The balance between Skills and Attributes is a concern that was being thrown about some time back. Is there any indication of a rule to correct the balance? If there isn't one it wouldn't seem to be that difficult to houserule, give skills an advantage that attributes don't get.

Some examples that jump to mind;

• Attribute dice do not explode even with the use of edge (only Edge and Skill dice get this bonus)
• Where threshold exceeds skill rating impose some sort of penalty (loss of dice)
• Where threshold exceeds skill rating make the test a longshot test (edge dice only)

i know that. you know that. they don't know that. *shrug* maybe when your half-drunk private detective consistently outshoots their combat badass, they'll start to get a glimmer of what we mean.

incidentally, that's a perfect counterpoint to a larger trend i'm seeing lately. it's fairly popular to argue that game mechanics and story are two seperate animals that coexist peacefully but never really interact. that's patently untrue, as can be seen just from that example. it's true on larger scales as well... but people don't tend to look at those scales.

I'm prefectly aware of the consequences of game mechanics and their relationship with gameplay. I just just take theory, no matter how mathematically sound it is, with a grain of salt when its coming from people who've never even played the game. Mfb, I know you've playtested, but I still don't really see this as a catastrophic game breaking problem. I have twinks in my group and I expect them to poke holes in everything I do. The best way to eliminate problems with character creation seem to me to be to limit the amount of BP so that they just start as low on the curve of, apparently, infinite uberness as possible.

Silly question. I've seen a lot of bits of SR4 and like them (consolidation of rules, fewer 'broken' pieces of cyber since skillwires and artwinkulation and the like have been addressed, magic rating increased through karma expenditure, etc.) and I see some bits I really don't like (skill caps, ability/skill ROI questions).

Is anyone planning on perhaps making an 'SR4R', and suggest some simple fixes to get over the problems we're seeing? Is this possible? Will the neat parts of SR4 be implemented in SR3R?

Numerology is not math.

~J

That wouldn't exactly be mathematically sound, now would it? Good grief.

And the relevance of that point is?

~J

The real problem with mathematical theorems is, that it is, ah, well... uhm... theory.
Even if if something is stochasticly very sound it can (and prolly will) have dramatical erand results with some players (which do not all by definition do cheat ). Meaning you can theorize all the way you like, but in the end, the roll of the dice will decide the outcome, given the used rules.

Now, if the basic rules are at least basically sound or elegant in a mathematical sense, it shouldn't be a problem.

What I have seen here so far sounds, that the system does not apeal to some (one) of our mathematicans, is that about right?

Weeeeell, screw it, like with all sciences, even mathematicans have a right to have different opinions on any given mathematical problem, so be easy and stay dandy.

Just play and roll the dice. Probabilities are all swell and sweet, but in the end, one don't have the time to roll for a single test 1000 times the dice and divide the result by 1000, now have we (and even that would probably not come very close on all occasions as the same result, which proves: math is elegant, humans and testresults sometimes aren't).

regards
Daniel

EDIT: Gentlebeeings, order in the court ^^

eh....

This may be a stupid question, but does anybody know if the amount of attribute dice you can throw into a pool is limited by the level of the skill your using?

That seems like it could be at least a quick and dirty temporary fix.

More thoughts: Going through some trials i see that just dropping the max at creation to 5, plus an extra 4 -> 5 cost might have the effect of overly homogenizing starting Attributes towards 3ish and some (notice the attributes on the two sample PCs). Especially for 500BP characters. Might have to also lower the maximum total BP you can put into attributes to 40% or 45%. A tiny bit more bookwork for PC creation, but not horendeous.

Seems to me like the easiest solution is to simply increase the price of attributes in general, both in chargen and with karma. Make it cost another BP or two for each level. As has been pointed out, they're simply too cheap.

More specifically, increase the attribute costs by say 1 BP, and then give the character an extra 20 or so BPs on the number you get at chargen (whatever number is required to let most of the sample characters work).

Initial Impressions.

Well, thanks to these forums, those of us un/fortunate enough not to have a copy of 4th edition sitting in our laps have been exposed to enough of the new game that we're able to draw those initial impressions in the first place. That experience has been wholly worthwhile, so I would like to extend my gratitude to those of you attempting to satisfy the appetites of this insatiable forum-base. Thank you all, it is sincerely appreciated.

