I can get behind the sentiment that life would be easier if games came straight out of the box with a progression speed that pleased everyone all the time, but I don't think it's going to happen nor do I think SR4's take on Adepts is bad enough to fall under the category of "obvious rules problems." To me an obvious rules problem was the pre-errata ammunition damage modifiers, or goofy blood spirit interactions, for example.

Indeed, a lot of the stuff that Adepts can nominally do they can't do well. But you can through simple cherry picking make an adept who is very impressive and a real contributor to the team. The fact that an Iron Guts packing Adept isn't a worthwhile shadowrunner while a Pornomancer or a Hacker Adept is, that's perhaps unfortunate, but it isn't necessarily a problem.

Personally, I wish that Gun Adepts weren't jerked around so much. Paying an entire power point for an Attribute is a joke, and paying two is completely ridiculous. Paying half a power point for a Combat skill die is totally unjustified when Combat skills are so narrow in real effect compared to technical or social skills. But the fact that a character who invests in Improved Ability: Firearms, Increased Physical Attribute: Agility and Increased Reflexes is so very much weaker than a character who spends the same BP on some Bioware is not inherently a rules problem. It's the game telling you that street samurai are better in combat and that if you want to compete with street samurai in combat you have to get some chrome and some squish as well. That an Adept can still find a niche for herself on the team by having crazy good social tests or technical skills means that Adepts as a whole have a place on the team, and thus no objective problem exists.

-Frank

And it explains part of why they're no longer called "physical adepts." Not only because their powers are not longer limited to the purely physical/martial realm, but because (in fact, albeit perhaps on accident) that's no longer where they necessarily shine, either.

Um no, a couple broken combinations or powers does not make an adept viable it makes a broken combination. And the "Well, gee, if you put in the effort you can make Adepts work..." was basically saying yeah a powergamer can powergame anything big deal. The fact he could powergame everything else better and easier is a point.

I consider it a rule problem because the Fluff and story of SR Adepts does not come close to meeting the mechanics of SR adepts except for things like the pornomancer. I also think its a obvious rule problem when things are clearly unbalanced on there face, whether you want to argue its too good or too bad is irrelevant to the fact that Critical strike, penetrating strike, and improved unarmed combat all do the same thing. They are there to help you hurt people in unarmed combat, they all help to different degrees. And the one that is tied for being cheapest does the most. By locking themselves into a .25PP scale some balance granularity will be lost, but critical strike is on average equal to 3 extra dice that would be 1.5 magic improved unarmed combat not .25 of critical strike. Even acknowledging that it can be 3 dice extra DV and it helps you hit where you might otherwise miss it comes no where near justifying the either too high cost of improved ability or to cheap cost of critical strike or both.

How do you mean? I'm curious because I think they are still very much physical adepts, even if they are no longer combat adepts. It seems to me that more than ever their abilities are very much rooted in their physical bodies. I also love the fact that I can play Paul Atreides (though I forget if Adepts can have Divination). I do not mind that adepts do not shine in all areas of combat like Sammys, that is the Sammy's place afterall. I do however find it unfortunate that some of the powers have been made cost prohibitive.

As for costs, easy fixes:

• Critical Strike/Power Throw = .5/point
• Improved Ability = .25/point (no matter what skill)
• Improved Physical Attribute = .5/point (Cost for improving attribute is based on Attribute before power is applied)
• Increased Reflexes = 1/point (1, 2, 3 progression)

There are others that I'm not sure if they should be reduced or not, specifically:

• Combat Sense
• Magic Resistance
• Traceless Walk
• Wall Running

I'm sure there are others but these are the ones that stick out. Also, is Power Throw as excessive as Critical Strike? I know it ends up with the same +1DV, but has anyone had problems with it in their games (not that I've had problems with Critical Strike either, but yeah, it really is worth 3x Armor penetration and Improved Ability (Unarmed))?

The issue is that combat isn't supposed to be just "where Sammies shine, after all." Adepts were originally offered, more or less, as magical versions of Samurai. While I personally have no problem at all mixing magic and machine right there in one character, it saddens me a bit that you almost have to in order to get an Adept with anywhere near the raw stats and abilities of a Sammie of similar level. Almost every Adept I've seen is either a hyperspecialized pretty-much-one-trick build, or dabbles in cool Adept tricks (but makes up for it with cyber/bioware so he's still on par with the big dogs).

While I agree with most of your easy fix...I, well, hate "easy fixes." The fact that a fix is needed in the first place (for such iconic and basic abilities as gaining superhuman attributes and fast reflexes) is part of the problem. Being stronger, faster, and tougher is a major idea behind adept modifications -- that technology does it so much better for so much less Essence, as written, is a telling problem.

I don't think anything's horrifically broken and SR4 is unplayable, don't get me wrong. I just wish it was a little easier for someone's mojo to keep up with someone's vat-grown muscle and chip-enhanced spinal column.

And on the same token I wish mundanes could spend more than 6 points on upgrades like adepts can (admittedly not until post-chargen, as you can't use build points to initiate.)

Though it is rather annoying that Pornomancers, SuperHacker, and investigative Adepts (with all the cool sense-based abilities) are just better, mechanically, at what they do than the combat adept is at combat.

the entire hacking rules. Specifically the fact that there is no system now for long distance hacking. Short of jumping from node to node, which will quickly hose you, there's no way to try to hack into something more than a click from you.

