Well, I'm playing Shadowrun 4th for quite a long time now, but I still have fond memories of 3rd edition, maybe is the complexity, that was dumbed down a lot more than I wanted to, maybe is simply the new pool mechanic, but the fact is that there is something "missing" in the present edition, but the trouble is: I don't know what it is.

So, fellow "forumates", I ask you: what you think that got better in the 4th edition and what you think that got worse? I'm talking only about rules, please don't dwell in things about the history and scenario.

Thanks!

Edit: Also, one time I stumbled upon a page where it was proposed a major overhaul on third edition rules but I can't seen to find it now... Do any of you know anything about it?

www.sr3r.net/forum may be the site you're looking for. As far as 3rd vs 4th goes I'm not really qualified as I've never made the switch.

Things changed, some for the better, some not... but it is very subjective.

Fixed TNs were a big change, improving some things (in SR3, firefights could consist mostly of people missing each other, due to how high TNs could get with penalties), and making others worse (a Willpower of 6 vs. 5 in SR4 means you get a whopping one extra die to roll. In SR4, where Willpower was the TN, a Willpower of 6 vs. 5 made you literally twice as hard to affect with spells). Some of the changes were translated over on a one to one basis without much thought. A smartlink giving -2 TN was a lot more powerful than a smartlink giving +2 dice.

I miss the tactics of figuring out how to allocate dice pools such as Combat Pool and Spell Pool. But on the other hand, with melee defense purely being defensive (except for a few workarounds with the advanced martial arts rules), and with full defense being an interrupt action, initiative passes matter in melee again, and you can better simulate things like wolfpack tactics.

For all that they talk about mages being overpowered in SR4, they were the same way in SR3. Aspected mages were a much more viable build in SR3, though.

Mmn. Hard to do without starting a flamewar, so I'll just stick to the facts.

Pro of SR4.5: Writing quality and layout are much, much better. FASA had serious difficulties with layout and rules presentation, making a lot of things more complex than they had to be. SR4.5 isn't really any simpler, but it's much better written. That makes it more accessible.

Pro: Artwork, at least in the 4.5 core book, is extremely shiny.

Con: Instead of being original, the SR4.5 core system is purely derivative. I heard a podcast by Rob Boyle who basically admitted they cribbed off nWoD. He thought it was fair game, because oWoD cribbed off Shadowrun originally; I just think it was a sad decision.

Con: Character generation in SR4.5 is a major pain in the butt.

Original/derivative isn't really about the game, though. 'Good' is the only thing that matters.

I was one of the die-hard SR3 guys back in the day (as my warning levels and temporary suspensions on here can attest), but I'll admit that SR4 grew on me lately; not from writing for them (I still wished I was writing for SR3 when it came time to stat dudes up, etc), but actually from starting to run games at conventions. It's been easy as pie for new players to learn the basics of the game, to wrap their head around the core mechanic, and to be slinging dice like pros by the end of a convention session. Sometimes folks who hadn't gamed at all, sometimes who hadn't ever played Shadowrun, either way SR4 "clicked" very quickly for them and they've had a good time with it. I don't think it's because I'm a prodigy at GMing, but rather because the core of the system, and the exclusion of variable TNs and combat/magic pools (both of which I sorely miss, personally) actually makes things run a lot smoother.

Does that make it better? No. But better specifically for drawing new players in? Yeah, maybe.

My group played SR3 for many years and started playing SR4 when it first came out. Many times we argue about if we should go back to SR3, and our arguments come out inconclusive.

Purely from a mechanics perspective,
1) SR3 had completely different systems for the different aspects of the game (Combat, Magic, Matrix, etc.). SR4 did a good job of merging the basic mechanics of each of the aspects into one coherent mechanic. (Except crazily, they used a slightly different mechanic for Matrix, which I think could have been handled much better using the same mechanic.)

2) In SR4, we loved that rolling involved attribute and skill, as we thought those should both be involved, however, there is something broken in the simple Attrib+Skill mechanic. I have not really seen someone suggest a fix for it that seemed good yet, and I have not come up with anything either. This mechanic seems to place a huge value to Attribute, and somehow not really give a skill as much sway as it should have.

3) SR4's rulebook has LOTS of ambiguous passages. Whereas SR3 actually spelled out complex rules for each separate case, SR4 tries to handle these with fluff text that is often very unclear, or even totally illogical.

