Attributes

1. Will the attributes have a more meaningful impact on skills and success of skills?

Skills

1. Are the skills going to be re-distributed with a more even-handed approach to everything or will we continue to see broad groups in the less popular areas like Negotiations, Electronics and Biotech versus the popular areas of...well...Firearms?
2. Will the subject of knowledge skills be a little more clearly defined or remain as is?
3. For that matter, will we continue to see a splitting of the skills into the deliberately useful and accidentally useful?

-Siege

I don't think I'm violating anything when I answer these, since they seem generic enough, and I can give easy answers without having to give details.

ATTRIBUTES
1. Yes.

SKILLS
1. I think so.
2. Ditto.
3. Again, I think so.

Some of the skill stuff is still up in the air, as I recall.

I totally agree that attributes should play a bigger part in the mechanics. As it stands, they are only the limit for how far your skills can go and how much they cost. (No skill can be more than 2*linked attribute, attributes have a maximum, which means, without edges at the chargen, a human can only have an 18 skill max which is a truly scary thought)
I personally, would like skills to modify TN and you roll dice based on attributes. But that's me.

Hm. I'd have to see how they do the integration to have a good opinion on it. Oh, and skills CAN (in 3rd edition, at least) be more than 2x the linked attribute. Personally, I like the TN set by circumstances (such as how hard what you're doing is) and skills as the # of dice you roll. I'm so very interested in what they will do for SR4, though. Can barely wait the several months until release.

And if some of Nigel Findley's bones happened to be ground into a powder and mixed into an ink...would you consider printing a couple of special editions?



-Siege

For the general record, please keep in mind that attributes also play a part in the limits of success tests especially with regards to Physical Tests (how much I lift, how much I weigh, how fast I run, how much can I throw, how hard do I hit). They also play a limit in the size of teams (Charisma) for developing things/working together. They have an impact on Cyberdecks (though that may be changing with the Matrix chagnes... who knows). They also can have an impact on the way you focus/distribute your attention (Willpower).

Attributes are *very* influential in the current game version. If they become more so in the future, I'd wager that a potential for overusage of skills could occur. Note I said "could occur" not will occur.

Without counting the inane addition of altering skill improvement costs, I have never had a relative attribute impact on game play.

My long-standing argument runs along these lines:

A human with Strength 8 and Athletics 4 has the same skill chance of performing an action successfully as a Strength 2, Athletics 4 human.

The augmented human could default to his Strength for performing the action, but then he suffers a penalty for defaulting to an attribute.

-Siege

Edit: And how would an "overusage" of skills occur?

Don't forget that attributes determine pool. They're much more valuable than skills in a general sense.

~J

Also, Body and Willpower are directly used for damage resistance. Quickness is directly responsible for movement rate. Intelligence determines your knowledge skill pool. Charisma is used directly when dealing with spirits/elementals.

Edit: almost forgot about Strength which figures your melee damage.

Strength is directly used to calculate encumberance. Though right now it is far *far* too linear and crappy at the low ends; I don't know anyone who can't carry 5-15 kilograms without getting tired who isn't physically disabled far beyond the normal range of humanity. Combine this with the fact that canon weights are off by a factor of at least 2, and you have a recipe for encumberance rules being ignored by most games; I know *I'm* always surprised when I find out that encumberance rules are actually enforced in any particular game.

A plea. Can we see some 'if you've done this, you'd probably have these skills' things?

The most popular backgrounds (police, military) at least.

It'd be great for helping set up characters.

I'll be happy if skills are set up to allow us to build real human beings. I don't want to see a rehash of the time I ran through examples of how Priority wouldn't let me build evena third of the skillset you'd get from going through basic training, point got me half way, and even BeCKS couldn't even get there.

I always liked the skill packages that the Mechwarrior RPG rules offered (can't remember which edition). Basically they gave you a discount in skill points for a particular group of skills according to the character's education track.

