Well obviously *I* thought it was a neat idea.

Um, yes, it would definately require lots of rebalancing of the decking and rigging prices to work. Actually it would affect the decking rules more than the rigging rles; riggers would be in the same boat they're in now, but deckers would have a higher required price in Essence and cyberware to work.

In the end both areas you just brought up are debates over rules mastery, as I mentioned in that thread. I don't often look favorably at d20 in anything, but there's one thing I like about the system: whenever you're looking at a completely new section of the rules, you can always rely on the fact that what you know from previously mastered sections will not be completely contradicted. That sort of tightness, interconnectiveness, robustness is something I think we can stribe for here with SR3R, and it may well be worth a slightly deeper delving into the rules than we're currently thinking about.

The problem with Riggers is that as stated, unless you alter the Essence costs of a VCR-3, it becomes unfeasible to build a Rigger with the capabilities of a current VCR-3 Rigger. It also makes someone with a VCR-1 and rating 3 Encephalon an extremely dangerous, if more limited, fighting force. The fact that the Control Pool increase would come now from the Encephalon rubs me the wrong way too.

~J

The Control Pool increase is an indirect increase that is the result of the Reaction increase. As such, it would now be provided by the Encephalon.

That said, I missed your cost reorganization for the VCR. That changes things.

~J

Ah. Hm, I didn't even think about that. But then cyber boosts to Reaction don't add to pool dice, do they? It's like someone with muscle replacement getting a boost on combat pool or Reaction because their quickness was artificially enhanced; I thought that was specifically excluded?

The Control Pool by definition is equal to the user's VCR-modified Reaction (with no other source contributing save clearly-defined exceptions such as Structural Agility).

~J

Idea on open tests

I was thinking it depends on what you decide you want to model with these test. I can't post a probability list like some, but open tests do seem to run the gamut of probable results. To produce more normalized results, consider making this change to open tests.

A: Eliminate the Rule of 6 for open tests.
B: Roll a number of dice equal to your skill rating and take the highest result. (as normal)
C: Add the highest die result to your skill rating for the result.

Example: Sly Cat has Stealth 5, and wants to hide in a dark ally from the gangers chasing him. He rolls an open test for stealth, rolling 5 dice he gets a 01, 01, 03, 04, and a 05. The 5 is the highest die result, so he adds that 5 to his skill rating in Stealth (also a 5) for a result of 10. the TN then for the gangers to spot him is 10.

If your problem with Open Tests is the many rules in one book problem, this really doesn't help though.

Well, it's exactly that gamut-run of results that I like about them—when it gets right down to it, trying to sneak past someone in my opinion should be a crap-shoot (though it's less of one than people frequently accuse it of being).

~J

Just putting the idea out there

Open Tests:

I find that open tests, especially stealth, are often panned (at least in the circles I run in) because modifiers are inappropriately applied. The only time a guard will be using only your stealth roll as a target number should be when you are sneaking across a lit area with no cover (it should, without a doubt, be a crapshoot at best in that case).

If you are crawling through tall grass at night with appropriate camoflauge you have picked up a +10 or so modifier to the test, making it a much more sane proposition in my mind.

While it is frustrating to be playing a stealth 12 adept that just can't seem to roll higher than a 5, I think the basic mechanic is solid.

Eyeless Initiative

I like it though Kage points out some significant balance issues. Consider chaning control pool to straight reaction + 2 * VCR rating?

All that Open tests are used for (AFAIK, at least in the Stealth example, which is the thing that causes the most problems) is determining a unopposed target number. So why not use the d6 vs. TN mechanic for that? In my mind, I can see a "roll Stealth vs. TN 4 (injury mods apply), successes add a +'s modifier to a base TN 4, with other modifiers based on camo, Stealth Suits, etc."

I think my problem with Open tests is that it "feels" like my Skill is meaningless. The feel of the standard SR mechanic makes it such that you "feel" like your skill is actively contributing to the situation at hand. Open tests are crap-shoots for 6s, and feel like your skill roll is actually a "press your luck" roll instead. I'm not saying this is remotely accurate in terms of probability (which still scale linearly, if a bit haphazard in the spread), but that's the "feel" of the Open test.

Open tests are also used in determining jump distance for "just jumping as far as you can", but the jumping rules are the result of a team of crack-smoking monkeys anyway so they're getting revised regardless of the larger fate of open tests.

~J

………Blake was the guy with the staff, wasn't he?

*Goes and gathers up all the bug spray in the house*

~J

Test mechanics fall into three categories currently (as SR3 raw). (unless I forgot one or five)

1: base TN with mods. These represent working against the environmental challenges.
2: opposed. These represent direct conflicts, but do often overpower the difference in relavant skills/attributes/subsystems.
3: open. This is the situation where a realistic model has too many subtle variables that could be the difference between glorious success and miserable failure. Therefore, the open test is used when tiny details that the GM shouldn't be expected to plan out beforehand can make or break an effort. Most notably is the unsuspected shadow with numerous dry twigs hidden in it, even the sneaky expert can miss something.

