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.

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

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?

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?

This is the one i was talking about.

... 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.

*shrug*

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

No, just suspect. 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?

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.

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

@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.

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.

But it's not the absurdiest one.

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.

It's also wrong.

Brevity is not wit, nor is wit brevity.

Yeah... About that.

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.

Anyone know where the BRS is on the Crimsondude 2.0? Looks like its processing unit flaked out and locked up again.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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. EDIT: Oh, and the armour does actually reduce damage as well in my suggestion. So it is one of the "soaks" i suppose. *shrug*

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).

That's a damn big assumption. 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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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"?

Reading from the SR3 rules, yes it says that. 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.

So you don't play D&D then? 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?

I read it. I reread it. I'll never get that time back. 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?