Hello everyone.

I recently setted up a playing group for Shadowrun. We started playing with 2nd edition, without any supplement manual (as unfortunately in my country, they discontinued printing shadowrun 2nd edition after the core book).

After some sessions, I decided to upgrade to 3d edition (having instead all the supplements for it). I'm still learning how to properly make 3d edition rules work, and as I've read there's even a 4th edition core book with the 2050/2060 setting I was thinking: Is it worth to upgrade to 4th edition? I am myself a big fan of the original Shadowrun game system concerning combat, magic and creatures. I cannot say the same about vehicle combat and the matrix. So I'm looking for advices before buying the 4th edition manuals.

well... unfortunatly i never got into the SR 2 and SR3 games, ( I never heard of SR untill I was 16, and no one within 45 mins played it that I knew ) but as for what I think about SR4, personally I love it, there may be a few bugs with it but overall I greatly enjoy the freedom at chargen, I haven't played too many games but the ones I did play seemed to go fairly smoothly. but I cant give you pros and cons of both. :/ sorry

I'd say no, its not worth it.

SR4 is kind of a broken system with lots of sloppy and generic rules and inconsistencies thrown in. It WORKS, but it needs quite a bit of GM-fu and playing it loose to shore up parts that don't make sense or are only fully detailed in an expansion book that you kick yourself later for not reading, and then kick yourself for wondering why its not in the main book.

Like jamming. You just can't do it without unwired. In the core book, literally the only action you can do with jammers without unwired is to turn it on and hope it autojams other nearby networks.

Don't mistake me, its FUN, and DOES streamline some stuff - hacking especially - but it comes at the cost of a familiar, comprehensive system that you can do pretty much anything in. At least, that was what one of the other players in the group said - knocks against 4th are a lack of Rigger 4, and the matrix being way more "magical" than the astral stuff.
It also suffered from a trainwreck in the form of the coleman scandal right when the writers were trying to introduce a bunch of supplemental awesome material and shore up holes and things that never got ported from 3rd or covered in the last decade of timeline progress.
And the ball basically never recovered after it was dropped like that.

There's also the issue of support and rules fixes. The current administration at CGL doesn't believe in fixing their rules, and has anti-errata policies. Augmentation is six years old and hasn't recieved clarifications, missing costs, missing ratings, and incomplete gear descriptions. Basically they don't give a damn about fixing core products and just shit out new splat books. Some are even decent(i liked attitude's background AND gear, but the layout of new gear was shit and completely alien to the rest of the books, and way of the adept is fantastic), but most kinda....aren't. War! was spectacularly badly recieved.

I'm not really familiar with third edition myself, but what I've heard of it makes me think its a lot better in general. From on-topic research to depth of content to rules for in-game situation, and filling in the background with details.

Honestly, I'd borrow the 4th edition core book and read it over. It has some interesting things to rip off and incorporate into a game running on a previous edition, but I think you would get a superior game running a 4th ed setting on 3rd engines.
Also, seattle 2072 is a fantastic setting book for 4th - but you should compare it with the material you know from 3rd and see if its something you like.
In general, i think the general concensus is that 4th setting expansion books just aren't as good as the ones in third - i hear Shadowbeat and Target: Wastelands mentioned somewhat frequently when the topic comes up.

That being said, PDF's from online e-tailers are cheap, or even free if you're going the less than legal route.

Basically look into it, try playing some basic play by post games to get a feel for it. RPG.net has some good Actual Play threads for shadowrun 4e. This one comes to mind, as well as lost demiurge's threads. I know there's a few threads continuing the story of the same characters, but I was feeling lazy on my googling.
Look into it, but don't waste your money.

Does that help?

Basically I'd advice you not to dump a bunch of money on something so outdated u

My picture of 4th is a little rosier than Udoshi's - the problems with the rules aren't an issue as long as your group will accept the GM's interpretation (at least until the session is over). He is right about the quality of some of the newer books and the lack of errata is... irksome but some of the writers put out excellent stuff just reading the posts on this forum will give you a good idea of which ones are worth buying. As to whether it is worth upgrading if you have all the 3E stuff I'll let the people who have played both answer that.

I'd say Yes, its definitely worth it.

