If they do something like this, they are going to have to have more than a fixed TN. They are going to have to have a max upper limit to attributes. Say 6. That way there won't be a ton of dice being rolled.
So that's something to look forward to, a max of 6 (or whatever) in any attribute... *cough*cookiecutter*cough*
Full Version: Fixed TN
It has already been stated that the Attribute maximum will be 6 (plus any applicable racial modifiers).
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| It has already been stated that the Attribute maximum will be 6 (plus any applicable racial modifiers). |
I must have missed that...
I fail to see how anyone could think attribute maxes are a good idea? I fail to see how fixed tns are a good idea...
In fact, I fail to see how anything presented to me so far about SR4 has been in anyway in line with what Shadowrun has been up to date.
I kind of agree with you. I was very excited about the prospects of SR4 when I first heard about it, but the more actual data I get (not that there's much to start with), the more apprehensive I am getting about the whole idea.
| QUOTE (Fortune @ Apr 6 2005, 07:56 PM) |
| I kind of agree with you. I was very excited about the prospects of SR4 when I first heard about it, but the more actual data I get (not that there's much to start with), the more apprehensive I am getting about the whole idea. |
I was exactly the same way! I thought great! They are going to do to 3 what they did to 1 and 2. Each edition of the game kept the basic game while improving on it at the same time. 4 (from what I can tell) DOES NOT DO THAT. It scraps the current game in favor of an entirely new (and far more simplistic) rule set.
Someone on the board said it seems like they are trading old players for new players. I am starting to agree.
I was told that the the Dev's (Or Dev I guess) got input from DSF with out actually asking, just browsed the boards looking for ideas. I seriously doubt it. No one on DSF would have come up with this asinine new system. And if they had, I would hope that their Dikoted AVS would have been immediately revoked.
There is already a excellent, original, and well made system for Shadowrun. Improving it should be cake. The only problem is, FanPro didn't make it, so heaven forbid they work on it when they could make a brand new one to call their very own!
And yes sarcasm is being detected. All I get from the FanPro people who respond is.. you haven't seen it don't judge it or we knew people were gonna be mad so were not even trying to make you understand.
I know it's a biz, and I know you got to draw in new people to keep the biz alive. But there are other ways to do it then revamping the system to be a clone of other game systems.
I'm interesting in seeing how it all works out. How do cyberware and magic augmentations fit it and so on. If dynamics are playable and worthwhile but not overly so, then I can live with it.
I'm not against a totally new mechanic, though it is surprising and not what I expected. The advantage of it is rather obvious, allowing each effect to have a single line and with simply understood mechanic no need for layers of rules doubling each other.
We could argue the cookie cutter point of view, but I don't know with all of Shadowrun's augmentations how true that will be. Cyber, bio, magic, nanoware, and matrix all mix and allow for so much variety... One could say that all 1st level fighters are the same in d20, but the truth is not at all that clear. In the end it comes down to roleplaying.
I'm not against a totally new mechanic, though it is surprising and not what I expected. The advantage of it is rather obvious, allowing each effect to have a single line and with simply understood mechanic no need for layers of rules doubling each other.
We could argue the cookie cutter point of view, but I don't know with all of Shadowrun's augmentations how true that will be. Cyber, bio, magic, nanoware, and matrix all mix and allow for so much variety... One could say that all 1st level fighters are the same in d20, but the truth is not at all that clear. In the end it comes down to roleplaying.
| QUOTE (Shadow) |
| ... revamping the system ... |
No pun intended?
Another point to keep in mind is that Skill+Attributes are called Dice Pools, which has a rather... interesting connotation to it. If the dice are to be divided between actions or similar, withheld for defense as example, it could supplement the tactical edge given by current augmentations.
| QUOTE (Kanada Ten) |
| If the dice are to be divided between actions or similar, withheld for defense as example, it could supplement the tactical edge given by current augmentations. |
This is what is done in exalted with nWOD. I think that it is one of the flaws of the system. It doesn't allow for mulitlple actions very well, except for highly munchkinized characters. It should be pointed out that in Exalted and other WOD games characters are generally far from being human, as normal humans barely compare to Exalted characters for instance. In exalted the purpose of the game is to play an exalted being, a minor demi-god or something.
In Shadowrun it is exactly the opposite. Players are playing humans that generally come from the lowest rungs of society, i.e. the mean streets of the Barrens and the masses of the SINless. Of course this doesn't characterize all characters and campaigns, but it is the general feel of the game.
I voted for 'flop' since, even though I like the nWOD system for Exalted, I do not think that it or a varient thereof would be good for Shadowrun. Shadowrun needs a fine grained approach to dice roll resolution. Shadowrun should take into account all of the various factors that can be applied to a certain situation (both positive and negative ones). The variable TN with modifiers of SR3 allows for this.
In Exalted it is more coarse grained than that. Dice rolls are generally geared toward resolution of combat and abilities against other exalted characters, monsters, and feats that most 'mortals' would not even consider attempting. Situational modifiers in Exalted generally represent heroic actions and stunts done by the players. Most other things are generally resolved through rping.
I think that mechanics DO capture certain aspects of a game. The variable TN in SR3 does a good job at that. Currently, I am not yet sold on how this new version in SR4 is going to give the game the same fine-grained dice roll resolution.
Of course I know that the SR3 is not flawless, that is why I am sad to see the baby being thrown out with the bathwater.
Veracusse
After thinking for a bit, I think that there is one way for this new confangled system to work in Shadowrun. I hope that this post doesn't fall on deaf ears!!!
First of all: The number of successes should be based on difficulty of a given task alone. In other words there should be base number of successes for any given situation. This number, other than the given situation, should not be modifiable. Things that can be included in this category are damage codes, (i.e. L equals 2 successes, M equals 4 successes, etc.), skill tests (easy task equals 2, hard equals 4, etc.). Something along these lines.
Next: Modifiers should affect the number of dice that are rolled. However, to make skill important and reflect that a skilled person is a skilled person no matter what the situation is, dice modifiers should affect the dice that is added from the attribute with a minimum of 1 attribute dice. For example if super ninja night one with 7 Quickness and 2 Pistols is trying to shoot while standing one-handed on the roof of a fast car at night during night-time rush hour, she should have -5 (or something appropriate, I am just making these numbers up for sake of explication) to her quickness attribute, but not her skill. Thus she would have a dice pool of 4 (Attr 7 -5 + skill 2 = 4). Now if an elite sec guard who is not as naturally as fast as super ninja-girl nightone has a quickness of 4 but a pistol of 6, he would have a dice pool of 7 (Attr 4 -5 |1| + skill 6 = 7). Now of course doing the acrobatic stunt in the first place may have been too hard for super elite sec guard. But I am assuming otherwise.
Added dice to the dice pool should only come from character modifications through cyberware, spells, adept abilities, or even decker utilities (oops sorry , Haaaackers!
). Most certainly, added dice should not come from characters trying to do stunts for craziness factor. That is cheese! That is an exalted thing, where cheese in that game is mandatory. But NOT in Shadowrun!
The rule of six can be applied here to allow for an open ended amount of successes. My main point is that mods should be done in the right way, Base successes should not be modifiable, and skills should not be modifiable (except only for when a character is defaulting from one skill to the other).
I also want to state that, NO I do not have a lot of faith in the dev staff for various reasons. There is no reason why I should with the recent FAQs that have been comming out. And I think that FanPro should not bite off the hand that feeds. I.E. THere bloody loyal FANBASE of almost twenty years.
Sorry for my tone at the end. But this is starting to become a little too much to swallow.
Veracusse
P.S. I also want some feedback on my idea if it is feasible for a game like Shadowrun or not? From devs, or anyone.
First of all: The number of successes should be based on difficulty of a given task alone. In other words there should be base number of successes for any given situation. This number, other than the given situation, should not be modifiable. Things that can be included in this category are damage codes, (i.e. L equals 2 successes, M equals 4 successes, etc.), skill tests (easy task equals 2, hard equals 4, etc.). Something along these lines.
