Grinder posted to handle it. Don't exacberate the situation by standing behind him pointing and talking smack. It's passive aggressive and obnoxious, so leave it alone.

The problem here is that you have to define "complexity".

Because Nezumi is totally right - at it's core, SR4 and it's predecessors oWoD / nWoD aren't that mechanically complex: "take your attribute + skill + modifiers, roll vs. TN". That's not that hard a deal to wrap your head around.

Neither is D&D, starting from 3.*: "Roll a d20 + character modifier + situational modifier vs. TN".

It's not Rolemaster, which is, "consult this chart!" or Star Wars: Edge of the Empire, which is "make a pool of your attribute dice + skill dice, upgrade whichever pool is relevant to the conversation, vs. the target number dice, count how many successes and triumphs vs. failures and downfalls." Hell, even some of the story games I trumpet can have some pretty complex mechanics, like Raises in Dogs in the Vineyard or whatever the heck is happening in In A Wicked Age or something.

The point is though, is that that mechanical complexity has to mean something more than, "here are a bunch of modifiers, please god keep track of them all or else your players will kill you." Rolemaster, for example, is a game about getting your shit (IE, your body) wrecked via mutilations, scarring, etc. EotE wants people to tell stories, and while successes are good, Advantages and Triumphs (and conversely, Disadvantage and Failures) are used to influence the fiction being created at the table.

For me, personally, I fall into the camp where I want to hit a situation, resolve that situation (using the rules), and move on. Not dicker over whether or not this mattered or that mattered - we're playing a game, and we're all trying to hit that sweet spot of fun. For me, juggling a million modifiers and trying to keep track of this feat or that ability isn't fun, it's homework, and that's where I grow bored.

I also suspect that while I would enjoy playing in Nezumi's games, I would rather not run them for him, heh. I think we just have different attitudes about what place the rules have in respect to the fiction at the table.

(You also should read more GM'ing / roleplaying blogs and use less computer gaming links. Read folks like Rob Donahue, Vincent Baker, Frank Trollman [yup], the Evil Hat crew, hell Story Games in general...there's a wealth of thought about this sort of thing, and it can only make you a more nuanced GM!)

Sorry, It wasn't supposed to be aggressive.

That was how I understand Nezumi's signification of complexity:

"Technically, as far as I understand Nezumi, I would define a complex game as this:

"A game has complexity if, with the same characters, a player with a better strategical approach would perform better than another". "




I would argue on this. It's off-topic, but rolemaster is mechanicaally complex (and not because of all the modifiers) but because you have to pick your initaive pass between Snap action (-20) , Normal (0) and long (+10) and divide your skill value between offense and defense.

Thus, there's a strategical approach: Do I act in Snap Phase, with loads of offensive bonus, hoping to neutralize my opponent quick or do I pick something more balanced or ...



It's not incompatible with the game complexity Nezumi's which for. Imagine a fairly simple shadowrun approach. Say you roll Stat+Skill. But you pick a mode: Full offense: you roll attack rolls at TN 4 but defense rolls TN 6, balanced: everything is at 5, Full Defense you roll def TN 4 and offense TN 6. There's nothing hard to understand there. Tough you got some additional strategy in the game.

Love the Evil Hat crew.

sk8bcn is still my favorite poster

To use the board game example, it's the difference between chess and checkers. Checkers does have some complexity. The rules are quite simple. But I don't play checkers, I prefer chess. Chess does have more rules, but exponentially more possibilities and tactics are available to the player. This is different from the tactical "board" games with a literal catalog of rules for you to reference for each move.

Some people like the options and puzzles provided by a complex game. Normally complex games are supported by complex mechanics. I'm okay with complex mechanics, as long as it's simple enough to keep it all in my head (so no charts or look-ups). But I do like a complex game, which feels like it offers legitimate choices with every move, and require foresight and planning to maximize.

Frankly, my experience with SR4 left me with mechanical complexity equal to SR3 (I still had to count up modifiers, etc.), which was a drag, but no real game complexity. So I felt really cheated. I did the same amount of work, but didn't get any fun from it. From my point of view, that's a waste of time; I'd just rather not do missions that require combat when playing SR4 (or better yet, not play SR4). Like I said elsewhere, people have suggested SR4a fixes that. I haven't had a chance to see if that's true, so I can't really comment. The post on SR5 suggests it won't be any mechanically simpler than SR4, or any more game-complex. So I'm still putting in the same amount of work, and getting the same amount of not-fun. Doesn't sound like a winner to me.

