Wow, yeah, if they're not thinking of the DSF people, they must be only thinking of themselves.

Nerbert, maybe I'm just missing something here -- but what was your purpose in posting this thread?

Was it just to say "the two games aren't exactly identical, despite the massive similarities in their base mechanic?" Because, well, that's just you arguing with yourself. No one's ever say the two will play exactly alike (which is what you seem to be hung up on) -- people have made comparisons between the core mechanics (attribute, skill, modifiers, fixed TN), and that's really been about it.

Initially you posted that the 3% difference in base success probability showed how "very different" the two are. I mentioned that the average number of dice rolls changed that probability back towards one another, you ignored that and went on to mention morality tests and psychoses as the "difference," instead. Then loss of willpower, or something. Then...then I dunno. I really don't. I'm not sure what you're saying, really.

Please clarify.

I've stated my purpose for this thread earlier.

What I'm saying is that the core dice mechanic for performing actions might be similar. Similar, not exactly the same. And that these similarities will not make SR4 play, feel or operate in any way resembling nWoD, except in the most fleeting way.

Clearly no one is reading this thread because I keep repeating these things over and over, and no one actually responds to the evidence I bring up.

Which by the way is the following. a)The Threshold system is a fundemental element of the dice mechanic which the two systems do not share in any way. and b) There is more to a game then the core dice mechanic for performing actions.

People have replied with ways in which games that share dice mechanics are very different. People have replied that games with the same dice mechanic feel very different.

The 3.3% difference is a largely irrelevant issue which is being bruttally assaulted on despite its irrelevance.

If you don't know what the thread is for, don't post to it and let it die!

I think you are escaping what I am saying. If you change the way the game feels enough, it will not be Shadowrun.

There is always a bit of a change between editions. The big one for me was the way initiative was handled in 3ed. I thought it was a great new way to handle it. People still got to go fast, maintaining the feel, but you didn't end up with half the party waiting on two guys.

But were not talking about tweaks or revisions, were talking about entire new rules. I submit that it would be practically impossible for me (or anyone else) to come up with new rules for everything (which they have) and still have it feel anything remotely like Shadowrun.

Could you scrap D&D right here and now and make a game that felt even close to it? No of course not.

So don't tell me the new edition is going to be Shadowrun, printing the name on the book doesn't make it so (imho).

So, okay, right. You're just arguing with yourself, then, like I said. No one's ever said the two will play exactly alike. People have said "the core mechanics are almost identical," and even you have admitted as much. So, well, yeah. You're just...arguing.

And, if the 3% issue is so irrelevant, why was it the only real statement you made in your opening post? It was the only real argument you made, the only fact you presented as a massive difference between the two otherwise identical-in-theory core die mechanics -- and yet now you're brushing it off (and calling the counter arguments to you 3% difference "brutal assaults," or something) as a non-subject.

Nerbert, please listen: No one has said SR4 is going to play or feel just like WoD. People have said the core mechanic is remarkably similar to WoD. People have said the core mechanic is quite a bit more like WoD than previous SR incarnations. People have said they don't like that. That is all.

I'm not arguing with myself because people keep posting, telling me that I'm wrong!

I'm wrong no matter what I say! Its amazing!

Everyone was like "Shadowrun and nWoD will play exactly the same!" and I'm like "No, the games bear no resemblance to each other." and everyone says "HA HA HA, there's a resemblance MORON, they have the same dice system." so I say "But the dice system isn't that important." and they say "HA HA HA, games with the same dice system have the same "feel", MORON." and then someone else says "No, there are other games that have kind of the same systems and don't have the same feel at all." and everyone just ignores him. And now everyone is saying that I'm arguing that the new shadowrun mechanic won't change shadowrun and that I'm wrong about that when I've even said "The new dice mechanic will change Shadowrun." and then they're like "How can you say that it won't change it! Its making it into a whole new game!" and I said "Maybe, but it won't be like nWoD." and everyone is like "No Duh! We know that, MORON!"

And before someone bites my head off about putting "moron" into people's mouths, its implied by their tone.

Oh geez, Critias, I just read your post again. Are you completely ignoring the threshold differences on purpose or are you really not reading anything I say? The 3.3% thing was brought up because it was my opening post, I didn't know what people would have to say, and I wanted to start conversation. It is a difference, not a huge one maybe, but its there. The reason I said "brutal assault" is because its the weakest part of my argument, so people keep hammering, hammering, hammering on it because its not even being defended.

Got any links to all these posts where everyone's claiming the two games will be exactly alike? 'Cause I've been among the SR4 sub-forum's most active posters from the get-go, and I really don't remember any.

Yes, people are saying the die mechanics are as identical as they can be (given that SR isn't, at least, swapping over to a d10, to be totally open about it). Yes, people are saying that the die mechanic is very different from SR1-3. Yes, people are sometimes even poking fun by calling it "Shadow: The Running" (or similar), as a way of expressing their disappointment.

No, people are not saying the two games will be exactly alike. You're delusional.

