So far, I tend to hook people in by the bags when I mention the part about "oh yeah, and in this cyberpunk world, magic is back...and dragons", to the point that almost everyone wanted to be a magician, lol.

For some reason I tend to lose them when I get to Xenomorphs infesting Chicago and a dragon becoming President, and I haven't the foggiest why...



Aye, the same.

Shadowrun (while it seems goofy upfront) probably has one of the coolest settings in any fictional work that I've ever seen. Why no one would ever want to take a look at the setting puzzles me.

Although I suppose it's part and parcel of the usual paradigm that the players expect the GM to explain everything about the setting to them, and are more concerned about dropping in to play...although I've pointed out to them that if I hand them a copy of the setting synopsis of the game, that should tell them right away that this isn't something that the DM could "just" explain for them...

LOL CanRay!
If the people on the Shinconsen were freaked out, how do you think the people climbing Fuji-san felt?

Having climbed it myself, I can say I would have needed new pants too.

-D

This is actually surprisingly accurate in the case of a couple of people I have played with in the past. It is frustrating, but I have had SO little success in getting them truly invested in the world outside of the bits they interact with.


^And I believe this to be a large part of WHY that has been a symptom of so many of my players....I bet that 4/5 of my players DONT EVEN KNOW WHO DAMIEN KNIGHT IS for example, because hey, they have never had a run directly involving him! Lofwyr and Dunkelzahn are these strange alien dragons who they remember because I hammer it into them that a dragon runs S-K and that Dunky was American President. I have made it policy to demand that all players at least read the "History Lesson for the Reality Impaired" at the beginning of SR4A, but it hasnt always helped. Problem being I was not the first Shadowrun GM some of them had had, and while I know and like that other GM, he has a very....loose....interpretation of the Shadowrun setting (trolls flinging firehydrants at helicopters, anyone?) so now they dont even want to look for any depth because, duh, they've already played the setting of COURSE they know it well enough!

Now, who's gonna be the target audience?

You know, I did mention that later in my post. I know it is an Introductory box, I was more commenting there on whether established groups might want to pick it up -despite- its intended audiencce

I see.

There's Gaming Conventions in my city, so, yes, I'll be picking it up for when I GM games there for folks who straddle up to the table and go, "Oh, Cyberpunk, good! I used to play Cyberpunk 2020..." and I have to explain the difference.

I suspect people are missing the intended audience of the starter box.

There is a ton of other SR-related games coming out... all of them serve to advertise each other as well as the core RPG.

The intended audience isn't the guys who are already buying the core books and know the game inside out and probably don't need anything in the box except from a 'collectors' standpoint. The intended audience is guys who pick up the computer game and are interested in getting their feet wet with the RPG... or the sprawl gangers/battletech sorts coming from the wargamer side of things... or even from the card game.

For those people... the full fledged rulebook is nice... but it assumes a familiarity with RPG's and how they are setup and run in the most general sense. It is also a rules overload for most... when they need a 'rules lite' introduction.

OFF. Gaming Convention in Winnipeg? Who would have thought...

I wonder how useful the starter would be to seasoned players, already familiar with SR.

I wonder how the new Matrix is going to handle AIs and Technomancers. If there is no wireless does that mean all mancers need to have datajacks installed and take a hit to essence? I guess if its just a software change AI's will adapt and technos will just make new complex forms. But if its also a hardware thing, AIs exist only in software, so I assume they'll be okay. But will technomancers have to "evolve" some kind of bio like deck. It shouldn't be a big problem, I guess, seeing how the Otaku were able to access the Matrix without a deck. But it can't just be a software thing because why else would hackers need to make their own decks?

I think they're pretty cool archetypes, I hope they don't become useless.

An AI should probably get relegated back down to NPC-only status (the same for any Infected other than Ghoul as those were before).

Yeah, if there's going to be an "all-digital" character option, I'd rather see a Free Sprite as a PC option. It makes more sense (and less controversy) than having an AI on the loose, and it parallels nicely with the Free Spirit PC.

Oh, thanks for reminding me of another thing that needs shunted back over into NPC-only territory.

I could see it going one of two ways.

