Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums > Quarantine > Shadowrun 3rd Revised


Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 13 2005, 11:38 AM
Update: contrary to my own statement, I have begun this project. I will use this space at the top to link to all subthreads in the project. The first post of every thread for the project will link to every other thread for the project.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=8177

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=8620

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=9575

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=9923

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=16813

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=17050

_________________________________________________
The following books are the ones that this project is not considering for its ruleset. Ideas from these books can be considered, and a sufficiently persuasive argument may result in a book entering SR3R canon (or leaving it), but by default nothing in a book listed here that is not introduced in an earlier book exists in SR3R, and no new rules apply from these books.

Liber Non Grata:

Any book for Shadowrun, Fourth Edition

State of the Art: 2064

Shadows of Asia

Shadows of Europe

Loose Alliances

System Failure

Mr. Johnson's Little Black Book
_________________________________________________

Let me open by saying that I am not, at this time, trying to compile a revision to Shadowrun 3rd Edition. It's way the hell too early for that, and there's still a chance (however slim it may seem at times) that I'll fall in love with SR4, that it will be everything I've always wanted and more (or at least an improvement).

That being said: pretend you know nothing about 4th ed. Pretend someone came up to you and said they were doing a 4th edition, and that it was going be more a revision of the current rules than an overhaul. They're just asking you about the rules, not the world in general. What would you tell them you want to see revised, and what if any suggestions would you have for how to revise it to do what you want?

The obvious example that I'll get out of the way now isn't actually in the rules, it's in the organization. It's no secret that I believe that the main weakness of SR3, completely overwhelming anything else, is its complete lack of organization and proper ease of cross-referencing. Lack of indices, rulesets split up amongst widely disparate books and pages� I realized, upon purchasing the first few Shadowrun PDFs, that a big part of my mastery of the rules is not, in fact, the chunks I have memorized (though they help)� no, it's largely due to the fact that my spatial memory is good enough that I can reliably flip to a given section of the book on demand and look a rule up from there instead of having to hunt for the section. I don't think I need to point out that spatial memory should never be a major part of mastering the rules. Ironically enough, this is the flaw in SR3 that is impossible to correct in a fan revision (at least one that doesn't involve a lot of copyright infringement, which I under no circumstances am considering).

Another example is the way they've overpowered Riggers with regard to combat. There are some sections that might need consideration (like the invulnerability/invincibility dichotomy that exists any time you don't have Control Pool to throw at the problem), but the major low-hanging fruit is the fact that Riggers get a free attack pool. That's right, while they use Control Pool for maneuvers and dodging, they can freely use Combat Pool to attack (and nothing else). If strapped for attacks, they can even supplement their Combat Pool with Control Pool. Imagine a streetsam with twenty-three pool dice, even if ten of these are unavailable for dodging or soaking. I have just such a Rigger, legal under the current rules.

So, if, some eight or ten months down the road, I decide that SR4 isn't for me, what would you want to see fixed in a 3rd Revised? There's no need for you to be unsatisfied with what we've seen of SR4 to contribute here, though you may have more incentive to if the releases are worrying rather than calming to you. What's broken? What needs to be streamlined? Specifics, if possible; just saying "deckers" is a lot less helpful than saying "MP costs and the confusing way that Attack programs work", for instance.

Fire away.

~J

Posted by: Papadoc Apr 13 2005, 11:57 AM
Kage hit upon one of the most important thing that should be done, organizing the existing rules in a logical referable manner. However, he is correct unless FanPro/WizKids does it, it will not happen.

Now for some of the things that I believe need to be examined;

1. Decking.
a. Hacking pool should be changed in a manner that places more emphasis on skill than on hardware/software.
b. Possibly have two different yet compatible systems to play/run deckers; one that is more abstract for use with multiple players/types (ie standard runs which include sam's, mages, riggers), and a more complex system when just running the Decker. Note that both systems would need to be internally consistent with each other (ie methods and results should be able to be achieved with either method). The idea is to have mechanism that allows for Decking during a run.

2. Riggers.
a. Force use of Control Pool only while rigging. Meaning no more Control Pool for driving, and Combat Pool for shooting. (This never made much sense anyway). I would suggest that the Control Pool formula be changed to allow for a slightly higher (25%?) increase to "ease the pain" for riggers. smile.gif
b. As per 1b above; find some way to speed up/streamline the system so that it is much more compatible with a multi player/archetype game session.

These are just a few off the top of my head, additional areas for improvement would be firearms (weights, damage, etc.)(well covered by several existing websites).

Just my .02 nuyen.gif worth. YMMV

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 13 2005, 12:04 PM
QUOTE (Papadoc)
2. Riggers.
[�]
b. As per 1b above; find some way to speed up/streamline the system so that it is much more compatible with a multi player/archetype game session.

Would you consider including a dedicated page or two for the charts of TN mods of the various driving actions to accomplish this? If not, would you consider the above chart plus getting rid of the Maneuver Score to accomplish it?

I really need to do some playtesting with the maneuver score. I must admit it's been one of the always-dropped sections of the rules, but it could potentially offer a balancing factor to Riggers that I've been missing.

~J

Posted by: GrinderTheTroll Apr 13 2005, 12:06 PM
QUOTE (Papadoc)
Kage hit upon one of the most important thing that should be done, organizing the existing rules in a logical referable manner.  However, he is correct unless FanPro/WizKids does it, it will not happen.

This is probably my biggest gripe when I need to reference something. Half the spells are in SR3, the rest in MITS. Same for most the other source books as well as FAQ rulings, rule obsolescence from Core -> Expansion (MITS, Matrix, CC, etc). My players and I bitch about the messy crossreferencing.

It's a bold project, but a great idea.

A note to FanPro: You would probably get existing players to purchase this if you did nothing more than to have all the rules in one central book/tomb. Re-brand it "SR Classic" or some garbage.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 13 2005, 12:18 PM
Come to that, a grand index may not be completely out of reach for a fan project. Won't help the layout any, but such is life.

~J

Posted by: Elfie Apr 13 2005, 12:32 PM
QUOTE (Papadoc @ Apr 13 2005, 12:57 PM)
1. Decking.
          a.  Hacking pool should be changed in a manner that places more emphasis on skill than on hardware/software.
          b.  Possibly have two different yet compatible systems to play/run deckers; one that is more abstract for use with multiple players/types (ie standard runs which include sam's, mages, riggers), and a more complex system when just running the Decker.  Note that both systems would need to be internally consistent with each other (ie methods and results should be able to be achieved with either method).  The idea is to have mechanism that allows for Decking during a run.

For (A), there is skill involved, but hardware should be more prevalent. Is it possible to hack whatever supercomputer there is today with a 486? Maybe, but wouldn't it be easier with <instert today's top of the line specs here>? There is a lot of skill involved in matrix combat already, what with maneuvering and non-detection programs, that could help an out-matched decker.

For (B), the process can be very streamlined if the GM decides to ignore all flavor text in the matrix. Team "Get the doors open" Decker rolls to locate door control, then rolls to control it. If he sets off an IC, then that's no different from your B&E character getting spotted by a sec guard with combat ensuing. That's pretty streamlined as opposed to the GM saying something like "When you log in, you get the feeling of being on an Old West-style street, with the Sheriff's office to your left, and a Saloon to your right..." and having the Decker try to figure out where to go to find the security node.

I guess I would say that they need to make Decking more accessible to players. At least in that section they seem to throw every table at you at once. It's not difficult to figure out if you sit down with it, but they present it in such a haphazard way that it's too daunting.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 13 2005, 12:42 PM
I'm going to admit to my prejudices right up front: if and when I undertake this project, one major aspect of it is that I'll be trying to reflect the fact that, in my opinion, a character without Computers should be like a character without Etiquette. Much as I'm not terribly a fan of the neo-WMI and the death of cyberdecks, the possibility that every character might be reasonably able to be at least part-decker without having to go terribly out of his or her way for it definitely excites me.

~J

Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Apr 13 2005, 01:15 PM
QUOTE (Papadoc)
Kage hit upon one of the most important thing that should be done, organizing the existing rules in a logical referable manner.  However, he is correct unless FanPro/WizKids does it, it will not happen.

I'll do you one better. The core book itself is not organized well.

I've spent several man-hours making bookmarks for my SR3 book that go five tiers deep into the book to the smallest heading they have, and what struck me the most tellingly (aside from the fact that I have too much time on my hands, and a remarkable ability to type up labels quickly) was that the chapters are not well-organized.

The worst example of this, by far, is the Matrix chapter itself. It starts off with the egrigious mistake of introducing concepts and terms before defining them (e.g., IC). The subchapter on IC is at the end of the chapter, but the Security subchapter is in the middle-front of the book, and refers to the IC at the end of the chapter. The gear chapter doesn't help anything either because Magical and Matrix gear are described in their own chapters, which is counterintuitive. Were I to want to know what a Focus is and what types there are, I'd read the Magic chapter. If I want to purchase them or a cyberdeck as gear, my natural instinct is to jump to the chapter titled "Street Gear." I also think that some of the subchapters could be better organized, and some headings and subheadings in those subchapters could be organized better or even omitted. My concern of course is that in simplifying concepts one can end up delving into the PowerPoint Bullet School, which gives a person less information (generally. That's why these things are called generalizations.) in less space.

Some subchapters, such as Healing and Damage, should be in the Running the Shadows chapter, and not the Combat chapter. Likewise with any Repair subchapter or heading (e.g., in the Rigging chapter). Beyond the Shadows should just be called Advancement or something to reflect the fact that half of the chapter deals with Karma, and the other half is GM hints. Perhaps split it into two different chapters, and focus on the GM duties and hints in one chapter, and give short rules for all manner of advancement (e.g., initiation) in another chapter. Running the Shadows has no coherent method to its madness, nor do I think that Diseases and Toxins should be in that chapter. They should be sitting right next to Healing and Damage, or Street Gear (since SR3 took all all the good toxins like Seven-7 nerve gas), or in a subchapter of Combat titled, "Gas Attacks."

Oh, did I also mention the fact that the SR3 book overall gives way too much info and space to missiles and rockets? It's almost as bad as Rigger 3's insane amount of space devoted to ships and submarines--because those are such popular and useful vehicles to have (Oh, yeah. I labeled that, too. I labeled all of my SR3 books except SOTA64 and SOE because the cross-referencing and lack of indices were driving me mad).

OTOH, the book does something novel in that they actually enumerate the steps in a combat turn for Combat, Matrix Combat, and Vehicle Combat.

Unfortunately, the Vehicle Combat list contains 8 items, with "6. Characters take actions and resolve results" encompassing all 4 substeps of regular Combat (listed as "3. A-D"). People wonder why no one plays riggers? Aside from having to jump back to the Combat chapter to recall (not a problem for us, but we're all vets. This is a book introducing the game to newbies) those steps so that they don't screw it up, there are 12 steps on has to go through for the first combat turn, and 11 for each subsequent turn.

I'm sitting here counting my labels from back to front, and before I even got to Street Gear, the Seattle & PacNW chapter to the Index have over 50 labels. The entire book probably has a couple hundred labels (I'm sure this is the same in the online PDF. I feel very sorry for Adam's wrists if he had to type them all up) because I went one level deeper than what is listed in the TOC, and several pages have multiple labels on them.

This is wasteful and unnecessary, and hurts my brain (and wrists).

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 13 2005, 01:22 PM
By the end of the Combat section, I counted 211 labels, not counting labels that had disclosure triangles to display other labels (I only counted the labels at the bottom of trees).

Note that that gets us to page 129.

~J

Posted by: Dawnshadow Apr 13 2005, 02:16 PM
Examples or specific situations given when warrented -- not exhaustively however.

1: A retooling of the cyberware -- specifically the communications stuff, and muscle replacements.

2: More organization in the descriptions of each weapon -- just increase the size of the tables and put all the addons a specific weapon has underneath it.

3: Better descriptions of the interactions of various cyberware with normal gameplay.

4: Better encumberance rules. I like the idea, but the implementation is horrid. You can be encumbered naked under the rules, and they aren't entirely consistent -- cyberlimbs don't have a weight attached to them that I can recall, and it doesn't say if they factor in, but bone lacing explicitly DOES and has a weight assigned..

5: Better spell target numbers -- so it's hard to lower a cybernetic monster's (essence 0.5, TN 10, Q6) quickness than the mage's (essence 6, TN 4, Q6)? But it's equally easy to raise them?

6: Better design of spells and elaboration of what area of affect means, what sustained means, and some explanation of why for both.

7: Better explanation of foci and how they work -- so, my ambidextrous knife fighter with a pair of force 6 knives, skill 6 gets how many bonus dice? Well.. either 21 (each focus adds to skill with that hand) or 27 (both foci add to base skill)?

Posted by: Fortune Apr 13 2005, 02:32 PM
Maneuvers for all melee combat, not just unarmed martial arts.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 13 2005, 02:34 PM
So you'd want to see maneuvers for everything rather than maneuvers for nothing?

~J

Posted by: Fortune Apr 13 2005, 02:44 PM
Yep! Of course, some of them might need to be reworked a little.

Posted by: psykotisk_overlegen Apr 13 2005, 02:52 PM
I'd rather see maneuvers for nothing.

Also, rules that are consistent, are all in one book and make sense at least from a balance perspective.

Posted by: BitBasher Apr 13 2005, 03:13 PM
I concur with what others have stated above except for the "decking for everyone" bit. I back this fully and will offer any support I can.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 13 2005, 03:16 PM
Perhaps I misstated: I don't believe that everyone should be a drek-hot decker, but I think that just about everyone should be interacting with computers on an extremely frequent basis and actively using the skill, making the jump into decking that much smaller.

~J

Posted by: BitBasher Apr 13 2005, 03:32 PM
That I can't argue with, which is supported by the flaw "computer illiterate". I think though, like the Car skill, that a person with no skill in computers can still do 99% of their functions, work included just fine. The idiot proof icon based user interface takes care of that. The computer skill is more for the highly technical end of it, which is really not needed by those outside of IT or those of less altruistic motives.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Apr 13 2005, 03:33 PM
As the setting is currently defined, you don't need to know anything about active memory addressing to use e-mail. However, you do need it to properly initiatie security intrusions.
If you want to make the base level of computational knowledge a 3 in computers instead of a 3 in intelligence, go ahead, but at least include a passing comment suggesting 3 more active skill points to everyone. Also, just remove the computer illiterate flaw since basic system usage will be beyond the abilities of a 0 skill PC.
I don't consider this a bad way of changing the numbers, just that you should change all the relevant numbers to stay consistant.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 13 2005, 03:43 PM
In my opinion it should be just as easy to get along without Computers as it is without Etiquette.

However, I'm pretty sure anything we'd be doing to that would be flavor rather than new rules, and as such eminently ignorable.

~J

Posted by: DragginSPADE Apr 13 2005, 04:08 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
In my opinion it should be just as easy to get along without Computers as it is without Etiquette.

Heh. I've seen plenty of players completely skip all social skills when making their character...

Personally I don't have that much of a problem with the organization of the main book, although an useable index would certainly be nice. The main points I'd like to see cleaned up would be rigging and decking.

For rigging: Eliminate the maneuver score. Completely. I still use the basic SR2 vehicle combat rules when I'm absolutely forced to resolve a vehicle combat.

For decking: It's been pointed out on the SR4 boards, but I'd like to repeat that there are way too many utility programs necessary to do anything useful in the matrix. Cut them down to where you have only one or two utilities per system rating of the host, and the matrix would be a lot more appealing to me.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Apr 13 2005, 04:59 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
However, I'm pretty sure anything we'd be doing to that would be flavor rather than new rules, and as such eminently ignorable.

Then my preemptive precautions were unneccessary. Carry on with your contingency, I'm interested to see how it turns out.

Posted by: Cain Apr 13 2005, 05:17 PM
Dump the maneuver score. Work vehicle combat into the personal combat rules, so if there's a mixed vehicle/personnel combat, you're not having to juggle two mutually-exclusive systems at once. Hell, simplify all the rigger rules-- drones, electronic warfare, gunnery, and so on-- into one coherent system compatible with the basic combat rules.

Simplify decking. Reduce the number of utilities to 5-10 or so; one for each of the system ratings, and a few special utilites (Medic, Attack, etc.).

Switch to my initiative system. Let the fast people keep the advantage, while keeping slower players interested in the combat.

Posted by: sapphire_wyvern Apr 13 2005, 09:06 PM
Drop the Sleaze utility entirely, and replace all references to "Detection Factor" with Masking.

Redo vehicle availability so that PCs can start with a civilian chopper or light aircraft (which they can't in SR3) but not highly armoured military mini-tank drones (Steel Lynx drones, which are Availability 2!).

Replace all the tactical pools with a single tactical pool which is applicable to any task resolution (I like it; YMMV).

Replace any use of the Open Test with an opposed skill check versus TN4, possibly with modifiers if absolutely necessary.

I back the integration of vehicle combat with personal combat and dropping of Maneuver Score. And electronic warfare could, perhaps, use the same ruleset as decking? It's all about security intrusion after all.

Get rid of the strange split between Electronics and Electronics B/R. Replace the skills with Communications and Security Systems, each of which covers both legitimate use and hacking, within their area of expertise.

Get rid of any magic spell whose effect is divorced from its Force. In particular, the game needs only one Force-dependant Increases Reflexes spell. Change Invisibility to a Force & success based Concealment spell. The mana based version should work by making creatures "not see" you, even though you look the same; the physical version should result in *actual* modification of your appearance. At lower levels of Force, it would be like Predator cloaking, and at high levels, true Invisibility.

Posted by: Catsnightmare Apr 13 2005, 09:33 PM
I'm already planing my own little reversion of SR3.5 for my own use, I don't plan on using the new 4th edition ruleset period. But I'll retro convert some of the things in there to SR3 for sure.


As many have requested simplified rigging/driving, I think the rules presented in MJLBB are great. I plan on using them with a little bit of tweaking using some things from the BBB.

Not sure about the simplified decking rules there though, may do something hybidized in the meantime.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 13 2005, 11:26 PM
You know what, screw waiting. I've got the time right now, I've got some ideas, and I'm not getting any younger. If August rolls around and I like SR4, well, maybe someone who doesn't will use what I've done. Even if no one does, it'll be that much more practice in making (hopefully) balanced and sensible rules. Thus, I officially launch the SR3R project.

A word on how I'm going to be running this project: while I will be using a lot of input from you folks, and definitely trying to get something that will at least somewhat please most of you, when it comes right down to it I'm staying Benevolent Dictator for Life of this project. Others are, of course, welcome to make their own rules or fork SR3R, but I hope you'll contribute to this project.

Also, I will not be considering new gear for a long time. Sure, maybe there's missing stuff that should be added, but unless new gear is truly necessary to make a ruleset work (for some reason) it'll be addressed only after we've got a large chunk of the rules hammered out.

I will be starting other threads to address specific parts of the system one by one; until a thread is started on a particular topic, use this thread for suggestions on that topic (for instance, if there's a thread on Ranged Combat, use this thread for suggestions for Decking and vehicles/drones. When I start a thread on Decking, add future suggestions to the Decking thread but continue adding Vehicles/Drones suggestions here).

Oddly enough, I feel the low-hanging fruit on this project is none other than the Matrix rules. I'll start a thread on them shortly.

Oh, by the way, I intend to playtest the rules we make extensively. I'll post in the relevant topic threads when we're going to start a trial run in Into the Shadows.

~J

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 13 2005, 11:53 PM
QUOTE (sapphire_wyvern @ Apr 13 2005, 10:06 PM)
Get rid of the strange split between Electronics and Electronics B/R.

It's not that strange when you consider that a huge part of Electronics is Electronic Warfare, which has nothing whatsoever to do with B/R. It'll come into discussion, though.

Edit: and now Adam can laugh at me for breaking my own guideline nyahnyah.gif

~J

Posted by: Fortune Apr 14 2005, 12:08 AM
I actually agree with sapphire wyvern on this, and have been combining the two skills for years.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 14 2005, 12:12 AM
As I said, it'll come into discussion, but it's definitely not a no-brainer. I could be convinced that either it's applicable to both or that there isn't enough of a split to matter.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=8177.

~J

Posted by: Cain Apr 14 2005, 02:08 AM
Almost forgot...

For those of you who aren't familiar with my initiative system, I basically run initiative backwards. That is, the count starts from the lowest action, and goes upwards, so the slowest people are give the opportunity to act first. The faster characters then have the option to "seize the initiative" and act before the slower characters' action is resolved.

Here's an example of how it works in play:
Joe Runner and Sally Sammie are facing off with four corp stooges, whom we will call Larry, Moe, Curly, and Shemp. The combat begins, and they roll the following for initiative:

Joe: 22
Sally: 33
Larry: 11
Moe: 8
Curly: 4
Shemp: 14

Round begins: Gamemaster starts counting up. 1, 2, 3... on 4, Curly goes. He declares his actions will be to draw his hold-out and shoot at Sally. Sally decides that this will probably not hurt, and lets him. Curly does his action, and fails to hurt Sally.

Count continues: 5, 6, 7... on 8, Moe declares that he's going to fire a burst from his SMG at Joe. Joe thinks that could hurt a lot, and so he decides to seize the initiative from Moe, and responds by firing his shotgun. Moe dies, and Joe is safe. His new initiative is 12.

9, 10, 11... Larry, after seeing Joe do all the damage, declares that he will fire a burst at Joe. Once again, Joe decides that will be too painful, and seizes again. He gives Larry a serious wound, and thanks to that, Larry misses. Joe's new initiative is 2.

On 14, Shemp also decides to target Joe. The problem is, Shemp is packing a shotgun as well. Joe can't seize anymore, since his initiative is now lower than the current count. Shemp blasts away, and Joe is wounded.

On 33, Sally goes. She decides to finish off Larry, and down he goes.

