Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: SR4 FAQ #5--The Real One
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
mfb
QUOTE (hobgoblin)
if you do not have fun while playing it then why play it?

that's exactly the problem. nobody can have any fun in a vehicle except riggers. as soon as a rigger shows up, nobody else gets to have any fun.
blakkie
QUOTE (Ellery)
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.

See, you can come up with an example yourself. Do they really need to? biggrin.gif

I find this absolutely hilarious though. An earlier FAQ entry provides examples (therefor an incomplete list) about what is staying the same in SR. The result? An explosion of "they didn't include this, it must be taken out" and flood of derision. Now they are being lambasted for not providing examples.

So what would the solution be? Providing all the examples, meaning they aren't examples any more but an exhastive list that would mirror the manuscript? eek.gif
mfb
coyly stating that all the rules are subject to change--which is what the previous FAQ did-- is not at all the same as providing examples.
blakkie
The issue with riggers (anyone that has a VCR, even a "sam", "decker", etc.) and Control Pool has been discussed extensively on DSF. The majority of the "fixes" involved allocating a smaller Control Pool to non-VCR characters and and allowing all or portions of Initiative increases from non-VCR cyber/bioware/magic to non-rigged drivers to allow for functioning (albeit still inferior) vehicle-centric Adepts and such.
Jrayjoker
Wow Wire, you put a crapload of time and work into the development of a great character and concept based on what I read in your post. But I interperet the intention of the blog entry as pointing out that only hermeticism and shamanism are well supported by the way the magic rules were written, and they were only different on the surface. Vodoo, wicca, druidism, shinto, religious-based magics, etc. were kludgy add-ons, and didn't fit well into the preexisting rule set.

I would love to see the Metathaumaturic Codex if it exists as a document that you can share.
hobgoblin
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (hobgoblin)
if you do not have fun while playing it then why play it?

that's exactly the problem. nobody can have any fun in a vehicle except riggers. as soon as a rigger shows up, nobody else gets to have any fun.

and the rigger do not have fun outside the vehicle unless he brings along drones. and we all know that drones like say a steel lynx can outerform a sammie in the shooting department (hardend armor, a nice gun. you need a anti-vehicle weapon to stop it dont you?)...

and the decker can only have fun inside the matrix. that is unless he allso kits and skills himself as a sammie or similar. its just that its easyer to be a secondary profession with a decker as he have more essence to work with (as long as you feel like carrying that deck around).

but then one can allso question the nature of fun. and do we want to go there?
blakkie
QUOTE (mfb)
coyly stating that all the rules are subject to change--which is what the previous FAQ did-- is not at all the same as providing examples.

This is the one i was talking about.

QUOTE
Q. What havenít you changed in SR4?
A. Many things. There are still 5 basic metatypes to choose from in the basic rules. Contacts remain an integral part of the game. There will be 16 Sample Characters that you can start with. Karma is still used as the experience award. The focus of the game is still on teams of operatives combining skills and resources to accomplish criminal or psuedo-criminal missions. And so on.
mfb
yes. and like i said, that answer is just a coy way of saying that all of the rules are subject to change. it's not really providing much in the way of examples.
Wireknight
QUOTE (blakkie @ May 18 2005, 06:51 PM)
See, you can come up with an example yourself. Do they really need to?  biggrin.gif

I find this absolutely hilarious though. An earlier FAQ entry provides examples (therefor an incomplete list) about what is staying the same in SR. The result? An explosion of "they didn't include this, it must be taken out" and flood of derision. Now they are being lambasted for not providing examples.

So what would the solution be? Providing all the examples, meaning they aren't examples any more but an exhastive list that would mirror the manuscript?  eek.gif

... I'm never quite sure whether you're trying to start a flamewar or this is your earnest attempt at communication, but I'm inclined to treat it as something in between, just more skewed to the former than the latter.

Ellery can come up with as many theoretical examples as she likes (I think her example was purely speculative; I don't think she really believes that the difference between two entirely different aspects of magical activity is something that's confusing or bizarre, I think she was stating that it may perhaps be something the developers had determined to be such, though no one can really be sure). It doesn't matter, because she's not the one writing the rules.

If those who are writing the rules don't give some kind of accounting of what problems the changes are inspired by, then we're kind of left in the dark as to whether or not we agree with the basic idea that those things are problems, and we're less sure that the final product is going to fix what we view as problems, or "fix" things we never believed were broken to begin with.

You're making sweeping and childish generalizations ("they want information, they must want all the information in the world, categorized and subdivided, with a final answer of 42 at the end!!!111oneoneone") and offering equally childish solutions. I don't want a manuscript of the new rules. There's a difference between wanting to know all the new rules, and wanting to know whether or not the new rules are motivated by perceptions of the old rules that you agree with (in my case, such perceptions are typically those backed up by at least one or two pieces of solid and convincing evidence; I don't like to make ungrounded assumptions or adopt stances based upon them).

If you think that the examples of why they conclusions put forth, provided with the fifth FAQ, are satisfactory, I'd appreciate it if you could point out where a single one of them is. Not in the Dumpshock forums, which I don't think (but I could be wrong) Rob or the person responsible for developing the magic system have posted detailed detractions of the existing rules, but in the development blog itself. Even if it's satisfactory for some people to read a few threads and assume that one of a myriad of posts in them accurately reflects the reasoning behind the FAQ, Rob still isn't outright saying what those reasons are.

I don't think expecting a direct and included example(or two!) of what's wrong, when you say things are wrong, is something unreasonable to expect. You seem to not have a problem with having little or no concrete basis to back up your claims, based on observations I've made over a pretty good set of posts of yours I've read. Lots of people are like that. I don't think it gets much accomplished insofar as making your points defensible or even widely understandable, but it goes on regardless. It sure makes for longer and more engrossing, if equally enraging/confusing, discussion threads on message boards.

