QUOTE (bannockburn @ Jul 15 2014, 07:34 PM) 
YMMV, usually proportional to how close to RAW you want to stay.
For characters supposed to tell new players "here, this is how a character you play might look like", how about as close as possible?
Full Version: SR5 Core PDF Updated
For characters supposed to tell new players "here, this is how a character you play might look like", how about as close as possible?
QUOTE (Sengir @ Jul 15 2014, 03:32 PM)
For characters supposed to tell new players "here, this is how a character you play might look like", how about as close as possible?
One would think that.... but apparently not anyone in the CGL hierarchy.
QUOTE (Sengir @ Jul 15 2014, 11:32 PM)
For characters supposed to tell new players "here, this is how a character you play might look like", how about as close as possible?
Fact aside that the sample characters have issues stemming from their inception during playtesting times, I'm not sure, I'd agree with your assessment in this particular example.
If a player came to me and wanted to play some norm who thinks trolls are the greatest thing since sliced bread and wants to emulate one, and offers to do so with a distinctive style negative quality, I'd be hard pressed to suggest a more fitting one.
There are a lot of grey areas in the rules and even new players are perfectly capable of eyeballing some if not most ambiguous stuff with a bit of creativity. It's what we did, back in the day when there weren't NQs available, it's what we did when existing NQs weren't fitting, and I don't see this as a really big issue. In fact, to focus on another possible point of view, it shows new players how to bend the rules if they don't fit perfectly.
There is no need at all for rigid adherence to RAW at any point during your gaming 'career' (except when you are in organized play, or discussing rules in a forum setting, of course), especially if it detracts from the fun of playing what you want. Very seldomly do I tell a player "your idea is dumb, because there are no rules for it".
Now, don't get me wrong: I agree that good examples are important to explain a system.
However, I've not met many new players who deconstruct sample characters into their constituent parts and check them on their adherence to the rules. Neither am I of the opinion that archetypes have to be perfect, or 'built effectively'. They are for instant play, not for learning how to create characters, IMO, and as such it is a distant secondary priority for them to provide fodder for mathhammering.
Edit: Oh, and I think that a constantly sustained physical mask spell is a pretty distinctive thing and palpable drawback for a character to have. My personal issue with the character is that the spell in question does not allow for a norm to convincingly mimic the size of said troll.
My opinion on the sample characters is that I don't expect them to be optimized, or to be completely error-free, but they should be able to function at their role, and not have huge errors. Now, I'm not picking on the people who initially made the archetypes - from the impression I get, the archetypes were put together at a point in the design process where the rules were in flux, then didn't get updated with the rules changes.
Thus, the street samurai with way too much money was probably made before some prices were drastically revised, or the amounts for starting money were dropped down. The covert ops specialist was probably done before locksmith was revised to become such a super-important break-in skill, because a covert ops specialist without that skill is like a decker without the hacking skill. I don't know what happened with the combat mage. But these archetypes are pretty much unusable unless you make some drastic revisions to them. There is a thread on the other forums that reverse-engineers and fixes the archetypes.
Thus, the street samurai with way too much money was probably made before some prices were drastically revised, or the amounts for starting money were dropped down. The covert ops specialist was probably done before locksmith was revised to become such a super-important break-in skill, because a covert ops specialist without that skill is like a decker without the hacking skill. I don't know what happened with the combat mage. But these archetypes are pretty much unusable unless you make some drastic revisions to them. There is a thread on the other forums that reverse-engineers and fixes the archetypes.
QUOTE (Glyph @ Jul 16 2014, 05:33 AM)
My opinion on the sample characters is that I don't expect them to be optimized, or to be completely error-free, but they should be able to function at their role, and not have huge errors.
you're saying something along the lines of 'I don't expect multiplication table to be completely error-free'. These character archetypes are the first completed characters a new player looks at. They set an example to the player. And if they are bad or if they are invalid by the rules in the same book, it's a bad example. The extent of the optimization could be argued when it comes down to sample characters, but they should at the very least be playable and viable. That's a basic requirement. Otherwise they shouldn't be in there at all. Which wouldn't be such a bad idea btw.
