So in prior editions you had team karma pool does 4e have anything for the team?

You did? I can't seem to recall having team karma pool. I remember having Karma and Karma Pool and the pool was equal to 1 for every 10 karma earned as human or 1 for every 20 as other metatypes, and that was individualized.

2e had team Karma Pools. I think it was every 20th point of earned Karma went into the Karma Pool and alternated between Personal Karma Pool and team Karma Pool. So, the 20th point would go into a character's personal Karma Pool then the 40th point would go into the team Karma Pool, the 60th point into personal, etc. etc.

I think that was how it went, but its been so long since I played 2e I'd have to crack open the book to be sure.

2e you could sacrifice a point of Karma Pool to go into team Karma Pool, I don't recall 1e/3e off the top of my head but I thought that it was availible among all three editions (Possibly in RC). Could be wrong.

Yeah, that sounds right. I think its starting to come back to me now. It wasn't mandatory for a player to add Karma to the team pool, but it was an option and often useful.

3e hd Group Karma as well.

Marvel superheroes rpg also had 'team karma'. As for why its not in 4th ed SR, hm. The fluff seems to support more of a global setting of individual operatives. More of a 'pick up' team than a 'guild team'.

The Team Karma Pool died in the same trash strewn back alley as the Karma Pool....and I miss it even less than the latter. By itself it didn't do much for me. Warhammer FRP 3 has something similar but with a lot more meat on the bones in that players can offer up one or two Tactic cards for use by everyone, there are a couple tracks on the "team" card, the players choose from a dozen or so team archetypes with descriptive names like "Brash Young Fools" that each have different benefits/drawbacks, and then the team pool of Fortune dice has things actually happening to an extent that didn't with the Team Karma Pool. That might be somewhat interesting, Team Karma Pool was just cruft IMO.

You do realize Karma Pool = Edge right? They just renamed it and put a cap on it... And yeah I have WFRP3, thinking about it was what actually made me wonder what happened to the TEAM in SR4, because we usually put every other KP point into the group pool.

[edit] The old tactics skill also used to give extra dice to everyone's combat pool if you opted to use that skill rather than do anything else.

Correction, Karma Pool's harvested ADAM with the suck distilled out. Edge performs [roughly] the same job but it does it in a much different manner, and takes on other roles too, so calling it "renamed it and put a cap on it" not particularly accurate.



Whereas I see the Team Pool as so insignificant in impact that I didn't think of it at all when reading and using WFRP 3's implementation. *shrug*

Examples? Far as I know the "what you can do with edge" and "what you can do with karma pool" paragraphs are near identical, ie reroll failures, add dice, burn to get a success, etc.

hmmm...

well, edge is used in avoiding suppressive fire.

and also to see whether genetic infusions are permanent.

but that's all i'm coming up with offhand. could you burn karma pool to get a critical success in earlier editions? i don't recall one way or the other. not sure about long-shot tests either, since i doubt they were needed before 4th (since you could theoretically hit any TN on a single die if you got really really lucky)

Edge functionally replaces Combat Pool as well. Really all of those scattered discretionary dice Pools were dragged all into one place.

EDIT: Could Karma Pool add initiative passes or move you ahead action in order? I don't recall that functionality?

You could use Karma Pool to add dice up to the skill, attribute, or rating but not other pool dice for those tests. I think though IIRC you only get pool dice to avoid auto-fire so you may be right on that one.



In the sense that its not static sure but really "pools" rolled into attributes sorta like the optional rule in 2e RC where you could just always use half your dice for attack and the other half for a dodge pool. For initiative you could add dice as above but no guarantees on IP or being first. So again similar but perhaps that falls under the dodging auto fire thing were a GM may say "no dice"

1) That is SR2
2) That was 'optional' (and, from my understanding rarely used), really it was just the player choice set to a default choice
3) SR3 went the other way with a proliferation of discretionary dice pools with associated choices, there wasn't a [Fixing] The Kitchen Sink Pool but I sometimes wonder why not

SR3 -> SR4. The role of all discretionary [character ability] dice all falls onto Edge.

