Update: contrary to my own statement, I have begun this project. I will use this space at the top to link to all subthreads in the project. The first post of every thread for the project will link to every other thread for the project.
Jon’s Glorious Karma Character Generation System (S3CKS)
Decking
Ranged Combat
Astral Space, Essence, and the Awakened
New Gear
Cyberware
Time, Pool, and the Flow of Combat
_________________________________________________
The following books are the ones that this project is not considering for its ruleset. Ideas from these books can be considered, and a sufficiently persuasive argument may result in a book entering SR3R canon (or leaving it), but by default nothing in a book listed here that is not introduced in an earlier book exists in SR3R, and no new rules apply from these books.
Liber Non Grata:
Any book for Shadowrun, Fourth Edition
State of the Art: 2064
Shadows of Asia
Shadows of Europe
Loose Alliances
System Failure
Mr. Johnson's Little Black Book
_________________________________________________
Let me open by saying that I am not, at this time, trying to compile a revision to Shadowrun 3rd Edition. It's way the hell too early for that, and there's still a chance (however slim it may seem at times) that I'll fall in love with SR4, that it will be everything I've always wanted and more (or at least an improvement).
That being said: pretend you know nothing about 4th ed. Pretend someone came up to you and said they were doing a 4th edition, and that it was going be more a revision of the current rules than an overhaul. They're just asking you about the rules, not the world in general. What would you tell them you want to see revised, and what if any suggestions would you have for how to revise it to do what you want?
The obvious example that I'll get out of the way now isn't actually in the rules, it's in the organization. It's no secret that I believe that the main weakness of SR3, completely overwhelming anything else, is its complete lack of organization and proper ease of cross-referencing. Lack of indices, rulesets split up amongst widely disparate books and pages… I realized, upon purchasing the first few Shadowrun PDFs, that a big part of my mastery of the rules is not, in fact, the chunks I have memorized (though they help)… no, it's largely due to the fact that my spatial memory is good enough that I can reliably flip to a given section of the book on demand and look a rule up from there instead of having to hunt for the section. I don't think I need to point out that spatial memory should never be a major part of mastering the rules. Ironically enough, this is the flaw in SR3 that is impossible to correct in a fan revision (at least one that doesn't involve a lot of copyright infringement, which I under no circumstances am considering).
Another example is the way they've overpowered Riggers with regard to combat. There are some sections that might need consideration (like the invulnerability/invincibility dichotomy that exists any time you don't have Control Pool to throw at the problem), but the major low-hanging fruit is the fact that Riggers get a free attack pool. That's right, while they use Control Pool for maneuvers and dodging, they can freely use Combat Pool to attack (and nothing else). If strapped for attacks, they can even supplement their Combat Pool with Control Pool. Imagine a streetsam with twenty-three pool dice, even if ten of these are unavailable for dodging or soaking. I have just such a Rigger, legal under the current rules.
So, if, some eight or ten months down the road, I decide that SR4 isn't for me, what would you want to see fixed in a 3rd Revised? There's no need for you to be unsatisfied with what we've seen of SR4 to contribute here, though you may have more incentive to if the releases are worrying rather than calming to you. What's broken? What needs to be streamlined? Specifics, if possible; just saying "deckers" is a lot less helpful than saying "MP costs and the confusing way that Attack programs work", for instance.
Fire away.
~J
Full Version: Shadowrun 3rd Revised
Kage hit upon one of the most important thing that should be done, organizing the existing rules in a logical referable manner. However, he is correct unless FanPro/WizKids does it, it will not happen.
Now for some of the things that I believe need to be examined;
1. Decking.
a. Hacking pool should be changed in a manner that places more emphasis on skill than on hardware/software.
b. Possibly have two different yet compatible systems to play/run deckers; one that is more abstract for use with multiple players/types (ie standard runs which include sam's, mages, riggers), and a more complex system when just running the Decker. Note that both systems would need to be internally consistent with each other (ie methods and results should be able to be achieved with either method). The idea is to have mechanism that allows for Decking during a run.
2. Riggers.
a. Force use of Control Pool only while rigging. Meaning no more Control Pool for driving, and Combat Pool for shooting. (This never made much sense anyway). I would suggest that the Control Pool formula be changed to allow for a slightly higher (25%?) increase to "ease the pain" for riggers.
b. As per 1b above; find some way to speed up/streamline the system so that it is much more compatible with a multi player/archetype game session.
These are just a few off the top of my head, additional areas for improvement would be firearms (weights, damage, etc.)(well covered by several existing websites).
Just my .02
worth. YMMV
Now for some of the things that I believe need to be examined;
1. Decking.
a. Hacking pool should be changed in a manner that places more emphasis on skill than on hardware/software.
b. Possibly have two different yet compatible systems to play/run deckers; one that is more abstract for use with multiple players/types (ie standard runs which include sam's, mages, riggers), and a more complex system when just running the Decker. Note that both systems would need to be internally consistent with each other (ie methods and results should be able to be achieved with either method). The idea is to have mechanism that allows for Decking during a run.
2. Riggers.
a. Force use of Control Pool only while rigging. Meaning no more Control Pool for driving, and Combat Pool for shooting. (This never made much sense anyway). I would suggest that the Control Pool formula be changed to allow for a slightly higher (25%?) increase to "ease the pain" for riggers.
b. As per 1b above; find some way to speed up/streamline the system so that it is much more compatible with a multi player/archetype game session.