New pass: Only two people have actions now, Shemp and Sally. Joe could have had an action, but his wound modifiers drop him out of the fight. Shemp has a 4, and Sally has a 23.

Shemp will go first, and he'll dive for cover. Sally decides that she really doesn't want to have to deal with that, so she seizes and wounds Shemp. He gets under cover, and Sally's new action will be on 13. On 13, she goes again, and gets a good enough shot to kill Shemp.

http://jive.dumpshock.com/thread.jsp?forum=1&thread=6935&message=463174&q=cain+initiative#463174 a link to a discussion of it on the old forums.

Posted by: Snoof Apr 14 2005, 05:22 AM
I'd suggest doing something about the various B/R skills. It just doesn't seem consistent that Electronics B/R can fix anything from a wireless Matrix interface to a morphing licence plate, yet you need two totally different skills to repair a pistol and a shotgun, or a car and a motorbike.

A couple of general purpose Build/Repair skills would probably be the easiest way to do things, balance issues aside.

Snoof

Posted by: Link Apr 14 2005, 07:51 AM
In regards to E-Warfare, I have a half finished set of MIJI/Sensor rules.

The main idea with them is to apply a standard test across all operations. This is like the standard Sensor vs ECM test (an opposed rating vs flux test). Skill dice dice may be added up to the device rating (qv. Cybertechnology). I also dumped the channel condition monitor in favour of a target number modifier like that of ECM modifiers (+1/success).

Anyway I have a word doc with the basics, maybe I can post it.

Further, I like the maneouvre score but it could be simplified. The RBB/SR2 system was abstracted which was good.

Posted by: nezumi Apr 14 2005, 09:01 AM
Better rigger rules (don't even talk about MIJI!)

Better explained decker rules

Perhaps some way to keep mages from outpacing everyone else

A decent explanation of magic, especially invisibility

More realistic numbers for some cyberware:
Cyberlimbs
Headware memory
Headware comm stuff

Oh, and, of course, more 'fun' cyber. I love the CP2020 conversion books, but seriously, a lot of CP stuff is whacked and totally unbalancing. A little more editing by someone I trust on other cyber that's available would be fun.

Posted by: lord_cack Apr 14 2005, 09:09 AM
I am gonna go out on a limb here and mention something that may well bring me a great deal of ridicule.

I think that if a fan project were to be undertaken to "organise" SR3, then I think that a format like Dungeons and Dragons would work great. Just break the rules down into there basic concepts and move them into there own volumes.

I think that the Core book is, though a nice attempt at putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak, is also overwhelming when it comes to the story. So I think that a gazetteer would be better. I know how tight the rules and the story of Shadowrun fit together, but more it is a lot to take in as a new player and a lot of information to flip through when you need to find some rule as a GM.

I mean I don't see the problem with having a Players Handbook with the Core Mechanics, a Gamemasters Guide with the details and ins and outs of the rules, and a gazetteer. Then you could move all the spells and gear into the Players Handbook (without all the GM stuff and Story Details to fill it up it should have plenty of room for a little more gear and spells). Then you can put things like the rules for Initiation (and various extra magic rules), weapon creation (and various other cyber and gear related rules) in the GM's guide. Then use the best Info from New Seattle and Shadows of the United States as the basic gazeteer.

Shadowrun isn't modular. But, that doesn't mean that a revision of SR3 (now that it's pretty clear thats not the "official intentions) couldn't be formatted that way.

And I know that some would say that if the system was released in that format it would cost to much to get the basics, but lets face it...you were gonna buy the books anyway....

Of course once you have all the rules seperated and in order, you can then go about seeing whats wrong, whats not, and how to go about fixing things....

Posted by: Eldritch Apr 14 2005, 11:29 AM
Hey Kage, Should these threads be moved into the 'Community Projects) area? It might make it easier to track them. Maybe you could get the admins to open up your own sub forum within projects - that'd keep all of you eggs in one basket smile.gif

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 14 2005, 11:38 AM
Mm. Community Projects would make more sense, and I considered it, but it would also get a lot less traffic, which I consider fairly important to the goal of coming up with streamlined rules that stick as close to SR3 as possible and are easy for a variety of people to understand and use. The more people offering suggestions, the more potential there will be that a suggestion or combination of suggestions will offer a solution that a smaller number of people might not have come up with, or at least might not have come up with in nearly the same timeframe.

I'll try to organize things such that navigating within the SR3R project is as easy as possible, though.

~J

Posted by: Eldritch Apr 14 2005, 11:41 AM
Yeah, that makes sense.

Maybe put links to the various threads in your sig.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 14 2005, 11:44 AM
Ok, the top of the first post of each SR3R thread is now dedicated to navigation. It will be updated as additional threads are created.

~J

Posted by: Shadow Apr 14 2005, 01:09 PM
Kage there is a big part of SR that needs a rework, and one I was hoping for in SR4. And that is the firearms, armor and Combat.

Don't get me wrong, I love the SR combat system, but to use FP's own words, some stream lining is in order.

The Firearms to, their weights are ridiculously high, they don't have enough ammo and there really is NO reason to carry anything other than a HP (pistol wise).

I would happily undertake this part of it (reworking fire arms and ammo) if you wish. And I would have no problem submitting everything to you for approval and reworking on your say so.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 14 2005, 01:47 PM
Mm. The problem with firearms is that a lot of the modifications there are more geared towards increasing realism rather than balancing or reducing complexity (obviously, there are exceptions). I'll definitely be addressing them, but I'm planning to do Decking and probably Rigging first, as I think those can be gotten through much faster. That being said, feel free to come up with ideas on your own or to post suggestions in this thread, but I won't be opening a Firearms thread until I feel that the Deckers thread has resolved many of the major issues with the system (at earliest).

That said, I could easily see that only taking a few weeks if there's enough analysis of the issues.

~J

Posted by: psykotisk_overlegen Apr 14 2005, 03:31 PM
A legality system that makes sense. Right now you'll need a permit for an AP and another one for your browning max power and another one for your Ares light fire. I mean, you can avoid this by carrying multiples of the same gun, but in most countries a permit to carry a pistol is a permit to carry any pistol. Also, it should be possible to get a permit for anything that are used by others than the military. (i.e. if security corps can carry it on the street, there should be a permit for it)

Posted by: BitBasher Apr 14 2005, 03:52 PM
QUOTE (psykotisk_overlegen @ Apr 14 2005, 02:31 PM)
A legality system that makes sense. Right now you'll need a permit for an AP and another one for your browning max power and another one for your Ares light fire. I mean, you can avoid this by carrying multiples of the same gun, but in most countries a permit to carry a pistol is a permit to carry any pistol. Also, it should be possible to get a permit for anything that are used by others than the military. (i.e. if security corps can carry it on the street, there should be a permit for it)

No, really it isn't. I live in Nevada, one of the more liberal laws realted to carry and in order to carry I have to have on me the blue card for every specific gun I happen to be carrying. For each individual gun I carry concealed I have to pay 25 bucks to have it added to my CCW, specifically by serial number. That's after qualifying for the gun, and waiting a few months. I have to say SR is pretty much right on. Licencing is headed twords more specific, not less specific to boot.

Furthermore, as an individual there's no good reason to have a permit available to carry anything that a security company can carry. You aren't a security company. If you're a licenced bodyguard you'll have a security permit anyway. Even security companies carry lethal force in SR anyway, about half of them are only rated for nonlethal force.

Posted by: Eldritch Apr 14 2005, 03:52 PM
I know I might be jumping the gun with this question, but a I thought I'd throw it out there;

Are there any plans to change thte core char gen rules?

I ask this now, becuase I want to bring up Mackies Char Gen Program. I'd hate to see that resource go to waste, you know?

Changing gear and gear stats is 'simple' enough, just editi the dat files - as long as you don't add any new fields....

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 14 2005, 04:08 PM
Part of my overall goal is to streamline as much as possible while changing as little as possible of the fundaments of the game. While I'm not going to specifically maintain compatibility, I do not at this time foresee meaningful compatibility breaks.

~J

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Apr 14 2005, 07:37 PM
QUOTE (BitBasher)
No, really it isn't. I live in Nevada, one of the more liberal laws realted to carry and in order to carry I have to have on me the blue card for every specific gun I happen to be carrying. For each individual gun I carry concealed I have to pay 25 bucks to have it added to my CCW, specifically by serial number. That's after qualifying for the gun, and waiting a few months. I have to say SR is pretty much right on. Licencing is headed twords more specific, not less specific to boot.

Note, however, that you only have to pay 25 bucks per weapon, rather than 10% of the weapon's cost. IMO almost all permits should only be a nominal fee, rather than the significant price that they are now. The trade-off should be legal rather than economical: the weapon isn't so much more expensive as it is much more easily identified when you have a permit, and more easily traced back to you. You want to register it under a fake name, that's what the price of a fake ID is for, not the permit.

Oh, and knives and clubs shouldn't be flat-out illegal with no permit allowed. Particularly clubs; it makes no sense that you can be arrested for carrying a pool stick around. nyahnyah.gif

Posted by: hahnsoo Apr 15 2005, 02:11 AM
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)
Oh, and knives and clubs shouldn't be flat-out illegal with no permit allowed. Particularly clubs; it makes no sense that you can be arrested for carrying a pool stick around. nyahnyah.gif

Unless you live in the Philippines during the JIS occupation. smile.gif

Posted by: SirBedevere Apr 15 2005, 05:52 AM
QUOTE (nezumi)
More realistic numbers for some cyberware:
Cyberlimbs
Headware memory
Headware comm stuff

Oh, and, of course, more 'fun' cyber.  I love the CP2020 conversion books, but seriously, a lot of CP stuff is whacked and totally unbalancing.  A little more editing by someone I trust on other cyber that's available would be fun.

Absolutely!

Posted by: Jrayjoker Apr 15 2005, 10:38 AM
Integrate all skill tests into one ruleset with as few situational modifiers as reasonably possible. I have enjoyed the trend toward one ruleset for all actions whether they are in the matrix, the meatworld, or a vehicle.

Get rid of the maneuver test in vehicle rigging, force the matrix combat (and skill/utility actions like unlocking doors, changing video feeds, etc) to run on the same initiative as the meatworld, simplify invisibility as mentioned before.

What do you call 100 lawyers in cement shoes at the bottom of a lake?
<{SPOILER}>


I think we have a good start here....

Posted by: Eldritch Apr 15 2005, 11:26 AM
QUOTE
force the matrix combat (and skill/utility actions like unlocking doors, changing video feeds, etc) to run on the same initiative as the meatworld


I don't agree here - would you also want to take away the init. bonus of astral characters? Or their ability to travel at great speeds?

Yeah, it might simplify some things - but it makes more sense that the individuals not shackled by the restrictions of the 'meat' to be able to move faster.

Posted by: Jrayjoker Apr 15 2005, 11:36 AM
No, unimpeded movement is still as fast as ever. My intention is to sync up matrix combat with real life timeframes. Their initiative can be as fast as they can roll, but the timing is based on standard rounds. Sure, the GM has to work in 2 (or 3 if they are doing astral too) settings simultaneously, but that can be integrated.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 15 2005, 11:55 AM
The timing is already based on standard three-second rounds.

~J

Posted by: Jrayjoker Apr 15 2005, 01:02 PM
For system tests as well as combat?

I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that the system tests were at the superfast rate and only combat was based on the 3 second round.

Posted by: The Question Apr 15 2005, 01:05 PM
If your planning on keeping all of the games background information (Which Im assuming you would, who would want to change it???) perhaps you could include some sort of primer on Earthdawn links somewhere, as making sense of it all can sometimes be a little confusing for novices such as myself!!!

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 15 2005, 01:08 PM
Nope. I mean, there's an initiative kick (so Deckers will almost always have more passes than their comparably-equipped meatfellows), but other than that things work on the same pass system within the three-second turn. Because of Hacking Pool, non-combat, non-highly-rushed actions tend to occur more like once every three seconds.

The Question: That's what we have http://ancientfiles.dumpshock.com/ for biggrin.gif

~J

Posted by: Papadoc Apr 15 2005, 06:05 PM
QUOTE (BitBasher)
QUOTE (psykotisk_overlegen @ Apr 14 2005, 02:31 PM)
A legality system that makes sense. Right now you'll need a permit for an AP and another one for your browning max power and another one for your Ares light fire. I mean, you can avoid this by carrying multiples of the same gun, but in most countries a permit to carry a pistol is a permit to carry any pistol. Also, it should be possible to get a permit for anything that are used by others than the military. (i.e. if security corps can carry it on the street, there should be a permit for it)

No, really it isn't. I live in Nevada, one of the more liberal laws realted to carry and in order to carry I have to have on me the blue card for every specific gun I happen to be carrying. For each individual gun I carry concealed I have to pay 25 bucks to have it added to my CCW, specifically by serial number. That's after qualifying for the gun, and waiting a few months. I have to say SR is pretty much right on. Licencing is headed twords more specific, not less specific to boot.

Furthermore, as an individual there's no good reason to have a permit available to carry anything that a security company can carry. You aren't a security company. If you're a licenced bodyguard you'll have a security permit anyway. Even security companies carry lethal force in SR anyway, about half of them are only rated for nonlethal force.

Hate to break it to you, but here in Missouri we are issued a CCW, (after taking a CCW class tought by a certified instructor and passing a criminal background check), which is a "endorsement" on our drivers license. This is good for ANY concealed weapon we wish to carry. And in our private vehicles we can carry loaded and concealed any weapon we so choose, without any permit (other than any that are required by law i.e. Class-3 full auto), and this at age 21 to boot.

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Apr 16 2005, 09:20 PM
Reposted from another discussion; thought it might have relevance here:


As for too much cyber at chargen issue, I'd be perfectly fine ditching the million and 650k nuyen.gif options at chargen. In fact I'd go further, stretching the resource priorities into:

-5pts = 500Y
0pts = 5000Y
5pts = 20,000Y
10pts = 65,000Y
15pts = 125,000Y
20pts = 250,000Y
25pts = 400,000Y

or maybe even more, making 400kY the 30-pt option:

-5pts = 500Y
0pts = 5000Y
5pts = 20,000Y
10pts = 50,000Y
15pts = 90,000Y
20pts = 150,000Y
25pts = 250,000Y
30pts = 400,000Y

The changed resource limit would work just fine provided thus:

1) Make it so deckers don't have to pay so damn much for their programs (currently the decker is the main reason for the million nuyen option anyway).
2) Try not to let riggers get too screwed by it.
3) Cyberlimbs (Edit: and maybe a few other selected bits of 'ware) get lowered in cost, possibly just cutting their base price to a fifth or a tenth of what it is right now.
4) Surgery rules aren't *as* horrifically difficult and prone to failure post-chargen. In particular the "Essence hole" option should be automatic rather than a positive option.

The problem with doing this is that it means that sams start right out of chargen muc weaker than they are now, and the power disparity between mage and sam will become obvious much earlier (say the 150-200 karma mark instead of 350+).

Posted by: Eldritch Apr 17 2005, 01:53 PM
I don't know if I like that one - I don't have a problem with char gen - or too much cyber at char gen.


I think I'd just leave the char gen rules alone, and offer some options for different campaign levels.

I like having a charcter that is in the middle of their career. I'm quite tired of playing '1st level' characters.

As was mentioned in anoyther discussion, I think that is one of SR's draws. Characters that are capable of doing 'great things'.

And if you do limit the nuyen, there by limiting beginning cyber, then what about the magic chars? Limit those as well?

No, I'd rather see the chargen rules stay as is.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 17 2005, 04:05 PM
Eyeless: I looked around and couldn't find that discussion, what problem is that supposed to fix?

~J

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Apr 18 2005, 12:04 AM
The problem people seem to be objecting to is that the mllion nuyen option makes characters--sams in particular, but also riggers--too powerful at chargen. I can *kinda* see where this is coming from, and now that you're streamlining the Matrix rules and getting rid of a lot of the operational utilities the main reason for the million nuyen option (so the decker doesn't get screwed) goes away. Note that this doesn't mean that starting characters get that much weaker; all it does is keep sams and riggers from being too incredibly powerful right out of the gate.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 18 2005, 12:11 AM
While I don't like the sound of it right now, I'll put it on the list for discussion. I personally think it makes the most sense to do chargen changes, if any, last so that they can be balanced against a final ruleset rather than one that's subject to change.

~J

Posted by: The_Eyes Apr 18 2005, 12:44 AM
[dammit; wrong nick again]

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Apr 18 2005, 12:45 AM
Actually I think it might be a good idea to resolve the issue of the level of resources at chargen right now. For instance, if we did this then we wouldn't have to mess with the multipliers on the programs in the Decker thread; since the average wealth level is decreasing you can decrese the amount of cash the decker needs to spend on programs to compensate.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 18 2005, 12:46 AM
Accounts, man, accounts.

I disagree that a million nuyen makes streetsams too powerful at chargen. Riggers you've got an argument, but they're massively overpowered anyway.

~J

Posted by: Dawnshadow Apr 18 2005, 08:13 AM
A million nuyen is a lot for a starting Sam, unless they're getting massive amounts of alphaware.. 400k is more than I use on one when I create them. Means I tend to have a lot of toys as well as a lifestyle bought for several months. I wouldn't know what to do with a million nuyen. Wouldn't know if it's overpowered either. Only time I've seen a million nuyen street sam, he was a bit of a moron, so we cut him up and sold him. Didn't seem too tough...

That being said, I kindof like the option.. given enough time to create the character, you can play the rich punk with more alphaware stuffed in him then sense, all plugged in out of teenage rebellion because it's 'cool'..

Posted by: wagnern Apr 18 2005, 03:11 PM
also, a million allows some broadness in charictors. If you are in a small party and you dont' want to have to farm out too much stuff, with a million new yen you can have one Sam buy a decent car with some upgrades, while another might aford a ok deck and some programs, neather can cope with a full rigger or decker, but they can help cover the bases for a small team.

Posted by: Catsnightmare Apr 18 2005, 07:46 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Accounts, man, accounts.

I disagree that a million nuyen makes streetsams too powerful at chargen. Riggers you've got an argument, but they're massively overpowered anyway.

~J

And they can get massively unpowered real fast as well.
Try replacing those lost drones or vehicles after character creation.

My only rigger char incurred net loss of over 500,000 nuyen (two drones and the helo we flew in on) in a single run that only payed out 25,000 divided among the whole team of six.

Posted by: Link Apr 18 2005, 09:22 PM
25000/6 = 4166 which would barely pay the monthly insurance premiums. Your rigger does have insurance right?

While we're on it, if a PC can get health insurance (such as DocWagon, who'll come into a warzone on the right plan) why couldn't a character get vehicle insurance for such instances?

Back on topic: When does SR3R - Rigger Reflux start?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 18 2005, 09:28 PM
I'm hoping to get back into the swing of things with the Matrix and have a lot of major issues sorted by the end of the week, end of next week at the latest. After that I intend to move on to Rigging, though there was a motion above to get into Ranged Combat. Rigging is still the most likely second place, though people are free to chime in with their preferred next directions (and, as always, to continue offering suggestions for unopened sections here).

~J

Posted by: mmu1 Apr 18 2005, 10:07 PM
Things I'd like to see changed, off the top of my head:

1. Vehicular armor and drones - there's got to be a better way than the current, binary "immune to weapons so you might as well spit on it / can actually be hurt, so it's dead meat because of very low Body" system.

1a. Revise the costs of repairing damaged or disabled drones, so riggers don't go broke because of lost drones, or protect their drones at all costs even if it means more risk for the other flesh and blood team members.

2. Immunity to Normal Weapons - same problem with binary outcomes as in point #1.

3. Problems with the current initiative system and melee combat - namely, the issue with people effectively getting punished for having multiple actions if they go up against someone more skilled than they are.

4. At the very least, a look at the way combat skills have either been split up and grouped, with an eye for something that makes more sense. Not a comeback to SR2 and a 'Firearms" skill, but something that makes more sense than assault rifles and rifles being different skills, and harpoons and claymores both falling under "Polearms".

5. A revision of all chemical and poison-based weapons, to make sure that being hit with pepper spray is not a lot more debilitating than being shot twice with a large-caliber handgun. (also, clear and reasonable rules on how armor affects chemical delivery systems like the narcojet)

6. Improvement (or removal of) called shot rules, since the current ones make no sense.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 18 2005, 10:17 PM
Oh hell yeah. Called shot for anything other than special effect is gone.

Regarding 1a, sorry embarrassed.gif

~J

Posted by: mmu1 Apr 18 2005, 10:26 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Oh hell yeah. Called shot for anything other than special effect is gone.

Regarding 1a, sorry embarrassed.gif

~J

I don't think I can remember Alex every doing that sort of thing - or not to any significant extent, anyway. I was mainly going by instances I remember reading about on the boards, but it seems you have a guilty conscience... wink.gif

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 18 2005, 10:50 PM
Well, I was specifically thinking about when we were at that tunnel intersection and the zombies lobbed a grenade our way, and my Strato raped physics in its hasty exit�

~J

Posted by: Shockwave_IIc Apr 19 2005, 12:14 AM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
And and my Strato raped physics in its hasty exit�

~J

And thats why i'm backing Riggers for the next disscusion

Posted by: mmu1 Apr 19 2005, 06:07 AM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Well, I was specifically thinking about when we were at that tunnel intersection and the zombies lobbed a grenade our way, and my Strato raped physics in its hasty exit�

~J

I guess, but it's not like it'd have made my guy any safer if you did stay in the blast radius, and you were still able to fire on them.

Posted by: hahnsoo Apr 19 2005, 07:04 AM
I disagree when it comes to changing either point-values or priorities for character generation. Remember, this is a revision, not an overhaul. Changing things to be more streamlined is one thing, but changing character generation invalidates current SR3 books, and that's not the goal here (at least, I don't think it is). Adding the rules from MJLBB for high-powered and low-powered campaigns to the current character generation schemes should be reasonable enough.

