost of skills a little would have everyone going "Sweet, extra xp!" or "Yay, skills are on sale!" right now, instead of the invisible GM in the sky reaching down and raising prices. Everyone loves that little floating smiley face motherfucker in Wal-Mart that changes signs for the better, right? But if he flew around, whistling a cheery tune while he marked stuff up, someone would've busted the glass in sporting goods to get a shotgun, and busted him like a clay pigeon by now. Everyone likes decreased prices. No one likes getting jabbed in the ballsac by the nerf bat.

Damn, I think you managed to really say what I had in my head here and I couldn't figure out how. I am in total agreement that all this is going to do is bone adepts/awakened/emerged(adepts worst of all), and just make the bio-versions that much more likeable. But yes...if skill prices had been lowered instead, I agree, you'd see a lot more probably. With skills much lower(say, 1x New Rating for regular, 3x for Groups), even if attributes were at x3, I almost guarentee someone would look at that 15 Karma, and think, ''hmm...I can either up my Intuition to a 5, or up these 2 5's I have to 6's and still have 3 Karma left over to up my 2 to a 3...' I think they'd end up taking the latter. I know I would.

My system does not give metatypes a discount. What it does alter the base system so it does not charge them twice.

Such characters have already paid for their bonuses to attributes, so why are you charging them a second time to increase those attributes (everything above what the Human would be paying, being part of this second cost).

So far I'm digging the changes.

I've always thought that for the BPs metahumans get quite a sweet deal. They get a bunch of free stats, some higher maximums and a few nifty abilities. They don't even have to pay up their "negative" stats. Sure, a troll isn't normally going to be a master summoner, but that's probably not why you chose him, right?
The karma cost system is far from perfect, IMO, so a few minor adjustments don't anger me. Heck, a full revision would have been appreciated.

And why are we angry about the advertisements? They are well done and point get new gamers excited about new material.

Amen.

Can I make an observation? It's genuinely not a criticism.

Apart from Hermit, who might well argue black was white for a good fight, kidding, almost everybody in all 17 threads discussing this who thinks the nerfs are a good idea are people who haven't had much to say up until this week. Very few have a post count of over a thousand.

The folks who dislike some or all of the changes are almost without exception people who are on here every day discussing SR4 and what they like and dislike about it and how they would like to see it changed.

It seems odd that the most vocal members of this community are the ones who disagree with the changes.

Surely the changes should reflect the problems the dev's see thrashed to death here every other day?

(Should that be a question mark. I'm not sure. Not enough sleep. Or too much beer....)

Or not enough beer....


Interesting point, though, that I had not noticed. I wonder if it should be taken as in our favor, or against us.

@crizh: Personally, I think post count has very little to do with it. I've seen first posts from people on various forums with more thoughtful content than the 1000+ post records of others on the same forums. So someone hasn't spent as much time discussing things on a forum - might be a habitual lurker like me. It's more what's posted than how many posts have been made. Like you said, it's more observation than criticism, but post count is about as relevant as join date and minor spelling errors.


As for the topic, here's my thoughts;

Regarding the increased costs of attribute advancement, I can see why, from a balance standpoint, something along those lines would be done. I think that upping the karma cost to [stat]x5 was a well-thought out move, but the issue is where it's unsupported by the rest of the ruleset. SR4 already wasn't exactly the fastest in character advancement - at least, not without GM/group intervention and house rules. Upping the cost of raising attributes, while also raising basic recommended karma rewards[even if by a lesser degree] would have easily put more emphasis on skills than was previously. That being said, it's a bit of a step sideways, but one that can be lived with. If necessary from the group's standpoint, it's simply changed with a rule or two. Admittedly, it might mess with characters used both at home and in Missions, but there shouldn't be much conflict there; provided that people clearly understand the differences they'll find between their table and a 'public' one.

As for the issue with direct combat spells, it's a bit too variable the way it stands. I think a flat drain increase may have worked better, but I can't really judge that very well - the only magicals I've ever played were either Adepts or indirect specialists. Might run this past my almost-always-the-machine-gun-manabolt-mage friend, see what he thinks of it.