Do you mean a way to increase essence? To be honest, with the new rules, you have, effectively and at it's most efficient point, 7.99 essence. 4 cyber or bio and 3.999 of the other. Remember that this is also before Biocompatibility/Type-O/Adapsin or Cyberware grades. Delta effectively allows you twice as much cyber/essence, while Delta+Adapsin+Biocompatibility allows you 3.33 times as much cyber/essence. Sure, you eventually reach a dead end, and let's not forget how much nuyen all this cost, but there is a way.

EDIT - Let us not forget that you can sell your soul to a corp and become a CZ!


I don't think this is true. Sure, they no longer specify whether things are split up into RTGs, LTGs, or PLTGs, but it is still "The Matrix" of 2070, not wifi of today. I think Frank Trollman puts it best:

"Throughout the four editions of Shadowrun, no rule-set has been changed more dramatically nor inspired more complete house-rules than the Matrix section."

I just assume that the matrix is still set up via Hosts and the RTG, LTG, and PLTG hierarchy, just that you can access it from anywhere. And some PLTGs are inside Faraday cages, or encrypted. Of course, there is still a huge fiber optic network throughout the sixth world and it would be stupid to completely give it up. However, saying that wireless nodes you scan for on the street are like Wifi routers today is just so boring. I say you scan for hosts on the street (aka websites), and that could connect you to a PLTG or not. Really depends on how you view the 5 years between editions.

Which is all a house rule construct because none of that is in the basic book.

Point made.

or left intentionally vague so that different groups can play it different ways, so i would be wary of calling point...

I find the Adept/Street Samurai argument pretty moot personally, especially to say that this is something new to this edition and especially to say that it's a rules problem for the two of them not to be balanced at character gen.

Street Samurai have a hard cap in place in the form of your essence score. Adepts don't have this limitation. Sure it may be cheaper BP wise to get three initiative passes at character gen with a Street Sam but with an Adept you think about the future of the character, not the BP you're using today. Adepts can center to avoid die pool penalties, actually do something against spirits, use weapon foci, stack dice like crazy, and pull off other neat tricks that a Street Sam can't. There's also 'fluff' to consider. Which of the two has an easier time getting through a security check point choked full of cyberware scanners?

If you want an out of the box combat monster then go with the Samurai. If you want to spend the extra BP to do what I outlined in the above paragraph and not have your abilities 'capped' then go with the Adept. Well.. if you're power gaming anyhow. I say play the character that suits you and realize that just because things aren't balanced at gen it doesn't mean they don't balance out in the long run.

Something else to think about is who by RAW of the two can start out with 4 IPs?

Mages! The new street sams!

haha... I actually thought about building a mage gunbunny.

I have absolutely no idea where you're going with this. Are you saying it's good to have called shots, because you like the system deadly? That has absolutely nothing to do with game balance. Fact is, after a certain point, those 4 dice don't mean a bloody thing when it comes to hitting or missing... but they mean a hell of a lot when it comes to surviving that shot. Basically, for most combat monsters, there's absolutely no reason to not make the -4 called shot each and every time. Which means, you may as well permanently shrink all dice pools and add +4 to the damage, since basic shots are now obsolete. If a system has one single solitary superior tactic, an instant "Teh WIN" button, that's a sign of a bad rule. A good system will instead have a variety of good options, but will also make sure that the basic attack is a good choice.

No one has fun when the GM has to decide stuff arbitrarily. The GM doesn't need the stress of being put into a position to decide between himself and his players; and the players don't need to have a constant stream of rules changes tossed at them. Basically, GM discretion is always a losing battle, because it puts players and GMs at odds. You may like a game where the GM and players are constantly battling one another, but most others don't.

A good system of this type will try to avoid this sort of thing. In short, it won't charge you $50 for what amounts to three words on a single page: "Make it up."

It's teh win against weak little punks who can't dodge your head shotties. But it's teh fail against foes that actually match up against the combat monster. I don't care how easy it is to kill peons, there can be a million ways to teh win them, because they suck anyway. I'm not saying your point has no merit, but there's no objective line to draw here. How good is too good? The only way to answer that is based on whether you like the line where it's drawn or not.



This is all your opinion. None of it is objective, none of it is a fact. Case in point: I have fun when the GM has to decide things arbitrarily, both when I am the GM and when I am a player. Aribrary, snap decisions are what makes the game move forward and stay fun, to me. I have never encountered a situation where GM discretion puts players and GMs at odds. I can imagine if a GM makes a crappy decision and doesn't listen to his players, that would do it. But just because the GM has to decide things doesn't mean he can't take input from the players. You are clearly a scarred individual who has played with some awfully stubborn GMs and some awfully tantrum throwing players. You're entitled to your opinion based on your experience, but that's all it is. It's no more valid than the next person's.

The math makes it clear. Losing 4 dice means you lose, on average, one success versus an opponent's defense. If you're throwing 20 dice base, that means you go from 7 successes to 6. The very best human BBEG will have a reaction of 9*, averaging 3 successes. Most will have much less than that. So our combat monster is in little danger of missing just by choosing a called shot. However, the excessive damage bonus puts the opponent in extra danger.

*Yes, opponents can have higher defense pools. However, that pretty much requires a Full Defense interrupt action, which means they can't counterattack. And even then, most won't get the 9 extra dice required to safely dodge.


Every state,emt is subjective. However, the fact remains: Arbitrary GM decisions put players and GMs at odds. Good storytelling is what makes the game move forward and stay fun, to me: I cannot, for the life of me, see how battling a GM makes things fun! If that's what trips your trigger, and your GM likes that sort of environment, then more power to you; but that doesn't make your opinion any mre valid than mine. In fact, I think you'll discover that most people's experience will demonstrate that a less hostile environment is much more fun. An environment where the GM is making a bundle of arbitrary decisions makes for a much more adversarial experience.

