Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: SR4 FAQ #5--The Real One
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Geko
You're assuming that the creation process/costs will remain the same. Nuff said.
Nikoli
Why on earth are you assuming that the SR3 point costs will be used in SR4?

With magic being a normal attribute as opposed to an instand 6 for 30 CP it's just another stat. That means it may be considerably cheaper to make a full magician, compensate this with the skills.

I have a sneaking suspicion that a 3 magic/3 in all the skills will put you on par with a 6 sorcery/conjuration mage in sr3.
Crimsondude 2.0
QUOTE (Grinder @ May 13 2005, 04:05 AM)
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ May 13 2005, 10:59 AM)
Nah, that's not streamlined. At least not compared to just allowing people to take up to 6 skill points in a skill at chargen.

Firearms was split up in SR3 - so now that happens to the next general skill. Don't think it's that bad.

Oh, well I meant that his suggestion is not as simple as just saying, "You have 6 skills to use magic. None of them can exceed 6 (as per the chargen system they've already mentioned). Have at it" vs. linking them to the Magic attribute.

QUOTE (PenAgain)
Think about it- if the game is relying upon an Att + Skill combo for dice pools, won't your Magic rating add directly into each of those skills? So to have a roughly equivalent power level to SR3 or your-favorite-previous-edition, you only have to have the Skill at 2 (provided you were able to acquire Magic 6, which we still don't know all that much about.)

Great... The Grade 10 Initiate doesn't even need to have a Sorcery skill to do anything. That's pretty dumb.

QUOTE (Critias)
It looks more and more like the only "streamlining" that's going on is the dumbing down of the actual die mechanic, and the removal of most round-by-round tactical thinking.  Super.  This is the opposite of good.

Well, streamlining now seems to include making a fifteen-page character sheet for all your skills.

QUOTE (Patrick Goodman)
Oh, and Crimsondude? It's not that bad. I know you don't tend to take my word for it, nor should you, but I like the magic chapter

Do not assume my heavy questioning stands in for a value judgment. I am indifferent to these ideas. If done well, they'd be great. However, if done poorly...

Right now most of my questions involve Rob's references to "legacy systems" and "complex mechanics" and things that are apparently Super Evil and Suckyô in SR3 that have been around since SR1 or 2, but yet aren't important enough to actually enumerate a single one. I have no clue where Rob's coming from with these comments, and if anyone else did that I'd be all over his shit, too.

QUOTE (Nikoli)
How many folks have lamented that it's an entirely different game when you play a mage or a decker or a rigger in SR1~3?

Not me. Perhaps that's why I can't appreciate his references to problems that apparently everyone can see just fine.

QUOTE (Nikoli)
If your Wiz-kid doesn't concern himself with conjuring anything, don't put much into that skill.  This could also be the key to aspected and adepts in the new mechanics, but that may be reaching.

Well, like you said... If I didn't care to conjure, I'd play a Sorceror Adept.

QUOTE
There should be more to your specialty than buying 1 or 2 skills and bamn you're the best there is until a new book comes out and you're rendered obsolete.

Like Computers?

But they won't be rendered obsolete. They'll just be rendered less powerful or insanely powerful in how they are to allocate SR3 Sorcery to the SR4 Sorcery skills.

QUOTE (RangerJoe)
Actually, I've got to disagree with you there, Kage. The nature of magic is world-defining, but the traditions that invoke it are not. At the risk of sounding slightly meta, the fact that all traditions will have to follow the same rules for magic means that there is one unified magical system at work in the SR universe (I feel dirty for saying that there is a relationship between a game mechanic and a game reality, but so it goes).

I wonder if this means even Hermetics will get dice pool bonuses, or whether they'll just disappear.

Makes traditions easier when there's no real problem trying to fit the existing Traditions into a creation system (e.g., like how a comprehensive Totem creation system can't make several totems without handwaving or introducing skewing elements).

But my favorite part is that now I might be able to make up whatever spirits I want with whatever stats and powers I want and make them exclusive to the CD2.0 Tradition. Yay!

QUOTE (Ranneko)
And you can finally make that Toaster shaman one of the books mentioned in a shadowcomment.  nyahnyah.gif

THere have been guidelines for Totem Creation since Awakenings. But a system with numbers and values for dice mods doesn't work because of Totems like Horse who get to take Movement as a Metamagic.

But that's Totem creation. This is the more meta Tradition creation, like when they created Voudoun, Wujen, Path magic, etc.
Rolemodel
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
But my question remains, where does Centering fit into all of this?

Ordinarily, as an intergral member of a highly secretive RPG engine design team, I'm not supposed to let cats out of the bag. Particularly large, scary alley cats that go by the name of 'Centering'.

But.

To answer your question, we removed centering completely. We thought it was pretty silly, actually, and only made sense after a dozen or so cocktails, a few thai sticks, and a fucking half a pound of fine china.

Also, we took out the 'Cat' option from the Totem list much to the dismay of alot angsty goth kids. While the overall originality of character concepts should rise dramatically, we are a bit concerned about a backlash of depressing poetry.

-RM

"I haven't figured out how to say FUCK YOU politely."
Crimsondude 2.0
QUOTE (Rolemodel @ May 13 2005, 02:00 PM)
Also, we took out the 'Cat' option from the Totem list much to the dismay of alot angsty goth kids.  While the overall originality of character concepts should rise dramatically, we are a bit concerned about a backlash of depressing poetry.