SR3 is kind of a broken system with lots of sloppy and generic rules and lots of inconsistencies thrown in. It WORKS, but it needs quite a bit of GM-fu and playing it loose to shore up parts that don't make sense or are only fully detailed in an expansion book that you kick yourself later for not reading, and then kick yourself for wondering why its not in the main book.

Don't mistake me, its FUN, - but it comes at the cost of a familiar, comprehensive system that you can do pretty much anything in. At least, that was what I and most of the other players in my groups say-

There's also the issue of support and rules fixes.There will be no more Erratta for the 3rd ed so You have to fix alot by Yourself

I was really familiar with third edition myself, but what I've seen and played myself makes me know its a lot worser in general.
Honestly, I'd borrow the 4th Anniversary edition core book and read it over
It has some interesting things to rip off and incorporate into a game running on a previous edition, but I think you would get a superior game running a 3rd ed setting with 4A Rules

Get the PDF or Deadwood BBB and compare it with the material you know from 3rd and see if its something you like.
Basically I'd advice you not to dump a bunch of money on something so outdated like the 3rd Ed, but You've already got most of the Stuff ,so I'd advise You to check out the new 4A Edition and compare it with the old SR3.
best would be to get a Friend who hasn't yet played neither Version to read it too.
His opinion should be more on a Neutral base

with a Mirror Dance
Medicineman

Of course, it depends a lot on what you and your group like.

How about this? Get the SR4 Quick Start Rules (for free) (here; probably requires registering) and give it a try before deciding whether you want to buy it.

I think that 4th edition is the best edition of Shadowrun so far. It has more streamlined rules and most importantly, the dice system actually works as intended now (with the number of successes (or hits as they are called now) being most important, not what your highest single success is, as it often was in SR2/SR3).

Yes, it isn't perfect, but it works and the few rough edges are easily taken care of with a little experience and/or house rules.

Beyond the Quick Start Rules, the Core rulebook (SR4 Anniversary Edition; PDF only costs $15) is all you need for starters. Unlike previous editions it is a pretty complete package (including Bioware, Initiation, etc).

The five main rule supplements (Arsenal, Augmentation, Runner's Companion, Street Magic, Unwired; PDF only cost $12 each) are the next logical step, giving you a lot more options in every direction.

Everything beyond those 6 books is completely optional, really.

Bye
Thanee

I could not possibly agree more with Udoshi about this.

Normally I do like my fair share of disagreeing, so that really means something.


While i would say that SR4 is the best SR so far (I played 3e -> variable TNs are no good), it's really BAD still. After a certain period of time you spend with the rules, you begin to see all the mistakes in the books - that indeed never get fixed at all. It's no fun anymore after that point.
While i love the setting, SR4 should basically be replaced by SRDE, the Shadowrun Dumpshock Edition. Honestly, there are quite a few people active around here that i see would make GREAT authors of a new rules system. Much better than the current ones definetely.
Especially when reading supplementary rules, it becomes clear that the SR guys don't know their own rules at all. Have a look at the example characters in the BBB or the Street Legends characters for induced facepalming.

So yes, I advise you against putting any money in this system at all, that in software terms would correctly be described as "legacy".
And i do this although it hurts me to say it, because Shadowrun in itself is awesome as we all know.

Shadowbeat is amazing, but to give credit where it's due, it was from First Edition, not Third. That said, Editions 1-3 are much more similar to each other (in both rules and setting) than any of them are to Fourth.


You didn't actually read this when you were swapping out the 4E references for 3E ones, did you?

Anyway, the answer is no. Issues with book quality aside (since I stopped buying SR4 books after the core), the fundamental mechanics are broken and unfixable—static TN in particular is a disaster, as is the omnipresence of hard caps required to support it.

~J

I find Shadowrun 4th Edition to be very fun, both as a Gamemaster and a player. I've played in games where all we used is the core edition and non-minmaxed characters, and in games where the players have made it an all day activity to optimize their characters with every supplement sitting on the table. Had awesome times in either game.

I completely disagree with this. Static TN should have been there from the very beginning (we used them back in SR2 already with a pretty extensive set of house rules). It is by far the better system to modify the dice pool and not the target number (because of the weird probability issues that have always plagued SR in the past editions).



I also don't think those are absolutely necessary. But the current system is build that way (esp. to limit magic, can't think of any other relevant hard caps right now, so I guess "omnipresence" is a bit of an exaggeration here).