I don't want to speak for Nezumi here, so I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to!!

What you're talking about is the hypothetical "this is how Nezumi would make 4e more complex", where I'm talking about where 4e is now. I don't disagree with you that that would make it complex, or allow for more mastery. Hell, on it's own that rule is fine.

However, lots of small little things like that, used liberally or unclearly, takes a game from complex to complicated. And the question becomes, "what was the intent of this rule?".

This is why I won't run, for example, D&D 3.*: too many lite jiggly things the system wants you to keep track of, for very little benefit. In my opinion, it becomes like porn: there for people who REALLY enjoy screwing around with lots of lite things for whatever reason they have for digging such things. And that's not a judgment call; that's my opinion on it.

Shadowrun 4e runs into a similar problem on that lots of things on the surface use different names and should be different things, but are actually, at the root level, the same. For instance, there's really not that much mechanical difference between spirits and sprites or the six different offered heavy pistols other than something like rate of fire.

So why use different names or treat them differently? They're all pretty much the same thing, just with different names. Why? I dunno, people like it that way? IMO, that's not enough to justify its existence to me, and only adds confusion and complication to things.

On Rolemaster - sorry, I've never Played it, just picked stuff up through geek osmosis. I bow to your knowledge and experience in that aspect

I think better example is Go... the rules are extremely simple... it's how you play them that becomes very complex. Put a colored stone down on an intersection... the goal being to surround the most territory by the end of the game. If your stones get completely surrounded with no liberties (no empty spaces adjacent to the stones surrounded and filled in) your stones are captured and held against you at the end of the game.

If you get two beginners playing... yes the game is fairly straightforward and doesn't seem all that complex... but when you get two who know it a bit better despite the simplicity of the rules it has very deep strategy. It's much more akin to two megas out plotting against each other... putting stones far out on the board far away from their unassailable groups and fighting with twisted plots to either connect them or make them self-standing on their own.

It depends on the GM... if i want complex rules depth and such... I'm loooking at a wargame like battletech or star fleet battles then yes the rules complexity adds a lot... Because I rely on the rules to arbitrate the game between me and my opponent. if I want a RPG... I look for something more like shadowrun where it depends more on how well the GM crafts and runs his world and simplicity is a much bigger selling point. Because I'm relying more on the GM to arbitrate the situation and craft something fun & appropriate to everyone. (even if this results in TPK from player stupidity)

Strangely enough, a similar discussion just got started on Story Games...

http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussi...-crunch#Item_11

I agree very strongly with you

People have brought up how SR3 has 'different systems' for things like decking, rigging, etc., and some people really like it. I'm of mixed feelings on that, because changing up systems does keep things fresh, and it makes things FEEL different. But in the end, for 90% of players, I don't think that was a good design choice, and I like that SR4 worked to change that. On the other hand, making nature spirits functionally identical to elementals took it too far, because it really did reduce color in the game (which is a totally different line of thought than game complexity).




I was thinking of Go when I was writing my post, but forgot that point Go is perhaps an example of someone making a BETTER complex game with simple mechanics than chess. If SR5 is Go to SR3's Chess, I will buy that book twice.




Thank you for the link! Checking it out now.

But, "Color" is just Tradition-based Fluff. And the fluff can be emphasized. I can guarantee you that the Various Traditions appear very different at our table. Mechanically, yes, they are the same (for the most part), but Thematically and Fluff-wise, they are vastly different. In some cases, it has prompted players (especially myself) to do extensive research on the ideas of the Tradition in question. I think this is a good thing, especially for Traditions that can be interpreted iun a few different ways.

I dunno, domains, summoning times/methods, and spirits vanishing at daybreak isn't something that is really replaced with fluff.

That doesn't even start with loa.

I have to agree with Bigity, there. I miss some of the old Hermetic/Shamanic divide.

Thank you sir. I just think we share the same vision about gaming systems

I am curious... Why is a Loa a problem?
We have had at least 2 voudon characters over the years, and I have seen no problems with them at all. Maybe I missed something.

The Loa tradition* doesn't fit within the mechanics of SR4 at all.

The closest SR4 comes is the rules in Running Wild where anyone can summon and bargain with spirits.

*Personally I like the Loa for the sheer fact that you can say "which one" when a spirit/god/someone says "spirit/god of death." It gets more entertaining in Scion, where you don't have just the one pantheon to deal with "I am a scion of the god of death." "Which one from which pantheon?"

