One of my hobbies (obsessions?), is looking into the mathematical modeling that games use. With computer games, once you begin to figure out the rules (or they are published) the math becomes easy to build. Once you have live data, you can compare the actual results against the models and have discussions on things such as are your damage dealers (DPS) doing what they should, how are the healers performing, are your tanks soaking damage like they should, etc.

I've done some looking into the Shadowrun 5 rules with an eye towards the same type of analysis. I did this with SR4 when it came out, and recently with SR3 for grins. What I was curious about, was to see how well balanced the classes were to each other and were the rule changes driven by the various new platforms Shadowrun is moving into?

Now, let me preface this with a few things:

• Shadowrun is predominately a story telling game - which is what I like about it
• Balance in a tabletop RPG is far more subjective than balance in a computer based game
• Card games live somewhere between the two
• We're about to have 2 computer games and a card game somewhat based on the SR5 rules
• My analysis is no where near complete, or to the rigor of a published paper

My high-level (and rather cursory analysis) has a couple of interesting conclusions:

• SR3, 4 and 5 all appear to have had some mathematical modeling done to help build them
• SR5 appears to have had more detail placed on balance and ease of functionalizing the math
• SR5 rules appear to be built to be easily "ported" to a computer based / card based game system
• Regarding roles and the archetypes:
  
  • SR5 appears to have the following mapping of archetypes to traditional computer game role types (and yes, many of these are a "well, duh"):
    
    • Primary Damage (DPS)
      
      • Combat Adepts (Ranged or Melee)
      • Street Samurai and other Cyber based combat Archetypes (Former Company Man, Mercenary, etc.)
      • Combat focused Spellslinger (Combat Mage)
      • Combat focused Decker/Technomancer
    • Secondary Damage (Support DPS)
      
      • Generalist Archetypes (Occult investigator, Private Eye, etc.)
      • Decker/Technomancer with additional matrix skills or focus
      • Spellcaster with other non-direct combat focus (summoning)
      • Rigger
    • Tank
      
      • Street Samurai focused on soaking damage (Troll Street Samurai)
      • Decker/Technomancer with defense focused skills/programs
      • Spellcaster with defense focused spells
  • SR5 appears to not have a dedicated "Healer" archetype
  • SR5 has specific roles that are uniquely RPG based, such as the "Face"
  • The Technomancer and the Decker have some oddities going on in their math in relation to each other
• I've come to the conclusion that the Spellcasters/Technomancers were "nerfed" to provide a mechanism for better balance between the "classes" when moving to other platforms that are more reliant on class blance

In general, I like Story over Game Mechanics in all the games I play (for example I don't play World of Warcraft anymore, but I do play Star Wars: The Old Republic because of the story in the latter). I have always enjoyed Shadowrun for the story element, which is why I stopped playing D&D and its variants.

I liked Technomancers and Spellcasters in SR4 better, which is what led me to do this analysis. My hunch was that the rules had been changed to help make the game fit across multiple platforms easier, and I think that is one of many design influences in the new rules. I'll be interested to see what happens with Technomancers in the future and the Matrix in general.

Those are my thoughts, feel free to trash and burn as you see fit. Hopefully I'm not crazy or off base.

-M&P

I think your assessment is detailed and well presented. It illustrates your POV very well and supports that paradigm. Most importantly it does not attack other paradigms or claim that it is "right", only that it is right for you and others that come from the simulationist POV. As a gamist I would like to thank you for presenting your opinion in a way that does not attack those who share my POV. Thank You.

You're quite welcome, and thank you for your kind words.

Normally when I play games, I try NOT to let myself think in terms of the underlying game mechanics, modeling, and other aspects of the simulation. To me, a good game is one where I don't notice "the man behind the curtain". Usually that is one that has a good story, is consistent within its universe, or so over the top, that you know its that way on purpose. I don't necessarily worry about "realism", unless the game tries to be realistic (such as a flight simulator).

