Full Version: SR4 FAQ #5--The Real One
Seems like there's a point in posting one's ideas on this board.
Well, I've given up any expectation of getting a straight answer about what is so evil about Magic in SR3 that they felt the need to badmouth it in the SR4 FAQ--repeatedly.
| QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0) |
| Well, I've given up any expectation of getting a straight answer about what is so evil about Magic in SR3 that they felt the need to badmouth it in the SR4 FAQ--repeatedly. |
It's not evil, but neither is it perfect. As to badmouthing it, I put it to you that what was said in the FAQ is far kinder than many of the things said about it on Dumpshock over the years. You may not have been the person generating complaints about it, but they are certainly there--and the developers and authors have been listening the whole time.
| QUOTE |
| Q. What are you trying to do with Magic? A. In setting out to design this, we had a few things in mind that we wanted to do as improvements over the old system. First, we wanted to make sure we were laying the groundwork for something we could expand upon later. One of the big problems with the Magic system up until now is that it simply didn’t accomodate additions. It was built to be what it was, and if anything got added, it had to be an entirely new method of doing things. Nothing was ever built upon the existing mechanics, in large part because the original existing mechanics weren’t built to accomodate other uses. The result was a system that accumulated rules detritus like a ship gathers barnacles. That’s not good design. A second problem was that, despite three editions of the game, Magic was largely still a legacy system (to borrow a bit of computer terminology). Instead of using things that worked and discarding things that didn’t, we largely had just kept it all and tried using tweaks and bailing wire to hold it all together. With SR4, we had the luxury of taking it apart, seeing what worked and what didn’t, and reassembling it into a working whole, with new parts to replace the missing ones or damaged ones. We also didn’t want the mechanics of the core game to work in a substantially different manner than Magic did, so we tried to find new ways to handle rules issues that before had given rise to special cases, created just for Magic. This is true of design all throughout the game, though, not just for the Magic system. The third goal we had for design with this part of the game was to eliminate unnecessary complexity. We didn’t want to do away with the aspects of magic that gave the game its feel, like traditions, spirit summoning, drain, and so forth, but we did want to make sure we didn’t have a dozen different systems trying to accomplish what one could do. I think we went a long way toward accomplishing that. |
If that is what you mean by badmouthing themselves....maybe. To me it looks like they have taken a critical look at what exists and came to some hard conclusions. Ther candor is refreshing IMO.
| QUOTE (Lady Anaka @ May 17 2005, 12:28 PM) | ||
It's not evil, but neither is it perfect. As to badmouthing it, I put it to you that what was said in the FAQ is far kinder than many of the things said about it on Dumpshock over the years. You may not have been the person generating complaints about it, but they are certainly there--and the developers and authors have been listening the whole time. |
Is it supposed to be reassuring to think that they didn't say some of the more simple-minded and mean-spirited things about it that have been tossed around Dumpshock?
My point remains that while he wrote three paragraphs of text, he didn't actually tell us anything. Moreover... Since when did DS's opinions matter? I thought SR4 was for all of those non-players out there in d20 land just itching to try SR if only the rules weren't so burdensome and complex (something which I think is utter bullshit with regards to combat and especially to magic).
| QUOTE (Jrayjoker) |
| If that is what you mean by badmouthing themselves....maybe. To me it looks like they have taken a critical look at what exists and came to some hard conclusions. Ther candor is refreshing IMO. |
What candor? He didn't say anything! Trust me, I know how to write pages and pages of meaningless words, and that's a pretty good example of the output coming from a game developer.
I've never had a major problem with the magic system. You roll Sorcery + Spell Pool to cast spells. You roll Willpower + Spell Pool to resist the drain. You roll Conjuring to conjure spirits. You roll Charisma to resist the drain. Sometimes you do it twice, if the spirit is great form. Foci can help with these tests. The only thing I found to be at all complicating in these most common interactions was that, in Sorcery, you had the ability to withhold actual dice from the skill in question. Too many times, people have forgotten about the dice they were withholding at one stage or the other, cheating themselves out of drain resistance dice or obtaining more dice over the course of casting and drain than they ought to have been entitled to. I've never liked the idea of permissible dice withholding. I always thought that the variable use of spell pool sufficed for granting control to the player.
Now, compare that to the vehicle combat system, which I have had the (mis)fortune of wholeheartedly attempting to employ in all of one instance of actual vehicle combat (and it was thusly agreed that, until a supercomputer was made available to keep track of the massive number of changing variables and their varied and complex interactions with the sequence and success of action, we would instead be winging vehicle combat). Vehicle combat rules reached the degree of unusability that I hereafter used as a benchmark for a "broken" rules system. Magic and combat were not broken. They could use some minor tweaks, but wholesale alterations of their basics would be a waste of time better spent making sure that the sins of Rigger 2.0, Rigger 3, and Rigger 3 Revised were not repeated.
The only other system that really gives the vehicle combat rules a run for their money in unusuability and insanity-inducement factor is Matrix rules. From Virtual Realities 2.0 on to the present day, the system has revolved around unachievably high target numbers that are reduced by a massive horde of programs, each of which reduces the target number to perform one of an equally large set of possible actions. While the system itself did not require careful table-checking and cumbersome sets of calculations to do something as simple as cybercombat, I always felt that when acting within it, my unwillingness to sit down and memorize what must be at least two dozen discrete actions, with their individual consequences, has left me feeling that deckers I run are probably not as effective as those run by people who don't mind paging through a reference manual every time their character opts to act.
So, if I had to wax dramatically about the hideousness of any particular aspects of the SR3 system, I'd probably start with the rigger rules, or possibly the decking rules. Magic would be unlikely to appear on that list at all, as I don't think that it necessitates more ground-level change than any other rules system, in light of the altered game mechanic (since, through virtue of that, every system requires what is essentially a ground-up rewrite). Even combat, with the incredible ineffectualness of body armor versus heavy pistols (and heavy pistols hitting harder than assault rifles, and sniper rifles for some reason hitting harder than equivalent hunting rifles, and.... I'm not going further down that path), would probably get more vitriol from me.
