I like the classless, multi-level-of-success system.
The point is that, as you said, that there are too many systems.
Some poeple here around think taht the problem is initiative because it works with a different set of rule for dices but, I mean, Initiative is pretty simple as it is dealt now. The problem is that rigging is, for example, completely different from Magic and decking and when things combine (sometimes wuth a bit too much detail level) the brain of newbie Master could just fry up.
It is fine to roll several dices for a roll. But it is not fine to make 4 tests just for an attack (attack-dodge-resistance-knockdown). If you have 5 players and a whole gang to fight teh game start to be pretty complicated. (In this sense i found usefull the use of miniatures and similar markers, at least I remember the place of anything while I try to resolve teh rules matters).
Otehr times there are many test but the final result has a realistic level no s odifferent from that of a wargame (I'm thinking about the melee ruels which I always hated....to long without having any good realism and real detail).
I do not think they have to copy D20 or Cyberpunk but one must have in mind what are the good sides of these games and what these games do better then Shadowrun.
Certainly they are rough and simplistic.....but if they have some poepl palying them is because theyhave some good sides too.
The point of a roleplaying rules system, to myself, is not simply the level of realism (which, anyway, in Shadowrun is not always high) but the "playability" and how much make the paly run smoothly. I rememember playing ROlemaster and it was so boring............Not that this is the same for Sr (which is much better than Rolemaster) but still SHadorun requires some adjustment.
D20 is really rough but, at least give you more the rythm of a combat, while SR takes ages if during acombat yoyu have 40 figthers in teh combat.
CYberpunk is rough too, but at least you know immeditely where the bullet hit. In this sense the deadly wound system of SR is a ridiculous complication resolvable with an hit location table. Tha's all.

So you say you don't like rolling all those "dices," but then you say you don't mind rolling lots of dice. Then you say the Shadowrun combat system is too complex, but that they should add a hit location system (which would then entail adding armor broken down by body part, specific/modified TN penalties based on where the hit was, and all that, too)...

I'm having trouble keeping up with your genuine beef, here.

I'm only saying what is wrong to me.
If anybody has some solution I'm happy but the title of the topic is "things in need of revision", not "what your solution is".
My problems in summary are:
1) too many different systems and incompatibility bwteen them (how can you see the group while you are decking? there are thousands of solutions withj drones, cams, etc.. and any of these solutions have different interpretations.....see a topic of few weeks ago)
2) too many tests (and doing many tests with many dices is different from doing many tests with few dices.....).
3) non functionality of the deadly damge tests and the fact that you know you lose limbs only after the combat. Hit location could be a solution, but maybe not.
4) terrible melee combat system

Okay, for real. The word you want is "dice." Dice. No s at the end. Dice. I've tried to point it out a little more subtely 'cause I'm guessing English isn't your first language (though the rest of your posts are very legible), but it didn't work. Dice. No s. Just dice. That's the word you mean.

What do you mean by a few of these complaints? "Too many tests?" How so?

Complaining about the combat mechanic, still? You need an attack roll, period/paragraph. Most people are very much in favor of the combat pool/dodge attempt section -- Shadowrun is one of the few systems that lets you actively try to get out of the way (instead of feeling helpless when it's not your turn). Soak tests are a vital part of the system, and how damage works (not to mention armor, etc). That leaves Knockdown as really the only part that's somewhat optional and is, in fact the part people often leave out. What part do you think they should do away with, and would the lack of it really make up for the amount of time it takes to roll a few dice? Would you rather Shadowrun just have someone roll to hit, and then you die or don't die without any chance to invest combat pool, spend karma, etc -- just "tough luck, sorry," and scrap the character?

I'm not sure what you mean about the deadly damage rules, either. What exactly is your complaint with them? "Non functionality?" What's that supposed to mean?

And, as to the melee system -- what's your suggestion, again? What part do you not like? What aspect of it is so "terrible," and what would you prefer instead?

Why would colleges devote all that energy, budgeting, and brainpower towards figuring it all out, though? I mean, duh. All you've gotta do is dance widdershins around the blah blah blah three times under the light of the full moon, skyclad, right before having sex with your ally spirit. Magic's easy.

Yes, let's all be stupid and lazy.

I'm not sure I see that on page 244 or 245 of SR3 (Improving the Character). Can you clarify? If you're talking about training then I would suggest that learning Sorcery or such can only be done "roleplayed to the max" for at least the first point. Which is almost suggested in the text.

