I had a trip down to my local gaming store today, there was a lot of variety. In-fact there was more than there used to be. He's taken a fair chunk of the D20 books down and put them into boxes under the main shelves. The space that used to be filled with D20 books is being filled with other games again.

I do think D20 stuff appears to be pushing other stuff out of the way, but the other stuff is still there (just not as prominent).

BTW in terms of UK online stores (and a real store) try Leisure Games (http://www.leisuregames.co.uk/).

I personally own D20 Star Wars now (my only D20 game). I'm not overly fussed about the D20 mechanic but overall I have gotten into it. Why did I buy it when I already had the D6 version?

Well teh D6 version had its faults, but mainly because I wanted to be able to go to a convention and actually play in a game where I knew the system!!!!!!

I have even considered buying D&D for the same reason - personally D&D is not attractive but nobody runs games of Earthdawn at the conventions I go to!!!!!! In the end I stood strong to my promise to not buy another fantasy game after Earthdawn (just like I won't buy another cyberpunk game after Shadowrun).

I regularly go to a games club and most games they play are D20 (D&D mainly) or White Wolf. I have been trying to introduce new systems, but as I am teh only one running them, and GMing duties rotate regularly, the players don't get enough experience with the system to learn it, and therefore don't get "into" it as much. D20 on teh otehr hand is run by quite a few GMs so people get into it.

My point being is that some people are buying D20 stuff, not because they necessarily feel it is a good system, but because they know they will get players / GMs for it. (need for interaction and compatibility).

Alternatively they buy it because they are new to RPGing and suffer from informational conformity - when lacking information about what game is best suited for them, or has a superior system, they go with what the majority are playing (D&D in most cases).

This is similar to why everyone uses MS software - they know they will have a compatible system to what most other people use (interaction & compatability) or because they aren't aware of the alternatives like Linux etc (informational conformity).

I am not totally against D20, but I do wish more people would explore the alternatives.

It is a big stretch to make. MS realized the one truth that no other operating system did: it's the guy with the most software and easiest interface that wins. LINUX is a great OS and it's free, but try to find software for it and try to explain how to tweak LINUX to the lowest common denominator.

A better example is the console wars. The PS2 is the worst console available right now. Still, it puts out more games each year than the other two combined and it holds the greatest market share because of it. It also has the best controller of the three, so it's the easiest to use. Further, it puts out the games that people want and has an exclusive license for many of them. The PS2 dominates the market and it shows no sign of letting up. The formula: make it easy to use and give the people what they want.

Very few people want a game like SR. It combines standard fantasy elements with a future element based on 1980's fiction and uses an unnecessarily-complicated, poorly-designed system. There isn't a demand out there for cyberpunk anything anymore, let alone a game that combines cyberpunk with fantasy.

People do, however, have a lot of interest in LotR and Star Wars, so games directly based on or similar to those are flourishing again. The movies are boosting sales measurably (unlike the D&D movie... yikes!). D&D and SWRPG just happen to be d20 titles now. Had WEG been able to maintain the SWRPG license, it would still be a d6 game. WEG couldn't do it, due to a lot of bad management, and WotC jumped at the chance to add a great license to their line. Had D&D remained with the 2nd edition rules, it would be selling well now. If a good cyberfantasy movie or television series comes out, people may give SR a try. Until then, it combines a popular genre with a dead genre and does it with an old ruleset that requires a lot of costly books that are, apparently, difficult to find for a lot of people (I still can't find a copy of SOTA:2063).

D&D released a new edition that cleaned up imbalances in the 3.0 ruleset (in itself, a massive improvement over the 2nd edition rules) and improved their ease of use. Whining ensued that they were just money-grubbing and the higher prices on the new books didn't do much to dispel that, but the fact remains that many of the 3.0 problems were cleared up, they contain more material, and they're easier to use. SR still has the same imbalanced ruleset they've had since 1998, with a list of errata big enough to deserve its own book. WotC releases material cut from old books for free. FP cuts material and hides it away like a dark secret. WotC releases free material weekly and constantly updates the status of upcoming books. FP releases free fiction every other month, but nothing else, and never mentions anything about release date changes, even when they're months overdue.

It isn't just d20 that's keeping D&D above most other games. Fantasy is the single most popular genre for tabletop roleplaying. Nothing ever has been or likely ever will be more popular. D&D is the quintessential fantasy roleplaying game, with more material available for it in a given year than any other game has made available throughout its entire life. Of course it's going to be the most popular thing on the shelves. Of course more people are going to want to play it. It's not because it's d20, it's because they want to play a fantasy RPG and D&D is the best thing going.

How many d20 D&D books have been put out by WotC in the past year? Quite a few, but not nearly as many as there were from the third-party publishers. D&D benefits from this because players can buy what they want right now, without waiting years for someone to eventually get around to putting out the book they want/need for their game. Now, how many new SR books have been put out by FanPro in the past year? Two? Three? How many by third parties? None. Granted, as I mentioned above, there isn't a lot of demand for a game like SR, but how many of you would love to have Raygun's firearms material in a bound edition, even if someone other than FanPro printed it?

I will say this, getting back on major retailers' shelves is the best thing that FP has done in years. Those people that are looking to mix their fantasy and cyberpunk can once again see that something's out there for them. What remains to be seen is what will they do with the new exposure and if there is an untapped market that wants to mix fantasy and cyberpunk. Otherwise, we're the iron lung...

Hold on, I thought teh discussion was about the game mechanic system, not the game universe around it.

I agree that Shadowrun's mix of cyberpunk and fantasy may not be to everyone's tastes. But is it's system so much better of worse than D20?

