So, yeah, 18 karma to turn that 5 into a 6 is really fragging expensive. My, my, it seems you'll never get that much in any reasonable time.

Edit:

3) It is more expensive, but worth it. You get 5 karma multiplied by the level for 3+ skills instead of 6 karma times the level for three individual skills.

1) You're right, I'm sorry. So instead of relying on one as you originally suggested, you're relying on at least two, and lmost certainly more if you don't want to go down at the first hit. Thanks for helping me out.

2)that 18 Karma can bump a skill 3 to a 5, and you only have to wait about half as long to get started.

3)Its only worth it if you're sure you're going to be using that third skill. If it were Basket Weaving, would it still be worth it? My Ares Alpha Pistol specialist is throwing at least 4 or 5 more dice then your generalist is for the same cost. Its a good thing you pumped your Body up to soak that damage or are you still sitting on 17 Karma that you can't spend yet?

I see min/maxing as a problem with character creation, and I've found that the best way to minimize that is to give players as few build resources as possible. Obviously this can't be done for high powered games, but that tends to be a problem with absolutely any character creation system.

After char gen. min/maxing ceases to be an issue because spending Karma to advance your character is never, ever a waste.

Huh? I just gave examples of optimal choices that don't involve increasing attributes. I'm not worried about those kinds of so-called min-maxers you are talking about. They end up being self regulating.

Why exactly would you care if someone was making sub-optimal strategic choices? Making bad shortterm choices chasing what they think are good longterm choices. First they have to survive to get to the longterm. Some time after that, if they manage to live and the game runs that long, they end up in a similar place anyway. *shrug*

1) Only two for melee weapons. For ranged, Strength doesn't factor at all. Miscommunication on my part.

2) True. And, yet, that doesn't help when you're forced to move away from the skill you just upgraded to one using the same stat that wasn't. In SR3, we'd just shrug and move on. Nothing to be done about it. In this case, I can point out you could have improved the attribute instead and benefitted both skills.

3) Aye, he is. And he's also taking a penalty. The Alpha is an assault rifle, known in particular in the SR world for it's 42-round clip and 8 round minigrenade launcher. So, while he's taking a penalty for defaulting and even more penalties for bullets shot (assuming he's even allowed to default), I'm waiting for him to run out of ammo. Due to the combination of penalties, I expect likely that he'll run out quite quickly.

Want to know the Alpha? Go take a look at the preview art. It's the assault rifle held by the ork.

Unfortunately, min/maxing isn't just a chargen problem. In fact, talk to any experienced DnD player to find out how far and how long it can last. In this particular case, it is simply spending karma to advance yourself in a way that gives you the most benefit for the least cost. Nothing quite screams "most benefit" like maxing that which provides a die for every skill linked to it.

Well, I'll concede on that one for the moment. It's late in my area and I need sleep.

It wouldn't matter so much if the ones most guilty of it did not also whine when they lost their character. Most GMs are quite capable of weeding them out, but after awhile the GMs start to turn on the system in hopes of getting one that provides less work on their end for regulating these people in the first place.

In the end, it amounts to those of us complaining about it not liking the work we have to put in to deal with the effects of it.

... and i'm right. Time for me to go too. Later....but first....

Practice doing this: Just laugh at them and their silly ways. Then charge them $5 for each new blank character sheet.

Work? They are self regulating. The system weeds them out for you. If they keep dieing make sure you don't spend more than 5 minutes for each new PC. Just do a quick rule violations check to feret out any creative accounting. Don't hinge plot on their PCs either since they might not be there next session.

If they are particularly bad don't even bother trying to learn their PCs' names. Some players will actually help you out by recycling the same name over and over, or have characters that are so similar you can pick out a nickname and apply it to all of them.

You're talking to someone who loses one to two good, non min/maxed characters a session. Trust me, I'm not the one you need to give that advice to. Hell, we have a character deathpool. The person who wins gets extra karma. Sadly, we had to make a few rules about it due to greedy people geeking teammates...

My concern isn't over my players. It's over others. I know I shouldn't worry about other groups, but I've already seen one game get reduced in quality because of a combination of min/maxers and those running the games complaining about them. And, to be honest, I don't want SR to be next. In fact, I don't want SR to even be on the list.