I'll thank you to not assume anything about my twenty-five years of gaming experiences. I could easily comment on how your statements show that you have little gaming history in comparison. Else you would know that even if a GM solicits input, that doesn't mean that he's going to rule in favor of his players. And experience tells me that even the smallest of these leaves a tiny bruise on the ego of even the best player. One or two, many can shrug off; but the vast number that SR4 requires? Well into the danger zone.

This is basically what I've been trying to say, I've just been doing it poorly.

I haven't seen a problem with either in game, but no one is going out of there way to abuse the game either. I do think the upcoming errata has the wrong fix in it. They are capping power throw at 3 levels. Problem with this fix is it forces the thrower archetypes into super strength types. You would probably need a 6 str just to come close to competing with heavy pistols and you'd still fall behind. So if you want every throwing type to end up being non-human yeah its a good errata. Its a fix that goes against the archtype, I don't many people who build throwing weapon specialists are visualizing Conan the dart thrower.

Agreed, once I learned how called shots worked in SR4 I found this little tidbit to be very true. Given enough dice, called shots become standard. I cant dodge your mega dice with our without the -4, and the +4DV is just salt on the wound. And I tend to hate double whammies or double dips. (same reason I took issue with the nature of wound modifers and condition monitor boxes and body rating, but averages seem to say it isnt so critical)




Agreed here as well.
It is opinion, and not necessarily having been under 'bad GMs'. I want to know the rules when I start, I want to know that if I do X, Y will happen with a chance of Z. I do not want to do X and with the intention of Y but the GM says 'in this case here have a dose of A'.
That situation does not require a bad GM or even bad situation, it can just be an impromptu ruling on a vague situation.
A few of these over the course of many games, is no big deal as long as the rule is consistant, then it becomes a Houserule. Inconsistancy or common nonstandard required ruling makes for debate and sometimes not good debate, particularly if the 'rulebook' can be interpretted many ways.

How many Houserules can a game system or player handle before you decide the system is borked.

The only thing the math makes clear is the numbers. The judgments you make about the numbers, however, are not based on math, but on how you feel about the math. As I've been saying, if the ratio provided by called shots is too disparate, where should the line be drawn? This seems to be a case of "I can't say in advance what's broken, but I know it when I see it." That's basically the definition of opinion.



The "fact" remains? I think not. I have never played an RPG where GM rulings put the GM and players at odds. If it was a fact, I'd expect it to be true everywhere. You clearly play with some contentious people, but that isn't true for everyone.

Part of this problem is definitional though: you seem to be using the word arbitrary as a code word for "unfair, unfun, uncool, and totally sucky," or something like that. For you, if you call it arbitrary, that invokes all of the badness that could come from a shitty GM. But arbitrary is not necessarily bad. If the GM makes fair arbitrary decisions that the players don't mind, then there's not even any chance of hostility. Players aren't going to throw tantrums just because the GM rules against them. All RPG players I've gamed with understand that there is no winning in an RPG, so if you get ruled against that's just part of it and you keep playing. And just because GM discretion is required does not mean that the decision even has to be arbitrary, the GM can discuss it with the players and make sure people generally agree before making a ruling.



You can conjecture all you like, I don't mind. As I am 25 years old, you'd be correct that you have more experience than me. But are you trying to tell me that being ruled against by the GM bruises peoples' ego, i.e. hurts their feelings??? Honestly, wtf. That is ridiculous. We're adults here, we should be able to handle losing without having our egos bruised, especially in a for-fun imaginary game world. If players can't laugh about bad stuff happening to their characters, they ought not play RPGs. I'm sure they still do, as your experience indicates, but they should not be the 'reasonable gamer' that we use to evaluate whehter a system is good or not. The only problem I can see with leaving things up to GM discretion is that it leaves the door open for bad GMs to make bad calls for bad reasons. But even if the system was perfect, a bad GM would still be bad, so it's not like it really matters. Good GMs are required for good games, no matter how little discretion the system gives them. You can't blame a lame GM's flaws on the system, even if the system exagerates them.

20 dice is an extremely good dice pool. That's a person with 9 Agility, 7 dice in their weapon skill, a specialisation and a smart link. Such a person is one of the best shooters in the world. Now it is your underlying assumption that players should not have such levels of power, but the Shadowrun game is designed to let players be such characters. You may not like it, but it is so. Such a person should be able to one-shot people. Your complaint about this applying to the "BBEG" is your own opinion that you should be able to have big drawn out fights in the open with an enemy combat monster. In fact, Shadowrun doesn't work this way - in this game, even dragons can be mown down in a single turn. The mechanics of Shadowrun enforce the strong use of tactics even on the part of dangerous enemies. When a firefight breaks out in Shadowrun, everyone gets behind cover. And once they're tucked behind the nearest doorway, you've got another -4 dice penalty. Your called shot has taken you from 20 dice (huge) to 12. Now you have to make a tactical decision whether they're going to be dodging you or not. Even when the defender is simply running (and if they're not already behind cover, they should be), it's a -2 penalty to hit.

