Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:35:45 +0200
Taken from http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/, and adding my own comments below:

> Q. Are any of the attributes changing?
> A. Yes. Specifically, we have expanded them:
> - Intelligence has been split into Intuition and Logic

Why? I thought you were trying to make a system that was easyer to
understand. Now new players have even more attributes to deal with. For
newcommers it's quite difficult to explain the difference between
Intelligence and Willpower, and now you introduce even more mental
attributes.

> - Quickness has been split into Agility and Reaction

Again I don't see the need. Sure there are people with low Agility and high
Reaction or the other way around. But why not the split Agility into Agility
and Dexterity. Body could become Health and Fittness, Strength could become
Power and Endurance and so on. I just don't get the reason to do the
splitting of the attributes.

> - Obviously, Reaction is no longer a derived attribute

OK, I always let my players increase their Reaction in any case, on top of
any increase you could get from increasing your Q or I.

> - Karma Pool has been replaced by an Edge attribute. Edge is used in many
> similar ways as Karma Pool was-it is still a "luck factor," but it is now
> an attribute rather than a mark of experience. This makes it especially
> useful to non-cyber and non-magic characters, as they will have a way of
> keeping ahead of the game.

How? Can't cyber and magic character use their Karma? Do theiy have other
things to use Karma for? Magicians I can see using their karma to learn
magic, but do you have to pay Karma to become cybered in SR4?

> - Magic no longer starts at 6. Magic must be bought up just like any other
> attribute. This means that magical characters are not as powerful right
> out of the box as they were in previous editions.

Well thats how I have player ever since I wrote my CoC/SR2 crossover. The
same with Essence please!

> Q. What haven't you changed in SR4?
> A. Many things. There are still 5 basic metatypes to choose from in the
> basic rules. Contacts remain an integral part of the game. There will be
> 16 Sample Characters that you can start with. Karma is still used as the
> experience award. The focus of the game is still on teams of operatives
> combining skills and resources to accomplish criminal or psuedo-criminal
> missions. And so on.

Sounds OK.

> Q. Who is designing SR4?
> A. We have a team of people who have been working on Shadowrun for years:
> Rob Boyle, Elissa Carey, Brian Cross, Dan Grendel, Adam Jury, Steve
> Kenson, Christian Lonsing, David Lyons, Michelle Lyons and Jon Szeto. A
> few other freelancers will also be writing for the book.

Hmm... well I suppose you had to take whoever you had available :-)

> Q. Who's doing the cover artwork?
> A. Mark Zug

Let's see it...

Lars
Message no. 2
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:57:46 +0200
On Apr 13, 2005, at 12:35, Lars Wagner Hansen wrote:

> Taken from http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/, and adding my own comments
> below:
>
>> Q. Are any of the attributes changing?
>> A. Yes. Specifically, we have expanded them:
>> - Intelligence has been split into Intuition and Logic
>
> Why? I thought you were trying to make a system that was easyer to
> understand. Now new players have even more attributes to deal with. For
> newcommers it's quite difficult to explain the difference between
> Intelligence and Willpower, and now you introduce even more mental
> attributes.
>

I can only imagine each of the new attributes will affect different
skills, etc. Having an extra couple attributes is not a problem.
Applying them illogically would be.

>> - Quickness has been split into Agility and Reaction
>
> Again I don't see the need. Sure there are people with low Agility and
> high
> Reaction or the other way around. But why not the split Agility into
> Agility
> and Dexterity. Body could become Health and Fittness, Strength could
> become
> Power and Endurance and so on. I just don't get the reason to do the
> splitting of the attributes.
>
>> - Obviously, Reaction is no longer a derived attribute
>
> OK, I always let my players increase their Reaction in any case, on
> top of
> any increase you could get from increasing your Q or I.

This changes the mechanics of the game significantly. If Reaction is
its own attribute, one would think there may no longer be a need for
Agility and Intelligence to be used to determine initiative, etc. This
would change the way a lot of people play -- especially with the
elimination of the Combat Pool.

>
>> - Karma Pool has been replaced by an Edge attribute. Edge is used in
>> many
>> similar ways as Karma Pool was-it is still a "luck factor," but it is
>> now
>> an attribute rather than a mark of experience. This makes it
>> especially
>> useful to non-cyber and non-magic characters, as they will have a way
>> of
>> keeping ahead of the game.
>
> How? Can't cyber and magic character use their Karma? Do theiy have
> other
> things to use Karma for? Magicians I can see using their karma to learn
> magic, but do you have to pay Karma to become cybered in SR4?

It sounds like the elimination of the Karma Pool. Major change from
SR3. I really don't understand what they are doing here.

>
>> - Magic no longer starts at 6. Magic must be bought up just like any
>> other
>> attribute. This means that magical characters are not as powerful
>> right
>> out of the box as they were in previous editions.
>
> Well thats how I have player ever since I wrote my CoC/SR2 crossover.
> The
> same with Essence please!
>
One assumes there is still the rule about Cyber and Bio affecting
Essence.

Can one increase Magic over time with the use of Karma -- or is
Initiation the only way? If one were to do the same with Essence could
one increase it with Karma like Strength too?

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
Message no. 3
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:59:08 -0300
On 4/13/05, Lars Wagner Hansen <l-hansen@*****.tele.dk> wrote:
> Taken from http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/, and adding my own comments below:
>
> > Q. Are any of the attributes changing?
> > A. Yes. Specifically, we have expanded them:
> > - Intelligence has been split into Intuition and Logic
>
> Why? I thought you were trying to make a system that was easyer to
> understand. Now new players have even more attributes to deal with. For
> newcommers it's quite difficult to explain the difference between
> Intelligence and Willpower, and now you introduce even more mental
> attributes.

Two new attributes (Edge and Intuition), which from the FAQ seem to be
fairly straightforward. You buy them with points and increase them
with Karma. "Agility" is just a name change for "Quickness", and we
already had Reaction anyway. Logic similarly seems to be just a name
change for the old Intelligence.

And, with die pools going away, I don't think the number of things to
keep track of has increased (it may not have gone down, tough :)).


> > - Karma Pool has been replaced by an Edge attribute. Edge is used in many
> > similar ways as Karma Pool was-it is still a "luck factor," but it is
now
> > an attribute rather than a mark of experience. This makes it especially
> > useful to non-cyber and non-magic characters, as they will have a way of
> > keeping ahead of the game.
>
> How? Can't cyber and magic character use their Karma? Do theiy have other
> things to use Karma for? Magicians I can see using their karma to learn
> magic, but do you have to pay Karma to become cybered in SR4?

If mages in SR4 are still Karma whores, they'll have less Edge than
non-mages, since you actually have to pay to increase it now.

Hm... what if Essence was done away with completely, and now instead
of loosing Essence you pay some Karma to get the implants? Or keep
Essence, and make it so you can regain lost points by paying Karma.

The paragraph above is pure speculation, by the way, and doesn't have
anything to do with SR4.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 4
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:05:10 +0200
According to Scott Harrison, on 13-04-2005 13:57 the word on the street
was...

> I can only imagine each of the new attributes will affect different
> skills, etc. Having an extra couple attributes is not a problem.
> Applying them illogically would be.

It does make some things a bit more clear, IMHO. Up until now, you asked
players to roll Perception and new ones always had to be told "(that's
Intelligence)" lots of times.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 5
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:20:55 -0300
On 4/13/05, Scott Harrison <scott@**********.com> wrote:
>
> >
> This changes the mechanics of the game significantly. If Reaction is
> its own attribute, one would think there may no longer be a need for
> Agility and Intelligence to be used to determine initiative, etc. This
> would change the way a lot of people play -- especially with the
> elimination of the Combat Pool.

> It sounds like the elimination of the Karma Pool. Major change from
> SR3. I really don't understand what they are doing here.

They're changing the rules system. This is not a bad thing in itself.
As they said somewhere else in this fourth FAQ, the game will still be
about the same things - it will just do them in a different way.

--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 6
From: pb3209@****.utah.edu (Jamison Cooper-Leavitt)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:16:40 -0600
Scott Harrison wrote:

>
> On Apr 13, 2005, at 12:35, Lars Wagner Hansen wrote:
>
>> Taken from http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/, and adding my own comments
>> below:
>>
>>> - Karma Pool has been replaced by an Edge attribute. Edge is used in
>>> many
>>> similar ways as Karma Pool was-it is still a "luck factor," but it
>>> is now
>>> an attribute rather than a mark of experience. This makes it especially
>>> useful to non-cyber and non-magic characters, as they will have a
>>> way of
>>> keeping ahead of the game.
>>
>>
>> How? Can't cyber and magic character use their Karma? Do theiy have
>> other
>> things to use Karma for? Magicians I can see using their karma to learn
>> magic, but do you have to pay Karma to become cybered in SR4?
>
>
> It sounds like the elimination of the Karma Pool. Major change
> from SR3. I really don't understand what they are doing here.

I don't understand this. They say that they are streamlining the rules
so that everything works the same no matter what. But now they have
gone and invented some new attributes; One attribute that is not really
an attribute but a function of the karma pool (as far as I understand
the faq). So the question(s) to ask are are there going to be skills
linked to the Edge attribute? or will it be a stand alone attribute that
works differently than the other ones? Or maybe skills will not be
linked to attributes anymore.

IMO, I think that they have added a layer of more complexity to the
rules than what is in SR3.

