[Mara]

Good design doesn't try to make everything almost "idiot proof". That's what was tried with D&D 4th and it resulted in pretty much the crappiest most worthless and tediously boring game ever.

Which is why in SR3, they changed it that everyone gets to act in the first set of turns(in initiative order, so the street sam was still
likely going first), and then you gave extra turns based on your initiative total. It was a fairer way of doing things. It was not trying
to make it "idiot proof." It was trying to make it so that those who did NOT have as many options to get large Initiative Pools could,
at least, do something. It was already bad enough that the rest of the group went out for pizza when the Decker had to do his
solo Matrix Dungeon Crawl, should they also have gone "Oh..combat! Hey..I'm gonna go hit the crapper..let me know if I get
to do anything, OK?"

Actually, I hate to say it, but, really, SR2 was more like this:
Mage does solo Astral scouting, Decker does solo matrix run to set everything up, Street Sam did the killing, and Rigger did the
evac and vehicle work. No-one really was a "team player." They tried to make it more viable with SR3, but...it did not work too well.
SR4 is, to me, the epitome of taking the lessons learned and making it a game about Runner Teams, not "really skilled individuals
who the rest of the group need not be there for their specialties."

[Mirikon]

Good game design attempts to compensate for that, though, even if it is really the player's fault for choosing poorly.



-k

I prefer a Darwinistic approach to such characters. If you don't smack people around, they'll never learn.

[_Pax_]

What sounds reasonable as a simulation does not always make for a good game.

Generally you want the players to have something to do. Not sit around watching someone else roll dice.

  Exactly why I like SR4's initiative system.

I guess I just get irritated when people make the conscious choice not to take something when they build their character, but then turn around and whine because they built their character in a way that makes them almost completely ineffectual, accusing the system as being "broken" basically because they made bad choices and the other players made good choices.

So, because you build a Face Adept (and pour your very limited supply of PP into being good at your chosen niche), means you should do absolutly nothing at all during combat??

Or because you chose to play a Mage, but not a Combat Mage, you should also just sit on the sidelines and munch popcorn, during combat?

No.  I reject that.  Completely, and vehemently.  Not everyone gets initiative boosters.  Not eeryone should get initiative boosters.  And initiative boosters should not be required JUST TO PARTICIPATE.

To shine, yes.  But not to participate at all.

Good design doesn't try to make everything almost "idiot proof".

No, but it does at least try to be good design.

SR1 and SR2 weren't good design.  Any setup that makes it so only one narrow class of characters - in this case, "initiative monkeys" - even get to play the game at all (during combat at least) ...?  Is not only not "good design", it is in fact piss-poor design.

[...] "Oh..combat! Hey..I'm gonna go hit the crapper..let me know if I get
to do anything, OK?"

Exactly.

[cryten]

I guess I just get irritated when people make the conscious choice not to take something when they build their character, but then turn around and whine because they built their character in a way that makes them almost completely ineffectual, accusing the system as being "broken" basically because they made bad choices and the other players made good choices.

Considering that in SR2, there were some heavy choices in gearing. You wanted to be a Rigger, you had either Rigging Initiative
or Physical combat initiative, as the VCR had the same essence cost as Wired Reflexes. Deckers had to spend the money for
their Persona Programs, their decks response and programs, which, all told, could be so much that there was not much left
over for meat-world enhancements AND being a capable Decker out of the box. Spell Locks were a) expensive and b) a
dangerous thing to have, and they could not cast another spell while sustaining a spell(Sustaining took all their concentration),
so...the choice: have a spell lock for improved reflexes and have something NASTY Grounded through it to blow your team up, OR
hurl combat and healing spells. It was not that they had options and chose not to use them, it was that they really did NOT have
the options like you seem to think they did. In fact, the only thing that really had decent options, the Physical Adept, had the issues that, back then, he was ONLY a melee character. So, even if he did take the Initiative boosts, he STILL had to spend a complex action to attack, while the street sam was getting two simple action bursts, which would usually have higher power and damage code then the adepts unarmed attacks.