Next: Modifiers should affect the number of dice that are rolled. However, to make skill important and reflect that a skilled person is a skilled person no matter what the situation is, dice modifiers should affect the dice that is added from the attribute with a minimum of 1 attribute dice. For example if super ninja night one with 7 Quickness and 2 Pistols is trying to shoot while standing one-handed on the roof of a fast car at night during night-time rush hour, she should have -5 (or something appropriate, I am just making these numbers up for sake of explication) to her quickness attribute, but not her skill. Thus she would have a dice pool of 4 (Attr 7 -5 + skill 2 = 4). Now if an elite sec guard who is not as naturally as fast as super ninja-girl nightone has a quickness of 4 but a pistol of 6, he would have a dice pool of 7 (Attr 4 -5 |1| + skill 6 = 7). Now of course doing the acrobatic stunt in the first place may have been too hard for super elite sec guard. But I am assuming otherwise.
Added dice to the dice pool should only come from character modifications through cyberware, spells, adept abilities, or even decker utilities (oops sorry , Haaaackers!
). Most certainly, added dice should not come from characters trying to do stunts for craziness factor. That is cheese! That is an exalted thing, where cheese in that game is mandatory. But NOT in Shadowrun! The rule of six can be applied here to allow for an open ended amount of successes. My main point is that mods should be done in the right way, Base successes should not be modifiable, and skills should not be modifiable (except only for when a character is defaulting from one skill to the other).
I also want to state that, NO I do not have a lot of faith in the dev staff for various reasons. There is no reason why I should with the recent FAQs that have been comming out. And I think that FanPro should not bite off the hand that feeds. I.E. THere bloody loyal FANBASE of almost twenty years.
Sorry for my tone at the end. But this is starting to become a little too much to swallow.
Veracusse
P.S. I also want some feedback on my idea if it is feasible for a game like Shadowrun or not? From devs, or anyone.
no reason besides the recent books, you mean. that most of these same devs were involved in writing. (assuming you liked the recent books, that is.)
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| Those adjustments are supposed to be reflected by adding or removing dice from the Pool (made up of Attribute+Skill), or by increasing or decreasing the Threshold of Hits (successes at TN 5). As it stands right now, there is no fluctuation of the TN at all ... it stands fixed at 5. |
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the TN is *actually* as fixed as all that.
In fact, I expect that certain augs will still modify the TNs. But this will be extremely limited.
Consider Exalted: one of the iconic "fixed TN dice pool" games. It has, as you would expect, a fixed TN of 7, with a natural 10 counting as two successes for non-mook characters. This applies *almost* all the time. However, in the rare special case of a blessing or curse from the astrology of one particular type of Exalt, the TNs can be raised to 8 or lowered to 6.
I would not be shocked in the least if this occurs in certain, limited, circumstances within SR4's system. It's just that TN manipulation will no longer be the principal method for scaling task difficulty.
I voted "Top" and let me explain why.
In Shadowrun (1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions yes I've played them all) the biggest obstical has been the time required for "solo" characters. What I mean by this is some character types need to do things alone. The best example is deckers, but riggers and mages can be included in that lot.
Every character has something to do in combat. Every character has something to do while doing legwork. The problem is telling players to go play pick-up-sticks while the decker runs his part or the rigger is involved in a chase while everyone else sits back and enjoys the ride.
What FanPro is attempting to do here is remove or minimize the effect these "solo" characters have. This way, everyone is involved all (or most) of the time.
By fixing target numbers at 5 and removing Pools they have effectively reduced the amount of time it takes to roll a test. They have taken the guess work out of deciding if you should use your extra dice or not.
What I expect to see for your basic test, and potential modifiers is this. Roll your dice pool (Attribute + Skill) and count your successes. More is better. Thats it.
Now, that is to simple for a real system... there have to be modifiers. And for your basic action (a single action in combat is what I mean) I would expect to have modifiers to add or remove dice from your dice pool. Things like Laser Sights and Smartgun Links will add extra dice. Things like Range and Visibility will remove dice.
I would expect thresholds to be used in "extended" actions. These are things that take some time. Example, cracking a Maglock. Simply, each roll takes X amount of time and you need a total number of successes equal to the rating of the Maglock.
If you take a look at the types of tests in Shadowrun (Success Test, Open Test, and Opposed Test), Open Tests go away and the system will keep Success Tests and Opposed Tests.
In Shadowrun (1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions yes I've played them all) the biggest obstical has been the time required for "solo" characters. What I mean by this is some character types need to do things alone. The best example is deckers, but riggers and mages can be included in that lot.
Every character has something to do in combat. Every character has something to do while doing legwork. The problem is telling players to go play pick-up-sticks while the decker runs his part or the rigger is involved in a chase while everyone else sits back and enjoys the ride.
What FanPro is attempting to do here is remove or minimize the effect these "solo" characters have. This way, everyone is involved all (or most) of the time.
By fixing target numbers at 5 and removing Pools they have effectively reduced the amount of time it takes to roll a test. They have taken the guess work out of deciding if you should use your extra dice or not.
What I expect to see for your basic test, and potential modifiers is this. Roll your dice pool (Attribute + Skill) and count your successes. More is better. Thats it.
Now, that is to simple for a real system... there have to be modifiers. And for your basic action (a single action in combat is what I mean) I would expect to have modifiers to add or remove dice from your dice pool. Things like Laser Sights and Smartgun Links will add extra dice. Things like Range and Visibility will remove dice.
I would expect thresholds to be used in "extended" actions. These are things that take some time. Example, cracking a Maglock. Simply, each roll takes X amount of time and you need a total number of successes equal to the rating of the Maglock.
If you take a look at the types of tests in Shadowrun (Success Test, Open Test, and Opposed Test), Open Tests go away and the system will keep Success Tests and Opposed Tests.
In other words, they have simplifed and dumbed the game down enough, that it will go quickly and smoothly for people who have spent a grand total of five minutes reading the rules. That way they can jump right into their munchkined l33t hax0r d00d.
Oh yeah, I wanna play that game.
Oh yeah, I wanna play that game.
Whine whine whine. Spend all your time moaning and groaning about how complicated the ruleset is, about how decking rules and rigger rules and electronic warfare rules are all so damn complicated and have such a huge barrier to entry, and then when someone comes up with a way to make everything nice and streamlinned you whine about how the new streamlinned rules are too easy and don't provide enough of a barrier to entry for the riffraff who comes in off the streets expecting to actually play a game without having to take night classes.
Honestly, noone here but the mute freelancers/devs have even actually seen the new mechanic. How can you love or hate something you haven't even seen yet, other than a bare few lines offering a hugely oversimplified view of how the system is maybe going to work? I for one am going to stick to the slightly less vacuous passtime of trying to guess what the system actually is, and try to address concerns and offer suggestions that the devs/freelancers may or may not have thought of yet, as that may actually be helpful. Kvetching and moaning about mechanics that we haven't even seen yet helps noone, and only serves to make the devs regret ever posting anything about the game, so stop it before we stop even getting the tiny tiny crumbs we are getting.
Honestly, noone here but the mute freelancers/devs have even actually seen the new mechanic. How can you love or hate something you haven't even seen yet, other than a bare few lines offering a hugely oversimplified view of how the system is maybe going to work? I for one am going to stick to the slightly less vacuous passtime of trying to guess what the system actually is, and try to address concerns and offer suggestions that the devs/freelancers may or may not have thought of yet, as that may actually be helpful. Kvetching and moaning about mechanics that we haven't even seen yet helps noone, and only serves to make the devs regret ever posting anything about the game, so stop it before we stop even getting the tiny tiny crumbs we are getting.
I am absolutely excited about this change. Having played both WoD and Shadowrun for more years than I care to recount, I have to say that the fixed TN and dice pool scaling system has worked out incredibly for White Wolf, a system that was often plague with the same floating TN problems that SR faced. I can't imagine how this change would in anyway make SR any worse. There will be so much less for both players and GMs to keep track of.
Thanks Eyeless Blond, believe me the voice of reason is appreciated.
No prob. It's something that needs to be said, and said often, to keep these threads from degenerating into holy wars which help noone.