Now, compare that to the vehicle combat system, which I have had the (mis)fortune of wholeheartedly attempting to employ in all of one instance of actual vehicle combat (and it was thusly agreed that, until a supercomputer was made available to keep track of the massive number of changing variables and their varied and complex interactions with the sequence and success of action, we would instead be winging vehicle combat). Vehicle combat rules reached the degree of unusability that I hereafter used as a benchmark for a "broken" rules system. Magic and combat were not broken. They could use some minor tweaks, but wholesale alterations of their basics would be a waste of time better spent making sure that the sins of Rigger 2.0, Rigger 3, and Rigger 3 Revised were not repeated.
The only other system that really gives the vehicle combat rules a run for their money in unusuability and insanity-inducement factor is Matrix rules. From Virtual Realities 2.0 on to the present day, the system has revolved around unachievably high target numbers that are reduced by a massive horde of programs, each of which reduces the target number to perform one of an equally large set of possible actions. While the system itself did not require careful table-checking and cumbersome sets of calculations to do something as simple as cybercombat, I always felt that when acting within it, my unwillingness to sit down and memorize what must be at least two dozen discrete actions, with their individual consequences, has left me feeling that deckers I run are probably not as effective as those run by people who don't mind paging through a reference manual every time their character opts to act.
So, if I had to wax dramatically about the hideousness of any particular aspects of the SR3 system, I'd probably start with the rigger rules, or possibly the decking rules. Magic would be unlikely to appear on that list at all, as I don't think that it necessitates more ground-level change than any other rules system, in light of the altered game mechanic (since, through virtue of that, every system requires what is essentially a ground-up rewrite). Even combat, with the incredible ineffectualness of body armor versus heavy pistols (and heavy pistols hitting harder than assault rifles, and sniper rifles for some reason hitting harder than equivalent hunting rifles, and.... I'm not going further down that path), would probably get more vitriol from me.
I agree with WK about Rigging and Decking, and to be perfectly blunt there seems to have been a concerted effort to make the rules purposefully more complex and cumbersome over time, and especially at the hands of the SR3 devs (and to be fair to Rob, most of this blame lays squarely at the feet of Mike Mulvihill). Looking at the "advanced rules" in RBB, then R2, R3, and R3R (Which is just amazing that R3 was so fucked up that they had to release an entire rewrite of it and sell it as a different product) you see a constant and purposeful increase in the complexity of the rules even though when SR3 was written Mike said in the core book that they wanted to avoid that.
I've been resisting the urge to say this for about a week now, mostly because I don't like personal attacks, and I don't want this to come off as a personal attack. But like I said before, any input I have at this point is, to me, meaningless to the devs. So I will say this: Jon Szeto is a problem.
Jokes about resumes and transcripts aside, I can look at his C.V. of Shadowrun products and I am stupified beyond the point of rational thought that the man who wrote R2, R3, and R3R is a dev for SR4. which has since it was announced two months ago been designed to be simpler, easier, and streamlined. If that is the intention, then they hired the wrong person for the job because if the rigging rules are any indication of how well (or rather, how poorly) he designs game mechanics then I am glad I'm more likely than not picking up another SR4 rule book after the core book. I can't trust someone who creates a transcontinental aircraft with a 100km range to write any rules. Period.
15 steps. There are 15 steps in basic, SR3 core book, vehicle combat. The 7 steps of normal combat, plus an additional 8 thrown in for, what, kicks? Why on earth should I trust anyone even related to that intellectual abortion to produce an adequate, let alone better, rules mechanic?
And on top of this, of all the rules to attack with vitriol so far, they--no--Rob has chosen magic? Fine. Maybe I don't want to know the specifics, but right now with nothing to substantiate any part of his criticism, he's more akin to the poo-flinging monkeys than I or some other critics are.
I've been resisting the urge to say this for about a week now, mostly because I don't like personal attacks, and I don't want this to come off as a personal attack. But like I said before, any input I have at this point is, to me, meaningless to the devs. So I will say this: Jon Szeto is a problem.
Jokes about resumes and transcripts aside, I can look at his C.V. of Shadowrun products and I am stupified beyond the point of rational thought that the man who wrote R2, R3, and R3R is a dev for SR4. which has since it was announced two months ago been designed to be simpler, easier, and streamlined. If that is the intention, then they hired the wrong person for the job because if the rigging rules are any indication of how well (or rather, how poorly) he designs game mechanics then I am glad I'm more likely than not picking up another SR4 rule book after the core book. I can't trust someone who creates a transcontinental aircraft with a 100km range to write any rules. Period.
15 steps. There are 15 steps in basic, SR3 core book, vehicle combat. The 7 steps of normal combat, plus an additional 8 thrown in for, what, kicks? Why on earth should I trust anyone even related to that intellectual abortion to produce an adequate, let alone better, rules mechanic?
And on top of this, of all the rules to attack with vitriol so far, they--no--Rob has chosen magic? Fine. Maybe I don't want to know the specifics, but right now with nothing to substantiate any part of his criticism, he's more akin to the poo-flinging monkeys than I or some other critics are.
| QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0) |
| And on top of this, of all the rules to attack with vitriol so far, they--no--Rob has chosen magic? Fine. Maybe I don't want to know the specifics, but right now with nothing to substantiate any part of his criticism, he's more akin to the poo-flinging monkeys than I or some other critics are. |
Totally agree. He's lost any and all repect I had for him over that.
miji is advanced (and option unless the rigger in the group is heavy into drones) rules. the rest of R3® is highly optional. you dont need them to play a rigger as the basics are in SR3 and working nicely (just a extra layer on the normal combat rules). only problem with the rigger rules in SR3 was that they didnt say that drones should use their acceleration as movement rating in normal combat, leading people to belive that you needed to use the entire rigger rules the moment a single drone showed up.
