[MadBear]

Martin, perhaps if SS tended to do more damage than their SA counterparts, rather than less, that would balance things more. There would be a reason besides style to pick a SS weapon. Or if there were a mechanic to account for better reliability. There is the Glitch system, but how would you work that? SS weapons Glitch any time half+1 of your dice come up 1s?
Xenon, I understand your point now.

[JimmyCrisis]

Martin, perhaps if SS tended to do more damage than their SA counterparts, rather than less, that would balance things more.

Going over all the SS weapons I can find, it boils down to this:  SS Longarms, Holdouts and Light Pistols all suck.  SS Heavy Weapons and the Ruger Super Warhawk are actually pretty good, being generally on par or better than their contemporaries damage-wise, with the exception of the SA grenade Launcher, which is just a nightmare.

[Dracain]

While I've dabbled in the new system I've always preferred the pre-errata system, simply because post-errata makes weapons with full auto as a simple action too good in comparison to the other choices in most situations.  SS is near pointless now, and why bother with being a combat mage, when the guy with the assault rifle can aim and full auto (simple) for bonus to hit every round until they need to reload.  My opinion hasn't changed that the system was fine before the errata, SS weapons had their place, and assault rifles where still the preferred weapon, with good reason.  I said before that assault rifles where basically top-tier pre-errata, and the change has brought them into god tier, which can be quite detrimental to game balance in a combat situation.  Realism is nice and all, but when we've got Orcs, Trolls, and Elves walking around with people throwing fireballs and other magical effects, I think realism is a secondary concern to balance. 

[incrdbil]

Revolvers are preferred by some (certain police forces, for instance) in real life because they are very reliable; there's very little chance of jamming, for instance, and they are exceedingly easy to clean. However, they have their drawbacks as well. In Shadowrun, maintenance is not really an issue, and so the biggest distinguishing feature between SS weapons like revolvers and bolt action rifles becomes the drawbacks.

Martin is dead on right here. SS weapons might be easier to get, more reliable, but there is no need for them to be 'balanced'.  Some technologies/ designs just become inferior to others.

[Dracain]

Revolvers are preferred by some (certain police forces, for instance) in real life because they are very reliable; there's very little chance of jamming, for instance, and they are exceedingly easy to clean. However, they have their drawbacks as well. In Shadowrun, maintenance is not really an issue, and so the biggest distinguishing feature between SS weapons like revolvers and bolt action rifles becomes the drawbacks.

Martin is dead on right here. SS weapons might be easier to get, more reliable, but there is no need for them to be 'balanced'.  Some technologies/ designs just become inferior to others.

But this is a game meant to accompany a wide variety of playstyles.  From the pinkest and most oversized mohawks to the most noir of the mirrorshades.  Making one playstyle the "right" playstyle is detrimental, whereas the pre-errata system had everyone happy, with all weapons having their place, now, it is just grab and Ares Alpha and you're good to go.  The way recoil works post errata makes certain playstyles and weapons drastically better then others, instead of each having their own areas of expertise.  It wasn't broken before, so I don't know why they tried to "fix it". 

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

But this is a game meant to accompany a wide variety of playstyles.  From the pinkest and most oversized mohawks to the most noir of the mirrorshades.  Making one playstyle the "right" playstyle is detrimental, whereas the pre-errata system had everyone happy, with all weapons having their place, now, it is just grab and Ares Alpha and you're good to go.  The way recoil works post errata makes certain playstyles and weapons drastically better then others, instead of each having their own areas of expertise.  It wasn't broken before, so I don't know why they tried to "fix it". 

This is then not an issue of the game, or game-balance - it's an issue of people playing the game system instead of playing the game.  Like tightly balanced systems - such as HERO - the GM has to look at a character and decide if a disadvantage is really a disadvantage. It has always been the GM's job to make sure that people who made interesting choices instead of The Optimal Choice were in some way rewarded for that selection - whether that's 'he's got a refurbished Colt .44 made in 1869? That is so cool.' or "I'll need to store your weapon, sir."

Real life is imbalanced.  Games can be just as imbalanced, and IMO to a certain extent should be - because then that means that making a less-than-optimal choice is something that can be rewarded.  And should be.

[Dracain]

But this is a game meant to accompany a wide variety of playstyles.  From the pinkest and most oversized mohawks to the most noir of the mirrorshades.  Making one playstyle the "right" playstyle is detrimental, whereas the pre-errata system had everyone happy, with all weapons having their place, now, it is just grab and Ares Alpha and you're good to go.  The way recoil works post errata makes certain playstyles and weapons drastically better then others, instead of each having their own areas of expertise.  It wasn't broken before, so I don't know why they tried to "fix it". 

