[Mara]

The problem wasn't with the firearm/vehicle creation rules.  Any rules are going to be "broken" when someone does everything they can to TRY to break them.

The problem is: you didn't really have to TRY to break them...any tool kit where you can accidentally make something that ends up
being "Why don't the corps make this? THey would make a MINT!" is a problem...any system where you have to work hard to build
something balanced(that is not just "You made a Widowmaker with Smartlink for twice the cost...go you!") is where the issues came
up....

[Crash_00]

I hate that argument to defend things that are broken. Yes things can always be broken, but there is a difference between smashing the TV in with a bat and taking it out of the box already broken.

The very first time I used them was to make a Urban Assault Rifle. All I wanted was a Short Barreled, Bullpup assault rifle. Well that combination, by itself, gave the weapon a conceal of 7 (high was good back then) which was better than a light pistol. I got a penalty to range (it was an urban weapon, so it wasn't an issue, but a bonus to Recoil Comp to top things off. The only drawback was that they cost more than normal weapons, but compared to what all your ware cost back then, it was a minimal amount.

[All4BigGuns]

Sounds more to me like the rules for the firearm/vehicle creation were the balanced part and concealabilities on the already made stuff were woefully underpowered (totally agree with that by the way, having played SR3).

Though, I still don't see how you were getting broken-arse guns without trying to break the system. I've seen a result of the firearm creation rules (and even used a version of it myself), and it came out no better and only a little bigger than a Ruger Warhawk with the concealability of a sporting rifle.

[Stahlseele]

Because using these rules to make a usefull weapon creates a broken weapon.
I want a weapon that i can use in close quarters, by fuff this means short barrel and bullpup design.
By crunch this means higher conceal than hold out pistols have with more recoil compensation too.
I want a fully automatic shotgun that is not as big as an HMG, and presto, i have an assault gun in my pocket.

[JustADude]

Because using these rules to make a usefull weapon creates a broken weapon.
I want a weapon that i can use in close quarters, by fuff this means short barrel and bullpup design.
By crunch this means higher conceal than hold out pistols have with more recoil compensation too.
I want a fully automatic shotgun that is not as big as an HMG, and presto, i have an assault gun in my pocket.

Somehow I'm picturing the collapsible guns from the Mass Effect games here.

[All4BigGuns]

Because using these rules to make a usefull weapon creates a broken weapon.
I want a weapon that i can use in close quarters, by fuff this means short barrel and bullpup design.
By crunch this means higher conceal than hold out pistols have with more recoil compensation too.
I want a fully automatic shotgun that is not as big as an HMG, and presto, i have an assault gun in my pocket.

Emphasis mine.

I think here is part of the problem. You don't need both to use it in close quarters. You only need the bullpup.  Just because people are putting an additional point that makes sense to them using too much "realism" in their logic, doesn't mean the system is broken.

[Crash_00]

I don't really see how the conceal system was bad to start with. With the shifting target numbers and no Perception skill (only rolling Intelligence for Perception) the average person was only rolling 3-5 dice, with geniuses rolling 6-8. Even at eight dice (maxed Intelligence), needing a 9 to spot a hold out isn't exactly a sure deal. Toss in Lined Coats and Concealable holsters and you needed a 15 or 16 (depending on how the GM applied the coat/holster), which means unless they're giving you a thorough pat down it isn't likely to get noticed.

On Light Pistols it dropped down to needing an 11 or 12 to notice, which again isn't likely.

take the longcoat  and holster out of the equation and you were still looking at 6s, 8s and 9s for the light and holdout pistols. Anything bigger than a light pistol isn't really meant to be that concealable.

The lack of drawbacks (other than a little bit of cost) made the firearm creation system just another power creep. The mods system is arsenal is slightly better, but a combination of the two would really make things a lot nicer.

Somehow I'm picturing the collapsible guns from the Mass Effect games here.

The really screwed part of it was that a clip of ammo was easier to see in many cases than the gun (with the clip loaded) was. The shortbarreled bullpup rifle was more concealable than a pack of cigs basically.

I think here is part of the problem. You don't need both to use it in close quarters. You only need the bullpup.  Just because people are putting an additional point that makes sense to them using too much "realism" in their logic, doesn't mean the system is broken.