QUOTE (Glyph @ Jul 15 2014, 05:33 PM)
My opinion on the sample characters is that I don't expect them to be optimized, or to be completely error-free, but they should be able to function at their role, and not have huge errors. Now, I'm not picking on the people who initially made the archetypes - from the impression I get, the archetypes were put together at a point in the design process where the rules were in flux, then didn't get updated with the rules changes.
I want to say that Wakshaani wrote some (or all) of them, and basically said that's what happened when the book came out. I may have the wrong poster/freelancer.
-Temperance
That's precisely what happened, yes. The same thing, for instance, happened to the various Digital Tools Box crew, but I had some time to fix them when the rules changed, and changed, and changed again, there at the 11th hour. The archetype guys just kind of...didn't. And, in many cases, they didn't see "their" artwork, either (or we may've seen it, and been able to comment and offer some art notes and stuff, but not known exactly what it was for), which was how some stuff like the human/troll wires got crossed.
QUOTE (Glyph @ Jul 16 2014, 01:33 AM)
My opinion on the sample characters is that I don't expect them to be optimized, or to be completely error-free, but they should be able to function at their role, and not have huge errors. Now, I'm not picking on the people who initially made the archetypes - from the impression I get, the archetypes were put together at a point in the design process where the rules were in flux, then didn't get updated with the rules changes.
Thus, the street samurai with way too much money was probably made before some prices were drastically revised, or the amounts for starting money were dropped down. The covert ops specialist was probably done before locksmith was revised to become such a super-important break-in skill, because a covert ops specialist without that skill is like a decker without the hacking skill. I don't know what happened with the combat mage. But these archetypes are pretty much unusable unless you make some drastic revisions to them. There is a thread on the other forums that reverse-engineers and fixes the archetypes.
Thus, the street samurai with way too much money was probably made before some prices were drastically revised, or the amounts for starting money were dropped down. The covert ops specialist was probably done before locksmith was revised to become such a super-important break-in skill, because a covert ops specialist without that skill is like a decker without the hacking skill. I don't know what happened with the combat mage. But these archetypes are pretty much unusable unless you make some drastic revisions to them. There is a thread on the other forums that reverse-engineers and fixes the archetypes.
They should be error-free because Catalyst have now had over a year to fix the errors. There's no excuse for the garbage editing.
Back in ye old days bad archetypes could at least be tolerated because there was no quick/easy way to disseminate rules updates aside from buying a corrected reprint. Remember the Troll with 0 essence from one of the supplements? Anyway, there is absolutely nothing stopping Catalyst from releasing the ALREADY COMPLETED archetype fixes to the public. It would take an unpaid intern a couple of hours maximum to make the changes and cost them nothing. The fact that they insult their audience over and over again and treat error fixes like some enormous gift from heaven is incredibly bad customer service.
QUOTE (bannockburn @ Jul 16 2014, 12:43 AM)
If a player came to me and wanted to play some norm who thinks trolls are the greatest thing since sliced bread and wants to emulate one, and offers to do so with a distinctive style negative quality, I'd be hard pressed to suggest a more fitting one.
Sure, but my problem is that the book now lists two varieties of becoming a meta poser, that is the kind of stuff which only breeds confusion.
QUOTE
My personal issue with the character is that the spell in question does not allow for a norm to convincingly mimic the size of said troll.
And is Edge is too low, and a ton of other issues which were not fixed.
QUOTE (Sengir @ Jul 16 2014, 02:21 PM)
And his Edge is too low, and a ton of other issues which were not fixed.
See the rest of my blabbering
Yes, I think that good examples are necessary for understanding the rules, but that's what the character creation example is for, not the "take one of these here and dive right in" characters.
I also fully agree that there shouldn't be glaring errors hindering the characters to fulfill their role, such as the infiltrator lacking a locksmith skill.
The boatload of unfixed errata is, of course, very bad, too, but to my mind the archetypes are a very, very minor gripe.
Anyways, I'd probably care more, if I intended to play that game or buy the products. As it stands, I'll do neither for the foreseeable future.
From the SR Blog
Here is hoping it's a step in the right direction.
QUOTE
Yesterday we had a post updating Missions; today it’s time to talk a little about the main line.
