Full Version: More news of Origins
| QUOTE (Synner @ Aug 5 2005, 06:11 AM) |
| Why do I bother debating this at all? Well, because too many people have jumped to various erroneous conclusions based on incomplete knowledge of the new system. Even some playtesters have made the mistake of jumping to conclusions on some stuff that is currently patently untrue in the final implementation. What has changed at this point is that things have been made public that allow relevant discussion without idle speculation - the problem is people are still catching up. |
Every deduction is just that, a deduction. Everybody knows that most information here is speculation. Even when the game mechanics are published, most opinions about the effects of the changes are mostly subjective. Those who dont know this shouldnt discuss. So your point is valid. But its the same like saying: "You know, when your are standing on the floor your feet touch the ground". Everybody knows it. No point in pointing it out.
This (SR4) forum is for speculations (because SR4 is not out yet). Why not let people speculate? If developers wanted to stop speculations they wouldnt have things like NDAs.
| QUOTE (Serbitar @ Aug 5 2005, 12:24 PM) |
| Everybody knows that most information here is speculation. Even when the game mechanics are published, most opinions about the effects of the changes are mostly subjective. Those who dont know this shouldnt discuss. So your point is valid. |
My point is clearly labelling speculation as such is all that's needed to help avoid many misinterpretations. The problem is there are actual hard facts now available about this matter and not everyone is up to speed on what those are. This leads to misunderstandings.
There's nothing wrong with speculation, just be helpful and ensure its clearly identified as speculation - especially when making a leap like Ellery did and especially at this point in time, when more hard facts have been made public but not everyone has caught on to all of them (or their implications).
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| My point is clearly labelling speculation as such is all that's needed to help avoid many misinterpretations. |
Now Peter, come on. You know better. It's not speculating.
It's jumping wildly to conclusions.
Speculation is fine. What Synner is doing is trying to help stop people for judging based solely on the speculation and suppositions.
Me, i think he should give up. He's just beating his head on the wall. Ellery has his opinions based on his speculations, and based on the few facts that have been presented thus far. As they are his opinions, he is not wrong. And after what, two or three months of this nonsense, I think it's clear that nothing will change his mind.
Of course, this makes me wonder why he's still in here posting nonstop and repeatedly, but hey. It's his time and effort.
Bull -- Enjoying his SR4 campaign immensly
| QUOTE |
| Bull -- Enjoying his SR4 campaign immensly |
I've kinda lost track - but have you been play testing? Developing? 'Had a hand in guiding it'?
Just playtesting.
And contrary to early reports, there have been a LOT of changes made based on playtester feedback.
Bull
And contrary to early reports, there have been a LOT of changes made based on playtester feedback.
Bull
| QUOTE (Shadow) | ||
Both of which are done extremely well in SR4. Lets hope the rest of the system is doen that well. (hint: don't just double the rate of fire of weapons because the round is now 6 seconds. ROF is broken sr3, doubling it breaks it for SR4) |
wait, they changed the round to 6 seconds??
Can anyone tell me why.
A untrained non-ninja parapalegic monkey could take more than one action in 6 seconds(or 2 simple ones or whatever they call it now), why the heck are they making the combat turn 6 seconds like oh so many other dumb combat rounds in other systems.
I mean yeah sure, in my games pwang its 3 seconds and my problem is solved but this irritates me anyways.
Three is too long.
| QUOTE (SL James) |
| Three is too long. |
yeah maybe it is, but its the best i can recall in games so far. Most games seem to go with either 10 or 6 seconds.(or god forbid the 1 minute old school d&d round, or my favorite the 1 minute out of combat 10 sec in combat round) So when i do my pwang the rules are changed maybe 2 secs I dont know. Only thing to work out is possible movement changes.
| QUOTE (Shinobi Killfist @ Aug 5 2005, 05:10 PM) | ||||
wait, they changed the round to 6 seconds?? Can anyone tell me why? |
Thank you for making my point for me. This is a perfect example of the misunderstandings that can come up from someone posting stuff they don't know and not labelling it as speculation.
Somebody was privy to playtester information. Somebody deduced it was final, rather than one of several options being playtested. Somebody not only made an erroneous assumption based on incomplete data, but didn't stop there and decided to let the world know. And finally, somebody got it wrong, leading to confusion on the part of someone who hasn't been following all the thread.
This is where we seem to run up against your inability to distinguish "wild speculation" (or at least misinformed speculation) from common sense.
The combat turn, was, for the majority of SR4's playtesting, six seconds. It was reduced/reverted to three seconds during the last phase, just before SR4 was run at Origins. Someone operating on leaked information could have secretly observed the entirety of playtesting save for the last week and not known about that particular adjustment. Shadow was thusly misinformed based on his apparent access to slightly-or-greatly dated playtest material. I imagine if he'd even done some digging about the Origins game, he'd have been able to debase himself of this bit of false data. That is misinformed (or "wild speculation").
Ellery is making the crazy suggestion that a static target number system will work differently from the existing variable target number system, and is noting things she liked about the old system (or were present; she hasn't qualified whether she liked them or not) that will not be possible to replicate cleanly with static target number mechanic. How is this misinformed? Is there some kind of secret branch of mathematics where the SR4 base mechanic will work like the SR3 base mechanic in the situations she's described?
Shadow's observations were based off of an old playtest document that was subsequently revised. Ellery's observations are based off of the science of mathematics. You're lumping them together in the same boat. How does this not strike you as odd?
[edit]
But, back to this ongoing argument... do you realize that attempting to counter her arguments with statements that amount to "no, it doesn't work that way" is at its basic level false? When someone's pointing out that which is essentially mathematical fact, you can't attempt to disavow it in your counter-point without compromising the validity of your entire stance. This should never have been an argument in the first place. Ellery said something that was true; her initial statement can be reduced to stating that it's a lot harder to resist a spell when your target number is six, versus five (~50% less successes harder).
The only speculation that she engaged in was that the difference in force ratings, for spells cast in SR4, would not mirror the difficulty shifts that different force ratings presented in SR3. I think that speculating that the designers are not insane is acceptable. If her speculation were false, for instance, a SR4 spell that required 5 hits, or rolled 14 dice, cast at force 5, would require 10 hits, or the rolling of 28 dice, at force 6, to model the difficulty difference between resisting the equivalent force ratings in SR3. Given what we've been told (maximum dice pools of 24 being key here), the system would have to behave pretty crazily if this were the case. I share her speculation that it's not.
Sorry for tossing thise whole bit in after the fact, but I just don't get where she's off base, and I figure if I start posting on this thread, someone's going to want me to justify just why I think what I do. This saves me the time of typing it up later.
[/edit]
The combat turn, was, for the majority of SR4's playtesting, six seconds. It was reduced/reverted to three seconds during the last phase, just before SR4 was run at Origins. Someone operating on leaked information could have secretly observed the entirety of playtesting save for the last week and not known about that particular adjustment. Shadow was thusly misinformed based on his apparent access to slightly-or-greatly dated playtest material. I imagine if he'd even done some digging about the Origins game, he'd have been able to debase himself of this bit of false data. That is misinformed (or "wild speculation").
Ellery is making the crazy suggestion that a static target number system will work differently from the existing variable target number system, and is noting things she liked about the old system (or were present; she hasn't qualified whether she liked them or not) that will not be possible to replicate cleanly with static target number mechanic. How is this misinformed? Is there some kind of secret branch of mathematics where the SR4 base mechanic will work like the SR3 base mechanic in the situations she's described?
Shadow's observations were based off of an old playtest document that was subsequently revised. Ellery's observations are based off of the science of mathematics. You're lumping them together in the same boat. How does this not strike you as odd?
[edit]
But, back to this ongoing argument... do you realize that attempting to counter her arguments with statements that amount to "no, it doesn't work that way" is at its basic level false? When someone's pointing out that which is essentially mathematical fact, you can't attempt to disavow it in your counter-point without compromising the validity of your entire stance. This should never have been an argument in the first place. Ellery said something that was true; her initial statement can be reduced to stating that it's a lot harder to resist a spell when your target number is six, versus five (~50% less successes harder).
The only speculation that she engaged in was that the difference in force ratings, for spells cast in SR4, would not mirror the difficulty shifts that different force ratings presented in SR3. I think that speculating that the designers are not insane is acceptable. If her speculation were false, for instance, a SR4 spell that required 5 hits, or rolled 14 dice, cast at force 5, would require 10 hits, or the rolling of 28 dice, at force 6, to model the difficulty difference between resisting the equivalent force ratings in SR3. Given what we've been told (maximum dice pools of 24 being key here), the system would have to behave pretty crazily if this were the case. I share her speculation that it's not.
