My question is this : (and I don't need many details)

Are the new matrix rules going to be more in line with how the rest of the system works? Or is it going to be yet another evolution of rules that are completely different from everything else in the book?

I don't think it's a big secret to say: One of the main goals with SR4 is to reduce the "three different systems in one game" bloat.

Well, I guess that answers my question.

Thanks for the quick response!

Combat and Magic arguably use the same core mechanics which is what we're talking about here, Rigging introduces multiple elements into the standard resolution equation and the way programs work in Decking and Cybercombat make them decidedly different from the standard resolution Test mechanic (or at least boast enough ideosyncricies to make you think so).

I'm all for reducing the bloat (i.e. a different system for the Matrix). It is changes to the core combat/magic system that scares me.

matrix used normal oposed tests for its resolution, only real problem was keeping track of what utility goes with what action and host acifs code...

the biggest change for matrix will most likely not be with how the tests worked but how many stats needs to be tracked...

rigging introduced an extra test before the initiative test, atleast some extra factors to track and the vehicle stats. but again the tests where normal oposed tests (outside of the open test at the start of every round). again the change most likely will be changes to the number of factors unique to that part of the system.

the thing is that i fail to see how they can change it much without more or less turning matrix into a simple skill test ever so often and turning vehicles into some kind of mechanical monsters. basicly stripping out all thats special about those parts of the game.

its not the core of the tests that diffrent, its the special modifiers and stats thats only used for that area of the game thats diffrent. but stripp away those and what are you left with? vehicles that become more like monsters/critters? magic and matrix that become like weapons and other gear?

As it stands, decking is probably the most outstanding carbuncle on the SR system. Given the number of GMs and players who relegate it to NPC activity, I think we can safely say that something desperately needs to be done.

Now, although decking is always going to be probably the most complex area of the rules for general usage (magic can be as complex when viewed overall, but not so much from the perspective of what a a single mage needs), in order to become more playable it really does need to be streamlined down. The first big step was moving from the "system map" to the "host systems" model. But the complexity of tests and gear still made the decker unattractive to most players.

Will the decker wind up using similar mechanics to the mages? Maybe. They could do worse, to be honest; at least there would be a consistency to it. Individual programs like spells... obviously it's not an exact metaphor, but it has merit. YMMV, as usual.

Decking is really less complex than ranged combat. Well, granted that it's a little more complicated to plan for (deciding what utilities one will need), but in actual gameplay it's definitely simpler. People's reactions to decking is a source of unending mystery to me.

~J

i still have to disagree with that. in combat--all of combat, not just ranged--you've got just over 3 pages' worth of actions you could possibly take, and five possible TNs whose base values never change. in the Matrix, you've got just over 7 pages' worth of possible actions, which must be matched up to about 2 pages' worth of programs, and you've got at least thirteen possible TNs, the base values of many of which can fluctuate wildly. plus, most of your actions are countered by another value, the results of which you're almost never made aware. on top of that, the GM has at least one extra value to keep track of.

the Matrix rules are simple, sure--once you've memorized them completely. and even then, there are spots that cause a lot of trouble (DF for multiple deckers, for instance).

with the rules in matrix you only need the utilitys when you dont have an account on the host your accessing, or if your trying to do something outside of what your allowed to do.

i think the biggest problem is that people look at the description, get the image of pimplefaced nerd with a hole in his head and then relegate the rules to the npc department.

nearly the same thing happens with riggers unless the gm happens to be a techie that loves to mess around under the hood of cars and similar.

magic and combat on the other hand are so every day in rpgs that you can make then 10 times as complex as both rigging and decking combined and you can be sure that the group will have learned every letter of it to make sure they dont get blindsided.

yes its all metagaming at best but thats the impression i have gotten on this board over the years. still, sr3 helped as it introduced the vr2 system into the main book. and lately i have seen a increase in gm's looking for pointers about how to best handle PC deckers.

the thing is that utilitys are to deckers what guns are to the sammie or spells are to the mage. a vital part of its being. if they produce a system where this have gone away they have more or less taken away most of what a decker is.

The fact that the magic book is the first thing coming out after the core book is no big surprise. The Grimoire/Magic in the Shadows/Street Magic book is always the fist rules expansion put out after the main book. It was the same with SR1 and SR2. Neither one of these really changed the way magic worked in shadowrun that much, just updated the advanced magical rules with the new edition and made a few small changes here and there. (Anyone else remember when shamans got to add their initiate grade to their totem bonuses back in the SR1 Grimoire? )

well the spell defense text could use a cleanup. infact the hows and whys of splitting the sorcery dice (the only skill that have this mechanic) could use a touching up...

