Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: TheWizurd on <06-23-19/1059:21>
-
Preference: I have been playing since '89. I have pretty strong opinions on this game. I am what some would call a Grognard. I don't call myself one due to the connotations.
Preference 2: I only have the Sixth World Beginner Box Set, not full rule book.
I run a game on Saturday nights for my teenage son and his friends. This has been D&D up till this point. They have never played another RPG. Not that I haven't tried several games. They just haven't found a game that makes them want to change from D&D.
After last night that has changed, they don't want to play anything but Shadowrun now. The atmosphere and pace of the game suits them. They consider themselves edgy.
I am in no way associated with Catalyst, but I believe that this is the purpose of many of the changes in 6e. Shadowrun is quicker and more exciting to play. 6e has followed the current trend in RPGs and modernized, yet kept the same bones. This is a good thing. The game has changed yet not thrown the baby out with the bath water. Shadowrun needed to change in order to survive. It was time. I do like the current trend of getting away from simulation. RPGs have never been realistic, that would be fairly boring. They are rules system for a group storytelling. Anything that encourages action and faster pace is excellent, as long as it doesn't take away from the group escape and storytelling. The group loved the new Edge system. These changes are meant to appeal to the video game generation as I call them. I enjoyed most of them myself.
Last night we just did an all out brawl, so they could get the rules system down. The team was in Stuffer Shack, armored plates dropped over the windows, and a voice over the intercom announced that the survivor would become rich beyond their dreams. I don't want to give blow by blow account, just highlights.
The group picked up the new Edge system quickly and loved it. There were times I forgot to give edge and the players reminded me. I wish there were more circumstances to give edge. The group loved that dynamic. It felt like the Edge system was put on top of the existing 5e rules system. That is a good thing, see baby with bath water above.
The group had some issue the whole AR versus DR mechanic. There was some debate of why Rude would even use a sword if his pistol was better, until Yu tried to steal it, it was better than his pistol. I am trying hard to like this mechanic. It simplifies combat and plays to edge. It's hard to get away from my simulation roots at times I guess. The teenagers love it so far, with the exception of sword.
The clear winner was Zipfile, he stayed out of combat, hacked the system. He let himself out, shut the lights off and called Ares. In combat the Mage won but that was due to the politics of the group.
Just a quick post, comments and questions welcome.
-
Having strong opinions and loving a game does not make you a Grognard. Belittling new players, not wanting updates to the game that attracts new players, and claiming something sucks because it's different than what you're used to is what makes one a Grognard.
It sounds like everyone had fun with the game, which is the ultimate goal. The next generation of players video game dependent, they are about the story. They want easy rules that allow them to go beyond what's written instead of telling them they can't because "the rules". Every successful game I've been a part (running and playing) has been because the GM follows the first rule that's printed in every game's core rulebook: Have Fun. By making the rules more generic vs. specific, it allows the player and GM space to fill in the gaps and tell a story. The worst games (both running and playing) have been because we were too busy looking up stuff to figure out if we could do something and dragging the story down.
-
While I think people want games that are more simple and generic they also want it to make sense. Difficult things should be difficult, easy things easy, rules should fir into the setting helping reinforce it etc.
Also simple and generic doesn’t mean no crunch. Though bloated levels of crunch is rarely wanted by most people.
-
Good to hear people love the Edge flow. I definitely need to check into the rule of cool regarding that. I was worried it would be cumbersome but it sounds like they can handle it.
-
Good to hear people love the Edge flow. I definitely need to check into the rule of cool regarding that. I was worried it would be cumbersome but it sounds like they cab handle it.
There aren't a whole lot of reasons to reward it in this box set at least. The AR and an advantage such as seeing in the dark. I did give edge to an opposing character when his opponent glitched. There was not a lot of spent on rewarding Edge.
The players spent it like it was going out of style, to gain advantage over their opponent. Several times players gave each other edge. They were always trying to figure out ways to get edge and convince me to give it to them for various reasons.
-
Do you have plans to run the starter box mission(s)?
-
That’s pretty much what I predicted would happen, it would devolve into a game of edge begging.
Good to hear people love the Edge flow. I definitely need to check into the rule of cool regarding that. I was worried it would be cumbersome but it sounds like they cab handle it.
There aren't a whole lot of reasons to reward it in this box set at least. The AR and an advantage such as seeing in the dark. I did give edge to an opposing character when his opponent glitched. There was not a lot of spent on rewarding Edge.
The players spent it like it was going out of style, to gain advantage over their opponent. Several times players gave each other edge. They were always trying to figure out ways to get edge and convince me to give it to them for various reasons.
-
That’s pretty much what I predicted would happen, it would devolve into a game of edge begging.
I wouldn't call it edge "begging" by any means. The most you can get per round is two anyhow. I was generally rewarding 1 per round and that is with little experience doing it.
-
That’s pretty much what I predicted would happen, it would devolve into a game of edge begging.
I wouldn't call it edge "begging" by any means. The most you can get per round is two anyhow. I was generally rewarding 1 per round and that is with little experience doing it.
I hope edge focus dies quick for my players. You should make your choices because they are the right choices to make in character based on what is happening not in order to farm some edge. I’m
sure it has some novelty and will initially be something people use a lot but once the novelty wears off people will see through it and just see the gimmick it is. Whether they still farm it because that’s the game is hard to say without the books.
-
I don't see how this so-called "edge begging" is any different than trying to find that extra bonus to make your roll successful. Only that it decreases the amount of fiddling points here and turns it into a condensed Edge or No Edge sort of situation.
-
I don't see how this so-called "edge begging" is any different than trying to find that extra bonus to make your roll successful. Only that it decreases the amount of fiddling points here and turns it into a condensed Edge or No Edge sort of situation.
I always held back with giving Edge for dramatic stuff, because it was such a rare resource. Now it's less rare so I'll dare do that more. Will hopefully result in a great cinematic playstyle. 8)
-
One of the more encouraging player reviews I've read. Still not going to buy the QSR but I might just stick around for the core book after all. Maybe.
-
That’s pretty much what I predicted would happen, it would devolve into a game of edge begging.
I wouldn't call it edge "begging" by any means. The most you can get per round is two anyhow. I was generally rewarding 1 per round and that is with little experience doing it.
I hope edge focus dies quick for my players. You should make your choices because they are the right choices to make in character based on what is happening not in order to farm some edge. I’m
sure it has some novelty and will initially be something people use a lot but once the novelty wears off people will see through it and just see the gimmick it is. Whether they still farm it because that’s the game is hard to say without the books.
This 100%
By abstracting the mechanics so completely into "edge" they have removed all relation to reality / good tactical decisions / sensible in-world choices.
It's now all about figuring out how to game the edge mechanic, rather than just doing sensible things.
-
That’s pretty much what I predicted would happen, it would devolve into a game of edge begging.
I wouldn't call it edge "begging" by any means. The most you can get per round is two anyhow. I was generally rewarding 1 per round and that is with little experience doing it.
your own words bely your response:
"They were always trying to figure out ways to get edge and convince me to give it to them for various reasons."
-
I don't see how this so-called "edge begging" is any different than trying to find that extra bonus to make your roll successful. Only that it decreases the amount of fiddling points here and turns it into a condensed Edge or No Edge sort of situation.
The difference is the abstraction.
Rather than focussing on how things would happen IRL to gain advantage you focus on the highly abstracted challenge of "how do i gain edge".
That's not a good thing imho.
RPGs (for me at least) are about getting into character and responding in character to the world in a realistic way.
The new, highly abstracted edge mechanic means it's all about how to game the system to cough up edge.
That works great for boardgames and the like where the abstraction is built in, but not for RPGs where reality trumps cool.
With the new edge mechanic srun is now entirely within the Pink Mohawk school of play, which is fine for many folks but flies completely in the face of my table's interests and indeed the history of srun.
-
As an aside at least one of the edge powers felt like to me it would have been better implemented through minor actions.
The shoot multiple targets without splitting your pool. To me that seems like a good way to use minor actions as it’s as its showing skill and enhanced reactions allowing you to bullet time it effectively. It doesn’t feel like a luck momentum thing to me. I wonder how many edge moves are there because “edge” and not because it makes sense.
I think the one pass thing could have worked really well if they had really beefed up how minor actions could be spent instead of getting them diluted by removing frees and making minors majors etc.
So as a example major action autofire spreading shots. Can shoot up to 2 additional targets but you split your pool. For 1 minor action per target you can shoot additional targets with your full die pool or die pool -2 you know play test for balance. SA and burst fire same thing but max 2 targets.
Same type of action but vs one target unloading on someone. For each additional minor action spent the base DV of your attack goes up by 1. Max 3 for autofire, 2 for burst fire, 1 for SA.
-
The difference is the abstraction.
Rather than focussing on how things would happen IRL to gain advantage you focus on the highly abstracted challenge of "how do i gain edge".
That's not a good thing imho.
RPGs (for me at least) are about getting into character and responding in character to the world in a realistic way.
You are assuming here, I think, that how you get and sprnd edge will feel less realistic, and less related to natural play strategies, than the current list of combat modifiers. It is possible (even probable) that you are right - - to me it feels a bit abstract that getting cover may contribute towards getting an extra action - - but do recall that we have had years to get used to, and stop seeing, some of the weirdness of the current system. I think actually playing the new system and seeing how it feels once we have the hang of it might be a good idea before locking in strong opinions.
-
I think once more people can get their hands on rules and start playing it will help. Even simple rules can be hard to piece together till you get a chance to get in and fiddle with everything.
-
Still 11 days before I host a Beginner Box Event. =/ Won't be able to share any impressions until after that. I do intend to have an actual adventure rather than just Food Fight 3.0.
-
The difference is the abstraction.
Rather than focussing on how things would happen IRL to gain advantage you focus on the highly abstracted challenge of "how do i gain edge".
That's not a good thing imho.
RPGs (for me at least) are about getting into character and responding in character to the world in a realistic way.
You are assuming here, I think, that how you get and sprnd edge will feel less realistic, and less related to natural play strategies, than the current list of combat modifiers. It is possible (even probable) that you are right - - to me it feels a bit abstract that getting cover may contribute towards getting an extra action - - but do recall that we have had years to get used to, and stop seeing, some of the weirdness of the current system. I think actually playing the new system and seeing how it feels once we have the hang of it might be a good idea before locking in strong opinions.