1) The Technomancers are the "exception" to the rule. Making them even more special. I.E. Everyone else uses Decks. And Technomancers don't need them. Keeping them a 'fear' in shadowrun.

or

2) The "New Net" is being purposefully put into place to -purposefully- cut Technomancer's out of the threat loop. Where in they'll need datajacks like everyone else (( and the Okatu)).

or

3) Technomancers will need Datajacks. Jus' cuz. No deep overriding reasons. Just because it's the New Net.

Some of the stuff I've read, about them putting out the open challenge to Fastjack and him opening it up to everyone, I remember Netcat saying she was able to get a peek in and at it and it felt weird. I doubt she physically logged in to do so. She used her Technomancer abilities to do so. So.... I'm thinking the Technomancers will be able to access... now if they can run 'leet and as good as hackers/deckers, is yet to be seen.

I'll second the hope that Technomancers aren't just taken out. There's an entire book dedicated to their Emergance and it's not THAT old. To put them in, make them such a big deal and then just sideline them seems... wasteful.

Oh yeah... And it felt "homey" right? I bet the corps reverse engineered the bio node. This will open up technomancers to be hacked and give a fluff reason for the new hardware that doesn't make technos obsolete. That's my theory.

...and I'm going to have a very unhappy player if I have to tell him his AI character has to get killed off "because 5th edition rules say so".

So no, no, no, NO.

NO RETCONS, NO REMOVAL OF PC RACES, FOR ALL THAT'S HOLY, NO!

If they're so bloody overpowered, just rebalance them! No need to get them axed entirely!

Also, nothing has been suggested that they're removing wireless entirely, just that the Matrix is going back to using Grid structure. Plus, it'd be just weird to take a giant step back into wired.

I think it was Dev/grrl that said it felt homey. It stood out as significant because Dev was too young to know the "old" Matrix except through secondary type sources. "I saw it in a book once" type things. (( though even for her I'm sure it was a digital file or something. lol )).

It'll be interesting. I'm very much looking forward to this year's Shadowrun releases. My wallet is gonna hurt but I'll have lots of fun stuff to read.

They're not "overpowered"--in fact for their costs they're probably a bit "underpowered", at least on normal points--but AIs, Infected-other-than-Ghouls and Free Spirits just shouldn't be PC character types.

I don't mind AI's or infected as PC's, they have alot of built in penalties. You just have to make sure you embrace your limitations.

If you don't.. well that's a failure as a player. Not the system.

What makes Ghouls special in terms of playable infected?

...so your issue is not necessarily the mechanics, just the mere concept of them being PC option?

Because if that's the case, I personally don't see a problem in that regard.

AIs and Infected I don't see any reasons why they WOULDN'T become runners, although I admit free spirits are a little bit more sketchy...

...now sapient critters on the other hand?

Well, as much as everyone loves the idea of essentially being Chewbacca, I dunno, it starts to reach unbelievable levels of silly..... (nvm that with one of them, getting sat on by your troll street sam stops being a funny practical joke and becomes a fatal occupational hazard...)

Says who?

If I want to play a Vampire, and you aren't playing in the same game (nor GMing it) ... guess what? You have no say in the matter. None, nicht, nada, zip, zilch, ZERO.

Do not try to mandate your style of play on my games via what is or isn't presented as an entirely optional part of the official rules.

Check out post #1104.

That's a valid opinion (and one I support), but please watch your tone.

.... wait, what tone? That was only "firm", or perhaps "stern". Which, considering that I consider people advocating removign even optional things they are not required to allow in their own games to be "fighting words", is about as retrained as it gets. O_o

I'll have to disagree, since the Free Spirit PC thing actually made a character concept which was not possible in 3E, quite possible. Specifically, my character's dead sister haunting him as a PC. In 3E, we sort of hand-waved it, but with 4E, we built her as a Free Ancestor Spirit PC, and then took the Spirit Pact advantage to have her linked with my character. This way, my sister got to play her character as an actual, legitimate character. Free Spirit PCs aren't bad. We were working on another concept, which involved either a technomantic sniper with an AI companion (I think 'Free Sprite' would work better), or an adept with an AI companion.

My sister doesn't make normal characters...