Heh, yeah... Like Goth kids reflect in any way aspects of the Cat Totem.

QUOTE (Umbrage)
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ May 13 2005, 10:14 AM)

These are PCs with 1000+ karma that have existed since SR1.

Eff that.

indifferent.gif What kinda runs do you throw at a character with a Karma Pool in the 50-100 dice range?

Few and very high-end ones with powerful enemies who are also incredibly, devilishly intelligent (and intelligently played). A PC like this could have run Brainscan alone if not scaled and broken the game when they're supposed to be captured and hooked up to Deus' UV realm but instead tear a massive hole into the side of the Arc and download Deus without anyone touching them.

In those cases, the games are more ... interesting and story-driven.

QUOTE (GunnerJ)
I don't see why some are so upset about Centering: I've long felt it cost far too much to get far too little. The obvious solution under this setup is that there is no Centering skill, you simply add an artistic skill to your pool when performing magical tasks (or something similar). Much more elegant, much more cost effective.

So you've never tried to reduce the penalties to cast a spell against a TN of 20, or shrug off drain when you're casting several powerful spells to cover your team's back? I guess we run different games then.

Adding the artistic skill to your dice roll just makes your magic more artsy. How it relates to the magical aspects of Centering do not compute to me.

QUOTE
I always hated the kludgey way traditions like voodoo, wujen, and path of the wheel got shoe-horned into the existing paradigm. At least such a system, if it's the basis for all tradition design, will allow such oddities to be integrated into the whole system instead of feeling like jellyfish thumb-tacked onto a bicycle.

I don't understand this at all, unless you're suggesting that all of the Traditions should be virtually identical. I liked the original creation of Voudoun as a separate Tradition with its own aspects that required it to fill a good chunk of Awakenings. MitS just screwed it up by trying to pigeonhole it into the Totem/Idol structure--probably more of that "streamlining" that people like to talk about. In exchange, they completely ruined all of the good of Voudoun. It's not like they've been adding Traditions after Traditions. Idols have been treated like Totems since they were introduced in 1994 (in the U.S.). But Druids have been shoehorned into Hermeticism and Totem magic (with their own Totems), All Western Theurgy was stuck in Hermeticism. Path magic hasn't changed much, nor should it really, in how it's used within the rules.

They could either create new rules for each Tradition or stick them in the Big Two, but I don't see how this, for example, created such an awful "legacy system" in the rules. Moreover, I don't see why they couldn't have fixed things in SR3 if it was so bad. It's not like they didn't try with some things. With this description, though, it seems more like Magic is going to be completely different and I have yet to see one reason why it should be.
Grinder
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
QUOTE (Grinder @ May 13 2005, 04:05 AM)
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ May 13 2005, 10:59 AM)
Nah, that's not streamlined. At least not compared to just allowing people to take up to 6 skill points in a skill at chargen.

Firearms was split up in SR3 - so now that happens to the next general skill. Don't think it's that bad.

Oh, well I meant that his suggestion is not as simple as just saying, "You have 6 skills to use magic. None of them can exceed 6 (as per the chargen system they've already mentioned). Have at it" vs. linking them to the Magic attribute.

Sorry, can't really catch the thougt you have. Can you explain it in other words, understandable for non-native english speakers? smile.gif
Crimsondude 2.0
Context:

QUOTE
QUOTE (chevalier_neon)
I don't think it will lower the magus power... It's only depending on how things will be done. If, by example, the magical skills value is based on your magic attribute, it could still allow quiet powerfull character (ie : 6 x magic attribute to allow in your magical skills...)...

Nah, that's not streamlined. At least not compared to just allowing people to take up to 6 skill points in a skill at chargen.

The suggestion seemed to suggest treating magic like how knowledge skill points are allocated.

I think it defeats all the talk of "streamlining." It is easier to not touch that at all, and stick with the current rules for purchasing Active Skills at chargen.

QUOTE
I honestly don't understand the confusion here. Look at things like voodoo and wujen and path of the wheel. Look at psionics. Look at the Idol system (a good, but flawed, idea IMO). Look at Anchoring, for chrissakes. It's hard to articulate in words the psychological cringe that overcame me when I read the rules for these systems.


Yeah, well... Your lack of comprehension is not my problem.

QUOTE
They were so haphazzard, they just felt thrown in. Why does voodoo get its own totems and spirits when every Native American tradition from the North Pole to Cape Horn gets lumped under the generic Shamanism? Why can't I, with Anchoring, make a bloody staff that shoots lighting bolts and can be used more than once and doesn't make the crafter of the staff feel drain whether he's actually the one using it or not?

With re: to Anchoring, because SR3 "fixed" it, and by fixed I mean made much worse, which is the same thing as making non-active biomass astrally equivalent to air.

As for why they get their own rules... Because it's a whole different worldview. The entire Totem system is fucked simply because it rammed not just NA shamanism but all inidigenous "shamanism" into one system where everyone follows animal totem archetypes instead of how NA magical belief systems actually work. So unless they tear down Shamanism completely or eliminate it (which I doubt they will. Call it a complete and utter distrust of every effing thing they do and their intentions) then it will still remain a fucked up system if for no other reason that because it plays a minor part in magical world view but has been, and will continue to be, one of the Big Two Traditions. So if there are "legacy system" problems that they're going to "fix" then the best thing they could do was fix Shamanism by eliminating it or reduce it from its pedestal as one of only two Traditions you can play--a system that was flawed from conception and is why other Traditions exist (beginning with Druids, then Idols, Path of the Wheel, Loa, and Wujen) to reflect the fact that in the bigger picture Hermeticism and Shamanism are far from the only magical systems in SR.

