Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Shadowrun Thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by LokiRavenSpeak View Post

    Well thats nice and you can consider them whatever you like but thats not how its considered.... by 99% of the people. An adept is a different thing from a mage, and both are different from a mystic adept. And once you choose one you cant "multiclass" on the other.

    If you had to separate them in "classes" it would be: Adept, Mystic adept, Mage, aspected magician, mundane and Technomancer. Thats without counting that practically there mundane breaks into Sammie, Rigger and decker because when you are connected and doing your thing you cant do the other.

    And yes the 3 magic books covers adepts (with their ways), the shaman is just a mage there is no more distinction since 4th between hermetic/shaman more than drain values and finally there is coverage on Alchemy.

    All in all at most you can say that aspected magicians are weak and not worth it which is true but at least they got material they can use. We still waiting for the equivalents of ways and more initiations for technomancers.
    I think some miscommunication happened here on my part. The way i see it, magic, in its entirety is a whole half of the setting. Magic books have to cover a LOT of ground, thus, I'm okay with having multiple ones and some magic-related stuff in other books, like Howling Shadows and Hard Targets. But honestly, Magic got 2 full books (just like in earlier editions) and two 30 pages booklet. That some other books, like Court of Shadows and Book of the Lost and a big chunk of Dark Terrors are also magic-related isn't the same, they are plot and campaign books and yeah, the magic-related stuff is prominent in the metaplot and always was.

    On the other hand, if you're adding together all the books and parts of books, I think mundanes got even more, all in all. It's just not any mundane archetype got as much material as magic, but magic isn't only one archetype, but multiple ones (and all of them got covered by that two book and two booklet) and as mentioned, half of the setting. The best comparison is the Matrix stuff, because that's also quite important and meaningful for multiple archetypes. I understand the frustration that Data trails were not the best and I understand the frustration of the techno-fans not getting anything since the corebook. I do think that CGL should remedy that as soon as possible, because at this point every new book is just oil to the fire. But that doesn't make those books bad. I might add, my particular interest isn't with the Matrix, I never got much into the whole virtual reality tech-geek thing, not in SR and not in Mage, for example. It's just not my thing. However, I can recognize its importance to the setting and why the techno-fans feel neglected.



    Nah that would be Chrome flesh with its infamous internal router augmentation which provides wireless bonus offline "to some augmentations" and they leave it a that.

    Data trails problems is that A) Dont include any technomancer stuff and B) their new table of matrix security response makes no sense.

    I could make a character fresh from chargen and steal Lowfyr black book before his security can do anything.

    C) Their deep dive rules are incredibly meh.
    Don't know, didn't read it so far, as I said, it's not my personal interest. To be honest, part of why I love what they did with the Matrix in 5e(compared to 3e) is because hackers could be useful in the real world. I have null inclination to play an oldschool decker and I never really got the big appeal of Technos, but I'd like to stress, it's just me and my tastes.

    And I don't think our favorite Lofwyr keeps his black book on a host that could be reached from the outside, if even in digital. :P

    Up to a point, and karma/cash pay outs are so small that you gonna have to run for a entire year (IRL) before getting the cash to upgrade reflexes or put a augmentation and upgrade to delta and then buy another to fill the essence hole.
    Back to that later.


    I prefer people expressing their disgust with the company shady deals than just keep praising them no matter what they do. And I started shadowrun between 4th and 5th so the hate mongering doesnt bother me.
    I prefer them doing it in a civilized and mature way. If you read back, no one here praised CGL, really.

    On the other side, tasti man LH had some quite interesting remarks about the changes 4e brought to the table, how it affected the setting. Could you please elaborate on your feelings about the 4e to 5e changes, if you started right there, as someone who didn't know the earlier iterations?
    I personally dole both more but I also dont use 5th edition anymore and convert everything to Genesys. As written payouts are determined by a negotiation roll and the biggest opposing dicepools that the characters encountered in the job and it specifies that the dicepools have to be opposed meaning that if they find a clever way to avoid facing the antagonist they lost the bonus.

    First problem is that is that the PC are deciding on pay out but it depends on the stats of NPCs they face in the future which is jarring and also because it forces them to a murder hobbo tactics, they will wanna prove their specialties (those rolls they got the biggest dicepool) vs those that are also the biggest because when they class they get more money. And looking for out of the box solutions pay less per raw.
    Really need to re-read that stuff... I remembered the calculation took place before the run. Also, really, I think it is mostly for missions, as a thing as this is just too nebulous to write exact rules for it, IMO. At first glance, I didn't have a problem with it, as a very rough guideline for absolutely newbie GMs, but I really need a re-check.

    Also even then Karma/Nuyen rewards are too low because Shadowrun works with the assumption that you gonna play the same campaign for 5+ years so character advancement is slow to a crawl.
    That strengthens my evaluation that it's mostly for Missions, I think. Well, if you want a faster progress, just take a coo from Pathfinder and simply multiple everything (not just the Karma)!
    Last edited by PMárk; 01-10-2018, 10:39 PM.


    If nothing worked, then let's think!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by PMárk View Post

      I think some miscommunication happened here on my part. The way i see it, magic, in its entirety is a whole half of the setting. Magic books have to cover a LOT of ground, thus, I'm okay with having multiple ones and some magic-related stuff in other books, like Howling Shadows and Hard Targets. But honestly, Magic got 2 full books (just like in earlier editions) and two 30 pages booklet. That some other books, like Court of Shadows and Book of the Lost and a big chunk of Dark Terrors are also magic-related isn't the same, they are plot and campaign books and yeah, the magic-related stuff is prominent in the metaplot and always was.

