I'm going to have to chime in here with my own insight, because I think I may be seeing people confusing the rules of the games with some of the variations. To simplify everything I'm going to show you one action in each game system (some of the systems I'm not familiar with so you will have to bare with me.) So far we have seen:

oWoD, this is the original World of Darkness, made up of Vampire the Masquerade 1st Ed., 2nd Ed., and Revised.

nWoD, this is the newest iteration which has nothing to do with the previous metaplot and game flavor of the previous, and uses a new mechanic.

SR3, this is the BBB which I'm assuming everyone who reads this board has read at least once.

SR4, which no one but the play testers have read, but we have snippets of info about.

Lets get on with the one test, George is going to shoot Marty, both of whom are average examples of each genre of game.

In oWoD George will have 3 Dexterity and 3 Firearms he is carrying Glock 17. Its stats are Damage 4, Range 20yds. Marty is not wearing any armor. He has Dexterity 3, Dodge 3 and Stamina of 3. George goes first in this example. George standing 15yds away from Marty; He combines his Dex and Firearms and rolls six d10s. The target of this test is 6, the average. In the oWoD this target number could vary + or - 1, 2, or 3 but in this example there are no modifiers to this test. He rolls 10, 1, 4, 4, 7, 2. The one, a botch, cancels out the 10, so the 7 is his only success. If he had rolled more ones than successes (in oWoD 1st Ed and oWoD 2nd Ed, only. The rules were slightly changed for oWoD Revised so that any roll that had successes, even if they were outnumbered by ones would be a simple failure.), he would have botched the entire roll and suffered a catastrophic failure. Now he rolls the 4 d10 for his guns damage, he rolls 2, 10, 2, 9. This has given him 2 successes.

Marty now has a choice, he can either dodge, giving up his turn, or he can keep his turn and fight back. Marty decides to dodge, he rolls his 6d10 and comes up with 8, 3, 3, 2, 3, 5. Since the pair are standing in a parking lot with no cover available for quite a distance away Marty's difficulty is 9. He has no successes, so he is going to have to get hit and try to soak the damage with his Stamina. He rolls 1, 1, 3. A player cannot botch on a soak roll, so this is just a straight failure and Marty is now Hurt and has -1 die to every roll until he heals.

Any roll to determine a loss of humanity for George (if he is a Vampire) comes later and is not a part of the combat/damage rolls.

In SR3 George will have 4 in his Pistols skill and 6 in his Combat Pool, he is also armed with a Glock 17, and according to Raygun's site this gun has a Damage of 7M and is classed as a Medium Pistol. Marty is unarmed and unarmored. He has 4 in his Bod and 6 in his Combat Pool. As before, George is going first. George is standing 13 meters away from Marty and is going to shoot once with his firearm. His base difficulty is 5 based on his range and to this is added and subtracted the following modifiers: Target Stationary -1, making his final target a 4. George now has a choice, he can roll just his firearms skill or he can add some or all of his Combat Pool to the test, between 4 and 10 dice. He decides to blow his wad on this shot and throw all 10 available. He rolls 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6 for a total of 10 successes. Marty now has his choice to make he can roll some or all of his Combat Pool to dodge or he can rely on his Bod of 4 to soak, he decides to be more pragmatic and uses only 3 of his Combat Pool to dodge. He rolls against the base target of 4 and has no modifiers to this roll. His roll is 6, 3, 3 one success. He now tries to soak the damage with his Bod and adds in the rest of his combat pool. His target is 7, based on the power of the Gun fired at him. Without armor he cannot reduce that number at all (for all practical purposes a 7 is equal to a 6 on a d6 roll due to the rule of sixes). He rolls 5, 2, 5, 1, 3, 4, 6. Re-rolling the 6 is not necessary since the result will be 7 or higher and it gives him a total of two successes. George stages his damage from Moderate to Serious to Deadly to Deadlier to Even More Deadly. Marty stages down the damage from Even More Deadly to just Deadlier and hopes that he remembered to pay his DocWagon contract.

In the nWoD, for which I only have the Quick start rules the attack is not much different than the first, but here it goes. Again George has a Dex of 3 and Firearms of 3. Marty is not wearing any armor, if he were, George would subtract the rating of the armor from his dice pool reducing the number of dice he can use to shoot. If that reduces the dice pool to zero, he would still get one die, called the chance die, if he rolls a chance die the result must be 10 to be a success and a 1 is a catastrophic failure. In this instance however he still has all 6 dice to roll. The quick start rules I have don't explain the rule of 1 at all. In a firefight Marty has but one choice to avoid getting hit, he can drop prone, loosing all his actions for that turn, dropping prone will reduce Georges attack by 2 giving him only 4 dice to roll. Since the quick start rules I have don't tell me what constitutes Short/Medium/Long ranges, nor what kind of Damage a firearm like a Glock 17 would do, I can't really do the rolls, but the target for any rolls would be and 8 on d10 dice and any 10's rolled may be re-rolled for a greater number of successes.

