You did not have seriously compared pc-games to a book, did you? The only thing you need to get most of this crap done right, is the ability to read. You dont need to study computer engineering. You just have to READ the sh*t you want to publish and if you are not completely braindead, you have to fix it up. Like someone before said, a 12-year old could have done it better.

And if you have worked in computer games for a while and seriously want to compare, than you should probably know that if someone f*cks up so hard, he will never will be responsible for anything relevant again.

Even then, truly secure networks like (for examples I've encountered) DoD networks and aerospace tech research and development labs working with secure (IE Classified) information use systems that are completely isolated from outside connections. In a setting like Shadowrun where VPNs have been made useless by trivially crackable encryption with even high-end consumer devices, let alone cyberdecks, anyone working with valuable information would be literally mad to do otherwise.

Yet they will, because it is necessary for the game mechanic to function. Same as wireless connections on entirely internal cyberware like wired reflexes and reflex boosters.


All in all, the structure of the SR5 Matrix makes more sense to me than 4e's ever did, but I really don't think anyone with any computing experience actually thought through the ramifications of what they were doing with the wireless rules.

Of course, the guy who wrote the wireless bonuses for cyberware has explicitly said in an errata thread that he never got told cyberware was hackable and brickable, so a lot of this is probably down to communication problems among the dev staff... much like many problems with this book.

What did he think the wireless bonus was created for, if not for hacking?

In Shadowrun, the problem is that fast decryption still causes major problems eve if you take everything offline, because then any physical breach automatically becomes a worse data breach since there's no way to move in a matrix response team if the on-site security is ever compromised. It even wrecks the idea of running a hardline between locations, since a data tap anywhere on the line can intercept traffic, meaning you have to physically secure every inch of the line.

I think that the only two actual choices, considering the technology, are 1) secure things as best you can with IC and spiders but leave yourself a way in to secure the place from off-site, or 2) don't ever use a computer for anything.

Assuming you could run a site entirely offline, with wired terminals plugged into a disconnected host, and no wireless signals to be found, you'd then have the security issue of moving any data offsite -- data lock couriers, armed convoys? That could work, and even be kind of cool and retro Johnny Mnemonic stuff, but in terms of security is it actually any better than just keeping an online host packed with the latest countermeasures?

You're already doing strong physical security anyway, though. If intruders are on-site and unresisted, the best protected data in the world isn't secure against a couple guys with crowbars and a willingness to steal entire computers.

Hey now, don't go make claims like that. Their battletech stuff is actually produced at a fairly high level of quality. They seem to care about the editorial quality of that line.

True... Battletech has (apparently) always taken precedence with the current ownership. Shadowrun is the red-headed step child of CGL.

I did. It's quite a valid comparison. It's not like we're talking about a novel here, it's a rulebook for a game. Your complaint was specifically about the inclusion of a table that you found insulting. I've played many games with tutorials dumbed down to the point of frustration, but for some people they'll be useful so the creators include them. Also, you perhaps want to calm down a bit with your responses as they're not coming across terribly well.



Well this is just not true is it.



How do you define 'fucks up'? Fastest selling PDF on drivethru? Selling out all of their pre-orders? Where I was, someone who fucked up that hard would be immediately given the next project the company was working on.


I'll point out that I'm not defending sr5 because I think it's perfect. I just find some of these rages bizarre to the point of being laughable.

you'd give a project to someone who hyped the product, sold a ton of it, & then had 20 pages of bugs that needed to be worked on? Bugs that will take other members of your team away from other projects to fix?

Sadly, that sounds about right for modern computing software.

Well, to be fair, in CGL's case the obvious intention is to simply not fix the main book and print more splatbooks instead.

so let me adjust the analogy.

You'd give the project to someone who hyped the product, sold a ton of it, then had 20 pages of bugs that needed fixing , ignored the hotfix options & hoped the bugs could be plugged sort of with additional products which will have their own bugs.

*shrug* While far from perfect, I'd still really like to play SR5 some day. I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of reading the book and putting together some sample characters. Definitely not the worst $20CDN I've ever spent.

The amount of arguing that can be done over a RPG ruleset always amazes me. I remember flamewars on the WW Exalted forums over what the placement of a comma after the word "the" meant for the rule as a whole...

Virtually none, because the proofreading comments also include editorial input. That is to say, the proofreaders and the editors have a chance to discuss what changes are to be made before we make them. I don't recall any of the typos we discussed getting reversed.

Even with strong physical security you need strong data security. You don't lock and bar a computer in a room and surround it with guards, and then just leave it unpassworded. Even a courier in an armored tank would use a data lock and file encryption and a data bomb.

In all honesty, nobody is going to be moved project just like no-one is going to get fired. All projects have their own teams - there would I'd bet already be a SR5 errata team in place ready before the book was released. My comment was more just a counter to the idea that someone had 'f*cked up'. On the contrary, I can't imagine CGL view SR5 as anything other than a massive success, as well they should.