Sorry for tossing thise whole bit in after the fact, but I just don't get where she's off base, and I figure if I start posting on this thread, someone's going to want me to justify just why I think what I do. This saves me the time of typing it up later.
[/edit]
Its good to here the 6 second round went away, its a totally minor issue but it would of grated on my nerves.
| QUOTE (Wireknight @ Aug 5 2005, 06:22 PM) |
| This is where we seem to run up against your inability to distinguish "wild speculation" (or at least misinformed speculation) from common sense. |
Or maybe we're running against your inability to read my posts...
| QUOTE |
| The combat turn, was, for the majority of SR4's playtesting, six seconds. It was reduced/reverted to three seconds during the last phase, just before SR4 was run at Origins. Someone operating on leaked information could have secretly observed the entirety of playtesting save for the last week and not known about that particular adjustment. Shadow was thusly misinformed based on his apparent access to slightly-or-greatly dated playtest material. I imagine if he'd even done some digging about the Origins game, he'd have been able to debase himself of this bit of false data. That is misinformed (or "wild speculation"). |
As regards this little gem, I'll just say that all you can claim is that "the combat turn was for the majority of your SR4 playtesting" was six seconds. I know for a fact that for the majority of my SR4 playtesting it was three. Go figure. But that's a discussion regarding our approaches to playtesting which is for another place and time (one which I'm perfectly willing to pick up with you off the board just like I have with other playtesters).
| QUOTE |
| Ellery is making the crazy suggestion that a static target number system will work differently from the existing variable target number system, and is noting things she liked about the old system (or were present; she hasn't qualified whether she liked them or not) that will not be possible to replicate cleanly with static target number mechanic. How is this misinformed? Is there some kind of secret branch of mathematics where the SR4 base mechanic will work like the SR3 base mechanic in the situations she's described? |
Let's start from the beginning. That is not what Ellery posted. For your enlightenment, I will repost (for the 4th time) what Ellery did post:
| QUOTE |
| The ability to cast force 6 spells was important in SR3, but won't be with the new mechanic, so the penalty for starting mages to take cyberware will go down. If you combine that with presumably cheaper costs to get partial magical ability, I'd expect to see many more mages with a bit of cyber, or street sams with a bit of magic. |
Please note there was no mention of the maths at that point and there are several erroneous conclusions drawn from that original "statement" and not identifying them as speculation (wild or otherwise). Furthermore in context this was a reply to someone else's post. I replied to this post and warned against making assumptions beyond what is known when the entire framework is unknown. Ellery focused on the maths issue, to which I replied by saying that even were that a correct deduction from the known elements of the system any remaining conclusion specifically on something such as the potential penalty to "starting mages to take cyberware will go down". Please note that at no point did I say his maths were wrong. Quite to the contrary. What I did say, by way of warning was that the system had changed and deducing further inevitably to wrong conclusions.
To put it in your terms there is no "wild speculation" in that element of Ellery observation, there is plenty of what I would consider "wild speculation" in the remaining conclusions given what is currently unknown. I'll get back to this further down the line.
| QUOTE |
| Shadow's observations were based off of an old playtest document that was subsequently revised. Ellery's observations are based off of the science of mathematics. You're lumping them together in the same boat. How does this not strike you as odd? |
You are operating under the several incorrect assumptions and I suggest you reread my previous posts before making further unfounded accusations - you could begin with the post at the head of this page. You have obviously missed the point of my posts and misinterpreted them to boot.
I am lumping them together because they both contain "wild speculation" you just don't seem to have read the original post.
| QUOTE |
| [edit]But, back to this ongoing argument... do you realize that attempting to counter her arguments with statements that amount to "no, it doesn't work that way" is at its basic level false? |
Amazingly enough I haven't countered his statement with any such argument and I challenge you to produce a quote of where I have.
| QUOTE |
| When someone's pointing out that which is essentially mathematical fact, you can't attempt to disavow it in your counter-point without compromising the validity of your entire stance. This should never have been an argument in the first place. Ellery said something that was true; her initial statement can be reduced to stating that it's a lot harder to resist a spell when your target number is six, versus five (~50% less successes harder). |
You are incorrect. That was not his initial statement, nor was it what I raised issue with. I suggest you reread my posts.
Regardless, it isn't a point of argument and hasn't been for me. I have, again and again, reiterated the warning against making any further assumptions based on that conclusion given the number of elements the general is currently not privy too. I have gone so far as suggesting (I have yet to state anything definitive) for arguments sake that for all that's known elements of SR4s system could be so changed that they reproduce the same intrinsic value differential on a roll of 6, but that otherwise too many known factors impact the rest of his conclusions for them to be anything but "wild speculation". Sorry, but what I have not done is said "no, it doesn't work that way".
| QUOTE |
| The only speculation that she engaged in was that the difference in force ratings, for spells cast in SR4, would not mirror the difficulty shifts that different force ratings presented in SR3. I think that speculating that the designers are not insane is acceptable. If her speculation were false, for instance, a SR4 spell that required 5 hits, or rolled 14 dice, cast at force 5, would require 10 hits, or the rolling of 28 dice, to model the difficulty difference between resisting the equivalent force ratings in SR3. Given what we've been told (maximum dice pools of 24 being key here), the system would have to behave pretty crazily if this were the case. I share her speculation that it's not. |
You are again incorrect. Ellery produced several conclusions in the original post, all of which are IMHO erroneous and misleading and are contingent on information not currently available.
| QUOTE |
| Sorry for tossing thise whole bit in after the fact, but I just don't get where she's off base, and I figure if I start posting on this thread, someone's going to want me to justify just why I think what I do. This saves me the time of typing it up later.[/edit] |
If you are going to post on the thread after the fact it behooves you to actually read what has been posted.
Here are a few select quotes for you to catch up:
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| Okay, let's get this straight. Your maths are impeccable and as far as I can see your one mistake is extending your argument beyond the value of 6 element in a Force 6 spell under SR3. In all my posts I've reserved commenting on whether your calculations are correct or not, because that wasn't the point. Your mistake, from my perspective, was not in the maths (although there are ways in which the new system does indeed change the way Atts, Edge, Magic, Force and Resistance rolls relate that impact directly on this mechanic including stuff like possible exploding dice, etc). It is in failing to take into account the relative framework when making further extrapolations |
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| My point is clearly labelling speculation as such is all that's needed to help avoid many misinterpretations. The problem is there are actual hard facts now available about this matter and not everyone is up to speed on what those are. This leads to misunderstandings. |
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| I'd like to reiterate that you might even be right with the basis of your prior conclusion, but given its speculative nature and the current known information, it shouldn't have been used to build further conclusions which are contingent on a larger framework. |
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| There is a difference between stating something as your opinion or your deduction and presenting it as fact. I would not have brought this up if Ellery has posted "(...)but it looks like it won't be with the new mechanic". |
Hey Synner, less posting and more brainstorming! 
Hey, just getting this posting thing out of my system before I go on a three week vacation. I'll be coming back with a bunch of ideas though.
| QUOTE (Bull) |
| After what, two or three months of this nonsense, I think it's clear that nothing will change (Ellery's) mind. |
Evidence is very good at changing my mind. Well-reasoned arguments do a pretty good job too. Opinion, hype, and PR do very little for me.
| QUOTE (Bull) |
| Of course, this makes me wonder why [Ellery is] still in here posting nonstop and repeatedly |
Maybe I post here because Shadowrun is my favorite game, and I care about what happens to it, I want to know where it is going, and I find interacting with a subset of the forum members to be enlightening? Or maybe I do it just to irritate you. Take your pick.
| QUOTE (Synner) | ||
You're wrong on all counts. I've said on several ocassions on this thread that there's nothing wrong with speculation, but that -now more than ever- its important to identify speculation and personal interpretation as such. |
My apologies--I am definitely wrong on one count. You've consistently said that speculation is fine. What I was trying to convey (and completely botched in my sentence above) was your insistance that all conclusions drawn are speculations, and deserve labeling as such.
What you have failed to do (and continue to fail to do) is demonstrate mathematically why the conclusions I've drawn are not justified when other factors are taken into account. I've already explained why each other factor gives at most an effect of 20% or so, and there don't seem to be enough to add up to the 100% change between 5 and 6.