IIRC, Mara, all sustaining did was give you a +2 to your target number.  It didn't preclude you from casting another spell.  Sounds like someone was cowed by the +2.  The options were there.  They may have been harder than what the Sam had but magicians COULD mimic a Sam's abilities while Sam's could not do so the other way around.  One reason the credo in old SR was "Geek the mage first."

Physical Adepts, though primarily hand to hand, COULD still up their initiative dice.  Have a  Pistol Skill (specialized to their liking ) and use 8 dice to attack the Sam.  Just because you weren't a gun adept RAW didn't mean it couldn't be made.  OR you could attack with something that attack impact armor (monofilament whips anyone? Anyone?) and be VERY dangerous in combat WITH a good chance of going up there with the Sam, if not before.

I'm getting the feeling that a lot of folks never really thought out their options and went completely vanilla with their designs, thus resulting in the poor perception of the Sam's abilities as unfair or not conducive to fun, when, to me it still looks like the options were there just not taken advantage of.

OTOH, Grounding, though I did like it, I could live with being gone.

Did the 2nd edition VCR only give boosting for Rigging or was it all-inclusive.  I can't recall right now.  It makes sense that it would but was it in the RAW or implied?

I never figured Deckers as physical in the first place.  Doesn't mean they couldn't take care of themselves in a fight but they were DEFINITELY outclassed by Sams.  Not everyone is meant to be a fighter.  Complaining that deckers or natural characters couldn't hang with the ones that paid the money and essence to be (way) better than unaugmented is a poor argument to me.

[_Pax_]

I'm getting the feeling that a lot of folks never really thought out their options and went completely vanilla with their designs, thus resulting in the poor perception of the Sam's abilities as unfair or not conducive to fun, when, to me it still looks like the options were there just not taken advantage of.

  Any "option" which either you take, or you don't bother playing?  Ceases to be an option at all.

Did the 2nd edition VCR only give boosting for Rigging or was it all-inclusive.  I can't recall right now.  It makes sense that it would but was it in the RAW or implied?

  RAW, it only helped Rigging.  IIRc, even, only fully-jumped-in rigging (which is why most Riggers in SR1 and SR2 had a "main battle van" armored to the nines, to park their oh-so-vulnerable meat body in.

Not everyone is meant to be a fighter.

  The problem is, either you were a super-initiative fighter ... or you went to make popcorn.  There was literally no middle ground.  At all.

[cryten]

Generally you want the players to have something to do. Not sit around watching someone else roll dice.[/quote]
Exactly why I like SR4's initiative system.

See, the misconception here is that I don't like the initiative system.  I do.  I don't like that Sams have been reduced to the same level in combat as others with no compensation for taking away their major advantage for spending the essence and nuyen to be that much better.

I guess I just get irritated when people make the conscious choice not to take something when they build their character, but then turn around and whine because they built their character in a way that makes them almost completely ineffectual, accusing the system as being "broken" basically because they made bad choices and the other players made good choices.

So, because you build a Face Adept (and pour your very limited supply of PP into being good at your chosen niche), means you should do absolutly nothing at all during combat??

Or because you chose to play a Mage, but not a Combat Mage, you should also just sit on the sidelines and munch popcorn, during combat?

No.  I reject that.  Completely, and vehemently.  Not everyone gets initiative boosters.  Not eeryone should get initiative boosters.  And initiative boosters should not be required JUST TO PARTICIPATE.

To shine, yes.  But not to participate at all.

I'm in total agreement with All4BigGuns here.  BTW, your own argument supports my point.  You CHOSE to pour your points into being the best Face you could be, not being a COMBAT Face.  The distinction between Mage and "COMBAT" Mage is there for a reason.  These roles CHOSE to be combat intensive and they SHOULD be better at it than people who didn't make that choice. 

If you want to be on par with the ones that do the heavy lifting, you have to pay the price.

[cryten]

Not everyone is meant to be a fighter.