I was actually looking at the rules in SRC, and I read them wrong anyway (I thought Instruction was used as a complimentary skill for these purposes, instead of adding directly to successes.) My bad.

I know it's been said already but

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE! have an INDEX!



Also please don't spread a rule through several sections of BBB4. I would like as several people have already suggested to have one rule system for rigging, hacking, combat, magic etc.

Having gear, vehicles etc designed with one system which can be bought as a book for gear-heads is also a very good idea. That's my 0.02 worth.

Things in Need of Revision: Practically everything about the system.

Preferred Solution: Rebuild the system from scratch while 1) retaining the flavor and style of the game and 2) leaving the old system behind completely.

Hooray for that seeming to be the case so far!

Seriously, as long as the new system is familiar (staged damage, wound penalties, baseline attributes and skills ranging from 1-6, spellcasting drain, etc.), I'll be happy. If they change it so much that it's unrecognizable... well, I won't be as happy. But I'd still rather see that than another sloppy patchwork job with tons of cuts-and-pastes and weirdness due to legacy rules like the 2nd and 3rd editions were.

Deckers aren't so bad to run, really, except for all those damn utilities. If they tossed out like 90% of the operational utilities and stupid stuff like Sleaze (*why* isn't your DF just equal to your Masking in the first place?) and basically just made everything but special utilities and combat tests versus Access, Control, Index, Files, or Slave--rather like they do with Otaku, really--it would go a long way to making the decker rules more easy to use.

No, Die Pools must stay. Initiative must stay also. At least as far as, sammies get more actions then everybody else.

I think Sleaze was in there because you were screwed when tar pit/baby crashed your sleaze while you were running around in stealth mode.

The shark and wolf totem need to be swaped.

Wolves hunt in packs, but when a wolf shaman frenzies he doesn't have the option to ignore friends.


Sharks are solitary hunters and do have feeding frenzies and everybody gets bit. But a shark Shaman has the ability to ignore friends as possible targets.


It's simple enough to correct and only needs 5 min of somebodys time.



PLEASE!

Eliminating Pools would go a long way towards leveling the playing field, especially in regards to Magic vs. Mundane. I don't think this would be such a bad idea at all.

It would also mean that raw attributes are almost completely divorced from skill use, except for upgrade Karma costs. I'm not sure I like that.

If dice pools go, they´d have to put something else in there to keep the strategic factor. Dice pools are problematic and raises many questions, but they don´t slow the game down.

Maybe they're going the way of White Wolf and making the dice rolled = skill + attribute (more or less). If they did that, they would either have to require more successes to be useful or raise TNs, both of which would be problematic. But hey, it's a whole new ruleset.

I didn't want to be the one who actually suggested that, but I think that is probably the best way to go.

Ideally I'd love to see the system use Attributes to determine how many dice to roll, and Skill to determine or modify the target number.

Tell me... does it look bad...?

Don't lie... you were always... a bad... liar.... *dies*

I've always been a big fan of the attribute+skill system, it's highly versatile (i.e. you don't always have to use the same attribute with any given skill, giving you a easy to vary # of dice for different situations). Not sure how I'd like it applied to SR, have to think about that one for a while. It does make the attribute boosts from the racial templates slightly more powerful, but not massively enough that I would regularly choose an meta (I'm a big fan of humans, and karma pool). Dice pools are a cool system though, the let the player determine how much effort they're going to put into any given action, which I like better than the idea of splitting dice pools that WW has. With the attribute+skill system, if you go real fast and want to attack, attack, attack, but still be able to dodge if someone slower than you gets a hit in, you have a pretty dismal dice pool by the time you get to your dodging, with combat pool on the other hand you can say your biggest concern is dodging should the need arise and thus dedicate the larges percentage of combat pool to it and attack with a lower number of dice. Given that, as far as combat goes, I have to say I prefer having the combat pool to doing a attribute+dice. A+D makes things generally a little more versatile, but pools give the player more control of their actions, and I think at least for SR I like that.

Reason
Tactical Computers cost a lot of nuyen, and tend to require a goodly number of additional ports, beyond the integral five for all of the senses (ignoring whether or not taste/smell should simply be a single "olfactory" port). For the cost, you're not really gaining a lot of benefits (and those benefits tend to top out pretty quickly). What happened to the Initiative bonus, from the prior incarnation?