Bye
Thanee

You didn't actually read this when you were swapping out the 4E references for 3E ones, did you?
Of Course I did.
I tried to be as correct as possible while staying in the context

but I wrote this


and thats the sad Truth

static TN in particular is a disaster,
hmmm. I consider a variable TN (especially 6-->7 ) stupid !
I wouldn't call it a Disaster but now I wouldn't play with a variable TN anymore

with a Dance within the Context
Medicineman

WTF, someone thinking variable TNs are a good thing. I must be wrong here. Really, just ask your math teacher about it.

First who likes variable TN's? Second ask me what?

It isn't, is the thing. Although it has many merits, I sadly cannot disagree with it being kind of broken, sloppy, and inconsistent—which is why I cut out those things and left the part that isn't the truth, which is the claim of the rules being generic. SR3 is a veritable poster child for tailoring the rules to the setting rather than being generic.


6=7 is an issue orthogonal to static/variable TN—it can be trivially fixed by adding 5 instead of 6 for each explosion, the reason almost no one does that is that there are three whole editions worth of material with TNs set assuming the probability curve of the 6=7 approach. Much like Frank Trollman's argument that in SR4 a success should have been 4+ rather than 5+ isn't a criticism of static TN, 6=7 is no criticism of variable TN.

Don't get me wrong, I love SR3, but in my work on the SR3R Project I'm continually astounded with the things that no one managed to get right, especially things like 6=7 where they had two edition changes in which to do so.


Attributes and skills?

They are absolutely necessary. In the absence of hard caps you get Immunity to Normal Modifiers, where pools grow but possible penalties don't. This has all been extensively discussed; check the posts from around the time SR4 was released.


The main "weird probability issue" is 6=7, which as noted above is far from fundamental. The narrowness of the "easy band" at the bottom of the TN scale is troublesome, but is a historical artifact of the last-minute change from using D10s to D6s—and there's at least one way to soften the curve without changing it back, at the cost of rerolling more dice.


Which one? Discrete, real analysis, or linear algebra?

~J

Thanks everyone for the answers.

I may say that if I were confused, now I am more

I definitely see the points against and pro SR3 that you discussed. As for me, a variable TN is not that bad to deal with (6-->7 is different in SR3, when you have 6 or less TN, you roll new dices for every natural 6 rolled, and those dices are not summed, they are new free dices.) but I understand having a fixed TN of 5 is definitely less confusing.

My group won't complain an edition upgrade, what made me thinking about it is mainly the Vehicle and Matrix rules, that I'm not a fan of.

Erm? Attributes are hard capped in all editions of Shadowrun and it has nothing to do with the dice system, really.

Skills... I don't think a cap is really necessary for them. It's there, and that's fine, but it isn't necessary because of the system.



Well, and why is that a problem? If you are good, you should be able to do your stuff even with a regular level of negative modifiers.

Problems here are more in the detail not in the system. Stuff like social test modifiers, for example, adding up way too much.



Actually, the 6=7 is just a quirk and no biggie.

The big problem is how a single +1 modifier changes the probability in drastically different ways depending on your starting TN (i.e. the TN you would have without that modifier).

Going from 5 to 6 is a 50% decrease in probability. Going from 9 to 10 is just a marginal decrease. Going from 2 to 3 is also a lot less (though still more than 9 to 10).

It is just completely weird, probability-wise.

Bye
Thanee

This isn't actually the case. Although various people have houseruled things like this in, in canon it has never been possible to get more than one success on a single die.


What's the matter with the vehicle rules, other than the fact that they make Riggers a military-grade archetype in a street-level game? Not to say that that isn't a problem, but drone mobility isn't good enough to make the rest of the team obsolete unless you insist on placing all opposition outdoors or near a window.



Granted.


The problem isn't "a regular level of negative modifiers", it's being able to reliably shoot things at extreme range while hanging upside-down in total darkness without vision modifiers. I think Critias gave the classic example.


Static TN exhibits similar behaviour for all thresholds other than 1.