These are just a few off the top of my head, additional areas for improvement would be firearms (weights, damage, etc.)(well covered by several existing websites).
Just my .02
worth. YMMV
| QUOTE (Papadoc) |
| 2. Riggers. […] b. As per 1b above; find some way to speed up/streamline the system so that it is much more compatible with a multi player/archetype game session. |
Would you consider including a dedicated page or two for the charts of TN mods of the various driving actions to accomplish this? If not, would you consider the above chart plus getting rid of the Maneuver Score to accomplish it?
I really need to do some playtesting with the maneuver score. I must admit it's been one of the always-dropped sections of the rules, but it could potentially offer a balancing factor to Riggers that I've been missing.
~J
| QUOTE (Papadoc) |
| Kage hit upon one of the most important thing that should be done, organizing the existing rules in a logical referable manner. However, he is correct unless FanPro/WizKids does it, it will not happen. |
This is probably my biggest gripe when I need to reference something. Half the spells are in SR3, the rest in MITS. Same for most the other source books as well as FAQ rulings, rule obsolescence from Core -> Expansion (MITS, Matrix, CC, etc). My players and I bitch about the messy crossreferencing.
It's a bold project, but a great idea.
A note to FanPro: You would probably get existing players to purchase this if you did nothing more than to have all the rules in one central book/tomb. Re-brand it "SR Classic" or some garbage.
Come to that, a grand index may not be completely out of reach for a fan project. Won't help the layout any, but such is life.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Papadoc @ Apr 13 2005, 12:57 PM) |
| 1. Decking. a. Hacking pool should be changed in a manner that places more emphasis on skill than on hardware/software. b. Possibly have two different yet compatible systems to play/run deckers; one that is more abstract for use with multiple players/types (ie standard runs which include sam's, mages, riggers), and a more complex system when just running the Decker. Note that both systems would need to be internally consistent with each other (ie methods and results should be able to be achieved with either method). The idea is to have mechanism that allows for Decking during a run. |
For (A), there is skill involved, but hardware should be more prevalent. Is it possible to hack whatever supercomputer there is today with a 486? Maybe, but wouldn't it be easier with <instert today's top of the line specs here>? There is a lot of skill involved in matrix combat already, what with maneuvering and non-detection programs, that could help an out-matched decker.
For (B), the process can be very streamlined if the GM decides to ignore all flavor text in the matrix. Team "Get the doors open" Decker rolls to locate door control, then rolls to control it. If he sets off an IC, then that's no different from your B&E character getting spotted by a sec guard with combat ensuing. That's pretty streamlined as opposed to the GM saying something like "When you log in, you get the feeling of being on an Old West-style street, with the Sheriff's office to your left, and a Saloon to your right..." and having the Decker try to figure out where to go to find the security node.
I guess I would say that they need to make Decking more accessible to players. At least in that section they seem to throw every table at you at once. It's not difficult to figure out if you sit down with it, but they present it in such a haphazard way that it's too daunting.
I'm going to admit to my prejudices right up front: if and when I undertake this project, one major aspect of it is that I'll be trying to reflect the fact that, in my opinion, a character without Computers should be like a character without Etiquette. Much as I'm not terribly a fan of the neo-WMI and the death of cyberdecks, the possibility that every character might be reasonably able to be at least part-decker without having to go terribly out of his or her way for it definitely excites me.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Papadoc) |
| Kage hit upon one of the most important thing that should be done, organizing the existing rules in a logical referable manner. However, he is correct unless FanPro/WizKids does it, it will not happen. |
I'll do you one better. The core book itself is not organized well.
I've spent several man-hours making bookmarks for my SR3 book that go five tiers deep into the book to the smallest heading they have, and what struck me the most tellingly (aside from the fact that I have too much time on my hands, and a remarkable ability to type up labels quickly) was that the chapters are not well-organized.
The worst example of this, by far, is the Matrix chapter itself. It starts off with the egrigious mistake of introducing concepts and terms before defining them (e.g., IC). The subchapter on IC is at the end of the chapter, but the Security subchapter is in the middle-front of the book, and refers to the IC at the end of the chapter. The gear chapter doesn't help anything either because Magical and Matrix gear are described in their own chapters, which is counterintuitive. Were I to want to know what a Focus is and what types there are, I'd read the Magic chapter. If I want to purchase them or a cyberdeck as gear, my natural instinct is to jump to the chapter titled "Street Gear." I also think that some of the subchapters could be better organized, and some headings and subheadings in those subchapters could be organized better or even omitted. My concern of course is that in simplifying concepts one can end up delving into the PowerPoint Bullet School, which gives a person less information (generally. That's why these things are called generalizations.) in less space.
Some subchapters, such as Healing and Damage, should be in the Running the Shadows chapter, and not the Combat chapter. Likewise with any Repair subchapter or heading (e.g., in the Rigging chapter). Beyond the Shadows should just be called Advancement or something to reflect the fact that half of the chapter deals with Karma, and the other half is GM hints. Perhaps split it into two different chapters, and focus on the GM duties and hints in one chapter, and give short rules for all manner of advancement (e.g., initiation) in another chapter. Running the Shadows has no coherent method to its madness, nor do I think that Diseases and Toxins should be in that chapter. They should be sitting right next to Healing and Damage, or Street Gear (since SR3 took all all the good toxins like Seven-7 nerve gas), or in a subchapter of Combat titled, "Gas Attacks."
