Well metagaming VS real-life scenarios/logic can be a fickle thing, since the stuff you can do in real life is inherently broken and unbalanced if you try to apply game logic.

"Overpowered" is about interactions with the rest of the system, not what can be done in reality.

The thing is, I prefer my games to have some internal consistency, and if you're playing a game set on 'Earth', with the elements of the world that is available around us, then I want to be able to access these elements in a manner which makes sense in an in-world context. Fantasy games can place some limitations on the actions available to PCs, but when you start dealing with modern or futuristic settings, there's more options available to the players.

That's one reason why I keep an eye out for what's happening in technology - I like to see what exists, and where we're headed. I also keep an eye on movies, to get inspired for new ideas that I can bring into my SR game. For example, I had a PC gain temporary access to a gun similar to what they had in the new Dredd movie. It had four different ammunition clips, and allowed the PC to cycle through them with her smart link. The player absolutely loved the gun, and I was even able to explain how it could cycle the bullets to ensure no waste of ammunition. It isn't that far-fetched to figure out how to make it work, considering the technology available in SR.

---

But the thing is, I don't see any of this as 'broken' or 'imbalanced'. I'm able to run a game where all the characters get their time to shine, everyone has fun, and I can still make any scenario challenging for the PCs. That, in and of itself, means that nothing the PCs have is 'broken' or 'imbalanced'. It isn't the job of the game itself to tell me what's broken, or to try to keep my players in line. That's my job. The setting is there to tell me how the world looks, and the mechanics are there to tell me how to navigate the setting. For a game this complex, no game engine is going to be able to keep things 'balanced'. There's just too many moving parts, and the more mechanics you add, the more there will be avenues for unevenness. This isn't a bad thing, as far as I'm concerned. I want my players to make characters they enjoy, that fit in the setting.

Case in point: My character, Koryo. He's a dark elf shinto priest (fox shaman), with a dead sister who is haunting / possessing him (free spirit, ancestor type). Obviously the build is very complex, and a bit strange, but it fits the game setting nicely. Is it unbalanced? Well, considering that she's possessing him, meaning his attributes can increase significantly, it might be seen as such. Does it break the game? Not really -- it provides some very unique opportunities for roleplay in the Shadowrun universe. We get to look at the world from a Shinto mindset (being Shinto myself, this is fairly easy), we get to look at how society deals with possession, we get to look at it from the spirit world, and ask the question of whether this free spirit IS my character's sister, or just a spirit that thinks it is. It brings up a lot of discussions in game from different people, looking at the situation from multiple perspectives, and it limits who would hire my character as he gains reputation. He had to learn how to mask his aura fairly early into the game, and his sister can be somewhat ruthless when she's taken over the body, which also has an impact on his reputation and interaction with others. Then there's the shape-shifting spell which they developed, so that she can look like herself when she's active, and the questions that raises. Then there's his mentor spirit (Tamamo no Mae), and her demand for retribution against those who have wronged him (such as his original mentor, who sacrificed his sister).

On the surface, it is 'you made an elf, shaman, with a free spirit possessing you to pump your attributes'. But it is how the game master and the player use the concept that determines whether or not the character is 'imbalanced' or 'broken'. If it is something the game master and player can use to make the game more fun and more interesting, then that's fine. Nothing says all characters have to be created equal (not that this is possible), or that as the game progresses the characters need to be 'on par' -- either with each other, or with the threats they're going to face. The more a player understands how the game works, setting-wise, how technology works and how the magic of the setting works, the more they'll be able to use it. There's no way to 'balance' that, except by how the game is played.

Just to clarify my standpoint a little, since I had someone asking me about this off forum...

1) *I* personally, as a Gamemaster, hate any and all creation systems.

Mostly because for a long time I was part of a very extended Shadowrun gaming group that acted as something of a mini-living campaign, with 4 different GMs and about 20 players who mixed and matched group compositions depending on who was around at any give time. We had some seriously min-maxing, munchy, pwoer-gaming, and outright cheating players in those groups, and a couple GMs were MUCH more lax about what they let in than others (And said abusive players, well, abused that).

Mostly this, but also partly because I generally "control" the game and power level through how much karma and money my players earn. I pace my games. And when players can bypass some of that pacing because they find a way to buy/obtain things for a fraction of what they should have to pay, I find it annoying. Especially when other characters don't have the same luxury of taking a shortcut. It creates an imbalance for me.