I can guarantee it won’t feel as realistic. It may represent it on some abstract level but firing blind, in high winds, long range etc. 1 edge to the defender won’t come close to feeling like -4+ dice. With no penalties 6 die shooters are making impossible shots routinely. Dude gets just 1 edge for their defense. There may be some niche situation where that 1 edge gets you to the exact point where you can use x edge and now it represent a hard shot. But shot two you are now down to 0 edge or 1 edge and it doesn’t come close to representing a hard shot.
-
The difference is the abstraction.
Rather than focussing on how things would happen IRL to gain advantage you focus on the highly abstracted challenge of "how do i gain edge".
That's not a good thing imho.
RPGs (for me at least) are about getting into character and responding in character to the world in a realistic way.
You are assuming here, I think, that how you get and sprnd edge will feel less realistic, and less related to natural play strategies, than the current list of combat modifiers. It is possible (even probable) that you are right - - to me it feels a bit abstract that getting cover may contribute towards getting an extra action - - but do recall that we have had years to get used to, and stop seeing, some of the weirdness of the current system. I think actually playing the new system and seeing how it feels once we have the hang of it might be a good idea before locking in strong opinions.
I can guarantee it won’t feel as realistic. It may represent it on some abstract level but firing blind, in high winds, long range etc. 1 edge to the defender won’t come close to feeling like -4+ dice. With no penalties 6 die shooters are making impossible shots routinely. Dude gets just 1 edge for their defense. There may be some niche situation where that 1 edge gets you to the exact point where you can use x edge and now it represent a hard shot. But shot two you are now down to 0 edge or 1 edge and it doesn’t come close to representing a hard shot.
I'm going to go ahead and say something that maybe needs to be said more often:
A game about elves and dragons and fireballs isn't realistic to begin with. Even without those fantasy elements, SR has always been firmly in the "cinematic physics" universe than something approximating real life. Realism is not and has never been a primary concern for SR.
-
The difference is the abstraction.
Rather than focussing on how things would happen IRL to gain advantage you focus on the highly abstracted challenge of "how do i gain edge".
That's not a good thing imho.
RPGs (for me at least) are about getting into character and responding in character to the world in a realistic way.
You are assuming here, I think, that how you get and sprnd edge will feel less realistic, and less related to natural play strategies, than the current list of combat modifiers. It is possible (even probable) that you are right - - to me it feels a bit abstract that getting cover may contribute towards getting an extra action - - but do recall that we have had years to get used to, and stop seeing, some of the weirdness of the current system. I think actually playing the new system and seeing how it feels once we have the hang of it might be a good idea before locking in strong opinions.
I can guarantee it won’t feel as realistic. It may represent it on some abstract level but firing blind, in high winds, long range etc. 1 edge to the defender won’t come close to feeling like -4+ dice. With no penalties 6 die shooters are making impossible shots routinely. Dude gets just 1 edge for their defense. There may be some niche situation where that 1 edge gets you to the exact point where you can use x edge and now it represent a hard shot. But shot two you are now down to 0 edge or 1 edge and it doesn’t come close to representing a hard shot.
I'm going to go ahead and say something that maybe needs to be said more often:
A game about elves and dragons and fireballs isn't realistic to begin with. Even without those fantasy elements, SR has always been firmly in the "cinematic physics" universe than something approximating real life. Realism is not and has never been a primary concern for SR.
I mean, these were the pictures of the archatypes in the very first book so many drew inspiration from. So very realistic. https://everythingexplodes.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/the-ridiculous-archetypes-of-shadowrun/
*wonders off laughing at how silly the late 80s were*
-
Stainless I think you're a great part of this community and you add real value + personally I like you from all the interactions we've had.
However in this instance I think you're missing the point.
I often hear the old trope "it's elves and dragons and magic so who cares if it has any semblance of reality?" argument.
Which completely misses the core concept of cyberpunk / dystopian worlds, they are gritty and dangerous. It's hard to have a gritty, dangerous setting without some semblance of reality.
It's why Runequest (and other non D&D RPGs with more grounding in realistic combat) have a place in the ttrpg mix.
If you want something simple, quick and fantastical D&D works great.
If you want something that realistically reflects the effects of plate mail vs. leather and arrows vs. an axe you choose another system.
The same goes for shadowrun.
Historically it's been grounded in cyberpunk which, I would argue, inherently requires a semblance of reality lest you turn into Men in Black.
I would posit that 6e is now firmly in MiB territory, having left behind cyberpunk as the new rule system focusses on flashy, theatrical outcomes that have little relation to how things actually work in real life.
Remember the scene where Agent Smith pulls out the tiny "cricket" gun the size of a hold-out and is surprised when it fires off as massive, exploding, effects-laden shot that puts to shame the larger guns he has available?
That's 6e.
Its all MiB now baby.
-
The difference is the abstraction.
Rather than focussing on how things would happen IRL to gain advantage you focus on the highly abstracted challenge of "how do i gain edge".
That's not a good thing imho.
RPGs (for me at least) are about getting into character and responding in character to the world in a realistic way.
You are assuming here, I think, that how you get and sprnd edge will feel less realistic, and less related to natural play strategies, than the current list of combat modifiers. It is possible (even probable) that you are right - - to me it feels a bit abstract that getting cover may contribute towards getting an extra action - - but do recall that we have had years to get used to, and stop seeing, some of the weirdness of the current system. I think actually playing the new system and seeing how it feels once we have the hang of it might be a good idea before locking in strong opinions.
I can guarantee it won’t feel as realistic. It may represent it on some abstract level but firing blind, in high winds, long range etc. 1 edge to the defender won’t come close to feeling like -4+ dice. With no penalties 6 die shooters are making impossible shots routinely. Dude gets just 1 edge for their defense. There may be some niche situation where that 1 edge gets you to the exact point where you can use x edge and now it represent a hard shot. But shot two you are now down to 0 edge or 1 edge and it doesn’t come close to representing a hard shot.
I'm going to go ahead and say something that maybe needs to be said more often:
A game about elves and dragons and fireballs isn't realistic to begin with. Even without those fantasy elements, SR has always been firmly in the "cinematic physics" universe than something approximating real life. Realism is not and has never been a primary concern for SR.
I mean, these were the pictures of the archatypes in the very first book so many drew inspiration from. So very realistic. https://everythingexplodes.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/the-ridiculous-archetypes-of-shadowrun/
*wonders off laughing at how silly the late 80s were*
Sure they look dated / hilarious stylistically but you know I notice almost all of them wearing clothes that are likely armored.
There are a few exceptions of course, but exceptions are there to prove the rule.
Thanks for this.
-
I'm going to go ahead and say something that maybe needs to be said more often:
A game about elves and dragons and fireballs isn't realistic to begin with. Even without those fantasy elements, SR has always been firmly in the "cinematic physics" universe than something approximating real life. Realism is not and has never been a primary concern for SR.
I don't require much Verisimilitude in my Shadowrun, but when the weekend Athlete picks up a Baseball bat or a gun and its a de-escalation of threat it's jarring enough to cause some head shakes.
"Oh good, he picked up a gun, we can just rush in and tackle him now!" Said no-one, ever.
:P
-
To be fair, I'm used to people pulling Elemental/Energy Aura. Tackling is ALWAYS a bad idea with those.
-
The difference is the abstraction.
Rather than focussing on how things would happen IRL to gain advantage you focus on the highly abstracted challenge of "how do i gain edge".
That's not a good thing imho.
RPGs (for me at least) are about getting into character and responding in character to the world in a realistic way.
You are assuming here, I think, that how you get and sprnd edge will feel less realistic, and less related to natural play strategies, than the current list of combat modifiers. It is possible (even probable) that you are right - - to me it feels a bit abstract that getting cover may contribute towards getting an extra action - - but do recall that we have had years to get used to, and stop seeing, some of the weirdness of the current system. I think actually playing the new system and seeing how it feels once we have the hang of it might be a good idea before locking in strong opinions.
I can guarantee it won’t feel as realistic. It may represent it on some abstract level but firing blind, in high winds, long range etc. 1 edge to the defender won’t come close to feeling like -4+ dice. With no penalties 6 die shooters are making impossible shots routinely. Dude gets just 1 edge for their defense. There may be some niche situation where that 1 edge gets you to the exact point where you can use x edge and now it represent a hard shot. But shot two you are now down to 0 edge or 1 edge and it doesn’t come close to representing a hard shot.
I'm going to go ahead and say something that maybe needs to be said more often:
A game about elves and dragons and fireballs isn't realistic to begin with. Even without those fantasy elements, SR has always been firmly in the "cinematic physics" universe than something approximating real life. Realism is not and has never been a primary concern for SR.
Sure it has elements that are not realistic at all like magic. It’s combat and rules aren’t perfect reality simulators and have unrealistic elements. But there is a scale from perfect depiction to toon town. It’s far more towards toon town now. The realism we are talking about is things like trolls hit harder than pixies. Or harder tasks are harder. That’s kind of the barest level of realism a game should have.
-
well said Shinobi.
-
Sure it has elements that are not realistic at all like magic. It’s combat and rules aren’t perfect reality simulators and have unrealistic elements. But there is a scale from perfect depiction to toon town. It’s far more towards toon town now. The realism we are talking about is things like trolls hit harder than pixies. Or harder tasks are harder. That’s kind of the barest level of realism a game should have.
The RPG system I'm most familiar with other than Shadowrun is Pathfinder 1st ed. And in that game system, it's quite easily done where you can have a strength dump stat but use some features of that system to get bonus damage from a high agility score instead of strength. So yes, that pixie-like thing could very well hit just as hard as a big ole troll-like thing. So I suppose that while yes I agree it seems counterintuitive at first brush that strength doesn't help DVs in 6e, I may be somewhat conditioned to tolerate it by other game experiences.
-
Sure it has elements that are not realistic at all like magic. It’s combat and rules aren’t perfect reality simulators and have unrealistic elements. But there is a scale from perfect depiction to toon town. It’s far more towards toon town now. The realism we are talking about is things like trolls hit harder than pixies. Or harder tasks are harder. That’s kind of the barest level of realism a game should have.