Shadowrun is a game where I do not worry about realism. To paraphrase someone else' signature, you're walking around as a Troll with a huge cannon shooting dragons...

Personally, I find Shadowrun to have a good story and be consistent within its universe. That's good enough for me. This was more about trying to answer, for myself more than anything, the question around the "feel" of the new mechanics. They feel like what a computer game would have. I'm also curious as to what others think about the new rules from this point of view.

-M&P

The basic mechanics of SR5 are similar to SR4. The roles seem slightly better defined (e.g. the rigger has to have the headware) however, something I always liked about SR is the ablity to break out of the molds and redefine a roll in the party. Several people might consider this mixing roles however I think to my favorite co-runner in one of my games. He was a mage with specialization in information gathering. He had shape change, clarvoyance/audiance, and some mind manipulation (that he typicaly refused to use due to the incredibly illegal nature.). He also delved into hacking to further his information gathering skills, and obtained the proper programs skill ratings ect. And finaly he had a decent social skill that allowed him to be a secondary face. When it all comes down to it, with Ork street sams, trolls adepts, combat mages, and hackers, we all knew that Gideon was the most dangerous member on our team.
What I'm getting at is that the flexiblity that SR provides in how you play, you can take so many creative aproaches to the game. Everything from pink mohawk psudo matrix style, to the black trenchcoat backstabbing, or Ocean's 11. I feel that it is more of the feel of the world than the game system that allows you to have such a wide array of play styles without changing the core system.

Yeah, that's one of the big strengths of the system (and setting). If you want to go D&D mode and just kick in the door, kill monsters, and run off with the loot, SR can do that. If you want to go super-stealth ninja-mode where any time a shot is fired, the run's considered a failure, SR can do that. If you want to go political wheeling and dealing, getting dirt on people, backstabbing, cloak and dagger style, SR can do that.

Some editions are better at various parts of it than others, and I haven't had my hands on the system long enough to know where SR5 falls, but so far it looks conducive to all of the above... I would rather not see the "tank" archetype though. Partly because the job of a tank isn't to take the hits while someone else does the killing, it's to kill the shit out of the things that thought they had enough armor. Mostly, though, because if your job on the team is to go out front and get shot so other people don't, you aren't a valuable and useful member of the team. You're an expendable goon. It's a concept I wish had never slipped the leash and stayed in MMOs.

At the risk of derailing my own thread, one thing I've seen with good tanks in MMO's, they actually lead the larger operations. They are the one calling the encounter and without them, you die. But that is how MMO's and computer games tend to get built, and it wasn't just WoW that created it.

To the other points above, what I love about Shadowrun is all the stories you can tell. You aren't just stuck in one "role", but are instead able to do so much, in so many ways. I may end of loving these rules if it allows the flavor and capabilities of the Shadowrun world to be brought to what are often very rigid game systems in the MMO world.

It is ironic that it is the "Role Playing Game" that doesn't limit your role and the "Massive Multiplayer" game in the wide open Internet that is very confining in what you do.

-M&P

[/quote]


Yeah, that's why I didn't specify WoW. If was a video game mechanic before MMOs, I'm unaware of it, it wasn't in any of the games I played.



Yeah, we're starting to see some loosening of roles in MMOs and video games in general, and I call this a very, very good thing. I've been saying for many years that ShadowRun could be a great MMO if it was done right. I'm not entirely sure about SRO, but it's got potential. Honestly, the more I see MMOs step away from the "be like WoW with a different setting" mentality we've seen far too much of, the happier I am, and on that front, SRO looks to be doing a good job.

