I think weapon accuracy and reliability rules go a long way towards making different guns feel different.

The Alpha might be the bee's knees when it comes to accurate automatic fire (given all that recoil comp), but maybe a way to balance it (for those who feel that's broken) would be to tweak the critical glitch rules somewhat, and making it a finicky, precision-oriented, piece of machinery. An AK 97, on the other hand, might take a varying range penalty or something to represent accuracy issues, but may have changed glitch rules, itself (perhaps even allowing a reroll only for determining a jam, for instance) to show that it's a sturdy, ridiculously reliable piece of gear.

I like your idea Critias

It's mainly a fluff issue really.

Does your character want to take a very expensive assault rifle with him in a hazardous environment and risking to have to dump the gun along the way? For example when it short circuits? And you can't afford to carry around the extra deadweight? (say after taking a couple hits).

The Alpha is the best there is, everybody agrees, the rest is fluff and I trust any GM I play with to enforce it upon me in a just and sensible way.

Those can be easily twisted the other way around, though:

Given the low-tolerance manufacturing approach of Ares and the fact that the rifle is battle-tested for over twenty years now, with feedback being incorporated into the design, the Alpha could be one of the most reliable assault rifles around.
On the other hand, of course, there are so many substandard AK knockoffs, copies or franchise products on the market that getting a real, reliable AK 97 is much more difficult, and the stuff you get everywhere is likely jam for no reason at all.

I just think grenades are far more serious than assault rifles. With an assault rifle, you might get a SWAT team, but they'll try to arrest you unless you start shooting. With a grenade launcher, the SWAT sniper takes you out if you look agitated, they're not going to risk grenades flying around.

well that's why you shoot first ^^

That would kind of miss the point of introducing such rules specifically to balance things out for GMs that think they're broken right now, wouldn't it?

True, but I think Rotbart argued from a gameworld perspective. It could be a high maintenance weapon but that is not necessary. There are High Tech items that still function well under adverse conditions and are even designed for them.

So, uh, what's the best SMG? I'm leaning toward the Praetor, myself.

I don't have problems with one or two rifles being the best. It makes sense for Ares to produce at least some of them. It does make choosing at chargen easier. But it's nice if there is a choice between 2-3 good guns with slightly different specialties.

For RC and capacity, yes. F availability may also sometimes pose problems. Having the ability to switch between suppressor and Gas Vent is a nice feature as well, so I guess the Ingram Smartgun comes in as a close second.

@Ares Alpha: I would have preferred, if it didn't have a GL but that is a given from previous editions. Similarly to the AK-97/AK-98 there should be an Ares Beta without it.

Legalitywise the M-22A3 is king: You patrol the streets with a friggin' grenade launcher. Or was this errataed?

Lies, the best weapon to patrol the streets with is the Barrett. Nothing says "Don't mess with me, I'm crazy!" than walking around with a Barrett.

Really, the problem isn't the fact that there is a "Best AR" so much as the fact that you can buy the damn thing at chargen. The result is that there's no real thrill in getting that Turbo +3 Assault Rifle of Quickening like one might find in other tabletop games. You just drop a 1700 nuyen pittance on the best AR in the world and you're done with it. Hell, I've thought about purchasing one for a character who had no Automatics skill, just in case I decided he would learn how to shoot.

The SR Devs really missed the boat when it comes to balancing firearms.

IRL, firearms are all about compromise. You have to give up some thing to improve something else. Every improvement comes at a cost.

You want more powerful ammunition? You are going to have to pay for that with reduced ammo capacity, increased recoil, and probably increased platform size.

You want compact and easily concealable firepower? You're going to have to pay for that with a reduction in effective range, higher recoil, possibly smaller ammunition capacity, and most likely worsened terminal performance.

You want long rage, awesome terminal performance, and portability? You are going to have to pay for that with extra weight, inability to use in close quarters, negligible concealability, smaller ammunition capacity, and either lack of FA capability or uncontrollable in FA.

And those are just a few exampled. Ammunition/Caliber is the same deal.

You want better terminal performance vs. flesh? You have to pay for that with heavier recoil, smaller ammunition capacity, lack of control in FA, and possibly poorer performance against armored opponents.