And by the way, it's up to the GM to say "I want this and not this".

This, right here, is going to ruin 5E faster than anything else.

Without being able to say "X was tried and the rules were crap, and they are unfixable, we need to remove X" the game won't get better.

You don't really expect 'alternative character concepts' to make an appearance in the core rulebook, do you?


Depends. If it's a character concept, it's up to GM AND player to work out a compromise.


Why would you need to retcon for that? And I hope you do realize that 'X was tried and crap' is highly subjective?
Leave optional rules, where they are, IMO. Make them better usable, though. They won't be in the core book either way.

Strangely, I haven't found them unplayable. Perhaps they need to be tweaked slightly, but that's about the extent of it. With 5E, they can refine the races a touch more - though yes, I would like to see Free Sprites, rather than AIs, it makes more sense. I'd also like to see sprite-like 'familiars' for technomancers.

I just saw the SR5 cover artwork - this may be the best since Shadowtech. Great work.

For one thing they don't eat souls, just raw flesh that they don't even need to kill themselves, heck with donors, helpful morgues and possible syntflesh they don't need anyone to be killed.
Ghouls more then any other infected can be viewed as victims of a horrid disease rather then soulless monsters, they look sickly, they lose their vision and it's so virulent that you can contract it just by living in the wrong neighbourhood.
Meanwhile a vampire needs to kill to feed, they need to hunt and they aren't able to and shouldn't be attempted to be reintegrated to society, stake them all!

I'm somewhat ok with the idea of equipment/spell cards, but if they get all Warhammer 3E, I'm going to be upset.

Hands down 100 percent of that information also has to exist in the books, and you can play completely free of any gear/ability/spell card whatsoever.

For example, a wireless matrix. I'm pretty sure that a large number of us agree that it made things more of a headache than things being Not Wireless. Because it ended up being very very difficult for a GM to make isolated systems that didn't compromise usability for actual authorized users, while doing nothing to prevent the already problematic "hack from home" scenario.

Removing wireless from the world WOULD constitute a retcon.

PC races might be what the one poster was saying, but it's that type of response (to any change) I'm worried about. Hence my use of X.

Well, I like wireless, but that discussion has been had before
I don't agree that heavy retconning is necessary. Retconning, after all, means just dialing back to a previous state or a new state and establishing it as the previous state without explanation. I'm not opposed to an evolution in the setting and, in regards to the matrix, the grid thing sounds intriguing, but in my eyes a true retcon would hurt the background and the game more than it would benefit.

I so 100% agree with that... I tried WH3E... it was OK... but I wouldn't stick with it because it's just way too many fiddly bits and tons of wierd dice....

Cards might be OK in a starter set... but preferentially nowhere else.


Also 100% agree... stake the vampires and other sparklies. Chalk them up to fatally flawed rules implementations.

Cards would be all right for a supplementary item that just makes things a bit easier, so long as they weren't required by any means. I see no reason for someone not to have the option of pulling out a 'reminder card' instead of writing down the stuff on their weapon or vehicle (especially vehicle since that's what most sheets seem to be missing, especially enough for a rigger's main vehicle and all his drones).

works with stock stuff, not with modded stuff though.

If it has images with the cards, then you can at least show people what something looks like, even if modded.

I, again, comment about a player that had a hard time figuring out the difference between a revolver and a automatic pistol. "But I don't have automatics." "It's a semi-automatic, one pull, one shot." "Then why did you call it an automatic?" *Headdesk*

Easily remedied
Laminate, marker pen for the back side.

So, wait. Deciding that X or Y company makes extensive use of WiFi blocking paint on all exterior walls, is difficult? Or uses WiFi inhibiting wallpaper, perhaps? And/or, limits the signal range of on-site devices so that you have to be at least halfway across the parking lot to interact with the on-site network?

When did that happen?

Until you realize ECCM works not only against jamming but also shielding paint... power levels can be dialed up... or directional antennas used to increase signal strength. Or a 'commlink' dropped in the parking lot used as a repeater...

Wireless has been more of a hassle than a help.

And that's not even getting into the endless 'hacking cyberware' experiments in stupidity...

It is not...Play testing for the Minis Game has already begun

I think you'll be alright.

