http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/wordpress/?p=19
Assuming the above link works. (its my first)
The new announcements about system should provoke discussion.
Personally I like the system It's simple but works.
Much like its D10 relative from a system thats dark and new.
Just how similar is it though?
Full Version: SR goes new WOD
There appear to be a number of parallels with the ruleset introduced in the Aeon Trinity games (also from WW) and now adopted by the nWOD. From experience I would say it resolves faster than SR3 and with a few tweaks can iron out some of the inconsistencies the nWOD still has.
Agreeded I already started "fixing" nWOD but it doesn't require that much work. 
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| There appear to be a number of parallels with the ruleset introduced in the Aeon Trinity games (also from WW) and now adopted by the nWOD. |
Aeon? They haven't called it that since Viacom threatened to sue their ass.
And now that I think about it, aren't the current editions of the Trinity/Aberant/Adventure! games on the D20 system now?
Not that any of that matters to the discussion at hand.
| QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ Apr 5 2005, 12:22 PM) | ||
Aeon? They haven't called it that since Viacom threatened to sue their ass. And now that I think about it, aren't the current editions of the Trinity/Aberant/Adventure! games on the D20 system now? Not that any of that matters to the discussion at hand. |
Yes indeedy, WW have published all 3 games as d20.
This irritated me (at least) muchly, as I really liked the way they worked under the original system.
Especially Adventure!.
Adventure! rocks...very seriously.
| QUOTE (Demosthenes) |
| Yes indeedy, WW have published all 3 games as d20. This irritated me (at least) muchly, as I really liked the way they worked under the original system. Especially Adventure!. Adventure! rocks...very seriously. |
And now that it's a D20 product, it's in direct competition with WotC's D20 Past, just as Abberant is up against the highly popular Mutants and Masterminds. That series were always niche games to start with, so I've never been able to figure out what White Wolf hoped to gain by converting them to the D20 standard.
But enough thread hijacking. If we keep talking about this, sooner or later I'm going to point out the fact that I have a pre-Viacom-settlement First Edition printing of Trinity, back when it still said Aeon on the front cover (and I even have the stickers that White Wolf sent to the retailers for re-titling the book, and the letter that acompanied them, explaining the terms of the settlement and requesting the retailer's assistance in helping White Wolf comply), and I just happen to be shopping around for a buyer for it.
Maybe SR will go D20 soon.
What, you didn't get the announcement?
This kind of makes me wonder how all of the former responsibilities of spell pool are going to be distributed. It also makes me wonder exactly what's been done to combat. I mean, without a combat pool to divvy up....
Hell I hadn't considered what effect that would have on magic yet.
Very good point.
We shall have to wait methinks.
Very good point.
We shall have to wait methinks.
No more dodging bullets it would seem.
What about the pools like Control and Hacking? Are we not going to have real pools in any form?
What about the pools like Control and Hacking? Are we not going to have real pools in any form?
| QUOTE (Rajaat99) |
| Maybe SR will go D20 soon. |
dont tempt faith...
| QUOTE (Rajaat99) |
| Maybe SR will go D20 soon. |
My god you actually want cancer.
Or an unpleasing visit by the sr-gaming police force.
The new system reminds me of "The Seventh Seal RPG".
It has the merit of fixing the high TNs problem of SR3, particularly in opposed rolls.
It has the merit of fixing the high TNs problem of SR3, particularly in opposed rolls.
Acutally maybe he wants something easier to understand.
From that little article alone I have decided I am staying in SR3, Gurps, and d20 Modern for my Shadowrun type games. I'll leave SR4 for the developers, who obviously forgot what made the game interesting.
From that little article alone I have decided I am staying in SR3, Gurps, and d20 Modern for my Shadowrun type games. I'll leave SR4 for the developers, who obviously forgot what made the game interesting.
| QUOTE (lorthazar) |
| Acutally maybe he wants something easier to understand. From that little article alone I have decided I am staying in SR3, Gurps, and d20 Modern for my Shadowrun type games. I'll leave SR4 for the developers, who obviously forgot what made the game interesting. |
No, the developers and the playtesters remember quite well what made the game interesting: The game world.