You want great AP capability? You'll have to pay for that with worse terminal performance (saboted penetrators), higher recoil (moving to rifle/sniper rifle caliber ammo), and all the other problems that go with moving to a heavier caliber round.


Like I said, when it comes to firearms, everything is a compromise. The best weapon for a particular scenario might end up being the worst possible weapon for another scenario. That's how firearms SHOULD work in an RPG.

The best thing you can do is give players "CHOICES". Giving them one firearms that is leaps and bounds better than almost all others does the exact opposite. It removes any meaningful choice.

Granted, it's sometimes tough to do with the level of granularity of the system, but it should have been a priority for the Devs.

I've managed to build in a good bit of granularity with house rules, without overly complicating the system.

My players have choices, and what they pick ends up with meaningful results.

Here are some examples:

1. Pistols suck, but they are ideal if you want a firearms you can carry concealed at pretty much all times. Also, in my games, pistols lose less terminal performance when suppressed than Rifles do.

2. SMGs are less concealable/more obvious than pistols, and you usually don't carry them around on a regular basis, but they are MUCH better to have in a firefight than pistols. Higher ammo capacity, select fire capability, and much better range categories (I use Thresholds instead of dice penalties for range categories).

3. ARs/Carbines are just about completely obvious...not really something you can conceal at all. However, they have better range, better AP, and sometimes better ammo capacity than SMGs. However, you will likely have a penalty or two when in some CQC scenarios...especially if the quarters are particularly tight.

4. Shotguns are great for use against a small number of unarmed adversaries. Their damage exceeds what you get from an AR, though you will suffer from higher recoil and a smaller number of shots. Their range also stinks (less stinky with slugs) in comparison to ARs, but it is a lot easier to get away with a shotgun in your backseat than with an AR.

5. Sniper Rifles are ideal for long-range engagements, and the rounds they use tend to have very good terminal performance AND penetration. But a scope is just not something you can use effectively while moving from cover to cover in a CQC type of environment. Not to mention that the size of the weapons will often cause their own problems.

There are many others, but I'm not going to list everything here. But like I said, firearms mechanics in a game should be about providing choice.

That's a nice summary and should be a working guide for any game utilizing modern/near-future firearms technology.

None of the players in my group own firearms or are gun aficionados but they've also played enough first-person shooter video games and watched enough action movies that they naturally drift toward the weapons that would be "appropriate" for their character, rather than trying to metagame their way into maxing out their firepower. In the rare instances that it does happen I typically put my thumb on it. Some of what you mentioned has been addressed in the rules but probably not with sufficient clarity, IMO.

It also all depends on how much *cough* realism you want to portray in your game.

Given the rules, I am not at all sure it is metagaming to choose "the best weapon". Many of these characters are combat / street specialists. It is their job to know what works in different sitautions, and to use it. Shadowrun is not the smae universe as most first person shooters, and it clearly is not the same universe as the one we live in (even ignoring the magic issues.) But it is reasonable to expect experts to know how thier own world works.

Yours,
Joel

Why thank you.




Actually, this goes way beyond realism. It has to do with choice. If one weapon is clearly superior to all others, with almost no drawbacks, then the players really have no choice.

I'll put it in a very non-realistic formula for you to illustrate what I am talking about:

Krognard the Ork Warrior strolls into Ye Olde Magick Shoppe to invest his dungeoneer earnings into a new magical melee weapon.

He has several choices amongst the different weapons available:

Short Sword: +1 to hit/+5 Damage/Crits on a 18-20/ 25 GP
Long Sword: +1 to hit/+8 Damage/Crits on a 19-20/ 45 GP
Two Hander: +2 to hit/+11 Damage/Crits on a 20/ 65 GP
Battle Axe: +3 to hit/+15 Damage/Crits on a 17-20/ 100 GP

Yeah, that's no real choice at all. I can do the same thing with Laser Weapons, Vehicle Weapons, Lightsabers, and Force Powers. Weapon/Armor/Gear/Etc. options in any RPG should be about CHOICES and TRADEOFFS. That is one of the things that makes combat interesting.