That is something I noticed about business models. I hype the product and put a flawed product out. People have to buy it before they can know it is flawed, by which time I already earned my pile of money. Now depending on whether it makes sense to put out more product to correct the flaws or the market has so much negative sentiment that nobody is willing to buy any future product, I will either wind up the business or make even more money, putting out more flawed products.

Now with a proven IP, I can hold on to that IP and wait for market sentiment to swing back my way, so long as I did not screw the pooch so badly that even time is unable to whitewash people's memories. But it is more likely that if I set up my own social media outlet and control it so that negative press is suppressed, I can astroturf over or spin the negatives. It works better if the flaws can be spun as features and I sic my fanbois on the naysayers.

I know that I may be the new guy here (actually not new, just a decade long lurker), but all these analogies to badly flawed products....but is SR5 really that flawed? A lot of people seem to play it and enjoy it just fine. Don't get me wrong, I grumble a lot about some parts (like I did with every SR edition, from 1 to 5), but flawed? So flawed that it needs to be fixed to be playable? I don't see it that way honestly.

Neither do I, not in the slightest. To be totally honest for our group it's looking like being better that 4th. It'll certainly be the first time in any game where someone plays a hacker*.

*I've said this before, but we played Cyberpunk 2020 for years before SR4. If you want complicated 'net rules you should look it up!

Flawed is the wrong word. Slipshod is better. There's a lot of signs that they simply couldn't be bothered to worry about the quality of their product (which is quite honestly baffling to me, since they pay people to provide quality control). They could have done better, with little effort, like actually using the proofread version they paid for. That's what's galling.

And honestly, there's signs that this is their business model. Rush a flawed product to market, then release a revised version a few years later. I predict SR5.5 will appear before the 30th anniversary edition hits the shelves.

True words



I dunno, man. I admit I am no longer the avid collector of all things released for SR since 4e, but I still own around 60% of the stuff, and everything pre 4e. I honestly don't see the decline in quality.

Actually, it's on the contrary. Some of the 4e stuff I liked MUCH better than some of the late 2e/3e books that came up. Attitude (I love that book)and Seattle 2072 are two examples. Of course there is stuff that's meh as well, but we also had London Sourcebook, Shadowrun Companion, Fields of Fire and Prime Runners back in the day, these books being the definition of 'meh' for me

When it comes to the core books themselves across editions, none of them stands out as spectacular to me. They all were workable, but great? Nah, not so much. But for sure they have gotten bigger and prettier over the editions.

You definitely know much more about things going on in SR and with CGL than me, but can you share some of the "signs" you mention above? Because as I said above, the writing of the new books looks pretty good to me.

Even if Fields of Fire isn't about what interests me most in Shadowrun, I find it very good in terms of atmosphere and tone.
Meanwhile, I've found most of Attitude to be bland and unimaginative.
And the writing of the new books looks pretty bad to me.

So it's probably a matter of taste.

Never thought that Cyberpunk 2020's Net Rules were all that complicated. And I LOVE the MENU in Cyberpunk 2020.

I honestly don't know whether that's a joke or not

You didn't find them complicated? With each data fortress needing a map with walls and access points and all that other shiz. I read the section a couple of times, but we never got anyone to play one.

Edit: I always wanted to try the optional rules where you used the Netrunner card game instead of the book rules. We could never get hold of a copy though. Not that it's been re-released I may have to pick it up.

Absolutely taste. I think 2e-3e's style is far, far, FAR more interesting than anything in 4e's style. I find the 2e-3e stuff so much more...how to say, brimming with 'cyberpunkiness' in a sense, with 4e too...dry, 'realistic' for my tastes. But I also prefer the 'Louder' Shadowrun, so there is probably that as well. For me, some of my favorite things are reading the old SR2e Shadowtalk in all of those sourcebooks. It added a lot of flavor I felt. SR4's Shadowtalk didn't really float my boat as much for some reason. But, of course-a matter of taste again.

Nope, not a joke... Building a Data Fortress was a snap... That was what Crosswords were for. And with a Computer Crossword Generator (with optional Iconography), it was simple

Never played Netrunner... Like you, I never was able to acquire it.

ehh.... not so much.

we know for a fact that corrections which were presented to them months before the release did not make it in. we also know for a fact that a group of freelancers got together and organized efforts to find errata and clarifications that needed to be made on the released book.

if there was a team in place, the freelancers wouldn't need to be doing all this extracurricular activity. in short, *we* are the closest thing to an SR5 errata team (well, we as in all the fans, not just the ones at dumpshock). the errata that's being compiled is being compiled not by a special team at catalyst, but by their freelancers who so far as i am aware are not getting paid for their efforts.

i'm guessing the closest thing they have to an errata team at catalyst is Bull, who had to get the missions FAQ together in time for the release of missions. which FAQ basically begins with "this is not official errata, but here's how we're going to handle these things that need errata for the moment".