In SR terms, a "Lone Star Academy" package might give you Pistols 4, Shotgun 3, Athletics 2, Computers 2, Electronics 2, Car 3, Etiquette(Law Enforcement) 3(5) for 18 skill points (rather than spending 20 for all those on your own).

I really hate that shit. All it does is enforce narrow character concepts and penalize people with creative backgrounds. It's a horrible idea.

Gee, my Wheaties suddenly taste like urine.

I see where you're coming from, but it could be done well. If the packages include a range of skill that aren't normally taken by one character, the packages could be used to encourage types of characters not normally created due to players tendencies to specialize.

In other words if a package saved a character 2 points, included Boat 4, and didn't give the character enough skills to be a proper rigger, it doesn't really help out the munchkins - in fact it would cost them 2 more points than if they left Boat off all together. But, for someone wanting to make a former Naval officer, it would be a real boon.

At the end of the day, as neat as I think it is, it's not one of those things I would buy or not buy a book over though.

I think this is something that is best left to each individual GM on a campaign-to-campaign basis.

One way to handle packages is to make sample NPCs (something neat for the webpage, too) using the creation rules for various commonly encountered roles, and additional contacts. Of course, this can also be handled communally or using a resource like TSS. This allow the "packages" to be nothing more than possibilities, by keeping them away from the rules.

SuperSpy has much of what I'm thinking.

This was inspired by repeated attempts to answer players' queries of 'Well, my character was X, what skills would he have?'

Sometimes, you just want to get the skills someone would have gotten from training; Yes, I was inspired by the MechWarrior RPG's system, or the similar system used by Twilight 2000.

Building characters point by point is great for advanced players. For players that don't want to use the samples but do want a quicker system than the point-by-point routine, these would be great.

I have no problem with packages set up to make things easier for people ignorant of, say, police and military skill sets. That's fine. Set up a package for each common background with explanation and information to teach them about why the packages are what they are. That's fine. Just keep it the hell away from mechanics and don't give them discounts. Do not penalize people who want to be creative.

I agree totally. That was never my intention, Arethusa.

I wouldn't want discounts. But I do want an easier way for players to build common characters.

I really hate skill packages. All they do is cut down on the amount of character originality. I would, however, be perfectly happy they were included in an optional book. It could be something included in the new "Companion" book for those who want to create characters quickly or want to play a certain type of game.

As for attributes, I hope they don't get too much more powerful. As it is, I usually take attributes over skills when a make a character using the priority system for the following reasons:

1) If you want to play any type of character with good skills starting out you need good attributes.
2) If I'm playing a Sam with an melee weapon, nothing beats a high strength.
3) A high body is absolutely essential to survive any kind of combat.
4) Ditto for a decent combat pool.
5) Being able to resist drain and summon high force spirits for low drain make a high charisma and willpower essential.
6) Being able to resist a variety of spells makes a decent willpower essential for most characters.
7) Intelligence is absolutely vital for those all important perception tests.
Intelligence and willpower are extremely useful for deckers and riggers.

Really, if they make attributes any more powerful, I'll be forced to use the point system just so I can throw all my points into attributes!

The thing with attributes is, it's so much harder to raise them than skills. Hence, I go the attributes-monkey route.

Yeah, I find it really hard to talk intelligently when I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Doesn't stop me from trying though.

For my 2 I think a happy medium between the BP system offerred in SRC and the White Wolf system where you are given X number of attribute pts to distribute would be best. That way if someone wants to be more of a "Perfect Specimen" they can fill their attributes.

Though a separation of some of the higher end costs of Skills and Attributes would be nice. A marksman who is slower than molasses is very difficult to make under the current rules due to the prohibitive cost differential between Pistols 6 and Quickness 2.

What I'd really like to see is a fixed TN 4, with modifiers for situations changing the number of successes necessary rather than the TN itself. This will break down a lot of the complaints that a TN7 is the same as a TN 6 and the need for variant systems.