This isn't a "problem." It's a damn good thing, and when MitS did a 180 and completely neutered Voudoun it was a failure on their part to make things better.

But we're talking about mechanics that were added on top of each other, like... Like... See, I don't know what they are talking about. Unless they want to make summoning uniform across every Tradition now, and that's the only example I can think of. I also think that would be a very bad idea because the summoning of different spirits should at least reflect that they are different spirit types.

QUOTE
Am I really the only who sees what's being talked about here? Who has felt, or just intuitively known, how much the SR magic system, designed for a few specific roles, strained with every new addition trying to interpret one common theme of magic after another in terms of rules that were just never designed for that kind of expansion?

Yes. The existing system is more intuitive to me than just neutering any mechanical differences between the Traditions or whatever nonsense they're going to do to Magic to dumb it down.
Ellery
If I pretend that I don't know anything about SR3, the FAQ sounds great. Nasty, exception-filled, inextensible system being replaced with a nice, extensible, consistent system. Great! I'm all for it.

Except I actually know the SR3 system. I've never had any trouble extending the system. Neither did FASA. Yes, new metamagics do something new. That's why there's a point in taking them. Some of them require new rules, because they're doing something sufficiently new to not fit into old rules (e.g. masking). Some just require a refinement (e.g. shielding). I don't see the huge problems that are supposed to be fixed. Can someone else clearly enumerate the problems with the SR3 magic system that need to be fixed?

So it's hard to know whether I should be encouraged or worried. On the encouraging side, the rhetoric sounds perfect. On the worrying side, they're bashing their own product without apparent cause; if they view SR3 magic as horribly broken, what, one wonders, do they regard as fixed?
Eldritch
QUOTE
Are you reposting that same message over and over or is the board going mad?


Weird - read the text though - it's different. With someone elses sigs.

I think the board is going mad....

But I didn't post those two funky looking posts.
Crimsondude 2.0
QUOTE (Ellery @ May 13 2005, 02:26 PM)
So it's hard to know whether I should be encouraged or worried.  On the encouraging side, the rhetoric sounds perfect.  On the worrying side, they're bashing their own product without apparent cause; if they view SR3 magic as horribly broken, what, one wonders, do they regard as fixed?

Oh, yeah. That's an encouraging sign that they feel the need to bash the product that they had some sort of a hand in building unless MitS was written late one night by Steve and Mike and pushed out the door without anyone else's knowledge (specifically, that of the 90 playtesters) and that they are washing their hands of having that taint, but also the taint of Paul Hume's work in SR1/2 and the original design team.

Just because MitS is a poorly-written sourcebook doesn't mean we should burn down the entire system.
Grinder
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
Context:

QUOTE
QUOTE (chevalier_neon)
I don't think it will lower the magus power... It's only depending on how things will be done. If, by example, the magical skills value is based on your magic attribute, it could still allow quiet powerfull character (ie : 6 x magic attribute to allow in your magical skills...)...

Nah, that's not streamlined. At least not compared to just allowing people to take up to 6 skill points in a skill at chargen.

The suggestion seemed to suggest treating magic like how knowledge skill points are allocated.

I think it defeats all the talk of "streamlining." It is easier to not touch that at all, and stick with the current rules for purchasing Active Skills at chargen.

Thanks a lot smile.gif

I don't think streamlining means having only a handful skills. Streamlining can also mean imo that basic skills like firearms, spellcasting or decking are split up into sub-skills, treating every skill group the same way.
Eldritch
QUOTE
I don't think streamlining means having only a handful skills. Streamlining can also mean imo that basic skills like firearms, spellcasting or decking are split up into sub-skills, treating every skill group the same way.


You mean like have a list of broad skills, that are expensive, concentrations that are a little less, and specializations that are cheap?

Yeah,.....That'd be cool. wink.gif
Catsnightmare
QUOTE (apple)

Splitting skills up for a rule system which is supposed to be streamlined and much more easier?
SYL

LOL, this really sums up my confidence in the new system. Simplified and streamlined my ass.
chevalier_neon
It might be easier to have one skill for each task you want to perform, and also more realistic... Could you please explain me why streamlined would be the opposite of accurate ?
If I was a rookie in SR, I would appreciate to understand alone what my character can do... Sorry for trolling, but I have the strange feeling that most of you, guys, would have like to see a SR4 with no changes compared to SR3...
I will tell a little bit more about myself... I am a great fan of Vampire the Mascarade (having all the books since 1st ed.) ... And the new "edition" has nothing to deal with the old one (some like, some dislike)... In your case, you, SR players, you have the chance to get a new revised SR, with the same background, but a more efficient system... And without having seen it, you are sending this core book to death row ?!? You are thinking too much in SR3 ways to fully understand SR4... We don't know anything at all... Maybe the char gen system will be entirely different and so on...
So, forgive my ranting, but I think that yours are not really constructive neither...

Sorry if my english is bad, but I am french (nobody's flawless... )
Ellery
I don't think there's anything wrong with splitting up or combining skills. That's pretty much a neutral change. If they think it works better with SR4 to have them split, that's fine with me--hopefully it'll work better with the new system.