Oh, did I also mention the fact that the SR3 book overall gives way too much info and space to missiles and rockets? It's almost as bad as Rigger 3's insane amount of space devoted to ships and submarines--because those are such popular and useful vehicles to have (Oh, yeah. I labeled that, too. I labeled all of my SR3 books except SOTA64 and SOE because the cross-referencing and lack of indices were driving me mad).
OTOH, the book does something novel in that they actually enumerate the steps in a combat turn for Combat, Matrix Combat, and Vehicle Combat.
Unfortunately, the Vehicle Combat list contains 8 items, with "6. Characters take actions and resolve results" encompassing all 4 substeps of regular Combat (listed as "3. A-D"). People wonder why no one plays riggers? Aside from having to jump back to the Combat chapter to recall (not a problem for us, but we're all vets. This is a book introducing the game to newbies) those steps so that they don't screw it up, there are 12 steps on has to go through for the first combat turn, and 11 for each subsequent turn.
I'm sitting here counting my labels from back to front, and before I even got to Street Gear, the Seattle & PacNW chapter to the Index have over 50 labels. The entire book probably has a couple hundred labels (I'm sure this is the same in the online PDF. I feel very sorry for Adam's wrists if he had to type them all up) because I went one level deeper than what is listed in the TOC, and several pages have multiple labels on them.
This is wasteful and unnecessary, and hurts my brain (and wrists).
By the end of the Combat section, I counted 211 labels, not counting labels that had disclosure triangles to display other labels (I only counted the labels at the bottom of trees).
Note that that gets us to page 129.
~J
Note that that gets us to page 129.
~J
Examples or specific situations given when warrented -- not exhaustively however.
1: A retooling of the cyberware -- specifically the communications stuff, and muscle replacements.
2: More organization in the descriptions of each weapon -- just increase the size of the tables and put all the addons a specific weapon has underneath it.
3: Better descriptions of the interactions of various cyberware with normal gameplay.
4: Better encumberance rules. I like the idea, but the implementation is horrid. You can be encumbered naked under the rules, and they aren't entirely consistent -- cyberlimbs don't have a weight attached to them that I can recall, and it doesn't say if they factor in, but bone lacing explicitly DOES and has a weight assigned..
5: Better spell target numbers -- so it's hard to lower a cybernetic monster's (essence 0.5, TN 10, Q6) quickness than the mage's (essence 6, TN 4, Q6)? But it's equally easy to raise them?
6: Better design of spells and elaboration of what area of affect means, what sustained means, and some explanation of why for both.
7: Better explanation of foci and how they work -- so, my ambidextrous knife fighter with a pair of force 6 knives, skill 6 gets how many bonus dice? Well.. either 21 (each focus adds to skill with that hand) or 27 (both foci add to base skill)?
1: A retooling of the cyberware -- specifically the communications stuff, and muscle replacements.
2: More organization in the descriptions of each weapon -- just increase the size of the tables and put all the addons a specific weapon has underneath it.
3: Better descriptions of the interactions of various cyberware with normal gameplay.
4: Better encumberance rules. I like the idea, but the implementation is horrid. You can be encumbered naked under the rules, and they aren't entirely consistent -- cyberlimbs don't have a weight attached to them that I can recall, and it doesn't say if they factor in, but bone lacing explicitly DOES and has a weight assigned..
5: Better spell target numbers -- so it's hard to lower a cybernetic monster's (essence 0.5, TN 10, Q6) quickness than the mage's (essence 6, TN 4, Q6)? But it's equally easy to raise them?
6: Better design of spells and elaboration of what area of affect means, what sustained means, and some explanation of why for both.
7: Better explanation of foci and how they work -- so, my ambidextrous knife fighter with a pair of force 6 knives, skill 6 gets how many bonus dice? Well.. either 21 (each focus adds to skill with that hand) or 27 (both foci add to base skill)?
Maneuvers for all melee combat, not just unarmed martial arts.
So you'd want to see maneuvers for everything rather than maneuvers for nothing?
~J
~J
Yep! Of course, some of them might need to be reworked a little.
I'd rather see maneuvers for nothing.
Also, rules that are consistent, are all in one book and make sense at least from a balance perspective.
Also, rules that are consistent, are all in one book and make sense at least from a balance perspective.
I concur with what others have stated above except for the "decking for everyone" bit. I back this fully and will offer any support I can.
Perhaps I misstated: I don't believe that everyone should be a drek-hot decker, but I think that just about everyone should be interacting with computers on an extremely frequent basis and actively using the skill, making the jump into decking that much smaller.
~J
~J
That I can't argue with, which is supported by the flaw "computer illiterate". I think though, like the Car skill, that a person with no skill in computers can still do 99% of their functions, work included just fine. The idiot proof icon based user interface takes care of that. The computer skill is more for the highly technical end of it, which is really not needed by those outside of IT or those of less altruistic motives.