Veracusse
Message no. 7
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:27:32 -0500
Lars Wagner Hansen wrote:
> Taken from http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/, and adding my own comments below:
>
>> Q. Are any of the attributes changing?
>> A. Yes. Specifically, we have expanded them:
>> - Intelligence has been split into Intuition and Logic
>
>
> Why? I thought you were trying to make a system that was easyer to
> understand. Now new players have even more attributes to deal with. For
> newcommers it's quite difficult to explain the difference between
> Intelligence and Willpower, and now you introduce even more mental
> attributes.
>
>> - Quickness has been split into Agility and Reaction
>
>
> Again I don't see the need. Sure there are people with low Agility and high
> Reaction or the other way around. But why not the split Agility into
> Agility
> and Dexterity. Body could become Health and Fittness, Strength could become
> Power and Endurance and so on. I just don't get the reason to do the
> splitting of the attributes.
>
>> - Obviously, Reaction is no longer a derived attribute
>
>
> OK, I always let my players increase their Reaction in any case, on top of
> any increase you could get from increasing your Q or I.
>
>> - Karma Pool has been replaced by an Edge attribute. Edge is used in many
>> similar ways as Karma Pool was-it is still a "luck factor," but it is
now
>> an attribute rather than a mark of experience. This makes it especially
>> useful to non-cyber and non-magic characters, as they will have a way of
>> keeping ahead of the game.
>
>
> How? Can't cyber and magic character use their Karma? Do theiy have other
> things to use Karma for? Magicians I can see using their karma to learn
> magic, but do you have to pay Karma to become cybered in SR4?
>
>> - Magic no longer starts at 6. Magic must be bought up just like any
>> other
>> attribute. This means that magical characters are not as powerful right
>> out of the box as they were in previous editions.

Wow. This is all starting to really sounds like a big giant April Fools
joke gone bad...
Message no. 8
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
> Q. Are any of the attributes changing?
> A. Yes. Specifically, we have expanded them:
> - Intelligence has been split into Intuition and Logic
> - Quickness has been split into Agility and Reaction
> - Obviously, Reaction is no longer a derived attribute

*sigh* The trend continues in the vein I feared when I originally
voiced opposition to the idea of an SR4. We are headed for D&D with
guns. I think someone has finally found a way to kill my interest in
following Shadowrun into its future. We had a thread a while back
about how mechanics and setting combine rather closely to make a game
feel the way it does. There are already plenty of 'generic'
mechanical systems available (GURPS, D20, etc). Turning Shadowrun
into something that more closely mimics them is a mistake. A big
mistake IMO. Is any one company that produces yet another setting
for D20 really doing so well that WizKids/FanPro see the need to
emulate the model???

My previous point is born out. A group of engineers went to the
drawing board to make the wheel a little smoother on the surface, and
instead decided to remake the wheel entirely. By copying someone
else's approach, no less.

Thanks but no thanks. Attributes are arbitrary and abstract, and no
amount of splitting them up and changing their names will change
that. You could develop 50 attributes and give people a million char
gen points and you'd still have a system that is an abstraction of
reality. The alternative is to build your role playing around a live
action game, where the player's actual physical and mental
capabilities govern the outcome.

> - Karma Pool has been replaced by an Edge attribute. Edge is used
> in many similar ways as Karma Pool was-it is still a "luck factor,"
> but it is now an attribute rather than a mark of experience. This
> makes it especially useful to non-cyber and non-magic characters,
> as they will have a way of keeping ahead of the game.

<sarcasm>
yes, because making luck an attribute has worked so well for so many
games in the history of the industry...
</sarcasm>

This is sounding less and less like Shadowrun guys. I know the
mechanics are supposed to be transparent in play... but if you change
the mechanics enough, the actual mood of the game changes too.

> - Magic no longer starts at 6. Magic must be bought up just like
> any other attribute. This means that magical characters are not as
> powerful right out of the box as they were in previous editions.

More attributes means more Build Points to make even an average
joe... but at least this rule mimics a house rule that many have used
for years, and does not really alter the feel of the game.

> Well thats how I have player ever since I wrote my CoC/SR2
> crossover. The same with Essence please!

Errr, bad idea. What essence is in Shadowrun is already poorly
defined IMO. I have long run it is the rational difference between a
character's physical pattern and their astral, borrowing heavily from
Earthdawn. Allowing it to be adjusted up and down at char gen by a
characters background is one thing (edges/flaws), but making it
purchasable is not going to work. If it can be purchased, it should
be able to be improved through play... and essence does not belong on
the list of attributes you can boost with karma.

> > Q. What haven't you changed in SR4?
> > A. Many things. There are still 5 basic metatypes to choose from
> in the
> > basic rules. Contacts remain an integral part of the game. There
> will be
> > 16 Sample Characters that you can start with. Karma is still used
> as the
> > experience award. The focus of the game is still on teams of
> operatives
> > combining skills and resources to accomplish criminal or
> psuedo-criminal
> > missions. And so on.

Okay, so the setting is kept... the mechanics are all new.

That's not SR folks, that's cyber-fantasy-punk version X. SR was not
CP2020, by virtue of mechanics more than setting. CP2020 is not D20
cyberpunk, by virtue of mechanics more than setting. A nitty-gritty
near future of semi-legitimized criminals serving as deniable assets
to corporations, governments, and syndicates in an often vain
struggle to rise above the teaming masses of starving, exploited, and
marginalized non-citizens; the juxtaposition of high and low tech,
gleaming arcologies overshadowing dystopian squalor where urban
primitives mix the bleeding edge of bio-technical implants with
sub-ballistic projectile weapons and old fashioned cunning; where
life is less valuable than <insert currency unit> and insular apathy
marks the mood of the mob... yea sure, this setting can be
implemented with any set of mechanics. And will be. It is not
unique to the Shadowrun game. Add fantasy races and spellcasting all
you want, the setting remains only as unique as the method by which
players vicariously experience it. The mechanics. The arbitrary and
abstract peripheral device, analagous to monitors and keyboards or VR
goggles, that brings the imaginary setting to interactive life...
takes it off the pages of a book and lets the player own the starring
role. What dice are rolled, and how they are used... the names of
the attributes and the categories of skills... the labels slapped on
every facet of a character, from its measure of health to its
capacity for social interaction... all these are inextricably linked
to how the player experiences the setting. Playing the latest FPS on
a console is a different 'feeling' from playing it on a PC, and
playing on a laptop (LCD screen, trackpad, and small keys) feels as
different from a desktop (CRT/mouse/large keyboard) as an xbox feels
from a PS2. The differences may be subtle, but they are still real.
And you notice them most when you have been playing one format, only
to switch to another.

Thus, I hear the death knell of SR for many of its long time players.
Because after 3 editions of constant streamlining and honing of the
same basic mechanics, the game's designers are changing consoles.

Bah humbug.

======Korishinzo
--should be grateful for the potential savings... SR was the last
game I was buying books for :/


> > Q. Who is designing SR4?
> > A. We have a team of people who have been working on Shadowrun
> for years:
> > Rob Boyle, Elissa Carey, Brian Cross, Dan Grendel, Adam Jury,
> Steve
> > Kenson, Christian Lonsing, David Lyons, Michelle Lyons and Jon
> Szeto. A
> > few other freelancers will also be writing for the book.
>
> Hmm... well I suppose you had to take whoever you had available :-)
>
> > Q. Who's doing the cover artwork?
> > A. Mark Zug
>
> Let's see it...
>
> Lars
>
>



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 9
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:01:55 -0600
On 4/13/05, Jamison Cooper-Leavitt <pb3209@****.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> I don't understand this. They say that they are streamlining the rules
> so that everything works the same no matter what. But now they have
> gone and invented some new attributes; One attribute that is not really
> an attribute but a function of the karma pool (as far as I understand
> the faq). So the question(s) to ask are are there going to be skills
> linked to the Edge attribute? or will it be a stand alone attribute that
> works differently than the other ones? Or maybe skills will not be
> linked to attributes anymore.
>
> IMO, I think that they have added a layer of more complexity to the
> rules than what is in SR3.

Edge replaces Karma Pool. Edge works like Karma Pool. Edge is an
ability, not something that is based on overall experience like Karma
Pool is.

Karma Pool is a measure of a character's luck with relation to the
amount of karma they have accumulated during their adventuring career.

Edge is a measure of a character's luck.

Which of the above statements is more complicated? ;)

Also, how can anyone justifiably say that something is more
complicated when they admitedly don't understand it?

Since I signed the NDA I can't go into detail about SR4. But I feel
that I can safely say that SR4 plays well, and that the playtesters
are doing a great job of finding problems, and that the
developers/writers are doing a great job of fixing those problems and
fine tuning it.

It won't be SR3, that's a given. If you love SR3, then by all means
keep playing SR3. God knows there are enough sourcebooks for SR3 to
keep any GM happy for a lifetime ;) But SR4 will be good and will
work just fine.

--
-Graht
Message no. 10
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:35:27 -0300
On 4/13/05, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
> > Q. Are any of the attributes changing?
> > A. Yes. Specifically, we have expanded them:
> > - Intelligence has been split into Intuition and Logic
> > - Quickness has been split into Agility and Reaction
> > - Obviously, Reaction is no longer a derived attribute
>
> *sigh* The trend continues in the vein I feared when I originally
> voiced opposition to the idea of an SR4. We are headed for D&D with
> guns.

Oh, it has been /that/ for a long, long time. Shadowrun and D&D are
the only games I know where you can plot entire campaign by taking a
single adventure formula and switching names and difficulty levels as
you go. And the two formulas aren't even really that different (get
mission from someone at a bar, enter an enclosed space full of traps
and enemies, fight, get the treasure and get out).

Of course, most successful SR games will go beyond the basic formula
at some point, and start making the players feel part of the world.
But the same can be said about D&D.



--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 11
From: pb3209@****.utah.edu (Jamison Cooper-Leavitt)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:40:41 -0600
Graht wrote:

>On 4/13/05, Jamison Cooper-Leavitt <pb3209@****.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't understand this. They say that they are streamlining the rules
>>so that everything works the same no matter what. But now they have
>>gone and invented some new attributes; One attribute that is not really
>>an attribute but a function of the karma pool (as far as I understand
>>the faq). So the question(s) to ask are are there going to be skills
>>linked to the Edge attribute? or will it be a stand alone attribute that
>>works differently than the other ones? Or maybe skills will not be
>>linked to attributes anymore.
>>
>>IMO, I think that they have added a layer of more complexity to the
>>rules than what is in SR3.
>>
>>
>
>Edge replaces Karma Pool. Edge works like Karma Pool. Edge is an
>ability, not something that is based on overall experience like Karma
>Pool is.
>
>Karma Pool is a measure of a character's luck with relation to the
>amount of karma they have accumulated during their adventuring career.
>
>Edge is a measure of a character's luck.
>
>Which of the above statements is more complicated? ;)
>
>
I think you entirely missed my point. My point was there appears to be
a disjoint in the use of the Edge attribute compared to the other
attributes. One attribute is different from the rest in that it is an
abstract representation of luck and is seemingly used differently than
the other attributes are. So a newbie has to learn the rules for
attributes and then also some special rules for the Edge attribute. My
point is that it does not seem very streamlined to me.