Likewise, riggers have drones that can employ Battletac technology. Deckers even have a program called Battletac Matrixlink. There are specializations of Small Unit Tactics called Vehicle Tactics and Matrix Tactics. Optional rules have granted Small Unit Tactics, a skill intrinsically related to the Tactical Computer, dominion over both Initiative and Combat Pool.

Despite these facts, tactical computers provide no real bonuses to riggers or deckers (beyond allowing them to act as walking Battletac master units), nor do tactical computers possess stand alone ability to augment initiative. This expansion allows more features to be gleaned from a Tactical Computer, and expands its utility.

Combat Pool or Initiative
A character adds their full Tactical Computer rating to their Small Unit Tactics skill, as well as possessing the ability to use 25% of their Combat Pool, per rating point(up to 100%) on Surprise Tests. Furthermore, a character may choose to either add a point to their Combat Pool(to a maximum of Reaction, as per M&M) or add a point to their Initiative(to a maximum of Reaction).

Rigging
A character with a vehicle control rig may import both the sensors of his primary drone, when directly jumped in, and the senses of other drones, into the tactical computer. The primary drone's sensors count as a number of senses equal to one-half the drone's Sensor rating, requiring one port per two such senses (in the same vein as the orientation system).

Secondary linked feeds from other drones each individually count as a single sense, and require a single port. The orientation system cyberware functions normally for riggers employing a tactical computer. A character's physical senses do not contribute to a tactical computer's effective rating, when it is being used for rigging.

In order to receive data from secondary drones, these drones need to be part of a Battletac network integrated into the charater's Tactical Computer, and the area in which combat is taking place must be within the range of their sensors.

The Combat Pool bonus provided by the Tactical Computer, while rigging, is converted to a Control Pool bonus that may only be used for combat-related maneuvers. The initiative bonus applies only to the drone that the rigger is currently jumped into.

Decking
A decker may import the Sensor component of his cyberdeck's MPCP, and the Sensor components of agents and smart frames he controls, into his tactical computer. The character's own Sensor counts as a number of senses equal to one-half its rating, requiring one port per two such senses (in the same vein as the orientation system). Secondary Sensor data from linked smart frames and agents each count as a single sense, and require a single port. As there is no clear way to "map" a matrix system, the orientation system cyberware does not apply to deckers utilizing a tactical computer. Physical senses do not count toward a tactical computer's effective rating, when used in decking.

In order to receive data from smart frames and agents, these constructs need to be part of a Battletac network integrated into the charater's Tactical Computer, via the Battletac Matrixlink utility. These constructs must be on the same host as the decker, and must possess a Sensor rating of at least 1. Security deckers on a system may integrate the sensor streams from IC constructs into their Tactical Computer, if these constructs are endowed with Matrixlink capabilities.

The Combat Pool bonus provided by the Tactical Computer, while decking, is converted to a Hacking Pool bonus that may only be used for cybercombat-related actions. The initiative bonus applies only to the character's persona, not that of any linked construct.

This was for SR3 to combine the SUT and TacComp rules from 3 separate SBs, but it makes a great deal of sense for SR4 if Wireless Hacking can allow multiple hackers on a team to work together (even moreso if decking and rigging are combined), especially if one of the hackers is also a street sam with a Tactical Computer anyway. All told, the TacComp could assist them in feeding combat information from sources hacked over the Matrix (e.g., nearby video cameras, drones) to provide a full-model tactical environment mockup which is manipulable in 3-D augmented reality for everyone using augmented reality. Basically, BattleTac becoming something inherent to communications systems rather than an obscenely expensive add-on.

Plus you get all the SUT bonuses that a TacComp can boost even further.

As I heard the Tac Comp in 2ed was just r0x04 ju s0x04. They made it rather gimpy in 3ed. As for SUT..I always liked the idea of calling SmUT.. Cause when you are in the field, you can never have too much SmUT.

the TC in 2nd ed was a scary piece of gear, yeah.

You know how SUT can provide either Combat Pool bonus, or Initiative boost up to your max Initiative? The Tactical Computer used to give you both bonuses, but you had to pay hundreds of thousands of nuyen, and the level 2 TacComp was 4.0 essence (but no limit to the ports M&M makes you buy to add senses) with no sense limit. They also added 1 pt./sense each to your rating instead of 1/2, and you rolled the Effective TacComp Rating against the range TN for shotgun to get your CP bonus (add 1 die for each 2 successes), but had to roll it for each target (Int + effective TC rating).

It was pretty badass, yeah.

