[Beta]

The couple of places where skill level matters (as opposed to dice pool) are:
- on team work, where the dice you can gain is limited to your skill.  It doesn't matter much on some skills, but does quite a bit on others.
- block and parry actions in melee combat (granted that I've seen that come up once in my playing so far)

I like that sort of incentive to develop some skill over things that just say 'skills are better than stats'

Now, if we could lower the total number of skills, that would lower the incentive to just have one point in so many skills.

[kainite311]

The couple of places where skill level matters (as opposed to dice pool) are:
- on team work, where the dice you can gain is limited to your skill.  It doesn't matter much on some skills, but does quite a bit on others.
- block and parry actions in melee combat (granted that I've seen that come up once in my playing so far)

I like that sort of incentive to develop some skill over things that just say 'skills are better than stats'

Now, if we could lower the total number of skills, that would lower the incentive to just have one point in so many skills.

Leadership is a second skill though (but yes you are correct, but that seems pretty small tradeoff, beides those with 6+ skill rarely need the leadership boost most of the time). And what do you mean block and parry? UNless I am missing something, they introduce your physical limit, not your skill (counterstrike has a weird synergy to skill level though, but it's not a good use of action economy, so there is that...)

[Reaver]

Now, if we could lower the total number of skills, that would lower the incentive to just have one point in so many skills.

Never understood that strategy... Why waist the karma or SP on a bunch of 1 point skills? Either the skill is worth having at a decent level that Glitching is not an issue (3+), or you can default if really have to do it.. 

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Eh... if you've got some high attribute(s), there's little reason to NOT put a point into every skill linked with that attribute.  Especially if you're a mundane with Jack of All Trades.  That one skill rank is a 2 dice advantage over defaulting, and 1 + an awesome stat is sometimes enough of a dice pool anyway to get a job done.

[Michael Chandra]

The couple of places where skill level matters (as opposed to dice pool) are:
- on team work, where the dice you can gain is limited to your skill.  It doesn't matter much on some skills, but does quite a bit on others.
- block and parry actions in melee combat (granted that I've seen that come up once in my playing so far)

I like that sort of incentive to develop some skill over things that just say 'skills are better than stats'

Now, if we could lower the total number of skills, that would lower the incentive to just have one point in so many skills.

Leadership is a second skill though (but yes you are correct, but that seems pretty small tradeoff, beides those with 6+ skill rarely need the leadership boost most of the time). And what do you mean block and parry? UNless I am missing something, they introduce your physical limit, not your skill (counterstrike has a weird synergy to skill level though, but it's not a good use of action economy, so there is that...)

Block/parry add your skill rank, right?

I prefer Agile Defender though. But with Agility capped at chargen, I need to invest in the skills instead.

[prismite]

I've GM'd over 100 sessions for my players at this point and we kind of change the game as we go, making adjustments so that the game makes sense but stays fun as well.

One of the very first things we did away with was Training Times. Instead I give the players 2 weeks of downtime after every run. Each week they can increase a stat -or- a skill, but not both, and no limitations on Knowledge Skill increases.

That being said, I do agree that STAT costs are fine at x5, but all too often I found my players stuck with low skills or missing important ones altogether. To help alleviate that, I redesigned how TutorSofts work.

Now, Tutorsofts are a commlink module that must be chosen for a specific skill at purchase and only go to Rating 3. A commlink must be of the same rating of the soft to be compatible.
The player must then vocalize at the beginning of a session that they are using the Tutorsoft in their commlink, then attempt the relevant skill an unspecified number of times that session. If they do it right, they can purchase the next rank of that skill using a discounted karma value equal to the rating. Tutorsofts also stop being educational/beneficial at skill rank 6.

Example: StreetSamX wants to buy Sneak from 4 to 5 using this method. Normally the cost would be 10 (5 x 2) but using a R3 Tutorsoft he gets to drop the cost to 7.

Prior to this I'd NEVER seen anyone even consider buying a tutorsoft. At $1,200 a pop for a rank 3, its all the rage.

[kainite311]

The couple of places where skill level matters (as opposed to dice pool) are:
- on team work, where the dice you can gain is limited to your skill.  It doesn't matter much on some skills, but does quite a bit on others.
- block and parry actions in melee combat (granted that I've seen that come up once in my playing so far)

I like that sort of incentive to develop some skill over things that just say 'skills are better than stats'

Now, if we could lower the total number of skills, that would lower the incentive to just have one point in so many skills.

Leadership is a second skill though (but yes you are correct, but that seems pretty small tradeoff, beides those with 6+ skill rarely need the leadership boost most of the time). And what do you mean block and parry? UNless I am missing something, they introduce your physical limit, not your skill (counterstrike has a weird synergy to skill level though, but it's not a good use of action economy, so there is that...)

Block/parry add your skill rank, right?

I prefer Agile Defender though. But with Agility capped at chargen, I need to invest in the skills instead.