As the setting is currently defined, you don't need to know anything about active memory addressing to use e-mail. However, you do need it to properly initiatie security intrusions.
If you want to make the base level of computational knowledge a 3 in computers instead of a 3 in intelligence, go ahead, but at least include a passing comment suggesting 3 more active skill points to everyone. Also, just remove the computer illiterate flaw since basic system usage will be beyond the abilities of a 0 skill PC.
I don't consider this a bad way of changing the numbers, just that you should change all the relevant numbers to stay consistant.
If you want to make the base level of computational knowledge a 3 in computers instead of a 3 in intelligence, go ahead, but at least include a passing comment suggesting 3 more active skill points to everyone. Also, just remove the computer illiterate flaw since basic system usage will be beyond the abilities of a 0 skill PC.
I don't consider this a bad way of changing the numbers, just that you should change all the relevant numbers to stay consistant.
In my opinion it should be just as easy to get along without Computers as it is without Etiquette.
However, I'm pretty sure anything we'd be doing to that would be flavor rather than new rules, and as such eminently ignorable.
~J
However, I'm pretty sure anything we'd be doing to that would be flavor rather than new rules, and as such eminently ignorable.
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| In my opinion it should be just as easy to get along without Computers as it is without Etiquette. |
Heh. I've seen plenty of players completely skip all social skills when making their character...
Personally I don't have that much of a problem with the organization of the main book, although an useable index would certainly be nice. The main points I'd like to see cleaned up would be rigging and decking.
For rigging: Eliminate the maneuver score. Completely. I still use the basic SR2 vehicle combat rules when I'm absolutely forced to resolve a vehicle combat.
For decking: It's been pointed out on the SR4 boards, but I'd like to repeat that there are way too many utility programs necessary to do anything useful in the matrix. Cut them down to where you have only one or two utilities per system rating of the host, and the matrix would be a lot more appealing to me.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| However, I'm pretty sure anything we'd be doing to that would be flavor rather than new rules, and as such eminently ignorable. |
Then my preemptive precautions were unneccessary. Carry on with your contingency, I'm interested to see how it turns out.
Dump the maneuver score. Work vehicle combat into the personal combat rules, so if there's a mixed vehicle/personnel combat, you're not having to juggle two mutually-exclusive systems at once. Hell, simplify all the rigger rules-- drones, electronic warfare, gunnery, and so on-- into one coherent system compatible with the basic combat rules.
Simplify decking. Reduce the number of utilities to 5-10 or so; one for each of the system ratings, and a few special utilites (Medic, Attack, etc.).
Switch to my initiative system. Let the fast people keep the advantage, while keeping slower players interested in the combat.
Simplify decking. Reduce the number of utilities to 5-10 or so; one for each of the system ratings, and a few special utilites (Medic, Attack, etc.).
Switch to my initiative system. Let the fast people keep the advantage, while keeping slower players interested in the combat.
Drop the Sleaze utility entirely, and replace all references to "Detection Factor" with Masking.
Redo vehicle availability so that PCs can start with a civilian chopper or light aircraft (which they can't in SR3) but not highly armoured military mini-tank drones (Steel Lynx drones, which are Availability 2!).
Replace all the tactical pools with a single tactical pool which is applicable to any task resolution (I like it; YMMV).
Replace any use of the Open Test with an opposed skill check versus TN4, possibly with modifiers if absolutely necessary.
I back the integration of vehicle combat with personal combat and dropping of Maneuver Score. And electronic warfare could, perhaps, use the same ruleset as decking? It's all about security intrusion after all.
Get rid of the strange split between Electronics and Electronics B/R. Replace the skills with Communications and Security Systems, each of which covers both legitimate use and hacking, within their area of expertise.
Get rid of any magic spell whose effect is divorced from its Force. In particular, the game needs only one Force-dependant Increases Reflexes spell. Change Invisibility to a Force & success based Concealment spell. The mana based version should work by making creatures "not see" you, even though you look the same; the physical version should result in *actual* modification of your appearance. At lower levels of Force, it would be like Predator cloaking, and at high levels, true Invisibility.
Redo vehicle availability so that PCs can start with a civilian chopper or light aircraft (which they can't in SR3) but not highly armoured military mini-tank drones (Steel Lynx drones, which are Availability 2!).
Replace all the tactical pools with a single tactical pool which is applicable to any task resolution (I like it; YMMV).
Replace any use of the Open Test with an opposed skill check versus TN4, possibly with modifiers if absolutely necessary.
I back the integration of vehicle combat with personal combat and dropping of Maneuver Score. And electronic warfare could, perhaps, use the same ruleset as decking? It's all about security intrusion after all.
Get rid of the strange split between Electronics and Electronics B/R. Replace the skills with Communications and Security Systems, each of which covers both legitimate use and hacking, within their area of expertise.
Get rid of any magic spell whose effect is divorced from its Force. In particular, the game needs only one Force-dependant Increases Reflexes spell. Change Invisibility to a Force & success based Concealment spell. The mana based version should work by making creatures "not see" you, even though you look the same; the physical version should result in *actual* modification of your appearance. At lower levels of Force, it would be like Predator cloaking, and at high levels, true Invisibility.