It's a pity you don't want to give the game a try based on something less than giving the game a try, like a small blurb in an evolving FAQ, but I've also given up trying to change people's minds. Just gives me a headache, and I've got enough in my life to do that without my gaming interfering with life.
to be fair, the game world is only a large part of what makes SR interesting. the other draw is the rules--the good parts of the rules. and not to sound like a naysayer, but it does seem--given the limited information we've got access to--that they're filing down several of the high points of the rules.
| QUOTE (Rajaat99 @ Apr 5 2005, 08:27 AM) |
| Maybe SR will go D20 soon. |
Enjoy 5th Edition, loyal citizens
I've played SR for better than 15 years now, largely in spite of the rules, because of the setting. I don't think the rules system has ever been the biggest draw for me, and has at times sent me scurrying elsewhere for my gaming. During the time I've been reading and playtesting SR4, I've actually enjoyed running SR again, and I wouldn't be afraid to bring my fiancee into a game now. She likes the world, but took a short look at the rules and gave me a pained expression.
I don't see, from the testing that I've done, that we're eviscerating things. I know it's a bitch to go on what's being said on the FAQ, but I also think it's a little premature for people to say that we're abandoning what made the game interesting, when that's what we're working hardest to preserve. It's the world and the story, not the ruleset, that makes Shadowrun what it is, at least in my opinion, and the world isn't going away.
I don't see, from the testing that I've done, that we're eviscerating things. I know it's a bitch to go on what's being said on the FAQ, but I also think it's a little premature for people to say that we're abandoning what made the game interesting, when that's what we're working hardest to preserve. It's the world and the story, not the ruleset, that makes Shadowrun what it is, at least in my opinion, and the world isn't going away.
| QUOTE |
| It's the world and the story, not the ruleset, that makes Shadowrun what it is, at least in my opinion, and the world isn't going away. |
I agree entirely. When I'm describing Shadowrun to people, I don't tell them 'you have a dice pool to divide among your rolls for a given combat turn' or something like that, I tell them 'it's cyberpunk with elves and magic!', and I'm sure that this is true for most players. It's the world that makes or breaks a game, and the Shadowrun world is awesome.
I am overjoyed at the good reason of the new dice rolling system. I am now convinced that I will adopt the new rules as soon as the book is released, even though it will take a few years to advance my game to 2070.
I really like the dice pools, and I will get to keep them, minus everything that makes them a problem. Like how they make tasks involving magic and combat easier than mundane, peaceful tasks. The fact that the TN is fixed and the modifiers effect the amount of dice in the pool is good, because it will be easier to add and subtract modifiers by counting the dice before you. Now my only concern is the statistics. Will the new system make for convincing statistics?
I really like the dice pools, and I will get to keep them, minus everything that makes them a problem. Like how they make tasks involving magic and combat easier than mundane, peaceful tasks. The fact that the TN is fixed and the modifiers effect the amount of dice in the pool is good, because it will be easier to add and subtract modifiers by counting the dice before you. Now my only concern is the statistics. Will the new system make for convincing statistics?
Well, believe it or not, there are quite a few of us who actually like the rules mechanics of SR3. In fact, I like them so much that with a bit of tweaking I am now using it for playing in a whole different game world. The pools, the relation of Attributes and Skills, the dice system probability scales, etc., some of us really really enjoy them.
Although I suppose from an economical standpoint it's a better idea to forget about us and go for those who don't really care about the mechanics as long as they are simple, who undoubtedly make up the massive majority of potential customers.
Although I suppose from an economical standpoint it's a better idea to forget about us and go for those who don't really care about the mechanics as long as they are simple, who undoubtedly make up the massive majority of potential customers.
