I will be posting a set pMs between me and Blakie both high lighting the pros and cons of the normal Karma system.
Cynic project
Sent: Seeing as you seemd to miss it, Sep 12 2005, 10:29 AM
Delete Post Quote Post
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: 5-August 04
QUOTE (blakkie @ Sep 11 2005, 03:27 AM)
I just thought of a great marketing slogan for your house rules!
"Frankie Trollman: Cutting out important, relavent facts to make the math easier and clearer since 2005."
Here's to hoping you sell a million copies. cool.gif
I'll bite here.
One how are skill groups equal to or better than Attributes? If they are not why should players spend equal or greater points for them?
Two if the karma system is so fair and good, why is better to start with attributes at 5 and four at 1 than say some reasonable middle ground?
blakkie
Re:Seeing as you seemd to miss it, Sep 12 2005, 10:59 AM
Delete Post Quote Post
Group: Members
Posts: 2974
Joined: 14-September 02
Oh that. Ya, i saw that yesterday but had no time to respond, and hadn't gotten around to it yet:
The short answer is that it doesn't matter for them to be equal. Since you have to come through Skill eventually if you want to take that skill to the top.
If you worried about all purchases being equal so much you'd get rid of Skill Groups before trying to adjust Attribute/Skill costs. They actually a replacement for the Skill costs.
Of course that demonstrates a second reason that this Skill/Attribute difference is much about very little. You aren't going to see Attributes maximized before any Skill progression because the extra value of an Attribute is only there if:
1) You have the karma in hand for the extra cost.
2) You have an near enough equal need for the dice in all the skill pools.
This simply isn't always the case. So you pay the higher karma/die across all pools because it is more important to you at that time to have a lower karma/die in a particular pool.
I guess that is the shortish answer. nyahnyah.gif There are aspect i could get into and more detail in the above, but that's the gist of it. The really short is "A lot of important details about value per karma were left out and replaced with erroneous assumptions in Frank's suppositly exhastive math".
The thing about the Skill Groups was pointed out to Frank, but not only did he ignore it he created new more complex rules to make it easier to use Skill Groups, thus further undermining the Skill values he purports to be worried about. wobble.gif
P.S. Sorry, i don't really have time to discuss this further. Work is imposing itself again on my schedule.
--------------------
Cynic project
Sent: Re:Seeing as you seemd to miss it, Sep 12 2005, 11:34 AM
Delete Post Quote Post
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: 5-August 04
QUOTE
The short answer is that it doesn't matter for them to be equal. Since you have to come through Skill eventually if you want to take that skill to the top.
Okay So here is what you have. Let us assume you have 4 in a skill group and and attribute. Say that they are both linked. Then let's say there are three skill groups that that attribute can be used for.
Okay to raise one skill to 5 costs what? 10 karma? You get one die in a skill one skill.
To raise the group to five costs? 25 karma? To get one die in three or four skills.
Right here are seeing that you need to pay more to get more dice in more fields. That sounds fair.
Now attributes from 4 to 5 costs 15 karma? Right. In this case it is linked to three skill groups. That means you paid less for for more. So to get the same effect with one skill group you have to pay more. To get the same effects with all three skill groups you pay 400% of the karma.
Too get 3 dice in all the skill groups can either cost you 15, to raise said attribute to 5, 18 to raise to 6, 61 to raise it to 7. That costs a lot of karma a total of 94 karma.
To do that same with skill groups would cost you 20 to raise to 5, 25 to raise it to six 60 raise it to 7. A grand total of 95 for one skill group. 285 for all three skill groups.
So aside from a role playing point of view, why would I even think about raiding a skill group before I had my attribute at 6? What game mechanical reason why I do this? I look at the math there and I see just bad logic behind the karma costs, Sure if I wanted to play a combat monkey I would raise my skills(groups) to 6 somewhere down the line. But not until my character had a 6(maybe even a 7) in all physical attributes and maybe even some of the mental ones as well. Unless I am playing on pure role play and in witch case I get reward of making a thoughtful and stylized character in exchange for being not as good for no good reason.
Now from an objective point of view would you like some play any of the meta type without paying any cost? If not please tell me, cause you do not seem to worry about game balance.
--------------------
QUOTE
<snip>
So aside from a role playing point of view, why would I even think about raiding a skill group before I had my attribute at 6?
Skill Group? Perhaps raising to a 2, outside chance of a 3 (karma difference is slight) before Attribute 6. Skill though quite possibly raising it close to your Attribute speed. Maybe faster for critical Skills that you have little use for the Attribute outside of that Skill (example of Perception for some characters).
But you still COMPLETELY missing the point of the part that you quoted, you still have to go through the Skills. Your example has NOTHING to do with the point.
It is like going from from Skill 5 -> Skill 6 than Skill 4 -> Skill 5, only you paying for something to raise your dice pool from 8 to 9. The difference is that it is more open-ended how you buy that increase particular ('ware, magic, Attr, Skill, gear), but in the end you are going to have to buy the Skill by the time you are raising to the top of the dice pool size. You can put off the more expensive increase, or you can take it up front. But eventually you'll pay it.
QUOTE
Now from an objective point of view would you like some play any of the meta type without paying any cost? If not please tell me, cause you do not seem to worry about game balance.
That is NOT an appropriate comparison. See above.
P.S. If you still haven't groked after this message i give up on you. Don't bother respond, i haven't got the time for it.
--------------------
Cynic project
Sent: Re:Seeing as you seemd to miss it, Sep 12 2005, 12:27 PM
Delete Post Quote Post
Group: Members
Posts: 800
Joined: 5-August 04
So your point is this because you need to get the skill to the max to be the best at a task you do not need to make Attribute and skill group balanced? IF that is so why not make skill groups the X3 and Attributes the X5?
As if you are going to use the stanardard rule the gun bunny is going to start with 4 in the fire skill group and may or not start with a higher than for in the linked Attribute. So why should the Attribute cost less than the Skill gruop?
[QUOTE]So your point is this because you need to get the skill to the max to be the best at a task you do not need to make Attribute and skill group balanced? [QUOTE]
Bingo! smile.gif
[QUOTE]IF that is so why not make skill groups the X3 and Attributes the X5?[/QUOTE]
Why? Why not? I suggest to do so is a make-work project. Remember that if you do that what exactly are you going to charge for Skills? Still 2X? That skews towards Skill Groups pretty harshly, and they are a replacement purchase for Skills. Ironic if in an effort to try "balance" Skills and Attributes costs you've create a large cost difference in buying Skill points between in a group and outside a group.
[QUOTE]
As if you are going to use the stanardard rule the gun bunny is going to start with 4 in the fire skill group and may or not start with a higher than for in the linked Attribute. So why should the Attribute cost less than the Skill gruop?[/QUOTE]
If he starts with it there then he pays the cost for it. That is his choice.
Now if you are worried about the disconnect between chargen and playing, well that's more a BECKS/SECKSY/whatever-you-feel-the-need-build thing. I'm not crazy about the mostly linear costs during creation time. It is something i could mostly live with in SR3, outside of the Skill (6)/Attribute(max) syndrome. Fortunately which is what SR4 somewhat addressed with 25BP for the last Attribute point and tight control of Skills over (4).
P.S. The one thing i will say though is that if you start lifting the Attribute cap that if you don't make it karma costly to raise the Attribute the past the racial max then the relative costs of Skill could become a bit of an issue, but not as much as general die pool inflation.
--------------------
PS sorry for the gramara nd spelling. I still think that the points were made
Full Version: Karma and the problmes it causes
I will just chime in. If you look at it from Skills and Attributes, the system looks okay. But, if you look at it from Skill Groups and just "from the numbers", it looks like it breaks down, but I don't think it does.