I’m going to start with a disclaimer: Much of this is going to be vague, perhaps frustratingly so. But that’s because there are some things going on that are simply not for public consumption, as they relate to the personal lives of people involved, and I don’t feel appropriate to share some elements in a business post.
The past half-year has been chaotic for Shadowrun. Chaos and lots of work is not new, but the nature of the chaos was different. Some of it involved different systems that have been set up over time, including the proofing system, not working as they had; others involved trying new types of products, and the inevitable mistakes that come with trying something new. Catalyst is a small company, and there is almost no redundancy built into it. When something breaks down, it’s difficult to fix it on the fly, and repairs don’t always come quickly as time is short.
One of the results of this chaos was that product proofing was not what it always should be. That’s not at all the fault of any proofers—it was a problem of my process and Catalyst’s process. As new processes were being built, I made some mistakes in judging what would work. I learned from the mistakes, and they have led to changes that will make the new processes stronger.
The good news is that most of the chaos has now passed. Systems that were not working right are back to regular functioning, or have been rebuilt so that they will work better going forward. Some of this was discussed in yesterday’s post, so one thing you can expect is more regular Missions. What else should you expect?
•More regular releases of books;
•More accurate, more reliable rules documents;
•Release of errata for Run & Gun and Street Grimoire by the end of summer or sooner.
We hope to use the changes and processes we have in place to provide books and more that will improve your Shadowrun experience and make you excited about the options you can introduce to your game!
I’m going to start with a disclaimer: Much of this is going to be vague, perhaps frustratingly so. But that’s because there are some things going on that are simply not for public consumption, as they relate to the personal lives of people involved, and I don’t feel appropriate to share some elements in a business post.
The past half-year has been chaotic for Shadowrun. Chaos and lots of work is not new, but the nature of the chaos was different. Some of it involved different systems that have been set up over time, including the proofing system, not working as they had; others involved trying new types of products, and the inevitable mistakes that come with trying something new. Catalyst is a small company, and there is almost no redundancy built into it. When something breaks down, it’s difficult to fix it on the fly, and repairs don’t always come quickly as time is short.
One of the results of this chaos was that product proofing was not what it always should be. That’s not at all the fault of any proofers—it was a problem of my process and Catalyst’s process. As new processes were being built, I made some mistakes in judging what would work. I learned from the mistakes, and they have led to changes that will make the new processes stronger.
The good news is that most of the chaos has now passed. Systems that were not working right are back to regular functioning, or have been rebuilt so that they will work better going forward. Some of this was discussed in yesterday’s post, so one thing you can expect is more regular Missions. What else should you expect?
•More regular releases of books;
•More accurate, more reliable rules documents;
•Release of errata for Run & Gun and Street Grimoire by the end of summer or sooner.
We hope to use the changes and processes we have in place to provide books and more that will improve your Shadowrun experience and make you excited about the options you can introduce to your game!
Here is hoping it's a step in the right direction.
The troll thing is amusing but not the first time Catalyst "fixed" a discrepancy between art and text with a text edit.
The Evo Orderly in 4th edition was supposed to be a humanoid doc-bot that by itself could tend to multiple low-risk patients freeing up actual doctors and nurses for more critical cases, and if necessary a specialist doctor could remotely access the Orderly to perform surgical operations from anywhere in the world.
The artwork was of... a legged wheelchair.
In the errata, the text was quietly changed to remove the "humanoid" from "humanoid walker".
-k
The Evo Orderly in 4th edition was supposed to be a humanoid doc-bot that by itself could tend to multiple low-risk patients freeing up actual doctors and nurses for more critical cases, and if necessary a specialist doctor could remotely access the Orderly to perform surgical operations from anywhere in the world.
The artwork was of... a legged wheelchair.
In the errata, the text was quietly changed to remove the "humanoid" from "humanoid walker".
-k
I also remember that part of the reason the sprawl ganger has a cyberarm worse than his regular one is to match the artwork, showing the dude with a cyberarm.