The trick is, the setting can be put into almost any system (except d20, no cancer for me thanks). The system needs to have a draw too. Yes there was a lot wrong with SR3 that could use some massive streamlining, but it seems like the good is being thrown out with the bad in the name of over simplification. For all it's flaws I still prefer the SR system to any other I play (one of which is Exalted, a lot like the new system we seem to be getting). For now I am just expressing concern over a the loss of a wonderful mechanic (dice pools). I think I'll actually like the rest of changes that have been announced, and I still have hope that somewhere in the mass of information we don't know yet there is a good replacement for dice pools. I do however think it is entirely appropriate for us to express concern over an announcement that sounds like serious damage play style of the game.
| QUOTE (Euchrid) |
| When I'm describing Shadowrun to people, I don't tell them 'you have a dice pool to divide among your rolls for a given combat turn' or something like that, I tell them 'it's cyberpunk with elves and magic!', and I'm sure that this is true for most players. It's the world that makes or breaks a game, and the Shadowrun world is awesome. |
I, on the other hand, do tell them that on top of a great and detailed world, it has (had?) the best Magic system out of all the RPGs I've ever played (which is a lot over the past almost 30 years), and one of the best combat systems as well.
Lucifersam: Have you not listened? The dice pools are still there!!! They have not gone away. In fact. Every skill test is made with a dice pool now. Read the blog again.
Going for an exalted style mechanic allows for you to simply the mechanics without going to close to the dreaded d20 system 
If there are similarities between TN 5 d6 and TN7 d10 then I would say you could even see some of the WoD and exalted fans picking up Shadowrun etc which might increase the potential fan base.
If nothing else it would allow game system hackers to incorporate rules from other systems a bit more easily.
If there are similarities between TN 5 d6 and TN7 d10 then I would say you could even see some of the WoD and exalted fans picking up Shadowrun etc which might increase the potential fan base.If nothing else it would allow game system hackers to incorporate rules from other systems a bit more easily.
[Edit]Nevermind.[/Edit]
Okay, I'm by no means a mathematician, but I can roll dice:
Roll(6d6)
5,5,4,2,5,1
Roll(6d6)
1,5,5,2,4,4
Roll(6d6)
6,4,6,4,2,4
Roll(6d6)
4,1,6,1,3,6
Roll(6d6)
5,5,6,4,5,1
Roll(6d6)
2,3,6,5,2,3
Roll(6d6)
5,2,2,6,3,5
Roll(6d6)
3,6,1,1,2,4
Roll(6d6)
2,3,3,4,6,6
Roll(6d6)
1,3,3,4,1,3
Okay, 6 dice ten times (figuring an average person with 3 attr and 3 skill)
I only got a 50% success rate. So an average Joe is only successful 50% of the time - on an average task?
That doesn't seem right. Anyone else see that? Or is my system skewed here? (IE not calculating the odds right)
Roll(6d6)
5,5,4,2,5,1
Roll(6d6)
1,5,5,2,4,4
Roll(6d6)
6,4,6,4,2,4
Roll(6d6)
4,1,6,1,3,6
Roll(6d6)
5,5,6,4,5,1
Roll(6d6)
2,3,6,5,2,3
Roll(6d6)
5,2,2,6,3,5
Roll(6d6)
3,6,1,1,2,4
Roll(6d6)
2,3,3,4,6,6
Roll(6d6)
1,3,3,4,1,3
Okay, 6 dice ten times (figuring an average person with 3 attr and 3 skill)
I only got a 50% success rate. So an average Joe is only successful 50% of the time - on an average task?
That doesn't seem right. Anyone else see that? Or is my system skewed here? (IE not calculating the odds right)
In the new dice system you calculate your dice pool first (skill+attribute+/-modifiers) then roll against a fixed TN 5. The new dice pool will work much like the old dice pool, in that you can tacticly distribute it over several actions. Have I missread somewhere? What are people complaining about?
<<<edit>>> Eldritch: That would be something to complain about. That would suck. But I do think that you have a statistical propability to roll one 5 or 6 in 6 dice. So itīs most likely more than 50% chance. I think...
<<<edit>>> Eldritch: That would be something to complain about. That would suck. But I do think that you have a statistical propability to roll one 5 or 6 in 6 dice. So itīs most likely more than 50% chance. I think...
| QUOTE (mintcar @ Apr 5 2005, 12:02 PM) |
| Lucifersam: Have you not listened? The dice pools are still there!!! They have not gone away. In fact. Every skill test is made with a dice pool now. Read the blog again. |
I don't know if you're reading something we're not. I think that when people are complaining about lacking dice pools, they're talking about how they like to have a reserve of dice to throw at especially important tests. It's a cool, tactical thing to have a limited number of dice per phase, and to have to sweat over whether you really want to be sure of making a shot, or saving dice to dodge.