8 extra steps? step 1 is done ones, at the start of combat. step 2 is basicly the same as step 7 of the SR3 vehicle combat list. that leaves 3 steps that needs to be performed and thats only if you dont lump 3 and for 4 into one big step as i like to see it (allocate and roll control pool in a open test. add highest number to the numbers from step 2/7, roll normal initiative).
but then i have allways failed to see the complexity in either of the "problem" areas, decking or rigging. maybe i just have a head for this stuff
8 extra steps? step 1 is done ones, at the start of combat. step 2 is basicly the same as step 7 of the SR3 vehicle combat list. that leaves 3 steps that needs to be performed and thats only if you dont lump 3 and for 4 into one big step as i like to see it (allocate and roll control pool in a open test. add highest number to the numbers from step 2/7, roll normal initiative).
but then i have allways failed to see the complexity in either of the "problem" areas, decking or rigging. maybe i just have a head for this stuff
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| the rest of R3® is highly optional. |
That's not a defense. Optional rules suck, and take away the ability of a game to be discussed as a single entity.
~J
and thats in my view not a requirement for making all rules main rules. rules are made to be played, not discussed
How about this, then: it takes away the ability to join a group that has no houserules and know what rules they use.
~J
~J
well i have yet to encounter one group that dont have some houserules or lack the ability to inform the new guy about what rules they use (or dont use).
still, what we prefer and what we get are often two diffrent things. and clearly a large part of the R3 was marked with advanced rules, only for use if one feel the normal ones are not detailed enough. still, given some of the people i have encounterd here on dumpshock i would say even some of those advancsed rule will not be anal enought as they dont use real life physics and a supercomputer to calculate what happens pr nanosecond of the game.
basicly sometimes im surprised that some people have to taken the mateplot and made a run for it. hell, why do they even come here posting when they have clearly rewritten 99% of the rules, taken the sr history offroad sometime around 2010 and still call it shadowrun.
i dont find the sr3 rules, the rigger rules or any of the other rules to be as bad as people claim them to be. timeconsuming yes. sometimes badly worded yes. but downright bad, come on.
still, what we prefer and what we get are often two diffrent things. and clearly a large part of the R3 was marked with advanced rules, only for use if one feel the normal ones are not detailed enough. still, given some of the people i have encounterd here on dumpshock i would say even some of those advancsed rule will not be anal enought as they dont use real life physics and a supercomputer to calculate what happens pr nanosecond of the game.
basicly sometimes im surprised that some people have to taken the mateplot and made a run for it. hell, why do they even come here posting when they have clearly rewritten 99% of the rules, taken the sr history offroad sometime around 2010 and still call it shadowrun.
i dont find the sr3 rules, the rigger rules or any of the other rules to be as bad as people claim them to be. timeconsuming yes. sometimes badly worded yes. but downright bad, come on.
they're downright bad. they are complex when there is no reason to be complex, they make no real-world sense, they segregate riggers and the rest of the team so that only one or the other can be in the spotlight at one time--what's your definition of "good"?
put a bunch of people in a moving vehicle and the person doing to most work is the person behind the controls. the rest will either hang on for dear life or fire out some opening.
only time you will see some real action for them is in the case of boarding parties or similar.
ie, its a problem of the rigger concept, not the rules. and no amount of tweaking will help that.
as for complex when not needing to. cant say i have seen that...
only time you will see some real action for them is in the case of boarding parties or similar.
ie, its a problem of the rigger concept, not the rules. and no amount of tweaking will help that.
as for complex when not needing to. cant say i have seen that...
that would almost be fine, if non-riggers were any threat at all to riggers. riggers should be better than non-riggers, sure, but they shouldn't outclass non-riggers so badly that there's no point in a non-rigger ever getting behind the wheel. and firing out of an opening would be a lot easier if characters who're good at shooting didn't suddenly suck when the car door closes behind them. forcing the badassest pistoleer in the world to default to Intelligence just because he's sitting in a car is retarded. there are lots and lots of tweaks that can fix things like that.
if you can't see how the rigger rules are needlessly complex, i'm not going to bother trying to explain it. your standards complexity and non-stupidity is simply too far outside the bounds of normality for any argument to be possible. suffice to say that 99% of shadowrun players disagree with you--or, they would, if they could understand the rules well enough to know the issues.
if you can't see how the rigger rules are needlessly complex, i'm not going to bother trying to explain it. your standards complexity and non-stupidity is simply too far outside the bounds of normality for any argument to be possible. suffice to say that 99% of shadowrun players disagree with you--or, they would, if they could understand the rules well enough to know the issues.
The pistoleer doesn't need Gunnery unless they decide to bolt their gun to the vehicle. Even pintle and ring mounts still use the weapon skill.
Guideline: if it gets the recoil-halving, you use Gunnery.
~J
Guideline: if it gets the recoil-halving, you use Gunnery.
~J
oops, right. however, everybody in the car has to wait until the driver goes before they get to go. a cyberzombie with MBW4 can't act before Grandma Jones the hundred-year-old ork, if Grandma Jones is in the driver's seat.
riggers have this implant, called the vehicle control rig. from what i understand it allows them a degree of control over every system of the vehicle a formula 1 driver of today could only dream of. like say maybe being able to only apply breaks to one wheel. or stiffen the suspension on one side of the vehicle in a turn to try and lean it towards the outside of the turn.
man and machine becomes one on a whole new level. i say that allows him to outclass even a competent driver. and if not then why is he even defined as a seperate profession? just let the sammie be the getaway driver. and while your at it, boil the rules down to a simple crash test at the end of combat round. wizards get their own extra rules, why should riggers be diffrent?
man and machine becomes one on a whole new level. i say that allows him to outclass even a competent driver. and if not then why is he even defined as a seperate profession? just let the sammie be the getaway driver. and while your at it, boil the rules down to a simple crash test at the end of combat round. wizards get their own extra rules, why should riggers be diffrent?
yes. riggers have VCRs. however, the VCR is a fictional piece of equipment. this means that the designer is pretty much allowed to define its stats as whatever they want, within reason, and no one can call it unrealistic.
this means that you can have a game where riggers are better than normal drivers to the degree that street sams are better than your average security guard. instead, they chose to make a game where a person with a VCR can take on a nearly infinite number of non-rigger drivers and come out on top. that's purely a game mechanics issue, and has nothing to do with the base concept of the rigger.
wizards get their own rules--but i've seen lots of wizards get killed off by street sams. i've seen street sams take on spirits and win. street sams can compete on the field with wizards. no one can compete on the field with riggers except other riggers.
this means that you can have a game where riggers are better than normal drivers to the degree that street sams are better than your average security guard. instead, they chose to make a game where a person with a VCR can take on a nearly infinite number of non-rigger drivers and come out on top. that's purely a game mechanics issue, and has nothing to do with the base concept of the rigger.
wizards get their own rules--but i've seen lots of wizards get killed off by street sams. i've seen street sams take on spirits and win. street sams can compete on the field with wizards. no one can compete on the field with riggers except other riggers.