But that doesn't have much bearing on whether the system will be unified or not, or extensible or not. You could have narrowly-tuned, precisely defined skills for each aspect of magical activity, each of which work in a completely different way, and which cannot be built upon. That's arguably worse than the current system. Or, the skills could break things down along natural lines and provide a unifying framework for each different type of magical activity (and be diverse enough to handle anything you could possibly want). That's arguably better.

What I wonder is why they think the current magic system is so bad.
Crimsondude 2.0
QUOTE (Ellery)
What I wonder is why they think the current magic system is so bad.

Sorry. State secrets. We can't tell you. If we did, we'd have to kill you.
frostPDP
The reason I was using SR3's chargen is because, despite all the changes coming to SR4, I doubt they are going to heavily, heavily alter the basic character paradigm of:

Awakenedness
Attributes
Skills
Race
Nuyen

Mages already get it for the Awakendness. No big deal, thats to be expected. In SR3, most mage characters I saw were based around a low-skill threshold so that quickness, willpower and intellegence get maxed (or at least close-to) in leiu of heavy 'ware. Race didn't always come into play, but elves are cool. Nuyen? Nah, not huge in play, but by this point they've already spent 66 build points on stuff, and they need attributes in other things as well (so they don't pop if they're poked). Skills are left on the backburner.

So yeah, chargen might be nothing like it currently is and I might be able to replicate my elf full mage with sorcery skills all at 6 and some left over for pistols and SMGs, as well as a few points in stealth and athletics and blah blah.

Or, as has been suggested (and would be so hawt yet completely unfair and silly...Well...Then again, read on!), a Grade 10 initiate could just throw 17 spellcasting dice for everything she does, having only a one in every sorcery skill....But then again, a street sam with (insert quickness replacement here) and assault rifles 4 can throw eight dice at said mage, probably before the mage moves. And burst fire = Fun for sams, blood for wizzies. So maybe it IS fair that a Mage could wind up a one-turn, mass-destruction tool...But I doubt it.
Solstice
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)


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 didnít 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 werenít built to accomodate other uses. The result was a system that accumulated rules detritus like a ship gathers barnacles. Thatís 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 didnít, 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 didnít, and reassembling it into a working whole, with new parts to replace the missing ones or damaged ones. We also didnít 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 didnít 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 didnít have a dozen different systems trying to accomplish what one could do. I think we went a long way toward accomplishing that.



That was one of the most rediculous things I've ever read related to SR4.
chevalier_neon
I would really hate this... I would really hate a troll with 13 in force and 1 in brawl throwing 14 dices... He should throw one dice for brawl, and if he can hit, make 13 as damage... That's why I hope they will do a rule with no more dice pool than your skill rating x 2... Same for mages smile.gif
Eldritch
QUOTE
n your case, you, SR players, you have the chance to get a new revised SR, with the same background, but a more efficient system... And without having seen it, you are sending this core book to death row ?!? You are thinking too much in SR3 ways to fully understand SR4... We don't know anything at all... Maybe the char gen system will be entirely different and so on...
So, forgive my ranting, but I think that yours are not really constructive neither...


More efficient system is yet to be determined. Potentially more effecient. Possibly more efficient. *shrug*

And we do know some things, yeah, it's not much, but so far it's enough. We get totally different rules, and a setting change.

The rework of the magic system mentioned today is another potential indicator of a setting change.

Like I said earlier; Should we start pitching new names for this new game?? That may be helpful.

Unfortunetly, like you sad, all this 'ranting' may not be constructive, but sitting around saying, "All is sweetness and light. Everyhting is fine" Isn't helpful either. We all realize that the Devs have made up their mind, We're just hoping against hope that we'll get through to them. Doubtful. But it makes us feel better. smile.gif

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"
blakkie
QUOTE (Eldritch)
QUOTE (blakkie @ May 13 2005, 02:29 PM)
QUOTE (Eldritch @ May 13 2005, 03:06 AM)
*shrug*† But thats just my view of it.. Can anyone enlighten me as to what he's saying about the current/legacy system?

The magic system has accomodated additions since the beginning, and without 'entirely new Methods'.

What he is likely talking about there is, for example, how as spells were added over editions and time that they started doing entirely different things with TNs, resistance, Force, etc. on a case by case basis. In a lot of ways out of nessasity, there was no extendable framework in place. The result is a grimore that is very patchwork and uneven.

Yeah, spells were added over editions. And subtracted. But you shouldn't have been using spells form the first edition rule book in a 3rd game. Not without tweaking them to the new rule set. The spells they wanted in the game were reprinted with each new rule set - 2nd, 3rd, etc.

I was refering to the SR3-updated version of the spells, and the ones added in MitS.

My god man, look at the sprawl catch-all that Manipulations has become. It became so big that it grew sub-catagories. Sub-catagorization that appears to have little to no game consequences.
blakkie
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ May 13 2005, 10:14 AM)

These are PCs with 1000+ karma that have existed since SR1.

Eff that.


Those kind of characters are going to be redos. Personally all along i've been expecting that anything over a couple hundred karma are going to be redos. I wouldn't even bother counting karma when rebuilding them. Just add and subtract as needed till it looks right.

Sort of like those "How to build a [Movie Character Du'jour]" threads that pop up periodically on the main DSF.

That's an awakened PC, right? How many Grades do those characters have?
blakkie
QUOTE (frostPDP @ May 13 2005, 04:11 PM)
The reason I was using SR3's chargen is because, despite all the changes coming to SR4, I doubt they are going to heavily, heavily alter the basic character paradigm of:

Awakenedness
Attributes
Skills
Race
Nuyen

.....