I'm sure we'll discuss riggers and hardened/vehicular armor in another thread coming up. My thought is that there should be at least one additional method to harm hardened armor other than AV ammo/rockets. Or at least, an "optional rule" section on common tactics to take out drones/vehicles without pulling out the big guns. I think mechanics-wise, hardened armor works fine, but the examples of vehicles/drones with hardened armor hits both extremes (all or none)... it's either Steel Lynx or Mini-blimp. The addition of ablative armor (from Rigger 3 Revised and SOTA:2064) helps, but it should be listed with the main rules.

Posted by: mmu1 Apr 19 2005, 07:13 AM
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
I disagree when it comes to changing either point-values or priorities for character generation. Remember, this is a revision, not an overhaul. Changing things to be more streamlined is one thing, but changing character generation invalidates current SR3 books, and that's not the goal here (at least, I don't think it is). Adding the rules from MJLBB for high-powered and low-powered campaigns to the current character generation schemes should be reasonable enough.

Unless the changes to character generation were extreme, the only effect will be that existing PCs and NPCs would now be slightly more or slightly less powerful compared to starting-level PCs - and that's something that's bound to happen anyway if you revise the system.

I happen to think revising at least some of the aspects of character generation is neecessary - things like costs for playing a metahuman, the costs of playing ghouls and shapeshifters, etc.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 19 2005, 07:16 AM
Eh? Ablative armor helps? You need to hit a vehicle with an attack Power three times the adjusted armor value to reduce the value!

Wait. Ablative armor says it isn't hardened and doesn't stage damage. Does that mean it also takes that away from the vehicle it's on? If so, why would anyone take it?

~J

Posted by: hahnsoo Apr 19 2005, 07:46 AM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Eh? Ablative armor helps? You need to hit a vehicle with an attack Power three times the adjusted armor value to reduce the value!

Wait. Ablative armor says it isn't hardened and doesn't stage damage. Does that mean it also takes that away from the vehicle it's on? If so, why would anyone take it?

~J

It helps when coming up with a gradient of armor, because you can just stick it onto vehicles that normally do not have armor. Because you add it point-by-point, you can reasonably come up with a wide variety of armored vehicles, other than the "no armor VW Electro" to the uber-armored "Mobmaster Xtreme" and nothing in between.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 19 2005, 08:00 AM
You can do that with regular armor too, and you don't have the problem of making the vehicle in question instantly security-grade (if not military-grade).

~J

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 22 2005, 02:17 PM
Still working on Decking, but I wanted to toss this idea out and let it get batted about: some cyberware is marked as "Common" and the Used price for that cyber is divided by something large like 4. The intention of this would be to make certain cyber (spurs, low-end cyberlimbs, etc.) more feasible for ganger-type characters. Opinions or alternate suggestions?

~J

Posted by: hahnsoo Apr 22 2005, 02:30 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
You can do that with regular armor too, and you don't have the problem of making the vehicle in question instantly security-grade (if not military-grade).

~J

Only if you construct or modify custom vehicles. 90% of the time, GMs will use stats for stock vehicles, and as it stands right now, there isn't much variety in terms of vehicle armor.

Posted by: Cain Apr 22 2005, 02:33 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Eh? Ablative armor helps? You need to hit a vehicle with an attack Power three times the adjusted armor value to reduce the value!

Accodring to the errata, ablative armor is capped at 3. So, a heavy pistol can strip it away.

Posted by: hahnsoo Apr 22 2005, 02:36 PM
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Apr 19 2005, 06:16 AM)
Eh? Ablative armor helps? You need to hit a vehicle with an attack Power three times the adjusted armor value to reduce the value!

Accodring to the errata, ablative armor is capped at 3. So, a heavy pistol can strip it away.

Erm, you still have to halve the power of the weapon before you apply it against vehicle armor. So you have to have something like a Panther Cannon without AV rounds to strip it all away.

Ablative armor isn't something that you can find on an average street vehicle. However, it's a convenient way to add armor that's low-cost/low-maintenance for non-SOTA security companies. Any idiot can install the stuff.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 22 2005, 02:38 PM
QUOTE (Cain)
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Apr 19 2005, 06:16 AM)
Eh? Ablative armor helps? You need to hit a vehicle with an attack Power three times the adjusted armor value to reduce the value!

Accodring to the errata, ablative armor is capped at 3. So, a heavy pistol can strip it away.

1) Each point is two points of Armor, so unless that HP is Power 18 it isn't going to be stripping anything away.

2) This is on top of any and all vehicular armor, and since ablative armor is security-grade minimum there's almost certainly going to be some.

~J

Posted by: SirBedevere Apr 23 2005, 08:31 AM
I've been thinking about your suggestions for cyberware, and these are my ideas for items that could be called 'Common':
  • Chipjack
  • Cyberears
  • Cybereyes
  • Datajack (should be very cheap)
  • Subvocal microphone
  • Telephone
  • Cyberlimbs (BTW I think their Essence cost should be 0.5)
  • Autoinjector
  • Biomonitor system
  • Handblade
  • Handrazors
  • Smartlink (I'm not too sure about this one though)
  • Spur

BTW, I'm assuming you're talking about 2060s tech, not 2070. While these items may not be the most useful to gangers etc., I think that they would be the most 'common' of used items.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 23 2005, 09:23 AM
Right now I'm still focusing on the SR1-3 canon timeframe of 2050-2065.

~J

Posted by: Shockwave_IIc Apr 23 2005, 10:28 AM
QUOTE (SirBedevere)
I've been thinking about your suggestions for cyberware, and these are my ideas for items that could be called 'Common':
  • Chipjack
  • Cyberears
  • Cybereyes
  • Datajack (should be very cheap)
  • Subvocal microphone
  • Telephone
  • Cyberlimbs (BTW I think their Essence cost should be 0.5)
  • Autoinjector
  • Biomonitor system
  • Handblade
  • Handrazors
  • Smartlink (I'm not too sure about this one though)
  • Spur

Good list.
I personally think that the Biomoniter system should take a lot less essence then it currently does along with the telephone, but thats a different thread.

Posted by: SirBedevere Apr 23 2005, 11:44 AM
Thanks for the clarification Kagetenshi.

Shockwave, I agree with you, but as you say that's for another thread.

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Apr 23 2005, 11:48 AM
Maybe not the subvocal mike, though. What would a ganger need with that, and why would such a specialized item be cheap? A cybergun, though, and cyberskates I could see being cheap. How about autoinjectors, and dermal plating? Maybe wired Reflexes 1 (but not the Reflex Trigger)?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 23 2005, 11:54 AM
Ironically enough Boosted Reflexes would not make sense, as it can't be pulled out of someone and reused. I may follow Doc Funk's lead and introduce the "bad batch" with the same modifications as used, though.

~J

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Apr 23 2005, 11:59 AM
Well you can certainly *try* and take the chemical treatment out of the nerves. Just melt the whole body in a big vat, then filter out the chemicals you want... biggrin.gif

Posted by: SirBedevere Apr 23 2005, 01:57 PM
I did say that all the items wouldn't be useful to gangers etc. The items I mentioned are those that IMO would be 'common' as used cyberware. I can see many people wanting the subvocal microphone so that they can speak on the phone without others hearing.

Cyberskates? Yes, quite possibly. Cybergun, I'm not so sure about. What do other people think about it?

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 25 2005, 05:05 PM
Right, well, I'm still primarily focusing on the Matrix rules, but I realize that they're not an area that most people have a lot of experience with. I was originally going to go to Vehicle rules next, but it was pointed out that a lot of that stuff has major prerequisites. Therefore, I'd like to open discussion for what will be the next thread to be opened: Ranged Combat.

What do you want to see?

~J

Posted by: Modesitt May 25 2005, 06:09 PM
I'm assuming that one of your goals IS NOT making combat 'more realistic'.

Suggestion #1: Changing how damage is staged up. New way -

Step 1: Attacker attacks and counts up successes.
Step 2: Defender dodges, subtracts successes from attackers successes, must get one more success than attacker rolled to completely dodge.
Step 3: Stage up damage. For every 2 beyond deadly raise power by one.
Step 4: Soak.

A lot of people play this way anyways. It changes combat in a few ways.
1. The peculiar adept who shoots people with shot rounds at a TN that is always 2 and simply ends up with so many successes that they simply don't have enough dice to stage it down completely - He simply no longer works.

2. It shifts the system in favor of the defender at the higher end. A defender no longer needs to eliminate all of the successes beyond deadly in order to have a chance to stage down damage, he simply needs to get two successes to bring it down to Serious.

3. It makes the ranged and melee combat systems work the same, assuming you don't change melee too.

Suggestion #1.5 - Slant combat in favor of the defender in both melee and ranged.
Make it so you only need to eliminate all of an attackers successes at dodge to get a clean miss in both ranged combat and melee. I don't like tests going to one party or the other in ties. It feels wrong for someone to be able to successfully hit someone without any net successes.

Suggestion #2 - More modifiers outlined.

I'd like to see more modifiers for ranged combat outlined. For example, modifiers for shooting at prone people, modifiers for shooting at really fast things, etc.

Suggestion #3 - Make the called shot rules work.
In my opinion, we should make the idea of a called shot absolutely unappealing for anything but dramatic purposes, like shooting someone in the leg to stop them from getting away, shooting the gun out of the bad guys hand, etc. We should not reward PCs for having every single shot be a called shot to the head.

Suggestion #4 - Make shotgun rounds stop qualifying as WMDs.
I realize I said wasn't advocating more realism...But I'm going to make an exception here and say that this is so immersion-shattering it isn't even funny. 10 meter wide cone of death? No.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 25 2005, 06:15 PM
Indeed, making combat more realistic is not one of my goals. I have no problem with it being a side-effect, but it's not a primary focus.

Regarding changing melee combat, it will likely see alterations as well.

More on the rest when I've thought about it a bit more. Regarding #3, called shots for anything but special effect do not exist in SR3R.

~J

Posted by: Shockwave_IIc May 25 2005, 06:22 PM
QUOTE (Modesitt)
Suggestion #1: Changing how damage is staged up. New way -

Step 1: Attacker attacks and counts up successes.
Step 2: Defender dodges, subtracts successes from attackers successes, must get one more success than attacker rolled to completely dodge.
Step 3: Stage up damage. For every 2 beyond deadly raise power by one.
Step 4: Soak.

A lot of people play this way anyways. It changes combat in a few ways.
1. The peculiar adept who shoots people with shot rounds at a TN that is always 2 and simply ends up with so many successes that they simply don't have enough dice to stage it down completely - He simply no longer works.

While i like this suggestion i do have one issue with it. People with high Body and good armour, become VERY difficult to as they now only need 2 Success to survive in fighting form. Though i do totally see your point about, Burst Firing Shotgun Adepts, think that a "Down and out" Damage lvl is needed. Perhaps, instead of all success past deadly staging power, perhaps only those past the first two? Thus even Trolls and Orks have to worry, But because their high Body, the will still bleed out slowly then mere mortals.

Posted by: mmu1 May 25 2005, 06:40 PM
Ok, let's see...

1. Think about whether any revision needs to be done to the ranged weapon skills themselves. I'm not saying go back to having "Firearms" like in SR2, but the current system goes too far in the opposite direction, IMO.

2. Shotguns. Scrap the current idiotic system entirely - my suggestion would be something simple, like having shot rounds reduce the TN required to hit slightly in exchange for a noticeable drop in power. Realism might not be a primary goal here, but a line has to be drawn somewhere...

3. More of a general combat issue - since realism is not a primary concern, silly shit like dart guns, narcojet, gas grenades, even freakin' pepper spray should be adjusted for game balance, so that getting hit with pepper spray is not more disabling than taking a solid hit from a light pistol, and so on.

4. Clearly define the rules for chemical and poison delivery vs. an armored target.

5. Again, going off topic a bit, but it happens in all kinds of combat: Clarify and simplify the rules for things catching fire... nyahnyah.gif

6. Make the Cannon Companion modifers for varying amounts of cover a part of the core rules.

I know there was more stuff I had in mind, but my memory is being flaky, so more later. Probably...

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 25 2005, 06:46 PM
Regarding #5, should I be making sure to clarify and simplify the rules for lighting zombies on fire? wink.gif

~J

Posted by: hyzmarca May 25 2005, 07:04 PM
QUOTE (Papadoc)
QUOTE (BitBasher @ Apr 14 2005, 04:52 PM)
QUOTE (psykotisk_overlegen @ Apr 14 2005, 02:31 PM)
A legality system that makes sense. Right now you'll need a permit for an AP and another one for your browning max power and another one for your Ares light fire. I mean, you can avoid this by carrying multiples of the same gun, but in most countries a permit to carry a pistol is a permit to carry any pistol. Also, it should be possible to get a permit for anything that are used by others than the military. (i.e. if security corps can carry it on the street, there should be a permit for it)

No, really it isn't. I live in Nevada, one of the more liberal laws realted to carry and in order to carry I have to have on me the blue card for every specific gun I happen to be carrying. For each individual gun I carry concealed I have to pay 25 bucks to have it added to my CCW, specifically by serial number. That's after qualifying for the gun, and waiting a few months. I have to say SR is pretty much right on. Licencing is headed twords more specific, not less specific to boot.

Furthermore, as an individual there's no good reason to have a permit available to carry anything that a security company can carry. You aren't a security company. If you're a licenced bodyguard you'll have a security permit anyway. Even security companies carry lethal force in SR anyway, about half of them are only rated for nonlethal force.

Hate to break it to you, but here in Missouri we are issued a CCW, (after taking a CCW class tought by a certified instructor and passing a criminal background check), which is a "endorsement" on our drivers license. This is good for ANY concealed weapon we wish to carry. And in our private vehicles we can carry loaded and concealed any weapon we so choose, without any permit (other than any that are required by law i.e. Class-3 full auto), and this at age 21 to boot.

Here is Georgia you just walk into any courthouse, pay $25, an dprove you are over 21. They do a background check to make sure your not a felon but not much of one. The CCW can be used for any legaly owned weapon and can be presented at gunstores to exempt you from background checks and any associated waiting periods.

Posted by: Voorhees May 25 2005, 07:17 PM
QUOTE
...so that getting hit with pepper spray is not more disabling than taking a solid hit from a light pistol, and so on.

This is probably wrong, but isn't one of the selling points of Pepper Spray that it incapacitates people better than a pistol?

Posted by: SirBedevere May 26 2005, 02:58 AM
I've never been on the wrong end of pepper spray, but I have been exposed to CS gas and it is very unpleasant! Get a good(?) lungful of that and you have problems doing anything.

Posted by: mmu1 May 26 2005, 06:17 AM
QUOTE (SirBedevere @ May 26 2005, 03:58 AM)
I've never been on the wrong end of pepper spray, but I have been exposed to CS gas and it is very unpleasant!  Get a good(?) lungful of that and you have problems doing anything.

Perhaps, but like it's been said a couple of times, realism is not the only issue here.

The question is, does it make sense (given the way the game plays) for some of these weapons (which can bypass armor) to be more disabling than firearms? My feeling is no, which is why I bring it up.

Posted by: Critias May 26 2005, 07:22 AM
If it did make sense, then every military officer in the world would train with pepper spray instead of a sidearm, no cop in the world would carry a firearm (they could have two cans of pepper spray, instead!), and the National Pepper Spray Association would sweep the nation and scoop up all the people who used to like firearms for hunting.

Posted by: mmu1 May 26 2005, 07:27 AM
QUOTE (Critias)
If it did make sense, then every military officer in the world would train with pepper spray instead of a sidearm, no cop in the world would carry a firearm (they could have two cans of pepper spray, instead!), and the National Pepper Spray Association would sweep the nation and scoop up all the people who used to like firearms for hunting.

Except that pepper spray has absolutely no range, but basically, yeah - it makes little real world or game sense.

Posted by: SirBedevere May 26 2005, 09:27 AM
Good points all!

From the game-play perspective I agree that the weapons in mmb's point #3 should be adjusted. As for #2, yes please make shot firing shotguns easier to GM!

#4, it should be very difficult IMO to gas or poison someone in sealed armour but not impossible.

My 0.02 nuyen.gif

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 26 2005, 10:02 AM
Shot-firing shotguns are very easy to GM as it stands. First you find out who is in the area of effect, and then you just declare them dead because not even Bubba the Love Troll has enough body to soak.

~J

Posted by: lorthazar May 27 2005, 11:13 AM
I always just declared all armor hardened versus shot rounds. So if you are wearing even armored clothing at 90 meters you laugh at the idiot and return fire with your assault rifle.

Posted by: GunnerJ Jun 15 2005, 09:33 AM
Page Requests and Topic Suggestions:

Magic
-Spells for which Force is (nearly) irrelevent
-Spells for which successes are irrelevent
-The anomaly of Spell Defense (the one and only situation in which one use of a skill is as a pool, and the trouble it causes)
-Make psionics useful, and yeah, I guess voodoo too
-Why can't my aspected Fire Elementalist cast Flamethrower, but his aspected Earth Elementalist can?
-A suggestion of my own devising I will bring up there (involves both making the base Drain TN for spellcasting equal to Force and ways of making it hurt less that make magic more interesting)

Cyberware
-Look at the costs (Essense and nuyen) to see if some are just whacked
-Make cyberlimbs useful as more than suitcases
-Sort of related, but can we have surgery rules that don't make my eyes bleed?

I'm sure I had more topics, but they've all flown from my mind now...

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 5 2005, 12:12 PM
While we've got a fair bit more I want to do with Ranged Combat before I open up another topic, I want opinions on what people think the next one should be. My personal inclination is Rigging and Vehicles, but Magic or Cyberware are also high on the list. Any thoughts?

~J

Posted by: Taran Jul 5 2005, 12:41 PM
I vote Magic. Rigging/vehicles is going to be a huge topic, laden with rules invention. Cyberware is going to be mostly a matter of fixing individual pieces, rather than fixing system-level problems with the rules (unless I'm wrong. Are there system-level problems with the way cyberware is handled? I don't mean surgery; the only fix for those rules is a bullet to the face).

Posted by: Yoan Jul 5 2005, 02:12 PM
QUOTE (Taran)
I vote Magic. Rigging/vehicles is going to be a huge topic, laden with rules invention. Cyberware is going to be mostly a matter of fixing individual pieces, rather than fixing system-level problems with the rules (unless I'm wrong. Are there system-level problems with the way cyberware is handled? I don't mean surgery; the only fix for those rules is a bullet to the face).

Exactly.

But, with all due respect, shouldn't the current issues be hammered out completely (or at least something akin to 'completely'... remotely?) before delving into other aspects? Especially the quagmire that will be Rigging...

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 5 2005, 02:25 PM
QUOTE (Yoan @ Jul 5 2005, 03:12 PM)
But, with all due respect, shouldn't the current issues be hammered out completely (or at least something akin to 'completely'... remotely?) before delving into other aspects?

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
we've got a fair bit more I want to do with Ranged Combat before I open up another topic

I'd say so, yes smile.gif (I didn't mention Decking, but there's more I want to do there before branching out as well�I figure two active sections plus the main thread are about what I can juggle in my attention)

~J

Posted by: Fortune Jul 5 2005, 09:34 PM
Magic.

For starters you should scrap the 'splitting' of the Sorcery skill, and make Spell Defence solely a function of Spell Pool.

Posted by: Yoan Jul 5 2005, 11:29 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Jul 5 2005, 03:25 PM)

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
we've got a fair bit more I want to do with Ranged Combat before I open up another topic




Ahhh... foot, meet mouth. I didn't see that at first. Sorry.

Unlike what Fortune said above me... I do think Sorcery needs to be split up, at least a tad. Or maybe his version could work out fine-- I'm slightly biased on it, heh.

I also believe that Decking should be split into smaller skills, as well. I don't know if anybody brought this up in the Decking thread...

Posted by: Catsnightmare Jul 6 2005, 03:44 AM
I've offered my magician player some options ideas to playtest in the upcoming SR game (shoud it ever happen).
Amongst them is using Spell Defense as a simple use of the Sorcery skill (no Sorcery as pool bullshit) working like this.
Spell Pool dice is allocated to spell defense and can't be used for other magical tests. When using spell defense the magician rolls their Sorcery skill (plus allocated Spell Pool dice, minimum 1, up to Sorcery skill) to defend against the incomming spell as normal. Allocated Spell Pool dice can be divided up against multiple incomming spells. Once all the spell defense-allocated Spell Pool dice have been used, spell defense is not available until the Spell Pool refreshes next action and dice can be allocated to spell defence again.

Posted by: Fortune Jul 6 2005, 09:11 AM
QUOTE (Yoan)
Unlike what Fortune said above me... I do think Sorcery needs to be split up, at least a tad. Or maybe his version could work out fine-- I'm slightly biased on it, heh.

I have no problem if you want to design a new skill called Spell Defence. What I am refering to is the current mechanic that requires you 'remove' dice from your 'effective' Sorcery skill in order to use Spell Defence (or Astral Combat).

As far as the last is concerned, I'm all for scrapping the Sorcery = Astral Combat rule as well.

Posted by: Yoan Jul 6 2005, 12:51 PM
QUOTE (Fortune)
QUOTE (Yoan @ Jul 6 2005, 03:29 PM)
Unlike what Fortune said above me... I do think Sorcery needs to be split up, at least a tad. Or maybe his version could work out fine-- I'm slightly biased on it, heh.

I have no problem if you want to design a new skill called Spell Defence. What I am refering to is the current mechanic that requires you 'remove' dice from your 'effective' Sorcery skill in order to use Spell Defence (or Astral Combat).

As far as the last is concerned, I'm all for scrapping the Sorcery = Astral Combat rule as well.

Skills: Sorcery, Conjuring, Astral Combat, Spell Defence?

I don't know. Firearms is split up, but you don't NEED 'Assault Rifles' to survive. 'Pistols' is fine. But a Magic user without one of the above... well, I can imagine him to be somewhat weaker. Or maybe that's a good thing?