Now that sounds like a fun group of cutthroats to play with. Seriously.

Trying to remove "min/max" is fighting elemental forces of nature, pissing into the wind as it were. You can try to lessen it, but in the end if the system has variable values and the players have some sort of control over how their PC is created and progresses, then the players to varying degrees will focus on trying to pervert and exploit the game system. Or at least find the sweet spot. Crude min/maxing is one simple way of trying to do this.

You can try to remove the ability for them to succeed using the technique. But even if they fail they are likely to continue to attempt. *shrug* To stop it you'd have to build a system where PC design and advancement was so predictated that you'd have a lot of trouble finding people to play it.

I see the key word you used as "combination". The problem isn't one style or the other. The crux of the problem is people having chosen to view the other style as unacceptably incompatible with their own. :/

An excellent point, and a very accurate one; Shadowrun 3rd edition, for all it's merit, did not -just- create tactical considerations for the player and the character to consider. But often times, would pit the two against each other based upon the projected mathematics behind any given consideration. In one situation, based upon the TN stack, a player would find their character acting one way, only to completely abandon that In-Character approach, as the mathematics swayed towards a more favorable projected probability.

A concept no doubt beaten to death, but revisted briefly here, if only to reinforce the point.

Observe as my character fires a weapon, with no modification but poor lighting, and the impact on my projected successes is dramatically noticed. Projected success-count of half is turned into, at the very least, a projected success-count of one third. When that same character finds the modifier to be based in marginal cover, rather than lighting, likewise a very noticable swing in probability can be experienced. That said, the character may choose to aim to overcome those penalties, properly assuming that the simple act of steadying one's aim, will increase the chance of success. Should the character encounter -both- cover, -and- lighting, however, we all know as part time mathematicians that the curve of success favors the additional shots, and thus additional dice, over the time spent to aim; Because as the base TN increases, the impact of a lesser increase, or decrease, is not felt nearly as heavily.

Is it accurate to assume that aiming will produce a more successful shot? Absolutely. And will there be circumstance that dictactes 'spraying and praying' as a more reasonable approach? Naturally. Does the third edition of Shadowrun, effectively model this? Yes it does, in many cases, of course. But as a downfall, does it stress the experience of the player, and whims of the TN, over the capabilities of the character? Yes, it certainly can.

A smartlink at close range is effectively like putting the barrel of your weapon straight to your target's temple, a -dramatic- increase. Whereas, a smartlink used against a target in a rainstorm, behind cover will fare only the slightest hint better than a peer without one. This demonstrates not -just- tactical consideration, but an entirely new mechanic into how the In-Character reality will unfold, based, in many cases, solely on the curve of probability presented by the system.

In some games this will become an issue, as I've noticed from personal experience. In some games, it will not. To some, this enhances the experience. And, to others, likewise, it will detract.

Instead, we have been presented with a much more linear curve. Your smartlink will always give you +2 dice to roll, or effectively 1/3 of a success. Your target behind marginal cover will always inflict -2 dice to roll, effectively removing 1/3 of a success. Mechanically, then, the scenario will unfold in a manner with much less stress placed upon Many-Dice-Vs.-High-TNs, and more often around controlling a more even, and constant grade of presented difficulty.

Will aspects like Combat Pool be missed from our new system? Yes. I believe I can speak authoritatively when I say that Combat Pool was a very cutting edge concept that gave incredible flexibility to the actions of the players. Will the new system survive without it? Once again, yes it will.

As far as characters, then. Given the previous explanation was lacking, let me elaborate, and counterpoint:

We have taken one step further away from a system that resembles, and favors, character 'levels'.

We have made 'Karma Pool' effectively available to anyone, at the expense of focus in other areas, and we have forced players to do more than rely on my Pistols:X, vs. their Pistols:Y. To borrow analogy; There are no more Level(20) Samurai running amuck on the grid, with a BaB effectively outclassing opponents merely by time spent in game, and a Karma Pool to ensure they're always successful.