~J

Well, the vehicle rules in SR4 are a mess as well. But well ... Vehicle stuff has always been kind of the red-headed stepchild of SR, so that's no big surprise. It probably will keep being very abstract, even in a (hypothetical) SR5.
Matrix is, IMO much more usable than it was in earlier editions, even if you need a lot of suspension of disbelief
I can't say much about how Matrix is handled in SR2050, as I only read the book but haven't 'playtested' it yet, but it looks streamlined with an oldschool feeling.

As for the rules differences ... It's really just a matter of personal preference. I much, _much_ prefer the streamlined rules of SR4, as it gives me more flexibility. I've played SR from the very start of SR2 and I think that SR3, while having a solid system, suffered a lot from evolving organically. What I mean with this, is that there are a LOT of different rules and situations you need to memorize to play it, while SR4 gives you the tools to just eyeball it if you're unsure. Being an improvisational player and GM myself, I like that about SR4.
However, if you already play SR3, I don't really see a reason for a full switch. You can still use the SR4 setting books and adventures (and some of them are really good, while others ... not so much) with a little work.
Switching editions can be a financial hassle, as well. While it isn't as expensive as it was with PDF rulebooks, it's still an investment of a few dollars (or whatever currency is used where you come from ).

Variable TNs are dumb? Uh, no. They still exist is nearly every game out there, just in the form of modifiers, which SR1-3, as well as some different starting TNs for ranged combat. You guys sound a little like the people who couldn't understand THAC0 was simple addition and subtraction. There is a reason systems like Fate/Dresden are more for storytelling games than games like SR.

My thoughts are if you have the SR3 books, use those. The SR4 stuff is hit or miss in alot of cases, and even the good books (and I think there are several), they are hurt by the errata problems and general neglect, IMO.

That being said, my problems with SR4 are more flavor and feel than mechanics. Crap like trodes being as good as a datajack and the lameness of all spirit summoning being the same, etc.

I haven't yet played 4th edition (even if the books are bought already) but the core 2nd/3rd edition mechanism is statistically flawed every time you just don't roll opposed tests.

When you just need 1 success to succeed at your task, here are roughly the chances to succeed with 5 dices to roll:

SR 4 SR 5 SR 6 SR 7 SR 8 SR 9 SR 10 SR 11 SR 12
97% 87% 60% 60% 53% 45% 35% 25% 13%

Succeeding an impossible task at 35% is quite too much.

Now let's say that two guys oppose each other as a test at difficulty 4 with 5 dices. It's a 50/50 chance. Now give one a Light Wound:

TN4 character win the contest 59% of times.
It's a draw at 21% of times.
Light wounded wins 19% of contests.

To make it simple: there's an awfull inconsistancy when you roll with no opposition where the statistics fits better to a pulp like game.
As soon as the tests are opposed, the game get really gritty.


If you use mostly opposed tests, it works well. If you ask a threshold for non-resisted tests, it corrects the "pulp-style" glitch. The thing is: it's complicated to decide whether you should increase the TN or highten the Threshold and what affects the outcome more.

As long as the system is built around those probabilities, what's the problem? I'm not a believer that every action should have a linear difficulty necessarily either.

The core mechanics changes between 3rd and 4th actually make shadowrun a very different game. Differences are orders of magnitude higher than when going from 2nd to 3rd edition.

If, as you say, you are a huge fan of shadowrun 2nd and 3rd combat system and magic, then you might be a lot disappointed by 4th edition, depending on what you exactly like, as going from variable to fix TN changes it a lot. As some suggested you should really take a look at it before changing.

Magic is also different by the fact that there are less differences between the traditions.



He said it was pretty much okay. Then I asked about fix TNs. And he laughed.

No, there's not, as most of the time, you roll opposed test and success test for very different tasks.

The real problem is they felt the need of saying TN10 was near impossible and skill 8 was world class.

EDIT : + if you think this is a problem for 3rd edition, I really don't see how it is not a problem for 4th edition.

That is an extreme case of min-maxing then. That stuff exists in every edition of Shadowrun (and any other game system; well, maybe apart from the Amber DRPG).



Absolutely not. Thresholds are fixed for a given task, they are not variable. The modifiers are applied to the number of dice you roll.

Removing one die lowers your chance to make it by a similar amount regardless of the circumstances (extreme cases exist, of course, where that one die makes it impossible to make it, since dice pool gets lowered below the threshold).