Also, blakkie, to pre-empt you if you demand I back up my ascertations about you, specifically, the post of yours I quoted and my above observations about it are a pretty good set of examples that back up my claim. I see no real solid facts or impartial statements to defend your opinion (since, as an opinion, it really can't be proven right/wrong so much as defended and explained to the point where people understand it as much as they are able).

I see the grouping together of people who just yelled "I'm not playing anymore!" with people like Ellery who actually have maintained a rational discourse, as well as the comparison of entirely different things (a list of facts in the prior FAQ, versus a statement of opinion in the latest), along with borderline insults on the intelligence of other posters (who honestly believes that everything not included in the prior/current FAQs is being left out of SR4?).

If you're trying to add something positive to the discussion, something that genuinely makes people consider your outlook, you're going about it the wrong way.
blakkie
QUOTE (mfb)
yes. and like i said, that answer is just a coy way of saying that all of the rules are subject to change. it's not really providing much in the way of examples.

*shrug*

It's saying that the setting remains. They had already said the rules are in for major changes.
Eldritch

QUOTE
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.



Your not wrong.

I won't go into as much detail, but I added necromancers, Priests, demons, angels, magical artifacts, magical artifacts usable by mundanes...PC SHapeshifters, A whole plethroa (sp) of stuff. And it worked fine. Fit tight into the rules, And I know I'm not the only one to put that stuff in. Just head over to the Archve and search through the articles.

Unless of course we are in the minorty, and are in fact insane.
audun
QUOTE (Wireknight)
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. 
<snip>

What you did is what everyone else did, even what SR developers and freelancers did. (The latter had to consider canon though, something you were free to disregard.)
I can't read Rob's thougths, but it seems to me that what is exactly what he means.
You can only add new things to the system by adding them as metamagic. Nearly any new or different use of magic in SR3 was introduced as a metamagic. That's what I'd call a legacy system.
It's not that SR magic was all bad. The FAQ could be read that way, but it could also be read as: we'll try to do this better in SR4.
mfb
...you know what? i give up, blakkie. there's no point in trying to discuss this with a person who can't hold the thread of conversation for longer than two posts.
Eldritch
QUOTE
It's saying that the setting remains. They had already said the rules are in for major changes.


The setting isn't neccessarily staying the same. Five year jump in the timeline, a technological jump in the way the matrix works, and whatever else they decide to throw in - change in magic, rigging, drones, cybernetics - it will all affect the setting. It's just a matter of how much.

Just the fact that a decker can walk down the street, look over at someones PDA, hack in and steal their address book is a huge change in 'setting' - or atmosphere if you like - for me. As opposed to a decker, jacked in in some hotel, waiting for said target to connect to the matrix...etc.

*shrug* But that's the impression I'm getting from the faqs.
Wireknight
Portions of the Metathaumaturgical Codex are available on the Shadowland site, one being a rough copy in Ellery's user folder in Main, and the other being one that's considered for adoption into generally accepted house rules, in The Shadowrun Datastore on Shadowland. Neither are 100% complete, as they were initially written for SR2 and a lot of the metamagical content demanded some revision.

As far as anything new being a metamagic, that was a problem, one that we dealt with by breaking up every category of spellcasting, spirit summoning, generating wards, astrally perceiving, astrally projecting, etc, etc... into metamagics as well. The codex includes the substance of these rules, but suffice to say that as a Priority A / Full Magician you could theoretically generate a character who can conjure all types of spirit from one category, and who has sacrificed their spellcasting, category-by-category, to gain five metamagics. Every change you make tacks on a little more to the cost, so a major shift like that one would require, at 5 changes, 1+2+3+4+5 = 15 build points.

Still, you could end up with a conjurer who can astrally project (since that would not be exchanged from the standard magician template), summon all types of Elemental Spirit (starting from a Wuxing/Wujen template, even if the final result is ultimately thematically unrelated) and use Invoking, Channelling, Possessing, Metaplanar Projection, as well as summoning Spirits of Man. You're a one-stop shop for all things involving astral bodies, and that's before you even initiate.

A less substantial change might be to replace the ability to create wards with Invoking, and the ability to cast Combat Spells with Channelling. That'd only cost 3 build points. Either way, I think it was a fairly simple extension of the system that made things a lot more flexible. As far as having all kinds of new spirits, I thought that was a good thing. A different spirit for a different job, and the idea that with certain kinds of spirits you could do jobs that other traditions could not.

Sure, making every single spirit regardless of tradition or type simply have (Force) for all attributes, and no real specific-to-one-spirit powers, is a great way to eliminate the perceived problem with voodoo loa, elemental spirits, ancestor spirits, nature spirits, and elementals inexplicably being different. I don't think that should be done, though. Spirits all behave the same way at the core, so I'm assuming complaints about that sort of thing are based on them all having different physical attribute modifiers and powers. If SR4 "corrects" this to make them less different, I think a lot of the point of your tradition being different from someone else's is lost.

While flavor is a big factor in your choice of magical tradition, the in-game reason that a caster of one tradition may be chosen over another is that their initial set of casting bonuses/penalties and spirit type may suit the required task better than the other magician's. By homogenizing magical types, you eliminate the very differences that make them more fun and more individual. Only the underlying rules need to be the same. For the most part, they already are.
blakkie
QUOTE (mfb @ May 18 2005, 01:30 PM)
...you know what? i give up, blakkie. there's no point in trying to discuss this with a person who can't hold the thread of conversation for longer than two posts.

There are a number of threads in this "thread". There is rigger stuff, magic stuff, why can't they give us more info in the FAQ stuff, etc.