I don't have any of the few released Rules for SR4 memorized so I cannot do them justice here. But as far as I can tell the target is a 5 for all tests. Dice Pools are calculated by adding attributes + an ability. Reductions remove dice from the attackers roll and perhaps 6's are re-rolled for a greater number of successes and ones either reduce successes or change a successful roll to either a failure or a catastrophic failure. If there is someone who is willing to take on the challenge of filling in my blanks by showing the rules for the same simple attack, George shooting Marty, than please do so.

It seems to me that SR4 has a lot more in common with V:tR than SR3 ever had with V:tM.

A few of your examples are incorrect, partially because of using house rules (Raygun's gear, which is fine, but not the best to pick from for an example of this sort), and partially from using rules incorrectly (using too much CP for your skill, etc), and partially by using some very difficult-to-believe die rolls.

Apart from all that, I agree with you (obviously, since I was among the first to point out the SR4 system being near-idential to the nWoD).

I think in sr3 it is not possible to use more dice of your dice pool than the rank in your skill.
(I think more average attack rolls would make the example more pertinent as well)

...

Scarecrow, your statement that "SR4 has a lot more in common with V:tR than SR3 ever had with V:tM" is unarguably correct.

For example, I'll do the same thing with Backgammon and Monopoly.

Its player A's turn. He picks up two d6s, the rolls them. Reading the numbers on those dice tell him how far to move his pieces. He moves them.

I don't even have to go over the differences between the other rules of the game because this, the CORE DICE MECHANIC, is precisely the same for both systems.

I know you are posting your opinion but really, we are talking about RPG's. Not board games. APPLES and ORANGES. Does that mean anything to you? Or are you just so fed up you just want to piss people off?

Not at all apples and oranges, it's just that he's oversimplifying. In Monopoly, you roll your dice and move your piece, your one and only piece, the number of spaces on the die, and doubles result in an extra turn unless you get three of them in a row. Whether or not your final space is occupied by another player doesn't matter, but other things do. In Backgammon, rolling doubles means you act as if you had four dice with that number on it, you can split the dice any way you want amongst a multitude of pieces, you can't land on a space that has more than one piece of the opposing player's, and if you land on a space that does have it that piece is sent to the bar. Also, you can't move past the end of the board except if you've got all your pieces in the last quarter, and then only if you either land exactly one space beyond the edge of the board or there's no piece you have that can move that many spaces and still end up either on the board or one space past. There are cases where you can not have a legal move with a die, and thus don't actually end up using it.

The idea of the comparison is valid, he's just wrong on all counts while actually making it.

~J

Wrong.
There is Vampires in both games.

(orange juice, ice cream !)

Umm, would this be a good time to mention that the dice don't explode in SR4? Unless you are rolling Edge dice. Does nWoD have anything like Edge? Apparently actual playtesters thought there was a significant difference between nWoD mechanics and SR4 mechanics. Or at least they did a few months back. Not sure what that difference is though.

Cain, I hate to tell you this old bud but infact new WoD has 'a' morality meter for all types (Humans, Vampires, Mages, Werewolfs) its not the same thing for each or called the same (from my understanding, I dont own mage yet)

Personaly, I feel the more Fanpro copies the new WoD the better. The system is fast and clean and if they move it to d6 (heh everyone has d6) all the better. As plirr told me after a one shot WoD "wow, thats the most roleplaying I've done in a game". I would agree the rules never got in the way of the story. The only problem is the ambiguity for those who like a more minis like game. The storyteller needs to think more outside the box as resistance tests are gone. Light wounds may be caused by shattering glass from a near by window rather than by an actual bullet. PCs need to trust the storyteller and vise versa. Rule lawyers beware as there are not enough rules for you to argue over. Character creation was fast (not as fast as AD&D but few things are) and pretty much like the old white wolf games. If Shadowrun follows the mechanics as close as it seams they will people who like to know they can move 30ft in a round will be turned off where as people who hate rolling every other minute will feel right at home.

As for the world. I feel that Shadowrun and WoD are more alike than any other two rpgs. For old timers (SR1 + 2) the level of fluf in our books is alot like the way white wolf decided later to do theirs (for Vampire fans pull out your 1ed copy and you'll find shadowrun in the list of influences) The stoies are differnt but they could easily have been done by the same company (not specificaly the same people though) due to style.