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| ..given some of the people i have encountered here on dumpshock i would say even some of those advanced rule will not be anal enought as they dont use real life physics and a supercomputer to calculate what happens pr nanosecond of the game. |
You speak of this as if it were a bad thing....
want to take out a rigger? shoot him while he is outside his car. if that cant be done, blow up the car
and i would love to see the sam that could come out on top in a 1 on 1 with a prepared wizard. yes i said prepaired. like say a armor spell held with a spell lock and so on. and lets not forget that wizards can access some of the stuff a sammie can access while a sammie cant access any of the magical stuff, atleast not on his own. and isnt some people allso saying that magic is overpowerd in sr?
and to solstice:
nice one. but i think your missing a smiley there somewhere...
ok, its not that they want to play it that way thats the problem, if they want it that way fine. but they should not come onto a public forum like this a claim/demand that its the one right way to play. when i encounter that i react similar to how i react to a preatcher preatching doom and gloom for all non-belivers...
i basicly fail to see how sr4 is all doom and gloom. and im going to wait for the finished product before i pass my judgement on it, no matter what the past trackrecord of the editor in charge is. there is some interesting stuff going into the new sr and i see to many people taking every little word and giving it the most negative spin they can think of.
and i would love to see the sam that could come out on top in a 1 on 1 with a prepared wizard. yes i said prepaired. like say a armor spell held with a spell lock and so on. and lets not forget that wizards can access some of the stuff a sammie can access while a sammie cant access any of the magical stuff, atleast not on his own. and isnt some people allso saying that magic is overpowerd in sr?
and to solstice:
nice one. but i think your missing a smiley there somewhere...
ok, its not that they want to play it that way thats the problem, if they want it that way fine. but they should not come onto a public forum like this a claim/demand that its the one right way to play. when i encounter that i react similar to how i react to a preatcher preatching doom and gloom for all non-belivers...
i basicly fail to see how sr4 is all doom and gloom. and im going to wait for the finished product before i pass my judgement on it, no matter what the past trackrecord of the editor in charge is. there is some interesting stuff going into the new sr and i see to many people taking every little word and giving it the most negative spin they can think of.
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| and i would love to see the sam that could come out on top in a 1 on 1 with a prepared wizard. yes i said prepaired. like say a armor spell held with a spell lock and so on. and lets not forget that wizards can access some of the stuff a sammie can access while a sammie cant access any of the magical stuff, atleast not on his own. and isnt some people allso saying that magic is overpowerd in sr? |
Let's look at the flipside of that coin, though. A prepared samurai against a prepared magician can still be an even match. At equal levels of karma and resources, the samurai likely has access to weapons that will disrupt the magician's line of sight or pierce barriers (gas and smoke grenades are good for this), has augmentations that boost his damage resistance and strength such that he can wear heavier armors than the magician, and has the capacity to one-shot kill the magician if the magician's barriers fade. The only factor that can really skew the fight in the magician's favor is a posse of bound spirits helping them, but within the same resource bounds, a samurai could hire on a posse of muscleboys and gangers to fulfill the role of backup.
This presumes a good tactical mind on the part of the player, and the magician not being of overwhelming power. As karma levels rise, magicians do come out ahead. Still, at high karma levels, samurai likely possess multiple means of putting down the magician with one lucky shot. Also bear in mind that it takes a hell of a lot of sustained spells to achieve the same effects that a samurai gets with cyberware. Improved reflexes spells don't boost Reaction, while Wired Reflexes adds substantially to that statistic. Boosting Quickness, Strength, or Body from 5 or 6 to 9 or 10 also requires a very potent sustained spell on the magician's part, while augmentations can do so without contest.
At the highest power levels, a prepared samurai can't take down a prepared magician. That is probably irrefutable. However, in the power levels that most characters occupy during play, an evenly advanced samurai and magician will be matched to the point where the degree of tactical thinking on either character's part will make the difference between victory and loss. Sure, the samurai can't just charge at the magician with a submachine gun blazing, if the magician's got a tough barrier spell in place. Neither can a magician just step out and hope they can cast a fireball before the samurai will blow their head off with a called shot. It won't happen.
Either way, the samurai-versus-magician discussion is not something this topic was created for, I don't believe. Suffice to say that I've seen highly advanced magicians dropped by less advanced samurai who displayed more common sense and planning, just like I've seen highly advanced samurai dropped by less advanced other samurai who've had a more well-thought-out plan of attack. I've seen it happen a lot, enough that claims that it's impossible, or even highly unlikely, just don't hold water.
i've got that sam's charsheet online, if you'd like to see it. it's not actually my character.
yes, some people are saying that magic is overpowered in SR--but there's an argument; it's debatable. find me somebody that thinks he can beat a rigger on the road with a non-rigger--that's a non-debatable fact.
yes, some people are saying that magic is overpowered in SR--but there's an argument; it's debatable. find me somebody that thinks he can beat a rigger on the road with a non-rigger--that's a non-debatable fact.
and the rigger, outside of drones, is a one trick pony. if a sammie could match him there what is the point of the rigger?
its the same with the decker, he kickes ass online. do you expect the sammie to do the same?
its the same with the decker, he kickes ass online. do you expect the sammie to do the same?
you, sir, are readeriffic. please point out where i said the sam should match the rigger. or decker.
mfb's not talking about riggers with drones versus samurai in combat. He's talking about riggers in cars versus anyone who is not a rigger in combat driving. It's not like a rigger just gets more dice, or lower target numbers. They get access to a vital pool that others have no access to whatsoever (Control Pool), in addition to the expected greater numbers of dice and lower target numbers.