The RPG system I'm most familiar with other than Shadowrun is Pathfinder 1st ed. And in that game system, it's quite easily done where you can have a strength dump stat but use some features of that system to get bonus damage from a high agility score instead of strength. So yes, that pixie-like thing could very well hit just as hard as a big ole troll-like thing. So I suppose that while yes I agree it seems counterintuitive at first brush that strength doesn't help DVs in 6e, I may be somewhat conditioned to tolerate it by other game experiences.
Sure, but I think it’s for a limited set of precision weapons and it’s recognized as a pure gamest rule due to how their attributes work. Their game math fails when core attacks fall behind and don’t use the stat your class will max. They were open for pretty much any stat subbing in for certain classes in similar d20 games. Also high fantasy is intentionally absurdist. You literally can routinely fall from orbit pick yourself up and function normally.
-
Yeah it's the absurdist stuff that ends up rotting the game as rules lawyers get hold of them.
In a setting that's meant to be gritty and dangerous it ends up turning it into MiB where you can get eaten by a 50 meter long alien monster and bust out the side of it's rib-cage emerging with no ill effects or injuries then pick up your cricket hold-out and vaporize half a city block while your team-mate standing nearby holding the massive gun wonders WTF?
That makes for a fun camp movie romp but results in extremely shallow game play imho.
-
I wonder if there are “dials” around Edge to help convey different campaign styles? For example, less given out for grittier campaigns vs more for cinematic ones.
-
you would have to replace the highly abstracted edge mechanic with something more related to reality.
Something like taking a negative modifier for shooting at someone at long range, or in the dark, or while running.
You know, stuff that is connected to reality and that you can guess at if you have common sense.
-
I wonder if there are “dials” around Edge to help convey different campaign styles? For example, less given out for grittier campaigns vs more for cinematic ones.
I think my only issue with edge is it’s used as a replacement for core mechanics as opposed to a supplement. I don’t mind how it seems to be gained and used but it doesn’t work for replacing a modifier and it’s odd that it’s only really opposed tests as I’m assuming the slippery ledge you are walking on doesn’t get a edge to use to make you fall as opposed to just having a threshold of 3 instead of 1 for the non slippery ledge.
-
you would have to replace the highly abstracted edge mechanic with something more related to reality.
Something like taking a negative modifier for shooting at someone at long range, or in the dark, or while running.
You know, stuff that is connected to reality and that you can guess at if you have common sense.
I think a threshold system could work. Your threshold to hit a target is opposed test result minimum 1. Situational modifiers can add to that result. So I roll 2 hits on my defense test. But it’s long range, long range is a+2 modifier. So they need 4 hits to hit me. Your dice pool never changes which seems to be a current goal and the number of hits changes like it always does anyways.
-
Thanks guys, appreciate the comments and suggestions. Guessing I’m going to have to see how the rules actually play/with the group and then figure out what we do to tweak/adjust.
-
That’s pretty much what I predicted would happen, it would devolve into a game of edge begging.
I wouldn't call it edge "begging" by any means. The most you can get per round is two anyhow. I was generally rewarding 1 per round and that is with little experience doing it.
Perhaps I misspoke. I would call it more an attempt to figure out the new Edge rules as a group. For instance a player would ask," I do I get an edge for that awesome move I just made." Generally I would go with it. I want the game to be exciting and fun.
I would also say that finding cover is much more important in 6e. At least between two high powered PCs.
your own words bely your response:
"They were always trying to figure out ways to get edge and convince me to give it to them for various reasons."
-
Please note that I'm not trying to change your mind/opinion/feelings about the new Edge stuff. Just voicing my feelings about it.
The new, highly abstracted edge mechanic means it's all about how to game the system to cough up edge.
The avoiding a negative penalty here and finding a positive bonus there is all about how to game the system to cough up enough points to increase successes.
That works great for boardgames and the like where the abstraction is built in, but not for RPGs where reality trumps cool.
With the new edge mechanic srun is now entirely within the Pink Mohawk school of play, which is fine for many folks but flies completely in the face of my table's interests and indeed the history of srun.
While, I can see where you're coming from, we've obviously been playing with different groups! lol. Many times I've seen games come to a screeching halt as players hunt for every bonus they can get even if the end results isn't "realistic." It's STILL bonus hunting.
Plus, I wouldn't place srun in the same pool as Realistic RPGs. It's super fun, no doubt. But once a Street Sam starts running around like the Flash on Meth while the Elf Mage is lobbing fireballs at a Dragon's Lair Guards, ... er... Yeah. I'm no longer getting realistic. It's definitely on the Science Fantasy end of the spectrum.
However, I will concede that it IS possible to play it more realistically, but outta the box, it ain't. Squinting, I can see where the new edge thing may make that harder. I'll reserve judgement until I see the actual rules.
-
I wouldn't place srun in the same pool as Realistic RPGs. It's super fun, no doubt. But once a Street Sam starts running around like the Flash on Meth while the Elf Mage is lobbing fireballs at a Dragon's Lair Guards, ... er... Yeah. I'm no longer getting realistic. It's definitely on the Science Fantasy end of the spectrum.
I think the issue I have isn't so much Realism as much as Relativism. The game itself is a sandbox of might, magic, guns, tech, spygames, and shoot'em ups, but that doesn't mean all things are equal. I agree that melee damage shouldn't be a straight statted DV. If an unaugmented STR 2 gnome swings a baseball bat at someone's head with all their might, it still shouldn't do nearly as much damage as STR 9 troll playing Tee Ball with your brain case.
As an aside, I also think the prevalence of "save up for the big toys" in 5E is more a failure of GMs to make heavily restricted weapons/spells/tech unattainable dreams. You want that availability 24F Thunderstruck? You and every other runner, but unless you happen to be Damien Knight's personal fluffer in your off time, you probably won't get one. And if you do, how long will you hold on to it? Anyone who sees you use it is going to know its some hot drek, and they will have to weigh how much your life is worth at that point.
-
Which completely misses the core concept of cyberpunk / dystopian worlds, they are gritty and dangerous. It's hard to have a gritty, dangerous setting without some semblance of reality.
I'm going to have to disagree with this: Gritty/dangerous ≠ realistic. Gritty/dangerous/cyberpunk/dystopian are all elements of the setting, while realism is influenced by the rules themselves; you don't need realistic rules to shape a dark, gritty world. A well run Ravenloft campaign in D&D can get every bit as dark and dystopian as any cyberpunk game, and no one can honestly call D&D's rules realistic. It's up to the GM (and to some degree the game's setting) to set the tone of the game, and a skilled GM can set that dark, gritty tone, or change it completely, to suit their gaming group's needs.
-
Ghost, you ever want some heavy gritty and dangerous, check out some Dark Heresy. Don’t get more grimdark then that.
-
Ghost, you ever want some heavy gritty and dangerous, check out some Dark Heresy. Don’t get more grimdark then that.
Definitely! Of course GW went so over the top with the grimdark that it reached a level of absurdity, but still...
-
rules wise, I probably will be sticking with 5e, barring some major errata/revisions. But I certainly will keep grabbing the setting/adventure books. there's always stuff to use, and just because you dont utilize the latest version of the rules doesn't mean you aren't supporting the game.
-
This might be a bit controversial for a first post.
But what people here write how 6th world play will surely look like reminds me a lot of the discussions on 5e D&D on other boards, where people said this would surely be the downfall of everything that was good in 3.5 and 4e.
I'm skeptical too, when it comes to soaking and e.g. knowledge skills.
It's way too early imho, to deduce how the new edition will play out, based solely on the few things we know and learned from streamers who have a version of the CRB.
5th edition was the first edition of Shadowrun I got to actually play, so it is very dear to my heart.
But inferring a less realistic playstyle from what we know about the new edition is a bit much.
Anyhow: Happy to be on board for the ride until we get the new edition!
-
This might be a bit controversial for a first post...
Anyhow: Happy to be on board for the ride until we get the new edition!
You know, I've been thinking about this, and replying to your post is an excellent time to say it:
Love or hate, like or dislike, whatever one thinks about sixth edition we all have to agree there's been more voices here on the forum than in quite a while. 6e has ginned up interest in Shadowrun, and that's only a good thing.
Welcome to the forum dim! And I hope you find 6e to your liking, but If not I hope you keep playing 5e!
-
This might be a bit controversial for a first post.
But what people here write how 6th world play will surely look like reminds me a lot of the discussions on 5e D&D on other boards, where people said this would surely be the downfall of everything that was good in 3.5 and 4e.
I'm skeptical too, when it comes to soaking and e.g. knowledge skills.
It's way too early imho, to deduce how the new edition will play out, based solely on the few things we know and learned from streamers who have a version of the CRB.
5th edition was the first edition of Shadowrun I got to actually play, so it is very dear to my heart.
But inferring a less realistic playstyle from what we know about the new edition is a bit much.
Anyhow: Happy to be on board for the ride until we get the new edition!
Hit the nail on the head from my perspective. 5th ed d&d seemed like a step back from the variety of 3rd at first, then I played it and realized that some of the “oversimplified” rules instead seemlessly integrated with countless more aspects of gameplay giving me a who lot more robust versatility in both what I wanted to do and in creating my own content! I suspect 6th World will work out similar once the full rules come out and dice hit the table.
-
I think a lot of the concern is because the new Edge system sounds a lot like Fate points or similar narrative-based, meta-game mechanics. Shadowrun has not, historically, been that sort of game, and it's a very different play style from SR1-5, so I can understand the worry. But until we can see the whole system, it's impossible to tell. Unifying the modifiers of previous editions into a single mechanic might well make things smoother and easier to understand, but introducing a narrative-based mechanic would be a bigger change than Technomancers, in my opinion. Not necessarily bad (I quite like Technomancers), but definitely big.
Still, one should be cautious about initial reactions. When the fourth edition of Ars Magica came out, the initial complaints were that the wizards had been nerfed. Within a year or so, there was general agreement that the rules changes actually made them overpowered.
-
The biggest Edge change is that you can reroll your enemy's dice! O_O
-
The biggest Edge change is that you can reroll your enemy's dice! O_O
Yes...
"Realism" is not really a useful term for a game with technomancer elves, but I think there are genuine concerns at work. Most of these ideas float around in game design circles, but I'm making up my own labels for them.
