Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Strategic vs Dramatic and my take on SR 4
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Nerbert
There are, very generally, two kinds of role playing games and, very generally, two kinds of dice mechanics. There are Dramatic RPGs and Strategic RPGs and there are Hard dice mechanics and Soft dice mechanics.

To define very briefly:
Strategic RPGs - A strategic RPG is one in which the players navigate a series of puzzles and challenges which one must overcome or perish in the attempt. The emphasis is on problem solving, efficiency, resource management and leadership. The best example of this type of game is Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, also known as D&D 1st edition, or simply, 1st Edition. For anyone who has not played D&D 1st ed. its a very different game from 3.x Shadowrun 3e can be played very successfully this way.

Dramatic RPGs - A dramtic RPG is one in which the players navigate a series of stories and challenges which one may or may not be able to overcome. The emphasis of these games is on character development, plot advancement, and dramtic/cinematic scene setting. The best example of this type of game is White Wolf's new World of Darkness games. For anyone who hasn't yet played the new WoD, its a very different set of games from the old. Shadowrun 3e ought to be able to be played this way, but in reality, it is very difficult. More on this later.

A sidebar on dice mechanics. Dice mechanics are virtually the most important part of the act of playing an RPG. If a game's dice mechanics are shady, unpredictable, exploitable or unbalanced, it can drastically change the way a game is played. Nothing is more frusterating then having a character who ought to be good at something, but isn't, because the dice ruin everything he does.

Hard Dice Mechanics - A hard dice mechanic is one in which there is a rule for virtually anything. The focus of a hard dice system is to model, in a realistic and statistically accurate way, more or less everything that can happen to your characters. Pros - Verisimilitude, actions reconcile plausibly. Predictablility, its easy to plan ahead and know your relative strength. Cons - Inflexibility, you can't argue with the rules. Complicated - to play, you have to know what to roll in every situation and you can't fake it, because there's almost certainly a rule.

Soft Dice Mechanics - A soft dice mechanic is one in which the rules are flexible and open to interpretation, guidelines for rolls are given but the Game Master is responsible for both calling for a roll and for interpreting its results. The focus of a soft dice system is to model, in a simple and straightforward manner, the likelyhood of your character being able to perform a certain task. Pros - Flexibility, gamemasters are free to call for rolls and interpret the results in a way that best serves in the interests of the game. Simplicity, Soft dice rules are easy to learn and remember, exceptions are exactly that. Cons - Unrealistic, soft dice mechanics do not in any way model the way in which reality works. Unpredictablity, guaging your relative strength and planning ahead is more difficult.

First of all, I know I'm going to get many people saying that any of these statements aren't true. Particularly my statements concerning dice mechanics. This is not an academic paper, I have done no fact checking. I am speaking only from experience and opinion, and much discussion with fellow gamers. Personally, as far as hard dice mechanics go, I tend to ignore rules as frequently as possible, I call for rolls to get the game moving so I can actually tell a story. So I am biased.

Now, to Shadowrun. Shadowrun 3e is a game with a dramatic presentation and hard dice mechanics. Shadowrun's story is all about character, style, drama, cinematic experiences. It gets all its inspiration from novels and movies. Playing the game is more like CSI.

Characters have to constantly moniter everything they do and say, they have to think about all the possible things that could be going on or could happen to them. Everytime a character takes an action it usually involves at least three rolls. One to activate the action, one to resist, and one to see if someone else notices. In combat it could be more, especially when all the special abilities of all the different character options are operating simultaneously.

What do you roll when your remotely operated helicopter is trying to navigate through a canyon while being simultaneously hacked into by an enemy decker and blown out of the sky by someone else. Not only that by the helicopter is carrying your own decker who's hacking into the network of the enemy decker while being protected by his Mage chummer who's magically defending the helicopter from enemy mages but also suffering cyberware damage. Furthermore, your Rigger who's flying the chopper in the first place is under heavy fire from a group of runners with their own abilities, hackers and mages, and is being defended by two more combat characters.