I have never seen a Loa Tradition, Just various flavors of Vodoun (which may be what you are talking about). If there is a seperate tradition, Can you direct me to it? I would be very interested in seeing it.

And I am still curious, Why can you not have a Specific Loa (or one of its lesser servitors) in SR4. Since Spirits are mostly Fluff anyways, what stops you from doing so (we have doe so very successfully for many years), specifically?

And yes, the Calling rules are entertaining, though I have yet to actually use them in a game. Looking forward to it.
I too like the idea of Loa as a concept.

SR2 or SR3. One of hte Magic supplements. Awakening, or some such ...? Can't remember.

That Voodoun tradition formed the seed for current Possession mechanics. But only the seed.

Magic in the Shadows? That was the SR3 magic book.

SR2, then. I know it wasn't the FIRST Magic supplement for it's edition.

Hmmmm... I never owned Awakenings, and all my 3rd Edition stuff was stolen, and I no longer have any access to that edition. Oh Well...

Voodoo and the Loas were first described in Awakenings (SR2, pages 58-69 & 120-131), where Loas could be summoned to mount (possess) the houngan. Each Loa would give specific gifts to the houngan when mounted.

For SR3 it was updated in Magic in the Shadows (pages 19-20 & 102-105), where Loas were changed to spirits with the posession power.

Notably most of my post about the Loa is more generalist and had naught to do with SR directly. I just think the Loa tradition is awesome and that the rules should reflect that awesomeness.
(Horray having a friend play a scion of Barron Samedi)

Sounds like you could do that by just incorporating it into your game. The Traditions are very flexible, when you consider that the majority of a Tradition is simply fluff. I don't know about your table, but the Fluff, for Traditions, is really the most important part, at our table. It colors every aspect of the Tradition.

<nature of complaint="It's all fluff">
<suggested resolution="Use more fluff" />
</nature of complaint>

You seem to miss that SR4A uses a Lot of Fluff to bolster the mechanics. You may not like it, but others do. *shrug*
We sure don't need more mechanics for that stuff.
Maybe we are way off topic here? I was just curious as to where the Loa Tradition was located. Apparently it sounds like it was the Voodoo Tradition from 2nd Edition. Since we have a Voodoo Tradition, and I like it (mostly, I think the Spirit selection coud be changed a bit), I guess this part of the conversation has been satisfied. Thanks for the Information Draco18s and Larsine.

I like fluff as much as the next guy, but it bothers me when the crunch doesn't match. I, and others, would like to see a larger distinction between hermetics and shamanics, which can be extended to other traditions. And it's not supposed to be "here's another rule book on running Tradition X" it just has to be a "this is how this is different and why you take Tradition X instead of [hermetics|shamanics]" and take up a short paragraph.

Traditions are so...generic and undiferentiated that I had a character who believed that he found a UV node which is why he has magic (underlying code, and all that jaz). Which completely violates how Shadowrun works. Except it doesn't because it is what the character believes, not what is actually true.



No problem.

I agree 100%.

I liked that there came to be three "types" of tradition, where spirits were concerned:

• Hermetic - cost money to summon; spirits could go anywhere; dawn and dusk meant nothing special.
• Shamanic - cost nothing to summon; spirits restricted to Domain summoned from; dawn and dusk ended service.
• Voodoun - cost nothing to summon, but required a vessel; spirits could not manifest, they had to possess.

Note, the actual die rolls to summon and bind a spirit were the same between Hermetics and Shamans (and Voodounistas, mostly at least). Largely, it was a bunch of "also rules" that further defined (refined?) the WHEN and WHERE of it all. That made each type of spell-chucker mechanically distinct, in ways that directly supported the fluff. SR4, however, does away with most of the mechanical distinctness ... making the difference between Hermetics and Shamans largely a matter of Handwavium. And I don't entirely like that.

Don't get me wrong, I like that SR4 lets you build your own traditions. I just wish there were more ways to differentiate them, one from the other. And the old divide between Hermetic and Shamanic conjury, with a few more possible flavors thrown in, would be an awesome thing to return to teh game, IMO. Come up with 3 or 5 however-many variations, balance each to the others, and ... "pick one".

QFT.

More importantly with 2nd edition Voodoo... The possessed target had to be willing (Or, ya know, a corpse, which was slightly different anyway), it cost Karma to become a host for the Loa, AND most importantly, neither the possessee nor the summoner had control of the Loa. YOu bargained with it and hoped it did what you wanted, but it wasn't bound to you in any way.

Oh, and the Loa could repossess a host at any time it felt like it.