  The problem is, either you were a super-initiative fighter ... or you went to make popcorn.  There was literally no middle ground.  At all.
[/quote]

I think SR was built to take advantage of multiple initiative dice for combat.  I also recall there being options to have 2 initiative dice.  There was a middle ground.  Seems like more folks thought it was 3 initiative dice or 4 or bust.  There were plenty of +2D6 to initiative.

But if you wanted 1D6 to be on par with 3D6, it just shouldn't be except on the VERRRRRRRY RARE occasions, or a glitch on your initiative roll.

I just can't picture in any way where it's acceptable that someone with (old terms here) 4+1D6 initiative should go before 14+4D6 initiative has exhausted all his goes.  Or initiative 7 with 1 IP should go before I10 with 3IPs exhausts all his actions if his roll is higher.

[PeterSmith]

See, the misconception here is that I don't like the initiative system.  I do.  I don't like that Sams have been reduced to the same level in combat as others with no compensation for taking away their major advantage for spending the essence and nuyen to be that much better.

The only difference is instead of front-loading initiative, SR4A back-loads it. Yes, that does change some dynamics but it's a major stretch to say a Sam is "...reduced to the same level in combat as others...". Three or four passes per turn going before everybody or going after everybody still means three or four passes per turn.

As an example: I play a Sam, he has three passes. We have a chip-head in our group, he's also a Sam but he has one more pass than I do. Guess what happens when we get in combat? Mooks die. A lot. Without even trying we're probably killing 1.5 mooks per pass per Sam. Unless we're facing a gang we might not even make it out of the first turn.

I just can't picture in any way where it's acceptable that someone with (old terms here) 4+1D6 initiative should go before 14+4D6 initiative has exhausted all his goes.  Or initiative 7 with 1 IP should go before I10 with 3IPs exhausts all his actions if his roll is higher.

You may be thinking things a little too literally. It's not as if everybody is standing around, waiting for their turn to act in a turn. Everybody is preparing their action, executing their action, reacting to others' actions. I liken it to how hand-to-hand combat is described. Feints, jabs, blocks, parries all are happening while the two (or more) combatents are fighting. It's only the few opportunities to get past an opponent's defenses (the HTH combat rolls) that really matter.

Expanded to encompass all combat that could be things like lining up a target, adjusting footing, sliding a bit to the left to make sure you get full use of that wall, prepping a focus, or any number of things that can and do happen during combat. All of this going on all of the time, by everybody. For the guys who aren't as fast as the Sams are, once they expend their action they spend the rest of the turn preparing (in a behind-the-scenes manner) for their next combat turn.

[_Pax_]

I'm in total agreement with All4BigGuns here.  BTW, your own argument supports my point.  You CHOSE to pour your points into being the best Face you could be, not being a COMBAT Face.  The distinction between Mage and "COMBAT" Mage is there for a reason.  These roles CHOSE to be combat intensive and they SHOULD be better at it than people who didn't make that choice. 

If you want to be on par with the ones that do the heavy lifting, you have to pay the price.

  False analogy.  Also, a gigantic Strawman, even if not intended.

  Wanting to be able to do something during combat - even if it's just "dive for cover while wimpering like a sissy", is not the same as "being on par" with the combat specialists.

I think SR was built to take advantage of multiple initiative dice for combat.  I also recall there being options to have 2 initiative dice.  There was a middle ground.  Seems like more folks thought it was 3 initiative dice or 4 or bust.  There were plenty of +2D6 to initiative.

  Fine, so you have something like ... say ...10+2d6 initiative (that's a 8 base Reaction, and Wires level 1 - your typical "not an initiative-monkey" setup).  Great, bully for you.  Your average initiative is 17, ranging anywhere from 12 to 24.  Wonderful.

  Meanwhile, my initiative is 20+5d6 (12 base Reaction, MBW level 4).  My initiative ranges anywhere from 25 to 50, averaging 37.5.