What you have failed to do (and continue to fail to do) is demonstrate mathematically why the conclusions I've drawn are not justified when other factors are taken into account. I've already explained why each other factor gives at most an effect of 20% or so, and there don't seem to be enough to add up to the 100% change between 5 and 6.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| At this point in time there are numerous ways in which even a non-playtester or non-developer could have by now validly come up with a lot of information - there's nothing to help anyone distinguish between officially released info and speculation unless we specifically identify what our sources are and whether we are simply speculating and making educated guesses (or not). |
All right, fair enough. If this is your real complaint, then I can see your point. As long as you also insist that people identify material from Origins or some other source as being authoritative in that way, I don't have any problem with accurate reporting of the source of a statement. It's a little clunky, but it can be very useful in determining the confidence one should ascribe to a statement.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| [Ellery's mistake] is in failing to take into account the relative framework when making further extrapolations. It's like assuming a Magic 6 magician in SR3 will convert to a Magic 6 magician in SR4 with all the relevant abilities the same - at this point in time there is nothing to say this will be the case. Possibly Magic 6 will convert to the Magic 3 mage in SR4? IMHO this sort of unknown makes any argument which goes on to suggest "the penalty for starting mages to take cyberware will go down" inherently flawed. IMHO any such speculation which doesn't take into account the direct interaction between Magic and Essence loss due to cyber is flawed regardless of whether the maths are correct because the relative "importance" of the "penalty" is secondary to that consideration and partially contingent on the other "penalties" affecting such a choice. |
Well, the precedent is that SR developers try to enforce what is "average" verbally, and not in the rules. In SR4, supposedly skills of 4 and 5 were what I would consider "average" for someone who would identify themselves as having the skill. But numerically, it was often easy enough to buy up to 6, or 8, or whatever. And if the players buy up to 8, and the opposition has a skill of 4, they're just not that impressive. ("Lance Armstrong has a Body of 4 and Athletics 4 (Cycling 6)!") In some things, the rules trump developer intent, and this is one of them.
We know that attributes range from 1 to 6, with the strong implication that you can buy 6 at character creation time, at least if you're willing to make a few sacrifices. The people who are good are, therefore, going to have 5s or 6s unless the costs rise extremely fast (e.g. exponentially, which I find highly implausible given SR4's goals) or there are anti-synergistic effects (e.g. if one attribute is 6, the cost of all other attributes doubles--also rather contrary to SR4's stated design goals). The people who aren't good will have considerations other than their magical ability when considering whether to take cyberware, and that won't change.
Now, it might be that at character creation time, magic ranges from 1 to 3, and that taking cyber would drop you from 3 to 2 (and from maximum force 6 to maximum force 4 spells). This drop would almost be equal to the TN5 / TN6 difference.
But otherwise, I don't buy it. One might wish for characters with magic rating 3, but wishing does not make it so, and I don't see how to allow higher and not get it a lot of the time. I'd even be willing to bet that the mage archetypes included in SR4 have a magic rating higher than 3 on average.
Anyway, if you have more plausible hypothetical scenarios to offer, I'm happy to consider them.
We know that attributes range from 1 to 6, with the strong implication that you can buy 6 at character creation time, at least if you're willing to make a few sacrifices. The people who are good are, therefore, going to have 5s or 6s unless the costs rise extremely fast (e.g. exponentially, which I find highly implausible given SR4's goals) or there are anti-synergistic effects (e.g. if one attribute is 6, the cost of all other attributes doubles--also rather contrary to SR4's stated design goals). The people who aren't good will have considerations other than their magical ability when considering whether to take cyberware, and that won't change.
Now, it might be that at character creation time, magic ranges from 1 to 3, and that taking cyber would drop you from 3 to 2 (and from maximum force 6 to maximum force 4 spells). This drop would almost be equal to the TN5 / TN6 difference.
But otherwise, I don't buy it. One might wish for characters with magic rating 3, but wishing does not make it so, and I don't see how to allow higher and not get it a lot of the time. I'd even be willing to bet that the mage archetypes included in SR4 have a magic rating higher than 3 on average.
Anyway, if you have more plausible hypothetical scenarios to offer, I'm happy to consider them.
| QUOTE (Ellery) | ||||
My apologies--I am definitely wrong on one count. You've consistently said that speculation is fine. What I was trying to convey (and completely botched in my sentence above) was your insistance that all conclusions drawn are speculations, and deserve labeling as such. |
Thank you for conceding that, its one of the reasons I "bother" debating this stuff with you. Had this debate been with others I probably would have bowed out by now.
Anyway, I'm sorry to say you are wrong again. I suggest you reread my posts. I have insisted that building further arguments from speculative deductions (correct or otherwise) without lack of information is a mistake and that at the very least they should be identified as such to avoid the type of situation we've just seen above because of Shadow's post (someone who I might add, also doesn't possess a "FanPro developer" under his name).
| QUOTE |
| What you have failed to do (and continue to fail to do) is demonstrate mathematically why the conclusions I've drawn are not justified when other factors are taken into account. I've already explained why each other factor gives at most an effect of 20% or so, and there don't seem to be enough to add up to the 100% change between 5 and 6. |
I have not failed to do anything of the sorts since I haven't even attempted it and it was never my intent. I have simply pointed out why your deductions could be flawed and hence why further conclusions are far speculative. For the sake of argument I also suggested that the system could be bent so that the relative "importance" is preserved (for the record your first example below matches the one I would have offered with some minor variations).
As I've also said numerous times, and as has been ignored several times, I find nothing wrong with your maths. I find flaw with your analysis of the wider context especifically as relates to your "secondary" deductions.
| QUOTE | ||
All right, fair enough. If this is your real complaint, then I can see your point. As long as you also insist that people identify material from Origins or some other source as being authoritative in that way, I don't have any problem with accurate reporting of the source of a statement. It's a little clunky, but it can be very useful in determining the confidence one should ascribe to a statement. |
It is one aspect of my complaint and one I've reiterated numerous times and which people have ignored. My other complaint, about your secondary deductions remains.
| QUOTE | ||
Well, the precedent is that SR developers try to enforce what is "average" verbally, and not in the rules. In SR4, supposedly skills of 4 and 5 were what I would consider "average" for someone who would identify themselves as having the skill. But numerically, it was often easy enough to buy up to 6, or 8, or whatever. And if the players buy up to 8, and the opposition has a skill of 4, they're just not that impressive. ("Lance Armstrong has a Body of 4 and Athletics 4 (Cycling 6)!") In some things, the rules trump developer intent, and this is one of them. |
I would say you are correct in SR3. I believe SR4 will be better at this, but right now it's only a personal impression based on what I've playtested within my group - a bunch of commited and unrepentant min-maxers.
| QUOTE |
| We know that attributes range from 1 to 6, with the strong implication that you can buy 6 at character creation time, at least if you're willing to make a few sacrifices. The people who are good are, therefore, going to have 5s or 6s unless the costs rise extremely fast (e.g. exponentially, which I find highly implausible given SR4's goals) or there are anti-synergistic effects (e.g. if one attribute is 6, the cost of all other attributes doubles--also rather contrary to SR4's stated design goals). The people who aren't good will have considerations other than their magical ability when considering whether to take cyberware, and that won't change. |
That does not exclude the possibility that anti-synergistic effects or equivalents aren't in place by other means. Or even that the cost of 5-6s rises exponentially or something similar. Either option and severl others would have similar effects but at this point I honestly can't comment further but I will say you're on the right track.
BTW - SR4s goals are to simplify and streamline to its not so much how you do anything its at least partially how you present a concept or rule.
| QUOTE |
| Now, it might be that at character creation time, magic ranges from 1 to 3, and that taking cyber would drop you from 3 to 2 (and from maximum force 6 to maximum force 4 spells). This drop would almost be equal to the TN5 / TN6 difference. |
As I've mentioned in the previous page, it was mentioned at Origins that Essence loss to cyberware reduces directly from Magic as in previous editions (this was not expounded upon so "we" don't know the Bioware dynamic yet). At the very least this means that a starting character with an average rating in Magic runs exactly the risk you've pointed out. There are however other elements at work which make answering your question complicated without breaching my NDA - let's just say that in my experience a 3-4 Magic rating at creation will not be unusual for an SR3 type general practionner magician.
| QUOTE |
| But otherwise, I don't buy it. One might wish for characters with magic rating 3, but wishing does not make it so, and I don't see how to allow higher and not get it a lot of the time. |
Again it boils down to how all the elements I've been mentionning again and again come (ie. variable Magic, break down of magic skills, Magic capping-force, roll of Magic in relevant dice pools, cost of spells at creation, etc, etc) together and the particular character concept you're building.