But now that SUT lets you get the bonus without the TacComp, the SR3 TacComp has one benefit over the old version: It adds its effective rating to your SUT skill. With enough senses, and maxing out SUT, a starting PC could effectively roll over a dozen or so dice (I haven't actually calculated) to boost his Combat Pool or Initiative by 6 if he's lucking rolling against a whopper of a deuce TN (no reason not to get the eqv. of BattleTac-enabled when you SUT yourself), and he can do it repeatedly (SUT self isn't even a Free Action. It's no action). You couldn't even be that chillingly effective with the old one since you had to use Shotgun range TNs with all range modifiers. And +6 to Initiative, even with the ceiling of your max natural Initiative, can mean the difference between going 3 times and 4, which is a big friggin' deal in combat.

In SR2, that was an even better bonus, though, since it meant the difference between which of two equally stated characters went first in combat. The only thing that could have made this thing more evil is if it gave a CP bonus for Surprise Tests. But, in what is the most logical rule in all of SR3, the SR3 version of TacComp does give a Surprise Test bonus of up to 100% of CP (equal to Combat Sense) just by virtue of its existence (and this is beyond the SUT boost) depending on its rating.

Even despite the changes, getting a TacComp is probably one of the best decisions you can make for any character who can afford it.

Edit

Which brings me to something else about SR4 to which this should apply. The above goes to streamlining rules across all levels of interface the TacComp affects, especially when it's merged with BattleTac. My second suggestion is that, frankly, in SR4 the Tactical Computer should be given non-cyber stats, or even made a program for hackers. Likewise, if they are going full-scale AR, BattleTac should be a program for whatever computing device hackers use like the BattleTac Matrixlink, and not some unnecessarily expensive add-on to communications systems. It should also be functionally interoperable within the meatworld and rigging as well as the Matrix.

And since everyone would have them, the shadows would become very friggin' dangerous.

Oh, definitely. Encryption is a must, otherwise you're going to suffer from suggestion 2A--ripping off mfb's idea from a week ago, all the jamming, etc. rules should be streamlined into one system. And if you're not running ECCM and encrypting your communications, you're screwed because the opfor hacker with his own TacComp/BattleTac/ECM rig is going to cause all sorts of havoc to your tactical programs.

Just a quick thought on this concept that everything needed to run a solid game should be in the main book, rather than having a core book plus 5 "core" books needed to play well rounded archtypes like we have now. From what I've seen around these forums expectations are running a little high about what can be fit into a single book. If they somehow manage to really streamline and get all the important stuff from all of our current "core" books into a single book that isn't insanely big for 4th ed, it will be a miracle that as near as I can tell would violate the laws of physics. Think about it this way, none of the top 3 publishers of RPGs have been able to get everything into a single core book. WotC needs 3 (PHB, DMG, MM), Steve Jackson needs 2 (Players and Campaigns), and WW needs at least 2 (the core book plus at least on of Vampire, Mage, or Werewolf). Games, esspecially those with a complex setting and/or highly variable character, of which SR has both, just need more room than a single book can provide. Now, I would definitly like to see those 5 "core" books we have now condensed into maybe 2 books beyond the core 4th ed book to have everything for a really thurough game, but I'm not going to expect everything to be in one book. (I'll be thrilled if they do pull it off though).

If you wanted to be really picky, World of Darkness is a complete RPG in its own right. The other sourcebooks add the rules and background for playing additional or different campaigns in the setting. Not that I'm a WW fanboy, they've made a number of decisions that made me want to firebomb them - but at least they're taking the right approach for their particular game world in these new releases.

I would also point out that the previous editions of the WW core books didn't have everything that people are asking for in the new SR 4th ed book (edges and flaws, completes lists of anything, etc.). I'm just trying to point out that putting everything important for every archetype and running the game into a single book is an extremely challenging endeavor (especially if your shooting for a price point in the $35 for a hardcover)

[Things I Like]

- Skill + Attribute not explicitly linked (I like that high attribute people will have an easier time learning a skill (i.e. pay less points) but that the skill is what really matters). Doing it the other way shifts the focus from skill to attribute (i.e. have high attributes so all the skills attached to it are naturally high).

- Keeping Knowledge skill points in a separate pool. Brilliant before, still brilliant now.

- Staging (of course, I loved the SR1 way of doing things, but maybe I'm just old school)

- Autofire rules. Sure, people may argue about them, but they're fast. I've played enough systems to know that multiple rolls for multiple bullets slows things down A LOT.