Games can be "immersive" or "narrativist" (let's say). An immersive game is one in which the player and the character make decisions for essentially the same reasons. The character dives behind cover for protection from bullets; the player has them dive behind cover to get the bonus to armour. Essentially the same reason. A narrativist game is one in which the player makes decisions for completely different reasons from the character. The character loses his temper because the ork insulted his mother. The player has the character lose his temper to get a Fate point that she can use later.
Shadowrun has been immersive so far, but the new Edge system sounds like it might be narrativist. It might not be; hiding behind cover because you get Edge is not that different from doing it to get an armour bonus.
A separate distinction is that games can be "simulationist" or "gamist". In a simulationist game, bonuses and penalties all have sensible origins within the fiction. You get a bonus to armour because you are hiding behind a concrete wall, for example. In a gamist game, the bonuses and penalties come from the game mechanics, and might have no foundation in the fiction. You get a bonus to armour because you spent the Fate point you earned by having the character lose his temper.
Shadowrun has been broadly simulationist so far, but the new Edge system sounds rather gamist. "I successfully hacked this system because I hid behind a wall earlier." The implementation details really matter here, though, and I, at least, don't know those yet.
Then there is "realism", which means that the game mechanics model the way the fiction is supposed to work. (We had a great deal of trouble in Ars Magica trying to create realistic magic resistance, which in one sense is absurd, but in another makes perfect sense — the mechanics should reflect the way the fiction describes it.) The concerns about the Knowledge skills and Armor are about realism in this sense; the concern that the mechanics won't reflect the fiction.
If Sixth World makes Shadowrun narrativist and gamist, I think it will alienate a lot of existing players, but I don't think it is at all clear that it does. If nothing else, the Edge mechanic does not sound as though it dominates everything, and the attributes and skills are still immersive-simulationist.
-
But what people here write how 6th world play will surely look like reminds me a lot of the discussions on 5e D&D on other boards, where people said this would surely be the downfall of everything that was good in 3.5 and 4e.
Actually that is pretty much the reaction with any RPG that has a decent sized player-base and switches to a new edition, in my experience.
-
The biggest Edge change is that you can reroll your enemy's dice! O_O
"I successfully hacked this system because I hid behind a wall earlier."
Or frame it like “I successfully hacked this system because I put my meat behind a good wall so I didn’t stress about stray rounds as much and had better focus.”
If Sixth World makes Shadowrun narrativist and gamist, I think it will alienate a lot of existing players, but I don't think it is at all clear that it does. If nothing else, the Edge mechanic does not sound as though it dominates everything, and the attributes and skills are still immersive-simulationist.
The new Edge seems to have the purpose of clearing out the 69 (dudes) different tables with dozens of modifiers each for every situation they could think of, and replacing it with a simple system that can then flex and bend to match any situation needed, including the hundreds that the makers of the original tables didn’t thing of. And with it being simper, it’s easier to expand on later without unintentionally breaking other things.
-
The biggest Edge change is that you can reroll your enemy's dice! O_O
"I successfully hacked this system because I hid behind a wall earlier."
Or frame it like “I successfully hacked this system because I put my meat behind a good wall so I didn’t stress about stray rounds as much and had better focus.”
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/38942511/i-like-the-cut-of-your-jib-have-yourself-a-like-old-sport.jpg)
If Sixth World makes Shadowrun narrativist and gamist, I think it will alienate a lot of existing players, but I don't think it is at all clear that it does. If nothing else, the Edge mechanic does not sound as though it dominates everything, and the attributes and skills are still immersive-simulationist.
The new Edge seems to have the purpose of clearing out the 69 (dudes) different tables with dozens of modifiers each for every situation they could think of, and replacing it with a simple system that can then flex and bend to match any situation needed, including the hundreds that the makers of the original tables didn’t thing of. And with it being simper, it’s easier to expand on later without unintentionally breaking other things.
The internet is where you post unsolicited anecdotes, right? Here's one!
I've played 5e nearly every week (had to cancel games occasionally) for oh almost 2 years now. And in all that time, know how many times the range chart has been referenced? A bunch. Actually, that's not the point. The point is how many times out of THOSE has a die penalty actually been assessed? Once. How many times have players scoured their character sheets until they found enough gear to cancel out pending penalties? All the other times. And boy at least a day of my life has probably been spent just haggling over bonuses to cancel out penalties. For a net product of one measly -1 die penalty to one gunshot.
Penalties for shooting at range can absolutely go without breaking verisimilitude. IMO the odds that you're taking a long range shot but not using scopes, night vision, etc are so low you can absolutely just assume they're in place and roll with the edge system for ease and speed of play, granting edge as appropriate to one side or the other if they're NOT in play.
-
Where as we use modifiers all the time. We pretty much never reference charts though. And no one is constantly scouring their gear for ways to cancel the penalties. They just roll with losing a few dice or know off hand a way they cancel some of it.
But hey magic land where dude who picks up a gun for the first time can routinely hit with a pistol at 100 meters in high winds in poor lighting but hey the enemy got 1 edge so they can heal a wound they took a combat turn earlier.
-
Where as we use modifiers all the time. We pretty much never reference charts though. And no one is constantly scouring their gear for ways to cancel the penalties. They just roll with losing a few dice or know off hand a way they cancel some of it.
Fair. And that's why anecdotal arguments are less than ideal.
But hey magic land where dude who picks up a gun for the first time can routinely hit with a pistol at 100 meters in high winds in poor lighting but hey the enemy got 1 edge so they can heal a wound they took a combat turn earlier.
This seems like a non sequitur. Shadowrun has never been a sandboxy, simulationist game. It's a game with a very narrow focus: you not only play Shadowrunners and nothing other than Shadowrunners, you play experienced Shadowrunners right out of chargen. Some dude who's never picked up a gun before is not a situation that's reasonably within the presumption of the game. At least for PCs.
-
Where as we use modifiers all the time. We pretty much never reference charts though. And no one is constantly scouring their gear for ways to cancel the penalties. They just roll with losing a few dice or know off hand a way they cancel some of it.
Fair. And that's why anecdotal arguments are less than ideal.
But hey magic land where dude who picks up a gun for the first time can routinely hit with a pistol at 100 meters in high winds in poor lighting but hey the enemy got 1 edge so they can heal a wound they took a combat turn earlier.
This seems like a non sequitur. Shadowrun has never been a sandboxy, simulationist game. It's a game with a very narrow focus: you not only play Shadowrunners and nothing other than Shadowrunners, you play experienced Shadowrunners right out of chargen. Some dude who's never picked up a gun before is not a situation that's reasonably within the presumption of the game. At least for PCs.
I actually had a street level game like that. We were all gangers and the best combat skill was I thing a 4 with knives. We sucked at what we did but it was fun!
-
Where as we use modifiers all the time. We pretty much never reference charts though. And no one is constantly scouring their gear for ways to cancel the penalties. They just roll with losing a few dice or know off hand a way they cancel some of it.
That sounds nice. Granted a lot of gear comes automaticly with penalty cancels, but few things are as annoying then a play who spends literal days scouring the gear tables for every single solitary bonus die they can get.
-
Would you prefer just has a 1 in pistols. Though again I’ve had tables where people fired a gun untrained and with pretty crap base agility. Things like deckers with nothing to hack, mages in absurd background counts. It’s just an illustration that edge isn’t doing what it is supposed to be doing when replacing modifiers. Modifiers are supposed to reflect and show a task is more difficult due to circumstances. Edge does not do that. The task is just as difficult as one without any challenges.
Take a non resisted task, you are walking across a ledge. Let’s say that’s gymnastics test threshold 1. If we detailed it’s chicago it’s the middle of winter and currently there is a big storm going on you might have modifiers to that and say the threshold is now 3. For unknown reasons when the test is opposed the task no longer is any more difficult. So if it was a living ledge actively opposing me with 3 dice. Now my task is just as easy in a bright and sunny day as in the storm the ledge just got a edge or two which it may or may not use against me. Now clumsy people can routinely cross the ledge in the storm because it’s highly variable on whether or not the living ledge has the edge right then or wants to use it in that fashion. Maybe it’s saving it to defend against someone else’s attack or heal some damage it took.
That makes no damn sense. As a supplement or add to modifiers it sounds great. Removing them entirely it sounds like a mess.
-
Where as we use modifiers all the time. We pretty much never reference charts though. And no one is constantly scouring their gear for ways to cancel the penalties. They just roll with losing a few dice or know off hand a way they cancel some of it.
That sounds nice. Granted a lot of gear comes automaticly with penalty cancels, but few things are as annoying then a play who spends literal days scouring the gear tables for every single solitary bonus die they can get.
I don’t think I’ve ever played with people like that. If it was literally this or die I’ve seen people scramble for something but it usually was massive uses of edge/karma.
-
Would you prefer just has a 1 in pistols. Though again I’ve had tables where people fired a gun untrained and with pretty crap base agility. Things like deckers with nothing to hack, mages in absurd background counts. It’s just an illustration that edge isn’t doing what it is supposed to be doing when replacing modifiers. Modifiers are supposed to reflect and show a task is more difficult due to circumstances. Edge does not do that. The task is just as difficult as one without any challenges.
Where as we use modifiers all the time. We pretty much never reference charts though. And no one is constantly scouring their gear for ways to cancel the penalties. They just roll with losing a few dice or know off hand a way they cancel some of it.
That sounds nice. Granted a lot of gear comes automaticly with penalty cancels, but few things are as annoying then a play who spends literal days scouring the gear tables for every single solitary bonus die they can get.
I don’t think I’ve ever played with people like that. If it was literally this or die I’ve seen people scramble for something but it usually was massive uses of edge/karma.
Take a non resisted task, you are walking across a ledge. Let’s say that’s gymnastics test threshold 1. If we detailed it’s chicago it’s the middle of winter and currently there is a big storm going on you might have modifiers to that and say the threshold is now 3. For unknown reasons when the test is opposed the task no longer is any more difficult. So if it was a living ledge actively opposing me with 3 dice. Now my task is just as easy in a bright and sunny day as in the storm the ledge just got a edge or two which it may or may not use against me. Now clumsy people can routinely cross the ledge in the storm because it’s highly variable on whether or not the living ledge has the edge right then or wants to use it in that fashion. Maybe it’s saving it to defend against someone else’s attack or heal some damage it took.
That makes no damn sense. As a supplement or add to modifiers it sounds great. Removing them entirely it sounds like a mess.