Another quirky thing about the archetypes is that they seem more like SR4 characters, skill-wise. You can have multiple skills of 6 and skill groups of 6, and common contacts such as fixers and street docs have skills higher than that, but skill-wise, 6's still seem rare, and more than two 5's, even, is rare. Look at some of the SR3 archetypes, such as the adept, the covert ops specialist, the face... lots of 6's.
Another quirky thing about the archetypes is that they seem more like SR4 characters, skill-wise. You can have multiple skills of 6 and skill groups of 6, and common contacts such as fixers and street docs have skills higher than that, but skill-wise, 6's still seem rare, and more than two 5's, even, is rare. Look at some of the SR3 archetypes, such as the adept, the covert ops specialist, the face... lots of 6's.
Well, that is only reasonable: it costs nothing to fix a piece of text; fixing artwork is costly (and sometimes takes a while).
D-d-double post! Triple post! Ultra post! Rampage!
QUOTE (Sendaz @ Jul 16 2014, 08:39 PM)
The change document for SR4A is dated March 2009, when Peter Taylor still was line dev. Jason Hardy took the helm in September 2009, between that date and February 2014, a grand total of ZERO errata was released. And what was released in February, half a year after SR5 was released, were a mere 4 pages compiled by two freelancers, before CGL resumed to play dead. In the same vein, editing and general content quality has gone down the deep end for a long time, including constant report by proofers that their feedback was simply ignored. The line certainly had lemons before, but it has become a citrus monoculture since then.
Everything we are seeing since the release of 5th is simply a continuation of the four years before, explaining that with personal or other problems in the past six months simply doesn't float -- no matter how serious those problems might have been.
I'd be too happy if Hardy and CGL finally managed to pull their act together, but given the history, I'm not buying it (in neither sense of the word) until I see some actual improvement.
QUOTE (Sengir @ Jul 17 2014, 07:45 AM)
I'd be too happy if Hardy and CGL finally managed to pull their act together, but given the history, I'm not buying it (in neither sense of the word) until I see some actual improvement.
Pretty much my reaction:
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jul 15 2014, 04:07 PM)
Know what I still have?
The delivery confirmation slips on the complaint letters I wrote about WAR!
The delivery confirmation slips on the complaint letters I wrote about WAR!
QUOTE (Sengir @ Jul 17 2014, 06:45 AM)
The change document for SR4A is dated March 2009, when Peter Taylor still was line dev. Jason Hardy took the helm in September 2009, between that date and February 2014, a grand total of ZERO errata was released. And what was released in February, half a year after SR5 was released, were a mere 4 pages compiled by two freelancers, before CGL resumed to play dead. In the same vein, editing and general content quality has gone down the deep end for a long time, including constant report by proofers that their feedback was simply ignored. The line certainly had lemons before, but it has become a citrus monoculture since then.
Everything we are seeing since the release of 5th is simply a continuation of the four years before, explaining that with personal or other problems in the past six months simply doesn't float -- no matter how serious those problems might have been.
I'd be too happy if Hardy and CGL finally managed to pull their act together, but given the history, I'm not buying it (in neither sense of the word) until I see some actual improvement.
Everything we are seeing since the release of 5th is simply a continuation of the four years before, explaining that with personal or other problems in the past six months simply doesn't float -- no matter how serious those problems might have been.
I'd be too happy if Hardy and CGL finally managed to pull their act together, but given the history, I'm not buying it (in neither sense of the word) until I see some actual improvement.
Seriously, a year and several releases later and now Hardy's just realizing something's not working, after being yelled at for six solid months after SR5 core published about how poorly edited it was?
This isn't anything promising, it's a 'shut up and give us money' ploy again.
QUOTE (binarywraith @ Jul 17 2014, 06:32 AM)
Seriously, a year and several releases later and now Hardy's just realizing something's not working, after being yelled at for six solid months after SR5 core published about how poorly edited it was?
This isn't anything promising, it's a 'shut up and give us money' ploy again.
This isn't anything promising, it's a 'shut up and give us money' ploy again.