My old Netrunner's first run was against a datafortress that, unfortunately for the ref, wasn't tough enough. Managed to get a top of the line combat deck shipped out. Then it was just up to the Solo and Nomad to go and hijack the truck.

Fun times.

Too bad he got his head blown off shortly after that. Solos from then on out for me.

Heh... Indeed...
Yeah, I hear that a lot... Which is sad to me...

Arguably, fluff-wise CGL is doing very well. And they put out very shiny products, I have to admit. SR4.5 was especially pretty.

But ignoring your proofreaders isn't a good sign. And if you remember the debacle that was the SR4.0 release, you'll know that it was released with a fair number of known typos and errors and bugs, which SR4.5 mostly fixed. Given that core rulebooks sell the best, a strategy that involves a regular release of them is potentially very successful. I think they learned from the SR4.5 release, which is that it's more profitable to release errata as a X.5 edition than it is to fix an existing product for free.

Do recall that CGL didn't actually produce SR4 -- that was Fanpro. Producing errata would've essentially involved heavy development work for no additional sales. The publication, licensing, and ownership situation between the closing of FASA and CGL acquiring the license is kinda messy.

Okay, are we seriously discussing this AGAIN? Haven't we had threads with thousands of replies on the topic, which everyone curious as to what we don't like about SR5 can read?

Hell, it's enough to just browse through the Errata thread to understand why some people see SR5 is a spit in the face of the community from the publisher, like serving someone soup with the vegetables not cut, cleaned, or even washed at a restaurant.

Arguably enough, I'd say, minding the kind of chapiteau Stormfront was.

And how do we call a dude with 6500 posts and no useful contribution to a serious issue?

Okay, I'll bite. What's broken about it? Does it make adept faces too powerful?

a typical mentor will give +2 to some skill for all who follow it (there's on that gives damage resistance dice instead, but otherwise that's the pattern), +2 dice to some category of spirits or spells for magicians, and .5 power points worth of powers to adepts. raven gives 1.5 power points worth of powers to adepts, and otherwise matches up just fine with that pattern.

so it is on the adept side of things, but not specifically that it makes adept faces too powerful. if it gave only voice control at level 1, and no traceless walk, it would be just fine.

Why re-quote a post from nearly 2 weeks ago, that you already quoted at the time?

Or was that just a bump for your thread?

I think it was a SO cool answer, that he HAD to post it at the right place. ^^ Sometimes it is like an addition. ^^

I realised it was an admin and that made me kinda pissed. Thats why.

And jeah, i really wanted that bump for "my" thread, like i dont have other issues.



Since every other totem gives adepts powers worth 0,5 PP and this one gives 1,5 the
answer to your question is: Yes. It makes adept faces too powerful.

Isn´t he a nice guy? ^^ Straight forward, not always in good mood...reminds me of somebody i know.

No idea whom.

While true, traceless walk is probably over costed at 1 PP, .5 would have been enough so an either or there would have fit instead of both.

are you suggesting that getting "only" double the power points of any other totem would not be out of balance?

(i mean, i agree traceless walk is probably overpriced, but the simple fact is that voice control alone fits into the 0.5 PP of abilities every other mentor grants... adding *anything* to that is above and beyond what raven should give, regardless of whether the power it gives is too expensive or not)

It's been said before elsewhere (though i can't be bothered to search and quote). Raven's disadvantage - if played correctly - has a huge desaster potential.
So it's pretty much solely the problem of the combination of a hard rule with a soft rule, that's the issue here.

Then Cain, I have a new question (or two). Where are the Playtesters? And, while I'm asking, why were not more of the fundamental errors caught by you guys? These used to be stop-gap measures, that appear from the outside as failures insofar as preventing poor material/poor presentation from getting out. Please understand I am asking in a serious, I want to see my favorite game ever-improving, kind of way here.

I can't speak to the role of playtesters, but my job as a proofreader is strictly to correct grammar and spelling. I've been chewed out for going too far as a proofreader, just because I rewrote a sentence instead of repairing it. And that's just on the grammatical side; we're not allowed to alter the actual mechanics, just make sure they're grammatically correct and without spelling errors.

What you describe is the province of an editor, who could rewrite and edit the documents to make them better. An editor would also be ultimately responsible for the layout of the book. My thoughts on the editing of SR5 are already well known, so I won't go into them. I *can* say that many of the typos that crept into SR5 were caught by the proofreading staff, but for some reason they weren't included in the final draft. The same holds true for some corrections made by the writers.

Rules you dont agree with don't necessarily constitute 'errata' since they can be interpreted any way you wish. submitting difference like thoes is sure to slow down the revision process.....

Rules with multiple interpretations are prime choices for errata. They should be rewritten to remove that ambiguity.

The problem is that somewhere along the way, some writers/editors have decided that rule ambiguity is not a bug but a feature, since it allows GM to choose the interpretation that fits their playstyle.

It's more of lack of comprehension on our part...

To have rules, suggested rules under one system is to be obliged to leave some room for individual intrepretation. A bit fustrating...