It'd be like saying "If you are a samurai or an adept, you have a combat pool. If you're not, you don't. Everyone else can go suck eggs." Control pool, for vehicle combat, is combat pool, and there's no way to get it if you aren't a rigger. Thus not only can the non-rigger not match a rigger (which is reasonable), they can't even compete (which is, if not unreasonable, at least very annoying to other characters).
It'd be like saying "If you are a samurai or an adept, you have a combat pool. If you're not, you don't. Everyone else can go suck eggs." Control pool, for vehicle combat, is combat pool, and there's no way to get it if you aren't a rigger. Thus not only can the non-rigger not match a rigger (which is reasonable), they can't even compete (which is, if not unreasonable, at least very annoying to other characters).
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| and the rigger, outside of drones, is a one trick pony. if a sammie could match him there what is the point of the rigger? |
Oh yeah, they're one-trick ponies, all right.
It just so happens that their one trick is nearly everything in the book. They out-surveil, out-gun, out-run, out-dodge, out-soak, and out-coordinate anything else in the game, and if a deck falls into their hands they can become deckers at negligible cost.
~J
yeah. having robots for friends is such a limited profession.
kage, you forgot out-sneak. though i guess that's part of out-surveil.
kage, you forgot out-sneak. though i guess that's part of out-surveil.
moans in distress after reading the FAQ.....
no, i was good with the old system and now their gonna ruin it
looks at Kag's post
thats true with their drones, get them one on one without though and their so much cannon fodder
no, i was good with the old system and now their gonna ruin it
looks at Kag's post
thats true with their drones, get them one on one without though and their so much cannon fodder
| QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ May 17 2005, 02:54 PM) |
| What candor? He didn't say anything! Trust me, I know how to write pages and pages of meaningless words, and that's a pretty good example of the output coming from a game developer. |
Way back on page 2 i provided a translation. I'll provide it here again:
| QUOTE |
| Q. What are you trying to do with Magic? A. Burn it's vermin infested corpse to the ground and build anew in the spirit of the old. |
That condenses it considerably. Sure that version doesn't provide the outline of the direction they are taking and the basic reasons why. But it does seem to capture the gist of it, no?
Now if you want the really long version of the answer that gives every minute detail of what is gone and what is added you're in luck. It will be available at your local gaming retailer come late August.
I don't even know what half these people are fucking talking about any more. There's too much for me to disagree with; I have no idea how to start.
| QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0) | ||
What candor? He didn't say anything! Trust me, I know how to write pages and pages of meaningless words, and that's a pretty good example of the output coming from a game developer. |
If you choose to interperet it that way fine. I read it as: 1) Problem stated, with examples. 2) We're fixing it with the new rules.
No, they didn't say how it is being fixed with any degree of detail. I agree with you there.
| QUOTE (Critias @ May 17 2005, 11:54 PM) |
| I don't even know what half these people are fucking talking about any more. There's too much for me to disagree with; I have no idea how to start. |
Step 1) Find with the first thing you find to disagree with
Step 2) Quote it and respond.
Step 3) Repeat ad nauseum.
All the really cool DSers are doing it...
While the question of rigger 'balance' is arguable, I concur with the original point about the rigger books from R2 on.
The rules are poorly designed and I'm not sure (or can't tell) if they actually work without some creative interpretation.
The variety of different tests in MIJI for example along with ad hoc target numbers etc. make a new edition necessary. The fact that there were 3 editions of the rigger rules with scant improvement is why there are skeptics now.
Fourth time's a charm?
The rules are poorly designed and I'm not sure (or can't tell) if they actually work without some creative interpretation.
The variety of different tests in MIJI for example along with ad hoc target numbers etc. make a new edition necessary. The fact that there were 3 editions of the rigger rules with scant improvement is why there are skeptics now.
Fourth time's a charm?
| QUOTE |
| I read it as: 1) Problem stated, with examples. |
With examples? Where?
They said that the magic system didn't accomodate additions, and used an analogy of barnacles but no examples. They said the system was a legacy system and used an analogy of bailing wire but no examples. And they said that they wanted to reduce complexity and that they thought they had, but didn't give examples of how (and in fact listed complexity that they wanted to maintain).
Here is an example of an example of complexity: "For example, the current system has a different method for determining success and drain when casting a spell and summoning a spirit."
There wasn't anything like that in the FAQ.
They said that the magic system didn't accomodate additions, and used an analogy of barnacles but no examples. They said the system was a legacy system and used an analogy of bailing wire but no examples. And they said that they wanted to reduce complexity and that they thought they had, but didn't give examples of how (and in fact listed complexity that they wanted to maintain).
Here is an example of an example of complexity: "For example, the current system has a different method for determining success and drain when casting a spell and summoning a spirit."
There wasn't anything like that in the FAQ.
| QUOTE (Ellery) | ||
With examples? Where? They said that the magic system didn't accomodate additions, and used an analogy of barnacles but no examples. They said the system was a legacy system and used an analogy of bailing wire but no examples. And they said that they wanted to reduce complexity and that they thought they had, but didn't give examples of how (and in fact listed complexity that they wanted to maintain). Here is an example of an example of complexity: "For example, the current system has a different method for determining success and drain when casting a spell and summoning a spirit." There wasn't anything like that in the FAQ. |
Find and replace "example" with "explanation"
And no, not a full and complete explanation.
| QUOTE |
| All the really cool DSers are doing it... |
I'm not that cool.....
I think the issue a lot of us are having whith that post concerning magic is this;
We all know that the magic system is getting redone. They've made it pretty clear that the rules are being torn down and rebuilt. Not reall an issue.
But they keep bagging on the rules - all of them - like the entire run, 1st thru 3rd, sucked eggs. They're making it sound like every rule is broken, sucks, needs rewriting. And that makes some of us wonder, "WTF?? You've been selling this thing to us for years, and you consider it royall f'd up?"
I've never considered SR Broken. Yeah, some of the rules - rigger in particular - are overly complex. My issues with decking has never been rules complexity, but team integration.