Alot of those supplements are only "needed" because they contain game mechanics for the cyberpunk bit. If the SR system was used for a fantasy game, would it need as many rules (rigging is out, so is decking, cyberware implantations, guns etc).

Would a D20 Shadowrun require any fewer books or rules? Would there not still be a SOTA 2063 if Shadowrun were D20?

Oh, I've actually something on-topic to say as well!

The game mechanics are overly complicated, yes, but I can't agree that the system is poorly designed. Not worse than most of the other out there, in my oppinion. Of course it's not perfect. You can't model real life with a few simple rules and keep the game playable at the same time. You have to abstract and the process cuts down on realism. I think Shadowrun is a good compromise between realism and abstraction. However, I do have to agree that the rules could be greatly simplified. I do have a feeling that FanPro is working on this though. They already simplified the decking rules a great deal and made deckers actually playable! Or wait... that was still Fasa, right?

Anyways, the game can be played with the BBB only. For D&D you need several books to play (at least Dungeon Masters Handbook and Players Handbook). The SR BBB contains basic rules for every element of the game. The Sourcebooks are only there to flesh out certain elements. Of course, I find the game far more enjoyable with the sourcebooks, but I feel that way about any RPG out there...
Most of the newbs I introduce to Shadowrun play with the core rules only and are pretty overwhelmed already. I introduce sourcebooks gradually as they become more familiar with the game.

First, "lowest common denominator" has nothing to do with LINUX, it's the user. The most common computer user is often no more capable with a PC than they are with a typewriter. Windows is easier for the LCD to handle than LINUX, they can get all of their updates from a single source, trust in it, and hold it accountable where it fails. You addressed this later, but seemed to be confused as to which LCD I was referring to.

Next, regarding software, where can I find a LINUX copy of Morrowind? Halo? Madden NFL 2004? Warcraft III? Microsoft Office? I want the games for my personal enjoyment and I want the last one for compatability and functionality. I want to know that when a new edition of something comes out, I'll be able to use it right then. I don't want to wait five years for a port to come out. I don't want to wonder if the port ever will come out. Further, can I get reliable support that I can hold accountable for failures in LINUX software or am I just SOL if program X decides it doesn't want to work anymore? Do the companies and persons making freeware guarantee their work in any way?

Personally, I don't like to use any relative of UNIX. I've used several through work and friends, but they've never seemed particularly stable (HPUX and several versions of LINUX). This is funny, because it's the battle cry of UNIX users everywhere that it's more stable than Windows. I use Windows XP Home & Pro. I've never blue screened with it. I've never had my PC lock up with it. Over half the time I'm on a UNIX box, it crashes or a UNIX server it's connected to crashes. I'm sure there are more stable versions out there, but I've never personally experienced the much-vaunted stability. I've personally used far more stable Windows networks.

Plus, that stuff is HIGHLY illegal. Nobody wants to be caught with that. Why don't you find usernames and passwords for the FBI mainframe today? Because it can get anyone handling it into some serious trouble!

Also, these are not low-end. Sure, they're the lower end of what's possible in that area but even that low end is pretty high-tech.
I have no idea how much a low-end, obsolete fighter jet from the sovjet army is costing on the black market currently but I'm sure it will be a good deal above ten thousand dollars.. Of course it can't keep up with the bleeding edge of airborn warfare but it's still a potent killing machine in the hands of someone who knows how to fly it and it's still damn expensive. It's the same with SR hacker software. It's not so easy to hack into systems any more, you need real good stuff to get in there. And even the worst of that is still pretty damn good.

That last post of mine was relating to what Salvation122 wrote. You beat me, bwdemon.

To adress some things:
some games are ported to Linux but they are few. There's also a piece of software enabling you to play almost any game under Linux but they require a subscription at around 5$ per month - not acceptable when you ask me.
No, Linux is not a gaming platform and likely never will be unless they make the transition to the consumer market. Right now it's not worth it for the production studios to port their games.
For gaming purposes (and some hardware specific stuff like BIOS flashes) I keep my Windows XP.
Besides: I prefer OpenOffice over Microsoft Office in any aspect. It is compatible to pretty much any office suite out there (yes, it's compatible to MS Office as well), it offers more control and more possibilities, it works more reliable and more effective (file size, just to give an example). You should really try it! There's a Windows version, too. I've been using it even before I switched to Linux.
Granted, PowerPointXP is the best program for presentations I've seen till now but appart from that... OpenOffice Impress is at least as good as MS PowerPoint 2000 (in my oppinion).

Granted, WindowsXP is the best Windows as of yet. Stable (pretty much) and usable. However, WindowsXP has some miraculous behavior, showing some totally unexplainable errors on some machines. Nobody knows what it is or why it happens. It's not a virus in most cases but simply a malfunctioning system. Which leads me to the next point: WindowsXP is bloated beyond hope. Considering what's in there it's surprising it's running that stable. Why the hell do I need CD Recording software integrated in my Operating System when every CD-RW drive comes with free software?
There are other examples but I'm too much out of touch with Windows to name any specifics.