Jason Hardy is the line developer, so the responsibility ultimately falls squarely on his shoulders. That said, I believe the problem lies at all levels of the process, starting from the beginning and going all the way up the chain. I only have evidence for the beginning problems, but the rest seems clear.
another telling point:
- future products promised to be done better
- errata promised for street magic and run & gun
- no comments at all about the core book
in other words, as far as they're concerned, the core book is fine and doesn't need any more errata, and future products will be brought up to it's current level.
so, if the current state of the core book including the recent errata is enough to make you happy, then good news: future books are promised to not be more badly done than that. never mind that a number of problems brought up in the errata thread have been completely ignored, or that the updated version managed to break a few new things, apparently the core PDF is considered to be at an acceptable level now.
- future products promised to be done better
- errata promised for street magic and run & gun
- no comments at all about the core book
in other words, as far as they're concerned, the core book is fine and doesn't need any more errata, and future products will be brought up to it's current level.
so, if the current state of the core book including the recent errata is enough to make you happy, then good news: future books are promised to not be more badly done than that. never mind that a number of problems brought up in the errata thread have been completely ignored, or that the updated version managed to break a few new things, apparently the core PDF is considered to be at an acceptable level now.
QUOTE (binarywraith @ Jul 17 2014, 04:32 PM)
Seriously, a year and several releases later and now Hardy's just realizing something's not working, after being yelled at for six solid months after SR5 core published about how poorly edited it ist was?
If it was just that period we are talking about, I'd gladly take that blog post at face value: CGL is three or so non-freelancers, if one member of such a small team drops out for a significant length of time that is a huge problem and prioritizing new releases over fan service would be a totally understandable reaction.
Problem is, we are talking about a few more than one half-year, and since according to the blog post the last 6 months were done with exceptionally reduced capabilities, the question is where the full capabilities went in the ~4.5 years before...
Any idea when an updated real book will be available?
QUOTE (Ed_209a @ Jul 23 2014, 04:58 AM)
Any idea when an updated real book will be available?
It's already available, if you can read German.
Otherwise, approximately never as they went to press on the reprint with the same crap as first printing.
QUOTE
Otherwise, approximately never as they went to press on the reprint with the same crap as first printing.
Oh Hardy ... again? Really?
QUOTE (hermit @ Jul 23 2014, 11:59 AM)
Oh Hardy ... again? Really?
I'm not sure Hardy is fully responsible. The announcement that the 2nd printing wouldn't be corrected was signed by Bills.
Ah okay. Comment withdrawn then. I just remembered when he de-errata'd the Arsenal once.
Cheese! Can't express how I hate DriveThrough search engine!!! Anybody, good fellas, a link please...
Updated: got it! I wonder, how can u find out what had been edited)))) Dies anybofy know, is there any list of corrections?
Updated: got it! I wonder, how can u find out what had been edited)))) Dies anybofy know, is there any list of corrections?
QUOTE (kirtimlak @ Jul 25 2014, 09:20 PM)
Cheese! Can't express how I hate DriveThrough search engine!!! Anybody, good fellas, a link please...
Updated: got it! I wonder, how can u find out what had been edited)))) Dies anybofy know, is there any list of corrections?
Updated: got it! I wonder, how can u find out what had been edited)))) Dies anybofy know, is there any list of corrections?
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=17340.0
Larsine was kind enough to run a comparison program and sift out the changes. THe majority of it is spelling error corrections and the previously revealed 5th ed errata file, just now incorporated into the main 5th ed file.
also changing some page numbers without changing any references. and a couple of random screw-ups.
The usual drek.
What? Someone had to say it.
What? Someone had to say it.
I've been character building today, and the thing that's struck me as funniest is that the page references in Street Grimoire are correct when referring to pages inside that book... but wrong whenever they reference SR5. It's like there's a curse on it.
QUOTE (Sendaz @ Jul 26 2014, 07:01 AM)
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=17340.0
Larsine was kind enough to run a comparison program and sift out the changes. THe majority of it is spelling error corrections and the previously revealed 5th ed errata file, just now incorporated into the main 5th ed file.
Larsine was kind enough to run a comparison program and sift out the changes. THe majority of it is spelling error corrections and the previously revealed 5th ed errata file, just now incorporated into the main 5th ed file.
My gratitude to Larsine and you!
QUOTE (Cain @ Jul 15 2014, 01:19 PM)
Jason Hardy is the line developer, ultimately everything falls on him.