      On the other hand, if you're adding together all the books and parts of books, I think mundanes got even more, all in all. It's just not any mundane archetype got as much material as magic, but magic isn't only one archetype, but multiple ones (and all of them got covered by that two book and two booklet) and as mentioned, half of the setting. The best comparison is the Matrix stuff, because that's also quite important and meaningful for multiple archetypes. I understand the frustration that Data trails were not the best and I understand the frustration of the techno-fans not getting anything since the corebook. I do think that CGL should remedy that as soon as possible, because at this point every new book is just oil to the fire. But that doesn't make those books bad. I might add, my particular interest isn't with the Matrix, I never got much into the whole virtual reality tech-geek thing, not in SR and not in Mage, for example. It's just not my thing. However, I can recognize its importance to the setting and why the techno-fans feel neglected.
      I think you are confusing "mage books" with magic related books. Mage books are books whose contents are mostly PCs option. Forbidden arcana, street Grimoire, the first chapter of Hard targets and Shadowspells are basically that, more toys for mages to play with. Magic related books are books that explore the magical part of the setting: Aetherology, howling shadow, dark Terrors, etc.

      People are complaining how there are more "mage books" than anything else. There 1 books on augmentations and 1 for matrix options.

      To give you one example: In street Grimoire there is rule for upgrading foci in which the player can pay the difference between his actual foci and the new one. But no rule for that in augmentations. Sure its a common houserule but still is yet another issue of non-magical archetypes getting the shaft.


      Originally posted by PMárk View Post
      To be honest, part of why I love what they did with the Matrix in 5e(compared to 3e) is because hackers could be useful in the real world.
      Yeah thats also a lie. The game tries to sell you on bricking but gamewise you will find bricking to be extremely useless because of how long it takes to do it by the time you brick 1 gun the samie kill the guy holding the gun and his probably the 3 guys with him. I appreciate the effort on making the decker useful but.....i doesnt pans out.


      Originally posted by PMárk View Post
      On the other side, tasti man LH had some quite interesting remarks about the changes 4e brought to the table, how it affected the setting. Could you please elaborate on your feelings about the 4e to 5e changes, if you started right there, as someone who didn't know the earlier iterations?
      The main difference from 5th to 4th is that in the latter you started way too powerful, i have heard 4th being called easy mode and i agree, it was crazy some of the stuff you could pull in 4th fresh from chargen. I remember a build that could one-shot a dragon if it go lucky.

      The changes to 5th from 4th:

      Skills: the go 1 to 12 instead of 1 to 6. At first glance it seems to drive the point home that a skills are better in the long run that natural abilities (attributes only go 1 to 6). However it only made the bucket of dice bigger and bigger.

      Armor: They simplify armor which is better IMO no differentiation between ballistic and general armor.

      Matrix: They change the way matrix works completely, is way better. However it has some big holes in it and it has the same problem it plagues 5th edition as a whole *come back to this later*

      Magic: They fix the obvious OP stuff like manabolt of 5th. Not much difference between 4th and 5th.

      Limits: Limits are an idea that they introduce to the game by which your successes are limit by either your physical, social or metal limit (or weapon accuracy). The idea being to reduce the min maxing as the attribute that are most important to those are normally dump stats.

      The idea has merit but ultimately it doesnt work as limits are yet another thing to keep track off (it determines when you get knock out) as the limits once they pass 5 success (most of them) stops being meaningful for most skill rolls and only for contested rolls and attack roll which can be easily bypassed with edge.

      Wireless bonus: to allow for bricking many of the functionality of augmentation was put on wireless to allow them. This make the PC face a choice, gain the bonus but be vulnerable to decker or turn it off and loose it. This was not well receive as many felt the change odd as many functionality of 4th augmentations was suddenly put on this wireless on disadvantage, some of the wireless bonuses makes no sense. And the increased cost of repairing augmentation left a sour taste in many mouths.

      Inferior quality: Basically there is no way to approach this, between poor editing and shady deals. For example: The core book has rules for treading water and swimming as 2 separate things but no rolls for breaking a fall, a mostly urban game doesnt have rules for breaking a fall. Breaking fall is a specialty in a skill but no rules to do it.

      Cover rules are obtuse to say the least and chunky salsa while sound flavorful and fun its a huge dominant strategy on the game.

      The rules are sometimes so obtuse that there is a youtube channel specifically to explain rules of the game.

      https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKo...X-Hr7Kw/videos

      and half the spells have to be re though off because they either have too little or too much drain for what they do.

      Intrusive metaplot: I dont know if its because of the MMOish or because they really were flying on nostalgia fumes but CFD was really intrusive. You got Stolen souls book and boston which fine, if you like the CFD plotpoint is nice to have. But then, you got whole chapters wasted in the augmentation book about dealing yet again with CFD.

      As a plot point is useless even, the idea was as excuse to tone down the nano machines in 4th ed that were a little OP.....but then 5th bring them back.

      *Snowflake problem: As I said the problem that plague shadowrun 5th is a snowflakes on a roof. The system´´s skeleton is very solid but a ton of little things keeps pilling up until the whole thing collapses. You either get a lucky group of player with no assholes in them (a rarity) and all play on the same wavelenght (bigger rarity) so you dont notice all the problems or you fix the small problem as they come or finally you gave up and use the setting on a different system.

      Originally posted by PMárk View Post
      That strengthens my evaluation that it's mostly for Missions, I think. Well, if you want a faster progress, just take a coo from Pathfinder and simply multiple everything (not just the Karma)!
      Not really, missions have the payout at the end of them.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by LokiRavenSpeak View Post

        I think you are confusing "mage books" with magic related books. Mage books are books whose contents are mostly PCs option. Forbidden arcana, street Grimoire, the first chapter of Hard targets and Shadowspells are basically that, more toys for mages to play with. Magic related books are books that explore the magical part of the setting: Aetherology, howling shadow, dark Terrors, etc.
        No, I was speaking about the same thing, no confusion there. The difference is, how you and I are seeing the specific book, because to me, Street Grimoire and Forbidden Arcana aren't "mage" books, as in, as you wrote, giving mages options and nothing else (honestly, only Shadow Spells is like that and even that contains some adept stuff). They are "Magic books in my eyes, because a big chunk of the books aren't just character options for mages, but the fleshing out of the magic part of the setting and supporting multiple archetypes. They are multi-purpose books.