True, limited use again. (and it still is physical limit, not skill limit that is introduced p188 melee defense rules), but introduces a limit, which can be sub-optimal vs All Out Defense (more on that in a sec). But that still leaves gun skill in the cold even more... And as you yourself stated - most would rather pick up agile defender (because if you have 6 skill ranks, you probably have 6+ agility since that was your focus) or just all out defense(willpower, cause its higher then a 1 I hope) if you had low skills and not introduce a limit at all... But that is artificially constraining what I meant over all, as my implications was refering to the side effect of secondary skills (high agi + low skill pick up to be jack of all trades, and be good at it, vs the dedicated average or lower agi + high skill). And I realize a lot comes down to munchkin/power-gaming... But it sucks that when your skill rank 6, rolls the same dice as 1 skill point wonder, who also has every other side skill in addition... unfortunately the game punishes you for sub-optimal choices due to this.

Too use weapon skill (it easily transfers to other skills, but this is easier to state for me), I believe that natural skill can take you far, under laboratory conditions, but skill should give you the edge under real world conditions (i.e. wind adjustment, leading target, bullet drop... ect). So yes in an indoor shooting range with good lighting/no wind, non-moving target, ect.., okay natural wonder is just as accurate. But outside, the high skill understands the variables that now come into play (lighting, foreseeing where the target may be going, adjust for wind/range... ect). But under the current system, both are equal. That's why I kind of would like a system where skill plays a more predominate role, especially for maybe being able to ignore some penalties, but not giving a bonus over the natural wonder when all things are equal... It discourages the single point in every skill build that slings ridiculous dice in everything related to that stat (read: too much bang for your buck, aka 1 stat wonder that can do it all with every skill).

[Tarislar]

I've wanted to see changes to the SR advancement system since 1E as its always been a very very VERY slow system.
Not that it should be like D&D since as someone mentioned these are not 1st Level noobs at chargen.
But something a bit easier to see some progression to be sure.


Knowledge Skills = 5x INT+LOG to give you a broader knowledge base at Chargen.
Active Skills can substitute in for a Logic Skill covering the Active Skill (Not all editions did this but some did)  So FireArms is both your active skill but also your knowledge of Firearms.
Remove Karma from Advancing Knowledge Skills - You get the Bigger Bonus to start & then you learn 1 new skill point after each completed Run.

Active Skills = New Rank * 1 Karma
Skill Groups = New Rank * 2 Karma
JoaTs new function to reduce Skill Group Cost by 1/2 for the first 3 ranks and it caps at 3 w/o ever going to a penalty at 4+  (It is a Positive Quality after all)  It allows you to learn the "basics" across a broad range (group) but not go high or on specific skills.

Attributes = New Rank *3 Karma
Special Attributes = New Rank *4 Karma


Karma Rewards:
I'd like to see the "Participation/Survival/Roleplaying/Difficulty" rewards go out every single session, not per run.
I'd also like to see the "Achievement" rewards increased in size.   (Most of them are +1 per "Goal" and it would be nice to see that doubled)

So a typical scenario that takes 2-3 sessions and would be 8 karma (5 goals + 3 participation) gets turned into 16-19 (Maxed) if all rewards were given out but probably an average of 12ish.


When I combine more karma w/ lower advancement costs I see a 12-15 Karma reward & think they can upgrade 1 low end attribute or 2 skills or 1 skill and a spell, etc etc after a 3 session long run.
They also get to pick 1 knowledge/language skill & increase it 1 rank.
Which seems a bit better than a 2 session run that gives you 5 karma, not enough for any upper end skill & barely qualifies for a spell.


As for Training times, I think its important to remember that while Missions has you taking entire weeks OFF, & everyone tracks separate calendars, that in a home campaign the downtime isn't AWAY time.... that your "downtime" is what your doing 8 hours a day that isn't Shadow Running Oriented Stuff or Sleeping.  At least that is the way I read it.  I'm practicing those firearms once a week at the range & I'm working out at the Gym 3-4 a week while I work on increasing STR & Pistols.  And after several weeks then I can pay for that advancement after a few runs of Karma have built up.  You don't STOP doing runs while your training.  That would be like saying I stay at my job 15 hours a day & never have time to go to school at night or work out or read a book or ANYTHING that isn't running & sleep.


I'm torn on Limits & Skill Level issues.
I've tried to think of how to handle making skill checks be Skill*2 + Attribute but then you have to come up w/ a different "defense test"
I would like to see Limits utilize all the attributes & have the skill be modified in there too somehow as it makes no sense to me that Agility isn't somehow a limiter in a dancing skill check.

Hmm, Maybe change limits to use the actual skill as well as 4 attributes (1 double) and divide by 4?