@Eldritch: Fine, the setting is -generally- the same.
Critias
QUOTE (mfb)
...you know what? i give up, blakkie. there's no point in trying to discuss this with a person who can't hold the thread of conversation for longer than two posts.

Well, shit. You catch on slow. I gave up on him the first time he posted "LOL" as his response to one of Ellery's arguments.
blakkie
QUOTE (Critias)
QUOTE (mfb @ May 18 2005, 02:30 PM)
...you know what? i give up, blakkie. there's no point in trying to discuss this with a person who can't hold the thread of conversation for longer than two posts.

Well, shit. You catch on slow. I gave up on him the first time he posted "LOL" as his response to one of Ellery's arguments.

Ah yes, the "arguement" fraction of the post that wasn't one.
Shadow
QUOTE (blakkie)

I find this absolutely hilarious though. An earlier FAQ entry provides examples (therefor an incomplete list) about what is staying the same in SR. The result? An explosion of "they didn't include this, it must be taken out" and flood of derision. Now they are being lambasted for not providing examples.

So what would the solution be? Providing all the examples, meaning they aren't examples any more but an exhastive list that would mirror the manuscript? eek.gif

I think they were blasted for releasing a faq that said "What we didn't change" that included things like, "humans still need air" and "the game still uses dice".

For whatever reason that got out the door without even being questioned. I think it had to do with the fact that they were trying to push the hole "it's a revision not a new game" when in fact it is a new game with the old Name.

Examples were not needed, descriptive, useful FAQ'a that told us something about the game were.

blakkie
QUOTE (Wireknight @ May 18 2005, 02:00 PM)
As far as anything new being a metamagic, that was a problem, one that we dealt with by breaking up every category of spellcasting, spirit summoning, generating wards, astrally perceiving, astrally projecting, etc, etc... into metamagics as well.

Ummm, thats a change, not an extension. It kinda proves the point that the underlying system needed some work. Remember that when they add things like MitS or a SOTA they have to be much more careful about not touching the core BBB than you have to be. Perhaps they are going to go farther than you, to make sure about the next extention that they may or may not have in mind. But your change sounds a bit like what they might be doing. Hard to tell until you compare them side-by-side.

I think Rob was candid that an opportunity to do something about improving the structure of the magic was missed going from SR2 to SR3, something such as you did. The idea seems to be to not let another opportunity pass by again.
blakkie
@Shadow: Yes, it was also pointed out that it probably wasn't worded well as it could come across as very flippant. If i didn't post something like that at the time, it is something i thought.

However there were actually people that were freaking because it didn't include something else that i would think was in a similar catagory of "humans still need air". You just can't win there.

It was actually a really bad place to use an example. I think Rob might have learned from that. I see this FAQ, and particularly the three paragraphs about what they are trying to do with the magic subsystem as much, much higher quality. Part of the reason is that he didn't get bogged down with a specific example.

That last Q/A in FAQ#5 was more of a highlevel "this is where we intend to go". It was already 3 paragraphs long, tossing in an example would more than likely have stretched it out further with little benefit. Especially an example where he tried to explain what the development team sees is as a problem with SR3. If you want an example of one specific place they are changing you just have to go to the first Q/A in FAQ#5.
blakkie
QUOTE (Link @ May 18 2005, 08:58 AM)
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?

Actually now knowing some of Jon's background i might understand better why R3 was the way it was. It does read like someone that is use to complex mathematical modeling. That kind of person could be a -very- valuable member of a design team, i suggest essential. But left to his own devices his strength can become his weakness as he gets lost in the beauty of the system he creates.

The procedures that make up mechanics he designs are prone to have bulk because his background has enabled him to, and even encouraged him to simulate systems with complex algorithms. Basically he will tend to do it because he can.

Cutting bulk [that is precious to you] hurts, it hurts a LOT. That is why writers have editors. Why film directors have film editors. Because writers and directors poured their guts into their work, and they love the best parts of it as a child. But sometimes you have to get rid of some of the "best" individual parts for the better of the whole.

To sum up, IMO a person like Jon Szeto needs a strong editor to cut and cut and cut relentlessly at his system. To remind him everyday that "brevity is wit". Once he focuses his ability on that path his skills will produce light-weight systems where there is great economy in each component. Depth without muddle.


EDIT: Forth time a charm? Indeed i hope so. That the lesson has been learned enough that they can go where their words say they are going. Breaking old habits is hard, and as i mentioned before a game world in the situation of SR (based on something most of the players feel they know) will tug designs hard towards complex procedures. But it really only needs one extra person on the team to bring it around, if the others buy into it enough to follow.
blakkie
BTW mfb, an editor type roll is what i was taking with you in the "Guesses to how combat might work" thread. You have become comfortable and at ease with SR3 combat rules. You have great memories of playing sessions using those combat rules. You are emotionally invested. I pissed you off by cutting nearly to the bone (although maybe not even far enough). Sure my in-your-face style doesn't help cyber.gif, but even without that i suspect suggestion of those cuts would have pissed you off. Further sometimes an in-your-face level of stance is pretty much required to overcome the barrier and reach someone that is deeply invested.

Now imagine on top of the investment you have in the SR3 combat rules you also WROTE those rules. Then someone on an internet board suggests that you are the problem with the old system, and will become the problem with the new system. That's the kind of hurt we are talking about.
mfb
that's not it at all. as i've explained before, the seperate dodge and soak rolls intrigued and pleased me before i ever played the game. having dodge rolled up into soak was one of the things that always chafed me about 2nd edition D&D, back when i first started gaming. i am comfortable and at ease with seperate dodge and soak rolls because they make sense to me, and have made sense to me since before i ever knew that "dodge" and "soak" were game terms.
Crimsondude 2.0
Szeto's a big boy. I doubt anything some jagoff like me says is going to faze him. However, just because I said it doesn't make it false.

