Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: So far
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Rolemodel
I can understand where you're coming from. And I doubt that I would encourage anyone to stop playing SRIII that enjoys it. Especially since many of the online venues will continue to support it.

But, likewise, when it comes to SR4 I think it'd be silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
mfb
i would argue that it's already been thrown out. SR4 discarded a lot of good material, and replaced it with material that focuses on speed over quality. if speedy gameplay is your thing, great.
Demonseed Elite
QUOTE
i would argue that it's already been thrown out. SR4 discarded a lot of good material, and replaced it with material that focuses on speed over quality. if speedy gameplay is your thing, great.


Well, I wouldn't say you're wrong that speedy gameplay was a major factor. And I would agree that if you play SR online in a place like SL, that doesn't matter as much. But it is a big consideration in the game industry right now; games have moved towards faster-play mechanics, some even tossing out most mechanics altogether.

For example, the people I game with here locally won't touch SR. Not even with me writing for it. nyahnyah.gif We play Exalted, which I couldn't deny just runs faster than SR and lent itself to a more fun experience around a table. Once I have my copy of SR4, I'll see if they'll give that a run. I think they'll be much more open to the idea if they see it as running faster.

Now, I do think that if someone designs a good "tabletop" RPG that is built from the ground up to play online and comes with the online support to run it that way, you could have a break-out hit product with the way the tabletop customer base is aging. But that wasn't SR4's design goal.
mfb
this is true. i still feel that way too much was sacrificed in the name of efficiency; that the game could be designed to move as quickly as SR4, without losing anywhere near as much as SR has lost with SR4.
mmu1
QUOTE (Rolemodel)
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.

...which is a lot like how things work in SR3 - provided that, like mfb pointed out, you don't use completely absurd TNs like 18.

The Difficulty Number Table on p.92 in SR3 lists a TN of 2 as easy, 9 as "extreme" and a TN of 10+ as "nearly impossible". These might be slightly on the low side when considering characters made with all the goodies included in various supplements, but not by much.

Within that range, a character with 20 dice actually has less of an advantage over a character with 3 dice at TNs like 2 or 4 than at TN 10 - at least when you don't need very many successes.
apple
Fortunately, your success in SR is always determined by your numbers of successes ...

SYL
SL James
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
QUOTE
Nice. Let me guess Attribute + Exceptional + Augmentation = 12, Skill + Aptitude = 7, Smartlink = 2, for a grand total of 21. Very nice.

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

Even better.
Ellery
Others have adequately addressed the inaccuracies in Rolemodel's characterization of the probabilities; there's just two quick things I wanted to add.

First: SR3's dice system has the property that on average, a TN penalty of 1 means that you get 25% fewer successes, regardless of TN and power level. It fluctuates a lot--too much, I'd argue--but this property is a wonderful one. It means that TN penalties reflect conditions getting "tough", and everyone feels the toughness. TN bonuses reflect conditions getting ideal, and everyone feels the improvement.

This is a marvellous way to retain challenges for people at all levels. The mechanics take care of it for you.

Second: I wholeheartedly disagree that the perfect RPG would be one that one could immediately be at expert level because I don't think that the "fun" would last or be as satisfying. Trivial games tend to bore. I suppose that people are increasingly being trained to not enjoy a sense of accomplishment (or to feel that sense of accomplishment when one has done very little), so perhaps someday a game where newcomers and old hats are equally good would be popular. Seems kind of like slot machines to me, though.

One of the best ways to make everyone equal is to have no rules and minimal background. But this lacks immersion, and immersion is also a key part of enjoyment.

QUOTE (Demonseed Elite)
Well, I wouldn't say you're wrong that speedy gameplay was a major factor. And I would agree that if you play SR online in a place like SL, that doesn't matter as much. But it is a big consideration in the game industry right now; games have moved towards faster-play mechanics, some even tossing out most mechanics altogether.
I think SR4 has likely achieved this to some extent. But it's odd to shift the mechanics rather than to optimize the SR3 mechanics. SR3 could have been cleaned up tremendously. Does combat take too long? Simplify initiative. Roll dodging into the damage resist test. Reduce the number of modifiers. Change combat pool into a single "focus" bonus applied once per turn. I daresay that I could produce a system that played twice as fast as SR4 using SR3's base mechanics--and which would also have the advantage that it could be extended back to include combat pool and so on with "advanced" optional rules for people who like that kind of control.

With a new mechanic, it's hard to tell what is important and what can be glossed over. SR4 feels to me like people tried to make it play quickly, but it's not at all clear to me that this happened in the right way. Maybe it did. I don't see how we could know, though, until SR4's been out for a few years.

I think SR4 is likely to be a very nice game to try. Playtesting mostly involves trying out the game, and it helps optimize up to that point. Post-trial problems aren't likely to become obvious for a while.

QUOTE (Nerbert)
The consequences of the rules discussed in this thread are open to vast interpretation.

I conclude that neither dice system is fundamentally superior. One system appeals and lends itself well to one particular kind of play and the other system lends itself to a different style of play.

I consider myself fortunate that my play style is served and enhanced by the SR 4 system.
The consequences of rules are largely mathematics, which are not open to interpretation at all, and sociology, which is usually pretty predictable when it comes to reward structures. So I don't think there's much room for interpretation, actually.

I do think that the two systems have their strengths, but I think that a SR3-like system could be made that had basically all of the SR4 system's strengths with few of its weaknesses. But that was not done, so in a forced-choice experiment between SR3 and SR4, people with various play styles will likely gravitate towards one or the other, and I hope for your sake that you will be happier with SR4.

I was going to point out problems that you'll likely run into even with your playing style, but you're unlikely to believe it now, and on second thought, maybe ignorance is bliss. If you fail to notice that something is wrong (even though it would drive many people nuts), and you and your players have fun, that's really the goal.
Nerbert
I'm curious as to what sort of things that you percieve as problems will occur in what you percieve as my playing style.

I can guarantee you that no problem I run into in this game will surpase the frusteration of the endless, mind numbing bookeeping and learning curve of SR3.
Crusher Bob
QUOTE (SL James)
QUOTE (hahnsoo @ Aug 23 2005, 12:13 PM)
QUOTE
Nice. Let me guess Attribute + Exceptional + Augmentation = 12, Skill + Aptitude = 7, Smartlink = 2, for a grand total of 21. Very nice.

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

Even better.

Can you do the same thing with a guy who closes his eye first? (i.e. max Inutution, which, I understand is used during blind fire)
Ellery
QUOTE (Nerbert)
I can guarantee you that no problem I run into in this game will surpase the frusteration of the endless, mind numbing bookeeping and learning curve of SR3.
If that's your primary concern, then why worry about the rest?