So instead of coming out and making it sound like we've been buying 'broken' product for the last fifteen years, just come out and tell us about the changes. Don't go into some long explanataion as to why they are doing it.
They're doing it to 'streamline' the rules and market to a larger audience Make Money).
*******
Rigging? Yeah, the rigger should be untouchable behind the wheel. Can a rigger function in the same arena as a sammie? Yeah, but not as well. Like the Sammie isn't going to fare as well against a purely magical threat as a mage. Are the differences linear? No.
But; the Riggers toys are way more expensive, and tend to get broke a lot. A smaurai, mage, or decker can walk down most any street comfortably armed with their favorite toys. Soon as a rigger pulls out an armed drone, it's like the samurai pulling out an assault cannon, or a mage manifesting a great spirit.
Mage, rigger, smaurai walking down the street get jumped, the sam and the mage will be able to function in the fight with what they have on them. The rigger eitehr has to rely on secondary abilities (Firearms) or pull out a tank of some sort.
The balance in the rigger vs the sam vs etc is all in the setting. The way you play. If you as the gm allows your rigger to keep a horde of drones on call wherever they are, without worrying about the law, fuel, getting them blowed up, or other logistics, then that is a problem for the gm.
And dropping a 100k deck on a rigger does not a decker make. A 100k deck isn't worth crap, and you'll still need a couple hundred K in software.
Here's what I got from this FAQ - The rules for magic aren't perfect, due to the way they were developed. That extends throughout the game, for the most part. They're doing a pretty major overhaul of magic, which wasn't even the most broke system.
Riggers, which were FUBAR, aren't even going to exist anymore (from an earlier FAQ).
Put the two together.
I would also like to take this time to thank some of you for coming up with something better than poo to throw, though there's still some total monkeyshit kicking around here and there.
Riggers, which were FUBAR, aren't even going to exist anymore (from an earlier FAQ).
Put the two together.
I would also like to take this time to thank some of you for coming up with something better than poo to throw, though there's still some total monkeyshit kicking around here and there.
To those of you who can't get what the FAQ says, maybe looking at this thread might give you some clues as to where they did get inspiration. Some of the discussions in the Street Magic thread should also give you a clue. You might like it or hate it, but it shouldn't be hard to get where they are going.
Though, hopefully the clarity of the FAQs isn't an indication of the clarity of SR4 rules
Though, hopefully the clarity of the FAQs isn't an indication of the clarity of SR4 rules
God forbid anyone makes a direct statement.
I don't want a clue. Christ. I could take Michelle's advice and trawl across DS for a while, or wade through the morass of posts in those two threads. I'd just like to see even one example of what is so awful in his or the other devs' opinions about magic that merited that kind of commentary. What is so hard about providing even one example? It's not too much to ask. I shouldn't even have to ask, because they're the ones trying to get me to change; not the other way around.
I mean, as much as I hate to admit it, I'm not a mind reader. I can't just tell what other people, specifically people who don't post to DS like Rob, think. This is such a monument of shit I can't even begin to express it. If Rob thinks he's being clever, he isn't. If he thinks he's being understood, he isn't. If he thinks he's being helpful, he isn't. If he thinks he's being cute, witty, or funny, he isn't.
I am not about to tolerate this shit from a developer. At least if he was silent and never said a word, I wouldn't be pissed off every waking moment when I think about SR and what they're doing to it. I'm pissed off all the time now, and there is nothing that I see good about SR4. I have better things to do with my time, and frankly I can't live with this much physical pain all of this anger and frustration is causing me. I can't do it, and I won't do it. Not for this. No more.
You can have your 4th edition.
I don't want a clue. Christ. I could take Michelle's advice and trawl across DS for a while, or wade through the morass of posts in those two threads. I'd just like to see even one example of what is so awful in his or the other devs' opinions about magic that merited that kind of commentary. What is so hard about providing even one example? It's not too much to ask. I shouldn't even have to ask, because they're the ones trying to get me to change; not the other way around.
I mean, as much as I hate to admit it, I'm not a mind reader. I can't just tell what other people, specifically people who don't post to DS like Rob, think. This is such a monument of shit I can't even begin to express it. If Rob thinks he's being clever, he isn't. If he thinks he's being understood, he isn't. If he thinks he's being helpful, he isn't. If he thinks he's being cute, witty, or funny, he isn't.
I am not about to tolerate this shit from a developer. At least if he was silent and never said a word, I wouldn't be pissed off every waking moment when I think about SR and what they're doing to it. I'm pissed off all the time now, and there is nothing that I see good about SR4. I have better things to do with my time, and frankly I can't live with this much physical pain all of this anger and frustration is causing me. I can't do it, and I won't do it. Not for this. No more.
You can have your 4th edition.
| QUOTE |
| One of the big problems with the Magic system up until now is that it simply didn’t accomodate additions. |
How explicit can we expect a pre-release FAQ be?
| QUOTE (Geko @ May 18 2005, 05:14 PM) | ||
How explicit can we expect a pre-release FAQ be? |
But that dosen't make sense. Doesn't accomodate? They add spells, meta-magic, adept powers, tradditions, etc, all the time. How is that not accomodating?
Sorry. I guess I was over-simplifying. The next few sentences in the FAQ answer your question, though. Namely: "It was built to be what it was, and if anything got added, it had to be an entirely new method of doing things."
Fact is, they did state it. Whether you agree with the reasoning or not (something I'm not prepared to argue), it is valid; they did state their reasoning.
Now I'm over my limit. Any more and I risk throwing poo.
Fact is, they did state it. Whether you agree with the reasoning or not (something I'm not prepared to argue), it is valid; they did state their reasoning.
Now I'm over my limit. Any more and I risk throwing poo.
| QUOTE (Eldritch @ May 18 2005, 11:30 AM) | ||||
But that dosen't make sense. Doesn't accomodate? They add spells, meta-magic, adept powers, tradditions, etc, all the time. How is that not accomodating? |
Warning: Explicit and "engaging" imagery ahead, faint of heart should egress.
[ Spoiler ]
EDIT: Poo flung? Check! Post complete.
Blakkie, warn us before you dish out imagery like that next time, please?