Bye
Thanee

There are some extreme feelings on this issue, heh. SR4 has its problems, that is a fact, however I would vehemently disagree to any statement of "unfixable" or the like. The system is simple, sometimes the book is vague, so the answer to your question is actually another question, "Can you (or whoever is GMing) feel comfortable making on-the-fly calls based upon logic, what you know of the world, and/or cinematics?"

My personal feeling is that the more rules-lawyer oriented you are, the less you'll like 4E, but that's just MHO.

As for the 2050 book, its really nice, it makes the Matrix look like 1/2E (can't speak for 3E, never played), but it doesn't largely change things with rigging, at least no more than 4E itself does, and the basic mechanics for hacking are still more or less the same.

Errr… The best shooter in the world with max attribute and specialization has got 15 dice. Running in pitch black, he can nail an unaware person he detects at extreme range one out of three times. Give him a light wound, and he is pointless.

I'll agree with this post. I didn't play SR3 much, but ran a 4 year campaign in SR2 and then off and on. After playing SR4A for the last three years, I'd say it is the best yet.

Compared to SR2, SR4A streamlined the matrix rules, got rid of the searching for sixes rules, developed and implemented a decent "extended test system" that allowed players to take breaks and 1 did not let them know when they'd finnish until the last test. Character creation still allows for starting PC's to be seasoned runners, no more million dollar "why am I running the shadows" complaints. Hacking got cheaper. Also the searching for 6's problem got resolved by fixing the target numbers. Also glitches are now more likely.

Style differences:
Commlinks replaced decks for hacking.
Wireless replaced the wires (for the most part).
Transhumanism replaced Cyborgs (Bioware, nanoware, genetech are prefered over cyber).
Rules need less cruchy--you can as GM usually just eyeball the situation. Some groups will like this, others will hate it.




Good news about switching editions is the fluff is still the same (mostly). They gave up trying to retcon it to our timeline.

At static TN 5, looking for 4 successes:
8 dice: ~25.87%
7 dice: ~17.33%
6 dice: ~10.01%
5 dice: ~4.53%
4 dice: ~1.24%

7 dice have ~67% the chance of success that 8 dice do, 6 dice ~58% the chance that 7 do, 5 ~42% of 6, and 4 ~27% of 5. That's hardly what I'd call a "similar amount".


Only in the presence of hard caps. Without them, it's simply the natural consequence of repeatedly improving a skill.


When I say that it's unfixable, I'm not saying that it has lots and lots of different problems (it does, but that's a different matter). What I'm saying is that the basic, fundamental fixed-TN modifiers-affect-pool mechanic is unsound, and that because all other rules are built on top of that mechanic there's no change you can make to fix the problem. I will grant that I'm excluding "liberal amounts of case-by-case GM fiat" as qualifying as a "fix", but if you're willing to go that route why pay someone to write rules for you in the first place?


This isn't actually the case. Above and beyond things like the implications the crunch has for the fluff (in the presence of hard caps, especially the way in SR4 they're reachable at chargen, you can have a character that is as good as FastJack out of chargen), and granting that the fluff shift started in the tail end of 3rd edition, the worlds presented simply don't resemble each other. To give one example, governmental power has been seriously amped up relative to corporations, to the point where Seattle can actually get away with firing Lone Star.

~J

Probability Theory, actually

I'd considered listing prob&stats, but honestly that was mostly continuous probability and discrete distributions that are irrelevant to our situation—for a bunch of discrete random variables with uniform distribution, they covered everything I needed to know in discrete and combinatorial mathematics.

~J

What you are looking at is the chance to succeed at a very specific task.

What I am talking about is the amount of "ability" you lose when you lose one die.

For the expected amount of hits you will score, that is always the same. 1/3.

Of course, if your pool is smaller to begin with, the modifiers will hit you harder. But if you plot a curve here, it will look rather uniform.

If you do the same for the SR3 system for, say, 6 dice vs. TNs 2-8, it will not look quite so neat.

And that does not even take into account, that under the SR3 system you also have thresholds.

Bye
Thanee

Not if modifiers reduce your pool to zero. Then other modifiers are useless.

And 1/3 of a hit is not at all the same amount for the guy with 12 dice than for the guy with 3 dice. Especially when you talk about "chances to make it".

All editions of SR have their issues. SR4 solved some of issues that earlier editions had, and created some new ones. It comes down to a matter of personal preference over which of the issues bother you the most.