My understanding is that layout and editing is largely treated as hands-off. I know proofreader fixes are sometimes ignored, but I believe the editors are also told to take a more passive role. Which is a crying shame, because a good editor can really bring out the potential in a given piece of writing. An editor should be an active part of the process, and probably the single most important collaborator. This looks awfully like a rubber-stamp process, where the editor is only allowed to look for gross errors, and then passes it on.
My understanding is that layout and editing is largely treated as hands-off. I know proofreader fixes are sometimes ignored, but I believe the editors are also told to take a more passive role. Which is a crying shame, because a good editor can really bring out the potential in a given piece of writing. An editor should be an active part of the process, and probably the single most important collaborator. This looks awfully like a rubber-stamp process, where the editor is only allowed to look for gross errors, and then passes it on.
This all over the place. Remember when we were proofing SR4A? FFS it was like we were getting the ramblings of a high school creative writing student rather than an edited piece. We weren't proofing so much as making a last-ditch attempt at making a first editing pass to try and keep the book from being (as much) utter shit.
I'm a little disheartened that the processes apparently haven't improved since then. I've been out of the SR game for a while, but I just ran the QSR adventure at FreeRPG Day and it has me wanting to play again. My hope was that since it has been out for so long, I'd be able to pick up a largely corrected and solid physical book at GenCon. If they haven't even bothered to update the dead tree version with the paltry "official" errata that I've seen...I mean fuck.
QUOTE (eidolon @ Jun 30 2015, 06:52 PM)
This all over the place. Remember when we were proofing SR4A? FFS it was like we were getting the ramblings of a high school creative writing student rather than an edited piece. We weren't proofing so much as making a last-ditch attempt at making a first editing pass to try and keep the book from being (as much) utter shit.
I'm a little disheartened that the processes apparently haven't improved since then. I've been out of the SR game for a while, but I just ran the QSR adventure at FreeRPG Day and it has me wanting to play again. My hope was that since it has been out for so long, I'd be able to pick up a largely corrected and solid physical book at GenCon. If they haven't even bothered to update the dead tree version with the paltry "official" errata that I've seen...I mean fuck.
If you think 4AE editing was shit, I highly advise to stay no less than six feet away from 5E books.
I'm a little disheartened that the processes apparently haven't improved since then. I've been out of the SR game for a while, but I just ran the QSR adventure at FreeRPG Day and it has me wanting to play again. My hope was that since it has been out for so long, I'd be able to pick up a largely corrected and solid physical book at GenCon. If they haven't even bothered to update the dead tree version with the paltry "official" errata that I've seen...I mean fuck.
Yup. From this and other stuff I've read I think I'll stick to my plan of using Interface Zero 2.0, the Fantasy Companion, and the rest of the Savage Worlds rules to run SR, and just use my 1st-4th edition stuff for fluff and reference.
Shame, because if they'd get their shit together, the core ideas of the Shadowrun mechanics really do support the feel of the game.
Shame, because if they'd get their shit together, the core ideas of the Shadowrun mechanics really do support the feel of the game.
Oh, there's a Savage Worlds module for cyberpunk? Isn't the system a tad bit too deadly for SR, though?
Not the most extreme necropost I've seen here, but a year is pretty notable.
-k
-k
QUOTE (Fatum @ Jun 30 2015, 03:14 PM)
Oh, there's a Savage Worlds module for cyberpunk? Isn't the system a tad bit too deadly for SR, though?
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/124685...Metal-Cyberpunk
There's ways of adjusting the deadly up and down. Overall, default Savage Worlds is pretty pulpy with lots of chances to "not die." Compared to Shadowrun I'd say running each one on "default" Shadowrun is deadlier by a mile. I ran the QSR adventure at the FLGS, the players won initiative, and I still almost dropped three PCs on round 1 with the SR5 ranged combat rules.
IZ is really, really good. It has it's own world and story (which are pretty good, and def influenced by Shadowrun), but it would be super easy to ignore that, drop in the SR world, add the basic magic rules, rename the spells to their SR equivalents, and go. Hell, there are even some Savage Worlds Shadowrun conversions out there, though I haven't read through them very closely.