Though you will undoubtedly be able to produce a Magic 6 magician in SR4 from what I've seen to be effective he will be far more specialized than any starting SR3 mage. And a SR3 style general practionner will tend to be a Magic 3-4 type (without cyber). However, this may simply be distorted perception generated by my game group play style and its one of many reasons why FanPro had numerous groups playtesting.
| QUOTE |
| I'd even be willing to bet that the mage archetypes included in SR4 have a magic rating higher than 3 on average. |
Time will tell, but last time I checked, I'd say you were right. Then again it depends on which archetypes make the final cut.
For now your own two hypothetical scenarios present more than enough options, and I really don't have the free time to continue tearing down your conclusions when that was never the point - the point was to have people realize that the secondary conclusions you came to were speculative and could be flawed, essentially pointing out the error in concluding that 1+1+x is 3 (with the first 1 being your observation of the value of 6 and the rest everything else you've suggested).
and here i thought i'd finally gotten over my raging hatred of almost all that is SR4.
| QUOTE (Synner) | ||
I have not failed to do anything of the sorts since I haven't even attempted it and it was never my intent. I have simply pointed out why your deductions could be flawed and hence why further conclusions are far speculative. |
If you don't point out why it is flawed mathematically, and I am not seeing why your points alter the mathematics sufficiently, we are failing to communicate. I cannot convert a quantitative discussion into a qualitative one and retain the predictive power that one gains via quantitation. My conclusions are only solid because of the mathematics involved.
So if you're not interested in addressing the mathematics, I'll just say that I agree with (or accept) some things you've said and disagree with others. Going into more detail is likely to be fruitless since the core of my reasoning is explicitly not being addressed. (I'm not sure I quite understand your claim, since things you say do have mathematical consequences, but I'll take you at your word that this is unintentional.)
So if you're not interested in addressing the mathematics, I'll just say that I agree with (or accept) some things you've said and disagree with others. Going into more detail is likely to be fruitless since the core of my reasoning is explicitly not being addressed. (I'm not sure I quite understand your claim, since things you say do have mathematical consequences, but I'll take you at your word that this is unintentional.)
| QUOTE |
| Evidence is very good at changing my mind. Well-reasoned arguments do a pretty good job too. Opinion, hype, and PR do very little for me. |
The porblem is, evidence isn;t going to change your mind. We've presented as much as we can, and I sincerely doubt that having the book in your hand is ging to change it any. You have some very deeply imbedded and erronous preconceived notions about what SR4 is and why it was done. Add to that the fact you obviously don't like anything that has been officially announced about the new system, and well... The fact is, SR4 isn't for you, obviously.
I'm sorry for that. I hate to see fans unhappy with the product, even a product I only playtested. But if there's anything I've learned over the years, you can't make everyone happy, least of all the very diehard, very vocal online fan community.
| QUOTE | ||
Maybe I post here because Shadowrun is my favorite game, and I care about what happens to it, I want to know where it is going, and I find interacting with a subset of the forum members to be enlightening? Or maybe I do it just to irritate you. Take your pick. |
I don't mean the Shadowrun forums as a whole, I meant the SR4 forum specifically. Or maybe you understood that's what I meant.
Regardless, you seem to be very frustrated and very upset oevr the direction SR4 has taken. You complain incessently about everything that gets announced and shown, and you've sepnt days now arguing semantics with Synner. I guess I simply don't understand putting that much energy into what seems to be sheer negativity, unhappiness, and bitterness. Especially when that spills over onto others.
And hey, you're not actually irritating me, so if that's your goal, you may want to find another. A couple months ago, sure. Not you so much, since you're at least articulate and not quite frothing-at-the-mouth
But Origins and actually interacting with a couple hundred Shadowrun fans, only a handful of even occasionally read the Dumpshock Forums (Just to put into perspective how small a percentage of Shadowrun Fans the DSF really is), and seeing the positive reaction to the game, and flat out having a blast demoing it...<shrug>
The negativity here doesn't actually bother me anymore. Because I realized it doesn't really matter. The game is good. And people will like it. And life will go on.
Only it'll have a fixed TN now
Bull
Or it will suck, Fanpro will go out of biz, and Shadowrun will be ruined forever. Take your pick.
I know, lets judge it on the cover art!
I know, lets judge it on the cover art!
| QUOTE (Bull @ Aug 5 2005, 10:36 PM) | ||
The porblem is, evidence isn;t going to change your mind. We've presented as much as we can |
Then why bother if you can't say anything.
| QUOTE (Bull) |
| But Origins and actually interacting with a couple hundred Shadowrun fans |
How many of those people at Origins ended up not being playtesters, anyway?
Most of them. They were open public games that simply required a single bog-standard ticket to play in.
| QUOTE |
| Then why bother if you can't say anything. |
He asked. My original post was to Synner, to try and save him the aggravation of beating his head on a wall. He's apparently a masochist and likes it.
| QUOTE |
| How many of those people at Origins ended up not being playtesters, anyway? |
None. I'm talking about the folks who showed up for the demo's and games we ran, and for the seminar, and who stopped by the booth to ask questions and check out the playtest manuscript we had available to flip through.
There were maybe two dozen freelancers and playtesters on hand as well, but they don't count.
Bull
| QUOTE (Bull) |
| You have some very deeply imbedded and erronous preconceived notions about what SR4 is and why it was done. |
Maybe you could explain what these incorrect notions are and why they are incorrect. I've already said what kind of things can change my mind. I don't believe that these are completely unreasonable standards.
| QUOTE (Bull) |
| The fact is, SR4 isn't for you, obviously. |
I think I've concluded that already, but if we agree on this, are the incorrect notions a problem? Or is one of the incorrect and relevant notions you think I have that SR4 is in large part for SR3 players who prefer SR3 to most/all other RPGs?
| QUOTE (Bull) |
| Regardless, you seem to be very frustrated and very upset oevr the direction SR4 has taken. You complain incessently about everything that gets announced and shown, and you've sepnt days now arguing semantics with Synner. I guess I simply don't understand putting that much energy into what seems to be sheer negativity, unhappiness, and bitterness. |
I have not complained "incessantly" about "everything" that gets announced and shown. I complain about the parts I don't like, and often but not always point out the parts I do like. There are usually people around who insist that everything is to be liked, so I spend a lot more time explaining why I don't like the things I don't like (and why I don't think they'll probably like it either, after they've gained enough familiarity with it) than mutually rejoicing in the wonderfulness of that which has been anounced.
Nonetheless, I am frustrated over the direction SR4 has taken. I am frustrated for three reasons. I am frustrated firstly because SR3 is my favorite game for reasons that do not apply to SR4, and therefore SR4 in all likelihood means the loss of my favorite game, a game for which I have bought every sourcebook since the SR2 BBB, have played for a huge number of hours, in which I've created characters who are dear to me, and none of which appears to have a future now. I am frustrated secondly because one of the design goals of SR4 seems to be to dumb it down to provide easier entry into the game without sufficient consideration given to development, growth, and benefit from thinking deeply about the game; the latter I value not only because it can be rewarding for its own sake but also because that depth teaches thinking skills that are valuable in all aspects of life. I am frustrated thirdly because there seems to be a widespread though not universal belief among playtesters and freelancers (as well as other forum members) that rules don't matter that much as long as they're sorta OK and simple/consistent enough, coupled with an apparent inability to understand the consequences of proposed rules and a predisposition to be as likely to object with ill-founded opinion to the contrary when the consequences are explained as to recognize their error.
I think that a lot of this is more of a collective phenomenon than the fault of any individual (save perhaps Rob Boyle). The reason I'm still debating with Synner is that to me he appears to be very close to making the last kind of mistake (and to him, I appear to be making the mistake, but a mistake of a different kind). I'd rather not have people make that kind of mistake, not only because in a freelancer it can directly impact Shadowrun (which I still seem to be attached to out of habit), but because in society it is important to know what you know and what you don't, to understand the consequences of actions, and to appreciate the difference between opinion and analysis. The discussion Synner and I have had touches on all these things, where I am perhaps in danger of not knowing what I know and what I don't, and Synner is perhaps in danger of incorrectly estimating consequences and distinguishing opinion from analysis.
