From:	jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject:	SR4 Conversion
Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:28:14 -0700 (PDT)

--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:

> According to Jan Jaap van Poelgeest, on 25-7-05
> 12:30 the word on the
> street was...
>
> > [If what I say is right, Dixons must give Gurth
> money
> > so he can keep up with the SOTA]
>
> Not to keep up with SOTA, but to compensate for
> things becoming cheaper
> over the years :)

Let us take a camera (C1). It is released with a set
of features which we shall call F1. It is offered at
price P1.

After five years another camera is released whose
featureset F2 is more SOTA than the F1 of C1. It is
offered at price P2.

Assuming people are SOTA-pursuing, they will prefer C2
over C1 due to F2 being preferable (more SOTA!) than
F1. Supply & demand market mechanisms then dictate
that P1 be lower than P2.

Dixons has nothing to do with this SOTA-pursuant
preference of people or why the prices are different,
they just try to sell the cameras at a profit. Dixons
is not responsible for the SOTA and therefore does not
have to compensate previous customers for the
development of F2. While you could hold them
responsible for it (they sell the evil things!), you'd
be better off suing the manufacturer if you can
produce a credible case that they held back on
producing a good camera just so the next model would
be more desirable.

Perhaps Dixons was in fact party to this development,
as it'd mean more turnover for them, but I can't
offhandedly remember any cases where retailers got
involved with manufacturers in order to manipulate the
market like that.

What I'm claiming is that it would make sense to have
a "trade-in" (i.e.: get a discount on C2 when you
trade in C1) where PC conversion is concerned just to
keep players who don't want to give up their
characters interested when switching editions.

Since the featureset of a character in SR4 is presumed
to be superior to that of a character in SR3, all
SOTA-loving consumers of SR are supposed to pay the
price of conversion (in money, effort and lost nights
of sleep), least that can be done is to give players a
good reason to retain their SR3 characters that
they've come to know and love.

Since we're actually talking about entirely imaginary
entities here -as opposed to cameras- any imbalances
that a GM might encounter due to an overly beneficial
conversion system can be culled from the PC sheet by
introducing them to SR4's new and exciting
technologies the harsh way.

[more about character conversions]

Let us assume Zig and Zag are both starting characters
with the same equipment and capability to interact
with the game world (i.e.: lift equal amounts of
weight) in respectively SR3 and SR4. Surely Zig should
be the equal of Zag post-conversion?

Therefore step one would be a decent way to convert
raw attributes between editions. Once this is
possible, players can be given the opportunity to
"catch up" by letting them spend any existing funds on
new goodies and getting old ones' removed and sold
(i.e.: "you feel funny as the game mechanics suddenly
shift, here's five years of downtime").

One could consider allowing players the option of
freely trading in any equipment discontinued or
significantly changed in function between editions,
but one can also claim that this is the price of
conversion. I suppose this is especially applicable if
a character concept is broken when converted and the
resultant PC isn't much fun to play anymore.

> There's an easy trick to do that, which I happen to
> have used yesterday
> in my group's Deadlands game: "It's now a few months
> [years in SR4's
> case) later, and you've made some money and spent
> some during your
> travels -- surprisingly, this has left you with
> exactly the same amount
> of money as at the end of last session :)".

I would add: "your old enemies have all gotten better
and now rule the city... a passing yellowjacket takes
a few potshots at you." I suppose I'm saying this
because character progress has always been rather
rapid in the campaigns I've been in and it would seem
odd to presume that characters would suddenly settle
down and not progress in their downtime (not to
mention consume exactly what they produce). I do see
what you mean and how to make such a development
plausible, though... it's only a fantasy world, after
all.

[useless sourcebooks]

I suppose I just need to give myself a chance to catch
up to all the changes that've been taking place rather
than address complaints against a whole RPG setting.
Perhaps then I can start making some sense out of SR
again; as it is I've been feeling rather alienated
from the 6th world.

cheers,

Jan Jaap

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com