There are a number of normally sensible ways to play characters (without specifically trying to game the rules) that will produce conditions that are usually frustrating (feelings of uselessness, hogging glory, etc.). I'd imagine these would be drawbacks to your group. But you might not notice them, your group might not trigger them, and if I told you about them, you probably wouldn't believe me anyway--especially since we've covered many of them already and you've said in response in one case that you don't trust theory.
SL James
QUOTE (Crusher Bob)
QUOTE (SL James @ Aug 24 2005, 08:20 AM)
QUOTE (hahnsoo @ Aug 23 2005, 12:13 PM)
QUOTE
Nice. Let me guess Attribute + Exceptional + Augmentation = 12, Skill + Aptitude = 7, Smartlink = 2, for a grand total of 21. Very nice.

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

Even better.

Can you do the same thing with a guy who closes his eye first? (i.e. max Inutution, which, I understand is used during blind fire)

Why would he?
Sabosect
QUOTE (blakkie)
Now that sounds like a fun group of cutthroats to play with. Seriously. notworthy.gif

It is. Whoever ends up GMing never needs to reject a character. Due to group policy about character sheets and the fact the players arrange "accidents" to remove the obviously bad characters (except when we have a silly session), we really have a pretty good group. The few new players who stick around tend to be worth the investment we make in them.

QUOTE
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.


To a certain extent, min/maxing is actually a good thing. It makes sense, for example, for you to make the guy who uses guns to be good at it. Same with the mage and using magic. But, at the same time, there are systems that seem built to encourage it. DnD is actually one of those, as its complex rules and massive number of things to keep track of make for many opportunities for people to min/max or munchkin in a bad way and get by it. Quite a few groups in my area either have a rules lawyer on hand (in some cases, actually paid for their services) to help out the DMs or are actively seeking them, and I know more than one DM in other areas to keep a munchkin they can trust around to actively tell them what the exploits are and when someone else is using them.

Some of the people on here who complain about searching for these exploits are, in ignorance, not realizing the massive service being done. If you know what the exploit is, you know how to watch for it and deal with it. I know I'll be watching for these if I ever GM a SR4 game.

The idea is to create a game system that doesn't encourage min/maxing. Unfortunately, the only one I've ever seen that actually actively prevents it only prevents it because the players all go into it knowing that, in the end, their characters will either die or go insane. SR3 had the advantage of the exploits becomming obvious fairly quickly and being able to effectively deal with without appearing to do so. After all, in just about every group there is someone you can usually get to go along with the idea of a certain problem player being eliminated and them helping. I'm just lucky that it's usually the entire group and usually the GM isn't involved at all.

QUOTE
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.


Not at all. It takes the right game as well. CoC is fairly well known for discouraging min/maxing, simply because in that game it's perfectly believable for your first adventure to involve meeting Cthulhu.

QUOTE
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.  :/


Aye, and it is the key word. Munchkins can be eliminated, and a GM can't complain if they don't have a munchkin. The problem is when you combine the munchkins with the GMs who complain.

Now, the rest of this I will sit back on, unless it's a reply to me. I have nothing to add not already addressed.
Ellery
QUOTE (Steadfast)
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.
The branch of mathematics that deals with understanding outcomes of random events is called "statistics". It's quite well established, don't you know.

QUOTE (Steadfast)
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.
This is so bad it's not even wrong. Science is not predominantly about opinion; the opinions that scientists do hold are only worth as much as they can be supported; and in mathematics theorems can be proven and so opinion--except about conjectures--is basically worthless. Of course people can think whatever they want, but this is almost completely irrelevant to the hard sciences, let alone mathematics.

QUOTE (Nerbert)
You cut off the end of the quote.

"I 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."

People with strong personal biases, specific playing styles and and experiences can make assumptions about a way a game works that aren't necessarily sound.
I suppose this is sensible if one is unable to evaluate theories or detect biases therein, even when the theory is presented explicitly. Otherwise, if one has the capability to even slightly evaluate the theory, it's a lot more reliable to examine biases than just ignore everything because it might be biased.
Crusher Bob
Because being able to kill anyone who crosses the extreme range line of my carried weapon does not sufficiently demonstrate my sheer bad-assery. I want to see if it can be done with my eyes closed as well as I can do it ‘normally’ while holding my guts in, with my off hand, in bad lighting, with the target running among cover, at extreme range, while I’m on a moving vehicle…
Crusher Bob
The problem I currently have with the SR4 system is not the fact that it can be min/mazed (all systems can be min/maxed), it's that it's esentially possible to accidentaly min/max.

If you want to create 'the stealth guy' so you go for a high agl and a high stealth group skill, you might think you are doing fine. Because you know that stealth isn't going to always cut it, you add a skill 3 in pistols (thinking to yourself, yeah, my guy will be as good as a beat cop with a pistol). Then you discover that you are, in fact, rolling 9+ dice to shoot someone, effectively as or better good as the AGL 4, firearms group 4 gun bunny. So you shoot as good/better than the gun bunny, and you are really sneaky. So how does the GM give the gun bunny the 'spotlight'?

The fact that the gun bunny also knows how to use (and has) a rocket launcher can't come up every game...
Sabosect
QUOTE (Nerbert)
I can guarantee you that no problem I run into in this game will surpase the frusteration of the endless, mind numbing bookeeping and learning curve of SR3.

Okay, I have this to reply to.

Nerbert, the problem is that you tried to keep track of the numbers. I can't remember a single time I had to look up modifiers. What you should have done is just used those numbers to get a feel. Memorize the modifiers, the typical TNs, and move from there. Once you get that down, pretty much you can run an SR game. Occasionally you have to look up a piece of equipment, a spell, or a program, but that's not much.

Basically, most of the game is adaptability. Who cares if I got the TN wrong if it's believable for that task?
Demonseed Elite
QUOTE
Basically, most of the game is adaptability. Who cares if I got the TN wrong if it's believable for that task?


Hehehehe, having gamed with some of the posters on this thread, I found that hilarious.

But seriously, SR has had a long tendency of having a lot of book-keeping baggage for a tabletop game.
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Crusher Bob @ Aug 23 2005, 11:07 PM)
If you want to create 'the stealth guy' so you go for a high agl and a high stealth group skill, you might think you are doing fine.  Because you know that stealth isn't going to always cut it, you add a skill 3 in pistols (thinking to yourself, yeah, my guy will be as good as a beat cop with a pistol).

Agility isn't the only stat for the Stealth group skills, I'd like to add. I think it's only used for Palming and Infiltration. Intuition is used for Shadowing and Disguise.