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Jun 30 2015, 04:40 PM)
Not the most extreme necropost I've seen here, but a year is pretty notable.
-k
-k
And if I had made a new thread to ask about whether there was a new reprint, you'd be bitching about that instead.
Nice to see the place hasn't changed much in my absence.
QUOTE
I'm a little disheartened that the processes apparently haven't improved since then.
You have no idea.
QUOTE
IZ is really, really good.
Not my cup of tea (I'm not keen on anthropomorphics), but even given that their adventure modules are definitly worth checking out if you feel let down by the publication frequency of SR5 missions.
QUOTE (hermit @ Jun 30 2015, 06:16 PM)
You have no idea.
I have smoll idea. Smoll.
QUOTE (hermit)
Not my cup of tea (I'm not keen on anthropomorphics), but even given that their adventure modules are definitly worth checking out if you feel let down by the publication frequency of SR5 missions.
Eh, I can understand that. But hell, there's plenty of shit I've ignored in Shadowrun over the years.
QUOTE (eidolon @ Jun 30 2015, 06:43 PM)
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/124685...Metal-Cyberpunk
IZ is really, really good. It has it's own world and story (which are pretty good, and def influenced by Shadowrun), but it would be super easy to ignore that, drop in the SR world, add the basic magic rules, rename the spells to their SR equivalents, and go. Hell, there are even some Savage Worlds Shadowrun conversions out there, though I haven't read through them very closely.
IZ is really, really good. It has it's own world and story (which are pretty good, and def influenced by Shadowrun), but it would be super easy to ignore that, drop in the SR world, add the basic magic rules, rename the spells to their SR equivalents, and go. Hell, there are even some Savage Worlds Shadowrun conversions out there, though I haven't read through them very closely.
I like IZ for the mechanics and overall setting, but some of the writing is boring as shit. The setting descriptions are ponderous, confusing, and overlong while still managing to be incredibly vague. When I ran a (short-lived) campaign, I had it take place in Detroit (a city for which there's little information in the actual book itself). I also rolled the timeline back by about 5 years so I could avoid some metaplot stupidity that I wasn't really keen on. Don't get me wrong, I like IZ despite its warts, I just wish the writing was there to support the game and make it a little less bland.
Edit to say: Gunfire in that game can be incredibly deadly. You get shot at, you find cover or get your shit wrecked. It's probably more the "eggshells with hammers" type of game than Shadowrun is in certain situations.
QUOTE (Abschalten @ Jun 30 2015, 09:21 PM)
It's probably more the "eggshells with hammers" type of game than Shadowrun is in certain situations.
Feels like my pathfinder game right now.
We're playing Rasputin Must Die, so machine gun fire tends to one- or two-shot some of our PCs.
GM got to roll 20d8 for something tonight and rather than scrounging up the dice, he just asked for my die roller app (supports up to something like 60 dice using full physics*).
*I should really re-write it and release it on the Google play store.
query, full physics?
Means it uses a physics simulator to determine the dice results rather than a random table. There are 3-D dice that get rolled in a physics environment. Kind of like a video game for dice. Check out Rock 'n' Roll dice roller for an example.
Yep. Each die is spawned at a random position with random velocity and spin, so they tumble about, rather than "rand(1-6), that one's a 5!"
It was one of the first unity applications I made, so it has a couple of small issues I'd address, but which no one else would notice. There's also a bug where if you leave the application after rolling dice, you can't get the menu to show up again (if the menu was visible, it works, if it isn't, the buttons to make it visible don't work, but other things do). No idea why, haven't really bothered to look into it as I'm the only one using it and I don't use it very often.
I'd also like to use the accelerometer, so you can pick your device up and give it a good shake in order to roll.
It was one of the first unity applications I made, so it has a couple of small issues I'd address, but which no one else would notice. There's also a bug where if you leave the application after rolling dice, you can't get the menu to show up again (if the menu was visible, it works, if it isn't, the buttons to make it visible don't work, but other things do). No idea why, haven't really bothered to look into it as I'm the only one using it and I don't use it very often.
I'd also like to use the accelerometer, so you can pick your device up and give it a good shake in order to roll.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.