Holy brain stuck in SR3, Batman. Within that paradigm you can have a very wide range of weightings for things. For starters given that the Magic attribute is variable at character creation just the part specifying that a character is awakened needs a redo.

Further do you really think that they would go through the time and effort to shakedown all parts of the system but leave character generation intact to the point that you can actually mix in SR3 chargen numbers????

That said it is quite possible with a larger group of skills that awakened characters are going to have specialize more (like gun slingers did going from SR2 to SR3), or cover all magical catagories but be sub-par in them all. By specialization i mean either specialize in a particular aspect of magic (no more casting & conjuring godlings, you have to start as either a casting godling or a conjuring godling) or specialize in magical skills to the determent of all other character aspects (casting & conjuring idiot savant).

Personally i don't see that as patently bad at all.
Crimsondude 2.0
QUOTE (blakkie)
Those kind of characters are going to be redos. Personally all along i've been expecting that anything over a couple hundred karma are going to be redos. I wouldn't even bother counting karma when rebuilding them. Just add and subtract as needed till it looks right.

Sort of like those "How to build a [Movie Character Du'jour]" threads that pop up periodically on the main DSF.

That's an awakened PC, right? How many Grades do those characters have?

More than your average GD according to DotSW.

The problem is that they're not building some PC to be a best fit to someone else's conception. These are their own PCs with 15 years of backstory and history to them. It's disingenuous to ask them to build a "best fit" PC within the scope of stats that the devs for years have tried to pretend don't exist. There really isn't much of a conception in SR that you can have an Initiate who can run out of canon Metamagics.
blakkie
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ May 13 2005, 06:16 PM)
QUOTE (blakkie @ May 13 2005, 05:47 PM)
That's an awakened PC, right?† How many Grades do those characters have?

More than your average GD according to DotSW.

The problem is that they're not building some PC to be a best fit to someone else's conception. These are their own PCs with 15 years of backstory and history to them. It's disingenuous to ask them to build a "best fit" PC within the scope of stats that the devs for years have tried to pretend don't exist. There really isn't much of a conception in SR that you can have an Initiate who can run out of canon Metamagics.

Sounds like the character has kinda out grown [canon] SR3 too? What does the PC actually do to pass the time?
Crimsondude 2.0
Ask their players.
Cynic project
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
QUOTE (apple @ May 13 2005, 02:55 AM)
QUOTE (chevalier_neon @ May 13 2005, 03:53 AM)
If I aml mistaken, well...† biggrin.gif

I would rather say, that, for example, if you have counterspelling, you can now add shilding possibilities to the skill.

But my question remains, where does Centering fit into all of this?

Is it a tertiary magical skill you should buy at chargen, or does it become an aspect of your magical skills? If so, and this would suck, do you have to purchase it for each skill? Does it even require a test anymore to use, or what?

Well, the way I see it it could go a few ways. One you don't need the skill centering. you just need the art skill that is linked to it. Such as singing, debating dancing or what not.

Or you could use centering like adepts, and just be thankful that they are least still giving you cake with your sodomy.
Crimsondude 2.0
Well, I'd prefer not to have the sodomy in the first place though.

I guess I'm just crazy like that.
Cynic project
But that is not what is at stake. What is at stake is if you get to have cake or not.
Crimsondude 2.0
What kind of cake?
Kesh
QUOTE (SR4 FAQ @ Part Five)


Now to get back on track with SR4 FAQ updates. Here are a few answers regarding magic:


Ahh, been looking forward to this.

QUOTE
Q. Will Magic skills be broken up like firearms in SR3?
A. Magic is roughly divided into two categories for the core book, Sorcery and Conjuring. Rather than being skills of their own, however, those are general categories. The Sorcery skills are Spellcasting, Ritual Spellcasting, and Counterspelling. The Conjuring skills are Summoning, Banishing, and Binding. Those are the skills that do most of the heavy lifting for magic in SR4.


Works for me. I'm especially interested in that Ritual Spellcasting skill... perhaps we'll finally see ritual magic get a bit more attention than before.

QUOTE
Q. Will there still be Metamagic?
A. Yes, though itís not exactly the same. Rather than relying on a host of new additional skills, weíve redesigned metamagic techniques to grant new abilities to skills the magician should already have access to. Metamagic does not make a huge appearance in the core book, however. There just isnít enough room to include it all.


Very interesting. I'm going to make a wild-ass assumption and say that metamagic like Centering or Geasa will simply add dice to whatever skill you're using when it's in effect.

QUOTE
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.


Thank (insert deity here)! biggrin.gif

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 didnít 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 werenít built to accomodate other uses. The result was a system that accumulated rules detritus like a ship gathers barnacles. Thatís 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 didnít, 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 didnít, and reassembling it into a working whole, with new parts to replace the missing ones or damaged ones. We also didnít 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 didnít 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 didnít have a dozen different systems trying to accomplish what one could do. I think we went a long way toward accomplishing that.


Hmmm. I'll have to wait and see here, but I'm really liking what I see so far.
Crimsondude 2.0
QUOTE (Kesh @ May 14 2005, 12:26 AM)
Very interesting. I'm going to make a wild-ass assumption and say that metamagic like Centering or Geasa will simply add dice to whatever skill you're using when it's in effect.

Geasa? Oh, heh. Yeah. I forgot that some people don't just take the hit to magic, but have GMs who allow them take easily-circumvented impositions on their abilities to perform magic to be able to act at their full potential.