Who said there aren’t still some modifiers? Just that the large many page filling amount of them trying to account for every single solitary situation has been removed and replaced with something a lot more versatile. And a opposed task can still have a threshold, that’s never been not a thing.
Where as we use modifiers all the time. We pretty much never reference charts though. And no one is constantly scouring their gear for ways to cancel the penalties. They just roll with losing a few dice or know off hand a way they cancel some of it.
That sounds nice. Granted a lot of gear comes automaticly with penalty cancels, but few things are as annoying then a play who spends literal days scouring the gear tables for every single solitary bonus die they can get.
I don’t think I’ve ever played with people like that. If it was literally this or die I’ve seen people scramble for something but it usually was massive uses of edge/karma.
I’ve had to deal with two. Thankfully they were a very rare minority.
-
I have had no hand in 5E or 6E rules construction. Mainly because I don't have time to deal with that. Fluff is easy compared to rules. That all said, I love the new Edge rules compared to 4E and 5E and this is coming from someone who thinks that 3E just needed some tweaks.
-
1st off, modifiers are not removed. A bunch still came into play, most common are wound modifiers. As said above, they seem to replace some tables/modifiers. The physical exchange of tokens and the ability to modify pools with them is much more fun for the players. That is the point of playing a game. This gives a sense of reward.
2nd, Shadowrun isn't a simulation, that would be boring, just gives the illusion of one to create realism and depth. The new edge system just makes it more fast pace and fun.
3rd Don't judge it till you play it, period. I understand that this kind of debate is what online forums are for. I don't usually join forums for this reason. I have an ex-wife that's enough negativity for me. Unfortunately folks will look at the negativity and prejudge the game, that would be a mistake. I have played all editions, from what I have seen, the box set, it points toward the best edition since third. Not hot on the art, but that might be the Grognard coming out in me.
-
The only thing I am really worried about is the role of armor.
Would the combats have turned out very differently if all PCs had been naked?
-
The biggest Edge change is that you can reroll your enemy's dice! O_O
Yes...
"Realism" is not really a useful term for a game with technomancer elves, but I think there are genuine concerns at work. Most of these ideas float around in game design circles, but I'm making up my own labels for them.
Games can be "immersive" or "narrativist" (let's say). An immersive game is one in which the player and the character make decisions for essentially the same reasons. The character dives behind cover for protection from bullets; the player has them dive behind cover to get the bonus to armour. Essentially the same reason. A narrativist game is one in which the player makes decisions for completely different reasons from the character. The character loses his temper because the ork insulted his mother. The player has the character lose his temper to get a Fate point that she can use later.
Shadowrun has been immersive so far, but the new Edge system sounds like it might be narrativist. It might not be; hiding behind cover because you get Edge is not that different from doing it to get an armour bonus.
A separate distinction is that games can be "simulationist" or "gamist". In a simulationist game, bonuses and penalties all have sensible origins within the fiction. You get a bonus to armour because you are hiding behind a concrete wall, for example. In a gamist game, the bonuses and penalties come from the game mechanics, and might have no foundation in the fiction. You get a bonus to armour because you spent the Fate point you earned by having the character lose his temper.
Shadowrun has been broadly simulationist so far, but the new Edge system sounds rather gamist. "I successfully hacked this system because I hid behind a wall earlier." The implementation details really matter here, though, and I, at least, don't know those yet.
Then there is "realism", which means that the game mechanics model the way the fiction is supposed to work. (We had a great deal of trouble in Ars Magica trying to create realistic magic resistance, which in one sense is absurd, but in another makes perfect sense — the mechanics should reflect the way the fiction describes it.) The concerns about the Knowledge skills and Armor are about realism in this sense; the concern that the mechanics won't reflect the fiction.
If Sixth World makes Shadowrun narrativist and gamist, I think it will alienate a lot of existing players, but I don't think it is at all clear that it does. If nothing else, the Edge mechanic does not sound as though it dominates everything, and the attributes and skills are still immersive-simulationist.
This is an excellent post and does a good job of highlighting the changes in 6e's edge mechanic.
The new edge mechanic IS a highly gamey, narrative-driven core of the new system.
Whereas in 5e and earlier the game world reacted somewhat realistically to your actions via thresholds and modifiers directly related to the situation, now we have an edge mechanic that abstracts that so completely that your actions become divorced from outcomes.
You can shift the affect of wearing armor (edge gained) to jumping higher or driving better?
Sorry but that's the definition of idiocy in my book.
It's the death of realism and the triumph of the rule of cool.
Shadowrun is now Men in Black, 100%.
If you like that, awesome, you're gonna have a great time.
-
1st off, modifiers are not removed. A bunch still came into play, most common are wound modifiers. As said above, they seem to replace some tables/modifiers. The physical exchange of tokens and the ability to modify pools with them is much more fun for the players. That is the point of playing a game. This gives a sense of reward.
2nd, Shadowrun isn't a simulation, that would be boring, just gives the illusion of one to create realism and depth. The new edge system just makes it more fast pace and fun.
3rd Don't judge it till you play it, period. I understand that this kind of debate is what online forums are for. I don't usually join forums for this reason. I have an ex-wife that's enough negativity for me. Unfortunately folks will look at the negativity and prejudge the game, that would be a mistake. I have played all editions, from what I have seen, the box set, it points toward the best edition since third. Not hot on the art, but that might be the Grognard coming out in me.
I don’t think anyone had claimed every single modifier was removed. Though if you are rolling into a edge system they probably should have. Ways to showcase challenge and difficulty, threshold increases, dice pool modifiers, edge thrown to the opposition, bonus dice to the opposition. That makes the game more complicated not less. And tracking edge doesn’t sound any faster than saying due to wind you lose 2 dice. Any player that argues and scrounges for dice will also argue and scrounge about edge.
If you want a less complicated and faster system the difficulty mechanic should be streamlined and universal. Not multiple systems depending on the situation.
-
It's the death of realism
You keep using this phrase, but I don’t think it means what you are thinking it means.
Shadowrun has NEVER been a realism game. 4th and 5th were more gritty then the previous three editions, but the fact remains that it’s always had a number of levels of abstraction between mechanics and action. This is were role-play could take place beyond the simple scope of an arbitrary number that doesn’t begin to cover the vast nuance that exists in reality.
You may have liked how 4th and 5th did it’s massive crunch, but now we’re moving back to the lesser crunch in the style of 3rd and earlier that several seem to be hoping for, and that ttrpg players as a whole seem to be gravitating to right now.
I’m sorry if you don’t like it, and it’s ok to not like things, but you’ve been non-stop negative hate on this with only rumors and hearsay of the rules. Stop slamming so hard against those of us who do like what we’re seeing like we wrecked your car, burnt down your house, and killed your puppy.
-
It's the death of realism
You keep using this phrase, but I don’t think it means what you are thinking it means.
Shadowrun has NEVER been a realism game. 4th and 5th were more gritty then the previous three editions, but the fact remains that it’s always had a number of levels of abstraction between mechanics and action. This is were role-play could take place beyond the simple scope of an arbitrary number that doesn’t begin to cover the vast nuance that exists in reality.
You may have liked how 4th and 5th did it’s massive crunch, but now we’re moving back to the lesser crunch in the style of 3rd and earlier that several seem to be hoping for, and that ttrpg players as a whole seem to be gravitating to right now.
I’m sorry if you don’t like it, and it’s ok to not like things, but you’ve been non-stop negative hate on this with only rumors and hearsay of the rules. Stop slamming so hard against those of us who do like what we’re seeing like we wrecked your car, burnt down your house, and killed your puppy.
I've been playing since 1e in 1989.
I know the game history and evolution.
I am a committed srun player who's deeply invested in the game.
I've been in the 5e errata team since it's inception.
6e and the new edge mechanic are the death of any realistic gameplay, it's all gamism now.
I know what i'm talking about, I just can't talk about everything I know, so i'm sticking to the stuff that's out there already.
Asking me to be quiet about my justified dissatisfaction with 6e would be like me asking you to be quiet for being positive towards the system.
I haven't asked you to do that, have I?
-
The only thing I am really worried about is the role of armor.
Would the combats have turned out very differently if all PCs had been naked?
Yes the characters with lower AR felt the impact. The mage was obliterated, everyone wanted to shoot him because they would get an edge. He was caught in the open with no cover and crappy armor.
-
The only thing I am really worried about is the role of armor.
Would the combats have turned out very differently if all PCs had been naked?
Yes the characters with lower AR felt the impact. The mage was obliterated, everyone wanted to shoot him because they would get an edge. He was caught in the open with no cover and crappy armor.
Geek the mage baby! 8)
-
The only thing I am really worried about is the role of armor.
Would the combats have turned out very differently if all PCs had been naked?
Yes the characters with lower AR felt the impact. The mage was obliterated, everyone wanted to shoot him because they would get an edge. He was caught in the open with no cover and crappy armor.
Everyone shooting the same guy doesn’t mean the armor helped or hindered significantly. It just meant PCs gamed the system to farm edge. As a GM I don’t do that. So I’m not sure it will have a impact in play much.
-
Should have used Full Defense. :-\
-
Maybe you can’t full defense if your turn has not come up yet. But yeah that would have been kind of funny if it worked.
-
The biggest Edge change is that you can reroll your enemy's dice! O_O
Yes...
"Realism" is not really a useful term for a game with technomancer elves, but I think there are genuine concerns at work. Most of these ideas float around in game design circles, but I'm making up my own labels for them.
Games can be "immersive" or "narrativist" (let's say). An immersive game is one in which the player and the character make decisions for essentially the same reasons. The character dives behind cover for protection from bullets; the player has them dive behind cover to get the bonus to armour. Essentially the same reason. A narrativist game is one in which the player makes decisions for completely different reasons from the character. The character loses his temper because the ork insulted his mother. The player has the character lose his temper to get a Fate point that she can use later.
Shadowrun has been immersive so far, but the new Edge system sounds like it might be narrativist. It might not be; hiding behind cover because you get Edge is not that different from doing it to get an armour bonus.
A separate distinction is that games can be "simulationist" or "gamist". In a simulationist game, bonuses and penalties all have sensible origins within the fiction. You get a bonus to armour because you are hiding behind a concrete wall, for example. In a gamist game, the bonuses and penalties come from the game mechanics, and might have no foundation in the fiction. You get a bonus to armour because you spent the Fate point you earned by having the character lose his temper.