And you know, this isn't even an implausible scenario. Whats even more plausible is having a team of runners actually cripple their own strategy to avoid having to play this out. I don't want to deal with all of the rules. This is a dramatic scene, why should it take four hours of rolling to reconcile. So break it down in to a couple of general rolls? Isn't that softening the game?

I love Shadowrun, but I don't play it any more. There's too many rules, the rules that exist are self contradicting and confusing. Everything is an exception. Everyone I play with loves the Shadowrun story, they love the universe, they love the presentation. They don't want to play. Playing that game is work. If you're already an expert, you have my applause. I'm sure one day I could be an expert too. But in the mean time, I can have a lot more fun playing another game completely.

The way I see it, Shadowrun 4 is going the way of a Dramatic Game with Soft Rules. Instead of having your Troll Street Samurai kick down the door and mow through a Grocery Store with his assault rifle, he'll be doing exactly the same thing in two rolls. The mortality rate of a starting Shadowrun character won't be 66% anymore.

I've run out of steam. I don't really expect anyone to agree with me.
Ellery
Good summary. It's not clear to me that the SR4 rules are going to have enough flexibility to really be "soft + dramatic". My guess is that they will be "hard + nonstrategic", in that there won't be as much strategy because they're too simple, but you'll still die dead when you are shot.

But you could be right. That would probably be better, actually, than a hard nonstrategic system, because at least you'd have drama, and you wouldn't have to worry as much about getting the dice right, since the GM can mostly ignore them when the mechanics are messed up.
Cain
Actually, the core Shadowrun mechanic is pretty straightforward, and can qualify as a "soft" system. If you leave out disasters like Open Tests, Rigging/Decking rules, and so on, you end up with a pretty decent "soft" system.

The White Dwarf
Two comments.

One: EVERY rpg eventually becomes strategic. Even in dramatic theres eventually a point you have to roll something to do something. Without a dice/random mechanic, it would simply be you telling the GM stuff, and him telling you what happened, and thats more like ad-lib acting than a rpg. So when you hit the strategic point, you have to roll dice, and Id rather have a hard system than a soft at this point. Why? Because theres no grey area for people to get upset over if a judgement call doesnt go their way. I know, wed all like to be mature adults, but ppl can get into things and get emotional and if its spelled out it makes for a more appealing game because its arbitrarily fair.

Two: The other good thing about hard systems is that theyre easily made soft. Example, decking. Yes Ive read it, yes I understand it, no unless were doing a group of deckers where everyones on the matrix I really dont want to roll it all out. But since you know how it works, its easy to simplify and come up with something that approximates the intended ruleset with something everyone agrees on. And because everyone agrees on it, it gains the same advantages of a hard system, ie no bias. Now soft systems are very difficult to make hard, because adding in rolls for specific situations is much harder to gauge than breaking them down, and also much more difficult because you typically have less of a ruleset to adapt from. Id rather have a published set be hard and house rule it soft than the other way.

In conclusion, I hope SR4 turns out to be a hard system because of the above reasons. However, from whats been said so far it seems its going towards soft. I really hope it doesnt wind up in the middle, defining each roll but having little complexity, relying on a single basic mechanic. One that will likley work in all situations but model each one less accuratly because of its generic nature. Ideally it will simply be a unified resolution method, eliminating the different shifts in probability in the current system between different areas, but leave each 'sections' slight variance in rules intact. Thus magic and decking may use the same mechanic to roll out, but work slightly differently in the manner in which they call for and resolve said mechanic.
Nerbert
QUOTE
Id rather have a hard system than a soft at this point.  Why?  Because theres no grey area for people to get upset over if a judgement call doesnt go their way.  I know, wed all like to be mature adults, but ppl can get into things and get emotional and if its spelled out it makes for a more appealing game because its arbitrarily fair.