Ditto on 2 and 3, KeyMaster. It's usually only a problem with the munchkins, though there are some truly legitimate confusing spots.

This wasn't quite the case. With the exception of Vehicles, all the systems used the same core rule of skill vs variable TN. They had different modifiers in use (Programs reduced the TN in the Matrix, for example), but still stuck with the variable TN model.

I have to agree somewhat. The quality is higher in SR4.X, and the layout is better. SR3 was more explicit, but the rules were often harder to find.

I've been teaching people Shadowrun for 22 years now. I haven't actually noticed that the game is easier to learn, but the improved writing makes it easier to teach. I can point to one or two passages instead of a constant back-and-forth of page flipping. I've actually had more players get turned off by character creation in SR4/4.5, and I still maintain that it's a mess. Honestly, I think what you're discovering is more a testament to your own growth and ability as a teacher and GM than the game itself. I ran Virtual Seattle games back in the day, and Denver Missions when they came out. New players came, learned, and got better as the game progressed. The better the GM, the better they progressed.

You've got to be kidding me. I mean, sure, they also use dice, but the rulesets were very different. Even within Magic, there were completely different rules for how hermetic vs. shamanic summoning worked.


With respect, I must say, I don't see where the "good writting" is. The game is easier to learn because they simplified the mechanics and (at least attempted to) unified them into a single mechanic for all parts of the system, not because it is somehow written better. You can point to one or two passages, but odds are good, people on this forums are currently having flame wars because those one or two passages can easily be interpreted in many different ways. Good layout is nice, but ,at least for me, the content inside the layout, seems to be the chief problem. At it's heart, this is a Rulebook. 4 people shouldn't read a rulebook and end up playing the game in 4 different ways.

I still like SR4 better than SR3, but only slightly. Both were good systems.

It's the old Dice Pools (Combat Pool, Spell Pool, etc), and the decisions you could make with them (when to use, what to use it for (offense/defense), how much to use, etc).

Bye
Thanee

You could probably, somehow, make it so, that the Skill works as a limit for how many hits can be scored. But that would require some major reworking of the system.

That would definitely put more emphasis on Skills, though.

Bye
Thanee

Yea, unless you average out skills with the attribute, one or the other is going to be more valuable, in a power-gaming frame of reference.

I do like the optional rule for decking that limits successes based on the program, but you can't really do that with shooting people in the face, unless you start giving weapons a rating

Yep. I would however personally much prefer skill to be much more valuable than attribute, since you need skill for every task and attribute applies to a ton of stuff. Like, I don't care how high your logic is, with a skill of 2 you should be rolling fewer dice than someone with a more average logic heavily specialized in the same skill. (The biggest example of this for me was where we had a player who was primarily a gunner type pick up demolitions at rating 5 as a specialization, so this guy is like an expert. When I brought in my logic based character who was primarily focused on mechanics and a bit of hacking [we use logic replaces program rule], who had happened to pick up demolitions 1, had a dicepool that was almost twice as big, despite hardly being trained, simply because his logic, and modifiers that had been bought to help other things, stacked up so high skill basically didn't matter. So you have the barely trained guy telling the guy who is an expert to step off and let him handle it... which isn't right imo)



Well someone above suggested making the success limited based on skills, so no need to give weapon ratings. Unless you have 6 skill you can't get 6 successes. So sad.

Another (fairly simple) idea would be to limit Attribute dice to 2x Skill Rating. So, with Logic 6 and Skill 2 you would be rolling 4+2=6 dice.

Or, to make full use of your maxed-out Attribute 9, you would need to have the Skill at Rating 5 at least.

That one might actually work.

Bye
Thanee

I like that idea as well. And just use that as the limit for all tests, even matrix ones. It even makes sense, you can be the most gifted specimen on the planet, but that just means you can eventually be better at something than most people ever could - you still need to learn how to shoot/swing/hack/tackle quarterbacks/whatever.

I'd have to go think about magic tests though, see how that looks.

Actually, no. Summoning was the same for both: Conjuring dice vs TN = Force, successes = services, drain based on Charisma. Hermetics just had to bind the spirits as well, to use the SR4.5 terminology. Really, there was no mechanical difference between the summoning rolls.