And for what it's worth, I've NEVER considered monetary cost a stat that balances much of anything. With most games, a very high pricetag will either make the item forever unobtainable, or simply make it take a bit more time to get. And once the player actually GETS the weapon, the monetary cost is meaningless after that.

"I've NEVER considered monetary cost a stat that balances much of anything." - TheOneRonin

In my case, this is the main obstacle to my characters getting laser weapons and gauss rifles.

100% agree. Latest if your runners are stuck in the amzonian jungle with their all so pretty Ares Alphas, miles away from repair parts, they know where exactly the difference is between high-tech weaponry and the good old indestructible AK47.THIS is fluff.^^

There is a disconnect, here. If the "best" weapon is very marginally better that it's competition, then I agree. But if the "BEST" weapon is better by leaps and bounds than all other weapons by things that are measurable in the real world:

1. Terminal Performance (Damage)
2. Armor/Barrier Penetration (AP)
3. Recoil (recoil force measure at FTLBS of engergy @ X FPS)
4. Ammunition Capacity (rounds per magazine)
5. Built-in accessories (things like sights/scopes, UBGLs, etc.)
6. Cost generally only 15-20% higher that weapons in that class

Yeah...crap like that would make just about anyone with a damn clue pick that weapon over others.

The thing is, the real world is NOT like that. There is no "ubergun" that is better than all others in all aspects. Now there is plenty of CRAP out there, but no one firearm is leaps and bounds better than all others.

I must agree that there is no ubergun. Hence why its safer to just buy at least one of each. Course that does get a little difficult with those pesky antimachinegun laws making legal ones so stupidly expensive.

Okay, let's make sure we are on the same page.

Ares MP Laser 3: $30,000 (Arsenal, pg 41)
Ares Thunderstruck Gauss rifle: $13,000 (Arsenal, pg 30)

Well, if $13k - $30k is outside of your price-range, so is stuff like Muscle Aug/Toner, Wired Reflexes (level 2 and up), Synaptic Accelerators, Bone Lacing, Reaction Enhancers, Cyber Limbs, most Bioware, most vehicles, most Magic Foci, etc.

If that is the case, your character has severe cash-flow problems.


Now, lets assume, for a second that those weapons above actually cost about $250,000 - $500,000. Now, what does that mean?

It means a few things:

1. The cost is so high that your character will be dead/retired before saving up enough to buy it.
2. The campaign you play in awards enough money to where you can get these weapons, but it will simply take time.
3. Once you own the weapon, the cost to acquire it is meaningless in terms of game balance.

Like I said, cost monetary cost will temporarily/permanently postpone the acquisition of said weapon, and becomes meaningless in balancing said weapon.

A weapon that is powerful but has a very limited internal magazine is somewhat balanced. The small ammo capacity is always going to be a problem for the entire life of the weapon. Likewise, a weapon that is super powerful but has a VERY short range is ALWAYS going to have that disadvantage. Sometimes, it will be a non issue for a particular scenario. Other times, it might get you killed. But it's always there.

Monetary cost pretty much disappears after purchase.

Now, if you had to replace the weapon if it breaks, and there are rules that state that it breaks often an easily, that MIGHT bring some balance. Likewise, if all weapons required a monthly upkeep that was based on a percentage of the weapon's cost, then that might be a factor too. But neither of those things exist in SR for the weapons you mentioned.

monitary cost can balance things somewhat. it can stop you from affording some other upgrade.

Not really. It can postpone some other upgrade. But eventually, you will have both, so then where is the balance?

dying in the mean time because the player got the "unbalanced" gun that cost stupid amounts of nuyen instead of a few bio or nano upgrades.

monetary cost is also not a good form of balance because it assumes you're not stealing the weapon...

plus, if you make it too expensive, the character will just sell it and buy a ton of other really good stuff.

Are you talking about stealing or looting corpses? Both the GM can control. Either by not equipping the opposition with the offending "überitem" or by not having stores that stock them.

The selling price is largely dependent on how much the authorities care if a restricted item is on the streets.