Reliability has never been a problem with my Linuxes. Of course, a poorly set-up Linux is not reliable. Actually, the only part that's not running rock-solid and stable is the program that emulates a mini-Windows using Microsoft's NTFS drivers to acces NTFS partitions. In short: the only thing that's making my Linux unstable is Microsoft (I'm kidding. More likely it's a poorly written wrapper for the driver since Microsoft decided not to release any documentation for their drivers)

That part about the LCD was a misunderstanding on my part then. I have a far too mathematical mindset

True though, service is an issue. The big Linux companies like Mandrake, SuSe and Red Hat are selling service but only for their products, as far as I know.
On the other hand... I've had very few encounters with competent support people. Usually I was left alone after hangin on the phone for over 2 hours listening to some tape, talking to a clueless support person, listening to some more tape, talking to another clueless person...
I can rememer only very few occasions where the so called support has actually helped me.
Also: due to the lack of commercial release deadlines, Open Source programs are usually written more tidily and thoroughly with less errors. Of course, when you're using beta software, what do you expect?

Of course, there's absolutely no doubt that Linux is not the OS for the masses. Which is mainly because it's not as user-friendly as MS Windows. It's more complicated and too diverse for someone who doesn't wish to dig into that. It's the better system, if you know what you're doing.
It's like Windows is a trusty old Ford and Linux is a race car. You have to be experienced to handle it. Until they change something about that, it's not going to dominate the market.
Linux is capable of doing anything Windows an and a good deal more but it's just too complicated as of yet...

referring to the comment above about UNIX reliability, HPUX was your problem, not UNIX. I work with these systems in a high availability environment (Police, fire and EMS dispatch) for big city clients, in order of reliability and uptime it goes like this:

Worst: Windows - we hd to write distributed code so if the server crashed the users wouldn't lose functionality
Bad : HP-UX poor support and poor implementation cause random and odd crahses, lots of code rewrites to keep it stable.
Good: AIX Ibm machines are very reliable and most of what we use because of it.
Best: Stratus Vos - if you've never heard of them that is OK, they make machines you can stick a forklift through and it will still run, they call home and order there own replacement parts, and they have everything redundant. if you never want hardware down time, this is your machine... but you pay for it, and the code has to be written for it's specific OS.

now back to the REAL topic....

Shadowrun system has in my opinion the best dice rolling system out there... some of the TN setting and other specifics are not so great in places, but the exploding D6 system means that no matter how good I get, getting better really is better, (5 dice is statistically better than 4, 25 better than 24) as opposed to d20 and gurps where there is a point where getting the skill or stat higher doesn't make any difference froma mechanics standpoint.

if only the dice were numbered 0-5 instaed of 1-6 than it would be pretty much perfect as far as I'm concerned.

-Mike R.

-Mike R.

actually, 3.0 and 3.5 are fairly compatible. you can integrate the new material into either ruleset, with very little problem.

D&D developers Monte Cook and Sean K. Reynolds have written extensively about that issue. Check their websites.

LAD:

You missed what I wrote about the books. First, there were around three books released in 2003 for SR, of which one was the character dossier and it's of little value. This isn't a "what have you done since 2001" statement, it's a "what have you done since 1/1/2003" and SR has come up short. Frankly, I think it looks worse when viewed since 2001, but that's beside my point. You did list the books that WotC will print this year and some of those for next year, but that is by no means anywhere near the number of D&D books going into print in 2004. You (intentionally?) left out the third party material...

If you were just coming into SR today, what books would be available to you? SR3 would be fairly easy to get. You may even get a hold of the Cannon Companion. The SR Companion, Magic in the Shadows, Rigger 3, Man & Machine, and Matrix will be hard to find, not to mention any of the post-FASA setting or fluff books. Anything before FanPro is all but impossible to find new and that means you'll never know of it or have a chance to buy it unless someone is cashing out of the game (and it could cost you a bundle). Denver, Chicago, CFS, Aztlan, the NANs, and so many other books are GONE now. Since it's hard enough to get 1-year-old books from FP and I'm sure there are some legal entanglements, I don't think we'll be seeing any reprints of those old essential FASA books. While I'm on this, anyone know if there's an SR3 bestiary so I can actually use all of the paranimals in the setting?

D&D, however, has a wealth of detailed settings available right now in stores everywhere and from various gaming companies. If you care to, it's easy to craft your own setting and make it markedly different from the others without having to change the core rules. It's a great system to buy into, because so much is currently available for it and more appears each and every week. Even the old (popular) material is updated. Also, many books that either won't be or haven't been updated yet are available for free on WotC's website. Finally, WotC stepped up and offered free updates online for their 3.0 material, so the buyers of those books wouldn't be screwed. That's a big step from a company that could easily have reprinted all of those books and counted on a large percentage of their customer base to buy them again. It's also a step that FP has yet to take...

As far as prices go, I spent just over $60 to get the 3.5 core books and I suspect that a LOT of other players did the same. If anyone pays retail for books in today's world, they're a sucker. You can play D&D with just the PHB, which you can get for just over $20, and you get a great deal more options for your characters than you would with SR3. Just comparing the weapons (all of them, not just melee) and spells available, SR comes up short. For a similar amount of detail, you'd have to buy CC, MitS, M&M, Matrix, R3, and the Companion. Add those to the SR3 price and you'd pay more for the SR books than you would for all three core D&D books, even if you paid retail for the latter. You'd also be without any sort of idea as to what opposition in SR should be.

I thought I was pretty clear on this before, but the customer is always better off when they have more books to buy.

bwemon:

The main books for D&D are all rules.No "fluf".

Third party source books?Great for setting up new world, horrible for making one world.Look at the forgoten realms,there are at least 1000 liches of power to threaten gods.There are over ten NPCs who have been stated out that would laugh at those liches.In fact,the world is so crowded that their is no reason to play there,as if the players are ever needed it mean that the world is totally fubar.

D&D, has a lot of source book,yessums.It also has books that do not work with other books.