This happens anyway, more so with Shadowrun then with any other hard rules system and its directly related to the dice system as it stands. How many times during a game do you here people ask "Why this penalty?" or "Why didn't I succeed, I rolled 5 successes?" Because of the variable TN and the variable Successes both being a factor, you actually Double the number of points of contention between player and game master. My players never question my asessment of a roll in Shadowrun because they never have any idea what's going on.

In nWoD though, we've actually never had this problem. Primarily because 9 times out of 10 the dice are working for the player rather then against them, but more importantly, when your game master has flexibility when calling for a roll they're more likely to communicate why a certain roll is a certain way, and the player is more likely to understand and accept, or disagree and communicate, rather then someone getting upset.

QUOTE
Two: The other good thing about hard systems is that theyre easily made soft.  Example, decking.  Yes Ive read it, yes I understand it, no unless were doing a group of deckers where everyones on the matrix I really dont want to roll it all out.  But since you know how it works, its easy to simplify and come up with something that approximates the intended ruleset with something everyone agrees on.  And because everyone agrees on it, it gains the same advantages of a hard system, ie no bias.  Now soft systems are very difficult to make hard, because adding in rolls for specific situations is much harder to gauge than breaking them down, and also much more difficult because you typically have less of a ruleset to adapt from.  Id rather have a published set be hard and house rule it soft than the other way.


This is a good point. Part of what you have said reinforces my statement that soft systems lead to communication, ie "everyone agrees on it", and communication is never bad for story based roll playing. Besides that, I'd have to say that I disagree. I think if your dice system is flexible enough, its actually easier to add or change a rule then it is in a hard system where each rule fits like a puzzle with all of the others. I am willing to conceed that this may just be a matter of opinion.

QUOTE
I really hope it doesnt wind up in the middle, defining each roll but having little complexity, relying on a single basic mechanic.  One that will likley work in all situations but model each one less accuratly because of its generic nature.


Amen. I will be very surprised and dissapointed if this turns out to be the case.

QUOTE
Ideally it will simply be a unified resolution method, eliminating the different shifts in probability in the current system between different areas, but leave each 'sections' slight variance in rules intact.  Thus magic and decking may use the same mechanic to roll out, but work slightly differently in the manner in which they call for and resolve said mechanic.


I would like to offer that the game, as it stands, does not work this way. Combat, Magic, Decking and Rigging all use completely different mechanics. It is true that the game comes down to "grabbing a bunch of d6s and rolling them" but how and where those numbers are derived is completely different in nearly every case.
Nerbert
QUOTE (Cain)
Actually, the core Shadowrun mechanic is pretty straightforward, and can qualify as a "soft" system. If you leave out disasters like Open Tests, Rigging/Decking rules, and so on, you end up with a pretty decent "soft" system.

So you mean, leaving out almost half the game and one of its defining roles? Nothing is more sad to me then the bastardized state of Decking that is included in SR3.
The White Dwarf
The first quote is (or would be) true if people did understand whats going on and didnt like the GM call. Ive gamed for a long time and seen it come up on several occasions. Ive even see teams drop out of a con' game beacuse they didnt like it (yea, they were really 3 yr olds disgused in 20 yr old bodies...). Anyhow, never played WoD but when its clean cut it is better, no one ever gets upset over Uno rules.

Second quote may well be opinion, I just find it easier to create/add/subtract rules with the same feel as the base system when theres more of it to go on in the first place, and less areas where it needs to be done. I suppose there may be people who feel the other way, fair enough.

That last quote didnt refer to how the game stands now. Its what I hope SR4 will be.

Cheers.
Ellery
I personally find it very annoying to play a character in a system with too soft of rules--the GM may want to do things to my character that ought to be impossible, or where I at least ought to have a chance, and there are no rules protecting my character from GM whim.