So are there really only six models of car? Only one one model of truck for the entire world? Isn't there no limit to the actual number of models of cars out there, but they fall into several distinct groups of meaningless difference, one such group referred to in the book, for convenience, as "Mitsubishi Nightsky"? Couldn't one also interpret "Ares Alpha" to represent the class of guns that forms the cream of the assault rifle crop?

Needing to use "GM Fiat" to balance a weapon means the weapon isn't balanced in the first place.

It's still about what you need from a weapon, for example if i dont need the grenadelauncher i would prettymuch allways take Ares HVAR over alpha, shooting four enemies for 7P+nethits damage is pretty efficiant(and that with standart ammo) or maybe i want shotgun for enemies who get too close and take Nitama optimum 2.
I would propably go for HVAR even if i needed a grenade launcher, i would just also get a pair of MGL-6:s or an Enfeild GL-67.


Fichetti Tiffani Needler would really want to have a word with you about that.
It has a damage code of 8P(f) and AP+5 agains generally lighter impact armor.
Thats +4 to base damage and most likely only +2-3 dice for their defence pool.

It doesn't matter if it's called an Ares Alpha, Barrett M866, FN-SCAR71, or HK Widowmaker...it's the stats that make the gun "better" than all of the rest.

So if one set of "stats" is way better than the rest, why ever pick anything else?

Like I said, firearms are about compromise...if you want better "A", you need to give up some of "B" and expect "C" to get worse. With the Alpha, you get better "A, B, & C" and don't have to give up anything.

That is just poor game design.

I was objecting to the comment that having the characters take the best weapon available was somehow metagaming.

That has nothing to do with the quesiton of whether it is realistic that there is a clear "best easpon."
I happen to agree it is unrealistic. it also doesn't bother me at all. If this particular piece of unrealism bothers you, then make house rules to change it. (by introducing high chances of failure, or changing the range behavior, or any number of things that folks who are into guns and know them better than I, choose to do.) Do make sure you tell the players though

But don't claim, in the absence of such house rules, that the characters are doing something wrong when they take what is clearly defined as the best weapon.

Yours,
Joel

That being said... I have NEVER, EVER used the Ares Alpha... Can't say as to why, I just never really liked it all that much... must not be all that it is touted to be...

Anyways...

Keep the Faith

- if nobody has or uses the gun, you've effectively removed it from the game system. unless you removed it for thematic reasons, you have essentially just said that the object in question was so good that you won't even put it in the game at any value.

- if the object in question is a heavily restricted item, that just means the group has to be more careful, but can charge even more, because they have an object that is in very limited supply.

and as was pointed out, if the GM has to go out of their way to houserule something to fix a rule, then the rule was clearly a bad rule in the first place (otherwise it would not require houseruling to fix it).

No it doesn't. It has a 6P(f); the flechette ammo is clearly notated in the stat block. Also the bonus armor provided by positive AP weapons is not capped within the scope of the rules anywhere I've looked in SR4, 4th Errata or SR4A. If the coating on it was actually ruthenium, you would have an argument, but it is not mentioned as anything other than a cosmetic modification.

I find it funny that apparently people think we should really be having to make so many choices when it comes to gun selection in this game. I mean, honestly, how many guns do you want characters dragging around and what degree of superiority do you find appropriate for one gun to have over another? Personally, the last thing I want to do with my Shadowrun games is turn it into a paper, rock, scissors game in which the guy who brought the wrong guns with goes home in a body bag-- particularly since usually the only guy playing the game would be the samurai. Hell, I don't even particularly want it to be about guns to begin with. I don't think the devs missed the boat on firearms, I think they merrily bid the boat adieu only to belatedly realize that the player base is super anal retentive on this subject.

My SR3 Street Sam bought two SMGs under this principle and then promtly ignored one of them because I couldn't be arsed to decide which made more sense in any given situation.

My Gm likes to break weapons, glad I buy cheap ones.

"Okay, let's make sure we are on the same page.

Ares MP Laser 3: $30,000 (Arsenal, pg 41)
Ares Thunderstruck Gauss rifle: $13,000 (Arsenal, pg 30)

Well, if $13k - $30k is outside of your price-range, so is stuff like Muscle Aug/Toner, Wired Reflexes (level 2 and up), Synaptic Accelerators, Bone Lacing, Reaction Enhancers, Cyber Limbs, most Bioware, most vehicles, most Magic Foci, etc.