Shadowrun is not making enough books,you say?Look at an Map,pick up a "gibson book" throw magic into it,and there you go.Shadowrun is set up in a world where you can know what a city more than the writers.Say, I want to play in cleveland,I can get a map of cleveland,and play.In shadowrun you only need to know what's different about the area you are playing in to stay canoonical.In D&D you need to know everything.

oddly, PG, people manage to play games set in Forgotten Realms every day without running into the problems you're describing. you're looking at a continent roughly the size of Asia--do you honestly believe that the whole thing has been so thoroughly mapped out that there's no room left for improvisation? you're talking about the most popular fantasy setting in the world, dude. give me a break.

and, specifically, which D&D books don't work with which D&D books?

For weapons, just open up the PHB to pgs. 116-117 and start counting. Each of those can be normal, masterwork, or enchanted to varying degrees of power. D&D enchanting can work on ranged weapons (for both the damaging and launching components) and can bestow an incredible range of effects. SR falls far short and anyone who cares to open the D&D rules will realize that.

As for spells, SR3 offers 73 spells, and many of those are different only in their area of effect. D&D hits 73 spells at "Cloak of Chaos" on pg. 210 and the list continues for over 90 pages after that (108 pages of spells, all told, in the PHB). Again, all it takes is basic math skill and the will to actually open the books to see the difference.

I'm trying to figure out why you're even in this thread, Lilt? You obviously know nothing of the d20 system and yet you try to debate its characteristics? At least make a token effort to learn about something before engaging in comparisons...

Just a general question: Why is the amount of items/spells/skills/whatever and the amount of fluff in existing d20 or SR books being discussed? If you wish to bash either system because the books don't have Lotsa Stuff™, that's fine (although bashing d20 is probably best done in General Gaming), but that's got nothing to do with playing Shadowrun with d20 rules.

Unless you are contemplating on what playing Shadowrun would be like if a certain group of designers made it d20, of course. If that is the case, then you could bring up books made by that group of designers before as "proof". Unless you think d20 Shadowrun would be created by the same people who brought us the D&D 3rd Ed core books (and that's pretty damn unlikely), there's no real point discussing anything about those books unless it has something directly to do with the d20 system. Discussing the degree of suckness of the Shadowrun books is likewise pointless, unless it is that part of the books that suck which would have to be directly translated to d20 -- and if that's the case, then provide some constructive criticism on the possible translation-work, because just stating that something is wrong doesn't help.

Ya know, I haven't bothered to enter this argument so far for exactly that reason, I don't know much about D20. But why didn't you try to answer Lilt's totally appropriate point? SR weapons can also have an incredible array of effects. Let's just take "one" weapon, an AK97, and see how many effects we can get.

Basic Weapon (No mods)
Smartlink 1
Smartlink 2
Gas Vent 2,3,4
Sound Suppressor
Foregrip
Shock Pads
Laser Sight
Extended Range Laser Sight
Optical Mag 1,2,3
Underbarrel Grenade Launcher
Underbarrel Bayonette
Underbarrel Grappling Hook
Underbarrel Flamethrower
Biometric Safety
Flashlight
Guncam
Gyro System
Max Gyro
Underbarrel Weight
Sling
Grenade Link w/Grenade Launcher
Range Finder

27 Different models just from a "Single" weapon and that's not even counting the fact that a lot of those mods can be combined to make even more modifications.

And of course then we have the ammo types which should be multiplied by the weapon types
Normal
Explosive
Ex-EX
Gel
APDS
Tracer
Before we even bring the rarer ammos in we've already got over 100 different options for this one gun. That was Lilt's original point, why did you ignore it and instead talk about how many modifications D&D weapons have while pretending shadowrun weapons have only one variant?

And that doesn't even count the optional rules in CC, which allow you to make your own damn guns from scratch..

MS:

Every single one of those mods can be handled using a d20 mechanic. However, very few of the mods you mentioned are available in the core SR3 book. The comparison dealt with base d20 core vs. base SR3 core and the variety of options open within each. A single D&D weapon has a normal state, a masterwork state (equivalent to SL1 or laser sight), and then is open to any combination of magical effects with a total weapon bonus between +1 and +10. Each weapon may have a general to-hit & damage bonus between +1 and +5 prior to any special abilities. There are 27 basic melee weapon special abilities to choose from. There are 18 basic ranged weapon special abilities. One of the effects shared between melee and ranged weapons is "Bane", which has 31 different effects in itself. Additionally, there are 34 specific weapons with characteristics not specifically open to other melee or ranged weapons. Weapons may mix and match characteristics except where expressly noted otherwise. Finally, there are 6 special materials from which weapons may be made, each with their own effects. Again, this is all just from the core D&D 3.5 books. Is that good enough support?

AE:

You've got a couple of good points there, but I had to answer various challenges to the system. I could have ignored them, but that would've left people ignorant of the options open in the system and, worse, may've left some people thinking that the incorrect opinions of the bashers were correct. When you've got so many people with so little (or absolutely no) grasp of a system attempting to debate its merits and flaws, someone has to step up and offer information.

That said, I don't think it'd be much trouble at all to port the game over and to open up a great deal more variety in the process. I think it'd even fit nicely in a class-based system, though I think that I and others would prefer it to be classless. Levels aren't a problem, either, as SR3 uses levels too, just in a different manner. Skills, initiation, and karma pool directly port to a level (and in many cases, class) equivalent. Here are some more ideas for a port...

