Here are some points of contention. I'll list them, and provide a suggestion to fix it-- my suggestion may not be the best, or to Bull's liking, but I'd like to offer something. Maybe someone else will have something better. I’m going to break them up into several quick posts to make people that quote them a more sane endeavor.

1. No optional Rules -- sounds great, but it is in fact not true (examples will follow). Since we are already forced to change the rules, I think we should change this to "No Optional Rules unless noted in the FAQ". If we keep the FAQ small, we can include one or two optional rules without disrupting the balance. Let's be honest, there are core rules that disrupt the balance as is anyway.

The next section are all "introduced rules". They may be just added, and not listed as "optional", but it's not RAW and something each player needs to know. See my foot note about cheating also.

2. Forced 4:1 rule. I despise this rule, as it messes with mechanics of the game. It makes sense as an option for players, but not when it's forced. I think the FAQ should footnote that if there is not time at the end of an adventure to do an extended test, then the 4:1 rule can be used to achieve it. We should also force all in between adventure activities to happen at the end of an adventure, so that a group at a Con doesn't have to wait for a (e.g.) mage to bind 3 force X spirits.

3. Diminishing Returns. Before SR4A came out, we were told that this was going to be a mandatory thing in the new rules. It's not (pg. 64 SR4A). As mentioned in the "Learning New Skills" discussion-- where it's impossible to increase a skill with the forced 4:1 and diminishing returns: I think it should be stated in the FAQ that a GM can determine if the action can be accomplished by anyone if given enough time, then this rule is not used. Examples would be finding a legal item, or learning a new skill.

4. Fencing. Where to begin? Start using some of the rules: a Negotiations + Charisma test should be required. A contact should be needed. The base value for a fenced item should be 30%. I'm not sure why SRM02 and SRM03 made it easier to fence goods by removing the social test and contact, but the decrease in value was to make up for vulture players that "take time" to strip everything. This is unrealistic, but I've not seen a GM point that out to the uber characters taking time to collect clanky Predators pistols to sell.

You could still leave the power in the GM's hands with "guide lines" in the FAQ (and possibly in the mod for rare items). Such as, "Common items cannot be fenced or at best only one of the items will be bought due to a flooded market. As a rule of thumb, most items with a value of 500 or less and armor with an availability of 2 or less will fall into this category for the purposes of ShadowRun Missions. Note that stolen vehicles will require a specialized Fence who will require a month of 'cool down' period before buying the stolen item". Just a suggestion, but really you need GM's to be reasonable if someone steals a Horizon helicopter and tries to sell it later that day.

5. Qualities/Flaws banned. No real change here, but this is not RAW and we do use it, so I'm putting it here to track our "optional" rules we don't use.

6. Contacts. The RAW leaves acquiring and improving contacts in the world of "GM discretion". We've created a system where GM's feel (maybe rightfully so) they can only give out contacts that are print outs in the mod. The worst part is, everyone just get's them. My Charisma 1, no social skills Ork was getting the same amount and type of contacts as our face. I really can't see my loyalty level with Peace Man increasing past 1, but it did. SR has a published book of contacts, and I can't see why contacts can't be award from it if the story leads to that logical conclusion-- and the character has the talent and skills to warrant a contact and not just a one time deal. Loyalty rating should also not because you already have the contact.

Lastly a rule I’d like added to SRM

7. Payscale. Pay should be done on an individual basis and the players should not be allowed to split it evenly. At GenCon the Green level characters should not have received the same pay as the veteran players just b/c they were dragged through a TR 6 game. Sure, they should have gotten some type of “danger bonus”, but it’s not fair to the other players who don’t have a big brother to take them through a game. It’s also not realistic, as a Johnson will hire a runner based on their skill.

This could also open the door to bonus pay—though this is a sticky wicket that SRM staff needs to watch in mods—for bonus pay to characters with unique and exotic skill sets. A runner that has sky diving, may get a little more pay in a mod that really can use it. Maybe it’s just enough to be a nod to the player as “good idea”, but a nod is appreciated too.

Lastly, Notority is unused, and here is a great place for it. Someone with Notoriety should be getting a pay cut as less people want to hire him b/c of his flaw. In the real world, the runners would most likely accept the pay they get b/c they deserve it—at the table, players are a lot more prone to still give a portion of their pay to the drag chute that is in the party. This is why a no Gifting rule needs to be in place: good to prevent twinking too.