ECCM may work to let your commlink get past that blocking paint. Dialling the power/gain up may also work for YOUR transmitter.

But the equipment inside? Doesn't have any of that, and has a low signal rating to boot.

If everything in the facility has a Signal rating no higher than 2, and the whole facility has R3 wifi inhibiting materials on it? Then, as far as anyone outside that facility is concerned, the facility is a complete dead zone.

It's a little thing called mutual signal rating. The connection is limited by the weakest link in the chain - and the facility's gear, is that weakest link.

can you quote that from somewhere?
because i remember that not being the case having been one of the main things the techies cried foul over when the wireless stuff was introduced . .

No, Pax changed his original example in his reply post...

His original stated the signal reached halfway into the parking lot. My point was that wifi-inhibition functions as if it were a jammer as per the rules... so ECCM counters it (I agree, this is not a good outcome). My point was to illustrate how trivial it is to bypass all his 'safeguards'. All it requires is getting an ECCM program program running on one of their own internal nodes.

Really... all you need to do is sneak a microdrone inside the walls and you're set. That's how utterly trivial it is to bypass a wireless security setup. Or simply put a hole in a wall. A suppresed sniper shot for example to put a 1m hole in the wall/roof just long enough to hack... or once again just send a drone with a drill to make a mousehole and act as a repeater for the signals it picks up through it.


Double checked the directional antenna.. it's not worded as clearly as it could have been but it adds to only one side of the mutual range. For some reason I was thinking it added to the signal rating of both or either side like it would in real life (yes directional antennas and antenna gain functions work for amplifying weak signals. You'd count the gain factors any antennas directly against any path attenuation factors such as 'absorbtive paint' if this was real life).


As far as SR5... the mutual range method is a travesty... If I'm signal 6... I'm signal 6 the entire way from 3m out to 10km... It's the reason jammers are such an utter joke (on top of how stupidly effective ECCM programs are). It would work a lot better if for each 'step' the signal rating was reduced by 1. (signal 6 out to 3m, signal 5 out to 40, signal 4 out to 100, signal 3 out to 400, signal 2 out to 1km, signal 1 out to 4km... signal 0 out to 0km).

No, I changed nothing.

I suggested Wifi inhibiting paint of wallpaper, and signal ratings that would only reach halfway to the parking lot (say, the systems in the security checkpoint at the front of the lobby).



DEVICE A: Hacker's commlink. Signal 5, ECCM 5.

----- intervening Wireles Inhibiting material, Rating 3 -----

DEVICE B: Interior camera watching random side entryway. Signal 2, ECCM 0.

...

Signals from A --> B: effective Signal 5 (5 original, versus (3-5) 0 effective ECCM)

Signals from B --> A: effective Signal -1 (2 original, versus (3-0) 3 effective ECCM)

Mutual signal range does not and can not exist.

An ECCM program running on yoru commlink, does not help the camera you want to hack into.


1m? A 3.28-foot hole? And you think that won't be quickly noticed? The sound of the wall BREAKING isn't suppressed.

Mutual signal range is not a "travesty" it is quite clear, and it is what prevents the "hack from home".

I'm not going to use the actual ranges here because I don't have them memorized, but bear with it for the following example.

Signal 5 (let's say 2 miles) for the Hacker's comm-link.

Signal 3 (let's say 1/2 mile) for the node to be hacked.

Under this example, assuming good conditions (no wi-fi blocking paint or a good ECCM) the Hacker would have to be within 1/2 mile from the node to be hacked to get in.

Mutual signal range does not prevent the hack from home... all you need is a repeater node.

If you don't have mutual signal range it uses up a subscription to route through the wireless matrix. Mutual only means direct connect with no intervening nodes.

All it takes is to get a repeater in... or fix it so something inside can reach out. Mini and microdrones being great for this purpose.


Pax: I said somehow get ECCM running on one of their nodes inside... not outside. So that you can stealthily hack from safety later without another break-in.

IE: drop a cell phone in stealth mode with good eccm inside the building while doing something else (good job for your face). Even better set it on timer so it'll only turn on at say 1am when everyone is gone and you're primed to hack.