The question asked is "Why would I raise my Firearms to 6 when I can raise my Agility to 6?" I think the question is "Why should I raise my Agility to 6 when I can raise my Pistols or Longarms or Automatics to 6?" Also, the Skill Group becomes less of an issue if you have Attribute/Skill Caps. The minute you remove these caps, the system breaks.
So back to Skill Groups. You basically have 3 to 4 Skills in a Skill Group. It costs New Rating X 3 to raise a Skill. It cost New Rating X 5 to raise a Skill Group. So, for the X5 number you are basically getting X9 to X12 in Skills (if they were all raised separately.) (This was calculated by taking (New Rating X 3) X (3 Skills in a Skill Group or 4 Skills in a Skill Group.)
If people fear that Skill Groups will overshadow Attributes, either 1) don't allow them or 2) only allow them in character generation. The impact to removing Skill Groups will effect Magicians, Technomancers, and Hack...Deckers the most (since they "need" more skills than most other archetypes.)
I am going to recommend keeping them, at least for our group, because the real goal is to get from 2 to 12 (Attribute+Skill or Skill Group) and not 1 to 6 (Just Attribute or Skill or Skill Group.)
The question asked is "Why would I raise my Firearms to 6 when I can raise my Agility to 6?" I think the question is "Why should I raise my Agility to 6 when I can raise my Pistols or Longarms or Automatics to 6?" Also, the Skill Group becomes less of an issue if you have Attribute/Skill Caps. The minute you remove these caps, the system breaks.
So back to Skill Groups. You basically have 3 to 4 Skills in a Skill Group. It costs New Rating X 3 to raise a Skill. It cost New Rating X 5 to raise a Skill Group. So, for the X5 number you are basically getting X9 to X12 in Skills (if they were all raised separately.) (This was calculated by taking (New Rating X 3) X (3 Skills in a Skill Group or 4 Skills in a Skill Group.)
If people fear that Skill Groups will overshadow Attributes, either 1) don't allow them or 2) only allow them in character generation. The impact to removing Skill Groups will effect Magicians, Technomancers, and Hack...Deckers the most (since they "need" more skills than most other archetypes.)
I am going to recommend keeping them, at least for our group, because the real goal is to get from 2 to 12 (Attribute+Skill or Skill Group) and not 1 to 6 (Just Attribute or Skill or Skill Group.)
| QUOTE (Autarkis) |
| Also, the Skill Group becomes less of an issue if you have Attribute/Skill Caps. |
This remains the one and only argument in favor of the current system:
Skills are an inferior deal, but since there are caps in place, people just purchase the attributes first and the skills afterwards and it's a form of diminishing returns.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the game actually doesn't simply have you buy attributes first and skills afterwards. In fact, not only does it explicitly encourage you to buy some skills up front (by giving you a variable amount of points that can't be spent on anything else), but the relative cost of skills vs. attributes is different at character generation vs. character advancement.
Indeed, from a longterm Karma perspective, the relative cost of skills vs. attributes is significantly higher in karma than it is with BPs. So once you've been through a bunch of adventures, you'll be absolutely better if you started with your skills and bought up your attrbutes than if you did it the other way around. And we all know that's bad design. If two characters have exactly the same numbers on their character sheet, and were built with the same amount of BPs, they should always have spent the same amount of karma to get to where they are (since where they are is the same place).
If the game really gave you attributes first and then gave you skills afterwards, that would be sort of defensible. Weird, but workable. But it doesn't work like that. Actually it's just a god damned mess where players end up paying more or less to roll the same amount of dice on the same tasks based on the order they moved numbers around.
-Frank
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| So once you've been through a bunch of adventures, you'll be absolutely better if you started with your skills and bought up your attrbutes than if you did it the other way around. And we all know that's bad design. |
Ah man Frank, you just keep coming up with gems. I can just picture you, in a completely straight face, going: "This water is wet. Which all can plainly see is a design problem with the water. We need to change this to make swimming fair!"
| QUOTE (blakkie) | ||
Ah man Frank, you just keep coming up with gems. I can just picture you, in a completely straight face, going: "This water is wet. Which all can plainly see is a design problem with the water. We need to change this to make swimming fair!" |
You are just so wrong it ain't funny. Look games are about being fair and balanced. If there is a better or worse way to make a character based on numbers there will be better or worse characters based on the idea of who is a role player and who i a roll player. I think things of style should not be rewarded or punished(IE your character being german shouldn't give you bonus points). I also believe that if I spend X points in a game it should not give more bonuses than if another player spends 2X points. That is the problem. Skill groups are over priced no way around that. At the start you get the best deal on them as they cost only the same cost as attributes. Then it just gets worse.
Blackie would you pay 100 points to play a dwarf? OR any of the meta types? They have the ability for less karma get more dice. Cause it is still cheeper for an elf to get a aglity of 8 than it for a human to get a fire arms of 7. So even with the 35 builds for being an elf you save points the fact is the only reason to play a human is for the edge and the edge is not as big of deal as another die or two in just about any skill you want to use.
But in the end the world ain't fair. But game should be. See here is a little secret by making a better or worse way to make characters you pander to the worst part of gamers. Characters are just numbers on paper. Your Hacker and mine can wildly different pasts and still be the same when it come to game mechanics, or we could have the same past and be wildly different when it comes to game mechanics. So should there be better or worse ways to build characters?
Looking at shadowrun third ed you could make the point that there were. But there were also different claims to that and each one was slightly different that more reflected play style than game rule issues. IN Forth there are flat out better ways to make characters,and the math will prove it time and time again. Humans do not have place in 4th ed, because no matter what you want to make you get more bang for your buck playing a metahuman.What one depends on what you want to play.
I can see there are better and worse wqay to make chaacters in SR4, of course the same was true for SR3, SR2 and SR1. Of course it being wrong in the pastr isnt an excuse for it being wrong in the future but these things happen. Some things are just a question of what you believe the system should model, should orks be cheaper as there more common ? If you say no you wont like the rules, that doesnt make the rules wrong just not in keeping with a creation system you want.
I think the Becks system for SR3 solved the problem of character creatrion rules being different to in game advancing and hopfully for people wanting that there will be a system for doing the same in SR4.
Of course I havent had a chance to play a character or run a game yet. I am sure some of the concerns Frank mentioned will effect me and my players. The hard caps for one. But for the first time I will run the game as is and see what developes.
I think the Becks system for SR3 solved the problem of character creatrion rules being different to in game advancing and hopfully for people wanting that there will be a system for doing the same in SR4.
Of course I havent had a chance to play a character or run a game yet. I am sure some of the concerns Frank mentioned will effect me and my players. The hard caps for one. But for the first time I will run the game as is and see what developes.
| QUOTE |
| Look games are about being fair and balanced. |
Certainly not, that is just one means that can be part of reaching an end.
But Frank isn't really talking about making things fair and balanced either. He is flat out ignoring, once again, that different paths have different costs and bring different benefits/pitfalls. Multiple viable paths that are at near optimal, with optimal being an theoretical value that varies over many different conditions.
EDIT:
| QUOTE |
| Blackie would you pay 100 points to play a dwarf? |
Oh for *(^*&*&( sakes, you are back on that? Memory like a steel sieve? Screw this, buh-bye.
| QUOTE |
| But Frank isn't really talking about making things fair and balanced either. |
Actually, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
| QUOTE |
| He is flat out ignoring, once again, that different paths have different costs and bring different benefits/pitfalls. |
No, I am addressing the fact that different paths have different costs for the same benefits/pitfalls. I am not ignoring the different costs, I am honestly mathematically analyzing those costs and making a reasoned opinion based on those costs and benefits.