>Also, how can anyone justifiably say that something is more
>complicated when they admitedly don't understand it?
>
>
>
Of course I am just speculating on what little I know about SR4. But I
am left to 3 logical conclusions. 1. All other attributes (minus the
new Edge attribute) will work similar to how they were in SR3. 2. The
rules for Attributes will be somethng completely new. 3. All
attributes will work something similar to how this edge attribute has
been described.

Alll three possibilities seem likely, although 3 seems the least
likeliest to happen.

(snip)

>It won't be SR3, that's a given. If you love SR3, then by all means
>keep playing SR3. God knows there are enough sourcebooks for SR3 to
>keep any GM happy for a lifetime ;) But SR4 will be good and will
>work just fine.
>
>
>

I don't think that this is the best way to market a new product. And
since you signed the NDA, you are somewhat responsible for the new
product. I would hope that SR4 would be a better newer product that I
will want to buy. Right now I am not very convinced, and your above
comment is not helping much either.

Veracusse
Message no. 12
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:34:20 -0600
On 4/13/05, Jamison Cooper-Leavitt <pb3209@****.utah.edu> wrote:
> Graht wrote:
>
> >On 4/13/05, Jamison Cooper-Leavitt <pb3209@****.utah.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I don't understand this. They say that they are streamlining the rules
> >>so that everything works the same no matter what. But now they have
> >>gone and invented some new attributes; One attribute that is not really
> >>an attribute but a function of the karma pool (as far as I understand
> >>the faq). So the question(s) to ask are are there going to be skills
> >>linked to the Edge attribute? or will it be a stand alone attribute that
> >>works differently than the other ones? Or maybe skills will not be
> >>linked to attributes anymore.
> >>
> >>IMO, I think that they have added a layer of more complexity to the
> >>rules than what is in SR3.
> >
> >Edge replaces Karma Pool. Edge works like Karma Pool. Edge is an
> >ability, not something that is based on overall experience like Karma
> >Pool is.
> >
> >Karma Pool is a measure of a character's luck with relation to the
> >amount of karma they have accumulated during their adventuring career.
> >
> >Edge is a measure of a character's luck.
> >
> >Which of the above statements is more complicated? ;)
>
> I think you entirely missed my point. My point was there appears to be
> a disjoint in the use of the Edge attribute compared to the other
> attributes. One attribute is different from the rest in that it is an
> abstract representation of luck and is seemingly used differently than
> the other attributes are. So a newbie has to learn the rules for
> attributes and then also some special rules for the Edge attribute. My
> point is that it does not seem very streamlined to me.

I think you missed my point :) SR3 is very disjointed. There are 6
core attributes which work one way. Then there is Essence. Then
there is Magic. Then there is Reaction. And then there is the Karma
Pool.

SR4 is much less disjointed. Yes, Edge is disjointed. But it's a
carry over from SR3, not something brand new to SR4.

> >It won't be SR3, that's a given. If you love SR3, then by all means
> >keep playing SR3. God knows there are enough sourcebooks for SR3 to
> >keep any GM happy for a lifetime ;) But SR4 will be good and will
> >work just fine.
>
> I don't think that this is the best way to market a new product.

It depends on what your goals are. If your goals are to keep current
core players happy then you keep the same system. If your goals are
to try to increase the number of players and you have identified the
core rules as a stumbling block, then you try to redesign the core
rules while trying to keep the theme of Shadowrun intact, and at the
same time try to keep as many of the core players as happy as possible
(so your net gain is bigger than any losses you're going to have).

The fact of the matter is that businesses have to make economic
decisions. Well, business that want to make a profit that is.

> And
> since you signed the NDA, you are somewhat responsible for the new
> product.

And I take that very seriously. I take great pride in finding a
*major* loophole in the initial SR3 playtest rules that led to the
creation of a simple rule that everyone now takes for granted.
(During playtesting I made a starting Shaman character with a Force 26
Spirit Focus.)

This is something that's getting lost in the drama. The playtesters
for SR4 are very serious Shadowrun players who are very active in the
Shadwrun community. The writers for SR4 are very serious Shadowrun
players/freelancers. The amount of experience, brain power, and love
for Shadowrun involved in this is pretty unbelievable. Yet on the
occasion that a playtester or a freelancer has stepped up and said,
"It's good," they've been countered with, "I don't see how it could
possibly be good." The same players that love SR3 so much, because
those same people put so much time and effort into it, scoff the work
of those very same people who have proven themselves time and again.

> I would hope that SR4 would be a better newer product that I
> will want to buy. Right now I am not very convinced, and your above
> comment is not helping much either.

You, and others, seem to not want to be convinced. Fine. I've said
what I wanted to say. I'm done trying to convince you.

--
-Graht
Message no. 13
From: allura@***********.org (Allura)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:22:43 -0400
Wow. So many fundamental changes. I'm thinking there's so many changes that
I really can't make any analysis until I see the entire thing. A few things
do come to mind (of course! <g>):

1. Would "Intuition" be better labeled "Perception", if it's taking
the
place of using Intelligence for spotting/noticing things?

2. I am concerned that the new dice mechanic creates the scenario where you
absolutely can NOT do something, rather then that action being HIGHLY
improbable. That's a paradigm shift, and one of those things where the
rules affect the setting. You can always TRY to make that one in a million
shot, and occasionally you can. That's a concept I really like in SR3.

Pretty much everything else I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude, although
it really sounds like this is a MAJOR change. I'm heartened by seeing that
folks have been working on it "for years". I can play in any system,
frankly, as long as it works; the setting is what interests me, and I'm
eager to see the changes in the timeline advancement. I would be interested,
though, in hearing WHY some of these changes were made - what they fix, etc.


Also, with the major changes, I'd be very interested in adventures. I
realize that they're not the most financially sound product, but I think
they're appropriate to pair with a major revision like this. Besides, I'm
starting to be interested in GMing, but pre-made adventures are about the
level I'm at right now. I can't be the only "new GM" like that, especially
if the point of the revision is to re-energize the game, and attract new
players.

Joanna
Message no. 14
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
> > I would hope that SR4 would be a better newer product that I
> > will want to buy. Right now I am not very convinced, and your
> > above comment is not helping much either.

> You, and others, seem to not want to be convinced. Fine. I've
> said what I wanted to say. I'm done trying to convince you.
>
> --
> -Graht

This is a fairly defensive and dismissive response. Granted, you and
others involved in this new edition have been getting indirectly
blasted since the news broke by critics of the new edition. And your
NDA very strictly limits what you can say in defense of your invested
effort. Is it fair that we can rant ad nauseum and you have to play
mum? Perhaps not. But what has been said is very discouraging to
someone who feels that their investment in Shadowrun is being
marginalized in the name of expanding customer bases. In a time
where most RPGs are in a race to look just like the RPG next door,
most of us I think are proud of the fact that SR was not doing that.
Now it appears to be doing just that. One "boy band" hits it big and
suddenly everything the music industry crams down the throats of
audiences is "boy bands". A "reality" TV show draws audiences in
record numbers, and suddenly the only on TV is more cookie-cutter
produced "reality" shows. This "Madison Avenue" production mentality
is why MTV doesn't play music videos, and radio stations sicken us
with the same 30-song playlists day in and day out. Some
marketeering genius sees where there are dollars being spent, and
starts thinking of ways to make their product look more like the ones
that are selling. There was a time when the money and effort now
spent making all products look alike was instead invested in
diversifying the tastes of target customers. Advertising was the art
of attracting people to how your product was different. Shadowrun
has long appealed to its players/customers becasue of its uniqueness.
A huge portion of that is being sacrificed because someone decided
more customers could be had by plunging a bit deeper into the
mainstream. I think that the negative impact in terms of Shadowrun's
older fanbase is being underestimated. The FAQs, and your reponses
to people's criticism, seem to say very clearly: "It's a different
game." You go so far as to say, basically, 'if you like SR3, keep
playing it, but if you don't, try SR4'. Now, maybe you mean "hey, no
one has to switch if they don't want to". But, it sounds more like,
"we are making an alternate SR version that appeals to all those
people who don't like SR as it is". Speaking as someone who has
played SR since it first hit the stores in '89, that is kind of like
saying, "thanks for your interest, now we are moving on". You
reference the love the playtesters and the developers have for SR. I
don't question it. I wonder, however, if perhaps you underestimated
how much of the existing community'ss love for SR includes its
less-than-mainstream mechanics, quirks and all. If a company lose a
big chunk of the people it ~knew~ bought its books in the hopes of
adding a chunk of people who ~might~ buy its books, that company just
screwed up.

Please understand that we are, most of us, long time fans. Picture
cruising the web site of your favorite musical group, listening to 30
second sound bites and reading vague press reports, avidly wondering
where their new album you just found out about was going. Now
imagine the sound was dramatically different on those songs than on
all your previous albums/cds/etc. And the press blurbs started
talking about how the band was branching out to reach a wider fan
base. And changing things that they felt had kept them from
appealing to certain audiences. And to their older fans... hey, you
can still listen to your old cds. I know a lot of people would be
thinking, 'uh oh its the Metallica black album... there goes my
favorite band'. Its Van Halen without Roth (or Hagar, depending on
how old you are), its Styx's Mr. Roboto, its the Beatles after John
was gone... it just doesn't work.

I don't think anyone means to get personal in this debate. Just
remember, we are on the outside desperately hoping for a peek. And
so far we are getting thrown little tidbits that seem to say, "SR, it
is a-changin'...a lot".