If your GM is your best buddy, soft systems are great. But I'd never take a character I cared about at all into a random gaming group with soft rules. At best it would likely be an exercise in frustration. ("My agility is 6, but I'm tripping on yet another root?!")
hermit
I personally prefer harder rules, both from a player and GM side. At least, I know there is a standard all have to meet, whether NPC or PC, and that the game will neither end up being various ADD style mook killfests nor GM tyranny (you're all dead, cause I SAY SO; MWHAHAHAAH!!!).
Wounded Ronin
I find myself liking hard-nose rules the best. No bullshit arguments, just the rules.
hobgoblin
and boiling down a grocery massacre to two rolls is like boiling down oil to water. basicly, where is the imagery? one test pr target/action, minimum nyahnyah.gif (maybe except actions the person should not fumble for whatever reason)

this is the one path i dont want to see SR go. less targetnumbers, ok. less modifiers, ok. but not one roll for a whole sequence of events. if this happens ill be one sad SR fan...
The White Dwarf
Exactly. Streamlining the mechanic isnt the same as streamlining the system. At least it doesnt have to be. Hopefully itll be just as comprehensive as it is now only with an easier to resolve mechanic that yields similar results. Which basically means its the same thing but easier for newer people, and perhaps more balanced across different areas.
mfb
like boiling oil down to water...?
Cain
QUOTE (Nerbert)
QUOTE (Cain @ May 20 2005, 12:50 AM)
Actually, the core Shadowrun mechanic is pretty straightforward, and can qualify as a "soft" system.  If you leave out disasters like Open Tests, Rigging/Decking rules, and so on, you end up with a pretty decent "soft" system.

So you mean, leaving out almost half the game and one of its defining roles? Nothing is more sad to me then the bastardized state of Decking that is included in SR3.

Not even that much. The core decking idea isn't too bad-- TN and threshold set by the server, TN reduced by appropriate program-- but the actual implementation is crap. There's just too many programs for too many actions. You could simplify it down to 5 basic programs, kinda like an otaku's channels.
The White Dwarf
mfb I didnt get the grocery massacre part either, but hey we all knew what he implied right =)
Ellery
I've always had an even greater problem with the feeling of decking than the rules--it doesn't feel right for anything related to computer science now or in the future. For example, accumulating security tally is weird (it requires all hosts to trust each other regarding the threat level of a link). The difficulty of leaving programs running without you actually controling them yourself is weird. The distinction between execution on the client and server is peculiar (i.e. what happens on your deck vs. on the host), and so on. If I didn't think decking actually had anything to do with computation, I'd only complain about the rules, but for now, I like the idea of what they do, but not the implementation of how they do it.

One thing I will say for soft systems is that it can reduce the demands on the author to understand what they're writing about. If you leave some flexibility for the GM to decide what a roll corresponds to in the game world, they can add their own knowledge to fix oversights and give their personal flavor to the action. (On the down side, when you play with another GM, suddenly reality has changed.)
Gambitt
Nice post Nerbert.
SR is all about the feel of the world for me, as u say a dramatic RPG.
As to the present hard rules, i dont mind them at all, but thats only because we had a GM whos played and studied the game for more years than he would care to admit.
With over 100 years (ouch never looked at it that way eek.gif ) roleplaying between us, only that one player felt comfortable GMing.
Im hoping the new rule set isnt soft, but i do hope they integrate decking/rigging/magic etc. into a more "core" system, an less like separate rules systems.
By the way this is just an opinion of someone who hopes to GM SR for the first time when the new systems released, and by no means do i think it is a general board point of view
hobgoblin
QUOTE (The White Dwarf @ May 21 2005, 06:20 AM)
mfb I didnt get the grocery massacre part either, but hey we all knew what he implied right =)

take a look at the end of the first post, the poster talks about a troll kicking down a door and killing people in a grocery store, all resolved by two rolls. if that shows up im out the door, meta plot or no meta plot.

as for the oil to water thing, maybe i should have typed beer or wine rather then oil. but it was late and i was tired and that is what my brain came up with...
blakkie
QUOTE (hobgoblin)
take a look at the end of the first post, the poster talks about a troll kicking down a door and killing people in a grocery store, all resolved by two rolls. if that shows up im out the door, meta plot or no meta plot.