You keep saying that I am neglecting details, but you keep not saying what those detais actually are. This leads me to the reasoned opinion that you don't have clue one as to what you are talking about.
-Frank
In all fairness, the costs should be adjusted somewhat and if I, and my group, decide to switch to SR4, there will have to be adjustments.
Attributes already bugged the hell out of me from SR3, the fact that if you took a lot of skills that went over your attributes, here and there you'd actually save build points by straight raising your attributes, an aspect I loathed (and naturally house ruled).
Individual skills should be the cheapest, followed by skill groups, then finally attributes. It's a shame that some attributes are worth more than others though, they'll need to be house rules on them, for example Clubs moving from Agility to Strength.
To compare to D&D 3.0 (or 3.5) for a second, it's like raising an attribute when you get a bonus attribute point. It gives you lots of points, far more so than from an individual skill point. The problem here, is that in SR4, the attributes make up half of your natural modifiers, which is naturally a result of the skill cap(something I don't like).
Raise the cap a little bit, adjust the linked attributes to skills(to balance out ones such as Strength and Agility), then raise the cost of upgrading attributes and you should be set.
- Baatorian
Attributes already bugged the hell out of me from SR3, the fact that if you took a lot of skills that went over your attributes, here and there you'd actually save build points by straight raising your attributes, an aspect I loathed (and naturally house ruled).
Individual skills should be the cheapest, followed by skill groups, then finally attributes. It's a shame that some attributes are worth more than others though, they'll need to be house rules on them, for example Clubs moving from Agility to Strength.
To compare to D&D 3.0 (or 3.5) for a second, it's like raising an attribute when you get a bonus attribute point. It gives you lots of points, far more so than from an individual skill point. The problem here, is that in SR4, the attributes make up half of your natural modifiers, which is naturally a result of the skill cap(something I don't like).
Raise the cap a little bit, adjust the linked attributes to skills(to balance out ones such as Strength and Agility), then raise the cost of upgrading attributes and you should be set.
- Baatorian
| QUOTE (Baatorian) |
| It's a shame that some attributes are worth more than others though, they'll need to be house rules on them, |
Yeah. But it's not immediately obvious what some of those are. For example, while Strength is pretty much a weak sister attribute in a lot of ways, but it has some advantages that partially make up for that in subtle ways. For example, in unarmed combat it's actually bigger than Agility as things stand right now. Every point of Agility gives you one die, which is in turn about 1/3 of a bonus DV. Every 2 points of strength just gives you a bonus DV with no die roll involved - it's like you just rolled 3 dice for every 2 points of strength.
So while I do not feel that all attributes are created equal, I'm not sure enough of which ones are which to start making house rules about it. I like certainty. I like being sure that I'm not overlooking things before I act. And so I'm currently leaving the attributes as-is until I have a better idea as to how important the things they modify are.
Of course, the attribute costs are way too low relative to the costs of skills. That's a no-brainer. But the relative value of attributes against each other requires more playtest experience than I currently have.
-Frank
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) | ||
No, I am addressing the fact that different paths have different costs for the same benefits/pitfalls. I am not ignoring the different costs, I am honestly mathematically analyzing those costs and making a reasoned opinion based on those costs and benefits. |
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” - Benjamin Disraeli
| QUOTE |
| You keep saying that I am neglecting details, but you keep not saying what those detais actually are. This leads me to the reasoned opinion that you don't have clue one as to what you are talking about. |
Timeliness Frank, timeliness. Need/use at a moment affects true value, and needs vary over time. And yes i did mention about this already, and it is in this thread.
But then again you are as blind as you want to be.....
I'll go out on a limb for karma costs... just been scribbling a bit and have some up with something that might work...
Knowledge/language - new rating
Physical, Mental, & Edge - new rating x4
Magic & resonance - new rating x4 [edit from x3]
Skill group - new rating x5
Skill - new rating x2
New Specialization - 5 karma
New Knowledge/Language - 2 karma
New Skill - 4 karma
New Skill Group - 10 karma
New Positive quality - BP x2
Remove Negative quality - BP x2
New Spell - 5 karma
New complex form - 2 karma
Complex form - new rating
Initiation - 10+(grade x3)
This particular math will likely alter karma value a bit... as a side note perhaps increase karma reward by .5 per session or 1 every other session.
I have my own house rules I'd going to test. They are as follows:
Skill caps are character creation are still in place. However skill caps after creation are 9(12) or 10(14) with aptitude.
Karma costs are in addition to above:
Knowledge skill above 6 - New rating x2
Physical/Mental/Edge stats above normal max with Exceptional attribute - new rating x 5 (only once)
Skill group above 6 - new rating x10 (o.O;;)
Skill above 6 - new rating x4
Skill, with aptitude above 7 - new rating x4
I have not playtested these yet so I have no idea how they'll work. I've also not done much math, I've just gone with my intuition... so to speak.
Knowledge/language - new rating
Physical, Mental, & Edge - new rating x4
Magic & resonance - new rating x4 [edit from x3]
Skill group - new rating x5
Skill - new rating x2
New Specialization - 5 karma
New Knowledge/Language - 2 karma
New Skill - 4 karma
New Skill Group - 10 karma
New Positive quality - BP x2
Remove Negative quality - BP x2
New Spell - 5 karma
New complex form - 2 karma
Complex form - new rating
Initiation - 10+(grade x3)
This particular math will likely alter karma value a bit... as a side note perhaps increase karma reward by .5 per session or 1 every other session.
I have my own house rules I'd going to test. They are as follows:
Skill caps are character creation are still in place. However skill caps after creation are 9(12) or 10(14) with aptitude.
Karma costs are in addition to above:
Knowledge skill above 6 - New rating x2
Physical/Mental/Edge stats above normal max with Exceptional attribute - new rating x 5 (only once)
Skill group above 6 - new rating x10 (o.O;;)
Skill above 6 - new rating x4
Skill, with aptitude above 7 - new rating x4
I have not playtested these yet so I have no idea how they'll work. I've also not done much math, I've just gone with my intuition... so to speak.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| For example, while Strength is pretty much a weak sister attribute in a lot of ways, but it has some advantages that partially make up for that in subtle ways. For example, in unarmed combat it's actually bigger than Agility as things stand right now. Every point of Agility gives you one die, which is in turn about 1/3 of a bonus DV. Every 2 points of strength just gives you a bonus DV with no die roll involved - it's like you just rolled 3 dice for every 2 points of strength. |
IF you hit, which is affected by Agility. IF you hit with virtually any weapon under the sun, which are pretty much all Agility linked and lets face it, combat is extremely important regardless of your game type(completely purists aside).
High strength, low reflexes thug types need some love.
- Baatorian
Note: I must say, I do agree about playtesting for attribute balance, but this one looks rather obvious to me, if you agree but wish to test before being vocal about it, then fine.
| QUOTE (Baatorian) |
| I must say, I do agree about playtesting for attribute balance, but this one looks rather obvious to me, if you agree but wish to test before being vocal about it, then fine. |
Well, I will say that I think Strength is a soft stat in SR4. However, it is less of a soft stat in SR4 than it has been in every other edition of Shadowrun. Strength is now counted as bonus successes for damaging opponents in melee (rather than being completely irrelevent because it couldn't bring the power of your attacks high enough to warrant a damage resistance TN higher than 2 against normal armor within the human range of strength), and has stolen Quickness' old schtick of adding to your running speed. But it still modifies relatively few skills, and it still has virtually no effect on your carrying capacity.