Like I said: biased. I'm a decker/gun guy.
ohplease.gif

Posted by: Modesitt Jul 6 2005, 04:19 PM
Ok. I have two points to bring up, both of which will influence to a significant degree all of the other portions of the project.

1. We should avoid division and multiplication whenever we can. Things tend to break or become highly illogical when you start to multiply and divide things. We also need to establish what Order of Operations are in SR. Will we be using PEMDAS?

Ex. I'd prefer it if cyberware did NOT work based on multiplying essence. I'd prefer it just give a flat reduction. Like "For every 1 essence it normally costs, reduce its cost by .2" for alphaware.

2. Rounding. We need to establish one way in which rounding goes. It might be to the nearest whole number, up, or down, whatever. We just need to pick how we're going to round and make every single mechanic round in that same way, no exceptions.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 6 2005, 04:24 PM
QUOTE (Modesitt)
1. We should avoid division and multiplication whenever we can. Things tend to break or become highly illogical when you start to multiply and divide things.

I disagree completely. We should check how things look across the entire reasonable spectrum of play (I must admit, I have no objections to a rule that breaks down for skills over 30 or somesuch), but multiplication and division are not, to my mind, to be avoided in and of themselves. You actually give a perfect example of how things break down when you start removing them:
QUOTE
Ex. I'd prefer it if cyberware did NOT work based on multiplying essence.  I'd prefer it just give a flat reduction.  Like "For every 1 essence it normally costs, reduce its cost by .2" for alphaware.

So what happens when cyberware costs 1.5 Esssence? 1.7? .1? Either you're making the rule break places or you're just having the player figure out the division on their own.
QUOTE
We also need to establish what Order of Operations are in SR.  Will we be using PEMDAS?

I'm inclined to use PEMDAS, since it's what most people will be familiar with.
QUOTE
2. Rounding.  We need to establish one way in which rounding goes.  It might be to the nearest whole number, up, or down, whatever.  We just need to pick how we're going to round and make every single mechanic round in that same way, no exceptions.

That's probably a good idea. We'll see if that can't be implemented. Any thoughts, at the moment, which way to round?

~J

Posted by: Dawnshadow Jul 6 2005, 04:54 PM
In regards to Modesitt:

1) Better to keep multiplication and division, and just not throw them in for no reason, or with unusual values. Keep it nice and simply (1, 2, 3, 5, 10). Most people can handle multiplying or dividing by those values.

PEDMAS: Best to be consistent with other mathematics. Fewer headaches.

2) Preferable to just use ordinary rounding rules, I think. Nearest value to the appropriate degree.

Posted by: Modesitt Jul 6 2005, 05:33 PM
QUOTE ("Kagetenshi")
I disagree completely. We should check how things look across the entire reasonable spectrum of play

Ok. Here's my reasoning why -

When we start multiplying things, we can easily create situations where things get much bigger bonuses than they ought to. While just being careful of it all can work, I think a general policy of "Avoid multiplication and division except when actually necessary" is a good one.

Examples of where multiplication and division for bonuses or penalties makes people cry -
Adept Geasa: Since you multiply by .75 and round up(more on that in a second), you will never geas something that costs less than 1 PP.

The Wallhacker: Everyone know what this is? It involves applying multipliers to your strength bonus a few times.

Explosive Ammunition: It cuts barrier ratings in half. Do the math some time on how tough a barrier an Ares Predator loaded with ex-explosive rounds can shoot holes in and how many shots that takes.
QUOTE ("Kagetenshi")
So what happens when cyberware costs 1.5 Esssence? 1.7? .1?

In my defense, it was an off-the-cuff thought, not a fully-formed idea. Anyways, the way I thought of it was "For 1 or less essence, you get -.2. For between 1 and 2, you get -.4", etc. Yeah, it creates some break points, but since every single piece of cyberware has a fairly static essence price tag, you can build the rest of the system around that concept. You'd either end up with some cyberware not getting the full benefits or else some cyberware would be Essence-free if of high enough quality. I don't necesarily consider the latter thing to be a bad thing, maybe couple it with something like "Awakened calculate the magic cost of cyberware as if it were not upgraded" to prevent abuse. How exactly it worked tie into rounding rules.
QUOTE ("Kagtenshi")
Any thoughts, at the moment, which way to round?

Always round up. Shadowrun's dice system already rounds the TN up to 2 if it goes below that, so it'd somewhat follow the pattern. Plus, I think it fits the idea of the Shadowrun world that the corps are always screwing you out of that last nuyen.

Posted by: Fortune Jul 7 2005, 01:51 AM
QUOTE (Yoan @ Jul 7 2005, 04:51 AM)
Skills: Sorcery, Conjuring, Astral Combat, Spell Defence?

I don't think there's a need for an Astral Combat skill at all. It is only an option to duplicate other Melee skills on the Astral, and I think using the appropriate Melee skill works just fine. If the character doesn't have a Melee skill, then he is stuck using magic or defaulting, just as he would do in normal melee combat.

As for a Spell Defence skill, I think that is a better option than the current SR3 mechanics of splitting the Sorcery skill. I still prefer to just make Spell Defence solely a function of Spell Pool, but I could live with a separate skill as a compromise.

Posted by: Yawgmoth Jul 7 2005, 02:38 AM
Sort out the vehical rules, they're a real nightmare! You have crash tests and maneuver scores to sort out, trying to convert speed into distance covered per combat turn. My group is missing out on epic car chases because it's just soooo much effort to do all the maths and figure out modifiers ect. Perhaps a "lite" version of the rules, where a simple skill test is made.

Downgrade magic - I'm getting sick of mages in the party centering then casting massive spells with no effort or drain. Personally speaking I'd scrap the half force for drain thingy.

Then again I might be talking utter rubbish and deserve to be flamed mercylessly!

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 7 2005, 07:42 AM
No conversion necessary with Speed, as it's already listed in meters per combat turn. I'll let others kick around the rest of the ideas at the moment, though.

~J

Posted by: Dawnshadow Jul 7 2005, 08:03 AM
Crippling mages to reduce the power of initiate mages would be a mistake, I think. Retooling the things that make them "too powerful" would be a better move. I know I'd hate to have to take a metamagic not to be useless after 3-4 spells.

What I'd rather see with magic is clarity and consistency. I don't actually have a problem with the power of mages, just that specific things aren't clear.

example: Sustained area spells like chaotic world -- does leaving the area free you of the spell? Does entering it subject you to the spell? I say yes to both -- it's a spell centred on an area, that's what makes sense. Other people say no, it's treated like chaos being hit on everyone within the area at the same time, with the same roll and only one drain test.

Posted by: Yoan Jul 7 2005, 11:25 AM
QUOTE (Fortune)
QUOTE (Yoan @ Jul 7 2005, 04:51 AM)
Skills: Sorcery, Conjuring, Astral Combat, Spell Defence?

I don't think there's a need for an Astral Combat skill at all. It is only an option to duplicate other Melee skills on the Astral, and I think using the appropriate Melee skill works just fine. If the character doesn't have a Melee skill, then he is stuck using magic or defaulting, just as he would do in normal melee combat.

As for a Spell Defence skill, I think that is a better option than the current SR3 mechanics of splitting the Sorcery skill. I still prefer to just make Spell Defence solely a function of Spell Pool, but I could live with a separate skill as a compromise.

I don't think using the appopriate melee skill makes sense, unless I am way behind on my Astral Plane trivia. How about Charisma, or something like that? It makes sense to me, anyway.

indifferent.gif

As said: maybe I'm behind on my 'magical' knowledge, though.

Posted by: GunnerJ Jul 7 2005, 12:26 PM
QUOTE
Crippling mages to reduce the power of initiate mages would be a mistake, I think. Retooling the things that make them "too powerful" would be a better move. I know I'd hate to have to take a metamagic not to be useless after 3-4 spells.


Especially considering how much karma you have to put into Centering to make it worthwhile (i.e., Centering at 4-6, an artistic skill at 4-6, and the actual initiation, which may include joining an initiatory group and paying dues).

Posted by: Fortune Jul 9 2005, 01:10 AM
QUOTE (Yoan)
I don't think using the appopriate melee skill makes sense, unless I am way behind on my Astral Plane trivia. How about Charisma, or something like that? It makes sense to me, anyway.

Well, as canon stands, normal Melee skills are what are usually used when fighting hand-to-hand on the Astral. Sorcery is merely an option that can be used in place of Melee skills any time a person has access to the Astral..

Remember that not all combat on the Astral takes place between Projecting beings. Some combattants are Dual Beings, and/or are using Astral Perception. There is no reason why someone would use Charisma (or Sorcery) when they are still using the meat muscles when fighting.

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Jul 9 2005, 10:59 AM
QUOTE (Modesitt)
The Wallhacker: Everyone know what this is?  It involves applying multipliers to your strength bonus a few times.

Explosive Ammunition: It cuts barrier ratings in half.  Do the math some time on how tough a barrier an Ares Predator loaded with ex-explosive rounds can shoot holes in and how many shots that takes.

Never heard of Wallhacker. Anyone else familiar with this?

EX ammo: this is true, but in this case it's because it shouldn't be a multiplier in the first place. This just comes down the the devs not knowing math; if you want EX ammo to be 2-3 times as powerful then you just reduce the barrier rating by 1-2. Halving the barrier rating actually squares the power of the ammo (roughly) rather than multiplying it. So you're right in this case, but the conclusion you're drawing isn't.
QUOTE
QUOTE ("Kagtenshi")
Any thoughts, at the moment, which way to round?

Always round up. Shadowrun's dice system already rounds the TN up to 2 if it goes below that, so it'd somewhat follow the pattern. Plus, I think it fits the idea of the Shadowrun world that the corps are always screwing you out of that last nuyen.

I'd round *down*, actually. That's actually how it works in most cases already; the only times I can recall rounding up is on a few Pool calculations. Drain = half Force, round down; successes divide into base time, round down; Essence costs round down. Less has to change to implement the rule, so there's less breakage.

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Jul 9 2005, 11:00 AM
(EDIT: double post)

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Jul 9 2005, 11:13 AM
As for splitting up Sorcery and Computers... e, let's not. If we did stuff like split up a bunch of skills, we'd have to get more complicated in other ways as well: we'd have to raise skill points at chargen to allow compatable builds, and then provide restrictions on how skill points are spent to prevent cherry-picking of a bunch of useful but non-related abilities, etc etc. The point is quickly becomming moot anyway; note that in the ranged combat section there is already discussion about consolidating the ranged weapon skills, which kinda takes away the argument that "Firearms got broken up; let's break up Sorcery and Computers too!"

It's just more hassle than it's worth IMO; this is a revision, not a rewrite.

Posted by: Modesitt Jul 9 2005, 02:37 PM
QUOTE ("Eyeless Blond")
Never heard of Wallhacker. Anyone else familiar with this?

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=6052&st=168. It's a running gag, like having sex with a dikote'd ally spirit.
QUOTE ("Eyeless Blond")
This just comes down the the devs not knowing math

No, it's laziness. Regardless, I've probably made my point. Anyone working on this might stop and think for a moment about what they're doing before doubling or halving something, which was my goal. If you look over my recent post over on the Ranged Combat thread, I do double something at one point, so it's not like I'm the crazy guy on the street corner demanding we give up the number 9.

Ironically, the thing that needs fixing in what I wrote isn't what I doubled, it's what I added things together for(I did a double-whammy on gel rounds. -2 power AND ball+imp? Overkill). So the problem is more "Copying and pasting without thinking makes bad math".
QUOTE ("Eyeless Blond")
That's actually how it works in most cases already
.
Yes. This hit me yesterday as I went about double-checking the rules on a particular character. In most cases we already round down, so I'm going to change my mind and say that's where I lean now.

---

Also, I concur on splitting up the other skills. Don't do it folks, that'll just make baby jesus cry. SR4 can split up skills because they're already totally re-writing the system from the ground up. Plus, they're going BeCKs so diversification wont be as painful.

Posted by: Modesitt Jul 9 2005, 02:35 PM
QUOTE ("Eyeless Blond")
Never heard of Wallhacker. Anyone else familiar with this?

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=6052&st=168. It's a running gag, like having sex with a dikote'd ally spirit.
QUOTE ("Eyeless Blond")
This just comes down the the devs not knowing math

No, it's laziness. Regardless, I've probably made my point. Anyone working on this might stop and think for a moment about what they're doing before doubling or halving something, which was my goal. If you look over my recent post over on the Ranged Combat thread, I do double something at one point, so it's not like I'm the crazy guy on the street corner demanding we give up the number 9.

Ironically, the thing that needs fixing in what I wrote isn't what I doubled, it's what I added things together for(I did a double-whammy on gel rounds. -2 power AND ball+imp? Overkill). So the problem really is "Writing numbers down without actually checking what they look'll like in play.
QUOTE ("Eyeless Blond")
That's actually how it works in most cases already

Yes. This hit me yesterday as I went about double-checking the rules on a particular character. In most cases we already round down, so I'm going to change my mind and say that's where I lean now.

---

Also, I concur on splitting up the other skills. Don't do it folks, that'll just make baby jesus cry. SR4 can split up skills because they're already totally re-writing the system from the ground up. Plus, they're going BeCKs so diversification wont be as painful.

Posted by: Fortune Jul 9 2005, 11:21 PM
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Jul 10 2005, 02:59 AM)
... the only times I can recall rounding up is on a few Pool calculations.

You also round up when calculating Maximum Attribute Ratings.

Incidently, which Pools round up?

I also think splitting the skills is not the optimum solution, but I really think something needs to be done with the current Sorcery/Spell Defence mechanic. My 'Spell Pool only' ruling for Spell Defence seems to work well in practice, and has the added benefit of pretty much halving the maximum amount of dice a character can assign in comparison to the current system.

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Jul 10 2005, 09:15 AM
QUOTE (Fortune)
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Jul 10 2005, 02:59 AM)
... the only times I can recall rounding up is on a few Pool calculations.

You also round up when calculating Maximum Attribute Ratings.
And only then when you have the Exceptional Attribute Edge.
QUOTE
Incidently, which Pools round up?
Um, Hacking Pool I think.

Nope, actually I was thinking of Detection Factor, which does round up. All pools round down.
QUOTE
I also think splitting the skills is not the optimum solution, but I really think something needs to be done with the current Sorcery/Spell Defence mechanic. My 'Spell Pool only' ruling for Spell Defence seems to work well in practice, and has the added benefit of pretty much halving the maximum amount of dice a character can assign in comparison to the current system.

And it makes intuitive sense too; it's much like combat pool can be used to dodge, control pool can be used to help with crash tests, Hacking Pool can be used to help dodge attacks (Improvised defense rules), so can spell pool be used to help resist. It's good from a rules mastery point of view, which is what SR really is lacking in right now.

Posted by: Dawnshadow Jul 10 2005, 09:34 AM
If spell pool is the only one that can be applied to spell defence, then for the sake of making it more consistent, it should probably not require allocating in advance. Same with reflection/absorbtion, although not shielding.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 10 2005, 09:46 AM
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)
QUOTE (Fortune)
You also round up when calculating Maximum Attribute Ratings.
And only then when you have the Exceptional Attribute Edge.

That's not actually accurate. I assume you're referring to the fact that a normal human has all 6/9s with no fractions to round, but a Troll's Quickness RML is 5 and the racial max is 8 without any edge whatsoever.

~J

Posted by: Taran Jul 10 2005, 10:41 AM
It sounds like in SR3, the de-facto rule for rounding is "round in whichever direction helps the players".

I could live with that.

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Jul 10 2005, 10:49 AM
Heh, except Pool rounds down, and so do a few other things that would help the player to round up. The rule was probably "round the opposite direction that everyone expects." smile.gif

Huh, I guess I read that section wrong then. Thanks Kag.

Posted by: GunnerJ Jul 10 2005, 02:52 PM
QUOTE (Taran)
It sounds like in SR3, the de-facto rule for rounding is "round in whichever direction helps the players".

I could live with that.

Really? I always figured it was exactly the oppostie; you typically round whatever way that screws the players, from what I've seen in the rules.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 14 2005, 12:04 PM
Here's another question: what do people want to see done with the Contact rules? Personally, I'd love at the very least a mechanic for defining what a contact can do and to what degree, but that may introduce too much complexity. I'll flesh this out more later when I get more time.

~J

Posted by: Taran Jul 14 2005, 04:16 PM
QUOTE (GunnerJ)
QUOTE (Taran @ Jul 10 2005, 04:41 PM)
It sounds like in SR3, the de-facto rule for rounding is "round in whichever direction helps the players".

I could live with that.

Really? I always figured it was exactly the oppostie; you typically round whatever way that screws the players, from what I've seen in the rules.

Doh, I forgot about pools. Also, about skill costs. There is no pattern.

WRT contacts: I don't think there's any harm in complexifying the contact rules. Contacts are just NPCs, so if the rules are too annoying for a particular situation, or if they don't make sense, it's easy to replace them with more roleplaying.

Mechanically, how about defining them along two axes (how well you know them, and how powerful they are)? That'd make it possible to become friends for life with the local bouncer without spending the equivalent of 1000kg of Compound 13. On the other hand, 'power' is a terribly relative measure so the power axis would likely boil down to some guidelines and a lot of GM's discretion.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 14 2005, 04:26 PM
I was planning on having several axes:
  • How well you know them/how much they care about you
  • How powerful they are (whether in terms of what they can do or what they can get; a powerful decker may be able to crack nasty systems for you or get you into Shadowland, while a powerful weapons dealer might be able to land you a PAC, and a powerful Face may know some guy who knows the head of security on the night you want to break into the corp compound)
  • How versatile they are (can they deck and program and talk someone into letting you into that black BBS, or are they just crackers? Do they just deal in weapons, or can they get you a fake ID, retinal duplication, and a Medium Transport as well?)
  • How close to whatever it is you get from them they are. Are they a direct dealer, or do they just set you up with someone, or do they set you up with someone who knows someone who knows someone? This affects cost (middlemen), risk (wrong party modifiers), and time (also middlemen)
A last axis, probably not one that's going to be a part of the cost calculation, would probably be "legality". Are they legit and horrified by the thought of armed robbery? Blackest of black most-wanted illegal? We could also add a fifth axis to the important ones that represents how many levels the contact works at (do they just do business with criminals, or will they direct you to a legal purchase if that's cheaper/better/whatever?), but that could be overly complex or not easy to implement well.

As an example (and I'll need to come up with a better one for everyone not in the Tuesday game), Sigrun would probably be medium/upper-medium along the Closeness axis, medium-high along the Power axis, relatively low along the Versatility axis, and quite high on the� hm. Immediacy? That fourth axis. As for legality, she'd range from reasonably deep black up to lower-end legit, but in her case that isn't something that shows up at the player's end so maybe it's an argument against that being a paid-for axis. As is obvious from this, SR3R contact levels will not necessarily translate cleanly from SR3 contact levels.

~J

Posted by: GunnerJ Jul 14 2005, 07:22 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Jul 14 2005, 06:04 PM)
Here's another question: what do people want to see done with the Contact rules? Personally, I'd love at the very least a mechanic for defining what a contact can do and to what degree, but that may introduce too much complexity. I'll flesh this out more later when I get more time.

~J

Ever heard of http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm? I've always wanted to use a system for contacts that just used the Risus Cliche system for contacts. So you have 10 points to spend on a contact (for instance). It costs nothing for him to just be a "contact," but L2 (Buddy) costs 3 points and L3 (Friend for Life) costs 5. Then, whatever skills left over get applied to Cliches like "Street Doc," or "Fixer." Hell, I wrote something up about all this for a set of SR houserules (Basically, I wanted to make a generic cyberpunk system out of Shadowrun). Here's what I had:

Basically, you got points to spend on contacts equal to x + CHA, where x increases dependant on where you put contact as a Priority (it was a Priority in this system), but it was the multiples of 5 from 5 to 25. Contacts are defined by two attributes: competency and familiarity. For any contact, it costs 1 point to have a simple acquaintance, 5 to have a buddy, and 10 to have a friend for life. Competency is bought at a one-for-one ratio, so that a contact with a competency of x costs x contact points.

Competency: This attribute describes how well the contact is in certain generalized fields that describe their "job." Those familiar with Risus will recognize this as the basic Cliche System. Examples of competency fields are Fixer, Street Doc, Informant... basically any of the contact archetypes. A contact can have multiple competency fields.

The GM should roll competency whenever the contact's ability to do something is in question. Use the field closest related to the task at hand; for example, roll Smuggler to see if the contact can transport something illegally, or Street Doc to see if a contact can heal a wound. Target numbers should be as for the skill being supplanted by competency. Contacts may have to perform tasks outside their chosen field; in these cases apply a TN modifier. For tasks closely related but not really within the contact's expertise (e.g., a Street Doc acquiring illegal drugs) add two to the TN. For tasks distantly related but with some similarities to a field (e.g., a Street Doc repairing cyberlimbs) add four to the TN. For a task completely out of the field's domain (e.g., a Street Doc firing an assault cannon) add eight to the TN.

In combat, competency fields can be used for combat skill rolls where applicable. When a contact needs to use a specific attribute, apply the closest field applicable (e.g., Talismonger for resisting a spell, Street Samurai for damage resistance rolls), and apply TN modifiers for unrelated fields if they need to be used. An applicable competency field can be used to help find gear for characters; simply roll against the availability. In general, it is up to the Gm's discretion to decide what tasks fall within a competency field.

Familiarity:As described in the character generation section, these are the acquaintance/buddy/friend for life distinction from SR3. They work in exactly the same way.

It's a bit rough, but I liked it. Never tried it though.

Posted by: GunnerJ Jul 14 2005, 07:32 PM
Here's an example of what can be done with such a system:

Given 20 points you could get...