Nonetheless, I am frustrated over the direction SR4 has taken. I am frustrated for three reasons. I am frustrated firstly because SR3 is my favorite game for reasons that do not apply to SR4, and therefore SR4 in all likelihood means the loss of my favorite game, a game for which I have bought every sourcebook since the SR2 BBB, have played for a huge number of hours, in which I've created characters who are dear to me, and none of which appears to have a future now. I am frustrated secondly because one of the design goals of SR4 seems to be to dumb it down to provide easier entry into the game without sufficient consideration given to development, growth, and benefit from thinking deeply about the game; the latter I value not only because it can be rewarding for its own sake but also because that depth teaches thinking skills that are valuable in all aspects of life. I am frustrated thirdly because there seems to be a widespread though not universal belief among playtesters and freelancers (as well as other forum members) that rules don't matter that much as long as they're sorta OK and simple/consistent enough, coupled with an apparent inability to understand the consequences of proposed rules and a predisposition to be as likely to object with ill-founded opinion to the contrary when the consequences are explained as to recognize their error.
I think that a lot of this is more of a collective phenomenon than the fault of any individual (save perhaps Rob Boyle). The reason I'm still debating with Synner is that to me he appears to be very close to making the last kind of mistake (and to him, I appear to be making the mistake, but a mistake of a different kind). I'd rather not have people make that kind of mistake, not only because in a freelancer it can directly impact Shadowrun (which I still seem to be attached to out of habit), but because in society it is important to know what you know and what you don't, to understand the consequences of actions, and to appreciate the difference between opinion and analysis. The discussion Synner and I have had touches on all these things, where I am perhaps in danger of not knowing what I know and what I don't, and Synner is perhaps in danger of incorrectly estimating consequences and distinguishing opinion from analysis.
| QUOTE (Bull) |
| But Origins and actually interacting with a couple hundred Shadowrun fans, only a handful of even occasionally read the Dumpshock Forums (Just to put into perspective how small a percentage of Shadowrun Fans the DSF really is), and seeing the positive reaction to the game, and flat out having a blast demoing it... |
Actually, I think SR4 probably would make a great demo game. Almost everything that I complain about involves things that aren't readily apparent in stereotypical settings with little advancement and abbreviated character generation. All the streamlining, simplifying, and so on, however, is immediately advantageous in a demo. My worry for SR4's viability would be in staying power, not in initial adoption (well, plus the disenfranchisement of too many existing fans).
| QUOTE (Bull) |
| My original post was to Synner, to try and save him the aggravation of beating his head on a wall. |
Maybe that was part of it, but if that was the whole thing you'd have sent him a private message. There's a reason why you posted it in public, too--maybe so you could say I was "beating my head against the wall", doing things that are "nonsense", and so on. If that was a diversionary tactic...well, maybe it partly worked. I can't say I appreciate it terribly, but it's a matter of opinion, and if you prefer that we have a mutually low opinion of one another, it's fine with me.
| QUOTE (Shadow) |
| I know, lets judge it on the cover art! |
ouch
ok, yeah, so pg1 sucks. Hopefully the other 359 or so will be better
*sigh* I'm not gonna debate you Ellery. Not my thing, I'm not that good at it, there's no real point to it, and besides, I don't wanna take time out from you and Synner banging heads
Nothing I can say will change your mind, and I'm terrible at debating anyways. And you're right, I probably should have sent that as a private post to Synner. <shrug> Maybe I thought it would wake the two of you up to the fact that you're really just circling each other and not really accomplishing much. But Synner says he's enjoying it, and you appear to be too, so have fun.
Me, I find debating to be a frustratingly pointless endeavor, mostly because I suck at it. I'm too much of a "Ok, you're entitled to your opinions as long as you leave me alone" type of guy. WHen someone says "I believe X", I believe them and let them believe X, even if I believe Y. I'll tell them what believe, and then be done with it. If they want to know more, they'll ask, but I'm not going to try and persuade them differently.
I've tried answering some of your more direct questions, but I can't. Not without this turning into a debate. Because it all goes back to beliefs. You believe your opinion about the developers and freelancers methods and reasonings are correct. I've stated, and others have stated in the past, that you are wrong. Since you don't want to believe that, that's fine. Because for what you want out of the game, you may just be right.
But the game is going a different direction than that. And debating Synner until you're both Blue in the face isn;t going to change that. Calling me on my shortcomings (And hey, I have a lot of them. And debating and arguing online is one of them) won't change that.
I've done my part. I've told you what I can, and I've told you my opnions. Give it a fair shake, you might be pleasently suprised. You might not. <shrug> I've said it before... Nothing will stop you from playing SR3 if you're really unhappy.
It's not the best solution, but honestly? You're a smart kid, you should know this. There's nothing we could do that would make everyone on this forum, let alone every gamer out there, happy. If we made the perfect game for you, there'd be someone else here posting in your position. Maybe Synner, since you two are opposed in viewpoints and both have too much time on your hands.
And by the way, I don;t actually have a low opinoin of you. I don't know you well enough to have any real opinions.
<shrug> Have fun.
Bull
Nothing I can say will change your mind, and I'm terrible at debating anyways. And you're right, I probably should have sent that as a private post to Synner. <shrug> Maybe I thought it would wake the two of you up to the fact that you're really just circling each other and not really accomplishing much. But Synner says he's enjoying it, and you appear to be too, so have fun.
Me, I find debating to be a frustratingly pointless endeavor, mostly because I suck at it. I'm too much of a "Ok, you're entitled to your opinions as long as you leave me alone" type of guy. WHen someone says "I believe X", I believe them and let them believe X, even if I believe Y. I'll tell them what believe, and then be done with it. If they want to know more, they'll ask, but I'm not going to try and persuade them differently.
I've tried answering some of your more direct questions, but I can't. Not without this turning into a debate. Because it all goes back to beliefs. You believe your opinion about the developers and freelancers methods and reasonings are correct. I've stated, and others have stated in the past, that you are wrong. Since you don't want to believe that, that's fine. Because for what you want out of the game, you may just be right.
But the game is going a different direction than that. And debating Synner until you're both Blue in the face isn;t going to change that. Calling me on my shortcomings (And hey, I have a lot of them. And debating and arguing online is one of them) won't change that.
I've done my part. I've told you what I can, and I've told you my opnions. Give it a fair shake, you might be pleasently suprised. You might not. <shrug> I've said it before... Nothing will stop you from playing SR3 if you're really unhappy.
It's not the best solution, but honestly? You're a smart kid, you should know this. There's nothing we could do that would make everyone on this forum, let alone every gamer out there, happy. If we made the perfect game for you, there'd be someone else here posting in your position. Maybe Synner, since you two are opposed in viewpoints and both have too much time on your hands.
And by the way, I don;t actually have a low opinoin of you. I don't know you well enough to have any real opinions.
<shrug> Have fun.
Bull
| QUOTE (Ellery @ Aug 6 2005, 12:58 AM) | ||||
If you don't point out why it is flawed mathematically, and I am not seeing why your points alter the mathematics sufficiently, we are failing to communicate. I cannot convert a quantitative discussion into a qualitative one and retain the predictive power that one gains via quantitation. My conclusions are only solid because of the mathematics involved. |
Let me see if I can break it down so you understand what my problem (besides the unlabelled speculation) is in the first place.
Your initial post, I had issue with had several components:
| QUOTE |
| The ability to cast force 6 spells was important in SR3, but won't be with the new mechanic, so the penalty for starting mages to take cyberware will go down. If you combine that with presumably cheaper costs to get partial magical ability, I'd expect to see many more mages with a bit of cyber, or street sams with a bit of magic. |
You later elaborated on the reason Force 6 spells are important and focused on that. I replied several times your maths are correct, though I pointed that you are stretching your logic and assuming they wouldn't be if the whole system was significantly skewed (one you would be unaware of) and/or if the system possesses some ideosyncracy that mimmicks the 5-6 differential (one which, again, you would not aware of).
That's where my interest in the maths ends because that's not the part of your argument I have issue with. I do not intend to counter it, as far as I'm concerned your observations (despite speculative) are correct (for the Nth time) but that's where it ends (unfortunately its where you seem to be stuck)... Or it would if your logic had stopped there.
All your remaining considerations and conclusions (regarding the "penalty to starting magicians takign cyber", the "potential cheaper costs of partial magic ability" and the proliferation of "more mages with a bit of cyber") building on that single bit of maths are "wild speculation" as far as I'm concerned given the numerous unknowns about the Magic system and the cyber/Essence-Magic relation.