Like in every edition, characters in Shadowrun can't carry dick. Apparently, I have normal human maximum strength, which I think would surprise a number of professional or even amateur athletes. As such, the benefits of being "really strong" just don't show up using the official rules. Strength is possibly the last of the attributes. But it is less the least of the attributes than it has been in previous editions of the game. I would hold back in actually making house rules about it until I get a better grasp of how inferior it is.
| QUOTE (Xenith) |
| Physical, Mental, & Edge - new rating x4 Magic & resonance - new rating x3 |
What?
Look, Magic is probably the most powerful attribute in the game. Other stats are not only inferior, but they are the only thing that mundanes have the option of purchasing. Mundanes get the shaft in SR4, just like they did in all previous editions. Making mundane characters pay more than magic using characters for the attributes they care about is obviously not going to solve anything ever.
-Frank
I was just throwing it out. Mostly that low because of initiation costs. Could make it x4 as well. Then again, I am guilty of favoring magic types on occasion.
Lets see... 31 karma as opposed to 38 karma for a magic of 7. 37 or 45 for 8. Hmmm.... Yeah. Magic should be x4. Resonance should as well likely. I'll edit that real quick.
Lets see... 31 karma as opposed to 38 karma for a magic of 7. 37 or 45 for 8. Hmmm.... Yeah. Magic should be x4. Resonance should as well likely. I'll edit that real quick.
Having had time to read over SR4 in some detail now and getting ready to run my own game in it I have a few opinions on this, probably none of which will be popular.
Frank is partialy right.
Strict math and paying attention ONLY to the numbers will lead you to believe Frank.
However there are problems with what he's saying when you take into account what attributes and skills mean, and what is involved in raising them, as well as the interaction between the two.
-Skills represent, practical knowledge and or training, as well as experiance with something or intuitive knowledge.
-Attributes represent raw physical or mental ability.
What does this realy mean game wise?
-Skill represent how good you are, and how trained you are in something.
-Attributes represent raw tallent.
-And the combination of the two makes up your ability to preform a certain task.
How does this play out? What makes Frank and Cynic wrong but right at the same time?
Attributes, straight by the numbers, and skills straight by the numbers only differ in cost. And in effect, attributes win out with their benefits. What ballances this out? Attributes can be harder to raise in certain instances, if you apply some thought to it.
What does it take to raise a attribute? People don't suddently just get stronger because they've accumulated karma or experiance. People don't suddently think mor logicaly because they've been in a firefight or two. People don't suddently become more charismatic being the stoic combat monster that shoots first and asks questions later.
What does it take to raise a skill? People learn from experiance. People figure out better ways to aim when they've been in firefight after firefight. People learn to dodge that punch when they've had it thrown at them a few times. People learn whats right and wrong to say in a situation by being in that situation.
Suuuure by the numbers, and ignoring gameplay, the story, roleplaying in general and focusing solely on the numbers. Attributes outshine skills. When thought about logicaly, when thought about in context with the game, when though about in context with story, they do not.
I mean afterall you want to spend a few months strength training while your teamates money dries up and that corp team closes in on you? Go right ahead.
If taken out of context you can use just about anything to trash the system. Just like you can take lines in the bible out of context to say 'Go_ does not exist'.
Frank is partialy right.
Strict math and paying attention ONLY to the numbers will lead you to believe Frank.
However there are problems with what he's saying when you take into account what attributes and skills mean, and what is involved in raising them, as well as the interaction between the two.
-Skills represent, practical knowledge and or training, as well as experiance with something or intuitive knowledge.
-Attributes represent raw physical or mental ability.
What does this realy mean game wise?
-Skill represent how good you are, and how trained you are in something.
-Attributes represent raw tallent.
-And the combination of the two makes up your ability to preform a certain task.
How does this play out? What makes Frank and Cynic wrong but right at the same time?
Attributes, straight by the numbers, and skills straight by the numbers only differ in cost. And in effect, attributes win out with their benefits. What ballances this out? Attributes can be harder to raise in certain instances, if you apply some thought to it.
What does it take to raise a attribute? People don't suddently just get stronger because they've accumulated karma or experiance. People don't suddently think mor logicaly because they've been in a firefight or two. People don't suddently become more charismatic being the stoic combat monster that shoots first and asks questions later.
What does it take to raise a skill? People learn from experiance. People figure out better ways to aim when they've been in firefight after firefight. People learn to dodge that punch when they've had it thrown at them a few times. People learn whats right and wrong to say in a situation by being in that situation.
Suuuure by the numbers, and ignoring gameplay, the story, roleplaying in general and focusing solely on the numbers. Attributes outshine skills. When thought about logicaly, when thought about in context with the game, when though about in context with story, they do not.
I mean afterall you want to spend a few months strength training while your teamates money dries up and that corp team closes in on you? Go right ahead.
If taken out of context you can use just about anything to trash the system. Just like you can take lines in the bible out of context to say 'Go_ does not exist'.
| QUOTE (blakkie) | ||||
Oh for *(^*&*&( sakes, you are back on that? Memory like a steel sieve? Screw this, buh-bye. |
let's say that edge is not the biggest for your character. So let's Say that all the characters here are going for 4 points of edge. I don't think I would play with a character with that high of edge, but let's say you want to.
Now let's say that you want to play someone that care about Agi?
Well you can play a human and get a 6, agi witch costs you 65 points. Or you Could play an elf that makes the cost 40. So 25 points less and you then get two points of Cha for free. That is 20 points. But the human get plus one Edge making the 35 points for elf even right? Wrong. See the elf then can spend 10 more build points on Attributes. That is is about the the best deal you can make for playing a human based on anything other than role playing.
You want to be a face with a cha of 7? Well be an elf. It saves you point there.
You want to be good with talking and guns. Elf saves you more points.
You want to have a high body, well dwarves, orks and trolls are good at that for less points than humans.
The only Attribute that humans break even on is INT, and the only "Attribute" they are better at is edge. Still you could play a more rounded dwarf or elf and be the int man.
Metahumans are un-game balanced with the elf being the only marginally none bronken one for the cost. Even then they at worse let you spend 230 points on Attributes.
Take the Dwarf if the game was balanced you would charge at least 60 points to play dwarf, as some what sneaky player could get at least 100 points worth of Attributes out a dwarf, mind you the points would spread out over a few area and not be that big of a deal because of that. Still you can only spend 200 points on Attributes if you are human and the +4 Attribute points the dwarf gets lets you basically spend 240.
Now the Ork gets +5 Attributes and minuses 1 in log. Log is an Attribute that you can either largely ignore or is the back bone of your character. Techies, hackers and docs have it, just about everyone else can take that Attribute at 1 and go on living happily(from game mechanics point of view). Still you can make a strong case for being an Ork with a Logic of 4 and doing field repairs and quick fixes on people. So the worst case in playing an ork is that you have 250 points to put into Attributes, and then 20 of them have to go into str. No, you can't complain about having +3 body cause body is good for everyone.
| QUOTE (Shadow_Prophet) |
| What does it take to raise a attribute? People don't suddently just get stronger because they've accumulated karma or experiance. People don't suddently think mor logicaly because they've been in a firefight or two. People don't suddently become more charismatic being the stoic combat monster that shoots first and asks questions later. What does it take to raise a skill? People learn from experiance. People figure out better ways to aim when they've been in firefight after firefight. People learn to dodge that punch when they've had it thrown at them a few times. People learn whats right and wrong to say in a situation by being in that situation. Suuuure by the numbers, and ignoring gameplay, the story, roleplaying in general and focusing solely on the numbers. Attributes outshine skills. When thought about logicaly, when thought about in context with the game, when though about in context with story, they do not. I mean afterall you want to spend a few months strength training while your teamates money dries up and that corp team closes in on you? Go right ahead. If taken out of context you can use just about anything to trash the system. Just like you can take lines in the bible out of context to say 'Go_ does not exist'. |
You are right. You are so right, that you are wrong. People put in life and death stakes and are forced to think of ways to get out of it alive do think more logically. People who fight day and night to life, by hauling there guns, getting into fights, or simply hauling packages get stronger.