I had a Voodoun player in 3rd ed that I ran using the 2nd ed rules, mostly (because I felt they got watered down too much in 3rd). I had a lot of fun with that, as did the players.

Interesting (2nd Edition Differences). The Voodoo character I have currently does indeed bargain with the Loa for Services, and hope that they keep to the bargain. He is interesting, but has had very little playtime. I tend to play my Black Magician Occult Investigator/Face much more often.

I'm reading this and wondering what other people were doing... 3e voodoo was broken as hell. And of course most of the worst elements got ported into 4e when they broke the astral -> physical attack ban by putting in possession.

2e was nothing more than free spirit bargaining... got news it's still in the 4e rules... there is NOTHING stopping you from doing a 2e voodoun simply by bargaining with free spirits and spending some karma here and there.

3e was rediculous... you possess and for the duration you get UNLIMITED services and augmentation of your form. Yeah that wasn't abused at all....

I haven't seen anything to make me want more MECHANICAL differences between magicians... fluffwise and some MINOR benefit... great! I'll repeat what I posted on the SR4 boards... keep the unified magic. But give a small benefit similar to a mentor spirit to reflect the traditions history/goals. IE: hermetics get +2 dice to arcana roles (rarely used but nice skill). Shamans get +2 to summon spirits from the local domain... but -2 to summon spirits not of the local domain.


If possession has to stay... make it and only possession subject to bpund spirits only.. not both. Without summoning on the fly and it's higher force limits a lot of the worst cheese goes away. (summon a force 10... use it's magic of 10 instead of mine of 5... no more summoning just the right task spirit on the fly... you have either bound the right skill in advance for $$$ or you haven't.)

Sorry I've never seen possession work well in any edition of the game... mage becomes superman... street sam... i might as well go home, other magicians damn this geek the mage crap why should I get shot up because they can't hurt him, techy types... why should I bother he'll just summon a task spirit with the right skill anyhow with 8 or 10 skill ranks and mental attribute and have it possess him while he retains full control. Under 3e it was also possible for the mage to astrally project and possess an unwilling target IIRC and take over it's body... yeah that wasn't a problem at all.

Right ... so because you've got a mad-on for Possession mechanics in 3E and 4E, you want to throw out the whole idea of real, not-just-die-pool-modifier, mechanical differences between traditions ...?

Baby with the bathwater, much??



EDIT TO ADD: it isn't terribly difficult to reign in the "instant superman" bit with Possession mages, btw. Just limit the effect Possession has on the subjects attributes to their Augmented Maximum. Poof, that Body 3 mage is NOT going to become Bulletproof Charlie, just because he whistled up a F6 possession spirit.

Yes... because it's always been a huge boondoggle in prior editions with every single tradition having it's very own unique rules. Call it whatever you like. It exacerbated powergamer problems as the vast majority of options were completely ignored as irrelevant and grossly inferior.

And PAX... that *IS* the official position of the company... possession *IS* limited to augmented maximums, which does nothing except make things like trolls or orcs better picks for possession than anything else. (penalized mental attributes replaced for drain purposes; and higher physical caps for the others). Just possessing an average body is +3 to all physical stats... while a materialized spirit is limited to a mix which only averages +1 per attribute.


Unified magic is one of the best things to happen to the system.
The only bit I agree with is fluffwise and MINOR MECHANICAL... there isn't enough differentiation.

I chalk this up to two main reasons... in 3e you had over 20 spirit types in the main book... in 4e we had only 7... 11 with street magic.
I don't believe there are enough spirit types to make unified magic work properly since every tradition shares about half it's spirits with any other tradition.


Another way I feel magic is problematic is I think ritual spellcasting should go the way of the dodo (too niche and I rarely see people take the group for it)... counterspelling should be it's own individual skill. And the spellcasting group be changed into 5 individual spelltype skills so you can actually have 'combat mages' who focus on say combat spells and others who focus on healing or whatnot. So instead of dropping 24Bp on spellcasting 6 and never touching it again... 20BP is only getting a fraction of the dice in all the sub casting skills.

So yes even though i primarily end up playing spellcasters... i think SR5 should continue the tradition of nerfing casters as magic becomes more and more 'normal' to the world and people learn to deal with it more.

Personally, I want to see possession as 'willing subject only' unless you're dealing with blood or shadow spirits. I actually enforce the 'services' thing with possession - demanding a spirit of possession to defend you, for example, is a single task. Or attacking your opponents. Just like normal spirits.