That's not the same thing though. A (slightly) better example would be what if you were presented with having to buy a different gun to shoot at male security guards and another to shoot at females? And a third to shoot at critters? And a forth to shoot at gangers? It's even worse than that, though; there have been several threads on what you need in terms of utilities to do even the most basic stuff a decker needs to do. I think the count was eight or nine, and that was just the bare minimum: Analyze, Browse, Deception, Decrypt, Read/Wite, Spoof, Sleaze, right off the top of my head. And that's just the minimum "entrance fee" of sorts; it doesn't count all the stuff you want just to survive, like Armor, Camo or Cloak; utilities you want to get because they make things easier or more fun like Validate or Evaluate. It certainly doesn't count the "You must have X utility to play" utils like Defuse for data bombs, or Purge or Doorstop.... Imagine if the sam had to carry around seventeen guns every time he went on a run, one which he needed just to know what building he was going to (Browse), one of which when taken away from him sets off alarms all around him (Sleaze), one which he needed if he wanted to pick up anything (Read/Write), etc.

what The Eyes posted is exactly my issue with the rules as they stand.

A better comparison might be deckers and utilities to mages and spells, but I digress.

I simply want hacking to resemble the rest of the rules. As it stands decking and rigging don't feel like logical extensions of the core mechanics, even compared to Magic.

I tend to agree with everyone else. Decking needs to be streamlined. But in truth, the combat system for decking is not any more difficult than for any other set of mechanics in the game. It is the planning and understanding the programs that always gets me going on a tirade/rant.

Personally, I liked the idea of introducing the ACIFS skills for Otaku but just making them available to anyone (as long as you had a teacher). It was the forms, echoes and daemons/sprites that remained purely in the realm of the resonantly aware. But anyway, we discovered if you did that for most of the utilities, the game play accelerated quickly. Not perfectly, just quickly.

Now if you got rid of all the different MP mathematics (the thing that really slows everyone down, let's face it), then the game play would really speed up. Anything that needs... no, excuse me... requires for most people to use a calculator during a game needed to be reconsidered.

My consideration in that regard was to drop all the bigger MP multipliers and just keep the Core Rating and Design Modifiers involved, but drop the program multipliers. Get those numbers down below a 100 again for everything and people tend to speed up a bit. Basically get the Program's "Compiled Ratings" and the "Design Ratings". The Compiled Ratings involved the actual operation of the hardware and the Design Ratings involved the design/creation and final compilation to end-code into operation.

Also while we're at it, start using the P-n-P consideration for modular computing more than there is in the game currently. Do the same thing for the program iconics/specifics, and you can speed up the compile times that would make "hacking together a quick program" something that could actually happen during the average beginning-range game scenario.

Anyway... I've got tons more on these thoughts, and so little fraggin' time to coordinate all our current notes into anything perusable. Sounds familiar ... reminds me of the Rigger-Bod/Barrier mechanic discussion I had in a Chicago a few years ago. (grrrr)

err, a decker dont need the utilitys in theory. its just that attacking anything but a low level blue host will give you some very insane target numbers

it will be interesting to see where otaku fit into these new rules. i'm hoping they don't change them too much--make them magical, or something like that. otaku are one of those things that have real potential to become completely insane, both in terms of game mechanics and flavor, if the wrong guy gets ahold of them.

You know, I was thinking... if it's possible to wire the human brain to work seamlessly with a computer than it should be more than possible to wire a computer to work seamlessly with a human brain...

not necessarily. a more powerful computer can emulate a less powerful one, but not vice-versa. i'm not against the idea, i'm just pointing out that it's not the only possible conclusion.

but you couldn't mimic the functions of a quantum computer, as i recall. however, that's not my point--my point is that SR computers might not be powerful enough to mimic human brains to any appreciable degree.

though, actually, now that i think about it, kanada's idea has already been not only proven possible, but has been exploited. he's describing MBW.

When you're building a emulator out of tinker toys, time advantage is the last of your concerns.

that's what i mean. a tinkertoy computer can solve the same math problems that a quantum computer can, but it can't do them the same way a quantum computer does them; whereas a tinkertoy computer can do them the same way as a binary computer, because it's still all 1s and 0s.

Side note: Tinker Toys rocked. I perfered Construx though; they didn't break on me as often (brother and I tended to be rather rough on toys )