Let's look for shadowrun runner and how they raise attributes due to their actions in shadowruns.
You want to be stronger? Oh no, you must go to a gym because all that running, punching and carrying and lifting would not work your muscles. Same could be said for Body or quickness.
Reaction. You are in gun fights all the time where if you do not breath the right way or time you move too slow and die. That is some great training.
Cha, you are talking to people out of propaganda and spin doctoring school for a live. You deal with them all the time.
Logic, you are spending your days learning every new hack,computer, medical, and techie trick in the book, and making them up as you go cause if you are too slow you are going to die.
Shadow running is most likely some of the best reasons to rise your attributes, because if you don't get better all the time you will one day not be lucky enough. When your luck runs out you die.
So here it is, my friend any and all in character reasons for rising attributes can be applied to what shadow runners do for a living.
| QUOTE (Shadow_Prophet) |
| -Attributes represent raw physical or mental ability. ... . . What does this realy mean game wise? ... . . -Attributes represent raw tallent. ... . . What does it take to raise a attribute? People don't suddently just get stronger because they've accumulated karma or experiance. People don't suddently think mor logicaly because they've been in a firefight or two. People don't suddently become more charismatic being the stoic combat monster that shoots first and asks questions later. ... . . Suuuure by the numbers, and ignoring gameplay, the story, roleplaying in general and focusing solely on the numbers. Attributes outshine skills. When thought about logicaly, when thought about in context with the game, when though about in context with story, they do not. I mean afterall you want to spend a few months strength training while your teamates money dries up and that corp team closes in on you? Go right ahead. If taken out of context you can use just about anything to trash the system. Just like you can take lines in the bible out of context to say 'Go_ does not exist'. |
Take whatever you will out of this but, I have to say, over a course of a year I have become noticeably stronger, faster, and more coordinated. Funny thing is, I don't know for the life of me what I did to get that way. Sure, I had a slightly tougher job than I used to, but surely ones enviroment couldn't be a factor, I mean, I would have to train for days on end to accomplish such a feat...
Downtime indeed.
And I'm not even going to touch the Bible comment...
In response to the two comments against what i'm saying.
Over time yes you become stronger. Overtime yes you bulk up. Overtime yes you become smarter.
But what would you say is faster to raise? Your skill in something? Or your raw physical or mental tallent.
I have in the passed learned a completely new programing language in the matter of a week. A weeks worth of work. Dit that make me think more logicaly? Increased my intuitional awareness? Nope I wouldn't say so. It increased my skill at computers and programing certainly though.
Lets say you're a runner. You're in a gunfight all the time leaned around that corner firing and such. What're you more likely to increase there? Your agility? or your skill in firing that weapon?
Lets use you're strength example. Yes carrying something every day all the time, will increase your strength over time. But as a runner are you out running every night? Or do you have periods of downtime? So your example of being stronger over the course of the year from your new job doesn't wholely fit here. Afterall you're working what 5 days a week 8 hours a day? Most runners don't run 5 days a week 8 hours a day doing tough work.
Now out of all the attributes, yes cynic I would agree reaction would be the easiest one to justify raising. Split second decisions reaction to ever changing environments. Yes that to me would be the one attribute that would be easily justifiable to raise.
People learn quicker than they develop tallent. I learned how to throw and catch a lacrosse ball, and shoot it to beat a Goalie with a great deal of profficiency long before i had the physical abillity to shoot the ball at 90 mph.
Over time yes you become stronger. Overtime yes you bulk up. Overtime yes you become smarter.
But what would you say is faster to raise? Your skill in something? Or your raw physical or mental tallent.
I have in the passed learned a completely new programing language in the matter of a week. A weeks worth of work. Dit that make me think more logicaly? Increased my intuitional awareness? Nope I wouldn't say so. It increased my skill at computers and programing certainly though.
Lets say you're a runner. You're in a gunfight all the time leaned around that corner firing and such. What're you more likely to increase there? Your agility? or your skill in firing that weapon?
Lets use you're strength example. Yes carrying something every day all the time, will increase your strength over time. But as a runner are you out running every night? Or do you have periods of downtime? So your example of being stronger over the course of the year from your new job doesn't wholely fit here. Afterall you're working what 5 days a week 8 hours a day? Most runners don't run 5 days a week 8 hours a day doing tough work.
Now out of all the attributes, yes cynic I would agree reaction would be the easiest one to justify raising. Split second decisions reaction to ever changing environments. Yes that to me would be the one attribute that would be easily justifiable to raise.
People learn quicker than they develop tallent. I learned how to throw and catch a lacrosse ball, and shoot it to beat a Goalie with a great deal of profficiency long before i had the physical abillity to shoot the ball at 90 mph.
Err... learning new programming language is part of being a programmer and staying SOTA. Thats not learning a new skill, its paying the upkeep. So your point is.. well.. moot there...
| QUOTE (Xenith) |
| Err... learning new programming language is part of being a programmer and staying SOTA. Thats not learning a new skill, its paying the upkeep. So your point is.. well.. moot there... |
Right, so if I say, learned COBOL I would just be keeping up with SOTA and not bettering my programing abilities/flexabilities?
Or since I know C# and VB.NET learning J# would just be keeping up with SOTA?
Or learning ANSI C is just keeping up with SOTA?
Or learning python is just keeping up with SOTA?
Or learning BASIC is just keeping up with SOTA?
Or learning VB6 is just keeping up with SOTA?
Or learning ....
Well the list goes on. But I think I've given enough examples to show where you're wrong in that reasoning. A new language is not nessicarily keeping up with SOTA stuff or just paying the upkeep. Infact sometimes its very much against that. Say I knew .NET which is replacing COM objects (THANK GOD) for the most part. But I've got to go back and deal with that old COM object. SOTA is moving on past COM. So going back and learning the language the COM object was writen in and what i can and can not do with it, is not keeping me SOTA, but it is broadening my skill set.
Except skill is based on the average or standard of the now. If you kept with the old com objects you would be left behind. If you don't learn the new, you are left behind.
And you wouldn't be improving your programming abilities either by learning COBOL, so I don't know what your point is there. (Nice language but now outdated.)
And you wouldn't be improving your programming abilities either by learning COBOL, so I don't know what your point is there. (Nice language but now outdated.)
| QUOTE (Xenith) |
| Except skill is based on the average or standard of the now. If you kept with the old com objects you would be left behind. If you don't learn the new, you are left behind. And you wouldn't be improving your programming abilities either by learning COBOL, so I don't know what your point is there. (Nice language but now outdated.) |
You are slightly correct, and slightly inccorect.
Correct, COM and COBOL are dead/dieing.
However both are still very very very much in use, and knowing how to use them is key.
If you don't like the COBOL example look at the VB6. Its no longer supported by microsoft, but there are thousands of companies with vb6 programs and using vb6 com objects. Knowing it my skills as a programer can be put to wider use and can be better used than if i just knew one or the other. And knowing how to get things to interact correctly and optimaly is part of skill.
Just because something is old does not mean it isn't still in use, and that knowing how to work with it isn't part of skill.