QUOTE (Kesh)
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 didnít 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 werenít built to accomodate other uses. The result was a system that accumulated rules detritus like a ship gathers barnacles. Thatís 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 didnít, 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 didnít, and reassembling it into a working whole, with new parts to replace the missing ones or damaged ones. We also didnít 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 didnít 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 didnít have a dozen different systems trying to accomplish what one could do. I think we went a long way toward accomplishing that.


Hmmm. I'll have to wait and see here, but I'm really liking what I see so far.

Then could you translate it from crazy?
Demonseed Elite
QUOTE
Then could you translate it from crazy?


I can cite my own personal madness inspired by Shadowrun's magic system. Rob's right about it accumulating "rules detritus like a ship gathers barnacles." He's also right about the problems inherent in it being a "legacy system." I don't think I can even count the number of times, as a freelancer, I was driven to near madness trying to fit a regional belief system into Shadowrun's rigidly limited magic system. SR1, and due to legacy, SR2 and SR3 revolved around one interpretation of hermeticism (inspired by Western European tradition) and one interpretation of shamanism (inspired by Native American tradition). And they hardwired those two systems right into the rules. So anything that came after had to either fit into their two limited definitions of hermeticism/shamanism or it had to add systems. Many didn't fit very well, and so we added exceptions and systems for Voudoun, Wuxing, Wicca, etc. And with each one we added, the rules got more out of hand. New spirit types were added, new types of foci were added, new mechanics for summoning spirits were added, and so on. All because we couldn't fit what we wanted to do into what we were originally given and were forced to either shortchange the accuracy or add systems.

So if SR4 makes for a more flexible system right out of the gate, that would make me happy.
SirBedevere
QUOTE (Eldritch)
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"


No it isn't. The earth is rising! biggrin.gif
blakkie
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0 @ May 13 2005, 06:37 PM)
Ask their players.

Huh? You are the one that knows the players. Do they post on DSF?

BTW all the massive Karama, pre-SR3 PCs i know retired some time back from active play. The only time they show up at the table they are unto NPC gods, nearly statless (although one, non-awakened, got roasted good when a trunkload of autocannon ammo and grenades cooked off).
Zen Shooter01
I think what we've seen so far looks very interesting.

One thing that's very popular in RPGs is "half magic" characters. A lot of players like characters who have a few magic tricks, but aren't 110% wizards. Look at the popularity of Fighter 1/Wizard 2, Rogue 3/Sorcerer 1 types in D&D.

By making magic a purchasable attribute and splitting up the skills, a lot more possibilities open up for characters to dabble in magic. In SR thus far, it didn't make any sense to have "a little". Once you invested a huge chunk of points in just having a magic attribute, there was no sense in having low Sorcery and Conjuring. It's like spending a hundred grand putting up a house but then putting no furniture in it. With the new rules, you can buy as little or as much magic ability as you want.

The complaint that this will make characters lower-powered at generation is totally absurd in light of the fact that we know character generation will be on a point-buy system. It will be the easiest thing in the world for GMs to raise or lower the number of points to their taste. And I think the designers do have the brains to anticipate that if they create an environment where a beginning character needs a higher number of skills, that character will need a higher number of build points to buy them.

The relentless negativity of siezing every nugget of FAQ information and then using it to cast the vast unknown continent of SR4 in the worst possible light is no good to anyone. While we're all eager to read whatever previews the FAQ has to offer, we won't really know what's what until we have a new BBB before us.

Eldritch
QUOTE

One thing that's very popular in RPGs is "half magic" characters. A lot of players like characters who have a few magic tricks, but aren't 110% wizards. Look at the popularity of Fighter 1/Wizard 2, Rogue 3/Sorcerer 1 types in D&D.


Then play Urban Arcana. That's not SR, never has been. in the SR Setting magic was a rarity. Yeah as PC's in the world we see more of it than a regualr citizen. With what we are assuming; that with magic being bought in stages, maybe that'll mean you can have someone that dabbles in magic - magic will become much more common. Yeah, that will eventually happen anyway with the rise in mana levels, but not in just a few years, it should be taking hundreds of years.

QUOTE
The complaint that this will make characters lower-powered at generation is totally absurd in light of the fact that we know character generation will be on a point-buy system. It will be the easiest thing in the world for GMs to raise or lower the number of points to their taste. And I think the designers do have the brains to anticipate that if they create an environment where a beginning character needs a higher number of skills, that character will need a higher number of build points to buy them.

IF they make the point buy system completely linear then yes, You could set the points at what ever power level you want.
And IF they provide guidelines for differing campaing levels; ie 100 for the ganger/street level campaign, 200 for the professional level (Similar to what we have now) and 300 for the prime runner campaign.

It is a WAG, but everything points to them changing to a lower powered campaign. But we won't know till they either say something, or we get the book.



QUOTE
The relentless negativity of siezing every nugget of FAQ information and then using it to cast the vast unknown continent of SR4 in the worst possible light is no good to anyone. While we're all eager to read whatever previews the FAQ has to offer, we won't really know what's what until we have a new BBB before us


Well that just some of us speaking our peace, some of us are speaking positively about the change. It seems like 'reletless negativity' becuase those of us that oppose the changes presented to us seem to be in the majority. Those of you thta are positive about it either aren't posting, or aren't here smile.gif

Ellery
QUOTE (Demonseed Elite)
I don't think I can even count the number of times, as a freelancer, I was driven to near madness trying to fit a regional belief system into Shadowrun's rigidly limited magic system.
All right, I can see how that would be a problem for freelancers. Less so for players, though, as they less often come up with new regional belief systems and insist upon them being viable in SR. So I guess some of FAQ5 is comprehensible from the standpoint of a developer who doesn't want their rules to tie their hands.