Players will prove their worth, less on the roll of the die, and more on a level headed approach into a situation based upon the resources at their disposal, and an understanding of the danger. Why? Yes, because the gaps in skill levels are brought closer together. And more time, as a direct result, will be required in the planning and preparation phase of any given encounter, rather than the 'Oh-shit-let-me-roll-for-my-Ruger-thunderbolt' phase. To imply the players are wholly at the whim and mercy of the GM is a niave, broad generalization. And to imply that players shouldn't be dependant on their GM, in some degree, is likewise untrue.

Given that I do immensely enjoy SRIII, it's hard for me to understand it's rule-system as a burden, but it is not hard for me to understand it's shortcomings - Particularly since I have, or have witnessed them, exploited many times. Likewise, it is difficult for me to understand this new version's rule system compared to an entirely free-form style of game, when it so obviously contains so much, at the expense of so little.

That is, unfortunately, all I can comment on at this moment, as I'll be returning to work shortly. However, I will note that you bring up valid points when you say there will be problems with SR4, and it will fail, in some degree, in some situations. Such is the nature of an imperfect world. It is not a fact to be celebrated, but it is hardly a matter that should come as a surprise.

Overall. Generalized. In a broad sense. And strictly based on my opinion, presented by the facts. I believe this new edition will be an improvement. And, if nothing else, it will be something new to shake things up.

-RM

because this sounds tactical to me. And the reason you had to pay attention to resources at your disposal and an understanding of the danger in SR3 is because you couldn't just take your high skill and walk all over everyone without crafting confrontations so that they were not unfavorable. TNs would kill you if you just relied on skill, at least if the GM paid attention to such things--and if they didn't pay attention before, why would they suddenly pay attention now that the dice don't stress tactics? Granted, in SR3 you could temporarily get around high TNs through liberal application of karma pool--but if that was a bad thing, SR3's mechanic could just have been converted to edge.

I have an alternate thesis regarding SR4 vs. SR3. SR4 is a better game for people who don't much care about rules, good or bad. SR4 is a better game for novices and amateurs. It doesn't require as much knowledge of the game to be good at SR4 (even to min/max your character), and that leaves people to focus on setting and scenes. If you don't care too much about whether the difficulty of a task as described can be mapped well to its difficulty when rolling dice, or you're happy to stay within the street level sweet spot of the rules, it might be pretty nice.

Actually, It took me about five minutes to realize I can make an adept who rolls 24 dice (min. 23, max would be 27-28) every time he pulls the trigger, and with the burning rules and scope rules I can have him automatically burn his 24 dice and get a minimum of 6 hits on his ranged combat test out to any range. If I rolled, I'd statistically average 8 hits, and if I was lucky maybe 12. If I used edge, I could probably go as high as 15.

If I'm feeling like going on Defense instead, I can use the Dodge Adept who can roll 24 dice at chargen and be unhittable. Or the Melee Adept with 24 melee dice. Or ... You get the idea. Adepts are gods now, but it doesn't make the game any better than I can dodge bullets or kill anyone in one action at chargen. It makes it rather... uninspired.

You should get a pair of 12-inchers with a chain connecting them. I would pay good money to see a guy beaten down by a set of cock-chucks.

well playing once a week every week, and averaging a generous 5 karma a week is roughly ( as i cant see a way you would never miss a week, so i will call it 50 weeks...again generous) is 250 karma.
Thats 13 YEARS of solid playing just to get them all to 6 and another 7 years to cap everything to 7.
As to the min maxing discussion............ does anyone roleplay anymore, or do you all just play with people who just try to plan ahead, abuse and try and break the rules, without ever just roleplaying the actual char you are playing??

.

Hrm. That's only slightly more than the 21 dice elf chromed gun expert (starting character) that I cooked up, and he's a mundane... I'll have to find some way to increase that even more to match your magically-enhanced numbers.

Nice. Let me guess Attribute + Exceptional + Augmentation = 12, Skill + Aptitude = 7, Smartlink = 2, for a grand total of 21. Very nice.