Oh, and it's, "Brevity is the soul of wit," not "brevity is wit." The latter makes no sense.
blakkie
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ May 18 2005, 05:43 PM)
Szeto's a big boy. I doubt anything some jagoff like me says is going to faze him.

If i didn't think he could handle it i wouldn't have dragged his name back up again. But do you really think that it doesn't sting a little bit, or put him a bit on the defensive, or motivate him just a tiny bit to prove something. Maybe not just one comment from one person, but R3 is likely SR3's most fan-bashed source book (but only because SURGE is not a book).
QUOTE
However, just because I said it doesn't make it false.

No, just suspect. biggrin.gif I didn't include it just because you said it. I actually didn't remember exactly who had expressed that opinion, and didn't check it out because it didn't seem important to my point who it was. Athough i guess coming from you it would lose a bit of it's sting? wink.gif

I agree with it up till the belief that all of R3's flaws were completely on Jon's shoulders, and that failure is enevitable if he is working on the team. If the same pattern that produced the various rigger rules is followed, then i agree very bad things will result. But i say he, like Vader, can be turned back from the darkside in the proper environment. Hopefully it doesn't kill him doing so. cool.gif
QUOTE
Oh, and it's, "Brevity is the soul of wit," not "brevity is wit." The latter makes no sense.

Others have mentioned that to me before. I know the original, but my version's shorter. nyahnyah.gif

@mfb Sorry, i should have been more careful. But the reason you give probably draws an even closer parallel. Either way, and maybe it's some of both(?), you are invested. The rest applies.

BTW the closest D&D parallel to soak is probably HP. Perhaps you could argue Damage Reduction is soak, but I see DR more akin to 'ware like damage compensators. Both DR and HP are separate from dodging. It's armour (manufactured, magical, or natural) and dodge that D&D combines into a defense number.

I draw the parallel between HP and soak because HP is driven by Constitution, roughly Body, and a higher value makes it harder to kill the target by hitting it. The mechanisms do look a bit different on the surface because higher Con (and HP rolls) dilute the damage of the same numerical value while soak reduces the damage value by directly altering the numerical value. The HP roll is also done well before hand, and not as often as soak is rolled. But in the end they both directly reduce the percentage of health removed by a given landed hit.
Solstice
QUOTE
Oh, and it's, "Brevity is the soul of wit," not "brevity is wit." The latter makes no sense.


Heh, do you realize how absurd you just made yourself look? You best go look up the word "brevity" in your local dictionary.
blakkie
Often people forget the actual character that has that line, and the character's perpensity for a preponderance of cumbersomely vast vebage.
mfb
in real life, armor reduces the damage you take by absorbing--soaking--the impact. ergo, D&D combines dodge and soak. not completely, but close enough.

and, like i said, if i'm invested, it's because it makes sense. i'm hardly adverse to change--i love the SR3 Matrix, but there's nothing i'd like more than to see it burned down and replaced with something that makes sense.

QUOTE (Solstice)
Heh, do you realize how absurd you just made yourself look? You best go look up the word "brevity" in your local dictionary.

you're absurder, though, because you used more words to decry Crimson's decryment than Crimson did in the first place. and i'm absurder yet, because i used even more. huzzah for absurdity! back to the discussion at hand.

absurder is the best made-up word ever.
blakkie
QUOTE (mfb)
absurder is the best made-up word ever.

But it's not the absurdiest one.
Ellery
QUOTE (Geko)
It was built to be what it was, and if anything got added, it had to be an entirely new method of doing things.

QUOTE (audun @ Apr 19 2005 @ 05:04 PM , Topic 8256)
MitS was written in a way that permitted no new stuff to be added. There was two options for introducing new stuff in SR3 magic. One was to introduce new metamagics (T:AL, SOTA2063), the other was to tweak and bend the existing rules (Euromagic in SOTA2064).

There's also adding spells, adding adept abilities, adding spirits, and so on, all of which has been done.

So, basically, with SR3, you either add to what you've got, or you change things.

Isn't that true for any system of rules?

If you're adding something, and you're not adding to what you've got or changing what you've got, what are you doing? What could a magic system look like in order to have this property? I can think of two ways--one is to include absolutely everything to begin with; then your following books won't actually add anything, but will instead just refer you to the appropriate place in the 3000-page codex to find what you want. At the other extreme, you roll your magic against TN5 and if you get one success, some magic happens! Following books don't change the mechanic; they just give ideas about what the GM might decide happens.

Aside from these two rather perverse examples, I think the SR magic system actually accomodates changes rather well. The developers are apparently feeling constrained by the design decision to have a magical world split primarily by hermetic and shamanic traditions, but that doesn't mean that the system isn't extensible.

And that's exactly why I wanted examples here. The system has been extended numerous times--with less revision of old rules than almost any other system.

Crimsondude 2.0
QUOTE (blakkie @ May 18 2005, 07:04 PM)
QUOTE
Oh, and it's, "Brevity is the soul of wit," not "brevity is wit." The latter makes no sense.

Others have mentioned that to me before. I know the original, but my version's shorter. nyahnyah.gif

It's also wrong.

Brevity is not wit, nor is wit brevity.

QUOTE (Ellery)
The developers are apparently feeling constrained by the design decision to have a magical world split primarily by hermetic and shamanic traditions, but that doesn't mean that the system isn't extensible.

Yeah... About that.

QUOTE (SR4 FAQ5)
Q. Do we still have Mages and Shamans?
A. Yes. In addition, however, a flexible tradition design system has been included, allowing players to model existing traditions easily, or even to create their own along with their GM. Both Hermetic and Shamanic traditions have been created for the main book and are included as the default choices.
blakkie
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
QUOTE (blakkie @ May 18 2005, 07:04 PM)
QUOTE
Oh, and it's, "Brevity is the soul of wit," not "brevity is wit." The latter makes no sense.