A badass mage whose life you saved when he nearly killed himself from drain; his magical group has an oath that you must show your gratitude for one who saves your life by treating that person as a brother or sister.

Friend for Life (10pts)
Combat Mage 6 (6pts)
Conjuror 4 (4pts)

OR

A competant arms dealer who sort of knows you...

Contact (1pt)
Gun Runner 5 (5pts)
Smuggler 3 (3pts)

...and a good street doc who you're friendly with.

Buddy (5pts)
Street Doc 6 (6pts)

Again, this system is sort of a quickie abstraction, and it doesn't jive perfectly with SR rules, but for quick resolution of a contact's abilities and greater player control over said abilities, I think it does well.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 4 2005, 02:24 PM
As a note, I'm currently working on my contact-rules rework. I'll be diving back into ranged combat once I've got something presentable here.

~J

Posted by: Catsnightmare Aug 4 2005, 04:49 PM
And as soon as my job slows down from 50 hours a week, I'll post my version of the revised rigging/driving rules.

Posted by: Juggernaut125 Aug 4 2005, 06:05 PM
In re: to contacts, I was just thinking about this this morning. I would change the classification for each contact as follows (instead of the contact, friend, buddy): 1. Informed. 2. Lucrative or 3. Support. And then, give them a Professional Rating to determine how effective they are in their given field of expertise. All contacts purchased at char gen are Prof. Rating 1. These ratings can be raised using money or karma.

1. Informed Contacts. This is your legwork contact, regularly purchased at 5K nuyen. She's the one that knows the stuff you're trying to find out. Examples of these contacts would be; Bartenders, Secretaries, Tribesmen, Reporters, and so on.

2. Lucrative Contacts. These characters run a business that you find useful for maintaining your characters lifestyle. Taking a lucrative contact at 10k nuyen should perhaps give you a bonus, determined by that contacts Prof. Rating. Ie. An Armorer, rating 1, may be able to give a 1 to 5 % discount on the purchase of firearms. Examples of Lucrative Contacts are; Amorer, Deckmeister, Street Doc, Talismonger, etc.

3. Support Contacts. These characters are basically other runners, to fill gaps in a campaign where a runner might be needed but no PCs or NPCs are available. At 200k, they're still expensive to buy at char gen, but then again, it might help to have a second mage on your stat sheet if you want to put together a magic group.
Obviously, any archetype could be a Support Contact. And Corp. Rigger, Decker, Mage and so on, would also classify.

Any thoughts?

Posted by: Stumps Aug 6 2005, 09:31 AM
Just a quick question:

First, though, I think this is a great venture that all of you are taking.

Question I have is: Is there a Site where all of this compiled revision can be read or downloaded (hopefully in some PDF format or the like) in the plans somewhere down the line?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 6 2005, 10:09 AM
Yes. A whois on sr3r.net may be enlightening smile.gif

~J

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 12 2005, 11:19 AM
From http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=9575:
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
I personally think that Open Tests should have been dumped back in SR2. They were kinda cute for the Rocker and Reporter rules in Shadowbeat, but other than that, they are probably one of the most unbalanced and awful elements of the SR3 system. They violate the main mechanic (roll xd6 vs. a TN) and only serve to create exceptions to rules, and contributes to the "one game: many systems" syndrome that Shadowrun suffers from.

First, I want to put my personal bias on the table. While I'm against needless complexity, I am a big fan of the "one game, many systems" aspect�in my opinion it is one of the greatest strengths of Shadowrun. If one grows tired of the way melee works they can switch to a pistol. If they grow tired of that, time for a decker. If they get sick of having a TN of over 2, they make a Rigger ( wink.gif ). So on and soforth.

That said, I'd like explanation of how, in your opinion, open tests unbalance the game. The best way to convince me would be to come up with an elegant replacement for open tests (even in just one area, say Stealth), but poking enough holes in the current system is enough to get me to start looking for an alternative myself.
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)
Oh, and while I'm dragging up old dead threads, http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=6471&hl= Any possability of adding any of that into SR3R? I mean, as long as we're fixing really stupid bits inherent in the system...

Mm. Well, I'd like to hear additional comments on it, but at first glance I don't think it's a good idea. Particularly the VCR would have to be dramatically reworked/rebalanced to fit in with this.

That said, the rigging rules are going to see a serious overhaul anyway, so that'll offer more chances for something like this to slip in. Still, anyone else have feedback on it?

~J

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Sep 12 2005, 12:17 PM
Well obviously *I* thought it was a neat idea. smile.gif

Um, yes, it would definately require lots of rebalancing of the decking and rigging prices to work. Actually it would affect the decking rules more than the rigging rles; riggers would be in the same boat they're in now, but deckers would have a higher required price in Essence and cyberware to work.

In the end both areas you just brought up are debates over rules mastery, as I mentioned in that thread. I don't often look favorably at d20 in anything, but there's one thing I like about the system: whenever you're looking at a completely new section of the rules, you can always rely on the fact that what you know from previously mastered sections will not be completely contradicted. That sort of tightness, interconnectiveness, robustness is something I think we can stribe for here with SR3R, and it may well be worth a slightly deeper delving into the rules than we're currently thinking about.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 12 2005, 12:28 PM
The problem with Riggers is that as stated, unless you alter the Essence costs of a VCR-3, it becomes unfeasible to build a Rigger with the capabilities of a current VCR-3 Rigger. It also makes someone with a VCR-1 and rating 3 Encephalon an extremely dangerous, if more limited, fighting force. The fact that the Control Pool increase would come now from the Encephalon rubs me the wrong way too.

~J

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Sep 12 2005, 12:51 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Sep 12 2005, 10:28 AM)
The problem with Riggers is that as stated, unless you alter the Essence costs of a VCR-3, it becomes unfeasible to build a Rigger with the capabilities of a current VCR-3 Rigger. It also makes someone with a VCR-1 and rating 3 Encephalon an extremely dangerous, if more limited, fighting force. The fact that the Control Pool increase would come now from the Encephalon rubs me the wrong way too.

Um, zuh? The VCR-3+Encephalon-3 comba in that thread is actually cheaper Essence-wise than a VCR-3 in the main book; that's one thing that worried me actually, as it could be unbalanced. It costs a mint, but then you're getting more out of the deal than you were before.

And Control Pool still comes from the VCR. Encephalons don't have anything to do with task pool or hacking pool or dice pools in any way under that proposal.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 12 2005, 12:58 PM
The Control Pool increase is an indirect increase that is the result of the Reaction increase. As such, it would now be provided by the Encephalon.

That said, I missed your cost reorganization for the VCR. That changes things.

~J

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Sep 12 2005, 01:08 PM
Ah. Hm, I didn't even think about that. But then cyber boosts to Reaction don't add to pool dice, do they? It's like someone with muscle replacement getting a boost on combat pool or Reaction because their quickness was artificially enhanced; I thought that was specifically excluded?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 12 2005, 01:15 PM
The Control Pool by definition is equal to the user's VCR-modified Reaction (with no other source contributing save clearly-defined exceptions such as Structural Agility).

~J

Posted by: Deamon_Knight Sep 12 2005, 06:22 PM
Idea on open tests

I was thinking it depends on what you decide you want to model with these test. I can't post a probability list like some, but open tests do seem to run the gamut of probable results. To produce more normalized results, consider making this change to open tests.

A: Eliminate the Rule of 6 for open tests.
B: Roll a number of dice equal to your skill rating and take the highest result. (as normal)
C: Add the highest die result to your skill rating for the result.

Example: Sly Cat has Stealth 5, and wants to hide in a dark ally from the gangers chasing him. He rolls an open test for stealth, rolling 5 dice he gets a 01, 01, 03, 04, and a 05. The 5 is the highest die result, so he adds that 5 to his skill rating in Stealth (also a 5) for a result of 10. the TN then for the gangers to spot him is 10.

If your problem with Open Tests is the many rules in one book problem, this really doesn't help though.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 12 2005, 06:25 PM
Well, it's exactly that gamut-run of results that I like about them�when it gets right down to it, trying to sneak past someone in my opinion should be a crap-shoot (though it's less of one than people frequently accuse it of being).

~J

Posted by: Deamon_Knight Sep 12 2005, 06:29 PM
Just putting the idea out there smile.gif

Posted by: pragma Sep 12 2005, 07:32 PM
Open Tests:

I find that open tests, especially stealth, are often panned (at least in the circles I run in) because modifiers are inappropriately applied. The only time a guard will be using only your stealth roll as a target number should be when you are sneaking across a lit area with no cover (it should, without a doubt, be a crapshoot at best in that case).

If you are crawling through tall grass at night with appropriate camoflauge you have picked up a +10 or so modifier to the test, making it a much more sane proposition in my mind.

While it is frustrating to be playing a stealth 12 adept that just can't seem to roll higher than a 5, I think the basic mechanic is solid.

Eyeless Initiative

I like it though Kage points out some significant balance issues. Consider chaning control pool to straight reaction + 2 * VCR rating?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 12 2005, 07:40 PM
QUOTE (pragma)
Open Tests:

I find that open tests, especially stealth, are often panned (at least in the circles I run in) because modifiers are inappropriately applied. The only time a guard will be using only your stealth roll as a target number should be when you are sneaking across a lit area with no cover (it should, without a doubt, be a crapshoot at best in that case).

If you are crawling through tall grass at night with appropriate camoflauge you have picked up a +10 or so modifier to the test, making it a much more sane proposition in my mind.

While it is frustrating to be playing a stealth 12 adept that just can't seem to roll higher than a 5, I think the basic mechanic is solid.

There's also the issue that many people forget the fundamental imbalance: the stealthing character only needs one die to hit that level, while on the perception chart one success on perception is defined as "something is there". The second success is "something is definitely there and the perceiver suspects what general type of thing it is" (note that this means "person", not "shadowrunner"). Only at the third success do you have immediately-blown cover in any but the most secure area. Sure that guard can roll a 37 against your stealth 10, but can he get another 10+ on his three dice?

~J

Posted by: hahnsoo Sep 12 2005, 08:01 PM
All that Open tests are used for (AFAIK, at least in the Stealth example, which is the thing that causes the most problems) is determining a unopposed target number. So why not use the d6 vs. TN mechanic for that? In my mind, I can see a "roll Stealth vs. TN 4 (injury mods apply), successes add a +'s modifier to a base TN 4, with other modifiers based on camo, Stealth Suits, etc."

I think my problem with Open tests is that it "feels" like my Skill is meaningless. The feel of the standard SR mechanic makes it such that you "feel" like your skill is actively contributing to the situation at hand. Open tests are crap-shoots for 6s, and feel like your skill roll is actually a "press your luck" roll instead. I'm not saying this is remotely accurate in terms of probability (which still scale linearly, if a bit haphazard in the spread), but that's the "feel" of the Open test.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 12 2005, 08:06 PM
Open tests are also used in determining jump distance for "just jumping as far as you can", but the jumping rules are the result of a team of crack-smoking monkeys anyway so they're getting revised regardless of the larger fate of open tests.

~J

Posted by: Taran Sep 12 2005, 08:23 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
The problem with Riggers is that as stated, unless you alter the Essence costs of a VCR-3, it becomes unfeasible to build a Rigger with the capabilities of a current VCR-3 Rigger.

As much as I've enjoyed stacking +6 worth of TN mods on Alex to increase her driving TN from 2 to 2, this may not be such a bad thing.

WRT Open Tests: I'm not on my good computer so I can't run the simulations, but the troublesome case, for me, is the one where a character with mediocre (~3) Stealth rolls a lucky 10. Sometime in the next few days, if I'm not beaten to it, I'll generate some probabilities for the public interest.

hahnsoo: Agreed as to the feel of the roll, but d6 vs. 4 makes even small TN mods incredibly important. Consider melee combat, in which a single point of reach is enough to offset a great deal of skill (I once ran a combat between a being with 28 unarmed dice and no reach versus a skill 5 character with reach 2. The guy with the staff cleaned house. True story). I know that you're not suggesting that we use the melee combat mechanic, but (just for example) ruthenium would need to grant a much smaller bonus, since each point of TN mod is worth at least two dice of stealth skill.

Edited to correspond with reality. It's even more impressive than I remembered!

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 12 2005, 08:31 PM
���Blake was the guy with the staff, wasn't he?

*Goes and gathers up all the bug spray in the house*

~J

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Sep 12 2005, 08:35 PM
Test mechanics fall into three categories currently (as SR3 raw). (unless I forgot one or five)

1: base TN with mods. These represent working against the environmental challenges.
2: opposed. These represent direct conflicts, but do often overpower the difference in relavant skills/attributes/subsystems.
3: open. This is the situation where a realistic model has too many subtle variables that could be the difference between glorious success and miserable failure. Therefore, the open test is used when tiny details that the GM shouldn't be expected to plan out beforehand can make or break an effort. Most notably is the unsuspected shadow with numerous dry twigs hidden in it, even the sneaky expert can miss something.

The only one of those I'd consider changing is the opposed test, and I'd only change that the opponent's TN and the number of dice rolled must be determined by different stats. So opposed negotiations vs. willpowers is perfectly fine, but sensors vs. ECM needs to bring in some other stats to keep one at a high rating from completely overpowering the other.

Oh, and I always house-ruled that distance jumping tests were added to a base amount based on quickness and with each level of Great Leap adding a meter as well as a die.

Posted by: mmu1 Sep 12 2005, 08:36 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
���Blake was the guy with the staff, wasn't he?

*Goes and gathers up all the bug spray in the house*

~J

I seriously doubt it... For one thing, Blake has a skill of 5, and as much as I'd like to imagine him surviving against something with 28 dice in unarmed...

Posted by: hahnsoo Sep 12 2005, 08:47 PM
QUOTE (Taran)
hahnsoo: Agreed as to the feel of the roll, but d6 vs. 4 makes even small TN mods incredibly important. Consider melee combat, in which a single point of reach is enough to offset a great deal of skill (I once ran a combat between a being with 28 unarmed dice and no reach versus a skill 6 character with reach 2. The guy with the staff cleaned house. True story). I know that you're not suggesting that we use the melee combat mechanic, but (just for example) ruthenium would need to grant a much smaller bonus, since each point of TN mod is worth at least two dice of stealth skill.

Well, what you're describing is an opposed test (like all Melee combat). I'm suggesting a change to how you determine a base target number for Stealth rolls, and it's certainly not opposed. The Open test is used to determine a base TN in that case, and I think that a d6 vs TN mechanic is better for determining the contribution of "skill" to that roll (which a Stealth roll should be) rather than "all of the lucky/unlucky things that can happen" as with an Open test. The luck is already inherent in the Perception test of the observer.

Posted by: Taran Sep 12 2005, 09:04 PM
I know. A character with stealth 6 expects to produce a TN of 7 for a watcher (3 successes, 4 + 3 = 7). If said watcher is as good at looking as the stealth character is at sneaking, he expects one success. The (arguable) problem is that a character with stealth 6 and a Light wound expects to do as well as a character with stealth 4; with a Medium wound, as well as a character with stealth 1. Similarly, a +4 lighting mod causes a character with stealth 4 to perform about as well as a character with stealth 12. A lightly wounded watcher is much worse at watching. For a guy in +12 ruthenium, the stealth skill is almost meaningless.

Note: I know that expectations are somewhat misleading, as variance is very important for a task as touchy as sneaking is.

Posted by: hahnsoo Sep 12 2005, 09:10 PM
QUOTE (Taran)
The (arguable) problem is that a character with stealth 6 and a Light wound expects to do as well as a character with stealth 4; with a Medium wound, as well as a character with stealth 1.

Well, don't sneak around when you're wounded, then. smile.gif That's the other thing about Open tests, though... penalties against the Open test directly subtract from the roll, which in turn lower the TN for the opposing viewer.
QUOTE
Similarly, a +4 lighting mod causes a character with stealth 4 to perform about as well as a character with stealth 12.  A lightly wounded watcher is much worse at watching.  For a guy in +12 ruthenium, the stealth skill is almost meaningless.
Well, those mods can be negated for the viewer (lighting mods by area lighting, ruthenium by ultrasound or even simple "hearing" checks).

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Sep 12 2005, 11:25 PM
QUOTE (pragma)
Eyeless Initiative

I like it though Kage points out some significant balance issues. Consider chaning control pool to straight reaction + 2 * VCR rating?

Heh, I had always considered it such anyway, so that's not a problem for me. smile.gif

As for a guy with a VCR 1 and Encephalon 3 being a significant threat, well, is that a problem? I mean, the guy's paying a significant amount in Essence and nuyen, and still not getting as many TN reductions as a guy with a VCR 2.

This also brings up the issue of Pool dice. I just noticed that most pools use augmented attributes in their calculations, except for Control Pool which uses unaugmented Reaction + VCR*2. Maybe we should just change that to augmented Intelligence + VCR*2? I mean, nowhere else is Quickness important in situations where you're leaving your body behind; why should it be so with Rigging?

Posted by: pragma Sep 13 2005, 12:04 AM
Another idea on a mildly related tangent. It would be interesting to split reaction so that only intelligence mattered for mental initiative and only quickness for physical. Though that would be changing the system quite a bit (however it would cut down on genius samurai).

Posted by: Shockwave_IIc Sep 13 2005, 01:25 AM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (pragma @ Sep 12 2005, 08:32 PM)
Open Tests:

I find that open tests, especially stealth, are often panned (at least in the circles I run in) because modifiers are inappropriately applied.  The only time a guard will be using only your stealth roll as a target number should be when you are sneaking across a lit area with no cover (it should, without a doubt, be a crapshoot at best in that case).

If you are crawling through tall grass at night with appropriate camoflauge you have picked up a +10 or so modifier to the test, making it a much more sane proposition in my mind.

While it is frustrating to be playing a stealth 12 adept that just can't seem to roll higher than a 5, I think the basic mechanic is solid.

There's also the issue that many people forget the fundamental imbalance: the stealthing character only needs one die to hit that level, while on the perception chart one success on perception is defined as "something is there". The second success is "something is definitely there and the perceiver suspects what general type of thing it is" (note that this means "person", not "shadowrunner"). Only at the third success do you have immediately-blown cover in any but the most secure area. Sure that guard can roll a 37 against your stealth 10, but can he get another 10+ on his three dice?

~J

Kage on your issue with multiple success's needed for stealth test's. Something that i use is Professional rating acting like "Auto Success's"

Basically, the "bad guys" need a total of 5 success to investigate something they think they might of saw. An ultra professional will only need 1 dice based success to check why that shadow seemed to move where as someone who thinks they getting paid to "count sheep" will need 4 success off of there dice (which may be impossible) or could quite likely think that pretending he didn't see something is the best option.....

Posted by: Taran Sep 13 2005, 09:57 AM
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
Well, don't sneak around when you're wounded, then. smile.gif  That's the other thing about Open tests, though... penalties against the Open test directly subtract from the roll, which in turn lower the TN for the opposing viewer.
True, but the effect is much larger under your proposed system (I think; I've still not run the numbers). You could, of course, take the opposite perspective and say that Open tests don't reflect penalties strongly enough...
QUOTE
QUOTE
Similarly, a +4 lighting mod causes a character with stealth 4 to perform about as well as a character with stealth 12.  A lightly wounded watcher is much worse at watching.  For a guy in +12 ruthenium, the stealth skill is almost meaningless.
Well, those mods can be negated for the viewer (lighting mods by area lighting, ruthenium by ultrasound or even simple "hearing" checks).
Could you expand on this? To my understanding, SR doesn't differentiate among the various senses in perception tests, so the +12 is intended to account for the fact that the wearer is basically invisible, and people looking for him must use other, less directional senses. Or ultrasound, but even then the suit is worth a +6, the rough equivalent of at least 12 points of stealth skill. Maybe this is a poor example, though; full ruthenium is insane in the current ruleset too.

Posted by: Juggernaut125 Nov 28 2005, 12:28 AM
Has the SR3R been forgotten, postponed or abandoned for the new SR4? I enjoyed the sharing of theories and opinions that were presented thus far on the 3rd edition. There are still plenty of topics to discuss (Spellcasting vs. Ritual Sorcery, Physical Adept powers that mimic Cybernetic abilities, Rigging in general, gear, etc.)

Posted by: Veracusse Nov 28 2005, 01:37 AM
Also is the website http://sr3r.net/ still going to be used for its intended purpose?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Nov 28 2005, 01:44 AM
Postponed until my horribly late psych paper gets finished.

Site still going to be used, etc.

~J

Posted by: Platinum Apr 6 2006, 02:28 PM
Hey K, are you going to resurrect this beast and possibly post the new decking rules?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 6 2006, 11:58 PM
Yep, more info after I sleep.

~J

Posted by: Platinum Apr 7 2006, 07:45 AM
You awake yet??.... blink blink

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 7 2006, 08:13 AM
Awake. Collecting.

~J

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 8 2006, 03:31 PM
Taking longer than anticipated to create clean layout, plus I'm slow. Being worked on.

~J

Posted by: Platinum Apr 9 2006, 11:45 AM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Taking longer than anticipated to create clean layout, plus I'm slow. Being worked on.

~J

If you want a hand .... I would not mind pitching in

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 9 2006, 02:21 PM
Operational utility list and operation list up. More later.

~J

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 14 2006, 12:47 PM
Proposed revised Initiatory-group-joining rules:

The candidate rolls Magic or highest Magical skill against a TN equal to 4, plus the size of the group divided by 10 (round down), plus 1 for every point of magic the candidate has lost, minus 1 for every Initiate grade the candidate already possesses.

The initiatory group may spend Karma Pool on the behalf of the candidate. This expenditure costs what it would cost if the candidate made the expenditure (for example, if the candidate makes one reroll, it would cost two karma pool for the initiatory group to provide the second reroll) and is subject to a chance of Cursed Karma if the candidate or any member of the initiatory group possesses that flaw. The cost is applied to every member of the initiatory group�as a result, it is extremely rare.