Depends on whether they're wanting just a bullpup rifle, or a short barreled bullpup rifle. Not all bullpup rifles are short barrelled, cutting the barrel down on one gives you an almost SMG sized package with rifle stopping power. Technically you could use an HMG in close quarters mechanically, but god forbid people use a little common sense when designing custom firearms. Heck, if logic is just getting tossed to the wind, might as well just rename the already placed stats and use them instead of worrying about it.

Saying that its applying too much realism is about the weakest excuse possible for something that is blatantly broken. They made a point to distinguish that Bullpup couldn't be used with Imp. Conceal, but left the Barrel Reduction option open. That implies that it fits reallistically.

[All4BigGuns]

I don't really see how the conceal system was bad to start with. With the shifting target numbers and no Perception skill (only rolling Intelligence for Perception) the average person was only rolling 3-5 dice, with geniuses rolling 6-8. Even at eight dice (maxed Intelligence), needing a 9 to spot a hold out isn't exactly a sure deal. Toss in Lined Coats and Concealable holsters and you needed a 15 or 16 (depending on how the GM applied the coat/holster), which means unless they're giving you a thorough pat down it isn't likely to get noticed.

On Light Pistols it dropped down to needing an 11 or 12 to notice, which again isn't likely.

take the longcoat  and holster out of the equation and you were still looking at 6s, 8s and 9s for the light and holdout pistols. Anything bigger than a light pistol isn't really meant to be that concealable.

The lack of drawbacks (other than a little bit of cost) made the firearm creation system just another power creep. The mods system is arsenal is slightly better, but a combination of the two would really make things a lot nicer.

Somehow I'm picturing the collapsible guns from the Mass Effect games here.

The really screwed part of it was that a clip of ammo was easier to see in many cases than the gun (with the clip loaded) was. The shortbarreled bullpup rifle was more concealable than a pack of cigs basically.

I think here is part of the problem. You don't need both to use it in close quarters. You only need the bullpup.  Just because people are putting an additional point that makes sense to them using too much "realism" in their logic, doesn't mean the system is broken.

Depends on whether they're wanting just a bullpup rifle, or a short barreled bullpup rifle. Not all bullpup rifles are short barrelled, cutting the barrel down on one gives you an almost SMG sized package with rifle stopping power. Technically you could use an HMG in close quarters mechanically, but god forbid people use a little common sense when designing custom firearms. Heck, if logic is just getting tossed to the wind, might as well just rename the already placed stats and use them instead of worrying about it.

Saying that its applying too much realism is about the weakest excuse possible for something that is blatantly broken. They made a point to distinguish that Bullpup couldn't be used with Imp. Conceal, but left the Barrel Reduction option open. That implies that it fits reallistically.

Again, you're claiming that because you think it's "broken" it means that it is, no ifs ands or buts about it. And another thing, the firearms and vehicle creation rules were something heavily dependent on GM approval (even more so than character generation itself). If a particular firearm design doesn't fit your game, disallow that design and try again.

[street.mage]

Honestly, I shrug about this type of thing.  People in all RPGs fret about the new edition like their previous stuff is going to suddenly be obsolete and worthless.  But even if they print a new edition, does that mean that we will stop playing?  Probably not.  Chances are, if we stop playing the game, we're either getting tired of playing anyway and just looking for a good excuse to stop playing or we tell ourselves that things are too unbalanced and refuse to play the old edition in anticipation of "something better."  Typically some tell themselves what they have is comparable to trash (after they hear news of *NEW AND SHINY*), and they can no longer "stand" to tolerate such garbage they own.

Many people continued to play 2.0 D&D long after 3.0 came out.  Many still played 3.5/pathfinder after 4.0 came out or played 4.0 D&D and disliked it so much they were willing to return to 3.5/pathfinder.  I mean not to degrade this into an edition wars argument of D&D, but to point out that some preferred older material.

Look, are games fun?  Yes, that's why we play them.  Fundamentally, most editions of the individual RPG game are extremely similar.  Most of the time the dice, monsters, idea, etc are identical from edition to edition; game designers just try to enhance the "fun" experience from the last edition when they create a new one.  D&D still rolls a D20 after all this time.  Shadowrun still rolls D6's for tests against an opposed test or a target number.  These ideals aren't likely to change. 