======Korishinzo
--*shrug* sounds foreboding to me






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Message no. 15
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:38:09 -0600
On 4/13/05, Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com> wrote:
> > > I would hope that SR4 would be a better newer product that I
> > > will want to buy. Right now I am not very convinced, and your
> > > above comment is not helping much either.
>
> > You, and others, seem to not want to be convinced. Fine. I've
> > said what I wanted to say. I'm done trying to convince you.
> >
> > --
> > -Graht
>
> This is a fairly defensive and dismissive response.

Absolutely. I fully admit that it's frustrating.

> Granted, you and
> others involved in this new edition have been getting indirectly
> blasted since the news broke by critics of the new edition. And your
> NDA very strictly limits what you can say in defense of your invested
> effort. Is it fair that we can rant ad nauseum and you have to play
> mum? Perhaps not.

What's truely annoying is that everything was fine and happy until
someone leaked part of the rules forcing FanPro to make a statement.
However, due the nature of competitiveness and a variety of other
issues they couldn't make specific statements. Now their rather vague
statements are being misconstrued (except for the rare moment when
someone figured it out 100% but everyone else scoffed at them and
continued to blast misplaced theories on what they thought SR4 was
going to be, and no I won't tell you who/when).

> But what has been said is very discouraging to
> someone who feels that their investment in Shadowrun is being
> marginalized in the name of expanding customer bases.

See, now that I understand and sympathize with.

> In a time
> where most RPGs are in a race to look just like the RPG next door,
> most of us I think are proud of the fact that SR was not doing that.

And all I can say is that based on my playtesting experience, it's not.

> Now it appears to be doing just that. One "boy band" hits it big and
> suddenly everything the music industry crams down the throats of
> audiences is "boy bands".

If that was really the case SRD20 would be hitting the shelves at GenCon.

> Shadowrun
> has long appealed to its players/customers becasue of its uniqueness.

<nod>

> A huge portion of that is being sacrificed because someone decided
> more customers could be had by plunging a bit deeper into the
> mainstream.

Oh trust me, it's still going to be plenty unique. Unique that you
like? I can't guarantee. But definitely unique, and in my opinion
very true to Shadowrun. I would compare it to the differences between
SR1 and SR2, cept that there are a few more differences.

> I think that the negative impact in terms of Shadowrun's
> older fanbase is being underestimated. The FAQs, and your reponses
> to people's criticism, seem to say very clearly: "It's a different
> game." You go so far as to say, basically, 'if you like SR3, keep
> playing it, but if you don't, try SR4'. Now, maybe you mean "hey, no
> one has to switch if they don't want to". But, it sounds more like,
> "we are making an alternate SR version that appeals to all those
> people who don't like SR as it is".

And I admit that I'm completely not getting the message across that I
want to get across.

I've been playing SR since 1989. I enjoyed SR1. I enjoyed SR2
(despite the whole FAB debacle). I enjoy SR3. I'm going to enjoy
SR4.

What I was trying to point out is that the SR3 fanatics (and there are
some, just like there are SR2 fanatics and SR1 fanatics) won't like
SR4. Not because SR4 isn't good (cuz it is) but because they're SR3
fanatics. The problem is that many of the SR3 fanatics don't realize
they're SR3 fanatics.

And truely, no one has to switch if they don't want to. I'm still
playing the original Traveller (circa 1977). I don't begrudge the
other editions, but they're not the Traveller that I want to play. I
wouldn't begrudge anyone who sticks to SR3. All I was trying to say
is that for those players yes it's kind of a bummer that their SR
won't be supported anymore, but geez there are a *lot* of SR3
sourcebooks out, more than enough to keep most players/GMs busy for a
lifetime, IMHO.

> I don't think anyone means to get personal in this debate. Just
> remember, we are on the outside desperately hoping for a peek. And
> so far we are getting thrown little tidbits that seem to say, "SR, it
> is a-changin'...a lot".

God I wish I could give you a solid peek.

All I can say is that I like it. A member of my group who has also
been playing since 1989 likes it. For the two of us the adjustment
was easy and felt natural. Another member who is a GURPS fanatic
likes it (please don't misconstrue that SR4 is anything like GURPS
from that statement, cuz it's not, it's just been able to convert
him). Several members who have never experienced Shadowrun at all
like it. And one member who is a non-PnP-gamer (she playes EQ Online
and City of Heroes) learned it *quickly* and likes it. In short, it's
batting 1000 with the people I game with. And quite frankly I'm
pretty damn surprised and impressed by that.

--
-Graht
Message no. 16
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A.)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:28:15 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
> [mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Ice Heart
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:53 PM
>
> Please understand that we are, most of us, long time fans.
> Picture cruising the web site of your favorite musical group,
> listening to 30 second sound bites and reading vague press
> reports, avidly wondering where their new album you just
> found out about was going. Now imagine the sound was
> dramatically different on those songs than on all your
> previous albums/cds/etc. And the press blurbs started
> talking about how the band was branching out to reach a wider
> fan base. And changing things that they felt had kept them
> from appealing to certain audiences. And to their older
> fans... hey, you can still listen to your old cds. I know a
> lot of people would be thinking, 'uh oh its the Metallica
> black album... there goes my favorite band'. Its Van Halen
> without Roth (or Hagar, depending on how old you are), its
> Styx's Mr. Roboto, its the Beatles after John was gone... it
> just doesn't work.

As a side note, I'd like to weigh in here a little bit and say
that you're sort of comparing apples to oranges. With artistic
projects, the direction that a band or artist or author goes can have
very little to do with their audience. They do what they do because
they have their own artistic vision that htey are trying to keep true
to.
This contrasts strongly with what I feel is going on with SR4.
While we don't have any details, it seems clear to me that the impetus
behind this new edition is to address a lot of the concerns and problems
with the existing rules set (and if you think there aren't any, you're
dreaming - I have a whole passel of house rules that I use to cover what
I feel are flaws or gaps in the game). In some sense this is FanPro's
response to us - we complain about SR3, so they feel that maybe stuff
needs fixing. Yes, they want to appeal to a wider audience at the same
time, but so long as they don't dumb it down too much I don't really
have a problem with that.
What I'm really dreading is the new setting stuff, which is
certain to blow chunks (it's no secret that I've despised the published
SR timeline since about 2056, but I usually just ignore it and contiue
blithely on my merry way).
And for the record, "Metallica" (the actual name of the album
that people refer to as the "black" album) was really really good. It
was a slightly new direction for the band, but it marked some artistic
turning points for them. Contrast the guitar solos you hear in songs on
"Kill 'Em All" with those you hear from songs on "Load" and you'll see
a
marked improvement. Early solos were all about "how many strings can I
hit how fast." They weren't really musical at all, and were basically
all about speed over tonality. Newer bridges are just that - bridges.
They are lyrical, fit with the music, mesh well with the rest of the
ensemble, and transition from one movement of the song to the next very
well. Listen to "The Bleeding of Me" (especially the last half of the
song) a few times for a perfect illustration of this. Overall, that
makes them more interesting from a musical perspective - almost as if
they actually *improved* as musicians over the intervening time
(something that not all bands do). Sure, it may not be as cool to
headbang like a loon to, but in the process it gained a lot of
expressiveness, poignancy, and power.

Marc

P.S. - I still have that CD I picked up for you in Japan. When are you
going to visit me and claim it. ;)
Message no. 17
From: zebulingod@*******.net (Zebulin)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:33:53 -0700
Graht wrote:
> >
> > IMO, I think that they have added a layer of more complexity to the
> > rules than what is in SR3.
>
> Edge replaces Karma Pool. Edge works like Karma Pool. Edge
> is an ability, not something that is based on overall
> experience like Karma Pool is.
>
> Karma Pool is a measure of a character's luck with relation
> to the amount of karma they have accumulated during their
> adventuring career.
>
> Edge is a measure of a character's luck.
>

Actually, I never really considered Karma Pool to be all that closely tied
to luck. I'd tie it more towards experience than luck, so I'm not feeling
really sure about this whole "Edge" thing that players can increase on their
own.

>
> It won't be SR3, that's a given. If you love SR3, then by
> all means keep playing SR3. God knows there are enough
> sourcebooks for SR3 to keep any GM happy for a lifetime ;)
> But SR4 will be good and will work just fine.
>

That remains to be seen when I can get a copy of the rules in my hands for a
day or two. I wonder, and don't take this the wrong way, but I wonder if
I'll be able to return it if I don't like it. The game stores around here
treat gaming books like electronics store treat CDs and DVDs sometimes.

I still reserve my right to hold my opinion until I can read it, though.
These FAQs aren't helping the case any... I'd rather just be surprised.

Zebulin

>From The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord

15. I will never employ any device with a digital countdown. If I find that
such a device is absolutely unavoidable, I will set it to activate when the
counter reaches 117 and the hero is just putting his plan into operation.
Message no. 18
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:24:17 -0600
On 4/13/05, Zebulin <zebulingod@*******.net> wrote:
>
> These FAQs aren't helping the case any... I'd rather just be surprised.

Amen to that.

--
-Graht
Message no. 19
From: pb3209@****.utah.edu (Jamison Cooper-Leavitt)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:34:14 -0600
Graht wrote:

>On 4/13/05, Jamison Cooper-Leavitt <pb3209@****.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>I would hope that SR4 would be a better newer product that I
>>will want to buy. Right now I am not very convinced, and your above
>>comment is not helping much either.
>>
>>
>
>You, and others, seem to not want to be convinced. Fine. I've said
>what I wanted to say. I'm done trying to convince you.
>
>
>
Well! I'll say this. I will hold-off complete judgement of SR4 until I
buy the core book from my local game store. But I do have to say that
some of the changes seem a little hard to swallow for ol'timers. I
guess I am more conservative than I thought when it comes to change. I
will admit that SR3 was not a perfect product and many of the changes in
SR4 sound interesting, but some of them are also quite concerning. Oh
well! I won't bitch about it anymore, at least until the next faq comes
out ;).

And I do promise to buy the SR4 core book when it comes out.

Veracusse
Message no. 20
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:58:49 +0200
According to Allura, on 13-04-2005 22:22 the word on the street was...

> 1. Would "Intuition" be better labeled "Perception", if it's
taking the
> place of using Intelligence for spotting/noticing things?