That's the reason I have no intention of debating the maths. They are of tangential interest. Furthermore my comments as to how the system might do the rest would have been along the lines of the two scenarios you have already suggested and working more up just for the fun of debating them is useless when the rules are a couple of weeks from being released and the system becoming apparent.
Just a question Bull ...
"Shrug" doesn't sound like a bull at all, are u kinda Troll or something ?
"Shrug" doesn't sound like a bull at all, are u kinda Troll or something ?
| QUOTE |
| I've tried answering some of your more direct questions, but I can't. Not without this turning into a debate. |
Or, maybe, not without it turning into an NDA violation. Because most of the "anti-SR4" crowd's direct questions that people keep dodging but insisting we'll be happy with are issues/questions that can only be answered by holding the book in our hands. Or, at least, that's what everyone was saying for months and months. "You're wrong, it won't be like that, you'll see. But it's a secret, I can't tell you."
| QUOTE |
| Because it all goes back to beliefs. You believe your opinion about the developers and freelancers methods and reasonings are correct. I've stated, and others have stated in the past, that you are wrong. |
Actually, no one's stated that she's (or any of us) are "wrong." You've stated your belief that we are wrong. You haven't been stating a fact, any more (or less) than we have. You've stated an opinion. Some of us believe certain things are going to be missing from SR4 (and that we believe certain things may, in fact, be missing from the SR4 developers) -- you've stated that you disagree. That doesn't mean ours is a false belief, it means it's a belief that disagrees with yours.
| QUOTE |
| Since you don't want to believe that, that's fine. Because for what you want out of the game, you may just be right. |
Ding-ding-ding. Gold star.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the first and only post I've seen from anyone -- tangentially involved in the creation process for SR4 or just rabidly defending what they can't see -- that has admitted we might just know what we're talking about when we've said things we like are missing from SR4. Because we have been fed information about it, and unless the FAQs were lying outright, we are able to form opinions about what SR4 will and won't be, and we can know what we want from a game, and by extension we can know, pre-release, that we're gonna be unhappy with it.
Good job, Bull. For someone who claims to be no good at internet debating, you've fucking figured something out that no one else managed to, for months.
Critias. I said about a month ago that I believe you may be loosing out on things you appreciate while I may be gaining a system to my tastes. You then proceeded by telling me I was stupid for wanting a simpler system.
Anyway. I have realized this from the beginning. Everything that has been annonced has been reeling the game in a direction that has me cheering and most others swearing. And the reasons are fairly plain. Shadowrun had rules that were very specificly enjoyable for a certain kind of math-wiz individual (or put another word there instead of "math-wiz" if you like, a certain kind of gamer anyways). Simply put, this was your kind of game. Anything taking the game away from that fringe is going to make it less of your kind of game. And from square one, there has been no question about that that is what´s happening.
Anyway. I have realized this from the beginning. Everything that has been annonced has been reeling the game in a direction that has me cheering and most others swearing. And the reasons are fairly plain. Shadowrun had rules that were very specificly enjoyable for a certain kind of math-wiz individual (or put another word there instead of "math-wiz" if you like, a certain kind of gamer anyways). Simply put, this was your kind of game. Anything taking the game away from that fringe is going to make it less of your kind of game. And from square one, there has been no question about that that is what´s happening.
| QUOTE |
| Good job, Bull. For someone who claims to be no good at internet debating, you've fucking figured something out that no one else managed to, for months. |
Actually, I think what Bull said has been pretty clear from the beginning. What has been less clear, at least to me, is why the debate keeps going around anyway. It's not like it's making any progress. And this isn't nuclear disarmament, folks, it's SR4.
I entered into the speculation/discussion around here early on in my playtesting of SR4 because it was a constructive exercise. I know some people like Bull might think I'm nuts for that (and he could be right!), but I do think I got a few good points and different perspectives from the crowd that enhanced my ability to playtest. But the book is done now. What you post here, now, will not make you like or dislike the finished product, I imagine. The finished product will make you like or dislike it. And hey, that's all good. Some people will like it, some will not (hopefully more of the former), and we'll all be okay the next day regardless.
I've seen an odd approach here on these boards that seems to get the developers, writers, and even playtesters on the defensive. Some people seem to want us to defend our work, as if we've been writing a thesis. That's just not really how it works in any creative industry. Forgive my honesty, but I don't write for you. Never have, really. I think the community is great and I sure do appreciate positive feedback from the fans when I get it, but I write for me. If I feel I wrote something well, I'm satisfied when I send in the final draft, and I mainly wait for the day it is on the shelves for a sense of closure. Any good public feedback is just icing. And bad public feedback doesn't make me regret anything if I felt satisfied when I handed it in. I think you're going to find that trying to make the developers defend the work just isn't going to go too well, because that's not our thing. We created and we put out the creation and you like it or you don't. And we're fine with that. We keep creating anyway.
| QUOTE (Ellery @ Jul 6 2005, 02:28 AM) | ||
So you don't care, actually, to communicate with people. I'm not sure what you're doing here; ego-stroking, or passing time, or what. I'm here to discuss Shadowrun 4, including context (which includes SR2/SR3 changes), hypothetical situations (including speculation on how rules work and perceived consequences of announced rules), and so on; and I recogize that discussion involves an exchange of ideas about the matter being discussed, and that these ideas must meet minimal standards of relevancy, sufficiency, and truthfulness in order to be worthwhile for the other person to consider. If your policy upon finding a debate insufficiently on-topic for your personal standards is to bring it much more off-topic without even mentioning that you question the topicality (and then trying to justify your statements afterwards by appealing to the lack of topicality when at the time it wasn't important enough to mention), then there's no point in discussing some things with you. Since I can't tell when you're adopting this policy, and there are plenty of people on DS who try harder to communicate (or do better at not letting emotional responses interfere with their posting, or whatever the case is here), I'll stop trying to discuss anything with you. If this was your goal all along, it could be much more efficiently achieved by simply asking, "Could you please not read and respond to my posts? I'm not going to make it worth your while, so there's no point wasting your time. Thanks." Henceforth, if anyone wants me to address any of blakkie's comments, please ask them again in your own post. |
Woot! Way to reenforce you position of holding the Jr. Highschool, pseudo intellectual moral high-ground! It fits in well with your delusions that you are some sort of avatar of reasoning. That if only those that don't agree with you could provide some logical argument. Sadly it would seem at times you wouldn't notice and recognize a logical argument if it kicked you in the ass with a steel-toed cowboy boot.
This post of yours also has the added bonus that you manage to sidestep, once again, the embarrasing task of trying to explain why your post questioning Fanpro's intentions of not making large changes to setting wasn't narrow visioned, over-the-top, reactionary, moaning drivel. Because, well that is what it was.
| QUOTE |
| I have better things to do than waste my time reading what he writes, so I very likely won't even notice if something is worth addressing, and even if I do, I probably won't be motivated to address it. |
Hey, if you have better things to do by all means go do them instead of posting here. Oh if only your steadfastness in avoiding responding could be extended to everyone else here, along with a curtailing of your long running whining about SR4. But that just isn't going to happen, is it? You don't really have anything better to do. Whether you actually play SR4 or not, i expect that years from now you'll still be posting your numerology-esque comparisons of the variable TN to fixed TN. The only hope is that the frequency of the ramblings will drop off.
So why is it that you are still posting here? This is my working list of possible reasons why:
1) you are a natural born whiner, to bitch and complain is what gives you a sense purpose, you enjoy being the persecuted so much that you try to find crucifixes to climb up on and nail yourself to
2) you are so hopelessly spiteful that that your anger at Fanpro for nolonger producing SR3 rules that you not buying SR4 isn't enough, you feel you must work to slay the Evil Fanpro and its SR4 spawn
3) you are just so much wind; like your claims to the beacon of reasoned thinking, in the end your verbal shaking of an angry fist at the sky is nothing more than cheap, empty words
As a rough guess i'd put it at %50 #1, %15 #2, %25 #3. I'm leaving the other 10% for something that i'm having trouble putting in words. I feel it there but can't quite put it to words.
| QUOTE (Taki) |
| Just a question Bull ... "Shrug" doesn't sound like a bull at all, are u kinda Troll or something ? |
Ork, actually
Bull
@ Blakkie:
| QUOTE (JongWK) |
| @ Blakkie: |
Hey, i'm just warming up!