Attribute (6) + Exceptional Attribute (1) = 7
Skill (6) + Aptitude (1) = 7
Improved Ability 6 = 6
Improved Attribute 3 = 3

= 23

Plus a sprinkling of Smartlink (+2), or Specialization (+2), or Aim (+1) or any and all (not that it matters to a point with the 24 dice cap). Oh, and this is for a human. If I made an elf, he'd have 2 extra dice for a minimum of 25 dice.

Human Dodge Adept
Attr 6 + Exceptional 1 + Dodge 6 + Apt 1 + Imp. Dodge 6 + Imp Attr 3 = 23

Well, it's not more dice, but if you have that many to begin with, start using called shots for vital areas with short bursts from an SMG. The enemies get -2 to Dodge so you're really sure to hit and are effectively getting (assuming you give up 4 dice for the called shot) an additional 8 dice worth of damage.

Either we're missing something, or I call bullshit on the claims this game was playtested.

We aren't.

I now know exactly why some of the playtesters were so disappointed with the dice mechanics. This is absurd.

I forgot about Aptitude, and I wasn't using Exceptional Attribute. So you get the following:
Automatics (My favorite Gun) = 7 (+2) (Aptitude)
Agility 8 (+4 for cyber/bioware) = 12 (Exceptional Attribute)
Smartlink 2
Reflex Recorder (Automatics)
Total - 24 dice

This is all available at character creation, by the way. Unfortunately, you won't be any good at anything else.

Hacking, for either Technomancers or Hackers, is much more difficult, because it's a variety of skills. You might be able to do really well on a single operation, but you can't specialize and get good results with all of them.

I disagree. Being an extremely skilled individual, understanding that you so expertly outrank your opponents that you're capable of destroying them inside of heavily clouded smoke, and acting on it sounds like, as you say, a tactical consideration. Also, you show all the more reason to force skillcaps in this system.

Yes. It is tactical. Tactics by trusting the mathematic curve of system probability, which holds inside it's mechanics the ability to awkwardly distribute difficulty. Not tactics based in In-Character combat experience. You know that firing against nothing but distance enforces difficulty. You know that firing in smoke enforces difficulty. And you know that firing at a partially exposed target enforces difficulty. But you also know that when you combine all those things together, rather than facing them seperately, you might as well be doing backflips, coding up some new programs, emailing your mother, and mentally running over tomorrow's homework in your image link; Because as your TNs begin to exceed a practical range, the increased difficulty is laughably marginal.

Inside of an ideal TN range, however, you understand that your Smartlink is like a Chance card that sends you straight to Boardward, and sends your opponent straight to the guilotine.

Tactically you isolate your Target Numbers, forcing them back down to where skill is more effectively relevant. Not because it makes sense to your character, but because it makes sense to those of us that take the time to crunch on the numbers like we crunch on ice after a fountain drink.

Here, however, is where you highlight what I believe is the crux of your arguement.
You believe that a Roleplaying game, like perhaps a console game, or a clever puzzle, should require that you are 'good' at it. Despite the vague notion of what being ‘good’ at something as open ended as an RPG. Does it take math? Humor? Creative Writing ability? Patience? The ability to roll fists full of dice at a time, knocking over plastic mini’s and irritating your friends horribly?

And it's not an uncommon notion, especially amoung those of us in the RPG industry elite enough to understand and play Shadowrun. Because, let's face it, it has degrees of complexity, and flexibility that -lesser- gamers cannot possibly fathom, understand, or execute properly.

But no. No, not at all. I believe that an ideal RPG system will be accessible to anyone, catered to all range of gamers, and that being ‘good’ at the game simply involves having fun with your friends. Given that we have these two, core, and -vastly different- beliefs when it comes to gaming, I understand completely where you base your approach to this new edition.

But, once again, I can’t agree.

Using 'harigata jutsu' no doubt

Agreed.

But then again, I don't know why anyone -wouldn't- want to emphasize the street level aspect of the game. Afterall, isn't the fantasy market fairly well cornered? And don't we already have a few better suited Superhero systems floating around out there, somewhere?

That said, I don't intend that line to make apologies for any faults you see in the system, and is made strictly as an observation. But. If the genre is -Cyberpunk-, let's not forget that punk makes up half of the title.