There are reasons for it being called that -- skills based on it, for
example.

> 2. I am concerned that the new dice mechanic creates the scenario where you
> absolutely can NOT do something, rather then that action being HIGHLY
> improbable. That's a paradigm shift, and one of those things where the
> rules affect the setting. You can always TRY to make that one in a million
> shot, and occasionally you can. That's a concept I really like in SR3.

Those situations already exist in SR3, and did in SR1 and 2 as well.
Think back to my earlier example of casting Invisibility: if you roll 6
successes on your Sorcery test, then _nobody_ with Intelligence 5 or
less will be able to see through it, unless they buy extra dice or
successes with Karma. Assuming their Karma Pool has already run out, it
is 100% impossible for them to see the invisible person.

> Pretty much everything else I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude

Good :)

> Also, with the major changes, I'd be very interested in adventures. I
> realize that they're not the most financially sound product, but I think
> they're appropriate to pair with a major revision like this. Besides, I'm
> starting to be interested in GMing, but pre-made adventures are about the
> level I'm at right now. I can't be the only "new GM" like that, especially
> if the point of the revision is to re-energize the game, and attract new
> players.

IMHO, existing adventures will not be hard to convert to SR4. Rename a
few stats (give NPCs both Intuition and Logic at the same level as their
old Intelligence, for example) and you're most of the way there.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 21
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:05:33 +0200
According to Ice Heart, on 13-04-2005 22:53 the word on the street was...

> I think that the negative impact in terms of Shadowrun's
> older fanbase is being underestimated.

I think part of the "older fanbase" is screaming bloody murder after
seeing the shadows of someone's pocket being picked.

> Please understand that we are, most of us, long time fans. Picture
> cruising the web site of your favorite musical group, listening to 30
> second sound bites and reading vague press reports, avidly wondering
> where their new album you just found out about was going. Now
> imagine the sound was dramatically different on those songs than on
> all your previous albums/cds/etc.

I remember back in 1991 when U2 released The Fly as a single. I thought
"What the hell is this? This doesn't sound like U2 :(" Soon after, I
felt Achtung Baby was their best album, and still do...

Now, something similar may or may not happen with SR4. But I'll wait
until I can see and play the full version before making my mind up about
that. How many times does it have to be suggested that you do the same...?

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 22
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:11:35 +0200
According to Zebulin, on 14-04-2005 03:33 the word on the street was...

> Actually, I never really considered Karma Pool to be all that closely tied
> to luck. I'd tie it more towards experience than luck, so I'm not feeling
> really sure about this whole "Edge" thing that players can increase on
their
> own.

Uhm... isn't increasing attributes a reflection of a PC's experience?

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 23
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:28:56 +0200
On Apr 14, 2005, at 03:33, Zebulin wrote:
>
> I still reserve my right to hold my opinion until I can read it,
> though.
> These FAQs aren't helping the case any... I'd rather just be surprised.
>
Yes, I think the FAQs are harming more than helping. Having
information leaked in dribbles like this seems to me to promote more
problems. I would much prefer to be surprised with the whole thing
once it is available.

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
Message no. 24
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A.)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:36:02 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
> [mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Gurth
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:59 AM
>
> > You can always TRY to make that one in a
> > million shot, and occasionally you can. That's a concept I
> > really like in SR3.
>
> Those situations already exist in SR3, and did in SR1 and 2 as well.
> Think back to my earlier example of casting Invisibility: if
> you roll 6 successes on your Sorcery test, then _nobody_ with
> Intelligence 5 or less will be able to see through it, unless
> they buy extra dice or successes with Karma. Assuming their
> Karma Pool has already run out, it is 100% impossible for
> them to see the invisible person.

Yes, but here's the difference - for Invisibility in SR3 even if
you can't resist it, it's still only a +8 modifier to Perception tests.
So if that same guy with an Intelligence of 5 manages to rack up a 27 on
one of his Perceptions dice, he's going to notice something. A sound, a
smell, a footprint, whatever. He's not *completely* screwed.
Hopefully the Perception rules in SR4 will preserve this "slim
chance" kind of a thing, because I totally agree with Kori - it does
affect the setting. It's a lot easier to create dramatic tension in
your game when your players understand that no matter how good they are,
a lucky NPC's roll might just foil their well-laid plans. It forces
them to think about contingencies and lets the game develop in a dynamic
and unexpected direction.
Example - a guard gets lucky and gets one (and only one)
Perception success on an invisible PC. One success isn't enough to give
him anywhere near complete information, but it does clue him in that
something's not right. He thinks maybe he heard footsteps, but he's not
sure. So he cautiously moves closer to investigate, hand on his
holster. Now the players are forced to make a choice - do they stay
still and hope he doesn't run into an invisible PC, or do they have the
invisible physad knock him silly? And if they take the latter approach,
how are they going to hide the unconscious body? And does the decker
squatting the security host or ELINT rigger monitoring the security
comms know the last time that guard checked in? Suddenly, it feels like
there's a time crunch even if there's not, because something in the plan
has changed. There's tension and excitement and uncertainty, all
because of a remote random chance. It forces the players to think
quickly, adapt, and and use their characters' capabilities to the
fullest - which in my mind is what Shadowrun is all about.
Like I said, I hope SR4 preserves this, because I think it's
important and if not unique to the SR game mechanics then certainly
pretty rare.

Marc
Message no. 25
From: zebulingod@*******.net (Zebulin)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 07:43:50 -0700
Gurth wrote:
>
> According to Zebulin, on 14-04-2005 03:33 the word on the
> street was...
>
> > Actually, I never really considered Karma Pool to be all
> that closely
> > tied to luck. I'd tie it more towards experience than luck,
> so I'm not
> > feeling really sure about this whole "Edge" thing that players can
> > increase on their own.
>
> Uhm... isn't increasing attributes a reflection of a PC's experience?
>

Yes and no. After all, attributes can be increased by gear (cyber and bio,
specifically) so I don't consider them related to experience that much. See,
here's my problem, (and this comes from only having the FAQ as reference, as
the rules have probably already worked this out) if Edge is an attribute,
then it can be raised as an attribute, and if it functions the same as Karma
Pool did, then what player in their right mind wouldn't but this attribute
up as quickly as they flippin' could so they could have all those extra dice
for *everything* else (practically)? Karma Pool seems more moderate. Edge
seems like a Power Gamer's wet dream. Again, though, I don't have the actual
rules, so who knows.

Hence my comment about the FAQs doing more harm than good. [:

Zebulin

>From The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord

15. I will never employ any device with a digital countdown. If I find that
such a device is absolutely unavoidable, I will set it to activate when the
counter reaches 117 and the hero is just putting his plan into operation.
Message no. 26
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:13:23 +0100
At 10:28 AM 4/14/2005, Scott wrote:

>>I still reserve my right to hold my opinion until I can read it, though.
>>These FAQs aren't helping the case any... I'd rather just be surprised.
> Yes, I think the FAQs are harming more than helping. Having
> information leaked in dribbles like this seems to me to promote more
> problems. I would much prefer to be surprised with the whole thing once
> it is available.

The thing that gets me most with the FAQs is how many of the answers seem
to me to be "A Bad Thing".
If I looked at the FAQ and thought "That's an improvement - apart from
those few little niggles I don't like." then I'd probably be a lot more
enthusiastic... The problem is that I'm looking at them and thinking "If
this is just the FAQ how many other changes have they made that I won't like."
When AD&D (and I'm not going to go into D&D3E) moved to the black books I
thought that they'd done a good job - the Players Handbook and DMG hadn't
changed of course but the appearance of the Combat and Tactics, Spells and
Magic and even the High Level Campaigns all added something to the game...
Then I saw the Skills and Powers.
What did Skills and Powers do? Well among other things it split the six
basic stats in half... Never have I seen a supplement so quickly seized
upon by Twinks and Munchkins.
(Why? well among other things Strength became Muscle and Endurance (IIRC)
which meant that the twinks could increase their muscle by decreasing their
endurance - so they couldn't carry as much but they got more bonuses in
combat.)


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? C++(+) US++ P! L E? W++ N o? K? w+ O! M- V? PS+ PE-()
Y PGP? t+@ 5++ X- R+>+++$>* tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e+ h r* y+>+++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 27
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
> I remember back in 1991 when U2 released The Fly as a single. I
> thought "What the hell is this? This doesn't sound like U2 :(" Soon
> after, I felt Achtung Baby was their best album, and still do...

Illustrating my point beautifully. We are all still in the "what the
hell is this...?" stage, waiting for the album release. Maybe SR4
will become our favorite album... but I am skeptical. Mea culpa.

> Now, something similar may or may not happen with SR4. But I'll
> wait until I can see and play the full version before making my
> mind up about that. How many times does it have to be suggested
> that you do the same...?

*mock sigh* Gurth, since when have I ~ever~ quietly stayed on the
sidelines and let something slide? I held out until two and a half
years ago, arguing staunchly for SR2 over SR3. *grin*

If you are watching the development of a potential train wreck, it is
human nature to voice concern, even if you can do nothing to divert
either train... and even if the trains stay on track, avoiding each
other after all. :)

======Korishinzo
--not a train wreck enthusiast



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Message no. 28
From: zebulingod@*******.net (Zebulin)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:26:26 -0700
Lone Eagle wrote:
>
> apart from those few little niggles I don't like." then I'd
> probably be a lot more enthusiastic... The problem is that
> I'm looking at them and thinking "If this is just the FAQ how
> many other changes have they made that I won't like."
>

*nods*

>
> When AD&D (and I'm not going to go into D&D3E) moved to the
> black books I thought that they'd done a good job - the
>

Agreed.

>
> Players Handbook and DMG hadn't changed of course but the
> appearance of the Combat and Tactics, Spells and Magic and
> even the High Level Campaigns all added something to the game...
> Then I saw the Skills and Powers.
>

While I liked S&P due to the profiency point system, I never used the split
stats for your reasons below.