I've been away for a while, been really busy at work. Just catching up on old posts, and i noticed that winner from Ellery. It seemed on topic for where this thread has currently drifted, so i figured i'd respond. *shrug*| QUOTE (Demonseed Elite) |
| I've seen an odd approach here on these boards that seems to get the developers, writers, and even playtesters on the defensive. Some people seem to want us to defend our work, as if we've been writing a thesis. That's just not really how it works in any creative industry. Forgive my honesty, but I don't write for you. Never have, really. I think the community is great and I sure do appreciate positive feedback from the fans when I get it, but I write for me. If I feel I wrote something well, I'm satisfied when I send in the final draft, and I mainly wait for the day it is on the shelves for a sense of closure. Any good public feedback is just icing. And bad public feedback doesn't make me regret anything if I felt satisfied when I handed it in. I think you're going to find that trying to make the developers defend the work just isn't going to go too well, because that's not our thing. We created and we put out the creation and you like it or you don't. And we're fine with that. We keep creating anyway. |
That's funny. I thought the entire point wasn't to express yourself creatively at the expense of your fanbase, but rather to create a product that people enjoyed so much they were willing to spend money on it.
Huh.
My mistake.
| QUOTE (Critias) | ||
That's funny. I thought the entire point wasn't to express yourself creatively at the expense of your fanbase, but rather to create a product that people enjoyed so much they were willing to spend money on it. Huh. My mistake. |
Speaking of mistakes i didn't notice in his post where he said the point was "to express yourself creatively at the expense of your fanbase"? It looked more like he was saying "i put out work that i have pride in and enjoy myself". Editors and marketers are there to form it into a salable product, or outright cull it if they don't believe their customers will enjoy it.
| QUOTE (Demonseed Elite) |
| What you post here, now, will not make you like or dislike the finished product, I imagine. The finished product will make you like or dislike it. |
The problem is that a lot of people seem to decide if they should buy the game based on the speculative "conclusion" of members on this board.
| QUOTE (L.D) |
| The problem is that a lot of people seem to decide if they should buy the game based on the speculative "conclusion" of members on this board. |
That's fine. Happens all the time. Other people will pick up the book or flip through the book or look at a friend's copy and decide on their own one way or the other. Whatever works for them. I don't really spend too much time worrying about it.
Good musicians don't change their songs based on what the preliminary opinions are. A novelist doesn't rewrite his ending because some people aren't big fans of the way he did it. They'll usually ask a small group of trusted people to look over their stuff and they'll take the feedback under consideration and it may shape the way they work, but in the end they have a certain creative vision to express and that's what they will express. That's why people do this sort of work, as opposed to making something utilitarian, where all that matters is the end use. I want to write, I don't want to make hammers. Even if it would be a damn good hammer.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| That's funny. I thought the entire point wasn't to express yourself creatively at the expense of your fanbase, but rather to create a product that people enjoyed so much they were willing to spend money on it. Huh. My mistake. |
That's okay, it's forgiven.
I don't do anything at the expense of the fanbase. To go back to my earlier analogy, a musican doesn't set out saying, "I'm going to make this next record to piss off all my fans!" and a novelist doesn't say, "I'm writing this next book just so all my existing fans will hate it." Nah, we write what speaks to us. And we hope we do a good enough job translating that vision that other people become interested and pick it up.
It just happens in this field that when you're doing something creative, not everyone will be a fan. C'est la vie. Dan Brown wrote the best-selling novel in history when he wrote The DaVinci Code, but I'd say that the Catholic Church...not such great fans. Ron Moore is getting lots of praise for creating an extremely deep and interesting remake of "Battlestar Galactica", but he's still got old fans screaming at him that Starbuck is a man. That's the way it goes. But the creative people who put everyone elses' voice above their inner voice, they never create anything worthwhile in this field. But they might make a good hammer.
| QUOTE (Demonseed Elite) |
| But the creative people who put everyone elses' voice above their inner voice, they never create anything worthwhile in this field. But they might make a good hammer. |
Or a good RPG.
If you think so, write it.
But I know I've got no interest in that, myself.
But I know I've got no interest in that, myself.
| QUOTE (Demonseed Elite) | ||
That's fine. Happens all the time. Other people will pick up the book or flip through the book or look at a friend's copy and decide on their own one way or the other. Whatever works for them. I don't really spend too much time worrying about it. |
I don't worry about it. I just find it unnecessary and stupid.
| QUOTE (Bull) |
| We've presented as much as we can |
[Hey Bull, long time no see...]
I'm still waiting on part 2 of the audio from the 'what's up' seminar. Part 1 was fascinating, but focused on the product line. Part 2 was supposed to cover details of the new mechanics. The post on the SR site with Part 1 has dropped off the bottom at this point. Is Part 2 expected (or is it up somewhere and I missed it)?
Buck (Mike Buckalew)
buckalew@gmail.com
http://homepage.mac.com/mikebuckalew/Menu1.html
I honestly hope not. After all, wether I personally like or dislike the forthcoming product, everyone should decide that for himself by picking it up with their FLGS or by skimming through it from a friend.
Just because someone else, who just happens to speculate or draw conclusions out of the meagre (Hey, FanBoys almost always have too less intel, like in the game -.-) information pool us has available, bashes the game or whines without having the actual rules in his greedy, greasy hands, I certainly will not care much.
Such person can be right (and in some instances will certainly) but that wont change the most important fact: You can only decide for yourself after evaluating the real deal.
And, lads, do that.
Now carry on with the discussion which I have lost track, ahm, around 7 pages or so earlier.
Regards
Daniel
Hoot Darn Momma, are ye lads fast, tought I was directly after L.D oO
Just because someone else, who just happens to speculate or draw conclusions out of the meagre (Hey, FanBoys almost always have too less intel, like in the game -.-) information pool us has available, bashes the game or whines without having the actual rules in his greedy, greasy hands, I certainly will not care much.
Such person can be right (and in some instances will certainly) but that wont change the most important fact: You can only decide for yourself after evaluating the real deal.
And, lads, do that.
Now carry on with the discussion which I have lost track, ahm, around 7 pages or so earlier.
Regards
Daniel
Hoot Darn Momma, are ye lads fast, tought I was directly after L.D oO
| QUOTE (Demonseed Elite @ Aug 6 2005, 11:06 AM) |
| If you think so, write it. But I know I've got no interest in that, myself. |
Pretty prose about listening to your inner voice and letting out your creativity is all well and good, but the simple fact remains that for a product to sell people have to like it. You say negative feedback doesn't bother you -- but remember, one method of "negative feedback" is to not buy something. I'm pretty sure that's a particular form of feedback Rob Boyle would be unhappy about, no matter how much your magical wondernymph muse-fairy was dancing merrily in enchanted glens and lush forests, singing to you in the meantime.
You're not creating a masterpiece work of art, here. Publishing a new edition of an RPG isn't exactly the great american novel. Not many people are going to frame the cover art of SR4. DE, you know me -- I like background and fluff and creativity and stories as much as the next guy (more than most, christ). But that's not necessarily what designing a game, much less refining one and putting out a new edition, is all about. Your stuff has to appeal to the masses or it goes the way of the dodo. And I'm the absolute last person who wants that to happen to SR.
The only real issue I have concerning new SR4 rules is with Deckers and Riggers becoming Hackers, does this mean Bull become "The Best Orc Hacker You Never Met!"?
Just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Just doesn't have the same ring to it.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
Pretty prose about listening to your inner voice and letting out your creativity is all well and good, but the simple fact remains that for a product to sell people have to like it. You say negative feedback doesn't bother you -- but remember, one method of "negative feedback" is to not buy something. I'm pretty sure that's a particular form of feedback Rob Boyle would be unhappy about, no matter how much your magical wondernymph muse-fairy was dancing merrily in enchanted glens and lush forests, singing to you in the meantime. You're not creating a masterpiece work of art, here. Publishing a new edition of an RPG isn't exactly the great american novel. Not many people are going to frame the cover art of SR4. DE, you know me -- I like background and fluff and creativity and stories as much as the next guy (more than most, christ). But that's not necessarily what designing a game, much less refining one and putting out a new edition, is all about. Your stuff has to appeal to the masses or it goes the way of the dodo. And I'm the absolute last person who wants that to happen to SR. |
I let Rob worry about that. It's his job, after all. I just write. I imagine if Rob or whomever thought what I write didn't have value on the market, they wouldn't buy it from me.