So, Shadow Prophet, do you honestly mean that while mathematically Skills and Attributes are unbalanced, that the GM can make up house rules to balance them? Well yes, that was my point exactly. I just prefer the house rules "people pay roughly fair amounts of Karma to get the bonuses that they want" to the house rules "if people take the bonuses that are strictly superior, the GM will harrass them with various downtime restrictions". That's opinion rather than fact, I suppose you could balance the game in a non-mathematical fashion just by making the lives of your players difficult - I just think that seems needlessly rude to your players.
---
Xenith:
Magic Attribute attaches itself to two skill groups that virtually every Magician is going to have: Sorcery and Conjuring. It doesn't really have other skills belonging to it, so it's a pretty perfect test case.
All of the skills in both of the skill groups (except possibly Ritual Spellcasting) are really good and will be in high demand. So having players purchase the entire skill groups is a reasonable assumption. Similarly, with the exception of Counterspelling, all of the skills are going to be rolled Magic + Skill in every case, so getting a point of magic attribute is very equivalent to getting a point of both skill groups. Of course, there is counterspelling, and people will have a brief period of getting a point in one of the skill groups, but on the other hand having a point of magic attribute also does a bunch of other things such as increasing the area of your spells, increasing the force you can channel, and protecting your bound spirits from banishment. So while the point of magic is overall probably better than getting a bonus to both your Sorcery and Conjuring Skill Groups, you can at least make the argument for buying one over the other either way. At least, as long as they cost the same.
Problems come up, therefore, if they don't cost the same. If buying a point of magic attribute is not at least twice as expensive as buying a point of skill group, something is fragged in the advancement system - at least until you hit the caps. And I mean the word "cap" inclusively. Whether the price goes up when you hit "soft" caps, or you just can't advance anymore because of "hard" caps - the game doesn't have to have purchasing additional points be equal in cost past there to retain balance.
So your mild alteration of Karma is a step in the right directon, but it's woefully inadequate. As long as attributes cost less than double the advancement cost of skill groups, the game is provably getting screwed up.
---
That being said, I don't think that diminishing returns before hitting caps is a good plan. In order to really be viable it has to apply to everyone. And that means everyone. If diminishing returns is the standard, a magician should pay an amount of karma based on how many spells she already knows to get a new spell. If it's the standard, a street sam should pay more than double the price of a rating 2 synaptic booster than he pays for a rating 1 synaptic booster.
As long as a magician can spend some static amount of points to apply their entire spellcasting skill to a whole new field of endeavor (such as stealth or healing), it's not going to be balanced that a Hacker has to pay some ghastly diminishing returns price to get a skill equal to his electronic warfare in First Aid or Demolitions.
There are two ways to fix that. You could make the price of Demolitions and First Aid be linear and static all the way up to the caps (hard or soft), or you could make the cost of getting a new spell be some sort of diminishing returns nightmare based on how large your spellcasting skill actually is. But I don't see the magic boosters out there lining up for that sort of solution...
-Frank
---
Xenith:
Magic Attribute attaches itself to two skill groups that virtually every Magician is going to have: Sorcery and Conjuring. It doesn't really have other skills belonging to it, so it's a pretty perfect test case.
All of the skills in both of the skill groups (except possibly Ritual Spellcasting) are really good and will be in high demand. So having players purchase the entire skill groups is a reasonable assumption. Similarly, with the exception of Counterspelling, all of the skills are going to be rolled Magic + Skill in every case, so getting a point of magic attribute is very equivalent to getting a point of both skill groups. Of course, there is counterspelling, and people will have a brief period of getting a point in one of the skill groups, but on the other hand having a point of magic attribute also does a bunch of other things such as increasing the area of your spells, increasing the force you can channel, and protecting your bound spirits from banishment. So while the point of magic is overall probably better than getting a bonus to both your Sorcery and Conjuring Skill Groups, you can at least make the argument for buying one over the other either way. At least, as long as they cost the same.
Problems come up, therefore, if they don't cost the same. If buying a point of magic attribute is not at least twice as expensive as buying a point of skill group, something is fragged in the advancement system - at least until you hit the caps. And I mean the word "cap" inclusively. Whether the price goes up when you hit "soft" caps, or you just can't advance anymore because of "hard" caps - the game doesn't have to have purchasing additional points be equal in cost past there to retain balance.
So your mild alteration of Karma is a step in the right directon, but it's woefully inadequate. As long as attributes cost less than double the advancement cost of skill groups, the game is provably getting screwed up.
---
That being said, I don't think that diminishing returns before hitting caps is a good plan. In order to really be viable it has to apply to everyone. And that means everyone. If diminishing returns is the standard, a magician should pay an amount of karma based on how many spells she already knows to get a new spell. If it's the standard, a street sam should pay more than double the price of a rating 2 synaptic booster than he pays for a rating 1 synaptic booster.
As long as a magician can spend some static amount of points to apply their entire spellcasting skill to a whole new field of endeavor (such as stealth or healing), it's not going to be balanced that a Hacker has to pay some ghastly diminishing returns price to get a skill equal to his electronic warfare in First Aid or Demolitions.
There are two ways to fix that. You could make the price of Demolitions and First Aid be linear and static all the way up to the caps (hard or soft), or you could make the cost of getting a new spell be some sort of diminishing returns nightmare based on how large your spellcasting skill actually is. But I don't see the magic boosters out there lining up for that sort of solution...
-Frank
Its the knowing how to use them at least as much as the knowing them. Different langauages are useful for different things and are not always universal. Knowing which langauge to apply, rather than the number is the key. Its kinda hard to program 3-D graphics... in COBOL.
Also, there are those that specialize in a specific language. Say they never learn any other langauge but are exceptional in one (say COBOL since I knew someone who did something like that).
....
Actually when I think about it, its more somewhere in between. Yes the number of languages helps, but does nessisarily mean you are more skillful, it simply gives you more tools to work with. So we are both correct and incorrect, simply two sides that equal to the whole.
Also, there are those that specialize in a specific language. Say they never learn any other langauge but are exceptional in one (say COBOL since I knew someone who did something like that).
....
Actually when I think about it, its more somewhere in between. Yes the number of languages helps, but does nessisarily mean you are more skillful, it simply gives you more tools to work with. So we are both correct and incorrect, simply two sides that equal to the whole.
It's not a house rule if its in the BBB Frank. Here allow me to quote for you.
| QUOTE |
| Learning Time: It is recommended that a character only be allowed to learn one new skill (or specialization, spell, or complex form) between adventures; the character cannot simultaneous improve any existing skills, attributes, etc. during this time. A character can be allowed to improve as many skills, attributes, etc. between adventures as she has Karma, assuming the gamemaster feels the improvement is warranted (a character who hasn’t touched a gun in months should be made to practice a bit before improving Pistols skill)—but each can only be improved once. If the time frame between adventures is longer than one month, gamemasters may increase these allowances as appropriate. |
I think right there it says 'assuming the gameaster feels the improvement is warranted'. If you want to just crunch numbers and rollplay go right ahead, no one's stopping you. If you actualy want to play shadowrun on the otherhand...
| QUOTE (Shadow_Prophet) | ||
|
It is recommended
rec·om·mend (past and past participle rec·om·mend·ed, present participle rec·om·mend·ing, 3rd person present singular rec·om·mends)
transitive verb
Definitions:
1. suggest something as good idea: to suggest something as worthy of being accepted, used, or done
You could sue, of course, although I don't really recommend it.