Shadowrun has been broadly simulationist so far, but the new Edge system sounds rather gamist. "I successfully hacked this system because I hid behind a wall earlier." The implementation details really matter here, though, and I, at least, don't know those yet.
Then there is "realism", which means that the game mechanics model the way the fiction is supposed to work. (We had a great deal of trouble in Ars Magica trying to create realistic magic resistance, which in one sense is absurd, but in another makes perfect sense — the mechanics should reflect the way the fiction describes it.) The concerns about the Knowledge skills and Armor are about realism in this sense; the concern that the mechanics won't reflect the fiction.
If Sixth World makes Shadowrun narrativist and gamist, I think it will alienate a lot of existing players, but I don't think it is at all clear that it does. If nothing else, the Edge mechanic does not sound as though it dominates everything, and the attributes and skills are still immersive-simulationist.
This is an excellent post and does a good job of highlighting the changes in 6e's edge mechanic.
The new edge mechanic IS a highly gamey, narrative-driven core of the new system.
Whereas in 5e and earlier the game world reacted somewhat realistically to your actions via thresholds and modifiers directly related to the situation, now we have an edge mechanic that abstracts that so completely that your actions become divorced from outcomes.
You can shift the affect of wearing armor (edge gained) to jumping higher or driving better?
Sorry but that's the definition of idiocy in my book.
It's the death of realism and the triumph of the rule of cool.
Shadowrun is now Men in Black, 100%.
If you like that, awesome, you're gonna have a great time.
Well you should get edge for superior position or driving better. It's the equivalent of extra dice. Just giving the players more choice and a little more excitement. Armor does not seem to be as effective in this edition. That is more realistic. You get edge for superior positioning, your opponent, finds cover and gets edge for that. I would not give edge for jumping up in the air personally. My job as GM.
At no point in the one game I ran, did the players save up edge from an unrealistic reward and spend it later. They always used it pretty much used it immediately. If you are saving up and sitting on your edge in 6e, you don't get the mechanic.
We obviously have two different definitions of what fun is in a game. Everything evolves or it dies.
-
I know what i'm talking about
This is the questionable language I'm talking about. These few words tell us that you believe that we'll all agree with you once we seen what you've seen. That, because you've seen it, you're a better expert on the system and how it will be accepted by other players like yourself.
This is why I bring up Rule #7 and constructive criticism.
I'm not asking to stop saying your opinion, just stop using language that makes it sound like your opinion matters more than others. In most of the members that disagree with you, they haven't claimed that they know better, just that they are waiting to see what the rules actually are (and that what they've seen so far, they like).
-
The only thing I am really worried about is the role of armor.
Would the combats have turned out very differently if all PCs had been naked?
Yes the characters with lower AR felt the impact. The mage was obliterated, everyone wanted to shoot him because they would get an edge. He was caught in the open with no cover and crappy armor.
Everyone shooting the same guy doesn’t mean the armor helped or hindered significantly. It just meant PCs gamed the system to farm edge. As a GM I don’t do that. So I’m not sure it will have a impact in play much.
We didn't know the rules very well during the first round, so the mage getting ganked in the first round was a result of politics, a couple players had grudge with the player. After the first player, the street sam, obliterated him, it was open season. The face finished him off next initiative. The face convinced the street sam that since they had the same contacts, they were friends and should team up to kill the mage. The face was the mage's brother in real life and they had a fight that day. I had to put a stop to that quick and let the mage survive.
After the first round every player used a minor to find cover. The mage will go down in infamy for providing that lesson.
In the basic set at least mages don't seem as powerful as they once were. Having a lower DV and body really took it's toll. Mage made himself pass out from drain to fireball the sam and face.
-
I know what i'm talking about
This is the questionable language I'm talking about. These few words tell us that you believe that we'll all agree with you once we seen what you've seen. That, because you've seen it, you're a better expert on the system and how it will be accepted by other players like yourself.
This is why I bring up Rule #7 and constructive criticism.
I'm not asking to stop saying your opinion, just stop using language that makes it sound like your opinion matters more than others. In most of the members that disagree with you, they haven't claimed that they know better, just that they are waiting to see what the rules actually are (and that what they've seen so far, they like).
I have said repeatedly people should make up their own mind.
That statement was in regard to my experience with the system of shadowrun, I know what I’m talking about when it comes to how shadowrun works. I’ve been intimately involved for years in the errata process for 5e and heavily invested in the game.
But I’ve made my case with as much detail i can use and highlighted why I’m disappointed with 6e.
I am gonna step away now and let the discussion continue without me.
Gluck!
-
The only thing I am really worried about is the role of armor.
Would the combats have turned out very differently if all PCs had been naked?
Yes the characters with lower AR felt the impact. The mage was obliterated, everyone wanted to shoot him because they would get an edge. He was caught in the open with no cover and crappy armor.
Everyone shooting the same guy doesn’t mean the armor helped or hindered significantly. It just meant PCs gamed the system to farm edge. As a GM I don’t do that. So I’m not sure it will have a impact in play much.
We didn't know the rules very well during the first round, so the mage getting ganked in the first round was a result of politics, a couple players had grudge with the player. After the first player, the street sam, obliterated him, it was open season. The face finished him off next initiative. The face convinced the street sam that since they had the same contacts, they were friends and should team up to kill the mage. The face was the mage's brother in real life and they had a fight that day. I had to put a stop to that quick and let the mage survive.
After the first round every player used a minor to find cover. The mage will go down in infamy for providing that lesson.
In the basic set at least mages don't seem as powerful as they once were. Having a lower DV and body really took it's toll. Mage made himself pass out from drain to fireball the sam and face.
Do you think that’s due to the system inherently, or possibly a bad build in the sample message? They just being able to casually ignore drain as always seem to be the crux of an over powered mage. Would be really awesome if they finally managed to find the balance between cost and award with spellcasting and drain.
-
Finally got my hands on mine, will post full thoughts later after I read it all but first glance. I love that there’s some humor thrown into the descriptive parts. The ‘what you know them for’ for the big 10 was awesome!
-
At no point in the one game I ran, did the players save up edge from an unrealistic reward and spend it later. They always used it pretty much used it immediately. If you are saving up and sitting on your edge in 6e, you don't get the mechanic.
Given that it seems that edge doesn't carry over between scenes, and gets spent quickly, it sounds as though it is just working as a unified mechanic to simplify modifiers, rather than adding a serious gamist element, so that's in line with earlier editions. I'm now generally optimistic about the new rules, based on what I've seen and heard.
-
Played a game with the Rigger, the Decker and the Combat Mage. Due to circumstances the Mage didn't get to throw a lot of spells around. Rigger spent Edge because otherwise the next Edge gain would poof on the hard cap of 7 total, Decker spent Edge on several crucial rolls and quickly ran out . 2 Edge to turn a 4 into a 5 was the most popular Edge move. Making an opponent reroll also happened when Edge was short and 2 hits more/less were needed.
I probably should have given a bonus Edge for rerouting the ganger-lieutenant's call to Kalanyr to 911 instead. Could have given Edge for smart tactical moves as well, such as informing the Stuffer Shack Agent that there were too many gangmembers nearby. Still need to get used to giving out Edge more freely for neat actions. I did give the Rigger bonus Edge for sneaking underneath vehicles before opening fire, counting it as circumstantial benefit on each attack.
-
How did your players find it?
-
I probably should have given a bonus Edge for rerouting the ganger-lieutenant's call to Kalanyr to 911 instead. Could have given Edge for smart tactical moves as well, such as informing the Stuffer Shack Agent that there were too many gangmembers nearby. Still need to get used to giving out Edge more freely for neat actions. I did give the Rigger bonus Edge for sneaking underneath vehicles before opening fire, counting it as circumstantial benefit on each attack.
Is that a system suggestion or a house rule?
-
How did your players find it?
Not enough real combat to really get a grip on things but the short summary is 'Edge is more fun' and 'Matrix seems more streamlined'. They also had a blast about chasing off the goons by taking down a few of them, PR Composure Tests for the win!
One player joked about the possibility of using Matrix Perception on civvies to heal damage and I pointed out the rules in Core explicitly support a GM blocking Edge abuse. It's nice for a demo agent to be able to bring in the full rules for experienced players trying to do complicated things, though it wasn't really necessary.
-
Interesting, thanks. Looking forward to diving into the box set when I can get my hands on it. Similarly, for the core book...guess were less than 30 days before we see it!
-
Is that a system suggestion or a house rule?
It's just like 5th where a GM can hand out Edge for doing cool stuff, as well as the stated 6th Edition giving out Edge for some kind of Tactical advantage.
-
Can anyone explain the timing as to when Edge is received/spent during a combat in regards to the 7 Edge limit pool? For instance, if I have 6 Edge prior to combat can I spend 1 Edge for a +3 init and then gain 2 Edge (effectively making my pool 8 for the round) once combat kicks off? Can I then use that gained Edge during my first combat round? Anyone know if there are any positive qualities that increase your temp Edge pool to 8? I have seen concerns that fast characters don't have the same advantage in 6e as other editions but I can already see gun bunnies with 2 major actions ending pretty much any combat before it even starts unless the Edge rules are thoroughly described and limited.
-
Can anyone explain the timing as to when Edge is received/spent during a combat in regards to the 7 Edge limit pool? For instance, if I have 6 Edge prior to combat can I spend 1 Edge for a +3 init and then gain 2 Edge (effectively making my pool 8 for the round) once combat kicks off? Can I then use that gained Edge during my first combat round? Anyone know if there are any positive qualities that increase your temp Edge pool to 8? I have seen concerns that fast characters don't have the same advantage in 6e as other editions but I can already see gun bunnies with 2 major actions ending pretty much any combat before it even starts unless the Edge rules are thoroughly described and limited.
It is based on simple order of operations, using your example your Edge never reaches 8 ... start at 6, spend 1 (now 5), then gain 2 (now 7).
-
It is based on simple order of operations, using your example your Edge never reaches 8 ... start at 6, spend 1 (now 5), then gain 2 (now 7).
Right, but it effectively gives a pool of 8.
I am more interested in something like this:
High init, 6 edge to start, 2 major actions.
1) Spend 4 edge to target everyone (probably limited based on reaction but whatever) with full dice pool (before any opposed tests occur) Edge now down to two.