Fourth edition will certainly be a departure from some aspects of the Flexibility-through-complexity that we've all come to know and love in it's predecessors. Many of the old tricks of the trade we've counted on to save our hoop, so to speak, may need to be refined, and applied differently in upcoming days, if they're to work at all. The genre, as well, has changed; The immersive cyberspace of Gibson's holy Neuromancer is shifting towards Dick's clever Minority Report. It appears that many of the things we counted on requiring direct neural interfacing can be accomplished without the presupposed link; The mind has not taken reality to be fused inside of the machine, but rather, the machine has been pulled out of it's box and merged into reality.

As we've seen, many of the little quirks that have been so irritating about our previous system have been addressed: The isolation of one very similar skill, from another, bridged poorly by defaulting has been addressed by the reintroduction of skill groupings. The often times irritating aspect of waiting around while the Decker strolls around isolated from the rest of the players has been addressed. We've set build points as the standard form of character creation. The overpowering wave of karma pool no longer threatens GMs with never-endingly-unfailing-PCs (Particularly Human), nor ties circumstantial difficulties into waves and waves of age-old karma pool vs. TN. Magic has been disassembled, and cleaned into a smart, concise system, straight forward in so many of the ways that our old system lacked.

And at what cost? The flexibility and cold calculation of our combat pool has been taken away, which for many sounds to be a killing blow. The clear cut boundaries between magical traditions, and their abilities. The intricacy of micromanagement, and the pleasure derived from tweaking small little mathematical bonuses from here and there inside the system. The limitless potential of an individual, instead, has been replaced by the notion that characters can be capped, human potential can be reached, and cannot exceeded without introducing an outside source. And of course, despite what is said, we all know that the Rigger will never -quite- be the same; Be it utility, be it form, be it merely aesthetics.

And of course, there is more.

But the fine line of humanity has been repainted, it would seem. The skilled, the elite; They are so much more tightly packed around their entrance to Olympus. It would seem the foothills, and mountains, and the plains have become much closer together. Does that mean that the edge gained over an opponent is hardly worth the effort? Or does that mean that the mighty, now, must fear the lowly?

The second, I believe. And, as the gaps have been closed, or narrowed, the edge, grit, and bite of some punks with Saturday Night Specials has regained the threat it once held. Calculated risk appears much less calculated, and much riskier with the addition of more frequent glitches. Danger appears to be present; Not through the repetitive stacking of TNs, but simply because all opponents must be taken with some degree of caution. Risk, then, -must- be minimized, else Darwin works his magic through their gene pool. And with the restructured economy, we'll no longer have a standard outfitted character carrying around the equivalent of a West Hills Mansion retirement inside/around their body.

I believe, it's entirely realistic to find the streets filled with the struggling. The oppressed. And the bitter. Torn between making rent. To keep them off the street for another day. Or sliding in that new piece of chrome. To keep the street off them for another day.

It appears more than a Character Sheet will decide who is elite. More than dice will decide who is elite. If anything, the player them self will define where they stand, modeled after a system that enforces the limits of humanity, the financial competition between wanna-be's and veterans, and always makes room for a few lucky punks looking to make a name for themselves.

In so many ways, we've been reintroduced to the genre we cut our teeth on. It -is- a lethal world, even the very -good- may not be -good enough-. Our comfort blanket has been pulled from under our feet, and it looks like we're once again a few steps closer to a few old friend: Danger. It is true that the instantly killing blow so prevalent in the previous edition has been removed. No longer is the all-or-nothing mentality as prevalent. Instead, we're faced with accepting that 'Yes, I am vulnerable.' And 'Yes, this vulnerability will begin to add up, if I'm not careful'.

In the end? I will mourn the passing of the previous edition. But I will enjoy the birth of the new, rising from it's ashes. I will recount what the previous instilled in us, count it as a worthwhile experience, and press on into the next. If you look hard enough, you will find faults in whatever you squint at, be it a scratch on a sculpture, a dent on a new car, or the impression of a tire iron in the back of one's head.

But I welcome in the new, and believe that a few scratches can be overlooked, after taking several steps backwards; In the end, it boils down to opinion. It is a tool for entertainment you can choose to use or ignore, completely or partially.

A tool, then, that I for one will be more than happy to use.

-RoleModel
"I haven't figured out how to say 'FUCK YOU' politely."

