NEWS

Looking for some answers and opinions

  • 64 Replies
  • 11940 Views

Marcus

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2802
  • Success always demands a greater effort.
« Reply #30 on: <06-19-19/2125:38> »
One thing i do think there maybe room for reducing pool size, maybe modifying target numbers based upon the number of dice over 10 you would other wise have? or reducing it down to 3d6. I don't know I do think the d6 cube rolling is kind of a mechanic of the past.

*Play-by-Post color guide*
Thinking
com
speaking

PiXeL01

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2264
  • Sheltering Orks in Osaka
« Reply #31 on: <06-19-19/2213:29> »
I rated TMs at 3, not hating on them or anything just thought they could use improvement.

I think I rated TMs at 3 as well to be honest, although I don’t really think they fit. They rub me the wrong way. They are basically just Matrix Magicians with spells and spirits ...

But now at least I have reach a level of acceptance where I don’t outright ban them at my table. I even tried playing one just to get to know them better.
If Tom Brady’s a Spike Baby, what does that make Brees and Rodgers?

BeCareful

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 160
« Reply #32 on: <06-20-19/0100:17> »
I put down, basically, that I'm okay with complexity for the sake of customization. While rolling handfuls of dice isn't a major draw for me, I don't think of it as a problem.
Also, while I'm not furious about technomancers, I just wish what they did was something other than "Explicitly Not Magic While Exactly Like It". I can understand why it'd work that way, and it's easier to put them like that, but I don't have any better suggestions.
"Welcome to Shadowrun, where the biggest obstacle is you!"

A-r-c-h-o-n

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #33 on: <06-20-19/0326:06> »
So basically get definitely rid of everything under 3,
Get probably rid of everything in the low 3s or replace it with something
evaluate everything in the high 3s and
bring more stuff for 4+?

mcv

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 202
« Reply #34 on: <06-20-19/0722:48> »
I don't hate TMs, but I don't love them either. I'm mostly ignoring them because it's yet another subsystem to learn which doesn't add a whole lot to the game. I'm fine with them existing in the background as plot devices, but they're about as essential to Shadowrun as Shedim or vampires. Just another cool thing, but I wouldn't miss them if we had something else in their stead.

So basically get definitely rid of everything under 3,
Get probably rid of everything in the low 3s or replace it with something
Why? A 3 is fine. It's average, not hated. Get rid of everything under 2, sure, but there's nothing there. A 3 is fine.

Look for ways to improve it, or put less focus on it. If it gets in the way, change it or remove it. But don't remove it 'just because'. That would be stupid.

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6367
  • Kids these days...
« Reply #35 on: <06-20-19/0808:23> »
I don't hate TMs, but I don't love them either. I'm mostly ignoring them because it's yet another subsystem to learn which doesn't add a whole lot to the game. I'm fine with them existing in the background as plot devices, but they're about as essential to Shadowrun as Shedim or vampires. Just another cool thing, but I wouldn't miss them if we had something else in their stead.

So basically get definitely rid of everything under 3,
Get probably rid of everything in the low 3s or replace it with something
Why? A 3 is fine. It's average, not hated. Get rid of everything under 2, sure, but there's nothing there. A 3 is fine.

Look for ways to improve it, or put less focus on it. If it gets in the way, change it or remove it. But don't remove it 'just because'. That would be stupid.
Agreed, that's like say let's not let the C students graduate.

Iron Serpent Prince

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
« Reply #36 on: <06-20-19/0817:39> »
Agreed, that's like say let's not let the C students graduate.

There is something to be said for that idea...

Anywho, TMs fall into the Mystic Adept trap, but for technology classes.  (Mystic Adepts are Mages and Adepts, TMs are Deckers and Riggers.)

There is no real way to make them useful and viable without making them more powerful than their independent parts separately.

And as such, they will always be a wart on Shadowrun - just like Mystic Adepts.

Jack_Spade

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6516
« Reply #37 on: <06-20-19/0937:59> »
Technomancer have one main story purpose: It allows you to have an enemy decker without having to worry about your players getting their hands on a deck that's more worth than the whole run...

talk think matrix

To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield
Revenant Kynos Isaint Rex

JoeNapalm

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Ifriti Sophist
« Reply #38 on: <06-20-19/1516:08> »
Technomancer have one main story purpose: It allows you to have an enemy decker without having to worry about your players getting their hands on a deck that's more worth than the whole run...


There's less convoluted ways to handle that...just saying....

"I thought you said this was a biker gang! These dudes are cyclists!!"

"Can't have the players cashing in on a whole truckload of motorcycles! Are you crazy?!"


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

mcv

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 202
« Reply #39 on: <06-20-19/2023:56> »
I thought looting was supposed to be impossible because everything is traceable.

Marcus

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2802
  • Success always demands a greater effort.
« Reply #40 on: <06-20-19/2036:51> »
Difficult is not the same thing as impossible,  given what decks values are it's worth putting in the time to break the ownership. Even on a percentage deck values are high enough that it would for sure be worth more then whatever the mission paying.
*Play-by-Post color guide*
Thinking
com
speaking

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #41 on: <06-20-19/2115:39> »
I thought looting was supposed to be impossible because everything is traceable.

Yeah, as Marcus said it's much more of a pain to loot in Shadowrun than it is in games like D&D.

Generally you just sell whatever you capture for well under market value (see pg 418).  You can either sell for pennies on the dollar to a fence, or try to be your own fence.... finding a buyer and not getting stung/pinched in selling your hot loot can end up being another shadowrun entirely.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Hephaestus

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
  • "Milk Run" is a mighty weird way to spell TPK
« Reply #42 on: <06-20-19/2149:23> »
My worry is more that in 6th, the streamlined matrix rules will make Technomancers and Deckers almost identical...

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #43 on: <06-20-19/2157:05> »
My worry is more that in 6th, the streamlined matrix rules will make Technomancers and Deckers almost identical...

Deckers still don't get Complex Forms or Sprites.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Hephaestus

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
  • "Milk Run" is a mighty weird way to spell TPK
« Reply #44 on: <06-20-19/2217:01> »
Deckers still don't get Complex Forms or Sprites.

And I'm betting Technomancers still don't use agent programs.

What I mean is, if the matrix rules are as streamlined as I saw in the SCN demo, then aside from the agent/sprite split, what will define a Techno from a Decker in a meaningful way?