If that is the case, your character has severe cash-flow problems." - TheOneRonin

The price itself isn't "outside my price range". My characters could afford the weapons, but that would mean not buying other useful stuff. The other issue is the extra cost of weapon modifications, notably internal smartlink and ceramic design.

"Now, lets assume, for a second that those weapons above actually cost about $250,000 - $500,000. Now, what does that mean?

It means a few things:

1. The cost is so high that your character will be dead/retired before saving up enough to buy it.
2. The campaign you play in awards enough money to where you can get these weapons, but it will simply take time.
3. Once you own the weapon, the cost to acquire it is meaningless in terms of game balance." - TheOneRonin

If I remember correctly, third edition Shadowrun had laser weaponry in that price range. The result was that these weapons never made any appearance in the games.

Arsenal errata clearly states 8P(f) AP+5 and i didn't mean to imply that bonus armor is capped but they fletchette roundsd go against impact armor and that is usually few spoints lower then someones ballistic armor, so in effect the they only get +2-3 dice to they're defence pool compared to you shooting them with Elan.

Yeah, that was my screwup. I don't think that picking the best weapon, or at least the best weapon for a particular job/scenario is metagaming.




House rules in place and my players are WELL aware. I've been houseruling firearms in SR since 2nd Ed.




I wasn't trying to claim that at all. Sorry if it came across that way.

================================================================================


First off, if you are already going to make some house rules to balance firearms (which I have), it's easy to make a house rule on how many you can carry and how long it takes to switch between them (which I did).

Secondly, in some circumstances (bringing just a pistol to an open field with snipers 600 meters away) SHOULD and WILL get you in a body bag. Like anything else, if players run into a situation blind and with the wrong gear, they deserve what they get. But honestly, most of time, bringing an SMG when you should have brought an AR won't mean auto-death. It might make things tougher, but it probably won't end up killing a PC. That's not my goal.

Thirdly, I disagree with your comment about the Devs. If they didn't really want any granularity with Firearms, the game would have only the following guns:

1. Pistol
2. SMG
3. Assault Rifle
4. Shotgun
5. Sport Rifle
6. Sniper Rifle

...and a single set of stats for each. WoD and a few other games have exactly that level of abstraction. But not Shadowrun.

According to Arsenal, SR4 has 94 different weapons, all with different stats, across those 6 categories. The devs went in the complete opposite way from increasing abstraction, only they fucked up the WAY they implemented it.


================================================================================


EXACTLY. See #1.

Making a weapon so damned expensive that it never shows up in any games != to balance. It's a poor game design choice.

I dont know about the old WOD but the new atleast has much more detailed weapon system then SR4 has, it has 2 full books all about weapons.
And actually i think that the Armory is probaply the best weapon book for an RPG i have ever read.

Ahhh...yeah, I haven't touched WoD in probably 8 - 10 years, so that would explain it.

I don't think that they don't show up at all but that they are not cost-effective for runners and thus aren't acquired by them. Most runners won't get an Attack Helicopter or Fighterjet either. It's not poor game design to make them expensive. And they can still come up in a game - mostly as antagonists though.

The new WoD book alone is exactly as you describe it: one light pistol, one heavy pistol, one light revolver, one heavy, two smg, one assault rifle, one sport rifle and one shotgun. BUT, when you take Armory into account, well, forget it, they go great lengths to make every weapon different from each other.

I think that the problem here is that everyone is missing the second part of the availability code for the Alpha. It is a 12F. That means it is a forbidden weapon. Having it puts you on the crap list of every law enforcement group around, in addition to Ares when they find out you have it. There is no legal way to own one. My face has a Ruger Thungerbolt. But because it is a 12R, I also have a fake license for it saying that I can carry it. That is just not possible for the Alpha. I have never honestly owned one specifically for that point alone. Now that does not mean that I have not owned any forbidden weapons. I have a sniper rifle (all of which are "F" weapons) but that is not something that I carry around into a run where I might get photo id'd carrying it. I use it for fire support and am usually at max range to fire it.