When i saw that was his perception of SR4 at the end of his post i decided that that the bizzaro level of the thread was just too damn high to get into it. Then i looked around at the rest of the threads and decide it was pretty indicative of the board.....
Nerbert
What I should have said, instead of "two rolls" is "half as many". Although, and I could be wrong about this, you could easily look at mowing down a grocery store as a suppressive firing action.
Critias
If you kicked in the door fast enough, beat the people inside on their Surprise test, and suppressed? Yeah. Lots of dead shoppers for clean-up to handle in aisle three.
hobgoblin
that still dont count the cover factor of the aisles. depending on what goods are in the shelfs im guessing that you may have hit people in the closest three but no more. tin cans and basic shelf material can send the bullets in any direction but where you want them...

hmm, thats one thing i dont think is coverd in the sr rules pr date: can you do suppression fire thru cover to overcome blindfire rules?
mfb
yes. it's covered by the fact that no modifiers besides those listed apply. granted, you have to include the square meter your unseen target is in, with your suppression. that can be tricky.
hobgoblin
ah true, normal cover mods dont count for suppression fire. still, there is the shooting thru barrier thing. alltho, can a normal shelf filled with avrage grocery items be defined as a barrier?
Wounded Ronin
Well, if Shadowrun firearms were more realistic, we could answer that intelligently. However, as Power sucks, we can only say "Yes."
Ellery
Is there a system that you think handles firearms well? I've played mostly fantasy systems, and I can't say I've been too impressed with the way firearms are handled in those few games I've played that actually had firearms. In comparison, SR3 seems pretty good.
Nerbert
This is the perfect example of why I prefer a soft system. Questions like the previous 6 or 7 posts simply do not occur. You might say "Oh, there's more arguments of the rules in a soft system" No way. Nooooo way. Look at that.

Realism. What's the point? Is the point of firing the gun to accurately model in precise medical terms the way bullets inflict damage upon people? Or is the purpose of firing the gun to dramatically slay one's opponents? I honestly can't tell.
mfb
a soft system is nice if you value the roleplaying over the game. personally, i place about equal value on both. i prefer fairly hard systems because i know the people i game with are capable of good RP; i don't need to worry about the rules getting in the way of their characterization.
The White Dwarf
/agree mfb

Hard systems tend to be more even over time, and across groups/gms/sessions. And it lets the people involve roleplay based on what their characters can do on paper.

Soft systems tend to leave things undefined, and me asking questions of the GM. Which can work for a set group with a good GM, but Id rather just have it handled rules side and focus on playing the game, both role and roll playing.

That said, obviously a well written hard system is implied, as poorly written versions of either tend to be bad heh.
Wounded Ronin
OK, I'm going to say what my opinion about hard rules versus role-playing is.

In my opinion, it is hard rules rather than soft rules which validate role-playing. Why is this? Because any action a human being takes is meaningless without the context of the rest of the world. Why is an act of courage an act of courage? It is not an act of courage in isolation. It is an act of courage because of its impact on the rest of the world and because of the risk that the person performing the act of courage bring upon himself.

If you are playing with a soft system there are no hard-nosed guidelines about when you live or die. I can grandstand all day and make my character say dashing things but unless there's a rule mechanic that is capable of grinding him into the ground it's only bravado. On the other hand, though, if my average human with 3s across the board stands up to the troll ganger in order to buy his friend time to escape, *that* is a true act of courage, because statistically we know that my average human is probably about to die.