Edge has two separate uses for initiative. Add an IP at any phase, and an automatic first (regardless of how many IP) on any given IP. Well there might be a third, IIRC you Edge your Initiative roll (on one of the multiple ways to use Edge for 'normal' pool rolls)? That's a fairly detailed amount of control.

Honestly, I could do without Edge entirely. I understand that it's a safety net and cinematic-success mechanic, but it's an extra complication and karma sink. Anyway, just an off-topic comment.

Back on topic, I don't know that many people want a team resource like that. As someone said above, I like the Shadowrun that encourages independent operatives, instead of gangs or crews. Now, tabletop forces most of us to play as if we were all best friends for life, but I still prefer the delusion that we're just coincidentally assigned to the same jobs. Plus, you can swap characters between runs.

I more see it as as dice pools became attributes because in older editions you had usually 3-6 dice in your die pool and 3-6 dice in your skill, skills remained skills but rather than having pools you have a fixed attribute. Plus attributes were used to build the old dice pools they just removed the (attribute+attribute)/2 so each skill check is now just one attribute. But I can agree to disagree.

Edge does give you more control, I said it was more similar to dodging auto fire where where karma pool may or may not apply depending on the GM.

Yeah, an attribute called Edge. I'm talking about the discretionary part. It's for the splashy "cinematic" feel Yerameyahu mentions.

Although the Attribute were [redefined so that they] also added resulting in an overall boost in dice pool size relative to SR3 to adjust for the difference in the TNs/die roll interpretation. (remember, we had this discussion?) But...

... and also control in attack rolls, etc. Discretionary dice. Is this your English issues rearing their head again. Do I need to go all Wiki on my posts when replying to you?



Yes, you've clearly demonstrated that as a core property of yours, the ability to disagree. Repeatedly. In fact I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict you are about to give another demonstration of your Impenetrable Wall of Thickness +5 impersonation....

Thank you for trolling





I can see that, I just happen to enjoy bonuses for teamwork. Granted a GM could give his own bonus for team work without rules. For me I always saw Shadowrunners like the team in Heat, pretty tight and as long as there isnt a dick in the group, things go pretty well. I don't like the whole "you meet in a bar" cliche.

There *are* bonuses for teamwork. There are teamwork tests, and there's the huge bonus of everyone not-dying. Hehe.

I know what you meant, though. You certainly can play Shadowrun as a gang or crew. I don't think there's any reason to give a special bonus for it, but you'll already gain advantages in terms of sharing gear/locations/resources. You'll avoid buying extra (redundant) items and contacts, and you can afford to specialize slightly more. That said, and as I mentioned before, everyone pretty much de facto *does* that in non-Missions play anyway, whether their backgrounds support it or not.

It was an anti-troll! An attempt to help you make the choice not to embarrass yourself repeating your silly assertions.

Success! Against the odds I might add, thank you for the support in achieving this goal.

Thus my initial post in this thread way back.

Unfortunately, having experienced the results of effective, compelling rules for teamwork (and the results of a number of GMs trying to implement teamwork mechanics on-the-fly, even when they have experience playing with effective teamwork rules from other systems ), I find SR's treatment of the 'teamwork' concept [throughout the different editions] quite lacking.

There are a couple ways to tactically use teamwork in combat, such trying to run people's dodging dice out. But even then it doesn't feel like teamwork between the characters, if you get what I mean? It's sort of a cardboard cutout of teamwork. *shrug*

*shrug* Consider the entire game is about cool tactical heists, coordinated cons, diverse skills specialties, meat/matrix/astral, etc., I've never remotely felt like there was no teamwork. Teamwork is *why* I love Shadowrun; I just don't *necessarily* need a crew or a mechanical bonus for it.

<double post fun>

My issue is that the fluff says "yes" but the mechanics say "meh". There is a disconnect between mechanics and "what the game is about"**. Which I believe was why Tete created this thread (and that he saw it headed in the wrong direction in SR4). Correct me if I'm off on that, Tete?


** In your opinion and largely in mine, too. I'd just add to that list "gettin' screwed by The Man/system/occasionally allies, and attempting to avoid the same" and "GRENADES!"...ain't Shadowrun till someone tries the Ring Trick.