As far as using Intuition for Blind Fire, realize that Blind Fire has a -6 Dice penalty. While you may be able to create a character specifically for the purpose of shooting blindfolded (a Zen archer or something), you'd be looking at a maximum of 10 to 11 dice (7 +2 for Specialization +1 for Reflex Recorder). You don't get the benefit of a Smartgun link, either (a visual bonus, to be sure). But then, you are dealing with someone who is among the absolute best in the world as far as that particular weapon skill (7 skill), a Sixth World version of Annie Oakley. I suppose with Adept powers, you can boost that up to 16 to 17 dice, so it's still pretty evil when Magic is involved. Reminds me of Hideo in Neuromancer, after he got his eyes zapped out. You'd have to make a perception test to even think about hitting a target (since you no longer can simply point and shoot).

Using the high-end examples, a Threshold system might be better to work with in a gaming group that allows such monstrosities. If you need 4 or more "hits" to hit a target, then it changes things.
morlock76
With all this pages read, I have to say I almost dont know where to start.

We all know that is is possible to build one shot ponys in the old and new SR systems. This chars have been around forever.
Its possible to get such a char ingame, too.

But as far as I know, this is a RPG (Role Playing Game) and this game usually got a GM (GameMaster). And even though I dont have the book yet, I am SURE that there is a line somewhere saying: All characters are subject to GM approval.

If I GM, there is no way in hell that I would allow a one shot pony (specially not such an obvious one) in the group.
Its the same story with the possible Troll Sam that would survive anything short of a RPG. He would, but unfortunately Mr. Face or Mr. Hacker next to him will be killed by the blast.

Its still about balance and mature playing, and if the player cant cope with that, I cant cope with the player.


The only way to balance this in any way is a GM verdict. If you let this in, its your OWN fault. And if I have to call a Thor's Hammer on a char like that, or a cow from space or whatever, then it is so. Maybe a new player to go with it ...

About the weakness of the chargen system, if I recall correctly, max Attributes was VERY popular in SR3 as well, not only due to the high costs to raise em later but to increase survivability, too.
As long as there is no option to have a balanced chargen system that works with the same math as the char development ingame, this issues will always be around.
BECKs was popular for a reason if you ask me.

As said, havent played yet or the book, but in the groups I play, the part of rolling dice usually is the part that is taking most time. Its a roleplaying game after all, no table top.

P.S.: Either I really didnt get half of what you all got issues with, or I am a "True Roleplayer" now and not a Munchkin Hybrid any more.
Shadow_Prophet
QUOTE (morlock76)
With all this pages read, I have to say I almost dont know where to start.

We all know that is is possible to build one shot ponys in the old and new SR systems. This chars have been around forever.
Its possible to get such a char ingame, too.

But as far as I know, this is a RPG (Role Playing Game) and this game usually got a GM (GameMaster). And even though I dont have the book yet, I am SURE that there is a line somewhere saying: All characters are subject to GM approval.

If I GM, there is no way in hell that I would allow a one shot pony (specially not such an obvious one) in the group.
Its the same story with the possible Troll Sam that would survive anything short of a RPG. He would, but unfortunately Mr. Face or Mr. Hacker next to him will be killed by the blast.

Its still about balance and mature playing, and if the player cant cope with that, I cant cope with the player.


The only way to balance this in any way is a GM verdict. If you let this in, its your OWN fault. And if I have to call a Thor's Hammer on a char like that, or a cow from space or whatever, then it is so. Maybe a new player to go with it ...

About the weakness of the chargen system, if I recall correctly, max Attributes was VERY popular in SR3 as well, not only due to the high costs to raise em later but to increase survivability, too.
As long as there is no option to have a balanced chargen system that works with the same math as the char development ingame, this issues will always be around.
BECKs was popular for a reason if you ask me.

As said, havent played yet or the book, but in the groups I play, the part of rolling dice usually is the part that is taking most time. Its a roleplaying game after all, no table top.

P.S.: Either I really didnt get half of what you all got issues with, or I am a "True Roleplayer" now and not a Munchkin Hybrid any more.

AMEN!
Darkness
QUOTE (morlock76)
With all this pages read, I have to say I almost dont know where to start.

We all know that is is possible to build one shot ponys in the old and new SR systems. This chars have been around forever.
Its possible to get such a char ingame, too.

But as far as I know, this is a RPG (Role Playing Game) and this game usually got a GM (GameMaster). And even though I dont have the book yet, I am SURE that there is a line somewhere saying: All characters are subject to GM approval.

If I GM, there is no way in hell that I would allow a one shot pony (specially not such an obvious one) in the group.
Its the same story with the possible Troll Sam that would survive anything short of a RPG. He would, but unfortunately Mr. Face or Mr. Hacker next to him will be killed by the blast.

Its still about balance and mature playing, and if the player cant cope with that, I cant cope with the player.


The only way to balance this in any way is a GM verdict. If you let this in, its your OWN fault. And if I have to call a Thor's Hammer on a char like that, or a cow from space or whatever, then it is so. Maybe a new player to go with it ...

About the weakness of the chargen system, if I recall correctly, max Attributes was VERY popular in SR3 as well, not only due to the high costs to raise em later but to increase survivability, too.
As long as there is no option to have a balanced chargen system that works with the same math as the char development ingame, this issues will always be around.
BECKs was popular for a reason if you ask me.

As said, havent played yet or the book, but in the groups I play, the part of rolling dice usually is the part that is taking most time. Its a roleplaying game after all, no table top.

P.S.: Either I really didnt get half of what you all got issues with, or I am a "True Roleplayer" now and not a Munchkin Hybrid any more.

Indeed.
mintcar
QUOTE (morlock76)
With all this pages read, I have to say I almost dont know where to start.

We all know that is is possible to build one shot ponys in the old and new SR systems. This chars have been around forever.
Its possible to get such a char ingame, too.

But as far as I know, this is a RPG (Role Playing Game) and this game usually got a GM (GameMaster). And even though I dont have the book yet, I am SURE that there is a line somewhere saying: All characters are subject to GM approval.

If I GM, there is no way in hell that I would allow a one shot pony (specially not such an obvious one) in the group.
Its the same story with the possible Troll Sam that would survive anything short of a RPG. He would, but unfortunately Mr. Face or Mr. Hacker next to him will be killed by the blast.

Its still about balance and mature playing, and if the player cant cope with that, I cant cope with the player.


The only way to balance this in any way is a GM verdict. If you let this in, its your OWN fault. And if I have to call a Thor's Hammer on a char like that, or a cow from space or whatever, then it is so. Maybe a new player to go with it ...

About the weakness of the chargen system, if I recall correctly, max Attributes was VERY popular in SR3 as well, not only due to the high costs to raise em later but to increase survivability, too.
As long as there is no option to have a balanced chargen system that works with the same math as the char development ingame, this issues will always be around.
BECKs was popular for a reason if you ask me.