I'm already planing my own little reversion of SR3.5 for my own use, I don't plan on using the new 4th edition ruleset period. But I'll retro convert some of the things in there to SR3 for sure.
As many have requested simplified rigging/driving, I think the rules presented in MJLBB are great. I plan on using them with a little bit of tweaking using some things from the BBB.
Not sure about the simplified decking rules there though, may do something hybidized in the meantime.
As many have requested simplified rigging/driving, I think the rules presented in MJLBB are great. I plan on using them with a little bit of tweaking using some things from the BBB.
Not sure about the simplified decking rules there though, may do something hybidized in the meantime.
You know what, screw waiting. I've got the time right now, I've got some ideas, and I'm not getting any younger. If August rolls around and I like SR4, well, maybe someone who doesn't will use what I've done. Even if no one does, it'll be that much more practice in making (hopefully) balanced and sensible rules. Thus, I officially launch the SR3R project.
A word on how I'm going to be running this project: while I will be using a lot of input from you folks, and definitely trying to get something that will at least somewhat please most of you, when it comes right down to it I'm staying Benevolent Dictator for Life of this project. Others are, of course, welcome to make their own rules or fork SR3R, but I hope you'll contribute to this project.
Also, I will not be considering new gear for a long time. Sure, maybe there's missing stuff that should be added, but unless new gear is truly necessary to make a ruleset work (for some reason) it'll be addressed only after we've got a large chunk of the rules hammered out.
I will be starting other threads to address specific parts of the system one by one; until a thread is started on a particular topic, use this thread for suggestions on that topic (for instance, if there's a thread on Ranged Combat, use this thread for suggestions for Decking and vehicles/drones. When I start a thread on Decking, add future suggestions to the Decking thread but continue adding Vehicles/Drones suggestions here).
Oddly enough, I feel the low-hanging fruit on this project is none other than the Matrix rules. I'll start a thread on them shortly.
Oh, by the way, I intend to playtest the rules we make extensively. I'll post in the relevant topic threads when we're going to start a trial run in Into the Shadows.
~J
A word on how I'm going to be running this project: while I will be using a lot of input from you folks, and definitely trying to get something that will at least somewhat please most of you, when it comes right down to it I'm staying Benevolent Dictator for Life of this project. Others are, of course, welcome to make their own rules or fork SR3R, but I hope you'll contribute to this project.
Also, I will not be considering new gear for a long time. Sure, maybe there's missing stuff that should be added, but unless new gear is truly necessary to make a ruleset work (for some reason) it'll be addressed only after we've got a large chunk of the rules hammered out.
I will be starting other threads to address specific parts of the system one by one; until a thread is started on a particular topic, use this thread for suggestions on that topic (for instance, if there's a thread on Ranged Combat, use this thread for suggestions for Decking and vehicles/drones. When I start a thread on Decking, add future suggestions to the Decking thread but continue adding Vehicles/Drones suggestions here).
Oddly enough, I feel the low-hanging fruit on this project is none other than the Matrix rules. I'll start a thread on them shortly.
Oh, by the way, I intend to playtest the rules we make extensively. I'll post in the relevant topic threads when we're going to start a trial run in Into the Shadows.
~J
| QUOTE (sapphire_wyvern @ Apr 13 2005, 10:06 PM) |
| Get rid of the strange split between Electronics and Electronics B/R. |
It's not that strange when you consider that a huge part of Electronics is Electronic Warfare, which has nothing whatsoever to do with B/R. It'll come into discussion, though.
Edit: and now Adam can laugh at me for breaking my own guideline
~J
I actually agree with sapphire wyvern on this, and have been combining the two skills for years.
As I said, it'll come into discussion, but it's definitely not a no-brainer. I could be convinced that either it's applicable to both or that there isn't enough of a split to matter.
Decking thread up.
~J
Decking thread up.
~J
Almost forgot...
For those of you who aren't familiar with my initiative system, I basically run initiative backwards. That is, the count starts from the lowest action, and goes upwards, so the slowest people are give the opportunity to act first. The faster characters then have the option to "seize the initiative" and act before the slower characters' action is resolved.
Here's an example of how it works in play:
Joe Runner and Sally Sammie are facing off with four corp stooges, whom we will call Larry, Moe, Curly, and Shemp. The combat begins, and they roll the following for initiative:
Joe: 22
Sally: 33
Larry: 11
Moe: 8
Curly: 4
Shemp: 14
Round begins: Gamemaster starts counting up. 1, 2, 3... on 4, Curly goes. He declares his actions will be to draw his hold-out and shoot at Sally. Sally decides that this will probably not hurt, and lets him. Curly does his action, and fails to hurt Sally.
Count continues: 5, 6, 7... on 8, Moe declares that he's going to fire a burst from his SMG at Joe. Joe thinks that could hurt a lot, and so he decides to seize the initiative from Moe, and responds by firing his shotgun. Moe dies, and Joe is safe. His new initiative is 12.
9, 10, 11... Larry, after seeing Joe do all the damage, declares that he will fire a burst at Joe. Once again, Joe decides that will be too painful, and seizes again. He gives Larry a serious wound, and thanks to that, Larry misses. Joe's new initiative is 2.
On 14, Shemp also decides to target Joe. The problem is, Shemp is packing a shotgun as well. Joe can't seize anymore, since his initiative is now lower than the current count. Shemp blasts away, and Joe is wounded.