See, I don't see the mechanics as anti-teamwork. You could do runs alone, but we never do. It's all about working together, fundamentally so; the *mechanics* certainly support this, because it's the mechanics that require diverse skillsets, and the mechanics that will kill your character.

My whole point is that the absence of a rule that says, 'good job, you weren't solo!', has nothing to do with whether 'the mechanics support teamwork'.

I never claimed such, "meh" isn't "anti". It's slacker ambivalence. EDIT: I admit this might be a bit generous here given the occational "anti-team" aspect of Shadowrun rules that creates scenes where characters are split up a lot making it more like individuals that working on a goal the happen to share rather than characters that are actively working together. But "anti" is harsh word. *shrug*

From these two comments I'm surmising you haven't seen in action a system that actively supports the concept of teamwork, making it difficult for you to understand what's missing. *shrug* Tete mentions WHFP 3, which I'd still rate at only mediocre-fair in this regards**, and it's still significantly more supportive of the concept of "team" than Shadowrun. On the scale of mechanics for "team" concept niche protection (which is what you are describing) is quite low on the list. It's passive and primitive, barely above "the game supports multiple player characters". It's a little like saying "of course this truck supports off-road racing, it's got wheels doesn't?"


** Details of my reasoning on WFRP 3 is another [long] discussion for a different forum.

Actually, I just figured I missed the teamwork rules in SR4. I'm not a walking rule book and was more shocked that I couldn't find anything like the team karma pool or small unit tactics anywhere in SR4.

Interesting, I've always found rules that outright reward teamwork to be artificial and forced. It feels like Ms. Manners standing over my shoulder going "Now children, play nice".

What system have you found that actually does a good job of teamwork rules?

<---double post--->

Well that is certainly how the Stress Track in WFRP 3 feels to me. FFG went out of their way to emphasis that it isn't "punishment" for players/characters arguing, moving it up is suppose to be a "gentle reminder" by the GM to get back on track. But I'm going to put it in the "bzzzzt" column, perhaps that is the type of thing you are thinking of? ((Note that I think this is by far the most grievous example of this in WFRP 3, I'm not trying to trash the system. I think it gets a number of things 'right'.))

I'm talking more about games whose frame of reference for viewing how the world works is team orientated. Inside combat D&D 4e is a decent example. The players naturally think about the PCs as a team because they are constantly interacting in that way, nearly always thinking in terms of synergy. How do I help the others inflict/soak the most damage? How do I get into position for them to help me?

Another example is Mouse Guard. The source material, the Mouse Guard comics, is very much about "team". The main characters, and the rest of the organization they work for are grouped into small squads (typically 3). The attitude of the characters is all for one, protectors of the common good of mousehood, loyalty and sacrifice for the team. That sort of stuff. This is mirrored in the mechanics of the game. When players script out their combat in advance they create one script for a single team (of up to 3 mice), splitting rolling duties. For Skill rolls there is a very clear structure built into the mechanics for one mouse to Help another (the player physically hands over a die). The full list is pretty long, some of it is subtle but it's pervasive and clear that this is how the game considers the physics of the world to work and thus the players think in those terms.

EDIT: I also worked to bring somewhat of a teamwork vibe to the modern firearms sub-system I built for Burning Wheel, beyond what Shadowrun does. I feel I succeeded. The larger goal was to emulate the "feel" of a modern small arms firefight, to have the players thinking that way and the characters naturally moving that way because the relevant RL physics and game world physics similarly enough. Teamwork was just part of that. The various roles like taking cover, suppressive fire, cover destruction/denial, movement, were more on equal standing with each other and that the synergies were there and natural feeling. I was aid by Burning Wheel having a solid Help mechanic baked right into the base die mechanics of the system, so I was able to leverage that. When you and another PC both perform the same action on the same target at the same time this triggers the Help mechanic (this is common through the out-of-the-box sub-systems, it is assumed to work this way everywhere unless explicitly stated otherwise).

I 100% agree with Mouse Guard and team work. There is also a ghostbusters like indie game (cant recall the name) out there I am dying to try that has team resources and at leased from the reviews I have read handles team work very well.