So Sneaking-6 + Agility-5 + Reaction-4 + Strength-3 + Body-3 = 6+5+4+3*2+3 = 24 / 4 = 6 Limit?   V/S the existing limit of 5
IDK, I'd have to toy with it for a bit but that seems better than STR being such a major factor in everything AGI based.

Social would include Intuition & Skill

Mental would add Double Skill maybe as raw knowledge trumps in Mental tests?




Anyway those are my thoughts.

I'd like to see advancement be faster w/o going to all Level 12 skills & 6 attributes & living a luxury lifestyle inside a campaign year.

[prismite]

...
Karma Rewards:
I'd like to see the "Participation/Survival/Roleplaying/Difficulty" rewards go out every single session, not per run.
I'd also like to see the "Achievement" rewards increased in size.   (Most of them are +1 per "Goal" and it would be nice to see that doubled)
...

This is EXACTLY what we do at our table. I try to make every run fit within our allotted time, but we've streamlined the ever-living CRAP out of some of the rules. If we dont finish the run, I still give Karma for everyone playing well and doing what they do. This does not impact the final reward, and tends to keep everyone happy.

[Reaver]

I give rewards every session as well. But this is generally because there is something karma worthy happening in every session. (Remember, we don't play missions at my table).

And really if something karma worthy is happening, why not award it at the end of the session? Keeps the GM bookkeeping down, keeps the player gravy flowing, and makes them feel like they accompished something that seesion..

[Michael Chandra]

I think I only had 2 runs ever that took 2 sessions each, and that was when I converted 4 OU Missions into a short campaign of 6 sessions where we had maybe 2.5h per session with all-newbies. The real 52-session campaign was 52 runs as well.

[adzling]

our table typically takes 2-4 sessions to do a "run".

but then we're in a humungous campaign with multipart runs

very different from the simple fedex type 4 hour irl runs you get from missions.

[neomerlin]

I'm definitely in favour of rewards per run and not per session. Don't feel like you're getting karma fast enough? Stop faffing about and do the job. It's an incentive not to spend eternity in the planning and legwork phase. For me and mine, that carrot has always worked well. Even with it in place it can be too easy for some groups to get into a slog of paranoid over-preparation that takes up multiple sessions of what is basically five characters sitting around a table talking. So I'll take what I can get.

The topic of training times is one that is often on my mind. I dislike the rules in principle. In practice I started running a campaign without them and in the space of around one month of game time, the characters had been on approximate ten runs, earned over 50k nuyen and were sitting around 70 karma or so total. I had made lifestyle costs pretty much meaningless. Even spacing out the runs further resulted in "No calls from a Fixer? Okay, guys, let's make our own run to steal something valuable and fence it."

I reinstated training times and now characters must decide whether or not to put time into getting work and earning money, or on eating through their savings and building up their skill set. Or maybe they'll go get some new cyberware installed and spend that time recovering from the surgery while the mage initiates. I told my players I expected them to be cooperative and courteous and plan to spend karma at the same time whenever possible so everyone is either running or training, and nobody complained because that's just good manners.

I'm still not happy with the rules. Mostly it irks me that you can spend as much time as you like shooting bronze dead with your pistol and somehow never learn anything until you take a week off to attend Pistol classes at the community centre. I'm working to find a house rule that strikes the right balance, but it's not there yet.

[Michael Chandra]

Let us know when you got some ideas you want to toss around. I want to start a single-season campaign at some point, but if it turns into a double-season training times will become very important.

[neomerlin]

Well let me think out loud and share where I am at. The rules must meet particular requirements:
1. Still require characters to have some downtime to spend karma, ensuring they have one more thing to juggle in their lives and keep their lifestyle clock counting down. Being a runner is not meant to be easy or cheap.
2. Must reflect the benefit of actual field practice for whatever trait is being trained. Teachers and teaching software also still benefit.
3. Shadowrun has plenty of rules already and any new rules or rules adjustments should be small for convenience.
4. Fit around the current karma spending rules so if something is added in later books it is easy to include in the modifications.
5. Should not get in the way of the wonderful roleplaying and story opportunities that downtime provides.

With that established, I am currently considering the following addenda:
1. All training times are measured in a number of days. A day is approx 10 hours of work.
2. Training times do not need to be consecutive. If characters find they are in a position where all the legwork for a job is done but they need to wait two days for a contact to deliver crucial gear for the mission, they can spend those two waiting days on training.
3. Whenever a player makes a skill check and fails, reduce the training time for that skill by X to a minmum of Y. Runners learn the most from their failures.

Further considerations:
Attributes. Do players choose if their failed roll contributes to training the skill or attribute rolled? Do they benefit from both? Are attributes only benefitted by atteibute only rolls? Or some other mechanic?
Should success count and not failure? One sees good runners get better and skills increase faster with time. The other has diminishing returns and higher skills take longer. That makes more sense to my gut. Does it encourage diversity?
Can characters pick up the basics just by doing or must the first skill point always be trained?

That is where I am at.