The only one of those I'd consider changing is the opposed test, and I'd only change that the opponent's TN and the number of dice rolled must be determined by different stats. So opposed negotiations vs. willpowers is perfectly fine, but sensors vs. ECM needs to bring in some other stats to keep one at a high rating from completely overpowering the other.

Oh, and I always house-ruled that distance jumping tests were added to a base amount based on quickness and with each level of Great Leap adding a meter as well as a die.

I know. A character with stealth 6 expects to produce a TN of 7 for a watcher (3 successes, 4 + 3 = 7). If said watcher is as good at looking as the stealth character is at sneaking, he expects one success. The (arguable) problem is that a character with stealth 6 and a Light wound expects to do as well as a character with stealth 4; with a Medium wound, as well as a character with stealth 1. Similarly, a +4 lighting mod causes a character with stealth 4 to perform about as well as a character with stealth 12. A lightly wounded watcher is much worse at watching. For a guy in +12 ruthenium, the stealth skill is almost meaningless.

Note: I know that expectations are somewhat misleading, as variance is very important for a task as touchy as sneaking is.

Another idea on a mildly related tangent. It would be interesting to split reaction so that only intelligence mattered for mental initiative and only quickness for physical. Though that would be changing the system quite a bit (however it would cut down on genius samurai).

Has the SR3R been forgotten, postponed or abandoned for the new SR4? I enjoyed the sharing of theories and opinions that were presented thus far on the 3rd edition. There are still plenty of topics to discuss (Spellcasting vs. Ritual Sorcery, Physical Adept powers that mimic Cybernetic abilities, Rigging in general, gear, etc.)

Also is the website http://sr3r.net/ still going to be used for its intended purpose?

Postponed until my horribly late psych paper gets finished.

Site still going to be used, etc.

~J

Hey K, are you going to resurrect this beast and possibly post the new decking rules?

Yep, more info after I sleep.

~J

You awake yet??.... blink blink

Awake. Collecting.

~J

Taking longer than anticipated to create clean layout, plus I'm slow. Being worked on.

~J

Operational utility list and operation list up. More later.

~J

Proposed revised Initiatory-group-joining rules:

The candidate rolls Magic or highest Magical skill against a TN equal to 4, plus the size of the group divided by 10 (round down), plus 1 for every point of magic the candidate has lost, minus 1 for every Initiate grade the candidate already possesses.

The initiatory group may spend Karma Pool on the behalf of the candidate. This expenditure costs what it would cost if the candidate made the expenditure (for example, if the candidate makes one reroll, it would cost two karma pool for the initiatory group to provide the second reroll) and is subject to a chance of Cursed Karma if the candidate or any member of the initiatory group possesses that flaw. The cost is applied to every member of the initiatory group—as a result, it is extremely rare.

Alternate TN-scaling system appropriate for preventing large groups: as above, but the TN increases by the size of the group divided by five (round down).

Alternate TN-scaling system 3: as above, but the TN increases in a triangular progression (+1 at 10 members, +1 +2 at 20 members, +1 +2 +3 at 30 members, so on and so forth).

Alternate TN-scaling system 4: As above, but the TN increases by one for every multiple of the current highest initiate grade present within the group.

Alternate TN-scaling system 5: As System 4, but each group is determined to be either a Communal Paradise or a Personality Cult. If the group is a Personality Cult (overwhelmingly the most common group type), the TN is based on the multiple of the initiate grade of the group leader (usually, but not always, the person with the highest initiate grade). If the group is a Communal Paradise, the TN is based on the average (rounded down) of the initiate grades of all members.

Alternate TN-scaling system 6: as above, but the TN increases by one for every multiple of the Group Size Factor. The GSF is determined by taking the highest Initiate Grade, dividing it by two (round down), then adding together the grades of the highest-graded individuals up to that number and dividing by two (again, round down).

In systems 4, 5, and 6, magical groups may not admit new members without an initiate present in the group. Alternately, the TN may be determined as if members had an initiate grade of 1, with an additional +4 added.

Any opinions on which system looks best, or an alternate suggestion?



Proposed Hooper-Nelson rule alteration: the limitations on when the H-N rule may be applied are eliminated. While the ability to reduce a TN of 6 to 5 (for example) is powerful, it pales in comparison to another karma pool die.

Thoughts?

~J

please forgive my ignorance, I have only played sr2. Why would it be harder to join or initiate in a large group? You have more people to talk with and learn from.

A few reasons. I'll start with the weakest one, the others are in no particular order:

1) That's how SR3 does it. For reference, current canon is that the TN is equal to the number of members the group currently has.

2) Game balance. Larger groups will inherently have more resources per amount of dues paid by individual members.

3) "Magical groups usually come into being to accomplish specific goals." The point of the entry test is determining whether or not the candidate's purpose harmonizes with that of the group and that of the other members. In light of this the original punishing TN makes a great deal of sense—the more people you have, the less likely you're going to get them to agree.

Initiating does not increase in difficulty, only joining the group.