The other thing I want to see is Concealment restricted to the physical plane only - no concealment on the astral plane under normal circumstances. Make astral concealment a separate power, so that magicians don't just call up a spirit, and conceal the entire party, and their vehicles, all in one go. (Either that, or have each person concealed by one task, that could work).

The SR5 design goals say all the right things, but don't really say much at all. That is, I agree with all of them without having a clue what they really mean for SR5's design and mechanics. But we'll have to wait and see how the details shake out.

For the most part, I like SR4's Attribute + Skill rolls and fixed TN. It's a much simpler resolution system and I like simple for resolution. The variable TNs had some strengths, but they were a pain to keep track of and had built-in weirdness. I do agree with Epicedion's comments on another thread about how the current SR4 Attribute + Skill system doesn't internally balance Attributes versus Skills very well and consequently causes some imbalance when it comes to self-improvement, a big theme in Shadowrun. Attributes weigh too heavily into resolution and some Attributes are much easier to improve than others.

On the topic of hermeticism vs. shamanism and general tradition mechanics, I know there's a lot of controversy on that, but I like the SR4 system. Seeing as how I'm partially responsible for the changes, that's probably a given. But I think there's some misinterpretation of the decisions behind the changes. I am and always have been a big support of diversity among traditions, not only in fluff, but mechanically. But I felt the better way to accomplish that was to have all traditions start on the same mechanical ruleset and then allow GMs to customize from there, through magical groups, geasa, spirit mentors, etc. The original hermeticism versus shamanism division worked okay back in early SR when those were your only options, but it didn't support the vast variety of traditions that exist in the entire Sixth World. And since they were fundamentally different, you either had to pigeon-hole other traditions into one of the two (which didn't make the historically-accurate side of me very happy) or you had to introduce entirely new mechanics, like the Third Edition Voudoun system.

As someone who doesn't play the casters that much, and would probably benefit from magic being "nerfed", no it shouldn't be. Magic should go back to being that unknowable and mysterious force that no mundane has any real defense against unless they have a caster on their side.

The problem is that those restrictions are entirely optional and provide zero benefits.

It's kind of like "would you like to remove one of your characters legs (and not replace it with cyberware)? [Yes|No]"

Thanks for chiming in, Jay. I still don't support the decision, but it was nice to finally get an explanation, from the horse's mouth, after trying to get a simple piece of reasoning for something like 9 or 10 years.

That is fine for fluff, but it makes for seriously bad game balance.

Works for me. I like the Unified Theory of Magic, Myself, and agree that it does not need to go.

Well said Demonseed Elite. And since you were at least partially responsible for the SR4 UMT. A hearty thanks for me and those at our table.
Interestingly enough, it seems that we have been in step with your intent (for varied Traditions) from the start, as our Traditions have always been differentiated through magical groups, geasa, spirit mentors, etc.. A job well done in my opinion.

I don't agree one hundred percent, though I do agree that a lot more should have been done with them. Entirely optional? Well, that depends on the game. But I do feel like a GM should have some control over the available traditions, magical groups, etc. in their campaign.

Zero benefits? No, not really, though this system can and should be improved. Geasa are worth build points, magical groups come with lifestyle benefits, research benefits, etc. Mentor spirits come with a set of clear advantages and disadvantages. Spirit pacts come with a list of potential advantages, at the cost of a Quality and a bargain with a spirit. I think where SR4 was lacking was in a framework for tying all of this together and examples of it.

In general principle, I agree; it's a nice, easily understood system overall.


My knee-jerk reaction to that is to contemplate just doubling the dice contribution of skills. That is to say, 3 ranks fo skill means 6 dice in the DP.

This has a follow-on effect, IMO also a benefit, of de-emphasising purely equipment/gear based benefits.

Currently, for example, if you have Agility 3, Pistols 3, you get 6 dice. Raising either Agility or Pistols gives you 1 more dice, and Agility costs a bit mroe - but also benefits asmany as six or eight other skills. Or you could just get a Reflex Recorder, for +1 die to the entire Firearms group (3 skills).

Doubling the skill dice changes the whole calculus of improvement; now, sure, Agility 4 will mean +1 die to a half-dozen skills. Bit Pistols 4 will mean +2 dice to that ONE skill. So you can either generalise, or you can specialise.

It's certainly not a perfect solution as-is; it will almost certainly raise new questiosn which would need answers. But it would still, nonetheless, shift emphasis back to skill, rather than Attribute.


The problem here is twofold.