        People are complaining how there are more "mage books" than anything else. There 1 books on augmentations and 1 for matrix options.
        Augmentations, well, I'm still eating myself through the 5e books, but I've already seen them in multiple ones (along with gear and mundane qualities). Matrix, yes, as I said before, they really need to complete the second Matrix book, no argument here. It's just, as I also said, is not making the other books bad. And even then, Dark Terrors has plenty of plot stuff for not-magically related things and Complete Trog isn't about magic at all.

        Really, okay, the least few books (Court of Shadows, Street grimoire 2nd print, Book of the Lost, Forbidden Arcana, Dark Terrors) could give an impression of caring only about the magic side, if I'm glancing sideways. True. But looking at the whole 5e library, it's not like half the books are just magic splatbooks, at all.


        To give you one example: In street Grimoire there is rule for upgrading foci in which the player can pay the difference between his actual foci and the new one. But no rule for that in augmentations. Sure its a common houserule but still is yet another issue of non-magical archetypes getting the shaft.
        I'm not sure it's intentional, or just overlooked? But yeah, I can see the reason for asking for augmentation-upgrading rules.


        Yeah thats also a lie. The game tries to sell you on bricking but gamewise you will find bricking to be extremely useless because of how long it takes to do it by the time you brick 1 gun the samie kill the guy holding the gun and his probably the 3 guys with him. I appreciate the effort on making the decker useful but.....i doesnt pans out.
        I fully admit, I just thought, based on reading the corebook, that it's a lot more fun (to me) than the old Matrix stuff. I don't have any table experience with it, nor did white-room testing. However, the fact on itself, that deckers need to be on the field more and can actually do stuff in meatspace is already an improvement to me.


        The main difference from 5th to 4th is that in the latter you started way too powerful, i have heard 4th being called easy mode and i agree, it was crazy some of the stuff you could pull in 4th fresh from chargen. I remember a build that could one-shot a dragon if it go lucky.
        DDDD Okay, I could see why coming back to the more gritty style could hurt some feelings then.

        The changes to 5th from 4th:

        Skills: the go 1 to 12 instead of 1 to 6. At first glance it seems to drive the point home that a skills are better in the long run that natural abilities (attributes only go 1 to 6). However it only made the bucket of dice bigger and bigger.
        Never understood the "bucketload of dice" complaint about WoD or SR, really. I like dicepool games, I like the probability scale better and dices aren't really a logistical problem. Ok, it could get ridiculous, with 15-20-20+ dices, but honestly, for me, that's part of the charm!

        Armor: They simplify armor which is better IMO no differentiation between ballistic and general armor.
        Yeah, that was something that made sense, from the perspective of simulation, but ended up as unnecessary complication. Same about combat pools and calculating damage, compared to 3e. Honestly, after 3e, 5e was waaay more easy to understand and tight as a ruleset.


        Magic: They fix the obvious OP stuff like manabolt of 5th. Not much difference between 4th and 5th.
        Why was manabolt that strong in 4e? I already answered to tasti man LH above that I think in 5e it is strong, but not bonkers strong.

        Limits: Limits are an idea that they introduce to the game by which your successes are limit by either your physical, social or metal limit (or weapon accuracy). The idea being to reduce the min maxing as the attribute that are most important to those are normally dump stats.

        The idea has merit but ultimately it doesnt work as limits are yet another thing to keep track off (it determines when you get knock out) as the limits once they pass 5 success (most of them) stops being meaningful for most skill rolls and only for contested rolls and attack roll which can be easily bypassed with edge.
        Somewhat agree, in that regard that I understand the intention behind limits and agree with it, the result is somewhat... Okay, it could be better. First, as you said, after a point, it's meaningless, second, it complicates evaluating rolls and third, i don't like derived stats that need to be re-calculated with every change to that stat (I had the same problem with the d20 system too), especially if they have a bit more complicated equation, like Limits.

        Wireless bonus: to allow for bricking many of the functionality of augmentation was put on wireless to allow them. This make the PC face a choice, gain the bonus but be vulnerable to decker or turn it off and loose it. This was not well receive as many felt the change odd as many functionality of 4th augmentations was suddenly put on this wireless on disadvantage, some of the wireless bonuses makes no sense. And the increased cost of repairing augmentation left a sour taste in many mouths.
        Honestly, I like the wireless stuff. The mentioned conundrum is a good thing, IMO.

        Inferior quality: Basically there is no way to approach this, between poor editing and shady deals. For example: The core book has rules for treading water and swimming as 2 separate things but no rolls for breaking a fall, a mostly urban game doesnt have rules for breaking a fall. Breaking fall is a specialty in a skill but no rules to do it.
        Yeah, treading water is a bit redundant, but honestly, I'd be glad, if that would be the biggest problem with a gaming book, one, or two redundant rules! That highlights one of my problems with a lot of the critiques out there, in that, they seem awfully nitpicky sometimes. It's an 500+ pages book, it has some redundancies, no biggie.

        Cover rules are obtuse to say the least
        Didn't have problems with those, the one in D&D, or WoD aren't better, really. I think it's enough.

        and chunky salsa while sound flavorful and fun its a huge dominant strategy on the game.
        You mean the grenade stuff with rebounding shockwaves?

        The rules are sometimes so obtuse that there is a youtube channel specifically to explain rules of the game.

        https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKo...X-Hr7Kw/videos
        Well, there are YT channels out there teaching D&D 5e and WoD as well, though those are far simpler. Also channels Pathfinder. Yeah, SR is a complex game, if you don't like it, there are conversions, alternatives and even anarchy by now.

        and half the spells have to be re though off because they either have too little or too much drain for what they do.
        Dunno, I read the Master Index version and that already integrated the errata.