Looking at history on the battlefield I'm going to have to say that I agree "tanks" don't belong in SR. If you really want to get down to hit, historicaly the heaviest troops have always been the hardist hitting. From the Hoplites at Thermopylae, to the Heavy Legions of Rome, to the Heavy Calvary of the middle ages. Even in modern times, tanks and battleships carry some of the highest firepower in the battle. Ok, for awhile durring WWII they had "Tanks" and "Tank Killers" one was a heavy armored vehicle with moderate firepower, the other was a lightly armored vehicle with High firepower to kill the tanks. Eventually they figured it was best to combine the two. Light troops have always been about moblity over firepower/armor. I personaly think that you could follow the same model in SR.

to me, the 'tank' role should be more focused on controlling the battle. because ultimately, that's what you're really after as a tank... you want to control the enemy into making non-optimal decisions. you want them to get so annoyed at the gigantic impenetrable wall that they ignore the scrawny little guy behind them who's about to stick a knife into their kidney, or the mage who's been building up a massive spell.

as such, to me at least, the primary attributes of a tank are actually misdirection and control. having huge amounts of armour and defensive stats doesn't make you a tank, it just makes you tough. if you're going to have any real chance to call yourself a tank, you're going to need to be able to make things target what you want, and you're going to have to persuade them that what they're doing is not the worst decision they could possibly make.

actually having the toughness to be the target is, to me at least, optional. you should be able to 'tank' by creating illusions of a real threat (potentially mixed with actual threats so that they can't ignore an enemy). you should be able to 'tank' by making the enemy decide that hiding behind cover and not poking their head out is the best choice. you should be able to 'tank' by changing the environment to suit your needs so that an enemy who has come to attack you suddenly goes from having an apparent advantage to suddenly realizing they've walked into a trap, and their best option is to just turn around and run.

because really, the goal of a tank is not to be attacked, in an MMO. the goal of a tank is that all of the enemy's attacks are made as useless as possible, and it is only because MMOs generally don't let you use all the other possible options that those other options are used. but i know i recall, even in WoW, someone telling me that for some parts of some raids, the tanks spend all their time kiting enemies. if the goal of the tank was to be hit, this wouldn't help at all. but that isn't their goal. their goal is to make the enemy's attacks ineffective.

and in that sense, i believe that shadowrun certainly can have tanks.

I wonder how much was also influenced by the Crossfire card game concept, in that they may have tweaked some things to sort of reflect one another, granted not exactly.

To start I have to say I was a little disappointed by this thread. I came in expecting some math and theorycrafting about... something. Instead it seems to be just a subjective analysis of ShadowRun in terms of an MMO.

Second. I think must of your analysis is wrong, at least in my opinion.


Yes, ShadowRun in mostly about communal story telling, like most pen and paper RPGs. But balance in P&P games is not subjective and I think SR5 did a lot to fix the balance from SR4 (ex Stunbolt).

And based on what I have seen in videos of ShadowRun Returns, it doesn't look like it is based of the SR5 rules.



I personally think that SR5 is more complicated than SR4, in terms of math and numbers. In SR4 you basically were just tracking your DP, but SR5 adds the limits which is a new value that you have to track from check to check. Also I think the limit system makes the game harder to port into a computer game, especially since gear has values that act as limits for different checks.

Finally I think approaching ShadowRun's archetypes with the mindset of the MMO trinity is detrimental to building a good character and team. Firstly, running the shadows isn't all about combat and I wouldn't even say that it is 50% about combat.

Second, to actually get into some theorycrafting, I don't think a troll street sam is really more of a "tank" than any other street sam. Maybe in SR4 the amount of armor you can wear was limited by body, but now that it isn't a human can wear just as much armor as a troll. Which means a troll at best gets 5 more dice in a damage suck roll (4 more body than human and elf and 1 natural dermal plating). Now 4 more body does turn into 2 more boxes of physical. But I feel like High Pain Tolerance, a pain editor, and platelet factories are really what turns a street sam into a "tank", as they work to reduce your wound penalties.

I agree, we got off in the weeds about the whole "tank" issue. There are too many ways to play SR. If you would like to see some numbers check out my thread on ARs vs Shotguns. I plan on doing some more analysis of various SR5 assets as time goes on.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=39249

I agree. It's just that seeing "Tank" as an archetype in the book made me cry a little.