That said, I and the rest of us "unofficial volunteer consultants" would dearly love to have something more meaty than vague hints at possible changes. It would really help focus out suggestions if we knew where the current focus was headed. I and others, for instance, have been mulling over a modified exploding dice mechanic in another thread that would greatly benefit from knowing where exactly the base "skill+attribute" dice pool comes from, how modifiers to the Threshold and dice pool are handled and where they come from, and if there are ever any changes to the base TN at all and if so where they come from/what situations they come from. Threads on proposed changes to specific spells could really use more concrete statements on how the spellcasting mechanic will work; the debates on how the WMI will be integrated into SR flavor-wise could really benefit from knowing some of the mechanics for the Matrix and how "hacking" will work, etc etc.
Keep in mind that the main reason so many of us are nervous about SR4 is that the same game devs are also responsible for the current SR FAQ, which is rife with inconsistencies, both with itself and the actual canon ruleset. Apart from allowing us to give more helpful suggestions, more concrete hints as to the actual nuts and bolts will help allay the fan's fears that you guys are not just hurriedly pulling random crap out of your asses, as seems to be the case with many of the FAQ answers.
Your fans are not the enemy. Quit keeping us in the dark.
That said, I and the rest of us "unofficial volunteer consultants" would dearly love to have something more meaty than vague hints at possible changes. It would really help focus out suggestions if we knew where the current focus was headed. I and others, for instance, have been mulling over a modified exploding dice mechanic in another thread that would greatly benefit from knowing where exactly the base "skill+attribute" dice pool comes from, how modifiers to the Threshold and dice pool are handled and where they come from, and if there are ever any changes to the base TN at all and if so where they come from/what situations they come from. Threads on proposed changes to specific spells could really use more concrete statements on how the spellcasting mechanic will work; the debates on how the WMI will be integrated into SR flavor-wise could really benefit from knowing some of the mechanics for the Matrix and how "hacking" will work, etc etc.
Keep in mind that the main reason so many of us are nervous about SR4 is that the same game devs are also responsible for the current SR FAQ, which is rife with inconsistencies, both with itself and the actual canon ruleset. Apart from allowing us to give more helpful suggestions, more concrete hints as to the actual nuts and bolts will help allay the fan's fears that you guys are not just hurriedly pulling random crap out of your asses, as seems to be the case with many of the FAQ answers.
Your fans are not the enemy. Quit keeping us in the dark.
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) |
| Whine whine whine. Spend all your time moaning and groaning about how complicated the ruleset is, about how decking rules and rigger rules and electronic warfare rules are all so damn complicated and have such a huge barrier to entry, and then when someone comes up with a way to make everything nice and streamlinned you whine about how the new streamlinned rules are too easy and don't provide enough of a barrier to entry for the riffraff who comes in off the streets expecting to actually play a game without having to take night classes. Honestly, noone here but the mute freelancers/devs have even actually seen the new mechanic. How can you love or hate something you haven't even seen yet, other than a bare few lines offering a hugely oversimplified view of how the system is maybe going to work? I for one am going to stick to the slightly less vacuous passtime of trying to guess what the system actually is, and try to address concerns and offer suggestions that the devs/freelancers may or may not have thought of yet, as that may actually be helpful. Kvetching and moaning about mechanics that we haven't even seen yet helps noone, and only serves to make the devs regret ever posting anything about the game, so stop it before we stop even getting the tiny tiny crumbs we are getting. |
You know pal, you don't know anything about me. I have never complained about the complexity of SR3. Ever. And second of all, you don't know who I am. You don't know if I have seen more of the rules than you or what I have or have not seen.
I don't have to see the whole rule set to know the direction they are heading, and it is a direction I do not like.
If the Devvs and freelancers were "listening" to DSF people this atrocity would not have been comited in the first place. So why don't you take your "FanPro can do no worng" flag and shove it.
My problem whith this new system is just that. It is a completly new system, not a revision or improvement of the old system. And from all accounts it is a clone (intentional or otherwise) of WoD, a game I despise.
All I have gotten from any of them is misdirection or the company line. Half of them have admited there are parts of the new rules they have faught tooth and nail against. So forgive me if I choose to speak up rather then shut up. When the game comes out it will be to late and Shadowrun as I know it will be gone forever.
*sigh* Yes, you're right. I don't know you. Similarly, you don't know me; if you did (or if you had read the post just above yours) you'd know that I definately *don't* walk around with a "Fanpro can do no wrong" flag in my hand, up my ass, or anywhere on my anatomy. In fact, I think there are a number of things they've done a terrible job on, including but not limited to many of the new skills in SOTA '63, the new adept powers in STOA '64, and that wannabe-Errata page on their site that's attempting to masquerade as an FAQ. Fanpro, IMO, has a terrible track record when it comes to making up new mechanics and balancing new rules with the old ones. In fact the main reason I'm making suggestion after suggestion is because I do *not* trust Fanpro to properly make the SR4 mechanics without assistance from the fanbase, and why I've been advocating more and more releases of the actual mechanics.
All I'm saying is don't start screaming that the sky is falling, just because you have an image in your head about what the new mechanics are going to be and that it's not what you're looking for. Who knows; they might actually come up with something brilliant. Best case scenario everyone ignores you, making your posts nothing more than wasted electrons; worst case scenario Fanpro clams up even more and we get nothing at all until the game is published in August and there actually *is* nothing we can do about it.
All I'm saying is don't start screaming that the sky is falling, just because you have an image in your head about what the new mechanics are going to be and that it's not what you're looking for. Who knows; they might actually come up with something brilliant. Best case scenario everyone ignores you, making your posts nothing more than wasted electrons; worst case scenario Fanpro clams up even more and we get nothing at all until the game is published in August and there actually *is* nothing we can do about it.
| QUOTE |
| You know pal, you don't know anything about me. I have never complained about the complexity of SR3. Ever. And second of all, you don't know who I am. You don't know if I have seen more of the rules than you or what I have or have not seen. |
And you don't know a thing about Eyeless either so put it back in your pants.
Since your comments border on the offensive to some of us freelancers, I'm taking it upon myself to reply to some of issues. For reference, I've played this game since it first came out, I own almost all the SR books ever printed and I've gone through all the system changes so far. I have seen more of the rules (all the versions of them) than most people - in fact I've taken the time to master some of the more difficult ones and ease newbies into the rather complex rules.
| QUOTE |
| I don't have to see the whole rule set to know the direction they are heading, and it is a direction I do not like. |
I haven't seen the whole rule set, I know the direction they are heading and I like it. And on here my opinion is just as valid as yours.
| QUOTE |
| If the Devvs and freelancers were "listening" to DSF people this atrocity would not have been comited in the first place. So why don't you take your "FanPro can do no worng" flag and shove it. |
You don't seem to realize that Patrick, Demonseed, Adam and myself are all "people on DSF".
| QUOTE |
| My problem whith this new system is just that. It is a completly new system, not a revision or improvement of the old system. And from all accounts it is a clone (intentional or otherwise) of WoD, a game I despise. |
I too dislike a lot of stuff in the WoD, thank goodness SR4 doesn't use that system.
| QUOTE |
| All I have gotten from any of them is misdirection or the company line. |
Misdirection? Everyone of the freelancers on here has been as open and as straighforward as they're allowed to be. I've followed almost all the threads on this forum and have not found one item of misdirection. If you're going to point fingers I suggest you back it up.
| QUOTE |
| So forgive me if I choose to speak up rather then shut up. When the game comes out it will be to late and Shadowrun as I know it will be gone forever. |
Sorry to break it to you but this is an argument to keep silent. SR4 will come out whether you like it or not, and despite the tweaks might still be done to the mechanics, make no mistake, the core system has been presented and won't be changing. Company's don't pull back from decisions and announcements like the ones FanPro has made.
The thing is three months ago I was saying this or that, making suggestions and encouraging people to trust FanPro. I actually knew about the 4th edition coming a while ago. And I was excited. A new edition to clean things up and rework the messed up rules would be great. A 4th edition to do to 3rd what 3rd did to 2cnd.
But thats not what where getting. Where getting a whole new game, and that is not what I (and many others) want, regardless of how good their rules are. I have spent my free time playing this game over the last 16 years. I want the basic mechanic of the game to continue.
Think about it, I started playing SR1 when I was 16 years old. If I can figure out SR1 at 16 some 12 year old (their new market) ought to be able to figure out SR3. So a streamlined and improved version of the game should be a huge hit.
Again, not what where getting. Where getting a whole new rule set. Who's to say this unplayed (in mass quanity) rule set is going to be any better then SR1? Why do that when you can build on an already great game?