Alternate TN-scaling system appropriate for preventing large groups: as above, but the TN increases by the size of the group divided by five (round down).

Alternate TN-scaling system 3: as above, but the TN increases in a triangular progression (+1 at 10 members, +1 +2 at 20 members, +1 +2 +3 at 30 members, so on and so forth).

Alternate TN-scaling system 4: As above, but the TN increases by one for every multiple of the current highest initiate grade present within the group.

Alternate TN-scaling system 5: As System 4, but each group is determined to be either a Communal Paradise or a Personality Cult. If the group is a Personality Cult (overwhelmingly the most common group type), the TN is based on the multiple of the initiate grade of the group leader (usually, but not always, the person with the highest initiate grade). If the group is a Communal Paradise, the TN is based on the average (rounded down) of the initiate grades of all members.

Alternate TN-scaling system 6: as above, but the TN increases by one for every multiple of the Group Size Factor. The GSF is determined by taking the highest Initiate Grade, dividing it by two (round down), then adding together the grades of the highest-graded individuals up to that number and dividing by two (again, round down).

In systems 4, 5, and 6, magical groups may not admit new members without an initiate present in the group. Alternately, the TN may be determined as if members had an initiate grade of 1, with an additional +4 added.

Any opinions on which system looks best, or an alternate suggestion?



Proposed Hooper-Nelson rule alteration: the limitations on when the H-N rule may be applied are eliminated. While the ability to reduce a TN of 6 to 5 (for example) is powerful, it pales in comparison to another karma pool die.

Thoughts?

~J

Posted by: Platinum Apr 14 2006, 03:41 PM
please forgive my ignorance, I have only played sr2. Why would it be harder to join or initiate in a large group? You have more people to talk with and learn from.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Apr 14 2006, 03:52 PM
A few reasons. I'll start with the weakest one, the others are in no particular order:

1) That's how SR3 does it. For reference, current canon is that the TN is equal to the number of members the group currently has.

2) Game balance. Larger groups will inherently have more resources per amount of dues paid by individual members.

3) "Magical groups usually come into being to accomplish specific goals." The point of the entry test is determining whether or not the candidate's purpose harmonizes with that of the group and that of the other members. In light of this the original punishing TN makes a great deal of sense�the more people you have, the less likely you're going to get them to agree.

Initiating does not increase in difficulty, only joining the group.

~J

Posted by: Platinum Apr 14 2006, 03:58 PM
if that is the case then I would say increase the TN by members of the group /5.
+2 tn for not being initiated. Should either be a magical theory or etiquette magic roll. default ch +2

Posted by: Chance359 May 13 2006, 07:31 PM
*judo chop*
First I want to say that I think that this project is a very worthwhile. After having gone back and read most of the pages of the various SR3R thread I've got a few thoughts:

Cyberware prices:
Chipjack: 0.2 500 nuyen
Cyberears (replacement): 0.3 1,000
Cybereyes (replacement): 0.2 500
Datajack: 0.2 500
Subvocal Microphone: 0.1 400
Telephone: 0.2 500
Headware Radio: 0.4 Rating x 500 nuyen
Cyberlimbs: use 4th edition costs?
Cyberlimb enhancements: same essence cost, 10% of listed nuyen costs
Biomoniter: 0.2 750 nuyen

(I also like the idea of grades of cyber ears and eyes introduced in SR4)

Boosted Reflexes: This would make users similar to Juicers from rifts

Change to make it a chemical treatment that has to be maintained. The essence cost would come from the chemicals, auto injectors to supply the drugs, and the resevoirs built into the body to hold the drugs.

This basically changes it from a one time treatment into a set of body compartments with auto injectors, with a supply of drugs.

Keep the same benefits and restrictions on not compatible with wired reflexes and vehicle control rigs.

Level 1 would cost 0.4 5,200 nuyen to install and 200 a month
Level 2 would cost 0.8 10,500 nuyen to install and 500 a month
level 3 would cost 1.2 16,000 nuyen to install and 1,000 per month

If the user misses an appointment to pickup new chemical inserts, reduce their boosted reflexes rating by 1 per month. I'm still working on a way to keep someone from getting level 1 and buying the level 3 drugs and overloading themselves.

Posted by: Chance359 May 14 2006, 04:05 PM
Kage, maybe cyberware revisions need their own thread?

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 14 2006, 04:12 PM
They do indeed. I haven't opened it yet because to keep focus tight I'm waiting to finish off some of the current threads before I open any more�among other things, cyberware revisions (and most other gear) needs to wait until the affected ruleset is fully revised. Not that I find it at all likely, but if for some reason we were to suddenly declare that all Elves get� I don't know, automatic slow regeneration (*cough cough*), we'd need to know that before we started tweaking cyberware to make it balance out.

~J

Posted by: Grinder May 14 2006, 05:51 PM
Haven't read the whole thread: will you put all together in a PDF? The revised rules, I mean.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 14 2006, 06:00 PM
To the degree that I can. Worst-case scenario I'll provide a tool for ripping the text out of the SR3 PDFs plus a diff of the SR3R rules and the original text.

~J

Posted by: Catsnightmare May 14 2006, 06:13 PM
I guess this means I better get off my hoop and finish typing up those revised Rigger/driving rules I promised. smile.gif

Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 14 2006, 06:21 PM
This is very exciting.

Posted by: Chance359 May 15 2006, 03:30 AM
A few pages back Kage mentioned a http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=8169&st=125 (about 2/3 of the way down, Jul 14 2005, 10:26 PM). Personally I like what SR4 has done with giving contacts both a Connection and Loyalty rating. For SR3R I propose using a similar system, but when you choose a contact you have to purchase the points for them

Connection:
1-3 500� per point
4-6 1,000� per point
7+ 5,000� per point

Loyalty:
1-3 500� per point
4-6 1,000� per point
7+ 5,000� per point

Example:
I want to buy a Fixer contact at character creation. I need this fixer to both connected and loyal so I splurge and give her Connection: 5 (5,000�), and Loyalty: 5 (5,000�).

This however do not cover all of the aspects that Kage's proposed changes do.

Also, why is it that the speed at which the muscles of my body are capable of moving at have anything to do with the how quickly I can react when my mind is removed from my body? As it stands right now when a mage projects the speed at which their physical body moves has nothing to do with how quickly their astral body moves.

I wouldnt mind seeing Reaction in a vehicle or in the Matrix be based directly off the characters Intelligence attribute. It really won't make much of a difference since a large majority of Riggers and Deckers have both high Quickness and Intiligence, but it would make a bit more sense.

Posted by: Taran May 15 2006, 08:18 AM
Riggers are already nearly one-stat characters. As it stands, you can very nearly have a viable rigger with 1/6/1/1/6/1, and from a game balance perspective I'm uncomfortable with removing Quickness from that equation. I'm less worried about abusive Decker builds, since most deckers moonlight as mages or sams or what-have-you anyway. But riggers...I guess it's a mercy that there's only one Int-boosting piece of 'ware, and that it's cultured and thus out of most peoples' reach at character creation. Even so, this scares me a lot.

But, goddammit, from a realism perspective you're totally right. I wrote several paragraphs about how Quickness actually models mental quickness as well as physical quickness, but no, that's Reaction. That Quickness adds to virtual Reaction just makes no sense and never has, and the analogy to astral space is telling. That would let us get rid of all the clumsy exceptional language on quickness-boosting cyberware, which all has special-case rules about how it doesn't apply to virtual Reaction.

The contact thing: I like it. It collapses three of Kagetenshi's axes into one, but it requires much less GM input at character creation. It totally ignores GunnerJ's offering, but that would have required us to do work to invent all the necessary Cliches.

Edited for premature submission.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 15 2006, 08:36 AM
I do think we need to get rid of the special-case-language on Quickness-boosting 'Ware, regardless of whether or not we drop Quickness as part of Rigged/Decked Reaction.

As for the contact thing, I think it's interesting enough to look into further, but I'm uncomfortable moving that far back in terms of granularity. Then again, I fully admit that to make SR into the system I really want would require all players to carry computers to the game at all times.

~J

Posted by: mmu1 May 15 2006, 09:11 AM
QUOTE (Taran @ May 15 2006, 10:18 AM)
But, goddammit, from a realism perspective you're totally right.� I wrote several paragraphs about how Quickness actually models mental quickness as well as physical quickness, but no, that's Reaction.� That Quickness adds to virtual Reaction just makes no sense and never has, and the analogy to astral space is telling.� That would let us get rid of all the clumsy exceptional language on quickness-boosting cyberware, which all has special-case rules about how it doesn't apply to virtual Reaction.

I think you can still rationalize Quickness adding to virtual reaction, if you try, by having an appropriate definition of how cyberware interacts with the human brain.

Basically, the question would be whether the use of the VCR and the deck still involves the user's motor centers and brain stem, or whether they're connected in such a way that they're based on some hypothetical hook-up that allows "pure thought" to be in charge, bypassing the meat body entirely.

The latter sort of verges on the metaphysical - the brain is unavoidably the sum of its parts, and I don't think cyberware able to effectively interface with the mind rather than the brain makes a lot of sense. I'd be inclined to think that, when you're rigging or decking, and think of moving in a particular way, the parts of the brain responsible for normally moving your body would still acitvate... but I'll admit there are enough gaps in my knowledge of the canon to make that the wrong interpretation.

Still, I think you can logically explain it. (if you're willing to re-write the cyber background, if necessary)

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 15 2006, 09:14 AM
Astral Reaction is already just Intelligence (or the average of Intelligence and Astral Quickness, which is equal to Intelligence, whichever you'd prefer wink.gif ).

~J

Posted by: mmu1 May 15 2006, 09:36 AM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Astral Reaction is already just Intelligence (or the average of Intelligence and Astral Quickness, which is equal to Intelligence, whichever you'd prefer wink.gif ).

~J

I'm sorry, what are you referring to? wink.gif

(early... Monday... morning... need... sleep)

Posted by: Kyoto Kid May 15 2006, 10:35 AM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
I'm going to admit to my prejudices right up front: if and when I undertake this project, one major aspect of it is that I'll be trying to reflect the fact that, in my opinion, a character without Computers should be like a character without Etiquette. Much as I'm not terribly a fan of the neo-WMI and the death of cyberdecks, the possibility that every character might be reasonably able to be at least part-decker without having to go terribly out of his or her way for it definitely excites me.

~J

...until you meet KK41.

Logic of 1

Uneducated Quality

[Described as a severe learning disability she had all her life which was further accentuated by the Comet's passing]

Of course I Hack, silly, that is what the Katana and Wakasashi are for."

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 15 2006, 10:37 AM
Having a Logic of 1 will make it higher than 100% of SR3R characters, what with it not being a stat nyahnyah.gif

~J

Posted by: Kyoto Kid May 15 2006, 03:13 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Having a Logic of 1 will make it higher than 100% of SR3R characters, what with it not being a stat nyahnyah.gif

~J

..in SR3 terms - this would give her would have an INT of 2 (based on the average of her Intuition 4 + Logic 1 - round down).

Still pretty low for anyone considering hacking or decking and then, there are the penalties for her Uneducated flaw.

Mention "Matrix" to her, and she would more than likely think of a Russian Superhero from the comics.

Posted by: Taran May 15 2006, 04:06 PM
Kage: We'd be moving forward relative to default SR3. It's only backward relative to your system, which I suspect would require some GM adjudication at chargen.

Kyoto Kid: KK41 gets screwed by the SR3 method for determining Reaction, which includes Intelligence. The INT range for successful Shadowrunners mostly starts at 4, modulo a couple of Snoogish aberrations. That's why everyone can cheaply become computer-proficient. Me, I kinda wish there was a way to squeeze a second skill out of Computers, similar to the Sorcery/Conjuring divide, and making decking a tad bit more exclusive.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid May 15 2006, 10:49 PM
QUOTE (Taran)

Kyoto Kid: KK41 gets screwed by the SR3 method for determining Reaction, which includes Intelligence.  The INT range for successful Shadowrunners mostly starts at 4, modulo a couple of Snoogish aberrations.  That's why everyone can cheaply become computer-proficient.  Me, I kinda wish there was a way to squeeze a second skill out of Computers, similar to the Sorcery/Conjuring divide, and making decking a tad bit more exclusive.

...I agree, translating KK4.1 to SR3 wouldn't work simply due to the attribute limits imposed in SR4.

Instead, I would consider "dusting off" the original Kyoto Kid concept (who began in SR1) as reworked for SR3. The only drawback I see is the MA loss for wound effects which I thought was a silly rule to begin with.

Posted by: Chance359 May 19 2006, 05:55 PM
(from Gunner J)
Competency: This attribute describes how well the contact is in certain generalized fields that describe their "job."

The GM should roll competency whenever the contact's ability to do something is in question. Use the field closest related to the task at hand; for example, roll Smuggler to see if the contact can transport something illegally, or Street Doc to see if a contact can heal a wound. Target numbers should be as for the skill being supplanted by competency. Contacts may have to perform tasks outside their chosen field; in these cases apply a TN modifier. For tasks closely related but not really within the contact's expertise (e.g., a Street Doc acquiring illegal drugs) add two to the TN. For tasks distantly related but with some similarities to a field (e.g., a Street Doc repairing cyberlimbs) add four to the TN. For a task completely out of the field's domain (e.g., a Street Doc firing an assault cannon) add eight to the TN.

Compentancy:
1-3 500� per point
4-6 3,000� per point
7+ 10,000� per point

Connection:
1-3 500� per point
4-6 1,000� per point
7+ 5,000� per point

Loyalty:
1-3 500� per point
4-6 1,000� per point
7+ 5,000� per point

Example:
I want to buy a Fixer contact at character creation. I need this fixer to both connected, loyal, and skilled so I splurge and give her Compentancy: 5 (15,000�), Connection: 5 (5,000�), and Loyalty: 5 (5,000�). Meaning that I just spent 30,000 on a contact. ouch, suggestions

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 20 2006, 12:50 PM
To help keep track of things, I'm looking into getting a ticket tracker set up for the project. More information soon�.

~J

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 20 2006, 06:42 PM
Does anyone have a suggestion for a good tracker that's� well, maybe a little bit less specific to software development than Bugzilla?

Instructions on submitting issues to the tracker coming Real Soon Now�.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 20 2006, 06:49 PM
Do you have access to a MySQL webserver with PHP and Perl support? If so I've got something that might be useful.

It's something I inherited from an earlier grunt at my last job, and it's written almost entirely in undocumented perl, so it might not be what you're looking for. If you want something easy to modify then I'd avoid it like the plague. But it does have login capabilities, user rights, room for various projects, versions, priorities, due dates, and quite a bit more.

Posted by: Smilin_Jack May 20 2006, 06:58 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Does anyone have a suggestion for a good tracker that's� well, maybe a little bit less specific to software development than Bugzilla?

Instructions on submitting issues to the tracker coming Real Soon Now�.

~J

Any of the plethora of scripts here:

http://www.hotscripts.com/Tools_and_Utilities/index.html

Just search for 'Project Management' or 'Ticket'.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 21 2006, 12:09 AM
QUOTE (James McMurray)
Do you have access to a MySQL webserver with PHP and Perl support? If so I've got something that might be useful.

Yes and yes. Offer's much appreciated, if you'd like you can send it on to kagetenshi@sr3r.net .

I'll look into the various options again in the morning and see what comes up as the best option. The problem isn't really that what I have doesn't work, it's just that I don't really feel right about the fact that under the current system someone who tries to add a ticket about, say, staging an Ares Viper Slivergun is asked what operating system this occurred on.

~J

Posted by: pragma May 21 2006, 11:59 AM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ May 21 2006, 01:09 AM)
... asked what operating system this occurred on.

SR3, obviously. biggrin.gif

Posted by: nezumi Dec 7 2006, 04:57 PM
Hey, I was just posting about Shadowrun in the MS shadowrun computer game forum and it occured to me... what is going on with SR3R? Kage had an awesome idea (even if it's only 'reorganized our house rules and equipment lists so they're concise and all in one place').

Kage - why has this gone quiet? What are you missing that can drive your project to undrempt of SUCCESS? I love what you're going for and I'd be happy to contribute some man hours if that would make a difference.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 7 2006, 05:12 PM
Two big reasons why the project went quiet. The first was I actually got off my ass and got back into academia proper instead of bouncing between dead-end jobs and part-time classes I wasn't really interested in. That's really been the big killer�this project is still on my mind, but gone are the days when I would do something like sit down and spend eight hours solid figuring out how to fix something. Tradeoffs.

The other part is, I picked a lot of the low-hanging fruit in the areas that I'm looking at so far. There's still a fair amount elsewhere, but I'm still trying to keep scope constrained so that some of these sections can actually get finished sometime before 2010. The problems I was working on when I last had a chance to spend solid large blocks of time on this were ones where no obvious fix presented itself.

That said, I've got a new Sunday group (woo for three days of Shadowrun a week), so fixing holes has come back into my mind more lately. Still, you (the readers in general) can help. How? Well, a few ways.

1) Identify specific weaknesses in the system, particularly in those areas open for discussion. Post them, we can argue for a few weeks as to whether or not they're bugs or features, then propose solutions if necessary. If you have a proposed solution, all the better, but figuring out precisely what the problem is is the important part.

2) Try the new rules! Decking's really the main place where we've got a chunk of rules all together that are ready for live play. If there are any issues remaining, or worse yet new issues, report them as above.

3) I forgot what this one was.

4) If you're feeling really masochistic, try to sift out the agreed-upon changes from a thread and organize them into a distributable file (PDF, text, RTF, something universal�avoiding Word documents is the big thing).

~J

Posted by: eidolon Dec 7 2006, 05:28 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
(woo for three days of Shadowrun a week)


I hate you so good. Haaaaate.

wink.gif

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Dec 10 2006, 05:43 PM
Will there be happy fun armor degradation rules? I don't think that a firefight counts unless you discard your pockmarked, somewhat bloody vest afterwards.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 10 2006, 05:57 PM
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Dec 10 2006, 06:43 PM)
Will there be happy fun armor degradation rules?� I don't think that a firefight counts unless you discard your pockmarked, somewhat bloody vest afterwards.

Possibly. I'd like to see some armor degradation, but it isn't way up high on my priority list. If I (or someone else, hint hint wink.gif ) had a system that was quick and easy to use I'd put it in in a flash, but I see the difficulty of making it fit in well in an extremely time- and attention-sensitive environment (combat) as outweighing the benefits that paying immediate attention to the problem might bring.

We need some good Computer-Assisted GMing tools (CAG/CAGM). Problem is, most of the ones that don't make people change how they game involve tools not yet sufficiently available (voice recognition, natural language parsing, etc.).

~J

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Dec 10 2006, 06:08 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Dec 10 2006, 06:43 PM)
Will there be happy fun armor degradation rules?� I don't think that a firefight counts unless you discard your pockmarked, somewhat bloody vest afterwards.

Possibly. I'd like to see some armor degradation, but it isn't way up high on my priority list. If I (or someone else, hint hint wink.gif ) had a system that was quick and easy to use I'd put it in in a flash, but I see the difficulty of making it fit in well in an extremely time- and attention-sensitive environment (combat) as outweighing the benefits that paying immediate attention to the problem might bring.

We need some good Computer-Assisted GMing tools (CAG/CAGM). Problem is, most of the ones that don't make people change how they game involve tools not yet sufficiently available (voice recognition, natural language parsing, etc.).

~J

Just brainstorming here, but how about this?

Every time the armor is hit by an attack which has a Power greater than its protective rating for that kind of attack it loses a point of protective value. For the purposes of degradation compare the Power of an elemental attack against the full impact protection of the armor.

Furthermore, when the armor has been hit by attacks which cause physical damage a number of times equal to the protective value relevant to the type of attack (ballistic for bullets, impact for swords), reduce that protective value by one point. This penalty stacks with the above rule.


How does that look?

Posted by: mmu1 Dec 10 2006, 07:30 PM
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)
Just brainstorming here, but how about this?

Every time the armor is hit by an attack which has a Power greater than its protective rating for that kind of attack it loses a point of protective value. For the purposes of degradation compare the Power of an elemental attack against the full impact protection of the armor.

Furthermore, when the armor has been hit by attacks which cause physical damage a number of times equal to the protective value relevant to the type of attack (ballistic for bullets, impact for swords), reduce that protective value by one point. This penalty stacks with the above rule.


How does that look?

I think that makes armor next to useless - 4 or 5 shots, and your typical runner is left without any armor protection, then dies.

Aside from that, it also doesn't really make sense in a game in which armor and hit locations are pretty abstract, and armor which doesn't cover the whole body still gives protection against just about all attacks.

Finally, it just doesn't make real world sense - I think even modern rigid trauma plates don't lose protective value that quickly, except when hit in or very near the same exact spot twice... And the properties that make most flexible body armor work in the first place also mean it can take repeated hits and the impact will continue to be distributed.

So, personally, I'd be against armor degradation for SR - armor is life, and any rules under which it gets degraded will make already deadly combat even more so. Losing 1 or 2 points of armor might not seem like a big deal, but in reality, it might often mean getting your ability to soak an attack halved. (TN 6 instead of 5, or 5 instead of 3...)

I don't want to simply offer criticism without any constructive suggestions, but frankly... any system you decide to apply to it that's simple will have holes you can drive a bus through, and anything complex isn't really worth the trouble. (what's the point of having an armor degradation model that's more complex than the core injury model?)

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 10 2006, 07:51 PM
In this case, where it's not clear that something has to be done, criticism of proposals is constructive IMO. I mean, not that it isn't always if it's reasonable criticism, but the option of not changing things is always there whereas something that needs to be fixed needs some change.

~J

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Dec 11 2006, 05:16 PM
Well, okay, how about this?

Keep track of the number of times that the armor his hit by an attack which exceeds the relevant protective value and which causes Physical damage, with elemental damage Power being compared to full impact for the purpose of this tally.