Unless there's a consistient system defining reality, and unless the PCs are genuinely at risk for all of their heroic actions, they are not truly being heroic; instead they're expressing bravado. True heroic role playing can only emerge when the character acts like a big hero in spite of his falibility and mortality.
Gambitt
Aye Ronin, i like what you are saying.
As a small side point it does depend on the GM/play style/friends or club people you run with.
Quix
Ronin I think I'm gonna have to disagree on terms with you here. Either I've never played a truely soft system, possible I suppose, or I'm seeing your heroic/bravado arguement as falling into the dramatic/strategic category.
In my experience if one character starts to shoot his mouth off, be it to buy time or what not, then the only way the opposition doesn't smack him upside the head is if the GM is enjoying the drama that the player is helping to create.
Gambitt
I still agree with ronin, if im reading him right. With a soft system its easier to stand up to someone when you are outmatched and be of the opinion that "there are fewer rules covering this situation, so whilst its a risk it would be a very harsh GM who just killed me". With hard rules its different, more of a case of " Damn i know im totally outmatched and am so dead... ive read the rules and i need a miracle.... but damn this is a good roleplaying buzz"

It really does totally depend on the GM though.... soft or hard rules can be good, but i do see where ronin is coming from.
Nerbert
Wounded Ronin

A Hard System does not reward any dramatic act. There is no encouragment to behave in such a manner unless you're willing to let your character die for the sake of a "good scene". Your heroic mannerisms might get you kudos and karma points for good roleplaying. But you can't spend Karma when you're dead.

A Dramatic system does reward this sort of behavior. The chances for a dramatic success are substantially higher, partially because the gamemaster has less control over the "difficulty" of an action. Good roleplaying is what its all about.
Gambitt
But a hard system gives you a better idea of what you are getting yourself into. nyahnyah.gif
Raskolnikov
Additionally, although a soft system will work fine if you are in a group who all share the same opinions on what is "dramatic" and what is "stupid and lame," if you scale the number of players up, it becomes more and more likely that the difference of opinions will be vast enough to cause very severe problems.

While this doesn't happen too much on tabletop, imagine an open world with 12, 50, or even hundreds of players. At Shadowland we require a hard system, and because you can't get a group that large to agree 100% on any change, we can not modify the cannon text.

This demonstrates two problems that the Shadowlanders see with games systems in general and the SR4 clues specifically that many people may not rate as such high issues. We do not like rules that promote GM fiat because every location is GMed by the person who created it. We do not have a single or even a group of site GMs. This means with soft rules that encourage the GM to do whatever they want despite statistics, players are left at the uncertain mercy of the page holder (or operator of the scene, but I won't go into specific Shadowland mechanics). This harms the openness of our environment.

Secondly, the comment "if you don't like it change it" can not hold on our system. Because everyone is a GM, we must have the same mechanics across all pages. If common situations are defined in the rules poorly, they must be handled poorly because it creates an inability to be consistent if everyone is house ruling said situation differently. Try to get even a dozen people to agree on a house rule across the board. Even if you manage it through the intervention of satan himself then you cripple potential new members because they then need to learn something not located in the books. This alienates them and makes them less likely to want to play an already complex game on an already complex system that it takes some time getting used to.

You can't be as flexible in the most advanced collaborative fiction site on the net as you can on table top. The advantages the Shadowland system offers however far outweigh this loss in our minds, but we need hard rules, good cannon, and no hand-waving from our chosen game.

You can see why many books in SR3 and much of the information coming from SR4 distresses us.
Nerbert
Clearly it doesn't make any sense to have all the GMs in a very large game handling things arbitrarily. I don't see this as being a problem. A large, 50-100 person, game requires a level of organization and cooperation that goes above and beyond an individual storyteller.

When you go to play in a game like that, I think its expected that the Gamemaster is allowed to say "No, you can't do that because it would violate the cohesion of our game world."

Also, Soft Systems allow Gamemasters to "cheat" with MUCH more freedom. Gamemasters can, and should cheat whenever necessary. Either to promote the enjoyment of the game by helping the players along or to promote the enjoyment of the game by increasing the challenge on them. Oftentimes in a Hard system is becomes increasingly obvious when your GM is "cheating", players don't like this. With a Soft System, you don't necessarily know whats going on behind the screen.

Obviously this is assuming that you're playing with a Good GM. I don't see the point in talking about playing a game with a bad GM because a truly bad GM can ruin anything.
Raskolnikov
When you have 20+ people who are all GMs to some extent, there is no way to garuntee they are "good" GMs.