And yeah, to cover the development costs, it does have to appeal to people. But no one here speaks for the masses, don't forget that. The sales numbers will speak for the masses. Yeah, it could fail. That's the chance in any risky change. But someone owns Shadowrun (really owns it, not fans like you and I) and they decided to make that call. They have the right to make that call.
| QUOTE (Bull) |
| Me, I find debating to be a frustratingly pointless endeavor, mostly because I suck at it. I'm too much of a "Ok, you're entitled to your opinions as long as you leave me alone" type of guy. WHen someone says "I believe X", I believe them and let them believe X, even if I believe Y. I'll tell them what believe, and then be done with it. If they want to know more, they'll ask, but I'm not going to try and persuade them differently. |
Well, that's rather unfortunate. I find interactions where people merely share beliefs--without going into details of the reasons for their beliefs, and without distinguishing between things that are merely a matter of belief and those that are a matter of fact--to be quite unrewarding.
| QUOTE (Synner) |
| That's where my interest in the maths ends because that's not the part of your argument I have issue with. I do not intend to counter it, as far as I'm concerned your observations (despite speculative) are correct (for the Nth time) but that's where it ends (unfortunately its where you seem to be stuck) |
I'll try for the Nth time to explain that it is because of the math that those things that I don't know almost certainly don't matter enough to change the conclusions that I have stated relatively less tentatively. They mathematically don't matter enough. But I'll wait for SR4 to come out to demonstrate why.
| QUOTE (Demonseed Elite) |
| That's just not really how it works in any creative industry. Forgive my honesty, but I don't write for you. Never have, really. I think the community is great and I sure do appreciate positive feedback from the fans when I get it, but I write for me. |
I think this is an oversimplification if applied to more creative types than just yourself--I can't really tell why you, personally, do things. In any case, when you write for yourself, don't you have an internal feedback process where you rewrite things that didn't turn out well and do a bit of homework to make sure what you write matches up with other facts or precedents (e.g. SR rules, the position of the Himalayas, etc.)?
Also, once one gets deeper into the development process, the "pure (starving) artist" form of self-expression without regard to the world isn't a good way to become non-starving. Out of those forms of self-expression that you enjoy, it's better to produce those that other people enjoy too, because you can then sell what you create. Those who go too far in this direction generally end up "selling out", which is a problem because the creative work loses its creativity in favor of formualic following of that which is thought to be popular. Of course, you can never please everyone, but generally it's more profitable to please more people rather than fewer.
Furthermore, creating a working RPG is not only about artistic expression any more than building a car is about artistic expression. There are many elements of style and artistry in a car, but the thing has to run, too. An auto industry would not do well if it ignored feedback regarding their car not running because it hampered their artistic expression. Shadowrun 4 is not, however much one might prefer it to be so, simply an artistic expression of a vision of a technological and magical future. It's also a set of mechanics that form an engine for playing the SR4 game, and creating gaming mechanics is as much like engineering as song-writing. You need a working hammer to play a game, too.
Also, once one gets deeper into the development process, the "pure (starving) artist" form of self-expression without regard to the world isn't a good way to become non-starving. Out of those forms of self-expression that you enjoy, it's better to produce those that other people enjoy too, because you can then sell what you create. Those who go too far in this direction generally end up "selling out", which is a problem because the creative work loses its creativity in favor of formualic following of that which is thought to be popular. Of course, you can never please everyone, but generally it's more profitable to please more people rather than fewer.
Furthermore, creating a working RPG is not only about artistic expression any more than building a car is about artistic expression. There are many elements of style and artistry in a car, but the thing has to run, too. An auto industry would not do well if it ignored feedback regarding their car not running because it hampered their artistic expression. Shadowrun 4 is not, however much one might prefer it to be so, simply an artistic expression of a vision of a technological and magical future. It's also a set of mechanics that form an engine for playing the SR4 game, and creating gaming mechanics is as much like engineering as song-writing. You need a working hammer to play a game, too.
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| Well, that's rather unfortunate. I find interactions where people merely share beliefs--without going into details of the reasons for their beliefs, and without distinguishing between things that are merely a matter of belief and those that are a matter of fact--to be quite unrewarding. |
Hehe, as much as I do sometimes like a good discussion, a lot of the points around here were only really interesting the first couple of times they were mentioned. After that, it got pretty repetitive.
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| I think this is an oversimplification if applied to more creative types than just yourself--I can't really tell why you, personally, do things. In any case, when you write for yourself, don't you have an internal feedback process where you rewrite things that didn't turn out well and do a bit of homework to make sure what you write matches up with other facts or precedents (e.g. SR rules, the position of the Himalayas, etc.)? |
I'm sure it is an oversimplification. But, really, this forum is dealing with a lot of oversimplifications. If everyone here were only talking about personal experience, the whole discussion about SR4 and "the masses" would be pretty moot. We're projecting.
And I do have an internal feedback process, yah. Absolutely. It still doesn't change why I write. I even bounce ideas off of people and show some people early drafts of my writing for feedback. Still doesn't change why I write. I do listen to some feedback and I do make sometimes make some changes based on it. But if what I'm writing becomes more for them than for me, I think they should write it. That doesn't mean that I don't hope that other people enjoy it when it's done, I hope they do.
I'm wholly unconcerned about the starving artist vs. selling out distinction. There's no money in RPG writing. No one is doing it for the quick cash. I do it as a side thing because the process is personally rewarding in its own way. So critics have little impact, because if I'm not doing this for my own personal enjoyment, there's zero reason for me to be doing it.
| QUOTE (Ellery) |
| Furthermore, creating a working RPG is not only about artistic expression any more than building a car is about artistic expression. There are many elements of style and artistry in a car, but the thing has to run, too. An auto industry would not do well if it ignored feedback regarding their car not running because it hampered their artistic expression. Shadowrun 4 is not, however much one might prefer it to be so, simply an artistic expression of a vision of a technological and magical future. It's also a set of mechanics that form an engine for playing the SR4 game, and creating gaming mechanics is as much like engineering as song-writing. You need a working hammer to play a game, too. |
Even deciding which mechanics to use in a game is a creative decision. There's a lot of leeway as to what can work and there's flavor in different ways of doing it. You're not locked into doing it a certain, specific way because that's the only way that functions. There's a bunch of different hammers. And it's not a purely functional decision; the mechanics that one person thinks work great for them might not be what another person think works well for their game.
I'm not saying that internal feedback changes why you write, but it may change what you write--if it doesn't , why bother with feedback? Likewise, to a lesser extent, can't considerations involving what people like and are interested in impact what you write?
| QUOTE |
| A lot of the points around here were only really interesting the first couple of times they were mentioned. After that, it got pretty repetitive. |
Granted. I'm pretty stubborn (though even I will recognize the pointlessness of something eventually).
| QUOTE |
| There's a lot of leeway as to what can work and there's flavor in different ways of doing it. You're not locked into doing it a certain, specific way because that's the only way that functions. There's a bunch of different hammers. And it's not a purely functional decision; the mechanics that one person thinks work great for them might not be what another person think works well for their game. |
Agreed in part, but I think it is a common mistake to not recognize how much the hammer impacts the game, and that some hammers are just worse than others. For example, AD&D and d20 D&D have very similar mechanics in many ways (especially if we ignore feats), but the d20 way works better (for the most part) because it's laid out to function more smoothly--the design of the hammer makes it easier to use even though the flavor is basically identical. However, both AD&D and d20 D&D are hopelessly broken when dealing with opponents of widely disparate power and number (kobolds or hobgoblins vs. level 18 characters); the mechanic is not designed to be able to accommodate that kind of contrast gracefully. So I agree that there is leeway, but if the game is to enable a wide range of scenarios (as opposed to merely working decently for the stereotypical scenario), the leeway is a lot narrower than one might intuitively suppose.
If the full impact of the mechanics is something that the designers fully intend as part of the flavor, and announce it as such, that's fine. "I'm building a game where you can only play gang members between the ages of 17 and 25--nothing else will work right--because my creative expression is focused on young adult gangers and nothing else matters," is perfectly honest, although the product would be of dubious market value. What irritates me more is when people pretend that the mechanics will work in situations where they do not.
If the full impact of the mechanics is something that the designers fully intend as part of the flavor, and announce it as such, that's fine. "I'm building a game where you can only play gang members between the ages of 17 and 25--nothing else will work right--because my creative expression is focused on young adult gangers and nothing else matters," is perfectly honest, although the product would be of dubious market value. What irritates me more is when people pretend that the mechanics will work in situations where they do not.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.