That is the question I have been asking, over and over again. Why make a whole new game when you have a great one already. Have I gotten answers? No. I've gotten "stop whining" "wait for the game to come out" "Fanpro knows what they are doing"
or just dodged entirely. Who's decision was it? Was there any kind of input or was it arbitrary?
Cause 2 months ago if you put a poll up asking everyone if they wanted a SR4 to be a whole new game, or just an improvement on the exiting model, the answer WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN a whole new game.
But thats not what where getting. Where getting a whole new game, and that is not what I (and many others) want, regardless of how good their rules are. I have spent my free time playing this game over the last 16 years. I want the basic mechanic of the game to continue.
Think about it, I started playing SR1 when I was 16 years old. If I can figure out SR1 at 16 some 12 year old (their new market) ought to be able to figure out SR3. So a streamlined and improved version of the game should be a huge hit.
Again, not what where getting. Where getting a whole new rule set. Who's to say this unplayed (in mass quanity) rule set is going to be any better then SR1? Why do that when you can build on an already great game?
That is the question I have been asking, over and over again. Why make a whole new game when you have a great one already. Have I gotten answers? No. I've gotten "stop whining" "wait for the game to come out" "Fanpro knows what they are doing"
or just dodged entirely. Who's decision was it? Was there any kind of input or was it arbitrary?
Cause 2 months ago if you put a poll up asking everyone if they wanted a SR4 to be a whole new game, or just an improvement on the exiting model, the answer WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN a whole new game.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| SR4 will come out whether you like it or not, and despite the tweaks might still be done to the mechanics, make no mistake, the core system has been presented and won't be changing. Company's don't pull back from decisions and announcements like the ones FanPro has made. |
And I have my answer.
I don't fail to realize anything Synner. I know you, Adam, Bull, Pistons and a few others work for FanPro. Your opinion is just as valid as mine, I agree.
I figured that you guys had the core mechanic down before you ever anounced it and I figured any arguments against it would pretty much be ignored.
I had hoped that if there was a big enough outcry you (FP) would realize that "Hey, fans don't want a whole new mechanic, they just want an improvement on the existing one" (like 2 was to 1 and 3 to 2) And Maybe rething what you were doing.
Thank you for confirming that is not the case. So you are tossing away a perfectly good game to make a new one fine.
You are tossing away your old customers for new ones. Fine. I guess I get to be one of those old foggies who still play SR3.
Well I think it is a piece of crap way to treat the people who have been buying the books and supporting the companies for 16 years.
All I have to say to that is - at this point you haven't seen the new system and you have no way of knowing whether or not this system is actually better suited to the setting and ambiance of Shadowrun, than any of the 2 and a half systems preceeding it (and I'm not saying it is).
You have made up your mind - from the scant information released - that SR4 is a ripped version of the nWoD system shoehorned into the Shadowrun setting and you are passing judgement without the data to judge by.
There are indeed parallels, especially at the level of core mechanics, but having seen a significant portions of the rules, I can honestly say you are wrong. Believe me or not, it's your choice, but I know for a fact that the assumption you are basing your judgement on is incorrect.
And btw - I find it particularly funny that you knew SR4 was coming out months ago when I only heard about it for the first time 4 weeks ago almost to the day.
You have made up your mind - from the scant information released - that SR4 is a ripped version of the nWoD system shoehorned into the Shadowrun setting and you are passing judgement without the data to judge by.
There are indeed parallels, especially at the level of core mechanics, but having seen a significant portions of the rules, I can honestly say you are wrong. Believe me or not, it's your choice, but I know for a fact that the assumption you are basing your judgement on is incorrect.
And btw - I find it particularly funny that you knew SR4 was coming out months ago when I only heard about it for the first time 4 weeks ago almost to the day.
But I have seen this:
There will be a fixed tn of 5
No more dice pools
No more Riggers and Deckers
No atts above 6
Modifiers add/subtract dice
Otaku are technomancers
Are all these taken horribly out of context? Cause if they are tell me now cause hate them all. Fixed tn's? For Shadowrun? No more dice pools? And the biggie, lets get rid of Shadowrun lore and call deckers/riggers Hackers.
So tell me I am wrong, tell me the above changes are not being made. Tell me the new system is based on the old system and not an entirly new one with a few passing simularites to the current game.
There will be a fixed tn of 5
No more dice pools
No more Riggers and Deckers
No atts above 6
Modifiers add/subtract dice
Otaku are technomancers
Are all these taken horribly out of context? Cause if they are tell me now cause hate them all. Fixed tn's? For Shadowrun? No more dice pools? And the biggie, lets get rid of Shadowrun lore and call deckers/riggers Hackers.
So tell me I am wrong, tell me the above changes are not being made. Tell me the new system is based on the old system and not an entirly new one with a few passing simularites to the current game.
It seems Fanpro is taking a huge chance, doesn't it? Gutting the rules in favor of something completly new? (If what someone said earlier is true - that htis is not a clone of WOD).
I mean, if this is an entirely new system that is. SOunds like Fanpro might be banking on the orginal fan base to get hem into 4th editon, work out the kinks of this new system.
How many playtesters are there? 10, 50, 100?
In this time of OGL/SRD what would it hurt to release the core mechanics ahead of time? Not being whiniy or anything - just curious. That would seem to lessen their risk.
I mean, if this is an entirely new system that is. SOunds like Fanpro might be banking on the orginal fan base to get hem into 4th editon, work out the kinks of this new system.
How many playtesters are there? 10, 50, 100?
In this time of OGL/SRD what would it hurt to release the core mechanics ahead of time? Not being whiniy or anything - just curious. That would seem to lessen their risk.
Blah, clicked twice and double posted
Well at least SR4 is not D20.
You can ask long-time fans of Aberrant/Trinity what they think of the new version
.
I played Shadowrun since 2nd edition and SR3 is far from perfect.
Could they have taken the improvement option ?
Yes but i think that with this new edition they want to enlarge their pool of players. And it's rather clear that to do so, they must change the system.
You have the right to be utterly disappointing by the choice of the developpers. You have the right to tell it. There's just no need to be rash.
Will SR4 be a good game? I don't know. But if i don't like the new version, i will stick with SR3.
I think that there is so much to streamline in SR3, it's probably better to change the system.
You can ask long-time fans of Aberrant/Trinity what they think of the new version
.I played Shadowrun since 2nd edition and SR3 is far from perfect.
Could they have taken the improvement option ?
Yes but i think that with this new edition they want to enlarge their pool of players. And it's rather clear that to do so, they must change the system.
You have the right to be utterly disappointing by the choice of the developpers. You have the right to tell it. There's just no need to be rash.
Will SR4 be a good game? I don't know. But if i don't like the new version, i will stick with SR3.
I think that there is so much to streamline in SR3, it's probably better to change the system.
Okay Shadow, not that I think the answers will please you but here they are.
| QUOTE |
| There will be a fixed tn of 5 |
This is correct. The system as announced uses Att+Skill dice pools vs. a fixed TN of 5 with varying degrees of difficulties.
| QUOTE |
| No more dice pools |
This may or may not be correct. Meaning that while SR3 Dice Pools as you know them will be gone from SR4, as far as I know, no one has ruled out the possibility that their function and role in the game might be replaced by another mechanism.
| QUOTE |
| No more Riggers and Deckers |
This is incorrect. There will still be riggers and a variety of "deckers". They will simply be distinct subgroups of the tech-specialized characters known as hackers.
| QUOTE |
| No atts above 6 |
This one is just wrong.
| QUOTE |
| Modifiers add/subtract dice |
This is one of the elements of the core mechanics described so far, so yes. Although there is the possibility certain situation modifiers might be reflected in increased "difficulties" (a mechanism which has not been fully explained so far in the FAQ).
| QUOTE |
| Otaku are technomancers |
All I can say, within the limits of my NDA, is that this is at least partially incorrect.
| QUOTE |
| So tell me I am wrong, tell me the above changes are not being made. |
You are not wrong (at least not completely).
| QUOTE |
| Tell me the new system is based on the old system and not an entirly new one with a few passing simularites to the current game. |
Won't do that because it's obviously not true - and despite your claims neither I nor any of the freelancers who've taken the time to answer questions as best they can, are particularly given to misdirecting people.