This "every test is a pool now" thing is BS. The old manner in which pools were used seems to be gone. If it's not, we're still waiting to hear how. We're not being told if there's a reason to withhold dice for later use.
Which brings up a new point. How is dodging being handled?
EDIT: Just saw your new post. Where are you getting the idea it's distributed over several actions? Am I the one missing something here?
| QUOTE (Eldritch) |
| I only got a 50% success rate. |
50% success rate against what, exactly? For 1 success, you got 90%.
| CODE |
| # dice P(1 success) 1 0.333 2 0.555 3 0.704 4 0.802 5 0.868 6 0.912 7 0.941 8 0.961 9 0.974 10 0.983 |
| QUOTE (mintcar) |
| The new dice pool will work much like the old dice pool, in that you can tacticly distribute it over several actions. |
Where on earth do you get this from?
| QUOTE |
| Q. Will SR4 still have Dice Pools? A. Yes, but not in the same sense as SR3. In SR4, any time you make a test, the dice you roll are considered your dice pool. Dice pools consist of skill + attribute, +/- any modifiers. The Dice Pools from SR3Combat, Hacking, Control, Magicno longer exist in SR4. |
I realize that itīs not 100% clear. Itīs more like an assumption. But I think itīs likely sence they are answering "Yes" to the question. I think itīs the best way to enterprete the answer. Definitely more propable than the opposite.
| QUOTE (mintcar) |
| The new dice pool will work much like the old dice pool, in that you can tacticly distribute it over several actions. [...] What are people complaining about? |
A Pistols + Quickness (or any other attack skill + linked attribute) pool will only function like a Combat Pool for attacking with that skill (if that, depends of course entirely on how they work the specifics). What we've seen so far does not present any way of simulating the same kind of tactical choices that Combat Pool offers in SR3, such as the basic idea of choosing how much you concentrate on offense and how much on defense.
Of course such a system or something similar may end up being in the final version, but nothing that's been released so far suggest it -- indeed the explicit removal of the Combat Pool and the re-defining of the term "dice pool" could be seen to hint at such systems not existing.
Huh. Didnīt think of that. I guess thereīs a problem after all. Hope it gets solved.
| QUOTE |
| Well, believe it or not, there are quite a few of us who actually like the rules mechanics of SR3. In fact, I like them so much that with a bit of tweaking I am now using it for playing in a whole different game world. The pools, the relation of Attributes and Skills, the dice system probability scales, etc., some of us really really enjoy them. Although I suppose from an economical standpoint it's a better idea to forget about us and go for those who don't really care about the mechanics as long as they are simple, who undoubtedly make up the massive majority of potential customers. |
There are people out there that like the SR3 rules mechanics. The people that play SR now are pretty much made up of people who play in spite of the mechanics (like Patrick) and people who play because they like the mechanics. Neither group, however, includes the people who don't play SR, either because they've given up on trying to figure out the mechanics or because they can't find people who want to try the game, because of the mechanics.
Take myself as an example. I'm a longtime player of SR, been playing it since SR1. Even I don't pretend to know all the rules of SR3, because if you quizzed me on some of the intricacies of them, I'd likely fail. As I sit here, I'm writing a section for System Failure. I have a stack of about a dozen SR books on the corner of my desk, that I need just to reference things for my sections of SF, so that they don't contradict past books. It's rather insane.
I was brainstorming some ideas the other day and tossed out something and got back a reply from another freelancer saying, "no no, that won't work, because of this one line in this one sourcebook." And he was right. Which, of course, means I scrap the idea or I make another rules exception. And of course, if I do that, sometime down the road another writer or a GM or a player will have an idea that might get squashed or complicated by the one line I added to get around a past line. It's mind-boggling. Heaven help the person who is just diving into SR for the first time and wants to play a quick game with some friends.
Hell, I don't even have an SR gaming group anymore. Everyone I know is afraid of SR's mechanics. We've got busy lives and no one has the time to read all the necessary books to get even an incomplete grasp of SR's mechanical complexities. We play Exalted instead. Y'know why? Because, like SR, it's a very rich and complex setting and extremely entertaining. But unlike SR, my friends can grasp it quickly and get a lot of actual story development done in our limited sessions, and if we pull another friend in one night, he can jump right in with little time spent introducing him to the concepts. I spent two gaming sessions just trying to explain how to make an SR character to a friend of mine once, and then we ended up not playing anyway, because he felt swamped by it all.