As said, havent played yet or the book, but in the groups I play, the part of rolling dice usually is the part that is taking most time. Its a roleplaying game after all, no table top.

P.S.: Either I really didnt get half of what you all got issues with, or I am a "True Roleplayer" now and not a Munchkin Hybrid any more.

My point exactly
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (morlock76)
With all this pages read, I have to say I almost dont know where to start.

We all know that is is possible to build one shot ponys in the old and new SR systems. This chars have been around forever.
Its possible to get such a char ingame, too.

But as far as I know, this is a RPG (Role Playing Game) and this game usually got a GM (GameMaster). And even though I dont have the book yet, I am SURE that there is a line somewhere saying: All characters are subject to GM approval.

If I GM, there is no way in hell that I would allow a one shot pony (specially not such an obvious one) in the group.
Its the same story with the possible Troll Sam that would survive anything short of a RPG. He would, but unfortunately Mr. Face or Mr. Hacker next to him will be killed by the blast.

Its still about balance and mature playing, and if the player cant cope with that, I cant cope with the player.


The only way to balance this in any way is a GM verdict. If you let this in, its your OWN fault. And if I have to call a Thor's Hammer on a char like that, or a cow from space or whatever, then it is so. Maybe a new player to go with it ...

About the weakness of the chargen system, if I recall correctly, max Attributes was VERY popular in SR3 as well, not only due to the high costs to raise em later but to increase survivability, too.
As long as there is no option to have a balanced chargen system that works with the same math as the char development ingame, this issues will always be around.
BECKs was popular for a reason if you ask me.

As said, havent played yet or the book, but in the groups I play, the part of rolling dice usually is the part that is taking most time. Its a roleplaying game after all, no table top.

P.S.: Either I really didnt get half of what you all got issues with, or I am a "True Roleplayer" now and not a Munchkin Hybrid any more.

You don't get it.

The point is you can break the game without becoming a one-trick pony. That's the problem.

~J
nezumi
So morlock, what about the GM who's never GMed before and can't understand why the hacker is better at fighting than the sam? What about the GM who's playing with close friends, and can't stand the idea of telling one of his best friends not to play with a munchkin character? What about the player who feels cheated because he made a character 'by the rules', and the GM has decided the character isn't legit because he's 'too good'?

The POINT of the rules is they're supposed to arbitrate! NOT that they give the GMs and players tools to make each others life more difficult. If adepts in SR were naturally stronger than sams throughout the game, that leads to a rule against adepts, a warning against sams, or a load of house rules to fix one or the other. None of these are fun, they're all limiting, exhausting and irritating.

Similarly, if the rules make characters who specialize in attributes naturally better than those who specialize in skills, I'm left with the same situation again, except a point worse, since I can't really 'ban' attributes. This means more work for the GM, more arguments with and between the players, more space for people to take advantage of each other, and an overall loss of fun.

Now if you happen to be the perfect GM with the perfect group, who instantly recognizes and repulses munchkins with absolutely no hard feelings and no threat to your campaign, I applaud you. I would ask you how you do it. In fact, I'd ask you to write out a long essay on it so I could emulate you. But I am not like you; I am an imperfect GM (I care about my players too much sometimes, I admit it), with varied players who pursue different goals, and I find it difficult to reject players, both because of a lack of good plays and because I like to make them happy.

I do not need a ruleset made for perfect GMs or perfect groups. I need a ruleset made for imperfect GMs, for roleplayers and rollplayers, and a group that has both. I need rules that are fair, balanced, impartial, clear. And from the complaints I'm seeing, I'm wondering if I need SR4.
Shadow_Prophet
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Aug 24 2005, 09:30 AM)
You don't get it.

The point is you can break the game without becoming a one-trick pony. That's the problem.

~J

Well its also very easy to say you don't get it either. You can only break the game if your GM lets you. Or if you're the GM your players can only break the game if you let them.

Furthermore, you can do the same thing in sr3 without breaking a sweat as well you're just so used to breaking it and your GM having to respond with the same type of stuff that you don't realy see it or ignore it at this point. Breaking the system, twinking out, completely min maxing, abusing the rules, has all basicaly become accepted now adays.

QUOTE
So morlock, what about the GM who's never GMed before and can't understand why the hacker is better at fighting than the sam? What about the GM who's playing with close friends, and can't stand the idea of telling one of his best friends not to play with a munchkin character? What about the player who feels cheated because he made a character 'by the rules', and the GM has decided the character isn't legit because he's 'too good'?

The POINT of the rules is they're supposed to arbitrate! NOT that they give the GMs and players tools to make each others life more difficult. If adepts in SR were naturally stronger than sams throughout the game, that leads to a rule against adepts, a warning against sams, or a load of house rules to fix one or the other. None of these are fun, they're all limiting, exhausting and irritating.

Similarly, if the rules make characters who specialize in attributes naturally better than those who specialize in skills, I'm left with the same situation again, except a point worse, since I can't really 'ban' attributes. This means more work for the GM, more arguments with and between the players, more space for people to take advantage of each other, and an overall loss of fun.

Now if you happen to be the perfect GM with the perfect group, who instantly recognizes and repulses munchkins with absolutely no hard feelings and no threat to your campaign, I applaud you. I would ask you how you do it. In fact, I'd ask you to write out a long essay on it so I could emulate you. But I am not like you; I am an imperfect GM (I care about my players too much sometimes, I admit it), with varied players who pursue different goals, and I find it difficult to reject players, both because of a lack of good plays and because I like to make them happy.

I do not need a ruleset made for perfect GMs or perfect groups. I need a ruleset made for imperfect GMs, for roleplayers and rollplayers, and a group that has both. I need rules that are fair, balanced, impartial, clear. And from the complaints I'm seeing, I'm wondering if I need SR4.


Well to counter your first bit there, if he's new to gming shadowrun, his players are probably new too and haven't completely got the grasp of things either OR he's stepping up to be the gm of his shadowrun group the first time so he should know how the players will try to build their chars. If he's ignorant enough to think his friends and players aren't going to continue to do the same things that they've done before, he deserves what he gets.

Secondly the GM who can't tell his friend he's playing a munchkin how can he GM. What happens when he almost kills a char or is going to kill a char. If he can't tell him that he's playing a twink, how is he going to have the guts to tell the player to hand over their sheet he just got waxed?

Thirdly the rules are there as a guide. Yes to arbitrate. But they are not the final say. Look at it this way. You've got a guy with 6 Logic but math 1. Yes he's got the dice to roll to say hey I figgured out this extreamly complex 4 dimensional calculus problem in a min. But does he realy have the skill or background to do that? Just because he has the attribute to give him tons of dice, doesn't mean he's got the experiance to do something.