Now all that said, it does depend on whether your GM cares about the legality code or not. I have played in a couple of games where people walk around freely with "F" weapons in plane site and nothing happens. We, however, play that as a really bad move and there are consequences that will happen for doing it. To me it adds a bit more reality to the game and it does help to balance it out.

I've got some misgivings about using price tags as a way of achieving game balance. Let me tell a story about That Other Game.

I was happily strolling along the city, young new wizard, barely level 2. Then some dragon pops out of the sky, exterminates the wizard's guild, and all the mages inside. I come back from groceries, and walk up to the scroll collection...



Using monetary costs as a game balancer is really risky. Things that can go wrong:
- PCs get the thingy anyway.
- The PCs acquire it without paying the price (see example above), and so break the intended balance.
- NPCs also lose (plausible) access to the device.

PCs will acquire most/all gear to make them stronger, as long as it can be combined. So your NPCs probably need it too, to remain competitive/a challenge. If the gear is expensive, then looting is a danger to balance. If the gear is cheap, then the PCs will already have it. Simply putting the availability up so only NPCs will have the item also doesn't solve the problem of looting.

Balance-through-equipment works best if the equipment can't be looted easily; foci require Karma investment, and implants aren't as good second-hand. High-grade and cultured implants need to be personalized anyway.

So, it would make sense for companies interested in monopolizing violence, to develop cheap personalized implant tech, that still has good performance. Availability is artificially high; not because it's hard to make, or expensive, but because it's only issued to trusted customers.

Personalized Gear
Essence -10% (slight gains due to personalization again, but on the cheap)
Cost -20% (optimization due to personalization; cheaper immuno-suppressants)
Availability +100%, F (artificially increased)
Special: producer's signature hardwired, legal owner's SIN hardwired

Second-Hand Personalized Gear
Essence Cost: +50%
Cost: -50%
Availability: +50%, F (rare; unattractive)
Special: producer's signature hardwired, legal owner's SIN hardwired


You could apply this to some non-implant gear prhaps, but it mostly makes sense for implants. It's attractive to companies because it discourages raiding by bodysnatchers. It does expose them to slight risks of infiltration; cases have been documented where people stole SIN-coded implants to bypass security checks.

All in all though, this package is interesting to companies wanting cheaply enhanced security, without a lot of medical issues. Particularly for security personnel meant to deter low-level criminals, this deters runners/Tamanous from killing them to steal the cyberware.

There is a biometric safety in Arsenal as a mod. This could however be removed, but this takes time and skill and also reduces the resale price. Not to mention all the RFID tags and the general wireless features of every item. This can make a looted Ares Alpha pretty unattractive.

Yup being forbidden is also a measure of game balance. The Gameworld should react accordingly if someone strolls around with a dangerous and forbidden item.

About The Other Game. This situation is purely GM Fiat. Even if by some chance the PC orchestrated the situation and the GM had no choice but to go along with it, it is his right to have other High Level wizards knock at the PC's door and ask for the scrolls. Now you'll probably probably say the PC may be able to hide himself or the scrolls. Well if the scrolls are hidden and not used they hardly threaten game balance, Just like the tank in the rigger's garage.

As I said earlier, IMHO the Ares Alpha does not upset game balance, much worse is the M-22A3. This is a legal grenade launcher. If you aren't caught with lethal grenades, you can even carry it loaded.

I did not mean to imply that I thought the Ares was the only weapon for a gunny to have.
But, the concealability rules do not make it impossible to conceal. (One of the effects of the rules is that concealing an AK or an Alpha have the same roles.)

At least one person compared the Alpha with an KX XM30, which is a 15F availability.

But, clealry, there are plenty of times when you need more discreet firepower.
Heck, there are plenty of times when what you need is non-lethal firepower. Other weapons work much better for those cases.

And it does also depend upon how energetic the GM is about having cops stop players, and look for things. (THe one scene where the vanload of people ended up helping the cops, it was important that the Alpha was out of sight, as otherwise even with good will they would have been very upset.) Of course, then we get into the problem of how licenses work, and the fact that they are all too likely to fail the tests by the book. But lets not go there.

Yours,
Joel