When the number of times the armor has been hit equals the relevant protective value the armor loses a point of that protective value.

That way the armor won't degrade if it's being hit by a lot of weak attacks or stun attacks, but only for relatively powerful Physical attacks.

Under these rules, a suit of Armor Clothing will quickly degrade upon being fired on by a shotgun because of the big honking holes punched through it. In my mind, the lower Ballistic values represent how you now have zero protection against rounds that hit the punched-through spot.

If layered armor is involved degradation is applied first to the outermost layer of armor. The inner layers of armor are only affected if the [Power of Physical attack - Points of relevant armor on outermost layer of armor as articulated above] > [Relevant protective value of armor underneath]


How's that?

Posted by: Sphynx Dec 12 2006, 01:23 AM
The problem with Armour Degredation rulings is that you have to keep track of armour on a per-piece basis. I would never follow an armour degredation rule for that purpose. The fun of shadowrun (and any rpg) is complex simplicity. Ie: no hit-locations requiring seperate monitors, no insta-death shots, etc.

Just my opinion.

Posted by: nezumi Dec 12 2006, 08:54 AM
On the other hand, I feel like one of the advantages of SR3R will be modularity. For any given problem, there are at least two mechanics available (SR3 and SR3R solutions), possibly more. As an optional rule, the armor degradation rules WR is posting seem well worth including in the final SR3R product, even if many people choose not to use them.

Posted by: nezumi Dec 12 2006, 08:54 AM
- deleted duplicate post because the forum software hates me-

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Dec 18 2006, 04:37 AM
So, i sincerely doubt we'll be able to change it, and I care little either way, but I think it should be brought up for SR3R.

The target numbers of 6 and 7 are the same target number.

Any suggestions for a solution short of changing to the hit system or doing away with the rule of 6 (if that was even possible)?

Posted by: Dawnshadow Dec 18 2006, 08:21 AM
Reroll 6's, adding 5 instead.

Posted by: nezumi Dec 18 2006, 08:37 AM
Wow, that's a very elegant solution!

I'm going through this thread and tabulating everything into a single document, but in case it comes to naught, I think we also need to better define astral perception. Is it a psychic sense or just a visual overlay? Either way, the modifiers should reflect that.

Posted by: SL James Dec 18 2006, 09:44 AM
Well, it's not just visual.

Posted by: Sphynx Dec 18 2006, 09:50 AM
Re-Rolling 6's and adding 5 is probably the best 'solution', however I think most players will agree that it's not a problem needing solving. No game balance or other issues has ever arisen from having a TN of 7 and rolling a 6 being a success. It's just uncomfortable for some people, but isn't an issue really....

And as SL James said, it's not -just- visual. Visual is part of it though. Just like your non-astral perception test may not be -just- visual...

Posted by: nezumi Dec 18 2006, 10:02 AM
The point is, should it be visual at all?

Posted by: Sphynx Dec 18 2006, 10:14 AM
Why is that the point? Why shouldn't it be visual?

Posted by: blakkie Dec 18 2006, 10:45 AM
QUOTE (SL James)
Well, it's not just visual.

Not unless you use dice that are numbered 0-5. wink.gif

Posted by: nezumi Dec 18 2006, 11:07 AM
Because it's a psychic sense, not an optical one.

The problem is basically that we use the metaphor of visual sight to explain it, which is fine to begin with. However there are points when the metaphor is used in place of the reality, and it becomes unnecessarily confusing. For instance, why does astral perception see through glass? The answer is because our normal vision can see through glass. It's a misapplication of the metaphor.

Posted by: Sphynx Dec 18 2006, 11:20 AM
I disagree. The reason Astral Perception can see through glass is because the Astral is mostly manipulated by 'intent'. A window is placed in a location to allow one to see through. The intent and purpose of that window is to provide sensory throughput. It has only enough to do with visual in that visual is the intended sensory.

I don't see a need to seperate them, since it's your brain that's translating the input, and telling you that you're "seeing" something due to a lack of a better way to translate it to you.

Posted by: nezumi Dec 18 2006, 12:09 PM
So if I intend for a wall to be red, it'll be red on the astral, and if I put up a sign saying "no spitting on the dwarves", you'll understand the intent of the sign? Or if I intend to put up a window, but haven't gotten to it yet, you can still see through where it would be?

At best, glass that was put up by someone who REALLY REALLY wanted to be able to see through it should give the sense of 'someone put up something here with the intent of allowing people to see through it'. The astral shows the intent of conscious beings, it does not manifest that intent.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Dec 18 2006, 12:15 PM
If someone has a hole in their wall and they put up a piece of glass to plug it up, does it show up as opaque, since it was intended to be a barrier, and the visible transparency of glass is incidental?

Posted by: Sphynx Dec 18 2006, 01:25 PM
Re-read about the Astral. Although I realize you're simply attempting to be facisious, I will reply to each comment.

Putting up a red wall has no effect on 'color' in the Astral plane. The 'intent' is based on what the general person (not the implementor or viewer) understands that intent to be. The only 'intent' of a red wall, is that there is an intended barrier in the way.

If you intend to put up a window, there is nothing for the general person to understand from 'intent'. Again, not the implementor or viewer responsible for effect here.

If you use see-thru glass to plug up a hole, your intent is not going to over-ride the general populace definition of 'intent'. However, by my understanding of the Astral, the window would be slightly less opaque (tinted?) than a window glass-piece, purely because there actually is 'intent' of some nature.

Posted by: nezumi Dec 18 2006, 02:10 PM
I really am not trying to be facetious.

Alright, I'm opening up the book to the astral section. So far I see no mention of "intent" anywhere. The most relevant bit is:

"Non-magical objects have no auras, but pick up impressions from being in contact with living auras. Assessing can "read" any impressions left behind on an object."

(here's intent, under astral senses):

"Abstract information is more difficult to perceive there. Written information and symbols carry their emotional intent rather than their informational intent. Blah blah, you could scan a sheet of paper... and get feelings of love and longing from it, but you can't read it to see that it's a love letter."

Glancing through, I don't see where it mentions glass is transparent on the astral, but we both know that that is the rule.

In summary though, you see the emotional intent people leave on objects. So if I really really wanted a window to be transparent, you could get that. That doesn't mean it would be transparent any more than if I really really wanted a love letter to be transparent. Non-magical objects have no aura of their own, and so the window, by virtue of being glass, does not have an 'intention to be transparent' aura that allows you to see through it.

If you have a quote to support your stance, I really would appreciate seeing it, because it could clear up a point of contention I've had for a very long time.

(An addendum, part of the confusion I'm sure stems from:

p.173

"Your astral form has normal human sense of sight...
Written information carry their emotional intent rather than their informational intent. For example... but you can't read a street sign and know what street you're on."

The problem is that clearly you do NOT have the human sense of sight if you can't do things like read. The passage is completely fubared. Either you have the human sense of sight and can see through glass, read signs, etc. or you do not. You have the astral perception to read emotional intent, "see" life, etc. or you do not. However human sight does not read emotional intent, and astral perception cannot read, so clearly the two are separate senses and should be treated as such.)

Posted by: SL James Dec 18 2006, 02:14 PM
QUOTE (Sphynx)
And as SL James said, it's not -just- visual.  Visual is part of it though.  Just like your non-astral perception test may not be -just- visual...

Indeed. My favorite example is something I wrote a year ago.
QUOTE
The pain ran along the side of her head, and it was a pain buried deep within her skull, something painful and destructive that traveled through her brain until she reached her left eye, and it ... it felt dead. She traced her fingertip around the orbital socket, and the pressed on her eye gently, confirming what was an awful truth. It was dead, with the same cold sensation she would get from touching a corpse while she was astrally perceiving.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 18 2006, 02:15 PM
Searching MitS and SR3 for the word "glass" fails to come up with any support for the idea that it is transparent on the astral. I don't have time right now to look more closely.

~J

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Dec 18 2006, 02:18 PM
Just the old http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/resources/sr3faq.shtml
Should be the second occurance of the word "glass". But I'm guessing everybody already knew about that.

Posted by: Fortune Dec 18 2006, 02:20 PM
The SR3 FAQ was specific in stating that glass is clear (see-through) to Astral Perceiving/Projecting characters. Incidently, in SR4, glass is now considered opaque in that situation.

Posted by: nezumi Dec 18 2006, 02:24 PM
The best I can find is SR3, page 182.

"Transparent obstructions, such as glass, have no effect on most spells (see below). Because it is transparent, the spellcaster can see the target and affect it." (It doesn't specify 'while on the physical', although two paragraphs before is talking about that.

Posted by: SL James Dec 18 2006, 02:28 PM
It seems to refer just to sorcery on the physical plane, but I grudgingly accept the FAQ idea of it being transparent on the astral.

It's just one of those things I figure doesn't need too much thought put into it, like how metahumans who have thermographic (which I treat as IR) vision can see through glass without impediment.

Posted by: Dawnshadow Dec 18 2006, 07:20 PM
QUOTE (Sphynx)
Re-Rolling 6's and adding 5 is probably the best 'solution', however I think most players will agree that it's not a problem needing solving. No game balance or other issues has ever arisen from having a TN of 7 and rolling a 6 being a success. It's just uncomfortable for some people, but isn't an issue really....

And as SL James said, it's not -just- visual. Visual is part of it though. Just like your non-astral perception test may not be -just- visual...

I'd say it should be included as an "optional", for GMs who the 6/7 thing bugs. Because the option I've seen used in games is the slightly painful "there is no 7", which just means that when you're increasing target numbers, 7=8, and decreasing, 7=6.


Astral perception should really be functionally independent of the normal 5 senses. It's beyond them, covering a whole range of other things. It's a sense of emotions, life and magic. You don't 'see' auras, you perceive them in various ways that cannot be described to those who lack the ability, and if you ask any three people with astral perception to describe an aura, they'll all describe it differently, yet the same. "I see a woman with crackling hair, wings and a flaming sword", "I see a she-bear, whose cub is the bleeding world around her, under the blessings of the Great Spirit", "I see the shadow of a shield and a flaming sword upon her brow" it's all filtered through experiences and beliefs.

You shouldn't be able to see through a wall, because you can't. But you should be able to see through a window, because you can. The astral mirrors the physical.

Of course, it's my personal view that most of the facets of astral perception should still work. You should feel the ominous presence of the person crouched behind a low wall with an AK-98 that's about to full-auto down the hall at you.. but not quite be able to tell where he is.

Posted by: nezumi Dec 18 2006, 07:53 PM
QUOTE (Dawnshadow)
[QUOTE=Sphynx,Dec 18 2006, 10:50 AM]
You shouldn't be able to see through a wall, because you can't. But you should be able to see through a window, because you can. The astral mirrors the physical.

So should you not be able to pass through either, because that too mirrors the real life? nyahnyah.gif

Again, I would not complain if the rules said 'you cannot astrally perceive through windows, however you can see through them, but you can also read while on the astral, because you have physical sight too.'
QUOTE
Of course, it's my personal view that most of the facets of astral perception should still work. You should feel the ominous presence of the person crouched behind a low wall with an AK-98 that's about to full-auto down the hall at you.. but not quite be able to tell where he is.


If you can't see him, you shouldn't be able to sense him in any way. Stealth still applies to astral perception.

That said, I do appreciate your description of astral perception. I might use that metaphorical language in my games now.

Posted by: Dawnshadow Dec 18 2006, 08:17 PM
Stealth is different. You can make them make rolls for it -- because other then something as pervaisive as the Arcology, who lets the mage know that sort of thing without a roll? Just make them roll astral perception, just like any other perception test. If they can't physically see the person, they can't tell the position through astral perception. But they might be able to know they are there, by the emotional cues.

And again, this is entirely astral perception. Unless you're blind and deaf, you still have your senses of sight and hearing while astrally perceiving. So you should be able to read the street sign, or hear the conversation.

If you're astrally projecting, on the other hand, then you don't have physical senses. You have only the astral perception. Your brain might parse it into rough sense analogies, but you aren't using them. You can't read the sign because you can't see it. You can't hear the conversation because you don't have ears. You might be able to tell a great deal from emotions and so on, but you can't hear them say "Joe, you wait there with the shotgun, Jimmy, be ready with the flamethrower" -- you just sense "Plan." Possibly on a really, really good roll, 'ambush plan'.

Posted by: nezumi Dec 18 2006, 09:13 PM
QUOTE (Dawnshadow)
If you're astrally projecting, on the other hand, then you don't have physical senses.

"Your astral form has normal human sense of sight and hearing." (page... 182?)

I do like your version better, but it's contrary to the rules.

Posted by: SL James Dec 18 2006, 09:52 PM
QUOTE (Dawnshadow)
Astral perception should really be functionally independent of the normal 5 senses. It's beyond them, covering a whole range of other things. It's a sense of emotions, life and magic. You don't 'see' auras, you perceive them in various ways that cannot be described to those who lack the ability, and if you ask any three people with astral perception to describe an aura, they'll all describe it differently, yet the same. "I see a woman with crackling hair, wings and a flaming sword", "I see a she-bear, whose cub is the bleeding world around her, under the blessings of the Great Spirit", "I see the shadow of a shield and a flaming sword upon her brow" it's all filtered through experiences and beliefs.

Eh. It's just easier to use the Marvel Universe conception of the astral plane where it's basically the same senses, only not.

Posted by: Dawnshadow Dec 18 2006, 09:55 PM
Not really -- I'm making a distinct and clear difference between astral perception and astral projection.

I remember the rule, and I think it should apply -- when dealing with other astral entities. It's when crossing the boundry between astral and mundane that I referred to.

It weakens the astral spy slightly -- they can do layouts and pinpoint where an ambush is being prepared, or find someone, but can't listen in to a conversation and get the juicy details. You might allow something like manifesting, which gives physical senses as well, but that's in addition to things (and I'd probably make it require a metamagic).

Edit: SLJames -- of course it is. And that's the nice thing about it -- since the patterns and beliefs for a person won't change, you can just say what it is if you want, and have it understood that there's a whole wealth of symbolism and metaphor, while not having to spend time describing it.

Posted by: tisoz Dec 18 2006, 10:16 PM
It seems that things that are transparent on the physical need to be transparent on the astral. Otherwise how could one see through normal atmosphere? Nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc. is present.

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Dec 18 2006, 11:26 PM
So when are we creating a sub-thread about Vehicles/drones/Rigging? If simplifying the vehicle/rigging rules is possible, that would be quite nice.

Driving a vehicle and doing anything more complicated than a parallel park is ridiculously complicated and clunky.

The manuever score? Can we sacrifice it without making the system hollow?

Posted by: Sphynx Dec 19 2006, 01:15 AM
Kagentenshi, change your search to find 'opaque'. It doesn't say glass in the rule.



Nezumi, I don't have my books to give you quotes, but let's assume for a moment that there is no quote from the book that states 'intent' has the power I imply in the Astral Plane. Let's assume it's just a hypothesis.

Fact: You can see through windows from the Astral Plane.
Fact: Your Astral Senses quote shows that 'intent' does play a role.

You seek to destroy a fact because it makes no sense to your own perception of what Astral Perception should be.

I offer an explanation that does not go against anything the Astral Perception rules limit it from being. Hypothesis don't require proving, they require disproving (or an alternative possibility offered as a hypothesis).

Regardless, I see insufficient cause to remove the ruling as I've shown that thematically it fits with what the Shadowrun perception of the Astral is.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Dec 19 2006, 06:06 AM
QUOTE (Sir_Psycho)
So when are we creating a sub-thread about Vehicles/drones/Rigging? If simplifying the vehicle/rigging rules is possible, that would be quite nice.

Probably soon�I had originally wanted to finish off some aspect of the rules in its entirety before starting a new one, but that's a big task.
QUOTE
The manuever score? Can we sacrifice it without making the system hollow?

Honest answer? I don't know. I haven't been using it for a while now, but I'm not sure that's the correct solution�it doesn't obviously break things, but it does substantially reduce the advantages of smaller, nimbler vehicles (since it's easy to get even big vehicles down to very low Handling). Maneuver score does an important job, I'm just not sure if it's important enough or if there's a better way to do it.

~J

Posted by: nezumi Dec 19 2006, 08:23 AM
QUOTE (tisoz)
It seems that things that are transparent on the physical need to be transparent on the astral. Otherwise how could one see through normal atmosphere? Nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc. is present.

Because it's a gas. I've ruled in my game opacity is based on density. One can faintly make out clouds as a slight blurring of the atmosphere. Water, while transparent, can be seen as something thicker that obscures vision at extreme depths (imagine real, clean water like in the Carribean, looking at it from above. Once it gets to 40 or so feet, the details begin to fade because light refraction and whatnot. 80 feet you just see a faint blue as the floor of the pool, no details at all of what lies on the floor.) An ice cube is opaque.
QUOTE
Fact: Your Astral Senses quote shows that 'intent' does play a role.


Intent plays a role in that you can read intent off of things, not that the intent of something affects its use. Your apologetic doesn't work because it doesn't apply universally. Things that have another intended use don't carry that use over, glass being the sole exception.

The first "fact" I'm questioning precisely because FASA failed to universally apply it's own rules. Physical vision applies in some places, but does not apply in others. "Intent" clearly isn't what separates one case from the other because a stop sign is intended to be red (but isn't on the astral) and glass is intended to be clear (but is on the astral). I consider this "disproof" of your hypothesis.

Considering SR4 has ammended this mistake, I'm clearly not alone.

I'm under the impression that the idea of being able to cast through glass has been taken from another source (I do recollect in earlier versions you could only use the optical magnification on cyber eyes because the image couldn't be eletronic, and before that I suppose it's related to the idea of it being somehow the 'essence' of a thing - light directly from the target, whether it bounces off a mirror or through a window, is from the target. Light from an electronic image like electronic binoculars, is from the device in representation of the target. Hence, eletronic binoculars are out, while optical ones are in. Because of how magic is from the astral plane, and attacks (oftentimes) the aura of the target (like in manaball) through the astral plane (so it doesn't have to go through glass barriers), it's "natural" to assume that astral perception can work similarly, it isn't stopped by transparent barriers. However, like I've pointed out, that premise goes against how they've defined astral perception.)

Posted by: Sphynx Dec 19 2006, 08:51 AM
No, the intent of a stop sign is not to be red. It's intent is to provide order. The purpose of the sign was never to add a little red to the neighborhood. Astral perception of a stop sign would show crisp, clear feels and sight. Red has nothing to do with it.

Glass is not intended to 'be' anything, hence why you see no rules for it. Glass is not 'clear' in Astral space either, a computer monitor is grey, you don't see the lights behind it. The intent of that glass is not to be clear or to provide a sensory throughput.

However, the 'intent' of putting any opaque object within a barrier is to provide sensory throughput. Hence the rules for opacity. You've not disproved anything. You are throwing random mishmash together and calling it rebuttal. I don't think you understand what 'intent' means.

As for electronic vs optical magnification, I don't think you understand what electronic mag is. It takes a photo, uses a super-fast computer to enhance it, allowing you to see more miniscual details. Then sends that image to you via a monitor (or in the case of cybereyes, through direct neural interface). You're not seeing the object, you're seeing a modified copy of the object enhanced through computer modifications. Optical on the other hand, you may see the bird 2 miles away, but you couldn't see how many feathers it had on its wing.

Posted by: nezumi Dec 19 2006, 10:05 AM
QUOTE (Sphynx)
However, the 'intent' of putting any opaque object within a barrier is to provide sensory throughput.  Hence the rules for opacity. 

I assume you mean "transparent" object. I'd be rather worried if someone put an opaque object ina wall to allow 'sensory throughput'.

So assuming that, if I put up an advert for Soapy Suds, when you see it on the astral, would you want to buy Soapy Suds? Clearly that's the intent of the ad, to make you want to do that. Now what about something that forms naturally, like ice. A clear layer of ice forms on the glass. The ice was not put there with any intent, it was a natural reaction. Would it then be transparent? If I put on a disguise with the intent to hide who I am, would that work? If I put a camera on one side of the wall and a flatscreen TV on the other connected to teh camera, with the intent of seeing what is on the other side of the wall, can I gather information from the other side of the wall even though any transparency is artificial?

(The answers, according to canon, are no, yes, no and no, but from my reading of your rules, the intent of the object, the reason for which it was made, would shine through, and so it would be yes, no, yes and yes. If I'm wrong, maybe you're right and you need to give me your definition of intent.)
QUOTE
As for electronic vs optical magnification, I don't think you understand what electronic mag is.


I am well aware of how it works, and I assume you didn't bother reading what I wrote because that's precisely what I said. In the case of electronic zoom, what I'm seeing is a picture, and if I cast on it, I cast on the picture. None of the light hitting my eyes is from the target, the light is from the picture. However with optical, the light is from the target. I suggest you reread what I wrote.

Regardless, the line of reasoning from there is that since you can cast on the physical based off of the natural flow of light, as in you can cast on anything you have a LOS on, but NOT on something where your view is the result of an artificial manifestation (a picture, a hologram, electronic zoom, etc.). Ergo, you can cast through glass (which makes sense). The problem arose when you got on the astral because suddenly you're more restricted than before. After all, it clearly says that the astral has no basis on light levels. Light (like we know it) has no representation there (or does it? Since natural vision works "normally".) Therefore, we should not expect the laws that govern light to govern psychic emanations. Yet the rules disregard that and assume that in any case where light behaves a certain way, astral emanations behaves that same way - light passes through glass, therefore astral perception can as well.

This, not "intent" is why you can see through glass, you have limited vision through water, and endless vision into the air, fog can offer soft cover, but you do not perceive light. Otherwise they would have said "you can see through transparent surfaces, assuming they are intentionally transparent", rather than, "The basic rule of thumb is this: if you can see through it in the physical world, then you can see through it on the astral plane. If you can't see through it physically, then you can't see through it astrally, either." (SR3 FAQ)

As an aside, I recommend you drop the personal accusations. Since there are several people (including the SR4 devs) who have directly contradicted your ruling, it is clear that I am not the only one who "doesn't understand intent". I will not roll with the pigs, and if you cannot manage yourself as a gentleman, I will simply write you off as not being worth my time.