GMs in large games should -never- cheat because that itself violates the cohesion of the game world.
Nitr0
QUOTE (Nerbert)
Gamemasters can, and should cheat whenever necessary.

Then why bother having rules at all? Why not just sit around and perform an exercise in mental masturbation? I view the need to cheat as a shortcoming of the GM, and it becomes blatently obvious when it happens in both soft and hard systems. Then the gaming session (or game on SL) dissolves into nothing more than an argument over why a call was made. It does nothing but breed animosity.
mfb
that's the great thing about SR3, actually--it's got built-in cheat codes for the GM, in the form of the various pools. if an encounter turns out to be too tough for the characters for whatever reason, you can even the odds a lot by having the NPCs spend their pools unwisely, or even not spend it at all. likewise, if the oppo is too easy, the GM just has to put a little more thought into his pool use.

and, yeah. if you want to sit around and swap stories and cool descriptions, a soft system is 100% great. if you want to play a game, soft systems are the devil.
hobgoblin
heh, maybe thats the strong point of the existing sr system, the pools. it allows you to dramatic when needed by dumping your pool into the roll and pray that it is enough to save your ass from what looks like destruction...
Critias
It's one of it's strongest points, yes. Good thing they're getting rid of them. All that pesky "thinking" and "planning" and "counting" ruined the game by making it too slow!
Nerbert
There's a difference between a slow game and a glacial one.

And what is roleplaying except for prolonged mental masturbation anyway? Is ponderously planning an extended campaign against a corporate empire that falls apart in the execution because someone forgot to write "duct tape" on their character sheet somehow more fulfilling then exploring the ethical complications in the battle between magic versus technology? Where's the line to be drawn?

As for not cheating. What do you do when your gang of runners happens to hit a lucky streak and decimate an important NPC in a long running campaign? What if, according to the rules, your players break your game forever? You can't plan for everything. And the more people are playing, the more likely this is going to happen.
Crimsondude 2.0
Glacial? Tell me about glacial when your GM loses his internet connection for 3 months in the middle of combat.

Compared to that, allocating dice pools isn't even part of the equation.
Critias
QUOTE (Nerbert)
There's a difference between a slow game and a glacial one.

I'm really tired of people with stupid friends complaining about how slow the Shadowrun tactical/pool allocation combat system is.
Nerbert
My friends are not stupid. Nor am I. It is not the allocation of dice pools that takes up all the time.

What takes time is factoring in all of different possible variables that can come into a given situation.

What takes time is making an attack action with an area of effect spell, dealing with drain, then figuring out line of sight for everyone in a room, then rolling resistances for everyone in the room making sure to take into consideration the magic defenses of everyone in the room, then figuring out damage for everyone in the room.

This takes a lot of time and there are ways to make this easier. D&D, while not in any way comparable to shadowrun, breaks this down into, attack roll, if you fail your save you take x damage, if you pass your save you take y damage and if you're out of range you take no damage.

It seems to me that Shadowrun, as it stands, has the rules of a miniatures based War Game, like Warhammer 50k. Warhammer 50k, as I understand it, is hardly a Role Playing game.
hobgoblin
thats 40k. and if im correct, it uses a similar rules set to warhammer fantasy, and that got rewritten as a rpg, or atleast the book i have looks like it got its stats from a tabletop game nyahnyah.gif
Critias
QUOTE
My friends are not stupid.  Nor am I.  It is not the allocation of dice pools that takes up all the time.


Uh huh.

QUOTE
What takes time is factoring in all of different possible variables that can come into a given situation.

What takes time is making an attack action with an area of effect spell, dealing with drain, then figuring out line of sight for everyone in a room, then rolling resistances for everyone in the room making sure to take into consideration the magic defenses of everyone in the room, then figuring out damage for everyone in the room.