* Use wound points & vitality points, few people would argue that hit points are a better mechanic.
* Either reduce or remove the BAB mechanic and add combat skills.
* Implement armor as DR and use the inherent limits on mobility/dexterity/skills to get a better armor system.
* Autofire is MUCH better under d20. The first shot will be as accurate as it can be, for instance.
* Melee combat is much better under d20. I hate the SR3 melee mechanic.
* The d20 mechanics allow for much greater variability in firearms (all heavy pistols don't have to do the same damage, for instance) and smaller steps within that variability (5% vs. 16.7% to hit, for instance).
* While I may agree that d20 has some firearms issues (and I would say that d20 firearms are better than SR3 firearms), those perceived problems wouldn't have to transfer over thanks to the comment that I believe you may've made before: that SR flat out assumes that its firearms don't have real-world equivalents and don't have to play by the same rules.
* Most SR spells would be touch or ranged-touch spells in d20, resisted by saves per normal. There would just be a whole lot more spells to choose from thanks to D&D.
* Exchange the spells/level/day mechanic with a drain mechanic based on a Willpower saving throw against (10 + spell level) with damage of (spell level)d6 for an unsuccessful save.
* Setting material doesn't change at all. A city is still the same city with the same movers & shakers, as dark or as fluffy as the GM cares to make it.

If Shadowrun was to go D20 I would like a solid system for being able to stage damage up or down, a system that can be used for both attacks and drain.

i was playing D&D last night and noted that no matter how skilled I would become, my Longbow would only do D8 damage, so although as my skill increased I would hit more often (and therefore overall deal more damage) my ability to do more damage in one shot (other than criticals) would not increase. I may be mistaken by this as I don't own the D&D books, but that was the way it was explained.

For example, for each weapon maybe there could be a Damage step dice or base amount.

E.g.
Gun X Base Damage: 2D8, Step Damage D8
Sword Y Base Damage: D8, Step Damage D4

Then if you beat the Defence of the opponent then damage is staged as:

Roll >= Def : Base Damage
Roll >= Def+5 : Base Damage + Step Damage
Roll >= Def+10 : Base Damage + 2 x Step Damage
etc

Consider Vitality the ability to dodge and you don't need a mechanc to stage damage down here.

But for Drain...
Each spell would need to have some sort of staged drain, a DC matched with a Damage dice

E.g. Power Bolt F/3D8, 10/2D8, 15/D8, 20/D4, 25/No Damage

Make a Will Save, if it is less than 10, take 3D8 damage, if roll 10 to 14, take 2D8 damage etc

All of these seem a bit cumbersome. I love SR's ease of calculating successes (counting dice, rather than subtracting the DC from your Roll).

Maybe there could be a simple Damage Scale like Shadowrun's L, M, S & D?

E.g. D6 / D8 / D10 / D12 / 2D6 / 2D8 / 2D10 / 2D12 / 4D6 / 4D8 etc
Then for every X points by which you exceed the DC, either in an Attack or Save test you stage damage up or down by one stage.

But then why use dice? why not just give each weapon 4 damage levels, e.g. Handgun 4 / 6 / 8 / 12? E.g. if you just exceed the DC you do 4 points of damage, if you exceed by X amount you do 6 points, if you exceed by 2X you do 8 points etc.

This way spells and attacks could use a similar mechanic.

But then if you are re-writing the D20 system so much, I think you could rewrite Shadowrun's system (removing as many deficiencies as possible) and overall make a better system.

Hell, in this case you could even re-write it to use D10 like White Wolf's systems, but treat 0on the dice as a zero rather than ten, thus allowing the re-roll, without the need to suffer the TN6 & 7 issue. (the reason I say use D10s is because they already exist number 0 to 9, whereas D6s marked 0 to 5 would need to be specially made).

So if a re-write of both systems could make SR the better system (IMO) it all then comes down to compatibility, which even heavily changed, D20 could claim some.

Any thoughts?

DM:

Damage for ranged weapons can change based on several different factors. To provide an example, I'll stick with the longbow from D&D 3.5. First, you have the inherent variance in damage of d20 weapons (longbow does between 1 and 8 damage on a successful hit, base). Then, bows can be optimized for the strength of the user (+1 to +4, IIRC). Then, you have critical hits (either x3 damage or direct-to-wounds damage). Then, your character may have feats (point blank shot, weapon specialization, etc.) or special abilities (sneak attack, death attack, enhance arrow, etc.) that increase the damage done on a successful hit. Finally, the bow or the arrows themselves may have special characterstics, such as those based on materials or enchantments. So the damage is not always the same, it can vary significantly depending on the particular user, bow, and arrows in question.

Personally, I do not like the SR3 damage system or how SR3 weapons are statted out. For that reason, I cannot see the need to bend a system like d20 (which I do like) to SR3 (which I do not like). As far as drain goes, I've already mentioned my preferred mechanic: roll your save/check to see if you resisted. If not, then you take random damage, which reflects how badly your attempt went. I don't see a need to further randomize damage off of the check when it's already sufficiently randomized.

Part of the problem, as I've seen it pop up, is that many players want their probability check to determine almost everything about the level of success. SR3 works specifically in this manner and some players see this as the way things should be. In d20, you have a split mechanic. In combat, you roll once to see if you hit and again to see how well you hit (critical threats being the one exception). Skill use is determined along SR3 lines where how much you succeed by can determine how well you did and/or how quickly you managed it. Some players have a hard time wrapping their accepting and/or wrapping their minds around a mechanic where one roll determines only success or failure and a separate roll determines the degree of success.