2. endorse somebody or something: to express approval of or support for a person or thing
recommended him for promotion
3. give something appeal: to make something worth doing or experiencing
Since the legislation has little to recommend it, it is unlikely to pass.
4. entrust somebody to another: to entrust a person or thing to the care of another ( formal )
She was recommended to our care until her family returned.
I think the initation takes care of that a bit. As well as character creation.
Sorcery - 4 to 5 costs 25 karma
So about 50 karma for both skills.
Karma cost for magic from 6 to 7 is now 38. Say we make magic x5 instead. Then its 45 karma. A little less than double.
However, magic users are rarely going to be that broad and increase both skills at the same rate. Many will increase one at a far higher pace than the other. And magic users will be spending more karma on magic which is more limiting than a mental or physical attribute in that it applies to only a few areas rather than the broad use that most other attributes have.
On the other hand, with my house rules that raise the cap a bit that might become an issue with a broad skill.
Any suggestions?
Sorcery - 4 to 5 costs 25 karma
So about 50 karma for both skills.
Karma cost for magic from 6 to 7 is now 38. Say we make magic x5 instead. Then its 45 karma. A little less than double.
However, magic users are rarely going to be that broad and increase both skills at the same rate. Many will increase one at a far higher pace than the other. And magic users will be spending more karma on magic which is more limiting than a mental or physical attribute in that it applies to only a few areas rather than the broad use that most other attributes have.
On the other hand, with my house rules that raise the cap a bit that might become an issue with a broad skill.
Any suggestions?
I'm just throwing things out right now.... but maybe... reduce Group Skill costs to x4 instead? That accomplishes something close to being double the new magic cost without increasing the attribute costs.
Reducing Group Skill costs then make Skills too expensive, since now no-one will raise skills since the difference between X3 (for a group of 3 to 4 skills) to X2 (for just one skill.)
I personally think the costs are fine when you look at the dynamics between Attributes, Skills and Skill Groups.
I personally think the costs are fine when you look at the dynamics between Attributes, Skills and Skill Groups.
| QUOTE (Cynic project) |
| ... It is recommended ... |
Hence the part about rollplaying and you know, actualy playing shadowrun.
You can go strictly by numbers, or you know, you could play the game like a rpg and *GASP* roleplay and put some thought into your game.
You don't have to ofcourse. I understand that abstract thought can be difficult for people. So I understand if you need someone to hold your hand and walk you through every step of everything.
| QUOTE (autarkis) |
| I personally think the costs are fine when you look at the dynamics between Attributes, Skills and Skill Groups. |
The dynamics are that eventually you hit attribute caps and have to raise skills by default. And until then, people who raise skills because they think that's appropriate for their character (or whatever) are "morons". You're OK with that?
| QUOTE (Xenith) |
| I'm just throwing things out right now.... but maybe... reduce Group Skill costs to x4 instead? |
Indeed that makes Skill Groups too good of a deal compared to attibutes.
I honestly don't see what the point of having an NxNext Rating system in place for anything is. There is a cap. That cap could be hard or soft, but in any case accomplishes anything you could hope to achieve with a diminishing returns system with less fuss.
2 points for a skill.
5 points for a skill group.
10 points for an attribute.
Soft caps for everything at 5. You can buy past that, but it costs 2.5 times as much to do so.
Boom. It's simple. It's balanced. And I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with it.
-Frank
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| [quoteautarkis]I personally think the costs are fine when you look at the dynamics between Attributes, Skills and Skill Groups.[/quote] The dynamics are that eventually you hit attribute caps and have to raise skills by default. And until then, people who raise skills because they think that's appropriate for their character (or whatever) are "morons". You're OK with that? [quote=Xenith] I'm just throwing things out right now.... but maybe... reduce Group Skill costs to x4 instead? [/quote] Indeed that makes Skill Groups too good of a deal compared to attibutes. I honestly don't see what the point of having an NxNext Rating system in place for anything is. There is a cap. That cap could be hard or soft, but in any case accomplishes anything you could hope to achieve with a diminishing returns system with less fuss. 2 points for a skill. 5 points for a skill group. 10 points for an attribute. Soft caps for everything at 5. You can buy past that, but it costs 2.5 times as much to do so. Boom. It's simple. It's balanced. And I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with it. -Frank |
Because its completely un-needed.
Or you could live in the real world where groupd of gamers aren't always ont hes ame page and some people in one game may be pure role player and other may be power gamers. So you build your rules around the worse players because the good players don't need the rule this way to make good characters.
So anyone have a good reason why you should keep the karam cost the same?Any one that is mathmaticly provable. Besides the idea that there are hard caps and you hit them at the start of your character's life.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Sep 13 2005, 02:59 PM) |
| Boom. It's simple. It's balanced. |
Then Boom, you go off and recheck the rest of the system to figure out WTF you screwed around with that maybe now has problems (like 'ware) and try to patch all that up.
Then Boom, you realize that Skill Groups aren't 'balanced' because they give you skill points for less karma/point, and that Just Isn't Right™. So you better fix that up.
Then Boom, some Attributes help more than others, so you have to adjust some to 10.3 points and others to 9.4 points.
Then Boom, you aren't sure anymore if the chargen cost for races and ware prices and karma rewards and a pile of other things are right so you have to do a large playtest with a 100 people. Then you patch in a raft of house rules to try come up with something.
Then Boom you've run through the whole design cycle for the game again because you felt the need to screw with something that was a close enough approximation to work to start with.
| QUOTE |
| And I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with it. |
Yes, well that isn't exactly shocking to find you having problems understanding somthing.
Boom and you rather go with a wildly broken system because it what they gave in the book rather try to make something better. Wait you said BeCKS worked and was good. They changed a shit load of stuff.
So do you not like Frank's Ideas or do you not like Frank?
By the way Blakie is your name Hunter by any chance?
So do you not like Frank's Ideas or do you not like Frank?
By the way Blakie is your name Hunter by any chance?
| QUOTE (Cynic project @ Sep 13 2005, 03:17 PM) |
| Boom and you rather go with a wildly broken system because it what they gave in the book rather try to make something better. Wait you said BeCKS worked and was good. They changed a shit load of stuff. |
That chargen worked for a number of people, i never used it myself. It certainly didn't change post chargen, it worked towards that as the standard and fully emulated it. It also had more time and much more play experience with the canon rules and wholistic thought behind it before creation of it started. Plus the issues in SR3 chargen were much more pronounce than what appears in SR4.
This is only underlined by you droning on in an example where you:
1) pronouce that you can't see anyone wanting to bring Edge up as high as 4 anyway
2) assume a character concept that would benefit best from an attribute another meta is strong in
3) assume that you always want to put as many BP into Attributes for any character created
4) really not even formualte a point to it, other i gues Edge is bad so humans get screwed?
| QUOTE |
| So do you not like Frank's Ideas or do you not like Frank? |
I dislike Frank's passive agressive routine (oh dear, don't be so rude to me
). I find he is very hit-miss on assessments, usually more miss. He does have a knack for spotting rules lawyer exploits, where words are taken out of context of the whole and twisted horribly. That might also be related to his tendancy to take numbers out of context and twist them?He also occationally hits on something, but also tends to bury it in enormous amounts of detris. Motive for this? *shrug* I also find him hilarious at times. When i put ROFL i really was laughing very hard. I hope he was trying to be over the top funny, otherwise that would be sad.
But those are only generalities, and my disdain for his house rule ideas here was won on their very own merit. The reverse is problem more true, that these house rules are what have been the basis for a lot of those general opinions.
| QUOTE |
| By the way Blakie is your name Hunter by any chance? |
Curious question, but certainly not. If that is someone that thinks Frank is a blathering, confusion spreading prat that tends to wilt the collective IQ of any room he enters you shouldn't be surprised to find more than one person with a like opinion.