Your complaints all derive from your fighting the intent of the system. At more normal dice pool levels, the choice of whether to make a Called Shot or not is a serious tactical decision. At the extremely high dice pool levels you are talking about, it is desirable that it should be possible to drop idiots standing in the open very quickly. But situational modifiers make Called Shots far from a routine choice. Do you only want to squeeze off only a few shots? Because the Called Shot rules cannot be used with Full Auto weapons. (A significant tactical decision in character choice and a mechanic that allows sharp shooter types to compete with the LMG toting trolls). Calling a shot requires a Free Action, so you can't do it while you're running or communicating with your team mates. Good cover is -4, defender running is -2, visibility makes a difference, being inside a vehicle is -3, wound modifiers can come into play. Even with the extremely high dice pools you're toting about, Called Shot is far from the automatic response you think.

Shadowrun does not support two people standing in the open pointing guns at each other. That is D&D and other high-Hollywood game systems. The mechanics of Shadowrun say that if you try that you get shot in the head. It doesn't indicate that the system is broken. It indicates that this is how this particular RPG game works. If you don't like it, you are free to change it. No one will tell you you're wrong to do so.




Not every statement is objective. Most of your post is a comparison of the mechanics with your preference for how a game should work. Your preference is subjective. Arbitrary is also a pejorative term and not every GM decision incurs resentment on the players part. I have a very non-adversarial relationship with my players. If I tell my players that a Citymaster is a fully enclosed vehicle with no windows through which a driver can be seen, they accept that without resentment: it's part of the tactical set-up of the game. If I tell them that the enemy drone has wireless disabled, they don't moan that I'm making arbitrary decisions. I think if they did, then it wouldn't be because of any lack in the rules system, but because of more serious problems in the way I ran my game.



We've just had a fourteen page thread in which it was established that your example did not stand up to comparison with the actual rules. The thread is here though I invite you to post how it is possible to "knife" a Citymaster if you wish. But I'd recommend people read through the entire thread before engaging in the debate again, because I believe that everything necessary has been said. The example was discredited. Please stop dropping it into every thread you post in as if it's some established example of the rules. It did not hold up and anyone wishing to see the entire sad debate can read the existing thread.

I don't have to feel a thing to point out that there's a serious imbalance, nor is it required to show that a serious imbalance is also a serious problem in the rules. You can't ignore the math with: "Well, *I* don't think serious numerical imbalances is a problem, so it's not one at all!" Sorry, but the math is clear, and so are the facts. There is a serious problem with the called shot rules.



Arbitrary and fair are mutually exclusive terms.

Basically, you can't blow off the problems of a bad system onto bad players or bad GM's. The system also takes blame. Your argument is basically: "Ha! The system is totally blameless, it's *you* who has the problem!" That's not much of an argument.

[Edit]

The majority of your post is nothing but an extended Ad Hominem fallacy, so it's properly discarded. To the points you actually made: Based on Dumpshock characters, 15-20 dice pools for combat is the norm, and at that level, +4/-4 Called Shots have effectively no penalty. You an also wide burst a called shot, further increasing your chance to hit. Basically, as Slymoon pointed out, there's little to no reason to not make called shots standard, rendering the basic attack option obsolete. That is a broken rule.

Cain, you feel there is a serious problem with those rules, whereas few people agree with your position. If it was such a quantifiable, provable fact, you'd have us all on your side. It's an opinion, and subject to perspective, hence the differing views on it.

I think most people realize there is a mathematical imbalance here, how bad this is for the game is up for debate.

I don't see this one ending well.

If Combat Characters are rolling 18 dice for attacks, then they shoud be pulling called shots left and right. Yes. And characters with combat as a secondary or tertiary schtick don't roll dice on that level, so they often don't. And combat characters also tend to roll about 18 dice on full defense, which means that calling shots back and forth between street samurai is usually a bad move.

So if a Street Sam shoots a guard he calls a shot and does more damage.
If the team hacker shoots a guard he doesn't call a shot and does less damage.
If the Street Sam shoots a rival Street Sam he doesn't call a shot and does less damage.

That looks like the rule working as intended. What's the problem?

-Frank

Oh, hey, nevermind. Frank's here. Everything will cool right down, now.

Shinobi has it right. Part of it is the anti-Cain crowd, but the fact is that there is a huge mathematical imbalance, and it's bad for the game. How bad, I'll happily debate; but no one but Larme is saying that it's not a problem at all.

As for it being a serious problem: The called shot rules, as written, allow several huge game imbalances; and rely on GM discretion rather than good rules to make things work. Using called shots, you can do anything to gaining the equivalent of 12 dice to theoretically one-shotting a Citymaster with a knife. You can make called shots with burst-fire, or with a shotgun loading buckshot. All of these are problems, and I contend that the total of the issues equals one serious problem.

Now, I happen to like the +1/-2 ratio a lot better; but in the meanwhile, there's almost no reason for a combat monster to do anything but a called shot each and every time.

[Edit]

Or he calls a shot and does more damage. If the other sam goes full defense, he wastes his opportunity to counterattack. If he doesn't, he gets hit for a lot of damage.

x > y is not a feeling, you're right.

But where have you shown that a serious imbalance is a serious problem? I'm not saying that it isn't a problem. I'm just saying that there's no obective basis for saying that there is. All you have shown us is that x > y, and your interpretation of that is that x > y = bad. That's a non sequitur. Sometimes, it's good when x > y. Sometimes it isn't. How do you determine which? Personal preference. You're saying that the math supports your personal preference, and I'll concede that. But the math does not command any particular resolution to this question. The only fact here is that x is greater than y. Anything outside of that stops being an absolute fact.



Did you read that whole page? One definition of arbitrary is capricious or unreasonable. That's the one you must be using. But here's another one: "decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute." In this case, the thing is decided by an arbiter, the GM, instead of by law, i.e. the rules. Not mutually exclusive with fair.