Yes, it's a matter of economics. But it's also a matter of playing the game. It's also about the people sitting around a table actually playing, and ensuring there are lots of people doing that and having fun, and developing stories without having to wrestle with the mechanics or getting turned off by them.
| QUOTE (Patrick Goodman @ Apr 5 2005, 10:21 AM) |
| No, the developers and the playtesters remember quite well what made the game interesting: The game world. |
That's amazingly simplistic. Not only is it simplistic, it's wrong. The game world helped, sure, even has been the larger part, but the (sane parts of the) mechanics have always been a big draw for many of the players I've known over the years.
Demonseed Elite: have you considered the possibility that, in large part, that's due to the organization of the rules (or lack thereof) rather than the rules themselves? Most of my rules issues have involved a lot of sorting through books and interpreting vague wordings, not trying to figure out how a given mechanic actually operates, and that's what I usually see around here, though others' mileages may vary.
~J
I think a lot of people fear SR turning into an overly simplistic D6 version of D20. Simplicity breeds cookie cutter games and characters. I feel as I have grown up that I prefer complex rules that challenge my mid as opposed to rules like D20. Not that D&D isn't great an all, but I can play it for about five minutes before I want to go back to the complex Shadowrun character creation rules and make myself a real character. Complex rules bread a complex game. Simple rules, simple game. The setting may be what draws people in, but I think the rules are what keeps them. Any setting gets old over time. Wether it's Forgotten Realms, or Seattle circa 2050. But if the rules are interesting and allow for unlimited variations then they keep you coming back.
Patric says he has played SR in spite of the rules. I feel this is a disconnect between you (and the devs) and the community. I feel most of us play the game because of the rules. Because they have evolved and gotten better with each incarnation. Now it would be different if you announced SR4 as a continuation of the SR3 ruleset. That it was going to be an improved version of the game.
But sadly this does not sound like it's the case. It sounds like more creative venting. Fanpro wants Shadowrun to be completely theirs, so they are stamping out any traces of what FASA created and replacing the game system with their own invention, regardless if it needed to be replaced or not.
No more Deckers, No more Riggers (and yes I know the function is still their, but a rose by any other name DOES NOT smell as sweet.)
No more Dice pools
No more att's above 6 (ever)
The target number for dice rolls is now always 5. Modifiers affect how many dice you roll, not the TN.
No more "successes", now their "hits"
No more weapon power
No more open tests
New attributes
New types of tests
Add all this up and it says "Hey, I didn't make Shadowrun, but I own it now, so lets make a new game, call it Shadowrun and it will be like Shadowrun."
I am sorry Sir. But you can take a duck and call it a chicken, but that doesn't make it so. The more I read the more I realize your vision of Shadowrun has very little to do with the Shadowrun I have been playing since '89. Of course now is when you pull a George Lucas and say "well to bad, cause WE are Shadowrun and theres nothing you can do about it." Well I can sure as hell not buy the books.
You know what makes really angry, I like you people, and your systematically destroying the game I love. I get to be one of those throwbacks who still play the "old version". I don't get to have any more updates, I have to start incorporating houserules to make things work and that pisses me off. Why couldn't you just do what the last three versions of the game did, improve upon the original. But no you had to go and make a whole new game and slap the Shadowrun title on it.
Patric says he has played SR in spite of the rules. I feel this is a disconnect between you (and the devs) and the community. I feel most of us play the game because of the rules. Because they have evolved and gotten better with each incarnation. Now it would be different if you announced SR4 as a continuation of the SR3 ruleset. That it was going to be an improved version of the game.
But sadly this does not sound like it's the case. It sounds like more creative venting. Fanpro wants Shadowrun to be completely theirs, so they are stamping out any traces of what FASA created and replacing the game system with their own invention, regardless if it needed to be replaced or not.
No more Deckers, No more Riggers (and yes I know the function is still their, but a rose by any other name DOES NOT smell as sweet.)