In my experiences in discussing the SR4 mechanic with others away from Dumpshock, the first words out of most of their mouths are WoD-related.

Well, according to Nerbert, all those people you talk to are insane and incorrect, because you have to make a Humanity test in WoD, and you don't in SR. Oh, and you're stupid.

I love it. The two stupidest things I've said are the only things people talk about. The 3.3% thing and the "no resemblance" thing.

Its just... sad.

ha ha ha. Too late. Its good that I know no fear.

What am I supposed to learn Critias? I said two stupid things, corrected myself and now all you're talking about is the two stupid things I've said.

Well, maybe you should stop saying stupid things, then, and, in fact, using stupid things as the cores of your arguments with others.

The one hard fact you tried to state at the start of this thread was that a 3% difference in base success probability showed how "very different" the two systems were. As soon as people called you on it, insetad of replying in any sort of meaningful manner you just said "that was stupid, pretend I never said that" (more or less).

You then stated an opinion as if it were fact -- "no resemblence" -- and as soon as people called you on that you, again, tried to backpedal and retract it.

I'm sure that, any minute now, you'll be changing your tune over in the Edge thread about your GMing style, and when to throw the TN modifiers and other rules right out the window (to save a precious, precious, NPC).

The simple fact is that when someone says something stupid around here, they get called on it. Not just by the list of people Shadow rattled off, but by everyone. It's the nature, not of DS, but of the internet. If you're dumb, you get called dumb. If you say a dumb thing, you're thought to be dumb. Get over it.

What the internet needs is more quadraplegics. They have to type everything with their nose, so they think real hard before they say anything.

What about threshold, thats hard fact, one you still have not addressed.

How much do you really know about threshold, in SR4, and how it affects gameplay?

And, on a related note, how often does a single success really accomplish all that you set out to do with a die roll, in WoD?

Add those two together and you get the idea that (1) we don't really know how big a deal thresholds are going to be in SR4, since we don't have the rulebook, do we, and (2) you normally need multiple successes (an informal threshold) in WoD, anyways, so you could easily argue that the need for beating a threshold is another similarity between the two games.

A single success is enough for any simple action.

Shadow, you are just tenacious about dragging arguments all throughout every thread aren't you?

What is the definition of a "simple action" in nWoD? This could be a good point, if a simple action can include things like shooting people who are behind a plexiglass window (or other things that may well increase the threshold).

Also, if your dice explode 1/10 of the time, then you should multiply the number of expected successes by 10/9. (3/10)*(10/9) = 1/3. Exactly the same as SR4.

(For reference, an exploding die in SR has a probability of (2/6)*(6/5) = 40%.)

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. And yes.

If a person's health bar is full of lethal damage, one success with a gunshot will kill them. If a person's health bar is full of bashing damage, a single success will knock them unconcious. If your opponent gets no successes, a single one will keep the door from being bashed in. If your opponents get no successes, a single one will win the tug of war, if the person gets no successes then a single one will convince them you speak the truth.

And yes, you have a different WoD book then I do.

Now, I've answered all of your questions literally, without answering the spirit of the questions.

What you're saying is that it is possible that Shadowrun's threshold system will match nWoD's resistance system. This is possible. I don't deny it. I also do not deny that when you describe the dice system of Shadowrun 4 to someone who is familiar with nWoD, they will express the similarities. It is true, they are very similar. The rerolling of 10s and 6s is different but not necessarily significant.

Now, and I hope this will lay this all to rest, when the person expreses the similarity, which they will, they may ask next "So do they play exactly the same? Will I just be playing nWoD with cyber arms?" I believe the answer will be no.

Thats all I'm saying. Thats all I ever intended to say.

Nerbert man, you're taking this way too personally.

I haven't been here for, I dare say, 3 months. In another forum, Eyeless Blond -slammed- me. Like Hulk Hogan slamming Elian Gonzalez. The point of the matter is, we make mistakes and say dumb things. Sometimes sarcasm gets overlooked (I.E. with what I say a lot of the time.)

I see comparisons that you can't possibly deny. I see the entire core mechanic of a game shift from 3eSR to WoD (A + S +/- M) You wonder why someone might say "wow. Sounds blood-suckerish."

As for the NWN comparison, of course it was different than D&D. You could still get -something- of a D&D feel, but considering NWN was realtime and D&D isn't, there are limits and revisions necessary to make the game playable both as singleplayer and multiplayer.

Personally, I loved Baldur's Gate. If it wasn't for BG, I'd never have picked up that D&D starter set. Then tried to use BG's rules to co-opt the game and not have to buy a player's manual for level 4.

But if such a huge difference in play feel can be found simply by changing a few things in NWN, imagine the difference of a complete system overhaul to SR, both in mechanic and setting (No more Matrix, etc etc). No longer the same game, at all.

Which is SOMEWHAT acceptable. Sci-Fi has to catch up to reality in some ways, as has already been said, thus a wireless matrix...Makes sense. But I -liked- the old matrix. I liked being able to plug into the matrix and be all Keanu Reeves and whatnot. Now, from what little I've possibly-erroneously peiced together, you're basically dual-natured: Physical and Computer.