But you don't like the word arbitrary? Let's toss it out. Let's call it discretion. GM discretion is only a problem if you have a bad GM. If you have a good GM, with mature players, it's no problem at all.



My point is not that the system is blameless, it's that the system is not the first cause. If you took away the system, you'd still have the problem. The system can contribute, but if it isn't the cause, it isn't where you should be placing the most blame.



The thing of it is, Shadowrun at least generally tries to mimic real life, insofar as it can with an abstract dice system. And you bet your ass that it's harder to survive a shot to the face than it is to shoot someone's face. One involves aiming and pulling the trigger, the other involves surviving pretty much instantly fatal trauma. So, it may be broken and overpowered to shoot peoples' faces. Last time I checked though, guns are pretty cheesy and broken in real life, and head shots are totally unfair to the victim. So maybe it's good to have a system where people get their heads shot all the time and actually die of it? You might not think so, but reasonable minds could differ.



You like accusing people of the ad hominem fallacy, don't you? Everyone hates you, so if they criticize your arguments, they're making ad hominem arguments. By making conjectures about your own experience, I am not attacking you to weaken your argument. I am inviting you to discuss how yours and my experiences differ, because there might be something significant there. The conjectures about your playing experience only serve to illustrate my point. You seem to be basing your points on bad experiences with RPGs. Based on those experiences, you draw factual conclusions and try to tell me that they are objective facts. I have divergent experiences, and from those, I show that your conclusions are not objective fact, but rather only relevant in light of your own experience.


To conclude, let me outline the disagreement as it stands, devoid of rhetoric:

a) Called Shots provide more benefit to damage than they do penalty to hit.

b) The only limitation to when called shots can be made is that the GM must approve them.

c) You state that GM discretion is an inappropriate limitation because it places players at odds with the GM, and demonstrates a hole in the system that the developers should have patched up.

d) I state that GM discretion is wholly appropriate, and does not place players at odds with the GM, and demonstrates a justifiable ambiguity in the rules that can be used to promote more streamlined gameplay.

And here is the crux of it: there is no objective basis for deciding who is right. You can tell me that you're objectively right all you want, but that won't convert your subjective judgments about the system into objective truth.

And within the context we're discussing, it is A Bad Thing. No one but you is even arguing that point. What the current debate is on is precicely how bad this is.


This is one of the more laughable things I have ever heard. Let's call it what it is: GM fiat. And GM fiat is almost universally a bad thing. Every time a GM has to decide between himself and his players, hard feelings result. Sometimes, people can blow it off. Sometimes, even mature players will have enough. A good system will minimize these sort of situations, wouldn't you agree?


I've seen games break down due to bad systems. Good groups can be hurt by bad systems. If you took away the system, you'd have much less of a problem. It's not always the fault of bad players that you have a bad game. Bad systems also contribute.


I take it back. *This* one ended up with soda sprayed on the keyboard. Shadowrun does nothing of the sort! The firearms rules bear almost no relationship to reality, the matrix rules are a mess, the melee rules are nutty. We won't even get into the fact that a lot of Shadowrun is based on fantasy, which by definition isn't realistic. "Tries to mimic real life"? That's the best one I've heard all day!

1. Correct.
2. Mostly correct.
3. Almost right.
4. And you're completely wrong.

With regards to point D: GM fiat always means that at minimum the GM is forced to step away from the job of storyteller, and instead take the role of rules lawyer. This disrupts the GM's fun. When you're in the zone as a GM, telling a great story, do you enjoy it when you have to stop for ten minutes and resolve a rules issue? I don't understand how you'd enjoy this, but most of us prefer to not have to deal with disputes. We'd rather play.

I certainly see what Cain is saying. I disagree that it's always better to take a called shot because A) It uses up your free action and B) You might miss if enough other negative die pool modifiers are in play.

-1 die for +1 DV is kinda absurd though considering it takes three dice on average to get that +1 DV otherwise. A 2 for 1 system would make more sense, you're still getting a good exchange ratio on your dice for the bought damage so tactically, if you're pretty sure you'll hit, it's still a sound option to use without being overpowered.

This is an invalid point. I'm not wrong because so far nobody has spoken up to support me. In fact, I'd rather they didn't so I can keep up a nicely flowing debate without being interrupted



Another invalid point, this time because it is an unsupported assertion. You have no objective basis for saying that GM fiat always results in hard feelings. This seems to come from your experience, which is personal, not universal.

To me, you are fundamentally wrong because a GM should not be the players' adversary. The GM and the players are partners in playing out a cool story. If the GM moves against the players, it's to create problems for them and see how they solve them, and that gives rise to the entertaining creative storytelling that makes RPGs fun. There is no winning or losing, there is just fun. The GM doesn't decide between beating the players or letting the players win, the GM decides between one way of advancing the story or another. Honestly, it doesn't make sense to have an adversarial relationship between players and GM; that's like a single ant having an adversary relationship with a person, or a person going up against god. Adversarial systems are right out when one person controls the entire universe and the other controls just one human.

Unlike you, however, I recognize that this is just my style of play, and any conclusions I draw about it are purely my opinion. You're entitled to play your way, but you can't tell me that your play style is an objective basis for saying that GM fiat is bad. The very fact that hard feelings have never resulted from GM fiat once in my entire life shows that you have at the very last greatly overstated your case.



Nope. A good system will be fun. That is the one basis I use to judge an RPG system. Do I like playing the game? If yes, it's good, if no, it's bad. I think CP2020 is bad because I don't enjoy my world class expert failing once in every ten tries. I don't delude myself into thinking I have some kind of god's eye view of the world that lets me tap into the Truth of the Perfect Game System.