Others have mentioned that to me before. I know the original, but my version's shorter. nyahnyah.gif

It's also wrong.

Brevity is not wit, nor is wit brevity.

It's not fully accurate, but full accuracy isn't always needed. Sometimes close enough gives better results, like where i suggested using it. As a coded mantra.
blakkie
@Ellery

So why do you think WireKnight felt the need to make a change to the core of the magic system when he was extending it?
Crimsondude 2.0
...

*blinks*

...
blakkie
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ May 18 2005, 09:38 PM)
*blinks*

Anyone know where the BRS is on the Crimsondude 2.0? Looks like its processing unit flaked out and locked up again. frown.gif
blakkie
...and we are fully off on a tangent, again. But an interesting tangent. Who expects a thread to keep on subject past 2 pages anyway? wink.gif
QUOTE
in real life, armor reduces the damage you take by absorbing--soaking--the impact. ergo, D&D combines dodge and soak. not completely, but close enough.

In SR3 (personal) armour doesn't "soak" damage. It does absorb kinetic energy, and it is grouped into the same procedure step with the soaking, and it influences the TN of the soak to make it easier to soak. But doesn't reduce the damage done.

There are two exception to that. The first is Flechette rounds, but all armor regardless of value reduces it the same amount. The second is armour that isn't actually called armour in SR3. This includes stuff like dermal sheathing and calcium deposits on Trolls that add Body (and therefore soak).

With SR3 it is assumed that a weapon that isn't fully dodged and strikes the (personal) armor will always penetrate. Thus why vehicle armour works differently where penetration is not assumed. This probably isn't that out of wack with RL for any supersonic ballistics, although it does lead to the weirdness that bleeding edge armor does much less for an extremely low Body character.

Interestingly you changed that. It looked like you did so to account for fixed TN since the armor used to alter the TN? I also changed it too in my suggestion, but differently where it becomes a barrier that strips off a fixed number of boxes based on the quality of the armor, the type of ammunition, and shots per action (SS/BF/FA).

On the otherhand armour is grouped with not with "soaking" but with "dodging" of defense in D&D, and the name armour describes something different than SR3 armour. In some ways this difference makes sense RL for both systems.

D&D armour describes something that keeps a weapon from striking your body with either a direct or indirect blow. As long as the armor (or shield) is of sufficent design and/or heft the opponents weapon can hit it but not transfer through enough focused energy (say via blade) to affect the body. The weaon that contacts the targets equipment but "misses" is either defeated by deflection (such as parry), dispersion (leather or chain), or inertia (sometimes shield). If the weapon doesn't reach the body there is no soak to occur. So even without successfully "dodging" the penetration of the armor is not assured. This leads to an all or nothing decision regarding the attack, not the graduated damage that a partial SR3 Dodge gives.

If a weapon hit is scored the reduction of damage (as percetange of total full health) is handled by the HP through the dilution process i talked about. That is where the toughness of the body of the creature (but not including hide or other dermal properties) in question comes into play.

BTW i don't know if you've played D&D 3e? It does actually differentiate between physical blocking by armour, shield, and parrying, and the avoidance of any contact. The second by itself is touch AC which is used for different types that can conduct through any solid object touching the target of the attack. Also generally protection by magical only barriers count as a dodge or akin to dodge in D&D, not as armour.

EDIT: Missed one thing. At first glance the randomness in the D&D soak might appear to be created by the attacker rolling his weapon damage, rather than SR3s roll by the defender every time a ranged attack is not fully dodged. But instead i see that roll combined with the initial d20 roll, as parallel to the SR3 attack roll. Its just that the extra rolling is needed because d20 attacks (and most D&D skill checks) do not have variable success counts or variable levels of success. So unlike in SR3 there is no value other past hit/miss to carry through from the inital attack roll.
QUOTE
and, like i said, if i'm invested, it's because it makes sense. i'm hardly adverse to change--i love the SR3 Matrix, but there's nothing i'd like more than to see it burned down and replaced with something that makes sense.

You mean makes sense to you. In the mind of whoever developed (one person or collectively) the vehicle combat rules those dozen plus descrete steps likely "makes sense", to. smile.gif
mfb
i actually dislike my original suggestion of having armor add dice. at TN 5, you'd have to have several billion points of armor in order for it to have any effect. i hope they don't use that part in SR4.

i don't "misunderstand" anything about the differences and parallels between D&D and SR's damage systems. both attempt to model reality in some limited fashion. in any reasonably model of reality, armor makes you not get hurt when things hit you--ie, absorbing damage that was intended to be passed on to you, ie soaking.

D&D3e differentiates between armor and dodging, but armor still creates a hit-or-miss threshold that i believe should be reserved for dodging. with the AD&D/3e model, a thick bearskin is just as effective against a 2" rock knife as it is against a dragon's bite (assuming that knife and bite are wielded with equal skill). i don't feel that this is an appropriate model of reality for a gritty cyberpunk game.
Ellery
QUOTE (blakkie)
@Ellery

So why do you think WireKnight felt the need to make a change to the core of the magic system when he was extending it?
What are you talking about? Please quote where he says he changed the core of the magic system. This involves two parts: (1) find a quote where he says he changed something (as opposed to adding it), and (2) explain why this is the core of the system.

Critias
QUOTE (Ellery)
QUOTE (blakkie)
@Ellery

So why do you think WireKnight felt the need to make a change to the core of the magic system when he was extending it?
What are you talking about? Please quote where he says he changed the core of the magic system. This involves two parts: (1) find a quote where he says he changed something (as opposed to adding it), and (2) explain why this is the core of the system.