>
> What did Skills and Powers do? Well among other things it
> split the six basic stats in half... Never have I seen a
> supplement so quickly seized upon by Twinks and Munchkins.
> (Why? well among other things Strength became Muscle and
> Endurance (IIRC) which meant that the twinks could increase
> their muscle by decreasing their endurance - so they couldn't
> carry as much but they got more bonuses in
> combat.)
>

Precisely why I didn't use the split attributes rules. And this is exactly
what I thought of when they said they were splitting Intelligence and stuff
in SR4.

Zebulin

>From The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord

15. I will never employ any device with a digital countdown. If I find that
such a device is absolutely unavoidable, I will set it to activate when the
counter reaches 117 and the hero is just putting his plan into operation.
Message no. 29
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 03:07:56 +0200
On Apr 15, 2005, at 02:26, Zebulin wrote:

> Precisely why I didn't use the split attributes rules. And this is
> exactly
> what I thought of when they said they were splitting Intelligence and
> stuff
> in SR4.

SR3 had the exact opposite problem with Intelligence. Most street
samurai (well, most characters, actually) have IQs in the same range as
nuclear physicists just so that they don't fail perception tests (and
have decent combat pool and Reaction, too). I mean, the dumbest
character I've ever had in any of my groups had an Intelligence of 5,
and that was because he was an Ork.
At the other end of the spectrum, you can't create the archetypical
"lost in his world", oblivious but tremendously smart scientist, for
that very same reason.

Therefore, the Intuition/Logic split makes perfect sense to me. I'd
have preferred that they keep the name Intelligence instead of Logic,
though, but I guess that would have been confusing, as Intuition also
abbreviates to Int.

-- Max
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 30
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:48:55 +0200
According to Renouf, Marc A., on 14-04-2005 16:36 the word on the street
was...

> Yes, but here's the difference - for Invisibility in SR3 even if
> you can't resist it, it's still only a +8 modifier to Perception tests.
> So if that same guy with an Intelligence of 5 manages to rack up a 27 on
> one of his Perceptions dice, he's going to notice something. A sound, a
> smell, a footprint, whatever. He's not *completely* screwed.

Okay, so it was not a perfect example :) Try Mask instead -- with n
successes, anyone with (n - 1) Intelligence and no Karma left to spend
will never, ever be able to see the real person.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 31
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:52:07 +0200
According to Zebulin, on 14-04-2005 16:43 the word on the street was...

>>Uhm... isn't increasing attributes a reflection of a PC's experience?
>
> Yes and no. After all, attributes can be increased by gear (cyber and bio,
> specifically) so I don't consider them related to experience that much.

I was thinking of spending karma to increase attributes, not using
implants or magic. Since you earn karma by doing adventures, karma is a
measure of experience, and thus, increasing attributes using it is the
"visible" experience gained by a character.

> what player in their right mind wouldn't but this attribute
> up as quickly as they flippin' could so they could have all those extra dice
> for *everything* else (practically)?

I can't say I can find anything wrong with that reasoning, no...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 32
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:56:59 +0200
According to Ice Heart, on 14-04-2005 21:12 the word on the street was...

> Illustrating my point beautifully.

Then why do you keep arguing? :)

> *mock sigh* Gurth, since when have I ~ever~ quietly stayed on the
> sidelines and let something slide?

I can't say anything about "ever" here, but on this list at least you
sometimes keep going on for a bit too long for it to remain interesting
reading material :)

> If you are watching the development of a potential train wreck, it is
> human nature to voice concern, even if you can do nothing to divert
> either train... and even if the trains stay on track, avoiding each
> other after all. :)

Only thing is that many of the people voicing the concern are telling
the people who are pointing at the signs showing all is safe for the
trains, to stop causing a distraction...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 33
From: scott@**********.com (Scott Harrison)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:33:42 +0200
On Apr 14, 2005, at 16:36, Renouf, Marc A. wrote:
> Example - a guard gets lucky and gets one (and only one)
> Perception success on an invisible PC.
<SNIP>
> Like I said, I hope SR4 preserves this, because I think it's
> important and if not unique to the SR game mechanics then certainly
> pretty rare.
>
One of the greatest aspects of SR is the fact that even in the most
difficult of situations there is a chance for success. Players seem to
really enjoy the fact that they have a chance to live vice -- oops you
are dead. I have seen in a couple of instances the horrible looks on
faces when they realize they do not have enough dice to stage damage
down to a level they need. When a player gives up because something is
impossible it really is not a pleasant sight.

If SR4 makes it so one needs more successes than one has dice more
often than it occurs in SR<4 I imagine I would see more players giving
up. Not having a character have a chance reflects in the players'
moods, etc. This would change the game significantly. We'll see when
SR4 is available.

--
·𐑕𐑒𐑪𐑑
·𐑣𐑺𐑦𐑕𐑩𐑯 Scott
Harrison PGP Key ID: 0x0f0b5b86
Message no. 34
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:13:43 -0600
On 4/14/05, Renouf, Marc A. <marc.renouf@******.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
> > [mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Gurth
> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:59 AM
> >
> > > You can always TRY to make that one in a
> > > million shot, and occasionally you can. That's a concept I
> > > really like in SR3.
>
> Like I said, I hope SR4 preserves this, because I think it's
> important and if not unique to the SR game mechanics then certainly
> pretty rare.

I seem to remember at least one other game which shares this, I just
can't think of it...

Anyway, I agree that it's a valid point.

There are games for which impossible tasks are impossible.

There are games which have impossible skill tests, but success is
always a possibility in combat (D&D for example).

And then there's Shadowrun where you always have a chance.

So lets say you have a system in which you roll a handfull of d6 and
count everyone that comes up a 5 as a success. But there will be
situations where you will need more successes then dice, making
success impossible, but you want there to be a possibility of success.
What would you add to give every success test the possibility of
success?

Right off the bat I thought of making one of the dice lucky. If it
comes up a 6 then you achieve the minimum level of success for the
test. But a 1 in 6 is pretty lucky.

So, how about two lucky dice? If they both come up 6s (come on
boxcars!) then you succeed. That's not as good as D&D's 1 in 20, but
maybe that's a good thing ;) Course, if you are only rolling 1d6 then
you're out of luck :/

Hmm...

How about you *always* roll the "lucky" dice, but they never count
towards successes, only towards auto success. So, if you have 5d6 for
a test, you roll the 5d6, plus 2d6 (hopefully a different color ;) as
the luck dice. Ditto if you only have 1d6.

Okay, what if you have 0d6? Roll 3d6 Lucky Dice. All three have to
come up 6s to succeed.

What if you end up with negative dice? Roll more lucky dice. If
you're at -2d6 you get to roll 5d6 Lucky Dice and all five have to
come up 6s to succeed.

Now for critical failures. If you get two 1s (Aaiiii! Snakeyes!) on
the Lucky Dice you didn't get so lucky. This of course means that if
you are rolling more than 2d6 of Lucky Dice your odds of getting a
critical failure go up significantly.

What happens if you get a critical failure with the Lucky dice but
still succeed with your skill dice? You succeed at the primary task,
but something else goes wrong. In combat you would hit the bad guy,
but maybe the bullet goes through him and injures a bystander. Or
maybe you succeed at making the nuclear bomb but accidently set off
the timer when you solder that last connection ("This is a 30 second
bomb...").

Would that work?

If it doesn't end up in SR4 please feel free to use it as a house rule :)

--
-Graht
Message no. 35
From: efreeman@*****.net (efreeman)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:22:25 -0700
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 1:52am Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Zebulin, on 14-04-2005 16:43 the word on the street
was...

> > what player in their right mind wouldn't but this attribute
> > up as quickly as they flippin' could so they could have all those
extra dice
> > for *everything* else (practically)?
>
> I can't say I can find anything wrong with that reasoning, no...
>

Dice pools have some interesting statistical properties. In particular,
if you think about "what is the chance of pool A doing better than pool
B" then each dice added gives a smaller bonus.

I.E., it is easier to beat 2 dice with 3 dice than to beat 20 dice with
21 dice (even though in each case the difference in expected successes
is 0.33).

This means that dumping all your points into one area actually is
anti-munchkining: each dice you add to that one area contributes less
and less to that overall success rating, especially considering that
more dice cost more karma points.

=í
Message no. 36
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
--- Graht <graht1@*****.com> wrote:
> On 4/14/05, Renouf, Marc A. <marc.renouf@******.com>
> wrote:

[snip interesting idea]

> Would that work?

I suppose it might, but seems a bit too complicated to
me.

As an alternative, consider the Edge attribute.

I'm assuming every PC will have at an edge attribute
of at least 1.

Any Edge dice added to a roll to allow an additional
('free') die to be added to the success test when an
Edge die comes up as a 6.

In addition, any Edge die that comes up as a 1 will
result in a success being substracted from the actual
skill roll. If the total amount of resulting successes
from (defaulted)skill+edge is negative, things will go
bad *EGMG*.

This allows everyone a (marginal) chance at succeeding
at anything, while also balancing the Edge attribute
by making it risky to use.

Another way of balancing could be that you'd need a
number of Edge 1's equal to the skill level you're
using before a critical failure results.

The rule of 1 remains, so any skill checks that come
up all 1's will fail in a manner similar a botched
Edge roll.

I hope I've been sufficiently clear, I'm currently
finding it difficult to put this into words, but
that's probably because I've got to speculate heavily
as to what the actual SR4 mechanics are like.

cheers,

Jan Jaap



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
Message no. 37
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:48:43 -0600
On 4/15/05, Jan Jaap van Poelgeest <jjvanp@*****.com> wrote:
>
> --- Graht <graht1@*****.com> wrote:
> > On 4/14/05, Renouf, Marc A. <marc.renouf@******.com>
> > wrote:
>
> [snip interesting idea]
>
> > Would that work?
>
> I suppose it might, but seems a bit too complicated to
> me.

ROTFLOL.

I'm sorry, and please don't take this the wrong way, but for someone
who's arguing *for* SR3 to say that something is to complicated is,
well, pretty funny to me :)

IMHO it's about as simple as it gets. The 2d6 Luck dice are always
rolled. They're always considered. The only time you have to do a
little math (adding more luck dice) is when your character is
attempting the "impossible".