AE:

I prefer the "10+SL" difficulty for resisting drain. One reason for this is that I'm not including caster level in the check. Spellcasters would use only d20+(spellcasting attribute modifier) or a straight Willpower save. This way a starting character with an average spellcasting stat (10-11) would take drain 50% of the time from casting a 1st level spell. If caster level were figured into this, then I could see something like "15+SL" for the difficulty. In the alternative, drain resistance could be a skill, in which case "15+SL" would be good, as well. I also wonder if (SL)d6 should be used. Spellcasters typically have minimal hit die, so perhaps (SL)d4 would be best?

Oh, okay, I thought you meant a Will save, which would've made it very easy. If you did use a Will save or a skill check, I think (10 + 2 x spell level) might be better than (15 + spell level). (SL)d4 does indeed sound more fair, because knocking yourself out with spell drain in SR takes a very powerful spell and very bad luck.

Like I mentioned earlier, a limited version of a "Ranged Power Attack" or the Bullseye Feat from d20 Spycraft should be allowed for everyone, and would go a long way toward skill level making difference in the damage dealt.

I never really understood the 6-7 problem.

Make all dice opened ended,and add the the clause if you beat the TN with a 6 showing one the die,add another die.Add as many dice as you amount of dice you beat the TN in this manor..

TN6, with 36 dice would get you get you on average ~7 eextradice.
111111
222222
333333
444444
555555
666666
the average roll of 36D6.With the above clause you would get 6 extra dice.
Then roll 1,2,3,4,5,6.Gaining one extra die.With a 16.7% chance of rolling 6 and gaining another die.
TN7,with 36 dice you only get 1 extra die.
111111
222222
333333
444444
555555
666666.
No 7's right?But you re-roll all the 6's.You get 6 dice showing 7 or more.But only one of them showing a 6,so only one extra die.

PG:

I assume that you understand the 6/7 problem, but that your post amounted to a house rule solution. The more common solution is to make all 6s into 5s and then add the reroll. So if you get {6,3}, that's an "8". If you get {6, 6, 2}, that's a 12. It's slightly less intuitive than the standard SR3 rolling system, but it works quickly and solves the problem.

Just in case someone out there really doesn't understand the 6/7 problem: a person is equally likely to succeed against TN6 as they are against TN7 under the SR3 rules for open-ended tests. You have a 16.7% chance to get a "6" on 1d6. You have a 100% chance to get a "1" or better on 1d6. So if you roll a "6", then perform the open-ended reroll, you are 100% likely to get at least a "1" and succeed against TN7. You then have a 16.7% chance to succeed (per die) against TN6 and a 16.7% chance to succeed (per die) against TN7.

Maybe, your D20 hardon got in the way of my post.

The chance of rolling 12,is a lot less than rolling 18.Yes?

Let's say your the a lucky roller.You roll a die,and get 10 6's in a row.The tn is 6, you get 10 succeses.You roll a 6.IF you TN 6,do you get one success?Yes.Is the die showing a 6.Yes.Pick up that die,and roll again.In fact if you roll another 6, roll that die again,until you stop rolling 6's.If you roll 6,10 times,you get ten successes.If your TN is 7,you get 5 successes.

PG:

It's still not a good house rule and it does nothing positive for the game, d20 has nothing to do with it. Look at what SR3 is trying to do with the TN and open-ended d6 system they use.

As difficulty increases, they want it to increase approximately 16.7% for each and every step up in difficulty. Unfortunately, the standard SR3 system drops 16.7% of difficulty everytime the TN hits 1+(6*n). Simply house ruling 6s as (5 + Reroll) undoes this problem and allows the SR3 probability system to work as intended in 16.7% steps. It works without added rolling or consequences that the system wasn't meant to deal with.

Now, under your system, you use the same skewed probabilities as the stock SR3 system. You also allow not only for open-ended dice for probability, you want each single die to be capable of multiple successes. As written, your basic mechanic for each die rolled is...

1. Roll the die
2. If it comes up "6", roll again
3. Repeat #2 as needed, adding up total until a non-6 is rolled
4. Divide die total by TN to get the total successes for that die alone

THAT looks like a good system to you? Characters could rack up 20+ successes easily with only a few dice if the TN was low and the game would slow down to a crawl with every decent roll. This gets absolutely horrid once you start adding in karma rerolls. Worse, it appears as if still more dice can be added into this nightmare like so:

1. If you succeed on the test AND
2. You surpass the TN with a "6" on the die THEN
3. Add a die to your pool and take it from the top

Yeegads, man! I really hope I got this wrong somewhere, but your typing was particularly poor in your initial post, so hopefully I got something wrong. If that is how your house ruled SR3 die mechanic works, then you're keeping the 6/7 problem, adding time, adding dice, adding accounting, adding many successes, and just generally overcomplicating the system for no reason.

Why not choose a house rule that corrects the problem, works with the game as much as possible, and doesn't bog gameplay down?

the problem with that rule is, it makes your number of success on a given roll vary wildly--which is one of the main complaints i hear about the d20 system. SR's tendency towards dependability is one of its best features; why take that away?

Everyone I play SR with stops rolling sixes once they've hit the TN. You got the success, so why keep rolling? It can only slow things down. Adding extra dice with the extra rolling only bogs that down further. Our groups don't see a lot of TN 14 situations. If we do, we usually don't make an attempt - better to save the ammo or the time or keep our heads down until a better opportunity presents itself.

Your system really breaks down at low TNs. A TN2 attempt with 12 dice normally should net 10 successes (no rerolls needed, applies to both SR3 standard and the common house rule). Under your system, that becomes 18 net successes, before rerolls. That's +8 successes and you still get two more dice to roll and you get two rerolled sixes (and maybe more dice from those if any of them come up 6s, again I'm not sure of your system). That'll work out to more than a 100% increase in the average number of successes at TN2. Under standard SR3 or the common house rule, no more than 12 dice would be rolled and none of those would be rolled more than once. Under your house rule, you're up to a minimum of 16 dice, over at least two rolls, for a single action. Shotguns would likely see more use.