QUOTE (Demonseed Elite)
Many didn't fit very well, and so we added exceptions and systems for Voudoun, Wuxing, Wicca, etc. And with each one we added, the rules got more out of hand.
Voudoun have totem bonuses and conjure as if they were conjuring nature spirits. They cast like everyone else. Wuxing--you mean Wujen, right?--summon spirits of the elements and use libraries and circles. Wicca are hermetic or shamanic as they see fit. That's it in terms of basic mechanics. How is that out of hand? Maybe it's not what the developers wanted, but as a player it's hardly out of hand.

There are new types of spirits with new powers. In this way, yes, different magical traditions do have some differences. If they're all the same, why even bother making the distinction? Just say, "This is a magician," and they can associate whatever regional flavor they want, which is completely meaningless except as flavor. That's pretty dull, and could be done even more than it was in SR3. No need to change everything. Just say, "They summon nature spirits and call them something else."

The problem comes only if you want a regional variant to have unique and different powers. And then you're really required to have different rules. So it's not as though you're going to get away from having different rules. If you can think of them all at the beginning, it's easier to find them, which is nice. But that's a matter of consolidation not "OMG, look at all the barnacles!". The rules won, in this case, and the added rules detritus was minimal (at the expense, perhaps, of the setting that the author really wanted to create).

QUOTE (Demonseed Elite)
New spirit types were added, new types of foci were added, new mechanics for summoning spirits were added, and so on.
Er, so you would prefer to have a system where every supplement was a piece of fiction only, and didn't introduce any new rules? That's not a very good business decision, if the profusion of D&D rulebooks is any indication.

So I'm still puzzled. My best guess is that the developers decided that they are tired of the magic setting they have devised for SR1-3, and want to revise the setting a lot. Don't forget: in SR1-3, most magicians were either hermetic or shamanic; one could summon elementals and bind them, while the other could summon nature spirits on the fly; one studied in libraries and the other in lodges; and you know, that was about it. If there are piles of viable traditions that warrant changing the basic mechanic to remove these distinctions, then it's a major change in the setting. I'm not saying this is bad, mind you. Its goodness or badness depends on how well it's implemented, both in fiction and in rules. But in that case the FAQ doesn't really explain why there is a change. I'd say instead:

"Over the years, many magical traditions have been added, and squeezed into the distinction of Hermetic and Shamanic magic, even when it's an awkward fit. We think we can better incorporate a wide range of magical traditions without the old emphasis on the Hermetic/Shamanic split. We've redesigned the magic rules so that each tradition, from Wicca to Voudoun to Druidic magic, can be as important as any other, using a common set of rules."

Something like this I could believe. I still don't see the barnacles.

QUOTE (Zen Shooter01)
The relentless negativity of siezing every nugget of FAQ information and then using it to cast the vast unknown continent of SR4 in the worst possible light is no good to anyone.
QUOTE (SR4 FAQ #5)
Nothing was ever built upon the existing mechanics, in large part because the original existing mechanics werenít built to accomodate other uses. The result was a system that accumulated rules detritus like a ship gathers barnacles. Thatís not good design.
. . .
Instead of using things that worked and discarding things that didnít, we largely had just kept it all and tried using tweaks and bailing wire to hold it all together.
Well, maybe our negativity is spreading to the developers, or maybe it was always there, just unstated. I get the feeling, with all the changes, that the developers had some pretty negative things to say internally about SR3. So, you know, it's sort of fair game.

If SR3 is to be changed, expect squawking. If it is to be changed to something that seems, on its face, to have serious problems or to remove aspects of the game that some people dearly love, expect a lot of squawking. People make a fuss when things change, but they make a much bigger fuss when they change in ways they don't like. It's a good idea to be aware of what they dislike, especially if you want to keep them as customers. The customer doesn't always know what he or she wants, but not paying attention is never a good idea.
blakkie
QUOTE (Ellery @ May 14 2005, 12:54 PM)
QUOTE (Demonseed Elite)
New spirit types were added, new types of foci were added, new mechanics for summoning spirits were added, and so on.
Er, so you would prefer to have a system where every supplement was a piece of fiction only, and didn't introduce any new rules? That's not a very good business decision, if the profusion of D&D rulebooks is any indication.

Actually many of the D&D books add scant few rules. Mostly just ficiton and items that fit within the existing rules. There are the campaign books that add some more rules stuff, but even then mostly add items that fit within the existing rules (Green Ronin's Freeport is an example of that).

Then there are books that are more akin to rules replacements. They are built to contruct a divergent, sometimes very different world. The SR equivalent would be moving completely outside the current SR timeline, planet, etc. You need a huge customer base to support something like that, larger than SR is likely to see anytime soon.

The problem SR is going to run into, and has run into, trying to duplicate that is that the modern world is relatively well known to the players. So players overall tend to notice things that are not as they are IRL more. To help suspend belief the you can try tend to try model it closer. But doing that usually has the requirement of making more one-of rules.
Zen Shooter01
I'm not denying people the right to have opinions. I'm saying, wait to have an opinion on the product until you have actually seen the whole product. You can't judge a car by the fuel injector alone. Don't start weeping and wailing over what merely "seems".