Seriously, how often does that happen. And, when it does happen it
should be a significant event, which I feel is only heightened when
the player has to start crunching the numbers to see how many Luck
dice he's going to end up rolling. It's no worse than an SR3 Physad
doing everything he can to get every advantageous TN modifier he can
and rolling 18d6 to shoot the wings off of a genetically fly at 1500
meters before it can fly off and breed with other flies, creating a
species of fly that eats poop faster than we can make it forcing them
to switch to kittens as an alternative food source.

> As an alternative, consider the Edge attribute.
>
> I'm assuming every PC will have at an edge attribute
> of at least 1.

I will neither support nor deny that assumption ;)

> Any Edge dice added to a roll to allow an additional
> ('free') die to be added to the success test when an
> Edge die comes up as a 6.

But now you're coming up with something that's counter to SR3. In SR3
the chance is always there. It doesn't have to be purchased. That's
one of the things that's special about it.

> In addition, any Edge die that comes up as a 1 will
> result in a success being substracted from the actual
> skill roll. If the total amount of resulting successes
> from (defaulted)skill+edge is negative, things will go
> bad *EGMG*.

But now you're charging players for the option of hosing their
character. I can tell you right now that that won't fly with 99.9% of
the players out there (though 49.5% of the GMs will like it ;).

> This allows everyone a (marginal) chance at succeeding
> at anything, while also balancing the Edge attribute
> by making it risky to use.
>
> Another way of balancing could be that you'd need a
> number of Edge 1's equal to the skill level you're
> using before a critical failure results.

Now who's getting complicated ;)

> The rule of 1 remains, so any skill checks that come
> up all 1's will fail in a manner similar a botched
> Edge roll.

The Rule of 1 is in mine to :)

> I hope I've been sufficiently clear, I'm currently
> finding it difficult to put this into words, but
> that's probably because I've got to speculate heavily
> as to what the actual SR4 mechanics are like.

Yeah, but we're still open to debate the general practicallity. I'm
also open to debating anything that WizKids has put into print on the
shadowrunrpg.com web site.

--
-Graht
Message no. 38
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A.)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:24:55 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
> [mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Graht
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:14 PM
>
> And then there's Shadowrun where you always have a chance.

Exactly, and that's one of the things I like about it.

[SNIP "lucky dice" idea]
> Would that work?

It would work, but I don't like it as much. It's an arbitrary
addition to the rules, and furthermore then probabilities of a
miraculous "lucky" success are fixed (1 in 36). This is actually
something that I *dislike* about D&D - the fixed 5% chance of critically
succeeding or failing. In my mind, the elegance of Shadowrun is that
the chances of getting a stupidly lucky success go down the more
difficult the task becomes. This makes intuitive sense, because more
difficult tasks are, well, more difficult to get lucky at. It's also
extra dice that you have to roll for every test, extra dice that will
spend most of the time getting ignored. That doesn't strike as
particularlyhelpful to ease of gameplay.
Furthermore, a lot of people make cracks about Shadowrun being a
complicated system, but in reality, it's pretty elegant. Your skill or
ability sets the number of dice that you roll, the difficulty of the
task sets the target number. Yes, it's a two-dimensional difficulty
matrix, but that makes for a much richer cross section of possible
outcomes than simply saying, "here, roll this D20 - if it's higher than
a 14, you hit. Oh, and if you *do* hit, your damage is totally random."
Are there holes and inconsistencies in SR3? Yes. But the
basic, underlying Shadowrun mechanics model a surprising number of
situations, and model them surprisingly well. I hope that SR4 doesn't
lose that elegance, or worse yet add a bunch of kludges on top of the
basic rules to try to capture it (a la D&D).

Marc
Message no. 39
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:03:01 +0000
> Exactly, and that's one of the things I like about it.
>
> [SNIP "lucky dice" idea]
> > Would that work?
>
> It would work, but I don't like it as much. It's an arbitrary
> addition to the rules, and furthermore then probabilities of a
> miraculous "lucky" success are fixed (1 in 36).


The solution that always comes up in my mind (because I've seen it
implemented elsewhere) is using something like the Rule of 6. If you
get a 6 on _any_ die, you get to roll it again. If it comes up as a
success, you add that to your current successes. If it comes up a 6,
you add a success and roll it yet again.

Keep re-rolling all dice that keep coming up with a 6. This means you
always have a chance, however slim, of getting an arbitrarily high
number of successes on any roll.

You know, I've never seen people praising this particular aspect of
SR3 before it looked like it might change. What I usually heard was
that it was too easy for munchkin players to slip by the GM with
characters who could do the impossible with alarming frequency.


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 40
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A.)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:06:17 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
> [mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Bira
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 6:03 PM
>
> You know, I've never seen people praising this particular aspect of
> SR3 before it looked like it might change. What I usually
> heard was that it was too easy for munchkin players to slip
> by the GM with characters who could do the impossible with
> alarming frequency.

I've never had a problem controlling munchkins in any edition of
SR. And I still use SR2-style initiative (which was something that most
GMs found really egregious with munchkin characters).

Marc
Message no. 41
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:17:27 -0400
At 06:06 PM 4/15/2005 -0400, you wrote:

> I've never had a problem controlling munchkins in any edition of
>SR. And I still use SR2-style initiative (which was something that most
>GMs found really egregious with munchkin characters).

How did you do that? My players are inent on doiung everything they can to
increase theirs to the max and I hate doing the same for NPCs.
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 42
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:18:37 -0400
At 12:22 PM 4/15/2005 -0700, you wrote:


>Dice pools have some interesting statistical properties. In particular,
>if you think about "what is the chance of pool A doing better than pool
>B" then each dice added gives a smaller bonus.
>
>I.E., it is easier to beat 2 dice with 3 dice than to beat 20 dice with
>21 dice (even though in each case the difference in expected successes
>is 0.33).
>
>This means that dumping all your points into one area actually is
>anti-munchkining: each dice you add to that one area contributes less
>and less to that overall success rating, especially considering that
>more dice cost more karma points.

What?
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 43
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:29:47 -0600
On 4/15/05, Bira <u.alberton@*****.com> wrote:
> > Exactly, and that's one of the things I like about it.
> >
> > [SNIP "lucky dice" idea]
> > > Would that work?
> >
> > It would work, but I don't like it as much. It's an arbitrary
> > addition to the rules, and furthermore then probabilities of a
> > miraculous "lucky" success are fixed (1 in 36).
>
> The solution that always comes up in my mind (because I've seen it
> implemented elsewhere) is using something like the Rule of 6. If you
> get a 6 on _any_ die, you get to roll it again. If it comes up as a
> success, you add that to your current successes. If it comes up a 6,
> you add a success and roll it yet again.
>
> Keep re-rolling all dice that keep coming up with a 6. This means you
> always have a chance, however slim, of getting an arbitrarily high
> number of successes on any roll.

...yeah, I thought of that one too...

Make an SR3 test vs a 4. The Rule of Six (RoS) has no effect. Ditto
vs a 5 or a 6. The target number reaches 7. Now the RoS kicks in.
However, when it does kick in a character doesn't get any extra
successes. They just have a chance of getting a success on any given
test.

Roll a handfull of d6 vs a fixed TN of 5. The Rule of Six applies
*every* *single* *time*. The more dice you roll, the greater the odds
the Rule of Six is going to kick in. But the ratio for any given dice
is 1:6 (ditto if it rerolls). That's low enough that it will kick in
fairly regularly, but high enough that it can go the other way to.
When it does kick in it grants extra successes, for any test. A lucky
roll can have significant consequence, especially in combat where
extra successes equal life or death. That's great if the player is
the one that gets lucky, but what if the player doesn't roll any
sixes, and four ot of the GMs six dice come up 6, along with a couple
of the rerolls? In short, it makes things *to* variable.

> You know, I've never seen people praising this particular aspect of
> SR3 before it looked like it might change. What I usually heard was
> that it was too easy for munchkin players to slip by the GM with
> characters who could do the impossible with alarming frequency.

Really? I must've missed those. The Rule of Six in SR3 (and 2 and 1)
has never been a problem when I've played. I, like most others,
really like it and would like to see it (or something like it)
continue in SR4.

--
-Graht
Message no. 44
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:19:05 -0600
On 4/15/05, Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net> wrote:
> At 12:22 PM 4/15/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >Dice pools have some interesting statistical properties. In particular,
> >if you think about "what is the chance of pool A doing better than pool
> >B" then each dice added gives a smaller bonus.
> >
> >I.E., it is easier to beat 2 dice with 3 dice than to beat 20 dice with
> >21 dice (even though in each case the difference in expected successes
> >is 0.33).
> >
> >This means that dumping all your points into one area actually is
> >anti-munchkining: each dice you add to that one area contributes less
> >and less to that overall success rating, especially considering that
> >more dice cost more karma points.
>
> What?

You get a diminishing return on your investment.

--
-Graht
Message no. 45
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:18:31 +0000
On 4/15/05, Graht <graht1@*****.com> wrote:
> On 4/15/05, Bira <u.alberton@*****.com> wrote:
> > > Exactly, and that's one of the things I like about it.
> > >
> Make an SR3 test vs a 4. The Rule of Six (RoS) has no effect. Ditto
> vs a 5 or a 6. The target number reaches 7. Now the RoS kicks in.
> However, when it does kick in a character doesn't get any extra
> successes. They just have a chance of getting a success on any given
> test.

If difficulty is based on the number of successes you must achieve
under the new system, it makes sense to give characters a chance of
getting more successes so they can try to accomplish very difficult
tasks.

You can always stop rolling when you get to the required number, tough
I suspect many players like to keep rolling too see how far they can
get even when it isn't necessary (as it happens now on SR30 :) .

> Roll a handfull of d6 vs a fixed TN of 5. The Rule of Six applies
> *every* *single* *time*. The more dice you roll, the greater the odds
> the Rule of Six is going to kick in. But the ratio for any given dice
> is 1:6 (ditto if it rerolls). That's low enough that it will kick in
> fairly regularly, but high enough that it can go the other way to.
> When it does kick in it grants extra successes, for any test. A lucky
> roll can have significant consequence, especially in combat where
> extra successes equal life or death. That's great if the player is
> the one that gets lucky, but what if the player doesn't roll any
> sixes, and four ot of the GMs six dice come up 6, along with a couple
> of the rerolls? In short, it makes things *to* variable.