At higher TNs, say TN 8, your system still skews results unnecessarily. Rolling 12 dice, you'd average 1.67 successes under standard SR and 1.33 successes under the common house rule. SR3 wanted 1.33 as the average here (based on 16.7% steps in difficulty), but used 1.67 because it was faster/easier. Your system begins at 1.67 before you add in the potential for extra dice and the potential for extra successes on each six. With those figured in, it hits 2.17 (1.4% per die to get multiple successes on a single die & 2.8% chance per die to get an extra die to add to your pool, figured out over twelve dice) and that doesn't include the chances of that extra die getting any successes or any die getting more than two successes. If 1.33 is the ideal average for twelve dice at TN8 and 1.67 is bad (+26%), then 2.17 would be worse (+63% over ideal, +30% over standard).

The disparity magnifies for opposed rolls, where lower-TNs will gain even more of an advantage over the high-TNs than they have already. In the example above, the successes differ by +8.67 (ideal), +8.33 (standard), and +17.83 (yours). This is worse when you add in the great potential for additional successes at TN2 in your system. As the TNs get closer than 2 & 8, your system grows closer to the ideal, but it still retains an increased disparity and both the standard and common house rules will give more representative results.

I didn't really read into Playing Games' house rule suggestion, and won't because I'm not particularly interested, but I would like to say that a house rule that allows more than 1 success on a single roll works, doesn't bog down game play, and is very reasonable in many situations.

Miss read the rules,but let me clear things up.You roll a 6,weather the TN is 2 or 6,you roll another die.Counting that die as a new die.Meaning I roll a 6,then 1.That as if I had rolled two dice to start with.And failed once.

The thing about shadowrun is that it is more unpredictable than d20.What are the the odds,of rolling 3,4's with 12 dice?What are the the odd,of doing that with 10 dice?What about 4,2's with four dice.

Oh tn 2,with 12 dice using normal rules gets 10 successes.My rule gets just over 12.Seeing as 12 dice is a big thing,and TN2 is basicily shooting ducks in a barrel,big deal.As I said,the rule basically turns your dice rolls to just about 4 on average,over 3.5 on average,unless the TN is above 6,witch then the average is just above 4 anyways.

This rule adds more luck.soemthing that d20 doesn't have.A normal person can hit you with a sniper rifle,at long range,blind.Yes this in unlikely,but it could happen.In d20,there is a set amount of tests you can do,and it is either you can,or can't.In shadowrun you get those who can get lucky,do one in a million things.Things happen,and sometimes the gods,are just making sure you get your job done.

In D20,if you have +10 in a skill,you will always get better than 10,and never get better than 30.That's it.Now,seeing as in d20 you can get TNS ranging from 5-40 with little trouble.A large part of the game system,either makes your skill worthless,or the d20 worthless.

what!? dude, SR is way more predictable than d20. the more dice you roll, the more towards median your results will be--SR uses more dice, it tends more towards median.

Using 6 dice,what is the chance of rolling 2 or above,1,2,3,4,5,6 times.Repeat with 3,4,5,6,7,8,9.....You will notice that the odds change with each higher TN you goal is.The jumps,gaps and rate of changes are not set.

D20,you roll a D20,add a number.No mater what number you add,you are only going to change in 5% gaps.

1+=100%
2+=95%
3+=90%
....
12+=40%
13+=35%
12+=30%
....
19+=10%
20+=5%

Take your TN,minus your skill number and see your chances.If you add 10 to your d20,you will roll 20 half the time.If you add 9 you roll it 45% of the time.You also have a range of 10-29.Anything higher than that is impossable for you,anything lower than that is impossible for you to fail.

In Shadowrun I can get tn 50 with one die.I am not going to,but I could.

all that means is that figuring out your chance of success or failure is easier with d20. that in no way translates to d20 being a less variable system.

Seeing as with six dice you have have have lets see.

111111
111112
111113
111114
111115
111116
111122
111123
111124
111125
111126
111133
111134
111135
111136
111144
111145
111146
111155
111156
111166
111222
111224
111225
111226
111232
111233
111234
111235
111236
111244
111245
111346
111355
111356
....

D20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

What has a larger variable?

the d20. with the d6 system, you're rolling more dice, which means you're more probably going to get a single success against any given TN on a single roll.

PG:

I don't dispute that 5% jumps in difficulty are the standard for d20. However, I dispute that it matters. D20 uses a TN-only, single die system for success. SR3 uses a TN+successes multi-die system for success. In SR3 it matters how many successes you get, but not by how much you make your roll. In d20, depending on the test in question, it may or may not matter how much you made your roll by and only success or failure may be possible. The two systems use different mechanics for degree of success, so I will leave that portion until later. Both systems are very much linear regarding success or failure.

Regarding die pool variance with a stable TN, intervals get smaller as TNs get higher and intervals get wider as TNs get lower. However, the interval between each single increase or decrease in die pool size will remain static. IIRC, this is the formula:

(((die pool/5)*(single die probability)) - (((die pool) - 1)/5)*(single die probability)))

Regarding TN variance with a stable die pool, intervals can be determined by...