This is then not an issue of the game, or game-balance - it's an issue of people playing the game system instead of playing the game.  Like tightly balanced systems - such as HERO - the GM has to look at a character and decide if a disadvantage is really a disadvantage. It has always been the GM's job to make sure that people who made interesting choices instead of The Optimal Choice were in some way rewarded for that selection - whether that's 'he's got a refurbished Colt .44 made in 1869? That is so cool.' or "I'll need to store your weapon, sir."

Real life is imbalanced.  Games can be just as imbalanced, and IMO to a certain extent should be - because then that means that making a less-than-optimal choice is something that can be rewarded.  And should be.

I see what you're saying, but I still feel there is a fundamental problem with one way being the "right way", as that leads to all the combat being samey and boring because everyone is doing it "the right way", and anyone who tries to make it interesting is just penalized.  To be honest, I just feel the system worked better pre-errata, nobody disliked it (as far as I saw), the system ran smoothly, and while assault rifles were still awesome, and the best all around weapons, the other weapons had their place, whereas now it feels like there is no reason to choose anything else, should the game or campaign lean more towards combat.  It feels like there are less options now compared to before, and in my opinion that is a mistake.  Just my two cents on the issue though. 

[JimmyCrisis]

Realism is nice and all, but when we've got Orcs, Trolls, and Elves walking around with people throwing fireballs and other magical effects, I think realism is a secondary concern to balance.

The word you are looking for isn't realism it's versimilitude.

Realism means to jive with reality.  The real world is what you are living in.

Verisimilitude means to jive with itself - to feel internally consistent and plausible from the perspective of people in the world. A world with versimility is a world you can imagine existing and living in.

No one wants shadowrun to be realistic, but we all want it to be versimilar.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

The word you are looking for isn't realism it's versimilitude.

No one wants shadowrun to be realistic, but we all want it to be versimilar.

Well-said.

I will say, Dracain, that you just gutted your argument by one simple phrase:

... should the game or campaign lean more towards combat.

There is a reason why virtually every organized armed force (and a lot of disorganized ones) on Earth use assault rifles: they are the optimal choice for 90+% of combat.  They clearly lean heavily towards efficiency in combat, because that is what their game is.  You can't say 'all weapon choices should be balanced for combat' when obviously weapons aren't.  There are weapons that are best for a certain style of combat, but if it's hot and heavy at variable ranges, then you're going to want the assault rifle, aren't you??

Other weapons are efficient for other things.  You can't carry an assault rifle into the Eye of the Needle; Old West Towne isn't going to let you carry an automatic weapon, but they will allow that revolver.  If combats are 'samey and boring', then the GM has more serious problems than whether or not a guy is using a semi-automatic or a revolver.

I will say that I intend to allow certain of the specialty rounds - like tracker rounds - only in certain weapons.  Stick'N'Shok (or whatever) are going to be shotgun-only; tracker rounds will require a revolver.  There will be reasons to diversify, and like all reasons to diversify, it's going to be situation-dependent.  Lots of weapons exist because there's a zillion-and-one different situations in which to apply them.

[JimmyCrisis]

But this is a game meant to accompany a wide variety of playstyles.  From the pinkest and most oversized mohawks to the most noir of the mirrorshades.  Making one playstyle the "right" playstyle is detrimental, whereas the pre-errata system had everyone happy, with all weapons having their place, now, it is just grab and Ares Alpha and you're good to go.  The way recoil works post errata makes certain playstyles and weapons drastically better then others, instead of each having their own areas of expertise.  It wasn't broken before, so I don't know why they tried to "fix it".

I can't agree with either premise.

1:  you can choose how you want to play the game, but the rules and setting as set out in SR5 are way more dark trenchcoat than pink mohawk.  "Everything has a price, and you will pay" is much more noir than "happy fun gun time!"  In my experience, 4th edition was way more Pink Mohawk,  but it was written by a different company.  This edition is much more in line with the flavor of 3rd, but wireless tech has made it more dystopian, what with SINs being both mandatory for life and generally not available.

2: if everyone in the group is taking Ares Alphas, then the GM really needs to highlight the consequences of weapon choices.  There are so many runs where assault rifles just aren't a good idea.

I'll mention two;  I recently had the runners assaulting a guerilla militant compound in the desert a ways out from San Francisco.  The guerillas were armed with sniper rifles (actually hunting rifles) and machine guns (crappy ones) on their buggies, and the samurai could not engage them with her assault rifle... but the guerillas had no trouble on the open desert a kilometer away.  Stealth was nearly impossible, even at night, due to thermographic vision and lack of cover.