I mean stand back and think about it, all adding your attribute to a roll does is give you that natural aptitude for that skill, it doesn't give you skill. It means that hey that guy over there who's really great at logic, will do realy good in math IF he has the skills and knowledge. He'll easily breeze through low level math, and have the aptitude to pick up the higher level stuff with better ease once he learns it. But just because he's great at figuring out logic stuff naturaly, does not mean that with a course in basic algebra he knows how to do calculus simply because he has the stat.

There's two common mistakes I see most GM's make. There is a winner and a looser every session. RPG's like this its GM vs Players. Each session, the GM's goal should be to defeat the players. And each session its the Players goal to overcome the obsticals their GM throws at them and defeat the GM. To note, Defeat does not nessicarily mean kill. Defeat in this case can mean a wide variety of things. Just because they completed the run successfully does not mean that the GM did not defeat the players. Defeat can range from killing off a player to depriving them of something they realy needed, or will need next time, like that little bit of information they could have found out that would have told them who was hunting them but was destroyed before they could reach it because they set off the alarm.

The second mistake is the GM holding the rules and dice as law. They're putting out a GM screen for a reason. So what if you have a hard time killing a player's char. Damn you just rolled 12 hits on a lucky roll to shoot a PC when he only has or 3 boxes left and this will surely kill him. Damn looks like you only rolled 2 hits afterall. Theres nothing wrong with pulling your punches. Theres nothing wrong with fudging a roll or two in the spirit of the Game. You're here to have fun. Both sides are. If you're pulling your punches too often that might be a sign you're sending them at things you shouldn't be. If you're not pulling them enough at times and people are upset prehapse thats saying you might want to pull a punch or two so your players have fun as well. And the rules aren't law either, you're the GM. If something needs to be tweaked mid session or you find something you don't like. Change it. You're the GM, your word over rules that of the book. Just be careful not to abuse it. Again, these changes should be for the spirit of the Game, the spirit of having fun.

Being a GM means knowing when to fudge a roll, or fudge a rule from time to time. It means making a game thats enjoyable to everyone, but not being a buddy buddy person. What I mean by that is, the game is essentialy GM vs Players and you do have to treat it like that to a extent. I've seen great GM's that were very friendly to their Players that treated it like that completely and everyone had a great time because it was challenging. Sometimes as a GM you're going to win, sometimes you're going to loose. And thats allright.
Rotbart van Dainig
Even thats not entirely the point.

On the long run, you can break any game - if you want to.

The decision whether to do that is up to you, the game just sets the breaking point.
nezumi
QUOTE (Shadow_Prophet @ Aug 24 2005, 09:52 AM)
Well its also very easy to say you don't get it either.  You can only break the game if your GM lets you.  Or if you're the GM your players can only break the game if you let them.

You see, this again raises the question, if you can break the game so easily that it's presented to you right there in clear text, might the game simply be... broken? If you require so much GM intervention that he has to command you not to buy X number of attributes, or practically make a character for you (since the problem is investing in attributes over skills), why do you bother using the system? Wouldn't it be easier just to read a few cyberpunk books, say 'my character is a street sam' and throw however dice your GM tells you to throw?

SR3 could be broken, but it took a little more ingenuity. It was difficult to come straight out of the box and simply be 'better' than someone else. That would seem to imply SR3 is 'more fixed' than SR4, wouldn't it? Shouldn't we look for a game where the 'breaking point' is as difficult to reach as possible?
Rotbart van Dainig
As this also means that the the game is more complex, this is quite a question of taste.

Personally, I do not see the advantage of needing lots of rules-savvy to break a game, as this implies you also need that to produce certain concepts - ease of use and flexibility usually come at the price of being exploitable...

Whether SR4 is balancing those factors well will be more clear on the long run, but so far it seems the breaking point is not that low.
Shadow_Prophet
QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE (Shadow_Prophet @ Aug 24 2005, 09:52 AM)
Well its also very easy to say you don't get it either.  You can only break the game if your GM lets you.  Or if you're the GM your players can only break the game if you let them.

You see, this again raises the question, if you can break the game so easily that it's presented to you right there in clear text, might the game simply be... broken? If you require so much GM intervention that he has to command you not to buy X number of attributes, or practically make a character for you (since the problem is investing in attributes over skills), why do you bother using the system? Wouldn't it be easier just to read a few cyberpunk books, say 'my character is a street sam' and throw however dice your GM tells you to throw?

SR3 could be broken, but it took a little more ingenuity. It was difficult to come straight out of the box and simply be 'better' than someone else. That would seem to imply SR3 is 'more fixed' than SR4, wouldn't it? Shouldn't we look for a game where the 'breaking point' is as difficult to reach as possible?

See my above edited post smile.gif Edited it after i saw yours and didn't want to double post. Sorry about that.

As for the system being broken, see the above post as well about logic stat and say a math skill.

I don't think its broken to begin with. And it doesn't take that much ingenuity to break Sr3. I've seen 20 die laser spells out of chargen. I've seen reaction +5d6. I've seen my players on their first run ever have chars that were almost 100% properly min maxed. it took them all of 2 sets of runs and learning the rules a bit better to start properly min maxing, and this was just with the main rule book. As I got the other supplements they figured them out almost faster than I could read them and had their chars properly min maxed. So don't tell me that it takes more ingenuity to break sr3 than it will to break sr4.
Sabosect
Actually, I would say it does. Keep in mind most of us are already comming up with characters throwing 20+ dice out of chargen without even the book to go by. We only have what is on here. Now, imagine what damage we could do if we actually had the book.

If you don't need the full set of rules to demonstrate the fact the full set is broken, then you have a problem.
Rolemodel
QUOTE (Sabosect)
If you don't need the full set of rules to demonstrate the fact the full set is broken, then you have a problem.

Utterly. Ridiculous. Claim.

We understand that r0ll1ng m4d d1c3 15 g00d, d00d! Lol!!!111!!1!!

And we see the connection that it's fairly obvious then, that characters that can roll large amounts of dice, will in turn also be good.

There is nothing new in this conclusion. We knew this in Shadowrun 3rd edition. We know it now. Provided we're using dice, and not beer caps in SR5, we'll probably know it then as well.

I fail to see the root of the problem being 'Adepts can roll lots of dice', because as I recall, 'Adepts have always been able to roll lots of dice'. Infact, if -anything- Adepts could respectively roll -more- dice than their brethern, in comparison, in the previous edition.

And if your role is rolling, you're spelling the 'R' in 'RPG' wrong.

-RM
Shadow_Prophet
QUOTE (Sabosect)
Actually, I would say it does. Keep in mind most of us are already comming up with characters throwing 20+ dice out of chargen without even the book to go by. We only have what is on here. Now, imagine what damage we could do if we actually had the book.