On 33, Sally goes. She decides to finish off Larry, and down he goes.
New pass: Only two people have actions now, Shemp and Sally. Joe could have had an action, but his wound modifiers drop him out of the fight. Shemp has a 4, and Sally has a 23.
Shemp will go first, and he'll dive for cover. Sally decides that she really doesn't want to have to deal with that, so she seizes and wounds Shemp. He gets under cover, and Sally's new action will be on 13. On 13, she goes again, and gets a good enough shot to kill Shemp.
Here's a link to a discussion of it on the old forums.
For those of you who aren't familiar with my initiative system, I basically run initiative backwards. That is, the count starts from the lowest action, and goes upwards, so the slowest people are give the opportunity to act first. The faster characters then have the option to "seize the initiative" and act before the slower characters' action is resolved.
Here's an example of how it works in play:
Joe Runner and Sally Sammie are facing off with four corp stooges, whom we will call Larry, Moe, Curly, and Shemp. The combat begins, and they roll the following for initiative:
Joe: 22
Sally: 33
Larry: 11
Moe: 8
Curly: 4
Shemp: 14
Round begins: Gamemaster starts counting up. 1, 2, 3... on 4, Curly goes. He declares his actions will be to draw his hold-out and shoot at Sally. Sally decides that this will probably not hurt, and lets him. Curly does his action, and fails to hurt Sally.
Count continues: 5, 6, 7... on 8, Moe declares that he's going to fire a burst from his SMG at Joe. Joe thinks that could hurt a lot, and so he decides to seize the initiative from Moe, and responds by firing his shotgun. Moe dies, and Joe is safe. His new initiative is 12.
9, 10, 11... Larry, after seeing Joe do all the damage, declares that he will fire a burst at Joe. Once again, Joe decides that will be too painful, and seizes again. He gives Larry a serious wound, and thanks to that, Larry misses. Joe's new initiative is 2.
On 14, Shemp also decides to target Joe. The problem is, Shemp is packing a shotgun as well. Joe can't seize anymore, since his initiative is now lower than the current count. Shemp blasts away, and Joe is wounded.
On 33, Sally goes. She decides to finish off Larry, and down he goes.
New pass: Only two people have actions now, Shemp and Sally. Joe could have had an action, but his wound modifiers drop him out of the fight. Shemp has a 4, and Sally has a 23.
Shemp will go first, and he'll dive for cover. Sally decides that she really doesn't want to have to deal with that, so she seizes and wounds Shemp. He gets under cover, and Sally's new action will be on 13. On 13, she goes again, and gets a good enough shot to kill Shemp.
Here's a link to a discussion of it on the old forums.
I'd suggest doing something about the various B/R skills. It just doesn't seem consistent that Electronics B/R can fix anything from a wireless Matrix interface to a morphing licence plate, yet you need two totally different skills to repair a pistol and a shotgun, or a car and a motorbike.
A couple of general purpose Build/Repair skills would probably be the easiest way to do things, balance issues aside.
Snoof
A couple of general purpose Build/Repair skills would probably be the easiest way to do things, balance issues aside.
Snoof
In regards to E-Warfare, I have a half finished set of MIJI/Sensor rules.
The main idea with them is to apply a standard test across all operations. This is like the standard Sensor vs ECM test (an opposed rating vs flux test). Skill dice dice may be added up to the device rating (qv. Cybertechnology). I also dumped the channel condition monitor in favour of a target number modifier like that of ECM modifiers (+1/success).
Anyway I have a word doc with the basics, maybe I can post it.
Further, I like the maneouvre score but it could be simplified. The RBB/SR2 system was abstracted which was good.
The main idea with them is to apply a standard test across all operations. This is like the standard Sensor vs ECM test (an opposed rating vs flux test). Skill dice dice may be added up to the device rating (qv. Cybertechnology). I also dumped the channel condition monitor in favour of a target number modifier like that of ECM modifiers (+1/success).
Anyway I have a word doc with the basics, maybe I can post it.
Further, I like the maneouvre score but it could be simplified. The RBB/SR2 system was abstracted which was good.
Better rigger rules (don't even talk about MIJI!)
Better explained decker rules
Perhaps some way to keep mages from outpacing everyone else
A decent explanation of magic, especially invisibility
More realistic numbers for some cyberware:
Cyberlimbs
Headware memory
Headware comm stuff
Oh, and, of course, more 'fun' cyber. I love the CP2020 conversion books, but seriously, a lot of CP stuff is whacked and totally unbalancing. A little more editing by someone I trust on other cyber that's available would be fun.
Better explained decker rules
Perhaps some way to keep mages from outpacing everyone else
A decent explanation of magic, especially invisibility
More realistic numbers for some cyberware:
Cyberlimbs
Headware memory
Headware comm stuff
Oh, and, of course, more 'fun' cyber. I love the CP2020 conversion books, but seriously, a lot of CP stuff is whacked and totally unbalancing. A little more editing by someone I trust on other cyber that's available would be fun.
I am gonna go out on a limb here and mention something that may well bring me a great deal of ridicule.
I think that if a fan project were to be undertaken to "organise" SR3, then I think that a format like Dungeons and Dragons would work great. Just break the rules down into there basic concepts and move them into there own volumes.