        Intrusive metaplot: I dont know if its because of the MMOish or because they really were flying on nostalgia fumes but CFD was really intrusive. You got Stolen souls book and boston which fine, if you like the CFD plotpoint is nice to have. But then, you got whole chapters wasted in the augmentation book about dealing yet again with CFD.

        As a plot point is useless even, the idea was as excuse to tone down the nano machines in 4th ed that were a little OP.....but then 5th bring them back.
        Well, I like metaplot, but hey, it's okay to not! But how nostalgia comes into this?

        *Snowflake problem: As I said the problem that plague shadowrun 5th is a snowflakes on a roof. The system´´s skeleton is very solid but a ton of little things keeps pilling up until the whole thing collapses. You either get a lucky group of player with no assholes in them (a rarity) and all play on the same wavelenght (bigger rarity) so you dont notice all the problems or you fix the small problem as they come or finally you gave up and use the setting on a different system.
        Every system could be abused and we could be honest, complex systems, with lots of moving parts and tons of character options are even more prone to it.

        Not really, missions have the payout at the end of them.
        Ah, okay, so it's just for total new GMs. Still, I don't think they're much worse than the similar advice in other games, they're just a very-very rough baseline.


        Aaaaanyway, that was all rules stuff and I appreciate you writing it down! What about how you perceived the changes in overall feeling and fluff?


        If nothing worked, then let's think!

        Comment


        • #34
          Hope i'm not interrupting the conversation but i was wondering if anyone had any experience with the anarchy book.
          I've runned 2 games of shadowrun so far (and played none so far) and me and my players had a bit of a problem with the extend of the rules in the game. (it didnt help that as a 'newb' i allowed both times a player to play technomancer and it was a mess each time).
          The anarchy rulebook is stated as being lighter on the crunch side of things and i wanted to know how it holds up in actual play.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Maitrecorbo View Post
            Hope i'm not interrupting the conversation but i was wondering if anyone had any experience with the anarchy book.
            I've runned 2 games of shadowrun so far (and played none so far) and me and my players had a bit of a problem with the extend of the rules in the game. (it didnt help that as a 'newb' i allowed both times a player to play technomancer and it was a mess each time).
            The anarchy rulebook is stated as being lighter on the crunch side of things and i wanted to know how it holds up in actual play.
            Anarchy is a slimmer version of the same system. I didn’t love it; if you want a lighter ruleset, go check The Sprawl instead.


            Call me Regina or Lex.

            Female pronouns for me, please.

            Comment


            • #36
              On another note: are we anticipating a 6e in the foreseeable future? What i could see:

              - SR got a new edition, approximately every 5 years so far, if we're counting 4e and 20th as separate. 5e will be 5 years old this year.
              - There are problems with 5e, no doubt, it could be even more tight as a system and some redundancies could be cleaned up.
              - However, in general, people have less tolerance with rapid edition and rules changes lately. V20 will be the longest-running Vampire edition, for example and people are saying why V5, V20 just came out yesterday (though that could be a visibility thing too, in that case)! D&D 5e clearly want to be there for a long time and people are quite happy with 3.5 and Pathfinder for a long time now.
              - Anarchy even appealed to the rules-light crowd, so demanding an SR6 with a more "modern" rules-light-narrative system is basically pointless (and I think that there are a rules system for either crowd, was a good decision).
              - There's still a lot of ground to cover with 5e. Like, a LOT.

              So, I think no, we aren't facing up to a new edition anytime soon. I think the trend nowadays in the industry shifted away from the rapid edition changes of the '90s and early 2000's and SR5 is nowhere near halfway complete IMO. Anarchy came to satisfy those gamers who like that type of games better and I think it'd be good to see more SR books written to support both systems. some of them already did and it's really not that big of a deal, IMO.

              However, a 20th edition-style cleanup and revision of 5e? Well, i think that1s likely in the next 2-3 years or so.
              Last edited by PMárk; 01-11-2018, 11:15 PM.


              If nothing worked, then let's think!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by atamajakki View Post

                Anarchy is a slimmer version of the same system. I didn’t love it; if you want a lighter ruleset, go check The Sprawl instead.

                Thx, i'll give it a read.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Maitrecorbo View Post
                  Hope i'm not interrupting the conversation
                  Oh, certainly not, the more, the merrier!

                  but i was wondering if anyone had any experience with the anarchy book.
                  I've runned 2 games of shadowrun so far (and played none so far) and me and my players had a bit of a problem with the extend of the rules in the game. (it didnt help that as a 'newb' i allowed both times a player to play technomancer and it was a mess each time).
                  The anarchy rulebook is stated as being lighter on the crunch side of things and i wanted to know how it holds up in actual play.
                  Well, I didn't read it so far. In general, narrative games aren't really my thing. However, nearly every review I read about it praised it and the general consensus seems to be that it's good stuff. So I think yeah, it worth a try! As I mentioned, some supplements already did the dual-statting, with npcs/critters and player stuff too, i hope that trend will continue. I'd even like to see a revision of the former core supplemets with that. Really, the more avenues people with different preferences could interact with this great setting, the better!

                  Edit: I think I also rad somewhere that it nerfed magic significantly.

                  Edit 2: I also don't think it's just a slimmer version of the core, more like a narrative take on it, using the slimmed-down version of the core as a base.
                  Last edited by PMárk; 01-11-2018, 11:03 PM.


                  If nothing worked, then let's think!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post

                    No, I was speaking about the same thing, no confusion there. The difference is, how you and I are seeing the specific book, because to me, Street Grimoire and Forbidden Arcana aren't "mage" books, as in, as you wrote, giving mages options and nothing else (honestly, only Shadow Spells is like that and even that contains some adept stuff). They are "Magic books in my eyes, because a big chunk of the books aren't just character options for mages, but the fleshing out of the magic part of the setting and supporting multiple archetypes. They are multi-purpose books.
                    Sorry I misspell there it should have read "Awakened books" as in books that contain mostly player options for awakened PCs.