Well, it keeps another highly-praised "traditional" aspect of
Shadowrun - a punk with a gun can kill a highly experienced runner on
a lucky shot.

When the new World of Darkness system came out (that's where I saw the
other implementation of this rule - about the same, but with d10's),
someone drew up a probability chart listing the chance of getting a
certain number of successes on a certain number of dice. The chance of
getting more successes than you had dice was fairly small, and didn't
grow a lot when you increased the number of dice rolled.

You have a 33% chance of getting a single success on one die, but only
a 5% chance of getting two (33% x 15% = 5%), and a 0,7% chance of
getting three (33% x 15% x 15%). Most of the time, each die will still
give you just a single success (if you succeed at all). I don't think
it's too variable - it gives you the chance of getting a very lucky
roll once in a while, whether you're the GM or the player, but it
isn't a guaranteed overwhelming advantage.


> > You know, I've never seen people praising this particular aspect of
> > SR3 before it looked like it might change. What I usually heard was
> > that it was too easy for munchkin players to slip by the GM with
> > characters who could do the impossible with alarming frequency.
>
> Really? I must've missed those. The Rule of Six in SR3 (and 2 and 1)
> has never been a problem when I've played. I, like most others,
> really like it and would like to see it (or something like it)
> continue in SR4.

I didn't hear much of anything about the rule of 6, specifically,
other than the TN6-7 debacle. The "munchkins" usually resorted to
other tactics, but they were all basically "shortcuts to the
impossible".


--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
Message no. 46
From: efreeman@*****.net (efreeman)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:51:38 -0700
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 3:03pm Bira <u.alberton@*****.com> wrote:
> > Exactly, and that's one of the things I like about it.
> >
> > [SNIP "lucky dice" idea]
> > > Would that work?
> >
> > It would work, but I don't like it as much. It's an
arbitrary
> > addition to the rules, and furthermore then probabilities of a
> > miraculous "lucky" success are fixed (1 in 36).
>
>
> The solution that always comes up in my mind (because I've seen it
> implemented elsewhere) is using something like the Rule of 6. If you
> get a 6 on _any_ die, you get to roll it again. If it comes up as a
> success, you add that to your current successes. If it comes up a 6,
> you add a success and roll it yet again.
>

In SR3, I like a version of this. If the TN is 6 or less, do this. If
the TN is 7 or more, add the extra die tot the total as is normally
done.

One neat thing this does is to make SR7 meaningful; in terms of expected
successes, the jumps 5 -> 6 -> 7 are commensurate.

=í
Message no. 47
From: efreeman@*****.net (efreeman)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:55:41 -0700
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 5:19pm Graht <graht1@*****.com> wrote:
> On 4/15/05, Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net> wrote:
> > At 12:22 PM 4/15/2005 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> > >Dice pools have some interesting statistical properties. In
particular,
> > >if you think about "what is the chance of pool A doing better than
pool
> > >B" then each dice added gives a smaller bonus.
> > >
> > >I.E., it is easier to beat 2 dice with 3 dice than to beat 20 dice
with
> > >21 dice (even though in each case the difference in expected
successes
> > >is 0.33).
> > >
> > >This means that dumping all your points into one area actually is
> > >anti-munchkining: each dice you add to that one area contributes
less
> > >and less to that overall success rating, especially considering
that
> > >more dice cost more karma points.
> >
> > What?
>
> You get a diminishing return on your investment.
>

Right.

I'm glad _somebody_ could make the arguement coherent.

=í
Message no. 48
From: Steve.Garrard@********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:50:03 +0200
Renouf, Marc A. wrote:
> And for the record, "Metallica" (the actual name of the
> album that people refer to as the "black" album) was really
> really good. It was a slightly new direction for the band,
> but it marked some artistic turning points for them.
> Contrast the guitar solos you hear in songs on "Kill 'Em All"
> with those you hear from songs on "Load" and you'll see a
> marked improvement. Early solos were all about "how many
> strings can I hit how fast." They weren't really musical at
> all, and were basically all about speed over tonality. Newer
> bridges are just that - bridges.
> They are lyrical, fit with the music, mesh well with the rest
> of the ensemble, and transition from one movement of the song
> to the next very well. Listen to "The Bleeding of Me"
> (especially the last half of the
> song) a few times for a perfect illustration of this.
> Overall, that makes them more interesting from a musical
> perspective - almost as if they actually *improved* as
> musicians over the intervening time (something that not all
> bands do). Sure, it may not be as cool to headbang like a
> loon to, but in the process it gained a lot of
> expressiveness, poignancy, and power.
>
> Marc

<rant>

*gggnnnnnnnnnnn* ...must...calm...down...

And that, my friend, is not metal.

Anyone who claims that that solos on Kill 'Em All were all about "how
many strings can I hit how fast", and believes the solos on Load (of
Shite) are an IMPROVEMENT is not a true student of heavy metal guitar.
While I respect any artist's inalienable right to make art however they
see fit, Metallica lost millions of lifelong fans with the release of
that coaster (Load, NOT "Black" (easier than typing Metallica Metallica,
which I just did to illustrate that, so...)).

And those of us who held onto that last vestige of hope that they may,
one day, return to their roots, were dealt the final blow with that
abomination of contrived, angst-ridden dischord that is St. Anger.

</rant>

Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon



________________________________________________________________________
This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar
malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan.

DISCLAIMER

This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential
and may contain privileged or copyright information. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Microgen.

If you are not the named or intended recipient of this email you
must not read, use or disseminate the information contained within
it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received
this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete this email from your system.

It is your responsibility to protect your system from viruses and
any other harmful code or device, we try to eliminate them from
emails and attachments, but accept no liability for any which remain.
We may monitor or access any or all emails sent to us.

In the event of technical difficulty with this email, please contact
the sender or it.support@********.co.uk

Microgen Information Management Solutions
http://www.microgen.co.uk
Message no. 49
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
> While I respect any artist's inalienable right to make art however
> they see fit, Metallica lost millions of lifelong fans with the
> release of that coaster (Load, NOT "Black" (easier than typing
> Metallica Metallica, which I just did to illustrate that, so...)).
>
> And those of us who held onto that last vestige of hope that they
> may, one day, return to their roots, were dealt the final blow with
> that abomination of contrived, angst-ridden dischord that is St.
> Anger.

Thank you for illustrating my original point. I was not suggesting
that Metallica's musical direction was good or bad, but that long
time fans felt marginalized in Metallica's shift of artistic
direction. SR4 may be more statistically sound, easier for newbies
to learn, more mechanically streamlined, blah blah blah... but, if it
is no longer Shadowrun to its long time fans, those fans are going to
be unhappy. Furthermore, sweeping changes in the transition from SR3
to SR4 beg the question: How much farther will SR5 diverge? "And
Justice For All" to "Metallica" to "Load" represents a linear
erosion
of all that Metallica was to its fans. Each step away from their
roots, for whatever reason, diluted the essence of what their fans
loved. I see a similar divergence in Shadowrun. If SR4 gets too far
from SR3, then SR5 won't be SR at all. It will be virtually
unrecognizable to people who came to this game and stuck with it for
years. Is this a good or bad thing? That's irrelevant in the long
run. Shadowrun's developers see it as a necessary thing, so the
transition is going to come. Some of SR's current fan's consider it
a worry. This is a mailing list for discussing Shadowrun. Seems
like the natural place to voice those worries. And voice support.
And debate the entire thing. The only posts that really confuse me
are those opposed to anyone posting about SR4. That's like going on
to a Metallica forum and telling people to stop speculating about the
artistic direction Metallica is headed in.

======Korishinzo
--hey, at least we have list traffic again ;)









__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Message no. 50
From: weberm@*******.net (Ubiquitous)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:07:18 -0400
At 11:01 AM 4/13/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>On 4/13/05, Jamison Cooper-Leavitt <pb3209@****.utah.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand this. They say that they are streamlining the rules
>> so that everything works the same no matter what. But now they have
>> gone and invented some new attributes; One attribute that is not really
>> an attribute but a function of the karma pool (as far as I understand
>> the faq). So the question(s) to ask are are there going to be skills
>> linked to the Edge attribute? or will it be a stand alone attribute that
>> works differently than the other ones? Or maybe skills will not be
>> linked to attributes anymore.
>>
>> IMO, I think that they have added a layer of more complexity to the
>> rules than what is in SR3.
>
>Edge replaces Karma Pool. Edge works like Karma Pool. Edge is an
>ability, not something that is based on overall experience like Karma
>Pool is.

So you add Edge dice to every roll, like an attribute's?
--
"Ted, sweetheart...somebody's left a wicker basket with a little baby in it
on our front doorstep."
"Just leave it out there on the stoop, honey. The cats'll get it."
- Red Meat http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
Message no. 51
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: SR4 FAQ part4
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:06:52 -0600
On 4/24/05, Ubiquitous <weberm@*******.net> wrote:
> At 11:01 AM 4/13/2005 -0600, you wrote:
> >On 4/13/05, Jamison Cooper-Leavitt <pb3209@****.utah.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't understand this. They say that they are streamlining the rules
> >> so that everything works the same no matter what. But now they have
> >> gone and invented some new attributes; One attribute that is not really
> >> an attribute but a function of the karma pool (as far as I understand
> >> the faq). So the question(s) to ask are are there going to be skills
> >> linked to the Edge attribute? or will it be a stand alone attribute that
> >> works differently than the other ones? Or maybe skills will not be
> >> linked to attributes anymore.
> >>
> >> IMO, I think that they have added a layer of more complexity to the
> >> rules than what is in SR3.
> >
> >Edge replaces Karma Pool. Edge works like Karma Pool. Edge is an
> >ability, not something that is based on overall experience like Karma
> >Pool is.
>
> So you add Edge dice to every roll, like an attribute's?

No. It works a lot like Karma Pool.

--
-Graht

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about SR4 FAQ part4, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!