Posted by: Sphynx Dec 19 2006, 11:24 AM
Soapy Suds advertisement/billboard: No. However, if it were done by an artist who really felt strongly for Soapy Suds, yes. However, the 'intent' isn't the ad, it's the board. A feeling of commercialism would be felt from the Astral Plane, but the creation of the board's current ad is too generic to leave intent.

Ice on glass: Yes, no intent change. You can see through the ice.

A disguise is more likely to send off feelings of 'hiding something', not actually hiding the person. However, in order for that to correlate to the 'seeing through glass' conundrum you have in your head, you'd have to change that to ask, "The hat I put on as a disguise, does it look like someone else's hat since I intend for it to?" (Intent of the hat, not your intent)

Camera to monitor. Again, as with nearly everytime, you do the same thing of mixing your intent with the intent of an object. This discussion is pointless because you are unable to seperate the two. And no, it wouldn't work, since that's not the 'intent' of the camera or monitor.

As for personal accusations, none were intended. I can see how my reply may have seemed harsh, I didn't mean it as so. You are, however, wrong. The book says you can see through things that a person can see through physical (that is intent). You're trying to bring in all sorts of non-related arguements to prove the book is wrong in order to see a change. There's no need for a change, not only because there is a perfect explaination of 'intent', but because there is no balance issues being broken.

I'm not being insulting when I say that, the book says you can see through windows, come up with your own explanation if you want, but nothing about that ruling breaks the logic of astral perception, except in your own head.

As for SR4, irrelevant. If I cared at all for what the SR4 writers did to the system, I wouldn't be playing SR3 still. They can agree with you all they want, it remains a fact though, that in 3rd edition, glass is see-thru via the Astral.

Posted by: nezumi Dec 19 2006, 12:55 PM
Could you please post your precise definition of "intent", since that seems to be a point of confusion?

Posted by: Sphynx Dec 19 2006, 01:21 PM
You have the right definition, but you keep using it against the wrong object. The intent of a thing, not the intent of other things, or of actions.

Intent of a red-wall: To act as an obstacle. Color is irrelevant.
Intent of a camera: To act as a storage medium (Could possibly use one to trap a spirit, hence the fear of some tribes to be photographed since it could steal your soul)
Intent of a monitor: To act as a data-translation medium (Could possibly be used by a ghost to 'pass a message' over to the other side, making the 'ghost in the machine' even scarier)

Intent of a camera attached to a monitor: Irrelevant. Intent is per-object



OF course I can't give the perfect definition of 'intent' in regards to the Astral plane. Just as 'of course' though, there's no way for them to have given examples of even a small percentage of possibilities with the Astral.

The game designers took an idea that breached multiple genres and attempted to do something no other game had done. Explain it. People like yourself (that is not intended as an accusation) needle their already-over-generous explanations to a point that it all breaks down. Whatever doesn't fit your concept of the Astral, get rid of. But don't, please, try to remove it from the game entirely for everyone else because of your inability to explain it. It turns into an SR4, and makes even less sense because it's all scientific/explainable.

As a side note, a 'House Rule' I use in the Astral. You can't go through walls unless you use the 'Pressing through a barrier' rule. Doors, regardless of material (unless it's specifically anti-astral material, such as FAB) you can go right through (intent). You can however go through ceilings and floors in my world. Material doesn't effect your passage, intent does. Walls are meant as barriers, floors and ceilings are meant as protection and stability, and since they're not barriers, going through them is easy. I find that more in-line with their expression of the Astral, but I wouldn't go asking Kage to change the rules for my interpretation of it.

Posted by: nezumi Dec 19 2006, 01:57 PM
I do like your interpretation, although I disagree with it. More specifically, I would like your method if I used entirely your method (walls slow you down but doors don't). That's an extension of your explanation to its logical conclusion, and I do think that, for the most part, it seems logically sound. I could play in a game like that and enjoy it. My primary complaint would be how do you define intent? A glass beaker is made to contain acids and bases safely, as well as to serve as insulation. The fact that it's transparent is a happy coincidence. So would it allow a psychic reading to pass through it?

My primary complaint against your model, however, is that SR3 doesn't use it. If it did, I wouldn't complain it's internally inconsistent. It doesn't use my model either. My complaint has been that it uses two models, and jumps back and forth between them higgeldy piggeldy. That problem is something I would fix in SR4 (which was the prompt of the thread).

Now whether Kage decides to use your method or my method or no change at all is completely up to him, HOWEVER, in the spirit of the original thread, I feel it does need to be examined and at least considered, to get a sense of what would benefit the most players. Of course, should anyone not want to run with a particular SR3R rule, they are under no obligation to use it.

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Dec 19 2006, 06:54 PM
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

QUOTE
The manuever score? Can we sacrifice it without making the system hollow?

Honest answer? I don't know. I haven't been using it for a while now, but I'm not sure that's the correct solution�it doesn't obviously break things, but it does substantially reduce the advantages of smaller, nimbler vehicles (since it's easy to get even big vehicles down to very low Handling). Maneuver score does an important job, I'm just not sure if it's important enough or if there's a better way to do it.

~J

Ah yes. Specifically in motorbike vs. large vehicle. The maneuverability is all a yamaha Rapier holds over a Citymaster. If we take that away, then it destroys any semblance of balance.

Personally I just hate having to punch in the calculations every time any character makes an action.

Posted by: Sphynx Dec 20 2006, 01:07 AM
Nezumi, honestly, I don't think that the people who created the Astral explanations (who helped me understand 'intent') would let you 'look through' a glass beaker. It would exude toxicity, especially if it had been used to hold acids and bases. Or happiness if it just held flowers. Either way, the aura around it, due to usage, would over-ride the transparency rule. If it were sitting, brand new on a shelf, un-used, I think it would be relatively invisible to the astral perceiver (fully transparent). Windows however, usually don't have those attachments, so simply remain transparent due to intent being so much stronger than emotional rubbing in those cases.

I don't see how any of the things I said would go 'against' the definition of the Astral presented in the books. Sure, the book says that transparent objects are transparent, but it also talks about auras. Much like in the physical plane, glass is transparent, but light also reflects off of glass, making it impossible to see through into a dark room when there's a bright light behind you. Doesn't make the glass less transparent, just stops you from seeing through it. Same principles in the Astral. Doesn't make the Physical Plane 'internally inconsistent' or 'higgeldy piggeldy'. nyahnyah.gif

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Jan 17 2007, 06:22 PM
Why isn't this all in the magic/astral etc. sub-thread?

So are we going to revise the drug rules at all, to make them less... lethal?

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 17 2007, 06:26 PM
QUOTE (Sir_Psycho)
So are we going to revise the drug rules at all, to make them less... lethal?

Yes. Absolutely. Or at the very least, to include some drugs that have mechanical effects that players might reasonably have their long-term characters use.

~J

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Jan 17 2007, 06:38 PM
Damn Kage you're quick.

It's not so much a case of wanting drugs to be very powerful in game terms, honestly it's more for the sake of roleplaying, but it should still have effects. I just want to get rid of the easy three step program of "take - addiction - new character sheet!"

I have no idea how, though.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 18 2007, 12:13 AM
Reorganization in progress, working on adding a running "in progress/resolved" section to the start of each individual-topic thread.

~J

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Jan 20 2007, 09:11 AM
Sounds good, if I could assign Karma I would. When shall we start a melee combat revision? personally I think "cyber implant combat" should be a specialization of unarmed, and I can't say I'm the only one.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 20 2007, 10:57 PM
Post some proposed opening issues in the main SR3R thread and I'll probably open it up. That and Rigging are long overdue.

~J

Posted by: Slump Jan 20 2007, 11:17 PM
Personally, I think Cyber-Implant Weapons (Melee) should be a specialization of unarmed, whereas the various implanted ranged weapons should be specializations of what they're based off of.

It doesn't make much sense for a cyber-shotgun to be a specialization of unarmed (though that would be one hell of a punch)

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 21 2007, 12:11 AM
Oh, yeah, I'm awake. Totally.

(For reference, I thought we were in the ranged combat section when I posted the above)

Anyway, we've got that, anything else we should have in the opener for Melee Combat?

~J

Posted by: Chance359 Jan 21 2007, 11:03 PM
Idea for revised melee combat

For every 2D6 extra initiative dice you have over another combatant, you are able to cancel out 1 point of reach that combatant has against you.

Maximus, an unarmed street sam with Wired Reflexes lvl 2 is facing off in some corner of the sprawl against an unwired troll gang member armed with a butcher's knife (reach 1). With his extra speed Maximus is able to counter out the gang members natural extended reach. (reducing his base target number from 5 back to 4)

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 22 2007, 04:37 AM
QUOTE (Chance359)
Idea for revised melee combat

For every 2D6 extra initiative dice you have over another combatant, you are able to cancel out 1 point of reach that combatant has against you.

Maximus, an unarmed street sam with Wired Reflexes lvl 2 is facing off in some corner of the sprawl against an unwired troll gang member armed with a butcher's knife (reach 1). With his extra speed Maximus is able to counter out the gang members natural extended reach. (reducing his base target number from 5 back to 4)

I think that almost deserves its own thread. It's a real interesting discussion.

In the rules as written Bruce Lee would be helpless if he were bum rushed by four taekwondo soccer moms. In real life fighting against multiples is indeed highly likely to lead to your being used as a pinata but there's a difference between two soccer moms holding your arms and two soccer moms taking turns kicking your scrotum versus four soccer moms all just trying to hit you independently.

So, should we keep friends-in-melee and reach as UBER as they are now, or do we tone things down a bit?

I'm a little concerned that toning things down could make things more complicated. For example, if we want to talk about reach, a bo staff with reach two would be great for beating on a guy who is unarmed and who is so far away he can't fight back. But if the unarmed guy tackles you and begins grappling you the bo staff is suddenly a lot less useful. So would it be worthwhile to write in a minimum effective range for some melee weapons?

Posted by: Sphynx Jan 22 2007, 05:55 AM
Something we did once as a House Rule but dropped entirely for some unknown reason was to have Friends in Combat reduce your effective skill by 1 for each additional friend, but only to half your skill rating. So BruceLee with his Unarmed of 8 against 5 TKD Soccer Moms with unarmed of 2 would still outclass the 5 mome since he'd be an an 'effective skill' of 4 (8-5 < 8/2).

It worked nicely, but I think our group was just too rarely in melee for us to remember that we were using those rules and just kinda forgot.

BTW, considering +1 is the most common Reach you see, rarely a +2 and almost unheard of for +3 or +4, I like the Initiative Dice idea. But I think maybe per +1dice over the opponent is better. It only negates the modifier, doesn't reduce the TN, so it's not unbalancing.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Jan 22 2007, 09:13 AM
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)
In the rules as written Bruce Lee would be helpless if he were bum rushed by four taekwondo soccer moms.

How often does a martial arts master let himself get surrounded by enemies such that he needs to watch behind himself no matter which way he turns? Typically a competant fighter will maneuver around such that at most two opponents are a threat at any given time.

Posted by: Sphynx Jan 22 2007, 09:38 AM
Exactly, hence a need to fix the rules, since unless you're playing with miniatures, that just can't be avoided. The changes to the rules symbolize that tactical manuevering. nyahnyah.gif

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Jan 22 2007, 10:51 AM
Then just use the maneuvers in the CC. They cover fighting multiple opponents using the terrain, and other things that should be a part of any trained combatant.

My house rule with them is that the 2 karma cost is for the extra maneuvers and you get (skill/2) maneuvers free with your skill. The 8 karma cost would be applied if you want more maneuvers than you have levels of the skill or for maneuvers outside your skill.

Posted by: Sphynx Jan 22 2007, 10:56 AM
Problem with the Martial Art manuevers is that 2/3rds of the arts would still get your butt handed to you by the soccer moms with their skills of 2. Most don't have "Whirling" in their list of manuevers.

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Jan 22 2007, 10:58 AM
So spend two skill points in one that does.

Posted by: nezumi Jan 22 2007, 12:39 PM
Alright, last month I began taking everything in the SR3R threads and putting them into succinct text files, as Kage requested, however my hard drive blew up two weeks ago, completely destroying that and one other file I had neglected to back up.

Since it's been a long wait since that, I'm giving official warning that I'm going to take a second whack at this, trying to condense everything in the thread into a list of short, easy to implement rules that Kage can do with as he pleases.

Anyone who is currently doing this, please tell me now so we don't repeat effort.

Anyone who would like me to take notes in a special way (for instance, list controversies that came up or who designed it or references as to which page of the forum has it) tell me now so I don't have to go back to correct it.

Kage (or anyone else who is in charge of SR3R), if this will not be especially useful, please tell me now so I can use my time reading rpg.net's motivational poster thread instead of doing something quite as time consuming as wading through and rewriting fifty pages of posts split up over four threads.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 22 2007, 12:42 PM
Well, I'll put it this way: take a look at what I've done with the first post of each thread (except for this one). If there's missing stuff or something you think would be added, go ahead and do it�it'd probably be useful.

~J

Posted by: nezumi Jan 22 2007, 01:37 PM
So should this thread be summarized?

You said this in December:
4) If you're feeling really masochistic, try to sift out the agreed-upon changes from a thread and organize them into a distributable file (PDF, text, RTF, something universal�avoiding Word documents is the big thing).

I'm wondering if that option still stands, in which case I'd categorize them into non-agreed upon things and 'agreed upon things' (not that I"d be able to easily tell if something is agreed upon or not). Things not agreed upon can go on to be tested. Everything would be in an RTF file for easy editing and whatnot.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jan 22 2007, 01:48 PM
It'd probably be helpful�this thread mostly exists to collect enough issues for other parts of the system to open threads for those parts.

At least I think it does. Long day today.

While we're at it, calling again for issues with Rigging/vehicle rules and melee combat.

~J

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 22 2007, 05:58 PM
QUOTE (Sphynx)
Exactly, hence a need to fix the rules, since unless you're playing with miniatures, that just can't be avoided. The changes to the rules symbolize that tactical manuevering. nyahnyah.gif

The Egyptian relative of the Cheshire Cat has caught t3h corr3ct.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 22 2007, 06:00 PM
QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm)
So spend two skill points in one that does.

That's neither elegant nor realistic. Surely, this aspect of the game deserves some streamlining.

Posted by: mfb Jan 22 2007, 07:23 PM
i think you should have the choice of ignoring some combatants, thereby reducing or eliminating your friends in melee penalty at the price of not being able to counterattack those combatants. that way, if you're set upon by a pack of angry girl scouts, you can put the boot into them one at a time.

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Jan 22 2007, 09:02 PM
"You can't punch me I'm ignoring you!!"

Posted by: Sphynx Jan 23 2007, 02:43 AM
QUOTE (Herald of Verjigorm)
So spend two skill points in one that does.

Huh? Ok, so now you have a skill of 1 (can't use your skill-8 art with this particular technique) against the 5 TKD Soccer Moms with skills of 2. Still gonna take a major ass whoopin. O.o

Posted by: Sphynx Jan 23 2007, 02:46 AM
I was thinking about this actually (aside from the wierd comment from the Herald....). What about not modifying the defense attacks? Bruce Lee would easily win because he'd not be offensive. Mom attacks, he gets full skill roll to defend, gets more successes and kicks her kick out of the air. As long as he's "pure defense" (no attacking himself) then he takes no negatives from 'friends in combat'. This also explains some stalemating when 2 groups of people face each other down....

Posted by: nezumi Jan 24 2007, 03:31 PM
*whew* Typed up this thread AND backed it up. Next I'll move on to the Ranged Combat thread.

So far I've gotten a few different things:
- Requests for clarification (how does foci work?)
- Specific problems (called shots are unbalanced)
- Rules to try (Hooper-Nelson rule can always be applied, no restrictions)
- Rules that are agreed upon and going in (called shots are being eliminated)

I haven't done the best job of organizing, and they're clearly in note format.

What should I do with these as I collect them? Or do we not care until I have the complete text document?

Posted by: nezumi Jan 24 2007, 04:24 PM
As long as I'm looking through this, a skill related idea -

Our skills list is almost exclusively skills runners would likely use. When runners go outside of this area, things start to break down. A good example is biotech. The only way to represent a doctor instead of a very skilled field medic (looking at the book) is another three points in biotech, a specialization or two, and four knowledge skills. One spent six months training and maybe a year on the field, the other spent 8 years getting professional schooling, a residency, and a year or two of practice. There are many skills that fall under biotech, but should be broken out for when a player decides he's going to make his own street doc. There are other skills that should be broken out (but probably don't deserve to be listed unless people think it will come into play) related to the other duties people perform. In other words, it would make sense to make an expanded NPC skills list that players can use when they want to branch out of just shadowrunning.

Posted by: nezumi Jan 26 2007, 10:33 AM
Another thought I had, edges and flaws -

Some of these costs need to be reworked. "Good looking and knows it" is a sample edge and should be scorched completely. Allergy flaws are too valuable, whereas flaws like 'invisible friend' aren't written down at all! Additionally, it should cost 10, not 20 karma to buy off flaws (or buy edges, if allowed). There is no edge that is cheaper at 10 karma a point than buying that value through normal means would be (assuming there are normal means). Since most flaws are 2-4 points, 40-80 karma is practically a whole campaign. I've used this house rule for years and have never seen anything bad come out of it, and I have seen some very good results as non-magic users have a new way to expand (buying ambidexterity or charisma linked edges) when they cap out their skills.

Armor stacking/encumbrance penalties should be based off of Strength, not quickness.

Karma pool CAN be spent like normal karma. This means that the 100 karma human isn't sitting on 10 karma pool, when he desperately needs 1 karma point to buy a new power he desperately needs. Karma pool should be a benefit, not a curse.

Fake SINs need SI and availability numbers (and should be included with equipment already!)

Some other new equipment I've allowed:


Latex face mask - Availability 8/1 mo. Street index 4 $500

This is a latex mask kit, including the materials necessary for a single cast. The latex mask can be matched to a single facial structure. Similar kits can be bought for hands (accurate down to the finger print level) for half the price.

Autopicker - Availability 6/1 mo. Street index 4 rating*$200

Also called a pick-gun. It's about the size of a light pistol down to an electric toothbrush, with a long, slender piece inserted into the key hole. With either a snap of a spring or an electric vibration, this snaps the cylinders into place. The user can use the rating of this device in place of the lockpicking skill on any locks not specifically designed to overcome them (generally rating 8 locks or above). These do make noises, and may be heard on a perception test with a TN of 4 (although likely not recognized). They can also be made at home with some basic electronics skill (the difficulty is based on the rating). It generally takes approximately 5 seconds to work.

lockpick set - Availability 2/1 wk. Street index 2 $30

This or the autopicker are required for lockpicking. This depends completely on the user's skill (lockpicking). The TN for picking is based on the quality of the lock. These are exceptionally simple to make at home assuming you have the tools and some basic skill, which makes them easy to pick up on the street. A lockpick set can be replaced by a lockpicking kit, shop or facility (standard prices), which also will decrease the TN of picking the lock. Lockpicking can be done almost silently, causing no more noise than the normal operation of the lock, but generally takes longer (this will be a test against a TN based on the lock. The basic time it takes is 10 minutes per attempt, divided by the number of successes. No penalty for multiple attempts.)

Chain saw - Availability 4/1 wk. Street inex 1.5 $300

It's a chainsaw. It cuts through things.

Posted by: Sphynx Jan 26 2007, 10:45 AM
Armour Stacking: Agreed, Strength should play a factor.

Karma Pool: Agreed, shouldn't have to put your karma into the karma pool. It should be a limit, not a finite.

Fake Sins: Agreed.

Posted by: mfb Jan 26 2007, 11:00 AM
i disagree, re: armor stacking. i think it should be based off body. armor slows you down and tires you out over time; it's an endurance thing, not a power thing.

Posted by: mmu1 Jan 26 2007, 11:51 AM
If we're adding new gear, here are my suggestions:

1. Tool laser. It keeps coming up, and people just make do based on the price of the cyber eye mod. It needs to have price, availability, concealability, etc. defined.

2. Fiberoptic probe in various flavors: Passive that lets you use your existing vision/vision enhancements, active with a camera and a display, cybernetic one that you can connect to a datajack, etc.

In fact, it ought to be available as a piece of DNI controlled cyber - it unfolds from a modidied cybereye or a cyber hand, for example, snakes over to where you want it to be, and you can see the results in your eye display.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 26 2007, 05:59 PM
Can we have a Darkman latex mask that falls apart after too much exposure to sunlight?

Posted by: nezumi Jan 26 2007, 09:59 PM
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)
Can we have a Darkman latex mask that falls apart after too much exposure to sunlight?

I think this deserves an explanation.

re: Armor stacking & body - I can see that, but there are two game balance flaws:
1) People with high body are already strong and really don't need the help soaking damage
2) It would make strength, which is a traditionally undervalued stat, especially with firearms specialists, actually relevant to something.

Something else that came up recently, credsticks. We all know what they are, but we don't have much of an understanding of how they work - and what we do know seems silly. It seems like they should be small, like the magic wand you use to pay for gas that has the RFID chip in it. Enough space for a thumb print, and a few buttons for basic functions like transfer of money, trade business cards, etc. I'd like to see a reasonable explanation for what this looks like and how it works.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 26 2007, 11:09 PM
From the artwork it seems that credsticks look like large sharpened coffee stirrers.

Posted by: Sir_Psycho Jan 27 2007, 12:27 AM
As far as I know they're like a ball-point pen, straight and metallic, with a pointed end, no buttons. I imagine a certified credstick would have a small lcd screen that displays the amount of money on the stick.

They basically work like a credit/debit card, but with other information stored, such as DNA, SIN, etc.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)