But this is a personal bias, purely. And is something I can deal with as a GM, because I set the ground rules. (Unless I'm stuck in a floating player game, in which case, I just have to roll with it).

2) As a writer, I like balance.

Cost. Availability. Features. These are all ways an item is balanced. So if there are ways to change up these numbers in a way that's not balanced, it bugs me. SR3's gun system was more than a little loose with it's "final cost" function, so as mentioned above it was stupid easy to create guns that were better in every way than the off the shelf guns, and yet still came out to be cheaper. It was a very bad system because of that.

So if you're going to create a system, you need to build one that replicates some version of game and design balance rather than pure "realism". If one slider goes up, another goes down. You can up the damage, but the gun costs more. Increase the ammo size, but the availability goes up. Etc. Sure, some folks can build an entire gun in their backwoods cabin out of 20 bucks in scrap metal and a $100 lathe. They're also likely to someday be in a standoff with the FBI. But that's neither here nor there. The problem is, we're playing a game, and games have rules, rules are there for a balance measure.

3) As a Designer, I too like balance, but like options as well.

And this is where things come together, IMO. The game has to be written for EVERYONE. The rules, the core rules, the baseline rules, need to be designed with every playstyle and personality and preference in mind. Which is a nigh impossible task. BUT! You can do things like include OPTIONS. I love Options. Options make my life as a Writer, a GM, a Designer, and the Missions Developer so much easier. Because it lets me pick and choose what is right for whatever I'm doing at that moment.

So for me, ideally, we create a baseline creation system that includes plenty of options, but every option has a cost. So if you want to build a custom supergun of doom, you can. But it's exactly that, custom. Which means it's going to cost an arm and a leg. This methods lets everyone benefit equally.

Then you have several options:

A) Mass Production.

YOu have a cost multiplier that is applied to the final cost of the item that brings the price calculated above down to 50% or 25% or whatever of the SUpergun Prototype cost. This represents the savings for mass production, and means the weapons is widely available to everyone (Including the NPCs. Hope it wasn't too min-maxed.)

B) Home Production

This would require creation facilities and the like, but wold let you build the gun yourself at a fraction of the price of the Custom Prototype.

There would probably be several other options as well to give further granularity to the system. But this way, the system can accommodate all player and GM styles. And none of them require the Gamemaster to work out any specifics, since they're all laid out. I think "At the Gamemasters Discretion" is often one of the laziest design "mechanics" that can be used. Mainly because EVERY DAMN THING in the book is at the Gamemasters Decision. If I want a Panther Assault Cannon to cost 16 Million Nuyen in my home game, I can do that. If they come free with a box of crackerjacks, I can do that too. It's my world, and in my world the Jets Fly Backwards.

But when you're creating rules, you need things to be definitive and solid. YOu want options to vary and adjust the gameplay, since Shadowrun isn't one of those cookie cutter game systems where everyone plays the same style.

And that's my 2 Nuyen on it. Now, I need to get to work.

Bull

Also keep in mind, that's just my own opinions and preferences. Input for future books comes from a lot of different sources besides me, so... *shurg* Who knows what we'll get. Lord knows there's a bunch of stuff I'd have done different for SR5, but got overruled or other people had better ideas.

Not all at once, you can't. Sure, you can make a better gun, or a cheaper gun, or a more available gun; but not all three at once.

Custom guns, by their very nature, are more expensive and less available than mass produced ones. They should have a higher price and availability code to represent this. That's supposed to be the primary balancing factors on custom equipment. However, it doesn't work.

~sigh~ So I guess none of you guys did get it ... To make it clearer: I'm not pleased with how certain technologies and real world event were translated into what I still consider an alternative reality. 3D printing is just one of the things I dislike in its current implementation.



As I said before: You should inform yourself better on that issue ... Try youtube with "Liberator". Pressures are not an issue for the intended purpose of "one shot" and "accuracy" is a non-issue at the intended shooting ranges as well (and looking at some of the vids it actually isn't that inacccurate either).

Ferrying over feedstocks instead of the equally heavy weapons is not exactly the brightest idea, which book holds those kinds of ideas?


Then again, maybe the concept was never intended to be feasible, but only serve as a cause for stricter controls...


@Cochise: For all the buzz around it, there are exactly two documented test firings of this thing. One by the manufacturer (surprise, it works perfectly) and one by the Australian police (surprise, it is something you don't want to try for your own good). Andrew Wakefield had more reliable statistics than that.