Would that be Inspectres, Tete? I haven't read it or played it so I can't comment about it in detail.

Mouse Guard, it that the one by the guys who did the Burning Wheel?

I may have to take a peek.

YES! thats it! Thanks!

I guess you're right. I really can't imagine what 'teamwork mechanics' you could possibly be talking about. I agree with Mooncrow; it feels forced to 'reward' teamwork.

Right, which is why it's tends to be bad form tohave something that "rewards" teamwork. It tends to be tacked on fix to what is a fundamental non-teamwork aspect to the system. You missed the part in my post where I talked about that, how you bake it right in from the bottom? It isn't a reward thing, it is a matter the world physics work (AKA the rules mechanics) described in terms of a teamwork perspective.

Being stuck on mechanics that explicitly reward teamwork (or explicitly punishing it as my example with WFRP 3) is part of your blindspot.

Even after I spent some time describing some examples. Pretty big blindspot, huh?

P.S. If you are really curious you should be able to find Mouse Guard RPG for $30 and change, it's carried in some comic book stores because of the connection to the comic series and it's artwork and production quality. Not many RPG books come with a slip cover. I'm not sure WTH it is with the prices on Amazon marketplace, $70+ is crazy. But a word of warning, it's far safer to begin reading on page 1 instead of assuming "well I know RPGs, I'll just skip all the noob stuff".

Well, yes: even after your examples, I have no idea. D&D team-orientation is in no way different from Shadowrun; you (random heroes) work together to win, doing whatever it is your character can do. As for the other: SR has teamwork tests. Anything more than that seems to make PCs cease to be independent, and you get tabletop wargaming.

Are you basically saying that SR doesn't have flanking? That's an example of a mechanical teamwork rule, so if that's what you mean, I can understand that. I don't agree that it changes the overall 'team-focused-ness' of the system, though.

This is a BAD example but the best non-indie RPG example I can come up is take FASA Star Trek or some of the versions of Traveller (I don't remember which ones) you had to work as a team to control the ship in combat. (I'm sure Dwight just cringed at that horrid example but its the best I could think of). In mouseguard your working as a team to overcome obsiticals, be it a river, an owl, or whatever. Mouseguard introduced (to me anyway) some interesting concepts in terms of not only teamwork but failure. You never fail in mousguard, only add more complication. Maybe Dwight can explain it better. I also HIGHLY recommend reading Burning Wheel because Luke Crane is very opinionated (possibly to the extent of Frank Trollman) and agree or disagree with his points about how roleplaying games should work, reading it forces you to think about it and form your own opinion.

[edit] I will add that Luke seams like a nice enough guy in person

He is indeed. I feel bad that I find Burning Wheel to be almost unplayable =/ It does have a lot of interesting elements that I add to my other games though.

Mechanics, man. Let's focus on the mechanics and what actually happens at the table. I'm having a flash back to "Brawdo™, it's got what plants crave!" Next time you are playing watch what's happening. Be self-aware of choices you make and why you make them.

D&D 4e isn't the best example of team centric mechanics in action. I just tossed it there out because it's an OK example and playing D&D is like having acne, it's a fairly common experience.

Again, not "anti" per se (except when people go on astral trips or long Matrix outings). It is the void of teamness, which in effect does change the game (without 'changing' because it's just the way it starts out) because the lack of it means it isn't teamish (FROM HELL'S HEART I STAB AT THEE, ENGLISH LANGUAGE). Consider these hypothetical statements; "Just because you don't add anything with sugars, or honey, or artificial sweetners to a dish doesn't make it anti-sweet", "Yeah, I always find that putting lead acetate or ethylene glycol in my food makes me feel stupid."

See? No? If not then it's probably time to move on, anyway.....

This is a bit of a derail, but I think the other conversation is done so a quick little hijack....What did you find unplayable? Describe what happened at the table.

New book out, "Adventure Burner: Burning Wheel finally explained in English rather than just mechanics, written with unpolished skill, dumped in your lap" AKA "Adventure Burner:Five Years of help and advise from the BW forums condensed into a book, with added prefab characters and adventures, after Luke & Thor had some serious practice writing RPG rules that people can grok".