...And I can't say that I agree.

Not to imply that I believe that an up-and-coming should be on the -exact same payscale- as someone that's been in the business for a while, but I really believe that implying the difference should be a -drastic- amount isn't very realistic. Corporate America demonstrates this constantly, with a pyramid between their entry level positions, all the way to their high-end managerial positions.

The difference in salaries, however, is often times fractional increases between tiers; Little carrots and perks to reward employment, and encourage longevity and retainability. Also note that when there's a squeeze on the budget, it isn't the entry level that feels the heat. You'll find management working for lower wages, or being replaced by a couple "Wanna-Be's" from data-processing.

In the end, if the Veterans aren't pulling their weight ahead of the wannabe's to justify their meal ticket, they'll find it's a very short trip to the chopping block. And there's always someone eyeing the prospect of filling their boots.

Now imagine the friendly Black&Tie atmosphere of your local glass spire replaced by the gutterpunk dog-eat-dog world of the Urban Sprawl; And exactly how driven, motivated, and determined those up-and-comings will be to make a name for themselves, and get out of their own personal hell-hole.

-RoleModel
"I haven't figured out how to say 'FUCK YOU' politely."

I'll vote, "It looks wrong, but I'll stay neutral."

"Rookie" NFL drafts are anything but rookies to the sport in general. This raises a question. Where do Shadowrunners come from? Is it:

Military/black ops/corp strike teams? (much smaller difference between "new" and veteran)

Gangs/paramilitary organizations? (large difference between "new" and veteran)

Joe on the Street/Bill Wageslave on the run from the law/misc. reporter B living among the Shadowrunners for a few weeks and thinking twice about her career? (new blood is genuinely new, and will be near-infinitely below the veterans)

~J

All of those afforementioned examples will include examples of where Runners can come from. Many more, I'm sure. And some, by the very nature of their experience, will be veterans from the beginning.

And it's hard for me, naturally, to see some Wage-Slaves-Turned-Fugitive as even having anything close to the skills, let alone resources, and contacts to remotely complete with a Veteran Shadowrunner for his paycheck.

Gang-Bangers that boosted a few SMG's, some body Armor, and some Kamikaze? Hired in aspects of shadowrunning low on subtlety? I find that much more believable; A more plentiful asset for a Johnson to use, eager to work for lower wages on the chance that they can elevate from the tier of Gangers, to the tier of Shadowrunners.

I believe I've heard the term 'Gangers gone Pro' more than once throughout Shadowrun.

As far as NFL Rookies - Sure, granted they've been playing their game for a good portion of their life. But they compete with the front-line-pros. They compete with each-other throughout their college career. And with the kids fresh from highschool looking to make a name.

Everybody is looking move up a slot. Everybody is willing to do what it takes to make it to the top, or they'll fall by the wayside. And, like mentioned previously, without consistently offering competitive performance, -someone else will be there, ready, willing, and waiting-.

Hence, with all of that said, I disagree financial competition between the up-and-comings and the established shouldn't exist. It is very much present in reality.

-RM

The NFL analogy is a thin one, at best. Not all positions are created equally, and so while you may have some break out linemen or receivers, quarterbacks for example are usually put on a slow track where they have to earn their place. Sure, you may see a Mike Vick, but he had one good season and hasn't been the same since his preseason injury. Most of the time, you end up with a situation like with Carson Palmer, who with a decent coaching team helped turn USC from a mediocre Pac-10 team to a co-national champion team, won the Heisman, and was the overall first draft pick ... only to be the third-string QB for the Bengals (which didn't exactly have a stellar QB roster at the time).

Likewise, the NFL also has a salary cap, has grown into a league with a wide gap between old vets and rookies with very few journeyman players, and is one of the last gasps of socialism in America thanks to its profit-sharing arrangements for 90% of revenue-generating activities.

The free market of shadowrunning doesn't have any of those constraints.

Once again, the Free-Market of Shadowrunning does, however, have plenty of desperate individuals looking to slip out of the daily grind into something better than a stone's throw from a coffin motel.

Even if the NFL example is a poor example at best, you admit that it does, to some extent cover the concept being expressed here. And whether we're using Nascar, Corporate America, of the NFL, the fact remains that people are interested in upward mobility. And climbing the social ladder may involve reaching out to to skip a rung. And while many of those may reach, fail, and fall. Some of them will not. And they will replace the established if the established do not continue to compete.