  On an average roll, I'll go at 37, 27, 17, and 7.  You, on an average roll, will go at 17 and 7.  That means I get to go four times before you do (yes, four - because at the tied 17?  My raw init total was higher than yours, so I ever so slightly edge you out).  That's eight simple actions.  And being the combat specialist I am, that's probably 8 enemies dead.  Before you get to act, at all.  To illustrate:

• I go at 37
• I go at 27
• I go at 17, then you go at 17
• I go at 7, then you go at 7 (Assuming there's anything left to DO at 7, of course.)
• (end of round)

  Most encounters?  That means you will just about never actually perform an action in combat.  At which point, you have to ask yourself:  Why the frag did you WASTE MONEY AND ESSENCE on those level 1 Wires?

  Which brings us to the point of "either go for the max, or don't waste your time at all".  Which is not good game design.

  ...

  Then SR3 came along, and reversed the order of extra initiative passes.  Now, instead of me clearing the decks before you can even twitch, it worked like this:

• In the first pass, I go first with a 37, you go second with a 17;
• In the second pass, I go first with a 27, you go second with a 7;
• In the third pass, I go with a 17, you have no actions left;
• In the fourth pass, I go with a 7, you have no actions left;
• (end of round)

See how that works?  I'm still going four times (if there's enough targets to act on).  But you get to act once or twice, too.  Your Wires (1) actually matter now: you're going faster than the Mage who got a 9, you're even going more often than that mage.

But I'm still much faster, and act much more often than you.

My actions just don't trivialise your very presence anymore.

But if you wanted 1D6 to be on par with 3D6, [...]

  Straw Man.  And now I know it's not accidental, it's intentional.  Shame on you.

I just can't picture in any way where it's acceptable that someone with (old terms here) 4+1D6 initiative should go before 14+4D6 initiative has exhausted all his goes.  Or initiative 7 with 1 IP should go before I10 with 3IPs exhausts all his actions if his roll is higher.

I can.  And I can sum the "why" of it up with one, simple phrase:  EVERYONE at the table should be having fun, not just the initiative-monkey(s).

Noone likes a spotlight-hog.  Except the hog himself, of course.

[All4BigGuns]

At this point, I think this thread needs to be locked, because it sounds to me like nothing but a bunch of whining about combat oriented characters being better at combat than those that weren't combat oriented.

[cryten]

The only difference is instead of front-loading initiative, SR4A back-loads it. Yes, that does change some dynamics but it's a major stretch to say a Sam is "...reduced to the same level in combat as others...". Three or four passes per turn going before everybody or going after everybody still means three or four passes per turn.

It's the front loading vs backloading that is the crux of my peeve.  I think the price they pay and the consequences (more fluff-wise than anything else) of the associated Essence loss is worth the ability to go while others are relatively standing still.  If they get 2 or more goes before someone that did not pay the same price can react, so be it.  I guess my point is they did pay for this, just as others pay for their advantages.  Why are they being punished for it?  They got 0 compensation for the reducing of effectiveness.

There IS a reducing as has been pointed out.  The difference between frontloading and backloading is there is more of a chance someone with lesser capabilities can drop them or even compromise them through injury.  Where others seem to see this as acceptable, I see it as a detriment.

You may be thinking things a little too literally. It's not as if everybody is standing around, waiting for their turn to act in a turn. Everybody is preparing their action, executing their action, reacting to others' actions. I liken it to how hand-to-hand combat is described. Feints, jabs, blocks, parries all are happening while the two (or more) combatents are fighting. It's only the few opportunities to get past an opponent's defenses (the HTH combat rolls) that really matter.

Expanded to encompass all combat that could be things like lining up a target, adjusting footing, sliding a bit to the left to make sure you get full use of that wall, prepping a focus, or any number of things that can and do happen during combat. All of this going on all of the time, by everybody. For the guys who aren't as fast as the Sams are, once they expend their action they spend the rest of the turn preparing (in a behind-the-scenes manner) for their next combat turn.

I agree that combat isn't everyone standing around waiting.  But the arguments of some makes it seem as if it is so.

I am hereby beginning the first chapter of FoFfS (Friends of Frontloading for Sams).  So far it seems to be an organization of 1 (or 1.5 if All4BigGuns will be an affiliate as some of his views match mine)

[_Pax_]

At this point, I think this thread needs to be locked, because it sounds to me like nothing but a bunch of whining about combat oriented characters being better at combat than those that weren't combat oriented.