The core system is indeed almost entirely new. That being said - and as several other people before mehave mentioned and have apparently been ignored - the new system is in many ways very recognizably Shadowrun.
I do apreciate you answering my question Synner. You are right they don't make me happy, but they do lay some questions aI have to rest. Since what's done is done I guess all I can do is wait and see. I can hope that I am wrong. That the new system will have the wonderfull complexities that make Shadowrun unique and enjoyable beyond just its setting.
Thanks for taking the time to answer them.
Thanks for taking the time to answer them.
Im looking forward to the background on SR 4, but the new rules on TNs has got me a little worried.
im a little unsure as to what is changed by the modifiers, is it the number of dice roled, the number of "hits" you have to acheive to get a success.
for example with a smartlink would that mean plus one to dice thrown or one less "hit" to get a success.
If its the former then the better you are at the skill and the higher the attribute, the less the bonus, or hinderance is going to affect you ( probability wise ie diminished return), this does seem realistic and could be interesting to play, but would be infuriating to find that something you bought at the bigginning is losing its effectiveness as you progress.
However if the latter is the case then its still pretty much like the current SR3 system and i see little point in changing.
On the vote.... i think ill wait till i see the finished rules before i make my mind up but for now ill say FLOP.
I appologise if ive covered anything thats already been answered, ive quickly skimmed over the other posts, but im really tired.
[edited after actually opening eyes long enough to read other topics]
im a little unsure as to what is changed by the modifiers, is it the number of dice roled, the number of "hits" you have to acheive to get a success.
for example with a smartlink would that mean plus one to dice thrown or one less "hit" to get a success.
If its the former then the better you are at the skill and the higher the attribute, the less the bonus, or hinderance is going to affect you ( probability wise ie diminished return), this does seem realistic and could be interesting to play, but would be infuriating to find that something you bought at the bigginning is losing its effectiveness as you progress.
However if the latter is the case then its still pretty much like the current SR3 system and i see little point in changing.
On the vote.... i think ill wait till i see the finished rules before i make my mind up but for now ill say FLOP.
I appologise if ive covered anything thats already been answered, ive quickly skimmed over the other posts, but im really tired.
[edited after actually opening eyes long enough to read other topics]
| QUOTE (Synner) | ||
This one is just wrong. |
Yes, Shadow should have said 'No Attributes above 6 (plus any applicable racial modifiers)'.
| QUOTE (Eldritch) |
| How many playtesters are there? 10, 50, 100? |
Last time I looked (about three or four days ago), there were about 90 names on the list. A couple of those are development and writing, but most (say, 85 or so) are playtesters only. Each of those has a gaming group that they're playing the new system with; most of the members of those groups are not on the playtest list; for ease of management, Rob has asked just one person from each group to be the point-man on the list.
If each of these groups averages 4 players (mine's got 5, counting myself, possibly soon to be 6 if my bride-to-be wants to get involved), those 85 names represent about 340 or so players. Since I really don't know how many players are in each group, this is only a guesstimate, but I feel pretty safe with this number.
| QUOTE (Synner @ Apr 7 2005, 06:47 PM) | ||
This may or may not be correct. Meaning that while SR3 Dice Pools as you know them will be gone from SR4, as far as I know, no one has ruled out the possibility that their function and role in the game might be replaced by another mechanism. |
Even if it's not in the core rules, there's nothing saying that a direct descendant of the existing Dice Pools won't turn up in a rules companion (and I think we all know that such a thing will come). Matter of fact, I believe that putting them into the next SRComp is the way to go; keep them out of the core rules for the sake of attracting new players, etc., and make them an optional rule for those who want them.
I think I'll just skip the rest.
Optional rules are a tool of the Devil, IMO.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Eldritch @ Apr 7 2005, 07:34 PM) |
| It seems Fanpro is taking a huge chance, doesn't it? Gutting the rules in favor of something completly new? (If what someone said earlier is true - that htis is not a clone of WOD). |
interestingly enough,
the one player I have who also runs a nWoD (and used to run Vampire) used to go on and on about how much more nWoD's mechanics reminded him more of shadowrun than the old vampire rules.... I personally didn't see it at the time, but when I mentioned the changes here, all he said was: "see, and now SR4 proves that nWoD was even more similar than I previously thought"
just a thought to throw out there. does this mean I think the new system will still be "shadowrun"? well... I'm not sure yet.
doesn't mean it inherently won't be either- I think if they get the feel of the system right (and tactical pools esp. are a big part of that feel to me, regardless of the mechanic for actual success tallying) then enough of the old player base will make the switch;
if the game plays to close to throw-and-pray? well. I'll just have to rebind my SR3 again I guess.
edited for clarity
You (read most of you) know, the more you take a little piece of mechanic and torture it to put it out of context, immediately going to the extreme cases without sit back and think before even writing a DSF post ; you are making this forum very, very hard to follow.
I am no freelancer, no playtester, and frankly I can't follow this SR4 forum the 1/10th I'd like because a good portion of it if whining because of the change (not specific changes, I have concern over of few points too, and I try to express them as concern; but because of the concept of change itself), or out of context specifics (an example ? I've seen multiple times that you won't be able to do some very hard task, because of the htresehold needed or because you won't have dices anymore after difficulty dice minus. What some people would think that the dvlp have taken this into account, and go one way or the other with a conscious choice about it).
Express you concerns and hopes about what we have been told, what doesn't work in SR3 and you would like fixed, and so on. And remember this it not a game for you, he, or me; this is a game for thousands and thousands of players. If there is something you dislike in SR3, but in the light of past ML/forum threads you are about the only one, SR4 threads are not a good place to troll about it again. And please, do express yourself politely.
I am no freelancer, no playtester, and frankly I can't follow this SR4 forum the 1/10th I'd like because a good portion of it if whining because of the change (not specific changes, I have concern over of few points too, and I try to express them as concern; but because of the concept of change itself), or out of context specifics (an example ? I've seen multiple times that you won't be able to do some very hard task, because of the htresehold needed or because you won't have dices anymore after difficulty dice minus. What some people would think that the dvlp have taken this into account, and go one way or the other with a conscious choice about it).
Express you concerns and hopes about what we have been told, what doesn't work in SR3 and you would like fixed, and so on. And remember this it not a game for you, he, or me; this is a game for thousands and thousands of players. If there is something you dislike in SR3, but in the light of past ML/forum threads you are about the only one, SR4 threads are not a good place to troll about it again. And please, do express yourself politely.
The more they tell us is changing, the more it's human nature for us to complain about those changes -- especially when those changes aren't cosmetic, minor tweaks (like a slang term changing), but are broad, sweeping, completely new die mechanics (the basic idea of which remained unchanged, only refined, for three editions previously). The entire basic rules mechanic is changing after 15+ years, based upon two lines of FAQ that were shared with us.
People are going to comment on that. You can choose not to read it.
People are going to comment on that. You can choose not to read it.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| The more they tell us is changing, the more it's human nature for us to complain about those changes -- especially when those changes aren't cosmetic, minor tweaks (like a slang term changing), but are broad, sweeping, completely new die mechanics (the basic idea of which remained unchanged, only refined, for three editions previously). The entire basic rules mechanic is changing after 15+ years, based upon two lines of FAQ that were shared with us. |
And Rob has made his mind about it. If you don't like it, you can choose not to comment it every 3 posts in every threads
How is it any better to disrupt people's conversation about rules changes? We're expressing concerns about major changes to the rules of a game we've been playing for a goodly portion of our lives. You're talking like our mother and telling us to not say anything, if we can't say anything nice.
Who's more irritating and disruptive, really?
Who's more irritating and disruptive, really?
Jérémie has hit the nail right on the head and you're missing his point. There is a huge difference between ranting and constructive criticism. Don't get me wrong, complaining is every customer's right (although normally it comes after you've bought the product and know exactly what you're talking about), but there's been a huge amount of the former and only recently something of the latter (despite the absence of concrete data on specific mechanics beyond the core).
I can honestly say I read any positive contribution with an open mind - particularly when they offer an interesting suggestion or extrapolation I or my group haven't thought of - and consequently a couple have made their way into my playtesting reports and so might eventually produce an (admittedly limited) impact on SR4. I'm pretty sure the other freelancers and playtesters on here have similar attitudes.