If you don't need the full set of rules to demonstrate the fact the full set is broken, then you have a problem.

*chuckles*

People did that with exalted. People have done it with other such systems. Its not hard to do. But, there are things that ballance it out. Just having a high amount of dice to roll does not mean you rock house, like you think it does. Heck throwing 15 dice out of exalted chargen, without charms and things is extreamly easy. Is the system broken? nah 15 dice in the grand scheme of things when you think of dice pool penalties and things like that depending on the situation...realy isn't all that great, 20 isn't tooo teribly much better.
morlock76
QUOTE (nezumi)
So morlock, what about the GM who's never GMed before and can't understand why the hacker is better at fighting than the sam? What about the GM who's playing with close friends, and can't stand the idea of telling one of his best friends not to play with a munchkin character? What about the player who feels cheated because he made a character 'by the rules', and the GM has decided the character isn't legit because he's 'too good'?

The POINT of the rules is they're supposed to arbitrate! NOT that they give the GMs and players tools to make each others life more difficult. If adepts in SR were naturally stronger than sams throughout the game, that leads to a rule against adepts, a warning against sams, or a load of house rules to fix one or the other. None of these are fun, they're all limiting, exhausting and irritating.

Similarly, if the rules make characters who specialize in attributes naturally better than those who specialize in skills, I'm left with the same situation again, except a point worse, since I can't really 'ban' attributes. This means more work for the GM, more arguments with and between the players, more space for people to take advantage of each other, and an overall loss of fun.

Now if you happen to be the perfect GM with the perfect group, who instantly recognizes and repulses munchkins with absolutely no hard feelings and no threat to your campaign, I applaud you. I would ask you how you do it. In fact, I'd ask you to write out a long essay on it so I could emulate you. But I am not like you; I am an imperfect GM (I care about my players too much sometimes, I admit it), with varied players who pursue different goals, and I find it difficult to reject players, both because of a lack of good plays and because I like to make them happy.

I do not need a ruleset made for perfect GMs or perfect groups. I need a ruleset made for imperfect GMs, for roleplayers and rollplayers, and a group that has both. I need rules that are fair, balanced, impartial, clear. And from the complaints I'm seeing, I'm wondering if I need SR4.

Well I may be a lot, but I sure am no perfect GM.
For all SR groups I have been in (no matter if Player or GM) there was a lot of talk about the rule set and spirit of the game, before the first char was even done.
In order to make sure, everyone would enjoy the game as well as be able to play a char he liked. As said, its no fun to have a body 20 troll and three body 4 chars, as the most simple argument, because I either got a bored troll, three dead chars or only magic opposition.

The most important thing I do as GM, I don't GM but I am a simple coordinator of events. Of course I prepare a run for the players, but what they do and how is all up to them. But I make sure, that every action they take may be reflected upon them, like if they all start using called shots because they are the best attack aavailableall the time, the opposition will do so, too. What you do to others be prepared to have done to you.

I fully agree that it is very hard for a new GM to see abuse, if willingly or not, but that is the same with SR3 or 4 I am sure.
In SR you will always have the problem that a player will read into "his" char, usually way deeper then the GM will, as he would have to read into all aspects of the game with even deeper knowledge as the "munchkin" player.

Given the example of your group of friends ... IF they are truly the GMs friends, then a simple talk outside the playtime should do the job. Either to retire the char or make some changes to it. But I don't really see a diff between SR3 and 4 there.

Given the Adept vs. Sam example, we might get into trouble in SR4 though.
In SR3 it was pretty clear, Adepts were strong on the skill side (due to the magic hard cap on attributes) whereas Sams were stronger on the Attribute side (no hard cap with cyberware but still with bioware).
In the long term, the Adept was pretty much always going to beat a similar Sam due to cyberware surgery cost.
I am not so sure what the "idea" of the role Adept vs. Sam is, but sofar the Adept seems to be at advantage (Wired 2 not avaliable to the Sam but to the Adept).
It may lead to Sams being a "hybrid class", but we have to see what millions of players will do to the game.

About the attribute issue ... I expect to see a LOT of PCs with 200BP in them for a long time. But if you want to start as overall 3, you got to invest 180BP already. And you will very quickly be able to identify the Min / Maxer. On the other hand, a set of Body, Quickness, Intelligence and Willpower of 6, Strength of 5 and Charisma of 1 was a very common sight among Sams in SR3.
Its the same horse we beat on here, it just got a different name.

Well as I mentioned somewhere else already, I am open to SR4, with all it flaws it may have. We can stick to SR3 of course, but the flaws are there as well, just at a different point. And I am VERY much wondering where the SR3 rules where "fair, balanced, impartial, clear".
As long as the character development rules are not used at character generation, we wont see a lot of fair and balanced, as mentioned earlier.
morlock76
QUOTE (Shadow_Prophet @ Aug 24 2005, 10:23 AM)
I don't think its broken to begin with.  And it doesn't take that much ingenuity to break Sr3.  I've seen 20 die laser spells out of chargen.  I've seen reaction +5d6.  I've seen my players on their first run ever have chars that were almost 100% properly min maxed.  it took them all of 2 sets of runs and learning the rules a bit better to start properly min maxing, and this was just with the main rule book.  As I got the other supplements they figured them out almost faster than I could read them and had their chars properly min maxed.  So don't tell me that it takes more ingenuity to break sr3 than it will to break sr4.

I always love reading the character background on such a character.
For combat characters shooting with that many dice, I am always wondering what they do in the shadows.
I am 100% positive that each and every country would be happy to give em a SIN and put em on their (insert type of gun here) olympic team.

Way less risk and with the right sponsor the cashflow should be ok, too.


As mentioned, most player will read into "their" part of the rules with way more time and energy then a GM can. Usually I am the GM consultant for most rules as I tend(ed) to have too much time and joy reading the stuff he had no time for.
But as a good rule of thumb, if there are thing each and every char has, so does the opposition (as they aren't really stupid and usually better funded cash and knowledge wise as the chars).



But the biggest abuse in SR3 was, for me at least: 1mil nuyen, permanent lifestyle: high, and retire in peace and harmony. Well maybe not fun to play the char, as you cant really do that, but still ...
Shadow_Prophet
QUOTE (morlock76)

I always love reading the character background on such a character.
For combat characters shooting with that many dice, I am always wondering what they do in the shadows.
I am 100% positive that each and every country would be happy to give em a SIN and put em on their (insert type of gun here) olympic team.

Way less risk and with the right sponsor the cashflow should be ok, too.