If -anything- Shadowrun theme enforces this. The old boy's club is on the corporate side of the house. When you're on the streets, you sweat for your next meal.

Yeah. It does kind of work, but it's becomes very thin (like, nanometer thin) once you get into specifics.

Rolemodel's eloquently phrased (if somewhat affective) analysis of SR4 comes a little too soon for me to reply in full--I don't have the book yet, and the discussion here hasn't gone into enough details for me to give a broad assessment. I think it is not coincidence that he can give a broad assessment and I cannot, but I'll get to that later. Regardless, even before seeing the full book, there are a few points I'd like to make.

Before addressing the bulk of Rolemodel's post, I'd like to point out that while he neatly characterizes some of the major concerns with SR4, he doesn't actually argue that they're not valid. One might get a different impression, given that half the post is devoted to rhetoric applauding the effects of the low skill cap. But a careful eye will observe that the flexibility of combat, the important distinguishing features of magical traditions, and so on, have been lost or diminished. Perhaps Rolemodel thinks there are some redeeming graces aside from a slight reduction in the number of values GMs and players must keep track of; perhaps not. But for people who don't understand why some are quite negative regarding SR4: why not read Rolemodel's post instead of mine and think about those points?

I would ask that you convert statements into neutral language--"tweaking small little mathematical bonuses" is a synonym for tactical considerations, perhaps, considerations that make the difference between life and death in a critical situation, considerations that mark not only the character but also the player as someone who knows what they're doing. Some of these, granted, were wholly OOC and rather silly; others were important reflections of relative levels of danger.

So, on to the bulk, from which I've extracted a single, hopefully cogent quote. Rolemodel opines that

One of the things I suspect is, like the d20 system, this will encourage min/maxing and munchinizing rather than the intended job of hindering it. Hell, on this forum we've already seen someone take a sample character from the book and, with a simple alteration, produce a different character that is overall more powerful than before.

In the end, I see this as taking the same problems it was attempting to solve and only making them worse. After all, I really have no incentive to up a single gun skill three levels when a single upping of an attribute makes me stronger in multiple areas, potentially enough to make the cost in the gun area worth it.

Sure you do. You have 200bp left that you can't spend on attributes. What are you going to do with it aside from raise your skill with that gun?

Grab a bunch of skills, equipment, and contacts.

Now, let's advance past chargen. You have enough karma to raise an attribute or a skill. Which do you raise?

Attribute attribute attribute. Good grief. There's no reason to do anything else. Not til you're all capped out in your important attributes.

Which is how it fails to prevent min/maxing. Unless you're a magician or decker/technomancer, there really isn't any reason to spend karma on anything other than attributes for awhile.

Why on earth would you do that? You're spending a lot of karma for one die in a wide variety of things that your character might not even use. Why not spend the same Karma for two dice in something you're guaranteed to use right away? You can always go back and increase your attribute later for the exact same price. You havn't lost anything and you've gained a die. Not to mention that it takes a lot longer to earn enough Karma to buy attributes. The die you get with a skill is more valuable then the die you get with an attribute because you end up using it on a lot more rolls.

Attributes only cost 50% more than skills after character creation time, according to the information that's been posted here so far.

Plus, every time you use the skill, you also use the linked attribute. You can't use a skill more than you use its linked attribute.

Nerbert, let's examine this.

Take a character that uses a lot of combat skills. Pretty much, they are only using one attribute. Now, you can either raise each skill individually (I include group skills as being individual for this). Or, you can wait and spend the karma on a single attribute and raise them all at the same time, as well as having extra dice for anything else tied to that attribute and a higher rating when you do learn a new skill.

First of all, combat regularly references Strength, Agility, Reaction and Body. Generally if you specialized in either range or melee then you're looking at only Strength or Agility and the other two. So, no, they don't only use one attribute if you want to be good at anything besides just one individual aspect of combat.

Secondly, you're potentially delaying character progression for extra game sessions by saving up your Karma for attributes. In the mean time you're making many rolls that you could be using those dice that you're just sitting on.

Finally, I believe that its cheaper to focus on two particular skills then it is to focus on a skill group. So unless that third skill is really, completely indispensible, I don't see why you would ever buy one.