<vomits>
<vomits>
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
Oh yeah, they're one-trick ponies, all right. It just so happens that their one trick is nearly everything in the book. They out-surveil, out-gun, out-run, out-dodge, out-soak, and out-coordinate anything else in the game, and if a deck falls into their hands they can become deckers at negligible cost. ~J |
and have your neighbourhood samurai pick up a VCR (if they have the essence for it) or a cyberdeck (if they have a datajack) and suddenly they have access to a control pool or a hacking pool. welcome to sr.
"if they have the essence" is the key phrase, there. most sams don't.
an thats their problem. if the original creators wanted it, they could have gone the way of the decker and allowed anyone that jack into a vehicle to access a control pool.
but i have a feel that they have read the novel hardwired and modeld the rigger based on the implants the person had there.
basicly i dont see the problem of letting someone that have burned 1-3 essence to be the god of the road. only real problem is that some of the moves seems to defy physics but hey its a game, prime reason for playing it is to have fun. if you do not have fun while playing it then why play it?
but i have a feel that they have read the novel hardwired and modeld the rigger based on the implants the person had there.
basicly i dont see the problem of letting someone that have burned 1-3 essence to be the god of the road. only real problem is that some of the moves seems to defy physics but hey its a game, prime reason for playing it is to have fun. if you do not have fun while playing it then why play it?
I guess I'm just some sort of terrifying monster, when it comes to rules comprehension and construction, because not only did I never consider the magic system in Shadowrun intractably flawed and full of contradictory gibberish (something I've already mentioned in an earlier post), but... get this... I have extended and built upon it many times without incident. I haven't even had trouble. I will explain. This is going to be a fun trip down memory lane.
In strange aeons, known as "the era of SR1", I bought a copy of the Grimoire (the first one) and was introduced to the idea of these badass cool guys called physical adepts. I'd played quite a bit already. I read up on these guys, who used their Magic to buy up combat-enhancing powers. I decided I'd create a guy who was really rare, or maybe even unique, who had both the powers of a physical adept and a magician. I figured an easy solution to avoid him being outright better than everyone else (he'd have to work to get to that point, goddammit!) was that every point of Magic he had was either for adeptness or magery.
Woo-hoo, I invented magician adepts (Like I'm sure about one in four groups did at around the same time as Grimoire came out). How'd I do that? The SR magic system is like a terrible tome of the elder gods! I must have suffered d% sanity loss just imagining it, let alone bringing it into existence.
In less strange aeons, maybe two or three years later (and about eight or ten years of gametime, since we played sufficiently often that we had to condense hours or days of rest time into "and thus time passed" mentionings), after SR2 had reared its head and my poor unique magician adept character was "re-balanced" (i.e. I had to cut 4 points off his Reaction, one die off his Initiative, and take away a goodly amount of automatic successes in various areas), it happened.
Despite all my attempts to do things like bringing attributes to 1.5 * Racial Maximum (they called Racial Limit that, back in the day, remember?) and raising skills to levels others might deem unwholesome, my pet abomination had run out of metamagics. It wasn't that he didn't have any, it was the opposite. He had them all. I was left with a bit of a quandry when I picked up that grade of initiation that no one had been intended to get, forcing him beyond the known universe of metamagic and into that which was beyond, the beating of vile drums and whine of accursed flutes filling his mind with madness.
So I started small. He's always been focused on infiltration, and I figured, "Hey, Masking is pretty nice. Let's expand upon that." He developed an enhanced masking ability that allowed him to dull his astral presence into the background noise of the plane, basically turning his bright and fiery living aura into a barely perceptible heat shimmer so long as he concentrated. I called it Camouflaging. In game-terms, I let him use Magic + Stealth to cloak himself astrally. We did round-robin style game mastering, and the other people in our campaign liked it.
I tossed in prerequisites, such as Masking and an Initiate Grade of 4. A few player-characters after him learned the technique from him and organizations/individuals who'd developed it at roughly the same time. People running other campaigns, who I introduced the idea to, also seemed to think it was okay, and adopted it into their campaigns every once in awhile. As time went on, other powers followed.
I figured a metamagic technique to summon another type of spirit might not be a bad thing to have around, so I wrote up that one. Summoning(spirit type) required Invoking and Grade 3. Picking that up a few times kept him busy for awhile, but eventually he ran out again, so I figured it might be interesting if he could manifest his astral form in the same fashion that spirits could. It drained Essence a great deal faster than normal projection, and required Grade 5. Thus was born Manifesting.
In the twilight years of SR2, when Awakenings had brought us a plethora of new metamagics (all of which he eventually acquired) and made him less of a unique monster and more of a common monster (with the invention of the physical mage), he picked up, exchanging them for powers he'd later re-buy, metamagics that allowed him to project astrally and access the metaplanes, things he'd been doing for years. He then developed a technique that many did consider unbalancing in lower levels of play, so I set the prerequisites high enough that he was just about the only player-character who could learn it at that time in our campaign.
This was his magnum opus, the result of his research and delvings into astral-physical interactions. He could shift his physical form to and from the astral plane, although he risked extensive physical drain with each shift. This was Transubstantiating. He shortly thereafter picked up a power that emulated the Free Spirit ability of Astral Gateway, which had the same name. When areas that conveyed this power on people were described, called Astral Rifts, the power was renamed Rifting.
SR3 then rolled around, Magic in the Shadows eventually accompanying it. With Enhanced Centering no longer being an adept power, but instead a metamagic, he had his hands full, on a metamagic-acquiring scale, for a few years of play. He developed a few more techniques of his own, notably Aspecting, which allowed him to wrest control of aspected sites and make them generally accessible to all for a bit of time, or take unaspected sites and aspect them so that only he could take advantage of them.
From this point on he really didn't develop his own metamagical powers (or pick up rare ones that were not known widely enough to be in published material; this was another way I introduced new metamagics into my games) so much as he picked up "slots" for new metamagics, since it seemed likely there would be more released if I was just patient enough, or that mages/adepts would be rewritten in a fashion demanding he take new metamagics to do things he'd been doing for awhile without.