The second example I've got:  my runner was hunting for a saboteur at a nightclub.  I had to blend in and take out the guy who was planting bombs, before he had a chance to detonate them.  That meant total discretion - I had a taser, mono whip and light pistol, the only weapons I could get past security.  In this case, combat was one uncontested mono whip attack to the back of the neck.

Oh, and did I mention the time my runner was in space?  Only laser weapons and gyrojets worked on the moon.  I guess that's three.

The errata didn't change our weapon selection for any of these runs, and that's why a variety of weapons exist in the first place.  Concealability, range, versatility, stopping power, magazine size, these are all important traits to consider when selecting your weapon. 

3:  Single Shot isn't a play style, it's a weapon trait.  If SS weapons are really important to your character, the Ruger Superwarhawk is still a fine way to go.  It hits as hard as an assault rifle and neatly fits in a cyberholster for a free action, highly concealable quick draw.  Ammo's cheap too, you aren't blasting it all over the place.

[incrdbil]

But this is a game meant to accompany a wide variety of playstyles.  From the pinkest and most oversized mohawks to the most noir of the mirrorshades.  Making one playstyle the "right" playstyle is detrimental, whereas the pre-errata system had everyone happy, with all weapons having their place, now, it is just grab and Ares Alpha and you're good to go.  The way recoil works post errata makes certain playstyles and weapons drastically better then others, instead of each having their own areas of expertise.  It wasn't broken before, so I don't know why they tried to "fix it".

This isn't about playstyle. Its about different types of weapons, some of which are simply better, and often more expensive.  A Colt peacemaker revolver might be cool, but its simply not as good as a semi-automatic pistol. Yes--certain weapons may have a place, and the place for many of them is behind, in terms of effectiveness, of better designs and styles.

[Dracain]

Realism is nice and all, but when we've got Orcs, Trolls, and Elves walking around with people throwing fireballs and other magical effects, I think realism is a secondary concern to balance.

The word you are looking for isn't realism it's versimilitude.

Realism means to jive with reality.  The real world is what you are living in.

Verisimilitude means to jive with itself - to feel internally consistent and plausible from the perspective of people in the world. A world with versimility is a world you can imagine existing and living in.

No one wants shadowrun to be realistic, but we all want it to be versimilar.

I used realism because whenever this conversation comes up, they talk about how firing a gun works in reality.  They are using reality as an example, which is why I chose the word realism.  However, you make a very fair point, but I will point out that neither pre nor post errata had any real issues with internal consistency, which is why I didn't mention it. 

I will say, Dracain, that you just gutted your argument by one simple phrase:

... should the game or campaign lean more towards combat.

There is a reason why virtually every organized armed force (and a lot of disorganized ones) on Earth use assault rifles: they are the optimal choice for 90+% of combat.  They clearly lean heavily towards efficiency in combat, because that is what their game is.  You can't say 'all weapon choices should be balanced for combat' when obviously weapons aren't.  There are weapons that are best for a certain style of combat, but if it's hot and heavy at variable ranges, then you're going to want the assault rifle, aren't you??

Other weapons are efficient for other things.  You can't carry an assault rifle into the Eye of the Needle; Old West Towne isn't going to let you carry an automatic weapon, but they will allow that revolver.  If combats are 'samey and boring', then the GM has more serious problems than whether or not a guy is using a semi-automatic or a revolver.

I will say that I intend to allow certain of the specialty rounds - like tracker rounds - only in certain weapons.  Stick'N'Shok (or whatever) are going to be shotgun-only; tracker rounds will require a revolver.  There will be reasons to diversify, and like all reasons to diversify, it's going to be situation-dependent.  Lots of weapons exist because there's a zillion-and-one different situations in which to apply them.

Fair enough, I worded that poorly, what I meant is that post errata there are even fewer situations where those other weapons can show their efficiency.  I am not saying that assault rifle shouldn't be the all around gun, because it is, and it was before the errata.  However, after the errata, SS weapons are practically pointless in comparison to SA weapons, and there is little reason to play a Combat Mage (a character archetype that has been around for quite some time) because you would do just as well with an assault rifle in most situations, and you wouldn't have to deal with drain. 