                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    I fully admit, I just thought, based on reading the corebook, that it's a lot more fun (to me) than the old Matrix stuff. I don't have any table experience with it, nor did white-room testing. However, the fact on itself, that deckers need to be on the field more and can actually do stuff in meatspace is already an improvement to me.
                    It would be if it was actually a viable strategy but it is not because of economy of actions.

                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    Never understood the "bucketload of dice" complaint about WoD or SR, really. I like dicepool games, I like the probability scale better and dices aren't really a logistical problem. Ok, it could get ridiculous, with 15-20-20+ dices, but honestly, for me, that's part of the charm!
                    Problem with bucket of dice is what also plague a lot of NWoD. First is boring, when the only viable is more or less dice to an already huge dicepool powers/abilities/merit/qualities stops being meaningful. Is one of the reasons Chrod move away from it and started pushing other knobs in the system like Rote quality or 8s again etc.

                    This specially happens with qualities, you will read a flavorful description for a quality but then find out it just gives you a +2 which when you are rolling 22 dices 24 barely register. It also get incredibly ridiculous when the target number of success is 5 or even 8 and you are throwing 40+ dices.

                    Also its a lot to keep tracks off with tons of +/- 2 just for overinflated dicepools when it could have been scaled down and made simpler and smoother.


                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    Why was manabolt that strong in 4e? I already answered to tasti man LH above that I think in 5e it is strong, but not bonkers strong.
                    I dont remember right now (years since i touched 4th) but i think the gist of it was that direct spells functioned like indirect spells in 5th. So one the damage wasnt only net hits as in 5th but Force + net hits and it ignore armor and was resisted with one attribute.


                    Somewhat agree, in that regard that I understand the intention behind limits and agree with it, the result is somewhat... Okay, it could be better. First, as you said, after a point, it's meaningless, second, it complicates evaluating rolls and third, i don't like derived stats that need to be re-calculated with every change to that stat (I had the same problem with the d20 system too), especially if they have a bit more complicated equation, like Limits.

                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    Honestly, I like the wireless stuff. The mentioned conundrum is a good thing, IMO.
                    The implementation was the problem, the insetting explanation made little sense and if the wireless bonus added even more advantage and it wasnt just the old advantages of those object but now they gotta be vulnerable. Then it would have been better receive. Or repairing rules werent so prohibitive.


                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    Yeah, treading water is a bit redundant, but honestly, I'd be glad, if that would be the biggest problem with a gaming book, one, or two redundant rules! That highlights one of my problems with a lot of the critiques out there, in that, they seem awfully nitpicky sometimes. It's an 500+ pages book, it has some redundancies, no biggie.
                    I think you missunderstand the complain, is not that there is rules for treading water and swimming thats a problem (though it is, very unnecesary) but that then there isnt rules for breaking a fall (like jumping from a roof to another) in a game in which 90% you gonna be more time in a urban environment than anywhere near water.


                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    Didn't have problems with those, the one in D&D, or WoD aren't better, really. I think it's enough.
                    The ones in Chrod are 1000 times better lay out than that mess on SR5.


                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    You mean the grenade stuff with rebounding shockwaves?
                    Yes.

                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    Dunno, I read the Master Index version and that already integrated the errata.
                    The supplement havent been errata-ed yet. The devs, working on their free time barely finished the Core i think by now. We are a long way now from a fully errata game.


                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    Well, I like metaplot, but hey, it's okay to not! But how nostalgia comes into this?
                    CFD and Boston has a similarity to Bug City one of the most famous events in Shadowrun. Incident that quarantine a city and things get wild inside.

                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    Every system could be abused and we could be honest, complex systems, with lots of moving parts and tons of character options are even more prone to it.
                    This is not a "ohh this power is very OP" kind of problem. This is more a "oh there is no rules for breaking a fall .....i guess i gotta make them" or "oh internal router doesnt tell you what augmentation give you wireless bonuss offline, i guess i gotta find them" or "the way the matrix works falls to pieces as soon as you try to find a file......i guess i gotta make my own version of how the matrix works because the game in incredible obtuse about it" or "of aspected magicians are a chargen trap and suck horribly same with technomancers.....i guess i gotta fix that shit too" etc etc etc.


                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    Well, there are YT channels out there teaching D&D 5e and WoD as well, though those are far simpler. Also channels Pathfinder. Yeah, SR is a complex game, if you don't like it, there are conversions, alternatives and even anarchy by now.
                    I like complex systems and i do understand shadowrun and how to run it but to me is a wasted effort at this point. The game is too bog down on tiny bad descisions and its identity problem (that plagues ALL of Shadowrun since 1s) is too much for too little gain. I might check it out if a 6th edition comes out or a hostile take over happens and a better company gets the right to Shadowrun.

                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    Aaaaanyway, that was all rules stuff and I appreciate you writing it down! What about how you perceived the changes in overall feeling and fluff?
                    Fluff wise is okay, some people said there are trying to return to the punk feeling of 2nd but i dont see it personally. The current metaplots are mostly boring to me, CFD sours on how pervasive it was and how it desperately try to push in on readers. The fluff books are meh at best, the megacorp book is inferior to its 4th edition counter part but that one + the mafia books was some of the best supplements of shadowrun describing the whole functioning of the organizations to an incredible level of detail and leaving very little at the imagination of the DM (as it should be).

                    I havent read all the fluff books however, the Trog and Dark terror books i haven touch yet. The feeling of "this is punk" remains elusive to me because as I said before Shadowrun has a identity problem it doesnt know if Shadowrunners are the equivalent of D&D adventurers and so far from normal people that they mostly shadowrun because of the principle of the thing or they are street scum with a gun and a promise.

                    So the whole "punk" feeling in Shadowrun to me it falls flat on its face.

                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    On another note: are we anticipating a 6e in the foreseeable future?
                    - There's still a lot of ground to cover with 5e. Like, a LOT.
                    No so far, catalyst unfortunately have said 5th is still a long way to go. And instead of covering those stuff they are releasing books nobody ask for like Courts of Shadows. Dont get me wrong is not a bad idea to release such a book.....after they covered the basic stuff they keep neglecting.