On the other hand, rants (especially the reactionary don't-mess-with-my-game Shadowrun-as-we-know-it-is-going-to-die kind) and doom-and-gloom judgement calls based on the minute amount of information available contribute nothing (as far as I'm concerned).
FanPro is not suddenly going to back down at this point in development or make fundamental changes to anything they've announced (no company I know would) so it is your call whether to possibly contribute something valid or to just keep on hammering the same key again and again.
I can honestly say I read any positive contribution with an open mind - particularly when they offer an interesting suggestion or extrapolation I or my group haven't thought of - and consequently a couple have made their way into my playtesting reports and so might eventually produce an (admittedly limited) impact on SR4. I'm pretty sure the other freelancers and playtesters on here have similar attitudes.
On the other hand, rants (especially the reactionary don't-mess-with-my-game Shadowrun-as-we-know-it-is-going-to-die kind) and doom-and-gloom judgement calls based on the minute amount of information available contribute nothing (as far as I'm concerned).
FanPro is not suddenly going to back down at this point in development or make fundamental changes to anything they've announced (no company I know would) so it is your call whether to possibly contribute something valid or to just keep on hammering the same key again and again.
I think it's an unfair, petty, generalization to say that anyone who's expressed concern, doubt, or negative feelings at this point is "ranting," much less to whine about how we've (as if we're a coherent group, or a hive-mind) been doing so from the get-go.
Many of us were excited about the prospect of SR4, but have been shoved off that bandwagon as more information was released. I'm not sure how you can look at the last FAQ update -- the one that explains to us how the basic die mechanic is being drasticaly changed -- and call that "a little bit" of information. Those two questions and answers completely flip-flopped my stance on this release.
I don't care if I have to buy new SR books. I buy new SR books anyways, and even if I didn't my money would still go to something stupid like video games. I don't care about the five year time-leap (it's vaguely bothersome, because I genuinely enjoyed and was impressed by the "real-time" timeline treatment up until now, but I don't care enough to complain about it, and have even explained the reason for it to my friends). I don't care that deckers are getting a name change, it's a slang term. I don't care that teh evil megacorp lol omg!!! is out to make a buck (which is most people's assumption whenever anything new is released). I didn't care when we first heard things would be streamlined -- change happens, has happened before, and at the time I was assuming it would be "change" on the scale of SR2 or SR3. See? Those were all things I was positive about, defending SR4's idea about, etc, etc. I kept an open mind as long as I could. I was okay with the updates, kept a positive attitude, and tried to do just what Jeremie's doing -- asking the knee-jerk naysayers to pipe down.
What did eevntually bother me is the complete change of the entire die mechanic, which -- make no mistake -- is what's happening as far as we can tell. I don't doubt there's all sorts of details we don't have yet. I mean, I understand that. If the knowledge shared with us via the FAQ was all we'd need to play the game, you guys would print up and distribute two-page rulebooks for a quarter (not make us a nice new hardbound book). I understand we don't know everything yet.
But what we do know sure makes it sound like an awful lot more than a "streamlining" is going on. Maybe some of the many secrets we don't have yet will satisfy us. Maybe there'll be some character say into how things work in a fight again, and we're worried over nothing. Maybe the set TN won't be as bad as some people think (it doesn't bug me much, but it seems like an awful lot of big changes, all at once). Maybe, maybe, maybe.
We don't know, though, so all we can do is speculate and express concern. That's what we're doing.
If that's not what we're supposed to be doing -- if we're supposed to just quietly read the FAQ, keep up with the devblog, and receive the occasional bullshit hah-hah 'update' from Bull, all without anyone posting anything -- then fine, ask someone to take down the SR4 forums. We're discussing information as it's given to us. Sometimes that discussion will show you we're excited about what we're hearing, sometimes that discussion will show you we're concerned about it. It doesn't mean we expect Fanpro to change it's mind, or whatever, it just means we want to talk to other people about what we're worried about, maybe hash out the specifics of what's concerning us so much, and maybe even discuss those worries enough we overcome them.
I'm sorry if you don't like that. In much the same vein, I guess you're sorry if we don't like what we've heard of SR4 thus far.
In the meantime, though, we've all go four more months of getting tossed morsels and table scraps we may or may not like, while other people (sitting at that table) are already eating dessert and telling us we can't express an opinion. Look at it from our side, just a little. Look at how long some of us have been playing, look at what information we've gotten from the FAQs so far (do your best to pretend you don't have any other information), look at how massive some of those changes are. Look at how much longer we've got to stew and worry about it before we can get a product in ours hands that could settle the issue and satisfy us.
Forgive us if we talk a bit, huh? It's not like many people are being outright rude about it, all things considered (and, in fact, I'm doing my best to not be a total prick right now). If someone, individually, is offensive to you in their complaining, complain to the admin or something (instead of making generalizing sweeps about anyone with an SR4 concern). Don't insult half your fan base by calling anyone who's upset about a FAQ so far a whiner or ratner. This thread, by the way, was fairly on topic until about the last four posts. At least the discussions aren't wandering -- it might feel to you (as someone tangentally involved in SR4) that nothing but complaining is happening, but that's quite simply not the case.
Let us vent a little via mild complaint and potentially constructive discussion, instead of having months and months of pent up rage that needs to be let out at Gencon itself, y'know?
Many of us were excited about the prospect of SR4, but have been shoved off that bandwagon as more information was released. I'm not sure how you can look at the last FAQ update -- the one that explains to us how the basic die mechanic is being drasticaly changed -- and call that "a little bit" of information. Those two questions and answers completely flip-flopped my stance on this release.
I don't care if I have to buy new SR books. I buy new SR books anyways, and even if I didn't my money would still go to something stupid like video games. I don't care about the five year time-leap (it's vaguely bothersome, because I genuinely enjoyed and was impressed by the "real-time" timeline treatment up until now, but I don't care enough to complain about it, and have even explained the reason for it to my friends). I don't care that deckers are getting a name change, it's a slang term. I don't care that teh evil megacorp lol omg!!! is out to make a buck (which is most people's assumption whenever anything new is released). I didn't care when we first heard things would be streamlined -- change happens, has happened before, and at the time I was assuming it would be "change" on the scale of SR2 or SR3. See? Those were all things I was positive about, defending SR4's idea about, etc, etc. I kept an open mind as long as I could. I was okay with the updates, kept a positive attitude, and tried to do just what Jeremie's doing -- asking the knee-jerk naysayers to pipe down.
What did eevntually bother me is the complete change of the entire die mechanic, which -- make no mistake -- is what's happening as far as we can tell. I don't doubt there's all sorts of details we don't have yet. I mean, I understand that. If the knowledge shared with us via the FAQ was all we'd need to play the game, you guys would print up and distribute two-page rulebooks for a quarter (not make us a nice new hardbound book). I understand we don't know everything yet.
But what we do know sure makes it sound like an awful lot more than a "streamlining" is going on. Maybe some of the many secrets we don't have yet will satisfy us. Maybe there'll be some character say into how things work in a fight again, and we're worried over nothing. Maybe the set TN won't be as bad as some people think (it doesn't bug me much, but it seems like an awful lot of big changes, all at once). Maybe, maybe, maybe.
We don't know, though, so all we can do is speculate and express concern. That's what we're doing.
If that's not what we're supposed to be doing -- if we're supposed to just quietly read the FAQ, keep up with the devblog, and receive the occasional bullshit hah-hah 'update' from Bull, all without anyone posting anything -- then fine, ask someone to take down the SR4 forums. We're discussing information as it's given to us. Sometimes that discussion will show you we're excited about what we're hearing, sometimes that discussion will show you we're concerned about it. It doesn't mean we expect Fanpro to change it's mind, or whatever, it just means we want to talk to other people about what we're worried about, maybe hash out the specifics of what's concerning us so much, and maybe even discuss those worries enough we overcome them.
I'm sorry if you don't like that. In much the same vein, I guess you're sorry if we don't like what we've heard of SR4 thus far.