If you had no books for either SR3 or SR4 I would recommend SR4 if only because there are still new sourcebooks coming out, but since you already have the SR3 books its a tougher call. I think the earlier editions have a clear advantage in the writing and the fluff, but you can always use the SR4 rules with the older edition fluff.

But expected successes is rarely what you care about, and essentially never the only thing you care about. Take the following two cases, both TN 5:

3 dice, Threshold 1: ~70.37%
9 dice, Threshold 3: ~62.28%

In both cases you expect the number of successes required to meet the threshold, but the actual chance of success is significantly different.


Which is the the issue you ascribed to variable TNs—the same penalty can have a different impact based on the details of when it's applied.


Look at those goalposts move!

~J

If we're going 'Best in the world', 15 is lowballing it by a significant amount. Without getting into theorycrafting, and trying to avoid the inevitable e-peen contest of who can come up with the most broken character by assuming the GM is a complete moron...

7 Agility
6 Skill
2 Spec
6 Adept Powers
2 Smartlink
Hawkeye quality
Blindfire adept power

You're looking there at 23 dice for the 'best', who can hit a dodging invisible acrobat at several hundred yards with ease.

At extreme ranges of play, SR4 breaks down. With no cap on the presence of magic, SR4 breaks down at moderate ranges of play. I still like it a lot, and think it's pretty fun.

Probably my mistake. I was suggesting something like today's "best in the world" in order to avoid arguments such as "yes but with magic and cyber you should be able to do crazy stuff". By the rule as published, unaugmented mundane humans can pull out some really crazy shoot, contrary to the suggestion that you needed a lot of min-maxing to obtain such crazy result.

But maybe a GM who lets you play such a perfectly legit unaugmented mundane human with a nude rifle is a moron ^^ .

Thats's pretty much my stance too. As said, vehicle rules aren't anything to write home about and while SR4 may have an edge in matrix rules, that is dependent on how important interacting with the matrix is to your group. I was also in a similar situation when SR4 came out. I got the core book, but ultimately decided that buying the rest wasn't worth the money and time since our houseruled version of SR3 worked reasonably well for our purposes and SR4 would have required putting again at least as much effort into houserules.

Because writing things around those probabilities means the system doesn't scale very intuitively in general. SR4 has scaling problems as well but many of them are tied into the combat system and the move away from a proportional damage system. Fixing that would be a ton of work, but even so it's less fundamentally problematic than having such a swingy core mechanic.


Anyway, I wouldn't go with SR4 just because there's still material being printed for it. From about Runner's Companion onwards much of it isn't worth the paper it's printed on--you'd need quite the Con pool to convince me to pay money to check out further releases.

So the basic point of contention is fixed versus floating TNs?

As some one who's not a math nerd would I even notice?

Depends on your playstyle, IMO, Thanos.
Someone earlier summed it up pretty well: If you play fast and loose and eyeball it, you probably will stumble over a few flaws in both systems, but won't notice the loopholes. If you min-max a lot and play very close to RAW, you will notice the weaknesses. This is, I found, a generalization that works for each and every RPG I've come across, though. SR4 has its weaknesses, as does SR3. They are just different.
Whether you build a peasant railgun in D&D, a Mach 3 runner in SR3 or a pornomancer in SR4, all of these cases are IMO fringe cases.

So if no one min/maxs it shouldn't be a problem?

Heh.
Of course you can run into problems. It's just that they aren't as apparent as when you try to test the limits of the rules system

Min-maxing highlights things in both cases but ultimately it's about picking your poison when it comes to the editions. 4e is weird because an individual die doesn't affect your odds that much and so advancement options rarely look OP in a vacuum. Hell, doubly so if you're converting from SR3--a lot of character defining stuff that shifted Target Numbers was ported over as a straight dice pool modifier, and I shouldn't have to tell anyone that going from 5 dice to 6 dice is way less exciting than dropping your TN down a notch. But in aggregate and combined with Edge use people can totally get a crazy go nuts pile of successes. Rocking about dozen dice on a firearms test simply isn't that weird a thing for a Street Samurai to be doing and so you need to get used to accepting the notion that players can and will occasionally decide to re-roll their misses in order to slap down 6-8+ successes and murderate someone super hard.