LOL!
blakkie
QUOTE (mfb @ May 19 2005, 01:25 AM)
i actually dislike my original suggestion of having armor add dice. at TN 5,† you'd have to have several billion points of armor in order for it to have any effect. i hope they don't use that part in SR4.

I agree with that. I kinda looked there too, but thought it likely to make the fistful of dice too large, and also be hard to scale so it worked well with both high and low stat PCs.
QUOTE
i don't "misunderstand" anything about the differences and parallels between D&D and SR's damage systems.

For what it's worth I changed that wording while you were creating your reply post. After i posted i reread and didn't like how it sounded. It sounded insulting in a way i didn't mean. I also reworded some other stuff in there too. You might want to take a look.
QUOTE
both attempt to model reality in some limited fashion. in any reasonably model of reality, armor makes you not get hurt when things hit you--ie, absorbing damage that was intended to be passed on to you, ie soaking.

Umm, as i pointed out armor in SR3 does not reduce damage. You are taking a common word use of absorbing, and the slang term for Damage Resistance Test, soak, and equating them literally.

Of course if you still want to insist that the armour is where the "soak" is, they you should take another look at my suggestion. The armour isn't grouped with the Dodge at all. smile.gif EDIT: Oh, and the armour does actually reduce damage as well in my suggestion. So it is one of the "soaks" i suppose. *shrug*
QUOTE
D&D3e differentiates between armor and dodging, but armor still creates a hit-or-miss threshold that i believe should be reserved for dodging.

It creates hit or miss because D20 is hit or miss. Further you seem to imply that Dodge is hit or miss in SR3, but it isn't. Dodge successes carry forward to the staging (though many people use a somewhat different, but roughly equivalent algorithm).
QUOTE
with the AD&D/3e model, a thick bearskin is just as effective against a 2" rock knife as it is against a dragon's bite (assuming that knife and bite are wielded with equal skill).

That's a damn big assumption. smile.gif In fact with the weapons weilded with equal skill should it defend that much differently? BTW you do realise that in 3.5e the weapon class (piercing/blunt/slashing) can make a difference? Those two weapons are not the same class. The dagger is piercing or slashing (wielder's choice), the bite is piercing, blunt, and slashing all at the same time. So for some creatures and armour they are defended against differently.
QUOTE
i don't feel that this is an appropriate model of reality for a gritty cyberpunk game

What happens in D&D is that they don't worry about a given roll. They let the descrete hits/misses of fullish damage average out over time. That would be for crap in SR because the distance between full health and lying face down in the gutter is damn short, and even varying sized steps inbetween are important because of wound penalties. But that's an issue with the general hit/miss nature of D20, not nessasarily where the armor is applied.
blakkie
QUOTE (Ellery)
QUOTE (blakkie)
@Ellery

So why do you think WireKnight felt the need to make a change to the core of the magic system when he was extending it?
What are you talking about? Please quote where he says he changed the core of the magic system. This involves two parts: (1) find a quote where he says he changed something (as opposed to adding it), and (2) explain why this is the core of the system.

I already posted it. But i'll repost for you if you like.

QUOTE (Wireknight @ May 18 2005 @ 02:00 PM)

As far as anything new being a metamagic, that was a problem, one that we dealt with by breaking up every category of spellcasting, spirit summoning, generating wards, astrally perceiving, astrally projecting, etc, etc... into metamagics as well.


If you can't see immediately how that changes the rules rather than extends the magic system then you are using "extend" to mean a very different thing.

P.S. *pats Gomer on the head* Judging by your pre-ejaculation i assume you missed the post as well?
Critias
QUOTE (blakkie)
Further you seem to imply that Dodge is hit or miss in SR3, but it isn't. Dodge successes carry forward to the staging (though many people use a somewhat different, but roughly equivalent algorithm).

Actually, the entire point of mfb's disagreement with you on this is that Dodging is a hit-or-miss step in combat resolution. More specifically, it turns the attack-soak pattern into instead an attack-dodge-and/or-soak pattern, with the "dodge" bit having the ability to make the soak bit completely unecessary.

Dodge successes, if less than incoming attack successes, do "carry forward" into the staging, as you put it. But that's not why people make a Dodge attempt (if all someone wanted was extra help against staging, specifically, all we'd need to do is continue to allow CP to be used to boost soak -- but dodging has a different potential oucome). Dodging needs to be rolled seperately because dodging can completely nullify an incoming attack, and that needs to be an option because some attacks can only be overcome by being completely dodged.

Dodging is a seperate roll because it needs to be. You do not soak a touch attack into no damage (and thereby nullify a spell being cast on you). You do not soak to avoid an incoming chemical attack. There are times when all you can do is dodge an attack, and your ability to soak damage has nothing to do with what's at stake.

At times like that, it's wholly necessary to differentiate cleanly between "not being hit" and "being hit but being tough."

There are also times when -- again -- the ability to cleanly dodge an attack simply makes more sense than trying to tough it out. If a Shadowrun character is facing incoming fire from a light pistol he may not react the same as if he's facing incoming fire from a sniper rifle. The consequences of being shot are different (though the end result may ultimately be the same), and so a smart player will respond to the threats differently.

And I still fail to see how you think a seperate dodge roll -- a roll that can potentially completely replace the soak roll -- slows down combat in any appreciable manner. In a best case scenario, you roll attack, I roll dodge, we compare successes, and the action is finished. In your ideal scenario, you roll attack, I roll dodge/soak/combo, and the action is finished. In a worst case scenario, you roll attack, I roll dodge, and then I roll soak. Maybe your gaming group is a little slower to pick up and then hurl brightly colored plastic cubes than average -- but the potential addition of a single step doesn't hinder the smoothness of gameplay to the point that removing the option to dodge hinders a player's ability to respond to incoming threats.