... or the whining of special snowflakes who're disappointed that they can no longer steal the show.

  Because, seriously, is it really that much to ask, that the Face be able to fire a pistol shot or two, in between the half-dozen-or-more narrow bursts being thrown by the samurai ...?

[All4BigGuns]

Basically, I'm just getting more than a little tired of people saying "I like the game but only if every aspect of the system is changed completely." My view is that you either like a game or you don't, and constantly house ruling every rule in the book to change everything pretty much means one doesn't really like the game, so why the heck would they even bother playing it if they have to change everything to "like" it.

At this point, I think this thread needs to be locked, because it sounds to me like nothing but a bunch of whining about combat oriented characters being better at combat than those that weren't combat oriented.

... or the whining of special snowflakes who're disappointed that they can no longer steal the show.

  Because, seriously, is it really that much to ask, that the Face be able to fire a pistol shot or two, in between the half-dozen-or-more narrow bursts being thrown by the samurai ...?

So now you accuse characters built to be good at combat of being "special snowflake" because they are better at combat? Oi...definitely time for a thread lock.

[_Pax_]

They got 0 compensation for the reducing of effectiveness.

  They still have the higher initiative number, and will almost certainly get their first action before anyone else gets to act.

  Also, if four shadowrunners are faced with six or seven enemies, the guy with 3 IPs is still going to be able to attack 3 of them, compared to the guy with one IP only getting to act against one enemy.

I agree that combat isn't everyone standing around waiting.

  To the guy with lower initiative?  It is about (them) standing around waiting, while the initiative-monkey goes through several IPs worth of action at once.  Actions which are very likely to leave him with nothing to do, when his own opportunity to act finally comes around.

  Which is to say: he gets to sit with his thumb up his arse, most likely during every combat scene of an entire campaign.  Which isn't very fun.

Basically, I'm just getting more than a little tired of people saying "I like the game but only if every aspect of the system is changed completely." My view is that you either like a game or you don't, and constantly house ruling every rule in the book to change everything pretty much means one doesn't really like the game, so why the heck would they even bother playing it if they have to change everything to "like" it.

  House Rules may be mere tweaks, minor adjustments.

  Also, perhaps one likes the setting more than the mechanics.

  Finally, we're not talking about house rules.  We're comparing RAW of different editions, and which each of us finds to be superior.  So an "anti-house-rule" rant is seriously misplaced.

So now you accuse characters built to be good at combat of being "special snowflake" because they are better at combat? Oi...definitely time for a thread lock.

Gigantic straw man.

No, I'm not accusing "characters built to be good at X" of anything.  I'm accusing players who want to be able to act so often that the fight starts and ends with them, before anyone else gets a chance to participate, of being special snowflakes.  BECAUSE THEY ARE.  That kind of behavior is classic spotlight-hogging, and you bloody well know it, A4BG.  Don't pretend otherwise.

Someone built to be good at combat SHOULD be good.  They should take down more targets, and harder targets, than anyone else.  But they should not be takign down every target, before anyone but them gets a chance to even try to help with just one enemy.

IOW: if the group of 4-5 runners, including at least one Initiative Monkey, faces off against an 8-man security team?  The Initiative-monkey shouldn't be able to drop the entire security team, before the Face gets to do something so trivial as duck behind cover.  Or for that matter, before even a single member of that security team gets to squeeze off a single bullet at a single shadowrunner.

Front-loaded initiative trivialises everyone who doesn't min/max for initiative.

Who else but a special snowflake, who plans on being "the king of going first (and second, third, fourth, maybe fifth)", would think that was a good way to do things?

[All4BigGuns]

The point still stands that it is on them for not bothering to have better combat abilities, and it is quite honestly stupid to punish people who actually made their characters for combat because of someone whining and crying and moaning that their character isn't as good in that area when they consciously did not build them to be as good. You don't see the people playing combat oriented characters crying about the face-type doing better at social.