*My note about preventing cheating…

No one wants to play with a cheat, but the main goal of SRM has got to be “have fun”. If the additional paperwork and rules is such that it lowers my fun more than the off chance that someone sits down at my table with a portable laser he didn’t earn… it’s failed its goal. I believe it’s impossible to stop a cheater that wants to cheat. They can bump stats and not pay the karma for it, and who would know. So why spend so much effort to kill my fun to stop those who cheat.

END

On a theory level (as a GM and the creator/runner of a long-running game for dozens of people) I agree pretty strongly with everything SaintHax has to say.

Of course, I can never get to anywhere Missions are being run and have played like one ever and it was IIRC 3E and set in Denver. So...yeah.

One caveat to my notes here... The FAQ officially kicks in with Season 4, so GMs can and probably should still be using the S3 FAQ and rules until that point.

1. Already Done.

2. Already Done. Keep in mind that rolling at the table is allowed only at the end of the adventure (Not before, as this can potentially eat into available play time), and only at the GMs discretion and if he feels he has the available time.

3. Keeping Diminishing returns. However, I'm making allowances in the Missions Rules for some tests that end up being relatively impossible. Keep in mind though that even for things like learning skills, it's tough to find a spot where it becomes flat out impossible to learn a new skill. It might require a trainer or a tutorsoft, though. But still, I'm trying to cover these situations as best I can. Generally though, Buying Hits will usually be faster than the alternatives.

4. Straight up, I hate Looting and Fencing. I'll be honest. So don't expect much change here. This isn't D&D, where you kill things and take their stuff. 10% still gives a little cash for players who insist on doing it, but it's not enough of a percentage that it's worth going out of your way for most of the time. I have no problem stealing something if you're going to use it. But I've seen players who are effectivly Shadowrun Kender, even with the crappy sell rate, and it's kind of ridiculous.

5. I'm planning to clarify qualities a bit, and will be reviewing the full list to see if any changes or additions need to be made.

6. Contacts are tricky. The burden is on the GM to use them properly. I've given players random NPCs as contacts when they earned them in games, and I've not given players a loyalty bump if I didn't feel they earned it. There's nothing in the Missions rules that says that players cannot earn additional contacts, and we give guidelins for how players earn bonus loyalty for contacts. But, to be fair, GMs are often pressed for time, and take the easy way out and just automatically give out contacts and give them the loyalty bumps. That's not the fault of Missions though, that's the GM.

7. Again, this is tricky. At the end of the day, we go for simple, quick, and easy. It's just the nature of a living campaign.

8. I'm not really worried about cheating. It will happen regardless, if someone wants to be a douche and cheat. My concern is that there is a level playing field for all players, and that's my main concern with the FAQ and Guidelines.

I have three rules that I follow for Missions.

1. Make it fun.

This is most important to me. It should be fun.

2. Make it simple.

Again, I try and simplify when possible, to speed up pretty much everything. Make the players lives easier by providing ways to do things when there are no GMs around to witness rolls. Make the GMs lives easier by removing some of the tedious bookkeeping that can go on. Just streamline the process as much as possible.

3. Follow the rules.

When possible, I stick with the core SR rules. We assume that most players are familiar with these. And they may not be familiar with the Missions specific stuff. So when possible, we use the default core rules as much as possible.

4. You can't make everyone happy.

This isn't a rule I follow, just something I try and keep in mind, especially when reading DS, the OSR, and talking with players at cons. SOmeone will always be unhappy. The trick is to measure it and minimize it... Make the fewest people unhappy as possible.

Bull

Denver was 4th Ed. The 3rd Edition Missions were Season 0 and Season 1, and were set in Seattle.

Right you are. The one I played was 'A Fork In Fate's Path'. Which was indeed set in Seattle. (Just got it confused with all the 4E Denver Missions that I RAN for my players.)



Really disagree with this point. Fencing paydata and incidental gains is where a lot of a Shadowrunner's income should come from, including taking guns, commlinks, and whatever else isn't nailed down from vanquished enemies if it is realistically feasible time allows (key point). However, I often find myself as a GM encouraging players to loot MORE. Unlike in D&D, every Shadowrun PC is ostensibly a CRIMINAL. Short of being shot at or running on a time limit, why would Shadowrunners NOT be doing this? Isn't 30% an adequately crappy rate to discourage something like filling your pockets with Ares Predators? Also I'm not sure why the usual fencing rolls are not involved.