2) Gain Edge based on opposed tests. Edge now up to 4
3) Shoot at everyone
4) Get 2nd attack
5) Spend 4 Edge to shoot at everyone with full pool. Edge now zero.
Edge never went above 6 but you effectively got to spend 8 Edge.
It seems like a fast gun bunny could probably attack everyone within range with his full dice pool - twice before they even get to act. Since it sounds like 6e is more lethal lots of fights could be ended by 1 fast gun bunny.
-
You need to do Multiple Attacks as well for that so it costs mM to perform. And Anticipation costs you a minimum of 2 turns in Edge so it's rather expensive.
-
It is based on simple order of operations, using your example your Edge never reaches 8 ... start at 6, spend 1 (now 5), then gain 2 (now 7).
Right, but it effectively gives a pool of 8.
I am more interested in something like this:
High init, 6 edge to start, 2 major actions.
1) Spend 4 edge to target everyone (probably limited based on reaction but whatever) with full dice pool (before any opposed tests occur) Edge now down to two.
2) Gain Edge based on opposed tests. Edge now up to 4
3) Shoot at everyone
4) Get 2nd attack
5) Spend 4 Edge to shoot at everyone with full pool. Edge now zero.
Edge never went above 6 but you effectively got to spend 8 Edge.
It seems like a fast gun bunny could probably attack everyone within range with his full dice pool - twice before they even get to act. Since it sounds like 6e is more lethal lots of fights could be ended by 1 fast gun bunny.
First of all: works as designed.
Secondly:
Share your revelation with the prognosticators who've been predicting that 6e abandoning initiative passes is the end of wired-up gun bunnies.
-
It is based on simple order of operations, using your example your Edge never reaches 8 ... start at 6, spend 1 (now 5), then gain 2 (now 7).
Right, but it effectively gives a pool of 8.
I am more interested in something like this:
High init, 6 edge to start, 2 major actions.
1) Spend 4 edge to target everyone (probably limited based on reaction but whatever) with full dice pool (before any opposed tests occur) Edge now down to two.
2) Gain Edge based on opposed tests. Edge now up to 4
3) Shoot at everyone
4) Get 2nd attack
5) Spend 4 Edge to shoot at everyone with full pool. Edge now zero.
Edge never went above 6 but you effectively got to spend 8 Edge.
It seems like a fast gun bunny could probably attack everyone within range with his full dice pool - twice before they even get to act. Since it sounds like 6e is more lethal lots of fights could be ended by 1 fast gun bunny.
First of all: works as designed.
Secondly:
Share your revelation with the prognosticators who've been predicting that 6e abandoning initiative passes is the end of wired-up gun bunnies.
I don't have the rules so I am just guessing based on stuff I have read/pieced together. Chandra's response seems to imply that some extra minor actions are involved as well (though I thought the max was 2 Major + 2 minors which would seem to satisfy his post). Still, if that is possible, I expect 2 actions + 6 edge will be standard for most sams/gun adepts - maybe even mages depending on how magic works. It also seems to be the death of anything melee. Not that melee was strong in 5e/20th (don't recall the critical strike nerf version) but turning 4 edge into effectively target # initiative passes is insanely good - some might say gamebreaking.
-
I don't have the rules so I am just guessing based on stuff I have read/pieced together. Chandra's response seems to imply that some extra minor actions are involved as well (though I thought the max was 2 Major + 2 minors which would seem to satisfy his post). Still, if that is possible, I expect 2 actions + 6 edge will be standard for most sams/gun adepts - maybe even mages depending on how magic works. It also seems to be the death of anything melee. Not that melee was strong in 5e/20th (don't recall the critical strike nerf version) but turning 4 edge into effectively target # initiative passes is insanely good - some might say gamebreaking.
Since you'll really really want to save some simple actions to defend yourself with, spending 2 major actions for 2 attacks is probably going to be a rare move.
But yes, if you blow a whole lot of edge, it's got a whopping effect. That's the entire idea. But, inherently, dropping a ton of edge is not the sort of thing you can do turn after turn. (Not to mention: if you're COUNTING on your edge effect, well that's the perfect time for the opponent to spend some of their own edge cancel your edge expenditure...)
-
Since you'll really really want to save some simple actions to defend yourself with, spending 2 major actions for 2 attacks is probably going to be a rare move.
But yes, if you blow a whole lot of edge, it's got a whopping effect. That's the entire idea. But, inherently, dropping a ton of edge is not the sort of thing you can do turn after turn. (Not to mention: if you're COUNTING on your edge effect, well that's the perfect time for the opponent to spend some of their own edge cancel your edge expenditure...)
Kind of weird the way that works. Generally, in SR, jobbers outnumber PCs. It seems it is better for jobbers to just use Edge to cancel PC use of Edge. Turns into a bizarre game of chicken and makes large Edge expenditures unlikely to work.
-
Since you'll really really want to save some simple actions to defend yourself with, spending 2 major actions for 2 attacks is probably going to be a rare move.
But yes, if you blow a whole lot of edge, it's got a whopping effect. That's the entire idea. But, inherently, dropping a ton of edge is not the sort of thing you can do turn after turn. (Not to mention: if you're COUNTING on your edge effect, well that's the perfect time for the opponent to spend some of their own edge cancel your edge expenditure...)
Kind of weird the way that works. Generally, in SR, jobbers outnumber PCs. It seems it is better for jobbers to just use Edge to cancel PC use of Edge. Turns into a bizarre game of chicken and makes large Edge expenditures unlikely to work.
NPCs may often outnumber the PCs, but the group of PCs will usually have more edge than the group of NPCs will. And cancelling an opponent's expenditure of Edge isn't very cost effective.. unless you're cancelling their last available point to spend. But monkey-wrenching a massive outlay of edge? That's what it's perfect for.
-
Since you'll really really want to save some simple actions to defend yourself with, spending 2 major actions for 2 attacks is probably going to be a rare move.
But yes, if you blow a whole lot of edge, it's got a whopping effect. That's the entire idea. But, inherently, dropping a ton of edge is not the sort of thing you can do turn after turn. (Not to mention: if you're COUNTING on your edge effect, well that's the perfect time for the opponent to spend some of their own edge cancel your edge expenditure...)
Kind of weird the way that works. Generally, in SR, jobbers outnumber PCs. It seems it is better for jobbers to just use Edge to cancel PC use of Edge. Turns into a bizarre game of chicken and makes large Edge expenditures unlikely to work.
I'd imagine your average gang mook or rent-a-guard wouldn't have much Edge to use. I figure you'd see it more amongst veteran gangers or threat response units.
-
It is based on simple order of operations, using your example your Edge never reaches 8 ... start at 6, spend 1 (now 5), then gain 2 (now 7).
Right, but it effectively gives a pool of 8.
I am more interested in something like this:
High init, 6 edge to start, 2 major actions.
1) Spend 4 edge to target everyone (probably limited based on reaction but whatever) with full dice pool (before any opposed tests occur) Edge now down to two.
2) Gain Edge based on opposed tests. Edge now up to 4
3) Shoot at everyone
4) Get 2nd attack
5) Spend 4 Edge to shoot at everyone with full pool. Edge now zero.
Edge never went above 6 but you effectively got to spend 8 Edge.
It seems like a fast gun bunny could probably attack everyone within range with his full dice pool - twice before they even get to act. Since it sounds like 6e is more lethal lots of fights could be ended by 1 fast gun bunny.
First of all: works as designed.
Secondly:
Share your revelation with the prognosticators who've been predicting that 6e abandoning initiative passes is the end of wired-up gun bunnies.
I don't have the rules so I am just guessing based on stuff I have read/pieced together. Chandra's response seems to imply that some extra minor actions are involved as well (though I thought the max was 2 Major + 2 minors which would seem to satisfy his post). Still, if that is possible, I expect 2 actions + 6 edge will be standard for most sams/gun adepts - maybe even mages depending on how magic works. It also seems to be the death of anything melee. Not that melee was strong in 5e/20th (don't recall the critical strike nerf version) but turning 4 edge into effectively target # initiative passes is insanely good - some might say gamebreaking.
Not so sure about that. With the lowered damages pretty light uses of edge might have that just wound a group. And I’d suspect there is a limit too how many you can shoot. Then start of next action bad guys unload on the dude out of cover who can’t dodge. While i suspect there will be wasted minors for people who have 4 and dodge etc it may be hard to get by using 0. And just having majors.
-
Since you'll really really want to save some simple actions to defend yourself with, spending 2 major actions for 2 attacks is probably going to be a rare move.
But yes, if you blow a whole lot of edge, it's got a whopping effect. That's the entire idea. But, inherently, dropping a ton of edge is not the sort of thing you can do turn after turn. (Not to mention: if you're COUNTING on your edge effect, well that's the perfect time for the opponent to spend some of their own edge cancel your edge expenditure...)
Kind of weird the way that works. Generally, in SR, jobbers outnumber PCs. It seems it is better for jobbers to just use Edge to cancel PC use of Edge. Turns into a bizarre game of chicken and makes large Edge expenditures unlikely to work.
I'd imagine your average gang mook or rent-a-guard wouldn't have much Edge to use. I figure you'd see it more amongst veteran gangers or threat response units.
Do they even have individual edge or is it group edge. I hope the latter just for tracking purposes. Tracking 8 mooks edge just means they have 0 edge to avoid the pain in the ass that would be.
As an aside cancelling edge uses sounds like the most un-fun mechanic ever. Even more unfun than limits. It’s the kind of spoiler mechanic that works in a card game where turns zip back and forth dozens of times but will suck hard in a game where fights go 3 turns.
-
Since you'll really really want to save some simple actions to defend yourself with, spending 2 major actions for 2 attacks is probably going to be a rare move.
But yes, if you blow a whole lot of edge, it's got a whopping effect. That's the entire idea. But, inherently, dropping a ton of edge is not the sort of thing you can do turn after turn. (Not to mention: if you're COUNTING on your edge effect, well that's the perfect time for the opponent to spend some of their own edge cancel your edge expenditure...)
Kind of weird the way that works. Generally, in SR, jobbers outnumber PCs. It seems it is better for jobbers to just use Edge to cancel PC use of Edge. Turns into a bizarre game of chicken and makes large Edge expenditures unlikely to work.