So, at the end, I look back, after reading that development blog entry, and realize that maybe I wasn't just doing what everyone else was. Maybe SR's magical system has been incomprehensible and impossible to build upon, and only some mad inspiration that the developers for the most part are not privy to has guided me and a few SR authors to perform these expansions. I know that someone I play with, independent of me, developed just about every unique power that I did, along with dozens of other metamagical powers that she ultimately compiled in an online Metathaumaturgical Codex.
Am I alone? Is the Shadowrun magical system really so inflexible that it takes a crazy kind of insight to cut through the barbed-wire-laden cores of madness and insanity that are the basic mechanics? Did no one else come up with the idea of magician adepts before they showed up in Awakenings? I'm really curious about this sort of thing, if what Rob says is true. I'm disinclined to believe it's a widely held opinion, only because it never even occurred to me. Maybe I'm wrong. Let me know.
In strange aeons, known as "the era of SR1", I bought a copy of the Grimoire (the first one) and was introduced to the idea of these badass cool guys called physical adepts. I'd played quite a bit already. I read up on these guys, who used their Magic to buy up combat-enhancing powers. I decided I'd create a guy who was really rare, or maybe even unique, who had both the powers of a physical adept and a magician. I figured an easy solution to avoid him being outright better than everyone else (he'd have to work to get to that point, goddammit!) was that every point of Magic he had was either for adeptness or magery.
Woo-hoo, I invented magician adepts (Like I'm sure about one in four groups did at around the same time as Grimoire came out). How'd I do that? The SR magic system is like a terrible tome of the elder gods! I must have suffered d% sanity loss just imagining it, let alone bringing it into existence.
In less strange aeons, maybe two or three years later (and about eight or ten years of gametime, since we played sufficiently often that we had to condense hours or days of rest time into "and thus time passed" mentionings), after SR2 had reared its head and my poor unique magician adept character was "re-balanced" (i.e. I had to cut 4 points off his Reaction, one die off his Initiative, and take away a goodly amount of automatic successes in various areas), it happened.
Despite all my attempts to do things like bringing attributes to 1.5 * Racial Maximum (they called Racial Limit that, back in the day, remember?) and raising skills to levels others might deem unwholesome, my pet abomination had run out of metamagics. It wasn't that he didn't have any, it was the opposite. He had them all. I was left with a bit of a quandry when I picked up that grade of initiation that no one had been intended to get, forcing him beyond the known universe of metamagic and into that which was beyond, the beating of vile drums and whine of accursed flutes filling his mind with madness.
So I started small. He's always been focused on infiltration, and I figured, "Hey, Masking is pretty nice. Let's expand upon that." He developed an enhanced masking ability that allowed him to dull his astral presence into the background noise of the plane, basically turning his bright and fiery living aura into a barely perceptible heat shimmer so long as he concentrated. I called it Camouflaging. In game-terms, I let him use Magic + Stealth to cloak himself astrally. We did round-robin style game mastering, and the other people in our campaign liked it.
I tossed in prerequisites, such as Masking and an Initiate Grade of 4. A few player-characters after him learned the technique from him and organizations/individuals who'd developed it at roughly the same time. People running other campaigns, who I introduced the idea to, also seemed to think it was okay, and adopted it into their campaigns every once in awhile. As time went on, other powers followed.
I figured a metamagic technique to summon another type of spirit might not be a bad thing to have around, so I wrote up that one. Summoning(spirit type) required Invoking and Grade 3. Picking that up a few times kept him busy for awhile, but eventually he ran out again, so I figured it might be interesting if he could manifest his astral form in the same fashion that spirits could. It drained Essence a great deal faster than normal projection, and required Grade 5. Thus was born Manifesting.
In the twilight years of SR2, when Awakenings had brought us a plethora of new metamagics (all of which he eventually acquired) and made him less of a unique monster and more of a common monster (with the invention of the physical mage), he picked up, exchanging them for powers he'd later re-buy, metamagics that allowed him to project astrally and access the metaplanes, things he'd been doing for years. He then developed a technique that many did consider unbalancing in lower levels of play, so I set the prerequisites high enough that he was just about the only player-character who could learn it at that time in our campaign.
This was his magnum opus, the result of his research and delvings into astral-physical interactions. He could shift his physical form to and from the astral plane, although he risked extensive physical drain with each shift. This was Transubstantiating. He shortly thereafter picked up a power that emulated the Free Spirit ability of Astral Gateway, which had the same name. When areas that conveyed this power on people were described, called Astral Rifts, the power was renamed Rifting.
SR3 then rolled around, Magic in the Shadows eventually accompanying it. With Enhanced Centering no longer being an adept power, but instead a metamagic, he had his hands full, on a metamagic-acquiring scale, for a few years of play. He developed a few more techniques of his own, notably Aspecting, which allowed him to wrest control of aspected sites and make them generally accessible to all for a bit of time, or take unaspected sites and aspect them so that only he could take advantage of them.
From this point on he really didn't develop his own metamagical powers (or pick up rare ones that were not known widely enough to be in published material; this was another way I introduced new metamagics into my games) so much as he picked up "slots" for new metamagics, since it seemed likely there would be more released if I was just patient enough, or that mages/adepts would be rewritten in a fashion demanding he take new metamagics to do things he'd been doing for awhile without.
So, at the end, I look back, after reading that development blog entry, and realize that maybe I wasn't just doing what everyone else was. Maybe SR's magical system has been incomprehensible and impossible to build upon, and only some mad inspiration that the developers for the most part are not privy to has guided me and a few SR authors to perform these expansions. I know that someone I play with, independent of me, developed just about every unique power that I did, along with dozens of other metamagical powers that she ultimately compiled in an online Metathaumaturgical Codex.
Am I alone? Is the Shadowrun magical system really so inflexible that it takes a crazy kind of insight to cut through the barbed-wire-laden cores of madness and insanity that are the basic mechanics? Did no one else come up with the idea of magician adepts before they showed up in Awakenings? I'm really curious about this sort of thing, if what Rob says is true. I'm disinclined to believe it's a widely held opinion, only because it never even occurred to me. Maybe I'm wrong. Let me know.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.