In the meantime, though, we've all go four more months of getting tossed morsels and table scraps we may or may not like, while other people (sitting at that table) are already eating dessert and telling us we can't express an opinion. Look at it from our side, just a little. Look at how long some of us have been playing, look at what information we've gotten from the FAQs so far (do your best to pretend you don't have any other information), look at how massive some of those changes are. Look at how much longer we've got to stew and worry about it before we can get a product in ours hands that could settle the issue and satisfy us.
Forgive us if we talk a bit, huh? It's not like many people are being outright rude about it, all things considered (and, in fact, I'm doing my best to not be a total prick right now). If someone, individually, is offensive to you in their complaining, complain to the admin or something (instead of making generalizing sweeps about anyone with an SR4 concern). Don't insult half your fan base by calling anyone who's upset about a FAQ so far a whiner or ratner. This thread, by the way, was fairly on topic until about the last four posts. At least the discussions aren't wandering -- it might feel to you (as someone tangentally involved in SR4) that nothing but complaining is happening, but that's quite simply not the case.
Let us vent a little via mild complaint and potentially constructive discussion, instead of having months and months of pent up rage that needs to be let out at Gencon itself, y'know?
| QUOTE (Critias @ Apr 8 2005, 11:43 AM) |
| I think it's an unfair, petty, generalization to say that anyone who's expressed concern, doubt, or negative feelings at this point is "ranting," much less to whine about how we've (as if we're a What did eevntually bother me is the complete change of the entire die mechanic, which -- make no mistake -- is what's happening as far as we can tell. |
Well that's what I understood from the first day of the annoucement. There will be more mechanic changes from SR3 to SR4, than it had from SR1 to SR3. This is not a rule update, is a complete rewrite with no regards for old mechanics and uses only background one (and with System Failure, I'm sure some background/universe specifics will change, as for the Matrix thing for a starter).
For me the concept is good, the old mechanic was bad. I can understand why some people don't agree, mostly because they don't want to un-learn rules and re-learn new ones.
But that's a matter for one thread, not every freaking post or so
I'm not talking about you specificaly, I'm not DSF people I'm not here to judge or moderate other posts... I'll do that with mines, that's enough job already. I was/am talking about people in general, for what I saw on the SR4 forum, including me.Once we understood that the core mechanic will be changed, we can feriously disagree and forget about SR4 (not point coming here, neh ?) or accept it and move on to the specific.
For example I think the "roll a lot of dices, but less than before, vs fixed TN and use threshold and dice number for variables" is an improvement, but not the best they could do, I would prefer a Fusion-like mechanic (aka, *less* dices). Well I said it once, explaining why, and that's it. I realize that this point will most probably not be changed in playtest (even if playtesters agree with me), so I live with it.
I don't see Synner, Adam or anyone giving good point to people agreeing with them, and bad point to others. In fact, I'm pretty sure every playtester around here will be most pleased if someone point to him something not working in SR3 that need fixing and detailed about why/how, or something not working in what we know of SR4, with details. I'm certain that most of them will be ashame in there are major glitch or oversee in the SR4 rulebook when it is published (hell, even minor ones. Guys, we want a perfect release
).On ther other hand, non constructive whinning and ranting, about the same things over and over, make the forum unreadable and that mean playtesters will miss good point in it; that's a glitch increasing factor.
From the original SR4 announcement:
| QUOTE |
| The core mechanics are completely revised to be simpler and more streamlined for quicker, easier and more consistent play. |
Emphasis mine.
Personally I only really care (one way or another) whether "you" like SR4 or not because it'll reflect on the continuation (or not) of a game I love. Fortunately I don't have to worry about stuff like that. FanPro and Rob do.
On the other hand I'm a big believer in letting people voice their opinions - that's why we're here. I can chose to (and often do) ignore the really reactionary ranting (rather than well founded complaints). However, one of the reasons I hang around DSF is that there are a number of opinions and people on here I highly respect and on the odd occassion when a reasonable and productive debate comes around.
Personally I just wish that SR4 threads would turn more into that type of debate than what we've been seeing. But that requires putting away knee-jerk prejudices and acknowledging that FanPro has reasons for taking this decision (which you might not agree with) and it isn't going to turn around (I doubt it realistically could) on what they've made public. That would be the first step towards actually making a that debate and a valid contribution to the future of SR possible. Moving on and addressing SR4 for what it is, and not what it'll won't be (SR3.5) would IMHO be a Good Thing™.
Unfortunately many of the people who's thoughts I respect aren't even considering the possibility that a system built from the ground up on years and years of actual game play might turn out to better represent the realities of Shadowrun than the one we currently have. I am certainly not saying SR4 is it, but it does pain me that its not getting a fair trial. But I've learned to live with certain disappointments.
BTW - All that's currently known of the core mechanic is basically the same as if they had said for SR3 that it you rolled Att or Skill against a variable target number. If you think that's all there is to SR3 - then you're correct in making the same assumption about SR4.
I know this is all kind of back and forth, and this is just the other side, but it's hard to get down to any serious debating when we really know little or nothing about how the new system will actually work. So al lwe can really do is throw out our opinions. I my self haven't posted much on it becuase I really have no clue what the system is going to be like.
Ok, the TN is set. Ok, you add and subtract dice. I've never used either system, hope it works. Patrick Goodman seems to like it, for now he's opinions good enough, I'll form my own when I see the product.
I think at this point, there's just too much arguing about it. I'm ready to see some more hard and fast rules on ANY aspect really of hhow the game is going to go. I know it's probably not quite at that point yet. Sucks for me. I guess my point is that at this point, with what we know about it, this is kind of what you can expect. We can't really have a meaningful debate without some specifics to debate on. We can't say 'Fixed TN is good/bad' with anything more than our opinion really.
Personally I appreciate the free lancers posting what they can. It sucks that a lot of people blow up over it. Unfortunately, that's kind of what we can expect more of until we get more to work with.
Someone else's turn on the soap box
Ok, the TN is set. Ok, you add and subtract dice. I've never used either system, hope it works. Patrick Goodman seems to like it, for now he's opinions good enough, I'll form my own when I see the product.
I think at this point, there's just too much arguing about it. I'm ready to see some more hard and fast rules on ANY aspect really of hhow the game is going to go. I know it's probably not quite at that point yet. Sucks for me. I guess my point is that at this point, with what we know about it, this is kind of what you can expect. We can't really have a meaningful debate without some specifics to debate on. We can't say 'Fixed TN is good/bad' with anything more than our opinion really.
Personally I appreciate the free lancers posting what they can. It sucks that a lot of people blow up over it. Unfortunately, that's kind of what we can expect more of until we get more to work with.
Someone else's turn on the soap box
| QUOTE |
| The core mechanics are completely revised to be simpler and more streamlined for quicker, easier and more consistent play. |
Emphasis mine. See the difference in the two sentences, depending on how you looked at it in your head (until the FAQ slapped you awake)?
With nothing else to work with, a lot of us were, I think, looking for just the same sort of "revision" that happened between SR and 2, 2 and 3. The logical progression of streamlining a few things (like the changes of dodge and combat pool into a single entity, getting rid of variable staging, changing how armor worked), rather than a complete rewrite using (as far as we can see, so far) just the names of the things we're used to and comfortable with. If it's still called Quickness but it now represents nothing more than movement rate, for instance, we're going to feel less like it's a revision and more like it's a ground-up revisualization.
So, yeah. You had playtester info (or, at least, knew you'd be getting playtester info soon) when you read that announcement, and thought of it as "completely revised." I read it, based on my own hopes and previous edition changes, and thought of them as "completely revised."
And I doubt I was the only one. Again -- take a second to put yourself in our shoes, and maybe you'll understand a bit more where some of our shock and confusion and disappointment (for what we've seen so far) is coming from. Compare these "revisions" to previous edition changes before you say we were expecting "3.5," too. Look at the scale of change we're getting thrust at us for the first time ever, look at how little about it we really know (at the moment we're only being told enough to worry us, though I understand why more/less can't be released)... and understand where we're comin' from.
And what sort of reasonable and productive debate do you expect to see, even from the elite handful of people who matter to you, Synner? Given how little information the general public has to work with so far (though, again, I understand why that's the case), I think the forums you're complaining about have been pretty damned reasonable. And for someone that's mentioned to us several times now that what we think doesn't matter (either to you, or to FanPro when it comes to making changes after announcements), how "productive" do you want us to be?