As with all RPGs, the game is only as good as the people you are gaming with.  And the game runs well if the people involved are willing to participate and continue striving to create a great experience.  The game system can mess this up if it sucks and is bulky, but SR doesn't suck.  There might be a few rules that are a little haywire and complex; but for the most part, it is fine.  If they do produce a SR5, will we still buy the books?  I know I will; and its not like they'll be pushing 5 core books in one month....they'll stagger them along like they do now.  I read this stuff probably more than I play it.  And a new edition won't change that.

But to answer your question, is it in the works?  Like soon?  I highly doubt it.  Otherwise Hero Labs wouldn't be working on getting all the core books there on their sheet as they recently uploaded 3 book options; Catalyst also just reprinted several core supplements.  It's bad business to reprint something pricey, then announce a new edition so all those reprinted books sit there and collect dust.  Not saying it won't happen, but it is very unlikely.

[Medicineman]

Many people continued to play 2.0 D&D long after 3.0 came out.  Many still played 3.5/pathfinder after 4.0 came out or played 4.0 D&D and disliked it so much they were willing to return to 3.5/pathfinder.  I mean not to degrade this into an edition wars argument of D&D, but to point out that some preferred older material.

Its not just about previous Editions
D&D4 is a Boardgame with only a resemblance of Roleplaying and its no Wonder that Pathfinder is such a succes beccause Roleplayer want Roleplaying Games and not a F*********** Boardgame thats whey they left D&D 4and have gone back to D&D 3.x or switched to Pathfinder (which is ImO a tad better than D&D 3.x).
And there is a similarity to Shadowrun. There are a lot of Players (specially those that started with SR2) that consider SR4 with WiFi is "not my Shadowrun anymore" they want the Cyberpunk back, they....want Robocop and not Minority Report
ImO they're wrong ,Shadowrun stopped being Cyberpunky in SR3.But this won't change their Point of View

and I guarantee that if SR5 is from the same dubious Quality as D&D 4 that this would be the Ruin of CGL
Only If they (CGL) can deliver a game with a better Rulesmechanik and a better Background than SR4
Players will stay with the new Edition (and ImO thats highly Doubtfull )

Hough!
Medicineman

[Mirikon]

Medicineman, that is some FOX "News" level doomsaying there.

SR5 will come. It is inevitable. And contrary to what you believe, they don't have to change the core mechanic or update the rules that much to do it. Hell, Hero System's last three editions have been nearly identical. And those are just the three I've played. You don't have to change the system much, you just have to avoid changing it in the wrong ways.

As far as the background, that is easy enough. A timeskip to, say, 2080 or so would give you enough room to change things up a bit, and keep the fun going.

[Medicineman]

Medicineman, that is some FOX "News" level doomsaying there.
Here In Germany I don't watch FOX News but America is famous for its "Fear News"
Instead we have the "Bild Zeitung" which consists of ...(Angst, Hass, Titten & der Wetterbericht) Fear,Hate,Tits,Weatherforecast

And Yes my Post was a bit ...."ranty" (I hope thats the right Word ? )

SR5 will come. It is inevitable. And contrary to what you believe, they don't have to change the core mechanic or update the rules that much to do it.
I Know 
(I knew since 2010 )
and since they didn't change the Rules between SR2 & 3 It may as well be possible that they won't change
between SR4A and SR5
The SR4 Rules are actually quite good
and You "don't change a runnig system/winning Team" ,right ? 

You don't have to change the system much, you just have to avoid changing it in the wrong ways.

exactly

With a Fearless Dance
Medicineman

[Ragnarok]

Okay, let me clarify one salient point:

All I wanted to know is if a new edition was in the works, thats all.  I had hoped that it wouldn't devolve into a bunch of rants on what is or isn't broken.

D_R

[Mara]

Okay, let me clarify one salient point:

All I wanted to know is if a new edition was in the works, thats all.  I had hoped that it wouldn't devolve into a bunch of rants on what is or isn't broken.

D_R

Eh..it is not so bad..now, go over to DumpShock and ask that....and be sure you are wearing your asbestos undies...
Basicly, every edition has stuff people don't like...(I still miss grounding through a Focus....I miss there being a trade off
with Foci, but I understand, mechanically speaking, why they did it in 3rd edition...)

[Stahlseele]

Dumpshock doesn't seem to care much about wether or not a SR5(D20) is in the making right now . .
It'd be a good business decision to do so, based on the normal dev cycle . . doesn't say much though.