-RM

Because some of us choose not to. And some of us believe that there are levels of play between 'street' and 'superhero'.

Definitely your perogative.

Even if this was the only difference (that's hardly the case - good rhetorical device, though) it actually has a major impact. See Ellery's posts about "immunity to normal modifiers" for the reasons why. A SR3 character with 20 dice, on the other hand, still can't ignore penalties for firing blind, or shooting at a running enemy with partial cover.

What I like about Shadowrun, and I have heard a few people agree, is the future setting with the increased tech and cyberware, coupled with the return of magic. It doesn't make it fantasy to me, it is just another "big adjustment" that came down the timeline.

probably freakishly wrong again,
that lucky bastard

Most of those happened with the advent of the various PrC and Feat books, which actually had pathetic quality control... And 3E/3.5 as it is today is actually horribly open to abuse.

No, that's true. An SR3 character with 20 dice is not immune to firing blind, or shooting at a running enemy with partial cover.

Instead, a character rolling 250% of the base dice for a World-Class skill level can do something easy -VERY- well, and something difficult about as well as everyone else.

w00t! Go SR3.

And shame on SR4 for rewarding people with high skill levels!

-RM

No, those three were right out of the box. Done with only the PHB, not even the DMG (although the sack of Endless Aggresive Kobolds is a hypothetical custom magic construct). I'm not talking about the totally wacked errors like the fubar Hulking Hurler PrC that can be built to go around tossing small planetiods for damage capable of splitting moons.

I'm just talking basic PCs that are skewed in their emphesis so much that they can do one single thing very, very, very well. But aren't really playable because they are too weak overall to survive in a normal world environment.

As for 3e/3.5e, it is as open to abuse as the GM is open to allowing in extra books without a keen eye for culling. Sure you can still do stupid shit, but show me a fun playable P&P system that can't be exploited and i'll show you a table full of players that are dumb as a sack of hammers.

That's blatantly false, and no amount of sarcasm is going to change that.

In SR3, how good you are is directly proportional to the number of dice you roll - our hypothetical 20-die character has just as much of an advantage over someone with 4 dice regardless of whether the TN is 2 or 6 or 12+. The only time the guy with 20 dice can do something "about as well as everyone else" is when trying to do something that's virtually impossible, and the fact he can do it 1% of the time instead of 0.1% of the time isn't significant, practically speaking.

Given your earlier statements, it's sort of strange that you take issue with something that actually keeps high-level SR3 characters from acting like superheroes.

I'll drink to that.

Who, me? Just didn't have the time to get to it. They sometimes make me work at work.

I don't recall ever seeing any 60AC characters straight out of the PHB, and the Mr. Ginsu character I recall had levels of Tempest - but there have been so many of them, it scarecely matters...

The real point - as it relates to this conversation - would be that not one of those is a starting character, so whatever problems D&D has (and it has real problems - I've played and GMed 3E for years now, and consider the system anything but munchkin proof) aren't nearly as glaring as these here look to be.

I suppose there's a decent chance that some of this will prove to not be a problem in play - but there's a much better one that actual play will reveal even more holes. (unless SR4 is unique among RPG systems)

Since we're using extreme dice, I suppose an extreme example is in order. Let's take 18 dice, because it revolves well around the math associated with six sided dice. And we'll compare those very same 18 dice against someone rolling a mere 3 dice. And then we'll take a glance at two opposite ends of the spectrum. Obviously, one imagined participant is highly skilled. And the other, entirely marginally.

In our first scenario, we have a very easy task presented. That task will invoke a Target Number of 2. Each die will produce a 5/6th success.

Our 18-dice-throwing-fiend will find that each little clump of 6 dice will return five 'average' successes. That said, he can expect fifteen average net successes on this easy test. Likewise, our 3-dice-throwing-fool will find that he will most likely get 3 successes back when he winds up and chucks his little d6's across the table. When we compare the test results, we find that being highly skilled, in this case, allows for Character A to receive an average of 500% net successes, at worst, compared to Character B.

In our second scenario, we have a very difficult task presented. That task will invoke a Target Number of 18. Each die will produce a 1/216 of a success.