I'd imagine your average gang mook or rent-a-guard wouldn't have much Edge to use. I figure you'd see it more amongst veteran gangers or threat response units.
In SR5, grunts use Group Edge, not individual Edge. Doesn't matter how big the group is, the amount simply equals their PR.
As for SR6, I haven't reached that chapter yet and am not peeking ahead since it'd be covered under NDA anyway. :-X
-
At no point in the one game I ran, did the players save up edge from an unrealistic reward and spend it later. They always used it pretty much used it immediately. If you are saving up and sitting on your edge in 6e, you don't get the mechanic.
Given that it seems that edge doesn't carry over between scenes, and gets spent quickly, it sounds as though it is just working as a unified mechanic to simplify modifiers, rather than adding a serious gamist element, so that's in line with earlier editions. I'm now generally optimistic about the new rules, based on what I've seen and heard.
It can carry over up to your edge rating. Which represents minor stuff adding up to keep you in the saddle.
I.E. at the end of a fight the guy whose still got edge is the one moving just that second faster with his head still on a swivel and ready to rock.
-
It is based on simple order of operations, using your example your Edge never reaches 8 ... start at 6, spend 1 (now 5), then gain 2 (now 7).
Right, but it effectively gives a pool of 8.
I am more interested in something like this:
High init, 6 edge to start, 2 major actions.
1) Spend 4 edge to target everyone (probably limited based on reaction but whatever) with full dice pool (before any opposed tests occur) Edge now down to two.
2) Gain Edge based on opposed tests. Edge now up to 4
3) Shoot at everyone
4) Get 2nd attack
5) Spend 4 Edge to shoot at everyone with full pool. Edge now zero.
Edge never went above 6 but you effectively got to spend 8 Edge.
It seems like a fast gun bunny could probably attack everyone within range with his full dice pool - twice before they even get to act. Since it sounds like 6e is more lethal lots of fights could be ended by 1 fast gun bunny.
First of all: works as designed.
Secondly:
Share your revelation with the prognosticators who've been predicting that 6e abandoning initiative passes is the end of wired-up gun bunnies.
Can this "revelation" be done two combat turns in a row (if needed)? No?
Can this "revelation" be performed entirely by the gear your character spend Nuyen and Essence on (no other game mechanic required)? No?
Can the previous wired up gun bunnies have their primary shtick outright cancelled by the opposition? No?
Then you don't really have a point, do you? No.
As usual you are trying to compare apples to prawns.
-
Can this "revelation" be done two combat turns in a row (if needed)? No?
Wait... does this matter though? I am pretty sure this wasn't even close to possible in 5e. Using your full dice pool attacking everyone in range? A sniper is likely insanely good if this works as posted. Also, sometimes, doing something like this only once, or twice, is more than enough. Are you really advocating that a fast character should be able to attack everyone in range every round?
Can this "revelation" be performed entirely by the gear your character spend Nuyen and Essence on (no other game mechanic required)? No?
Again, does it matter? It seems like it would be pretty easy to do it once without much investment to start (4 edge rating). This is assuming there wasn't a way that you could get a full dice pool against all opponents in range previously. If there was a way to do this the "revelation" is pretty lackluster. But, if your goalposts are "no game can be good if mechanics are added/removed to the game that might affect the way a character is built" well... I'm not sure exactly what to say. The Edge attribute is important if you want to do this... no different than Reaction, or Magic, or any other build that you want a particular threshold hit.
Can the previous wired up gun bunnies have their primary shtick outright cancelled by the opposition? No?
Yeah, not a fan of the potential cancellation, however, your teammates could give you Edge if they thought the action was worthwhile. Still an Edge "counterspell" use is pretty lame.
Then you don't really have a point, do you? No.
I dunno, being able to (conservatively) make 12 or so full dice pool attacks before a single person gets to respond seems a rather good example of why a fast cybered gun bunny isn't a dead character build based on the new initiative system. I think that was the point he was trying to drive home.
As usual you are trying to compare apples to prawns.
I feel like I might have stepped into a family argument or something.
-
I wouldn’t call 12 attacks a conservative estimate. Multi attack might cap at 2 or 3 targets making it 4-6 in a turn.
-
I wouldn’t call 12 attacks a conservative estimate. Multi attack might cap at 2 or 3 targets making it 4-6 in a turn.
Were previous editions capped at Reaction? Dice pool splitting? I literally haven't looked at SR rules in years.
-
...
Can the previous wired up gun bunnies have their primary shtick outright cancelled by the opposition? No?
Yeah, not a fan of the potential cancellation, however, your teammates could give you Edge if they thought the action was worthwhile. Still an Edge "counterspell" use is pretty lame.
To be fair I misread the action.. it's proactive in nature rather than a reactive cancel after the expenditure. So not quite AS bad as I made it sound. You might have edge stripped before you can spend your 4, but at least you won't spend 4 for no benefit.
Then you don't really have a point, do you? No.
I dunno, being able to (conservatively) make 12 or so full dice pool attacks before a single person gets to respond seems a rather good example of why a fast cybered gun bunny isn't a dead character build based on the new initiative system. I think that was the point he was trying to drive home.
Yes.
-
...
Can the previous wired up gun bunnies have their primary shtick outright cancelled by the opposition? No?
Yeah, not a fan of the potential cancellation, however, your teammates could give you Edge if they thought the action was worthwhile. Still an Edge "counterspell" use is pretty lame.
To be fair I misread the action.. it's proactive in nature rather than a reactive cancel after the expenditure. So not quite AS bad as I made it sound. You might have edge stripped before you can spend your 4, but at least you won't spend 4 for no benefit.
Then you don't really have a point, do you? No.
I dunno, being able to (conservatively) make 12 or so full dice pool attacks before a single person gets to respond seems a rather good example of why a fast cybered gun bunny isn't a dead character build based on the new initiative system. I think that was the point he was trying to drive home.
Yes.
That makes a *huge* difference if it is a proactive expenditure rather than a reactive one. I don't find that a big deal at all now. Do the QS rules state what limits the # of targets for a multiple attack action?
-
I wouldn’t call 12 attacks a conservative estimate. Multi attack might cap at 2 or 3 targets making it 4-6 in a turn.
Were previous editions capped at Reaction? Dice pool splitting? I literally haven't looked at SR rules in years.
Editions have had different rules on it. 1-3e it was SA two shots up to 2 targets. BF 2 bursts up to 2 targets. FA you could split it into bursts each at a different target. Dual wielding doubling the above.
4e-5e i don’t remember the rule. If it’s reaction max that’s pretty silly that with a 10 shot burst you can separate and target each bullet. But maybe that was the rule and still is.
-
"I've only got 12 bullets so some of you are going to have to share!"
-Deadpool
-- also, any gun bunny in 6e
-
I wouldn’t call 12 attacks a conservative estimate. Multi attack might cap at 2 or 3 targets making it 4-6 in a turn.
Were previous editions capped at Reaction? Dice pool splitting? I literally haven't looked at SR rules in years.
Editions have had different rules on it. 1-3e it was SA two shots up to 2 targets. BF 2 bursts up to 2 targets. FA you could split it into bursts each at a different target. Dual wielding doubling the above.
4e-5e i don’t remember the rule. If it’s reaction max that’s pretty silly that with a 10 shot burst you can separate and target each bullet. But maybe that was the rule and still is.
Did a little internet research. It looks like it was probably skill/2 in 5e. So, starting gun bunny with max skill, +specialization would get around 8 attacks with their weapon of choice with a potential of 10 attacks with expertise + skill aptitude or whatever that PQ used to be named with 2 multiattack uses of Edge. I would guess the cost of getting 10 likely isn't worth it at chargen but 8 attacks would likely be easily attainable - and still very good without even really needing to try and min-max aside from 6 edge.
-
The quick start rules don't allude to multi-shot stuff like that anywhere do they? Or am I missing a section.
-
QSR nope, nothing in multi attack. It’s from on the play podcasts.
As an aside the orc mage has a willpower 7 in the QSR with no quality indicating it’s boosted. Do Orcs now have a increased willpower on top of terrible idea no negative attribute caps? What’s the space for dwarves here.
-
QSR nope, nothing in multi attack. It’s from on the play podcasts.
As an aside the orc mage has a willpower 7 in the QSR with no quality indicating it’s boosted. Do Orcs now have a increased willpower on top of terrible idea no negative attribute caps? What’s the space for dwarves here.
To the best of my knowledge everyone starts with 2 in each attribute now, so the Orc paid for every point of that 7.
The only thing that race does is add to the upper limit an add some specials like low-light vision.
-
QSR nope, nothing in multi attack. It’s from on the play podcasts.
As an aside the orc mage has a willpower 7 in the QSR with no quality indicating it’s boosted. Do Orcs now have a increased willpower on top of terrible idea no negative attribute caps? What’s the space for dwarves here.
To the best of my knowledge everyone starts with 2 in each attribute now, so the Orc paid for every point of that 7.
The only thing that race does is add to the upper limit an add some specials like low-light vision.
They may have paid for every point but I thought stats were still capped 6 without racial mods or ware etc. Are they now 2-7? Or do orcs have a higher willpower max.
-
Core book stats all start at 1 still. Exceptional Attribute is still a quality, and is basically the same as 5th. Orcs max willpower is still 6. Most of that kind of baseline char-gen stuff hasn't changed.
Quick Start rules are Quick Start rules and kinda are doing their own thing. I don't believe the QSR characters really followed any formal Char gen rules, I wouldn't get to wrapped up in reverse engineering them.
-
Disappointing that they didn’t just use their own rules for making them but also a bit reassuring. The characters were all almost to perfect in stats. It seemed weird for my dystopian future for all the example pcs to be physical and mental perfection and that’s before ware.
-
Quick Start rules are Quick Start rules and kinda are doing their own thing. I don't believe the QSR characters really followed any formal Char gen rules, I wouldn't get to wrapped up in reverse engineering them.
You mean we can't expect players to be able to take forty levels of In Debt to get at least 40 additional Karma at chargen based off the Rigger Dossier?
Say it ain't so!
-
You can indeed use the "In Debt" quality in the CRB to get up to 250,000 Nuyen of additional starting funds. I would not recommend it. YMMV.
Personally I could see some home games using the "In Debt" quality as an equipment budget of some kind from a sponsor or patron. I could see it playing out especially well if the team has some common background.