Lastly, our friends the in-line adverts - they would have benefitted from a tad of Jackpoint-style framing, maybe with one or two lines in-character before the existing texts. As for their placement in the book though, I don't think that's really so much the issue. I find the complete lack of integration with the rest of the partial-in-character descriptions more jarring than anything else. So, leave them on their pages, but maybe integrate them a bit better, if possible.

Although certainly not universally true, it is probably far more likely that someone with a large post count and older join date has a greater understanding of what these issues are, & why they are issues - thus having a more informed point of view.

Yes, there are likely exceptions, but I would be willing to bet that the large majority of those with recent join dates (& to a lesser extent low post counts) know very little, if anything, regarding these issues and their effects on the game.

I don't really have a problem with the changes perse. But in my game I'm currently planning on decreasing the cost to raise skills, and skill groups(thinking 1x and 4x though might make it 2x and 4x) and having the 5x for attributes(maybe 4x if I go with 2x for skills) I'm still finding a way to not smack around awakened characters with this change, anyone with suggestions I'd be glad to hear them(considering the boost to magic attribute for adepts when initiating as they seem to have very few worthwhile metamagics). As for the casting changes, I don't think I'll be using them, though I've been thinking of trying a change for direct spells that I saw earlier today. Namely that for overcasting ever point into the overcasting area adds f rather than f/2. If that is too heavy damage wise, maybe f2/3(force/1.5). I don't have it, but the advertisements wouldn't bother me if I did.

Edit: Just to add, I'm considering using Muspell's adaptation, as every character in my group are meta's and they haven't nearly maxed out some of their good attributes and those will areas of advancement they will want to pursue

Just a note: that change would make skill groups either more expensive than raising skills individually (for groups with only 3 skills), or the exact same cost as raising skills individually (for the groups with 4). Since the only benefit to using skill groups is the reduced cost, that pretty much eliminates groups from the game.

I Think the new Attribute Cost of x5 is better in Balance with the Skills &Skillgroups(better ,but not perfectly balanced)
IF Chars gain more Karma(because this also means that Skills become cheaper and will be raised earlier ImO)
If what is in my Signature will be promoted and officially in the new SR4A it will solve some of the Issues
Drain of DirectCombatSpells...
It would have been easier to just raise the Drain one or two Points....
Ads....
If they are essential move them to the Back

Hough !
Medicineman

Post Count doesn't mean a thing.

I agree with this.
I mean, really, most of the so-called discussions I see on here are a few players constantly bring up the same issues over and over and over again, and, when someone says they do not have a problem with what these people have a problem with, they try to goad the person into conforming to their beliefs. I am sorry, but, I have no problems with Long Shots, Hand of God, or the Matrix. I know that, by most of the people who are posting here, regularly, I am supposed to find the matrix unworkable, and am supposed to find Long Shots and Hand of God to be the most broken things short of the Emotitoy, Bloodzilla, and Agent Smith/Hackastack. I do not. Since I do not agree with the vast majority of active Dumpshock forumites on these defining issues of the game, these things that are the most important things other then min-maxing your character so you are rolling 20+ dice to do anything, why am I going to sit around and post endlessly trying to argue my point that the average PC build is not the Power Build. In fact, this is actively discouraged at my table, since flawed characters are more fun to play the character, since they have personality, as opposed to the "I roll 20 dice to shoot things...every problem can be solved by shooting it" mentality that comes with an optimized and extremely focused character.

These changes, in fact, are very good for at my table. I know that, since I have read them, and been reading the PDF, I have spoken with my players, and THEY like them. Unfortunately, since my players are not here every day(getting flamed by the power gamers who feel every roll should involve 20+ dice, or the SR3 Hold Outs who do nothing but flame anything SR4 related), crizh says their opinions do not matter? Because I just do not flame and argue to people when I say my piece and they do not want to agree with me, my opinion does not matter to Crizh? Well...honestly, you know who's opinions I think matter more then Crizh's? The opinions of people I know RL, see face to face every week, and play with, or run games with.

I like the changes, my players like the changes. Face it, the devs have even realized how huge a problem the people are here that they did not even put a reference to dumpshock in the new book.

It gives them a huge discount compared to the current system, which does not take metahuman boni into account either, and would totally nerf the human as a PC for anything but Mr. Lucky builds. Oh, would Humans get their Edge racial bonus taken into account, too?