If you like mindlessly simple -- but very quick -- combat resolution, where a lithe elf and a burly troll both handle an incoming attack in the same way, your way makes sense. If you like to think before you toss some dice, at the expense of having to spend three or maybe even five whole seconds longer sitting at a table and having fun with your friends, then -- hey golly -- I guess dodge tests don't kill anyone.
blakkie
*pats Gomer on the head* Off to bed with you now. Maybe tomorrow you can ask around and find out about when CP rolled as a Dodge Test soaks better than CP used in the Damage Resistance Test.

After that victory maybe you can work on stopping impossing SR3 limits artifically on possible SR4 mechanics.
mfb
QUOTE (blakkie)
You are taking a common word use of absorbing, and the slang term for Damage Resistance Test, soak, and equating them literally.

no, i'm describing what armor actually does. you know, in real life. i'm then describing how that real-life functionality is modelled in D&D and SR. in real life, armor absorbs damage. in SR, armor absorbs damage by making it easier to soak that damage on your damage resistance test. in D&D, armor aborsorbs that damage by increasing the difficulty of anyone making a telling blow on you.

QUOTE (blakkie)
Further you seem to imply that Dodge is hit or miss in SR3, but it isn't. Dodge successes carry forward to the staging (though many people use a somewhat different, but roughly equivalent algorithm).

no, what i'm implying--or, actually, what i'm reading directly from the rules--is that dodge allows you to completely evade an attack, so that you never need to worry about that attack's base damage. only if you fail to dodge completely do dodge successes help you reduce damage by steps.
QUOTE (blakkie)
blah blah blah i don't play D&D and it shows

it's not an assumption, it's a balancing out of extranneous factors. the point i'm trying to make has nothing to do with the skill of the attacker and everything to do with the type of attack; therefore assuming equal skill is not a big assumption at all. and speaking of damage types, that only comes into play in certain circumstances--basically, when you're fighting certain monster types. in a regular fighter-on-fighter slugfest, damage type doesn't matter at all.

and your cutsey "gomer pyle" crap does nothing to hide the fact that you completely missed the point of the post. reread what he said: it's got nothing at all to do with whether or not dodging soaks better than soaking.

Ellery
QUOTE (blakkie)
If you can't see immediately how that changes the rules rather than extends the magic system then you are using "extend" to mean a very different thing.


It looks to me like under the new rules you can do everything you could do in the old rules, plus you can swap traditional magical powers for metamagics at a price (as an edge that costs build points). Where is the change as opposed to an addition?
Critias
QUOTE
*pats Gomer on the head* Off to bed with you now.  Maybe tomorrow you can ask around and find out about when CP rolled as a Dodge Test soaks better than CP used in the Damage Resistance Test.


If you get more successes on a dodge test than the incoming attack, it misses completely and the base damage of the weapon is completely immaterial. If you get more successes on the CP-boosted-soak test, all you do is stage the damage down. The Barret 121 will miss you clean if you're smart enough to dodge it, and still fuck up your lungs if you try to just soak it (even with CP to help). I'd say that's a dodge test being "better" than using CP to help soak.

I'd also say a dodge test is "better" than using CP to help soak whenever the power of the incoming attack, modified by applicable armor, is going to be higher than the TN to attempt a dodge. If someone's firing a single shot at you from a 9M handgun and you have on 7 points of ballistic armor, maybe the CP is better spent on soaking. Likewise, if they're firing a long burst (long enough to kick the dodge TN to 6+, depending on how that compares to the modified power/armor and eventual TN to soak).

I don't need to "ask around," moron, because simple math and basic gaming savvy tells me a dodge test is "better" very fucking often than haphazardly tossing CP into a soak test and crossing my fingers. When the dodge TN is lower, when the base damage is high, or when the incoming attack is something with serious secondary effects (from lighting me on fire to being a chemical attack or touch-based spell), it's "better" to dodge than soak.

If you don't know that already, it's no wonder you (and so many other people) don't understand or appreciate the importance of Combat Pool and the necessity of spending it wisely. These importances and necessities are something that a vocal few of us are trying to impress upon the apparently cattle-minded and blinder-wearing majority, but it's pretty obvious we're fighting a losing battle against the "duhh, CP isn't important" herd.

QUOTE
After that victory maybe you can work on stopping impossing SR3 limits artifically on possible SR4 mechanics.


How is the inclusion of a dodge test -- stated by several of us as being an unique, important, and maybe even vital part of SR's combat resolution from day one -- any sort of "LIMIT" being imposed on SR4? A limit is saying something can't or won't happen (like you saying you can't or won't be able to dodge in your ideal game mechanic). You're the one artificially limiting things.

You're the one placing artificial limitations (and doing so simply because you can't or won't understand the importance and freedom and choice granted by certain rules). You're assuming that everything about the current SR system is crap, and assuming that any change (but especially a change that makes it easier for dumbasses to play well) is good. That's a fallacy. Change is not always good. Status quo is not always bad. The ability to dodge is an important part of the SR combat system. That you (and maybe one whole other person) does not see that does not make it untrue.

In closing: Refute my arguments, if you're capable of doing so. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt enough to speak to you, just a little, as if you were an intelligent adult engaged in a debate in a forum dedicated for such discussions. Return the favor, if you're mature enough.
blakkie
QUOTE
no, i'm describing what armor actually does. you know, in real life. i'm then describing how that real-life functionality is modelled in D&D and SR. in real life, armor absorbs damage. in SR, armor absorbs damage by making it easier to soak that damage on your damage resistance test. in D&D, armor aborsorbs that damage by increasing the difficulty of anyone making a telling blow on you.