There's much worse things in recent writing that damage the immersion for me than 3d printers. Like retconning the UCAS into a superpower and the Fucking Mary-Sue Corps. In fact, I could deal with the nanoforge technology, since it also developed from nanotech advancements in-world since Brainscan/RAS.


Those guns have a chance of around 25% to explode on the first shot. Even for the intrepid assassin, that's quite a risk. Of course, the printout gun Assassins have to get close first so their crapsack gun has a decent enough chance of hitting, defeating the idea of a gun pretty much. It's pretty nonsensical really.

3 guesses, all of them south america . .

Politics? I was talking about the most current perspective on future trends.

I would point out that at the time that at the time nanoforges were introduced into Shadowrun canon, real world 3D printers were in their infancy and certainly not in the public eye. There were none of these cheap desktop printers about - the handful that existed cost more than a car.

Nanoforges are much more likely to have been drawn from fiction, books such as The Diamond Age and the like.



-k

I know this question is, most likely, off topic, but I did a search for it in Dumpshock and on the Interwebs and couldn't find anything. This seemed the most appropriate

Is there a for certain release/launch date (other than Origins) for 5th Edition Tabletop? I will be out of town and (most likely) off grid for about 10-15 days in late June/Early July and I would hate to miss it.

Thanks in advance and be well

Isn't GenCon in August?

THere will be a special softback early print version at Origins at the end of this week.

There has been no release date given for SR5 yet though. Given the problems and delays that the SR4A LE had (as well as several other FanPro and CGL products over the years), they want to wait to give a date until they're sure they have the books sitting in the warehouse ready to go. WHich unfortunately means not announcing anything official until the last minute.

Fair enough. I'm obviously in a very different camp - I follow the John Wick school of gaming. As a player, I want to be able to make a character that would fit into the setting, and get annoyed if rules interfere with that, and as a game designer, I prefer the rules lay out what exists in the setting, without trying to enforce some artificial balance to the game. It's one reason I enjoyed Exalted - you could play different types of Exalts, and they were in no way balanced against one another. (Though I hate, hate, hate the mechanics, the game's unplayable without serious house rules and hand-wavium just by the sheer volume of things you need to keep track of). But, I'm willing to politely agree to disagree. We each have our own preferences, and that's fine.

You raise a good point though - the game has to be open to everyone, but my view of that is that this means the game should be inclusive, not exclusive. It's easier for a GM to disallow something, than to have to make the rules to allow something that's been excluded. So, crafting systems? That's fine - and if a GM doesn't want to use it, they don't have to.

And I obviously need to point out that I wrote that: I'm not pleased with how certain technologies and real world event were translated into what I still consider an alternative reality. The part about real world events is a separate issue. So to me it doesn't matter whether the original inspiration came from other sci-fi-settings or infant real world 3D printers, I'm simply not pleased with the result. Just as I wasn't pleased with retconned Daimler-Chrysler-Nissan, ECU renaming to Euro, file sharing and open source tendancies in the "old" Matrix, the shift to a super-accessible best-effort network in the "new" WiFi-Matrix, metalstorm-esque Yamaha Sakura Fubuki (regardless of the varying artwork) and various other things that to me seem to have come into existance within the SR universe "just because".

Like?


Except for a continuation of Metalstorm gear, none of that can be blamed on current writers. Those things came with two names: Taylor and Lonsing. Peter Tqaylor felt the setting needed to be upgraded to GitS:SAC standards, and Lonsing gave us the Sakura Fubuki and the super-accessive New Matrix ("Simplify! Simplify!"), the most glaring offenses in these examples, at least for me.

In fact, at least for the super-accessible Matrix seems to be put on a bus for a much more restricted system. We'll see how this works out when the first reviews of the Origins pre-release book trickle in.

~yet another sigh~ Did I put the blame on current writers there?



And the way it's brought about is just another "just because".

Actually no. There's an in game logic behind it, and it's something set up in the books. It's something that's been hinted at for a little while now.

Short form is that the corporate court had a meeting and went "Fuck! These runners are just waltzing in and out of our systems at will! Maybe fast tracking that wireless matrix thing and not testing it was a bad plan. But hey, we've been working on some new ideas for a while. It'll mean installing some new software and hiring some extra moderators worldwide. But it also means more security in the long run, AND it means we get to sell our new matrix hardware and software to every government and city on the planet when we force them to switch over because, hey, we run the goddamn world. So fuck them guys."