And yet, the silent majority seems to be pro changes. BTW, what about Fuchs? He is pro changes too (and has well over 1000 posts).

As for posters, Angier has been lurking for a while but posting frequently in the German forums for some two years, and medicine man is staple inventory of any German SR board of note, and has been for long times. Dunno about the others.

Maybe some of those voting pro are just not interested in arguing their points, seeing they are with catalyst and feeling their views have already been expressed well enough in the changes, so they don't see any need to complain?


Yeah, that would be nice.


And that's coming from someone who's joined three years after me AND has a lower post count. You certainly cannot know SR as well as I do (a statistical fact!), so get lost, welp.

Seriously, the point you wanted to make is very arrogant, so don't. You can learn SR in places other than Dumpshock, you know.

Thank you.

To assume that my post count or account creation date somehow suggest my ability to grasp the depth of the changes being made is ridiculous. Those 2 things don't tell you how long I've been playing, what access I've had to this and other game systems, or quite simply how smart I may or may not be.

It was argued that the people that seem to disagree with the changes are those with higher post counts, and are therefore the most informed and understanding of the issues. The irony of this suggestion is that at the top of this thread there is a poll that is showing a clear majority of votes in favor of the changes. Having a majority of posts in no way means that you will or will not represent the majority opinion.

I like the karam cahnges, and I'll decide on the spellcasting changes once I discuss this with the player of the mage in my face to face group, and the mage player in the Caribbean Shadows PbP campaign.

As far as the other changes are concerned I'll probably have to wait for the erratas to notice all changes.

Well these are quite telling results. It seems there is a quiet majority that likes the new changes on the whole.

I feel there probably should have been an additional category where people could just state their general feeling for the changes over all. There is a lot in there that I like and I don't wish one objection of mine to overshadow that.

For the Attributes, I think either a system like Muspellheimr's (minus the penalties to PCs which have reduced attributes such as a troll trying to raise Charisma which seems overly punitive), or the existing system as is are both better than what was there pre-errata. I can see merit on either side of the argument for meta-discounts, but we probably don't need yet more trolls with maxed out Body.

The advertisements... well I was the one that originally raised this. Having mulled over the dev's reply on this one I'm less annoyed by it. I've been kind of primed to be sensitive to this by certain other companies that try to force you into buying all the supplement books. Didn't like the impression that Shadowrun was taking the same approach. Contrary to what others have said, you can indeed play a very good game with just the BBB. I would like to see the ads at the back - you could get them all on one page - but I'm less annoyed than I was.

The drain issue. I voted for flat drain increase. I'm not opposed to increasing the drain slightly if it's felt that Direct Combat spells are too powerful, and that's probably reasonable. The increase in Object Resistance already helps balance the Indirect and Direct balance in a characteristically Shadowrun manner (i.e. each is more useful than the other in the right circumstances). However, I don't need to add an extra step to the drain process where players stop to analyse likely drain from specified hits vs. amount of damage. I also don't like them to have quite that level of control over specifying how much damage they do to a target: "I do ten boxes of damage please." I also prefer the feel of overcasting being the additional effort and risk that a mage takes, rather than being a preferred option. It also becomes inconsistent with other spells where overcasting *is* the riskier option.

If there were any chance of this being amended to a flat increase to drain I would be happier.

Object Resistance and modification limit to programs / hardware should also have been in this poll. I like both of these changes but I know some others have a problem with one or both of them.

Peace,

K.

Post count means little. Someone with a high post count will probably have a good grasp of the rules and the context for those rules. But this does not mean that someone with a low post count does not. Therefore it is not possible to draw useful conclusions by comparing people's post counts.

And for the record, having played since 1st edition (skipped 3rd) and approaching a post count of 3,000, I have to say that nearly all of the changes I have liked. I don't like the strange thing they've done with Direct Combat spells and the ads ticked me off a bit, but other than that, I'm happy.

The lifting and sprinting rules are still broken and the "average" attribute is still pegged at 3, but those aren't changes - just long standing irritations.

That seems odd to you?!?

That's the way Dumpshock has always been. Were you here when SR4 came out?