Whitewolf was influenced at one point by FASA and its kinda nice to see Fanpro giving a slight nod back. (reminds me of the millenium falcon being in bladerunner and then bladerunner cop car being in star wars, very differnt movies but a nod at the influnce of the other) thats my 2

eh. from what i've played of it, WoD does a good job of what it's designed to do: stay out of the way. i personally enjoy the roleplaying in equal proportion to the game, so WoD really doesn't do it for me. it's hard to feel any sense of accomplisment when your character does something difficult in a soft system.

yes, but to judge from your posts, your group tends to prefer softer games anyway. if you ignore or gloss over the details of the system, sure, SR looks similar to WoD. if you glory in those details, WoD looks like SR's poorer, haughtier cousin.

Well that explains a lot. While it is not always true, I often find those who enjoy WW games really don't like Shadowrun. (Again not always true). I lived in Seattle and I ran games there and I got all kinds of players. Both hardcore WW and SR players. The SR ones tended to not like WW because the rules were so broad and open ended they might as well not have been there.

The WW players didn't like SR because they had to learn the rules. RPG's are not just about Storytelling. If you want to tell a story, write one. RPG's are collaborative story living. The story unfolds as the players and GM dictate. It shouldn't follow a script (which Vampire often does).

So now that I know you don't like SR3 it makes sense that you would be ont he bandwagon for SR4. After all, you are the 'unwashed masses' I keep referring to when I say Fanpro is trying to bring in new customers. They want the people who like and play Nwod and old. The people who prefer Role playing over roll playing.

Personally I like a balance. Equal parts of each. Nothing irks me off more than coming to a game and not needing my character sheet or dice. Role playing is fun but it is only half the system.

I certainly don't like scripted games. I don't play WW stuff, so I can't say how scripted it is though that likely varies GM to GM. Soft rules don't nessasarily mean a lack of GM/player collaboration, but firm rules can facilitate it by providing a common language for resolution of events.

The misconception that soft rules equates to scripting likely stems from GMs that like to script (railroading in less polite company) are one class of gamers that generally like soft rules. The less rules the less there is of objective 3rd party support for player leverage to help steer the story.

I find SR3 a puzzle. In some ways it has this mass of rules, particularly in combat situations, which I find really get in the way of the actual action, or fight.

On the other hand I find SR3 feels very "soft" in a lot of other aspects of the game where the rules just let the game float away into ill defined, whispy vapours. To me SR3 plays like pockets of onerous rules surrounded by huge holes. In the case of the Matrix the rules get so onerous I've found it better to just have it as a hole, although the MJLBB filled that hole with something less painful than the original rules.

I just want to see some balancing out done. I don't want scripting. I don't want diceless. I want the onerous reduced and the holes at least partially filled. If you just fill the holes without reducing the onerous the game bogs down further.

SR4-WTF?, that is the best assessment of SR3 that I've ever read.

A request: could you use the phrase "trivial actions" or some similar equivalent instead of a term that already has a completely different meaning in-game? Thanks.

~J

Killing an enemy is by no definition a simple action. Wounding an enemy is. It only takes one success on an attack roll to damage your oponent.

Right, all of those are simple actions in WoD too. The number of successes measures your degree of success. With no successes you can fire a gun in either SA or BF mode, but if you get one, it means you hurt someone, you can also potentially kill someone in a single action, but thats not what makes an action simple.

You're trying to argue the context of a term and it looks like you're falling shorter than a legless Dwarf.

Its a simple action in game mechanic terms, terms which usually reference the amount of time/complexity of the issue. Slapping closed a padlock is probably a simple action - Unlocking one with the key probably isn't. Picking one open certainly isn't.

By your definition, closing that lock is simple - Unless it locks a group of people into a gas chamber. Then suddenly its not simple. Game system versus game situation - In system terms its a simple action, in the situation its dreadfully important. Unfortunately, we're concerned with the mechanic rather than the situational.

This is funny.

Thats exactly what I'm saying! People were using "Killing a Person" as an example of a "simple action"! Killing a person is not necessarily a simple action, it can be, but its not always going to be. Locking people into prison can be a simple action, but its not always going to be.

Firing a gun and closing a padlock on the other hand, those are always going to be simple actions.

So when someone says "You can't kill a person with one success in a simple action in nWoD." they are correct, because killing a person takes more then one success. However, "killing a person" is no where near to a simple action. Nor is it in Shadowrun.

Thus, it does not make any sense to use this as evidence that one success is not enough to succeed at a simple action.

Maybe I'm missing what you're trying to say. Any phrase that has "one success [is or is not] a Simple Action" (which, by the way, should be capitalized as its a proper noun for a specific game term) as the heart of its meaning is a completely nonsensical phrase. It's like saying "an attribute [is or is] not a score of 1." It just doesn't make any sense. Maybe you should try and clarify yourself a bit.

i think, in his own spastic way, he's trying to convey the idea that there's more to killing someone than a Simple Action. for instance, you have to acquire the weapon, load it with bullets, find the person, and draw the weapon first. only once all that is accomplished does the Simple Action come into play.

why that's relevant to the discussion, i have no idea. but i think that's the concept he's trying to communicate.