On the one hand, it just never really happens. It's more work than most GMs are willing to put into something that really only benefits one or two players, in all but a handful of edge cases. It's always easier if you have "off the shelf" components to work with.

On the other hand, it's also not how SR4 really works. Any mage can have any mentor - there's no limit, a Hermetic can have "Oak" just as readily as a Shaman, or a Druid. Noone is required to take any Geasa, nor to join any magical groups, either. So rules-wise, there is nothing in support of true variation between the traditions.


Baby and the bathwater, v2.0

Why not design a system by which you can point-build a Tradition? Decide what the baseline Sorcery and Conjury is, then come up with a mixed bag of Qualities (even, built-in Geasa, for example) to each. Use that system to build the setups for the Traditions offered in the core rules .... and with-hold the system itself for the Magic-specific supplement. TELL people it'll be published in that book, even. (That has two effects. One it drives more sales of teh magic supplement. But two, flipside, it keeps the Core book stuff from getting over-complicated for newcomers.)

Now, when you want to introduce a completely new Tradition? You simply pick up that point-build system, and build it. If it needs somethign that isn't there ... make new Qualities for that tradition, price them carefully, and include them in whatever book the Tradition is part of. (Espeially, that Magic supplement).

...

And in the interest of unified systems? Do the same kind of thing for Technomancer Streams.

If you're feeling especially ambitious, also do the same general thing for various Adept "ways".

...

People who want to delve into the "build your own" will be very happy, because they'll have something they can point to and reasonably claim that their personalised Tradition isn't extremely unbalanced. Those who don't want to, can ..... just ignore it, and use the pre-packaged ones. Win-win for everyone.

I'll point out that it's 10 BP. There are no other upsides.

An example is no spellcasting at [day|night] (84 hours/week) compared to a 10 point day job flaw that only restricts you for 10 hours a week.

This is considered equivalent how?

Yeah the geasa and limited specialist abilities are pretty bad in terms of point cost.


While I disagree strongly with Pax's baby with bathwater bits...

His criticisms of mentor bonuses being completely unliked to tradition are spot on.

Point buy is interesting but brings up a whole lot of other problems... it also makes powergaming more problematic as cost benefit analysis instead of package deals becomes a bigger deal. Do you have a 25point magician quality and a 10 point one... are all spirits created equal... how much does it cost for each class of spells... etc. etc. etc.

The only obvious problem i see is magic defense (as counterspelling is not always available) and defense against ranged attacks, because these two normally only roll with an attribute.

I must say that sounds like a great idea, describe each tradition by a series of attributes to give the fluff some mechanic backing.

Pax, I basically agree with you and that was essentially the intent. Maybe not exactly a standard point-buy system like character building, but certainly a "build your own magical framework" system. My feeling was that this would be a conversation between players and GMs, that a magical framework had to be appropriate for the campaign (which is where the GM comes in) but at the same time gives the player some freedom to define their character (where the player comes in). I do agree with you that SR4 needed better "off the shelf" examples.

And Draco, I also agree with you that Geasa were not well handled. At the very least, they should have a BP range, because you can't just lump every possible geas into a 10 point value. And I would have liked to see a better structure for magical groups that have built-in geasa that are traded off for built-in advantages, whether those are built-in positive Qualities or some other mechanical advantage.

And Pax, I totally agree with building the core rulebook "off the shelf" examples with an underlying system and then using the expansion books to flesh out that custom system. The problem there was the haphazard way SR4 was developed. SR4's early development only brought in part of the freelancer crew and it was kept secret from other freelancers. So, for instance, I was not brought into SR4 until late-stage playtesting and then was brought into Street Magic to work on the custom frameworks. Those discussions should have happened earlier, so we could have had nice off the shelf examples of Seattle setting Hermetic and Shamanistic traditions, magical groups, etc.

It was a terrible way to build a new edition and I really hope that they'll address that with SR5's development.

I like.
The advanced lifestyles rules, for example, are amazing. It's also really hard to munchkin (largely because while Stat A is really beneficial and Stat B isn't, it means that your character is living in a hell hole...but it's got a SWEET entertainment system (or whatever), which is the kind of thing we encounter all the time in the real world: do we want a safer neighborhood? A larger house? Maybe a school nearby for the kids?).

Then your hermetics/shamanics would have ABC vs. CDE here's a few tweaky things FGH if you want to build your own tradition. Then a splatbook can come out (Street Magic, whatever) with Even More traditions that utilize options AEH, BCG, AEF, etc. and also provide even more options, IJKLMNOP.