I agree here, but the relevance of this point depends on whether the system is bad or not.



Maybe I should restate my point then: in real life, headshots are totally broken and unfair. Why shouldn't they be in a game? If Annie Oakley can cap me in the right eye nine times out of ten, why can't someone who's better than Annie Oakley thanks to cyberware and/or magic do that? And if getting capped in the eye kills me in real life, shouldn't it do that in the game? The system might not mimic reality very well, but this kind of deadliness is a realistic element which seems appropriate.



This logical fallacy is called argument from ignorance. You don't see how it's possible that someone would enjoy exercising GM discretion, so it isn't possible. I'm afraid I can't argue at all with your assertion about "most of us," because you have no basis for that assertion other than perhaps your personal experience, which is again personal and not universal. All I know is that your "most of us" doesn't include me or anyone I've ever gamed with.

Good point! I was so absorbed in trying to make Cain admit that his assertions about Universal Truth are nothing more than personal opinion that I forgot about the system. The fact is, you can't make a called shot unless you both take aim and spend a free action. This leaves you with only one shot per round, so you can not kill as many people. If you're one on one, of course a called shot is always better for the master gunbunny, but if you're facing multiple opponents you probably want to kill them as fast as possible without wasting actions on calling shots. And it isn't like we're talking "he lives" vs. "he dies." The master gunbunny can kill people without using called shots most of the time, except for really tough and armored people the distinction is only between dying and really really dying.



I totally agree here, it's unbalanced and maybe even absurd. The question is: do we want unbalanced an absurd? Maybe we do! Guns are not fair weapons. It's easier to shoot a head than it is to survive a headshot. I think it's totally appropriate that the rules reflect that.

Your false accusations are themselves becoming a personal attack. My post is there for all to see. If you think most of my post is nothing but an extended ad hominem, then I invite you to quote any part of my post that you think is such an attack. Otherwise I would like you to withdraw that comment.



You've missed several of the points from my post as it happens and have not really understood the ones I made. However, I wont bother repeating the ones that you've skipped. You have several times stated on the forums that "silence is assent" and though that is obviously wrong, my interest in this thread is merely to prevent misinformation so I'll happy just leave it to more objective parties to draw their own conclusions having seen my response. I think only for yourself, skipping over topics looks like "winning." (Your words).

You say that based on Dumpshock characters, 15-20 dice is the norm. Firstly, though this was not my point, I don't that this is accurate. Twenty dice is a lot and though you might see people's optimised builds here that achieve it, that doesn't mean that characters are typically rolling 20 dice before modifiers in our games. Also 15 to 20 dice is quite some range. For you to use 20 dice for your example in showing that Called Shot is "broken" and then use 15+ dice for your example showing that the dice pool is reasonable, is inconsistent. And for all the talk about here that all opinions are valid, an opinion that is internally inconsistent can logically not be so. If you're going to say that four dice difference (the penalty for Called Shot) is significant, you can't then glibly say 15-20 dice and expect it not to be considered a change to what you say. I maintain that twenty dice before modifiers such as burst fire, is a lot.

But oddly enough, that wasn't my initial point. My point was that someone with Agility 9, Skill 7, a weapon specialisation and a smart link is pretty much the best of the best. It has nothing to do with whether people's games are filled with characters that are the best of the best or not. It only has to do with whether we expect someone who is the best of the best to be able to reliably shoot someone in the face when they're standing still in the open at short range. And we do. You may not like that degree of realism in the game, but it is the intent of the system and that was my point.

Beyond that, there are several good reasons why Called Shot is not always the right option even for the best of the best, but others have already pointed these out, so I'll leave it.



Actually Larme is not the only one saying it's not a problem (and that's an unfair summation of Larme's actual, very well written argument). I agree with what Larme has written. Stating that arguments come from an "anti-Cain" crowd implies that arguments are invalid because of that. It is, to use your favourite phrase, an ad hominem.



Again, I refer people to the extensive thread on the subject of the Citymaster being one-shotted with a knife. I don't think anyone was convinced your example was valid then, and repeatedly stating that it is possible doesn't convince anyone now. Anyone who thinks there is any validity to your statement can read through that thread at leisure. It mostly consists of the entirety of dumpshock disagreeing with you.



I contend that it is not a serious problem. Someone with a pistol can gain +4DV by using a called shot, at risk of increased innaccuracy. This you consider "horribly broken." An otherwise identical character that used a fully automatic weapon instead, could get +5DV from a long narrow burst for only an additional -1 dice. +1DV for -1 dice is an even larger "mathematical imbalance" than the called shot. And in actual play, they're not even going to be getting the -5 dice as most if not all of that will be compensated for. So are you waging war against the automatic weapon rules also? I don't see that you are doing this. Why not? If anything, the called shot rules allow a nice power balance to those that don't use automatic weapons. Your complaint against Called Shot rules is that its so good that it provides a standard response (although it does not). Aren't you in favour of something that encourages variety in choice of weapons?

Does it help if I say that I support Larme's position in this argument?

Nah... calling a shot is a free action, you can take aim afterwards if you like. You can call a shot, take a simple action to take the called shot, and then fire again (the second shot wouldn't be called) or shoot once, call a shot, and shoot again. What you couldn't do is call a shot and eject a smartgun clip, or call a shot and run, or call a shot and... you get the picture.