Example:
Wanna shoot a guard, TN 4 one success necessary. If he dodges, every success he gets makes your life harder just like now. It's dark, add 3 to the difficulty, meaning you now need 4 successes to shoot the guard. Got a smartlink? It will lower the difficulty by two.

I don't like it. It makes low skill incapable of achieving certain objectives, and makes bonuses worthless in the absence of penalties.

Edit: yeah, I know, but Pistols 1 is cheap and Quickness 8 applies to a whole host of other skills. That's assuming there's still some sort of penalty for defaulting, otherwise there's no real point to buying skills linked to any attribute you care about more than one skill in (until you hit RML).

~J

As I said, it's not polished by any means...

Is it the base concept that bugs you or just a need for a fuller system? With the edit of having the skill roll be Qck + Pistols, then you would see the difference between someone who is naturally talented and someone who is well-trained in a specific application.

It would also be plausable to state that certain skills cannot be defaulted to (Sorcery for example) or that there are modifiers for simply using an attribute without training (similar to the +4)

So you can't do anything if you don't have the skill, but as soon as you have even the most rudimentary training, you can be incredibly capable?

Eh, it was a smart-assed suggestion.

Personally, I'm alright with just having Attribute + Skill, and if you don't have the Skill then just use the Attribute (maybe at a penalty)

Or maybe borrow a page from the Icosahedron-Based-System-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named, and have some skill rolls atemptable if someone doesn't actually have points invested in the skill (i.e. rolling attribute alone), and some off limits to being used untrained (i.e. you must have a Rating of at least 1 in the skill before you can attempt the skill roll). Predetermined of course, on a case by case basis on whether or not it makes sense for each particular skill, and neatly listed in the core rules?

And 3) The proofreaders always seem to miss the glaring errors on the first printing, leaving it for errata and subsequent printings to make a character sheet that's legal per the chargen rules.

Requests for 4th edition? Great. Hopefully a game designer or two will read mine. I don't mean any offense, but I'm going to keep this post short and to the point at the expense of sweetness. Bear with me as I go over the current problems of the game I love to pieces. Just so you know, I hate it because I care.

In order of desireability:

1) Make the four archetypes (sam, rigger, mage, decker) balanced. Yes, I know there are adepts - for the sake of this argument, they are sams. Currently, the mage is way ahead of everyone else (geek the mage, remember?). This is proven by empirical observation of the few Shadowrun-themed MUSHes (Seattle, Detroit, London, etc). Mages make the most desired "character class" so much that the applications for one have to be limited or neutered (in a bad way) just so that population ratio remains somewhat close to canon, as opposed to one mundane for every 10 mages online. I direct you to London (telnet: pix.isa-geek.com 7112), which "fixed the mages" in the most reasonable way.

2) KISS. Electronic warfare, vehicle combat, decking, cyberware stress, implant surgery... what were you thinking? Most gamers draw the line at the excel spreadsheet. I.e. if I have to use a spreadsheet to play, I'm out. So, to rudely reiterate, Keep It Simple, Stupid ™. As a GM, I reduce rigger/decker stuff to single success rolls just to keep the game going as opposed to going 'huh?'

3) I hear the rumor that riggers and deckers are becoming one archetype? No argument from me, so long as they become simple enough to play.

4) Off-hand weapons, ambidexterity, counterstrike, improved skill: martial arts and enhanced artwinkulation (excuse me, articulation): all of these are ever slightly in need of adjustment. Things that add dice to melee rolls need to be looked at. In the second edition, trolls were kings, because Reach was the game breaker. Now it's just the number of dice. Keep these bonuses reasonable!

5) Light pistols. Never in my experience as a GM and a player in 9 years of playing Shadowrun, have I ever seen a light pistol fired. What's the point of having useless gear in the book? It's taking space that could be used by extra-vigorous phallic symbols of troll manhood, if not extra-spiffy climbing gear and detailed descriptions of complete poc sec, disposable cellphone and credstick functionality. And it's not just the pistols: a lot of gear is a little confused in stats and price. Take the throwing knives that are as expensive as grenades (more bang for your buck eh).