But the biggest abuse in SR3 was, for me at least: 1mil nuyen, permanent lifestyle: high, and retire in peace and harmony. Well maybe not fun to play the char, as you cant really do that, but still ...

BG's are a good way to keep chars in check (don't have to be overly detailed or long for that)

As for giving them a SIN, if they were going to do that the pretense might be the olympics with the real reason being 'hey lets keep track of this highly dangerouse individual'.

oh and the high lifestyle thing, you could pull that off realisticaly with a adept and still be somewhat viable wink.gif Well as long as the rest of the team picked up the gear you wanted/needed.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (morlock76)
I always love reading the character background on such a character.
For combat characters shooting with that many dice, I am always wondering what they do in the shadows.
I am 100% positive that each and every country would be happy to give em a SIN and put em on their (insert type of gun here) olympic team.

Trivial. Just add any major crime or significant cause that the character is attempting to further that can't be furthered legally. Or any of dozens of other ways.

~J
Ellery
QUOTE (Rolemodel)
I fail to see the root of the problem being 'Adepts can roll lots of dice', because as I recall, 'Adepts have always been able to roll lots of dice'. Infact, if -anything- Adepts could respectively roll -more- dice than their brethern, in comparison, in the previous edition.
Rolling lots of dice didn't, in SR3, let you nearly-automatically succeed at tasks with massive penalties.

Shooting someone at extreme range while seriously wounded should be challenging for the best marksmen. In SR3, it was. Someone who could roll 20 dice had only a 43% chance of scoring a hit (11% chance for two). Someone with 6 dice had a 16% chance for one hit and 1% chance for two.

In SR4, the person with 20 dice gets an average of 4.3 hits, and gets at least one hit 99.7% of the time. The person with 6 dice cannot hit at all, without using edge.

That makes the difference in ability between 20 dice and 6 dice *much much much* larger in difficult situations. Being able to roll lots of dice makes you crazy-powerful in ways that it didn't before. In SR3, yes, they rolled lots of dice, but you didn't have to worry about it so much.

Now, if you're happy either not caring about players who have many dice or are happy to tell people that a perfectly sensible-seeming character build is not okay because it lets them roll too many dice--no problem. Just don't try to pretend that SR4 encourages gritty, street level games. It is you who has to encourage gritty, street level games, and you have to do it if you want to keep SR4 in the range where penalties are meaningful.
tisoz
How are you maxxing out attributes? There is a BP cap on them, and that last point is expensive. All the archetypes are either at or within a couple attribute points of the chargen cap. If you use the 400 BP recommendation, you are going to get 3s and 4s for average attributes if the player maxxes out attributes. Every attribut he wants to raise from 4 to 5, he has to lower one from 3 to 2.

I am waiting to see how this effects play. One of the things I hated about prior editions was the feeling you had to min max to survive because the standard stuff you went up against was all rating 6 or whatever. If someone in the group hadn't maxxed out to deal with that obstacle, you didn't get any further, or triggered fight or flight. Maybe I had crappy GMs, but the published adventures certainly fit this mold.
apple
QUOTE (Ellery)
Rolling lots of dice didn't, in SR3, let you nearly-automatically succeed at tasks with massive penalties.


Until your Karmapool of 50+ of a highly experienced PC/NPC comes into play ...
Kagetenshi
If they've made it that long without burning any, well, I don't know what to say.

It's still not autosuccess, I'll point out. At worst (no successes on the first roll) you just multiply your effective number of dice by two, increasing the multiplier with each additional reroll (but increasing the cost dramatically).

~J
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
If they've made it that long without burning any, well, I don't know what to say.

Well, just say that this is perfectly possible... and considered game-breaking by some people. wink.gif
Ellery
If you can normally throw 20 dice and you've been playing long enough to have 50 karma pool and you're willing to spend it all on that one test--which means, effectively, that with all your skill and experience, this shot is as important as anything you can do in your life, then you have a 99.8% chance to succeed, and on average will score 5.4 successes.

In other words, you'll do very slightly better than the same as the 20-die character in SR4 does on a routine basis.
Sabosect
QUOTE (Rolemodel)
QUOTE (Sabosect)
If you don't need the full set of rules to demonstrate the fact the full set is broken, then you have a problem.

Utterly. Ridiculous. Claim.

We understand that r0ll1ng m4d d1c3 15 g00d, d00d! Lol!!!111!!1!!

And we see the connection that it's fairly obvious then, that characters that can roll large amounts of dice, will in turn also be good.

There is nothing new in this conclusion. We knew this in Shadowrun 3rd edition. We know it now. Provided we're using dice, and not beer caps in SR5, we'll probably know it then as well.

I fail to see the root of the problem being 'Adepts can roll lots of dice', because as I recall, 'Adepts have always been able to roll lots of dice'. Infact, if -anything- Adepts could respectively roll -more- dice than their brethern, in comparison, in the previous edition.

And if your role is rolling, you're spelling the 'R' in 'RPG' wrong.

-RM

Now, what's the difference in this case compared to previous versions? The answer is that it probably takes less time to see it (I can't say for sure due to how long the books have been in circulation as of the time of this post), and in this case has a much greater effect. A single increase to, say, Agility can suddenly improve half the skills a character has. However, this is nothing that a couple creatures targetting magic can do in the area of damage.

The other problem is that, looking back, someone produced a 21 die character without using an adept.

Still, the main problem for me is not my group. A 20+ die adept tends to last less time than that sammy with only 10 to throw. Apparently, it really is that hard to aim a minigrenade launcher properly or the Adept's back really does look that much like the enemy. My problem is all of those who will complain.

Now, as for the reason behind my post: I was arguing it takes less ingenuity in this case. The nonadept example a couple pages back was ingenius. But, in this case, most people are going to be able to look at the adept and figure out how to use one to their advantage pretty easily.

Now, I'll wait until the next Cannon Companion-style book is out before I convert one item to SR4 and post it online. If GMs really have that much of a problem with certain characters and would rather do something about it but don't know what to do, I'll have an interesting solution.

QUOTE
*chuckles*

People did that with exalted. People have done it with other such systems. Its not hard to do. But, there are things that ballance it out. Just having a high amount of dice to roll does not mean you rock house, like you think it does. Heck throwing 15 dice out of exalted chargen, without charms and things is extreamly easy. Is the system broken? nah 15 dice in the grand scheme of things when you think of dice pool penalties and things like that depending on the situation...realy isn't all that great, 20 isn't tooo teribly much better.


People also did it with DnD 3.5. Sadly, all of the problems they came up with turned out to be much worse than they feared. To quite a few of them, DnD at this point is a synonym (sp?) for "Game balance? What's that?" The WotC forums have a set of dedicated munchkins who have spent days comming up with ways to bend the rules to their advantage just so they can give out advice on how not to do it, and what they have come up with makes our 23-dice adepts look tame.