((die pool) * (single die probability for TN)) - (die pool * (single die probability for TN - 1))

...IIRC, and they'll remain static as you increase or decrease the TN (except where the 6/7 problem creeps in). There is no 0% chance of success in SR3, so long as at least one die is rolled there is some possibility, however small, of success. Also, should a flat number of successes be required, the intervals all become 0% once the (successes required) * 100% probability barrier is hit.

So, what's all this mean? D20 is linear, with exceptions in combat for 1s and 20s. SR3 is linear, with exceptions for situations where there are a flat number of successes required or due to the 6/7 problem. D20 always has the same slope. SR3 slopes will vary with TN and die pool size, but each individual test will still be linear regarding success. I don't see the need for varying slopes, but that's me. I like a +1 difficulty to be the same under all circumstances. I don't like a modifier to be one thing under one set of circumstances, but different under another.

Regarding degree of success, SR3 will follow standard bell curve distribution, except where only a single die is used. Likewise, d20 is flat where one die is used (d8 damage = same 12.5% chance for any given amount of damage before other modifiers), but conforms to bell curve distribution when more than one die is used (2d8 damage, for instance). Personally, I do not care whether damage from any given weapon or attack is flat or bell-shaped or whether the system allows for both. Distribution of HP/VP in d20 is bell-shaped. Everyone has the same 10 wound boxes in SR, but damage is not done in a linear or bell-shaped manner (1 -> 3 -> 6 -> 10). In SR you defend by applying your dodge and soak test bell curves against the success curve of the attacker and the flat damage of the weapons used. In d20 you defend by applying your defense rating, your damage reduction, your VP bell curve, and your WP against the percentage chance to be hit and the weapon's damage range (curved or linear as it may be). Damage, in terms of percent of harm done to different targets in different circumstances with the same weapons, varies sufficiently within both systems.

Optionally, d20 follows a degree of success doctrine based on +5 DC. A person with no skill attempting a DC15 task has a 5% chance to succeed above the minimum level and a 30% chance to succeed at all. A person with a 5 skill attempting the same task has a 55% chance to succeed at the minimum level, a 30% chance to succeed either quicker or better, and a 5% chance to succeed quicker or better still. The equation for degree of success with this mechanic is linear.

So I guess what it comes down to is where do you need bell curve distribution to be happy with a system? Each has their flat spots, but neither is perfectly bell-shaped. SR3 is neither bell-shaped nor flat regarding wounds done (it'll be 0, 1, 3, 6, or 10 boxes for any given attack - never anything else). D20 WP are always flat (unless you add a feat or your CON goes up). Does it really matter if the curve lies in the damage done or in the damage soaked? Are both necessary? Both systems have examples of either and both.

I'm amazed it took me this long to realize the proper compromise.

Alter the SR TNs so that 4 -> 10, and use D20s for your tests. This makes Shadowrun a D20 game, and doesn't ruin the game mechanics that it's based off.

All right, bwdemon, let me try this example. I only have the 3E PHB and Star wars in d20 books, so I'm going to use those. I will now demonstrate how Shadowrun is far more lethal than D20.

Let's take a weapon master with the shuriken. In D20, let's assume a +4 strength bonus, and weapon specialization. His target, caught by surprise, has a Con of 12 and 35 HP/VP (doesn't matter for this example) and no armor.

Now, using the standard D&D system, the shuriken master cannot deal more than 6 points of damage. Even on a critical, only his base damage is doubled-- but even if it wasn't, he'd only be dealing 12 points of damage, not enough to kill.

If we switch to VP, it still doesn't matter-- on a crit, he does his 5 damage directly to Wound points, of which our target has 12. He still lives.

Now, let's port this to Shadowrun. Our shuriken master is now an adept with a lot of Improved Ability: Throwing Weapons, and a strength of 6. Since our target was caught by surprise, he doesn't get any combat pool to dodge or soak; he's only got his base body and impact armor. A con of 12 is average, so we'll assign the target a body of 4 to be nice.

Assuming our shuriken master only has 12 dice to roll (Well within the reach of a starting character, barely enough to be worth calling a weapon master) he can expect an average of 6 successes. Our target can only expect at most one success, meaning that he's dead. Even if our target were a troll with a body of 11, he not likely to score more than two successes. If our weapon master threw the starting max (sans bioware) of 20 dice (Specialization 7, Improved ability 6, Combat Pool 7) , the troll would be dead.

Now, I could go on to redo this situation in terms of knives and daggers, but those get a great deal more complex. However, the point is that someone in d20, if they have enough HP or WP, has little to fear from small arms. In Shadowrun, those same weapons can be very deadly.

or, you could go the other way, and show how a low-skill (2) character in SR has no chance at all of killing someone with a light pistol in one shot, whereas any character that can physically hold a blaster in Star Wars d20 has a chance of killing most people.

I don't think anyone is trying to claim that standard d20, as found in most commonly used d20 RPGs, is lethal anymore. For example, that same 35HP/VP Con 12 character is ~5 times as likely to survive a Barrett hit than a similar character in SR, ~20 times if using d20 Modern. But it's nice to have someone else doing a bit of the proof-work too, it got a bit boring back there.

MFB: Do that if you wish, use the same Mr Target (35HP or 35VP/12WP, Body 4). Take a distance of 3 meters, give Mr Shooter (Skill 2/AB +1 or 0) a basic Light Pistol (6L/2d6 or 1d10, crit 20), and start blasting away at a still standing Mr Target.

i already did do it. the most the shooter can do in SR is an S wound, if he gets all 4 successes (skill + cp). a Spycraft / Star Wars character could concievably kill a 12WP char with one shot of a 2d6 or 1d10 pistol. it's not likely, but it's at least possible.