It's a simplification tool to speed up pretty much everything.

The Fencing rolls only serve one purpose... To determine how long it takes to fence an item. YOu can never bump an items value up at all. You can, however, willingly lower it to sell it faster.

The book also says that it's a GMs call to lower the value for used items, items used in a crime, fences take a cut, etc etc etc. Fencing loot requires a lot of math, and the only time you'll ever get a full 30% of the items price is if you were selling a brand new, never used, and legally obtained item

So the 10% cuts down a lot of crap. It eliminates the math and calculations, and it eliminates "selling time" as well. It's instant money, rather than waiting days or weeks to sell an item.

That said, one of the first FAQ items is that a GM may, time permitting and if the GM is willing (Just as key a point as time), players make make rolls instead of using the default downtime rules. Which means that it will be allowed for you to use the Fencing Gear rules. I've been considering working an option in for this, and codifying the price reductions for "loot". Chance are real good, you'll be selling at 10% regardless.

Bull

Isn't it possible to change an item's price with a separate Charisma + Negotiation (+ Loyalty) roll? I mean I know this happens at my table, but I thought it was also supported by RAW (if not by Missions).



Wait a second? I thought the reason we were losing the INITIAL 70% OF THE VALUE (or at least some of it) was because it was hot goods? i.e. used in a crime, etc.



I see. This does seem like a fairly elegant fix as far as a format like Missions goes. I still disagree with your anti-looting stance for Shadowrun in General.

How about this, runners declare they are looting, and their loot is a flat 40% of what the job pays. This should help speed things along with the players and gm no longer having to argue over the price of each and every single piece of gear looted.

I think 10% of what they actually loot is better, Chance. Because it does not throw verisimilitude so utterly and completely out the window.

30% is because they're selling to dealers. It's like taking your comics or baseball cads up to a local shop and selling them... You'll rarely ever get better than 50% of "Book value", and likely will get something closer to 30%. Then the shop turns around and sells it at full value.

And nope, negotiation doesn't help. I think SR2 or SR3 had some rules that started you lower (Like 10 or 20%) and you could negotiate the price up a bit. But for SR4, it's a straight cut off.

See Page 312-313 of SR4A. The steps to fencing loot are thus:

1. Determine the items Street Value. Use the Street Costs table to modify the Base Value of the item.

For the average item a runner will try to fence, you're looking at Used, Stolen, and probably used in an active crime scene. So that's -40% to -50% of the base price.

2. Calculate the fencing price for the item. Which is 30% of "Original Price". Original Price is modified by the Street Value.

3. The Fence Price can be further modified at GM's discretion based on condition. So it it's beat up, the price drops even more. There's not even a suggested amount here, just "GM can do it if he chooses".

4. Determine how long it takes to sell the item. This is a Negotiation + Charisma Extended Test (10, 6 Hours). YOu get bonus dice equal to the items Availability, and you get a bonus dice for every 5% you knock off the Selling Price.

A lot of groups either aren't familiar with the full rules and use variations of the earlier edition rules, where you could negotiate up more, or they simply house rule it out. Which I totally get.

And like I said, I'm against Looting, but... There's not really any way to stop it. So it's not like I'm saying you can't do it. Everyone plays the game a little differently, after all.

But, do keep in mind, you're Shadowrunners. Runners may be criminals, but that doesn't mean they have to be petty thieves (Though they can be). You're professionals, mercenaries (for all intents and purposes). As such, your money should come from your payments from Mr Johnson, not stealing a bunch of crap to sell.

Bull

Technically, you use the "Street value" price to determine the sale price of an item (WHich for the average runner will be a used, stolen item from an active crime scene, which means you're looking at -40 to -50% of the base price right there). Then you go to Fence the gear, which has a THreshold of 10, with an int

This is both a misreading of the rules, and bad math. This has also already been addressed, please see SaintHax's post on "Pay"

Again though let me point out the fact you only FENCE stolen goods. Anything not stolen is called "selling". If anyone would like to discuss this one item further, please add it to the thread linked above to keep this open for something not already hashed over.