If you want to go there, the game is not "simplified" in the slightest. If anything, SR4.5 is a lot more complex than SR3. Because the writing and layout is better, it's easier to read and learn. The system looks deceptively simple, but the idea of dice pool = attribute + skill does not hold up throughout SR4.5. For example, almost all Matrix tests are Program + Skill, instead of Attribute. A few *are*, however, and so you actually have to memorize which actions use attributes and which ones use programs.

The strength of SR4.5 is that it's better presented, so it seems more intuitive. And handouts and selected paragraphs are easier to find. That means it's much more accessible. However, intuitive and accessible do not equal simpler.

*Points at post errata Bows*

Something I really miss is the "impossible" rolls. In SR4 there are rolls that are completely impossible for untrained/undertrained to pull off whereas things that should still be near impossible for seasoned veterans is routine. I know that Edge can make up for that but SR3 also had the Karma Pool so those things wash. But an impossible task was TN 12+ in SR3 and while the seasoned guy was rolling more dice and by definition therefore had a better chance of succeeding it was still possible for the untrained guy to pull it off without having to spend Karma Pool.

Scaling Matrix difficulty is something I miss. It also used exactly the same rules as the rest of the game unlike SR4 which changes (dice pool isn't constructed the same as in the rest of the rules). Also the personality of decks as a companion character that grows with your decker is gone. Now I'm only ever 1-2 missions away from having a top of the line commlink.

The much vilified Maneuver Score is something I actually miss as it made the VCR a highly useful piece of cyberware.

Scaling damage is another one. It actually made different weaponry have different flavors. Now there is functionally no difference between a light pistol (formerly damage code L) and heavy pistol (damage code M). Final difference now is only 1 box of damage as opposed to 1 versus 3.

Cyberware and MAD scanners being actually archways and wands that have to be passed through or used on you. Makes it much easier to go Downtown when your cyberware doesn't set off scanners at 15m range. It is impossible for a hacker to keep the team on the down low anymore.

I am actually glad that they got rid of this. Now, you can actually HURT a shadowrunner with a Holdout or Light Pistol, which was nigh impossible to do in SR2/3.

Yup. Unless you caught him unawares or without his armor or with an equally skilled shootist. In SR4 the ganger with a light pistol is also very unlikely to kill the runner unless those same conditions apply.

The idea of a light pistol isn't supposed to be to kill anyway. It is supposed to be a deterrent. Shoot someone with it and most people are going to leave you alone. I alway used to use the Professional Rating damage threshold and do the same in SR4. Take boxes of damage equal to your professional rating and your morale breaks and you disengage (so 1 box for most NPCs in the world, 6 boxes and even Tir Ghosts are withdrawing).

The problem now is that the light pistols are just as deadly as most weapons so why bother having the distinction? Is DV3 really that different from the DV4 heavy pistols, smgs, and assault rifles (IIRC at work so AFB)?

Even unaware, the damage was often so low from the Light Pistol it was trivial to soak. Yes, Situation does matter. It always will. But, My expereince with SR2/3 was that there were certain weapons you always took. You always had a Heavy Pistol, because anything else was a joke.

In SR4.
Holdouts are DV3-4?
Lights are DV4
Heavy are DV5 (DV 6 for the RSW)
SMG's are either DV4 or DV5
AR is DV 6
BR is DV 6-7?
SG;s are DV7/9
Sniper are DV7-9

They can all kill you dead. Like in Real Life. I like this.

Actually, you've got it backwards. Because of the way damage scales in SR3, if you score 6 successes with a light pistol, you would deal 10 boxes of damage. Even with a ton of armor, you were likely to be hurt, since armor only reduced the TN of the damage value. If you didn't have 10 dice to soak with, you were guaranteed to take damage. Assuming a body of 3, if you scored all successes, you'd still take 7 damage. Assuming no successes. you're out.

Because SR4.5 uses Body + Armor, even though the weapon would deal a modified 12 damage, it's trivial to get a ton of soak dice. You're still likely to get hurt, but it's not a sure thing. Since SR4.5 has hit points instead of a damage track, it's entirely possible for a troll to completely fail the roll and remain fighting.

I am not theory crafting here. We actually TRIED to make the Light pistol work as an assassination tool (You know the scene: walk up behind the guy and shoot him unawares). It failed miserably. It actually works in SR4X. Any gun should have the potential to Kill you dead with a single shot, caught unawares. SR3 did not work in that manner. At All. Maybe on paper, but never in actual play.