No more Dice pools
No more att's above 6 (ever)
The target number for dice rolls is now always 5. Modifiers affect how many dice you roll, not the TN.
No more "successes", now their "hits"
No more weapon power
No more open tests
New attributes
New types of tests
Add all this up and it says "Hey, I didn't make Shadowrun, but I own it now, so lets make a new game, call it Shadowrun and it will be like Shadowrun."
I am sorry Sir. But you can take a duck and call it a chicken, but that doesn't make it so. The more I read the more I realize your vision of Shadowrun has very little to do with the Shadowrun I have been playing since '89. Of course now is when you pull a George Lucas and say "well to bad, cause WE are Shadowrun and theres nothing you can do about it." Well I can sure as hell not buy the books.
You know what makes really angry, I like you people, and your systematically destroying the game I love. I get to be one of those throwbacks who still play the "old version". I don't get to have any more updates, I have to start incorporating houserules to make things work and that pisses me off. Why couldn't you just do what the last three versions of the game did, improve upon the original. But no you had to go and make a whole new game and slap the Shadowrun title on it.
Demonseed Elite: Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing economics. I respect the fact that companies are about making money, and that includes gaming companies. I'm also not completely cynical about the game developers' motives: I'm sure most (all?) of them are really doing their best to make the game better, not just to make it sell better.
It's just becoming more obvious to me that my views of what makes a good set of p&p RPG rules contradict those of the developers and the general public on several points.
It's just becoming more obvious to me that my views of what makes a good set of p&p RPG rules contradict those of the developers and the general public on several points.
| QUOTE |
| Demonseed Elite: have you considered the possibility that, in large part, that's due to the organization of the rules (or lack thereof) rather than the rules themselves? Most of my rules issues have involved a lot of sorting through books and interpreting vague wordings, not trying to figure out how a given mechanic actually operates, and that's what I usually see around here, though others' mileages may vary. |
From my point of view, both are a factor.
To take an example from today: dice pools. SR3 has a ton of them. If someone said to me: "pop quiz: list SR's dice pools, how each is calculated, and how each can be used", I'd get maybe half of them passably correct. Not necessarily because of their organization in the books, but because there are more than a half dozen dice pools, and how each is calculated is absolutely not uniform in any way. Hell, how each one is applied isn't even uniform.
Now try explaining them to someone who has never looked at SR before.
| QUOTE |
| It's just becoming more obvious to me that my views of what makes a good set of p&p RPG rules contradict those of the developers and the general public in several points. |
That's very possible, and don't think that we disrespect that. But I know I would prefer to have a basic system for SR that is, well, basic. Then the writers and players can expand upon the basic system for more complexities if that is what they like, while the fundamental system remains straight-forward and easy to use.
Keep in mind that the FAQ has only mentioned the very minimum of the very basic idea of the mechanics, so far. Rob hasn't said what tactical dice pools might be in the game, how weapon combat works, the balance of attribute vs. skill purchasing at character generation, or any of that. No less how those basic mechanics can be expanded upon.
| QUOTE (Demonseed Elite) |
| The people that play SR now are pretty much made up of people who play in spite of the mechanics (like Patrick) and people who play because they like the mechanics. Neither group, however, includes ... because they can't find people who want to try the game, because of the mechanics. |
Errmm... I kinda fall into that category. That's why I take care of all the dice rolling on my own, behind the scenes. The players don't have to know the first thing about mechanics, if they don't want it. But *I* like the mechanics. At least the basic ideas, which happens to include dice pools. Heck, I liked them enough that when I was running a one-on-one game in Renaisance Italy with no magic and no cyber, I kept using the basic system.
Does SR have a problem with rules creep? Yes. That's why you hear people complaining about the rigger rules. Rigger rules are insane, and follow a totally different set of rules from the rest of the game. But as long as I've been here, I've never EVER heard anyone complain that they don't understand dice pools. I am delighted that Fanpro is fixing riggers and bringing them in line with everything else. I am hopeful when I hear they're fixing deckers. I am closing my eyes and praying I'm wrong when I hear about dice pools being 'fixed'. Just because some rules need to be fixed doesn't mean they ALL do.
But, as before, despite the signs that would normally send me running, I am putting faith in FanPro that, come August, DS will be full of rave reviews, and come October, I'll get my favoritist birthday present ever.