I think that the Core book is, though a nice attempt at putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak, is also overwhelming when it comes to the story. So I think that a gazetteer would be better. I know how tight the rules and the story of Shadowrun fit together, but more it is a lot to take in as a new player and a lot of information to flip through when you need to find some rule as a GM.
I mean I don't see the problem with having a Players Handbook with the Core Mechanics, a Gamemasters Guide with the details and ins and outs of the rules, and a gazetteer. Then you could move all the spells and gear into the Players Handbook (without all the GM stuff and Story Details to fill it up it should have plenty of room for a little more gear and spells). Then you can put things like the rules for Initiation (and various extra magic rules), weapon creation (and various other cyber and gear related rules) in the GM's guide. Then use the best Info from New Seattle and Shadows of the United States as the basic gazeteer.
Shadowrun isn't modular. But, that doesn't mean that a revision of SR3 (now that it's pretty clear thats not the "official intentions) couldn't be formatted that way.
And I know that some would say that if the system was released in that format it would cost to much to get the basics, but lets face it...you were gonna buy the books anyway....
Of course once you have all the rules seperated and in order, you can then go about seeing whats wrong, whats not, and how to go about fixing things....
I think that if a fan project were to be undertaken to "organise" SR3, then I think that a format like Dungeons and Dragons would work great. Just break the rules down into there basic concepts and move them into there own volumes.
I think that the Core book is, though a nice attempt at putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak, is also overwhelming when it comes to the story. So I think that a gazetteer would be better. I know how tight the rules and the story of Shadowrun fit together, but more it is a lot to take in as a new player and a lot of information to flip through when you need to find some rule as a GM.
I mean I don't see the problem with having a Players Handbook with the Core Mechanics, a Gamemasters Guide with the details and ins and outs of the rules, and a gazetteer. Then you could move all the spells and gear into the Players Handbook (without all the GM stuff and Story Details to fill it up it should have plenty of room for a little more gear and spells). Then you can put things like the rules for Initiation (and various extra magic rules), weapon creation (and various other cyber and gear related rules) in the GM's guide. Then use the best Info from New Seattle and Shadows of the United States as the basic gazeteer.
Shadowrun isn't modular. But, that doesn't mean that a revision of SR3 (now that it's pretty clear thats not the "official intentions) couldn't be formatted that way.
And I know that some would say that if the system was released in that format it would cost to much to get the basics, but lets face it...you were gonna buy the books anyway....
Of course once you have all the rules seperated and in order, you can then go about seeing whats wrong, whats not, and how to go about fixing things....
Hey Kage, Should these threads be moved into the 'Community Projects) area? It might make it easier to track them. Maybe you could get the admins to open up your own sub forum within projects - that'd keep all of you eggs in one basket
Mm. Community Projects would make more sense, and I considered it, but it would also get a lot less traffic, which I consider fairly important to the goal of coming up with streamlined rules that stick as close to SR3 as possible and are easy for a variety of people to understand and use. The more people offering suggestions, the more potential there will be that a suggestion or combination of suggestions will offer a solution that a smaller number of people might not have come up with, or at least might not have come up with in nearly the same timeframe.
I'll try to organize things such that navigating within the SR3R project is as easy as possible, though.
~J
I'll try to organize things such that navigating within the SR3R project is as easy as possible, though.
~J
Yeah, that makes sense.
Maybe put links to the various threads in your sig.
Maybe put links to the various threads in your sig.
Ok, the top of the first post of each SR3R thread is now dedicated to navigation. It will be updated as additional threads are created.
~J
~J
Kage there is a big part of SR that needs a rework, and one I was hoping for in SR4. And that is the firearms, armor and Combat.
Don't get me wrong, I love the SR combat system, but to use FP's own words, some stream lining is in order.
The Firearms to, their weights are ridiculously high, they don't have enough ammo and there really is NO reason to carry anything other than a HP (pistol wise).
I would happily undertake this part of it (reworking fire arms and ammo) if you wish. And I would have no problem submitting everything to you for approval and reworking on your say so.
Don't get me wrong, I love the SR combat system, but to use FP's own words, some stream lining is in order.
The Firearms to, their weights are ridiculously high, they don't have enough ammo and there really is NO reason to carry anything other than a HP (pistol wise).
I would happily undertake this part of it (reworking fire arms and ammo) if you wish. And I would have no problem submitting everything to you for approval and reworking on your say so.
Mm. The problem with firearms is that a lot of the modifications there are more geared towards increasing realism rather than balancing or reducing complexity (obviously, there are exceptions). I'll definitely be addressing them, but I'm planning to do Decking and probably Rigging first, as I think those can be gotten through much faster. That being said, feel free to come up with ideas on your own or to post suggestions in this thread, but I won't be opening a Firearms thread until I feel that the Deckers thread has resolved many of the major issues with the system (at earliest).
That said, I could easily see that only taking a few weeks if there's enough analysis of the issues.
~J
That said, I could easily see that only taking a few weeks if there's enough analysis of the issues.