While I disagree with the changes, I do think that postcount might not come into play too much. I too have played Shadowrun for awhile-15 years or so, perhaps not as long as some, but certainly a long time, I'd say, and I just...disagree with a lot of these changes, and my postcount isn't particularly huge. I however am biased-playing not so often, we never had a problem with fast advancement, nor characters starting out quite competent in their chosen field(which for us, is 15-18 dice.) Again, I think I can see why a table who played weekly and handed out 9-10 karma a week might find x3 too fast.

Silent my bum.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Fuchs doesn't use karma in his games.

He may think the new system is an improvement but he still thinks the entire karma system is unusable.

For those that have lost the plot over what I said at the top of the page, maybe you should go read it again.

To respond to your criticism however, it is the people with low post counts who are most likely to still be making basic mistakes about SR4 like Drain can't be healed with First Aid.

I saw that happen twice yesterday.

And many who appear to disagree with my antipathy towards this new edition are actually against at least one of the changes. Read Knasser's last post for example.

I still haven't seen a reasonable fix for the damage this does to Mages, TM's and particularly Adepts. Hermit thinks they are already broken and needed a good kick in the nuts but it hasn't been my impression that is the consensus here.

How are Adepts supposed to cope with a 67% increase in the cost of Power Points?

I use karma in many of my online games, I am using my experiences in those for my stance on the karma changes.

Yes, silent, because most of those who vote pro change do not comment it in the thread.

Also, thanks to Fuchs for clarifying.


Why fix what was likely the intended outcome?


Accept a slower progression and use very selective augmentation if they really need that power quickly?

Maybe this is not your and your supporters' intention, crizh, but it seems to me like you are ranting against those rules changes for crippling characters built exploiting the imbalance before. And since you don't find the support you had hoped for in this poll, you start to insult any who oppose you on a kindergarten level. Think running about yelling "newfags are made of suck" will help your cause much?

Actually Adepts are not worse touched by this changes as the most expensive powers have been greatly reduced in power point prices. And if you think your groups Adepts are advancing to slow, how about using the optional rule for Adept Initiation?

As far as post counts and cynicism go -- well, duh. The longer someone's been around, the more active they've been posting, the odds are the longer they've been playing the game. The longer they've been playing the game, the longer the game's been shifting and sliding and changing under their feet, moving more and more away from whatever the game was when they started, and the longer they've been playing the larger their emotional investment, the more likely they are to look back fondly on old memories, wallow in nostalgia about the good old days, yadda yadda yadda.

So it's only natural that -- as a trend (not a rule, no one get bent outta shape, here) -- the longer you're here (and by "here" I don't just mean Dumpshock, but any RPG or wargame forum, really), the louder you bitch.

Does someone's opinion count more if they've been here longer? Of course not. Just the opposite, in fact.

Game companies aren't looking to keep old players nearly as much as they're looking to drag in new players, in fact, so maybe the opinion of (relative) newbies should count more, if anything, looking at it from a business standpoint. Someone who's been playing the game for seventeen or eighteen of its twenty year history has already spent the money to do so, and is likely to pick up...what? Two, three sourcebooks a year, if they don't keep growing up and gaining new bills to pay and losing their hobby time? Someone who's just getting into a game, though, they've got a whole edition to pick up, with core rulebooks, every supplement from recent years, yadda yadda yadda, and a long gaming life spread out in front of 'em.

If I was a game company, I know who I'd market to, and it's not us bitter old fucks who used to think dirty thoughts about Sally Tsung a couple decades ago. They've already got us hooked, if ever they were going to get us. Game companies today are after the little bastards who were still swimmin' inside their mom's belly when Twist was callin' up his Great Ghost Dance (or who weren't even gleams in their daddy's eyes yet), that have a good ten years of disposable income in front of them and none of the baggage we do about edition changes and crap like that.

A select group of Powers that were easier to replace with 'ware than buy have been reduced 20-25%.

Averaged across the board I'm pretty sure that'll come out at about a 50% increase in overall resource expenditure for Adepts after Char-gen.

You are not wrong.

I hate you for it but you're not wrong.

I'm going to go and get out the Spectrum emulator and be cynical in a corner for a bit.

Nice post, Critias. Very nice.