Disclosure, I have a credit in the book. A non-paid credit....at least not yet. I was promised a most recent printing of the Monster Burner but the bastard hasn't come through on that yet. Luke's real name is Dick, don't let anyone tell you different.

*shrug* Thanks for trying, Dwight. I agree that some systems have mechanical *rewards* for teamwork. I just don't feel like ChronoTrigger's multi-character techniques make the *game* more 'teamwork-focused' than FF1; you're still a group working together for a common goal. I think your 'anti-team' distinction is a little specious, because I've been talking only in relative terms (this game > that game).

Are you using "reward" as a catch all that includes "providing team centric tools to influence the outcome"? That's...an interesting word choice. Ok, so I gave you too much credit.

EDIT: Can't comment on the video games. Generally speaking I don't do video game RPGs, I've played maybe 4 in my entire life and none of them were FF or from Japan.

If it helps I can translate that part of your assertions, too. Is in the range of "Sweet peas are sweeter than lollipops, I mean 'sweet' is right there in the name, right?" Only Shadowrun isn't even regular sweet peas, it's sweet peas that didn't get enough water, so some of them have a bitter tinge, and they are matured past the "sweet" stage. Which is why I find your statements edging out of specious and into batshit territory, or I would if thought you were watching closely which I suspect you aren't. As it is I'm pretty sure you are just mesmerized by the superficial.

There's really no call for that, but do what you gotta do.

My point was that I didn't *say* you said SR was anti-team, so it's specious for you to defend against an argument I didn't make. What I said is that I don't agree that SR is *less* team-centric than some of your examples. I can't understand your analogies at all, though, so I plead ignorance.

Flanking, for example, is a *reward* for teamwork. There's nothing wrong with describing it in that way, and I'm sorry if it offends? If the other games you're familiar with *require* teamwork, then you're right: it's not a reward. Instead, it's a penalty for not using teamwork (at least, in the prescribed way).

The point remains that SR is fundamentally a team game, no less so than D&D, and the absence of numerical bonuses (rewards) for special 'team maneuvers' doesn't lessen that. I can't speak to your mouse game, but as I said, a game that forces characters to subsume their individuality into a monolithic unit isn't my idea of a good time; it may be more 'team-oriented', but so is wargaming.

So who the hell were you talking to here?



That pretty strongly implies that I'm say [or at least strongly thinking/assuming] that.

You corrected me in the next post, and I considered the matter settled. Waaaay back then. I was the one who suggested the descriptor 'anti', and you pointed out that it wasn't accurate. Done and done.

I saw a Mouseguard book awhile back and considered purchasing it... I suppose I should absolutely buy it now. Sounds quite good.

it should be pointed out that the mechanic where multiple people doing the same task to the same target gives bonuses also pretty much exists in shadowrun in a number of places.

for example, if you and your 4 friends are in melee against one target, you get a bonus. if you and your four friends all shoot at the same target, the target suffers a penalty to dodge.

if you and your 4 friends provide counterspelling, you get a teamwork test to determine how effective the combined counterspelling is.

if you and your 4 friends are fixing a car, you get a teamwork test to determine how effective the combined repairs are.

if you and your 4 friends are sharing sensor information over a tacnet, you get a bonus to most actions as a result.

if you and your 4 friends are trying to sneak across an area, and you give each other warnings about when to stop, move, sink deeper into the shadows, etc, you are (arguably) eligible to receive teamwork dice.

there are some situations where this doesn't apply, but in general, if mechanics that allow you to help one another out define a game as being team-oriented, then shadowrun has that. about the only limitation shadowrun places on it is 'could you plausibly help in this situation' and if the answer is yes, then you get the bonus.

Indeed.

Eh, I've been reading through my new copy all morning; the scripting of combat is just no-go for me. I understand what you're saying about the teamwork thing, but it's just completely immersion breaking in this case.

As for Burning Wheel, the rules were overly complicated, especially the social "duels". I understand what he was trying to do, but his basic rule; "when there's conflict, roll some dice" slows down the game way too much.

Like i said, there are a lot of great things in the system, but the actual play mechanics were not among them.