And people are assuming that everything's going to be done badly. If the FAQ says, "point-buy chargen", posters immediately ask, "But is it going to be a slidable scale?" Of course it is. Slidable scale is one of the strongest advantages of a point-buy system. It's like someone saying, "We're building you a house," and you answering with, "Will it have a roof?"

I'm not sure if this major overhaul was necessary or good. I'll only be sure once I have the SR4 BBB, and probably the first three supplements, as well.

(Has anyone else noticed that Street Magic will get abbreviated here to SM? In this relationship, between FanPro and us, who's the top? wink.gif )
Crimsondude 2.0
And some customers know exactly what they want.

I'm sorry DE, but I'm not buying it. Of course, neither do I particularly concern myself with whether a new Tradition requires new rules. It has been my perspective that new rulesets for each new Tradition is a good thing (e.g., the SR2 Voudoun rules) as it makes a more clear distinction between them. Making the Traditions virtually indistiguishable in terms of rules mechanics, which is a wost-case scenario, is to me like ripping the heart out of the whole point of Traditions.

Zen... I'm being hard on SR4 because it does not do anyone any good to not be while the game is still in development and then when it is released someone realizes that, hey, maybe this wasn't a good idea. Shame someone never mentioned it before. I'm also being hard on SR4 because it is going to be a different game from my SR, which is just a little disconcerting.

QUOTE (Zen Shooter01)
And people are assuming that everything's going to be done badly. If the FAQ says, "point-buy chargen", posters immediately ask, "But is it going to be a slidable scale?" Of course it is. Slidable scale is one of the strongest advantages of a point-buy system. It's like someone saying, "We're building you a house," and you answering with, "Will it have a roof?"

Never assume anything.

If a contractor's building my house, goddammit I am going to make sure that he puts the roof on and not take it on some assumption that he will.

I'm not assuming anything about SR4, but it would be irresponsible of me not to point out holes, omissions, innuendo, and questions that arise from the FAQs.
Penta
QUOTE (Zen Shooter01)
(Has anyone else noticed that Street Magic will get abbreviated here to SM? In this relationship, between FanPro and us, who's the top? wink.gif )

I try not to imagine my gaming in a sexual frame.

I really try not to.
Eldritch
QUOTE
I'm not denying people the right to have opinions. I'm saying, wait to have an opinion on the product until you have actually seen the whole product. You can't judge a car by the fuel injector alone. Don't start weeping and wailing over what merely "seems".


But if you've seen the fuel injector, and you know somwthig about fuel injectors, then yeah, you can make a judgement call about the car.

If you see that the injector is the wrong size for the car, is not shaped quite right, and/or built buy a third world company that has a history of shoddy workmanship - then yeah, you can assume that there will be some problems with the rest car.

The same is true for the game. I have seen very little I like - neverminding the fact that I hated the idea of SR4 in the first place - the system mechanics and setting changes they are showing us is just awful.


blakkie
QUOTE (Eldritch @ May 14 2005, 05:22 PM)
If you see that the injector is the wrong size for the car, is not shaped quite right, and/or built buy a third world company that has a history of shoddy workmanship - then yeah, you can assume that there will be some problems with the rest car.

To ride the metaphor into the dirt......a lot of what i see is people commenting on the appropriateness of the fuel injector in the wrong context. They are trying to put the new fuel injector in the old car and screaming that it doesn't fit.

QUOTE
The same is true for the game. I have seen very little I like - neverminding the fact that I hated the idea of SR4 in the first place - the system mechanics and setting changes they are showing us is just awful.


Just an aside, given your strong prejudice against SR4 if i was the developer i'd be inclined to put less weight into what you have to say. Not totally ignore, but since you are likely to be a total stalwart you take yourself right out of the market.
Crimsondude 2.0
Actually they're trying to install a new engine into an old car. So if the injector's messed up, what does that say for the rest of the engine?
blakkie
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
Actually they're trying to install a new engine into an old car. So if the injector's messed up, what does that say for the rest of the engine?

It's messed up in what way? It doesn't fit in the old engine?

Tonight @ 9: When Metaphors Attack!!!
Eldritch
QUOTE
Just an aside, given your strong prejudice against SR4 if i was the developer i'd be inclined to put less weight into what you have to say. Not totally ignore, but since you are likely to be a total stalwart you take yourself right out of the market.


smile.gif Trust me, I'm well aware of that fact.

I've been a SR fan since it came out of the warehouse. I've read all the novels and played a lot in the last 15 or so years. I'll continue to reead the books, but it is unlikely that I will change to this new game they are making.

Instead of calling it SR4, it should be Shadowrun II, First Edition. Becuase that is what it looks like we are getting.
blakkie
QUOTE (Eldritch)
Instead of calling it SR4, it should be Shadowrun II, First Edition. Becuase that is what it looks like we are getting.

That's sort of what I'm hoping for. It'll still be Shadowrun, but with enough improvement to the rules to make it worthwhile buying new books. wink.gif
Kesh
QUOTE (Eldritch)
Instead of calling it SR4, it should be Shadowrun II, First Edition. Becuase that is what it looks like we are getting.

Shadowrun: Reloaded? wink.gif
Bandwidthoracle
I love what they are doing to shadowrun, the more I read the more I likeÖ
Although at this point I'm tempted to start yelling "Get out of my head".
My players and I where talking about how some of the attributes needed to be broken up, and how the magic skills needed a major change since SoTA:2064 came out.
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