                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    What i could see:

                    - SR got a new edition, approximately every 5 years so far, if we're counting 4e and 20th as separate. 5e will be 5 years old this year.
                    - There are problems with 5e, no doubt, it could be even more tight as a system and some redundancies could be cleaned up.
                    - However, in general, people have less tolerance with rapid edition and rules changes lately. V20 will be the longest-running Vampire edition, for example and people are saying why V5, V20 just came out yesterday (though that could be a visibility thing too, in that case)! D&D 5e clearly want to be there for a long time and people are quite happy with 3.5 and Pathfinder for a long time now.

                    So, I think no, we aren't facing up to a new edition anytime soon. I think the trend nowadays in the industry shifted away from the rapid edition changes of the '90s and early 2000's and SR5 is nowhere near halfway complete IMO. Anarchy came to satisfy those gamers who like that type of games better and I think it'd be good to see more SR books written to support both systems. some of them already did and it's really not that big of a deal, IMO.

                    However, a 20th edition-style cleanup and revision of 5e? Well, i think that1s likely in the next 2-3 years or so.
                    I would love a 25 edition of shadowrun or 30th (there already a 20th) because as I said, the skeleton of 5th is solid to the point I am slowly converting it play Werewolf in it but that said i doubt we ever see it. Simply put Catalyst doesnt care, time and time again they demonstrate their lack of caring in the state of the game so any new edition would be rushed, with poor playtesting and poor editing. Not because the developers dont care because they do care about the game they are working but Catalyst doesnt and strangles any kind of effort from them.


                    Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                    - Anarchy even appealed to the rules-light crowd, so demanding an SR6 with a more "modern" rules-light-narrative system is basically pointless (and I think that there are a rules system for either crowd, was a good decision).
                    I disagree. It has some success but its any kind of massive success. It has ton of issues (from poor implementation of the narrative mechanics to very VERY poor editing). And at this point nobody is getting what they want. The rules light crowd are getting a very good Shadowrun light game and the Crunch heavy crowd are getting a game with very complex but poorly written and missing mechanics.

                    I read somewhere that one of the reason that D&D 5th won over is that it plays as people remember 3rd/2nd edition was played instead of how it was played. When i think of Shadowrun and what i like i think high action, crazyness and gear porn. Genesys/edge of the empire delivers that to me. And there are way many options now shadowrun brands inst going anywhere. It started full of promises and proceed to no deliver most of them (board game, miniature game, etc)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by LokiRavenSpeak View Post
                      I disagree. It has some success but its any kind of massive success. It has ton of issues (from poor implementation of the narrative mechanics to very VERY poor editing). And at this point nobody is getting what they want. The rules light crowd are getting a very good Shadowrun light game and the Crunch heavy crowd are getting a game with very complex but poorly written and missing mechanics.
                      The other stuff, I don't have the time to answer right now, but I wanted to give a reaction to this.

                      So, I'm not primarily in the target audience of Anarchy. I'm mostly okay with the original core ruleset and I'm really not into narrative games. However, As i gathered from reviews and a quick flip-through, the evaluation of Anarchy really depends on what do you want it to be? What do you expect from it?

                      If you want the traditional SR experience, with its complexity and options, it's not that.

                      If you want a full-on rules-light narrative game, indie style, it's not that either.

                      However, if you want a game, that could convey the feel of the setting, without being heavy on complexity, while adding some narrative stuff to the mix, then the consensus seems to be that it's good for that. Yes, you can look at it as halfway through to both and not satisfying either crowd, but you could also look at it as being good, because of that halfway-through-ness, because there are people, who want exactly that. A Shadowrun lite, with narrative mechanics (that could be ignored, if you want), with enough setting info to start playing, but not overwhelming to casual players.

                      About editing, I can't say anything, I flipped through it, it looked good at first glance. Although I didn't really have problems with the other 5e books either.




                      If nothing worked, then let's think!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                        ​Yes, you can look at it as halfway through to both and not satisfying either crowd, but you could also look at it as being good, because of that halfway-through-ness, because there are people, who want exactly that. A Shadowrun lite, with narrative mechanics (that could be ignored, if you want), with enough setting info to start playing, but not overwhelming to casual players.
                        There is some confusion here, my comment of "nobody getting what they want" was meant in general. As in normal shadowrun for the crunch heavy crowd and Anarchy for the crunch lite crowd. Both not getting the games they want.

                        The idea that demanding SR6 with more rules light rules-light-narrative system is basically pointless because people who wants that have anarchy. To me is a flawed idea because as off right now nobody is getting what they want.

                        Rules-lite crowd are getting a slightly less rules heavy with poorly implemented narrative mechanics in Anarchy.

                        And crunch heavy crowd are getting the poorly edited, poorly ruled and all around poorly maintained 5th edition.

                        Very few people think that the essence of shadowrun is the fact the demolition rules require using square root. And if D&D could borrow successfully narrative elements so can Shadowrun.

                        Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                        However, if you want a game, that could convey the feel of the setting, without being heavy on complexity, while adding some narrative stuff to the mix, then the consensus seems to be that it's good for that.
                        Actually the consensus is that the game works if you ignore the narrative elements because they were obviously tack on at the last minute and poorly explore and tough off.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by LokiRavenSpeak View Post

                          There is some confusion here, my comment of "nobody getting what they want" was meant in general. As in normal shadowrun for the crunch heavy crowd and Anarchy for the crunch lite crowd. Both not getting the games they want.
                          Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification!

                          The idea that demanding SR6 with more rules light rules-light-narrative system is basically pointless because people who wants that have anarchy. To me is a flawed idea because as off right now nobody is getting what they want.
                          So, do you want a rules-light, narrative SR6? Because I honestly don't. Anarchy was the first attempt on that and I'm sure it has problems and I think it deserves a revision after a couple of years, even an expansion, basically an alternative SR core line, while most supplements could be for both systems. All-in-all I think it's the best if both takes on the game exists side-by-side.