- Templates. Great for giving new players a feel for the game, and for returning players whose characters have just died into the game quickly!

- Contact rules. This is the heart of the game, really. Make sure they get the attention they deserve!

- Rules examples. I always loved that I could read through an example of something, see how a rule works in practice.


[Things to Revise]

- Integrate decking/hacking into a run better. Primarily this means less rolls, which probably means doing away with all the RTLG/PTLG/individual host stuff.

- Argh! Vehicles are so bloody complicated if you want to run a chase scene. I mean, really, who actually uses those rules?

- Rewrite the section on astral sight and what you can/can't do. The plethora of questions on Dumpshock means that it isn't clear enough.

- Maybe melee combat should work more like ranged combat?

- Reorganize the equipment so that rules for things are easily found. Better yet, don't have rules in the equipment section at all (or, alternatively, have ALL the rules related to equipment in that section). That way you don't have to look three places when you want to figure out how to do something.

- Bring back the burned-out mage template!

Just my .02.

Just a little tweak we use in our game.

Melee combat is not super realistic being that it is an abstraction. To make it slightly more realistic, the base Target Number is the Opponant's (appropriate) Melee Skill. All TN Modifiers apply.

Still abstract, but more satisfying to me because one character's skill directly opposing another's, just like real melee combat.

Um, are you joking? Doing that makes melee combat even more one brokenly sided than it already is.

Explain how, please.

PC with kung-fu 6 vs. NPC with clubs 4 (with actual club).
PC rolls 6 Dice vs. TN 4
NPC rolls 4 Dice vs. TN 5 (6-1 reach)

Oh dear. I'm having nightmares now.

My group's a long-running one. Everyone (by which I mean PCs and supporting NPCs) has a minimum melee skill of 6... except for MAYBE the mage that throws force 10 barrier spells up at the drop of a hat.

With making the opponents skill the TN.. well.. that's just painful. That means two people with skill 8 are both shooting at TN 8 (minimum).. and up to TN 12-15 with all the various modifiers that can get thrown in. Doesn't this seem like it's going to make fights last forever?

Fights between highly skilled opponants can last a long time, or be very short. Usually someone gets shot first (by someone else) which would also happen if you got into a fistfight in the middle of a gunfight.

Security guards usually do not have a melee skill of 6 which in SR3 p.99 is described as "Innate" and "mind and body become one" and is a step beyond "professional."

It usually works out quite nicely. Melee fights do not last forever.

As I said.. long-running campaign. We aren't fighting security guards anymore. We're fighting experts and up... they're typically equally or more skilled then we are. And the PCs are 8, 8, 10 for melee skills.

Just to give you an example: A few runs ago, a 'minor' fight (overall) was between a skill 8 cyber-implant combat person and a skill 10 jujitsu person.

An even worse example was earlier when it was skill 8 vs skill 12.

The technique works out relatively well for the middle skill values.. but for the highly skilled it breaks down, and for the low skilled it seems strange as well. It's almost impossible to miss with skill 1 vs skill 1, which doesn't make sense.

It's not the blocking that's the problem... it's the outright MISSING.

Have you ever watched two people spar in any martial art at the very beginning? Or, better yet, two of the beginning (first few belts) kids? They just plain miss. At skill 1, you don't judge distance right, you don't have any way to figure out how your opponent is moving. It's not that they block, it's that they're never where your attack is going -- and it's because you just AREN'T good. You know how to make a fist. You might know a few different sortof-strikes.

What about defaulting?
Target 0? Target (other skill/attribute)? Target (other skill/attribute-2/4) (for default to skill/attribute)?

I've always done it that way too - and treated the TN for someone without the skill, or who is not defending themselves as 2 - which is not unreasonable if you're talknig about having 3 seconds to attack an unskilled or unready opponent who's not defending themselves. Introduce someone who's performing an equally unskilled defence with the same number of pool dice and the expected number of net successes is zero - making a miss the standard outcome.

It makes melee combat very one-sided between skilled characters and unskilled ones, and a real slog between characters with comparable skills, especially comparable good skills. That may or may not be realistic, but it fits pretty well - combat experts demolish sec guards, but a melee between two pros is going to take a long time and involve a lot of attempts to jockey for position/advantage rather than just trusting the dice to help you out - and two moderately skilled guys with average strength can hit each other a bunch of times wihtout doing any serious harm, which is, at least realistic.

It's not for everyone, but I quite like my professional level martial artists taking down untrained hobos with one swing, guaranteed.