Our 18-dice-throwing-fiend will have that when he launches all of his dice, they will each have their own little 1/216th of a success associated with it. Skipping around for simplicities sake, we'll note this will land somewhere between 5%-10% of a possibility of success. And likewise, three little 1/216th successes will be counted between 1% and 2%.

Now, observe something like this referenced to the linear curve of applied damage. Two successes to increase a wound level. Two successes to decrease a wound level. An amazingly skilled character will inflict massive amounts of overdamage when compared to the marginally skilled, when the task is simple. When the task is really hard? We've got both character performing pretty close together, and likely both will be completely ineffective.

The end result? Our math curve means that highly skilled, and untrained perform very closely when the going get's rough, and drastically different when life is a breeze. Why does this irritate me? Because I don't think it's very realistic in the slightest. In reality, highly skilled individuals perform -difficult tasks significantly better than their untrained counterparts-, and perform basic tasks nearly identically. This in turn leads to what we've dubbed 'Tactics'; The manipulation of a task to make it as easy as possible, because then, and only then, will high skill pay off.

Shadowrun 4th edition, however, offers us a much more linear progression curve. Unlike 3rd edition, we'll never find ourselves defaulting to a high, augmented attribute merely for the dice, in difficult tasks, and use our marginal skill, in easy tasks, for TN supression.

I would argue that it does not keep high-level SR3 characters from acting like superheros. Somehow, when they are armed with a dull pencil, and a still target, they can jam it through a troll's head for lethal damage while an unskilled character cannot even kill that same unmoving targeted Troll with a Panther Assault Cannon.

The solution laid down in SR4 is to present linear probability, with linear results, rather than mix the two, coupled with capped skills. While it does not prevent players from exploiting the system with many dice, neither does it's predecessor; The point is invalid in comparison. Instead, surprise, surprise, averagely skilled characters will perform... averagely. Low, lowly. And the elite will perform the highest. It's true in all situations.

Prevention of utter twinkery can be resolved at the GM level. If it's obviously created as an attempt to break the rules, then it's a fairly obvious choice to remove from play.

-RM

Sorry to hear it.

Within 3 to 4 levels you can build a skewed PC, taking maybe a couple more levels before it is grossly skewed. Of course such things tend to happen earlier in a SR characters playing life. First SR characters inherently start out more complete than DnD characters. The character power progression in SR is much flater than DnD. DnD works hard to lockstep PC power together at each level so that encounter are roughly equally challenging and dangerous to different characters at the same level. So in SR there it is much more common to have similarity in power, especially in individual tasks, between characters of differing amounts of karma. SR lets you concentrate more on the abilities you want to advance, DnD tends to force spreading out the power more.

So you can skew PCs faster in their lifecycle. This was true in previous SR editions, and i've built starting SR3 PCs that were rolling high teens and pushing 20ish right out of the block. The flatness of the power progression is an important part of SR feel, so it certainly isn't surprising to find it in SR4.

At least build the whole PC and compare it to other whole PCs (not just the sample PCs) and try running some limited mock battles and non-violent encounters inside, and more importantly outside the characters specialty before you declare that the system has totally broke.

EDIT: BTW i agree DnD isn't munchkin proof. I don't expect it nor any P&P system to be. They keep building better munchkins.

Absolutely. Shadowrun Third edition works much better in that range. Also, I tend to reject most queues that come my way inquiring for skills very much higher than the standards enforced by chargen: "Request Rejected: Resubmit with additional justification, or appeal to RPD." And as I've mentioned countless times, I think it's a great system, and there is plenty of merit in it.

But please, don't operate under the assumption that it isn't still completely riddled with problems of it's own, in the right circumstances.

Sure. And I believe, in the current situations proposed, we are not pitting normal human beings against those odds. We are pitting the absolute best of the best, augmented with massive internal upgrades, or just plain old magic.

Did you want realism, or cybernetic modification, and, uh... magic?

You have my full permission to feel free to implement creative license in your own explanations for how a character can achieve that level of prowess; Effectively performing with dice four times past an average human capacity.

-RM