Bad dice rolls can kill any practical example. Admittedly, Shadowrun has never done a good job of modeling derringers: small, high powered, low ammo weapons, like an over-under twin-barrel. SR3 and SR4.5 are no exception. But even so, it does not work in SR4.5 either, and on paper, SR3 actually is slightly deadlier in this regard.

But Paper is not Actual Play.

Sorry, But I have to disagree with you here. I NEVER killed anyone with a Light Pistol or Holdout in SR3. EVER (and boy did I try). It is a constant thing in SR4. Hell, I have killed more people in SR4 with a Light Pistol, than I did in SR3 wiuuth a Heavy. Played both through their entire run. It may be Anecdotal, but it is a fact. Soaking 2's is a Far cry from Soaking 5's. In SR3, Soaking 2's was a lot more common for a Non-Heavy Pistol sized weapon than Soaking 5's was.

yeah, but if somebody got the hold out up to deadly damage and you only had 4 body to roll resistance, you did take a medium damage no matter what . .

Wait SR3 only reduced one box per success?


We may have been playing wrong when I played SR3, I seem to remember staging damage down working the same as staging it up. So if the holdout gets 3 successes to stage up to deadly, it only takes 3 successes to stage the damage back down to light.

Staging worked on Levels. You did not need Successes to stage Boxes, You staged Levels (Deadly/Serious/Moderate/Light/None). Exactly. Except in SR2/3, it was 2 Successes per Level. Up or Down.

No no no . .
the SR3 Damage system worked COMPLETELY different from SR4!
You got Weapons, light Pistol did 6 Light Physical damage.
So your target number was 6 to resist the damage.
And you needed 2 hits to take NO damage at all from the gun.
Every 2 hits on the shooters side staged Damage up by one LEVEL.
So from 6L it goes to 6M, then to 6S and to 6D damage.
To go from light to deadly damage you need 6 hits.
To stage down Deadly to nothing you need 8 hits.
Armor DIRECTLY LOWERS DAMAGE TAKEN.
So with Armor 4 worn, you would not need to roll 6's to get a hit, but 2's.
So you would not have to roll 8x6 but 8x2. Much easier.
But if you only HAVE 4 Dice to roll, then you STILL take Medium Damage.
Which is 3 Boxes.
Light is 1 Box.
Serious is 6 Boxes.
Deadly is 9 Boxes.
And none of this nonsense of Damage not exceeding armor going into stun instead either . .
If you want stun damage, you use specifically stun damage weapons.
And even then you may send your target into overflow physical damage.
Now the HEAVY Pistol, starts out with 9 MEDIUM Damage.
So without Armor, you would need to roll four 9's to stage down to nothing. On D6, this is somewhat more improbable.
And so on.

Your mistaking mechanics with fluff. The mechanics between the hermetic and the shaman were nearly identical, even the spirits and elementals are nearly the same stat wise, but the fluff was drastically different between the two.



High armor values were way more important in 3e. A skilled SR3 Shadowrunner was fine with a hold out vs an unarmored opponent (which I did often). Armor is much more swingy now.

The main difference between SR4 & 3 besides layout/editing is that in 3e having a low number was worse and having a high number was better because most things worked on TN and # of Successes. 4e works of a linear progression so low stats are not as bad and high stats are not as good. Honestly the reason 4e was so much easier for new players was the cheat sheets. If 3e had free cheat sheets the new rules would not have felt so much better for new players.

Uhm . . actually, the Magical Systems were different by Crunch too, not just by fluff . .
Shamans could summon spirits on the fly, with one complex action, but could not bind them.
And they lost them every sun up/down and every time they left the building/street or fell into a river or something like that . .
Hermetics could summon and bind Elementals with money and Karma, but they only vanished when they had done their due..

Also, yes, higher Armor was MUCH better in SR3. But also hard to accomplish.
Starting Character with 8 points of Armor for Ballistic was basically maxed out.
But this also meant that with a Body of 9, he could pretty reliably take a shotgun blast to the face and barely cough . .

Yes, I know, But when wearing any amount of Typical Armor, that Target number for that Light Pistol is reduced. Typically, that number became a 2. So, 2's in SR3, and 5's in SR4. Pretty simple really. So, in actual Play, No one ever took damage from the Light Pistol in SR3. Many Deaths have resulted from a Light Pistol in SR4, at least at our table. Which was my point. This is why I am glad for the removal of staging as it functioned in SR3.