2 for 1 still reflects that. To look at it another way buying hits on any other test costs you four dice. Now the called shot DV increase isn't exactly a free hit, because you still need at least one net hit for the DV to mean anything, but 1 for 1 is a huge conversion when you look at the averages, and 2 for 1 is still damn good without breaking the bank, at least in my opinion.

Anyway I'm glad Cain pointed this out it's something I'll discuss with my group and probably get house ruled.

*edit* Actually after reading Knasser's post (that came as I was typing this one up) I take my last two paragraphs back. The argument stands I guess but when you put it into context with the burst fire rules the die to dv conversions for called shots really are just par for the course.

Ooops. Sorry there, Larme.

On the subject of "GM Fiat," let's be a little more explicit in what we're talking about. It was raised by Cain as a belief that it is bad that the GM should make a decision as to whether or not there is a vulnerable area that can be targeted by a Called Shot.

A GM describes the world to the players. A GM decides whether NPC X is wearing an armoured helmet or is not wearing an armoured helmet. In the absence of detailed schematics, a GM decides whether to describe the Citymaster as having clear windows or be piloted by sensors. No amount of rules on whether a helmet prevents or doesn't prevent a called shot, or whether vehicles with windows count as having vulnerable areas or not, is ever going to take the power to control the game away from the GM because the GM sets up the situations herself in the first place. It is meaningless to castigate the rules system for allowing the GM to make the final decision as to whether or not a Called Shot can be made in a given circumstance when the circumstance itself follows from the GM's judgement on balance and realism.

Only if you take away a GM's capacity to describe situations in any kind of meaningful detail can you take away a GM's capacity to make decisions on things such as the availability of vulnerable areas. And if you take away a GM's capacity to describe situations, then there is no Story anymore.

-Khadim.

what is it now, the third or more thread this called shot "issue"?

i have a simple solution for those that find to many issues with SR4, dont play it...

sorry to say, but i believe that story is the last think the gm or players should be focusing on while at the table...

Huh?! The story is a significant portion of what you're doing... You know, as in the entirety of it. Saying that neither the GM or the Players should be focusing on it is akin to saying you're only getting together to roll dice to shoot things, to heck with why or plot or anything. I dunno, I like being part of an evolving, ongoing story/world, myself. Not focusing on it is so foreign a concept to me as to be crazy imo...

in my experience story is something that comes into being after the game is over, when people sit down and think back about what their characters have done and experienced, and maybe retell it to a third party.

in game its a system of action and reaction. either side acts and the other reacts, resulting in a reaction to the reaction and then the ball is rolling.

sure, the gm sets up the scenario of johnson, target and so on. but if one go beyond that it becomes a railroad movie, not a roleplaying game...

basically its like setting up a billiard table. after the first shot, every bet is off about what ball goes where...

This is a case of bad drafting. The rules say "A character can aim and then call a shot at the time of the attack." This could mean that taking aim and then calling the shot is the only thing you can do when calling a shot. Or it could mean that you can take aim if you want, independent of whether you take a called shot. If the latter was true, however, you'd exepct there to be a comma indicating that the clauses were independent.

Regardless, here's something that the anti-SR4 dumpshockers need to learn: If you have two possible interpretations available, pick the one that is the best for game balance. Dumpshockers trying to argue that SR4 is bad frequently argue that the shitty interpretation is the ONLY VALID interpretation, which breaks the system, proving that the system sucks. See Agent Smith. The simpler, smarter thing to do would be to accept that there are two valid interpretations, and pick the one that doesn't break the system. That's clearly the one that the devs intended to put forth, even if they can't write their way out of a carboard box.

Not that I'm suggesting you're doing that Edge, that was just for the benefit of the community My point is, let's read the language to say that you need to take up both a free action and a simple action to make a called shot. That goes an extremely long way towards making called shots non broken. They're very powerful, but you lose the ability to do anything else that round. If we say that it requires only a free action, that lends a lot more credence to the argument that they're broken. Since we want to play a good game which is as non-broken as possible, we should opt for the more balanced interpretation of the vague wording.




You guys are talking past each other. By story, Knasser means simply the GM saying "There is a man. He is wearing full military armor. He says "Halt!" and points a gun at you." That kind of thing. The GM has to decide each of those things -- whether there is a man, whether he is wearing armor, what kind of armor, how he's armed, what he says, what he does... If the GM doesn't do that, then you don't have a game. The rules tell you what it means, dice-wise, but the GM still controls the universe. The entire system is based on the GM fiat of what happens in the universe. To argue, therefore, that GM fiat is wrong is a little bit unglued.

The story you're talking about is the overall plot arc outside of the immediate, in-the-moment mechanics of what happens during the game session. You're saying that the here-and-now is the main focus of the GM, not the overall plot, if I understand correctly. You guys are using the same word to describe completely different things, so there's no argument to be had.

I don't usually get into the whole +DV called shot thing because we didn't like it at first glance, and ruled it out of use, so if this explanation/comparison has come up before, I've missed it. That said, this is the first really good, really simple comparison to another element in the system I've seen for that rule, and IMO +DV called shots just stopped being an issue. I thought about it, and this is what I saw:

***Ambidextrous character with two Ingram Smartguns. Slap on a gas vent 3 accessory, an underbarrel weight accessory, and a personalized grip mod to each, and for 2500 nuyen and 5 BP at character creation, you've got the ability to dish out two long bursts a turn, for 5 +5 DV (total 10), with a -1 on that second shot for the only point of uncompensated recoil you've got. Sure, that +5 DV comes into play after armor, meaning it's more likely to be Stun, but when you're slapping someone upside the head with two 10S hits a turn, Hardened Armor is the only thing that's likely to keep him standing. Even without ambidexterity, you're only at a -3 on that second shot assuming it's the one from your off-hand. Cars and some critters/spirits are about the only thing this isn't good against.