6) Hot potato: just another spell that breaks the game. At least it doesn't make you rip your cyberarm off or claw your cybereyes out... too bad about that nose ring, though, eh?

I don't know. I kindof like the way it works presently -- what I dislike is the training costs in karma, for the high attributes with low skills.

The reason I don't like attribute bonus dice is that most skills don't depend solely on one attribute. Almost all combat techniques depend on strength and quickness, for instance, but most of the melee are strength, and ranged are quickness -- really, there's some overlap, so I don't like giving attribute dice as a bonus on top of the skill, not when there's also combat pool.

What I don't like seeing, is someone with attributes in the 6-9 range, and only one skill point.

Which leads to 2 possibilities to my mind

1: the 1 karma to get a starting skill gives more than 1 skill point -- instead they get attribute/3. For instance, quick 9 adept spends 1 karma to buy the pistols skill, and gets 3 skill points.

2: Revise the training costs table to something like:

less than 1/2 attribute: 1
less than attribute: 1.5
less than 2* attribute: 2
more than 2* attribute: 2.5

True enough Fortune, but I rather hope they keep the different pools. I never found them really unbalancing, and it made combat more interesting -- you could get tangible benefits for planning how something was going to work out. Throw everything in, and hope you don't get hit because you aren't at all ready for it, or take the shot and be ready to roll with the counter or dive for cover when they shoot back. It was a good, easy mechanic, and saved writing loads of rules to keep it from degerating into 'I hit him with my sword' or 'I shoot him'

I don't think an artificial limitation is going to balance the inherent benefit to having a higher Stat than not.

If Stat affects skill, then it will always be better to have a larger Stat than not.

Skills will stil be important as others have noted because:

1. Skill progression is unlimited
2. Stats are limited
3. Some difficulty numbers cannot be achieved with Stat alone

One improvised solution came from FoF's Strength versus recoil bonus table. By applying a similar bonus to other attributes and related skills, stats provided a practical impact on skills and skill success.

-Siege

Edit: For code

And in first edition, wiz-worms were hampered by Initiative rules. And they still tend to be glass cannons at the best of times.

Although allowing Init increase spells and Geas to reduce Magic loss from essence loss gave wiz-worms a blank check for straddling the line of magic and cyber.

-Siege

Having never played riggers or deckers I don't know the intricacies of their pools, but I know that for spell pool and combat pool.. there's minimal overlap, and that's how it really should be, I think. Combat, quickness makes sense to have an impact on.. You can dodge, that's your agility.. you can roll with a blow, that's agility too. You can twist to minimize a blow.. there's agility again. But magic? You can't dodge drain.. but if you're strong enough magically (high magic attribute) you might be able to absorb it.

Not knowing about riggers and deckers, I can't comment there.

I agree though, breeding pools like rabbits is a bad idea, but one pool just doesn't make sense. You could combine everything, but then you have magic attribute affecting dodge.. or quickness affecting drain resistance.

Lots of people bitch about how magic is overpowered, and that mundanes should have more defence against it. The Spell Pool goes a long way towards making this actually true. As was said above, everyone has access to the Combat Pool, but when Mages cast spells, they can blow Spell Pool and still have all their Combat Pool remaining for defence. Mundanes can save their Combat Pool for defence as well, but then don't get to use extra dice the way mages do.

It's just a thought ... we are just throwing out suppositions and such. I think the whole system should be overhauled, but as I said earlier, I'm not a game designer.

That sounds more like an argument for abolishing or lessening Spell Pool than pools in general.

~J

Note that I did say in my earlier post "especially the Spell Pool".

But I do think that Pools in general could be done away with if the base mechanics are changed enough.

Well, yes, but likewise the system could be reworked to be based on d13s. All we really have to go on right now is the flawed assumption that it won't be all that different in terms of base mechanic, but where's the fun in just staying quiet until we get more info?

~J