Use hex maps and minis. Lots of gamers do. Even D&D gamers do. Line of sight is easy, rolling resistance tests consists of a GM knowing the Willpower (or applicable) of his NPCs (maybe even by having it written down somewhere, and handy), the Force of the spell (the mage should maybe keep track of that), and then being able to throw plastic cubes and count. Soak is about the same -- any mage player worth his salt either knows his Drain codes or has them scribbled out somewhere. Working out damage is easy, too. You just, y'know, compare successes. Like lots of stuff in Shadowrun.

"Shadowrun breaks this down into casting roll, if you fail your resistance you take x damage, if you pass your resistance you take x - y damage, if you're not affected by the spell than you take no damage. The caster rolls soak against z damage."

That sure makes it sound easy, doesn't it?

QUOTE
This takes a lot of time and there are ways to make this easier.  D&D, while not in any way comparable to shadowrun, breaks this down into, attack roll, if you fail your save you take x damage, if you pass your save you take y damage and if you're out of range you take no damage.


So, right.

You still need some sort of map/hex/minis to see who's within range of the spell, who's in the blast radius, and all that (which varies based on the level of the caster, the size of the room, the size of the monsters/characters being targeted). You still need an attack roll. You then have to roll seperate saves (much like seperate resistance tests) for each targeted monster/character, with a DC that varies not only based upon the (level of the) spell being cast, but also upon the attributes of the caster, any feats that might boost that, any magic items that might boost that, any situational modifiers (IE, other spells currently affecting either side) that might boost that, the individual attributes of the NPCs in question, etc. Then you roll damage (again, modified/multiplied by appropriate feats, magical items, inherent racial abilities, prestige class abilities, etc). Then you modify damage based upon who passed the save, and further modified based upon any applicable class or magic item/spell abilities possessed by those NPCs (Evasion or Improved Evasion, halving the damage or subtracting a certain amount for DR, etc).

That makes it sound a lot tougher, huh? Word games are easy.

That whole process, though? It runs real smooth in your games, huh? Golly. Maybe your GM just knows how to do it, so it runs real quick. That's all it takes for Shadowrun, too. The more you player, the faster you get. Dumbing it down so the slow kids can catch up isn't really a good fix.

QUOTE
It seems to me that Shadowrun, as it stands, has the rules of a miniatures based War Game, like Warhammer 50k.  Warhammer 50k, as I understand it, is hardly a Role Playing game.


This is not the case in the slightest, as both a long-time Warhammer [b]40k[/i] and Shadowrun player. They have in common the fact that they both use dice with six sides, and that those dice are rolled, and that the numbers that come up on the dice are important. Oh, and they have both guns and swords available as methods with which to dismember your foes. That's really about it. Seriously. You have no idea what you're talking about, here. It's like saying that, "a Trabant, as it stands, is the same as a Porsche, what with them both having wheels and stuff."
Charon
Back up a minute.

What systems are soft and what systems are hard? D&D? Trinity? nWoD? Call of Chtullu? Lo5R? Riddle of Steel?

People are talking back and forth about hard and soft and I really don't see what they mean.

For example, Ronin talked about courage being meaningless in a game without clear rules that make an action dangerous. Well, I have played dozens of system and I'll be damn if I ever played one where the rules didn't show clearly that you were going to get your ass whooped before even rolling dice if you were trying to bite more than you can chew. From D&D, to WoD and including SR.

So, what games are soft, exactly? Amber? Are we comparing SR and Amber?
Crimsondude 2.0
QUOTE (Critias @ May 22 2005, 08:25 PM)
Use hex maps and minis.  Lots of gamers do.  Even D&D gamers do.  Line of sight is easy...

I agree. Floorplans are pretty easy to find online or make. If combat's on the horizon, I whip up a .gif map (like this one), position everyone using initialed dots, and each round I reposition everyone again in different colors. It takes about five minutes to fix and re-upload each pass.

IRL, I'd be a big fan of using those adhesive colored dots you find in the office/school supply aisle of Walgreen's on a printout. It's also really cheap, which is a big plus in my book, and even faster than online.

It's amazing how easy combat becomes, especially when dealing with an otherwise text-only medium like the Internet.
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