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| 2) assume a character concept that would benefit best from an attribute another meta is strong in |
Name a character type that would not benefit from being a meta do the bonus attribute?
| QUOTE (Cynic project) | ||
Name a character type that would not benefit from being a meta do the bonus attribute? |
Humanis member?
Alright Blakkie, it's put up or shut time again:
Tell me exactly why people should be able to buy a point of Magic Attribute for less than double the price of a point of Sorcery or Conjuring.
Tell me exactly why two characters who are exactly the same should cost different amounts of Karma to get to where they are now.
----
Apparently I'm still "missing soemthing", but honestly your arguments against seem to largely take the form of "I haven't actually done the math on your proposal or the standard rules, therefore you speaking from a standpoint of relative authority makes me feel inadequate." Your arguments against my proposals have at no time delved into actual substance, but frequently delved into personal attacks.
You are a waste of space on this board, and most likely in RL as well.
-Frank
Tell me exactly why people should be able to buy a point of Magic Attribute for less than double the price of a point of Sorcery or Conjuring.
Tell me exactly why two characters who are exactly the same should cost different amounts of Karma to get to where they are now.
----
Apparently I'm still "missing soemthing", but honestly your arguments against seem to largely take the form of "I haven't actually done the math on your proposal or the standard rules, therefore you speaking from a standpoint of relative authority makes me feel inadequate." Your arguments against my proposals have at no time delved into actual substance, but frequently delved into personal attacks.
You are a waste of space on this board, and most likely in RL as well.
-Frank
| QUOTE (Cynic project) | ||
Name a character type that would not benefit from being a meta do the bonus attribute? |
Off hand? A Hermetic sorcerer(and backup rigger?) that utilizes high Magic, Edge(6), a wide skill base, and starts with a good amount of gear (Foci especially) and solid contacts. He has little use plunking down more than 200 BP in Attributes since he makes up for it with non-implant gear, and he's spending a large amount in non-cap Attributes.
| QUOTE (blakkie) | ||||
Off hand? A Hermetic sorcerer(and backup rigger?) that utilizes high Magic, Edge(6), a wide skill base, and starts with a good amount of gear (Foci especially) and solid contacts. He has little use plunking down more than 200 BP in Attributes since he makes up for it with non-implant gear, and he's spending a large amount in non-cap Attributes. |
Would say Hermetic/back up rigger have a high will power? If so go Dwarf and you get an edge of 6 and will power of 6.Then save points by not having to put any point in str and one less point in body.
| QUOTE (Cynic project) | ||||||
Would say Hermetic/back up rigger have a high will power? If so go Dwarf and you get an edge of 6 and will power of 6.Then save points by not having to put any point in str and one less point in body. |
Because he isn't that kind of character playing to different strengths, he isn't Will centeric. And he only hacks as a sideline, that isn't going to be his main field because he is very unlikely to even implant a Control Rig.
Who says he has to put points in Str? He's concentrating elsewhere. Don't be going and changing what kind of character i'm building.
Not to mention the dwarf would have a harder time finding adapted vehicles and whatnot.
Hermetic alone want to be dwarves, because they are better at drain. Then again if you are trying to prove me wrong with one character type that is a damned small niche i have something to tell you, Big deal. You aren't proven me wrong you are just proving how childish you can be and how poorly you can make characters.
So if you want to stat out this thing you are playing I will gladly say if you made a human character that is better for being human than if they were a meta type.
So if you want to stat out this thing you are playing I will gladly say if you made a human character that is better for being human than if they were a meta type.
| QUOTE (Cynic project) |
| Or you could live in the real world where groupd of gamers aren't always ont hes ame page and some people in one game may be pure role player and other may be power gamers. So you build your rules around the worse players because the good players don't need the rule this way to make good characters. |
No you do not write for the most ignorant. You write for the middle of the road. You do not build the rules too constrictive. You do not build them too loose. Which is exactly where they're at right now.
Giving the GM control to restrict, or open up them as he see's fit.
The system, if played the way it is intended. Is inherently balanced. The GM has final decision on what can be raised and lowered, when, and how.
You can ofcourse go the powergaming route and min max. Buy skills at chargen with smaller attributes and raise the attributes after chargen. Now if your gm is worth his weight, wouldn't let such a char in his game in the first place or would make you increase them at a slower rate, as attributes should take more time ect to raise.
You ofcourse seem to focus on the numbers. You seem to need hard rules with little flexibility taking the control out of the gm's hands and placing it in the rules system. Every little thing must be defined. Prehapse you should put down paper and pen rpg's. They obviously require too much abstract thought for you, or you need a new GM, one who actualy knows what he's doing.
| QUOTE |
| Alright Blakkie, it's put up or shut time again: Tell me exactly why people should be able to buy a point of Magic Attribute for less than double the price of a point of Sorcery or Conjuring. Tell me exactly why two characters who are exactly the same should cost different amounts of Karma to get to where they are now. ---- Apparently I'm still "missing soemthing", but honestly your arguments against seem to largely take the form of "I haven't actually done the math on your proposal or the standard rules, therefore you speaking from a standpoint of relative authority makes me feel inadequate." Your arguments against my proposals have at no time delved into actual substance, but frequently delved into personal attacks. You are a waste of space on this board, and most likely in RL as well. -Frank |
Well lets assume you don't know how getting that extra point of magic works. You have to first initiate, and then buy it afterwards. so you have to buy your initiation up, and then the stat. All works out where raising your magic is far more expensive and time consuming than raising your spellcasting or conjuring. Unless ofcourse you don't buy much at chargen then its price is a little lower since you don't have to initiate.
Now lets look at your second question Frank.
Why would 2 chars who have the same dice pools ect, gamestats everything cost two different amounts to get where where they are.
I'd ask you why shouldn't they?
Two people can take two entirely different paths to get to the same place. And ones life and such may be harder and take longer acording to the path you take. Thus two different karma costs.
Take for example a street kid who works his way up to be a successful lawyer, and a wealthy person who works his way up to be a successful lawyer. Two differnt people, two different backgrounds, two entirely different amounts of work they have to put in to become what they end up being. But according to you, they should cost the exact same, despite the huge difference in the amount of work they have to do.
I'm sorry frank, but to me and probably to others, including those I game with now and have gamed with in the past, don't agree with you. You say theres flaw because a GM can allow a player to abuse the system.
And Blakie certainly isn't a waste of space here or RL.
| QUOTE (FrankTrollman) |
| Alright Blakkie, it's put up or shut time again: |
You mean like last time in this thread where i "put up" to your misplaced demands and you shut up because you were actually talking bollocks?
| QUOTE |
| Tell me exactly why people should be able to buy a point of Magic Attribute for less than double the price of a point of Sorcery or Conjuring. |
Because Magic in that particular senario, but not always, is at a cheaper cost level than the combined cost of of where the cost levels of Sorcery and Conjuring are at that time. Of course what exactly the character purchases, if anything, in that situation is much less clear.
| QUOTE |
| Tell me exactly why two characters who are exactly the same should cost different amounts of Karma to get to where they are now. |
Already gave two reasons why this could happen [and be of trivial import]. In fact both were given directly to you.....at which point you shut up. If you are only interested or capabile of assigning to me completely fabricated statements i think it would be great if you did again. Only for longer.
P.S. Speaking of you avoiding, what ya going to do about Skill Groups purchases being used instead of Skills purchases to create the same character with a different amount of karma?
<--- No need to actually answer this question if you plan on clamming up in general again.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.