I said that in nWoD there are no thresholds. One success is enough to succeed at any simple action and that five successes gets you a critical success.

Someone replied "You can't kill someone with one success."

To which I replied that killing someone is not a simple action. Since it is not a simple action, I never claimed that one success would accomplish it.

To which people disagreed.

Perhaps the confusion is that you are concieving of Simple Action as a period of your initiative, whereas I am using the list of simple actions in Shadowrun to define what can be accomplished with one success in nWoD.

But you're not making any sense -- and this is coming from someone who understands both systems.

"Simple Action" is a very specific term in Shadowrun. It has nothing to do with successes. It's an increment of effort, a measuring of time and activity, a very, very, defined amount of action that's possible within an initiative round. You very much can "kill someone" with a simple action in Shadowrun. In matter of fact, it happens more often than not with a great number of characters I know. It takes a Simple Action to fire a burst from an assault rifle, or a single shot from most sniper rifles, or a shot from a heavy pistol. Any of those Simple Actions are, in many cases, more than enough to "kill someone."

I don't see -- and neither does anyone but you -- what that has to do, at all, with nWoD in the context you're trying to shoehorn it into.

Saying there are no thresholds in nWoD is fine. In the hard and fast and amazingly basic world view of the system, that is true. The fact remains, however, one success is not always enough to get the job done (much less to do it well). You can kill someone in one action in nWoD, with above average (or sometimes even average) rolls. It's a single action, a single roll of the dice -- why not call it a "simple action," that being the case?

I don't see at all the link between "Simple Action" in Shadowrun and "one success" in nWoD.

It's like saying "In three seconds I can marmalade rainbow trout." The sentence starts out english, and ends english, but there's absolutely no logical bridge between the two very different subjects.

that's also possible. though at this point, i wouldn't discount the marmalading of rainbow trout in the space of three seconds as being his intended message.

Since Kegtenshi seems to be the only one I'm getting through to, let me break it down into very simple words.

A simple action in Shadowrun is "a very, very, defined amount of action that's possible within an initiative round". Lets take "closing a padlock"

In nWoD, anything you can do in a simple action can be accomplished with one success. In SR there are thresholds that we don't know how they work. Lets say, in a combat situation, you have to close a padlock. Lets say its also wet and slippery and you're running away.

in nWoD you might roll dex + athletics, dex because its based on a feat of dexterity, athletics because of the slipperyness/running etc. Then you'd apply modifiers, you're moving, its slippery, etc. lets, say minus 4. So you add your dex, you add your athletics, you subtract four, and you roll x d10s against TN 8. One success, congratulations.

Same thing in SR4. Lets say Agility + Doing Shit in the Rain. Now, modifiers. We don't know how these will work precisely. Maybe they will subtract from your dice pool, maybe they will add to your threshold. You roll your dice, one success, what happens? Who knows.

The point is, it may very well be something completely unlike nWoD entirely

Doubt it.

But you score points for being amazingly vague and (purposefully?) confusing while slowly warping the conversation back to your original, flawed, defiant stance.

OK, so Nerbert's argument basically amounts to this: It could be like nWoD, or it couldn't. Therefore it isn't. Therefore he's a master debator.

I'm not going to argue the last point much, although I might remove a syllable from it.

I would like to point out that even in the current SR you typically need more than one success to kill someone with a Simple Action, becuase you need to stage up the damage...

you're correct. most posters here don't know how SR4's dice mechanics will work. i myself have never played an nWoD game, so i couldn't begin to tell you if they're similar or not. if there are playtesters out there who've played nWoD, they're (wisely) keeping their mouths shut.

so: no, we don't know how similar nWoD and SR4 will be. what we do know is that, based on the FAQs so far, they sound similar. and that's more than enough to justifiably worry someone who doesn't like nWoD.

Yes, the basic dice mechanic is very similar. There's more to a game then the basic dice mechanic for performing actions.

right. and while that's not enough to say for sure that the rest of the system will be similar, it's enough evidence to justify being worried that the rest of the system will be similar.

Maybe if you're a cynical naysayer dedicated to disliking the game based solely on the parameters of the worst possible scenario that you can imagine that still coincides with known information. By which I am not refering to anyone in particular. That just seems to be the mindset of quite a few people.

The rest of us, ok its just me, choose to assume that the developers are not brain damaged. V:tM took a lot of inspiration from Shadowrun as many people have said, they are nothing alike and Vampire benefited greatly from it. I don't see any reason to completely disregard that scenario in this situation.