I realize that Combat Mages have the ability to conceal their "weapon" much more easily than someone with an assault rifle, but that is not how they're portrayed, and that is not why "geek the mage first" is a term.  The balance between the two generally came in that the gun-bunny has to take around their equipment, but doesn't have to deal with drain (or background count), but they both do comparable damage.  Now the gunner is just better in a situation where they can take their gun with them, which is generally quite often. 

[JimmyCrisis]

I would quote, but I'm on my phone and that's a PITA.  If we compare SA, BF and FA weapons to SS weapons, it becomes readily apparent that there just aren't any good SS weapons, outside of the Ruger Superwarhawk and the Panther XXL.

But let's ignore that for now.  There are two issues the make the errata change a moot point, highlighting that the role of SS weapons hasn't changed.  Then, I'll make a quick statement about mages.

First, SS weapons have less ammo capacity than other weapons, and therefore need to be taken aside and reloaded more often... which is a complex action.  SA weapons, when fired one round at a time, would have met the recoil penalty on average about when SS revolvers run out of ammo.  (RC:  1 inherent + 1 str + 3 gas vent = 5 recoil). 

Post- errata at least, the SA weapons can function like SS weapons when only making one shot a turn.  However, if we want to get the same performance out of our SA pistol as a Ruger, we need to double-tap, a complex action that stacks up recoil twice as fast.

The big kicker is that FA weapons can now fire 6 round bursts every round without penalty.  This does make them more lethal, undoubtedly. 

What's concerning is that there is no SS competition in their weight class.  One does not bring and Ares Alpha to a dinner party, nor do the pull out a warhawk on a battlefield.  There is no SS assault rifle or submachinegun.  The machine pistols are the same size as the warhawk,  but even with brain blaster barely squeak by at 9 damage, which is effectively the same action with less AP.

One could say the SS shotguns and sniper rifles are the competition, but they don't even compete within their own weapon set.  I started out with a Remington 950 only because I couldn't afford an Ares Desert Strike.  Lower damage, less ammo capacity and internal magazines... eww.  Those aren't a runner's weapons, they're civilian hunting and home defense guns.

Now, mages. 

Why shouldn't a mage carry around an Ares Alpha instead of sling combat spells?  Well, for one, an Ares Alpha doesn't do a hell of a lot to a troll in Hardened Military armor, but a couple stunbolts and it's night-night. 

Second, a mage needs to be versatile enough to deal with magical threats, like spirits.  The Street Sam is there to handle corporeal security.  Mr wiggly fingers solely is responsible for taking down watcher spirits, extraterrestrial threats and using countermagic.  If you can squeeze in around all that toting, upgrading and being good at shooting an Ares Alpha, by all means go ahead.

[The Wyrm Ouroboros]

...post errata there are even fewer situations where those other weapons can show their efficiency.  I am not saying that assault rifle shouldn't be the all around gun, because it is, and it was before the errata.  However, after the errata, SS weapons are practically pointless in comparison to SA weapons, and there is little reason to play a Combat Mage (a character archetype that has been around for quite some time) because you would do just as well with an assault rifle in most situations, and you wouldn't have to deal with drain.

And here's the thing - since the early 1900's - or at least since the semi-automatic handgun was perfected - the revolver hasn't been efficient, or preferred.  It's why nobody carries one any more, or at least why they're very, very rarely carried, and then only as a backup piece.  It's faster to pull the six-shooter if the rare thing of 'my semi-automatic jammed' than try to clear the jam, and you still have six shots.  Personally, I would have - and probably will have - a rule on revolvers minimizing their glitchability: that the fault is in the ammo, mark off one round used, go ahead and pull the trigger again.

But in neither Shadowrun's world or in the real one has a revolver been an optimal piece except as a preference because of the feel.  (Though like I said - specialty rounds ... or Very Heavy Rounds with specialty revolvers.  To see what I'm talking about, look up Inspector Leon McNichol in the 'Knight Sabers' anime - and his godawful 3-round boomer-killing revolver.)

[JimmyCrisis]

Revolvers are usually more reliable but there's still a lot that can go wrong with them, and it almost always requires a gunsmith.  You wont get a stovepipe or extraction failure, but you might get a squib or a jammed cylinder. 

Typically, people use revolvers because they eat a wide variety of ammo.  They also tolerate very hot loads that are out of the bounds in which an automatic will function.  While you could have a pistol that fires magnum powered rounds (Desert Eagle, the original 10mm automatic, the Automag), these are specialty weapons not frequently purchased, certainly not for police or military work, and only seen in the hands of afficianados.

The modern soldier doesn't need a bullet designed to enter and exit an 800 lb grizzly, so automatics are fine.  The modern Alaskan backpacker might.