Please make me right : )
[QUOTE=Demonseed Elite,Apr 5 2005, 08:24 AM] [QUOTE]Not necessarily because of their organization in the books, but because there are more than a half dozen dice pools, and how each is calculated is absolutely not uniform in any way. Hell, how each one is applied isn't even uniform.
Now try explaining them to someone who has never looked at SR before. [/QUOTE]
So what? You can't figure out how to use dice pools so that means no one can, ergo you throw out the whole system?
I have an original thought, keep the system that works and tweak it. Make all the dice pools uniform, make them so their applied uniformly.
And just to let you know, you don't have to have all the rules memorized, you don't have to have any of the rules memorized. Just be familiar with them so that you can look stuff up if you need to. I have a wife and a kid, and I work full time, she goes to school full time. If anyone doesn't have time it's me. But I can still find time to play the game with friends who have as little time as me.
All this stuff sounds more like problems you all have, not the game. How to explain deckers, how to explain the rules, I can't make people understand them, come on.
It seems like that would be incentive to tweak the existing rules. But no. Did you even try? Or did you guys just decide to make a whole new ruleset right form the beginning. Because your SR has little in common with the one I have been playing.
Now try explaining them to someone who has never looked at SR before. [/QUOTE]
So what? You can't figure out how to use dice pools so that means no one can, ergo you throw out the whole system?
I have an original thought, keep the system that works and tweak it. Make all the dice pools uniform, make them so their applied uniformly.
And just to let you know, you don't have to have all the rules memorized, you don't have to have any of the rules memorized. Just be familiar with them so that you can look stuff up if you need to. I have a wife and a kid, and I work full time, she goes to school full time. If anyone doesn't have time it's me. But I can still find time to play the game with friends who have as little time as me.
All this stuff sounds more like problems you all have, not the game. How to explain deckers, how to explain the rules, I can't make people understand them, come on.
It seems like that would be incentive to tweak the existing rules. But no. Did you even try? Or did you guys just decide to make a whole new ruleset right form the beginning. Because your SR has little in common with the one I have been playing.
| QUOTE (Demonseed Elite) |
| [...] how weapon combat works [...] |
I'll try and refrain from commenting on that before I've seen the final rules and have had time to house rule them extensively. In that area, I know by now that there's no pleasing me anyway.
You are of course absolutely correct in that the information given in the FAQ so far is limited to say the least. I will add more "if"s and "assuming"s and "based on what's been said so far"s to my future comments.
| QUOTE |
| 50% success rate against what, exactly? For 1 success, you got 90%. |
Well, I rolled 6 dice, ten times (Simulating 10 skill tests) And only 5 of the ten tests had 5's in them. 50% success.
Like I said, not a mathematician, and by no means is that a scientific survey - but it is reality.
Umm, Eldritch, TN 5 = 5s or higher are successes. 4 of the 10 tests had 6s in them but no 5s. 9 of the 10 tests were successful with varying amounts of successes -- which is the expected number, considering that the probability of success with 6 dice against a TN of 5 is 0.912 (at 3 significant figures) like I mentioned.
Your reality is thus a bit faulty.
Your reality is thus a bit faulty.
It's reality that there are statistical aberrations, sure, but not that 5+ is anything other than 1/3 chance per die with unweighted dice.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Patrick Goodman) |
| It's the world and the story, not the ruleset, that makes Shadowrun what it is, at least in my opinion, and the world isn't going away. |
mechanics impact the flavor of any game setting. they don't direct it, but they do impact it. for instance, it's difficult to run a gritty, violent d20 game without diverging from the SRD. it's not impossible, but it's very difficult.
one of SR's strong points has always been that good thinking is as important as good stats. in d20, as long as you don't do something incredibly stupid, you stand a good chance of winning every battle. in SR, one stupid move can kill your character. that's why it's so much easier to run a gritty SR game than it is to run a gritty d20 game.
in some cases, the need to think your way through things has been taken to an unworkable extreme; the rigging and decking rules are good examples of this. things like that should certainly be streamlined and, for lack of a better term, dumbed down.
taking away allocatable dice pools--assuming no other mechanic for increasing your chance of succeeding on a given rule is being put into place--has a serious impact on the feel of SR. it means that you no longer have to think your way through combat. like d20, you simply need to not do anything stupid. this decreases the possibility for dramatic combat; there's no way to go all-or-nothing against the big bad guy when it really counts; no way to drop everything and just dodge when there's ten guys laying down autofire at you. all you can do is roll your flat number of dice and hope for the best.
now, if there's some other mechanic for emphasizing certain rolls? okay. ignore this. but you can't take away something like that without changing the way the game feels.