Which has some potential but could honestly, completely suck if done incorrectly.

And judging by most of what I've seen, at least in terms of completely changing mechanics and doing silly things to a longstanding, powerful game, the track record for SR4 isn't looking good enough to support this new matrix.

Which is a damn shame. I would personally have preferred (and still might use, cuz I'm a GM so HAH) a combination: Some things can be done semi-conscious, others you must be fully jacked into.

And considering offline storage is huge, you just might need that cyberdeck afterall.

But I'm 6:30 AM rambling. Night. [edit] and I just have to say this: Why NOT get a vampire with a cyber-arm? That'd be cool! ....Or maybe not, but its new and might have interesting plot twists.

Thanks a lot, fixed.

Something interesting? If SR4 and V:tR are so similar, it makes crossovers much easier.

And with the mana storms in Australia, there's a decent (ingame) way to send SR PC's to the nWoD.

I wouldn't mind seeing some shadowrunners blasting the holy heck out of some elitist vampires, for reasonable pay, of course.

Vamp: "No mere human can hurt me!"
Street Sam: "Wanna bet?"
*opens up with HVAR loaded w/ EX explosive ammo*
*vampire falls over on two pieces*

Crossovers are interesting, the problem is picking a system to use as your medium. For different things, one side might be way ahead of the other.

Though it would really be interesting to watch that meeting...

And another small note - as GM, you can do ANYTHING. Wanna bring SR to the middle ages via some ancient portal? Done. Wanna make it a Vampire game? Easy - A group of vampires get shifted over to the SR world. The hardest part is which of the systems do you use?

All right, Nerbert. I just happened to chance across a copy of Adventure! today; I'd been looking for a pulp game, so I picked it up. It's a White Wolf game, and uses the same mechanic as nWoD-- it's the new Storyteller system.

Now, I haven't finished reading it yet, but I haven't encountered any "humanity" mechanic in the game. I've pretty much skimmed the entire character creation and rules section, and I haven't noticed anything of the sort. So, it's pretty clear that a "humanity mechanic" is *not* a part of the core nWoD rules. I did come across an entire page on GM flexibility, incidentally.

There's only three core rulebooks in the New World of Darkness line. World of Darkness, blue hardcover. Vampire: The Requiem, red hardcover. Werewolf: the Forsaken, tan hardcover.

This Adventure! game is not related to the New World of Darkness in any way.

Okay, I don't have a copy of any of those, but I took a look inside the cover of one. It says: "Storyteller system designed by Mark Rein-Hagen". By a startling coincidence, that's exactly what it says on the credits page of Adventure!

I also downloaded the V:tR demo on Drivethrurpg.com, and took a look at the credits page. It says that the "Storyteller system" is copyrighted by White Wolf, blah blah. So, it's clear that the core mechanic of nWod is the Storyteller system. Following on that, it's clear from Adventure! that a "humanity mechanic" is not part of the rules. Ergo, a humanity mechanic is not part of the core Storyteller rules. Thus, a humanity mechanic is not a part of the core nWoD rules, since nWoD is just a specific Storyteller system.

It's perfectly clear that nWoD and Adventure! are mechanically related, even if the settings are not. However, we're not discussing settings, we're discussing mechanics. You're confusing systems with settings-- a natural mistake, since systems can and do heavily influence settings. In fact, your difficulty shows exactly what's wrong with SR4: it will change the mechanic so radically, the feel of the setting will be altered.

So, by your own argument, the change to SR4 will cause Shadowrun to become Shadows: the Running. QED.

Adventure! pretty much uses the nWoD mechanics: variable d10's against a fixed TN of 7, with a threshold varying based on difficulty.

Which is pretty much what I keep saying. I wish they would call it Shadowrun: 2070. That way they could clearly seperate 'real' Shadowrun from the new stuff.

I think Cain hit the core of the argument on the head...Nerbert seems to be arguing about setting while everyone else is arguing about system. SR$ will not play the same as nWoD because the settings are different. However, the GAME aspect of it, deciding what actions to take, evaluating chances of success, conducting combat, will feel similar between the two because they have an incredibly close game mechanic.

As far as the much vaunted Threshold aspect goes I always found Thresholds in the WW games--it was the number of successes rolled by my opponent. One success wasn't good for anything really. Especially since my GMs had a very clear knowledge of what the word Marginal means (lots of programmers and mathematicians who are used to calculus).

So, what you're saying is that Monopoly and Backgammon play basically the same because they both use 2 six sided dice to determine how far you move your pieces?

But my point is that when sitting down to play SR4, no one is going to say "Wow, I feel like I'm playing nWoD." anymore then if they sat down to play Backgammon and said "I'm going to buy Park Place."

Unless I'm very much misinterpreting what people mean by "Shadows: the Running" or "Shadowrun: 2070" or "Shadowsprint: the Running".