Just read what you want to read, and don't preach at us about the rest. We'll keep getting tossed the occasional bone, we'll keep worrying and gnawing on that bone until the next one comes, and eventually we'll get the actual product and either feel better, or not. Since so many people on here are such disappointments to you, and our opinions matter so little to you, why worry about what we say, anyways?
We're rather obviously just going to have to agree to disagree for a bit -- you're arguing that we shouldn't be upset, we're arguing that we're allowed to be, and the whole conversation derailing is pretty stupid. I understand where you're coming from with your concern that no one but the much-mentioned "vocal minority" is posting anything... try to understand where we're coming from with our surprise and worry, though. 'Nuff said.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Optional rules are a tool of the Devil, IMO. |
You're entitled to that, Kagetenshi, but the fact remains that I think it's a good compromise.
Besides, us using tools of the Devil just brings us in line with mundane opinions of us anyway, so what the hell?
I'd be all for some optional "advanced" rules, even if it meant having to buy another SRComp sort of book to get them (in fact it'd be convenient to have them all in one place like that). I agree it would be a good compromise -- the basic and heavily streamlined rules available for people just starting out or those who think combat runs too slow (as the primary rules set), with rules available to the rest of us, and still just as official, that re-introduce things some of us are worried about the lack of (pools and such).
| QUOTE (Critias @ Apr 8 2005, 11:33 AM) | ||
Emphasis mine. See the difference in the two sentences, depending on how you looked at it in your head (until the FAQ slapped you awake)? |
No matter how you chose to interpret it a "complete revision" is by definition, well, complete (as in "total" or "not partial").
| QUOTE |
| A complete "revision" that happened between SR and 2, 2 and 3. |
Again it's a matter of interpretation, and this could be argued indefinitely, put the emphasis wherever you want, there has never been a complete revision of the rules. The closest we've come were the massive revisions from SR1 to SR2. In fact the changes between SR2 and 3 could have been summed up in 2 pages (I know because I did it based on the edition conversion FASA provided)
| QUOTE |
| The logical progression of streamlining a few things (like the changes of dodge and combat pool into a single entity, getting rid of variable staging, changing how armor worked), rather than a complete rewrite using (as far as we can see, so far) just the names of the things we're used to and comfortable with. If it's still called Quickness but it now represents nothing more than movement rate, for instance, we're going to feel less like it's a revision and more like it's a ground-up revisualization. |
The issue is you just don't know. Take the fixed TN issue in this thread. All that's currently known of the SR4 core mechanic amounts to the same as if you had been told that for SR3 you rolled Att or Skill against a variable target number. If you think that's all there is to SR3 system - then you're probably correct in making the same assumption about SR4.
| QUOTE |
| And I doubt I was the only one. Again -- take a second to put yourself in our shoes, and maybe you'll understand a bit more where some of our shock and confusion and disappointment (for what we've seen so far) is coming from. Compare these "revisions" to previous edition changes before you say we were expecting "3.5," too. Look at the scale of change we're getting thrust at us for the first time ever, look at how little about it we really know (at the moment we're only being told enough to worry us, though I understand why more/less can't be released)... and understand where we're comin' from. |
I am comparing with previous edition changes. Especifically with all changes since SR1. Guess that dates me. I'm just saying that this complete revision is a indeed a considerable departure from what's gone on before.
Get this straight: I was shocked too. I've been playing this game almost every week for the past 10 years now. My players were shocked. I'm not entirely sure some of them want to make the edition change but they've been open enough to give it a try. What I don't do is pass judgement until I have the complete picture, no matter how shocked I was when I heard about the changes. This is where I have a problem with the what's been going on here...
| QUOTE |
| And what sort of reasonable and productive debate do you expect to see, even from the elite handful of people who matter to you, Synner? |
See what I mean about making assumptions being a problem? Where did you get that the people that matter to me are either an "elite" or a "handful"... Who's to say that the reason why I'm spending my currently preciously limited time discussing this with you and others here isn't that most of you are included on the list?
| QUOTE |
| Given how little information the general public has to work with so far (though, again, I understand why that's the case), I think the forums you're complaining about have been pretty damned reasonable. |
I'm forced to agree there, although checking forums elsewhere gives a much different view.
| QUOTE |
| And for someone that's mentioned to us several times now that what we think doesn't matter (either to you, or to FanPro when it comes to making changes after announcements), how "productive" do you want us to be? |
No company can afford to make business decisions based on what will please its fans, no matter what you might believe.
(Note that the following is my opinion on the situation and may or may not be true to FanPro's own reasoning which I am not privy to) I would reiterate what's been said by others on the SR4 forums: FanPro can't afford to keep to the direction it's going. I believe sales are up over the past few books - largely thanks to their overall quality - but the buying audience isn't growing. Sales are up because more people within the current fan community are buying more books because they seem to like them - however, this also means that Shadowrun is certainly not picking up enough new fans. Factor in fan age-and-retirement creep and SR will not survive the next 5 years without an strong infusion of new blood (because its fan base is dying out).
Faced with this reality the powers-that-be at FanPro are faced with either knowingly accepting a lingering death to the game they develop and love, or take a gamble. The only solution is to draw in a new generation of players - and to a certain extent this must mean wiping the board. That's the cold hard truth. In the long run FanPro can't afford to simply cater to its current audience, and there isn't a half-way solution (and yes, they were looked into regardless). They know this is a risky gamble, but the fact that they're willing to take it (and put their livelihoods at risk), says volumes about their love for this game (in my mind).
The fact is someone who has already looked at the Shadowrun 3 rules and found them too complex won't give it another try if they open SR4 and find SR3.5 rules; and with the current RPGer audience being as limited as it is, those are (inevitably) a significant portion of FanPro's target. If you check other RPG boards you will see that the news is being VERY well recieved.
I'm truly sorry you think the change will necessarily be a bad thing. I've playtested the system, and though things still need to be ironed out, I throughly disagree with your judgement that this is the end of Shadowrun as we know it.
And just so this gets through. Even though I've now wrapped 8+ SR3 books and in my mind I'm getting to be pretty much a vet among the current SR freelance crew, I (and all the other playtesters) are in exactly the same boat as you. I am experienced enough to know that when an announcement is made it means its pretty much set in stone - there were reasons behind the decision which I am not privuy nor should I be. In that regard my opinion doesn't matter. If I had hated it and started sending mailing my opinions it still wouldn't have mattered. I was neither consulted nor did I have to be. That's why I'm a freelancer and not a developer. This isn't the just way FanPro does things, i'ts the way the RPG industry works.
| QUOTE |
| Just read what you want to read, and don't preach at us about the rest. We'll keep getting tossed the occasional bone, we'll keep worrying and gnawing on that bone until the next one comes, and eventually we'll get the actual product and either feel better, or not. |
Doesn't that sound to you rather pointless when the alternative is be contributing positively? Maybe not right now (due to lack of data, although some people seem to be making do) but eventually?
And that's the thing about voicing opinions. You can do it and I can do it. For every pointless rant I can put on my my equally pointless debate hat and spend a half hour replying to it. I've got better things to do but I definitely don't like one-sided debates.
| QUOTE |
| Since so many people on here are such disappointments to you, and our opinions matter so little to you(...) |
There you go again making assumptions...
This is a stupid argument. Whether it's realized or not, we don't even really disagree with each other. Behold: facts.
If you put the emphasis on "complete" a sentence does read a little differently and lead to different assumptions and expectations than if on "revision." If you only tell people a little bit they're going to worry about how they only know a little bit. If you change something some people (on a personal level) don't think is broken, even when they know it's changing for a good reason, they'll get upset. Companies do what companies have to do to stay afloat (and keep producing quality products). And if you love Shadowrun -- whether worried about those changes or not -- you're gonna buy 4th Edition.
There. Now let's all be friends.
If you put the emphasis on "complete" a sentence does read a little differently and lead to different assumptions and expectations than if on "revision." If you only tell people a little bit they're going to worry about how they only know a little bit. If you change something some people (on a personal level) don't think is broken, even when they know it's changing for a good reason, they'll get upset. Companies do what companies have to do to stay afloat (and keep producing quality products). And if you love Shadowrun -- whether worried about those changes or not -- you're gonna buy 4th Edition.
There. Now let's all be friends.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.