***Charcter with an Ingram Smartgun making a called shot for +4 DV. He's got a 9 +2 DV (for the short burst that he's restricted to firing, total 11), with a -4 on that shot. He's only able to do this once per turn, compared to the other guy's twice per turn, and that -4 dice works out, in theory, to 1.33 less points of damage. He's more likely to inflict Physical damage, but less likely to hit at all. He's also used up his free action (preventing him from dropping prone, intercepting, running, or doing something else cool). His second shot this turn will be at 5 +2 DV, because he can't call another shot this turn. Not only is his overall damage output per turn less, he's also less likely to hit, period.

What the +DV thing manages to do, IMO, is let weapons like the Panther, Sport Rifles, Super Warhawk, etc keep up with well-compensated autofire weapons. When it feels broken is when you compare it to the "called shot to bypass armor" rule, which I have never seen used.

Asides from the scenario involving Long Shots at Citymasters (which I'm going to set aside, for a moment, because that's theoretically a problem with the Long Shot rules, not the Called Shot rules), this would mostly, theoretically, be used for shooting at spirits... and taking a -(Forcex2) penalty to hit something with a Reaction of (Force+2 to +4) makes it more likely that you'll be effective just opening up and trying to get enough net successes to push the DV past his Armor Rating. This indicates to me that the "bypass armor" application of Called Shot is the one that's broken... and it's broken in the bad way, as it's nearly useless. When you compare the +DV application to something that's nearly useless, then yeah, it's a lot more powerful, and I'll admit that my gut reaction was to disallow it because it was obviously more powerful. I never stopped to think that it wasn't nearly as cool as autofire, in most cases.

With these realizations, myself and our other GM just re-allowed "+DV for -dice, up to +4/-4" called shots, and changed "ignore armor for -dice = Armor" called shots to "ignore armor for -dice = (0.5 x Armor)" to try and let it have more application. I'll tell y'all if it turns out to be horribly broken.

I understand your interpretation but....



Then there's the bit you quoted from the called shots sub-section which would make more sense if it read 'may aim and call a shot' rather then 'can aim and call a shot' but note that it doesn't say 'must aim and call a shot'. When put into context with everything else I find it pretty clear that calling a shot is a free action and that unlike every other free action calling a shot does not cancel out preceding take aim actions.

Exactly. I was kind of dumbfounded by your reply until I read on and understood what you meant. You mean story in the sense of a pre-planned script. I mean only to say that without "GM Fiat" you are ultimately left only with a wargame where both sides pick forces of an appropriate points value. Even letting a GM pick how many points to spend on the opposition or to set up the terrain, would run a little counter to the principle of removing GM Fiat.

Regarding the necessity of Take Aim actions for Called Shots, the wording under the Called Shot rules on SR4, pg. 149 is a bit ambiguous and it made me pause as well. But if you check the definition of "Call a Shot" on pg. 135, it becomes pretty obvious that you can do a Called Shot without doing a Take Aim first. This page isn't referenced from the Called Shot rules section however, so unless you have a very good recollection of having seen it before, there's no reason to look for it. This leaves us with Called Shots demanding a Free Action. That means that you can't combine Calling a Shot with most movement such as running, ducking back behind cover, etc, changing clips, talking to friends, or perform more than one Called Shot in the same initiative pass.



It's more than that. This comes up every time Cain appears. He posts something heavily critical of the SR4 rules, usually using such strong language and on something so difficult to support that inevitably people respond. We then go through a series of exercises in keeping things on the actual stated proposition. Ultimately people either give up and Cain posts that "Silence is assent" or someone finally loses their temper with Cain and a moderator shuts the thread down.

For reference of anyone curious for previous examples, the last two big threads are here and here. I like to keep them handy in the hope it will keep down repeats of the arguments. Though I must say that Larme is doing an impressive job. The "Cain Run" is becoming a bit of tradition in these parts and this is like watching someone play a game well on Difficult. I'm tempted to just sit back and watch.

knasser's got a point there. In fact, in any thread that at some point starts dealing with rules differences between SR3 and SR4, I expect Cain to show up and shit all over it causing it the original topic to be effectively shut down.
It's not like all SR3-labelled threads are being hijacked by SR4 zealots spamming "Hurrrr, SR4 is soo much better, here is my strawman argument!" and then waiting for SR3 players to take the flamebait.

I'm sorry, this comes over as a bit strong but I've seen this numerous times now and it is becoming REALLY aggravating.

Edit: I won't further add off-topic posts to this thread, but I felt like the issue needs to be brought up.

Or people can repeat until Cain changes his mind, the same way he does. Mirror image is fair play afterall.


If there are multiple interpretations to the rule, then GMs have to decide which of the interpretations that would either add to the fun of their game or not detract from the fun of their game. The problem is what might seem fun to the GM might not be fun for the players. DSers trying to argue that SR4 is bad precisely because the shitty interpretation CAN be chosen to be the valid interpretation, which breaks the system, proving the system sucks. My point then would be that it doesn't matter if the system sucks, arguing that the system sucks is like arguing that [random physical law] sucks, it just is.

Edited to remove mention of gravity.

Whoa!!!!! Don't bring gravity into this man! This threads had plenty of posts bordering on off-topic arguing and you have to bring THAT up?!?