~J

if that is the case then I would say increase the TN by members of the group /5.
+2 tn for not being initiated. Should either be a magical theory or etiquette magic roll. default ch +2

*judo chop*
First I want to say that I think that this project is a very worthwhile. After having gone back and read most of the pages of the various SR3R thread I've got a few thoughts:

Cyberware prices:
Chipjack: 0.2 500 nuyen
Cyberears (replacement): 0.3 1,000
Cybereyes (replacement): 0.2 500
Datajack: 0.2 500
Subvocal Microphone: 0.1 400
Telephone: 0.2 500
Headware Radio: 0.4 Rating x 500 nuyen
Cyberlimbs: use 4th edition costs?
Cyberlimb enhancements: same essence cost, 10% of listed nuyen costs
Biomoniter: 0.2 750 nuyen

(I also like the idea of grades of cyber ears and eyes introduced in SR4)

Boosted Reflexes: This would make users similar to Juicers from rifts

Change to make it a chemical treatment that has to be maintained. The essence cost would come from the chemicals, auto injectors to supply the drugs, and the resevoirs built into the body to hold the drugs.

This basically changes it from a one time treatment into a set of body compartments with auto injectors, with a supply of drugs.

Keep the same benefits and restrictions on not compatible with wired reflexes and vehicle control rigs.

Level 1 would cost 0.4 5,200 nuyen to install and 200 a month
Level 2 would cost 0.8 10,500 nuyen to install and 500 a month
level 3 would cost 1.2 16,000 nuyen to install and 1,000 per month

If the user misses an appointment to pickup new chemical inserts, reduce their boosted reflexes rating by 1 per month. I'm still working on a way to keep someone from getting level 1 and buying the level 3 drugs and overloading themselves.

Kage, maybe cyberware revisions need their own thread?

They do indeed. I haven't opened it yet because to keep focus tight I'm waiting to finish off some of the current threads before I open any more—among other things, cyberware revisions (and most other gear) needs to wait until the affected ruleset is fully revised. Not that I find it at all likely, but if for some reason we were to suddenly declare that all Elves get… I don't know, automatic slow regeneration (*cough cough*), we'd need to know that before we started tweaking cyberware to make it balance out.

~J

Haven't read the whole thread: will you put all together in a PDF? The revised rules, I mean.

To the degree that I can. Worst-case scenario I'll provide a tool for ripping the text out of the SR3 PDFs plus a diff of the SR3R rules and the original text.

~J

I guess this means I better get off my hoop and finish typing up those revised Rigger/driving rules I promised.

This is very exciting.

A few pages back Kage mentioned a contact revison (about 2/3 of the way down, Jul 14 2005, 10:26 PM). Personally I like what SR4 has done with giving contacts both a Connection and Loyalty rating. For SR3R I propose using a similar system, but when you choose a contact you have to purchase the points for them

Connection:
1-3 500¥ per point
4-6 1,000¥ per point
7+ 5,000¥ per point

Loyalty:
1-3 500¥ per point
4-6 1,000¥ per point
7+ 5,000¥ per point

Example:
I want to buy a Fixer contact at character creation. I need this fixer to both connected and loyal so I splurge and give her Connection: 5 (5,000¥), and Loyalty: 5 (5,000¥).

This however do not cover all of the aspects that Kage's proposed changes do.

Also, why is it that the speed at which the muscles of my body are capable of moving at have anything to do with the how quickly I can react when my mind is removed from my body? As it stands right now when a mage projects the speed at which their physical body moves has nothing to do with how quickly their astral body moves.

I wouldnt mind seeing Reaction in a vehicle or in the Matrix be based directly off the characters Intelligence attribute. It really won't make much of a difference since a large majority of Riggers and Deckers have both high Quickness and Intiligence, but it would make a bit more sense.

Riggers are already nearly one-stat characters. As it stands, you can very nearly have a viable rigger with 1/6/1/1/6/1, and from a game balance perspective I'm uncomfortable with removing Quickness from that equation. I'm less worried about abusive Decker builds, since most deckers moonlight as mages or sams or what-have-you anyway. But riggers...I guess it's a mercy that there's only one Int-boosting piece of 'ware, and that it's cultured and thus out of most peoples' reach at character creation. Even so, this scares me a lot.

But, goddammit, from a realism perspective you're totally right. I wrote several paragraphs about how Quickness actually models mental quickness as well as physical quickness, but no, that's Reaction. That Quickness adds to virtual Reaction just makes no sense and never has, and the analogy to astral space is telling. That would let us get rid of all the clumsy exceptional language on quickness-boosting cyberware, which all has special-case rules about how it doesn't apply to virtual Reaction.

The contact thing: I like it. It collapses three of Kagetenshi's axes into one, but it requires much less GM input at character creation. It totally ignores GunnerJ's offering, but that would have required us to do work to invent all the necessary Cliches.

Edited for premature submission.

I do think we need to get rid of the special-case-language on Quickness-boosting 'Ware, regardless of whether or not we drop Quickness as part of Rigged/Decked Reaction.

As for the contact thing, I think it's interesting enough to look into further, but I'm uncomfortable moving that far back in terms of granularity. Then again, I fully admit that to make SR into the system I really want would require all players to carry computers to the game at all times.

~J

Astral Reaction is already just Intelligence (or the average of Intelligence and Astral Quickness, which is equal to Intelligence, whichever you'd prefer ).

~J