And I imagine someone like Evo going "But what if someone doesn't want to jump on this new bandwagon?"

The rest of the court shrugs and goes "Then they get left out. No access for them. Maybe a few sanctions. Oh, and Evo? Don't forget we still have those pictures of you at the copr court holiday party!"

Evo: "Right. Where do I sign?"

The COrps can and do play well together on occasion, and when they do, they reshape the WORLD. The only reason they don't do it more often is greed. They don;t like to share, so it has to be something that benefits them all a LOT. This does.

Implicitly, since this is a "rant about the current writers" thread. Taylor's and Lonsing's contributions are spilled milk.


Way I see it, it's a fix with the game world (one sorely needed) to cut back what Lonsing screwed up by oversimplifying. In-world, it's the corps realizing computer security trumps easy access.

Actually the mere fact that I don't buy that "ingame logic" (or better story) as it has been presented so far (including the part about the [new] dangers within the Matrix) is what makes it feel "just because" to me. So forgive me that I don't cheer when you're trying to undo something that I considered stupid, "just because" you're trying.

I consider this not to be just "a rant about the current writers". So sorry, what you deem an implication on my behalf is just a faulty assumption on your behalf.



Try to apply that kind of logic to nanoforges

"Just because" you don't agree with or don't "buy" what we're doing, doesn't mean we're doing things "just because".

So this boilds down to two options: "You" (as a group) start trying to do things in a way that don't give me the feeling of "just because" or "you" continue doing it in a manner that does. Since I as an individual am not that important for the overall business there's not much for me to expect there I guess.

Sure, why try to communicate effectively when you can just as well talk about something else entirely and then feel superior.


I did?

I'm certainly not feeling "superior" nor is something like that my intention ... and I'm also not deliberatly trying to miscommunicate anything here. I suggest that you stop right there, because now you're definitely in the realms of ad hominem.



Where and in what way? Because if you did so in your own games, that's just your gaming world and not "the SR universe" as presented in canon material.

Which doesn't rule out you doing just that, though.


It's a fix in the game world that I don't think was sorely necessary, most likely based in depictions of nano-forges in movies sich as Minority Report. In-world, it's, as I stated above, a logical conclusion of nanotech advances since Shadowtech. YMMV.

Nor does it rule out the possibility that it's your own doing by interpreting stuff that simply isn't there. May I repeat my suggestion: Stop it?!



Okay, so you're telling me that the Matrix sorely needed that revision, since the involved corps try to protect their investments and income, while it's perfectly sound that they simultaniously release nanoforges into the public on such a scale?

No, that's not what I am telling you. If you want to construct an in-game argument, though: The damage done by nanoforges to the corps is, in such a weapons-heavy world, hardly comparable with the damage done by perpetual datasteals. In case of the Matrix, the benefits of restricting it (secrecy and safety for their own secrets, creating a new market trhough exercising oligopolic power) outweigh the cost (hader to access secrets of others). In case of nanoforges, the benefits of a ban (less guns on the streets, easier work for law enforcement) do not outweigh the cost (restricted access to fast and easy on-site production for tailored products, which offers a competitive advantage, and significantly larger fabrication costs because magic technology is outlawed).

It also gets rid of Skript Kiddies like Mungo.

We'll see when the Matrix advanced rules are out.

Not really much of a problem if you use Attribute + Skill like the rest of the system does.

Where did I limit nanoforges to weapons or rather why are doing that when comparing it to the general problem of data theft?



And "restricting" (instead of banning) a technology that by its own virtue is an economic threat (creates competition everywhere that will remove monopolic / oligopolic power) and has its own secrets ("blueprints" within the forges, that make them prime targets for theft) is surely not an option either?
Sorry, but to me in context of SR nanoforges and their local memory access are just as worthy to be heavily restricted as the Matrix itself.

The retcon on Daimler-Chrysler-Daimler happened first in Rigger 3, which didn't involve Peter Taylor or Christian Lonsing. I carried it over in Shadows of Europe and Shadows of Asia without giving it a second thought. I admit I later came to think that was a bad idea.

Don't forget that the quick-start rules will be available this Saturday. Check if your FLGS takes part in the Free RPG-Day.