SR3 is weird because the goalposts move around like whoa as the TN shifts from 5 to 8 and so the addition or removal of any one given modifier can literally be a life or death moment for any given (n)pc.

In short, I really feel like it's a frying pan vs fire situation and find it a li'l weird that people tend to be so partisan on the subject.

No. Fixed vs. floating does, however, have the advantage of being both important (as everything else is built on top) and relatively amenable to objective analysis.

Again, if you want an overview of all of the issues, look at the board archives for… I'd say 3-6 months before and 4-8 months after the release of SR4. To say that things have been discussed to death might be an understatement.


Depends on how closely you're paying attention. It would certainly affect you, but people played WoD back when TN 10 meant chance of success was independent of how many dice you were rolling. Hell, before I repented I would often dispense with dice entirely and just fiat everything in games I ran.

~J

I started playing Shadowrun back in First Edition. Didn't really care for it as it was complicated and it took a while to 'get-it'. Once I did, running games became easy enough. Once SR2 came out, we immediately shifted over to it after we saw how much they streamlined things and got rid of variable staging that SR1 had (OMG, that needlessly complicated things).

SR3 seemed to be a rehash of SR2 so I didn't get much of it. Got into SR4 and truthfully, I found myself wishing for SR2. It made more sense and was better in that it was more well-rounded. The quality of game material / content was higher than SR4. Not to mention retooling SR4 stuff for SR2's system isn't that difficult. SR2 was rather modular. Our group was also toying around with using D10s instead of D6s. We didn't get far in testing that idea (we didn't have that many D10s is part of it) though our initial discussions seemed to point that it would have worked well enough, especially if we made sure to use all applicable modifiers.

My biggest pet peeve with SR4 is how vague the rules are. IMO, some of the rules are vague unless you know how that section worked in a previous edition in which case, those rules make sense. An edition should be self-standing. It should NOT require knowledge of a previous edition to make sense of it. Some of the stuff in the Magic sections is like this (Astral stuff in particular).

SR4A is fun. it's very flexible however it is not as tight as the D20 system. There huge gaps in the rules, that the GM needs to fill in. I do however love shadowrun. I do hope that one day, it gets brought by a more proper RPG company like paizo or green ronin.

To my limited knowledge, the infamous D&D 4.0 system is indeed the closest you get to having a "full fledged" rule system. But it requires a grid. And could be played easier at a PC

This is very wrong. 4e is weird because the effect of an individual dice (a modifier) can range from pointless to saving your life. If your dice pool has been reduced to almost nothing, getting a +1 rises your odds a lot. If your dice pool is 18 dice, getting a +1 doesn't mean anything. And I don't see any ways to correct it. Going from a pool of 1 to 2 gives you 100% more hits. Going from a pool of 10 to 11 gives you 10% more hits.

In SR3, people liked the fact that whatever your skill, going from TN9 to TN10 lowered your successes the same way. It was clearly weird that going from TN5 to TN6 didn't mean the same as going from TN6 from TN7, but it was the same whether your were a beginner or world class. Raising TN by 1 actually gives you on average about 25% less success, at best 0% less and at worst 50% less. There are ways to shorten those two extreme values. In my game, it goes from 16% to 33%.

I don't see why people wouldn't be partisan about it. You see it as frying pan vs fire, but to some people, the weird of edition X is minor stuff compared to the weird of edition Y.

The biggest problem I always had with the TN modifiers is, that it negates the core concept of the dice system, which is roll x dice vs TN y and count your successes. The more successes you get, the better.

It only really works (as it is meant to), if tests are unmodified or there are extremely low modifiers.

Once you get to TN 6+ the chances to roll multiple successes quickly become nonexistant.

And you get there really quick, so this is true for the vast majority of rolls you make.

Hence the system degenerates to roll x dice vs TN y and you succeed if you get 1 success.

Thus, the dice system fails to do what it intends to do.

Not to mention that moving from TN 5 to 6 has the same effect on your chance to succeed as moving from TN 6 to 10. In both cases your chance is halved.

It is not for everyone, obviously, but I am much happier with the new edition and its quirks. It has different problems, but it catches the spirit of the Shadowrun rules system much better IMHO.

Bye
Thanee

What do you mean with "full fledged" in this context?

Bye
Thanee