And if the job doesn't pay me what my time is worth I'm going to look for ways to make up the difference. Unless Mr. Johnson orders me (or pays me not to) take a bit of swag I'm going to. It would be nice to see little nuggets of paydata or loot scattered throughout a mission. In previous editions, many of the nodes came with paydata that could be lifted, but they also came with some risk.

What Chance is talking about is inline with the fiction that's written for SR. You don't hear about stripping downed guards of their commlinks, but you do read about extra paydata found.

I hope Im posting this in the right place if I have not please feel free to move it to the appropriate location

Id like to see the table rating dice mod go away in favor of a scaled system

a Lot of times the TR mod works ... other times .... meh .... Id like to see each NPC have different Loadouts based on TR e.g.

at TR 1 they run base
at TR 2 some improved skills and maybe some better gear
at TR 3 more improved skills, better gear and some extra cyber / spirits bound / spells ect

ect

note this is not the model I would follow but its a quick rendition to get the idea across

the reason for this is if you look at the scaling, at TR2 your non grunts get +1 DP to all tests (aside from damage resistance)
but looking at the actual math and going with the average

Perception 3 (+1) equivelant 8 Karma
Firearms 3 (+1) another 8 karma
Defense roll 3 (+1) equivelant 20 karma

and so-on and so-forth

and this is only the basic average ..... when you start getting into the 4's and 5's its exponentially increased (not to mention the higer TR's)

I have personally run across a mod where the mage relied on Cutting someone with their knife .... yet low and behold no blades skill

I think that this type of change will Even out the challange dramatically

now while I know this is not the job of the missions Coordinator I believe it should be a required condition in writing mods

yes I know this will most likely in the end encourage min maxing of NPC's but IME players are already doing this

Stealing to supplement incomes on runs is not innately unprofessional. It just depends what you're stealing, how much of it, and how well you're making out. A great example of this is deckers/hackers who are constantly crusing around nodes and systems after the main objective is complete, looking for additional paydata. This kind of sets the example that runners should be taking everything that's not nailed down. In fact, fourth edition adventures have been written DETAILING the monetary value of various extra shit you can steal that's incidental to the mission.

Thoughts:

The qualities section needs update, in addition to In Debt there are some other qualities out there that are kind of wierd with a living campaign or require way too much GM arbitration to work, Sprite Link sticks in my head but a new thread with a top down review might be beneficial.

I think the actual rule regarding skill improvement between modules needs to be changed to allow one skill improvement between mods. There really isn't another sane interpretation in a Living Campaign. Frankly the roling dice to improve skills rule is often overlooked anyway, might as well make it official.

Nitpicky thing: If used cyberware is not permissible at character creation that should be moved into the rules on character creation. I'm actually pretty happy with the "no harvesting ware" houserule otherwise. It does funny things with encounter balance otherwise.

It is my personal belief that possession mages should be banned, I am currently playing a psionic so I think i'm fairly justified in this belief.

It's funny, my rigger mystic has a possession tradition specifically to abuse the "possess my drone" ability, but I've yet to use it because I feel guilty about the cheesiness.





-k

Sadly I agree

also IMHO Control thoughts needs to be banned as well

That is THE WORST idea I have seen in a long time.

I really don't think any "game balance" based changes to ever happen in SRM, unless it's using a published optional rule.

Missions is supposed to be the "official" Shadowrun campaign. It's supposed to represent Shadowrun. Having a bunch of houserules kinda runs counter to that.



-k

I think that's an excellent point, Karma. I think it's well worth keeping that in mind when making any decisions about the Missions campaign. And my understanding is that Bull and Jason have been working closely for just that reason.

Although I suggested a change to the 4:1 rule, it does have to balance the needs of the campaign with the integrity of the system it represents.

Heck, even 4:1 wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the degrading dice part.



-k

Well i don't normally make game balance suggestions, the problem with possesion is it is poorly worded, poorly understood and insanely powerful. It requires a signifigant amount more GM overhead then normal spirits. The best argument from a balance perspective though is the pages in Digital Grimore devoted to telling us how "possession is totally balanced you guys" and then having to go on for a further page or so suggesting ways to counter or control it.

We are getting into Fahrenheit 451 territory now. If we ban every rule in the SR4A book that people think is overpowered or disruptive, we will be left with nothing eventually.