Hmmm, ok. This seems to be a terminology issue. Not surprising given we are using informal slang like "soak". So when you say "damage" in relation to the SR3 rules you don't always mean "boxes of damage as found on the SR character sheet"?
QUOTE
no, what i'm implying--or, actually, what i'm reading directly from the rules--is that dodge allows you to completely evade an attack, so that you never need to worry about that attack's base damage. only if you fail to dodge completely do dodge successes help you reduce damage by steps.

Reading from the SR3 rules, yes it says that. smile.gif I'm going to start down the path to my point now, but i'll warn you it will likely take a couple of [hopefully] short Q&A posts to get there.

In SR3 you get a "hit"/"miss" from a Dodge Test, but you make the die rolls in the Dodge Test not -just- to determine a hit or miss at that stage. It can turn out that way, but you don't know one way or another till after you have rolled and you find out if your success count exceeded the attacker's.

Now if it's still a "hit" after the Dodge Test you bring the successes forward to the Damage Resolution where each of those successes represent...what would you call it? A "just about miss", a "partial miss", a "made him hit a bit farther out from my critical regions", or "i increased the angle of incidence that the slug hit at" or something else? I'm serious when I ask you what you think each of those successes are modeling. I want to see what you think they are so we don't slide off the track.
QUOTE (blakkie)
blah blah blah i don't play D&D and it shows

So you don't play D&D then? wink.gif Fine, i've never played D&D and know nothing about it other than what i overheard in a mall foodcourt from two highschoolers who were discussing their Half-Fiend/Half-Dragon/Half-Drow Gestalt characters. *shrug* So you win and we can set aside that topic for another day, or never, and concentrate on SR?
QUOTE
and your cutsey "gomer pyle" crap does nothing to hide the fact that you completely missed the point of the post. reread what he said:

I read it. I reread it. I'll never get that time back. frown.gif You haven't gronked my point yet (understandable, it's a long bridge to build). I don't mean agreed with it or not, i mean noticed it. Do you realise how long that means it likely for Critias to take?

P.S. Critias picked out the name "Gomer" himself, remember? smile.gif
Critias
No, I know what your point is. Your point is that you don't comprehend (much less appreciate) the flexibility a Dodge test gives a character in Shadowrun, you don't understand (much less enjoy) the refreshing change it represents from your standard "roll and be stupid" RPG, and you don't think the difference between dodging and soaking is worth noticing (maybe if people threw bricks at you for a while you'd learn the difference between the two, and just how important that difference can be. The more I think about it, the more I think a brick-hurilng might just be a fantastic method for not only demonstrating to you the difference between not being hit and being hit, but a fine way for the rest of us to get some much-needed stress releif after being forced to talk to you).

As a result, your awesome radical totally cool idea (aka, your "point"), and in fact your suggestion/hope/guess as to how SR4 is going to work, is that (a) dodge and soak are a single die roll, (b) that weapons no longer have a base damage, and that (comprehensive) all this complicated "die rolling" and "basic addition/subtraction" is replaced with a single attack roll, a single dodge/soak roll, and a multiplication table.

You have yet to state what sort of multiplication will be involved (how many boxes of damage does an assault rifle do per success? A pistol? Full auto? Burst fire? An unarmed attack? A knife? A sniper rifle? A grenade? Explosives? How many health levels does a metahuman even have, in Blakkierun?). Care to post up an example of Blakkierun combat for us? How many stabs does it take for a Troll to kill a Human? How many shots from a pistol to kill an Ork? How does magic fit in? Drain?

But, I digress by asking for details. I get your point. It's been noticed, and was, in fact, noticed several pages back.

I just disagree with it, not only because it's your point, but because it's built on a flawed foundation. Rather than solid ground, or in fact even loose sand, Blakkierun's combat system is built on a foundation of wrong, stupid, and ignorant, with a mineral composition that includes a pinch of faster gameplay. Blakkierun, as such, is a building just waiting to crash down on the empty head of any fool stupid enough to step inside.

You keep insisting change is good, the current system is bad, and everything (from combat to magic) needs to be torched and rebuilt. You preach that any of us who want any aspect of the combat system to move from SR3 to SR4 are out-dated. You insist that nothing good can come from keeping any angle of the SR combat system. That quite simply isn't so, or Shadowrun wouldn't even be around to launch a 4th Edition. I can only hope the dev team understands that they do have a good thing going, and that they're trying to polish up the diamond they've got (instead of eat the diamond and shit it out). The simple truth is that Shadowrun -- even SR3 -- is a good thing, or DS wouldn't be as busy a forum as it is. Shadowrun, beleive it or not, must be doing something right. Destroying all that and replacing it with too "streamlined" a gaming experience is a horrible mistake. Refer to my "eating the diamond and shitting it out" example, for an appropriate graphic.

Now. Maybe you noticed, and maybe you didn't (since these posts have been so short and all), but I got fucking tired of just smarting off to you, and decided to instead debate with you a little, since that's what we're all here for and I just plain got bored with listening to you be wrong and when corrected by others just keep being wrong. I wanted to take a swing at the pinata myself. Maybe it's time for you to do the same -- respond to my posts like a DS member, not a seevn year old, and we'll see if maybe the conversation can go somewhere constructive. Th'ball is in your court, slick.
blakkie
Gomer, do you actually think that after your numerous posts that consisted of nothing more than (feeble) insult snipes that i'm going treat your knife-to-a-gunfight posts with anything less than total contempt? If those posts would have had a portion of the content relavent to SR4 instead of stuff like classless toadying, or you had some flair so i could find something to appreciate in the workmanship of the insults. But nothing.

I can be abrasive, i can be crass, i can cut slack to people that give slack, i can ease up on people that ease up, i can engage in real dialog, i can listen, i can be co-operative, and i can be helpful. But in the end i repay what i am given.

Enjoy what you have given, Gomer.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012