Because Nanoforges are already restricted ("To skirt Corporate Court restrictions on open-access nanotechnology fabricators, these are strictly controlled and count a number of integral failsafe, tracking, and anti-tampering systems that render them useless in the wrong hands.", p.115 Arsenal), I chose the most troublesome application - unlicensed weapons. If a single store decides to hardcode a desktop nanoforge with some of their own designs, and has to produce them using megacorp-made feedstocks, the corps could care less, it's not competition they'll notice (and if it is, they cut the feedstocks). Free access nanofaxes are already heavily regulated.


It creates competition that seriously threatens a monopoly if the source materials and the forges themselves are also open source and easily available for the general public. Please refer to me where the books state this is the case.


In print? Neat.


I must have missed that in Rigger 3 (or maybe it was taken out in the heavily rewitten German book?). I took it as originating in Shadows of Europe, which was Peter Taylor'S first project, as the Euro-netbook.

Yes, in print: http://www.rpggeek.com/blogpost/19547/free...urday-june-15th

Technology and perhaps socioeconomic trends. Things like energy, food, technology, the state of the world, who has money and power, and what can they do with it.

More specifically, things like 3D printing, nanotechnology and other emerging technologies. What ideas can be expanded upon to make a cool near-future world? Also, current predictions on emerging economies and what could happen to the global balance of power in 60 years, the global division of wealth, access to things we take for granted now, and so forth are very cool to speculate on.

Thinking about it, there could be a geopolitical angle too. In the 80s we thought that Japan might emerge and the dominant world economy. In the 90s we were watching the Asian Tigers. In the 2000s China was the big thing. Maybe now people are betting on the BRICS.

As I said: keep the day's politics out of the game.

I know it doesn't look like it sometimes, but I, for my part, do try to do this.

I think science fiction is an excellent place to bring the political, social, and economic issues of the day. Always has been.

The problem is that there's a very fine line between that, and just highjacking a game setting/sourcebook to turn into a soapbox.

That's why the "fiction" part of science fiction is important.

Maybe I am missing something but how does it being fiction stop it from being a soapbox?

Thanks Bull. I appreciate the heads up.

Sci-fi is a great venue for this sort of thing; however IMO role playing games (in general) are not due to the target audience. People are accustomed to being hit in the face (with politics) at movies and in books, but the framework of a RPG is such that the basic game should at most skirt the issues, if the individual table wants to delve into current politics that's fine but the core of the game should be more or less hands-off on the topic.

I think it depends on the game and setting as well. Plus, it has to fit whatever you're doing.

For example, you can drop some racial themes into Shadowrun easy enough, and we frequenetly do with the Metahumans and Humanis and the like. And we're not neutral about it. Racist are largely protrayed as, well, bad. THere's no "pro-racist" point of view in the game. But at the same time, it fits within the context of the world of Shadowrun (fearing and hating people are are bigger and stronger and faster and smarter than you as an entire race? That's scary.) And while it exists and the storyies use it, it's not a central theme of the game. So it's easy enough for players or GMs who don't care about it to flat out ignore it.

Other issues just aren't touched on overtly. Gay Marriage and gay rights? Sometimes folks sho up in stories and adventures and they're gay. or they're gay and married. And it's not a thing. So it's obviously a current political issue, and we're obviously making a statement on it, but we're not preaching politics or anything. And again, if players or GMs want to ignore it, they can easy enough.

Most "hot button, real world issues" exist in Shadowrun in one form or another. Often they're easy to miss, because they're frames as part of teh story. We're not going to bash you over the head with it, we're not out to make a stand or make a statement. We just present issues and stories. And some stuff will always carry over. Sometimes it's worse, sometimes it's better.

Bull

So far I think that most if not all of the writers for Shadowrun have done a good job of keeping politics at a high-level-overview rather than slapping people with it and I hope that that trend stays around for years to come.

I will admit that I haven’t read all of the splat books, I tend to grab crunch and make up my own splat keeping just enough to still be able to call my games Shadowrun, but I do that with all the game settings I use. I enjoy the fluff that I read (most of the time) but I don’t like to be locked into a time-frame or (to borrow a quote) a “fixed point in time”, my worlds tend to be more fluid. I also have never run any modules or pre-generated missions (even for that “other” system). I may use a pre-gen as a basis of a mission, but it won’t be the mission as it was written.

Or so they tell us. But you can get a desktop forge for a pretty reasonable price/Avail, or just buy a bunch of amazingly cheap nanites which can do everything and reprogram them. As for the feedstocks, well, did I mention that nanites are amazingly cheap and can to everything?