Possession traditions are rough ... I personally had 3 possession mages in the denver missions ... one even combined possession Tradition ... Shapechange (Ape) and Weapon foci .... it was insane


Control Thoughts and the AE version of it

my thoughts on this one is basically that spell is the Swiss Army spell .... there is almost nothing a mage CANT do with that spell ... and theres no real reprocussions if the spell wears off ...


now note I did not say Control Actions or Influence .... as both of those are IMHO more balanced ...

Actions - willpower as a Negative dice pool to the commanded actions

Influence - Permenant effect after a sustainable duration + Target gets a Spell resistane test anytime they are confronted with the wrongness of said action

Thoughts ... you get pretty much nothing .... once hit with it ... depending how bad the mage is .... your pretty much dead


sorry for lack of clarification on my reasons

If 'dead' is the issue, manabolt makes you dead faster and more reliably for less drain.

AE Version .... Mob mind (think thats the thoughts AE version).... all players put their guns to their head and start pulling trigger .... Dead team

They get a roll against suicide by RAW. A better use would be to have the disarm the guns and sitdown and comple to the HTR teams instructions. Also ManaBALL is still better for the killing.

While I agree that they Should .....

No ... they dont .... your thinking influence which is the Permanent duration where they are given a test every time they are confronted with the wrongness of the Idea

.... Control thoughts there is no such resistance test ... its been hashed out over and over on these forums

BUT ... if you can give me a page # and book I will believe you

I concur, one of the best arguments for outright banning control thoughts is there are multiple spells that do basically the same thing that are not patently ridiculous.

The Influence and Compulsion powers of spirits (Invoked in the case of Compulsion) should be included in anything that happens to Control Thoughts/Mob Mind. They act much the same without any Counterspelling resistance.

I've found that mind-control builds in nearly every game system tend to be broken.




-k

It is mind control.

Did you really just take the time to post for a hyphen?

I think he meant it as "It IS mind control, after all, it's inherently broken."




-k

It wasn't as bad in prior editions where there was a threshold of the targets willpower. Adding that makes it very easy to mitigate or allow on a goon by goon basis.

Id forgotten about that .... and yes ... IMHO Control thoughts with a threshhold equal to the targets Willpower would HELP the spell signifigantly .... I dont think it would fix it

Thresholds in 4th reduce hits so its pretty harsh to have a threshold of willpower.

EG:
Caster: 6 hits
GM: Threshold 4 so you have 2 hits (rolls 3 willpower dice and 4 counterspelling dice) ...the target gets 2 hits, so you net no hits.

The example above assumes 18 casting dice (Spellcasting 6, magic 6, mentor spirit for 2 and restricted gear rating 4 power focus) versus a target with willpower 3 and a enemy mage providing 4 counterspelling dice.

On average its a tie and thus a fail. The threshold is HARSH and even moreso against Dwarves and such. It pretty much means you'll have to spend edge to net any hits and thats about as far as a nerf stick can go before flat out arbitrary removal.

Um, wouldn't the Threshold be 3 if the target's Willpower is 3?

I hate the idea of removing Control Thoughts. It is dumb and it sets a dangerous precedent. Control Thoughts is a perfectly balanced spell.

You want to talk about a spell that's ACTUALLY broken? Stunbolt.

I'm 99% positive that SRM will not remove a core spell from play. SRM is now backed by ShadowRun, and how does it look to say that your sponsor has a rule that is so broke we can't play with it. I do agree with the stunbolt, it's been a problem for a while.

Link: My dumpshock post/essay on why stun spells are broke

IMHO Stunbolt is the single most powerful spell in Shadowrun 4E, and is much more glaringly overpowered than in previous editions. You can cast it at whatever force you want and you will take no drain. Force 10 Stunbolt all day and all night. And it doesn't stop you from killing people.

But more importantly, THIS:



I emphatically agree. Even including stunbolt. SRM has to be representative of the core game. It can't just go houseruling out spells.

EDIT: Wow that topic you linked me to sure is old!

I say BAN shadowrunners...there illegal anyway!!!!

PC creation process: Roll for which corp you start in, now here is your skill soft and datajack..... and 1 cubicle.
PC created lets start to role play a day at work!

Your first assignment is to extract some donuts from the office next door.