Yah, i should have quoted the other guy, i wasn't really talking to you . . i KNOW you know this stuff Hooker ^^

Hooker Huh... Man, I hated the Show...

well, shows you at least have a modicum of taste then ^^
also, good associative skills/deduction.

I still see the systems as mostly the same, when you loose your summoned thingy is fluff. Though yes, how/when you conjure them is different but its the same roll and IIRC Air Elemental and Air Spirit has the same stats

Difference, again, that, technically, a shaman can't have an air spirit inside of a building . . only a hearth spirit . .
While the Hermetic can have all 4 elementals everywhere all the time, no questions asked . .

Heh... Thanks...

Stahl: The way you described it is basically how I thought it worked, it was this post that confused me:




Apparently this was just describing the process wrong.

Yes and no.
Deadly Damage is 10 Boxes of Damage on your Track.
Basically, complete Track filled at once.
But the TN to resist is still 6, if you do not wear any armor.
Because the actual Power of the Pistol was just 6.
Technically, if you had cheaty dice, you could get along with every kind of damage with just 8 dice for resistance.
Because, technically, you only need to roll 8x(Power of Damage) to resist ANY AND ALL DAMAGE.
So, even if you had 30D damage to resist, you could, in theory, do it with 8 dice . .
But you have to roll five 6's on every last single die again and again. The odds are staggering. And against you.
But it COULD HAPPEN!
This only changes when the Damage Code STARTS at Deadly and THEN the other guy gets net Hits.
Because you need to Reduce Net Hits first, before you can start reducing Damage.

Well, as Stalseele said, there is more to the mechanics of the game than just the dice roll itself. You could make an argument that SR3 is exactly the same as SR4 because they both ask you to roll 6-sided dice pool to gain successes.

My annecdotal evidence is that I have killed several PCs with light pistols, usually flechette to the head, over the course of my years so we can't come to an agreement on that.

My beef with lack of staging is that all the guns feel the same now. Before when a guy pulled out a light pistol and we were armored it was like "no problem guys." He pulls out the medium pistol or the smgs and we start to sweat. When the assault rifles and bigger came out then we knew that it was going to be a brutal fight. With SR4 there is only like 1-2 box difference between each of these classes of guns so seeing a light pistol is as intimidating as seeing a machine gun -- which feels very weird to me. YMMV.

I'm sorry, but I tend to have a vastly different reaction to seeing a Light Pistol as opposed to a Machine Gun. If you are thinking about Boxes of Damage when they come into play, then maybe that is the real issue here.

Except the automatics have a massive advantage: Burstfire/full auto. When a light pistol comes out, I know I might eventually die, but chances are I'll survive a few hits. If an assault rifle, machine gun, or minigun comes out, suddenly I'm keenly aware that a single net success will likely drop me.


Now the differences between a light pistol and heavy pistol, or SMG and HMG aren't as big, but they are there.

Ah, but flechette to the head is a big difference.

I think you're right that the combination of inflated DPs and +net hits to DV makes the individual guns *slightly* (not entirely) unimportant.

But presumably your pistol is modded for BF/FA. The HMGs are hugely nasty, though, with higher DV, better AP, and FA standard; you're not taking stun.

Ironically, I consider this genius from a game development perspective. You get extra damage boxes, but at the same time the shooter gets (a chance at) some secondary effect for being dead on target. Not breaking the skin, but bruising the crap out of you.

Just my opinion, of course

If its not a numeric, i see it as fluff not mechanics. Shamans not being able to summon an air spirit in a building is a setting thing. You may as well say there are Dragons or there are no firearms. A GM could easily let a Shaman summon anything without modifying a rule or make all cyberdecks wireless. Thus why it falls into fluff (for me) Different strokes and all...

Ha, well that's just clearly silly. A non-mage can't summon any spirits, nor astral perceive (without drugs), and that's not numeric. That's what a 'rule' means.

My biggest problem with light pistols was twofold. First, their damage code was pitiful. 6L does not compare to 9M - especially against armored targets. Okay, so then light pistols could be the option when heavy pistols were too conspicuous, right? Only there were several light pistols that had comparable concealability and weight to a light pistol! So that left exactly zero reason to ever get a light pistol, other than gimping yourself for flavor.

SR4 actually did it right - light pistols are more concealable, and do a point less damage - a small enough difference that they are actually something I would realistically consider for a character.