                          Rules-lite crowd are getting a slightly less rules heavy with poorly implemented narrative mechanics in Anarchy.
                          Let's face it: I don't expect a SR game going full-on rules-light-narrative-indie style. If someone wants that, there are conversions for that, or alternatives like the Sprawl one atamajakki linked.

                          And crunch heavy crowd are getting the poorly edited, poorly ruled and all around poorly maintained 5th edition.
                          So you're basically saying that basically both games suck? Well, okay, that's an opinion.

                          Very few people think that the essence of shadowrun is the fact the demolition rules require using square root.
                          Although, I do consider a part of the essence a certain kind of detail. Not necessary the core-rules level. I see it as the core being the Pathfinder-kind of D&D equivalent of Shadowrun and Anarchy being the D&D 5e kind.

                          And if D&D could borrow successfully narrative elements so can Shadowrun.
                          Whoooooaaaaaa, just hold on! Now are we living in the same universe? Because last time I checked D&D 5e has inspiration and that's it. Even Edge in the core SR, or Willpower in WoD does a lot more than inspiration, as a proto-narrative mechanic (I don't really see them as narrative stuff, but as a predecessor of it - and I might add, I'm preferring them). It did so waaaaay before D&D even dipped a toe in that pool. You could say that Anarchy's narrative stuff is not integrated enough and slapped on and I can't argue about that. Not because I agree with it, but because I simply didn't read the books so far. Still it's a LOT more than D&D 5e.


                          Actually the consensus is that the game works if you ignore the narrative elements because they were obviously tack on at the last minute and poorly explore and tough off.
                          Maybe in your circles. I'd stress, I'm not an Anarchy fanboy, it's not really my style, nor I'm a CGL one, I see a lot of non-ideal things in their handling of the IP. However, after a really quick search yesterday, I found approximately 10-ish overwhelmingly good reviews of Anarchy, 1 bad one and 1 meh one. I sometimes read in to Anarchy threads here and there. The overall assumption seems to be quite positive to me, so I think it's fair to recommend it, although it's also okay from you to not liking it!


                          If nothing worked, then let's think!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            And some secondary comments:

                            Originally posted by LokiRavenSpeak View Post
                            And crunch heavy crowd are getting the poorly edited, poorly ruled and all around poorly maintained 5th edition.
                            Dunno, I think it's a lot better than 3e and what I gathered here, better, than 4e. Has it's problems? Sure, but I don't think it's the end of the world.

                            CGL's maintenance: yeah, agree on that, sadly.

                            Editing: okay, it's something that always coming up, but what's the big deal? I read a lot of rpg books and for now, 4-5 of the SR 5e books and I didn't found them horrible on the editing site. Have some typo-s here and there, but that's it. I didn't find them worse than OPP's books, or Paizo's books. They are clear to read and I can find a rule relatively easily in them, especially in the pdfs. Sure, some people don't like the mixing of fluff and crunch and would prefer a totally clear separation of the two, but I think I'd written somewhere above that I like it, because honestly, I hate reading pages and pages of dry crunch.


                            If nothing worked, then let's think!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                              So, do you want a rules-light, narrative SR6? Because I honestly don't. Anarchy was the first attempt on that and I'm sure it has problems and I think it deserves a revision after a couple of years, even an expansion, basically an alternative SR core line, while most supplements could be for both systems. All-in-all I think it's the best if both takes on the game exists side-by-side.

                              Let's face it: I don't expect a SR game going full-on rules-light-narrative-indie style. If someone wants that, there are conversions for that, or alternatives like the Sprawl one atamajakki linked.

                              Whoooooaaaaaa, just hold on! Now are we living in the same universe? Because last time I checked D&D 5e has inspiration and that's it. Even Edge in the core SR, or Willpower in WoD does a lot more than inspiration, as a proto-narrative mechanic (I don't really see them as narrative stuff, but as a predecessor of it - and I might add, I'm preferring them). It did so waaaaay before D&D even dipped a toe in that pool. You could say that Anarchy's narrative stuff is not integrated enough and slapped on and I can't argue about that. Not because I agree with it, but because I simply didn't read the books so far. Still it's a LOT more than D&D 5e.
                              I think you have a very narrow definition of what constitutes narrative light rules systems and how they can affect a game. First of all, no I am not advocating for intrusive things like Aspiration in Chrod or similar. But D&D 5th and took a page from rules light system in other ways for example instead of having to put points upon points in skill while the difference between having 14 and 16 in a skill check was neliglible. I just cut the middle man and say "okay you are either are proficient or you arent" and cut the middle man.

                              Examples of things they could improve on. Make NPC generation not the same painstakingly long afair of chargen, considering that the game expect player to mow down big numbers of NPCs. Also make NPCs handling better. Make other variables besides putting more or less dice in already overgrown dice bucket to make the powers feel more interesting.

                              One good example of something Anarchy did right were amps.

                              Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                              So you're basically saying that basically both games suck? Well, okay, that's an opinion.
                              I like the setting and i think there is a solid framework in SR5 but i find it that it just get bog down by steady stream of poor maintenance in the system.


                              Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                              Although, I do consider a part of the essence a certain kind of detail. Not necessary the core-rules level. I see it as the core being the Pathfinder-kind of D&D equivalent of Shadowrun and Anarchy being the D&D 5e kind.
                              Wanna see a example of Shadowrun done better with narrative roots? Check edge of the empire, it got the level of gear porn and item customization like Shadowrun but also a narrative bent, it uses narrative shortcuts to keep the game moving and its still a very crunchy system.

                              Originally posted by PMárk View Post
                              And some secondary comments:
                              Dunno, I think it's a lot better than 3e and what I gathered here, better, than 4e. Has it's problems? Sure, but I don't think it's the end of the world.

                              CGL's maintenance: yeah, agree on that, sadly.