Now then, my point isn't that it's any more broken than before. Hell, if they wish to perform miracles, they deal with the consequences. But, it doesn't take as much ingenuity. Any common starting player can look at the adept section and instantly figure out how to use the adept to their advantage if they have even a basic comprehension of the rules. Is it anything new for SR? As Rolemodel pointed out, no. It's just easier to see now.

That is perhaps one of the greatest advantages of the new system. The exploits are easier to see.
Rolemodel
QUOTE
Rolling lots of dice didn't, in SR3, let you nearly-automatically succeed at tasks with massive penalties.

No, that's true. Rolling lots of dice, in SR3, instead made you a God-amoung-Men when presented with minimal challenge.

Like: Who can tie their shoe the fastest, NormalMan#1, or SuperHuman#2?

...And the verdict? SuperHuman#2 is -remarkably better at tying shoes!- Incredible! Now, watch him make scrambled eggs!

QUOTE
Shooting someone at extreme range while seriously wounded should be challenging for the best marksmen.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, if you could reference me the part in SR3 that says 'the best marksman' in SR3 rolls 2 million dice, and does not have a base skill of 8...

...Oh, wait, you can't... Page 98-99, SRIII: Skill: 8 - Only two words can describe your use of the skill: World Class.

So, I can only conclude that what you're essentially arguging to me is...

...that people who use 'magic' can do things that aren't 'realistic'...

...Which makes me wonder, then, what exactly is your point?

-RM
apple
QUOTE (Rolemodel)
...Oh, wait, you can't... Page 98-99, SRIII: Skill: 8 - Only two words can describe your use of the skill: World Class.

Thats not quite right ... 8+ ... Dodger had a skill von 12 in Computer(Decking) for example and the " + " made it possible for PCs to raise their skill into the 100s (in theory of course, or better: not in my game, but perhaps in the games of Thor and Alec Empire/Evil Acid (insider rotfl.gif)).

Personally I made a cap at 12 for mortal NPCs and PCs.

SYL
Rolemodel
QUOTE
Now, what's the difference in this case compared to previous versions? The answer is that it probably takes less time to see it


You're implying that a system that requires veterans to exploit is a better system? Is that, then, to imply that because we can crunch to our hearts content, we are somehow superior to other gamers? And their lesser intellect should not be mixed with our pure-bred shadowrun?

Or, are you saying that because a flaw is not -immediately- obvious, it is more desirable, because at least on the surface everything looks fine?

QUOTE
A single increase to, say, Agility can suddenly improve half the skills a character has.


I would say that is a strikingly accurate statement, if half of a character's skills are agility based. I don't think it needs much more of a response than that.

QUOTE
The other problem is that, looking back, someone produced a 21 die character without using an adept.


Without waking sleeping dragons, I will assure you that someone throwing as many dice as an adept is certainly -not- the problem. Assuredly not. On many, many, many, many planes. And then some. On top of it. And a little more than that, even.

-RM
mintcar
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Aug 24 2005, 09:30 AM)
QUOTE (morlock76 @ Aug 24 2005, 08:02 AM)
With all this pages read, I have to say I almost dont know where to start.

We all know that is is possible to build one shot ponys in the old and new SR systems. This chars have been around forever.
Its possible to get such a char ingame, too.

But as far as I know, this is a RPG (Role Playing Game) and this game usually got a GM (GameMaster). And even though I dont have the book yet, I am SURE that there is a line somewhere saying: All characters are subject to GM approval.

If I GM, there is no way in hell that I would allow a one shot pony (specially not such an obvious one) in the group.
Its the same story with the possible Troll Sam that would survive anything short of a RPG. He would, but unfortunately Mr. Face or Mr. Hacker next to him will be killed by the blast.

Its still about balance and mature playing, and if the player cant cope with that, I cant cope with the player.


The only way to balance this in any way is a GM verdict. If you let this in, its your OWN fault. And if I have to call a Thor's Hammer on a char like that, or a cow from space or whatever, then it is so. Maybe a new player to go with it ...

About the weakness of the chargen system, if I recall correctly, max Attributes was VERY popular in SR3 as well, not only due to the high costs to raise em later but to increase survivability, too.
As long as there is no option to have a balanced chargen system that works with the same math as the char development ingame, this issues will always be around.
BECKs was popular for a reason if you ask me.

As said, havent played yet or the book, but in the groups I play, the part of rolling dice usually is the part that is taking most time. Its a roleplaying game after all, no table top.

P.S.: Either I really didnt get half of what you all got issues with, or I am a "True Roleplayer" now and not a Munchkin Hybrid any more.

You don't get it.

The point is you can break the game without becoming a one-trick pony. That's the problem.

~J

That might be a problem. I couldn´t say yet.

I can say that for some reason the SR1-3 system fostered a want to race to be the best in my players like no other game has. (still none of theirs would stand a chance against a truely min-maxed character) In our case it was the extreme ease with which street sam characters ruled all from char gen. With 1000000 nuyen.gif of 'ware it´s hard not to make a monster. And when they make the logical choice of puting A in resources, most new players are overwelmed with what they can accomplish. Especially with SR2 initiative rules, the initial experience of most non-samuraj playing players was enough for them to decide to try and make better characters next time.

The new rules seem to have made the different character types less supreme in their respective feilds. I´m guessing this will be enough for my players to stop worrying about being the best. For them, the concept of the character dictates how the values are distributed. If there´s something forcing them to reach a certain level of efficiency above what they had pictured just to have fun when playing, that might take away from other skills and abilities that would have been good for flavour. So I´m not concerned about that it´s possible to be very good at something from the beginning if you try. It would be a problem if the possibility to be extremely good was batantly obvious in a way that didn´t allow for anything else (like in the case of street sams in SR3), that could very well be a problem. I don´t think neither me or my players notice these possibilities as blatantly as some of you, though. And unlike when we started playing, I´m aware of the problem and we can agree not to play with super-characters, or even good characters as a requirement. If you´re a GM and you want to allow character-driven play and less-than-perfect characters, you will have to personaly limit very good characters to preserve ballance. The only option to have the system itself place that limit, would be to roll dice for the ratings like we do in some games.
Rolemodel
QUOTE (apple)
Personally I made a cap at 12 for mortal NPCs and PCs.

I'll make that concession. I cap them at an absolutely unholy maximum of 10, myself. If 4 is supposedly a proficient professional, and 8 is world class, I can only shudder at justifying 12

-RM
apple
Well, look at Dodgers justification (extrem-IIRC): some decades old, trained to be the personal deckerelite of one of the Tir-BBEG (Professer Blablubb), trained by an insane AI ...

SYL
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012