~J
A legality system that makes sense. Right now you'll need a permit for an AP and another one for your browning max power and another one for your Ares light fire. I mean, you can avoid this by carrying multiples of the same gun, but in most countries a permit to carry a pistol is a permit to carry any pistol. Also, it should be possible to get a permit for anything that are used by others than the military. (i.e. if security corps can carry it on the street, there should be a permit for it)
| QUOTE (psykotisk_overlegen @ Apr 14 2005, 02:31 PM) |
| A legality system that makes sense. Right now you'll need a permit for an AP and another one for your browning max power and another one for your Ares light fire. I mean, you can avoid this by carrying multiples of the same gun, but in most countries a permit to carry a pistol is a permit to carry any pistol. Also, it should be possible to get a permit for anything that are used by others than the military. (i.e. if security corps can carry it on the street, there should be a permit for it) |
No, really it isn't. I live in Nevada, one of the more liberal laws realted to carry and in order to carry I have to have on me the blue card for every specific gun I happen to be carrying. For each individual gun I carry concealed I have to pay 25 bucks to have it added to my CCW, specifically by serial number. That's after qualifying for the gun, and waiting a few months. I have to say SR is pretty much right on. Licencing is headed twords more specific, not less specific to boot.
Furthermore, as an individual there's no good reason to have a permit available to carry anything that a security company can carry. You aren't a security company. If you're a licenced bodyguard you'll have a security permit anyway. Even security companies carry lethal force in SR anyway, about half of them are only rated for nonlethal force.
I know I might be jumping the gun with this question, but a I thought I'd throw it out there;
Are there any plans to change thte core char gen rules?
I ask this now, becuase I want to bring up Mackies Char Gen Program. I'd hate to see that resource go to waste, you know?
Changing gear and gear stats is 'simple' enough, just editi the dat files - as long as you don't add any new fields....
Are there any plans to change thte core char gen rules?
I ask this now, becuase I want to bring up Mackies Char Gen Program. I'd hate to see that resource go to waste, you know?
Changing gear and gear stats is 'simple' enough, just editi the dat files - as long as you don't add any new fields....
Part of my overall goal is to streamline as much as possible while changing as little as possible of the fundaments of the game. While I'm not going to specifically maintain compatibility, I do not at this time foresee meaningful compatibility breaks.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (BitBasher) |
| No, really it isn't. I live in Nevada, one of the more liberal laws realted to carry and in order to carry I have to have on me the blue card for every specific gun I happen to be carrying. For each individual gun I carry concealed I have to pay 25 bucks to have it added to my CCW, specifically by serial number. That's after qualifying for the gun, and waiting a few months. I have to say SR is pretty much right on. Licencing is headed twords more specific, not less specific to boot. |
Note, however, that you only have to pay 25 bucks per weapon, rather than 10% of the weapon's cost. IMO almost all permits should only be a nominal fee, rather than the significant price that they are now. The trade-off should be legal rather than economical: the weapon isn't so much more expensive as it is much more easily identified when you have a permit, and more easily traced back to you. You want to register it under a fake name, that's what the price of a fake ID is for, not the permit.
Oh, and knives and clubs shouldn't be flat-out illegal with no permit allowed. Particularly clubs; it makes no sense that you can be arrested for carrying a pool stick around.
| QUOTE (Eyeless Blond) |
| Oh, and knives and clubs shouldn't be flat-out illegal with no permit allowed. Particularly clubs; it makes no sense that you can be arrested for carrying a pool stick around. |
Unless you live in the Philippines during the JIS occupation.
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| More realistic numbers for some cyberware: Cyberlimbs Headware memory Headware comm stuff Oh, and, of course, more 'fun' cyber. I love the CP2020 conversion books, but seriously, a lot of CP stuff is whacked and totally unbalancing. A little more editing by someone I trust on other cyber that's available would be fun. |
Absolutely!
Integrate all skill tests into one ruleset with as few situational modifiers as reasonably possible. I have enjoyed the trend toward one ruleset for all actions whether they are in the matrix, the meatworld, or a vehicle.
Get rid of the maneuver test in vehicle rigging, force the matrix combat (and skill/utility actions like unlocking doors, changing video feeds, etc) to run on the same initiative as the meatworld, simplify invisibility as mentioned before.
What do you call 100 lawyers in cement shoes at the bottom of a lake?
I think we have a good start here....
Get rid of the maneuver test in vehicle rigging, force the matrix combat (and skill/utility actions like unlocking doors, changing video feeds, etc) to run on the same initiative as the meatworld, simplify invisibility as mentioned before.
What do you call 100 lawyers in cement shoes at the bottom of a lake?
[ Spoiler ]
I think we have a good start here....
| QUOTE |
| force the matrix combat (and skill/utility actions like unlocking doors, changing video feeds, etc) to run on the same initiative as the meatworld |
I don't agree here - would you also want to take away the init. bonus of astral characters? Or their ability to travel at great speeds?
Yeah, it might simplify some things - but it makes more sense that the individuals not shackled by the restrictions of the 'meat' to be able to move faster.
No, unimpeded movement is still as fast as ever. My intention is to sync up matrix combat with real life timeframes. Their initiative can be as fast as they can roll, but the timing is based on standard rounds. Sure, the GM has to work in 2 (or 3 if they are doing astral too) settings simultaneously, but that can be integrated.
The timing is already based on standard three-second rounds.
~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.