                              Editing: okay, it's something that always coming up, but what's the big deal? I read a lot of rpg books and for now, 4-5 of the SR 5e books and I didn't found them horrible on the editing site. Have some typo-s here and there, but that's it. I didn't find them worse than OPP's books, or Paizo's books. They are clear to read and I can find a rule relatively easily in them, especially in the pdfs. Sure, some people don't like the mixing of fluff and crunch and would prefer a totally clear separation of the two, but I think I'd written somewhere above that I like it, because honestly, I hate reading pages and pages of dry crunch.
                              Well first the bar you are setting is not very high. I am still waiting for the errata in Kinfolk 20th. My book still list a kinfolk power causing " a level of damage" with no clue whatsoever whether is lethal or bashing. Also many of the books stopped having index which is a common complain. Data trail and chrome flash has one worse by no even having a proper table of content just some fancy barely describing titles.

                              At this point I am just hoping for Catalyst to go under or FFG to hostile take over them and gave us Genesy Shadowrun.
                              Last edited by LokiRavenSpeak; 01-13-2018, 12:09 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by LokiRavenSpeak View Post

                                I think you have a very narrow definition of what constitutes narrative light rules systems and how they can affect a game.
                                No, I just had the assumption, that we're speaking about the narrative part of "narrative rules-light". My definition of narrative mechanics is "mechanics that could affect the game, the plot and/or the scene in a way that is not intrinsically the part of character actions". Basically, metagame screen-writing. I'm more a "classical-style roleplaying-game" player, than a "collaborative storytelling" style player.

                                First of all, no I am not advocating for intrusive things like Aspiration in Chrod or similar. But D&D 5th and took a page from rules light system in other ways for example instead of having to put points upon points in skill while the difference between having 14 and 16 in a skill check was neliglible. I just cut the middle man and say "okay you are either are proficient or you arent" and cut the middle man.
                                Ugh, okay, that was one of the worst parts of 4e design for me. I could make peace with 5e, because proficiency is at least scaling and expertise, but it was a tough pill to swallow. Fine, tastes varies, but I don't like the binary approach to skills, I want more granularity than that. Honestly, my favorite version is the WoD/CofD style, it gives enough granularity, while not being ridiculous like SR sometimes. But I'm okay with SR, or for that matter, with percentage systems. So, I don't want SR to go that route, definitely.


                                Examples of things they could improve on. Make NPC generation not the same painstakingly long afair of chargen, considering that the game expect player to mow down big numbers of NPCs. Also make NPCs handling better. Make other variables besides putting more or less dice in already overgrown dice bucket to make the powers feel more interesting.
                                I'm satisfied with the grunt rules. Also, for important npcs, I'm favoring the "same as pcs" approach. To be honest, I found D&D 5e's monsters and npcs quite boring.

                                One good example of something Anarchy did right were amps.
                                I'd rather say it offered an alternative approach, which is also fine and workable, I have nothing against it, but I prefer the core rules. I like when different things are working differently. As you probably discerned from this and my above remarks about skills, I'm really not in the target audience of really rules-light games. I prefer medium-crunch ones, like WoD and I'm okay with crunch-heavy. Rules-light games are just too simplified to me.


                                I like the setting and i think there is a solid framework in SR5 but i find it that it just get bog down by steady stream of poor maintenance in the system.
                                Well, as I said, I see some issues and I could imagine quite a bit of improvement and some simplification but I'm okay with the most part.


                                Wanna see a example of Shadowrun done better with narrative roots? Check edge of the empire, it got the level of gear porn and item customization like Shadowrun but also a narrative bent, it uses narrative shortcuts to keep the game moving and its still a very crunchy system.
                                Someday, someday. Although gear porn is actually not that important to me, at least not that important. I like greater differentation in gears, but not because of itself, but because it adds t the setting and immersion (even some "realism"), to me.


                                Well first the bar you are setting is not very high. I am still waiting for the errata in Kinfolk 20th. My book still list a kinfolk power causing " a level of damage" with no clue whatsoever whether is lethal or bashing.
                                I just pointed out that other companies aren't much better, at least the smaller ones. Ok, WotC and Paizo could afford higher levels and still, hickups slipped in and I didn't found those books that better layered-out, or easier to read, or to find sections in them than the SR 5e books. What I did notice is that some of the SR books had quite a high number of typos, like Street Grimoire, but I think that improved a lot since then.

                                Also many of the books stopped having index which is a common complain. Data trail and chrome flash has one worse by no even having a proper table of content just some fancy barely describing titles.
                                To be honest, I never used indexes that much. In paper I tend to search by titles and in pdf I'm using search by keywords, so indexes aren't a big deal to me.

                                At this point I am just hoping for Catalyst to go under or FFG to hostile take over them and gave us Genesy Shadowrun.
                                I'm not an employee of Catalyst. I don't hate them either. To be fair, I don't care, who is publishing Shadowrun, as long as they're making a decent job. Right now, I'm seeing that Catalyst doesn't give the preferable level of resources and attention to the brand and they also have some shady stuff going, so I wouldn't mind another licensee taking over. However, I do think that the developers and writers are doing a decent job, despite Catalyst's mismanagement and I think it is their merit that the brand is still going on. I see the frictions between some of them and the fanbase and I've seen some bad decisions on their part, yes, but even then, I'd like to see them staying.

                                I definitely don't want a totally not Shadowrun-esque Shadowrun. I'm just not a fan of "burn it all and start anew to the bright new era!!!!!!" mentality. Didn't work with any of my favorite games, actually more the contrary, but it got talked to death in the D&D thread, I have nothing to add to that.

                                Actually, 7th Sea 2e lost me, because of that. I was pretty hyped, when I've seen it'll become a thing, then I got totally disinterested, seeing the rules. It's just not my style and not what I wanted from the game to be. Shame, because I actually like the direction they take with the setting.


                                Last edited by PMárk; 01-13-2018, 10:37 PM.


                                If nothing worked, then let's think!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X