Shadow, it's flattering that you put so much of the decision making on me, but I'm not involved in writing SR4's rules, nor am I playtesting it, nor was I the one who decided there should be an SR4 (hell, I only knew about it three days before the general public did).
But in addition to my own personal experience with Shadowrun, I do have access to a lot of feedback on the web. If you visit the non-SR-centric RPG forums out there, the same complaints about the rules system will be echoed by many people who will not play the game because of them, or can not because no one will play the game with them. And the people who did decide upon SR4 have better access to feedback than even I do. They know the game's sales, they know whether or not there is a market. They are personally at the conventions.
The functioning and uncumbersome parts of the Shadowrun rules system are being kept. But much of it is cumbersome and/or non-functioning. Players have house-ruled so much of the game they forget even what is house-ruled. Whole aspects of the game (like decking) are routinely ignored by players because they don't mesh. As for tweaking the rules, wasn't that what SR3 was? A tweaking of SR2? Which was a tweaking of SR1? You can't say it hasn't been tried.
That said, is SR4 going to be a whole new game? No, not really. It will be different, but it will be familiar. How much familiar is kinda subjective. Is d20 a whole new D&D? Well, I dunno. It's definitely new, but its still got the same attributes on a 18-scale, its still got alignment, armor class, rolls a d20 for resolutions, has saving throws, etc.
EDIT: And I agree with mfb. There are some cases where mechanics influence the atmosphere of a game. Of course, there's also a point where mechanics interrupt the atmosphere of a game. I agree with him on the use of tactical dice pools. The ability to place dice emphasis on certain actions lends a level of planning and tactics to the atmosphere of the game. But I also think the current system for handling tactical dice pools is overly complex. You can get the idea of placing tactical emphasis on actions using allocated dice across without over a half dozen different pools which are calculated in different ways, used on different aspects of the game, and not even all equally acquired (like Astral Pool, which is only open to initiated magicians).
But in addition to my own personal experience with Shadowrun, I do have access to a lot of feedback on the web. If you visit the non-SR-centric RPG forums out there, the same complaints about the rules system will be echoed by many people who will not play the game because of them, or can not because no one will play the game with them. And the people who did decide upon SR4 have better access to feedback than even I do. They know the game's sales, they know whether or not there is a market. They are personally at the conventions.
The functioning and uncumbersome parts of the Shadowrun rules system are being kept. But much of it is cumbersome and/or non-functioning. Players have house-ruled so much of the game they forget even what is house-ruled. Whole aspects of the game (like decking) are routinely ignored by players because they don't mesh. As for tweaking the rules, wasn't that what SR3 was? A tweaking of SR2? Which was a tweaking of SR1? You can't say it hasn't been tried.
That said, is SR4 going to be a whole new game? No, not really. It will be different, but it will be familiar. How much familiar is kinda subjective. Is d20 a whole new D&D? Well, I dunno. It's definitely new, but its still got the same attributes on a 18-scale, its still got alignment, armor class, rolls a d20 for resolutions, has saving throws, etc.
EDIT: And I agree with mfb. There are some cases where mechanics influence the atmosphere of a game. Of course, there's also a point where mechanics interrupt the atmosphere of a game. I agree with him on the use of tactical dice pools. The ability to place dice emphasis on certain actions lends a level of planning and tactics to the atmosphere of the game. But I also think the current system for handling tactical dice pools is overly complex. You can get the idea of placing tactical emphasis on actions using allocated dice across without over a half dozen different pools which are calculated in different ways, used on different aspects of the game, and not even all equally acquired (like Astral Pool, which is only open to initiated magicians).
Having played them both, yes, 3rd ed is a different game from AD&D Second Edition.
~J
~J
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.